For as long as I can remember (and that means the last 10 years), Singapore have always only have unlocked handsets.

Articles like these (by an outsider) tends to paint an extreme picture of the city. If people just bothered to look around, you'll see dirty toilets, rubbish on the floor, lots of poor people, and yes, news reports of corruption.

And if you look at the other extreme, you'll see friendly and helpful people that deal with (government-owned) housing problems etc.

The world's not black and white.

It's not that you have to cross the Malaysia border to encounter dirt for the first time, but compared with neighbouring cities, or even parts of European cities that have been built since 1956 - levels of visible dirt and poor people that aren't working are noticeably low in Singapore. The streets might not be paved with gold but they still shine.

You might see vestiges of poverty in sleeping middle-aged "security guards" and armies of immigrant construction workers, and the even poorer denizens of Desker Road that serve their base needs, but you won't encounter homeless people begging for change. HDBs are colourful, well-maintained homes for the people. When I did see a piece of graffiti in Singapore - a political slogan even - I thought it worthy of being photographed.

In London, every ATM machine appears to have a friendly beggar and his dog, our failed attempts at social housing are used as the setting for A Clockwork Orange, and our transport networks are lined with graffiti to the point that sometimes I wonder if it's the only thing holding the crumbling structural fabric together.

And yes, outsiders' analysis of our social and political relations is always amusingly exaggerated and inaccurate. :-)

To clear up a common misconception I see (and I have no understanding of where this misunderstanding comes from), 'net neutrality' and everything of that ilk (including regulated phone unlocking) is NOT libertarian. It is the exact opposite.

It seems to be somewhat an ends/means disagreement. Many branches of libertarianism argue that government interference with private contracts is inherently wrong. Other pro-capitalist views (Hayek among them), though, focus more on the outcomes, arguing that capitalism is good because competitive markets with decentralized decision-making mediated by price signals produce the best outcomes for humanity. Those holding the latter view don't have as blanket an opposition to all kinds of regulation, but would allow some kinds of regulation that are narrowly tailored towards promoting competitive markets. Adam Smith is probably the earliest precursor of that view; for example, he opposed most regulation, but supported requiring employers to pay wages in silver, because he thought on balance, prohibiting employers from paying their employees in IOUs promoted a functioning market economy, so the interference with the employer's absolute freedom to negotiate payment methods with their employees was justified. Hayek outlined a number of kinds of intervention he felt justified as well.

Great post.

This is the problem with the post. Libertarianism does not lead to market freedom. It does for a very short time until someone becomes dominant and uses that dominance to buy or force out everyone else. The US is closer to libertarian ideas, which is why it has a less free market than other places that understand that capitalism can't work without regulations (the right regulations).

[1] Probably to complex too explain here but the key is that Government and money depend on each other. You can't have one without the other.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest-econonom...

Yes, a few wealthy families own half the businesses and property, and can survey their empires from the comfort of their mansions on Victoria peak. Meanwhile, down in Wan Chai Filipina maids moonlight as sex workers, offering handjobs to stressed-out bankers to make ends meet, and over in Tai Kok Tsui elderly Chinese immigrants live in cages. Capitalism in action...

Still, it's a cool place, and to be fair the large middle class population can enjoy a high quality of life. I haven't been to Singapore, but it sounds like HK is a fair bit dirtier and more chaotic, and also more alive. On the other hand, I've found that even here there's a lack of 'alternative' culture, even less than in the mainland. Beijing has a small but thriving local music scene, whereas HK's feels almost non-existent. Feels like people here care more about shopping and status symbols than anything else.

It'd be interesting to read what William Gibson would have to say about Hong Kong. Chungking Mansions in TST felt like something out of a cyberpunk novel, all Nigerian drug dealers hanging out in Indian curry houses next to stalls selling Chinese knock-off iPads.

Edit:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917897,00.htm... http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KI03Cb02.html

Basically just bunks with wire mesh to protect belongings. You'd not guess from walking around the streets.

Suggesting that Hong Kong is the freest state in the region is kind of ridiculous when you compare it to japan or taiwan (post martial law). Last time I had looked (3 or 4 years ago) both were higher on the UN Human Freedom Index (unfortunately I couldn't find a list online). Also I wouldn't agree that Hong Kong should be held up as an example of a start up state. I love Hong Kong, it is definitely one of the greatest cities in the world. But it produces very little in the way of innovation outside of finance. There isn't a booming start up community in Hong Kong for the same reason there isn't one in Singapore. Because to do business on any worthwhile scale, you have to know which wheels to grease and know the right people to grease them. There was a really great article on this a while ago about why a key reason there weren't any Walmart types in Hong Kong was because it was more profitable to the Triads to keep all the mom and pop shops in business than to work with larger corporations (unfortunately I can't seem to Google anything).

But honestly, those points aren't really what bothered me about your comment as to some extent they are based on perception. What was more perplexing to me was the assertion that Confucianism played a key role in the lack of democracy in Singapore. Certainly Confucianism has played a key role in shaping Singaporean society, but no more than it has in Hong Kong, and almost certainly to a lesser extent than it has in Taiwan. One would be hard pressed to find a nation with a large Chinese population in the subcontinent that doesn't have strong Confucian influences.

Ultimately Hong Kong and Singapore ( and more and more Taipei) are basically the same cities filling the same roles for different populations. The only real difference is Hong Kong is a much more fun city to live in. I agree that Singapore has a glaring issue in the freedoms they allow their people, but really there are a lot of country that do a lot of business that have similar problems (as an American I wouldn't exclude China or the US from that list).

When I tutored international students from Asia, the largest hurdle was to get them out of this box thinking. They wanted to be told how to write an essay, and they were asking me which side to take because they wanted to agree with the teacher. I said that was your job, that is what the teacher is testing you.

Except, when I read drafts of the essay, it read like a poorly plagiarized text of the history book. I said, you have no argument. You need to take a side. They blamed language difficulties, and I said, even if this were written in Chinese, you have no argument.

The main thing is that Asian countries value system and structure, and view that we stand on shoulders of giants. The problem, though, is they're highly trained and would out beat most US students on the SATs. Platonic systems have spurred a lot of innovation, but again, in the US, our foundations are weak: any moron can think he is genius in the States. The US education system is an interesting beast--it spurs innovation around college, but weak foundations during middle school years

For many industries, good foundations are keys to success. For software, though, you need to be able to be free thinking. Maybe this explains why China copies a lot of our software!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

It's interesting to note that almost all the inventions came before the Qing dynasty. Qing's Qianlong Emperor (1711-1799) is considered a "Confucian fundamentalist", who paved the way for the subsequent isolationist policies.

Confucianism is just one school of philosophy among many in China btw. Its influence tends to fluctuate from period to period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters

Source: http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest-econonom...

For the 16th straight year Hong Kong has ranked top of the ladder as the freest economy in the world, according to the Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation. [...]

This lofty ranking is generally attributed to the efficient processing of business applications, low tax rate and disciplined fiscal management by the government.

1. Starting a business in Hong Kong takes only six days while the rest of the world's average is 35 days 2. Hong Kong's weighted average tariff rate is zero per cent in 2008 3. Individuals enjoy a sliding scale tax rate between 2 and 17 percent 4. Maximum tax rate for businesses is pegged at just 16.5 percent 5. Import duties for beer and wine were removed in 2008 6. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP stood at 14.2 percent 7. Inflation was generally low, averaging 3.5 percent between 2006 and 2008 8. There are no limits and no screening on foreign ownership when setting up foreign firm (except broadcasting) 9. There are no requirements on current transfers, access to foreign exchange and movement of profits.

Go to any apartment in central in HK and you will find a 5 by 5 foot room serving as maid quarters. Then go out in central on a Sunday afternoon and you will see the streets packed with Malaysian and Philippine maids. Then go look at the stats on the number of Chinese businessmen kidnapped in Malaysia and the Philippines every year and tell me there isn't a problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_on_Fire)

This problem doesn't exist anywhere in mainland China or Taiwan. And ultimately it is hard not to view it as an ugly byproduct of economic liberalism in these particular cultures.

And with regards to looks, you got to be kidding me. I assume you are implying they are only getting beautiful ladies. :)

That's not what non-discrimination means at all. What the demographic mix of the employees ends up looking like ought to bear a strong resemblance to the mix of applicants; nothing more.

You're claiming Hong Kong isn't start up friendly because it doesn't support devastating monopolies like Walmart [1]??? Are you seriously telling me that if you went to a country where everywhere you looked you saw people in business for themselves you would find that less entrepreneur friendly than a place that just had one Walmart and nothing else? Monopoly is the exact opposite of free market.

[1] http://www.walmarteffectbook.com/

It never ceases to shock me when apparent free market proponents hold up Walmart as an example to aspire to. Are people not aware how much special treatment from the government Walmart gets? They do produce innovations here and there, but with the amount of money flowing through their fingers they bloody well should.

Say what you want about Wal-Mart (I avoid them like the plague just because I find the shopping experience actively repugnant), but to go from inception to world-dominating monster in ~40 years is impressive.

This writer could write ten pages about the terrors of your own dark basement if he wanted to.