Is civil society the site for democratic contention in Singapore? If you were reading about Singapore during the 1990s, the answer would have probably been 'yes'. These days it does not seem to be the case. There is growing evidence that civil society has been set on the back foot in the city-state.

Democracy in Singapore has often been described as a difficult exercise. In fact, many observers have concluded that the island city-state is an illiberal democracy that exercises stringent control over political expression. A variety of laws and regulations that place restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and association are often cited as reasons for this.

Yet despite such constrains, a variety of political and social expressions do take place in Singapore. This has led some observers in the 1990s to conclude that contesting the nature of this illiberal democracy in the short- to middle-term is likely to take place at the realm of civil society. In fact, many claim that civil society, rather than electoral politics, will be the site for democratic growth.

Such observations arose because since the 1990s a variety of civil society groups, after a period of lull, were identified as acting independently and contributing to debates on specific policy matters. These included inputs on women's issues, the environment, the arts, political topics and Malay/Muslim problems.

Non-governmental organisations such as Aware, the Nature Society of Singapore, several theatre and drama groups, the Roundtable, Socratic Circle and the Association of Muslim Professionals were identified as contributing to the re-emerging civil society that had taken a backseat due to the early years of political consolidation by the ruling People's Action Party.

In the mid-1990s, the arrival and commercialisation of the Internet discussion forums, chat groups and websites, both local and overseas, gave further impetus to the argument that civil society engagement was on the rise. Young Singaporeans were singled out as being the generation that is likely to push for more change with globalisation, the rise of English language usage, overseas education and the Internet.

Gay activism

In the background, gay activism was also becoming more prominent through the arts and the local entertainment scene. The gay advocacy group, People Like Us, operated informally without any approval for registration as a society.

This momentum was kept up when more initiatives came to the fore - The Working Committee, Think Centre and Fateha. Through a mixture of online communication and focus on issues such as civil society development, human rights and Muslim rights advocacy, respectively, these groups where able to bring more to the civil society landscape.

This phenomenon through the early to late 1990s resulted in a variety of commentaries both in academic and journalistic publications for the claim that the site of democratic contestation is from the civil society. Such claims are made in spite the absence of evidence of changes in legislation that provide for a more enabling environment for civil society groups to operate. Instead, the informal space at the level of rhetoric and practice were cited as evidence.

However, in light of emerging developments in the Singapore polity, it is important to reassess this claim. The Internet as a medium has been effectively tamed with the introduction of comprehensive legislation. The Roundtable, after being 10 years in existence dissolved in April 2004.

The Malay/Muslim site Fateha eventually shut down its operations after its editor literally fled the country to escape criminal defamation charges for publishing "libellous" article on the site. The discussion group - the Socratic Circle - has been dormant for several years, and even the Think Centre operates in a reduced scope and intensity, and has not seen leadership renewal since 2000 and its website in need of a serious revamp.

Some even argue that with the building of the Esplanade theatre, the wind has been literally taken out of the arts scene. The art scene is sometimes criticised for staging one too many gay theme plays. In 2004, gay advocacy group People Like US was once again denied registration as a society, and private initiatives to hold gay theme public forums continue not to have permits issued.

Freedom to do drugs

And the Singapore youth has been dismissed as largely a self-centred and naive lot - limiting the overseas educational experience to socialising among themselves, going on excursion trips and talking about food, while any form of social and political activity is avoided or kept to a minimum. Freedom for some is equated with engaging in night life and the drug scene that some foreign education sites offer.

Those who migrate are not ready fodder to start an overseas democracy movement. In fact, the pattern for most migrants who leave the country is to live life "undercover". Many want next to nothing to do with Singapore, instead their focus is often their children and to explore opportunities and freedoms that Singapore did not afford them.

In light of these trends, it is important to review the claim that civil society is indeed the site of democratic contestation in Singapore. Increasingly, this claim has been overstated by many commentators.

Tomorrow: Open society - long on rhetoric, short on content

More articles in the 'A new Singapore?' series

JAMES GOMEZ is the coordinator of the Monash Asia Institute's Singapore Studies project on civil society. In the next two weeks, malaysiakini will showcase daily opinion pieces on various issues related to Singapore by different writers associated with the project. For more information about the project and archive of articles, visit www.jamesgomeznews.com .