Posted on 04/14/2025 6:13:48 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The United Kingdom has been in managed decline since 2008. The dismal performance of the British economy -- characterized by slow growth, low productivity, and stagnant wages -- has been the subject of much analysis in recent years. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has highlighted that the UK's recovery from the 2008 financial crisis has been the slowest on record, even weaker than the recovery following the Great Depression in the 1930s and the early 1920s slump.
The authors have spent part of their careers in Singapore and have written extensively on the city-state’s economic growth since its independence. On several occasions, we have been asked about what lessons the Singapore experience might hold for Britain. We believe that an assessment of just what lessons can be derived from the Singapore’s policy-mix that would be of relevance to Britain’s economic stewards would be useful.
The Record
Before we proceed with the “lessons” part of this article, it would be useful to briefly compare the economic performance of both countries since the 1960s when Singapore became an independent nation-state. UK’s economic growth experience needs to be measured against comparable developed economies such as France, Germany, the EU area and the US. As a rapidly developing country, Singapore for much of its history is not comparable to a matured economy like the UK. Nevertheless, Singapore’s per capita GDP had already exceeded Britain’s by 2010 ($47.2 thousand and $39.6 thousand respectively in current US dollars). For all intents and purposes, Singapore can be broadly considered as a developed market economy by 2000 when Singapore’s per capita GDP was slightly less than the UK’s according to World Bank data.
SNIP
Not Keynesian and Not Fabian
Perhaps the single most important aspect of the Singapore government’s approach to public policy is its core conservatism, or rather classical liberalism, that reflects the insights of Adam Smith. One of the abounding ironies that stand out in this tale of two nations is how Singapore’s social and economic policies reflect Smithian insights into the wealth of nations more so than in the great sage’s own homeland. We submit that the remarkable economic success of the small city-state, with a population of under 6 million, reflects Smith’s aphorism rather well:
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
The tone set by Singapore’s visionary first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, widely respected as “father of the nation”, is crucial to understanding Singapore’s governing philosophy. Lee—famously referred to in the 1960s as “the best bloody Englishman east of Suez” by British Foreign Minister George Brown-- tasked his key right-hand man Dr. Goh Keng Swee to serve as the economic architect of what has become known as the Singapore economic miracle. A key principle that Dr. Goh held to steadfastly explains the contrast between the dismal performance of Great Britain and the stellar one of Singapore’s.
Dr. Goh was determined with his insistence on prudent public finance. Dr. Goh was a Victorian through and through. He wrote favorably, for example, about the British “self-help” moral reformer Samuel Smiles. According to Goh, the cardinal virtue of state was the principle that the public budget should be in balance, if not in surplus, and that deficits were to be tolerated only in extraordinary circumstances. Dr Goh’s early advocacy of prudent fiscal and monetary policies—unusual in the 1960s and early 1970s when neo-Keynesian policies were in vogue around the world-- helped to establish a sound basis for the “easy taxes” favoured by Adam Smith. This was in keeping with Adam Smith’s dictum that “what is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom.”
Compare that to the experience of post-war UK (except for the Thatcher interregnum) where a liberal Keynesian/Fabian consensus indulged in profligacy to win elections and construct a paternalist welfare state with endemic budget deficits and inflation. In its application to public finance, the tenets of popular Keynesianism were directly opposed to the Smithian virtues of prudence and small government with “easy taxes.” Lord Keynes himself seemingly believed that a small group of enlightened policymakers would, for the greater public good, defy sectional and vested interests which clamoured for public handouts.
The spendthrift public policies of the British welfare state —and ensuing fiscal meltdowns and foreign exchange crises including begging bowl visits to the IMF – have been widely written upon. The open border, and the lavish benefits accorded to illegal immigrants, over the past several years have only added to the burdens of the welfare state on taxpayers.
Reflective of the stark contrast between the Britain’s liberal welfare state and Singapore’s flinty approach to state-aid for the destitute and the disabled can be seen in their relative tax rates. Singapore’s flat corporate tax rate of 17% is significantly lower than the UK’s main rate of 25%. The city-state’s lack of capital gains taxes gives it an edge for businesses with significant investment gains. Singapore’s incentives for startups and exemptions further enhance its appeal for new or growing businesses.
Singapore’s top personal income tax rate (24%) is much lower than the UK’s (45%), and its exemption of capital gains and dividends contrasts sharply with the UK’s taxation of these income types. Furthermore, the difference in import duties between Great Britain and the “free port” of Singapore with zero-duty tariffs on almost all its imports adds to the overall tax differential.
UK’s Godly NHS vs. Singapore’s Co-Pay Health System
The healthcare systems of the two countries provide another interesting vantage point in assessing the differences between the political leaderships and characteristic governing philosophies of the two countries. It should be noted that in the UK, with the significant exception of the Thatcher years, the Conservative and Labour governments shared the same fundamental beliefs in social and economic policy orientation.
The NHS is the closest thing British people have to a religion. No politician can dare announce it is not fit for purpose, nor even hint to allowing some level of privatization in the institution. Yet, despite spending approximately 20–30% higher per capita than Singapore, Britain’s health system yields inferior outcomes. Singapore boasts one of the world’s highest life expectancies at 84.8 years, compared to Britain’s 80.4 years and in terms of another key indicator--healthy life expectancy at birth—Singapore beats the UK by 3.5 years
Stark differences in the healthcare systems show up in other ways as well. Estimates based on NHS data show that the median wait for elective (non-emergency) procedures like hip replacements or cataract surgery is around 12-14 weeks, with over 6 million people on waiting lists by late 2024. Comparable waiting times in Singapore hospitals are 2 – 4 weeks.
Singapore’s founding political leaders like Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee, both having lived and studied in England, realized that free healthcare sounded “civilized” but was bound to fail once human nature and system incentives were considered. A key part of their healthcare system was ensuring that hospital charges involved some level of “co-paying” to ensure that no abuse of a free service was involved.
The government introduced the “Medisave” scheme where every employee had to contribute a portion of his or her salary to a medical insurance system that covered part of the costs of healthcare. Ensuring there was no incentive-dissipating pooling system, each Medisave account can only be used by the corresponding contributing employee. Being aware that sovereign consumers know best of their own needs, the government ensured that all healthcare providers, public and private, displayed their costs so that patients could assess the costs of treatments upfront. Consumers could choose their own level of services and amenities regarding their healthcare (private or semi-private hospital wards, for example) On almost every count, where UK’s NHS absolved people of responsibility, Singapore ensured that the health system did not entertain free riders.
SNIP
I wish our congress would read this article.
The UK has no Leadership and will soon be controlled by a Cult
UK...none of the above.
I never saw graffiti in Singapore.
WAAAAAAYYYYYY before 2008. Think 1945! It looked and behaved like sh*t when I lived there in 2003. I left as soon as I could.
Kind of does have a familiar ring to it.
demographics, too, have consequences
One of my friends worked there for ten or twenty years for a major bank. He loved living there.
True. And UK is becoming a third world muslim country. They will soon be like some of the poorest nations in Africa.
True. a handful of the Moslems are sane, intelligent, and relatively peaceable. And some go into useful trades and professions. But the mass of the Islamic invasion are destroying UK. Great Britain (and USA and France and several more western nations that have let the invaders in en masse) are headed straight down to Perdition. France and a couple more are already lost causes. It is so sad.
Singapore, coming out of a hostile and violent “multi-culti” colonial and independence history, has sought unity and worked hard to create a national unity - based on Chinese culture above all - but open to Indian and Malay minorities.
The UK has done the exact opposite - it is destroying its once unified and homogenous culture, in the wicked marxist name of “diversity.” It seeks disunity.
I spent vacation days in Singapore in 2016. Tour guide told us there are no unemployment benefits in Singapore. All able bodied persons are required to work until reaching retirement age. Result is unemployment rate is near zero.
Yes, the US could use some of Singapore’s ideas on acting like civilized human beings. There have been shootings daily recently. So many across the country that the Chicago numbers have gone to the wayside. Protesting that the sun rose this morning will be next. Enough with the protests. Why should ordinary citizens need to check where the protests will be in their city so they can take an alternate route to get their kids to school. Not that schools are any safer.
We both need to boot the illegals and lock down the borders. And stop the money flow. Illegals should never have received a dime of US taxpayer dollars. $3500 EBT, luxury hotels with maid service, cell phones, health care, education, etc.
The money also needs to be cut on SNAP. The maximum monthly SNAP benefit for a four-person household in Texas is $939. Remember the $939 SNAP is 70% (70/30 split) of the $1350/mo the government thinks it takes to feed a family of 4. That is 3 TIMES MORE than this household’s food budget, which we usually stay under, so thanks to us not living off steak and lobster so others can, grrrr. Duh, of course, they can sell their “food stamps” for 50 cents on the dollar since the beginning. With homemade breads and yogurt, yesterday’s breakfast was yogurt and oranges, lunch was egg salad sandwiches and dinner bbq chicken buns so nothing exciting but decent enough and stayed well below $3.75/day/person budget. If we can do it without batting an eye, certainly an EBT family can.
The maximum monthly income for a 4-person household to be eligible for SNAP in Texas is $4,125. Excuse me?!? We’ve never seen a monthly income of anywhere close to that much but are doing just fine. I cobbled together the Inauguration Congressional Luncheon with what we had at the house (no steaks or truffles and substituted fresh crabcakes with imitation crab) for $3/plate including dessert and had enough leftovers to make a $0 veggie soup the next day. Can’t imagine the cost we taxpayers forked over for that meal so no wonder they hand out $$$ willy nilly. I would love to make the menu for Congress’ dining halls for a week.
Diversity works fine in Singapore. Population is a mix of Chinese, Indians & Arabs. 1/3 of workers are foreign. Anyone causing trouble is promptly reported, never allowed to return and earn high wages in Singapore. Result is everyone behaves.
There are no food stamps in Singapore. Able bodied persons must work.
Lots of gobbledygook above.
Singapore has become rich because of things that have nothing to do with people or management or governance.
It’s geography.
For 100s of years, ships going up the east coast of Asia from Europe and India have generally stopped for provisions, fuel, whatever, and they stop in Singapore because of the great harbor. Money comes ashore with crew on liberty and to buy those provisions.
100s of years. They would have to screw up horribly to NOT be rich. It was almost inevitable.
Cause Singapore is full of realistic Asians who got taught a huge lesson from jap occupation the Brits missed
And now weak whites in Britain are allowing minority interlopers who actually are a smaller % than here extract a pound of flesh from them
They at least a big chunk of white Brits are pathetic
Similar to self hating neurotic white libs here
Something like that
IQ. Britain is full of Indians (the smartest came from the 50s to the 90s) Africans Pakistanis and other humanoids. The kalergi plan in full effect. The broom to sweep away Edom, if you will. But something tells me the chicoms /WEF are perfectly fine with this for different reasons. These freaks will inherit the earth.
Liberalism always has failed; Conservativism always has succeeded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.