 |
September-October 2007 was interesting for political pundits wanting to see how the civil society in Singapore is managing. When the Mynamar junta used violence to quell the unrest, Singaporeans and the Myanmar community were appalled enough to protest. When NMP Siew Kum Hong launched a campaign to repeal 377A, it rejuvenated a maelstrom of pro and anti-gay debate. The truth of the matter was that Singaporeans were uncharacteristically not "apathetic" these two months on these two issues. Singaporeans were politicised and wanted the government to do something to make a stand related to their interests - from the strong objection to the oppression in Myanmar to the (de)criminalisation of gay sex. Singaporeans showed that they are not apathetic, can break out of their political lethargy and rally support for their pet cause, however limited the initiatives are compared to lobbying in more developed democracies.
A Kaleidescope of Myanmar Action
SDP's Chee Soon Juan cast the first stone when he set up the controversial opportunistic petition outside the Myanmar Embassy. The police, predictably in the case of any SDP brinkmanship, responded by saying that it was illegal to gather outside the embassy in protest but it was lawful to sign the petition there. Emboldened that they were not arrested and pouncing on the chance to use the Myanmar crisis to again criticise the PAP's version of democracy, SDP followed up with a four person Myanmar protest at the Istana to sustain the pressure against the junta for its crackdown and the Singapore government for its links to Myanmar and its aversion to more robust political expression. When 5 SDP members were promptly arrested for unlawful assembly because of restrictions on assembly specifically at the Istana, SDP provocatively repeated the protest in the form of Chee Soon Juan's legal one person protest there.
However, the government's ban on street demonstrations was not restricted to SDP. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy student Andrew Teo applied to protest outside the Myanmar Embassy but his permit was rejected by the police. A concert at the Substation to highlight the plight of the Myanmar people was similarly prohibited. In contrast, the police allowed vigils at NUS, NTU and SMU. It also allowed an indoor "protest" at a local hotel organised by members of the Myanmar community in Singapore.
Evolving Technicolour OB Markers
The government's nervous and different reactions to the staging of different protests offered insights to their evolving thinking. Presumably if Singaporeans make more attempts at demonstrations that push the government hard but not into a tight corner, the government might be compelled to change to suit the needs of its citizens at a face-saving pace. The indoor IMF protest concession last year was the beginning of the end of the government's stubbornness.
Due to public reaction, the government claimed that they were open to indoor "protests" where no permits are required, something that was never explicit before in government rhetoric. Vigils and petitions were permitted although only students and the Myanmar community seemingly had more room for voicing their concern, or perhaps they were the only ones expressing concern in those forms. However, the peace concert at Timbre was surprisingly and disappointingly, from a larger civil society movement perspective, disallowed. Fastidiously sticking to the letter of the law was still applied to SDP at all times such that an obscure clause on assembly on Istana grounds was unearthed and invoked. However, Chee Soon Juan was left alone when he conducted his lone and lawful Istana vigil perhaps timed to coincide with the International Bar Association Rule of Law Symposium in Singapore.
377A's Meta-debate Spectrum
Nonetheless, fastidiously sticking to the law was promised not to be the case for 377A according to the ruling government of the day.
The gay community, with their recent publicised subtly confrontational Pink events, effectively again made their cause national news. 377A was a more interesting development as it showed that publicity and politicisation of an issue need not always be in the form of protests or even brinkmanship civil disobedience. The hype on 377A made gay marginalisation an issue of national concern without even a single arrest or threat of arrest, excluding the questionable emails to one supposed anti-gay NMP.
NMP Siew Kum Hong officialised the protest by asking for the repeal of 377A in Parliament. Siew Kum Hong rightly stressed that the way the debate was conducted, was just as important as whether 377A was repealed or not. The process on arguing inevitably different interests in a heterogeneous society is a window into how that society is mature enough to deal with difference in opinions, politics and basically, choice, although the issue debated in perspective might not be the most earth-shaking law to change in terms of the well-being of the polity.
The debate, arguably inflated out of proportion, artificially herded people into the Yes Repeal and No Repeal camps. There was perhaps no room for a behind the scenes negotiated "Yes/No if or when.." between the players. As it turned out, the implicit gay rights controversy was cast into a black and white one even when remotely religious-influenced controversies like euthanasia are never automatically bipolar for any informed populace. The "If you are not with us, you are with them" narrative became the dominant one, whichever side one preferred. Furthermore, the label "conservative" became almost tantamount to mean "bigot" by the time NMP Thio Li-Ann became the tacit spokesperson of the de facto anti-gay camp.
There was a subtle but significant change to the plot when 377A was brought to the public consciousness. The 377A debate was by almost all accounts depicted by the media, both print-broadcast and blogs, as a Siew Kum Hong anti-377A vs Thio Li-Ann pro-377A. The focus in the print and internet media was an NMP vs NMP or progressive civil society vs conservative civil society duel, rather than the typical asymmetrical civil society (anti-377A) vs the government (pro-377A) clash. The government was instead portrayed as the balanced well-meaning arbitrator on the 377A since it intends to keep that seizable offence law for symbolic reasons but would not enforce it for practical reasons - a political win-win strategy if played well, in the eyes of the PAP.
Once More into the Breach
However, the public pressure for debate, construed by the government as from the vociferous minority, actually showed how shaky the entire pro-377A argument was for supposed symbolic and conservative reasons. The PAP's insistence on keeping 377A for fear of the proverbial slippery slope was instead seen as a political blunder because the government tightly held on to one archaic law, but discarded another one on heterosexual oral sex. As a result, accusation of double standards, usually synonymous with accusations of hypocrisy, powerfully undermines the government's practical "live and let live" stand on keeping 377A. Nevertheless, to place things in perspective, there are probably many laws that are seldom or never enforced e.g. the law on rear seat car passengers belting up.
377A was not about gay rights, secularism or shifting morality, but about the government's image that it is capable to lead on certain issues despite being challenged credibly. It does not mater whether the government is capable on leading on certain issues at all as it is all about its image to do so. In a roundabout way but still relevant way, this credible challenge to the government's image would not have taken place if Singaporeans were truly apathetic.
The Myth of the Apathetic Singaporean?
There is controversially haphazard progress, fast or slow though it may be to different people, in the government's attitude towards protests and debate since the IMF event last year. The recent anti-junta and 377A initiatives showcased that Singaporeans can be concerned about issues and be even motivated to act on it. The gay community were never apathetic or for that matter, politically lethargic, as seen from their proud annual Indignation events. It just remains to be seen whether other communities can quickly be as active as the gay community in protecting their interests, within the current boundaries of the law. The question arising from the anti-junta and 377A movements is not whether Singaporeans are politically apathetic, a term often misused and exaggerated, but how fast Singaporeans are collectively deciding to be active and steer their own interests. If this culture of acting to promote various pet causes persists at a much publicised national level, the myth of the apathetic Singaporean is merely that - a myth.
Comments (10)
I happen to think that the gay issue is stirred by none other than MM Lee himself.
If you noticed, MM Lee kept mentioning gay issues even when the question posed to him is not directly related to the issue.
In my view this issue is stirred to rally the new mega-church crowd to PAP. It is well-known that these new mega-churches are popular with the youths, especially those who are well-educated. If you ask me this is PAP's way rallying these ppl to PAP's camp.
Gays will always be the minority, they can't shift the votes in a big way. The mega-churches are different as they are organized and have great ability to influence one's political affiliations. This is not unlike what the Republicans did when they allied themselves with the evangelical Christians.
Posted by Secularism | November 9, 2007 2:11 PM
"The question arising from the anti-junta and 377A movements is not whether Singaporeans are politically apathetic, a term often misused and exaggerated, but how fast Singaporeans are collectively deciding to be active and steer their own interests. If this culture of acting to promote various pet causes persists at a much publicised national level, the myth of the apathetic Singaporean is merely that - a myth."
I am very sorry. I dont mean to sound rude. However, something is seriously wrong with your analysis.
Firstly, you failed to consider the entire spread of why the whole issue of apathy arose in the first place. If its not a problem, then how did it feature in assuming a case in the first instance.
I think, it is time for me to inform the Bro hood to give this a democratic working over.
Posted by calirat | November 9, 2007 4:33 PM
TVD:
Good to hear from you guys again. I've a bunch of questions but I'm not sure it's even fair to ask you to answer. (I think Dan might also be a good person to chip in.) But since you guys have thought about it some, I thought it's a good idea to throw them out here.
I'm wondering if it might be better to begin with a precification of "apathy", an idea of the relevant scope, and some working notions about measurements (at least comparisons):
Firstly, are we talking about a sort of (internal) attitude, or a pattern of external behavior, or perhaps the latter as a proxy for the former?
Secondly, you are not talking about 'apathy' towards all and any object since most Singaporeans are (as far as I can tell) definitely not apathetic about, say, food. I take it that it's apathy concerning social and political matters that is of concern. But even here, is there any way to be more precise? Or is this an inherently vague thing?
Thirdly, given some set of answer to the above, how do we go about either measuring or at least making comparative statements? What does it mean for someone (or some group) to be more or less apathetic than someone else--how do we tell?
I need to emphasize that this is not really about the term "apathy" per se but about the boundaries of the discussion. In other words, suppose we arrive at the conclusion that Singaporeans are apathetic (or not), what exactly are we saying? My worry is that until and unless we have firmer definitions, we are mostly shooting in the dark.
calirat (or is it "Dr Lee"?) raised a good question though I wish he took the trouble to unpack it further. Assuming that TVD is right that--given the evidence--Singaporeans are not apathetic, why is there a persistent belief that they are apathetic? But a precondition of answering even that question is that--granted that there is a persistent refrain that Singaporeans are apathetic--what exactly is the content of that refrain at all?
What does it mean--according to this persistent refrain--that Singaporeans are apathetic? Is there even one consistent or coherent set of beliefs associated with this persistent refrain? Or is it really the expression of a mood (e.g., a roundabout way of saying "S'pore sux", or "my life sux", let's say) and thus, being mostly void of content that could be confirmed or falsified by facts, to that extent immune to any evidence that can be brought against it?
Anyway, I expect to be busy very soon, so take your time. I'll catch up with you guys again.
Posted by Huichieh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.singaporeangle.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 9, 2007 11:01 PM
Dr Lee, how perceptive you are. Well spotted. However, there is an error in yr model, as it assumes apathy is condition, when we all know it can only a symptom. A better approach would be to reverse the whole equation and chuck the X to the otherside of the fence, thereby asking: How can we not be apathetic? That would not only deliver what you asked for Dr, but along with it everything that you never asked and much more.
Try it.
Posted by darkness | November 10, 2007 2:51 AM
This darkness will never ever volunteer to give information of this quality freely. This is a well know fact in the research community. If there is anyone who is more tight fisted and stingy with information, ideas and solutions, it is Darkness!
If you notice, he gives the only the general outline, never ever the specifics and there is usually enough dead ends there to lead one astray, if you are not careful.
He will never ever give anything away, not for free, of course. That is the nature of people who trade on ideas, they know every idea has an intrinsic value and it can even command a price, so why should they give anything away for free?
If he ever gives it for free, then it probably has to be disinformation or to lead one astray. Many have been lead to the edge by him. That is why, it is so frustrating dealing with him. He is diabolically intelligent, so he nows when to hold, push, pull and release.
He is also very evil as everything is designed only to serve one objective, that is to maximize resources and opportunities.
A very dangerous man.
Posted by bystander | November 10, 2007 2:42 PM
TVD,
Frankly, the KTM didn't understand what you meant in this para:
377A was not about gay rights, secularism or shifting morality, but about the government's image that it is capable to lead on certain issues despite being challenged credibly. It does not mater whether the government is capable on leading on certain issues at all as it is all about its image to do so. In a roundabout way but still relevant way, this credible challenge to the government's image would not have taken place if Singaporeans were truly apathetic.
My view: for the Government, 377A is all about keeping the peace. Quite clear that the Government is not trying to take sides and is only trying to come up with a compromise position: keep s377A but not enforce it. Given the current political climate, this is actually not an unexpected outcome.
Finally, the KTM has an issue with the implicit assumption that Singaporeans are apathetic.
The KTM is of the view that not many Singaporeans actually care whether s377A is repealed or not. Just because the are some who make a whole lot of noise doesn't mean that Singaporeans are not apathetic (neither does it imply that they are). Frankly, why should whether SIngaporeans care about s377A be taken as a measure of apathy (or non-apathy)?
The KTM doesn't think that Singaporeans are apathetic lah. There are things they care about and there are things they don't. That's about it. Ask yourself: do you care about everything under the sun?
If there's a cut in the CPF rate, reduction in the number of university places, increase in bus/taxi fares/ERP charges, you see whether Singaporeans care or not. ;-P
Posted by Kway Teow Man | November 10, 2007 5:52 PM
Random suggestion: considering doing a follow-up article,"Why the myth of the apathetic Singaporean"?
The KTM has some random some thoughts on this matter: this myth is propagated by these loser lobbists/activists/politicians (of all sorts random causes). Key idea is that they try, but fail to rally Singaporeans to their cause -- and the key reason why they fail is because they attempt intellectual bullying tactics, "you are either with me or you are against me", "it takes a person divorced from the suffering of others not agree with our cause".... yada yada.
How do Singaporeans respond? They will tell these fellas to go fly a kite, or not respond loh. Then hor, these lobbists/activists/politicians will justify their failure to move the masses to the "political apathy" of Singaporeans .... plausible? :-)
Posted by Kway Teow Man | November 10, 2007 6:04 PM
We seem to be having a problem grappling with the baseline logic here. So allow me to rephrase the problem gentlemen. This time, follow me and don't get lost. If we consider 'apathy' as only a symptom rather than a condition, then it could be said, that line of enquiry would require us to consider the broader issue of what accounts for the conditions of apathy. That's to say, we need to define the root cause or causes that generates a state of apathy?
However, if we limit the ambit of the model to merely regarding apathy as a condition and no more, then you have to ask what sort of results does that sort of model produce? What if I told you, it can only produce lousy results, because you are turning the axiom of a symptom over on its head and using for a purpose that it's not supposed to used for - yes, I know, its possible to use a washing machine to mix concrete, but is that what it's designed for? How many cycles are you going to get without the thing spluttering and smoking till it finally dies out?
That is the whole basis of what I am trying to put across, the whole idea of apathy as a concept is roughly the size of Alaska, it encompasses everything from whether I feel like chasing a girl with a short skirt to whether I believe its even worth voting - treating it as a condition produces inaccuracies, it's an exercise in futility and you might as well spend your time ploughing the sea or something.
Defining apathy as a symptom allows you to successfully delineate the enquiry, for one it imposes a min and max on your model - so you can say, ok this may or may not produce apathy or bochapness and proceed to either buy or throw. But more importantly, it also gives you a cut off, as the model doesn't require you to go into the definition of apathy which IMHO is absolutely impossible to answer successfully without embroiling yourself in a philosophical quagmire i.e what is apathy?
That's how the question should have been modeled. As it is what can it possibly produce? That you have to decide lah - as we can all see.
As we can all see, we have people here calling me evil and bad names, yet no attempts have been made by the admin to either censor or delete such post. Would an evil man teach another man how to fish? You wouldn't even get this in MIT or Harvard.
I am Darkness 2007
Posted by Darkness | November 10, 2007 8:31 PM
Ploughing the sea? LOL Yes, I like that term very much / very poetic indeed, I must say / however as precise as this suggested model appears to be, I think, we can do without the MCP references. Apart from that spoiler completely agree, that should be the way to proceed.
Posted by hohum | November 11, 2007 2:49 PM
Sorry for the slow response. Thanks all for the insightful comments, patience and a chance for me to clarify my arguments as best as I can for I admit I don't have all the answers and in hindsight, a caveat would have been useful for my piece. In the meantime, an enlightening "apathy" specific discussion has already kicked off (hat tip to Loy)
The way I see it, the questions on my piece pertained to the lack of discussion on the parameters of what is apathy and how it is possibly measured. But please let me qualify by asking:
Do we all agree that a perception of the stereotypical politically apathetic Singaporean exists?
Once we agree, then we can all start on the same page as I am in this Choose Your Own Adventure story on The Degrees and Types of Apathy and the Singaporean. The main point I was making was that Singaporeans, based on high profile "protest" events in the last two months, can be deemed as less politically apathetic than before , say 10 years ago. However, along the way, a begging the question-like plot twist stood giant over that point I was trying to make.
The "apathetic Singaporean", mainly implied as political from the context of my piece, is one narrative that is imparted among us. This apathetic Singaporean narrative is almost like an urban legend where the tale captures the imagination of the audience. The apathetic Singaporean is an existentialist narrative about behaviour. The audience is told that Singaporeans just leave politics to politicians, Singaporeans are politically apathetic because they fear and Singaporeans don't care about politics because their livelihood and lifestyle needs are met just the way things are.
In a nutshell, my approach was to leap into the urban legend (this is after all a blog post so some "leaping" privilege is arguably permitted). I wanted to retell the narrative and at the same time offer an alternative narrative, backed with anecdotes, on the "not necessarily apathetic Singaporean".
Posted by The Void Deck | November 13, 2007 12:38 PM