According to the Green View Index, the greenest city in the world is Singapore
City-State of Singapore, in Asia, is notorious for its high level of urban cleanliness. Educational campaigns, social norms and government “soft authoritarianism” drove the creation of a culture of public hygiene.
Singapore’s National Environment Agency (NEA) cannot be accused of inaction in 2025. Last year, it took action against environmental offenders more than 13.6 thousand timesaccording to a report released by the agency itself. In some critical points, around 300 targeted inspections were carried out – more than double the number recorded in 2024. More than 700 community service orders were also issued. Around 350 people were caught throwing rubbish from tall buildings.
Singapore is considered one of the cleanest cities in the world. But the fight against waste doesn’t end there. This became evident during the “Year of Public Hygiene” declared by the government in 2024, the focus of which was on public toilets, which regularly had low levels of cleanliness.
A specially appointed commission presented 10 recommendations – from improvements in design and professional cleaning to inspections and citizen participation. The government provided up to 10 million dollars in financing for renovations and deep cleaning.
“Keep Singapore clean”
To understand why cleanliness is so valued in Singapore, you need to broaden your perspective. For political scientist Marco Bünte, from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, this is one of the most striking characteristics of the city-state. Compared to others in Southeast Asia, Singapore’s administration, public transport, healthcare and education systems also work with remarkable efficiency. The state is “extraordinarily effective in maintaining public order,” Bünte told DW.
This development is closely linked to the country’s history. After independence in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew’s political leadership developed a clear vision of what the new Singapore should be like: clean, efficient and productive. The “Keep Singapore Clean” campaign, launched in 1968, was an expression of this ambition. Its objective was not only to eliminate waste, but also to change the population’s behavior.
Waste and modernization
Andreas Klein, head of the Singapore office of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, believes it is an oversimplification to consider this development solely as a result of government intervention. According to Bünte, although the government has established a clear structure, nowadays many citizens adopt these behaviors naturally.
The National Library Board’s historical documentation describes “Keep Singapore Clean” as part of a comprehensive modernization project. Sewage systems were expanded, along with waste management, public health laws were strengthened and diseases were combated. Cleanliness was considered a prerequisite for health, economic development and national pride.
From the beginning, the government had the involvement of schools, companies, the press and civil organizations. In addition to education and social pressure, penalties were also applied. The best-known example to date is the chewing gum ban.
Education and punishment
The extent of interventions in everyday life is illustrated by the example of the so-called street vendor centers. These now ubiquitous food spaces have evolved from largely unregulated street stalls. Through relocation, hygiene regulations and regular inspections, conditions have improved significantly. “This not only improved cleanliness, but also the health of the population considerably,” says Klein.
Bünte sees this as a feature of the political system. “It wasn’t just about cleaning public spaces, but also about educating the population about certain behaviors,” he explained. The violations were punished with severe penalties. At the same time, Bünte highlights that the same logic was applied in other areas, such as the fight against corruption. The model proved to be successful, but not without problems. Bünte sees this as a context of “soft authoritarianism“.
“Soft authoritarianism”
The term can also be found in academic literature. In their analysis titled Governing Like Gardening, political scientists Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir and Bryan Turner describe Singapore as a classic case of “soft authoritarianism”. The legitimacy of this system is based less on political competition than on economic success, security and stability.
A study from Nanyang Technological University (NTU) comes to a similar conclusion. For decades, the state has attempted to convey desired behaviors through posters, comics and campaigns. Humor facilitates the communication of social norms and can simultaneously “hide the power of the state” while generating approval.
Citizens appreciate a clean city
Klein also warns of the danger of understanding cleanliness solely as a consequence of state control. The oft-quoted description of Singapore as a “city of fines” is insufficient. Many people directly appreciate the benefits of a clean city, especially since hygiene is particularly important in the tropics, where it is also a health issue.
The fact that the State continues to intervene is evident today. Recent programs to improve public restrooms combine government funding, training, quality standards, citizen participation, and inspections. At the same time, in 2024 alone, about 1300 measures were taken against operators that did not comply with hygiene standards. The National Environment Agency (NEA) also continues to use monitoring, fines and community service for repeat offenders.
Therefore, the cleanup of Singapore is neither the result of state repression nor a mere expression of civic virtue. It arose from the interaction between infrastructure, social norms and government oversight. Or, as Andreas Klein sums it up: “I would consider cleaning up Singapore the result of a combination of factors: government regulation, education, social norms, public health, and a strong sense of civic responsibility.”
