Lecture by Dean Kishore Mahbubani at the Dili Convention Centre
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is truly a great pleasure for me to finally visit Timor-Leste. As I was
President of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) when Timor-Leste became
independent on May 20, 2002, I have always felt a special bond with Timor-Leste.
This is why I am truly delighted that Ms Noeleen Heyzer, the Special Adviser of
the United Nations Secretary General for Timor-Leste, has arranged this very
special and sentimental visit to Timor-Leste.
On April 26, 2002, when Xanana Gusmão and Mari Alkatiri visited the UNSC, we
had a debate in the UNSC on the future of Timor-Leste. I said: “The lesson of
the history of the past few decades is relatively clear: independence, even if
it comes after a hard-fought struggle, may still be a relatively easy victory.
Success after independence, unfortunately, has been relatively rare.” Since
Timor-Leste became independent under very difficult circumstances as a
conflict-afflicted country, it is remarkable how far it has come. Still, it has
a long way to go.
The history of the post-colonial period shows that few newly-independent
countries have succeeded. It is therefore remarkable how well Singapore has
done. I was 17 years old when Singapore became independent in 1965. There was
total gloom and doom when Singapore was expelled from Malaysia. At independence,
Singapore was poor and struggling. The GDP per capita was $500 – the same as
Ghana. I myself felt the pinch of poverty – I was so undernourished as a child
that in elementary school, I was placed on a special feeding programme.
Singapore was also struggling in other aspects. There were ethnic riots on the
streets. I remember seeing men cutting each other with beer bottles at my
doorsteps. Against this backdrop, Singapore’s current success is truly
amazing.
Today, Singapore has one of the highest HDIs in the world – 9th in the world
with a score of 0.901. Singapore has the 4th-highest GDP per capita in the world
at $76,237 (in PPP terms), nearly double that of its former colonial master, the
UK ($37,017). More than one in six households have $1 million in cash savings.
In the past decade alone, the number of Singaporeans running their own business
has doubled. The US is the only other country in the world with more
entrepreneurs-per-capita. Singapore has consistently ranked as one of the best
cities in the world to live in. People from all over the world come to our small
city-state – attracted by our state-of-the-art education and health systems. We
are also ranked consistently as one of the safest countries in the world.
10 reasons for Singapore’s
success
The big question is: how and why did Singapore succeed? Unfortunately, we
still do not have a good history book on Singapore. There is no consensus. In my
efforts to understand why Singapore succeeded, I came up with 10 reasons. I am
sharing these 10 reasons with you in the hope that it will be helpful to
Timor-Leste in the coming 50 years. I believe that Timor-Leste can be as
successful as Singapore. This is why I want to share the reasons for Singapore’s
success.
The first reason is that Singapore has been lucky. By an accident of fate,
Singapore, like the United States, was blessed with good founding fathers, such
as Lee Kuan Yew, S. Rajaratnam, and Goh Keng Swee. These were 3 amazing
individuals. I worked with all three of them. They were intellectually
brilliant. They were totally dedicated to improving the lives of Singaporeans.
They were also good learners. For example, Goh Keng Swee learned from the Meiji
reformers in Japan. Hence, they formulated policies which benefited
Singaporeans. Timor-Leste is as blessed as Singapore. It has also been blessed
with good founding fathers, such as Xanana Gusmão, Mari Alkatiri, and Jose Ramos
Horta. Timor-Leste has this in common with Singapore. With the right leadership
in place, countries can succeed.
The second reason why Singapore succeeded was the implementation of
meritocracy by its founding leaders. They selected other good people to lead the
country and laid down meritocracy as the cornerstone of public service
appointments. As Lee Kuan Yew himself said, “A strong political leadership needs
a neutral, efficient, honest civil service. Officers must be recruited and
promoted completely on merit. They have to share the same nation-building
philosophy and development goals of the political leaders. They must be
adequately paid so that temptations would not be difficult to resist. An
impartial, capable Public Service Commission had to be shrewd at assessing
character. Appointments, awards of scholarships must be made to the best
candidates.” This is something that Timor-Leste can do as well. Meritocracy
ensures that the best talent in the country is attracted to public service and
also serves to create a fair society.
The third reason why Singapore succeeded was the pragmatic outlook of its
leaders in terms of their willingness to learn from other countries. As Dr Goh
Keng Swee once told me, “Kishore, no matter what problem we encounter, somebody,
somewhere has found the solution. Let us find that solution and adapt it
intelligently to Singapore.” Singapore is the most pragmatic country in the
world and it has copied solutions from all other countries. This is also why Dr
Goh studied the Meiji Restoration very carefully. Japan succeeded in becoming
the first Asian country to modernise because the young Meiji reformers of that
time had no hesitation to study, copy and adapt best practices into Japan from
all around the world. Dr Goh tried to inculcate the same spirit of pragmatic
learning in Singapore. Few would doubt that he succeeded in this goal. This is
something Timor-Leste can do as well. In fact, the Lee Kuan Yew School’s
Graduate Education and Executive Education programmes are dedicated to
disseminating best practices from Singapore to developing cities across the
world. I welcome civil servants from Timor-Leste to attend our programs and
learn more about adapting best practices to suit Timor-Leste’s needs.
Fourthly, as a small country, Singapore was also pragmatic in its foreign
policy. For example, during the Cold War, Singapore was friendly with the United
States – but it did not shun the Soviet Union. When I visited the Soviet Union
in 1976 with Mr S. Rajaratnam, the legendary Foreign Minister of Singapore, he
said that Soviet ships would also be welcome to Singaporean waters. Small states
like Singapore and Timor-Leste cannot afford to make enemies. As S. Rajaratnam
said in his 1965 speech at the United Nations on Singapore’s foreign policy, “We
want to live in peace with all our neighbours simply because we have a great
deal to lose by being at war with them. All we therefore ask is to be left alone
to reshape and build our country the way our people want it. We have no wish to
interfere in the affairs of other countries or tell them how they should order
their life. In return we ask other countries to be friendly with us even if they
do not like the way we do things in our own country. This is why Singapore has
chosen the path of non-alignment.” Pragmatism in foreign policy is something
which Timor-Leste can do as well.
The fifth reason for Singapore’s success was the fact that the leaders
focused on starting with small wins. An incremental approach to policy reforms
is advised by many leading academics and scholars of public policy today. But
even before these things became common knowledge, the leaders of Singapore
recognised the need to make small improvements in order to achieve big changes.
Lee Chiong Giam once said that in the early days, if they could just get a
standing pipe in a village to provide water, the governing party would get the
villagers’ votes. This would in turn lead to the provision of public housing and
schools. Development cannot be achieved through big sweeping reforms alone.
Small steps that have a huge impact on the everyday lives of people are
necessary to ensure that progress happens in a meaningful way. This is something
Timor-Leste can do as well.
Sixth, Singapore did not rely on foreign aid to achieve its development
goals. As I said in my book The Great Convergence, “I believe that if a
large-scale objective study were done of Western foreign aid, it would
demonstrate that the primary intention is to enhance the national interests of
the donors and not to help the interest of the recipients.” Furthermore, a large
chunk (about 80%) of Western aid goes back to the donor country in the form of
administration expenses, consultancy fees and contracts for donor country
corporations. In short, there is very little actual transfer of aid to the
developing countries. Singapore has always distrusted foreign aid. Instead, we
believed in trade and investment: We believed that trade, not aid, was the way
forward for us. When others shunned investment, Singapore welcomed it. In this
regard, the Economic Development Board of Singapore is particularly worth
studying. The EDB was set up in 1961 to create economic opportunities and jobs
for the people of Singapore, and to help shape Singapore’s economic future. The
EDB has been instrumental in Singapore’s success by bringing in FDI, and has
been a driving force behind Singapore’s transformation into a financial hub that
is at the forefront of several service industries in Asia. This is something
which Timor-Leste can do as well. By setting up a one-stop specialised agency
that focuses on foreign direct investment, Timor-Leste will also signal to the
rest of the world that it means business when it comes to attracting FDI.
The seventh reason for Singapore’s success is its inclusive policy on ethnic
groups. Singapore’s main ethnic groups are Chinese, Malay, Indian, and others.
So we have four official languages: English, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil. This
way, everyone feels included.
Singapore’s founding father, S. Rajaratnam, said: “In a multi-racial society,
one soon learns that no one people has a monopoly of wisdom and that one’s own
culture is not without flaws. This breeds not only tolerance for different
viewpoints but also a readiness to learn and borrow from the accumulated wisdom
of other people.” It is remarkable that among the five small multi-racial states
that the British decolonized all over the world (namely Guyana, Cyprus, Sri
Lanka, Singapore, and Fiji), Singapore was the only one to avoid ethnic
strife.
In a multi-racial society, if there is no common language, the people cannot
communicate. That is why the main language of instruction in Singapore schools
is English. Singapore made English its common language for pragmatic reasons.
Firstly, English was a neutral language. If another language, like Mandarin, had
been chosen as the common language, non-Chinese Singaporeans would have felt
marginalised. Secondly, English is the international language of commerce.
Knowing English, Singaporeans would be able to do business with people from
around the world.
Timor-Leste can also improve English literacy by teaching it in schools. It
can also ask the parents of the children to choose if they want their children
to learn English, Portuguese or Tetum, I believe many of them will start to ask
for English, so that their children can work with people from all around the
world. But they can still learn Tetum or Portuguese as well, so that they will
remain in touch with their rich cultural and historical roots.
The eighth reason for Singapore’s success is that its leaders, like Lee Kuan
Yew and Goh Keng Swee, believed in thinking long-term. For example, though
Singapore had signed a 100-year water agreement with Malaysia in 1961, we knew
that Malaysia could threaten us by cutting our water supply. Thus, we invested
in ways to get our own sources of water. We built reservoirs, desalination
plants and water reclamation facilities. In March 2013, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan,
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, said: “We will certainly be
water independent well before the expiry of the last agreement with
Malaysia.”
Timor-Leste can also think long-term. For example, unlike Singapore,
Timor-Leste has abundant oil and gas resources. But these oil and gas reserves
will not last forever. So Timor-Leste can now think ahead about how to solve the
problems which it could face when that day comes. Norway, for example, has
invested its oil and gas money in a big sovereign wealth fund. Only 4% of the
surplus from the fund is spent on public projects. I am glad to learn that Timor
Leste is following the example of Norway in this area.
The ninth reason for Singapore’s success is that it avoided populist
measures. Singapore has always been opposed to the welfare state. Former Prime
Minister Lee Kuan Yew said, “Watching the ever-increasing costs of the welfare
system in Britain and Sweden, we decided to avoid this debilitating system. We
noted by the 1970s that when governments undertook primary responsibility for
the basic duties of the head of the family, the drive in people weakened.
Welfare undermined self-reliance. People did not have to work for their
families’ well-being. The handout became a way of life… They became dependent on
the state for their basic needs.”
The welfare state is too expensive for developing countries. It also
undermines productivity. However, even though Singapore did not become a welfare
state, it cared deeply about the welfare of its people. Singapore found other
ways to make sure that its people would be well provided for. It invested in the
welfare of its people through universal education, quality healthcare,
affordable public housing and public transportation. In addition, it set up the
Central Provident Fund, a compulsory savings fund. Singaporeans and their
employers automatically contribute some money to this fund when they receive
their salaries every month, and the money can be used to buy a house, for
medical expenses, and, primarily, as a retirement fund.
Singapore also has trade unions, but they are pragmatic. The government,
unions and employers cooperate in a tripartite system, which, as Mr Lee Kuan Yew
says, “has brought benefits to workers, the government and employers because
industrial peace creates confidence and increases foreign investments. Whenever
employers make above average rates of return on capital, profits are
shared.”
Similarly, Timor-Leste can avoid the costs of welfare state spending by
finding its own innovative methods of cooperating with employers and workers to
make sure that employees can earn a fair wage to support themselves, and to make
sure that every employee is able to save enough to provide for their own health
care, housing, and retirement.
The tenth and final reason for Singapore’s success is honesty. This is the
most challenging to achieve. The first generation of Singaporean leaders were
brutally honest. In 1975, a minister of state was invited by a businessman
friend to go on holiday. He said no, because he didn’t have the money, but the
businessman offered to pay. So he went, and he was arrested when he came
back.
When there is honesty, the people and the investors will trust that
government policies are meant to benefit the country, not to benefit the
politicians. Only then will they feel confident in the leadership. This also
creates a more stable political system, which gives investors peace of mind.
Thus, a remarkable degree of honesty in a country’s leadership will lead to
success.
Although some may be difficult to replicate, these ten reasons are all things
that other countries can do. But it is important to adapt these principles to
the local context.
When many people visit Singapore today and see a modern city-state, they tend
to assume that Singapore was always like that. Actually, Singapore was one of
the poorest and most unlucky countries when it achieved independence. It had no
natural resources. This is why it is useful to study Singapore’s experience. If
Singapore can succeed against the odds, other countries can do so also. This is
why I am happy to come to Timor-Leste to share Singapore’s experience. I hope
that it will be helpful to all of you. Thank you.