Singapore lost its founding
father last week. Lee Kuan Yew died on 23rd March 2015. Lee
transformed the colonial backwater into one of Asia’s prominent countries.
Writing down some of the things I
could understand on what led to this transformation and is there the other side to it
as well.
In one of the interviews Lee had
said “We don’t have the ingredients of a nation. The elementary factors like
homogenous population, common language, common culture and common destiny”.
So how did such a transformation
happen in 50 years of country’s existence?
When this small city state was
ejected from Malaysian union in 1965, it was threatened from within by race
riots as well as communist insurgency. His autobiography wonderfully recounts
the story of how he crafted success out of these challenges.
After taking charge of this small
city state, Lee opted for pragmatism over ideology and social stability over
civil rights. Lee believed that the record of any country should be judged
against the backdrop of its historical, cultural and Institutional realities.
Lee’s leadership qualities :
Lee has been an exceptional leader. His clarity of vision, conviction, honesty, discipline
in the pursuit of the goal, blunt but non derogatory approach, taking firm
decisions and foresightedness has made Singapore what it is today. History was
instructive but not imprisoning for him. He prized opportunity, meritocracy,
work ethics and education. His sharp intellect gave him an aura of an elder
statesman in Asia and in the World. His free economic policy led to Singapore
becoming headquarters to many multinational companies.
Lee’s perception about India :
Lee’s perception of India changed
over the years. Initially he pitted India to China and highlighted India’s obvious
disadvantages over China. When the concept of East Asia Summit (EAS) to
strengthen peace and security in the region was conceived, India wasn’t a part.
However when the forum was launched in 2005, India was one of the founding
members of EAS. This was largely because of Lee’s advocacy for India.
Singapore’s economic growth :
Since beginning Lee adopted a
free market philosophy. This approach has helped them grow faster economically
than their peers. The free market philosophy has also been balanced by a chain
of successful companies that are owned by government, public housing projects
to house most citizens and compulsory savings through public provident fund. Singapore
has seen higher savings and investment rates. Growth happens on account of
rapid capital formation for which savings are absolutely necessary.
Singapore’s per capita income
rose from $2529 in 1960 to $36897 in 2013 in constant 2005 dollar terms
according to World Bank indicators. This means Singapore’s per capita income
rose by 14.5 times from 1960 to 2013 in real terms.
Over the same period, India’s per
capita income grew from $228 to $1165, or five times.
Task discipline vs Thinking big :
Under Lee, Singapore has seen
towering skyscrapers, landscape gardens, spotless streets and a disciplined
society. Singapore has also seen the other side. No cutting edge research, no global
brands like Sony of Japan, Apple of US, Samsung of Korea and ICICI Bank,
Infosys, Flipkart, Tata’s & Birla of India.
The unquestioned obedience makes
Singapore run like a well-oiled machinery. This leaves little scope for
developing an experimenting mindset, which could be limiting the citizens and
the country in future.
Singaporeans make excellent
managers and technocrats but there are very few entrepreneurs.
Can our country learn from Lee’s philosophy?
According to Infosys ex- chairman
Mr. Narayan Mutrhy who met Lee multiple times, India can learn the following
things from him.
1. Integrity
of thought and action by political leadership.
2. Duties
should come before rights.
3. Selecting
political candidates and the bureaucrats on the basis of their merit.
4. Weeding
out corruption through stricter laws.
5. Removing
friction and facilitating more business friendly environment.
India is different from Singapore
in many ways. The size of our country, culture, demographics and socio-political
setup. The world takes lessons from us on running a democratic set up.
So we may want to experiment with
Lee’s model by taking the top 50 cities of our country or top two in each state
and create a mini Singapore. This without compromising the ethos of our
Country. Now, this may sound like an Oxymoron but what’s the harm in at least giving
a thought and creating a blue print?
Indian government initiative of 'Swachh Bharat' mission and 'Smart
cities' is a great starting point. Transforming this initiative into people movement can be the key.