My views on the SDP’s stand on civil disobedience and political reform
Written by Ng E-Jay
14 January 2010
I have been debating with a commenter who uses the nickname of “BryanT” in the SDP website. As this commenter is very persistent in putting up arguments in favour of the ruling party’s ideology and is also fond of trying to discredit SDP, I have found the need to provide comprehensive rebuttals to some of his claims.
This is a summary of some of the comments I have put up over the past few days explaining why I support SDP’s methods and ideas.
In one comment, BryanT agreed with Dr Chee Soon Juan’s statement that changes are often initiated by a few. Dr Chee was referring to the changes the SDP has been trying to bring about to our flawed political system that denies Singaporeans their fundamental liberties. Civil disobedience is one of the various methods promoted and employed by Dr Chee.
BryanT however disparages Dr Chee’s efforts and downplays his potential for success by arguing that the few who eventually succeed are those who are invariably supported by the masses right from the beginning. In his exact words, the few (that is, the ones trying to initiate change) must be in tune with what the masses desire and what the masses see as reasonable means to attain these. Otherwise, the actions of the “informed” few will not only fizzle out eventually, but be shunted repeatedly.
This is my counter to BryanT:
BryanT asserts we must have mass support before success is possible. That is correct. But in order to get mass support, a leader must take the stand and use his powers of persuasion as well as his deeds to sway the masses. Such a leader must invariably press on with his cause even when faced with intense criticism from his detractors. That is precisely what Martin Luther King Jr did, and that is also what Dr Chee is doing. BryanT has dismissed Dr Chee’s endeavour even before giving it a fair chance.
Just as Martin Luther King Jr was in tune with his comrades’ desire for equality and end to racial segregation, so Dr Chee is in my opinion also in tune with Singaporeans’ desire for a fairer and more just society. Of course the elites will claim that society is fair, as the PAP has provided well for them. But how about the working class? How about those whose income, jobs, security, and rights have been taken away? Is BryanT speaking for them when he insinuates that Dr Chee is not in tune with their desires?
**************************************
Next, BryanT asserted in another comment that SDP has been embarking on civil disobedience for some while but does not seem to have attracted support. The implication according to him therefore is that SDP must be on the wrong track.
My counter-argument to BryanT:
How many years exactly has SDP spent on civil disobedience? How many years did Martin Luther King Jr persevere before he finally got results? Ghandi? Shih Ming Teh? Nelson Mandela? If these great luminaries took a long time, why should you expect quick results from SDP? Is it fair?
With a tight grip on the mainstream media, the govt can portray the impression that there is little support for SDP or that Dr Chee’s ideas are badly flawed.
In reality, there is a growing number of Singaporeans who are leaning more towards SDP and Dr Chee because they found he makes sense and his ideology is on firm ground.
Since the MSM refuses to provide SDP this kind of coverage to reflect the ground reality of increased support over the years, this growing group of Singaporeans have to no choice but to exploit the domain of cyberspace, and this is precisely what has happened.
**************************************
In yet another comment, BryanT says that a “real opposition” opposes the government, not the political system as such and acts quietly and constructively, by opposing but not obstructing. He insinuates that SDP does not think it has a chance of succeeding on the electoral front, and so does not feel the need to behave responsibly. He also insinuates the the SDP is not serious about elections, citing quotes from Dr Chee telling people to cast their eyes beyond the elections.
My rebuttal to BryanT:
What Dr Chee is written in these two articles is about bringing much needed change to our political system, no matter how much time it takes. At the heart of his thesis is the recognition that our political system is flawed. You can dispute this all you want, but both Dr Chee and his supporters have facts to back up our case.
What do you mean by saying a responsible opposition only opposes the govt, but not the system? Besides being vague, are you implying that we should not challenge the system no matter whether we think it is flawed? If we know the system is flawed, and we do not challenge it but merely put up token resistance to govt policies, we are in fact turning a blind eye to errors and injustice, and ultimately helping the ruling party perpetuate a flawed machinery for its own self-interest.
What do you mean by acting quietly and constructively? You are just regurgitating the rules that PAP wants to impose on the opposition.
In reality, acting constructively should mean presenting your case with facts and reason, and demonstrating how the masses can peacefully bring about the necessary change that will better their lives. That is PRECISELY what the SDP has done.
The PAP version of “constructive opposition” however means playing along with the self-serving rules that they make up and which they have the freedom and power to change from time to time as they see fit according to their own agenda. I will never respect an opposition that accedes to such a agenda, because such an opposition only acts to entrench the ruling party and does not truly do what will better the lives of Singaporeans.
Constructive opposition does NOT mean refraining from opposing the system. Opposing the system in turn does NOT mean obstructing. It MEANS challenging the establishment to right its wrongs, so that peoples’ dignity and rights can be restored.
It is only PAP propaganda that equates being constructive with being docile and closing one’s eyes to the obvious truths that hurt, and equates challenging the system with being obstructive. This particular brand of propaganda is flawed, self-serving, and unworthy of any serious consideration.
When the SDP calls upon supporters to cast our eyes beyond elections, that is not an admission that it feels it can never win elections. Instead, it is a brave recognition that participating in elections ALONE cannot effectively bring about all the various change we desire, not when elections are controlled by the PM Office and there is lack of any independent oversight. Not when the mainstream media is controlled by the ruling clique and made to serve their agenda exclusively.
Written by Ng E-Jay
14 January 2010
I have been debating with a commenter who uses the nickname of “BryanT” in the SDP website. As this commenter is very persistent in putting up arguments in favour of the ruling party’s ideology and is also fond of trying to discredit SDP, I have found the need to provide comprehensive rebuttals to some of his claims.
This is a summary of some of the comments I have put up over the past few days explaining why I support SDP’s methods and ideas.
In one comment, BryanT agreed with Dr Chee Soon Juan’s statement that changes are often initiated by a few. Dr Chee was referring to the changes the SDP has been trying to bring about to our flawed political system that denies Singaporeans their fundamental liberties. Civil disobedience is one of the various methods promoted and employed by Dr Chee.
BryanT however disparages Dr Chee’s efforts and downplays his potential for success by arguing that the few who eventually succeed are those who are invariably supported by the masses right from the beginning. In his exact words, the few (that is, the ones trying to initiate change) must be in tune with what the masses desire and what the masses see as reasonable means to attain these. Otherwise, the actions of the “informed” few will not only fizzle out eventually, but be shunted repeatedly.
This is my counter to BryanT:
BryanT asserts we must have mass support before success is possible. That is correct. But in order to get mass support, a leader must take the stand and use his powers of persuasion as well as his deeds to sway the masses. Such a leader must invariably press on with his cause even when faced with intense criticism from his detractors. That is precisely what Martin Luther King Jr did, and that is also what Dr Chee is doing. BryanT has dismissed Dr Chee’s endeavour even before giving it a fair chance.
Just as Martin Luther King Jr was in tune with his comrades’ desire for equality and end to racial segregation, so Dr Chee is in my opinion also in tune with Singaporeans’ desire for a fairer and more just society. Of course the elites will claim that society is fair, as the PAP has provided well for them. But how about the working class? How about those whose income, jobs, security, and rights have been taken away? Is BryanT speaking for them when he insinuates that Dr Chee is not in tune with their desires?
**************************************
Next, BryanT asserted in another comment that SDP has been embarking on civil disobedience for some while but does not seem to have attracted support. The implication according to him therefore is that SDP must be on the wrong track.
My counter-argument to BryanT:
How many years exactly has SDP spent on civil disobedience? How many years did Martin Luther King Jr persevere before he finally got results? Ghandi? Shih Ming Teh? Nelson Mandela? If these great luminaries took a long time, why should you expect quick results from SDP? Is it fair?
With a tight grip on the mainstream media, the govt can portray the impression that there is little support for SDP or that Dr Chee’s ideas are badly flawed.
In reality, there is a growing number of Singaporeans who are leaning more towards SDP and Dr Chee because they found he makes sense and his ideology is on firm ground.
Since the MSM refuses to provide SDP this kind of coverage to reflect the ground reality of increased support over the years, this growing group of Singaporeans have to no choice but to exploit the domain of cyberspace, and this is precisely what has happened.
**************************************
In yet another comment, BryanT says that a “real opposition” opposes the government, not the political system as such and acts quietly and constructively, by opposing but not obstructing. He insinuates that SDP does not think it has a chance of succeeding on the electoral front, and so does not feel the need to behave responsibly. He also insinuates the the SDP is not serious about elections, citing quotes from Dr Chee telling people to cast their eyes beyond the elections.
My rebuttal to BryanT:
What Dr Chee is written in these two articles is about bringing much needed change to our political system, no matter how much time it takes. At the heart of his thesis is the recognition that our political system is flawed. You can dispute this all you want, but both Dr Chee and his supporters have facts to back up our case.
What do you mean by saying a responsible opposition only opposes the govt, but not the system? Besides being vague, are you implying that we should not challenge the system no matter whether we think it is flawed? If we know the system is flawed, and we do not challenge it but merely put up token resistance to govt policies, we are in fact turning a blind eye to errors and injustice, and ultimately helping the ruling party perpetuate a flawed machinery for its own self-interest.
What do you mean by acting quietly and constructively? You are just regurgitating the rules that PAP wants to impose on the opposition.
In reality, acting constructively should mean presenting your case with facts and reason, and demonstrating how the masses can peacefully bring about the necessary change that will better their lives. That is PRECISELY what the SDP has done.
The PAP version of “constructive opposition” however means playing along with the self-serving rules that they make up and which they have the freedom and power to change from time to time as they see fit according to their own agenda. I will never respect an opposition that accedes to such a agenda, because such an opposition only acts to entrench the ruling party and does not truly do what will better the lives of Singaporeans.
Constructive opposition does NOT mean refraining from opposing the system. Opposing the system in turn does NOT mean obstructing. It MEANS challenging the establishment to right its wrongs, so that peoples’ dignity and rights can be restored.
It is only PAP propaganda that equates being constructive with being docile and closing one’s eyes to the obvious truths that hurt, and equates challenging the system with being obstructive. This particular brand of propaganda is flawed, self-serving, and unworthy of any serious consideration.
When the SDP calls upon supporters to cast our eyes beyond elections, that is not an admission that it feels it can never win elections. Instead, it is a brave recognition that participating in elections ALONE cannot effectively bring about all the various change we desire, not when elections are controlled by the PM Office and there is lack of any independent oversight. Not when the mainstream media is controlled by the ruling clique and made to serve their agenda exclusively.
