What are you trying to say? If you are comparing Middle Eastern
countries and Indonesia with Singapore; aren't you reinforcing my
point about demographics playing an important part in the progress
and development of a country.
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
But what about economic dependancy on a single sector? What about
other non-economic indicators like education, health care, crime
level, all these.
That don't just come from having natural resource, it comes from
good management.
If you are trying to compare other indicators.
Abstract from The Economist world in figures 2007 edition
Human development index: HK ranked 22nd, Singapore 25th
Literacy rate: HK 93.5%, Singapore 92.5%
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
I still remember an interview with a prince from middle east. He
said he copied Singapore.
Amazing.
It's amazing because he is from UAE, and he is the one in charge of
Emirates airline. Now Emirates airline and Dubai are very advanced,
it is like Singapore of middle east. I remember that interview
because it set me thinking, wow there must be something in the
Singapore model.
UAE is classified as an Authoritarian Regimes in "The
Economist", whereas Singapore is classified under Hybrid Regimes,
there is nothing to brag about if a backward country copies your
model, I would be impressed if Switzerland, US, Germany, Sweden,
etc copied our model.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
Actually it is a historical coincidence that LKY and PAP came to
power in Singapore during its crucial stages. LKY is smart, lawyer,
educated in Britain. Singapore uses English language, put emphasis
on education, meritocracy, recruit scholars for government, follow
capitalism and free market.
It is really a historical coincidence, luck, accident, that
Singapore had LKY and PAP.
Who's to say what more we could have achieve if we had stayed
with the British colonial system, our achivements might have well
surpassed Hong Kong. We would probably have ended up with more home
grown industries like Hong Kong and would not have taken the course
taken by Mr. Lee (the elder), who relied heavily on Foreign Direct
Investments, all of which have taken flight seeking greener
pastures in China, India, Vietnam, etc. Thus leaving us with a
fragile economy and an uncertain future.
Anyway, the credit of developing Singapore doesn't belong soley to
Mr. Lee, there are other older Ministers who contributed to the
development of Singapore.
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
As a comparison, look at another new nation, East Timor.
The leadership were educated in Mozambique. They put Portuguese as
the national language. They were also socialist leaning.
The trajectory is completely different.
Just from these comparisons, one thinks how influential it is, in
the crucial early stages, what kind of people is in charge.
I think the true 'luck' of Singapore is the way it steered the
early stages. It could have been a totally different story.
Meat Pao.
East Timor, aren't you reinforcing my point about demographics
playing an important part in a country's development again?
Who's to know whether our achievements would have surpassed our
current if we had stayed on with the British colonial system like
Hong Kong.
