Features

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

Published

1 year ago

2024/10/27

Thilina Walpola

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]

All News Advertisement

Features

Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines

Published

1 day ago

2026/03/13

Thilina Walpola

Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.

Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.

Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.

Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.

Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.

The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.

The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:

=Joint planning across operational divisions

=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making

=Continuous cross-functional consultation

=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates

Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.

Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.

By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst

Features

Why Pi Day?

Published

1 day ago

2026/03/13

Thilina Walpola

International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow

The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.

Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.

Archimedes

It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.

Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.

Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.

π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)

The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.

π = 9801/(1103 √8)

For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.

It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.

This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.

Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.

Happy Pi Day!

The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.

by R N A de Silva

Features

Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink

Published

2 days ago

2026/03/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

A combined US-Israel attack on Iran.(BBC)

The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.

As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.

It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.

Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.

Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.

The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.

While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.

On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.

Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.

Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.

Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.

Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.

However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.