NCO101 Study Unit 3

Study Unit 3
Community:
Definitions & Contexts
NCO101 Community: Definitions and Contexts
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
1. Understand the community concept and its evolution

2. Apply the community concept in local or international situations
3. Examine the dynamic relationship between individual and community
wellbeing through a multidisciplinary framework
SU3-2
Overview
This Study Unit invites you to engage and understand community as a concept.
Chapter 1 outlines various ways of describing community and discusses the
concept’s interdisciplinary heritage. Chapter 2 applies the concept of community,
using Singapore’s experiences, in the contexts of regionalism and globalisation
(referencing the terms regional community and global community).
SU3-3
Chapter 1 Community: Typologies and History
1.1 Pervasiveness / Expansiveness of Community
At first glance, community is a term we appear to take for granted, using it to refer to
almost anything that even hints at a situation that refers to more than an individual
pursuit or requires the endeavours of more than one person individual. In Singapore,
we would be familiar with the presence of the term in policies and institutions. These
include community development, Community Engagement Programme (CEP), the
community centres/clubs, the Community Development Councils, Community Chest
(the charity arm of the National Council of Social Services), Community Health
Centres, and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) (one of the
successors for earlier government ministries with the community development
portfolio).
Take sociologist Tony Blackshaw’s observation (in the context of the United Kingdom):
“In the place of ‘health’, ‘old people’s homes and mental institutions’, tax on
the rateable values of people’s homes’, ‘arts’, ‘sports’, ‘policing’, ‘safety’, ‘town
planning’, ‘fire stations’, ‘businesses’, ‘the poor’ and the Football Association’s
Charity Shield match, we now got ‘community health’, ‘community care’, ‘the
community charge’, ‘community arts’, ‘community sports’, ‘community
policing’, ‘community safety’, ‘community planning’, ‘community fire stations’,
‘the business community’, ‘disadvantaged communities’ and the FA
Community Shield sponsored by MacDonald’s’. (Blackshaw, 2010)
Widespread usage does not immediately lead to a clearer understanding of

community as a concept. So how do we begin to describe community? What are your
first thoughts when you see the word “community”? What words or imagery would
you immediately associate with the term? Could those include people coming
together for particular activities, such as work, school, or leisure (sports, online
gaming, or playing music)? Would you first think about your language, ethnicity,
religion, culture or political beliefs, or would you first think of the physical space or
territory you feel you belong to (e.g. type of house, neighbourhood, state, country, or
SU3-4
nation etc.)? Others may also think of groups they work with and/or to support, e.g.
communities that may be marginalised (based on age, ethnicity, language, sexuality,
health, socio-economic status etc.)
1.1.1 Descriptions of Community
For a start, we can discern from the above several characteristics associated with
community, namely people and a purpose or a sense of identity that connects them.
To help us unpack the term a bit more, read the following expositions of community:
Academic
“When I was a student at the end of the 1980s, we were introduced to the
concept [community] by breaking it down into the sum of its parts – namely
the three key dimensions of locale, social network and a shared sense of
belonging – accompanied with the proviso that community is also more than
these individual constituents.” (Blackshaw, 2010)
“In general, for sociologists community has traditionally designated a

particular form of social organisation based on small groups, such as
neighbourhoods, the small town, or a spatially bounded locality.
Anthropologists have applied it to culturally defined groups. In other usages,
community refers to a political community, where the emphasis is on
citizenship, self-government, civil society and collective identity. Philosophical
and historical studies have focused more on the idea of community as an
ideology or utopia.” (Delanty, 2003).
“Presently, I view Sense of Community as a spirit of belonging together, a

feeling that there is an authority structure that can be trusted, an awareness
that trade, and mutual benefit come from being together, and a spirit that
comes from shared experiences that are preserved as art.” (McMillan, 1996).
“[A nation] is an imagined political community…. imagined because the

members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-
SU3-5
members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the
image of their communion.” (Anderson, 1983).
Non-academic
“Finally, may I congratulate your community in Queenstown for having

organised this occasion and for becoming identified as a community. When I
first came here nearly 3 ½ years ago, you were unable to articulate yourself. It
was amorphous, inchoate, unorganised, disorganised. Now you can give
scholarships and can decide who deserves to get a hundred dollars for three
years. This is what I mean by a closely-knit society…. And the one weakness
of our present society is that there is too much of the attitude of “each man for
himself”. (Lee, 1966).
“ASEAN is a concert of Southeast Asian nations, bonded together in

partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies,
committed to upholding cultural diversity and social harmony…. ASEAN shall
continue its efforts to ensure closer and mutually beneficial integration among
its member states and among their peoples, and to promote regional peace and
stability, security, development and prosperity with a view to realizing an
ASEAN Community that is open, dynamic and resilient…” (ASEAN, 2003).
“What makes a community? What binds it together? For some it is faith. For
others it is the defense of an idea, such as democracy. Some communities are
homogeneous, others multicultural. Some are as small as schools and villages,
others as large as continents. Today, of course, more and more communities
are virtual, as people, even in the remotest locations on earth, discover and
promote their shared values through the latest communications and
information technologies. But what binds us into an international community?
In the broadest sense, there is a shared vision of a better world for all people as
set out, for example, in the founding charter of the United Nations. There is a
sense of common vulnerability in the face of global warming and the threat
posed by the spread of weapons of mass destruction. There is the framework
of international law, treaties, and human rights conventions. There is equally a
SU3-6
sense of shared opportunity, which is why we build common markets and joint
institutions such as the United Nations. Together, we are stronger.” (Annan,
2002).
The defunct UCLA Center for the Study of Online Community once sought “to
present and foster studies that focus on how computers and networks alter
people’s capacity to form groups, organisations, institutions, and how those
social formations are able to serve the collective interests of their members. If
you are willing to use the word loosely, all of these social formations can be
thought of as some form of community.” (Quoted from White, 2005)
“Facebook stands for bringing us closer together and building a global

community…. Building a global community that works for everyone starts
with the millions of smaller communities and intimate social structures we turn
to for our personal, emotional and spiritual needs…. Online communities are
a bright spot, and we can strengthen existing physical communities by helping
people come together online as well as offline…. A woman named Christina
was diagnosed with a rare disorder called Epidermolysis Bullosa -- and now
she's a member of a group that connects 2,400 people around the world so none
of them have to suffer alone. A man named Matt was raising his two sons by
himself and he started the Black Fathers group to help men share advice and
encouragement as they raise their families. In San Diego, more than 4,000
military family members are part of a group that helps them make friends with
other spouses. These communities don't just interact online. They hold get-
togethers, organize dinners, and support each other in their daily lives.”
(Zuckerberg, 2017).
The above descriptions come from varied and diverse contexts, ranging from
academic treatises (form the disciplines of sociology, political science and psychology),
politicians’ speeches and/or writings, to ratified statements and thought-pieces from
public figures or attributed to organisations.
Nevertheless, all their descriptions are connected by a set of commonalities, in

particular a sense of belonging or connection (across physical or digital spaces),
SU3-7
buttressed by interactions based on shared interests or a sense of purpose, and

occurring within a clearly demarcated space (again, physical or digital) with some
sense of organisational structure (formal or informal). From this perspective, we can
perhaps understand the elasticity of the concept and consequent pervasive use of
community in a seemingly unending assortment of contexts.
1.2 The Interdisciplinary Nature of Community Studies
This very elasticity has caused bemused consternation among some sociologists (such
as Blackshaw and Delanty). This is because community studies have traditionally
been the domain of sociology, focused on social relationships and patterns in
particular locales such as family, villages or towns etc. This approach was largely
based on the writings of – among others – Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx
and Ferdinand Tönnies. Blackshaw observed that his understanding of community
owed much to Tönnies’ study of the movement from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft (both
in the German language) during the 19th century. Gemeinschaft can be translated into
community, specifically referring to a “unity based on personal and intimate social
relations of family and kinship”, while Gesellschaft can be translated into society, or
a social situation where “impersonal and contractual relations of a more calculating
kind” are more predominant. (Blackshaw, 2010). This approach also grounded
community studies firmly in physical or tangible locales or situations, such as the
family (immediate and extended) and neighbourhood (village, towns etc.).
This sociological understanding of community, i.e. as a social practice in a particular

place, was irreversibly affected by what is called the “cultural turn” sometime from
the 1980s. Both Blackshaw and Delanty acknowledge political scientist Benedict
Anderson’s Imagined Communities (first published in 1983) and anthropologist
Anthony Cohen’s The Symbolic Structure of Community (published in 1985) for shifting
the focus of community to a “concern with meaning and identity” (Delanty, 2003),
something that no longer “rested solidly upon social foundations – it was now
metaphysical” (Blackshaw, 2010). A community was something that cannot exist
without “imagery, boundary marking processes, customs, habits, rituals and the
communication of theses – in other words, that symbols do not simply describe
SU3-8
community; they contribute in some fundamental sense to community being what it

is, and in this sense may be said to be a key part of its construction.” (Blackshaw, 2010).
Put another way, the application of community is no longer constrained to the family
or neighbourhoods. The ideas posited by Anderson, Cohen and others have provided
the intellectual basis for community to be applied to or to make sense in much broader
(and at times less tangible) contexts, such as the nation, cooperation between nations,
and online or digital communities. This approach has also the inadvertent
consequence of creating the “Other” to differentiate from other communities.
Around the same time (i.e. 1980s), running parallel to the cultural turn, psychologists
David McMillan and David Chavis presented a definition and theory of the sense of
community. This was a reaction to perceived rising tensions between different
American communities as well as the need for empirical data on community relations
to support federal, state and community programmes. (See Lin and Huyt for an
application of McMillan and Chavis’s framework on the role of the National Library
of Singapore in creating a sense of community). A sense of community was defined as
“a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one
another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through
their commitment to be together.” (McMillan and Chavis, 1986). Four elements were
also identified:
1. Membership, or the “feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of personal

relatedness.”
2. Influence, or a “sense of mattering, of making a difference to a group and

of the group mattering to its members.”
3. Reinforcement, or integration and fulfilment of needs, described as a

“feeling that members’ needs will be met by the resources received through
their membership in the group.”
4. Shared emotional connection, or the “commitment and belief that members

have shared and will share history, common places, time together, and
similar experiences.” (McMillan and Chavis, 1986).
SU3-9
As seen above, McMillan updated the definition in 1996 and renamed the four
elements into Spirt (for Membership), Trust (for Influence), Trade (for Reinforcement)
and Art (for Shared emotional connection). The essence of his understanding of
community, or more accurately a sense of community, remains the same. Although
originally intended for empirical research into specific physical locales (following the
traditional sociological approach), McMillan’s understanding is similar to the cultural
understanding of community, especially the element of Art, which includes the
impact of “symbols, stories, music, and other symbolic expressions” that affect
perceptions of community. (McMillan, 1996).
1.2.1 Four Positions on Community
Even though other disciplines have adopted and adapted the concept, sociologist
Gerard Delanty (2003) observes that the term still “does in fact designate both an idea
about belonging and a particular social phenomenon, such as expressions of longing
for community, the search for meaning and solidarity, and collective identities.” As
such, it should not be simply “equated with particular groups of a place. Nor can it be
reduced to an idea, for ideas do not simply exist outside social relations, socially
structured discourses and a historical milieu.” In other words, the way we understand
and present community must be grounded and be in context. Delanty (2003) identifies
four positions that can help us with our reading of community in various contexts.
The first is an approach that reflects communitarian philosophy, which “associates

community with disadvantaged urban localities and requiring government supported
responses and civic voluntarism such as community regeneration, community health
projects, etc.” Community here is “highly spatialised and has to be helped by the
mainstream ‘society’.” Communities here could refer to disadvantaged communities,
such as the elderly, the sick, or minorities (of various categories).
The second position presents community as searching for belonging and emphasising
on cultural issues of identity, a la Anderson, Cohen and other cultural sociologists and
anthropologists. Approaches here usually present community as Self versus Other,
e.g. an American would be different from a Singaporean, who in turn is different from
an Indonesian.
SU3-10
The third position presents community in the context of “political consciousness and
collective action”. This approach emphasises the “collective We opposing injustice.”
Communities here could overlap with communities described in the first position, but
perhaps with the latter as the subject for community organisation and action.
The fourth position emerged around the Internet, advancements in “global

communications”, and developments in “transnational movements”. Delanty
suggests that technology has reshaped “social relations beyond the traditional
categories of place”, allowing individuals to connect, interact and maintain a firm
social relationship across vast distances, possibly without ever meeting one another.
The idea of belonging is central to the members of these diverse, likely online,
communities (which also overlap with communities that may not find the support and
resources they require from their immediate physical vicinity.
To be clear, the above is not meant to be conclusive or exhaustive on how community

can be understood and presented. The information provided is to give both student
and instructor a common foundation to understand how the concept evolved, what it
inherited from various disciplines and contexts, up to how it is currently understood.
The above are summaries of particular positions that emerged from particular
contexts and questions. The question now is how would you describe and/or explain
community based on your reading of course materials as well as your own experiences.
Activity 3.1: Singapore’s Kampung Spirit as Community?
The kampung spirit has long been used to harken to a spirit of community in an
earlier Singapore that had more kampungs (roughly translated as villages or even
small towns, and sometimes used metaphorically to refer to home) than HDB
(Housing Development Board) flats.
Read and/or peruse the following articles and/or materials:
 National Archives of Singapore. Blast from the Past: Kampung Spirit.

https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/blastfromthepast/kampungspirit
SU3-11
 Singapore Together (Our SG). Rekindling the Kampung Spirit with Technology.
https://www.sg/stories/sgkampung
 Chia, J. (2018). Commentary: Kampung spirit not a wish to revert to the

past, but a longing for togetherness. CNA.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/singapore-kampung-
spirit-not-a-wish-to-revert-to-the-past-802006
 Wan, W. (2023). Is kampung spirit so broken that Singapore authorities

must enter homes to resolve neighbour disputes? The Pride.
https://pride.kindness.sg/is-kampung-spirit-so-broken-that-singapore-
authorities-must-enter-homes-to-resolve-neighbour-disputes/
 Mohamed F. and Teo, E. P. (2019). Using Narrative Practices in Community

Development for Children and Families Living in Vulnerable Estates. In
Vasoo, S., Singh, B., & Chan, X. J. Community development arenas in
Singapore. World Scientific.
https://search.library.suss.edu.sg/permalink/65SUSS_INST/sk51at/alma9918
8109504926
Reflect on how community is understood and presented in each of those

readings/materials. Which of the four positions outlined by Delanty do you think
best fits those understandings and presentations? It is ok if you do not think any of
the four positions fits. Then try to come up with your own explanation of
community as presented in the readings/materials.
SU3-12
Chapter 2 Community: Regionalism and Globalisation
This chapter takes advantage of a broader conceptualisation of community, beyond

the traditional sociological focus on social relationships in specific locales and
examining, largely from Singapore’s position, the role of an individual nation in a
larger community framework, like ASEAN and other international organisations.
2.1 ASEAN as a Regional Community
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN was established in 1967 via
the signing of the Bangkok Declaration by the founding member-states of Thailand,
the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. The Bangkok Declaration was a
simple document. It presented seven aims that largely focused on cooperation in
social and economic matters. The first aim was “to accelerate the economic growth,
social progress and cultural development in the region through joint endeavours in
the spirit of equality and partnership in order to strengthen the foundation for a
prosperous and peaceful community of South-East Asian Nations.” (ASEAN, 1967).
Today, ASEAN has expanded to 10 member-states, with East Timor’s membership
agreed to in principle in 2022.
S. Rajaratnam, Singapore’s first foreign minister and a signatory of the Bangkok

Declaration, had no illusions or lofty pretensions regarding the motivations for
ASEAN. He observed in 1992 that “ASEAN was born…out of fear rather than
idealistic convictions about regionalism.” He continued, “I believe that it is not
common ideals but common fears that generally hold groups and nations together.
The moment the common fear disappears, the brotherhood becomes an arena for
dissension, conflict and even bloodshed.” (Rajaratnam, 1992).
When reflecting in 1992, Rajaratnam was responding to momentous world events that
occurred a year earlier in 1991, namely the collapse of the Soviet Union and the more
violent dissolution of Yugoslavia (which descended into a series of conflicts along
ethnic divisions throughout the 1990s). Fellow founding signatory and Thailand’s
foreign minister, Thanat Khoman, agreed. Recollecting the conceptualisation of
ASEAN during the 1960s, he outlined earlier failed attempts at regionalisation and
SU3-13
traced the reasons for those failures to the legacy of Western imperialism and the
contemporaneous impact of the Cold War then. Thanat observed, “The most
important [reason for ASEAN] was the fact that, with the withdrawal of the colonial
powers, there would have been a power vacuum which could have attracted outsiders
to step in for political gains. As the colonial masters had discouraged any form of
intra-regional contact, the idea of neighbours working together in a joint effort was
thus to be encouraged.” (Thanat, 1992).
Rajaratnam also noted that ASEAN was one of two surviving regional organisations
in 1992. He referred to the “European Community”, which was established in 1957
(10 years before ASEAN). There were actually three such organisations, i.e. European
Coal and Steel Community (established in 1951), European Economic Community
(1957), and the European Atomic Energy Community (1957). In 1993, the European
Economic Community was renamed European Community (EC) and together with
the other two communities, became the first pillar of the new European Union (EU).
The name-change indicated the broadening of its initial economic objectives, e.g. a
common market and customs union, into social and environmental policies.
It remains to be seen if ASEAN can achieve a similar level of economic and social
integration the EU has attained. As it stands, the intent to establish an ASEAN
Community was stated in 2007, 40 years after the organisation’s founding, with a clear
roadmap established in 2009, which spelled out clear objectives and supporting
institutional structures, namely the Political-Security Community, Economic
Community, and Socio-Cultural Community. It did also some time to establish a
coherent roadmap, and the process is still fraught with obstacles, e.g. global
geopolitics putting ASEAN countries in the middle of the competing interests of
bigger powers (e.g. the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America)
and a turn inwards towards national interests at the expense of regional goals.
For a country like Singapore, with severe limitations in physical size, population and
access to natural resources, it is not an overstatement to say that the country’s options
are similarly limited. Let us apply (loosely) McMillan and Chavis’ sense of community
framework. Being part of ASEAN provides Singapore with not only a sense of
belonging (membership) but a sense of mattering (influence) as well. For instance,
SU3-14
Singapore led the launch of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network it held the ASEAN chair
in 2018, facilitating an exchange of information on the use of technology to address
various urban challenges in selected ASEAN cities. In this case, being part of a
regional community allows Singapore some sense of identity and purpose beyond the
nation-state, and in the process obtaining data that could help the communities living
and working in Singapore – which in turn meets the third element of reinforcement,
or integration / fulfilment of needs. For various reasons (including perhaps
Singapore’s and ASEAN’s predominant focus on economic and developmental
objectives), it may however take some more time for Singaporeans to feel a shared
emotional connection or that they have a shared history or experiences with other
ASEAN countries.
2.1.1 Singapore and ASEAN
Thant (1992) recalled that initial discussions for ASEAN did not include Singapore.
It was only after Rajaratnam requested for inclusion/membership was Singapore
considered and accepted. In Thanat’s (1992) own words, “Singapore sent S.
Rajaratnam, then Foreign Minister, to see me about joining the new set-up.
Although the new organisation was planned to comprise only the former ASA
members plus Indonesia, Singapore’s request was favourably considered.” (ASA
refers to an Association of Southeast Asia that was established in 1961. It originally
included Thailand, the Federation of Malaya (as Malaysia was known before 1963,
sans Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak), and the Philippines.)
Thanat’s memory, accurate or otherwise, nevertheless reiterates the urgency and

vulnerability the leaders of Singapore felt after sudden independence on 9 August
1965. For those living and working in Singapore, we may be familiar with aspects
of the Singapore Story, i.e. the story of how the nation struggle against the odds
for survival after separation from Malaysia in 1965 and thereafter, to continuously
sustain its successes. At the point of Separation, the region around Singapore was
perhaps unavoidably perceived as hostile, first given the acrimonious nature of
the split (i.e. underlying racial tensions and political differences) from Malaysia
and second, the ongoing conflict with Indonesia known as Konfrontasi (or
Confrontation), which officially ended in 1966. The urgent apprehension felt after
SU3-15
Separation was further heightened by the planned withdrawal of British military

forces from the fledgling island nation-state, which not only affected security but
also had economic consequences as a substantial portion of the local economy was
supporting the British military presence. (Loh, 2011).
2.2 Singapore and a Global Community/Hinterland
The economic concerns were on Rajaratnam’s mind when he gave a speech to

entitled Singapore: A Global City to a group of journalists in 1972. The premise of
the talk was to address the question of how Singapore managed to survive
Separation in 1965 and looked set to weather the economic impact of the British
military withdrawal (announced in 1967 and largely completed by 1971).
This speech was perhaps the first instance the post-1965 direction Singapore took
was given a semi-intellectual basis, based on realpolitik. Rajaratnam (1972) said,
“If we view Singapore's future not as a regional city but as a Global City, then the
smallness of Singapore, the absence of a hinterland, or raw materials and a large
domestic market are not fatal or insurmountable handicaps. It would explain why,
since independence, we have been successful economically and, consequently,
have ensured political and social stability.”
Rajaratnam laid out how Singapore connected to a network of global cities via sea,
air, advanced tele-communications and international finance, all of which in turn
buttress Singapore’s attractive position for multi-national corporations (MNCs)
and the investments and jobs they bring in. For example, the photographic
company Rollei had opened a factory along Alexandra Road in 1971 to
manufacture made-in-Singapore cameras, which were then shipped out to bigger
markets worldwide. (Zaccheus, 2017).
This was the “global economic system” Rajaratnam referred to in his talk, and his
answer to the question how Singapore survived after 1965. He noted that “an
independent Singapore survives and will survive because it has established a
relationship of interdependence in the rapidly expanding global economic
system”, and also did warn Singapore’s fortunes were intricately connected to the
SU3-16
fortunes of the global economy. The latter observation was proven when
Singapore’s economy went into recession several times, most recently as a result
of the COVID19 pandemic. Most if not all of those recessions can be traced to
external factors, e.g. the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the fallout of the SARS virus
in 2003, collapse of the global IT industry in 2001, and the 1997/8 Asian financial
crisis. The first post-independence recession in 1985 was the only time Singapore’s
domestic economy contracted while the global economy was still expanding,
(Menon, 2015), but external factors such as decreasing global demand and
Singapore being by-passed as an entrepot also caused the recession.
Watch
Video Title: Blueprint For Survival S1E1: 1985 Recession
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/blueprint-survival/1985-recession-
1560116
Abstract: In 1985, reeling from the shock of Singapore's first recession since
independence, the country formed a strike force of public and private sector
experts working shoulder-to-shoulder to chart a new economic path that
averted a crisis and helped Singapore to weather subsequent economic storms.
2.2.1 Globalisation and the Global Community
The “relationship of independence” Rajaratnam referred to is a key characteristic

of conventional understandings of globalisation. Globalisation is a concept that
originated from economic discourse, which focuses primarily on how markets
around the world are connected and/or integrated, usually through advancements
in transportation infrastructure and communication technologies. These were
reinforced by the expansion of international cooperation, especially after the
Second World War, as reflected by international organisations such as the United
Nations or the World Health Organisation.
This in turn creates that relationship of independence that Singapore benefits as

well as suffers from, depending on the global situation and the performance of the
SU3-17
global economy. A symbol or imagery traditionally associated with globalisation

is the container, transported across vast distances by super-tanker ships, jet planes
or modern trains. (Baldwin, 2018; Vanham, 2019). Compare that to how
Rajaratnam (1972) described his vision of the Global City, “The Global City, now
in its infancy, is the child of modern technology. It is the city that electronic
communications, supersonic planes, giant tankers and modem economic and
industrial organisation have made inevitable.”
Watch
Video Title: Why will future globalisation be so different
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_baldwin_why_will_future_globalisation_b
e_so_different
Abstract: Are you ready for future globalization? Everyone knows about the rise
of the robots, but the same digital technologies are also creating a new "virtual"
globalization – where talented foreigners sitting abroad can work alongside us
in our offices. Due to advanced telecommunications and machine translation, it
will seem almost as if these "tele-migrants" are actually there and speaking the
same language. Think of it as the "gig" economy gone global. Richard’s talk
illuminates a path to preparing for the changes.
The key takeaway for this part of the chapter is how Singapore has continued to
position itself as a key node in the global economic system, and the impact on our
understanding of community. For better or worse, Singapore’s economy has to
remain open, to both the good and the not so good consequences of globalisation.
Being an integral part of the global community has provided many benefits. From
economic investments comes opportunities for jobs and socio-economic
advancement for Singaporeans and residents of Singapore. The nation obtained
and maintained a strong worldwide reputation (see for example Singh, 2023 on
Singapore’s passport becoming the most powerful in the world). More subtly,
exposure to diverse cultures and the knowledge embedded in those, which should
SU3-18
ideally complement and buttress Singapore’s own multicultural and multiracial

approach.
The flipside to globalisation (or at least in a relationship of interdependence) is

how the waxes and wanes of the global economy can and has directly affect
Singapore and quite critically, the communities of Singapore. The Russian-
Ukrainian war, which started in 2022, came hot on the heels of the COVID19
pandemic (which is arguably still ongoing at this point of writing in 2023). This
increased pressure on already strained global supply chains resulted in interesting
situations. To illustrate, the war affected the production and distribution of wheat,
a major ingredient of the Indonesian staple (and really, for Singapore and Malaysia
as well), Indomie instant noodles. (Llewellyn, 2022).
More directly relevant for how we can understand community is how the same
technologies that brought about globalisation and its benefits, have also
potentially undermined the fabric of national communities. Just as Ukrainian
wheat is connected to Indonesian instant noodles, the cases of killings of African
Americans and other minorities in the United States have also been connected to
perceived racial injustices and discrimination elsewhere. For instance, the
minority Singaporean Malay and Indian communities have referenced such events
and their accompanying discourses (which emerged outside the Singaporean
context), e.g. Critical Race Theory, white privilege or being woke (used informally
to mean being awoken to or aware of racial discrimination and injustices), to frame
less than savoury experiences in Singapore. Such experiences have moreover been
captured and shared widely via communication technologies or platforms that
characterise digital globalisation.
For a nation-state that came into being partly over ethnic issues, i.e. the 1964 racial
riots and the fundamentally different visions of Malaysia offered by the then
leaders of the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the United Malays National
Organisation (UMNO), the response reflected quiet but urgent concerns over the
potential ramifications if public discourse went unchecked or unaddressed. For
instance, public discussions over perceived privileges possessed by the majority
Singaporean Chinese community reached a point where the Prime Minister
SU3-19
himself to address it publicly in his National Day Rally speech in 2021. (Lee, 2021).
Such and related issues will be discussed further in other parts of this Study Guide
in the context of approaching differences in a community.
To sum up this part of the chapter, we have attempted to demonstrate a broader

understanding of community, applied preliminarily to the contexts of regionalism
and globalisation, using Singapore’s experiences to flesh out some of the
abstractions. In doing so, we hope to come away with a better appreciation of the
dynamic relationship between an individual (person, organisation, or even
country) and the community it identifies with.
SU3-20
Summary
In sum, this Study Unit has introduced community as a concept. It has outlined
various ways of describing community, the concept’s interdisciplinary heritage, and
the various contexts in which it can be applied, i.e. regionalism and globalisation.
SU3-21
References
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of

Nationalism. Verso.
Annan, K. A. (2002). Problems without Passports. Foreign Policy, 132, 30–31.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3183446
ASEAN (1967). Bangkok Declaration.

https://agreement.asean.org/media/download/20140117154159.pdf
ASEAN (2003). Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II)

https://asean.org/speechandstatement/declaration-of-asean-concord-ii-bali-concord-
ii/
Baldwin, Richard (2018). Why will future globalisation be so different.

TEDxLausanne, TEDx Talks: https://youtu.be/qHBoxRdd08o
Blackshaw, T. (2010). Key concepts in community studies ([Enhanced Credo edition].).

SAGE.
Crow, G. (2018). What are community studies? Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849665964
Delanty, G. (2003). Community. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315011417
https://www.fullcirc.com/wp/community/definingcommunity.htm
Lee, H. L. (2021). National Day Rally Speech 2021.

https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/National-Day-Rally-2021-English
Lee, K. Y. (1966). Speech by the Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, At Queenstown
Community Centre, August 10, 1966.
https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-details/73d68d51-115d-
11e3-83d5-0050568939ad
Lin, H., & Luyt, B. (2014). The National Library of Singapore: creating a sense of
community. Journal of Documentation, 70(4), 658–675. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-
2012-0148
Llewellyn, A. (2022). Far from Ukraine, Indonesia’s favourite noodles run out of stock.
Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/21/as-ukraine-war-sends-wheat-
pas-indonesians-asking-wheres-indomie
SU3-22
Loh, K. S. (2011). “The British Military Withdrawal from Singapore and the Anatomy
of a Catalyst,” in Singapore in Global History, eds., Derek Heng and Syed Muhd
Khairudin Aljunied, eds., Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
McMillan, D. W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology,

24(4), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199610)24:43.0.CO;2-T
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-
6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I
Menon, R. (2015). An economic history of Singapore - 1965-2065. Keynote address by

Mr Ravi Menon, Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, at the
Singapore Economic Review Conference 2015, Singapore, 5 August 2015.
https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/speeches/2015/an-economic-history-of-singapore
Rajaratnam, S. (1972). Singapore: Global City (Text Of Address By Minister For

Foreign Affairs S Rajaratnam To The Singapore Press Club On February 6, 1972).
Ministry of Culture.
https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/PressR19720206a.pdf
Rajaratnam, S. (1992). The Way Ahead. https://asean.org/the-founding-of-

asean/asean-the-way-ahead-by-s-rajaratnam/
Singh, K. (2023). Singapore passport replaces Japan’s as world’s most powerful. The
Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-passport-replaces-
japan-s-as-world-s-most-powerful
Thanat, Khoman (1992). ASEAN Conception and Evolution. https://asean.org/the-

founding-of-asean/asean-conception-and-evolution-by-thanat-khoman/
Vanham, P. (2019). A brief history of globalization. World Economic Forum website.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/how-globalization-4-0-fits-into-the-
history-of-globalization/
Vasoo, S., Singh, B., & Chan, X. J. (2019). Community development arenas in Singapore.
World Scientific.
White, N. (2005). How Some Folks Have Tried to Describe Community.

https://www.fullcirc.com/wp/community/definingcommunity.htm
Zaccheus, M. (2017). Made by Rollei Singapore - a peek into history. The Straits Times.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/made-by-rollei-singapore-a-peek-into-
history.
SU3-23
Zuckerberg, M. (2017). Building Global Community.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/3707971095882612/
SU3-24

NCO101 Study Unit 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NCO101 Study Unit 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study Unit 3

By the end of this unit, you should be able to:

1. Understand the community concept and its evolution

Chapter 1 Community: Typologies and History

1.1 Pervasiveness / Expansiveness of Community

Widespread usage does not immediately lead to a clearer understanding of

1.1.1 Descriptions of Community

“In general, for sociologists community has traditionally designated a

“Presently, I view Sense of Community as a spirit of belonging together, a

“[A nation] is an imagined political community…. imagined because the

“Finally, may I congratulate your community in Queenstown for having

“ASEAN is a concert of Southeast Asian nations, bonded together in

“Facebook stands for bringing us closer together and building a global

Nevertheless, all their descriptions are connected by a set of commonalities, in

buttressed by interactions based on shared interests or a sense of purpose, and

1.2 The Interdisciplinary Nature of Community Studies

This sociological understanding of community, i.e. as a social practice in a particular

community; they contribute in some fundamental sense to community being what it

1. Membership, or the “feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of personal

2. Influence, or a “sense of mattering, of making a difference to a group and

3. Reinforcement, or integration and fulfilment of needs, described as a

4. Shared emotional connection, or the “commitment and belief that members

1.2.1 Four Positions on Community

The first is an approach that reflects communitarian philosophy, which “associates

The fourth position emerged around the Internet, advancements in “global

To be clear, the above is not meant to be conclusive or exhaustive on how community

Activity 3.1: Singapore’s Kampung Spirit as Community?

Read and/or peruse the following articles and/or materials:

 National Archives of Singapore. Blast from the Past: Kampung Spirit.

 Chia, J. (2018). Commentary: Kampung spirit not a wish to revert to the

 Wan, W. (2023). Is kampung spirit so broken that Singapore authorities

 Mohamed F. and Teo, E. P. (2019). Using Narrative Practices in Community

Reflect on how community is understood and presented in each of those

Chapter 2 Community: Regionalism and Globalisation

This chapter takes advantage of a broader conceptualisation of community, beyond

2.1 ASEAN as a Regional Community

S. Rajaratnam, Singapore’s first foreign minister and a signatory of the Bangkok

2.1.1 Singapore and ASEAN

Thanat’s memory, accurate or otherwise, nevertheless reiterates the urgency and

Separation was further heightened by the planned withdrawal of British military

2.2 Singapore and a Global Community/Hinterland

The economic concerns were on Rajaratnam’s mind when he gave a speech to

Video Title: Blueprint For Survival S1E1: 1985 Recession

2.2.1 Globalisation and the Global Community

The “relationship of independence” Rajaratnam referred to is a key characteristic

This in turn creates that relationship of independence that Singapore benefits as

global economy. A symbol or imagery traditionally associated with globalisation

Video Title: Why will future globalisation be so different

ideally complement and buttress Singapore’s own multicultural and multiracial

The flipside to globalisation (or at least in a relationship of interdependence) is

To sum up this part of the chapter, we have attempted to demonstrate a broader

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of

Annan, K. A. (2002). Problems without Passports. Foreign Policy, 132, 30–31.

ASEAN (1967). Bangkok Declaration.

ASEAN (2003). Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II)

Baldwin, Richard (2018). Why will future globalisation be so different.

Blackshaw, T. (2010). Key concepts in community studies ([Enhanced Credo edition].).

Crow, G. (2018). What are community studies? Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of

Delanty, G. (2003). Community. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315011417

Lee, H. L. (2021). National Day Rally Speech 2021.

McMillan, D. W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology,

Menon, R. (2015). An economic history of Singapore - 1965-2065. Keynote address by

Rajaratnam, S. (1972). Singapore: Global City (Text Of Address By Minister For