|
Is civil society evolving here? SHEILA KOH looks at
the signs and portents surrounding one of the hottest
buzzwords here.
Public debate over a whole range of issues has bloomed.
Increasingly, the Forum pages of The Straits Times are
full of lively comments. The Internet newsgroup, soc.culture.singapore,
is full of news threads on sensible and nonsensical
topics. Radio stations have slots when views of listeners
are solicited. One recent topic over a local radio station
was sex education with parents calling up to give frank
views.
The issues which concern Singaporeans are wide-ranging.
Just to name a few hot topics: Singlish, the CLOB saga,
taxi service, foreign talent, the demolition of the
National Library building in Stamford Road and the Anglo-Chinese
School clock tower in Barker Road - and recently a debate
on homosexuality and whether Singapore society was ready
for a more open approach.
Gay activist Alex Au applied to hold a public forum
to debate gay issues and was rejected by Public Entertainment
Licensing Unit. (All public gatherings must have a permit.)
Conservatives, pro-gays, mothers of gays and neutral
parties jumped in with their views to the press. The
Police Force, too, wrote in to explain why the application
was rejected and Minister of State for Trade and Industry
Lim Swee Say joined in the debate to say while conservative
Singapore society was not quite ready for the open promotion
of a gay lifestyle, that did not mean that gays could
not contribute to society as Singaporeans. He saw no
reason for gays to pitch their contributions to Singapore
21 as gays rather than as Singaporeans.
(The colonial law against homosexuality is still enshrined
in Singapore's Criminal Procedure Code. However, there
has never been any prosecutions for homosexuality as
such.)
Now there is a Speaker's Corner coming up. Recently,
the Ministry of Home Affairs got the soapbox out for
would-be speakers passionate enough about something
to want to speak out. From August, Singaporeans can
make speeches at Speaker's Corner located in Hong Lim
Park without a special permit. The rules are minimal.
All a speaker has to do is register his intention to
speak at the Neighbourhood Police Post next to Speaker's
Corner and show proof that he is a Singapore citizen.
The idea of a Speaker's Corner to help develop civil
society had been raised often but has always been rejected.
In May, speaking in Parliament on the approval for the
Corner, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng said, "After
studying the matter further, the government has decided
that, while there is some risk, the risk can be managed
and the idea is worth trying out."
While such active citizenship may be more visible now,
it is not new. As a 1998 Institute of Policy Studies
conference on civil society showed, there were already
active civic groups who acted while their fellow-Singaporeans
were still just complaining about the lack of freedom.
The Nature Society of Singapore is one of the oldest
surviving lobby groups, dating back to the 1950s.
According to conservation committee chairman Dr Ho Hua
Chew, "the group successfully lobbied to turn Sungei
Buloh into a conservation area in 1989, and to shelve
plans for a golf course at the Lower Pierce Reservoir
in 1992". It has also had rejections, such as its calls
to preserve the Senoko bird sanctuary, the Kranji henronry
and the Marina South marshes.
There are quite a few civic organisations and advocacy
groups here representing a wide range of interests that
were started from the bottom up. One is the Association
of Women for Action and Research (AWARE). In 1995, Dr
Kanwaljit Soin, a former president of AWARE, tabled
a Family Violence Bill in Parliament when she was a
Nominated Member of Parliament. Although the Bill was
defeated, AWARE had made a difference by putting family
violence on the Parliamentary agenda. Singapore eventually
amended the Women's Charter in 1997 to enhance protection
for women from violence.
Civil society also encompasses professional associations,
religious and cultural organisations and other informal
community groups. In the last three years, more than
400 neighbourhood groups have launched hundreds of initiatives
to fight vandalism, littering and combat crime. These
residents work with grassroots bodies on the best way
to address problems in their neighbourhood. For example,
Ang Mo Kio Cheng San Community Development Council (CDC)
roped in residents as traffic wardens to ensure that
children got to their schools safely when the incidence
of traffic accidents in the area increased.
Now, the nine CDCs that were set up to promote community
bonding are getting more functions as part of plans
to empower the community to do more for itself. As outlined
by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at a recent seminar,
Marine Parade and Tanjong Pagar CDCs will be the first
councils to get bigger roles. CDCs are to take over
the administration of public-assistance schemes and
oversee the planning of community-based services.
Beyond the government-backed civic groups such as the
CDCs and the community self-help groups such as Yayasan
Mendaki (Council for the Development of the Singapore
Muslim Community) and Singapore Indian Development Association
(SINDA), there are other civil society groups who try
to shape the society in which they live. One is The
Roundtable made up of young professionals. It seeks
to influence policies but does not try to control the
political agenda. Vice-president Raymond Lim enthused
that the group "has helped to register the point that
ordinary citizens can play a part in the policy process
- be it critical or supportive - without belonging to
political parties".
For civic groups such as the Nature Society and AWARE,
there is the bigger problem of people who do not look
beyond their immediate interests. Said Dr Soin, "For
as long as people don't ask the question 'what is the
kind of Singapore we want to leave our children' and
do not act on the question, then attitudes will take
a long time to change and the process of evolving civil
society will be slower." Said Dr Ho of the Nature Society,
"Another challenge for the group relates to getting
citizens involved, especially the well-educated and
articulate types."
Among the most active commentators on society are the
arts groups. Kuo Pao Kun's recent multilingual play,
Sunset Rise, explored the social context of the aged
in Singapore. Collaborations between The Necessary Stage
and AWARE, Family Life Centre and Action for Aids saw
the staging of plays in schools on various themes ranging
from Aids to bullying to boy-girl relations.
The Internet has enormous potential to encourage greater
interaction between individuals and groups, as well
as be the venue for fringe groups. When the gay community's
attempt to register itself as a society "People Like
Us" in 1996 was rejected, gat activist Alex Au, a freelance
writer, started a website, Yawning Bread, and housed
it on a server outside Singapore.
The Working Committee (TWC), a grassroots NGO formed
to encourage cooperation among civil society groups,
embarked on two new projects in its website. The first
is an Internet portal that serves as a one-stop directory
for civil society matters; the second provides free
Internet access to non-profit groups.
Seeking to influence policies can lead to tension between
competing interests. The Nature Society found that nature
conservation had a wider political significance, surprising
both itself and the state. Land is a scarce resource
here and advocating its conservation has produced loud
arguments with politicians, government agencies and
everyone else wanting a slice of it.
Comments on policies and developments have to be done
with care to avoid tension and possible problems. Singapore
is a multi-racial and multi-religious society and there
is always a need for sensitivity. It is significant
that the rules on the use of the Speaker's Corner say
that speakers can speak on any topic so long as they
avoid speeches that will incite feelings of hostility
between racial or religious groups.
In 1994, author Catherine Lim was admonished by Prime
Minister Goh Chok Tong and challenged to enter the political
arena for her commentary in a Straits Times column on
a disjunct between hard-nosed government policies and
the aspirations of citizens.
The Government has always maintained that those who
want to discuss politics should join a political society.
Yet, it is obvious that Lim is still very much around
and still quoted in the media. In fact, Lim is an example
of how times have changed: last year she was named a
national role model by PM Goh when he called on Singaporeans
to display more creativity and embrace the arts! Speaking
up does not mean that you get clapped in jail notwithstanding
the Internal Security Act.
This Act is one of several pieces of legislation going
back to colonial times that is of concern to civic groups.
The Internal Security Act allows the government to detain
a person considered a threat to public security without
trial. The Public Entertainments Act requires a police
permit for a public gathering of any kind. Originally
aimed at secret societies, the Societies Act requires
a group of people with an agenda to be registered.
The legislation grew out of the turmoil of the years
when the colonial government and then the People's Action
Party government were fighting first the violent communist
insurgency and then the pro-communist attempts to grab
power by any means possible including violence. Singapore's
short history is peppered with race and religious riots
as well as labour and student riots generated by procommunist
manipulators.
Members of The Roundtable have proposed that "legislation
like the Societies Act, the Internal Security Act and
the Public Entertainments Act need to be reviewed seriously,
so that bona-fide civil society groups can get on with
the business of being engaged in public debate". Some
of the groups have discussed and outlined the areas
of these Acts that give rise to self-censorship.
Sometimes, creativity and imagination are called for.
Activists author James Gomez who published Self-Censorship:
Singapore's Shame registered Think Centre as a company,
and in so doing, circumvented the Societies Act. Think
Centre uses the multiplier effect of email to promote
its activities, the latest being a seminar on human
rights in Singapore.
Accountability has always been a major concern of the
Government. Having gone through the 1950s and 1960s
when society was rife with people with hidden agendas,
the Government is understandably cautious. Its stand
has always been that only citizens have the right to
take part in politics or get involved with civil society
issues.
The recent Political Donations Bill shows this concern
with the possibility of outside interests groups taking
over or infiltrating civil society groups and political
parties. In May Parliament passed the Political Donations
Bill restricting donations to political parties, parties
and associations to Singaporeans aged at least 21 and
Singapore companies. Parties can accept anonymous donations
up to a total of $5,000 a year but beyond that, they
have to ensure that the amount is from a permissible
donor. A record must be kept of the donor including
his name, identity card number and address. A single
donation of $10,000 or more must be filed with the Registrar
or Political Donations, a new body under the Bill.
To the point raised by civic groups that the Bill could
kill the budding civil society, Home Minister Wong Kan
Seng said in Parliament that for a groups to be regarded
as a political association, it would have to be gazetted
as such by the government and its objectives and activities
would relate wholly or mainly to politics here. He distinguished
between groups promoting a social cause without leading
to legal or political changes and groups which pushed
for change in the political structure. For instance,
funds from United Nations Development Programme for
children would not come under the Bill.
Public debate without a degree of tension is not possible.
Citizens passionate enough about something to speak
up are also sometimes passionate enough to pound tables
and maybe even hurl things about. But active citizenship
does not necessarily mean chaos, when activists understand
that contributing to the debate does not mean that you
always get your way. Neither does active citizenship
mean taking to the streets in violent protests. Civil
society means also civilised debate and winning the
argument through sound reasoning and evidence.
Chairman and of S21 Facilitation Committee and Minister
of State for Defence and Information and the Arts David
Lim seems to sum up the position of the government on
civil society: "We may or may not get what we hoped
for, but we would have contributed to the final outcome
by sharing our thoughts. The rules of engagement are
based on mutual respect, and recognising that all of
us have a share in the future. Each of us can contribute
to that future, but not by insisting that 'my way is
the better way'."
Courtesy of Singapore International Foundation
|
