This post is in realtion to the other posts on Singapore and its rules/restrictions on public protests and demonstrations.
The YouTube clip (link above) shows current PM of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong (son of Lee Kwan Yew) speaking to a rally. He discusses the reasons as to why public demonstrations are not allowed linking them to the disruption of the harmony etc of Singaporean society. This seems to be a major theme to me. Singapore seems to have a great aversion to any disturbance of the peace, dissent or lack of harmony. The govt. seems to use this as a reason for any of their restriction of civil liberties.
The introduction of "Demonstrators' Corner" seems to be a good step for Singapore. However, it is likely that the govt will just use this as another way to control and keep tabs in the opposition. I can imagine that only demonstrators who are not seen as a threat will be authorised to speak here. This reinforces Singapore as a competitive authoritarian regime, it does not totally ban protests etc but merely imposes retrictions so they are able to control dissent.
I also thought this was a good clip, it's interesting to see a leader defending their policies etc in person rather than just reading about it in an article or hearing about it in a lecture! :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting points made there Natalie and it is good to get speeches from the actual leaders once in a while, although I have a slightly biased preference for email correspondence.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to hear of the figures for approved and declined permits for protest, in order to better make a decision on how restrictive these laws are. Hmmm. And that, ladies and gentlemen, has given me an idea....you will hear from me soon.
I was actually very impressed by Lee Hsien Loong in that interview. Very much what I had in mind of Singapore's paternalistic government. He seemed like a very reasonable man, who had the people's best interests at heart.
ReplyDeleteHe has allowed a very reasonable amount of freedom of speech into Singapore, and seemed willing to allow more if it worked out with no problems. His reasoning for having restrictions at all was very good. Any incidents of racial or religious intolerance could upset the delicate balance of racial harmony in Singapore. This is why the only things banned to speak about are race and religion, which seems fair enough to me.
I for one would be happy to allow such a man to be the dictator of a country I lived in. To me he is proof that benevolent dictators exist, and that they can be effective and fair rulers.
I was very interested by these two videos I just found.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u25ssjfmiRg&feature=related
Lee Kwan Yew made some very controversial statements about homosexuality in the past, but he seems to have changed his mind, and become more open to accepting homosexuality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1h3KiD1GLE
Once again I was impressed by Lee Hsien Loong. He seems legitimately concerned for his people, and his priority seems to be increasing the well-being and happiness of ALL Singaporeans, but doing it in such a way as to not upset anyone else.
From our point of view it seems very odd how they view homosexuality, but he seems very open to allowing homosexuals to have equal rights and status in Singapore, despite popular opposition to such a move. He also vowed to protect homosexuals from any opposition groups who might disagree. Once again we see the priorities of the Singaporean government; law and order and the sustainment of complete harmony in the country.
Singapore really does prove that non-democratic states can work just as well, if not better, than democratic ones.
You should also hear from people like Chee Soon Juan and J. B. Jeyaratnam (opposition figures).
ReplyDeleteFor opposition perspectives, there's also a number of satirical sites: Talkingcock.com (I think that means something like talking nonsense in Singaporean English) or The Mr Brown Show
While Singapore seems to work very well for a non-democratic system, one needs to think of whether this sort of system is sustainable and generalizable.
Hsien Loong, to me, just reinforced the idea that Singapore is still very controlled. They create this space just to make speeches where it will not disrupt the peace. People are still not allowed to discuss 'race and religion'. How is this a step forward? Does this mean they do not want people discussing other controversial issues like the government in there aswell? The way he says 'let off steam safely', to me just patronises the people of Singapore. Why to they have to have a delegated space to let off steam?
ReplyDelete