[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n 24th March 2015, the death of Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore hit the news headlines. He was the maker of modern Singapore. He was the Prime Minister of Singapore for three decades. On his death, his remarkable achievements were brought back to life.
After reading the stories about Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore, the title question kept on lingering in my mind. The objective of writing this article is not to list out the success stories of this city state of which, I have no personal experience. It is to delve into what had inspired and created the success story.
Singapore became independent from Great Britain in 1963 and became part of Malaysia. In 1965, Singapore was expelled from Malaysia due to racial tensions. Singapore is an island city state with a meager landmass of just 718.3 sq. kms (277 sq. miles). Lee himself considered Singapore too small to be a global player. But in less than fifty years, Singapore has emerged as the global economic giant. Today, Singapore leads in many of the global economic parameters. The sky seems the limit for this tiny island nation in economic prosperity.
It is said that Singapore’s leap to economic prosperity came at the cost of their personal freedom in many areas. Singapore’s was not a liberal democracy. It was a rationed democracy, which some called it authoritarian. Singapore was built on the vision and determination of one man. The humiliation of expulsion from Malaysia drove Lee to the edge. The desire to lift his people from ground zero was his inspiration. The headstrong Lee Kuan Yew did it in his life-time; in less than half a century.
Singapore had no supernatural gift that Nagaland did not have. The only difference was that, Singapore is an island with sea ports all around it whereas Nagaland is a hill station. In Kohima town, many of us saw the billboard with the slogan; “The difference between Singapore and Nagaland? - Civic sense” It is our attitude and not geography that shapes our destiny because each country’s landscape has its own natural advantage.
Singapore has zero tolerance against corruption. Mr. Amit Shah, BJP National President during visit to Nagaland on 17th April 2015 said; “Nagaland has no development problem; it has corruption problem”. We profess Nagaland as a Christian State and even adopt “Nagaland for Christ” as our national motto. In general belief, Christians are viewed as being more honest and pure. But Naga Christians gave space to a non-Christian to preach us morality against corruption.
Singaporeans were conditioned to lead strict disciplined life, both in private and public. Discipline comes with a lot of sacrifice on personal freedom. They sacrificed personal freedom for national good. Nagas are grossly in-disciplined. Individualism governs our life. There’s not an iota of national sense. We talk so much about nationalism but patriotism has long since stopped to flow in our blood and departed from our soul.
If a tiny nation like Singapore could do it, why can’t Nagaland? The biggest difference is however, the political freedom. Singapore had political freedom to chart out its own economic policies to develop in its own ways. It had the liberty to transform from commodity-driven economy to foreign direct investments with excellent regulatory mechanisms. Singapore’s experience is a living testimony that, no matter how much people in high places talk about economic development in Nagaland, it is not going to happen so long as somebody takes economic decisions for us.
Nearly seventy years of Naga political struggle for complete independence on, yet, the struggle don’t seem to lead us to anywhere. If the struggle must continue, and we can, if we still have a grain of patriotism in us, Naga nationalism needs course correction. A nation can’t be built on self-deception. Political renaissance based on philosophy of humanism and peaceful approach may be the last rays of hope for Nagas. If Nagas are honest to ourselves, India can’t hold us forever. Else, we have to learn to live as its loyal subjects.
(The opinions expressed here are personal and in no way reflect the views of the political party to which the writer belongs).
Dr. K. Hoshi
