Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

palladiummag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 262 posts

Re: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

#51

Post by baybal2 »

sfifs wrote: post #46

0ne of the pieces many articles discussing Singapore miss is actually the quality of the people in the Government officer corps. This i think makes a massive amount of difference in that a lot of what's planned in infrastructure and processes is much better thought out and executed than in other countries. It's the equivalent of the 10X programmer philosophy. This is achieved largely by the government sponsoring the…

> This is achieved largely by the government sponsoring the most promising/brilliant students to study in top Western universities and offering them quite competitive pay packages to join the government.

And so do countless of other countries, some successful, some not.

Much of Africa for example sends its brightest to Oxfords, and Harwards for exorbitant amounts of money.

And there are counterexamples, very big ones at that. Countries where civil service is poorly paid, and often not demanding even a college degree.

Re: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

#52

Post by baybal2 »

pydry wrote: post #7

There are a few key things to bear in mind about Singapore's growth model and success: * The proximity of power to population because it is a tiny city state. Singaporean governance is under extreme pressure to be effective because if it fails it cannot hide. This is a systemic issue that can be seen all around the world and is probably why some countries moved their capitals AWAY from population centres (e.g. brazil…

> The reaction to the communists. Lee Kuan Yew didn't just annihilate the communists with coldstore, he tried to replicate their policies to maintain his stranglehold on power (note the resemblance of HDBs to soviet style housing, for instance). In a way, his lack of any real

PAP itself started as a largely communist party. The later confrontation can be largely seen as two communist parties vying for power. And the Western styled communist party (PAP) has won.

Re: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

#53

Post by coconut_crab »

And let's not forget Singapore's strategic location in the center of world's busiest shipping lane too. That's why Singapore is strongly against the construction or Kra canal, which could shorten the route by ~1200 km bypassing Malacca straight:

http://theindependent.sg/the-real-threat-to-spore-constructi...

Re: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

#54

Post by biztos »

azmodeus wrote: post #31
IdiocyInAction wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-free market housing isn't that great either though, like in Berlin.

My impression is housing is good for tenants in Berlin. What isn't so good about it?

It's good for many tenants who have longstanding leases, but rent increases have outstripped salary increases in all the better neighborhoods, by an almost laughable margin, for more than ten years.

A fair amount of that was fueled by long-term tenants getting kicked out by their new landlords who "needed" to reside in the flats. Similar gentrification model to parts of San Francisco.

So yeah, some things in Berlin are very tenant-friendly, but finding what used to be a typical flat in, say, Mitte on what is still a typical salary is pretty much impossible.

Edit: I get the impression that a lot of new housing is being built in Berlin, but I have yet to see any downward pressure on rents or for that matter purchase prices coming from it. The more they build, the more things cost.

Re: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

#55

Post by odiroot »

lordnacho wrote: post #5
accurrent wrote: post #3

Disagree on calling Suzhou Industrial Park a failure. I grew up there and can say that while it may not have attracted the desired profit levels it certainly did have miraculous effect on the people of Suzhou. Wages have sky rocketed (as has property price). It may not have been profitable within 5 years, more than 400 fortune 500 companies had their factories located there in 2014. Suzhou went from a city with two b…

That's right, we tend to label every successful economy "capitalism", but actually if you look at Singapore there's some things that are not so obviously free market. Housing, for instance.

Housing is much less subsidised than in many western "social-market" economies. You work 10-15 years, save for the flat and buy it.

One great thing is, everyone in Singapore is saving for their own future (health care, housing, retirement). You can be nearly sure no corrupt politician will diverge your savings to buy votes. The government is just the enforcer of this scheme -- they know, not everyone would be happy to carve out a part of their salary to save for the future.

If you're not a resident and don't plan to stay for long you barely pay any taxes (11% AFAIK). But then you don't save for your own flat or retirement.

Re: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

#56

Post by odiroot »

barry-cotter wrote: post #37
danielheath wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotta say, housing is one good that the free market seems to not really be amazing at. Here in Australia, it has become an investment vehicle; a huge amount of housing stock is empty while a third of the population are living in very poor accommodation.

The population of Tokyo has grown 50% over the last two decades while house prices and rents have stayed flat. The reason housing prices go up is almost always because zoning makes building more housing illegal. See San Francisco. Contrast with Seattle and Houston. When more housing is built prices go down, or at least go up slower.

> almost always because zoning makes building more housing illegal

That's usually the case in Western Europe. Or other artificial limitations put on construction projects.

Re: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

#57

Post by odiroot »

IdiocyInAction wrote: post #24
danielheath wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotta say, housing is one good that the free market seems to not really be amazing at. Here in Australia, it has become an investment vehicle; a huge amount of housing stock is empty while a third of the population are living in very poor accommodation.

Non-free market housing isn't that great either though, like in Berlin.

And the current (long-ruling) government makes it worse every year.

Re: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

#58

Post by odiroot »

baybal2 wrote: post #45
xuki wrote: post #19

The article failed to mention 1 important thing: LKY built an incorruptible government. With all the power he had, he could have done so much better for his family if he just tried, but that wouldn't necessarily be good for the country. A lot of countries want to be Singapore, but few have a leader of his caliber.

> LKY built an incorruptible government Google Temasik Holdings

*Temasek

Re: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

#59

Post by postingawayonhn »

objektif wrote: post #41
ekianjo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

14% year on year when your GDP is close to zero to begin with is not that impressive, though.

Why? You can still start from zero and remain there.

Because there's lots of low hanging fruit in terms of infrastructure, education, technology, etc. You don't really need to innovate, you can just copy other successful countries.

Re: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

#60

Post by thehappypm »

ethanbond wrote: post #42
michaelscott wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The approach that seems to work is to give economically elastic things to the free market, and make economically inelastic things (housing, medical care, etc) a responsibility of the state. It's difficult to tell if this is the case as we can only look at macroeconomic effects in hindsight, and this approach would have many problems at scale, but this seems to be the most beneficial approach for society long term?

You can get identical effects as Singapore’s state owned land without actually making it state owned/managed/priced by simply instituting a very high Land Value Tax. Rent collected for buildings/management/amenities goes to landlord, rent collected for the physical land upon which the building exists (which is valuable not because of the landlord) is recouped by the community as tax.

Higher taxes also directly cause higher rents passed on to renters.
Post reply on HN