Is Singapore the most boring place to travel in Southeast Asia?

Scores of angry Singaporeans posting this on FB and rebutting the writer's comments about how Singapore is the most boring country to travel to. The comments page at the article itself is also full of incensed Singaporeans calling out the writer for her biasedness and over-generalisation.
http://voices.yahoo.com/five-reasons-not-travel-singapore-south-6691622.html?com=3&cat=16

What intrigues me was that the plus points of Singapore, which many Singaporeans hastened to enumerate in their defense of their beloved homeland, might be applicable if I were living in Singapore, but mean very little to me if I was a tourist. Cleanliness, safety, law and order, yes yes, but the chances of me being mugged or robbed or infected with a deadly virus is low when I am just visiting a city for a couple of days. And honestly, the sense of superiority (which I'm the first to admit that I used to have) that Singapore is better than Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta or Bangkok which most Singaporeans seem to have rears its ugly head. There is nothing wrong with feeling proud about the city which you live in, but to continue to think that these other cities are capitals of strife and pestilence is sheer ignorance.

The most common rebuttal I have seen is that the writer came to her conclusion after only spending two days in Singapore. I don't think that is a convincing rebuttal - there are many cities which I will dismiss entirely just by reading a tourist guidebook or spending half a day in. Come on, I am most likely to spend my first half of the day at the most important you-cannot-miss-this attraction, and if the best that the place can offer fails to satisfy me, what hope is there that I will change my mind after staying there for a longer period of time? And if I were to imagine that I am a tourist visiting Singapore, the country would fall exactly into this category. Casino? Theme Park? Sentosa? Zoo? Night Safari? (and I LOVE zoos). We are constantly fed with propaganda about how good our zoo and night safari are (and I think there are good grounds for these claims), but honestly I have been more impressed with some other zoos or aquariums which I have been to. While the landscape and the facilities might not be that impressive, at least the animals, which is the main highlight when you are visiting a zoo I think, look more alive. The animals in our zoo look kind of sad - grouchy and lethargic, not unlike Singaporeans ourselves!

This hardware vs software observation can be seen everywhere. Heavily plastered and manicured Chinatown, totally deprived of any sign of cultural vitality - in short, a tourist trap. Fictitious, exaggerated, over-dramatized stories of the Merlion - itself a fabrication of the Singapore Tourism Promotion Board (come to think of it the Merlion is the perfect embodiment of tourism in Singapore - pretentious and unauthentic). Yes, I am aware that tourism boards all over the world need to create some kind of narrative (often warping historical reality to tinge the imagination), but Singapore is overdoing it. You feel like a child tearing open the exciting packaging, only to be ultimately disappointed at what lies inside.

I am also amused when people suggest that tourists should visit the heartlands which will show them what real Singapore is about. What exactly do these people have in mind when they say this? Go to a HDB estate and see aunties fighting one another for taxis? Schoolchildren dragging their tired bodies to tuition classes? Be amazed at the sheltered walkways and upgraded lifts which the government has built to entice the voters?

Of course I don't agree with everything the writer has said. We are not devoid of an arts scene, although our arts scene is not exactly thriving (even among Singaporeans) and seem too entwined with commercialization. Much of this arts scene is contemporary, and while I am personally engaged with contemporary art, this also means that you can find similar kinds of art all over the world, since contemporary art tends to focus on universal themes which are not unique to a country, unlike the more traditional art forms which had time to entrench themselves in a geographical location. Our museums, both historical and art, are extremely boring. I do blame the government because of its policies towards the arts - the obsession with big names and blockbusters instead of grooming home-grown talents, and the single-minded obsession with maths and science in the education system.

Neither do I deny that the writer is writing from the stereotypical perspective that "An Asian country should be cheap, quaint and culturally different". But then, this is clearly what ang moh tourists are looking for - why would they come to Singapore if it is expensive and unable to offer an experience which is different from what they would have back home? To ogle at our tight kebaya-clad stewardesses and enjoy the in-game entertainment when they are onboard a 12-hour SIA flight?

I think she has a valid point - articulating what most tourists want and not get when they are in Singapore, and it will be good if we learn from what she has to say. We don't have to agree wholeheartedly or demean ourselves to patronize the tourists, but to dismiss her article entirely because of nationalistic pride is foolish, and making us just as biased and uncritical as what many Singaporeans claimed the writer to be.