I am right now in Singapore for a visit and personally I don't have the feeling of a very clean city. There are some things that drive me crazy as a european. I went to a hawker with some Singaporeans and we got new disposable chopsticks for every dish. Wich means I ended up with three pairs of chopsticks. All plates were disposable. Either of plastic or styrofoam. Like in the article we didn't clean our trays, a cleaner took them the second we finished eating. I asked the Singaporeans how they feel about all the plastic and they just replied that's just how it is. Especially, that you get a plastic bag for every two items in the supermarket drives me nuts. Even when I am holding a backpack directly in front of the cashier he starts packing the items faster in a plastic bag than I can say anything. They even have watered sponges for their finger tips so they can be quicker with the plastic bags.
Needless to say, that all the trash ends up somewhere. Maybe not so much in percentage, but you will definitely find litter every few meters. The difference to my hometown in Germany is, that the litter there stays for years but also not so much new litter per day is produced. Maybe the Singaporeans should place more public trash bins or get some moop bags.
Regarding disposable plates and utensils, I actually don't see much of them unless you ask for takeout. I suspect in the area you're in the cost of dish washing is more expensive than the cost of plates and refuse collection. A tax on disposables would be great.
Singapore is actually getting better on reducing disposables, though slower than I would like. Cashiers don't double bag items anymore, and try to pack as much into one as possible. Paper takeout boxes and bags have replaced styrofoam and plastic in many places, and it's currently trendy to not offer plastic straws for drinks.
Another reason for disposable chopsticks, (though this applies more in China, Taiwan and Malaysia) is that the customers may not trust the hygiene of the place they're eating in. Disposable chopsticks are cut with the centers intact so it's impossible to put them back together and resell them.
I had one metallic straw in a fancy cocktail bar. The rest were plastic. Not to say, that I get a plastic cup full of ice with a plastic straw when I order a green tea, which comes in a can and is already ice cold. For the litter I see the most: part of plastic bags and Dasani water bottles. I hope the change in trash management, recycling and maybe trash separation does not only start with the rich people here, but with everyone.
Metallic straw? Like, reusable? Fairly sure that wouldn't fly anywhere else, I mean, even plastic straws are individually packaged right now due to hygiene considerations.
I ate street food, while sitting on rickety plastic chairs on small metal tables, covered in noise and moped fumes in Penang, Bangkok and Ha Noi among other places.
I ate a lot of it and never, ever got sick.
Here's my golden rule from which I never deviate:
Make sure that you see how they cook the food on premises
It needs to be well visited, preferably by locals
As I said I never got sick (or even felt slight discomfort) and I had a number of memorable meals under such conditions.
Would a western health inspector tolerate the setup? Hell; no!
But, so what?
Sure, you can stick to the hotel restaurant of The Intercontinental in Bangkok, but you'll be hardly any safer than eating on a wobbly table in some small soi in the area.
I have yet to see evidence that individually packaged plastic forks and knives are more hygienic, or that any poorly-cleaned utensil ever made anyone sick.
Metal straws are very popular in upscale bars in financial cities such as New York, London and Hong Kong. It’s usually a sign you’re paying way too much for your drink!
> Regarding disposable plates and utensils, I actually don't see much of them unless you ask for takeout. I suspect in the area you're in the cost of dish washing is more expensive than the cost of plates and refuse collection. A tax on disposables would be great.
Most hawker stalls charge an extra 20 cents or so for takeout, which helps them recover the cost of the container. I think that's a good compromise.
This! Many Shenzhen China street bbq 'hawkers?' will offer you a plate that is covered with disposable plastic bag, so they don't need to clean the plates (cost more than bag?), only throw away the bag (throwing meaning recycling by someone else). Its purely about making a living....NOW...all down to the smallest bit of margin and plastic it seems. It also seems plastic in Asia is a lot more recyclable than in Europe, where it's seen as a threat. In China you put your banana peel in the 'non recyclable' bin and your plastic in the 'recyclable' bin... This sorta hints at the human cost behind recycling this stuff it seems...beyond being someones retirement fund, can we really get rid of this plastic? What are the costs of this? Are there more energy efficient alternatives?
scanning over the article > "clean" in the headline and "green" first paragraph leaves me confused, also the two following paragraphs are titled "clean and green" and then talks about fines...followed by "a 'fine' city" (pun intended?). So in what way does punishment affects 'green' solutions? What solutions are you looking for? In what way would incentives work? 'Mentality change' is also an interesting one...Too many questions
It is definitely a "cleaned" city. The level of cleanliness has gone now and litter has increased. Public awareness of this has gone down. If you know Singapore, there has always been a history of govt-led campaigns.
15 years ago, it wasn't like that. People bring their own tupperware to do take aways. All the cutlery were washed and cleaned. This meant more time and energy from the hawkers. In the name of efficiency, low cost, disposable plastic/styrofoam/chopsticks is a convenient solution, unfortunately.
While I agree there is a lot of plastic used for disposable plastic bags, it is not common to get disposable chopsticks in hawker centers, unless you ask for takeout, which often costs 20-50c extra. Usually all plates/cutlery in hawker centers are reusable plastic.
While Singapore cannot be compared to Europe in terms of "save-the-environment" attitude, there recently has been improvement (e.g. some supermarkets started to give discount if you bring your own bag; government incentives to educate people to use reusable plastic etc).
Also, you say Singapore doesn't feel like a very clean city to you, but you don't have any examples. Certainly Singapore is very clean compared to any European/German city of the same size, or anywhere else in SEA.
I'm also German, living in Singapore for 6+ years.
> While I agree there is a lot of plastic used for disposable plastic bags, it is not common to get disposable chopsticks in hawker centers, unless you ask for takeout, which often costs 20-50c extra. Usually all plates/cutlery in hawker centers are reusable plastic.
Naming one case that might stand out: Lau Pa Sat's stalls almost all use disposable cutlery.
I guess especially if one considers the population density the cleanliness is remarkable. From just walking around and experiencing litter volume I see no difference to Munich, despite the missing vandalism and chewing gum. I don't say, that Singapore feels dirty. It just feels normal. Of course feeling is not a scientific value, but for the "super clean Singapore" my expectations were different. Now I can more relate to the super cleaned Singapore as a statement about this city.
Is this really true? I can't imagine the amount of plastic waste per person per year is necessarily more than other developed countries. Also I don't remember using disposable plates/bowls when I ordered from the Hawker stalls unless you specifically ask for something to take away - otherwise there's shared reusable plates/bowls that are cleaned.
One thing I definitely know is that the stalls have bans on handing out napkins, which both serves to give the poor a way to make money and reduce the amount napkin waste by pushing the cost to you. I also think it's fairly common for residents to carry their own reusable utensils with them when they go to places like that.
The last few days I am here I try to be more aware and observatory, but I guess that now I am biased this won't work so well. But the first search results for plastic trash in Singapore aren't so optimistic:
"Analysis of the NEA data by Reuters shows that plastic waste per capita has increased nearly 20 percent over the last 15 years. Areport by the local Straits Times newspaper in March said each person in Singaporethrew away an average of 13 bags a day in 2016.05.06.2018" [0] and more plastic bags in [1].
But like some one already mentioned the amount of recycled construction materials is remarkable [2]. As I am not an environmentalist nor a plastic hater I wasn't looking for litter or trash here. But anyways it was enough to make me wonder. Now I am definitely interested in the numbers in comparison to other cities.
Singapore is not very good at recycling or limiting the products of individuals. On the other hand, they recycle 100% of garbage from building constructions. Which is a pretty big volume of garbage.
Those trash ends up getting combusted to harvest their energy. After the energy content is extracted for electricity generation, the resulting ash is used to make new land.
Source: go visit Pulau Semakau where the waste-to-energy process takes place.
If you are not asking for take away, only the tourist-trap hawker centres will give you single use of anything but maybe tiny plastic sauce trays. What you experienced is incredibly far from the norm.
I am always shocked when I go to Singapore because when I was a child in the 1960s Singapore was no different from any other southeast asian city: muddy river banks, discarded rubbish everywhere, boats unloaded by hand, and street hawkers (with amazing food) cooking food on gas rings from their bikes.
Love them or hate them, but you have to admit LKW and the PAP just got to work and transformed the place. But somehow managed to keep the good food (though the food in Ipoh remains the best).
The area of Singapore is 278 sq miles, approximately the size of 17 miles square. Whatever policies that work in such small high density places won't work in larger countries. However, one can try to decentralize as much as possible; such decentralization may not work in large countries either.
In San Francisco, if I count the number of jurisdictions I fall and pay taxes under, I get a number like 7, the typical City/State/Federal tier (minus the County tier as SF is unique in CA for consolidating that into the City tier), and at least 4 special districts that are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Singapore is 1 City 1 Nation. I’m not an expert on precisely how they govern themselves, but it must really help cut through administrative overhead and bureaucracy when the national government is effectively also the local government, responsible for police, fire, the environment, the parks and playgrounds, utilities regulation and national defense.
So if they want to set aside a line item for city cleanup right beneath national security and the public healthcare system, they have the option without debating further past public/private for whose responsibility it is. The government can take the tact that it is either its responsibility or it isn’t, without the complex tax system imposed by several different entities that the US has getting in the way. No federal grants to grant, no support legal challenges in 50+ court systems and various appellate court districts to overcome, no multi-tiered incentive structures, just, “do we have the budget?”
There are certainly more advantages to be had for larger countries, but there are also certain quality of life advantages to not having to be a large country, as long as you are rich anyway.
Was i sounthern Switzerland (Lugano) this spring and was chocked at the difference in cleanliness between Switzerland and Italy. Crossing the border by car, it was like somebody had turn a knob and enabled litter in the background graphics when entering Italy. It was that surreal a difference.
Sure, the exact same policies won't work. But even rural Japan is very clean compared to most of Europe, even, so there clearly are ways to sort it out
In London, the “war on litter bins” (removal of litter bins from train stations and central areas, supposedly to prevent them being misused by terrorists) has created a culture of simply leaving litter on the floor or in the street because there are no bins to put it in.
Perhaps that’s ok in busy central locations where a street cleaner will be along shortly to pick it up, but the problem is that people are now accustomed to dropping litter and do the same in suburbs, parks, and countryside where it just accumulates.
How do we solve it? We need to teach environmental education in schools and try to stop littering habits before they form.
But also, I think a great application for robotics technology will be litter picking, street-cleaning robots!
Wait, that doesn't make any sense. If the see-through bins solved a problem, why would they be removed when a different problem appears? They're independent problems, removing the bins when they're not involved in the new kind of attacks seems just random.
Yep, pretty much. I live not-in-London and during one of the heightened periods of security last year (armed police everywhere) all clear bag bins were removed from the metro and bus stations. This of course led to littering. It didn't make any sense.
I cant speak for London, but the bin clampdown was definitely post 11/7(there may have been a clamp down with the IRA that I'm too young to remember with a bin liberalisation in the 90s?). I also don't get the unattended luggage announcements. Because suicide bombers leave their bombs unattended? They should be searching everyone with bags /rant
The people who litter are the same ones who littered before the trash cans were removed. The only difference is that some of them were willing to walk a couple of steps to throw things away.
We need to teach common decency, adults need to set better examples, and the cops walking the street need to start ticketing people for littering - whether it's a fast food bag or a cigarette butt.
>The people who litter are the same ones who littered before the trash cans were removed. The only difference is that some of them were willing to walk a couple of steps to throw things away.
So, they're not the same, then? Those willing to walk a couple of steps to throw things away weren't littering before.
heh three years ago all metal trash bins in Shenzhen China were changed to plastic ones, for similar reasons i suppose. It's ironic to see the change in Europe, from cheap plastic bins to fancy stainless ones in city centers, back to plastic ones.
>In London, the “war on litter bins” (removal of litter bins from train stations and central areas, supposedly to prevent them being misused by terrorists)
That is not the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. But it's close.
You're missing that these bins _were_ used in IRA bombings in London, and it turns out that the flying shrapnel from a heavy exploding bin is quite dangerous.
Lighter-weight solutions were later introduced that limited the ability to place large objects in bins, or substituted large bins for clear plastic bags supported on a frame. These are still reasonably prevalent, though there could definitely stand to be more of them around London.
One can usually tell which countries have experienced terrorism, or at least pondered it, by the type and construction of trash receptacles. America has many tens of thousands of thick decorative stone, concrete and metal public trash receptacles vulnerable to bombings. When that happens, they will be gone, but rarely before.
Last time I was in Victoria Station in London, there was one alumin(i)um hoop with a clear trash bag, emptied constantly.
One thing that always impressed me about Singapore was that they incinerated all their garbage, then they collected the emissions from that furnace to power the city, and used the by products again. Brilliant
Is not Japan similarly clean and they do it without lots of fines and cheap Labour. They do it through the upbringing and linking cleanliness to morality.
I have not been either place but maybe somebody who have can compare to cleanliness of both places?
I think Japan is slightly different tho, from what I understand, they take a lot of pride in how they're presented to others. So whatever an individual does, reflects bad on the entire culture in their eyes.
Singapore is an interesting case study how a well-run government that restricts a lot of freedoms can work remarkably well. I wonder if this model is sustainable long term.
I lived in Singapore for a couple years and I can say that, at least as an expat, you hardly feel restrictions. Of the Singaporeans I know, locals from young to old, they all love it.
Like all countries, it has its issues, but consider:
- Freedom of religion particularly stands out
- It has great and affordable health care
- It's safe
- Very easy to do business
I could list more. Maybe freedom means something different to you than to me. Like I said, there's definitely room for improvement, but I think they're doing way more right than wrong.
As someone who live in Singapore, yeap, pretty much the same experiences. There's a lot of FUD about Singapore strictness but many are exaggerated.
E.g. If you smoke, you gonna hate Singapore. Because if you get caught smoking in the wrong area, you will be fined. If you throw the butts on the floor, you will be fined if an officer caught you.
Drug is one thing if you cannot live without, you shouldn't come to Singapore.
I think most people don’t “feel” unfree even in most dictatorships. You don’t read or hear about the people locked up. As long as you live a notmal life you will feel free.
The real test of freedom is when something goes wrong or you challenge the authorities.
I suspect your sample size was heavily biased to your own social class. Singapore is ruthlessly capitalist, and can be a terrible place to be if you're poor or a foreign worker.
One Straits Times (local Pravda) story I recall was about one of those old ladies who cleans up in hawker centres, earning on the order of S$100/month. This is way below a living wage, even in Singapore, and there's no state pension in Singapore either, so this was the sum total of her income. Because she couldn't afford an apartment, she slept (illegally) on the "void deck" (ground floor, exposed to elements) of an HDB housing block.
None of this was news, mind you -- the news was the fact that somebody stole her life savings of $50 from a cookie jar, and this is not permissible in squeaky-clean Singapore.
Many maids are also kept in modern-day slavery, working 365/24/7 and literally locked into the apartment so they don't run off and get pregnant, in which case the maid is forcibly repatriated and the owner is fined.
> Many maids are also kept in modern-day slavery, working 365/24/7
In order to get a maid in Singapore you have to pass a test. They are also paid ~500-700/m which is a lot more than they earn in their own countries. For example the minimum monthly income in Cambodia is roughly ~120$. So they earn a lot more in Singapore. Also maids must be given 1 day off per week.
Now every single person I know who has a maid treats them well, a co-worker of mine who is Indian paid for her maid to go back to India for 2 weeks while she went on holiday. This sort of thing is not uncommon.
Now that doesn't mean there are not bad apples in Singapore, I've read stories of maids who have been locked up and not paid, or forced to clean the outside of windows on the 20th story of an apartment block. But if caught, those families get in a lot of trouble. In asia, everything is about face, that doesn't go for just the families, in singapore it's the country too. So they put a lot of effort into ensuring people are safe and protected so it never gets a bad reputation.
> earning on the order of S$100/month
This is rubbish. The entry level for a cleaner is $1000/m, not $100, the salary goes up if you're skilled in operating cleaning machines and such, not just picking up trash. Also the government subsidizes salaries of workers over the age of retirement.
Singapore doesn't have handouts. You don't get handed money because you're old or unemployed. What they do is if you as a company hire someone over a certain age, the government will pay a portion of the salary. This is why Singapore has many workers who are old, and why tax in Singapore is so low.
Housing is also subsidized if you're a low income earner, or little to no family support. You still need to pay rent, but its a fraction of what non-subsidized renters pay.
You're confusing what ought to be with what is. Yes, maids are supposed to be given one day off a week on paper, but who enforces that? Maids and other foreign workers are also not supposed to pay huge sums to agents to score jobs in Singapore, but they do, often ending up in debt, with loan sharks threatening their families if they don't complete their terms.
It's not a question of "bad apples", but the system being stacked so heavily in the employers' favor that it effectively tolerates if not outright encourages abuse. The kind of thing that ends up in the courts and newspapers is only the tip of the iceberg: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-see-more-cases...
Note how frequently the employers threaten their victims with repatriation or the police!
Re: homeless cleaner lady, the story in question was ~10 years ago, but my understanding is that it was not a formal job, but some sort of off the books/cash in hand arrangement -- hence the $100 figure, which was indeed absurdly low even at the time. And not everybody can afford even subsidized housing:
> You're confusing what ought to be with what is. Yes, maids are supposed to be given one day off a week on paper, but who enforces that?
You been to lucky plaza on a Sunday? Chaos. Mustafa? Botanic Guardens? Gardens by the Bay?
These places are littered with maids every weekend. Some maids choose not to go out. 2 friends of mine have maids, and both their maids go out for 1 hour on Sunday to send money back, then come home, because they don't want to waste money.
The vast majority of maids live happily.
This is another case of "the minority ruin it for the majority". A few Muslim extremists have made a lot of the world think majority of Muslim people are bad people, when the majority are really awesome.
Of course there are people in Lucky Plaza and Mustafa on Sundays: there are on the order of 250,000 maids in Singapore, and around 1.6 million foreign workers total.
My argument is not that all Singaporeans are monsters, or that all foreign workers are oppressed, but that simply that the system as it is today has very few protections against the abuse of its most vulnerable, and the OP's claim that "all Singaporeans love it" is pretty darn starry-eyed.
I have my own issues with Singapore but the picture you're painting is ludicrously off-base. $100 a month? No-one, literally no-one, is paid that.
There's no such thing as a society without any injustice but in my experience the vast majority of maids are pretty happy with their lot and many spend decades in the service of one family. Indeed, I have often thought the maids in Singapore are happier than their bosses. Certain people will have issues, probably unsolvable, of any economic structure which allows anyone to have a maid but it's far better than what the alternative is.
>>Singapore is ruthlessly capitalist, and can be a terrible place to be if you're poor or a foreign worker.
That's an overly simplistic and inaccurate analysis. The protection of private property rights, and the freedom to contract, which collectively you call "ruthlessly capitalist", is what generates the economic opportunities that allow people in Singapore to hire foreign workers.
Without the market rights you are critical of, many of those foreign worker jobs would not exist. If you think the foreign workers would be better off in their home country, you have a naive understanding of migrant labor.
Japan and Taiwan come to mind. What's kind of unique about Singapore in Asia is that it's very wealthy, yet its social safety net and worker protections are quite lacking.
I have 2Gbs fibre optic broadband with no Internet filtering. I can download all the porn I want, view any site, etc. Complete freedom of religion. Prostitution is somewhat tolerated and licensed within defined areas, if you are so inclined for that sort of activities. Although section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore is a legislation which criminalises sex between mutually consenting adult men, it is not strictly enforced. The society has progressed to a point where gay relationships are a lot more prevalent and generally accepted.
Yes, there are some restrictions in terms of political activities and free speech. But, in my opinion they are a small price to pay for the generally safe/progressive/modern/clean society. Is it perfect? No, but still beats living in any other Asian society except perhaps Japan.
I lived in Singapore for 2 years as an exchange student. The city does get credit for what it isn't.
The level of competence of local civil administrators is overstated. All Singaporean oldtimers I knew were quietly lambasting their incompetence, but what you can give them is that, while being really mediocre at that, they were doing their job, and did it consistently year after year.
This is shows how far an institute of civil administration can go by "simply having people who simply do their job." This is what I see less and less in Western countries.
Regarding cleanliness, clean for sure, but Shenzhen central districts are by far more "squeaky clean." :D
Regarding Singapore's economy - pale and waning away. The country has an own economy for sure, but it is no longer a global player.
Before China's accession to WTO, a double digit of GDP was coming just from stamping "made in Singapore" on Chinese goods and reexporting them. The day China acceded to WTO, was almost a national day of mourning there.
Since then, Singapore's economy made a U turn, and became a gigantic offshore heaven for Chinese money. They don't really have any other major source of wealth other than that now.
LKY don't deserve to get credit for his "genius" for simply turning a country into an offshore bank.
> Singapore is an interesting case study how a well-run government that restricts a lot of freedoms can work remarkably well. I wonder if this model is sustainable long term.
To me it sounds like the worst kind of dystopia possible. The wrong mix of medieval and futuristic: you get flogged or killed for silly things, the economy is effectively feudal, and if you are ever somewhat happy about something (wow! no mosquitos!), this does not last long when you realize the sad truth (they have poisoned all their freshwater to kill all mosquitos and fish and frogs). Honestly, I would prefer to live anywhere else on earth before scary, inhuman Singapore.
My guess is that it will be more sustainable than government that restrict much less freedoms - people carry guns, have drugs, piss on the streets, destroy public properties and do all kinds of creepy things and government can’t really do much about it. How is that more sustainable
I'm confused. I carry a gun daily. I don't do drugs. I don't destroy public property, and I do all my creepy things in private. Having freedom does not mean you're a bad person. It means you are free to be who you are. Freedom allows you to see people's hearts. An iron fist shows you their fear. Given that the US is fairly sustaniable in a political sense (we average about 150 years between civil war, which is better than most EU countries), time will tell? Authoritarian systems don't seem to hold up with the ironman dies. It is an interesting idea to see what happens if you have an iron-committee.
My point is not about democracy vs authoritarian, but rather extreme individual liberty vs more restrictions (by law). Sure you won’t do bad thing but you cannot prevent every other people from doing so when it is their “freedom”. When a society tries to maximize individual liberty, there comes a heavy cost that it could drag down the total wellness of the entire society.
For example, chewing gum is forbidden for good reason in Singapore, vandalism is heavily punished, simply carrying drugs is a capital crime. All of these sacrifices in individual liberty actually make Singapore a much better place than US to live in.
Singapore also has a democratic process in their government. Given that most Singaporean are contempt with their government, there is no sign that people want one that maximizes liberty.
The standard reply would be - if the government controls everything and gets corrupted - it has the power to corrupt everything.
This is a worry - there is no feedback loop unless government makes sure it is.
On the other hand, if current government really can't control who will be elected next, then there is less chance that current government abuses power. And having armed citizenry reduces chances of government going totalitarian.. or so they say.
Sorry, I did not make it clear. I was talking about dynamics, IF government of Singapore for some reason in the future decides to do crazy shit - citizens will have harder time stopping it. That's all. I am not referring to situation right now, only in an unlikely future.
Plenty of democratic countries have severely corrupted leaders or government doing crazy shit. It’s not like democracy alone can make these shit stoppable
Our definitions of crazy shit are different :-) I am referring to large scale North Korea type shit, not the 'give government contracts to my friends' kind
I once wandered around Singapore for a few days, and their infrastructure is mostly great, except that I never encountered a single drinking fountain. Not in the airport, train stations, shopping centers, food courts, public buildings...
Does everyone buy/carry water every day, or how do they survive?
The official line here in Hong Kong is that the mains water is clean and drinkable, but the plumbing between the mains and your tap may not be clean. The Water Supplies Department maintains a list[0] of residential and commercial buildings whose 'last-mile' water supply is regularly tested and found to be safe and clean.
Only country in Asia? What? Japan, South Korea, Brunei, Hong Kong (in the latter, it can depend on the pipes in older buildings, but the water coming from the mains is definitely safe).
I just googled and see Japan tape water is safe to drink. I've been by hotels in Tokyo, Kyoto, and Mt Fuji all told me not to drink the tap water. Hence I thought it wasn't drinkable. Good to know it is!
> I've been by hotels in Tokyo, Kyoto, and Mt Fuji all told me not to drink the tap water.
I've traveled all over Japan including those places and others far more rural and never seen that, it sounds really strange. Are you sure it didn't say you can drink the tap water? Maybe in broken Engrish?
Only places I've seen in Japan with warnings against drinking tap water is on trains and porta-potties.
I don't know which hotels you went to but that is bizarre. All water in Japan is safe to drink and, furthermore, is some of the best drinking water on earth IMO.
You probably misunderstood, or perhaps the hotel staff were all sharing the same oddly wrong english handbook...
There are drinking fountains in Changi Airport, you can find them at the piers. They’re rarer elsewhere (usually found at sports and recreation centers).
It is normal in Asian countries to not have public drinking fountains. Water coolers in some shopping malls is as far as you'd get in terms of public water source.
>The aim wasn’t just to make the city more pleasant. A cleaner city, Lee Kuan Yew reasoned, would create a stronger economy.
>“These standards will keep morale high, sickness rate low, and so create the necessary social conditions for higher economic growth in industry and in tourism. [...]"
It's interesting that Singapore has, with this policy, become one of the very few unambiguously successful, unambiguously tropical countries. HK/Macao qualify, but historically had more support from their suzerains. Otherwise you've got, like, maybe Mauritius and Barbados. The desert oil nations would qualify, but their dryness prevents disease.
I love Singapore, and visit there often. The cleanliness is definitely one of the things that brings me back, even though I love travelling through most SE Asian countries (I was born in Malaysia).
However, I recall about 20 or 30 years ago, the cleanliness was much better, probably while Lee Kwan Yew was still in charge. I would see businessmen in suits stop and pick up cigarette butts in the street and bin them.
But in more recent visits, I notice locals walking past litter and butts more casually. It is still better than most cities, but I think the fastidiousness has worn off a little with the latest generation?
What I found really interesting when I there earlier this year was that the ethnic Chinese complained quite a bit about the strict laws, but the ethnic British or Malaysian didn't seem to be bothered by the plethora of laws, the didn't really seem to interfere with their daily life
Well, if you're a British executive or similar well-off job, it's not like laws restrict your daily life. Between your company, the expensive hangouts, the mall shopping, and the country club, you come so little in contact with them, you might as well live in London or New York.
If you're one of the statistically poorer ethnic Chinese or Malay, hustling to make a living, working in hawker centers, peddling some ware, running some small shop, trying to make a living, etc, you're more likely to brush with various laws and restrictions.
Some cultures also dislike restrictions more, and paradoxically that's truer for Chinese culture I find, than for British. Chinese culture might be ok with strong government and even straight-out dictatorship, but they are more laid-back, cheaty, work-aroundy etc in their day to day life (consider London vs Beijing driving for a crude example, or queue lines). I guess, less "by the book" is the term I was looking for.
(And yes, these are generalizations -- they're needed to talk about the world in any other way than on a case by case basis)
In contrast, keeping your environment clean and respecting it is ingrained in Japanese culture and respect for nature was born out of the Shinto faith which believes that there are "kami" or spirits in everything from nature. Instead of creating institutions that perform the work of cleaning, they should instead change the culture to compel the populace to respect their environment and to "leave no trace" instead.
Not returning your dishes is a different thing from littering.
If it's custom in a locale, it seems reasonable to leave your plates ... it's what we do at regular restaurants.
But not throwing rubbish in the streets - this is universally a good thing.
I sometimes see people throwing water or coke bottles out of their car here in Montreal I find it maddening that someone could be so crude.
Kids and Teachers doing a one-over, such a great idea. I believe it's probably strongly linked to creating conscientious behaviour overall.
I also believe there are strong psychological effects (i.e. 'broken windows') - if people see a slum, I think they're more likely to treat it as such, and visa-versa.
I love those clips on e.g. youtube where someone picks up the trash and throws it back in their face. Littering is illegal pretty much everywhere, but it's hard to enforce because there's not police everywhere.
It's not lawfulness that will keep the city clean it's institutionalized behaviour. In addition to being taught that in school ... things like 'shaming' enforce social behaviour.
It's the same thing that drives the non-usage of the 'n word' for example. North Americans don't use the n-word because of some kind of legality, it's socially taboo. If someone were to get out of hand with it, someone would say something.
One part not mentioned in the article is the cleaning up of nature areas. There are calls for volunteers to periodically go for coastal clean-up at nature and other less 'touristy' beach areas [1] which usually yields a lot of rubbish, but does show that some people are enough concerns for the environment to volunteer to do it.
I worked in Singapore in 2016 for a few weeks and loved the place. Being ‘cleaned’ was only part of it: people seemed happy there, I got the impression that people had jobs and were enjoying their lives.
After working there, I briefly tried to get a full time job there but ended up accepting a job in the US. Singapore rocks!
went to visit Singapore for a week. Some friends told me it was one of the best places to see in Asia.
Coming back from it, it looks to me as one of the most boring places on earth. Everything is indeed crazy clean and it reinforce to the fact that it looks as a place with no soul.
There is almost nothing to do beside working, going to the Casino or the mall. People like Singapore because it is clean and everyone speaks English
It's a full-on capitalistic, paternalistic, walled garden sort of society with some restrictions (strict gun and drug control, limited free speech, etc). If you want complete freedom (right to bear arms, shoot up drugs, spout any manner of speech, etc) Singapore is not for you. But if you are looking for safety, rule of law, good place to make money as a knowledge worker, and can tolerate some trade-offs in terms of freedom, it is a great place.
I lived in Singapore for six years and then San Francisco for almost six years now, but seriously, I don’t feel US is any more “free” in any tangible ways. Maybe there are more “freedom” defined by laws in US but certainly not something that normal people will miss in daily lives.
Also over focusing on “individual” freedom apparently won’t always align with the interest of the entire society and could eventually bring down the average happiness of individuals.
I agree. It's usually conservatives who use freedom as an excuse to argue against universal health care or to keep their guns. Instead, you're free to be bankrupted by medical bills, which I don't think is a better state of things.
It's aggravating to see how many people regardless of nationality would willingly trade away their freedom for some temporary gain and encourage others to do likewise. The next government can lay off all the litter picker-uppers but you won't get your freedom back in return.
Singapore has a net migration rate of 13.1 migrant(s)/1,000 population where the US only has 2.86 suggesting may more people find it an attractive destination than an area to escape from.
Some parts of the US restrict which color you can paint your house. That might seem like a huge negative for some, but plenty of people are fine with this tradeoff becase they care more for restricting the colors of others than they care about maintaining their personal freedom at any cost.
Expanding that to a wide range of similar issues may seem draconian, but it’s not without benifit. Which IMO is why Singapore does not have a mass exodus.
One can raise an eyebrow at a clean city that uses corporal punishment for visa overstays and the death penalty for drug offenses without being a radical libertarian.
All over the world there are testosterone poisoned males engaging in as much obnoxious behavior as they can get away with (e.g. riding motorcycles with no mufflers). Particulary coming from the Southern US it is absolutely delightful to be in a place where "rednecks" are completley suppressed.
> The country has long had an obsession with hygiene and cleanliness.
An obsession with shiny appearances. Hygiene and cleanliness? What a joke. So many meat shops don't store meat in a cold and clean place. Plenty of hawkers are far from clean.
> There are 56,000 cleaners registered with the National Environment Agency. There are likely thousands of independent contractors who aren’t registered. Mostly they’re low-paid foreign workers or elderly workers.
This says everything. It's easier to keep the city "clean" when you have slaves.
> Hygiene and cleanliness? What a joke. So many meat shops don't store meat in a cold and clean place.
There are legal statutes regulating this [1], and the enforcement agency (National Environment Agency) responds to all complaints about potential hygiene issues pretty fast.
I've reported some borderline cases where I felt that the places weren't storing cooked food properly, and I've always gotten a response including a statement that officers visited the place.
Would be curious to know why the negative votes? I'm leaving there, so that's not just an impression from a western guy trying to save human rights. That's how it works there.
Needless to say, that all the trash ends up somewhere. Maybe not so much in percentage, but you will definitely find litter every few meters. The difference to my hometown in Germany is, that the litter there stays for years but also not so much new litter per day is produced. Maybe the Singaporeans should place more public trash bins or get some moop bags.