Chee Soon Juan, leader of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party
Democracy activists in Singapore fear that the authorities will use a draconian new law to further stifle political opposition and public dissent.
The Public Order Act (POA) amends the Public Entertainment and Meeting Act, which already prohibits meetings of more than five people without an official permit. Under the new act, even a single person requires a permit to appear in public with a “cause-related” intent.
Human rights and civil liberties activists see the law as further evidence of the regime’s soft authoritarianism, a model that could set an alarming regional precedent. They complain that the provision violates Article 13 of Singapore’s constitution, which grants citizens the right to move freely throughout the city-state subject to security, public order, or public health concerns.
The law also undermines Article 14, which guarantees freedom of rights, association and speech, says Chee Soon Juan, leader of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). “The constitution states that any law that runs contrary to the constitution will be void. This is something that needs to be brought up internationally,” he said.
The country’s leading dissident and a former fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, Chee has frequently been detained for political activities and was recently declared bankrupt following a punitive lawsuit brought by leading government ministers. He is currently banned from international travel as a result of that ruling.
His case has been taken up by Robert Amsterdam, a leading international human rights lawyer, who also represents Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the imprisoned Russian former oligarch.
“Democratic countries in Asia need to ask themselves if they accept the POA that further tears away whatever small rights … that remain in Singapore,” said Amsterdam. “Suppressing opposition in Singapore is a full time occupation for the pro-disciplinary regime,” he added.
I think it is amusing when foreign, mostly Western, detractors try to “lecture” Asians in general and Singapore, in this article’s context, as to how best to conduct our societies and govern ourselves. Last I checked, the West stood idly by when outrageous “crimes against humanity” were committed in Uganda, Somalia and perhaps, most recently, Guantanamo. Beyond such sweeping examples, perhaps it will be appropriate to ask of the detractors – including notables like Mr. Amsterdam – to come to Singapore’s rescue if things were to go terribly wrong in Singapore after we mindlessly swallow his suggested panacea – liberal democracy. Will he actually throw himself into the thick of politics of my country and actively make the change that matters to the locals? Or are talking, writing lengthy papers and intellectual stimulation all the tools he can marshal to help deliver the oppressed Singaporean society? He might benefit from an actual visit (not a 3-day kind of conference length) and stay in Singapore’s heartlands to internalize the idea that this is not a pent-up society waiting to unleash revenge upon the government; quite on the contrary, although Western critiques would not admit to this point, Singaporeans are by and large contented with the way things work in the country. Dissatisfaction, yes. Discontent, you bet. But to actually vote out the ruling PAP for someone of Dr. Chee’s politically childish credibility, I do not think any Singaporean of remotely sound mind would do. That, ironically, is the essence of democracy: there shall forever be discontent and dissent in a country, and democracy does not promise to rid of these. I do not do justice to a discussion on the merits, and shortfalls of democracy, in this little space, so perhaps reading Claude Lefort might help bolster my argument. Chee should stop forming alliance with foreign allies, but get his political act and will together to actually work the ground – meeting the material, actual, not make-believe/intellectual/cognitive needs of the voters at the grassroots level. His big speeches will impress the West, but certainly not the bunch of people he should impress – Singaporean voters ourselves. I find his democratic posturing distasteful and unwise. Other opposition parties and politicians have made credible headway into eating away at PAP’s parliamentary majority and they did not do so based on foreign support or getting themselves into the wrong side of the law. Chee, as if adamant of proving a point and making himself a martyr of sorts in Singapore’s nascent political development, has dug himself into a hole too deep for redemption – certainly not until some big-shot human rights lawyer comes along and add more sparks of brilliance to his game. But alas, sparks do not last you through the electoral cycle and hence, Chee has repeatedly been rejected at the polls. His complaints about slanted media coverage and bias reports have been repeated ad nauseum, and I think Singaporeans do not really want a whiner as their MP. Chee has the internet to harness, and instead of galvanizing the ground effectively, he has decided – unwisely – to use it to extend his hate-campaign against the government, becoming an unabashed ally of western human rights groups, all of which have played no part whatsoever in the tumultuous nation-building process of Singapore, unless one considers armchair critics as an indispensable factor in building a First World country in an unstable region. I stand ready to be corrected and a discussion on matters raised in the main article and my response will be appreciated.
your so brainwashed into what the government WANT you to believe you lose all credibility.
You should be able to express these opinions without anger at my response…can you? Could you endure me standing on a street corner with a placard expressing my opinion?
if yes, you go against all your own arguments…if no, well then my friend we may as well call our country mynamar