My apologies for breaking up your
post so as to give justice to your efforts by properly giving due
attention to the various issues raised.
The Korean manufacturing models
were on heavy industries and mass manufacturing of high value
electrical products.
Singapore's attempt at heavy industries did not quite take-off with
the steel mill, while shipbuilding was a flop with most shipyards
of the early 1970s vaporised; and government linked shipyards
converting to high value niche in oil-rig construction. Our attempt
at high value mass production of electrical products was also a
failure - with nothing comparable to the range of mobile phones,
notebooks, plasma and LCD TV and monitor screens, and a whole range
of household electrical goods produced by Samsung and LG.
Singapore found a niche in the petro-chemical industry reaching the
Number 2 spot in world production; and as well as in the Financial
sector with services to the region in special fund raising programs
through IPO; and other Financial Consultancy and Banking
Services.
After the last crisis in 1997, Biotech and Life Sciences were
included as niche areas that will propell Singapore forward.
Unfortunately these niche activities require the expertise which
are not locally available, and require a large input of the
controversial Foreign Talents.
2. This manufacturing model however is only a necessary but
insufficient condition for its current "success" given the tight
command structure of the political climate that was prevalent till
the recent violent assasination. As I remembered it there was a
entire period where news would be filled with stories of Korean
students' protest.
After decades of constricted rule
by a one man power, the system can only atrophy; and with the
removal of the "one-man show" - one cannot expect the Koreans to
know how to use its new found freedom.
This is similar to a person being confined to bed for a few decades
in a comatose condition, can we expect him to get up and run the
moment he is fully awaken ? His atrophied muscles will need
guidance and training to regain its familiarity of new found
strength and freedom.
Therefore, it is not surprising that there was a period of turmoil
and conflict in Korea, when they begin to search for a way
forward.
Singapore can avoid this experience, if civil institutions that are
non-political should now be remodelled to stop and reverse the
process of politicizing. Such civil institutions will form the
bedrock of stability in any transition of political powers - as
such it is left to the responsibility of the present Ruling Party
to ensure that such a situation exist.
3. The effects of the Chaebols are not clear i.e. are they positive
or negative in light of the recent Asian currency crisis and also
from observations of the Japanese malaise that is rooted in the
problems of the Zaibatsus (i.e. cross subsidising, bad loans
etc.)
The fact that the chaebols were
caught short in the last Asian Currency crisis was due much to the
total liberalization of the political, economic, social and
cultural scences.
With the structure of the chaebols being so vast and complex,
which resulted in web of cross-financial dealings between internal
companies, and with the influence and political clout that their
financial size bear on the systems, it was near impossible to rein
in the free wheeling haphazard practises.
However, the same system that brought the house down, had actually
propelled Korean industries to a significant status that threatened
even the established Japanese zaibatsus.
Fortunately, the 1997 financial crisis had shaken the foundation and transformed the Korean
chaebols and in the manner that they conduct
business.
4. However, with a "free" market model seems to have given Koreans
an edge. Couple that with the strong manpower base in the form of
high quality education that is "not" (?) driven from a command
structure and also their ability to assimilate and reproduce tech
(much like Japanese strategy in the 70s) and also even innovate
based on those tech. Just an interesting side point, Hyundai has
just opened one of its plants in US (Georgia) last month...although
the resale values of their cars here in the US is low, but many
first time buyers are willing to take up on their SOnatas
etc.
Any country that embraces the
concept of a Free Market and actively participate in the Global
Economy can be assured of some degree of success.
With an economy that is geared in manufacturing and heavy
industries, is there any choice but to be plugged into this Global
Economy and in the concept of Free Market ?
Given all the above, can we come to the conclusion that a free-er
reign on both the economy and education system might be key to us
catching albeit in our own unique way (i.e. export/import, services
- financial, IT, Education, biotech(?)). How does the recent
innovation initiatives (A*Star biotech, MIT tie up) fit /fail in
light of these ideas? How can private sector grow beyond
govt/temasek link companies over-reaching canopy to grow and
innovate (think of the tropical rain forest structure and how much
undergrowth you see vs. secondary forest/deciduous forests -
variety, selection, retention ?? Just really curious and
ranting...
The present scholar and bond
system - in which the best young Singaporean brains are sent
overseas to star institutions - seems to be having problems, when
the more intelligent ones are breaking their contracts not for
money or for career, but for the sake of pursuing higher knowledge
that lead to higher qualifiction.
The stiff jacket policies of A*Star simply treat the scholars as
serfs to do their bidding under bondage, and will not be supportive
to the idea of scholars continuing to pursue their interests.
Under such a canopy of high level administrative interference -
that do not take into consideration Human Interests, can the
undergrowth of talent grow taller to reach the light blocked by the
overhead canopy. The undergrowth cannot be expected to ever
transform into secondary/deciduous forests until the overhead
canopy is cleared to allow sunlight to shine
through.
*Endnote: just wanted to add that although one of the post made the
point that Korea moved ahead when it made a change for real
democracy, this period did not appear immediately. The assasination
that took place in 1979 resulted in turmoil that lasted till 1987.
The democratic process that took place from 1987 had its financial
crisis and setback in 1997...from 1998 a series of reforms made to
Chaebol and other parts of the economy...giving us the the current
form and shape of the Korean economy (Source:
Wikipedia).
Please refer to the analogy of the
bedridden comatose person, if ever he recover from his coma, he
will not be able to use his atrophied limbs, and will have to
struggle and make seemingly monumental mistakes to create a new and
meaningful life, and find a position for himself in this
World.
