A.
Introduction
[1] This is an article in
response to Ong Kar Jin’s blog post in his duriandemocracy blog titled “Reject the Stadium Solution” (Link Here) which was cheekily (albeit slightly distastefully) labelled
as the “SS”.
[2] The article was well
written and I enjoyed writing this response. Briefly put, I don’t fully agree
with his position, and believe that this response will justify why.
B. Stadiums
are limiting Factors.
“More Space
= More People = Better” is flawed logic
[3] The author says that
stadiums limit the number of people who can attend the rallies, and that these
people are the “lifeblood of protests”. He then says that people stuck outside
cannot hear the speeches, participate in “collective action” and that not being
able to enter the stadium is akin to attending a buffet but being able to only
have one plate.
[4] Firstly, the logic is
flawed. If the protests took place in open areas, such as the streets, there
would still be a problem of people who could listen to the speeches or the
ability of people to participate in ‘collective actions’ especially so considering
the spread out and sporadic nature of such protests – essentially, only those able
to get to a focal point, such as Dataran Merdeka would reap any of the benefits
– and this is similar to that of being able to enter the stadium. But within
stadiums, sound systems can be put in place, and screens or sound systems can
be placed in the immediate vicinity of the stadiums. The same cannot be done
for open spaces, simple because logistically it’s impossible.
“The
author has in no way justified why one (duty not to inconvenience residents staying near stadiums) should supersede the rights of other (legitimate businesses and members of the public in the city).”
[5] Secondly, the author
himself highlights a concern but doesn’t provide an answer to it. He concedes
that ‘you never know for sure how many people are going to turn up’. His
suggestion is that open spaces enable more people power. However, within such
concession beckons the question of ‘so how do organisers ensure the safety of
the protesters?’ The reality is that in most liberal democracies, open protests
are limited to a finite number of people. Authorities set limits of how many
people can attend, and are empowered to turn people away if the numbers swell, because
there is a potential and real danger to over-crowding. The author blindly
suggests that people power is vital, to which I agree, but turns away from
addressing security concerns.
[6] Thirdly, I would like to
ask the author, what if a field or open space is allocated as an alternative
(like the area between the Lincoln memorial and World War II memorial in
Washington DC)? Would he accept it?
