In a recent social media post, former Nominated Member of Parliament Calvin Cheng drew sharp distinctions between what he deemed “constructive” versus “destructive” activism in Singapore.
While he praised Assoc Prof Walid Abdullah’s successful effort to bring Palestinian students to Singapore through institutional collaboration, he derided other forms of activism—such as boycotts, hunger strikes and public disruptions—as either ineffective or dangerous.
Yet this framing glosses over a central truth in Singapore’s political history: that its most significant achievements—including the end of colonial rule, the formation of the republic, and the enshrinement of key civil liberties—were fuelled by forms of activism that today might be deemed disruptive or undesirable.
Photographic and archival evidence from the 1950s and 60s clearly show the critical role played by public protests in advancing political causes.
In one image from 1955, PAP supporters hold up placards challenging the colonial City Council and demanding self-government.
The rally was planned at Farrer Park and drew more than 4,000 people, but was ultimately denied by the City Council, despite having a police permit. The protesters were left disappointed, but the political pressure continued.
The protest posters—targeting then-City Council President T. P. F. McNeice—criticised the delay in granting “Merdeka” (self-rule), reflecting public frustration.
The event was part of a larger wave of anti-colonial agitation that fuelled Singapore’s transition to self-government in 1959 and full independence by 1965.
It was not an isolated tactic. Newspaper records from the National Library Board show that during the colonial period, the PAP not only organised its own mass protests but also actively participated in demonstrations led by student groups and workers’ unions.
In February 1961, the party announced plans to hold a rally in Singapore to protest the killing of Congolese Premier Patrice Lumumba—demonstrating solidarity with anti-colonial struggles beyond Singapore’s shores.
Another report from the same period highlights PAP’s initiative to launch a “protest week” against the “British imperialist attitude” following the failure of constitutional talks in London.
Though dismissed by rival political parties at the time as an election stunt, the fact remains that the PAP actively used street-level mobilisation as a tool for political pressure and public education.
That same activism laid the foundation for many of Singapore’s key civil liberties today. Universal suffrage, a rarity in the region at the time, was introduced through sustained political advocacy.
Labour rights and protections—such as the establishment of Labour Day as a public holiday—stemmed from decades of union activism, including strikes that are now banned.
It is therefore historically inconsistent to suggest that only quiet, institutionally-approved activism leads to meaningful outcomes. Much of Singapore’s current prosperity and stability was built on acts of public dissent, community organising, and collective mobilisation.
More importantly, the notion that street protests inevitably lead to riots and damage disregards both historical nuance and global precedent.
Peaceful protests—whether for independence in India, civil rights in the United States, or apartheid in South Africa—have led to some of the most profound societal transformations. They were rarely popular at the time, and almost always inconvenient for authorities, but their results are undeniable.
To label modern boycotts or hunger strikes as “silly” or “harmful” without recognising the broader ecosystem of democratic engagement risks creating a false dichotomy between “good” and “bad” activism. It privileges those with institutional access—academics, professionals, or elites—while delegitimising grassroots voices and marginalised communities.
Assoc Prof Walid Abdullah’s efforts are admirable, but they do not need to be contrasted against other forms of civic participation. Both formal advocacy and public protest play important roles in a healthy, responsive society.
It is also worth reflecting on how the very forms of activism once employed by the PAP—mass rallies, boycotts, and protest actions—are today heavily restricted. Public demonstrations now require police permits, which have become increasingly difficult to obtain due to expanded conditions under the Public Order Act.
Even Hong Lim Park—Singapore’s designated space for public protest and once known for routinely approved applications—has seen tightening regulations. Approvals are no longer as straightforward. Organisers must now navigate a growing list of requirements, including subject-matter declarations, identity checks, and event-specific conditions. Sensitive topics, especially those touching on politics, foreign affairs, or public order, may face delays or outright rejections.
These shifts have constrained not only the locations and visibility of protest but also the accessibility of public expression itself.
While Singapore has chosen a different path in recent decades—one that tightly regulates public assembly and protest—this is ultimately a policy decision. But it should not be conflated with a historical truth: that Singapore’s road to independence was not built through silence, but through action—often loud, disruptive, and deeply public.
Forgetting this legacy risks reducing the nation’s founding story to one of top-down decision-making, rather than acknowledging the mass movements, community pressure, and political mobilisation that drove change. The real story includes people gathering in parks and open fields, carrying placards, chanting for Merdeka, and confronting colonial structures through collective will.
Singapore should not forget its roots. The independence, rights, and protections enjoyed today were secured through struggle, participation, and activism—not merely through petitions or policy dialogue. Recasting activism as disruptive or illegitimate risks erasing the very energy that once shaped the nation—and may still have a role to play in its future.
The post Singapore’s independence was won through activism, not avoided by it appeared first on The Online Citizen.
