The story of Singapore is spectacular. In one generation, it became immensely rich. As Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990, proudly mentioned in his book, “From Third World to First”, Singapore’s GDP of S$ 3 billion in 1965, grew exponentially – more than 15 times – to S$ 46 billion in 1997. In fact, by 1997, Singapore had 8th highest per capita GNP, and it has only gotten richer since then. No doubt that such success is a result of multiple reasons. But one thing still stands out: Lee Kuan Yew made Singapore what it is, in major part, due to his unwavering commitment to finding the best person for the job.
He said so himself. “It has taken me some time to see the obvious, that talent is a country’s most precious asset”, he wrote in his “From Third World to First”. And this is why he “sought out able men and placed them in positions of authority as ministers and top public officers to administer an honest, efficient system and be responsive to the needs of the people”.
It is such an intuitive idea that it is hard to see how anyone can miss it. When, for instance, Lee wrote that “[m]y experience of developments in Asia has led me to conclude that we need good people to have good government”, one is tempted to respond that is another conclusion even possible?
But Lee did not just say it, he made it possible, and then showed us how. The proof is in the pudding. Singapore became a shining example for others to emulate. From Malaysia’s Mathathir to Sri Lanka’s Jayewardene, from China’s Deng Xiaoping to Pakistan’s Zia-ul-Haq and then, Nawaz Sharif, all actively sought Lee’s input, advice and guidance in trying to achieve what Singapore achieved.
The lessons from Singapore are many, which are lost on us. In Pakistan, we have failed to capitalize on our talent, have not attracted it to our shores, and, in fact, may have repelled it. Lee took his Singapore from the third world to first, by nurturing, developing, retaining and attracting talent. Pakistan, meanwhile, has done the opposite. No wonder it is pejoratively referred to as the “sick man of Asia”, getting sicker with time.
Best and Brightest
Lee uses the term “best and brightest” repeatedly in his book. This is primarily because he was always on a look-out for them. In his book, he mentioned the “best and brightest”, for instance, when he talked about, (1) building institutions from scratch; (2) placing people at the helm of major state-owned corporations; and, (3) analyzing the successes and failures of other countries.
Singapore was forced out of Malaysia in 1965, and there was an immediate need to develop defense capabilities. As with any other challenge, Lee’s Singapore sized up to this one as well. Lee’s approach, however, remained characteristic. In the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), every year around ten of the brightest students were inducted, without whom, “the SAF would have the military hardware but without the brainpower to use them to best advantage”.
But that did not suffice. The best officer cadets were sent on scholarship to Oxbridge, where they undertook “full academic course in the humanities, sciences, engineering or other professions”, making them well-rounded. These officers had to serve in the SAF for eight years. During this time, they would be sent for two to three courses abroad, including “a course in public or business administration at a top American university such as Harvard or Stanford”.
As he developed this force with brain along with brawn, he had to “ensure that the SAF remained subordinate to the political leadership by keeping important functions such as manpower and finance under civilian officers in the defense ministry”. The soldiers with guns, even with their Oxbridge and Harvard degrees, were never given the opportunity to dictate to civilians.
As Lee’s focus turned on attracting investment from the world, he established Economic Development Board (EDB), for resolving all issues that the investors may face. Its first chairman was Hon Sui Sen. For EDB, to attract the kind of investment that Singapore was able to attract, Hon Sui Sen was “given the choice of the brightest and best of [Singapore’s] scholars who had returned from universities in Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand”.
Singapore also successfully started up its own companies, such as the Neptune Orient Lines and, and much more famously, the Singapore Airlines. Who were the people to start these companies? In Lee’s words, top scholars “chosen from the best of each year’s crop of students and sent to the top universities in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Italy and Japan, and later when [Singapore] could afford it, America”. The Singaporean corporations competed with the other top-tier corporations of the world, and held their own. “The key to success”, again, as Lee put it, “was the quality of the people in charge”.
We can compare our Pakistan International Airlines and Pakistan Steel Mills to the state-owned entities in Singapore, and mull over the fact how these entities continue to bleed money, and are unable to compete with even regional competitors, leave alone the corporations from around the world.
Meanwhile, Lee also paid particular attention to what the “best and brightest” of the other countries were up to. In 1966, he was introduced to a thirty-year old vice-chancellor of a university in Ghana, who had taken a First in Classics at Oxford and was a fellow of All Souls’ College. Lee wrote that he was impressed but could not help but wonder “why a country so dependent on agriculture should have its best and brightest do Classics – Latin and Greek”. Later, in the 1980s, he ran into a former minister from Ghana, and enquired about the impressive Oxford graduate. Lee was told that he had entered into a monastery in California. With sadness, Lee wrote that “[i]f their brightest and best gave up the fight and sought refuge in a monastery, not in Africa but in California, the road to recovery would be long and difficult”.
Therein lies the kernel of some truth for our brightest and best as well, always looking for ways to escape this country. If there is any genuine will to make this country succeed, at any level, then the fight must go on, without seeking refuge in monasteries, or even high-rises or comfortable suburbs abroad.
Merit and Ministers
Lee Kuan Yew had a quite talented, driven bunch around him in his cabinet, but he still had his favorite, and would not shy away from naming who it was. “My style was to appoint the best man I had to be in charge of the most important ministry”, Lee wrote in his book. The most important ministry, for the most part, remained finance, and his best man, without doubt, was Goh Keng Swee.
Lee had realized, as he wrote, “that the more talented people I had as ministers, administrators, and professionals, the more effective my policies were, and the better the results”.
We can juxtapose this to how the ministries are handed out in Pakistan. These are rarely made on the basis of talent. Familial relations, friendships and regional power elitism are determinative. While the Zardari-Bhuttos and Sharifs are unabashedly steeped in nepotism, quite a few examples from Imran Khan’s time also strongly suggest that meritocracy, as a value, has just not taken root in our society, despite the rhetoric. Two examples come readily to mind. One, Punjab was handed over to Buzdar. No one has made the case yet, nor is it expected that such a case would ever be made, that Buzdar was the best pick given the options available. Two, Imran’s government had initially tapped the erudite Atif Mian as an adviser only to be dropped due to pressure from the religious zealots. Talent be damned.
Since then, there has been a further watering down of standards, with eligibility for office now only reserved for those who have reliably proven themselves to be the most compliant and docile yes-men.
And this is where Lee kept himself apart. There was no acceptance for any watering down of standards. When, for instance, in the 1980s, his President, Devan Nair, who had worked with Lee since 1954, was found to be struggling with his alcohol addiction, and his adventurism with women, Lee had him replaced. Even a whiff of corruption from an office-holder in Singapore would mean the end of his career. The standards were never lowered.
At the same time, it is our interesting fortune, in Pakistan, that the person Lee called “an ebullient and outgoing wheeler-dealer”, and a “rogue”, though a “likeable” one, Asif Ali Zardari, has been installed as our President – again. It is a testament to the fact that those who consider themselves to be the ultimate well-wishers of Pakistan, have a knack for a bit of wheeling-dealing themselves.
No Student Left Behind
Singapore paid particular attention to the performance of its students, and whether the schools and universities were producing the quality that would make the students useful to the world.
Two examples are noteworthy. First, the Nanyang University. Lee read a report that graduates from Nanyang University, when applying for jobs, would produce their school certificates, and not the university degree. This meant that the university degree was not adding much. At the same time, there was quite some sentimentality attached with Nanyang University, as it had become a symbol of Chinese language, culture and education. Singapore remains three-quarter Chinese.
Lee’s initial solution was that Nanyang University had to switch to English. He had realized, in time, that “[e]mployment opportunities for Chinese educated high school and university graduates were rapidly declining”. When the switch in language did not change much, Lee decided to merge the much more prestigious University of Singapore with Nanyang University, and created the National University of Singapore (NUS). NUS, now, is one of the finest universities in the South East Asia, drawing in many of our brightest and best from Pakistan.
Second, Lee found out that there was consistently lower performance of a larger percentage of Malay students in mathematics and science. He would not have it. He engaged the Malay leaders and showed them the studies that there was a possible 15 to 20 percent improvement in student performance “when the parents and students were motivated to make the extra effort”. In 1982, the Malay leaders were encouraged to form Mendaki (Majlis Pendidikan Anak-Anak Islam – Council on Education for Muslim Children), with high performing Malays, as representatives, to encourage the students. Later, in 1991, Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP), a group of young high-achieving Muslim professionals, was formed to help “the less successful Muslim youths”. As with almost everything Lee touched, the results of Malay students improved. In 1987, only 7 percent of Malay students made it to polytechnics and universities, and by 1999, this number had quadrupled to 28 percent.
Imbued with the sense that Singapore could not just be another East Asian country, one among many, Lee and his cabinet continuously made efforts to ensure that nothing about Singaporeans remained ordinary. In fact, Lee believed that without being extraordinary, Singapore could not survive. Their corporations and workers, as a result, had to be the absolute best. And to ensure that, their students had to be highly competitive. Not one student, or two, but a vast majority.
With many analysts already writing off Pakistan as a “failing state”, if not as a failed state already, we need to develop this sense as well, that we will have to change something about ourselves, develop this desire to make ourselves extraordinary, or else, we will just not survive.
Pakistan: Friendship Determines Who Gets What
It is heartening to see that when this miracle was taking place in Singapore, those at the helm in Pakistan were not entirely oblivious. Nawaz Sharif in 1991 visited Singapore twice and invited Lee to Pakistan. On Nawaz’s request, Lee also prepared a report for Pakistan. Much of what Lee advised was not heeded, as Lee lamented in his book.
He found Nawaz Sharif to be “a man of action with much energy”, but then also highlighted that “[t]he problem was that often he had neither the time nor the patience to have a comprehensive study made before deciding on a solution”.
Lee identified the most pressing, obvious problems immediately. He mentioned that “[t]oo much of [Pakistan’s] budget went into defense” and that “[c]orruption was rampant, with massive thievery of state property”. Moreover, while he appreciated that Nawaz Sharif sought to privatize state enterprises, he was amazed to note that “in Pakistan they were not sold by inviting open tenders”. And noted what was, and remains, the greatest threat to meritocracy and development in Pakistan: “Friendship, especially political ones, determined who got what”.
Lee, however, signed off his analysis on Pakistan by mentioning that “[t]he Pakistanis are a hardy people with enough of the talented and well-educated to build a modern nation”. But then he also quickly added that the “unending strife with India has drained Pakistan’s resources and stunted its potential”.
He had similar thoughts about India as well. He mentioned that one of the reasons for India’s wasted decades is “the endless conflicts and wars with Pakistan that make them poorer”. Lee could say such a common sensical thing without being labeled a traitor from either India or Pakistan. His book was published in 2000. The analysis remains valid in 2025.
Lee Kuan Yew’s Shoulders
Benazir and Zardari, in 1996, wanted Lee to have Singapore invest in Pakistan. Their pitch, according to Lee, was quite “simple”, that “Singapore was successful, had lots of money, and therefore could invest in Pakistan and make it as successful”. The simplicity of this pitch misses the basic lesson from Lee’s life, that you have to earn the investment by showing that there is social cohesion in the country, and perhaps more importantly, that there is human capital from which the investors are going to benefit.
Noticeably, Lee himself never asked for money or aid from another country, which was one of the reasons for his embellished reputation around the world. The help that he actively sought from others was in the form of training and knowledge transfers for his people in Singapore.
Lee said that he “preferred to climb on the shoulders of others who had gone before us” since he had “discovered early in office that there were few problems confronting [him] in government that other governments had not met and solved”. We need to do the same. Therefore, when Lee wrote that a nation has a chance of not failing only when there is meritocracy, “with the best man or woman for the job, especially as leaders in government”, we ought to take him very, very seriously. Singapore got to eat the pudding; our people continue to starve.
