COMMENT: Look closer to find constructive politics among stereotyped atypical, disgruntled protesters

Shah Salimat is the editor-in-chief of culture website Popspoken. The views herein do not reflect the views of the professional affiliations he is associated with. He tweets at @shahsalimat.

Sometimes, the placards tell the story.

Although most placards seen at the “Return Our CPF” protest organised by activist Han Hui Hui were skewed towards claiming back Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies that were perceived to be in the hands of the government, some still draw conclusions to the same old topic.

One placard referred to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s wife Ho Ching as “Ho Jinx”, alleging that the People’s Action Party (PAP) is responsible for withholding CPF monies from the people “to feed Ho Jinx’s gambling addiction”.

Then, there are posters alluding to terms coined in the past. One is the oft-told “Pay And Pay” alternative explanation of the PAP, which probably is a taxi driver pet favourite. Another claims that the $5,000 blogger Roy Ngerng offered as damages in PM Lee’s suit is not derisory; “we don’t earn peanuts” – a reference to Mrs Goh Chok Tong likening a $600,000 salary to that analogy.

Has anything changed? The speakers seem not to. Vincent Wijeysingha, activist and former opposition member, has spoken at various events in Speakers’ Corner in the past. So has Han Hui Hui. Even Roy Ngerng – pre-suit – has spoken at Gilbert Goh’s annual May Day protest. The topics may be different, but they revolve around the same nationalistic interests, attacking elites in top office allegedly disconnected to the ground.

People power. Government disconnect. Groundswell of frustration.

Nothing has changed.

So what, now?

The anger is real and palpable – you can read it in mainstream media reports and the abyss of comments on anti-establishment blogs.

“Sorry for the inconvenience, we are trying to change the system” reads one placard at the event. Notice how the focus is no longer fuelled on chopping figureheads, which is what most conversations on effecting change tend to go back to.

Yes, blogger Roy Ngerng’s suit with PM Lee is probably one with unprecedented attention and financial backing from the people. But maybe, instead of putting X-signs on PAP’s logo on the Internet, protestors should begin listening in to the content of the protest.

Ngerng made clear attempts to suggest policy tweaks that minister Tan Chuan-Jin did not address in his blog post defending the CPF system. An increase in interest is one; the current system according to Ngerng is unadjusted for inflation (although the minimum sum is) and stands at 2.5-4 per cent, leaving the country with, he said, “one of the largest pension funds” but the “least adequate retirement funds in the world”.

Minister Tan said that although more can be done, it is a good sign that now seven in 10 Singaporeans can attain the CPF minimum sum. Where does that leave the other three? Ngerng brought up cases of odd-job labourers still earning similar amounts when compared to what they received 20 years ago.

Where Ngerng could fire a cheap shot at members in office, he did not. After pointing out members in office sit on the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and yet the GIC was playing a cat-and-mouse game of not knowing how CPF monies are used, he campaigned for full transparency of CPF funds’ usage for GIC.

Once those not attending a protest can clearly see that a movement by the people is not to fire someone from office but to change systems and processes, then maybe this group may get some legitimacy other than being lazily labelled as troublemakers and dissidents.

Now, that is constructive politics for you.