Dear Editor,
Southeast Asian nations as well as neighbouring China grew astoundingly from the 1980s (some even from the 1970s) and came to be known as “miracle economies”. Each nation had its own peculiar attributes that facilitated growth and development. My favourite country as a model for Guyana is Singapore because it shares many commonalities – British colonial rule, English as the national language, parliamentary system, ethnic and cultural pluralism, among others. I love Singapore for its high state of development, zero poverty, full employment, near zero crime, zero tolerance for (government) corruption and graft, zero illicit drugs, orderliness, cleanliness, efficiently managed state corporations, among other reasons.
Unlike Guyana, Singapore has no natural resources and that has not handicapped development. And unlike Guyana, it has managed multiethnic relations without outward physical conflict; unlike Guyana, ethnicity does not negatively impact development. The ethnic groups get along and each is allowed “cultural autonomy”. The three main ethnic groups – Chinese majority, Malay the second largest, and Indians (Tamils or we call ‘Madrassi’ in the Caribbean) — learn their native language and culture in public institutions and celebrate their identity; Chinese, Malays, Indians have national holidays (including Diwali and Eid) during which identities are promoted and celebrated. They do not shy away from their identity; cultural diffusion is encouraged and that has helped the groups to live in relative harmony and peace unlike during colonial rule when there were ethnic riots. A Chinese has been Prime Minister since its founding but the Presidency (that replaced the monarchy) rotates among the three ethnic groups; the current President is an Indian who assumed office a few months ago. The MPs and the cabinet represent the three groups in a partnership.
The state of the economy (GDP per capita) of Singapore was not much different from Guyana at independence. Singapore was part of a federation with Malaysia when independence was granted in 1963. Unhappy with and speaking out against Malay dominance and control of resources, Singapore was asked to leave the federation. It became independent in 1965 under an enlightened leader with a vision — Lee Kwan Yew (came to be known as LKY), Cambridge University educated lawyer – and perhaps the most enlightened leader of his era who served as Prime Minister till his voluntary retirement in 1990. He remained a MP till his death in 2015 training and advising his successors; his son Lee Hosien Loong (since 2004) has been PM and plans to retire. LKY co-founded a political party (Peoples Action Party) with other prominent politicians or activists and cultural leaders including Malays and Indians. He brought together several Chinese, Malay, and Indian organizations. He became the dominant figure and did not tolerate much dissension although he respected and accepted the views of others.
Although he was a left winger (and even labeled a socialist) in his youth when combating colonial rule, LKY was a pragmatist. He was extremely brilliant and understood the consequences of aligning with the East during the Cold War. LKY recognized that Singapore would not develop under socialism, and he did not want his nation to fall in the same trap as Indo-China nations that fought the French and Americans. He distinguished himself from his radical socialist comrades in the party having them expelled. And he embraced capitalism as the mode of development. More specifically, at the height of the Cold War, he sided with the US and the West. This won him kudos and support from the Americans and the West resulting in loans, investment and open markets. He became very close with American Conservative rulers like Ronald Reagan and George Bush. His embrace of capitalism and the West going back to the 1960s gave him access to resources and markets to grow his country’s economy. And it took off like a jet.
While the GDP per capita of Guyana and Singapore were almost the same in 1966, three or four decades later, Singapore’s was twenty times that of Guyana. Guyana pursued ‘etatism’ or insular state development tied to socialist economies and its economy stymied. Today, Singapore’s GDP per capita is almost the same as the USA. Singapore has become a ‘super’ developed city state, the envy of the world. Singapore, like other Southeast nations, focused on education and industrialization. Scholarships were provided to outstanding students to study abroad (USA and UK) and return to make contributions to the economy. From a poor nation with no natural resources, Singapore has become one of the most efficient and rich states. Other Southeast nations and China have also done extremely well since the 1960s. Vietnam for example, has made a complete turnaround of its economy after the devastating consequences of the war with America. LKY was economic advisor to China and Vietnam, both growing phenomenally.
The Southeast Asian nations have not wasted their resources or new found wealth like Latin American or African countries. They have largely avoided the “resource curse” and their people are enjoying a very high standard of living and declining poverty. The Guyana government should give thought to (supporting young scholars) studying the development models of Singapore and other Southeast Asian nations. These economies can serve as guide if not models of development and how to avoid the resource curse.
Sincerely,
Vishnu Bisram
