Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

More Singapore conversations needed to keep this little red dot shiny

As Singapore moves into the next 50 years, how can we recapture, revitalise and nurture the passion, courage and imagination of pioneer Singaporeans when independence was thrust upon them that fateful day on August 9 in 1965? How do we protect and grow our precious inheritance of sovereignty, self-determination and dignity?

As Singapore moves into the next 50 years, how can we recapture, revitalise and nurture the passion, courage and imagination of pioneer Singaporeans when independence was thrust upon them that fateful day on August 9 in 1965? How do we protect and grow our precious inheritance of sovereignty, self-determination and dignity?

The process of arriving at a consensus matters tremendously. Political participation must be embraced in form and substance.

“Voice” — understood as expressing one’s thoughts and being engaged in the deliberative process — will play a critical role in the process of reaching a consensus or arriving at a decision. A range of voices is essential to the rigorous formation of public opinion.

That Singaporeans possess a deep sense of identity, belonging and rootedness to this little “red dot” we call home is fundamental to our sovereignty. As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said recently, pride in being Singaporean and having a strong sense of identity and of nationhood will endow us with the fundamental conviction and motivation to overcome challenges.

This is where the voices of Singaporeans must play a bigger part in our national life.

The Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) held in 2012-13 was a massive exercise in consultation and the response of Singaporeans demonstrated our enthusiasm, maturity and involvement in sharing our views on issues, including hot-button ones.

We need to have more conversations regularly, rather than one Big Conversation, and without them being mediated by the Government.

There is a tremendous opportunity for a paradigm shift so that Singaporeans can develop the habit and virtue of speaking with one another and engaging robustly on key issues of the day. These “horizontal” conversations are necessary as issues are increasingly not about what the Government thinks is best, but rather about what citizens are comfortable with.

In these conversations, how we converse with one another matters as much, if not more, as what we converse about.

Even if a meeting of minds cannot be achieved because the differences are too great, the engagement provides a valuable platform to understand the various perspectives on an issue, the vested interests and the possible ways forward.

Having a range of voices can facilitate in engendering a more nuanced understanding of the issues, the options, and the pluses and minuses that come with different choices in tackling future challenges.

Alternative voices and voices from Singaporeans from all walks of life will have to take centre stage in any public deliberation in a more focused manner. Public policy engagement, deliberation and implementation will be more successful if there is a buy-in by the community.

This is where co-creation offers the powerful platform for active citizenship to go beyond being a mere concept and rhetoric, to a reality that is inherently about collaboration, in which open communication lines, trust and confidence among stakeholders will characterise the partnership.

Co-creation is, in short, about a government-civil society partnership, with collaboration and cooperation being the hallmarks in the delivery of public services or in the formulation of policies at the municipal and national levels.

We must eschew a one-size-fits-all approach. Both the Government and civil society must approach co-creation with open minds, and realise that service co-creation may not be suitable in all instances. There must be realistic expectations about what it can and cannot do.

The provision of social services in Singapore is a powerful example of co-creation, where the Government provides substantial funding and an enabling framework, while volunteer welfare organisations rally fellow Singaporeans to help others.

It is conceivable that many services can benefit from varying degrees of government-civil society collaboration. However, pure regulatory types of activities, for example, those involving aspects of policing, may not be apt until we have inculcated receptivity to regulation by peers.

There is also the imperative for civil society to develop the necessary capacity, competency and commitment if co-creation is to thrive. The desire and willingness to collaborate must be distinguished from the ability and commitment to do so for the long haul.

Co-creation is important for the public service sector and for Singapore. The former does not have the monopoly on wisdom, and the public policies ultimately must serve the people and engender buy-in.

Through this process of co-creation, we can develop an ethos of trust and inclusion, and imbue an ethic of respect for pluralism. While we value alternative or critical or opposing voices, we must recognise that voice is impossible without responsibility.

As we strive to overcome the proverbial mid-life crisis that afflicts nation states more familiar with success than failure, our society stands to gain if it encourages respect for a diversity of voices.

Alternative perspectives are important in helping society develop an understanding of and, if necessary, engender a consensus on critical issues. Very often, we participate as a matter of conviction, choice and as an expression of active citizenship.

The perception of unilateral government decision-making sits uncomfortably with the growing desire of citizens to influence government decision-making.

If the Government does not involve the people enough, then policy-making may well lose its legitimacy, and public policies may be less effective since there is likely to be less buy-in for policies made in such a situation. This perception of disenfranchisement from policymaking can result in more political alienation.

Furthermore, if most Singaporeans believe that the ballot box is the only effective (but blunt) way of engaging the Government, and that all other modes of engagement lack efficacy and impact, this will only increase disproportionately the stakes and outcomes where elections are concerned as they take place every four to five years only.

For a plural society such as ours to be sustainable, Singaporeans need to be able to deal with the variety of tempestuous issues with resilience and a willingness to learn from such stresses to the social fabric.

Otherwise, a destructive dynamic could be set off in which the unresolved differences, misguided views and prejudices remain to fester and sow discord.

If public discourse and reason is receptive and nurturing of a variety of voices, we can be very confident that this ideational social compact can only enhance what Singapore stands for and what it means to be a true-blue Singaporean.

We will then continue to make our Singapore special.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Eugene K B Tan is associate professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law. This commentary is adapted from a longer piece in Beyond 50: Re-imagining Singapore, a book of essays by different authors on the country’s future challenges and opportunities. The publication, which is available both in print and online, is supported by the SG50 Celebration Fund.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.