Why are many island nations and island regions very developed?

Look at the Singapore model:

Effective centralization of power

People generally refer to Singapore as an authoritarian system where power is very centralized. Power in any modern state is centralized. Concentration of power is inherently neutral, meaning that it is not a value judgment and does not measure the goodness of a political system. Power is also centralized in democracies. An example is the United States. The United States is a typical democracy, but its president has supreme power, which many scholars call imperial. As far as the centralization of power is concerned, there are three questions that can be raised. The first is how power is centralized, that is, in what way it is centralized. The second is how the concentration of power is maintained. Thirdly, there is the question of the objective of centralization of power, that is to say, what is the purpose of centralization of power. In comparison with many other countries, power is quite centralized in Singapore. The ruling party, the People's Action Party (PAP), has a Leninist-style party structure, which is commonly referred to as a one-party rule system. Although there are many opposition parties in Singapore that play some political roles, they cannot be compared to opposition parties in other countries.

People generally say that centralization of power leads to corruption. But this has not happened in Singapore. Few extant social science theories can explain the Singapore phenomenon of concentrated power on the one hand and clean power on the other. Furthermore, in Singapore, the concentration of power also means that policies and programs can be implemented. That is, in Singapore, power is centralized, but those in power do not waste any of it; power is used to get things done, that is, to drive Singapore's transformation from third world development to first world.

Centralized power can do a lot of good things. Decentralization of power may not be good, the key is how to centralize and what to do after centralization. In these respects, Singapore has three points of experience worthy of China's reference: How do political parties organize power? How to maintain power? How to use power effectively?

Integrating political parties into society

It is not easy to effectively centralize power, maintain it and use it. Power needs a vehicle and an organizational structure. Singapore's People's Action Party (PAP) is an elite party. The party is divided into two parts: cadre members and ordinary members. There are not many ordinary party members and even fewer cadre members. People in society do not feel the existence of the party. The party is invisible, the "invisible hand" in the political arena. In other words, political parties are integrated into society. In fact, the party must be a part of society, an elite part of society. This is the essence of the Leninist party. Politicians come from the people. If the political party becomes a self-contained vested interest group detached from the society, then the party is in crisis.

Singapore's political system is open to the society despite the fact that it is a one-party rule. From the time of its founding, Singapore's leaders have realized that in a country without any resources, political talent is the key to the country's survival, development and upliftment. In developed Western countries, the best people go into business. Singapore wants to bring these best people into politics. Therefore, one of the important functions of the ruling party is to play the role of "Bole" in "Bole Xiangma", and to look for the best talents in the whole society and the whole world.

In Singapore, the civil servants in the government bureaucracy are selected internally, but many of the political elites are trained by society for the ruling party. Or rather, many of the political leaders were not groomed by the ruling party itself, but absorbed into it from society. In the 1970s, the People's Action Party (PAP) absorbed Goh Chok Tong, who later became prime minister, and Tan Keng Yam, a deputy prime minister. In the 1980s and 1990s, it absorbed elite talents such as Lee Hsien Loong, now Prime Minister, and Wong Kan Seng, Deputy Prime Minister. These leaders were all elite talents in various fields of society before they became leaders of the ruling party. It was only after they had succeeded in whatever field that the ruling party invited them to join the party and serve the nation. Therefore, there is no such thing as "party age" in Singapore. If you are not a member today, you can become a member tomorrow when the party needs you. This solves the problem of seniority within the party of many Leninist parties. The essence of Leninist political parties is to absorb the elites of society, but after Leninist political parties have become organizations, they often evolve into vested interest groups. Singapore has effectively solved this problem. The solution is to maintain the openness of political parties to society.

It is very far-reaching for the ruling party to absorb the talents cultivated by the society. It can be understood from several aspects. First, the cadres of the ruling party come from the society so that the ruling party can maintain organic ties with the society. Such talents, because they come from all aspects of society, can better understand the needs of society and better express and represent the interests of all aspects of society. More importantly, these people come from society and society recognizes them highly, and their entry into the party strengthens the legitimacy of the ruling party. This is an effective way for the ruling party to preserve its power from deteriorating. That is, the ruling party must keep the regime open to society. Second, it reduces corruption. These people already have a good economic foundation, and the possibility of corruption is greatly reduced. That is to say, when they enter the ruling party and take up public offices, they do so not for the sake of economic benefits, but to serve the community. In many countries, including democracies, the phenomenon of "rent-seeking", that is, using one's power for personal gains, often occurs among people holding public offices. But in Singapore, this is rare. Thirdly, the cost of training is very low. It is not easy to train a cadre. The social training of cadres undoubtedly greatly reduces the cost of training.

In a western multi-party system of government, government policies are easily transformed. The rotation of political parties makes it unnecessary for the ruling party to carry the baggage of other ruling parties. But under the conditions of one-party rule, policy transformation is slow, and how to update one's talents and policies at any time is the challenge of long-term one-party rule. This relies on the party to integrate with the society, to empathize with the society and to absorb the social elites.

The relationship between government and society

Singapore itself is a very small city-state. PAP MPs are required to meet their constituents directly on a regular basis to discuss issues of concern to them, which binds the ruling party within the party and the community. If the representatives and members do not have an organic mechanism to connect with the society, none of them have a direct relationship with the people. If these representatives are not directly connected to the society and the people, how can they represent the interests of the people?

Singapore has a good combination of democracy and one-party rule. Westerners say that Singapore is an illiberal democracy, but the name does not matter; the point is that democracy should be able to produce a good and effective government. In the West, the effective functioning of democracy has benefited from the building of basic national institutions prior to democratization, as well as from a relatively high level of socio-economic development. In Asia, a number of countries and regions were democratized by various factors before they were able to establish basic State institutions and achieve socio-economic development. Democratic politics are thus often problematic. In particular, democratic politics are irreversible in nature. Once democratized, many basic State systems are difficult to establish. This has the potential to leave these countries in a weak position for a long time.

It should be emphasized that a good government is possible in any political system. In ancient China, there were good emperors and good governments, but that depended on the personal qualities of a leader. If the leader is good, the government is good. The personal factor plays a major role and lacks institutional safeguards. Singapore uses a democratic system to ensure this good government. The ruling party must pass the "big test" once every five years, that is, the general election. Because there are many opposition parties, albeit small, they constitute good competitive pressure. The opposition parties themselves have no substantial constraints on the ruling party and have only a few seats in parliament. But if the people are dissatisfied with the ruling party, they can in principle support the opposition party in the general election. Therefore, there is always pressure on the ruling party. The governing behavior of the ruling party must satisfy the majority of the people.

At the same time, it is important to ensure that genuine talent is recruited. There are officials in Singapore who were critical of the government before they entered politics. But the ruling party is very open. The government needs people who have constructive criticism. As long as the criticism is justified, the ruling party will use them. The ruling party dislikes mediocre people who can just say nice things. The party can take you in if you are capable, have a track record and have constructive opinions. How to keep the regime open to represent the interests of the society is a problem that the ruling party has to solve, otherwise the ruling party itself will evolve into a vested interest.

It is important for the ruling party to represent the interests of the people. In this regard, the Singapore government has done what many developed democracies cannot do. The founding spirit of the Singaporean government is populism, the spirit of the authentic Chinese tradition. In many places, there are endless debates on the roles of the government and the market, and on the roles of capital and the people. But Singapore has managed to strike a good balance between these aspects. The Singaporean government has found a balance between "pro-business" and "pro-people". Being "pro-business" means being pro-businessman and emphasizing the role of capital. In order to develop, we must attach importance to capital and the role of businessmen and entrepreneurs. Without entrepreneurs and capital, development is impossible. In the West, there is no concept of "pro-business" because there is no need for it. Development in the West is led by businessmen. As I said earlier, Singapore's development has been led by political talents from the very beginning. This raises the question of the Government being "pro-business". That is to say, the government should provide a favorable environment for businessmen and capital, so that they can play a great role in promoting economic and social development. It is against this background that the industrial parks in Singapore have emerged. Over the years, the Singaporean Government has spent a lot of energy on absorbing foreign capital. Without the "pro-business" policy orientation of the Singaporean government, Singapore would not have the construction achievements it has today.

However, "pro-business" and development are not ends in themselves; their purpose is "pro-people". In other words, the former is a tool and the latter is an end in itself. The Singaporean government is incomparable to many democracies in the provision of basic government services. To stay in power for the long term, it must provide services to the community. Being "pro-business" provides the economic foundation for a service-oriented government. Many of the ideals of traditional Chinese culture have never been realized in China, such as "home ownership", but they have been realized in Singapore. In fact, few governments have been able to solve the housing problem of ordinary people as well as the Singaporean government. Many countries, including democracies, have failed to solve this problem. Many people who come from China to visit Singapore always see Singapore's housing policy as a relief for the poor. This is a big misunderstanding. Most people in Singapore live in government housing, and so does the middle class. Housing policy is a very important founding policy of Singapore. Since the founding of the country, the government has introduced a series of policies centered around the platform of housing to build a harmonious society, including community, healthcare, public ****safety, environmental protection and education. In particular, I would like to mention the way the Singapore government has handled the economic crisis. Whenever an economic crisis strikes, the Government must take into account the interests of both employers and workers and strike a balance between the two. On the one hand, it has to help the employers to tide over the crisis, because once there is a crisis on the employers' side, there will be employment problems for the workers. In the wake of the financial crisis, the Government has subsidized the employers so that they will not dismiss workers arbitrarily. On the other hand, the Government has spared no effort in helping workers. Instead of giving money to the poor without any target, the government will give them all kinds of retraining for re-employment and provide them with employment opportunities.

The essence of democracy is competition

Politics can be centralized, and power can be concentrated, but it must be ensured that those who wield power must be the best in society. This is an important consideration for Singapore's leaders. In democratic politics, the role of opposition parties is to be able to constrain the ruling party, but other more effective constraints exist. As said above, the most effective constraint on the ruling party in Singapore is not the opposition party, but the society, that is, the people.

It has also been argued that only with multi-party competition will voters be able to make rational choices, because different political parties propose different policies, and voters will be able to make a rational choice between them. But this assumption may not be true. If both candidates are "rotten apples", then it does not matter which one they choose. For many years, there has been a tendency in the West for several candidates to be similar, or for everyone to agree that they are "rotten apples", and so the turnout rate will be low. According to my observation, the Singaporean system has the advantage of combining "selection" and "election". The People's Action Party (PAP) has to make sure that a few "good apples" are selected first, and then the people are allowed to vote in the election. Selection is a traditional Chinese thing, while election is a Western thing. Singapore has been able to combine the two very well.

It should be noted that selection is not designation, and selection is intra-party democracy and intra-party competition. For Singapore's leaders, the PAP's intra-party recognition is important. Lee Kuan Yew once said that between Goh Chok Tong and Tan Keng Yam, the former was not his first choice. But the party supported Goh Chok Tong, and in the end, it was the party's elite identity rather than personal identity that played a role.

Many people think that democracy is about multi-party competition, which is not certain. The essence of democracy is competition, not the number of parties. In Japan, for a long time, factional competition within the LDP (which is the LDP's intra-party democracy) was far more important than party-to-party competition. This intra-party competition is selection, which is very important. Especially in a one-party ruling system, intra-party competition becomes very important. Like the LDP in Japan, elite compromise within the party is institutional competition for the elite. The ideal, of course, is intra-party voting. This voting can be either by all party members or indirectly. The Democratic Party and *** and party candidates in the United States are also the result of competition between various forces within the party, and finally let the people go to the polls to choose. The nomination of candidates for political parties in the United Kingdom is a disguised system of "selection".

The quality and talent of the candidates are guaranteed, so that the people's vote is meaningful. Singapore does this very well. Parliamentarians are elected. For example, a person who has done a good job in a certain field is registered in a specific constituency, so that the people can elect you. He is first identified with the community and then with the political party. The one who does well outside the party will be directly absorbed by the party, so he will be easily elected.

Democracy does not necessarily mean that the louder the opposition, the better. The key is competition, and the opposition does not have to be external, but internal. In the UK, it's called the "loyal opposition". No matter which political party, it is for the benefit of the country, not for the sake of seizing power. In many Asian countries and regions, opposition parties have evolved into opposition for the sake of opposition. This is not in line with the original intent of democracy. Singapore is now also making political reforms, mainly for the sake of more democracy, to increase the proportion of opposition parties in the parliament. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that this reform is to maintain political stability and a strong popular mandate for the government. Singapore has decided to amend the Electoral Ordinance to increase the number of guaranteed seats for opposition parties in Parliament, i.e. non-constituency MPs, from a minimum of three to nine. Regardless of the number of votes won by opposition candidates, they will have a minimum of nine seats in Parliament, increasing the proportion of opposition parties in Parliament to 20 per cent. The Government of Singapore emphasized that proportional representation would not be an option for political reform, as it would otherwise create a weak government. That is, developing more democracy does not necessarily mean learning from the West. Many practices in the West are more just in theory, but not in practice. Many practices in the West are not compatible with Asian countries. The spirit of what Singapore has done is to provide more space for different interests and voices within the system, to digest and harmonize different interests within the system.

The role of the leader

Would the United States have tried a monarchy without Washington? This is a question that is often raised. Founding fathers are very important, and Lee Kuan Yew played such a role. In general, Singapore is a model of a very good combination of Western constitutional democracy and Chinese cultural traditions.

A common phenomenon is that under strongman politics, there is often no political competition, and the successor is appointed. Lee Kuan Yew is also a political strongman. The difference is that he was able to convert his worldview and policies into a set of systems, the construction of the ruling party and the anti-corruption system have been established. Lee Kuan Yew studied law, and he knew that in order to have long-lasting peace and security, he must convert his ideas into a system.

Singapore does not talk about ideology, but only about *** enjoyment of values. It combines its own culture, with a constitutional system, and is the second country in Asia that combines the best of Eastern and Western civilizations. In my opinion, Japan is the first country that best combines its traditional culture with western political democracy. Japan is not a completely Western-style democracy. Japan combines traditional culture, especially Confucianism, with Western constitutional democracy. The fact that factions within the LDP were able to reach a **** understanding is inseparable from traditional culture. Japanese politicians also have the courage to take responsibility, which is also part of the traditional culture. Singapore's leaders have also taken a political path with their own characteristics through their own efforts. System transplantation did not happen in Singapore, what happened was system innovation.

The U.S. system has been around for more than two hundred years and has taken root, and no one can destroy it. In Asia, Africa, and Latin America, many democracies have operated in a very problematic manner and have become a source of social instability. Originally, the spirit of democracy is mutual compromise, but these countries often attack each other. In Asia, democracy has been practiced in many countries for many years, but the political situation is still so chaotic and socio-economically underdeveloped. Singapore has avoided the detour that many developing democracies have taken. Institutional innovation has played a great role in this process. Now Singapore has also raised the issue of the "post-Li Kuan Yew era". My own judgment is that in the "post-Lee Kuan Yew era", the system established during the Lee Kuan Yew era is precisely the institutional guarantee that ensures the continuity of the system, and at the same time, this system also contains a great spirit of institutional innovation.