Proof that Singapore is tops!

[eatshitndie]

......

In the USA, the House and the Senate can debate on big govt and small govt. They can debate on taxing the rich or providing more accessible healthcare. Ultimately it is the people who will decide who gets into law making organisations. Which individual to represent them as their President, their representative, their senator and their local governor. The party can be important but individuals can and will vote across party lines for what they think is right. There is a lot of transparency there......

.......

unfortunately all 3 branches of the u.s. government have evolved into a 2-party system which has totally divided and polarized the country. nothing right gets done, and if anything is agreed to by both parties, the resulting legislation is full of pork and giveaways (a.k.a. bribes for useless projects at the state, county and municipal levels) to reach a compromise. it is also porkmarked with loopholes by powerful interest groups and lobbyists who represent their well-funded clients, with the aim of tweaking the law in their favor. that was not the original intent of the constitution when it was first drafted.

the u.s. is huge enough with various regions, deep resources and a large critical mass in population to survive a catastrophic collapse of the national economy. and whatever political nonsense washington d.c. comes out with, state and local conditions do not always succumb to federal stupidity. there's some check and balance at state vs. fed levels, but the state, county and local governments are also party-led and tend to follow partisan politics. things would have been more efficient, timely, less costly, but the multiple layers of government and branches and the two parties conduct budget and turf wars incessantly that time truly slows down, in einsteinian fashion.

sg cannot follow the u.s. system. the little red dot will become a horrible mess. all political systems evolve. they are never static over time. it may start out trendy and fancy, but nobody knows what monster evolves from a perfectly fine theoretical model. :p

imo, the sg inc. system suits sg nicely, due to size, geography, demographics, people. it has to be run like a well-oiled corporation with ceo, coo, cto, cmo, cio for her to not only survive, but thrive. you should be proud that you're citizens of the universe's first political entity that has evolved from city-state to island-nation to corporate-nation. i, eatshitndie, thus bestow the new next gen title on sg - corponation.

 

[Fook Seng]

I'm not a defender of the system or the lack of transparency which you rightfully point out. I am a defender of the net RESULTS which are plain for all to see but which many choose to ignore.

The net RESULTS are just statistical results that do not look into detail on how the results are distributed. The returns of the country's performance are not distributed equally and equitably across the population. Many are actually worse off than before.

That has raised the tension of the people here by several grades, especially when the Govt keeps quoting such good indicators. It is rubbing salt into wounds. If you live in this environment, it is not a comfortable feeling. It is not correct. It is not what it should be.

The PAP definitely can do something. We need an open society but don't just give us a channel to let off our frustration. The problem is in the system. This country does not belong to PAP alone. If one day, by some kind of freak luck, a different party takes charge, this same political system will pass the "ownership" of the country, lock, stock and barrel to that party. Nothing will change, only someone with a different idea. Is PAP willing to change the system? If not, PAP deserves to be changed.

 

[Fook Seng]

sg cannot follow the u.s. system. the little red dot will become a horrible mess. all political systems evolve. they are never static over time. it may start out trendy and fancy, but nobody knows what monster evolves from a perfectly fine theoretical model. :p

imo, the sg inc. system suits sg nicely, due to size, geography, demographics, people. it has to be run like a well-oiled corporation

I am not recommending the US political system to Singapore but there are certainly several good points that we can borrow from especially for a small country like ours which lacks talent. For example, Secretaries and Undersecretaries can be appointed based on suitability for the job rather than political success.

Although in the US, there is a clear 2-party system, it is transparent what each party represents and the people can decide which set of policies they favour at this present moment. The party in power often changes hand to reflect changing aspiration of the people. Because there are sufficient representation from both parties, the issues are thoroughly debated for all to see unlike in Singapore you only hear one solution and all from the MSM very much controlled by the Govt. The fact that you can get a deadlock in decision making is because the people have voted such that the policy proposals from neither party is fully endorsed. They have to find a compromise somewhere in the middle.

Ease of governance is no excuse for denying all good ideas from being heard. Too many mistakes have taken place especially in the past few years. This country needs new ideas but we are not getting any. The direction this country takes is the direction the citizens want it to take. It should not be something influenced by political reasons which is what is happening today.

 

[eatshitndie]

.....

Ease of governance is no excuse for denying all good ideas from being heard. Too many mistakes have taken place especially in the past few years. This country needs new ideas but we are not getting any. The direction this country takes is the direction the citizens want it to take. It should not be something influenced by political reasons which is what is happening today.

well, look at the microcosm of sg politics here in sbf. too many voices, too much noise. you can't have everyone chime in with their ideas and expect all to be heard. a small country needs to keep moving, even if decisions are flawed. risks and rewards have to be measured and taken. analysis paralysis is the enemy. in such a state, citizens cannot be depended upon for charting the direction. they need able leaders. citizens must have faith in their leaders to chart the direction, enact policies and execute the plan. otherwise, it will be a snitching bitching mess of a place akin to a pussy pillow fight for most, a bar brawl for the brash, and a hit job for the more sinister. :p

 

[Leongsam]

Although in the US, there is a clear 2-party system, it is transparent what each party represents and the people can decide which set of policies they favour at this present moment.

In theory, the system should be as transparent as clean glass. In reality, it is anything but. The influence of the lobbyists and corporate bigwigs totally distorts what is supposed to be fair representation. While lobbying itself has to be transparent and there are rules governing the process, in reality, the general public is clueless as to what goes on behind the scenes because of the complexity of the system.

 

[ZorrorroZ]

S'pore gears for growth as IP hub


04:45 AM Apr 26, 2012



Artiste JJ Lin accepting his appointment as the Intellectual Property of Singapore ambassador from Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Law Sim Ann at a concert held at Toa Payoh Hub yesterday. Photo by DON WONG
SINGAPORE - As the next step towards the Republic's growth as an Asian intellectual property (IP) hub, a Government committee has been formed to draw up the IP Hub Master Plan.

The IP Steering Committee will recommend strategies based on the two thrusts of developing a vibrant IP marketplace, and building world-class IP capabilities and infrastructure, the Ministry of Law announced yesterday.

The 15-member committee, led by MediaCorp chairman Teo Ming Kian (picture),

will be supported by two steering sub-committees, which will undertake an in-depth study into issues under the two thrusts. The committees will consult widely with industry experts and stakeholders.

It aims to submit its recommendations to the Government by early next year.

Mr Teo, who was a Permanent Secretary (National Research and Development), said Singapore is in a strong position to be developed into an Asian IP hub.

"The growth of our IP service industry could further accelerate our transition into a knowledge economy and create high-value job opportunities in Singapore," he added.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Law Sim Ann, speaking at the celebration of the World IP Day yesterday, said Singapore's conducive environment for IP protection has helped to grow the country's creative industries. In 2010, the creative industries' value-add to economy was S$11.8 billion, a four-fold increase from a decade ago.

CHANNEL NEWSASIA


http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120426-0000062/Spore-gears-for-growth-as-IP-hub

 

[ZorrorroZ]

S$1m boost to encourage more youth involvement


by Sara Grosse
Updated 07:58 AM Apr 26, 2012
SINGAPORE - The National Youth Council (NYC) will be pumping in S$1 million over the next three years to its Campus ChangeMakers programme, which will now be open to all secondary schools.

The programme, which aims to get more students committed to community involvement, was announced yesterday after the first National School Student Leaders Conference kicked off at *SCAPE.

The conference aims to encourage students to come together and champion efforts beyond their school years, and saw over 200 student leaders gathered in a brainstorming session to discuss how they can contribute more to the community.

Ideas were presented to both Education Minister Heng Swee Keat and Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports and NYC Chairman Chan Chun Sing.

These ranged from organising a charity dinner for the disadvantaged, celebrating birthdays of those in the orphanage and cultural tours for students.

Addressing the students, Mr Heng stressed that community projects should not be forced, but come from the heart. Mr Chan also encouraged students to pay it forward with their ideas and efforts.

Post-conference, the students will develop selected ideas for implementation.

The NYC will fund up to S$1,500 for each project selected.

SARA GROSSE

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapor...$1m-boost-to-encourage-more-youth-involvement

 

[ZorrorroZ]

Changi Airport sees rise in passenger traffic


by Wong Siew Ying
04:45 AM Apr 26, 2012
SINGAPORE - Singapore Changi Airport last month handled its highest number of passengers for the month of March.

The airport handled 4.28 million passengers, up 15.9 per cent year-on-year, bringing the total number of passengers handled in the first three months of this year to 12.3 million.

This is an increase of 12.9 per cent compared to the same period last year.

Traffic growth was underpinned by strong travel demand to and from Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, North-east Asia and South-east Asia, regions which saw double-digit growth, said Changi Airport Group (CAG) in a statement yesterday.

It added that the increase was in tandem with a rise in aircraft movements, which grew 10.6 per cent to 27,000.

Airfreight movements, however, fell 1.8 per cent to 163,000 tonnes last month.

Changi Airport handled 79,500 aircraft movements from January to March this year, up 12.9 per cent year-on-year.

The CAG said 443,900 tonnes of cargo passed through Changi in the first quarter of this year, an increase of 0.6 per cent compared to the previous year.

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120426-0000044/Changi-Airport-sees-rise-in-passenger-traffic

 

[Leongsam]

The net RESULTS are just statistical results that do not look into detail on how the results are distributed. The returns of the country's performance are not distributed equally and equitably across the population. Many are actually worse off than before.

I know that. I hear the same story daily about how the poor are worse off and the income gap is getting wider. However, my contention is that it does not matter.

At the end of the day, it's survival of the fittest. It is the competition for scarce resources that ensures the long term survival of the species.

We like to think we're a class above the rest of the living world but it doesn't alter the fact that we are part and parcel of the evolutionary process.

In the wild, a bitch has 12 pups but she doesn't have 12 nipples. Up to half the pups are going to die within a few hours. Life is always a battle. The poor in Singapore either have to shift into a higher gear or they starve to death. That's life.

 

[Leongsam]

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120426-0000044/Changi-Airport-sees-rise-in-passenger-traffic

While your inputs are much appreciated, try to quote from non SPH publications as far as possible unless the local press is syndicating a foreign source.

SPH is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the Pappies and has zero credibility especially when it comes to articles written by arse kissing local journalists that have sold their souls to the devil.

 

[ZorrorroZ]

<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Wealthy Households Set Up Shop in Asia</nyt_headline>

<nyt_byline style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px; line-height: 15px; text-align: left; ">By REUTERS

</nyt_byline><nyt_byline style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px; line-height: 15px; text-align: left; "></nyt_byline>Published: April 17, 2012

<nyt_text><nyt_correction_top></nyt_correction_top>SINGAPORE — In the 1470s, the Spinola family of Genoa had offices all over the world, including in Barcelona, where an apprentice business agent named Christopher Columbus helped handle shipments.

These days, that Italian clan and other ultra-affluent families are moving assets to Singapore by setting up family offices — private companies that manage the trusts and investments of rich households — in the city-state sometimes referred to as the Switzerland of Asia.

Wealthy people from Europe and the Americas have long looked to the East for ways to build and preserve their fortunes. But only recently have they started opening family offices in the region in earnest.

“Because Asia has been a place where we’ve been investing very heavily — more than 50 percent of our assets are in Asia for the last 15 years — we feel a need to come closer,” Federico Spinola, son of the family patriarch, said in an interview from New Caledonia, a Pacific archipelago.

Campden Wealth, which provides research and data on family offices, said that up to 10 European family offices had moved to Singapore since the financial crisis in 2008, bringing $5 billion to $10 billion worth of assets with them.

Singapore, a global banking and investment center in the heart of Southeast Asia, is an attractive base because of its efficient registration process, relatively benign regulations, smooth movement of money, financial infrastructure and low tax rates.

The island, which is clean and safe, also offers high-end shopping, fine dining, casinos, luxury hotels, golf courses and marinas filled with superyachts to help the wealthy spend and unwind.

Prospects in Asia are alluring at a time when the economies of Europe and the United States are weak. Since the financial crisis, regulatory pressures in the West and a crackdown on offshore centers have hastened the pace of family offices’ moving to Singapore, as well as to Hong Kong.

“The families want to be where the action is,” said Munish Dhall, a UBS executive director and head of ultrahigh-net-worth offerings and client development. “They want a piece of the economic pie.”

Big financial institutions, feeling the pinch of a tougher investment banking climate and higher capital requirements, are taking note.

UBS, the Swiss bank, has set up a family office team that is seeking to cater to two dozen clients in Asia who have assets of $200 million or more. Other global players, like Credit Suisse, HSBC and RBC Wealth, are also courting family offices, along with DBS Group, which is based in Singapore.

The Spinolas, whose ancestors include crusaders during the Middle Ages, cardinals of the Holy Roman Empire and influential figures in the politics, culture and prosperity of Genoa, are one of those families.

Last year, representatives of the family began setting up an office in Singapore to manage their investments in the region, rather than using their Geneva operation, Parly.

Parly Singapore is still in an early stage, as it applies for licenses and tests its custom portfolio management tools. The plan is to hire senior investment managers from top banks during the next year, with 10 to 15 members of the team working under an advisory fee model rather than on commission.

“We are a family company, and the family is not involved in the business,” said Mr. Spinola, who sits on a management committee with several relatives and now has permanent resident status in Singapore. “We’re basically shareholders.”

By keeping family and investment matters separate and allowing Parly managers to make decisions, he said, “that is a way of differentiating risk.”
The Spinolas are joining together with two other family offices to cut costs and create efficiencies.

Mr. Spinola would not discuss the amount of investment in Parly Singapore, and neither would its managing director, Roxanne Davies. But she did give a clue.
“A family office with such a strategy can’t really exist — it is not economically feasible — without half a billion,” Ms. Davies said.
</nyt_text>
Campden Wealth, a financial advisory firm for family offices, counts about 2,500 family offices around the world. In Asia, it says, there are 150 to 200, roughly half in Australia and Japan, but the number is growing with the sharp increase in new wealth in China, India and Southeast Asia.

A recent survey by Campden and UBS showed that the amounts being managed by these family firms ranged from $50 million to more than $1 billion, with an average return of 9.1 percent during the 12 months that ended in October 2011.

The goals for the Spinolas and other family offices are simple: control their wealth, maximize returns and minimize fees charged by money managers.

“Singapore is tightening offshore rules, but it will continue to be a very attractive place for family and investment offices,” said David Bain, Campden Wealth’s head of research. “No government in the world is so committed to attracting the money of the ultrahigh net worth.”

Wealthy families from Europe are looking to set up shop in Asia because of the banking situation in Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, said Donald Riegger, an expert on family offices at Deloitte & Touche in Singapore.

“It’s picking up steam,” he said. “If you’re a European looking for a better tax structure, Singapore could work well.”

Mr. Spinola, who worked at the Italian beverage maker Martini & Rossi and managed agricultural firms in Argentina before setting up Parly in Geneva in 1993, is no stranger to investing or to Asia.Now he and his family want a more direct link to how their money is managed in the region, although success is not certain, given the volatility of markets and the variety of political, investment and regulatory risks in many Asian countries.

“We are trying to move away from hot money, high-frequency trading and things that have price discovery that we just cannot control,” said Ms. Davies, Parly Singapore’s managing director. “If we are able to target single-digit returns of 6 to 7 percent annualized in today’s market, we would think of ourselves as very lucky.”

Pending approval from the authorities, she said, Parly will move the “centralized thinking process” from Geneva to Singapore, which has been “very open to new ways of wealth management and financial technology that surrounds it.”

Parly’s portfolio is heavily weighted to equities, with investments mainly in energy, commodities, health care and biotechnology.In Asia, Ms. Davies said, Parly is interested in opportunities in the consumer sector, Japanese innovations and venture capital, especially in technology firms.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/b...-in-asia.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=singapore​

 

[ZorrorroZ]

An Asian Tiger Spins Its Allure Night and Day
By BRAD SPURGEON
Published: September 23, 2011



Since its inception in 2008, the Singapore Grand Prix has quickly become one of the highlights of the Formula One season, especially for the racegoers.


One of the ideas behind staging a race in the streets of the city-state off the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula was to try to recreate in Asia the cachet of the most famous and glamorous race of the series, the Monaco Grand Prix on the cliffs above the Mediterranean.


In many ways, the goal has been achieved. Run at night in the central area — it was Formula One’s first night race — with the glorious skyline of the Asian financial hub, the image of the Singapore Grand Prix is clearly one of glamour, jet-setting and exciting nightlife.


Singapore is one of the Asian Tigers — along with Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan — and has been independent since 1965 after a brief period united with Malaysia. Before that, it had been under British rule since the early 19th century, when it was an outpost of the East India Company. It was occupied by the Japanese during World War II, but then returned to British rule before becoming internally self-governing in 1959.


Singapore is the fourth-biggest financial center in the world. Like Monaco, it has gambling, and it is the second-biggest casino market in the world. Its port is one of the five busiest in the world. The city still has a feel in many parts of the old colonial occupation, with much of the original architecture still around, and famous names like Raffles Hotel, founded in 1899, still in existence.


The track, which winds around the bumpy, dusty streets and is used only for the Formula One race, receives mixed reviews from the drivers, however.


Mark Webber, a driver at the Red Bull team, said that he dislikes the course because it is too slow. His teammate, the defending champion Sebastian Vettel, who has a chance to win the drivers’ title again this weekend in Singapore, has a different opinion.


“I think we will just do Singapore as we do all the other races this year,” he said. “Try to go step by step. I love the circuit, I had a nice race there with Fernando — he finished first.”


He was referring to the Ferrari driver Fernando Alonso, who won the race in 2008 and last year.


“Singapore is probably the best one for our characteristics of our car,” Alonso said. “And I love the Singapore circuit.”


Racegoers stay up late to watch the race. By day, they visit the city and some even spend time at the beaches in Malaysia. Singapore has also combined the race with a series of rock concerts that run during the race weekend, and although the concerts were staged a long walk from the track the first year, last year the organizers moved the music venue close to the circuit.


There is no need to use a car in the central area as it is easy to take public transportation to the track. Although the race and all the track action happen late, Singapore is a vibrant city that stays open all night. Outdoor food stalls are open for service throughout the night, and the food is excellent and inexpensive.


There is live music, dining — a national past time, with a vast variety of food — and entertainment throughout the city, in areas like Clarke Quay, Robertson Quay and Chinatown. And because Singapore has strict police surveillance, laws and punishments, foreigners feel extremely safe walking the streets no matter what time of day or night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/sports/autoracing/24iht-SRF1POST24.html?ref=singapore#h[]

 

[Fook Seng]

I know that. I hear the same story daily about how the poor are worse off and the income gap is getting wider. However, my contention is that it does not matter.

At the end of the day, it's survival of the fittest. It is the competition for scarce resources that ensures the long term survival of the species

Then we should not be talking about nationhood. And we do not need a government, just a super-computer to act as a clearing house. We can save all those millions.

 

[Leongsam]

Then we should not be talking about nationhood. And we do not need a government, just a super-computer to act as a clearing house. We can save all those millions.

Someone has to formulate policies. Someone has to negotiate casino deals, F1 races etc. A super computer won't do these sorts of tasks.

 

[Leongsam]

http://iowaeducation.iowa.gov/2011/10/31/singapores-success-is-no-accident/

Singapore’s success is no accident

October 31, 2011​

Why is Singapore one of the world’s top-performing school systems?

I returned from a visit to Singapore with a U.S. education delegation last week. That nation scored second in math and fifth in reading on the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, taken by 15-year-olds in more than 60 countries and jurisdictions. The reasons for its success are apparent in many ways.

First, agreement is broad that giving children an excellent education matters. This is a high priority for policymakers, parents and educators. Even more impressive, in a way, is how much students understand the value of doing their best work in school so they will do well later in life and contribute as citizens.

Second, the importance of getting a great teacher in every classroom and a great principal leading every building is clear. Singapore recruits the most talented candidates into teaching. Future teachers must be strong in the content they will teach as well as having the right personality attributes and motivation.
Singapore also carefully identifies teachers likely to be outstanding principals, then prepares them for that role.

Third, Singapore emphasizes educating the “whole child.” Make no mistake: Singapore is intent on making sure children are well prepared academically. Yet, its education system also aims to make sure youngsters aspire to reach their individual potential and serve their country well. This description from a Washington Post column (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/what-other-countries-are-reall.html) sums it up:

Prime Minister Lee of Singapore (Aug. 29, 2010):

“I think we should do more to nurture the whole child, develop their physical robustness, enhance their creativity, shape their personal and cultural and social identity, so that they are fit, they are confident, they are imaginative and they know who they are.

“Every child is different, every child has his own interests, his own academic inclinations and aptitudes and our aim should be to provide him with a good education that suits him, one which enables him to achieve his potential and build on his strengths and talents. Talent means talent in many dimensions, not just academic talent but in arts, in music, in sports, in creative activities, in physical activities.

“We need to pay more attention to PE, to arts and music and get teachers who are qualified to teach PE and art and music.
“Give each one a tailored and holistic upbringing, so you get academic education, moral education, physical education, art and a sense of belonging and identity. We aim to build a mountain range with many tall peaks but with a high base, not just a single pinnacle where everybody is trying to scramble up one single peak. And we are realizing this vision.”

Iowa schools include character education, but I think it may be emphasized more in Singapore.

Last, Singapore policymakers and educators are constantly examining best practices in education around the world, and adapting them to Singapore. An ethic of continual improvement and purposefulness is evident. I saw the same thing during visits to two other top-performing education systems in 2008 – Alberta, Canada, and Finland – when I was on the editorial page of The Des Moines Register.

Iowa should follow suit.

Permalink

 

[Leongsam]

Go East, young bureaucrat

Emerging Asia can teach the West a lot about government

Mar 17th 2011 | from the print edition

WHEN people talk about Singapore’s education miracle, they normally think of rows of clever young mathematicians. The hair-design and beauty-therapy training centres at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) are rather different. The walls are covered with pouting models, L’Oréal adverts and television screens. There is a fully fitted-out spa and a hairdressing salon. It all seems rather more “Sex and the City” than Asian values, though the manicurists, pedicurists, cosmetologists and hairdressers toil diligently.

Asked whether he wants to go to university, the holy grail of most Asian families, a young barber called Noel replies that he would rather open a hairdressing salon. Mei Lien wants to set up her own beauty salon; Shuner would like to work in hotels abroad.

Until recently ITE—dubbed “It’s The End” by ambitious middle-class parents—was the dark side of Singaporean education. The city state streams pupils rigorously and is unashamedly elitist: one school claims to send more students to Ivy League universities than any other secondary school in the world. But such a system also produces losers—and many of the bottom third who do not make it to university come to ITE.

Since the 1990s the government has worked hard to change ITE’s image. It has not only spent a lot of money on new facilities and better teachers but also put a great deal of thought into it, scouring the West for best practice in vocational training. And it has encouraged students who are used to failure to take pride in their work. That has involved discipline (a list displays the names of class-shirkers) but also fun outside the classroom: ITE has sports teams and concerts just like any university.

This attention to detail has paid off. Many of the graduates have to compete with cheap migrant workers, especially in service jobs, but most of them are snapped up quickly. The hairdressers and beauty therapists are off to the new casinos, or “integrated resorts”, as they are prudishly known. Singapore, already near the top of most educational league tables, has created yet another centre of excellence that is beginning to attract foreign visitors.

Singapore is important to any study of government just now, both in the West and in Asia. That is partly because it does some things very well, in much the same way that some Scandinavian countries excel in certain fields. But it is also because there is an emerging theory about a superior Asian model of government, put forward by both despairing Western businesspeople and hubristic Asian chroniclers. Simplified somewhat, it comes in four parts.

First, Singapore is good at government (which is largely true). Second, the secret of its success lies in an Asian mixture of authoritarian values and state-directed capitalism (largely myth). Third, China is trying to copy Singapore (certainly true). Last, China’s government is already more efficient than the decadent West (mostly rubbish, see next section).

Fact or fiction?
For all the insults hurled at “Disneyland with the death penalty” (to use William Gibson’s gibe), Singapore provides better schools and hospitals and safer streets than most Western countries—and all with a state that consumes only 19% of GDP. Yes, that proportion is understated because it does not include the other fingers the government has in the economic pie, such as its huge landholdings, the Central Provident Fund (a mandatory savings scheme) and Temasek (a government-linked investment company). Yes, it is easier to serve 5m people on a tiny island than 309m Americans on a vast landmass. Yes, it has relied on immigration, which is now creating strains (and will be the main topic in the next election). And yes, Singapore’s bureaucrats can make mistakes, such as letting an Islamic terrorist escape in 2008. But its government does pretty well.

The Chinese are fascinated by it. “There is good social order in Singapore,” Deng Xiaoping observed in 1992. “We should draw from their experience, and do even better than them.” It sends streams of bureaucrats to visit Singapore. One of the first things that Xi Jinping did after being anointed in 2010 as China’s next leader was to drop in (again) on Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s minister-mentor, who ran the island from 1959 to 1990, and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, who has been prime minister since 2004. The Chinese are looking at other places, too—most obviously Hong Kong, another small-government haven. But it is hard to think of any rich-country leader whom China treats with as much respect as the older Mr Lee.

So what lessons are the Chinese learning? There is an odd imbalance between the things that Singapore and others make so much noise about and the reasons why the place works. In particular, the “Asian values” bits of Singapore—its authoritarianism and its industrial policy—that the Chinese seem to find especially congenial are less vital to its success than two more humdrum virtues: a good civil service and a competitively small state.

The island that Lee built
Singapore is certainly a fairly stern place. It has been run by the People’s Action Party for half a century. The older Mr Lee, a Cambridge-educated lawyer who was originally seen as a bit of a left-winger, set up a parliamentary system in which it has proved curiously difficult for the opposition to do well. From 1966 to 1981 Mr Lee’s PAP won all the seats. It has opened up a bit, and in the most recent election in 2006 it won only 66% of the votes and 82 of the 84 seats. The media, and particularly the internet, have also got a little freer.

The Singaporeans argue that they have the perfect compromise between accountability and efficiency. Their politicians are regularly tested in elections and have to make themselves available to their constituents; but since the government knows it is likely to win, it can take a long view. Fixing things like ITE takes time. “Our strength is that we are able to think strategically and look ahead,” says the prime minister. “If the government changed every five years it would be harder.”

There is more truth in this than Western liberals would like to admit. Not many people in Washington are thinking beyond the 2012 presidential election. It is sometimes argued that an American administration operates strategically for only around six months, at the beginning of its second year—after it has got its staff confirmed by the Senate and before the mid-terms campaign begins.

Yet even assuming that voters are happy to swap a little more efficiency for less democracy, Singapore still seems a difficult model to follow. Not only is it manageably small, but balancing authoritarianism and accountability comes down largely to personal skills (and even the opposition admits that the two Lees have been extremely good at it). More generally, Singapore’s success as a planning state has a lot to do with the sort of people who run it.

One thing that stands out in Singapore is the quality of its civil service. Unlike the egalitarian Western public sector, Singapore follows an elitist model, paying those at the top $2m a year or more. It spots talented youngsters early, lures them with scholarships and keeps investing in them. People who don’t make the grade are pushed out quickly.

Sitting around a table with its 30-something mandarins is more like meeting junior partners at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey than the cast of “Yes, Minister”. The person on your left is on secondment at a big oil company; on your right sits a woman who between spells at the finance and defence ministries has picked up degrees from the London School of Economics, Cambridge and Stanford. High-fliers pop in and out of the Civil Service College for more training; the prime minister has written case studies for them. But it is not a closed shop. Talent from the private sector is recruited into both the civil service and politics. The current education minister used to be a surgeon.

Western civil services often have pretty good people at the top, but in Singapore meritocracy reigns all the way down the system. Teachers, for instance, need to have finished in the top third of their class (as they do in Finland and South Korea, which also shine in the education rankings). Headmasters are often appointed in their 30s and rewarded with merit pay if they do well but moved on quickly if their schools underperform. Tests are endemic.

How much strategic intervention takes place in the economy? The Lees have dabbled in industrial policy, betting first on manufacturing and then on services. Temasek manages a portfolio of S$190 billion ($150 billion). The country is now trying to push into creative industries, with limited success thus far, as ministers admit.

These attempts at dirigisme have made Singapore a more reserved, less entrepreneurial place than Hong Kong with its feverish laissez-faire. It certainly has far fewer larger-than-life billionaires. But it is hard to hail Singapore as a success of top-down economic management in the way some Chinese seem to think. Indeed, the core of Singapore’s success—its ability to attract foreign multinationals—owes far more to laissez-faire than to industrial policy.

Come in, the water’s lovely
Rather than seeing foreign investment as a way to steal technology or to build up strategic industries, as China often does, Singapore has followed an open-door policy, building an environment where businesses want to be. The central message has remained much the same for decades: come to us and you will get excellent infrastructure, a well-educated workforce, open trade routes, the rule of law and low taxes.
In other words, Singapore’s competitive advantage has been good, cheap government. It has worked hard to keep its state small; even education consumes only 3.3% of GDP. But the real savings come from keeping down social transfers and especially from not indulging the middle class. The older Mr Lee thinks the West’s mistake has been to set up “all you can eat” welfare states: because everything at the buffet is free, it is consumed voraciously.

Singapore’s approach, by contrast, is for the government to provide people with assets that allow them to look after themselves. Good education for all is one big part of it. The other mainstay is the Central Provident Fund. A fifth of everybody’s salary goes into their account at the CPF, with the employer contributing another 15.5%. That provides Singaporeans with the capital to pay for their own housing, pensions and health care and their children’s tertiary education.

<div class="content-image-full" ec_article_large_image"="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 15px; padding-top: 5px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; float: right; clear: both; ">

</div>There is a small safety net to cover the very poor and the very sick. But people are expected to look after their parents and pay for government services, making co-payments for health care. The older Mr Lee especially dislikes free universal benefits. Once you have given a subsidy, he says, it is always hard to withdraw it. He is convinced that if you want to help people, it is better to give them cash rather than provide a service, whose value nobody understands. China, he thinks, will eventually follow Singapore’s model.

But arguably the place that should be learning most from Singapore is the West. For all the talk about Asian values, Singapore is a pretty Western place. Its model, such as it is, combines elements of Victorian self-reliance and American management theory. The West could take in a lot of both without sacrificing any liberty. Why not sack poor teachers or pay good civil servants more? And do Western welfare states have to be quite so buffet-like?

By the same token, Singapore’s government could surely relax its grip somewhat without sacrificing efficiency. That might help it find a little more of the entrepreneurial vim it craves.

 

[eatshitndie]

comparing the sg governance system with the west invariably leads me to think of the decline and perhaps eventual collapse if not paralysis of the u.s. government.

at the rate it is going today, the majority of americans, more than 80% do not have good things to say of congress, more than 60% do not think highly of the executive branch, and more than half of the country don't care shit what the supreme court says. simply, americans hate their government, and want change. every two years in gubernatorial races and every four years in the general election. constant churn. and very little stability and patience with long term strategic directions. that's the crux. americans know it, but pride in the more than 200-year old constitution stand in the way. if any sinkie were to talk to american industrialists or capitalists privately, they would tell you the sg model is actually superior followed by the china model, which is basically a larger sg model. in public of course, these leaders will tell you the u.s. system is still the best. liars.

 

[rusty]

In the wild, a bitch has 12 pups but she doesn't have 12 nipples. Up to half the pups are going to die within a few hours. Life is always a battle. The poor in Singapore either have to shift into a higher gear or they starve to death. That's life.

That bitch hasn't got a brain to alternate feeding the young but human has.
If humans were to live like 'in the wild', then we don't need laws and orders...survival of the fittest indeed.
It is because of the evolutionary process and with the intelligence of human beings, civilization advances and hence the birth of politics.

[Quote from Wikipedia]
Politics as a term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments, but also applies to institutions, fields, and special interest groups such as the corporate, academic, and religious segments of society. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.
Modern political discourse focuses on democracy and the relationship between people and politics. It is thought of as the way we "choose government officials and make decisions about public policy"

Yes, life is always a battle for as long as you breathe. Singapore is unique. The citizens are very obedient and rational because they are ruled with fear and with immensely toxic indoctrination. As a matter of fact, it is not that bad after all because we have arrived at a status, politicians all over, admired. The problem is, the authority's appetite for more money, power and fame have gone over their heads. Instead recognizing the people's hard work and sacrifices which they put in the last 50 years, with a reward of a breather, they exploded the population with undersized infrastructures causing unbearable discomforts and unhappiness, all in the name of GDP. Averaged Singaporeans are tired and worn out... so what difference does it make if Singapore is tops even without having to prove it?

 

[zhihau]

If humans were to live like 'in the wild', then we don't need laws and orders...survival of the fittest indeed.
It is because of the evolutionary process and with the intelligence of human beings, civilization advances and hence the birth of politics.

just to share a lil' something me wrote in my FB back on 8th June 2010... :o:o:o

you reap what you sow... it was no accident.
an old adage that drives our civilization, shaped our lives and molded our future... it was no accident.
from the hunting and gathering into systematic planting and harvesting... it was no accident.
our population hit critical mass and it drove us to seek out new lands... it was no accident.
new villages grew, new towns grew, new forts grew, new countries grew... it was no accident.
different cultures arises, different languages arises, different views arises... it was no accident.
folks with different views clashed, countries with differences fought... it was no accident.
the constant struggle for survival drove our technology... it was no accident.
technology flourished over the years and life became easier... it was no accident.
spiraling into the constant struggle to keep abreast of technology... it was no accident.
losing sight of the true meaning of our lives along the way... it was no accident.
you question what life is all about and no one truly know the answer? it was no accident.
master wugui said there are no accidents... it was no accident.
we truly need to learn to live in the present for it is a gift... it is no accident =)

 

[rusty]

we truly need to learn to live in the present for it is a gift... it is no accident =)
[/I]

those who were born without even a rusty spoon....it's an accident

those who were born with disabilities .... it's a tragic accident

those who were born under the control of the greedy...it's an election accident

we truly need to learn to live under the present conditions for it is a gift from PAP...a revolutionary accident about to happen