The advent of global cooperation in terms of political, economical, societal, and even cultural segments both in the public and private sectors paved way to the creation of balancing and/or neutralizing agents of the society. The emergence of various segments of the society could be credited to the diversity of principles and ideologies of people. Traditionally, as the broad source of civil society literatures provide (Keane, 1998; Hall, 1995; Gellner, 1994; Seligman, 1992), the proponents of civil society envisioned it as an outlet of resistance against two governing forces – the state and the people (considered as a market). They are present in societies where the nature of government and economic development reflects social inequality and segregation (Lizee, 2000).
The Emergence of Civil Society in Southeast Asia: a Review
Civil society movements gained popularity when it served as the “rallying point” for the different groups that defied the authoritarian states of Eastern Europe especially in the waning days of the Cold War (Tismaneanu, 1992). It attempted to be an alternative to more independent and egalitarian governments. Then the democratic supporters in Southeast Asia built its foundations based on this historical and nonfigurative inheritance especially with regards to their agenda and actions (Jones, 1998; Rodan, 1997; Yamamoto, 1995). Thus, they bring civil societies’ forces of international facet and authority into play within the whole region (Ghai, 1999).
The idea of civil society was derived from three elements (Lizee, 2000; Martinussen, 1997; Cohen, & Arato, 1992): 1) essentially the changes in social institutions and practices that enable civil society to emerge; 2) the strategies that civil society organizations (CSOs) should adopt to sustain and enlarge their power; and 3) the political and economic ideologies which best support these two processes.
The sudden and rushing ascend of civil societies among regions in Southeast Asia embodies one of the most powerful commotion brought about by recent events occurred in the whole region such as the historical events, the Asian economic crisis and growing political turmoil. Further, security is among the reasons why civil societies also prevail (Lizee, 2000). Lizee (2000) views civil society as both a process and a goal. He believes that “through the development of civil society that political and economic frameworks in the region can be made more democratic” (p.550). Additionally, he considers that the social changes that allow the emergence of civil society are among the distinctive features of modernizing societies.
James Gomez (2000) defines civil society as “voluntary and autonomous organizations that are prepared to advance their interests through political action”. Several critics describe civil society as organizations in between the governing state and family that are independent (Gomez, n.d.). On the other hand, Kamil (1999) pictured CSOs as “non-political and working in partnership with government”. Fisher (2003) declared that “For every failed state there are many more "weakly institutionalized" governments, which can, curiously, also be described as semi-authoritarian” (p.19). This statement can also be attributed to the existence of CSOs. According to Lizee (2000), critics of civil society judge its existence as a contradicting force to the governing rule but supporters defend it as a force that can promulgate and create substitute courses both for political and economic development. For instance, the importance of recognizing public participation in the development planning and implementation is a necessary precondition to further economic as well as political growth (Narine, 2000; Cheeseman, 1999).
Singapore Civil Society and its Responsibilities
It is a given fact that Singapore is highly centralized in its policy decision making. It became the hallmark of the effectiveness of the state particularly in the delivery of public goods and services. But with the closely near to authoritarian style of governance practiced by the state, is there a role of civil society?
Basing it from previous knowledge and experience, Singapore was too strict in all aspects of the society especially the ones related to the political sector. It could be said that civil societies are not permitted to proliferate before. But with the evolution of human information and globalization at hand, the conservative views in relation to civil society were slowly changed. Today, Singapore acknowledges the role of civil society in the government especially with regards to policy decision making and taking.
For instance, the government of former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong often recapped its determination to open up political and social position to an array of civil society agents. He recognized the contribution of the latter as an important in the development of providing social care alternatives to the state. A clear manifestation of this recognition was the founding of Town Councils and Community Development Councils all over the country (Tay, 1998).
Historically, Singaporean aristocrats suppressed free speech for the goal of national unity and development, especially on the aspect of its culture. Due to the broadness of cultural assertions, many human rights activists interpret these claims as excuses for authoritarianism. Thus, movements thrive (Ratner, 1998). The government is restricted in opening itself to inclusive analysis of its political and developmental objectives. CSOs saw these two parameters as good outlets to position their actions and discourse. Thus, the civil society sector created an agenda model originating from this context (Tay, 1998). However, this contextual reference is not one of opposition to the governing authority of the state that will challenge the logic of their actions and underlying priorities. Instead, it aims to create a more practical and long-term process engaging to the improvement and development permitted under the government’s own focus (Tay, 1998). The new civil society institutions were directed to the beneficial advantage of the state.
In policy decision making, Singapore’s CSOs are useful factors in devising policies that are beneficial to the whole welfare of the state. Indeed, civil societies such as NGOs, private voluntary organization (PVOs), people’s organization, committee-based organizations, civic clubs, trade unions, gender, cultural, and religious groups, professional associations, academia, businesses, policy institutions, consumers’ organization, and the media impart significant contributions in every plan, decision, and action that the state is making, taking and implementing. Their collective participation granted the authority and cooperation to the administration uplifts the potency of further development.
For instance, Singapore is a role model of globalization. In terms of trade and business, governments are not the only participants in World Trade Organization (WTO) proceedings. Bello (2002) affirmed that although CSOs are not recognized actors in the WTO's formal process but their role has been visible and significant. Good empirical research and analysis countering the alleged benefits of trade liberalization and globalization have been one form of effective civil society pressure (Bello, 2002).
With regards to Singapore’s policy on media and society standards, Singaporean aristocrats suppressed free speech for the goal of national unity and development, especially on the aspect of its culture. Due to the broadness of cultural assertions, many human rights activists interpret these claims as excuses for authoritarianism. Thus, movements thrive (Ratner, 1998).
In an interview of Foreign Policy magazine to Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Kuan Yew's eldest son (George, 2002), democracy, freedom of the press and individual civil liberties are said ignored by the authorities. Given that Singapore is a model of globalization, there are aspects in the economic and political standards that are not applicable to the state. But Loong defended that “these political and economic standards have to go together for a particular nation to be in good standing”. Basing his statement to the Amnesty International and American Civil Liberties Union, such considerations are under comprehensive scrutiny and arbitration. He also added that “some values command wide acceptance”. This means that every given structure or institution must be closely related and of importance to the existing bodies. Further, he believes that “different societies have different norms, work in different ways, and have different geopolitical circumstances”. Balance between the individual and society is the missing link according to him.
However, there are instances where CSOs become curse to the society. They cause trouble and chaos as well as barrier to economic and developmental take-off. For example, when civil societies are equated to political movements and used as a method for democratization, “civil society groups are asked not to directly challenge prevailing government. Instead they are encouraged to use the political party system and to contest elections” (Gomez, n.d.). This was the style employed in Malaysia. Further, Gomez stated that the “government-sponsored groups and organisation whose formations have been initiated and supported by the authorities in power, for instance, are now pushed forward as members of civil society”. He firmly believes that CSOs are not just non-government representations or groups but individuals who are “private contributors” to the processes of the state.
Today, Singaporean CSOs are evolving into more subtle strategy that draws simultaneously from the dynamics of contestation and commitment of government leaders. Their regional and global interest over the potential for far-reaching social transformation of civil society is also developing. Eventually, the dynamics of human life will eventually affect the progression of CSOs and the role it plays in the whole welfare of the society especially on its decision making and taking.
References
Bello, W. (2002) Learning from Doha: A Civil Society Perspective from the South.
Global Governance, 8(3): 273+.
Cheeseman, G. (1999) Asian-Pacific Security Discourse in the Wake of the Asian
Economic Crisis. Pacific Review, 12(3): 333-56.
Cohen, J. and A. Arato (1992) Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fisher, J. (2003) Local and Global: International Governance and Civil Society It
Is Inconceivable That Any Northern Donor or International NGO Could Begin to Match the Diversity of Experience and Knowledge Already Extant within the Third World. Journal of International Affairs, 57(1): 19+.
Gellner, E. (1994) Conditions of Liberty. Civil Society and Its Rival. London:
Hamish Hamilton.
George, C. (2002 May) Singapore's Big Gamble. Foreign Policy, pp. 32+.
Ghai, Y. (1999) Rights, Social Justice, and Globalization in East Asia. In J.R.
Bauer and D.A. Bell, eds. The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gomez, J. (2005, March 13) Sinagpore Civil Society and British Power (Book
Review). Commentary – JGNews. Retrieved March 28, 2006 from http://www.jamesgomeznews.com/article.php?AID=209.
Gomez, J. (n.d.) Civil and political society in Singapore and Southeast Asia:
Emerging Trends and definitions. Singapore Window. Retrieved March 28, 2006 from http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90218jgz.htm.
Hall, J. ed. (1995) Civil Society: Theory, History, Comparison. London: Polity
Press.
Jones, D. (1998 January) Democratization, Civil Society, and the Illiberal Middle
Class Culture in Pacific Asia. Comparative Politics, pp. 147-69.
Kamil, A. (1999) Civil society and its democratic role. New Straits Times, June 1.
Available at Singapore Window. Retrieved March 28, 2006 from http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90601nst.htm.
Keane, J. (1998) Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions. London: Polity Press.
Lizee, P.P. (2000) Civil Society and Regional Security: Tensions and Potentials
in Post-Crisis Southeast Asia. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 22(3): 550.
Martinussen, J. (1997) Society, State & Market. A Guide to Competing Theories
of Development. London: Zed Books.
Narine, S. (2000) ASEAN and the East Asian Economic Crisis, CANCAPS
Papers no. 23. Toronto: Canadian Consortium on Asia Pacific Security (CANCAPS).
Ratner, S.R. (1998) International Law: The Trials of Global Norms. Foreign
Policy, 110: 65+.
Rodan, G. (1997) Civil Society and Other Political Possibilities in Southeast Asia.
Journal of Contemporary Asia, 27(2): 156-78.
Seligman, A. (1992) The Idea of Civil Society. New York: The Free Press.
Tay, S.C. (1998) Towards a Singaporean Civil Society. Southeast Asian Affairs.
Singapore: ISEAS. pp. 244-61.
Tismaneanu, V. (1992) Reinventing Politics. Eastern Europe After Communism.
New York: Free Press.
Yamamoto, T. ed. (1995) Emerging Civil Society in the Asia-Pacific Community.
Singapore and Tokyo: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Japan Center for International Exchange.
No comments:
Post a Comment