ST: Downside to shooting down ideas too soon
Soh Yi Da
Downside to shooting down ideas too soon
Brushing off radical proposals could breed cynicism about national dialogue
THE Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) has entered its much-awaited second phase. After more than half a year of being intentionally broad and somewhat free-wheeling, the conversation last month turned to specifics.
The Government spoke of a "deep dive" into such issues as housing, education, health care and old age this time around in the national conversation, in which dozens sign up to participate in each discussion, usually at a school or a library and lasting three hours or more.
True to its word, the Government has allowed for frank discussions in which participants examined the nuts and bolts of policies - and picked them apart if they so wished. Often, ministers were present to hear their views.
A Singaporean who participated in a dialogue during this second phase described it as "a really engaging session", with "candid and honest views being shared".
"I didn't quite expect this," she admitted. "I thought it would be more controlled."
But despite the slogan that "no idea is too radical" for the OSC, there are already signs the Government will now not hesitate to dismiss concrete suggestions.
At one session, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan rejected at once the idea of removing land costs from the pricing equation of Housing Board flats. The opposition had made similar suggestions in the past. The Government has said the move is effectively a raid on the reserves, since state land is classified as part of the reserves.
At another, where the issue of relaxing rules on dialect use came up, Education Minister Heng
Swee Keat - who is leading the OSC - said, quite plainly, that "we should not create an even more complicated (language) environment because it is not going to do our children any good".
Here lies a fundamental tension within the OSC - a tension that will come into sharp relief during this second phase.
On the one hand, the OSC has to be open to fresh ideas. Each person must be allowed to speak his mind on how he feels a policy ought to be changed - even if his view represents a radical deviation from the status quo - and to expect his views to be given due consideration.
After all, why initiate a dialogue, only to frown on those who speak frankly?
On the other hand, there are changes the Government will never contemplate. Some because they are plain stupid. Others because they are populist and unwise in the long run. Still others, because the Government has a fundamental objection to them.
There are people who would take exception to the third category and criticise the Government for being ideologically rigid or overly attached to sacred cows.
But it is perfectly legitimate for any government to take a strong stand on an issue. Indeed, all political parties should take strong stands on issues. That is what they do - and, in fact, what voters expect them to do.
With the OSC, the Government has promised to reconsider its position on a broad range of issues, to allow thorough debate among the public. But that does not necessarily oblige it to make changes on all of them.
As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said when the OSC kicked off: "We leave no stone unturned. But some stones, after we look at them, the original place was quite nice, and we put them back."
That said, a tension does exist. There is a call to come forward and speak, and yet there are areas in which speech does not appear to be genuinely welcome.
The Government must tread carefully when dealing with such non-negotiable issues. Polite but firm dismissals will work for some dialogue participants. But for others, it may be read as a sign that the whole exercise is not being conducted in good faith.
These Singaporeans may come to the same conclusion as a netizen who commented wryly that the "fundamental rethink on specific issues" actually applies only to issues "that are sanctioned by the People's Action Party".
This balancing act looks even more delicate if one takes into account that one of the primary reasons for the OSC in the first place is to generate buy-in and legitimacy for a set of as-yet-undecided policies with which the Government will govern for the medium to long term.
The reason that such buy-in for policies has to be done through a national conversation has to do with the particular stage of political development that Singapore is in. Gone are the days when people were willing to accept the Government's lead without extensive consultation in the earlier stages of policy formulation. In those days, persuasion was necessary, but not active popular participation. The latter is vital in the new political climate.
At the same time, party political debates at election campaigns and in the legislature are still not thought of as the primary vehicle for national conversations - as they are in some countries - because the opposition here is, by its own admission, too weak and resource-poor to engage the Government on a full range of issues.
Hence the need for the OSC, which encourages Singaporeans to take greater ownership of their country's policies.
And so, if legitimacy and buy-in are the things that are really at stake, then those who propose radical ideas at the OSC may well be the ones who determine the success of the exercise.
To use an electoral analogy, they are not unlike the "swing voters" of the OSC.
To one side of these "swing voters" is a group so staunchly opposed to the Government it will not even take part in the OSC.
To the other side is another that is probably going to support the Government's eventual programme anyway, and is happy to take part and proffer views that might influence it.
The "swing voters", however, may have joined the exercise with a slightly sceptical attitude - though prepared to give the Government a hearing. If their more radical proposals are shot down too quickly, there is a real possibility that some might turn cynical.
If that happens to too many of them, the exercise may well end up not obtaining the level of buy-in it set out to obtain - which would be self-defeating for the Government.
A lighter touch towards them may be needed.
Perhaps some radical proposals should not be dismissed so hastily. The Government should instead deliberate more - and be seen to do so. If it ultimately chooses to disagree, it should give fuller explanations as to how it came to that decision - after which some commitment, however vague, might be made to revisit the issue at a later date.
At the end of the day, most participants understand that not all views can be translated into policy. For many, all that is sought is a sense that the underlying concern has been taken into account and given full respect.