I refer to Mr Michael Heng Swee Lai's letter, "Good govt existed in S'pore before there were NGOs" (ST, March 13)

It is encouraging to see such a healthy discussion on "civil society" occurring in the local media. The space that this discussion is taking place in is part of that very space which the arena of civil society comprises. In this space, everyone (including the government) can engage one another on matters pertaining to society at large and individuals at hand. Unfortunately, Mr Michael Heng deems the diverting of resources to the creation of this space is a "waste".

It seems that Mr Michael Heng not only has a skewered view of democracy but also an equally puzzling recollection of history.

Mr Heng's democracy is one which permits its citizens the right of vote every four years following which they should put up and shut up and let the elected government run the show until "corruption and the abuse of political power and office are demonstrated evidently." I ask Mr Heng who he expects to highlight and rectify the situation should it occur? In the absence of credible political opposition, civil society has a critical role to play. However, such a dire development should not even occur in the first place had the government worked in close partnership with the people.

Since the "vast majority" of Singaporeans have "repeatedly" voted for the PAP, "the Government does indeed represent their collective interests." What about the minority of Singaporeans (which incidentally is just under one-third according to the last few election results) who were not able to get their views represented? Should the tyranny of the majority then hold sway? Is there no space in Mr Heng's democracy for this minority? The arena of civil society offers the opportunity to Singaporeans marginalized in formal political processes to articulate their views responsibly. 

I am also puzzled by Mr Heng's claim that "the vast majority of people do not belong to any NGO". Are most Singaporeans (and I assure My Heng, most Americans) not members of Churches, trade-unions, parent-teacher associations, school alumnis, and volunteer-welfare organisations? 

Equally bewildering is his assertation that "Government in Singapore grew to its stature today in the absence of NGOs and other civic groups". Should Mr Heng care to spend a day in our now rapidly expiring library in Stamford Road and leaf through some of the pages of our history, he will find a plethora (some would argue a cacophony) of NGO and civic groups that had been in existence since the colonisation of Singapore. That NGOs today are more noticeable for their absence begs the question of what had happened to them since then. Glaringly, the absence of a critical history of Singapore's civil society in the mainstream has allowed people like Mr Heng to engage in selective amnesia. 

Contrary to what Mr Heng thinks, civil society is not the anti-thesis of the government and attempts to present such a simplistic picture should be avoided. The relationship between civil society and government should not be perceived as a zero-sum one but one of complementarity. 

The obviously impeccable government that we already have has been thoroughly institutionalised. How much more "institutionalising" does Mr Heng wants?

Civil society is not an institution that needs a vast amount of resources to go into the creating. The government can certainly help in clearing the space for civil society to develop. All it needs thus is room to grow and nourishment from the Singaporeans from all walks of life. I recommend that concerned citizens like Mr Heng participate in the making of this space, or step aside and not get in the way by distorting facts and misrepresenting history to the detriment of all Singaporeans.

IT IS encouraging to see a healthy discussion on civil society under way in the local media. The space in which this discussion is taking place is part of the arena of civil society. 

Unfortunately, Mr Michael Heng Swee Hai in his letter, "Good govt existed in S"pore before there were NGOs" (ST, March 13) deems the diversion of resources to the creation of this space a waste. 

Mr Heng not only has a skewered view of democracy but also an equally puzzling recollection of history. 

His democracy is one which permits its citizens the right to vote every four years, following which they should shut up and let the elected government run the show unless "corruption and the abuse of political power and office are demonstrated evidently". 

I ask Mr Heng who he expects will highlight and rectify such a situation should it occur? In the absence of a credible political opposition, civil society thus has a critical role to play. 

And such a dire development should not come to pass if the government works in close partnership with the people. 

Mr Heng states that as the "vast majority" of Singaporeans have repeatedly voted for the PAP, "the Government does indeed represent their collective interests". 

What about the minority of Singaporeans (just under one-third in the last few election results) who were not able to get their views represented? Should the tyranny of the majority then hold sway? 

The arena of civil society offers the opportunity to Singaporeans marginalised in formal political processes to articulate their views responsibly. 

I am also puzzled by the writer's claim that "the vast majority of people do not belong to any NGO". 

Are not most Singaporeans members of churches, trade unions, parent-teacher associations and alumni bodies and volunteers in welfare organisations? 

Equally bewildering is his assertation that "government in Singapore grew to its stature today in the absence of NGOs and other civic groups". 

There exists historical evidence that NGOs and civic groups existed since colonial times. That NGOs today are more noticeable for their absence begs the question of what happened to them since then. 

Contrary to what Mr Heng thinks, civil society is not the antithesis of government and attempts to present such a simplistic picture should be avoided. 

The relationship between civil society and government should not be perceived as zero-sum but complementary. 

The impeccable government that we have has been thoroughly institutionalised. How much more "institutionalising" does Mr Heng want? 

To create civil society does not require a vast amount of resources. 

The Government can certainly help by clearing the space for civil society to develop. All it needs is room to grow and nourishment from Singaporeans from all walks of life. 

I recommend that concerned citizens like Mr Heng either participate in the making of this space or step aside and not get in the way by distorting facts to the detriment of all Singaporeans.