Farmer-State Relations in Singapore
-
Upload
heather-chi -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Farmer-State Relations in Singapore
![Page 1: Farmer-State Relations in Singapore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022080300/568bde911a28ab2034b9f542/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
RESEARCH PAPER
“THE POLITICS OF NEGLECT” – RE-CONCEPTUALIZING RELATIONS BETWEEN SMALLHOLDER
FARMERS AND THE STATE IN SINGAPORE
PREPARED BY: CHI XIN CI HEATHER
U072285X
A. Introduction: the imperative for re-contextualizing the peasant-state “conflict”
Contemporary Southeast Asian literature on peasant-state relations frequently situates
farmers within the trajectory of, and in opposition to, external vectors of change such as
the state and the market (Scott and Kerkvliet, 1986). In Singapore, the close relationship
between policy and economics presents a unique case study from which we can examine
the ways in which an ideology of economic pragmatism promoted by the government has
influenced the ordering of the agricultural community in the city-state.
While the heated encounters between smallholder farmers, represented by local
agricultural cooperative the Kranji Countryside Association (KCA), and officials from
Singapore’s food regulation body the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), suggest
that local farmers and the state are in constant conflict, a close analysis of farmers’
demands reveal that farmers are quite willing to compromise and have been actively
attempting to align their production objectives, business approaches and even lifestyle
choices with national development goals. In addition, a review of state policies and
priorities also reveals that the state has not totally neglected the agricultural sector; the
AVA promotes research into composting techniques and organic farmingi, as well as
post-harvest technologyii and there is both a Horticultural Service Sector, which “provides
technical advice and support, consultancy and trade facilitation services to those involved
in the production and trade of vegetables, foodcrops, orchid, ornamental plants and
aquatic plants in Singapore”iii and a Farm Manpower Section to manage workers in the
agrotechnology industryiv.
Despite the apparent efforts of both parties to accommodate the needs of the other, there
is much unhappiness on the part of the farmers, whom, through the KCA, raised a number
of concerns regarding government directives; land lease, tenure and development
controls; farm manpower; public transport and road safety; security; financial/ technical
![Page 2: Farmer-State Relations in Singapore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022080300/568bde911a28ab2034b9f542/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
assistance, and food security in a dialogue with the Ministry of National Development on
14 September, 2008. Thus, a re-contextualizing of the “conflict” in terms of the
willingness of both parties to explore opportunities for compromise is necessary to better
understand the dynamics of farmer-state relations.
Another significant factor shaping these relations is the nature of the spaces within which
farmer-state negotiations take place. From interviews with local farmers and a retired
AVA official v, it is clear that the state has been reluctant to grant farmers a personal
audience and is often unresponsive to their proposals, thus limiting the interactions
between both parties to the institutional sphere of inspections, permit applications and fee
collections. The lack of dialogue between farmers and the state in political spaces has
meant that farmers’ evaluation of their place in Singapore society and the avenues
available to them to seek redress is solely based on such administrative interactions,
which heavily restricts opportunities for deeper understanding and compromise between
both parties.
In this paper, I adapt Tan’s concept of the “middle ground” (Tan and Walker, 2008) as a
starting point to examine the nature of such institutional, political and personal spaces
within which farmer-state negotiations take place in order to determine the factors
shaping and structuring the “conflict”. Here, I will outline the main contentions and
concerns of contemporary farmers in the context of agricultural development in
Singapore. What emerges from this analysis is a much more complex picture which
suggests that the basis of the conflict may in fact be the rooted in the very ways these
spaces have been utilized – and neglected.
B. Background: An overview of agricultural development in Singapore
Economic development in Singapore since the 1960s has been significantly shaped by
state policies and directives, with shifts in government priorities for funding and
institutional support for higher value-added sectors such as electronics, chemicals and
petroleum resulting in rapid changes in the industrial structure of the country’s economy
over the last 50 years.
The shift to higher-value added industries to propel Singapore’s capitalistic development
has resulted in a significant re-ordering of Singapore’s agricultural sector. The sector,
comprising vegetable, fruit, flower, fish, frog, goat and poultry farms, has undergone, in
![Page 3: Farmer-State Relations in Singapore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022080300/568bde911a28ab2034b9f542/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
succession: a period of targeted rural development (1960s-70s), a period of
industrialization characterized by a shift to high-technology agriculture (1970s-1980s)
and a period of relative neglect, with the shift in government priorities to food safety and
research (1990s-present). In 1965, some 25000 families were engaged in farming. The
pattern of agriculture then was “essentially one of horticulture with food crop production
ranking as first in order of importance”vi. At the time, the Singapore government was
actively promoting a wide range of agricultural services to farmers, including co-
operative development and rural development programmes, agricultural education,
tractor ploughing services, rural news broadcast, and sales of agricultural inputsvii. The
priority of the government during the 1970s was agricultural intensification for the
purposes of optimizing land and manpower resources to maintain Singapore’s self-
sufficiency in the key food products of poultry (80%), eggs (100%) and pork (104%)viii ,
hence policies to industrialize agriculture, such as developing larger commercial farms
and meat technology laboratories, were still aimed at strengthening local food security
through upgrading the skills of existing farmers.
However, the government’s policies after 1980s shifted away from the existing farming
population and focused instead on a new generation new high-technology agri-
businesses. The state conducted a massive re-ordering of the existing farming population,
moving a large number of farmers into public housing projectsix and downsized or
eliminated farms altogether to free land for housing and industrial development. Today,
there are only some 274 farms covering 753.220 hectares of landx left that nevertheless
still generated revenues of some S$97.9 million in 2007xi.
The main government agencies involved in agriculture are the Agri-Food and Veterinary
Authority (AVA) that oversees farm land and activities; the Urban Redevelopment
Authority (URA) that sets overall policy on land use; the Singapore Land Authority
(SLA) that manages all state land and the National Environment Agency (NEA) that
ensure farmlands meet public health standards.
C. The space of farmer-state relations: trends, challenges and opportunities
There are three main spaces within which farmers and the state interact in Singapore: (i)
institutional space – referring to the framework of rules and regulations imposed by
government agencies to order and determine the cropping, land and technological
regimes for agricultural land uses in Singapore; (ii) political space – referring to both the
formal and informal contexts in which both parties assert and negotiate their interests;
![Page 4: Farmer-State Relations in Singapore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022080300/568bde911a28ab2034b9f542/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
and (iii) personal space – referring to the way the state’s presence is experienced,
understood and internalized by the farmers themselves.
As articulated by Tan, there is rarely a “binary of either the erasure of local practices
(and cultures) or resistance by the locals against the…seemingly overwhelming force”
of the state (Tan and Walker, 2008). What you find are more likely to find instead is a
“middle ground” shaped by a “sophisticated process of recombination” between state
forms and local forms in order to achieve workable, effective outcomes acceptable to
both parties. The dynamics of negotiations within this middle ground, however, are
determined by the power relations between different actors within the space, as well as
how open both sides are to using such a space in the first place.
The presence of a centralized state has a significant impact in limiting the extent and
effectiveness of peasant action (Roberts, 1990); indeed, the absence of a landed class in
Singapore has been acknowledged as one of the main factors facilitating the rapid
expansion of the state during the country’s nation-building years from 1965 onwards
(Chua, 1996). A significant policy that dramatically changed the landscape of farmer
society during this time was the institution of the Land Acquisition Act in 1966, which
gave the government power to enter, survey, plan for the acquisition of, and take
possession of any land “for public and certain other specified purposes, the assessment
of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition”xii. A large amount of
farmland was re-possessed for the development of industries and public housing, and
many farmers were shifted into the newly developed Housing and Development Board
(HDB) flats. This effectively meant an eviction of farmers from their traditional lands
and a forced abandonment of their previous communal kampong lifestyles. Interviews
with farmers affected by the relocation reveal that at least a number of them were
traumatized by the movexiii and found it difficult to keep in touch with their former
neighbours. This dispersal, coupled with farmers’ acceptance of change in the face of
powerful state directives and the fact that many of them were more concerned with how
to sustain their households in the new environmentxiv than with reclaiming their land,
meant there were few attempts by farmers then to contest the land acquisition. As we
shall see, it is such ‘efficient’ economics-centered policies, implemented by a
hegemonic administration, that has both limited the spaces open for dialogue with
stakeholders concerned, as well as contributed to a highly contested one-sided ‘reading’
of agricultural spaces by the state, namely as an economically-valued resource divorced
from any social or cultural significance.
![Page 5: Farmer-State Relations in Singapore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022080300/568bde911a28ab2034b9f542/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
In contemporary times, farmers continue to face institutional pressures and controls in a
number of ways; first, the Urban Redevelopment Authority defines the situation and size
of agricultural areas in Master Planxv updated every five years. Farmers are only allowed
to bid for land released by the URA for tender and do not have the ability to define and
purchase their own land holdings. There are also no institutional platforms for farmers
to contest the quality of the lots released for tender; hence the location and amount of
agricultural land available for cultivation in Singapore is solely controlled by the state
and is non-negotiablexvi. Such a ‘cut and dry’ manner of allocating and managing
agricultural land effectively defines agriculture as a ‘land-use’ similar to any other land
uses and fails to acknowledge the multiple functions and meanings of agricultural land
to its inhabitants.
This has several implications for the ways farmers conduct their livelihood. Mrs. Ivy
Singh Lim, president of the KCA and owner of lifestyle farm, Bollywood Veggies,
described the difficulties she had in applying for permission to build a house, a
restaurant and culinary school on her land because of the URA’s rule that at least 70%
of the land has to “retain the predominant agricultural use for the land in keeping with
the land use zoning, as well as to preserve the rustic character of the surroundings” xvii.
In the state’s view, agricultural land uses are intended primarily for food crop
production and “rural aesthetic” and are not seen as the integral part of self-sustaining
farmer community (as they are in the rural areas of other countries) that overlaps with
other land uses such as residential (house), commercial (shop or café) and institutional
(culinary school or community centre). Even the opening up of part of the farm for tours
and farm stays for the purposes of diversifying income and promoting tourism, a
strategy that has been acknowledge and provided for by the URAxviii , involves a
bureaucratic process which requires interested farmers to pay a costly differential
premium.xix Farmers’ arguments that such multi-purpose uses of their land are implicit
in agriculture’s function as both a lifestyle and a livelihood, and hence should not be
subjected to additional charges, are not considered at all in the state’s computation of the
differential premium, which are based on Development Charges that accommodate the
new land use and/or intensity with the intention to “encourage optimization of land use
and to facilitate the overall pace of redevelopment in Singapore”xx. This is once again
evidence of how an economic-centered approach pursued by the government effectively
silences alternative conversations about agriculture and limits the spaces available for
negotiations between farmers and state.
![Page 6: Farmer-State Relations in Singapore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022080300/568bde911a28ab2034b9f542/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
The second policy that has significant impact on farmers is the tenure arrangement for
agricultural land. In Singapore, every agricultural lot has a 15-20 year tenure that must
be paid upfront by the farmer. Land sales, which are administered by the Singapore
Land Authority, are conducted through a tender system where selected lots are released
for public tender or auction by private companies or individuals. Such a policy
essentially requires farmers to be cash-rich, and also business- and operationally-adept,
due to the high capital input required and limited amount of time available for farms to
become financially viable. Hence, such a tenure arrangement clearly favours profit-
driven agrotechnology companies over household-centered farms, which may lack
access to capital or may not be willing to take the risk. In addition, because each lease
only lasts a maximum of 20 years and there is no guarantee that farmers will be able to
secure the same plot for a second term, many are unwilling to invest in infrastructure
and machinery that would improve production in the medium- to long-termxxi, thus
limiting the potential of their farms as well as their ability to lead secure lives. Under
SLA’s current guidelines, the government “may allow lease extension if there is
substantial investment on the land or property, and the proposed agricultural use remains
relevant to (the country’s) strategic national needs”xxii. Such a policy effectively requires
farmers to be aligned with the government’s pragmatic priorities of high-technology
production and/or agri-tourism, which require considerable capital investment, to avoid
losing their land. Their inability to contest the basis of this policy within other both
institutional and political spaces has also resulted in great resentment and unhappiness.
Farmers complain about the lack of single adoptive agency to direct their queries to, as
they currently have to appeal to and consult multiple administrative authorities (AVA,
URA, SLA, NEA) for the various licenses and permits. Within the political sphere,
farmers also lament the absence of the agriculture in the national narrative and the lack
of recognition by local policymakers of the contributions that local farming has to food
security, community bonding and environmental protection. The lack of a state agency
to directly represent the interests of farmers has also meant an inability to get their
voices heard in the political sphere.
To their credit, and consistent with the idea of a “middle ground”, farmers have
attempted to align their agricultural activities with national priorities and concerns; their
attempts to incorporate agritainment facilities to encourage ‘rural tourism’ and cater to
local educational field-trips, as well as shift to organic-style farming both to provide
healthy vegetables for local consumers, as well as weekend farming activities to create
opportunities for families and communities to bondxxiii can be read as direct efforts to
![Page 7: Farmer-State Relations in Singapore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022080300/568bde911a28ab2034b9f542/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
raise both the commercial and social value of their farmland so as to be acknowledged
and supported by the state. This represents an attempt by farmers to negotiate their
relationship with the state within a personal space that is nevertheless influenced by
interactions with the state in external institutional and political spaces.
D. Conclusion: opening up the middle ground
As is suggested from this preliminary study, the basis of conflict between local farmers
and the state stems at least partially from a lack of awareness and political will on the
part of government agencies to engage farmers beyond the administrative space and
accept that they could have interests aside from that of food production for economic
ends.
The numerous efforts by the farmers to scale-up production and diversify their land use
to raise the value of their farms has also been limited by state policies on land lease,
tenure and development guidelines that marginalize smallholders. More importantly, the
efficient hegemony of the administration has meant that there is little provision for more
dynamic avenues of interaction within which farmers could seek redress for grievances
and negotiate a wider range of issues. Hence, despite attempts from the state to
accommodate and support farmers, these efforts have been restricted to top-down
directives at the institutional level in terms of legislation to ease renewal of land lease
and the provision of commercially-oriented agricultural services. In conclusion, it
appears that the lack of dialogue between both parties in political spaces to debate issues
such as the potential for agriculture to contribute to food security and national
development, or the viability of organic agriculture to enhance consumer and
environmental health, is an important issue that needs to be addressed for a middle
ground of compromise and reconciliation between both parties to be made more
accessible.
![Page 8: Farmer-State Relations in Singapore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022080300/568bde911a28ab2034b9f542/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
References
Chua, B.H. (1996), “Singapore: management of a city-state in Southeast Asia” in J. Ruland (ed.), The Dynamics of Metropolitan Management in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 207-24 Scott, J.C. and B.J.T. Kerkvliet (eds.) (1986), Everyday forms of peasant resistance in South-East Asia, Totowa, N.J. : Frank Cass. Roberts, B.R. (1990), “Peasants and Proletarians”, Annual Review of Sociology, 16, pp. 353-77 Tan, S. B-H and A. Walker (2008), “Beyond Hills and Plains: Rethinking Ethnic Relations in Vietnam and Thailand”, Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 3(3), pp. 117-57.
Endnotes i Four studies relevant for production of vegetables in Singapore were published in the Singapore Journal of Primary Industries, an AVA publication of original research findings and review of progress in fisheries, horticulture, animal husbandry and veterinary science and allied subjects: “Plug transplants for leafy vegetable production” (Poh B L, Leong W H, Yap-Koh T K and Ong PH in Vol 31, 2003/04), “Organic farming in Singapore” (Khoo G H, Ong P H and Lam W in Vol 30, 2002), “The selection of Brassica chinensis cultivars for local cultivation” (Lam W, Yap-Koh T K and Poh B L in Vol 29, 2001), “A review on composting for vegetable production” (Lam W, Poh B L, Leong W H and Ong P H in Vol 28, 2000). ii From “Post Harvest Technology for Vegetables”: http://www.ava.gov.sg/FoodSector/PostHarvestTechnology/Vegetables/index.htm. Accessed on Oct 25, 2008. iii From “Horticulture Services Centre”: http://www.ava.gov.sg/AgricultureFisheriesSector/TechServicesAndResearch/HorticultureServicesCentre/index.htm, accessed on Oct 25, 2008. iv From “Workers for Agrotechnology Industry”: http://www.ava.gov.sg/AgricultureFisheriesSector/FarmingInSingapore/WorkersAgroTechIndustry/index.htm, accessed on Oct 25, 2008. v The interviewees are: Mrs. Evelyn Lim (60, Farmer, Green Circle Organic Farm), Mrs. Ivy Singh-Lim (60, Farmer, Bollywood Veggies), Mr. Chuo Sing Kwong (70, Farmer, Golden Technologies PL), Mr. Alan Seah (52, Farmer, Go Organic Farm), Mr. Chai Boon Fah (70, Former AVA official), and Mr. Tay Lai Hock (45, Exco Member, Kranji Countryside Association). They were interviewed between Sep 22, 2008 to Sep 26 2008. vi Review of the Primary Production Department, 1960-1965, Singapore: Government of Singapore. vii Full details of the rural development programmes can be found in Review of the Primary Production Department, 1960-1965, Singapore: Government of Singapore. viii From “AVA – History”: http://www.ava.gov.sg/AboutAVA/History/. Accessed on Oct 25, 2008. ix The relocation of Singapore’s rural population to urban public housing development, which has significant impact on farmer lifestyles and livelihoods, while not the focus of this study, has been documented comprehensively by local academics. See in Public housing and community development : the Singapore experience (Siew, W.W.L, 1993), Public housing policies compared : U.S., Socialist countries and Singapore (Chua, B.H., 1988) and The Singapore experience in public housing (Tan A.H.H and Phang S-Y, 1991) x Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority Annual Report FY2006/07. Singapore: 2007. xi From AVA statistics: http://www.ava.gov.sg/AVA/Templates/AVA-GenericContentTemplate.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fPublications%2fStatistics%2f&NRNODEGUID={F2752F0E-A9A1-4A96-BA40-F6843F8CB26A}&NRCACHEHINT=Guest#area. Accessed on Oct 25, 2008.
![Page 9: Farmer-State Relations in Singapore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022080300/568bde911a28ab2034b9f542/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
xii Adapted from the Land Acquisition Act (latest amendment, 2007). Accessed online at: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?&actno=Reved-152&date=latest&method=part, on Oct 25, 2008. xiii Local filmmaker Eng Yee Peng in her two short films, Diminishing Memories I and II, documented the relocation of farmers from Lim Chu Kang. These documentaries, which feature 6-7 interviews with past and present Lim Chu Kang farmer, highlight the pain that many went through in the process of relocation, including depression, nostalgia and difficulties adapting to high-rise living. In an interview with Dr. Tan Cheng Bock, a then Member of Parliament, Dr Tan revealed that a number of farmers actually committed suicide during this time period. xiv These views were expressed by a number of ex-Lim Chu Kang residents in Diminishing Memories I (see vii). Scholars such as Eric Wolf and Francesca Bray have also extensively studied the importance of the household maintenance to economic decision-making of peasants. xv The Master Plan is the statutory land use plan which guides Singapore's development in the medium term, over the next 10 to 15 years. It is reviewed once every five years, and shows the permissible land use and density for every parcel of land in Singapore. (URA: www.ura.gov.sg) xvi Personal correspondence, Mr Chai Boon Fah. xvii From “Circular to professional institutes – guidelines for visitor amenities on farms”: http://www.ura.gov.sg/circulars/text/dc05-03.htm. Accessed on Oct 30, 2008. xviii The main guidelines on visitor amenities within farms has been outlined here: http://www.ava.gov.sg/AgricultureFisheriesSector/FarmingInSingapore/AgroTechParks/Farming+in+Singapore-Miscellaneous.htm#submission. Accessed on Oct 30, 2008. xix For example, Nyee Phoe Flower Garden had to pay over $100,000 for 4 chalets for a lease with only 10 years remaining. (Raised during the 14 September dialogue) xx Adapted from the “Brief on the Differential Premium System”, Singapore Land Authority (SLA). xxi Personal correspondence, Eng Yee Peng (Director of Diminishing Memories), and farmers Ivy-Singh Lim and Chuo Sing Kwong. xxii From “Waiver on Building Premium”, press release by the Ministry of Law (embargoed till 10 am Monday, 1 September 2008): http://www.sla.gov.sg/htm/new/new2008/new0109.htm. Accessed on Oct 25, 2008. xxiii One such programme is currently run by local NGO, Ground-Up Initiative (www.groundupinitiative.org) every weekend at Lim Chu Kang, in partnership with organic farms.