It is often assumed that civil society and its organizations are a counterweight to state power, whether providing policy alternatives or filling gaps in social provisions. However, in this study of four Southeast Asian countries – Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand – Garry Rodan shows their roles in political life and in the national power structures which have largely been sustained, albeit in different ways, over many decades.
Rodan notes that of them, Singapore provides by far the least political space for such groups. However, as the dominant political power since independence, the People’s Action Party, long ago morphed from being a grassroots-based to an elite-led party, it has also had to find ways of engaging with people. A fast-changing economy and society naturally faced strains which needed to be recognized, conflicts which needed to be spotted and addressed before they became too big.
The government’s Feedback Units became a way of substituting for the fact that there was so little space for purely civil actors. It was thus able to manage such issues as large-scale immigration and rising gaps between rich and poor. Nominated MPs were another way of broadening input on social policies without threatening the PAP hold. Over time, the government very gradually accepts changes, such as towards homosexual and related sexual issues but with the rise of online channels for debate keeps a tight rein on discussion generally via the Protection of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act…
To read the whole thing and get full access to Asia Sentinel's reporting and archives, subscribe now for US$10/month or US$100/year.
