The Anti Neo-Democracy Theorist

Wrote this article for Singapore Angle.

James Scott in his treatise on Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (1985), spoke of the everyday covert forms of resistance taken by peasants in Malaysia in the 1970s. These acts included foot dragging; theft of chickens of pro-elite households; burning of mechanized tractors that threaten their livelihood as manual workers; implicit collective bargaining for better working hours and pay by taking long lunches if the pay is too low and the ostraciz-ation of people who do not follow the social norms and values of resistance. The peasants adopting such acts cut across political lines and often adopt such measures whether they are Barisan National supporters or PAS supporters. They are covert and often, their actions do not get seen by the state. Such everyday forms of resistance occur in repressive states where institutional politics are not accessible nor desirable in fulfilling their needs.

Do Singaporeans adopt weapons of the weak in dealing with the State?

A plausible example is the National Service experience where some soldiers adopt weapons of the weak as a coping mechanism in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). We all have seen either some soldiers only doing work when their superiors are around, taking a longer time needed to finish up a particular task or taking “medical leave” closer to their Operationally Ready Dates (ORD). Other more insidious covert actions could even include the appropriation of stationary or other SAF issued items as a deliberate way at getting back at authority. People too “garang” are sometimes ostracized by fellow soldiers for “spoiling the market” implicitly. For example, other soldiers would not tell them what the book-in time is; turning off the lights when they would be showering; would not talk to them or share with them a cigarette at the smoking point or messing up their stuff in their bunk. Weapons of the weak becomes a coping mechanism for survival for some ordinary soldiers in Singapore, just as it was a daily coping mechanism for survival for the majority of peasants in Kedah, Malaysia.

On a wider perspective, do Singaporeans adopt weapons of the weak? Anecdotal evidence suggests some evidential form of such tactics, although probably not widespread. Some social activists have pointed out the subtle hostility of Singaporeans towards their Members of Parliament, both PAP and Opposition, as they do their walk-abouts during elections. Possibly, households too friendly to their MPs may either be secretly ostracized by their neighbors when they find themselves having more rubbish outside the corridors as compared to their neighbors. Those who engage in Resident Committee’s work may be patronized by their neighbors by being “overfriendly” in an inauthentic fashion.

Others have noted the some Singaporeans’ active refusal in leaving their rubbish outside their common corridors; peeing in their lifts; vandalizing void decks and public toilets with “crazy” anti-government messages; deliberately putting excess number of plants and fish tanks outside their common corridors; and having a cat at home as more than acts of self interest; perhaps these acts are a reflection of the daily frustration of living in a government flat for inordinate amount of years. Yet others see the deliberate choice of being rude to teachers in Singapore as more than an act of teenage rebellion; perhaps it is yet another reflection of the frustration of youths living in a society that prides itself on “anality”. In addition, the quiet cancellation of Straits Times subscription and “hidden” and quiet reading of Yawning Bread and related blogs without leaving comments could signify frustration with the media status quo in the country. Others quietly pack up their bags and leave Singapore, only telling their close friends or relatives where they are going; many of them not retaining a returning address. Less than 1% of overseas Singaporeans voted in the last election, signifying perhaps yet another weapon of the weak.

Why am I writing about weapons of the weak in Singapore? Because I believe while it is important to examine open forms of resistance the appearance of opposition candidates during election time or Chee Soon Juan’s protest during the IMF/WB meeting, it is perhaps more important to consider everyday forms of resistance because they represent a daily form of coping mechanism for many living in Singapore day in and out. Covertly, these acts do not seek media attention; in fact those practicing these weapons shun them and the authorities. The fact that it is hidden does not mean it does not exist. What does exist in the subterranean level may create sprouts of open resistance that manifest in times when crisis of legitimacy occurs. If it exists on a wide-scale level, what does it tell about the society or the state in Singapore? While some of my assertions remain in the realm of the speculative, it would be interesting to wonder: Do Singaporeans really adopt weapons of the weak as an everyday form of resistance? How do they do so? If they do so, what is the magnitude of their resistance?