Over the last six weeks, we contrasted the development paths of Singapore and Trinidad and Tobago to identify commonalities and differences. Our purpose was to provide possible reasons for the different development outcomes and to identify lessons that could be used to chart a new, sustainable development path for Trinidad and Tobago. We noted that although there were similarities in the strategic approach and tools utilised by both countries, there were significant differences in how the strategies and tools were deployed.
We also need to examine, however briefly, how the human element influences a country’s development. Regardless of how political institutions are structured, technicians may advise on the policies to be adopted, but leaders exert significant influence on a country’s choices among competing alternatives and, therefore, on its development path. Political leaders must communicate the vision, policies, programmes, and applicable timelines to secure buy-in and cooperation from cabinet members, the public service, and the wider civil society. Managers and leaders are two very different types of people. Leaders must cope with change and complexity, setting the timing, tone, and tempo, and, by so doing, developing standards and defining the culture necessary to drive the desired changes. Management is about husbanding and allocating resources to achieve the objective, and, where necessary, making technical changes. Peter Drucker simplifies the difference by saying that management is about doing things right; leadership is about doing the right things. It is also true that at critical times, leaders must also be managers.
Prime ministers in a democracy are, by definition, political leaders responsible for shaping and communicating the narrative that will fuel and inspire citizens. Leaders and their leadership styles are influenced by their societal background, training and philosophical orientations.
Eric Williams was an academic historian strongly influenced by anti-colonialism and nationalism. He saw underdevelopment as deeply rooted in historical exploitation and unequal global structures. His book Capitalism and Slavery identifies this structuralist approach and evinces a distrust of foreign capital and external domination. This strongly influenced his polices.
Conversely, Lee Kuan Yew experienced wartime Singapore and Japanese occupation, which gave him a sense of realism and survival logic. A scholarship winner like Williams, Lee studied law at Cambridge, was called to the bar in England and practised as an attorney in Singapore. This legal background placed great emphasis on rules, processes, and systems, as well as on personal and collective responsibility. He was strongly anti-communist and rejected a socialist approach. He believed that outcomes depended on discipline, incentives, and institutions, and therefore emphasised this approach. Hence, the robust anti-corruption measures.
This brief contrast provides an insight into their respective approaches to developing the political narrative that epitomises their differences. Williams articulated an approach through a historian’s lens, emphasising the historical anti-colonial narrative as the basis for corrective action. Hence, state-led growth, with the State investing in companies to save jobs, replacing foreign direct investment (Texaco, Shell, BP), and a heavy reliance on energy rents to finance social spending and protect domestic industry. While Singapore kick-started its economic drive with import substitution and state control, it quickly moved to an export-driven approach based on foreign direct investment. This meant its policies were well-designed and well-coordinated to attract foreign firms.
Both focused on making education free and available. However, whilst Williams retained a British grammar school structure, Lee focused on critical thinking within a STEM framework to develop the skills required to support economic diversification. As a result, Singapore achieved greater diversification and depth in its economic structure.
The difference in approach to business is reflected in the operation of state enterprises. Many T&T state enterprises were established to address private-sector failures, protect jobs, or develop areas where the private sector was weak. Whilst this may have achieved broad economic goals, most were unprofitable. Lee also used state enterprises strategically but insisted they be run on commercial self-financing principles and not bankrolled by the State. Many of these companies operate successfully in international markets, with boards and professional managers insulated from political interference.
Even though both were dominant, their governance and political styles were very different. Williams was a charismatic leader operating in a competitive electoral system which allowed dissent and opposition. However, he was never able to address the racial divisions, and the party political system remained ethnically polarised with a fragmented national identity.
Lee subordinated pluralism to state capacity and cohesion, with a tendency toward authoritarianism, even though elections were regularly held. Union unrest was addressed through restrictive laws and an emphasis on collective bargaining based on productivity. Further, even though Singapore had one dominant ethnic group, Lee explicitly rejected racial politics and enforced multi-racialism by law and policy. State housing followed strict quotas to reflect the demographic balance, removing political influence as a factor. Meritocracy was strictly enforced to depoliticise ethnicity.
Lee’s emphasis on individual responsibility and personal discipline was reinforced by legislation and enforcement, which ensured a more disciplined society, if less “democratic” than T&T, with less dependence on the State for economic advancement. He also built a strong professional public service built on meritocracy and neutralised ethnicity administratively.
We can do nothing about the past, but the future is determined by what we do today. T&T has had seven leaders in the 44 years since Eric Williams’ death. Yet social spending remains disproportionate, the education system is suboptimal, and there are loss-making state enterprises and a lopsided economy.
Mariano Browne is the Chief Executive Officer of the Arthur Lok Jack Global School of Business.
