Singapore must guard against going the way of Venice

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#1
To share the article.

Singapore must guard against going the way of Venice

As our water taxi pulled away from the Rialto Bridge stop along Venice’s world-famous Grand Canal, our audio guide sounded a warning: “Venice is in decline. Once Europe’s largest financial centre, it dominated trade in the Mediterranean with a population of 175,000 at its peak. Now though, this historic city has under 60,000 residents with a quarter of these aged over 64. There could be no more full-time, native-born inhabitants by 2030.”

“Venice”, he added, “might be just a floating museum by then. A shadow of its glorious past”.

In a 1988 speech, Mr George Yeo who was then Singapore’s Foreign Affairs Minister compared the rise of Venice and Singapore. Two years to our nation’s 50th birthday, we could probably learn more from Venice’s decline.

EXTERNAL COMPETITION

Venice’s decline could be attributed to events after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. Its trade routes were under threat with Columbus’ discovery of America in 1492 and Vasco de Gama routing trades via the Cape of Good Hope to Asia in 1498.

These events significantly reduced Venice’s trade with the Levant or eastern Mediterranean and boosted the fortunes and relevance of emerging maritime powers such as Spain, Portugal and other nations west of Italy.

Singapore faces similar competition. Last month, a Chinese container ship became the first commercial vessel to travel through the Arctic via the Northern Sea Route (NSR). It skipped Singapore and reached Rotterdam from Dalian on Sept 10. The journey took 34 days — 11 days shorter than if it had used the Suez Canal.

If the NSR eventually becomes commercially viable, ships may bypass Singapore (a key shipping hub on the route via the Suez Canal). Singapore has responded by gaining a permanent observer seat on the Arctic Council and diversifying its port businesses.

Meanwhile, the potential construction of Thailand’s own “Suez Canal” across the Isthmus of Kra could save ships up to four days and render Singapore and the Straits of Malacca potentially irrelevant.

Venice also had to compete with neighbouring financial centres like Genoa and Florence. Although it had pioneered the issuance of government bonds and dominated finance and commerce in the 15th century, it was overshadowed by Genoa in the 16th century and, by the 17th century, Amsterdam, which had become the world’s leading financial centre having developed central banking, the stock market and financial derivatives.

In Asia, competition between Hong Kong and Singapore as regional financial hubs has been well-documented, but both should keep a keen eye on Shanghai’s emergence. On Sept 29, China launched a free trade zone in Shanghai with the goal of making it a world financial centre by 2020, going beyond greater trade liberalisation to include investment, financial services and free currency convertibility.

INTERNAL FISSURES

Fissures within society probably also contributed to Venice’s eventual decline. In Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson argued that while upward mobility drove Venice’s wealth and power through the commenda (a partnership where capital-poor sailors and rich Venetians shared profits from voyages), this eventually threatened the established elite.

From 1315, the Venetian elite “pulled up the ladder” by instituting a political shift which led to Venice’s transformation into what the authors call an “extractive state”, where ruling elites extract as much wealth as they can from the rest of society. Such states, they argue, are more inclined to fail than “inclusive states”, which give everyone access to economic opportunity.

Singapore must guard against such fissures and remain “inclusive”. We have done well to promote meritocracy in our society. However, as income inequality widens, society must play a bigger role alongside Government to prevent fissures from destroying our societal fabric.

Last month, speakers at a National University of Singapore forum advocated for more targeted measures to address poverty here. In a survey of 383 Singaporeans led by Associate Professor Irene Ng, 60 per cent felt the amount spent on assistance to the poor was inadequate and 70 per cent did not see poverty as the individual’s fault.

Assoc Prof Ng — who concedes her results are not fully representative — also found that less than half surveyed were willing to pay more taxes in return for greater government spending to help the poor. While there is no evidence to suggest that Singaporean elites are “pulling up the ladder”, the need to be “inclusive” is arguably greater than ever before, as the divide between rich and poor widens and our society ages.

Singapore will do well to learn from Venice’s decline or risk becoming irrelevant, broken and a shadow of what our forefathers worked so hard to build.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Tan Sheng Hui was an International and Global Affairs Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. He now works in financial services in Singapore.
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/spo...way-venice
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply
#2
Quote:Meanwhile, the potential construction of Thailand’s own “Suez Canal” across the Isthmus of Kra could save ships up to four days and render Singapore and the Straits of Malacca potentially irrelevant.

The impact of the Kra canal is low as compared with Suez or Panama Canal.
Suez canal saves around 3300 to 10000 miles.
Panama canal saves around 3300 to 8000 miles.

Kra saves around a max of 1500 miles.
As for the building cost, it is likely to be higher than Panama canal due to the terrain.
Reply
#3
(15-10-2013, 09:11 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: Assoc Prof Ng — who concedes her results are not fully representative — also found that less than half surveyed were willing to pay more taxes in return for greater government spending to help the poor. While there is no evidence to suggest that Singaporean elites are “pulling up the ladder”, the need to be “inclusive” is arguably greater than ever before, as the divide between rich and poor widens and our society ages.

Singapore will do well to learn from Venice’s decline or risk becoming irrelevant, broken and a shadow of what our forefathers worked so hard to build.

I for one, will be very interested for Mr Tan to show the reasoning behind his statement that the Economic Mobility of Singapore isn't showing widening effect.

Not only the Gini Coefficient is important, the awareness of the Social-Economic Mobility of this country is as well. Given such a small country as ours, any adverse effect, any widening inequality will have not only affect the social climate of Singapore but at a fast pace too.

I can see a future for the major countries of the world, USA, Britain, BRIC and western developed countries. They will still be there and be relevant in the world stage 100, 200 years in the future.

For Singapore, let's not kid ourselves. We were a miracle of the world due to earlier generation of leaders and forefathers. How we can continue to walk down the path to celebrate Singapore's NDP 100th birthday is still an unknown.

Government and populace aren't exactly standing on same terms. Economic development hinges on FT policy so far. We are gearing ourselves to be the financial hub of the SEA region simply because the rest of the regional countries couldn't make it thus far.

We don't score high on innovation, don't have our local companies that make it big in the world, doesn't have a local culture that tie us down to this country and say "I am proud to be a Singaporean." Why else is the brain drain issue still popping out every now and then?

Can we as a nation continue the same route down the road?

Truth is hard to swallow, however it is also staring at us. If we (Government alike) cannot break out of the comfort zone, then its all hands off deck in a matter of time.

Reply
#4
Three days ago, "Chinese media" announced that an MOU has been signed with Thailand to build the Kra Isthmus Canal, and it will take 10 years to complete.
http://chinadailymail.com/2015/05/17/chi...-thailand/

After that, China government says that they are not involved.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news...land-canal

Next, Thailand denies that any deal has been signed:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia...56758.html

Wonder what is the actual situation.
What would be the impact on Singapore if they do go ahead?
At the least, the Singapore port and related businesses will suffer.
Reply
#5
i had worked as a facilities technicians in a "Sponsored Research Centre". i had asked the many scientists from CHINA, India, Europe, will they make Singapore their "Home". None think they wanted to do so. Only most of us (common folks) have Hobson's choice.
That's why the very rich Chinese have families all over SEA and the world.
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply
#6
That's probably the trend of the world. The Rich/Smart is mobile today. Banks have to go across national boundaries to serve them while gov has to keep taxes on going while continue to attract them to come. Ignore them at our own peril because that's the reality of the future. As their children stay long enough locally and studied, they will be moulded nearer to us. Parent will always have their birth roots somewhere else just like our grand or great grands....

Just my Diary
corylogics.blogspot.com/


Reply
#7
Big oil companies already pumped billions here in singapore, the rockerfeller shell P.bukom built in the 80's cost us$35 billion now with jurong island is even more integrated petrol chemicals hub with hundreds other companies pumped other billions here over the years all will go up in smoke if china builds a kra canal and I assume the carrot for china helping out thailand is to allow china to have their own petrol chemicals refinery at kra.

will big oil allow it?

10 years many things can happen, the current king unexpected to last that long if he goes many are saying there could be a civil war in thailand, southern thailand songkla itself is already so volatile the location of kra borders 3 countries and so close to malaysia - anything can happen.

If kra goes up ships bypass ports in Malacca in the west, port dickson in the east, and Johore PTP will become irrelevant no industry in Johore economy there will *kaput* will people still want to pay over priced properties in Iskandar? kaput also.
Reply
#8
(20-05-2015, 07:55 AM)gzbkel Wrote: Three days ago, "Chinese media" announced that an MOU has been signed with Thailand to build the Kra Isthmus Canal, and it will take 10 years to complete.
http://chinadailymail.com/2015/05/17/chi...-thailand/

After that, China government says that they are not involved.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news...land-canal

Next, Thailand denies that any deal has been signed:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia...56758.html

Wonder what is the actual situation.
What would be the impact on Singapore if they do go ahead?
At the least, the Singapore port and related businesses will suffer.

Aiyah relax lah. nothing is going come out of this. just some greedy businessman/local politicians dreaming only. Thailand govt will never let this canal happen for political reason besides the uneconomical one.
Southern Thailand is fighting a muslim secessionist for years and it's unlikely to go away anytime soon. By allowing the canal to happen they are basically cutting off the south from the mainland giving rise to incentivise them to secede. Do you think Thailand central govt will let it happen??
Reply
#9
(20-05-2015, 11:28 AM)Jacmar Wrote:
(20-05-2015, 07:55 AM)gzbkel Wrote: Three days ago, "Chinese media" announced that an MOU has been signed with Thailand to build the Kra Isthmus Canal, and it will take 10 years to complete.
http://chinadailymail.com/2015/05/17/chi...-thailand/

After that, China government says that they are not involved.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news...land-canal

Next, Thailand denies that any deal has been signed:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia...56758.html

Wonder what is the actual situation.
What would be the impact on Singapore if they do go ahead?
At the least, the Singapore port and related businesses will suffer.

Aiyah relax lah. nothing is going come out of this. just some greedy businessman/local politicians dreaming only. Thailand govt will never let this canal happen for political reason besides the uneconomical one.
Southern Thailand is fighting a muslim secessionist for years and it's unlikely to go away anytime soon. By allowing the canal to happen they are basically cutting off the south from the mainland giving rise to incentivise them to secede. Do you think Thailand central govt will let it happen??

That's a real threat. If they build a canal cutting thailand into two. It will be penny wise pound foolish.

Just my Diary
corylogics.blogspot.com/


Reply
#10
The canal have been talked about for decades. Will definitely have an impact on Singapore's trade volume if it happens. But the canal has been difficult due to terrain and the restive muslim south. Personally I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, especially with the Junta government.

I think reading between the lines it could be an MOU by a chinese private entity to explore the feasibility.
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward

Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)