What people think of Singapore
-
1996, Washington Post
WHEN ALEXIS de Tocqueville wanted to look into new forms of governance, he traveled west to the new world and spent nine months studying America. With the same idea in mind, but supposing that these days to find the new world one travels east, I went to teach for a year in Singapore.
I especially wanted to look into what Singaporean officials tout as a new, unique blend of Confucianism and capitalism, an Asian-style of governance that corrects what they call the West's excessive emphasis on the rights of the individual. Singapore's government, the argument goes, focuses on the needs of the community and so spares their country the ills of the West while it promotes prosperity and general happiness. This new form of governance they call "authoritarian democracy."
Since that country is a good deal smaller than the United States (3 million people in a little over twice the area of Washington) I got to see it very thoroughly over the course of a year. At the outset, the country didn't seem strange. Singapore is a modern, Westernized, consumerist society. The cultural overlap between Singapore and Tyson's Corner must be at least 80 percent.
Nor was the famous skyline hard to get used to: "Like Rosslyn on steroids," a D.C. friend remarked. The longer I stayed, however, the more peculiar Singapore became.
There was a grim air about the university. On the chairman's desk, propped up on a little easel and aimed to catch your eye as you sat in the visitor's chair, was a small sign that read, "An ounce of loyalty is worth more than a pound of cleverness."
Though I came from a military academy and was not likely to be a radical, the Singaporean authorities demanded that I be interviewed for political reliability by their ambassador in Washington. I was directed to furnish copies of everything I had published and was required to have a phone interview with the acting chair of the department before I finally was pronounced acceptable. Even so, I was in the country for almost 10 weeks before I was permitted to teach a class.
It took months to piece together what I was seeing in Singapore. Why did the chairman of my department bring two agents from the Internal Security Department to the office of one of my colleagues and watch while they questioned him for 90 minutes and stripped his office of papers, records and computer files?
Why did the newspapers brag of the government's ability "to take a firm hand with irresponsible journalists"?
Why was I visited after 10 p.m. by two policemen who demanded that I empty the water out of the saucer underneath a potted plant on my balcony (a threat to public health, they explained) and which of my neighbors had called them to turn me in?
It took the entire year to appreciate fully the achievement of Lee Kuan Yew, the man who ruled Singapore as prime min ister from 1959 to 1990 and is still its dominant political figure in his role as elder statesman. Slowly his astonishing array of social controls became clear and the character of "authoritarian democracy" became obvious. I found that no organization on the island has been left unpenetrated by his People's Action Party. His control of that compact and technologically sophisticated country is more total than any other national leader has ever achieved. Lee has created the most perfectly realized autocracy anywhere, the world's state-of-the-art dictatorship.
The press, the police and the military as well as the electoral, legal, housing, education, trade union and employment systems are all entirely under his control, so dissent, even at the polls (where voting is compulsory and ballots are serially numbered) is quixotic. Total government control of a very successful economy permits the regime to scatter largesse, so compliance is richly rewarded.
Lee has woven a web of rewards and punishments around every aspect of life in Singapore. Nine out of 10 Singaporeans live in housing on 99-year lease from the government. Their leases can be terminated on a pretext. In other words, their apartment, which typically represents most of their savings, can be seized.
On the other hand, if they behave well they get to live cheaply in safe, subsidized, spartan housing in a society where other real estate has been bid to well above Washington levels. If they do not behave, the consequences are dire. If, for example, a young woman engages in what the government sees as morally inappropriate behavior, such as having a child outside of marriage, she may be reported by the monitors in every housing block and expelled.
Singaporeans' pensions are also held hostage: Between 30 and 40 percent of most people's income is taxed away into a "Central Provident Fund" and held by the government. Those who behave get a sterling reward: Their compulsory contribution is matched one-for-one by the government. On the other hand, they live in fear that their retirement will be expropriated. My colleague Christopher Lingle, the American academic referred to above who angered the authorities by publishing a piece in the International Herald Tribune mocking Singaporean propaganda, lost about $ 20,000, all his savings in Singapore, in this way.
The education system is similarly rigged to provide huge incentives for compliance and lifelong punishments for deviance. Students must be certified politically reliable by their high schools or junior colleges before they may attend a university. Males undergo two or more years of compulsory military training before college; some among them are recruited by the Internal Security Division and directed to report on their instructors and their classmates. Refusing such recruitment, I was told, is not an option.
In sum, civil society has been dismantled; the judiciary is utterly compliant and the legal profession has been reduced to a largely technical function. Complaints may be submitted to the official "Government Feedback Unit."
Legal protections of such basic rights as habeas corpus have been abridged and trial by jury has been abolished. Paradoxically, Singaporeans were much freer under the British than they are today under Lee Kuan Yew: Their civil liberties had much fuller legal protection when they were colonials.
When one district in the city had the temerity to elect to parliament a candidate from the tiny, feeble opposition party, the government launched a barrage of allegations, investigations and legal proceedings against him that lasted eight years, imprisoned him and left him ruined. When the victim took his case to the Queen's Privy Council in Britain, they found he had been "fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offenses of which he was not guilty." One year later Parliament abolished appeals to the Privy Council for disciplinary matters.
Lee also warned the dissenters that "the government will not be blackmailed by the people . . . . To make sure the excesses [votes against his party] are not carried too far . . . it is necessary to put some safeguards in the way in which people use their votes to bargain, to coerce, to push, to jostle and get what they want without running the risk of losing the services of the government."
Nonetheless, Lee's party intervenes to keep that opposition party alive, alternately mocking, intimidating and infiltrating it, then appointing a handful of its candidates to the parliament, in order to sustain the fiction that genuine politics are possible in Singapore.
The striving for control takes laughable turns. Last year high school debating teams were imported from several countries to demonstrate Singapore's openness, but someone failed to apply in time for the permit that must be granted by the Internal Security Division for any formal gathering. No exception could be made: The foreign students had to sit silent and watch the locals debate each other.
At other times the control grows ugly. The leading creative writer of Singapore, Catherine Lim, was attacked and repeatedly humiliated on the front page of the Straits Times by Lee himself after she made a cautious plea to the People's Action Party to soften its style or risk creating an "affective divide" between itself and the people.
Lee used the occasion to establish a new limit on political expression, describing how he would confront those who questioned him. "I would isolate the leaders, the trouble-makers, get them exposed, cut them down to size, ridicule them, so that everybody understands that it's not such a clever thing to do. Governing does not mean just being pleasant. If you want a pleasant result, just as with children, you cannot just be pleasant and nice."
Such language was printed with approval in all the papers of Singapore. Editorialists professed to find his statements "reassuring."
But Lee went further in his intimidation of Lim: "Have a one-on-one. I'll meet you. You will not write an article -- and that's it. One-to-one on TV. You make your point and I'll refute you . . . . Or if you like, take a sharp knife, metaphorically, and I'll take a sharp knife of similar size; let's meet. Once this is understood, it's amazing how reasonable the argument can become . . . ."
In this, as in all arguments in Singapore, Lee has the last word. Outside Singapore, however, it is still possible to point out that under his rule "authoritarian democracy" has come to mean totalitarian control. What he touts as Singapore's political innovation is in fact merely a sophisticated refinement of this century's political invention: the totalitarian state.
Stephen Wrage teaches in the foreign policy program at the Johns Hopkins University's Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. In the 1994-95 academic year, he was a visiting Fulbright fellow in the political science department at the National University of Singapore.
comments? it is rather old though -
reply by SR Nathan-then ambassador for Singapore to the US
Stephen Wrage, who condemned Singapore in "Big Brother's Home" [Outlook, Feb 11], claimed that when he applied to teach at the National University of Singapore, the authorities demanded that the Singapore ambassador in Washington -- myself -- interview him for political reliability. The university never asked me to interview Wrage, nor did I do so.
It is untrue that Wrage was only permitted to teach a class at the university after 10 weeks in the country. He gave his first tutorial on Aug. 5, 1994, four weeks after his arrival, during the first week of the semester.
Wrage said that his department chairman brought two agents from the Internal Security Department to a colleague's office, where they questioned his colleague and stripped his office of papers, records and computer files. This colleague was Dr. Christopher Lingle. The officers were not security agents but ordinary police officers from the local precinct, investigating the case that led to Lingle and the International Herald Tribune's being convicted of contempt of court. They went to interview Lingle in the presence of his department chairman, and Lingle himself handed over the documents.
The police never visited Wrage's home to demand that he empty water from a saucer under a potted plant. But public health inspectors do routinely visit homes to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes, which transmit dangerous diseas es like malaria and dengue.
Wrage reported that in elections ballots are serially numbered, implying that this is to trace how people vote. Numbering ballots was standard British practice, introduced by the British colonial government to prevent stuffing of ballot boxes. After counting, the ballot boxes are sealed in the presence of candidates and their agents and are stored in the vaults of the Supreme Court for six months until the ballots are publicly incinerated.
Wrage said that Singaporeans can have their leases terminated and their apartments seized on a pretext. The Housing and Development Board repossesses an apartment only when the lessee breaches lease terms clearly stipulated in the law, for example by subletting to illegal immigrants. Compensation is paid. In 1995, out of 600,000 public housing apartments, only 15 were re-acquired.
There are no monitors in public housing apartment blocks to report on young women who have illegitimate children. Having a child outside marriage is not grounds for the housing board to take back an apartment.
Contrary to Wrage's allegations, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) is a compulsory savings plan, not a tax. CPF savings are protected by law against all claims. The government did not touch a cent of Lingle's CPF, which he withdrew in full. Lingle's other savings in the Academic Staff Provident Fund were also protected, except for debts due to the government and the university. Lingle's debts to the university were paid under a court order obtained by the attorney general following garnishee proceedings.
Wrage said students must be certified politically reliable before they may attend a university. This requirement was introduced in 1964 to meet the then serious threat of communist infiltration and subversion. But it was suspended 18 years ago, in 1978, after the threat receded.
Wrage repeated the allegation by Lingle and the International Herald Tribune that the judiciary are "utterly compliant." The Tribune admitted that this allegation was unfounded and apologized to the Singapore judiciary. The 1995 World Competitiveness Report, by the World Economic Forum, placed Singapore ahead of Hong Kong, Sweden, Britain and the United States in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice.
Wrage said that foreign student debaters had to sit in silence and watch the locals debate because someone had failed to apply for a permit from the Internal Security Department. The Internal Security Department had nothing to do with this. Foreigners who debate in public need the proper visa, which the organizers of the event did not apply for. It would have been issued immediately if they had. Although the foreign debaters did not speak at some exhibition debates, they did participate in the competition. The Philippines team won.
Wrage criticized the government's response to Catherine Lim, who had attacked the prime minister and his policies. He said she was "repeatedly humiliated on the front page of the Straits Times by Mr. Lee himself." Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew never responded to Lim's articles. It was Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong who rebutted her arguments and asked her to put her views to the ultimate test, by standing for elections and convincing the people that she was right and the prime minister was wrong.
How could this have humiliated Catherine Lim? Is this not how democracy is supposed to work?
-- S. R. Nathan
The writer is Singapore's ambassador to the United States. -
U need to ask this question to local reading this report: What do they think of Spore?
-
woo, what an article! well said about the way MM manages Singapore the little island. But I question the part where he talked about:
"If, for example, a young woman engages in what the government sees as morally inappropriate behavior, such as having a child outside of marriage, she may be reported by the monitors in every housing block and expelled".
I doubt the above is true. -
What will people think of this:
========================
Govt breaks silence on UNSW money
$32m in loans and grants came to nought after university's U-turns on enrolment, campus building
Lee U-Wen
THE Government has revealed for the first time that it had dispensed over $32 million in public funds to the failed University of New South Wales (UNSW) Asia project.
.
This amount comprises $17.3 million in grants and $15 million in loans, Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang said in Parliament yesterday.
.
Until now, the Government had kept mum on the amount of money that it had dispensed to UNSW, which in May announced its sudden decision to pull out of Singapore due to poor enrolment numbers.
.
Giving the breakdown, Mr Lim explained that the $17.3 million was to help UNSW build its 20-ha campus in Changi.
.
The Economic Development Board (EDB) is now trying to recover this amount.
.
"As UNSW will not be able to meet the performance indicators it had committed to the EDB, it is required to return the disbursed grant and loans," he said. The $15-million loan, meanwhile, went towards constructing the campus as well, but this was backed by a bank guarantee.
.
Mr Lim's speech also painted a distinct picture of how UNSW's plans came undone from June last year, after current vice-chancellor Fred Hilmer replaced his predecessor, Professor Mark Wainwright.
.
The first support package was accepted by UNSW under the leadership of Prof Wainwright in February 2005, on the basis that UNSW would begin operations at an interim campus and eventually set up a full university here with a targeted student body of 15,000.
.
But once Prof Wainwright left, Mr Lim recounted how UNSW, with Prof Hilmer at the forefront, had approached EDB to "increase the support package".
.
Prof Hilmer called the original package "inadequate", which led to the EDB proposing a beefed-up package on three conditions: UNSW had to commit to a 10-year student enrolment of about 5,000 students; accelerate the building of the campus; and introduce more R&D activities.
.
Both parties agreed to this arrangement, with Prof Hilmer signing off on an undisclosed revised package last December. But when student numbers did not meet its projections, UNSW proposed a "significantly scaled-down" plan of achieving an enrolment of 2,000 students in 10 years, said Mr Lim.
.
"This was half of what UNSW had agreed to in the December 2006 revised package. Moreover, they could not provide assurance that there would be a permanent campus in Singapore, even on a reduced scale. This called into question UNSW's ability to deliver on its original intent of getting 10,000 to 15,000 students at a steady state," Mr Lim said.
.
After several counter offers, the Government was prepared to give UNSW a two-year period, until April 2009, to decide on its plans to develop its Changi campus.
.
"The EDB offered not to claw back the grants and loans that it had disbursed ... if UNSW agreed to carry on operations and meet a set of interim targets until it made its decision," said Mr Lim. "The EDB offered that if, and when, UNSW submitted its campus proposal, EDB would assess the proposal afresh for a support package."
.
Eventually, UNSW still chose to pull the plug three months into its first semester due to an "unacceptable level of financial and operational risk", he said.
.
Expressing regret on the failed project, Mr Lim said: "This is their business decision, and we have to respect it. While we, as the Government, can play a role by giving support to investors to set up in Singapore, we cannot issue a blank cheque."
.
Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Inderjit Singh asked if the EDB had been realistic in expecting a foreign university to achieve such lofty student enrolment targets. In response, Mr Lim said it was "not the Government's job" to evaluate the business plans of investors.
.
"Investors know their businesses better than the Government. In this case, UNSW is in the best position to assess the viability of its business plan. Our role is to facilitate and support these decisions, not to second-guess or guide them," he said. -
Foreigners think Singaporeans are arrogant because we complain too much.
We can see lots of complainers on this forum about the govt even when they are doing such a great job. Most of my foreigner frens are appalled by such behaviors by Singaporeans, they think we are silly. -
Silly, who is silly. And what sort of foreign friends you have. YOu have an issue when singaporean talk about the govt? If they really do things to place the interest of the people above their own interest, there will not be so many people talking negatively about them. Can you assure us that the govt is placing serving the people of Singapore as their top priority? If not, what you said above is unreasonable.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Foreigners think Singaporeans are arrogant because we complain too much.
We can see lots of complainers on this forum about the govt even when they are doing such a great job. Most of my foreigner frens are appalled by such behaviors by Singaporeans, they think we are silly.
Many foreigners I know and the foreign press mention the way the local govt works and they give many negative comments about the govt. Democracy?
So you come here to post your message to tell us you are not happy with our complaints?
Please be fair to the people of Singapore, we are facing oppression so we give our comments, views and discuss, does this disgust u? we don't need you to come here talk unreasonably. -
Originally posted by unclebutcher:1996, Washington Post
Why was I visited after 10 p.m. by two policemen who demanded that I empty the water out of the saucer underneath a potted plant on my balcony (a threat to public health, they explained) and which of my neighbors had called them to turn me in?
Think Dengue.
If, for example, a young woman engages in what the government sees as morally inappropriate behavior, such as having a child outside of marriage, she may be reported by the monitors in every housing block and expelled.
Got meh? Never heard b4.
The education system is similarly rigged to provide huge incentives for compliance and lifelong punishments for deviance. Students must be certified politically reliable by their high schools or junior colleges before they may attend a university. Males undergo two or more years of compulsory military training before college; some among them are recruited by the Internal Security Division and directed to report on their instructors and their classmates. Refusing such recruitment, I was told, is not an option.
This one confirm not true cause my friend refused before and still living happily. More than half of my family members 2 generations up were also imprisoned by them before, but now also living happily, their sons (aka my uncles) go RI, Uni, now working as teachers and about to promote to higher office in MOE.
That's all that I can comment on le, the others, I got nothing to counter
-
SILLY? Haha this is from someone who has been working overseas, me! By foreign friends do you mean foreign students? Obviously they only see things from the surface and did not go indepth. Their views are at best superficial.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Foreigners think Singaporeans are arrogant because we complain too much.
We can see lots of complainers on this forum about the govt even when they are doing such a great job. Most of my foreigner frens are appalled by such behaviors by Singaporeans, they think we are silly.
When I asked my foreign friends who worked in Singapore what they liked about Singapore, I could only get 1 straightforward answer...
1. Singapore is clean.
You think Singaporeans care about the environment? I see many people throwing their rubbish without a care when I was in Singapore. Without the army of bangadeshi cleaners you really think Singapore is clean?
-
yeah, what a light hearted reply, makes sense and sound reasonable. Oh yes, understand what u mean that some foreigners are superficial. To them who come from those third world countries would see many things as good superficially of course.Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:SILLY? Haha this is from someone who has been working overseas, me! By foreign friends do you mean foreign students? Obviously they only see things from the surface and did not go indepth. Their views are at best superficial.
When I asked my foreign friends who worked in Singapore what they liked about Singapore, I could only get 1 straightforward answer...
1. Singapore is clean.
You think Singaporeans care about the environment? I see many people throwing their rubbish without a care when I was in Singapore. Without the army of bangadeshi cleaners you really think Singapore is clean? -
Of course foreigners would regard locals as silly for putting a bunch of megalomaniac tyrants in power whose self-serving interests dictate they put the interests of foreigners before those of citizens. Which other country on earth - rogue regimes included - actually offers foreigners a better cut of the deal than locals?Originally posted by Mat Toro:Foreigners think Singaporeans are arrogant because we complain too much.
We can see lots of complainers on this forum about the govt even when they are doing such a great job. Most of my foreigner frens are appalled by such behaviors by Singaporeans, they think we are silly. -
Originally posted by walesa:Of course foreigners would regard locals as silly for putting a bunch of megalomaniac tyrants in power whose self-serving interests dictate they put the interests of foreigners before those of citizens. Which other country on earth - rogue regimes included - actually offers foreigners a better cut of the deal than locals?
-
You are young. We understand.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Foreigners think Singaporeans are arrogant because we complain too much.
We can see lots of complainers on this forum about the govt even when they are doing such a great job. Most of my foreigner frens are appalled by such behaviors by Singaporeans, they think we are silly.
That Wisdom has not breathed you any wisdom we also understand.
When the day comes, and it surely will, and better come, and you realise truth, hopefully, it will not be too late.
As if it is too late, you will be wondering why didn't you think of it before. -
As much as I don't see our government as the perfect government, the article comes up with too many questionable points for me to want to support it. If they are going to criticise, at least get their facts right. Otherwise, it just makes them look silly.
-
Even comrades living under the communist in China will often sing praises of their government, which owes it's credit to the politburo use of propaganda to brainwash the intellectually constrained of the population.
All those songs about Singapore, singing praises of how great we are, what we have achieved, our home, yada yada yada..... Sounds to me like songs from communist China, where popular media (songs like how great China is, yada yada) is used to reinforce the politburo's hold on the minds of the weaker populace. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not know of any democratic countries using songs such as these to brainwash their people. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:Even comrades living under the communist in China will often sing praises of their government, which owes it's credit to the politburo use of propaganda to brainwash the intellectually constrained of the population.
All those songs about Singapore, singing praises of how great we are, what we have achieved, our home, yada yada yada..... Sounds to me like Songs from communist China, where popular media (songs like how great China is, yada yada) is used to reinforce the politburo's hold on the minds of the weaker populace. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not know of any democratic countries using songs such as these to brainwash their people. -
People who talk like that often have little idea on what goes on in Singapore.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Foreigners think Singaporeans are arrogant because we complain too much.
We can see lots of complainers on this forum about the govt even when they are doing such a great job. Most of my foreigner frens are appalled by such behaviors by Singaporeans, they think we are silly.
The govt are doing a great job? You mean currently?
Then prove it here. -
Doesn't the TV and Newspaper say so, we should have absolute faith in these government controlled media.Originally posted by Rock^Star:People who talk like that often have little idea on what goes on in Singapore.
The govt are doing a great job? You mean currently?
Then prove it here.
Does any other government controlled TV or government controlled Newspaper that says the government is not doing well??? -
There was this GST survey that I read over CNA.com: 'Only 6% of shops surveyed attempted GST profiteering' or something along that line.Originally posted by maurizio13:Doesn't the TV and Newspaper say so, we should have absolute faith in these government controlled media.
Does any other government controlled TV or government controlled Newspaper that says the government is not doing well???
I read the article and just shook my head.
Propaganda. And it just papers over the cracks so conveniently.
This is the dot com era. Do they think Singaporeans are stupid? -
I am afraid the 66.6% are still so.Originally posted by Rock^Star:There was this GST survey that I read over CNA.com: 'Only 6% of shops surveyed attempted GST profiteering' or something along that line.
I read the article and just shook my head.
Propaganda. And it just papers over the cracks so conveniently.
This is the dot com era. Do they think Singaporeans are stupid? -
have you done any survey to back up your claim ?Originally posted by maurizio13:I am afraid the 66.6% are still so. -
Originally posted by crazy monkey:have you done any survey to back up your claim ?
Do you dispute with my statement that media is used to brainwash the populace?
Do you dispute that our media is controlled by the government?
Do you dispute that none of the 66.6% are being subliminally programmed by our propaganda media?
Nice one liner reply again, shows no in depth understanding of issues. If all universities could accept a one liner thesis or dissertation.
Maybe someday all the PAP MPs in parliament will provide one liner reponse.
Stupidity is a subjective opinion. Wonder how does one prove it? If I think you are stupid, does it mean I have to prove it? -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Do you dispute with my statement that media is used to brainwash the populace?
Do you dispute that our media is controlled by the government?
Do you dispute that none of the 66.6% are being sublimally programmed by our propaganda media?
Nice one liner reply again, shows no in depth understanding of issues. If all universities could accept a one liner thesis or dissertation.
Maybe someday all the PAP MPs in parliament will provide one liner reponse. ya rite -
Ya rite to what? Can you please provide more higher order thinking and analysis here? Does your affirmative agrees with all my statements?Originally posted by crazy monkey: ya rite -
wats the point of analysing the rubbish you post ? a line of rebuttal is good enough.Originally posted by maurizio13:Ya rite to what? Can you please provide more higher order thinking and analysis here? Does your affirmative agrees with all my statements?