eBusiness Weekly
Many have suggested that Zimbabwe should emulate policies that transformed the Singapore of the mid-1960s to what it is today.
In suggesting this, some recommend Singapore’s founding Prime Minister (PM) Lee Kuan Yew’s book titled “From third world to first: Singapore and the Asian economic boom”. They also draw from resources such as the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business and cite the fantastic rankings Singapore commands to persuade policy makers and citizens alike that prosperity can be attained by mimicking policies of that city-state.
It is a noble suggestion. But why Singapore? Why not Latvia, Rwanda or Chile for instance? Singling out one country from all others and elevating it to be the overarching reference for another’s policies can be flawed at many levels. For instance, cultures and historicities can be so different that lessons from the other are far removed from the realities of another. Let’s look at Singapore.
Singapore left the British Empire in 1963 when it was in a federation with Malaysia. It left the federation in 1965. It is a port of strategic importance globally and has been for at least two centuries. Even in the absence of the leadership of PM Yew and his peers, there are, it can be argued, compelling reasons why global superpowers would have been keen to ensure that order prevailed in the port not just for trade but for geopolitical and security reasons, especially in the Cold War era.
In his book, PM Yew tells us how as the British navy was preparing to leave for good in 1971, “the Americans, who were anxious to keep the naval dockyard viable, sent army and navy team … to inspect the facilities … (and) would test-use Sembawang’s ship-repair facilities” providing most welcome revenues to local treasury. There were also military related inflows from Britain, for instance the S$50 million (est. S$250 million today) in 1968.
To ignore the importance of Singapore in the geopolitics distorts the entire narrative of that country’s economic miracle. Studied closely, differences between Singapore and landlocked Zimbabwe make the suggestion of emulating that country’s policies rather naïve. A more actionable suggestion would be to learn from countries of similar dispositions.
Ironically, Zimbabwe can in fact learn something from Singapore about identifying a country or countries of similar dispositions.
In the early years of independence, Singapore stumbled a lot. They tried the “buy-local” strategy. They protected local industries, promoted start-ups and managed to attract only a few investors from third-tier countries. They even initiated trade deals with West Africa which didn’t deliver much.
“It was an unpromising start” recalls PM Yew. The inward-focused industrialisation policy of “buy-local” was destined to fail. It always fails if the host economy is an inefficient producer.
“However, it resonated with his view that “if we were to succeed, we had to depend on ourselves”.
After many policy stumbles in those early years, PM Yew settled on emulating Israel. It is important to appreciate why he was swayed by the Israeli approach. Within the Middle East, Israel was isolated which meant that instead of trading with the region, Israel had no option but to trade with Europe and America — quite similar to the tension between Malaysia and Singapore. This obviously exerted immense pressure on the Israelis. They had to produce quality products. They had to be efficient.
In short, they had to be competitive at a First World level and in doing so, they leapfrogged the region.
It is these underlying drivers of policy in Israel that swayed PM Yew. In other words, Singapore did not merely drool and say oh, we want to be like Israel. Rather, they, as a people, identified with the circumstances of the Israelis.
Thereafter, Singapore sought to “establish First World standards of service” in security, health, education, transportation, and communication arguing that only with such would international capital be attracted. In addition, government’s Economic Advisor Dr Winsemius envisioned Singapore as the financial centre in Southeast Asia. This was achieved thanks to Singapore’s time zone as summed up by a banker when Dr Winsemius tabled the proposal: “When San Francisco closes in the afternoon, the world is covered in veil. Nothing happens until next day, 9:00AM Swiss time, then Swiss banks open. If we can put Singapore in between, before San Francisco closes, Singapore would have taken over”. And so it has been.
Reflecting on the whole story of escaping the third world, PM Yew says “if I have to choose one word to explain why Singapore succeeded, it is confidence”. What can Zimbabwe learn from his story about building confidence?
PM Yew’s confidence building strategy can be presented as the sum of many small decisions made and many small things done, all seemingly unrelated yet all snowballing to a mountain of trust. As in a choir, all voices matter though each is indistinct to the listener.
There is, however, one little thing worth emphasising. It is how Singaporeans were inspired to possess their leaders’ vision: “I felt strongly that the people’s morale and confidence would be decisive”, he recalls.
In addition, confidence in a system blossoms when competent people are empowered to make and implement decisions unrestrained. Take for instance the refusal by regulators in Singapore to licence Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the 1970s.
In 1991, BCCI would collapse owing depositors and creditors about US$20 billion in today’s values. In Zimbabwe, government stepped in and BCCI became the Commercial Bank of Zimbabwe. But some professionals in Singapore saw trouble coming in the 1970s. Imagine the quality of other decisions they were making day in, day out!
Confidence takes a while to build. All decisions, big and small matter. Every citizen is an indispensable architect and not a passive congregant who can either say “amen” to the preacher or leave the congregation. In the words of PM Yew, people’s morale and confidence determine success or failure.
