Hello Chaps,
Someone posted a while back regarding the proposed "Public Order Act" restricting certain gatherings in Singapore. The post asked whether or not there are any avenues left for public protest in Singapore. It was late at night and I was feeling a bit naughty, so I sent an email to the Singapore High Commission in Wellington asking for more information on this Act. Here is the response:
Dear Benjamin
Thank you for your interest in the proposed Public Order Act.
2 The Police maintains a cautious view of outdoor protests and demonstrations due to their higher propensity for disorder and nuisance as well as the disruption to the wider community. In a compact urban environment such as Singapore where different ethnic groups lived close to one another, the potential for friction and discord exists. Some of the riots and social unrest that took place during our independence years had started out as peaceful processions and protests. It had taken decades of nation building to overcome the trauma, bloodshed and destruction.
3 Over the years, we have reviewed and relaxed the regulatory requirements in tandem with the changes in our societal values. Today, Singapore citizens can protest at Speakers' Corner, stadiums or indoors freely, including against any government policies, without having to seek prior approval from the Police. They are subject to basic conditions to safeguard the safety of the participants and the general public. The only restriction is that the activity should not concern race or religion. Otherwise the organizer must seek Police approval first. This reflects the premium we ascribe to racial and religious harmony in our society. Organisers of outdoor protests and other cause related activities outside Speakers' Corner must apply for a police permit. This is a common requirement in many countries. Permits are granted regularly for activities where they pose low public order risks.
4 With the introduction of the Public Order Act, we seek a more effective and calibrated approach in our management of public order. It is part of a long-term sustained effort to find a balance between the individual's desire for expression as a result of a maturing society and the need for effective governance in a plural society like Singapore's. Enclosed is a media statement and an overview of the Public Order Act which I hope you find useful for your research.
Regards
E-Lyn Tan
Singapore High Commission
Wellington
What a show off eh. I also have a copy of the act which I am more then happy to email on if requested.
P.S I have not received any support or payment, financial or otherwise, from the Republic of Singapore, save for a lollipop.
P.P.S Apologies Martha, I forgot the lollipop today! I will have it Friday!
Cheerio.
Haha that was an interesting read Ben. I would be keen to read anything else you were sent.
ReplyDeleteThe argument made by E-Lyn Tan is a very Singaporean one, and one I would expect. There are frequent references to such things as "disorder and nuisance" and "friction and discord". As I discovered during research for my essay (about culture and democracy), it has been official policy of the Singaporean Government to prevent any and all ethnic or religious tension. They have almost forced a Singaporean culture and identity on the people.
Some might argue this has been discriminatory, but in the long run I believe it has been a good thing for Singapore, and may have avoided plenty of conflict between the large ethnic groups. As an example, Malays and Indians are given equal status to the majority Chinese population, and I believe there was some element of positive discriminiation involved in employment for public jobs. I am not sure if this is still the case. Naturally the majority Chinese population would have been opposed to this, but Lee Kwan Yew (who is ethnically Chinese himself) and his government quickly stamped this out, because they saw that in the long run such policies were better for the state, in a whole variety of ways.
Surely, given the 'decades of nation building,' ethnic friction and discord is highly unlikely? Although I could be mistaken, given my lack of knowledge of Singapore.
ReplyDelete'Permits are granted regularly for activities where they pose low public order risks.' How is the public order risk of an activity determined?
Alas, I'm a bit skeptical of government issued statements regarding contentious acts that may or may not suspend liberties.
Sure, it seems unlikely, but not impossible. Even in a country like New Zealand though, which has been nation-building for over 160 years, we still find regular cases of ethnic friction and discord, and they actually occur quite frequently. Imagine how it must be in Singapore, which has only been an independent state for some 40 years, and which has such a high population density and so many large ethnic and religious groups.
ReplyDeleteIt is also highly undesirable in a "compact urban environment such as Singapore" to have potentially thousands of people in one area protesting about something, even if it is peacefully. Even if the threat of violence or rioting is low, it should be taken very seriously. Even a tiny spark could trigger a stampede, as seen on many previous occassions in other places with huge numbers of people massed in a tiny enclosed space, for example in Mecca.
I should add that I absolutely agree with your suspicion that this is just a cunning excuse used by the government to prevent dissent or any showing of opposition support. It is highly likely that this is also a large part of the reasoning behind it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as E-Lyn Tan from the High Commission said, protesting is perfectly legal provided one stays in the few government-sanctioned aras, or has permission from the police. A bit of a joke coming from somewhere in New Zealand, but it's still a lot more open than in plenty of other countries. This is one of several good reasons why Singapore is classified as a non-democracy, but not a democracy or dictatorship.
Sweet Matthew I will email the stuff off to you. P.s Austrians just declared war on me, nicked Vienna back and have started marching on Moscow. We know how this will end :D
ReplyDeleteInteresting point about the ethnic tensions guys. Discriminating in favour of minorities is a rather contentious issue around the world but not something limited to more authoritarian regimes. New Zealand, for example, provides support and services targeted directly at certain ethnic minorities, thus even though we have ethnic tension, this is not necessarily a result of the lack of an authoritarian regime to keep it in check.