One session of the Singapore 21 Forum

by Joseph Lo

Sometime ago, I posted a note on the net requesting for the history of PLU. The reason for this was because I was invited to be a feedback group member for the forum on "Singapore 21 Forum - Consultation and Consensus versus Decisiveness". And of course, I wanted to present PLU’s registration experience in relation to the topic discussed.

This forum was held on 15 October and was co-chaired by Mr Lim Swee Say (MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC) and Mr Simon Tay (Nominated MP).

In the course of some 3 hours, many topics were discussed. However, I would only summarise the issues related to the registration of PLU.

However, before I start, I think that it is important to share with all the Pre-Conference paper on the topic "Consultation & Consensus vs Decisiveness & Quick Action". This is because it is important for us to understand the parameters of the issue, definition of terms, the grammar of the dialogue and the body of the subject matter.

Pre-Conference Paper

Singapore 21 Pre-Conference Paper for "Consultation & Consensus vs Decisiveness & Quick Action"

The Dilemma
1. Over the years, the Singapore government has built up its track record as an efficient and pragmatic bureaucracy, which can act swiftly and decisively even in the absence of popular consensus. While the vast majority of Singaporeans trust the ability of the Government in running the country, they also express the desire to be consulted more and participate more actively in the formulation of public policies. Hence, the apparent dilemma of consultation and consensus versus decisiveness & quick action.

Key Issues
2. After months of deliberation, the subject committee came to three conclusions: Firstly, consultation will help to build mutual trust and shared ownership. Secondly, consultation does not necessarily lead to a consensus. Even so, it will lead to a better understanding of the constraints and tradeoffs. Thirdly, consultation and consensus versus decisiveness and quick action need not to be a dilemma because with increased mutual trust through consultation, it will enable the Government to act more quickly and more decisively when it is necessary.

Key Recommendations
3. To derive maximum benefits out of consultation, we will need to increase the quantity of consultation, and more importantly, the quality of consultation. Key measures proposed are :

1. Tackling the perception of "black book";
   
2. Redressing the perception of "black hole";
   
3. Strengthening and expanding the consultation channels;
   
4. Increasing the availability of information and accessibility to information sources;
   
5. Promoting and encouraging responsible participation and constructive ideas;
   
6. Establishing the principles of engagement.
   

4. While decisiveness and quick action are key attributes for an efficient bureaucracy, consultation and consensus contributed towards a relationship of mutual trust and respect between the Government and people sector, as well as a sense of shared ownership towards public policies. All the four elements of the dilemma are therefore critical in building heartware among Singaporeans.

The Forum

The forum started with the definition of ‘consensus’, followed by a number of very interest topics such as the balance of ‘narrow’ interest versus ‘broad’ based interest, short term versus long term issues and the role of the press. It was not until after half time did I have the opportunity to bring out our case.

The point which I wanted to bring out was this : What happened to this vehicle of ‘consultation and consensus’ during the process of registration of PLU as a society? Is the issue of PLU a "black hole" as defined above? What are the out-of-bounds markers of consultation and consensus ? Will there be a future dialogue on this subject matter? How sincere are the government efforts to open up spaces for dialogue?

The following was my speech at the forum: 

Much as my friends and myself would like to celebrate this wonderful vehicle of consultation and consensus seeking as a means of public policy formulation here, some of us can’t help but be skeptical and cynical about this "PR" exercise. (laughter from the audience)

My name is Joseph Lo and the topic which I would like to address is indeed a difficult one, so please pardon me. It concerns equal rights of minorities in Singapore. In this case, sexual minorities including homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals. (eyes adverted while other shifted uncomfortably)

Some years ago, my friends and myself tried to register a self-help group addressing issues and problems concerning homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals in Singapore. We thought that the time was right to do so, especially when signs given by our PM himself was encouraging and favorable. It was the time when the buzz words were ‘consultation and consensus’ as his form of governance.

The process of registration itself was tedious. For example, it was plagued with delays but to cut the long story short, the registration of a self-help group was eventually denied.

To tell you the truth, it was not entirely unexpected. But more importantly, we wanted to start a process of dialogue with the relevant authorities regarding this matter. The purpose of the dialogue would make us understand the position of the government in relation to the subject of homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuals in Singapore. For example, we wanted to understand what were the reasons for turning us down and more importantly, what can we do as a next step ? We are an interest group who would like to participate in the construction of civil society in Singapore.

However, to our surprise, we received no further reply other than a 2-sentence letter stating that the authorities are not in-debted to giving any reasons for denying us registration.

As this was the case, is this the meaning and ethos of "consultation and consensus" ? More importantly, we were indeed disappointed that there was not even a point of engagement with us to further explore this matter. Rather we were dismissed and "swept under the carpet", if I may say so.

I would appreciate if you could shed some light upon this matter.

Thank you.

 
After the Speech

Firstly, both Lim Swee Say and Simon Tay jumped to the defense of Singapore 21. They went to great lengths to justify and clarify this matter. For example, they explained that if this was a PR exercise, much time, energy and resources would have been wasted. Secondly, they assured all present that Singapore 21 was and is not a PR exercise.

Having planted this business of a PR exercise, other people also participated in this debate. For example, one very observant floor member mentioned that currently, most policies are consulted after the policies have been formulated. There has been very little or almost no pre-policy consultation in most cases. Thus, one cannot help but feel that most post-policies consultations are a form of justification. Is this not a PR exercise ?

Concerning the subject of homosexuality (lesbianism and bisexuals were not mentioned), I think I opened a can of worms during the meeting. There were mixed signals from the floor as I received different types of responses. For example, one member mentioned that perhaps this issue should be discussed publicly as no one officially knows the status of sexual minorities in Singapore. I think that it is a good idea although it is a double-edged sword.

There was a less positive response from another member who said that homosexuality is a criminal act in Singapore and thus, it is illegal for interested parties to form an organization. His comments were really hurtful as it was almost sneering. For example, he said that sodomy is illegal, oral sex is illegal and if both these acts are illegal, what is there left for homosexuals to do ???

There were also some very encouraging responses also well. For example, one lady from one of the polytechnics mentioned that it is not just the issue of recognizing and exercising the rights of sexual minorities in Singapore but rather the act of recognizing and exercising the rights of minorities in Singapore, including the handicapped, etc. She was particularly impressed with the courage of minorities in Singapore and the difficulties which we have to go through. She also mentioned that the majority should also be more sensitive to our plight and problems.

This topic had more support from Simon Tay than from Lim Swee Say. Immediately after my speech, Simon announced publicly that he would investigate this matter, if not at parliamentary level, than within his personal capacity. He would at least try and find out what were the reasons for denying PLU a legal status and also the reasons for keeping silent.

Frankly, I think Swee Say missed the point. He felt that homosexuality should not be encouraged in Singapore. He said that homosexuality would threaten the fundamental building block of society -- the family. I think he said something about homosexuality being a life-style choice and therefore, homosexuals should live up to the consequence of such choices. Lastly, as a parent, he was afraid that his son would become a homosexual.

My reply to him was that this debate was not about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. Rather, it is about a group of people with similar interest coming to form a self-help group and was denied a right to so do.

Simon also flew to my defense. He said that it is not crime to be homosexual, rather, the act of homosexuality is a crime. Thus, there may be a society formed to discuss the high cost of living in Singapore, but it does not necessarily mean that they don’t pay their bills.

After the meeting, Simon came to see me personally and we further discussed matters. He assured me that he would do his best to find things out for us but in order to do so, he would need some research done. I said that it would not be a problem as I would be able to furnish him with the correspondences between ourselves and other parties.

Simon also mentioned about another group that was refused registration. The name of the group is called "Death", or something to that effect. Simon would like to present these two cases concurrently.

Simon and myself would get in touch next week.   

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None