Familee bribes Uncle Sam until like there is no tomorrow that even Angel will praise Satan!
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>US attitudes towards S'pore have changed for the better
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I CONGRATULATE Ms Chua Lee Hoong on a provocative reflection on the outside world's perceptions of Singapore ('Why they hate us', Aug 10). However, I found myself unsettled by two suggestions in the article: first, the notion that Singapore is a country 'the West loves to hate'; and second, the characterisation of Singapore's politics as inevitably 'authoritarian'.
On the first point, to be sure, Singapore has its share of detractors, for example, human rights non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which are often founded on the basis of closely held liberal values. To the extent that Singapore's historical record is at odds with the universal applicability of these values, the country poses an existential challenge to these NGOs. But to assume that these groups adequately represent 'the West', and to go on to conclude that 'the West' is somehow resentful of Singapore's success is simply inaccurate.
My past two years in the United States stand in contrast to Ms Chua's experiences in 1991 to 1992. I have encountered little bewilderment about the standard of my spoken English and have largely been spared the probing questions about chewing gum that seemed to have plagued Ms Chua. The overwhelming response my nationality has provoked is one of admiration. Where there has been surprise, it is not as a result of 'Western assumptions' about the impossibility of economic success without full-fledged liberal democracy, but rather, it is to do with the fact that a small country with no natural resources has managed to make good for itself against all odds. This theme resonates strongly with the American spirit. Perhaps it is not so unreasonable to expect that perceptions of Singapore have changed quite significantly in the 16 years since Ms Chua's sojourn in the US.
My second contention is with Ms Chua's boiling down the 'Singapore Way' to an illiberal and authoritarian political ideology. To the best of my understanding of our modern history, Singapore's success has been built on a notion of pragmatism that eschews ideology in favour of any approach so long as it contributes most effectively to the well-being of its people.
Singapore can ill afford to lose sight of this fundamental sense of pragmatism and settle into the comfortable thought that we have discovered an immutable formula that is ripe for others to follow (a 'Pax Singaporeana', as Ms Chua terms it). Such hubris would be the beginning of the end.
Kwek Ju-Hon New York, USA
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>US attitudes towards S'pore have changed for the better
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I CONGRATULATE Ms Chua Lee Hoong on a provocative reflection on the outside world's perceptions of Singapore ('Why they hate us', Aug 10). However, I found myself unsettled by two suggestions in the article: first, the notion that Singapore is a country 'the West loves to hate'; and second, the characterisation of Singapore's politics as inevitably 'authoritarian'.
On the first point, to be sure, Singapore has its share of detractors, for example, human rights non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which are often founded on the basis of closely held liberal values. To the extent that Singapore's historical record is at odds with the universal applicability of these values, the country poses an existential challenge to these NGOs. But to assume that these groups adequately represent 'the West', and to go on to conclude that 'the West' is somehow resentful of Singapore's success is simply inaccurate.
My past two years in the United States stand in contrast to Ms Chua's experiences in 1991 to 1992. I have encountered little bewilderment about the standard of my spoken English and have largely been spared the probing questions about chewing gum that seemed to have plagued Ms Chua. The overwhelming response my nationality has provoked is one of admiration. Where there has been surprise, it is not as a result of 'Western assumptions' about the impossibility of economic success without full-fledged liberal democracy, but rather, it is to do with the fact that a small country with no natural resources has managed to make good for itself against all odds. This theme resonates strongly with the American spirit. Perhaps it is not so unreasonable to expect that perceptions of Singapore have changed quite significantly in the 16 years since Ms Chua's sojourn in the US.
My second contention is with Ms Chua's boiling down the 'Singapore Way' to an illiberal and authoritarian political ideology. To the best of my understanding of our modern history, Singapore's success has been built on a notion of pragmatism that eschews ideology in favour of any approach so long as it contributes most effectively to the well-being of its people.
Singapore can ill afford to lose sight of this fundamental sense of pragmatism and settle into the comfortable thought that we have discovered an immutable formula that is ripe for others to follow (a 'Pax Singaporeana', as Ms Chua terms it). Such hubris would be the beginning of the end.
Kwek Ju-Hon New York, USA
