Why I’ll Never Return to Singapore(lifelisted.com)
lifelisted.com
Why I’ll Never Return to Singapore
http://www.lifelisted.com/blog/happens-everything-goes-right/
117 comments
I've only visited for a weekend and was utterly prepared to hate the crap out of Singapore. We're not up to a good start when your landing card spells out in bold and red DEATH TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS (a bit more eloquent, but that's the gist of it).
Reality, however, is not quite as black and white and - although I would never want to live there for an extended period - I left the country with rather mixed feelings.
Let me pull out one example that really, really impressed me.
Near the Marina Sands (the $5B casino complex, which actually cost S$8B according to Wikipedia) they built the Gardens by the Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_by_the_Bay) for something above S$ 1B.
Those gardens, which are beautiful and very impressive; an oasis of calm and serenity in a bustling metropolis are built on reclaimed land. In essence: some of the most expensive ground anywhere in the world.
Just imagine the mega mall, the super hotel, or another office complex that could have been built on that land. And they "waste" it for a damn garden.
I thought that they did that despite the intense commercial pressure is immensely cool and is a really nice example for what are some great aspects about this city.
Reality, however, is not quite as black and white and - although I would never want to live there for an extended period - I left the country with rather mixed feelings.
Let me pull out one example that really, really impressed me.
Near the Marina Sands (the $5B casino complex, which actually cost S$8B according to Wikipedia) they built the Gardens by the Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_by_the_Bay) for something above S$ 1B.
Those gardens, which are beautiful and very impressive; an oasis of calm and serenity in a bustling metropolis are built on reclaimed land. In essence: some of the most expensive ground anywhere in the world.
Just imagine the mega mall, the super hotel, or another office complex that could have been built on that land. And they "waste" it for a damn garden.
I thought that they did that despite the intense commercial pressure is immensely cool and is a really nice example for what are some great aspects about this city.
I'm looking at my Social Visit pass - you nailed it, it says in bright red:
WARNING DEATH FOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS UNDER SINGAPORE LAW
But - you get that message while you are still on the plane (and presumably have a chance to turn back?)
Yes - GardenByTheBay is beautiful - as are the two conservatoriums (one of which they replicate Dry, Cool Mountain Highland Environment - which, is quite an accomplishment in Hot, Humid Singapore.) Indeed - so much of Singapore is actually Green/Catchment basin - it's a priority for them, as they rely on the catchment basins quite a bit for their fresh water (in addition to NEWater and their world class desalination plants.
WARNING DEATH FOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS UNDER SINGAPORE LAW
But - you get that message while you are still on the plane (and presumably have a chance to turn back?)
Yes - GardenByTheBay is beautiful - as are the two conservatoriums (one of which they replicate Dry, Cool Mountain Highland Environment - which, is quite an accomplishment in Hot, Humid Singapore.) Indeed - so much of Singapore is actually Green/Catchment basin - it's a priority for them, as they rely on the catchment basins quite a bit for their fresh water (in addition to NEWater and their world class desalination plants.
Makes much more sense that what you have to declare in the US landing card:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3289/2949309916_5393a54eb5_o.j...
I mean, seriously.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3289/2949309916_5393a54eb5_o.j...
I mean, seriously.
[deleted]
In Spring, 2001 I was in the midst of filling out my H1-B forms to become a permanent resident of the US when I came across that form (that I had to fill out to keep the process moving forward) - I just looked at it, and said to myself, "Really, I have to answer whether I have ever been involved in 'Genocide'?"
I felt insulted enough that I just dropped the process and I've been on a TN visa ever since.
Seriously - If I had been involved in Genocide, do they expect me to answer "Yes?"
I felt insulted enough that I just dropped the process and I've been on a TN visa ever since.
Seriously - If I had been involved in Genocide, do they expect me to answer "Yes?"
I dont like the Gardens, but it is not correct to say it is wasted. Precisely because it is reclaimed, it needs another decade or so for the soil to settle before we can build skyscrapers on it.
Trust me when I say it, real estate speculation is the primary path to wealth in Singapore, and the biggest, most well oiled speculator in Singapore is the government.
Trust me when I say it, real estate speculation is the primary path to wealth in Singapore, and the biggest, most well oiled speculator in Singapore is the government.
> "Go to the Mall" or, "Take my kids to tuition".
The impression I've gotten about Singapore is its like a hyper urbanized American suburb. The vast majority of people silently love the American suburb, and a small extremely vocal group loudly hate the American suburb.
So thats how you end up with discussions like this, where you're really hearing very local burb vs downtown mumbling and declaration of membership in one local faction or another rather than an actual discussion of Singapore.
The impression I've gotten about Singapore is its like a hyper urbanized American suburb. The vast majority of people silently love the American suburb, and a small extremely vocal group loudly hate the American suburb.
So thats how you end up with discussions like this, where you're really hearing very local burb vs downtown mumbling and declaration of membership in one local faction or another rather than an actual discussion of Singapore.
Dear god, how you feel about Singapore compared to Canada is exactly how I feel about Canada compared to, say, an European country. If the comparison holds, then Singapore truly sounds like a wonderful place to survive but a dreadful place to live...
The political system in Singapore also makes me uncomfortable: it's superficially democratic but not really in spirit.
I just spent a few days in Singapore with some western expat friends, and their local friends, and I really love the place for what it has accomplished. If you compare it to Malaysia (a racist command economy), Indonesia (kleptocracy , until recently -- in the past few years it has gotten a lot better) and Thailand (how many coups?), and remember how few natural resources Singapore has, it is even more amazing.
I agree it isn't perfect; I prefer living in the US, both because I'm a citizen and because I like land, cars, guns, etc -- but compared to where Singapore could be, it is almost unbelievable.
I agree it isn't perfect; I prefer living in the US, both because I'm a citizen and because I like land, cars, guns, etc -- but compared to where Singapore could be, it is almost unbelievable.
I don't think it's fair to compare Singapore to its neighbours considering how it was colonized. It's better to make the comparison with Hong Kong which enjoys much more freedom (even post 1997) than Singapore.
If you make that comparison, I would say Singapore has been a much more successful economy.
Hong Kong is stuck in it's role as a financial center, of which it's competitive advantage is getting eroded. Plus that 'competitive advantage' really boils down to knowing how to speak English and having extremely low wages for a developed economy.
On the other hand, Singapore has successfully transitioned from being a financial center to the technological capital of East Asia. Something that the Hong Kong government desperately wants to do, but continues to fail at. And I am not even going to go into the current political storm.
Hong Kong is probably the more interesting city (I'm biased of course, having lived there for years and consider it my home away from home away from home) but out of the HK-Singapore rivalry, I think Singapore has the upper hand.
/rant
Hong Kong is stuck in it's role as a financial center, of which it's competitive advantage is getting eroded. Plus that 'competitive advantage' really boils down to knowing how to speak English and having extremely low wages for a developed economy.
On the other hand, Singapore has successfully transitioned from being a financial center to the technological capital of East Asia. Something that the Hong Kong government desperately wants to do, but continues to fail at. And I am not even going to go into the current political storm.
Hong Kong is probably the more interesting city (I'm biased of course, having lived there for years and consider it my home away from home away from home) but out of the HK-Singapore rivalry, I think Singapore has the upper hand.
/rant
Hong Kong has the "curse" (in the sense of resource curse) of being the "Gateway to China" -- I can't think of anything else a business could do in Hong Kong which is of higher value and return than that. It'll crowd out any other rational productive economic activity.
I love Hong Kong (probably my favorite city in the world), but in the case of Singapore and Malaysia (which were the most closely tied), I'd rather be from the worst-off group in Singapore (Malay?) than from the best off group in Singapore (politically connected and Malay, except maybe from the top few families), so a lot of it was due to PAP and post-1965 actions. If you're Chinese or Indian it's even more clear which country is going to give you more opportunity to succeed.
The strangest thing is reading about how relatively poor Singapore and even Hong Kong were in the 1970s and early 1980s; it was really the opening up of China, end of the Cold War, and explosion in trade (as well as government policies in each which benefitted from these trends) which turned them into such amazing countries.
The strangest thing is reading about how relatively poor Singapore and even Hong Kong were in the 1970s and early 1980s; it was really the opening up of China, end of the Cold War, and explosion in trade (as well as government policies in each which benefitted from these trends) which turned them into such amazing countries.
It's easy to forget and hard to imagine from a 2013 point of view, but South Korea was among the poorest countries in the world only decades earlier.
That's what happens when you ignore the IMF (well until '97) and have the death penalty for capital flight.
I'm an American who has lived in Singapore for almost nine years, in two very different jobs, in two very different parts of the city-state. Singapore has a lot of challenges, but the oversimplifications and generalisations in this glib article don't do Singapore or Singaporeans any favours. (I've been here long enough that my spell-check is set to British English).
Let's take National Service (NS). Dover writes: "after graduating, every citizen is required to do active service in the military." This is wrong on at least three points, which is impressive for a sentence that short: 1) NS is not required of all citizens, only men; 2) NS is also required of male permanent residents who turn 18 in Singapore, and 3) it's an age requirement, not a graduation requirement.
He goes on to write that "pride is the result" of the NS requirement, in that part of the article that seems devoted to unqualified praise of Singapore's success. Really? Pride alone? Yes, male Singaporeans are proud of their service in NS, but plenty — especially younger Singaporeans — also resent it, resent the foreigners and women who don't have to do it and who they believe get an upper leg in society as a result. I've had Singaporean men explain away sexual harassment of women — harassment they witnessed first hand — on the grounds of the hazing they received during NS. If "sense of pride" is the only thing Dover has to say about NS in Singapore, even after months of living here, I'm not surprised he never had deep conversations with any Singaporeans.
Pro tip, Dover: there are better ways to investigate peoples' heritage than walking around asking people about their heritage. And if you do ask, and the answer you get is "what heritage?" and a laugh? Well, that may not mean what you think it means.
There's a lot happening in Singapore. It's an evolving place, with a growing civil society, increasing activism, growing nationalism and anti-foreigner sentiment, brutal competitiveness (the Singlish word is "kiasu", which is a Hokkien term that translates as "afraid to lose"), a terrible Gini coefficient, complex underlying racial tensions, and some absurd historical hard-edged nanny-state reflexes. There are a lot of things Singapore needs, but the dynamics are complex, not ripe for banal oversimplification.
Let's take National Service (NS). Dover writes: "after graduating, every citizen is required to do active service in the military." This is wrong on at least three points, which is impressive for a sentence that short: 1) NS is not required of all citizens, only men; 2) NS is also required of male permanent residents who turn 18 in Singapore, and 3) it's an age requirement, not a graduation requirement.
He goes on to write that "pride is the result" of the NS requirement, in that part of the article that seems devoted to unqualified praise of Singapore's success. Really? Pride alone? Yes, male Singaporeans are proud of their service in NS, but plenty — especially younger Singaporeans — also resent it, resent the foreigners and women who don't have to do it and who they believe get an upper leg in society as a result. I've had Singaporean men explain away sexual harassment of women — harassment they witnessed first hand — on the grounds of the hazing they received during NS. If "sense of pride" is the only thing Dover has to say about NS in Singapore, even after months of living here, I'm not surprised he never had deep conversations with any Singaporeans.
Pro tip, Dover: there are better ways to investigate peoples' heritage than walking around asking people about their heritage. And if you do ask, and the answer you get is "what heritage?" and a laugh? Well, that may not mean what you think it means.
There's a lot happening in Singapore. It's an evolving place, with a growing civil society, increasing activism, growing nationalism and anti-foreigner sentiment, brutal competitiveness (the Singlish word is "kiasu", which is a Hokkien term that translates as "afraid to lose"), a terrible Gini coefficient, complex underlying racial tensions, and some absurd historical hard-edged nanny-state reflexes. There are a lot of things Singapore needs, but the dynamics are complex, not ripe for banal oversimplification.
On the flip side, I'd much rather the public schools in the US place the same amount of emphasis on math and science as the schools in Singapore.
I've spent 10 years in the education system in Singapore, and when I came to the US to continue high school, I was surprised at how dumbed down things are here. For example, topics typically covered in AP Chemistry would be part of the normal chemistry curriculum over in Singapore, and taught at the 9th grade level. High school lab sessions here were nothing more than simple experiments and anything more advanced were replaced with demos by teachers in the interest of liability and what not.
I've spent 10 years in the education system in Singapore, and when I came to the US to continue high school, I was surprised at how dumbed down things are here. For example, topics typically covered in AP Chemistry would be part of the normal chemistry curriculum over in Singapore, and taught at the 9th grade level. High school lab sessions here were nothing more than simple experiments and anything more advanced were replaced with demos by teachers in the interest of liability and what not.
This is basically a shorter, more weakly-argued version of William Gibson's first piece of non-fiction writing, Disneyland with the Death Penalty:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson_pr.html
EDIT: not that it isn't a good blog. But if you like it, you should really read the gibson article too.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson_pr.html
EDIT: not that it isn't a good blog. But if you like it, you should really read the gibson article too.
Gibson's article is a brilliant piece of writing, but it was written in 1993. Singapore has changed quite a bit in the two decades since, although many of his observations do remain painfully accurate.
Like a lot of things I see grownups do, this action of leaving and never returning to Singapore strikes me as a reaction to one's past experience. I grew up in a crowded place where crime and terrorist attacks where a normal part of life. As an adult, I moved to the US and my job always took me to less crowded cities. I've visited places like New York since, and realized that I do not miss living in crowded places at all.
I read a lot about what's supposedly wrong with suburbia (the media and hollywood seems to view it as morally wrong), but I find myself drawn to the relative peace and slow pace they describe. I often think it's because of where I grew up.
To me, the author is making a similar move, though in the opposite direction. Life was too simple, too comfortable, and too polite in Singapore, and now he's had his full of it, and needs the opposite. I can relate, except I'm coming from where he's going, and I went to what he's trying to escape.
I read a lot about what's supposedly wrong with suburbia (the media and hollywood seems to view it as morally wrong), but I find myself drawn to the relative peace and slow pace they describe. I often think it's because of where I grew up.
To me, the author is making a similar move, though in the opposite direction. Life was too simple, too comfortable, and too polite in Singapore, and now he's had his full of it, and needs the opposite. I can relate, except I'm coming from where he's going, and I went to what he's trying to escape.
> (the media and hollywood seems to view it as morally wrong)
Their advertisers have a certain preference for how you spend your money. And suburban land developers are not exactly known for buying advertising on TV and product placement in movies. Its not a moral thing, just follow the money.
Their advertisers have a certain preference for how you spend your money. And suburban land developers are not exactly known for buying advertising on TV and product placement in movies. Its not a moral thing, just follow the money.
> After graduating, every citizen is required to do active service in the military.
Nitpick: Men only. It's a common lament here that the men start higher education/work a couple of years later than their women counterparts, hence "losing out".
Nitpick: Men only. It's a common lament here that the men start higher education/work a couple of years later than their women counterparts, hence "losing out".
I wish the Israelis or Swiss could come in to fix the Singaporean national service system. It is ineffective and inefficient -- the NS system produces a subpar military (the full timers are quite good though), and it provides very limited benefits to the individual.
A shorter period of training, a competitive bidding process to get into elite units like Israel's 8200, and a longer term commitment with the same people for the rest of your life, would be vastly better (and probably something the US should consider).
As it is, NS is basically wasted time for most people . Ambulance and SOF seem like the only decent options. The discrimination against the Malay origin singaporeans also seems wrong.
A shorter period of training, a competitive bidding process to get into elite units like Israel's 8200, and a longer term commitment with the same people for the rest of your life, would be vastly better (and probably something the US should consider).
As it is, NS is basically wasted time for most people . Ambulance and SOF seem like the only decent options. The discrimination against the Malay origin singaporeans also seems wrong.
Getting the Israelis visibly and heavily involved in the Singaporean military is just asking for trouble in the region, given the nature of the country's neighbours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Singapore_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Singapore_relations
You must admit it would make there quite a bit more "exciting" though.
Another issue I have heard about is the difference in local and expat salary (only hearsay, I don't have any data). Add that on top of mandatory military service for men and it could leave someone pretty unsatisfied.
Do women have children then during the same period? Seems more like an equalizer to me when it comes to time away from work.
Edit: explaining the equalizing factor
Edit: explaining the equalizing factor
The only "equalizing" compulsory conscription provides is when it puts men of diverse backgrounds into a tight-knit environment where they have to live, work and play together for the majority of the week. You don't get that outside of the military, or at least not in the same scale.
The pregnancy vs conscription issue really isn't debatable.
The pregnancy vs conscription issue really isn't debatable.
I was addressing the comment that men complain it makes them start their work later in life because of a military service. I was saying that (some) women go through the same by having children.
Should woman go to jail for avoiding children?
It actually makes situation for woman with children much worse, since she is alone while her partner is in military.
Gay couple with children, where both parents would have to go illustrates it well.
It actually makes situation for woman with children much worse, since she is alone while her partner is in military.
Gay couple with children, where both parents would have to go illustrates it well.
>> Should woman go to jail for avoiding children? >> It actually makes situation for woman with children much worse... >> Gay couple with children...no law compels a woman to have a baby, or take 2yrs' leave to look after it. maybe the husband shares part of the duty. maybe its the husband that looks after the baby. but conscription compels singaporean men to provide labor at well below market rates, in this case for 2yrs, plus ongoing resrervist cycles for the next decade or so. its like. by law singaporean women have 24hrs a day, men have 22. or something like that.
Please tell me where in the world you shall live if you will not return to one of the best countries (as per most statistics) in the world?
And this guy is American. A country which invades other countries, kills civilians and holds people locked up in Guantanamo Bay. Yes, surely that is much better.
I haven't lived in Singapore but spent a bit of time there when I lived in Malaysia.
And this guy is American. A country which invades other countries, kills civilians and holds people locked up in Guantanamo Bay. Yes, surely that is much better.
I haven't lived in Singapore but spent a bit of time there when I lived in Malaysia.
The guy simply expressed an opinion about where he doesn't want to live. You can't force him to agree with your opinion on the subject, and you're unlikely to convince anyone with a barely coherent rant about a bunch of topics not even relevant to the original post.
Calm the fuck down.
Calm the fuck down.
An I expressed my opinion. I think you are the one who needs to calm down given your words.
The OP posts about his direct experience in Singapore which are his reasons for leaving. You posted reasons for not coming into the US, that would not affect OP. Is he going to Guantanamo Bay? No. Does he murder civilians? No. Is America a beautiful and exciting country? Yes. It's the government and military which is fucked. If the OP's points for leaving were political, you would make some sense.
Oh did I upset an American - poor you. I pointed out that all countries have flaws. I used the US as an example because OP is an American. Most of the blog post is about government policies so you don't make much sense.
No, I'm not an American. Why did you use extremes when OP didn't? He's talking about the product of government policies regulating citizens every day lives, the result of which is unsatisfactory for OP, not extremist situations in which political prisoners are shipped off to a torture camp or civilians in different countries are killed.
Those are both terrible things, yes, but hardly affect the day to day lives of people or their decisions, sadly.
Those are both terrible things, yes, but hardly affect the day to day lives of people or their decisions, sadly.
One thing I notice when I passed through the States, is that you are constantly being bombarded with advertising, subliminal messaging, NLP. Trying to sell you something, or mold the way you think.
(The fact that a large proportion of Americans seem to think they have a "right" to bear arms shows that more than just the government and military that are fucked.)
(The fact that a large proportion of Americans seem to think they have a "right" to bear arms shows that more than just the government and military that are fucked.)
What's wrong with the right to bear arms?
Dead people that is what is wrong with it.
Is that your only gripe? In Norway civilians outgun the government 16:1. It's a lot more complicated than simple possession.
is dead people my only gripe? Surely you cannot be serious.
Guns in Norway are for hunting and require a license. And far less people own a gun there compared to the US.
Guns in Norway are for hunting and require a license. And far less people own a gun there compared to the US.
I don't think completely abolishing civilians guns is the right answer. However, they should be VERY tightly regulated, and open carry should be abolished for sure. I'm okay with having a low caliber rifle in your house, locked away for intrusion/intimidation purposes in case of robbery.
Right now it's pretty crazy though. My American uncle has so many fucking guns that could blow holes in your chest, and I think that's wrong.
> is dead people my only gripe? Surely you cannot be serious.
Drop your attitude. If you have a point, make it. Nobody here is a mind reader.
Right now it's pretty crazy though. My American uncle has so many fucking guns that could blow holes in your chest, and I think that's wrong.
> is dead people my only gripe? Surely you cannot be serious.
Drop your attitude. If you have a point, make it. Nobody here is a mind reader.
Yes, because numbers can measure everything. Congrats on completely missing his point.
A big part of the blog post is about numbers. Congrats on completely missing his point.
Yes, that Singapore's singular focus on a small number of quantitative outcomes has led to a society lacking a rich culture (i.e. qualitative appeal).
TL;DR: the country is all right, just didn't like it that much
That's some weak arguments. If anything, this article made me want to move to Singapore.
Also worth reading is "Don't come home to soulless Singapore" [1] that too went viral.
[1]: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/your-view--don-t-come-home-to-soull...
[1]: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/your-view--don-t-come-home-to-soull...
"In my experience, people were polite but conversations rarely moved past surface-level niceties."
As a Britain who lived in America, this is how I felt about Americans. I think its more of a cultural illusion.
As a Britain who lived in America, this is how I felt about Americans. I think its more of a cultural illusion.
As an American living in France, this is how I feel about the French.
But I've heard the opposite from other brits about Americans. We're too friggin nosey. We want to know where you live, where you went to school, what you do (this is really big blunder a lot of Americans make), and why you're here.
But I've heard the opposite from other brits about Americans. We're too friggin nosey. We want to know where you live, where you went to school, what you do (this is really big blunder a lot of Americans make), and why you're here.
>what you do (this is really big blunder a lot of Americans make)
Woah, woah, woah, is this impolite to ask outside of the US?
Woah, woah, woah, is this impolite to ask outside of the US?
The quick search I just made for suicide rate per capita shows the rate in Singapore is kinda average.
"The suicide rate in Singapore is rising at an unprecedented rate of 29% a year. With people between the age of 20-29, the increase is a horrifying 80%."
The author said that it is rising rapidly, not that it is currently high.
The author said that it is rising rapidly, not that it is currently high.
{{citation needed}} for both those figures. Sure, Singapore's education system is pretty brutal, but it's nowhere near as hardcore as (say) South Korea or China.
Indeed. In a few decades the suicide rate will be 200%.
Yup, I did read the article. But thanks for the recap
yeah, whenever I see a stat like 'such-and-such has risen by x%!' and it does not give the absolute figures, I always assume the author is trying to exaggerate and mislead (not that I'm saying this one is).
Hi forktheif,
I am the author of this article. The wikipedia article on suicide rates (which I am assuming you found via google) uses data from 2009 as its source. The article I wrote uses data from 2011 (which is the most recently available.) More details here: http://www.lifelisted.com/blog/happens-everything-goes-right...
I am the author of this article. The wikipedia article on suicide rates (which I am assuming you found via google) uses data from 2009 as its source. The article I wrote uses data from 2011 (which is the most recently available.) More details here: http://www.lifelisted.com/blog/happens-everything-goes-right...
Can't you link to those numbers?
So he doesn't want to return to Singapore because everything went right in that country? People are never satisfied! He doesn't list a single problem except for suicide rates going up - which on a per capita basis is average when compared to the other countries.
No, this is the real reason from the article:
"I describe my time living in Singapore as sterile. Nothing particularly bad happened but it wasn’t particularly good either. Daily life was convenient but it was only the bare minimum of living. I had everything I needed to be comfortable but I didn’t have anything that inspired me. Even though there wasn’t a language barrier, I encountered a hefty communication barrier. In my experience, people were polite but conversations rarely moved past surface-level niceties. Of the conversations that I took part in and overheard, the vast majority of them were about work. I routinely watched people work 15 hours days and stress over strict deadlines. Yes it was living and they were making progress but it wasn’t holistic and people openly admitted to me that it wasn’t fulfilling."
And it's true. It's a country of 716.1 km2 (276 sq mi). For locals, life there is mind-numbingly boring and stressful. I too left and would never return.
"I describe my time living in Singapore as sterile. Nothing particularly bad happened but it wasn’t particularly good either. Daily life was convenient but it was only the bare minimum of living. I had everything I needed to be comfortable but I didn’t have anything that inspired me. Even though there wasn’t a language barrier, I encountered a hefty communication barrier. In my experience, people were polite but conversations rarely moved past surface-level niceties. Of the conversations that I took part in and overheard, the vast majority of them were about work. I routinely watched people work 15 hours days and stress over strict deadlines. Yes it was living and they were making progress but it wasn’t holistic and people openly admitted to me that it wasn’t fulfilling."
And it's true. It's a country of 716.1 km2 (276 sq mi). For locals, life there is mind-numbingly boring and stressful. I too left and would never return.
I laughed a bit when I read that paragraph. Because I am sure it is the current/future dream of most of the people on HN to work for a big internet company in Silicon Valley. Which of course means long hours with your free time spent talking about work.
The fact is that in "international" cities like Singapore, London, Sydney, Paris etc people do work long hours and in their spare time often talk about what they are spending the majority of their life doing. It's completely natural and par for the course.
The fact is that in "international" cities like Singapore, London, Sydney, Paris etc people do work long hours and in their spare time often talk about what they are spending the majority of their life doing. It's completely natural and par for the course.
There's a big difference between Singapore and London. In many other countries, you can move between cities to find the place that fit you better. From London, you can go to say, Manchester, Edinburgh, or even the rest of EU is open to you.
In Singapore, you can move between neighbourhoods. The neighbourhoods are more or less the same. Once you've lived there for a while, you go to the same place that you've been to hundreds (or maybe thousands) of times after work. It all got really really boring after a while. The typical (expected) long working hours in the society doesn't help either. All you do is work, eat and sleep. And shopping. After 10 years, I too left and would never return.
In Singapore, you can move between neighbourhoods. The neighbourhoods are more or less the same. Once you've lived there for a while, you go to the same place that you've been to hundreds (or maybe thousands) of times after work. It all got really really boring after a while. The typical (expected) long working hours in the society doesn't help either. All you do is work, eat and sleep. And shopping. After 10 years, I too left and would never return.
I don't get that feeling from most of HN articles. In fact, just the opposite. HNers are leaving these companies for places that fit better. It's one thing to have crunch time to get an MVP out the door but if you're still doing that a month later something is wrong.
I've worked in London, Paris, and Miami. Only in the US do we work long hours and then continue to discuss it outside of work.
I've worked in London, Paris, and Miami. Only in the US do we work long hours and then continue to discuss it outside of work.
The article seems to be a summary of the consequences of modern living, and the loss of "community", "fun" and "enjoyment" which goes along with it.
What an amazingly entitled and self-absorbed piece. Complaining because it is too comfortable? Complaining because "nothing inspired me"? Complaining because "people" won't have engaging conversations with you? Stop whining and do something about it.
> I describe my time living in Singapore as sterile. Nothing particularly bad happened but it wasn’t particularly good either. Daily life was convenient but it was only the bare minimum of living. I had everything I needed to be comfortable but I didn’t have anything that inspired me. Even though there wasn’t a language barrier, I encountered a hefty communication barrier. In my experience, people were polite but conversations rarely moved past surface-level niceties. Of the conversations that I took part in and overheard, the vast majority of them were about work. I routinely watched people work 15 hours days and stress over strict deadlines. Yes it was living and they were making progress but it wasn’t holistic and people openly admitted to me that it wasn’t fulfilling.
> I describe my time living in Singapore as sterile. Nothing particularly bad happened but it wasn’t particularly good either. Daily life was convenient but it was only the bare minimum of living. I had everything I needed to be comfortable but I didn’t have anything that inspired me. Even though there wasn’t a language barrier, I encountered a hefty communication barrier. In my experience, people were polite but conversations rarely moved past surface-level niceties. Of the conversations that I took part in and overheard, the vast majority of them were about work. I routinely watched people work 15 hours days and stress over strict deadlines. Yes it was living and they were making progress but it wasn’t holistic and people openly admitted to me that it wasn’t fulfilling.
I don't get it... actually my dream would be to work in Singapore and to be able to get to Bali or Kuala Lumpur or Thailand or Australia in such a short time is just perfect.
You have a great work place but the possibility to experience very different countries.
I am currently residing in Singapore and in my opinion - there is not really much to see here and in the surrounding areas, if you are here for more than a month.
I encourage you, before nosediving here for a longer period (like I do for 9 months), visit the place and make sure you really like it here. I do not, as my view of Singapore highly correlates with the article.
I encourage you, before nosediving here for a longer period (like I do for 9 months), visit the place and make sure you really like it here. I do not, as my view of Singapore highly correlates with the article.
I think the main problem for the author is that singapore is to clean and to un-exciting for him, because everyone just works and is in line. But my point is to have a good working environment (evidently one can work quite well in SG) but look around for the non-working time.
how about 'because it is an authoritarian single party state'?
Nowhere in the article does the author blame this for the perceived issues he mentions. In fact from his tone, this seems to be a positive in the way Singapore has improved in modern terms.
that's my point. he doesn't acknowledge the most important factor, although it actually underlies many of his issues.
"improved in modern terms" is very twisted language - perhaps you'd care to explain what you mean by this specifically
"improved in modern terms" is very twisted language - perhaps you'd care to explain what you mean by this specifically
I meant the attributes that we measure progress by. Quoted straight from the article - "It leads the world in education, banking, shipping and has created a everyday existence of unrivaled cleanliness, safety and stability"
education, banking and shipping are of course all much easier in a city state which is advantageously located and was, prior to decolonialistion, full of the best facilities for all of these in the region by far..
safety, cleanliness and stability are all pretty straightforward attributes of authoriarianism . Unless we want to reconsider our concpetion of 20th century governments usually deemed 'backward' which also achieved this, I'm not sure we should call this 'progress'
safety, cleanliness and stability are all pretty straightforward attributes of authoriarianism . Unless we want to reconsider our concpetion of 20th century governments usually deemed 'backward' which also achieved this, I'm not sure we should call this 'progress'
but whats that progress for? median income that hasnt changed perceptibly for a decade? a gini like the usa?
As in Plato's five regimes, democracy is only very slightly better than tyranny/anarchy. Authoritarian single party state can also be rephrased into functioning semi-aristocracy. All governments have advantages and flaws, it's better to compare them not on a theoretical demonized basis but on the output and tangible effects. For example, economically Singapore succeeds fantastically, but culturally it's missing something.
Life is short, why spend it in places you dont enjoy?
because all the decent paying jobs are in crappy big cities. I would far rather live in the mountains.
So work in the crappy big cities, making your decent pay. If you save enough, maybe you'll be able to live in the mountains for a while before you die, hopefully not spending the entire time regretting that you lived for money instead of what you actually wanted.
Well, look at the Happy Planet Index, the top choices are not countries that are known for having great development ratings.
1. Costa Rica 2. Vietnam 3. Colombia 4. Belize 5. El Salvador
I have to admit that I don't believe people in Belize or El Salvador are happier than say Mexico or Panamá just to name a few neighbors. It's weird how the first "Industrialized" country is Israel at 15th place, and the next is New Zealand at 28th followed by Norway. Also most of the top 30 are latinamerican countries, so maybe is just a cultural thing to be always happy.
1. Costa Rica 2. Vietnam 3. Colombia 4. Belize 5. El Salvador
I have to admit that I don't believe people in Belize or El Salvador are happier than say Mexico or Panamá just to name a few neighbors. It's weird how the first "Industrialized" country is Israel at 15th place, and the next is New Zealand at 28th followed by Norway. Also most of the top 30 are latinamerican countries, so maybe is just a cultural thing to be always happy.
The problem I have with this (and Gibson's article linked below) is that there is an incredibly patronizing undercurrent to the complaints that everything is clean and works right. Grinding poverty and picturesque slums might be a creative ferment for Western expatriates (who can almost always pick and choose what they experience), but the Asians, Africans, South Americans, etc who are forced to suffer those conditions their entire lives don't see it that way at all.
The complaints about Singapore all seem true for many years. Sure it's a little sterile. Sure it's conservative. Sure it's small. These have all been true.
It's also open to outsiders, and a model for good governance, and a mutli-cultural hub.
It's ok to leave, but to say, "Screw you, I'm gone forever and never coming back" just seems childish.
It's also open to outsiders, and a model for good governance, and a mutli-cultural hub.
It's ok to leave, but to say, "Screw you, I'm gone forever and never coming back" just seems childish.
Anecdotaly, I have two friends who lived in Singapore for a couple of years. Both them said the same as the author.
I feel dumber for having read that.
Seriously? I agree with the OP. And I've spent quite a bit of time in Singapore when I was younger.
See, you have your own experience to rely on, but I know very little about Singapore. I read through those few morsels of, uh, peculiar observations, and was left with the feeling that it was perhaps relevant to the author's family and friends, but it didn't leave me feeling like he made a good case for his point of view. I think the article says more about the author than about Singapore, and I'm not particularly interested in the author.
Oh look, he's peddling some self-improvement story, what a surprise. And he's an SEO guy, that explains the writing style at least.
In fact, some of the comments are better than the article. Shorter, too.
Oh look, he's peddling some self-improvement story, what a surprise. And he's an SEO guy, that explains the writing style at least.
In fact, some of the comments are better than the article. Shorter, too.
I found it incredibly stupid.
Never return to Singapore because every day students declare pride in their country ? Great. Better not spend any time in the US, UK, Australia or countless other countries. Or do people think kids are just born with an understanding of the flag, anthem etc.
And citizens are forced to spend time in the military. Okay that is a bit much but hardly unprecedented. And personally I find the military propaganda in the US far more insidious.
As for average quality of life. Well that is obviously debatable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
Never return to Singapore because every day students declare pride in their country ? Great. Better not spend any time in the US, UK, Australia or countless other countries. Or do people think kids are just born with an understanding of the flag, anthem etc.
And citizens are forced to spend time in the military. Okay that is a bit much but hardly unprecedented. And personally I find the military propaganda in the US far more insidious.
As for average quality of life. Well that is obviously debatable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
> Never return to Singapore because every day students declare pride in their country ? Great. Better not spend any time in the US, UK, Australia or countless other countries.
In Australia and the UK students definitely don't do this. In the UK 'patriotism' is generally seen as a pursuit of the ignorant and poor (eg, EDL, flag burning in Northern Ireland) and in Australia, while it's become more common, the same association exists (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/w...).
In Australia and the UK students definitely don't do this. In the UK 'patriotism' is generally seen as a pursuit of the ignorant and poor (eg, EDL, flag burning in Northern Ireland) and in Australia, while it's become more common, the same association exists (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/w...).
BTW this data is from 2005.
I would be surprised to see Ireland/Italy/Spain etc... placed so high, post-crisis.
I would be surprised to see Ireland/Italy/Spain etc... placed so high, post-crisis.
Exactly what are you thinking of when you refer to "the military propaganda in the US"? I've never had the impression that the military was held in particularly high regard; serving in the military is the sort of thing you might be ashamed to admit that your children do. Or look at how college students object to even allowing recruiters onto the campus.
Obviously, attitudes differ place-to-place. But I found your phrase somewhat bemusing.
Obviously, attitudes differ place-to-place. But I found your phrase somewhat bemusing.
> I've never had the impression that the military was held in particularly high regard; serving in the military is the sort of thing you might be ashamed to admit that your children do.
In areas where Republicans win elections (roughly non-urban America), military "service" is very often held in quite high regard. Sure, it's not like being a doctor, but I don't think parents are often ashamed of it. Parents, siblings, and grandparents are often quite proud that their family member is in the Marines, for example. People wear t-shirts advertising their current or past involvement. At American Football games they often have active duty military stand up and people clap for them.
As for some examples of military propaganda, here are some that come to mind (note I'm not the OP):
- July 4 and other holidays where the military participates prominently in parades.
- military jets flying over head of a sporting event or a parade, or an air show.
- school field trips to military bases or military museums.
- military bands performing concerts
- mentions to "brave men and women in uniform" in political speeches everywhere
- "support our troops," "my son's a Marine" signs/bumper stickers
- Hollywood videos that glorify the US military and lease military equipment/personnel
- Video games where the US military or US military weapons feature prominently. The US Army famously sponsored a very expensive game a decade ago.
- tons of advertisements on Channel One news, perhaps a couple a day, a TV station that almost all high school students were required to watch during the 90s (I don't know about now)
In areas where Republicans win elections (roughly non-urban America), military "service" is very often held in quite high regard. Sure, it's not like being a doctor, but I don't think parents are often ashamed of it. Parents, siblings, and grandparents are often quite proud that their family member is in the Marines, for example. People wear t-shirts advertising their current or past involvement. At American Football games they often have active duty military stand up and people clap for them.
As for some examples of military propaganda, here are some that come to mind (note I'm not the OP):
- July 4 and other holidays where the military participates prominently in parades.
- military jets flying over head of a sporting event or a parade, or an air show.
- school field trips to military bases or military museums.
- military bands performing concerts
- mentions to "brave men and women in uniform" in political speeches everywhere
- "support our troops," "my son's a Marine" signs/bumper stickers
- Hollywood videos that glorify the US military and lease military equipment/personnel
- Video games where the US military or US military weapons feature prominently. The US Army famously sponsored a very expensive game a decade ago.
- tons of advertisements on Channel One news, perhaps a couple a day, a TV station that almost all high school students were required to watch during the 90s (I don't know about now)
Perhaps it's harder to see looking from the inside, but most other cultures are MUCH less Military obsessed than the US just about any way you measure it...
I'm willing to believe this. I was serious when I asked "what are you thinking of?" I'd like some examples.
I wish I had some real data to give you as examples, without talking about Top Gun, the military-industrial complex or reducing the conversation to personal anecdotes about my experiences in the US.
As you said attitudes differ place-to-place, and I don't want to generalize all Americans, I would say it's safe to assume our Hacker News audience is more likely to be Liberal and Educated then the general American populace. However as a Canadian here's some crap I came up with out my ass:
Military force as a perceived requirement or definition of 'freedom' doesn't exist at your scale elsewhere.
Glorification of war and gun violence in Hollywood, Gaming and on the News, general fear-mongering and militarization of the police.
You guys have been involved in some war or another for about as long as you've been a country..
-- Hope I didn't offend anyone, here's at least one link as support..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...
As you said attitudes differ place-to-place, and I don't want to generalize all Americans, I would say it's safe to assume our Hacker News audience is more likely to be Liberal and Educated then the general American populace. However as a Canadian here's some crap I came up with out my ass:
Military force as a perceived requirement or definition of 'freedom' doesn't exist at your scale elsewhere.
Glorification of war and gun violence in Hollywood, Gaming and on the News, general fear-mongering and militarization of the police.
You guys have been involved in some war or another for about as long as you've been a country..
-- Hope I didn't offend anyone, here's at least one link as support..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...
a bit off track perhaps. singapore was supposedly working towards achieving a "swiss standard of living".. now that the swiss are considering a citien's income scheme..i wonder if singapore would follow...ahahhahahahhha...
I've lived in Singapore. It's actually a pretty amazing country for such small years into existence.
There are some shady stuff being done in the name of profit at the expense of its population, but then again so does any country that has high taxes with mediocre added value.
This person argues about foreigners - in only to become one henself. Ironyyyyy
This person argues about foreigners - in only to become one henself. Ironyyyyy
I'd say the US has more problems than Singapore... And on the topic of taxes, the tax rate in Singapore is actually much lower than in the US (based on CA; middle class).
why BMWs are on average 4 times more expensive in Singapour than US? Low taxes at work? Need to use public transportation because cars ownership is taxed to hell and back? How came person using bus and not owning a car is considered to have better standard of living?
The few occasions you need a car, you can get a cab.
Generally people don't need cars to get around if you think about it.
Because taxis are cheap and taxing private cars so much cuts down the traffic jams immensely.
I'm happier taking the bus in Singapore than I would owning a car in half on the United States.
I'm happier taking the bus in Singapore than I would owning a car in half on the United States.
I'm happier in the US where the dream of owning BMW or Porsche may easily become reality vs. just stay a dream forever.
because the metro is way faster. and Taxis in Singapore are really inexpensive (at least compared to the US or Europe).
I honestly don't know why you'd want to have a car there given the crazy costs.
I honestly don't know why you'd want to have a car there given the crazy costs.
I absolutely understand what the author was writing about - I really love this country - it's clean, safe, really clean, has really affordable food and incredible transportation system. The buses are actually worth using, and the people have been universally friendly. But, there is something missing.
When I go back to Canada, people live to do things outside of work. They go to the Abbotsford Apple Barn, Hang out at Stanley Park, spend an afternoon in the Vancouver Library, Head up to Cypress Bowl to go Snowboarding, etc, etc.. Maybe it's because there is more "space" - but I'm still trying to find out what it is that people in Singapore do, and why? So often, the answer I get, is "Go to the Mall" or, "Take my kids to tuition".
The country has accomplished incredible things with so few resources - the people are the only resources - and they've achieved a level of social and cultural harmony that really shows how poorly other countries are.
Perhaps I just need to spend a few more years to soak up the local culture and events - at the very least the hawker stands could keep me occupied that long.