TR EMERITUS

Ms Kirsten Han “Not In My Name. Abolish The Death Penalty.” “2nd Chances Means Not Killing Them.” When we wore T-shirts bearing anti-death penalty slogans into police interrogation rooms, it was in recognition of the fact that we are being harassed for our anti-death penalty work, and an expression of our refusal to be cowed by such reprisals. Neither of us expected to have those shirts seized off our backs for some ludicrous alleged “illegal procession”. Perhaps we should have. In recent times we see a growing pattern of harassment and intimidation, designed to wear down those who believe in a different and better future, and to spread fear among Singaporeans. What we experienced on Friday morning does not affect us alone; the implications ripple out of the interrogation rooms at Bedok Police Division and are felt by everyone watching. From the overreach of legislation like POFMA and FICA, to thinly-veiled threats and vindictive statements by government functionaries, to the direct punishment of us and the communities we care deeply about: there is a growing chill in the atmosphere, a turning of the screw against people and groups who express views and positions that diverge from those in power. On Friday, we were told that the T-shirts we wore and our walk across the street constituted an “illegal procession”, for which our shirts would have to be confiscated. On Monday, we found out via a news article that the authorities had just as suddenly decided it was not an offence after all. Such harassment is calculated to sow uncertainty in the hopes that we will be paralysed by our doubts and worries. Those in power want our time and energy spent on our fear, so that we may ultimately conclude that the safest course of action is silence and obedience. We are now seeing a Singapore where a migrant worker is ejected from the country simply for embarrassing the government with his poetry about the discriminatory and exploitative conditions that workers face. Where the authorities use investigations into minor, non-violent events as pretexts to demand that we give up our privacy and hand over passwords to the accounts we use to work, play, and communicate. Where, when the state kills in our names, they also expect us to seek their permission before even a small number of us can gather outside the prison to express our grief and anger over such violence. When we hear of the oppression hitting new heights of absurdity, it is easy to react in fear and despair. We do not seek to minimise the impact that such clampdowns can have. We do not pretend to be unaffected or unfazed by what we have experienced. We do not claim to be fearless or without concerns about the reprisals we face for our activism. But instead of letting fear bind us, we can let our outrage over such oppression motivate us to not only stand our ground, but continue pushing for the changes we want to see. Instead of feeling helpless and powerless, we can recognise that such ridiculous abuses of power reveal the anxiety and insecurity of our oppressors. If they are trying to get to us like this, it can only mean we are getting to them. As anti-death penalty activists, the work we do is marked by one cruelty after another. Even before a hanging, people on death row and their families are put through multiple indignities and difficulties. We see the despair and desperation of family members as it sinks in that no lawyer in the country is willing or able to help them, as they watch desperate attempts to save their loved one get dismissed and condemned as “abuse of process”. We bear witness to their grief, and the pain and trauma that follows them for the rest of their lives. Despite all this, there is also great love, solidarity and power. Over the past few months, we have seen families come together to support one another. We have been buoyed by the strong turn-out at Hong Lim Park protests against the death penalty, and encouraged by the unprecedented momentum of the movement towards abolition in Singapore. We have drawn strength from everyone who has expressed care and support since Friday. Acts of oppression are aimed at breaking up communities and driving people apart; by choosing to come together instead, we are laying claim to our collective power. We should not be required to seek permission to air our thoughts, gather with our communities, and mobilise for issues we care about. When the powerful try to take this away from us, our response should be to stand all the more firmly for our freedom. We will continue to speak up on the issues we care about. We will continue to stand in solidarity with the communities we support, and to hold and create space for others in Singapore to step forward too. We continue to imagine a better, fairer, gentler Singapore in which people are treated with dignity and able to thrive. We hope you will join us.   Kirsten Han   * Ms Han is a journalist and activist. She blogs at https://www.kirstenhan.com/.      Read More →

This weekend’s YouTube Binge was a particularly interesting one. The video that struck me was an interview of a US Marine who had served as in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) as an officer. This young man was born in Singapore and after serving his obligatory national service in Singapore, decided to join the US Marines. The interview can be found at: [LINK] What makes this interview so insightful is the fact that instead of comparing the training and equipment in the US Marines and the SAF, he talked about his personal experiences in the SAF and the culture of the two organisations. One of the most striking things he said was the fact that in the SAF, there is an “Ideal” of what the military should be and everyone trains towards the ideal. One of his most striking examples is in field training. He mentions that in the SAF, there’s a lot of emphasis on getting things ready for parade (keeping your uniform spick and span), which also carries onto the field. On the other hand, in the US Marines, there is emphasis on parade appearance when you’re on base and not when you’re in the field. He also gave the example of being in the field whilst training in the SAF and being punished because he instinctively threw a smoke grenade when his platoon came under attack because smoke grenades are controlled items and expensive and he needed to ask for permission to use the smoke grenade. The SAF is a conscript force and what goes on in the SAF is pretty much a good guide as to what goes on in the rest of Singapore. It was good to see this young man touch on one of the most pressing issues in Singapore – namely the fact that we’re a society that prepares our people for a text book ideal of what the world is rather than what the world actually is. I think of another national service story, which comes from a lawyer friend who was a combat engineer officer. The story he tells is that in Singapore, the only way to determine if an area has been occupied previously is if you radio HQ. By contrast the Israeli (field experience) doctrine tells you to check if there are birds in the area cause the birds would be feasting on leftovers by the humans. OK, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with having a vision and working towards it. This is supposed to be the one key thing that all great leaders are supposed to have. However, having an idea and putting it into practice are two separate things. There are many cases in life when the text book does not provide an example of how things should be and the man in the centre does not know what to do because he’s far removed from the ground. These basic facts are probably the biggest fault lines in how Singapore is run. Our system only seems to cater for text book answers (text books written in the 1960s) and the centre always knows best. Singapore is run by people trained by a text book written in the 1960s. In fairness to Lee Kuan Yew and his team, that text book worked brilliantly. Singapore is pretty much what a place should be – clean, green and rich. As things stand, things in Singapore look pretty good. I get funny looks from Americans and Europeans whenever I suggest that Singapore is less than paradise, the look of “What are you complaining about?” However, as I’ve argued, the problem in Singapore is not so much that its in danger of imminent collapse but that it’s bound to slowly rot away from the inside and while things look quite ok at the moment, it won’t always be the case. In the 1960s, the centre held under Mr. Lee because he and his team admitted that they didn’t know everything and were willing to learn, adapt and get things done. Mr. Lee in his early days had the good sense to keep the politics off the backs of capable people like Dr. Goh Keng Swee. He took care of the politics and they took care of the work. Unfortunately, things changed. Dr. Goh Keng Swee retired in 1984 and was only heard off again at his funeral. Singapore’s success then became all about one man in the centre. The centre was all wise and knowing and only the centre could get things done. This was OK, when the centre did have answers. However, the internet happened and things started loosening up. In Singapore speak, being on the periphery is for losers and nobody cares what people on the ground think. Classic case is the explosion of Covid cases in the dormitories. Activist spent years raising the issue of unsanitary conditions in the dormitories. They were ignored or sued. Then, Covid happened, thus proving the activist right (the activist being on the ground), which resulted in the government bailing out dormitory operators so that they could go back to suing and deporting anyone who suggested that management was not doing a perfect job. Think of the deportation of Zakir Hossain as being the Singapore version of Trumps “Sporadic for you but not for others.” This would indicate that the object of doing anything in Singapore is about maintaining the status quo rather than on trying to improve the status quo. This won’t work forever. The world is moving in such a way where it will be impossible for the centre to know everything and guys in the periphery will need to be able to act and improvise according to the situation. Unless you value the guys on the ground, or the guys doing the actual work and fighting the actual battle, you’re not going to achieve very much. So, instead of tying up the hands of the people, the government should allow people to get on with it, if Singapore is to have a future at all.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →

So Lawrence Wong has launched the year long Forward Singapore exercise (FSE) to review and refresh Singapore's social compact. Hahahaha... I will be frank and blunt with my commentary. To LW and his 4 G colleagues, I will say to them not to waste time and resources with whatever FSE. I want them all to never ever forget that his and his colleagues' million dollars political salaries are paid with the people's hard-earned money. They are not paid to wayang, to entertain and/or waste everybody's time. In short, don't bother. I ask how much did the government really take in their year long Our Singapore Conversation 2012 chaired by Heng Swee Keat? There were many such official endorsed conversations in the past too. Many, many older CPF members repeatedly told the pap government in many past conversations to honour its own promise, I stress, HONOUR ITS OWN PAP PROMISE made to them to return them their CPF savings when they turned 55 but all their pleads and cries fell on deaf ears. What is worst is that the pap government not only brazenly renegaded on its own promise, it further abused its parliamentary majority advantage to further tighten, delay, delay and delay returning members' CPF savings with all sorts of pretexts etc that only well-cooked suckerporeans would suck. At the very, very least, why were they so heartless and reluctant and not give people a choice to either opt in or opt out of their CPF schemes if their schemes are so superior? I know that karma is alive. So seriously, what is the point of having more conversations or doing more of the same things when I know it in my bones that this government is more interested in entertaining suckerporeans than sincerely and seriously listen with the intention or even willingness to change or to right any wrongs? I ask is it too much to expect any credible government to honour its own sovereign and solemn promise on returning members' CPF savings, no more and no less? Next, it is very timely and fortunate that Mr Liu Thai Ker recently sounded that HDB is drifting away from its social mission of building and proving the people with truly affordable housing to being you know what la. Today, an average 4 room HDB flat very easily cost S$400,000/ upwards. In today's pap govern Singapore with so many people suffering depressed wages and job insecurity, just imagine how heavy young people's housing burden will be and going forward, how much, if any, is left for them to retire on? I would appreciate if someone can convince me that an average young Grab food delivery person today is able to comfortably save, buy and service the loan on his/her own flat and have enough left for a decent retirement. I can very easily go on...Need I say more? Think.   Simon Goh      Read More →