No country presents a greater challenge to the convictions of a life-long democrat than Singapore.
新加坡给终身民主主义者的信念带来的挑战超过了其他任何一个国家。
When I first visited in 1996, I concluded that Singapore had achieved what communism had promised and failed to deliver: it had told its people that, in return for giving up some freedom, the state would house them, educate their children, ensure they had jobs and give them a standard of living the west would envy.
1996年第一次去新加坡时，我就得出结论，新加坡已实现了共产主义未能兑现的承诺：它告诉自己的国民，作为放弃部分自由的回报，国家将为他们提供住房、教育孩子、确保他们拥有工作并让他们享受连西方都会嫉妒的生活水平。
Singapore had done all that while remaining safe and peaceful, in spite of having an ethnically mixed population with some history of violent strife. And it had achieved it all without having any natural resources.
尽管新加坡是一个多民族国家，而且历史上经历过一些暴力冲突，但这个国家已经实现了所有这些承诺，同时又保持了国家的安全与和平。而且，它是在没有自然资源的情况下实现这一切的。
Returning last year, I found Singapore more glittering still, the few remaining colonial buildings beautifully restored and the young people engaging and hardworking. Where else would a coffee bar need to put up a sign saying “No studying allowed during peak hours”?
去年故地重游时，我发现新加坡更加美轮美奂，少数仅存的殖民时期建筑被完美地修缮一新，年轻人既有趣又勤奋。世界上还有哪个国家的咖啡厅需要挂这样一块标牌“高峰时段勿在此学习”？
Singapore is not for me, of course. As a producer and avid consumer of free and independent journalism I would find it hard to live in a country whose founding figure Lee Kuan Yew, who died last month, said: “The freedom of the press must be subordinated to the integrity of Singapore and the primacy of purpose of an elected government.”
当然，新加坡并不适合我。作为一名自由、独立新闻报道的生产者和狂热消费者，我很难在这样一个国家生活。上月去世的新加坡国父李光耀(Lee Kuan Yew)曾说：“新闻自由必须服从于新加坡的国家整体和民选政府的首要目标。”
Nor, as an enthusiast for the bustle of democratic politics would I enjoy being a voter in a system where, as the International Commission of Jurists said: “Singapore’s leadership has a longstanding reputation for using defamation actions as a mechanism for removing opposition members from the Singapore parliament.”
由于热衷民主政治的喧闹，我也不会喜欢做这一体制中的选民。国际法律家委员会(International Commission of Jurists)曾指出：“新加坡领导层素来以善于利用诽谤诉讼为手段将反对派清除出议会闻名。”
But I am not Singaporean. The trade-off between liberty and prosperity seems to have widespread, if not universal, support there.
但我不是一名新加坡人。自由与繁荣之间的交换在这里似乎受到了广泛（如果不是全体）的支持。
So it is no surprise that less-than-democratic regimes, including China, Russia and the Gulf states, think they can learn from Singapore.
所以，一些不那么民主的政权（包括中国、俄罗斯和海湾国家）认为他们可以向新加坡学习就不足为怪了。
They probably cannot. It is not just that there are few leaders able to stamp their personalities on their countries as fiercely as Lee did, or who have been as effective in drumming out official corruption. Nor is it just that Singapore is so small.
但他们可能无法如愿。这不仅是因为很少有领导人能像李光耀那样强烈地将自己的国家打上个人人格烙印，或者像他一样有效地清除官员腐败。也并非仅仅在于新加坡国土面积如此之小的缘故。
What makes Singapore different is that it has used its English common law heritage to create a secure and predictable regime for business, while not extending the same to dissidents and journalists.
让新加坡与众不同的地方是，它利用英国的普通法传统，为商业创造了一个稳定、可预测的制度环境，同时又把异见人士和新闻记者排除在外。
In her 2012 book Authoritarian Rule of Law, Jothie Rajah, a Singaporean legal academic now working for the American Bar Foundation, referred to “the bifurcation of Singapore’s legal system”. She wrote: “Singapore is a dual state in that it matches the ‘law’ of the liberal ‘west’ in the commercial arena while repressing civil and political individual rights.”
如今效力于美国律师基金会(American Bar Foundation)的新加坡法学者约西?拉贾(Jothie Rajah)在其2012年出版的《威权法治》(Authoritarian Rule of Law)一书中，提到了“新加坡法律体系的分叉现象”。她写道：“新加坡是一个二元国家，它在商业领域实行与自由‘西方’的‘法律’相似的法律，同时又压制个人的公民和政治权利。”
So while Freedom House, the US-based watchdog, gave Singapore a middling “partly free” score for political rights and civil liberties, the island republic is near the top of commercial freedom rankings.
因此，虽然美国的监督机构自由之家(Freedom House)在政治权利和公民自由方面给予新加坡中等的“部分自由”评分，但这个小岛共和国在商业自由度排名中却名列前茅。
The International Property Rights Index last year put Singapore in fifth place, behind Finland, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. The UK was in 11th place; the US in 17th. China was placed 46th; Russia 66th.
国际产权指数(International Property Rights Index)去年把新加坡列为第五名，排在芬兰、新西兰、挪威和瑞典之后。英国排第11名；美国第17名；中国第46名；俄罗斯第66名。
The World Economic Forum ranked Singapore second, after Switzerland, out of 144 countries for overall competitiveness. It was in second place, too, on property rights and intellectual property protection. When it came to “public trust in politicians”, the WEF put Singapore first.
在对144个国家的整体竞争力进行排名时，世界经济论坛(World Economic Forum)将新加坡排在第二位，仅次于瑞士。在产权和知识产权保护方面，它同样位列第二。在“公众对政治家的信任”方面，世界经济论坛把新加坡排在榜首。
On judicial independence, the WEF report put Singapore in 20th place — but then it depends on what kind of case the judges are judging.
在司法独立方面，世界经济论坛的报告把新加坡排在第20位——但这其实取决于法官判决什么类型的案子。
In its 2013 Human Rights Report, the US state department said: “Independent observers viewed the judiciary as generally impartial and independent, except in a small number of cases involving direct challenges to the government or the ruling party.” Businesses, or people, who do not make direct challenges to the government should be fine.
美国国务院在《2013年人权报告》(2013 Human Rights Report)中称：“独立观察人士认为，新加坡的司法总体上是公正和独立的，除了一小部分给政府或执政党构成直接挑战的案件。”不直接挑战政府的企业和公民都应该没什么事。
Having a common law or other independent legal tradition that can be applied to business is not enough to make a state prosperous without determined and focused leadership — look at India or Nigeria.
拥有适用于商业领域的习惯法或者其他独立的法律传统并不足以让一个国家实现繁荣，要是这个国家缺乏一位意志坚定、全力以赴的领导人的话——看看印度和尼日利亚就明白了。
But it is a good start. Without it, business struggles, which is why foreign investors in Russia do not have the confidence they do in Singapore, and why you would hesitate to entrust your inventions to China.
但这是一个好的开始。不具备这样的法律，商业就难以得到发展，这就是为什么外国投资者在俄罗斯不像新加坡那样有信心，也是为什么你会犹豫是否将自己的发明委托给中国企业来生产。
Many would like to follow Singapore, but it remains a singular state.
很多国家都想效仿新加坡，但新加坡仍将是一个独一无二的国家。