2 results
Commentary on Chapter 5
- from Chapter 5
-
- By Chng Meng Kng, ASEAN Secretariat, Indonesia
- Edited by Pearl Imada, Seiji Naya
-
- Book:
- AFTA
- Published by:
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Published online:
- 21 October 2015
- Print publication:
- 01 January 1992, pp 134-138
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
For a start, I share Dr Pelkmans' general scepticism on what more we could constructively say on this matter. I have for long felt that ASEAN's preoccupation with institutional reform since the early 1980s stems largely from an overspill of frustration over what some member countries felt to be a lack of real progress in ASEAN economic co-operation. The basic reason for this lack of progress was not institutional inadequacy (or bad programmes) but a lack of “political will”. (And, by that, I hasten to add, we are not casting aspersions on the character or resolve of ASEAN leaders — merely saying in a short hand way that objective circumstances, political and economic, were not yet ripe.) As Dr Pelkmans concludes from the EC experience, “institutions can and should facilitate but they cannot replace political will … [while) even a crippled setup like the EPC (European Political Committee) can be effective if only there is political will”.
This, of course, is not saying that institutions are irrelevant. There must obviously be some compatibility between organizational objectives and institutional means. Good programmes may come to grief without proper implementational mechanisms. But the instrumental importance of institutions in international co-operation could be exaggerated.
However, I may hasten to add that, like Dr Pelkmans, I am an economist, not an institutional expert. Lacking specialist credentials I will keep my comments general.
Dr Pelkmans has emphasized that as regional groupings, ASEAN and the EC exhibit vast systemic differences. These stem from two major sources.
First, as is well known, while the EC's primary programme was economic (i.e. the European Economic Community or EEC), this was founded on the very strong and broad based political support of a war-weary Europe. The EC can therefore start big, with highly ambitious (but realistic) economic objectives embodied in a comprehensive supranational legal frame with supranational institutions to pursue its implementation.
V - Trade Policy Options for Singapore
-
- By Chng Meng Kng, National University of Singapore, Linda Low, National University of Singapore, Toh Mun Heng, National University of Singapore
-
- Book:
- The Uruguay Round
- Published by:
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Published online:
- 21 October 2015
- Print publication:
- 01 January 1988, pp 132-168
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Economic Structure, Performance, and Policy
Singapore is a city-state of 2.6 million on 618 square kilometres. Historically it has developed as a major port at a nodal point between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific world, and as the commercial centre of a rich primary producing region. Since the late 1960s, Singapore has rapidly industrialized, largely as an export manufacturing base. It has also developed as an international financial centre. Further, the range of services associated with its traditional trading and transport-cum-communications activities has been greatly expanded and modernized to serve the needs of its new activities and its changing linkages to the world and the region. In this transformation, GDP growth averaged 9.3 per cent between 1965 and 1985, and GNP per capita reached US$7,420 in 1985.
Manufacturing, contributing 24.9 per cent to GDP in 1986, is the most important sector followed by financial and business services (21.6 per cent), commerce (17.0 per cent), and transport and communications (14.3 per cent) as shown in Table V-1. The distinguishing feature of the Singapore economy however resides not in its sectoral composition but in its external orientation and extent of foreign participation. Direct exports constituted 61 per cent of manufacturing output in 1984; and of these 82 per cent were by foreign-owned establishments which also accounted for 53 per cent of manufacturing employment, 63 per cent of value-added and 71 per cent of gross output. At a macro level, the extent of Singapore's external dependence can be gauged by the trade/GDP ratio which stood at 276 per cent for Singapore in 1986 compared with only 189 per cent for Hong Kong. The extent of foreign participation in Singapore can be seen from the fact that, in 1986, the “share of resident foreigners and resident companies” accounted for 23.3 per cent of GDP.