At least some economic sense input on the Aussie govt's
view
Singapore: why Howard won't fight the hangman
Print Normal font Large font By Tim Colebatch
November 29, 2005
Page 1 of 2
SINGAPORE is a city that works. The streets are clean, the food is
good, the people well-off. Four million of them live on that small
island, yet the traffic flows and public transport is excellent. It
seems like a Western city in Asia.
But the Nguyen Tuong Van case reminds us that Singapore is very
different from us. Why would a government not only allow a death
penalty to be imposed on any drug traffickers, but make it
mandatory for judges to do so?
It's about control. In Australia, ultimately, the people control
the government. In Singapore, the government controls the
people.
I was reminded powerfully of that one afternoon. Stepping out of
Singapore's state-of-the-art subway system, I rode the escalator
into a small park. There stood an unkempt old man with a small pile
of books for sale. It was former opposition leader J. B.
Jeyaretnam.
In 2001, JB was declared bankrupt after losing a series of libel
cases to government figures from Lee Kuan Yew down. Now he was
banned from Parliament and reduced to selling his own books to
live.
It is a strategy routinely used by Singapore's ruling People's
Action Party to shut up the opposition. The courts in Singapore are
an arm of government. In this case, JB's final crime was to accuse
the organisers of the Tamil Language Week of being "government
stooges". He was penalised more than $A500,000 in damages and court
costs. It ended his political career.
Lee and his successor, Goh Chok Tong, then sued another opposition
leader, Chee Soon Juan. An American-trained neuropsychologist, Chee
is already banned from the next election after suggesting that
Malay schoolgirls should be allowed to wear headscarves to school.
The courts ruled that that was speaking on religion, a forbidden
topic.
In a separate defamation action, they then ordered Chee to pay Lee
and Goh $A400,000. If he fails to do that, he too will be made
bankrupt.
One last example: in August, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made
one of his occasional gestures of liberalisation, saying Singapore
must become more "open" and "inclusive". Yet days later, the
thought police ordered filmmaker Martyn See to hand over his video
camera and his new documentary on Chee, Singapore Rebel for
Singapore law bans films "directed towards any political end". See
now faces a possible two-year jail term and an $A80,000 fine.
Welcome to Singapore, Asia's Western city.
In economic terms, Singapore today is very much a Western country.
In real national income per head, the World Bank ranks it just
behind Australia. In the past 25 years, its output per head has
almost trebled, rising 171 per cent while Australia's rose 67 per
cent. Unemployment has averaged 3.3 per cent.
And while Australia spends more than it earns, borrowing heavily
from the world and running a current account deficit of 6 per cent
of GDP, Singapore earns far more than it spends. It invests heavily
in the rest of the world, not least in Australia, and runs a
current account surplus of 25 per cent of GDP.
That success grew out of decades of world's-best economic policies
aimed at making Singapore a great place for multinationals to
invest in. The government suppressed consumer spending through
heavy social security taxes and used the money to build
state-of-the-art infrastructure to lure foreign investors.
Singapore became not only South-East Asia's main port, but a
heavyweight manufacturer in electronics, pharmaceuticals and
petroleum products, and the services hub of the region.
Since the 1997 Asia crisis, however, that growth strategy has taken
a battering. China now attracts the foreign investors that used to
go to South-East Asia. Lower-cost Malaysia is luring away visiting
ships and corporate offices. Yet Singapore's economy still grew by
8.4 per cent last year, and by 7 per cent in the year to September.
Its aim now is to restructure itself as a centre for the knowledge
economy: finance, R&D, medical sciences, education, the
lot.
But how does that fit with a strategy of suppressing free speech, a
free press, and independent courts? No developed country is
remotely like Singapore in this. On press freedom, Reporters
without Borders ranks it 147th out of 167 countries, five places
below the Democratic Republic of the Congo. All other developed
countries are in the top 60.
Yet for all the disgust Australians feel about the hanging of
Nguyen, the ties between the two countries are too important for
our Government to publicly embarrass Singapore. It is our key ally
in the region, and played a big part in getting Australia invited
to join the regional clubs: the Asian Regional Forum, the ASEAN
free trade area, and now the inaugural East Asia Summit. In
diplomatic terms, we owe it favours, not vice versa. John Howard
and Alexander Downer are right not to capsize that
relationship.
But there is one thing they might look at. The key issue in the
relationship now is the campaign by government-owned Singapore
Airlines to bust the high-priced Qantas-United Airlines duopoly of
flights to the US. Cabinet is due to decide on this next month, and
the odds are that this time Qantas will lose out to cheaper
fares.
Politically, however, that would be an unpopular decision right
now. Cabinet might adopt a very Asian tactic: just put the whole
issue off for a year or so, to politely let Singapore feel the
costs of its disregard for human life.
Tim Colebatch is economics editor.
