International Youth Conference For Democracy
Singapore 25 – 27 July 2003
– Afterthoughts
Written by Charles Tan
Truth be told, I was a little bit worried and thinking if I should attend the conference the night before it happened. I wasn’t going to attend a conference which will drag me up early in the morning and hear people talk about abstracts and tell me what democracy is. I am not going to stay in a hotel room and listen to people thrashing the main government party in Singapore, PAP recklessly. To a certain extent, I was wary because the organizer in Singapore, Singapore Democratic Party, has been portrayed in Singapore by the media and reinforced by everyone around me, including my colleagues, close friends and in certain mailing lists of certain social/ civic circles (to which I shall not mention), that they are a group to be shunned because they do not follow the “Singapore” mode of democracy. Some people think they are too radical. Others think Dr Chee Soon Juan was trying to be a political martyr. And then there were those who voted for the PAP because they believed that the incumbent party government is effective in administration; that opposition parties in Singapore lacks real talent and hence would not give their vote to them during elections. Some do not believe in the transparency of the elections. Others complain that if they don’t vote for the PAP, they would not get upgraded or sheltered walkways in their HDB estates. A certain minority, that is those who are not wearied and cynical of the current political upheaveals such as Remaking Singapore Committee which are merely “tools to appear democratic”, argued that we are indeed a democracy. People are led to believe that just because Mr Chiam and Mr Low are voted into the Parliament, Singapore holds “fair and square” elections. The last thing we want are irresponsible clowns in our cabinet telling us that democracy is more important than economic issues.
There, I’ve said it. The numerous accusations against Opposition Politics and Singapore Democratic Party as I know, heard and observe. I must say I harbour some of these thoughts myself before attending the conference. Like the other 3 million Singaporeans, even though I was always empathetic to the opposition cause, I believe that the government is right in certain areas. For example, that they are effective in administration and ensuring order in the country. Listening to what the participants have said, I have changed my views.
The night before, I sent a mass email to my close friends asking them if they might want to attend the conference with me. Prior to that, I had send them the invitation which I obtained from The Optical Mailing List. None replied. I expected that somehow. As usual, they would rather spend their time with their boyfriends or girlfriends or spend their time shopping. Democracy is a lost cause in Singapore. Hell, some of my friends claimed that “Politics is dirty” though I always disagreed with that. Politics, in my opinion, is a tool towards social betterment and welfare. Like electricity, drugs or genetic engineering, it can be abused or used to god effect, depending on the intention, methods and who it serves.
I know I have been going on for too long for some readers but the purpose of my long introduction is to tell you where I come from. You need to know why and how I think before you can relate to my afterthoughts on the conference. What I am trying to say is that, I was as prejudiced as the other 3 million Singaporeans who didn’t attend the conference, that even though I was always a little off the edge from many others, who refused to believe the rhetoric of the establishment, I was never won to the other side as well. I was caught hanging sitting in between the fence, not sure what I should do at many times when caught in issues.
While I was doing my National Service, I had my own website which graduated into a dot com business with the help of my friends. I did an email interview with Mr Chee at that point in time which went into my website. I also posted that interview which was broken into two parts at the previous Sintercom while Dr Chong Kee was the webmaster. I’m not sure if both of them still remember that interview but that’s not too important. The thing is that when my website bloomed into a dot com, touted as “the first arts hub in the region”, that interview was promptly removed. My CEO (I was just the editor) told me I had to change my style of writing and stop engaging in political issues in my magazine. I had sold my soul to the devil unknowingly.
My magazine became a business idea which sells “art” but not “art that is political”. I did come close to a few instances whereby I tried to get artistes to talk about the difficulties in practicing art in Singapore because of censorship but I always get the same answer – “We are changing and the government is relaxing their attitudes. We have to be patient. We have to test the boundaries.”
Artists as political (I don’t know of any theatre practitioners in Singapore that is political in nature by the way, at least those that are explicitly critical of our system. I did basically theatre reviews then) is an alien concept to me. It still is.
If art, which can be a critical and reflective discourse to social systems, is even afraid of critiquing of what is really happening, then it says so much about us. By that statement, I am not in any way saying that our theatre practitioners are not “good artistes” but merely that they are still afraid to create. Political Truths in Singapore does not exist in Singapore even in art. Yes, we have Elangor with his controversial plays. We have Alfian and his “history of amnesiac”. We have Chris Ho and his biting satires. These artists and writers tell us “truth”. But we do not have art that is truly critical. Art that says something about the system and not mince its words.
Attending the conference dispels so much myth that was in my thoughts.
That art cannot be seen as the sole indicator of the openness of our society which our papers like us to believe. We read about theatre practitioners getting their controversial plays onstage but until this day, there is never yet a play that is truly critical of the system openly.
First and foremost, the idea that Dr Chee is a “clown”. I find the man remarkably resilent. During the conference, when he was attacked by a young student and his defamation case, he was gracious enough to wait until his turn to be on stage as a chair to explain his situation to the young lady. This is not the Dr Chee we see in newspapers. The Dr Chee we are forced fed by newspapers is a man who says nothing constructive. The Dr Chee we see in television is a defeated man in the general elections.
My point is this. Do not trust what the media tells you even if it is what you see with your own eyes. Remember that this could be manipulated as well. One cannot judge everything through the media. One has to experience for oneself before making a decision.
The conference dispels a lot of myths which I’ve mentioned earlier in my article. Speakers from the region such as Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan. Hong Kong, Thailand, Burma, Mongolia, USA and Sweden tackled on issues of democracy. Most speakers talk about their work and the current political situation in their own countries. Most inspiring is the youngest Swedish MP, Mr Axel Darvik, who was voted into office. It is remarkable that a young person of 20 could actually influence the political process in his own country. Democracy is not about age. It’s about ideas. It’s about passion. It’s about people who wants to make this a better world. Ms Frida Metso, who was the youngest speaker in the conference, talks about her experiences working with different groups of people in Sweden, and how they conduct weddings for gay couples as an example. Ms Ulrika Karlsson is perhaps the most systematic of all speakers with her powerpoint presentations. Though she says that the personal her is not the political her – that she has no right to control the life of others; I like to believe the reverse is also true. That the personal is the political. That in her decision to embark on democracy, her personal decision to help others, is political in itself. But using politics in a good way.
The plight of some of our regional neighbouring countries suffering from governmental oppression highlights the need to look at “Asian democracies” issue in a pan-asian point of view, that we need to co-operate and help one other when it comes to promoting human rights and democracy.
Is there anything that I disagree with the conference? My critical ex-journalist instincts does not fail me. It is a little disturbing to the conference when someone enters the room everytime a speaker is talking. Then, there is the embarrassing “lunch” episode. But these are merely logistical. I would suggest that perhaps people should not be allowed to enter the room while someone is speaking or while one session is going on; and that perhaps the organizer should impose a small fee, say $10 (which can be waived if you are an NS man, student) to help defray some costs. Make arrangements with hotel to allow last minute additions to guest list staying for lunch for those who didn’t register. Some of the speakers were actually “difficult to hear”. I suggest handing out notes or powerpoint presentations to aid listeners who might actually miss certain points. If the conference was targeted at not just youths, perhaps we could make it multi-lingual as well. Some audience who spoke up were a little incoherent or pushing too hard. A few young Singaporeans did voice some pertinent points though the distraction of senior opposition politicians with their “harrowing tales during electoral campaigning” did become a wet blanket on how difficult the system is.
I voiced out at the last Q&A session of the conference on certain observations, comments and ideas on how we could instill democracy in Singapore, which I shall shamelessly reiterate here again for the benefit of those who missed the conference.
1. Working with civic / interest groups. After hearing what the Swedish youths have done to promote their cause, I realize many Singapore opposition parties lack co-operation and sharing of resources with other opposition parties and civic/ interests group. During the last election, some opposition groups actually bandied together and contested as a whole for the GRCs but this is not enough. There should be more dialogue between the different opposition parties here on how to raise their profiles. In Singapore, the media likes to divide Opposition into the “sensible ones” and the not “so sensible ones”. Certain Opposition politicians are seen as “OK” because they are endorsed by PAP while others have to be shunned like lepers because they are seen as “not in coherence with the Singapore way of doing things” which again was defined by our one party government and propagated by the main press.
Opposition parties have to come together, talk about issues and be seen. In that way, Singaporeans will be more comfortable with Opposition politics because the myth of separate parties translates into inability to challenge the main rule can be slowly chipped away.
Similarly, the inspiration, courtesy of our Swedish participants, Opposition parties should work with civic groups in other areas which are not necessarily political in nature, to built up a stronger network. As an example, SDP could organize a conference inviting local civic interest groups to raise certain issues that they are facing. Conferences, as we know helps built up networks and create friendliness. Singaporeans upon seeing such “friendly” acts will take it that the Opposition is sincere in helping the disadvantaged e.t.c. Upon building up a network, then we can talk about co-operations with civic groups to build a more liberal democracy in Singapore with regards to more integral issues and executions such as raising the issues of women rights, gay rights, disabled rights, elderly rights e.t.c.
2. Talks in Higher Institutes/ Learning Places. Talks about democracy like this conference will be helpful in raising the need for democracy in Singapore. While government schools might reject the idea for fear of treading on the wrong side, how about foreign business or private learning schools? Better still, organize it with other civic groups to lessen the impact of being seen as merely Opposition Politics, that there is a genuine interest in promoting democracy.
3. Using civil disobedience as a tool when we disagree with certain laws. As an example, if Singaporeans disagree with the Baungkok MRT station issue, boycotting the entire NE line is a civil disobedience act that could change the government’s mind.
4. Laws such as the Newspaper Printing Act and Internal Security Act are major impediments to the democratic progress of the nation and used to stifle dialogues. We could perhaps look at changing laws through petitions and letters in a mass scale to appropriate ministers.
5. Demonstrations are portrayed as “evil” and unnecessary to Singapore because we can do that through legalized feedback channels. Yet, Demonstration as a tool is also important to show how the mass public feels towards an issue. They show unity. In fact, I am of the belief that most riots from demonstrations are a result police brutality.
I hope my views are not perceived as “too radical” for most Singaporeans. You might choose to disagree with me with regards to certain areas. But that is what democracy is about at the end of the day. Plurality and diversity of views NOT CURBED BY ANY EXTERNAL POWERS. Saying it as it is.
But the best part of this conference is to actually having attended it and realized that there are like-minded individuals. That a life here is no different from another in Myanmar or in Sweden. Oh, and getting an autograph from Mr Jeyaretnam and his latest book, “The Hatchet Man of Singapore”.
P.S. It would actually be a good idea for the organiser to post Opening Address and Keynote address and the presentations of the speakers online for the benefit of those who attended and interested.
