When activists cross the line

The biggest example of such crossing from one side to the other, as it were, takes place in Singapore every five years. This is when grassroots volunteers exchange their apolitical status for a very political one in support of the ruling PAP at election time. You can see these volunteers at the PAP rallies every night, all decked out in the party’s white uniform, with the lightning badge pinned to their shirts.

In fact, the umbrella organisation which these grassroots outfits fall under is the People’s Association (PA), which is supposedly apolitical. But this claim was called into question by the revelation by the very senior member of the government, Lee Kuan Yew, in 2009, when he said, referring to what the Chinese government had learnt from Singapore:

"They discover that the People's Action Party (PAP) has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents' committees), CCCs (citizens' consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs)."

The RCs, CCCs, and the CCs are the grassroots organisations which permeate all our housing estates.

It is worth noting that Lee did not say, “But everywhere they go, they see the Government…” but that he said instead, “But everywhere they go, they see the PAP…” – the PAP being a political party, and how the political, by Lee’s own admission, has permeated the supposedly apolitical grassroots organisations.

The line, clearly, has been crossed – and crossed a long time ago, in fact.

Nizam Ismail’s unacceptable behaviour, it seems, was that he participated in two events – the first Hong Lim Park protest against the population White Paper; and speaking at a forum held by the opposition Workers’ Party (WP). These had led, Nizam says, to whispers from government ministers to AMP about the Government’s unhappiness about it. The fear is that Nizam had used the assistance the government gives to AMP to “to carry out political agendas.” At least that is what the fear seems to be, as articulated by the minister for Muslim affairs.

If, however, taking part in the activities of a political party makes one a suspect of having “political agendas”, the others – supportive of the ruling party – could be suspected of having similar “political agendas”, whatever that means.

[By the way, the Government has not explained or clarified what it means by “political agendas” or “political ends” when it accused NGOs and activists of this.]

Malminderjit Singh is one such example. He is the president of the Young Sikh Association. His other involvement includes having volunteered with SINDA, the self-help group for the Indian community (and which receives government funding), and in fact was the “recruitment head” for the SINDA Youth Club in 2010-2013; and as a panel member of the Young Changemakers of the National Youth Council.

In October 2012, Singh was elected chairman of the PAP Policy Forum.

One can’t help but see the similarities between Ismail’s case and that of Singh’s. Yet, one is accused of “crossing a line” while the other is not.

Where indeed is this mysterious “line” we speak of? It seems that one could indeed be an activist and participate in politics – as long as the politics one is involved in is in support of the ruling party, or its approved entities, or candidates.

Here is an example.

UN Women, formerly known as Unifem, was created in 2010 as a United Nations “entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

The president of the UN Women National Committee Singapore – or UN Women (Singapore) - is Trina Liang-Lin. Her resume is an impressive one indeed, as you can see here. Nonetheless, it could be argued that she is best known as the president of UN Women.

In the 2011 presidential elections, Liang-Lin "was one of 10 individuals chosen to speak at a rally in support for Presidential candidate and now President Tony Tan of the Republic of Singapore.” From news reports, she was identified mostly as the president of UN Women, such as this one by My Paper.

Liang-Lin spent a part of her rally speech focused on women’s issues, which she undoubtedly champions as president of UN Women. She also unequivocally urged Singaporeans “to give a strong endorsement to Dr Tony Tan.”

Here is a video of her speech, hosted on the “officeofdrtonytan” Youtube channel:

{youtube}5tUQWzBPNf8|600|450|0{/youtube}

Did Liang-Lin cross the line from social activism to political activism? Apparently, she did.

Sometimes, crossing that line can be a dangerous thing.

In the abovementioned Straits Times report, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Lawrence Wong, was reported to have said:

In particular, please note the second point the minister made – that “we may end up with… ethnic-based groups being used for political purposes.”

It is a point made by the Director of Corporate Communications at MCCY in a letter to the Straits Times forum page on 29 April:

"If any ethnic community were to organise itself politically, other communities would respond in kind. This would pull our different communities apart and destroy our racial harmony."

This brings us back to the Tony Tan presidential campaign again.

“Presidential hopeful Tony Tan has been endorsed by the Federation of Tan Clan Associations, which has over 10,000 members, in his bid to become Singapore's third elected president,” the news reported in August 2011.

The president of the federation said,

“I would strongly urge all chairmen of Tan clan associations to call on their members to support and vote for (Tony Tan).”

Now, recap what Minister Wong said – about ethnic-based groups pursuing “a partisan political agenda”. This, clearly, was what the ethnic-based Tan clan federation was doing, championing a “partisan political agenda” in exhorting – very publicly – its members to vote for a particular political candidate.

It is a dangerous thing to do indeed – just consider the consequences if there were non-Chinese candidates in that presidential election. What would they have done to garner similar support from their ethnic communities? It is a no-brainer.

Yet, there was not a squeak from anyone from the Government then – including Wong – warning the federation or Tony Tan himself of “crossing the line”. In fact, the federation’s actions were more serious than perhaps other instances because the federation is an ethnic-based organisation, the very type which Wong warned of getting involved in “partisan political agendas”.

So, what am I saying here?

Well, two things.

One, that when we speak of “crossing a line”, as the Straits Times did, let us be fair and report factually and as completely as possible. The Straits Times report on 4 May is a thoroughly and terribly skewed one, ignoring the clear examples mentioned here. Clearly, “crossing the line” is not limited to critics or organisations critical of the government. Many who are supportive of the government have also “crossed the line”.

The Straits Times’ reporters really need to widen their perspectives, and inform themselves better before churning out kindergarten-standard pieces which do not befit a national broadsheet. Instead, they are an embarrassment.

Second, and this is the more important point: in the current discourse about “crossing the line”, are we really interested in the issue? Or are we more interested in politicising the issue? There is a difference – for if we are interested in how one should not “cross the line”, then we should look at ALL incidences, instead of selecting a few examples to skew the discourse. But if we are only interested in politicising the issue, then there is no point to the discourse.

And politicising the issue is – sadly – what seems to be the aim here. For there seems to be a certain hypocrisy in the selective condemnation of some, and not of others which, invariably, seems to include those who cross the line in support of the ruling party or its approved entities and personalities, even when their doing so has serious and dangerous consequences for our society as a whole.

So, what – really - are we interested in here: demonising critics of the Government, or do we want an honest discourse on a serious matter?

PS: This writer has written to the MCCY to ask for its position on the Tan clan federation support for Dr Tony Tan during the presidential election. He has yet to receive a response from the ministry.