This is the official PAP line, but Singapore was actually among the wealthiest cities in Asia before WW2. Admittedly there was a gaping chasm between rich and poor, but that remains the case today.
It's 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, then Indian. That makes it more homogeneous than Malaysia.
IMHO, that's a reason why they split from Malaysia: they are a Chinese city, ethnically speaking.
The former does not imply the latter unless you consider Chinese and Indians to be less diverse than Malaysians. Which is dubious, considering Chinese and Indian Singaporeans come from all kinds of different places across two regions much larger than Malaysia.
Of course the Singaporean government has been hard at work to homogenize their population, e.g. the Speak Mandarin Campaign to get all Chinese Singaporean to speak the same language, but that wouldn't have been necessary if they'd been homogeneous from the beginning.
It was a British port for a long time (one of many parts of the Straits settlements). When Malaysia won independence, it included Singapore.
Lots of friction between Malay Chinese and Malay. The British colonizers left but the wealthy Chinese remained (similar trend seen in many SE Asia countries).
Singapore was kicked out of the Malay Federation not long after independence. Most simplified it was a power struggle in who would run Malaysia. Easier to cleave Singapore off as the heavily Chinese population wielded a lot a power.
But don’t get me wrong. Singapore has accomplished a lot. A tiny population be forced to go out on its own is not an easy hand to be dealt. To me, Singapore’s approach has been mostly just practical. They don’t care if public housing is “socialist” or if a single government approved union is authoritarian. They do what feel will yield the outcome they need.
But I get the sense they still have a very “survival” mentality - what they have is fragile and without close management will fall apart. Likely very true 50 years ago, but not so much today. But the governing party is the same and the mentality remains - one bad decision and as LYK says “Singapore dies”.
They similarly reduced their class sizes in the 90s under democratic pressure from an opposition party that was later torn apart.
Despite being a one party state run by thugs, Singapore experiences stronger democratic/anticorruption pressures than a lot of places because of the close proximity of people to leaders (there are studies on this - Brazil/Myanmar are at the other end of the spectrum with very remote capitals).
So yes, a massive public housing system is socialist in nature, but I’d agree it was entirely a politically practical initiative for Singapore.
And that’s what is so interesting. LYK mentioned his admiration for Deng Xiaopeng - an eminently practical leader. Capitalist, socialist, whatever, if it works it works and Singapore is willing to leverage it.
But it makes for an odd political scene. PAP will admit failure, as long as it’s not politically damaging. Otherwise they quietly take the pulse of the electorate and try to stay ahead of any issues.
It’s a very reactive semi-authoritarian system. They are concerned about losing legitimacy so work hard to stay popular.
Wouldn’t that be proactive rather than reactive?
So proactive in the “re-election” sense, but reactive in the political strategy sense.
#2 is another way of saying "those fucking commies".
It would be equally politically practical to have a similar program in most countries but we don't. Indeed many (especially younger people) are screaming for a program like this. Yet public housing programs tend to be watered down and dismantled instead.
LKY lacking in ideology (other than fervent anticommunism) isnt especially interesting. It's very normal for people to chase power without much in the way of ideology. Boris Johnson is similarly lacking in ideology but the last thing he'd do is build some council houses.
What IS interesting is how the material circumstances of Singapore managed to keep him on a tight leash.
Like it or not (evidently you do not), most politics is practiced within an ideological framework. Calling out ~80% of the world as fanatics for acting as such seems a little... extreme?
In any case, the interesting part of this story is how two leaders (Boris and LKY) can lack overriding ideology and only seek power and yet one builds housing for people to live in while the other doesn't.
Doesn't seem to be the case [0].
[0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325669726_The_Recon...