In a recent development that has sparked controversy and widespread debate, the Singaporean government has allowed the image of the nation’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, to be featured on a limited-edition drink packet. The decision has raised serious questions about the government’s commitment to uphold it’s own guidelines. Minister of State for Culture, Community, and Youth Alvin Tan defended this move, asserting that it was a respectful tribute to Mr. Lee’s contribution in transforming Singapore into a green city. However, this explanation falls short of addressing the underlying issues and concerns that have arisen from this questionable decision.
According MCCY website on the guidelines for the use of Lee Kuan Yew’s image,
MCCY has drawn up a set of guidelines on the appropriate use of Mr Lee’s name and image:
The name or image or likeness of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew:
- could be used for purposes of identifying with the nation, including on works of art or publications or items for charitable purposes;
- should be accorded dignity and respect;
- should not be used by individuals or private organisations for commercial or publicity purposes, nor to suggest any kind of official endorsement of products or services; and
- should be in accordance with all laws, including intellectual property law.
Exploitative Commercialization
The government’s approval for Lee Kuan Yew’s image to be used on a commemorative drink packet has been widely criticized for what many perceive as the commercial exploitation of his legacy. While Yeo’s, the local food and beverage brand behind the initiative, claims that this product is not for sale and will be distributed for free, it cannot escape the fact that this is still a commercial product bearing the image of the statesman. The argument that it is an educational campaign to celebrate Mr. Lee’s contribution is dubious at best.
The image of a Lee being associated with a consumer product, even if not for sale, diminishes the purpose of the guideline that should be accorded to the memory of a man who played an instrumental role in the nation’s history. It is puzzling that the government would permit such an association when its own guidelines explicitly state that Mr. Lee’s name and image should not be used for commercial or publicity purposes.
How is this not a use by a private organisation for commercial and publicity purpose?
Disrespectful Disposal
Another glaring issue with this decision is the inevitable fate of these drink packets. As MP Poh Li San rightfully pointed out, these packets will most likely end up in trash bins, contributing to litter and raising concerns about the “undue disrespect” to Mr. Lee’s image. It is alarming that the government has not addressed this aspect adequately.
While Minister Alvin Tan suggested that the public should dispose of the drinks “in an appropriate and responsible manner,” this does not mitigate the fact that the government has allowed an image, associated with Singapore’s history and identity, to be disposed of carelessly. The lack of a concrete plan to ensure the respectful handling of these packets shows a lack of foresight on the government’s part.
And now the Government wants us to be responsible for the disposal of it in a respectful manner? Can I ask how is ever anything being thrown into a trash bin call respectful? Or can we all send the packet drinks to Minister Alvin Tan’s office?
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this controversy is the government’s apparent evasion of accountability. When questioned about the decision, Minister Alvin Tan attempted to justify it by stating that Yeo’s had consulted the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to ensure compliance with guidelines. This response, however, conveniently overlooks the fact that the decision to allow Mr. Lee’s image on the drink packet was ultimately a government decision.
The government cannot wash its hands of responsibility by passing the decision off to a private company. It was the government’s duty to uphold the guideline they decided themselves, and in this case, it has failed to do so.
The decision to allow the image of Lee Kuan Yew on a drink packet is deeply problematic and has raised valid concerns about the government’s judgment and commitment to their own actions and guidelines. The commercialization of his image, the careless disposal of these packets, and the government’s avoidance of accountability have all contributed to a situation that undermines the purpose of the guideline.
What do you think of a government that avoids accountability by finding excuses for their poor judgment and actions and sweep it under the carpet? The verdict is out there for all to see.
