“We need to shift from a government that focuses primarily on working for you, to a government that works with you. Working with you, for you.” That was how Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat articulated the changing philosophy of governance of the ruling People’s Action Party, speaking in a widely-reported 45-minute speech outlining the priorities of the next generation of PAP leadership.
For some observers, Deputy Prime Minister Heng’s speech seemed to herald a liberalizing shift in the state’s relationship with civil society. In Singapore, the government has traditionally played a leading role in defining the policy agenda and determining its implementation. Heng’s call for the government to partner with the people seemed to echo the increasingly common refrain of engaging and consulting civil society, reflecting the changing dynamics of state-society relations. His assurance that “we may have different views but so long as you have the good of Singapore at heart, we can work together,” also appeared to signal a break from a past where groups with views opposed to the government were seen as dissidents and troublemakers. In doing so, Heng hinted towards the government’s intention to work not merely with establishment groups, but also with civil society organizations whose views might not immediately align with the state’s.
Despite the promise of Heng’s vision, however, Singaporean civil society groups remain confronted with challenges in advocacy that they have had to learn to navigate. Ultimately, the state’s commitment to truly partnering with civil society will be tested by its willingness to broaden the space for advocacy groups to operate, as well as to engage with those holding contrary and even critical perspectives.
Working With You, For You
In line with a shift towards greater engagement with civil society, a number of Singaporean civil society organizations that the HPR spoke to attested to how the government has sought to work collaboratively in developing policy solutions. Sumita Banerjee, executive director of HIV/AIDS prevention advocacy group Action for AIDS, recounted examples of how the authorities have acted upon its suggestions. The organization’s advocacy contributed to the state’s decision in 2015 to remove the ban on foreign persons living with HIV entering Singapore on social visits, she said, as well as helped to make available new biomedical options recommended by the World Health Organization. Most recently, Action for AIDS launched its Community Blueprint in December 2019 and is “looking forward to actually having some good collaborations” with the government to implement its proposals.
The state has also made efforts to consult civil society organizations in the legislative process. Jiang Haolie, a founding team member of Yale-NUS College student group the Community for Advocacy and Political Education, described how parliamentarians solicited members’ feedback when drafting new laws. “[Member of Parliament] Louis Ng reached out to us through a few of our members who were his own legislative assistants,” he explained. When a controversial bill against fake news had been mooted in Parliament, Ng connected the group with Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K. Shanmugam, who met and spoke with students about the proposed law on multiple occasions. Although members of CAPE remained skeptical after the sessions, one positive outcome, Jiang reflected, was that the students “understood how [the government] was working, and [the government] understood how [the students] were working as well.”
Continuing Challenges
Other members of civil society, however, are less sanguine about the state’s promises of consultation. Civil society activist and freelance journalist Kirsten Han expressed doubts about the process to the HPR. “How many national dialogues have we had, and what has come out of them?” Han asked. Some civil society activists now harbor skepticism about “how genuine such engagement is,” she noted, which discourages further involvement. In a conversation with the HPR, social worker and human rights activist Jolovan Wham also questioned the state’s willingness to undertake the potentially far-reaching reforms that might be required. It is not clear, he suggested, whether the reinvigorated attempt at national dialogue would “actually make any significant changes to the landscape, to the policies and laws that need to change.”
More practically, negotiating the unspoken boundaries of acceptable advocacy vis-à-vis the state can be challenging. One frequently-described challenge is a fear of adverse consequences, whether real or perceived, as a result of dissent. Speaking based on her experience in journalism, for instance, Han related that individuals are hesitant to go on-the-record “because we still want access to this ministry or that minister, or it would jeopardize our work or it would jeopardize our organization.”
Consequently, civil society groups describe a continuing tension between exercising caution in order to avoid displeasing the government and staying true to their organizational missions and aims. Speaking to the HPR, Jaya Anil Kumar, a case manager at the migrant worker advocacy group Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics, explained how the opacity of the state complicates this process. Because what the government might deem as inappropriate is not always obvious, she observed that it is important to occasionally push boundaries, without which “the work may stagnate.”
Some civil society organizations, therefore, strive to minimize misunderstanding by positioning themselves and framing dialogue carefully. CAPE, Jiang explained, attempts to avoid potentially loaded language in its public-facing material. It shies away from terms like “democracy” or “activism” unless they are used purposefully, favoring instead less provocative ideas like “active citizenry.” On a philosophical level, Jiang invoked the National University of Singapore legal scholar Lynette Chua’s concept of “pragmatic resistance” to characterize the nature of CAPE’s work. Chua coined the phrase in her study of gay activism in Singapore, describing how activists, sensitive to legal restrictions and cultural norms, adopt a strategy that is non-confrontational and non-threatening towards the political order.
Yet, civil society activists are also cognizant of the limits and pitfalls of such an approach. Jiang highlighted how “internalizing this depoliticization” was a constant concern across the different cohorts of CAPE’s leadership. “We’ve been very worried about internalization of ‘pragmatic resistance,’ where after a certain point of time, it’s just pragmatic, and there’s no more resistance,” he reflected. Han similarly drew attention to how “pragmatic resistance” might function more effectively in certain contexts than in others. Advocating for animal welfare would demand an entirely different tack from more controversial causes such as campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty or the controversial preventative detention law, the Internal Security Act. In the case of a civil rights group seeking the repeal of the ISA, for example, Han suggested that adopting “pragmatic resistance” would be “very difficult for them because the ask is so politically sensitive.”
Negotiating Boundaries and Creating Change
In the face of a multitude of challenges, civil society groups in Singapore have devised strategies that have proven effective in advocating for change to the government. One important element of this process lies in creating awareness and building support among the public. HOME, for example, has relied on highlighting stories of vulnerable migrant workers who have encountered exploitative conditions at work to gain support for its cause. “Part of the reason why stories are published is because they are very impactful,” Kumar observed. “You don’t need to know the law, or know the regulations of MOM [the Ministry of Manpower], to understand stories.” With a groundswell of public concern surrounding an issue, she pointed out, the government is more likely to be responsive to the need for change.
Credible advocacy also necessitates proposals for change that are rooted in evidence-based research. Shailey Hingorani, head of research and advocacy at the gender equality advocacy group AWARE Singapore described the extensive primary and secondary research that AWARE undertakes to the HPR. “We’re not plucking things out of thin air,” Hingorani said, referencing AWARE’s qualitative research methodologies when conducting its fieldwork, along with secondary research that considers policy options shown to be effective in other countries. After an initial period of data-gathering, AWARE presents its findings back to the communities that it serves, taking their feedback into account before lobbying the government.
Pairing service delivery with advocacy helps ensure that research of this sort does not become abstracted from the lived experiences of those it seeks to serve. Action for AIDS, for instance, runs the largest anonymous HIV/AIDS testing centers in Singapore, as well as support groups providing psychosocial and mental health support. Banerjee commented, “We get the evidence directly from the community, and that’s what actually helps.” Providing services allows the organization to better understand the landscape of needs while gathering data that is useful in formulating policy solutions, adding to the persuasiveness of its research.
Apart from direct advocacy towards the government, empirical research can also be presented through international human rights mechanisms as another means of working towards change. HOME, for instance, has made various submissions to the United Nations, including its Shadow Report for the UN Committee on the Protection of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, and its Universal Periodic Review for human rights. These, in turn, draw attention to the need for the review of policies or legislation that may be inadequate, giving the government a stronger impetus to reexamine them.
However, these strategies depend eventually on the government’s receptiveness government to the possibility of change. Civil society groups, therefore, seek to be sensitive to the political climate, timing advocacy efforts such that they appear aligned with the state’s policy agenda. Hingorani described how AWARE strategizes areas of focus at the beginning of each year based on its reading of the government’s priorities. In choosing between either focussing on the rights of foreign spouses or eldercare responsibilities at the start of 2019, for example, AWARE “analyzed the political climate, the announcements that the government had been making, and realized that caregiving and aging were topics already in the national conversation,” she said. Thus, it chose to concentrate on the latter issue, because “the chances of that research being picked up, and the chances of the government’s listening to [them] would be higher.”
Taking the Long View
Even though members of civil society are acutely aware of the difficulties surrounding advocacy in Singapore, they remain generally hopeful about the prospect of long-term change. One frequently cited positive development is the recent resurgence of youth activism in Singapore, with campus groups and other youth-led, ground-up initiatives sprouting up in recent years. “I’m optimistic about the people in civil society and pessimistic about the environment in which you have to operate,” Han commented. “I see young people who are very keen and very savvy wanting to get involved like CAPE — I mean, they’re doing amazing work,” she added. Confirming this, Jiang observed that there has been a “wellspring of student activism.” It is a “myth,” he asserted, that youth in Singapore are apathetic or civically disengaged.
Recognizing that change is unlikely to happen overnight, civil society activists also take the long view, seeing their efforts as laying the groundwork for the future. Even if the results are not immediately apparent, Han remarked, “keeping conversations alive, even if they are smaller scale, is really important.” In the meantime, what continues to give purpose to members of civil society is the difference that they make in the lives of those they serve. Indeed, Hingorani explained that although she and her colleagues “work for twelve hours a day,” the words of gratitude from those in the community encourage them to persevere in spite of the many challenges they face.
Ultimately, the state’s commitment to “engagement” with civil society will be tested with time. The litmus test of this brand of consultative politics is its willingness to accept dissenting opinions and policy suggestions that sit uncomfortably with the status quo, and to dispel any lingering worries that these critical perspectives might result in reprisals. It will be seen in the readiness of the government to collaborate in good faith with contrarians and naysayers and to thoughtfully engage with the proposals of activists like Jiang. As he put it, “We all love Singapore, for God’s sake. … We just disagree on how things should be run.”
