Jolovan Wham: "One cannot help but let out a groan when the Straits Times deems it appropriate to shape civil society's direction. I've not read ST for a couple of weeks already, and when I finally picked up a copy this morning, this article reminded me why I stopped reading it. It mentions the SMRT strike and the activists who were involved in it but makes some errors about the case and accuses us of being 'counterproductive'.
The article goes on to proclaim 'Rather than confrontation, the far better option is to operate within the boundaries of the law and society, even as the group might proclaim a stance not in line with the State's." Well, none of us did anything that was illegal, apart from Lynn Lee's video for which she was issued a warning letter. But the 'offence' that she was charged for was so arbitrarily applied because laws governing contempt of court and sub-judice are so broad to be meaningless. Moreover, one of the roles of civil society is to push boundaries, not work within it.
It uses activities at Speaker's Corner (of which Pink Dot was cited) as instances of acceptable activism yet conveniently forgets that Speaker's Corner wasn't served up on a plate by the generosity of the ruling party. It was fought for through acts of civil disobedience. I have nothing but contempt for this piece of State apologia. Will be preparing a response to their Forum Page soon."