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.
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:
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.
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.