The Right to Street Protest Implied

The word "protest" is not mentioned in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and off tangent slightly, not in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and not in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet, peaceful street protests are deemed as part and parcel of any "democracy". The closest Articles to the right of protest in the ICCPR are

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

The Singapore Constitution, with the usual justified exceptions on grounds of public order and security, echoes this thinking of the right to peaceful protest:

Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. (1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3)

(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations

So with the international covenant and local constitution enshrining the spirit of street protest in mind, it is astounding that with Singapore's 41st national day coming up, 41 years after independence and efforts to "build a democratic society", peaceful street protests are still not allowed in Singapore in practice. Yes, the government allows protests in theory if the organisers apply for a permit but from anecdotal experience in recent years, protests are frowned upon by the PAP government.

The State of the Right to Street Protests

Remember the muted anti-war protest outside the US embassy in 2003 which the police acted upon? A small group of peaceful protestors which probably could not cause any real public order disturbance were nonetheless made to disperse. The more iconised zero-tolerance attitude towards peaceful protests is the infamous 4-person CPF building protest by SDP which was also broken up, so to speak, by the police although the whole demonstration was non-disruptive. (The questions to ask are whether it would have made a difference in terms of government reaction if other groups besides the SDP had organised the protest, but that is another story). Then there was the recent government handling of the Mr Brown supporters-flash mob which was also another incident that street demonstrations are frowned upon by the authorities. Even if police permits are sought for street demonstrations, there is still a yes-to-protest in theory but no-to-protest in practice mindset as seen from the failed bid to stage a anti-casino demonstration.

The coming International Monetary Fund and World Bank meeting next month is another anecdote of how the government is paranoid about Singaporeans engaging via street protesting. Foreigners are accorded that civil right under strict conditions, a far cry from the 1996 World Trade Organisation meeting 10 years ago no doubt, but Singaporeans inexplicably still cannot stage street demonstrations.

Exploring the Political Benefits of Peaceful Street Protests

If the PAP government does want to be "hip and happening" or more importantly in touch with the changing demands of the people who are often criticised for being politically apathetic, street protests should be gradually inserted into our otherwise staid political feedback routine. This reluctance of the government to unfetter street protests in Singapore actually does more harm than good to the PAP's image as a ruling party that is opening up, and Singapore's image as a form of "democracy" in general.

The government will give the excuse that if dialogue and feedback mechanisms are already in place, there is no need for street protests. This outlook is valid if one sees dialogue as a substitute for street protests. However, the more comprehensive understanding is that they do not substitute but rather complement each other instead. Very few, if any, dialogue and feedback mechanisms can match the passion and active citizenry in mass street demonstrations.

Certainly, street protests are never representative of the public support behind a cause but they do communicate and remind all that a particular policy decision made or proposed is not without dissent. At the very least as a result of street protests and its publicity, it prods the yeas and nays behind a protest cause to rethink and re-articulate their respective positions. A civil debate, within reason, is always good for the people and the government. Besides, street demonstrations are a powerful assuring symbol that the people are allowed to speak up, and also an avenue for the people to controversially let off steam. It is undisputable that not all protests would be peaceful as there would always be trouble-makers, but the potential political merits outweigh the law and order risks, and there are always fair but justified hard ways to deal with trouble-makers anyway. Furthermore, the symbolism behind street protests is arguably more than merely a token Matrix-like self-deluding gesture of "freedom". Symbols start and sustain change as they gradually transform relationships and perspectives. The government knows that and the example of hanging state flags, the ritual of national songs played on the radio and TV in the national day period, wearing of red at the parade etc all show that the government believes in symbols to affect change.

The casino debate protest was certainly an excellent opportunity for the PAP government to show that they are open-minded in the area of protests. But they squandered that away. The September IMF / WB event is another chance for the government to demonstrate that they are changing fast enough to meet the demands of Singaporeans but from the way developments are unfolding, this chance to instill a more vibrant political scene might be squandered away again.

The Government is Not Listening and Negotiating in the Area of Street Protests

My contention is that our government is refusing to negotiate on this one type of vociferous feedback, street protests. Totally ignoring the changing political needs of Singaporeans, the PAP government constantly reach into memory the Hock Lee spectre of violent street protests to deny all forms of protests regardless if it is likely peaceful and does not undermine public order. For too long has the government been clumsily denying Singaporeans the civil right of protest as a form of expression and heightened engagement with the government and with other groups in Singapore society. The government certainly has an obligation to the people to ensure public order and nip in the bud any unlawful street protest which is a potential public nuisance, but the way the government is perceived to be behaving now, all street protests is spuriously considered as anarchy.

Note that I am not advocating for all forms street protest, I am mainly making a case for lawful peaceful non-disruptive street protest.

The perceived government mindset that it is best to ban it rather than maturely manage it sadly prevails. But we have to be fair to the government and its attitude towards reform in the area of lawful street protests. Maybe they are changing and are just hesitant in allowing certain kinds of protests but tacitly allow others, and fate has it that all protests planned or staged in Singapore so far were the former. Hence, being reasonable Singaporeans, the experiment now is to wait for a non-political group i.e. a group not affiliated to any political party, to apply for a permit for a street protest for cause X in the coming IMF meeting, and we see what happens.