ABSTRACT
Grassroots organizations have been an important nation-building tool in Singapore since the 1960s. The organizational networks discussed here were created by the state to shape local community leadership as well as provide feedback to the government regarding the citizenry’s responses to policies that have generally been initiated in a highly centralized and top-down manner. In recent decades, as Singapore has evolved into a modern city-state of 4.5 million people, these grassroots organizations have contributed not only to the nation-building project but also to politics at the local level. In the course of 40 years of nationhood, more and more types of organization have been added to the list of grassroots groups that have been active on the ground since the rise of the People’s Action Party (PAP). This has been the political party in power since 1965, which Singapore celebrates as the year of its independence. While politically motivated and closely linked to the state, these grassroots organizations nevertheless have been highly active in mobilizing residents in the city-state in support of both national and local programs. As they meld together the roles of state and civic sectors, they raise the question of whether such collective movements preclude the search for alternatives, as David Harvey (2000) has argued, or if they represent a grassroots approach to decentralization, as political scientists and sociologists in Singapore have countered. There are sociologists who consider the idea of community “idealistic, utopian and backward-looking” (Puddifoot 1995: 358). Indeed, Harvey has pointed out that “community” often means securing and enhancing privileges already gained for the wealthy while for the poor or marginalized it all too often means “controlling their own slums” (2000: 106). Yet this term has by no means lost its relevance or resonance, as indicated, for example, by the popularity of the new urbanism movement in the United States (Katz 1994). This movement promotes “real neighborhoods” and a sense of community in order to overcome civic deficits and build social capital in urban areas (Talen 1999). Indeed, Harvey’s thesis is that an undercurrent of grassroots ferment is omnipresent in all places and localities, though its interests, objectives, and organizational forms are typically fragmented, multiple, and of varying intensity (Harvey 2000: 106; Harvey 1996). In arguing that collective grassroots politics are often constrained and narrowly channeled with a view to maintaining the status quo rather than effecting social change (Harvey 2000), the
example cited is often the homeowner association of suburban America, established for the protection of property values, privileges, and lifestyles (Davis 1990). While there appears to have been a revival of interest, at least in planning circles, in promoting a sense of community among residents of urban neighborhoods, the effort at community development has been an important aspect of the political process in Singapore since it became an independent city-state. In Singapore, where policy decision-making has been highly centralized within the state, grassroots organizations operating at the neighborhood level have been seen as an approach, albeit a rather unique one, toward decentralizing governance (Haque 1996). In the discussion that follows, the state’s agenda for grassroots organizations like the Residents’ Committees will be considered in relation to the impact of the work that they carry out on the ground. The aim is to understand the contributions such grassroots organizations are making to forms of civic engagement and citizens’ participation in governance, particularly at the grassroots level. So the discussion will consider:
• the scale and extent of the development of grassroots organizations in the city-state of Singapore;
• the level of participation by people at the grassroots in activities promoted by these institutions;
• and the impact and implications arising from the work these organizations carry out.
