By Howard Lee
Let’s begin this article with a simple understanding: The public service does not own the public space. It is at best the custodian of that space, managing it on behalf of the people.
Within this space, there would have been a lively contest of interests, particularly in developed democracies where civil society groups can find it easy to grow and rally support. Sometimes called lobby groups, civil society sometimes also work with, or against, industrial groups in their efforts. The role of the public service is to allow such interactions to take place and use them to make informed policy decisions. Such is the healthy exchange that characterises an active and thriving public-private-people environment.
We do not have that kind of space in Singapore.
Jose Raymond, Executive Director of the Singapore Environment Council, recently opined that the government has been increasingly willing to engage civil society. He cited significant moves in the areas of animal rights and environmental conservation, where the government has been more eager to seek the views of civil society groups and factor their inputs into policy formulation.
These are certainly positive moves for those involved in the green movement, but such engagement needs to be taken in perspective. Indeed, we cannot deny that the public service is more willing to listen. But it can hardly mean that we have a thriving civil society space.
In the case of stiffer laws against animal abuse, there was much consultation, both at open forums and behind closed doors, with animal rights activists. The results were progressive and satisfactory to many who have lobbied for it, and was indeed a win for the activists.
The lobby for the conservation of Bukit Brown had a much different result. Despite the concerted protest of a number of interest groups, plans for the highway and exhumation of graves proceeded as planned. We also learnt that the government’s “consultation” was never meant to be a means of engaging the groups as equals in a consultative fashion, and was really to “share with the group background information and considerations, and to highlight the road plans”.
Two very different cases, with two very different results. Yet, there are two trends that can be identified running across both cases, and quite possibly all other recent efforts by the public service to engage with civil society, which demonstrates the lack in proper, or sufficient, engagement.
The first trend, which I have also written about earlier at the end of the Civil Society Conference organised by the Institute of Public Service, has that the rules of engagement remains firmly defined by the government – the public service can choose who it wants to engage, on what subject matter, and where the OB markers are. Should it decide to stop the engagement or to engage on different terms, the is very little that civil society groups can do. This is hardly a clear signal to those who have put much effort into their passions.
Indeed, as if to put proof to words, an animal rights activist I spoke to recently shared that the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority continues to ignore her emails about why they are not imposing stronger regulations on the import of certain food products that are harmful to both consumers and the survivability of the source animal. Why is AVA so eager to engage one group, but conveniently ignores another?
Another case would be the conduct of an environment impact assessment on the Cross Island MRT line which cuts through a nature reserve. Despite alternatives proposed by interests groups that would have minimised the destruction of the natural environment, it is not clear if the Land Transport Authority will ever take their proposals into account, or if plan will proceed even if the EIA shows that the train line will be detrimental to the environment.
The second trend is that, while the government seems to have relented by allowing such lobbying to take place, we do not see the contest of space that signifies the free play of civil society in the national discourse. In fact, at the IPS conference, the Law Minister said that “there are a lot of people who what nothing to do with animals, who feel that each time we do something here, that somehow impacts on their safety.”
In many other cases, from Bukit Brown to the anti-death penalty campaign, the public service sees itself as representing either the “silent majority” or some other interest that could very well be the industry – it does not matter, because that is not what the public service should be doing, anyway.
The public service is the custodian of the public space, and its role is to encourage discourse that would result in the negotiation between interest groups, not to represent certain interest groups. A case in point is Bukit Brown, where the government professed the “need to decide how best to allocate land to live in, play and work, land for catchment and defence needs, and how we preserve our environment, heritage and history.” Is this something that the Urban Redevelopment Authority has already taken it upon itself to decide for citizens, or was it an idea that evolved from listening to different interest groups stake their claims?
Granted, at the point where there is conflicting interest between parties, the public service needs to step in and decide for the greater good. Such decision will be difficult, and has to be made in the interest of the people, or those who cannot adequately defend themselves, more so than political or commercial interests.
But in instances where there is no such impasse, then the decision to proceed as planned can only be attributable to the intent of the government. In which case, what is really lacking is proper consultation, or consultation that is meant to achieve the purpose of the public service.
Such a lack of proper consultation is merely a lazy way of arriving at the quickest solution, rather than the best solution. We have the best brains in the public service, and it is sad to see instances where this capability is put on the back-burner, in preference for the tried-and-tested, the easy way out, the more economically efficient.
In truth, there is no easy solution to consultation, but that is chiefly because our public service has never been at the point of genuine consultation. It will be a steep learning curve, and it will have to learn not to constantly see its prerogative of “greater national interests” as the gospel truth. To break away from this mind-trap, it needs to listen.
And today, we have no lack of voices to tell the public service what it needs to listen to. What it needs is a mindset shift: To believe that it could be wrong, that the best solutions reside in the people who are passionate about their causes, and to enter every consultation with a completely open mind.
Without a doubt, the civil space will get a lot messier, which is really a better reflection of this increasingly complex society of ours. But the sincerity that the public service brings to the table will earn the trust of civil society, such that the tough choices it has to make will be made together with, not against, passionate souls.
In the next and last part, I will go back to the DPM’s original statement – engaging the people. Yes, that big chunk of humanity that is as diverse as each individual within, which our government somehow thinks it can have National Conversations with.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

33-year old SAF male regular found dead in Kranji Camp II

A 33-year-old Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) male regular was found motionless at…


除了总理李显龙此前在公开场合评论香港示威活动,近日总理夫人暨淡马锡控股总裁何晶,亦针对香港问题在脸书表达看法。 何晶是针对此前《彭博社》指新加坡似乎从目前的香港局势得到好处,在脸书发长文,反问“对于现代香港而言,真正的问题是它对中国而言充当什么角色?” 该文指,在今年4月至8月间,大约有40亿美元资金流入新加坡。尽管这与香港目前约1.7兆美元的储备相比微不足道。不过马来亚银行金英证券分析师Ju Ye Lee认为,若情况持续香港的处境将恶化。 在何晶的贴文开端,她先是指香港一些人士似乎执迷于把新加坡视作“竞争对手”;两者尽管都曾为英殖民地,实则扮演截然不同的角色。 何晶贴文中指出,中国共产党通知中国后,香港充当中国贸易窗口;中国改革开放,香港制造业迁移中国,至今香港基本已无制造业工作,制造业仅占当地GDP约2至3巴仙。 她认为如今香港成了中国的服务中心;但随着中国打开门户,香港真正竞争者是伤害、广州和北京,也对比到2000年左右,中国经济规模已达到约1万亿美元(1.36万亿新元),大约是香港GDP的六倍。 “香港的GDP现在等于中国GDP的大约3巴仙。换句话说,中国的经济规模是香港的30倍以上。” 她也认为,即便是深圳如今都已超越香港,跨国公司也搬迁至中国上海等城市落户。 故此执迷于关注资金和人员向新加坡的流动(而忽略了人员和资金向美国、加拿大、澳大利亚、英国等其他地方的流动,特别是专业才能),是搞错了重点。 她也指出,新加坡在独立后找到了生存的路径;香港主要依靠中国大方注入的一小部分服务业。…

Presidential Election Polling Day – A photo story

Pictures: Terry Xu, Shawn Danker and Chong Woon Hian/ Results of the…

In the absence of evidence, PAP repeats use of sophistry to justify its beliefs to Singaporeans

On 28 March (Thursday), Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat made a statement…