The division of the world into the two hemispheres – North and South – at the equator also represents a common way of explaining economic and political inequalities and gap that separate the rich and poor countries. On one hand, the global North comprises the vastly developed and heavily industrialized market economies of Western Europe, North America, Australia and Japan while on the other hand, the global South involves poorer and perhaps, emerging economies mostly found in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The South is long-disadvantaged, united by common history of colonialism, underdevelopment and integration into the international capitalism as periphery. The disparities between the North and South is further accentuated through the international politico-economic system that is not only fundamentally skewed and structured by deliberate policies of the richer countries of the North, but also the exclusion of the interests of the disadvantaged economies of the less developed South, Femi Mimiko, an Ife Professor of Comparative Political Economy says.
Yet, some of the countries – Brazil, United Arab Emirates, China, South Korea, Singapore – in the global South have swum against the tide and climbed up developmental stage so tremendously that they now even compete with the West in terms of income and development. But others, particularly in Africa like Nigeria have refused to develop while continuing to present signs of underdevelopment, forming standing embarrassment to all right-mannered patriots. While the stories of other Newly Industrialised Countries, e.g. UAE, India, China are understandable and not so surprising, given availability of human and material resources, the story of Singapore is a sort of magic. Positive manifestation out of lack!
Nobody had given Singapore any chance. It lacked almost everything and all odds were against it – no material resources, industrial capitalists, land. It had, and still has, miniscule population, about 2 million at independence. It also had national psychological trauma of being ejected out of the Federation of Malaysia in 1965. But today, Singapore is not just truly developed; it has some of the best and most efficient economic infrastructures in the world, with broad capacity to meet the needs of the citizens. Also, Singapore has one of the world’s best business and macro-economic environments, explaining reason why its investment inflow is larger than the whole of Africa’s. In Singapore, poverty is a rarity, with unemployment rate of about 1.8%; social safety nets like Public Assistance Scheme and Elder Care Services; and home ownership reaching 90% in 2009 from 29% in 1970 and deep housing crisis at independence. One man performed the magic – Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore and arguably the greatest leader that led any country in the 20th century.
Between, 1959 and 1990 that Lee ruled Singapore, the country underwent the magic of transformation, albeit autocracy, thanks to the leadership of a man whose single-minded commitment to accomplishment of one of the history’s most noble and wonderful transformational tasks created a paradox of modern economy and medieval politics simultaneously. Like the Chinese, Lee showed liberal democracy is after all not the only and automatic precondition for development. Good governance, discipline as well as leadership, defined in terms of courage, vision, character and delivery capacity is it. Lee intentionally created an authoritarian state. He might not be perfect but had to do what was necessary at that time. Influenced by the conservative ideology that citizens could hardly be trusted with rational decision making, conscious of transformation he had envisioned, Lee set up an authoritarian “nanny” state, disallowing dissents and enfeebling civil society to maintain a degree of stability, unity of purpose and direction conducive for economy development. Lee and his comrades might have understood the importance of political stability in economic development drive, given the early stories of India and Sri Lanka.
Faced by the challenge of absence of indigenous industrial capitalists, unlike Hong Kong and South Korea that witnessed exodus of industrialists to their shores from communist China Lee embarked on pro-FDI economic policies, while de-politicising and de-radicalising the trade union statutorily. Singapore just had to collaborate with foreign capital, since it lacked wherewithal to invest in infrastructures and human capital.
Lee’s legacy teaches us the importance of the state in driving economy. Lee never allowed the economy to be left to the market alone, contrary to the liberal free market ideology. One of the significant peculiarities of the country under Lee, and of course till now, was avoidance of Western political and economic dogmas. Lee was pragmatic and the way for him was developing policies that run in consonance with Singapore realities. He had to impose regulated wages on the labour to make the country attractive investors to accumulate funds needed for investment in infrastructures and human capital. Yet, at a time full blown market economy policy was a condition the third world needed to get strategic attention and “assistance” of the West, Lee introduced a state-controlled, guided market economy.
Justifying Singapore’s authoritarian regime, the country’s pioneering economic architect, Goh Keng Swee, likened the country to ?sampan? (Malay word for small boat) which has to be manoeuvred through rough waters. If a few monkeys are allowed to run around, the sampan will capsize and sink. The implication of this analogy is that Singapore’s leadership deliberately established Hobbesian Leviathan authoritarian state to guard against opposition, dissents and criticisms capable of causing instability and divisions which in turn are disruptive of development drive. Ethnic riots, violent politics, bloodsheds, instability, dissents and criticisms in new states like Sri Lanka and India could have taught Singapore leaders the importance of political stability for economic progress. Before Le died, Singapore, had been witnessing advancement democratically.
Before the death of Lee on Sunday at 91, Singapore had become more steadily tolerant, open and democratic as evidenced in the 2011 parliamentary elections at which the opposition led the Workers’ Party had unprecedented 6 members of parliament (MPs); and open criticisms of the government in the social media and the academia.
If it is by quality leadership and legacy of magical success, Lee Kuan Yew would should have a ball in his honour by the angels and automatic access to the heaven without questioning by God.
Adebayo Taiwo Hassan, Is A Journalist With Premium Times.
