Internal networks of trust will grow in importance as the state's monopoly on power is eroded by technology, Information and the Arts Minister George Yeo argued at the civil society conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies last week. Here, journalist CHERIAN GEORGE and law lecturer KEVIN TAN of the civic discussion group, The Roundtable, suggest ways to help those networks grow. LAST week's conference on civil society provided an unprecedented forum for civic organisations, government officials and members of the establishment to discuss state-society relations. It was natural that many participants accentuated the positive. Most civil society organisations, including the Roundtable, proceed on a pragmatic basis: They accept whatever space is available to them to pursue their goals. Thus, encouragement was drawn from Information and the Arts Minister George Yeo's opening address, in which he stated that civil society would have an increasingly important role in Singapore. Professor Tommy Koh, a well-respected mediator between Government and civic organisations, also wrapped up the conference on an optimistic note. He said that much of what was negative in state-society relations was a legacy of the past, and that the future would be brighter. A healthy dose of optimism is by no means unfounded. Without that optimism, the Roundtable and many other civic groups would not have participated in the conference in the first place. Higher values pertaining to the arts, the environment, social work and other interests need to be accepted as having a legitimate place in Singapore's national ideology -- even if they are excluded from the ruling party's more practical governing platform. However, while the issue is still fresh, it is also worthwhile considering less happy aspects of state-society relations, and reminding oneself of the distance that is yet to be travelled. In several key respects, Singapore civil society has weak fundamentals that need to be addressed if it is to grow. Barriers to civic activities Government suspicion towards civic groups may be an understandable legacy of the past, when pro-communist elements took the guise of various societies. But this attitude has to change for the future of civil society. A state that truly welcomes citizen initiative would minimise the red tape for groups and their activities. Instead, in Singapore, a wide range of registration and licensing laws apply. These cover the registration of societies, the organising of public meetings and the publication of newsletters or Internet Websites. They go beyond mere administrative rules, and give politicians and bureaucrats significant discretionary powers. These can, at the very least, result in unnecessary expenditure of time and energy on the part of citizens who want to exercise initiative. Worse, they can block certain moves entirely. The effect of these laws goes beyond the groups that are involved directly. The signal that they send is that, while business entrepreneurship is more than welcome, citizen initiative in the realm of civil society is somehow unnatural, and not an inalienable part of what it means to be Singaporean. Significantly, it is harder under present rules to register a society than a company. Preference for a managed approach Civil society runs on grassroots energies, which flow into areas that are perceived to be not served adequately by the state or the market. Just as water finds its own level, so, too, do these energies. The Government, however, has tended to prefer a more managed and controlled approach, setting up approved channels through which these energies are encouraged to flow. The Feedback Unit, the new Community Development Councils and ethnic-based self-help groups are prominent examples. There are some advantages to these top-down mechanisms. For example, they may enjoy economies of scale, professional management, and access to funds and to decision-makers, in a way that more informal and dissipated groups do not. But there is also a cost. The Government's agenda and priorities cannot match every citizen's. For example, some citizens feel that CDCs are too political, or are opposed to the idea of ethnic-based social work. They may therefore participate half-heartedly, or not at all. These government-approved channels do not completely preclude other, private initiatives (witness the setting up of the Association of Muslim Professionals alongside the government-led Mendaki). However, the crowding-out effect should not be underestimated: People will find it harder to start up and sustain their ventures if there are already similar organisations bearing the Government's stamp of approval. If the Government wants to persist with this large-scale, highly structured approach, then it should at least work towards giving citizens a greater sense of "ownership" over these channels, to reduce their stigma as mere arms of government. Pragmatic agenda can stifle idealism Players in civil society have values that they hold dear to them: values that are the source of their commitment and drive. The Government needs to recognise that these values may not be identical to the pragmatic ideology of the ruling party. Yes, there are usually some areas of overlap. For example, the desire among artists for more performance venues and more art education courses is compatible with the Government's plan to establish Singapore as a regional hub for the arts, to enhance the country's attractiveness as a place to live and to visit. However, government doctrine is sometimes too narrow to contain the full breadth of idealism that infuses civil society. To use the arts again as an example, not all fringe and experimental art forms can be defended on the utilitarian grounds that the authorities are comfortable with Instead, they can only be appreciated when recognised as products of the artistic expression that Singaporeans are entitled to engage in, and that makes society whole. Higher values pertaining to the arts, the environment, social work and other interests need to be accepted as having a legitimate place in Singapore's national ideology -- even if they are excluded from the ruling party's more practical governing platform. Unclear OB markers deter initiative There is little argument about the need for sensitivity to be exercised in the areas of race, language and religion. Part of the challenge for civil society is to settle internal and external differences in ways that do not upset these special sensitivities. But the Government has also declared its own status and reputation to be off-limits to citizens outside the arena of electoral politics. This particular out-of-bounds marker continues to make many Singaporeans uneasy. Because it seems both vague and self-serving, it is seen widely as a threat against any criticism that cuts too close to the bone. MP Chan Soo Sen's advice at last week's conference was to treat civic action like Customs at Changi Airport: just go through the green lane; most of the time, you will have no problem; if stopped and questioned, just answer sincerely. The analogy is appealing. However, at Changi Airport, a law-abiding Singaporean is not fearful because he knows the rules -- which items are banned, which are dutiable, and what the GST limit is. In the case of political engagement, however, there are no such certainties. In most cases in recent years, including the infamous Catherine Lim affair, people were taken aback by what the Government considered offensive, and by the strength of its reaction. Civic action here is more like approaching Customs in a strange and unfamiliar country, where one is unsure of what is on the watchful officer's mind. Even if one is not stopped, the uncertainty makes one nervous and fearful -- and does not make one feel welcome or at home. Outside of the special areas of race, language and religion, there needs to be increasing tolerance of different opinions. When the Government does choose to reply to individuals or groups, it should do so as a constructive engagement on the issues at hand, and not to question their motivations or, as with Catherine Lim, their proper place in society. Government accepts that civic groups have an essential role to play in the smooth running of Singapore, there are not yet enough signs that such groups are accepted as full partners. In most areas, there continues to be an arm's-length stance towards citizens who want to get involved in public affairs. This attitude is seen, first, in the treatment of official information. While the bureaucracy has, in recent years, released more information to help the public understand controversial policies, it is clear that the politicians, not the public, are in charge of the tap. Requests for information by the press or the public are still largely treated with suspicion. In keeping with the practice in an increasing number of democracies, the onus should not be on the public to convince officials why any information is needed. Instead, in each case, it should be the duty of the official to explain to the citizen why data cannot be released, if indeed there is a need for confidentiality. The present approach to information is symptomatic of a larger problem: Civil society is seen as a source of many helping hands, but not necessarily many helping heads. There is not the recognition that individuals and civic groups can provide expert opinions and advice, and that the quality of this contribution will increase in direct proportion with access to information. Failure to credit contributions Officials' attitude to civic groups is also shown in their reluctance to acknowledge their contribution. It is not uncommon to hear civic groups talk of government departments being unwilling to share credit, or even claiming ideas from the ground as their own. In most cases, civic groups find enough satisfaction in the private knowledge that they have achieved a substantive goal and influenced policy, and do not mind that they receive no public acknowledgment. However, the cost of this reticence is that there are too few positive examples known to the public of how state and society can work together for the common good. This is a major loss, because one of the main dampeners on civil society today is the deep sense of cynicism that civic participation will make no difference at all to anything. For this reason, the Government should publicise the cases when civic groups' words and actions have succeeded in changing its mind, causing it to modify a programme or policy. Unfortunately, it now seems to regard accommodation of civic action as a sign of weakness in the face of pressure groups -- something that needs to be hidden, lest it erode its authority. It needs a new mind-set, such that working together with civic groups, as equal partners, is considered not a chore nor a risk, but as a success to be proud of. Thus, for civil society to flourish in Singapore, there must be changes to the status quo. Perhaps those changes may be implemented incrementally. But there needs also to be a change of mind-set -- a powerful transformation in the way we see the relationship between state and society: not as one in charge of the other, but as parallel entities. We have tried to outline five of the major changes that need to be made for this new relationship. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has made such a call, asking Singaporeans to question existing mind-sets, and for Singapore to develop civil society. BG Yeo has reinforced that with his speech. Now those words must translate into necessary changes to policies and actions. Cherian George and Dr Kevin Tan are executive committee members of The Roundtable, and submitted this article to Sunday Review on its behalf. The Roundtable, a registered society, is a non-partisan discussion group that aims to contribute to the development of civil society and to the shaping of national policies. Back to Top