What's new

Is "China Model" Exportable?

What is this china model? China is a capitalist country run by a market oriented Confucian party that calls it self communist. Its a one party state and there were and still are numerous countries with a similar model eg- Bathist Iraq, Bathist Alawite dominated Syria, Yogoslavia, USSR, etc etc. Its apparent that most of these countries failed and were/are run by tyrannical system. The reason china materially succeeded is because of a pragmatic core of meritorious leadership and a vast country with huge resources. A small country won't succeed with Chinese type political system. By ditching communism they risked losing power but they were not afraid to taking risk and making compromises. Its just pragmatic decision making of a pragmatic leadership. And also not every aspect of china is good or something to emulate. Infact many of aspect of chinese society and politics is reprehensible from an outsider's perspective. If instead of Deng Xiaoping , some hard core Maoist came to power, China could have ended up like USSR or may have been taken over by Taiwan.
 
What is this china model? China is a capitalist country run by a market oriented Confucian party that calls it self communist. Its a one party state and there were and still are numerous countries with a similar model eg- Bathist Iraq, Bathist Alawite dominated Syria, Yogoslavia, USSR, etc etc. Its apparent that most of these countries failed and were/are run by tyrannical system. The reason china materially succeeded is because of a pragmatic core of meritorious leadership and a vast country with huge resources. A small country won't succeed with Chinese type political system. By ditching communism they risked losing power but they were not afraid to taking risk and making compromises. Its just pragmatic decision making of a pragmatic leadership. And also not every aspect of china is good or something to emulate. Infact many of aspect of chinese society and politics is reprehensible from an outsider's perspective. If instead of Deng Xiaoping , some hard core Maoist came to power, China could have ended up like USSR or may have been taken over by Taiwan.

Ever wonder why we Chinese never took any hardcore "religious fanatic" bad breath seriously?
Simple, because its worthless like used toilet paper that belong to the toilet flush only
 
yes, but the truth is Singapore is authorianistic. S. korea and Japan are closer to being defined as being true democracies. at least 2 parties will always have a standing chance of ruling the country.

Singapore, right from its inception, has been ruled by the https://www.pap.org.sg/ for 51 years without ever losing its grip- and this is very unlikely to ever change in the near future.

Rem, the 1 thing CPC cares most is the iron grip on ruling power. It's not gonna embrace economic growth at the cost and risk of losing its power.

In other words, it's the authoritarianism of Singapore that attracted China's attention.

INTRODUCTION It is easy to forget that a few decades ago state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were generally viewed as inefficient quasi-government departments which posed no meaningful competitive threat to privately-owned corporations. In fact, as recently as a decade ago, many pundits posited that SOEs were on the verge of extinction.1 Around that time, two American academic luminaries boldly declared the “End of History for Corporate Law” claiming that the market-oriented model of the shareholder-centric corporation had triumphed over its principal competitors (SOEs included).2 Over the last decade, however, the renaissance of SOEs has made comparative corporate law seem more like the beginning of time rather than the end of history. In this new era, SOEs have made a valiant return from the precipice of extinction and now compose a substantial portion of the world’s most powerful corporations. Indeed, SOEs have come to dominate several key global industries and are the backbone of the Chinese economy (which is on course to become the world’s largest economy).3 The meteoric rise of SOEs, combined with the spectacular economic growth of China, has made the future of SOEs in China an issue of global importance. The success and sustainability of China’s SOEs has been vigorously debated both within China and internationally. In the midst of this debate, however, a somewhat surprising view appears to be emerging: that Singapore’s SOEs (also referred to in Singapore as government-linked companies or GLCs) may provide a good model for reforming China’s SOE Model.4 In fact, very recently, the Chinese government decided that by 2020 the Singapore GLC Model would be replicated in China 30 times over—making this proposed reform potentially one of the most important corporate governance initiatives of our time.5 On the brink of such a watershed reform, it is tempting to jump quickly to make predictions about the impact that transplantingthe Singapore GLC Model will have on Chinese corporate governance. This article, however, avoids this temptation. Rather, it focuses on a more basic, yet fundamentally important, question that seems to have been largely overlooked in the rush to reform: What is the historical foundationand important drivers of the Singapore GLC Model? By answering this question, this article hopes to clarify exactly what Chinais aiming to transplant or, indeed, whether what China (or others) aims to transplant is even transplantable at all. Ultimately, this article concludes that the Singapore GLC Model is so closely intertwined with Singapore’s idiosyncratic history and unique regulatory culture that, although the model has been extremely successful within Singapore, transplanting it to China (and we suspect, most likely, anywhere else) could be difficult. In the process of arriving at this conclusion, this article further illuminates two broader points that cut to the core of comparative corporate law theory. First, as alluded to above, the success of the Singapore GLC Model and China’s ambition toemulateit challenge notions that corporate governance systems are converging towards a market-oriented (American) model of the shareholder-centric corporation.6 Indeed, an examination of the historical evolution of the Singapore GLC Model illustrates that a highly successful economy and system of corporate governance can be built on a foundation of corporations that have the government (and not only private free-market actors) as their ultimate controlling shareholder. Importantly, this feature of Singapore corporate governance has been maintained even as Singapore has moved from a developing, to a developed, and now to a world-leading economy that generates a GDP per person that exceeds all of the G7 countries7 and has produced the world’s highest percentage of millionaires.8

I. THE ATTRACTION OF THE SINGAPORE MODEL In 1960, a year after Singapore attained full internal self-governance, it had a GDP per capita of US$428 that was close to the world average10and faced significant challenges.11 Today, Singapore is one of the richest countries in the world. With virtually no natural resources, effective governance has been the key to Singapore’s success. This has not gone unnoticed. For the past eight years, the World Bank has recognized Singapore as having the best regulatory and economic environment in the world for doing business.12 Transparency International consistently ranks Singapore in the top five countries in the world for having the lowest level of corruption.13The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation consistently rank Singapore in the top few countries in the world with respect to economic freedom.14 The Asian Corporate Governance Association has repeatedly ranked Singapore as having the best corporate governance in Asia.15 At first blush, Singapore’s leading regulatory, free-market and corporate governance rankings suggest that it may be a poster child for the American-cum-global model for good corporate governance—which is built on the notion thatthe dispersedly-held, shareholdercentric, Berle-Means corporation is the zenith of efficiency.16 If one drills down a bit below the rankings, however, it quickly becomes apparent that Singapore’s corporate governance model is distinctly un-American at its core. In fact, the dispersedly-held, shareholder-centric, Berle-Means corporation virtually does not exist in Singapore. To the contrary, Singapore’s corporate governance system is built almost entirely on companies owned by concentrated block-shareholders. In fact, over 90% of Singapore’s public listed companies have block shareholders who exercise controlling power.17 In addition, empirical evidence suggests that as Singapore’s wealth has increased, its concentration of shareholdings has also increased—the opposite of what proponents of the American corporate governance model would predict.18Even more incongruent with the American, market-oriented, shareholder-centric model, is that listed companies in which the government is the controlling shareholder (i.e., GLCs) account for 37% of the total stock market capitalization in Singapore.19As such, the Singapore government is by far Singapore’s most powerfulshareholder. In this light, the initial attraction of Chinese Communist Party officials to the Singapore GLC Model appears obvious—it provides a highly successful model in which the government remains the linchpin of corporate governance and the economy.



State capitalism:

Temasek holdings. Temasek is known as 淡馬錫 in mandarin

http://www.temasek.com.sg/abouttemasek/corporateprofile

As the text you cited demonstrates, China has been particularly interested in the public and (state-led) business governance model in near Confucian periphery, including Singapore. The political regimes, on the other hand, are still quite diverse and I think will remain so as domestic conditions (economic, social, geographic) are quite different.

So, my concentration on China Model is exclusively related to public governance, rather than state ideology.

Note: Just realized, my original thread title asked "importable," not "exportable," since I believe China has not been interested in exporting ideology or model. But, basically, both ways, it is pretty much a similar conclusion: China is not interested in model export. And other countries, even we assumed they would like to, will not be able to import it.

The most successful import/export would take place among/between actors in a similar historico-cultural spheres, such as East Asia Confucian sphere.

That's basically the essence of our discourse with @eldarlmari , as I understand it.
 
Last edited:
What is this china model? China is a capitalist country run by a market oriented Confucian party that calls it self communist. Its a one party state and there were and still are numerous countries with a similar model eg- Bathist Iraq, Bathist Alawite dominated Syria, Yogoslavia, USSR, etc etc. Its apparent that most of these countries failed and were/are run by tyrannical system. The reason china materially succeeded is because of a pragmatic core of meritorious leadership and a vast country with huge resources. A small country won't succeed with Chinese type political system. By ditching communism they risked losing power but they were not afraid to taking risk and making compromises. Its just pragmatic decision making of a pragmatic leadership. And also not every aspect of china is good or something to emulate. Infact many of aspect of chinese society and politics is reprehensible from an outsider's perspective. If instead of Deng Xiaoping , some hard core Maoist came to power, China could have ended up like USSR or may have been taken over by Taiwan.

What about Singapore?
Oh well, what does a religious fanatic know about good governance?
 
What about Singapore?
Oh well, what does a religious fanatic know about good governance?

Well, they almost got it when the beloved Morsi ran rampant in Egypt. I guess we can have a good sense and understanding of their good governance conceptualization by simply analyzing Morsi years.

First and foremost, one would not see women in the public life, literally and figuratively.

Anyways, I do not expect these type to be able to grasping the significance of secular experimentation and evolution in public governance. I guess you are having a good grasp of the type of society these people wish t have by simply looking at their behavior (albeit perhaps sporadic) in Germany.
 
And people talking about models should also realize that CCP type dictatorial one-party rule is not congenial for social harmony of a multi ethnic, culturally and politically diverse state and there is NOT a single country or society in history that is politically homogenous to conform to the utopian vision projected by liberalism, communism, capitalism, socialism, facism and nationalism like destructive ideologies. I don't see how chinese experimentation like one-child policy, anti-religious bigotry, cultural revolution, great leap are exportable to other countries. In terms of economic policy China just has a strong state lead capitalism just like Malaysia, Singapore, Indoneshia and pre-2000 S.Korea and Japan. There is nothing unique to china in that sense.


Ever wonder why we Chinese never took any hardcore "religious fanatic" bad breath seriously?
Simple, because its worthless like used toilet paper that belong to the toilet flush only

What about Singapore?
Oh well, what does a religious fanatic know about good governance?

I see getting labeled as "religious fanatic" from islamophobes like you in a very very good light. It means i said something right and morally correct.


What about Singapore?

WHat about it? It officially and de facto allows multi party elections unlike china. If you are talking about autocratic bent of Singaporean gov, I don't see it as something bad or inherently unique to chinese CPC. Malaysia also has similar gov that is elected by the people. My contention in my first post was that China is a one party state and there is nothing unique to china in that aspect.

Well, they almost got it when the beloved Morsi ran rampant in Egypt. I guess we can have a good sense and understanding of their good governance conceptualization by simply analyzing Morsi years.

First and foremost, one would not see women in the public life, literally and figuratively.

Anyways, I do not expect these type to be able to grasping the significance of secular experimentation and evolution in public governance. I guess you are having a good grasp of the type of society these people wish t have by simply looking at their behavior (albeit perhaps sporadic) in Germany.

If you bothered informing yourself about power-dynamics in Egypt you would not have uttered such non-sense but then again your CPC does not allow you access to global media and information. So your ignorance is understandable to some extent. Morsi could not even "rule" for a year literally and figuratively. Morsi did NOT legally have the kind of executive power that is deemed to be appropriate for an elected executive in other countries like USA, AUS, India, Turkey etc. The military council had huge amount of powers over the elected assembly and executive. He could not even appoint people in bureaucracy, police and judiciary let alone control them. The MB and Morsi were naive enough to run for presidency while the deep state was still in existence and that's their major mistake. They should have allowed the western buttlicking secular opposition do secular experimentation with the presidency and clash with the deep state.

The rest of your post if pure garbage that came out due to your obvious ignorance and pre-concieved notions about the muslim world.
 
And people talking about models should also realize that CCP type dictatorial one-party rule is not congenial for social harmony of a multi ethnic, culturally and politically diverse state and there is NOT a single country or society in history that is politically homogenous to conform to the utopian vision projected by liberalism, communism, capitalism, socialism, facism and nationalism like destructive ideologies. I don't see how chinese experimentation like one-child policy, anti-religious bigotry, cultural revolution, great leap are exportable to other countries. In terms of economic policy China just has a strong state lead capitalism just like Malaysia, Singapore, Indoneshia and pre-2000 S.Korea and Japan. There is nothing unique to china in that sense.






I see getting labeled as "religious fanatic" from islamophobes like you in a very very good light. It means i said something right and morally correct.




WHat about it? It officially and de facto allows multi party elections unlike china. If you are talking about autocratic bent of Singaporean gov, I don't see it as something bad or inherently unique to chinese CPC. Malaysia also has similar gov that is elected by the people. My contention in my first post was that China is a one party state and there is nothing unique to china in that aspect.



If you bothered informing yourself about power-dynamics in Egypt you would not have uttered such non-sense but then again your CPC does not allow you access to global media and information. So your ignorance is understandable to some extent. Morsi could not even "rule" for a year literally and figuratively. Morsi did NOT legally have the kind of executive power that is deemed to be appropriate for an elected executive in other countries like USA, AUS, India, Turkey etc. The military council had huge amount of powers over the elected assembly and executive. He could not even appoint people in bureaucracy, police and judiciary let alone control them. The MB and Morsi were naive enough to run for presidency while the deep state was still in existence and that's their major mistake. They should have allowed the western buttlicking secular opposition do secular experimentation with the presidency and clash with the deep state.

The rest of your post if pure garbage that came out due to your obvious ignorance and pre-concieved notions about the muslim world.

"NOBODY" give a damn what some lifeless "religious fanatic" like you think or said
First of all, you should try to think outside your "religious" or nothing peanut head, we Chinese have a life beside "religion"
Secondly, you're in NO position to criticize a successful system like China that has well proven to the world with your biased judgement that was completely base on "religion" only
Finally, please come back and talk to us when your beloved "land of the pure" started to stop sending your mothers and sisters to China as "maids" to work for us evil Chinese:angel: thankyou
 
"NOBODY" give a damn what some lifeless "religious fanatic" like you think or said
First of all, you should try to think outside your "religious" or nothing peanut head, we Chinese have a life beside "religion"
Secondly, you're in NO position to criticize a successful system like China that has well proven to the world with your biased judgement that was completely base on "religion" only
Finally, please come back and talk to us when your beloved "land of the pure" started to stop sending your mothers and sisters to China as "maids" to work for us evil Chinese:angel: thankyou

I am NOT from the land of pure. And neither do the land of pure sent their mothers and sisters to china. Some people may go to china for work just like how some poor chinese go to Japan, Taiwan, malaysia for work. Nothing wrong with poor people migrating for work. Learn to respect people and think before you speak you intellectually lobotomise CCP robot. If your read my post and didn't start your rant against me based on your prejudice your would have realized that I did not criticize the chinese people but did constructive criticism of the Chinese government and system and such criticism ideally should not invite bigoted response. But i guess that depends on whether the one replying is a bigot or not.
 
I am NOT from the land of pure. And neither do the land of pure sent their mothers and sisters to china. Some people may go to china for work just like how some poor chinese go to Japan, Taiwan, malaysia for work. Nothing wrong with poor people migrating for work. Learn to respect people and think before you speak you intellectually lobotomise CCP robot. If your read my post and didn't start your rant against me based on your prejudice your would have realized that I did not criticize the chinese people but did constructive criticism of the Chinese government and system and such criticism ideally should not invite bigoted response. But i guess that depends on whether the one replying is a bigot or not.

Don't feel too ashamed of who you're, i could feel your pain
Do you realized i've been here way longer than you? i've been witnessing a shameless religious fanatic like you since day ONE you joined this forum? :pop:
Isn't its even a secret I look down on creeps like you, feel free to call me a bigot against dirt like you, i'm proud of it, thank you
CqVBHAi.jpg
 
I see getting labeled as "religious fanatic" from islamophobes like you in a very very good light. It means i said something right and morally correct.


WHat about it? It officially and de facto allows multi party elections unlike china. If you are talking about autocratic bent of Singaporean gov, I don't see it as something bad or inherently unique to chinese CPC. Malaysia also has similar gov that is elected by the people. My contention in my first post was that China is a one party state and there is nothing unique to china in that aspect.

Have I triggered our islamo-fascist so that he needs to play the victim card? :lol:

Maybe he needs a safe space for religious nut cases for I'm trigger happy to any bigot (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bigot) regardless what religion they adhere to.

But what can we expect from a religio-fascist but more ignorance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

:lol:
 
And people talking about models should also realize that CCP type dictatorial one-party rule is not congenial for social harmony of a multi ethnic, culturally and politically diverse state and there is NOT a single country or society in history that is politically homogenous to conform to the utopian vision projected by liberalism, communism, capitalism, socialism, facism and nationalism like destructive ideologies. I don't see how chinese experimentation like one-child policy, anti-religious bigotry, cultural revolution, great leap are exportable to other countries. In terms of economic policy China just has a strong state lead capitalism just like Malaysia, Singapore, Indoneshia and pre-2000 S.Korea and Japan. There is nothing unique to china in that sense.


The conceptual essentials of China Model which, luckily, cannot be imported by the like of countries that you hail from:

Historicism (an understanding of the past and present)

Immanent critique (understanding of the underlying causes that stall or derail history and generate systemic or system rigidities)

Progressivism and evolutionism (The act of becoming and achieving a higher state of being)

Scientism (Entrusting natural laws over pure intuition, sensuality, or revelation)

Meritocracy (Social evolutionism - affectionate treatment of those with less capabilities)

Secularism (Keeping blind historical emotionalism and next-worldism out of the public space -- Public space is all the space outside a human being's consciousness and personal moral.)

Pragmatism (anti-populism)

Egalitarianism (Women's empowerment, peasantry empowerment, workers' empowerment)

State-ism (The state is the highest political expression. Sovereignty is the highest political virtue).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Back
Top Bottom