you're reading...

A Messier National Conversation In The Future

Before the year 2011, a group of 20-odd elderly men in Potong Pasir used to gather daily around a void deck, rather spontaneously. A haphazard collection of flowerpots by the side marked their cosy conversation space, and for years they came together to chit-chat, to eat fruits, and to muse about issues within the constituency and beyond.

Then, the General Elections happened. Town Council flyers were stuck systematically onto the flowerpots, and they were then moved to a fenced-up “Community Garden” overnight. The group of old men never came together thereafter.

This anecdote was shared during an Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) mini-dialogue a few weeks ago, which focused on the way forward of the OSC exercise (the formal publication or newsmagazine is available here). The stated intent of this specific article was to look at “how the conversation amongst Singaporeans could continue into the future”. It sounded reasonable.

I remain opposed to the notion of an “aide memorie” or “memory aid” (here), and made is quite clear that any document which focuses on facts and figures (popularly known as key performance indicators) – instead of the exploration of ideas – will have little significance.

Should we continue with this discourse? Can the OSC mechanism address the trust deficit between the government and the citizenry?

Nonetheless, the cosy setting of the mini-dialogue (just four of us) made for a tremendously enjoyable conversation. The fact that we disagreed on points rendered the discourse even richer. While some thought that the OSC engagement process was well-intentioned and well-executed, valid criticisms were highlighted. There was the lack of representation (linguistic or vernacular barriers, marginalised communities were not empowered); the second phase was still considerably generic (because many participants did not join the first phase; and the OSC team did not capitalise cleverly upon the numerous online platforms available.

This evaluative discussion was necessary before we explored how the national conversation should proceed. Should we continue with this discourse? Can the OSC mechanism address the trust deficit between the government and the citizenry? We agreed on two main points:

First, if the consultation process is to be constructive, it has to be organised competently. While we have moved away from the antiquated format of not having large-scale dialogue sessions (not entirely though, since we still have a slight predilection for policy-makers to make closing remarks, or to field questions, here), all of us concurred that the facilitators must be proficient, to know when to entertain viewpoints. An effective volunteer facilitator during my first session (here) allowed for diverse opinions to be articulated fairly.

Second, moving forward, we need to allow for a degree of messiness. Like the earlier anecdote, while a central “Community Garden” manned by a gardener would allow for produce to grow, some things – like the oft-cited kampong spirit – will only flourish when Singaporeans contribute collectively. The same goes for a national conversation, consultation.

Any suggestions would therefore have to include a heightened acceptance of such spontaneity. The proliferation of information and publications online can be overwhelming, but this process of exchange should be embraced. Consequently, on significant matters or policy decisions, the respective ministries can organise focus group discussions to gather relevant feedback. The under-promoted OSC web platforms should be rejuvenated to sustain the many sessions happening around the island. Some lessons can be drawn from the Committee to Strengthen National Service, which has expanded its online presence productively (here). The imminent end of the OSC does not mean the actual process ceases.
Most importantly, we have to remember: the OSC is but one conversation that is going on.

The challenge now is to sustain the actual process beyond the OSC. Very conveniently, the success of the yearlong endeavour can be quantified by the policies enacted, but it shouldn’t. Instead, we will know if we have truly succeeded when we stand behind our propositions confidently, when processes of perpetual consultation and communication are sustained throughout the country, and when individual citizens are galvanised to have their voices heard (when they plan independent chats to have themselves heard).

Talk, we always must.

Click on the above image, to access the OSC Reflections report.

About guanyinmiao

A man of knowledge lives by acting, not by thinking about acting. Carlos Castaneda.


17 thoughts on “A Messier National Conversation In The Future

  1. There is no need to waste time and resources on this OCS.
    A good example to emulate is this article I have read at http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/natcon-pm-should-have-tried-driving-a-cab/

    ” Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg spent an afternoon working incognito as a taxi driver in Oslo, he has revealed.

    Mr Stoltenberg said he had wanted to hear from real Norwegian voters and that taxis were one of the few places where people shared their true views.

    He wore sunglasses and an Oslo taxi driver’s uniform for the shift in June, only revealing his identity once he was recognised by his passengers.”

    Posted by A. Sim | August 12, 2013, 5:04 pm
  2. This conversation is a big waste of time. They know people dislike the idea of human driven GDP growth. Have they given any solution? No. According to the national paper, what they found out are the most fundamental needs of a citizen living in the country. Havn’t they not know yet till now? We are now living in a country that is hungry for GDP and foreign labours are the driving factor. When these labour over power our local population, we might have lost our right. Do you not fear? I fear. This country is being run like a corporate where most corporate (that I have encounter) in this very country we live in adopt an attitude of “no one is indispensible”. This “no one” refers to the world population. We, Singaporean are just one of them, in this country. If Singaporeans are treated fairly, foreigners are even fairer in our country.
    When the labour market is flood with these cheap foreign talents, local work force especially those fresh graduates get their salary cut, a cut to match those third world countries foreign talent wage demand. Employers just have to give you an impression. “If you don’t want this job is Okie. Cheap foreigner is every where. I set your salary. Take it or leave it.”
    Yes! GDP growth but GROWTH in OUR EXPENSE. Why? Employers are assuming that our parents or children lives in the third world countries what has a low cost of living! Who gain the most? RICH AND THE MEGA RICH POLICY MAKER, isn’t it? Am I angry? Yes I am. Am i forgiving? No I am not. Why? Nothing significant has change in the past 2.5 years after the election.

    Posted by Remy | August 12, 2013, 9:04 pm


  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 12 Aug 2013 | The Singapore Daily - August 12, 2013

  2. Pingback: National Day Rally 2013: Live-Blogging | guanyinmiao's musings - August 18, 2013

  3. Pingback: Much Ado About Trust | guanyinmiao's musings - June 18, 2014

  4. Pingback: Trusting The People | guanyinmiao's musings - June 23, 2014

  5. Pingback: 24 | guanyinmiao's musings - April 6, 2015

  6. Pingback: Diverse Singapore Conversations | guanyinmiao's musings - September 4, 2015

  7. Pingback: Conversations Critical For Servant Leadership | guanyinmiao's musings - October 9, 2015

  8. Pingback: SGfuture dialogues: Let them not be same old, same old... - The Middle Ground - December 2, 2015

  9. Pingback: Throwback: Articles From “The Middle Ground” | guanyinmiao's musings - January 13, 2016

  10. Pingback: Calls For Discourse Diversity Not New | guanyinmiao's musings - January 25, 2016

  11. Pingback: Drumming Up Youth Interest In #Budget2018? Try These Five Short-Term Strategies | guanyinmiao's musings - January 22, 2018

  12. Pingback: Youth Engagement Cannot Be Same Old, Same Old | guanyinmiao's musings - March 14, 2018

  13. Pingback: Success Of New National Conversation Depends On Participation Of “Naysayers” And The Less Privileged | guanyinmiao's musings - May 19, 2018

  14. Pingback: Ground Engagement Should Be The Norm For Politicians And Civil Servants | guanyinmiao's musings - November 27, 2018

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


  • RT @angabridged: I can carry on with my research perfectly fine without using the SLP data, thank you. But this kind of data hoarding behav… 2 hours ago
  • RT @angabridged: One of the comments from a rejected grant app was that I should "[consider] tapping on data from existing studies such as… 2 hours ago
  • RT @themaxburns: A quarter of the country was significantly miscounted and then we built electoral maps based on that but no big deal, righ… 1 day ago
  • RT @themaxburns: When respected Census experts and statisticians from across the country warned Americans that Trump's dicking around with… 1 day ago
  • RT @benwikler: Pumpkin goes for a “walk” https://t.co/UTPabuxSkx 1 day ago
%d bloggers like this: