Editorial
Why there are doubts over the National Conversation, and how it can be improved.
The government’s National Conversation on Singapore’s future, launched earlier this month and to be spearheaded by a committee consisting of ministers, academics and ordinary citizens, has drawn predictable heckles and from a good section of the public.
In justifying these doubts, many have pointed to the supposed lack of lasting impact by a similar initiative, the Remaking Singapore Committee of 2002-2003. There are some similarities: both helmed by new Cabinet ministers that are supposed to bring a fresh perspective to national issues, and meant to facilitate a rethink of the existing system.
To be sure, the government is making an attempt to improve on its earlier effort. The watchword of the National Conversation seems to be “engagement”, particularly of sizeable segments of the population that may feel politically under-represented (though noticeably this did not extend to members of the political opposition). The drawn out structure of the Conversation, which will consist of an online solicitation of opinions, dozens of dialogue sessions with ordinary folks from all over the country and lastly a national survey, is likely to involve a lot more Singaporeans than the Remaking Singapore Committee did. Furthermore, compared with the Remaking Singapore Committee, the National Conversation committee is more representative, having included members outside of the establishment, such as students and cabbies.
Still, the doubts over the National Conversation are the same as those that shadowed its forerunner. The key one is over outcomes: whether it can actually deliver meaningful change. Aspirations that are thought to have broad social consensus, such as those for more freedom of expression or a stronger safety net, remain likely to trigger misgivings amongst the conservative political establishment.
Even if it is assumed that the ministers leading the current initiative are of a keenly liberal bent, the older guards in the Cabinet remain likely to have a veto over the final product. It is instructive that a majority of the more liberal suggestions made by the Remaking Singapore Committee – such as for the government to define the out-of-bounds markers for political debate, creating an Economic Relief Scheme for the structurally unemployed and subsidising the MediShield premiums of low-income groups – went unheeded.
Furthermore, the Conversation, by definition, also has a moral obligation to give voice to minorities that have traditionally been marginalised by the establishment and the majority of the population – sexual minorities, single parents, the indigent (particularly the homeless, since officially Singapore has no “homeless” folk) or long-term unemployed. Sadly, at this point it appears unlikely that any people from these groups will be included.
The second important issue is over process: how should the National Conversation committee arrive at its conclusions. On what basis are the merits of a viewpoint to be judged – is it because many people hold the same view, or because the idea is deemed a “good” one, but because it happens to agree with the pre-conceptions of some committee members? The very ambition of the Conversation is likely to make this a tricky issue, as the committee has to encompass and compress the viewpoints of the thousands of citizens that it engages. More likely than not, it will incur a good measure of unhappiness from those it has talked to who feel that they have been disregarded.
This leads to the final issue, that of substance: whether the Conversation is really necessary. More than one commentator has pointed out that the initiative is a poor substitute for the democratic process. There is already a fount of opinions about alternative policies and ideas for the nation sitting on the benches opposite the ruling party in Parliament. The very fact that nearly 40% of the electorate voted for opposition parties and their manifestoes has imbued them and their ideas with a certain degree of legitimacy. That should have instead been the government’s starting point when it comes to having a dialogue on the future of the country. Moreover, even if it is accepted that the Conversation is a necessary device for reaching out to Singaporeans, the government has somewhat undermined its legitimacy by excluding members from any opposition party from the committee.
Despite these doubts, there are probably still many who hope that the Conversation does succeed in bringing about some positive changes for the country. Whatever its outcome though, it seems likely to be remembered in the final analysis as yet another top-down initiative by the government to increase the populace’s buy-in of the system, because the ruling elite would not unbind the stifling political restraints that would allow a genuine sense of ownership to organically develop from the bottom-up.