Connect with us

Features

Secret Behind Singapore’s Success and Sri Lanka’s Failure — My Talk with Kishore Mahbubani – Part 1

Published

1 year ago

on

Kishore Mahbubani

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

He possesses a captivating intellect and spending even a few minutes with him feels like an extraordinary privilege. He, who identified himself as an “accidental diplomat,” was Singapore’s Ambassador to the UN and then served as the President of the United Nations Security Council. Kishore Mahbubani, an esteemed scholar, diplomat, and author, is well-known for his incisive analyses of global geopolitics and economic development.

In his book The Asian 21st Century, Mahbubani presents a compelling argument for the centrality of Asia in shaping the global order of the future. He contends that the 21st century will not only be an Asian century but one where the lessons from Asian societies can provide critical insights into tackling global challenges. In this book, he emphasises that “the Asian way of thinking, characterised by pragmatism and a deep respect for the complexities of history, can offer solutions to the multifaceted problems facing humanity.”

Mahbubani’s intellectual journey is deeply rooted in his childhood and family background. Growing up in Singapore during the tumultuous period of the 1960s, he witnessed first-hand the struggles and aspirations of a newly independent nation. His mother, a homemaker who valued education immensely, instilled in him a profound respect for learning and critical thinking. In his writings, he often reflects on how her influence shaped his world-view, stating, “My mother taught me that education was the most powerful tool for change.” This belief in the transformative power of education has guided his career, fuelling his desire to elevate the discourse around development and governance.

As a child, Mahbubani was surrounded by Singapore’s vibrant multicultural society, which further enriched his understanding of the world. He often speaks of the harmony that characterised his upbringing, noting how different cultures coexisted peacefully. This multicultural backdrop laid the foundation for his later work in diplomacy, where he championed dialogue and mutual understanding among nations. His formative experiences have driven his belief that societies thrive when they embrace diversity and foster collaboration.

Last week, I sat down with Professor Kishore Mahbubani to discuss some of the emerging issues in Asia. He offered a deep analysis of the key factors driving Singapore’s economic success, contrasting it sharply with the challenges faced by other small nations like Sri Lanka. His insights not only shed light on Singapore’s remarkable achievements but also outline potential strategies for other countries striving to replicate its success.

He began by addressing the initial scepticism that surrounded Singapore’s future at the time of its independence in 1965. The founding leaders, including Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee, believed they faced insurmountable challenges. Remarkably, they envied Sri Lanka, viewing it as a peaceful and prosperous nation. “They thought Sri Lanka was peaceful and prosperous, and their dream was to become like Sri Lanka,” Mahbubani recalled. However, history unfolded differently, and Singapore emerged as a global powerhouse while Sri Lanka faced economic difficulties.

Mahbubani’s analysis reveals a critical turning point: “Sri Lanka could easily have been as successful as Singapore, if not more successful, if it had followed the same secret formula of Singapore’s success.” He articulated this formula succinctly as the MPH formula, emphasising three core tenets: meritocracy, pragmatism, and honesty.

Meritocracy, according to Mahbubani, involves selecting individuals for leadership roles based solely on their abilities rather than their ethnic backgrounds. “We just pick the best candidate,” he asserted, pointing out that even though Singapore’s population is predominantly Chinese, leaders like S. Rajaratnam, a Sri Lankan Tamil, were chosen based on their competence. This commitment to meritocracy is starkly contrasted with practises in many countries where nepotism and favouritism often dominate. Mahbubani’s assertion that “meritocracy is the first reason for Singapore’s success” resonates deeply with the ethos of governance in the city-state.

The second component of the MPH formula, pragmatism, highlights Singapore’s approach to problem-solving. Mahbubani recounted the wisdom of Dr. Goh Keng Swee, who advised, “No matter what problem Singapore encounters, somebody somewhere has encountered the same problem.” This perspective encouraged Singaporean leaders to learn from the experiences of other nations, particularly Japan, which had successfully modernised by adopting best practises from various countries. “It’s surprising that other countries like Sri Lanka or others have not copied Singapore,” he noted, stressing the ease of learning from successful models rather than reinventing the wheel.

The final element of the MPH formula, honesty, is the most challenging to maintain. Mahbubani highlighted Singapore’s achievement of “near zero corruption,” underscoring that while no society is entirely free from corruption, Singapore has come remarkably close. “There’s always some degree of corruption, but Singapore has achieved near zero,” he affirmed. This commitment to integrity is critical in fostering trust and stability, essential ingredients for economic growth. He further elaborated, stating, “In a society where trust is maintained, the economy can thrive.”

As the conversation shifted toward Singapore’s democratic processes, Mahbubani addressed the often-cited criticisms regarding the political landscape. He asserted, “In Singapore, no one questions the fact that every five years, the people of Singapore go for elections.” He emphasised that the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) remains in power through democratic means, receiving support from a significant majority of the electorate. “The PAP is in power not because of dictatorial means,” he explained, “but because the people of Singapore have voted for the government to stay.” This statement challenges the narrative that Singapore’s success is solely a product of autocratic governance.

Mahbubani elaborated on the notion of accountability in governance. He believes that good governance is inherently tied to the effectiveness of public administration, stating, “Effective governance is like a fine-tuned engine; it requires constant attention and maintenance.” This perspective underlines the importance of responsiveness in leadership, a critical factor that enables Singapore to adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing global environment.

The discussion then turned to the broader geopolitical landscape, particularly concerning China’s rise as a global power. Mahbubani noted the complexities that smaller nations face in this context. “As China is rising, the United States has decided that the rise of China is a challenge to the United States,” he remarked. This has led to a significant geopolitical contest, where nations must navigate their relationships with both China and the United States. Mahbubani emphasised that ASEAN countries have been clear in their desire not to take sides in this rivalry, aiming instead for amicable relations with both superpowers.

He further elaborated on the implications of this geopolitical tension. “It is important for all Asian states, like the ASEAN states, like Sri Lanka, to speak out and say that we want to be friends with both,” he advised, underscoring the need for diplomatic agility in a rapidly changing world. Mahbubani’s approach highlights the necessity of balancing relationships in a multipolar world, where power dynamics are continuously shifting.

As the conversation deepened, Mahbubani reflected on the commentary made by Amerian geopolitical analysts like George Friedman regarding China’s increasing military might. “The question Friedman should ask is why is the United States spending more on defence than the next ten countries combined?” he said, highlighting the disproportionate military expenditures of the U.S. compared to China’s relatively modest investments. He pointed out that while China’s defence spending has increased, it remains consistent as a percentage of its GDP, a nuance often overlooked in discussions of military power.

In addressing the U.S.’s global military presence, Mahbubani contended, “The United States is the only major developed country where the average income of the bottom 50% has gone down.” He argued that the U.S. should reallocate its resources from maintaining a vast military presence worldwide to improving the welfare of its own citizens. “Instead of spending money to protect its primacy in the global system,” he suggested, “it should spend its money to help its own people.”

The dialogue then shifted toward the concept of an ASEAN-NATO alliance, which Mahbubani approached with scepticism. He criticised the notion as lacking understanding of Asia’s unique geopolitical context. “The Europeans have become geopolitically incompetent,” he stated, noting the EU’s struggles compared to ASEAN’s stability and growth.

Mahbubani argued that instead of lecturing Asian countries, Europeans should learn from the successes of the ASEAN model. He pointed out, “The tragedy about the Europeans is that they don’t seem to understand that instead of lecturing the rest of the world, they should learn from the rest of the world.” This call for humility in international relations reflects Mahbubani’s broader advocacy for a multipolar world where diverse perspectives are respected and valued.

In this context, he articulated a broader vision for regional cooperation. “The future of regional security lies in collaboration, not confrontation,” he asserted.

In these tumultuous times, Mahbubani’s work urges us to embrace the complexities of our world with a spirit of collaboration and understanding. It is a call to action for leaders and citizens alike to recognise that the future of our interconnected globe hinges on our ability to learn from one another and work together toward a common purpose. As Mahbubani eloquently put it, “The path to progress lies not only in recognising the unique challenges faced by each nation but also in fostering a spirit of collaboration that transcends borders.” This vision, rooted in a deep respect for humanity and the shared challenges we face, remains a guiding light in the pursuit of a better future for all.

To be continued
[The second part of this interview will appear in the next edition of Sunday Island.]
[Photo: Kishore Mahbubani with late-Henry Kissinger in 2018]


Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Rebuilding the country requires consultation

Published

9 hours ago

on

2026/01/13

By

A positive feature of the government that is emerging is its responsiveness to public opinion. The manner in which it has been responding to the furore over the Grade 6 English Reader, in which a weblink to a gay dating site was inserted, has been constructive. Government leaders have taken pains to explain the mishap and reassure everyone concerned that it was not meant to be there and would be removed. They have been meeting religious prelates, educationists and community leaders. In a context where public trust in institutions has been badly eroded over many years, such responsiveness matters. It signals that the government sees itself as accountable to society, including to parents, teachers, and those concerned about the values transmitted through the school system.

This incident also appears to have strengthened unity within the government. The attempt by some opposition politicians and gender misogynists to pin responsibility for this lapse on Prime Minister Dr Harini Amarasuriya, who is also the Minister of Education, has prompted other senior members of the government to come to her defence. This is contrary to speculation that the powerful JVP component of the government is unhappy with the prime minister. More importantly, it demonstrates an understanding within the government that individual ministers should not be scapegoated for systemic shortcomings. Effective governance depends on collective responsibility and solidarity within the leadership, especially during moments of public controversy.

The continuing important role of the prime minister in the government is evident in her meetings with international dignitaries and also in addressing the general public. Last week she chaired the inaugural meeting of the Presidential Task Force to Rebuild Sri Lanka in the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah. The composition of the task force once again reflects the responsiveness of the government to public opinion. Unlike previous mechanisms set up by governments, which were either all male or without ethnic minority representation, this one includes both, and also includes civil society representation. Decision-making bodies in which there is diversity are more likely to command public legitimacy.

Task Force

The Presidential Task Force to Rebuild Sri Lanka overlooks eight committees to manage different aspects of the recovery, each headed by a sector minister. These committees will focus on Needs Assessment, Restoration of Public Infrastructure, Housing, Local Economies and Livelihoods, Social Infrastructure, Finance and Funding, Data and Information Systems, and Public Communication. This structure appears comprehensive and well designed. However, experience from post-disaster reconstruction in countries such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami suggests that institutional design alone does not guarantee success. What matters equally is how far these committees engage with those on the ground and remain open to feedback that may complicate, slow down, or even challenge initial plans.

An option that the task force might wish to consider is to develop a linkage with civil society groups with expertise in the areas that the task force is expected to work. The CSO Collective for Emergency Relief has set up several committees that could be linked to the committees supervised by the task force. Such linkages would not weaken the government’s authority but strengthen it by grounding policy in lived realities. Recent findings emphasise the idea of “co-production”, where state and society jointly shape solutions in which sustainable outcomes often emerge when communities are treated not as passive beneficiaries but as partners in problem-solving.

Cyclone Ditwah destroyed more than physical infrastructure. It also destroyed communities. Some were swallowed by landslides and floods, while many others will need to be moved from their homes as they live in areas vulnerable to future disasters. The trauma of displacement is not merely material but social and psychological. Moving communities to new locations requires careful planning. It is not simply a matter of providing people with houses. They need to be relocated to locations and in a manner that permits communities to live together and to have livelihoods. This will require consultation with those who are displaced. Post-disaster evaluations have acknowledged that relocation schemes imposed without community consent often fail, leading to abandonment of new settlements or the emergence of new forms of marginalisation. Even today, abandoned tsunami housing is to be seen in various places that were affected by the 2004 tsunami.

Malaiyaha Tamils

The large-scale reconstruction that needs to take place in parts of the country most severely affected by Cyclone Ditwah also brings an opportunity to deal with the special problems of the Malaiyaha Tamil population. These are people of recent Indian origin who were unjustly treated at the time of Independence and denied rights of citizenship such as land ownership and the vote. This has been a festering problem and a blot on the conscience of the country. The need to resettle people living in those parts of the hill country which are vulnerable to landslides is an opportunity to do justice by the Malaiyaha Tamil community. Technocratic solutions such as high-rise apartments or English-style townhouses that have or are being contemplated may be cost-effective, but may also be culturally inappropriate and socially disruptive. The task is not simply to build houses but to rebuild communities.

The resettlement of people who have lost their homes and communities requires consultation with them. In the same manner, the education reform programme, of which the textbook controversy is only a small part, too needs to be discussed with concerned stakeholders including school teachers and university faculty. Opening up for discussion does not mean giving up one’s own position or values. Rather, it means recognising that better solutions emerge when different perspectives are heard and negotiated. Consultation takes time and can be frustrating, particularly in contexts of crisis where pressure for quick results is intense. However, solutions developed with stakeholder participation are more resilient and less costly in the long run.

Rebuilding after Cyclone Ditwah, addressing historical injustices faced by the Malaiyaha Tamil community, advancing education reform, changing the electoral system to hold provincial elections without further delay and other challenges facing the government, including national reconciliation, all require dialogue across differences and patience with disagreement. Opening up for discussion is not to give up on one’s own position or values, but to listen, to learn, and to arrive at solutions that have wider acceptance. Consultation needs to be treated as an investment in sustainability and legitimacy and not as an obstacle to rapid decisionmaking. Addressing the problems together, especially engagement with affected parties and those who work with them, offers the best chance of rebuilding not only physical infrastructure but also trust between the government and people in the year ahead.

 

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

PSTA: Terrorism without terror continues

Published

9 hours ago

on

2026/01/13

By

When the government appointed a committee, led by Rienzie Arsekularatne, Senior President’s Counsel, to draft a new law to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), as promised by the ruling NPP, the writer, in an article published in this journal in July 2025, expressed optimism that, given Arsekularatne’s experience in criminal justice, he would be able to address issues from the perspectives of the State, criminal justice, human rights, suspects, accused, activists, and victims. The draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), produced by the Committee, has been sharply criticised by individuals and organisations who expected a better outcome that aligns with modern criminal justice and human rights principles.

This article is limited to a discussion of the definition of terrorism. As the writer explained previously, the dangers of an overly broad definition go beyond conviction and increased punishment. Special laws on terrorism allow deviations from standard laws in areas such as preventive detention, arrest, administrative detention, restrictions on judicial decisions regarding bail, lengthy pre-trial detention, the use of confessions, superadded punishments, such as confiscation of property and cancellation of professional licences, banning organisations, and restrictions on publications, among others. The misuse of such laws is not uncommon. Drastic legislation, such as the PTA and emergency regulations, although intended to be used to curb intense violence and deal with emergencies, has been exploited to suppress political opposition.

 

International Standards

The writer’s basic premise is that, for an act to come within the definition of terrorism, it must either involve “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” or be committed to achieve an objective of an individual or organisation that uses “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” to realise its aims. The UN General Assembly has accepted that the threshold for a possible general offence of terrorism is the provocation of “a state of terror” (Resolution 60/43). The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has taken a similar view, using the phrase “to create a climate of terror.”

In his 2023 report on the implementation of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the Secretary-General warned that vague and overly broad definitions of terrorism in domestic law, often lacking adequate safeguards, violate the principle of legality under international human rights law. He noted that such laws lead to heavy-handed, ineffective, and counterproductive counter-terrorism practices and are frequently misused to target civil society actors and human rights defenders by labelling them as terrorists to obstruct their work.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has stressed in its Handbook on Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism that definitions of terrorist acts must use precise and unambiguous language, narrowly define punishable conduct and clearly distinguish it from non-punishable behaviour or offences subject to other penalties. The handbook was developed over several months by a team of international experts, including the writer, and was finalised at a workshop in Vienna.

 

Anti-Terrorism Bill, 2023

A five-member Bench of the Supreme Court that examined the Anti-Terrorism Bill, 2023, agreed with the petitioners that the definition of terrorism in the Bill was too broad and infringed Article 12(1) of the Constitution, and recommended that an exemption (“carve out”) similar to that used in New Zealand under which “the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that the person” committed the wrongful acts that would otherwise constitute terrorism.

While recognising the Court’s finding that the definition was too broad, the writer argued, in his previous article, that the political, administrative, and law enforcement cultures of the country concerned are crucial factors to consider. Countries such as New Zealand are well ahead of developing nations, where the risk of misuse is higher, and, therefore, definitions should be narrower, with broader and more precise exemptions. How such a “carve out” would play out in practice is uncertain.

In the Supreme Court, it was submitted that for an act to constitute an offence, under a special law on terrorism, there must be terror unleashed in the commission of the act, or it must be carried out in pursuance of the object of an organisation that uses terror to achieve its objectives. In general, only acts that aim at creating “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” should come under the definition of terrorism. There can be terrorism-related acts without violence, for example, when a member of an extremist organisation remotely sabotages an electronic, automated or computerised system in pursuance of the organisation’s goal. But when the same act is committed by, say, a whizz-kid without such a connection, that would be illegal and should be punished, but not under a special law on terrorism. In its determination of the Bill, the Court did not address this submission.

 

PSTA Proposal

Proposed section 3(1) of the PSTA reads:

Any person who, intentionally or knowingly, commits any act which causes a consequence specified in subsection (2), for the purpose of-

(a) provoking a state of terror;

(b) intimidating the public or any section of the public;

(c) compelling the Government of Sri Lanka, or any other Government, or an international organisation, to do or to abstain from doing any act; or

(d) propagating war, or violating territorial integrity or infringing the sovereignty of Sri Lanka or any other sovereign country, commits the offence of terrorism.

The consequences listed in sub-section (2) include: death; hurt; hostage-taking; abduction or kidnapping; serious damage to any place of public use, any public property, any public or private transportation system or any infrastructure facility or environment; robbery, extortion or theft of public or private property; serious risk to the health and safety of the public or a section of the public; serious obstruction or damage to, or interference with, any electronic or automated or computerised system or network or cyber environment of domains assigned to, or websites registered with such domains assigned to Sri Lanka; destruction of, or serious damage to, religious or cultural property; serious obstruction or damage to, or interference with any electronic, analogue, digital or other wire-linked or wireless transmission system, including signal transmission and any other frequency-based transmission system; without lawful authority, importing, exporting, manufacturing, collecting, obtaining, supplying, trafficking, possessing or using firearms, offensive weapons, ammunition, explosives, articles or things used in the manufacture of explosives or combustible or corrosive substances and biological, chemical, electric, electronic or nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, nuclear material, radioactive substances, or radiation-emitting devices.

Under section 3(5), “any person who commits an act which constitutes an offence under the nine international treaties on terrorism, ratified by Sri Lanka, also commits the offence of terrorism.” No one would contest that.

The New Zealand “carve-out” is found in sub-section (4): “The fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy or dissent or engages in any strike, lockout or other industrial action, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring that such person (a) commits or attempts, abets, conspires, or prepares to commit the act with the intention or knowledge specified in subsection (1); or (b) is intending to cause or knowingly causes an outcome specified in subsection (2).”

While the Arsekularatne Committee has proposed, including the New Zealand “carve out”, it has ignored a crucial qualification in section 5(2) of that country’s Terrorism Suppression Act, that for an act to be considered a terrorist act, it must be carried out for one or more purposes that are or include advancing “an ideological, political, or religious cause”, with the intention of either intimidating a population or coercing or forcing a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.

When the Committee was appointed, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka opined that any new offence with respect to “terrorism” should contain a specific and narrow definition of terrorism, such as the following: “Any person who by the use of force or violence unlawfully targets the civilian population or a segment of the civilian population with the intent to spread fear among such population or segment thereof in furtherance of a political, ideological, or religious cause commits the offence of terrorism”.

The writer submits that, rather than bringing in the requirement of “a political, ideological, or religious cause”, it would be prudent to qualify proposed section 3(1) by the requirement that only acts that aim at creating “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” or are carried out to achieve a goal of an individual or organisation that employs “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” to attain its objectives should come under the definition of terrorism. Such a threshold is recognised internationally; no “carve out” is then needed, and the concerns of the Human Rights Commission would also be addressed.

 

by Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne
President’s Counsel

Continue Reading

Features

ROCK meets REGGAE 2026

Published

9 hours ago

on

2026/01/13

By

JAYASRI: From Vienna, Austria

We generally have in our midst the famous JAYASRI twins, Rohitha and Rohan, who are based in Austria but make it a point to entertain their fans in Sri Lanka on a regular basis.

Well, rock and reggae fans get ready for a major happening on 28th February (Oops, a special day where I’m concerned!) as the much-awaited ROCK meets REGGAE event booms into action at the Nelum Pokuna outdoor theatre.

It was seven years ago, in 2019, that the last ROCK meets REGGAE concert was held in Colombo, and then the Covid scene cropped up.

Chitral Somapala with BLACK MAJESTY

This year’s event will feature our rock star Chitral Somapala with the Australian Rock+Metal band BLACK MAJESTY, and the reggae twins Rohitha and Rohan Jayalath with the original JAYASRI – the full band, with seven members from Vienna, Austria.

According to Rohitha, the JAYASRI outfit is enthusiastically looking forward to entertaining music lovers here with their brand of music.

Their playlist for 28th February will consist of the songs they do at festivals in Europe, as well as originals, and also English and Sinhala hits, and selected covers.

Says Rohitha: “We have put up a great team, here in Sri Lanka, to give this event an international setting and maintain high standards, and this will be a great experience for our Sri Lankan music lovers … not only for Rock and Reggae fans. Yes, there will be some opening acts, and many surprises, as well.”

Rohitha, Chitral and Rohan: Big scene at ROCK meets REGGAE

Rohitha and Rohan also conveyed their love and festive blessings to everyone in Sri Lanka, stating “This Christmas was different as our country faced a catastrophic situation and, indeed, it’s a great time to help and share the real love of Jesus Christ by helping the poor, the needy and the homeless people. Let’s RISE UP as a great nation in 2026.”

Continue Reading

Trending