March 25, 2015 5:20 am JST
Lost in translation
Singapore's single-party model a double-edged sword
WATARU YOSHIDA, MAYUKO TANI and TOMOMI KIKUCHI, Nikkei staff writers
SINGAPORE -- After the end of the Cold War, American-style democracy was touted as superior. The combination of democracy and a market economy that had emerged victorious over the oppressive Communist bloc was considered the key to prosperity.
Emerging countries in Asia seeking to maintain one-party rule turned to an exception: Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
Another road to growth
The People's Action Party built by Lee has maintained its grip on power for 50 years. Free speech in Singapore is limited, while companies enjoying indirect government investment wield considerable clout.
This school of thought, which prioritizes national survival above all else, has been called "Asian-style democracy." It has met with criticism over human rights issues, but the miraculous prosperity it spawned is undeniable.
In November 1978, then-Chinese Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping visited an industrial zone in western Singapore. The area had been developed under Lee's auspices, drawing foreign investment through tax breaks and simplified regulations.
Deng remarked afterward that he saw what Singapore had gained from these factories built by foreigners. The next month, he took the reins of the Chinese government under the slogan "reform and opening up." The roots of China's turning point from the devastation of the Cultural Revolution to its ascent as the world's factory lie in Singapore.
The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore teaches the nuts and bolts of Asian-style democracy. Of its roughly 2,000 graduates, more than 500 have been Chinese exchange students. Many have been promising young bureaucrats. China even now takes cues from Singapore for growth.
Meanwhile, the island of Phu Quoc in southern Vietnam, close to neighboring Cambodia, has been dubbed "Vietnam's Singapore." It has been made a special economic zone, with looser regulations to entice foreign businesses.
Means vs. ends
But Lee's alternative path of growth under single-party rule may not work everywhere.
The big difference between Singapore and such cases as China and Vietnam is that Lee opted for political stability under one party to help create growth, while his imitators consider growth necessary to maintain their existing systems. This reversal of ends and means has created political and economic distortions in countries following in Lee's footsteps.
One example is transparency. Lee hated corruption and immediately ousted any bureaucrats suspected of it. By contrast, graft still runs rampant in many emerging Asian countries. Complex regulations continue to prop up massive governments, hindering companies trying to set up shop.
The openness of their economies differs considerably as well. In the 2000s, many in Singapore expressed alarm over the entry of low-cost airlines. But Lee brushed aside their objections, saying he did not care whether Singapore Airlines lost market share.
The country also has free trade agreements with Japan, the U.S. and China as well as emerging markets. Meanwhile, China and many Southeast Asian countries have been too worried about protecting local industry to properly open up trade.
A warped form of the Asian-style democracy formulated by Lee has spread throughout emerging nations. China's growth is slowing, and Vietnam's has its ups and its downs. An eruption of discontent could threaten stability in these countries should single-party rule, once a means to an end, instead come to hobble growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment