Final Year Crap

No. This blog hasn't died yet.
My only excuse for a relatively long hiatus is the inordinate grotesque amount of time my final year project has been soaking up. It has derailed numerous ambitious plans I set out to accomplish in the December holidays, but it didn't take long for me to realize that it's already 2009.

Christmas was literally bloody short.

But nonetheless, I still manage to hit an ultra-last-minute trip to Hong Kong.
But because my FYP interim report is due in less than a couple of days time, I think I'll hold off the detailed blogging.
So to tide the dearth of words in this entry, here's an article I wrote for The Online Citizen.
And yes, it's about everyone's favourite political party to hate/love, the Singapore Democratic Party. Heh.

SDP: Misunderstood, misguided or misaligned?
By Kelvin Lim / Writer

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) is arguably Singapore’s most controversial political party, boasting a colourful history involving ideological clashes with the government, inter and intra-party disunity and facing an inundating surge of legal lawsuits and charges.

After years of negative reporting by the local media, the public standing of SDP seems to be permanently marred in the eyes of some Singaporeans.

A quick search into recent archives (2008) of The Straits Times on news pertaining to the SDP has indeed yielded a less than flattering picture.

Date	Headline in the Straits Times
22 August	Chees, five others charged with illegal assembly
2 September	Illegal assembly: Woman fined $650
14 October	Chees deserved jail terms for their conduct in court: Judge
14 October	PM, MM get $950k damages; Amount determined in part by ‘egregious’ conduct of the Chees
15 October	A-G takes trio to court for ’scandalising judiciary’
24 October	Two fined for taking part in illegal assembly

Raison d’être: Civil disobedience

It is tempting to dismiss them as politicians who are bent on breaking laws and creating trouble, but scratch beyond the rebellious surface and it might reveal more than meets the eye. The rationale behind their actions has been explained on their website, and also detailed by Dr Chee Soon Juan’s The Power of Courage.

The SDP states that the most fundamental objective for a political party is policy-making, followed by implementation of policies upon successful election into the parliament. But without free and fair elections, they rationalise that the only alternative path is “for citizens to exercise their rights through peaceful mass protests to compel the PAP to accede to the people’s demands for a free and fair election system”.

In a nutshell, they have been advocating political change through nonviolent action.

Nonviolent action is a means of social change that avoids the use of physical violence. Sometimes going beyond institutionalised methods such as petitioning and voting, it takes the form of civil disobedience. As the name suggest, civil disobedience involves a refusal to disobey selective laws and regulations which are deemed to be unfair and unjust.

Various famous historical examples of civil disobedience were the Salt Satyagraha by Mahatma Gandhi, the Montgomery Bus Boycott sparked by Rosa Parks and resistance against South African apartheid, led by Nelson Mandela.

Framing that principle in the Singapore context, Dr Chee purports that Singapore has its fair share of “unjust laws”, which aim to circumscribe basic human rights such as freedom of assembly and speech. To “overcome” these laws, he advocates breaking existing “unjust laws” even if it results in stiff penalties. He reasons: “The Government can jail 10 persons; it can even jail 100 persons but it cannot jail 10,000 persons.”

Liberalising the Speakers’ Corner: A fruit of civil disobedience?

Since Dr Chee was appointed as the Secretary-General of SDP in 1993, it remains debatable whether his confrontationist approach has yielded tangible results.

In a working paper published by Asia Research Institute titled “Calibrated coercion and the maintenance of hegemony in Singapore”, Dr Cherian George posits that these tactics are aimed at provoking a strong response so to expose “the repressive core of the state”. Yet, due to the Singapore’s small geographical size and its traditional economic strength, the People’s Action Party (PAP) has been able to respond to the multiple acts of civil disobedience with little visible political cost, by limiting legal action to organisers and speakers instead of the participatory audience.

On the other hand, long-time political commentator, Mr Alex Au points out the recent relaxation of regulation on public protests at Speakers’ Corner as a visible fruit of civil disobedience. During the IMF-World Bank Summit held in Singapore in October 2006, Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin engaged in a standoff with the police for three days and nights, and were prevented from marching to the conference venue. Predictably, it generated unfavourable press coverage worldwide and even earned stinging criticism from the World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz when the authorities tried to bar accredited activists from entering the shores of Singapore.

In any case, one may never know for sure whether the move towards liberalising public protest at Speakers’ Corner on 1 September was impelled by the SDP’s acts of civil disobedience by, or a deliberately-paced progression towards active citizenship.

A clash of ideals

Former NTUC Income chief, Mr Tan Kin Lian is by far, the most successful organiser in attracting record breaking numbers to the Speakers’ Corner, and advocating justice for unwitting investors who have invested in complex structured products especially those linked to the collapsed Lehman Brothers.

On 14 October, much to the dismay of the SDP, Mr Tan highlighted the importance of investors staying within the laws. He cautioned of “groups that wish to expand their anarchical ranks and would happily urge you to break the law”, and bluntly warned against doing “what many stupid and selfish politicians in Singapore have done and seek self destruction.”

In a reply posted on the SDP website, the party accused Mr Tan of joining in with the voices of scaremongering. Rhetorically, they asked where Mr Tan could have assembled the DBS investors, if activists had not campaigned for freedom of assembly. Rather than disparaging civil disobedience, fighting for political and civil rights could “come in very handy in [the] future”.

There is much debate over the validity of what the SDP has been fighting for, such as whether current laws are really unjust in the first place. Furthermore, people who support ideals pertaining to freedom of assembly and speech may not be willing to intentionally go against established laws which restrict its very definition.

SDP on a tightrope

In March this year, SDP launched a series of “Tak boleh tahan!” (Malay for I can’t take it anymore!) campaigns to protest against rising inflation which resulted from price hikes including the GST increase. Conducted at HDB estates such as Toa Payoh Central and Bishan, it was a calculated move towards engaging heartlanders on bread-and-butter issues.

In the months that followed, the SDP also tried to reach out to local university students at National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and Singapore Management University (SMU).

Of late, the public outreach process has all but stopped as the SDP and some of its stalwart supporters had been besieged by a series of charges and lawsuits. With hefty compensation sums awarded to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in recent defamation lawsuits, the SDP faces possible bankruptcy and deregistration as a political party.

The party is placed in a more precarious position than ever before. While it has managed to win supporters through the Internet, it remains to be seen and tested whether the newfound support might translate into substantial public support to prevent its demise.

Combined with a lack of consensual support between opposition parties and an ever evolving PAP, SDP must find a way to leapfrog ahead of the current conundrum while maintaining continual contact with Singaporeans, both online and offline.

Dr Chee recognised that “no campaign or movement can guarantee immediate and automatic success”. Whether or not SDP translate its grandiose political ideals to reality without going under is anyone’s guess.

Don't ask me why I'm inserting this random webcomic strip here.