Singapore: Sovereign City(devonzuegel.com)
devonzuegel.com
Singapore: Sovereign City
https://devonzuegel.com/post/singapore-sovereign-city
195 comments
Unbelievable, those animals! They made a system that encourages people to actually LIVE in the properties that bought instead of trying to speculate and leech from others. Terrible system.
/s
/s
It is more complicated than that. Any system as its drawbacks, and the Singaporean system is no different. Presenting just one metric (home-ownership) and showing it as a symbol of success is hiding a lot of complex issues. A similar system would not necessarily work in another place. Typically, being only 728.6 km², relocation is less of an issue in Singapore. This is less true in a lot of nations where having to relocate to another city for work is often a reality. As I pointed out, being able to quickly rent and exit a place is more important in those situation. Therefore, having a supply of renter (companies or individual) is beneficial.
In the same idea, because less money is being invested overall in housing, the supply for cheap housing stay very much under a lot of tension. This lead to family sharing the same home for longer (a lot of children staying well past their 20's in their parent home). This is probably one of the important factor explaining a low birth rate.
I think the general idea of trying to push (single) home-ownership my making it increasingly harder and costlier to own more than one property is definitely something that should inspire some politician in country where housing as become a speculative bubble. But this should be done really carefully and with consideration of their own specificities. Done too hastily, it could very well cause a housing crisis, and a housing crisis don't mean just loss of money, it means family on the street.
I think the general idea of trying to push (single) home-ownership my making it increasingly harder and costlier to own more than one property is definitely something that should inspire some politician in country where housing as become a speculative bubble. But this should be done really carefully and with consideration of their own specificities. Done too hastily, it could very well cause a housing crisis, and a housing crisis don't mean just loss of money, it means family on the street.
Well it works if everybody is rich to begin with, I guess. Otherwise I could imagine few issues with the approach of having to buy a house to be able to live somewhere.
It could even be a good filter for immigration - only people who can afford to buy a house could be able to migrate there. And surprise, you end up with a population of fairly successful people.
It could even be a good filter for immigration - only people who can afford to buy a house could be able to migrate there. And surprise, you end up with a population of fairly successful people.
Speaking of leeches (investors) I've got some terrible news for you
There are some bastards out there doing something even worse. Try this, google: "hotel". They won't even let people "live" rather they charge them a steep fee for each 24 hour period spent in this sort of "shelter". It's straight back to the paleolithic era brutality.
There are some bastards out there doing something even worse. Try this, google: "hotel". They won't even let people "live" rather they charge them a steep fee for each 24 hour period spent in this sort of "shelter". It's straight back to the paleolithic era brutality.
Well first off that statistic is not that 90% own their homes in Singapore it’s that 90% of people live in a home that’s owned and not rented. It’s very typical for Singaporeans to live with family until married or into their 30’s.
HDBs are public housing but there are a ton of rules - can’t own one until you are 35 unless married. Need to meet incomes limits. There is a 4-5 year backlog for BTO (build to order - a new HDB).
HDBs prices have skyrocketed, despite the heavy government subsidy. People game the system all the time and because of demand, you enter a lottery for new HDBs and in prime locations, they can be 8-10x oversubscribed. If you win a unit? You won the lottery. You can sell it in 5 years (minimum occupancy period - MOP) on the resale market and pocket a few hundred thousand. Then upgrade or buy a private condo.
The government’s intention was to make it a good investment and now they are backed into a corner like most countries. How to make housing affordable but also a good investment.
They just instituted new rules that restrict who can buy “prime area” HDBs, increased MOP to 10 years and claw back some of the subsidy.
HDBs are public housing but there are a ton of rules - can’t own one until you are 35 unless married. Need to meet incomes limits. There is a 4-5 year backlog for BTO (build to order - a new HDB).
HDBs prices have skyrocketed, despite the heavy government subsidy. People game the system all the time and because of demand, you enter a lottery for new HDBs and in prime locations, they can be 8-10x oversubscribed. If you win a unit? You won the lottery. You can sell it in 5 years (minimum occupancy period - MOP) on the resale market and pocket a few hundred thousand. Then upgrade or buy a private condo.
The government’s intention was to make it a good investment and now they are backed into a corner like most countries. How to make housing affordable but also a good investment.
They just instituted new rules that restrict who can buy “prime area” HDBs, increased MOP to 10 years and claw back some of the subsidy.
If you refer to HDB properties and 99 year lease, it’s a fair amount but not all. There’s a fairly large portion of freeholds, which are entirely privately owned.
At least the prices appear to be more reasonable than in London
> ...housing, for most cases, a poor investment in Singapore. You buy a home to live in it.
I would consider it a good feature and not a bug.
I would consider it a good feature and not a bug.
"especially the one for foreigner,"
That was kind of fun haha :) it wasnt until I hit this sentence that it suddenly dawned on me you were writing everything in the Singlish language!
That was kind of fun haha :) it wasnt until I hit this sentence that it suddenly dawned on me you were writing everything in the Singlish language!
> public housing, .. If you own one, you cannot own a second one.
How is this a downside? That's the only way a subsidizied public housing system could work.
It's ludicrous you are describing the negatives from the perspective of a investor instead of a resident, that was precisely the point of the whole scheme, to make it easier for a regular resident to live, who pays tax and contributes to the local economy.
How is this a downside? That's the only way a subsidizied public housing system could work.
It's ludicrous you are describing the negatives from the perspective of a investor instead of a resident, that was precisely the point of the whole scheme, to make it easier for a regular resident to live, who pays tax and contributes to the local economy.
I didn’t read their comment as explaining this as a negative, just that ownership rates are non comparable.
I guess if it comes to that, I would say the only reason home ownership is measured in such a way and thus a meaningful metric, as a percentage of the population rather total number of units which sounds silly already, is to measure the easiness for the young to build a life. Ownership rates bears little to no meaning if we are considering it in the frame of investment wherever you are.
Yes that is what I meant.
Nearly all of their public spaces are under constant surveillance. Since Covid, hey are now using robot dogs in public places to snitch on people and they use the dogs to keep migrant workers confined to their quarters during lockdown. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-52619568
Oh and a tiny bit of pot will get you a lengthy sentence, up to life in prison.
No thanks.
Oh and a tiny bit of pot will get you a lengthy sentence, up to life in prison.
No thanks.
I've heard Singaporeans say: it's not a country, its a company. This regarding the way it is managed.
As the PAP party has been ruling the place since its sovereignty and demonstrations are forbidden, it is quite authoritarian. Every time a other political party grows in strength they find some dirt on the main guy and put him in prison.
The migrant worker thing is disgustingly Dubai-esque.
As the PAP party has been ruling the place since its sovereignty and demonstrations are forbidden, it is quite authoritarian. Every time a other political party grows in strength they find some dirt on the main guy and put him in prison.
The migrant worker thing is disgustingly Dubai-esque.
The robot dogs are a gimmick, and Singapore's police force is far less prone to violence than American police. Singapore is heavily surveilled, but so are New York, London and Paris. Locking down migrant workers for an extended period of time is pretty unconscionable though.
Picking a few anecdotes about any city invariably paints it in a reductive way. I'm not sure what the solution for this is other than actually visiting or living in a place.
Picking a few anecdotes about any city invariably paints it in a reductive way. I'm not sure what the solution for this is other than actually visiting or living in a place.
They also have 40x less homicides, which might explain the difference in police violence.
Well maybe that's why it's safe and clean.
It is. The question is how much freedom and liberty should a society give up in exchange for it? I don’t think there is any one right answer… but no chewing gum is a bit extreme in my opinion.
I have some respect for the gum ban. The tile surfaces outside Wimbledon Station are ruined by gum stains, and it lowers the feel of the area. Each time I notice it, I admire the Singapore ban.
I also admire how clean some places in North Korea are.
clean is not a bad thing, and urine in public spaces is certainly dispicable. Generic discussion about control is pointless without taking accounts of specific measures and situations.
the entire idea of 'giving up' freedom isn't right. Abstract freedoms are always embedded in a social context. The reason you have the individually free ability to walk across the road is because everyone else follows the rules. If everyone drove through traffic randomly, you wouldn't even have the capacity to exercise any meaningful freedom. Part of having a proper understanding of liberty is that recognition of authority is a precondition for it and not an obstacle.
Personal freedom does not stand in contrast to, but is embedded in social order, and that's why Singaporean's aren't giving anything up. Ask a woman whether she's more free to walk through town in Singapore at 1 am or a bad part of any typically 'free' city. It's not without irony that people in China basically faced barely any covid restrictions over a year while here in Europe everyone was locked into their apartments for months by government mandate, complaining about the lack of freedoms in other parts of the world.
Personal freedom does not stand in contrast to, but is embedded in social order, and that's why Singaporean's aren't giving anything up. Ask a woman whether she's more free to walk through town in Singapore at 1 am or a bad part of any typically 'free' city. It's not without irony that people in China basically faced barely any covid restrictions over a year while here in Europe everyone was locked into their apartments for months by government mandate, complaining about the lack of freedoms in other parts of the world.
Your formulation leads to "freedom is obedience," which is absurd. Freedom is about being able to do what you want. It's one thing to say that absolute freedom is not ideal, it's another to say that restriction of choice increases freedom.
Singapore and China gain something but they're also giving something up. People can disagree over whether that trade if justified but not over whether there's a trade.
Singapore and China gain something but they're also giving something up. People can disagree over whether that trade if justified but not over whether there's a trade.
It may sound absurd, but it really isn't. Hedonistic choice, i.e. to "do what you want" is not perceived as freedom but as anxiety. Someone who lives alone in his flat and works 20 different gig jobs and shoots heroin whenever he wants is in that superficial sense 'free', but in reality the opposite is the case, he's subject to basically just instinct, which is the worst form of oppression, ask any addict.
Freedom or liberty in a more authentic, humanistic sense, also in the same way religious people understand it (no coincidence that Islam literally translates to 'submission' (to god)) grounds you in reason, reality and requires that understanding what legitimate authority is like. Only from that point can you actually start to make genuinely free decisions, you need to be set free from(!) a whole bunch of things first.
It's also btw why so many young people today, less coerced than ever before, don't feel free at all, just disoriented, and why they flock to political authoritarianism. The sort of relativism invited in by not properly understanding the relationship between authority and freedom has the ironical result of creating demand for some of the very worst forms of oppression.
Freedom or liberty in a more authentic, humanistic sense, also in the same way religious people understand it (no coincidence that Islam literally translates to 'submission' (to god)) grounds you in reason, reality and requires that understanding what legitimate authority is like. Only from that point can you actually start to make genuinely free decisions, you need to be set free from(!) a whole bunch of things first.
It's also btw why so many young people today, less coerced than ever before, don't feel free at all, just disoriented, and why they flock to political authoritarianism. The sort of relativism invited in by not properly understanding the relationship between authority and freedom has the ironical result of creating demand for some of the very worst forms of oppression.
You gotta serve somebody but the whole point of libertarian freedom is that you choose when and how to give it up. You can join the army, marry, adopt a religion, start a job, have children, or simply make moral judgements about the world and attempt to live by them (note that many of those things are not "hedonistic").
Libertarian freedom was hard won, it works, and it would be a damn shame to give it up due to the anxiety experienced by 20-somethings. Relativism is in no way the certain outcome of liberal societies. To the extent that there is a problem, it's non-judgmentalism, the trendy idea that it is suspect to render judgements and live by them.
Libertarian freedom was hard won, it works, and it would be a damn shame to give it up due to the anxiety experienced by 20-somethings. Relativism is in no way the certain outcome of liberal societies. To the extent that there is a problem, it's non-judgmentalism, the trendy idea that it is suspect to render judgements and live by them.
I am from India, and the freedom we won wasn't libertarian freedom. In fact, most independence movements were driven by reversing colonization and racist governance, not seeking libertarian freedoms. Most nations that achieved independence would laugh at this concept.
I disagree. Banning chewing gum is closest to banning open urination. Restrictions on "freedom" such as not being allowed to dump toxic waste into lakes etc, stem from preventing tragedy of the commons - not from demanding obedience. The same goes for vaccine mandates.
In fact, one of the primary responsibilities of the government is to prevent tragedy of the commons. Everything else can be driven privately.
In fact, one of the primary responsibilities of the government is to prevent tragedy of the commons. Everything else can be driven privately.
I'm not arguing that people should be able to piss in the street or dump toxic waste. Restrictions on freedom are often justified. My point is that they are restrictions; the fact that a restriction may be good does not magically make it something other than a restriction.
I'm aware that most places in the world are not liberal. Fine with me. There's no need for every country or culture to share the same values. But in countries where libertarian freedom is a value, e.g. the US and UK, it should be defended.
I'm aware that most places in the world are not liberal. Fine with me. There's no need for every country or culture to share the same values. But in countries where libertarian freedom is a value, e.g. the US and UK, it should be defended.
There is a difference between liberal and libertarian. Libertarianism has a fairly narrow support even in the US. Those who argue for less regulation also want to ban abortion. The most libertarian representation in US politics was Greenspan and he seemed to walk back on it in 2008. It's a niche point of view in the United states.
Moreover, if libertarianism has value, it should be defensible without appeal to the support or lack of support in popular culture.
Moreover, if libertarianism has value, it should be defensible without appeal to the support or lack of support in popular culture.
I'm not talking about libertarianism in the context of American politics. Liberal and libertarian have similar (or even the same) meaning in political philosophy. The basic idea is that they view freedom as non interference.
> but no chewing gum is a bit extreme in my opinion.
People, especially the ones who have never travelled to Singapore, need to stop rehashing this story of old.
Chewing gum can be freely purchased in Singapore from a pharmacy. No, one won't be searched at the airport and/or canned for bringing their own chewing gum into the city.
People, especially the ones who have never travelled to Singapore, need to stop rehashing this story of old.
Chewing gum can be freely purchased in Singapore from a pharmacy. No, one won't be searched at the airport and/or canned for bringing their own chewing gum into the city.
Can only be purchased with a letter from a doctor or dentist, your National ID number is recorded and you can only buy small amounts.
You won’t go to jail for a pack of gum in your luggage but you will be punished if caught bribing in large quantities (likely a fine or if a foreigner, banned from coming to SG).
You won’t go to jail for a pack of gum in your luggage but you will be punished if caught bribing in large quantities (likely a fine or if a foreigner, banned from coming to SG).
[deleted]
You don't really give up anything in Singapore.
I don't think surveillance is the real necessary part to keep a place safe and clean, but a culture that cares about being safe and clean and legal system that cares about enforcing against acting that way.
Singapore was like that before cheap mass digital surveillance was possible. Even before VHS taped security cameras were affordable. And back in the VHS era, there was way less CCTV.
Singapore was like that before cheap mass digital surveillance was possible. Even before VHS taped security cameras were affordable. And back in the VHS era, there was way less CCTV.
that and cheap migrant labor
It’s not worth it. That being said I don’t know if Singapore is all that bad.
You can cherry pick bad sounding facts about every place. That's not a serious analysis.
But those facts can still say a lot about a place, without providing a serious analysis.
Cherry picked facts can say pretty much anything you want about a place.
Singapore is very well known for being somewhat authoritarian. It’s not really something that needs to be analyzed.
I live in Singapore. That robot dog is a gimmick, there's maybe 2 of them in the entire country, and they're not used for enforcement at all.
You're right about the surveillance and tough stance on drugs. This results in crime being virtually non-existent.
You're right about the surveillance and tough stance on drugs. This results in crime being virtually non-existent.
Crime is absolutely not non-existent. Plenty of crime gets reported in the media and the Singapore Police deal with plenty more that never gets reported in the press.
There's a mentaly impaired guy on the death row for smuggling 47 grams of diamorphine in order to fund his dad's life saving medical procedure.
William Gibson labelled it Disneyland with the death penalty which is not entirely accurate but it's close.
William Gibson labelled it Disneyland with the death penalty which is not entirely accurate but it's close.
AKA heroin. Heroin smugglers in east Asia tend to get executed.
Not in Japan. Not in South Korea (the law is still on the books, but no one has been executed for drug offences since 1997). Not in Taiwan (like SK, no one has been executed for drug offences since 2002). Developed democratic East Asian countries have phased out death penalty for drug offences.
And it should go without saying that Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have not been overrun with addiction epidemic or withered and burned to the ground as a result of not having death penalty for drug offences. The cruelty of death penalty is unnecessary. It makes politicians look good to a certain audience, but beyond that, it doesn't do much.
And it should go without saying that Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have not been overrun with addiction epidemic or withered and burned to the ground as a result of not having death penalty for drug offences. The cruelty of death penalty is unnecessary. It makes politicians look good to a certain audience, but beyond that, it doesn't do much.
Japan and Taiwan are islands. South Korea has a strict border (DMV) with North Korea. All three countries don’t need to worry about neighbouring countries smuggling drugs into theirs. That is not the case with Singapore. Both Thailand and Burma produce a lot of drugs that end up in their city.
Actually Japan is a very lucrative market for Asian drug dealers, because the price of drugs is so high there and they're pushing mainly synthetic drugs which are are quite cheap to produce compared to heroin, so they can afford losing some shipments.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meth-syn...
"The wholesale price of a kilo of crystal meth produced in northeastern Myanmar is as little as $1,800, according to a UNODC report citing the China National Narcotics Control Commission. Average retail prices for crystal meth, according to the UN agency, are equivalent to $70,500 per kilo in Thailand, $298,000 per kilo in Australia and $588,000 in Japan. For the Japanese market, that’s more than a three-hundred-fold mark-up."
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meth-syn...
"The wholesale price of a kilo of crystal meth produced in northeastern Myanmar is as little as $1,800, according to a UNODC report citing the China National Narcotics Control Commission. Average retail prices for crystal meth, according to the UN agency, are equivalent to $70,500 per kilo in Thailand, $298,000 per kilo in Australia and $588,000 in Japan. For the Japanese market, that’s more than a three-hundred-fold mark-up."
I find it hard to believe that Japan—with its well-known and historically powerful organized crime—is somehow immune from the possibility of drug manufacturing within its borders or smuggling from abroad. Yakuza's Wikipedia page confirms my suspicion that organized crime groups do both of those things in Japan.
And how much do you think it costs to ship those drugs compare to a land border? And in what quantity? It’s basic economics.
The Wikipedia page doesn’t even mention how much they earn from it and some gangs even outright ban it. That already tells you it ain’t mainstream.
The Wikipedia page doesn’t even mention how much they earn from it and some gangs even outright ban it. That already tells you it ain’t mainstream.
Is there any for me to win this argument? I don't know what the status of the drug trade is in Japan. But I imagine that if it is mainstream, you would argue it's all because they've eliminated death penalty and has nothing to do with Japan being an island; and if it is not mainstream, you would say it has nothing to do with not having death penalty, but with Japan being an island. In no case, no matter what information we get from Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, would you be convinced that death penalty is cruel and pointless.
> you would argue it's all because they've eliminated death penalty and has nothing to do with Japan being an island
I am not advocating for death penalty. I am simply pointing out your arguments are incorrect.
> In no case, no matter what information we get from Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, would you be convinced that death penalty is cruel and pointless.
I personally have no opinion on death penalty. I would prefer it did not exists (not that it is any of your business).
It seems like you are trying to win the argument simply based on your beliefs rather than on reasoning. You assumed I was pro death penalty and did a quick google search to justify your opinion. This says enough about your reasoning, don't you think? Making this a very boring argument.
I am not advocating for death penalty. I am simply pointing out your arguments are incorrect.
> In no case, no matter what information we get from Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, would you be convinced that death penalty is cruel and pointless.
I personally have no opinion on death penalty. I would prefer it did not exists (not that it is any of your business).
It seems like you are trying to win the argument simply based on your beliefs rather than on reasoning. You assumed I was pro death penalty and did a quick google search to justify your opinion. This says enough about your reasoning, don't you think? Making this a very boring argument.
This account introduces how criminals import drugs. (ja) https://twitter.com/Custom_kun
>There's a mentaly impaired guy on the death row for smuggling 47 grams of diamorphine in order to fund his dad's life saving medical procedure.
Is that an indictment of Singapore's justice system, or of America's health care system?
Is that an indictment of Singapore's justice system, or of America's health care system?
Nothing Disneyland about it though. Mostly just super boring...
I mean this is obviously reductionist but let's cherry pick some examples from the UK, bastion of the free.
It's run by an apparently corrupt government [0]
The NHS falls over every Winter, even without the help of a pandemic [1]
Backlogs on the NHS are now getting so severe that doctors are institutionally negligent - I know of two personal cancer cases missed for no good reason and GPs I know are confess to giving poor care due to being understaffed [2]
Knife crime is so much of a problem it gets its own page for statistics [3]. (Spoilers: there were over 3000+ knife related injuries in London in the last year)
And so, only when an MP gets stabbed to death is it newsworthy [4][5]
Police can barely keep street violence from breaking out, and for the rest of the country it's just bants [6]
They can't even keep their force from kidnapping innocent women off the streets at 9pm [7] and so now you their own advice is to not trust them [8]
For all the talk about democracy and freedom, it really seems like freedom is about the freedom for the strong to harm and extort others.
No thanks.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/11/boris-johns...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/27/an-nhs-winte...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/27/nhs-backlog-...
[3] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04...
[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58930593
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox
[6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9800015/Thug-smashe...
[7] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-58745581
[8] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58753857
It's run by an apparently corrupt government [0]
The NHS falls over every Winter, even without the help of a pandemic [1]
Backlogs on the NHS are now getting so severe that doctors are institutionally negligent - I know of two personal cancer cases missed for no good reason and GPs I know are confess to giving poor care due to being understaffed [2]
Knife crime is so much of a problem it gets its own page for statistics [3]. (Spoilers: there were over 3000+ knife related injuries in London in the last year)
And so, only when an MP gets stabbed to death is it newsworthy [4][5]
Police can barely keep street violence from breaking out, and for the rest of the country it's just bants [6]
They can't even keep their force from kidnapping innocent women off the streets at 9pm [7] and so now you their own advice is to not trust them [8]
For all the talk about democracy and freedom, it really seems like freedom is about the freedom for the strong to harm and extort others.
No thanks.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/11/boris-johns...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/27/an-nhs-winte...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/27/nhs-backlog-...
[3] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04...
[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58930593
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox
[6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9800015/Thug-smashe...
[7] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-58745581
[8] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58753857
People complain a lot about the amount of surveillance and petty authoritarianism of the UK also, so I don't know what your trying to achieve. From what I've seen in reality, most of the time it isn't about how much surveillance a place has, but how much the police force works on preventing it, the culture of people itself and poverty.
Migrant workers? Or people who aren't vaccinated?
>Few expected Singapore to survive when it became an independent country in 1965. It was a tiny, impoverished island with a diverse population of recent immigrants.
This is the official PAP line, but Singapore was actually among the wealthiest cities in Asia before WW2. Admittedly there was a gaping chasm between rich and poor, but that remains the case today.
This is the official PAP line, but Singapore was actually among the wealthiest cities in Asia before WW2. Admittedly there was a gaping chasm between rich and poor, but that remains the case today.
Population is also much less diverse than claimed.
It's 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, then Indian. That makes it more homogeneous than Malaysia.
IMHO, that's a reason why they split from Malaysia: they are a Chinese city, ethnically speaking.
It's 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, then Indian. That makes it more homogeneous than Malaysia.
IMHO, that's a reason why they split from Malaysia: they are a Chinese city, ethnically speaking.
> It's 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, then Indian. That makes it more homogeneous than Malaysia.
The former does not imply the latter unless you consider Chinese and Indians to be less diverse than Malaysians. Which is dubious, considering Chinese and Indian Singaporeans come from all kinds of different places across two regions much larger than Malaysia.
Of course the Singaporean government has been hard at work to homogenize their population, e.g. the Speak Mandarin Campaign to get all Chinese Singaporean to speak the same language, but that wouldn't have been necessary if they'd been homogeneous from the beginning.
The former does not imply the latter unless you consider Chinese and Indians to be less diverse than Malaysians. Which is dubious, considering Chinese and Indian Singaporeans come from all kinds of different places across two regions much larger than Malaysia.
Of course the Singaporean government has been hard at work to homogenize their population, e.g. the Speak Mandarin Campaign to get all Chinese Singaporean to speak the same language, but that wouldn't have been necessary if they'd been homogeneous from the beginning.
But dig into the history of Singapore and it starts to make sense.
It was a British port for a long time (one of many parts of the Straits settlements). When Malaysia won independence, it included Singapore.
Lots of friction between Malay Chinese and Malay. The British colonizers left but the wealthy Chinese remained (similar trend seen in many SE Asia countries).
Singapore was kicked out of the Malay Federation not long after independence. Most simplified it was a power struggle in who would run Malaysia. Easier to cleave Singapore off as the heavily Chinese population wielded a lot a power.
But don’t get me wrong. Singapore has accomplished a lot. A tiny population be forced to go out on its own is not an easy hand to be dealt. To me, Singapore’s approach has been mostly just practical. They don’t care if public housing is “socialist” or if a single government approved union is authoritarian. They do what feel will yield the outcome they need.
But I get the sense they still have a very “survival” mentality - what they have is fragile and without close management will fall apart. Likely very true 50 years ago, but not so much today. But the governing party is the same and the mentality remains - one bad decision and as LYK says “Singapore dies”.
It was a British port for a long time (one of many parts of the Straits settlements). When Malaysia won independence, it included Singapore.
Lots of friction between Malay Chinese and Malay. The British colonizers left but the wealthy Chinese remained (similar trend seen in many SE Asia countries).
Singapore was kicked out of the Malay Federation not long after independence. Most simplified it was a power struggle in who would run Malaysia. Easier to cleave Singapore off as the heavily Chinese population wielded a lot a power.
But don’t get me wrong. Singapore has accomplished a lot. A tiny population be forced to go out on its own is not an easy hand to be dealt. To me, Singapore’s approach has been mostly just practical. They don’t care if public housing is “socialist” or if a single government approved union is authoritarian. They do what feel will yield the outcome they need.
But I get the sense they still have a very “survival” mentality - what they have is fragile and without close management will fall apart. Likely very true 50 years ago, but not so much today. But the governing party is the same and the mentality remains - one bad decision and as LYK says “Singapore dies”.
The housing program was explicitly socialist. LKY hated the communists (and socialists) but he recognized that he had to accede to some of their more popular demands before tossing them in prison - part of that siege mentality you refered to.
They similarly reduced their class sizes in the 90s under democratic pressure from an opposition party that was later torn apart.
Despite being a one party state run by thugs, Singapore experiences stronger democratic/anticorruption pressures than a lot of places because of the close proximity of people to leaders (there are studies on this - Brazil/Myanmar are at the other end of the spectrum with very remote capitals).
They similarly reduced their class sizes in the 90s under democratic pressure from an opposition party that was later torn apart.
Despite being a one party state run by thugs, Singapore experiences stronger democratic/anticorruption pressures than a lot of places because of the close proximity of people to leaders (there are studies on this - Brazil/Myanmar are at the other end of the spectrum with very remote capitals).
Agreed, but LYK had ulterior motives with HDBs - he was very worried about creating a Singaporean identity. And believed that home ownership was a key part of that identity (“my home is Singapore”). He also acknowledged that a large part of the population living in kampungs didn’t foster political stability.
So yes, a massive public housing system is socialist in nature, but I’d agree it was entirely a politically practical initiative for Singapore.
And that’s what is so interesting. LYK mentioned his admiration for Deng Xiaopeng - an eminently practical leader. Capitalist, socialist, whatever, if it works it works and Singapore is willing to leverage it.
But it makes for an odd political scene. PAP will admit failure, as long as it’s not politically damaging. Otherwise they quietly take the pulse of the electorate and try to stay ahead of any issues.
It’s a very reactive semi-authoritarian system. They are concerned about losing legitimacy so work hard to stay popular.
So yes, a massive public housing system is socialist in nature, but I’d agree it was entirely a politically practical initiative for Singapore.
And that’s what is so interesting. LYK mentioned his admiration for Deng Xiaopeng - an eminently practical leader. Capitalist, socialist, whatever, if it works it works and Singapore is willing to leverage it.
But it makes for an odd political scene. PAP will admit failure, as long as it’s not politically damaging. Otherwise they quietly take the pulse of the electorate and try to stay ahead of any issues.
It’s a very reactive semi-authoritarian system. They are concerned about losing legitimacy so work hard to stay popular.
> Otherwise they quietly take the pulse of the electorate and try to stay ahead of any issues. It’s a very reactive semi-authoritarian system. They are concerned about losing legitimacy so work hard to stay popular.
Wouldn’t that be proactive rather than reactive?
Wouldn’t that be proactive rather than reactive?
Well in this case I’m defining proactive as “giving the people what they want before they know they want it” versus reactive which is “giving the people what they want before they vote us out of office”.
So proactive in the “re-election” sense, but reactive in the political strategy sense.
So proactive in the “re-election” sense, but reactive in the political strategy sense.
Taking pulse and staying on top of things is generally the very definition of proactive, so it’s confusing to say they are very reactive in the next sentence. The PAP despite all of their other flaws seems to be great at planning, at least they wouldn’t deserve the “very” modifier if they are being called out as reactive.
#1 He was trying to avoid another race riot. Forced mixing of Malays and Chinese was supposed to prevent that (even today there are strict rules on % of races in HDBs).
#2 is another way of saying "those fucking commies".
It would be equally politically practical to have a similar program in most countries but we don't. Indeed many (especially younger people) are screaming for a program like this. Yet public housing programs tend to be watered down and dismantled instead.
LKY lacking in ideology (other than fervent anticommunism) isnt especially interesting. It's very normal for people to chase power without much in the way of ideology. Boris Johnson is similarly lacking in ideology but the last thing he'd do is build some council houses.
What IS interesting is how the material circumstances of Singapore managed to keep him on a tight leash.
#2 is another way of saying "those fucking commies".
It would be equally politically practical to have a similar program in most countries but we don't. Indeed many (especially younger people) are screaming for a program like this. Yet public housing programs tend to be watered down and dismantled instead.
LKY lacking in ideology (other than fervent anticommunism) isnt especially interesting. It's very normal for people to chase power without much in the way of ideology. Boris Johnson is similarly lacking in ideology but the last thing he'd do is build some council houses.
What IS interesting is how the material circumstances of Singapore managed to keep him on a tight leash.
I think it's absurd we are still talking politics based on ideology, as if it's some religion. It isn't, and it shouldn't be. Most of the countries in the world today have some government-subsidized program, and also have a market. The truth is ideological fanatics don't really have a place in today's world, but somehow that's the easiest way to reason and rally the population. I believe in free market, I believe in socialism, but there is always a lot more to a policy than those seemingly two sides of a coin, and much work need to be done, perhaps that's the kind of thing that most people can easily understand, therefore more slogan-ish than useful.
Ideology isn't religion.
Like it or not (evidently you do not), most politics is practiced within an ideological framework. Calling out ~80% of the world as fanatics for acting as such seems a little... extreme?
In any case, the interesting part of this story is how two leaders (Boris and LKY) can lack overriding ideology and only seek power and yet one builds housing for people to live in while the other doesn't.
Like it or not (evidently you do not), most politics is practiced within an ideological framework. Calling out ~80% of the world as fanatics for acting as such seems a little... extreme?
In any case, the interesting part of this story is how two leaders (Boris and LKY) can lack overriding ideology and only seek power and yet one builds housing for people to live in while the other doesn't.
There isn't a government that don't allow free market at all or offer no public program at all, at least most aren't. Of course ideology isn't religion, but there are people treating it like one. Practiced within an ideological framework is a lot different from what I'm describing here, framework is a vague word, and implies a mix of positions.
Source?
Doesn't seem to be the case [0].
[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325669726_The_Recon...
Doesn't seem to be the case [0].
[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325669726_The_Recon...
Didn't the Japanese occupation include a lot of deportations, forced labour and other crimes leaving the place wrecked in both human and material terms?
Of course, but that affected virtually all major cities in Asia. And unlike (say) Tokyo or Manila, Singapore was never subjected to prolonged fighting or bombing, leaving it fairly intact.
That Singapore was a reasonable well off place in the 50's was the impression I got from reading Burgess.
"Singapore had been colonized, occupied, and abused for over a century, "
This is a bit glib anti-history. There was almost nothing there when the English purchased/leased the territory and setup a trading post with strong rule of law and competent commercial practices, and developed a key port which allowed it to exist and flourish.
There was no 'Singapore' until UK Colonialists and local migrants made it.
Singapore, along with Hong Kong, have benefited greatly from rigorous and stable commercial foundations, which allow them to flourish in an region of otherwise political, legal and economic uncertainty. If you have money in Asia over the last 200 years, you preferably want it in Hong Kong or Singapore.
The 'secret' to Singapore's success might be a bit tantamount to if someone were to cleave off Manhattan from the rest of the USA, it's GDP per capita would be 2x that of 'The Mainland', but would we wonder how it was successful? They'd own the financial and distributor/merchant economic sectors of the region while externalizing less profitable ventures to the mainland.
As Asia as grown significantly, Western countries need 'bases' to work from and Singapore / HK were ideal choices, not HK is almost off the radar a process which has been ongoing for a couple of decades.
"Singapore modernized without imposing "Western political models on Asian realities".
Singapore is a Western entity in terms of core governance, judicial, commercial law etc.. Singaporean legal system still refers to English law, and even Commonwealth aka Canadian/Australian legal precedent to this day.
Singapore is a Western commercial and colonialist construct with mostly Western institutions, an Easter population, and an Eastern political elite who have their flavour of governance.
This is a bit glib anti-history. There was almost nothing there when the English purchased/leased the territory and setup a trading post with strong rule of law and competent commercial practices, and developed a key port which allowed it to exist and flourish.
There was no 'Singapore' until UK Colonialists and local migrants made it.
Singapore, along with Hong Kong, have benefited greatly from rigorous and stable commercial foundations, which allow them to flourish in an region of otherwise political, legal and economic uncertainty. If you have money in Asia over the last 200 years, you preferably want it in Hong Kong or Singapore.
The 'secret' to Singapore's success might be a bit tantamount to if someone were to cleave off Manhattan from the rest of the USA, it's GDP per capita would be 2x that of 'The Mainland', but would we wonder how it was successful? They'd own the financial and distributor/merchant economic sectors of the region while externalizing less profitable ventures to the mainland.
As Asia as grown significantly, Western countries need 'bases' to work from and Singapore / HK were ideal choices, not HK is almost off the radar a process which has been ongoing for a couple of decades.
"Singapore modernized without imposing "Western political models on Asian realities".
Singapore is a Western entity in terms of core governance, judicial, commercial law etc.. Singaporean legal system still refers to English law, and even Commonwealth aka Canadian/Australian legal precedent to this day.
Singapore is a Western commercial and colonialist construct with mostly Western institutions, an Easter population, and an Eastern political elite who have their flavour of governance.
> LKY is often called a "benevolent dictator" ... The country’s record on LGBT rights is particularly dismaying
Actually, Lee Kwan Yew spoke in favor of gay law reform in Singapore from 2007. (Which is longer ago than it sounds: Lawrence v Texas was decided in 2003.) It's about the only policy debate he lost: his successors didn't believe that the people would stand for it. And it's easy to forget how bad everywhere else was. Until 2000 or so, I doubt gay life in Singapore was much harder than in Australia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-homosexuality-i...
Actually, Lee Kwan Yew spoke in favor of gay law reform in Singapore from 2007. (Which is longer ago than it sounds: Lawrence v Texas was decided in 2003.) It's about the only policy debate he lost: his successors didn't believe that the people would stand for it. And it's easy to forget how bad everywhere else was. Until 2000 or so, I doubt gay life in Singapore was much harder than in Australia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-homosexuality-i...
Austrailia decriminalised gay sexual activity in 1973.
Other neighbouring countries, Indonesia by comparision (aside from Aceh) has no law against it, nor does Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, East Timor (that's not to say LGBT people don't suffer obstacles and discrimination in those states, but all are more progressed legally).
Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Myanmar are the holdouts in SE Asia.
Reality probably means that LGBT is more acceptable in Singapore than in some of those countries, but the law really should catch up.
Other neighbouring countries, Indonesia by comparision (aside from Aceh) has no law against it, nor does Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, East Timor (that's not to say LGBT people don't suffer obstacles and discrimination in those states, but all are more progressed legally).
Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Myanmar are the holdouts in SE Asia.
Reality probably means that LGBT is more acceptable in Singapore than in some of those countries, but the law really should catch up.
> the law really should catch up
Of course it should! My point is that LKY ended up supporting that, so it's a bit unfair to blame him for it not happening. In the context of the article, it matters that the dictator was in favor of gay law reform, and it was fears of electoral consequences that stopped it, or at least provided the excuse for not doing it.
Here's what Australia was doing in the 1990s. Singapore really didn't have much scope to be worse.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/the-ni...
> Austrailia decriminalised gay sexual activity in 1973
That is false, or at least highly misleading.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-24/timeline:-australian-...
I think Don Dunstan did something in 1973, but I've forgotten exactly what. (It's interesting how many authors still omit to mention that Dunstan was bisexual.) The murder of George Duncan, by persons unknown but widely suspected to be wearing blue uniforms, was 1972. That gave Dunstan his excuse.
The job wasn't finished until 1997, by the conventional account. Personally, I'd argue for 2016, when Queensland[1] made it legal to be a gay teenager.
https://www.queerradio.org/AgeOfConsent.htm
[1] "named for her gracious majesty Victoria Regina, has been inhabited by many who sought to wear her crown" - Clive Moore, Sunshine and Rainbows
Of course it should! My point is that LKY ended up supporting that, so it's a bit unfair to blame him for it not happening. In the context of the article, it matters that the dictator was in favor of gay law reform, and it was fears of electoral consequences that stopped it, or at least provided the excuse for not doing it.
Here's what Australia was doing in the 1990s. Singapore really didn't have much scope to be worse.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/the-ni...
> Austrailia decriminalised gay sexual activity in 1973
That is false, or at least highly misleading.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-24/timeline:-australian-...
I think Don Dunstan did something in 1973, but I've forgotten exactly what. (It's interesting how many authors still omit to mention that Dunstan was bisexual.) The murder of George Duncan, by persons unknown but widely suspected to be wearing blue uniforms, was 1972. That gave Dunstan his excuse.
The job wasn't finished until 1997, by the conventional account. Personally, I'd argue for 2016, when Queensland[1] made it legal to be a gay teenager.
https://www.queerradio.org/AgeOfConsent.htm
[1] "named for her gracious majesty Victoria Regina, has been inhabited by many who sought to wear her crown" - Clive Moore, Sunshine and Rainbows
> Singapore is ranked as Asia’s most environmentally sustainable city.
The provided link is dead. I find this hard to believe. Singapore imports almost all of its food and all of its energy (mostly not sustainable) and much of its water. Practically speaking, the land is fully developed with relatively little in the shape of parks and reserves.
I'm currently living in SG, I love SG. But (and I had to look this up), sustainable, in this context means: "involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy natural resources." I don't see how Singapore is #1 (If you told me Singapore was literally the least sustainable country in the world, I'd more likely believe that)
The provided link is dead. I find this hard to believe. Singapore imports almost all of its food and all of its energy (mostly not sustainable) and much of its water. Practically speaking, the land is fully developed with relatively little in the shape of parks and reserves.
I'm currently living in SG, I love SG. But (and I had to look this up), sustainable, in this context means: "involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy natural resources." I don't see how Singapore is #1 (If you told me Singapore was literally the least sustainable country in the world, I'd more likely believe that)
Cities are usually much greener and more environmentally because of the density of people. The same population in a rural area would need a lot more fuel for cars (as you couldn't offer public transit). They'd have much bigger houses (needing more fuel to heat and electricity to light/cool). One of the greenest things people can do it move to the city.
They don't need rural area because they import foods.
sustainablity doesn't mean independece of outside economy, it looks weird in SG case, but it's how sustainability is measured across the world, the ability to keep existing econologically rather than economically even though it relies on foreign trade to satisfy even the most basic need
These norms are written in capitals and city states, and they always get them in the form where their lifestyle = most sustainable, the people who actually grow their food and extract fuel = least sustainable.
Incentives matter.
Incentives matter.
> But (and I had to look this up), sustainable, in this context means: "involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy natural resources."
Yes, that's what 'sustainable' means: It can be sustained indefinitely over time.
To have to import food, energy, water, etc. means that they are not self-sufficient, which is different and quite obvious since they are a city.
Now, to be accurate, a claim of sustainability should take into account whether these imports are from sustainable sources. However, cunningly, the claim is not that they are sustainable, it's that they are the most sustainable city in the region, which is a relative metric and may mean no more than "they are the least bad".
Yes, that's what 'sustainable' means: It can be sustained indefinitely over time.
To have to import food, energy, water, etc. means that they are not self-sufficient, which is different and quite obvious since they are a city.
Now, to be accurate, a claim of sustainability should take into account whether these imports are from sustainable sources. However, cunningly, the claim is not that they are sustainable, it's that they are the most sustainable city in the region, which is a relative metric and may mean no more than "they are the least bad".
Something that's sustainable should scale / be reproducible. If only _some_ parties can do it, it isn't sustainable. If everyone did "sustainability" like Singapore, we'd literally all die in a few weeks.
Sources need to be more than sustainable, they need to be sustainable for everyone.
At least according to 1 source, my original guess as right: Singapore is the _least_ sustainable country in the world [1]
[1] - https://www.sustainabledevelopmentindex.org/
Sources need to be more than sustainable, they need to be sustainable for everyone.
At least according to 1 source, my original guess as right: Singapore is the _least_ sustainable country in the world [1]
[1] - https://www.sustainabledevelopmentindex.org/
I always find it awkward to compare city-states to regular-sized countries. There is no “rural Singapore.” A lot of these independent cities are tiny because they were rich and powerful to begin with; That’s a fantastic starting point that no other country can have.
There’s not much many other countries can learn from Singapore because they all either don’t have enough money or have a greater variety of people to convince.
There’s not much many other countries can learn from Singapore because they all either don’t have enough money or have a greater variety of people to convince.
[deleted]
If I remember correctly from my visits in SG then the country was not rich from "the beginning", in fact it was very underdeveloped until the late 60s and beginning of the 70s and it worked out for them because of it was a dictatorship under Lee Kuan Yew and made the right decisions... and was tolerated by the West at the same time.
Underdeveloped by whose standard? An underdeveloped city does not seek independence. You have to place it in its context. It probably was not the poorest city by a long shot even at its birth.
It wasn't the poorest city, but it was a lot poorer than most of the cities it's now richer than.
You seem to be conflating rich and poor and rural and urban, which have very little relation. Singapore was very poor, baring some rich businessmen, mostly Chinese IIRC, and had ethic tensions to boot between the Chinese, Malay and Indian populations it had ( one of the main reasons it was expelled from Malaysia).
New York was also very poor, barring some rich businessmen. You have to look at it relatively to its surrounding. Of course there were poor people too, but they lived in the “suburbs”, not in the middle of deserts like, say, in the US.
My main turnoff in Singapore after living there is the explicit racism that is a part of its social hierarchy. A fresh college grad who is Singaporean will earn more than a much more experienced veteran doing the same work, if that veteran is, for example, from the Philippines. There is a lot of what other countries would consider slave labor disguised as "opportunity" for those from more disadvantageous surrounding economies. This lack of equality runs deep through all the different social constructs of its culture.
This is true for all countries which import labour. So nearly all, barring a few.
I feel that would be the case for most countries and places though. That's not so obvious, a local college degree will almost always work better than an non-local one.
I've worked in cities around the world and never seen elsewhere this particular kind of gap in opportunity based on where you are from as demonstrated in Singapore.
But my example was just one example of this inequality. It can really weigh you down to live in it for some time if you are from a country with much more general freedom and attempts at social equality (i.e. much of europe or even the U.S.).
But my example was just one example of this inequality. It can really weigh you down to live in it for some time if you are from a country with much more general freedom and attempts at social equality (i.e. much of europe or even the U.S.).
I can sort of understand where it might come from, but with that one example it is difficult to comprehend exactly what it's like.
It's across the whole social hierarchy. Some mainland Chinese bus drivers went on strike because the official pay scale dictated that they be paid less than Malays for the same job.
They even said "look we understand why locals get paid more for the same job but why Malays? This is unfair"
For their troubles they were arrested, imprisoned, had the shit kicked out of them before being deported.
That's still better than how Bangladeshi migrant workers are treated.
The racism is not as bad as it is in, say, Saudi Arabia or Israel but it's still pretty bad.
They even said "look we understand why locals get paid more for the same job but why Malays? This is unfair"
For their troubles they were arrested, imprisoned, had the shit kicked out of them before being deported.
That's still better than how Bangladeshi migrant workers are treated.
The racism is not as bad as it is in, say, Saudi Arabia or Israel but it's still pretty bad.
That’s not racism it’s nationalism.
It was just one example.
Is there such thing as ethnic Philippine Singaporean?
Not really. The main ethnicities are Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Malay.
That's not nationalism it's racism.
Fun fact: despite the fact that China has (had?) the One Child Policy and Singapore didn't, Singapore's fertility rate is around 1.14 vs 1.7 for China (2019 figures, since I'm guessing the Pandemic years are outliers). Singapore is much closer to One Child in practice.
Singapore needs constant immigration to stop its population from dropping like a rock. This is good for their economy since they've effectively outsourced many of the costs of raising children to other nations. But I don't know if I'd want to live in a place where raising kids is that difficult.
Singapore needs constant immigration to stop its population from dropping like a rock. This is good for their economy since they've effectively outsourced many of the costs of raising children to other nations. But I don't know if I'd want to live in a place where raising kids is that difficult.
Keep in mind that China's figures include their rural and minority-heavy regions in the west, which have had higher allowances for children.
Shanghai is estimated to have had a 2010 fertility rate of 0.6, according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Shanghai
Shanghai is estimated to have had a 2010 fertility rate of 0.6, according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Shanghai
I always wonder how to interpret fertility rates for cities where people arrive and leave a lot. San Francisco famously has more dogs than children for example. But I also know a lot of people who moved out of San Francisco to somewhere cheaper when they were expecting a baby.
I assume this happens less in Singapore because it's a city state, you can't just leave the city without actually emigrating.
I assume this happens less in Singapore because it's a city state, you can't just leave the city without actually emigrating.
At least in China, the land area for cities is quite substantial. Land area of Shanghai is 2448 square miles, so it covers more of the case where people move to outlying neighborhoods for more space, as opposed to San Francisco's 47 square miles.
Basically all Chinese cities are equivalent to US counties.
It's not commonly known, but yeah, anything about a Chinese city should be compared to stats about a US Metro Area to make any sense.
It's not commonly known, but yeah, anything about a Chinese city should be compared to stats about a US Metro Area to make any sense.
The recent megalopolis stuff will also make things more complicated, though I'm unfamiliar with the fares for the regional HSR so I'm not sure that daily commuting from Nanjing to Shanghai actually makes a lick of sense.
Even in the US, comparing by counties is dangerous, because counties are not standardized between states. Sometimes cities are contiguous with counties (San Francisco), sometimes they are smaller (Chicago), sometimes they are bigger (New York's 5 boroughs are each a county.)
Even in the US, comparing by counties is dangerous, because counties are not standardized between states. Sometimes cities are contiguous with counties (San Francisco), sometimes they are smaller (Chicago), sometimes they are bigger (New York's 5 boroughs are each a county.)
Shanghai would only count those who have hukou (official residence) in the city, everyone else is basically a foreigner. For example if someone from Hunan had a kid in Shanghai, they would have Hunan hukou, not Shanghai hukou, and wouldn’t be counted in their numbers.
Migrant workers generally don’t bring their kids/families to these cities however, as they have no right to local public schooling and medical resources, it can be a really difficult life unless you are rich. Likewise, very few people with Shanghai hukou will go somewhere else (it does happen though people), mobility in China is really complicated by the hukou system.
Migrant workers generally don’t bring their kids/families to these cities however, as they have no right to local public schooling and medical resources, it can be a really difficult life unless you are rich. Likewise, very few people with Shanghai hukou will go somewhere else (it does happen though people), mobility in China is really complicated by the hukou system.
Singapore had an official "Stop At Two" policy through the seventies and eighties, although it was nowhere near as strict or coercive as China's. It certainly did work though, it's very unusual to meet Singaporeans with more than 2 kids today.
What makes it not as coercive?
If I'm not allowed to have 2, was it less coercive because there was a way around it or something?
> It certainly did work though, it's very unusual to meet Singaporeans with more than 2 kids today.
I'd guess the lack of space and longer working hours would be more of a contributor.
If I'm not allowed to have 2, was it less coercive because there was a way around it or something?
> It certainly did work though, it's very unusual to meet Singaporeans with more than 2 kids today.
I'd guess the lack of space and longer working hours would be more of a contributor.
In China you were fined when you had more than one child. In Singapore, you were not. It was just a publicity campaign, basically.
> I'd guess the lack of space and longer working hours would be more of a contributor.
Yup.
Also, Singaporeans of Indian and Malay descent have more children than Singaporeans of Chinese descent. Over time this would lead to the ethnic composition of Singapore changing. However, the government has decided the ethnic balance as it was upon independence is sacrosanct, so they hand out permanent residence status to anyone of ethnic Chinese descent that wants it - people from mainland China, mostly.
> I'd guess the lack of space and longer working hours would be more of a contributor.
Yup.
Also, Singaporeans of Indian and Malay descent have more children than Singaporeans of Chinese descent. Over time this would lead to the ethnic composition of Singapore changing. However, the government has decided the ethnic balance as it was upon independence is sacrosanct, so they hand out permanent residence status to anyone of ethnic Chinese descent that wants it - people from mainland China, mostly.
> In China you were fined when you had more than one child. In Singapore, you were not. It was just a publicity campaign, basically.
Well it would appear in Singapore, you were effectively fined anyways, just in a roundabout way, so I'm not sure how then that translates into less coercive.
> To help convince parents that fewer were better, the government legalized abortion and encouraged voluntary sterilization. Hospital fees went up as a woman had more babies, working mothers were allowed only two paid maternity leaves and a family’s third, fourth and subsequent children were given a lower priority in the choice of and admission to schools. [1]
[1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-06-21-mn-8983-s...
Well it would appear in Singapore, you were effectively fined anyways, just in a roundabout way, so I'm not sure how then that translates into less coercive.
> To help convince parents that fewer were better, the government legalized abortion and encouraged voluntary sterilization. Hospital fees went up as a woman had more babies, working mothers were allowed only two paid maternity leaves and a family’s third, fourth and subsequent children were given a lower priority in the choice of and admission to schools. [1]
[1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-06-21-mn-8983-s...
Singapore heavily subsidizes what they want and then removes it for things they don’t.
Your quote is correct. But today, since they want more kids, you actually get more with the 3rd, 4th, etc kid - bigger bonus, school priority, savings account, tax rebate. There are half a dozen programs to help. It apparently adds up to over S$100,000 in benefits per kid over their childhood.
https://www.msf.gov.sg/policies/Strong-and-Stable-Families/S...
Your quote is correct. But today, since they want more kids, you actually get more with the 3rd, 4th, etc kid - bigger bonus, school priority, savings account, tax rebate. There are half a dozen programs to help. It apparently adds up to over S$100,000 in benefits per kid over their childhood.
https://www.msf.gov.sg/policies/Strong-and-Stable-Families/S...
In china you were more than "fined"
Friend's mum was spayed or whatever as punishment for giving birth to twins.
Mind you in the 80s they were straight up executing couples who did swinging.
Friend's mum was spayed or whatever as punishment for giving birth to twins.
Mind you in the 80s they were straight up executing couples who did swinging.
Enforcement was left up to localities, so was extremely uneven. Fines were more the norm in cities, but you and your spouse could also lose your government aid job (as a guide in Guilin told me she was a teacher before having their second kid, this is well into the 2000s).
Usually you wouldn’t be punished for having twins (at least in the cities that is). My wife has friends that are twins, their parents struggled to have even one kid so used fertility drugs (where twins is a more common result).
Usually you wouldn’t be punished for having twins (at least in the cities that is). My wife has friends that are twins, their parents struggled to have even one kid so used fertility drugs (where twins is a more common result).
China had a very hard line, up to and including forced abortion and sterilization. Singapore employed a more nuanced system of incentives and disincentives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_planning_in_Singapo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_planning_in_Singapo...
Are you saying that the low birth rate is due to lack of support for starting a family? I spent a lot of time in Singapore and that didn't seem to be the case and the government website list benefits for people starting families. It's not the best in the world but neither is it bad.
Singapore had a two child policy in the 1970s until 1986. The policy was just too successful and the culture never changed back.
China is finding similar success that transcends when the policy has officially been ended.
China is finding similar success that transcends when the policy has officially been ended.
source?
The one-child policy ended officially in 2015, and had never really found universal application. There's absolutely no reason why it would have a strong negative influence on China's fertility rate today. What is your point, exactly?
I disagree. China is already seeing very worrying negative effects of one child policy era like extremely skewed sex ratio and very low fertility rates. Both of these were made worse due to One child policy.
1.7 is a solid fertility rate that you would expect for a large, first-world country, not a "very low" one.
TFR in mainland China is closer to 1.3 according to the 2020 census, and there are plenty of signs pointing to an accelerated decrease for the upcoming decade.
https://www.reuters.com/article/china-society-census-fertili...
https://www.reuters.com/article/china-society-census-fertili...
The OP and I both agree that pandemic years are outliers, which is why we're using the 2019 numbers.
Except the worldwide birth rate did not change much in 2020, even for countries severely affected by Covid like US and Brazil. The apparent sharp drop from 1.6 to 1.3 probably had no relation to the pandemic after all.
Right but China is not a “large, first world country”.
A large swath of China is still very low income and rural. The fact that the birth rate is already comparable with developed countries with 5x per capital income is worrying if the trend continues.
A large swath of China is still very low income and rural. The fact that the birth rate is already comparable with developed countries with 5x per capital income is worrying if the trend continues.
China is a large, first world country. The amount of people who are rural in China are statistically insignificant in comparison to the vast number of people in cities; the average is nearly entirely dependent on the southeast half of China.
China is 40% rural and its median income is about 1/10th developed countries.
It is in no way close to the first world country.
https://tradingeconomics.com/china/rural-population-percent-...
It is in no way close to the first world country.
https://tradingeconomics.com/china/rural-population-percent-...
1.7 iirc is for 2019. China had record low births in 2020. Also, replacement rate for china is higher because the sex ratio for some age groups is as bad as 115 males to 100 females.
The worst effect of one child policy was imo skewed sex ratio.
The worst effect of one child policy was imo skewed sex ratio.
The OP and I both agree that pandemic years are outliers, which is why we're using the 2019 numbers.
Singapore most definitely had a policy for two children. There was also heavy state propaganda encouraging family planning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUpaQvaBL1w
Check out this video for an insight into the mindset of 1970's Singapore, via its state media at the time, SBC.
"Thousands of Chinese officials are sent to Singapore each year to learn from the city-state’s experience"
I hope that the anglosphere governments behave like this and I don't know about it. Good or bad, there is a lot to learn by going out and looking at how things work elsewhere.
The most obvious advantage I have seen in the Chinese model vs the Western model is they try things and pick up what works. Using Singapore as a petri dish then importing the ideas that seem to generate wealth is a step beyond any policy I've seen out of a western government in the last few decades. I doubt that is an inherently Chinese thing to do though and I'm sure they'll get lazy in the future - but this is a much better way of running policy than the usual guess-retry-guess-pivot approach that normal people seem to prefer.
I hope that the anglosphere governments behave like this and I don't know about it. Good or bad, there is a lot to learn by going out and looking at how things work elsewhere.
The most obvious advantage I have seen in the Chinese model vs the Western model is they try things and pick up what works. Using Singapore as a petri dish then importing the ideas that seem to generate wealth is a step beyond any policy I've seen out of a western government in the last few decades. I doubt that is an inherently Chinese thing to do though and I'm sure they'll get lazy in the future - but this is a much better way of running policy than the usual guess-retry-guess-pivot approach that normal people seem to prefer.
Most of the good policies the west could steal are perfectly obvious. It's a lack of will, not a lack of ideas or a petri dish. HDBs are nothing new - western governments know how effective it would be to copy - they simply dont want to.
I think it probably goes on more than people outside of local government realize. I only worked for the City of New Orleans for two years, but in that time we had delegations from governments in Japan and Israel visit our office to talk about our open data infrastructure and performance tracking.
> "Thousands of Chinese officials are sent to Singapore each year to learn from the city-state’s experience"
The Communist Party ruling over China has been a giant footgun on the Chinese national interest and development. China could've put itself back together after WW2 like Germany, France, Japan did. Good to see and hear US center for learning Chinese language/culture/history has relocated from Beijing to Taiwan.
The Communist Party ruling over China has been a giant footgun on the Chinese national interest and development. China could've put itself back together after WW2 like Germany, France, Japan did. Good to see and hear US center for learning Chinese language/culture/history has relocated from Beijing to Taiwan.
The overlay of Singapore over the map of Bay Area is striking. I have visited the island nation but would not have guessed that its geographic area is so compact.
As another measure of size Singapore’s population was 5.45 million as of June 2021. [1]
[1]: https://www.singstat.gov.sg/modules/infographics/population
As another measure of size Singapore’s population was 5.45 million as of June 2021. [1]
[1]: https://www.singstat.gov.sg/modules/infographics/population
The claim that Singapore, a signatory of the 1971 Five Power Defence Agreement (along with Malaysia, UK, Australia and New Zealand) was "surrounded by hostile states" is absurd on its face. I can't really take the rest of this article seriously.
It's definitely not to the extent that Israel is surrounded by states hostile to it, but I think there is some grounds to claim this, depending on how far back you want to go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonald_House_bombing
Singapore gets a large part of its water supply from Malaysia, although it’s sourced more internally lately.
When relations go South, Malaysia has in a few instance threaten to “cut off water to Singapore”. And when Malaysia violates Singaporean airspace Singapore fire up the jet fighters (they have one of the largest air forces in SE Asia?)
So not hostile in the sense of East and West Germany, but hostile none the less (at least Malaysia and Indonesia).
When relations go South, Malaysia has in a few instance threaten to “cut off water to Singapore”. And when Malaysia violates Singaporean airspace Singapore fire up the jet fighters (they have one of the largest air forces in SE Asia?)
So not hostile in the sense of East and West Germany, but hostile none the less (at least Malaysia and Indonesia).
It's entirely typical for bordering states to have conflict. It doesnt mean Malaysia is threatening to destroy the city - theyre the ones who kicked them out in the first place after all.
Malaysia also knows that turning off the taps = invasion. Singapore isnt shy about expressing its displeasure.
Malaysia also knows that turning off the taps = invasion. Singapore isnt shy about expressing its displeasure.
The Malaysian government sure enjoyed trolling with Pukul Habis though. Also airspace above our military training base seems to be FFA to them.
"Malaysia knows turn off the tap means invasion." I mean, that's exactly the reason why we went over the top with the military thing isn't it?
"Malaysia knows turn off the tap means invasion." I mean, that's exactly the reason why we went over the top with the military thing isn't it?
I rather thought that was a reaction to WW2 that lingered long past its sell by date.
Of course it also provides a highly obedient and compliant workforce which keeps the foreign investors happy.
That being mainly what Singapore is all about these days (foreign capital even dictated that chewing gum be legalized and thus it was so).
Of course it also provides a highly obedient and compliant workforce which keeps the foreign investors happy.
That being mainly what Singapore is all about these days (foreign capital even dictated that chewing gum be legalized and thus it was so).
I was surprised she didn't cover the tax rate. I was curious, and I found that it's capped at 22%, and there's a 7% GST, so it's relatively low.
https://www.guidemesingapore.com/business-guides/taxation-an....
https://www.guidemesingapore.com/business-guides/taxation-an....
Yes, but the tax rate alone is a bit misleading. They have a Central Providence fund that ever Singaporean has to contribute 20% of their salary to and it gets matched (i think that’s the rate) by the employer.
Then this big chunk of money is used to buy public housing, pay for public healthcare, fund retirement, etc.
So if you’re making $120k+ SGD, you’re in the 11.5% tax bracket, but 20% of your salary (starting at $0) is also withheld.
The lack of capital gains tax is pretty great though.
Then this big chunk of money is used to buy public housing, pay for public healthcare, fund retirement, etc.
So if you’re making $120k+ SGD, you’re in the 11.5% tax bracket, but 20% of your salary (starting at $0) is also withheld.
The lack of capital gains tax is pretty great though.
Oh, so there's a large employment tax that's paid by the employer? I'm confused by your use of "withheld", which implies you might get it back at tax time. Also, if it's paid by the employer than I wouldn't call it being "withheld", I would just call it a tax paid by the employer. In the US anyway, there's a similar tax on employment that's paid by the employer but you never see it on your paycheck. You do have to pay it if you're self-employed though. Is that true in Singapore as well?
It’s basically forced savings. 20% of your monthly pay is taken and put into an account. You can only use that money for certain things.
It’s like social security in the US but imagine if it was a bank account instead that you could access for retirement.
It’s like social security in the US but imagine if it was a bank account instead that you could access for retirement.
Also : Zero capital gains tax. Zero estate taxes.
While I like the idea of city states, I do not like the idea of federalized government acting with the authority of city states. The reason Singapore works is because people can leave, or go there, as they please.
Anglosphere nations should treat cities as autonomous entities with clear boundaries, and exceptional rules systems that meet their needs, but there is an urge in the overall polis that treats any limitation on their dominion as something to be militated against. The main objection to this diverse autonomy comes from human rights concerns. The city-state question is very close to the the so-called "states rights" issue in the US, where many people interpret it as just being free to oppress others, etc.
However, it's also worth looking at the history of human rights and what they mean before appealing to them as a neutral universal value, as unlike a base state of freedom, rights must be granted by a sovereign or a law, which means universal human rights also mean a universal governor of them, and this necessarily subjugates all people under the regime that grants them. Appeals to human rights are appeals to the creation of a global human granting authority without limit, and while we tolerate this view as a diverse perspective, and adopt some of its better working principles, when you think it through and read the history of it, it's an appeal to subjugate the species under a single rights granting regime. When people talk about progress it is progress toward this end. It's a popular sentiment, but one not without criticism.
Most of what we get from human rights and often conflate them with is human dignity and freedom, but unfortunately, the rights language necessarily means some are more equal than others, and requires a paternalism that is not as universally appealing. Singapore is a really intresting 1.0 or beta regime, but advocates for it who do not advocate the autonomy of city states and the freedom of people are really more into finding an acceptable face of authoritarianism for their agendas, imo.
Anglosphere nations should treat cities as autonomous entities with clear boundaries, and exceptional rules systems that meet their needs, but there is an urge in the overall polis that treats any limitation on their dominion as something to be militated against. The main objection to this diverse autonomy comes from human rights concerns. The city-state question is very close to the the so-called "states rights" issue in the US, where many people interpret it as just being free to oppress others, etc.
However, it's also worth looking at the history of human rights and what they mean before appealing to them as a neutral universal value, as unlike a base state of freedom, rights must be granted by a sovereign or a law, which means universal human rights also mean a universal governor of them, and this necessarily subjugates all people under the regime that grants them. Appeals to human rights are appeals to the creation of a global human granting authority without limit, and while we tolerate this view as a diverse perspective, and adopt some of its better working principles, when you think it through and read the history of it, it's an appeal to subjugate the species under a single rights granting regime. When people talk about progress it is progress toward this end. It's a popular sentiment, but one not without criticism.
Most of what we get from human rights and often conflate them with is human dignity and freedom, but unfortunately, the rights language necessarily means some are more equal than others, and requires a paternalism that is not as universally appealing. Singapore is a really intresting 1.0 or beta regime, but advocates for it who do not advocate the autonomy of city states and the freedom of people are really more into finding an acceptable face of authoritarianism for their agendas, imo.
> The reason Singapore works is because people can leave, or go there, as they please.
Where can they go? Singapore Citizens have a right of abode in Singapore, and they have one of the most useful passports in the world for visiting countries, but they don't generally have the right to live anywhere other than Singapore.
Where can they go? Singapore Citizens have a right of abode in Singapore, and they have one of the most useful passports in the world for visiting countries, but they don't generally have the right to live anywhere other than Singapore.
One point he says is that if a citizen doesn't like the authoritarian government they can move easily because Singapore is small.
1.Moving to another location could make you leave friends and family
2.There is a cost associated with moving to another country i.e moving company, new home
3. You may not be able to keep your job
Leaving Mexico(mentioned in the article) might be more difficult but the extra cost of airfare is the least of the issues.
I don't think the counter to arguments about a authoritarian government should be "you can leave" (paraphrasing)
1.Moving to another location could make you leave friends and family
2.There is a cost associated with moving to another country i.e moving company, new home
3. You may not be able to keep your job
Leaving Mexico(mentioned in the article) might be more difficult but the extra cost of airfare is the least of the issues.
I don't think the counter to arguments about a authoritarian government should be "you can leave" (paraphrasing)
This is a really good point. In ancient Greece, when the known world (to Greeks) was a balkanized set of city-states, exile was often the preferred method of dealing with malcontents. But in a world of city-states, each state is also at war with each other, which makes adopting the other state's exiles a strategic win. When there's no set law of international conduct, individuals suffer as a result. When domestic policy becomes to punish individuals by physically removing them from their family and livelihood, it creates what we call in larger nations a refugee crisis. If the whole world were to operate along the lines of city-states, there would be no justice or safe harbor for anyone, anywhere, who expressed an anti-authoritarian viewpoint.
Singapore should not be looked at as a leading example, but rather a leading warning indicator of what can happen if the Deng Xiaoping / LKY model of authoritarian prosperity ever gains the upper hand on the future.
Singapore should not be looked at as a leading example, but rather a leading warning indicator of what can happen if the Deng Xiaoping / LKY model of authoritarian prosperity ever gains the upper hand on the future.
Personally I think they:
1) benefited from Indonesia (refining their oil etc) like HK did for china back in the day and cheap labour
2) Now benefit from HK Chaos with China as a kind of Switzerland of Asia
3) Are hard to compare with a large country
1) benefited from Indonesia (refining their oil etc) like HK did for china back in the day and cheap labour
2) Now benefit from HK Chaos with China as a kind of Switzerland of Asia
3) Are hard to compare with a large country
Singapore is a living proof that a blend of authoritarian government and market economy can be highly successful.
Successful at what and for whom?
For some arbitrary definition of "successful," strictly enforced by said authoritarian regime. Singapore has money, but it's not a shining example of human achievement.
It's an example of brutality and rigid rules wielded effectively to manage a population. Their social ills can't be criticized - Hanging people for drug use or possession, indefinite detention and torture for political speech, and the money, corruption, and sex trafficking amongst the elite for starters.
If they evolve to a more free, liberty and democracy focused society, they'll likely lose much of their wealth generating advantage. A non trivial portion of the money flowing through Singapore depends on groups and individuals involved in global cartels, and anti corruption laws effectively enforced would unveil a lot of shady dealings.
It's an example of brutality and rigid rules wielded effectively to manage a population. Their social ills can't be criticized - Hanging people for drug use or possession, indefinite detention and torture for political speech, and the money, corruption, and sex trafficking amongst the elite for starters.
If they evolve to a more free, liberty and democracy focused society, they'll likely lose much of their wealth generating advantage. A non trivial portion of the money flowing through Singapore depends on groups and individuals involved in global cartels, and anti corruption laws effectively enforced would unveil a lot of shady dealings.
I couldn't have said it better. The only thing to admire about the model is its ruthless willingness to suppress anything and anyone that could pose a challenge to it. Maybe that's necessary if you were a small-time dictator like LKY, trying to hold a tiny piece of territory. Good for him. It's the strategy in Civ games where you spend nothing on an army and make lots of alliances and just build stuff; it also requires executing a lot of people and being a dreaded dick. I won't step foot in Singapore or give it a cent of my money unless I have to change flights there. Nice little dictatorship, not a bad job if you can keep it. But it's disgusting to hear Westerners enamored with it as if it were some kind of utopia. These are the same people who party in Dubai doing things they could get garrotted for and then criticize Israel (a democracy with free speech protections). Makes you wonder what exactly turns them on so much about autocratic regimes.
The beauty of Singapore's economic model is that, like Canada and Australia, it's place for people to park ill-gotten wealth obtained elsewhere. So Singapore can stay squeaky-clean as long as it doesn't ask too many questions.
As for "indefinite detention and torture for political speech", Singapore stopped resorting to this in the 1980s, bankrupting people with defamation suits is much more effective.
As for "indefinite detention and torture for political speech", Singapore stopped resorting to this in the 1980s, bankrupting people with defamation suits is much more effective.
How is this similar to Canada or Australia? Agree SG is a tax haven but it’s more like Hong Kong or Dubai.
A lot of the property investment in all three is fueled by highly dubious wealth.
It's not an arbitrary definition of "successful". Singapore is a prosperous city with a well-fed, well-housed, educated, healthy population. These are all key development and quality of life metrics and are indeed a good example "human achievement".
Of course we can debate what role the authoritarian nature of their system played in that, if any.
We may tend to see things through a "1st world problems" prism, but when the people start with nothing, starving in a shack (which is still the life of many people on this planet) the metrics I mentioned are infinitely more important than the death penalty for drug trafficking (which is hardly a massive issue in any case).
Of course we can debate what role the authoritarian nature of their system played in that, if any.
We may tend to see things through a "1st world problems" prism, but when the people start with nothing, starving in a shack (which is still the life of many people on this planet) the metrics I mentioned are infinitely more important than the death penalty for drug trafficking (which is hardly a massive issue in any case).
Gangsters legitimizing their money, and a society willing to whore itself out to profit off of it, tarnishes any overall definition of "successful" you can apply to Singapore. They're much like Saudi Arabia, which is also very successful financially, with a fairly high quality of life. In both cases, the injustices and degradation of liberty is more important to my view of what a successful society looks like. They're an ethical Potemkin village, keeping the "dirty"things from which they profit a few degrees of separation from their ostensibly clean financial dynamo.
Singapore, on the surface of things, almost has things right. The problems arise when you look past to the superficial goods into the overall social functioning - there's some really dark evil with deep ties to Singapore.
Also, to make things clear, the US has its fair share of problems like this. Notably, the war on drugs and the cartels enabled by our failed policies are an absolute travesty.
The advantage of liberalizing speech is the ability of a society to continually evolve toward the improvement of human wellbeing. When societies suppress speech, that's a telltale signal that those in power are engaged in shady business they don't want the peasants to squawk about.
All that said, Singapore is a remarkably civilized and pleasant place to visit - I just wouldn't want to live there. If it gets held to account through revolution or civil breakdown, its failure mode will be spectacular.
Singapore, on the surface of things, almost has things right. The problems arise when you look past to the superficial goods into the overall social functioning - there's some really dark evil with deep ties to Singapore.
Also, to make things clear, the US has its fair share of problems like this. Notably, the war on drugs and the cartels enabled by our failed policies are an absolute travesty.
The advantage of liberalizing speech is the ability of a society to continually evolve toward the improvement of human wellbeing. When societies suppress speech, that's a telltale signal that those in power are engaged in shady business they don't want the peasants to squawk about.
All that said, Singapore is a remarkably civilized and pleasant place to visit - I just wouldn't want to live there. If it gets held to account through revolution or civil breakdown, its failure mode will be spectacular.
Europe is choke full of Russian or Ukrainian criminal money: mafia, oligarchs, police, prosectutors all launder their money to Montenegro hotel property and Italian villas.
Corruption is rampant in Europe. It's only layman's money will be AML'd. Real crime will easily find a way around it.
At least Singapore and Dubai allow money to be laundered officially.
Corruption is rampant in Europe. It's only layman's money will be AML'd. Real crime will easily find a way around it.
At least Singapore and Dubai allow money to be laundered officially.
Singapore was successful for many of the same reasons Hong Kong was - a city of stability and rule of law in a sea of chaos.
Singaporeans were fortunate their country was ruled by a bunch of technocrats. But the government has almost complete control of the narrative and the story they tell is often the only one you’ll hear.
Singaporeans were fortunate their country was ruled by a bunch of technocrats. But the government has almost complete control of the narrative and the story they tell is often the only one you’ll hear.
Related: a review of a recent history of Singapore [1][2]. The PAP was ruthless in its push for total control.
[1] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n06/thomas-meaney/the-ba...
[2] Archived: https://archive.ph/RfIDP
[1] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n06/thomas-meaney/the-ba...
[2] Archived: https://archive.ph/RfIDP
Few know this outside Singapore, but corporal punishment is still commonplace in public schools. Parents are also allowed to physically punish their kids if they misbehave. Yes, the tax rate is very attractive and you don’t pay capital gains tax, but human rights track record is horrendous. And don’t even get me started on their LGBTQI standpoint.
From the article:
I am opposed to many of these features of Singaporean society. I am unconvinced that these human rights violations were ever important building blocks for Singapore's social cohesion, and it at least seems clear that the city-state has now reached a level of stability where the government can safely loosen its iron grip on social life.
This is a common refrain from foreigners cursorily involved in Singapore (whether a passing tourist or expat living there). Lee Kuan Yew had the following retort (starting at 50 minute mark):
https://youtu.be/3ofjSBGmOcY?t=2999
The whole speech is worth watching, and also the other speeches available on either Youtube or the archives: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/NationalDayRally/
I am opposed to many of these features of Singaporean society. I am unconvinced that these human rights violations were ever important building blocks for Singapore's social cohesion, and it at least seems clear that the city-state has now reached a level of stability where the government can safely loosen its iron grip on social life.
This is a common refrain from foreigners cursorily involved in Singapore (whether a passing tourist or expat living there). Lee Kuan Yew had the following retort (starting at 50 minute mark):
https://youtu.be/3ofjSBGmOcY?t=2999
The whole speech is worth watching, and also the other speeches available on either Youtube or the archives: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/NationalDayRally/
Not much of a retort. It starts of with an insult at the journalist asking the question why they need to be so strict and then goes on with the usual fear mongering about heroin use being so rampant it destroys society.
Fact is LKY and the government he founded is exceptionally brutal and petty (to this day foreign journalists who dare criticize the PAP government will find themselves sued for libel) but there is very little to suggest that specific aspect of theirs actually does Singapore any good.
A much more likely explanation for their success is that they’re famously incorruptible. Unlike other SE Asian strongmen LKY never diverted his CIA bribe money to a Swiss bank account but instead spent it on beautifying his fief.
(Of course government officials do pay themselves exorbitant salaries so you could argue it’s just corruption by another name, but at least that happens out in the open and comes with a veneer of respectability)
Fact is LKY and the government he founded is exceptionally brutal and petty (to this day foreign journalists who dare criticize the PAP government will find themselves sued for libel) but there is very little to suggest that specific aspect of theirs actually does Singapore any good.
A much more likely explanation for their success is that they’re famously incorruptible. Unlike other SE Asian strongmen LKY never diverted his CIA bribe money to a Swiss bank account but instead spent it on beautifying his fief.
(Of course government officials do pay themselves exorbitant salaries so you could argue it’s just corruption by another name, but at least that happens out in the open and comes with a veneer of respectability)
The point is that blind commentary is prevalent everywhere, and it is foolish for the commentator to presume that the decisions that were made were done without proper foresight and thinking, especially when the results seem to have worked. Chesterton's fences and all that.
Journalists should be sued for libel if they are libelous - wrapping oneself in the cloak of "journalism" is not free license to slander and spread untruths. Much of the American / western media has this sickness, which is why there is so much anguish over "fake news".
I don't know why you think it's fear-mongering about heroin - you think heroin/drug abuse in a society has no detrimental effects?
Journalists should be sued for libel if they are libelous - wrapping oneself in the cloak of "journalism" is not free license to slander and spread untruths. Much of the American / western media has this sickness, which is why there is so much anguish over "fake news".
I don't know why you think it's fear-mongering about heroin - you think heroin/drug abuse in a society has no detrimental effects?
great post, particularly like how the author outlines areas where his own argument is contested, inviting critics to explore them fully. This type of structure is both rare and commendable
A lot of unskilled immigrant labor from poorer Asian countries such as Bangladesh, India does the hard work of keeping the city clean. Really a two class society.
[deleted]
"Singapore had been colonized, occupied, and abused for over a century, and it was surrounded by hostile nations in a region succumbing to pressure by Communist forces."
This is a fucked up sentence. It tries to make it sound like the Communists were the dangerous ones, not the Americans and Europeans who were busy killing millions of people in that part of the world then. The people fighting colonialism were mostly communist and the people killing the communists were almost entirely colonialists.
1965 was the year that the CIA helped launched a coup against Sukarno in Indonesia. It led to some of the worst mass murder in the 20th century. The CIA, MI6 assisted the new leader, Suharto in killing between 1-3 million Indonesians. We still don't know how many people were killed, but it was definitely at least 1 million. Many not killed were put in concentration and work camps where many died. Many ethnic Chinese were targetted because it was believed their ethnicity made them more likely to be Communist.
1965 also saw an escalation in America's war in Vietnam. The Americans would eventually kill about 3.5 million Vietnamese and a couple million people in Laos and Cambodia.
Malaysia wasn't hostile to an anti-colonial Singapore, as this sentence suggests. Not that Singapore in 1965 was necessarily anti-colonial. Malaysians had fought the British for independence and there was a cease fire by 1965. The British left Malaysia, but the new government was mostly still friendly with the Brits.
This is a fucked up sentence. It tries to make it sound like the Communists were the dangerous ones, not the Americans and Europeans who were busy killing millions of people in that part of the world then. The people fighting colonialism were mostly communist and the people killing the communists were almost entirely colonialists.
1965 was the year that the CIA helped launched a coup against Sukarno in Indonesia. It led to some of the worst mass murder in the 20th century. The CIA, MI6 assisted the new leader, Suharto in killing between 1-3 million Indonesians. We still don't know how many people were killed, but it was definitely at least 1 million. Many not killed were put in concentration and work camps where many died. Many ethnic Chinese were targetted because it was believed their ethnicity made them more likely to be Communist.
1965 also saw an escalation in America's war in Vietnam. The Americans would eventually kill about 3.5 million Vietnamese and a couple million people in Laos and Cambodia.
Malaysia wasn't hostile to an anti-colonial Singapore, as this sentence suggests. Not that Singapore in 1965 was necessarily anti-colonial. Malaysians had fought the British for independence and there was a cease fire by 1965. The British left Malaysia, but the new government was mostly still friendly with the Brits.
> Malaysia wasn't hostile to an anti-colonial Singapore, as this sentence suggests. Not that Singapore in 1965 was necessarily anti-colonial. Malaysians had fought the British for independence and there was a cease fire by 1965. The British left Malaysia, but the new government was mostly still friendly with the Brits.
1963: The Brits left Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak under the agreement that they would form Malaysia, which I believe, among other things, was that this merger would help with the fight against communism in the region.
1965: Misunderstandings between the local Singapore government and the federal Malaysian government resulted in Singapore leaving the Malaysian federation (or Malaysia kicking out Singapore, depending on which version of history you believe.) Hostilities between the governments definitely existed, though not to the degree of full on war.
Cease-fire: I wasn't aware of armed violence during this time in the 'anti-colonisation' of Malaysia, apart from perhaps the MCP (Malaysian Communist Party) in Malaysia, and riots happening in Singapore.
1963: The Brits left Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak under the agreement that they would form Malaysia, which I believe, among other things, was that this merger would help with the fight against communism in the region.
1965: Misunderstandings between the local Singapore government and the federal Malaysian government resulted in Singapore leaving the Malaysian federation (or Malaysia kicking out Singapore, depending on which version of history you believe.) Hostilities between the governments definitely existed, though not to the degree of full on war.
Cease-fire: I wasn't aware of armed violence during this time in the 'anti-colonisation' of Malaysia, apart from perhaps the MCP (Malaysian Communist Party) in Malaysia, and riots happening in Singapore.
> It led to some of the worst mass murder in the 20th century. The CIA, MI6 assisted the new leader, Suharto in killing between 1-3 million Indonesians.
Not to take away from the weight of 1-3 million people, but you do realise Stalin and mao killed 60-100m people each right? 1-3m million unfortunately isn’t the Worst mass murder in the 20th century
Not to take away from the weight of 1-3 million people, but you do realise Stalin and mao killed 60-100m people each right? 1-3m million unfortunately isn’t the Worst mass murder in the 20th century
1-3 million is about the number killed in Cambodia by Pol Pot
Do you have a source on that 1-3 million? Wikipedia says "The most widely accepted estimates are that at least 500,000 to over 1 million were killed", putting in in the vicinity of Rwanda, and less than Cambodia or Bangladesh
This is a fucked up sentence. It tries to make it sound like the Communists were the dangerous ones…
Seems like a basic knowledge of history would show this fear of communism was completely founded?
And I don’t think LYK needed much encouragement to imprison the communists in Singapore (Operation Coldstore). He saw the threat for what it was.
Seems like a basic knowledge of history would show this fear of communism was completely founded?
And I don’t think LYK needed much encouragement to imprison the communists in Singapore (Operation Coldstore). He saw the threat for what it was.
This is kind of comparing apple and oranges. First off, almost all of the housing in Singapore is public housing (HDP). If you own one, you cannot own a second one. For private property, there is huge fees for buying a second home, and the market for private property is very small and therefore, tend to be very expensive. There is also a lot more rules (like Minimum Occupancy Period) and taxes to seriously desensitised buying a second home, especially if it is for investment.
This make housing, for most cases, a poor investment in Singapore. You buy a home to live in it. This also mean that the market for rental, especially the one for foreigner, is very small compared to other country.
On the other end, the U.S, at least right now, see housing as a "safe" investment and has a population that is way more mobile than Singapore. People are less likely to invest in a home if they don't expect to stay in the same place for a significant amount of time.