While I am no fan of the Heritage nor its definitions of economic freedom, having been in Singapore I can testify that "freedom" is an extremely loaded word. The Heritage and the writer of the piece below suffer from their inability to discriminate social contexts. As economists, even if not of the mainstream variety, we should recognize trade-offs. Singapore is a multicultural society and it functions quite well, chewing gum or not. In fact one ought to read the piece by Hanly on Cuba's human rights together with this one. If Cuba has human rights because it has socialized medicine then who could say there isn't freedom in Singapore? On all counts of healthcare Singapore will outdo Cuba several times over. Here is Singapore, crime is low. Women need not fear walking the streets at night, although the usual precautions are always advised. So there is a trade off. Ask the women and see what they would prefer? So this piece by Norman is the usual "holier than thou" attitude, typical also of the NYT. If it is not free market, it must be bad, if it is not politically "liberal" it must be bad. Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Senior Fellow Comparative International Development Department of Economics University of Washington National University of Singapore 1103 A Street 10 Kent Ridge Crescent Tacoma, WA 98402 USA Singapore 119260 On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, D Shniad wrote: > > From: Norman Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > WHEN "ECONOMIC FREEDOM" BARS CHEWING GUM > > > > By Norman Solomon / Creators Syndicate > > > > > > America's top business newspaper has put out a fascinating > > document called the 1997 Index of Economic Freedom. It's a thick > > book that illuminates the priorities of Wall Street Journal > > editors, who teamed up with the influential Heritage Foundation > > to rank the countries of the world. > > > > So, which sovereign nation scored highest in economic > > liberty? > > > > The answer: Singapore. > > > > In Singapore, the indexers of "economic freedom" have seen > > the future, and it works: "an efficient, strike-free labor > > force...no minimum wage...no antitrust regulations." > > > > But some significant facts go unmentioned. For instance, > > chewing gum has been illegal in Singapore since 1992. The > > government recently reaffirmed the ban and warned citizens that > > ordering gum from foreign mail catalogs could bring a year in > > jail and a fine of $6,173. > > > > The crackdown came after authorities blamed wads of gum for > > jamming subway doors. Evidently, the visionary leaders of > > Singapore have realized that people can't have economic freedom > > and chew gum at the same time. > > > > Nor do financial liberties on the Asian island extend to > > anyone who might want to buy or sell -- or read -- a copy of > > Watchtower magazine. The Jehovah's Witness religious group and > > its literature have been banned in Singapore for a quarter of a > > century. > > > > Throughout last year, at least 40 Jehovah's Witnesses were > > behind bars in Singapore for refusing military service on > > religious grounds. Amnesty International calls them "prisoners of > > conscience." Dozens of other Jehovah's Witnesses spent weeks in > > jail for "peacefully exercising their right to freedom of > > expression." > > > > The unfettered commerce that dazzled the "economic freedom" > > indexers does not include the exchange of ideas or information. > > As the Associated Press reported last spring, Singapore "has some > > of the world's strictest media controls." > > > > And Singapore's methods of punishment remain harsh. Brutal > > caning is mandatory for vandalism and 30 other crimes. Death by > > hanging awaits those caught with 500 grams of marijuana. As you > > might guess, dictator Lee Kuan Yew has scorned "decadent" notions > > of civil liberties. > > > > Ranked just behind Singapore -- and also classified as > > "free" in the Index of Economic Freedom -- is Bahrain. The small > > Persian Gulf country wins profuse accolades: "a free-market > > economic system...no taxes on income or corporate profits...no > > capital gains tax...few barriers to foreign investment...a > > vibrant and competitive banking market with few government > > restrictions." > > > > Overall, in Bahrain, "businesses are free to operate as they > > see fit." To investors, that's high praise indeed. But you > > wouldn't know from the report that Bahrain is a traditional > > monarchy. Long ruled by the al-Khalifa family, it's a nation that > > gives plutocracy a bad name. > > > > A royal decree abolished Bahrain's parliament 22 years ago, > > and since then the government has suppressed dissent. During the > > mid-1990s, several thousand people were arrested for pro- > > democracy street protests. Amnesty International notes that > > Bahrain's recent political detainees have included "children as > > young as 10." > > > > In Bahrain, the past year has brought "large-scale and > > indiscriminate arrests," says Human Rights Watch. "Serious, > > extensive and recurrent human rights abuses continued in the form > > of arbitrary detention, abusive treatment of prisoners and denial > > of due process rights." Torture has been common. But "there were > > no known instances of officials being held accountable." > > > > Clearly, political tyranny can be quite compatible with the > > kind of economic order favored by folks at The Wall Street > > Journal and the Heritage Foundation. The touting of countries > > like Singapore and Bahrain is proof that one-dimensional > > fixations are foolish -- and dangerous. > > > > Despite persistent efforts by some media outlets and think > > tanks, it's not possible to credibly separate the flow of money > > from the exercise of power. Every day, much of the real world is > > buffeted by a political version of the golden rule: Those who > > have the gold make the rules. > > > > All too often, terms like "economic freedom" get defined in > > ways that just so happen to favor the interests of the wealthy > > few. In the process, such definitions set aside democratic > > values. > > > > Inadvertently, the 1997 Index of Economic Freedom renders a > > valuable public service. It shows that narrow concepts of > > "economic freedom" can be catastrophic for genuine human freedom. >
