Close

Donate today to keep Global Voices strong!

Watch the video: We Are Global Voices!

We report on 167 countries. We translate in 35 languages. We are Global Voices. Watch the video »

Over 800 of us from all over the world work together to bring you stories that are hard to find by yourself. But we can’t do it alone. Even though most of us are volunteers, we still need your help to support our editors, our technology, outreach and advocacy projects, and our community events.

Donate now »
GlobalVoices in Learn more »

Singapore: Is it a city or country?

Is Singapore a city or a country? This question seems silly since Singapore is globally recognized as an independent state. But for Singapore Law Minister K. Shanmugam, Singapore should be treated as a city. This remark triggered a debate in the blogosphere.

In his lecture during a meeting of the New York State Bar Association International Section, Shanmugam observed that many people are criticizing the dominance of a single party in Singapore politics because they are comparing Singapore with other countries. He insisted that Singapore should be judged as a city.

“…nobody questions whether there is a democracy in New York…. This is where most people make a mistake. I have tried to explain that we are different. We are a city. We are not a country.”

Cavalierio accused the Law Minister of “twisting logic” to justify authoritarian rule in Singapore:

And now, for all our efforts and sacrifices put into creating a precious piece of country, we are told that we are not a country after all. It sounded vulgar; sounded like a shirking of responsibility, like a dereliction of duty.

Singapore, if you are not my country, who is?

Shanmugam’s motive was less lofty: he was arguing that Singapore’s political system shouldn’t be measured against the yardsticks of ‘a normal country’, where Singapore would invariably appear undemocratic. Instead, he argued, Singapore should be compared to ‘cities’ like Chicago, San Fransisco, and New York City – cities that have enduring one-party rule. Cities that are democratic.

Sometimes when we reach into the crux of the matter, we find that it is the old chestnut again. The old self-serving chestnut of authoritarian rulers pretending to be a democracy, twisting logic to suit one’s power.

So in the end, the answers that Shanmugam provided to his American guests last week, about our press, our judiciary, our political system, were non-answers really. Pertinent questions explained away in a camouflage of rational non-responses.

Rachel Zeng wants Shanmugam to elaborate his point since she couldn’t understand that line of thinking

Personally, I find that a little difficult to swallow. If Singapore is not a country but a city, then which country is our city part of….

Well, I don’t get it. I will really appreciate it if our dear K Shanmugam will kindly enlighten us here since he has been paid so much to play a part in the governing of Singapore city.

Commenting on this blogpost, Anon clarified that critics should first read the full transcript of Shanmugam’s lecture to appreciate the context of his assertion that Singapore is a city, not a country

Read the transcript. When he spoke about Singapore being a ‘city’ rather than ‘country’ he was explaining why elections in Singapore were so lopsided despite us holding free and fair elections. He compared Singapore to cities in the USA, and how many cities in the US had a single party dominating elections for decades.

While he did say that Singapore “isn’t a country”, he certainly didn’t mean it that way!

Clement Tan is disappointed that Shanmugam, a leader from the new generation, would deliver a controversial argument like this:

I am very disturbed by what the Singapore Law Minister said… At least with Lee Kuan Yew and members of the older guard, I knew what I could expect from them- whether or not I actually agree with them, is another issue. But with K. Shanmugan, part of the newer generation of Singaporean political leaders, I'm not even sure if he actually believes, connects and knows what he's arguing for.

The Temasek Review dissects the loopholes of Shanmugam’s arguments

Did Mr Shanmugam make a “honest mistake” or a freudian slip? If Singapore is NOT a country, then are we still considered a sovereign and independent state? So which country owns the sovereign rights of the city of Singapore?

Singapore is unique in the sense that it is both a country and a city at the same time.

As an important minister in the Singapore cabinet, Mr Shanmugam’s words carry a lot of weight.

Why are Singapore males serving National Service when they are only defending a city and not their country? Who does our Prime Minister report to? What value does our pink IC have? Are we citizens of a country or residents of a city?

The Journey of a Decade believes that yes, Singapore is and has always been a city:

Not say I say what.. This sentence seems to have angered quite abit of Singaporeans…. Lets get this straight… no one said anything about Singapore being a country. We have always been a city.

We have always been an island city state. I can understand how we often we hear things like defending the country among others….it is not exactly correct. It should be defending the city.

World regions

Countries

Languages