By Carol Soon
Authenticity, egalitarianism and informed participation are the trifecta of effective government-citizen dialogue for policy formulation. Ranging from nation-wide public consultative exercises to targeted forums and individualized engagement on politicians’ Facebook pages, citizens now have at their disposal a rich palate of options when communicating with policymakers.
Policymakers’ proactive and multi-prong approach in reaching out to different pockets of the citizenry instead of relying on post-implementation feedback sessions unveils heightened authenticity on their part. Such an approach also engenders greater egalitarianism among the public who want to be heard when it comes to matters close to their hearts.
In “Open Government”, Beth Noveck, professor of law and director of the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, sounds the death knell for the closed model of decision-making.
In a closed model, “although citizens may express personal opinions, they are thought to lack the ability to make informed decisions on complex policy matters”.
Instead, she advocates that diversity and distributed problem-solving across government, private sector and civil society are imperative to develop effective solutions to economic and social problems.
The move towards a more open model of decision-making is reflected in the growing recognition among our ministers that as a process, policy formulation should be more inclusive. On the part of the citizens, the ideas which have sprung forth from Our Singapore Conversation suggest that Singaporeans are neither lacking in conviction nor imagination when it comes to proffering solutions to the conundrums that plague Singapore today.
However, as Singapore transits to a more inclusive model of distributed problem-solving across public, private and people sectors, there is a need to consider the level of informed participation which underpins policy criticisms and suggestions in both offline and online spheres.
To what extent do concerned members of the public understand the pros and cons of a policy? Are they aware of the trade-offs that come with their suggestions? What implications do their suggestions have not just for themselves but for Singapore if it is meant to last another 50 years?
These questions need to be asked in order for offline and online discourse to serve as constructive input. Input to a productive dialogue between the state and citizenry should not merely be a cacophony of differing views as it is anathema to effective collaboration.
Just as policymakers evaluate trade-offs when implementing policies, there is a pressing need for members of the public to bring clarity of thought and purpose when they engage in a dialogue with the state.
Several thought-leaders and members of the public have called for greater transparency. Others have upped the ante and called for the implementation of a Freedom of Information Act which provides public access to historical archives, information relating to national security, law enforcement, and correspondences within ministries.
Proponents of FOIA argue that citizens should be armed with relevant facts and statistics so they can participate in informed debates. They also dispel misconceptions of the FOIA as a legislature that provides the public with blanket access to all government information.
On the part of the government, efforts in sharing information on policy and administrative matters are not wanting. This is evident through its first-stop portal data.gov.sg which provides convenient access to publicly-available data, and to facilitate research and analysis. It is a gargantuan endeavor which brings together over 5000 datasets from 50 government ministries and agencies.
A web crawl conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies earlier this year found close to 200 online sites serving government ministries, statutory boards and organs of state. Thus, from the government’s perspective, information is not only readily available to the public, but also easily accessible.
In spite of the copious supply of information, the public continues to lament the lack of transparency. A discernible climate of skepticism and distrust persists in the new normal of politics.
Thus as we take a closer step towards a more collaborative and symbiotic relationship between the public and the state, it is now propitious to revisit the fundamentals and ask ourselves if we have what it takes for both sides to talk to each other and not at each other.
To help answer this question, let me moot these points for consideration. Is the current array of publicly-available information published by the government sufficient? If not, what is lacking? If the government were to consider a FOIA for Singapore, what form should it assume? Or, instead of implementing a FOIA which places the burden of information-provision on the government (the asked party) rather than the citizen (the asking party), are there specific areas where the government can do better when sharing data?
Only when we get the fundamentals right can we live out the promises of a meaningful conversation.
The writer is a research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies and works in the area of arts, culture and media at IPS.