Public Consultation Toolkit - Civil Service College

Public Consultation Toolkit 

FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY 

FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY

Copyright © Ministry of the Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA), 

Singapore, 2010 

Email: MICA_Public_Communications_Division@mica.gov.sg 

Supported by: 

Public Service Division 

Email: PSD_PS21@psd.gov.sg 

For more information, contact: 

Civil Service College 

Email: cscollege_ipam@cscollege.gov.sg 

Printed in September 2010. 

Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced, published or transmitted in any 

form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recorded or otherwise without the prior permission of the 

copyright owner. You may use the contents and save an electronic copy, or print out a copy, of parts of this publication 

solely for your own information, research or study, provided you include the copyright notice on such copy. All information 

is correct at the time of publishing and printing, and is subject to change without prior notice.


Context 

One of the early roots of public consultation grew in 1985, with the formation of the Feedback 

Unit. 

The importance of public consultation has risen over the years, with the increasing political 

maturity of the Singapore populace and greater interest in participation in policy development. 

According to a Public Perception Survey conducted in 2009 by Ernst & Young Advisory (EYA), 68 

percent of the respondents wanted more opportunities for providing feedback to the Government. 

Among the government agencies, there is also an increased recognition that public consultation 

improves policy solutions and facilitates implementation. 

In order to facilitate effective public consultation, it was timely for a review of the public 

consultation process in Singapore, to tap on the experience and leading practices of various 

agencies, and share them across the public sector. It is in this context that the Ministry of 

Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA) and Public Service Division (PSD), in conjunction 

with Civil Service College (CSC) developed a toolkit for public consultation for government 

agencies in Singapore. CSC also commissioned EYA to conduct a public opinion survey and 

research on public consultation practices overseas. 

The Public Consultation Toolkit provides a basic set of guidance notes for public agencies in the 

conduct of public consultation. The Toolkit aims to serve as a user-friendly guide for specialists 

and generalists alike on the principles, processes and tools available for public consultation. The 

Toolkit is not meant to be prescriptive, and hence, agencies can customise the Toolkit so that it is 

contextualised to meet their needs. 

The Public Consultation Toolkit was developed with input from Public Sector Leaders and officers 

from ministries and statutory boards who shared their challenges, experiences and learning points 

from conducting public consultation exercises. The Toolkit also incorporates international leading 

practices and case studies on public consultation. This is to ensure that the Toolkit is relevant to 

the strategic intent, operational requirements of agencies and meets stakeholder expectations. 

This Toolkit is meant for circulation among ministry and statutory board officers only. It should 

not be extended to the public or media.

Public Consultation Toolkit ii iii Public Consultation Toolkit 

Contents 

1. Introduction 1 

1.1. Public consultation in the Public Service 1 

1.2. How to use this Toolkit 4 

2. Reasons for public consultation 5 

3. Key guiding principles for public consultation 6 

4. Pre-consultation considerations 7 

4.1. Factors to consider 7 

4.2. Stages of policy development 9 

4.3. Public consultation process 10 

5. Developing the strategy for consultation 11 

5.1. Step 1: Identify stakeholders 11 

5.2. Step 2: Select tools and channels 18 

5.3. Step 3: Anticipate obstacles and challenges 21 

6. Consultation preparation and implementation 35 

6.1. Step 4: Develop action plan and timeline 35 

6.2. Step 5: Design consultation materials 38 

6.3. Step 6: Generate awareness and plan public communication exercises 39 

6.4. Step 7: Launch consultation exercise 44 

7. Follow-up and analysis 46 

7.1. Step 8: Collate feedback and close the loop 46 

7.2. Step 9: Assess effectiveness of the public consultation exercise 52 

8. Conclusion 54 

Acknowledgements 55 

Index of case examples 56 

References 57 

Appendices 60

Public Consultation Toolkit Public Consultation Toolkit 

1. Introduction 

1.1. Public consultation in the Public Service 

Public consultation is a process by which government interacts with the public or stakeholders 

to seek input and discuss issues regarding a specific deliverable, which is often either a policy or 

initiative. 

Public consultation as defined here is distinct from public engagement, which refers to the 

government’s ongoing involvement with stakeholders or partners, and is not necessarily 

focused on a particular policy, initiative or issue. 

The key difference between public consultation and public engagement is the driving impetus 

behind the activity. While the objective of public consultation is to gather feedback on a specific 

issue, the ultimate goal of public engagement is to develop a longer term relationship with 

stakeholders. 

Case 1: 

Regulatory regime for the private education sector – an illustration of public 

consultation 

Agency/country: 

• Ministry of Education (MOE), Singapore 

Background: 

• The rapid growth of the private education (PE) sector had led to uneven standards across 

private educational institutions (PEIs). To address this, MOE proposed to establish a new 

regulatory regime to improve standards in the PE sector, to be overseen by a statutory body, 

the Council for Private Education. 

• The new regulatory regime consists of three key features: (i) an Enhanced Registration 

Framework that sets out mandatory standards in the key areas of corporate governance, 

academic rigour, and information transparency which PEIs need to adhere to in order to 

be allowed to operate their businesses; (ii) a voluntary certification scheme (EduTrust) with 

higher and more comprehensive standards to allow quality PEIs to differentiate themselves 

from the rest; and (iii) regulatory levers to allow for a range of graduated solutions to match 

the severity of breaches. 

• A public consultation exercise was conducted from March to May 2009 to seek feedback on 

the key principles and features of the new regulatory framework . 

Consultation Process: 

• MOE posted the Consultation Paper on its website, with a hyperlink on REACH’s (Reaching 

Everyone for Active Citizenry@Home) Portal to widen the reach to the public and 

stakeholders. 

• An industry briefing was held for PEIs to facilitate their understanding of the key features of 

the new regulatory regime. Over 500 PEI representatives attended the briefings. 

• Four focus group discussions were conducted with selected PEIs and students whose views 

would be representative of their communities. This helped MOE to further unpack the 

concerns that have been raised. 

Outcomes: 

• After the close of the public consultation exercise, MOE evaluated the feedback received and 

incorporated several suggestions into the regulatory framework. A summary of responses 

to the feedback was also published on the MOE website. 

• The Private Education (PE) Bill was also refined based on the feedback received. Consultation 

on the PE Bill was conducted in July 2009 to seek final views. 

• The PE Bill was introduced in Parliament in August 2009 and the Second and Third Readings 

took place in September 2009. The Private Education Act was finally gazetted in October 

2009. 

• The Council for Private Education was formally instituted on 1 Dec 2009 as a Statutory Board 

under MOE, and it commenced operations of the new regulatory regime on 21 Dec 2009.


Case 2: 

‘Friends of LTA’ – An illustration of public engagement 


• Land Transport Authority (LTA), Singapore 

Background: 

• The third strategic thrust of LTA’s Land Transport Master Plan is to “meet the diverse needs of 

the people”. 

• In support of this strategic thrust, LTA began its Friends of LTA (FOLTA) scheme in May 2008. 

FOLTA invites members of the public – students, retirees, business leaders, housewives and 

those with diverse needs – to become informal ambassadors of land transport. 

Engagement Process: 

• LTA regularly engages FOLTA at corporate events, visits to construction sites and other 

activities to obtain a behind-the-scenes perspective of land transport 1 . 

Outcomes: 

• FOLTA members provide valuable feedback to LTA on the needs of the public and provide 

ideas on improving land transport. In 2010, FOLTA’s participation in several focus group 

discussions offered specific valuable input that helped to: 

From the cases on page 2 and 3, it can generally be seen that: 

Public Consultation is specific to a policy or initiative, and seeks to understand stakeholder 

sentiment, or to test, validate or prioritise policy options. It is also important to note that there 

is a key difference between public communication and public consultation. In the former, the 

policy decision has been made and the government is communicating the decision to the 

public. In the latter, the policy decision has not been made and the government is seeking input 

from stakeholders. 

Public Engagement involves active involvement of stakeholders over a longer period of time, 

ideally through a more substantive and deliberative dialogue/conversation that promotes 

mutual and shared understanding, and through ongoing partnership and collaboration. 

1.2. How to use this Toolkit 

This Toolkit provides public officers with: 

1. A starting point to embark on effective public consultation, 

2. Practical guidelines and steps for the planning and implementation of public consultation, 

3. Compilation of channels which public officers can use to conduct public consultation; and 

4. Case examples from international and Singapore agencies. 

There is no “one size fits all” solution. This toolkit merely provides a point of reference 

upon which further customisation can be done. 

- Shape the content and tone of public messaging on Distance Fares to ensure clarity 

- Clarify current public perceptions of LTA 

Source: 

1 Land Transport Authority, 2009. Friends of LTA case study, .


2. Reasons for public consultation 

The reasons for public consultation in Singapore are: 

1. To feel the pulse 

• Anticipate concerns from stakeholders/public early 

• Understand stakeholder/public sentiment and the ground situation 

• Provide a channel for stakeholders to be heard and enable greater participation in the 

policy development process 

2. To test and refine ideas for better policy solutions 

• Gather diverse views and insights from stakeholders/public 

• Ascertain feasibility of intended policy change or new initiative 

• Seek options and check against policy alternatives 

3. To facilitate implementation of policies and initiatives 

• Generate awareness and enable stakeholders to understand the 

policies/initiatives better 

• Obtain buy-in from stakeholders by seeking their contribution to the policies/initiatives 

to be implemented 

• Mitigate or find resolutions to opposing interests to prevent conflicting views at 

implementation stage 

• Couch appropriate public communication messages, particularly for controversial or 

contentious issues. 

3. Key guiding principles for 

public consultation 

1. Policy-making should be inclusive and take into account views of stakeholders. Public 

officers should see inherent value in stakeholder feedback. 

2. Public consultation should be a first thought, rather than an afterthought, in the policy 

development process. 

3. The outcome of consultation should not be pre-determined. 

4. Consultation should involve a fair representation of all stakeholders who are affected, 

interested and/or can contribute to the policy development process. 

5. Modes of consultation should be carefully considered and selected to reach the relevant 

stakeholders and gather the appropriate types of information. 

6. The consultation process should be conducted in a transparent, consistent, structured and 

timely manner. Sufficient time should be given to those being consulted to understand and 

respond to an issue. 

7. Consultation materials should provide sufficient background information that is clear and 

easily understandable to participants. 

8. The scope and parameters of the consultation should be clear to the participants to set the 

right expectations. Participants should be provided with a clear understanding of how their 

input will be sought and managed. 

9. Agencies should be responsive and follow through with stakeholders on how their feedback 

was considered and the extent of its impact on the policy in a constructive manner. 

10. Agencies should ensure that the consultation process is mutually respectful, nondiscriminatory 

and equitable, regardless of gender, race, age, educational levels or religious 

beliefs.


4. Pre-consultation considerations 

The following table (Table 4-1) could serve as a general guide for agencies to determine the 

need to conduct a public consultation exercise. 

4.1. Factors to consider 

As a rule of thumb, consultation should be conducted for policies and initiatives that have a 

significant impact on stakeholders. 

Five factors to consider whether to proceed with a consultation exercise are: 

1. Confidentiality. Policies/initiatives that are classified and confidential (e.g., national 

security) may not be suitable for public consultation. 

2. Urgency of issue. For emergency situations (e.g., a security incident) where an immediate 

response by agencies is necessary, public consultation is generally not realistic or possible. 

3. Impact on stakeholders. For issues with significant impact (e.g., which result in changes 

to how individuals or organisations operate, or which touch on religious or moral values), 

agencies should choose to consult the stakeholders more thoroughly to understand the full 

implications of each decision. 

4. Level of public interest. The level of public interest determines the extent to which the 

wider populace is consulted. 

Policy areas that tend to attract more public interest include healthcare, education, housing 

and transport 2 . Policy areas of public interest also tend to be covered more widely by the 

media. 

Conversely, for policies which attract less public interest (e.g., technical or regulatory issues 

such as the regulation of financial institutions), agencies can choose to conduct targeted 

consultation with affected stakeholders such as industry players or technical experts. 

5. Scope of influence. This refers to the degree to which the outcomes of the policy could 

be influenced by stakeholder feedback. It is recommended that consultation be conducted 

primarily when stakeholder feedback can influence the outcome of the policy or initiative. 

If consultation is conducted for policies or initiatives with minimal scope for influence, it is 

important to manage stakeholder expectations carefully. 

Key considerations 

Confidentiality of issue 

Does the policy/initiative 

contain classified/ 

confidential information? 

Urgency of Issue 

Is there an urgent, short 

timeframe for the policy/ 

initiative to be developed? 

If the implementation 

is delayed, will there be 

adverse implications? 

Impact on stakeholders 

How significant is the 

degree of impact of 

the policy/initiative on 

stakeholders? 

To what extent are major 

stakeholders concerned 

about this issue? 

Level of public interest 

What is the level of public 

interest or attention on the 

policy/initiative? 

What is the possibility that 

the media will be interested 

in the issue? 

Scope of influence 

What is the scope for 

changes to be made to the 

policy/initiative based on 

stakeholder feedback? 

Recommendation 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Please circle the appropriate response 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

No 

No 

No 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Low Moderate High 

If most responses 

fall in this column, 

consultation may not 

be required. 

If most responses 

fall in this column, 

targeted consultation 

is recommended for 

affected stakeholder 

groups. 

If most responses fall 

in this column, largescale 

consultation of 

the wider populace is 

recommended. 

2 Based on Singapore Public Perception Survey conducted by Ernst and Young Advisory, 2009. 

Table 4-1: Pre considerations for consultation

Public Consultation Toolkit 10 Public Consultation Toolkit 

4.2. Stages of policy development 

Consultation can provide input to the policy/initiative development at different stages 

of its inception. The purposes of consultation at the various stages of the policy/initiative 

development can vary (Figure 4-2). 

Development stages of policy/initiative 

Identify 

Identify and define Issue/ 

problem to be resolved 

Analysis 

Define key opportunities and challenges 

associated with issue 

Formulate 

Formulate possible policy solutions 

to address issue 

Assess 

Assess and evalute options 

Decide 

Decide on course of action 

Purposes of public consultation 

Feel the pulse 

Test/refine 

Check against options/ 

alternatives 

4.3. Public consultation process 

The public consultation process is an iterative one. For the purpose of this Toolkit, the 

consultation process has been outlined in nine critical steps (Figure 4-3). It is acknowledged that 

in practice, the process is usually not linear. Therefore, Figures 4-2 and 4-3 do not necessarily 

assume a stage-by-stage process although the diagrams are illustrated in that manner. 

8 

9 

Assess effectiveness 

of public consultation 

exercise 

Collate feedback 

and close the loop 

7 

Launch 

consultation exercise 

6 

Follow-up and analysis 

1 

Generate awareness 

and plan public 

communication exercise 

Identify 

stakeholders 

Conceptual planning 

2 

Consultation preparation and 

implementation 

Design 

consultation materials 

Select tools and 

channels 

Anticipate obstacles 

and challenges 

Develop action 

plan and timeline 

5 

3 

4 

Implement 

Establish policy/programme guidelines and 

processes to deliver public policies 

Evaluate 

Monitor outcomes to determine whether 

objectives are being met 

Communication/buy-in 

Refine/evaluate 

Figure 4-3: Public consultation process 

Figure 4-2: Purposes of public consultation at different stages of 

policy/initiative development

Public Consultation Toolkit 11 12 Public Consultation Toolkit 

Stakeholders as partners 

5. Developing the 

strategy for consultation 

The first stage of the consultation process involves the conceptual development which aims to: 

1. Identify the stakeholders to be consulted, 

2. Select the tools and channels to be used, and 

3. Develop strategies to mitigate potential risks in the consultation process. 

5.1. Step 1: Identify stakeholders 

Selection of appropriate stakeholders to participate in public consultation ensures that the 

views of relevant parties are well represented and their views heard. 

Officers should make sure that participants are representative of the affected groups, while 

ensuring that stakeholders holding different views or from diverse background are involved in 

the consultation exercise. 

Stakeholders can be categorised into the following groups: 

Besides engaging the stakeholders directly, ministries and statutory boards can leverage on 

partnership with parties outside their own agencies to reach and engage the stakeholders. 

The following table (Table 5-1) illustrates how different partners can assist agencies in their 

consultation initiatives. Agencies may consider tapping on these resources: 

Partners 

REACH (Reaching Everyone for Active 

Citizenry@ Home) 

The government unit for engaging and 

connecting with citizens 

http://www.reach.gov.sg 

People’s Association 

http://www.pa.gov.sg/ 

Voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) 

Industry and trade associations 

Advantages 

• Provides a one-stop publicly available 

platform for the public to state their 

opinions and understand different 

perspectives on an issue 

• Assists agencies to identify relevant 

stakeholders in the community and 

organise consultation activities 

• Leverages on network of grassroots leaders 

to gather community views 

• Provide insights on issues affecting the 

stakeholder groups under their charter 

• Assist in obtaining feedback from 

stakeholders they serve 

Table 5-1: Partners in consultation exercises 

• Provide industry knowledge 

• Represent companies and businesses within 

an industry 

• Assist in identifying and engaging relevant 

stakeholders in the industry 

1. Individuals/organisations that might benefit from the policy/initiative, 

2. Individuals/organisations that might be adversely affected by the policy/initiative, 

3. Individuals/organisations that might have the skills and resources to contribute to the 

policy/initiative development process; and 

4. Individuals/organisations that might be interested in the policy/initiative and its 

development process. 

Note: The mode and the degree to which the stakeholder groups are consulted may vary, 

depending on the level of knowledge, expertise and degree of impact which the policy or 

initiative may have on the different groups.


Considerations for facilitating effective partnerships 

Agencies can do the following to facilitate effective partnerships: 

1. Lead time. When tapping on partners, it is important to provide them with sufficient lead 

time to allow the partner agencies to mobilise the necessary resources. Agencies should 

provide a minimum of one month’s notice to the partners, and a period of at least three 

months for the partners to gather feedback on agencies’ behalf. 

2. Information. Agencies should provide partners with comprehensive information so that 

they have a good understanding of the policy and its considerations before the consultation 

process. This allows the partners to be more effective in addressing the questions raised by 

their constituents/members during the actual consultation exercise. 

3. Materials. Agencies should generally equip partners with communication materials for the 

consultation exercise. This may include briefing slides (with speakers’ notes), pamphlets and 

FAQs. 

4. Funding and technical support. Agencies can also provide technical assistance (e.g., design 

of survey questions) and funding support (e.g., for organising dialogue sessions). 

Note: The above are some suggestions but are not exhaustive. 

Case 3: 

The Living Murray River Restoration 


• Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Australia 

Background: 

• The Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) comprises a large geographical area that spreads across five 

states and territories: Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Victoria 

and South Australia. 

• The landscape of the MDB was under severe ecological stress, with issues such as salinity, 

poor water quality, stressed forests, dried wetlands, threatened native species, feral animals 

and noxious weeds. 

• The Australian government engaged different stakeholders in the restoration of the 

cleanliness and health of the MDB. 


Stakeholders engaged during the consultation exercise included: 

• Individuals/organisations who could benefit from the restoration 

- Local communities (e.g., landholders, land managers) 

- Rural communities (e.g., indigenous people) 

• Individuals/organisations who could be adversely affected 

- Industry stakeholders, including businesses that depended on the river’s resources as a 

form of income (e.g., agricultural farmers) 

• Individuals/organisations who had the skills and resources to contribute to river restoration 

- Ecological and environmental experts 

• Individuals/organisations who were interested in the restoration 

- Activists (e.g., land care groups) 

- Interest groups and individuals who had an interest in the river’s health


Learning points: 

• Comprehensive consultation with different stakeholders allowed the government to 

understand the different interests and concerns in the issues. 

• This helped the government roll out policies which balanced the interests and needs of 

different stakeholders. 

Case 4: 

Tripartite efforts to overcome the downturn 


• Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Singapore 

Source: 

• Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010, Case study 2 - The Murray-Darling Basin – An ecological 

and human tragedy, Australia, . 

• Crase, L., Dollery, B. & Wallis, J., 2005, Community consultation in public policy: The case of the 

Murray-Darling Basin of Australia, Australian Journal of Political Science, 40, 221 – 237, . 

• Macdonald, D. H., & Young, M., 2001, A case study of the Murray-Darling Basin, CSIRO Land and Water, 

. 

Background: 

• A tripartite taskforce comprising representatives from the Government, the National Trades 

Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers’ Federation (SNEF), was 

formed to gather feedback and updates on manpower-related issues during the economic 

downturn. The impact of the economic downturn was especially felt around October 2008, 

prompting the tripartite partners to come together in November 2008 to formulate the 

Tripartite Guidelines on Managing Excess Manpower to help companies manage their excess 

manpower and to use retrenchments as a last resort. 

• According to the Guidelines, companies could implement a shorter working week or 

temporary lay-offs, cut wages or take other non-wage cost-cutting measures. 


• Within a month, the Tripartite Taskforce on Managing the Economic Downturn was set up 

with regular working groups. 

• The partners leveraged on the Singapore Tripartism Forum (STF) to broadcast the measures 

to a wider audience. More than 40 briefings/dialogues on the Guidelines were organised, 

involving some 9,500 participants. The briefings mainly targeted senior managers and HR 

professionals from the various sectors, as well as the various Chambers of Commerce and 

unions. 

• An STF Dialogue with the Prime Minister was also organised in February 2009 to highlight 

the importance of saving jobs and creating growth in a global downturn. 

• The tripartite partners also set up Tripartite Upturn Strategy Teams (TRUST Teams) to reach 

out to individual companies to help businesses manage costs, retain workers and upgrade 

their skills. 

• From April 2009, the TRUST Teams reached over 640 companies, held 12 large-scale events 

reaching out to some 3,100 participants, visited 20 companies employing about 12,000 

employees, conducted one-on-one clinic sessions for 13 companies and provided assistance 

to over 80 companies through tele-conversations.


Outcomes: 

• The number of workers on a shorter working week and temporary lay-offs increased from 

550 before the downturn to 26,500 in the first quarter of 2009. 

• By January 2009, the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR) and the 

Government’s Resilience Package, which included the Jobs Credit Scheme, were announced. 

SPUR was introduced to subsidise training and absentee payroll, allowing companies to 

make better use of their excess capacity. The number of courses under SPUR increased from 

150 to more than 1,000. In addition, the Professional Skills Programme was introduced to 

help the workers to gain new skills or upgrade their skills. About 244,000 workers signed up. 

• As a result of the interventions, Singapore was able to avoid the high retrenchment numbers 

it had experienced during the 1998 financial crisis. 

• Trust among the tripartite partners had been strengthened. The long tradition of tripartism 

in Singapore enabled prompt joint action to address the crisis swiftly and effectively. 

• The effectiveness of our downturn efforts won MOM recognition by the International Labour 

Organisation (ILO), and was also shared with the G20 countries at the G20 Labour and 

Employment Ministers Meeting 3 . 


• The collaboration with partners made it possible to gather feedback quickly from various 

stakeholder groups. 

• The collaboration helped avoid the high retrenchment numbers experienced during the 

1998 financial crisis. 

• Trust among the tripartite partners was strengthened 

Source: 

3 Citation made in “Employment and social protection policies from crisis to recovery and beyond: A review 

of experience”, an ILO report to the G20 Labour and Employment Ministers Meeting held in Washington 

D.C. from 20 to 21 April 2010. The Report is available at the ILO website - http://www.ilo.org/public/ 

libdoc/jobcrisis/download/g20_report_employment_and_social_protection_policies.pdf. 

5.2. Step 2: Select tools and channels 

Appropriate selection and usage of public consultation tools and channels are important for 

gathering appropriate types of feedback from the relevant stakeholders. 

Different types of tools and channels can be used based on the following factors: 

1. Purpose of exercise, 

2. Target audience; and 

3. Available resources (e.g., time, funding, competency and technical expertise). 

A mix of tools can be used to create the necessary level of contact with stakeholders and 

achieve the consultation objectives. The table below (Table 5-2) provides suggestions for tools 

to be used for different scenarios. 

(More details on the tools are provided in Appendix A.) 

Tools 

Feel the 

pulse 

Test/ 

refine 

Obtain 

buy-in 

Page 

reference 

1. Community meetings 3 3 3 64 

2. Exhibitions/road-shows 3 3 65 

3. Public forums 3 3 3 67 

4. Surveys 3 3 68 

5. Blogs 3 3 3 70 

6. Social media 3 3 3 72 

7. Website 3 74 

8. Focus group discussions 3 3 76 

9. Workshops 3 78 

10. Charrettes 3 3 80 

11. Citizen juries 3 3 81 

12. Delphi process 3 3 82 

13. Expert panels 3 3 3 83 

14. Interviews 3 3 84 

15. Working groups 3 85 

Target audience 

General public /large 

stakeholder population 

General public 

(IT-savvy population) 

Targeted to subject 

matter experts, 


Table 5-2: Sample tools for different purposes and target audiences


Case 5: 

Improving public health care 


• Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, Canada 

Background: 

• The Canadian healthcare system is financed by both the provincial and federal governments, 

with each paying 50% of costs. 

• During the 1990s, growing concerns emerged about rising costs and the quality of service. 


• The Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada was established in April 2001 as a 

federal public inquiry to review and make recommendations on Canada’s public health care 

system. It was created to improve health care and make it more financially sustainable. 

• The public consultation process took place over the course of 18 months, commencing in 

April 2001, and was divided into two phases – fact finding and dialogue with the Canadians. 

• The Commission engaged both the public and experts extensively through 12 dialogue 

sessions, six televised debates, 21 days of open public hearings, nine expert workshops, three 

regional forums, 12 partnered dialogue sessions with universities, nine issue survey papers, 

two consultation workbooks, 97 site visits and meetings with national organisations and 

national caucuses, and 45 speeches and presentations to stakeholders across the country. 

• An interim report and final report were released by the Commission in February 2002 and 

November 2002 respectively, which summarised the findings of Canada’s health care system 

and offered 47 recommendations to enhance Canada’s health care. 

• The final report was seen as objective and credible, and the public felt that the Commission 

had listened intently to the public’s view on Canada’s health care. 


• Appropriate selection of consultation tools was important for reaching the targeted 

stakeholders. 

• Extensive public engagement enabled better understanding of the issues/problems on the 

ground so that practical recommendations could be proposed. 

Source: 

• Mapleleafweb.com: Canada’s Premier Political Education Website, Romanow Commission on the Future 

of Health Care: Findings and Recommendations, 

• Dawn Ontario: DisAbled Women’s Network Ontario, 1998-2007, Responses to the final report by the 

Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, 

• 35 full-time staff were employed during the Commission’s peak periods. Other consultants 

were employed on an “as-needed” basis for a range of duties, including research, logistics and 

communications. 

Outcomes: 

• A considerable amount of public and media debate was generated from the public 

consultation process. 

• The Commission received 40 discussion papers, three major independent Research 

Consortium reports, 640 formal submissions, 591 formal presentations, 1,418 abstracts, and 

14,000 online health issue surveys.


Case 6: 

Master plan for Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve 


5.3. Step 3: Anticipate obstacles and challenges 

Before launching the public consultation exercise, public officers need to think through the 

potential challenges and pitfalls that may arise during and after the exercise. Mitigating 

strategies and contingency plans need to be developed to handle these situations. 

The following are some commonly faced challenges and examples of mitigating strategies: 

1. Voluminous and diverse views 

Policies/initiatives which affect the society at large (e.g., primary education curriculum policies) 

or are controversial in nature (e.g., amendment to the Penal Code) tend to attract voluminous 

feedback which may be differing and diverse, and therefore, sometimes hard to manage. 

Officers should adopt a systematic approach to identify and deal with the most pressing and 

most common concerns among the stakeholders. Table 5-3 suggests a simple way for officers to 

categorise the feedback received. 

• National Parks Board (NParks), Singapore 

Background: 

• The objective of the consultation exercise was to seek feedback on the masterplan for the 

development of the Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve. 

• With lessons learnt from Chek Jawa, which attracted voluminous public feedback, NParks 

decided to engage interest groups early in the consultation process. 


• NParks involved the key stakeholders and interest groups at the early stages of the 

development plan. 

• Working groups were formed and meetings were held quarterly to discuss issues and 

concerns. 

• Stakeholders had open discussions with NParks and their input were directly included in the 

master plan for development. 

Demands by stakeholders 

directly affected 

Prioritisation of feedback 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Common areas of concern 1. 

2. 

3. 

Minority requirements 1. 

2. 

3. 

Table 5-3: Categorising feedback received 

If voluminous feedback is expected on an issue, one possible 

mitigating strategy is to start with targeted engagement of key 

stakeholders before consulting the wider populace. This will 

allow agencies to identify key area of concerns and controversy 

and develop strategies or responses before a large-scale 

consultation is launched. 

Tips for effectiveness 

For a situation where the 

feedback is voluminous, 

agencies can group 

feedback into broader 

categories based on 

common areas of concern. 

This allows the agencies 

to have a comprehensive 

assessment of the situation 

without being bogged 

down by the volume. 

This also helps the 

agencies to close the loop 

effectively (Step 8) as it 

will ensure that all key 

areas of concern had been 

considered. 

Outcomes: 

• Since the working group played a part in the planning process, they could assist NParks to 

address the concerns of the public during the wider consultation. 

• The public showed greater acceptance towards the government’s initiative when the nongovernmental 

groups showed buy-in towards the policy as well. 


• For issues which could attract voluminous feedback, involving targeted stakeholders early 

helps to facilitate the consultation process with the wider populace.


2. Sensitive/controversial issues 

For topics/issues which are controversial, emotive or which may provoke strong, opposing 

viewpoints, the engagement needs to be managed carefully. 

Agencies need to show sensitivity towards the stakeholders’ concerns, while at the same time 

gain trust from stakeholders through open and honest consultation. 

Case 7: 

Proposed amendments to the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) 


• Ministry of Health (MOH), Singapore 

Background: 

• The public, local and international medical community had strong and quite emotional views 

on organ donation-related issues. When MOH proposed the amendments to the HOTA, an 

extensive public consultation was conducted. 

• In MOH’s case, the Public Consultation Document and the proposed Draft Bill were put up for 

public consultation so that the public and stakeholders could see the text amendments for 

themselves. 


• MOH took a transparent view and shared the various possible solutions to the problem 

openly at the various forums and through the media. 

• MOH engaged the stakeholders early to clarify policy areas to the public (in this case, the 

definition and limit of compensation for organ donation). 

• The fronting by Minister for Health demonstrated the commitment and seriousness of MOH 

in listening to the stakeholders: 

- MOH opened the public dialogue sessions for media coverage so that issues were aired 

and discussed in the open. 

- Wide range of people such as the medical and professional bodies (e.g. Academy 

of Medicine, College of Family Physicians, Singapore Medical Association, Society of 

Transplantation, Singapore Diabetic Society of Singapore, Law Society and National 

Kidney Foundation) were consulted. 

• In MOH’s case, the Public Consultation Document and the proposed Bill were put up for 

public consultation so that the public and stakeholders could see the text amendments for 

themselves. 

Follow up: 

• LiveOn, an organ donation campaign, was launched as a follow-up after the amendments 

were made to sustain awareness and acceptance of organ donation.


Outcomes: 

• Consultation results showed that Singaporeans understood the need and were generally 

supportive of the proposed amendments to HOTA. This was largely because there were 

extensive discussion and transparency in the consultation process. 


• Consultation on emotive issues need to be managed carefully through 

- Early consultation, 

- Well-managed public education on the key considerations and options available; and 

- Displaying sensitivity to stakeholders’ concerns 

The concept of ‘socialising’ 

For topics/issues which are emotive in nature, it can be useful to ‘socialise’ policy ideas early. This 

is when possible policy ideas are disseminated to the ground to generate discussion amongst 

social groups as a means of seeding ideas for policy options. 

For example, the idea of Means Testing by MOH was raised several years prior to formal public 

consultation in 2008 and its eventual implementation in 2009. As Means Testing was a rather 

unpopular policy, particularly among the middle-income group who felt deprived of affordable 

healthcare, MOH adopted this approach to socialise the concept, to generate ideas, feedback 

and discussions on means-testing criteria. The extensive dialogues gradually helped to address 

ground concerns and facilitate smoother implementation. 

3. Feedback on specific issues and with targeted groups 

Some consultation exercises may yield lower response from the public due to the nature of 

the issue or policy at hand. The possible causes can be lack of public interest, lack of public 

awareness and inaccessible feedback mechanisms. Agencies should consider the following to 

enhance the level of participation and feedback: 

• Establishing checkpoints during the course of the consultation period to monitor the 

response rate, 

• Extending the duration of the consultation period, 

• Increasing awareness through different tools and channels; and 

• Soliciting feedback from specific stakeholders by collaborating with partners. 

Policies which are highly complex or technical in nature generally tend to attract lower volume 

of feedback, particularly if the stakeholders do not understand the issue at hand (e.g., financial 

regulations). 

For such policies, agencies should choose to target industry players and experts with the 

relevant knowledge and interest in the issues. 

If the wider population is consulted, agencies need to ensure that the information provided for 

the consultation is accessible and easy to understand.


Case 8: 

Regulation of investment products 


• Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Singapore 

Background: 

• In 2009, MAS developed proposals to safeguard consumers’ interests and promote higher 

industry standards for the sale and marketing of unlisted investment products. 

• The proposed amendments to regulations typically did not attract much interest from the 

wider populace due to their complexity. Nevertheless, MAS felt that it was important to 

consult the wider populace because this particular set of regulations would have direct 

impact on the way consumers purchased investment products. 


Subsequent steps: 

• MAS published its response to the feedback received in the consultation paper in September 

2009 and January 2010. MAS also issued a new consultation paper on some additional 

proposals later in January 2010. 


• For issues which may attract low volume of public feedback, input from the public can be 

obtained through: 

- Partnership with community leaders, 

- Educating stakeholders on how the policies impact them; and 

- Ensuring that materials and terminology used are jargon-free and accessible. 

• MAS engaged experts and industry players during policy development to provide technical 

inputs to the policy. 

• To consult the wider populace, MAS leveraged on consumer groups such as CASE and the 

Securities Investors’ Association Singapore (SIAS) to reach out to their members. 

• MAS also put its consultation paper on the REACH portal to solicit feedback from REACH 

members. 

• In addition, MAS briefed the local media on the significance of the proposed amendments 

for consumers and encouraged feedback from the public through the media. 

• It was ensured that the information used to brief the public was free of jargon and easy to 

understand. 

Outcomes: 

• MAS received a wide range of useful feedback from investors, market practitioners, and 

industry associations. The consultation paper attracted significantly more feedback from the 

general public than previous ones.


Case 9: 

Contract period and early termination charges 

for telecommunication services offered to consumers 


• Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), Singapore 

Background: 

• In December 2008, IDA proposed to issue Guidelines on the maximum contract period 

and early termination charges (ETC) that providers of residential fixed-line, mobile and 

broadband services could impose on consumers. The Guidelines specified that: 

- The maximum contract periods should not exceed 24 months; and 

- Consumers who signed contracts that were longer than three months and who 

terminated their contracts before the end of their contract period should not have to pay 

a fixed ETC. Rather, ETCs should decrease over time. 

• In proposing the Guidelines, IDA considered that long contract periods and excessive ETCs 

may unfairly penalise consumers and hinder them from legitimately terminating services 

and switching operators. 

• IDA issued the final Guidelines in December 2009 and issued a press release to explain the 

Guidelines. IDA worked closely with the media to ensure that the public was made aware of 

the changes that would be put in place. 

• The final Guidelines were accompanied by an explanatory memorandum setting out IDA’s 

views and responses to the key comments received from the earlier consultation, and the 

considerations behind IDA’s decision. 

• IDA provided the operators with a three and a half month lead time to implement the 

Guidelines. Over the next few months, IDA continued to provide guidance to both operators 

as well as consumers on the implementation of the Guidelines. 


• For issues in which public feedback and support is important, it is necessary to proactively 

engage the mass media to ensure that any consultation is widely publicised. 

• It is also important to ensure that technical policies are clearly explained and the materials 

made available are easily understood by the wider populace. 

• As part of the overall stakeholder management strategy, for decisions which may adversely 

affect any stakeholders, it is important to engage the stakeholders and provide some form of 

advance notification prior to announcing the final decision. 

Consultation process: 

• IDA conducted a public consultation on the proposed Guidelines on 23 December 2009, 

which lasted four weeks. 

• To ensure the issues were understood by the wider public, IDA avoided using industry jargon 

in the consultation paper, but tried to explain the issues and the proposed solutions in 

simple clear language. 

• IDA worked closely with the media to explain the issues in the consultation. 

Outcomes: 

• IDA received 13 sets of comments – three from telecommunication operators and 10 

from individual consumers. Consumers were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposed 

Guidelines, while responses from the telecommunication operators were mixed but 

generally negative. The media published two articles and an editorial on the proposed 

Guidelines.


4. Unpopular decisions 

In the event that agencies have to decide on an outcome that is unpopular (i.e., where majority 

support is lacking) with stakeholders, steps have to be taken to manage the ground sentiment 

and mitigate the negative implications of the policy/initiative. Agencies are advised to: 

• Provide a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the decision, 

• Manage expectations by being clear about the scope of consultation and what measures can 

be changed and cannot be changed; and 

• Actively address the negative externalities, such as introducing measures to mitigate the 

adverse effects on the stakeholders. 

Case 10: 

Maintaining anti-euthanasia regulation 

Country: 

• Canada 

Background: 

• Euthanasia is officially illegal in Canada. Between 2005 and 2010, three private bills were 

tabled by a Member of Parliament to legalise euthanasia. 


• Extensive debate was generated on the issue by provincial governments, non-governmental 

organisations, the media and individuals. For example, the Quebec provincial government 

conducted national assembly hearings which sought feedback from public and medical 

specialists. Non-government organisations (NGO) were also proactive in engaging the public 

on what euthanasia entailed. 

• The Angus Reid Public Opinion survey in 2010 showed that 67 per cent of respondents in 

Canada supported legalising euthanasia. 

Outcomes: 

• Despite public support for euthanasia, it was not legalised as there were insufficient votes in 

the House of Commons to advance the bill. 

• Many legislators recognised this was a sensitive issue requiring extensive debate which 

should continue to take place. 

• Guidelines and exceptions had been introduced to deal with special cases and legislation 

on euthanasia distinguished between passive and active euthanasia. The debate also 

emphasised the need to improve palliative and elder care.



• While the legislation was not passed despite popular support, the extensive debate 

highlighted the polarity of views and key concerns of different stakeholder groups. 

• The debate highlighted areas of need of different stakeholder groups which needed to be 

addressed. Legislators were mindful that these requirements should be addressed quickly 

while the larger debate on the controversial topic would continue. 

Source: 

• Vision Critical, 2010, Angus Reid Public Opinion, Two-thirds of Canadians Express Support for Legalizing 

Euthanasia, . 

• International Task Force.org, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada. 

• The Montreal Gazette, 16 Feb 2010, Doctors back ‘right to die’, 

• Toronto Sun, 21 Apr 2010, MPs band together to study palliative care, 

5. Controversial feedback 

With the introduction of new media, there are more public settings/forums where individuals 

can post extreme opinions or baseless claims. While participants are entitled to their opinions, 

there are cases where certain participants may post or bring up issues which are unreasonable 

or are not based on evidence. 

Due to the provocative nature of such comments, agencies need to handle the situation 

sensitively and moderate the discussion. Agencies should consider: 

• Removing controversial comments/postings from the public settings/forums. The agency 

should put a disclaimer statement in the public consultation process (e.g., in the new media 

platform used and information posted) that allows the agency the right to retain or remove 

any insensitive or controversial comments/postings received; and 

• Addressing the individuals or groups that raised the issue/concern through closed-door 

meetings. 

This allows the agencies to clarify their position on the issue and allows officers to resolve the 

concerns within a contained setting. 

6. Noise from minority groups 

Certain policies or initiatives may affect minority groups in a larger and disproportionate way 

compared to the majority stakeholders. Officers must balance the need to manage minority 

group requirements while at the same time not compromising the considerations for the 

majority. Minority group feedback, if not managed well, can lead to “noise” which will overcrowd 

and narrowly define the public consultation exercise for it to be effective. 

Agencies can consider: 

• Profiling affected stakeholders to anticipate concerns likely to be raised during the exercise; 

and 

• Assessing the need to conduct separate consultation exercises with minority groups to 

enable a more targeted resolution towards minority requirements.


Timeframe allocated to consultation period 

6. Consultation preparation 

and implementation 

With the establishment of the consultation strategy in the pre-consultation phase and 

conceptual development phase, the next phase would be to plan and implement the 

consultation exercise. This entails: 

The actual timeframe allocated to the consultation would vary with the nature, scope and extent 

of the policy/initiative undergoing development and the impact it has on the stakeholders. 

For a full-scale consultation, it is suggested that agencies allocate at least three months for the 

consultation process, with provisions for a longer duration if required. 

Logistical arrangements 

Public consultation is one of the customer touch points where agencies interact directly with 

the public. Feedback can also be collated in face-to-face sessions and not just via email. Hence, 

during the implementation of the consultation exercise, event management matters such as 

logistics and attitude of officers will affect the public’s opinion of the agencies. Some of the areas 

officers need to manage are captured in the checklist in Table 6-1 on page 37. 

• Developing the action plan and timeline of consultation; 

• Designing the consultation materials; and 

• Generating awareness amongst stakeholders to be consulted. 

6.1. Step 4: Develop action plan and timeline 

Officers need to set out an action plan and detailed timeline to implement the consultation 

strategy. 

Action plan 

The action plan provides a tool for the planning of the operational procedures required in a 

consultation exercise. Key components which need to be considered are: 

• Activities, such as: 

- Obtaining approval for the consultation strategy 

- Developing consultation materials 

- Making logistical preparation and planning 

- Determining the consultation period 

- Preparing the consultation report 

- Evaluating consultation effectiveness 

• Time required for each activity 

• Responsible parties involved 

The action plan should be continuously monitored to ensure that the activities are on track. A 

template of an action plan can be found in Appendix B.


Table 6-1: Checklist on Logistical Arrangements for Public Consultation 

Invitation letters 

• Does the timeframe stated in the invitation letters provide sufficient notice to stakeholders? 

• Do the invitation letters contain all the relevant consultation materials and accurate information 

of the consultation exercise? 

• Do the invitation letters to the stakeholders clearly state the scope/parameter and objectives of 

the consultation? 

Event management 

• Is there sufficient space in the venue to cater for the expected number of participants? 

• Does the venue have the necessary equipment, such as sound system, audio visual equipment, 

projection screens, reception area? 

• Is the location chosen for the consultation wheel-chair accessible? 

• Is the venue accessible to all parties invited (e.g., for physically handicapped)? 

• Has sufficient food and/or refreshments been catered for? 

Accessibility of exercise 

• Is the mode of consultation accessible to all stakeholders invited to participate (including the 

illiterate, those who are not IT savvy, or the physically handicapped)? 

Materials 

• Will majority of the participants understand the materials prepared? 

• Do the materials provide sufficient background on the policy or initiative for the participants to 

provide meaningful feedback? 

Speakers/facilitators/moderators 

• Have the speakers/facilitators been sufficiently briefed about the background and objectives of 

the consultation exercise? 

• Have the speakers/facilitators been provided with sufficient additional materials to respond to 

anticipated questions or comments from the participants? 

• Have the speakers/facilitators been briefed on the participants’ profile and their general 

concerns? 

• Has a moderator been carefully selected to ensure the exercise stays on track and does not go 

out of focus? 

Additional information 

• Can the public obtain additional information on the specific policy/initiative during consultation 

exercise? 

Monitoring feedback 

• Are there mechanisms/resources to track the level of feedback and response rate during the 

consultation exercise? 

• Are there mechanisms to gather feedback on the effectiveness of the consultation exercise (e.g., 

feedback forms for event)? 

• Is there a loop-back communication process to the stakeholders/public who provided key 

feedback at the exercise? 

6.2. Step 5: Design consultation materials 

Participants of public consultation need to be clear about the background of the issue/topic 

before they can be consulted. Effective design of consultation materials can ensure proper 

understanding, help shape direction of the discussion and increase the quality of feedback 

received. 

The consultation materials should contain sufficient information on a particular policy/initiative, 

giving stakeholders a proper grasp of the issue. The language used should be concise, jargonfree, 

and easy-to-understand for a layperson. In general, the consultation materials should 

contain information on the following: 

1. Background of policy 

• Impetus for new policy or change to existing policy 

• Key considerations and constraints 

2. Scope of consultation 

• Specific areas which stakeholders are consulted on, and where there is scope of influence 

3. Consultation process 

• Timeframe of consultation 

• How participants can provide feedback 

• Sources for more information (e.g., agency websites or hotlines) 

• How and when agencies will provide an update on the outcome of the consultation


In Singapore, the government may wish to also consider a four-phase communication strategy 

process 4 to consult on policies/initiatives 

6.3. Step 6: Generate awareness and plan 

public communication exercises 

Generating stakeholder awareness and planning a public communications exercise is a critical 

aspect of public consultation. There are generally two approaches for any agency to take as they 

prepare for a public communication and awareness exercise: 

1. Open consultation – this involves communicating to key stakeholders including the general 

public that a consultation exercise is going on. The agency should keep both the broadcast 

and print media aware of the issues and the actual consultation process. At the same time, 

the agency should try to think ahead and prepare their positions in anticipation of any 

difficult issues or responses raised. 

2. Closed door consultation – this involves only communicating to a selected or targeted 

group and inviting them to participate in the exercise. The consultation is conducted away 

from the public eye and the media. 

1. Listening phase – an early fact finding stage, where there is no need for any major public 

communications campaign. The messages during this phase could be to assure the public 

that no decision has been made and that a decision would be made only after rigorous 

evaluation of the issues involved. 

2. Holding phase – At this stage, press statements can be released to explain rationale for 

policy/initiative. 

3. Consultation phase – At this stage, state explicitly when and how public consultation would 

be conducted to ensure the public does not feel that the government has already made up 

its mind. 

4. Buy-in phase – With the assumption that a decision had been made on the policy/initiative, 

the government should explain why it decided on that policy and its plans. 

A public communications plan should be developed to provide a structured and well-planned 

approach to engage the stakeholders. A suggested communications plan checklist, outlining the 

key components of a communications plan, is outlined in Table 6-2. 

There are two key objectives in generating awareness: 

1. Educating stakeholders on the policy or initiative. 

This will increase the likelihood that the feedback 

provided will be meaningful. 

2. Increasing awareness about the consultation 

exercise, to ensure adequate participation from 

targeted stakeholders. 

Possible channels/platforms for 

raising awareness 

• Exhibitions and road shows 

• Government websites 

• Mailers 

• New media, e.g., blogs 

• Partnerships (with nongovernment 

organisations, 

business and trade associations, 

grassroot leaders 

• Media events 

• Press releases 

• Public notices 

• Information kits 

• Site visits 

4 Source: Public Consultation: Re-inventing Dialogue, Singapore: Centre of Governance and Leadership, Civil Service 

College, 2004.


Table 6-2: Public Communication Plan Checklist 

Objectives of public communication exercise 

• Goals of this communications exercise (e.g., to generate awareness and increase participation 

level for public consultation) 

Key messages 

• Rationale for public consultation (why consult?) 

• Proposed changes to policy/initiative (what are the desired outcomes?) 

• What agency hopes to achieve from the consultation (what can we achieve?) 

• Potential benefits of proposed changes (what is the rationale for the proposed policy initiative?) 

• Specific messages for each of these groups 

Target Audience 

• Direct stakeholders 

- Who might benefit from policy changes? 

- Who might be affected by policy changes? 

- What are the specific implications on them? 

• Interest groups 

- Who might be interested in the issue? 

Strategies 

• For technical issues/policies/initiatives which are targeted at selected groups – determine if there 

is a need to engage in a publicity campaign or if engaging selected target groups in a closeddoor 

session would suffice 

• For general issues/policies/initiatives – wider publicity efforts may be needed as they impact the 

masses 

Tactics/channels 

• Select appropriate tools/media/platform according to the policy/initiative 

• Based on the target audience, select the most effective channel(s) of communication (e.g., web, 

portals, blogs) 

Timeline 

• When does the communication start? 

• When does the communication have to be completed by? 

• What are the key milestones in the exercise? 

Roles and responsibilities 

• Who are responsible for crafting, delivering and tracking the messages? 

• Have both the policy department and corporate communications department within the agency 

worked closely together to craft and launch the public communications exercise? 

Status 

• Track the completion status of activities (e.g., on track, completed, delayed) 

Evaluation 

• Determine/track whether the communications exercise was effective in generating 

awareness and increasing participation level 

Table 6-2: Suggested checklist for public communication exercises 

Source: Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) 

Case 11: 

URA Master Plan 2008 


• Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Singapore 

Background: 

• URA Master Plan 2008 guides Singapore’s physical development over the next 10 to 15 years. 

It incorporates the future development plans for key land uses such as housing, recreation, 

community, business, land transport and infrastructure needs. 

• Public consultation and stakeholder engagement was an integral part of the Master Plan 

process by URA. 


• During the development of the Master Plan 2008, URA conducted stakeholder dialogues for 

the key growth areas of Jurong Lake District, Kallang Riverside, Paya Lebar Central and the 

new Islandwide Leisure Plan. The dialogues involved key stakeholders such as architects, 

developers, business organisations, NGOs, academics and the community. The dialogues 

allowed the plans to be detailed to the stakeholders and for them to give URA feedback 

on the proposals. Based on the input received, URA refined the proposals for the public 

exhibition. 

• The draft version of the Plan was exhibited to obtain public feedback 

- Virtual plans and videos were uploaded on the URA web portal; and 

- Physical plans, scaled models and videos were exhibited at the URA Centre. 

• Over 185,000 people viewed the draft Plan at the URA Centre and the website and 300 

written feedback was received on the Plan. 

• Based on the public input and feedback, the Master Plan 2008 was refined further before 

being gazetted on 10 Dec 2008. 

• In addition, URA developed a roving exhibition which brought the Master Plan 2008 

proposals to eight heartland malls. This raised public awareness of the Master Plan and 

key proposals and informed the wider populace of changes that would take place in their 

neighbourhoods. 

• More than 200,000 heartlanders visited the roving exhibition at the eight different venues. 

More than 1,300 written feedback was received. The online website garnered a visitorship of 

47,200 hits over the four-month period.


Outcomes: 

• The exhibitions served to educate and raise the awareness of Master Plan 2008 and 

its proposals, allowing the public to be aware of the existing attractions around their 

neighbourhood and the key changes that would be taking place at the national scale as 

well as in their local areas. It also allowed the public to provide meaningful feedback to the 

upcoming developments. 


• The appropriate selection of channels and effective design of communications materials are 

important to be effective in generating awareness: 

- The use of visual exhibitions helped stakeholders to better understand the Master Plan 

2008, allowing them to provide meaningful feedback; and 

- Using different channels (e.g., physical exhibition, website, road shows) allowed URA to 

reach a wide audience. 

6.4. Step 7: Launch consultation exercise 

During the period of public consultation, it is important that stakeholder sentiment and 

expectations are well managed. The following highlights some key considerations: 

1. Be explicit about the scope of influence. Public officers need to be unambiguous about the 

parameters that are open for feedback in the consultation exercise. This will avoid creating 

false expectations that might result in stakeholder displeasure. 

2. Background knowledge. Public officers need to ensure that participants have relevant 

background materials and understand the policy/initiative under consultation. Please refer 

to Step 5 – designing consultation materials. 

3. Identify all feedback channels. Agencies need to make known to stakeholders all available 

feedback channels. The feedback channels should be intuitive and tailored to the targeted 

stakeholders. 

4. Be clear about the consultation timeline. Agencies need to state upfront the period of 

consultation and processing of feedback. Stakeholders should have a clear idea on when the 

agencies will close the loop with them and report the findings. 

5. Monitor the feedback received. Agencies should regularly monitor the level and type of 

feedback received. Agencies can then calibrate actions to be taken during the consultation 

exercise, such as extending the timeline, providing more background materials, or managing 

stakeholder sentiment. 

A case in point is illustrated on page 45.


Case 12: 

Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 


• Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Singapore 

Background: 

• MHA reviewed and proposed amendments to the Penal Code in 2007. As the Penal Code had 

a wide ranging impact on society, extensive public consultation was conducted to gather 

feedback and assess public sentiment. 


• MHA posted the Amendment Bill on REACH’s Portal for the public to give their feedback and 

views. 

• MHA was explicit about the scope of influence; members of the public were invited to 

provide feedback for either one or all the amendments to the Penal Code. 

• To ensure participants had a clear context and background of the information a summary 

of the amendments to the Penal Code was provided in the e-portal of REACH to provide an 

explanation on the amendments. Presentations on the amendments were also delivered 

during the focus groups to prepare participants for the discussion. 

• MHA partnered REACH to post the Amendment Bill on REACH’s Portal for the public to give 

their feedback and views. A news release was also issued to inform members of the public on 

the consultation exercise. 

• MHA also worked with REACH to identify facilitators to conduct focus groups, and 

stakeholders to participate in them. 

• Feedback was sought from people from different walks of life, e.g., religious groups, voluntary 

welfare organisations (VWOs), students, grassroots members, social workers. 

• A women-only focus group was also set up to discuss the proposals, particularly those which 

concerned marital immunity which impacted them directly. 

• MHA also sought feedback from the Law Society on the proposed amendments. 

• MHA was upfront that the consultation would be over a period of five months. 

• REACH assisted MHA in monitoring feedback received over the e-portal and collated the 

feedback for MHA’s attention. MHA also actively monitored and collated feedback received 

from other channels such as feedback posted in the media, Law Society and focus groups for 

evaluation. 

Outcomes: 

• MHA evaluated the feedback received and incorporated some of the suggestions into the 

Bill. 

• The feedback was acknowledged in the Second Reading Speech in Parliament. 

7. Follow-up and analysis 

Closing the loop is a vital step in the public consultation process. After being consulted, the 

public will expect to know the outcome. Hence, after the consultation period ends, agencies are 

encouraged to follow up on: 

• Collating the feedback and closing the loop with stakeholders; and 

• Assessing the effectiveness of the consultation exercise and identifying areas for 

improvement. 

7.1. Step 8: Collate feedback and close the loop 

After the feedback is received from the participants, agencies need to collate the feedback to 

identify the common themes and important issues. Agencies should consolidate and categorise 

the feedback and data received and document the findings in a report. 

The report should contain the following information: 

• Number of participants; 

• Timeframe of the consultation exercise; 

• Consultation process (channels, feedback mechanisms); 

• Feedback received (categorised); 

• Explanation for accepting or rejecting each category 

of feedback; and 

• Limits of the consultation approach. 

In addition, agencies need to demonstrate that they recognise 

and acknowledge the contributions of participants and assure 

participants that their feedback has been taken into 

consideration. This will also serve to encourage further 

involvement in public consultation exercises in the future. 

“... a common grouse 

of the public who are 

unhappy with the 

government’s public 

consultation process is 

the oft quoted officious 

and non-committal 

replies they receive. Whilst 

they do not expect the 

government to agree to 

or accept every feedback 

and suggestion, they do 

expect the government 

to adequately address 

their concerns and explain 

the rationale for the 

decisions.” 

– Dr Amy Khor, 

Chairman REACH


The three stages of closing the loop and a suggested timeline are shown in the table below 

(Table 7-1): 

There are three stages in closing the loop which should be followed:- 

Stage What to incorporate Purpose Timeline 

3. Publication 

Announce published report to other interested 

stakeholders or the general public. 

Acknowledgement • Recognition for 

feedback provided 

• Expected timeline 

for processing 

feedback 

• To demonstrate 

that the agency 

recognises and 

appreciates the 

contributions 

Within one working 

day 

2. Explanation 

Develop a report of participants’ feedback and 

the respective response by the agency. Share 

the report with the participants. 

Explanation • Details of 

consultation (date, 

duration, purpose) 

• Feedback provided 

by participants/ 

stakeholders 

• Approach for 

considering 

feedback 

• Reasons for 

incorporating/ 

not incorporating 

feedback 

• Outcome of 

consultation 

Note: Reports can 

be customised for 

different stakeholder 

groups, depending on 

the extent and nature 

of involvement 

• To close the loop 

with stakeholders 

who took effort 

and time to 

provide feedback 

• To explain to 

these participants 

how the feedback 

was processed, 

and reasons for 

incorporating/not 

incorporating the 

feedback 

• To provide 

assurance that 

the policy or 

initiative was 

developed with 

input from these 

stakeholders 

Varies depending 

on complexity of 

issue and agency’s 

decision making 

timeline 

1. Acknowledgement 

Generic, automated response to acknowledge 

individual feedback received. 

Publication • Details of 

consultation 

• Summary of 

feedback provided 

• Outcome of 

consultation 

• To increase 

the public’s 

awareness of the 

initiative, and 

inform them 

about the issues 

and concerns 

raised, and 

how they were 

addressed 

Varies depending 

on complexity of 

issue and agency’s 

implementation 

timeline 

Table 7-1: Three stages of closing the loop


Case 13: 

Registration framework for public accountants 


• Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), Singapore 

Background: 

• ACRA launched a consultation exercise in July 2007 to seek views on whether the registration 

framework for public accountants was sufficiently relevant and robust. 


• ACRA engaged the profession and the business community by publishing the consultation 

report 2007 and the final report 2008 at ACRA’s annual Public Accountants Conference (PAC). 

The PAC was well attended by public accountants and representatives from the business 

community, with an average attendance of 500-700 persons. The PAC was therefore an 

effective channel for the consultation exercise. 

• ACRA pro-actively consulted the various stakeholders through focus group discussions, 

“consultation clinics”, written submissions and print media. The focus group sessions were 

useful, particularly for a number of the audit firms whose “peak season” occurred during the 

ACRA consultation period. Feedback was received from a number of firms that would not 

otherwise have provided their feedback during the consultation, as they were not able to 

devote their staff to prepare the written feedback (in one example, it was felt that having 10 

partners (senior management in audit firms) spend 2 hours to provide feedback to the ACRA 

team was more cost effective to the firm, compared to a few man days writing and vetting 

the feedback. 

• The stakeholders included public accounting entities (the big four firms), professional bodies 

(e.g., ACCA, CPA Australia), academics and general public. 

• The public consultation exercise took place over two months. 

• Closing the loop via ACRA’s annual Public Accountants Conference. 

• In 2008, ACRA closed the loop via a presentation to round up its consultation exercises. 

Outcomes: 

• The final report of the consultation outcomes were also posted on the ACRA website at 

http://www.acra.gov.sg/News_and_Events/Public+Accountants+Conference+2008.htm 

• Quality feedback and validation of ACRA’s Statements of policy intent and regulatory 

strategy: Stakeholders provided valuable feedback which supported and validated many 

of ACRA’s observations and proposals. At the ACRA conference which was well attended by 

the majority of the public accounting firms registered with ACRA, the ACRA representative 

also addressed feedback which did not translate into eventual policy decisions, or where 

the original proposal put forth for consultation was modified after due consideration of 

feedback. 

• Timely action resulting in good reputation of ACRA as a responsive government agency: The 

participants were pleased to note that ACRA did a prompt follow-through on the issue of the 

then “talent crunch” faced by the accounting profession, by committing to a review of the list 

of recognised qualifications for registering public accountants. 


• Given the segmented nature of the public accountancy profession, the consultation enabled 

ACRA to better understand the diverse concerns of different stakeholder groups. The strategy 

to extensively reach out and engage different stakeholder groups ensured comprehensive 

coverage of the profession’s interest. 

• ACRA closed the loop effectively with participants and stakeholders through: 

(a) A well-documented report of the consultation exercise. The consultation 

report is available on the ACRA website at: http://www.acra.gov. 

sg/NR/rdonlyres/4C5D29D8-A7BC-4216-B951-18D47EAF0789/9845/ 

TheRegistrationFrameworkforPublicAccountantsPathto.pdf 

(b) Arranging for the final report (post consultation) to be presented to the consulted 

parties, at an annual ACRA conference. In so doing, the consulted parties received 

the benefit of a face-to-face presentation, as well as the opportunities to clarify any 

remaining questions which they had on the policies being consulted. 

(c) Posting the presentation slides (outlining the outcome of the consultation exercise) on 

ACRA’s website. In so doing, the information contained in the “closing the loop” phase of 

the consultation process is “preserved” for future reference. It also helped ACRA maintain 

its reputation for being a transparent and responsive regulator.


Case 14: 

Identity Verification System (IVS) 

Country: 

• Department of Internal Affairs, New Zealand 

Background: 

• The New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs conducted public consultation to identify 

stakeholder expectations of the design and functions of the online secure government 

services. 

Consultation process: 

• The public provided clear and vocal feedback about the service design that they valued and 

expected. 

• After the public consultation exercise, the New Zealand government collated and analysed 

the feedback. 

• The results were published and reported in a document “What People Said”, which was 

released online on their government website and through other media forms. 

• “What People Said” report covered the details of the public consultation process, including: 

- The number of participants; 

- Timeframe of the consultation exercise; 

- Channels and tools for communication and their respective responses; 

- Evaluation and explanation of the analytical process for the feedback, and 

- Limits of the consultation approach. 

Outcomes: 

• Substantial support for the service led to its development. The service was partially available 

in 2009 and will be fully launched in 2011. 

7.2. Step 9: Assess effectiveness of the 

public consultation exercise 

The effectiveness of the public consultation exercise should be evaluated to: 

1. Assess whether involving the stakeholders contributed to improved services, 

actions or decision making, 

2. Find out what worked, what did not and why, 

3. Enhance learning and improve future practice; and 

4. Identify areas for improvement for future exercises. 

There are three suggestions for assessing effectiveness: 

1. Decision analysis, which assesses whether the strategic objectives of the consultation 

exercise were met. 

2. Process review, which assesses the effectiveness of the consultation process, e.g., whether the 

timeline was adhered to and whether the response rate was met. 

3. Participant satisfaction, which evaluates the general sentiment/satisfaction of participants 

who took part in the consultation process. 

The checklist on the following page (Table 7-2) can be used to assist officers in assessing the 

effectiveness of consultation exercises. 


• The New Zealand government engaged an independent consultant to assist them in 

documenting the findings of consultation exercise. The release of the comprehensive report 

acknowledged the participants’ contribution to the issue, provided clarity to the participants 

on how their feedback was considered, and the outcome of the consultation exercise. 

Source: 

• The Department of Internal Affairs New Zealand, 2008. Public consultation about the igovt service 

– What people said, .


Decision audit analysis 

Key considerations 

1. Were the strategic objectives of the consultation exercise met? 

2. Did the consultation result in an informed decision, shape a policy or an action? 

3. Has the consultation helped to improve the effectiveness of a service by making it match users’ 

needs more closely? 

4. Did it lead to a change of policy or service? 

5. Has the consultation improved the relationship with the stakeholders? 

Process review 

Assessment 

Yes No NA 

1. 7.2. Was there Step sufficient 9: Assess awareness effectiveness generated about the consultation of the public exercise for consultation the targeted exercise 

stakeholders? 

2. Did all parties (e.g., staff, participants and partners) understand the objectives? 

3. Was the timeframe and process adhered to? 

4. Were the level of resources and support right? 

5. Were the right stakeholders involved? 

6. Was the consultation accessible (e.g., were materials available in other languages and formats, 

where necessary? Were interpreters provided or necessary? Were venues accessible?) 

The effectiveness of the public consultation exercise should be evaluated to: 

7. 

• 

Were 

Assess 

the 

whether 

methods used 

involving 

appropriate 

the stakeholders 

for the objectives? 

contributed to improved services, actions or 

8. Were decision the numbers making; that took part expected – was the initial target reached? 

9. • Did Find officers out what get the worked, information what needed did not in sufficient and why; time, depth and quality? 

10. • Were Increase results learning made known and to improve participants, future the wider practice; public and and relevant partner organisations? 

• Identify areas of improvement for future exercises. 

Participant satisfaction 

1. Did participants understand why they were asked to be involved in this consultation? 

There are three suggestions for assessing effectiveness: 

2. Did participants know their scope of influence (i.e., what this consultation could and could not 

influence)? 

1. Decision analysis, which assesses whether the strategic objectives of the consultation 

3. Was exercise the information were met; easy to understand, and did it provide them with sufficient background to 

provide meaningful feedback? 

4. 2. Was Process it easy review, for participants which to assesses give their views? the effectiveness of the consultation process, e.g., whether 

5. Were the timeline participants was given adhered the opportunity to, response to say everything rate was met; they wanted and to say? 

6. Were the practical arrangements for this consultation (e.g., meeting venues, refreshments, 

3. interpreters, Participant facilitators) satisfaction, satisfactory which to the evaluates participants? the general sentiment/satisfaction of participants 

7. Did who participants took part feel in that the their consultation contribution process. was listened to and respected? 

8. Are participants satisfied with the reported findings of the consultation exercise? 

The checklist on the following page (see Table 7 2) can be used to assist officers in assessing the 

9. Are participants aware of the outcome and key considerations behind the agency’s decision or 

course effectiveness of action? of consultation exercises. 

10. Do participants think the consultation made a difference to the decision? 

11. Did it generate a considerable volume of feedback? 

Assessment: Number of “Yes” 

Decision audit analysis = /5 

Process review = /10 

Participant satisfaction = /11 

Total = /26 

8. Conclusion 

This Toolkit serves to provide public officers with an overview of the process and tools for public 

consultation exercises. Given the diversity of stakeholders and issues/policies faced by different 

agencies at differing levels, the Toolkit is not meant to be prescriptive. Rather, agencies are 

encouraged to customise or modify the content to suit their own context and requirements. 

The Toolkit is an evolving document. New challenges may be encountered or new avenues/ 

ideas generated. Agencies are encouraged to document their experiences in each consultation 

exercise for future reference and further improvements to the public consultation process. 

Table 7-2: Checklist for assessment of effectiveness


Acknowledgements 

Index of case examples 

This document has resulted from the enthusiasm and knowledge of many public officers within 

the Singapore public sector. We would like to take this opportunity to specially thank all who 

have dedicated time and effort to participate in CSC’s focus groups and interviews. We would 

also like to thank the agencies who contributed case studies and other valuable suggestions 

which helped to enhance the content of this Toolkit. 

Participants of focus groups and interviews: 

Ministries 

• Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) 

• Ministry of Education (MOE) 

• Ministry of Finance (MOF) 

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) 

• Ministry of Health (MOH) 

• Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) 

• Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) 

• Ministry of Law (MinLaw) 

• Ministry of Manpower (MOM) 

• Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) 

• Ministry of Transport (MOT) 

• Prime Minister’s Office, Public Service Division (PMO-PSD) 

Statutory Boards 

• Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) 

• Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB) 

• Energy Market Authority (EMA) 

• Housing and Development Board (HDB) 

• Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) 

• Internal Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) 

• Land Transport Authority (LTA) 

• Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) 

• Media Development Authority (MDA) 

• National Arts Council (NAC) 

• National Environment Agency (NEA) 

• National Parks Board (NParks) 

• National Population Secretariat (NPS) 

• National Water Agency (PUB) 

• People’s Association (PA) 

• Singapore Customs 

• Spring Singapore (SPRING) 

• Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) 

Non-Government Organisations 

• Council for Third Age (C3A) 

• Singapore Business Federation (SBF) 

• Singapore Council of Women’s Organisation (SCWO) 

• Singapore Children’s Society 

• Singapore Medical Association (SMA) 

• Tsao Foundation, Singapore 

Agency, country Case example Learning point Page 

1 Ministry of Education (MOE), 

Singapore 

2 Land Transport Authority 

(LTA), Singapore 

3 Murray-Darling Basin 

Commission, Australia 

4 Ministry of Manpower 

(MOM), Singapore 

5 Commission on the Future 

of Health Care, Canada 

6 National Parks Board 

(NParks), Singapore 

7 Ministry of Health (MOH), 

Singapore 

8 Monetary Authority of 

Singapore (MAS), Singapore 

9 Infocomm Development 

Authority (IDA), Singapore 

Regulatory regime for 

the private education 

sector 

‘Friends of LTA’ 

The Living Murray River 

Restoration 

Tripartite efforts to 

overcome the downturn 

Improving public 

healthcare 

Sungei Buloh Wetland 

Reserve 

Proposed amendments 

to Human Organ 

Transplant (HOTA) Act 

Regulation of investment 

products 

Contract period and 

early termination 

charges for 

telecommunication 

services offered to 

consumers 

10 Canada Maintaining antieuthanasia 

regulation 

11 Urban Redevelopment 

Authority (URA), Singapore 

12 Ministry of Home Affairs 

(MHA), Singapore 

13 Accounting and Corporate 

Regulatory Authority (ACRA), 

Singapore 

14 Department of Internal 

Affairs, New Zealand 

An illustration of public 

consultation 

An illustration of public 

engagement 

Ensuring representativeness in 

stakeholder populations 

Forming partnerships with 

stakeholders 

Using appropriate tools to target 

stakeholders to be consulted 

Consulting on issue with high 

public interest 

2 

3 

14 

16 

19 

22 

Consulting on emotive issue 24 

Consulting on specific issue 

which focuses on targeted 

groups of participants 

27 

Consultating on technical issues 29 

Implementing policy against 

public opinion 

URA Master Plan 2008 URA Master Plan 2008 42 

Penal Code (Amendment 

Bill) 

Registration framework 

for public accountants 

Identity Verification 

System (IVS) 

32 

Launch of consultation exercise 45 

Closing the loop: Publishing the 

consultation report 

Closing the loop: Publishing the 


49 

51


References 

Guidelines 

• Corporate Consultation Secretariat 2000, Health Canada Policy Toolkit for Public Involvement 

in Decision Making, Canada, viewed 1 February, 2010, 

. 

• Gramberger, M., 2001. Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and 

Public Participation in Policy-making, Paris: OECD Publications, France, viewed 29 January, 

2010, . 

• International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), 2010, IAP2 Core Values, viewed 25 

January, 2010, < http://www.iap2.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=4>. 

• International Association for Public Particiation (IAP2), 2010, IAP2 Spectrum of Public 

Participation, viewed 22 January, 2010, . 

• International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), 2010, IAP2’s Public Participantion 

Toolbox, viewed 22 January, 2010, . 

• Nottinghamshire County Council, 2010, Assessment for effectiveness,United Kingdom, 

viewed 4 February, 2010 ,. 

• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Public Management 

Policy Brief, 2001, Engaging Citizens in Policy-making: Information, Consultation and Public 

Participation, Viewed 25 January, 2010, . 

• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Reference Checklist 

for Regulatory Decision-Making,viewed 25 January, 2010, . 

• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD Background 

Document on Public Consultation, viewed 22 January, 2010, . 

• REACH Singapore, 2010, viewed 1 February, 2010, . 

• South Lanarkshire Council, 2010, South Lanarkshire Council’s Wheel of Participation, viewed 

29 January, 2010, 

• United Nations, 2008, World Public Sector Report 2008, People Matter – Civic Engagement 

in Public Governance, New York: United Nations Publications, viewed 20 November, 2009, 

. 

Case examples 

Australia 

• Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010, Case study 2 - The Murray-Darling Basin – An 

ecological and human tragedy, Australia, viewed 26 January, 2010, . 

• Crase, L., Dollery, B. & Wallis, J., 2005, Community consultation in public policy: The case of the 

Murray-Darling Basin of Australia, Australian Journal of Political Science, 40, 221 – 237, viewed 

26 January, 2010, . 

• Macdonald, D. H., & Young, M., 2001, A case study of the Murray-Darling Basin, CSIRO Land and 

Water, viewed 26 January, 2010, . 

Canada 

• Dawn Ontario: DisAbled Women’s Network Ontario, 1998-2007, Responses to the final report 

by the Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, viewed 1 June, 2010, 

. 

• International Task Force, 2009. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada, viewed 8 March, 

2010. . 

• Mapleleafweb.com: Canada’s Premier Political Education Website, Romanow Commission 

on the Future of Health Care: Findings and Recommendations, viewed 1 June, 2010, . 

• The Montreal Gazette, 16 Feb 2010, Doctors back ‘right to die’, viewed 8 March, 2010, . 

• Toronto Sun, 21 Apr 2010, MPs band together to study palliative care, viewed 11 May, 2010, 

 

• Vision Critical, 2010, Angus Reid Public Opinion, Two-thirds of Canadians Express Support 

for Legalizing Euthanasia, viewed 8 March, 2010, .


New Zealand 

• The Department of Internal Affairs New Zealand, 2008. Public consultation about the igovt 

service – What people said, viewed 26 January, 2010, . 

Singapore 

• Case compilations drafted by Civil Service College, Singapore. 

• Gwee, J.2004, Public Consultation: Re-inventing Dialogue, Singapore: Centre of Governance 

and Leadership, Civil Service College 

• Land Transport Authority, 2009. Friends of LTA case study, viewed 1 February, 2010, 

. 


Appendices


Appendices Content 

Appendix A : Consultation tools 

 

1. Community meetings 

2. Exhibitions/road shows 5 

3. Public forums 7 

4. Surveys 6 8 

5. Blogs 70 

6. Social media 72 

7. Websites 74 

8. Focus group discussions 76 

9. Workshops 78 

10. Charrettes 80 

11. Citizen juries 81 

12. Delphi process 82 

13. Expert panels 83 

14. Interviews 84 

15. Working groups 85 

Appendix B : Planning Aid for Public Consultation 86


Appendix A: 

Consultation tools 

1. Community meetings 

Community meetings are dialogue sessions organised with 

stakeholders from localised or targeted communities. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

Tools 

Feel the 

pulse 

Test/ 

refine 

Obtain 

buy-in 

Page 

reference 

1. Community meetings 3 3 3 64 

2. Exhibitions/road shows 3 3 65 

3. Public forums 3 3 3 67 

4. Surveys 3 3 68 

5. Blogs 3 3 3 70 

6. Social media 3 3 3 72 

7. Websites 3 74 

8. Focus group discussion 3 3 76 

9. Workshops 3 78 

10. Charrettes 3 3 80 

Target audience 

General public/large 


General public 

(IT-savvy population) 

The target audience of such meetings include individuals in 

specific housing districts or local community organisations. 

Before conducting community meetings, agencies 

should determine: 

• Date and Time – consider who the target audience is and 

the other obligations they may have. Bear in mind other 

events that could clash with the meeting. 

• Venue – choose a venue that is familiar to your target 

audience and the special needs they may have e.g., elderly 

or disabled individuals. 

• Speakers – ensure that the speaker(s) or facilitator(s) 

are thoroughly briefed about the purpose and details of 

the community meeting. Provide them with background 

materials and a list of frequently asked questions to help 

address queries from the community. 

When is it most useful? 

Community meetings are useful for: 

• Consulting with targeted group of stakeholders most 

affected by policies. For example, changes which affect 

their neighbourhood or living environment. 

• Leverage on partners 

(e.g. People’s Association, 

grassroot leaders, NGOs) 

who can help to identify 

participants, publicise 

the event and facilitate 

discussion. 

• Prepare information on 

related topics to address 

any questions participants 

may ask, even if the topics 

are under the purview of 

other agencies. 

• Consider conducting the 

sessions in more than 

one language to allow 

greater representation in 

stakeholder groups. 

11. Citizen juries 3 3 81 

12. Delphi process 3 3 82 

Targeted to subject 

matter experts, 


• Gathering feedback from the general public to reach 

individuals from all walks of life. 

Considerations 

13. Expert panels 3 3 3 83 

14. Interviews 3 3 84 

15. Working groups 3 85 

Participants may be varied in their understanding or 

background knowledge of the topic. It is therefore important 

for the meeting to provide sufficient background information 

on the policy or initiative being consulted so that the 

feedback is meaningful. 

Its is equally important to appoint an effective facilitator to 

moderate the meetings and keep it from going off track.


2. Exhibitions/road shows 

Exhibitions or roadshows allow agencies to utilise numerous 

formats to engage and share information with the public 

and obtain public feedback. During these events, agencies 

can provide a visual representation of the issues at hand 

(e.g. housing projects, nature parks). It also provides an 

opportunity for greater interaction between staff and the 

public. 

Agencies should determine the types of media available at 

the event, and prepare the necessary items such as flyers, 

information guide and presentations. 

The target audience for such exhibits/road shows are the 

general public. 

Before conducting exhibitions/road shows, agencies 


• Location – ensure that the location chosen for the event 

is easily accessible to the target audience. It should be 

conveniently located, welcoming and comfortable. 

• Atmosphere – an exhibition/road show provides agencies 

the opportunity to be creative in the way information is 

presented. Ensure that the variety of media planned for 

display is interesting without being overwhelming. 

• Content – information should be tailored to the target 

audience. If a sensitive topic is being addressed, ensure 

that personnel are well-equipped to handle potentially 

difficult members of the public. 

• Staff – ensure that officers selected for the event are well 

equipped with the knowledge and information to explain 

concepts and answer questions or gain feedback from the 

public. Officers should be trained to be polite, courteous 

and helpful. It would also be beneficial to have multilingual 

officers available to attend to members of the 

public who are non-English speakers. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Ensure that the variety of 

media planned for display 

is interesting without 

being overwhelming. 

• If feedback is obtained 

from comment cards or 

short questionnaires, 

ensure that they are 

prominently displayed. 

Always supply writing 

materials. 

• Consider documenting the 

verbal feedback received 

at roadshows. 


Exhibitions/road shows are most useful when a substantial amount of visual representations 

are required to adequately explain the subject (e.g. architectural concepts). They allow for the 

use of interactive technology, and provide a comfortable avenue for confrontational issues to 

be discussed. Exhibitions/road shows are also beneficial in reaching an audience that may not 

otherwise be involved in consultation. They allow members of the public who may not speak 

English to engage with the issues through staff who are trained in another language or dialect. 


Exhibitions/road shows can be very staff intensive, and a large amount of preparation is required 

to ensure that the event is smooth-running.


3. Public forums 

4. Surveys 

Public forums/dialogues are large-scale gatherings which can 

be used to obtain general feedback. 

The target audience of public forums include general public or 

large stakeholder groups who are impacted or interested in a 

particular issue. 

Before conducting public forums, agencies should 

determine: 

• Date and time – consider who the target audience is 

and the other obligations they may have, to determine 

the most convenient date/time to hold the forum. Bear in 

mind other events that could clash with the meeting. 

• Venue – choose a venue that is familiar to your target 

audience and the special needs they may have (e.g. elderly 

or disabled individuals). 

• Speaker(s) – choose a speaker or panel of speakers 

with sufficient seniority and experience to engage 

the audience effectively. Ensure that the speakers are 

thoroughly briefed about the purpose and details of the 

forum. 


Public forums are useful for policy issues that affect a large 

proportion of the public. The forums can be used to educate 

stakeholders about the policy and obtain general feedback. 

Public forums are typically less useful for gathering in-depth 

feedback from specific stakeholders. 


Public forums carry the risk that the agenda may be 

dominated by interest groups or vocal individuals. This is 

particularly the case if the policy or initiative being consulted 

is sensitive or emotive. 

Its is equally important to appoint an effective facilitator to 

moderate the meetings and keep it from going off track. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Publicise the meetings 

through engaging the 

media (e.g., broadcast or 

print), and if appropriate, 

make the material 

available online. 

A survey or questionnaire is essentially a series of questions 

used to solicit information from individuals. The questions 

can be open-ended (i.e., where participants can provide 

qualitative feedback), closed (i.e., where questions have 

pre-defined answers that respondents can select from), or a 

combination of both. 

It can be conducted through various modes, including inperson, 

telephone postal and internet. The resources required 

to conduct the surveys will depend on the modes of survey 

selected. 

The target audience of surveys are typically randomly selected 

individuals who represent the larger target population for a 

policy/initiative. 

Before using surveys, agencies must determine: 

• Content – agencies must have clear objectives and 

understand why they are surveying the general public. 

The survey should ideally contain no more than 10 to 15 

questions. Questions should be direct, brief and simple. 

Long, multipart questions should be avoided. 

• Type – all surveys should be tested with a pilot audience 

prior to mass use in order to procure feedback about how 

the survey can be improved. Agencies need to decide the 

amount of time and resources they have available before 

choosing a survey method. 

Different modes of survey 

a) In-person survey: This can be conducted through door-todoor 

interviews, or street-intercept interviews. 

• When is it useful? 

Surveys conducted in person are useful for obtaining 

immediate feedback and information from respondents. 

Questions can be asked and clarified as they arise. This 

mode of survey typically has a higher rate of response. 

• Considerations 

This method requires an on-site officer at all times and 

can be labour-intensive. Officers need to be aware of the 

issues of privacy and space for participants. The presence 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Be as specific as possible. 

Instead of subjective 

questions like ‘do you use 

this facility often’, change 

this to specify conditions, 

such as ‘never, once a week, 

more than three times a 

week’. 

• Break a topic down into 

distinct elements with a 

question on each. 

• Ask relevant questions – 

do not waste respondents’ 

time by asking questions 

unrelated to the topic. 

• Keep the survey brief, it 

should ideally take 5-10 

minutes to complete. 

• Provide incentives (e.g. 

cash vouchers, discount 

coupons) to increase the 

response rate. 

• Try not to appear 

judgmental or impose 

personal views when 

conducting surveys, 

so as not to influence 

participants.


of the surveyor and the public setting may compel the participants to respond in a certain 

manner and bias the survey results. 

b) Telephone survey 


Telephone surveys are useful for general attitudinal surveys. Agencies can explore options 

with participants and assist them with unfamiliar words or questions. This method yields fast 

results, and has a higher response rate than mailed-in surveys. 


Although to a lesser extent than in-person survey, the tele-surveyor may still compel the 

participants to respond in a certain manner and bias the survey results. For this method to 

work successfully, officers must be trained to handle questions and different personalities 

over the phone sensitively and objectively. Depending on the profile of the target audience, 

surveyors may need to be proficient in different languages. 

c) Mailed survey: Surveys can be mailed to the home or organisation addresses of the target 

audience. 


Mailed surveys can reach a large geographical location and are less labour-intensive than 

in-person or telephone surveys conducted. Participants can complete the surveys at their 

convenience and in private; hence it is suitable for sensitive issues. 


It is harder for participants to seek clarification for mailed surveys. This method is limited 

to literate members of the public and requires an up-to-date address list. There also tends 

to be a lower response rate for mailed survey because it requires participants to take the 

additional step of returning the surveys to the agencies. 

d) Internet survey: E-mail and online surveys (distributed through a website link) are the key 

forms of internet surveys. Links explaining different terms or concepts can also be provided 

online to provide more comprehensive information. Data is automatically entered into a 

database and can be automatically analysed or exported to other software programmes. 


Public forums are useful for policy issues that affect a large proportion of the public. The forums 

can be used to educate stakeholders about the policy and obtain general feedback. Public 

forums are typically less useful for gathering in-depth feedback from specific stakeholders. 


Public forums carry the risk that the agenda may be dominated by interest groups or vocal 

individuals. This is particularly the case if the policy or initiative being consulted is sensitive or 

emotive. 

5. Blogs 

A blog (a contraction of the term ‘web log’) is a website 

that usually contains informal commentaries or personal 

opinions about a subject. Feedback functions in the blogs 

allow the public to provide comments and responses to 

the information posted. Agencies also have the option of 

embedding their blog on the agency’s website. The blog page 

can then be easily updated either through the website or 

through applications on mobile devices. 

Through this medium, agencies or public figures such as 

Ministers can ask the opinions of blog readers on a specific 

subject or test the reaction of blog readers towards a certain 

topic. This can allow the government to conduct informal 

or “soft” consultation with the public. In addition, the 

contributor(s) can also provide an insider’s perspective on 

various policies (e.g. tax) and events (e.g. National Day). Such 

posts allow the public to relate to the government on a more 

personal and informal level. 

The main distinction between the government’s website 

and blog posts is that the website provides comprehensive 

information, while blog posts provide snippets of information 

– summaries, opinions, circumstances and reasons 

surrounding various policies and principles. Typically, blogs 

present the contributors’ personal perspectives. 

The target audience of blogs are technologically-savvy 

individuals. 

How it works 

A typical blog combines text, images, video and links to other 

blogs or websites. An account is first created at a blog website 

(e.g. blogspot.com). The blog page can be personalised, or 

selected from a template, and finally, the contributor can 

begin sharing content online. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Keep blog posts 

interesting – readers are 

keen to explore issues on a 

personal level. 

• Short posts are fine if timeconstraints 

are present. 

The key is to be consistent 

between time spans of 

blog posts. 

• ‘Tag’ entries according to 

different categories, so that 

readers may be able to 

search for similar topics on 

the blog.


Before using blogs, agencies should determine: 

• Content – the level of information that they wish to disseminate. Agencies should always 

keep in mind that they would be contributing to a ‘public blog’ and as such, should be 

sensitive to the readers they may have. 

• Privacy and safety – never distribute private information that the public does not need to 

know about, e.g. personal schedules, numbers or addresses. 


Blogs are useful for sounding out ideas and testing the reaction of readers towards a certain 

topic, to conduct informal or ‘soft’ consultation with the public. It also provides agencies with an 

informal setting to connect with the public and creates an opportunity to ‘humanise’ abstract 

issues. 


Contributors should consider the implications of their words to the general public, and should 

always bear in mind that their posts are available on the public domain. 

Agencies should also note that the blog discussion takes place on a public domain. Agencies 

therefore need to be prepared for negative comments and responses in a public domain which 

may potentially influence the views of other readers. 

6. Social media 

Social media (e.g. Facebook, twitter, LinkedIn) is a new form of 

technologically-enabled consultation tool, where government 

policy information can be instantaneously disseminated to a 

multitude of people. It has the additional benefit of being a 

‘two-way’ channel of communication where participants can 

comment or reply almost immediately. 

Social media are useful for agencies to informally consult and 

engage with the population. Similar to blogs, public officers 

or government agencies can post comments/ideas/issues on 

the websites and the general public can respond to them. 

The target audience for such social media are younger, more 

technologically-savvy individuals. In the advent of mobile 

broadband technology, these participants are able to access 

information in transit and are no longer confined to a 

particular geographical location, time of day, or availability of 

information outlets (e.g. news stands, television or radio). 

How it works 

Social platforms often merge features such as email, instant 

messaging, image and video sharing, applications and ‘status 

updates’. It allows for the creation of ‘groups’ that participants 

can join where they receive relevant information pertaining 

to that particular ‘group’. Users are often allowed to log in to 

one interface with numerous features, rather than needing to 

filter through a myriad of social interaction applications (e.g. 

instant messaging programmes, YouTube). 

An account is first set up by the agency before the various 

tabs/applications can be populated accordingly. The typical 

sections available are as follows: 

• Summary page (e.g. ‘wall function in Facebook’) – the 

summary page displays status updates, and links or videos 

with summaries to relevant sites from the agency. It 

provides an informal avenue for government agencies to 

keep the public informed about current events. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Responding to comments 

within a short period of 

time gives participants a 

sense that the government 

is managing the channel 

and is actively taking an 

interest in their feedback.


• Profile – this describes the agency and what its purpose and objectives are (it is essentially 

the agency’s biography). This tab can also be linked to the agency’s main website, Twitter 

account and other relevant sites associated with the agency. 

• Events – this updates participating fans and followers regarding events that the agency may 

be organising (e.g. meet and greets, gathering for focus groups or discussions). Participants 

may accept or decline invites to such events, or simply pass the message along to ‘friends’ on 

their accounts. 

• Pictures and videos – this gives the agency an opportunity to humanise the government. 

Photos and videos of events and people provide the public with a more casual and 

approachable means of accessing the agency, and the processes culminating in the 

construction of respective policies. 

• Discussion – this function gives participants the opportunity to set up their own ‘forums’. It 

should be carefully moderated by the agencies to ensure appropriate content is posted. 


The design and informal nature of social media encourages the public to be more open and 

honest in their feedback. The advantage of this is that the government can gauge the actual 

ground sentiments on a particular issue. 


The drawback of new media is that some users might publish insensitive, untrue or 

discriminatory remarks on the forum. This may tarnish the reputation of the agency and even 

the country. Hence, usage of new media needs to be properly planned and actively managed to 

mitigate the risk factors. 

New media respondents tend to be of a certain demographic profile and agencies should be 

mindful of that and balance with feedback from other sources, if necessary, for a consultation 

exercise. 

7. Websites 

A government website is an information platform hosted on 

the internet that can contain details on government policies, 

key issues, press releases, and events. 

Agencies can conduct public consultation through websites 

by publishing an electronic consultation paper/document 

on the website. The general public can view the document 

and provide feedback to the agencies either via a feedback 

channel on the website itself, or through emails. 

Another website platform for agencies to conduct public 

consultation is REACH (reaching everyone for active 

citizenry@ home – http://www.reach.gov.sg/). REACH was 

launched in October 2006 when the Feedback Unit was 

restructured to move beyond gathering public feedback, 

to become the lead agency for engaging and connecting 

with citizens. REACH was created to encourage and promote 

an active citizenry through citizen participation and 

involvement. 

Agencies can leverage on the REACH website to host 

electronic consultation document, conduct an opinion poll 

on a specific issue and as a source of general feedback from 

the public through the various forums available on the REACH 

website. 

The target audience of websites is the general public that are 

literate and have access to the Internet. 

Before using websites for public consultation, 

agencies should consider: 

• Content – Consultation papers posted on websites should 

be accessible, concise and easy-to-understand for a 

layperson without background technical information. 

• Layout – having a layout that is clean, simple, and easyto-navigate 

is critical. Users should be able to find the 

material they are looking for with ease. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Websites can be 

complemented by social 

media such as Facebook 

and Twitter to inform 

the public of changes on 

the site, such as content 

updates. 

• Consider offering the 

website in more than one 

language to extend its 

outreach. 

• Ensure that there is 

sufficient bandwidth to 

support the volume of 

visitor ‘traffic’.


• Awareness – websites are passive channels. Therefore, to solicit feedback on consultation, 

sufficient awareness should be generated about the consultation exercise. Allow users the 

option to subscribe to ‘email’ updates or RSS feeds as and when there is new information on 

the website. 


Websites are useful for conducting consultation with members of the public who are literate, 

IT savvy, and have a good command of the English language. It allows detailed information to 

be made available to the public in the form of a consultation document. It can also be used for 

surveys to obtain quick polls, as well as allow active discussion of a topic (e.g. forum). 


Websites may not be able to reach out to members of the public who are illiterate, do not have 

access to computers, are not IT-savvy and do not have good command of the English language. 

Information posted on websites also tend to be less interactive (with the exception of blogs and 

forums). It is therefore recommended that when websites are used in public consultation, they 

should be used in conjunction with other tools which allow greater interactivity and are able to 

reach a more diverse audience. 

8. Focus group discussions 

A focus group discussion (FGD) is a platform where a 

facilitator discusses and gathers feedback from a group 

of individuals. Groups typically consist of six to 10 people 

specifically selected to meet specific criteria in order 

to broadly represent a particular segment of society, 

or communities of interest (e.g., age group, affiliated 

associations, ethnicity and educational level). FGDs typically 

last for one to two hours. 

The target audience for FGDs is generally the direct 

stakeholders and individuals with specific knowledge, 

experience and/or interest in the policy/initiative that the 

agency is consulting on. 

Before conducting FGDs, agencies should determine: 

• Purpose – agencies must be clear about the purpose 

of the discussions so as not to be distracted during the 

allotted time. They should determine a set of questions 

that will be asked, and be prepared to steer the discussion 

back on track if participants go off course. 

• Facilitator – given the time constraints of FGDs, the 

facilitator chosen should be skilled and tactful in 

encouraging participants to provide useful feedback 

without frequently going off-topic. The discussion should 

be guided in a structured manner. 

• Recruitment – FGD participants can be selected through 

random sampling. Agencies can also work with relevant 

partners (e.g. associations, grassroot leaders, NGOs) 

to identify participants from the targeted stakeholder 

groups. 

• Venue – discussions should be held in a quiet room, 

free from noise or interruptions. It should also be easily 

accessible to FGD participants. 

• Resources – ensure sufficient writing materials are 

available during discussions so that participants can 

actively make notes or provide visual representation for 

their ideas. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Ensure that to the 

participants are clear 

about the purpose of 

the FGD, and how their 

feedback will be handled. 

• Acknowledge 

contributions made by 

participants so they will be 

encouraged to continue 

providing feedback. 

• Agencies can consider 

conducting focus groups 

for non-English speakers 

to ensure stakeholder 

populations are well 

represented. 

• Grouping similar types of 

participants together help 

to reduce inhibition and 

promote discussion.


• Recording – the FGDs should be recorded (taped, transcribed or documented) to ensure 

accuracy. These notes can be used for analysis at a later date. Always inform participants if 

they are being recorded during the session. 


• FGDs are most useful when issues need to be explored in-depth, and when there is a need 

to understand reasons for attitudes, behaviours or generating new ideas. Agencies are able 

to obtain a snapshot of public opinion when time constraints do not allow a full review or 

survey. 

• FGDs can also be used in conjunction with surveys to identify issues that need to be 

quantified, as well as after a survey is conducted to investigate results in greater depth. 


FGDs may be too small or biased to provide reliable results. Additionally, this method may 

involve payment to participants – an appropriate method of payment and amount should be 

decided beforehand, and participants should be informed of this. 

9. Workshops 

A workshop is an informal meeting that includes plenary and 

breakout discussion sessions between participants. 

A workshop is facilitated by an officer skilled in groupwork, 

who can encourage quieter members of the group 

to speak up while creating a constructive, problem-solving 

atmosphere. 

The discussion is focused, but not overly formal, the aim of 

which is for everyone to participate comfortably. Workshops 

allow individuals to network and exchange ideas and to 

develop an action plan recommendations or proposals. 

The target audience for this tool is selected individuals with 

knowledge and/or experience in the relevant area. 

Before conducting workshops, agencies should 

determine: 

• Topic – agencies need to ensure that the topic is 

sufficiently precise and meaningful to participants. 

Background information may be sent out to participants 

prior to the workshop so that participants are prepared. 

• Group sizes – group sizes should be large enough to 

encourage lively deliberation, but not so large that most 

participants are unable to be involved effectively. The ideal 

size would be 15 to 20 participants. 

• Venue – ensure the room chosen is of an appropriate size 

that will comfortably accommodate the workshop. Ensure 

participants with disabilities or special needs have full 

access. 

• Facilitator – an experienced facilitator will enhance 

the quality of the workshop by creating a conducive 

environment that encourages discussion, while remaining 

neutral. Facilitators must work to keep participants 

realistic in the solutions they suggest. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Give busy participants 

ample notice to allow 

them to fit the workshops 

into their schedule. 

• Ensure that logistical 

considerations such as 

room availability and food 

services are planned well 

in advance.


• Activities – ensure that the session enables participants to: 

- Understand the policy or initiative at hand (e.g. through presentations, background 

reading), 

- Brainstorm, discuss and develop strategies or options (e.g. breakout groups, debates, 

voting), 

- Present the key resolutions of their discussion; and 

- At the end of the workshop, gather all participants for closing remarks informing them of 

how the proceedings of the workshop will be shared. 


Workshops are most useful when bringing representatives from diverse groups who have a 

common interest in an issue, but bring different perspectives as to how the issue should be 

addressed. This process works best when it is limited to participants who are actively involved, 

interested and directly impacted by the issue, who will be motivated to find practical, feasible 

solutions to the proposed issue. 


Proper facilitation and grouping of participants are key to the success of workshops. Otherwise, 

a small number of participants may dominate the discussion. The selection of the participants is 

also important. In a small, self-selected group, viewpoints from other unrepresented members of 

the stakeholder groups will be absent. 

10. Charrettes 

A charrette typically involves intense and possibly multi-day 

sessions involving different stakeholders. The session is akin 

to a visual brainstorming meeting which serves as a way of 

quickly generating ideas within a specified time limit, tapping 

on the aptitudes and interests of a diverse group of people. 

The target audience for this tool is selected individuals with a 

stake in the issue, or experts who can contribute to the design 

of the solution. For example, in the context of urban planning, 

this could include government officials, developers, residents 

and architects. 

Before using charrettes, the agency should 

determine: 

• Issues – agencies need to be clear and focussed about the 

purpose of the activity, and the scope of feedback desired. 

• Setting – as charrettes are typically used for 

brainstorming, the setting should encourage openness 

and creativity. 

• Facilitator – an experienced facilitator is important to 

ensure that a variety of views are heard and the discussion 

is kept on track 


A charrette is a problem-oriented tool – it encourages full 

participation and discussion about interrelationships and 

impacts of policies. It is most effective early in the projectplanning 

phase where brainstorming is required. Charrettes 

are usually deployed for design-related matters, such as the 

design of a new town centre, urban planning, etc. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• If there are multiple 

stakeholder groups with 

diverse views involved, 

agencies can also consider 

conducting separate 

charrettes for each group. 


Charrettes are relatively exclusive because only the experts 

are usually invited to participate. Thus participants may not 

be viewed as being representative of the wider populace. 

Preparatory work leading to a charrette is typically also timeand 

resource-intensive.


11. Citizen juries 

Citizen jury is a randomly selected and demographically 

representative panel comprising members of the public used 

for examining and deliberating on a policy issue. 

The target audience of this technique is a group of ordinary 

citizens who are selected based on the requirements of the 

issue at hand. 

Before using citizen juries, agencies should 

determine: 

• Selection – members of the jury should be carefully 

selected to reflect the wider public in terms of 

demographics and opinions. 

• Agenda – care and thought must be placed in 

considering what is to be presented. Participating jurors 

must be informed enough to understand the issue and 

the information should have several points of view, so that 

jurors may construct effective questions to ask during the 

session. 

• Logistics – due to the time and effort commitment 

required of the participants, agencies also should consider 

hosting the meeting at a convenient location or provide 

transport arrangements for the participants to incentivise 

the public to participate in the deliberation process. 


Citizen juries are useful for involving the public to develop a 

deep understanding of an issue. The extensive deliberation 

process by the public can provide the agencies with 

additional viewpoints on the issues/concerns of a particular 

policy. Since the jurors are ‘non-experts’, the general public are 

more likely to identify and agree with their conclusions and 

recommendations. 


The entire process requires a high level of patience and 

requires commitment from participants. Participants need 

to be screened to ensure they possess the capacity to ask 

constructive questions so as to maintain time efficiency of the 

entire process. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• In order to maintain 

‘neutrality’ of the jurors, 

they should not mix 

informally (e.g., over lunch) 

with agency officers or 

the experts before the 

completion of the process. 

12. Delphi process 

The Delphi process involves several iterations of participant responses to a questionnaire with 

results tabulated and disseminated until following iterations no longer result in significant 

changes. It is similar to an expert panel, except that agreement can be reached without the need 

for a face-to-face group process. 

How it works 

A group of experts are first selected and presented with a number of questions regarding the 

subject topic. Participants contribute anonymously, which allows a free flow of ideas. The Delphi 

process provides an opportunity for discussion without the need for meeting. It continues until 

there is no longer a need for modification of opinions, and when the final iteration resembles 

the most ‘optimal solution’. 

Usually all participants maintain anonymity even after the final report is completed. This ensures 

that participants are not influenced by anyone based on authority, personality or biases. It 

allows them to express their opinions and critiques without constraint, and modify errors or 

revise earlier opinions without fear of judgment. The process is stopped after a pre-defined stop 

criterion is reached (e.g. consensus achieved, stability of results and number of rounds). 

The target audience of this process is a select group of people with expertise on the policy issue. 

Before using the Delphi process, agencies should determine: 

• Participants – ensuring the select panel have sufficient knowledge about the subject matter 

is critical to gaining useful and relevant information. 

• Facilitating the information collation – responses need to be collected and analysed after 

each round to identify common or conflicting viewpoints. 


The Delphi process is useful for forecasting potential impact of policy implementation. Experts 

may be asked to give their estimated probabilities regarding the long-term trend of a certain 

area like healthcare or economic trends and education. It provides relatively quicker forecasts if 

experts are readily available. 


The Delphi process requires significant investment of time and effort from experts who may 

have busy schedules. Agencies need to convince the experts on the value of the consultation 

process and keep the experts engaged and active in each round in order to obtain optimal 

effectiveness.


13. Expert panels 

14. Interviews 

An expert panel is a specially constructed group of individuals 

who are considered technical specialists in their field. The 

panel can be used as a credible evaluative and deliberative 

tool, representing various points of view regarding policies or 

projects in a balanced and impartial way. 

Generally, six to 12 experts are selected to form members 

of the panel. The panel can then meet at intervals either in 

a public meeting with members of the media asking them 

questions, or be conducted with a neutral moderator posing 

questions to the panel members. 

The target audience of this method are experts that are 

recognised as independent specialists in their respective 

spheres. 

Before using expert panels, agencies should 

determine: 

• Participants – the experts chosen should have extensive 

experience in the field and preferably be independent 

with regards to the proposed policy. 

• Moderator – it is important to appoint an experienced 

moderator who is able to keep the discussion on track, 

raise discussion points or questions to solicit relevant 

insights, and ensure that the consultation objectives are 

met. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Establishing guidelines or 

ground rules for expert 

panel discussions may 

encourage panel members 

to be focussed on the topic 

at hand. 

• In addition to expertise in 

their field, try increasing 

the diversity of the 

members. This may build 

credibility and help 

address public concerns 

about equity. 

Interviews are one-to-one discussions with experts, 

stakeholders, or prominent public figures where agencies can 

gain insight on a particular issue/policy. 

An interview usually lasts around an hour and is framed 

around a particular subject. During an interview, it is possible 

to gain in-depth and detailed information without peer 

pressure. Personal, face-to-face contact allows for a more 

detailed understanding of the reasons and rationale behind 

people’s attitudes and opinions. 

The target audience for this tool is selected individuals with 

knowledge and/or experience in the relevant area. 

Before conducting interviews, agencies should 

determine: 

• Topic – ensure appropriate questions are crafted prior 

to the interview, and be clear about the reason for 

conducting the interview. 

• Questions – use open-ended questions as opposed 

to questions resulting in ‘yes/no’ answers. Ensure that 

questions are relevant to the subject area so as to fully 

utilise the available time. 


TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Be sensitive to the needs 

of the person you are 

interviewing. 

• Ensure an appropriate 

venue is selected with 

refreshments provided 

depending on the 

anticipated length of the 

interview. 

• Provide the interviewer 

with the questions or areas 

of discussion prior to the 

interview to prepare the 

interviewer for the session. 


This method presents an opportunity for a balanced 

discussion of issues. Expert panels are suitable for presenting 

different considerations and viewpoints, particularly for 

subject areas which are controversial or uncertain. Expert 

panels are also useful in estimating future impacts of an 

implemented policy. 


Agencies need to be cognisant that although experts 

are more knowledgeable than the general public, their 

statements and opinions still need to be properly clarified 

and verified to ensure accuracy. When used properly, the 

synthesised ideas developed during these sessions form 

credible sources of information. 

Interviews are most useful when obtaining feedback from 

stakeholders, experts and excluded or minority groups. 

Interviews offer participants a degree of privacy in a nonthreatening 

environment to express views, and identify new 

issues that might not otherwise have been thought of. 


Scheduling multiple interviews, collating data and analysing 

data can be time consuming and labour intensive. Agencies 

should therefore be selective in conducting one-to-one 

interview with individuals who can contribute the most to the 

policy development.


15. Working groups 

A working group consists of a number of selected 

stakeholders who meet periodically to provide their views. 

It provides an opportunity for in-depth analysis of policy or 

initiative being consulted. 

The target audience of this method is stakeholder-centric, and 

focuses on stakeholders with a direct/indirect interest in the 

proposed government project or policy. This may comprise 

experts, industry players, interest groups or selected members 

of public. 

Before organising regular working groups, agencies 


• Size – the typical size of a working group is eight to 15 

members. 

• Roles – ensure roles and responsibilities of participants 

are defined upfront so that they are aware of their duties. 

The required time commitment should also be clear. 

• Participants – consider the group dynamics of the 

individuals selected for the working group. Participants 

can be identified through: 

- Agencies’ past experience; 

- Recommendations from external organisations 

(e.g. other government agencies, trade/business 

associations, unions); or 

- Prominent individuals who are known to be experts or 

leading players in their field. 


Working groups are useful during the early stage of policy 

formulation, where there is scope for developing, influencing 

and assessing the strategic options available 


Agencies need to be aware that working groups involve 

selected individuals and may not necessarily represent 

the views of the larger stakeholder population. In addition, 

the effectiveness of a working group is dependent on the 

commitment of its members. 

TIPS FOR 

EFFECTIVENESS 

• Get workgroups to 

champion the cause by 

allowing them to gain 

a sense of ownership 

of the policy that they 

assisted the government in 

creating. 

Appendix B: 

Planning aid for public consultation 

The following can be customised by agencies to suit their own needs. 

Agency 

Policy initiative for 

consultation 

Responsible party(s) 

Start of consultation 

process 

DD / MM / YYYY 

A. Objective(s) of consultation exercise 

1 

2 

B. Strategy for consultation 

Stakeholders who 

will benefit 

Stakeholders who 

are adversely 

affected 

Stakeholders 

who may have 

skills/resources to 

contribute 

Other stakeholders 

who may be 

interested 

Identify 

stakeholders to be 

consulted 

1. E.g. the elderly 

2. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

What tools/ 

channels are most 

suitable to engage 

the identified 

stakeholder group 

E.g. community 

meetings, public 

forums 

Targeted completion 

date 

What are some 

potential issues/ 

risks 

E.g. participation 

rate may be low 

DD / MM / YYYY 

What are 

mitigating 

strategies 

E.g. partner 

with NGOs (e.g. 

Third Age, Tsao 

foundation)

Public Consultation Toolkit 87 

C. Develop action plan and timeline 

Categories 

Key activities 

Estimated 

time 

required 

Person(s) 

responsible 

Planned 

start date 

Planned 

completion 

date 

Status 

Consultation 

strategy 

Develop consultation 

strategy 

Obtain approval for 

consultation strategy 

Draft consultation 

materials 

Consultation 

materials 



Develop and print 


Generate 

awareness for 

consultation 

exercise 

Development of 

communications plan 


communications plan 

Implement 

communications activities 

to generate awareness 

Plan consultation launch 

date(s) 

Make 

logistical 

arrangements 

Make facility 

arrangements (e.g. venue, 

refreshments) 

Identify and invite 

speakers/facilitators/ 

partners/vendors 

Send invitations/ 

notifications to 

participants 

Track participation rate 

During 

consultation 

period 

Track type of feedback 

provided 

Assess need to extend 

consultation or provide 

more information 

Collate feedback and 

develop report on 

consultation 

Close the loop 



Publish report to 

participants

Public Consultation Toolkit - Civil Service College

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?