The government of Singapore is as close as any nation has come to being led under a “benevolent dictatorship”. That term has been used to describe a theoretical form of government, where an authoritarian leader with near-absolute political power wields that power for the benefit of the population as a whole.
The Singapore that I lived and did business in during the early-1980s is not the Singapore of today. Smoking was allowed in bars, most restaurants and nightclubs. The Philippines passed its Tobacco Regulation Act in 2003. Singapore did not ban smoking in those places until 2007. Visiting tourists were able to have a cigarette with their beer and the government knew that.
Intellectual-property piracy was a concern and illegal in all advanced countries of which Singapore was supposed to be a part. Yet, while not actively encouraging it, the
government turned a blind eye to the fact that on virtually every street corner you could have a cassette tape made-to-order. The government knew that tourists dropped an extra $10 or more buying this pirated music to take home.
At that time there were 320 companies making legal cassettes. Today there are 882 companies producing legal music. Legal cassette sales back in the 1980s were limited only to those that wanted and were willing to pay much more for better quality.
However, even then littering laws were harsh and strictly enforced. The government wanted to maintain its reputation to the tourists that Singapore was one of the cleanest cities on earth. That was good for business, as was illegal music.
The problem with the government trying to make policies that are “fair” is that overall excellent performance is hampered and delayed. Lee Kuan Yew said: “At the end of the day, the basic problem of fairness in society will need to be solved. But, first, we have to create the wealth.”
Which policy makes more sense? “The price of rice should be no more than P10 per kilo to help the urban poor working family”. “The farm-gate price of rice should be no less than P50 per kilo to help the rural poor farming family”.
So the government walks the middle line and neither the urban poor nor the rural poor see much positive economic change in their lives, which is probably not fair either. Is there a rational solution? Maybe none.
But today being fair means catering to the most powerful vested interest.
The proposed US Border Adjustment Tax stands to greatly benefit exporters, who would pay no taxes on exports. US importers would be hit with 15 percent to 20 percent higher duty. On one hand is the noble-sounding Americans for Affordable Products who oppose it. On the other side is the also noble-sounding American Made Coalition.
Americans for Affordable Products is an alliance of more than 100 retailers, including Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Target. The American Made Coalition includes US exporters, Boeing, Dow Chemical, and pharmaceutical companies Eli Lilly and Pfizer.
Both sides are claiming that the government must be “fair” to their own interests. Each side proclaims that their interests are the best for the people and the country. Lee Kuan Yew did not put “fairness” on his to-do list. In 1986 he said, “What are our priorities? First, the welfare and survival of the people. Then, democratic norms and processes, which from time to time we have to suspend.”
****
E-mail me at mangun@gmail.com. Visit my web site at www.mangunonmarkets.com. Follow me on Twitter @mangunonmarkets. PSE stock-market information and technical analysis tools provided by the COL Financial Group Inc.