Demonstrations, Protests and Strikes

In today’s political climate, especially after September 11, the most-used (and abused) buzz word has become “Terrorism”. Everyone cannot seem to stop talking about it, and it seems that it can be applied to any situation and used to justify any/all actions no matter how extreme they may appear. I came across 3 articles on the Channel News Asia website which I thought was worthy of some comment.

The 1st is about the Police standing firm on their decision to ban those they regard as “undesirable civil society representatives” from the IMF/World Bank event currently being held in Singapore. In their statement to the public, the police say that every country has the prerogative to determine whether foreigners are eligible for entry into the country. They argue that this sort of caution is necessary under the current security environment. They add that some of these people would use this platform to stage events that might pose a security threat to Singapore and compromise the security arrangements that have been put in place (Read the article at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229337/1/.html).

In the 2nd article, it seems that since public protests and demonstrations are generally not allowed in Singapore, about 1000 delegates (700 Indonesian and the rest from countries like Italy, Norway, the Philippines and Tanzania - from 74 NGOs in 40 countries) from various NGOs (non-governmental organisations) from all over the world have decided to hold their events in the nearby Indonesian island of Batam. However, according to this article they have received a major setback – Batam police have official banned all such protests too! (This despite the fact that Indonesian laws do allow street protests and demonstrations provided the organisers apply for a permit 3 days in advance) What makes the situation even more ironic is the fact that about 18 Indonesian NGOs took out a half-page advertisement in a Batam daily voicing their opposition to the forum, arguing that a big gathering of NGOs activists would "undermine the investment climate on the island". I mean, its one thing to have the government or business leaders raising the concern and petition, but its quite another to have it done by those meant to be on your side! (hmmm.. I wonder whether it would cause them to rethink their methods.. nah.. I doubt it!) In the official statement, the police cited political, economic and security reasons for the ban apart from the fact that other NGOs were not in favour of the event. (Read the article yourself at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229205/1/.html)

The final article relates to 3 PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) activists, an American, a Canadian woman, and a Filipino woman, being deported after it was discovered that they had been planning to conduct a naked demonstration outside a KFC restaurant in Rochor Road. They obviously did not posses a permit. In a police statement, it was revealed that the Canadian lady had previously cooped herself in a chicken cage (in a yellow bikini) in Bangkok and went topless in a KFC restaurant in Canada – all apparently meant to protest the company’s treatment of animals. Again, it was mentioned that such actions could potentially compromise the security arrangements that have been put in place for the IMF/World Bank meetings. (To read the article, go to: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/229353/1/.html)

Now, Singapore has often been accused of having a poor Human Rights record (especially when it comes to the Freedom of Expression/Speech). This is usually in relation to the laws in place to prevent demonstrations, protests and perhaps even, strikes. Although, sometimes the fear of terrorism is misused by policy makers, I must say that I personally am in favour of Singapore’s stance on the organisation of demonstrations, protests and strikes. Here are some of my views and well as experiences, I hope that it would provide some interesting reading and perhaps provoke some thought in the process.

In 1967, Parliament passed the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act to make it unlawful for workers to go on strike[i]. In addition, the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act 1967, the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 1968 further weakened and disciplines the unions[ii]. The rationale for such action can be understood from the political landscape of Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s.

Capitalising on the labour disputes arising from workers’ grievances, the communists politicised the trade unions for their own political objectives, organising strikes, demonstrations other forms of stoppages. These reached endemic proportions and acted as a disincentive to foreign capital which was essential to Singapore’s survival during this time of recent independence.

There are laws in place to prevent violent and disruptive demonstrations by requiring interested parties to apply to the police for a licence. This should not be too surprising and should not cause alarm as restrictions are imposed even in countries such as the US and UK. In the UK, there are various prior restraints on processions and assemblies in public places: (1) injunctions; (2) in relation to both industrial and other demonstrations and meetings, the police have extensive powers, independently of industrial relations law, to prevent obstructions of the highway, including a power to arrest an obstructer whether or not there is any imminent risk of a breach of the peace[iii]. In relation to demonstrations, a notice must be delivered, either by recorded delivery or by hand, to a police station in the police area where the procession is to start. This is to be done at least six clear days before the date when the procession is intended to be held[iv]. Under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986, police are empowered to prevent demonstrations from taking place. Under section 12, their powers include the power to impose conditions necessary to prevent any anticipated disorder, damage, disruption, or intimidation on public processions. Section 12(1) provides that they may include, but are not limited to, conditions as to the route of the procession, or prohibiting it from entering any specified public place[v].

Conditions as to the route to be taken, or timing, may seriously affect the impact of the procession. Feldman gives the following example: “as the Green Paper on The Public Order Act and Related Legislation pointed out, there may be circumstances in which a march to a foreign embassy is planned to protest against a country’s policy on, for example, torture or capital punishment. The point of the march would be to make the country’s diplomats aware of the strength of public feelings, so that they can inform their government. The point would be partly, if not wholly, lost if the procession had to be routed away from the embassy.[vi]” Such a situation did occur when the British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited the University of Birmingham in the wake of the Iraq war in 2003. Students were permitted to demonstrate. However, they were allocated an area which the Prime Minister did not pass and thus he would not know that such a demonstration was taking place (the only who knew about it were people like me – students – most of whom were trying to get to class and found ourselves being held up by the demonstrators obstructing the walking paths!).

The late BBC correspondent and journalist Alistair Cooke described the futility of such acts thus:

“Leftish student groups who in every war declare they are, unlike you and me, working for peace. By shouting the word often enough they hope to turn it into a reality. No work is entailed. It’s a case of what the poet William Empson called “incessant belief labouring to create its object.”” Letters from America (taken from the BBC website).

The rationale for Singapore’s law concerning strikes, demonstrations and public assemblies can also find its source again in the concept of ‘pragmatism’. Although, public demonstrations may be an important way of raising public consciousness of a cause or issue, they may potentially cause severe breaches of the peace. At the very least they may cause disruption and public inconvenience.

It is thus justifiable that freedom of expression be curtailed if it is going to cause the rest of the public significant inconvenience. I remember having a debate with one of my Italian friends while visiting her in Milan. I don’t remember exactly how the topic was raised (I do remember that it wasn’t me who brought it up) but I mentioned that strikes are illegal in Singapore. I also (perhaps foolishly) added that I agreed with such a policy. My rationale was simply that it was unreasonable for those who were unhappy with their jobs (or pay) should inconvenience and prevent others from being able to work. For example, if bus drivers or train drivers were dissatisfied with their work conditions, why it is that they feel they have to take it out on commuters trying to get to work (preventing them from getting to work on time). Wouldn’t an easier solution be that if you were unhappy with your job, you go out and get a new one? Wouldn’t that be a better display of autonomy?

Shocked, my friend declared that I was being selfish. I must say that I didn’t see that one coming – from my perspective I think that whoever decides to go on strike is the selfish one. Afterall, they are inconveniencing other people – and they do have other less disruptive options available to them. Anyways, as the story goes, the next day I was meant to return to the UK. As my friend’s sister was studying in the UK, she wanted to buy a gift for her sister. She then decided that since her sister had been away for many months, she would really appreciate an Italian newspaper. So on the way to the airport, my friend went to the local equivalent of a mama shop to buy the paper – and guess what? All the newspapers in Milan were on strike!! Hmmmm…

(I guess stirkes causing an inconvenience is one thing, but sometimes it can lead to other people losing their lives as was the case when Firemen in UK decided to go on strikes over a certain period in 2003.)

Although it is perhaps true, as Sir Robert Mark suggested in the mid-1970s, that: ‘Political demonstrations seem to give satisfaction in the main to those taking part. The public as a whole are usually not interested unless affected by inconvenience or aroused by disorder or violence[vii]. In fact, if one considers the size of the island-state of Singapore, it is no wonder that the Singapore government feels it impossible to allow strikes and demonstrations to take place – it would likely result in the crippling of the nation’s economy. Such disastrous effects on the economy would strike against the core of Singapore’s ideological foundations.

With all of this said, I think it is unfair and untrue to assert that there is no freedom of expression/speech in Singapore - that there's no way to express opposition without the fear of reprisals. Here's just one example.

In line with former Prime Minister Goh’s promise for a more “open” and “consultative” democracy, there are effective alternatives available to Singaporeans to voice their concerns and effect policy change without fear of negative repercussions. In 1984, university students in Singapore protested against the government policy, known as the “Graduate Mother Scheme,” giving privileges to women who were graduates when choosing schools for their children[viii]. Instead of holding mass rallies, the students opted to organise a petition and on-campus forums. They also associated with students from other tertiary institutions who were also against the policy. They made use of the mass media to publicise their views but refrained from taking political action to the streets. The result of these measures was that the representations were received by the government without reprisals. Furthermore, although the government did implement the policy, the Graduate Mother Scheme was abandoned shortly afterwards[ix]. A representative of the student’s union explained:

“There is no question… we should respond (to the government policy) but I would call on each of us to be responsible too: no unannounced rallies or demonstrations… We must make our point not in histrionics and polemics but calmly and firmly. Anything else will set us back.”[x]

-----------------------------------

[i] Tan, K.Y.L., 1999, Fifty Years of the UDHR: A Singaporean Reflects, Human Rights Perspectives, UNAS, 135.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Feldman,D., 2002, Civic Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, Oxford, 1061.
[iv] Ibid., 1062.
[v] Ibid., 1063.
[vi] Ibid., 1065.
[vii] Ibid., 1059.
[viii] Straits Times, 14 March 1984, “NUS Student’s Union Wants to meet Dr Tay.” The late Dr Tay was then the Minister of State for Education.
[ix] Straits Times, 26 March 1985, “Graduate Mum Scheme to Go.”
[x] Students’ Union News, Vol.2 No.12 Feb 1984, “Of Primary Concern: But Be Responsible – Says Council.”