The passing of 李光耀 signifies the end of an era of Singapore. He is a visionary and strong leader. Before independence in 1965, Singapore was the capital of the British Straits Settlements, a Crown Colony. After its independence, along with Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, Singapore became one of the original Four Asian Tigers. The Singaporean economy is known as one of the freest, most innovative, most competitive, and most business-friendly. The 2013 Index of Economic Freedom ranks Singapore as the second freest economy in the world, behind Hong Kong. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, Singapore is consistently ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, along with New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries. This astonished achievements largely was due to the vision and the policies of 李光耀 who steered the treacherous path of Singapore's development in the modern world. From the very beginning, Singapore adopts English as the official language in the country even majority of them are Chinese. This gives Singapore instant advantage in almost every international activity among Asian countries. It is as if a set of people suddenly abandons its cultural burden and press a reset button for a fresh reboot.
As of 2014, Singapore is the 14th largest exporter and the 15th largest importer in the world. The country has the highest trade-to-GDP ratio in the world, signifying the importance of trade to its economy. The country is currently the only Asian country to receive AAA credit ratings from all three major credit rating agencies: Standard and Poor's, Moody's, Fitch. Singapore attracts a large amount of foreign investment as a result of its location, corruption-free environment, skilled workforce, low tax rates and advanced infrastructure. There are more than 7,000 multinational corporations from the United States, Japan, and Europe in Singapore. There are also approximately 1,500 companies from China and a similar number from India. Foreign firms are found in almost all sectors of the country's economy. Singapore is also the second-largest foreign investor in India. Roughly 44 percent of the Singaporean workforce is made up of non-Singaporeans. Over ten free-trade agreements have been signed with other countries and regions. Singapore also possesses the world's eleventh largest foreign reserves, and has one of the highest net international investment position per capita. Acute poverty is rare in Singapore. The government has rejected the idea of a generous welfare system, stating that each generation must earn and save enough for its entire life cycle. In Singapore, the philosophy of welfare rests on four pillars:
1. Each generation should pay its own way.
2. Each family should pay its own way.
3. Each individual should pay his own way.
4. Only after passing through these three filters should individual turn to the government for help.
Singapore has the world's highest percentage of millionaires, with one out of every six households having at least one million US dollars in disposable wealth. This excludes property, businesses, and luxury goods, which if included would increase the number of millionaires, especially as property in Singapore is among the world's most expensive. Singapore does not have a minimum wage, believing that it would lower its competitiveness.
However, something may not be that glitter. In recent years, the country has been identified as an increasingly popular tax haven for the wealthy due to the low tax rate on personal income and tax exemptions on foreign-based income and capital gains. Australian millionaire retailer Brett Blundy, with an estimated personal wealth worth AU$835 million, and multi-billionaire Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin are two examples of wealthy individuals who have settled in Singapore. Also despite market freedom, Singapore's government operations have a significant stake in the economy, contributing 22% of the GDP. Below the surface Singapore is not a Shangri la either. 李光耀 holds the view of so-called "Asian Values". The cult of "Asian values" grew in the 1990's as the economies of East Asia and Southeast Asia took off. He argued that there were hard and clear differences between "Eastern" and "Western" cultures: In the former, the individual matters less than in the latter, and, as a consequence, in the former, human rights matter less than the need for the security of the collective and economic growth. This argument finds its backers in Asia's authoritarian countries, but it has also been widely criticized as well. More than 60 percent of the world's population lives in Asia, and to imply that each and every Asian is somehow bound by a shared system of values is utterly preposterous. The fact that some of East Asia's most advanced economies — Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan — also are healthy, battle-tested democracies suggests that societies steeped in Confucianism can happily accommodate more liberal, "modern" forms of politics.
Perhaps the right question to ask is that which way of governing is better in the long run. Singapore is a miracle in her achievement so far. Its economy, education and the transparency of the government are highly ranked in the world. Most Singaporeans seem content and few protest has been found in and outside of the society. If government is for the people, Singapore must be the one. As to 'of the people' and 'by the people', it depends on how you look at them.
Here are some of the many criticisms worth noting.
1. Singapore as "the most open and clear society in the world", and that since every minister is paid at least $1 m a year, "there is no temptation and it is the cleanest society you would find anywhere". To some people, this is also a bribe to the government officials. That is to say, they support Lee Kuan Yew's unjust laws and policies in return for money. Officials who seek authority as custodians of political power must have the character to keep away from crime no matter what the temptation might be. The argument that ministers should be paid millions of dollars to keep them from corruption does not hold water.
2. Many journalists were imprisoned. Independently owned newspapers were shut down. Today all Singaporean publications, TV channels and radio stations are owned and run by the government.
3. Civil society is nonexistent. Non-government organisations, student bodies and trade unions are tightly controlled. Public assemblies outside a small and demarcated area are banned.
4. The opposition is in a moribund state. Many of its leaders have been arrested and detained without trial, prosecuted in court, and sued till bankruptcy for defamation.
5. The election system is far from free and fair. The "election" of the country's president to be held in a few weeks' time, for example, is restricted to a handful of candidates allowed by the prime minister.
6. Political power amassed in the hands of the few in Singapore is also used to ensure that a disproportionate amount of financial power is accumulated in those same hands.
Two books are worth reading for the dark side of Singapore.
(1) To Catch a Tartar: A Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew's Prison, October 1, 1994 by Francis T. Seow.
This book details everything from Mr Francis Seow's journey as Solicitor-general to his detention without trial by the ISD and his eventual exile from Singapore. It disproves every piece of nonsense about Singapore's impartial and transparent judiciary and media.
(2) Singapore's Authoritarian Capitalism," by Christopher Lingle
Mr. Lingle describes an unwritten social contract under which citizens tolerate political repression in exchange for material rewards. After visiting the country for 25 years, He underestimates the appeal of the package of rising living standards and clean administration that the governing People's Action Party delivers in return for a fairly free hand in running the country. From a perspective gained from his service as a former Senior Fellow at the National University of Singapore, Dr. Lingle identifies Singapore's authoritarian capitalism as combining a selective degree of economic freedom and private property rights with strong-armed control over political life. According to him, political loyalty is the ultimate determinant of success rather than the efficient utilization of resources, and sycophantic business relations replace the growth-inducing actions of true entrepreneurs. Singapore's Authoritarian Capitalism questions the long-term survival of the PAP and its capacity to sustain Singapore's miracle growth record due to internal contradictions arising from the imposed institutional arrangements.
Leaders in Singapore's PAP regime see themselves as a permanent fixture. Yet despite their grip on all organs of political power, the record clearly shows a continual decline in the margins of victory at the polls. These results suggest that Singaporeans are suffering from PAP fatigue. Apparently, an increasing number of people believe that the material gains do not constitute adequate compensation for the nanny-state nagging of an arrogant political leadership. Some of the regime's most prominent spokespersons have gone on the offensive by promoting a contrived set of Asian values to legitimize their exercise of unchallenged authority. Simultaneously, they also identify certain values as a threat to stability, usually equated with one-party rule. The PAP's position on these issues remains unchallenged at home due to an obsessive control over the media and the vigorous suppression of dissent.
Singapore's critics have plenty of genuine grievances to denounce. So why do the critics keep complaining about "lack of democracy" when the real story is that most Singaporeans persistently prefer the PAP to the opposition? You may think in Singapore, one knows something is wrong, but he cannot question it like the person in any other free country in the world. But this can't explain why there are not many protests by Singaporeans outside the country.
While studying Singapore, we can find some precedents in history. It is Enlightened Despots. By the end of the 18th Century, the new ideas from Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Voltaire exerted enormous influences in Europe that most rulers tried to transform themselves. The most noted two are Frederick II of Prussia and Catherine II of Russia. They ruled according to the principles of enlightened despotism. These principles included favoring religious tolerance, making economic and legal reforms and justifying their rule by its usefulness to society rather than by divine right. However, after the passing of Frederick and Catherine, their forms of ruling eventually collapsed and ideas got forgotten. Since the real system is not there in root and the passing of a strong leader usually causes the collapse of the reform. It remains to be seen whether the case of Singapore mirroring the 'Enlighten Despot'.
It may be interesting to compare the three regions formed by mostly Chinese ethnic people in recent history and see how they stack up in the performance and also project their future. 'Democracy', 'Science', 'Capitalism' and 'Communism' are the four major ideologies of the 20th century. 孫中山和胡適 服膺 '民主' 與 '科學', 毛澤東和同恩來擁抱國際共產主義,李光耀追求'科學'和'資本主義'. 香港 什麼都不重要,祇要 Free to choose 的資本主義. 三人行,必有我師焉, 大家可以從他們的經驗得到一些教訓和智慧. 到現在為止,好像大陸的變相共產加資本主義和科學有後來居上的趨勢. 大陸和新加坡不用民主而採 Plato 式的政治程序,類似羅馬天主教,倒是近代很值得探討和思考的議題.
