The relationship between the citizen, civil society, politics and the Government in Singapore is a complicated one.
This relationship has come under scrutiny in recent times, with much debate focusing on dynamics that exist between the political rights of the individual, the role of NGOs and civil society, as well as the Government’s perspective.
The conceptual history of the term “civil society” is enmeshed with the idea of citizenship, the limits of state power and the regulation of market economies. The popular modern perspective is that civil society serves as a buffer zone between state and market – a socio-political space strong enough to negotiate the influences of government and the free market on the individual and greater society.
Jurgen Habermas, the German sociologist and philosopher, articulates that “civil society is made up of more or less spontaneously created associations, organisations and movements, which find, take up, condense and amplify the resonance of social problems in private life, and pass it on to the political realm or public sphere”. An active civil society hence potentially functions as a bridge between the government and the people, encouraging positive discourse and initiatives.
CIVIL SOCIETY VS CIVIC SOCIETY
In Singapore, the Government has often advocated the proliferation of a “civic society” over that of a civil society.
The term first found articulation in 1991, by then Acting Minister of Information and the Arts George Yeo. who called for the creation of a “Singapore Soul” by an active citizenry, with an emphasis on the responsibilities to the nation. In another speech at a conference on civil society in 1998, Mr Yeo mooted the notion of the “Singapore Idea” and expressed hope that there would be found “new and better ways to bind state and society together”.
“For it is in working together that we optimise our position in the world. In the web world, the state is not completely above society. Both exist together drawing strength from each other,” he added. The emphasis, it may be discerned, is on citizen participation that works within governmental and institutional frameworks rather than outside it.
In Singapore this has manifested in a focus on aspects such as good governance, civic responsibility, honesty, strong families, hard work, a spirit of voluntarism and a deep respect for racial and religious diversity.
The result has been the flourishing of organisations such as the People’s Association (PA), which are essentially civic groups that function as assistants to the state, and which perform important roles such as the provision of social services. Civic organisations such as the PA do play a key role in Singapore society – however, this has also meant that traditionally speaking, civic society and not civil society has flourished here.
GROUNDS FOR WARINESS
Why has the Singapore Government maintained a distinct wariness towards the development of a vibrant and potentially politically active civil society? Its suspicions, it may be argued, date back to Cold War days when an active civil society was a hotbed for communist organisations.
Incidents such as the Hock Lee bus strike and riots of 1955, which was orchestrated by politically motivated trade unions and students, left a deep impression on early PAP leaders. The PAP’s own political struggle with left-leaning organisations in the 1960s and 1970s taught it the potential dangers of politicised trade unions.
In the 1980s, the Government reacted strongly to criticisms made by Catholic priests on the trade unions and labour laws. The criticisms were harsh, yet it cannot be denied that there exists a real threat in the amalgamation of religion and politics.
A perusal of recent world history tells us that the Government’s fears are not completely unfounded. A politicised civil society holds the potential to be disruptive and violent, capable of inflicting extensive damage. A paternalistic approach to civil society has avoided such excesses.
But the question must be asked: Today, in a globalised and increasingly politically aware Singapore, is it time for policies on civil society evolve?
AN EVOLVING POLITICAL CULTURE
The political culture in Singapore is undergoing fundamental changes. The 2011 General Election appears to have ushered in a more politically charged and aware citizenry that is determined to voice their concern, disapproval and opinions on social and political issues.
The Government seems well aware of the shifting sands and has made efforts to engage the population in ways it has often shied away from in the past. In 2004, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong articulated that “the Government of Singapore will not view all critics as adversaries. If it is a sincere contribution to improve government policies … (we will) encourage the critic to continue to stay engaged or even counter argue.”
In an interview in March this year, the Prime Minister commented that: “It’s a different generation, a different society, and the politics will be different. … We have to work in a more open way.”
Recent initiatives such as Our Singapore Conversation have been both lauded and criticised in equal measure. Many have called it a step towards more political engagement while others think it a mere talkshop.
Political openness and evolution must be a gradual and two-way process, even in the face of mounting frustration. In many states, a swift and passion-fuelled political change have often resulted in fractured states with little benefit from the process.
It is also imperative that this process is a two way one, negotiated by both an open minded government and an equally accommodating civil society. This is often a laborious process, especially given that our civil society is in many ways still in its infancy. The state too must shift its perspective, from a paternalistic approach to that of a mentor, more experienced and yet trusting of its protégé’s capabilities.
YOUTH AND THE INTERNET
Yet it must be acknowledged, we live in exceptional times with regards to our political culture. An increasingly political citizenry has been aided by the effects of globalisation and the popularity of social networking. The proliferation of ideas and opinions can no longer be contained within state boundaries. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have become hotbeds for discussion on political and social issues.
The Government must become acutely aware that issues and policies will be actively debated and thrashed out. It must take measures to promote more debate in public spaces between citizens and itself, even as such exchange currently does take place via several avenues. Discussion and debate must entail all sides being open to the idea of learning from one another and willing to see the other’s perspective.
Otherwise, a culture where debate takes place without the Government will become the norm. This must be avoided because a vibrant civil society and a capable government, plugged into one another, drawing from one another’s strengths, can be a socio-political force of immense capabilities that Singapore must utilise.
In an increasingly online world, there must be a culture of political engagement that is mature, educated and engaged for positive change. The alternative is a scary one: Online avatars engaged in what borders on mudslinging and hate. Civic society cannot engage these opinions but an active and vigorous civil society can.
As a tutor at both the university and junior college level, it is clear to me that today’s youth are intelligent, opinionated and spirited with a strong interest in positive political and social engagement. Many are not the cynical and disinterested naysayers that the youth are often painted as being.
Given the proper encouragement and avenues, I am confident that we can accelerate the growth of a dynamic and positive civil society, driven by youth that will work for the greater benefit of the country.
Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami
This article was written for the TODAY paper and was published online on 1st June 2013
Looking Beyond the Riots
In Pravin Prakash, Social Commentary on December 20, 2013 at 1:26 pmThe Little India riot has definitively shaken the core of Singaporean society. The first riots in decades, it is an anomaly in the socio-political culture of Singapore, long famed for its law, order and lack of violent outbursts. Yet, rather than label it as a one-off, singular incident, fuelled by the excesses of alcohol, it is essential to delve deeper into the incident, identify the causal mechanism and identify factors that could have potentially been long term causes for the violence that engulfed Race Course Road on the 8th of December 2013. It is even more crucial that we see the bigger picture, and look beyond the riots to understand the social dynamics of our changing society.
An earlier columnist noted that “we should not play socialist too readily”, but I would counsel otherwise. The riot must be studied in create depth by academics, policy personnel, and most importantly perhaps by the general public in order to discern the key lessons that can be learnt from such a tragic and regrettable incident. The Maria Hertogh riots of 1950 and the race riots of 1964 were crucial lessons on the potential fragility of race and religious relations in Singapore while the Hock Lee bus riots of 1955 and other riots in the 1950s were definitive lessons in the capacity for socialist trade unions to bring the state to a standstill. These lessons have played an undeniable role in shaping the perceptions and policies of the government in Independent Singapore. The ghosts of history demand that we treat the Little India riots with the same caution and respect.
Locating the role of alcohol in the riots
It has been suggested that alcohol was the primary cause of the riot. The death of a fellow worker, Sakthivel Kumaravelu, an Indian national, at the hands of a bus, roused passions already doused with alcohol, which led to violent protests by approximately 400 workers, which eventually led to the destruction and torching of an ambulance and several police patrol cars.
There can be no denying that alcohol related nuisance has been a permanent fixture in Little India in the last decade or so. There is also little argument against the fact that both Sakthivel Kumaravelu and a vast majority of the rioters were heavily intoxicated. Alcohol consumption must thus be seen as an important factor in terms of understanding the riot. However, one must also question if firmly placing the blame on alcohol alone is a somewhat simplistic argument. Alcohol was perhaps an enabler, with the workers’ intoxication, pushing them to go further than they would usually dare to, however, it cannot be seen as the cause for the riot. Alcohol consumption does not lead to rioting, otherwise, both Clarke Quay and Boat Quay along with other popular nightspots would have seen numerous riots rather than the usual incidence of nuisance.
Furthermore, such violence, at such magnitude has never been seen in Little India before, despite excessive alcohol consumption being a permanent fixture. Nuisance, small skirmishes and open rioting are very different phenomenon and must not be grouped together with a perception of path dependence. It is my argument that there are far more deep lying factors that lie at the root of the dissatisfaction and unhappiness of the workers’ that manifested itself in the form of violence on the 8th of December. Social norms and the perception of foreign labour in Singapore is a key issue that must be addressed.
The social stratification of foreign workers in Singapore
Social stratification is a reality of all societies, where divides based on socio-economic status exists. Singapore is no different and indeed, in recent times there has been active debate on closing the widening inequality within Singapore. However, while this debate has included Singaporeans, PRs and expatriates, it has largely excluded the position of transient foreign workers, who arguably have the worst living conditions in our country. This largely has to do with the negative social perception that we accord the foreign worker population in Singapore. It may sound harsh when articulated but it is an undeniable truth that we largely conceptualize these workers as a necessary nuisance, which we need but would rather not see. We do not see them as part of greater Singaporean society, but rather as units of labour that we must uncomfortably accommodate.
This mentality must change. Much like the samsui women and coolies of yore, these worker populations form the foundation on which our nation’s growth is based on. They perform the tasks and do the jobs that our population is not prepared to do, tasks which are largely back-breaking, uncomfortable and largely undesirable to a vast majority of the population. They sometimes lack the sophistication and poise that we have come to expect in a largely educated First World nation but they are an essential part of our national fabric, a crucial factor in our success and growth. We must shed the ‘pariah’ label that we have accorded them, but in order to do so, we must first take the uncomfortable step of acknowledging that such a perception exists.
We must review the living conditions of these workers as well as the wages accorded to them. Beyond such tangibles however there are other intangible factors that must be addressed in Singapore and much of this has to do with social welfare and creating conditions that make it possible for them to be part of our imagined community, our nation rather than outliers on the fringes of our state. Firstly, there is a need to provide living space of these groups of workers. The term ‘living space’ here encompasses more than just the crowded dormitories that we pack workers into but rather avenues for them to comfortably spend the few hours of leisure that are accorded to them. The right towards the pursuit of happiness must be extended to everyone, and this can only be present when living space is accorded.
Many of them, I argue turn to alcohol and crowding around small fields in Little India due to a lack of alternatives. Banning alcohol consumption would stifle incidents in Little India, but do little to solve the bigger problem, which is that these workers have little else to do in their leisure, that is affordable with their meagre salary. Every human being deserves rest and recreation and we must realise that these workers are no different.
Let us be a truly first world nation, not just in terms of economic growth and prosperity but also in terms of social welfare. We should strongly consider building community centre equivalents for these workers or expand our present community centres to include activities and options for recreation and relaxation for them. Also, workers who come here, contribute to our economy and perform largely unpleasant and back-breaking tasks should be offered options to better themselves at negligible cost. This would include courses and other educational options. Let us aim to create social institutions that embrace these segments of population rather than cast them into the shadows, which encourages deviant behaviour. If we make them partners in the nation-building process, they are more likely to subscribe to the same social contract that has largely been the basis of the relative peace and order that has defined Singaporean society.
This nation was built by our forefathers, many of whom first came here with the idea of being transient labour. We bettered ourselves, strove and broke socio-economic barriers at an unparalleled rate. As a new generation of Singaporeans take over the helm of our now resplendent and prosperous nation, let us not forget to offer the same opportunities to the less well-off who come here and work tirelessly to provide for a family thousands of miles away, much like our ancestors did.
Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami