So I was watching this YouTube clip.
Some time back, LKY was asked a question about Sweden's IKEA and Finland's Nokia.
And his response to Nokia was that it was a fluke. With a population of 7-8 million, it would be hard to find talent, he did not expect Nokia to maintain it's success for for long with the rising competition from Korea and Japan. (And he would have probably added in China in this day and age.)
Now... what if we flip this line of thinking onto Singapore as a country?
Singapore was developing alongside the bulk of Asia in the 1960s. Most of the countries were under developed, or developing countries.
We had good leadership, Singapore played by a differently, we studied English, invited foreign investment into the country, etc.
And this direction taken was executed successfully, Singapore thrived during this period.
Now, let's use LKY's same words.
We have a population of under 6 million. Can we keep up with the competition? From Korea, from Japan, (from China), watch it in the long term. How many bright fellas have you got with inventive, creative minds?
As much as we say Nokia needs good leadership to thrive in the business environment, Singapore, as a country also needs good leadership to succeed as a country.
Which begs the question. Is Singapore a fluke? Just like Nokia?
A rare leader who made a difference. Right place, right time.
<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>
Did you like this post? If so, could you "belanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.