Emulating Singapore's visionary leaders

Emulating Singapore's visionary leaders

Aziz, Analyst, Kuala Kencana, Irian Jaya

Amid numerous polls and surveys, the race for Indonesian
leadership (presidency) in 2004 general election does not offer a
new, refreshed hope for the people of Indonesia. It is
accordingly logical that to most Indonesian people, the general
election merely means a big "fiesta" (music show and parade) and
collecting little mementos (t-shirts and other party giveaways);
a luxury they hardly enjoy in their hard lives. Little is shown
by current leaders how they can shape the national character.

And do not be myopic, why not learn from the nearest neighbor,
like Singapore? Is there anybody who have really devoted any
efforts to study how Singapore could create a nation that is
developed with a viable economy in the world? What kind of
leadership made it work? In other words, what makes Singapore
different from, or precisely better than, other countries in
Asia? Singapore has been through an era as a foreign colony,
gained independence after World War II, suffered from devastating
social riots and struggled against a communist party -- similar
circumstances that other Asian countries by and large shared; and
even more, unlike some other countries, Singapore does not have
abundant natural resources. So what makes it exceptional?

It might be easy to dismiss all the these achievements by
saying the small size of that country makes it so manageable. But
look at Sri Lanka, Myanmar, or other small countries which have
not succeeded as well as Singapore.

On the other hand, by occupying half of the American
continent, the United States stands out as the most developed
country in the world. Size does not matter. Or would it be
because of its population? In the absence of other answers, it
probably would. Taken at a closer look, the population of
Singapore consists primarily of three broad ethnic groupings:
Chinese, Indian and Malay.

But if race is the major driver of Singapore's development,
why haven't China, India or Malaysia developed as rapidly? Not
quite so. Apparently, Singaporeans, as a whole, are greater than
the sum of its parts. There has got to be an explanation
somewhere else.

In his biography, Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas, Lee,
the most influential leader of Singapore, said that contrary to
popular belief, Lee founded his leadership on the basis that no
person is (born) equal. Some of the parents are rich and some are
poor. Some parents are better educated and a few others are
illiterate. Some groups of people are willing to work hard,
others are less willing. You accept it or you deny it. His notion
may be called pragmatism, but that is the way he approached
problems: With honesty and objectivity. And though inviting
controversy, he openly admitted that most Chinese-Singaporeans
have a better work ethic than Malay-Singaporeans.

But when it comes to civil service recruitment especially for
higher ranks, Lee does not compromise an inch to attract the best
in his society. The recruitment system that apparently inspired
was the selection of astronauts chose for the Apollo 13 mission.
He was amused that from so many bright people applying for the
job, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) had
successfully chosen three candidates who turned out to be the
most capable of managing the space craft back to earth, after it
failed to land on the moon.

What was demonstrated by the three astronauts definitely took
a lot more than intelligence or education, because a minute
mistake or bad timing could have shot the module into outer space
to disappear forever in the galaxy. "How could they do that?" his
mind inquired -- and the question was not addressed to the way
the astronauts salvaged their journey and saved their own lives.
He wondered how NASA got these men with such strong character,
poise and will, all of which meant they had the capacity not to
crack under extreme pressure; the leadership traits which cannot
be easily ascertained during a perusal of the one's CV or via
interviews, and so Lee was inspired to strive that kind of
recruitment for the civil service.

Why so much emphasis on civil service? According to Lee,
development in Singapore, and probably in Asia, requires strong
leadership, which is strong government, to produce essential
social and political stability. North America and Europe rely on
the system of democracy -- with all its checks and balances --
and these systems have been proven to work in those places; but
not necessarily in the case of Singapore, which has a different
history and context. He was aware that perhaps not everybody
agreed with his analysis, but he was determined to stick to it,
which turned out to be right. Singapore has become one of the
most efficient and least corrupt governments in the world.

But more than a man with vision, Lee is also a hands-on
leader. In 1979, he gathered the top brass in his government, and
emphasized that although in the past the recruitment was based on
ability, disregard of English fluency, he could no longer accept
the sloppy use of English in formal work.

He emphasized that, "... that which is written without much
effort is seldom read with much pleasure" and nobody was allowed
to pen a document without thinking of the pleasure of reading it
on the other end. He went on to point out several drafts
presented before him that invited criticism for ambiguous
meanings or meaningless complex jargon. He urged the officials
not to try to impress him with big words, but to impress him with
the clarity of their ideas, with clean and clear prose.

On another occasion, Lee told his officials to "make sure that
every button works". In his speech before senior civil servants
in 1965: "I went to a government bungalow the other day and I
pressed a button but nothing happened. When you have a button,
there must be a purpose. When you switch it off, the light, for
example, must go off. When you want the light on, you make sure
you switch it on and it goes on." And he described how he had a
telephone installed in his car though he disliked it intensely
and rarely used the telephone.

However, every morning the driver had instructions to take the
telephone and to test-dial it. "I want to make sure that when I
wanted to use it, I would just have to pick it up and it would
work. And that is what I want this government to be", he
asserted.

Even back in his school days, Lee was known as a meticulous
observer. During holiday breaks, he traveled around Europe by
train. He noticed how porters in Italy worked somewhat leisurely,
and how different it was in Germany where he could sense a
dynamism of an emerging nation (after defeat in World War II) and
how efficient and diligent the porters were.

From those experiences, when Singapore built Changi airport,
he made sure that all cargo and passenger movement went off in
the most quick and efficient way. Just as he witnessed in
Germany. The result? Hardly anyone is able to argue that Changi
has become one of the best international airports in the world.

But the most striking point would be that Lee molded his
nation among other Asian countries with the same "raw materials":
The people, the location, the natural resources (or lack of it),
other capital resources and even the history. The difference is
that Lee led his nation with a no-nonsense approach, open and
transparent in his policies, adept in adopting modernity and
willing to learn from other countries, and developing a firm, as
well non-corrupt, personality.

Regrettably the image of Lee among the Indonesia media is that
of an arrogant and "nosey" neighbor, instead of a statesman who
was able to play the role of CEO (Chief Executive Officer) for
Singapore's economic development.

Can we find such quality in our current Indonesian leaders? Is
there any of them who is humble enough to learn from this tiny
neighbor?