Singapore, a city-state with only 58 years of post-independence history, has become the shining star of Asia with a reputation for both modernization and Westernization. As a former British colony with a cosmopolitan mix of population, branded as an international commercial hub welcoming foreign investments and expatriates, its profile seems to fit perfectly at the crossroads of civilisation. However, its national identity and cultural values suggest a stronger Eastern association instead, which all began with the regime’s efforts that built and shaped Singapore over the decades. 

        Singapore’s Westernisation takes place in the form of the population’s supreme English proficiency (second in the world, first in Asia) (EF Proficiency Index, 2023), and the global commercial environment from the highly concentrated international brands in Orchard Road to being the exclusive destination of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in Southeast Asia. Despite accommodating nearly 30% of foreigners (Statista Research Department, 2023), the diverse population has ironically reinforced the nation’s Asian self-identification and values instead of driving ‘Westernationation’. Singapore’s leaders viewed such concepts  as an ‘existential threat’ and took active measures to maintain their promotion of Asian Values among the locals, namely harmony, unity, and collectivism (Ho, 2016). The rhetoric is fostered through education and policies, resulting in the country’s renowned standards of cleanliness and level of stability. 

       The plan to maintain a spotless city began in 1968, shortly after Singapore’s independence, with the ‘Keep Singapore Clean campaign’ which aimed to improve the nation’s conditions to raise the local’s quality of life and enhance its international attractiveness (Chia and Lim, 2012). Aside from infrastructural changes, individuals’ sense of duty is highlighted through civic education accompanied by penalties and enforcement. Besides the infamous ‘chewing gum ban’, the city’s public spaces are often filled with lists of ‘don’t signs’ for health (no littering, no smoking, no eating or drinking, no durians etc.) and safety (no flammable goods, no skateboarding, no sleeping etc.) purposes, accompanied by a reminder that CCTV is used for monitoring and the actions’ respective consequences, typically a fine. Although some prohibitions are universal, such as no littering and no smoking indoors, they are less visible in the West as they are assumed to be a common consensus. However, these extensive signages may be necessary in the context of Singapore. 

       The paternalist governing style in the ‘fine’ city has been normalised through the selective adoption of Confucianism as a key part of being ‘Asian’, with a reinterpretation of filial piety as blind obedience to the irrefutable ‘parental government’ (Hoon, 2004, p.156-158). While this creates a group of law-abiding citizens, its effectiveness of fostering civic awareness is questionable. For instance, the tray return policy for hawker centres and coffee shops was introduced to promote cleanliness and reduce the workload of the cleaners. While it has achieved quantitative success from a 65% tray-return rate to 90% in under two years (Ong, 2023), it reflects the vital role of external legal regulations in driving the public’s incentive to act civically, as opposed to intrinsic values. 

“Are they behaving responsibly as they believe that the act is morally correct, or purely because of the fear of consequences of disobedience?”

     The answer to this question can be found in the table-wiping controversy associated with the stricter enforcement of the tray return policy. Two National Environment Agency (NEA) enforcement officers were caught on camera initially requesting the diner to return his tray and later insisting that he clean the table. This stirred a heated debate among netizens with strong opinions against the duty to wipe as it is not legally required, while the practicality and fairness of this expectation are challenged with situations where diners may not have the tools to clean or the table is dirtied by the previous diner(s), reflected in sarcastic comments like “let’s start bringing tablecloths  to hawker centres!”. The overwhelming public discussions have forced the NEA to issue a clarification on individuals’ duty under the rule, indicating that patrons are only legally required to dispose of physical litter along with tray return with no expectation of wiping the table (Mumtaz, 2023). Although law-abiding citizens are taught their duties when policies are introduced, they are at the same time very clear to draw the line on what lies outside of their legal obligations. This phenomenon is neither Eastern nor Western, but uniquely Singapore. 

        In the East, Japan has a reputation of strong civic awareness, demonstrated on the world stage in occasions like the World Cup where they voluntarily cleaned up the stadium after matches regardless of the outcome of the match, as a result of their civic education and implementation of individual responsibilities from young (Keh, 2022). The West, on the other hand, generally has minimal enforcement of littering laws which either result in dirty roads in London and Los Angeles or miraculously clean communities in Stockholm and Oslo. With little legal restrictions, their cleanliness outcomes depend entirely on the social norms of respective countries. Singapore created the third model, where law enforcement is emphasised over civic education. Perhaps the crude and direct legal-driven approach is suited for Singapore’s  fluid and diverse context as educational efforts would be ineffective for its large number of foreigners. However, these instances illustrate how any ambiguity in the rules can stir a storm in a teacup within this rule-based society. 

      The extensive regulations and their strict application in social contexts often result in the saying that in Singapore “everything which is not allowed is forbidden” as opposed to “everything which is not forbidden is allowed” in the West. This is especially evident in the infamous arrest of activist Jolovan Wham in his ‘smiley face protest’. Speaker’s Corner, a section of Hong Lim Park, is the only area of the entire country that permits lawful assembly for any politically-related issues without the need for permits from the police (Freedom House, 2021; Human Rights Watch, 2017). Wham was charged with illegal assembly under the Public Order Act for his one-man protest in which he took a picture of himself holding up a smiley face sign near a police station for a few seconds in support of two detained climate activists (Ratcliffe, 2020). While foreign media focused on the irony of the short and peaceful one-man protest being considered disruptive to public order, local media including The Straits Times and CNA highlighted the ‘illegality’ and subsequent punishment of his action. Any discussion of whether the act and arrest were ‘right’ or reasonable is neglected in the official narrative. With a reliance on legality as the definition of right or wrong, public demonstrations are labelled as disruptive of social harmony. Although the ‘smiley face protest’ itself was inconsequential, it was met by the authority’s stern response to create a deterrent effect to prevent any future conflicts or riots. 

       Instead of the crossroad of civilisations, Singapore, despite its openness in trade and exchange with the West, represents a  clash of civilisation between the East and the West, due to its   rejection of Western ideologies based on certain cultural differences (Hoon, 2004, p.155). The centrality  of Asian Values  insulates Singaporeans from the liberal ideologies from the West, which in the eyes of the authorities, threatens its stability. However, the sense of collectivism promoted in Singapore is largely framed in a top-down legal-driven nature, with little input from  the public. Without the paternalist State, Singapore may easily lose its harmony as the collectivist values are guided by the law rather than instilled within its people – will they still be socially responsible when not required by law? To maintain true stability, Singaporean’s sense of national identity and collectivism needs to be strengthened as the Lion City navigates its position in the global arena, while the craft of socio-cultural relationships and identities can only form among society through mutual understanding, as opposed to through imposition by authority. 

Chia, J.Y.J. and Lim, T.S. (2012). Keep Singapore Clean campaign. [online] www.nlb.gov.sg. Available at: https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=b2c2c063-431a-4aa3-8c8d-02dc3b2a117d#:~:text=The%20Keep%20Singapore%20Clean%20campaign.

EF Proficiency Index (2023). The world’s largest ranking of countries and regions by English skills. [online] Ef.com. Available at: https://www.ef.com/wwen/epi/.

Freedom House (2021). Singapore: Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report. [online] Freedom House. Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/2021.

Ho, L.-C. (2016). ‘Freedom can only exist in an ordered state’: harmony and civic education in Singapore. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(4), pp.476–496. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1155648.

Hoon, C.Y. (2004). Revisiting the Asian Values Argument used by Asian Political Leaders and its Validity. Indonesian Quarterly, 32(2), pp.154–174.

Human Rights Watch (2017). Singapore: Laws Chill Free Speech, Assembly. [online] Human Rights Watch. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/12/13/singapore-laws-chill-free-speech-assembly.

Keh, A. (2022). Cheer, Chant, Clean: Japan Takes Out the Trash, and Others Get the Hint. The New York Times. [online] 27 Nov. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/27/sports/soccer/japan-fans-clean-up-world-cup.html.

Mumtaz, A. (2023). Singapore’s Civic Dining Dilemma: Table Cleaning Responsibility Sparks Controversy. [online] BNN Breaking. Available at: https://bnn.network/lifestyle/travel/the-table-wiping-debate-a-singaporean-hawker-centre-incident-sparks-nationwide-conversation/ [Accessed 24 Nov. 2023].

Ong, S. (2023). 90% tray-return rate at hawker centres now, up from 65% in August 2021; enforcement to start from June 1. [online] TODAY. Available at: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/90-tray-return-rate-hawker-centres-now-65-august-2021-enforcement-start-june-1-2182821.

Statista Research Department (2023). Singapore: population by citizenship status 2020. [online] Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1087802/singapore-resident-population-by-citizenship-status/.

Ratcliffe, R. (2020). Singapore ‘smiley-face’ activist in one-man protest charged with unlawful assembly. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/24/singapore-smiley-face-activist-in-one-man-protest-charged-with-unlawful-assembly.

Note that opinions expressed in the article above do not necessarily represent the overall stance of Asiatic Affairs, Students' Union UCL or University College London. If you have read something you would like to respond to, please get in touch with uclasiaticaffairs@gmail.com.

Want to write for us? Don’t worry about experience - we are always looking for writers interested in Asiatic affairs. Submit your ideas at https://forms.gle/Bujy1CV1mXSfRjdQA and we’ll get in touch.