In the heated conversations under my previous two posts about the influence of the British Empire on Singapore one thing stood out to me: it seems that everybody agrees at least on one thing - that the city-state is really the only successful former colony in the world.
No country that used to be an overseas possession of a European power is doing really well these days - apart from Singapore.
(I omitted Australia and New Zealand because indigenous people have been greatly outnumbered by the descendants of the colonials).
The obvious question is: why is that?
Why is a small island, devoid of any resources, with a relatively small labour force, doing so well, when so many of its formerly colonized (and much wealthier) neighbors still linger in poverty?
Nearby presence of Malaysia, which history of Singapore is closely intertwined with, makes it even more interesting, as both share the same British heritage and ethnic makeup (if in different proportions).
So, what's their problem?
Inferiority complex.
All former colonies seem to be suffering from nationalistic pride, initially born out of growing opposition to the colonists, coupled with a sense of inferiority.
You see, all of their troubles had for years been blamed on foreigners and the shared belief was that once they were "independent" they would surely do a lot better on their own. Only once they were did they realize that they can't.
Meanwhile, Singapore did not have the luxury of indulging fantasies about some great power it could become.
It was a city kicked out of the Malaysian federation that even LKY firmly believed needed the peninsula as its hinterland to prosper. After all, it can't even quench its own thirst, given the absence of sufficient sources of drinking water.
And while it was a British port, there was no guarantee that it would continue to fare well in the future now that the empire had folded and withdrawn from Asia.
Remember that the outlook in the 1960s and 70s wasn't rosy. Mao was busy starving millions in isolated China, Indochina was drowning in blood of communist massacres and civil wars, Korea and Taiwan were still poor, and Japan was only up and coming - not to mention dependent on the US, that its trade with went over the Pacific not the Indian Ocean.
Who needed a small island in Southeast Asia for anything? Particularly with a communist insurgency next door and imperial ambitions across the water in Indonesia?
(Some like to whine about the evil Brits, forgetting that the only threats to Singaporean sovereignty came from its neighbours - also former colonies... So, who was the bad guy in the end?)
On its own Singapore is, essentially, worthless. It has nothing to dig out of the ground, it cannot grow much and even its location is not unique given countless Indonesian islands and Malaysian coast nearby.
To advance, the country - or its leaders, at least - had to acknowledge these fundamental weaknesses before attempting to find a remedy.
As a result, every strength that the city-state now boasts is man-made.
When Singapore's insecure neighbours retreated behind protectionism, desperately trying to show that they can build something on their own or with minimal external support (squandering billions in the process), the city-state threw its doors open, offered tax incentives and invested in supporting infrastructure just to draw as many foreign investors as possible.
There was no place for populist vanity a'la "national car" or political supremacy of the dominant ethnic group, which would have undermined internal stability when it was clear all hands on deck were needed (and neighbours would have loved to exploit ethnic tensions).
Lee Kuan Yew's insistence on equal treatment of all people regardless of ancestry, was what led to Singapore's expulsion by Malaysian populists seeking to establish a Malay ethnostate. They didn't want independence from the British as much as they wanted to wield the power and seize national wealth for themselves.
One after another former colonies in Asia (but also Africa or Latin America) fell to authoritarianism of various kinds, often leading internal strife, wars, violence, corruption and crime as local "elites" fought over the spoils from the retreating empire instead of building a future for themselves.
They failed to acknowledge how backwards and poor they actually were - and that even if you possess natural wealth you still have to know how to manage it. And if you don't, you need to invite over those who do.
Just like Singapore did.
The Lion City didn't give birth to any international megabrands, it doesn't compete with others on the number of tallest skyscrapers and spared itself wasting billions on white elephants showing the world that "Singapore can!".
The world already knows that thanks to everything else that it does.
It is the world's largest transshipment harbour, the largest bunkering harbour, one of the largest oil refining centres on the planet (despite not having a drop of oil within its borders), boasts world's best public subway system and airport, densest canopy cover of any major city, lowest crime rates, some of the lowest taxes and remains free of corruption and excessive bureaucracy.
It doesn't have as many tall buildings as even KL does - but it does have the MRT, sidewalks and a growing number of cycling lanes. Not exactly things that would grab as many headlines as the latest Merdeka 118 - but certainly more valuable to most people than another expensive glass box.
It's largely devoid of pride (sometimes I think it could use a bit more, frankly speaking), it doesn't need to or want to flex its muscles. But all of that came from a realization that it is weak and unless it works really hard it may not survive.
For Singapore it really was a life-or-death situation but others opted to delude themselves about their own capabilities.
Post-colonial leaders around the world seem to have thought that just taking over would be enough. They had all the money, resources and people, after all - how hard could it be? Well, it turned out that very hard if you are not able to acknowledge that you really need help.
I think this is a lesson not only for other nations but all individuals as well. Many people like to indulge a sense of ethnic or national pride these days. "Look at me, I'm a part of X!" - as if identity made them more valuable than their actions.
Heck, some are able to derive a sense of entitlement from little else than being human. "I was born so I'm entitled to a job, a house, food and paid holidays". No, you're not. You have to prove your worth by doing something valuable for the rest of humanity - and earn everything else in the process.
Like that tiny island in Southeast Asia.
