|
tfraser@tstt.net.tt
A
comparison of T&T and singapore
They
had a presence and command as if they were inheritors of
the world; yet it was not the attitude of arrogance we have
come to expect from, say, Americans and Europeans, who have
owned the world and shaped it in their likeness for a couple
centuries.
But when they unfurled a glimpse at the state of the economy
of their country (Republic of Singapore) and more so how
that country has moved over the last 40 years from being
a donkey-cart society to the air and sea transport hub of
southern Asia, it was easy to understand their sense of
comfort and control of the emerging global environment.
Clearly they are sure that, sooner rather than later, the
new order will have its axis in the East amongst the giant
states of China and India, with the queen of the bands in
the emerging/ed giants such as Singapore, Taiwan and South
Korea.
And why should the two relatively young Singaporeans diplomats/trade
negotiators not be assured of themselves: the 2007 GDP measured
US$161.3 billion; per capita GDP income (notwithstanding
all the limitations of such a measurement as being indicative
of the real state of equity in a country) was US$35,163;
annual average foreign direct investment flows into the
economy of US$12.8 billion, with the accumulated FDI amounting
to US$248 billion; overall exports valued US$328 billion
during 2007.
Whereas Standards and Poors gives the T&T economy a
rating of “A,” the rating of Singapore is “AAA.”
Very significantly, Singapore is 25th on the Human Development
Rankings scale, compared to 59 by T&T.
No need to relate too many more figures but we need to establish
the basis for the confidence of the two young men who recently
addressed a meeting of the Ministry of Trade and Industry
in Port-of-Spain.
The value of Singapore’s trade in 2007 reached US$562
billion. The breakdown into product categories is revealing
as to the nature of the economy.
Electronic equipment, 38 per cent; the production of machinery
and equipment, 17 per cent; mineral fuels, the processing
and refining of oil and gas, 19 per cent; chemicals, 9.4
per cent; food, beverage and tobacco, 2.1 per cent.
Incidentally, the production of electronic equipment was
one of the specialist areas developed by the country when
it established its export platform back in the 1970s.
The services sector of the economy measured US$67 billion
in 2007—if not as large as the goods sector, it is
even more dynamic: port and airport services, the country
being the hub of shipping and travel in Southern Asia; financial
services, including foreign exchange centre, a derivates
market, predominating.
And so continued the relating of the development of Singapore,
a well-known phenomenon of the so-called newly developing
countries of Asia, a group that broke on to the development
agenda in the late 1970s, but when told live here in Port-of-Spain,
the story made for even more compelling listening.
However, newcomers to the story of Singapore must also factor
into the overall picture a few country details. Singapore
occupies a geographic space of 707 square kilometres and
this compares to the 5,127 square kilometres of T&T.
It was literally run-out of the federation of Malaya in
1965. Singapore does not have natural resources, no oil
and gas. However, the country’s offshore trade in 2007
was valued at US$478 billion, a five-fold increase since
2000.
Singapore fits into its geographic space 4.6 million citizens/residents,
size clearly not being a factor in the economic development
paradigm. And like T&T, Singapore has had to deal with
a population divided up amongst ethnic Chinese, Indians,
Malays, and Eurasians—people of mixed European and
Asian ancestry.
It should also be noted that Singapore suffered from a poor
education system, a poorly educated population, low value-added
industries, heavy dependence on one economic activity, and
a small domestic market to produce for, which makes large-scale
production to achieve efficiencies difficult if not impossible.
The Singaporean presenters consider the strengths of their
country to be their people, an environment conducive to
business, urban infrastructure, and clearly a visionary
political directorate able to react dynamically to perceived
economic possibilities, and endowed with the political will
to go after, and in a dynamic fashion, the demands of development.
Very interestingly have been the phases of the country’s
development: 1965-1978—the establishment of the platform
for the development of an export-oriented base; 1979-1985—a
programme of industrial re- structuring, and the building
of the capability for economic diversification. This means
the Singaporeans anticipated the changing world and so began
the transformation of the economy and society.
From 1998 to the present, the economic planners moved to
transform the economy to one based on knowledge with all
of the challenges involved in producing technology that
is relevant and competitive.
Comparisons of the bare macro-economic facts with T&T
are not on: our achievements simply do not match up.
What is interesting and instructive to observe are factors
such as population and geographic size, resource base, and
degree of economic development in the 1960s and proximity
of T&T to a western developed constituency in this hemisphere
and those in Europe.
T&T at that time would have won every contest to determine
which country would have been more likely to succeed. The
fact is we have not gone any distance to achieving the economic
development status of Singapore, our present surface riches
being merely the result of high oil prices and granted a
decision to follow the natural gas mining and minimum processing
route.
Is it not amazing that a country without a drop of oil or
whiff of gas can become one of the major processing and
refining centres in that part of the world?
At the same time, we have allowed our oil refinery, which
was at one time one of the major refineries in the Western
Hemisphere, to become outdated. At the same time we have
failed, notwithstanding the enormous revenue we have possessed,
to update it.
Next week: the analysis and
comparisons—Singapore/ T&T—
to see how the two countries have
pursued the course of development; but the “negatives”
of Singapore,
the restrictive political
environment, are not ignored.
|
