Singapore
May 20th, 2011 at 10:00 am by David FarrarDanyl at Dim-Post has blogged on Singapore. His argument is:
Singapore is the darling of free-market, right-wing parties. Which is strange, because Singapore is the world’s ultimate nanny-state: not just culturally in the sense that the government controls the media and all forms of entertainment, but in the sense that it’s essentially a massive socialist state in which the government micro-manages the whole economy.
Danyl gives four examples which I want to discuss and partially rebut. Danyl is correct that Singapore is no libertarian pure capitalist society. But neither do I think it is a massiviely socialist state.
The right likes Singapore because they enjoy a low corporate tax rate. It’s currently at 17%. Pretty low. In New Zealand it’s 28%. But in Singapore the government owns the Ports of Singapore, the busiest port in the world, which is the key income earner for the entire economy. Our economy could be ‘like Singapore’ if we nationalised Fonterra and all of our dairy farms, because this would provide a revenue stream comparable to that of Singapore’s port. Then we could have a really low corporate tax rate and finance the government through the revenue from its capital assets, like they do.
Danyl way over-states the importance of the port to the Government’s books. The port has a Net Profit After Tax of S$1.2b – around 2% of total Government revenue, and 0.5% of GDP.
Even Temasek Holdings overall has a mere $4.6b NPAT. Have a look at the NZ SOEs combined NPAT and they are not an order of magnitude different.
Danyl has a point that the Government has a diverse revenue base, beyond taxation. But he overlooks how massively low the tax rates are. he mentions the 17% corporate tax rate but neglected to mention that personal tax rates are even lower. If you earn S$100,000 your tax is only $5,650, so under 6%. Yes 6%!! I’d effing allow the Government to own a couple of ports if it meant my tax rate was 6%.
Singapore also has low income taxes. But Singapore ALSO has a compulsory savings scheme in which you pay 20% of your income into a private savings account, and your employers are compelled to pay 15%. This pays for your healthcare and retirement. It’s not a tax in the technical sense in that you don’t pay it to the government – but you can classify it as such for net income purposes, and if you do then taxation in Singapore is higher than it is for the majority of New Zealanders.
Danyl misses the point entirely here. The money you have to pay into a compulsory savings scheme remains your money!! This is not the Government taking money off you to spend on everyone else. This is forcing you to save to pay for your own health costs, retirements costs etc. This is absolutely what many on the right want. The difference in incentives is absolutely everything. Having 35% of my salary go into my private savings is not at all a disincentive to working. It is the opposite – the more I work and earn the more I get to have to cover my health and retirement costs.
Next right-wing canard: there’s no welfare in Singapore, therefore unemployment is very low. Welfare in Singapore is pretty basic. And unemployment IS low. There are a few reasons for this: the state pays employers a retention bonus not to lay people off. And if someone does lose their job they go into a mandatory job-placement and re-training scheme. And if overall unemployment increases then the government launches a new development and soaks up the jobless. There isn’t a lot of free-market magic operating in there – it’s all intensive micro-management by the state.
Again Danyl misses the point here. It is about culture. It is shameful to rely on others before your own family. THe retention bonus not to lay people off was a temporary thing, and the level of state invovlement is not that major. Danyl overlooks that in NZ we had 200,000+ people on welfare even when unemployment was the lowest in the world. I’d take the Singapore system over the NZ system anyday.
There’s a lot of other non-free market aspects to Singapore’s economy – like the fact that almost all business and residential property is owned by the state, either directly or via its sovereign wealth fund, or that you have to pay the state about $16,000 for a permit to buy a car, and then a daily congestion tax to use it.
Here Danyl is on stronger ground. The permit to buy a car is bizarre. The congestion tax though is just sensible user pays. But the overall point is that the Singapore Government is not a pure free market Government. Absolutely.
But let me tell you I’d take their economic “bad” with their economic “good” anyday. And if we did, we’d be a lot better off.
Tags: Dim-Post, Singapore
May 20th, 2011 at 10:16 am
My doctor is from Singapore, we often have chats about the Singapore solution for New Zealand.
He is of the opinion that it wouldn’t work here for a number of reasons.
1. Kiwis are too lazy
2. Kiwis are too selfish
3. Kiwis aren’t prepared to take that kind of medicine
He finishes usually by saying that Kiwis must like being poor. I think he is right.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:20 am
How would things work out for you in Singapore Whaleoil? Taking into account your well known medical issues.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Whale-
Its hard to know if we are lazy or selfish since we have a huge number of unproductive, uneducated poorly skilled workers (if you can all them that). They are a massive drag on the economy. And we have more and more coming through the school system. Is someone who can barely string a sentence together, can’t add and can’t write lazy- or did they just never get their act together at school?
Vote:Or are we just 4. Too dumb?
May 20th, 2011 at 10:32 am
And yet the Dr. chooses to work (and presumably live) in NZ.
Funny that!
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:32 am
@bchapman – considering a large number of our graduates go overseas to work I’d say the problem isn’t a lack of education, it’s a lack of good well paying jobs.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Add to that a profound (and ingrained) dislike of the so-called “rich”. In other words, envy.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:39 am
YWD,
I know its a pretty unfavourable vicious circle developing. Our skilled and talented disappear off shore which reduces our productivity. Wages drop and those who stay are the plodders who become comfortable with low expectation performance.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:42 am
The Doctor chooses to live and work in New Zealand because of its more relaxed lifestyle.
Nonetheless he is still the product of a country that values hard work, rewards it accordingly, its rigorous education system and compulsory military training.
He is right in suggesting that Kiwis aren’t prepared for the sacrifices that come from the system that also delivers the rewards.
Here we want the rewards without the sacrifices…there is a place for that…its called Fantasyland, and Phil Goff would be the Prime Minister of it.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:46 am
he is still the product of a country that values hard work, rewards it accordingly, its rigorous education system and compulsory military training.
He is right in suggesting that Kiwis aren’t prepared for the sacrifices that come from the system that also delivers the rewards.
Here we want the rewards without the sacrifices…there is a place for that…its called Fantasyland, and Phil Goff would be the Prime Minister of it.
Just to clear things up, Cameron – are you still on the sickness benefit, while you’re going off on your four day hunting trips?
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:51 am
This is why Danyl is seen as a satirist and not an economist or a great economic thinker.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:52 am
“The permit to buy a car is bizarre.”
It’s just a tax to reduce the number of cars.
Singapore has 2 of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world which is pretty good for a country of 5 million people without oil. 20 years ago the average NZ income was higher than the average Singaporean income. No longer. I’d still not like to live there though, police states arent my style.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:57 am
He is of the opinion that it wouldn’t work here for a number of reasons.
1. Kiwis are too lazy
2. Kiwis are too selfish
3. Kiwis aren’t prepared to take that kind of medicine
I heard the same thing from a news report from a taxi driver taking some Singapore businessman to the airport, as in the lazy bit. He had just also come from Australia where he said the same thing about them as well.
No doubt about it Caucasians aren’t as industrious as Asians but who wants to work from 9AM to 11PM every working day, which is what they do.
I think Kiwis would be prepared to take the medicine if things are bad enough, and I find it interesting an Asian is calling Caucasians selfish. Hasn’t he looked around at how poor people live, in Asia? That’s very selfless of the Asian people, isn’t it, letting kids live on rubbish dumps et al.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:58 am
There was one Singaporean in my class at Engineering school. Hell of a good guy. He had done his compulsory military service in their paratroop regiment. The best stories most of the rest of us had were all about piss trips or our most annoying customers at Maccas…
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:58 am
A few things DPF.
Firstly, I wonder why you keep pointing to the Dimpost as an example of logical thinking on the left. The last few days have seen this post on Singapore, a post on how some guy who worked as a lobbyist for the Americans looking to weaken Pharmac as a traitor and was trying to destroy the health system, and some rather inane commentary on how it was impossible to make savings in WFF without reducing anyone’s payments (classic government misdirection around absolute v’s real increases). It’s very shallow stuff.
Secondly, on cars in Singapore. The whole island is about 30km across, and they have a fantastic public transport system plus a lot of taxis. There aren’t a lot of reasons to have a car in Singapore, and there isn’t a lot of room to drive one. The permit system is a quota system – they limit how many cars they have room for, and if you want one, you bid for a permit. That’s a very right wing concept, and it works pretty well. It’d be a bit different in NZ, where you’d have a lot of limitations if you didn’t have a car and lived in some locations – a farmer without a car would be pretty isolated.
My main issue with Singapore is the political system, and therefore lack of freedoms. I’m not sure whether it’s possible to have their economic system without their political system. I suspect it’s not, since I can’t point to any examples. Perhaps that’s an example of people not being smart enough to vote for what’s good for them?
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:05 am
I bet most of the lefties who pollute Kiwiblog would change their spots after living in Singapore once they see their bank balances grow and would be more than happy to embrace the heavy handed statist policies they have there.
Don’t see many Singaporeans complaining about their country.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Don’t see many Singaporeans complaining about their country.
That’s because it’s against the law.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:15 am
‘It’s very shallow stuff.’
Must be a different dimpost to the one I read. It’s normally very thoughtful stuff and generally most of the posts are expanded by the discussion in the comments section.
If you want shallow you don’t have to look very far…….
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:16 am
The whole island is about 30km across, and they have a fantastic public transport system . . .
Built and owned by the government. Tell us more about this free market utopia . . .
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Perhaps Danyl could provide some examples of countries where his economic preferences have worked?
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Perhaps Danyl could provide some examples of countries where his economic preferences have worked?
In the middle decades of the 20th century almost every western country was a democratic, regulated capitalist welfare state and that led to the greatest economic boom and most rapid rise in living standards in human history. Maybe we could try that again?
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Too bad about the population boom that’s happened since then, and the amount required to bring public infrastructure up to equivalent levels would see people fleeing the country left, right and centre.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:31 am
lol, never thought I’d hear a lefty pine for the ’50′s, not very progressive that. Perhaps we could start this revival with a jolly good world war also?
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Singapore is “a benevolent dictatorship”. According to my Singaporean friend who lives there (very happily).
One party permanently in government, won 81 out of 87 seats just a couple of weeks back (and the six reported as a ‘breakthrough’ for the opposition parties).
>Don’t see many Singaporeans complaining about their country.
Try something called temasekreview.com
I’ve no idea who they are or how valid their complaints, but there seem to be a lot of them!
Sample: “The Singapore economy is near breaking point and cannot be sustained going forward without society tearing apart, says a former government economic planner who has just completed a 45-page paper “Creating Jobs and Enterprise in a new Singapore economy – Ideas for Change”.
Sample: “The government is now indulging in suicide economics and policies and we will end up in self-slaughter.”
I’m not commenting ON their economic policies. Just that not everyone there thinks they are so marvellous.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:36 am
In the middle decades of the 20th century almost every western country was a democratic, regulated capitalist welfare state and that led to the greatest economic boom and most rapid rise in living standards in human history.
Danyl it culminated in the stagflation in the 70′s, the oil shocks, the long-term strikes in Britain, etc. This was the inevitable outcome of widespread application of Keynesian economics. The Keynesian period ended with Reagan and Thatcher and this began the era of glabalisation and the wholesale application of Heyeckian economics that we see round us today.
Hayeckian economics BTW, weren’t responsible for the GFC. Some people think it was, but they just don’t understand.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Danyl: In the middle decades of the 20th century almost every western country was a democratic, regulated capitalist welfare state and that led to the greatest economic boom and most rapid rise in living standards in human history.
Give this man the Nobel price, this research and such findings are so unique, they eclipse Paul Krugman completely.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Among the usual “no skateboarding”, “no smoking” type of signs at Changi are “no studying” signs. The need for such a sign, if nothing else, demonstrates the difference between Singapore and New Zealand.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Another reason Singapore unemployment is so low is because of the very high proportion of overseas workers, who (as I understand it) are required to leave the country pretty much immediately if their employment ends. So if you get made redundant you are booted out pretty much immediately. I have been told by friends over there that this happened recently when a large number of Singapore Airlines crew members were made redundant.
But then again, it can be hard to tell because the media over there tends not to report anything like that…
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Reid said…
Danyl it culminated in the stagflation in the 70′s
Correct there Reid. That was the first exposure of Keynesian as bullshit. We know that Danyl is a Keynesian worshiper. I think that Danyl should read more about real economics materials regarding the magic of free markets rather than him reading economics’ articles in the tabloid magazines.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 11:58 am
It’s bemusing to read Whale’s comments on Singaporians.
Having spent a bit of time there over the last year, I think his Doctor has fond memories, but like all things Singapore has changed.
1) The easiest way to find a Singaporian on a job site is look for the fat guy sitting down ( slight exaggeration, but not by much ).
2) Long hours don’t equal hard work, Singaporians work long hours for sure, but I don’t actually think they work harder than Kiwi’s.
3) Singaporians are moaning like you would not believe about the same things kiwi’s moan about, long hours, not enough pay etc etc.
4) Singapore was coming from a very low base, it’s not a fair comparison, when your 3rd world working damn hard is not an option, though it is now & they are not working so hard anymore & want more free time options.
5) Singapore has Lee Kuan Yew, NZ doesn’t & that is an absolutely massive factor IMHO the single biggest.
So my summary would be this, Singapore is doing amazing, it’s growth will be fantastic, but it’s not driven by hard work, it’s not really driven by a fantastic tax structure either, though those help, it’s driven by location, a central government that runs like a business ( though it’s facing huge scaling issues now ) & from there it’s helped by a media which really helps to focus the country.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Danyl continues this fiction (as on his own site) that somehow payment into a super scheme (eg Kiwisaver’) is a ‘tax’. How can a payment into your own savings be a ‘tax’ (albeit compulsory in Singapore). Kiwisaver is voluntary; the scheme allows people to make their own decision about providing for their future; and in fact contains a ‘reverse’ tax whereby other taxpayers are contributing to each personal scheme. Dimpost is very shallow on economics; mostly superficial analsyis compromised by left wing bias.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
“if we nationalize Fonterra and all “our”dairy farm’s” . Couple of points Danyl , they’re not your dairy farms and over my cold dead body commie.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
I was from Singapore, and migrated to NZ a few years back. I actually registered an account with WordPress just to point out some of the misconceptions people have of that island.
More to come.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
“In the middle decades of the 20th century almost every western country was a democratic, regulated capitalist welfare state and that led to the greatest economic boom and most rapid rise in living standards in human history. Maybe we could try that again?”
No. the 50s & 60s was a period of stagnation or deprivation for most of South America, East Europe and Asia. The “greatest economic boom and most rapid rise in living standards in human history” occured in the 90s & 00s.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Danyl – absolutely, not sure there’s any public transport system in the world that wasn’t built or mandated by government. With the Singapore one, even more tricky, it produces a profit, but that’s largely because the govt gives the public transport authority the right to develop retail space around the train stations. So they’re actually a large property developer that basically buys up empty land (well, as empty as it is in Singapore – but the govt can mandate…), builds a train station, and then develops property on the newly valuable land (land near a train station is a lot more valuable).
I’m wondering if we’re trying to argue a straw man here – is anyone suggesting that NZ would get rid of all government functions and operate as a pure capitalist society (other than James)? So if the argument is “you idiots, you like Singapore but they still have some government” then that seems a bit funny.
My suggestion was that the car thing in Singapore is driven more by their geography than anything. Yes, it’s something different about Singapore that NZers might find unpalatable, but it exists because they’re a tiny island, not because of their political or economic system.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
New companies in Singapore also get a tax holiday for the first three years – from memory up to $150,000 SGD per year.
This looks like a country that wants and values its entrepreneurs…
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
1. You would be paying low taxes too if two of your biggest purchases in life (house + car) are not priced ridiculously high, with the profits going to the state sovereign fund which is not transparent
How would you like to live in a 3 room piegon hole in the sky that cost a minimum of $300,000 for a 99 year LEASE. Yup, it’s not freehold! The public housing stat board buys land from the Land Authority (another stat board) and nobody knows how much is paid. Nobody knows how much it cost to build a flat, and there are guesstimates of around $150,000 to build one based on public tenders. So anything above the cost price is profit, and goes to the state.
The COE concept was a good idea in theory, but not so in practice. The highest bidders get the permit to own the car for 10 years, wash rinse repeat. With the income gap widening, only the rich can afford cars while the rest takes public transport which is rubbish. COE money goes to the state.
And because the COEs weren’t enough to regulate the number of cars on the roads, the Electronic Road Pricing scheme was conceived. Basically it’s a toll if you are entering the CBD at peak hours (peak hours ends 8pm or later for some gantries), but it has now expanded for other expressways and Singaporeans joked (in all seriousness) that in time to come they’ll pay a toll the moment they leave the carpark! Toll money goes to the state.
The CPF (akin to Kiwisaver but 35% of your earnings) was another great idea, but has devolved to a housing purchase fund then a retirement fund. People use their CPF to pay for their overpriced flats, resulting in less money saved. And if the money saved does not hit a certain amount, you cannot withdraw the whole sum (but it’s your money!). You can only get monthly handouts from your own savings, and depending on your lifestyle barely enough to sustain yourself in your old age.
Part of the CPF funds go into Medisave, a savings based fund to help pay for healthcare. But it’s not enough, and most people have to cough up extra cash in order to pay for their healthcare, leading to the saying among the elderly that it’s better to die than to fall sick.
Oh I could go on and on mate. But I’m glad to be in NZ and wished I came here earlier.
For those who thinks Singapore is paradise you are always welcome to migrate there; it has the most liberal migration system in the world. Live there for a few years, and then come tell me it rocks.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
I live in Singapore. It’s paradise, I love it.
NZ will always be home, but right now the benefits of staying here far outweigh those of returning.
One issue not mentioned above is crime. It is comforting to the population here that every Friday morning a crim gets his neck streched up at Changi prison. Molesters and rapists recive the adult version of six of the best. Keeps everyone in line and (generally) civil.
Compare that with a soft cock society that let’s murderers out to kill again, and makes excuses for those that beat their children to death.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Snowy thats 365 neck stretches per year mate.
The deterence factor seems to be missing, but who cares eh?
I love visiting Singapore, but not sure I would want to live there.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
+1 for PaulL’s comments. Being right wing economically doesn’t mean you think there is no use for a government.
@lofty Every friday would make it 52 times a year…
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Don’t worry, Keynesianism is certainly not dead.
A government who invests $11 Bill in state of the art public highways when traffic usage is declining with skyrocketing oil prices and intends keeping them in full public ownership must have pretty strong Keynesian principles. Whats the point of sellling down $7 bill (if thats what they get) of assets at the same time as creating another $11 of non income earning depreciating government asset?
Where are the free- market ACT Libertarians when you need them?
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
We couldn’t do that here. We would be in breach of the Tiriti and some compensation would be sought by the poor offenders.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Singapore has the highest rate of hanging in the world.
Vote:Many Singaporeans are unhappy ; many are depressed. The educated women are known as ”passport seekers” and Ex pat men are warned about them . All these women really want to do is get out of Singapore.
Their education system is very thorough. In my husbands time at engineering school all the best students were Singaporean. In my own time in Asia , Singaporean trained doctors were the best. In my opinion , they are far better than kiwi GPs. They are humble and far more scientific in their approach to everything.
The compulsory savings is great but in NZ it has been Nat politicians who have not wanted this, Muldoon , Shipley etc.
May 20th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
***bchapman (615) Says:
Its hard to know if we are lazy or selfish since we have a huge number of unproductive, uneducated poorly skilled workers (if you can all them that).***
I think you’re right that Singapore probably has slightly better overall human capital. See this 2009 paper ‘The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competences of peoples on social development’ by Heiner Rindermann, Michael Sailer, and James Thompson.
“One remark on Singapore: Its long-term Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has in our data set only
as highest degree “university degree”, no doctorate or an additional scientific degree. But he
has studied at London School of Economics and in Cambridge and finished his studies with
exceptional “Double Starred First Class Honours”. Our assessment procedure seems to
underestimate his cognitive ability level. Furthermore, Singapore has reached the highest
rank in the smart fraction ability (IQ 127) in our list and the second highest rank in average
ability (IQ 105), but “only” the 14th rank in the lower non-smart fraction ability ranking (IQ 79).
In patents (1991-2007) Singapore has the first place. And, that is especially remarkable,
Singapore has reached the first place in government effectiveness. Singapore seems to have
the best government in the world. Lee Kuan Yew’s ability – indicated by his success – seems to
be underestimated again by the solely use of formal education. Of course, Singapore was and
still is no standard-bearer of liberty and democracy and Lee Kuan Yew has attracted criticism
because of this. But, he stands apart from other leaders in terms of his exceptional success for
Singapore in growth, modernization, technology and since several years also in science (up to
now only STEM including biotechnology). Lee is also apparently the only politician who has
read and used the results of intelligence research in his politics. In speeches he has cited
Thomas Bouchard and Richard Lynn (Chan & Chee, 1984), and he is the only statesman, who
has seen that intelligence enhancement not only needs an improvement in the environment
(like in educational policy) but also in demographic policies, because parents transfer
cognitive ability to their children by creating a stimulating environment (especially by
education and modeling) and by transmission of their genes.”
http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/hsw/psychologie/professuren/entwpsy/team/rindermann/publikationen/09Talent.pdf
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
There were a lot of things I liked about Singapore when I visited there but I admit that as a short term visitor I was unable to evaluate whether or not it is a ‘police state’. But the people seemed very open and friendly.
I was interested to hear from Singaporeans who told me that after WWII when the Japs were ousted, Singapore consisted of 80% illiterate unskilled coolies (their word) subsisting in basically an unskilled labour economy doing things like unloading ships anchored in the Straits by barge up the river. Now, 60 years later the place is a huge financial centre, has the biggest container port in Asia and is an IT and knowledge powerhouse with around 90% literacy. Not bad. What are they doing that we aren’t doing? Working hard and valuing education, I suspect. If we don’t pull up our socks pretty fast we will be down where the Singaporeans were in the 1950s….. illiterate and unskilled.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
What are they doing that we aren’t doing? Working and valuing education, I suspect.
The government also controls around 60% of the economy. That helps when it comes to long term planning.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Whale oil, thanks for the laugh, compulsory military training among your extreme right, they would run away screaming at the thought.
Vote:The Singapore military, as the saying goes all the gear no idea, of course with them all being dwarfs it does not help.
May 20th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
OOPS sorry Snowy late in the day …that is 52 neck stretches p.a.
Still a lot.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Danyl said In the middle decades of the 20th century almost every western country was a democratic, regulated capitalist welfare state and that led to the greatest economic boom and most rapid rise in living standards in human history. Maybe we could try that again?
In this the second decade of the twenty first century every western nation is still more or less a democratic, regulated capitalist welfare state. Danyl is presenting a false historical narrative. Take the US for instance, if you look at the number of regulations, markets were actually less regulated in the middle decades of the twentieth century then they are today (see http://www.voteview.com/images/Pages_Federal_Register_A.jpg). Or New Zealand where government as measured as a % of GDP was actually smaller than it is today (see http://www.2025taskforce.govt.nz/firstreport/28.htm)
If I’m to take it that Danyl is a Keynesian I should point out this from Lowell Gallaway and Richard Vedder “The Impact of the Welfare State on the American Economy” on the subject of the post war reality versus Keynesian predictions:
“Disaster did not occur as the Federal government did exactly what Alvin Hansen had said it could not do: It disbanded the army, closed the munitions factories, and stopped building ships. All that was left of Hansen’s economic recommendations were the wartime controls. And they went by the board in mid-1946 simply because Truman would not accept any watering down of them and the Congress was unable to override his veto of legislation that would have done just that. Suddenly, on July 1, 1946, all of Hansen’s worst fears had been realized.
In the aftermath of the absence of substantial government intervention in the economy, there was a marked increase in price levels and a rise in unemployment. However, the unemployment rate increased only to 3.9 percent for 1946, stayed at the level in 1947, and averaged 3.8 percent in 1948. The feared immediate post-World War II depression had not materialized, despite federal government expenditures in 1948 being less than one-third as large as they were in 1944 and despite the disappearance of the wartime controls. None of the Keynesian predictions had been validated.”
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Having worked for number of years in SE Asia, it would be fair to say through my observations and toil, that peoples in the region value everything except human life (other than their own of course).
H&S don’t make me laugh.
Buried in a trench?? get him out, get another, move on.
Admittedly Singapore is better than that in general, but it is still the pervading theme in the workplace.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Dave Mann: yes, incredible, and very different from Malaysia’s outcome, given similar starting point. However, it is easier to catch up than to forge the way, and as a society gets wealthier they start to value leisure time more – so it is almost self fulfilling that people get “lazier” as they get wealthier.
Think about it this way. In many parts of Asia, you’re still one bad week, one bad paycheck, away from starvation. That tends to focus the mind. Most in Singapore are only one generation away from that situation, so they still have that hard work value. The current generation are not so enamoured of that, and don’t have the closeness to poverty of earlier generations. The next generation will be still further away.
I personally love Singapore, and would happily live there for a time. But, geographically, they have not much of interest – all there is to do in Singapore is work and shop. And if you shop a lot, you need to work more…..so whilst it could be fun for a few years, I wouldn’t make it permanent. But that has nothing to do with their economic or political system – that’s like saying that people who don’t want to live in NZ because it’s too bloody cold most of the time, and move to Australia, are doing it because of the political or economic system. There are other reasons people choose to live in a particular place. That doesn’t mean that the NZ system is perfectly good, or perfectly bad.
The interesting discussion is which bits of the NZ system could be better, which bits of someone else’s system might we import, why would we do that (what outcome are we trying to achieve), and would it work with our culture and other bits of our system. NZ is a country of 4 million people. But we think we’re so freaking unique, and need to invent everything on our own. Most of what we might want to do has been tried elsewhere, and the likely outcomes are probably similar to what those other places got. To the extent that different places tried it, it’s even better, we can compare their outcomes and ask ourselves what was different about how it was implemented in different places, and what can we learn from that.
I’d love to see a department of comparative political economy, which pulled out 5-10 key government functions, articulated the basic breakdown between how different countries do it, and articulated the pros and cons of each. That would lead to an interesting debate.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@Danyl….. “The (Singaporean) government also controls around 60% of the economy
Well, the Singaporean government controls less of their economy than ours does then!
I don’t have exact figures on this, but I would say anecdotally that the NZ government’s army of meddlers, regulators, do-gooders, licensing nazis, eco-fucks, wage controllers, OSH, carbon religionists and general bureaucratic busybodies controls around 80-90% of our economy. Seriously. I’m not being facetious here. If our country could cut its government meddling DOWN to 60% maybe that would be a good start.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
I don’t know lofty. 52 hangings per year in a nation of almost 5,000,000 people? I think New Zealand has about 80 murders per year. So if Singapore hung every murderer then they still have less murders than New Zealand.
Apparently the murder rate in Singapore is one of the lowest in the world http://murder-rates.findthebest.com/
The other thing about capital punishment of course is that you don’t have a recidivism problem.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
There is much to admire about Spore, and policies such as low tax and complusory super are some we should emulate.
The country and run like a business, and to achieve that in NZ would require a complete paradiam shift.
Regarding their ports (PSA), it is the government intention to privatise PSA, and they are waiting for the right timing to proceed. Again it is run like a private sector business, with very little government involvement. Their international division has been very successfull as well, plus they have a significant stake in HPH, the worlds largest ports company. Compare that to Auckland Ports which is a small port that performs poorly. In shipping circles it is generally thought of as a joke that Auckland Council owns it, and they are desperate for a proper ports company such as PSA to take it over and run it according to international standards.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Well, the Singaporean government controls less of their economy than ours does then!
In New Zealand government spending is around 38% of GDP. We’re way lower than they are, and we’re at the low end of the OECD.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Actually the current COE prices (a 10 year permit for a vehicle to be on the road) are $46,989 for an under 1600cc car and $56,300 for over 1600cc. Then there is the 110% tax on the list price of the vehicle. Plus ~$1000 per year road tax. Plus ERP congestion charging. Plus 2% of the sale price of any transfer of ownership.
The Singapore government boasts of a low tax rate, but it effectively owns the land your house is on, shares in the main banks, your mortgage, all television stations and newspapers, the electricity suppliers, the two main telcos, the biggest supermarket chain….
The ruling elite also came into ownership of a significant amount of shares in the above, so in effect have their own private taxation system. Nepotism is rife. The wife of Lee Kwan Yew had a law firm that handled the conveyancing of every HDB flat sold (i.e. 80% of the housing) for almost 40 years. Temasek Holdings is run by the daughter in law of Lee Kwan Yew.
Singapore is great for multinational companies and expats, but a great deal of the population works for the state, and Singaporean owned private companies tend to be service SMEs, that exist only to clip the tickets of the MNCs that have set up shop here. While there is an impressive amount of research going on, almost all of it is for the benefit of overseas companies who ultimately own the patents. The true patent rate for Singaporean owned companies is between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan in ranking.
Clipping tickets and twisting the stats are the true secrets of the Singapore economic ‘miracle’.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
@Danyl Oh god… I must learn never try to argue with someone who is armed with the facts!!! hahaha…. OK Danyl, you got me
Seriously though, is government spend as share of GDP the correct measure to use? What about the huge handbrake effect on an economy of all the petty and stupid interference and controls? has anybody measured this effectively?
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Danyl said In New Zealand government spending is around 38% of GDP. We’re way lower than they are, and we’re at the low end of the OECD.
From the Heritage Index on Singapore http://www.heritage.org/index/country/singapore
Vote:Government spending is relatively low. In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, increased to 17 percent of GDP.
May 20th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Seriously though, is government spend as share of GDP the correct measure to use? What about the huge handbrake effect on an economy of all the petty and stupid interference and controls? has anybody measured this effectively?
Yeah – lots of people. The OECD ranks us as the third best place in the world to do business, just behind Singapore and Hong Kong.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
***Dave Mann: yes, incredible, and very different from Malaysia’s outcome, given similar starting point. ***
Again, I think the demographics may tell you something. In Malaysia the Chinese are dominant in terms of business and commerce (they have affirmative action in favour of the Malays) but only make up 23.7% of the population. In Singapore the Chinese make up 74.2% of the population. So it isn’t that surprising Singapore also has better overall outcomes.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
“In New Zealand government spending is around 38% of GDP. We’re way lower than they are, and we’re at the low end of the OECD.”
This doesnt include the share of GDP of SOEs and COEs IIRC.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
We can’t be spending that much. We have the third lowest govt debt/GDP ratio in the OECD.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
@KiwiGreg do the Malays have a ‘treaty’ which guarantees that huge slices of the Chinese’s productivity is automatically transferred to their coffers then?
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
@ Dave no they have a law which ensures that a small number of indigenous Malay get rich by requiring that there be local shareholders and by enshrining Malay preference in things like education and public service.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Nor do you have a redemption possibility.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3
Wikipedia- Government spending as a percentage of GDP
Country
Tax Burden % GDP
Gov Exp % GDP
New Zealand
34.5
41.1
Singapore
14.2
17.0
Sweden
47.9
52.5
Facts? Welcome to definition world!
And clearly there’s some HTML code this site hates!
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Singapore (along with NZ and Denmark) was ‘perceived’ to be ‘the least corrupt country in the world’.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results
“Transparency International advocates stricter implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption, the only global initiative that provides a framework for putting an end to corruption.”
(FYI – THOSE DOING THE TI RESEARCH:
Economist Intelligence Unit
https://www.eiu.com/
Global Insight
http://www.ihsglobalinsight.com/ProductsServices/ProductDetail1053.htm
Institute for Management Development
http://www.imd.org/
World Economic Forum
http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/paci/index.htm
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interesting that although Singapore has ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) – NZ has not.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html
Singapore Signed 11 Nov 2005 Ratified 06 Nov 2009
New Zealand Signed 10 Dec 2003 Ratified
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interesting that Singapore has an independent ‘anti-corruption’ body, the Singapore Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.
http://app.cpib.gov.sg/cpib_new/user/default.aspx?pgID=121
NZ, however, has no such body tasked with PREVENTING corruption and educating the public about corruption.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not sure how Singapore rates on the ‘Corruption Reality Checklist’ I drew up and distributed at the Transparency International 14th Anti-Corruption Conference that I attended in Bangkok last year – but it would be interesting to check the following:
Whether Singapore has enforceable ‘Codes of Conduct’ for their MPs and Judges?
(NZ does not).
Whether Singapore has a statutory requirement for publicly-available ‘Registers of Pecuniary Interests’ for Judges, local government elected representatives, and central and local government staff responsible for property and procurement?
(NZ does not).
Whether Singapore has a statutory requirement for a ‘Register of Lobbyists’ and a statutory requirement for a ‘quarantine’ period for ‘post-separation employment’ ie: from the time Minister / senior ‘Public Servants’ leave public office to take up a role in the private sector from which they could personally benefit from their former ‘connections’?
(NZ does not).
There are many other corruption ‘reality’ questions for Singapore – but for now – that should suffice?
Anyone got any FACTS or EVIDENCE that can be relied upon to answer these questions?
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
May 20th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Anyone got any FACTS or EVIDENCE that can be relied upon to answer these questions?
No, but I have a phone card you can use to call someone who gives a fuck.
Goodnight ladies & gentlemen, I’ll be back next week. Be sure to tip your waitress.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
@ Ryan presumably they are with the Lord at that point and redemption is entirely possible!
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
# ciaron (673) Says:
May 20th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Anyone got any FACTS or EVIDENCE that can be relied upon to answer these questions?
No, but I have a phone card you can use to call someone who gives a fuck.
Goodnight ladies & gentlemen, I’ll be back next week. Be sure to tip your waitress.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
No ‘bananas’ AGAIN ‘ciaron’?
HANDY HINT: Exercise a bit more self-discipline and just don’t bother to read my posts if you can’t handle the considered points I’m raising – otherwise you just end up looking a bit silly?
Well – really silly – actually
You have a LOVELY weekend.
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
May 20th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Rob R
Vote:I think your figures re Malaysia are out of date. Mahattir encouraged breeding and I think the Malays are now about 50 per cent of the pop , maybe more. They get EVERY possible advantage as Bumiputras..people of the land..Native peoples are considered second class Bumis ..they get few advantages. If you are Chinese or Indian , you have to work like crazy or invent scams..more scams come out of Malaysia than out of Nigeria.
Singapore was part of the Federation of Malay states for three years. Lee Kwan Yew withdrew Singapore from this federation and decided to go it alone. Few thought he could make it being such as small country. He had grown up with Malays in Singapore but found the KL Malays to be totally different. He could not believe their sense of entitlement. They had been very thick with the British. A Pakistani was somehow involved in the Malaysian constitution and made it an islamic state. A constant difficulty for Singapore has been their water supply . They get water from Malaysia. Mahattir used to threaten to cut off the supply. They also have desalination plants. LKY got his ideas on discipline from the Japanese. He was a teenager during the occupation. He taught himself Mandarin during this time as it was the means by which the Chinese communicated at that time.. Later he taught himself Hokkien which was the main local dialect. He knew he had to speak Hokkien to win over the local people. He had gone to an English language school as a child. As I recall , he and his wife are both British trained lawyers. Singapore is his creation.
May 20th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Singapore takes a very hard line against corruption, which makes it stand out from the surrounding countries. However, many locals will tell you that the salaries of the MPs are a form of corruption (cabinet ministers get paid about $1.5 million).
It it the only way to get talent to govern the country or the creation of a ruling elite separate to the average citizen?
Who knows, but the incumbent PAP only got 60% of the vote in the general election two weeks’ ago. Which is even more telling given the political restrictions opposition parties have to work with. So there are a lot of unhappy citizens out there.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
This might interest you, although you may not understand some of the acronyms used:
PAP has done a tremendous job for Singapore. It turned Singapore from ‘almost nothing” with few natural resources into an outstanding city-state boosting high capita GNP and worldclass environments. It was in Warren Buffet’s phrase, a model in investment, focusing on long term investment in building the so-called “Lion’ infrastructure, not simply on short term goals. As a result, the country grows in prosperity year after year, and becomes the envy of all other countries.
The outstanding record resulted in the political dominance of PAP since 1965 till now – 46 years, perhaps things may change in the future?
The majority of citizens here have all the basic necessities – home, material riches like tv, fridge, telephone, etc. It is so strange yet in the 60s and 70s, there were many homes without tv, fridge, telephone, and now we have the latest stuff as though they are common.
Before GE 2011, PAP announced all kinds of massive estate upgrading like parks, shopping malls etc. There was the unprecedented Grow and Share monies given out. Despite all these, GE 2011 suddenly turned out to be an incredible rude shock to PAP.
It is not just the loss of Aljunied GRC and Hougang. Votes in East Coast, Marine Parade, Toa Payoh-Bishan accounted and hovered around 55%++. Even Holland-Bukit Timah GRC saw 40% votes casted for the opposition. What is interesting, with the exception of WP in Aljunied, most opposition figures simply just turned up to be candidates and with 9 days of rallies, this rag-tag team managed to garner an impressive results against the almighty PAP machinery and organisation. Even a 24-year girl, who cited her school leadership experience as evidence of her political management ability and with only one-year working experience, can help to bring down the votes of the popular GCT. Mind you, most pundits would have said that it is difficult case to go against GCT. After all, GCT has regularly gathered more than 70% of votes, and Marine Parade GRC has benefited tremendously from his presence as MP in terms of upgrading and many amenities.
If the opposition has been more prepared, and the names are most recognisable, one cannot imagine how much PAP would have lost further. Perhaps. Anyway, this is all hindsight, always easier than foresight. In this election, it is not a vote for opposition but it is more a vote against PAP? People are getting fed up. If there are credible opposition figures, many would not hesitate to vote for them. On the whole, many Singaporeans would have agreed that there is currently no other government alternative to PAP?- I would think so.
Many views have been cited why PAP lost. I would like to pen some thoughts, and would like to hear your contributions. Critically, what are the most important that cause the loss in votes and this sudden “drop” in credibility of PAP and its brand.
Perception is reality. All perceptions are created and transferred via the media. I am just curious what are these perceptions especially the dominant ones that cause the drastic loss of votes? PAP and all other political parties would be questioning these as well. He who can master the art of appearing credible, wins the race.
This is why PAP, if unable to score your vote on the economic agrument, will play up on the issue of credibility of the opposition figures. It has to make the other side look not credible or “incredibly inept or bad’, and it will win. Which is why I always said CSJ is naive to the core. On the other hand, LTK is a lot smarter and recognises this fact. LTK tries to give little ground for the other side to paint a bad picture, and this strategy is to allow it to have the breathing space to create a more viable organisation to take on PAP. He uses a softer approach and as PAP sees him as such, and realises it is good to have token opposition MPs, they leave LTK alone. It is a good strategy and foresight of LTK – crouching tiger hidden dragon. The win of Aljunied GRC is to be credited to this strategy. LTK’s message reverberated throughout the Eastern side of Singapore, and his message of “Towards First Class Parliament” helped, in my view, to win votes for the other opposition parties, and WP branding helps a lot. To all other opposition parties, I really can identify with the messages and campaigns of WP more.
What is wrong with PAP ? – in terms of perceptions, the critical ones …
1. It has been grown too big, arrogant and powerful and there is NO check and balance on it in parliament. Evidence are as follows: the non-transparency in Ministers’ high salaries and the removal of parliamentary debate on it. A key incident cited was the Foreign Worker dormitory in Serangoon Gardens, and residents’ petitions was brushed aside with no recourse. This is symptomatic of not just Serangoon Gardens but it appears to be the modus operandi of PAP. It cannot be persuaded that once it has made his policy, it will stand its ground irregardless. The use of the courts, constant gerrymandering and creation of GRC prevents the rise of opposition in Singapore, DEPRIVING Singaporeans a chance to vote for credible opposition members. Singaporeans simply want more credible opposition members and it has never given this chance.
2. PAP government has made “honest” mistakes despite being paid million-dollar salaries for its ministers and civil servants, in other words, it has “enriched” itself and not being able to justify its legitimacy. In its constant claims, PAP has said that the million-dollar salaries are worth every cent, raising the expectations of Singaporeans to a very high level. It is also in the process of digging its own graves when people could point out simple flaws. The escape of Mas Selamat, distance-based fares introduced in 2010 which turned out to have “flaws” in calculation resulting in some cases, higher charges, high HDB prices for first-time buyers are some examples. In particular, MBT attempts to use a 30-year loan to justify the price of HDB was dumb – 30 years! You spent your whole life working to have a roof and you cannot withdraw them and it is stuck in a piece of real estate.
3. Singaporeans have little say on policies and issues that affect them – it is demeaning to be treated like a peasant. One issue is chiefly CPF and its withdrawal age keeps rising to 65 years, and the minimum withdrawal amount is to be ultimately raised to $150000. Now who like to be told what to do with one’s own money? The imposition of Medisave on Singaporeans, which is a smart bureacratic solution, but its usage is subjected to rules and regulations decided by the Government, not Singaporeans. “Hey it is my own money!’ – why is the government wanting to have a say in it? After all, it has been million-dollar salaries to figure out solutions… are these the solutions which is to simply create a law to use YOUR OWN MONEY to solve the problem.
4. The inability to keep important costs down – Housing, rising food costs, transportation costs yet at the same time, the rise in salaries have NOT kept pace. Hence, people start to look at who to be blame – the foreigners. In reality, it is PAP who has NOT done its homework to cater to this successful economic policy to integrate these new citizens and PRs, and cater to their housing etc. PAP needs to rethink its greedy policy of wanting to control the price of land, and yet wanting to have a market mechanism. It has similarly done the same to car prices – the control of both demand and supply and trusting its well paid ministers and civil servants to run this mechanism. Humans do make mistakes. Ngiam Tong Dow has previously pointed out this simple concern about this sudden influx of immigrants, and the lack of preparedness by PAP but it was not dealt with, until perhaps now. I personally am quite surprised how this current slate of PAP ministers fail to anticipate this problem at all.
5. Healthcare to be made “affordable” but the government is increasingly wanting to pass the costs back to the people. Singaporeans want healthcare to be affordable to all its people however it strikes a chord when they realise people could be allowed to die in Singapore if they have no money. Hence a worldclass healthcare system does not deserve itself such a claim if it allows such cases to exist – this hit directly that the PAP government only thinks of dollars and sense, and does not have empathy for the common folks.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Unemployment in Singapore is low because of inter alia the very generous tax breaks given to multinationals to set up regional HQs there, along with some fairly generous treatment of financial institutions.
It would be wrong to characterise Singapore as being a highly liberalised economy. There are some markets which are very tightly controlled and the footprint of regulation is quite large. Any form of publication (such as updates from commercial banks to their clients) requires a license from the government. The government also controls both the main TV boradcaster (TCS) and the mainstream newspapers (SPH).
Accountability of the Singapore government to the people has been pretty low and the performance and financial status of the sovereign wealth funds are “secret”.
Moreover, Singapore’s ministers are the highest paid in the world. The PM’s pay is over S$3 million. MP’s get an annual salary close to a quarter of a million (S$).
A combination of poor policies (especially in the area of housing and immigration) has led to further erosion of the popular vote for the ruling PAP down to just over 60% – its worst performance since the founding of the Republic. Income disparity is on the rise and a rising cost of living (especially housing) has generated a significant amount of dissent with the PAP as a result.
Singapore is a great place to work for a while to get experience in markets that are highly global (finance and commodities are big ones) especially if you are seen as “Foreign Talent” and get an ex-pat pay. However, life for locals is fairly hard. There is intense competition for spots in local tertiary education and this is repeated all the way down to primary school. “Tuition” or extra classes outside of the standard school day is the norm for most kids. Some here may see that s a good thing but teenagers killing themselves over bad grades is not uncommon. Would I ever want to raise children in Singapore? Hell, no.
Many of those who extol the virtues of the Singapore-style of governance never get to live as a Singaporean and only see glimpses of the real Singapore as they peer out from air-conditioned shopping malls or admire the glossy Singapore Girl adverts.
ETA: CK – a sterling effort. I wonder how many here will actually bother to read it though.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Scott The other thing about capital punishment of course is that you don’t have a recidivism problem.
….not with the executed crims at least….however the executioners seem to get a taste for it. If we the people have no right to execute someone after the fact for committing a crime then the state,which is,after all, only an abstraction of us, does not posses that right either.You can’t endower rights that you yourself don’t have upon a creation of yours.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Singapore strikes me as a neo-fascist state that appears to show the benefits of Capitalism on the surface but hides the negative authoritarian reality underneath.
Cheery pick the best bits and move on.
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
@Penny
Singapore rates low on just about every corruption scale there is. However, transparency is completely different. When the minister for housing refuses to release the cost of building the bulk-standard HDB apartments, when accounts for things like the Youth Olympic Games (which saw a $200 million cost overrun), when the performance of the sovereign wleath funds is not public information – how can you say that there is transaparency?
Vote:May 20th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
When you push through a law that pays Cabinet Ministers millions of dollars and up to 8 months of bonus at the end of each year, that is called LEGALISED CORRUPTION.
Vote:May 21st, 2011 at 1:32 am
It’s like adult Disneyland
I really can’t explain how awesome it is
Vote:May 21st, 2011 at 2:58 am
Ryan sproull you have obviously never had a close relative murdered.
Vote:May 21st, 2011 at 11:58 am
Interesting how much our free market friends love Singapore. Of course it is not a democracy in any real sense of the word but perhaps that is what they like the most?
Vote:May 21st, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Funny you should say that as I was just reflecting upon all the information brought forth by left-wingers to demonstrate that Singapore is anything but a country … that is neither liberal nor capitalist… – and therefore unworthy of praise by the right.
Because if that is the case does it not also demonstrate the sort of soft totalitarian control of people’s lives required to bring about such progressive success?
Vote:May 21st, 2011 at 1:09 pm
@ tom hunter 4.02
Thats interesting. My ancdotal assessment was that we have around twice as much governmental interference and control in ints economy as Singapore does…… and your figures would seem to support this position. Do I read you correctly?
In other words, my gut feeling is that if a fairly large and/or reputable company wanted to set up or significantly expand operations in New Zealand there would be all kinds of bureacratic RMA, minimum wage laws, environmental hurdles, carbon bullshit and maori roadblocks to negotiate….. whereas in Singapore their government would welcome any sensible proposals with open arms. For example, Singapore has NO natural resources whatsoever (even water)….. but we are sitting on 200 years’ of coal reserves and refusing to dig any of it out of the f*****g ground!
Vote:May 21st, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Dave
The argument often used by the left in these discussions is exactly in the area that you talk about – that NZ ranks high on the economic freedom lists, which is true.
The ranking that Dim refers to is one such and is similar to the Heritage Foundation, which has us in fourth place behind Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia! I’ve not looked at the OECD table but I’m guessing they don’t regard HK as a separate nation from China.
In any case I don’t doubt the calculations. We are probably a relatively easy country to start a business in and we are relatively free of corruption and with respect for the law. But perhaps such things are not as meaningful as the context of geography, resources, economy of scale, and culture?
Of course I still don’t know where Dim gets his 60% calculation, although I note the slipperiness of using the word “control” in one sentence about Singapore and spending in referring to NZ. Aside from that, given some of the information above about the degree of government involvement in Singaporean business it could be true, but it’s hard to see how even definitional problems could lead to such a huge difference between that and the Heritage Foundation calculation of 17%.
Vote:May 21st, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Think Singapore is safe? Think again:
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/singapore-reeling-from-murder-spree-drug-scourge/
Vote:May 21st, 2011 at 4:08 pm
The sociologist in me suspects that it would be almost impossible to sustain a proper free-market state and maintain a genuine democracy (the majority will inevitably vote themselves access to the minority’s money). Which, provided a strong constitution, independent judiciary, and the rule of law exist, I am fairly okay with. Singapore is not a free and democratic country, but it is an economically prosperous one, and people tend to not worry too much about their lack of free speech if they have money in their wallets. But it will only last as long as Singapore is perceived as not being corrupt.
Democracy is only important when government is large and its decisions matter – if it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, one can afford an oligarchy, because most important decisions are made by an individual’s parliament of one held every day in their own living room.
Vote:May 21st, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Since I am still living in SG (but soon to depart), I much appreciate Danyl, CK and Dismal Soyanz’s reality checks on this authoritarian state capitalist love fest. I am continually amazed by the attempts to model NZ on SG because for NZ to emulate SG it would have to suspend basic civil liberties and political debate. Among other things, there is no public consultation or consideration of minority views when it comes to enacting public policy. Roads are built, housing estates are torn down, changes to the central provident fund or health system all happen without a shred of pubic input. It may be an efficient way to do public policy, but to think that you can somehow use it as a model for NZ, given the Kiwi penchant for such niceties as egalitarianism and representative voice, is absurd. As for the “lower taxes are better” argument: look up the term “filial piety.”
I shall leave aside the gross exploitation of foreign unskilled workers in SG–covered by no labour laws and paid less than $S15/day for the construction jobs that have given the city its impressive skyline–or the grotesque conditions in which (again, foreign) maids work (to include, by law, zero days off per year), or the fact that the place would still be a swamp if it were not for the importation of high skilled and obscenely paid Anglo-Saxons to run the state enterprises as well as private businesses. I will not mention the extreme income inequality and profound racism that besets the country or the legal restrictions on freedoms of assembly, press and voice. I will dare utter softly a short word about the race-based nepotism and corporate “favour” and gift-giving that gives the lie to those bogus corruption indexes and talk of meritocracy. I will offer no opinion on the Internal Security Act that allows for indefinite detention of individuals without charge and which prohibits assemblies of more than 5 people without a permit.
Instead, I shall offer two briefs on SG. More will follow once I return to NZ.
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2011/04/a-door-cracks-open-in-the-little-red-dot/
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/07/the-racial-basis-of-a-small-se-asian-state/
Vote:May 22nd, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Paul G
Vote:Three years in Singapore and an expert already. What a surprise. The I.S.A. Laws are a legacy of the British . They exist in Malaysia too. They are not a South East Asian invention. So Singapore does not want Africans..just ask the Aussies what Africans are currently doing in their cities..rape , violence , murder , brawls , car jacking etc etc Why would any country want Somalis and Nth Sudanese? Excluding them is common and economic sense.