Wayne, I also wonder about the empirical questions at the end of your post. Would you consider the cancellation of NKF giro donations (in spite of MOH pleas not to do so) to be one such sprout of mass, open resistance?

Also Xenoboy has a typically thought-provoking piece on 'grand' vs 'cowardly' resistance.

Hi Wayne,

Does social political bloggging constitute as weak and open resistance against the establishment in some sense or perhaps some people trolling public figures in the forums and blogs?

In some sense, if you don't have a place to air your frustration, such weak forms of resistance usually happens.

You're forgetting the most powerful weapon conferred upon strong and weak.... -The Vote-.

The 'weapons' you quoted for NSmen just wouldn't work in the real world - you'd be fired.

And the 'weapons' for HDB dwellers are powerless, and only inconvenience the HDB dwellers themselves.

Weapons of the weak includes: bad attitude towards FTs, undermining the status quo in internet forums, puts down efforts by the PAP govt in "nation building", give poor service and being rude.

The recent surge in opt outs from organ donations is clearly an unhidden(overt) protest!

Dear Guys,

Thanks for your comments.

Ringsei:
It is certainly plausible to suggest that the cancellation of giro for NKF as a form of resistance by Singaporeans. The question is the situation in Singapore systematic? Probably not but it shows that Singaporeans do react to institution's betrayal of their trust. =)

With regards to Xenoboy post, I am not too comfortable with his dualism on resistance; for me, I don't necessary see co-optation and institutionalization of movements and "resistance" as "sell-outs"; it could be a transformation of individuals' or group's tactics to effect positive policy outcomes. However, that depends on institutional access; you have entry points for women and environmental rights groups in Singapore, whether you have access points for issues of democratization is debatable. Whether one adopts a "co-opted" strategy versus a "civil disobedience" strategy is very much a empirical question; how would we know which one really is better? What are the goals of the movement?

BL:
A difficult question to answer. Trolling public figures in forum should definitely be considered a weapon of the weak. =) I am not even sure whether Socio-political blogging is an act of resistance. Why do people blog? What are they resisting? Are they really resisting in any way? What underpins socio-political blogging? Greater Education? Love of Liberalism? Simply Anti-government actions? Supporting Status Quo like P-65 bloggers(otherwise known as counter-movements groups)?

Weapons of our warfare:
You will be fired only if you are caught =) The point of James Scott book is that the cost of adopting weapons of the weak as opposed to OPEN resistance is low; because it is DELIBERATELY hidden from the state and depended on collective action by villagers not to "pau toh" the guys doing these acts. If there are some sabo-kia in your company, of course you will be fired. But would people talk to the sabo-kia? Will his coffee have salt during break time? =)

And whether weapons of the weak is less/more powerful than open resistance is an empirical question. To turn the question on its head; is open resistance in Singapore, to quote you, "powerful"?

w:
Agree with you if you can show the causal link. What will they be thinking if they give bad service?

scb:
Good example.

Interesting piece, Wayne. But how do you distinguish 'purely inconsiderate behaviour' from 'weapons of the weak'? Many of the examples you cited could be regarded as instances of simply inconsiderate behaviour.

I think that 'not acting' is also a way of resisting (although I don't think your example of 'blog-surfing without commenting' is a good illustration). An example of 'not acting as resisting': people who previously do donate $ to charity when they watch the charity fund-raising programmes on TV, may not want to call in to make donations anymore, and might say, 'Let the government tackle the problems lah, the government is so rich'.

Other examples of resistance: criticizing the government, or Singapore in general, when speaking to others in informal settings (e.g. taxi driver chatting with a passenger, Singaporean talking to foreign friends when living overseas, etc).

Dear Heavenly Sword,

Haven't heard from you for some time! Hope you are doing well.

Without a deep anthropological/sociological study, it is difficult to say what actions are purely "inconsiderate behavior" from "weapons of the weak". "Weapons" suggests a deliberate effort to resist the state with tools, even as the level of using such weapons might differ.

At this stage, based on my own observations, I present my case with the example of NS- where deliberate weapons of weak are employed by a section of NSFs and even Regulars. Whether that happens in other spheres in Singapore should be debatable. However, to say there are no weapons of the weak employed by some Singaporeans seems to be wrong either; how do we explain deliberate actions to shun the mainstream media for example? How do we address some of the issues fellow readers have come up with? The question really is, What is the magnitude of such a usage of weapons?

The not acting issue is interesting and I agree with you- Do we see the phenomena of less Singaporeans caring about their MPs in 2007 as compared to 1969 a form of weapons of the weak? Is deliberate withdrawal from political and social life by intellectuals a weapon of the weak?

An intriguing post. It brings to mind something I read in a Dilbert book: If you feel that you are short-changed or underpaid, you can always decrease your level of work-effort accordingly to bring it in line with your pay.

I wonder if 'apathy' is also a weapon of the weak. On the other hand, maybe the government prefers it if we are unquestioning.

Nice piece dude!

Everyday resistance with self-interest thrown in - don't put parking coupons (or is that being a cheapo? Heh) If one used a parking coupon and there is some generous time period left, give it to the driver who just came into the car park. Income tax, don't GIRO, flood IRAS with paperwork around April-June instead. So we pay taxes as citizens, you know that compact thingy, but we don't help them one bit in making their work easier. But Sword has a sharp point (heh) that some people use resistance as the excuse for being inconsiderate assholes. So on that note, I figure it is more of getting by with self-interest, rather than deliberate resistance against the state per se, although there are overlaps in the two.

Hi Wayne,

To this question, "Is deliberate withdrawal from political and social life by intellectuals a weapon of the weak?" It set me thinking and I thought that you might be interested to take a look at my response.

I'm doing fine, Wayne. Thanks :)

Intellectuals withdrawing from political participation? Methinks the 'withdrawal' itself is not a weapon of the weak...

It's more like intellectuals throwing away their weapons and then saying, 'Wo bu gan le!' (I quit; I don't want analyze or discuss social/political issues anymore; whether Singapore has any problems or not is none of my business anymore, etc). It's not a weapon against the State because it benefits the State (fewer critics, better still!)...

Kelvin:

Whether apathy is a weapon of the weak depends on the mode of deliberation. Did you chose to be apathetic because you believe that will undermine the state as a form of resistance?

TVD:

Even TVD is back lah! Flood them with paper work? Don't know if poor civil servants deserve that. hehe. Flood your RC committee, Young PAP meetings Meet MP sessions with suggestions and articles, maybe that's a good *positive* weapon. =p

Bernard and HS:

I do want to reply to Bernard's excellent article but I think is better to say it over there. In short, I would say that withdrawal by intellectuals is part of a bigger longuee duree of one's life. For example, Chinese intellectuals at the turn of the century such as Liang Qichao, Kang Youwei, Hu Shi and Sun Yat Sen had periods of advising the government leaders, withdrawal from government to becoming academia and withdrawal from domestic society to travel to other countries. In the midst of their withdrawal, they sometimes return back to politics. Yet there were other intellectuals like Cai Yuanpei, the first President of Beijing University, who eschewed political power throughout his life in favor of academic influence.

An excellent book to read on intellectuals' participation and withdrawal in Chinese history is
Vera Schwarcz, The Chinese Enlightenment: Intellectuals and the Legacy of the May Fourth Movement of 1919 (Berkeley, 1996)

A more exciting and controversial book is James Polachek, The Inner Opium War, (Cambridge: Mass, 1991)

Withdrawal from political commentary or participation to me, is more of a process of bidding for time for the right time to re-appear. That's why I am amused by the flurry of articles lamenting or romanticism the "withdrawal" of socio-political bloggers. They don't seem to be seeing the big picture here. Are they quitting or are they taking a semi-retirement?

Will say more on Bernard's post.

Wayne,

The example with the Chinese intellectuals being involved with politics is a good one. In fact, one of our founding fathers, Dr Goh Keng Swee is also an academic who is also involved in politics (c.f. Lee's Lieutenants).

Here is my opinion on why both Dr Goh and the Chinese intellectuals are involved in politics during their time. There is a need for them at that point of time, and circumstances create heroes (or politicians). It is a time of struggle for independence and they are putting themselves forward in a turbulent time to unite the country and offer their services to serve the country. At present, we don't see that happening in Singapore because there is no crisis that will pull the intellectuals into the fray. Our stability has stopped people from being passionate about where the country should go.

The other issue as you rightfully pointed out in your comment in my blog, in Singapore, the intellectuals are either marginalized or institutionalized. In order to civil society to thrive, the key is the creation and cultivation of a proper center ground, where the intellectuals are non-partisan and be allowed to speak truth to power. The blogosphere provides that ground, and I am optimistic that it can exist in the blogosphere. However, its evolution cannot be determined by one group but many others who may agree that it is the best way forward for our society.

Look no further than the flying of the state flag on National Day. It is patently obvious that the display has been waning the last few years esp in the HDB estates....Yet they still vote the PAP in (sigh)

Actually it seems that "weapons of the weak" can be applied to anyone feeling oppressed or shortchanged regardless of geographic region, and some of the examples pointed out above may not be a form of resistance to the state.

It's interesting that you mentioned how people tend to be criticised for being too "garung". Any idea if this phenomenon is only seen in Singapore? Does the typical Singaporean feel that it's ok to not work so hard since social mobility can never be achieved? Actually, I don't think people align the state's interest with the amount of effort they choose put in, although that's just a personal opinion.

Jan,

You might be right in saying that it can be applied to anyone anyway and I agree with you that some of the examples pointed out may not be a form of resistance.

However, what is the degree of magnitude of the weapons of thee weak here? In my class discussing this issue, American students found it extremely difficult to comprehend the weapons of the weak; because they have been privileged enough to have more than adequate access to political institutions and power. Be it lobbying, local referendum, townhall meetings, peaceful demonstrations, signing petitions and publication of pamphlets, leaflets and newspaper, many of American's protest movements are open for everyone to see. They often lead to policy changes. It also amazes me how the student government body in my school can change policies to benefit the students so easily in contrast to Singapore's student unions. They don't have to resort to slashing tyres, stealing government property secretly, wearing black bands around their arms to protest tuition hikes or other ways to get their points across subtly.

In contrast, students from Asia and elsewhere could immediately empathize with James Scott's writings because they do experience more incidences of the weapons of the weak back home. They have very good examples in class on top of the EXCELLENT examples that readers have shared here. Such usage of WOTW occurs because direct institutional access to power is often blocked or simply undesirable. For example, the peasants in Kedah.

I would urge you to look at that book lah. It's pretty inexpensive and very easy to read. =)

"Garangness", I would argue is not widespread in Singapore; perhaps I see it more in the National Service. Weapons of the weak in the NS, as I argue for some Singaporeans, is simply the only way to survive and retain sanity.

These are really insignificant weapons of the weak and rather ambigous outside the context of the SAF.

In the local context, there is only one-way communication therefore, there arent any engagement to warrant a need for a weapon for engagement between tw0 parties.

having been in a university student union in SG, I have to speak up for my fellows who tried, but failed, to mobilize the students from apathy.
(the most mobilization came from the 2004 fee hike, and even then, the sense of hopelessness and apathy to the whole situation was saddening.)

And also report that the structure of SG student unions, are no better than the NTUC/Govt/business 'tripartite relationships'.

We are/were powerless to make many decisions for ourselves, and were always 'protected' by the administration from taking any kind of risk. whenever u have a union under the control of management, do not blame the "unionists" for failing to accomplish anything of note.

So its not that some students didn't try, the system was too powerful and oppressive.

E.o.M.

Kiweto:

Thank you for sharing the situation among the unions in Singapore's universities. I am sure the union has sincerely tried to help students in many ways through negotiations between the authorities and the larger student body. Also,I believe the university are also not out there to exploit students but genuinely care for its students; sometimes it could be problems of miscommunications.

As I am not a student there, I wouldn't comment further except to say that look at China during the 1980s where students rose up against the regime; look at Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia and Malaysia universities at various point of times over the last few decades.

Bernard

Thanks for your good points, especially the points on "heroes only emerge from a crisis" in a crude paraphrasing of the popular Chinese idiom. Btw, ringsei actually has another better quote on our discussion.

I can only add that the notion that an intellectual can be perceived as totally non partisan in any society is sort of an ideal or "utopic" situation(I want that too). Even the academias in America or UK are hardly seen as non-partisan either =)