Political space further limited with new Public Order Act

Political space further limited with new Public Order Act

Second Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam claimed that the space for political expression in Singapore has expanded substantially since 2000, and it is in this context that the new public order rules should be viewed. (read article here)

He said this when responding to Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong on the Public Order Bill which gives police more effective powers to maintain public order.

I beg to differ. Short of expanding the limited space for political expression faced by Singaporeans, the new law will further curb civil liberties and activism.

I am most perturbed by Mr K Shan’s warped logic that the new public order rules should be viewed in the context of recent moves by the government to “liberalize” the political landscape.

The setting up of Speakers’ Corner in 2000 and the recent move last year to allow ”rallies and protests to be conducted there without a police permit have often been used by the PAP to counter criticisms of its repressive laws.

Short of increasing the scope for political expression, these half-hearted measures represent a step backward as they allow the PAP to define and delineate the boundaries for political expression according to their own contorted world view.

Political expression can take place through the mainstream media, public speeches, internet or physical forms of activism such as silent vigils, rallies, marches and demonstrations.

With the mainstream media tightly controlled by the ruling party, political expression in public as exemplified by civil disobedience in its various forms remain the sole conduit through which political pressure can be exerted.

Restriction of political expression in public to Hong Lim Park alone will significantly lessen the impact of the intended message.

The new laws are passed just in time for the APEC summit in November this year to prevent possible small group protestors from certain quarters, in particular the Singapore Democratic Party, from disrupting the hustlings and embarrassing the government.

Though it will have minimal impact on ordinary Singaporeans who are too timid to express their dissatisfaction with the government in public anyway, it will nevertheless mark a regression in the country’s own political development.

The past 9 years have also seen the PAP tightening the screws on political dissent. To quote a few examples:

1. SDP duo Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin were sued by the Singapore government for libel over an article in the party’s newsletter which alleged that it is corrupted.

2. 18 peaceful “Tak Boleh Tahan” protestors were charged for participating in an illegal procession when they tried marching from Parliament House to the city.

3. Blogger Gopalan Nair was arrested and jailed for three months for allegedly insulting the judiciary.

4. 3 SDP members were jailed for wearing kangaroo T-shirts outside the court whcih was construed as casting aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary.

As usual, the PAP has defended its latest law on the grounds of concerns for public safety and order. The fear for social unrest tearing our vulnerable nation apart has been so tactfully instilled in every Singaporean over the years that most have accepted it as a trade-off for a stable government, peaceful environment and economic prosperity.

What Singaporeans are unaware of is that forfeiting of such basic human rights will only further entrench the PAP in power which put us forever at its mercy.

Under the PAP system of governance, Singaporeans have no say in the way the country is run and has to content themselves from being herded around by a small group of elites.

Singapore’s political system was deliberately planned and cleverly manipulated to perpetuate one-party rule and to prevent the emergence of an alternative center of power.

That’s why opposition leaders who are willing to play according to the rules set by the PAP are tolerated to a certain extent while those seeking to dismantle its system will soon find themselves bankrupted or exiled.

Without meaningful channels for political expression in public, it is an uphill task to raise the political awareness of Singaporeans and to educate them on their rights as citizens.

The present status quo, namely the “master-slave” relation between the government and the people can only be changed if there is sufficient political awakening in the populace leading to more Singaporeans stepping forward to offer themselves as alternatives to the PAP and to demand for reforms of the system.

Further restriction of political space with the Public Order Act will only breed more cynicism, frustration and disgruntlement especially the younger generation clamoring for a more inclusive and liberal government which truly understand their concerns and aspirations.

Though it may serve the partisan interests of the PAP temporarily, it will prove to be detrimental to both the party and the state in the long run as apathetic Singaporeans continue to shun from active citzenry and politics.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26982.1