Singapore’s earnest social campaigns, organised with much fanfare by its government, often draw mirth and scepticism from visitors who are used to more intrinsic behavioural values. While outsiders may find it strange for a country to spend millions of dollars on countless campaigns to tell people the seemingly obvious – be courteous; keep the country clean; flush public toilets – the majority of Singaporeans dutifully follow such exhortations on social behaviour.
Indeed, from the smiling immigration officer at a Changi Airport checkpoint to the helpful – and also smiling – taxi driver whisking visitors to their hotels in downtown Orchard Road, Singapore’s social campaigns appear, on first impression, to have been successful. Non-Singaporeans may be puzzled by such an apparently socialist approach by a government that is a proponent of a free-market economy.
But it has a spin-off more in tune with capitalism – behind those smiles is a dollar sign. Take the ongoing Singapore Kindness Movement (formerly known as the Courtesy Campaign) for instance, which costs the government at least S$1 million annually. The fact is, it is simply good business to smile at tourists and visiting businessmen, to encourage them to return. Government-sponsored advertisements often feature a mix of Singaporeans flashing rows of perfect pearly whites.
And look at the message on why Singaporeans should smile. One advertisement says: “Just one thing to keep in mind when you next see our visitors. Simply smile and be gracious. Make our guests feel welcome. It will mean a better tomorrow for ourselves.” So zealously was this campaign taken up that in 2006 the government sponsored a campaign to collect 4 million photos of smiling faces to welcome delegates for the IMF World Bank forum in the city.
A souvenir T-shirt pokes fun at Singapore’s reputation for petty rules and regulations.
Alamy
Socialist influences
Not all campaigns owe their origins to purely mercenary concerns, however, but have their roots in the socialist politics of the country. Singapore, with its majority Chinese population, was rife with Communist fervour in its early days. In the political struggle after World War II, democratic socialism emerged as the dominant ideology. Given this historical connection it is no wonder that social campaigns are an important part of the psyche of the Singapore government and its people. Over the years social campaigns have evolved from a Communist backdrop to take new meaning in modern Singapore.
Indeed, it seems there has been a campaign at every turn to match the needs of the day, from the perennial Courtesy Campaign to one which persuaded Singaporeans (not very successfully) to be punctual for wedding dinners.
Unusual road-surface health warning on Orchard Road.
Alamy
After National Smoking Control Campaign, Anti-Drug Abuse Campaign and Anti-Drink Drive Campaign, Know the Line, which deals with gambling, is the latest campaign to help citizens control their vices.
One of the earliest campaigns was the Family Planning Campaign. Launched in 1966, just after Singapore was asked to leave Malaysia because of political differences, it was the government’s knee-jerk response to a desperate situation: insufficient housing, unemployment and a declining trade economy. The solution: check the population growth.
To execute this, the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board was set up in 1966, to introduce population control and family planning. Many baby boomers will remember that they are the products of a nationwide campaign that exhorted their parents to “Stop at Two”. It was an aggressive drive that emphasised the restriction of incentives in housing, education, tax and health-care benefits – if families had a third child or more. In true socialist fashion, women were called on to be sterilised after the second child. Medical assistance for sterilisation was made affordable and quick. However, the government was to realise the folly of this campaign two decades later.
The Keep Singapore Clean Campaign was another early campaign in post-independent Singapore. First launched by the former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew in October 1968, its aim was to educate all Singaporeans on the importance of maintaining a clean environment. Slogans such as “Keep Singapore Litter-Free” and “Clean and Green City” were generously articulated.
To ensure that the collective efforts were effective, fines were introduced by the government to punish those who spit and littered in public. Fines are such a commonplace feature of the country that Singapore is often infamously known as the world’s “finest” city. Some snicker that the phrase “have a fine day” takes on new meaning in this island-state.
By the 1970s, unemployment was wiped out and adequate housing was provided, accompanied by spectacular economic growth. It testified that such campaigns were successful in achieving policy outcomes. The PAP, which enjoyed a monopoly over national politics and achieved political support from the majority, embarked on more social campaigns.
Hygiene campaign at a public toilet.
Getty Images
Respect the sign.
iStockphoto.com
Toilet training a nation
You may be fined if you are caught not flushing a public toilet after use. To drive home this point, the local paper did a daily review of various “Toilets of Shame” in the 1990s, complete with pictures of urine- and excreta-splattered public loos. However, to date, the campaign has not successfully admonished people into peeing straight.
Thankfully, though, no one has ever actually been convicted of this “crime”. It shows how difficult, if not ludicrous, it is to enforce such a rule – short of appointing toilet rangers to police every loo. But the situation is different in elevators. Ask any Singaporean who has lived in public housing in the 1970s and the 80s and they will tell you that people mistaking elevators for toilets used to be unpleasantly commonplace.
But Singapore’s civil servants have found a solution. Using high-tech gadgets, elevators identified as being frequently abused are fitted with urine detectors and labelled with a sign which caricatures a young naked boy with pants at his ankles and cuffed at the wrists. The gadget, when it senses the offending fluid, jams the elevator mid-journey until the doors are forcibly opened by officials. This has proved so effective that people now suspect that many urine detector signs in elevators are fakes, but no one wants to risk being caught with his (or her) pants down.
Campaign follies
By the 1980s, a decade of successful campaigning had resulted in fewer children. Singapore now suffered from a shortage of workers and the spectre of an ageing population had raised its ugly head: it has been estimated that by 2020 about one-fifth of Singaporeans will be aged 65 or above.
The government could now afford to be less heavy-handed. Rather than wave the stick of disincentives, it dangled carrots in the form of tax incentives. Never one to be cowed, the government launched a counter campaign, this time calling the people to “Have Three or More if You Can Afford It”.
Marriage is encouraged.
Singapore Tourism Board
The Graduate Mothers’ Priority Scheme was also introduced to offer incentives to female university grads who were mothers. They were encouraged to have more children and in return enjoyed hefty tax incentives. In contrast, the lowest-educated women were encouraged to stop at one or two children in return for a cash grant of S$10,000 in their social security funds, which could be drawn upon to purchase public housing.
The move sparked a furore among Singaporeans and led to lengthy debates on the topic of “nature” versus “nurture”. The PAP provoked considerable public criticism over its attempt at genetic engineering. The loss of two seats in parliament to the opposition in the 1984 general elections – for the first time since 1963 – and loss of nearly 13 percent of the votes cast from the election in 1980, showed the unpopularity of such a misguided policy. In 1985, the priority scheme for graduate mothers was terminated. Shortly after, the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board was closed.
To skirt around the issue, the government set up the Social Development Unit (SDU), conceived as a matchmaker for university-educated singles. Dubbed “Single, Desperate and Ugly” by its detractors, the SDU’s mission is to bring singles together for the purpose of marriage. Its programmes include subsidised outings and get-to-know-you sessions. The scheme was later expanded, and separate units were set up for those with more basic qualifications. The government’s unofficial policy of pairing off singles of similar educational backgrounds may raise hackles elsewhere in the world, but the success rate of the SDA and its sister organisations speaks volumes.
Speak Mandarin
The Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched in 1979 to get dialect-speaking Singapore Chinese to adopt Mandarin as a common “mother tongue” language. The campaign has worked: a 1999 study by The Straits Times found that six out of 10 Chinese students speak more Mandarin than English, despite Singapore’s English-dominated environment. But detractors claim this has been at the expense of English-language learning and that Singaporeans will have trouble communicating with the rest of the English-speaking world (and besides, a campaign aimed exclusively at the Chinese excluded the Malay and Indian minorities). The Singaporean authorities responded in typical fashion by launching the Speak Good English Movement in 2000.
Then there was the Romancing Singapore Campaign, which started in 2002 to combat falling birth rates. The aim was to convey the message that “love is in the little things”. Being more expressive with your partner at all times was encouraged and in 2005, it was taken over by the private sector and became a year-long festival.
Social campaigns today
In today’s Singapore, more and more campaigns are merged with technology. The nature of campaigns is changing its shape from written form to electronic transmission through the the internet. Phrases such as “Cyber Courtesy” have emerged to help tone down the language in chat groups. In 1998, the Courtesy Campaign was further narrowed down to mobile phone users as technological changes brought about new areas of concern. Campaigns are also changing to a discreet, less direct format. The government is now more concerned with policy-making and launching social campaigns that are not directly related to racial, ethnic and religious issues.
Members of the public pose for a photograph during a ‘Kindness Ambush’ campaign organised by the Singapore Kindness movement.
Alamy
Another change is that social campaigns today are supported by foreign investors. Most campaigns launched in the past few years secured large amounts of sponsorship from multinationals. Many have forgotten, it seems, the campaigns’ original links to socialism.
What has been the effect of these campaigns on the life of Singaporeans? On the socio-cultural plane, the Speak Mandarin Campaign has, for instance, reinforced racial differences in the community. Some think the millions of dollars contributed by taxpayers towards these campaigns promote the interests of the ruling party. For example, one journalist wrote in The Straits Times some years ago: “Here is what’s really scary: what if a campaign like Smile Singapore actually works? I mean, what will that tell you about our people? Do you really want such a pliant population, even if the message it is absorbing seems to be a harmless one?” Others, meanwhile, think that social campaigns bring a positive benefit to society, and that is reason enough to continue them.
However, many people will agree that some of the campaigns have been successful. The Keep Singapore Green Campaign has kept the tiny island, for all its concrete, fairly green. As a result of another campaign, Tree Planting Day, many more trees have sprung up, especially in the public housing estates. The PAP takes it so seriously that all its ministers are out in full force at this annual event to plant trees, assisted by numerous gardeners, of course. The Great River Clean-Up Campaign to clean the once filthy Singapore River was also a great success. Coupled with river activities and the redevelopment of buildings along Boat and Clarke quays, the riverside is now a big draw for tourists and residents alike.
A billboard from the 2006 smiling faces campaign.
PA Images
The government also realised that social campaigns needed to evolve to remain relevant to a more discerning society. In 2010, a well-produced and sleek $1.6 million social campaign ad to promote filial piety was broadcast on TV. It showed a patient middle-aged son caring for his bitter and angry aged mother, coupled with heartwarming flashbacks of how his mother cared from him when he was a child. The aim of this creative campaign was to inject some controversy and evoke a sense of passion among Singaporeans. This soft-sell campaign to promote family values created a buzz. It didn’t only get the press and netizens talking, it also managed to move the public to tears.