Of the places we visited, Singapore struck me as having perhaps both the least and the most sense of historical memory. On the one hand, the tiny city-state pays the past no mind, forging ahead as a free agent economically and politically. On the other hand, this drive to succeed is fueled by a keen awareness that all of Singapore's growth is thanks to the nation's own deliberate action.
Singapore is a little island with few natural resources and a whole lot of people. As a result, it's relied on human capital to grow its economy. Since the second world war, the country has built itself into a economic powerhouse. And this hasn't been an accident. Singaporeans are very aware that they have the careful planning of the People's Action Party (PAP) to thank. Though it's hard for me to ever get behind a truly one-party system, Singapore is the best argument for it. If it weren't for creative ideas strictly applied by the central government to make exactly the society they envisioned, Singapore wouldn't have come as far as it has. This isn't a secret, or even particularly insightful. It's a fact of life in Singapore.
It's so widely accepted, in fact, especially among the generation that remembers a different, poorer Singapore, that it's particularly impressive that opposition parties managed to garner 40 percent in this year's national election. Because of the structure of national representation, the opposition only got 8 out of 89 seats in parliament. But if I were the PAP, I would be quaking in my boots. The older generation won't be around forever, and it's the younger generation currently paying the highest tax of all: two years of their life, for mandatory military service.
The pragmatism of the discourse in Singapore reminded me of Sweden, actually, even though their political systems couldn't be more difficult. Perhaps I give the two countries too much credit, but the two countries seem to take the same approach to national problems: identify the best solution and implement it. Just like Singapore, Sweden was relatively poor until the second half of the 20th century, and its economy today is built entirely on an educated, competitive workforce.
There are differences, of course, in their means. Singapore, for example, bans most public discussion of racial issues, an effective solution to a certain variety of problems but a clear encroachment on free speech. (I hope it doesn't apply to commentary on the ethnic origin of delicious food, because we might be in trouble.) Meanwhile, Sweden remains effective despite a liberal democracy standing in the way of getting things done. The PAP should take heart: If Singaporean elections stop reelecting them, all hope is not lost for the country's future. It's also a distinct possibility that the PAP is quite safe as long as they keep producing results.
Singapore also evoked some of the same feeling of Hong Kong, of course: an oasis of developed Westernness in a third-world desert. But the fact that it is its own nation, and one that has been independent for a relatively long time, changes everything, giving it the added feeling of a nimble, dynamic free spirit that has a clear idea of what it wants. Much more so than any of the other places we visited, I'll be fascinated to see where Singapore is in ten or fifty years.