What do you think?
Rate this book
Singapore, Incomplete: Reflections on a First World Nation's Arrested Political Development
As the government lays the ground for a transition to a fourth generation of leaders after the death of Lee Kuan Yew and its 2015 general election triumph, Cherian George considers the unfinished business of political liberalisation and multicultural integration. Singapore, Incomplete is a collection of personal reflections about the country’s underdeveloped political culture and structure. “Ours is a middle-aged country with a maturing economy—but a political system that treats us like children,” he argues. George calls for more open “rules of engagement” that will protect and celebrate a diversity of ideas and beliefs. He critiques Singapore’s culture of fear, the lack of political transparency, and governmental groupthink. This is his first book for a general audience since Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation (2000).
216 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2017
17 people are currently reading
346 people want to read
About the author
Cherian George
17 books50 followersCherian George, born in Singapore in 1965, is a journalist-turned-academic who has written on Singapore politics for 30 years. After studying social and political sciences at Cambridge and journalism at Columbia, he spent the 1990s working at the Straits Times. He received his PhD in communication at Stanford in 2003 and is currently a professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
December 15, 2017
Bloody depressing but soberly and brilliantly written. I want to buy this as a Christmas present for everyone I know.
August 2, 2020
I have to credit Cherian George with sowing the first seeds of my political consciousness when I read his book Singapore: The Air-conditioned Nation. Essays on the Politics of Comfort and Control, 1990-2000 a few years ago (looong after its publication in 2000), at the behest of one of my best friends. In no small part due to his arguments and encouragement, that consciousness of mine is now more mature, more aware of the fuller picture from other sources, and more able to criticise his own essays in this, his second (non-academic) book. I was not fully convinced by several of them. (2) and (25) in particular seemed like filler material – wishy-washy, what’s-your-point, not edited enough – (16) made a pretty obvious (or beaten-to-death) point and in (12) I thought George was being too unfair/condescending to the PAP.
Nevertheless, Cherian is still one of the handful of commentators on Singapore politics I trust whenever I need to make sense of the seemingly sudden policy decisions and occurrences in my country’s political landscape. His voice is absolutely necessary (and entertaining) and I will continue to happily buy and support everything he publishes in the future. And I think he would be proud that I have grown enough to be able to evaluate his work with a more informed mind. (Maybe I should go back and reread TACN sometime haha)
My favourite essays:
* 8 From 2011 to 2015 – a good summary of the significance of those two elections for me, since I was out of the country at the time
* 10 Freak elections – "Elites underestimate the sophistication of the electorate.”
* 14 Elite cohesion – Not because it was particularly insightful, but because it contained some of the most hilarious lines in the collection
* 15 Disturbing the Peace – great phone contract metaphor, see below
* 17 Calibrated coercion – Reboot-repair-rehabilitate
* 27 Reforming the PAP – “Perhaps the lesson for those who want political change is to be firm about our chosen destination but not too dogmatic about which routes will get us there.”
Entertaining Quotes:
Nevertheless, Cherian is still one of the handful of commentators on Singapore politics I trust whenever I need to make sense of the seemingly sudden policy decisions and occurrences in my country’s political landscape. His voice is absolutely necessary (and entertaining) and I will continue to happily buy and support everything he publishes in the future. And I think he would be proud that I have grown enough to be able to evaluate his work with a more informed mind. (Maybe I should go back and reread TACN sometime haha)
My favourite essays:
* 8 From 2011 to 2015 – a good summary of the significance of those two elections for me, since I was out of the country at the time
* 10 Freak elections – "Elites underestimate the sophistication of the electorate.”
* 14 Elite cohesion – Not because it was particularly insightful, but because it contained some of the most hilarious lines in the collection
* 15 Disturbing the Peace – great phone contract metaphor, see below
* 17 Calibrated coercion – Reboot-repair-rehabilitate
* 27 Reforming the PAP – “Perhaps the lesson for those who want political change is to be firm about our chosen destination but not too dogmatic about which routes will get us there.”
Entertaining Quotes:
“In the government's eyes, democracy looks like the ungainly, hip-swaying Olympic sport of racewalking, with esoteric rules making it unnecessarily hard to progress from point A to point B, and which is treated seriously only because it came from the West and everybody is too politically correct to say, enough already.”
“These government spokesmen were like a talented school debating team who kept being assigned the same motion: This House Believes Liberal Democracy is the Answer for All Nations. And they were always put on the opposing side. After decades of practice, it’s little wonder the PAP team got very comfortable with speaking up against democracy.”
(Chapter 7, “Demophobic society”)
“Each time an establishment-type criticises the government, the occasion is greeted with great fanfare by Singaporeans longing to see the PAP taken down a notch. . .Sometimes they get carried away by the fantasy, like when netizens gleefully circulated a petition signed by Lee Wei Ling, expressing support for opposition leader Chee Soon Juan – only to have the real Lee Wei Ling come out to say she never signed it and proceed to prove that she was still a Lee progeny by dissing Chee as "slippery" and unfit for parliament.” (Chapter 14, “Elite cohesion”)
“Asking for more freedom of expression in Singapore is a bit like trying to get out of your mobile phone contract. Whatever reasons you give, the customer service department has already prepared a dozen ways to say no. You soon reach a dead end and realise the whole exercise was probably a waste of time. There is one big difference. The government, unlike your telecom provider, doesn't have to depend only on its own officers’ legalese to tell you why you can't get what you want. It can also rely on people around you chipping in to chide you for making a fuss. It's like being surrounded by fellow customers who – despite the fact that they too would benefit from a more flexible contract – recite on cue the reasons why we should be happy to remain locked in.” (Chapter 18, “Freedom of speech”)
February 4, 2018
Articulate, thoughtful, and humane, these short accessible essays, originally written as blog posts, tackle a whole range of issues regarding governance, media, and politics in Singapore. They adopt a highly reasonable tone. The advocacy of free speech, certainly a highlight of the collection, is the best defense by any Singaporean writer that I've read. Still, I find it hard to share the author's optimism in the next generation of leaders in the governing party and civil service. Any meaningful change will not be from within the establishment, but will be forced upon it by a truly powerful political movement. The political question is where such a force may arise.
May 16, 2018
Cherian George makes clear in the preface that Singapore, Incomplete is “not a manifesto...you will be frustrated by this book’s lack of a clear programme for change.” Instead, this collection of essays is meant to provoke debate and conversation, to make the reader “look at our society in new ways”.
Cherian’s criticisms of the political system would not be unfamiliar to many Singaporeans. But he argues succinctly and cogently that the system and philosophies that got Singapore to where we are today are neither sustainable nor desirable in the current context. Cherian points out that Singapore has a “culture of fear”. But the fear that exists is not just on the part of citizens, who are wary of crossing some invisible and shifting OB markers. Cherian argues that much of the Singapore system has been shaped by the PAP’s fears of what will come to pass if the current controls and boundaries were lifted. Singapore’s very identity is one that is premised on the fragility of its existence, that this peace Singapore enjoys can be shattered in an instant. Therefore, “[t]emplate government speeches refer to Singapore’s cultural landscape as ridden with ‘fault lines’, a geological term that treats our multiracial, multireligious character as a permanent risk factor, ready to erupt in violent disorder if we are not vigilant…In line with this bleak view, Singapore’s Racial Harmony Day doesn’t commemorate, say, the drafting of the national pledge, with its inspiring premise of unity beyond race, language or religion….it marks the anniversary of the 1964 race riots that killed 22. The overriding ideological message is not we’re diverse, let’s celebrate; it’s we’re diverse, so beware”. The question Cherian poses (no recommendations, remember, this is not a manifesto) is how Singapore can create space for diversity and see our diversity as a strength, rather than a weakness.
Fear of “inconvenient truths” and narratives that challenged its own, Cherian argues, led to the creation of media policies that silenced naysayers and critics. Ironically, the lack of open discussion on issues that were festering on the ground left the government blindsided when these toxic sentiments boiled over (e.g. the uproar over the Population White Paper in 2013 and the ugly xenophobia demonstrated by certain segments in Singapore when the Filipino community wanted to celebrate their Independence Day at Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza in 2014).
Fear of the conflict and protests that might arise should the status quo shift has resulted in censorship decisions erring on the side of conservatism (And Tango Makes Three, Ken Kwek’s Sex.Violence.Family Values) lest the materials in question caused offence to certain segments of the population. Cherian argues that these incidences show that Singapore’s “public bodies are underprepared for cultural disputes over identity and morality”. So public institutions try to sidestep controversy rather create procedures to tackle complaints and pressure tactics head on. Sidestepping controversy is one approach. A policy of “zero tolerance” (notably in the case of Amos Yee) is another. But Cherian points out that while “zero tolerance has worked well for Singapore in other areas, especially in combatting corruption…because corruption can be defined in a clear and objective way”, this is not the case with “provocative speech, which is always subjective and consensual.”
But above all, fear of outcomes that the party cannot control and that might be detrimental to its interests. Hence what Cherian terms “calibrated coercion”, a suite of subtle and surgical tools that the government could use to achieve its outcomes, without the use of blunt, clumsy force (like the ISA). So militant unions were tackled first by detaining labour activists, then more fundamentally restructuring labour relations by establishing the NTUC and creating a symbiotic relationship between that organisation and the PAP. Student activism was tackled by arresting troublemakers, then shutting down Nantah, vetting prospective hires and installing pro-government individuals at the helm of the universities. A media that supported nation building was created via the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act in 1974, which gave the government the power to name newspaper companies’ directors (which gave them a say in appointing editors and setting the editorial direction of newspapers), and required newspaper companies to be listed on the stock exchange, with no shareholder controlling more than 12 percent of its stock. As such, since the 1980s, the post of SPH chairman “has always been handed to a former senior public servant or minister.” And there were other supplementary tools, like the use of Singapore’s defamation laws, first against opposition politicians and subsequently online critics like Roy Ngerng.
He suggests that this fear on the part of the PAP stems from the political leadership’s relatively cocooned existence. “Politicians in most other countries reach the top only after long years of callus-forming battles against strong opposition, adversarial media and outspoken constituents. In contrast, candidates for high political office in Singapore are plucked from the more protected environs of the civil service and military. Most would have been psychologically unprepared for the online vitriol. The experience may have persuaded the leadership to write off Singaporeans who want more political space as unreasonable and impossible to please.”
In his earlier book, Air Conditioned Nation, Cherian discussed the politics of control in Singapore. In Singapore, Incomplete, he argues that this form of politics – this “unique blend of comfort and control” – is increasingly untenable. Singapore is unique in many respects. But Cherian points out the many oddities of political and cultural life in Singapore that one might find difficult to justify even given Singapore’s unique context. For instance, the IMDA’s “astonishing practice of posting consumer warnings on art with political themes” for instance. (Tan Tarn How’s 2011 play Fear of Writing was tagged “Mature Content” because “it presents the characters’ perspectives on the issue of freedom of expression, with references to the situation of political apathy and self-censorship in Singapore”.) Cherian notes wryly that “Singapore must be the only advanced country where public bodies in charge of the arts…treat exposure to politics as if it were sex or violence.” So used are Singaporeans to the “still waters of Singapore politics, they react queasily to the slightest notion. This leads them to react in a hostile manner to critics who believe they are acting in good faith and in the public interest, putting down individuals who get into trouble for opposing the government or responding with derision to (losing) opposition candidates for being stupid enough to contest against the PAP.
Cherian argues that it is only by opening up that the PAP will learn to “adapt to [the inevitable shift towards] freewheeling domestic political contention”, rather than insulating themselves from competition and debate. But this is a difficult shift to make if the party views the world through a lens of fear, rather than one of confidence borne from over half a century in power.
Cherian’s criticisms of the political system would not be unfamiliar to many Singaporeans. But he argues succinctly and cogently that the system and philosophies that got Singapore to where we are today are neither sustainable nor desirable in the current context. Cherian points out that Singapore has a “culture of fear”. But the fear that exists is not just on the part of citizens, who are wary of crossing some invisible and shifting OB markers. Cherian argues that much of the Singapore system has been shaped by the PAP’s fears of what will come to pass if the current controls and boundaries were lifted. Singapore’s very identity is one that is premised on the fragility of its existence, that this peace Singapore enjoys can be shattered in an instant. Therefore, “[t]emplate government speeches refer to Singapore’s cultural landscape as ridden with ‘fault lines’, a geological term that treats our multiracial, multireligious character as a permanent risk factor, ready to erupt in violent disorder if we are not vigilant…In line with this bleak view, Singapore’s Racial Harmony Day doesn’t commemorate, say, the drafting of the national pledge, with its inspiring premise of unity beyond race, language or religion….it marks the anniversary of the 1964 race riots that killed 22. The overriding ideological message is not we’re diverse, let’s celebrate; it’s we’re diverse, so beware”. The question Cherian poses (no recommendations, remember, this is not a manifesto) is how Singapore can create space for diversity and see our diversity as a strength, rather than a weakness.
Fear of “inconvenient truths” and narratives that challenged its own, Cherian argues, led to the creation of media policies that silenced naysayers and critics. Ironically, the lack of open discussion on issues that were festering on the ground left the government blindsided when these toxic sentiments boiled over (e.g. the uproar over the Population White Paper in 2013 and the ugly xenophobia demonstrated by certain segments in Singapore when the Filipino community wanted to celebrate their Independence Day at Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza in 2014).
Fear of the conflict and protests that might arise should the status quo shift has resulted in censorship decisions erring on the side of conservatism (And Tango Makes Three, Ken Kwek’s Sex.Violence.Family Values) lest the materials in question caused offence to certain segments of the population. Cherian argues that these incidences show that Singapore’s “public bodies are underprepared for cultural disputes over identity and morality”. So public institutions try to sidestep controversy rather create procedures to tackle complaints and pressure tactics head on. Sidestepping controversy is one approach. A policy of “zero tolerance” (notably in the case of Amos Yee) is another. But Cherian points out that while “zero tolerance has worked well for Singapore in other areas, especially in combatting corruption…because corruption can be defined in a clear and objective way”, this is not the case with “provocative speech, which is always subjective and consensual.”
But above all, fear of outcomes that the party cannot control and that might be detrimental to its interests. Hence what Cherian terms “calibrated coercion”, a suite of subtle and surgical tools that the government could use to achieve its outcomes, without the use of blunt, clumsy force (like the ISA). So militant unions were tackled first by detaining labour activists, then more fundamentally restructuring labour relations by establishing the NTUC and creating a symbiotic relationship between that organisation and the PAP. Student activism was tackled by arresting troublemakers, then shutting down Nantah, vetting prospective hires and installing pro-government individuals at the helm of the universities. A media that supported nation building was created via the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act in 1974, which gave the government the power to name newspaper companies’ directors (which gave them a say in appointing editors and setting the editorial direction of newspapers), and required newspaper companies to be listed on the stock exchange, with no shareholder controlling more than 12 percent of its stock. As such, since the 1980s, the post of SPH chairman “has always been handed to a former senior public servant or minister.” And there were other supplementary tools, like the use of Singapore’s defamation laws, first against opposition politicians and subsequently online critics like Roy Ngerng.
He suggests that this fear on the part of the PAP stems from the political leadership’s relatively cocooned existence. “Politicians in most other countries reach the top only after long years of callus-forming battles against strong opposition, adversarial media and outspoken constituents. In contrast, candidates for high political office in Singapore are plucked from the more protected environs of the civil service and military. Most would have been psychologically unprepared for the online vitriol. The experience may have persuaded the leadership to write off Singaporeans who want more political space as unreasonable and impossible to please.”
In his earlier book, Air Conditioned Nation, Cherian discussed the politics of control in Singapore. In Singapore, Incomplete, he argues that this form of politics – this “unique blend of comfort and control” – is increasingly untenable. Singapore is unique in many respects. But Cherian points out the many oddities of political and cultural life in Singapore that one might find difficult to justify even given Singapore’s unique context. For instance, the IMDA’s “astonishing practice of posting consumer warnings on art with political themes” for instance. (Tan Tarn How’s 2011 play Fear of Writing was tagged “Mature Content” because “it presents the characters’ perspectives on the issue of freedom of expression, with references to the situation of political apathy and self-censorship in Singapore”.) Cherian notes wryly that “Singapore must be the only advanced country where public bodies in charge of the arts…treat exposure to politics as if it were sex or violence.” So used are Singaporeans to the “still waters of Singapore politics, they react queasily to the slightest notion. This leads them to react in a hostile manner to critics who believe they are acting in good faith and in the public interest, putting down individuals who get into trouble for opposing the government or responding with derision to (losing) opposition candidates for being stupid enough to contest against the PAP.
Cherian argues that it is only by opening up that the PAP will learn to “adapt to [the inevitable shift towards] freewheeling domestic political contention”, rather than insulating themselves from competition and debate. But this is a difficult shift to make if the party views the world through a lens of fear, rather than one of confidence borne from over half a century in power.
January 28, 2018
I read this in a single sitting! Highly satisfying summaries which have characterised many issues that have shaped Singapore life today. He has footnotes and links here: http://incomplete.sg/notes/
Definitely for anyone in their 50’s who observed politics in Singapore.
Definitely for anyone in their 50’s who observed politics in Singapore.
March 24, 2018
😢😢😢
I'd like to imagine an alternate universe where this book is a compulsory text for the social studies subject in all our schools, and as an evaluation essay material (again) for all entry-level civil servants and government scholars. Only then, will our lives as Singaporeans be less incomplete.
I'd like to imagine an alternate universe where this book is a compulsory text for the social studies subject in all our schools, and as an evaluation essay material (again) for all entry-level civil servants and government scholars. Only then, will our lives as Singaporeans be less incomplete.
November 9, 2017
Timely, eloquent and necessary. I hope the right people read this and bring George’s ultimately optimistic vision of Singapore’s future to reality.
Read
November 26, 2017Cogently written (must be the journalist background, who said journalism no future? (oh, wait) Don't write Cherian George off as a sore loser angry with the government after being shafted by them, he has moved on since (both literally and metaphorically), but his heart still belongs here. You don't have to agree with him, but hearing him out? That, anyone can do. And after all, isn't that the heart of the democratic civil process?
___
The government's impulse to smooth out the kinks in the national fabric comes from an understandable desire to build a common identity so we can achieve great things together. The model for noation builders is a sense of manifest destiny (see: America, Israel). Unfortunately both these cases show that when you're convinced there's a divinely preordained plan for your nation, you're likely to inflict harm on people you think are standing in your way, such as those living there before you.
Racial Harmony Day marks the anniversary of the racial riots, rather than some significant moment like the drafting of the pledge, or the founding of the People's Association to foster multicultural values. The overriding message sent is not: "We're diverse, let's celebrate", but "we're diverse, so beware."
[Of the reserved presidential election] I can think of few political events that reveal so starkly the tendencies that prevent Singapore from maturing as a polity: the fovernment's distrust of the people, its insistence on getting its way, and its lack of finesse in dealing with contentious issues.
When asked if the film (Sex.Violence. Family) posed a danger, they probably thought to themselves, well, I can handle this, but I have doubts about the people out there. This is a fallacy so universal that academics have dubbed it the Third Person Effect.
What makes democracy the best political system ever devised is not that voters unfailingly choose good governments but that it gives them a peaceful way to kick out bad ones. This is nothing short of miraculous considering that, through much of human history, most people lived and died under yokes of oppression they were powerless to break.
One of the hard truths about democratic elections is that it's not just the answers that are in the hands of the voters, but the questions as well. Candidates can try to influence voters' priorities, but cannot dictate them. The ruling party believes that the only important question is "Who is fit to govern?", not "do we have enough opposition?" or "should we send a signal to the government that we're not happy?"
The White Paper seemed to give no indication that planning was driven by quality of life indicators rather than macro indicators of economic health. As such citizens were left feeling unassured.
If the government is not pretending that Singapore is a free country, there's no reason why our political controls need to be covert. On the contrary, if these constraints are in the national interest and above board, the government should have no shame about applying them openly. Singaporeans deserve to know where the lines are. This will reduce the irrational fear of the unknown and replace it with a clear picture of the limits of political participation.
[Best line of the book] Just don't ask Singaporeans to take part in a political cause. Forget liberty, equality and fraternity. Singaporeans are moved by IT, property and bubble tea. Not necessarily in that order.
Public opinion matters, but not as much as people like to assume. It has a transformative effect only when it is properly organised, turning swirling sentiment into political action. So-called "people power" revolutions and effective social movements have always operated through deep-rooted civil society networks like churches as well as elites that defect from the establishment. Online petitions and Facebook likes have no effect unless influential people and organisations harness them and strategise for change.
Some Singaporeans may feel there is nothing wrong with universities staying focused on teaching enrolled, fee-paying students without the distractions of public outreach. But one can't really compartmentalise the university's mission this way. Universities have to fertilise the soil they depend on. They have a role that goes beyond equipping and credentialing students for employment; beyond serving the needs of industry; and beyond developing its city's pulling power as an educational and research hub - all great strengths of NUS and NTU. It also has a civilising mission, to show how the pursuit of knowledge and reasoned deliberation are the best ways for a society to manage its contemporary and future challenges. This can only be achieved if a university is engaged with teh society of which it is part.
When a government treats electoral politics as the only legitimate space for debating highly contentious issues, the effect is to delegitimise civil society as a venue for deep political participation.
___
The government's impulse to smooth out the kinks in the national fabric comes from an understandable desire to build a common identity so we can achieve great things together. The model for noation builders is a sense of manifest destiny (see: America, Israel). Unfortunately both these cases show that when you're convinced there's a divinely preordained plan for your nation, you're likely to inflict harm on people you think are standing in your way, such as those living there before you.
Racial Harmony Day marks the anniversary of the racial riots, rather than some significant moment like the drafting of the pledge, or the founding of the People's Association to foster multicultural values. The overriding message sent is not: "We're diverse, let's celebrate", but "we're diverse, so beware."
[Of the reserved presidential election] I can think of few political events that reveal so starkly the tendencies that prevent Singapore from maturing as a polity: the fovernment's distrust of the people, its insistence on getting its way, and its lack of finesse in dealing with contentious issues.
When asked if the film (Sex.Violence. Family) posed a danger, they probably thought to themselves, well, I can handle this, but I have doubts about the people out there. This is a fallacy so universal that academics have dubbed it the Third Person Effect.
What makes democracy the best political system ever devised is not that voters unfailingly choose good governments but that it gives them a peaceful way to kick out bad ones. This is nothing short of miraculous considering that, through much of human history, most people lived and died under yokes of oppression they were powerless to break.
One of the hard truths about democratic elections is that it's not just the answers that are in the hands of the voters, but the questions as well. Candidates can try to influence voters' priorities, but cannot dictate them. The ruling party believes that the only important question is "Who is fit to govern?", not "do we have enough opposition?" or "should we send a signal to the government that we're not happy?"
The White Paper seemed to give no indication that planning was driven by quality of life indicators rather than macro indicators of economic health. As such citizens were left feeling unassured.
If the government is not pretending that Singapore is a free country, there's no reason why our political controls need to be covert. On the contrary, if these constraints are in the national interest and above board, the government should have no shame about applying them openly. Singaporeans deserve to know where the lines are. This will reduce the irrational fear of the unknown and replace it with a clear picture of the limits of political participation.
[Best line of the book] Just don't ask Singaporeans to take part in a political cause. Forget liberty, equality and fraternity. Singaporeans are moved by IT, property and bubble tea. Not necessarily in that order.
Public opinion matters, but not as much as people like to assume. It has a transformative effect only when it is properly organised, turning swirling sentiment into political action. So-called "people power" revolutions and effective social movements have always operated through deep-rooted civil society networks like churches as well as elites that defect from the establishment. Online petitions and Facebook likes have no effect unless influential people and organisations harness them and strategise for change.
Some Singaporeans may feel there is nothing wrong with universities staying focused on teaching enrolled, fee-paying students without the distractions of public outreach. But one can't really compartmentalise the university's mission this way. Universities have to fertilise the soil they depend on. They have a role that goes beyond equipping and credentialing students for employment; beyond serving the needs of industry; and beyond developing its city's pulling power as an educational and research hub - all great strengths of NUS and NTU. It also has a civilising mission, to show how the pursuit of knowledge and reasoned deliberation are the best ways for a society to manage its contemporary and future challenges. This can only be achieved if a university is engaged with teh society of which it is part.
When a government treats electoral politics as the only legitimate space for debating highly contentious issues, the effect is to delegitimise civil society as a venue for deep political participation.
May 25, 2020
I picked this up in 2017 and read half of it before giving up because it was bumming me out. That's not to say that I found it objectionable - far from it - but its incisive elucidation of the state of affairs in this country was disheartening, and the prescriptions, while sound, didn't seem like they would be heeded by either the populace at large or the extant regime.
Fast forward to 2020 and I thought I'd try to finish the book properly this time - especially timely considering the state of affairs we're all in - and I must say, while it remains hard-going for the same reasons as before, I still find that everything in it rings true. And if one had been expecting some salutary change, the reality is that the upstairs has been doubling down in exactly the ways Cherian George said they would. This is still a timely book: one that adroitly describes our arrested political development with a lucidity and self-awareness rivaled by few commentators in the local political scene. Seeing the online furore that he keeps getting into these days - whatever he's doing must be working.
I give this: 4 out of 5 white shirts
Fast forward to 2020 and I thought I'd try to finish the book properly this time - especially timely considering the state of affairs we're all in - and I must say, while it remains hard-going for the same reasons as before, I still find that everything in it rings true. And if one had been expecting some salutary change, the reality is that the upstairs has been doubling down in exactly the ways Cherian George said they would. This is still a timely book: one that adroitly describes our arrested political development with a lucidity and self-awareness rivaled by few commentators in the local political scene. Seeing the online furore that he keeps getting into these days - whatever he's doing must be working.
I give this: 4 out of 5 white shirts
March 9, 2025
Quite enjoyed this one! Very accessible writing with some surprisingly funny bits.
I don't agree with allllll of Cherian George's opinions, but he does bring up some valid points on Singapore's political landscape + gave some food for thought. The bits about Singapore's media landscape was especially interesting and relatable, as a current journalist and former journalism student at the very school he left/was "kicked out". AND as someone who was previously in govt comms ha.
Got a kick out of this one quote: "The public is not fooled, but that doesn't seem to bother government officials who handle the media. They appear to consider it a good day's work if headlines and story angles match the government press releases and talking points. Goh Chok Tong once stated that he did not want a 'subservient' press or 'government mouthpiece'. Today's officials evidently do." Cue the flashbacks.
I don't agree with allllll of Cherian George's opinions, but he does bring up some valid points on Singapore's political landscape + gave some food for thought. The bits about Singapore's media landscape was especially interesting and relatable, as a current journalist and former journalism student at the very school he left/was "kicked out". AND as someone who was previously in govt comms ha.
Got a kick out of this one quote: "The public is not fooled, but that doesn't seem to bother government officials who handle the media. They appear to consider it a good day's work if headlines and story angles match the government press releases and talking points. Goh Chok Tong once stated that he did not want a 'subservient' press or 'government mouthpiece'. Today's officials evidently do." Cue the flashbacks.
July 13, 2020
A necessary read for anyone with any sort of investment or interest in Singapore politics, even if just as an eligible voter. Professor George has a remarkable way of laying complex nuances and contradictions out flat so that even the least informed or educated (on Singaporean political affairs and history) would be able to grasp them.
April 14, 2018
A scathing but substantiated peak into Singapore’s unsaid political flaws, with several lucid policy recommendations.
One hopes that even if Cherian George’s prognoses are not adopted, at least his diagnoses will be acknowledged and debated.
One hopes that even if Cherian George’s prognoses are not adopted, at least his diagnoses will be acknowledged and debated.
February 18, 2018
some interesting insights albeit kinda inconsistent quality. could be a little repetitive.
December 10, 2017
This is less of a review of this book, but more of a random musing. I will not reiterate his views, which are very well expressed in the book. Agree or disagree as you might, go have a read through it, that is ultimately his point.
I managed to complete it within 2.5 days exactly just before Prof George's conversation session this afternoon.
What led me thinking, after today's conversation, was his point brought up his concession that the future narrative of Singapore will remain fully within the control of a select few, and it was his hope and wish that through his penning of this book, he would be granted an audience with these future leaders, and from there hopefully initiate and effect change for Singapore.
For myself, the layman Singaporean reader now in mid 30s, with a sadly underachieving portfolio, my days of dreaming to be a trail blazer, and part of something bigger has fizzled out. Thus, the question that gnaws away at me (albeit selfishly), is that where does that leave me, this puny ineffectual Singaporean, in the bigger scheme of things in life in Singapore? Is it really exactly as Prof George has jested, that I need only buy more copies of this book to share with others, and hopefully it finally gets into the hands of one of the future leaders of Singapore? Feels rather... I don't know. Should I bother anymore with anything?
I managed to complete it within 2.5 days exactly just before Prof George's conversation session this afternoon.
What led me thinking, after today's conversation, was his point brought up his concession that the future narrative of Singapore will remain fully within the control of a select few, and it was his hope and wish that through his penning of this book, he would be granted an audience with these future leaders, and from there hopefully initiate and effect change for Singapore.
For myself, the layman Singaporean reader now in mid 30s, with a sadly underachieving portfolio, my days of dreaming to be a trail blazer, and part of something bigger has fizzled out. Thus, the question that gnaws away at me (albeit selfishly), is that where does that leave me, this puny ineffectual Singaporean, in the bigger scheme of things in life in Singapore? Is it really exactly as Prof George has jested, that I need only buy more copies of this book to share with others, and hopefully it finally gets into the hands of one of the future leaders of Singapore? Feels rather... I don't know. Should I bother anymore with anything?
June 21, 2018
An intelligent and articulate analysis of some of the present day problems with the politics in Singapore. The author is open about his own experiences and point of view without coming across as grinding a bitter axe - he appears to genuinely care about this extraordinary country, his country, where he longs to see freedom and democracy fully explored, dared, and celebrated. I hope this book is widely read - whether or not you agree with every point he makes, Cherian George offers helpful clarity on the way things are currently, and carefully imagines how things could change for the better, if the will was there. He doesn't get bogged down in individual policies - his interest is in the 'how' things are done, how disagreements are managed, how fair and open and principled are the processes of power. For me as a foreigner living here, it has been helpful to read such a thoughtful set of reflections, so grounded in this context and empathic respect for the people of Singapore.
February 8, 2018
Thought-provoking book. Don't agree with him on some issues, eg. his more sympathetic stance towards Amos Yee and Roy Ngerng (tolerance has its limits and these 2 fellas have over-stretched mine), and his more ready acceptance of what the Lee siblings did to PM Lee (Cherian's dismissal of the importance of not washing dirty linen in public is at odds with my own belief) but on the whole the book did give me some ideas to chew on. It is a pity that his NTU tenure is now history. Many students would have benefitted from his sharp intellect and critical mind.
October 19, 2019
Cherian George writes a nuanced series of chapters on the political climate of Singapore, showing it’s strongly contoured by the ruling party who are adamant on keeping power even it means lack of debate, a fair playing field, gerrymandering, and intimidating opponents through laws in their favour and suing in a court of law. Journalists and the press are not free and Cherian shows how the situation has come about since independence. The author himself is a victim of the hardball tactics of the government who have power over all.
March 6, 2018
Finally - an honest reflection on the elephants in the room in Singapore. Questions I've often pondered but could never get a satisfying debate/answer on. A book I wish more Singaporeans would read, so we can starting building a vision for a future Singapore that's different from conventional narrative.
November 2, 2017
10 stars for this man, and for this book. The most required reading this year.
January 29, 2018
Read if you are concerned about ob markers in Singapore. Interesting analysis of general elections, presidential elections, freedom of academic press and press in Singapore...
April 4, 2018
Very insightful and well written. A welcome antidote to the bland media of Singapore.
May 5, 2018
Thoughtful essays as usual. Will definitely need a second read to digest
June 21, 2018
This is the proverbial blue pill for any Singaporean who wishes to wake up from the Matrix.
November 19, 2019
made some good points. nothing particularly new or groundbreaking but pleasant. would've liked it to go more in-depth
August 23, 2020
Informative and thought-provoking. Made me understand more about the diversity, culture, history, and promises of future in a country like Singapore.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews