Singapore is not quite what Brexiters think it is

April 5, 2017

Recommended READ: John Curtis Perry titled Singapore Unlikely Power.

Singapore:Unlikely Power

Image result for singapore unlikely power

John Curtis Perry

  • Tracks the meteoric rise of Singapore to the status of first-world dynamo in just three decades
  • Shows how longtime leader Lee Kuan Yew adopted a resolutely pragmatic approach to economic development rather than following any one fashionable ideology
  • Offers an accessible, comprehensive, and colorful overview of a city-state that has perfected one of the world’s most influential political-economic models

Singapore is not quite what Brexiters think it is

Rather than a model of laissez-faire capitalism, the state is highly interventionist
by James Crabtree

Not long ago I took a walk up a steep, narrow road in western Singapore, with dense jungle on either side, to visit a memorial housed in a colonial-era bungalow commemorating the final battle before Britain surrendered to Japanese forces in February 1942.

On that site 75 years ago allied soldiers ground out a grim rearguard action, fighting hand-to-hand to defend the linchpin of imperial Britain’s position in Asia. Winston Churchill dubbed their rapid and humiliating defeat “the worst disaster, and largest capitulation, in British history”.

Gaze out from that same hilltop today, however, and you get a grand view of modern Singapore, from the towering cranes of its container port to its towering downtown skyscrapers — in other words the heart of the global trading hub that some in Britain hope to emulate after Theresa May’s decision last week to trigger Article 50.

When Mrs May said earlier this year that no Brexit deal was “better than a bad deal”, the UK prime minister was issuing a threat. If negotiations go badly, Britain will walk away and metamorphose into a minimally regulated tax-haven, ready to pinch business from the continent — a self-styled “Singapore of Europe”. There is a deeper historical parallel here, given that Singapore once endured a kind of disorderly exit of its own. Having won independence after the second world war, it joined a new Malaysian federation in 1963, only to crash out two years later. Against the odds, it then transformed itself from a humid, malarial entrepôt into a rich financial hub, providing a template Britain may now try to follow.

It is easy to mock this comparison. The historical parallels are a mess for a start, not least because Singapore left its own union with such great reluctance. On the day break-up was triggered in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew, the stern national patriarch who led the country for many decades, wept openly on national television. Many things the Brexiters think they admire about Singapore also turn out to be only half-true.

Singapore is indeed a competitive market economy with relatively low tax and a threadbare social safety net. But rather than a model of laissez-faire capitalism, its state is actually highly interventionist, from its famous chewing-gum ban to wide-ranging public ownership of everything from banks to airlines.

Its success as a financial hub, meanwhile, is based not only on openness to capital and goods, but also people. Extraordinarily high immigration has seen the island’s population double in 30 years. Today, not far off a third of its 5.8m people are foreigners, from Filipino nannies and Bangladeshi builders to Japanese bankers. The government has tightened migration rules recently, but still expects to add 1m to its population by 2030 — hardly a policy migration-averse Brexit backers would want to copy. Yet having moved to Singapore last year, it seems to me that this south-east Asian island might provide at least one useful lesson as Britain anticipates its post-Brexit future — namely, the anxiety that flows from navigating the uncertain currents of globalisation all on your own. For all the undoubted successes of its economic development, Singapore is still a small country surrounded by much larger neighbours.

From Malaysia to the north and Indonesia to the south, not to mention regional powers such as China and India, its leaders have learnt to cope with the special vulnerability that comes from never being able to dictate terms. As Prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew used to lecture his people that they were price-takers in the global economy, and that they must adapt to the world as they found it. Singaporeans took his words to heart, becoming among the world’s most go-getting, highly skilled workers. But the process left a nagging uncertainty. There is even a local Chinese dialect word for this: “kiasu”, meaning fear of falling behind, an often remarked upon national trait.

As it contemplates its future outside the EU, a similar feeling of British kiasu is likely to grow. Back in 1942, the fall of Singapore forced a shocked nation to confront the vulnerability of its teetering empire. Today, those in Britain looking east for inspiration might once again find a more anxious role model than they care to admit.

7 thoughts on “Singapore is not quite what Brexiters think it is

  1. Should not be forgotten that many of Singapore’s civil servants and university professors are Malaysians or ex-Malaysians. Even some of their brainy and competent Cabinet ministers.

    Will refrain from comparing Singapore and Malaysia or else the 1Malaysia race supremacists will start foaming at the mouth 🙂

  2. Singapore is surrounded by Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines and lately, in non-geographical sense, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar, and lastly in geopolitical sense, the awakened fire-breathing Chinese Dragon.

    The British Isles are surrounded by who? I don’t think there is a valid basis for comparison other than that both are islands, have a thriving Chinatown and speak, occasionally, the Queens English.

    Quote:- “Singapore of Europe”

    This reminds me of our 1st PM’s dream for Kuala Lumpur and Singapore prior to the divorce of course. He dreamed of KL being the Washington DC and Singapore being the New York of the newly minted Federation. The first wishful comparison to bite the dust?

    • I had the honour of meeting Dame Thatcher at 10 Downing Street when she hosted members of The Malaysian-British Society delegation led by its President, Tun Ismail Mohamed Ali, in 1986. I was then the Society’s Secretary.So I agree with you that Prime Minister Thatcher is in a class of her own.

      To me, she is in the same league as Sir Winston S. Churchill. I remember her most for breaking up the Trade Union Movement in Britain which was strangling the British economy.She also kept the Falklands in British hands.–Din Merican

  3. “…75 years ago allied soldiers ground out a grim rearguard action, fighting hand-to-hand to defend the linchpin of imperial Britain’s position in Asia. Winston Churchill dubbed their rapid and humiliating defeat “the worst disaster, and largest capitulation, in British history” What capitulation? He diverted all resources to defend Britain and left Malaya and Singapore to defend themselves with whatever British assets there were against the invading Japanese.

    Churchill is a supra egoist well known for his hyperbole statesments.. He partly is responsible for the decline and the ultimate dismantling of the British empire, which he could not stop. If not for the intervention of the US in WW2, Britain would probably have fallen to the hands of Hitler’s Germany. It is no wonder that this war-time PM was booted out in the general election immediately after the war.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s