Instigator / Pro
billbatard's avatar
0
billbatard
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
Tags
Economics
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
oromagi's avatar
1
oromagi
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/

Round 1
billbatard's avatar
billbatard
Pro
#1
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 controlledand planned economy, and of what is known as ‘free market’.I have some 25 years of history with Singapore. I do research in its libraries and archives; I admire its world class art institutions, brilliantly diverse food. And I simply enjoy healthy brisk walks through its vast public spaces.
Sometimes I am not hundred percent sure what precisely Singapore is, but I always know what it isn’t – it never succumbed to that brutal, heartless, primitive and uneducated turbo capitalism of other Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand.https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/09/a-few-admiring-words-for-crypto-socialist-singapore/

oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#2
thx, billbatard, for instigating this debate.

RESOLVED: SINGAPORE is a SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE of SOCIALISM

DEFINITONS:

SINGAPORE is a city-state in Southeast Asia. The country is situated one degree north of the equator, at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. [1]

SUCCESSFUL [adjective] is resulting in success; assuring, or promoting, success; accomplishing what was proposed; having the desired effect. [2]

EXAMPLE [noun] is something that serves as a pattern of behavior to be imitated. [3]

SOCIALISM is an economic and social system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management.  [4]

BURDEN of PROOF

Wikipedia suggests:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.  This is also stated in Hitchens's razor.". [5]

In this case, PRO as instigator and claimant bears the entire responsibility of proof.

CON interprets the resolution to mean that Singapore offers a working  model of Socialism that can be imitated by other nations with similar results.

OBJECTION #1:

PRO has a 4,000 word debate description that is nearly entirely cut & pasted from the two sources listed.  PRO does not set any terms for the debate but essentially just supports the resolution entirely with other people's writing.  In theory, this gives PRO a major word count advantage to which CON objects.  In practice, PRO just re-iterated the last few paragraphs of cut & paste in R1 and even adding both chunks together, so PRO has not exceeded the max character limit. 

OBJECTION #2:

PRO has offered no original arguments or statements of fact in support of resolution.  Generally speaking, external sources are meant to reinforce an original argument by demonstrating the factual nature of specific assertions, not serve as assertions themselves.  CON expects to see evidence of original thought and composition is subsequent rounds rather than mere repetition of other people's work. In the meantime, CON will treat the first round as evidence without argument- that is, the affirmative made no assertions requiring a rebuttal.



CON's CASE:
CON offers three major points of contention:


I. Singapore is too unique to make a good example for other nations

  • There's nothing natural or organic about the way Singapore came into being: a British fort and port island commandeered in exchange for backing a coup on the mainland.  Singapore's history holds more in common with the British Colonial trading ports- Hong Kong, Shaghai, Canton than the Malaysian and Indonesian cultures surrounding Singapore and like those Chinese ports, Singapore's traditional economy was capitalism in its purest incarnation- trade and industry was king, human rights an afterthought.
  • Singapore has no natural room to grow.  Any new land has to be be dredged.  Singapore has the second highest population density of any nation (after Monaco) and the lowest fertility rate in the world.  [6] [7]  Singapore offers generous tax benefits to lure a large 43% population of foreign nationals.
  • Singapore's greatest resource is it location and an economy largely built on entrepot trade which has been historically successful but Singapore is obviously structurally vulnerable.
    • Singapore produces less than 10% of its own food.
    • Singapore's largest economic sectors are historically boom/bust: 
      • oil refinement
      • banking (famously a haven for hiding illegal funds)
      • tourism
      • gambling
II.  Singapore is not particularly democratic

  • The means of production can't be genuinely owned by the people without some kind of democratic political system by which proletariat exercises that ownership and manages the benefit.
    • Singapore can't be said to be particularly socialist because Singapore is not particularly democratic.  The people have little say in the management of their city-state.
  • A few proofs that Singapore is not democratic include:

    • The ruling party- The People's Action Party, has never been out of power since the Proclamation of Singapore in 1965.
    • All important executive power was retained by Singapore's founder Lee Kuan Yew  for 46 years from 1965 to 2011 and now that power has been inherited by Lee's eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong.
    • The Prime Minister has the power to approve or disqualify parliamentary candidates and many seats PAP candidates run uncontested.  The Prime Minister frequently disqualifies dissidents and rival power candidates.  The current President of Singapore ran uncontested after all of her rivals were disqualified by a new law.  Within the PAP, the Lees have never been challenged for the Prime Minister's office.
    • Singapore has no right to free speech or free assembly.  People who wish to address the public must register with the Prime Minister's office 30 days ahead and then speech is limited to the "Speaker's Corner" a small podium in a public park surrounded by security cameras.  Any public assembly of more than 5 people must be approved by the Prime Minister's office.
    • Singapore has no habeus corpus law or any right to a trial.  Some dissidents and activists have now been held in prison for more than 30 years without being charged with a crime.
    • All media is licensed by the state and the government owns a controlling interest in most media- internet, newspapers, television.
    • It is illegal the chew gum or drink bottled water in Singapore.  It is illegal to be gay.  It is illegal to be naked in your own home unless the shades are drawn.  "Monty Python" and "Sex and the City" are two of the many, many TV shows banned in Singapore. "Zoolander" and the Southpark movie are two of the many banned films.  Listening to "Puff, the Magic Dragon" or Katy Perry's "I Kissed a Girl" is punishable by fines or imprisonment.
    • It is illegal to go on strike in Singapore.  All unions were consolidated into a single, state controlled union in 1961.
  • How can it be said that the people of Singapore own say, the oil refinery industry in Singapore when they are actively prevented from meeting to discuss that industry, when the State decides what information about the oil industry a Singaporean may know?
  • The language of Socialism is often adopted by autocracies and Singapore is little more than that- a hereditary autocracy with almost all real power invested in a single man.  State control ought not be mistaken for control by the people just because the state is relatively benevolent and the people relatively placated.
III. Singapore is not particularly socialist

  • Singapore has been the most expensive city in the world to live in for the last 6 years. [8]
  • Singapore has the highest percentage of millionaires in the world but also one of the highest wealth gaps.  An overwhelming proportion of then wealth is held by wealthy foreign residents enjoying low tax rates. Singapore has no capital gains or luxury tax and the top tax rate is 22%. The lower and middle classes receive two and a half times the public subsidies they did just ten years ago.  Live-in domestic servants are common in Singapore.
  • Singapore has no minimum wage or unemployment benefits although substantial public assistance is generally available.  
  • Singapore does not self identify as a socialist economy and is not recognized as particularly socialist by most rankings.  On the other hand, Singapore is consistently ranked at the top of lists of capitalist countries. [9]
  • As noted above, labor unions and all labor organization is either a function of the state or illegal.  The state determines a worker's wage and hours.
  • Yes, education and healthcare are essentially free but citizens have little say in the priorities or allocations of those public institutions.  These should be seen as the advantages of an effective nanny state rather than the advantages of an empowered proletariat. 
In short, Singapore is proof that a country can enjoy the benefits of a relatively free market without necessarily requiring a relatively free labor force.  State control should not be mistaken for public ownership just because that state control is prosperous and public benefit generous.  Such is model is unsustainable: when the economy crashes or leadership fails or  foreign capital decides to hide somewhere else Singapore has almost no control over its own scant resources and the people have little experience in managing their own economy.

PRO's resolution is refuted.  Singapore is not much of a example and not really very socialist.  Ultimately, Singapore's boom-based economy is unsustainable and should not be seen as a model for other nations.  I look forward to PRO's reply in R2.

Round 2
billbatard's avatar
billbatard
Pro
#3
Singapore is a strange bird, it is admittedly one of the most market friendly places in the world , but the Ruling party the PAP was for years a socialist party and implemented many socialist policies over the years, 90% of the land is owned by the state 80% of the housing is owned and built by the state , it possesses a huge sovereign wealth fund owned and controlled by the state that accounts for about 255 of the economy pretty socialists me thinks , not a traditional form, but thats probably why its one of the few models that works..
The case of Singapore is more than just a funny gotcha to use against right-wingers. It actually raises an interesting question about what it is people care about when it comes to “capitalism” and “socialism.” Is capitalism primarily about markets or private ownership? Relatedly, is socialism primarily about ending markets or promoting collective ownership? Often these things are bundled together, but they are logically and practically separable. Singapore (and Norway, among others) shows that it is quite possible to collectively own the means of production while also using price systems to assist in the allocation of productive factors. This is what market socialists have been saying for a hundred years.https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/09/how-capitalist-is-singapore-really/
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#4
RESOLVED: SINGAPORE is a SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE of SOCIALISM

In the absence of any objection, PRO has apparently accepted CON's proffered definitions, burden of proof, and interpretation of resolution.  Let's recall that CON interprets the resolution to mean that Singapore offers a working  model of Socialism that can be imitated by other nations with similar results.

OBJECTION #3

For round 2, PRO has neglected to write an argument, choosing instead to cut and paste a paragraph from something called peoplespolicyproject.org.  No arguments have been submitted for CON to counter.   I would not quite call this forfeit but I might call it something close.  Cut and paste, the hamburger helper of fine DART dining.

CON's CASE:


I. Singapore is too unique to make a good example for other nations

  • dropped by PRO- extend
II.  Singapore is not particularly democratic

  • dropped by PRO- extend
III. Singapore is not particularly socialist

  • dropped by PRO- extend
PRO's resolution is refuted.  Singapore is not much of a example and not really very socialist.  Ultimately, Singapore's boom-based economy is unsustainable and should not be seen as a model for other nations.  I look forward to PRO's reply in R3

Round 3
billbatard's avatar
billbatard
Pro
#5
it doesn't matter if i accepted your definitions or not they had little to do with my point which is Singapore is not a traditional form of socialism or a particularly democratic form , although it isn't considered a dictatorship http://theindependent.sg/singapore-is-up-from-69th-to-66th-in-the-democracy-index-rankings-but-still-a-flawed-democracy/    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index   it is something unique granted thats my point i never said that it was a model that others could graft onto their society completely, when did i say that? what i did say is that much of the praise of Singapore for being a successful capitalist model aren't honest, because Singapore has many Socialist aspects to its pro market society 
The case of Singapore is more than just a funny gotcha to use against right-wingers. It actually raises an interesting question about what it is people care about when it comes to “capitalism” and “socialism.” Is capitalism primarily about markets or private ownership? Relatedly, is socialism primarily about ending markets or promoting collective ownership? Often these things are bundled together, but they are logically and practically separable. Singapore (and Norway, among others) shows that it is quite possible to collectively own the means of production while also using price systems to assist in the allocation of productive factors. This is what market socialists have been saying for a hundred years.


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 aimhttps://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/09/how-capitalist-is-singapore-really/

oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#6
thanks, billbatard

RESOLVED: SINGAPORE is a SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE of SOCIALISM

Let's recall that CON interprets the resolution to mean that Singapore offers a working model of Socialism that can be imitated by other nations with similar results.

In R3, PRO has objected to this interpretation:

"i never said that it was a model that others could graft onto their society completely, when did i say that? "
OBJECTION #4

CON likewise never said that Singapore was a model that others could graft onto their society completely- PRO has exaggerated my claim for the purpose of easy refutation.

PRO has claimed Singapore is an "example" which CON has defined (without objection) as "something that serves as a pattern of behavior to be imitated." CON has argued that Singapore is too unique to serve as a pattern for imitation.  PRO's characterization of imitation as "graft completely" is an invention of PRO's and does not accurately reflect CON's argument.

OBJECTION #5

Although PRO has finally written one original paragraph, the second, third, and fourth paragraphs are again cut & pasted from the same article in peoplespolicyproject.org.  The second paragraph is a repeat of the cut & paste in R2 while the third and fourth paragraph duplicate cut & pastes found in the debate description.

CON continues the same policy set out in R1- CON is not refuting Matt Bruenig or other magazine articles but only original arguments made by PRO- of which, PRO has finally offered one effort at last in R3.


CON's CASE:


I. Singapore is too unique to make a good example for other nations

  • PRO has conceded this point while refuting an invented, exaggerated variation (see OBJECTION#4).
"Singapore is a strange bird"

"Singapore is not a traditional form of socialism"

"it [Singapore] is something unique granted thats my point "

PRO must prove that Singapore is an example, an example of Socialism, and a successful example of Socialism.  Unique, non-traditional strange birds do not, generally make good patterns for imitation.  CON's argument stands and PRO has conceded the point.

II.  Singapore is not particularly democratic

  • PRO concedes that Singapore is not particularly democratic
"Singapore is not a traditional form of socialism or a particularly democratic form"

  • PRO argues that Singapore isn't considered a dictatorship.
    • Democracy is a relative value, everything is shades of grey  Arguing that a wolf's pelt is not entirely black does not serve as evidence refuting the claim that the wolf's pelt is not particularly white.  Refuting the opposite extreme does not prove the position.
    • For evidence, PRO submits an article from the website theindependent.sg- that is, content that has been approved by Singaporean government for distribution.  The site does not offer any information about its publisher or editorial board. "The Independent News" is not a Singaporean newspaper.  The "contact us" link is broken.  This source may be safely disregarded as untrustworthy.
    • For further evidence, PRO submits a UK company's 2018 ranking as 66th out of 167th as evidence of democracy.  PRO's own source notes:
"The Democracy Index has been criticized for lacking transparency and accountability beyond the numbers. To generate the index, the Economist Intelligence Unit has a scoring system in which various experts are asked to answer 60 questions and assign each reply a number, with the weighted average deciding the ranking. However, the final report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of the Economist Intelligence Unit or independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts."
Singapore is given a score of 7.35 out of 10 for civil liberties in spite of the absence of many essential civil liberties such as the right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to free assembly, the right to a trial of any kind, much less a fair trial or a speedy trial or a trial by jury.  As shown in R1, Singapore has none of these.  Just because some economists like Singapore's free market is not reason to disregard Singapore's paucity of real or essential freedoms.  Pretending that Singapore is just a "flawed democracy" is an insult to liberalism and human rights everywhere.

III. Singapore is not particularly socialist 

  • PRO argues that Singapore has many Socialist aspects

"what i did say is that much of the praise of Singapore for being a successful capitalist model aren't honest, because Singapore has many Socialist aspects to its pro market society "
  • Let's recall that PRO prior cut & pastes don't serve as examples of what PRO said in prior rounds.  In fact, PRO has made no original argument.  PRO did not say that "much of the praise of Singapore for being a successful capitalist model aren't honest"  but then, neither did Matt Bruenig.  Bruenig wrote:
"It is true of course that Singapore has a market economy. But it’s also true that, in Singapore, the state owns a huge amount of the means of production."
  • CON has pre-futed PRO in R1:
"Singapore is proof that a country can enjoy the benefits of a relatively free market without necessarily requiring a relatively free labor force.  State control should not be mistaken for public ownership just because that state control is prosperous and public benefit generous."

  • Bruenig seems to be of the opinion that state control of the means of production is the same thing as the people's control of the means of production.  CON calls this mistaking autocracy for socialism.
  • PRO seems to be arguing that Capitalism vs. Socialism is a zero sum game:  that successful public projects serve as evidence against successful private projects.  It is up to PRO to establish the truth of this dynamic in order to prove the point but in CON's experience, all democratic economies are dependent on a balance of these two economic forces- each cannot sustain without support from the other.  In non-democracies like Singapore, free markets and public ownership are both illusions that can be disrupted at the will of the state or in Singapore's case, at the will of Lee Hsien Loong.  Before we can discuss socialist vs capitalist, Lee and the People's Action Party must demonstrate they are willing to share power.
PRO's resolution remains refuted.  Singapore is not much of a example and not really very democratic or socialist.    I look forward to PRO's reply in R4.


Round 4
billbatard's avatar
billbatard
Pro
#7
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Straw man - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Straw_man


While I did say Singapore was a successful form of Socialism , did  i even say that, what i said was there were many socialist aspects to this allegedly Free enterprise society , and they contributed to its success, people get so uptight about labeling things, but if you look at the definition of market socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism  https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1746072/how-lee-kwan-yew-crafted-singapore-role-model-china  How Lee Kuan Yew crafted Singapore into a role model for China
Statesman’s influence was felt and appreciated on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and the Pacific   it has already ben used as a succesful model by Taiwan and the CCP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China  I never even implied it was a model anyone could take straight off a shelf and apply to any society, but there are many aspects that universally applicable .

oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#8

thanks, billbatard

RESOLVED: SINGAPORE is a SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE of SOCIALISM

Let's recall that CON interprets the resolution to mean that Singapore offers a working model of Socialism that can be imitated by other nations with similar results.

CON's CASE:


I. Singapore is too unique to make a good example for other nations

  • PRO has conceded that Singapore is unique but 
 "I never even implied it was a model anyone could take straight off a shelf and apply to any society, but there are many aspects that universally applicable"
  • PRO offers two examples but only backs one with evidence:
    • Taiwan
    • China
      • PRO backs this with a Wikipedia entry for the Communist Party of China:
"Since the decline and fall of communism in Eastern Europe, the [Communist Party of China] has begun establishing party-to-party relations with non-communist parties. These relations are sought so that the CPC can learn from them.  For instance, the CPC has been eager to understand how the People's Action Party of Singapore (PAP) maintains its total domination over Singaporean politics through its "low-key presence, but total control."  According to the CPC's own analysis of Singapore, the PAP's dominance can be explained by its "well-developed social network, which controls constituencies effectively by extending its tentacles deeply into society through branches of government and party-controlled groups." [1]
  • PRO's citation is rather telling:  it does not say that China admires Singapore's Socialism, quite the opposite.  What China admires about Singapore is its total control of its people, which China seeks to emulate.  This is an example of Singapore as a successful example and exporter of autocracy, not socialism.  To be clear, if your country is exclusively controlled by one man or one family Socialism is not a possibility.  You can't have community control over the means of production if the community has no control.   What Xi Jinping seems to have learned form the example of Lee Kuan Yew is how to be dictator for life while talking keeping everybody sedated with lots of talk about economic growth and social reform.  I suppose if we must tolerate dictators we should prefer them benign but free markets and community decision-making are only achieved by liberal democracies, which neither China nor Singapore seem to fathom.
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.
III. Singapore is not particularly socialist

  • PRO has not addressed CON's important contention that Socialism is not possible without Democracy.
PRO started his R4 by defining a "Straw Man" argument but neglected to tell us why.

PRO's resolution remains refuted.  Singapore is not much of a example and not really very democratic or socialist.    I look forward to PRO's conclusion.
Round 5
billbatard's avatar
billbatard
Pro
#9
To help me not lose this debate in a humiliating fashion which seems to be my standard operating procedure, dont worry i'm learning i went looking ofr people in singapore to answer this question i got a bite on Quora "Uwé Tan, lives in Singapore

It is still run by socialists with a capitalism external orientation. Yes, the Chinese's Socialism with the Chinese characteristics, or the Beijing Consensus, is an adaptation from our model. But they are geopolitically bigger hence the spotlight is on them.From the normative economic perspective, it is socialism that levelled up the playing field for those who are not so privileged so that meritocracy can work in Singapore. 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. We continue to be the best in what we do so that the sense of pride continues to galvanise the people towards a common goal.
From the positive economic angle, we follow the capitalism way. We use every learnt economic knowledge to provide good wage, affordable housing, social welfare, elevate ourselves on the production ladder, etc to remain competitive as we grow high income.
In a nutshell, from my perspective, Singapore will try every means to bring in quality FDI, technologies, and expertise first and decide on how to best share the pie later. Unfortunately, many countries did the first part well but not the second part.
82 views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Bill Sands
It isn't just me you ask people who live in Singapore, they will tell you , this may look like capitalism but is definitely Capitalism with Socialist Characteristics, and already the most populace nation on earth has caught on, it is the model the Socialist Market Economy of China is based on 


oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#10
thanks, billbatard

RESOLVED: SINGAPORE is a SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE of SOCIALISM

Let's recall that CON interprets the resolution to mean that Singapore offers a working model of Socialism that can be imitated by other nations with similar results.

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.

There's no doubt that an intelligent, well-meaning king can outperform the fickle and stupid mob for the duration of a reign or two.  But corrupt and evil men are always clawing for the top position and eventually bad governance must occur.  Democracy provides the tool that ejects bad government while maintaining public and private institutions intact.  Without democracy, all institutions economic or otherwise are subject to the hyper-destructive vagaries of revolution.

IV.  Conclusion

  • PRO's intention for this debate is fairly clear- to show that Singapore, long a fast-growing darling for Capitalists to uphold, relied far more on the equitqable distribution of public funds and than the Heritage Foundation would care to admit.  CON has shown here that the old chestnuts of Capitalism vs. Socialism only apply to healthy democracies where economic tools are used to balance prosperity.  Without Democracy, all talk of free markets or public control of production are mostly illusion, subject to the whims and good character of autocrats and oligarchs.
V.  Voting recommendations

  • CON recommends that VOTERS find that arguments favored CON in this debate- particularly given the paucity of original content.
  • CON recommends that VOTERS find that sources favored CON because PRO's over-reliance on sources instead of argument hurt PRO's cause.
Thanks to billbatard for an excellent topic.

Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration.

Please VOTE CON!