In 600 words or less, please answer the following prompts making use of the HBS

Case “Singapore: Facing Challenges Together,” as well as the chapter from The
Miracle, “Minister Mentor’s Asian Values”

1. What were the most important ingredients in the success of modern Singapore?

The most important ingredients in the success of modern Singapore is the "Asian
Model" of development: a primal role of state power over the economy and a
pragmatic and technocratic state planning. Lee's brilliance lies within is distinctive
take on local private enterprises. Unlike in Japan and Korea where the state
objectives are fulfilled by endorsing local private entrepreneurs, the Singapore state
undertook the economic ventures directly. Moreover, Singapore was much more
willing to leverage foreign investments. The country did so with careful planning,
taking the bid with foreign companies that creates the most amount of economic
return, employment numbers, and technological advancement. Instead of creating
Singapore's own Chaebols, Singapore made itself a hub for international companies.
Lee knew that the only way forward for Singapore to move forward is to posit
itself globally, eyes on the vast global market. As an initial step, Singapore hooked
onto the emerging concept of "offshoring." With big name manufacturers moving
into the region for cheap labors, better communications and infrastructures,
Singapore got financial inflow and employments.

2. How much credit do you give Lee Kuan Yew and the government of Singapore in
its success?

The main success factor in Singapore's development model is strong state

capacity with a meritocratic system that ensures the delivery of economic
performances. According to the book The Miracle, Lee himself stated that the
building block of Singapore's success is an environment of meritocracy, a reward
mechanism that motivates people to train themselves and to perform. It is the
strong state capacity and the tight state control over its institutions that became the
main factor in attracting foreign investments in the first place. It was also the strong
state capacity to carry out technocratic plans and economic reforms that allowed
Singapore to transition from cheap labor based economy to a talent based economy.

3. Relatedly, how important were state planning and state-owned companies vs.
simply creating a pro-investment, pro-business environment?

For a country smaller than the size of New York, simply creating a pro-
investment, pro-business environment is sufficient to deliver economic returns to its
citizens. Singapore was a city-state that had less than 1 million population when it
was founded. Singapore still has less than 6 million population as of now. It is much
easier to provide welfare when there's only a few million population. In terms of
profit margin, having state-planned and state-owned companies with global
competence provides indeed more wealth that can be retained inside Singapore:
Singapore does not have to share profit with MNCs. Yet, historical endowment of the
place (low-skill labor, insufficient land and resources, etc.) rendered the option of
having big state-owned companies inviable. Attracting existing MNCs, on the other
hand, utilizes Singapore's geographical advantage (its easy access to Asian markets,
and having the busiest port in the world) to create the speediest advancement of the
economy. Singapore is not afraid of sharing profits with MNCs because 1. historically
imperialists did not cause much damage to the city-state, 2. slim profit off the big
MNCs is enough to support the livelihood of Singaporeans.

What major weaknesses or concerns do you see for the Singapore model

Singapore's development model is indeed widely recognized and admired for its
achievements in transforming the city-state from a small port city to a global hub of
trade, finance, and innovation in just a few decades. The combination of
meritocracy, technocratic governance, and pragmatism has served the nation well.
However, like any development model, the Singaporean approach has its
weaknesses and concerns. First of all, despite its prosperity, Singapore has
noticeable income inequality. Although with its strong housing policies and welfare
system, the risk of revolt is slim. However,

with an foreseeable aging population and low birth rate, Singapore's economic
vitality is under challenge. This has led to an emphasis on immigration as a solution,
but this also brings about concerns of social cohesion and identity.
Singapore has always been criticized for its limited political pluralism. Singapore
is arguably a one-party state: the People's Action Party (PAP) has been the dominant
party since Singapore's independence. While the party argues that this has led to
stability and economic growth, critics contend that it stifles political competition and
dissent, leading to potential issues of complacency, lack of political diversity, and
limited checks and balances.