Right of Assembly – A Sign of Political Maturity & Openness
My Reply:
Siow Jia Rui from New South Wales, Australia and Arjunan Raviprakash wrote to Straits times and expressed their opinions on rights of assembly and the disruptive effects and inconvenience that they cause in response to David Lok Seow Kang's letter, 'Want to hear the silent majority? Let them assemble'.
Siow suggests that Singaporeans should not be seduced into believing that mass assemblies will be good for the country and cites the physical smallness of Singapore as a factor. He also attributes our multi-ethnicity and multi-religious society as another contributing reason. It is difficult to understand why citizens of a country should not be allowed to demonstrate when smaller countries and states like Taiwan and Hong Kong have held peaceful demonstrations that have proven to powers to be, the will of its people.
In Hong Kong, the people, which has often been believed to be politically apathetic, displayed their unhappiness on the Tung Chee Hwa administration when 2 large scale marches have been held to a large turnout. The demonstrations between the pan blue and pan green camp in Taiwan has gone on without much violence. In both instances, the citizens have displayed their fervent desire for democracy.
Countries with diverse ethnicities and religions, that have allowed its people to assemble in peace, have thrived and survived, including the United States and India, which are role models of exemplary democracies.
In Asia, it is People Power I and II that brought the downfall of the irresponsible and corrupted Philippines Presidents, Marcos and Estrada. The demonstrations started by the Triskati University students in Indonesia toppled the corrupted Suharto regime, which had been in ruling for more than 30 years. The Tiananmen Square incident in 1989 revealed the desires of students who wanted democracy and political change to a one party communist country. The reformasi movement in Malaysia might not have pressurized the government to free Anwar then but it created international attention and caused the popularity of the Malaysian UMNO government to slide, the results, apparent, in its next elections. Now that Anwar is released, one can wish that he would continue his fight for true democratic reforms in Malaysia.
Siow quoted the large scale demonstrations outside the New York Republican Convention as a case of backfire which leads to Kerry losing behind in polls. His opinions are however simplistic as situations are expected to change. It is common for candidates to launch attacks and counter attacks publicly over policies, which could cause opinion polls to vary. While the Italians who attended the demonstrations did not manage to revert the government’s decision, it is nevertheless a public display over their anger.
The right to assembly is not merely advocated by western liberals but considered a fundamental human right. It was enshrined in December 10 1948 by the United Nations and proclaimed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under article 20, in which it states that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Freedom of assembly means people of different backgrounds and cultures can exchange ideas allowing new ideas to be formed that can contribute to social rejuvenation. More importantly, it prevents authorities from controlling ideas of the people and the means to make political changes. In Singapore, that basic right is deprived from us, as we need a license to apply for indoor forums. Groups such as TWC2 and PLU are denied the right to form societies, basically, violating the right to freedom of association.
In the United States, the freedom to right of peaceful assembly is a basic tenet of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It protects the freedom of individuals and allows them to express their views, however, unorthodox it might seem to others. According to the First Amendment Center website,
“Our blueprint for personal freedom and the hallmark of an open society, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.
Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change.”
The First Amendment included the freedom to a free press, speech and petition, which is absent in Singapore.
While the government believes that political and economical reforms do not need to go hand in hand, one wonders why significant political reforms are not happening. Are Singaporeans, which contains a large proportion of well-educated middle class, unable to assemble peacefully when many of them have expressed a need for more openness?
Amidst the hype that the government is sincere in creating a free society, it is the beliefs, mindset, attitudes, and behaviour of the former and the people to make that paradigmatic shift. The shift would start from the very basic recognition and respect for human rights from both parties, which has been universally accepted as fundamental.
Siow also suggested that in his travels to “less-developed countries, such as Kenya, Pakistan and Sri Lanka”, he realized that “a country's people could suffer when abuses of political power were not curbed by the rule of law.”
Ironically, these countries that he has quoted as examples, are authoritarian states with little or no respect for human rights. Rule of law can only be attained when the powers to be are kept in check by the very basic human rights that he does not believe in.
Arjunan Raviprakash voiced his displeasure over the demonstrations, which he cited, can be a life threatening situation. It is erroneous to think that peaceful demonstrations leads to riots when he uses both terms interchangeably. While it is regretful that he had had such a bad experience, one could have wondered, why he had not used another road if he had known that they would be closed for demonstration.
Moreover, he is missing the point when it is the right to peaceful assembly that we are talking about, that does not condone any form of violence. His rhetoric of banning demonstration, is akin to the example that knives should be prohibited from being sold because it can be used to commit murder.
The right of assembly is not just a human rights issue. It is also an indication of the level of political maturity and openness in a country. For the government to believe that its people can make the right choice for themselves, and for the people to exercise it responsibly.
To quote Rosa Luxemburg, a German activist, who wrote in her Prison Notes, 1918, The Russian Revolution:
Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule.... Such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalization of public life: attempted assassinations, shootings of hostages, etc.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,4386,273099,00.html?
SEPT 17, 2004
Right of assembly doesn't translate into having power to produce an effect
I REFER to Mr David Lok Seow Kang's letter, 'Want to hear the silent majority? Let them assemble' (ST, Sept 10), in which he called for Singaporeans to be given the freedom to assemble and protest.
I urge Singaporeans not to be seduced by the powerful images of mass demonstrations in countries such as the United States, Russia and Australia.
It is often very easy and convenient to overlook the smallness of our nation and it is dangerous to chal-lenge the status quo blindly. We should understand that unlike the many vast Western democracies, a little instability could spell the end of our country.
It is a fallacy to suggest that being able to assemble and protest translates into greater political efficacy. Take the recent demonstrations in Italy, where tens of thousands urged their government to withdraw the 3,000 Italian troops in Iraq to save the lives of two Italian women aid workers held hostage by Iraqi militants. The result? The Italian government reaffirmed its commitment to keep its troops in Iraq till the job is done.
We need to be clear whether demonstrations are the means to an end or an end in themselves. Often, protesters demonstrate for the sake of demonstrating. Take the anti-Bush demonstrations in New York during the recent Republican convention.
What did they achieve? President George W. Bush pulled ahead of Democrat John Kerry after the convention. Americans merely saw the demonstrators who were trying to disrupt the convention as a nuisance and security hazard.
Recently, 7,500 school cleaners in New South Wales (NSW) walked off their jobs for one week, calling for better job security. They descended upon the Town Hall in central Sydney to voice their displeasure.
Many schools across NSW had to be closed because the principals did not want their students to fall sick due to poor hygiene conditions.
Instead of achieving their aim of getting greater concessions from the NSW Premier, the protesters only incurred the wrath of many parents whose children were affected by the protest, especially those whose kids would be taking the Higher School Certificate (A levels) in about a month's time.
These examples show that being able to assemble and protest does not translate into having the power to produce an effect. There are other more productive avenues for Singaporeans to provide constructive feedback to our leaders.
Instead of blindly clamouring for change, I urge Singaporeans to make an effort to comprehend the rationale behind policies and laws, in the context of a small, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.
Anyone who has studied governance would know that it is the 'bread and butter' issues that are of most concern to the people of a country. In this regard, I cannot agree more with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's remark at the Global Brand Forum that political reform need not go hand in hand with economic liberalisation.
In my previous career, I had the opportunity to travel to many less-developed countries, such as Kenya, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Through such travels, I came to realise the crucial role of law in providing a framework for an orderly society. I saw how a country's people could suffer when abuses of political power were not curbed by the rule of law.
Singapore must never abandon its fundamentals - political stability, meritocracy and an incorruptible administration - in order to safeguard a strong economy and a secure environment.
I was heartened to read in a recent speech by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong that our Government 'will not change just to please some Western-influenced liberals who apply their notion of democracy, pluralistic politics and freedom of the press unthinkingly to Singapore'.
Singapore is our home and, together, we must make the right choices for the Republic.
SIOW JIA RUI
New South Wales, Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,1887,273109,00.html?
SEPT 17, 2004
Cannot stage mass protests? So be it
THE letter by Mr David Lok gives the impression that the only way for the silent majority to be heard is through mass protests.
In most instances, protests serve only to disrupt public life and damage property, and even claim lives.
I had a bad experience of one such protest last year. I was rushing to perform the last rites for my mother, who died in another country. On the way from the airport, we came upon a mass protest.
Our vehicle was not allowed to pass, in spite of our pleas. We were threatened with physical violence if we proceeded before the group completed its procession.
If lack of political efficacy means not holding mass protests, let it be so. I prefer an orderly and peaceful life to worrying every day about riots and fearing for my life.
ARJUNAN RAVIPRAKASH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
