Singapore's Success - 50 Shades of Great?

I saw a book, "Fifty Secrets of Singapore's Success" which is a collection of 50 essays by prominent Singaporeans (I guess), and edited by Tommy Koh.

The book was an idea by Tommy Koh. He was asked what was the secret of Singapore's success by some undergrads in the US and Mexico. And (not having an easy answer then) he said that there was not one single secret, but he will think about it (and ask other smarter people) and maybe write a book (or edit one).

A diplomat, tactful, and can think on his feet. I really admire Tommy Koh. 

Then, recently, I saw this video: "15 Incredibly Smart Things Singapore Got Right":

Which is sort of related.

The 15 things are: 

1) Great leadership! 
2) Doing business in Singapore is not challenging. 
3) The laws are constant. 
4) Meritocracy 
5) Pragmatism 
6) Honesty 
7) Religion doesn’t drive politics. 
8) Singapore welcomes and accepts all races and religions. 
9) The education system is one of the best in the world. 
10) Transportation is affordable and works efficiently. 
11) World-class healthcare 
12) Singapore is clean and safe. 
13) A continuous pursuit to ensure the basic needs of all citizens are met. 
14) 90.4% of Singaporeans owning their own property. 
15) Despite being a concrete jungle, you’re in nature.

I'm not sure that these are things that Singapore GOT right. Sure we got great leadership, but it was not like we held a reality show or competition called "Singapore needs great leaders" and LKY was chosen. He chose to put himself forward, he chose to offer himself up to lead Singapore, he sold his vision of what Singapore could be. And if things had turned out a little differently, he would have led Singapore within the Federation of Malayan States. And when Singapore was ejected from the Federation, LKY could have left Singapore. He could have chosen NOT to lead Singapore, not to fight the Barisan Sosialis, and let them take over and lead Singapore. He could have left Singapore and been a lawyer in London.

And Singapore wouldn't be the Singapore we know today.

Yes, some things Singapore chose to do or did with great leadership - valuing meritocracy, honesty, pragmatism, secularism (not let religion drive politics), building a great education system, healthcare, and housing. These are things that Singaporeans build and got right. But it all flowed from great leadership. And it was not just LKY. Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Toh Chin Chye, Lim Kim San, Othman Wok, E.W. Barker, and Ong Pang Boon.

But I think the video confuses what we got right, and what were the outcomes of having the right values.

The video was made by outsiders. 

That gives it a certain "objectivity", I guess. 

But it also lacks a certain authenticity in that it is not with the insider knowledge of how Singapore REALLY succeeded. 

Anyway, the video is made, it is not mine, so take what you can from it. But I thought it was a good starting point for us to think about what made Singapore great.

Or what is the secret of Singapore's success.

Which was the question Tommy Koh was asked.

Tommy Koh has gathered (or tasked) a group of eminent Singaporeans with expertise (or at least experience or access to expertise and experience) to write 50 essays on Singapore's success.

The essays are grouped into the following achievements or "realms" of accomplishments: 

1) Economic Achievements (10)
2) Social Achievements (10)
3) Educational Achievements (7 only?)
4) Cultural Achievements (5 only!)
5) Law and Security (4!)
6) Infrastructure (5)
7) Environment (5)
8) External Relations (3); and
9) Well-Being (just one essay).

I only managed to read a few essays. 

Then I got bored.

The problem is, these are not writers. These are/were civil servants. Public servants. Bureaucrats. For example, in the essay on SIA, the author wrote that he was "wowed" by SIA's service quality. And that's it. There was no personal sharing or illustration of the service quality that "wowed" him. We are left to imagine. 

Or take his word for it.

Just because they are top civil servants or bureaucrats does not mean that they can write. And even if they can write well technically, does not mean that they can tell a story.

The book is more of a textbook (and not a very good one at that), or a "menu" for things to get right, and if you really wanted to know more, you could do more research. 

All in, I thought it left a lot to be desired in terms of educating or informing the reader.

As it is, it is just a collection of 50 essays, compiled and grouped in broad categories, but with no linkages, or connection or over-arching narrative.

It lacked... coherence.

I guess Tommy Koh got the authors of these 50 essays and ask them to write about a topic they were most familiar with, and how it showcased Singapore's achievements. Then he edited it, and he got his payday.

And the authors wrote about what they know. In their own inimitable style. (If "inimitable" means boring, pedantic style.)

It bored the hell out of me.

Well, not completely. But it failed to hold my interest.

Perhaps someone totally unfamiliar with Singapore, might have found the 50 essays illuminating. 

Perhaps I was too familiar. Too jaded.

What I wanted was character, characterisation, and coherence.

I thought a better way to have approached this, was to find the subject matter experts, and ask them to argue that the ONE SECRET of Singapore's success was their (agency's/organisation's) achievement.

So instead of writing about HDB's achievement, argue that HDB's success was THE Secret of Singapore's Success. Or instead of writing about how CPF was instrumental in ensuring social security for Singaporeans, argue instead that the establishment of the CPF Board MADE Singapore what it was today.

Instead of just blandly reciting the achievements of the National Wages Council, and the Tripartite arrangement between Trade Union, Employers, and the Government, argue how this uniquely Singaporean institution CREATED success for Singapore.

Instead of recounting how we successfully got recognition for our Hawker culture as a UNESCO intangible cultural heritage, make a case for how hawkering was the ("inalienable"?) RIGHT of ordinary Singaporeans to make a living and how it fed the citizens economically, and drew the tourists to Singapore, and influence our haute cuisine.

Or something like that. 

I think there would be a persuasive case to be made that HDB made Singapore. Or CPF made Singapore. or the NWC-NTUC-SNEF Tripartism made Singapore the success that we are today.

Or argue that we were successful, because we were not CURSED with resources. Take any young nation BLESSED with precious resources like gold, for example. The leadership would eventually be seduced by the gold and be corrupted. But Singapore was BLESSED with absolutely NOTHING. So our leaders were never attracted by the natural resources. We never attracted the corruptible. So our leaders had altruistic motives.

OF COURSE those answers are NOT correct. Well, not totally, or completely, because Tommy Koh was right - there is no SINGLE secret. 

And maybe it is not even the big 3 or 4 letter institutions or policies that was the basis of Singapore's Success. Perhaps it was the subtle efforts of Racial and Religious Harmony, or at least tolerance.

On page 92 of the book:

“In a recent incident in 2019, a social media influencer’s post went viral after she called two turban-wearing men who stood in front of her at a concert “huge obstructions”. Her remarks made some members of the Sikh community uncomfortable. Rather than respond emotively, a group of young Sikhs opted to invite her to an informal tour of the Central Sikh Gurdwara so that she could learn more about their traditions. Breaches were acknowledged, apologies were offered and accepted, and both sides also pledged to strive for better relationships. This sense of calm, maturity, and mutual tolerance is important in establishing a culture for positive interfaith and interethnic relationships." 

This is how to sort out intolerance. 

We have temples next to mosques, and deliberately avoid creating ethnic enclaves that might become ghettoes with our public housing policies.

We learn from our history, and we know better than to let racial/ethnic differences tear us apart as it did in the past.

But Tommy Koh is right. There is no single factor for our success.

From the video, I'd say we were lucky as well as good. 

Certainly, leadership was very important and leadership was not something we could have chosen. It was the choice of our leaders then - Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Rajaratnam. We didn't chose them. They could have chosen otherwise. And Singapore would have been different.

And those leaders understood the need for integrity and incorruptibility. That was also the foundation of Singapore's success.

What was also unspoken or not spelled out was a commitment to human development. Health and Education were invested in, to bring the people up to a new level. Education for the purpose of employment was also not mentioned, but I think it was important too.

The environment and infrastructure. Singapore's small size is a limitation, but it is also an advantage. We did not have the luxury of distancing ourselves from our problems. Living in Singapore is like living in a motor home or a houseboat. You can't leave messes around. Everything needs to be put away at the end of the day.

But these are just ideas off the top of my head. I'm not a prominent civil servant who can recite figures and facts about Singapore. Nor do I have the benefit of leadership courses to educate me on the nuances and relevance of every government policy.

So you will have to make up your own mind as to what are the secrets to Singapore's Success.

Here are some related videos:

How Singapore Solved Housing

Also: How is Singapore facing the Housing Problem?

Why is Singapore the Richest country in Asia?

Healthcare in Singapore.

Singapore's 50 year march towards Water Independence.

Singapore's (or Lee Kuan Yew's) recipe for a successful nation: "First you need stability, then you stirred in some education, sprinkled in investments, jazzed up the living standards, and topped it all with a pinch of security." This is rather flippant, and really, it is not a working "recipe" for a successful nation.