Tracings in Gap Ores Social Sector

8/6/2019 Tracings in Gap Ores Social Sector

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tracings-in-gap-ores-social-sector 1/7

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE16

SOCIAL SPACE • 2008

TRACINGSINGAPORE’S

SOCIAL SECTORHow has the face of Singapore’s social sector changed through the shifting

landscape of state provision? Sharifah Maisharah looks at the evolution of the

social sector pastiche starting from colonial rule in 1819.

Scenes from Singapore’s past.

P h o t o s ,

e x c e p t p a g e s 1 7 &

2 0 ,

C o u r t e s y o f N a t i o n a l A r c h i v e s ,

S i n g a p o r e .

P h o t o o n p a g e 1 9 i s f r o m t h e M i n i s t r y

o f I n f o r m a t i o n ,

C o m m u n c a t i o n a n d t h e A r t s .



SOCIAL LANDSCAPE 17


In early 2008, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan

Yew remarked that he would not be seeing agracious Singapore society any time soon, at

least not during his lifetime. Earlier, Senior MinisterGoh Chok Tong had voiced his concerns over‘The Three Cohesions’ challenge that Singapore isfacing in terms of income disparity, local-foreigndetachment and the ageing population. Puttogether, our social sector in Singapore does notseem to figure too optimistically in the minds of our leaders. Has it always been this way?

The Lien Centre has embarked on a history exerciseto better understand the state of the non-profitsector that we have in Singapore today. This articleis based on the materials compiled by Lien Centrestaff, and additional research done by Kevin Tanand Elsie Tan.

The table on page 21 provides key milestones inthe evolution of the non-profit sector in Singaporesince its independence. We can draw three mainthemes of development leading to the sector as itexists today:

- Ethnic, religious and individual-based benevolence- Social welfare and civic activities- Government and social advocacy

Theme 1: Ethnic, Religious And Individual-basedBenevolenceSince Singapore’s early colonial years, individual,ethnic and religious-based benevolence havebeen the mainstay of the country’s social fabric.Due in part to the ethnic or dialect-based townplan1 at the time and in part to the absence of state welfare, mutual self-help networks sprangup along dialect or ethnic lines. These culturalsimilarities generated a sense of friendship, mutualhelp and security. The newly-arrived immigrantseased into their new environment by living closeto relatives and fellow immigrants from the sameneighbourhood back in their home country. Singlemen from the same Chinese village would sharethe rent of a room or shophouse (also known asthe ‘kongsi house’), while the Baweanese from

Java would group themselves in pondoks.2 Someof the earliest voluntary organisations providingformal support network were the Kwong WaiShiu Hospital (founded in 1910) which providedtreatment for the chronically ill, and the MusliminTrust Fund Society (Darul Ihsan) which offeredmiscellaneous services for Malays.3

Then there were religious-based institutions suchas those created by European-led missionaries4,

Arab families and spiritual orders that extendedtheir services to the community at large, regardless

of ethnic belonging. The Christian missionaries,for instance, played a pivotal role in providingeducational opportunities and building schoolslike the Singapore Institution (later renamed RafflesInstitution), the Chinese Girls School, the Conventof the Holy Infant Jesus, the Anglo-Chinese Schooland the Tamil Boys’ School.3 Arab families such asthe Alsagoffs and Aljunieds built Islamic schoolsfor the Malays both locally and regionally, whilethe Ramakrishna Mission provided education andcharitable services.

Most of these organisations still exist today. Infact, since the 1980s, ethnic-based organisationshave received state support from the governmentthrough a variety of self-help groups such asthe Yayasan Mendaki, the Chinese Development

Assistance Council, Singapore Indian Development Association and the Eurasian Association. Theseorganisations generally focus on educationassistance and support for the less well-off.

Social development was also supported on anindividual level. Aware of the challenging livingconditions that the poorer parts of the communitywere living under, a few wealthy individualschannelled their wealth to areas where basicnecessities were lacking. Early philanthropistsincluded Tan Tock Seng, Tan Kim Seng, Tan LarkSye, Dato Lee Kong Chian, Mohammed Eunos

Abdullah, Dr Charles Joseph Pembleton Paglarand P Govindasamy Pillai Kalyanamandabam.

Tan Tock Seng’s example is worth singling out. When there was a lack of care for the destitute,Tan offered, in 1844, to provide the bulk of fundsto build a hospital, cajoling the reluctant colonialadministrators to provide medical services and agrant for operational costs.3 This form of givingexists to this day, mostly in the form of familyfoundations with children of some of the earlierphilanthropists continuing their work.

Among the family foundations, the Lee Foundationfounded by Dato Lee Kong Chian has been knownfor its largesse and size of its donations.

Theme 2: Social Welfare And Civic ActivitiesThe years after the Japanese Occupation (1942-1945) were a watershed in the development of Singapore’s social welfare landscape. To begin,the British set up the Social Welfare Department,the first multi-service agency in welfare provisionin Singapore.1 The agency focused on providingemergency relief for war victims, settlement effortsfor homeless persons, providing cheap food andworked to eradicate juvenile delinquency andprostitution.

Chinatown, Singapore.



SOCIAL LANDSCAPE18


The seed was also planted for the evolutionarygrowth of a social structure based on localityrather than ethnicity. For instance, after the Second

World War and through to the late 1950s, manychildren of school age went hungry, and roamedthe streets. At the time, one feeding centre cateredto this particular group. Staff and volunteers

worked together to provide not only meals, butalso activities for the children. The Social WelfareDepartment extended the centre’s work to formChildren’s Clubs which, in turn, developed intoChildren’s Social Centres. Eventually, these becamecommunity centres that catered to people of different age groups. By 1959, 16 such communitycentres, albeit loosely administered, had beenset up across the island.1 It was only after thePeople’s Action Party had come into power that anadditional hundred community centres more werebuilt for dedicated purposes of education andrecreation.5

The post-war years saw increasingly effectiveand efficient state coordination of social servicesbeing put into place. Initially, the mushroomingof volunteer welfare organisations came under avolunteer-led Singapore Social Service Councilheaded by Dato Lee Kong Chian. With theincreasing role of the state in civic activities, thecouncil was converted to the National Council of Social Service in 1992 with government fundingand key appointments made by the government. Ithas served as a useful interface between civic societyand the government’s own welfare-based activities

by focusing on preventive and developmentalwork6 in tandem with the work of the Ministryof Community Development, Youth and Sports(MCYS), formerly the Ministry of Welfare.

The social service sector has come a long wayin promoting volunteerism, pioneering newservices and establishing the Community Chest.Nowadays, the National Council of Social Serviceis paying more attention to quality managementand capacity development, taking on the role of facilitator and enabler, a role it assumed in 1992.

Additional guidelines and checks also serve to

enhance the professional standards of servicedelivery, cultivating an open system where thepublic can exercise their shared responsibility inensuring that voluntary organisations execute theirsocial obligation.

Theme 3: Government & Social AdvocacyIn 1959, Singapore achieved self-government. Fullindependence came in 1965. Those early yearsof nation-building saw different political parties

jostling for the right to interpret the philosophicaland policy direction for the newborn nation. Thesocial sector that had, till then, been predominantly

based on social service delivery, was imbued with aform of social advocacy.

In particular, several Chinese clan associationsthat had previously functioned as social serviceproviders began to exert an important influence inthe political sphere through open or behind-the-scenes support for political parties.7

At the same time, the new government led bythe People’s Action Party built on the basicinfrastructure left behind by the colonialgovernment and strengthened selected areas of

welfare provision – education, health and publichousing – all the while cultivating the grassrootsand social networks for political support. Pittedagainst the more streetwise communist group, thegovernment needed to counter any disconnect withthe ground.8 It instituted the People’s Associationto oversee the network of community centresthat had mushroomed since 1960, as well as theCitizen Consultative Committees9 and ResidentCommittees.10 Besides providing social programmes inthe respective localities, community centres wereused to spread the government’s political message.Increasingly, the social and political spheres

overlapped and boundaries blurred. And this wasto the detriment of the growing advocacy missionof the people sector.

Various tools were used to limit the operatingspace of civil advocacy. The government drew upa framework of industrial relations that was in linewith state objectives to manage the early activisttendencies of the trade unions and incorporatedthe Internal Security Act, a feature of the colonialgovernment, into the new governing structure.Trade unions were effectively depoliticised, whilethe more vocal and active clan associations grew

weaker.11

The use of the Internal Security Act, in1987, to deal with the alleged Marxist conspiracymay have curtailed the growth of civil societyfor a long time.12 The long-term imperative of economic growth was deemed more important

View of a street in Chinatown in 1930.

The seed was also planted for the evolutionary

growth of a social structure based on locality

rather than ethnicity.

Street in modern Singapore.



SOCIAL LANDSCAPE 19


than the pluralism of social views, a stand thatwas generally accepted by the pragmatic-mindedpopulation.

The 1980s and 1990s witnessed economic growthand a growing middle class. Well-educated andwith unrestricted access to alternative thoughtsand ideas, especially the internet, this group beganto bring back the question of social ownershipand alternative viewpoints. For many, the long-term interest of economic growth was no longera sufficient reason to ignore this importance. Thegovernment reciprocated with then Prime MinisterGoh Chok Tong’s style of consultative governancewhich introduced new means of participatorycitizenship via the Feedback Unit, the Speaker’sCorner and the Community Development

Councils13

, though the efficacy of the first two asa platform for alternative discourse is yet to beproven.

Possibly as a result of the more open climate,new non-governmental organisations that soughtto address environmental, gender and humanrights issues extending beyond traditional welfareprovision were formed. Amidst the government’scautious discourse on the topic of widening socialspace, citing its preference for civic society, therewere active discussions on the need to provide anautonomous space for individuals or groups to

pursue their ideas, social thoughts and the growthof civil society.14 There was, in 1998 to 1999, acollective endeavor by the different advocacyand non-profit groups in Singapore to cultivate amore collaborative synergy amongst themselves

towards a more effective civil society action. The Working Committee (TWC), as it was called, didnot achieve its ideal working model but it pavedthe way for other collaborative networks and

initiatives, one of them being the Think Centre.15

This brings us to the new millennium inSingapore. In 2004, the then Deputy PrimeMinister Lee Hsien Loong (and current PrimeMinister) gave a speech to Harvard alumni thatsignalled a greater openness for many helpinghands and voices in the community. In 2002,the Remaking Singapore Committee was setup to lead a nationwide exercise to review thecountry’s social strategies. Prior to this, Singapore21, a nationwide exercise in the late 1990s thataimed to foster participatory citizenry, resulted in

initiatives such as the formation of the National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre.

The government may be inviting a more engagedcitizenry, but the “politics of apprehension”may be holding Singaporean society back fromproviding an organised and systematic critique of existing social policies. But this has not stoppednon-profit organisations from trying, using whatKenneth Paul Tan, Assistant Professor at theNational University of Singapore, calls “clevergames with the state”. He outlines three strategies:first, leaving politics to the state and concentrating

on the civic issues; secondly, through small stepsby stealthily addressing political issues in non-confrontational private activities; and thirdly, byengaging the state behind closed doors or on thestate’s terms.16

The helpers distribute tit-bits and drinks to the children during the opening of Siglap Social Centre.



SOCIAL LANDSCAPE20


have gone so far as to argue that additionalgovernment controls and guidelines onvoluntary welfare organisations risk erodingwelfare professionals’ personal motivation and

commitment.18

The tension between NGO actorswho crave for greater ownership of society’sissues, and a government which is still hesitant torelinquish power over stability is just one paradoxin the development of the social sector.

The other paradox involves developing the spirit of volunteerism and giving within Singapore’s modelof economic pragmatism and the Singapore Inc.mentality. Based on data from a 1990 census, Hoand Chua concluded that at 7.5 percent, the overallnational participation rate in voluntary activitiesis “rather low compared to other developed

nations”.19

Couple this with the findings of theNational Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre’s surveyin 2007 that cites donor fatigue, donor restrictionson funds, as well as limited resources and know-how for fund-raising. Within such a context, therehave been calls to develop more innovative modelsof sustainability for voluntary organisations thataddress these limitations. Social entrepreneurship,

Non-government organisations (NGOs) are verylikely to continue on one of these paths to addresssociety’s ongoing stride towards the greater good,the first option being the most popular and safest.

Organisations such as the Nature Society andTransient Workers Count Too have found somesuccess in advocating change in their respectivesocial space.

The Social Sector Today At this point, it is worthwhile noting that anInstitute of Policy Studies survey, conducted in2002, of 109 civil society organisations suggeststhat there is not enough of the “right quality of communication for a useful working relationshipwith the government”; that while more than half saw their existing relationship with the government

as a collaborative one, there was an interest inseeing “more extensive engagement” between theparties with “greater recognition, respect, andunderstanding of their contribution to society andparticipation in governance”.17

This view is not only limited to socio-politicaladvocacy groups. Academics like David Seth Jones

The government may be inviting a engaged citizenry, but

the “politics of apprehension” may be holding Singaporean

society back from providing an organised and systematic

critique of existing social policies.



SOCIAL LANDSCAPE 21


1819

1942 (WW2)

1945

1946

19491952

1958

1959 (Self-

Govt)

1980s

1990s

2000s

Ethnic, Religious and

Individual-Based

Benevolence

Social Welfare and

Civic Activities

Social Advocacy

Clan and religious-based

philanthropy predominant

DECLINE OF COMMUNITY GROUPS

COMMUNITY GROUPS RESUMED ACTIVITIES

[Children’s Social Centres]

[Community Centres][Lee Foundation]

SINGAPORE COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE

PEOPLE’S ASSOCIATION

oversees grassroots organisations

[Shaw Foundation]

Gradual maturing of social services arena

SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT incorporated into

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

[Yayasan Mendaki]

[Lien Foundation] [Community Chest][ Feedback Unit ]

[ A W A R E ]

[1987 “Marxist Conspiracy”]

SOCIAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE restructured

as NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE

[CDAC & SINDA]

[ The Nature Society ]

SINGAPORE 21

Community

Development Councils

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER & PHILANTHROPY CENTRE

REMAKING SINGAPORE

DPM LEE HSIEN LOONG’S HARVARD CLUB SPEECH

NKF Saga and other scandals

Charity Law Reform

[ Transient Workers Count Too ]

First multi-service agency inwelfare provision

[Social Welfare Department]

Advent of non-

government

organisations with

greater advocacy role

[ Speaker’s Corner ]

[S’pore International Foundation]

[ The Working Committee ]



SOCIAL LANDSCAPE22


Tracings in Gap Ores Social Sector

Documents

Transcript of Tracings in Gap Ores Social Sector