Minister Shanmugam’s Facebook response to a recent commentary by The Economist was met with criticism from blogger Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh, a former Senior Editor at the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), who labeled it as whataboutism.
Sudhir’s critique, although wrapped in a guise of balanced opinion, edges towards undermining Singapore’s resilience by suggesting a subservient acceptance of foreign assessments.
Advocating that Singapore should meekly accept external commentary undermines the critical thought and assertiveness that have propelled Singapore forward.
Vadaketh’s commentary, which leans towards a passive acceptance of foreign views, risks promoting a narrative of compliance that does not serve Singapore’s national interest.
Minister Shanmugam’s response goes beyond countering critics; it is about ensuring that any criticism is grounded in respect and realism, not reductive stereotypes or colonial hangovers.
It’s about proudly showcasing the Singapore model as one that, despite its imperfections, offers a viable alternative to the often chaotic democratic models seen in the west.
Singapore’s history is filled with examples of standing strong against external pressures, such as the caning of Michael Fay despite U.S. protests and the execution of the Indonesian commandos Osman and Harun in 1968 for the MacDonald House bombing.
These actions were not mere reactions but principled stands against interference.
Singapore’s approach is clear: engage respectfully but rebut inaccuracies and biases strongly.
Being assertive is crucial, especially as we observe the trajectories of nations like the UK, where years of poor governance and a lack of clear vision have led to their overtaking by countries like Germany and China.
As Singapore continues its journey on the global stage, our interactions with international media must be firm yet adaptive.
Singaporeans owe it to themselves to engage critically, respond robustly, and tirelessly advocate for an accurate representation of the nation’s story.
Accepting criticism is constructive, but yielding without a firm stance is unacceptable.
