free market plus the rule of law, and stable
macro-economic policies, can lead to progress and success, but
without Western-style 'liberal' democracy
What a bunch of Balony
I think you have ignore 1 basic historical fact in our recent
History.....the tools that fight against communist was against
poverty. That's why one of the reason ASEAN was established. And
liberal trade policies and surplus capital from western state
was introduce into SEA thru Foreign Direct Investment as a
form for introducing mass income distribution thru private
interest.
We also saw the introduction of
Capital financing thru Asian Dollar Market
established by BOA to facilitate investment
distribution within Asia.
The success of foreign investment saw the rise of the 4 dragon
in the 80s . Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore.
Success without Western democracy? You think UNDP alone would
be able to bring you to Singapore? Whose Economics
advise did Singapore LKY listen to on FDI? ...from Mao hand
book?
Look at the characteristics of these 4 states....
Taiwan and Korea has longer and closer ties with US. While HKG
is a colonial city. 3 out of 4 were against the influence of
communist regime in the 60s and 70s. Not to forget that
Singapore wanted to be part of a Federation State.
The only reason why Singapore can continue to be an authoritarin
because of its smallness. and continue rise in income for the later
part of the 1900.
So Singapore and China were able to prosper because
of liberal western Trade policies and Trading system of
comparative advantage thru private interest. Socially it benefit
people around the globe. And in contrast we saw the inefficent
of state planning distribution within the soviet block.
So lets not stick gold to govt....and certainly if you think
authoritarian is the reason you would not move south to
Singapore.
you talked a lot about reforming Singapore education to improve
english, start by spelling "baloney" correctly.
The fact that China prospers today but remains a communist state
already prove your theory wrong, but of course communism in China
is longer the same as what Mao or Carl Marx were thinking.
don't stick gold to the western state, They invested to
capitalise on cheap labor, slack local environmental control
(remember Bhopal), cheap industrial resources (land and raw
materials) in Asia. investment from these states were never meant
to introduce mass income distribution, like in HK, they took the
mass income first, then the rest distribute.
The fact you conveniently ignore is that the Philippines and
Indonesia were anti communist, they got rid of the dictator, but
they remains poor today. The fact that they are the most democratic
countries in ASEAN, by western standard, has not brought their
people what they need. Philippino remains dependant on
the export of their cheap labour, Indonesian maids continue to be
abused by the Malaysian.
The korean would laugh at you when you say they succeeded with
western democracy in the 80's. Until 87 South Korea was ruled by
general Chun Doo Hwan, came to power by a coup de'tat. Until today,
we still get news of their former head of state involved in
scandal, corruption....blah blah blah. But along the way, these
head of states implemented economic strategies that capitalise on
cheap labour and aim at export, the same way the Asian tigers
achieved economic miracles.
Ask the Taiwanese, it was Chiang Jin Guo, the son of
dictator Chiang Kai Shek, who laid the foundation for taiwan
economic miracle, then later came the direct election when Lee Teng
Hui was elected president. Ah Bian has not ensured continuing
economic prosperity for the Taiwanese people.
Philippines and india were both anti communist, speak english
nation wide, embrace western democracy, but where were they
when Asian economy prosper in the beginning of the 80's?
If Singapore is an authoritarin because of its
smallness, why is the big China also authoritarian? I
wonder why is a small authoritarian state able to "continue
rise in income for the later part of the 1900"
The Asians tigers, china, and other Asian countries prosper
for many reasons unique to the region (emphasis on education,
savings, hardwork...), and in a globalized environment,
but never because of western democracy. Dont' stick Gold where it
doesn't belong, trying too hard to link economic sucess to
democracy will only dilute what democracy can really do for the
people.