cy on Thu, 8th Oct 2009 8:02 pm 

老舍茶馆

死马当活马医, 死马是医不活的，活马是早晚要死的

邓老 on Thu, 8th Oct 2009 8:29 pm 

最后买单的是新加坡的平民百姓。

不必等2010， 你到街上走走就可看得出明显的萧条，和市道冷清多了。

不需多久，新加坡必有大变动。

Monday on Fri, 9th Oct 2009 12:28 pm 

新加坡的高薪精英团队在中国不敌区区的苏卅地方官员
————————————————

人家是13亿中选出的能干官员
面对现实吧 别自以为是精英 别人是草包

randomnessinmind on Sat, 10th Oct 2009 9:43 am 

2 more years, and we’ll let the people speak for themselves.

And Monday yer right, our ‘elites’ are no better than the small officials in Suzhou. The decisions they make are of the same scale, just that ours get paid like they’re kings of a country. I’ll just ‘quit’ if things goes too wrong.

Babelfish_Translator on Sat, 10th Oct 2009 11:24 am 

This is machine translation. But there is one phrase to which the whole article can be translated : “Singapore has lousy expensive govt, that is the source of all our problems”.

Does the Singapore pattern whether clay buddha cross the river? Whether the Singapore pattern also does have the surplus study value?
The Singapore media always praises the people to move the party government astutely competent.A November 30, 2008 report is the very typical writing: The `China since the reform and open policy, very many leaders all has visited Singapore, also has profited from Singapore many effective concrete procedures.Recent years had many officials, the scholar, reporter, moved the party to the people and Singapore’s political pattern deeply feeling interest’.Obviously, the people move the party as well as its supporters all thought the Singapore pattern is feasible, may take other developing nations the system reference.Lee Kuan Yew in 2000 “from third world to first world: Singapore’s story” records Lee Kuan Yew’s success experience.
However, the Singapore pattern feasibility as early as has let the Western scholars in many years ago doubt.In 2008 Nobel the economic prize winner wave Crue gate already denied in a 1994 economical commentary had so-called Asian economical miracle this identical, thought but Singapore’s economical growth benefitted in the external investment grows the non-economical productive forces promotion.Same, American politics scholar Huntington always doubted Singapore’s political institution can continue in after Lee Kuan Yew time.In fact, Singapore Government formulates but the economic policy only is some must not be the successful condition, therefore Singapore’s economical performance is not decided by the people moves the party government’s policy.

What does Singapore have to experience is worth studying? 21 th level net in a December 30, on 2008 network the article “the Singapore Good Example” is visit to a Singapore National University scholar’s report.Part of content is: `Singapore to China influence…New Suzhou industry garden area…Singapore sovereignty investment fund and pale horse tin pattern… For 30 year Lee Kuan Yew continuously…Puts forward the sincere proposal for the Chinese government leader…Lee Kuan Yew also thought Singapore to China most valueable is not the hardware aspect, but is the software aspect, he has affected Deng Xiaoping in this aspect…Deng Xiaoping said must study to Singapore, is not merely the Singapore economy quite is developed, but also has its good social order’.
Real situation whether truly so? The new Soviet thirty industry gardens speaking of Singapore are a thorough defeat experience.1994 China and Singapore signing development industry garden, in 1997 China and Singapore had the serious difference of opinion, in 1999 the China and Singapore mutual consent took over the industry garden plan by China, on 2001 January 1 the Soviet thirty magistrates took over control the industry garden officially.Singapore namely does not have the serious dispute after signing to 3 years time with the Chinese government, separated the year namely in 1998 is the germination draws back Italy.A what type Singapore is this succeeds the investment pattern? This pattern on softwares and so on businessmen are invited to open companies and industrial exploitation has made these contributions for China?

Singapore is pleased with oneself frequently the repetition mentions Deng Xiaoping to have the conversation which studies to Singapore.Hong Kong’s Ruan inferior mountain expressed in July 8, 2004 to this event view: `China aspect…Then the heart has saved the compatriot sentiment since continuously, treats with leniency Lee Kuan Yew, not only the courteous reception has Canada, moreover thinks highly has Canada, Chang Chengyao studies “Singapore to experience”, Lee Kuan Yew also often accepts as true, frequently sells “Singapore to the Chinese official to experience”.Actually, manages 3,000,000 populations “the company to resemble” the national experience to be very difficult to transplant to 960 ten thousand square kilometers, has 1,300,000,000 population countries, the Chinese official politeness, has spoiled Singaporean person’.In fact, a Deng Xiaoping interest manages strict’ in the `Singapore’s social order.Spoken lines Deng Xiaoping has settled on is only the Singapore one party dictatorship SARS democracy governing experience.
The system is the very difficult extension to plant, much less Singapore’s national finance system is the establishment in the power politics foundation, other governments may by no means or should study object.GIC and pale Ma Xi the control abundant fund often lets the outside misunderstand, thought this is the people moves the party government’s success performance.This is only one kind of illusion, the real at the end of situation must be so.
The wealth may come from the creation in the economic and the shift; The former is redistributes the resources through the market competition by the price, the latter is plans the resources using the policy authority to redistribute.The former is the imbark becomes rich, the latter is squeezes out becomes rich.In other words, the creation wealth is the economic activities is the talent performance, the shift wealth is the political behavior is the authority performance.

Sells the official take the government as the example: All sells the official obtained total in Hong Kong to use in the government paying wages, but sells the official obtained total income backlog in Singapore.Two kind of different policy results are, Hong Kong is takes the society to use the society, Singapore whether takes the society to use GIC? That, is the Hong Kong pattern or the Singapore pattern conforms to the democratic society to define?
In addition, Singapore’s many officials are come from the government the people place which takes over for use by the inexpensive price compulsion.June 26, 2003 channel Times published piece of land to take over for use the news: The government takes over for use two approximately 200 square meter lands by area area each 1 Yuan, piece of permanent title deed land.This land takes over for use the case is the typical wealth shift; The government pays 1 Yuan cash only is in order to satisfy in legal the transfer procedure, is not the land market price.The people move the party government are the imbark become rich also or are squeeze out become rich?
In 1965, Lee Kuan Yew on began after the Singapore independence to revise in immediately the constitution to have to take over for use the people place by the just compensation the original article.From 1965 to in 2008 43 years, how many the people moved the party government to accumulate to sell the backlog? Obviously, this backlog in the essence is a flesh and blood of the people.
The Singapore pattern as if has also represented the high efficiency administration which is envied the outside.Then reality how? Singapore’s electronic road charge system inside and outside is approved frequently for the world first.First, this conception source in English by no means Singapore original.

By next, Singapore the reason that can execute this system, also nothing but has reflected between the government and people’s strong and the weak relations; But in the policy, the people resist the people to move incapably the party government to be possible to act in a self-serving manner.The people moved the party government namely already to start in on century at the beginning of 70’s to use this system.How many highway costs has this 30 for many years government charged? How many but did Singapore’s traffic jam phenomenon also have to improve? When undergoes newly long ago to the today highway traffic crowded phenomenon.The electronic road charge is the traffic control also or is the state treasury income mechanism?
Singapore’s these lands and the transportation system is worth other developing nation imitation?

In the Singapore pattern molds the main axle which the people and the government relate is the common group room and the common reserve fund.This Singapore social welfare system is not worth imitating by no means.First, Lee Kuan Yew extremely loathes the welfare system to think the poor person has is insatiably greedy the point of view, its two, the relief is the waste precious resources.Third, Lee Kuan Yew also thought the public wealth uneven may stimulate the poor person to work diligently is helpful the economical development.Obviously, the Singapore pattern does not contain the social welfare space.
The Singapore ordinary people’s two most precious industries are the group room and the common reserve fund.However, comes from the economical property right theory private property definition to see these so-called personal has the industry to be supposed belongs to the public property in the essence; Government’s industry.This is because the group room characteristic does not conform to private property definition 3 to have the condition: The free right of use, the free extension gives up rights, the freedom earns the income power.
In the group room industry, the people’s most remarkable right of use only has the condition housing, other all industrial right of use, the extension gives up rights with the income power all needs to receive constructs the bureau rule restraint; The group room and the personal apartment owner’s free decision authority contrast on knew obviously any is the private economical property right.
The group room has the contract to safeguard? Under the collective reconstruction law, the original 99 year group room contract is may terminate as necessary; The government lets you move you to have to move.Very clear, in contract both sides 1 if only then may terminate as necessary and recall revises the contract content, then he inevitably is the true economical property right owner; Also is the substantive owner.In short, the people are the inhabitant, the government are the owners, although pays 銭 buys the room is the people.
The bank bank account and the common reserve fund bank account are dissimilar, the former may use freely, free transfer as well as free investment and so on, but the latter obvious do not enjoy these private economical property right advantage.
Lee Kuan Yew by takes over for use the people place the policy result identity to criticize the native place capitalist inexpensive in the wealth, is causes the native place after 済 the thorough defeat primary cause.In addition, how many trillion rich and powerful people’s result had a look China to make in the short 30 years, not might know moved under the party government’s government in the people, the Singaporean person became rich the opportunity already to vanish does not have the trace? In Singapore’s society, started from scratch already was an ancient remote myth.
The Singapore pattern political consequence is very bright.After the government has completely controlled the most precious property which the people have, the government has also controlled people’s life and the thought.Under this kind of strong and the weak relations construction, the people degenerates into in the factors of production in the economy the data.The people must guarantee the incumbent party in politics the political power to be stable, because the people place ownership and the common reserve fund whereabouts all are the operation in the government and in the bureaucrat system hand.This also is the people moves the party the reason that to be able the long-term one party dictatorship primary factor.
Thus it can be seen, the Singapore pattern is by no means democratic, but is a reverse socialism pattern.According to the socialism theory is: The people are master of own affairs, the government serves for the people.But the Singapore pattern is: The people move the party to be master of own affairs, the people serve for the government.Obviously, these must follow democratic political and the market economy country, definitely is not glad not to be supposed to study this kind of design the Singapore pattern.

That, what is the Singapore pattern essence? Lee Kuan Yew on 12th accepts “Finance and economics” when 2006 to visit speaks frankly: But the Singapore pattern does not have the essence to be possible to say has ability to continue according to the world change to change.But this view may reasonable unscramble does not have for the Singapore pattern the essence to be possible to say has the wind direction chicken’s characteristic: Changes along with the situation direction change.Therefore, now is the east wind vigorously, chicken is certainly in looks around to the east.
Long ago Singapore was the grand appearance which opens by one man guards the pass Wan Fumo takes the Western capital world in Southeast Asia anti the cutting edge.In 1963, Lee Kuan Yew’s `refrigeration moved’ is must avoid Singapore degenerating into `third Chinese’.Not long after, in November, 2004 Taiwan’s Chen Tangshan criticizes with the Taiwanese: Nose excrement size Singapore is holding Chinese Communist Party’s egg flower.This also other for a while, specifically has for a while manifested the Singapore pattern wind direction chicken true colors.Review history.The wind direction chicken true colors are the Singapore pattern indispensable characteristic, is its mental outlook.The practical principle another stratification plane is opportunism: Trimming one’s sails.
However, this kind does not rest on principle only asks the utility the governing pattern definitely not to be able to have by these political thinking consciousness as well as the patriotism national culture accepts.Does not have the country in the international politics to be able to betray the political conviction or the sacrifice patriotism for the short-term benefit.In other words, after the achievement colonizes the regime the Singapore pattern, namely does not have the patriotism which the national culture political conviction also lacks should have.Let one have the national culture society to accept one not to have the national culture Singapore pattern is an unthinkable matter.

That, Singapore’s this not mature political pattern can have the international market? Singapore pattern idolizing is only the Singapore media gadget, cannot take seriously.
Nobody may deny Lee Kuan Yew extremely to be intelligent, is good at according to the circumstance; Long ago Lee Kuan Yew’s survival principle was emphasizes the change the necessity.Indeed, Lee Kuan Yew who knows from A to Z to the Singapore pattern knew his molds the Singapore pattern already starts to move towards declining.The old version Singapore pattern looked like is a depreciation pattern.Because on the century’s end financial crisis and the Chinese economy rose essentially were already changing the world politics economy pattern.However, lacks political and the economical resources Singapore society incompetent change original society restrains adapts the new times.Therefore, in 2002 Li Xianlong molded the Singapore movement is attempts to make the second edition the Singapore pattern to coordinate the new world reality.
In 2005 Lee Kuan Yew announced the Confucianist values were obsolete.In 2006 Lee Kuan Yew proposed the Singapore pattern does not have the essentialism.This political trick nothing but will be in for changes ways to drum up support, facilitates with in the future new social thought trail connection, will be must for old edition manufacture dignity backing down.But the people move the party always seek the rear drive.
The new edition Singapore pattern is a pupil surpasses the teacher? Or is a crab is inferior to a crab? Until now testing version Singapore pattern looked like or cannot go out the stage which sends out a scout to see if anybody is about, seizes cannot settle on the direction.Singapore manufacturing industry now high inadequate low not, namely does not have the apex talented person to carry on the scientific research not to have the cost competitive advantage.

Singapore’s high salary outstanding person team in Chinese not enemy-occupied area area Soviet thirty magistrate, therefore the Singapore manufacturing industry must also vanish into thin air take China as the economical center conception.
The government invested the big pen funds introduction and impetus biotechnology industry not appeared the double headed horse-drawn vehicle? Different official respective insistence from already scientific research direction.Incurs the world-class scientist with the large amount scientific research funds who comes to play the galloping-horse lantern to play crowded, did not know actually whether they have handed over what unprecedented world-class achievements in scientific research?
The second wing early period of time soars the delight now to look like is falls heavily, the part investment not degenerates into the long-term investment? This is not the identity was saying must let later government tidy up the mess? Whose world after 20-30 year is? Who can be a beneficiary? However, looked in today that, anticipated brings back the retired initial capital on time perhaps the public figure can have facing the surplus gold policy change risk which cannot be known in advance.
The IT2000 science and technology island plan is unaccounted for now.In 2005 Li Xianlong announced constructs the gambling establishment.In 2006 Singapore becomes avoids taxes the heaven and washes the black 銭 center.Xie Guozhong pointed out Singapore is an economical defeat country depends on washes the tainted money to prosper.Singapore and some third world equally wash the black 銭 center in Taiwanese’s mind.But in 2008 is refused by the government many year F1 vehicle race finally to start the game by the excited mood ends actually by the thunderclap big raindrop small result.

Now Italy’s vehicle race doubted conducts the street match is whether unwise?
After in 2010 Singapore opens legitimately bets, whether the natural economy also can along with it legitimate marketability? Singapore degenerated into washes black 銭 central the fate already to let the human be sorrowful, sought the outlet toward the garbage heap in was bitterly disappointing, whether Singapore’s ultra high salary outstanding person already did exhaust one’s creative vein? Whether the new edition Singapore pattern is moving towards `to live a life of dissipation’ `no matter 黒 Qian Huang銭 so long as can make money the’ pattern? Whether Singapore can degenerate to smile poorly does not smile prostitute’s practical new society? Perhaps this also explained why Lee Kuan Yew does want to say the Confucianist values were inopportune.
Assails in the now financial big storm, the global economy postpones under the macroclimate, the Singapore pattern is in the water clay buddha.The Singapore pattern surplus value is takes the material for negative education: A one party dictatorship human of political party disadvantageous society long-term development.The latter Lee Kuan Yew time already started, Singapore had to move towards politics to be open; Molds the society which all flowers blooms together lets the only feasible direction which Singapore is reborn.After hopes the clay buddha to disintegrate in the mire to be able to grow juts out the fresh lotus which the sludge does not dye.

A P on Sat, 10th Oct 2009 3:01 pm 

人民行动党应要改名成“抢钱行动党“

The Good and The UGLY Truth IS... on Sat, 10th Oct 2009 4:08 pm 

Lee Kuan Yew HAS ALWAYS HAD in his darn head’s mind…

That human greed MUST BE CONTROLLED!!!… Trouble IS…

He GOT FAR TOO ‘SOPHISTICATED’ about it all!!!…

As he HAD said with Lee Kaun Yew clarity… THAT…

1. The Decmocratics States’ “Welfare Systems”… ARE FLAW!!!… And so it IS PERIOD to him in FINALITY!!!…

2. And SO… HE… In his weak “single-mindedness”… lost touch WITH REALITIES about OTHER PEOPLE’s “Humanities”…

By Summing UP THEIR LIVES INTO HIS “ONE And ONLY” MOST IDIOTIC WAY of marginaling the massess under his control…

With his ABSOLUTE CENTRIC-MENTAL EGO and ‘dreams’ of FANTASY…

That so long as people have and OWN homes… food on their dining tables… safe environment… health care… education… IN KIND… And NOT NECESSARILY “IN REALITY”…

You AS “lesser-mortals” SHOULDN”T COMPLAIN By ANY MEASURE “OF ‘HIS’ SINGULAR YardSTICK!!! Perhaps even more idiotic IS THAT “White Elephant” Comedy of an MP Charles Cheong of Buangkok MRT Station’s NEL MRT’s GRC… who might have heard his grant-master utter these very word in closed-doors session…

Thought MOST DISRESPECTFULLY… THAT it’ll BE… ’smart of him’ to WARN… the “errant white elephant saga people” that THEY ARE “lesser-mortals by THEIR ’stupid’ act!!!… BUT it FLEW RIGHT BACk AND INTO HIS FACE DIDN’t IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…

CAN’T TEACH FOOLS… TO BE WISE CAN ONE!!!… NO MATTER HOW ASTRONOMICALLY HIGHT THEY ARE PASID!!!… AS…

In FACT… the HIGHER you pay SUCH little people who Are more there FOR the MONEY SO GOOD… THEN FOR THE HUMANITIES…

Then THIS Human PHENOMENON… that Lee Kuan Yew IS so Conciously AWARE Of All Of THE TIME… ALSO FLIES RIGHT BACK INTO HIS OWN FACE DOESN”T IT!!!…

Because… now THAT GREED for FREE-LUNCH IS NOW… IN HIS OWN VERY ‘COURT’!!!.. And CREATED… BY HIMSELF TOO…

THIS Alone says even more of the “high-talent” of a man than all of those Self-CLAIMED achievemnts OF The PAST…

SO now the crux of this TR Article in Mandarin… IS… Fact ASKing AND SAYing TOO…

HOW LONG… WILL Lee Kuan Yew’s So-Called… ‘miracles’ last??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lim Leng Hiong on Sat, 10th Oct 2009 9:35 pm 

What a scathing critique!

The machine translation is awkward and unreadable in many places.

So here is my translation of the Chinese article, preserving the original sentence structure and word nuances as far as possible (with additional clarifications in brackets):

~~~~~~~~~~

2009 The Singapore Model – Where from; Where to?

Is the Singapore Model a “Mud Buddha Crossing the River”? (Chinese idiom: 泥菩萨过江-自身难保 Mud buddha crossing the river, can hardly save oneself). Does the Singapore model have any residual study value?

Singapore’s media has routinely lauded the PAP government’s brilliant capability. Among them is a report on 30th Nov 2008 with very typical wording: “Ever since China’s reform and opening up, many leaders have visited Singapore and also learnt from Singapore’s numerous effective methods. Moreover, in recent years many officials, academics and journalists have expressed deep interest in the PAP and Singapore’s political model.” Clearly, the PAP and their supporters both think that the Singapore model is feasible, and can become a reference study for other developing nations. Lee Kuan Yew’s 2000 book “From Third World to First: The Singapore Story” recounts Lee Kuan Yew’s successful experience.

However, Western academics have been doubtful of the feasibility of the Singapore model for many years. The 2008 Nobel economics prize recipient Paul Krugman wrote an economic commentary in 1994 disputing the so-called Asian economic miracle, and thought that Singapore’s economic growth benefited from the increase in foreign investments and not via gains in economic productivity. Similarly, American political academic Samuel P. Huntington had always doubted that Singapore’s political system can persist in the post-Lee Kuan Yew era. In reality, the economic policies enacted by the Singapore government are just basic necessities and not conditions leading to success, and thus Singapore’s economic performance is not decided by the PAP government’s policies.

What experience does Singapore have that is worth studying? The article “Singapore Is a Good Example” on the 21世纪网(21cbh.com) website on 30th Dec 2008 reported an interview with a NUS academic. Part of the contents include: “Singapore’s influence on China… the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park… Singapore’s sovereign funds and Temasek Holdings model… for 30 years Lee Kuan Yew has always… provided sincere suggestions to China’s governmental leaders… Lee Kuan Yew also thinks that Singapore’s greatest value to China is not in the aspect of hardware, but in the aspect of software, in this area he influenced Deng Xiaoping… Deng Xiaoping said to learn from Singapore, not only Singapore’s more advanced economy, but also her good social order.”

Is this the actual case in reality? To Singapore, the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park was an experience of utter failure. In 1994, China and Singapore both signed a contract to develop the industrial park, in 1997 both sides faced serious differences of opinion, in 1999 both sides agreed to let China take over the industrial park planning and then on 1st Jan 2001 Suzhou local officials formally took control of the industrial park. Singapore, in not quite 3 years after signing, already had serious disputes with the Chinese side, and by the next year 1998 had given up their sprouting offshoot. What kind of Singaporean success model is this? What are the contributions of this model in the software of attracting investment and developing industries for China?

Singapore often repeatedly mentions – in a self-congratulatory way – Deng Xiaoping’s quote of learning from Singapore. Hong Kong’s Anthony Yuen expressed his views on this topic on 8th Jul 2004: “China’s side… always holding the sentiment of compatriotism (or common heritage), treats Lee Kuan Yew leniently, not only generous with courtesy, but also generous with reverence, often talking about learning from ‘Singapore’s experience’ and Lee Kuan Yew often believed it to be true, often promoting ‘Singapore’s experience’ to Chinese officials. Actually, the experience of managing a 3-million-population ‘company-like’ country is very difficult to transplant into a 9.6-million-sq-km, 1.3-billion-population country, the politeness of Chinese officials spoiled the Singaporeans.” In reality, Deng Xiaoping was only interested in “Singapore’s social order is strictly managed”. To say it plainly Deng Xiaoping was only attracted by Singapore’s political experience as a one-party-rule, atypical democracy.

Systems are very difficult to transplant, moreover Singapore’s national financial system is built on the foundation of stronghand politics, and thus it cannot be or should not be emulated by other governments. The abundant capital controlled by GIC and Temasek is commonly misunderstood by outsiders as the PAP government’s indicator of success. This is only an illusion, the real situation is not necessarily like this.

In economics, wealth can be created or transferred; the former through the reallocation of resources using prices set through market competition, and the latter by using political power to regulate the reallocation of resources. The first case is wealth by entrepreneurship, second case is wealth by exploitation. In other words, wealth creation is an economic behaviour and a display of capability, whereas wealth transfer is a political behaviour and a display of power.

To use the sale of state land as an example: in Hong Kong all proceeds from the sale of state land is used for government spending, whereas in Singapore all proceeds from the sale of state land goes into the reserves. Two different policies with different results – in Hong Kong the gains from society are used for society, whereas in Singapore is it the case that gains from society are used for GIC? If so, does the Hong Kong model or Singapore model more closely conform to the definition of a democratic society?

Besides, in Singapore many plots of state land were mandatory acquisitions by the government from the people at low prices. On 26th June 2003, the Straits Times published a piece of land acquisition news: the government acquired two plots totalling nearly 200 sq metres for a mere 1 dollar, and one of the plots was actually freehold land. This land acquisition case is a classic example of wealth transfer; the government’s payment of 1 dollar was just to fulfill legal transfer procedures, and is not the market value of the land. Is the PAP government getting wealth by entrepreneurship, or getting wealth by exploitation?

In 1965, right after Singapore’s independence, Lee Kuan Yew immediately made amendments to the original constitution articles pertaining to fair compensation for the acquisition of private land. In the 43-year span between 1965 and 2008, how much money has the PAP government accumulated from the sale of land? Clearly, this money is in essence the flesh and blood of the people.

The Singapore model also seemingly represents what the outside world admires as a highly-efficient administration. So what about the reality? Singapore’s ERP system is often – both inside and outside the country – praised as number one in the world. Firstly, the source of this concept was from the UK and not originated in Singapore. Next, the fact that Singapore is able to implement this system, only reflects the strong-weak relationship between the government and the people; from the policy perspective, the people are powerless to resist and the PAP government can do as they wish. The PAP government has been adopting this system since the 70’s of the last century. In these 30-plus years, how much road fees have been collected by the government? And how much has Singapore’s traffic jam situation improved? Until today, congestion on the roads remains an evergreen phenomenon. Is the ERP a traffic management system or a reserve-generating mechanism?

Are Singapore’s land and traffic policies worth emulating by other developing nations?

In the Singapore model, the core axle that moulds the relationship between the people and the government is public housing and the CPF. This does not mean that Singapore’s social welfare is also not worth emulating. Firstly, Lee Kuan Yew strongly dislikes welfare systems, thinking that the poor have an attitude of insatiable greed. Secondly, a relief fund is a waste of precious resources. Thirdly, Lee Kuan Yew also thinks that wealth inequality can stimulate the poor into working more diligently thus contributing to economic development. As you can see, the Singapore model is not accommodating of social welfare.

The two most valuable properties that ordinary citizens of Singapore have are their flats and CPF. However, from the strict definition of property rights theory, these so-called private properties are in reality public properties; governmental properties. This is because flats do not comply with 3 necessary conditions of private property: the right to freedom of use, the right to freedom of transfer and the right to freedom of income-generation.

In the case of housing property, the most significant right of use is residency that comes with conditions, the other rights of use, transfer and income-generation are all subject to HDB restrictions; compare the rights of flat and private condominium ownership to clearly understand what is meant by private property rights.

Is there any assurance in the contract of a flat? Under redevelopment law, the original 99-year lease can be terminated at any time; if the government tells you to move, you have to move. Very clearly, of the two parties in a contract, if one party can terminate the contract at any time or amend its contents at will, then he is necessarily the true, and sole holder of the property; and essentially the owner. To put it simply, the people are the tenants, the government is the owner, although the people paid money to buy the flat.

Bank accounts and CPF accounts are also different, the former can be freely used, freely transferred and freely invested etc., while the latter clearly does not confer these private property advantages.

Lee Kuan Yew, through the policy of acquiring land at cheap prices, produced a result that effectively liquidated homegrown capitalists, and this is the main reason that caused the utter failure of the homegrown economy. Besides, look at the result of how many multi-millionaires that China has produced in a brief 30 years, isn’t it possible to realise that under the governance of the PAP government, Singaporeans’ opportunity for prosperity has long disappeared without a trace? In Singaporean society, building an enterprise from scratch has become an ancient, remote myth.

The political consequences of the Singapore model is crystal clear. When the government completely controlled the people’s most valuable properties, the government also controlled the people’s lives and thoughts. Under this strong-weak relationship structure, economically the people has degenerated into productivity statistics. Politically, the people have to ensure the stability of the ruling party, because their land ownership rights and fate of their CPF funds are controlled squarely in the hands of the government and the bureaucracy. This is also the main reason why the PAP was able to have such a long period of one party rule.

Thus it can be seen that the Singapore model is not democratic, but a reverse socialist model. According to socialist theory: the people are the masters and make decisions, while the government serve the people. But the Singapore model is: PAP is the master and make decisions, while the people serve the government. Clearly, those countries that intend to pursue democracy and free-market economy definitely would not be happy and should not want to emulate this type of Singapore model.

So, what is the essence of the Singapore model? During an interview on Dec 2006 with 财经 (Channel 8 TV show) Lee Kuan Yew frankly said: “The Singapore model has no essence to speak of but has the ability to continue to change in accordance to changes in the world.” This can be reasonably interpreted as meaning that the Singapore model has no essence but has the characteristics of a chicken weathervane: to change direction based on changes in the situation. Thus, currently it’s the East wind that blows with vigor, the chicken’s head of course looks towards the East.

In early years, Singapore was in a precarious position (一夫当关，万夫莫开 If one man guards the pass, ten thousand are unable to get through) acting as the Western capitalist world’s anti-communist frontier in Southeast Asia. In 1963, Lee Kuan Yew’s “Operation Coldstore” was to prevent Singapore from degenerating into a “Third China”. Not long after, in Nov 2004 Taiwan’s Mark Chen used Taiwanese language to criticise: “Nose-booger-sized Singapore is carrying Communist Party balls.” One way then and the other way later, concretely demonstrating Singapore model’s true colours as a chicken weatherwane. In retrospect, the chicken weathervane is an indispensable characteristic of the Singapore model, and is also the face of this spirit. Pragmatism at another level is opportunism: to steer by the wind (nearest English equivalent = trimming one’s sails).

However, this form of unprincipled, utility-seeking model of governance definitely will not be acceptable to those national cultures with political ideology and patriotic spirit. In international politics no country would sell out their political beliefs or sacrifice patriotic spirit for short-term benefits. To reiterate, as a post-colonial body, the Singapore model has no national culture, political beliefs and also lacks patriotic spirit. To tell a society with a national culture to accept a Singapore model with no national culture is an unthinkable thing to do. So, will there be an international market for such an immature political model as Singapore? The idolisation of the Singapore model is only a plaything of Singapore’s media, not to be taken seriously.

Undeniably, Lee Kuan Yew is extremely intelligent, and proficient at adapting to circumstances; in his younger years Lee Kuan Yew’s idea of survival was to emphasise the inevitability of change. Indeed, he who knows the Singapore model like the back of his hand, Lee Kuan Yew knows that the Singapore model that he personally moulded has long started to head towards decline. The old version of the Singapore model looks to be a depreciating model. This is because the financial crisis at the end of the last century and the economic rise of China has fundamentally altered the landscape in world politics and economics. However, lacking in political and economic resources, Singaporean society is unable to change existing social restraints to adapt to the times. That is why in 2002 Lee Hsien Loong’s Remaking Singapore campaign attempted to create a second version of the Singapore model in order to adjust to the new world reality.

In 2005, Lee Kuan Yew declared Confucian ethics to be outdated. In 2006, Lee Kuan Yew talked about the Singapore model having no essence. This kind of political trick is just to drum up support for changing direction, to facilitate the future adoption of new ideas in society, and furthermore to give the old version a respectable stage exit. The PAP has always strategised before they act.

Is the new version of the Singapore model an improvement over the old? (青出于蓝胜于蓝 Green comes from blue and surpasses blue) Or is it worse than before? (一蟹不如一蟹 Each crab is smaller than the one before) Until now this trial version of the Singapore model seems unable to emerge from a stepwise fumble, unable to grasp a direction. Singapore’s manufacturing section today is neither high nor low, without top talents producing research results and also without bottom line competitive advantage. Singapore’s high-salary elite team was no match for mere Suzhou local officials, and so the idea of Singapore’s manufacturing industry turning China into an economic hinterland vanished into thin air.

Didn’t the government’s investment of large expenses to import and forge ahead with life science technologies result in a clash of opinions? Different officials individually insist on their own research directions. Using massive funds to attract world-class scientists who engage in rotating horse lantern games (nearest English equivalent = playing musical chairs), people come and people go, but who knows if they have produced any breakthrough world-class results?

The second wing (referring to sovereign fund investments), which earlier on had flown so high with such unabashed glee, looks today to have fallen hard, part of the investments have now degenerated into long term investments? Isn’t that equivalent to saying that the future government will have to clean up the mess? In 20-30 years, who will be the ruler? Who will be the beneficiary? However, from today’s perspective, people who look forward to getting back their retirement funds on schedule will perhaps face an unforeseeable risk of CPF policy change.

Now, the fate of the IT2000 Intelligent Island plan is unknown. In 2005, Lee Hsien Loong announced the construction of the casinos. In 2006, Singapore became a tax-evader haven and money laundering centre. Xie Guozhong pointed out that Singapore is a failed economy that relied on money laundering to thrive. In the eyes of the Taiwanese, Singapore along with some other third world countries are money laundering centres. In 2008, the F1 racing that was rejected by the government for many years finally kicked off amidst much elation but ended up all sound and no fury. Now the Italian racing world are even more doubtful about the wisdom of holding street races?

In 2010, when Singapore legally begins betting, will sex-based economy follow suit in the legalised market? Singapore degenerating into a money laundering centre already makes people sorrowful, looking for a way out by rummaging rubbish heaps is even more heart wrenching, has the creativity of Singapore’s ultra-high-salaried elite completely dried up? Is the new Singapore model proceeding towards a “eating, drinking, whoring and gambling” and “don’t care black money or yellow money as long as can make money” model? Will Singapore degrade into a “laugh at the poor but not at the whore” kind of pragmatic society? Perhaps this explains why Lee Kuan Yew had to say the Confucian ethics was out of date.

Today, ravaged by the financial thunderstorm, under the climate of a decelerating world economy, the Singapore model is a Mud Buddha in the water. The residual value of the Singapore model is to act as a negative educational example: one-party-rule, one-person-party is not beneficial to the long term development of a society. The post-Lee Kuan Yew era has already begun, Singapore must proceed towards political openness; moulding a society where a hundred flowers can bloom is the only feasible direction for Singapore’s transformation. Hopefully after the Mud Buddha disintegrates, out of the muddy puddle will emerge an untainted and fresh new lotus blossom.

~~~~~~~~~

To the Editor: Please credit me if you decide to use this translation elsewhere. Thanks!

admin on Sat, 10th Oct 2009 10:12 pm 

Thanks, Heng Liong, we will acknowledge your efforts when we publish your article next week.

Freddy on Sat, 10th Oct 2009 10:21 pm 

This is the best article i have read,it state the truth of this country.
We want a change,just like USA and japan!

Lim Leng Hiong on Sat, 10th Oct 2009 10:42 pm 

Thanks Admin, I have a minor correction to make in this paragraph:

“So, what is the essence of the Singapore model? During an interview on Dec 2006 with 财经 (Channel 8 TV show) Lee Kuan Yew frankly said: “The Singapore model has no essence to speak of but has the ability to continue to change in accordance to changes in the world…”

财经 more likely refers to the website (www.caijing.com.cn) than the TV show; I think original author can verify.

Btw I’m Leng Hiong and not Heng Liong. I’ll be glad to do translations if your team encounter other Chinese articles.

Cheers!

Chia Shu Sien on Sun, 11th Oct 2009 12:56 pm 

Lim Leng Hiong thank you for a very good translation of the interesting article. For your information Xie guozhong also known as Andy Xie is not a taiwanese. He is a very well known economist from Shanghai.

Thank you Leng Hiong for your translation effort!!! on Sun, 11th Oct 2009 1:57 pm 

1. Your translation can and does make for ‘better’ or “easier” sense of the Article in Mandarin context. And IT IS especially so for those who do not read Mandarin at all. I am one of them. But then…
2. The reality thing is also that, if one’s age and background with immigrant grandparents and parents too… those with keen ears couple with a humble and deep to learn cultures, traditional and ethnic experiences… they are in a better position than most… to even decipher the original English translation.

Although not thoroughly, but perhaps to gather enough GIST of the original Mandarin written article. Please don’t get me wrong, but I am fortunate and happen to be one of this type of person with many CHOSEN truly good friends who are Chinese educated and with university education too. So I’ve learned and am still ever learning.

3. And you wrote somewhat rightly from a certain viewpoint view that what I wrote before you was “What a scathing critique!”.
Indeed It IS!!! And yet TR Admin let it be. And I know why too. I can only hope more sane and ‘Critical Thinkers”…NOT in the sense of being critical please… but of “ANALYTICAL and “METICULOUS” sense in an arena of TRUE and OPEN “CIVIL SOCIETY”… thus let me explain why I wrote the way I did… an in what I consider as appropriate response for the furtherance of SINGAPOREANS” “Freedom TO EXPRESS”. So, in THIS LIGHT… I wish to elaborate FOR sharing… that…

4. Should IT BE the “ABSOLUTE PREVILEGE” and “PROVINCE” OF LKY and Co. to DETERMINE VALUES, Civil Society NORM and CONDUCT Without Questions and/or DOUBTS… That no one else CAN BE RIGHT???… So…

5. Firstly LKY HAD BEEN Most “SCATHING” towards those who even just DIFFER with him fundamentally. Doesn’t he also “maneuver” and many Singaporeans think that IT is acceptable simply because it is all part AND parcel of politics??? WHY SO???…

6. When Lee himself and son led scathing attacks alike Or tantamount to “hooliganism” tendencies about “Fixing” OF the Opposition, Challenging the Opposition IN Parliament to repeat what they said Outside of Parliament… meaning IN The Streets WITHOUT Parliament Privilege!!!

7. It common knowledge that everyone has weaknesses AND failings. But then… for Leaders of a NATION in the highest levels of Government AND IN its VERY Venues and Arenas OF POWERS AND OF RESPONSIBILITIES… To even just utter words of other than USED in A DECORUM, EDUCATED and INFORMED Meeting Setting IS NOT ONLY Uncalled FOR… BUT Degrading OF Our People!!!…

8. YES! We DON’T go that far wrong AND rowdy as in Taiwan. But then, to Chinese and some Asian Cultures… RAISING “A HAND” literally against someone… it IS Considered AS having delivered THE Act of INTENDED AGRESSION…

9. Because… It IS “THE INTENTION” that COUNT!!!… In fact… This IS THE TRUTH… Of human actions… Unless of course… when it IS known to be… either and “honest or inadvertent mistake”.

10. The encouraging part out of all these pro and con arguments put forth in TR.WP… is that we’re ARE in s sense EVOLVING… and most hopefully… into the “Open and Inclusive Civil Society” this present PM LHL most BOLDLY spoke about…

11. So… should he and PAP “See US Otherwise” and accrue acrimony when we DO SPEAK UP in Critique of their missteps and/or failures?… Like with regard to TRANSPARENCY???… An example of TH again but from a fresh perspective of the HC failure is not out of line and in keeping of “Two heads are better than one” thing!!!…

12. In the light of public DISQUEIT concerning TH’s Multi-Billions of losses under HC CEO-ship… Mr. Chip Goodyear WAS First “TOUTED” Most Enthusiastically AND Exuberantly by MM & MAS Chairman GCT… and MORE OF THIS followed by TH Chairman Danabalam… Et Cetera… And AS…

13. Having THE BEST SET OF Track Record AND Experience TO “HELM” TH into a new era of Investments Strategy. Having said ALL of THESE THINGS…

14. He became TH-CEO Designate. And then just as Fast AND Furious… Mr. Chip “announced”… “his departure”!!!… TH Chairman explaining of “Strategic Differences… MM… father-in-law SM… hubby PM… then FM.. ALL explaining in different ways, views and front perspectives FOR Mr. Chip’s SUDDEN EXIT even before taking up the TH-CEO HELM!!!… BUT…

15. What RILES US thinkers MOST… up to now… IS… “Why were WE TOKLD of his EXPERTISE as THE In-Thing FOR TH’s new Investment FRONTIERS in Strategy”.. And then… We WERE ten TOLD… THAT IT IS “STRATEGIC” Differences that led to TO HIS deciding TO LEAVE TH!!!… FOR…

16. When Mr. Chip’s appointment was announced as described in Items 12 & 13 above… There WERE also public disquiet about Mr. Chip being a foreigner would come to KNOW MORE of TH’s “SECRETS” THAN… WE AS Singaporeans were ever informed of… and will never know with PAP in power…. And that…

17. Led to ALL THAT furore about Mr. Chip’s REAL Capabilities and HOW HE CAN… BRING TH Forward as “touted”…

18. At the end of the day… it all showed UP ONLY One Thing!!!… That all of that SEQUENCE of EVENTS… REVEALED a REAL and SIGNIFCANR LACK OF “Administrative FORESIGHT, VISIONARY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND METICULOUS PLANNING”!!!… THIS says VOLUMES of LKY’s UTMOST CONVICTION of “Pay TOP HIGH WILL GET TOP TALENT”!… Kind of FLIES INTO his FACE again DOESN”T IT???… And so…

19. With due respect… BUT… ALL of Singapore’s SUCCESSESS… ARE Not due to you alone… For..
20. IF they Are and should be ACCREDIT to you… Then it IS ONLY fair THAT the failures of PAP Government… BE accrued to you to.

Last but not the least… All SHOULD BE fair in contests. So that results ARE CREDIBLE and BELIEVABLE… as no man is an island.

KK Chan on Sun, 11th Oct 2009 8:26 pm 

The Chinese article is the best I have read in the past 20 years. The writer has real in-depth knowledge of governance and social structure.

Thanks for the good anylisis

Seng Hong Woo on Sun, 11th Oct 2009 11:11 pm 

The Chinese saying means: “Earthen ware budhdahs after crossing river will disfigure whereas the porcelanic budhdahs will remain intact” and that Singapore’s success is Singaporeans’ success and not one single individual’s great ruling.
Raffles had foresight and Singapore lies at the cross-road of
East/West passage – natural strategy – also free from nautral
disasters like typhons, earthquakes and tsunamis.
After being kicked out from Malaysia, we survive with the help of advisors of economics (Dutch advisor) and military advisors (Israeli advisors). Without natural resources and land expense to help us to survive in the world struggle we have no solid assets (mudbudhdahs) and we survive so far due the true blue patriotic Singaporeans with determinations to stay afloat.
We toil to save some meagre income (CPF) and finally to be
postponed to return the payments via HDB housing, Insurance
schemes and to advanvce the withdrawal dates.
We witness our national resources being drained away through
unwise and due deliberation via overseas investmens – astronomal figures.
Constitution is amended to allow to use natural resources to
cover unwise investments.
Increase population size, GST, ERP, other duties & excises,
COE, land sales to beef up revenue to compensate unwise
expenditures or failed overseas investments.

At THE END Of THE DAY... on Mon, 12th Oct 2009 12:15 pm 

1. When “A NATION OF A ‘LKY SinkGApoore’ WITHOUT VISION disappears”…

2. DUE To THE UNREALISTIC ‘ENLARGEMNET’ of oNe OF it’s founding leaderS… THIS NATION call Singapore will HAVE FALLEN TOO…

3. DUE To TOO… the Unrelenting and MOSt UnReaListic PERSUIT OF… OnE man…

4. Who findS DEEP and RUDIMANETARY self-GRATIFICATIONs… in PROCLAIMING… past ‘achievements’in his history WITHOUT ever giving any credit TO his now old COMPATRIOTS in gvoernment… WHO ONCE… CONTRIBUTED… MOST SIGNIFICANTLY TOO… TO his Prime Ministership… in the days OF OLD.. and IS NOW history!!!… So HOW???… DOES???…

5. THIS nation of singapore MOVE FORWARD… IN and WITH True NATIONHOOD-UNITY… “AS ONE NATION”… as he himself love to remind US ALL in THE National PLEDGES… and other PLEDGES… he gave by handing them DOWN… to us???…

6. SO… It IS WITH UTTER DISMAY of My Own DISALLUSIONMENT… Derived FROM… his OUTDATED THINKING and PSUEDO… disallusions ABOUT… OUR DISALLUSIONS ABOUT the FAMIlee…

7. The WISDOM in the quote I repeat here in TR.WP once again “A nation without vision IS soon GONE”…

8. ABOUT… ONE NATION… AS A “CIVIL Sosiety” WITHOUT DIVIDING DEMARCATIONS… OB marks UNSPECIFIC drawn UP by a nation’s leaders… and which OPPRESSES THE Nation’s “CIVIL Society AT-LARGE…

9. MORE simply put… “A nation”… clearly means ALL OF IT”S CITIZENS… comprising of IT’S CITIZEN… AND IT’s CITIZEN CHOSEN leaders…

10. WORKING… IN CONCERT… TO ENSURE IT’S SURVIVAL… “TOGETHER” IN ABSOLUTE UNITY… WITHOUT ExCEPTIONS.. and/in/with UNDUE… FAVOURS TO… ANY CITIZEN IN TOTALITY…

11. THIS ALSo… In simple TERMS… CLEARLY MEANS… “MUTUAL RESPECT… WITHOUT THE “ENCUMBRANCES” OF… any of the… “I Am holier THAN thou” kind OF DEFEATING ATTITUDES IN EVERY Sector of A Nation’s “CIVIC SOCIETY”!!!… FOR…

12. CIVIC… AS IN… CIVILITY… is NEVER THE Province Of A SELECT FEW… NOR… SHOULD IT BE also SELECTIVE OF anyone… FOR “CIVIL SOCIETY” TO… TRULY FLOURISH… INTO “CIVILITY”… IN EVERY SENSE… OF THE WORD…”CIVIL”. Oxford English ENGLISH… BECKONS… ALL Singaporean great AND small to BEHAVE IN… CIVIL Obedience!!!…

13. FOR… OUR Nation OF SINGAPORE… NOT TO… “INADVERTENTLY” FALL OUT OF GRACE ‘IN EACH OTHER”… And so… “Soon BE GONE”… from the face of this Mother EARTH…JUST TO PUT IT ACROSS… SUCCINCTLY and maintaining… The PRISTINE Meaning OF THE WORDS… “NATION”… and CIVILSOCIETY!!!

14. God Blees YOU Singaporeans… and NOT ONLY LKY and PAP!!!

amy on Tue, 13th Oct 2009 10:43 pm 

Excellently critical. Unfortunately for all of us, it is also the truth as many here knows.

a man on Thu, 15th Oct 2009 5:33 pm 

a coin has 2 sides, likewise to the critics of the article! People always like to vent their anger on governtment for policies they dont like or hate including me.

which developed countries do not have the problems mentioned on Singapore? see the facts and reality, certain things you have to do your best to overcome it.

easy said than done. remember. although there are some things going on under the table for years. spore performs still far better than neighbouring countries. Nature will take its course, one day if the party really cannot perform, it will come down for sure, no doubt and worry about that.

for singapore on Thu, 15th Oct 2009 7:07 pm 

It’s a good article,that’s all.One man’s views,rightly or wrongly..only time will tell.
Even the communist system is not entirely devoid of corruption.

Mr Zhu Rong Zhi-whom i admire greatly-did what he could but i am not too sure about the fruits of his sincere,honest and hard labour.Can Andy XIE give enlightenment,please?

That said,we need good opposition and more importantly good
leaders-men and women of integrity and SELFLESSNESS-to steer
us smoothly in these current rough seas.

Bright and talented singaporeans who have a heart for the people and country -not just self-interested scholars-are needed to help us survive and prosper as a nation just like
some among the OLD GUARDS have faithfully and quietly done for
our parents and also for us.

anomynous on Thu, 15th Oct 2009 10:18 pm 

When will TR give the English translation a more prominent position on the front page of the blog so that more English educated Singaporeans will read and start to think about the issues brought up by the author?

Right now, this is hidden in the Chinese Section. Most English educated Singaporeans will simply skip it and miss this gem!!!