[anigbrowl]

Singapore was run from London until 1959, when it was granted independence (it declared complete independence from the commonwealth in 1963). At that time it already had the highest GDP per capita in Asia; the first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew essentially ruled the country until 1990. Known as Harry to his friends, he attended an elite prep school in Singapore and later studied at the London School of Economics. He developed the institutions that were already present in Singapore rather than having to build them from scratch, and I think most people would agree that his governance was pretty paternalistic.

I personally think the British are pretty good at this sort of thing, and I say that as a native of a former British colonial possession myself.

[notahacker]

His governance was very paternalistic; far more so than the pluralist democracy the British would have preferred to leave behind. As much as I'd love our fine educational institutions to take the credit for Lee Kuan Yew, I figure that we'd also then have to take the blame for Saif al-Islam Gadaffi, amongst many post-colonial Prime Ministers, Presidents, Ministers and faction leaders who had the privilege but not the vision.

Singapore might have had one of the higher GDPs in Asia at the time of independence, but most of the population lived in absolute poverty - the government-financed apartment blocks, vast industrial estates on reclaimed land and most of the financial centre came afterwards, as did the country's appearance in top ten GDP per capita lists. I don't find it particularly easy to believe that the same >7% average annual growth rate would have been achieved if we were in charge.

I think Hong Kong and Singapore are pretty exceptional as former colonial powers go (with a shared characteristic more obvious than British rule being the high proportion of culturally Chinese people) and I am British.

[anigbrowl]

We're largely on the same page, I think. I certainly don't wish to denigrate the work, ideas, and motivations of post-colonial governance where it has been a success. And you're right as well that the British probably hoped to see Singapore develop in a somewhat less authoritarian direction than it did, or to discriminate less heavily in favor of ethnic Chinese people rather than Malays and Indians, as was the case until fairly recently.

I'm inclined to give a few extra points to the British colonial legacy, despite numerous moral and political failings along the way because their former possessions seem to have come out somewhat ahead of other countries' former possessions as independent nations. It's entirely possible that this has more to do with some basic factor like fluency in the English language, rather than any administrative genius. Among ex-British success stories (none without reservation or controversy) I'd count HK, Singapore, India, Ireland, Israel, the USA, Canada, NZ and Australia. Other places, such as Pakistan and Jamaica and various middle eastern countries, have had less success.

BTW, I'm Irish if you were wondering about the cultural context. So we've had the experience of being independent for longer than many other former territories, but still being partly colonized (northern Ireland) in the view of a few; among people's grudges are things like pre-industrial negligent genocide (famine next door? who cares) and post-industrial political oppression (from 1916 to very recently up north), but on the other hand we were arguably better off insofar as we were ruled directly from London and represented in the British parliament (prior to independence) rather than through a governor or privy council.

Like the US, as soon as we gained independence from Britain we constituted ourselves as a republic with an elected president (although our constitution is a very boring read by comparison), but unlike the US almost all power is vested in the parliament, which runs almost exactly like the British one, and our legal system is exactly like the British one - barristers, wigs, freemasons and so on ;-)

Seriously though, this is the heart of my point: all the countries that were formerly part of the British empire have held onto Britain's common law legal system with few major changes, even though they may have reorganized their political system substantially. American law has been the most highly developed spinoff of this, because with both a federal system and 50 different states, it's larger and more diverse than the law in most other countries, including Britain itself.

Other former colonial powers such as France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands left their colonies with civil law systems derived to varying degrees from Roman and Napoleonic codes. It's too much to go into here but a key characteristic of such systems is a much stronger weight for statutory law and a court system where judges hold more of a prosecutorial role and there is less emphasis on trial by jury. I personally feel this leads a more unitary style of government where power flows from the top down and that this inhibits social and economic development somewhat. Others consider that more democratic - a philosophical issue that won't be resolved here.