Instigator / Pro
0
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic
#1408

Singapore is a successful example of Socialism

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

From the State owning most of the land, most of the housing, and a big percentage of the economy in sovereign wealth funds and state holding companies Singapore is exactly what 19th century market socialists like John Stewart Mills had in mind https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/09/how-capitalist-is-singapore-really/ The Singaporean state owns 90 percent of the country’s land. Remarkably, this level of ownership was not present from the beginning. In 1949, the state owned just 31 percent of the country’s land. It got up to 90 percent land ownership through decades of forced sales, or what people in the US call eminent domain.

The Singaporean state does not merely own the land. They directly develop it, especially for residential purposes. Over 80 percent of Singapore’s population lives in housing constructed by the country’s public housing agency HDB. The Singaporean government claims that around 90 percent of people living in HDB units “own” their home. But the way it really works is that, when a new HDB unit is built, the government sells a transferable 99-year lease for it. The value of that lease slowly declines as it approaches the 99-year mark, after which point the lease expires and possession of the HDB unit reverts back to the state. Thus, Singapore is a land where almost everyone is a long-term public housing tenant.

Then there are the state-owned enterprises, which they euphemistically call Government-linked Companies (GLCs). Through its sovereign wealth fund Temasek, the Singaporean government owns a large share (20% or more) of 20 companies (2012 figure). Together these companies make up 37% of the market capitalization of the Singaporean stock market. The state also owns a large share of 8 real estate investment trust (REIT) companies (2012 figure), which they call GLREITs. The value of the GLREITs make up 54% of the country’s total REIT market.

The sovereign wealth fund Temasek doesn’t just own domestic assets. It also is invested broadly throughout the world, especially in other Asian countries. In March of last year, Temasek had a net portfolio value of S$275 billion, which is equal to around 62% of the country’s annual GDP. To put this figure in more familiar terms, Temasek’s total holdings are equivalent to if the US government built a $12.4 trillion wealth fund.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t generally associate state ownership of the means of production with capitalism. One way to see whether libertarians or conservatives actually think Singapore’s system is uber-capitalistic is to imagine how they would respond to someone who ran a campaign in the US aimed at bringing the country up to the Singaporean ideal.

A Few Admiring Words for “Crypto-Socialist” SingaporeMalaysia gained independence from the UK in 1957, then Singapore was maneuvered into joining the Federation of Malaya in 1963. However, it was expelled two years later.

Singapore shall forever be a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society.Now, more than five decades later, Singapore is acknowledged as the country with the highest quality of life in Asia, and one of the highest in the world. It has strong and effective government, extremely low corruption rates, and some of the best social policies on Earth.

It is also, wrongly, perceived by many in the West as an ‘extremely capitalist’, business-oriented nation.

About time to ‘re-visit’ Singapore!

What has been achieved here since independence? What was the dream, the vision of Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), the country’s first Prime Minister, who governed with an iron fist but also with great foresight, determination and compassion?

Is Singapore really a ‘Mecca’ of capitalism, or is it, perhaps, a crypto-Communist or at least a socialist country; a ‘ban Communism but do it their way’ kind of nation?

Yes, the country is ‘transparent’, ‘open for business’, a great ‘magnet for foreign companies’. But investment does not disappear in deep pockets of local elites; instead everyone benefits here. And the government decides who is welcomed and who is not, and in which direction the country should be developing. Singapore is a curious hybrid of a controlled and planned economy, and of what is known as ‘free market’.https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/09/a-few-admiring-words-for-crypto-socialist-singapore/

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

PRO's CASE:
CON challenged and ignored all of PRO's submissions in debate description, R1, and R2 because all content was unoriginal cut & paste. PRO's R3, R4, R5, do address a few of CON's arguments but PRO never made an affirmative case.
CON's CASE:
I. Singapore is too unique to make a good example for other nations
PRO conceded that Singapore is unique but argued that Singapore is admired by Taiwan and China. CON documented that China does admire Singapore as a model for political domination but not as a Socialist model. No evidence for Singapore's influence on Taiwan was offered.
Singapore is a fluke: an artifact of empire now sustained by oil and gambling and shady banking. Singapore is an unsustainable island projected to lose more than a quarter of its precious land mass to sea level rise over the next 80 years while the oil dependent country does little to save itself. Nations emulate Singapore at their peril.
II. Singapore is not particularly democratic
PRO conceded in R3 that Singapore is not democratic but dropped CON's argument that refuting dictatorship does not increase evidence of democracy. CON criticized both of PRO's sources and PRO offered no defense.
There is not point to talking about market socialism or the balance of capitalism and socialism in a society without the freedom of speech or assembly. Lee Hsien Loong controls the means of production, not Singaporeans. Lee Hsien Loong controls supply and demand. Should Singaporeans dare to go on strike or protest for a higher wage and they will discover who is in control- as labor leaders now decades in prison without charges or trial have discovered before.
III. Singapore is not particularly socialist
PRO has not addressed CON's important contention that Socialism is not possible without Democracy. Pro's online interview with one random Singaporean (let's hope) confirms CON's complaint well enough:
I think the near-single-party government also played a big role because the normative policies need not give in to populism but continues to be anchored on foresight and good judgements. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1408/singapore-is-a-successful-example-of-socialism

---

Pro, please consider what problems you would have with the above as a vote, then apply correction you would want on that to your argument style.

Actual vote:
First of all minor plagiarism (could also be classified as forfeiting three of the rounds...). Pro's copy/paste could only be considered borderline acceptable in R1 to introduce the theme he wants to discuss (and then, it still should have been marked clearly as quotations). After that, it systematically dropped all of con's arguments (see numbered headings above). To leave them dropped so completely across two rounds and then challenged, ruins the holistic framework of the debate. The one highlight pro attempted was an interview, to which he highlighted and explained nothing, making con's interpretation that it proved pro wrong the only interpretation under consideration (always be careful with double edged swords).