World Youth Movement for Democracy

   Home   About  Participate  Resources   Events   WYMD Chat        Contact Us   Join Now! 

Galven Lee
Singapore

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

The monolithic dictatorship of the Nazi regime is often vilified as the epitome of evil incarnate. When I watched the film, Hitler: Rise of Evil, three years ago, Burke's quote peppered the erudite statements of the journalist, in the film, who dared to oppose Hitler's regime. It was a noble proclamation, yet I had always only considered it within the context of blatantly ruthless and crudely authoritarian regimes like that of the National Socialists. Ah, how tragically romantic; just imagining myself as a citizen in Stalin's Soviet Union, taking up the mantle of the responsible, idealistic patriot, not unlike the towering figures of Andrei Sakharov or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Yet, such fantasies remained the preserve of dreams - dreams I thought would never be realised in my beloved Singapore, and thus, dreams that were safe for me to dream. Several months ago, though, I attended a forum on the death penalty in Singapore which would leave me deeply shaken. It gave me a reason to work for democracy in Singapore, to not shirk from my duties as a responsible citizen in this city-state of just over four million people. And it set me on course towards developing my ideas regarding my ideal, Singaporean, society.

It was at the Forum/Debate on The Death Penalty which I attended on the 27th of August, 2006, where I first became acquainted with the case of Amara Tochi. Truth be told, I had not, and still have not, made up my mind on the morality of the death penalty. But I was certain of one thing - I was vehemently opposed to its application in cases of drug trafficking. Tochi had been convicted of drug trafficking and given the mandatory death sentence for trafficking above a certain amount. His case was unusual, even by Singaporean standards, because the judge conceded that "there was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine (the drug which was found on him)". Furthermore, one of the three Court of Appeal judges dissented from confirming the verdict. Surveying the evidence, I was of the opinion that his impending execution by hanging was unjustified. This was backed up by the report of a Special Rapporteur on the United Nations Human Rights Council, which concluded that "the Government of Singapore [had] failed to ensure respect for the relevant legal safeguards"(UN, 2007). Thus, the execution should not proceed.

At the forum, I heard the desperate wailing of the mother of Shanmugam Murugesu (another man who had been executed for drug trafficking), campaigning for Tochi. Beyond the intellectual arguments, it was this human dimension which moved me profoundly. The case was a microcosm of the situation in Singapore. A short distance from the Asia Hotel where the forum was held were the bright lights of the hip, Orchard Road shopping district. Nearby was the affluent Bukit Timah area, populated by lavish bungalows and American-accented English. The Asia Hotel itself, where the forum was held, was an old, slightly rundown building. That day, officers from the Internal Security Department were blatantly visible, tasked to ensure that those troublesome foreigners from human rights organizations and the motley crew of jaded Singaporeans gathered on a Saturday evening would not disrupt the public order with their liberal, Western values unsuitable for an Asian democracy like ours. This forum was a pimple in the otherwise compliant and orderly Singaporean urban dreamscape, to which it is so easy for me, a member of the affluent class, to retreat to. Yet, the pus which oozed out of the pimple this time was too garish to ignore. The other side of Singapore, with a widening income gap, the growing emergence of an underclass and increased social stratification between the elites and the masses as well as the lack of a democratic society and democratic channels to air grievances became all too apparent (Burton, 2006). Amidst the wails of the elderly woman, my youthful, idealistic mind screamed for justice and democracy, wondering why our efforts as concerned citizens in forging a "democratic society, based on justice and equality (words taken from the Singapore pledge)" were construed as attempts to rock the boat - a public nuisance.

On the eve of Tochi's execution, I participated in a vigil attended by about a dozen people, held outside the prison gates. Before I went, some classmates of mine asked me pointedly whether my presence at the vigil would make any difference; perhaps it served to pacify my conscience that I had taken some action. Peering pass the prison walls, I began to remember that our perception of the State's seemingly monolithic authority often stems from a self-imposed mental prison. Her authority is legitimate only because we choose to surrender some rights to her in exchange for her protection. There is nothing which should therefore stop us from asserting our rights when we believe that those rights have been breached. Yet, many citizens were tacitly complicit when we allowed this law to be passed, when we passed over Tochi's case as simply another statistic which we would rather gloss over, when supposedly "good men", like us, did nothing. I realised that Burke was right, but this time, his quote bore direct relevance to my present situation. The greater threat to democracy was not the presence of dictatorships or Stalinist states, for they are undesirable models with clear villains. On the contrary, the greater danger was when good men allowed themselves to be lulled into a state of contentment and compliance, while injustice and inequality was left to fester in outwardly democratic States. I realised that I could not "do nothing", that I had to work for democracy in my country because I could not let oppression and injustice prevail. Howard Zinn opined that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". If I loved my country, I had to be an active participant in constantly remaking Singapore. But if no one bothered, injustice and evil would triumph, and Tochi would have died in vain.

Two days ago, I received my grades for the compulsory Project Work subject which all Junior College students undertake. My project, on Political Opposition in Singapore, had begun primarily as an intellectual exercise. My group had interviewed numerous politicians and done extensive research on Singapore's political history, culminating in a Written Report on the topic. The report, however, remained just that - a report. While half of it proposed suggestions toward creating a more democratic society, I had no intention to implement them. As I learned more, and became increasingly concerned over the Tochi case, I realised that I could "do nothing", and that words without action meant nothing. On the numerous times I asked myself why I bothered, I thought of my peers. Youths in Singapore fare excellently in international tests on academic aptitude, raking up numerous awards in international Mathematics and Science Olympiads. Yet, while many can the periodic table by heart, few can explain their political views, let alone hold a decent discussion on sociopolitical happenings occurring in their own backyard. Question and Answer sessions at school forums always yield the same suspects, often none at all. Their lack of opinion and indifference to issues which should concern them is epitomised in the furtive looks and hasty glances around the room whenever a teacher asks them to raise their hands if they agreed with a particular point. The state of our youth alone is testament to the closed nature of our political system which discourages people from thinking and requires unquestioning compliance, the complete antithesis of my ideal society. On a more promising note, there seems to be a growing number of youth becoming interested in politics and championing democracy in my country. Political weblogs abound, many filled with well-written, insightful articles often surpassing the quality of those printed in the national newspaper. An incident in which the daughter of a Member of Parliament from an 'elite' school slammed a blogger for complaining about job insecurity, telling him to "get out of [her] elite uncaring face", generated much furore over the internet, pointing to the growing status of the Internet as a medium for free sociopolitical discussion.

Tracing both sides of the story, a clear line of action emerges. While the numbers of interested youths are speedily increasing, they remain an insignificant minority when compared with the largely disinterested masses more concerned with their iPods and branded apparel. The key reason behind the burgeoning numbers of interested youths is the Internet. The internet is where most of them first come into contact with opinions and essays providing alternative analysis of issues which do not always frame the government in a good light, unlike the national newspaper, incidentally standing at number 146 on Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index 2006. In addition, the Internet has a multiplier effect allowing for speedy information dissemination and discussion, becoming fertile ground for effective discussion on a national scale. Personally, the variety of views expressed on the Internet by respected bloggers such as mr wang and Alex Au became my alternative source of intellectual fodder, whereas before, my knowledge regarding many issues was limited to stereotypes and unsubstantiated potshots at the government. To foster a more democratic society, the populace needs to first broaden their minds and eventually realize that as good men, they have to do something about the issues they feel strongly about. This boils down to awareness, and hence, the momentum of political blogs and freewheeling sociopolitical discussion on the internet needs to be kept up. Naturally, what follows is that certain youths may feel empowered and enlightened enough to start their own blogs expressing their opinions on these issues, propping up this momentum and laying the foundation for a truly democratic society where all citizens had a part to play in discussing and deciding the future of Singapore. Tying all these online initiatives together is an internet portal which would provide a platform for netizens to navigate through the huge amount of content generated daily, a critical initiative in fostering a lively Civil Society scene on the internet.

In recent years, the government has asserted that it would be more tolerant of political discussion on the internet than in the mainstream media. While this may be a cause for rejoicing amongst netizens, it also generates a chronic schizophrenia which alienates people and trivialises the discussion which takes place over the internet. Even if young Singaporeans become more enlightened, but tacitly accepted the government's delineation between the mainstream media and the internet, they could end up applying similar standards to themselves. In other words, the passion and conviction with which they discussed these issues in the virtual world would not be translated into concrete action and expression in the real world. The second component of my suggestions thus involved the establishment of political discussion groups by youths, for youths, which would preferably function akin to a co-curricular activity in schools. While the government is often wary about such groups seeking to stir up trouble and form pressure groups to affect change on government policy, I choose to see it differently. These discussion groups provide an avenue for like-minded peers to gather to discuss their ideas and opinions, and carry out their duties as responsible citizens. To allay the government's fears, these groups would preferably engage the government and attempt to cooperate on the suggestions and recommendations made by these groups to the government. Only with concrete discussion and action offline can the erudite, sophisticated opinions expressed on the internet be brought into the real world, removing the impression that such talk was cheap, unimportant and irrelevant beyond providing fodder for intellectual debate.

Over the past year or so, I have grown increasingly aware of the lack of democracy in Singapore. The project I did, ironically under the aegis of the Singapore education system, made me more aware of these pimples dotting the otherwise orderly face of Singapore. Yet, it was during the case of Tochi, when I attended the forum, when I stood outside the prison walls, did the human dimension become more apparent. I stood up for justice, equality and democracy not just because they appealed to me intellectually, but because it was my moral responsibility both as a human, and as a responsible citizen. Lately, the pus has begun oozing out uncontrollably from these pimples, never failing to remind me how easy it is to "do nothing", to be captivated by the flashing lights and skyscrapers in our urban dreamscape thinking everything is all and well. The youth are the vanguard of the future, and now is an opportune time for them to harness the power of the internet and their intellect, to truly create a democratic society where freedom of expression exists, and the people are able to air their grievances openly without being watched over by the Internal Security Department as threats to national security.

United Nations, 2007. 'UN Rights Expert Calls On Singapore Not To Carry Out Execution', United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/364EB6D9C23B3421C125726E004C77B8?opendocument , (accessed 15.04.2007)

Burton, John. 2006. ' Singapore's social contract under strain as critics face crackdown ', Financial Times , http://www.ft.com/cms/a/92d94ba6-24e4-11d8-81c6-08209b00dd01,id=060819000238,print=yes.html , (accessed 15.04.2007)