Kate Yeo

In her new book, Kirsten Han writes about her experience as a Singaporean activist who has been on the receiving end of false accusations, smear campaigns, and online harassments. These efforts, Han demonstrates, were often started by politicians in the People’s Action Party then made worse by mainstream media. ‘A Traitor to My Country,’ reads the title of one chapter, encapsulating how the PAP has characterised Han.

I am ashamed to admit that I, too, once bought into this state narrative. While I have long followed Han’s work, I used to keep a wary distance: I was afraid to repost or even like her posts on social media for fear of being associated with a ‘troublemaker’, even if I agreed with what she wrote. But in recent years, particularly after subscribing to her We, the Citizens newsletter, I have found her content to be highly insightful, factual, and eloquent.

This book confirmed to me that Han is simply someone who loves Singapore deeply and wants the best for it. And, is one of the few who actually has the guts to call out injustices in our society.

The book’s central thesis is that Singapore is layered. The dominant image is one of rapid modernisation, advanced technology, and strong public systems that those in power tout as the ‘true’ Singapore. But as Han writes, ‘there are many, many Singapores: a Singapore for the rich, a Singapore for the poor, a Singapore for citizens, a Singapore for migrant workers, a Singapore for the Chinese, a Singapore for ethnic minorities, a Singapore for the powerful, a Singapore for those who dissent.’ (11)

Here are some of my key insights and quotes from the book!
(*Page numbers are based on my e-book, which may not be the same as the physical copy)

On state narratives and power imbalances

• The lack of data and access to information in Singapore limits journalistic reporting, civil society research—and therefore the solutions that organisations can propose—as well as capacity for independent review.
• The implications go beyond professional work. ‘Living in a system where even our ability to know about policies, systems and practices that affect us is mediated through someone else’s power is to be disempowered … We are reminded that we should not engage with the policies and systems that control us, and over time we grow to believe ourselves helpless and limited. When things go wrong or we encounter something we feel is unfair, our learned helplessness tells us that there’s no point in fighting ,because the ruling elite call the shots and we can’t challenge them.’ (89)
  • Han calls for the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act, which would establish the right to seek information from public agencies. This law would require the authorities to justify why something can’t be disclosed to citizens, rather than rejecting requests for data without explanation.
• A one-sided history gives us the mistaken impression that only one party has the right answers.
  • Singapore’s education curriculum often ‘highlights government announcements, campaigns and policies implemented over the years, but rarely explores people’s responses—including their opposition—to these moves.’ (98)
  • ‘When we don’t hear that side of the story, when we don’t hear about resistance, it also limits our ability to imagine anything outside of the state narrative.’ (Quote from Yi, a former GP teacher)
  • Han feels that is crucial to remember events like Operation Coldstore and Operation Spectrum; to open up discussions on these periods of history and acknowledge the trauma and harm caused.

Is Singapore free?

• This is a country that ‘looks free, but where everyone has an internal calculus about whether their speech or actions are taking them too close to real or perceived red lines.’ (16)
• Feedback channels are not the same as democratic processes. While the government holds large-scale public consultations and closed-door engagements with civil society groups, how (or whether) the feedback is synthesised and dialogues is not clear. ‘What’s taken on board, and what’s discarded? Who makes these decisions, and how?’ (141)
• Civil society groups in Singapore tend to favor pragmatic resistance. Meaning that rather than direct criticism or civil disobedience tactics—which put the government on the defensive—people design their activism ‘through the lens of how the powerful might perceive or react to it.’ (153)
  • ‘We feel a pressure to play nice and carefully consider [the government’s] feelings, because if they feel that they’ve lost face—and it really doesn’t take very much—they might become offended or belligerent, and therefore less willing to listen to our recommendations.’ (154)
  • (I sent this quote to some of my climate activist friends and immediately people responded, “She understands!!” It is absolutely a common experience in advocacy in Singapore.)

On the future of activism in Singapore

• We need different forms of activism, and solidarity across different strategies.
  • ‘Instead of allowing fear and mutual policing to drive wedges between us, we can train ourselves not to leap to judge other people’s choices, strategies and methods, but prioritise public and private demonstrations of solidarity.’ (264)
• Dissent isn’t betrayal. (!!)
  • ‘As long as people aren’t causing harm or urging violence and hate, dissenting views and protests should be treated as part and parcel of how a society navigates differences. Activists should be recognized as people who are invested in building communities, bettering society, and improving lives in a country.’ (188)
• We’re in it for the long haul.
  • ‘We sell ourselves short when we act as if nothing can change. They already have.’ (271) While direct policy shifts may be slow, public discussions on once taboo subjects—including the death penalty, homelessness and, migrant workers’ rights—are now becoming much more normalised
  • ‘Our yardstick shouldn’t be the short-term goals; instead, we should be consistently asking ourselves if we’re expanding horizons, removing restrictions on imaginations, and building the solidarity and support that helps others to come forward too.’ (274)

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed this read—mostly because it resonated so much with my experiences in climate activism. I did feel like the book was a little heavy on broad generalisations: there was a lot of “we”, “many people”, “the government …” “Singaporeans are …”, etc. Still, Han accurately highlighted the difficulty of changemaking in Singapore and all the accompanied fear, gaslighting, intimidation, and helplessness—but crucially as well, the sense of community and hope. I would highly recommend this book to everyone even if especially if you don’t consider yourself active in civil society. Beneath its sheen, Singapore is a complex country with multiple perspectives that have for too long gone unheard.

You can purchase a copy of “The Singapore I Recognise” here!