Mr Yap Puay
Tong (age 17) and Mr Renarda Yoch (name changed) (age 14) (opposition
supporters and activists)
 |
| Desmond Lim and Kieran James |
By Dr Kieran James: On the author’s last full-day in Singapore on his March 2010 research
trip (4 March 2010), he was scheduled to interview 17-year-old Junior College 1
student Yap Puay Tong and 14-year-old Secondary 3 student Renarda Yoch (name
changed) in the distant HDB housing estates of Tampines at 4pm and nearby Bedok
one hour later. The train trip involved him leaving the familiar environs of
the inner-city and the tourist precinct to travel north-east on the Eastern MRT
Line into the world of Singapore’s socially-engineered HDB estates where the
percentages of each official ethnic group in each precinct and tower block are monitored
and controlled to prevent the development of ethnic enclaves. The interviewer
spent a half-hour in Tampines watching literally thousands of commuters stream
through the MRT station gates and into the Tampines Town Centre. His first impression
was that young Renarda had forgotten the appointment or been too shy to commit
his views to the public record. The interviewer preceded on to Bedok and,
expecting no further interviews for the day, enjoyed a can of Guinness and some
Hainanese chicken-rice at the Bedok Hawker Centre. Guinness is freely available
in nearly all the island’s hawker centres so clearly the PAP is not
anti-everything! At Bedok MRT Renarda suddenly arrived and explained that the
pair had decided to interview together at Bedok and that Puay Tong was coming
on the next train. When Puay Tong arrived, we withdrew to McDonald’s in Bedok
Town Centre for a group interview.
 |
| The late Patrick Lee Song Juan (SDA) |
Renarda
(14-years-old at the date of the interview but turning 15 in calendar year
2010) is in secondary school while Puay Tong is in Junior College or JC, an
elitist system of junior colleges designed to provide the most intellectually
competent secondary-school leavers with an academic and social pathway to
university. Renarda comes across as an intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate
14-year-old. He has decided that the official Establishment ideology, as taught
in school textbooks, is not the reality of Singapore’s history as he
understands it. As Renarda says, ‘[t]he PAP was gerrymandering. The GRC system,
it’s a mockery of our system. In school we have to talk about democracy. It’s
all a show’. Renarda said that he attended two opposition rallies, five years
apart at the same venue, accompanied by his father. At the time of the first
rally he was a PAP supporter, as was Puay Tong in his younger primary school
days (Primary 5). At the second rally Renarda realized that the WP people there
were normal patriotic Singaporeans. If his recollections are correct, these two
rallies must have been at the 2001 and 2006 GEs when Renarda would have been
aged only eleven and six respectively. Renarda declares himself now as someone
wanting to exercise his democratic rights, learn about his country, and work
towards social and political change. Like Puay Tong, he takes his responsibilities
as a Singaporean citizen seriously and believes he owes it to his country to
work towards creating a more just and democratic society. Similarly, Puay Tong
states that: ‘I am 100% Singaporean that was born here [and] that would like to
see changes for my country’. Renarda comments that he has not decided on which
opposition party to support but that he attended SDP’s 30th
Anniversary Dinner on 27 February 2010 because, in his words, ‘30th
birthdays do not happen every day’. Renarda declares his total respect and
support for Dr Chee and for the Facebook activist community which includes the
SDP Youth and the RP’s Alex Tan (formerly of the SPP). Both Renarda and Puay
Tong are active in making political posts on Facebook along with their other non-political
‘teenager’ posts. Puay Tong is a dedicated football supporter of Borussia
Dortmund.
 |
| Yaw Shin Leong (ex-WP) and Kieran James |
For
his part, Puay Tong rejects the conformist Singaporean ideology and system and
especially the pressures to work hard and conform placed upon students by the
school system. He states that: ‘I believe that the education system needs
flexibility. ... Our education system needs a reform to suit individual interests
rather than everyone keep[s] studying by the books’. Puay Tong reminisces about
a Secondary 4 school teacher, Mr Wee, who observing Puay Tong’s interest in
opposition politics encouraged him further in that direction and took him to RP
open houses. Puay Tong was reprimanded in school for distributing RP political
flyers within the school grounds, a practice which the Ministry of Education
(MOE) bans. Furthermore, he has been accused by his less politically aware classmates
of being ‘non-Singaporean’ because of his rejection of the dominant ideology. His
then teacher, Mr Wee, suggested that he ‘read other party’s beliefs so I can see
which ideology suits me the most’.
Puay
Tong intelligently critiques the PAP Government’s ideological line that ‘we
must pay high salaries so that MPs do not become corrupt’ by arguing, firstly,
that the PAP MPs we have now are only those that can be persuaded to join
politics and hence they are a ‘reserves team’ at best. Secondly, Puay Tong
argues that if high salaries are paid to avoid corruption then that must means
that the current crop of MPs is naturally corrupt. He rails against the Singaporean
PM’s salary which is many times higher than the salary of the American
President.
The
interviewer left the two-hour interview recharged, motivated, and encouraged by
the political talk and this euphoria could not be attributed to the caffeine
offered by his jumbo-size Coca-Cola. It was not even due to the remnants of the
Guinness. The interviewer was impressed by these young men’s enthusiasm and
devotion to opposition politics, and especially their desires to exercise fully
the rights of their Singaporean citizenships and to work towards meaningful
social and political change in their country. There was a maturity and
reflection evident in their analyses which suggested that they have the ability
to stay on the opposition side for the long-term and win over many people,
through the power of logical and passionate argument, to the opposition side.
They clearly saw the PAP’s authoritarianism as belonging to a feudal past and
being out of step with the rest of the world and with the true needs of modern
Singaporeans who do not lack goods on the shelves but who feel constrained and
restricted in regards free speech and the exercise of other civil rights. Puay
Tong’s philosophy can be well summarized by the following quote:
“I
value honesty in politics, honesty to the people, what are you doing and why. Finance
and stats [statistics] must be available. This is our country and we want to
know. This is your basic duty to let people know what you are trying to do”
[group interview, 4 March 2010].
Renarda adds,
alluding to the foreign worker issue: ‘My ideology is, I quote Alex Tan [RP
Youth], you must create a Singapore for Singaporeans’.
 |
| Roderick Chia, Kieran James, Jarrod Luo (ex-SDP) |
Puay
Tong and Renarda are no ‘rebels without a cause’ but mature individuals who
have actively questioned the version of the truth contained in the school
textbooks and have decided that they prefer Dr Chee’s version of the Singaporean
story to the official Establishment narrative. Renarda states that: ‘PAP think
they are the saviours of Singapore, the textbooks read that way. ... The
standard mentality of our generation is that the PAP brought us to greatness’.
Both Renarda and Puay Tong reject the textbook claims that Dr Chee is ‘an
infamous politician’, Lim Chin Siong was a ‘left-wing communist who threatened
our security’, and Harry Lee was the politician who played the major role in independence. Renarda claims that, in fact, it
was David Marshall, Lim Chin Siong, and Lim Yew Hock who played the major roles
in the independence struggle although Renarda is quick to point out that Lim
Yew Hock was a ‘compromise politician’ who, as Puay Tong reminds us, instituted
the persecution of the Barisan Socialis.
Renarda states that: ‘There is always the idea in school that Barisan Socialis and Lim Chin Siong and
Chia Thye Poh are evil’. In fact, the PAP was able to create a world-first for
combining ‘creating docile bodies’ (Foucault) with ‘maximizing the rate of
profit’ (Marx) when dissident Chia Thye Poh, when shifted to resort island
Sentosa whilst still under house arrest, was forced to work each day on the
mainland so that he could, in Renarda Yoch’s words, ‘pay rent for his own jail’.
Renarda
states that he is proud to live in Hougang SMC and that his family has told him
that Low Thia Khiang is a distant relative (grand aunty’s husband). Puay Tong’s
father was a member of Barisan Socialis
so each has a strong and respectable oppositional lineage. As has been
illustrated, both these young Singaporeans have knowledge of past activism
within Singapore dating back to the independence era. Renarda is willing to
positively acknowledge the contributions made by PAP politicians George Yeo,
Ong Teng Cheong, and Goh Keng Swee, pointing out that these three represent
politicians from ‘three different generations’, much as Patrick Lee Song Juan
applauds PAP MP Lily Neo’s compassionate championing of the cause of the
Singaporean poor in and out of the Parliament.
 |
| Dr Chee Soon Juan and Kieran James |
Puay
Tong and Renarda are concerned that the MSM will make Harry Lee a ‘saviour,
some kind of cult hero’ (Renarda’s words) after his death, much like what has
happened in North Korea. Using teenager terminology, which is nonetheless appropriate,
Puay Tong suggests the official ideology will turn Harry Lee into a ‘Spiderman’
or a ‘Superman’ able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Within the
dominant ideology he is already three-quarters there. ‘Very likely he will die
with his boots on’ adds Renarda.
The
Slovenian post-communist philosopher Slavoj Žižek (2008, pp. 259-60) has argued
that although the secret police in the communist German Democratic Republic
(GDR) or East Germany numbered 100,000, or four times higher than under the
Nazis, this did not amount to, simplistically, four times the level of
repression. Žižek (2008, pp. 259-60) argues that the East Germans under Nazism
were morally depraved and hence needed much less of a secret police to restrain
their instinctual pushes for freedom. By contrast, communism retained an
emancipatory Marxist-Leninist aspect even in East Germany. Therefore, communism
restrained the impulses for freedom whilst simultaneously creating and
encouraging many of those same impulses. In the same way, the PAP’s determined
and relentless 40-year push for excellent English education in Singaporean
schools and a demanding school syllabus are the very factors that have directly
created young and politically aware intellectuals such as Puay Tong and Renarda!
One is reminded of Mikhail Gorbachev who was so committed to pursuing his
objectives of glasnost and perestroika for the Soviet Union that he
gave further power and encouragement to forces that ultimately undermined and eliminated
his own Government. Has the PAP engineered its own eventual redundancy? For
many young Singaporeans, even amongst that vast majority who are not as
politically aware as Puay Tong and Renarda, authoritarian states tend to be
looked down upon. The senior Lee’s new public affection for the post-Maoist China
of Deng Xiaoping and his successors is unlikely to sway many younger English-educated
Singaporeans who probably prefer Obama and the freedoms (real and imagined) of
the west. The demise of Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the
LDP in Japan, the Kuomintang in Taiwan, and the recent regime change in South
Korea suggests that Asian history may well be on Puay Tong and Renarda’s side.
 |
| Kieran James and Ravi Philemon |
In
terms of predictions for the 7 May 2011 GE, Puay Tong suggested that Tampines
GRC would probably be won by the opposition (it’s a ‘good chance’) with East
Coast GRC also being, in his words, ‘possible’. Puay Tong suggested Bishan-Toa
Payoh GRC as a possible ‘fifty-fifty’, in his words, opposition gain. He
regarded opposition-held Potong Pasir SMC, without Chiam See Tong in the
contest, as also being no better than a ‘fifty-fifty’ proposition. Showing a
strong grasp of grassroots issues, Puay Tong pointed to the unpopularity of the
PAP’s Mah Bow Tan in Tampines GRC. After he (Mah) lost to Chiam in Potong Pasir
SMC at GE 1984, Puay Tong recounts Mah’s nasty trick of rerouting Bus No. 147
so that it goes through Seng Kang rather than Potong Pasir. Petty slights at
the local level such as this one tend to be perceived as highly irritating by
the Singaporean electorate and memories fail to fade quickly. Renarda makes the
strong concluding point that ‘all it needs [for an opposition breakthrough at
the polls] is for Singaporeans to trust the opposition’. Puay Tong and
Renarda’s predictions regarding GE 7 May 2011 proved to be extremely
insightful. The only clear mistake was in expecting a ‘probable’ opposition win
in Tampines GRC, although had a WP team or even a better known NSP team
contested there the PAP may not have retained the constituency. The WP did well
in East Coast GRC, slowly pegging back ground on the PAP so that, if the
current percentage swing is maintained, the WP should secure the constituency
at the next election. The WP scored 36.14% (37,873 out of 104,804) in East
Coast GRC at GE 2006 but the Party secured a nine percentage-point swing in its
favour at GE 2011, which increased its share of the vote to 45.17% (49,342 out
of 109,237). These results reflect favourably on Eric Tan and his team.
 |
| Roderick Chia, Dexter Lee, Kieran James |
After
contesting at East Coast GRC, Glenda Han had to fly back to Hong Kong to
continue her regular job there only one day after the 7 May 2011 poll. Her
fly-in-fly-out campaigning, something that Monash University lecturer James
Gomez also did from his base in Melbourne, Australia, was a new feature of the
2011 election campaign. Gomez told a Monash University postgraduate class,
during a guest lecture (attended by the first-mentioned researcher at Caulfield
campus on 31 March 2011), that he can very easily now fly to Singapore on a
Friday, do a few campaign walkabouts and meet-the-people sessions, tape one or
two three-minute Youtube video clips for the SDP website, and then return to
Melbourne on the Sunday or Monday. The campaigning on the run tactics of Gomez
and Han were not commented upon by the MSM in Singapore, as far as we are
aware, perhaps because they do not follow the activities of opposition
candidates when they are out of the country. The use of Youtube as a campaign
tool dovetails well with the fly-in-fly-out campaigning and the latter might
not be possible without the former.
[By Dr Kieran James, University of Fiji, formerly at University of Southern Queensland, 2006-13.]
No comments:
Post a Comment