Information You Can Use: A Bi-monthly Service for the UN and Civil Society
Volume 1, Issue 3, June-July 2004
Next step for civil society: Daring to walk the talk
21 June
Source: The
Straights Times
By : Zuraidah Ibrahim
Next step for civil society: Daring to walk the talk
21 June
Source: The
Straights Times
By : Zuraidah Ibrahim
THE term 'OB markers' is a quaint, civil way to describe the invisible electric
fence that separates the professional from the amateur in the ring of Singapore
politics.
In golf, once you hit the ball beyond the OB line, you are out of play and suffer a penalty.
In politics, the line indicates the limits beyond which ordinary citizens criticising the Government will be treated like political opponents vying for power.
If you engage in politics, you have to be prepared for robust comebacks, a dose of ego-bruising and a bit of reputation-puncturing.
A Remaking Singapore sub-committee is stepping in gallantly to play the role of referee, attempting to refine the definition of what 'engaging in politics' ought to mean.
It recognises that, right now, any discussion on public matters could be viewed by the Government, and feared by the participants, as meddling in politics.
It wants the leaders to agree that 'engagement in politics' means only action and speech related directly to electioneering and party politics.
Beyond that, citizens have a right to discuss politics freely without worry of being electrocuted by the fence, as long as they do not stray into the sensitive areas of religion, race and national security.
The committee's intervention is laudable, but it is also a sad indictment of the state of political discussion here that such an enabling proposition is needed.
Could it be that the real problem is not OB markers, but Singaporeans' apathy and inaction?
I confess to a growing sense that this is the case.
Let me explain. About 10 years ago, when The Roundtable was founded, I joined the organisation at the invitation of a friend, resigning only when I became an editor in this paper recently.
I enjoyed our discussions on politics, and felt some satisfaction from the articles the group contributed to national debates.
But at the back of my mind there lingered the suspicion that we were making little headway with the Government, that most Singaporeans could not care less what the group wrote about, and that the opposition did not respect us either.
First, the Government.
Is it really in its interest to make space for non-partisan political participation for civil society activists?
Only in so far as it is useful window dressing to show that Singapore is not a dictatorship, and as a safety valve for forces that could otherwise pump up the opposition.
There is little sign that the Government genuinely has patience for robust debate.
Second, there are the Singaporeans who could not care less, and would not miss The Roundtable's disappearance one bit.
They may gripe and groan against government policies.
They may cheer from the sidelines when the opposition takes on the Government with strident language.
But they cannot connect with the more subtle arguments of aspiring intellectuals pushing for greater respect for civil liberties.
Perhaps, they do not necessarily want the risk of real change, and are content with the odd swipe here and there.
An alternative to the PAP? They cannot envision it, and frankly, neither can the intellectuals.
About the most daring prospect they want to entertain is the creation of a two-party system by deliberately splitting the PAP.
The idea is so conservative, even the PAP itself has contemplated it.
With little support from the common man, politically-oriented civil society groups find it hard to gather momentum.
One can hardly blame the fatigue some claim to have suffered along the way.
When he shut down online magazine Sintercom, Dr Tan Chong Kee became the public face of civil society fatigue.
After wrestling with the legislation that required him to register his website, he said he planned to withdraw from civil society for 'the foreseeable future', lamenting that it was all 'very tiring'.
On the page facing this column, Dr Kevin Tan also hints at disillusionment. He is now focusing on heritage and other less overtly political issues.
He feels like a general who is charging and turns around to find no one following, he says.
Third, let's consider the opposition. Opposition members, no matter what else you may think of them, are undoubtedly risk-takers.
It is not surprising that they would regard civil society types as wimps too afraid to walk the talk.
Besides, most civil society activists, including most members of The Roundtable, for example, would be equally loath to identify openly with the opposition.
There exists an uneasy standoff between the two sides. One wants to stay above the fray but wants to dip his toes in the waters now and then, the other is already in the water and resentful that he makes the sacrifices while the 'intellectual' gets to stay dry.
In most multi-party democracies, civil society organisations have fewer compunctions about allying themselves with one political party or another.
Mr James Gomez came to this conclusion early on and decided that the civil society group he founded, Think Centre, should work closely with opposition members.
He was a Roundtable member for a short while, but later joined the opposition himself.
It is probably no accident that the Think Centre has been more active and impactful than The Roundtable.
What accounts for the difference? It boils down to having a clear ideological position and a staunch commitment to that position.
Perhaps, to make a real difference there is no alternative other than to work with, for, or through political parties.
In the Remaking Singapore terminology, we need more big-P Politics; politics of the small-p variety is not enough.
There are rustlings in the grapevine that a group of young people is thinking of setting up a political discussion team.
One hopes they will think seriously about the next level: partisan politics.
Of course, there is the obvious problem that joining the opposition in Singapore is perceived to be a highly dangerous step. It is for this reason that most moderates stay clear.
The solution is not to carve out a neutral, non-partisan niche. This, which is what the Roundtable attempted, is just avoiding the issue.
The real challenge is to fight for a more level playing field, and to enter it.
The non-partisan effort has exhausted its potential. It will continue to serve a purpose, but its scope is limited.
The next step for Singapore's polity is to focus on the space beyond the OB markers.
This is not an enterprise for the risk-averse, but the sooner civil society types realise this, the better off the country will be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The writer is Political Editor of The Straits Times. )