5 ms·

The one before Yew's times was still a British colony port overlooking a critical shipping route. I'm not sure how such arrangement may not result in significan

The one before Yew's times was still a British colony port overlooking a critical shipping route. I'm not sure how such arrangement may not result in significant economic development. Hong Kong didn't have Yew but it had significant quality of development.

rayiner 3y ago
Bangladesh is also on critical trade routes. The Port of Chittagong is one of the few things from Asia on Greek maps from the 2nd century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Chittagong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Chittagong. Chalking up Singapore’s success to geography is probably missing the point.
- gamex79 3y ago
  Singaporean here. What would you say is the point? My own tldr is that we severely lacked in a number of areas:land mass, natural resources, a defensible position, a meaningful economy. Geography was pretty much the only thing we had going for us. That and amazing leadership.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I mean to say Singapore’s success isn’t some inevitability due to its geography (which is an idea that gets trotted around). Lots of countries have something going for it they could capitalize on—most of them fail to do so. I think Singapore could’ve stagnated without good leadership and also a populace that was ready to rise to the occasion.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      I would say the opposite - most of countries are more or less on the development level that their culture and geographic location permits, few countries are significantly below this level and fewer still are significantly above this level. Singapore is exactly where it should be, given its culture, legacy, location, and the fact that it is a city-state. It would still be Singapore under your average ruler (of Chinese culture, not African). It has awesome hand so it does not take much skill to play it. I could not repeat enough the argument of city-states being different, and usually very rich, so that's what I'm going to do. You should never compare Singapore's GDP growth with any country which has, well, countryside. Still, Taiwan will give Singapore a run on its money while not even being a recognized country.
      - kawaiikouhai 3y ago
        These are very broad generalizations you're claiming with no evidence. > Most of countries are more or less on the development level that their culture and geographic location permits. So, given this assertion, no developing country should ever hope to join the ranks of a developed nation? Unless they change cultural variables or conquer new lands. Yet we see this playing out in Europe and East Asia and now Africa and India. > Taiwan will give Singapore a run on its money Singapore's GDP per capita is $70,000 while Taiwan's capital city sits at $35,000. Please cite your sources
        thriftwy 3y ago
        Would Singapore be a genuinely worse place to live if its GDP per capita would be "just" $35,000 instead of $70,000? It would probably have slighly smaller population, less economic regulation and more sustainability. So the difference between Yew and "number two" is the difference between "Excellent" and "Great". Come on, is that so important? I'd rather read on about a leader who turned "mediocre" into "pretty good". Because most countries are not Singapore, they don't have what it takes to be even Taiwan. "When a Rhino looks at the moon, he wastes the flowers of his spleen", as neither Japanese nor Chinese say.
        kawaiikouhai 3y ago
        This is just moving the goalposts and sophistry at this point. Your initial statement was Taiwan was measurably better per capita than Singapore, though the GDP and economic statistics show otherwise. You can also look at various happiness indices, where Singapore is #1 in Asia, since happiness is correlated with GDP per capita. and If you really believe $70,000 is no different from $35,000, I urge you to donate all your income excess of $35,000 to me. I take Venmo, Cashapp.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        This is not moving the goalposts. The goalposts were the unsurpassed wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew. It is still a hipster bullshit if you ask me. Taiwan was 1.5x worse GDP-wise in 1960 and now the difference is 2.0x. That's not that much. Especially as I have said about city states and whatnot. I donate significant amount of my income, just not to you obviously.
    - bboygravity 3y ago
      SIngapore could've stagnated without good leadership? Singapore did stagnate without good leadership for a couple of 100 years there, didn't it? Until it suddenly (over the course of a couple of decades) didn't.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        No, it did not. What makes you think it did? > Its contemporary era began in 1819, when Stamford Raffles established Singapore as an entrepôt trading post of the British Empire. In 1867, the colonies in Southeast Asia were reorganised, and Singapore came under the direct control of Britain as part of the Straits Settlements. > Later, in the 1890s, when the rubber industry became established in Malaya and Singapore, the island became a global centre for rubber sorting and export. It was very new and fared very well all along, world wars excluded. Maybe it was mismanaged 1945 to 1960, that I cannot confirm.
        bboygravity 3y ago
        Well I suppose it depends on your definition of a country stagnating. I guess by your definition Indonesia and The Philippines where doing great as Dutch and Spanish colonies as well? Sure, Singapore was doing great during that time (for the British), but if you look at measures such as % of the population living in extreme poverty, education, housing, healthcare, GDP, slavery, serfdom, etc it must be quite hard to deny that Singapore hasn't stagnated for centuries only to explode (positively) within decades.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >Geography was pretty much the only thing we had going for us. That and amazing leadership. The biggest asset, aside from being a port on a great location, was the right alliances, and foreign countries being the island being let mostly alone, and you not having valuable resources, plus the desire of the rich in countries around the area to use the island as a tax haven of sorts (and later, as their comfy home away from home). Yew would have been thrown out of office in a week and some "coup" would have been organized if some big foreign power has special interests in the area and wanted him gone. And if the island had resources like oil or such, it would have been invaded, occupied, "liberated" by some new traiting politician friendly to the outside, every second year.
    - gamex79 3y ago
      > Yew would have been thrown out of office in a week and some "coup" would have been organized if some big foreign power has special interests in the area and wanted him gone. There was significant interest from foreign powers doing just that, look up Operation Coldstore and the history of communist insurgency in Singapore.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        Operation Coldstore was kind of the opposite to the above: Yew and foreign "allies" taking out pesky left-wingers and pro-worker representation.
        shotnothing 3y ago
        but there was heavy foreign influence and support on the left-wingers and pro-worker representation, from the communist bloc
        coldtea 3y ago
        There was also heavy support for them from the local population and workers. And of course the right wingers not only had "heavy foreign influence and support" on their side too (the whole country was established under heavy western influence and at its "benevolence"), but they also crushed them, undemocratically with the help of that foreign influence and support.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    That and amazing leadership. Amazing leadership according to the leadership that controls the news media and holds sham elections where other parties get no media coverage until a few weeks before the election.
    - devilbunny 3y ago
      It's a thinly veiled dictatorship, but OTOH it's stable, not particularly oppressive about non-political topics, takes good care of its citizens, and has done a hell of a lot to improve its citizens' lives while defusing, as much as possible, the various ethnic issues that have plagued other countries in the region. Don't forget, it was a poor country at independence. Malaysia and Indonesia also face the Strait of Malacca, and I'd rather live under Singapore's government than either of those.
    - gamex79 3y ago
      Don't get me wrong. Democracy is a total joke in Singapore. That's why I left. My dad has never voted in his life because there aren't enough opposition candidates. The police actively harrasses members of the opposition (I had a friend who's husband was an opposition MP). But given all that could have happened, I do stand by that assessment.
  - AniseAbyss 3y ago
    Singapore is also a great place for corrupt leaders and crime cartels to invest money. Especially now that Hong Kong has been returned to China.
  - hnu234 3y ago
    > Geography was pretty much the only thing we had going for us. Geography is important but so was singapore's chinese connections. Singapore's rise is tied to china's opening and economic rise. Singapore and Hong kong's ability to leverage their chinese ties and serve as imtermediaries between china and their colonial masters allowed them to get wealthy. The singaporean leadership was able to win the trust of the chinese and their 'former' colonial masters. Given the animus between China and the US, it was quite the achievement.
    - kelipso 3y ago
      Animus between China and US is a recent thing, like post 2015.
      - hnu234 3y ago
        > Animus between China and US is a recent thing, like post 2015. Are people this dumb and ignorant? Animus between China and the US dates back centuries to the opium wars of the early 1800s. And animus between China and the US has been the norm ever since. Your comment was flat earther level stupid. Crack open a history before commenting.
        kelipso 3y ago
        Learn how to read context before sperging out lol. Nixon visited China just a few years after Singapore became independent. And US companies then invested tons of money in China, built factories, trade relations, etc etc. Post 2015 is when animosity starts and now US is encouraging divestment from China.
        hnu234 3y ago
        > Learn how to read context before sperging out lol. I did. That's why I quoted your entire comment in my response : "Animus between China and US is a recent thing, like post 2015." > Nixon visited China just a few years after Singapore became independent. You mean the anti-china warhawk nixon who made his name railing against china in the 50s and 60s? Are you talking about that nixon? > Post 2015 is when animosity starts and now US is encouraging divestment from China. Except US investment in china INCREASED under trump... Also how stupid do you have to be to bring nixon into this and claim the animus started post 2015?
boeingUH60 3y ago
Many countries have key shipping routes and other geographical advantages, but corruption and stupid leaders/populace prevent them from succeeding.

rayiner 3y ago

Bangladesh is also on critical trade routes. The Port of Chittagong is one of the few things from Asia on Greek maps from the 2nd century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Chittagong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Chittagong. Chalking up Singapore’s success to geography is probably missing the point.

gamex79 3y ago
Singaporean here. What would you say is the point? My own tldr is that we severely lacked in a number of areas:land mass, natural resources, a defensible position, a meaningful economy. Geography was pretty much the only thing we had going for us. That and amazing leadership.
- rayiner 3y ago
  I mean to say Singapore’s success isn’t some inevitability due to its geography (which is an idea that gets trotted around). Lots of countries have something going for it they could capitalize on—most of them fail to do so. I think Singapore could’ve stagnated without good leadership and also a populace that was ready to rise to the occasion.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    I would say the opposite - most of countries are more or less on the development level that their culture and geographic location permits, few countries are significantly below this level and fewer still are significantly above this level. Singapore is exactly where it should be, given its culture, legacy, location, and the fact that it is a city-state. It would still be Singapore under your average ruler (of Chinese culture, not African). It has awesome hand so it does not take much skill to play it. I could not repeat enough the argument of city-states being different, and usually very rich, so that's what I'm going to do. You should never compare Singapore's GDP growth with any country which has, well, countryside. Still, Taiwan will give Singapore a run on its money while not even being a recognized country.
    - kawaiikouhai 3y ago
      These are very broad generalizations you're claiming with no evidence. > Most of countries are more or less on the development level that their culture and geographic location permits. So, given this assertion, no developing country should ever hope to join the ranks of a developed nation? Unless they change cultural variables or conquer new lands. Yet we see this playing out in Europe and East Asia and now Africa and India. > Taiwan will give Singapore a run on its money Singapore's GDP per capita is $70,000 while Taiwan's capital city sits at $35,000. Please cite your sources
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        Would Singapore be a genuinely worse place to live if its GDP per capita would be "just" $35,000 instead of $70,000? It would probably have slighly smaller population, less economic regulation and more sustainability. So the difference between Yew and "number two" is the difference between "Excellent" and "Great". Come on, is that so important? I'd rather read on about a leader who turned "mediocre" into "pretty good". Because most countries are not Singapore, they don't have what it takes to be even Taiwan. "When a Rhino looks at the moon, he wastes the flowers of his spleen", as neither Japanese nor Chinese say.
        kawaiikouhai 3y ago
        This is just moving the goalposts and sophistry at this point. Your initial statement was Taiwan was measurably better per capita than Singapore, though the GDP and economic statistics show otherwise. You can also look at various happiness indices, where Singapore is #1 in Asia, since happiness is correlated with GDP per capita. and If you really believe $70,000 is no different from $35,000, I urge you to donate all your income excess of $35,000 to me. I take Venmo, Cashapp.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        This is not moving the goalposts. The goalposts were the unsurpassed wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew. It is still a hipster bullshit if you ask me. Taiwan was 1.5x worse GDP-wise in 1960 and now the difference is 2.0x. That's not that much. Especially as I have said about city states and whatnot. I donate significant amount of my income, just not to you obviously.
  - bboygravity 3y ago
    SIngapore could've stagnated without good leadership? Singapore did stagnate without good leadership for a couple of 100 years there, didn't it? Until it suddenly (over the course of a couple of decades) didn't.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      No, it did not. What makes you think it did? > Its contemporary era began in 1819, when Stamford Raffles established Singapore as an entrepôt trading post of the British Empire. In 1867, the colonies in Southeast Asia were reorganised, and Singapore came under the direct control of Britain as part of the Straits Settlements. > Later, in the 1890s, when the rubber industry became established in Malaya and Singapore, the island became a global centre for rubber sorting and export. It was very new and fared very well all along, world wars excluded. Maybe it was mismanaged 1945 to 1960, that I cannot confirm.
      - bboygravity 3y ago
        Well I suppose it depends on your definition of a country stagnating. I guess by your definition Indonesia and The Philippines where doing great as Dutch and Spanish colonies as well? Sure, Singapore was doing great during that time (for the British), but if you look at measures such as % of the population living in extreme poverty, education, housing, healthcare, GDP, slavery, serfdom, etc it must be quite hard to deny that Singapore hasn't stagnated for centuries only to explode (positively) within decades.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Geography was pretty much the only thing we had going for us. That and amazing leadership. The biggest asset, aside from being a port on a great location, was the right alliances, and foreign countries being the island being let mostly alone, and you not having valuable resources, plus the desire of the rich in countries around the area to use the island as a tax haven of sorts (and later, as their comfy home away from home). Yew would have been thrown out of office in a week and some "coup" would have been organized if some big foreign power has special interests in the area and wanted him gone. And if the island had resources like oil or such, it would have been invaded, occupied, "liberated" by some new traiting politician friendly to the outside, every second year.
  - gamex79 3y ago
    > Yew would have been thrown out of office in a week and some "coup" would have been organized if some big foreign power has special interests in the area and wanted him gone. There was significant interest from foreign powers doing just that, look up Operation Coldstore and the history of communist insurgency in Singapore.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Operation Coldstore was kind of the opposite to the above: Yew and foreign "allies" taking out pesky left-wingers and pro-worker representation.
      - shotnothing 3y ago
        but there was heavy foreign influence and support on the left-wingers and pro-worker representation, from the communist bloc
        coldtea 3y ago
        There was also heavy support for them from the local population and workers. And of course the right wingers not only had "heavy foreign influence and support" on their side too (the whole country was established under heavy western influence and at its "benevolence"), but they also crushed them, undemocratically with the help of that foreign influence and support.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  That and amazing leadership. Amazing leadership according to the leadership that controls the news media and holds sham elections where other parties get no media coverage until a few weeks before the election.
  - devilbunny 3y ago
    It's a thinly veiled dictatorship, but OTOH it's stable, not particularly oppressive about non-political topics, takes good care of its citizens, and has done a hell of a lot to improve its citizens' lives while defusing, as much as possible, the various ethnic issues that have plagued other countries in the region. Don't forget, it was a poor country at independence. Malaysia and Indonesia also face the Strait of Malacca, and I'd rather live under Singapore's government than either of those.
  - gamex79 3y ago
    Don't get me wrong. Democracy is a total joke in Singapore. That's why I left. My dad has never voted in his life because there aren't enough opposition candidates. The police actively harrasses members of the opposition (I had a friend who's husband was an opposition MP). But given all that could have happened, I do stand by that assessment.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  Singapore is also a great place for corrupt leaders and crime cartels to invest money. Especially now that Hong Kong has been returned to China.
- hnu234 3y ago
  > Geography was pretty much the only thing we had going for us. Geography is important but so was singapore's chinese connections. Singapore's rise is tied to china's opening and economic rise. Singapore and Hong kong's ability to leverage their chinese ties and serve as imtermediaries between china and their colonial masters allowed them to get wealthy. The singaporean leadership was able to win the trust of the chinese and their 'former' colonial masters. Given the animus between China and the US, it was quite the achievement.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    Animus between China and US is a recent thing, like post 2015.
    - hnu234 3y ago
      > Animus between China and US is a recent thing, like post 2015. Are people this dumb and ignorant? Animus between China and the US dates back centuries to the opium wars of the early 1800s. And animus between China and the US has been the norm ever since. Your comment was flat earther level stupid. Crack open a history before commenting.
      - kelipso 3y ago
        Learn how to read context before sperging out lol. Nixon visited China just a few years after Singapore became independent. And US companies then invested tons of money in China, built factories, trade relations, etc etc. Post 2015 is when animosity starts and now US is encouraging divestment from China.
        hnu234 3y ago
        > Learn how to read context before sperging out lol. I did. That's why I quoted your entire comment in my response : "Animus between China and US is a recent thing, like post 2015." > Nixon visited China just a few years after Singapore became independent. You mean the anti-china warhawk nixon who made his name railing against china in the 50s and 60s? Are you talking about that nixon? > Post 2015 is when animosity starts and now US is encouraging divestment from China. Except US investment in china INCREASED under trump... Also how stupid do you have to be to bring nixon into this and claim the animus started post 2015?

boeingUH60 3y ago

Many countries have key shipping routes and other geographical advantages, but corruption and stupid leaders/populace prevent them from succeeding.