 |
Robert Putnam in his seminar piece on "Bowling Alone" argues that the United States has increasingly seen its social capital reduced over time. In the 1960s Americans tend to form bowling leagues and bowl together with strangers and friends to create real communities among people. However, such bowling groups have diminished to the point that by the late 1980s that most Americans bowl alone. Thus, the more Americans bowl alone, the lower the level of interactions and connections between different kinds of Americans. When the level of social capital falls, the levels of civic awareness and civil society actions reduce correspondingly.
In Singapore, the recent series of incidents where citizens exercised their freedom of assembly - ranging from the anti-Odex anime demonstrations to the Indignation's run at East Coast Park to the anti compulsory CPF annuities black shirt protest at Centerpoint to the Singapore Democratic Party members' march from Hong Lim Park - seemed to signify a higher level of social capital in Singapore. Some online chatter even claim that more Singaporeans would engage in such activities in the future. However, I will argue that the rise of such a phenomena actually signified a reduction of social capital overall in Singapore over time.
Let me explain.
Social capital, if view from a long term perspective, is contingent on the historical patterns of social and cultural interactions and conflict resolutions in a polity. In Singapore historically, Chinese clan associations, chamber of commerce, temples, food associations, Malay self-help groups and mosques, Indian professional organizations, labour and student unions, offline political NGOs, political parties and even institutionalized Meet the People's Session have been avenues for people to voice their concerns towards the state.
Sensitive issues and "thought-work" by the state leaders have usually worked by persuading and talking leaders of these organizations. In turn the leaders of the organizations would persuade their members to accept government policies as well as to resolve national, municipal and personal issues of ordinary Singaporeans.
High social capital thus means higher level of involvement of young Singaporeans in such organizations and their increased willingness to resolve issues through such organizations in an institutionalized manner.
However, Singaporeans' - especially young Singaporeans - participations in these professional organizations and trade unions have fallen over time since the 1960s. This is due to several reasons such as legislative restrictions on politicking in/through professional and religious organizations, more Singaporeans "bowling alone", changing structure of a "modern" political economy, the advert of big shopping malls and the shaping of discursive forces towards economic individualism and self-censorship.
One can then reasonably posit that the internet has become increasingly the alternative forum for Singaporeans to voice their concerns. However, any scholar or activist studying internet involvement would point out the irony of online chatter versus professional organizations' collective discourse easily - even though the PAP state takes hands-off approach towards online chatter and activism, it also means that the state has no obligations to convince or engage netizens on national and municipal policies.
More ironically, as netizens increasingly feel that the state or big business would not take action on complains and grievances on the net (as I argue the latter has absolutely no obligations under a hands-off contract unless the mainstream media reports on them which by the time might have been too late to resolve the issue amicably), they might resort to offline activism to get across their messages to the state or to fellow Singaporeans.
IThis is what precisely happened in the last few weeks in Singapore. Perhaps the lower levels of social capital actually created opportunities for citizens to exercise their freedom of assembly in a ironic fashion - which might not have occur if most young Singaporeans' concerns were channeled and institutionalized through non-government (but could be even state-related) organizations.
Can the state cope with more citizens exercising the right to free assembly? If the state wishes that Singaporeans not take to the streets, the solution is not to deal with netizens and their persona offline harshly. This would backfire on the State and leave a populace more suspicious of the mantra of an "open and inclusive" society.
Instead, the state could incentivize young people's engagements through non governmental and government-linked bodies. In other words, the state could engage more with NGOs such as AWARE, Thinkcentre, the Nature Society and PLU - and even possibility opposition politicians - to shape policy outcomes on issues of liberalization and conservation. It is possible for the state to listen more to what the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Mendaki has to say.
Even more consultation with students and teachers' unions on changes to government policies on education should not be ruled out. Would debating more with young PAP members and union members in an open and inclusive way when they voice certain concerns with regards to polices not be productive crafting more humane and inclusive policies? Could incorporating more visibly the concerns of religious organizations with regards to issues of faith and terrorism in Singapore be also part of the long term commitment in fostering open and confident governance?
To make these engagements openly heard, the mainstream or alternative media in Singapore should take the lead to report on these state-society engagements responsibly and openly.
When young Singaporeans see and hear the efficacy in working within and through these organizations, they would more likely want to join these organizations. The state also benefits when young Singaporeans would willingly work for changes in Singapore through such institutionalized mechanisms.
Moreover, the state should continue to seek out such stakeholders as partners in governance, rather than seeing them as organizations for "co-optation." Credit for policies introduction and changes should be given to these organizations when credit is due. If anything, these measures are to pre-empt the perhaps inevitable rise in the exercise of freedom of assembly by ordinary Singaporeans.
In the short run, such a policy of open and inclusive engagement would lessen the incentives for people to take to the streets. In the long run, the state can facilitate the building of social capital in Singapore by encouraging people to join professional organizations and trade unions. In doing so, would a truly vibrant, inclusive, confident and open society not materialize in Singapore?
Comments (10)
Hi Wayne,
Your post has been featured in The Singapore Daily. Thank you for linking us and your support!
Keep blogging,
The Singapore Daily Team
singaporedaily.wordpress.com
Posted by The Singapore Daily | September 20, 2007 11:10 AM
Wayne,
While I agree that 'the state could incentivize young people's engagements through non governmental and government-linked bodies', much of the problem arises from how bodies like the RCs, CCCs, PA etc. are de facto PAP-controlled. Like the Feedback Unit, these are often used more as didactic broadcast platforms and less as genuine channels for communication for a state that is much too institutionally entangled (and thus often conflated) with Das Partei.
Posted by ringisei | September 20, 2007 8:00 PM
Hear hear and second Ringsei's comments. Hope Wayne didn't get too influenced by the Chinese while he was there ala the kind of thinking so overtly and best presented in the movie, Hero.
:)
Posted by ted | September 21, 2007 12:00 AM
Dear Ringsei and Ted,
Thank you for your comments. I did mention a host of non government and government-linked organizations ranging from Clan associations to business associations to trade unions. I do not dispute that CCs and PAs are government controlled - but do people actually do advocacy work there anyway? Do we go to the CC to share our views on government policies?
Ted, thanks for your concern btw =) Don't forget that in certain ways, the institutionalized channels of communications, feedback and actions in China worked very well for many years in a country with 1 billion people - through the work units (danwei) or through their resident committees.
Posted by Wayne Soon | September 21, 2007 6:48 AM
Dear Friend,
A group of researchers at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, are investigating effects of Weblogs on "Social Capital". Therefore, they have designed an online survey. By participating in this survey you will help researches in "Management Information Systems" and "Sociology". You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this survey. It will take 5 to 12 minutes of your time.
Your participation is greatly appreciated. You will find the survey at the following link. http://faculty.unlv.edu/rtorkzadeh/survey
This group has already done another study on Weblogs effects on "Social Interactions" and "Trust". To obtain a copy of the previous study brief report of findings you can email Reza Vaezi at reza.vaezi@yahoo.com.
Posted by reza | September 21, 2007 7:33 AM
Wayne,
In your opinion, would advocacy via groups like clan associations, chambers of commerce, the Nature Society increase the risks of single-issue groups distorting policymakers' views in particular areas at the expense of other stakeholders?
Regarding your questions about CCs/RCs/PA, my experience suggests that the answer is no. When I did participate in or interact with people from those organizations, they seemed to consist largely of people who already agreed with the broad framework of policy and politics.
Using 'government' in your statement: 'I do not dispute that CCs and PAs are government controlled' was particularly intriguing. Hypothetically, if there was a change of ruling party, would these organizations fall under the control of a new political party?
Posted by ringisei | September 21, 2007 3:45 PM
Hi Wayne
If I read it right, the growth of a light-touch co-optation civil society is the pressure valve to delay the inevitable growth of the people's need to take to the streets? Sounds like it.
The first institution to have minimal co-optation should be the media for visible and symbolic impact. Co-optation and lobbying are the inevitable cogs in the political process e.g. a Singapore Angle member brought it up obliquely before I think but sorry I can't remember who - Shakedown On K Street. However, in the current environment and the government has never denied it, is the control of the mainly one-dimensional media version of local politics. I always cynically wondered why Today should not break away and become more critical than it is now so that it can attract more readers (and advertisements). The media is one important pressure valve to fix.
Or perhaps the government under the PAP does not see free-wheeling civil society groups as a pressure valve. Rather they are seen as the fuse.
Posted by The Void Deck | September 24, 2007 11:04 AM
"Or perhaps the government under the PAP does not see free-wheeling civil society groups as a pressure valve. Rather they are seen as the fuse."
Dont try to run when you cant even crawl. Go and figure out why the SA continually delete the post of the leader of the brotherhood. That should give you the A to Z of all the possible motivations on your question.
Posted by dog catcher | September 24, 2007 1:21 PM
Ringsei,
I think there's something to be said about a helicopter long term vision taken by a government for a state or country to move forward. However, our society is increasingly become complex with different stakeholders emerging with different concerns over time. But yet, just as people on the streets can aggregate their grievances
and form coalitions, can the state not make appropriate side payments to new actors to form broader coalitions in governing?
Will the CCs and RCs fall under another regime in another time period? I think the CCs will - but I am not quite sure the RCs since they are somewhat dependent on individuals' networks and interests (despite what the PAP says they are apolitical in a PAP way). The "social scene" will be different.
TVD,
Light touch co-option is partly right TVD! =) I think there must be a desire by the state to give credit when credit is due. I suspect that many policies in Singapore do not simply originate from a brain sitting still in an offices - but as a result of ordinary Singaporeans giving their inputs through organizations.
Agree with you with the media - although i think the Chinese press has been doing that in their own way.
Posted by Wayne Soon | September 25, 2007 4:14 AM
Hello, I'm an italian student who lived in Singapore for 5 years. I'm doing a thesis on Singapore and its social capital.
I'm tryig to find if something has changed since the precedent PM has promulgated " Singapore 21" in 1997.
I'm not that sure that in the past people use to be listened more, but what it's sure is that the social norms of mutual help that existed between members of the ethnic groups in early Singapore enabled the provision of assistance to the needy among those groups and Singapore's productivity and economic development has been enhanced through the social capital of its people.
It'll be very helpful for me if you could answer to some questions.....
Do you think that there is social capital in Singapore?
There are two main types of social capital: the collectivistic one sustained by authors as Putnam, Fukuyama, that says that social capital is generated when individuals learn to trust one another, make credible commitments, and engage in cooperate activity¸ and the utilitarian one, sustained by authors as Bourdieu, Coleman, that places the focus on individuals. The social capital, for Coleman, is based on all the social relationships that a person establishes to get straight to a goal. So, on one side there are the relationships among individuals, and on the other side there are the advantages consequent to those relationships.
Which type of social capital is more present in Singapore, according to you? Utilitarian or collectivistic? Why?
Do you think that Singaporeans are civically or socially engaged? In which way?
Do you think that "Singapore 21"has changed something? In which way?
20. Why do you think that the government wants to improve social capital in Singapore, what is his goal?
21. According to your experience, have you seen a difference in the way the people behave, trust and help each others from your childhood to nowadays? In Which way?
Do you think that Internet and the following free expression has something to do with it?
Thank you in advance,
Stefania
Posted by Stefania | November 29, 2007 6:32 AM