Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/singapore-urges-u-s-to-accept-china-s-rise-spare-other-nations

by shalmanese • 7 years ago

132 189 7 years ago

chewz4• 7 years ago

we also want China to be able to assume its rightful place as it develops and becomes a superpower in its own right,

Singapore economy is depending on trade and prolonged trade war will ruin Singapore with its unsustainable debt.

But how does China 'assuming its rightful place' should look in practical terms? Withdrawing US fleets from Pacific? Allowing East Asia to become China's vasal teritory? Tolerating growing economic and military threat?

thaumasiotes• 7 years ago

But how does China 'assuming its rightful place' should look in practical terms?
Allowing East Asia to become China's vassal territory?

Sure, in much the same way that it was in the past, and in much the same way that all of North and South America are vassals to the United States.

It is not realistic for East and even Southeast Asian countries to care more about what the US thinks than what China thinks; I don't understand how people can advocate for this goal with a straight face.

NotPaidToPost4• 7 years ago

East Asia is vassal to the US at the moment...

I think countries like Singapore, Korea, etc do not want the US, Korea, to leave. They are between a rock and a hard place and want to balance the US and China in order not to become too dependent on one and to benefit from both.

Singapore, which is quite "China-friendly" is saying exactly that.

What I find interesting is that the West in general, and obviously the US in particular, indeed cannot seem to imagine or accept that their complete dominance of the world is coming to an end. This is a rude awakening.

Singapore, which has an history of promoting "Asian values" and is a former British colony with 70%+ ethnic Chinese is very well place to tell us things as they are.

zaphirplane• 7 years ago

South America is not a US vassals. Some of the tiny countries that were invaded have strong dependency on the US. But Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Venezuela

I struggle to believe they are. Where ever did you get that idea from

calf• 7 years ago

It's easy to understand if you agree that US hypocrisy is crucially protected by manufactured consent and propaganda. Most people fall in two categories, either a) not heard of Chomsky, or b) think he's wrong.

dx0342• 7 years ago

Any nation of the Singapore's size would be ruined without trade. That's independent of debt levels, Singapore has to specialize and just cannot run a self-sustaining economy.

87txH5G4• 7 years ago

FYI, the Singapore public debt is objectively not unsustainable. On the surface, Singapore's public debt-to-GDP ratio is at around 110%, which is slightly higher than the US. Over the course of Singapore's history, each term of the government operated on a balanced budget (i.e., revenue >= expenditure). The government bonds are issue to "develop the domestic debt market". In fact, the government is legally not allowed to spend the proceed of the public debt.

For more information, see https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/is-it-fiscally-sustaina....

jacques_chester• 7 years ago

Running short and long term debt balances to create financial market liquidity isn't uncommon. When Australia reached zero long-term debt in the early 2000s, the government continued raising and retiring hundreds of billions of dollars of debt on a regular cadence to provide AUD liquidity in the debt markets.

rgbrenner• 7 years ago

China is highly unlikely to undermine the U.S.-led global system given it has been one of its biggest beneficiaries, Balakrishnan said.

They undermine it every day they refuse to allow free trade. The US and others spent a lot of resources building the free trade system of the world... and China wants the benefits of selling into that global market, while reserving their own market for themselves.

Every day they are not confronted on this, they send out the message to every other country that free trade with other countries does not require you to open your own markets. They encourage the breakdown of trade and the closure of global markets.

Confronting China on this today is the US asking China not to undermine the global system that has helped enrich China. Not to burn the bridge after they're finished with it (that many countries have used to pull themselves out of poverty: vietnam, korea, taiwan, japan, and even singapore).

Barrin922• 7 years ago

As Milton Friedman has pointed out, the loser of protectionist policies are the countries that practice them. If China wants to subsidize its industries and sell Americans cheap goods then that is primarily an issue for the Chinese people, not for American consumers.

Absorbing global manufacturing has made Americans the richest people with the highest purchasing power on the planet, has subjected American companies to competition that no other country has experienced, and has made them more productive as a result. Why would any American want their government to give in to the same mercantilism that China practises, at the expense of their own people? To maintain jobs that pollute the local environment and are largely going to be automated away anyway?

The central issue which makes this call for retaliation so intuitive (but mistaken) is that the plight of people who lose their jobs to trade is tangible. The steel worker is a person we can picture. But the collective welfare we all gain by the cheap imports from a country like China is invisible. Industries have lobbies, consumers don't.

coldtea8• 7 years ago

As Milton Friedman has pointed out, the loser of protectionist policies are the countries that practice them.

Milton Friedman says that because he's a policy advisor of countries that benefit from others dropping their protectionist policies.

At a certain state of development (and when you are not yet top dog to dictate what "free" trade means to other countries), you need some well balanced protectionist policies. The US itself rose thanks to its protectionist policies. Britain too -- as did all others major powers when it served them well.

"Britain was the first country to successfully use a large-scale infant industry promotion strategy. However, its most ardent user was the U.S.; the economic historian Paul Bairoch once called it "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism"

coldtea8• 7 years ago

They undermine it every day they refuse to allow free trade. The US and others spent a lot of resources building the free trade system of the world...

I.e. the kind of trade that they dictate and call "free", creating banana republics that cut them special deals, toppling governments when they don't like their decisions, using humanitarian and development funding (even from supposedly independent sources, like the IMF) as bribes and pressure to secure special treatment , insisting on the dollar being used in major trade as opposed to the euro or the yuan (and punishing those states that make the opposite "free" decision), getting their hands on oil producing countries, and so on.

And of course using protectionism whenever they like for themselves ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... ).

Some free trade...

mistermann6• 7 years ago

I think you raise a lot of valid points, the US is hardly innocent on a historic global basis.

That being said, what's your take on China's behavior specifically, do you believe they are acting in a "fair" manner? Do you believe the advantages they enjoy are all justified? (Note: for the sake of this argument only, karmic payback for US historic behavior is not considered a valid justification.)

EDIT: I'm curious why explicitly acknowledging valid points but then asking a clear and specific question (that excludes these points as they are not directly relevant to current trade with China) is being downvoted? Downvotes for disagreement are appropriate according to HN guidelines (or they used to be), but I'm not asserting anything, I am literally asking a serious question.

wallace_f2• 7 years ago

The US does this, but I'm glad it's a country where we value being able to openly criticize our government for it.

We have an independent judiciary, democratic institutions--what are structural Separations of Powers which is the most important structure of a civilization consistent with liberty.

China doesn't have that. Saying the US also cheats the rules, too, is important, but shouldn't be confused with the reality that China does it much more abhorrently.

sbhn• 7 years ago

That sounds like england with brexit. Cake and eat it to

vinay4272• 7 years ago

It sounds like what many in the UK thought they could get with Brexit, and not the reality of Brexit.

ivanhoe• 7 years ago

Both US and EU have import quotas on all kinds of products from 3rd countries, there's nothing free about it, it's all highly regulated by WTO and trade agreements...

thefounder4• 7 years ago

US seems to promote free trade for the industries it controls. When it looses to competition it invokes national security, military intervention etc...Trump made clear what was already known.

I am a free trade believer but you must be stupid not to see that US doesn't want free trade. It wants free trade where it works for them, their "free trade", in US dollars of course. If you compete with the US you become a foe, an enemy.

"We must protect our country and our workers. Our steel industry is in bad shape. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!"

"I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now you wouldn't think of the European Union but they're a foe"

"There's a lot of anger at the fact that Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars."

tomp• 7 years ago

It's more like, if you don't have steel/oil/planes/guns/CPUs you don't have an army (or more specifically, producers of the above can deny you resources when you need them most, in war).

apexalpha• 7 years ago

The "free trade" the US propagates is horrible for anyone not in the top 20% of society. Your manufacturing business has been decimated, many people outside coastal areas have been seeing declining standards of living.

Even the EU has many import tariffs to protect its own industries from unfair competition from China and others.

Why should someone who makes bikes in the EU compete with someone who does it for $0,50 an hour in Vietnam or who knows where?

Protecting your own markets is the sensible thing to do. Any country with a decent industrial policy does it.

mensetmanusman3• 7 years ago

Most peaceful era per capital in human history. Lowest percentage in poverty in human history.

dalbasal5• 7 years ago

I agree. In fact, I don't think ending international trade is going far enough. Why should Californian businesses who make bikes have to compete with Texas businesses who have to pay employees lower salaries, less tax and different rules.

Nasrudith2• 7 years ago

The why is because of relative advantage. Complaining about the 50 cent wage in a far lower cost of living country is like complaining that you cannot compete with a farmer's fields for corn with your urban rooftop gardens in plant pots. Well of course! That is where their advantages are - if you can trade without issues that is your cue to do something else more productive with your time.

Faark• 7 years ago

Why should someone who makes bikes in the EU compete with someone who does it for $0,50 an hour in Vietnam or who knows where?

Because this will lead to increased competition on the low cost countries labor market, increasing their wages. Long term that should equalizes wages and thus standard of living globally and everyone is happy. At least that's the overly simplified and wishful thinking. Reality is obviously a bit more complicated, but I still wouldn't want to entirely discard that concept.

ulfw• 7 years ago

I'm sorry. US? Free Trade? Huh?

Have you noticed who is in government over there right now?

nabla9• 7 years ago

The correct way to challenge China multilaterally using WTO and trade agreements.

TPP-agreement would have tied pacific countries and US tighter together while leaving China out until it improves. CPTPP and it's TPP without the US.

Theodores• 7 years ago

Free trade is free for whom?

Monopolies?

Capitalists?

If we had the same rules everywhere and effectively one global government then we could have free trade. But we have sovereign nations with their own national interests.

Therefore trade always has to be a deal. Either the deal is a good one or it is not. We have had problems before with Japan, for instance they like to grow their own rice rather than just ship in 'Uncle Ben's' rice from Uncle Sam. Rice grown in Japan by real Japanese people on real rice terraces is much more expensive than rice churned out by U.S. agri-business. But do the U.S. agri-businesses have a right to demand free trade, pushing the Japanese small farmers out of business?

What sense does it actually make to do that? The product - rice - can be locally sourced with a lot of human effort gone into the production of it. This keeps people in Japan gainfully employed in agriculture. Japanese consumers also prefer the local product, it is more to their tastes.

Should this protectionism go on forever? Well, yes, it is not as if the local rice farmers in Japan are going to be competing for global exports.

So we have something similar with China and every other nation. I think that China are doing very well in tech thanks to the Great Firewall of China, they have versions of Wikipedia, Facebook, Google and Amazon - the world is richer for this diversity.

What is wrong with the U.S. approach to protectionism? They could be honest about Huawei and state that they wish to have domestic companies do 5G just because they have national interest to do so. They could be honest about their own 'Great Firewall' which is what the NSA is and be up front that the government feels it needs to spy on the citizens lest any of them get revolutionary thoughts.

The rest of the world is fine about U.S. protection of the pickup truck market. We get it - the U.S. needs Detroit and Detroit needs pickup trucks as they can't make competitive cars.

If the U.S. was claiming that Toyota and VW trucks were unsafe that would be wrong, that is what is going on with the Huawei situation, there are these allegations that are not substantiated by facts.

It is ridiculous that the U.S. is struggling with trade given how rich the country is from a land/resources point of view, how the U.S. owns the world's reserve currency and how almost all oil/energy has to be traded in USD. No other countries have these perks.

China has no territorial ambitions beyond Taiwan. This is benign, a bit like Ireland wanting Ulster back rather than Britain wanting to enslave India. They may peg their currency and have this Great Firewall, however, who is to say that they are wrong in not wanting their great nation to be ravaged by global capitalism? We just need to strike actual trade deals with China in the West, affording the Chinese people and their leaders some respect.

hylaride• 7 years ago

Then the Japanese rice producers have nothing to fear from free trade. If Japanese consumers don't want it, there will be little shipments of American rice anyways. This of course ignores any subsidies that may artificially effect the market prices of rice in either Japan or America, but free trade is as much about consumer choice as it is about big business selling it's products.

I live in Canada. We have a supply managed dairy system that's managed by quotas that farmers own. Part of the management of that system is brutally high tarrifs on foreign milk products, including cheese. The farmers have high income support, but Canada also has among the highest milk prices in the world. This effects poor people as well as limits choice. I'm a cheese snob, and while Canada (in particular around Quebec) can make some very delicious cheeses, I'm left paying exorbitant prices for some of the unique cheeses from Wisconsin, France, Switzerland, etc. The result of this protectionism is that, under WTO rules, Canada exports absolutely zero dairy products. Our cheeses don't compete on a fair market leading to stagnant products that compete on tariffs as high as 800%.

Now you may say "great! farmers deserve a good living!" but they're benefiting from protectionism while the rest of the economy is relatively free. If the entire Canadian economy was run on this model, Canadians would have to pay a lot more everything, which would make our standard of living much lower.

Farmers just happen to be politically well connected, which at the end of the day are the people who tend to benefit from "trade deals" that restrict certain elements of trade.

dalbasal5• 7 years ago

I think that's a valid take. But OTOH, broad, principled terms like "free trade" mask some of the nuance and realities of that history.

Free markets have always come thick with caveats to suit whatever goals the authors/negotiators had at the time. The US, for example, generally prioritized investment access and largely got it. They also prioritized economic infrastructure, like the dollar standard and globalising the US patent system.

Meanwhile, agricultural markets were kept outside of the mix, which is a huge deal to many politically/economically weak countries. The line between a bad faith exploitation of the system (as you characterized china) and an acceptable exception was determined by political interests and power dynamics, not by principles.

What I'm saying is not that china "plays fair" or that the US does. What I'm saying is that it's a game where rules get made on the fly and power matters. There's a tendency to see your own priorities (patents stand out to me, in the US-China context) as obvious non-issues and rivals' priorities as huge compromises. I think it's wise to limit the moral reasoning which leads to finger pointing and conflict.

Meanwhile, there's always a lot of dirty dealing on all sides. Putting up trade barriers on national security pretexts or whatnot.

I think the Singaporean minister has the broad point right. The US had an incredibly central role in creating the current global trade setup. This reflected their power (and prestige, especially in Europe) at the time. The system wasn't a bad one and China has been a great beneficiary of it. A lot of the non-economic reasoning did come to fruition too. China is a far more open-to-the-world society today.

But... The size of China's current economy changes the political balance. They will demand a US-like role and unless that's accepted by the US, politically & emotionally, we're headed for a recessive period.

chewz4• 7 years ago

As he ended this speech it is said that Cato shook out the folds of his toga and contrived to drop some Libyan figs on the floor of the Senate-house, and when the senators admired their size and beauty he remarked that the country which produced them was only three days’ sail from Rome.

Afterwards he adopted a still more forceful method of driving home his point: whenever his opinion was called for on any subject, he invariably concluded with the words, ‘And furthermore it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed!’ (Lives, ‘Cato the Elder’ 27)

The Carthage during 20 years after Second Punic War became export powerhouse and it was even able to repay war idemnities 10 years ahead of schedule.

majia2• 7 years ago

Confronting China on this today is the US asking China not to undermine the global system that has helped enrich China.

Unfortunately, to the current US administration, confronting China is not a means to change China's behavior for better, but an end itself.

codedokode3• 7 years ago

The US and others spent a lot of resources building the free trade system of the world.

Are the sanctions against countries like Cuba, Iran or North Korea also a part of "fair" and "free" trade?

Of course, US is free to choose with whom they want or don't want to deal; just don't call it "free" trade please.

mtw• 7 years ago

To be honest, last time China accepted major trade deals from the West to fully open their market, they got their cities flooded by opium and got land ruled by foreign law, and then got their government toppled. The lessons learned from that was that if you are not careful, western countries will come and dominate you. Look around, the same happened in India and many other countries with often exctintion of natives

Fast forward to 2018, China and USA already agreed to WTO rules with China considered as a developing countries and thus granted special rights such as protection of its industries. Then USA unilaterally breaks WTO rules with tariffs with an arbitrary interpretation of "national security" and wants a signature of a one way deal where USA gets all the rights and controls but doesn't give anything. I'm sorry but history teaches you that kind of deals will get your citizens subjugated by foreign powers or foreign corporations.

aNoob7000• 7 years ago

Definition of "developing country" from WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/d1who_e.htm

China is no longer a developing country. The can say they are developing but that is no longer true.

product50• 7 years ago

Isn't the ball in China's court here? I am not sure what is the expectation of US in this. China has a completely closed market while at the same time they are reaping the benefits of selling in markets of other countries with no penalties. How is that fair? Also, they force companies to share their technologies/IP if they are interested in coming into Chinese markets - and then they just steal it to undercut the foreign companies. This honestly needs to change. When China was smaller, these tactics were ok - but to expect the world will close their eyes on their practices at the current scale is fooling oneself.

londons_explore2• 7 years ago

They aren't stopping other countries doing the same.

The world might be a better place if everyone stole and remixed IP

Teever• 7 years ago

They aren't stopping other countries from doing the same yet. And the reason for that is that they are still the underdog so it makes sense to turn a blind eye to their domestic industries violating American IP laws.

Just like it makes sense for the US to enact and attempt to enforce restrictive IP laws on a global scale.

Make no mistake once China ascends they will enforce their will on the world just like the US has done and it will be ugly.

Say goodbye to democracy. Say goodbye to due process. Say hello to coercive IP law. Say hello to unimaginably restrictive DRM and surveillance.

blago3• 7 years ago

The world might be a better place if everyone stole and remixed IP

Until it becomes unprofitable to invest in innovation

PunchTornado2• 7 years ago

how is china a closed market? germany sells plenty of cars there...

Tepix• 7 years ago

They force foreign manufacturers to create local businesses with 50% chinese share.

coldtea8• 7 years ago

Also, they force companies to share their technologies/IP if they are interested in coming into Chinese markets - and then they just steal it to undercut the foreign companies.

That's a great way to copyright reform right there!

NotPaidToPost4• 7 years ago

China has done what every developing country should do (Edit: and what the likes of Japan and Korea did before them)

If you open your economy when you are relatively undeveloped and weak then foreign companies will immediately occupy your economy and you can forget about creating national 'champions'.

China is not a closed market but they are careful not to fall into that trap.

radmuzom• 7 years ago

Agreed. A good book on this subject is "How Asia Works" by Joe Studwell.

ngokevin• 7 years ago

Yup, they've set it up so money can flow within their own system and their own economy can prosper, rather than money feeding out to Google or Facebook. Quality of life in China has exploded massively, and things like restaurant prices are reaching American prices, which is insane going back ten years.

And they remix the ideas of western tech and often improve upon it. WeChat is orders of magnitude more convenient than what the US has to offer. Everything is centralized and integrated, what Google tries to do, but adopted everywhere. Book anything, pay for anything, tap phone to pay for anything. I don't expect many places to take phone payments. In China, most everywhere can take phone payments.

Their social networks also seem to do great at getting things naturally viral. I posted a random video without any boosting and it got like 1.5K views in a day.

chvid2• 7 years ago

I find it scary that you get downvoted for saying something you can find in an economics textbook.

NTDF92• 7 years ago

This is accurate.

For example, India doesn't have Alibaba or Tencent or whatever because they allowed in foreign companies with stronger currencies too soon.

USA set the rules after WW2. China played the game according to those rules. Countries that didn't were either smashed economically or by warfare.

baybal25• 7 years ago

I am not sure what is the expectation of US in this. China has a completely closed market

That's a big big stretch. It's more open than a big part of Western countries.

  1. There is a blanket ban on anything media related
  2. Select heavy industries
  3. Defence
  4. Agriculture *production*

That's not much different from US and other countries around. Most Western countries with socialist streak restrict way more than that.

dalbasal5• 7 years ago

I agree on the market access point, to an extent. There an assymetry that can't stand forever, given the size of China's economy today. But, free trade has never really been free. There are tons and tons of caveats, exceptions, special rules and bad faith. So, I think it's misleading to represent china as "closed" and other countries as "open."

On the second point, I disagree.

IP is not some basic, natural law. It's a relatively recent invention, ostensibly invented to promote certain economic incentives. Why is china morally obligated to respect it?

At any given point in time, the biggest effect of an IP system is how it affects the current portfolio of patents & copyrights. That's what tends to dictate the rules. When copyright law is updated, it's the impact on Disney's IP asset portfolio that's considered... not future works that will be created. It's a similar dynamic for patents.

Why should china (or any country) have to subscribe to an IP system under which they don't own as many patents.

Meanwhile, the benefits of a patent system are contraversial, even dubious (imho). Lots of intelligent peoe think they do more harm than good. The billions spent by tech companies on patent lawyers are a case-in-poiny.

I do not think we (globally) are best served by a global IP monolith. This is one area where we can benefit from a diversity of rules.

dkbrk• 7 years ago

IP is not some basic, natural law. It's a relatively recent invention, ostensibly invented to promote certain economic incentives. Why is china morally obligated to respect it?
At any given point in time, the biggest effect of an IP system is how it affects the current portfolio of patents & copyrights. That's what tends to dictate the rules. When copyright law is updated, it's the impact on Disney's IP asset portfolio that's considered... not future works that will be created. It's a similar dynamic for patents.
Why should china (or any country) have to subscribe to an IP system under which they don't own as many patents.

To an extent I agree with you. There are a great many problems with the current state of "Intellectual Property" law and I there's some merit to the argument that it would benefit humanity as a whole if it were scaled back drastically or even eliminated entirely.

However, China not only does not enforce US patents and copyrights but also engages in extensive industrial espionage to steal trade secrets. Even if we did not have copyright and patent law, such actions would and should still be illegal. Qualitatively, I think there's a big difference between reverse-engineering and making your own version of some company's product, and hacking into their servers and stealing the data to make it or paying an employee of theirs to exfiltrate the source artifacts for you.

Chinese companies do both. The former is sometimes permissible, at other times may violate patent or copyright law, which may or may not be seen as a bad thing depending on your views of the matter. But the latter should be rightfully condemned.

There's also the argument that even if patents are granted too freely and abused, and copyright extended far too long, that if China wants to engage in the world economy then they need to play by the same rules as everyone else, and that if they do not play by those rules then other countries are entirely justified in retaliating.

MR4D• 7 years ago

You've got to be trolling with your statement:

>Why should china (or any country) have to subscribe to an IP system under which they don't own as many patents.

Is is fine if I steal from you because I don't have as much money as you do?

Or, would you prefer that I don't "subscribe to" your notion of money in your pocket as wealth because I don't have as much and therefore it is perfectly moral to take yours?

Come on - let's have a rational discussion here.

jimmydef2• 7 years ago

Also, they force companies to share their technologies/IP if they are interested in coming into Chinese markets - and then they just steal it to undercut the foreign companies.

If the companies are willingly going to the Chinese markets on their own accord under an IP sharing agreement, you can no longer use the term "force". They have a choice to not share it by not entering the market. You can critique this as an inherent weakness of capitalism, but China is not forcing anybody in this situation.

And why would they have to steal it if its already shared? This doesn't even make any sense.

rangibaby2• 7 years ago

Lee Kuan Yew had some interesting and prescient insights about China in 1967: https://youtu.be/VexrmTacOAA

xuki2• 7 years ago

You should read his book: One Man's View of the World

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18297494-one-man-s-view-...

It's very concise, written in fairly casual tone and in my opinion, spot on for the most part. One point he kept making throughout the book is Singapore will not stop working with a superpower because another superpower don't like it.

rangibaby2• 7 years ago

Thanks for the suggestion, I will check it out

chvid2• 7 years ago

As others has observed the economies of USA and China are tied at the hip.

China sells goods cheaply to USA and takes the dollars it makes and invest in US treasuries. This keeps inflation low and keeps interest rates low. And allows the US to maintain an unnatural high living standard with low savings and asset price inflation.

The central bank may be able to compensate from the lack of Chinese buying but it is an unsustainable situation as the inflationary pressure from the lack of imports would be in full force.

Also notice that Singapore seems to be saying: Please don't ask us to pick sides ...

The US may have fewer friends in Asia than it assumes.

baybal25• 7 years ago

Very true, given that a great many of Chinese goods are just Taiwanese/Japanese/Korean parts "put in plastic" in South China

mistermann6• 7 years ago

Maybe Singapore is hedging that they might be #2 on the list after Taiwan.

chewz4• 7 years ago

The central bank may be able to compensate from the lack of Chinese buying but it is an unsustainable situation as the inflationary pressure from the lack of imports would be in full force.

I doubt if low inflation enviroment is high on current administration list. On the contrary. Some inflation could stimulate economy.

kevin_b_er• 7 years ago

Yes. China is far closer with more military and no nominal compunctions about human rights that the US sort of has. They'll pick their poison to be China as the greater threat to appease.

NTDF92• 7 years ago

Singapore is smart. Nobody can rely on a government on the other side of the planet with a history of war-mongering. For Singapore, their geographic proximity is more important than a fiat hegemony.

CharlesColeman• 7 years ago

Also notice that Singapore seems to be saying: Please don't ask us to pick sides ...
The US may have fewer friends in Asia than it assumes.

Isn't Singapore political system famously authoritarian capitalist and its people ethnically Chinese? It might be a mistake as viewing it too much of a representative of the rest of Asia. It sounds very similar to contemporary China, in many respects, so it may have an unusually strong affinity to it.

https://www.hrw.org/asia/singapore:

Singapore’s political environment is stifling. Citizens face severe restrictions on their basic rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly through overly broad criminal laws and regulations. In 2017, the country tightened the already strict limits on public assemblies contained in the Public Order Act, which requires police permits for any “cause-related” assembly outside the closely monitored “Speakers’ Corner.”

heraclius3• 7 years ago

Isn't Singapore political system famously authoritarian capitalist

Most of Southeast Asia is increasingly authoritarian.

its people ethnically Chinese?

Mostly (this is a trivial Google), but importantly not entirely.

Singapore was the last country to recognise the PRC instead of Taiwan. This was for good reason. First, Singapore maintains internal harmony by pretending to be multiracial. (It isn’t, obviously—the best candidate for the PM by far was ignored because “the people aren’t ready for a non-Chinese PM”, even though he was the most popular.) This involves insisting on English translators when visiting China, asserting independence, doing military drills in Taiwan, etc. Second, Singapore historically had to do the same thing to convince its neighbours that it was not a Chinese puppet.

But the crucial difference is that Singapore optimises for minimal oppression given a certain developmental outcome, whereas China doesn’t. Repression in Xinjiang, the Tienanmen Square massacre, current crackdowns on liberal thinktanks, etc. are not necessary to secure the régime. No Singaporean government would bother. (That is why New Naratif is still around.) Singapore is in fact qualitatively distinct from almost all other authoritarian states in that it requires extremely little oppression in view of the outcomes achieved compared to any other state, where the tradeoff is much worse.

lenkite• 7 years ago

Please read about the colonialist-style policies openly being carried out by China in co-opting land and territory of poorer nations:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...

Speaking personally as a citizen of a neighbouring nation - I would rather have a democratic and open nation like the United States as the sole-superpower of the world. China as an established super-power would be a tyrannical nightmare.

nailer3• 7 years ago

As someone who watches the very unusual moderation of China-critical comments on HN (+3 one moment, -3 a few hours later) I'm wary of a political piece praising China hitting #1 on HN.

I also don't see the value of Singapore - which is openly anti democratic (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/singapore-challenges-democrac...) providing advice here - as the same concerns about authoritarian corruption that apply to China also apply to Singapore.

ptah3• 7 years ago

it is up to each nation to choose it's form of government. it is not one size fits all

kingkawn2• 7 years ago

A friend who grew up in Singapore describes it as the capitalist version of North Korea

nailer3• 7 years ago

Saying the people of China have 'chosen not to choose' is bizarre and disingenuous - you are twisting the notion of freedom to imply Chinese people have chosen not to be free. The Chinese people have never in recent memory chosen the Chinese communist party to represent them exclusively.

baybal25• 7 years ago

I think it is very polarised topic.

I noticed a pattern few month ago: you have a lot of bashing during East coast morning hours, followed by much more conciliatory toned wave of comments few hours after, when East coast wakes up.

isostatic• 7 years ago

So it's Europe/Africa/Asia that are bashing China, then the Americans come in later?

mark_l_watson• 7 years ago

I worked in Singapore in 2016 and in my exploration of various neighborhoods I did not see abject squalor, as seen in East LA, West Chicago, etc. people seemed employed and happy.

BTW, your comment on moderation is interesting.

dangus• 7 years ago

Usually any claim of "poverty doesn't exist here" is not going to be very close to being accurate.

https://borgenproject.org/top-10-facts-about-poverty-in-sing...

runn1ng• 7 years ago

US should make policies that are good for its citizens, its factories and its companies, not Singapore.

Singapore can survive as a country with mostly trade, IP, high tech, low taxes, services. Singapore doesn’t even have power plants, all from Malaysia.

But despite the dreams of some people, a big country like US cannot just be a service economy like Singapore.... so while I disagree with Trump on many other issues, I cam’t really fault him here, and I hope next American democratic president will not soften its stance.

baybal25• 7 years ago

Many people are talking about Vietnam now, but without realising that they are dealing with the same Chinese factory companies who just expanded their business there.

macspoofing• 7 years ago

Singapore: Don't make us choose because we will choose China.

mensetmanusman3• 7 years ago

It would be so much easier to accept China's rise if they weren’t pulling a North Korea and imprisoning a million minorities with dystopian technology solutions.

I don’t think China realized how that policy is going to backfire in terms of their relationship with the West.

We want to see countries with individual rights rise, not authoritarians.

HansLandaa• 7 years ago

So, I'm not making a value judgement of what's going on but I always cringe when I see complicated geopolitical actions being reduced to one line talking points on HN. Of course it is actually much more nuanced in reality.

These observations about imprisoning minorities always fail to include information about past terrorist attacks and militant activity in the region. Most of the people in the reeducation centers were sent there for things such as spreading Islamic propaganda glorifying suicide bombings.The reality of the situation is more nuanced than the depiction by western media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China

In December 2016 in Xinjiang, Islamic militants drove a vehicle into a yard at the county Communist party offices and set off a bomb but were all shot dead. Three people were wounded and one other died.

In July 2011, At least 18 people died in a series of alleged terrorist attacks in the city of Kashgar. According to state-run media accounts, the violence began when two Uyghur men hijacked a truck, ran it into a crowded street, and started stabbing people, killing six. The attack ended when the assailants were overpowered by the crowd, which killed one attacker. On the second day, state media reported that a "group of armed terrorists" stormed a restaurant, killed the owner and a waiter, and set it ablaze. They then proceeded to indiscriminately kill four more civilians. Armed clashes then reportedly ensured, ending with police capturing or killing the attackers. The Turkistan Islamic Party later claimed responsibility for the attack. One of the suspects appeared in a TIP video training in Pakistan.

In March 2015 in Guangzhou, three ethnic Uyghur assailants with long knives attacked civilians at Guangzhou train station, 13 injured.

In November 2014 in Xinjian, militants with knives and explosives attacked civilians, 15 dead and 14 injured. 14 of the 15 deaths were attackers

In May 2014 in Ürümqi, Xinjiang, Two sport utility vehicles (SUVs) carrying five assailants were driven into a busy street market in Ürümqi. Up to a dozen explosives were thrown at shoppers from the windows of the SUVs. The SUVs crashed into shoppers then collided with each other and exploded. 43 people were killed, including 4 of the assailants, and more than 90 wounded.

There are many more. Again, I'm not making of value judgement here but I think everyone should think critically and really understand what's going on from multiple points of view.

heraclius3• 7 years ago

It’s not clear that the situation is “geopolitical”, but, more importantly, simply pointing to terrorism is not helpful either.

(1) The area is not inherently Chinese. China does not need to occupy Xinjiang. It has belonged to other people at other points. (See texts on the Islamic conquest.)

(2) China has encouraged mass Han immigration to Xinjiang. The Han who moved were not moving because of hunger or thirst. They moved because the state provided incentives to do so.

(3) Radicalisation is largely driven by ideologies that the CCP helped to support in the first place, when sowing chaos in Afghanistan without deciding what to do next. Of course it did not do so alone—the Americans and Pakistanis were also involved. But it at least props up Pakistan who continue to empower the Taliban.

(4) The Chinese state is very violent—and more violent than most other states.

Ergo it is misleading to suggest that the Uighurs are being particularly violent, and to imply that they are simply being violent for the sake of it. China could try a number of things, including getting out, reducing violence against Uighurs, and ceasing to incentivise Han migration.

throwaway552231• 7 years ago

Aren’t the people they are imprisoning criminals that broke the law? For perspective, the US has 2.2 million minorities in prison.

heraclius3• 7 years ago

There are 11 million Uighurs, and about a million in the camps. There are over 30 million blacks in the US, and under a million blacks in jail. (2.2 million is the total number of prisoners.)

The situation in Xinjiang is therefore much worse.

Most of the people concerned should not be locked up anyway—think of people who can’t afford to pay fines in the US, or people who pray in Xinjiang. It is extremely rare that a population is so poorly socialised that it is necessary to imprison over a tenth of the population. Perhaps they are in some strict sense “criminals”, but China can choose who to criminalise (as can the US), and it is clearly making unhelpful decisions.

sinuhe69• 7 years ago

I wonder why Singapore didn't say such things decades ago when the confrontation between US and the Soviet Union hit up? Because today confrontation still looks very much similar: between the free democratic bloc and a communist aggressive country (or bloc, maybe). Admittedly, the current conflict involves a lot of money and trade but most of all it's about geopolitical power, not soybeans or chips.

genmud2• 7 years ago

Because they didn't have nearly the developed economy that they do now? They probably also didn't have as much influence and maybe weren't really seen as a regional player?

Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

Related Stories