by Braema Mathi
There are many forms of activism and protests.
I disagree with commentators calling this act by the two women as ‘juvenile activism’.
Neither do I agree with the view that there was a clear strategy in how these two women activists were conducting their activism.
It all came apart, achieved less, and derailed the agendas on POFMA, stultifying freedom to expression or on the Palestinian cause.
Perhaps there was an activism plan. Perhaps it was defiant protests, which means seeking new alternatives to make an agenda stick, make an imprint, and become a recall issue.
Perhaps the activists’ aim was to seek dialogue spaces. Perhaps it was seeking to widen citizens’ rights to seek audiences with elected politicians to discuss matters on civil and political rights.
But their effort crumbled at huge personal costs, crippling even more the space for activism and succeeding in branding activism as tainted work, pushing activists further out to the margins
The good thing for everyone to notice—if it still an unknown—how state machinery works.
For example, today’s ST’s narrative repeats the govt’s agenda.
Or how the imbalance in power structures was visually played out in the video. Or how, in a digitised world with great technology at one’s disposal, information loads can never be fairly balanced for any party.
I saw well-applied intimidation by Minister Shanmugam.
I see a clever plot to trip up these two women. And they fell—visually I can see them falling into it.
I see them trying their hand to be clever, being firm and focused. But I also see them getting embroiled in the situation as it played out.
I see them turning reactive, and unfortunately, name-calling and ‘the finger’ have become the centrefold recall. Their agenda on POFMA or Palestine or X(???) is lost.
State’s agenda of peace and security around MPS – a space for citizens to seek elected MPs for assistance, counsel, an understanding of policies, to grapple with restrictions ( be it about burning incense paper or an ‘unwarranted’ fine or lack of permits and so continue to be positive, healthy happy people—has been maintained.
Much has been lost for the two women as now they have to cope with vicious social media comments and be aggrieved by their own lack of fortitude and steadfastness in dealing with one of the toughest Ministers we have in our Cabinet.
I laud them for their courage, but I also say—prepare better. Intimidation is a tactic used against activists, and also by those who defy. They need to brace up.
And for many of us as citizens, good to know that citizens are engaged and seeking new strategies in activism.
But do note seeking an MP session to talk about POFMA or Palestine or civil marriages for gay communities, the Death Penalty, revised constituency boundaries, or capitalistic overdrives—it just shows how many doors are closed when citizens wish to have an audience with a Minister on laws and policies.
The government’s REACH Feedback as a mechanism does not work well enough. Writing to civil service officers to seek an audience normally does not open a window, much less a door. Social media—said and done. The wall remains hard and impenetrable.
Lastly going forward, what spaces are there for citizens to seek dialogues on particular matters such as POFMA or to protest beyond the work already done at Speakers’ Corner, or to share well-researched pointers with a Minister on an issue of national interest?
What other spaces can be developed, and more importantly, how can they be kept open and free from institutional mechanisms?
We ought to be there by now—we are 60 years old now in 2025.
Braema Mathi is a former Nominated Member of Parliament in Singapore, a two-term president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), former Chairperson of MARUAH and a former journalist with The Straits Times.
The post Activism, intimidation, and the struggle for dialogue in Singapore appeared first on The Online Citizen.
