OPINION: "Activist Registration Act - Part II" by SINGA CREW, 23 May 2012 (reproduced with permission)

Activist community: Roderick Chia, Dexter Lee, Kieran James, Singapore, 19 February 2011

COMMENT - "Activist Registration Act - Part II" by SINGA CREW, 23 May 2012 (reproduced with permission)

Singa Crew: This is Part 2 of the Activist Registration Act. Thank you for your patience while I tweak my article! 

Tyranny of the majority

And what is this “tyranny of the majority” mentioned in the Supreme Court ruling? How will Anonymity shield one from this tyranny?

Well, in every society, there will always be those free-spirits whose opinions diverge from the morals of their times. And suppose you are, say, a school teacher who supports same-sex marriages. Even if you are teaching in a private school, you are still vulnerable to the will of the public – students, their parents, your colleagues and superiors. If you were to voice your unpopular opinion on a public forum using your real name, it would be the easiest thing in the world for “public-spirited” busybodies to trace it to your job. Once that happens, exactly how long do you think you can keep your job? Especially when the parents, your colleagues and superiors find your views unacceptable.

That’s tyranny of the majority. Or if you prefer not to sugar-coat it, mob rule.

Bear in mind that without Freedom of Speech and Press in Singapore, we have a lot more “unspeakable” sensitive topics. And our fellow citizens can be a lot more intolerant.

It is all very well for proponents of Transparency, many of whom are government officials, to say “don’t be afraid, you are not doing anything illegal”, but even if criminal liability is not an issue, the threat of being ostracised by society at large – not to mention the loss of livelihood – is enough to silence most people.

You could of course keep you mouth shut, but what a pity it would be, if you had good ideas and they remained unspoken! Some advocates of Transparency like to put their fellow activists or writers in a false dilemma. Either you use your real name or keep your mouth shut, they say. And so I offer choice ‘C’. We speak our minds BUT protect ourselves at the same time by not authoring sensitive texts using our real names.

Remember, the message is ALWAYS more important than the messenger.

Counter-productive to score for the other side

I happen to be a fan of slapstick comedic routines, and there is one in particular that neatly summarises the point I am about to make. Do you remember the footballer or the basketball player who inadvertently scores a goal for the opposing team, much to the horror of his team mates and the gleeful delight of the audience?

That is exactly what we are doing, when we reveal our real identities as we make our voices heard on politically sensitive issues. We are scoring for the other side!

The proponents of Transparency will tell you that in order to inspire trust and be taken seriously, you need to reveal your identity to your audience. That may well be true. If I were going to buy a house, I would be happier knowing the name of my real estate agent. But context is everything, my friends. And in the context of a titanic, long-suffering and sometimes covert struggle for basic human rights against the Powers That Be, things like names only matter to those with the resources to do anything with such information.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose a fellow activist tells you his name is Roger Tan or Simon Tay or Chen Xiao Ming, what could you make of it? Ordinary citizens, like you and me, have no access to government databases. Therefore, there is no way you can sleuth out a name’s connections to any nefarious undercover operations originating from our ultra secretive government agencies. He could give up his name, NRIC number and home address AND there is still no way you can verify his motives.

On the other hand, all the authorities need is your name and a quick browse through government databases will reveal every single detail they need to know about you. Comprehensive dossiers on activists and bloggers can then be compiled in the comfort of air-conditioned government offices, without the need for gruelling ground-work on the part of government agents. So when you persist in being transparent, so free and easy with your identity, you are making their job of oppressing the population that much simpler!

Charity is a fine virtue, but it can be carried too far…

Read the writing on the wall…

While my Activist Registration Act is inspired by a story arc in the Marvel comic-verse, Fact does not necessarily stray far from Fiction. The Chinese government has already implemented regulatory measures that make it mandatory for internet users and bloggers to use their real names online. We have a lot to worry about, considering that the Chinese authorities have not shied from having to police 250 million internet users, while their counterparts in Singapore are looking at a far smaller number. Far, far smaller.

All around the civilised world, individual activists and NGOs, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, recognise the value of Anonymity and its relation to Freedom of Speech. They see any attempts by governments or corporations to remove this shield, this protection from government and corporate incursions, as an affront to basic human rights. And they will fight the impositions, not embrace them.

Read this article in the spirit it is meant – as a warning. I have already outlined the benefits and the necessity of Anonymity above. And this tool that we have now can so easily be taken away from us, especially with the prevalent all-embracing attitude towards Transparency among Singaporean activists. Already, those of us who operate under a cloak of Anonymity suffer from both implicit and explicit discrimination. The public community of activists tend to hold their counterparts who chose to be anonymous in suspicion, and in some cases, certain activists have outright refused to work with me or carry any articles written by me on their blogs.

Such discriminatory practice, unfortunately, thins our already small numbers. People with much to contribute but who prefer to work anonymously would naturally stay away from those authoritative activists who assume that if Transparency works for them, so it should work for others.

Furthermore, I strongly suspect there are many patriotic Singaporeans out there, with good ideas to contribute to the cause, but who remain unheard. Perhaps their ideas remain unrealised because they prefer Anonymity, and thus are considered “undeserving” of support and nourishment by their elders in the activist community who have embraced Transparency.

And so the activist community ends up with a high body count of still-born activists.

Under the circumstances, I find it hard to believe that, when our government moves in with regulatory measures to force internet posters to use their real names, any of the Free Speech advocates in Singapore will speak up. Why should they when they could not, or would not, understand the relationship between Anonymity and Free Speech?

So sit up, and take heed. Without organised efforts to defend Anonymity, we will lose. Not just our privacy, but also our right to Free Speech and what little protection we have against incursions from both governments and private corporations. And now let me round off my article with a quote from one Mariam Cook, writer for The Guardian:

“I may not like what some of our mysterious online acquaintances have to say, but I defend their right to say it under whichever name they please.”

This comment was pasted by SINGA CREW on his blog on 23 May 2012. 

The comment is reproduced here with his written permission. 

Original URL: http://www.singaporesucks.net/2012/05/ara-part-2/