4 ms·

>Few expected Singapore to survive when it became an independent country in 1965. It was a tiny, impoverished island with a diverse population of recent immigra

>Few expected Singapore to survive when it became an independent country in 1965. It was a tiny, impoverished island with a diverse population of recent immigrants. This is the official PAP line, but Singapore was actually among the wealthiest cities in Asia before WW2. Admittedly there was a gaping chasm between rich and poor, but that remains the case today.

LatteLazy 5y ago
Didn't the Japanese occupation include a lot of deportations, forced labour and other crimes leaving the place wrecked in both human and material terms?
- dustintrex 5y ago
  Of course, but that affected virtually all major cities in Asia. And unlike (say) Tokyo or Manila, Singapore was never subjected to prolonged fighting or bombing, leaving it fairly intact.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
Population is also much less diverse than claimed. It's 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, then Indian. That makes it more homogeneous than Malaysia. IMHO, that's a reason why they split from Malaysia: they are a Chinese city, ethnically speaking.
- yorwba 5y ago
  > It's 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, then Indian. That makes it more homogeneous than Malaysia. The former does not imply the latter unless you consider Chinese and Indians to be less diverse than Malaysians. Which is dubious, considering Chinese and Indian Singaporeans come from all kinds of different places across two regions much larger than Malaysia. Of course the Singaporean government has been hard at work to homogenize their population, e.g. the Speak Mandarin Campaign to get all Chinese Singaporean to speak the same language, but that wouldn't have been necessary if they'd been homogeneous from the beginning.
  - refurb 5y ago
    But dig into the history of Singapore and it starts to make sense. It was a British port for a long time (one of many parts of the Straits settlements). When Malaysia won independence, it included Singapore. Lots of friction between Malay Chinese and Malay. The British colonizers left but the wealthy Chinese remained (similar trend seen in many SE Asia countries). Singapore was kicked out of the Malay Federation not long after independence. Most simplified it was a power struggle in who would run Malaysia. Easier to cleave Singapore off as the heavily Chinese population wielded a lot a power. But don’t get me wrong. Singapore has accomplished a lot. A tiny population be forced to go out on its own is not an easy hand to be dealt. To me, Singapore’s approach has been mostly just practical. They don’t care if public housing is “socialist” or if a single government approved union is authoritarian. They do what feel will yield the outcome they need. But I get the sense they still have a very “survival” mentality - what they have is fragile and without close management will fall apart. Likely very true 50 years ago, but not so much today. But the governing party is the same and the mentality remains - one bad decision and as LYK says “Singapore dies”.
    - pydry 5y ago
      The housing program was explicitly socialist. LKY hated the communists (and socialists) but he recognized that he had to accede to some of their more popular demands before tossing them in prison - part of that siege mentality you refered to. They similarly reduced their class sizes in the 90s under democratic pressure from an opposition party that was later torn apart. Despite being a one party state run by thugs, Singapore experiences stronger democratic/anticorruption pressures than a lot of places because of the close proximity of people to leaders (there are studies on this - Brazil/Myanmar are at the other end of the spectrum with very remote capitals).
      - refurb 5y ago
        Agreed, but LYK had ulterior motives with HDBs - he was very worried about creating a Singaporean identity. And believed that home ownership was a key part of that identity (“my home is Singapore”). He also acknowledged that a large part of the population living in kampungs didn’t foster political stability. So yes, a massive public housing system is socialist in nature, but I’d agree it was entirely a politically practical initiative for Singapore. And that’s what is so interesting. LYK mentioned his admiration for Deng Xiaopeng - an eminently practical leader. Capitalist, socialist, whatever, if it works it works and Singapore is willing to leverage it. But it makes for an odd political scene. PAP will admit failure, as long as it’s not politically damaging. Otherwise they quietly take the pulse of the electorate and try to stay ahead of any issues. It’s a very reactive semi-authoritarian system. They are concerned about losing legitimacy so work hard to stay popular.
simonebrunozzi 5y ago
Source? Doesn't seem to be the case [0]. [0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325669726_The_Reconstruction_Of_Singapore's_GDP_1900-60_Estimates_And_Trends https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325669726_The_Recon...
billfruit 5y ago
That Singapore was a reasonable well off place in the 50's was the impression I got from reading Burgess.

LatteLazy 5y ago

Didn't the Japanese occupation include a lot of deportations, forced labour and other crimes leaving the place wrecked in both human and material terms?

dustintrex 5y ago
Of course, but that affected virtually all major cities in Asia. And unlike (say) Tokyo or Manila, Singapore was never subjected to prolonged fighting or bombing, leaving it fairly intact.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

Population is also much less diverse than claimed. It's 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, then Indian. That makes it more homogeneous than Malaysia. IMHO, that's a reason why they split from Malaysia: they are a Chinese city, ethnically speaking.

yorwba 5y ago
> It's 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, then Indian. That makes it more homogeneous than Malaysia. The former does not imply the latter unless you consider Chinese and Indians to be less diverse than Malaysians. Which is dubious, considering Chinese and Indian Singaporeans come from all kinds of different places across two regions much larger than Malaysia. Of course the Singaporean government has been hard at work to homogenize their population, e.g. the Speak Mandarin Campaign to get all Chinese Singaporean to speak the same language, but that wouldn't have been necessary if they'd been homogeneous from the beginning.
- refurb 5y ago
  But dig into the history of Singapore and it starts to make sense. It was a British port for a long time (one of many parts of the Straits settlements). When Malaysia won independence, it included Singapore. Lots of friction between Malay Chinese and Malay. The British colonizers left but the wealthy Chinese remained (similar trend seen in many SE Asia countries). Singapore was kicked out of the Malay Federation not long after independence. Most simplified it was a power struggle in who would run Malaysia. Easier to cleave Singapore off as the heavily Chinese population wielded a lot a power. But don’t get me wrong. Singapore has accomplished a lot. A tiny population be forced to go out on its own is not an easy hand to be dealt. To me, Singapore’s approach has been mostly just practical. They don’t care if public housing is “socialist” or if a single government approved union is authoritarian. They do what feel will yield the outcome they need. But I get the sense they still have a very “survival” mentality - what they have is fragile and without close management will fall apart. Likely very true 50 years ago, but not so much today. But the governing party is the same and the mentality remains - one bad decision and as LYK says “Singapore dies”.
  - pydry 5y ago
    The housing program was explicitly socialist. LKY hated the communists (and socialists) but he recognized that he had to accede to some of their more popular demands before tossing them in prison - part of that siege mentality you refered to. They similarly reduced their class sizes in the 90s under democratic pressure from an opposition party that was later torn apart. Despite being a one party state run by thugs, Singapore experiences stronger democratic/anticorruption pressures than a lot of places because of the close proximity of people to leaders (there are studies on this - Brazil/Myanmar are at the other end of the spectrum with very remote capitals).
    - refurb 5y ago
      Agreed, but LYK had ulterior motives with HDBs - he was very worried about creating a Singaporean identity. And believed that home ownership was a key part of that identity (“my home is Singapore”). He also acknowledged that a large part of the population living in kampungs didn’t foster political stability. So yes, a massive public housing system is socialist in nature, but I’d agree it was entirely a politically practical initiative for Singapore. And that’s what is so interesting. LYK mentioned his admiration for Deng Xiaopeng - an eminently practical leader. Capitalist, socialist, whatever, if it works it works and Singapore is willing to leverage it. But it makes for an odd political scene. PAP will admit failure, as long as it’s not politically damaging. Otherwise they quietly take the pulse of the electorate and try to stay ahead of any issues. It’s a very reactive semi-authoritarian system. They are concerned about losing legitimacy so work hard to stay popular.

simonebrunozzi 5y ago

Source? Doesn't seem to be the case [0]. [0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325669726_The_Reconstruction_Of_Singapore's_GDP_1900-60_Estimates_And_Trends https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325669726_The_Recon...

billfruit 5y ago

That Singapore was a reasonable well off place in the 50's was the impression I got from reading Burgess.