Which is more responsible for Hong Kong and Singapore's success (capitalism or government or both)?

[DnoMiCS]

Two months ago, I asked a similar question in the case of Africa: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...329AATxpsi

So I thought that this time, it would be interesting to talk about the opposite case as well: developed countries.

A pro-capitalist might cite the growth in foreign investments and free trade / economic liberalization policies that caused Singapore and Hong Kong to be the developed economies they are today.

But Lee Kuan Yew, for example, was also known for his authoritarian style. For example, Singapore is sometimes known as the "Fine City" due to the highly strict regulations concerning its cleanliness. If I'm not mistaken, taxation isn't that high in Singapore, but they've also got some social welfare programs like that Central Providence Fund.

Here is an interesting excerpt from the Guardian as well:

"Singapore is usually touted as the model student of free-market capitalism, given its free-trade policy and welcoming attitude towards multinational companies. Yet in other ways it is a very socialist country. All land is owned by the government, 85% of housing is supplied by the government-owned housing corporation, and a staggering 22% of national output is produced by state-owned enterprises. (The international average is around 10%.) Would you say that Singapore is capitalist or socialist?"

( From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...geonholing )

So, which do you think was more effective for developed countries like HK and Singapore, capitalism, socialist/leftist. or both? Try answering the question "Would you say that Singapore is capitalist or socialist [or both?]" as well.

Or, are many other third factors important as well? For example, as cited by answerers to my question about Africa, tribal wars badly affect the region.
Thanks. All are equally good answers, maybe I'll let this go to a vote...

[Economic Reason]

CAPITALISM. Both countries have low economic regulations and taxes. Hence more money in private hand to spend and grow the economy. Money spend by government will never be spent as efficiently like the private sector, thus creating inefficiencies and a lower propserity in a country.

[george]

Capitalism is definitely a good economic booster. A free market economy breeds a healthy competition in the market which ultimately leads to economic growth of the country. But along with this the Government also plays a pivotal role in shaping the economy of a country. Therefore a due credit should be given to the government also.

[Bored Gremlin]

Both really. Capitalism is the wind, government is the sail.

I.e. capitalism is a force of nature, and government is a machine that directs it for good uses.