Singapore - a success story that has no peers

[Leongsam]

THE GLOBAL GURU

SINGAPORE: ASIA’S POLITICALLY INCORRECT SUCCESS STORY

By: Nicholas Vardy
5/21/2013 11:05 AM

​

A city-state located at the tip of the Malay Peninsula with a population of 5.2 million, Singapore is arguably the most successful among the four “Asian Tigers” — a group that also includes Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea.

When this former British colony became a fully independent country in 1965, its per capita gross domestic product (GDP) was a lowly $511. Today, that figure has risen to $60,900, making Singapore wealthier per capita than the United States.

Singapore appears at the top of the annual global economic rankings with astonishing regularity, outranking the United States by almost every measure. Singapore has been ranked as the easiest place in the world to do business. It also boasts the #1 airport in the world. And by 2020, Singapore will likely surpass Switzerland as the world’s largest offshore wealth management center.

Lee Kuan Yew: Singapore’s George Washington

I’ve written about Singapore before and a Singapore-based exchange-traded fund (ETF) was also a recent recommendation in the Alpha Investor Letter.
But it wasn’t until I read Lee Kuan Yew’s “The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World” this week that I realized how much Singapore owes its success to the vision and determination of a single man.

Lee Kuan Yew was prime minister from Singapore’s independence in 1959 until 1990, when he allowed his hand-picked successor and now his eldest son to succeed him.
Although few Americans have heard of him, Lee Kuan Yew is the eminence grise of the global diplomatic community, and is universally admired across several political generations. Even Richard Nixon speculated that, had Lee lived in another time and another place, he might have “attained the global stature of a Churchill, a Disraeli, or a Gladstone.”

At the same time, Lee Kuan Yew is a controversial figure. And his methods for lifting Singapore by its bootstraps to developed market status are both jarringly honest and relentlessly politically incorrect.

Although Lee Kuan Yew defines himself as “a liberal in the classical sense of that word,” chances are you’ll disagree with him whether you stand on the left or the right of the ideological spectrum.

If you are a bleeding heart liberal, you’d be appalled at Lee Kuan Yew’s insensitivity to diverse points of view.

If you are a conservative or a libertarian, you’d be equally angered at his views on the power government and its right to regulate and punish your personal behavior.
In reality, Lee Kuan Yew is more about street smarts than an overarching philosophy.

As he puts it:
I am not fixated on a particular theory of the world or of society. I am pragmatic. I am prepared to look at the problem and say, all right, what is the best way to solve it that will produce the maximum happiness and well-being for the maximum number of people?

Lee Kuan Yew’s Harsh Words for the United States

Lee is both a great admirer — and a critic — of the United States. And his position as the father of the planet’s most remarkable economic success story gives him a lot more credibility than, say, an anti-American rant by the late Hugo Chavez or even France’s President Francois Hollande.

On the one hand, Lee Kuan Yew admires the focus of the United States on individual freedom. He’s always encouraged Singaporeans to emulate America’s self-help culture. It is this trait that has made Americans into great entrepreneurs with the verve, vitality and vigor to adapt and to change much better than Europeans or the Japanese.

On the other hand, Lee Kuan Yew views the guns, drugs, violent crime, vagrancy and unbecoming behavior in public that he sees in America as simply unacceptable. They are, in his view, a symptom of the breakdown of civil society.

According to Lee Kuan Yew, the United States has not functioned well since the Vietnam War and the Great Society. Academic liberals have convinced some Americans that failure isn’t a matter of individual responsibility, but rather, a failure of “the system.” As a consequence, too many Americans believe that their problems are solvable by government. And many of those government programs have become a charity — an entitlement without any stigma attached. And these well-intentioned social policies have produced meager results at best.

Lee Kuan Yew believes discipline trumps democracy. Airing diverse opinions and competing ideas don’t guarantee a country’s success. The Asian Tigers could not have succeeded under a U.S.-style constitution where gridlock exists on every major issue.

Lew Kuan Yew declares that multiculturalism may end up destroying America. As he puts it, “The key question is whether America will make Hispanics Anglo-Saxons in culture or will Hispanics make America more Latin American?” That said, Lee Kuan Yew is optimistic that the United States can integrate readily all religions and races into the fabric of American society. The one exception? Islam.

Singapore Today: In Lee Kuan Yew’s Image

Lee Kuan Yew’s solution has been to turn Singapore into a one-party state and a meritocracy. And his influence is evident in Singapore every direction you turn.
Here are a handful of examples I’ve come across this week:

• Your entry card into Singapore warns you that selling drugs is punishable by death.

• Local newspapers are chock full of stories of people who either are caned or deported for bad behavior.

• Yesterday, I saw a grandmother ticketed for jaywalking.

• While the United States is mired in political gridlock, 81 of the Singapore parliament’s 88 members belong to the same party.

• The casinos at the new Marina Bay Sands complex are almost invisible. And if you are Singapore citizen, you must pay an $80 entry fee to gamble.

• Import tariffs on cars are more than 100%, so even a compact will cost you $70,000. In addition, you must pay a fee of around $60,000 for 10 years for a “Certificate of Entitlement” to drive in Singapore.

Singapore as the “Tiger Mother” State

Having spent a few short days here, I now think of Singapore as a living, breathing “Tiger Mother” state constantly hovering over its citizens to make sure they are well-behaved.
Yet, as an American, there is something unsettling about a government treating its citizens like wayward children.

After all, it goes against the very fabric what the U.S. founding fathers stood for and learned from the philosopher John Locke.

My first instinct was also to think that you’ll never see Singapore produce an iconic, quirky and visionary person who could change the world like Steve Jobs did.
But I quickly realized I was wrong.

After all, Singapore did produce Lee Kuan Yew himself — who, like Jobs, is iconic, quirky and visionary — and who successfully transformed this minor colonial outpost into the world’s wealthiest nation.

 

[winnipegjets]

Right-wingers love sinkapore because it is the most right-wing nation you can find on this earth. Minimal to zero social safety net. Low taxes. Business can do as it pleases with little regulation. Employee protection is minimal. No minimum wage. Control of freedom of press (right-wingers are happy for that until they their voices are being shut out). Thus, sinkapore is the right-wing nirvana.

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, Koch brothers (Charles and Bill) should become citizens of sinkapore. They fit right in. And they can definitely run the country better than the PAP.

 

[Rogue Trader]

My first instinct was also to think that you’ll never see Singapore produce an iconic, quirky and visionary person who could change the world like Steve Jobs did.
But I quickly realized I was wrong.

After all, Singapore did produce Lee Kuan Yew himself — who, like Jobs, is iconic, quirky and visionary — and who successfully transformed this minor colonial outpost into the world’s wealthiest nation.

Singapore also produced the iconic bilingual pop sensation Sun Horse

 

[Leongsam]

<header class="postHeader" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px; line-height: 15px;">THE GREAT DIVIDE <time datetime="2013-03-18T15:09:34+00:00" title="March 18, 2013, 11:09 am" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; color: rgb(128, 128, 128); padding: 0px 8px; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">March 18, 2013, 11:09 am</time> 420 Comments
Singapore’s Lessons for an Unequal America

<address class="byline author vcard" style="font-style: normal; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.2em; color: rgb(128, 128, 128); margin-top: 2px; margin-bottom: 2px;">By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ</address></header>

The Great Divide is a series about inequality.

TAGS:

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS, INCOME INEQUALITY, SINGAPORE,UNITED STATES ECONOMY,WAGES AND SALARIES


SINGAPORE

Inequality has been rising in most countries around the world, but it has played out in different ways across countries and regions. The United States, it is increasingly recognized, has the sad distinction of being the most unequal advanced country, though the income gap has also widened to a lesser extent, in Britain, Japan, Canada and Germany. Of course, the situation is even worse in Russia, and some developing countries in Latin America and Africa. But this is a club of which we should not be proud to be a member.

Some big countries — Brazil, Indonesia and Argentina — have become more equal in recent years, and other countries, like Spain, were on that trajectory until the economic crisis of 2007-8.

Singapore has had the distinction of having prioritized social and economic equity while achieving very high rates of growth over the past 30 years — an example par excellence that inequality is not just a matter of social justice but of economic performance. Societies with fewer economic disparities perform better — not just for those at the bottom or the middle, but over all.

It’s hard to believe how far this city-state has come in the half-century since it attained independence from Britain, in 1963. (A short-lived merger with Malaysia ended in 1965.) Around the time of independence, a quarter of Singapore’s work force was unemployed or underemployed. Its per-capita income (adjusted for inflation) was less than a tenth of what it is today.

There were many things that Singapore did to become one of Asia’s economic “tigers,” and curbing inequalities was one of them. The government made sure that wages at the bottom were not beaten down to the exploitative levels they could have been.

The government mandated that individuals save into a “provident fund” — 36 percent of the wages of young workers — to be used to pay for adequate health care, housing and retirement benefits. It provided universal education, sent some of its best students abroad, and did what it could to make sure they returned. (Some of my brightest students came from Singapore.)

There are at least four distinctive aspects of the Singaporean model, and they are more applicable to the United States than a skeptical American observer might imagine.

First, individuals were compelled to take responsibility for their own needs. For example, through the savings in their provident fund, around 90 percent of Singaporeans became homeowners, compared to about 65 percent in the United States since the housing bubble burst in 2007.

Second, Singaporean leaders realized they had to break the pernicious, self-sustaining cycle of inequality that has characterized so much of the West. Government programs were universal but progressive: while everyone contributed, those who were well off contributed more to help those at the bottom, to make sure that everyone could live a decent life, as defined by what Singaporean society, at each stage of its development, could afford. Not only did those at the top pay their share of the public investments, they were asked to contribute even more to helping the neediest.

Third, the government intervened in the distribution of pretax income — to help those at the bottom, rather than, as in the United States, those at the top. It weighed in, gently, on the bargaining between workers and firms, tilting the balance toward the group with less economic power — in sharp contrast to the United States, where the rules of the game have shifted power away from labor and toward capital, especially during the past three decades.

Fourth, Singapore realized that the key to future success was heavy investment in education — and more recently, scientific research — and that national advancement would mean that all citizens — not just the children of the rich — would need access to the best education for which they were qualified.

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first prime minister, who was in power for three decades, and his successors took a broader perspective on what makes for a successful economy than a single-minded focus on gross domestic product, though even by that imperfect measure of success, it did splendidly, growing 5.5 times faster than the United States has since 1980.

More recently, the government has focused intensively on the environment, making sure that this packed city of 5.3 million retains its green spaces, even if that means putting them on the tops of buildings.

In an era when urbanization and modernization have weakened family ties, Singapore has realized the importance of maintaining them, especially across generations, and has instituted housing programs to help its aging population.

Singapore realized that an economy could not succeed if most of its citizens were not participating in its growth or if large segments lacked adequate housing, access to health care and retirement security. By insisting that individuals contribute significantly toward their own social welfare accounts, it avoided charges of being a nanny state. But by recognizing the different capacities of individuals to meet these needs, it created a more cohesive society. By understanding that children cannot choose their parents — and that all children should have the right to develop their innate capacities — it created a more dynamic society.

Singapore’s success is reflected in other indicators, as well. Life expectancy is 82 years, compared with 78 in the United States. Student scores on math, science and reading tests are among the highest in the world — well above the average for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the world’s club of rich nations, and well ahead of the United States.

The situation is not perfect: In the last decade, growing income inequality has posed a challenge for Singapore, as it has for many countries in the world. But Singaporeans have acknowledged the problem, and there is a lively conversation about the best ways to mitigate adverse global trends.

Some argue that all of this was possible only because Mr. Lee, who left office in 1990, was not firmly committed to democratic processes. It’s true that Singapore, a highly centralized state, has been ruled for decades by Mr. Lee’s People’s Action Party. Critics say it has authoritarian aspects: limitations on civil liberties; harsh criminal penalties; insufficient multiparty competition; and a judiciary that is not fully independent. But it’s also true that Singapore is routinely rated one of the world’s least corrupt and most transparent governments, and that its leaders have taken steps toward expanding democratic participation.

Moreover, there are other countries, committed to open, democratic processes, that have been spectacularly successful in creating economics that are both dynamic and fair — with far less inequality and far greater equality of opportunity than in the United States.

Each of the Nordic countries has taken a slightly different path, but each has impressive achievements of growth with equity. A standard measure of performance is the United Nations Development Program’s inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, which is less a measure of economic output than it is of human well-being. For each country, it looks at citizens’ income, education and health, and makes an adjustment for how access to these are distributed among the population. The Northern European countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway) stand towards the top. In comparison — and especially considering its No. 3 ranking in the non-inequality-adjusted index — the United States is further down the list, at No. 16. And when other indicators of well-being are considered in isolation, the situation is even worse: the United States ranks 33rd on the United Nations Development Program’s inequality-adjusted life expectancy index, just behind Chile.

Economic forces are global; the fact that there are such differences in outcomes (both levels of inequality and opportunity) suggests that what matters is how local forces — most notably, politics — shape these global economic forces. Singapore and Scandinavia have shown that they can be shaped in ways to ensure growth with equity.

Democracy, we now recognize, involves more than periodic voting. Societies with a high level of economic inequality inevitably wind up with a high level of political inequality: the elites run the political system for their own interests, pursuing what economists call rent-seeking behavior, rather than the general public interest. The result is a most imperfect democracy. The Nordic democracies, in this sense, have achieved what most Americans aspire toward: a political system where the voice of ordinary citizens is fairly represented, where political traditions reinforce openness and transparency; where money does not dominate political decision-making; where government activities are transparent.

I believe the economic achievements of the Nordic countries are in large measure a result of the strongly democratic nature of these societies. There is a positive nexus not just between growth and equality, but between these two and democracy. (The flip side is that greater inequality not only weakens our economy, it also weakens our democracy.)
A measure of the social justice of a society is the treatment of children. Many a conservative or libertarian in the United States assert that poor adults are responsible for their own plight — having brought their situation on themselves by not working as hard as they could. (That assumes, of course, that there are jobs to be had — an increasingly dubious assumption.)

But the well-being of children is manifestly not a matter for which children can be blamed (or praised). Only 7.3 percent of children in Sweden are poor, in contrast to the United States, where a startling 23.1 percent are in poverty. Not only is this a basic violation of social justice, but it does not bode well for the future: these children have diminished prospects for contributing to their country’s future.

Discussions of these alternative models, which seem to deliver more for more people, often end by some contrarian assertion or other about why these countries are different, and why their model has few lessons for the United States. All of this is understandable. None of us likes to think badly of ourselves or of our economic system. We want to believe that we have the best economic system in the world.

Part of this self-satisfaction, though, comes from a failure to understand the realities of the United States today. When Americans are asked what is the ideal distribution of income, they recognize that a capitalist system will always yield some inequality — without it, there would be no incentive for thrift, innovation and industry. And they realize that we do not live up to what they view as their “ideal.” The reality is that we have far more inequality than they believe we have, and that their view of the ideal is not too different from what the Nordic countries actually manage to achieve.

Among the American elite — that sliver of Americans who have seen historic gains in wealth and income since the mid-1970s even as most Americans’ real incomes have stagnated — many look for rationalizations and excuses. They talk, for instance, about these countries’ being homogeneous, with few immigrants. But Sweden has taken in large numbers of immigrants (roughly 14 percent of the population is foreign-born, compared with 11 percent in Britain and 13 percent in the United States). Singapore is a city-state with multiple races, languages and religions. What about size? Germany has 82 million people and has substantially greater equality of opportunity than the United States, a nation of 314 million (although inequality has been rising there, too, though not as much as in the United States).

It is true that a legacy of discrimination — including, among many things, the scourge of slavery, America’s original sin — makes the task of achieving a society with more equality and more equality of opportunity, on a par with the best performing countries around the world, particularly tricky. But a recognition of this legacy should reinforce our resolve, not diminish our efforts, to achieve an ideal that is within our reach, and is consistent with our best ideals.

 

[Ash007]

Its also Disneyland with the Death penalty!

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html?pg=1&topic=

 

[johnny333]

Spore's so called success story was repeated in Malaysia, China., Thailand. These were/are where the countries where the MNCs relocated to because of the cheap labor.

 

[winnipegjets]

The government made sure that wages at the bottom were not beaten down to the exploitative levels they could have been.

The median take-home salary is $1700. Is that a luxury in the 6th most expensive city in the world?

First, individuals were compelled to take responsibility for their own needs.

But people don't have enough left for retirement after handing most of it to the government for overpriced public housing. And the government is clueless on the solution. So, they decided that importing 3.9 million foreigners will be the solution which every sinkee agrees is no solution.

Third, the government intervened in the distribution of pretax income — to help those at the bottom,

This writer doesn't have a clue on the reality. He has been conned by the Straits Times and all the bs talk. He should go talk to heartlanders, the Ah Pek and Ah So.

that all citizens — not just the children of the rich — would need access to the best education for which they were qualified.

And what the government do? Bring in loads of foreigners with children to displace sinkees from top schools. Give generous scholarships to foreigners to study in sinkapore, again depriving locals of the opportunity. Foreigners first is the PAP policy.
The rich, invariably connected to the establishment, received most of the scholarships. Why?

the economic achievements of the Nordic countries are in large measure a result of the strongly democratic nature of these societies. There is a positive nexus not just between growth and equality, but between these two and democracy. (The flip side is that greater inequality not only weakens our economy, it also weakens our democracy.)

This is the model that sinkapore should adopt. To do that, the PAP has to go. It has too much baggage and change is NOT possible with them.

 

[Leongsam]

Singapore Tax System Ranked Highly in World Bank Survey

A business-friendly tax regime is integral to Singapore’s reputation as a global investment hub. Our simple and stable tax system attracts more entrepreneurs to start a Singapore company and increase the investment inflow.

Singapore (PRWEB) November 28, 2012

According to a recent study published jointly by the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and international finance giant PwC, theSingapore corporate tax system is among the best in the world.

For Singapore taxation specialist Rikvin, the survey further cements Singapore’s reputation as a pro-business economy, as well as a desirable hub for entrepreneurship and investment in Asia.

Commenting on the survey, Mr. Satish Bakhda, Rikvin’s Head of Operations said, “A business-friendly tax regime is integral to Singapore’s reputation as a global investment hub. Our simple and stable tax system attracts more entrepreneurs to start a Singapore company and increase the investment inflow.”

Entitled “Paying Taxes 2013,” the survey assessed 185 economies on the basis of three key indicators, namely: (1) total tax rate; (2) time to comply with tax requirements; and (3) the number of tax payments required.

Scoring well across all indicators, Singapore was distinguished for its tax rates, compliance time, and number of tax payments that are lower than global averages.
A medium-sized firm in Singapore, for example, typically pays a tax rate of only 27.6% of profits, compared to the global average of 44.7%.

Moreover, domestic firms are required to make only a total of 5 tax payments, and each entity spends an average of 82 hours per annum to comply with tax requirements. These figures are significantly lower than the global average of 27 payments per firm, and 267 hours on average spent on compliance in other countries.

Overall, Singapore emerged as fifth in “Paying Taxes” global rankings, slightly behind Middle Eastern countries United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and regional neighbour Hong Kong.

In addition to its low base corporate tax rates, another pull factor is Singapore’s attractive range of tax incentives for growth industries. The Singapore Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme (PIC scheme), in particular, was cited as an example of the city-state’s initiative to establish targeted reforms. The PIC scheme offers incentives to Singapore firms who participate in any of 6 categories that are aimed at improving efficiencies within the company’s operations.

“The Singapore PIC scheme is an excellent way to lower total corporate taxes paid, yes. But more than that, it’s the perfect opportunity to bolster productivity and ultimately impact your bottom line,” Mr. Bakhda affirmed.

Now on its eighth year, the “Paying Taxes 2013” survey is an independent component of the World Bank’s “Doing Business” project, which ranks countries according to the business-friendliness of their regulatory environment. Incidentally, Singapore has consistently topped the “Doing Business” survey for 7 successive years.
-END -

 

[Leongsam]

Canada and Singapore rank highest in innovation opportunities


Republish Reprint




Rick Spence | 12/03/24 4:51 PM ET
More from Rick Spence | @rickspence

Since we so often hear that Canadian businesses are laggards in innovation, it was heartening this week to see Canada ranked alongside Singapore as the world’s most innovation-friendly countries, according to the latest Global Innovation Policy Index (GPII).

Devised by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the GPII benchmarks the effectiveness of the innovation policies of 55 countries, and provides a framework for sounder policy-making. It is considered one of the most comprehensive assessments ever undertaken of countries’ innovation policies, and highlights best practices in policy development that other nations can learn from.

The index assesses the effectiveness of countries’ innovation policies against 84 indicators grouped across seven core policy areas that are deemed to represent innovative values: trade and foreign direct investment; science and R&D; domestic market competition; intellectual property rights ; information technology; government procurement; and high-skill immigration.

In each policy area the index ranks countries as upper tier, upper-mid tier, lower-mid tier or lower tier. Only Canada and Singapore placed in the upper tier on all seven innovation policy indicators.

The U.S. placed in the top tier in every category except openness to high-skill immigration. The report ranks 18 countries as upper-tier, 15 as upper-mid-tier, 13 as lower-mid-tier, and nine as lower-tier.

The 18 countries in the top tier are Australia, Austria, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the U.S.

“Countries are engaged in a fierce race for global innovation advantage,” says ITIF president Robert Atkinson.”But they can compete in ways that either maximize their innovation capacity while producing positive spillovers for the world, such as by investing in research or education, or compete by less effective policies that often distort global markets through ‘innovation mercantilism.’ The Policy Index highlights countries’ ‘good’ innovation policies and provides a scorecard of how effectively leading countries are adopting them.”

The report notes that countries will not be able to achieve sustainably high innovation rates if their governments have not implemented a broad range of enabling policies that create the conditions in which organizations throughout their economies can successfully innovate.

“We hope the Innovation Policy Index helps countries better understand the strengths and weaknesses of their national innovation ecosystem compared with their global peers, while highlighting scores of best practices in innovation policy through which countries can learn from one another,” says Robert Litan, the Kauffman Foundation’s vice-president of research and policy.

“The report clearly shows how openness to domestic market competition is a critical element of fostering an entrepreneurship-friendly environment in countries around the world.”

You can read the full report at http://www.kauffman.org/innovationpolicy.

 

[Leongsam]

William Haseltine <noindex>|</noindex> <noindex>May 6, 2013 12:39pm
</noindex>
Singapore's Health Care Lessons for the U.S.


<noindex style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">
</noindex><noindex>

</noindex>

Most people will agree that the U.S. health care system needs systematic restructuring. Americans pay more for their health care then residents of other high income countries but get worse health outcomes. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 addresses some but not all of the most pressing problems. I believe we can reduce health care expenses, saving trillions of dollars a year, by making our health care system more efficient, following the lessons from the best other countries have to offer. Singapore offers an excellent starting point.

In my new book, Affordable Excellence; The Singapore Health Care Story: How to Create and Manage Sustainable Health Care Systems (Brookings, 2013), I examine how Singapore has succeeded in establishing a health system that ranks among the best and most efficient in the world. Globally, Singapore ranks sixth in health care outcomes, yet spends proportionally less on health care than any other high-income country, spending less than one-fourth the cost of health care in the United States and about half that of Western European countries.

In the United States, public and private health care costs account for almost 18% of GDP, more than four times that of Singapore. Yet we rank at the very bottom of all advanced economy nations in terms of measures of health and below many less advantaged countries as well. The rapidly growing numbers of elderly patients who place the heaviest demand on health services burden our system even further. The present course is clearly unsustainable. The Affordable Care Act, if successful, will alter this trajectory only slightly, reducing projected health care costs from $4.8 trillion to $4.4 trillion in the year 2030.

The primary lesson from my study of the Singapore health care system is that the key to controlling costs lies in aligning individual and collective incentives. Individuals must understand that health services costs money and that they should pay those costs they can afford themselves. Government can create a framework of rules to align hospital and doctor incentives that encourage them to provide the best service at the best price. But the framework must also assure that people have the ability to pay and then provide a safety net if they cannot. Finally, the health care system should be monitored to make sure it is transparent and honest. Some of the key lessons from Singapore that I discuss in my book include: transparency in pricing; increased competition; a shift to home- and community-based care; investing in wellness; opt-out catastrophic health insurance; salaried doctors; higher co-pays; and a tiered system.

The lessons from Singapore’s health care system will be of interest to those currently planning the future of health care in emerging economies, as well as those engaged in the urgent debates on health care in the wealthier countries—with their serious long-term challenges in health care financing. Policymakers, legislators, and public health officials responsible for health care systems planning, finance and operations, as well as those working on health care issues in universities and think tanks, should understand how the Singapore system works to achieve affordable excellence.

Affordable Excellence provides proof of principle that it is possible to deliver excellent health to a diverse population at a cost that is sustainable for individuals and nations. I don't expect any country to adopt all of the Singapore system but rather adapt some key features to their own unique circumstances.

<noindex style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19px;"></noindex>

 

[Leongsam]

E-GOVERNMENT

SINGAPORE TOPS INTERNATIONAL E-GOVERNMENT RANKINGS


By Sumedha Jalote | 2 April 2013 | Views: 2568
The Waseda University Institute of e-Government in Japan released its ninth annual international e-government rankings of 55 countries last week.
PHOTOS

​

Retaining its position from 2012, Singapore topped the rankings this year, followed by Finland and USA. Factors such as Singapore’s new e-citizen portal, along with the high coverage of fibre-based broadband, upgrades to mobile government, and OneInbox (a secured platform allowing citizens to receive government letters electronically) led to Singapore’s high rank.

Asian nations constitute 40 per cent of the top ten countries this year. Taiwan is ranked eighth, up from tenth in 2012, and Japan has moved from rank eight to rank six. South Korea remains in the top ten at rank four, down from its third position last year.

Australia, however, moved from its seventh position in 2012 to 11th this year.

The 55 nations included in the study are assessed on seven criteria: national portal, presence and mandate of the government CIO, e-services provided to citizens (such as e-voting and e-tax), promotion of e-government, network infrastructure, digital inclusion, and use of ICT for improving internal processes of the government.

The 2013 study identified open data and national ID card programmes as new trends this year. Trends identified in 2012, including cloud computing, mobile technology, social media, and cybersecurity, remained popular amongst governments.

These annual rankings by Waseda University are led by Dr Toshio Obi, Director of Institute of e-Government, in collaboration with the International Academy of CIO. Organisations such as the United Nations, International Telecommunication Union (ITU – the UN’s ICT agency) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) contributed to the assessment.
The complete rankings can be found here.

 

[winnipegjets]

Retaining its position from 2012, Singapore topped the rankings this year, followed by Finland and USA. Factors such as Singapore’s new e-citizen portal, along with the high coverage of fibre-based broadband, upgrades to mobile government, and OneInbox (a secured platform allowing citizens to receive government letters electronically) led to Singapore’s high rank.

How come I never got any letters from government via OneInbox?

 

[winnipegjets]

Singapore has succeeded in establishing a health system that ranks among the best and most efficient in the world. Globally, Singapore ranks sixth in health care outcomes

The best ...to who? Not for the average sinkee. Now, the average sinkee still has to worry how to pay the bills when they are sick because health care is not cheap in sinkapore.

The primary lesson from my study of the Singapore health care system is that the key to controlling costs lies in aligning individual and collective incentives. Individuals must understand that health services costs money and that they should pay those costs they can afford themselves.

By PAP standard, you must be poor before you can get 80 percent subsidy health care. So, from a middle class existence, you could be thrown into abject poverty because of health care bills. This is a system that sucks.
There are things in life that should be available to all, regardless of wealth, and healthcare is one of them.

 

[winnipegjets]

Scoring well across all indicators, Singapore was distinguished for its tax rates, compliance time, and number of tax payments that are lower than global averages.
A medium-sized firm in Singapore, for example, typically pays a tax rate of only 27.6% of profits, compared to the global average of 44.7%.

Why is the median takehome salary in sinkapore $1700? Business can afford to pay more when they are paying such low taxes. Also, why are there so ZERO world class sinkapore companies? You would think that low tax regime would allow business here to have more resources to be better. Not in sinkapore.

 

[Leongsam]

There are things in life that should be available to all, regardless of wealth, and healthcare is one of them.

That is exactly the case for Singapore. That's why the average life expectancy in Singapore is so high. Kudos to the government for achieving such excellent outcomes.

 

[Logisex]

Articles and stats aside, if you talk to a Sinkie or FT on the street, you'll get a different story. Of course Sam will say that it depends on who you speak too - whether you are talking to the elites or the losers like those in this forum.

Ever wonder why Singapore is never on the top ten list of 'happy nations' - which consist of poor nations as well as nations with high tax/cost of living?

If you have massive growth with low unemployment rate but only 5% of the people (elites) is happy, is this a success story?

 

[LeMans2011]

Sam Leong,
Forgotten your medicine today?

 

[wMulew]

Also, why are there so ZERO world class sinkapore companies? You would think that low tax regime would allow business here to have more resources to be better. Not in sinkapore.

Singtel have already expanded overseas owning among other things, the 2nd biggest telco in Australia.

Singapore Airlines have consistently ranked within the top 3 of most travel rankings winning them many times

DBS bank have also expanded overseas.

 

[Orion]

Peerless corruption story too.

 

[Sideswipe]

the Singapore success story is exaggerated to some degree.