4 ms·

>no natural resources The port was considerably more valuable than any natural resources they could have had, and was tapped as the 'seed capital' used to buil

>no natural resources The port was considerably more valuable than any natural resources they could have had, and was tapped as the 'seed capital' used to build the country. Without it, they probably would still be as poor as they were in 1950. The 'we built this with nothing but our bare hands' canard is useful, though, for domestic propaganda. >It took a lot of sacrifice to get it where it is today. It mainly just took sensible economic planning and a willingness to share the wealth on the part of the leadership from the 1960s onward. The economic planning part - currency suppression via the purchase of US treasuries, investment in education and subsidies of key industries has been played out by other Asian tigers - Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and China. The interesting part is where the willingness to share the wealth came from in the 60s. In the 50s and 60s there was a sense of threat verging on outright panic among the country's elite about certain domestic political opponents. A threat which, not coincidentally, the elite of the United States also felt very strongly in the 1950s-60s from similar domestic opponents.

Cyph0n 11y ago
Yes, I was aware of the port, but I didn't think it had such a great impact. I also read in a great book about the rise of the shipping container that Singapore was one of the first countries in the world to fully adapt to it. Perhaps this contributed as well to the port. In any case, it still is an accomplishment given that this was basically their only resource to get the country to where it is today. We cannot deny that the excellent leadership and understanding citizens are what made this possible. Thanks for your other points. It's always great to learn new things about Singapore. I'm hoping to somehow use their experience to help bring my country (Tunisia) to the forefront of the region.
autokad 11y ago
'we built this with nothing but our bare hands' is more than just propaganda. sure, they had a sea port, but looking at what they have done is amazing. many countries have some advantage, but most do not use them properly. Malaysia is a bridge crossing away with just as much sea access and ample amounts of oil and other natural resources, yet I do not believe they have accomplished what singapore has done. taiwan, south korea, china, and japan are bad examples to compare to singapore, though Japan in the meiji restoration was at least somewhat comparable except that all of the countries you mentioned relied on heavy industry to get to where they were, where as singapore had no land for such heavy investment in industry - let alone the materials. singapore had to make a long series of specific-successful long term investments which played out very well, and that had little to do with wealth sharing. one of the things that made everything play out so well is the singaporean's culture of kiasu - afraid to lose. singaporeans are very determined and trying to get ahead rather than sharing wealth. it was always easy for singapore to guide the ship with everyone in the same direction because people obeyed so much to economic incentives. the only thing it really failed at was getting singaporeans to have kids recently.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >'we built this with nothing but our bare hands' is more than just propaganda. It really isn't. The port gave the city a much greater head-start than PAP have ever given it credit for. This intentional misdirection is used to give credence to the idea that it was Lee Kuan Yew's genius and the sweat and tears of ordinary Singaporeans that grew the country out of nothing. Which isn't to say that the country wasn't reasonably well run. It's just saying that it just wasn't sheer genius or some kind of cultural superiority that pulled them out of poverty. The truth is much more mundane than that.
  - autokad 11y ago
    if your statements were true, why is it that the country was in such a terrible position come 1960s? the port is much older then that.

Cyph0n 11y ago

Yes, I was aware of the port, but I didn't think it had such a great impact. I also read in a great book about the rise of the shipping container that Singapore was one of the first countries in the world to fully adapt to it. Perhaps this contributed as well to the port. In any case, it still is an accomplishment given that this was basically their only resource to get the country to where it is today. We cannot deny that the excellent leadership and understanding citizens are what made this possible. Thanks for your other points. It's always great to learn new things about Singapore. I'm hoping to somehow use their experience to help bring my country (Tunisia) to the forefront of the region.

autokad 11y ago

'we built this with nothing but our bare hands' is more than just propaganda. sure, they had a sea port, but looking at what they have done is amazing. many countries have some advantage, but most do not use them properly. Malaysia is a bridge crossing away with just as much sea access and ample amounts of oil and other natural resources, yet I do not believe they have accomplished what singapore has done. taiwan, south korea, china, and japan are bad examples to compare to singapore, though Japan in the meiji restoration was at least somewhat comparable except that all of the countries you mentioned relied on heavy industry to get to where they were, where as singapore had no land for such heavy investment in industry - let alone the materials. singapore had to make a long series of specific-successful long term investments which played out very well, and that had little to do with wealth sharing. one of the things that made everything play out so well is the singaporean's culture of kiasu - afraid to lose. singaporeans are very determined and trying to get ahead rather than sharing wealth. it was always easy for singapore to guide the ship with everyone in the same direction because people obeyed so much to economic incentives. the only thing it really failed at was getting singaporeans to have kids recently.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>'we built this with nothing but our bare hands' is more than just propaganda. It really isn't. The port gave the city a much greater head-start than PAP have ever given it credit for. This intentional misdirection is used to give credence to the idea that it was Lee Kuan Yew's genius and the sweat and tears of ordinary Singaporeans that grew the country out of nothing. Which isn't to say that the country wasn't reasonably well run. It's just saying that it just wasn't sheer genius or some kind of cultural superiority that pulled them out of poverty. The truth is much more mundane than that.
- autokad 11y ago
  if your statements were true, why is it that the country was in such a terrible position come 1960s? the port is much older then that.