“Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government” – Lee Kuan Yew. Despite the above quote and that Mr Yew never retracted or ever repented having uttered this rather pugnacious affront to the free press, albeit admittedly it was directed to the press in Singapore alone, the world’s free press continues to extol Mr Yew, even after his demise. And for the mistrustful and cantankerous enthusiast of freedom of press, these were not simply words. The traditional press in Singapore is subjected to sufficiently stringent checks and regulatory controls to ensure that “free” has become a dirty word in Singapore, as far as news is concerned. No wonder, the World Press Freedom Index 2014, courtesy Reporters without Borders, ranks Singapore at 150 out of 180 countries. Curiously, Pakistan is ranked 158 by the same index; with all the hype of the press being free in the land of the pure, this particular ranking does cast serious doubt on the authenticity of this particular Index or, on the other hand, the Pakistani press is even more controversial and cryptic than one shuddered to believe. For the moment, however, let us focus on how and why the international press reveres Mr Yew and that too extremely passionately, when the former should publicly be categorising the latter as enemy number one. The question is, why? Why could dictators in Pakistan not, or elsewhere in the world, command the same respect from the global media as Mr Yew, in spite of never having directly uttered such similar pearls of wisdom?And for the benefit of the sceptics, once again, Mr Yew was a dictator and repeatedly assured everyone that he was, “I have never been over concerned or obsessed with opinion polls or popularity polls. I think a leader who is, is a weak leader. Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I am meaningless.” Everyone believed he was not a weak man but he wanted absolute clarity, “If you cannot force or are unwilling to force your people to follow you, with or without threats, you are not a leader.” There are more than a few who strongly believe that Machiavelli was absolutely on the dot when articulating his views in The Prince. On equality and, hence by default, one vote for everyone, Lee Kuan Yew was equally inspirational for some, “I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that is the most unlikely thing ever to have been.”Again, the question is why some dictators with equally obdurate anti-liberal views have been subjected to highly prejudiced criticism when, conversely, Mr Yew was always praised? Why could Mahathir, Mugabe and Musharraf not command the same kind of respect that Mr Yew did or does? This bias is definitely unwarranted. It is not that each and every dictator in the east did not believe that democracy was by the west, of the west and for the west.“With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries. What Asians value may not necessarily be what people from the US or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual,” said Lee Kuan Yew. Why the preferential treatment? For the record, Lee was equally unrestrained in attacking political opponents — suing them to bankruptcy was the norm. Worse, Mr Yew is known to have threatened voters in certain constituencies of dire consequences if his party, PAP, was defeated in the elections. He even manipulated the boundaries of constituencies to get the desired result; definitely free and fair elections!For the record, Mr Yew was at the helm of affairs even after he resigned as PM in 1990, becoming the senior minister and then ‘minister mentor’ up till the very end, with his son succeeding him as the PM. So where lies the answer to this baffling puzzle? Is it possible that banning chewing gum to prevent littering or heavily fining spitters or actually canning offenders as punishment in some cases can make you the darling of the western media? Mr Yew’s other policies, according to media reports, include paying high salaries to ministers and bureaucrats, a compulsory saving scheme that is perhaps a tax of sorts on the populace, a two child policy till 1980 after which the better educated were encouraged to start larger families and a higher defence spending. These policies do not, on the face of it, appear especially benevolent and to have endeared him this widely.The one thing that can perhaps be traced back to his popularity is the phenomenal economic growth Singapore witnessed during his era, a rare example of a third world nation ascending to the first world in less than four decades. That being the case, the conclusion is pretty simple and obvious: the masses care about one and only one issue, which is an opportunity to earn a decent living and an improved quality of life. While the pundits create a ruckus about free speech, democracy and human rights, in the final analysis, based on Singapore’s experience, all of that matters zilch.A simplistic focus on economic growth, based on the strategies and policies adopted by Singapore, can seemingly be the salvation of rulers, dictators or otherwise, across developing nations. But is it really that simple? Definitely not. The economic dimensions of a nation of 180 odd million are far more complex than those of a nation of around 5.4 million citizens. And, what if a country is not an island, blessed with a natural harbour, right smack in the middle of world sea trade, and hence one of the busiest ports in the globe? Can it still become an economic success with the same economic policies? But, hang on a minute. Is not Gwadar an even better opportunity, if that is all that is needed to become a first world country? Logically, no!Fundamentally, corruption is the one category that Singapore claims an enviable ranking and that is exactly where the rest of the third world is found lacking sorely as horrible tales of corruption are the norm. Singapore is seventh on the Corruption Perception Index, 2014 out of 174 countries, compared to Pakistan at 126. Whether or not Mr Yew was incorruptible or not might be subject to debate but undeniably the tone is always set at the top. Finally, the mystery is solved: Singapore’s success can directly be linked to its corruption ranking, which in turn was actually all about Yew. Apparently, China has already latched on to this conclusion. Mr Wang, referred to by The Economist as “the devil”, is ferociously pursuing, at the behest of the Chinese president, corrupt officials at the highest level of the state’s machinery and punishing them. Accordingly, it would be advisable if Pakistanis, ignoring the hype created by vested interests to support free press and democracy, unanimously and singularly focused on compelling the government to eradicate corruption and punish the corrupt at the highest levels — the big fish, not small ticket corruption. In the end, my fellow Pakistanis, for Pakistan to succeed, it is all about you! The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. He can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com and on twitter @leaccountant