Sunday, August 2, 2015

How to Build a Nation? The Singapore story



As curtains fall over the life of Lee Kuan Yew, he will go down in history as the only leader in who is known to have brought a nation from third-world to first-world status in a single generation.


Harry Lee Kuan Yew was a formidable personality who tended to leave lasting impression on every one he met. His legacy is described best in the quintessential binary. You can love him or hate him but never ignore him. He was a leader loved and loathed in equal measure. To some he was a dictator, an autocrat who ruled by edicts and one who muzzled out Individual freedom and human rights under the garb of progress and development. To many others he was the messiah, a hero, an outstanding statesman who led a fledgling and flailing nation into the arms of progress and wealth. To most Singaporeans, Lee and Singapore are words that are synonymous with each other. Without Lee they believed that Singapore was an impossible idea and not an inevitable nation.


The Rise of Singapore

It is interesting to note that Singapore was never destined to become a developed nation, much less a first world city state nation which would be patronized by many multi-national companies of the world. Singapore lacked land space as it was a tiny island. It had no palm oil to export like its neighbours Indonesia and Malaysia and no other mineral or natural resources what can be used to earn export money. However during three decades in which Lee held office, Singapore grew from an underdeveloped nation into one of the most developed nations in world. The economy was fondly called Asia’s tiger for its strength, resilience and power.


Strong work ethics and discipline

So how did Lee achieve the impossible? Lee often stated that Singapore’s only wealth are its people and their strong work ethic. Strong work ethics and discipline is one of core legacy of Lee Kuan Yew. He worked with a team of outstanding civil servants. He punished his bureaucrats who did not perform and rewarded those who did. There was no slack in his team. Researcher Gary Roden calls his style of governance “Scientism”, an idealization of cold, impartial logic as the operating principle of governance. In other words, Lee operated to realize ruthless efficiency in matters of governance irrespective of the consequences.


Standing vehemently behind the experts

Lee was known to stand firmly like a rock behind advice of experts. Albert Winsemius was a Dutch economist who advised the government of Singapore during the days Lee’s rule. Winsemius’s economic policy was controversial because it went against the dominant thinking of the contemporary economists of his time. The contemporary way for a developing nation to grow was to use Import substitution Industrialization policy which was heavily promoted by the World Bank and for which World Bank granted loans to nations like Singapore. However the problem with Singapore was that its small 2 million population was insufficient to provide the necessary domestic demand for such a model to function. So going against the dominant thinking of his time, Lee stood firmly behind the wisdom of winsemius to promote Export Oriented Industrialization, and creation of a service economy as a new model of growth. Asian nations like Japan and China would soon find this model of Export Oriented Industrialization enticing and follow suit.


Taking Professionalism and Education seriously

Perhaps the core of Lee’s legacy is to have created a society that has extra-ordinarily high regard for education and professionalism. At a time when many nations were skeptical of allowing foreign talent into their nations and were fearful that it may jeopardize the local job market, Lee welcomed foreign talent with open hands. At a time when multi-national companies were feared for their capacity of destroying the local business, Lee provided tax breaks to them and allowed setting up of their bases in Singapore.


Seizing Innovative opportunities for growth

In 1968, an innovative opportunity for growth came along Lee’s way. His team of economic experts advised him that Singapore could establish itself as a financial center by taking advantage of gap between closure of San Francisco and the opening of the Zurich stock exchanges half a days later. Their plan was that Singapore could establish itself as a 24 hour money and banking market and connect Europe with the United States. But this bold plan needed both investment and skillsets to work and meant importing foreign talent as well as driving cultural change in its own people. This was 1968 when Singapore’s existence itself was under doubt due to political and economic reasons. However execution was Lee’s specialty and he went ahead with the plan and the rest is history.


Democracy, freedom and Human rights

One of the central charge against Lee was that he never valued democracy, freedom and Human rights and was complicit in violating many of them. For example, the press in Singapore has no freedom, the private lives of people were regulated in so far as they were caned for drawing graffiti on walls or fined for eating chewing gums. Lee firmly believed that cultural change was an essential part of progress. In his own words he described it as follows “I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think”

And to others who said that Singapore interfered in lives of people and was a nanny state to which Lee replied “If Singapore is a nanny state, then I am proud to have fostered one”. Lee also believed that press freedom is not absolute he said “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”


Is Lee a hero or a villain?

So how would History judge Mr Lee? Is Lee a hero or a villain? Leaders are often made in complex molds. They have both their failings and successes. Their success and failures do not define them. The right way to look at their picture is with all shades of grey rather than exclusively in black or white. Lee Kuan Yew is a colossal figure in modern Asian history. Whether he is regarded as a hero or villain will ultimately depend on the values the future generation holds when they sit in judgment. The bread vs freedom debate will now continue more vociferously than ever and whether it is fair to lose one in pursuit of another will continue to haunt us without any answer.

Lee produced prosperity but at a cost of leaving behind a sterile and soulless society that has little respect for ordinary human values let alone human rights. It is run by a professional class that reaps financial rewards for the populace but the question remains whether this is enough?

No comments: