Moves of the engagement party

Just a few years ago, a minister writing a blog was sufficient to make him a trailblazer in terms of political engagement here. Nowadays, doing so is considered a minimum requirement. In fact, there appears to be a small but growing group of PAP MPs that is taking the idea of engagement further. They organise informal policy groups, engage in long Facebook discussions with the public, and invite bloggers to tea. Why do they do it? And is it working?
By Jeremy Au Yong, The Straits Times, 4 Aug 2012

FOR many students, bursary ceremonies can be a pain, even if they do go home with a cheque.

They sit around for hours watching as hundreds of others go on stage to shake hands with a Member of Parliament and have their picture taken. Many duck home once their turn is over.

That's why this year, Tampines GRC MP Baey Yam Keng decided to change the format: "I thought I should not put them through this torture."

He converted the ceremony for polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education students in his ward into a dialogue where they could ask him anything.

"For the two hours you would have spent sitting down, going through the motions, let's have a dialogue for one hour. After that, you just collect your cheque at the counter," he said.

The change - one of many he has made over the years to make his style more consultative - is emblematic of a People's Action Party that is morphing the way it engages with the public.

When even the Prime Minister has a Facebook page, it seems that simply sharing thoughts may no longer be enough. Politicians need to engage, almost, in open conversation.

On this front, there are a handful within the PAP on the leading edge. MPs Baey and Irene Ng, and Ministers K. Shanmugam, Chan Chun Sing and Tan Chuan-Jin are all trying out different ways of interacting.

Engage early, engage often

IN MANY ways, the politicians say that the seemingly new engagement efforts are not all that different from what they have been doing all along.

A lot of the substantive engagement still happens via the traditional channels: grassroots leaders, the ministries' feedback channel and walkabouts.

What has changed is the frequency, intensity and breadth of the engagement.

They now engage frequently in serious policy discussions on Facebook, instead of using the platform simply to share updates and pictures of constituency events. Most noticeable though is the increase in the number of offline meetings.

Both Mr Chan, the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, and Mr Baey hold regular informal policy sessions. Mr Chan's are held monthly at the Buona Vista Community Club. The sessions can last up to 31/2 hours, with the minister painstakingly dissecting almost every part of a policy for those who attend.

Mr Baey calls his sessions KopiTalk. Two weeks ago, it took place in a foodcourt. About 80 to 100 people showed up, and many took part between mouthfuls of dinner. One suggestion raised that night was for the Government to offer free health care to the elderly. Mr Baey explained how that might mean higher taxes, and also posted the suggestion for discussion on his Facebook page.

Then there are the one-on-one meetings, the most notable of late are those initiated by Mr Shanmugam.

In June, the Law and Foreign Affairs Minister invited SMRT train officer Alan Tang, 48, who blogs under the moniker Gintai, to meet with him after the latter wrote a piece on the affordability of HDB flats.

There was no obvious reason for the minister to meet the blogger. Mr Tang was not a resident in Mr Shanmugam's Sembawang constituency and housing was not part of the minister's portfolio.

Indeed, the invitation caught Mr Tang by surprise. "I thought it was a fraud or prank," he told Insight. "I thought of turning it down. However, when I discussed it with my friends, they advised me to see him."

It was not all a matter of the minister explaining the Government's position, though. Mr Tang described an exchange in his blog: "To my next question on why the Government or CPF charges an 'admin fee' when I use my own CPF to pay for my medical fees in polyclinic and hospital... He will pass my message onto the relevant agency. He seemed to understand my point, and I won on that."

Mr Shanmugam, who was approached by Insight for this interview, said he was struck by the tone of the post: "I read his piece on housing... I said to myself this guy sounds genuine. I don't agree with what he is saying, but he is saying it honestly."

Engage, but to what end?

THOUGH the engagement can come off as a charm offensive, the politicians say their efforts are not about votes or getting people over to their side. It is not even strictly about trying to make people feel like their voices are being heard. What it is about, they say, is to narrow the gap between the policymaker and the public.

Said Ms Ng: "It is not about the so-called new normal. It is about building a more inclusive society as Singapore becomes more complex, developed and diverse."

Mr Tan, the Acting Minister for Manpower, expressed a similar sentiment, and added that he is simply doing what he used to do in the army.

"Engagement is not a new buzzword born out of GE 2011," he said, referring to last year's General Election. "It has always been important, whether in the political sphere or at our respective workplaces."

Mr Lawrence Wong, the Acting Minister for the new Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, said engagement is as much about the process as the outcome.

"In a situation of competing trade-offs, any decision taken will not be able to fully satisfy all parties. But what's important is that there is a robust process of engagement leading up to the decision.

"Singaporeans must feel that they are able to provide feedback and ideas, and help shape policies, especially on issues that matter to them," said Mr Wong, who is also chairman of the PAP's publicity and publication sub-committee.

For Mr Shanmugam, the need to talk and listen to a broad cross-section has become increasingly important because the nature of policy-making has changed.

He said: "We have been in a sweet spot for a long while in that there was continuous and steady progress where everyone benefited and all boats rose with the rising tide.

"The next phase of development is now more challenging because we are now in the international arena competing. And when you make policies, there are a lot more trade-offs. When it benefits one section, you impact on another section."

The consultation, he added, can often be more useful to him than the other way around. He is less concerned about getting those he engages with to agree with him than in understanding how they think and feel.

He said: "It is not just about getting facts. It is how emotionally people feel. You can't get that unless you talk to them direct.

"I am the policymaker, I need to know how they feel. When they raise something, then I need to tell them, 'Have you thought about this? Have you thought about that?' They get a better sense of why you are doing what you are doing; you get a better sense of how you are being viewed and how what you are doing in the future might be viewed; and that allows you to structure your policies."

He gave the example of the repeal of Section 157(d) of the Evidence Act, which allows a man charged with rape to discredit the victim by digging into her sexual history and showing that she is of generally immoral character. The repeal in February arose from one of his face-to-face meetings.

It started late last year after an article bringing attention to the little known law was put up on the website publichouse.sg.

Mr Andrew Loh, who runs the site, then sent the post round the relevant ministries seeking a response. What he got was a call from the Law Ministry suggesting a meeting.

"I sent the article not expecting a reply at all. In the past, they generally did not reply," he said.

He turned down the meeting because he felt that the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) was the expert on it. Mr Shanmugam met Aware and later began the process of amending the Act.

That was an example, he said, of how engagement contributed to policymaking.

Hits and misses

THIS open-door style is not without its risks, especially in an online space dominated by anti-establishment voices.

Many PAP MPs have experiences of being attacked online, none more so than Mr Baey.

The MP was the target of vicious online comments after he was deemed to have not stood up for Singaporeans during the saga involving Chinese undergraduate Sun Xu in February. Mr Baey said that the experience taught him that it is best to pick his fights and to be open and honest when under attack.

Mr Shanmugam similarly said that while serious online engagement is possible, it is harder than doing it offline.

"In some ways, the Facebook and Internet are not easy places to have a serious discussion. Someone described it as a blanket party," he said, referring to a form of hazing where someone is trapped under a blanket while a group of people pummel him.

"You say something, 10 or 15 people jump on you."

He said he knew of instances where someone would set up multiple accounts to give the impression that many different people were joining the attack.

And he has also faced some who go silent after being challenged online. He stressed though that the bulk of the engagement, even those with critics, have been reasonable.

"I acknowledge that there is a significant minority who are unhappy with the various policies. The duty of the Government is to listen carefully, to empathise, to understand, to adapt and to change where change is necessary."

Indeed, alongside the brickbats, the PAP has been getting some good reviews as well.

Mr Tang said he came away from the meeting with a good impression of the minister. He said: "Even though I declared that for two GEs in Hougang, I voted WP and in the last GE, I voted against them (the PAP) in Pasir Ris, he didn't lose his cool. He just wanted to know my reasons. He is a gentleman who won my respect."

Mr Loh similarly said he saw the government engagement as a positive development. "They are reaching out to us. Overall, it is a good thing and the Government should continue. It is a learning process on both sides. There is an issue of trust and you need time to build that trust," he added.

In contrast, he said the Worker's Party's engagement has been "very disappointing" and the party has not been very active beyond holding its weekly open house.

Asked about its engagement efforts, WP Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam said the party engages to gain a better appreciation of how policy affects the people.

He listed the various ways the party reaches out, which include a monthly dialogue organised by its youth wing. Its MPs also regularly attend events and go for walkabouts. Many of the WP MPs maintain Facebook pages.

The danger of being popular

IF THERE is a potential downside to all this engagement, it would be that it might go too far.

The concern here is that an MP might become overly sensitive to the feedback loop that develops. It may be tolerable when there is a mix of good and bad coming through, but it might be harder to walk into a policy forum or log in to your Facebook page if you have just done something unpopular.

Could this engagement then discourage MPs from making unpopular decisions?

Mr Shanmugam sees a potential problem: "There is always a risk of becoming populist and if you become populist, as with many other countries, then the consequences will be seen in governance."

He said that already, there are politicians, journalists and institutions that dare not express their true feelings lest they are subject to attacks.

Indeed, Mr Baey said that he had some comments to make in the aftermath of the accident at the Downtown Line that killed two construction workers from China but thought: "No need."

Mr Tan had similar concerns but expressed confidence that the discourse is maturing.

"We are beginning to see more voices emerging and I urge Singaporeans not be sidelined or silenced by some of the more vociferous voices online... The issue isn't about being critical or not, but about how civil discourse can take place, and how we all contribute to our nation-building process," he said.

From the perspective of a public eager to be engaged, the PAP seems to be putting in the effort to connect. It is showing a willingness to listen to a range of differing views.

Yet engagement should not be a one-sided affair.

One of the questions raised by a student during Mr Baey's bursary dialogue was whether they could scrap the event altogether and just let students pick up their cheques from the community centre. Fortunately, many others at the event disagreed.

The PAP has, in the past, been accused of not listening to the people outside of election season. If they are now making a greater effort to engage, it would be a pity if the public chose not to do so too.

For Mr Shanmugam, the need to talk and listen to a broad cross-section has become increasingly important because the nature of policymaking has changed.

"We have been in a sweet spot for a long while in that there was continuous and steady progress where everyone benefited and all boats rose with the rising tide.

"The next phase of development is now more challenging because we are now in the international arena competing. And when you make policies, there are a lot more trade-offs. When it benefits one section, you impact on another section."

GOOD ENGAGEMENT
"It was a good session. He (Minister K. Shanmugam) didn't tell the students what to think. He asked them for their opinions and gave them his perspective. At the end of it, we had some students who said they wanted to organise a second dialogue with him."
- Mr S. Magendiran, senior deputy principal (student development and alumni relations) of Raffles Institution, on a recent dialogue that the Law and Foreign Minister had with about 200 students

STRONG FEELINGS
"Some of us might be crude in our remarks but that's because we are really passionate about the issues we bring up... I know you understand what most of us are trying to say here, but as a party member, it might not be convenient for you to express your honest views. So I'll leave it at that. Thanks a lot for your time and effort to engage us all."
- Mr Bret Goh, a Facebook user who had previously criticised Tampines GRC MP Baey Yam Keng online but subsequently praised him for his efforts

What the Sun Xu saga taught me: Baey
By Jeremy Au Yong, The Straits Times, 4 Aug 2012

WITHIN a day, there were more than 400 comments on Mr Baey Yam Keng's two Facebook pages, nearly all negative.

The Tampines GRC MP had gone viral, but in the worst possible way. What netizens had taken issue with were Mr Baey's comments about a row over Chinese undergraduate Sun Xu's derogatory posts about Singaporeans.

Mr Baey eventually apologised in Parliament for hurting the feelings of Singaporeans.

Though it was traumatic, he now looks back on that saga in February as a positive learning experience.

"That episode made me realise how deep the negative sentiment is," he told Insight.

"I knew that some people are not happy, I really did not realise it was so bad. If I had that understanding then, probably I would have said it differently."

The problematic comment he had made in February was that Singaporeans might "need to reflect" and ask whether "we (have behaved) the way they described".

This quote was part of a larger response to a question he was asked about what lessons could be drawn from the episode.

But in the face of a negative barrage, Mr Baey decided to deal with it openly and honestly, instead of trying to lie low until it blew over. He posted his explanation online and did not delete any of the critical posts it drew, no matter how hurtful.

In the end, he said, Mr Baey started receiving praise on his Facebook pages about the way he handled it.

The experience made such an impact on him that he turned it into a case study and made a presentation on it recently at a forum organised by the National University of Singapore Society.

"I really learnt a lot. I learnt how to take criticism," he said, adding that he knew now not to take things personally.

"We must do what we need to do seriously, but not take what people say about us too seriously. Remind ourselves it is not possible to make everyone happy.

"I would be very sceptical if everything on my Facebook page was positive. I do not give myself that illusion. I appreciate that at times, I am brought to reality."

Death penalty change not based on winning votes: Shanmugam
By Jeremy Au Yong, The Straits Times, 4 Aug 2012

THE recent government decision to lift the Mandatory Death Penalty for certain crimes was no populist move.

There is no current widespread support for campaigns against capital punishment, Law Minister K. Shanmugam pointed out.

As such, there is no political mileage to be gained from changing the death penalty law.

"If we went on popular sentiment, our internal surveys show that 70 per cent of Singaporeans favour the death penalty. If it was politics, the death penalty is one area we don't need to touch," he told Insight in an interview on Tuesday.

The PAP stands to win no votes from the change, he added, whether from those for or against the death penalty.

"They are not going to vote for us because we change this. The people who oppose the Government, oppose it for a variety of reasons. How many votes are there on the death penalty issue?

"Any sensible assessment will tell you that it is sheer nonsense to think that this is going to be a move that you have to do because of pressure or that you are going to get a lot of votes because you move. There are no votes in this either way.

"But governance cannot and should not be based only on such political calculations. You need to do what you think is right and we thought it is the right thing to do at this stage."

The proposed changes, announced last month in Parliament, give judges discretion in certain instances of drug trafficking and murder. Some activist groups have hailed it as a victory and attribute the result to their efforts.

Mr Shanmugam disagreed that public pressure had anything to do with it. He said the Government periodically reviews its death penalty laws, such as in 2006, 2009 and again in 2011.

That said, Mr Shanmugam explained that the Government will engage stakeholders before changing the law: "We consulted very widely with academics, with criminal law practitioners and now we intend - before the legislation has been put in place - to consult very widely."

Related

Understanding their concerns, one on one