Singapore is braggy because they deserve to be braggy. They have worked hard, smart and thought way ahead from the rest of countries in ASEAN.
Tell me, which other country in this world could achieve what Singapore has achieved based on their circumstances?

And who says Brunei likes to do low profile?

In Brunei, everything was controlled by the Sultan. If you read the scandals about the Brunei Sultan and his brothers are in it would make you blush.
All the monies they earn, they squandered by joli-joli and making bad investment decisions.

The only saving grace is that Brunei has a low population.

About Brunei's welfare and goodies...one day like any minerals, the oil will run out. Once it does, where does that country have the money to continue to give goodies to their people?

Point is, Brunei is comfortable now. But it is a country without a future.

Basically this article is about Brains v Natural Wealth.

Natural Wealth will solve all your problems in the short run, but will make your leaders complacent and unable or unwilling to plan strategically for the future. Once the Natural Wealth runs out and you have no plan, to turn around would be almost impossible as your neighbors would have slaughtered you economically.

But if you really on Brains only to survive, planning is vital and you could not afford to make big mistakes. The leaders have to be constantly on their toes and their country will always make decisions that effect them 30-40 years down the line.

This post has been edited by tat3179: May 5 2012, 09:15 PM

More like because we have no choice since we have already lost high tech to the likes of Singapore, Taiwan and Korea.

They have beaten Hong Kong which after WWII was way more economically advanced than Singapore and many other Asian countries during the 50s because of their status as a British Crown Colony. Heck, the Singaporeans are proud because they beat Hong Kong recently and don't even bother about the news that they surpassed Malaysia.

Hong Kong was their rival, not Malaysia.

Read the article.

Like I said, you are looking in the short term. No matter how much oil Brunei has now, it will run out. The article states that more than 90 percent of Brunei's economy is oil based. They almost have no industrial base and no knowledge worker base. Their people are not productive and I think depends on the oil money their government hand to them. In fact, the article states that the government even embarked Islamification policies recently that drives even more smart and productive people out from the country. Their attempts on diversification has failed repeatedly.

They are in fact, worse than the UAE. At least Dubai is more modern than Brunei and embarked to a more successful diversification by attracting talent to go there until the big bust of 2008. Brunei, the opposite is happening.

Sure, Brunei looks very gooding now, Tell me. Would you stake your children's and their children's future on a country like Brunei?

You want to see a potential failed state in the making, try counting the no. of cars and palaces their leaders have.

But even the UAE is not successful in transforming themselves and diversify completely from oil.

Why? When a country attracts more low skilled workers to be their maids, security guards, waiters, laborers..etc than high skilled workers you are going nowhere.

When your own people are too spoiled to learn, work and gain knowledge to compete with the East Asian economies, you're screwed.

When your people refuse to break through your sense of superiority and the comfort zone of your religion and culture and adapt to globalisation, you just can't compete.

One must see beyond the shiny towers and impressive infrastructure that your oil money could buy.

But the article was very well written and the contents are very compelling.

It is for college thesis?

My sentiments are not really being pro-Singapore, I for example don't like their kiasuness and sense of superiority to us, especially to the Malaysian Chinese.

But facts are facts.

This tiny island, so poor in resources that even water have to piped to it from a foreign country, surrounded by bigger rivals that are in fact hostile to it and would like no more to see crawling back to Malaysia, in 60 years transformed into the only 1st world country in South East Asia. This is a fact.

You can say that this article may be biased towards Singapore, but do you have any data or facts to refute what has been written?

The only country that could replicate what Singapore did was Israel, and the Israelis received far more military, economic and diplomatic aid from the US. Singapore has to do more by its own.

Fact is, no matter how you dislike Lee Kuan Yew, he is probably the best leader in his cohort in the entire South East Asia hands down.

More like what's the use if you don't know how to expand and secure your nation's wealth properly and successfully.

You have to first catch the chicken before even discussing how to divide it evenly.

I don't think the issue is about capitalist vs socialism or goodies and handouts by the government.

Remember, the PAP is socialist party. Though in reality they are pragmatists in administration. The HDB is an example of socialist policies. They know how to blend both capitalist and socialist policies properly.

The real issue here is meritocracy, governance, planning and foresight. And a sense of constantly being feeling an existential threat as a nation by the bigger nations around you thus removing complacency that afflict all other governments in SEA.

If you read LKY's memoirs, LKY always claimed that PAP is a socialist party and a member of Socialist International.

The Worker's Party on the other hand, is actually communist, not socialist.

In any event, PAP launched many socialist policies, like setting up co-op stores which is government run, and the HDB which is also govt run and many more. They know however, where to step back, and where to intervene effectively.
You could also argue that Temasek, one of the largest sovereign wealth fund is socialist because it is government run and not a private fund.