[mc32]

Singapore, like other ex-Colonies in SEAsia prove that having been a colony is not an excuse for not doing well. HK, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea were heavily colonized yet after emerging as independent states were able to overcome difficulties, educate their people, take what they learned from their colonizers and have become leading economies of the world.

Governance is more important than one’s history when it come to success of a country.

[boelboel]

Most these countries had decent literacy and industry/proto-industrial base before WW2 or before becoming independent states. Singapore itself was richer than Spain in 1960 and one of the richest cities in its region despite the slums. This is why it makes no sense for example to compare China or India, they were just in a fundamentally different spot.

Regardless many of the strategies these countries used are increasingly difficult for low income countries to do as these countries (China is the biggest example) themselves are protective of these industries, there's no push for globalizing and as factories got increasingly automated.

That's not to say that I believe governance isn't important but the one's history is important for governance itself.

[ggm]

Absolutely agree. There's a lot of "yes, but.." in this for me, but the simple economics are pretty clear: post colonial asian states like this do fantastically well.

Cost of housing in HK is going to be an embuggerance if they don't fix that, it may bifurcate into a more strong over/underclass imbalance. Taiwan is amazing but has thinner underpinnings now the US has demanded chip manufacturing moves to continental USA and the water supply issue is huge.

But your central point I agree with strongly: fix education, health, housing and provide at least some representation and you can do so much better than being a colonial outpost of somewhere else sucking value out.

[rrvsh]

This is a false dichotomy - the nature of the colony matters a LOT more than you allude to here. Singapore got a heck of a lot better deal as a colony than e.g. African colonies because we didn't get ruthlessly exploited and instead just used for our seaport primarily

[mytailorisrich]

The issue has never been previous status as colony but society and culture (East Asian countries and Sinpgapore are all part of the sinosphere culturally).

[ggm]

I don't think that's entirely true. Britain forced colonies to export only when beneficial to the domestic British market and forced them to import to benefit the domestic British market: India may have produced cotton, but under colonialism it had to import cotton goods from the UK.

Japan did not view Korea as a place to enrich for anyone's benefit but Japan. The same with their occupation of Taiwan.

[forthworld]

avg western history expert ,colonialism isn't an excuse bro, look at singapore and south Korea. Just govern better. skill issue. HK and singapore weren't traditional colonies, they were literally just offshore vaults the british built to process the wealth they looted from the rest of asia. they inherited global trade infrastructure on day one. and taiwan and korea? japan actually built factories and forced mass literacy / primary education

meanwhile the british spent 200 years intentionally destroying pre-existing industries just to kill competition, and then dipped leaving 90% of the population illiterate , zero human capital. also US allowed Taiwan and South Korea access to market , and allow protect their own domestic markets.