Visiting Singapore is both an exhilarating and a depressing experience for me. To observe the transformation of a mosquito-infested swamp full of poor people into a vibrant developed nation of prosperous people in a brief span of 40 years is exhilarating. Comparing Singapore to India from an Indian’s perspective is depressing: how did we–given all the advantages we had in 1950 compared to Singapore–squander it all and end up being a poor misgoverned over-populated country? That is the depressing bit.

There are lessons by the score that one can learn from the Singapore experiment; lessons that could be arrived at through simple logical reasoning in the abstract but made all the more compelling to see it actually work out in practice. The fundamental lesson to my mind is this: policies — well thought out, rigorously implemented, and single-mindedly enforced — have the power to transform.

Where can these well thought out policies come from? From at least two sources at the opposite ends of a spectrum: the mind of a single intelligent person, or the collective wisdom of an enlightened majority of the population. The latter is possible in theory of course just as it is possible that all the atoms of your body will simultaneously jump two feet vertically in unison (physics does not disallow this) so that you spontaneously levitate momentarily but it is so unlikely as to be dismissed unconditionally. An enlightened majority is in the realm of the possible but not in the realm of the probable.

The other extreme — a single person or a small set of people evolving rational policy — is imaginable. Even given the short history of civilization, some examples of this type exist. The founding fathers of the United States, a small group of people, wrote a constitution that lays the foundation for enlightened policy. More recently, it was one person who formulated rational policies and implemented them with single-minded dictatorial vigor. His name is Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee Kuan Yew is one of the most intelligent leaders in contemporary history. The man is a practical genius. The people of Singapore got lucky when in the random draw from which dictators are drawn, they drew Lee Kuan Yew. India, I cannot but note with sadness and grief, drew from the same random draw and came up with Jawaharlal Nehru. Both dictatorial but one a practical genius and the other . . . well, the less said the better.

There are deep contrasts between India and Singapore. Take for instance the degree of corruption that permeates both public and private sectors. According to Transparency International, India ranks 90th (in the company of such nations as Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Russia, and Tanzania) while Singapore ranks 5th (led by Finland, New Zealand, Demark, and Iceland) least corrupt country.

The corrosive impact of corruption on economic development and growth is not a mystery, nor was it unknown fifty years ago. Lee Kuan Yew decided on a zero-tolerance policy on corruption. Corruption at all levels of society had to go. The task was to re-invent the whole culture so that corruption had no place in it. That was the first bit: deciding that corruption was history. The next bit is implementation and enforcement.

To root out corruption you can use all sorts of means. You can lecture school children to take an oath to eschew corruption (as in here), you can prosecute a poor milkman for diluting milk (as in here) — that is, basically you can start at the bottom and implement an idiotic policy of targeting marginal players while shielding the really corrupt. Or you can do it by catching the big fish and handing out exemplary punishments and — this is the important point — publicizing it so that anyone who is even minimally aware understands that corruption is not tolerated by the society no matter how powerful the person is.

This is what I heard. A certain minister, very close to Lee Kuan Yew, in charge of housing (or some such) was involved in some kick-backs. The word went around that the guy will surely get off easy since he was in the inside circle. Lee asked the minister to see him. The meeting was brief. Two days later the minister blew his brains out. The message was clear: zero tolerance.

In India we hear of some high-level bureaucrat or politician robbing the public purse blind with sickening regularity. But we have never heard of even one high-ranking corrupt public official or politician ever being punished for his misdeeds. We have a free press of sorts and people get to know about how the most corrupt get away with murder. The notion that it is OK to be corrupt is internalized and soon enough we justify our own petty corruption by referring it back to those high and mighty whose corruption is legendary and who are never punished. We grow cynical and the society suffers as a whole. Our culture erodes and standards of probity and justice fall until we are a nation of petty thieves ruled by mega-robbers.

To re-iterate once again (as they say in the Department of Redundancy Department), you have to have intelligent policy, rigorous implementation and no-exception enforcement to bring about a radical change. Most policies in India don’t meet the intelligence criterion, and those that do suffer from indifferent implementation and half-hearted enforcement.

Crimes other than corruption are also a brake on economic growth. Singapore controls these without a too visible police force. I only saw a couple of cops during my three-day visit. One of the most impressive people I met while in Singapore (who is an alien in Singapore but runs a very successful business) told me of his informal theory about how they keep crime low. He said that he imagines that in the police headquarters they have a huge wall chart where each crime has a schedule of enforcement. So, for instance, “vandalism” may be scheduled for the week of 15th of August. That week they go out and catch a vandal, prosecute him to the utmost, and plaster his picture on the papers and in the write-up use the word “shame” a dozen times.

Prospective vandals, however irregular they may be in keeping up with current affairs, get to learn about the punishment and decide to curb their impulses. But public memory fades with time. So after a suitable span of time, the police will once again catch a vandal and make an example of him. They repeat this same formula with other routine crimes.

The important bit is that you don’t have to have zillions of cops watching every corner for vandal all round the year. You just catch the one every now and then to put the fear of god into the others and thus prevent vandalism from happening in the first place.

Lee Kuan Yew (I like using his full name because there is a certain something, a rhythm to it) must be a remarkable man. My meeting with him did not happen. I am kidding you, of course. But he is someone I would have liked to meet him and bow deep as a sign of my respect for what he did for Singapore.

Apparently little things, things that one may not consider very important or significant in the grand scheme of things, they too have a transformational impact on the society. Litter and garbage on the streets depresses the spirit and instills a sense of hopelessness and helplessness in the society. Lee Kuan Yew fined people who littered so vigorously that Singapore became clean but earned the reputation of being a “Fine City.”

Of course, the litterbug loses significant freedom in the society. He cannot litter to his heart’s content. But if there is a negative externality of following your heart’s dictates, then you have to be made to stop. Not just littering, but religion as well. They have what I call the “Freedom to use, but not the freedom to abuse.”

Freedom of religion is guaranteed in Singapore but freedom to proselytize is not. Proselytizing essentially says that my religion is better than your religion and that if you don’t accept my god as the One True Savior(TM), you will rot in hell that my god has specially prepared for you. This sows seeds of discord in society and soon the newly converted start asking for special treatment and handouts and in the limiting case, when the bunch grows sufficiently large, ask for a separate state of their own because they cannot bear to live with the other people who are destined to go to hell.

So Singapore is strict about proselytizing. In keeping with their policy of discouraging that anti-social behavior, they caught a meek little Catholic lady who was going door to door peddling her religion and threw her into jail after she was found guilty by the courts. Then they publicized the event. This sent the message to all religious bigots who follow the dictates of their own hearts that bigotry is not ok.

They took care of the mullahs as well. Got them together and told them that if they even make a peep in their weekly religious sermons promoting killing and terrorism, they will have their butts in the sling. Live and let live was the message they got and as rational humans, the mullahs got in line. The last time they had communal unrest was sometime in the late 1960s.

No such luck in India, of course. We have Christian missionaries from all over the world having a grand old time converting heathens and soon enough you have the neo-converts pissing on Ganesh idols to show their new-found faith. News gets around and finally out of desperation and plain old brutality, a few missionaries get roasted and this gives the country an ill-deserved reputation of being intolerant. Madrassas funded by Saudi money flourish by the thousands where apparently the mullahs teach the young that killing kuffars is a pretty practical way of arranging society.

In reaction to this ocassionally, a few of the normally tolerant Hindus band together and retaliate. This hits the international press and India is tarred as a society full of murdering morons.

As I was saying, Singapore does not have those problems because they have the enlightened policy of making proselytizing a crime and then enforce it. Lacking the essential bit that leads to religious disharmony, they avoid the entire series of unwelcome consequences.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The essential important faculty that gives rise to good policy — which our leaders lack — is imagination.

Humans, I imagine, are different cognitively from other things in the universe in their capacity to imagine. We can ask “What if” and think through the consequences of a set of actions that are not yet set into motion. We have to be able to foresee the consequence of our present actions to reach a desired future state. Or by backward induction, we can start at a future desired state and work our way back to what we should be doing today to obtain the future state.

Every chronic persistent shortage you see around you in India is the result of a failure of imagination. (I think that this statement should be elevated to the status of a principle. Here is the one of the first axioms, then.)

In Pune, we have power cuts for about 4 hours a day on average. Pune is a city with a population the size of New Zealand’s population — four million people. It is certainly not an obscure little village in the middle of some god-forsaken forest. Power is not a new-fangled fad whose demand could not be foreseen. The growth of the size of the city and the consequent demand for power could have been easily foreseen and actions taken. Power generation is not an esoteric undertaking which the private sector is incapable of doing. Yet there is a shortage and the economy suffers because some idiot in charge did not have the imagination to realize that more power is needed.

Not so the Singaporeans under Lee Kuan Yew. They learnt to use their imagination. They build capacity before they hit shortage. I hear that they have started building the third terminal at the airport even though the second one is not even up to full capacity.

Compare that to India. First a road gets choked with 10 times the number of vehicles than it was designed to handle. Then the realization dawns on people that the capacity has to be increased. On an already congested road, they start making some changes — for instance a bridge. This take about four years to complete (whereas the same work in a different place would have taken four months). By the time the capacity is in place, the traffic has also increased so that once again it is 10 times what the road can handle.

This reminds me of my email inbox. For the last year or so, I am constantly falling behind — the number of messages sitting there increases monotonically. I am forever trying to catch up.

But enough of my woes. I was going on about how smart Lee Kuan Yew was. He has the best imagination of them all, I guess. Take for example his insistence on air-conditioning. Singapore is a hot and extremely humid place around the year. Without AC, you are bound to be less productive than with it. Air-conditioning makes sense if the cost is lower than the increased income from a more productive workforce. He saw the benefits of AC and implemented it.

I don’t know why but some people just draw good cards from the random draw that is life. Singaporeans are lucky. I am sure there are those who will immediately retort that the Singaporeans don’t have the freedoms that are normally associated with a liberal democracy. And I am also sure that the person making that statement is sitting comfortably well-fed in his nice office or home accessing the world wide web for knowledge and entertainment. For the average schmuck in a third world country, he would any day trade in his imaginary freedoms for a decent shot at a full stomach, a roof over his head, and a chance to get his children educated. After the average schmuck has achieved those basic necessities, he would ask for all sorts of goodies that a liberal democracy provides. And that is when the society should become a liberal democracy.

The sequence is important.

{More about Mr Lee Kuan Yew here.}