Singapore vs. Jamaica – is the Rasta to blame?

It is true that Singapore's leadership has benefited from the island's small size and population. Surely, it is easier to develop a small republic which can be easily controlled and policed.

However, there is more to the story than just size.

In an interesting article entitled, "Jamaica vs. Singapore" Josh Lerner points out the different paths taken by the two countries. Mr. Lerner is a professor of Investment Banking at Harvard Business School.

Comparing Singapore with Jamaica makes sense for many reasons. Both are small countries. Both had populations below five million at independence in 1962 (Jamaica) and 1965 (Singapore). The per capita incomes for Jamaica and Singapore were also similar at independence, USD 2,850 and USD 2,650 respectively.

A few other factors are mentioned by the author.

Both nations had a centrally located port, a tradition of British colonial rule, and governments with a strong capitalist orientation. (Jamaica, in addition, had plentiful natural resources and a robust tourist industry.)

In 2009, the disparities in wealth and standard of living are glaring. Singapore's per capita income is USD 56,000 while Jamaica's stands at USD 9,000. One can cite many other statistics to demonstrate the contrast between the two nations today.

The reasons for the divergent growth rates are many. The author suggests that Singapore's emphasis on education, heavy investment in infrastructure, an open and corruption free economy are key to Singapore's success.

Undoubtedly, all of the above played a part.

The rule of law and the resulting security of capital also played a pivotal role. Capital is a coward. It travels where it feels least afraid. Within the region, Singapore provides the most security.

Many fault the ruling People's Actions Party for their often harsh and draconian approach to development. Yes, it's now time to take a lighter touch in many areas. However, it was necessary to lay a solid foundation in the first few decades after Singapore's independence.

These days 'true blue' Singaporeans complain about a foreign invasion. The reason for the invasion is straightforward. Within Singapore's 'catchment' area, the city affords the best overall quality of life. Therefore, it is a magnet for many of the three billion Chinese and Indian (and the odd P

akistani!) citizens.

Historians and economists can dissect Singapore's policy making initiatives in the decades to come. However, it's always hard to argue with success.

As for Jamaica, its lack of relative success may simply be due to Bob Marley, Rastafarians and the ganja culture. Who needs the '5 Cs' when life's mysteries can be solved by one puff of magical smoke – ask any believer in the Church of Jah?!

Had I a Harvard degree perhaps my speculative observations will be taken more seriously.

Is SISTIC the only ticketing agent in Singapore?

I am a big fan of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra (SSO). The SSO's transition from a 'small town orchestra' based at Victoria Concert Hall to today's world class entity at the Esplanade is very much a personal journey for me.

Victoria Concert Hall is not quite a school auditorium but it is close. The concerts were cheap and tickets easily available. One could generally buy tickets for a show performed the same evening.

Today I have to book weeks in advance and I may not get my preferred seats.

The Esplanade - the new home of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra

I guess the Esplanade experience is a special one. The auditorium exudes the feel of a real classical concert. Many members of the audience are dressed in formal attire. Late-comers are not entertained.

The SSO is not an 'in training' outfit anymore. It hosts international musicians and has a few critically acclaimed recordings to its name.

However, one constant is the role of SISTIC in the ticketing process. I marvel at SISTIC's business model. SISTIC has a license to print money.

Founded in 1991, SISTIC is Singapore's largest ticket selling agency. Its website states that it sells 90% of tickets for all cultural, arts and sports events held in Singapore.

Of course that is not surprising given that there is normally no other way to buy tickets for most events!

There seems to be an unwritten rule that all events at government linked facilities are exclusively sold through SISTIC. Just being the sole distributor for all events at the Esplanade gives SISTIC a big slice of the pie.

How did SISTIC get its business? Why are there no competitors? I have no answers.

I can state that there is little chance to avoid paying SISTIC booking fees (SGD one per ticket) or collection charges (SGD 0.20 – 8.00 depending on method of collection).

All the facts fit right in with what I refer to as 'the Singapore Paradox.' Despite being one of the most open and liberal economies in the world, the Singaporean state remains the biggest owner of businesses and assets in the domestic economy. Typically, the state enjoys a monopoly position in the businesses where it operates.

SISTIC is a private limited company. (I don't know what the acronym stands for.) I could not find any information on SISTIC's ownership or financial status on its website.

Although I could be wrong, I will wager decent money that SISTIC is directly or indirectly owned by the government.

There is no doubt that the government plays a critical role in encouraging the arts and culture scene in Singapore. It cost serious money to build the Esplanade and host the annual Formula-One race. The government spends lots of money to brand Singapore and promote the city as a regional arts hub.

I am sure the SISTIC revenue aids these efforts but the various government ministries' budgets are healthy enough for the purpose.

Now that a large part of the branding journey has been completed, maybe event organizers can encourage the development of new ticketing agencies by allowing newcomers to sell tickets for major events.

In other words, make SISTIC a non-exclusive agent for ticket sales. A monopoly is no longer necessary. The consumer may see benefits through lower (or zero) booking fees.

SISTIC's mission is to "... connect people to entertainment through the provision of innovative systems and best practice services."  For the patron of, well pretty much any high profile event in Singapore, SISTIC is the only way to connect.

Presently, all roads lead to SISTIC. There are no detours.

PS - If someone can point me in the direction of financial and ownership information about SISTIC I will greatly appreciate it.

Counterfeits, pirates, procreation and the Pirate Party

Illegal manufacturing is the scourge of the branded world and creators of intellectual property. From Gucci bags, Hollywood movies to music compact discs, all are illegally available in large quantities in many countries.

Before completely dismissing the notion of 'illegal' products consider instances where it may have some benefits. The controversy over the provision of HIV medication at reasonable prices in sub-Saharan Africa is one case.

The branded pharmaceutical companies spent millions developing the formulas. But can a starving HIV positive patient in Ethiopia afford to pay the price? Should the same patient be denied access to the medication because she cannot pay 'market' rates?

How about the case of celebrities – should anyone buying a pirate DVD really need to feel guilty about denying Hollywood actors a few dollars? Likewise is the case with the music industry and the illegal downloading of music by consumers. Does a multi-million dollar artist really need that extra 50 cents?

The implications of piracy are far more serious for the world than many may believe.

The intellectual debate is just beginning. The paradigm governing copyright laws is at an inflection point. The 'piracy movement' has christened a new political party in Sweden.

The Piratpartiet or Pirate Party, established in 2006, is now the third largest political party in Sweden. The party received 7% of Sweden's popular vote for the 2009 European elections and won two seats in Brussels.

The goals of the Pirate Party may seem wacky to us today but they are setting tomorrow's agenda. Without any doubt, the music industry and Hollywood are watching the rise of a pan-European Pirate Party quite closely.

The official aim of the copyright system has always been to find a balance in order to promote culture being created and spread. Today that balance has been completely lost, to a point where the copyright laws severely restrict the very thing they are supposed to promote. The Pirate Party wants to restore the balance in the copyright legislation.

All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free. File sharing and p2p networking should be encouraged rather than criminalized. Culture and knowledge are good things, that increase in value the more they are shared. The Internet could become the greatest public library ever created.

From the Pirate Party website

In the 1980s, the West German Green Party was a radical fringe party of 'tree huggers' and liberal radicals. The Green Party's agenda is now firmly main stream.

"Tonight your colleague will be sharing files on the Internet. Us too!" The Pirate Party

Given the popularity of the Pirate Party agenda, it will be co-opted into the mainstream soon enough.

For the individual, copyright law is a complicated issue governed by personal conscience. However, the law (as it now stands) is not complicated at all – piracy is illegal.

There is also a distinction between 'piracy' and counterfeit manufacturing.

Counterfeiting is illegal for good reason. The Chinese authorities recently unearthed a fake condom factory in central Hunan province. Employees were using vegetable oil to lubricate the condoms!

I imagine even the Pirate Party full of 'believers in free sex' Swedes will surely draw the line at fake vegetable oil flavoured condoms.

Foreign talent, taxation and Eastern family values

Singapore is a tiny speck on the world map. Many online maps don't bother to even label the island. Yet, billionaires like Bhupendra Kumar Modi are choosing to live in Singapore and not London or New York.

As an international financial centre the city-state has already made its mark.

Daily trading in the foreign exchange markets puts the city in the top five globally. Singapore is a confident new entrant into the big league of private banking centres, propelled by the republic's efficient legal framework and banking privacy laws.

But billionaires don't pick their homes on the basis of FX trading activities or public transport systems. For today's wealthy and globally mobile individuals taxation is a key factor in their choice of legal domicile.

Individuals like Bhupendra Kumar Modi (or Jet Li) scrutinize tax systems carefully before buying penthouses and luxury homes.

Singapore's taxation regime is not often thought off as a competitive strength. But it is.

Yes, the goods and services tax (GST) rate is high but the direct income tax rate is reasonable. Importantly, Singapore's tax regime is liberal in assessing international income.  

Complement the attractive direct taxation regime with world class physical infrastructure, high quality of life and Singapore has the potential of becoming a regional Monte Carlo for the ultra-wealthy.

Wealthy billionaires spend money and pay GST. They hire people and set up offices to manage their global enterprises. Sometimes, as in the case of Mr. Modi, they invest directly in Singapore and the Southeast Asia region.

A Singapore government poster from the 1970s

However, in attracting the ultra-wealthy to Singapore, the city's trump card is its natural embrace of Eastern and Western cultural traditions.

The city has an active nightlife but no drug problem. It has a Hooters restaurant but raunchy cabarets went out of business due to lack of clientele. Homosexuality is tolerated but acceptance of gay marriage is light years away. Public displays of affection are rare but prostitution legal.

Singapore is no longer a city with Victorian values 'recommended' by the government. Nor is it Las Vegas.

Singapore is a city where 'Westernized Easterners' feel comfortable. It is no surprise that many, though not all, of the wealthy who opt to live in Singapore are Asians (Chinese, Indians).

Arguable, Hong Kong has a more attractive taxation regime. It has a more vibrant nightlife. Socially, it is a freer city – one can even join protest marches if that's your thing!

But for most the choice of Singapore (over Hong Kong) is driven by an old fashioned preference for sensible family values. A conservatism which understands that incremental change is typically sustainable and less socially disruptive.

Singapore's foreign talent comes in many forms. Some foreigners build luxury hotels while others pay for the hotels to be built. The people that pay to live in Singapore remind us that Singapore is firmly anchored in the East.

Welcome to Disneyland la!

Upon my arrival in Singapore in the 1990s I was often met with the refrain, 'Welcome to Disneyland.'

Disneyland is a magical kingdom where many delightful events occur. However, Disneyland is an artificial construct with little semblance to the real world.

Expats may live in Disneyland but Singaporeans live in the real world. In fact, Singaporeans have a reputation for complaining. From the cost of living, immigration to cycling on pavements it's all on the Singaporean conversation agenda.

Several factors contribute to Singapore's characterization as a real world Disneyland.

There is the 'nanny state' perception. The idea that the government can and does manage social behaviour closely, witness the ban on chewing gum. Complement social controls with new and well planned physical infrastructure on a small island and you have an 'urban village.'

Village life is nice. Everyone knows each other. There is an order maintained by traditional authority but also by socially sanctioned peer pressure. Most importantly, people in villages generally trust each other because they are not transients. They are permanent.

To the many heads of state that gathered in Singapore for the recent APEC summit the city-state must have appeared like a Fantasyland. The government always makes sure of that for visiting dignitaries.

Nevertheless, to an urban cynic, villagers are naive country bumpkins. And from time to time, the clash between the real world 'doubting Thomas' and Disneyland's fairy tale figures is visible.

Consider the letter in the Straits Times comparing the APEC summit to the Happy Families card game. (I am unfamiliar with the card game but the title is self-explanatory.)

The letter is well written. It demonstrates knowledge of topical global issues. It is optimistic about the future. It celebrates the progress made by Singapore in the last four decades.

Yet, it is self-laudatory about Singapore and its leadership. It is deferential towards authority. It addresses issues superficially at best. At times, the sentiments expressed are naively optimistic.

Of course, in order to have a letter published in the Straits Times it must be all of these things. I reread the content of any letter I submit to the Straits Times many times before hitting the send button.  

It is important that I not get sued for defamation or sedition by the state apparatus!

I guess you can call it social intimidation. Although when one compares it to outright physical assaults for expressing ideas in certain other countries Singapore is really not that bad.

But I digress from the letter to the Straits Times. The letter subtly reminds us we live in a Disneyland of our own making. The social contract is sacred. Each of us has our stations in society. The leadership leads and villagers follow. The distinction is clear.

Of course, Disneyland has modernized itself to survive in the new world. 'Red China' is getting its own Disneyland located in Shanghai. Lilo and Stitch have emerged as new Disney characters.

In order to survive, even Disney's Fantasyland has to change with the times.

The entire text of Mr. Clinton Lim's letter has been reprinted as the previous post.

Apec Summit shows how far we have come

I WAS proud and gratified that Singapore, an impoverished economy just 50 years ago, and a strong advocate of world free trade ever since, fittingly hosted the 20th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) Summit as a First World country.

At the summit, it was like one big happy family sitting down and playing the popular card game Happy Families.

To move forward and make progress, each family member needs to obtain from a fellow member cards he does not have, in exchange for his cards he does not need. In the process, all parties benefit, so they are encouraged to play again.

Apec is a shining example of what can be achieved by world leaders, given the dare, the resolve, the commitment and the belief that economic cooperation and free and freer trade, not protectionism, are the path to recovery from the economic downturn, and to prosperity.

It was magical to see leaders from four of the most powerful world economies - United States President Barack Obama, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev - stand shoulder to shoulder with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in the same room, as they deliberated, chatted freely, moving the region to freer trade. And I hope, they will be the catalyst for the rest of the world to move in the same direction.

Just about every enabler for economic growth and cooperation was addressed in one way or another - boosting domestic demand, balancing short-term pressure with long-term economic stability and infrastructure building, climate change, combating money laundering, fiscal strategies, and regulatory frameworks conducive to support private enterprise, investments and innovation.

Better governance, including and especially ensuring transparency and preventing corruption (a scourge of economic growth), as mentioned briefly by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Mr Medvedev respectively, deserve greater attention than mere lip service.

Perhaps this can be a key topic, which Singapore, given its exemplary track record, will have much to share, the next time Apec leaders play Happy Families again in Yokohama, Japan in November next year.

Clinton Lim

The original letter was published in the Straits Times on November 17, 2009.

Chinese bloggers conference in Lianzhou, Guangdong province