Singapore's Smallness
Why keep stressing “small”
In today's global climate, as compared to the 1930-1980s, there is less emphasis on the stereotyped advantages that comes with “big countries” and results in political clout on the global scene. Things like military might, wealth and technology are still important, but today most of the world talks more about (at least on the surface) issues such as environmental issues and morality, more of co-operation rather than blatant dominance. There is a strong sentiment over the use of force in the global scene, as seen in the situation with North Korea. All this leads to a general negative impression of “big” countries, such as US (for the mess they made on their own economy that also affects the global economy) and China (who is one of the main culprit of environmental pollution as well as the main player in the Spratly Island conflict in the South China Sea). After all, ever since the Cold War, not one country would be pleased to have the world divided into 2 political blocs and be at the mercy of either. In such a light, Singapore could have been wise to keep stressing that it is a “small” country.
At the same time our own government could also be emphasizing and reminding locals of the “smallness” of Singapore, firstly to prevent complacency from building up in the mind of its citizens. After all, though Singapore is well-established in its reputation as a Global City with effective and able citizens contributing to the world stage, it still lacks the natural defense of a “big” country, namely natural resources and a strong military force. In the event that our immediate neighbours decide to engage in a military conquest against us, there is little that we can do beyond requesting aid from our allies. Therefore citizens must not be foolish in thinking that our existing prosperity and reputation will be enough to secure our success in future years, but rather continue to build upon the existing positive state of affairs.
The second
In today's global climate, as compared to the 1930-1980s, there is less emphasis on the stereotyped advantages that comes with “big countries” and results in political clout on the global scene. Things like military might, wealth and technology are still important, but today most of the world talks more about (at least on the surface) issues such as environmental issues and morality, more of co-operation rather than blatant dominance. There is a strong sentiment over the use of force in the global scene, as seen in the situation with North Korea. All this leads to a general negative impression of “big” countries, such as US (for the mess they made on their own economy that also affects the global economy) and China (who is one of the main culprit of environmental pollution as well as the main player in the Spratly Island conflict in the South China Sea). After all, ever since the Cold War, not one country would be pleased to have the world divided into 2 political blocs and be at the mercy of either. In such a light, Singapore could have been wise to keep stressing that it is a “small” country.
At the same time our own government could also be emphasizing and reminding locals of the “smallness” of Singapore, firstly to prevent complacency from building up in the mind of its citizens. After all, though Singapore is well-established in its reputation as a Global City with effective and able citizens contributing to the world stage, it still lacks the natural defense of a “big” country, namely natural resources and a strong military force. In the event that our immediate neighbours decide to engage in a military conquest against us, there is little that we can do beyond requesting aid from our allies. Therefore citizens must not be foolish in thinking that our existing prosperity and reputation will be enough to secure our success in future years, but rather continue to build upon the existing positive state of affairs.
The second