a few quick thoughts

some quick thoughts after reading several articles about my country.

• we have just celebrated our golden jubilee to much fanfare, pomp and joy. and this morning, as i was surfing through the different media across the world, i noted that almost all mentioned about the celebrations, yet many western media continue to mention about the dictatorship of lky, the lack of freedom, how suppressed the people are, etc. i find it quite regretful and i do suspect many of the authors have not visited singapore nor understand the country's history.

• many western authors are critical of singapore and notably their opinions are expressed through western lens based on totally different set of values. many also failed to do proper research and cite articles that were similarly biased and came across as naive and uninformed. in the end, the article reflects on the author more than singapore itself. 

• one of the clearest difference in values lie in the whole concept of individual-centricity vs community-above-self. some refer to this as a clash between the west and east but i personally think this is not so straight forward and simplistic. i personally think such differences had existed in all communities, regardless of west or east since many aeons back. the misconception that it is a western vs eastern value could be largely attributed to how societies enshrined these concepts as part of their societal doctrines. just look at how the concept of democracy was attributed to greece whereas the idea of society-above-self was cast in stone by none other than confucius. or for that matter, the whole idea of self vs community could also be used to explain how the practice of buddhism splitted into that of theravada vs mahayana practise almost immediately after buddha's passing!

• fairly or unfairly, many compared singapore to countries like the states, uk, taiwan, etc. some even went as far as to compare singapore to third world countries in africa. then again from another perspective, it is quite flattering to be compared with many of these countries given that many are large countries with huge natural resources, population, and with deep history. these authors fail to recognise that (1) singapore is a country and a city - a city state. we have a population of 5-plus million but in a land that is just about the size of about 700-sqkm that is totally devoid of any natural resources. it is probably more accurate to compare singapore with cities in this regard, (2) singapore is a hotchpotch of different cultures that, just a few decades ago, existed in deep fault-lines between race and religion, much less speak of any common identity or culture, (3) the concept of democracy must be discussed in context. it is not realistic to use democracy practiced in say, the states, or for that matter in africa, with singapore. the context is different. what is important is that people have a say and people elect their government. you cannot fault the government for their policies for they were elected by the people. and people recognize and elect the leaders based on what they know they need at that point in the country's history, (4) you cannot expect to have policies to cater to 100% of the population. what is important is to have policies that cater to the majority and for the minority that was not addressed, side-initiatives are being scoped to cater to these minorities.

ok, enough for this morning. too serious a topic. 

gonna be a busy day despite today being a public holiday.

:-)