Why was there such a negative reaction to Chiang's article then?

At the end of my last piece in response to the EIU's report about Singapore being the world's most expensive city (for expats), I posted a link to Benjamin Chiang's article on Yahoo. I didn't talk much about it but I was very puzzled by the response to Chiang's article. After all, Chiang's article was very much a chest-beating exercise about how bloody fantastic Singapore is and how much Singapore is better than all of the rest of the world - I assumed wrongly that Singaporeans would totally love his article and share it on social media. But no, I was wrong - the reactions were mostly quite negative and even when my friends shared it on Facebook, it was with captions like, "this is why things are not getting better in Singapore, people want to believe articles like that instead of looking at reality."

So why did Benjamin Chiang miss the mark then? After all, this is what all writers want to do in this digital age, we want to hit a home-run when we put an article out there. We want it to be shared on social media and be viewed by thousands, tens of thousands rather than a few hundreds. That is why it is tempting to pander to popular sentiment - write something your audience wants to read and they will like your article. So if I were to write a piece about K-pop sentation T-ara for the T-ara international fan club, then a very complimentary piece about just how great their new single is would probably go down quite well with their fans - it's not rocket science. So why did Chiang misjudge the tone of his article when it comes to his audience - the Singaporean public?

Well, it is necessary to be subtle even when preaching to the choir - after all, Chiang's article is not just about Singapore, it was targeted at Singaporean readers. And here's the first mistake that Chiang made: he didn't give his readers enough credit. Don't be patronizing, don't start lecturing Singaporeans about Singapore as if they know nothing about the country they live in. Chiang reiterated many points that Singaporeans are already too familiar with: the fact that Singapore is a small country and all the subsequent implications of that - did you think that any Singaporeans were under the impression that Singapore was a big country?

Furthermore, it isn't size per se that upsets Singaporeans - it is population density, a point that Chiang has conveniently ignored. There are quite a number of countries in the world which are smaller than Singapore but they are far more sparsely populated: Last year, I visited Liechtenstein (technicality speaking, it's a principality) which is absolutely tiny (160 km²). That makes it about 22.5% the size of Singapore, yet there were vast stretches of forests and snow capped mountains in Liechtenstein - the locals enjoy one of world's highest standards of living. And of course, it is sparsely population: there are only 36,600 inhabitants in Liechtenstein. Compare that to Ang Mo Kio or Tampines where there are approximately 300,000 residents (packed into an area much smaller than Liechtenstein).

Limpeh in Liechtenstein last year

So let's compare this to Singapore: with 22.5% of the area of Singapore, they have 0.7% (note: not even 1%) of the population of Singapore. What does that mean in practice? There is more land to be shared amongst the 36,600 inhabitants, more space, bigger houses, cheaper properties, more open spaces, more parkland, more forests and room to breathe - despite the fact that they have just 22.5% the land area of Singapore. It's not size per se Mr Chiang, it is population density that matters. The next mistake that Chiang made was simply going over the top with the praise - good grief. Okay, I get it - this is a chest beating exercise but keep it real. Your audience are Singaporeans, not foreigners who don't know much about Singapore. Allow me to quote Chiang's over the top paragraph of praise:

"Basic education is virtually free. The destitute are taken off the streets, housed and helped back on their feet. The handicapped have social assistance. The poor also have similar assistance and help with job placement. A strong tripartite alliance is lifting both wages and productivity. Government handouts that neutralise the effects of Goods and Services tax. Very low income taxes. A forced savings plan known as the CPF, to guarantee a most minimum of savings to use for medical care and old age."

Just how good is life in Singapore for ordinary folks?

Aiyoh, alamak, even the PAP's PR team wouldn't dare to be that bold. No, basic education isn't virtually free. There are less homeless people than in New York or London, but it is not like Singapore is a poverty-free zone with no destitute people. As for the job placements for the poor, might Chiang be referring to the toothless FCF? And by the time Chiang got to the words 'government handouts' - I was rolling on the floor with laughter. And don't get me started on the CPF.

Look if this was some kind of chest-beating exercise to show white people just how much better Singapore is compared to Europe or America, then I can see how a misguided Singaporean would come up with something like this. But hang on a moment Chiang - your audience is Singaporean, so what makes you think they want to hear this from you? Why do you think there was such a negative reaction to what is (ironically) blatant praise of Singapore's success? Why do you think your message of good news and encouragement was rejected by your audience?

Where did Chiang go wrong as a writer?

Chiang went too far in his praise without sufficient moderation - one expects every good writer to address both sides of the argument, Chiang didn't manage to do that. More to the point, all this chest beating doesn't do anything for the reader. This reminds me of the SMRT's PR gaffe when they claimed boldly that they get 1000 compliments for every 100 complaints. Now here's the punchline - whenever you are faced with a situation like this, offer solutions, not excuses. You don't need some EIU report to tell Singaporeans that life in Singapore is expensive - they know it already. What they need is a solution to the situation and Chiang had none, he didn't dare to mention the elephant in the room but I will. Singapore also has one of the world's biggest wealth gaps - the rich get richer, well how about taxing these multi-millionaires a lot more and spending that money on helping the poor then?

Ooh you see, that's dangerous talk because that would be suggesting that things could be better, there is a solution but the government is not considering it, it would lead to readers feeling discontent with the situation. But are the readers after articles which talk about solutions or just articles reassuring them that everything is alright? Is Chiang trying to be the PR machine of the PAP, is Chiang trying to tell Singaporeans what the government wants them to think? Actually, no, I don't think so. I don't think that he is guilty of that - but in my opinion, he's but a writer who's desperately trying to hit a home run when it comes to coming up with a piece that he thought would be so popular with Singaporeans that will be shared on social media. And in trying so hard to be popular, he missed his target.

Writing well isn't a popularity contest. 

Let me explain what it means to 'hit a home run' for us writers. As a blogger, some of my pieces go viral, others are read by very few people - let me give you an example from this week. My hastily written piece on the EIU report went viral, generating over ten thousand views in a matter of 48 hours, generating over a thousand 'likes' on Facebook and it generated a great discussion on my blog as well. This all took me by surprise as it was something I'd thrown together in under an hour - proving to be as popular as some of my pieces on Alvivi, Anton Casey and Sun Ho & Kong Hee. Frankly, that is a pretty awesome result considering that my only platform is blogger.com - I am not publishing my writing onto a platform like Yahoo Singapore yet I still manage to write pieces that go viral. Had I known that it was going to go viral, I would have definitely put in a lot more effort into the article and perhaps have made it a bit more detailed. In contrast, I wrote another heartfelt piece this week about how watching TV affects our perception of the world around us and how we relate to people - I thought it was topical, insightful and funny, but guess how many people read it as of today? 756. Ouch. (Please guys, do read that article, it is good I promise you.) Chiang simply wanted his article to be liked, that's all, that is why he went so OTT in his praise of Singapore and it backfired.

You see, Chiang's upbeat mood of the article didn't match his audience's reaction when they saw the report - there's a need for writers to understand their audience and anticipate their reactions. Most Singaporeans were not pleased by the EIU report - it can hardly be treated as an accolade like "world's best airport" or "world's best education system" or "world's best (something to be proud of)". This was a title that is pretty hard to treat positively, even if we were to break it down, question the methodology behind the study and explain that it was really only for expats rather than Singaporeans. The rising cost of living in Singapore is an issue that does concern a lot of Singaporeans and Chiang simply did not take into account the public mood on the issue. There are occasions when you can write feel-good pieces for your Singaporean readers: this, however, is not one such occasion.

So there you go - that's my take on the issue. What do you think? Are Singaporean readers too hard to please or did Chiang simply miscalculated on this occasion? Where did he cross the line? Or do you actually like his article? How do you feel about Chiang's article? Do let me know what you think, leave a comment below. Many thanks for reading?