Can Kenya Really Follow Singapore's Steps?

   Monday, 17 December 2007  [NAIROBI]
 Written by George Mutua 

There is no denying that a new wave of economic growth is sweeping across Africa. A number of countries on the continent are reporting growing GDPs and improving income per capita on an annual basis. In fact, the growth has attracted numerous foreign investors from America, Europe, and Asia looking to participate and profit from Africa's increasing wealth.

Most African nations are hoping to duplicate the success of the Asian Tigers in turning around their failing economies. But is it really possible? Are the same underlying factors, which allowed the Asian Tigers to succeed rapidly present in the emerging African economies of today?

More importantly, can African nations implement the critical and fundamental political, cultural, and social changes, which have allowed speedy and consistent economic growth in East Asia?

It is mind-boggling that within a short period of only 40 years or so, countries like Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Indonesia, and Taiwan have succeeded in turning their once agrarian economies into industrial powerhouses.

Today, these countries are global leaders in the technology, manufacturing, and service industries. Moreover, it is amazing to realise that in only 40 years a country like Singapore was able to achieve a level of economic development, which took Great Britain over 400 years to accomplish.

It is easy to point out the stellar performance achieved by Singapore but it is a gross mistake to assume that any African country can quickly and easily duplicate such results.

Often, most people discount culture and its critical impact in embracing and implementing successful economic policies within a country. Whereas it goes against political correctness to state that one culture is superior to another, it is high time we acknowledge a stark reality; certain cultures are more organised and better suited to promote speedy economic growth than others.

Some countries, by plan or by default, provide the right political and social climates, which allow for quick mobilisation of resources, faster growth of capital, and the rapid application of innovation/technology. The key point being speed; such nations are not faced by serious political, cultural, and social hurdles which inhibit rapid economic growth.

Singapore being an East Asian country is strongly influenced by Confucianism—a philosophy which espouses societal well-being and discourages unbridled individualism. Although one would assume that capitalism or "modern" economic success must go hand in hand with excessive individualism, such an assumption is not necessary warranted.

The people of Singapore, under the brilliant leadership of Lee Kuan Yew—who was the country's first Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990, put aside individualistic pursuits and pushed their national economic goals to the forefront.

Quick economic development was accomplished by directing and investing most of the country's capital and human resource into certain key industries, which afforded the country sustainable competitive advantages in global trade. The people bought into the state-led economic development strategy because of the visionary and the transformational leadership provided by Lee Kuan Yew, and the society's "natural" leaning to Confucianism was not in conflict with their national economic goals.

The belief in the importance of society over the individual made it is possible for the people to embrace Yew's message of radical economic reform in order to improve the well-being of their entire society—a philosophy supported by Confucianism.

I am a proud Kenyan, but I submit that Kenya is not Singapore. Not economically and not culturally. And as for a visionary and transformational leader, we are still waiting for our Lee Kuan Yew. And as for a national philosophy, we are still searching for one.

* [image: Image] Reuters A view of skyscrapers at Singapore's Central Business District at dusk.

*In all honesty, certain things that worked very well and delivered lucratively in Singapore can not translate well in the "typical" Kenyan environment.

Firstly, the two countries are divided by geography and history as they are divided by culture. Whereas Singapore espouses a collective culture, Kenya's is individualistic. In Singapore, order is supreme. In fact, the need to promote social order can sometimes trample individual freedom—especially those overwhelmed by a Eurocentric bias.

When it comes to achieving national goals and interests, the people of Singapore, collectively, frown upon dissent and shirking. There is a strong emphasis to conform to the majority.

My point being, it is much easier to reach a national consensus, follow the leader, mobilise human capital, organise capital resources, control production processes, and implement national policies in Singapore as compared to Kenya—where trifling politicians and disorganised citizens/labour can actively or inadvertently frustrate progressive national agenda.

In Kenya, especially after the advent of political pluralism, one can argue that irresponsible freedom on part of the individual has somewhat subdued social order, which in many ways can preclude economic development.

This might seem an unfair attack on the Kenyan society, but a deeper analysis will reveal that although we cherish the fruits of capitalism, most of us lack the discipline, the know-how, and the tools needed to create and accumulate economic wealth. Our failure to master wealth creation has relegated Kenya into a culture of instant- gratification and institutionalised corruption, best displayed by our thieving politicians and our impoverished citizenry.

Singapore on the other hand, is a saving and an investing nation. The average man or woman in Singapore saves and invests a larger portion of their income than most people in the world. A saving nation is poised to be a rich nation.

Funds allocated to saving and investment accounts by the private individual provide business and government with the capital needed to grow industry and to build infrastructure.

It is impossible to analyse Kenya and not discuss institutionalised corruption. The disease is as contagious among the populace as it is damaging to our economy. It is impossible to reduce the cost of production, to increase the speed of wealth creation, and to maximize economic efficiency in an environment where corruption puts additional cost on every good and service produced within the country.

Back to Singapore: It is a corrupt-free society. In fact, the country ranks high among the least corrupt nations in the world. The ability to reduce total cost of production by operating in a corruption-free environment gives Singapore an advantage when it comes to pricing and selling its commodities in the global market.

All in all, Singapore has turned itself into an economic giant, within a generation, because the country's political, cultural, and social systems, by design, favour speedy economic growth. Focused leadership from the top, and unyielding social order among the people have played a crucial role in achieving the country's economic wealth.

In Kenya's case, there is glaring and promising potential, but we must first attain the political, social, and cultural kingdoms before we can achieve the economic kingdom.

Becoming like Singapore is not a case of just copying and pasting economic policies. Fundamental and radical change is needed to re-engineer our political, cultural and social models in order for Kenya to experience "real" and sustainable economic development.

* Mutua is a Kenyan resident in Atlanta, Georgia, USA*