Study finds growing cynicism among Singaporeans

A survey involving 1,054 respondents on the relationship between the government and society was carried out in the first half of 1998. It was one of the projects of The Institute of Policy Studies, a government-funded think-tank. The survey was similar to one conducted five years ago, in 1993. The results from three questions were featured in the press.  

These questions demonstrate a substantial shift in public attitudes over a 5-year period. People who felt they could influence government decision-making fell from 56 to 42 percent. People who felt that government policies were fair to all fell from 55 to 48 percent.

The Straits Times report mentioned that the study "also found that better-educated people here were more cynical about voting as a means of political expression."

As for volunteering to serve in professional or civic bodies, one in three said he would volunteer to serve in them. But only one in four would serve in government-related organisations such as town councils, People's Association grassroots organisations and Community Development Councils.

The reasons for the shift in attitudes between 1993 and 1998 we can debate. It could be that the government has become, objectively, more impervious and unfair over these five years. It could be that expectations have risen faster than the government can change.

Certainly, a lot has happened in the last five years. Let's see, what can I recall, off the cuff?

1. Certificate of Entitlement ("COE") prices that went up and down like a roller-coaster, leaving everyone feeling victimised to some extent [1].

   People feel that they cannot do without a car. Public transport is not a viable alternative, given slow travel times and long walking distances to bus stops and train stations. The government however insists that our public transport system is among the best in the world. The people don't accept that as an adequate answer, and they continue to resent the punitive prices they have to pay for COEs, road charges and vehicles.

    

2. There was a general election in January 1997. Immediately prior to the election, the constituencies were re-drawn and re-grouped into larger Group Representation Constituencies ("GRC"s). Instead of electing Members of Parliament individually as was the case when Singapore first became independent, we now have to elect them in teams of up to six, in the larger GRCs. Smaller parties, unable to find enough candidates, unable to fund a campaign in larger constituencies, were disadvantaged by the new rules.

   Even so, the opposition managed to win respectable voter support in a few GRCs in the election. In addition, as I described in the article The Moral Centre of Gravity they won a lot of moral sympathy among Singaporeans.

   The election was followed by defamation suits in which two opposition candidates, Tang Liang Hong and J B Jeyaretnam, were assessed heavy damages by the courts.

   Did the people feel that the manner in which the election was organised, the electoral outcome, or the judicial aftermath were consonant with their wishes?

    

3. All through the nineties, businessmen have been complaining about the steadily rising cost of doing business in Singapore. Government agencies hold the bulk of land here. Their policies have a major impact on rental costs. There are also innumerable charges levied by other government agencies, e.g. for licences, waste disposal, port usage and foreign workers, burdening their bottom lines. Businessmen have also complained that the aggressive pay increases in the civil service raise overall wage expectations in the private sector.

   The government's position has been that these are justified by the quality of the infrastructure and government services here. The parastatal agencies have to make a profit, hence their charges are not unreasonable.[2]

   Anyway, the long and short of it has been inexorably rising costs until the economic crunch hit us this year. Then suddenly, government charges have to be trimmed. And voilà! They can be trimmed after all. Can you blame people for being cynical?

    

4. Cable television was a newcomer during the last five years. It was presented as part of the government's gradual liberalisation. Actually it owed more to foreign investors telling the government that their continued ban on CNN, BBC TV, CNBC (formerly called ABN) and other satellite channels undercut the desirability of Singapore as a business hub.

   Satellite television had to be accommodated. How? Through a cable-TV operator. Admittedly, this is an efficient way of doing it in densely-built areas. But even in the bungalow suburbs, the government requires that houses should have access only by cable, not by satellite dishes. This means roads have to be dug up, and the homeowners have to pay thousands of dollars each to have their homes cabled. I don't think the government is paying a single cent for this exercise. Why do we need to cable the bungalows? Why can't they just be allowed to have satellite dishes?

   I'm sure you've guessed it. Having a cable-TV operator allows for censorship. A program can be delayed and edited, or simply blacked out. With direct reception from satellites serving many countries at a time, it is much harder to do the same, if not impossible.

Perhaps expectations were also raised. In 1997, the Prime Minister made quite a bit of headlines with his call for civil society in Singapore. However, the matter's hardly been mentioned in 1998.

In addition, 1997 saw the initiation of the "Singapore 21" forums, which involved Members of Parliament going around chairing meetings of private citizens, and having a dialogue to some depth. Or so the intention was said to be.

Well, the details are a bit more interesting. First of all, citizenship does not qualify you to attend such a meeting. You have to be invited to attend. I'm sorry, you are first invited to submit your curriculum vitae, which is vetted, and then followed, maybe, by an invitation to attend. Talk about elitism!

What happens at a typical session? I don't really know. I've never been invited to attend any. But a friend of mine has, and his report of the experience can be seen in One Session in the Singapore 21 Forum.

Some participants have said that after one session, they have heard nothing more about the ideas they aired there -- no feedback, no answers, no action. Nor have they been invited back to the following sessions.

Then there are Community Development Councils, a new idea to generate civil society: a government-sponsored idea of government-sponsored bodies, which are supposed to play the role of autonomous non-governmental organisations which by definition, civil society is supposed to comprise. If my sentence sounds convoluted, then I'm glad it properly reflects the convoluted logic of it all.

Needless to say, these Community Development Councils have been met with breathtaking unenthusiasm from the public.

Meanwhile, the press monopoly is as solid as ever. If you wish to launch your own newspaper, you must obtain a government permit. If they refuse to issue you with a permit, that's the end of the story, no independent recourse is available to you. The TV channels have been corporatised into two companies, both government-controlled. The Societies Act is still in place, and you cannot form any society without a permit. If you organise a gathering of more than 5 persons, it is an illegal assembly and you can go to jail for it. The Internal Security Act remains in place. Anyone whom the government considers a threat to national security -- no proof needed -- can be detained indefinitely. No judicial review of your detention is allowed.

What is the general pattern here?

It is that in attempting to meet the rising demand for greater political participation by Singaporeans, the government has taken the approach of organising channels, but making sure they continue to manage those channels. It has not removed any barriers to the spontaneous development of civil society and its autonomous channels, which is what people really want.

That's why there is growing cynicism in Singapore.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

1. For non-Singaporeans: a COE is a piece of paper which entitles you to own a car for 10 years. A limited number of COEs are auctioned every month. At their peaks, prices have gone beyond US$40,000. And this is before even paying for the car.
   Return to where you left off
2. Actually this reasoning is highly debatable. They don't have to make a profit. They should aim to make a profit, in the presence of competition. Presently, there is no competition to licensing bodies, ports, incinerators, etc, and very limited competition to the supply of industrial land, telecommunications, power, and other things. In the absence of competition, how can a parastatal body charge whatever it needs to make a profit? How are its charges justified?
   Return to where you left off

Addenda

None