Sometimes it seems that anyone with anything bad to say about Singapore is expressing an opinion that should heard, while anyone with anything good to say about Singapore has been brainwashed and is the victim of propaganda. Singaporeans abroad and Singaporeans who read the posts in the soc.culture.singapore usegroup can not help but be aware of the poor image of Singapore held by many who live overseas. Indeed, it could be argued that one the greatest failure of Singapore Incorporated is in public relations. But is this poor impression of Singapore justified?
Perhaps its simply a 'bad' year. We had the Micheal Fay, Flor Contemplacion, Williams College, IHT lawsuits, and Nick Leeson affair all occuring within a relatively short period of each other thereby maintaining the international spotlight on Singapore, along with considerable negative publicity. Some patriots cry foul and allege that a great deal of these negative sentiments on Singapore are unfair and or misinformed. However, do we really see ourselves as clearly as others see us? And is how others perceive us important? Or to use an analogy with clothes and fashion, should we dress to please ourselves or should we dress to please others?
It is apparent, in my opinion anyway, that we can not fully disregard how others perceive us. We live in an interdependent world, and Singapore is more reliant on this state of interdependence than most other nations. As how others deal with us is often determined by their perceptions of us, how we appear to others is important. As with a company that seeks to keep its clients, Singapore Incorporated must appear honest, responsible and of good character in the community of States. Unfortunately, Singapore's image abroad has taken a fair bit of beating in recent years. While this has not had significant effect on our economic performance - yet - it may affect our own perceptions of self-worth and has to some extent, tarnished our international reputation.
Judging from the anectodal evidence, it would seem that the greatest damage to Singapore's international public image resulted from the Internal Security Department's arrest of Catholic social workers, and of the laywer, Francis Seow, under the provisions of the Internal Security Act. Rightly or wrongly, these arrests gave the impression that the Singaporean government was prepared to arbitarily detain its critics. The subsequent publication of a book by Francis Seow alleging that the ISA was used to subdue political opposition in Singapore also contributed to this perception. Other factors affecting Singapore's image abroad includes the lawsuits against foreign media, and the American academic Christopher Lingle. The fact that Lingle was interviewed by the Criminal Investigation Department, and subsequently 'fled' Singapore surreptitiously all added to the story-book impression of 'heroism' on the part of Lingle and "political persecution" on the part of the Singapore government. Finally, some of Singapore's laws were susceptible to foreign ridicule, particularly the laws against chewing gum and fines for not flushing toilets. These laws created the impression in the minds of some that the Singaporean government was petty, too intrusive and attempting to regulate all aspects of Singaporean life. In short, totalitarian in its reach and control.
While the arrests, lawsuits and laws that have contributed to the negative image of Singapore may be justifiable, and even though many Singaporeans may be convinced of the legitimacy of these acts - the fact that they have contributed to our poor image abroad is still relevant. We should count the cost to our image abroad in what we do at home, and perhaps consider its implications for the way Singaporeans see themselves? But is there anything we can do to "repair" our image? It is clear that the government is regarded with suspicion by many abroad, so any efforts by the government is probably going to meet with limited success - for the moment anyway. Therefore, if Singaporeans who believe that Singapore's negative image is not deserved must stand up for Singapore, and speak out in defence of their country. Of course this does not mean that Singaporeans should not question or challenge the performance of their government if they have doubts. Singaporeans should speak their mind on their own government though they should also consider the consequences of disparaging Singapore abroad. It is important, however, that Singaporeans defend Singapore's record when they believe it has been unfairly attacked. To accept constructive criticism is a virtue, apathetic or timid acceptance of unfair criticism of one's nation is not.
Editor: Edmund Chia
Food for thought.....
'History teaches that the best-preserved tribe among a people is the one in which most men have a living communal sense as a consequence of sharing their custormary and indisputable principles. Here the good, robust mores thrive; here the subordination of the individual is leaned and the character receives firmness, first as a gift and then is further cultivated. The danger to these strong communities founded on homogeneous individuals who have character is growing stupidity, which is gradually increased by heredity, and which, in any case, follows all stability like a shadow. It is the individuals who have fewer ties and are much more uncertain and morally weaker upon whom spiritual progress depends in such communities; they are the men who make new and manifold experiments. Innumerable men of this sort perish because of this weakness without any very visible effect; but in general, especially if they have descendants, they loosen up and from time to time inflict a wound on the stable element of the community. Precisely in this wounded and weakened spot the whole structure is inoculated, as it were, with something new; but its overall strength must be sufficient to accept this new element in its blood and assimilate it. Those who degenerate are of the highest importance wherever progress is to take place; every great progress must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures hold fast to the type; the weaker ones help to develop it further.'
'A people who crumble somewhere and become weak, but remain strong and healthy on the whole, are able to accept the infection of the new and absorb it to their advantage. In the case of the individual the task of education is this: to put him on his path so firmly and surely that, as a whole, he can never again be diverted. Then, however, the educator must wound him, or utilize the wounds destiny inflicts upon him; and when pain and need have thus developed in the wounded spots. His whole nature will absorb this, and later, in its fruits, show the enoblement.'
'Concerning the state, Machiavelli says that " the form of government is of very little importance, although the half-educated think otherwise. The great goal of statemanship should be duration, which outweighs everything else because it is far more valuable than freedom." Only where the greatest duration is securely established and guaranteed is continual development and ennobling inoculation at all possible. Of course, authority, the dangerous companion of all duration, will usually try to resist this process.'
Human, all-too-human, Nietzsche
Return to Editorial