By Carol Soon

Last month, a teenager shared her thoughts on the National Conversation in a letter to The Straits Times Forum page (18 September). Her letter astutely points to the wave of cynicism that has surged forth since the unveiling of the committee members of the Our Singapore National Conversation initiative. What is perhaps more arresting is the fact that the pessimism is so acutely surmised by a member of Generation Z, youths who should be brimming with hope and idealism.

Although ending on an encouraging note, Ms Beverly Liwen Frisk described a palpable sense of powerlessness and cynicism among the general public when it was called to play an active part in the National Conversation. “When the question, ‘What kind of Singapore do you want?’, was posed, I could not help but feel that I could not care less. It was not so much that I have no hopes or dreams for Singapore, or even that I am so contented that there is nothing I could wish for,” admitted the youth candidly.

She expressed hope for further improvements in the areas of transportation and immigration policy, two issues which have taken center stage in our national discourse, before explaining her detachment.  “The reason I did not see a point in answering this question was that I felt one tiny voice of a teenager would not bring about any change.”

Since its inception, the large-scale public engagement initiative has triggered a gamut of responses, from hope of a two-way dialogue of unprecedented level between the government and the public, to indifference, skepticism and diatribes against the government for practising partisan politics and being insincere. The latter two reactions are inimical to the goal of the National Conversation aimed at engaging people’s concerns and the key problems Singapore is facing.

Could the negativity surrounding the National Conversation be attributed to the paucity of an equal space where people from diverse backgrounds are able to come forth to freely express their anxieties, without being saddled by the fear of judgment or censure? Or could the negativity be due to a cynical presupposition that the National Conversation is yet another archetypal public relations initiative on the part of the government to solicit opinions on predetermined issues, merely to elicit support to back its future policies?

Now imagine a space where all individuals, regardless of political leaning, socio-economic status and activism agenda, are welcomed. Individuals gain membership to that space solely because they possess one common trait — each holds a strong belief on how society should progress and has ideas to contribute. In this space, individuals are given a voice; they can shed their inhibitions, cast aside doubts on the validity of their claims, assert their beliefs, and share suggestions without fear of incrimination on issues that matter to them.

Where passions converge, a collective voice is heard. Further, imagine tools embedded within that space for like-minded individuals to wield as they make a collective effort to overcome existing obstacles and realise their common aspirations for a nation that they hold dear. These tools range from the simple to the sophisticated, and the choice of which to deploy lies with those who use them.

The fact is that this is neither utopia nor a fictional place. GetUp! (Action for Australia), an independent grassroots advocacy organisation, is founded precisely on the simple principle of bridging citizens who share a common concern about where their country is heading. GetUp’s mission is to work towards a parliament that practises economic fairness, social justice and environmental sustainability.

Its strategy is simple yet ingenious — achieving change through strength in numbers. Through monthly surveys, emails and comments posted by members on its blogs, GetUp! identifies and organises campaigns based on the priorities and input of its members. In other words, its advocacy work originates from the feedback and ideas of GetUp! members.

Its members send emails to members of parliament, engage with the media, attend an event or help to get a television advertisement on the air pertaining to a wide array of environmental, social, electoral and regulatory issues. Some of its campaigns include petitioning office-holders to protect the Great Barrier Reef, advocating for justice through better treatment for asylum seekers, and lobbying for paid maternity leave.

One might ponder the relevance of GetUp! to Singapore and Our Singapore Conversation. GetUp! is introduced in this article not with the intention of persuading the government to adopt the model, and surely not adopt a complaisant attitude towards the citizenry. However, there are certainly important lessons that can be learnt from the case of GetUp!, on how to leverage technology and the generative power of the Singapore public, one which has been demonstrated by history and current events to be richly diverse, talented and resilient.

Post General Elections 2011, far from being lackadaisical, the government has stepped up its efforts of engagement, embarking on a search for new ideas to solve pressing issues plaguing Singapore society through public consultation. Although members of the public are invited to “talk” and partake of the National Conversation through various means — posting comments on OurSGConversation Facebook page, sharing their tweets with the hashtag #oursgconv, signing up for sessions and discussions — members of the online community, academics and political analysts have shared their doubts concerning the mechanisms for engagement and the ultimate difference Our Singapore Conversation will make to the nation.

In their paper “Analysis and Evaluation of E-Consultations” published in E-Service Journal in 2002, Angus Whyte and Ann Macintosh advocated that e-consultation is core to a constructive and meaningful policy-making process because it promotes a co-share of ownership and responsibility for shaping policies. Citizen involvement in government decision-making is seen as being germane to improving government performance, achieving decision legitimacy, and promoting citizen trust in government.

However, such theorisation is underpinned by the assumption that a two-way dialogue between government and citizenry takes place on virtual platforms established for the purpose, as opposed to linear or top-down communication that is dominated by one party. If the latter takes dominance, the outcome would only mean lost opportunities in mutual learning of key issues that both the government and the citizenry are encumbered with.

A re-assessment of current online platforms for engagement is not too late. Leveraging the wide reach and multi-modality of Internet technologies, and the high penetration rate of mobile devices, which significantly enhances public access to consultation platforms, it is high time for the government to re-evaluate if existing dialogues are shaped by input from both sides.

This means that existing official websites have to do more than disseminating information and go beyond perfunctory feedback mechanisms to providing a space that facilitates a centralized and collective articulation of ideas. Different types of participation methods can also be offered in this space so that individuals who want to do more than just sharing ideas can choose how they want to pitch in to make ideas become a reality. Such a space yields benefits for both policymakers and concerned members of the public. For the policymakers, it complements existing outreach efforts, aids in sense-making in an increasingly cluttered cyberspace, and taps on the public’s latent energy. For the public, it is a public affirmation that each individual does have a role to play in a larger collective of concerned citizens.

Will policymakers see Our Singapore Conversation as an opportunity to enhance mutual equality and let the public have a larger say in determining the agenda for dialogue? Creating enduring relationships, relationships that perpetuate beyond Our Singapore Conversation, demands equity in dialogue on both sides now.

——————–

The writer is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies. She is currently Visiting Research Fellow at the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University.

For reposting or use of any part of this article and images, please contact the editor (editor@ipscommons.sg) for permissions.