"Singapore is a great place to live. Beyond the high salaries, there are two primary reasons for this, and they are related. The first reason is widely discussed: Singapore maximises freedom from, without, in my view, too much compromise of freedom to... The second reason, however, is less widely discussed: the systematic suppression of what I like to call ‘bottom-feeders’ and their most egregious behaviours at all levels of society. Let me explain.
Increased geographic mobility and blank slatism have left Western governments completely unable to distinguish between people ‘of good character’ and people ‘of bad character’. Although an intuitive concept, it has been marginalised in the West due to it having almost inherently inegalitarian — and usually also hereditarian — implications.
The result is that we expect to be solicited and bothered wherever we go; such is the banal reality of modern urban life in the West. As money is increasingly concentrated in major urban centres, human detritus follows, looking to make piddling profits at the bottom of the never-ending human caterpillar of exchange and trade, i.e., ‘bottom-feeders’. Such experiences range from drugs and prostitution in Hong Kong and Bangkok, to more innocuous (but still annoying) grifts in Istanbul or Rome, whether that be selling water bottles on a bridge over the Bosphorus or hawking tacky trinkets, fake designer handbags, and rip-off bracelets outside the Colosseum. The lowest of all grifts, of course, is petty crime — minor scams, pickpocketing, shoplifting, etc. — which now abounds in such former pinnacles of Western civilisation as Athens, Paris, and New York.
Such solicitation — and imposition — from detritus, whether migrants or locals, is far worse and impactful to the dignity of the average person’s life than violent crime, which mostly occurs between the dregs who are looking to maximise their position at the lowest rung of the bottom-feeding cycle by removing their competition. Although often romanticised as ‘gang violence’ in rap and popular media, Goodfellas it is not. In reality, it is far less strategic, and more random and meaningless. Such grifting, however, does not only occur at the lowest rungs of society, at the bottom socioeconomic stratum. Academia, for instance, is also rife with such grifters. One of these grifters, Professor Claudine Gay, even made it to the very top of her profession, winning appointment as President of Harvard University before she was discovered to be the academic equivalent of a rip-off trinket seller on the streets of Manila.
If I could describe the experience of living in Singapore in the simplest way possible, it would be that Singapore is the only nation on earth designed to be rid of bottom-feeders at every level of society. The result is a highly civilised way of life that could only be rivalled by pre-Great War European cities; pristinely clean streets and well-mannered people. It is an environment in which even the most obvious targets for bottom-feeders — such as the airport, the central business district, and nightclubs — feel like one’s own living room. Even the Joo Chiat/Geylang area — the traditional and current stomping grounds of Chinese triads, secret societies, and gangs — is family friendly and gentrified during the day, yet degenerate at night. Not all gang crime is made equal: even Singaporean gangs (mainly dealing in illicit cigarettes, prostitution, and drugs) do not seriously interfere with the lives of ordinary people.
Furthermore, not only is vagrancy and begging not tolerated in the way we see in even the most civilised parts of London — Mayfair, Canary Wharf, etc. — thus removing the most obvious form of bottom-feeding, white collar bottom-feeding is also quite rare. While there are smatterings of superfluous social science academics, the most lurid form of white collar puffery — which is promoted mostly by psychotic undergraduate students — is completely stamped out. The best example of this is Yale-NUS College, which, having been established in 2011 as a way to merge the ‘best of the East and the West’ (‘Brilliant!’), is being quietly shut down and re-established as ‘NUS College’ next year. In other words, Yale is being kicked out by the ever-sovereign Singaporean government. (As an aside, it’s worth noting that, despite Singapore’s uncompromising approach to sovereignty, government spending is only 15 percent of GDP; proportionally, this is a mere third of non-sovereign Britain’s 45 percent — roughly the level of government spending found in Norway and Sweden.)
The official reasoning given for Yale’s unceremonious exit was the need for financial sustainability and the desire to integrate the liberal arts more fully into the broader NUS framework. Beneath the surface, however, it’s clear to all that it is being shut down due to the insufferable shitlibbery that was being imported to Singapore by many of the American students. Singapore’s three main universities — NUS, NTU, and SMU — remain blissfully apolitical, with formal debating clubs being the only vaguely political student societies. By contrast, it is not uncommon to see matriculated or exchange students at Yale-NUS ostentatiously celebrating ‘Trans Awareness Month’, or protesting alleged ‘human rights abuses’ by the Singaporean government — the main offences in question being maintaining law and order with capital (hanging) and corporal (caning) punishment, and employing foreign workers without giving them automatic citizenship for simply existing on Singaporean soil...
The guest worker controversy is one of the most grating criticisms of Singapore. Contrary to left-liberal claims, there is no equivalence, moral or otherwise, between (frequently abusive) ‘guest labour’ in the Gulf — where there are many reports of foreign workers being brought over on false pretences; lured in with promises of a good job, but finding themselves effectively in indentured servitude upon their arrival — and the simple, contractual, and honest guest worker policy employed by Singapore. The idea that a foreigner with no real skills, bringing nothing to Singapore but his or her muscle, should expect above-market wages — let alone welfare rights — seems ridiculous to most people here. In their view, it is a fair and transparent contract which these foreigners have signed out of their own volition; by definition, therefore, no exploitation can be taking place. This point of view — one which you would only find on the ‘far-right’ in the West — is just one of many examples in this country of what I call ‘folkish’ common sense. Foreigners don’t automatically deserve free things and above-market wages just by existing on our soil? Incredible!
The dormitories in which the guest workers live — with ample facilities provided — seem infinitely better than the conditions the workers would likely find in their home country. The average Singaporean would baulk at the idea that guest workers should not only live better than they did back home, but should also expect to live similarly to Singaporean citizens in this regard — especially when the average Singaporean citizen already lacks space themselves.
In his last interview as Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, son of Lee Kuan Yew, claimed — in the most polite terms possible — that his opposition, like most politicians in the West, both in and out of government, are grifters.
Most new entrants into politics as of late are more interested in ‘politicking’ than they are in policymaking, as this is more likely to appeal to the resentful lowest common denominator. As such, to make a career for themselves, they will focus more on wedge cultural issues than on the ‘bread and butter’ of governing. This isn’t just about the most trivial responsibilities, like bin collection or community centres, but also much bigger issues; issues which often shouldn’t have any moral cadence whatsoever.
Take immigration. Unlike in the West, there is zero moral cadence to this issue in Singapore. While there may be economic disagreement about the necessity for ‘foreign talent’ at the top of the job market, no one resents paying Filipino guest workers $500 a month to take care of their menial household tasks. No Singaporean Indian or Singaporean Malay lobbies to let more of their Indian Indian or Malaysian Malay co-ethnics into Singapore. Even the majority ethnic group, the Chinese (three-quarters of the population) will stress the differences between the Chinese from China — from the ‘PRC’ — and Chinese Singaporeans. Singaporean civic identity is real, and it is based on shared success and wealth.
Singapore bans any political protesting which has not received prior permission, and even with permission, many restrictions apply. As such, despite the population being around 15% Muslim, no pro-Palestine protests of any note have taken place on the streets of Singapore. After living in Singapore for long enough, it’s quite clear to see that restrictions placed on the ‘right to protest’ are not generally in place to prevent opposition per se. Plenty of people I know criticise the government liberally in a very carefree, rational manner without any repercussions. Rather, these restrictions exist to prevent political grifts and to maintain civilised life against intrusions and encumbrances.
Even the most principled critics of Israel’s dealings with Palestinians will be increasingly tired of protestors causing a ruckus and harassing people on the streets of London, Paris, or Berlin to absolutely no effect. Most sensible people do not dislike these protests because of their support for Israel; rather, they dislike them because they are composed of grotesque, ugly, and frequently deranged people who disturb your day for no good reason. After all, it’s not like wailing and screaming in the streets will realistically convert anyone to your cause; nor does it encourage people who simply don’t care to ‘educate themselves’ more on the topic: it’s blatant browbeating. These people know they are annoying, but they don't care. As such, the Singaporean government — in line with their approach to other public disturbances completely unrelated to politics — decided to take action...
I believe one result of this policy is the continuation of normal, civic politics, most of which is quite banal to us. Even the most vehement critics of the People’s Action Party, such as the ostensibly left-wing Singapore Democratic Party leader, Chee Soon Juan, makes what are to us only the dullest — but still legitimate — criticisms of the government...
It must finally be noted that, unlike in South Korea where President Park Chung-hee sharply divides opinion, Lee Kuan Yew is, and probably always will be, nearly universally respected. Even those (mostly Tamils) who believe him to have been immoral and racist still feel they must pay lip service to him, such is the overwhelming strength of his reputation. I did encounter one elderly critic who claimed that Lee Kuan Yew was only admitted to and performed well at Cambridge because the best of Britain’s youngest generation died in the Second World War, meaning he had weaker competition. Even Lee Kuan Yew’s most vehement of critics thus made use of the concept of dysgenics in their criticism of him! This, alone, is a testament to his greatness...
On the face of it, it’s difficult to understand why Singapore’s TFR is so low. Despite the lack of living space, Singapore, being safe and civilised, is a good place to raise children — especially when compared to even more cramped and dirty cities like Hong Kong. A ‘baby bonus’ of £10k is not especially impressive, especially when compared to South Korea’s £30k, but this is still more than most other countries offer. Of course, the reality is that fiscal incentives have a very limited effect...
Singapore, being a foundationally multicultural country, maintains the pragmatic ‘management of race relations' approach that was taken by British governments in the ’50s and ’60s, before it was decided one day that foreigners were entirely equal to us in ability, temperament, and character. Singapore is under no such illusions, and even as Singapore’s government under Lee Kuan Yew was extolling the virtues of inclusive Singaporean civic nationalism, he was famously so hereditarian that he openly attempted to implement ‘eugenic’ policies in the ’80s to boost the fertility rate of highly educated women. He also admitted that Singapore would be economically more successful if its population were 100% Chinese.
In a recent interview, Lee Hsien Loong briefly discussed the progress of the Malay community, cautioning that the ‘high incarceration rate’ was still a problem that needed to be addressed by the community. No assumption was made about the ‘unfairness’ of disproportionate incarceration — i.e., ‘structural racism’ — nor was it implied that the Singaporean government or society at large could be in any way blamed for this unfortunate situation. If more Malays are going to prison, it is because they are committing more crime, ‘simple as’.
An interesting judicial belief in Singapore is the notion that criminal characteristics such as low IQ and poverty are aggravating factors, rather than mitigating ones — something that would be viewed as archaic in Britain. In Britain, it has now become accepted that judges can and will pass more lenient sentences to those who have suffered various personal misfortunes. By contrast, in Singapore it is quite common for criminals to plea for lenient sentences on the basis that they come from a ‘good family’ and achieved Top Grades — something that, while not unknown in Britain (though a stable job and/or a wife and children would be referenced rather than one’s parentage), has become increasingly outmoded.
A recent capital sentence many readers may have heard of is a good case in point. Just last year, in a highly controversial case, an ethnic Indian man from Malaysia named Datchinamurthy Kataiah was sentenced to death for drug trafficking, despite having an IQ of 69, which classifies him as intellectually disabled. Datchinamurthy was convicted of trafficking nearly 45 grams of heroin into Singapore in 2011. Psychological assessments revealed his intellectual disability, leading to calls for leniency. However, the judge decided to proceed with the death sentence because, despite his intellectual limitations, he believed that the miscreant was aware of and understood the risks and implications of trafficking drugs into Singapore. Citing previous cases, the judge also took the view that maintaining the deterrent effect of capital punishment was more important than any moral concerns related to the execution of a mentally retarded man. Legal mitigation on the basis of low intelligence is nonsensical to most Singaporeans, and especially Singaporean judges: they correctly see that intelligence is a spectrum, and that any mitigation on the basis of retardation would render, if only gradually, all deterrent laws redundant, as is occurring in Britain.
‘Singapore is boring’
This is a common complaint about Singapore. It comes with the assumption that a place which is ‘too nice’ must therefore automatically be ‘boring’; everything, so it seems, exists as part of a complex trade-off. This, in my view, is incorrect.
In part, this is a matter of taste: one man’s ‘boring’ is another man’s ‘civilised’. The best comparison one can make with Singapore is Hong Kong, which is outwardly a very similar society. In Hong Kong, the commercial is very much mixed in with the residential. Expect to be constantly accosted by different food smells (good and bad), the soliciting of street vendors and prostitutes, and Indian or African men trying to sell you drugs outside of nightclubs. For a night out, this is great fun. If you’re a tourist, it can be exhilarating. I’m not at all arguing that ‘stuff being done to you’ as opposed to ‘doing stuff to others’ is always bad. However, when it comes to living there permanently, once the novelty wears off, it is often annoying, and frequently exhausting.
In Singapore, contrary to popular assumptions, most vices are still readily available once you know where to look. They are, however, spacially segregated in such a way as to isolate most of their negative externalities without actually prohibiting them altogether. The most obvious case of this is prostitution...
If, despite all I have said, you are still insistent that you actually enjoy ‘vibrant’ places, and don’t mind the sensory overload, I would recommend Little India. I never go there. If you’re interested in areas that are dominated by Malays, which are less bad, try places on the east coast of the island, like Eunos or Geylang Serai. As someone who has visited Malaysia numerous times, it’s fascinating how similar the Malay areas in Singapore are to the Malay-dominant suburbs in places like Johor and Malacca on the other side of the Malaysia-Singapore border...
This particular work of art struck me as being emblematic of Singapore’s generally positive perception of the colonial era and its role in the eventual development of Singapore as a city-state. Statues of Raffles are littered around the colonial town... Such a lack of ressentiment and neurotic kvetching over the colonial past is a result both of Singapore’s success — you can’t blame the British for your failures if there are few to begin with — and the fact that the majority Chinese population were themselves in some sense colonisers of the land. As a result, the Singaporean Chinese simply have no interest in misrepresenting the past.
Even when armed with such logical explanations, the historical dynamics are still somewhat curious. One would expect that in most postcolonial societies, the collaborators or the imitators of the old guard will be marginalised as the society grows its own organic wealth from technological and/or logistical achievements. Think, for instance, of the violent hatred towards the so-called chinilpa (pro-Japanese collaborators) in a country as outwardly successful as South Korea.
In Singapore, however, such people still largely run the country. The new Prime Minister, Lawrence Wong, is in fact the first not to have been educated at either a British or Singaporean university (Wong was educated at the University of Wisconsin, Michigan and Harvard). In fact, there has been speculation that the United Stares lobbied Singapore to ensure that the next Prime Minister would be US-educated. This fact, although (naturally) unimportant to most Singaporeans, has not gone entirely unnoticed. (As an aside, Wong is also the first Prime Minister of non-Hokkien heritage, with his father hailing from Hainan Island in the far south of China, although this fact, despite stereotypes, seems to be of no importance whatsoever to most Singaporean Chinese.)
I do not wish to be patronising, but as the only widely known Singaporean film, certain attitudes and social mores that are given humorous expression in Crazy Rich Asians are not, in fact, too different from those I have observed while living in Singapore. Although a decidedly Trumpian film in its unabashed celebration of wealth, beauty, and glamour, it is a celebration of old money rather than new. Americanised characters, such as the start-up founder Charlie (played by an American actor) are portrayed as being not only gauche, but resentful and unworthy of high society (‘small dick energy’); by contrast, his fiancée, Astrid (played by a British actress), with her double-first from Oxford and British accent, is portrayed as the height of Singaporean class and achievement despite merely inheriting real estate rather than creating her own wealth. The message is clear: America (‘new money’) is ‘low status’; Britain (‘old money’) is ‘high status’ — and Singapore, interestingly, has plenty of both, at least by East Asian standards of ‘old’. Somehow, Britain’s soft power via an undeserved reputation for class and refinement has prevailed. Even in the clumsy (and arguably ressentiment-filled) opening scene, in which the character played by Michelle Yeoh demands a room at a fine hotel in London, is in fact an allusion to Singapore’s success at catching up with, and overtaking, their main benchmark of civilisation — i.e., Britain — and the bragging rights that come with it. Meanwhile, a joke about starving children in the Third World is made at America’s expense later on in the film. It’s also curious that many of the actors and actresses who play characters from the high-class, rich Young family are British citizens with classically English accents — Gemma Chan and Henry Golding are both British nationals, and Michelle Yeoh was educated in Britain — whereas the funny, cartoonish characters other than the main protagonist are played by American citizens — e.g., Awkwafina, Ken Jeong, and Jimmy Yang. Predictably, the only obviously gay character, Oliver, is played by a Filipino. It’s also quite funny that virtually none of the actors are Singaporean; most seem to be Malaysian Chinese.
Many questions still remain about the Singaporean character, and especially the Singaporean Chinese character. In particular, why are the Singaporean Chinese so different from their mainlander counterparts, and even Hong Kongers? Singaporeans seem simultaneously more unadulterated, friendly, and innocent, yet also more open-minded and worldly than their mainlander counterparts. If we are forced to sum them up in two words, they are less jaded, which makes life here far more pleasant than it would be otherwise."
