Weapons of the Weak: Everyday

Forms of Resistance Among

Singaporeans?
By Wayne on 07 May 2007 2:36 PM
Haloscan Comments Closed
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?