Valuable gems from man who predicted future by creating it

Late Singaporean founding father Lee Kuan Yew leaves behind a rich legacy with vital lessons in leadership. PHOTO | FILE |  AFP

By CANUTE WASWA

In Summary

• He will rightly be remembered for not only putting Singapore on the world map, but as a model that is admired and respected by many the world over.

“Abraham Lincoln once said, “Towering genius disdains a beaten path.” To me, Lee Kuan Yew, who was buried on Sunday, was such a towering leader who held a bold vision for his nation.

Few would disagree that Singapore has achieved remarkable success in transforming itself from a tiny Third World country into a First World city state. As a tribute to him, I would like to pick out a few lessons that we as a developing country can draw from the city-state’s success.

LKW, as he was famously known, took a small spit of land in Southeast Asia, which became independent in 1965 after great struggle and anguish, with no resources and a polyglot population of Chinese, Malaysian, and Indian workers, and turned it into one of the economic centres of the world. He was undisputedly the father of Singapore.

The first thing is that LKW was a pure pragmatist. “If there was one formula to our success,” Lee wrote in his memoir From Third World to First, “it was that we were constantly studying how to make things work, or how to make them work better. I was never a prisoner of any theory. What guided me were reason and reality.”

Singapore’s leaders believed in thinking long-term. I will use the example of their need to secure their water supply. Even though the city-state had signed a 100-year water agreement with Malaysia in 1961, its leaders acknowledged the inherent vulnerability of relying on its neighbour for such a critical resource.

Therefore, they invested in ways to get their own sources of water, including through reservoirs, desalination plants and water reclamation facilities.

Mr Lee was a firm believer in meritocracy. “We decide what is right and never mind what the people think.”

His government’s ministers were the world’s best-paid, to attract talent from the private sector and curb corruption. Graft did indeed become rare in Singapore. Like other crimes, it was deterred in part by harsh punishments ranging from brutal caning for vandalism to hanging for murder or drug-smuggling.

Mr Lee also said: “Between being loved and feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless.”

Singapore avoided populist measures. For instance, the country’s leaders had a huge aversion to the welfare state, believing that ‘handouts’ undermined self-reliance and fostered a dependence on the state.

Nonetheless, the city-state has invested in the welfare of its people in other ways, including through high-quality education and healthcare, affordable public housing and transportation as well a compulsory saving fund for workers.

Lee believed that the service sector alone could not generate enough employment for Singapore. “The jobs have to grow for the country to be transformed,” he would argue. And he invested in the industrial sector.

Of course the mistake would be to assume that Lee’s prescription for African leaders is that we should be dyed in the wool capitalists.

Lee experimented with socialism and five-year plans when he took over Singapore. It was the abject failure of such policies that led him to turn right. This is the real legacy he leaves for his people.

“If it works, let’s try it,” Lee once said. “If it’s fine, let’s continue it. If it doesn’t work, toss it out and try another one.”