Singapore has long been authoritarian capitalism's 'City on a Hill.' The city is thriving, efficient, clean, a financial center, one of the world's largest ports, has the highest quality of life in Asia, has the world's fastest growing economy, and is commonly rated as the least corrupt government in Asia. Singapore is democratic, in the sense that they have elections, but only one party (People's Action Party PAP) has been in control since 1959.
Despite nominal democracy, Singapore is the living counterargument to the assertion that authoritarian governments cannot succeed and oversee thriving modern economies. Opposition party candidate Chee Soon Juan describes the democratic process in Singapore with a decisively negative outlook. All TV stations and other news outlets are run entirely by the government. All unions are overseen by government officials. A single family runs the Government Investment Corp. (controlling most of the enormous financial reserves), the largest Telecom company, the finance ministry, and of course, the all powerful prime minister position. Add to that the notoriously PAP sympathetic judiciary, and you have total one party control.
How are they so successful without western values? There are several unique aspects of the Singapore system.
First is the real estate system. Land development in Singapore is almost exclusively controlled by the government, with over 85% of the population living in government housing. Unlike the West, there is no stigma to living in government housing and almost all the residents are above the poverty line. Controls on rents and fees, government income guidelines for admission, and no secondary market for property helped Singapore's enormous financial sector survive the great Recession. When property is leased at steady rates instead of sold, there is no room for speculators and thus Singapore's banks did not get doused by underwater mortgages like the rest of the developed world. (Of course their investments in Western Banking institutions did suffer losses). Still, Singapore emerged from the recession with the fastest growing economy in the world in 2010.
Second, the pay for the ministers. Singapore's elected officials are the highest paid in the world. The government argues (quite convincingly) that highly paid officials are key to the efficiency and corruption free status of Singapore. Indeed, Singapore's government is consistently rated either the world's least corrupt or among the least corrupt by the World Bank and Transparency International. They are also rated in highly in rule of law, at least when it comes to contract and copyright protections (personal and political freedoms are another matter.)
All of the above information seems to indicate that Singapore is an ideal model for China and other aspiring authoritarian capitalist nations. Indeed, Deng XiaoPing was in part inspired by Singapore to institute his initial market reforms, and the recent local elections in China are loosely based on the Singapore model. In my opinion, the Singapore model does not hold the answers for China or most other authoritarian nations because of the unique circumstances that have enabled Singapore's system to enjoy such great success.
Size is perhaps Singapore's greatest advantage. With a population of just 4.5 million, living on a series of islands just off the tip of the Malaysian Peninsula, Singapore is both tiny and densely populated. Though land reclamation projects are ongoing, Singapore will remain a blip on the world map. The small scope of Singapore allows the national government to directly supervise and discipline every governmental minister. This tight control helps to ensure that corruption is minimal. In a sprawling rural-urban country like China, it is impossible for the national government to effectively supervise rural or far-flung government offices. The government is simply much too large. Also, in a country as populous and expansive as China, there is no way to pay ministers in a manner comparable to Singapore. The result is that local government officials in China will find the rewards of corruption very tempting given the low risk of being caught and losing their small government salary. Controlling elections will also be much more difficult in China for the same reasons. The National Government simply cannot keep an eye on all the moving parts in the same way that Singapore can.
Singapore's second advantage is the unique real estate system. This system does more than prevent the inflation and collapse of real-estate bubbles, it is a tool of control. Opposition leaders claim that the PAP threatens voters with the potential loss of their government controlled housing, leading voters to support the PAP. Even if this is not true, government owned housing creates government dependency. People are just instinctively unwilling to vote against their meal ticket. In places like China, the cat is already out of the bag. Private developers control most of the real-estate and citizens buy their homes outright. Under a private real estate system, citizens feel secure that the government cannot evict them, raise their rates, or find them ineligible to continue living under the same roof. Seizing homes from citizens is out of the question, and everybody knows it. This loss of control means that it would be much more difficult for the Communist Party to maintain dominance under even nominal democracy. Also, it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of avoiding housing bubbles like the one that devastated the West. Such a collapse in China (thought to be possible by some analysts--not me), would certainly prove a challenge to the continuing control of the CCP, especially if democratic institutions were in place.
Singapore's example demonstrates that authoritarianism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive and can mix with great success. Those in the West who cling to the myth that Countries must embrace multi-party democracy and liberal social values to move past middle-income status are clearly wrong. Unfortunately for authoritarians, Singapore does not provide a good model for larger more rural countries whose real estate systems are privatized. Autocrats who seek wealth to mix with their power might find success, but they will need a system tailored to the individual needs of their country. There's only so much they can emulate their City on the Hill.
A few resources:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/08/04/229722/index.htm A pro-Singapore viewpoint from the Prime Minister.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030916sj.htm An anti-Singapore view from the opposition leader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Singapore A great resource with details about structure, ministerial pay, transparency, times and dates, economic rankings and much more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore Interesting stuff about Singapore's unique housing arrangements.
http://the-diplomat.com/2010/04/08/china-will-get-real-democracy/5/ Classic Western viewpoint that democracy is needed to become truly successful.
No comments:
Post a Comment