Public service and civil society: The lines are starting to blur

The public service and civil society are beginning to collaborate more - and that can only be good for all
Eugene K B Tan Today Online 25 Jul 11;

Earlier this month, there were two contrasting stories about how Singaporeans and ministries and government agencies were engaging each other on matters that they are concerned with.

First, the Ministry of National Development (MND) announced on July 11 that it would form an inter-agency task force to review pet ownership and stray animal management policies. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority will collaborate with the Cat Welfare Society and three town councils in piloting the Stray Cat Sterilisation Programme as an alternative means of managing stray cats.

The MND explained that the review of pet ownership and stray animal management policies occurs against the backdrop of "growing public awareness and concern for animals". Different stakeholders will be engaged to address their problems and concerns.

The review is ultimate objective is "to create a conducive shared living environment for everyone". This presumably includes animals as well as residents regardless of whether they were animal lovers or not. This tentative shift of a long-standing policy followed an extended period of engagement by animal welfare groups on the issue.

The MND's approach is an attempt at what has been termed "service co-creation". In essence, it is about a Government and civil society partnership, with collaboration and cooperation being the hallmarks in the delivery of public services or in the formulation of policies at the municipal and national level.

It is very much about tapping the social capital, local knowledge and domain expertise within a community to benefit the community, while enhancing the stock of social capital in the process. Co-creation also acknowledges the limitations of the Government in delivering public services, and that money alone is inadequate in the effective and efficacious delivery of public services with a human touch.

Grassroots expertise can be a force multiplier in service delivery. Service co-creation can also lower the "transaction costs" of delivering public services because it seeks to tap local knowledge and work with the local community which has a vested interest in the outcomes.

CITIZENS WANT IN

Driving this trend is the desire of citizens to be involved and not be a mere digit in policy-making and policy implementation.

As a society matures, post-material considerations become more important. People increasingly seek self-fulfillment, self-actualisation and to be consulted on issues that concern them or affect their communities. This sense of involvement and engagement is an important manifestation of active citizenry.

In Singapore's context, service co-creation is not a wholly new idea - the "many helping hands" approach to social service is a good example. Yet beyond the social services sector, the question has been: How keen is the public service to reach out and collaborate in a substantive manner? If "collaboration" is more form than substance, this may put the brakes on service co-creation because community partners are likely to shy away from lip service.

The May General Election might just have been the catalyst for action. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, in a speech to public officers a week after the GE, noted that it was "neither effective nor sustainable" for the public service to try to solve problems on its own. The public service needed to "create an environment where public officers can work hand-in-glove with the people they serve to address the issues and create greater public value".

DPM Teo added that an engaged citizenry "will provide the foundation for a more resilient and cohesive society".

We can certainly expect more service co-creation; it may well be the next big thing in active citizenry. This year's HeritageFest and the SportsVision 2030 are examples of the larger effort of consultation, collaboration and engagement.

But the modalities of collaboration will have to be worked out, as there cannot be a one size fits all approach. Both Government and civil society must approach service co-creation with open minds, and realise it may not be suitable in all instances. There must be realistic expectations about what service co-creation can do - and what it cannot do.

REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

In this regard, the Land Transport Authority's (LTA) engagement of a group of Maplewoods condominium residents who had been seeking to relocate a MRT launch shaft away from their property is insightful. The residents proposed that the launch shaft - needed to lower and launch tunnel boring machines for construction of the underground Downtown Line 2 - be located instead at Sixth Avenue, a few blocks away.

Regretfully, that proposal smacked of a "not in my backyard" mindset. The relocation proposal would require the acquisition and demolition of 10 shophouse units at Sixth Avenue, or for the occupants to move elsewhere while construction takes place with the shophouses to be rebuilt later.

Such a move apparently would delay the project by 38 months and add S$500 million to the projected total cost of S$12 billion. The LTA also responded in a 10-page letter detailing measures to minimise the adverse impact of the construction of the King Albert Park MRT Station. In the meantime, the LTA halted drilling work for a month as it consulted and engaged residents on their concerns.

In service co-creation, a key question that will have to be addressed is whether the relationship is one of equal partners. Certainly, each partner will bring its strengths to the table and it may not be helpful to talk in terms of who is in charge. But the reality is that the Government will ultimately be held responsible, especially if things turn out badly. So, cautiousness on the part of the public service is not surprising.

Yet, service co-creation is important for the public service and for Singapore. The public service does not have the monopoly on wisdom, and the public policies ultimately must serve the people and engender buy-in.

At the same time, service co-creation requires more than just volunteerism on the part of the community. It is about being involved, responsible and steadfast to the commitment undertaken. Volunteerism may lack the degree of accountability needed for a sustained delivery of high-quality public services.

When co-creation has taken root, we can look at such services as community generated, delivered and consumed. The distinction between what is public and what is people sector will be blurred.

Eugene K B Tan is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law.