COMMENT: Can ruling PAP have its cake and eat it too?
Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.
COMMENT
Chan Chun Sing came out fighting at the People’s Action Party convention at the Kallang Theatre on Sunday. Standing before an audience of fellow party members and supporters, the Minister for Social and Family Development said:
"We must not concede the space - physical or cyber. We will have to learn from the 1960 generation of PAP pioneers - to fight to get our message across at every corner - every street corner, every cyberspace corner, be it in the mass media or social media. We will have to do battle everywhere as necessary.”
One could be forgiven for getting the impression that the minister misses his military days.
Mr Chan, also the PAP's organising secretary, appears to be arguing for a return to a tougher style of governance, harking back to the 1960s when dissenters were arrested and detained without trial.
Feeling threatened and besieged by angry criticism and comments online, the PAP now believes it has to fight for its survival. But Mr Chan doesn’t talk about fighting other political parties; he appears to be talking about fighting the people and their opinions. [Full speech here]
In his comments, Mr Chan has failed to recognise the huge asymmetry in power. The fight he talks about is not, and will not, be a fair one.
The PAP government already has the upper hand; they’ve had it for years. What fight can there be on the street corners, when the government has already outlawed street protests?
What fight can there be in the mass media, when the government has the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, among other regulations?
To make things more confusing, Mr Chan also acknowledges the need for citizen engagement:
"No one feels they belong because they get served or someone else delivered the goodies for them. We feel we belong because we participated and contributed. This is crucial to the next phase of development of our nation's spirit and identity. So we will do more to enable individuals and communities to come forward to participate and contribute."
The only space Singaporeans really have to express themselves is the Internet.
On social media platforms, in blogs and independent news websites people are learning to engage with politics and national issues. The Internet has given us new ways to participate and to contribute, as well as to make contact with other like-minded individuals to coordinate movements of solidarity and change.
The government has always said that it welcomes the engagement and openness, but has also been quick to belittle or dismiss Singaporeans online as “unhappy” or part of a “lunatic fringe”. Online participation does not appear to be much appreciated.
Regulations have also been brought in to exert more control on the internet: the Media Development Authority’s licensing regime for news websites was pushed through at short notice with little justification or understanding of what a “news website” actually is.
Fledgling websites like The Independent and Breakfast Network have already been asked to register, limiting the ways they can generate revenue to sustain their operations.
The PAP government encourages “constructive criticism”, but who actually gets to decide what is “constructive”?
In this context, Mr Chan’s comments signal a willingness to move away from openness and dialogue in favour of a system where the government tells Singaporeans how and where to “read the right thing”.
To then argue that Singaporeans should be able to participate and contribute to the development of their nation doesn't quite gel. Mr Chan’s message appears to be that the PAP government has to fight its people to push forward its agenda. Participation that comes in the form of criticism and dissent is not valued or recognised; only state-endorsed and approved methods of contribution are appreciated.
In other words: do your bit, but don’t rock the boat.
This is not a sign of a party, or a government, that is confident and politically mature.
This is not the sign of a society that is open.
If Mr Chan truly wants Singaporeans to feel they have a stake in their country, he should remember he’s not in the army any more. There is no need to coordinate a battle against people’s freedom of expression.
