|
|
Just like the
DAP does not have to buy into PAS' party objects and vice versa,
opposition parties in Singapore need not embrace each other's
platforms before we come together to press for reform of our
election system.
Conversely the
Malaysians know that with a genuinely free and fair election
system in place, they will win many more seats and position
themselves to take over as government. They know that only when
the foundation of a democratic system is in place will the
opposition thrive...Question: Why should the opposition in
Singapore be any less ambitious and forward looking?
|
Lessons
from our cousins up north
12 Nov 07
The
protest rally in Kuala Lumpur conducted by the pro-democracy
forces in Malaysia on Saturday was nothing short of historical.
In there are many lessons for us in Singapore.
The most
glaring one is, of course, the fact that there were 39,996 people
more than the limit for public gatherings (yes, the
five-or-more-people-constitutes-an-illegal-assembly law is also
in play up north).
All of them had broken the law which,
by the way, was put in place by the British colonial government
to prevent the locals they lorded over from coming together.
"Respectable" opposition must operate within
the bounds of the law
Among the tens of thousands of
law-breakers were people like Mr Anwar Ibrahim and Mr Lim Kit
Siang.
Mr Anwar is the former deputy prime minister and
finance minister while Mr Lim Kit Siang is the chief of the
biggest opposition party in Malaysia, the Democratic Action Party
(DAP).
Why are these factoids important? Singaporeans, it
seems, like their political leaders "respectable" and
"credible". Apart from being university graduates with
a string of letters following their names, politicians must not
be seen to be on the street acting like dissidents.
Messrs
Anwar and Lim don't come any more "respectable" by
Singapore standards. In fact, Mr Anwar was recently invited to
speak in Singapore by the establishment and Mr Lim is not just an
MP but the official Leader of the Opposition in the Malaysian
parliament.
Yet these people were out on the street,
encouraged by the Agung no
less (our equivalent of President Nathan), breaking an old
and repressive British law in order to reclaim the right of
freedom of assembly for their people.
This begs the huge
question: Are we in Singapore somehow intellectually and morally
superior to our counterparts in Malaysia, not to mention Hong
Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, etc?
Or has our notion of what
constitutes "respectable" and "credible" been
crimped by our rulers and thereafter relentlessly pounded into
our psyche?
Disconcertingly, some of our fellow
oppositionists insist that our reform efforts must be conducted
within the bounds of the law even when the laws are unjust and
even as the PAP continues to pass more laws to proscribe the
development of democracy.
Opposition must unite
One
of the many criticisms Singaporeans have about the opposition in
this country is that its various players cannot come together to
present a united front against the PAP. The Singapore Democrats
concede that this is a drawback (read here
also).
Contrast this with the
Malaysians where the four main and very disparate opposition
parties came together under the umbrella of BERSIH, a loosely
organised group formed to push for political reform.
In
terms of ideology the difference between PAS (Parti Islam
SeMalaysia), an Islamist party, and DAP, a socialist party that
draws its main support from the Malaysian Chinese community, is
chalk and cheese.
Yet on Nov 10, they put aside these
differences and accentuated what they had in common which is that
they are toiling under a system that did not practice free and
fair elections.
In Singapore, one would find it a lot
harder to identify the ideological differences between the WP,
SDA, and SDP. And yet, it seems that the chances of our parties
coming together are even more remote than our Minister Mentor
becoming a democrat.
Clearly, the opposition camp needs
to work on this and to this end the Singapore Democrats accept
our responsibility in this endeavour.
Just like the DAP
does not have to buy into PAS' party objects and vice versa,
opposition parties in Singapore need not embrace each other's
platforms before we come together to press for reform of our
election system.
The opposition must win more seats
first
The conventional wisdom is that the opposition
can only strengthen its hand by winning more seats in parliament
and eventually take over as the ruling party. By its very
definition, however, conventional wisdom is not necessarily true.
In an autocratic state like Singapore, opposition parties
will not be allowed to win enough seats to threaten the power of
the ruling elite.
Our Malaysian counterparts understand
this very well and have taken action to press for change to their
electoral system.
Why can't we do the same in Singapore?
Is it because the Malaysians have less to lose? Between DAP, PAS
and KeAdilan, the Malaysian opposition controls 9.2 percent of
the seats in the house (compared to Singapore's 2.4 percent). In
addition, PAS governs the state of Terengganu.
Clearly,
the Malaysian opposition stands to lose much more if the
government goes on a witch-hunt following last Saturday's mass
rally. Yet they know that any punitive action the Malaysian
Government takes would anger the electorate even more and bring
on international censure.
But why can't they stick it
out, hold more ceremahs, visit more households, shake more
hands, and win even more seats in parliament at the upcoming
elections? After all, they have already won 20 seats in the
house. Why not just build on it? Why civil disobedience?
The
simple answer is they know that with the control of elections in
the hands of the ruling coalition, any gains they make could be
wiped out when rules are changed.
Conversely they know
that with a genuinely free and fair election system in place,
they will win many more seats and position themselves to take
over as government. They know that only when the foundation of a
democratic system is in place will the opposition thrive.
Without reform, they will be like us in Singapore forever
consigned to token roles.
Question: Why should the
opposition in Singapore be any less ambitious and forward
looking?
Civil society must be non-partisan
Civil
society in Singapore is deathly afraid to be associated with the
opposition lest it be seen as being partisan.
But the
BERSIH protest was a collaboration of opposition parties and
NGOs. Is civil society in Malaysia any less protective of their
independence?
The reality is that NGOs in Malaysia are
able to distinguish between being non-partisan versus being
non-political. Joining forces with opposition groups to push for
political reform is not to indulge in partisanship.
NGOs
know that they exist to champion the interests of the society,
whatever sectors they may belong to. When freedom and democracy
are suppressed, their work is hampered. When this happens they
join hands with the opposition to establish a free society.
Fighting for justice and human rights is a political act,
not a partisan one.
Civil society in Singapore must
appreciate this distinction. Given the political state that our
society is in, the opposition and civil society must work
together to push for reform.
Again, we must breakout from
the mind cage that the PAP has put us in. A case in point is the
NTUC. While NGOs are cautioned against participating in politics,
the NTUC is not only political (it supported the late Ong Teng
Cheong's candidacy for president) but also partisan (it is run by
PAP ministers and MPs).
Conclusion
Democracy
in Singapore does not have a bright future because of two
factors. One of them is, of course, fear. The other is no less
potent. It is our mindset. As long as we are intellectually
crippled, we cannot hope to look beyond the mental wheelchair
that the PAP as put us in.
We, especially the opposition
and civil society leaders, desperately need to challenge the
boundaries of debate and action put in place by the ruling
clique. The responsibility falls on us to shift the political
paradigm that has been in place for far too long.
Ultimately
it boils down to us controlling our own minds for if we fail to
do so, the PAP assuredly will.
Also watch
video
of Dr Chee Soon Juan's message on this subject.
|
|
