[b]Comparison of South Korea and Singapore[/b]
-
Both started the race about on par.
Singapore has gone south, and till now, relying on importing foreign trash to sustain the economy from demise. We have better strategic location as port, logistics hub, English educated workforce, high savings rate, and strong fundamentals.
Do you feel dissapointing and frustrated about the situation happening now?
Any academics could tell us what precisely has gone wrong with our economy? -
nothing has gone wrong.
the rich are still getting richer.
the poor goes into oblivion. -
we are third world country and our government getting 1st world salaries.
-
What are you talking about? South Korea surpasses us by leaps and bounds.
-
but honestly.
i prefer to live here than south korea. -
Simple explanation - South Korea has embraced Democracy and liberalize their political system, dismantling any possibilities of political control by any one political party over the civil service, security forces, government agencies, and government linked companies.
The South Korean Government is not afraid of PRIVATE WEALTH being a political threat to their government or to any political parties.
In South Korea, the Government encourages PRIVATE CAPITAL to take the lead in strategic industries - unlike the pseudo Singapore version of privatisation of strategic services that is largely government funded and government appointed management of the newly formed pseudo-privately registered businesses.
Free market is not merely a lip service in South Korea but truly embraced, and resulting in South Korea being the leading Asian country with the widest digital coverage provided by Private Enterprises, serving the highest number of users in broad band services at the lowest costs.
This has resulted in a large number from a generation of tech-savvy youngsters connected to a huge world wide web of information and technology, and advancing their education processes at a higher level than any other Asian countries.
This highly disciplined and enthusiastic tech-savvy generation feeds into the South Korean high tech industries and manufacturing support services, and resulting in many innovative products that are world beaters.
South Korea is leading in the large vessel shipbuilding, innovative high tech product research and development, leading also in nearly all highly competitive heavy, medium and consumer industries comparable to the best from the East and the West.
This transformation came about as a result of the sudden death of a tight-fisted martial rule by the late President Park Chung Hee.
His sudden demise by assassination from the head of his security service, shook the foundation of the government and South Korean society.
The sudden and violent death of this strong and omnipotent ruler, resulted in South Korea having an opportunity to revamp their political system and structure, after decades of restrictive controls that prevented any display of initiatives and enterprise.
Singapore has seen - and continue to see - the monopolistic domination of the POWER OF ONE, which fear Singaporeans being influenced by ideas that will place Singaporeans beyond the influence and control by the POWER OF ONE.
Supreme control is the keyword for the pervasive hand of the Singapore Government in all fields and perspective of Singapore events and experiences.
Such pervasiveness has resulted in the Singapore Government taking over and providing all essential services from food distribution, transport, housing, education, utilities, medical and health, sports and recreation.
All and any industrial and-or commercial activities will see the involvement of some government agencies, which will muscle out the local operated businesses.
This has extended to the point where any new product that show great potential will result in some government agencies attempting to usurp the representation rights to the ' sunrise' product ' - by a carefully managed effort to either challenge the rights to the franchise, or to make an attempt in reverse-engineering to find a new approach to redesigning the patented product.
Instead of supporting private enterprises, the government departments are using tax payers' money to challenge the legitimate investments and steal the patented discoveries of private enterprises.
In such an environment, can Singapore ever grow out of its lethargic economic malaise ? -
I don't want to live in a country near another one that test launches ICBMs on a holiday.
-
singapore political climate is closer to that of north korea.
-
I agree we can have someone's Statue raised and all NSmen have to bow to it every year .Originally posted by countdracula:singapore political climate is closer to that of north korea.
-
Bow my freakin ass.Originally posted by NotFromVenus:I agree we can have someone's Statue raised and all NSmen have to bow to it every year . You think this is King and Country huh. -
Originally posted by ditzy:I don't want to live in a country near another one that test launches ICBMs on a holiday.
-
actually, the S. korean economy is a little mre complex than that. It's true that we started on abt equal footing, but 2 things differed. 1stly is that the Korean govt. interfered to a much greater extent in businesses forming conglomerates called chaebols. These Chaebols enjoyed vast advantages from the govt. and in fact became so strong that the govt. feared these conglomerates. With this, the check and balance system was gone and there was an over-borrowing from thse chaebols. When Korea was in Fast growth, these problems could not be seen. But when it went into a medim growth stage, these problems became obvious.
In fact, the debt equity ratio was at an astounding 200-500%. When the 99 crisis hit, many of these chaebols wen bankrupt. Although the IMF did come in to assist, it's policies only made things worse and it tried to force open Korea to foreign companies. This resulted in the transferring of wealth from Koreans to foreign companies. Which basicaaly means that a lot of wealth went out of the hands of Korea. The koreans had to sell many good strong companies and they came out at the losing end of the bargain.
Contrast this with S'pore, our impact was much lesser. Academics usually place Korea under the A category. S'pore in the 2B category. meaning that S'pore was far less affected. That being said, Korea has 1 big advantage over S'pore. Namely, their domestic market. Something which S'pore doesn't have. -
This is an interesting read as I was thinking about it myself as in how did South Korea zoom ahead so far in front of us when we were once upon a time, all known as the Asian Tigers (with Taiwan and all).
Like some of the points that have been made, one glaring thing has always been the size of our market. I remembered when I worked and helped launch our ADSL service in '96 and '97, the koreans hadn't even gotten their act together...they even sent reps here to look at what and how we did things. But 2 years down the road, they were ahead of everyone else. Of course apart from having a larger market (of maybe becos of that), they were willing to take the plunge and go all the way to offer ADSL at rock bottom prices...we on the other hand were counting pennies and working like crazy just to meet some stupid goals that were impossible to do (since we were tying our own hands with high prices etc.).
Apart from this, I also understand in Korea (based on my trip there and my current korean classmates in the US), the society is very willing to go after graduate degrees. According to a korean here in US, she is sponsored totally for her PhD by Samsung and there is NO bond. In fact, I think Korea has one of the biggest PhD output in the world.
So besides gungho attitude, "free" market (after all the crash and burn during the asian crisis), and willingness to forge ahead as a people, what else is pushing Korea ahead of us... Anyone who is more knowleagble about the Korean secret *kimchi* for success? -
You can bow, I won't do it. I would prefer the national anthem any time.Originally posted by NotFromVenus:I agree we can have someone's Statue raised and all NSmen have to bow to it every year . -
It's actually hard to draw a comparison, because Korea modelled it's strategy after Japan. Also, it's economy is drivn by it's manufacturing sector nad like i meantioned highly supported by it's domestic market. Additionally, Korean companies strategy are generally the same; enter the low end of the market with low price (factories in China certainly help) and gain market share. Once it has establish a foothold, push up the market and enter areas that have higher margin, This can be seen in Samsung, Kia, Hyundai, etc. Basically it's an export market share strategy, whereas S'pore's model is slightly different. Korea was also accussed of crony capitalism and having unfair trading policies though i would disagree. An interesting note is that Koreans assimilate technology very well, possibly like wad u said, they are very well educated. They have the top percentage of engineers in the world. An epitome og this knack for assimilating techonology can be seen in hyundai. Both Hyundai and Proton started on equal footing with borrowed technology from Mitsubishi. However, it took Hyundai 6 yrs as compared to Proton who took triple that time to develop its own engine. So i kinda agree with what u said abt the education aspect.Originally posted by vaxjunior:Apart from this, I also understand in Korea (based on my trip there and my current korean classmates in the US), the society is very willing to go after graduate degrees. According to a korean here in US, she is sponsored totally for her PhD by Samsung and there is NO bond. In fact, I think Korea has one of the biggest PhD output in the world.
So besides gungho attitude, "free" market (after all the crash and burn during the asian crisis), and willingness to forge ahead as a people, what else is pushing Korea ahead of us... Anyone who is more knowleagble about the Korean secret *kimchi* for success?
If you are interested in the competitve advantage of Korea, do do up some reading on the flying geese model, it's an interesting read though scholars do disagree on its relevancy. Honestly, Korea still has it's trouble and to assume that Korea is better than Singapore or vice versa would be difficult to quantify though i know many here would disagree. but this is my 2 cents worth. -
ben1xy and vaxjunior - both of your posts provide interesting views, and I can certainly agree that it will be hard to compare Korea with Singapore as many circumstances differ (geographical size and endowment, population size), but there remain some that are common but moulding us differently.
The early political systems that influenced each country had resulted in the difference in political culture - the Koreans were subjected to the harsh discipline of the Japanese Colonial Rulers, while Singapore had the benefit of a benevolent rule from the British Colonial Office.
Yet the common Asian trait exist from the influence of Confuscian philosophy in the respect towards authority, and the necessity for society to have defined law and order.
This resulted in the Korean rule under a strong man for many decades, as well as the present experience in Singapore.
Korea had the strong rule of the late President Park Chung Hee. while Singapore had over 45 years of LKY - as a PM, then as SM, and currently as MM.
With the assassination of the Korean Park Chung Hee, it allowed Korea to blossom to its full potential; while Singapore is still floundering under the insistent influence from the Rule by the POWER OF ONE.
Chaebols formed by the Korean Government ? You may have got some wrong information on this topic, as the Korean Chaebols are mainly Private Family owned Companies.
These Private Korean Companies were encourage to grow aggressively by Park Chung Hee, who directed his Government to work closely with these Private Korean Companies so as to compete globally.
This approach was modelled after the large Japanese businesses that are completely owned and operated by Private Japanese Families. These Zaibatsus are involved in manufacturing, trading, banking, and with their activities covering all marketing levels and axis.
While the large Korean population provide a good domestic base for her manufacturing industries, the output capacities are all geared for export to earn foreign exchange.
The economy of Korea during the rule of Park Chung Hee was much like a Command Economy, similar to the Communist model - (Park was a Socialist before he came into prominence in the Military); and ironically, the economy only took off after the assassination of Park Chung Hee by his trusted Head of the Korean Intelligence.
His demise allowed a fresh beginning for South Korea, and resulted in liberalisation of its political, social, cultural and economic development.
Singapore remain bridled by the weight of a monolithic power that is afraid of change to its own political fortune through liberalising and truly plugging the Citizens to a Global World - all that is said are mere lip service; and all that is done, are much like wayang kulit.
Singapore's manpower requirement is much like that of a Command Economy, with the human resources being filtered and classifed into abilities at the age of Six Years, and depending on the needs of the economy, co-horts of students are then moved into different levels of trainings so as to meet the needs of the economy.
The Singapore education curriculum has drawn criticism when critically evaluated from different perspectives, and yet paradoxically will win praise for some of its unique practices.
Unfortunately, the Singapore economy continue to recruit applicants with some years of experience, and seems reluctant to provide on-the-job or in-house training for the inexperienced and untried - unlike Korean Companies that put new recruits to work as apprentice or serve internships. -
south korea is also nicknamed the republic of samsung, after the cologmerate which gerenates 1/8th of its GNP
-
If I get the points made correctly:
1. Korean economy is driven by a manufacturing model that due to our lack of natural resources and direct market is not as viable in Singapore.
2. This manufacturing model however is only a necessary but insufficient condition for its current "success" given the tight command structure of the political climate that was prevalent till the recent violent assasination. As I remembered it there was a entire period where news would be filled with stories of Korean students' protest.
3. The effects of the Chaebols are not clear i.e. are they positive or negative in light of the recent Asian currency crisis and also from observations of the Japanese malaise that is rooted in the problems of the Zaibatsus (i.e. cross subsidising, bad loans etc.)
4. However, with a "free" market model seems to have given Koreans an edge. Couple that with the strong manpower base in the form of high quality education that is "not" (?) driven from a command structure and also their ability to assimilate and reproduce tech (much like Japanese strategy in the 70s) and also even innovate based on those tech. Just an interesting side point, Hyundai has just opened one of its plants in US (Georgia) last month...although the resale values of their cars here in the US is low, but many first time buyers are willing to take up on their SOnatas etc.
Given all the above, can we come to the conclusion that a free-er reign on both the economy and education system might be key to us catching albeit in our own unique way (i.e. export/import, services - financial, IT, Education, biotech(?)). How does the recent innovation initiatives (A*Star biotech, MIT tie up) fit /fail in light of these ideas? How can private sector grow beyond govt/temasek link companies over-reaching canopy to grow and innovate (think of the tropical rain forest structure and how much undergrowth you see vs. secondary forest/deciduous forests - variety, selection, retention ?? Just really curious and ranting...
*Endnote: just wanted to add that although one of the post made the point that Korea moved ahead when it made a change for real democracy, this period did not appear immediately. The assasination that took place in 1979 resulted in turmoil that lasted till 1987. The democratic process that took place from 1987 had its financial crisis and setback in 1997...from 1998 a series of reforms made to Chaebol and other parts of the economy...giving us the the current form and shape of the Korean economy (Source: Wikipedia). -
My apologies for breaking up your post so as to give justice to your efforts by properly giving due attention to the various issues raised.
The Korean manufacturing models were on heavy industries and mass manufacturing of high value electrical products.Originally posted by vaxjunior:If I get the points made correctly:
1. Korean economy is driven by a manufacturing model that due to our lack of natural resources and direct market is not as viable in Singapore.
Singapore's attempt at heavy industries did not quite take-off with the steel mill, while shipbuilding was a flop with most shipyards of the early 1970s vaporised; and government linked shipyards converting to high value niche in oil-rig construction. Our attempt at high value mass production of electrical products was also a failure - with nothing comparable to the range of mobile phones, notebooks, plasma and LCD TV and monitor screens, and a whole range of household electrical goods produced by Samsung and LG.
Singapore found a niche in the petro-chemical industry reaching the Number 2 spot in world production; and as well as in the Financial sector with services to the region in special fund raising programs through IPO; and other Financial Consultancy and Banking Services.
After the last crisis in 1997, Biotech and Life Sciences were included as niche areas that will propell Singapore forward.
Unfortunately these niche activities require the expertise which are not locally available, and require a large input of the controversial Foreign Talents.
After decades of constricted rule by a one man power, the system can only atrophy; and with the removal of the "one-man show" - one cannot expect the Koreans to know how to use its new found freedom.
2. This manufacturing model however is only a necessary but insufficient condition for its current "success" given the tight command structure of the political climate that was prevalent till the recent violent assasination. As I remembered it there was a entire period where news would be filled with stories of Korean students' protest.
This is similar to a person being confined to bed for a few decades in a comatose condition, can we expect him to get up and run the moment he is fully awaken ? His atrophied muscles will need guidance and training to regain its familiarity of new found strength and freedom.
Therefore, it is not surprising that there was a period of turmoil and conflict in Korea, when they begin to search for a way forward.
Singapore can avoid this experience, if civil institutions that are non-political should now be remodelled to stop and reverse the process of politicizing. Such civil institutions will form the bedrock of stability in any transition of political powers - as such it is left to the responsibility of the present Ruling Party to ensure that such a situation exist.
The fact that the chaebols were caught short in the last Asian Currency crisis was due much to the total liberalization of the political, economic, social and cultural scences.
3. The effects of the Chaebols are not clear i.e. are they positive or negative in light of the recent Asian currency crisis and also from observations of the Japanese malaise that is rooted in the problems of the Zaibatsus (i.e. cross subsidising, bad loans etc.)
With the structure of the chaebols being so vast and complex, which resulted in web of cross-financial dealings between internal companies, and with the influence and political clout that their financial size bear on the systems, it was near impossible to rein in the free wheeling haphazard practises.
However, the same system that brought the house down, had actually propelled Korean industries to a significant status that threatened even the established Japanese zaibatsus.
Fortunately, the 1997 financial crisis had shaken the foundation and transformed the Korean chaebols and in the manner that they conduct business.
Any country that embraces the concept of a Free Market and actively participate in the Global Economy can be assured of some degree of success.
4. However, with a "free" market model seems to have given Koreans an edge. Couple that with the strong manpower base in the form of high quality education that is "not" (?) driven from a command structure and also their ability to assimilate and reproduce tech (much like Japanese strategy in the 70s) and also even innovate based on those tech. Just an interesting side point, Hyundai has just opened one of its plants in US (Georgia) last month...although the resale values of their cars here in the US is low, but many first time buyers are willing to take up on their SOnatas etc.
With an economy that is geared in manufacturing and heavy industries, is there any choice but to be plugged into this Global Economy and in the concept of Free Market ?
The present scholar and bond system - in which the best young Singaporean brains are sent overseas to star institutions - seems to be having problems, when the more intelligent ones are breaking their contracts not for money or for career, but for the sake of pursuing higher knowledge that lead to higher qualifiction.
Given all the above, can we come to the conclusion that a free-er reign on both the economy and education system might be key to us catching albeit in our own unique way (i.e. export/import, services - financial, IT, Education, biotech(?)). How does the recent innovation initiatives (A*Star biotech, MIT tie up) fit /fail in light of these ideas? How can private sector grow beyond govt/temasek link companies over-reaching canopy to grow and innovate (think of the tropical rain forest structure and how much undergrowth you see vs. secondary forest/deciduous forests - variety, selection, retention ?? Just really curious and ranting...
The stiff jacket policies of A*Star simply treat the scholars as serfs to do their bidding under bondage, and will not be supportive to the idea of scholars continuing to pursue their interests.
Under such a canopy of high level administrative interference - that do not take into consideration Human Interests, can the undergrowth of talent grow taller to reach the light blocked by the overhead canopy. The undergrowth cannot be expected to ever transform into secondary/deciduous forests until the overhead canopy is cleared to allow sunlight to shine through.
Please refer to the analogy of the bedridden comatose person, if ever he recover from his coma, he will not be able to use his atrophied limbs, and will have to struggle and make seemingly monumental mistakes to create a new and meaningful life, and find a position for himself in this World.
*Endnote: just wanted to add that although one of the post made the point that Korea moved ahead when it made a change for real democracy, this period did not appear immediately. The assasination that took place in 1979 resulted in turmoil that lasted till 1987. The democratic process that took place from 1987 had its financial crisis and setback in 1997...from 1998 a series of reforms made to Chaebol and other parts of the economy...giving us the the current form and shape of the Korean economy (Source: Wikipedia). -
Its very amazing to see this thread as a native Korean.
I am a Korean and most Koreans think SG is much ahead of SK in almost every field.
what made myself came in here ?
I am very interested in SG because one of my brother in law is from SG,
Teochow Chinese man. -
oohh....interesting...
One thing is not mentioned,
South Korea has a larger population and land mass, resources, than Singapore.
Population means : critical mass.
They have people who can engineer cars, who can play world class golf, and so on so forth. Why? Because many times over the critical mass of Singapore.
Plus bigger land mass, resources, and proximity to Japan and China, etc.
But I notice something hor, actually all the so-called Asian Tigers have similarity.
Notice the Asian Tigers:
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, HK, Singapore.
Plus a rising giant tiger China.
Did I miss anyone?
These countries all share the same 'roots' in its hard-working ethics, and Confucious roots, respect for elderly, and in fact from a common 'race' years ago.
Also I notice, 3 out of 5 have compulsory military conscription for the male populace. I believe it further strengthen the wide range sense of discipline. -
Koreans are socialistic people while Chinese are capitalistic people in mind.
I am not joking. -
Yup Chinese people are greatly sucessful businessmen everywhere they go in the world ,even in Africa ,only very small minority chinese people dominate the regional economy. Even on Carribean too ,I met lots of rich Chinese residents there in very small island nation, They are the cash kings.Originally posted by #$%^&*:oohh....interesting...
One thing is not mentioned,
South Korea has a larger population and land mass, resources, than Singapore.
Population means : critical mass.
They have people who can engineer cars, who can play world class golf, and so on so forth. Why? Because many times over the critical mass of Singapore.
Plus bigger land mass, resources, and proximity to Japan and China, etc.
But I notice something hor, actually all the so-called Asian Tigers have similarity.
Notice the Asian Tigers:
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, HK, Singapore.
Plus a rising giant tiger China.
Did I miss anyone?
These countries all share the same 'roots' in its hard-working ethics, and Confucious roots, respect for elderly, and in fact from a common 'race' years ago.
Also I notice, 3 out of 5 have compulsory military conscription for the male populace. I believe it further strengthen the wide range sense of discipline.
I think Chinese people must have very good sense for making money naturally than other ethnic people.