Mobilization and participation: Singapore in the 1980s
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230070402 |
| Author | Dilys M. Hill |
| Date | 01 October 1987 |
| Published date | 01 October 1987 |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT,
Vol.
7,
333-349
(1987)
Mobilization
and
participation: Singapore in the
1980s
DILYS
M.
HILL
University
of
Southampton
SUMMARY
Singapore is
an
island
state
with
no
formal lower tier
of
government.
The
network
of
consultation
and
mobilization created after Independence
in
1959
is
now raising important
issues of
consensus
and compliance. Twenty-five years of continuous one-party rule offer
opportunities
to
evaluate
the
working of
the
mechanisms
of
integration and participation.
In
the late
1980s
the
highly urbanized, multi-ethnic society
is
placing
new
demands on the
government,
and
questions
of
decentralization and feedback are high on the political
agenda.
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, DECENTRALIZATION AND DIALOGUE
The city-state
of
Singapore
is
a modern, urban society with a government which
plays a major part in the economy and with a public bureaucracy which has had
a significant role in national development
(J.
Quah, 1985). The city-state, which
for two years (1963-65) was part
of
the Malaysian Federation, after 1965 no
longer had a large rural hinterland with its potential economic problems. Within
its small territorial area, however, it contains a multi-ethnic, ‘large-scale’ society
characterized by diversity, economic and cultural complexity and with multiple
outside linkages (Clammer, 1985, p. 5). It is a multi-racial society (Chinese, 77
per cent; Malays,
15
per cent; Indians, 6 per cent; Other, 2 per cent; the official
languages are Malay, Chinese (Mandarin), Tamil and English; English
is
the
language
of
administration) with networks
of
intense social obligations and regu-
lations (Seah Chee Meow, 1985). Ruled by the People’s Action Party, PAP, since
the coming
of
internal statehood in 1959, it is a planned society in which govern-
ment is omnipotent. Inevitably, its small size means that national planning
is
essentially ‘city-administration’ (Clammer, 1985, p. 27) while the absence
of
a
rural sector reinforces the centralized nature
of
the bureaucracy
(J.
Quah, 1982,
The efforts at national mobilization have made Singapore an interesting arena
p.
43).
Dr Hill is Reader in Politics
at
the University
of
Southampton, Southampton
SO9
5NH.
U.K.
0271-2075/87/040333-17$08.50
0
1987
by
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
Ltd.
334
D.
M.
Hill
for the analysis
of
consultation and participation: a modern society, but in a South
East Asian context; politics conducted in an ‘administrative’ style; many avenues
of
demand-making but overseen by a pervasive government. At the same time
there are issues common to administration everywhere: the need to obtain infor-
mation, to implement policy effectively,
to
decentralize routine tasks, and to gain
the acceptance and compliance of the public.
In Singapore, nation-building has been achieved through a conscious ideology
of pragmatism: the population is urged to identify with the ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’
policies which have brought about economic success. Such an ideology legitimizes
both tight societal control and the power
of
a ruling elite (Chan and Evers, 1973,
p. 318). The ideology of pragmatism has been described as a ‘siege’ strategy which
allows the rulers
to
rally support through government campaigns which emphasize
the need for national unity while restricting discussion to implementation rather
than policy options. This seige strategy has reinforced compliance and has enabled
the political arena to be depluralized (Brown, 1985, pp. 999-1000). The corollary
has been government suspicion of criticism:
if
policy is pragmatic and rational,
opposition must be misguided or ethnically chauvinistic.
The administrative process and the forms
of
citizen involvement have been, by
South East Asian standards, remarkable for their highly developed, integrated,
nature. On Independence, Singapore dismantled the local government system
of
city council and rural boards in favour
of
a republican island state and an adminis-
trative mix of central government, statutory boards for public services and infra-
structure industries, and a series
of
mixed government-private sector enterprises
(Pillai, 1983; You Poh Seng and Lim Chong Yah, 1985). The government’s aim
was to maintain Singapore’s premier position as a port and entrep8t trade centre,
build a massive new industrial infrastructure and attract investment, and house its
population. By the 1980s these aims had been substantially achieved, and in
particular Singapore had, outstandingly for a developing nation, succeeded in
housing its population,
77
per cent of whom lived in Housing and Development
Board (HDB) flats as owners or tenants. At the same time an elaborate, gov-
ernment-initiated structure
of
consultation was set up to ensure a stable economic
and political system and an integrated society.
The need to incorporate the population into an integrated nation was met
outside the framework
of
traditional forms
of
local government. This was because
of the conflict which had arisen between the People’s Action Party (PAP) and
other groups. In 1958, on the eve
of
Independence, the City Council had become
a fully elected body, with the PAP holding 14 seats and the remaining
17
being
divided between four minor parties and two Independents. In March 1959 party
conflict came to a head
(Singapore Annual
Report,
1961, 1963) and the existing
government took over the functions
of
the City Council pending the forthcoming
national elections. On
5
June the new PAP government assumed office and
immediately the elected city council was dissolved and brought under the control
of the Ministry of National Development, prior to its functions being integrated
with the relevant government ministries. By the end
of
1960 the administrative
integration of city council functions into government departments was complete,
with water, gas and electricity services passing to a public corporation, the Public
Utilities Board, and housing moved, similarly, from the Singapore Improvement
Trust to the new Housing and Development Board. Financial integration took
To continue reading
Request your trial