Singapore: Anglo-Chinese Capitalism with Bryan Cheang
Oct 06, 2023Episode 13
CPSI Podcasts
British imperialism might be why Singapore has such high living standards today. The British were able to transplant their social norms and institutions more easily onto colonies like Singapore and Hong Kong. This, at least, is part of what Bryan Cheang argues in this episode of Caribbean Progress with Rasheed Griffith. But what made Singapore more receptive than others to British values, even within the British Empire itself?
Modern Singapore's status as a democracy is contested in every political theory classroom. But how much of that is warranted? Its technocratic government’s push for economic growth and prosperity for everyone has made some trade-offs for its citizens, namely social freedoms and any notable culture of entrepreneurship or even perhaps a strong cultural identity. However, culture, as an institution, is not a one-size-fits-all. Jamaica, for example, suffers no lack of a globally recognized and marketed culture, yet its development pales in comparison to Singapore.
Singapore's governance does not foster the same levels of innovation as larger countries with similar living standards, but has the bar been set unreasonably high?
Lee Kuan Yew, the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, is said to have visited Jamaica to gain insight into developing his own country. But there is no firm evidence of this. The only significant ties between Singapore and the Caribbean are their shared colonial histories, yet these countries have diverged drastically. While Singapore is a crowning jewel in Southeast Asia, Jamaica, and the Caribbean languish in harmful stagnation and risk irrelevance. Are there any policy prescriptions that Caribbean countries can learn from Singapore? The answer may not be so clear. Join Bryan and Rasheed to find out.
British imperialism might be why Singapore has such high living standards today. The British were able to transplant their social norms and institutions more easily onto colonies like Singapore and Hong Kong. This, at least, is part of what Bryan Cheang argues in this episode of Caribbean Progress with Rasheed Griffith. But what made Singapore more receptive than others to British values, even within the British Empire itself?
Modern Singapore's status as a democracy is contested in every political theory classroom. But how much of that is warranted? Its technocratic government’s push for economic growth and prosperity for everyone has made some trade-offs for its citizens, namely social freedoms and any notable culture of entrepreneurship or even perhaps a strong cultural identity. However, culture, as an institution, is not a one-size-fits-all. Jamaica, for example, suffers no lack of a globally recognized and marketed culture, yet its development pales in comparison to Singapore.
Singapore's governance does not foster the same levels of innovation as larger countries with similar living standards, but has the bar been set unreasonably high?
Lee Kuan Yew, the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, is said to have visited Jamaica to gain insight into developing his own country. But there is no firm evidence of this. The only significant ties between Singapore and the Caribbean are their shared colonial histories, yet these countries have diverged drastically. While Singapore is a crowning jewel in Southeast Asia, Jamaica, and the Caribbean languish in harmful stagnation and risk irrelevance. Are there any policy prescriptions that Caribbean countries can learn from Singapore? The answer may not be so clear. Join Bryan and Rasheed to find out.
This podcast is produced by the Caribbean Progress Studies Institute (CPSI). Contact us at progress@cpsi.org
Speaker 1:
I understand where your question is coming from, so I think, first of all, I need to make a clarification that I am by no means trying to suggest that Singapore is a hellhole.
Speaker 2:
Hi everyone and welcome back to Caribbean Progress with me, rashid Griffith. In this episode, I taught with Brian Chang, the Assistant Director at the Centre for the Study of Governance and Social Justice at King's College London. We had a great discussion about Brian's political economy research focusing on the development of Singapore and Hong Kong, in this case, particularly Singapore and his notion of Anglo-Chinese capitalism. It was a really fun discussion, so let's dive right in.
Speaker 1:
Hi Brian, hi there Rashid, thank you for having me on this podcast.
Speaker 2:
My first question is would Singapore's extensive economic growth be possible without British colonial heritage?
Speaker 1:
So that's a very interesting question. I don't think it can be answered definitively because that assumes knowledge of a counterfactual. If X did not happen, would Y have happened? If Singapore was not colonised by the British? Then what would have happened?
Speaker 1:
Of course it cannot be answered definitively but certainly I think in my past work I do place a lot of focus definitely on the pro-growth legacy of British colonialism in Singapore and I think to a large extent Singapore's positive economic record traces itself all the way back to its founding by the British in 1819, where positive cycle of free trade and immigration occurred since then.
Speaker 1:
It was from 1819 onwards that Singapore became an conducive environment for commerce, for trade activities, both in the region and even within Singapore. And in the mid-20th century I think to give the PAP government some credit did it decide generally to continue with this model of economic openness, to continue with free trade, to continue generally not totally with a market-based economy. Since then and this is especially significant because in the region of Southeast Asia in a post-war period many countries were turning to economic nationalism because they saw multinational corporations and engagement with the West as a new form of colonialism. So as part of their decolonisation efforts they opted for economic nationalism. So Singapore's decision to continue with an open economic strategy at a time when other nations moving to economic nationalism was a critical factor in its success.
Speaker 2:
So then, if it is the case that the British colonial heritage had such a big impact on Singapore, I'm wondering then, what about the other empire countries similar size of Singapore, some population of Singapore, let's say, going back a century? Why do you think that was the major divergence in Singapore relative to, let's say, caribbean countries that had the same exact British heritage?
Speaker 1:
That's a wonderful question that you have asked. Colonial experiences are actually very heterogeneous. So I think the first part of my response is the idea that British colonies tend to be doing better than non-British colonies, for example under the French or under the Spanish or under the Portuguese or the Dutch and one of the reasons is because British empires tend to be a bit more benign. Of course they are not totally blameless, that's for sure, but they tend to be more benign and they tend to pass down more market based institutions and practices which then allow their colonies to develop in a slightly more positive way. So that means British colonies tend to be doing better than other non-British colonies. But even within British colonies, you are definitely right to say they experience very heterogeneous.
Speaker 1:
I would say the two most successful examples would really be Singapore and Hong Kong, of course notwithstanding the United States, which in a sense is a British ex-colony too.
Speaker 1:
I think my answer to that was written in a paper I've published called Anglo-Chinese Capitalism, and I think what's so unique about Singapore and Hong Kong was not just the fact that they were British colony, but when the British arrived there was a very sparse population in the city territory, the geography of Singapore and Hong Kong itself.
Speaker 1:
When the British came with their people, bringing their practices, their customs, their laws and their institutions, there was not a lot of social opposition that they encountered on the ground which meant that a lot of these British style practices and governance could be replicated in full. It was an institutional tabula rasa that the British encountered in Singapore and Hong Kong, which is actually very unique as compared to other British colonies. For example, perhaps in the Caribbean, which I'm not familiar with, and even if you think about India, for example, there was already a pre-existing culture and civilization there. So perhaps there was some sort of a social opposition and a mismatch in culture, but none of that happened in Singapore and Hong Kong, which is one of the very accidental, I would say, historical circumstances which is unique to Singapore and Hong Kong Is Singapore's lack of a robust entrepreneurial culture, a worthy trade-off for having this rapid economic growth and genuine high living standard.
Speaker 1:
I guess it depends on who you ask If you ask someone who is thinking more about the aggregate performance of the economy, and perhaps if you talk to maybe a politician or some of the Singapore policymakers, 40-50 years ago the priority was really high living standards for the ordinary person, having high economic growth. So in that sense I think they would think the trade-off was worth it, because they just wanted to catch up to the rest of the countries. But the thing is that now Singapore is more than many decades since its independence, we are not just thinking about having economic growth, but having a form of economic growth that is sustainable, that is inclusive, that is innovative, that is able to bring ordinary Singaporeans and local companies to the next stage of development. And that's where the role of entrepreneurs is very important, because entrepreneurs create value, they discover new products and services and they drive the economy forward. So I would say perhaps in the past, singapore's model was sufficient for its purposes then, but it has faced severe diminishing returns over time, and now the lack of innovation and a local entrepreneurial culture is actually really revealing its effect on the economy.
Speaker 1:
And I also just say something else, rashid, which is that this lack of an entrepreneurial culture is not just an economic issue. It is a political and a social issue as well, because entrepreneurs are not just people running commercial enterprises. Entrepreneurs are people who question the existing status quo. They question the status quo and they imagine a different future. Of course, that usually expresses itself in the economic realm, but if think about it, in the political realm as well, creative destruction there is very important. So Singapore's lack of an entrepreneurial culture is also reflected by the lack of political creative destruction in the political sector in Singapore, which is actually very close and monopolistic. So it's not just an issue of economic development, but it's an issue of political development as well Getting Singapore to become a liberal democracy the next stage of its political development.
Speaker 2:
Beyond the theoretical discussion of what that could mean, how exactly would you describe Singapore's political system?
Speaker 1:
Singapore's political system. I would describe it as a semi-autoritarian or soft-autoritarian political regime. So what do I mean by that? First of all, it is an electoral democracy where there are free, fair and regular elections for most parts. In that sense, it qualifies as an electoral democracy as defined by Freedom House. However, it is not a liberal democracy in the sense of having civil liberties robustly protected by law, and it is not just the institutions I'm talking about. You have to also look at the norms and political culture.
Speaker 1:
Just to share with you a statistic from the Asian Barometer Survey more than 55, I would say 55 to 59% of Singaporeans generally think it is okay for democracy to be subordinate to economic growth.
Speaker 1:
Economic growth is at least somewhat more important than having democratic rights. If they are forced to choose one or the other, they actually tend to prefer economic growth more. So you see, this suspension of civil liberties was done in a certain way so as to achieve a certain consensus over economic growth, so that the state could enforce its will and gender support and consensus for its economic plans. So it's not a form of blind authoritarianism that you see in, maybe, north Korea and some of the countries. So this form of authoritarianism is connected to its developmental state apparatus, where the use of force, the use of authoritarianism was done for the purposes of economic growth. That's the reason why I like to use this phrase called give me liberty or give me wealth. That's the Singaporean mantra. In the US you have give me liberty or give me death. In Singapore it's give me liberty or give me wealth, because freedom will sacrifice in this pursuit of economic growth.
Speaker 2:
So is that context? How do we understand this? I hear that description used quite often and it doesn't sound particularly Singaporean unique. If I go to Canada, I could use the same terminology. If I go to Jamaica or Barbados, I could use that same terminology. It doesn't seem any uniquely Singaporean aspect of governance or policy. So why is it always used as a particularly Singaporean description?
Speaker 1:
Your question is definitely a very good one. You are certainly right to say that authoritarian regimes and, in fact, just politicians in general, always come out with various justifications to sacrifice liberty. Give me your liberty and sacrifice some of it, and I'm going to achieve these great things for you, whether it's economic growth, so on and so forth. So in a sense, you are right to say that this idea of sacrificing liberties for some greater good is not unique to Singapore. It is in the playbook of many authoritarian politicians. You are right in that sense, but nonetheless, I say this is uniquely Singaporean in the sense that its political economy is a unique variety of capitalism which is not seen elsewhere. So you are right. For example, in the West, politicians always asking to citizens to give up their liberties, that's true, but their fundamental structure is nonetheless still democratic. It's generally democratic, and the state in those countries does not play a driving and an active role the way the Singapore state does Through sovereign wealth funds, through government-linked corporations and intrusive industrial policy, and all the while being embedded within an authoritarian political structure. So that's what we mean by Singapore being a unique variety of capitalism. That in a sense, separates Singapore with western forms of capitalism and democracy. In that sense, singapore is unique, but not totally unique as well, because there are also many other nations which are practicing authoritarian capitalism or state capitalism, countries like Malaysia, indonesia, brazil, india, china, russia.
Speaker 1:
Authoritarian capitalism is really on the rise, I would say, since the turn of the 21st century.
Speaker 1:
Singapore is definitely one of them. But I would say the reason why Singapore is so relevant actually for today's context is because everyone thinks about China. China is a world superpower and really it's a geopolitical rival to the USA, and we think about China being really a clear case of authoritarian capitalist state. But what many people do not know actually is that China wanted to learn from Singapore for many years. For many years, actually, singapore served as an inspiration to China, because Singapore has seemed to manage a strong economic success, an open economy, somewhat partially speaking, but closing its political system. So that, therefore, has served as an inspiration to China, which is why China and Singapore has always been seen also as examples of what we call political meritocracy, where democracy is sacrificed for this meritocratic ethos of having leaders who are experts, who are selected on the basis of expertise and virtue. So in that sense, it is not just a authoritarian capitalist state, but one that's justified on communitarian grounds, which adds another layer of uniqueness on top of it.
Speaker 2:
So you've said many times about democracy being sacrificed for wealth and other things, but what particular aspects of democracy that you can find in other places that you think is severely actually missing from Singapore?
Speaker 1:
This is something that is, I would say, unique to me. If you look at many human rights organisations and global indicators of democratic rights, for example Freedom House, amnesty International, human Rights Watch, there is a general consensus that in Singapore, free speech, for example, is not protected as robustly as in the West. The media is generally state-controlled in Singapore. Freedom of expression and association is not there. Opposition politicians and people who are dissent are regularly exposed to lawsuits, defamation lawsuits, that these are all clearly documented. Many books have been written about this. But I want to add one more thing. It's not authoritarianism, it's not just these practices, right, these overt acts of government coercion and clamping down on people.
Speaker 1:
I'm very interested in issues of culture, what people think and believe, how people behave in political life.
Speaker 1:
If you are someone who has lived in Singapore for quite some time, you realise that the political culture here is actually very feeble. Feeble in the sense that dissent, debate, criticism, is seen as a very taboo thing. Even, for example, now we have a presidential election. That's happening and, like a few years ago, we have, like, our general election, and usually you see, in other countries, during election times, politicians will feel free to criticise each other. They will go head to head, because there is this idea that a robust exchange of views is part and parcel of a democracy. But here you see, it's more of a consensus based on a system harmony rather than dissent. I think they not just the ability to, but the desire to participate in critical discourse in a liberal, democratic setting is part and parcel of a healthy democracy. So it's not just the government not clamping down with free speech, but are you willing to criticise, to exchange to dissent? That, I think, is a critical factor of what I believe is a healthy liberal democracy. That's been saying the same.
Speaker 2:
I hear that, brian, but I still wonder this Every time I think about Singapore. Singapore seems like any kind of Western European to me. It doesn't seem like the US, of course. It doesn't seem like UK per se, but it's very close to Switzerland, for example, or even Iceland. There's not that much political debate, there's not that much entrepreneurship, there's not that much super outsized cultural impact globally, but people generally enjoy living there. People generally have very good star living. If you want to go into politics, you can do that without much need for connections. It's somewhat metacritic as well, but those countries aren't considered non-western, liberal or non-liberal countries. So why is still? Is it the case that Singapore really is used as some challenge to Western democracy?
Speaker 1:
I'm sorry, that's just not true. Singapore is categorised as harshly free. That is different from all your western liberal democratic countries. So France, uk, germany, switzerland, canada, the USA. Yes, there are always instances where democracy is sometimes in some ways infringed upon and violated. For example, let's think about what happened on January 6th in the United States, when there was riots, and think about the conduct of Donald Trump. But that does not make suddenly the US into an authoritarian country. It is still ranked as a free country, so that does not change. Objectively speaking, through all various measurements not just measurements but observations from locals, from experts Singapore is in no way the same category as these liberal democratic countries. The question is more about whether or not it is worth it, whether this sacrifice and this trade-off is worth it or not. But in no way is Singapore's democracy the same as that in the Western developed world. It is simply not the same.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, I would agree it's definitely not the same, and I'm not sure Switzerland is any closer to Canada either. I'm saying all these different varieties. It seems hard to categorise them so cleanly. I saw a presentation you gave where you gave some critiques of the economic freedom indices type approach to irrigation in particular, and it feels to me like the same kind of approach when it comes to ranking democratic systems is also front of challenges.
Speaker 1:
Certainly, obviously so. I do have problems with the economic freedom index and certainly I'm not trying to be selective to say certain indicators are better than the rest. But I guess what we need to look at is to triangulate and cross river different sources with each other. When I talk about economic freedom, I consider various historical sources, I talk to people on the ground, I consult various academic sources and non-academic sources to really piece together what's actually happening. And the same actually goes for political freedom or anything that you study. So if you actually read the literature on East Asia, if you actually read the literature on Singapore, you will see there's actually a very strong consensus, that number one.
Speaker 1:
Singapore is, in terms of economic freedom, a hybrid economy where there is a strong state that actively involves itself in the economy but still generally taints characteristics of capitalism, which is why we call it a developmental state. It's a mixed market economy, but its political system is a semi-democratic, semi-authoritarian state where the state is hergemonic, civil liberties are not robustly protected, and this is actually a strong consensus that makes Singapore qualitatively and significantly different from the liberal West. And not just that. There is also another aspect to this challenge. Why I say that's because if you actually read the literature on Confucianism and political meritocracy?
Speaker 1:
Scholars usually refer to Singapore and China as the countries that they like to talk about. The idea is that not only is democracy partially subordinated, there is this idea of meritocracy being important. When I say meritocracy, I don't mean it in the economic realm, okay, obviously. If you ask someone in Japan, you ask someone in France, do you believe that a qualified person should be flying the airplane, should be promoted in the office? Obviously, everyone's going to say that. But what we mean here is we call it political meritocracy, where the political system is fundamentally structured around the idea of experts and qualified professionals having more political power and democratic representation suspended on that basis.
Speaker 2:
In this particular sense political meritocracy, singapore and China has practices far more extensively than any other country in the world Now, is it suggested that it is no longer appropriate or it's not as appropriate as it was in the past?
Speaker 1:
I think that's a separate question. The question is number one what exactly is Singapore? And number two is it good or not good? So far, a lot of my work has been focusing on what actually is the case in the first place, let alone trying to even evaluate it, Because there's actually so much confusion, I feel, amongst many observers in the West about Singapore and East Asia. That's what a lot of my work has really been about clearing these misconceptions. But of course, if I want to go one step further and actually to make an assessment about whether this model is good or bad, I would say that there are trade-offs, as with every model, and the negative aspect of it is, as I said, a culture where creative expression is stifled. So all the benefits that come with having a free-reeling political culture, creativity, experimentation, tolerance, non-conformity these sorts of things which perhaps I think some people may like to see, are not here in Singapore, but perhaps, if you care about political stability, order, racial harm, many things like that, Singapore does well in that. So there is a real trade-off outside.
Speaker 2:
I'm still trying to grasp the fundamental benefit of what I guess you call this cultural openness or cultural entrepreneurship as a key benefit for sustained economic growth. For example, yes, in Singapore's case, I cannot think of a single Singaporean artist globally outside of Mandopok, and even in Mandopok that's still a bit thin field. But let's say, compared to the Caribbean, jamaica, you can name several artists, singers from Jamaica, but at the same time no one's really trying to move through Jamaica, but they are trying to move to Singapore because Singapore does have that better real and perceived economic growth and higher living standards. Why is it then, I'm really curious, why is it then that this need for cultural openness, this notion of it, is a key factor for a continuous, sustained economic growth and living?
Speaker 1:
standards. I understand where your question is coming from. So I think first of all I need to make a clarification that I am by no means trying to suggest that Singapore is a hellhole. It is definitely not a hellhole. Of course, it depends on who you ask. If you compare Singapore, for example, with an even poorer country in Southeast Asia of which there are many countries in Southeast Asia which is even at a lower level of development than Singapore is, its political system is even more undeveloped, the rule of law is even worse than in Singapore. So obviously if you compare Singapore with those countries, then obviously people want to move to Singapore. So that's why many times it depends on what is the comparative analysis and the benchmark that you are giving.
Speaker 1:
If I use that very low bar, then certainly you are right to say perhaps Singaporeans, or people in general, should simply be happy with the fact that Singaporeans have a decent standard of living and you are not harassed on a daily basis by politicians. Perhaps that's good enough. I can totally see that argument and accept that, but for me I'm not just happy if good enough. I'm concerned about whether or not there is actually the ideal of freedom being realised and what more we can do to unlock people's potential. In that sense, I'm comparing Singapore with the West. I'm comparing Singapore with an ideal. Perhaps this ideal may not be totally fulfilled or reached in my lifetime. It's a worthy exercise to consider.
Speaker 2:
How much should one push a small country to do things that are ideal, because many states of Caribbean countries are also quite small. We can push them in many ways, but oftentimes people say, if you want to do certain things, you immigrate to the US or you immigrate to UK. How much is too much for a small country to do? It feels to me this conversation is Singapore should do all these amazing things. That are all good and true, but why not just say it's a bit small for everything?
Speaker 1:
That's a good question. How to answer your question basically depends on what you might do. Who is the one doing this and who is the one that is pushing Singapore to do so? Actually, I would agree with you that Singapore need not be so ambitious. It does not need to strive to be number one in all these different rankings and indices in the world, but that's a thing that's actually a reflection of the Singapore government's drive. The Singapore state is the one that has a very ambitious desire to drive Singapore all the time, but, of course, how successful is it?
Speaker 1:
It's a different story, but the government is the one that's always driving Singapore to be extra competitive, to be the best in education system, best in transportation, best in healthcare, so on and so forth. In fact, if you think about this, this is a reflection of technocracy, the technocratic state trying to plan Singapore in a way so as to achieve this level of excellence as compared to other nations. So, in a sense, why do we need to be benchmark against this criteria? That's true, so just let people be. The thing is that we don't know what would be the case if we just naturally allowed Singaporeans to, in a sort of a bottom-up approach, to decide for themselves what values are important to them, what level of economic growth is important to them. Perhaps that's where, when we allow Singaporeans to have more freedom and a more bottom-up approach to social organisation, perhaps we will see some that loosening up they're talking about.
Speaker 2:
What are some of the unique advantages here, as an academic now, of studying the institutional development of a small country?
Speaker 1:
I would say it's not just about the institutional development of a small country. So I think Singapore's uniqueness does not stem from it being small, but from it being a nation that tries to pursue economic growth, that partially controls markets for its own benefit but retains political hegemony.
Speaker 2:
Okay, let me rephrase that, because you didn't answer the question that I intended. The question is more of is there a unique academic advantage of studying younger, small countries? Because they have more clean growth patterns in their institutions. They're not a thousand years old, for example, Relatives to some of the UK which is very large and very old, so that you can very hardly pinpoint some contractuals where you're doing analysis. That's why we're asking is there a unique advantage of studying small, young countries?
Speaker 1:
Perhaps that's the case, but I think the same problem that you have just described may also be here in Singapore, because where do you draw the start line so you can say independent of Singapore's 1965, or perhaps we go further back, which is what I've done in some of my work to British colonial times, and some people have also traced Singapore's development to the 14th, 15th century, when there was a lot of trade and commerce routes in the Asian region over here. I don't think there is a unique advantage in that sense to study a small country like Singapore. I think you just need to be very clear about what your research question is when you are doing your research, and just to present the best sort of evidence that you can.
Speaker 2:
Thank you, brian. This has been a very fun conversation and I hope we do another one quite soon. Thank you very much. That's it for this episode. Please do check the links to Brian's books and papers in the show notes. If you have any comments or questions about the episode today, you can find me on X farmly twitter at Rashid Goa that's Rashid G-U-O. You can also subscribe to the CPSI newsletters at CPSImedia for updates on the latest blogs, analyses and podcast updates like this one. I hope to see you again in the next episode.