There is a fanatical obsession with planning for Singapore’s future and safeguarding its interests, but not all citizens are participating in the decision-making process.

The top-down bureaucratic approach in policy-making is leaving some segments of the population feeling alienated, because they cannot relate to the ideas behind policies or claim ownership of a country they were born and bred in.

This was just one of the growing pains of Singaporeans reflected at the 5th Singapore Forum on Politics held on Feb. 15 in NUS.

The forum, comprised of six panellists featuring social commentators and academics, was attended by about 300 students and members of the public.

Primarily, the forum was organised in response to the Institute of Policy Studies conference on Singapore’s future, held at the Shangri-La earlier this month that featured Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Opened to the public for free, the forum also challenged the existing status quo with proof that talking about politics can be opened to all and sundry, regardless of social or political status and association.

Embedded in this move towards a more plural and inclusive society is the hope for the possibility of change in the social, economic and political demeanour of Singapore, through an active and participating citizenry by the year 2030.  

And for that to even happen, some fundamental questions had to be asked.  

Would Singapore ever have a press that is free and independent? How loud can a dissenting voice get? What kind of opposition political parties does Singapore need?  

These questions did not provide simple answers, except for uneasy ones.

Gazing into the crystal ball for answers to the future only conjured up reminders of the past. The looming shadow of regulation is a remnant of Singapore’s bureaucratic process.

Cherian George, acting head of Journalism and Publishing in Nanyang Technological University, said the local media was bound by strict regulations that determined the content that was allowed to be produced and disseminated.

George, an ex-journalist with The Straits Times, was specifically referring to the 1974 Newspaper and Printing Presses Act that placed many restrictions on what the media can and cannot do.

Toeing the line with its reporting could lead to the withdrawal of the newspaper’s annual license, and hurt its economic bottom line. He added that there is a need to be sympathetic of journalism’s shortcoming in Singapore, as after all, it is a career and journalists are entitled to prefer job security over the threat of sanctions.  

Until today, the nationally recognised newspaper is bounded by these regulations. In other words, the content it produces has been determined.  

Even without the media, there is still the option of civil society making its voice heard.

To counter the present state of affairs, fellow panellist and playwright, Alfian Sa’at, suggested creating an “alternative Singapore” by disengaging with the politics set out by the ruling elite.

He asserted that dissenting voices, such as “civil society activists and cultural workers should instead focus on becoming autonomous pace-setters for social change.”

Avoidance of technocratic language, such as talk about “leadership renewal,” while escaping the peripheral confines of being a persistent dissident, would legitimise the role of civil society activists.  

However, to be a force to be reckoned with, entering the realm of politics itself would be the most practical option. The catch, though, is to stay in it for the long haul and remain credible.

With a little help from the citizens, opposition political parties might stand a chance in garnering greater support, as future Singaporeans discover the need to democratise the process of decision-making.  

Writer and social commentator, Catherine Lim said, “But into the third decade, things may change with the emergence of a new breed of young, sophisticated, more demanding Singaporeans.”

The essence of this argument is the same as the insistence that economic development is the cure-all for ailing democracies: Civil liberties can be as addictive as economic success once its citizens have had a taste of it.  

Even though the top-down approach might be turned bottom-up in the future, Singapore has China as an admirer of its present style of rule.

Described by Lim as a “skilful blend of authoritarianism and capitalism,” the present regime “will have achieved an undreamt of international acceptance” if China’s rise to superpower status goes unchecked.
Only time will tell if Singapore is founder of a new alternative to the Western model of democracy.  

And that new alternative would depend very much on whether Singaporeans have the power to shape the course of its own future.