Monday, May 15, 2006
Teaching China Lessons - Really, Now.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has gone to China with the confident declaration that Singapore can help the emerging giant to 'connect' with Southeast Asia and the West.  China has received him warmly, with much pomp and goodwill, complete with showing him a little plot of orchids and a mini merlion as part of his welcoming ceremony.  Promises are bandied about, as are grand words; Beijing says it wants Singapore to participate in China's development, and Singapore says its doors will always be open.  The diplomats are all smiles and good cheer, and what could look more promising?

Yet it is not the first time that we've seen this 'wayang' (word of the year) unfold.  We saw how in the 1990's much pomp and acclaim were given to the launching of the Suzhou Industrial Park joint partnership between China and Singapore.  Often touted as Lee's brainchild, it was to combine China's cheap labour and manufacturing costs with Singapore's expertise, experience and yes -- national reserves.  Before that, China had already professed its intention to follow the 'Singapore model' of development, which gave way to the rather unusual cooperation between the two nations; rather like a slumbering dragon ambling in the wake of a precocious younger lizard, strutting along, annoyingly full of itself.

The China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park, for all its grand fanfare, was a complete embarrassment.  Ruined by corruption, nepotism, delays, and incompetent management which saw the park facing competition from the Suzhou New District, another industrial park in the region, the affair tapered down quietly into a complete handover of administration from Singaporean to Chinese hands, and a subsequent drop in investment from Singapore into China.  My own father's business would know.  Seeing a massive flow of customers shift into Suzhou, he thought to follow the exodus of demand into the province as well, and set up operations there a number of years ago.  Today, we still have not been able to begin trading there, due to the inefficiencies and corruption that seem endemic to China.  We have faced problems in everything from having our logo registered as a trademark, let alone obtaining a permit to manufacture and trade in Suzhou.  My father's company was one of the 'dupes' of that hype, and it begs me to wonder if anything at all has changed in this new rapprochement between Singapore and China.

Singapore seems to be vigorously blowing its own trumpet in order to stay relevant and needed to the region.  But to be honest, I wonder if China really does need us, or intend to follow our advice.  How much clout do we really have? We say we want to connect China with the West.  They hardly need our help for that.  China's booming markets and its huge potential for contribution to the global trade volume and the expansion of Western markets ensures that East and West are very much connected in a 21st century form of Silk Road.  Since Mao-Nixon detente in the early 1970's, relations between China and the USA have been carefully cordial.  And insofar as connecting China in Southeast Asia, Singapore honestly has no truly friendly ties to any SEA nation save for Indonesia at the moment.  We most recently pissed off Malaysia and Thailand -- are we really any authority on ASEAN friendship and cooperation? Furthermore, China-ASEAN trade is already booming without Singaporean assistance, it would seem, since the signing of the China-ASEAN Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation on Nov 4, 2002, and the scheduled commencement of the FTA in 2010.

Given this, I wonder what Singapore can truly do for China besides drink tea, look at orchids, and advise them to learn English.  I guess we're doing all this just in hopes of snatching up a bilateral FTA deal after the China-ASEAN one comes into effect, as has already been announced as to be Singapore's intention by Lim Hng Kiang in 2004.  Until then, it seems we have nothing but diplomatic hot-air overtures and a history of failure to offer.

Posted at 02:26 am by gaylegoh

ObserverIIerverII
May 28, 2006   04:54 PM PDT
 
Yeah, we can't do much for China. That I agree.

I am in MBA school in the USA. We have SO MANY MBAs from the PRC. These guys and girls are very impressive.

Who needs Singapore?
ice
May 19, 2006   01:04 PM PDT
 
china does not need singapore. lets not kid ourselves about it. there are many 'experts' going to and from the west and china that singapore is totally out of the loop. look at the world map, we are out of the way, situated all the way south.

politicians should just do what they are suppose to do, and not meddle in business transaction.

up till today, i am still waiting for the government to disclosure the outcome of our investment in the suzhou fiasco; how much of our money has gone in and how much are we taking out??
thinker
May 18, 2006   02:21 PM PDT
 
The true fact was that LKY probably does not understand the 'culture' of the mainland chinese inclusive that of the HK and Taiwan. They are better businessmen than folks in nanyang. Lees should stay in their profession and not getting involves in doing business with China. The Chinese are not stupid, they make use of you and dispose you like the baby pampers. Singapore should comprehen by now that the SuZhou investment failure might be mainly due to our complacent attitude that causes our failure. The Chinese will built better places to compete with us.
tarheelblue
May 18, 2006   11:16 AM PDT
 
i actually wrote a comment here but when i checked this site again i realized that my comment was not published. oh well. i'll just say it again:

i find this whole 'east meets west' concept thing somewhat questionable. what does one mean by east, and what does mean by west? For one, the European Union and the US have different cultures, backgrounds etc, not to mention within the EU itself. the same applies for china (excluding the rest of Asia for a moment) - different aprts of china have different cultures too, so i'm not sure if saying things like 'we speak mandarin therefore we are well versed in chinese culture, we have had lots of mncs here and we speak english therefore we are pretty western' makes sense.

that said, i think china could use singapore in the short run (note: this doesn't translate to needing singapore) . after all, singapore is a huge investor in china. and singapore ocmbines authoratarian political management with rapid economic growth - something china would like to achieve.

wrt asean, i assume you are referring to the thaksin/temasek holdings ruckus and malaysia the uh, causeway bridge? either way, even if singapore is not exactly the favorite neighbor right now, these strains (inevitable in internatinoal relations anyway) are at best temporary.

china is in the meantime interested in wooing asean, and singapore is one of asean's economic powerhouses, so wooing singapore makes sense too.

adrian: the point about singapore is that it is a small, open economy, therefore highly vulnerable. and asean isn't doing terribly well as it was before the asian financial crisis - whereas the world's hot spots are now china and india. it would do singapore much good if it could invest and make headways sucecssfully in these regions. it's not a matter of strategy wrt geographic location - it's a question of survival
tarheelblue
May 18, 2006   01:24 AM PDT
 
if anything, i find this whole 'east meets west' concept pretty questionable. because what does one mean by 'east' and 'west'? european culture isn't quite the same as american culture. and even if we merely talk about china, different chinese regions have differnet cultures. using the phrase 'east meets west' is just like saying that both are monolithic blocs.

i think china does need us but maybe not forever, and definitely not as much as it might need other ctries like the US, Japan and the EU. singapore after all is a huge investor in china so we're not *that* unimportant.

which incidents are you referring to wrt thailand and malaysia? thailand - i assume it's the Temasek Holdings ruckus, malaysia, the causeway bridge? Either way, i doubt that these incidents will leave a serious strains on intra- ASEAN ties and Singapore is still the economic powerhouse of Southeast Asia so wooing Singapore really isn't that bad an idea.
Cail
May 17, 2006   04:12 PM PDT
 
Well written article. China is only looking at Singapore for any $ to be invested to their province. This will means better lobang for them to negotiate with rich business man.

For example, these guys ask our MM Lee to invest in another industrial park and MM Lee agress, $ will start crawling their way into his pocket as business man will bribe these guys or goes into partnership. This is call Guang Xi.

These are the opportunities that they are looking at when they invite our MM Lee over.

In my 2 cent worth opinion, the East meet West idea through Singapore is totally baseless. China, with the help of HK, has the talents to do that alone. I have met these young generation who are studying in UK, AU and US. These people know China and US better than any local talent we have.

your mother
May 16, 2006   01:20 AM PDT
 
your mother is agree with you.
gayle
May 16, 2006   12:16 AM PDT
 
Singaporeans - innovation and skills? I'm a bit sceptical. And this doesn't help:

http://samaryn.com/2006/05/12/singaporean-robotic-fish-a-worlds-first/

Somehow I don't think our culture allows for too much of that. And perhaps it has something to do on our dependence on foreign MNCs and expertise as well.

People from China, from what I hear from my friend who works in finance, are the really brilliant ones. Smarter than ang mohs too.
Elia Diodati
May 15, 2006   11:39 PM PDT
 
It's not too surprising. The worst-case scenario for Singapore is not obliteration by force, but irrelevence as an economy. This trumpet-blowing is, if nothing else, an assertion that Singapore wants to stay around. And if it doesn't do it now, its economic advantage will only decrease over time.
adrian
May 15, 2006   10:47 PM PDT
 
An Asean common market doesn't need to be monetary union. Nor does it need to be like a political community. If I recall, we already have a free trade area in Asean. What we do need is a business environment where it is possible for labour and business to cross borders easily.

Singapore has to realise that they can no longer compete on wages. They need to compete on innovation and skills.
Leopsyche
May 15, 2006   06:25 PM PDT
 
It does make one wonder how often the Chinese phrase about a tiger and a fox is uttered by the Chinese behind Singaporean backs.
gayle
May 15, 2006   06:21 PM PDT
 
Yeah. But there can be an AU without a Burma, lah. Kausikan would certainly concur :)
Alex
May 15, 2006   06:10 PM PDT
 
ASEAN can't even decide what to do with the renegade Burma..
gayle
May 15, 2006   10:29 AM PDT
 
Sorry, about poorer countries suffering, I meant with inflation that might come with a burden to open their markets to other strong economies. And regarding the stubbornness of countries about their currencies, I meant that doesn't bode well for any hope of a common currency that would help to keep inflation low.
gayle
May 15, 2006   10:23 AM PDT
 
You mean something along the lines of an ASEAN Union? Yeah, I was thinking about that, but the intra-ASEAN disparities are so great. How is Singapore and say, Cambodia going to thrive in the same market? Especially with the currency differences -- poorer countries I think would suffer. Also, China seems to be rather anal about their yuan, Malaysia as well, with very minimal revaluation. I'm a really lousy economist, but I'd offer my layman opinion that a free trade zone is all that's viable for now. An AU that you say needs to come in the long term may come, but it would be very long term indeed.
adrian
May 15, 2006   07:52 AM PDT
 
Here's my opinion, and I speak as a final year undergrad at LSE studying Int'l Relations with an intention to work for the MFA.

I think we've misread the China situation. Places like Hongkong and Shanghai can do the whole "connect China to the West" role, because like it or not, these 2 cities were doing that even before WW2.

The role or region Singapore needs to look to is ASEAN, our own backyard. And even in ASEAN, we can't play the role that Germany of France does in bossing the EU. Long term, we need a common market along the lines of the EU in SE Asia.
 

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments







Previous Entry Home Next Entry
gayle goh

<< May 2006 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31

profile

Recommended Posts

Do We Owe Our Existence to the PAP?
A Message From a Media Insider
The Bilahari Kausikan Post
Bilahari Kausikan's Reply
Money in Politics, Politics in Money
Workers' Party, PAP or My Living Room Armchair?
My Vision for Singapore
Democracy is Dangerous!
Singapore's Midlife Crisis
Smile, Singapore! WB and IMF Meetings a Scam
Chees' Rally & March; Interview with Gandhi Ambalam

worthy reads
xenoboy sg
students' sketchpad
singabloodypore
singapore mind
young republic
i-do-not-speak


friends
kwee boon
brendan
ben teh
2sa3
gecko

shameless advertising
if you're looking for air compressors and ancillary parts (vane, rotary, screw, etc), my dad sells them! ;)



disclaimer
the author of this site has based all her personal opinions on what is known to her as fact. any error is made of ignorance, not malice, and is accordingly apologized for. any views and opinions expressed by other persons on this site are not the responsibility of the author, nor does she claim to espouse them.

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed