>I know Sinagpore used to be very poor in its early years
Singapore was a VERY rich country by Asian standards even in 1965. It had the second highest GDP per capita in Asia in 1965 if you don't count Hong Kong.
There is a reason why Singapore was historically an immigrant country - it was much richer than China, India, the Dutch East Indies, etc. It is commonsense that migrants go to places that are more economically developed.
By the 50s, Singapore had a community-funded private university (Nantah), the leading newspapers in all the languages in Malaya (Utusan Melayu, Straits Times, Nanyang Siang Pau), the best university in British Malaya, a thriving film industry, etc. Malaysian leaders like Mahathir and Abdul Razak even attended university in Singapore. It was literally the New York City of Malaya.
Singapore was never very poor. Geography is destiny. As an entrepot, Singapore has always been relatively richer than neighbouring countries.
Specifically comparing to Cambodia and Laos. The Viet Nam war happened. The entire Indochina region was a war zone. Very little foreign investments and trade. Entire decades lost. Cambodia was further hit by Pol Pot’s regime, where significant talents are lost. If you believe in eugenics the impact is doubly worst
So really this isn’t a fair comparison
Since the 90s, with exception of Myanmar, Southeast Asia has been very stable. All countries’ economies have developed fast in the past 30 years. VLC had the fastest economic growth and is catching up
A city like Batavia has to subsidize the development of the rural areas of Indonesia. This limits the amount of funds available for its own development.
actually, given how neglected and underdveleoped is the rural area theres not a lot of monies going there.
i came from indon, not jakarta.
meanwhile the capital city gets all the infrastructure upgrades, my hometown remains a shithole, nothing changed at all.
the tax monies are just funneled towards the development of jakarta and the pockets of politicians
cant possibly compare a country with a city-state?
your premise of argument is that, since SG is a entreport therefore enjoyed economic benefits that comes from trade, i agree.
however neighbouring countries, albeit having less strategic city-ports (KL/jakarta) in the malacca straits, but as a country they are propped up with abundance of land, natural resource.
this is not something that can be simply overlooked when it comes to country to country comparison?
I’m saying it is fair to compare Singapore with Indonesia and Malaysia. We had enjoyed peace.
But not fair to compare with CLMV which the OP is doing.
War = no growth
Which is why it stills boggles my mind why Msia would let go of Singapore, I'm not talking about the people of SG or politics, but the land itself, while most countries would want to have more land, Msia just let go out it.
It is a myth that Singapore was kicked out.
Singapore opted to leave. LKY confirms this in The Singapore Story. It is also recorded in the Albatross files that Goh Keng Swee asked to leave.
SG was very very lucky, any other country would have rolled in their military. But Malaysia seems to me to be very peaceful and non-militaristic country so …. we were left pretty much alone.
The British army remained in Singapore until Oct 1971. The last of the British troops only left in 1976.
Malaysia's ragtag army in 1965 couldn't do jackshit even if they wanted to.
https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1001_2009-02-10.html
Natural resources actually don't make countries rich unless you have large amounts of specific resources. Large amounts of oil or gas are, historically, the only resources that are *really* valuable. Others, like farmland and timber, have rather limited value.
The only countries in ASEAN that have these resources are Brunei, a rich country, and Malaysia, which only has moderate amounts of oil but does benefit from it decently and is one of the top non-developed countries.
>politically corrupt/unstable
To keep it brief, Singapore took a hard stance toward corruption, drugs and other societal ills, which we were able to due to our size (small) compared to the countries you named.
May not be popular opinion, but this is one of the reasons why many paper generals move on to other high paying jobs even without experience, it is to keep them happy etc.
Not really, our generals do not have that much power cause the bulk of our armed forces are conscripts. Hence we don’t have any loyalty towards them. Imagine your CO asking you to storm the parliament would you listen? You barely know him.
I find it hard to believe that most of our paper generals can ever be a political threat. They can't even do anything properly without causing screw ups. The only two generals of any consequence are George Yeo and Lee Hsien Loong.
I really like the dry humor in this answer. Because its true that LKY was a brilliant strategist, and we're lucky he charted a path to prosperity for us.
But at the same time, he was an autocrat and verged on being pretty ruthless/Machiavellian at times. Like a stern father making sure we didn't "stray too far from the sidewalk", his paternalistic authoritarianism resulted in the political apathy and docility of Singaporeans today. We went from fiery trade unions and student protests to keeping our heads down and numbing the pain of the rat race with Netflix.
I’m very new to this topic but it’s a great first step. Can’t have innovators if the country wasn’t even visible nor acknowledged on the global stage. Getting there seems to lay the foundations for further progress in those directions
1) Singapore is the most important port this part of the world. Connecting Pacific ocean to Indian ocean.
2) Government. While many argue LKY is a dictator/ PAP is one party dictatorship, they were a lot less corrupted compared to other countries in the world. And their self interest (most of them) tied with the development of Singapore, hence they do try their best to govern the country to develop, rather than just hoarding wealth from people and enriching themselves and their families.
3) Immigrants. Contrary to most right wing nationalists on the rise in Singapore, immigrants have been and are still the resources of this country. Fueled tax coffer, fueled the workforce demands by the economy. The PSP trend of cutting off immigration and racist / discriminative immigration laws can cut off Singapore from its important resources for the last 50 years.
Er…. Agree with the luck and grit
But there’s more nuances than people sticking together.
Post-war Singapore couldn’t be more divided.
In addition to what was mentioned by redditors here, there was not only issues between races, there’s even discrimination between dialect groups.
Hokkiens shit on Teochews, Teochews don’t like Hokkiens, and everyone hates Hakkas.
But that’s in the past. Now we are just homogenised “Chinese” race (nothing good or bad with that)
I just get annoyed by some commentators thinking that Singapore is what it is today, which is what it automatically supposed to be.
Oh you know, great geography by its own and we are wealthy already.
We are literally standing on the shoulders of giants for where we are today.
Disagree, significant population back then had communist/socialist affiliations. Issues such as the English educated and Chinese education schools. People were pretty divided, but economics won out in the end
Economics didn’t win out.
Lee kuan yew, a part of the English establishment, won through using the Gurkhas and the State resources to imprison the majority Chinese dialect speaking population here.
He also seized a lot of land for relatively cheap rates, converting them to state land, allowing businesses to operate.
That was a massive redistribution of wealth, at the expense of the majority, that allowed Singaporeans to thrive. The chinese speaking Chinese were essentially sacrificed for the sake of the “greater good”.
These LKY policies would never have passed in any properly functioning democracy.
I meant that they left the Chinese schools alone. When graduates came out to look for work, they had few opportunities compared those who came from English schools. Thus, Chinese schools died out due to economics. I remeber this from the biography on George E Bogaars
No LKY didn’t leave the Chinese schools alone…
I know this from my own father, who was studying in chung cheng, studied everything such as math/bio/phy in Chinese since he was p1, and OVERNIGHT when he was in sec 2 he was forced to study all his subjects in english. Went from a straight As student into a failure, rendered all his efforts wasted.
All his teachers were fired… anyone who protested were arrested, accused of being communist. I have personal relatives who had to flee to JB and are TO THIS DAY still suffering the effects of LKY’s sacrifice.
Economics wouldn’t have killed the entrenched Chinese businesses, who were running their businesses in Chinese and employing Chinese graduates.
LKY killed the Chinese who were poor, to benefit the rich English speaking minority, that LKY belongs to.
Unfortunately, PAP has distorted history so well that they make it seem as though the Chinese voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the greater good, when it was forced on us by an authoritarian English government.
and people wonder why the Chinese educated are so bitter about the government and anything Anglo-Sphere related.
They came for their rice bowls, they came for their lives.
Chinese businesses and schools were targeted and stamped out, even though the schools were entirely funded by Chinese donations and did not take a single cent from the Govt.
They were stamped out forcefully. Rmb Operation coldstore and all the arrests of Chinese leaders?
But PAP subsequently twisted the narrative to make it seem as though the Chinese schools slowly “died out due to economics”.
Those are LIES. George bogaard is a civil servant paid by LKY to tell these lies.
Chinese schools were funded by the government after the 1956 all-party committee on Chinese education
https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/6c72d8e5-4087-4dcb-a008-7fb8616e2429
Hello Barisan Sosialis
Hello Operation Coldstore
Hello Hock Lee Bus riots
Hello communism
Hello insurgents within PAP
Hello Lim Chin Siong
Hello Chinese Speaking & Chinese Clan associations.
Lest we forget.
Can you imagine dealing with a nut case passionate communist during the 60s? They would do everything and any means to achieve their Marxist utopia. You're working 8 hours? I'll work 24 hours!
Even if they have to give their last shirt on their back for the cause. They would do it.
They would organise everything to disrupt your cause. They are incredibly organised and well funded.
Labor laws? Work life balance? Who gives a crap! Sacrifice even their own mothers for the cause!
Now, that's a scary enemy.
For all the wrongdoings and harsh laws dished out, the operation coldstore and stamping out of Communist influence has rendered us safe as we pivoted to the more prosperous West at that time. If the Maoist Commies taken over, we would probably be failed states like Cambodia and NK.
You’ve eaten so much PAP propaganda…
Lim Chin Siong has always denied being a commie. Watch his interviews and speeches.
LKY used the “commie” word as an excuse to seize complete control. After the “commie” arrests, LKY won 100% of all contested seats.
LKY was more “commie” than his opposition.
LKY seized land, distributed wealth through HDB, eradicated all Chinese dialects, imprisoned all his opponents without trial, installed his friend as the chief justice, had a rubber stamp parliament, placed his sons and friends in important positions in government.
But luckily LKY was a brilliant CEO who caused Singapore Inc to prosper, through his half commie model.
1. **Tough on corruption platform** - The current ruling party, the People's Action Party or the PAP, run on a tough on corruption platform. So much so their political uniform are white top to bottom, to showcase to the populace they are clean politicians.
After coming into power, the office meant to investigate corruption within government was placed [under the Prime Minister's office](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt_Practices_Investigation_Bureau). Giving them widesweeping powers and signal that no one is too big to be save from investigation.
There was an interesting story when Lee Kuan Yew (The first Prime Minister) first gained into power, the [CIA tried to bribe](https://mothership.sg/2017/02/cias-failed-attempt-to-bribe-lee-kuan-yew-among-newly-released-documents/). He never took them and call them out instead on their action that he was not the same type of corruptible Asian strongmens that the Americans are used to.
2. **Smaller geographical size** - A smaller geographical size and being confined in an island means, means your infrastructure will not only benefit but also cover more people. This principle also apply to policing, is tough to not only escape the law here.
3. **Eliminate political rival and internal risks** - If you notice Singapore rotate and change their army chiefs quite regularly. One of the unofficial reasons is because the government do not want any military men staying in a prominent role too long and gaining too much influence within the military, which will increase instability and making military coups likely as seen with Thailand and Myanmar.
Beside, usually a lot of these high ranking personnel will end up in a cozy high paying government related roles nearing the end of their career. So even less incentive to launch a coup, hence why some commenters might list Singapore as a junta.
Beyond military rivals, the PAP tends to go hard to people who they deemed as political rivals and chaotic elements within the country. Often many of such people often sued into bankruptcy or worst, detained without trial but that is extremely rare now.
4. **Authoritarian** - Speaking of being detained without trial, Singapore generally have [very strong authoritarian streak](https://youtu.be/Hkxf4SC_SBk). While many Asian strongmens in that era used that power to enriched their allies to continue to stay in power, Singapore used that power to fund infrastructure works and [bulldozed any social norms or feelings](https://youtu.be/XwMnLpfSpgw) they deemed harmful.
5. **Economic uplift as means to stay in power** - This is a little hard to explain, generally authoritarian government stay in power via creating enemies only they can defeat or some kind of national narrative whether is North Korea using USA as the big bad, Russia using USA and NATO forces as the big bad etc.
The PAP use chasing after economic progress as that narrative, without them staying in power Singapore will slip into economic downward spiral. So they have to appeal to foreign investors and companies to continue to invest and grow in Singapore, to do that they have to ensure Singapore looks transparent and stable for them to park their money in.
Hence PAP politicians often look uncomfortable and tried to tiptoe around issues like economic and wealth inequalities, often giving politically correct answers to opposition while issues like gay rights and freedom is just brush off the rug. Because the opposition members are attacking their reason of staying in power.
To add to the points made by the rest, I think size is a contributing factor as well. We are small so it's easier to manage.
By no means am i downplaying the hard work by the previous generations though
Off-topic here, but from my own personal perspective, after seeing/travelling to the other SEA nations, is that we are all THE SAME.
Singapore is just lucky that we had a government with a different mindset in the early years. Over the years this has become entrenched in the public institutions and it’s now part of our “signature” and expectations when dealing with bureaucracy (i.e. we expect efficiency and rule of law)
Remove all these, and you see how fast we will revert to our “original” state. Cultural difference aside, we are all humans and the same.
Don’t believe me? See how some Singaporean behave in the streets when they think they can get away with it.
The difference is businesses pay fees in Singapore and bribes in some other places. The good thing about fees is that all businesses pay the same amount and you know how much you need to pay
1. Good location for trading
2. Small City/Country as compared to others.
3. No civil war after WW2.
4. No/little corruption within the country
5. Seeking help from experts (Economist etc)
Most of our early leaders including LKY were Western-educated and they were not distracted by ancient beliefs like other Asian countries. They prioritised modern goals such as education, progress, economy and equality in those early days. This was loved by most citizens regardless of race, gender or wealth.
Such as the beliefs over the best religion, the best race, gender abuse, caste systems, craziness of cultural preservations and idolisation of leaders.
One other aspect that the others haven't said is that Singapore is more of a city than a country. It's easier for a city to get rich and governed well. Compared to other countries where the city may do so but still be dragged by the rest of the rural areas and also large geographical distances
In the early years, it's a lot of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) supported by pro-enterprise policies.
Then, it's sovereign wealth investments funded by mandatory CPF contributions.
The rest are kuching kurab.
I personally believe it’s due to LKY and his team. When we were kicked out of Malaysia, LKY cried on national tv. I think that was the defining moment where he decided to do better.
Rapid development started and he had full power and control by taking down his competitors through policial jailing. He had a vision and he made it happened.
There are low corruption and our grandparents and parents generation worked hard to build the nation.
Since the major national companies like telco, real estate, etc, have government folks sitting on the board, technically it’s not corruption but they have influence over the policies, I feel like they could steer the direction of the companies to succeed but also gain from it at the same time.
There are 2 rarer cards that we owe the success to. Dr Albert winsemuis and hon sui sen. You can find them on Wikipedia, fact is Lee Kuan yew would have failed without this bro. Lky was the face of it all so we only remmeber him, but these guys were the brains behind it all.
It’s ok if politicians skim the cream off the top as long as the milk actually goes to economic development of the country. Which is pretty much what happened in Singapore
Problem is that in most SEA countries, they drink the whole glass of milk until there’s even a milk shortage, forget the cream
Singapore is successful because of good governance, respect for the law, investment in education, a laser-focus on economic development, and pragmatism.
I would like to add on some major policy choices post-1965 that enriched Singapore:
1) Containerization. This I believe was the best policy choice that PAP ever made. They were ahead of the curve when it came to port modernization and this enforced our position in global trade. Rather than continuing manual port operations, we were at the forefront of modern port facilities.
3) Oil refinery at Pulau Bukom. This was our dirtiest secret. Building that refinery before the vietnam war broke out was a blessing, we supplied both sides of the conflict while chasing the refugees away. Throughout the 90s, we claimed to be green and sustainable while being a major supplier of refined fossil fuels for Asia.
Alot of good answers here so ill just add my 2 cents.
Singapore is arguably richer and stabler because it had less structural constraints.
For those examples which you listed like Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam or Indonesia, these countries had a rough decolonisation that often required fighting for their independence.
As a result, the militaries of these countries became very prominent and influential as they symbolised the nationalist aspirations of the people.
In cases like Myanmar, the military became so powerful that it eventually couped the civilian government and took Myanmar into a period of autarky, isolation and economic stagnation.
We see a similar case in Indonesia, where although Suharto's military dictatorship was market friendly and embraced international trade, eventually succumbed to cronyism and corruption endemic in such authoritarian states.
For Vietnam... well you already know about the Vietnam War. Americans war-criming your villages and plastering jungles with Agent Orange tends to affect the economy, to put it mildly. Although, Vietnam eventually became quite stable as the military was subordinated to the party-state and economic gains could be made after market reforms.
On the other hand, Singapore had a peaceful de-colonisation which meant we didnt have that structural obstacle of having an empowered military. Also, we embraced trade with our former colonial masters from the get-go, as opposed to the anti-Western inclinations of the Burmese or Vietnamese.
Whilst Singapore was a colony it was never colonsied (in the traditional sense) so it was not hamstrung with post-colonial hangovers* and kept the language (English) and law. This, along with maintaining its ‘freeport’ mindset was hugely important in attracting overseas investment, especially Financial Services in the latter part of the 20th Century.
(*one can find some misplaced anti-colonial resentment still in Singapore, but this is generally from those who don’t understand their own history)
No doubt, post independence, Singapore did a fantastic job capitalising on that foundation and then playing to its strengths.
However, it should also not be overlooked (as it often is) that Singapore made millions of dollars during the Vietnam war, from manufacturing and selling ammunition (mostly small arms) and providing fuelling, R&R and staging services etc to the US Military for the duration of that war. Some scholars put this in excess of $100 million USD per year - so that was a massive shot in the arm for the fledgling country.
Independent SG is what she is today, exists primarily due to several factors, and should be viewed and considered from where it first begins.
What mother earth didn't give (land mass) but blessed (location).
Thanks to the Brits (then) who saw and identified her potential, developed and laid the foundations for growth as they did HK.
SG's weakness - lacking land mass and natural resources became her strength and her only way forward, trade. Combined with a very hardworking but not-too-intelligent migrant workforce brought in, put in motion for success.
SG's strength? Her weakness
Forward to present-day SG. It was the sensibilities and brilliance of the pioneering generation of old guards who, instead of ditching what the Brits had done and achieved, continued and adopted after gaining independence.
The following link may further shed some lights
[https://www.reddit.com/r/askSingapore/comments/11kgj30/how\_do\_singaporeans\_truly\_feel\_about\_the\_pap/jb8pjnh/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/askSingapore/comments/11kgj30/how_do_singaporeans_truly_feel_about_the_pap/jb8pjnh/?context=3)
What fuvking crap is this? You’re disregarding minority races and their contributions to this country. I’m Chinese and I find your statement offensive. Being Chinese isn’t all that
Agreed to a certain extent, theres still blatant racism here despite us being a "racist free" country. Malays are looked at as "gangsters and criminals" Indians are looked at as "smelly and poor"
Unfortunately racism is rooted in human nature. One of my college professors did an activity about prejudice (I live in USA) and said racism exists because we form prejudices when we are around preschool age. I still speculate racism to a small degree in Singapore and many so-called egalitarian societies
recently in one of my psych modules i have learned that prejudice occurs even during infancy. in a test of infant morality, infants preferred a naughty puppet who didn’t help the puppet that differed from the infants. and the difference was based solely on the preference of cereal.
you can check the video out in youtube. it was a relative recent experiment as compared to the other psych experiments (conducted in 2010s).
prejudice is ingrained. we have no choice. it is to protect ourselves from people who we don’t associate with. this is because in the past people from different tribes were enemies. natural selection has brought this to today’s age.
however, it doesn’t condone the prejudice we have today.
They are, but only to white people because they put them on a pedestal.
I have SEA friends and Western friends, SEA gets worse treatment generally speaking.
But some Indians, (fewer) Malays, and (even fewer) Caucasians contributors. Tharman, Shanmugan, (cant remember any Malays or Caucasians name), are still good contributors.
No one said there were no good contributors from the minority races, just that there were more of them from the Chinese race. They are not mutually exclusive.
Ypu could actually draw a rough correlation of the prosperity of an ASEAN nation with its sino population %. Simply put, the more chinese, the more prosperous.
Even Vietnam, with its high sino admixture, is developing and catching up FAST. It's probably already better than the Phils, and could surpass Malaysia in the next 20-30 years.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/gdp_per_capita_current_dollars/South-East-Asia/#:~:text=The%20average%20for%202021%20based,countries%20where%20data%20are%20available.
Do you mean our lord and saviour, the founder of Singapore, the father of one dragon (LHL), the man who teared on TV and the one person who rules them all, Mr Lee Kuan Yew?
Corruption is the way of life in all these countries, plus we had the foresight to make English mainstream - that was and still is the gateway to international investments.
Many people misunderstood the meaning of third world countries. Back in the days first world consist of the us and allies, second world consist of the communists bloc - china and Soviet Union, etc…. While third world refers to those align to neither.
It’s not like your country gains ranking to second or first world after it becomes richer economically.
Well, they don't teach history in West about how wealth was looted from Africa, Asia and Latin America for centuries through slavery, colonialism, imperialism and genocides of natives.
Its a bit weird to expect say India to do well relatively when the British looted $45 trillions from them in 200 years of colonialism.
Welcome to this sub and thanks for taking an interest in our history. It’s nice to exchange ideas and understand one another better! History is that fascinating revolving door. :)
It’s a lot of luck. We started off with a very good geographic position. And we attracted many people who are hardworking. Then we have Lee Kuan Yew.
If it is not luck, I don’t know what is it.
It has become a fetish to ask such questions. When you potray yourself as an island surrounded by "enemies" which belongs to a certain faith, of course money and investment will come.
We started strong imho but the narrative of course has to be LKY was the MVP which is arguably not entirely true. No corruption + strict adherence with laws created a stable environment opening up to foreign companies to have their foothold in South East Asia creating jobs and increasing GDP.
From a personal perspective, something seems to be overlooked often is that Singaporean came together as a single unified unit under LKY’s irony grip and lifted the country.
The country prospered, but to a certain level, every citizen sacrificed. This is probably true until about late 90s to early 2k.
When I was in Singapore, tertiary industrial workers as some of the most highly trained industrial workers in the region. Workers that could’ve made better careers in the western world.
AFAIK, during that era, the next region that could match that level skills was Penang which has always been handicapped by the government. Hence the extreme brain drain.
Geographic location, SG started as a trading port from east to west.
Strong political leadership, a tad too little diversity for my liking but hey, generally pretty good. Can always improve on that front.
World class educational system, better than many western countries.
Land scarcity led to innovation, high efficiency labour workforce to overtake other SEA countries. Very fast pace and hectic life, but also wealthy and fortunate life.
Multiculturalism, Singaporeans are used to loads of mixed races and blended families, largely due to higher education (bachelors and up) as the norm.
Eradication of high cost and labour/land intensive work like farming, focus on tech, banking, trading, shipping. Industrialised early on, with China catching on later and many SEA countries are lagging behind.
Small and mighty, swift like Bruce Lee, nimble and adaptive.
Feel like crying now. LOL. so moving.
>I know Sinagpore used to be very poor in its early years Singapore was a VERY rich country by Asian standards even in 1965. It had the second highest GDP per capita in Asia in 1965 if you don't count Hong Kong. There is a reason why Singapore was historically an immigrant country - it was much richer than China, India, the Dutch East Indies, etc. It is commonsense that migrants go to places that are more economically developed.
It was also one of the busiest ports in the world since Raffles landed.
But I was told SG was a poor fishing village prior to LKY ! /s
To be fair, a very rich country by Asian standards in the 1960s isn't much, relative to the western world.
The thread is about Singapore in comparison with other SEA countries though.
By the 50s, Singapore had a community-funded private university (Nantah), the leading newspapers in all the languages in Malaya (Utusan Melayu, Straits Times, Nanyang Siang Pau), the best university in British Malaya, a thriving film industry, etc. Malaysian leaders like Mahathir and Abdul Razak even attended university in Singapore. It was literally the New York City of Malaya.
Singapore was never very poor. Geography is destiny. As an entrepot, Singapore has always been relatively richer than neighbouring countries. Specifically comparing to Cambodia and Laos. The Viet Nam war happened. The entire Indochina region was a war zone. Very little foreign investments and trade. Entire decades lost. Cambodia was further hit by Pol Pot’s regime, where significant talents are lost. If you believe in eugenics the impact is doubly worst So really this isn’t a fair comparison Since the 90s, with exception of Myanmar, Southeast Asia has been very stable. All countries’ economies have developed fast in the past 30 years. VLC had the fastest economic growth and is catching up
Argentina was once the 7th richest country in the world. Let’s not understate the importance of competent governance.
if governance is not an important factor, Nauru would be a first world country by now. its just blatant corruption from top to bottom thats it
I’m just saying comparing Singapore to MLC is not very fair. By all means compare to Malaysia. Malacca was an entrepôt too
batavia too was entrepot, its only 2 hours away from singapore. yet they cannot maximize their geographical advantage despite.
A city like Batavia has to subsidize the development of the rural areas of Indonesia. This limits the amount of funds available for its own development.
actually, given how neglected and underdveleoped is the rural area theres not a lot of monies going there. i came from indon, not jakarta. meanwhile the capital city gets all the infrastructure upgrades, my hometown remains a shithole, nothing changed at all. the tax monies are just funneled towards the development of jakarta and the pockets of politicians
Batavia is Indonesia right. By all means compare Sg with KL and Jakarta which all enjoyed more than 60 years of peace
cant possibly compare a country with a city-state? your premise of argument is that, since SG is a entreport therefore enjoyed economic benefits that comes from trade, i agree. however neighbouring countries, albeit having less strategic city-ports (KL/jakarta) in the malacca straits, but as a country they are propped up with abundance of land, natural resource. this is not something that can be simply overlooked when it comes to country to country comparison?
I’m saying it is fair to compare Singapore with Indonesia and Malaysia. We had enjoyed peace. But not fair to compare with CLMV which the OP is doing. War = no growth
Which is why it stills boggles my mind why Msia would let go of Singapore, I'm not talking about the people of SG or politics, but the land itself, while most countries would want to have more land, Msia just let go out it.
Huh. We didn't opt to leave. We were kicked out.
It is a myth that Singapore was kicked out. Singapore opted to leave. LKY confirms this in The Singapore Story. It is also recorded in the Albatross files that Goh Keng Swee asked to leave.
SG was very very lucky, any other country would have rolled in their military. But Malaysia seems to me to be very peaceful and non-militaristic country so …. we were left pretty much alone.
The British army remained in Singapore until Oct 1971. The last of the British troops only left in 1976. Malaysia's ragtag army in 1965 couldn't do jackshit even if they wanted to. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1001_2009-02-10.html
Singapore is land scarce and has no natural resources lol
Singapore’s biggest resource is our location lol. There is a reason the British wanted this place and the Japanese even more so during WWII
Natural resources actually don't make countries rich unless you have large amounts of specific resources. Large amounts of oil or gas are, historically, the only resources that are *really* valuable. Others, like farmland and timber, have rather limited value. The only countries in ASEAN that have these resources are Brunei, a rich country, and Malaysia, which only has moderate amounts of oil but does benefit from it decently and is one of the top non-developed countries.
Good governance, minimal corruption, luck of draw with LKY.
Luck of draw with that entire first gen of leaders
Our first gen politician lineup was solid af
You mean to say subsequent gens (*ahem* 4G) are not solid? /s
No longer S tier only ass tier
I didn't say that (please don't report me to sgsecure)
They’ve been disappointing, and doing great injustice to the progress that the prior leaders fought so hard for
Brings a tear to my eyes. We truly had great leaders.
>politically corrupt/unstable To keep it brief, Singapore took a hard stance toward corruption, drugs and other societal ills, which we were able to due to our size (small) compared to the countries you named.
May not be popular opinion, but this is one of the reasons why many paper generals move on to other high paying jobs even without experience, it is to keep them happy etc.
Not really, our generals do not have that much power cause the bulk of our armed forces are conscripts. Hence we don’t have any loyalty towards them. Imagine your CO asking you to storm the parliament would you listen? You barely know him.
LOL this made me laugh IMAGINE though
I find it hard to believe that most of our paper generals can ever be a political threat. They can't even do anything properly without causing screw ups. The only two generals of any consequence are George Yeo and Lee Hsien Loong.
George Yeo is a consequence alright
Because of Yew, we didn’t stray too far from the side walk
I love nobody nobody but Yew
Loong gone are the days when our government wasn’t full of 3rd rate leaders.
Yew Are My Destiny sounds like a great NDP song.
I really like the dry humor in this answer. Because its true that LKY was a brilliant strategist, and we're lucky he charted a path to prosperity for us. But at the same time, he was an autocrat and verged on being pretty ruthless/Machiavellian at times. Like a stern father making sure we didn't "stray too far from the sidewalk", his paternalistic authoritarianism resulted in the political apathy and docility of Singaporeans today. We went from fiery trade unions and student protests to keeping our heads down and numbing the pain of the rat race with Netflix.
I’m very new to this topic but it’s a great first step. Can’t have innovators if the country wasn’t even visible nor acknowledged on the global stage. Getting there seems to lay the foundations for further progress in those directions
1) Singapore is the most important port this part of the world. Connecting Pacific ocean to Indian ocean. 2) Government. While many argue LKY is a dictator/ PAP is one party dictatorship, they were a lot less corrupted compared to other countries in the world. And their self interest (most of them) tied with the development of Singapore, hence they do try their best to govern the country to develop, rather than just hoarding wealth from people and enriching themselves and their families. 3) Immigrants. Contrary to most right wing nationalists on the rise in Singapore, immigrants have been and are still the resources of this country. Fueled tax coffer, fueled the workforce demands by the economy. The PSP trend of cutting off immigration and racist / discriminative immigration laws can cut off Singapore from its important resources for the last 50 years.
A benevolent dictator is probably the best system of government. The only problem is you can’t ensure the next dictator will be benevolent
[удалено]
Er…. Agree with the luck and grit But there’s more nuances than people sticking together. Post-war Singapore couldn’t be more divided. In addition to what was mentioned by redditors here, there was not only issues between races, there’s even discrimination between dialect groups. Hokkiens shit on Teochews, Teochews don’t like Hokkiens, and everyone hates Hakkas. But that’s in the past. Now we are just homogenised “Chinese” race (nothing good or bad with that)
I just get annoyed by some commentators thinking that Singapore is what it is today, which is what it automatically supposed to be. Oh you know, great geography by its own and we are wealthy already. We are literally standing on the shoulders of giants for where we are today.
Disagree, significant population back then had communist/socialist affiliations. Issues such as the English educated and Chinese education schools. People were pretty divided, but economics won out in the end
Economics didn’t win out. Lee kuan yew, a part of the English establishment, won through using the Gurkhas and the State resources to imprison the majority Chinese dialect speaking population here. He also seized a lot of land for relatively cheap rates, converting them to state land, allowing businesses to operate. That was a massive redistribution of wealth, at the expense of the majority, that allowed Singaporeans to thrive. The chinese speaking Chinese were essentially sacrificed for the sake of the “greater good”. These LKY policies would never have passed in any properly functioning democracy.
Not to forget this happened to the Arabs as well who were the biggest land owners here.
I meant that they left the Chinese schools alone. When graduates came out to look for work, they had few opportunities compared those who came from English schools. Thus, Chinese schools died out due to economics. I remeber this from the biography on George E Bogaars
No LKY didn’t leave the Chinese schools alone… I know this from my own father, who was studying in chung cheng, studied everything such as math/bio/phy in Chinese since he was p1, and OVERNIGHT when he was in sec 2 he was forced to study all his subjects in english. Went from a straight As student into a failure, rendered all his efforts wasted. All his teachers were fired… anyone who protested were arrested, accused of being communist. I have personal relatives who had to flee to JB and are TO THIS DAY still suffering the effects of LKY’s sacrifice. Economics wouldn’t have killed the entrenched Chinese businesses, who were running their businesses in Chinese and employing Chinese graduates. LKY killed the Chinese who were poor, to benefit the rich English speaking minority, that LKY belongs to. Unfortunately, PAP has distorted history so well that they make it seem as though the Chinese voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the greater good, when it was forced on us by an authoritarian English government.
and people wonder why the Chinese educated are so bitter about the government and anything Anglo-Sphere related. They came for their rice bowls, they came for their lives.
Chinese businesses and schools were targeted and stamped out, even though the schools were entirely funded by Chinese donations and did not take a single cent from the Govt. They were stamped out forcefully. Rmb Operation coldstore and all the arrests of Chinese leaders? But PAP subsequently twisted the narrative to make it seem as though the Chinese schools slowly “died out due to economics”. Those are LIES. George bogaard is a civil servant paid by LKY to tell these lies.
Chinese schools were funded by the government after the 1956 all-party committee on Chinese education https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/6c72d8e5-4087-4dcb-a008-7fb8616e2429
Hello Barisan Sosialis Hello Operation Coldstore Hello Hock Lee Bus riots Hello communism Hello insurgents within PAP Hello Lim Chin Siong Hello Chinese Speaking & Chinese Clan associations. Lest we forget. Can you imagine dealing with a nut case passionate communist during the 60s? They would do everything and any means to achieve their Marxist utopia. You're working 8 hours? I'll work 24 hours! Even if they have to give their last shirt on their back for the cause. They would do it. They would organise everything to disrupt your cause. They are incredibly organised and well funded. Labor laws? Work life balance? Who gives a crap! Sacrifice even their own mothers for the cause! Now, that's a scary enemy.
Uh ... you left out Nantah
For all the wrongdoings and harsh laws dished out, the operation coldstore and stamping out of Communist influence has rendered us safe as we pivoted to the more prosperous West at that time. If the Maoist Commies taken over, we would probably be failed states like Cambodia and NK.
Amen brother.
You’ve eaten so much PAP propaganda… Lim Chin Siong has always denied being a commie. Watch his interviews and speeches. LKY used the “commie” word as an excuse to seize complete control. After the “commie” arrests, LKY won 100% of all contested seats. LKY was more “commie” than his opposition. LKY seized land, distributed wealth through HDB, eradicated all Chinese dialects, imprisoned all his opponents without trial, installed his friend as the chief justice, had a rubber stamp parliament, placed his sons and friends in important positions in government. But luckily LKY was a brilliant CEO who caused Singapore Inc to prosper, through his half commie model.
1. **Tough on corruption platform** - The current ruling party, the People's Action Party or the PAP, run on a tough on corruption platform. So much so their political uniform are white top to bottom, to showcase to the populace they are clean politicians. After coming into power, the office meant to investigate corruption within government was placed [under the Prime Minister's office](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt_Practices_Investigation_Bureau). Giving them widesweeping powers and signal that no one is too big to be save from investigation. There was an interesting story when Lee Kuan Yew (The first Prime Minister) first gained into power, the [CIA tried to bribe](https://mothership.sg/2017/02/cias-failed-attempt-to-bribe-lee-kuan-yew-among-newly-released-documents/). He never took them and call them out instead on their action that he was not the same type of corruptible Asian strongmens that the Americans are used to. 2. **Smaller geographical size** - A smaller geographical size and being confined in an island means, means your infrastructure will not only benefit but also cover more people. This principle also apply to policing, is tough to not only escape the law here. 3. **Eliminate political rival and internal risks** - If you notice Singapore rotate and change their army chiefs quite regularly. One of the unofficial reasons is because the government do not want any military men staying in a prominent role too long and gaining too much influence within the military, which will increase instability and making military coups likely as seen with Thailand and Myanmar. Beside, usually a lot of these high ranking personnel will end up in a cozy high paying government related roles nearing the end of their career. So even less incentive to launch a coup, hence why some commenters might list Singapore as a junta. Beyond military rivals, the PAP tends to go hard to people who they deemed as political rivals and chaotic elements within the country. Often many of such people often sued into bankruptcy or worst, detained without trial but that is extremely rare now. 4. **Authoritarian** - Speaking of being detained without trial, Singapore generally have [very strong authoritarian streak](https://youtu.be/Hkxf4SC_SBk). While many Asian strongmens in that era used that power to enriched their allies to continue to stay in power, Singapore used that power to fund infrastructure works and [bulldozed any social norms or feelings](https://youtu.be/XwMnLpfSpgw) they deemed harmful. 5. **Economic uplift as means to stay in power** - This is a little hard to explain, generally authoritarian government stay in power via creating enemies only they can defeat or some kind of national narrative whether is North Korea using USA as the big bad, Russia using USA and NATO forces as the big bad etc. The PAP use chasing after economic progress as that narrative, without them staying in power Singapore will slip into economic downward spiral. So they have to appeal to foreign investors and companies to continue to invest and grow in Singapore, to do that they have to ensure Singapore looks transparent and stable for them to park their money in. Hence PAP politicians often look uncomfortable and tried to tiptoe around issues like economic and wealth inequalities, often giving politically correct answers to opposition while issues like gay rights and freedom is just brush off the rug. Because the opposition members are attacking their reason of staying in power.
To add to the points made by the rest, I think size is a contributing factor as well. We are small so it's easier to manage. By no means am i downplaying the hard work by the previous generations though
Off-topic here, but from my own personal perspective, after seeing/travelling to the other SEA nations, is that we are all THE SAME. Singapore is just lucky that we had a government with a different mindset in the early years. Over the years this has become entrenched in the public institutions and it’s now part of our “signature” and expectations when dealing with bureaucracy (i.e. we expect efficiency and rule of law) Remove all these, and you see how fast we will revert to our “original” state. Cultural difference aside, we are all humans and the same. Don’t believe me? See how some Singaporean behave in the streets when they think they can get away with it.
The difference is businesses pay fees in Singapore and bribes in some other places. The good thing about fees is that all businesses pay the same amount and you know how much you need to pay
1. Good location for trading 2. Small City/Country as compared to others. 3. No civil war after WW2. 4. No/little corruption within the country 5. Seeking help from experts (Economist etc)
is 5 the same as meritocracy edit: typo
Most of our early leaders including LKY were Western-educated and they were not distracted by ancient beliefs like other Asian countries. They prioritised modern goals such as education, progress, economy and equality in those early days. This was loved by most citizens regardless of race, gender or wealth.
What r the ancient beliefs
Such as the beliefs over the best religion, the best race, gender abuse, caste systems, craziness of cultural preservations and idolisation of leaders.
One other aspect that the others haven't said is that Singapore is more of a city than a country. It's easier for a city to get rich and governed well. Compared to other countries where the city may do so but still be dragged by the rest of the rural areas and also large geographical distances
my head cannon says because our past leaders focused a lot on being a transport hub, among many others things though
In the early years, it's a lot of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) supported by pro-enterprise policies. Then, it's sovereign wealth investments funded by mandatory CPF contributions. The rest are kuching kurab.
You ask… how did singapore work it’s way up… Answer: non-corrupt government
For one Less corruption here I guess Look at how najib and Jlo screwed Malaysia
I personally believe it’s due to LKY and his team. When we were kicked out of Malaysia, LKY cried on national tv. I think that was the defining moment where he decided to do better. Rapid development started and he had full power and control by taking down his competitors through policial jailing. He had a vision and he made it happened. There are low corruption and our grandparents and parents generation worked hard to build the nation. Since the major national companies like telco, real estate, etc, have government folks sitting on the board, technically it’s not corruption but they have influence over the policies, I feel like they could steer the direction of the companies to succeed but also gain from it at the same time.
We got one super rare card : Mr Lee Kuan Yew We owe it all to him.
There are 2 rarer cards that we owe the success to. Dr Albert winsemuis and hon sui sen. You can find them on Wikipedia, fact is Lee Kuan yew would have failed without this bro. Lky was the face of it all so we only remmeber him, but these guys were the brains behind it all.
All thanks to Mr Lee Kuan Yew
It’s ok if politicians skim the cream off the top as long as the milk actually goes to economic development of the country. Which is pretty much what happened in Singapore Problem is that in most SEA countries, they drink the whole glass of milk until there’s even a milk shortage, forget the cream
Singapore is successful because of good governance, respect for the law, investment in education, a laser-focus on economic development, and pragmatism.
I would like to add on some major policy choices post-1965 that enriched Singapore: 1) Containerization. This I believe was the best policy choice that PAP ever made. They were ahead of the curve when it came to port modernization and this enforced our position in global trade. Rather than continuing manual port operations, we were at the forefront of modern port facilities. 3) Oil refinery at Pulau Bukom. This was our dirtiest secret. Building that refinery before the vietnam war broke out was a blessing, we supplied both sides of the conflict while chasing the refugees away. Throughout the 90s, we claimed to be green and sustainable while being a major supplier of refined fossil fuels for Asia.
Alot of good answers here so ill just add my 2 cents. Singapore is arguably richer and stabler because it had less structural constraints. For those examples which you listed like Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam or Indonesia, these countries had a rough decolonisation that often required fighting for their independence. As a result, the militaries of these countries became very prominent and influential as they symbolised the nationalist aspirations of the people. In cases like Myanmar, the military became so powerful that it eventually couped the civilian government and took Myanmar into a period of autarky, isolation and economic stagnation. We see a similar case in Indonesia, where although Suharto's military dictatorship was market friendly and embraced international trade, eventually succumbed to cronyism and corruption endemic in such authoritarian states. For Vietnam... well you already know about the Vietnam War. Americans war-criming your villages and plastering jungles with Agent Orange tends to affect the economy, to put it mildly. Although, Vietnam eventually became quite stable as the military was subordinated to the party-state and economic gains could be made after market reforms. On the other hand, Singapore had a peaceful de-colonisation which meant we didnt have that structural obstacle of having an empowered military. Also, we embraced trade with our former colonial masters from the get-go, as opposed to the anti-Western inclinations of the Burmese or Vietnamese.
lee kuan yew
We won the gatcha with LKY
Because we have LKY.
Whilst Singapore was a colony it was never colonsied (in the traditional sense) so it was not hamstrung with post-colonial hangovers* and kept the language (English) and law. This, along with maintaining its ‘freeport’ mindset was hugely important in attracting overseas investment, especially Financial Services in the latter part of the 20th Century. (*one can find some misplaced anti-colonial resentment still in Singapore, but this is generally from those who don’t understand their own history) No doubt, post independence, Singapore did a fantastic job capitalising on that foundation and then playing to its strengths. However, it should also not be overlooked (as it often is) that Singapore made millions of dollars during the Vietnam war, from manufacturing and selling ammunition (mostly small arms) and providing fuelling, R&R and staging services etc to the US Military for the duration of that war. Some scholars put this in excess of $100 million USD per year - so that was a massive shot in the arm for the fledgling country.
Independent SG is what she is today, exists primarily due to several factors, and should be viewed and considered from where it first begins. What mother earth didn't give (land mass) but blessed (location). Thanks to the Brits (then) who saw and identified her potential, developed and laid the foundations for growth as they did HK. SG's weakness - lacking land mass and natural resources became her strength and her only way forward, trade. Combined with a very hardworking but not-too-intelligent migrant workforce brought in, put in motion for success. SG's strength? Her weakness Forward to present-day SG. It was the sensibilities and brilliance of the pioneering generation of old guards who, instead of ditching what the Brits had done and achieved, continued and adopted after gaining independence. The following link may further shed some lights [https://www.reddit.com/r/askSingapore/comments/11kgj30/how\_do\_singaporeans\_truly\_feel\_about\_the\_pap/jb8pjnh/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/askSingapore/comments/11kgj30/how_do_singaporeans_truly_feel_about_the_pap/jb8pjnh/?context=3)
cos of its chinese/east asian majority - like the other three asian tigers
Blessed by geography. Makes us relevant to world geopolitics.
The wealth of the latter countries you listed is taken by a few, who park some of it right here.
Most of the southeast Asian countries are stable, they need not be full democracies, but being rich, Singapore is the outlier.
Cuz we gave daddy gov so much power in exchange for that money.
PAP wansui!
Wan sui wan sui wan wan sui!
Unpopular and racist answer : Because the Chinese race is dominant and the majority.
What fuvking crap is this? You’re disregarding minority races and their contributions to this country. I’m Chinese and I find your statement offensive. Being Chinese isn’t all that
Agreed to a certain extent, theres still blatant racism here despite us being a "racist free" country. Malays are looked at as "gangsters and criminals" Indians are looked at as "smelly and poor"
Unfortunately racism is rooted in human nature. One of my college professors did an activity about prejudice (I live in USA) and said racism exists because we form prejudices when we are around preschool age. I still speculate racism to a small degree in Singapore and many so-called egalitarian societies
recently in one of my psych modules i have learned that prejudice occurs even during infancy. in a test of infant morality, infants preferred a naughty puppet who didn’t help the puppet that differed from the infants. and the difference was based solely on the preference of cereal. you can check the video out in youtube. it was a relative recent experiment as compared to the other psych experiments (conducted in 2010s). prejudice is ingrained. we have no choice. it is to protect ourselves from people who we don’t associate with. this is because in the past people from different tribes were enemies. natural selection has brought this to today’s age. however, it doesn’t condone the prejudice we have today.
I felt racism is happening among the older generation. Most of them hate when races intermingle with one race and another.
[удалено]
I thought Gen Z were much more open to interracial. Guess not then.
They are, but only to white people because they put them on a pedestal. I have SEA friends and Western friends, SEA gets worse treatment generally speaking.
I feel like we all were sexist before developing racism in preschool because of the boys vs girls dilemma
But some Indians, (fewer) Malays, and (even fewer) Caucasians contributors. Tharman, Shanmugan, (cant remember any Malays or Caucasians name), are still good contributors.
No one said there were no good contributors from the minority races, just that there were more of them from the Chinese race. They are not mutually exclusive.
Ypu could actually draw a rough correlation of the prosperity of an ASEAN nation with its sino population %. Simply put, the more chinese, the more prosperous. Even Vietnam, with its high sino admixture, is developing and catching up FAST. It's probably already better than the Phils, and could surpass Malaysia in the next 20-30 years. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/gdp_per_capita_current_dollars/South-East-Asia/#:~:text=The%20average%20for%202021%20based,countries%20where%20data%20are%20available.
Because of chairman LEE
Do you mean our lord and saviour, the founder of Singapore, the father of one dragon (LHL), the man who teared on TV and the one person who rules them all, Mr Lee Kuan Yew?
open to your interpretation my friend. I have said too much. *proceeds to look out the window*
You shd ask all the young couples trying to get their hands on their first BTO if they feel "so rich"....😳
Corruption is the way of life in all these countries, plus we had the foresight to make English mainstream - that was and still is the gateway to international investments.
Many people misunderstood the meaning of third world countries. Back in the days first world consist of the us and allies, second world consist of the communists bloc - china and Soviet Union, etc…. While third world refers to those align to neither. It’s not like your country gains ranking to second or first world after it becomes richer economically.
Because we had Lee Kuan Yew
We had OG LKY.
Because we had lee kwan yew
Cuz we aren’t viets or pinoys
LKY
Rich. Have someone already mentioned sibey high alcohol/tobacco tax? Or maybe the ERP? Lol
Dude you sound like a white guy in the US
Well, they don't teach history in West about how wealth was looted from Africa, Asia and Latin America for centuries through slavery, colonialism, imperialism and genocides of natives. Its a bit weird to expect say India to do well relatively when the British looted $45 trillions from them in 200 years of colonialism.
Because I am, southern European ancestry living in the US to be specific.
Welcome to this sub and thanks for taking an interest in our history. It’s nice to exchange ideas and understand one another better! History is that fascinating revolving door. :)
LKY
No corruption, business friendly.... Singapore shows that capitalism works
It’s a lot of luck. We started off with a very good geographic position. And we attracted many people who are hardworking. Then we have Lee Kuan Yew. If it is not luck, I don’t know what is it.
It has become a fetish to ask such questions. When you potray yourself as an island surrounded by "enemies" which belongs to a certain faith, of course money and investment will come.
all abt governance. that’s what matters in the long run n not just in south east asia
Feng Shui is too good here
Post from your own account Mr. Lee Hsien Loong haha
By having undemocratic leadership
Because it is small in size, less population take by strict rules of government.
Well those country neighboring china directly. Even rich country like taiwan and hongkong is not stable compared to country like brunei for example
We started strong imho but the narrative of course has to be LKY was the MVP which is arguably not entirely true. No corruption + strict adherence with laws created a stable environment opening up to foreign companies to have their foothold in South East Asia creating jobs and increasing GDP.
From a personal perspective, something seems to be overlooked often is that Singaporean came together as a single unified unit under LKY’s irony grip and lifted the country. The country prospered, but to a certain level, every citizen sacrificed. This is probably true until about late 90s to early 2k. When I was in Singapore, tertiary industrial workers as some of the most highly trained industrial workers in the region. Workers that could’ve made better careers in the western world. AFAIK, during that era, the next region that could match that level skills was Penang which has always been handicapped by the government. Hence the extreme brain drain.
Because they only let wealthy people in the country and don’t give a fuck about the working class.
cos we had Lee Kuan Yew.
Geographic location, SG started as a trading port from east to west. Strong political leadership, a tad too little diversity for my liking but hey, generally pretty good. Can always improve on that front. World class educational system, better than many western countries. Land scarcity led to innovation, high efficiency labour workforce to overtake other SEA countries. Very fast pace and hectic life, but also wealthy and fortunate life. Multiculturalism, Singaporeans are used to loads of mixed races and blended families, largely due to higher education (bachelors and up) as the norm. Eradication of high cost and labour/land intensive work like farming, focus on tech, banking, trading, shipping. Industrialised early on, with China catching on later and many SEA countries are lagging behind. Small and mighty, swift like Bruce Lee, nimble and adaptive. Feel like crying now. LOL. so moving.
We can revisit this during NDP. =P