Comment by curiouscats | Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiouscats | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

- successful economic development (those born in rich countries seem to take richness for granted. It is very valuable to those being born the country for the country to be rich. Singapore is now rich. It was poor just 40 years ago) - safe city (probably the safest large city in the world) - nice, warm weather - great food - easiest country to set up a business in the world - good educational system - very good health results - budget surplus (they are not creating huge debt for the next few generations to deal with) - very good public housing - very good mass transit (people want it better, but it still is better than most other large, rich cities) - good parks - emerging art scene (it doesn't beat most other rich, world class cities, but is good and growing) - international crossroads, very multi-cultural city which is nice in many ways but also a good position to be in as the world moves in a similar the direction) - extremely well run government, you (or citizens...) may not like everything they are trying to do, but they are very effective at what they aim to do (something many governments are not able to do). They are willing to do very interesting things. Singapore will pay for the education of excellent students from Malaysia (as one small example - Singapore does many innovative things governmentally) - very walkable city (don't need a car - can walk and use mass transit) ...

I have lived there. I now live across strait in Malaysia. Here is my blog on Singapore

   http://singapore.curiouscatnetwork.com/

I realize Singapore also have things they could do better. But this was a list of things Singapore does well.

> Singapore is now rich. It was poor just 40 years ago

Many countries, particularly in that general region, have achieved that without being police states, though. Even where they had oppressive governments (as with Taiwan and South Korea back in the day), that has generally eased.

Despite the fact that Singapore doesn't have North American levels of political diversity and free speech protection, I don't think it's fair to imply it is a 'police state'. It's a rich city with a powerful political establishment that uses some levers of power that are taboo in North America. But there's an elected parliament, a non-corrupt bureaucracy, and a respected legal system derived from English law. (Though, there are no jury trials and the government always wins its libel cases.)

In the economic dimension, at least, the case can be made Singapore has gone farther and faster than its other 'asian tiger' peers.

And, I'm not sure that Taiwan or South Korea would come out better in a point-by-point comparison of either economic or political/social freedoms. They're all different than US standards regarding dissent, by my understanding. (I've read the least about Taiwan's internal politics.)

I'm comparing more to Europe than to the US, but in particular, Singapore is not meaningfully democratic. The one party is enormously dominant, and there's considerable evidence that other parties are pressured not to field candidates. "The government always wins its libel cases" - sort of demonstrates that (a) the government is at least unusual (normal democratic governments do not bring libel cases, or the Daily Mail would be in a lot of trouble), and (b) the judiciary is compromised.

> And, I'm not sure that Taiwan or South Korea would come out better in a point-by-point comparison of either economic or political/social freedoms

Both are now relatively democratic, though it's a recent thing.

Singapore is obviously not the usual sort of competitive democracy with vibrant (and even celebrated) dissent like the major Western democracies.

But it's also far from a 'police state', the very loaded term you introduced. It's interesting precisely because it seems to illustrate that there's not a stark binary choice between 'democracy' and 'despotism', but rather a more multidimensional choice space, and on many scales their choices are doing very well.

It's also the case that even in impeccable liberal democracies, cities/regions/jurisdictions larger than Singapore's 4-million population can remain overwhelmingly loyal to a single party for decades, for its local officials and representatives to national legislature.

For example, Chicago has had Democratic Party mayors for almost twice as long as Singapore has existed as a country. Some unfair play by the incumbent machine is an understood factor, but it's also the case that the major alternative statewide, the Republican Party, isn't very attractive to city residents. What competition does occur happens under one party label.

Against its region, then, the noncompetitiveness of Singapore internal politics may be just as much or more an outgrowth of that same sort of local identity/satisfaction against distinct alternatives, as it is from the unfair play.

> easiest country to set up a business in the world

Could you elaborate what your base of comparison is to make such statement? How many countries have you set businesses up in?

Speaking just of Asia, I set up businesses in Singapore and Hong Kong. The latter was easier to setup and proved easier to run, with less running costs over the course of 3 years so far. I also found Hong Kong to be way more founder-friendly when it comes to getting angel money or VC.

Regarding the police state: 1st time I spent a day in Singapore, in 2005, on a 14h stopover from a long haul flight to Australia, I wanted to take a nap on a lawn in a public park. Two police offers told me I can't and they'll have to fine me but they'd make an exception since I'm a tourist. I was wearing a tailor-made suit btw., not some daggy traveler attire.

That was when I knew Singapore was not for me.

Don't get me wrong, I have friends living there and they like it a lot. They are a family of four and they do fit in the 'ideal standard' box of people the government there wants to have as citizens.

But be careful if you don't. Singapore has laws that make homosexuals face legal threats. And you can be fined if someone spots you walking around in your house naked (in your own 4 walls, mind you!).

World Bank ranking: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/10-easiest-countrie...

Granted most any subjective ranking has plenty of room for argument. There isn't likely truly any clearly #1 for "setting up a business" as so much depends on the situation. But Singapore consistently is ranked very highly on this measure.

And you can be fined if someone spots you walking around in your house naked (in your own 4 walls, mind you!).

In the U.S., this could get you jail time: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6406...

> those born in rich countries seem to take richness for granted. It is very valuable to those being born the country for the country to be rich. Singapore is now rich. It was poor just 40 years ago

Most of the so called rich countries were little more than bombed-to-stone-age hellholes 50-60 years ago. Before WW2, Singapore was fairly wealtfy and important harbour state for East and West.

It's super-impressive what Singapore has built up, but I would be careful to say most people in rich countries take it any more granted than Singaporeans. E.g. Germans are still working hard to unify the country after WW2 and the Iron Curtain.

I didn't say those in other rich countries take it more for granted that the currently rich Singaporeans. Kids today in Singapore have an entitled attitude similar to (probably not quite as extreme, but still...) that of kids in the USA. The current (rich) kid attitude in Singapore is not like the attitude of kids in poor countries today or Singapore in 1970.

Poverty in much of the world today means: people starving, no electricity, no indoor plumbing, no clean water... Often those in rich countries (which I would imagine lots of those reading Hacker News are) don't appreciate the benefits of those things. We are not talking about poverty of not being able to get cable TV or a fancy coffee.

Singapore was not rich, and had been occupied, brutally, by Japan during WWII. Here is data on how rich Singapore was http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/economy/hist/gdp.htm...

  GDP in current USD for countries  http://www.econstats.com/weo/V008.htm

__________ 1970___2010

UK________ 2250___36300 USA_______ 5050___47100 France____ 2936___40600 Germany___ 2497___40500 Singapore_ 920___42650

Brazil____ 409___10500 Malaysia__ 412___7755 Mexico____ 900___9200 Panama____ 753___7700 Portugal__ 859___21000 South Africa_ 850___7100 Venezuela__ 1790___9773

Malaysia and Singapore were 1 country for a short while after independence. This is also why the data can't start much earlier, Singapore wasn't its own country until 1965 (and wasn't "independent" - as part of independent Malaysia) until 1963.

People have a right to dislike some of Singapore's policies, I think. But denying that they have done a fantastic job economically I think is just contrary to the facts. They have one advantage - a good location for a port. They have very little else - no natural resources, no store of wealth to build up after WWII... Likely at least dozens of countries were in better shape to grow economically in 1970, than was Singapore. Singapore surpassed probably all of them. Even if Singapore didn't, they did about as well as any country. I can't imagine more than 10 countries could reasonably be argued had better economic performance from 1970 to 2010.

I do like what Germany took on and has accomplished.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com