NGOs not for economical reasons only

I refer to the article by Ms Theresa Tan entitled "Singapore drawing more non-profit groups". As a Singaporean who has volunteered and worked abroad with non-profits (NPs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), I applaud EDB’s efforts to attract more non-profit groups to Singapore, but would like to offer a few comments.

Even if they are non-profit, I would not describe or associate some of the organisations which Ms Tan features as, in EDB’s Mr Kua’s words, "civil society". Civil society is often described as a sector of citizens and for citizens. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), on the other hand, is a UN agency and has 184 member States. Further, as Ms Tan acknowledges, the Regional Disease Intervention Centre (REDIC) was set up by the Singapore and US governments. Neither is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) nor a grassroots initiative, both of which are strong features of a vibrant civil society.

Ms Tan writes that Singapore is attractive to international NPs and NGOs because of its "location, excellent infrastructure, and large number of …MNCs". I disagree. These are well-known (and publicized) hallmarks of Singapore’s fantastic economic development which draw profit-driven MNCs, not NGOs. It has been my experience that such organisations also desire an environment that encourages citizens to question the public policies of the day, and participate in shaping them.


Greenpeace members dress up as orang utans outside Unilever offices, London, to protest the destruction of the endangered species' habitat from the spread of oil palm plantations.


It is disingenuous to invite international "civil society" in a bid to make Singapore a "world-class city", but insist that the NGOs that come to Singapore are "practical". Not only does this limit the very spirit of civil society, i.e. which the London School of Economics defines as uncoerced non-government collective action around shared interests, purposes and values, but it begs the question: when is an NP "practical" and when is it being "activist"?

Suppose World Vision, a renowned faith-based organization which the author mentions, decides to act on the grievances of the disabled community in Singapore and proposes reforms that the Singapore government could introduce, would that organisation be deemed impermissible? I think such activism is noble and should certainly be welcomed. By contrast, WIPO and REDIC being in Singapore hardly impact on the average Singaporean. In fact, they do not even assist in achieving the goals that Mr. Kua has set out for NPs: i.e. lending Singapore civil society "credibility" or promoting "intangibles…that attract people" to Singapore.

Amidst EDB’s desire to give international NPs "incentives such as tax exemptions", what is the plight of local NGOs? We have a good number of NGOs in Singapore who are doing excellent work and represent what civil society can and should be. The Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES) was set up in 2001 by a group of Singaporeans to raise awareness of the illegal trade in wildlife here. The Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME) was set up in 2004 to address the plight of foreign workers and migrants living and working in Singapore. Yet, funding and support for such NGOs remains minimal. Is EDB telling Singaporeans who want to be social activists in the name of positive change that there is no room for them in a country that only woos "practical" foreign NPs?

All this troubles me. Having spent time in Asian countries where civil society tangibly promotes social change, I sometimes feel I can accomplish far more abroad than in Singapore, where my ideas as a citizen are apparently not welcome unless they are "practical". The result of such an approach is that Singapore will continue to push passionate individuals away from the country, and for that, we cannot be blamed for being quitters. Ultimately, a mature civil society is not just meant, as Ms Tan or Mr Kua suggest, "to create jobs" or attract foreigners and tourists. It is meant to inspire Singaporeans to care; to take collective responsibility for communal or global problems.

Vinita Ramani Mohan