| May
2002
The leech on the trannie's bum
|
|
To almost everyone else in the world, Singapore is not a significant place.
Hence, we don't often see articles in the foreign press about us. But even when
such an article appears, it is by no means assured that the readers will be any
the wiser about Singapore. Too many pieces purporting to describe Singapore to
Americans, Australians or Europeans are journalistically shallow. They often
rehash tired old shibboleths, and seldom interrogate their own Western picture
of Singapore as one or more of these things: exotic, modern, efficient, sterile,
dictatorial, oppressive, over-regulated.
If it's the American press, you can also expect the following (American, not Singaporean) obsessions to be mentioned: chewing gum and flogging. Below is an example, thankfully, not American. It's a feature entitled "No place for misfits", in a Scottish newspaper. The title is promising. It suggests an analysis of Singapore society or politics in an attempt to understand why there is no place for misfits here, why there is so much conformity. Sadly, the promise is not fulfilled. In fact, the article is so far off its own mark, it won't even merit a passing grade in a school essay exam for 16 year-olds. And this is the kind of stuff that tries to explain Singapore to the world. The article itself is reproduced in indented blocks. At certain points, I add my comments (not indented). The ScotsmanActually, no one here cares to refer to Singapore as a 'Fine City'. Only tourist T-shirts sold at souvenir shops use that phrase. No doubt, the salesman at the shop pointed it out to the journalist, and made a big joke of it, as salesmen often do (it's called building rapport with your customers), but one salesman hardly qualifies as the plural "local wags". And what are those fines? Nothing exceptional. Many cities in the world forbid smoking and littering in various places. Fines are a normal part of deterrence. So what remarkable insight has been conveyed to readers by the first paragraph, that is unique to Singapore? None. But the impression (despite lack of good evidence so far) is still created that Singapore is pettily over-regulated, with individual freedom trampled upon. I'm not saying that in reality, Singapore isn't over-regulated, or that our liberties aren't abridged, but this article does a poor job of arguing so.
I ponder this as I make my way through immigration at squeaky-clean, super-efficient Changi airport - the very model of what airports should aspire to. I was in a hurry to get to my hotel after a 13-hour flight from the UK and it was early, so I didn't stock up at the airport's Duty Free shops, though I could have, since this is one of the few civilised airports in the world which allows you to buy alcohol on arrival.See? No article worth the paper it's printed on can avoid mentioning cleanliness and efficiency. In reality, many Singaporeans will qualify these attributes, based on their day-to-day encounters with dirt, pollution and bureaucratic obstructionism, but that wouldn't fit in very well with the "received wisdom" of the West, would it? You would also have noticed that Sterility also made its expected appearance: "about as exciting as a multi-storey car park". And honestly, why is stocking up (or not) at Duty-free important enough to merit a mention? Bugis Street again! Oh lord, won't they ever get off it? I'm old enough to have seen the real streetwalkers, and I can tell you, the transvestites were mostly past their use-by date. In any case, they were shoo'ed away from the area some 25 years ago, in the mid 70's. To Singaporeans today, Bugis Street means nothing. It certainly doesn't represent any golden age of excitement. It's a hand-me-down memory from lecherous, army grunts on R&R from the Vietnam War, too pissed-drunk even to stumble out of the brothels. Yet, a generation on, much writing about Singapore still sucks blood out of the Bugis Street reference. It's like a leech forever stuck on a bum, with a view of Singapore grotesquely limited by its fleshy contours. [See addenda #2] The above paragraph and all the rest that follow, don't even deserve a comment. You can tell that the information is lifted from various brochures put out by the hotels, restaurants and other tourist attractions. These regurgitations constitute 12 out of the total 16 paragraphs of the feature article. Right at the end, one more bit of silliness: Tiger Balm. Take a thousand Singaporeans aside and ask if anyone has Tiger Balm, and chances are, the answer's no. It's just another tourist souvenir, with a charming story for the gullible.
To stay in a piece of history, there's nothing like the legendary Raffles Hotel - one of the few remaining great 19th century establishments, and declared a national monument by the government in 1987. Shortly afterwards it was given a S160m refurbishment and reopened in 1991. * * * * * What has the writer been busy with? you wonder. Doing the tourist thing, going from one expensive hotel to another, dining (on whose account, one wonders?) in fine restaurants, and throwing back Singapore Slings (which Singaporeans don't care for). Where in all this is there any sign that the writer interviewed some ordinary Singaporeans to ask them about the society's place, if any, for misfits? Remember? The subject of the article? We often lament that we don't have freedom of the
press here. Being beholden to the government, our newspapers can't be entirely
trusted. It's easy to assume that things are better in the West. Not
necessarily. There is quality journalism, for sure, but there's also a lot of
mediocrity around. And who says that public opinion in the West is formed by
their quality papers? Isn't it just as plausible that public opinion is formed
by the second rate ones? © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
