This video looked at how Singapore succeeded (AltSimplified).
It broadly (and at times superficially) touches on Government Policies, Housing, National Wages Council, Singapore as a Transshipment hub, Petroleum refinement, Sovereign Wealth Funds, among the factors for Singapore's success.
Here's a 3 min video (The Why Minutes) on why Singapore is so rich (video doesn't really answer):
It notes that Singapore is blessed by our location, but also concedes that location alone is not the secret or the answer. He then suggests that "Direct Government Action" or government policies. But ALL government have policies. But Singapore's Government Policies are GOOD and have helped Singapore Succeed. Why?
At 4:50, this video ("The Geofocus Channel) offers a short list of factors for Singapore's Success:
These are:
1) A highly Educated Workforce
2) Low levels of corruption
3) An emphasis on English
4) An open Economy
5) The Freest Economy in the World
The answer is in there somewhere, but not clearly stated.
What Others can Learn from Singapore/Lee Kuan Yew:
Kishore Mahbubani's take: Secret of Singapore's Success
MPH: Meritocracy, Pragmatism, Honesty.
This is the summary from an ex-Brit "Why Singapore's Democracy is better":
His points:
1) No corruption
2) Think long term
3) Think of the welfare/interests of the people
And this three points is what makes "good Government".
"Why Singapore's Democracy is better than the West?"
Because Singapore (or LKY) realised a long time ago, that Democracy is just a popularity contest. Democracy in and of itself DOES NOT GUARANTEE GOOD GOVERNMENT.
All Democracy does, is to provide a system for selecting/electing a government. But people will have different reasons for voting for one person or another. And the reason may have NOTHING to do with the person's ability to govern, to choose wisely, or to make good decisions. It's like choosing an MP (or some other political office holder) based on how many friends he has on Facebook. Or whether he likes animals. Or is a Vegan.
The "tea party" (or invitation to "lim kopi") that Michael mentions is the process of the PAP recruiting members for their leadership. This is NOT a prescribed democratic process. You will not find this in Western Democracies. But the PAP Cadre (senior members) will have dossiers on potential MPs, or promising talents. They will invite these people to "lim kopi" (literally, "drink coffee") or "tea parties" as Michael describes them, where the senior PAP leaders will suss out their potential. Some may decline the invitation (for personal or other reasons). Some may take up the invitation and be found wanting and would never hear anything from the PAP again. And some may decline further invitations after the initial one for whatever reasons. But the PAP will have a pool to draw from at any time.
The "Developed" Western Democracies (hereafter referred to as "DWD"), do not have this deliberative approach to head hunting talent or potential leaders. The West believes in the competition of the marketplace of ideas. They believe that talent will out and the best will rise to the top. Like cream.
Not realising also that scum also rises to the top (or maybe studiously ignoring that scum also rises. )
The West has not learned that it is not only that Power currupts, but also that power attracts the corruptible. (That's why there are more scum in US politics than cream.)
Singapore understands both: And understands that the best person for the job, may not be the most flamboyant, flashy, extroverted, politicalised media hound. And that left to the competitive marketplace of ideas, some talent will never rise to the top, or be beaten by scums before they can rise.
So why is Singapore's "democracy" better than the West? Because we don't play dice with our future, or our government. Our leaders think long term and for the good of the country - Like Heng Swee Keat. He was in line to be the next PM of Singapore. BUT he bowed out. For the good of the country. He could have stayed in contention for his own personal glory. But he didn't. He stepped aside so the next PM will have time to develop and lead Singapore.
That's also a form of leadership.
Government (Video: How One Party Created the Singapore Economy)
If you ask 100 Singaporeans what is the one main reason for the success of Singapore, at least 60% (or more!) will say, "The government", or "the PAP". Many may even say, "Lee Kuan Yew".
The video above from "Behind Asia" (A Philippine based channel) suggests that Singapore's success is significantly due to good government.
However, they don't completely understand the Singapore Model, based on their misunderstanding of Minister's Salary (as a antidote to corruption), that Singapore can afford to provide subsidised housing because of our high per capita GDP (HDB has been providing subsidised flats from 1960 when our per capita GDP was about US$400. )
Singapore does not pay Ministers high salary to prevent corruption, but to attract talent.
Why is this important?
Because the way it is done in DWDs is that they let people who think they can do a better job at governing (no matter how deluded they may be, e.g. Trump ), run for elected office - governor, sheriff, mayor, MPs, or even President.
And, to keep those who want these elected posts "honest", the position pays pittance in relation to the position and power of the elected post. Which means that people of talent and ability, who would be more amply rewarded in other careers, would not generally seek a position in public office. Unless they have ulterior motives. Or are already so well-established that they do not need to consider pecuniary loss of such a "career".
Conversely, those who "voluntarily" seek such elected offices would be those who are unable to command such remuneration in their selected careers
But no. We do not pay our ministers million dollar salaries to prevent corruption. Take K. Shanmugam our Minister for Law, and Home Affairs (IIRC). For over 10 years, he was just an MP, and he declined every invitation to be a Minister. Why? Because he was a Senior Counsel. And he could make $5m a year easily as a Senior Counsel. If he took up the Minister for Law position, he would have to stop being a Senior Counsel, give up $5m a year in earnings, for a $1m salary. In trying to recruit talent, the PAP ran into this problem - talented people in business, finance, law, accounting, etc, were at the top of their profession and earning multi-million dollar salaries. Yes, some of them MAY decide to give up their lucrative jobs to do "national service" in the govt, but most will have families to support. After Shanmugam's children completed their studies, grew up into adulthood, and did not need his income to support them, he finally agreed to be Minister in the PAP govt. And took an 80% pay cut to serve his country.
Also we do not give million dollar salaries to the incompetent. Take George Yeo our former Minister of Foreign Affairs. He lost the election in 2011. Lost his Million dollar Ministerial post. He went on to take TWO high paying jobs (IIRC). Because he is that valued.
Video: "How Poor Island Became 4th Richest Nation" (Rudaw English)
A recap of Singapore's history and early challenges with poverty, housing, employment, and education. But does not reveal the real reason for Singapore's success.
There are many YouTube videos about Singapore's success and how Singapore got rich despite having no natural resources (so... we have unnatural resources? Supernatural resources like Lee Kuan Yew?).
Sometimes, they suggests that Singapore succeeded because of our location - strategically located at the end of the Malacca Strait, where 20% - 25% of cargo ships pass by.
A simple answer. Simplistic. Because, it's called the "Malacca Strait". There are other ports like Penang, Port Klang, Port Dickson, and even Port of Tanjung Pelapas. How did Singapore get to attract all those ships and get rich but not the other ports?
No comments:
Post a Comment