Lee Kuan Yew, founder of modern Singapore, dies at 91

[paddyjenkins]

The success of singapore is not unique and is very little to do with LKY, despite his constant megalomaniacal claims. Singapore is a city state, really just a city, one which allowed itself to become a hub for foreign companies. So don't compare to countries, compare to cities. Compare to Zurich, New York, Hong Kong, Tokyo, London, Sydney etc etc. Then you see that urbanization has led to huge economic success in all these cities, in fact far eclipsing that of Singapore. Infrastructure wise these cities have subways and all the rest. In terms of health they cant exceed the average of their countries, nor can they control borders and maintain the same grip on law and order. But to compare Singapore to real countries and talk as if LKY was some kind of genius is pure stupidity. And saying Singapore should be a model for other countries to follow is like saying Manhattan should be a model for the rest of America. Doesn't follow, doesn't scale, its just naive.

And compare crime rates, unemployment, homeless people between all the cities you mention to Singapore. Yes, Singapore is unique.

Not really a sensible comparison. How can a city without borders prevent people from living in the streets? Similarly for crime. Its easy to manage a city state as tiny as Singapore. And how about seeing so many frail and elderly people in Singapore collecting dishes at hawker centres....80 year olds with no choice but to do demeaning labour to survive? How about that the median salary is so low in Singapore most of these people would be better off living in Malaysia. No, i don't think singapore is much of an achievement, more just an example of the wealth of urban centres but as Singapore is nothing but an urban centre it has to be compared to cities, and then it doesn't look very special at all. If you want an example of a country that has astoundingly crime rates then look at Japan...a real country. As for unemployment...its hard to compare....its 2% in singapore...but just 0.9% in Thailand....so are you saying singapore has a lot to learn from Thailand? Edited March 24, 2015 by paddyjenkins

[copa8]

When he took over, Singapore had a per capita income of less than the poorest African countries. In one generation, it has the 3rd highest in the world. RIP LKY.

[paddyjenkins]

When he took over, Singapore had a per capita income of less than the poorest African countries. In one generation, it has the 3rd highest in the world. RIP LKY.

The median salary is very low, the median quality of life is below first world, similar to that of Malaysia. Singapore looks first world on outside, but that is as far as it goes. Anyone who believes the hype is just naive and ignorant.

[jcisco]

PJ median income figures you are using are for the entire workforce right, including all MoM labor. Which Is the figure I'd use, Singapore edge cases like unskilled workers and those entirely fallen through the system are at it's mercy. Low income could be the result. I have seen firsthand mobility of several individuals to move themselves way up in income and outside the stereotypes so adored in Singapore.

Will Singapore ever resolve effectively it's protection off its citizen workforce against employers flexibility to bring in foreign labor. This along with HDB/Cpf has been a distorting factor for Singapore's social attitudes and economic success. Though many people complain about having to compete with foreigners for just about any job except taxi driving. Love to hear some thoughts.

[keemapoot]

^ I've had a lot of staff in Singapore, including highly paid executives, and many of them continued to live in HDB (subsidized public housing) earning high salaries, while expats earning the same amount had to pay very high rents. This resulted in relatively much more disposable income in the hands of the Singaporeans vs. expats, and not sure how things are now, but some years ago that was a big factor in attracting expats, is that they were relatively cash poor after paying their living expenses.

Edited March 25, 2015 by keemapoot

[jcisco]

Yah HDB entirely skews the market for property and things like wage growth due to its subsidy via CPF. HDB is the biggest consumer of land in Singapore, and has a subsidised product that is very attractive against the freehold market. Simple fact of the matter is that with land for large developments and townships and just about everything else been given first run via HDB, whenever a plot does go to auction it sells for big money. The result is the developers really put in as much effort to high density as to polishing the place so it can ask for high rents / $$$$ sq/m.

If you were to live in your own condo in Singapore and your one of the new ranges of expats coming in working for under 10K a month. I'd say you would be sharing a condo with another expat, otherwise your pouring at least 3K a month away just for an apartment. Probably 4-5K now.

[cumgranosalum]

he had a few home truths to say about Thailand - doubt if anyone will publish them for Thai people to familiarise themselves though.

[paddyjenkins]

Yah HDB entirely skews the market for property and things like wage growth due to its subsidy via CPF. HDB is the biggest consumer of land in Singapore, and has a subsidised product that is very attractive against the freehold market. Simple fact of the matter is that with land for large developments and townships and just about everything else been given first run via HDB, whenever a plot does go to auction it sells for big money. The result is the developers really put in as much effort to high density as to polishing the place so it can ask for high rents / $$$$ sq/m.

If you were to live in your own condo in Singapore and your one of the new ranges of expats coming in working for under 10K a month. I'd say you would be sharing a condo with another expat, otherwise your pouring at least 3K a month away just for an apartment. Probably 4-5K now.

The median salary in Singapore is about SGD4k per month, which is a far cry from the per capita income that tends to get bandied around. What matters is the median, not the mean, big difference. But rents are sky high, cars are 4 to 5 times the cost of the same model in the UK, groceries are about twice the price of the same thing in the UK. Alcohol is also very expensive.

So in my view Singapore is an illusion of success that, amazingly, even has many of its own highly nationalist citizens fooled. Realizing their own living standards are borderline third world, they blame the foreigners. But unfortunately without productivity growth they aren't going to get paid more. And without population growth there cant be GDP growth. The last decade of GDP growth has also been an illusion, its just proportional to the population, which shot higher when more foreigners were admitted. Singapore of course trumpeted it as another Singapore economic miracle, but it was really just another illusion.

Singapore is between a rock and a hard place. It needs its neighbouring SE nations to remain backward to still look like a beacon of stability. In other words EM growth is going to erode its edge. As for population, its too small to support a much higher population, but population growth has been its only key to GDP growth.

Meanwhile, it has a huge amount of government debt, whose purpose baffles many economists. It is possible it needs this bond market to provide cheap funds for its highly opaque investment vehicles GIC and Temasek to use for "investments". In that sense the real risk to Singapore is that it is in reality a sort of hedge fund and when its carry trade eventually implodes then Singapore dies.

[SheungWan]

I suppose he provided the strength singapore needed at the time it needed it, but in my opinion he did talk an awful lot of rubbish and managing a tiny city state is far less of a challenge than a real country.

And then I have to read the awful rubbish of the above.

[F4UCorsair]

If only more countries would adopt one of Lee's policy cornetstones......you can't give peasants too many freedoms because they can't manage their lives.

I see evidence of that every time I drive. If 95% of people conduct their lives the way they drive, they shouldn't be out without bells round their necks to let the 5% know they're on the loose.

Mr Lee ruled/managed Singapore the way a country should be managed. I've been a supporter and admirer of his political style since I first visited Singapore in 1969.

We were all peasants at one time. Probably a couple of generations ago - you and me included.

I certainly wasn't a peasant two or three generations back, however my ancestors may have been, in which case Mr Lee's philosophy could have been applied.

It holds true today, just as it did when he came to power. A benevolent dictator can only be good for the masses who can't conduct their own lives, and that's 95% of our population.

[SheungWan]

Yah HDB entirely skews the market for property and things like wage growth due to its subsidy via CPF. HDB is the biggest consumer of land in Singapore, and has a subsidised product that is very attractive against the freehold market. Simple fact of the matter is that with land for large developments and townships and just about everything else been given first run via HDB, whenever a plot does go to auction it sells for big money. The result is the developers really put in as much effort to high density as to polishing the place so it can ask for high rents / $$$$ sq/m.

If you were to live in your own condo in Singapore and your one of the new ranges of expats coming in working for under 10K a month. I'd say you would be sharing a condo with another expat, otherwise your pouring at least 3K a month away just for an apartment. Probably 4-5K now.

The median salary in Singapore is about SGD4k per month, which is a far cry from the per capita income that tends to get bandied around. What matters is the median, not the mean, big difference. But rents are sky high, cars are 4 to 5 times the cost of the same model in the UK, groceries are about twice the price of the same thing in the UK. Alcohol is also very expensive.

So in my view Singapore is an illusion of success that, amazingly, even has many of its own highly nationalist citizens fooled. Realizing their own living standards are borderline third world, they blame the foreigners. But unfortunately without productivity growth they aren't going to get paid more. And without population growth there cant be GDP growth. The last decade of GDP growth has also been an illusion, its just proportional to the population, which shot higher when more foreigners were admitted. Singapore of course trumpeted it as another Singapore economic miracle, but it was really just another illusion.

Singapore is between a rock and a hard place. It needs its neighbouring SE nations to remain backward to still look like a beacon of stability. In other words EM growth is going to erode its edge. As for population, its too small to support a much higher population, but population growth has been its only key to GDP growth.

Meanwhile, it has a huge amount of government debt, whose purpose baffles many economists. It is possible it needs this bond market to provide cheap funds for its highly opaque investment vehicles GIC and Temasek to use for "investments". In that sense the real risk to Singapore is that it is in reality a sort of hedge fund and when its carry trade eventually implodes then Singapore dies.

There's always an ersatz socialist who wants to sell us their spin on illusions and fooling of the great Singapore public who are clearly suffering from false consciousness and failure to go to the barricades to fight for a better median. Oh yes. Fortunately as one has been reading the interviews with Singapore residents these last few days they are quite aware of what Singapore was in 1959 and where it is today after having to pull itself up by its own bootstraps after being kicked out of the Malaysian Federation where no doubt the median is more to our above contributors liking. What cannot be forgiven by our critical wonders is that Lee Kuan Yew led a capitalist success story to make Singapore grow from sleepy time to first world status. More to our contributors and others' liking is populist and third world revolts which they can vicariously attach their colours. LKW would have none of that and both transformed the civil service and the educational system. What a role model for Thailand to follow but don't hold your breath.

[copa8]

When he took over, Singapore had a per capita income of less than the poorest African countries. In one generation, it has the 3rd highest in the world. RIP LKY.

The median salary is very low, the median quality of life is below first world, similar to that of Malaysia. Singapore looks first world on outside, but that is as far as it goes. Anyone who believes the hype is just naive and ignorant.

Anyone who doesn't believe he made a tremendous difference in the lives of Singaporeans is even more naive and ignorant.

[paddyjenkins]

Yah HDB entirely skews the market for property and things like wage growth due to its subsidy via CPF. HDB is the biggest consumer of land in Singapore, and has a subsidised product that is very attractive against the freehold market. Simple fact of the matter is that with land for large developments and townships and just about everything else been given first run via HDB, whenever a plot does go to auction it sells for big money. The result is the developers really put in as much effort to high density as to polishing the place so it can ask for high rents / $$$$ sq/m.

If you were to live in your own condo in Singapore and your one of the new ranges of expats coming in working for under 10K a month. I'd say you would be sharing a condo with another expat, otherwise your pouring at least 3K a month away just for an apartment. Probably 4-5K now.

The median salary in Singapore is about SGD4k per month, which is a far cry from the per capita income that tends to get bandied around. What matters is the median, not the mean, big difference. But rents are sky high, cars are 4 to 5 times the cost of the same model in the UK, groceries are about twice the price of the same thing in the UK. Alcohol is also very expensive.

So in my view Singapore is an illusion of success that, amazingly, even has many of its own highly nationalist citizens fooled. Realizing their own living standards are borderline third world, they blame the foreigners. But unfortunately without productivity growth they aren't going to get paid more. And without population growth there cant be GDP growth. The last decade of GDP growth has also been an illusion, its just proportional to the population, which shot higher when more foreigners were admitted. Singapore of course trumpeted it as another Singapore economic miracle, but it was really just another illusion.

Singapore is between a rock and a hard place. It needs its neighbouring SE nations to remain backward to still look like a beacon of stability. In other words EM growth is going to erode its edge. As for population, its too small to support a much higher population, but population growth has been its only key to GDP growth.

Meanwhile, it has a huge amount of government debt, whose purpose baffles many economists. It is possible it needs this bond market to provide cheap funds for its highly opaque investment vehicles GIC and Temasek to use for "investments". In that sense the real risk to Singapore is that it is in reality a sort of hedge fund and when its carry trade eventually implodes then Singapore dies.

There's always an ersatz socialist who wants to sell us their spin on illusions and fooling of the great Singapore public who are clearly suffering from false consciousness and failure to go to the barricades to fight for a better median. Oh yes. Fortunately as one has been reading the interviews with Singapore residents these last few days they are quite aware of what Singapore was in 1959 and where it is today after having to pull itself up by its own bootstraps after being kicked out of the Malaysian Federation where no doubt the median is more to our above contributors liking. What cannot be forgiven by our critical wonders is that Lee Kuan Yew led a capitalist success story to make Singapore grow from sleepy time to first world status. More to our contributors and others' liking is populist and third world revolts which they can vicariously attach their colours. LKW would have none of that and both transformed the civil service and the educational system. What a role model for Thailand to follow but don't hold your breath.

Im far from being a socialist, just presenting the facts. If facts result in you getting your titties in a tangle, too bad. If you disagree with the facts or arguments then say so, but i think what i said was totally correct. And what singapore was in 1959 doesn't impress me as an argument, my points are about now.

[Johpa]

Google "Amos Lee" to watch a hilarious video with another view of Lee Kuan Yew and then maybe contribute to Amos Lee's defense fund.

[SheungWan]

Google "Amos Lee" to watch a hilarious video with another view of Lee Kuan Yew and then maybe contribute to Amos Lee's defense fund.

Just another self-publicist in the tradition of Russell Brand. Be obnoxious and build up the image publicity as a professional comedian. Not a penny to this opportunist.