
Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore - ignored
https://palladiummag.com/2020/08/13/the-true-story-of-lee-kuan-yews-singapore/
======
wenc
Wow. This article is one of the most compelling I've read in a while. There's
even a bit in there about models and reality with respect to (authoritarian)
governance and size, and why simplistic schemata suffer from large errors in
larger states:

 _" Decision-makers must rely on simplified models to make their decisions.
All schemata are by nature imperfect representations of reality. Indeed, a
scheme that reflected reality perfectly would be cluttered and
uninterpretable. The reality is always more complex than the plan. In large
countries, the planner is further from ground reality than in tiny city-
states. Abstractions and errors inevitably compound as the distance
increases."_

and on first-principles:

 _" Ironically, Lee Kuan Yew himself had no patience for other people’s
models. In his words, “I am not following any prescription given to me by any
theoretician on democracy or whatever. I work from first principles: what will
get me there?” If there is a lesson from Singapore’s development it is this:
forget grand ideologies and others’ models. There is no replacement for
experimentation, independent thought, and ruthless pragmatism._"

In that sense, Singapore is like a startup at a country-level.

~~~
leafboi
I think because HN's audience is mostly US based there's a high level of bias
towards democratic governments.

I think if we all take a look at it from a unbiased angle it's all really
apples and oranges. A bad dictator is not so different from a democracy
electing bad leaders and a good dictator is not so different from a democracy
electing good leaders.

The thing with a democracy is that you have a lot of checks and balances so an
elected bad leader can't do much damage... but then again an elected good
leader can't do much good either.

~~~
hellofunk
This is somewhat of a naive view -- the risks of any kind of dictatorship far
outweigh any slight chance of good.

~~~
bllguo
Hand-waving things away with your absolutist statement is what truly seems
naive. IMO there is far more nuance than you suggest.

Democracy seems to work well for some types of problems but not others. What
happens to democracies when faced with threats that manifest over very short
timescales? They aren't nimble enough to respond in time. This is most evident
in larger democracies; look at US/India responses to COVID. Countries like
Taiwan are democratic and still succeeded, but they are small and they
utilized methods that would be characterized as authoritarian here in the US.

What about problems where the consequences of decisions have a large time-lag?
There is no incentive for democratic policymakers to address them. Global
warming is the obvious example.

I question whether democracies can handle these kinds of issues. More
worryingly, I think that as humanity's capabilities continue to increase,
these kinds of problems are going to be more and more frequent.

~~~
threeseed
Countries like Australia, South Korea and New Zealand have had exemplary
COVID-19 responses. It has nothing to do with whether you are a democracy or
not and everything to do with the competence of the government.

And the people of the US will have an opportunity to vote in a few months on
whether the response was adequate or not. I don't see the people of China
having a similar opportunity for example.

~~~
nradov
Did you consider it an exemplary response when Australian police arrested a
pregnant woman for attempting to protest lockdown measures?

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
australia-54007824](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54007824)

~~~
threeseed
I live in Melbourne and her arrest is widely supported. Our city is in a
severe lockdown and at a tipping point between New Zealand style suppression
and US style chaos.

Just because she is a white, pregnant woman does not mean that she has the
right to break the law and compromise the safety of the community.

~~~
stagehn
What does her being white have to do with anything and why would you even
bring up her race?

~~~
rbg246
Because the reaction to her arrest is a good example of white lady in
distress.

Whether you agree or disagree with her arrest and release like two hours after
this sort of stuff happens all the time with police but it's a big deal if
it's a white lady.

Just for the record im not sure I agree with her arrest but you know... Bigger
things to worry about

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome)

~~~
stagehn
Is "wide support" of her arrest (as framed by the person I was replying to) an
example of white lady in distress? That seems like the exact opposite of white
lady in distress. Or is the single person who thought the arrest was unjust
(further up) an example of white lady in distress?

None of this fits the white lady in distress definition. It just seems like a
way to smuggle in anti-white racism for no particular reason. Nothing about
this situation has to do with race in any way whatsoever.

~~~
rbg246
The fact that he was replying to a comment that used it as an example of
Australia's 'authoritarian' response to covid and the fact that it received
widespread news coverage and we all got to see her distress Vs the other guy
who got arrested and received zero coverage for the same crime seems to
suggest that this it is relevant and on the balance of probabilities a good
example of white lady in distress.

~~~
stagehn
He didn't use the 'authoritarian' framing (he sarcastically questioned whether
it was 'exemplary'), that's something you're presumptively attributing.

There was not 'zero' coverage of the guy's arrest, to the contrary there was
wide coverage as a Google search easily reveals. There's also two factors
you're not considering, (1) the guy ran a conspiracy theory group which
reduces sympathy for him, (2) the woman's arrest came first so it was more
novel and thus more engaging from a clicks perspective.

It's absurd that race is being brought into this as a relevant explanatory
dimension. Pernicious and divisive to say the least, leaving aside the fact
that there's no evidence that race is in any way relevant to either what
occurred in this case or the coverage of the case

~~~
rbg246
Look it's all subjective but their comments were hardly pernicious and
divisive - they were a fair observation of the situation.

------
sfifs
0ne of the pieces many articles discussing Singapore miss is actually the
quality of the people in the Government officer corps. This i think makes a
massive amount of difference in that a lot of what's planned in infrastructure
and processes is much better thought out and executed than in other countries.
It's the equivalent of the 10X programmer philosophy.

This is achieved largely by the government sponsoring the most
promising/brilliant students to study in top Western universities and offering
them quite competitive pay packages to join the government.

The Indian government's elite corps (IAS) as a contrasting example are also
composed of similarly brilliant people (including some of my own classmates),
but this is restricted to only the people at the very top of the hierarchy and
capability doesn't penetrate deep into bulk of the government, nor is
compensation as competitive which promotes corruption.

~~~
rudiv
> The Indian government's elite corps (IAS) as a contrasting example are also
> composed of similarly brilliant people, but only restricted to the people at
> the very top of the hierarchy and is not true for bulk of the government,
> nor is compensation as competitive which promotes corruption.

It may be anecdotal, but in my experience the officers of the Union Public
Services are in most cases not particularly brilliant, as you may expect from
a examination and qualification system that prioritizes rote learning. (my
anecdotal sample size being 3-4 IPS officers, 5-6 IAS officers and a couple of
other officers of the lesser known services, i.e. IRS, IDAS, IFS, etc.)

~~~
jagannathtech
I share the same view of yours.

btw brilliant or not, it is like a switch flips in their brain once they
become an IAS.... emperor of the universe/feudal lord firmware gets installed.

------
accurrent
Disagree on calling Suzhou Industrial Park a failure. I grew up there and can
say that while it may not have attracted the desired profit levels it
certainly did have miraculous effect on the people of Suzhou. Wages have sky
rocketed (as has property price). It may not have been profitable within 5
years, more than 400 fortune 500 companies had their factories located there
in 2014. Suzhou went from a city with two big super markets and one KFC to a
city with a mall around every block (and yes people could afford to spend in
these malls).

Also Lee's success in Singapore is not only due to his authoritarianism as
most western scholars put out, but also due to the sheer pragmatism of
Singapore's policy making elite. They respect no ideology but the one that is
suitable. If they need to have free markets they will have free markets. If
they need to regulate pricing they will regulate it.

~~~
AniseAbyss
According to some Westerners there is only one road that leads to prosperity.
Only Western culture and Western philosophy matters.

Blame that Fukuyama- who by the way already backpedaled in the face of real
history lol.

~~~
d3nj4l
I don't think so. The rise of China especially has been acknowledged as a
point against that, and even Fukuyama has acknowledged that :
[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3003547/ch...](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3003547/chinas-
authoritarian-way-can-rival-liberal-democracy-if-it)

~~~
hitekker
Fukuyuma's acknowledgement came two decades after the publication of "The End
of History". Given how strongly he advocated for the inevitable triumph of his
worldview, I think it's fair to label his admission in your article as
backpedalling.

------
not_a_moth
Singapore's population is very conservative, e.g. live with parents until
marry, homosexuality is illegal, a lot of pressure against interracial couples
(my experience), and essentially a single, dominant media voice.

There is a militant approach to education which produces nice test results,
but it doesn't produce young entrepreneurs, just conservative careers, helped
by statutory hiring quotas. I don't think the Singapore model produces much
innovation, they just really opened up to innovative foreign companies.

(Some reflections from my time living there)

~~~
xuki
> live with parents until marry

This is a culture thing, nothing to do with being conservative/liberal.
Renting in Singapore is expensive, therefore people prefer to stay with
parents until they can afford to buy their own HDB.

~~~
not_a_moth
Has everything to do with conservative/liberal. Living with parents your whole
life until marriage produces conservative non risk takers, and there is a
conservative political policy behind it that prevents you from obtaining HBD
housing until you marry.

~~~
ponyfleisch
I think it's really just more of the ruthless pragmatism that makes this place
so efficient and a consequence of land scarcity. Housing is limited and
leaving it up to the free market would exacerbate wealth inequality. Therefore
the government steps in with subsidized housing, which almost by definition
will have more demand than supply. Prioritizing young families makes sense as
the birth rate is below replacement.

------
supernova87a
Well, a leader can only do so much with what he/she is given. (or conversely,
for all the success, only attribute some of it to a leader)

One of the most important contributing success factors was that Singapore had
a population and people dying (literally dying) to have effective government,
material improvements in their lives, and a willingness to be compliant with
leaders who delivered.

It really makes a big difference when your people are cooperating with
government. It costs less. It produces more.

When your people contribute their own time and work, when people keep things
clean and disapprove of crime, when they don't tolerate disorder or
corruption, gangs, etc., when they don't sue each other left and right, you
achieve a lot more with the same resources.

It's a cultural thing, so it's hard to reproduce except over decades of
changing a people's mindset.

You could put all these structures in place somewhere else, but if people
don't want it, or don't support it, it could simply produce every run-of-the-
mill banana republic that we know all too well, with elite institutions and
guarantees of competence _on paper_ and nothing in reality.

------
xuki
The article failed to mention 1 important thing: LKY built an incorruptible
government. With all the power he had, he could have done so much better for
his family if he just tried, but that wouldn't necessarily be good for the
country. A lot of countries want to be Singapore, but few have a leader of his
caliber.

~~~
baybal2
> LKY built an incorruptible government

Google Temasik Holdings

~~~
sugarpile
Anything specific about it? The PM's wife being CEO is obviously a bit suspect
but it would be far more notable if the family was siphoning off money which
there are unsaid said things about but never anything explicit which is...
frustrating. So many untalked about things with regards to sg.

~~~
pydry
If Putin's wife ran the largest investment fund in Russia would you consider
that only a bit suspect?

If she were siphoning off money she would not be doing it an obvious way and
we likely wouldn't hear about it. They have a habit of bankrupting wannabe
woodward and Bernsteins and taking large sums of money from foreign news
organizations that say the "wrong" thing:

[https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/asia/in-singapore-the-
economi...](https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/asia/in-singapore-the-economics-of-
defamation.html)

Singapore is definitely good at rooting out low level corruption though.

------
sradman
The closing lesson:

> forget grand ideologies and others’ models. There is no replacement for
> experimentation, independent thought, and ruthless pragmatism.

The trick is distinguishing between what is truly pragmatic and not merely
ruthless. One wonders if some of the illiberal policies like caning are
regional necessities or minor pathologies that did not overwhelm the overall
trend towards liberalization.

~~~
bitwize
It works. It convinces people not to vandalize buildings and such.

------
coconut_crab
And let's not forget Singapore's strategic location in the center of world's
busiest shipping lane too. That's why Singapore is strongly against the
construction or Kra canal, which could shorten the route by ~1200 km bypassing
Malacca straight:

[http://theindependent.sg/the-real-threat-to-spore-
constructi...](http://theindependent.sg/the-real-threat-to-spore-construction-
of-thais-kra-canal-financed-by-china/)

~~~
turbonaut
Whilst it depends a bit which ships you count- the world’s busiest shipping
lane is generally regarded to be the Straits of Dover with about 400
commercial transits per day. [1]

1\.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Dover](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Dover)

------
hellofunk
My one disappointment with Singapore is the lack of genuine free speech, and
the lack of freedom of the press. This simple void causes many things that are
invisible to the eye, and it creates veins that run deep. Live there for any
non-trivial amount of time and compare that experience and your conversations
with peers to that of living in many places in the West, and the effect is
striking, the way this gap can so gently weigh on an entire people and change
individual personalities.

~~~
jhanschoo
Social media is changing this, but the lack of a robust civil society is still
glaring.

------
rudiv
Is Chandigarh really a massive failure? From where I stand it's the most
livable city in North India. (Of course, that's not a particularly mighty
accolade.)

------
jimmyvalmer
TL;DR:

Gist: Described as SG's "original sin," Lee's detainment without trial of pro-
Communist opposition in 1963 paves the way for one-man rule. Lee applies
scientific rigor to backwater of Southeast Asia.

Theory 1: SG's small geography is uniquely tailored for Lee's centralism.
Abstractions collapse and errors get magnified over larger distances (USSR,
China, Brazil). Lee and Chinese premiere Jiang Zemin apply SG's model to
Suzhou Industrial Park. Widely regarded as failure.

Theory 2: Strongman approach fails in Zimbabwe and North Korea because only
Lee is wise enough to pull it off.

Timeline:

1819: Stamford Raffles colonizes sleepy Malay village.

1940s: Japan captures and oppresses SG during WW2. Britain gradually
decolonizes in war's aftermath.

1950s: Moderate Lee and Communist sympathizer Lim Chin Siong emerge as leaders
of Western-educated PAP party. Lim dominates Lee in charisma and Mandarin
ability in rallying the key Chinese laborer demographic.

1956: Minister of SG Lim Yew Hock imprisons Lim and other Communist PAP
leaders citing public safety.

1958: Mollified by Hock's anti-leftism, Britain entrusts SG with full self-
governance in State of Singapore Act.

1959: Lee's PAP party wins election in landslide. Lee releases Lim and other
imprisoned Communists.

1961: Lim splits from Lee over Malay merger (Lee is for, Lim is against),
forming own party Barisan Sosialis.

1963: Lee wins Malay merger referendum. Lim accuses Lee of "cheating" and
"threats." Lee builds case for Lim's potential for violent subversion. When
Lim is discovered lunching with Brunei's rebel leader, Lee triggers "Operation
Coldsore" detaining Lim and 113 others without trial. Lim was released after
six years, moved to England and became a grocer.

1965: SG leaves Malaysian Federation. Lee cries on TV.

~~~
082349872349872
Theory 3: neither zimbabwe nor north korea are on the Strait of Malacca.

Malacca was just behind the Strait of Hormuz for oil transit in 2015:

[https://i.insider.com/551b00ef6da8112c6484d430?width=1300&fo...](https://i.insider.com/551b00ef6da8112c6484d430?width=1300&format=jpeg&auto=webp)

and it is strategically located in between Hormuz and Shandong:

[https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/ce/gjnvwxywkpw/ChinaOi...](https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/ce/gjnvwxywkpw/ChinaOilPortCongestion.png)
(July 2020)

Exercise for the reader: locate the paracels and spratlys. (S'pore would be
just off the bottom, on the left, lah.)

Crude Rules Everything Around Me.

------
gradschool
of possible interest to Star Trek fans:

"This character was only mentioned in dialogue. Lee Kuan shares naming
elements with Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of the newly independent
Singapore in the 1960s. Lee established a hybrid form of governance with
democratic and authoritarian elements."

[https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Lee_Kuan](https://memory-
alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Lee_Kuan)

~~~
rudiv
Star Trek has had quite a few real-life despots make cameos. The King of
Jordan was in there IIRC.

------
jackcosgrove
> Yet history is littered with the failures of authoritarian modernist
> regimes. Indeed, the record of utopian schemes to improve the human
> condition is dismal in the 20th century. In the Soviet Union, Stalin’s plan
> to transform “small, backward and scattered peasant farms to amalgamated,
> large scale socialized farms” led to brutality and starvation for millions.
> In China, Mao’s Great Leap Forward propelled the nation into the Great
> Chinese Famine. Even Le Corbusierian plans in Brasilia or Chandigarh have
> become embarrassing examples of government hubris. Why did authoritarian
> modernism work well for Singapore and poorly for others?

And given this track record, why is high modernism still given such pride of
place in the minds of the highly educated, who ostensibly are more attuned to
contradictory evidence than the average person? Singapore is held out as the
model when it is the exception.

I guess in the words of an old song, "everybody wants to rule the world."

~~~
leafboi
Obviously the world is a super simple place with super simple answers to
seemingly complex questions. When I asked my friend which is better
authoritarianism or democracy he told me the answer is complicated. I told him
to look at the evidence:

Almost Every civilization in history: egyptians, romans, greeks, China was
more or less some form of authoritarian government. They all failed.

Basically every single civilization that existed before modern civilization
existed Failed! The fact that the United States of America hasn't failed means
the US way (democracy) is the best and only way!

~~~
sam_lynx
I think "failed" is subjective, what we should really be looking at is whether
they provide for their citizens the best -- which democracy does.

~~~
leafboi
All the civilizations I mentioned were authoritarian. Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman
Caesars, Chinese Emperors. The history of all great civilizations is by a huge
majority created and maintained through authoritative rule.

In fact, modern anthropological theory states that the first step in the
formation of a big civilization requires central authorities to form first.

>what we should really be looking at is whether they provide for their
citizens the best -- which democracy does

America didn't have the capability to provide room for the influx of covid-19
patients. China built a hospital in a week. There's no question that for this
specific instance, authoritarianism provided better for its' citizens than
democracy.

Like I said. Complicated. Multifaceted.

~~~
dragonwriter
> America didn't have the capability to provide room for the influx of
> covid-19 patients

No, America had (and still has) central authority make (making) a conscious
choice not only not to direct energy at that purpose but to actively interfere
with subordinate authorities attempts to do so for purposes linked to
maintaining institutional power by placing blame.

There was no lack of capacity caused by the absence of central authority,
there was active prevention caused by the interests of central authority.

And the entire global pandemic is in no small part due to the delay and denial
initially by China before they decided they needed to deal with it, again
because of the propaganda interests of central authority.

There certainly is utility in central organization in dealing with things like
pandemics, but COVID-19 itself, especially the US and China subparts of it,
are hardly a ringing endorsement of “central authority good”.

~~~
leafboi
>No, America had (and still has) central authority make (making) a conscious
choice not only not to direct energy at that purpose but to actively interfere
with subordinate authorities attempts to do so for purposes linked to
maintaining institutional power by placing blame.

Right of course. You're talking about the HBB, the Hospital Building Bureau
the government sponsored central entity that builds all hospitals in the
United States obeying trump and not building any hospitals.

According to wikipedia:

    
    
       Health care in the United States is provided by many distinct organizations.[1] Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by private sector businesses. 58% of community hospitals in the United States are non-profit, 21% are government-owned, and 21% are for-profit.
    

Which is pure BS. Hospitals are centrally planned like you said by the HBB!
Central authorities are stopping hospitals from being built! Nothing to do
with private enterprise or the lack of central control! My friend told me it's
because private enterprise isn't reacting fast enough to demand because the
demand is temporary and there really is no profit for private business to
build more hospitals! What a stupid answer. Obviously it's a government
conspiracy.

------
pydry
There are a few key things to bear in mind about Singapore's growth model and
success:

* The proximity of power to population because it is a tiny city state. Singaporean governance is under extreme pressure to be effective because if it fails it cannot hide. This is a systemic issue that can be seen all around the world and is probably why some countries moved their capitals AWAY from population centres (e.g. brazil, myanmar): [https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8830780/Campante...](https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8830780/Campante-IsolatedCapital.pdf)

* The reaction to the communists. Lee Kuan Yew didn't just annihilate the communists with coldstore, he tried to replicate their policies to maintain his stranglehold on power (note the resemblance of HDBs to soviet style housing, for instance). In a way, his lack of any real conviction and ruthless pragmatism helped here. This was echoed later when an opposition party set up on a platform of smaller class sizes. PAP effectively strangled the party (largely through unethical means) but then recognized the power of the protests that led to this party's popularity and took their policy (ceding no credit of course!).

* Lee's economic policies were, while good, largely not his idea. He had the good sense to follow this guy's proscriptions though [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Winsemius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Winsemius)

I lived in Singapore for 3 years. While I acknowledge its success at
industrializing, I _hated_ working there. The authoritarianism and rigid class
structure permeates every aspect of life. This also made it a really bad
environment for tech to flourish IMHO, even though they threw money at it.
Creativity is massively stifled. Cargo cultism of silicon valley was rife.
Most tech startups and founder I encountered were fast followers and largely
treated developers like cogs.

~~~
freddie_mercury
I live in Vietnam and I've always been surprised at the large number of
Singaporean tech companies that open up development offices in Vietnam. And it
isn't (just) to save money on salaries. The average quality of a Singaporean
developer is shockingly bad for such an educated, developed country.

And saying that Vietnam has more creativity isn't exactly a high bar given the
similar values of Confucian hierarchy here!

~~~
xuki
The best developers in Singapore usually work in SV, because Singaporeans have
access to H-1B1 which makes it extremely easy for them to move over.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
You mean their H1B quota is somehow more liberal making it easier for them to
move?

~~~
xuki
Google H-1B1. It's essentially unlimited for Singaporeans.

------
fareesh
I've been all over the world, Singapore is my all-time favourite place to
visit. It's too bad that it's so expensive though - especially housing, else
I'd seriously consider living there.

If you haven't been, you're missing out

~~~
ValentineC
> _It 's too bad that it's so expensive though - especially housing, else I'd
> seriously consider living there._

Housing isn't too bad. My friends are paying around $600 USD for a room, and I
think the market rate is around $800 USD for en-suite.

It's even cheaper if you live in one of the newer estates, which don't yet
have a major shopping mall within walking distance.

~~~
fareesh
The houses seem really tiny

------
thisrod
I was fascinated by the details about politics in Singapore from 1945 to 1965.
You don't hear about that very often. In this account, PAP sounds a Chinese
mirror of UMNO; both parties could have been nurtured by the British, who
needed to produce an alternative to Chin Peng, who they could allow to win
Malaya's war of independence. It would be really interesting to hear about
British support for PAP in the early days.

------
dnprock
This article doesn't mention that Lee Kuan Yew was a staunch supporter of the
Khmer Rouge. It's a genocidal regime that killed millions of people. Lee
remains a strong supporter after he knew about the genocide. He also made
efforts to dodge responsibility. He said the US and China were bigger
supporters than Singapore. Financially, the US and China contributed more
money. But Lee Kuan Yew seems to be the mastermind behind the support for
Khmer Rouge. Lee Hsien Loong, son and successor of LKY, also made comments to
revise the history.

Singapore's role in the Cambodian–Vietnamese War against Communism probably
contributed to its rise. Singapore gained credibility amongst Western leaders.

~~~
leafboi
Let's not turn this into a character assassination. That's what they do in
politics and I hope HN is above this stuff.

Henry Ford invented the modern factory by bringing the conveyor belt into the
manufacturing system. He was also an anti-Semite who supported Hitler.

Do not ignore the fact he was an anti-semite, but also do not ignore the fact
that he invented the modern factory.

People are complicated, contradictory and multifaceted creatures... be
unbiased and do not discount one quality because you disapprove of another.

~~~
markdown
> Let's not turn this into a character assassination.

This discussion is filled with praise for the late dictator. But say something
negative and "let's not turn this into a character assassination". When
discussing a notable person, why shouldn't we talk about their flaws as much
as their positive attributes?

~~~
leafboi
Discuss away. It's just that posts like these tend to actually completely
assassinate the character and all discussions related to it. I'm just putting
this here to temper the sentiment before it gets carried away. I am in no way
trying to censor all criticism.

------
earthboundkid
1) LKY’s autobiography is incredibly readable. Highly recommend.

2) It’s bizarre that discussions of “socialism” turn on Venezuela and the USSR
instead of Singapore, which was explicitly governed by socialism.

~~~
refurb
Singapore socialism is quite interesting. From what I’ve read it’s bare bones
(we won’t let you starve), includes forced savings and cost sharing (you need
to have skin in the game).

Kind of capitalism with the minimal amount of socialism to maintain a stable
society.

------
hatenberg
All these articles tend to miss the fundamental point of city state
uniqueness.

With no internal market, city states work almost completely different from
other countries and if anything LKYs unconditional acceptance of this truth is
underpinning much of the countries success - embracing its role and
limitations and pursuing unique solutions suited for this situation.

Singapore started out, beyond a good location for a deep water habor, without
natural resources at all - a homeless orphan somehow clawing into a
billionaire neighbourhood despite having to pay for water, food, fuel, sand
(essential construction materials), energy - paying for imports almost every
other nations take for granted.

Surrounded by no exactly friendly countries, its sons have to sacrifice 2
prime years of workforce contribution to national defense, on top of having to
spend the equivalent 25% of Germany's defense budget despite only having only
3.5M citizens (compared to 120M)

It's a disadvantage so fundamental and overwhelming that any call to adopt
systems - econonic or social - is misguided. It's a place with little right to
exist in the global world and only a ruthless, focused government free of
ideological blinders would be able to make that work.

For Singapore to have value to the world, having no resources others desire,
means being more efficient, more nimble and smarter/harder working than anyone
else - its role fundamental connection between others that is so efficient
that it beats all other arrangement. Water independence from Malaysia alone is
a 100 year project - and has turned Singapore into the key exporter of
desalination tech in the world.

And the battle has only become harder- money/offshore finance was the key
lifeline and competitive advantage most small countries in the world in the
last century... it got pulled like a rug under most of them after 9/11,
necessitating much restructuring.

Changi is the world's best airport out of necessity, air sharing and absorbing
the value of sea - port location being the only advantage the country was
blessed with (and under constant attempts to be replaced by Chinese and
Malaysian ports)

Singapore is South East Asia's business hub out of necessity, using safety and
rule of law as a key advantage over the surrounding countries to attract
regional HQs for jobs, tax revenue and growth.

No, most of these articles miss the point, comparing full fledged countries to
city states while making some affordable to size as a supposed advantage,
glancing over the extreme disadvantage inherent to it.

With reputation and trust gained of decades but possible to lose in moments,
no, lofty talk of how things should be and simplifications and reflexive
typecasting around authoritarianism few western press articles really convey
the deeply nuanced and complex tradeoffs this country has to make to stay
alive and relevant.

No, left / right ideology has no place here, fundamental empirical and
scientific understanding of cold hard reality and day to day optimizing for
the country's long term actually make this a pretty good place to live,
especially in times of covid and LKY has more credit to that than anyone - not
just because he was smart but because he never lost sight of the fundamental
differences and unique solutions the country needed

------
melbourne_mat
Ask some of the million poorly paid foreign workers what they think of the
success of Singapore - I'm sure the story won't be quite as glowing.

~~~
ekianjo
A lot of non-residents are actually going there for a _better_ pay in the
first place.

~~~
dav43
I guess it raises the question - in the instance of say FDW (Foreign domestic
workers, who live with a number of families in Singapore) - just because it’s
legal, does it make it right?

I don’t know.

Majority of maids live in 1.5m x 1.7m rooms, get paid ~450USD a month
(anecdotal guess), are female and see their own kids for maybe two weeks a
year, work 6 if not 7 days a week.

Is that a society we should aspire to?

~~~
finolex1
Is that better than not allowing any such workers in at all (looking at most
of Western Europe and the USA)?

------
baryphonic
> In fact, it was highly conditioned by Singapore’s own context, and how Lee
> and the People’s Action Party (PAP) responded to the political dynamics of
> the time. The resulting model is effective in Singapore itself, yet
> inevitably limited by scale. Large social processes are more complex than
> any schemata can capture—and yet, authoritarian high modernist states must
> rely on schemata to make centralized decisions.

What happened to writing without heaps of jargon thrown in? Instead of
"Singapore's history and culture," we read, "Singapore's own context." And
there's the double usage of "schemata" two sentences later.

Before I outgrew my youthful Marx-Hegel phase, I might have thought writing
such as this was insightful. Now I see it mostly as pseudo-profundity that
communicates minuscule amounts of information, if any, wrapped in an
obfuscating layer of jargon.

------
vajay
I'm so tire of the Singapore miracle and Lee Kuan Yew hymn as someone who
received education and lived early life there. I do believe on certain grounds
they are produced and promoted by public relation department of Singapore
government, as a counter-measure to all the criticism concerning human rights,
free speech, totalitarianism, etc. To put it shortly, Singapore is just China
in minuscule, just that Singaporean officialdom knows how to conceal. There
are many myths/narrative constructions regarding to this city state. 1,
Singapore government is immune from corruption and highly efficient. To be
fair, Singapore government is very efficient and officials not corrupted at
low levels. However, at high levels, it's a different story. Things are just
concealed. One department buying useless software and renewing license for
millions every year from some 2-people company, do you think it's corruption?
remember it's not a democracy you can hold officials accountable. At top
level, well, they own the country. Also, as a totalitarian regime where all
decisions are made by a few feudal families, Singapore government made many
wrong decisions that cost trillions. For example, it spent a huge amount of
resources to biopharmaceutical industries for years in belief that this will
have great economic gains, which turned out a total failure. Baisically they
can do anything without any kind of mechanisms to check. 2, Singapore is a
(economic) miracle. Authority in Singapore since the very beginning has been
saying that Singapore before PAP(People's Action Party) is a dirt poor fishing
village, in primary schools, on textbooks, in scholar studies, etc. Well, this
is a severe distortion of truth to say the least. In colonial era, Singapore
had already been far ahead of other regions in South East Asia in every
aspect. And that's why Singapore less than 1% of the land counted more than
50% of Chinese immigrant population in the whole Malaysia. People came to
Singapore for money! In fact, in late 1800s and early 1900s, you can make
about 5-10 times of what you can in other Malaysia cities for same job. 3,
Singaporean people are living a happy life. Some certainly are. Majority is
not. Singaporean people's life standard is quite low, given its GDP. In fact,
the philosophy from top, is, people's very basic needs are to be met, but
anything else should be a luxury that they need to labor very hard (for us) to
get. Singapore's wage is not high. Very basic food and shelter is not
expensive to be fair. But if you want some comfort from life that most people
in the world can have rather easily, you are probably not able to afford. I'm
not talking about bmw or luxury condo, i'm talking about ice cream, beer, high
quality fruit, air-con, Toyota, etc. 4, Singapore is meritocratic and being
pragmatical. Again, at low level of officialdom, it is, to a great extent. But
there's saying in Singapore, people who got to make public transportation
policies never take public transportation in life. You get the idea. To
understand this, you need to know some Singaporean/Malaysian history. There's
a people called Straights Chineses, to which Lee Kuan Yew's family belong.
Straight Chinese is what later Chinese immigrants call them. They don't deem
themselves as Chinese. Lee Kuan Yew only changed his name to Chinese and began
to learn Chinese in his late years. That history is quite completed. As I
said, Singapore is just China in minuscule. Whatever you think of China, be it
good or bad, applies to Singapore. I personally don't think highly of it.
Actually there's a perennial quitter phenomenon in Singapore. Those who make
it thru to middle class, especially professionals, tend to leave.

~~~
f00zz
Please insert some line breaks

------
kingkawn
Capitalism’s version of North Korea

------
baybal2
I lived 2 years in Singapore as an exchange student.

The economic success of Singapore is a relatively new phenomenon, and it was
largely a doing of Lee jr., not Lee sr.

LKY was not well versed in matters of economics, and industry, and his
forceful early industrialisation pushes failed miserably. For the bigger half
of its history, Singapore was not that successful economically.

The money came to Singapore when it liberalised financially, and became a tax
heaven.

LKY severely lacked vision, and ambition, and was very content with Sing
remaining a "Lee family villa." What has really brought the change was LKY's
extremely timid kid, who conceded much of authority to technocrats.

~~~
MrPowers
LKY ruled from 1959-1990. Singapore's GDP over that time grew at a 14%
compound annual growth rate:
[https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SGP/singapore/gdp-
gros...](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SGP/singapore/gdp-gross-
domestic-product).

~~~
frank2
Part of that is from population growth. We can control for population growth
by using GDP per capita:
[https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SGP/singapore/gdp-
per-...](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SGP/singapore/gdp-per-capita)

\--which gives a rate of growth of 10.7%, and some of that will be inflation:
the data is denominated in USD, which famously inflated rapidly in the late
1970s and early 1980s.

Here is my math: solve for _rate_ where e ^ (31 times _rate_ ) = 11828 / 428\.
(I am compounding continuously.)

ADDED. according to
[https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm),
the dollar inflated by a factor of 4.39 between 1959 and 1990, giving an
inflation-adjusted rate of 5.93%.

I wonder what South Korea's economy did during those years.

~~~
MrPowers
The macrotrends website says "Data are in current U.S. dollars", so the number
I presented should be the real GDP growth rate. I think correcting for
population growth is OK, but don't think your inflation calculation is
correct.

~~~
beefman
"Current dollars" means nominal dollars. Inflation-adjusted data are called
"constant dollars". The desired series are here

[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD)

Over the 29 years 1960-1989, Botswana experienced the greatest growth at
11.6%/year, followed by South Korea at 9.6% and Singapore at 8.6%. World
growth was 4.1%, and U.S. growth was 3.6%. The worst performer was Guyana at
0.6%. (This among only those countries with available data at the start and
end years.)

The same comparison for the period 1990-2019 shows top performer Equatorial
Guinea at 15.0%/year, followed by China at 9.5%. Singapore weighed in at 5.6%,
the World at 2.8%, and the U.S. at 2.5%. Bottom performer was Ukraine at
-1.4%, and second-worst was Georgia at 0.2%. Former bottom performer Guyana
faired much better at 3.8%.

Population does not cause GDP. Adjusting for population will give a better
idea of changes in living standards but won't explain the differences in
economic growth.

Population _density_ may be related to economic growth, and for this reason it
may be misleading to compare Singapore, which is essentially a city-state, to
nation-states.

