Relationship Between the State and the Voluntary Sector in Singapore

1

The Changing Relationship between the State and the Voluntary Philanthropic Sector: Special Reference to Singapore

Abstract: There has been a significant proliferation of voluntary philanthropic organizations to deliver basic services in the current context of anti-welfare neoliberal policies pursued by the state. While there are numerous studies and publications on these voluntary organizations, the nature of their relationship with the state remains relatively under-researched. This article attempts to explore this issue in the case Singapore where, in the absence of an active welfare state,the voluntary philanthropic organizations – especially the Voluntary Welfare Organizations (VWOs) – have played a crucial role in serving citizens’ welfare needs. In evaluating the nature and determinants of this state-VWO relationship, the article examines some relevant theoretical models and applies them to the Singapore case.

Keywords: TheState, Voluntary Sector, Changing Relationship, Implications, Singapore

I. Introduction

In recent years, with the diminishing role of the state in social welfare programs, there has been a significant proliferation of nonprofit volunteer organizations involved inphilanthropic welfare activities.Even in developed nations like Australia, the UK, and the US, the role of the voluntary philanthropic sector has considerably expanded to deliver social services that were often state-managed in the past (Austin, 2003; Dollery and Wallis, 2001).In general, the reasons for this rising role of the voluntary sector include the incapacity of public sector agencies to provide essential social services, the failure of market forces to satisfy people’s basic needs, and the erosion of public trust in state and family institutions (Kendall and Knapp 1999; Dollery and Wallis, 2001; Anheier and Kendall, 2000). In the developing world, while the decades prior the 1980s saw an expansion of state agencies as the main actors in postcolonial development and nation building, under the current neoliberal policy atmosphere, such state agencies are considered inappropriate, and greater importance is given to non-government or voluntary sector organizations as an essential component of “good governance” (Lewis, 1998; Baron 2002). For Raddon (2008:28), the proliferation of voluntary philanthropy is conducive to neoliberal governance as it helps legitimize social inequality, facilitatesstate restructuring (by outsourcing social services to voluntary organizations), and narrows down the ideal of citizenship based on charity.

On the other hand, the proponents of philanthropy argue that beyond the delivery of much needed basic services, it generates employment, enhances people’s capacity through education, mitigate social conflicts, and so on (Anheier, 2000; Warren, 2003). The recent economic crises (e.g. the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the global recession in 2008), which demonstrated both market failure and state incapacity, also enhanced the importance of voluntary philanthropic organizations to meet the basic needs of people affected by such crises (Wilhelm, 2010; Tan, 2003). The growing significance of such voluntary organizations can also be observed in the academic sphere in terms of expansive research and publications related to voluntary organizations in all major regions of the world (Lewis, 1998; Dollery, Wallis, and Crase, 2002), although there are major shortcomings in such literature in terms of the relative absence of established concepts, agreed theoretical consensus, and acceptable analytical framework (Gidron, Kramer and Salamon, 1992a).One major lacuna in existing research, according to Dollery, Wallis, and Crase (2002), is the fact that there is insufficientunderstanding of the nature of relationship between the voluntary philanthropic sector and the state.This article attempts to explore this particular dimension, i.e. the relationship between the state and this voluntary sector, in the case of Singapore.

In the absence of an active welfare state in Singapore, the government has pursued the use of the voluntary philanthropicorganizations as an alternative for meeting the needs of less privileged citizens and realizing other socioeconomic objectives. As mentioned by Sim, Ghoh, Loh, and Chiu (2015:iv), “Singapore is not a welfare state. The Government provide initiatives and policies to ensure that Singaporeans are self-sufficient.” In this regard, Lim Soo Hoon (2000), former Permanent Secretary of erstwhile Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, mentions that volunteerism is used as an approach to help the “less fortunate”, mobilize resources for community needs, and enhance a sense of identity and ownership. Although Singapore is a very small city-state of less than 4 million citizens, it has more than 1900 registered Charities – including most of the 400 Voluntary Welfare Organizations (VWOs) and 500 Institutions of a Public Character – and the total annual income of these charities reached S$9.02 billion in 2008(OCC, 2009; NCSS, 2009).In particular, “VWOs play an important role in delivering the social services in Singapore. They serve the poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged” (Sim, Ghoh, Loh, and Chiu, 2015:iv).In fact, Singapore has one of the most well-organized and effectively managed philanthropic organizations, especially the VWOs, in Asia. It also has an increasing number citizens with greater confidence in charities and philanthropic activities. For instance, between 2006 and 2010, the percentage of population with high level confidence in charities increased from 28% to 38% (NVPC, 2010:23).

Although there is ample information about these voluntary organizations and their activities, there is a relative lack of research on the nature of their relationship with the government, which requires further study, especially due to the unique nature of the state in Singapore characterized by one-party dominance and anti-welfarism (Bell, 1997; Low, 2000). In addition, the nature of this relationship between the government and the voluntary sector has undergone some changes in recent years based on a greater emphasis on efficiency, cost consciousness, transparency, and performance (NCSS, 2003a).

In the above context, this article begins with the background and scope of voluntary philanthropic organizations as well as their functional categories in the case of Singapore. It then explains the nature or mode of relationship between these voluntary organizations and the state. The analysis draws interpretations from existing literature on various models of such relationship. The article also examines the major causal factors determining or shaping the specific nature of this relationship in Singapore. In this venture, various theories or approaches available in relevant literature are explored and compared. The article concludes by making some observations on the implications or outcomes of the changing mode of relationship between the state and the voluntary sector in this city-state.

II. Voluntary Philanthropic Organizations in Singapore

Voluntary organizations are defined by some scholars in terms of criteria or qualifications such as formal organizational structure, non-government and self-governing management, non-profit and non-market service provisions, and activities based on voluntarism and trust (Kendall and Knapp, 1995; Anheier, 2000; Sim, Ghoh, Loh, and Chiu, 2015).This view resembles the interpretation of the voluntary sector thatemerged from the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project. It offers the so-called “structural-operational” definition of the voluntary sector in terms of its five major features--it has to be organized (with organizational attributes),private (separate from government),self-governing (controlling and managing own activities),non-profit-distributing (noprofits made for those in management), and voluntary (based on adequate voluntary participation) (Salamon and Anheier, 1998; Morris, 2000).

In the case of Singapore, such voluntary organizations began to emerge during the British colonial rule as self-help associations involved in community-based activities (e.g. building schools, houses, and hospitals), especially the Chinese clan association representing various Chinese self-help groups (Tanaka, 2002:201-202). These self-help groups became marginalized after the take-over of power by the People’s Action Party (PAP)in 1959, which introduced state-run services and reduced non-government activities (Tanaka, 2002:205), although this ruling party endorsed the creation of its own set of organizations known as Voluntary Welfare Organizations (VWOs). The origin of such VWOs canbe traced back to the introduction of the Societies Ordinance in 1889 under the British colonial rule, which was amended several times and became the Societies Act in 1966.This Societies Act provides considerable power to the Registrar of Societies approving or rejecting the legal status of non-state entities, including VWOs. However, voluntary services remained quite piecemeal and fragmented before the creation of the Singapore Council of Social Service as the coordinating body in1958, and it was reorganized as the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) created through the National Council of Social Service Act (1992, revised in 2001).

Currently,the NCSS is a statutory board under the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) – formerly known as the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) until 2012 – which coordinatesand supervises all VWOs and their services(NCSS, 2003b; Sim, Ghoh, Loh, and Chiu, 2015). These VWOs are usually philanthropic organizations with self-governing trustees or councils, they have considerable autonomy from the stare, and they are non-profit entitiesproducing benefits for those who are not their members. In order to finance VWOs, the so-called Community Chest was created in 1983 as the fund-raising arm of the NCSS (NCSS, 2003b).In addition, for developing strategic plans and policies for VWOs, the Governance and Management Capability Committee was established in 2002 under the auspices of the NCSS. This Committee developed the so-called Code of Governance & Management for VWOs in Singapore for regulating the conducts of all VWOs (NCSS, 2003c:1).On the other hand, in order to attract and expand the pool of volunteers for VWOs, theNational Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) wascreated in 1999to promote volunteerism and philanthropy, collect and share relevant information, and facilitate community-giving through networking(NVPC, 2000; Tan and Tan 2002; Sim, Ghoh, Loh, and Chiu, 2015). Moreover, for encouraging best practices and boost public confidence in the charity sector, the Charity Council was created and legally appointed 2007.

These organizational features of VWOs in Singapore are in line with the definition and principles of voluntary philanthropic organizations discussed at the beginning of this section. More specifically, each VWO in Singapore is based on volunteerism, remains non-profit making in nature, offers various social and community services, helps those in need or distress, and works with stakeholders like the volunteers, state agencies, private organizations, and the community(NCSS, 2003a).In terms of the scope and typology of VWOs in Singapore, Jones (2002:63) includes “charitable organizations, community associations, ethnically based self-help groups, and religious bodies.” There are more than 450 VWOs (which are listed as NCSS members) in somemajor areas, including children and family services, culture and recreation, education and research, healthservices, disability services, social services, gender issues, the environment, and so on (NCSS, 2018). The long list of all VWOs is available at the NCSS website (NCSS, 2018).In terms of the share of volunteering activities, the most popular sectors attracting volunteers are social service, civic help, fund-raising, education,environmental efforts, and religious activities (NVPC, 2002).

III. Nature of State-VWO Relationship: Patterns and Trends

Among the major factors determining the effectiveness and outcomes of the voluntary sector, one most critical concern is the nature of its relationship with the state, because this relationship often affects thesector’s operational scope, financial capacity, and power and legitimacy. This section of the article examines the major models of this relationship between the state and the voluntary sector, and explains the nature of such relationship in the case of Singapore.

General Models of Government-Voluntary Relations

In existing literature, there are some major studies exploring and classifying the modes of relationship between the government and the voluntary sector, which are illustrated by different scholars in terms of various models, including the competitive, collaborative, complementary, government-dominant, third-sector-dominant, dual-track, adversarial, and other similar models (see Gidron, Kramer and Salamon, 1992b; Young 2000). However, since these models of the state-voluntaryrelationship are often overlapping, they can be categorized into five major models with some degree of mutual distinctions.

First, the government-dominantmodel emphasizes a dominant role of the public sector or the government in funding and providing services and it resembles the “welfare state” model (Gidron, Kramer and Salamon, 1992b).This government-dominant modelis also similar to the so-called “planning”and “submission”models(Lyons, 2001) under which the government specifies for voluntary organizations the nature of services and modes of service delivery based on consultation. However, for the planning model, the government provides uniform guidelines of approval for various voluntary organizations; whereas for the submission model, the approval decisions are made on a case-by-case basis (Lyons, 2001).Second, in opposition to the above model,under the third-sector-dominant model, it is voluntary organizations that tend to play the dominant role in financing and delivering services, which can be observed in cases where there is strong opposition to the state’sinvolvement in welfare provisions (Dollery, Wallis, and Crase, 2002).A similar but more flexible approach is the so-called “third party” model under which,the voluntary organizations play a dominant role with the encouragement of the state(ibid, 2002).

Third, in-between the above two opposing models is the so-called dual-track or parallel-track model, according to which the role of financing and delivering of services is shared between government agencies and voluntary organizations (Gidron, Kramer and Salamon, 1992b). This supplementary model is based on the assumption of government failurethat the state fails to reach certain clients, to deliver certain services, and/or to satisfy the heterogeneous needs of different individuals or groups (Dollery, Wallis, and Crase, 2002).Fourth, while the above dual-track model postulatesthe parallel roles of the state and the voluntary sector, under the collaboration or cooperationmodel, these two actors share the role and responsibility of funding and providing services(Gidron, Kramer and Salamon, 1992b; Gronberg, 1987).This mode of government-voluntary relations resembles the “complementary” model that takes the form of partnership between the state and the voluntary sector with the shared responsibilities of funding by the former and service delivery by the latter (Salamon, 1995). Finally, the competition model largely assumes that the government-voluntary relations is a matter of zero-sum game or gain-loss situation, which implies competition and conflict between the two actors (Gidron, Kramer and Salamon, 1992b). In this model, both the state and voluntary sectors have considerable independence from each other, they function within the framework of certain division of labor, and this may lead to mutual competition or conflict in sharing scarce resources (Gronberg, 1987).

Government-VWO Relations in Singapore

Among the five models of government-voluntary relations discussed above, which model is closest to the Singapore situation? In this regard, it is necessary to explore various dimensions and components of such relations in this country. It is observed, in general, that the relationship between the government and the voluntary sector in Singapore is not based on equal partnership or cooperation, it is rather a matter of service delivery planned and funded by the government and carried out by voluntary organizations. However, it is necessary to look into the specific domains of this relationship – including the legal, institutional, and financial dimensions – to figure out the actual nature of such relationship.

First, in terms of the legaldimension, the government exercises considerable regulatory and supervisory controls over the creation and continuity of VWOs. More specifically, in order to obtain legal status, under the Societies Act,all VWOs must register with the Registry of Society in Singapore. On the other hand, to acquireits status of a charitable organization, under the Charities Act (1982), all VWOs with charitable activities (e.g. poverty reduction and educational advancement) have to register with the Commissioner of Charities (NCSS, 2003a). In addition, the Codeof Governance & Management for VWOs adopted by the NCSS, provides clear guidelines for VWOs in Singapore with regard to their objectives and programs, human resources, financial management, public relations, fund-raising, and so on (NCSS, 2003c:3). This legal structure of the government-VWO relations based on state control in Singapore shows the tendency of a government-dominant model.

Second,with regard toinstitutional dimension of the government-voluntary relations in Singapore, there are some state organizations – including the MFS, the NCSS, and the NVPC– which play considerable roles in coordinating, guiding, and assisting VWOs. The MSF exercises certain control over VWOs (related tochild care, old-age homes, family services) in terms of licensing, approval, and regulation (Jones, 2002:73). These VWOs are supposed to submit quarterly reports to the MSF on their incomes, expenditures, and activities.In addition, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth appoints the Chair of the NVPCthat functions as a “networking centre” for VWOs, sets standards of volunteerism, provides necessary training to volunteers, and so on (NVPC, 2000). Creating such an atmosphere of volunteerism is crucial for all VWOs that largely depend on volunteers. On the other hand, the NCSS is an umbrella organization for most VWOs in Singapore: it formulates policies related to volunteer social services, and guides and coordinates the programs and activities of VWOs with regard to family services, children and youth services, elderly services, disabled services, and health services (UNESCO, 1998).Through its major committees—including the Voluntary Action for Social Service Committee, the Community Chest Committee, and the Services Committee—the NCSS helps VWOs in terms of recruiting and allocating volunteers, providing consultancy and training services, preparing handbooks and manuals for guidance, providing infrastructure supports, and promoting fund-raising activities (NCSS, 2003a, 2003d; UNESCO, 1998). Thus, similar to the above legal dimensions, these institutional controls exercised by the state indicates the features of a government-dominant model.