[rayiner]

The location is good, but there are many strategically well located places that are poor today. The people aren’t meaningfully different than the countries around Singapore. A 75% Chinese supermajority, maintained for decades through selective immigration controls. But China itself was as poor as India into the 1990s, while Singapore was rapidly developing long before then.

LKY chalked it up to good, pragmatic policies implemented in a culturally sensitive way: https://paulbacon.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/z.... (Read the whole thing. The first part is about culture, while the second part starting on p. 114 is about how he implemented western economic policies without trying to import western style social policies.) Singapore focused on neoliberalism within a social and cultural framework that accommodates the Chinese, Malay, and Indian communities that compose the country. It focused on anti-corruption and government efficiency, a major weak spot of nearly all developing countries. But it didn’t try to go straight from fishing village to liberal democracy. Like other countries that developed rapidly in Asia (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and now China) development of state capacity and civil institutions happened under soft-authoritarian, one-party rule.

To put it in one sentence: LKY was a bog standard neoliberal who didn’t suffer from the neoconservative delusion that American-style individual rights and populist democracy can be transplanted into any country hand-in-hand with neoliberal economic policies.

[IncreasePosts]

It also strangely helps that Singapore has almost no natural resources to exploit. So, their only resource is what the humans provide. That lead them to invest heavily in professional training instead of using their humans to pull metal out of the ground and ship it off somewhere else.

[elevaet]

Not a natural resource per-se, but Singapore's geographic location is very special wrt global trade and strategy, being at the tip of the Malaysian peninsula and in the Straight of Malacca. It's been a port and a nexus as a result for hundreds of years, a huge part of the equation of Singapore's success story.

edit: wikipedia says 25% of the world's trade flows through the Straight of Malacca - it's a big deal!

[atlasunshrugged]

I strongly second this -- this was also one of my main takeaways from my research on how Estonia modernized and became quite prosperous (especially relative to where it started post re-independence from the Soviet Union).

[HDThoreaun]

Singapore's location on the straight of malacca is one of the most valuable resources in the world. #2 in container throughput worldwide even though they barely manufacture anything.

[boelboel]

China wasn't as poor as India, especially not until 1990s.

[rayiner]

It absolutely was: https://davidoks.blog/p/why-china-got-rich-and-india-didnt (“In 1987, median purchasing-power adjusted income in China was $1.88 per day, compared to $2.94 per day in India. Chinese median wages surpassed Indian ones in the early 2000s.”). Also: https://mgmresearch.com/china-vs-india-gdp-comparison/ (“During 1990, China GDP per capita was 0.9-times of India.”).

[swyx]

as a singaporean its actually kinda funny to hear everyone here describe him as a neoliberal. not quite our lived experience

[rayiner]

I’m using “neoliberal” because it’s the closest American term for someone who supports free markets and free trade. He was an admirer of Friedrich Hayek’s economic ideas while diverging from Hayek’s views on individual liberty.

A better comparison might be Alexander Hamilton or Abraham Lincoln’s view of free markets combined with an interventionist government. But we don’t really have a neat label for that. In the U.S., free markets get conceptually lashed together with individual rights and limited government.