Chemical Generation Singapore

“While most demonstrations and protest marches may not start with violence in mind, instances when they do turn violent are many. Illustrative of this are the violent clashes at WTO meetings in Seattle (1999) and Hong Kong (2005) and, more recently, the G20 meeting in Melbourne (2006).”I wonder how many street demonstrations started peacefully and ended peacefully instead?

Civil servants tripping over themselves is an entertaining sight to behold. With recent mounting and constant public pressure for the MIW to allow street protests, the MIW and its government increasingly cannot hold the line without losing even more political credibility.

Hong Kong, a modern Asian society with a strong CCP government in Beijing as its master, allows street protests. Singapore’s history is tainted with violent protests no doubt but the context for instigated and orchestrated mayhem was specifically present as a powder keg. The thin blue line to ban street protests including marches is purely political, not one of law and order concerns. As Sarek Home argues convincingly, if outdoor opposition GE rallies with thousands and thousands can gather and then disperse peacefully with the police professionally functioning at the fringes to maintain order, how reasonable is the fear of public protests? The idea of a designated public Protest Corner, for example at Speakers’ Corner, is one solution. But the government is not taking it up it seems.

I can think of many ways for the government to allow regulated protests and yet prevent it from turning violent and unmanageable. Maximum number of protestors allowed. Designated locations only and no marches allowed. Pre-planned routes for the protests if there are marches. Specific timing for the protests. Organisers to be held accountable if there are order problems. I am certain that the authorities and civil society groups can come to an agreement on the OB markers in public protests.

Or maybe this fear of protests is because the MIW do not trust in the professionalism of its police force? Is it that the police themselves are not confident in their ability to maintain order? I am sure many fellow Singaporeans would be mature enough to understand that violence is always possible when there are street protests despite the best of intentions from the majority of the protestors and the authorities. But I am also sure that the authorities will do what they reasonably can to prevent and subdue any anarchy. Just saying “No” and digging up historical episodes to weakly demonise all protests are increasingly unpersuasive for a supposed First World Government which wants to foster an open and inclusive society.

Oct 25, 2007
ST Forum Letter
Govt explains stand on ‘peaceful’ demos

A FEW letters in the press have argued that peaceful demonstrations should be permitted and even encouraged.

If there can be complete assurance that peaceful outdoor demonstrations cannot turn violent, the case for permitting such activities would be straightforward.

Those with violent goals typically do not declare their intentions upfront.

While most demonstrations and protest marches may not start with violence in mind, instances when they do turn violent are many. Illustrative of this are the violent clashes at WTO meetings in Seattle (1999) and Hong Kong (2005) and, more recently, the G20 meeting in Melbourne (2006).

When Singapore hosts such international events, we must account for the enhanced security threat level they attract. Our top priority must be to ensure the security and safety of the event and participants. We cannot afford to let our guard down or allow activities which undermine our security arrangements to address this threat by diverting and locking down forces for demonstration control and law-and-order functions.

The argument that such violent instances of demonstrations are occasional when compared to the total number of peaceful demonstrations is valid only if we are prepared to bear the costs of such outbreaks, however occasional.

The worst race riots in Singapore history began as peaceful processions. Hence even one such violent riot in Singapore with its attendant loss of lives, injury to persons, and damage to property is one incident too many. Deeper than the physical damage are the scarred relations between communal groups and the erosion of the sense of order and security which Singaporeans value and cherish.

The existing law on outdoor assemblies and processions therefore requires organisers to apply to the police for a permit which the police will evaluate for potential impact on law and order.

Indoor political events organised by Singaporeans for Singaporeans are exempt from having to apply for any permit. This is because the potential for disorder in an indoor setting can be more easily managed should it occur and the extent of damage more reasonably contained from the outset.

We will evolve our policies, as we have, over time but there can be no abdication of the need to always balance maintaining order and security for the larger society while adjusting the parameters to accommodate aspirations for different forms of political expression among some segments of our society.

Toh Yong Chuan
Deputy Director
International and Corporate Relations Division
Ministry of Home Affairs

The police implied that such cause-related events can be held indoors. I presume the rationale for holding such events which are prone to riots in the eyes of the police is that any supposed riot can be contained and controlled if it occurs indoors.

For a nervous police with zero experience in handling peaceful street protests let alone street demonstrations that turn bad, I can see that indoor cause-related events (we shouldn’t use the word ‘protest’ or else the MIW would get agitated) are a concession, an attempt, however small, at accommodation. I understand and accept the bureaucratic logic of taking things one step at a time.

But the Substation is indoors in a way the last I checked – there are walls and exits, the area is contained. It is just that it is open-air. Why is it still a no?

No police permit for ‘Peace Concert for Burma’ at Timbre
Tuesday • October 16, 2007
Ansley Ng and Christopher Toh
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg

It would have been like any other night at this alfresco bar and bistro known for its live performances: Local bands playing cover hits and original songs.

Except that tonight, candles would have been lit and a moment of silence respected — in a show of support for the people in Myanmar.

But the “Peace Concert for Burma”, co-organised by arts centre The Substation and Timbre (picture), the bar adjacent to it, will not go ahead as planned. The police have said no to the three-hour gig.

Responding to queries from Today, a police spokesman said: “The organiser was advised by Police to hold the concert indoors. Political and ’cause’-related events are assessed to have a higher potential to stir emotions and controversy; an outdoor concert may lead to law and order concerns.”

The Substation had contacted the authorities last week for permission to hold the concert and informed them of the programme.

Mr Lee Weng Choy, The Substation’s artistic co-director, informed them there would be no “banners and speeches” and submitted the identity card numbers and nationalities of the musicians — and the songs they would play, which were mostly covers of groups such as U2, Oasis, Rolling Stones and the Beatles.

“Our policy at The Substation is whenever we do something that we know is somewhat controversial, we push as much as we want but we also tell people exactly what we want to do,” he said.

The police then told the organisers yesterday that the event could not be held, said Mr Lee.

Last month, police also rejected a request by The Substation to hold an outdoor flea market near the Fort Canning Tunnel that would have included booths run by 19 civil society groups, including the Vegetarian Society, the Cat Welfare Society and two gay support groups.

The Substation consequently did away with the outdoor booths for the civil society groups.

As for its peace concert, The Substation now plans to hold it in next month in its theatre and will submit another application to the authorities.

“Many in the local arts community have had Myanmar on their mind and a number of individuals have been involved in petitions and vigils,” said Mr Lee.

The Substation’s other artistic co-director Audrey Wong said they had expected people “from our mailing list, artists and those from the arts community” as well as members of the public and Timbre regulars tonight.

The bar can accommodate 100 people.

Timbre regular Eve Ang, 27, was puzzled by the decision to disallow the concert. “If we can have candlelight vigils in various universities to show support for the people of Myanmar, what is a concert?” she said. “I don’t see what is the big deal of holding a concert at a place that has rock acts playing every week anyway.”

The live acts will go on tonight as usual — minus the candles and the moment of silence.

So it is now clearer even for the skeptics. The petition first at St Martins Drive, and then the protest at the Istana as brinkmanship after the police did not arrest those outside the Burma embassy. The Istana arrests would then be tied to the Burma protest with the international media watching the antics of the police and the SDP. Anyway, the arrest of 4 SDP people holding placards outside the Istana was expected. The 4 expected it, the police expected it, the media expected it, the bloggers expected it. But the SDP cameraman was also arrested, making it 5 SDP people arrested.

That was unexpected.

Some questions about that event. Did the police arrest the 5th man so that it made up the numbers for an unlawful assembly i.e. 5 people? Is this a tactic to intimidate activists from using videos and then youtube-ing it? Did the 5th man defied instructions from the police, thus making him the 5th guy to be arrested at the last minute or was it premeditated? How and why was the 5th man arrested?

Singapore arrests opposition members in Myanmar protest
Mon Oct 8, 2007 10:18am EDT

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – A Singapore opposition party leader and several of his supporters were arrested on Monday as they gathered outside the presidential palace to protest the city-state’s trade ties with Myanmar’s ruling junta.

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), in a statement on its Web site (http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/index.html), said that four of its people, including Chee, were arrested by plain-clothes police as they began the protest in front of the presidential palace, also called the Istana.

Singapore police confirmed that Chee Soon Juan was taken into custody, but said a total of five SDP supporters had staged an unlawful demonstration in the park facing the main entrance of the Istana.

Under Singapore law, an assembly of five or more people requires a permit.

“The police seized the placards and arrested Chee and others,” said a police statement emailed to Reuters.

The police statement also warned the “public not to participate in an assembly or procession that does not have a permit, as it is an offence to do so.

“The public should also stay away from the vicinity of such illegal protest activities. Our laws apply equally to all, whether local or foreigners. But Chee considers himself to be above the law,” the statement said.

Singapore is one of Myanmar’s biggest foreign investors and its trade with the country formerly known as Burma was worth S$1 billion ($680 million) last year.

European Union parliamentarians last week urged Singapore to ease strict bank secrecy laws to avoid becoming a financial haven for organized crime. It also urged Singapore to punish the Myanmar generals that ordered the bloody crackdown on anti-government protests by seizing their assets in Singapore.

Singapore’s prime minister on Friday denied accusations that it is a money-laundering centre for members of Myanmar’s military regime in a CNN interview broad cast on Friday.

“We don’t play dirty money, we don’t condone money laundering,” Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said. “Our rules against that are as strict as any other financial centre – London, Hong Kong, New York,” Lee said.

My views were caught in the crossfire between what could be the SDP and the MIW camps. The TOC letter summed it up that there is no basis that Chee Soo Juan’s use of the Burmese embassy protest for SDP’s benefit is immoral, or something like that.

Call me a realist, but I see politics firstly as about power, not about morality. The PAP plays its own dirty games, and the SDP has learnt to play along to increase its power and reach. It is obvious that SDP seized the chance to protest at the embassy to establish its presence. Unlike the MIW or the WP, I don’t think it has any regular meet the people sessions or walk abouts. Hence, it has to come up with some other marketing plan otherwise Singaporeans cannot remember the SDP.

Burma is among SDP’s pet causes given that SDP is a member of a few international democrat conglomerates, or cabals, depending on where you stand. SDP is a party that, in MFAspeak, wants to punch beyond its weight. SDP advocates for “democracy” not only in Singapore but also elsewhere. Maybe elsewhere more than Singapore as its tactics have steadfastly not adopted to the people’s tastes much despite defeats at the polls time after time.

I think we should see SDP’s stance at St Martin’s Drive for what it is. A chance to advertise its brand to an international audience more than a local one, as the international media is captivated by what SDP does to irk the MIW in Singapore. The week-long protest at the embassy is more to sustain the idea of civil disobedience, a philosophy SDP adheres to, and pressure the authorities to eventually cave in on that indefensible zero-tolerance towards protests. That was why Chee Soon Juan urged people to stare down the intimidation and harassment by the police at the embassy and sign the petitions. The Burmese petitions, together with the 24-hour protest outside the Istana scheduled today, and SDP’s other ad hoc protests and marches, are all part of satyagraha.

For SDP, the recent events in Burma with the whole world watching were mainly a window for another attempt at civil disobedience in Singapore. If SDP was that religious about Burma all the time as I think its supporters claims it is, then did SDP organise petitions outside St Martin’s Drive when Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest was extended in November 2004 and May 2007, also significant although less dramatic moments in Burma politics?

Chee Soon Juan’s ‘exploitation’ of the Burma situation?
Posted by theonlinecitizen on October 6th, 2007

This is a letter sent to TOC. The writer wishes to remain anonymous.

Recently, a few people have complained that Chee Soon Juan was exploiting the Burmese situation to make a political point. Here’s one typical interpretation of the petition he held recently outside the Burmese embassy. Here’s another, a letter from a Burmese national to the ST.

The first thing to note is that the accusers have absolutely zero evidence that Chee has no genuine concern for the Burmese people. That he is doing this for the sole purpose of bringing attention to his party and his cause. So this cannot be a valid criticism of Chee’s actions.

Let us then consider a slightly more substantive criticism, that articulated by M. M. Aung in his letter to the ST. He writes:

“I am upset that Dr Chee Soon Juan, an opposition politician of the Singapore Democratic Party, exploited the situation in Myanmar by collecting signatures for a petition from innocent people who did not know that the petition was also directed at the Singapore Government.”

It seems to me that if people signed the petition without asking to whom it was directed, that they have only themselves to blame and not Chee. If you buy a product from me without asking what it is, am I to blame? I might, if I had attempted to deceive you into thinking it was something that it was not. But Chee did not. There were no explicit notices or announcements that this was a petition against the Burmese government and nothing else. Anyone could have asked Chee about the targets of the petition, and there is no evidence that he gave anyone a deceptive answer if they asked.

So what other objections do these critics have to Chee’s actions?

They always mention that the SDP makes political gains from organising such events. But clearly, making political gains in itself cannot immoral, otherwise all politics would be immoral. So there must be some other reason for their thinking that Chee is doing something immoral.

Is it because he is making political gains through showing his support for a foreign cause? That can only be so if you also think that all politicians should not take public stances on foreign causes. Only isolationists would make that extreme assertion, and I doubt that all of Chee’s critics are such hard-core isolationists.

It’s also often been mentioned that it’s ’sickening’ that Chee is using the fact that the Burmese are ’suffering’ to make a political point. But making a political point based on other people’s suffering can’t be intrinsically immoral either, unless you believe politicians should be oblivious to other people’s suffering. Since much of politics legitimately concerns reducing human suffering, I think we can safely say that that would also be a rather far-fetched assertion.

We can only conclude that it is still unclear what basis we have to condemn Chee’s actions as immoral.

At least 2 other petitions have emerged recently, one from the universities, and another from the Burmese community. It shows that our students are not apathetic and tuned in to global events which have an impact on Singapore’s foreign image, and that some in the Burmese community realise that distancing from SDP is politically wise.

Our government lately mentioned that petitions are legal unlike street protests. The main reason why the government says this is because petitions are just signatures and comments on paper, and do not have the visual impact of a street protest. That is why the governments prefer petitions to protests, and it is not because they encourage dissent per se. Strangely, regardless if there are 1,000,000 signatures in a petition, it is deemed a lesser problem than 10 people on the streets protesting an issue.

On a separate note, why can’t public protests be held in Singapore? If the government is so nervous about public safety and street protests, why can’t they implement indoor protests for “security” and minimum traffic disruption reasons like those introduced during the IMF meeting last year?

‘Free Burma’
Friday October 5, 2007
Jasmine Yin
jasmine@mediacorp.com.sg

AS THE arrests of monks and activists continue in Myanmar, over 900 people from the three local universities joined forces to support a student-led campaign for peace yesterday. Candlelight vigils were held at two campuses.

Local and foreign students and faculty members, including playwright and law academic Eleanor Wong, signed two petitions at the National University of Singapore (NUS), the Nanyang Technological University and the Singapore Management University (SMU).

One petition called for the Myanmar junta to engage key players for national peace and reconciliation. The other urged the Asean (Association of South-east Asian Nations) secretariat to keep up its pressure on the junta as well as focus on the humanitarian crisis in the impoverished country.

The two petitions will be presented to the relevant authorities next week after the signatures are collated, student organiser Choo Zheng Xi told Today.

In addition, information packages about the campaign which included red ribbons and armbands were distributed.

To applause from the 50-strong audience at an NUS forum, 22-year-old law student Leow Zi Xiang asked bluntly: “As a Singaporean, instead of asking how we can influence China and India to keep up pressure on Myanmar, why don’t we talk about how we can influence our government to end its ties with the Myanmar government?”

Myanmar’s official data reports Singapore as its second-largest investor with over $1.57 billion, mostly in the services sector.

In response, Mr Choo said that the primary focus of student activity at the moment is to express sorrow and to raise awareness about the “very real human tragedy” unfolding in Myanmar.

Now was not the time to urge the government to scrutinise its policies, the 21-year-old law student said.

Assistant Professor Michael Ewing-Chow, who presented a paper on Myanmar at the forum, argued that the junta “can still function” based on its relationships with China and India its neighbours and emerging superpowers even if Singapore were to cut its ties.

Singapore “will have an effect, but not as major an effect as China and India”, he said. But this “does not devolve Singapore from the responsibility to have some effect” an area that is worth a closer look, the academic said.

History has shown that the poor suffer most from sanctions, while engagement without strings “merely enriches the wrong-doers”. What people can do is to petition for “smart” sanctions to be imposed against the junta, targeting certain assets and individuals.

Asst Prof Ewing-Chow also stressed the need to develop institutions such as a United Nations-supported forum to rope in key players and forge a solution.

Some members in the audience from Myanmar broke down when the name of Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was raised.

“We love her. We respect her. Our future is in her hands. We don’t know how long we have to wait. We must find a solution to my country,” one forum panellist from Myanmar cried. Ms Suu Kyi, whose party won the elections called in 1990 but never held power, has been under house arrest for nearly 12 of the last 18 years.

Venerable Si Fa Rong, a Buddhist monk, told Today prayer sessions for peace in Myanmar were planned for next week, following a statement by the 2,000-strong Buddhist Fellowship Singapore protesting the junta’s violent crackdown.

“We greatly admire the monks and nuns who led the peaceful protest in Myanmar. They showed courage and concern for the people of Myanmar. Had (they) not initiated the protest the world would have remained silent and oblivious to the plight of the people,” the statement said.

A spokesperson said that, after seeing the images of violence against monks and nuns in the media, “we thought it’s time that a Buddhist organisation in Singapore spoke up”.

“The majority of people in Myanmar are Buddhists, and when the monks, nuns and people are brutally dealt with and their communications shut down, it’s only appropriate that the wider Buddhist community speak up for them,” she added.

Myanmar people should reject Dr Chee’s cause
ST Forum, 4 October 2007
I AM a Singapore citizen born in Myanmar. I am deeply saddened by the outbreak of violence in Myanmar which had led to the death of innocent people.

I assure Singaporeans that although the Myanmar people working and living in Singapore are affected by the situation back home, they would not do anything which could result in a law-and-order problem here. Hence, I am upset that Dr Chee Soon Juan, an opposition politician of the Singapore Democratic Party, exploited the situation in Myanmar by collecting signatures for a petition from innocent people who did not know that the petition was also directed at the Singapore Government.

Dr Chee’s action is unlawful and the Myanmar people in Singapore should not support his cause as the Prime Minister of Singapore had been doing his share in helping to resolve the problem in Myanmar.

I strongly urge the Myanmar people to use legal means to express concern for their countrymen by signing the petition book at Dandaryi, on the fourth level of Peninsula Plaza.

M. M. Aung

The Workers’ Party finally issued a straight to the point statement on the crisis in Burma. Their sensible style is observe, assess and don’t issue anything until the facts are clearer. Now that leaves the other major party in Singapore, the PAP, who officially have not issued any statement, unless you count the PM and Foreign Minister’s statements as PAP statements, which should not be the case. There isn’t even anything on the Myanmar crackdown in the Young PAP blog. I’m not sure if parties under the Singapore Democratic Alliance have issued similar statements though.

2 October 2007

Statement On Situation In Myanmar

The Workers’ Party wholly condemns the use of violence by the Myanmar military regime against unarmed civilians. Such acts amount to nothing but crimes of murder and mayhem.

Whatever the ‘peace’ that will be achieved by the present crackdown, the yearnings of the people to be free from more than four decades of military rule will not go away.

The Workers’ Party urges the international community including the Singapore government to use all influence and means at its disposal to stop the continued repression of the Myanmar people and to free all political detainees.

The Workers’ Party further urges the pursuit of peaceful and due political process to determine the collective will of the Myanmar people in their choice of government and the determination of their future.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
2 OCT 2007

Calm and stability is returning to Burma, or that is what we think since there is a news blackout on what transpired on the streets and in the monasteries.

Singaporeans and Burmese in Singapore sympathise with the dire plight of the peaceful freedom marchers in Burma. In Singapore, there are 2 petitions outside the Myanmar Embassy and the police are there to intimidate people from sitting in and protesting outside the embassy although sympathisers were allowed to sign their names with trepidation. The police are losing their moral ground more and more in being there as their very presence, whatever their dubious political or genuine security intentions are, deters people from showing their rightful condemnation of the junta’s actions in Burma recently.

The SDP-organised petitions at the embassy, one on condemning the junta and one on condemning Singapore, is another creative move to challenge the shifting OB markers used to especially contain SDP and not the other alternative parties. In one politically opportunistic sleight of hand, SDP conflated the issue of protest and petition, seizing Singaporeans and Burmese anger at the junta to condemn the junta and the government at the same time. SDP cunningly piggy-backed on the Burmese community in Singapore who are so enraged at what is happening at home that they would go down to the Burmese Embassy regardless of the consequences. Perhaps for the first time ever, this is the most crowded SDP event as the majority might even be Burmese.

SDP, however dodgy or whoever its support base is, deserves credit for its most creative protest since the 4 people CPF one.

Police urge public not to take part in assembly without a permit
By Wong Siew Ying, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 30 September 2007 2344 hrs

SINGAPORE: The police have reminded the public not to take part in an assembly without a permit again.

The reiteration came after protest activities organised by opposition politician Chee Soon Juan and his Singapore Democratic Party outside the Myanmar Embassy on Sunday.

Police said Chee’s organisation of a petition letter campaign is not unlawful per se, but he had done so in an unlawful manner by staging an assembly outside the embassy without a permit.

According to a statement released by the police, Chee had asked the public to sign petition letters not only against the Myanmar government, but also against the Singapore government.

Police officers requested the public to leave after they have signed the letters, but Chee and his supporters urged them to stay in defiance of police advice.

Police said petitions can be organised through lawful means and those who wished to express their political views or hold political activities should do so through available avenues.