Lionising the Lion City

Singapore is often cited as an example of “rags to riches”, or an embryonic idea for a country that blossomed into a first world equivalent success story.

Here in Lanka we have a “riches to rags” tale, having once been among Asia’s most prosperous economies, the only economy other than Japan that once exported cars from this region.

As a recent commentator spelled out quite tellingly: “In the last 45 years successive governments that assumed power, have neglected and completely ruined a once thriving local manufacturing industry that produced most things needed for local consumption that included anything from cars to televisions, radios, refrigerators, cooking ovens, to pencils and many other things in-between. My household during that time (except for a national radio) and my schoolbag contained everything that was made in Sri Lanka.”

Then we went onto producing little, importing more and more on borrowed money, while swapping fortunes with many in Asia. So, at this precarious inflection point in our history, it may behoove us to actually see the nature of Singapore’s achievement. What were the actual transformational levers Lee Kuan Yew pulled to create a “miracle by design”?

Note, there are many issues with Singapore today, and many critiques could be levelled against it, as with any country. But the fundamental creation of a prosperous, high value-added city state from a malarial swamp is utterly remarkable.

Expulsion

Malaysia snipped ties with Singapore in 1965, less than two years after they had been united. This left the island country completely on its own, and Lee was devastated, as the enormous task in front of him was almost overwhelming. Lee wrote that Singapore had become “a heart without a body.” It was now a Chinese island in the Malay sea.

This seared itself into his consciousness, of the need for Singapore to persistently overachieve, as it was walking a perpetual tightrope between survival and catastrophe.

“Experts” then as now, were never far away with their prognostications. In fact, the eminent historian Arnold Toynbee surmised that Singapore was now “too small a political unit” to be viable. Much as Lee admired Toynbee, he disagreed with this fatalism.

It is a similar position to those writing off Sri Lanka as “hopeless” today. Lee’s riposte was to forge a new nation out of the disparate people that successive waves of history had landed on those shores. Our response has to be to renew the possibility for the multifaceted people who for generations have called Sri Lanka home.

The two terrors Lee felt had to be defended against were internal disorder and foreign aggression. We see the perils of the first on Lankan shores, and the lure of being pawns in the jockeying for advantage among larger powers.

The first thing Lee had to assert was to push for a common culture and therefore a common destiny, with English being a unifying language of business, in an otherwise truly multi-racial Singapore.

Military

To deter further Indonesian aggression an army had to be created. The Chinese did not have a tradition of soldiering. The Malays had dominated the profession, creating a potential powder keg. 

Lee appealed to President Nasser of Egypt and Prime Minister Shastri of India to send military trainers. Neither wished to antagonise Indonesia or Malaysia. So, Lee “clandestinely” accepted an offer of help from Israel. The advisers came, and they were not identified as such, due to local Muslim sensitivities. In fact, they were referred to as “Mexicans.”

There were similarities between Israel and Singapore, as both were resource poor countries, surrounded by bigger countries who had revanchist temptations. 

So, a small but highly professional standing army, fortified by a whole-of-society reserve capable of rapid mobilisation was the model selected. All young males had to undergo a period of military service and upgrade their skills as reservists. This also built greater national unity and social equality across ethnic divides.

Prioritising this aspect, rapid acquisition of naval and air forces with the latest technology and rigorous training, challenging as this was, as “force multipliers” produced Southeast Asia’s most capable armed forces within a decade, acknowledged also by the US Department of Defense. And it worked, Indonesia a decade later granted diplomatic recognition.

Unity

Unlike other regional leaders who sought to “divide and conquer”, Lee was resolute that unity was the way forward. Despite the intense inter-ethnic conflict that preceded independence, the centrifugal forces intrinsic to the composition of the country were tamed and transmuted to a rich national identity.

He says it so compellingly here in 1967: “It is only when you offer a man – without distinctions based on ethnic, cultural, linguistic and other differences – a chance of belonging to this great human community, that you offer him a peaceful way forward to progress and to a higher level of human life.”

His language policy was fascinating. 75% spoke various Chinese dialects, 14% spoke Malay, 8% spoke Tamil. After the failed merger with Malaysia, Malay could not be the official language, and he feared making Mandarin dominant “as the 25% who were not Chinese would have revolted.” 

So, the solution was English plus the native tongue would be taught at schools (four languages were enshrined: Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English). This therefore allowed English to be established through free choice and the rewards of the marketplace.

Singapore also kept honouring Sir Stamford Raffles, his statue, the historic Raffles Hotel, non-sectarian, unifying as a national symbol. 

Singapore was clearly Anglophilic compared to the other developing economies, making it clear they were open for business and not in the business of pointless, frothing, frenzied recriminations whereby the past continues to be litigated and the present is beggared.

Evolving economics

Socialist spasms must at times be dispensed with. Or else there need to be trade-offs. Lanka has attempted to have a high social safety net with low taxes, which is economically incoherent. 

Margaret Thatcher once warned that the problem with “socialism” is you eventually run out of other people’s money. 

So three aims were established: grow the economy, equitably share the fruits of the growth regardless of ethnic origin, and build influence with major powers (for them then, China and the United States).

There was no field book on how to build a performance economy from a disparate collection of immigrants from China, British India, and the Dutch East Indies. 

Lee’s travels at the end of World War II, and during the tumult with Malaysia, gave him convictions about the proper governance of states that were informed by having travelled to over 50 countries.

Greatness, he said, he had learned and seen came from (and this should be a Lanka turnaround rallying cry): the will, cohesion, stamina and discipline of its people and the quality of its leaders. We here, currently, are floundering on too many of these fronts, and we need to address these amino acids urgently.

“Let history judge” was his mantra. He bypassed communism as there was no demonstration of its efficacy. He went with market economics as Japan had already shown another “miracle by design” there, and these market-led economies clearly had higher growth rates.

Acknowledged for being pro-feminist, Lee swatted the accolade away. His approach was always practical. It made sense, he said to tap the abilities and capabilities of women in the workplace. Hence, also his immigration policy, to entice “talented” (not just those seeking to retire with money generated elsewhere) foreigners to settle in Singapore and indeed become Singaporeans if they wished. A material difference to say the UAE model.

This wasn’t done due to some fuzzy belief in multiculturalism but rather to dislodge historical demographics in favour of something more multifaceted, creative and fluid. 

The challenge

Britain was rattled by the devaluation of the pound, sapped by Middle Eastern conflicts, and decided to abandon its military presence east of Suez. Rudyard Kipling’s “Recessional” was cited and recited in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Wilson:

“Far called, our navies melt away; On dune and headland sinks the fire; Lo, all our pomp of yesterday/Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!”

The naval base being closed and the British troops departing in 1971 would result in the loss of one-fifth of Singapore’s GDP.

Lee always consulted the best brains. Here, currently, we seem to have an anathema to getting advice, to being guided, to putting hubris away and to becoming students of reality.

Lee turned to Dr. Albert Winsemius, a Dutch economist, who had known Singapore since the early 1960s. Singapore was poor but had high wages (the highest in Asia). Dr. Winsemius advised depressing wages and making manufacturing more efficient by embracing technology and enhancing the skill of workers. He suggested prioritising textile manufacturing, then simple electronics and ship repair, as a stepping-stone to ship building.

Unlike other regional economies, Lee welcomed multinational corporations. Challenged if he was succumbing to “foreign exploitation,” he retorted very clearly, “All we had was labor... let them exploit it.” Here “exploit” means to “avail of” and he meant, in that context they are welcome to it. 

But Singapore embarked on a project to raise the quality of its workforce too, while simultaneously pushing for the appearances and facilities of a first-class city. As he said, “People will not invest in a losing cause.” We must remember that here in our hand wringing and despair, lest we just intemperately tear down bad leaders and destroy our own prospects alongside them.

Greening the city has become a priority, reducing air pollution, planting trees, and putting crucial infrastructure in place. High quality services were provided for visiting tourists and investors. 

Public enlightenment campaigns were mounted for appropriate dress, comportment, hygiene. I continue to plead with the powers that be, for us to have a “national campaign” re all the key “moments of truth” where tourists experience Serendib.

Lee may have been a tad extreme: fines for jaywalking, for not flushing toilets, for littering. But it made the point, emphatically and unambiguously. 

His office also required a weekly report on the cleanliness of the bathrooms at Changi – a first impression of Singapore. I wonder if our President or PM receive any such “intelligence?”

It worked, all of this added up, and provided a sense of trust and reassurance. Hewlett-Packard set up a major office in 1970, others followed. 

By 1971, the economy was growing at more than 8% per annum. By 1972, multinationals employed more than 50% of the workforce and accounted for 70% of industrial production. By 1973, Singapore was the world’s third largest oil refining hub. Within a decade of independence, foreign investment in manufacturing swelled from $ 157 million to over $ 3.7 billion!

The years 1965 to 1971 had been traumatically nerve wracking, no one believed the Singaporean economy could survive Britain’s departure. 

But the preparations were made, the capabilities proactively built, and so unemployment never rose. Lee’s push to be ready for change, to adapt to it, to embrace it even, launched Singapore on a remarkable trajectory.

To continue to attract investment, Lee asked workers to accept temporarily reduced wages for long-term growth. And later he increased the minimum wage, paradoxically, challenging the economy to provide high value added, and be worth it.

Here is his powerful, riveting May Day message of 1981: “The greatest achievement…has been to transform revolutionary fervor during the period of anti-colonialism (i.e. antagonism towards expat employers) in the 1950s to productivity consciousness (cooperation with management, both Singaporean and expat) in the 1980s.”

Singapore continued zealously up the stepladder, from subsistence to manufacturing, from manufacturing to financial services (that minimum wage rise), to tourism and high-tech innovation. By the time Lee stepped down as PM in 1990, that decade was to see Singapore having a higher GDP than Great Britain!

Seeking world order

Lee was an analyst of the first order. He chagrined Americans by his astute analysis of all the “off ramps” during the Vietnam conflict they had missed. 

He realised that while we are all buffeted by interlocking and largely anonymous forces, we are also engaged by political entities with individual histories and culture, judging and assessing their opportunities.

So, to have equilibrium, not only did Singapore have to balance its allegiances, it had to understand the diverse identities and perspectives that followed in their wake. 

The Americans, Lee realised, prospered through entrepreneurial optimism and orderly government. The Chinese persevered past dynastic collapse through the survival raft of the clan, the extended family. And these are very different prisms, perspectives and rhythms.

Lee’s counsel was sought by far more powerful countries, in part due to his deep immersion in pertinent facts, and then his rare ability (debilitatingly missing in our current political landscape) of getting to the nub, the essence of a problem, or challenge or situation.

Lee foresaw Soviet decay for example on the grounds that while they had military parity, they would fail in “delivering the goods”. They cannot provide economic or spiritual well-being to their members. Central planning would underperform, he rightly foresaw, against personal initiatives and incentives. 

Lee admired the America many of us wish was still more evidently amongst us on the global stage. He referred to the “greatness of spirit” fuelled by American idealism that allowed them to generously support, after WWII, enemies in Europe and Japan, even allowing them to become future economic challengers.

On the other hand, he bemoaned the brashness of the US, its tendency to throw “resources” at problems it had not studied and did not understand, too often lacking a sense of history.

Singapore became America’s “special relationship” in Asia, a remarkable feat, given that the last such “special relationship” was with Churchill over World War II and a weakened but still present British Empire. 

Lee realised that idealism and even magnanimity such as the US fielded, also needed geopolitical insight and an understanding of strategic realities alongside them. 

America may have promoted more order and democracy by engaging with developing countries who could be enrolled and rallied, rather than seeking to moralistically overtake resource rich countries whose intransigence and volatility would define more than an era.

US oscillations and China’s fixations, occupying the shade between them, was how Singapore sought to create its own stability and to be able to collaborate with both.

Warnings and learnings

We realise great prosperity in close proximity to great want would stoke flammable passions. Regionalism may well be resurgent post COVID and given the global supply chain meltdowns and runaway inflation. But a measure of interdependence will still be called for, and it is an aptitude we have to strengthen.

Somehow the two paradigms of East and West will have to mellow each other. The undisciplined narcissism in US culture, and the top-down hierarchical suppression still abundant in China, show these two need to learn from each other. They need to understand each other’s greatness and build some bridges to their respective core interests. And we here in Sri Lanka need to be able to navigate co-existence and collaboration with so many. 

What must we learn from Lee Kuan Yew here? Remember per capita gross domestic product was $ 517 in 1965 in Singapore to over $ 60,000 in 2020. One of the most remarkable economic success stories of modern times.

We needn’t learn as much about docility and asserting such a high level of homogeneous control so long after it’s needed from them, granted. Later in his life, Lee himself said, “We have gone as far as we can with discipline. What Singapore now needs to learn is how to be COOL.” If only his political heirs understood that. It’s a future model that would be so globally captivating. 

Sri Lanka sadly went in the direction of too many post-colonial leaders, seeking to shield their economies from international market forces and developing autonomous local industries through intensive, bureaucratic, bloated state intervention. And now our ears are full of rhetoric, while people go hungry, lights can’t stay on, and we need to repair the world’s confidence in us.

Lee’s direction was attracting multiculturalism, inviting multinational corporations, insisting on a rule of law and the enforcement of business contracts. He leveraged ethnic diversity as a national asset. He staked his geopolitical future on the US and the West rather than “nonalignment.” Today, different choices are needed, but we can apply the same unromantic pragmatism.

Lee reminded us, and we need reminding, that “culture” matters far more than “ideology.” We can also use elections as “performance evaluations” far more than we do, and make our Ministries “kaizan and TQM” custodians…hence “Singapore Inc.” 

We may not want as much rigor, we are in 2022, not the 1960s, but we need “enough” rigor, so we can use it as a platform for growth and to liberate us from past shackles of sloth and lack of attention to detail and more. 

Lee was an improviser, not stuck in past patterns. Sri Lanka must improvise now, and course correct as “limited” growth experiments are mounted, be data driven, scrupulously transparent, and create a clear national vision with metrics to pave the way to the future. 

As one of Lee’s disciples said, “For forms of government, let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best.”

We need, following Lee, to be more than “realistic.” For then we just become pedestrian, plebian. We first manage current reality, very true. And then we have to be able to see beyond, lead beyond, and soar beyond current reality knowing “This is also possible.”

(The writer is the founder and CEO of EPL Global and founder of Sensei Lanka, a global consultant with over 30 years strategic leadership experience and now, since March 2020, a globally recognised COVID researcher and commentator.)