By Singapore Kopi Tok

Peering at the storm around Singapore recently, is it all about envy? MP Ho Geok Choo’s question in Parliament on 12.2.2007 about the “Politics of Envy” attracted reactions both domestically and in the region.

From the transcript, it appears that even Speaker of Parliament had trouble comprehending her question. Ho has since clarified that she was “in substance and intent” asking “whether unhappiness with Singapore‘s ability to offer help to bigger and better-endowed neighbours was the driver behind the recent ban on sand exports by Indonesia. Therefore, would a different tactic and approach work better? Our neighbours could be feeling ‘low’ and may experience ‘loss of face’ when we talk so often about offering help.”

After careful reading (and re-reading) both her question in Parliament and her letter of clarification, I still have trouble discerning what her question or point is. Is she saying that Indonesia banned sand exports because Singapore had offered help? What is the “different tactic and approach” she is suggesting? The most charitable conclusion I can arrive at is that Ho would like the Singapore government to talk less often about the help we provided to our neighboring countries, since this leads to “loss of face.”

But are Singapore‘s aid efforts too heavily publicized? I think not. First, I think that the Singapore‘s government’s level of direct monetary assistance to foreign countries following disasters (from what I read anyway) appears to be quite minuscule. It’s usually $50,000 here and $100,000 there. Nowhere near the millions that Japan, the US, Australia and some European countries would give. What is probably the more significant contribution is the sharing of resources like manpower and equipment at short notice.

And there are several good reasons for publicizing such efforts. First, it mobilizes further contributions from the public. Second, since public funds/resources are being used, there is an obligation (moral or otherwise) to keep the public informed. Third, the media report such contributions simply because it is newsworthy and people want to know.

Ironically, while Ho’s intent is presumably to help Singapore improve ties with its neighbours, the airing of her question has been counterproductive. Malaysian DPM Najib’s response was that Malaysia had never been envious of progress made by other countries, and it was more important for Malaysia to focus on its own national development and progress. NST columnist Syed Nadzri noted that Ho’s suggestion “sounded highly presumptuous … it’s everybody else’s fault then” and recapped Singapore‘s recent bilateral boo-boos vis-à-vis the Indonesians and Thais. I’m sure that the vernacular press in Thailand and Indonesia have more colourful responses.

Even in Parliament, some questions are better left un-asked.

Read also:

S’pore MPs’ Remarks On “Politics Of Envy” Criticised
Politics of Power and Complacency

Minister George Yeo’s reply
A relationship built on sand

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Catherine Lim: My best hope lies in the young Singaporeans

the following is the full transcript of Dr Catherine Lim’s acceptance speech…

Chee Hong Tat: “Zero tolerance” for abuse of public transport workers

The Senior Minister of State for Public Transport, Chee Hong Tat, mentioned…

共三名孩童、17教职员确诊 李智陞:暂不关闭幼儿园

截至目前为止,我国幼儿园已出现3名孩童和17名教职员确诊病例,不过,社会及家庭发展部长李智陞认为,幼园是必要服务,不打算在目前关闭幼园。 凤山Sparkletots幼儿园近日传出确诊病例,成为新的感染群,李智陞今早(26日)召开紧急记者会,指出其中一名孩童是较早前已经公布,蔡厝港The Orange Tree幼儿园的5岁学童,另外两名则是因和确诊病例接触而受感染。 当局指出,确诊的两名孩童,其中一人是和家人自外国回来后确诊,另一孩童则是父母其中一人自外国回来后受到感染,然而两名孩童已很久没到幼儿园了,因此不会对校方造成威胁。 17名确诊教职员中,凤山Sparkletots幼儿园就占了15人,另两人则分别是“新意元幼源幼儿园”的厨房助理,以及红山麟谷峇鲁(Lengkok Bahru)的My World学前教育中心教师。 一名校长、12教师、两名行政人员确诊 李智陞指出,凤山Sparkletots幼儿园今早再有一名教师确诊,导致给幼儿园的累计病例达到19起,分别是校长、12名教师、两名行政人员以及四名校长家属。 而确诊校长在出现症状后,还曾经参与培训课程和会议,因此出席相关活动人士都被下令隔离。 李智陞表示,凤山Sparkletots幼儿园有五名孩童也出现了症状,但是冠毒检测呈阴性。…