WHEN I first visited in 1996, I concluded that Singapore had achieved what communism had promised and failed to deliver: it had told its people that, in return for giving up some freedom, the state would house them, educate their children, ensure they had jobs and give them a standard of living the west would envy.
Singapore had done all that while remaining safe and peaceful, in spite of having an ethnically mixed population with some history of violent strife. And it had achieved it all without having any natural resources.
Returning last year, I found Singapore more glittering still, the few remaining colonial buildings beautifully restored and the young people engaging and hardworking. Where else would a coffee bar need to put up a sign saying ‘No studying allowed during peak hours’?
The International Property Rights Index last year put Singapore in fifth place, behind Finland, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. The UK was in 11th place; the US in 17th. China was placed 46th
Singapore is not for me, of course. As a producer and avid consumer of free and independent journalism I would find it hard to live in a country whose founding figure Lee Kuan Yew, who died last month, said: “The freedom of the press must be subordinated to the integrity of Singapore and the primacy of purpose of an elected government.”
Nor, as an enthusiast for the bustle of democratic politics would I enjoy being a voter in a system where, as the International Commission of Jurists said: “Singapore’s leadership has a longstanding reputation for using defamation actions as a mechanism for removing opposition members from the Singapore parliament.”
But I am not Singaporean. The trade-off between liberty and prosperity seems to have widespread, if not universal, support there.
So it is no surprise that less-than-democratic regimes, including China, Russia and the Gulf states, think they can learn from Singapore.
They probably cannot. It is not just that there are few leaders able to stamp their personalities on their countries as fiercely as Lee did, or who have been as effective in drumming out official corruption. Nor is it just that Singapore is so small.
What makes Singapore different is that it has used its English common law heritage to create a secure and predictable regime for business, while not extending the same to dissidents and journalists.
In her 2012 book Authoritarian Rule of Law, Jothie Rajah, a Singaporean legal academic now working for the American Bar Foundation, referred to ‘the bifurcation of Singapore’s legal system’. She wrote: “Singapore is a dual state in that it matches the ‘law’ of the liberal ‘west’ in the commercial arena while repressing civil and political individual rights.”
So while Freedom House, the US-based watchdog, gave Singapore a middling ‘partly free’ score for political rights and civil liberties, the island republic is near the top of commercial freedom rankings.
The International Property Rights Index last year put Singapore in fifth place, behind Finland, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. The UK was in 11th place; the US in 17th. China was placed 46th; Russia 66th.
The World Economic Forum ranked Singapore second, after Switzerland, out of 144 countries for overall competitiveness. It was in second place, too, on property rights and intellectual property protection. When it came to ‘public trust in politicians’, the WEF put Singapore first.
On judicial independence, the WEF report put Singapore in 20th place - but then it depends on what kind of case the judges are judging.
In its 2013 Human Rights Report, the US state department said: “Independent observers viewed the judiciary as generally impartial and independent, except in a small number of cases involving direct challenges to the government or the ruling party.” Businesses, or people, who do not make direct challenges to the government should be fine.
Having a common law or other independent legal tradition that can be applied to business is not enough to make a state prosperous without determined and focused leadership - look at India or Nigeria.
But it is a good start. Without it, business struggles, which is why foreign investors in Russia do not have the confidence they do in Singapore, and why you would hesitate to entrust your inventions to China.
Many would like to follow Singapore, but it remains a singular state.
Published in Dawn, Economic & Business, April 6th, 2015
On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.