To what extent can Singaporeans be considered an appropriate role model for Third World countries aspiring to developed status?

Singapore, together with the other three Asian 'tigers', is the closest of the Third World countries to developed status. With a per capita GDP of close to US$30,000, we have clearly satisfied the economic criteria, bettering such developed nations as Greece and Spain. We have long been pointed out as a beacon for other developing nations to follow, but Singapore's unique bases for development prevent the wholesale adoption of identical policies from being successful.

Singapore shares many common characteristics with other states of the South: progressing, for example, from colonialism through a period of self-government to democracy. The relatively smooth process of handover of power is emblematic of the unruffled political climate of our country. This stability of government is something all nations should aspire to. Internal conflicts such as those among Somalian warlords and Afghani religious factions wrack the country politically, socially and economically, making even the task of rising above the poverty line a grave problem, let along achieving developed status.

Another set of criteria in achieving developed status concerns the accountability and incorruptibility of the government. Singapore again heads the slate with its clear separation of the branches of government -- executive, legislative, and judiciary; its just rewarding of political leaders and public servants; and its democratic process of allowing multi-party elections free of vote-buying. Developing nations, whatever their constitution, would do well to take heed of these universally accepted conditions for advancement. With a paucity of political mayhem, Singapore was free to promote economic growth and now to promote a gracious society. What chance for this in a place like Pakistan where elections held every couple of years threaten a drastic rearrangement of economic interests at the whim of the party in power?

Our economic lead has been due to prudent policies of industrialisation and diversification. Singapore's development from labour intensive industries in the 60s and 70s to high-tech research and development based firms in the 90s has followed an almost textbook-perfect timeline insofar as keeping up with worldwide trends is concerned. Ensuring that the economy is not dependent on any one industry is an accepted economic ideal, and countries like Brunei are struggling to achieve economic independence from resource-based industries. Singapore has maintained a wide portfolio of economic activities by actively sacrificing short-term income for long-term economic growth by such schemes as pioneer industries operating tax-free initially and regional headquarters being given special status. Similar policies should be pursued by any developing nations which plans to emerge from the morass of poverty.

Having shown that many of Singapore's modes of development can be applied universally, many factors make these more difficult to bring to fruition in countries other than Singapore. Many former colonies are saddled with a dominant monoculture industry where a single cash crop constitutes a significant portion of the country's grass domestic product - for example, Ghana and cocoa-growing. The uselessness of such cash crops domestically and the control of prices by foreign markets embroils such states in a vicious battle for economic survival against the powerful North. Industrial goods are now the blue chips of the international market and low value cash crops are a paltry source of funds for diversifying the economy. Singapore was in the envious position of never having been stuck in such a rut, since entrepot trade was and still is globally important.

Besides the pre-existing state of the economy, the social make-up of the population also plays a role in development. Singapore's much lauded multi-cultural heritage conceals a more fundamental homogeneity, that of being descended from working or merchant class ancestors. Singaporeans by and large maintain the priority of economic over racial and social issues that their ancestors brought. This is hardly the case in countries like Rwanda where ages-old tribal enmity brews ready to erupt at any provocation. The intransigent conflicts between Tutsi and Hutu, Bosnian and Serb, have seldom found an easy solution and thus prevent Singapore's model from being adopted without modification.

The ability of Singapore's government to promulgate economic and social policies vital for its development has been a consequence of Singapore's small size. Both control and communication are significantly more effective in an urbanised city-state than in such countries like Burma, where warlords rule vast tracts of land far from the capital in all but name. One solution to this is to adopt what China has done. It has transferred Singapore's 'software' -- its human resource development and planning skills -- to a small self-contained industrial park in Suzhou where conditions more accurately simulate Singapore's own.

Another problem Third-World countries may face that Singapore did not is the lack of a hinterland. Our favourable geopolitical situation allowed us to develop first an international port and later, our industrial goods could be sold to the vast market of Southeast Asia, our hinterland, or easily exported via our port. A landlocked country like the Central African Republic, surrounded by neighbours at the same stage of economic development would not be able to industrialise as we did.

To conclude, if, despite the many hurdles, a Third-World country still decides to ape Singapore, it must consider the social implications of Singapore's agenda. The presence of an authoritarian 'father-figure' government , though more effective in implementing economic policies, sacrifices something in the way of personal liberty. Free-wheeling American individualism would be difficult to contain within the ordered society Singaporeans live in. If citizens are able and willing to accept governmental control of many areas of their life, from education to welfare, then the country has a good chance of becoming the Singapore of the 21st century.

Marks: Content = 26/30, Language = 16/20, Total = 42/50 (A1).
A work of superlative quality. Analytical and of high interest value.