[SamReidHughes]

From his memoirs "The Singapore Story", Chapter 6, "Winning Over the Unions", on the ports:

> Recounting Britain's prodigal years of crippling dock strikes which led to the devaluation of the pound sterling in 1967, I warned, "If that happens here at our harbour I will declare this high treason. I will move against the strike leaders. Charges will be brought in court later. I will get the port going straight away. The Singapore dollar will never be devalued and I think the people of Singapore expect this of their government." I spotlighted the "selfishness of established labour." Cargo handled by the Port of Singapore Authority in 1967 increased by winning over the unions over 10 percent, but the number of workers employed did not go up because the extra work was all taken up by overtime. This was immoral at a time of high unemployment. I told the union delegates that we must rid ourselves of pernicious British-style trade union practices.

A very interesting book; of course, it's his side of the story.

[Apocryphon]

Singapore as an authoritarian city-state is not a model that scales to the entire world. It is an outlier among outliers and not every country has the blessing of being a parasitic entrepôt, even if other aspiring city-states such as Dubai are trying to copy it.

[SamReidHughes]

Singapore obviously had a lot of differences, particularly the PM's past close relationship with the unions, and the early stage of development making it more rational for workers to ride the common prosperity of high economic growth rates instead of squeezing more percentage points in negotiation.

But Sweden can still outlaw selective parts unloading by dockworkers, forcing an all-or-nothing strike, if it wanted to, and enforce such laws.

And I don't know why you'd call Singapore parasitic; they weren't leeching off anybody, other than the British early on.