Putting the ‘Civil’ back into Civil Society: New perspectives on Activism in Singapore
How can we make Activism more palatable in Singapore?
Background
I chanced upon a podcast episode by the Institute of Policy Studies titled “The cancelled and the woke”, a part of their ongoing series “On Diversity”. In the podcast, Theophilus Kwek and Lydia Lim discussed what it means to be Woke in Singapore and attempt to explain what Cancel Culture is.
The speakers admitted that they could not succinctly and accurately define Cancel Culture, but Theophilus did allude to the power relations that create such a culture of vigilante justice against the elite in society with more resources to defend themselves, arguably raising the barriers to justice for those who cannot afford to engage legal advice, or feel that they have been wronged. The case of Parti Liyani comes to mind, where in an inexplicable series of events, a Foreign Domestic Worker managed to win a lawsuit over her more wealthily-equipped ex-employers who had wronged her of theft. While the outcome of this judicial overturn created calls for a review of Singapore’s judiciary, it also galvanised anti-wealth and anti-elite sentiments in society. One wonders then, if mob justice, exacerbated by social media, is the way forward for the development of a healthy civil discourse?
Activism is not a dirty word
One of the young writers that Lydia Lim alluded to is an old acquaintance of mine from National Service, whom she describes as very socially and politically aware – or Woke as we have come to know. In 2018, Tee Zhuo wrote in an opinion piece titled “Activism is not a dirty word” that “Activism means rocking the boat, but being “kiasi” (Hokkien for “afraid to die”) is still – according to a recent survey of about 2,000 Singaporeans – very much a national value.” Furthermore, many Singaporeans seem to think that activism is an imported, foreign and even anti-establishment idea from the West, yet the very same founding founders that we celebrate were youth activists in their heyday. To quote Tee Zhuo, “Achieving [our] ideals requires all kinds of activism by people who aren’t afraid to point out hard truths to keep Singapore not just going, but truly progressing, and speak those truths to power.”
So why have the greater society come to think of activism as a taboo? Perhaps it is the fear of reprisal from the ruling powers in Singapore, who would rather we keep our heads down and follow the status quo (after all, which government wouldn’t prefer obedient and loyal citizens?). Perhaps it is simply not a socio-cultural norm for Singaporeans to speak up for others, or risk taking a bullet for the less fortunate which would undermine their comfort and privilege. Yet, activism is not all about spouting anti-establishment claims and trying to overthrow the ruling powers. To think of activism in a purely pejorative and contemptuous perspective would be doing a great disservice to the activists who advocate and champion issues for marginalised groups in the community.
A new theory of activism?
If we want to progress further as a civic nation, we need to see activism beyond the divisive fault lines of pro- and anti-establishment. I want to propose a new way of thinking about activism in Singapore. In my opinion, activism is about speaking up for the rights of the less privileged in society. It is about advocating for the liberties of groups who do not enjoy equal access to civil, social and political rights in Singapore. Hence, taking a rights-based approach, we may categorise activism as Positive and Negative Activism.
To clarify, here I am not imposing a value judgement on the good and bad forms of activism. Here, I am borrowing a concept from Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Isaiah Berlin and applying it to the context of activism in Singapore. According to Rousseau’s theory of liberty, individual freedom is achieved through participation in the process whereby one’s community exercises collective control over its own affairs in accordance with the “general will”. This can be interpreted as the right to protest and change the way society is governed. Following Rousseau, Berlin theorises that there are two main types of liberty. Berlin described a statement such as “I am slave to no man” as one of negative liberty, that is, freedom from another individual’s direct interference. He contrasted this with a Positive Freedom statement such as “I am my own master”, which lays claim to a freedom to choose one’s own pursuits in life. In sum, positive liberty is the right to pursue one’s interests and maximise one’s welfare (i.e. to live my life as I want), while negative liberty is the right to be free from the harm caused by interference from others (i.e. to not be harmed by others as I live my life). One must note that every form of democratic governance and social contract is a negotiation between positive and negative liberties, with some societies enjoying more positive liberties than others. It is a cocktail of rights to maximise one’s interests while simultaneously being protected from the harmful consequences of others’ pursuit of their own self-interests.
Applying Berlin’s theory to activism in Singapore, Positive Activism can be interpreted as the right to pursue and maximise equality of rights for marginalised communities in society, while Negative Activism can be seen as the right to protect marginalised communities and persons from harm and violence (both physical and discursive) in society. Positive Activism can take the form of campaigning for equal access to the legal system, to be defended fairly in court regardless of one’s wealth, to be fairly represented in the economy, and to provide the marginalised groups with dignified aid, assistance and resources to maximise their equality and welfare in Singapore. These are all forms of activism geared towards improving the quality of life for marginalised and under-privileged groups in Singapore. Civil Society Organisations such as AWARE, TWC2, PINKDOT and HOME are often seen as the prime advocates and champions of change that espouse values of equality and better treatment of marginalised groups in Singapore.
On the other hand, Negative Activism can take the form of protesting against an unfair policy, being a “dissenter” (I use this word non-pejoratively), or raising awareness of harm and violence committed against persons or groups. These forms of activism aim to either stop the harm and violence committed or about to be committed, and, if failing to do so, try to rouse the public to be aware of the harms of policies or actions committed (often by majority groups) towards the marginalised groups in society. Such forms of activism often involve the use of social media platforms, petitions, and perhaps even develop into cancelling a person/ group. For example, a podcast group, OKLETSGO, was cancelled after its sexist comments about women and its promotion of rape culture. More recently, WakeUpSingapore tried to cancel Raffles City Shopping Centre on instagram for completely ignoring Deepavali and posting its Christmas lighting and promotions on Deepavali itself, injuring the feelings of the Hindu community in Singapore. The NETS e-payment ad was pulled after being accused of “brownface” where ethnically-Chinese actor Dennis Chew portrayed Indian and Malay characters by deliberately darkening his skin with makeup. These are all examples of society deciding that such actions marginalised and caused harm to a community and should not be tolerated.
Like Berlin’s notions of Positive and Negative Liberties, Positive and Negative Activisms are inextricably symbiotic. Without Positive Activism, Negative Activism has no concrete and attainable organization or goals, and comes across as simply complaints without further action (or NATO, No Action, Talk Only). Conversely, without Negative Activism, Positive Activism cannot thrive in a climate where the majority group are completely unaware and ignorant of the harm and violence that they cause to the marginalised and under-privileged in society, and therefore find it difficult to garner support and find allies to the cause. Positive and Negative Activisms exist as a cocktail blend, but the flavour that is perceived by the consumer of campaigns depends on the varying amounts of Positive and Negative Activism in the blend. Do we as a society, see an overwhelming and copious amount of Negative Activism? Then perhaps we perceive activism as bitter and dissenting towards the status quo, as we do in Singapore. On the other hand, do we see the hard work put in behind the scenes by activist groups, and the causes that they support? If so, perhaps we may perceive of activism as a necessity to keep society constantly moving for the better.
What next for activism?
One caveat that I want to add is that armchair activists, or “Slacktivists”, tend to hinder and contribute to Negative Activism in Singapore. Many of these Slacktivists have no experience in activism apart from liking, sharing and subscribing to social media pages that premise themselves on Negative Activism. The creation of online echo chambers generates an often larger-than-life community where different opinions are beat down and drowned out (see Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence theory). This inadvertently creates the perception of bitterness and further the anti-establishment narrative, which paradoxically may deter Singaporeans sitting on the fence from finding out more about the social issues that harm the marginalised groups in Singapore. It is imperative then, that activists and civil society organisations promote more Positive Activism to counter-balance the flavour of the cocktail and make it more palatable to Singaporeans.
The views expressed in this article are entirely the writer’s and are not representative of any organization.
