There are many aspects of this debate. One is whether OZ and NZ is governed well. Another is whether the people live well. The same questions can be asked of Singapore and the question on governance can further be broken down into two parts - one of management, the other of policies and vision.
Sam believes that the lifestyle is good in NZ and OZ for some people, including himself, who like the easy life, expansive environs and the relaxed culture but in terms of management and, to some extent in policy, Singapore could be better. He further believes that the two are not directly related. This, I agree with him. The easy life and relaxed culture is very much a result of the culture of the people there, predominantly western culture, and further promoted by the spacious environment there. Land is cheap and you can build outwards but don't expect asset appreciation to do better than a city-state.
I also agree with him on the management aspect. They cannot do better than the dogged dedication of the Singaporean managers but this is where I begin to disagree with him that it is not the sole preserve of the PAP govt that this excellence in management is achieved. Whether it is in the cabinet where the projects are first formed to the passing of law by the lawmakers, if required, to the implementation by civil servants, contractors, sub-contractors and individual work, that excellence and dedication is maintained throughout.
Even in the private sector, the industry and dedication, the time-watching are all there and Singapore progresses economically. While it is in the culture of the west to appreciate the good life, and this is also a leaning adopted by many who were schooled in the west, the Asian culture is that of looking for improvement of economic status. This is the result partly of the cultural development triggered centuries ago by ancient teaching and partly by the competitive environment created by dense living.
If you ask me, whether a typical Asian will feel comfortable living by himself in suburbs of Australia, many will not be. He will feel he has nothing to do. A retiree might appreciate a more relaxed life but even that he will likely prefer the company of friends than the vast expanses of the Australian countryside for long stretch of time.
So it is in the culture of Asia to struggle on, whether it is PAP or some alternative party. On the policy aspect, the ruling party did made some major blunders that have long term repercussion not easy to reverse - the stop at two was one, asset enhancement through benchmarking HDB land to market was another which have caused, for the former a declining population not easy to correct organically and for the latter a general appreciation in the overall cost of living that has made Singapore uncompetitive, a situation not easy to reverse in a short time.
The privatization of essential services and utilities while good in concept, operation-wise, have not been regulated well enough to ensure that service quality and pricing is not compromised. I believe the govt is still learning the ropes in this privatization policy. But with so many things happen within a short time, they are still very much on the learning curve. I believe Tracy's grouse is with this.
Personally I feel the most critical failing of the Singapore Govt is in the political process. Although it makes for easy governance, it does not promote proper debate which a more proportional representative parliament can offer. How good can policies be if these are the brain children of only a few?
The fact that you see major policy reversals in the past means mistakes had been made. I also feel that as majority votes move towards 50% or even when there is no majority, a more proportional representative parliament will give us a more stable political environment with fewer surprises.
