social work advocacy in singapore: some reflections on the constraints and opportunities

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Social Work Advocacy in Singapore: Some

Reflections on the Constraints and

Opportunities

Kerry Brydon

Department of Social Work, Monash University, Victoria, Australia

One central concern of social work is advocacy for social justice. This is a lofty ideal but a difficult

ideal to achieve in view of social work being delivered in sociopolitical contexts with varying

degrees of tolerance of advocacy. This discussion is based on a case study from Singapore and

considers some of the particular constraints and opportunities in that context, while also making

the point that those similar constraints and opportunities exist in all contexts. A model that

combines principles of advocacy and collaboration is proposed as a means of embracing social

work advocacy in Singapore and other contexts.

Keywords advocacy; collaboration; social justice; social work practice

doi:10.1111/j.1753-1411.2010.00041.x

Introduction

Early Singaporean initiatives to address social needs emerged in the mid-nineteenth cen-

tury with the establishment of the forerunners of Voluntary Welfare Organisations, but

little progress was made in social service areas, other than health, until after World War

II (Wee, 2004). Social work was introduced to Singapore with the appointment of an

expatriate almoner to a Singapore hospital in 1948 (Wee, 2002). A 2-year diploma in

social work was established in the 1952–53 academic year. The Malaysian Association of

Social Workers was established in 1953 and the Singapore Association of Social Workers

formally came into being in 1971. Registration of social workers in Singapore was intro-

duced in 2004 and the recent decade has seen significant government commitment to the

social services sector and increasing the number of social workers in practice.

Social work is concerned with working directly with individuals, families, and com-

munities in a bid to find solutions to the life problems that people encounter. It is not

enough, however, to rely on solving problems after they have occurred, as that would be

to maintain a rehabilitative approach. Advocacy is a characteristic function of social

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kerry Brydon, Department of Social Work, Monash

University, PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Victoria, Australia. Email: [email protected]

Asian Social Work and Policy Review 4 (2010) 119–133

� 2010 The Author

Asian Social Work and Policy Review � 2010 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 119

work practice and it is a function both constructed and constrained by the context in

which the practitioner is working. New insights and models are needed to construct a

model of advocacy applicable to the Singapore context.

Social workers also have a responsibility to become involved in prevention of social

problems and in addressing the structural and institutional factors that contribute to per-

sonal problems. This means moving beyond a view that the individual is solely responsi-

ble for their problems, towards a position that holds it is often the interplay between the

personal and the structural that gives rise to human suffering. From this perspective,

social work needs to be concerned with advocating for changes in social policy and insti-

tutional arrangements in order to improve the well-being of all clients.

This means that while direct contact with individuals, families, groups, or communi-

ties is important, it must be accompanied by interventions seeking to change the condi-

tions under which clients live their lives. By talking about the conditions under which

clients live their lives, I mean not only the general state of society, but also those policies

and laws that directly affect groups of people as well as institutional arrangements under

which those policies and laws are delivered. This means that social workers need to

engage in advocacy for social change. It also means that the advocacy strategy needs to

have been planned and selected on the basis of a thorough review of what strategies are

appropriate to the particular context of practice.

This discussion will briefly explore the nature of social work and its commitment to

social justice as well as theoretical frameworks for advocacy and collaboration. The

discussion will briefly outline the research process and then consider some aspects of

the Singaporean context. It will conclude by offering a model of advocacy that can be

adopted in the particular conditions under which social work practice in Singapore is

delivered, but also has relevance for other contexts.

The context of practice

Most social work practice occurs within a context that offers both opportunities and con-

straints to the practitioner seeking to pursue an advocacy intervention. The immediate

context is usually defined by the organization employing the social worker. However,

there is also a broader sociopolitical context that shapes the policies and practices of the

organization. The opportunities for advocacy derive from the organizational support

available to practice social work and, through this, to develop knowledge and insights

about the needs nature of the client group and how to better meet such presenting needs.

The constraints derive from the fact that it is the context, either the organization or the

sociopolitical environment, that imposes a set of guidelines about practice and the extent

to which social workers can act as advocates.

The background to this discussion is twofold. The profession of social work seeks to

promote social change and problem solving in human relationships and the empower-

ment of people (International Federation of Social Workers, 2004; Pollack, 2007). The

background also derives from work undertaken to deliver an Australian social work edu-

cation in Singapore. Specifically, from late 2003, an Australian Bachelor of Social Work

Kerry Brydon Social Work Advocacy in Singapore

� 2010 The Author

120 Asian Social Work and Policy Review � 2010 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

education program has been delivered in Singapore in partnership with a Singaporean

peak body, enabling Singaporean students to obtain an Australian social work qualifica-

tion. The Bachelor of Social Work program has been fully accredited by the relevant

professional associations in both Australia and Singapore and is the first such program

of its kind delivered by an Australian University.

A commitment to social justice

The nature of social work is contested and there are wide ranging debates in relation to

the nature of social work. These debates are acknowledged, but for the purposes of this

discussion it is held that the promotion of social justice on behalf of marginalized and

vulnerable client groups is a hallmark of social work practice.

In order to meet this commitment, social work and social workers must develop an

appreciation of the context in which they strive to realize these goals. Just as there is a

need to understand the client in their environmental context, there is a need to under-

stand the environment of social work in its historical, political, and social context wher-

ever it is practiced. Social workers also need to maintain a commitment to the principles

of social justice remembering that the pioneers of social work sought a more inclusive

society, which offered a place for all, to help the poor by emancipating them from oppres-

sion through social reform (Powell, 2001).

Social justice is a complex Western concept that has concerned thinkers over the ages.

The terms social justice was first coined by a Sicilian priest in 1840 but the concept had it

origins in Western thinkers such as Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, and John Stuart Mill,

with the later constructing a view that society should treat all of its members well (Zajda,

Majhanovich, & Rust, 2006). By the end of the 19th century, social justice was being used

by reformers to appeal to the ruling class to attend to the needs of uprooted peasants

who had become urban workers (Zajda et al., 2006). Most constructions of social justice

are concerned with an egalitarian society based on the principles of equality and solidar-

ity, which understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every

human being (Zajda et al., 2006).

Social justice is best understood as a concept of fairness rather than equality, con-

cerned with the ways the major social institutions of any society distribute fundamental

rights and duties, and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation

(Rawls, 1971). From the social work perspective, the commitment to social justice can

also be understood as a source of collective social ⁄professional responsibility towards

individuals and to provide care for the vulnerable in society.

This reflects notions of citizenship as a status bestowed on those who are full members

of society, the welfare state being the promoter and guardian of the welfare of the whole

community (Marshall, 1963). Specifically, Marshall (1963) was concerned with rights to a

standard of living and that fact that responses to social need could not depend on the

economic value of the individual. This gave rise to a notion of social policy as being built

into the natural social system (Titmuss, 1974), reflecting the intervention of governments

to redress the inequalities of the market.


� 2010 The Author


As will be later discussed, it became apparent during the research process that, from

the Singapore perspective, there was a view that social workers could not easily engage in

advocacy for social change. This also meant that they could not engage in the process of

policy development and refinement. Arguably, this diminishes the capacity of social

workers to pursue social justice.

Thinking about policy contexts

To varying degrees, all Governments make some provision for meeting the needs of their

citizens’ basic shelter, food, and education, and some form of protection for their more

vulnerable citizens. There is general acceptance in most developed countries that such

needs should be addressed (Alcock, 2001). What varies, however, is the degree of empha-

sis placed on individual rights over economic rights and ⁄or development or the way in

which the relationship between welfare needs and development and economic needs and

development is balanced (Esping-Andersen, 1983).

In the area of policy development, the state, the markets, and the populace interact.

Policy is a major way in which the state intervenes in response to the needs of its citizens

and to shape their citizens. Since social work is embedded in the political systems and

social thought of the societies in which it exists, social policies determined by government

have important implications for the shape and form social work assumes in any given

context (Payne, 2005). There are inherent tensions in policy formation between the extent

to which individuals should be self-reliant, and the extent to which the state should

provide. Inconsistencies in state responses are, to a significant degree, due to the tensions

between the will to protect the vulnerable and the reluctance to commit resources.

In the Western context, social policy arrangements have been coined the welfare state.

The welfare state is concerned with addressing the inadequacies of the market to meet the

needs of all members of society and involves the relationship between markets, govern-

ment, and people and the responses to need. The relationship between state and family is

by no means tangible (Van Krieken, 1991). The policy role of the state is deeply ambiv-

alent in character. All governments make some arrangements to meet social as well as

economic need but they do so in a variety of ways and from a variety of policy paradigms.

There are distinctive features attributable to East Asian welfare regime. These features

encompass a reliance on charitable provision of welfare services; only a moderate right to

any form of employment-based welfare and social-security arrangements; and reliance on

the family and the market to meet need (Aspalter, 2006). The Singapore Government

proclaims itself as not being opposed to social security; rather the opposition is directed

towards programs and policies that impose long-term commitments on government (Yao,

2007). The reality of Singapore is that there has been substantial investment in education,

housing, healthcare, and income support through the Central Provident Fund (CPF).

The nature of advocacy and collaboration

A significant aspect of social work practice is the need for critical and reflective

approaches to practice, whereby practitioners reflect deeply on their context and


� 2010 The Author


practice with a view to achieving continuous improvement and also where they iden-

tify areas in need of further promotion of social justice. A central strategy therefore

becomes one of advocacy but, as will be argued, this cannot be separated from strategies

of collaboration.

A common feature of the clients of social work is that they are typically disempow-

ered, or marginalized, groups who have difficulty speaking for themselves. By virtue of

their powerlessness that are unable to speak up, let alone make their voices heard. Hence,

advocacy is speaking on behalf of the client to present their interests and protect their

rights (Dalrymple, 2004). There are typically two levels of advocacy. The first occurs at

the case level (Dalrymple, 2004), where advocacy may entail a strategy such as negotiat-

ing on behalf of a client to secure a payment plan for utilities, such as electricity. The

second form of advocacy targets structural aspects, such as legislation or policy change

(Dalrymple, 2004).

Most social workers will engage in case-level advocacy as a routine component of

their work. They engage without necessarily thinking deeply about the steps towards

advocacy. Case-level advocacy provides rich data for engagement in the process of advo-

cacy for policy change. It is the second form of advocacy, designed to effect structural

change, that is more complex and the goals more difficult to realize.

To a significant degree, advocacy aimed at structural aspects and policy reform

involves engagement not with individual clients but with the overall context of practice

(Dalrymple, 2004). This means that practitioners need to think about the aspects of the

practice context that contribute to the disempowerment of clients and then, assuming a

social justice position, seek to alter those aspects.

In thinking about selecting the advocacy strategy, it is helpful to briefly consider the

nature of collaboration as this has implications for successful advocacy. Coordination,

collaboration, and cooperation are often used synonymously, however, they are not the

same terms (Howarth & Calder, 1998). According to Scott (2005), the term collabora-

tion comes from a Latin root meaning to work together and, in the context of human

service organizations, collaboration means a formal joining of structures and processes

between organizations. There are some who would think that collaboration means an

absence of conflict or differing viewpoints, but in a collaborative arrangement the play-

ers originate from different backgrounds and collaboration occurs along a spectrum,

from the informal to the formal, and consensus is not always the best way forward

(Scott, 1993).

Scott (2005) offers a useful framework for thinking about collaboration, especially

where there are difficulties in the collaborative process. Scott (2005) also identifies five

levels at which analysis of what is occurring can be made; the levels ranging from inter-

personal difficulties through to organizational difficulties. What is important is that the

analysis has the capacity to lead to resolution.

Clearly, the development of relationships is central to collaboration. In this instance,

the question is not the relationships formed with clients but the relationships formed

between the stakeholders seeking to respond to the clients. What is contended is that

effective advocacy must be premised on forming relationships with key stakeholders in a


� 2010 The Author


bid to seek collaborative solutions rather than allowing rising conflict to negate possible

solutions.

The research

The research adopted a qualitative approach. The intent of the research was to explore

the perceptions and experiences of the research respondents with a view to examining the

ways in which they interpreted their context and changes in their context (Arminio &

Hultgren, 2002; Bryman, 2004). Within this broad framework, the case-study approach

was adopted on the basis that there was little known about the phenomena under review

and the intent was to investigate a real life phenomena (Yin, 2003).

The research also benefitted from anecdotal evidence that emerged over a 6-year per-

iod. This evidence informed the research design and also became part of the research data

in some instances. While, arguably, this raises ethical challenges, it is also an approach

consistent with constructing social research as concerned with the systematic observation

and collection of data to explain patterns (Alston & Bowles, 2003) and a constructivist

research paradigm whereby the researcher becomes immersed in the research site and

seeks to construct meaning (Morris, 2006).

The reality of this anecdotal evidence was that it mainly consisted of filaments, or

scraps, of insight from wide-ranging conversations with wide-ranging people. Where

there was more detailed personal communication, specific permission to use the insight

was sought in writing.

The research considered broad issues related to the internationalization of social work

education as well as the nature of international social work. The research strategy fol-

lowed a qualitative approach using a case study and an exploratory approach. All

research respondents were Singaporean and all were stakeholders in the delivery of social

work in Singapore from varying perspectives. Interviews were conducted during October

2008 and February 2009, with all interviews being audio recorded and later transcribed.

The interviews were semi-structured in nature and the research had appropriate ethical

clearance.

Some features of the Singapore context

While there is a view that Singapore and other Asian nations demonstrate a lag in social

policy, an alternative and more accurate view might be that there is an alternative

approach to meeting social need. These developmental states have extensively utilized

government intervention, and have developed policies to promote the goals of industriali-

zation (Aspalter, 2006; Chua, 2009).

Singapore has been described as an authoritarian regime or as an illiberal democracy

(Chua, 2009; George, 2005; Ghesquiere, 2007). The policy context of Singapore has

been unashamedly one of denying any suggestion of a welfare state, based on a position

that, at the time of independence, the government could not adopt redistributive social

policies as Singapore lacked any resources to distribute (Lee, 1998, 2000). In essence,

social policy has been used to promote the legitimacy of government, to pacify labor,


� 2010 The Author


and to enforce investment in the education and well-being of the workforce (Aspalter,

2006; Yao, 2007).

At the societal level in Singapore, as in other Asian countries, there is emphasis on

the need for an orderly society, respect for authority and consensus (Nguyen, Terlouw, &

Pilot, 2005). Confucian values promote avoidance of overt conflict in social relations, loy-

alty to hierarchy and authority, and emphasis on order and harmony (Chua, 1995, 2009).

Family and collective identity is rated as more important than individuality (Nguyen

et al., 2005), and such values are commonly invoked to promote the notion of a caring

and harmonious society in which family responsibilities are promoted in the context of

responsibilities and obligations (Mok & Lau, 2002).

Singapore, a former British colony, gained limited self-government in 1955. In 1959,

the Peoples Action Party (PAP) won power and has maintained it until the present time

(Church, 2006). The most pertinent Singapore-specific material relates to the ways in

which the PAP Government has coped with challenges over the years, beginning with the

fact that a wide range of commentators have highlighted the lack of strong parliamentary

opposition in Singapore (Barr, 2008; Chua, 2009). The issue here is not to comment spe-

cifically on the ways in which the Government of Singapore manages its internal affairs;

the intent is to highlight pertinent events and consider the messages that emerge for social

work and social workers seeking to promote social justice.

There are two specific issues, from the historical perspective, that shed some light on

tensions that exists for social workers seeking to promote social justice. There is a long

history in Singapore of repressive responses to any form of activity constructed as dissi-

dence. In response to this, some players in the international community have taken a

position of advocating that civil and political rights cannot continue to be afforded a

secondary role to that of economic development (International Bar Association., 2008).

While the history of how dissidence has been managed by the PAP Government is com-

plex, it is beyond the scope of this discussion to explore it in any detail. From the social

work perspective, the key event appears to have occurred in mid-1987 when the Internal

Security Department arrested 16 young men and women in connection with a so-called

clandestine communist network, and further people were arrested later (Barr, 2008;

Seow, 1994). This incident seemed to delineate the boundaries of acceptable and unac-

ceptable discussion and activism (Barr, 2008). So-called ‘‘out-of-bounds’’ markers were

thus established, and despite signs of increased liberalization in the most recent decade,

caution remains (Lyons & Gomez, 2005). In essence, speaking out could be expected

to bring strong redress. What appears to have happened is that the event has been

constructed to mean that all forms of criticism, or raising concerns, may be considered to

be unacceptable.

One particular interpretation believes that social workers are restricted in their ability

to engage in critical reflection:

… there is a level of control in Singapore that can undermine critical thinking but this needs

to be measured against the fact that there is a level of control in any society and it is unrealis-

tic to think that this would not be the case. The students are accustomed to people lecturing


� 2010 The Author


at them … engaging in critical and reflective thinking is a new experience for them …(research respondent).

… there needs to be greater emphasis on critical thinking skills … with this context there is a

level of control in Singapore that can undermine critical thinking … (research respondent).

… the word critical comes from criticize and I suppose [Singaporeans] cannot criticize ….

You have to obey authority, respect them, because … they know better… (research respon-

dent).

Whether the level of control is real or imagined, there does appear to be a serious view

that criticism is not encouraged. The difficulty is that this appears to cover raising any

issues, including the legitimate concerns for marginalized groups that emerge out of prac-

tice. The implication is that social workers may fail to fulfill their professional responsi-

bilities towards social justice on the basis of a belief that the context does not permit this

to be pursued.

The research, not surprisingly in view of the foregoing, also identified that advocacy

is a particularly sensitive issue in the Singapore context and that social work is weak in

advocacy:

… social work is weak in community work and advocacy … social work continues to con-

ceptualize social work as casework. Social workers must understand policy and seek to

influence policy through advocacy … government will listen if there is evidence … (research

respondent).

… social workers need advocacy skills that will help them to bring grassroots matters to the

attention of policy makers … it is not enough for social workers to fight fires ... they must

form an interface with policy makers …. (research respondent).

In view of the strong messages that criticism is not encouraged, it is not surprising that

social workers allegedly do not develop their advocacy skills. This does not, however,

mean that they lack the capacity to undertake advocacy that seeks to address a wide

range of issues emerging out of their practice. What social workers need to do is gather

evidence to underpin their advocacy.

Advocacy must be crafted in a fashion that simultaneously raises the issues about

social problems, supported by facts, and ensures that government does not interpret

advocacy as a challenge to either their authority or to social harmony. In order to raise

the profile of social issues, social workers and social work education will need to concep-

tualize a partnership with government and couch recommended responses in terms of

government compassion.

Discussion

It is relatively easy to rhetorically embrace notions of social work practice committed

to social justice and undertaking advocacy on behalf of the marginalized and oppressed.

However, it is much more difficult to achieve these lofty aims in any practical context.

Most governments, not only the Singapore Government, are, at best, ambivalent about


� 2010 The Author


advocacy that is not constructed by the government. The challenges present in the

Singaporean context can be viewed as one way of constructing the challenges that

confront social workers in a range of contexts.

One major aspect of the Singaporean context is that the perspective has become one

of not criticizing government, hence failing to examine how to engage with government

in order to promote social justice. It is a position that lends itself to focus on the negative

or problematic aspects of the situation and not recognize the opportunities in the

context.

There are opportunities to be seized from the realities of the Confucian tradition.

Traditional Chinese values revolve around hierarchical ordering of politics and roles

within a the framework of a benevolent government able to maintain social order and

solve social problems (Ghesquiere, 2007; Zhang, 2003). As such, social policy in this con-

text is reliant on individuals, families, and communities to address welfare needs (Low &

Aw, 2004; Tang, 2000). The traditional values that are embraced include self-discipline,

filial piety, hard work, and collectivism, whereby the needs and rights of the individual

are subordinated to the good of the community (Ghesquiere, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2005;

Schmidt, 2005).

The notion that Confucianism provides an important moral basis for social harmony

is an important one as it promotes harmony over conflict and loyalty to authority (Chua,

2009; Nguyen et al., 2005). This offers important messages to social workers, who need

to seek to harness the goodwill of the authorities in a contextually coherent fashion.

In more simple terms, the promotion of disruption and destabilization as a means of

advocacy clearly would be inappropriate. However, advocacy approaches that are vested

in a quest for a collaborative approach would appear to have potential for positive

outcomes:

Policies need to be developed in response to [the Singapore Government’s] considered judg-

ment … public education works well … ‘closed door’ negotiations can work well … (research

respondent).

The call for ‘‘closed door’’ negotiations could reasonably be constructed as a denial of

transparency. There is, however, another way to construct this. Reflecting on the empha-

sis in collaboration on the formation of relationships, this approach may be the superior

way to achieve the relationships necessary to undertake the proposed advocacy. Specifi-

cally, this could be a contextually specific and appropriate strategy that enables both the

advocacies and the target of that advocacy to achieve their respective aims.

At the same time, there was evidence from the research suggesting that social work

and social workers ought to enhance their advocacy skills:

… they need good negotiation and advocacy skills … they need skills in case management ...

to negotiate referrals and promote collaborative work … they need to be able to form

relationships … (research respondent).

What is being held here is that social work and social workers need to be sure that

they not only bring grassroots issues to attention but they possess both the evidence


� 2010 The Author


about those issues as well as the relationship skills necessary to collaboratively engage in

advocacy.

A proposed model of collaboration and advocacy

Advocacy alone is an insufficient tool for the achievement of change. Strategies for

advocacy speak of raising voices while strategies for collaboration demand the forma-

tion of relationships. Constructive ways to promote social justice through the raising

of the voices of the disempowered demands focus on the opportunities for collabora-

tion. Through relationship building, there is a need to draw on both the understanding

of advocacy and the understanding of collaboration in order to achieve a model that

raises awareness and leads to change but does not alienate key decision makers in the

process, a model that is applicable not only to Singapore but to a wider range of

contexts.

The central concept is the need to build relationships. Social workers are well situated

to achieve this given that the central tool of social work is in fact that relationship.

Reflecting on their own practice, most social workers should be able to identify the ways

in which they build relationships and seek to influence clients. The argument, therefore, is

that those same micro skills from direct client practice have an application in a more

macro context of advocacy and collaboration for social change. Social workers need to

begin to construct their practice as having direct relevance for the practice of advocacy.

What is required is a commitment to a cycle of reflection that seeks to connect direct

practice skills to advocacy skills and the collation of evidence as the basis for engaging

with a range of stakeholders in a process of collaboration. This process is conceptualized

in Figure 1.

Writing in a context of global social work action, Pollack (2007) offered some excel-

lent tips for advocacy. The beginning point is emphasized as being concerned with the

identification of a need for change and making a decision to do something about it (Pol-

lack, 2007). What is important in constructing advocacy is that it is a process rather than

an event, and there is necessity for ongoing reflection on the process for it is unlikely that

each process of advocacy will lead to the ideally desired outcomes. Collaboration and

advocacy also mean that there is a need to compromise at times.

What is limiting about the model proposed by Pollack (2007) is that not enough

attention is paid to the particular constraints and opportunities inherent in the particular

context of social work practice, nor is the framework specifically connected to matters

that may emerge from direct client practice and insights from case practice models and

theory. There are opportunities to adapt the skills and knowledge derived from case prac-

tice to raising awareness of client needs in terms of trends and shortcomings in policy

observed over periods of time.

There are also particular aspects of the Singapore context that lend themselves to the

pursuit of social justice. Such aspects, best constructed as opportunities, include the very

real fact that the Government of Singapore has invested heavily throughout its period in

office in the infrastructure necessary to secure basic citizenship entitlements such as


� 2010 The Author


health, education, and housing. This reality ought to be seen as a signal that there is gov-

ernment concern for the well-being of its citizens. There is also the view that the govern-

ment will respond to issues where there is evidence, as indicated by the research. This

implies that social workers need to engage with the collation of evidence as a preliminary

step towards advocacy.

There are also opportunities to be harnessed from the fact that Confucian tradi-

tion, which seeks to emphasize harmony as social cohesion, is seen as central to ensur-

ing the survival of the nation (Yao, 2007), meaning that open confrontation and civil

disobedience will be unhelpful advocacy strategies. The structure of society with its

emphasis on collective well-being is a further area of opportunity and one closely

linked to the question of maintaining social cohesion. In simple terms, it could be said

that failure to address social problems could lead to both the creation of an underclass

and increased social unrest. Social workers, viewing the question of the promotion of

social justice through advocacy in such a context, could be said to be remiss in the ful-

fillment of their duties if they did not bring matters of concern to the attention of the

authorities.

Finally, the actions of the Singapore Government in response to dissidence need to be

both re-examined and reconstructed. It would appear that the response is linked to mat-

ters of political dissidence rather than evidence-based consciousness, raising concerns

Collect and analyze evidence. Use your

micro skills and research skills to gather evidence

Begin advocacy. Use your engagementskills to begin to

persuade decision makers

Begin collaboration. Think about the big

picture and whatmight be different

Use your managment and

program planning skills to implement change. Ensure thatthere are review andevaluation criteria

Reflect on theoryand practice. Apply

critical and reflectiveapproaches to

review your practice experience

Figure 1 The cycle of advocacy.


� 2010 The Author


about the well-being of groups of citizens. There is not evidence, from the research, that

there is unwillingness on the part of the Singapore Government to contemplate planned

and measured changes seeking to enhance the well-being of citizens.

As such, the model of advocacy needs to be reconstructed to appear as shown in

Figure 2. What distinguishes this model from the previous one is that it specifically fac-

tors in the need to review, reflect and reconstruct the sociopolitical context of practice.

This model of advocacy specifically enables, and requires, social workers to reflect on

the opportunities of their context. While this discussion has been generated out of

research in the Singapore context, it has relevance for the promotion of social justice

through advocacy in a wide range of contexts. The two important aspects that social

workers need to grapple with are, specifically, the opportunities and constraints inherent

in their context as well as committing to reconsidering aspects that may have previously

been thought to be constraints.

Conclusions

At this point it is important to note that the proposed model remains theoretical. It has

not been tested. Clearly, further research is needed to test out the model and to gather a

body of knowledge concerning its application and effectiveness.

In order to remain committed to the social work mission concerning social justice,

social workers need to have not only the capacity to respond to human problems but the

Reflect on your context and re-construct the constraints

Collect and analyse your

evidence

Begin advocacy using engagment

skills

Begin collaboration

Use management and program

evaluation skills

Reflect on theory and

practice

Figure 2 Advocacy in context.


� 2010 The Author


skills and commitment to engage in activities designed to alter the conditions under which

people live their lives. The focus of social work advocacy cannot be concerned only with

ensuring that the individual client receives a service. Advocacy and the promotion of

social justice must be concerned with the goal of ensuring that all members of a given

society are afforded a similar level of minimal social rights and standards of living. Fur-

ther, the connections between direct practice skills and advocacy strategies need to be

examined in a deeper fashion and promoted as a means of constructing pathways

towards advocacy.

To varying degrees, all governments seek to avoid messages that suggest there are

social problems and that their existing efforts to address these problems have not yielded

the desired outcomes. The particular social, political and institutional arrangements in

each context will generally dictate the degree of government tolerance to activities seeking

to address and change social problems.

While there are many strategies available for social workers to pursue social justice

through advocacy, it is important, if not vital, that careful attention is afforded to review-

ing the specific sociopolitical context and adopting an advocacy strategy pertinent to that

context. This discussion has urged that a strategy of advocacy built on the notion of col-

laborative relationship building between the key stakeholders is effective in instances

where governments are particularly sensitive to advocacy. Further, it is held that

all advocacy activities must be built on the development of a body of evidence able to

persuade decision makers of the need for change.

References

Alcock, P. (2001). The comparative context. In P. Alcock, & G. Craig (Eds.), International social

policy (pp. 1–25). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Alston, M., & Bowles, W. (2003). Research for social workers: an introduction to methods. Crows

Nest NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Arminio, J. L., & Hultgren, F. H. (2002). Breaking out from the shadow: the question of criteria in

qualitative research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 446–60.

Aspalter, C. (2006). East Asian welfare regime. In N. T. Tan, & S. Vasoo (Eds.), Challenge of

social care in Asia (pp. 19–42). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International (Singapore) Pte

Ltd.

Barr, M. D. (2008). Singapore’s Catholic social activities: alleged Marxist conspirators. In

M. D. Barr, & C. Trocki (Eds.), Paths not taken: political pluralism in post-war Singapore

(pp. 228–47). Singapore: NUS Press.

Bryman, A.. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chua, B. H. (1995). Communitarian ideology and democracy in Singapore. New York:

Routledge.

Chua, B. H. (2009). Communitarianism without competitive politics. In B. H. Chua (Ed.),

Communitarian politics in Asia (pp. 78–101). Abingdon: Routledge.

Church, P. (2006). A short history of South-East Asia (4th ed.). Singapore: John Wiley and Sons.

Dalrymple, J. (2004). Developing the concept of professional advocacy. Journal of Social Work,

4(2), 179–97.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1983). The incompatibilities of the welfare state. Thesis Eleven, 7, 42–53.


� 2010 The Author


George, C.. (2005). Calibrated coercion and the maintenance of hegemony in Singapore.

Singapore: Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series No 48. http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg,

accessed 18 October 2005.

Ghesquiere, H. (2007). Singapore’s success: engineering economic growth. Singapore:

Thomson.

Howarth, J., & Calder, M. (1998). Working together to protect children on the child protection

register. British Journal of Social Work, 28, 879–95.

International Bar Association. (2008). Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights,

democracy and the rule of law in Singapore. London: International Association Human Rights

Institute. http://www.ibanet.org, accessed 26 November 2008.

International Federation of Social Workers. (2004). Ethics in social work, statement of principles.

Geneva: International Federation of Social Workers. http://www.ifsw.org, accessed 10

February 2006.

Lee, K. Y. (1998). The Singapore story. Singapore: Times Media Pte Ltd.

Lee, K. Y. (2000). From third world to first: the Singapore story 1965–2000. Singapore: Times

Media Pte Ltd.

Low, L., & Aw, T. C. (2004). Social insecurity in the new millennium: the Central Provident Fund

in Singapore. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.

Lyons, L., & Gomez, J. (2005). Moving beyond the OB markers: rethinking the space of civil

society in Singapore. Sojourn, 20(2), 119–31.

Marshall, T.H. (1963). Sociology at the crossroads and other essays. London: Heinemann.

Mok, K. H., & Lau, M. (2002). Changing government role for socio-economic development in

Hong Kong in the twenty-first century. Policy Studies, 23(2), 107–24.

Morris, T. (2006). Social work research methods: four alternative paradigms. Thousand Oaks CA:

Sage Publications.

Nguyen, P. M., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2005). Cooperative learning vs. Confucian heritage

culture’s collectivism: confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and anguish. Asia Europe

Journal, 3(3), 403–19.

Payne, M. (2005). The origins of social work: continuity and change. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Pollack, D. (2007). Social workers and the United Nations: effective advocacy strategies.

International Social Work, 50(1), 113–9.

Powell, F. (2001). The politics of social work. London: Sage Publications.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schmidt, V. H. (2005). Varieties of social policy: East Asian welfare capitalism in comparative

perspective. Singapore: Working Paper No. 177, Department of Sociology, National University

of Singapore.

Scott, D. (1993). Inter-agency collaboration: why is it so difficult? Can we do it better? Children

Australia, 18(4), 4–9.

Scott, D. (2005). Inter-organisational collaboration in family-centred practice: a framework for

analysis and action. Australian Social Work, 58(2), 132–41.

Seow, F. (1994). To catch a tartar: a dissident in Lee Kuan Yew’s prison. New Haven CT: Yale

University Southeast Asian Studies.

Tang, K. L. (2000). Social welfare development in East Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Titmuss, R. M. (1974). Social policy: an introduction. New York: Pantheon Books.

Van Krieken, R. (1991). Children and the state: social control and the formation of the Australian

welfare state. Melbourne: Allen and Unwin.


� 2010 The Author


Wee, A. (2002). Social work education in Singapore: early beginnings. In N. T. Tan, & K. K. Mehta

(Eds.), Extending frontiers: social issues and social work in Singapore (pp. 6–19). Singapore:

Marshall Cavendish Academic.

Wee, A. (2004). Where are we coming from: the evolution of social services and social work in

Singapore. In K. K. Mehta, & A. Wee (Eds.), Social work in context: a reader (pp. 39–80).

Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.

Yao, S. (2007). Singapore: the state and the culture of excess. Abingdon: Routledge.

Yin, R. (2003). Application of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage

Publications.

Zajda, J., Majhanovich, S., & Rust, V. (2006). Introduction: education and social justice.

International Review of Education, 52(1), 9–22.

Zhang, Y. (2003). Pacific Asia: the politics of development. London: Routledge.


� 2010 The Author


social work advocacy in singapore: some reflections on the constraints and opportunities

Documents