Singapore: A Model for Hong Kong
Kelvin Tan
Chinese officials, hoping to subordinate political freedom in favor of economic rights in
Hong Kong, would do well to examine how this situation evolved in Singapore.
Singapore: A Model for Hong Kong
Kelvin Tan
The world looked on as Hong Kong passed from British
to Chinese
control on 1 July 1997. Never before in history
has sovereignty over a
city-state passed from a capitalist democratic
power to a socialist
authoritarian one. The burden of administering
a successful transition lies
squarely on the shoulders of the Chinese government.
The stakes in this
trial are high; failure could result in international
approbation while
success would mean stability and prosperity and
could also favorably
affect the outcome of the Taiwan issue.
To guide this unprecedented transition, Chinese
officials might do well to
examine the political model that Singapore offers,
as Micheal Davis,
Professor of Law and Public Affairs at the Chinese
University of Hong
Kong implied during his speech at the 1996 Conference
on Hong Kong
at Princeton.1 Davis mentioned the Singaporean
model in the context of
discussing the potential deprivation of human
rights and freedom of
speech in Hong Kong under the new administration.
Singapore's
government is viewed as an authoritarian regime
in which individual rights
are suppressed for the welfare of the community.
The purpose of this
paper is not to confirm or reject the utility
of Singapore as a model for
the future development of Hong Kong. Rather,
the intent of the following
discussion is to recognize the lessons that the
development of Singapore's
political system provides to Hong Kong's future
development.
Singaporean Relevance
We should first examine the reasons why the PRC
is interested in the
Singaporean model for Hong Kong. It is clear
why the authoritarian
political model appeals to the PRC. Furthermore,
Singapore's
phenomenal economic success has won over many
admirers who attempt
to emulate its success. Singaporean leaders,
well-aware of the leverage
that their economic track record provides them,
have defended their
position on human rights, boldly arguing for
a concept of positive human
rights that views the right to economic well-being
as important as the
freedom of political expression. On a more concrete
level, Singapore
provides a example where economic freedom and
prosperity co-exist
within a political authoritarian framework. This
juxtaposition is in keeping
with China's declared intent to separate the
economic realm from the
political in Hong Kong after 1997.
Different Experiences
It is tempting to make trite comparisons when
discussing Hong Kong and
Singapore. The physical attributes of these two
city states are strikingly
similar. Hong Kong has a population of six million
and has close to three
times the land mass of Singapore which has a
population of 2.8 million.
The economic success stories of these two Asian
tigers have much in
common. Despite being bereft of natural resources,
both have achieved
annual growth rates higher than 7% through entrepot
trade, financial
markets, and manufacturing. Because it has a
predominantly overseas
Chinese population, Singapore shares the same
Southern Chinese cultural
legacy as Hong Kong as well as the same colonial
master, Great Britain.
These superficial similarities, however, mask
the underlying differences,
the most important of which is each nation's
source of economic success.
Given the almost identical factor endowments,
as well as the relatively
similar development records, one might suppose
that the factors driving
economic development in these two city-states
are roughly similar. This
assumption is very far from the truth. One of
the greatest quandaries
faced by the editors of the World Bank's East
Asian Miracle report was
to reconcile the contradictory conclusions that
Hong Kong and
Singapore's development experiences provide.
The minimal extent of
government influence in Hong Kong seems to imply
that success was
achieved by a laissez-faire system. On the other
hand, the Singaporean
government's successful intervention in the economy
of fers a strong
argument for government intervention in the development
process.
This discrepancy raises two potential problems
in the application of the
Singaporean model. The first is evident; given
that the nature of economic
success in these two countries is significantly
different, it might be the
case that heavy-handed political control is complementary
to Singapore's
government-led development but incompatible with
Hong Kong's
laissez-faire economic growth.
Conditions for Depoliticization
A more subtle consideration questions the applicability
of depoliticized
rule. One could argue that Singaporean citizens
willingly cede political
control to the governing party because of its
success in bringing about
economic development. Singapore is a constitutional
democracy in which
citizens have the power to vote out the governing
party every four years. The governing People's
Action Party has adroitly
bought political obedience with economic success.
In Hong Kong, on the
other hand, where economic success is attributed
to private
entrepreneurs rather than to the state, people
are less likely to relinquish
their political rights.
The interaction between the political arena and
economic arena in
Singapore must be examined. This incongruous
mix of political control
and economic freedom does not imply that the
two are separate realms.
Chinese officials, hoping to create a similar
situation in Hong Kong,
would do well to examine how this situation evolved
in Singapore.
One could argue that this separation was always
present in Hong Kong.
For the majority of British rule, from 1842 until
the late 1980s, the Hong
Kong people did not have democracy and were content
to live a
depoliticized existence under the British. In
Singapore, the fight for
independence and self-determination necessitated
a politicization of
society after which leaders had to justify depoliticization
on grounds of
economic pragmatism. In Hong Kong, this never
occurred.
For this reason, one cannot assume that a depoliticized
society under a
minimalist government is no different from a
depoliticized society under
one of the last remaining communist regimes in
the world. The
depoliticization under the British in Hong Kong
was a tacit agreement
made under certain assumptions and conditions,
the most important of
which was the provision for the defense of Hong
Kong against
communist China. It is thus understandable that
many Hong Kong people
want to reevaluate this depoliticization since
the take-over by communist
China.
Meritocracy vs Capitalist Oligarchy
Another difference that questions the validity
of these comparisons is the
different paradigms of political leadership found
in Singapore and Hong
Kong. Singapore operates on a technocratic system
in which a
politician's claim to office rests on academic
merit and performance in the
bureaucracy. Hong Kong, by comparison has an
oligarchic structure
derived from a commercial society in which entrepreneurial
success
brings social respectability. Beijing has used
this situation to its advan
tage by co-opting the local business community
and vesting political
authority with successful entrepreneurs. Beijing
also realizes that it has a
significant amount of leverage over these entrepreneurs,
offering them a
tremendous business opportunities on the mainland.
It is no wonder that
Tung Chee Hwa, Chief Executive of the Hong Kong
Special
Administrative Region is a shipping magnate with
a substantial amount of
investments in China. Furthermore, it is hardly
surprising that in the past
PRC banks have 0saved his shipping company from
bankruptcy.
Given this interest-driven symbiotic relationship
between Hong Kong's
oligarchic leadership and the leadership in Beijing,
one may expect the
general populace to be less willing to yield
on political issues as
compared to their counterparts in Singapore.
Lessons Learned
Having realized the inadequacy of these superficial
comparisons, what
then are the appropriate lessons to be drawn
from Singapore's political
experience? The first would be the importance
of continued probity and
integrity in the government's handling of economic
affairs. The relative
lack of corruption in Singapore's political leadership
has been the primary
reason for both the economic efficiency and people's
willingness to trust
the government with a great amount of political
discretion. Given a
choice, many Hong Kong people would prefer a
fair and just government
to a channel to voice their displeasure at a
corrupt leadership. This is not
to say that a clean government can ever be a
substitute for political
freedom or obviate the need for democratic reform.
However, an upright
political leadership will quell demands for greater
political freedom and
result in a more controlled and less unstable
democratic transition.
In this respect, Hong Kong faces a more difficult
problem than Singapore
because an oligarchic structure is unquestionably
more prone to
corruption than a technocratic one. What is necessary,
therefore, is the
cultivation of an indigenous technocratic leadership
within the civil
service. The British have given Hong Kong a responsible
and efficient
bureaucracy. The laissez-faire system of government
however, has meant
that this bureaucracy lacks initiative and leadership.
In the future this civil
service must take on an increasingly prominent
role. The recent defense
of the Hong Kong dollar against speculative attacks
demonstrates that
the civil service is at the forefront of policy
formulation and execution.
Over time, the credibility of the civil service
could increase, and a
technocratic leadership paradigm could emerge.
One can see how this
development is a pre-requisite for a smooth democratic
transition
because a strong, pro-active and apolitical civil
service can provide
stability during the tumultuous times in which
early democracies find
themselves.
In analyzing the use of Singapore as a model of
Hong Kong's future
political development, I have paid special attention
to the dynamic
aspects of the issues and pointed to the inadequacies
of static analyses of
these issues. Snap-shot portraits of these political
system often fail to
uncover the historical factors that have led
to the present situation as well
as the forces of change within the present system.
In the case of
Singapore, the interplay of political forces
and the exchange and
bargaining process between agents in the political
arena has led to a
depoliticized state of affairs, a change from
the heavily politicized society
immediately following independence. In Hong Kong,
it is perhaps a
reverse process that is being witnessed.
Notes:
1 Hong Kong Conference, December 6-7, 1996, Princeton
University.
