How is the line to be drawn between what is a crime and what is not?

Criminal lawyers speak of the two elements of harm and culpability. We are concerned here only with the first – criminal activity must entail some sort of recognizable and more or less tangible harm to others. The criminal law declares it to be a crime, as notice to all that if anyone wishes nonetheless to engage in them, there will be consequences. The rules of criminal procedure and evidence prescribe the manner in which someone is to be prosecuted and found guilty of a crime.

Ultimately, the rules of sentencing and punishment govern how the criminal offender is to be punished. The reason for criminal punishment has been variously explained as incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation of the offender, deterrence of would-be offenders, and satisfaction of the victim and of the public.

Does 377A match up?

Just how far 377A is from this model of criminality is striking.

The government has been strangely silent about the harm that 377A is intended to prevent. Indeed consistent statements over a number of years from the highest officials of the land lead any reasonable observer to think that the government no longer believes, if indeed it did before, that the sort of activity contemplated by 377A is harmful at all. If corroboration were required, it lies in the repeated assurances of the government that 377A will not be enforced – apparently because there is no harm to be prevented, no offender to be rehabilitated, no potential offender to be deterred, and no victim to be satisfied.

One might, of course, disagree with the government’s position on the harmfulness of 377A activity, but once that position is taken, how can it be right for 377A activity to remain a crime? The fact that “public feedback” had been “emotional, divided and strongly expressed” is interesting, but surely not the end of the matter – for informed lawmaking must critically examine why there is such a difference of opinion.

Those who seek the repeal of 377A have rather less to explain – if it is the official position that the activity concerned is not harmful, or sufficiently harmful to require penal consequences, it does seem to follow that it ought no longer to be a crime. Those who advocate the retention of 377A are in a more difficult position, for any convincing argument for their view must rest on a belief which is contrary to the implicit official one – that 377A activity does indeed involve a significant enough harm.

The government’s decision to retain 377A in the light of its rejection of the principle argument for its retention – that of harm to the community – is surprising.

It was not retained because it has any merit in itself, or because the government buys into the arguments of those seeking its retention. It was left in the Penal Code because of a desire not to offend those who seek its retention.

Yet the management of activity which does not really harm but merely offend ought surely to involve a balance of interests – between the interests of those who want to engage in the activity and those who are offended by others engaging in it.

How do the advocates of retention benefit by leaving 377A in the books? Not much at all – for the “prohibition” will not be enforced, people will continue to engage that activity and they will, presumably, continue to be offended.

The power of symbolism?

But would the mere existence of 377A not be a needed symbol, in their view, of disapproval?

Perhaps, but what a tattered and confused symbol it will be – there is not to be, and has never been, such a symbol for “gross indecency” between two women, nor is there any for “gross indecency” between a man and another man who has been sexually reassigned surgically as a woman, and what one might have thought to be a far less controversial symbol of “family values” – the offence of enticing a married woman in order to commit adultery with her – is to be repealed, apparently without the objection of those who argued for the retention of 377A.

On the other side of the equation, how does retention of 377A harm those who might engage in activity “prohibited” by that provision? It is true that there are these assurances of non-enforcement, but this is not the same as a repeal of 377A. The present policy of non-enforcement can be changed, and changed without notice for whatever reason the government of the day deems fit.

More than that, while 377A may not be enforced, discriminatory policies can potentially be built on the logic of its existence – thus public “entertainment” licences can conceivably be denied to speakers who are thought to be sympathetic to 377A activity, on the basis that it is, after all, still criminal. Societies seeking the repeal of 377A can be denied registration on a similar ground.

The balance of interests that is struck by the retention of 377A is not a happy one. In order to spare the feelings of those who object to such activity, which the government acknowledges to be insufficiently harmful to be enforced, 377A is to remain, with the potential to be used without notice, and to be invoked as the basis of other discriminatory policies.

The government displays much wisdom in letting “the situation evolve”, but situations like these do not evolve by the force of nature. It is trite that in a democracy conflicting ideas and those who hold them contend for the community’s acceptance. The role of government, where no sufficient harm is involved, must be to be neutral, allowing both parties to try to persuade the public of their views.

Neutrality is not achieved by retaining 377A, but by its repeal.

Employment of the criminal law to prohibit activity which the government does not really think ought to be prohibited, on the sole basis that “the majority” wants it to be prohibited, is fraught with danger.

The moral force of the criminal law is blunted if there are crimes which are, the government assures the public, never to be enforced, and its “perpetrators” never brought to court and punished.

It demeans the individual to have his behaviour, which is presumably important to him and which the government does not think is harmful to society, to be labeled a crime, and him a criminal. The criminal laws are the ground rules of our society and if it is to be accorded the respect it deserves, it must be reserved for conduct which the government considers to be clearly harmful to society.

What was more disconcerting was how her comparison of “homosexual anal sex to ‘shoving a straw up your nose to drink’ was greeted with thunderous applause in Parliament.” [See here]

A letter to the Straits Times said, "She peppered her arguments with wit, drawing applause from the viewing gallery and getting many MPs thumping their seats."

The reaction of the MPs, more than that of the public in the public gallery, must give pause to Singaporeans who would like to see civility and rational discussion and consideration of issues in the highest law-making institution in the land.

One wonders if our MPs are not homophobes – for how could one bring oneself to applaud such a speech?

Be that as it may, it sheds light on the possible (real) reason behind the government’s adamant insistence on retaining a law which many have so eloquently debunked as unconstitutional, nonsensical and a mockery of our legal system. Indeed, the government itself finds the act of consensual sex between two adult males to be harmless that it even promises not to enforce the law.

Which brings one to this - if one were to consider the main arguments of the government for retention of s377A, one is hard-pressed to find any logic behind any of the main reasons.

The main arguments can be distilled to one - that “society” is not ready to move on the matter. This has been the government’s position, reiterated in recent times by various ministers as well.

"I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," then Education Minister Lui Tuck Yew said in 2007.

"If the majority of our population is against homosexuality, then it's not for the Government to say we are going to force something against the wishes of the people," Law Minister K Shanmugam was reported to have said in 2009.

“Singapore society is not likely to come to a conclusion on gay rights, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong signalled yesterday that the status quo will remain,” the TODAY newspaper reported in January 2013.

“Why is that law on the books? Because it’s always been there and I think we just leave it,” PM Lee said.

PM Lee’s argument is a ridiculous one. It implies that we should or could never ever remove any laws because all the laws currently in the books would have “always been there” too. But one would not want to be facetious, like advocating, effectively, governance by populism – which is what the ministers are implying, in fact. It is the very thing which the ruling People’s Action Party has always abhorred. Shall we then rule or govern by referendum, with government departments replaced by survey committees?

But let’s look at this oft-repeated reason offered as argument to retain the anti-homosexual law.

What is this “society” which is often cited? Who makes up this “society”? How do we determine what this “society” thinks?

Of course, no answers to these questions have been given by those who cite “society” as their reason for not moving on s377A. It is a rather mysterious entity invoked to support one’s desires at any one time – "society" somehow seemed ready to accept gambling and casinos, abortion, and even anal and oral sex between heterosexual couples, but this same “society” is invoked again to justify retaining an archaic, anachronistic law - and to criminalise the same anal sex between two homosexual male. [Incidentally, "society" also seems to accept lesbianism.]

The bottom line to all the arguments is that the Penal Code is a set of law which our society lives by, and one which we adhere to, to protect society and to punish those who flout the rules in it.

In short, it is to deal with criminal activities which “must entail harm to others that is recognisable and tangible.  In other words, if an act does not harm others, then it should not be a crime,” as then-NMP Siew Kum Hong said, in 2007.

NUS Law Professor Michael Hor wrote in that same year,

"The Government has been strangely silent about the harm that section 377A is intended to prevent.  Indeed, consistent statements over a number of years from the highest officials of the land lead any reasonable observer to think that the Government no longer believes, if indeed it did before, that the sort of activity contemplated by section 377A is harmful at all.  If corroboration were required, it lies in the repeated assurances of the Government that section 377A will not be enforced - apparently because there is no harm to be prevented, no offender to be rehabilitated, no potential offender to be deterred, and no victim to be satisfied.”

So, what is it that we are criminalising? Thin air?

As for “society” not being ready to move on repeal, MP Hri Kumar said it well in Parliament in 2007:

"Further, while society may frown on homosexuality, that, by itself, does not justify criminalising it.  A number of speakers, at least one of them, have highlighted the surveys in the Straits Times where the public was polled and 70% were said to frown on homosexuality.  I can understand that.  Seventy per cent frowned on it.  But how many actually said that they were willing to criminalise it?  That question was not even asked, and that is a serious question because that is the issue we face today."

In February, PM Lee said we should “agree to disagree on gay rights.” If only it were a trivial matter of no consequence, like, let’s agree to disagree that durians are fragrant.

The fact that we had an NMP in Parliament spewing hate speech and fellow MPs reacting with “thunderous applause” and “thumping their seats” in approval tells you that agreeing to disagree is the least of it.

What we should be more concerned with is the insidious homophobia which may already have wormed its way into the House among some of our Members of Parliament. For there is nothing else to call it, given that all other arguments and defence to criminalise the sexual activity of two consenting male adults make no sense whatsoever. Indeed, the government itself admits as much by its pledge of non-enforcement.

For no one who believes in the words and beliefs enshrined in our Pledge would find it conscionable to applaud bigotry, especially when one is also a representative of the people – the very people, or “society”, which one also cites to, in fact, justify that bigotry.

The defence of retaining section 377A thus has nothing to do with whether society is ready to set the law aside. If that were the reason, the issue would and could be easily settled with a national referendum. Nah, “society” is a red herring, a smokescreen, a passing-of-the-buck even, if you will. The real reason has, instead, everything to do with the personal attitudes of our individual MPs toward gay people and the gay community.

And how do we know what their attitudes are?

Just look at those who were cheering the bigotry expressed in Parliament in 2007.

That is what we should be concerned about more - that not a single MP spoke up against that kind of hate speech.

-------------

READ this elegant rebuttal of Thio Li Ann's speech by Janadas Devan: "377A And The Rewriting of Pluralism".

READ also: "New ministry, old ideas" [under "Gay equality"].

Gilbert is familiar with unemployment, having gone through it himself.  “I myself went through a rough patch, was unemployed. 18 months of hell,” he says. “Nearly killed myself because of the debts I had.”

He managed to pull through that dark period and decided to use the experience to help others going through similar situations. He eventually got himself a certificate in counselling and later a graduate diploma.

He then worked with a Family Service Centre in Woodlands, doing social work, helping poor families. “Subsequently, I went into helping the disabled, working as a case officer, and later working with the jobless in the Central Singapore CDC in 2007.”

That’s where he realised that the PMETs were finding it tougher to find help as the CDCs were more focused on the lower-income, lower-educated, and lower-skilled. “Every month, I could see hundreds of these professional people coming forward. We couldn’t help them.” In the last recession, some 10,000 PMETs were laid off.

But even after starting transitioning.org with a few friends, his attempts at raising awareness and trying to instigate changes mostly went unnoticed or ignored.

His was a lone cry in the wilderness – until, ironically, the Government released its White Paper in February.

The protest he held a week after the paper’s release saw a turn-out of some 5,000 people at Speakers’ Corner. Even politicians like Jeanette Chong, Vincent Wijeysingha and Tan Jee Say were roped in to speak at the protest.

The Government’s perceived backpeddling from the 6.9 million population figure in the White Paper shows that it is important for Singaporeans to express their views on such matters collectively, Gilbert says. “They now say 6.9 million is just a projected figure, not a target,” he says. It is important for Singaporeans to continue to stand together because the problems faced by those whom  transisitoning.org counsels could very well be faced by others in time to come, he cautions.

“It’s difficult not to do something,” he says, referring to the cases he sees. “It eats at you everyday, when someone tells you, ‘I lost my job, had to handover to this foreign talent.’ Or, ‘I’m retrenched because they bring in a foreigner to replace me.’ So when you hear so many cases, they cannot be fabricated. It makes you want to take action.”

“Unemployment causes insecurity,” he explains, “lack of confidence, and many marital issues when a breadwinner loses his job, including losing the trust and faith of their families.”

He relates the case of a 50-year old. “He was retrenched and could not get another IT job. He had all these certificates, including a Masters degree. Still he couldn’t get a job. His family ostracised him, they don’t care what reasons you give. You’re excluded from family gatherings, even dinners.”

It was because of this that transitioning.org decided to start a support service 2 years ago for divorcees. “We see many social problems caused by joblessness, which I think the government has not addressed yet,” Gilbert (who is also divorced) says.

His main concern remains the discrimination at the work place, either through unfair practices by companies, or through policies of the Government. While the authorities have urged employers to play fair and have tightened up some areas with regards to the issuance of work permits and such, Gilbert feels the situation has not improved. “I don’t think so because people still write in, people still say, ‘I went for many interviews and still can’t get a job.’ People still say, ‘I’m in my 40s, I’m experienced, but I still can’t get a job.’ Ageism is another big problem. Like, once you’re above 40, you’re like a dead duck.”

With the Government insisting that Singapore needs a bigger population to continue to thrive economically, especially with an ageing population and a declining birth rate, some feel that the current problems will only be exacerbated.

“I think some [Singaporeans] fear that they might be the minority in 17 years’ time,” Gilbert says. “I think that has shaken a lot of people. Some say that we’ve been sold out by our government.”

It is perhaps this fear, this uncertainty of the future which brings with it a sense of insecurity, which saw the large crowd at Hong Lim Park in February – the biggest post-Independence protest in Singapore.

However, his passionate championing of the cause of the unemployed, especially with his series of “Singaporeans First” events the last few years, has attracted criticisms that he is fanning xenophobia from some quarters. Gilbert sees this as unfortunate because he sees it as being pro-Singaporeans rather than being anti-foreigners. Even all the major political parties in S’pore have championed a pro-Singapore, pro-Singaporean cause.

Gilbert also points out that at transitioning.org, besides having a foreigner as one of its coaches, the organisation also provides help to unemployed foreigners when approached.

“There aren’t many of them,” Gilbert says. “But they include Indian PRs, PRC Chinese, converted citizens. They need the support. We are probably their last avenue. But I’m glad they see us, we will help them too.” However, he readily admits that transitioning.org’s primary focus is Singaporean workers. Increasingly, he says, those approaching his society for help are from the younger set too.

“The bulk of [the people we see] are in their late-30s to mid-40s. Increasingly, we’re seeing mid-30s and even early-30s,” he says. “Some have been working for long periods, like 7, 8 years, when they’re told to leave. The reason could be because their pay has become too high, or maybe the company needs fresh blood. And fresh blood often means foreign talent, so they come and replace locals. But we also have locals who job-hop. I don’t deny this.” There are also cases where foreign nationals and companies prefer to hire workers from their own countries, rather than to hire Singaporeans.

Such seemingly discriminatory practices were raised by several MPs in Parliament in March. They called on the Government to do more to ensure that employers give Singaporean workers fair treatment.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, said: "There are clearly still a number of firms that had visibly hired a large proportion of foreigners particularly in the managerial level. You can't help but think whether it is really that difficult to find Singaporeans to fill those managerial positions. These include job roles like HR, finance, compliance, auditing or general admin.

"Or is it a case where some employers or hirers may already have pre-determined mindset that foreigners with international experience can do a better job?”

The Manpower Ministry has said it will continue to tighten criteria for Employment Pass or EP holders.

In the meantime, it is important for Singaporeans to be aware of the consequences of an enlarged foreign population, Gilbert says, not only on present workers or Singaporeans but also on future generations.

“Those who attended the first event [in February], a number of them came for their children, amazingly,” Gilbert explains. “I’d spoken to some parents who are jobless themselves, they said they were at Speakers’ Corner for their children. They say to me, ‘Ya, I’m already 50, jobless, and this 6.9 million thing will hit my children in 17 years’ time.’ Already now with 5.3 million, they themselves (the parents) are facing competition for jobs and space and of course sky-high property prices.”

For the longest time, the unemployed have been silent because of shame, or fear, or resignation to their circumstances. The February event, however, has given some of them hope.

“I also receive emails which touch me,” Gilbert says. “One of them sent me an email – with just one line. It’s the best email I’ve received, out of hundreds, after the February event. It said, ‘Gilbert, your event gives me hope to live on.’ I think that is marvellous. I think this guy must have been feeling hopeless, that by himself, he could not do anything. But when masses of people gather together, at last there is some hope in our society. All along, the government can just produce policy after policy and you can’t do anything about it. But now I think he sees that there is hope.”

It is this hope for a better Singapore which is at the heart of the series of protests – a better Singapore for Singaporeans.

As for the man himself, he finds encouragement that more people have come forward to support his society’s work.

“Many who found jobs and came back to volunteer with us also make me feel that I am not doing a thankless job,” Gilbert says.

And his is also a lone voice no more.

----------------------------

Details of the event:

Title: For A Better Singapore

Venue: Speakers’ Corner (Hong Lim Park)

Date: 1 May 2013

Time: 4pm – 7pm

Facebook: For A Better Singapore

{youtube}r3_cAvqmyq0|600|450|0{/youtube}

The request has puzzled Mr Goh. He says that for all his past events at Speakers’ Corner, he never had to apply for a police permit, including the earlier protest on 16 February. “No one asked me to apply for any police permit regarding foreigners attending or helping to organise the past protest events we held for almost three years,” he says. “All our helpers and organisers are locals.”

Also, the rule seems not to be applicable to this event as there are no foreigners involved in the organising of the event, nor would there be any foreigners participating in any of the activities on that day, whether as speakers or otherwise, Mr Goh says. “We won’t purposely ask foreigners to come by the event also,” Mr Goh said.

He said that he will not be applying for a police permit for the event as the rules for Speakers’ Corner do not require it.

"I don’t think we will be complying with Nparks’ request for application for a police permit as we don’t have any foreigners helping to organise or speak at the event,” Mr Goh said.

He has yet to hear from Nparks since he informed them of this.

He said he will, however, dissuade foreigners from attending the event in order to prevent any problems with the authorities.

“If by merely attending the event means you are participating then we will need a permit for that,” he said. “We will want to err on the side of caution and ask foreigners not to attend the event altogether to prevent any misunderstanding with the law.”

The rules for Speakers’ Corner were relaxed in 2008, to allow for demonstrations and to do away with police approval for activities held there, except those to do with race or religious issues. Subsequently, there were events held at the park to support foreign causes too – such as in 2009 when Singaporeans and Burmese nationals - who showed up in the hundreds - held a vigil there calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.

In his first National Day Rally speech in August 2004, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke of letting “a hundred flowers bloom” at Speakers’ Corner:

“They want to turn the flowers down, go ahead. I mean, free expression as long as you don't get into race and religion and don't start a riot. It's a signal – speak, speak your voice, be heard, take responsibility for your views and opinions.”

Almost 10 years on, however, it seems the rules are still unclear on what kinds of flowers are allowed to bloom there.

In the meantime, for the event on 1 May, Mr Goh is confident that it will attract just as enthusiastic a response from Singaporeans as the first one in February. It will proceed as planned, he said.

After Singapore became independent, there was a huge drive to build the nation. Of course, we were a new country just separated from Malaysia, we had to navigate a new and uncertain road, galvanize ourselves, forge a new identity, and find a way to survive and grow. We’ve all sat through this history lesson in school, and some of us have even lived it in real life.

Nationalism became a big part of molding the new Singaporean. Efforts that promoted national identity were launched, of which these are but a few examples: campaigns that told us we were Singaporean first, Chinese, Malay and Indian second; Chinese being asked to jiang huayi [speak mandarin] over their dialects; the entire country trumpeting National Day songs year after year and National Education being introduced to schools. ‘We are Singapore-Singapore-re-ans!’ we chorused in unison.

We were also told that we were number one in many things: from our business environment to our airport to our children’s math scores.

(For an interesting list of Singapore’s rankings, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_rankings_of_Singapore, but please take this with a pinch of salt.)

Foreigners (mainly westerners) who dared to criticize Singapore, whether our education, our culture, our media or our appropriated form of democracy, have been censured for trying to impose their Western ideas and values on us and clearly not understanding just how uniquely Singaporean we are. No one, not even the most powerful countries in the world, was going to tell the Lion City what to do or how to do it. And foreigners who praised Singapore were reported on glowingly in the mainstream media as if to say, ‘See, this shows that we have got it right.’

Some of this nationalism has been great for us, even necessary—Singaporeans are now a confident, well-educated lot, with a strong sense of who we are.

But there’s a flip side—a lot of this nationalism was presented using propaganda—telling only one side of the story and omitting other views in order to shape our attitudes and beliefs in a concerted direction that facilitated ‘nation building’.

As a result, we’re sometimes also arrogant, intolerant, have an overly rigid sense of ‘the Singapore way’, are prone to self-congratulations, and can be somewhat myopic in our worldview.

We’re used to things working smoothly, we’re comfortable in our Singaporean community, we’re used to thinking its our way or the highway. We’re used to being a success story. We don’t take criticism well.

When the current wave of difficult social and economic conditions descended on us, they triggered the ugly face of nationalism. Pride turned into hatred; a sense of identity into ‘you are not one of us’, and confidence into superiority, in many instances.

So maybe our government needs to revisit some of this patriotism. Tone it down, climb down from the high ground and drop the propaganda—whether in the obvious form of posters, taglines, songs, campaigns, exhibitions or in its more insidious manipulation of the media.

Because while loving one’s country is always a good thing, maybe we have been taught to love our country a little too much for our own good.

The violence of the crime shook me with a ferocity that I have never quite forgotten. Shepard and I had been almost the same age at the time. And while I'd never hidden the fact that I was gay, the urgent realisation that such hatred for queer people exists is what pushed me, unequivocally, out of the closet for good. The image of Shepard that I stared at online for hours remains embedded in my memory today; it reminds me of why I must exist, visibly, as a queer person: because there are simply too many of us who can’t.

Tonight’s judgment upholding 377A has not just made me angry; it has literally and justifiably distressed me. I am distressed about what this judgment says about our courts, about what it implies for my friends who are gay and male, about what it says about this country and about how it affects my relationship with my country-of-birth.

The lead-up to this court case was nothing new: religious leaders encroaching upon secular society, political leaders hurting their behinds on fences, slippery-slope arguments pivoting the fate of an entire nation’s moral fabric upon whether or not the sex lives of homosexual men continue to remain criminalized – a claim so baseless that it would be laughable if the inanity of its constant regurgitation was not so mind-numbing. Oh, and let’s not forget the 377A-suporters who petitioned the government to invest taxpayer money into “conducting a comprehensive study into the ill-effects of promoting homosexuality in culture”. Er. Right. Because honest socio-cultural inquiry involves conducting a “comprehensive study”  based on conclusions one has already come to.

If this is the level of discourse Singapore is leaning towards, then our aspirations to become a first-world nation –a nation of compassionate hearts, critical minds and progressive debate– is doomed.

And if the ill-will and ignorance propagated against queer people online prior to this court case is not reason enough to repeal 377A, I don’t know what is. The fact that a senior pastor responded to the debate with what sounded pretty much like a battle-cry, set alarm bells off in many heads: He told his church that “we must not be oblivious to our responsibility as an army to push back the powers of darkness”, that the church “must get herself into battle footing, and be battle-ready”, that “the first salvo was fired”, that “churches are beginning to mobilise themselves”, that “the war will be winnable” and that “the church will arise victorious”.

If one religious community had raised this "war-cry" against another, I am pretty sure that the law would have intervened in half the time it took him to take the incriminating evidence of his own violent imagination out of his post. But because it was a rally-cry against equal rights for homosexuals, no action has been taken and his “apology” has seemed to suffice. Double-standards, much?

During the Shepard case, the murderers’ lawyers claimed “gay panic” in defense of the crime, as if it was a justifiable reason to torture and murder someone. Even after they were found guilty, it took a decade of politics following Shepard's tragic death for Wyoming to finally pass a hate crime bill pertaining to sexual orientation. Even in those final proceedings, Republican Party member Virginia Foxx, in an effort to block it, claimed that Shepard’s death being called a “hate crime” was a hoax.

Does Singapore need a similar tragedy to occur for our courts to understand the importance and role of the law in relation to minority communities? Does Singapore need a similar tragedy to occur in order for us to abolish laws that actively and/or tangentially persecute specific groups of people?

If all people are not afforded equality under the law, then the law exists solely to serve the ideologies of a select few.  By retaining this law on grounds that “the courts’ power to intervene can only be exercised with established principles” and that the issues in this present case “is not one which… justifies heavy-handed judicial intervention”, what the court is essentially saying is that its job encompasses waiting for tides to change before it officiates any “difficult” decisions… even if it believes in the fairness of those decisions. Is it therefore adopting the role of an administrator of the status quo rather than the role of an institution that stands for justice?  If this is the case, I am not sure what the courts are there for, because from my experience, the status quo tends to take care of itself just fine.

One of the repeated arguments reiterated by supporters of the status quo was the idea that repealing 377A will lead to the destruction of the basic family unit and the moral fabric of society. That is where conservatives and I have something in common: the idea of family is important to me. And I believe that anything powerful enough to destroy families or demean the moral fabric of society needs to be dealt with. Let me give you a few examples:

I have a friend who was beaten up by his father when he came out as gay, and subsequently sent to another country. I have another who was dragged across the floor by her hair and thrown out of the house. Late last year, the media covered a story about a group of public bus-drivers in uniform who hurled derogatory words at a transgendered woman for simply existing in a public space. A few months ago, the papers covered a story about a woman who was gang-raped in an effort to "correct" her sexuality.

This is what breaks up family units and destroys the moral fabric of our society; beliefs – cultural or otherwise -  that demonise, stigmatise, alienate and harm fellow human beings. Not people fighting to repeal an archaic colonial statute that labels people criminals based on who they have consensual sex with. Take it from first-hand experience, if you must: When I was twelve, I was “exorcised” against my will; a seven-hour-long ordeal intended to cast “lesbian demons” out of my body. Four years later, when my mother found out I was dating a girl, she informed me that I was going to hell.

These stories are all around us. If you have not seen or heard them, then you are going out of your way to not see or hear them. And if the court is telling us that legally-induced stigma does not add to already rampant culturally-induced stigma, then it is practising denial, and not justice.

The trouble is that 377A is not just about criminalisation of homosexual sex. It is a symbol that says, yeah, it's legitimate, based on sexual orientation, to deny a graduate a teaching job, to deny a teenager a role model on television, to tell someone that they are less of a legitimate human being. It is sending a message to the public, telling them that it is ok to label someone else not of your sexual orientation a faggot, dyke, ah qua, sinner, deviant, sick because technically, they should be in jail anyway. It is a symbol that says it is legitimate for religious leaders to position satire as fact and demonise an entire community by claiming that gay men want to "sodomise your sons". It validates and is rooted in the very same violence that drives gay teens to suicide, drives wedges between parents and children, leads to pretend marriages that end in shambles. It is a statute that effectively institutionalises inequality.

Dear High Court: I would like my male, gay friends to not be criminalized under my country’s “justice” system. I would like to dispense with a law that institutionalises discrimination against LGBT people in secular society. I would like the homophobia that 337A helps perpetuate to not end in me or anyone I love being bullied, beat up, called names, sexually assaulted, dismissed from their jobs. I would like to live in a country that values families, children and general humanity enough to understand that the discrimination 377A perpetuates does not sit well in a society “based on justice and equality”.

Dear High Court: I would like for all this to happen before it takes a tragedy to open our eyes to the fact that discrimination against homosexual people is not the mark of a “kinder and gentler society” and not at all a symbolic gesture of “My Singapore”.

Dear High Court: I am not prepared to wait for "democratic change" to occur at such a cost. And when it comes to justice, I am not prepared to wait at all.

“For the state, it offers significant protection to our law enforcement officers against groundless allegations that they threatened the accused or subjected the accused to duress,” she explained.

Her call to video record statements of accused was supported by People’s Action Party MP, Hri Kumar.

Below is the parliamentary exchange between Ms Lim, Mr Kumar, and the Senior Minister of State (Law), Ms Indranee Rajah, and the Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam, on the matter.

All four are lawyers, incidentally.

--------------------

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Recently, there has been a number of high profile cases where the time of the court has been taken up to determine whether statements of the accused and witnesses were properly recorded, or accurately represent their evidence. I had raised in 2010 the possibility of having a more independent check on this process and that would include having the statements recorded by video – by having a video recording of the statement-taking process – or at least having an independent third party like a Commissioner for Oath sign off on the statement before they are made final. These would cut down the costs of trial – of court time – to determine the integrity and accuracy of the statements and will give more confidence in the reliability of these statements when they are used in court.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): I would like to revisit the suggestion to video record the statements given by accused persons in custody, which Mr Hri Kumar just touched on.

This practice of video recording is in place in various jurisdictions, including Australia, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Taiwan. Its purpose is as a safeguard, to ensure that the person in custody gave his statement voluntarily and that the words in the statement fell from the accused’s own lips and were not force-fed.

I first raised this issue during MinLaw’s COS five years ago in 2008. At that time, the Goverment’s response was that video recording does not ensure that statements are voluntarily given. In 2011, MinLaw made a similar response after the Ismil Kadar case.

While I agree that video recording is not a fool-proof guarantee against impropriety or allegations of such, the benefits of doing so are undeniable and accrue to both the state and the defence. For the state, it offers significant protection to our law enforcement officers against groundless allegations that they threatened the accused or subjected the accused to duress. Footage of the statement recording will show the demeanour of the accused and the recording officer, to enable the court to come to certain conclusions about whether the accused’s will was sapped through sleep deprivation or he was not in a proper frame of mind during the recording. Furthermore, statements are often challenged by the defence on the ground that the words in the statement were put in by the recording officer and did not come from the accused. A video recording will settle that question decisively.

In other countries, video recording has been found to save Police and Court time, as both sides may decide not to pursue certain matters after viewing the recording. At the same time, it is a safeguard to maintaining high standards of law enforcement. We in Singapore may need this safeguard even more, since an arrested person’s right to see counsel under arrest is so limited. Would the Government at least re-think its position on this issue or at least for capital cases?

Senior Minister of State for Education and Law (Ms Indranee Rajah): Both Ms Lim and Mr Hri Kumar raised the issue of video recording. The issue of video recording is an operational matter relating to police investigations and it comes more directly under the purview of Ministry of Home Affairs. However, MinLaw understands from MHA that there are currently no plans to introduce video recording for the taking of statements. MHA’s position is that the issue of video recording as well as other operational issues should be looked at in the following manner: there should be a fair system which seeks to ensure that crimes are solved, and the system should also seek to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected. If an accused wishes to challenge the statement given by him, there are clear avenues available today.

On the question of whether this regime can be re-thought, over the years, MHA has introduced a number of changes, and it is MHA’s intention to continue to look at the processes. I think the Government recognises the rationale behind the suggestions made by Mr Hri Kumar and Ms Lim. That rationale, together with other considerations, will be considered in the light of evolving circumstances when MHA further reviews its processes.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Madam. Two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State on her response to my cuts. The first is regarding the disclosure regime and whether other statutes, for example, the PCA, would be brought under it. The Senior Minister of State seemed to suggest that it is something discretionary and may or may not happen. But my question is: should we not proceed on the basis of whether there is any good reason why it should not be brought under that regime? After all, is it not desired to have uniformity in these pre-trial disclosures, especially for cases heard by the District Court?

The second clarification is concerning the issue of video recording. The Senior Minister of State appeared, in the gist of her remarks, to say that this issue is actually an MHA issue. Perhaps, she would like to clarify because, historically, MinLaw has taken ownership of this issue of video recording, both in the CPC review in 2010 as well as certain statements made to the media about this issue.

I would like to ask: does MinLaw not have an interest in the standards of evidence brought before the Court? And how Court time is used? In fact, Mr Kumar also alluded to the fact that much Court time is being used now to refute such allegations which I think video recording could somewhat mitigate. In other countries, it has been shown that prosecutors are pushing for this because they have found the value in video recording in the handling of trials. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what is actually MinLaw’s ownership of this issue or whether it is just something which they think MHA should take the lead on from now on?

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Madam, I will answer the question. The Government takes ownership of this issue. Obviously, the Member is entitled to ask the Government and someone has to answer. The gist of the response on video-recording is that, in the past when MinLaw took up the issue, it is often that the office-holders were double-hatting, or because of the specific context of the legislation before the House.

Now, today’s question is operational in nature: video-recording has to be done by the police if it is instituted, and the Member knows that.

Therefore, given the operational nature of the issue, given the fact that MHA agencies have to deal with it, they will have to assess whether it is feasible, whether they have the necessary resources, and what implications it has on their investigative procedures. On these operational issues, we defer to them. We are happy to relay the answer on their stance, but we also think that it would be more productive, in the specific context in which this question is raised, that it be put directly to MHA, perhaps in the form of a parliamentary question. But we are happy to respond, and we have responded today. We also recognise the rationale for the Member’s point, as well as Mr Kumar’s point, and we would put it across for MHA’s consideration. So, if the Member wishes to continue to raise the issue with MinLaw, we will be happy to answer; we are just making the additional point that the Member could consider specifically raising it with MHA.

In response to the Member’s point as to whether or not MinLaw is interested in making sure that standards of evidence in court are up to scratch – I would reply, yes, absolutely. We want to make sure of that, and as everyone can see from the moves that we have made in the last few years, and as the Member will recognise, standards have been refined considerably. I think the Member will welcome the changes, for example, to the disclosure regime. Last year, when we had a meeting with the members of the criminal bar, several stood up and welcomed the changes. One of them, a leading member, said, “This is the best time to practise at the defence bar.” But that does not mean that the current position is crystallised. We have to continuously evolve, look at the best practices, and we welcome suggestions by Members and others.

Secondly, as far as criminal case disclosure is concerned, again, we put it in because we believe that it is the right thing to do, and it has been put in place for many pieces of legislation. But let us see how it works before we expand it to other agencies, other pieces of legislation.

So that rationale has already been explained. The speed with which the regime can be expanded depends also on the ability to make sure that the agencies can comply with the processes, and whether they believe in that it is workable in their particular context. That is the case in the specific context of the CPIB and the PCA. That is also the case for other agencies and other pieces of legislation, and we will continue to have conversations with CPIB and other agencies on this.

-------------------------

Watch Texas exoneree Chris Ochoa explain how proper recording of his interrogation could have prevented his false confession.

{youtube}0xJlsxCGw9w|600|450|0{/youtube}

“For the state, it offers significant protection to our law enforcement officers against groundless allegations that they threatened the accused or subjected the accused to duress,” she explained.

Her call to video record statements of accused was supported by People’s Action Party MP, Hri Kumar.

Below is the parliamentary exchange between Ms Lim, Mr Kumar, and the Senior Minister of State (Law), Ms Indranee Rajah, and the Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam, on the matter.

All four are lawyers, incidentally.

--------------------

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Recently, there has been a number of high profile cases where the time of the court has been taken up to determine whether statements of the accused and witnesses were properly recorded, or accurately represent their evidence. I had raised in 2010 the possibility of having a more independent check on this process and that would include having the statements recorded by video – by having a video recording of the statement-taking process – or at least having an independent third party like a Commissioner for Oath sign off on the statement before they are made final. These would cut down the costs of trial – of court time – to determine the integrity and accuracy of the statements and will give more confidence in the reliability of these statements when they are used in court.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): I would like to revisit the suggestion to video record the statements given by accused persons in custody, which Mr Hri Kumar just touched on.

This practice of video recording is in place in various jurisdictions, including Australia, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Taiwan. Its purpose is as a safeguard, to ensure that the person in custody gave his statement voluntarily and that the words in the statement fell from the accused’s own lips and were not force-fed.

I first raised this issue during MinLaw’s COS five years ago in 2008. At that time, the Goverment’s response was that video recording does not ensure that statements are voluntarily given. In 2011, MinLaw made a similar response after the Ismil Kadar case.

While I agree that video recording is not a fool-proof guarantee against impropriety or allegations of such, the benefits of doing so are undeniable and accrue to both the state and the defence. For the state, it offers significant protection to our law enforcement officers against groundless allegations that they threatened the accused or subjected the accused to duress. Footage of the statement recording will show the demeanour of the accused and the recording officer, to enable the court to come to certain conclusions about whether the accused’s will was sapped through sleep deprivation or he was not in a proper frame of mind during the recording. Furthermore, statements are often challenged by the defence on the ground that the words in the statement were put in by the recording officer and did not come from the accused. A video recording will settle that question decisively.

In other countries, video recording has been found to save Police and Court time, as both sides may decide not to pursue certain matters after viewing the recording. At the same time, it is a safeguard to maintaining high standards of law enforcement. We in Singapore may need this safeguard even more, since an arrested person’s right to see counsel under arrest is so limited. Would the Government at least re-think its position on this issue or at least for capital cases?

Senior Minister of State for Education and Law (Ms Indranee Rajah): Both Ms Lim and Mr Hri Kumar raised the issue of video recording. The issue of video recording is an operational matter relating to police investigations and it comes more directly under the purview of Ministry of Home Affairs. However, MinLaw understands from MHA that there are currently no plans to introduce video recording for the taking of statements. MHA’s position is that the issue of video recording as well as other operational issues should be looked at in the following manner: there should be a fair system which seeks to ensure that crimes are solved, and the system should also seek to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected. If an accused wishes to challenge the statement given by him, there are clear avenues available today.

On the question of whether this regime can be re-thought, over the years, MHA has introduced a number of changes, and it is MHA’s intention to continue to look at the processes. I think the Government recognises the rationale behind the suggestions made by Mr Hri Kumar and Ms Lim. That rationale, together with other considerations, will be considered in the light of evolving circumstances when MHA further reviews its processes.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Madam. Two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State on her response to my cuts. The first is regarding the disclosure regime and whether other statutes, for example, the PCA, would be brought under it. The Senior Minister of State seemed to suggest that it is something discretionary and may or may not happen. But my question is: should we not proceed on the basis of whether there is any good reason why it should not be brought under that regime? After all, is it not desired to have uniformity in these pre-trial disclosures, especially for cases heard by the District Court?

The second clarification is concerning the issue of video recording. The Senior Minister of State appeared, in the gist of her remarks, to say that this issue is actually an MHA issue. Perhaps, she would like to clarify because, historically, MinLaw has taken ownership of this issue of video recording, both in the CPC review in 2010 as well as certain statements made to the media about this issue.

I would like to ask: does MinLaw not have an interest in the standards of evidence brought before the Court? And how Court time is used? In fact, Mr Kumar also alluded to the fact that much Court time is being used now to refute such allegations which I think video recording could somewhat mitigate. In other countries, it has been shown that prosecutors are pushing for this because they have found the value in video recording in the handling of trials. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what is actually MinLaw’s ownership of this issue or whether it is just something which they think MHA should take the lead on from now on?

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Madam, I will answer the question. The Government takes ownership of this issue. Obviously, the Member is entitled to ask the Government and someone has to answer. The gist of the response on video-recording is that, in the past when MinLaw took up the issue, it is often that the office-holders were double-hatting, or because of the specific context of the legislation before the House.

Now, today’s question is operational in nature: video-recording has to be done by the police if it is instituted, and the Member knows that.

Therefore, given the operational nature of the issue, given the fact that MHA agencies have to deal with it, they will have to assess whether it is feasible, whether they have the necessary resources, and what implications it has on their investigative procedures. On these operational issues, we defer to them. We are happy to relay the answer on their stance, but we also think that it would be more productive, in the specific context in which this question is raised, that it be put directly to MHA, perhaps in the form of a parliamentary question. But we are happy to respond, and we have responded today. We also recognise the rationale for the Member’s point, as well as Mr Kumar’s point, and we would put it across for MHA’s consideration. So, if the Member wishes to continue to raise the issue with MinLaw, we will be happy to answer; we are just making the additional point that the Member could consider specifically raising it with MHA.

In response to the Member’s point as to whether or not MinLaw is interested in making sure that standards of evidence in court are up to scratch – I would reply, yes, absolutely. We want to make sure of that, and as everyone can see from the moves that we have made in the last few years, and as the Member will recognise, standards have been refined considerably. I think the Member will welcome the changes, for example, to the disclosure regime. Last year, when we had a meeting with the members of the criminal bar, several stood up and welcomed the changes. One of them, a leading member, said, “This is the best time to practise at the defence bar.” But that does not mean that the current position is crystallised. We have to continuously evolve, look at the best practices, and we welcome suggestions by Members and others.

Secondly, as far as criminal case disclosure is concerned, again, we put it in because we believe that it is the right thing to do, and it has been put in place for many pieces of legislation. But let us see how it works before we expand it to other agencies, other pieces of legislation.

So that rationale has already been explained. The speed with which the regime can be expanded depends also on the ability to make sure that the agencies can comply with the processes, and whether they believe in that it is workable in their particular context. That is the case in the specific context of the CPIB and the PCA. That is also the case for other agencies and other pieces of legislation, and we will continue to have conversations with CPIB and other agencies on this.

-------------------------

Watch Texas exoneree Chris Ochoa explain how proper recording of his interrogation could have prevented his false confession.

{youtube}0xJlsxCGw9w|600|450|0{/youtube}

He was then brought to the police station at Cantonment complex. There, he stayed for the night - in a lock-up, on a hard floor with just a blanket - until about noon the next day. That was when the "interview" took place. Leslie said there was only one investigation officer who spoke to him. The officer, one ASP Alvin Phua, pointed to two cartoons in particular, which are the subject of the investigation and his arrest.

The first one had to do with a possible contempt of court charge. The second one is, perhaps, the allegedly seditious one, having to do with how the government supposedly "suppressed" the Malay community here.

Leslie gave several statements to the police subsequently. He was then asked to call his friends to post bail for him, which was set at S$10,000, he said. He was released on Sunday night at 8.45pm.

Leslie has not been charged. He is required to report back to the police on 30 April.

The news of his arrest was kept from the public because virtually no one knew that he had been arrested. And after his release on Sunday night, Leslie was so tired he slept through the whole of Monday. He said the concrete floor in the jail cell didn't allow him proper rest. On Monday evening, word got around that he had been arrested.

The news was reported by Yahoo on Tuesday evening and it quickly created an uproar online - with most condemning the authorities for the arrest, and others taking issue with the nature of Leslie's cartoons itself.

Whether one agrees with his views expressed in his drawings, or with the way he expresses them, or not, what should concern Singaporeans is, firstly, why it took so long for news of such an arrest to be made known. Secondly, how does one inform anyone of one's arrest? Thirdly, what are the rights, including access to a lawyer, which one has in such an event?

These are questions and issues which Singaporeans - and bloggers and online practitioners, in particular - should acquaint themselves with.

Besides these, there are also other concerns, such as the interpretation of the provisions of the Sedition Act, which has been used in several instances on bloggers and online commentators in recent years, and our defamation laws. What protection does the Constitution provide in terms of free speech and expression?

There may also be questions of the Attorney General's use of his prosecutorial discretion, a subject which was put before the courts in 2012. [See also here: "Law prof says reasons for deciding to prosecute in a case should be disclosed"]

The recent spate of legal action by members of the Government is also disconcerting in themselves. It has given rise to all sorts of conspiracy theories of a government clamp-down campaign on the Internet.

Whatever it is, it shows a government (and society) trying to navigate the relatively new terrain of cyberspace. How it will turn out may depend on the answers to the questions raised above; and on how much self-restraint the government is willing to exercise, in recognition of citizens' rights to free expression. The issue of one's rights will increasingly become more pronounced as Singaporeans assert their desire to express themselves more freely, especially on social media; and the Government reacts in the most familiar ways it knows how.

In the meantime, those like Leslie will continue to push the boundaries, even at the risk of inadvertently running into trouble with the authorities who, for now, do not seem very amused with his cartoons – or at least two of them.

But in that process of testing the limits, perhaps more clarity will emerge on the various aspects and applications of our laws. This latest incident is thus not just about any alleged seditious behaviour. It is about more than that.

The request has puzzled Mr Goh. He says that for all his past events at Speakers’ Corner, he never had to apply for a police permit, including the earlier protest on 16 February. “No one asked me to apply for any police permit regarding foreigners attending or helping to organise the past protest events we held for almost three years,” he says. “All our helpers and organisers are locals.”

There are no foreigners involved in the organising of the 1st May event either, Mr Goh says, nor would there be any foreigners participating in any of the activities on that day, whether as speakers or otherwise.“We won’t purposely ask foreigners to come by the event also,” Mr Goh said.

He said that he will not be applying for a police permit for the event as the rules for Speakers’ Corner do not require it.

"I don’t think we will be complying with Nparks’ request for application for a police permit as we don’t have any foreigners helping to organise or speak at the event,” Mr Goh said.

He has yet to hear from Nparks since he informed them of this.

He said he will, however, dissuade foreigners from attending the event in order to prevent any problems with the authorities.

“If by merely attending the event means you are participating then we will need a permit for that,” he said. “We will want to err on the side of caution and ask foreigners not to attend the event altogether to prevent any misunderstanding with the law.”

The rules for Speakers’ Corner were relaxed in 2008, to allow for demonstrations and to do away with police approval for activities held there, except those to do with race or religious issues. Subsequently, there were events held at the park to support foreign causes too – such as in 2009 when Singaporeans and Burmese nationals - who showed up in the hundreds - held a vigil there calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.

In his first National Day Rally speech in August 2004, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke of letting “a hundred flowers bloom” at Speakers’ Corner:

“They want to turn the flowers down, go ahead. I mean, free expression as long as you don't get into race and religion and don't start a riot. It's a signal – speak, speak your voice, be heard, take responsibility for your views and opinions.”

Almost 10 years on, however, it seems the rules are still unclear on what kinds of flowers are allowed to bloom there.

In the meantime, for the event on 1 May, Mr Goh is confident that it will attract just as enthusiastic a response from Singaporeans as the first one in February. It will proceed as planned, he said.

The Good

Such a controversy draws again attention to the age-old debate on the relationship that exists between the State and civil or civic society. AMP occupies a unique place in that it is between . AMP originally started out as a civil society organisation in the 1990s, but morphed into a civic society group after the Collective Leadership Proposal (CLP) debacle of 2000 where the State clamped down on AMP and its members. Yet at the same time, the historical urge to provide intellectual leadership for the community had not gone either, and it peaked once again with the Nizam-against-the-State saga, and AMP caught in between it.

AMP, like many other civic society organisations, receives a bulk of its funding from the Government. This has made a huge difference in the lives of many households, especially those in the lower strata of the community. The alleged threat of withdrawing funds is a serious one because it could impact the relevance of AMP and the work it does for the community. AMP is thus caught between a rock and a hard place. The crux of the matter is this: the State decides on the sort of discourse deemed acceptable in the existing relationship between the State and civil or civic society, and it is accountable for how public funds are used. As noted by the Minister in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Government considers AMP first and foremost a self-help group like Mendaki in that AMP’s utmost priority should be towards resolving the social and educational issues of the community. Being described as such, money that is given to AMP, similar to other Malay/Muslim Organisations (MMOs), is strictly meant to uplift the community, and not to be used for the purpose of partisan politics [1]. Despite the fact that Nizam has clarified that he was involved in political activities in his personal capacity, and that AMP knew about it, it is telling that it made no difference in the eyes of the Government.

The episode has also generated debate on social media, including from some members of the Malay/Muslim community who are apparently frustrated with the Malay political leadership. This is evident at the ‘Suara Melayu Singapura’ Facebook group where there are calls for the setting up of an independent collective entity to provide an alternative intellectual leadership for the community. Incidentally, Nizam in Urdu/Arabic means ‘a leader of repute’. The litmus test for Nizam, as borne out by this saga, is whether he can provide that independent thought leadership for those who may look to him for intellectual inspiration.

The Bad

It is not far-fetched to suggest that Nizam’s presence at a Workers’ Party (WP) Youth Forum where he shared the same speaking platform with two known card-carrying members of the WP could have been that very proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Nizam should have expected something like this to happen not least because according to him, the Government had in the past cut the funding of AMP’s programmes in the wake of the CLP and more recently, the threat of funding cuts were also made in response to ComFor which was perceived to be a threat to the government-sanctioned Community Leadership Forum (CLF) [2]. Nizam thus made a strategic miscalculation: had he been an independent critic of the State by avoiding party-political platforms, and being more circumspect in his postings on the social media, he could well have continued to be a fervent critic while being on the AMP and RIMA Boards. If indeed however Nizam was aware that something like this was bound to happen, and he was merely waiting for it to happen to prove a point, he could well be described as a political opportunist. Indeed, some comments on social media though not in abundance, do believe that Nizam’s decision to ‘go public’ smacks of a self-seeking carpet-bagger.

The reality is that Nizam had a choice in handling the situation in a more tactful manner. He could have sorted out all matters with AMP behind closed doors. He could then have resumed his partisan political activities as an ardent critic of the State. Instead, he decided to go as public as one can imagine, which invariably dragged the good name of AMP, including that of its Chairman, Mr Azmoon Ahmad, through the mud. To be sure, Azmoon, in an interview with the Malay Berita Harian newspaper, gave a glowing tribute to Nizam and his manifold contributions to AMP/RIMA.

The Ugly

The Government could well treat this incident as an isolated case, but it could resort to clamping down further on critics, and in doing so, further narrow the limited space which has  been opening up for domestic political discourse.

MMOs may also undertake an even more cautious approach in appointing members onto their Executive Boards; and so if there is even a slight hint that there may be a member who is a critic of the State, the organisation in question may err on the side of caution.

This incident has shone both a positive and negative light on the Malay/Muslim community. At the positive end, it has shown that there are public intellectuals from a minority ethnic community who are willing to speak out against the State. On the negative side, it may reinforce the perception of some, largely by those outside the community, that the Malay/Muslims are a problematic lot with multiple unresolved issues. It may also reinforce the perception, at least in the eyes of the Government, of the Malay/Muslim community as a whole being unappreciative of what it has done for them. Let us be honest here: MMOs, including AMP, still depend a whole lot on the Government for the funding of their niche programmes. Until and unless the system of ethnic self-help radically alters, or MMOs are able to be financially independent of the State in that they can secure private-sector funding for their activities on a sustainable basis, the truth is that they have to work within the existing system and abide by its rules even if there are those who do not agree with it.

One should also not discount the fact that there are those within the Malay/Muslim community who do not side with Nizam. They may feel that there is still value in working within the system, and not outside of or against it. The caveat here is that while Nizam believes there had been interference by the powers-that-be, the Government has thus far strenuously denied any form of interference in the internal affairs of AMP. This controversial episode shows no sign of stopping, and so, the Sandiwara (drama) continues.

Author’s note:

The rationale for penning down my thoughts is to present a more balanced perspective of this controversy. This article hopes for Singaporeans to make their own informed opinions about this saga. If anything, this incident has given us Singaporeans something important to ruminate over - the relationship between the State and civic or civil society - irrespective of whether you agree, disagree or take a neutral position on this controversy.

---------------------

Notes:

[1]: Yaacob: Pemerintah tidak campur urusan dalaman badan Melayu.

[2]: The Politics of Being Dominant and Dominating.

----------------------

Gilbert is familiar with unemployment, having gone through it himself.  “I myself went through a rough patch, was unemployed. 18 months of hell,” he says. “Nearly killed myself because of the debts I had.”

He managed to pull through that dark period and decided to use the experience to help others going through similar situations. He eventually got himself a certificate in counselling and later a graduate diploma.

He then worked with a Family Service Centre in Woodlands, doing social work, helping poor families. “Subsequently, I went into helping the disabled, working as a case officer, and later working with the jobless in the Central Singapore CDC in 2007.”

That’s where he realised that the PMETs were finding it tougher to find help as the CDCs were more focused on the lower-income, lower-educated, and lower-skilled. “Every month, I could see hundreds of these professional people coming forward. We couldn’t help them.” In the last recession, some 10,000 PMETs were laid off.

But even after starting transitioning.org with a few friends, his attempts at raising awareness and trying to instigate changes mostly went unnoticed or ignored.

His was a lone cry in the wilderness – until, ironically, the Government released its White Paper in February.

The protest he held a week after the paper’s release saw a turn-out of some 5,000 people at Speakers’ Corner. Even politicians like Jeanette Chong, Vincent Wijeysingha and Tan Jee Say were roped in to speak at the protest.

The Government’s perceived backpeddling from the 6.9 million population figure in the White Paper shows that it is important for Singaporeans to express their views on such matters collectively, Gilbert says. “They now say 6.9 million is just a projected figure, not a target,” he says. It is important for Singaporeans to continue to stand together because the problems faced by those whom  transisitoning.org counsels could very well be faced by others in time to come, he cautions.

“It’s difficult not to do something,” he says, referring to the cases he sees. “It eats at you everyday, when someone tells you, ‘I lost my job, had to handover to this foreign talent.’ Or, ‘I’m retrenched because they bring in a foreigner to replace me.’ So when you hear so many cases, they cannot be fabricated. It makes you want to take action.”

“Unemployment causes insecurity,” he explains, “lack of confidence, and many marital issues when a breadwinner loses his job, including losing the trust and faith of their families.”

He relates the case of a 50-year old. “He was retrenched and could not get another IT job. He had all these certificates, including a Masters degree. Still he couldn’t get a job. His family ostracised him, they don’t care what reasons you give. You’re excluded from family gatherings, even dinners.”

It was because of this that transitioning.org decided to start a support service 2 years ago for divorcees. “We see many social problems caused by joblessness, which I think the government has not addressed yet,” Gilbert (who is also divorced) says.

His main concern remains the discrimination at the work place, either through unfair practices by companies, or through policies of the Government. While the authorities have urged employers to play fair and have tightened up some areas with regards to the issuance of work permits and such, Gilbert feels the situation has not improved. “I don’t think so because people still write in, people still say, ‘I went for many interviews and still can’t get a job.’ People still say, ‘I’m in my 40s, I’m experienced, but I still can’t get a job.’ Ageism is another big problem. Like, once you’re above 40, you’re like a dead duck.”

With the Government insisting that Singapore needs a bigger population to continue to thrive economically, especially with an ageing population and a declining birth rate, some feel that the current problems will only be exacerbated.

“I think some [Singaporeans] fear that they might be the minority in 17 years’ time,” Gilbert says. “I think that has shaken a lot of people. Some say that we’ve been sold out by our government.”

It is perhaps this fear, this uncertainty of the future which brings with it a sense of insecurity, which saw the large crowd at Hong Lim Park in February – the biggest post-Independence protest in Singapore.

However, his passionate championing of the cause of the unemployed, especially with his series of “Singaporeans First” events the last few years, has attracted criticisms that he is fanning xenophobia from some quarters. Gilbert sees this as unfortunate because he sees it as being pro-Singaporeans rather than being anti-foreigners. Even all the major political parties in S’pore have championed a pro-Singapore, pro-Singaporean cause.

Gilbert also points out that at transitioning.org, besides having a foreigner as one of its coaches, the organisation also provides help to unemployed foreigners when approached.

“There aren’t many of them,” Gilbert says. “But they include Indian PRs, PRC Chinese, converted citizens. They need the support. We are probably their last avenue. But I’m glad they see us, we will help them too.” However, he readily admits that transitioning.org’s primary focus is Singaporean workers. Increasingly, he says, those approaching his society for help are from the younger set too.

“The bulk of [the people we see] are in their late-30s to mid-40s. Increasingly, we’re seeing mid-30s and even early-30s,” he says. “Some have been working for long periods, like 7, 8 years, when they’re told to leave. The reason could be because their pay has become too high, or maybe the company needs fresh blood. And fresh blood often means foreign talent, so they come and replace locals. But we also have locals who job-hop. I don’t deny this.” There are also cases where foreign nationals and companies prefer to hire workers from their own countries, rather than to hire Singaporeans.

Such seemingly discriminatory practices were raised by several MPs in Parliament in March. They called on the Government to do more to ensure that employers give Singaporean workers fair treatment.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, said: "There are clearly still a number of firms that had visibly hired a large proportion of foreigners particularly in the managerial level. You can't help but think whether it is really that difficult to find Singaporeans to fill those managerial positions. These include job roles like HR, finance, compliance, auditing or general admin.

"Or is it a case where some employers or hirers may already have pre-determined mindset that foreigners with international experience can do a better job?”

The Manpower Ministry has said it will continue to tighten criteria for Employment Pass or EP holders.

In the meantime, it is important for Singaporeans to be aware of the consequences of an enlarged foreign population, Gilbert says, not only on present workers or Singaporeans but also on future generations.

“Those who attended the first event [in February], a number of them came for their children, amazingly,” Gilbert explains. “I’d spoken to some parents who are jobless themselves, they said they were at Speakers’ Corner for their children. They say to me, ‘Ya, I’m already 50, jobless, and this 6.9 million thing will hit my children in 17 years’ time.’ Already now with 5.3 million, they themselves (the parents) are facing competition for jobs and space and of course sky-high property prices.”

For the longest time, the unemployed have been silent because of shame, or fear, or resignation to their circumstances. The February event, however, has given some of them hope.

“I also receive emails which touch me,” Gilbert says. “One of them sent me an email – with just one line. It’s the best email I’ve received, out of hundreds, after the February event. It said, ‘Gilbert, your event gives me hope to live on.’ I think that is marvellous. I think this guy must have been feeling hopeless, that by himself, he could not do anything. But when masses of people gather together, at last there is some hope in our society. All along, the government can just produce policy after policy and you can’t do anything about it. But now I think he sees that there is hope.”

It is this hope for a better Singapore which is at the heart of the series of protests – a better Singapore for Singaporeans.

As for the man himself, he finds encouragement that more people have come forward to support his society’s work.

“Many who found jobs and came back to volunteer with us also make me feel that I am not doing a thankless job,” Gilbert says.

And his is also a lone voice no more.

----------------------------

Details of the event:

Title: For A Better Singapore

Venue: Speakers’ Corner (Hong Lim Park)

Date: 1 May 2013

Time: 4pm – 7pm

Facebook: For A Better Singapore

{youtube}r3_cAvqmyq0|600|450|0{/youtube}

There's no confusion because that's how life is. My husband is a businessman. He has friends who are business partners and friends who are clients. When they do business, he wears his businessman hat. When they go out for drinks, he wears the friend hat. That's how we all keep sane.

But the government is telling us that we can only have one identity. That if we join a political party, we are politicians everywhere we go and whatever we do. If we are a member of any group, that becomes our be-all and end-all identity.

They tell us that we cannot speak at any functions as ourselves. Apparently, there's no longer such a thing as "me". I have become my position as part of a larger organisation.

We are also sold on the idea that any contact at all with an opposition political party immediately makes us 'political', and makes everything we do 'politicised'.

According to this logic, if I'm a member of a society that's devoted to the welfare of oysters, and I'm invited to speak at an opposition party event, that immediately 'politicises' my oyster-loving society! Our oysters are now anti-PAP! Now when we champion for the rights of oysters, we might be subject to ministers calling us up to threaten to hold a free-for-all oyster buffet!

---------

But what is even worse is that apparently, these standards don't hold if you're a member of the PAP. But as sensible people know, you can't have it both ways.

Let's say we all decide to swallow this koyok, that if we join a political party or any other organisation, we can't wear any other hats. In this scenario, I'll forever be the "oyster girl". Fine.

Then let that be the case for everyone, not just me. No member of the PAP can divorce their PAP identity from anything else that they do. If they sit on the board of directors of a company, then they are there in their capacities as PAP members or MPs or ministers. The company then, necessarily, becomes affiliated with the PAP. If bad advice is given, then the PAP has given the company bad advice.

If a PAP member serves oysters at her child's  birthday celebration, she has to expect my Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Oysters to complain that she's politicising her son's birthday by using the PAP to endorse the eating of shellfish.

From now on, if we hear of any PAP member claiming to speak "in my personal capacity" at any event, let's call him or her out on it. Point out that his or her identity as a PAP member politicises everything, since that is how 'politicising' works. If this is how they want to play it, then everyone can play at the same game.

-------

I'd like to end on a philosophical note. We are all bigger than ourselves. We all hold multiple identities within us. This makes us human, and it makes us capable of living with other human beings. It allows us to identify with others, and to take on various roles that multiply the good we can contribute to the society we live in.

We are mature enough to understand and accept that people have public and private lives, public and personal selves.

It's insulting for our political leaders to try to stifle our participation in multiple organisations by saying that we can't be both politicians and caring human beings. And, of course, it's even more insulting how they claim that this rule doesn't apply to their own party members.

The PAP should take a leaf from Walt Whitman's book (below) and acknowledge what all Singaporeans already do - that we are a mature people who can wear different hats at different times. Even if those positions sometimes appear to be in conflict. After all, sons can teach their fathers and good leaders follow, not lead.

Do I contradict myself?

Very well then I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

- "Song of Myself", from Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman

--------------------

Angela Oon writes here in her personal capacity. (Yes, there really is such a thing.)

She tries to write in simple language that is accessible and unpretentious. She agrees with Clarence Thomas that "there are simple ways to put important things in language that's accessible".

In a press release issued earlier this month, the organizers also put forth three demands in tandem with their efforts to end the atrocities and human rights violations committed against Eelam Tamilians:

In standing with the international community who are outraged by this miscarriage of justice, there is a need to put forth 3 demands:

1. That the internally displaced persons who are detained in various camps in Sri Lanka against their own will, with concerns of safety and security for women and children especially, be allowed and assisted to be relocated to their own lands.

2. That a United Nations (UN) led international probe be launched to investigate the alleged war crimes by the Sri Lankan army as well as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

3. That the Government of Singapore, being a respected voice in the international community, speak up on the side of right and justice and issue a statement in support of demands 1 and 2 above.

It was definitely interesting to witness a group of silent protesters, sitting on newspapers in an almost desolate park, wearing grim but determined expressions. I must say that just witnessing this noiseless assembly was an invaluable experience that spoke volumes about the fact that even in Singapore – with its fast-paced life, high standards of living, and increasingly expensive costs of living – we have truly altruistic people, who lend support to such causes.

I was most heartened by two middle-aged women who could not sit (due to knee problems), but still joined the cause and stood for a good hour, in silence.

The oath of silence ended at 5pm, with the group greeting each other with the event title (“Speak in Tamil and love the Tamil people”). I chatted with some of the participants and discovered why they felt convicted to take part in this event:

One particularly impassioned participant, Ms Sivasakthy, said that she could not simply stand and watch while “our people suffer.” She added, “We should take the initiative to lend support to such causes. We should work together to make sure that the Eelam Tamilians get their freedom. They (Eelam Tamilians) have no hope – they live with a constant phobia – it is impossible to live like that! They need their independence.”

“I feel that Singaporeans – especially the youth – are not aware of such international atrocities, because they don’t teach it in school, and sometimes, even their parents don’t know about it. The news too is a contributing factor to the lack of awareness – newspapers play the blame game of who is responsible for the war, and, in the process, fail to highlight the true plight of the Eelam Tamilians. So we can’t blame the people. They only act based on the news they receive. So we have to take it upon ourselves to educate others. We have to teach the young ones to respect humans”, Ms Sivasakthy declared.

A young Singaporean, Ms Gouthami, an undergraduate pursuing a degree in accounting and finance at the Singapore Institute of Management, brought her entire family along in support of the Eelam Tamilians. “I have always wanted to do something for the Tamil people – my people,” she said. “And I feel very happy that I can contribute to the discourse, with my family.”

Ms Gouthami admitted that she expected more people to join an event supporting such a deserving cause, but opined that Singaporeans are perhaps not informed about such issues and events because local news programs fail to inform audiences of them. She added that the situation in Sri Lanka is, in her opinion, not holistically covered by local media outlets. “Tens of thousands of people have died,” she said, “and they should get justice. No one should be a slave to another. We should lend our support to humans who are oppressed.”

Mr Balachander, a foreign worker from Tamil Nadu, took leave from work to join the event. He said that he felt heartened to see Singaporeans taking up this cause, as they (foreign workers) are unable to do so (due to local laws that bar non-citizens from organizing any type of protest/demonstration).

However, Mr Balachander also expressed his concerns about why it has taken Singaporeans so long to call for change. He mused that while an event of this caliber is definitely a step forward, it is confusing as to why most Singaporeans are generally apathetic about this issue.

These comments got me thinking. Are the majority of Singaporeans hesitant to support such causes? If so, why? Why doesn’t the government of Singapore lend its voice in support of the oppressed Tamilians in Sri Lanka? Why doesn’t local mainstream media provide extensive coverage to the situation in Sri Lanka? Is the abundance of news sources distorting the reality of what is happening in that country? Speaking of which, what is happening in Sri Lanka?

…to Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka has been entangled in a civil war for the past two decades – a war which has claimed the lives of more than 64,000 people (mostly minority Eelam Tamilians), and displaced over one million people (with 80 per cent of people being Eelam Tamilians), since 1983. Relations between the Sinhalese and the Tamil people have been strained since the nation’s independence, and the cruel civil war served to separate these two groups further, and it was the Tamil-speaking civilians who bore the brunt.

The war officially ended in 2009, with total victory for the Sri Lankan government. Civilian casualties are estimated to vary from 6,500 to 40,000 – in addition to the 70,000 Sri Lankans killed towards the end of the war.

The government of Sri Lanka has yet to release an official casualty figure – evading international calls for accountability and rehabilitation of displaced civilians. On top of this, there have been continued human rights violations on civilians by both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE (for more information on the extent of these violations, click HERE).

Channel 4’s two-part documentary, ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’, served as a trailblazer in raising awareness about the continued abuse of civilians at the hands of the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Gruesome war footage that captured the violence that unfolds in the lives of the ordinary induced a greater understanding on ground realities and has outraged the international community.

There have been calls by various human rights organizations across the world, for the two warring factions in Sri Lanka to put an end to such oppression. And the organizers and the participants of yesterday’s events have joined the ranks of these concerned communities, in calling for reforms.

But how is observing silence helping the cause? Shouldn’t we speak up for displaced Eelam Tamilians? What is the significance of an oath of silence?

The Significance of Silence

I must add here that I, too, undertook an oath of silence from 5pm on the 26th of April to 2pm on the 27th of April. Unfortunately for me, I had already planned to meet a few friends for dinner, and forced myself to go on with my plans. I did consider abandoning my oath, in favor of being able to converse with my companions, but ultimately chose to honor my vow despite foreseeable difficulties in communication.

And it was difficult. The first few hours were fun enough, but my patience soon ran thin when I realized that my limited knowledge of sign language was not helping at all.

I couldn’t converse fast enough (my friends had to wait for me to write a response to a question), I couldn’t order food, I couldn’t voice my opinions, I couldn’t express my emotions.

The next morning, I couldn’t, to my utter despair, even tell my mum that I needed five more minutes of sleep (I do suspect she recognized my frantic hand gestures but chose to ignore them, but that is another story). Communicating – or rather, trying to communicate – without speech is terribly infuriating. Especially, if you’re a chatterbox like me.

And I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t utter a single word (or three) during my vow of silence. The words, “oh”, “wait”, and “bye” did escape my lips. And this, to me, was much more infuriating – the fact that I wasn’t able to strictly keep to my vow.

Regardless, it was with much relief that I broke my vow after 21 hours of (almost) silence. I can finally speak and, most importantly, be heard!

And this is the significance of silence. If I myself feel such a strong sense of liberation after breaking my self-imposed oath of silence, how will the Eelam Tamilians – who don’t even have that basic right to speak and be heard – feel? They are not heard, no matter how much, or how loud, they shout. They go through far, far worse: losing their families, their homes, being physically, mentally, and sexually abused. And yet, they are not heard.

This is precisely why we should lend our voices to human rights causes such as the Eelam Tamil people issue. This is not an issue just for Tamilians, or Indians, or Singaporeans. We need to stand in solidarity with such oppressed people in our capacity as world citizens – as fellow members of the human race. Our geographical and mental distance, or detachment, from the issue should not factor into whether we advocate for the rights of others. Humanitarianism, justice, and equality are universal values, which should be upheld by every human, regardless of race, religion, or nationality.

So now I will exercise my duties as a world citizen. I will speak. I will do my part in raising awareness on this poignant issue. I will definitely be signing the petition demanding the relocation of internally displaced Eelam Tamilians into their own lands; a UN-led investigation into alleged war crimes by the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE; and for urging the government of Singapore to speak up on the side of right and justice.

Will you?

-------------------

More pictures here, on Ravi Philemon's Facebook page.

Here's a video of the event:

{youtube}W0sv_5U6M5s|600|450|0{/youtube}

He was then brought to the police station at Cantonment complex. There, he stayed for the night - in a lock-up, on a hard floor with just a blanket - until about noon the next day. That was when the "interview" took place. Leslie said there was only one investigation officer who spoke to him. The officer, one ASP Alvin Phua, pointed to two cartoons in particular, which are the subject of the investigation and his arrest.

The first one had to do with a possible contempt of court charge. The second one is, perhaps, the allegedly seditious one, having to do with how the government supposedly "suppressed" the Malay community here.

Leslie gave several statements to the police subsequently. He was then asked to call his friends to post bail for him, which was set at S$10,000, he said. He was released on Sunday night at 8.45pm.

Leslie has not been charged. He is required to report back to the police on 30 April.

The news of his arrest was kept from the public because virtually no one knew that he had been arrested. And after his release on Sunday night, Leslie was so tired he slept through the whole of Monday. He said the concrete floor in the jail cell didn't allow him proper rest. On Monday evening, word got around that he had been arrested.

The news was reported by Yahoo on Tuesday evening and it quickly created an uproar online - with most condemning the authorities for the arrest, and others taking issue with the nature of Leslie's cartoons itself.

Whether one agrees with his views expressed in his drawings, or with the way he expresses them, or not, what should concern Singaporeans is, firstly, why it took so long for news of such an arrest to be made known. Secondly, how does one inform anyone of one's arrest? Thirdly, what are the rights, including access to a lawyer, which one has in such an event?

These are questions and issues which Singaporeans - and bloggers and online practitioners, in particular - should acquaint themselves with.

Besides these, there are also other concerns, such as the interpretation of the provisions of the Sedition Act, which has been used in several instances on bloggers and online commentators in recent years, and our defamation laws. What protection does the Constitution provide in terms of free speech and expression?

There may also be questions of the Attorney General's use of his prosecutorial discretion, a subject which was put before the courts in 2012. [See also here: "Law prof says reasons for deciding to prosecute in a case should be disclosed"]

The recent spate of legal action by members of the Government is also disconcerting in themselves. It has given rise to all sorts of conspiracy theories of a government clamp-down campaign on the Internet.

Whatever it is, it shows a government (and society) trying to navigate the relatively new terrain of cyberspace. How it will turn out may depend on the answers to the questions raised above; and on how much self-restraint the government is willing to exercise, in recognition of citizens' rights to free expression. The issue of one's rights will increasingly become more pronounced as Singaporeans assert their desire to express themselves more freely, especially on social media; and the Government reacts in the most familiar ways it knows how.

In the meantime, those like Leslie will continue to push the boundaries, even at the risk of inadvertently running into trouble with the authorities who, for now, do not seem very amused with his cartoons – or at least two of them.

But in that process of testing the limits, perhaps more clarity will emerge on the various aspects and applications of our laws. This latest incident is thus not just about any alleged seditious behaviour. It is about more than that.

The Good

Such a controversy draws again attention to the age-old debate on the relationship that exists between the State and civil or civic society. AMP occupies a unique place in that it is between . AMP originally started out as a civil society organisation in the 1990s, but morphed into a civic society group after the Collective Leadership Proposal (CLP) debacle of 2000 where the State clamped down on AMP and its members. Yet at the same time, the historical urge to provide intellectual leadership for the community had not gone either, and it peaked once again with the Nizam-against-the-State saga, and AMP caught in between it.

AMP, like many other civic society organisations, receives a bulk of its funding from the Government. This has made a huge difference in the lives of many households, especially those in the lower strata of the community. The alleged threat of withdrawing funds is a serious one because it could impact the relevance of AMP and the work it does for the community. AMP is thus caught between a rock and a hard place. The crux of the matter is this: the State decides on the sort of discourse deemed acceptable in the existing relationship between the State and civil or civic society, and it is accountable for how public funds are used. As noted by the Minister in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Government considers AMP first and foremost a self-help group like Mendaki in that AMP’s utmost priority should be towards resolving the social and educational issues of the community. Being described as such, money that is given to AMP, similar to other Malay/Muslim Organisations (MMOs), is strictly meant to uplift the community, and not to be used for the purpose of partisan politics [1]. Despite the fact that Nizam has clarified that he was involved in political activities in his personal capacity, and that AMP knew about it, it is telling that it made no difference in the eyes of the Government.

The episode has also generated debate on social media, including from some members of the Malay/Muslim community who are apparently frustrated with the Malay political leadership. This is evident at the ‘Suara Melayu Singapura’ Facebook group where there are calls for the setting up of an independent collective entity to provide an alternative intellectual leadership for the community. Incidentally, Nizam in Urdu/Arabic means ‘a leader of repute’. The litmus test for Nizam, as borne out by this saga, is whether he can provide that independent thought leadership for those who may look to him for intellectual inspiration.

The Bad

It is not far-fetched to suggest that Nizam’s presence at a Workers’ Party (WP) Youth Forum where he shared the same speaking platform with two known card-carrying members of the WP could have been that very proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Nizam should have expected something like this to happen not least because according to him, the Government had in the past cut the funding of AMP’s programmes in the wake of the CLP and more recently, the threat of funding cuts were also made in response to ComFor which was perceived to be a threat to the government-sanctioned Community Leadership Forum (CLF) [2]. Nizam thus made a strategic miscalculation: had he been an independent critic of the State by avoiding party-political platforms, and being more circumspect in his postings on the social media, he could well have continued to be a fervent critic while being on the AMP and RIMA Boards. If indeed however Nizam was aware that something like this was bound to happen, and he was merely waiting for it to happen to prove a point, he could well be described as a political opportunist. Indeed, some comments on social media though not in abundance, do believe that Nizam’s decision to ‘go public’ smacks of a self-seeking carpet-bagger.

The reality is that Nizam had a choice in handling the situation in a more tactful manner. He could have sorted out all matters with AMP behind closed doors. He could then have resumed his partisan political activities as an ardent critic of the State. Instead, he decided to go as public as one can imagine, which invariably dragged the good name of AMP, including that of its Chairman, Mr Azmoon Ahmad, through the mud. To be sure, Azmoon, in an interview with the Malay Berita Harian newspaper, gave a glowing tribute to Nizam and his manifold contributions to AMP/RIMA.

The Ugly

The Government could well treat this incident as an isolated case, but it could resort to clamping down further on critics, and in doing so, further narrow the limited space which has  been opening up for domestic political discourse.

MMOs may also undertake an even more cautious approach in appointing members onto their Executive Boards; and so if there is even a slight hint that there may be a member who is a critic of the State, the organisation in question may err on the side of caution.

This incident has shone both a positive and negative light on the Malay/Muslim community. At the positive end, it has shown that there are public intellectuals from a minority ethnic community who are willing to speak out against the State. On the negative side, it may reinforce the perception of some, largely by those outside the community, that the Malay/Muslims are a problematic lot with multiple unresolved issues. It may also reinforce the perception, at least in the eyes of the Government, of the Malay/Muslim community as a whole being unappreciative of what it has done for them. Let us be honest here: MMOs, including AMP, still depend a whole lot on the Government for the funding of their niche programmes. Until and unless the system of ethnic self-help radically alters, or MMOs are able to be financially independent of the State in that they can secure private-sector funding for their activities on a sustainable basis, the truth is that they have to work within the existing system and abide by its rules even if there are those who do not agree with it.

One should also not discount the fact that there are those within the Malay/Muslim community who do not side with Nizam. They may feel that there is still value in working within the system, and not outside of or against it. The caveat here is that while Nizam believes there had been interference by the powers-that-be, the Government has thus far strenuously denied any form of interference in the internal affairs of AMP. This controversial episode shows no sign of stopping, and so, the Sandiwara (drama) continues.

Author’s note:

The rationale for penning down my thoughts is to present a more balanced perspective of this controversy. This article hopes for Singaporeans to make their own informed opinions about this saga. If anything, this incident has given us Singaporeans something important to ruminate over - the relationship between the State and civic or civil society - irrespective of whether you agree, disagree or take a neutral position on this controversy.

---------------------

Notes:

[1]: Yaacob: Pemerintah tidak campur urusan dalaman badan Melayu.

[2]: The Politics of Being Dominant and Dominating.

----------------------

In this easy-to-read, 267-page memoir, we get an honest and touching narrative of the life and thoughts of a man who believes with every fibre of his being in standing up for justice. We learn about his formative years as a law student in Cardiff, where his ideas of rights and freedom grew; of his encounters with JB Jeyaratnam, of the great lengths he goes to in order to fight death penalty cases—sacrificing his time, money and sometimes his well being—as well as of his life with manic depression.

In a frank chapter called ‘Bipolar Politics’, he shares an understanding of bipolarity that takes it beyond the realm of a mental condition and into a spiritual plane, describing the intense awakenings he experiences and the heightened intuition, creativity and energy they bring. This helps the common reader see bipolarity and M. Ravi’s view of it in a deeper light. It also connects with the incredible passion that we see him pour into his work — and is what makes M. Ravi such a zealous lawyer.

He also talks frankly about his family and those close to him, and lays bare the alcoholism, abuse and poverty he was exposed to as a child. He writes a lot about his late mother, with whom he had a close and loving relationship, her own struggle with manic depression—and her eventual suicide. All these incidences, and M. Ravi’s perspective of them, is conveyed plainly, in an informal manner, and often with a touch of humour. Even so, itholds profound insight and covers serious issues of morality, justice, spirituality and passion.

This is a man who completely devotes himself to the cause, who will singlehandedly raise international awareness, hold vigils, give talks, work pro bono, travel abroad, lobby governments—to give a forgotten someone a second chance at life. Even amongst lawyers who champion human rights in Singapore, his conviction stands out. Some might even say that he embodies the noblest expression of the legal profession.

Anyone interested in the person M. Ravi and in his more prominent human rights cases should read this book to understand what moves the man and the lawyer, and why he continues to soldier on today.

“The practice of law is indeed important, and for many people their lives are made much better or much worse by their knowledge of the law or what law can help them to get or achieve. But we must always keep that perspective in mind, that these are all just a myriad of dots and only when we can connect all the dots can we get a view of the significance of the whole.” – M Ravi, Kampong Boy.

--------------

To order the book online, click here: Ethos Books.

Video of the book launch of Kampong Boy:

{youtube}cghmIeBbyzM|600|450|0{/youtube}

The coincidence of time and space seems uncanny. The cheerful character of StandUpFor.SG stands in glaring contrast to the protest’s strident indignation. These juxtapositions piqued my curiosity. Hence, on Monday evening two days before the picnic and protest, I was seated amongst the prospective volunteers.

Entering the volunteer briefing, I clutched a set of questions: Why this time and place, especially for a mere picnic? Who funds the event? Are there any significant stakeholders giving this project a leg up?

The volunteer briefing clarified a few things. First, Hong Lim Park will be more than a congregation of picnic-goers. There will be a picnic. There will be more. At the organisers’ request to retain the element of surprise, I have to withhold the details.

This also explains the registration fee of $8. The money will partly defray the event’s expenses. For the group's 2012 National Day movement that invaded train carriages, urging people to cheerfully give up seats to pregnant mums and the elderly, this team of friends and colleagues ran the event at a loss. In a similar vein, the May Day gathering at Hong Lim Park has not benefited from governmental sponsorship. Moreover, the organising team does not hold monolithic political views. When speaking to the team members, I learnt that they are split on matters such as minimum wages.

So what is the bottomline for StandUpFor.SG on Labour Day? The organisers want to carve out a space for “powerful conversations” which nourish trust. Trust, in turn, supplements rest, a rare gem as we labour from day to day.

“I feel at rest when I know people have got my back,” a volunteer shared during the briefing session.

Recently, this movement has had to watch its back.

It was not a smooth glide putting together this May Day event. Hong Lim Park has a political cachet. This has ushered in scrutiny from many parties, from the government to activists. Authorities have interrogated the organisers for a clearly-stated purpose. For the National Day courtesy movement, StandUpFor.SG ran into difficulties while negotiating with SMRT. Now, other concerned Singaporeans are harshly suspicious towards this movement.

Tomorrow will be the day of reckoning: the juxtaposition of two fora, each with its own distinct tenor but both seeking to whittle apathy in our republic.

StandUpFor.SG craddles the vision of nourishing our sense of community. It is not vacuous frivolity. For Labour Day, a group of Singaporeans have backed this grand vision with deliberation and dedication. Owing to the sizeable logistics, I can understand why picking another day and venue after receiving all the recent flak is untenable.

Towards the end of the briefing, one prospective volunteer raised her hand. She asked what concrete result, what specific endpoint StandUpFor.SG hopes to achieve.

With a convicted smile that was tampered with fatigue, the organiser replied, “I don’t know. Let’s see what people choose and create.”

----------------

Visit the two Facebook pages for the two different events on Labour Day at Hong Lim Park:

StandUPFor.SG Facebook page.

Population White Paper protest: "For A Better Singapore" Facebook page.