Panel Speeches
"Democracy on our terms delivers the goods"

Suraendher Kumarr

Is voting for your political representative once every 5 years important for a democracy to function? Yes.

But is this sufficient for you to feel empowered?

We have meet the people sessions. We have feedback forms, feedback sessions, closed door consultations with people in power if you’re lucky or “important enough.”

What we are given is not democracy. What we are given are channels to participate on their terms.

Democracy must be defined as more than just participative channels. Feedback sessions have no teeth, and very often we have no idea what happens to our feedback once we submit it. It’s a blackhole!

I propose that we define democracy as the space available for ordinary people like you and I to engage the people in power on our terms without fear of penalty.

We had the potential of such a democracy built by a people’s movement from the ground up. And there are many examples of how the ruling elite has destroyed these prospects of genuine democracy in Singapore. Allow me to share two.

First, they derailed democracy at the workplace. Singapore had a very vibrant labour movement since the 1950s. This was the same labour movement that was essential for the PAP’s rise. Once they came into power, however they captured the workers’ unions under the PAP-controlled NTUC. And soon laws were put in place to significantly tighten restrictions on unions going on strike. Since the 1980s, there have been no legal strikes.

My friends, does this mean that you have NO PROBLEMS at all at work?

Migrant workers have it really bad too. Even though workers are entitled to report any workplace grievances to MOM, there are many cases of workers who are terminated and repatriated back to their home country once they lodge a complaint.

But authorities do engage workers. When I was a food delivery rider I participated in a “kopi” session with the NDCA, which is the NTUC-led association for food delivery riders. The session was meant to hear riders’ views on the government’s intention to make CPF contributions mandatory. There were 5 or 6 riders in that session with me and I remember hearing a consensus that the riders were welcoming of CPF contributions being introduced but that it should not be made mandatory. However, the NDCA staff present kept trying to convince us about the benefits of it being mandatory. I tried to explain to her where we were coming from. And after a while another rider told me “eh bro.. don’t bother. She has no power. Someone else has already made up their mind.” And then the rider gestured to the staff, “correct anot?” and the staff nodded her head.

Secondly, (in my view) the government is actively killing our democracy with their heavy-handed responses to criticism. They are running amok with POFMA. Just a few days ago, a property agent Shaik Amar was issued a POFMA correction order by MND for expressing his view that the Ethnic Integration Policy had no benefits to ethnic minorities. He was POFMA-ed for saying that and saying that the EIP was there since the 1960s when it was only there since 1989. But why was there a need to POFMA him? Many mainstream media news outlets published this and in the comments section, people were tagging his employer. It seems like it’s not just the cost of living that has gone up. The cost of speaking up has gone up too! Now, for getting a date wrong and not wording your opinion properly, you can potentially lose your job?! With the way POFMA is being exercised, what happened to Amar can happen to anyone.

And what about the ridiculous barriers to doing anything about the ongoing genocide in Palestine that is not on their terms? Since Oct last year no rallies about Palestine could be held in Hong Lim Park. I had tried to book exactly this venue for an event about Palestine but I received a call from the police saying that I would need a permit which they said they would not give. The event had to be cancelled. Peacefully walking with watermelon umbrellas to deliver letters to the Istana is also not allowed it seems. It may cause chaos and disorder. That was not allowed but an airshow showcasing weapons of mass child murder was allowed to take place?

But despite these serial assaults against our democracy, people have risen up and practised democracy on the people’s terms regardless.

Let me give you 2 examples of people practising democracy. Singapore style.

In 2019, then minister Lam Pin Min announced that PMDs would be banned overnight. In response, food delivery riders who relied on the PMD for their livelihood put up an unprecedented mobilisation effort for 9 days to try and reverse the ban. Instead of expecting a formal channel from the government to open, the riders expressed their grievances with the ban on their terms. They did it creatively, going to the Meet the People sessions in massive groups and effectively turning a one-to-one session with the MP into a townhall where all riders could be heard. Overnight, a group of workers whose views were hardly ever listened to grabbed headlines. They lost the battle but won the war. Sure, they didn’t manage to reverse the PMD ban but the NDCA was formed shortly after, and riders’ views began to be heard more proactively by the public and authorities. There was a sharp increase in government efforts to hear the riders’ views. Lam even lost his seat in Sengkang in the general election which happened a few months after. And remember the CPF issue I was talking about? After significant push back from riders including a public statement that was very popular, the government relaxed the policy.

Democracy ON OUR TERMS delivers the goods.

Around that time, 13 bus drivers sued SBS for systematically underpaying all of their overtime wages. Previously, the drivers had tried to engage the NTUC union and SBS privately but none bore fruit. The drivers decided that it was time to escalate the matter to the courts. They earned so much public support! However, that could not stop SBS from eventually firing all 13 workers. Years later, the drivers sadly lost the lawsuit. However, just months after the judgement, the existing SBS bus drivers received a new contract with much better terms. The overtime issue they had complained about was now fixed and all 6000 drivers were given a 3-500 dollar raise per month!

Democracy ON OUR TERMS delivers the goods.

There are many other examples of people practising democracy on their terms in very creative ways. From students, public rental flat tenants, to migrant workers and many others. Too much for me to get into in this sharing. But you can follow Workers Make Possible on Instagram to find out more!

Is it not abundantly clear that democracy is rooted in our history and our present. Democracy on our terms is as Singaporean as chicken rice. And clearly, it is capable… dare I say INTEGRAL to serving people their bread and butter.

But we need to understand very clearly that although the people in power demand we pledge to build a democratic society, they don’t have an interest in building one for us. When we recite this pledge, we need to understand that only ordinary people can build a democratic society. Historically, anywhere in the world, no government in power has ever handed down democracy to the people. We, the workers, the people… the ordinary people of Singapore will never ever win our democracy on the PAP’s terms. To believe that democracy is possible on the PAP’s terms is naïve and idealistic.

If we cherish our rice bowls, our bread and butter and that of others… then we must not merely talk about democracy (cakap democracy)… we must practice it in our everyday lives (buat demokrasi). This is the pragmatic things to do. I am confident, that the more we practice democracy on our terms, Singapore will turn into an actual democracy.

This manifesto is an example of practising democracy on our terms. These are our demands as 32 grassroots groups. We ask that the political parties listen to them carefully as they draft their manifestos.

After all it is NOT THE PEOPLE IN POWER but WE, THE PEOPLE who Pledge to Build a Democratic Society.

Thank you.

"Trust has to be earned. Trust should not be expected to be given"

Leon Perera

I think when we think about Singapore. Too often in the past, and maybe even today to some extent, we operate with a mental model that democracy is sort of like Plato's Philosopher King, that democracy should be about the people giving their trust to elites. And maybe the elites have a certain amount of accountability at the ballot box to prevent them from becoming corrupt or going too extreme. But basically the people delegate a lot to these elites who govern in our best interest because they have technocratic skills that currently the rest of us in the mass of people don't have. So I think we have to get away from that model towards a model of participatory democracy like what we are seeing here and so many other ways. And, for example, I recently met someone who founded a group of businesses, companies actually, brought them together to negotiate with the government during COVID outside of the framework of the traditional trade associations and chambers because they were pressing needs and he organized several hundred of them close to 1000 and they actually managed to achieve some of the things that they set out to achieve. This is really the way to go. And I think the elite technocratic model of democracy is not fit for purpose when we look at the challenges Singapore is going to be facing as we go forward. We are going to be increasingly tested by geopolitical tensions. You all know the Jerusalem abduction that foreign powers come and actually disrupt politics to achieve military ends. We are going to be disrupted economically by many, many technological trends and artificial intelligence and so on so forth. So to withstand all these pressures we need political, social economic outcomes in our society that everyone buys into this high degree of public ownership, public participation in all these outcomes rather than outcomes being decided by elites who just take feedback and people are supposed to give trust. You often hear this term that all we want is the people to trust. The trust has to be earned -- trust should not be expected to be given.

We do hear a lot of talk about defending the center. This is a narrative I've heard very often. That we have to avoid a political polarization and fracturing that we see in other countries to defend the center because we don't want what happened in France, what happened in the US. And I said you will see this narrative a lot more in the next few months. But I think the point about the center is that that center can evolve and change. And that job of evolving the center of gravity in politics is really down to people who are active in politics and civil society. For example, if you look at the issue of migrant workers, I would say the last 30 - 40 years, the political center, the public opinion center has evolved a lot towards a much greater degree of support for rights and welfare for the migrant workers that we have compared to what you saw in Italy 40 years ago and I think that is to a very large extent. In fact, it's entirely, I think the work of activists, universal society groups and some political parties have contributed to that.

But I just want to end off with one thought. I think those of us who want to see change and progress for our democracy. We have to make sure that if we are able to play that long game and to have that latitude and that space to advocate independently is very important for us to also develop another set of skills. And that's fundraising skills to have independent funds, the ability to raise independent funds rather than to be dependent on the state bill funds. Because if you are not able to do that, then it becomes actually very, very difficult. And I'm sure all of you can resonate with that.

"The real solutions to environmental issues are linked to democratic principles"

Terese Teoh

As a teenager, these contradictions didn’t make sense to me. As a young adult today, they still don’t. Overall, I realized that there are many questions I couldn't answer by simply looking through an environmental lens. I learned that the main contention around various environmental issues is not just about the existence of a problem but rather about what we should do to solve it. This contention differs among many stakeholders, including government and industry.

I came to realize that real solutions to environmental issues are fundamentally linked to democratic principles. One well-known principle of environmental justice is “the right to participate as equal partners at every level of decision-making, including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement, and evaluation.” This means engaging diverse groups in society, especially those who are typically excluded from decision-making processes, such as marginalized and vulnerable populations, including poor migrant workers.

We need to focus on who is most vulnerable to environmental disasters and pollution. This leads us to question whether there are sufficient accessible channels for everyone to share their feedback and grievances. Are there adequate channels to make our voices heard? In Singapore, environmental solutions have historically been elite-driven. While not all elite-driven solutions are ineffective, we must always question their ability to promote the kind of society we desire. For instance, when Singapore announced it would go net zero by 2050, many celebrated it as a victory. However, I see it as long overdue, as Singapore is among the last countries to make such a declaration.

We cannot solely rely on a small group of people to make the ideal decisions necessary for our climate. Additionally, we’ve been calling for years to understand the current tax allowances given to industries. A recent Reuters article revealed that Singapore was offering petrochemical companies rebates of up to 76%, which we were previously unaware of. Moreover, we’ve seen repeated delays in implementing the beverage container return scheme, which I suspect is due to industry pressure. These examples illustrate how decisions made by a small group can lead to outcomes that aren’t always beneficial for the environment.

At environmental and climate conferences, we consistently see how elite-only spaces can delay and obstruct negotiations. Regarding how the government sets the terms of engagement, it’s true that various new spaces for engaging with the government have emerged. Policymakers may invite us to closed-door sessions, or we can invite them to our workshops as attendees or speakers. I appreciate these opportunities, but two main issues often arise. First, some groups are invited while others are not. In closed-door engagements, certain groups are excluded despite their similar advocacy work. Second, the topics discussed can be narrowly defined based on predetermined issues rather than being grounded in broader community concerns.

I also want to express my deeper worry that environmental civil society in Singapore is becoming more elitist, with individuals striving to secure higher positions and access to closed-door sessions. In my view, the environmental movement in Singapore can be quite fragmented. To build a stronger people's movement, we need to connect and collaborate across all levels of advocacy, respecting each other's roles within the ecosystem. By putting aside our differences, we can recognize that we are more similar than we thought.

Thank you.


Townhall Posts!