One of the case studies in the
course of political economy at Columbia University during my degree programme was about the city-state of Singapore. This study primarily focused on the economic policies of Lee Kuan Yew, the founding leader of Singapore, who breathed his last on March 23, 2015 at the age of 91. During the 31 years of the premiership of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore created immense prosperity for its people. In 1965, its per capita income was about $ 500, which has now grown to $ 55,000.
Singapore has consistently been at the top or near the top for decades in global indicators like competitiveness, innovation, livability and clean governance. Hardly anybody can dispute the fact that the spectacular progress Singapore witnessed under Lee became possible due to his leadership and vision. What were the policies adopted by Lee to make Singapore a miracle and what lessons can we learn are exactly the subjects of this article. Singapore was carved out of Malaysia in 1965 in an atmosphere of vulnerability and ethnic conflict. Singapore is inhabited by three races: Chinese, Malays and Indians, who now live together in perfect harmony, each trying to live up to the ideals and standards of behaviour decreed by the state.
So, the first lesson the Singaporean miracle offers is that in a multiethnic and multiracial country, rising standards of living are the key to stability and harmony. If people have stakes and hope in the system, ethnic, racial and linguistic differences do not matter much. Identities of ethnicity become a source of instability and keep on haunting if the size of the cake does not increase.
Secondly, meritocracy and the rule of law should reign supreme in all walks of life to grow. In Lee’s Singapore, advancement is purely on merit, be it civil service or business. You cannot grow by bending the rules. Adherence to rules and code of conduct is important. “We have all got to travel either on the left or right side of the road. We have all got to agree that when the light is red, we stop. When it is amber, we take heed. When it is green, we go,” said Lee. The civil service of Singapore has become a role model. Salaries and perks are comparable to those of private sector employees. “Singapore’s civil service is like a spiral staircase: on each rung, civil servants manage a different portfolio in a different agency, building a broad knowledge base and gaining firsthand experience,” recently wrote Parag Khanna in his article on Lee Kuan Yew.
Tolerance for corruption, nepotism and favouritism is zero. The integrity of those who exercise power is ensured by the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau, which is tasked to investigate all allegations of corruption both in the private and public sectors. Nobody enjoys immunity. When a journalist asked Lee to brush aside allegations of nepotism levelled against him in a column on his family, as such allegations are common in politics, Lee replied, “In Singapore, allegations of favouritism and corruption are no laughing matter. Everyone knows that if you impugn our integrity, we must clear our name. How can it be otherwise?”
Lee emphasised eastern values. He believed in the need to factor in cultural values to the development model and public policies. “If you have a culture that does not place much value in learning and scholarship, hard work and thrift, and deferment of present enjoyment for future gain, the going will be slower,” said Lee in a dialogue with Fareed Zakaria. A significant number of Pakistanis have migrated to countries like Canada and Australia in search of a better future for their children. Many are vying for migration. While talking about a similar situation with Fareed Zakaria, Lee said: “It is not just mindsets that will have to change but value systems. Let me give anecdotal evidence of this. Many Chinese families in Malaysia migrated in periods of stress, when there were race riots in Malaysia in the 1960s and they settled in Australia and Canada. They did this for the sake of their children so that they would get a better education in the English language. The children grew up, reached their late teens and left home. And suddenly the parents discovered the emptiness of the whole exercise. They had given their children a modern education in English but in the process lost their children altogether.”
However, Lee did not mean that a value system is static. What he meant was that values are important and any action, policy or development model that is divorced from the value system of that society will not produce optimum results. Thus, a well ordered society based on the principles of meritocracy and rule of law, an efficient civil service, discipline and economic policies factoring in norms and values of society were some of the most important elements that guaranteed progress. However, this does not complete the story of Lee and his Singapore.
Singapore under Lee was perhaps the only country in the world where the trickledown theory of economics seems to have worked. When Lee became prime minister, the unemployment rate was high and economic growth sluggish. People lived in shanty dwellings. Space for living was very limited. Initially he encouraged labour intensive industries to relieve unemployment and revive economic growth. Singapore produced goods like nails, textile, footwear and paint. When industrial employment expanded, Singapore shifted towards more skill intensive enterprises like chemicals, petroleum products and machinery. He initiated schemes like affordable public housing and robust pension systems so the benefits of economic growth trickled down to ordinary Singaporeans. Today, a majority of them lives in government built houses. Though inequality is high, Singaporeans born in the bottom quintile of the income bracket are twice as likely as US citizens to rise to the top income quintile.
The question, however, is whether the Singaporean development model can turn out to be successful in countries like Pakistan where several of its cities have more population than the whole of Singapore. The answer is a simple yes. Are meritocracy and rule of law not relevant for growth? Are political stability and order in society not required for prosperity? Is a well-paid and well-trained bureaucracy not necessary to improve governance and public service delivery? Are corruption, favouritism and nepotism not halting our advancement?
The point is: was the miraculous progress of Singapore possible without Lee? Perhaps it would not have been possible. After all, it is leadership that gives vision and rules of conduct to a nation. Lee himself led an ascetic life. Reportedly, he visited his mother only once in a year when she was alive because each visit required security police to sweep the area, which Lee thought was a waste of public money. He remained distant from his brothers and sisters and did not extend favours to them. He abhorred cults of personality: “There are no statues of Lee in Singapore, no portraits on billboards, no sycophantic paeans in the newspapers.”
Henry A Kissinger was perhaps right when he said that great men become such through visions beyond material calculations. Leaders do not grow out of corruption. Big palatial houses, business empires and fiefdoms do not make a great leader. What matters the most are vision, integrity, competence, austerity and selfless service to the people. Lee did not need statues, billboards or paeans in newspapers to join the list of great leaders. We need to learn from Lee of Singapore.
The writer is a graduate of Columbia University and can be contacted at [email protected] and on Twitter @Jamilnasir1