Singapore gets me thinking
Posted by jeremy 10 years, 12 months ago to Government
I'm spending Christmas/New Year in Singapore... one of my favourite places. It's BOOMING... shipping, financial services, retail. The mass transit is efficient and cheap. The people are very friendly and also pretty rigid - try changing a menu item or being a bit innovative about the way you do something.
I also watched AS I & II here, which really got me thinking. About nations-states, city-states, Western (especially American) rugged individualism vs Asian-style paternalistic collectivism.
Singapore is pretty much run as a private company by the ruling family. There is limited freedom of expression by almost no open descent. Yet the government seems to have created a physical and economic infrastructure that allows business to thrive.
Which brings me back to thinking about the role of government. I doubt many here would disagree that less is better. I think Singapore also shows that a City-State that is open to the world and open for business can be a VERY effective model.
So I'd love to hear what members of this group think governments SHOULD do... (Maybe nothing, but that seems to degenerate into war-lordistan pretty fast)...
I also watched AS I & II here, which really got me thinking. About nations-states, city-states, Western (especially American) rugged individualism vs Asian-style paternalistic collectivism.
Singapore is pretty much run as a private company by the ruling family. There is limited freedom of expression by almost no open descent. Yet the government seems to have created a physical and economic infrastructure that allows business to thrive.
Which brings me back to thinking about the role of government. I doubt many here would disagree that less is better. I think Singapore also shows that a City-State that is open to the world and open for business can be a VERY effective model.
So I'd love to hear what members of this group think governments SHOULD do... (Maybe nothing, but that seems to degenerate into war-lordistan pretty fast)...
"The government in Singapore has broad powers to limit citizens' rights and to inhibit political opposition.[1] In 2009, Singapore was ranked 133rd out of 175 nations by Reporters Without Borders in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index. Freedom in the World 2006 ranked Singapore 5 out of 7 for political freedom, and 4 out of 7 for civil liberties (where 1 is the most free), with an overall ranking of "partly free" " at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ....
then we can revisit the subject
Maybe part of why it seems to work is that it's on the scale of a city-state... if you like a manageable size.
Just notes from an outside observer...
"Singaporean politics have been dominated by the People's Action Party (PAP) since the 1959 general election when Lee Kuan Yew became Singapore's first prime minister (Singapore was then a self-governing state within the British Empire). The PAP has been in government and won every General Election since then. Singapore left the Commonwealth in 1963 to join the Federation of Malaysia, but was expelled from the Federation in 1965 after Lee Kuan Yew disagreed with the federal government in Kuala Lumpur.[1] Foreign political analysts and several opposition parties including the Workers' Party of Singapore and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) have argued that Singapore is a de facto one-party state."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_o...
FWIW I did business around the world in the '80s and '90s including Singapore. You can fool economic realty for a time but sooner or later it catches up.
Wherever socialism has been tried, there is one direction, down, fast or slow, but always higher taxes, more controls, less individual freedom, lower standard of living, economic instability, more unemployment, less press freedom. Some things may improve like health care access for the very poor as in Cuba, it does not last. It could be that Lee KY called the system he brought in 'socialism' for political reasons - to recognize the public feeling at the time. When his party got power, only a few of the above list got worse. No doubt some people on here would have done it better (I mean that), but it has been a good performance over 50+ years, compare with other places that got out of colonialism. My admiration is not just based on the overwhelming good performance across the board, but consider as well, the areas in which Singapore is bad, are improving, slowly. (The 'west' rates higher but we are in decline). Controls on business are reducing, press freedom and freedom of speech controls are far more severe than in 'the west' but par for the course elsewhere, they are being moderated. To return to the point of this thread:
Find a tight group of ethical, efficient and brilliant people and give them complete power, things get better, right? Well, in Singapore, so far, yes maybe. It is an ultra high risk strategy, if it goes wrong, it goes very badly wrong, and fast. (John Galt turned down the offer) There is another severe objection to this arrangement, see point made by dkhalling elsewhere, central decision making and control can not work all the time (Objectivist or Austrian), and there can be no such thing as a correct decision which is right for all.
There is a lot wrong with Singapore - criticism of the people in government can lead to very steep fines, if not paid then years of jail.
Singaporians who do not like it are free to leave, for skilled and professional people, getting in is not hard. There is a big demand for unskilled labor- not paid well but for those from Indonesia, BanglaDesh etc very good pay. There is movement at both ends. Primary education is very good and very low cost for citizens, tertiary education is very good and very low cost for those on scholarships, pricey for others. There is an increasing standard of living, comparative economic stability, and even increasing personal freedoms.
With all that, I remain a fan.
A Gulch it is not, but it works.
In the comments....they're flim flamming around all over.
what's it cost to buy a certain basket of goods in each place. more accurate than the vagaries of exchange rates
You guys do realise that most of the rest of the world thinks that the American obsession with gun ownership is a little nuts, right?
I grew up in LA and saw an evolving situation as a kid where children were taking guns to elementary school. And using them on other children.
Sorry... Just don't see the relevance of the question... any non-Americans out there have a view? (Americans welcome, too... we are all about freedom of expression, right? :-) )
It's not guns.
It's not guns in schools.
It's values or lack of.
cause sometimes being right is enough to earn a point.
I didn't have the resources, but had I, I wanted to buy it and turn it into a small arcology.
http://www.arcology.com/
Like a miniature version of Todos Santos in "Oath of Fealty", I would have included a centralized park area, apartments, office suites, as well as retail outlets, maybe even a private school. Building upward as funds allowed.
Alas, the place has become a government office complex now, pretty much.
But, I would have tried to make it as self-sufficient as possible, a micro city-within-a-city.
.
Concerning the role of government my opinion is aligned with the following Ayn Rand quote regarding the role of government in a capitalist society:
"The only function of the government in such a society is the task of protecting man's rights - that is, the task of protecting him from physical force. The government acts as the agent of man's self defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. Thus, the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."
That pretty much sums it up :)
In terms of market regulation, it would self regulate based on the rational self-interest of participants. Of course this all assumes that it would be a true free market and not "capitalism with controls."
Bitcoin is probably the closest thing to a true free market that I have seen and the recent price drops were the result of the actions regulators (non-market participants).
I know that seems simple and obviously those words do not cover what is specifically meant by them. Simple things like infrastructure and roadways can fall under at least 3 different headings here in that a good road system can insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general Welfare; therefore, I personally support some form of taxation to build and maintain a good road system. Taxes on fuel even tolls, the list is long on acceptable taxes but I think that the most important thing is we have to find a balance between a Government that taxes enough to pay for what it should provide and yet that same government should be kept lean enough to not over step into our lives.
Currently I am sure that we would all agree that the government of America has grown too large and demands too much in taxes from those who produce, all the while giving to those who only ride the system. This is the largest affront against freedom that I can imagine essentially turning us all into slaves in the name of compassion.
For example (to stay with the Singapore theme), they have decided here that selling drugs is so antithetical to the general welfare as to merit the death penalty... Much of he rest of the world thinks that is far too harsh... Definitely needs to be able to be discussed.
I don't know much about Singapore, so my question would be effective for whom? Individuals, companies, or the family run government? Control is control.
Seems to be a pretty good place to live - very little crime, clean, very efficient transport, lots to do, stuff works, very cosmopolitain. Seems to be reasonable economic mobility (you can work hard and get ahead).
And sure, the First family seem to do pretty well out of it, too.
Certainly there are down-sides, too. I wouldn't like to start a newspaper here that is critical of the government (yet there are web-sites that do and who the heck starts newspapers these days, anyway? :-) )
So I'm gonna respectfully call you out on "control is control'... Sounds a bit simplistic... The place seems pretty effective for a large majority of the people here (maybe not unskilled guest workers...) And I'll go back to my question - there must be SOME role for government/agreed rules/social contract... what is it?
I like what they have going on there, especially their embrace of meritocracy. In fact I love that point. I was not aware that speaking out against the government was permissible now. If so, then that changes my outlook on them.
My biggest concern with Singapore is their sustainability. They are the major hub of the Asia “world” now, but they have little to no resources of their own. This would cause me great concern if I were looking to relocate there. One thing to be said for the US is we have a vast amount of resources, protected at this point, which could be pressed in to service if a world scale calamity arose. Still, I would love to visit there sometime, but I think I would quickly become claustrophobic.
So I got military protection, legal protection, law enforcement... ok... that is a VERy minimal yet reasonable list.
I'd probably like to add provide critical infrastructure (highways, efficient mass transport?) and also care for those who genuinely can't care for themselves... people with severe mental health issues or physical disabilities for example.
Anyone have any other thoughts?
And go back to bed, 3 hours sleep is only enough for me.
It's interesting that a Malaysian is calling Singapore racist. When I lived in KL in the '90s only Malays could own property and every business had to be majority Malay owned. Chinese and Indian cities of Malaysia has substantially different (lesser) rights than Malay citizens. It was clear racial-based legal differentiation (just without the bleeding-heart protests that were aimed at S. Africa...) Don't know if any of that has changed since, but I gather not much...
By the way, I'm not saying Singapore is perfect by any means... it is clean, it runs well, it is open for business, it has LOTS of ex-pats... it's paternalistic, there are pretty strict rules (yes, even against chewing gum) and controls on free speech...
What I'm really interested in is the balance. And I have to say everyone... this is my first foray in this community and I LOVE the standard of responses. Thank you everyone for your contributions and thoughts.
The biggest and best thing we can do is continue to engage in constructive dialogue and help refine and spread our ideas about freedom and self-determination :-) (end of rant...)