Brazil and Singapore, what if you invest roles?

Brazil and Singapore. Some counterfactually data.

Currently, when compared to the many indices that academic or business organizations present each year to measure country performance (competitiveness, innovation, education, and others) Singapore always appears in the top 10 places while Brazil occupies positions over the number 60. A curious detail: Singapore never appears on conventional maps because it is so small that to be seen, the maps should be the size of the Wailing Wall (Jerusalem). Brazil is a giant 12,000 times bigger and is visible from space.

Let's look at some facts: The Global Competitiveness Index, developed and published annually since 1979 by the World Economic Forum, shows in the report of 2015-2016 to Switzerland in the number 1 position, Singapore the 2 position. Brazil is in 57th position. The competitiveness index measures the ability of countries to provide high levels of prosperity to their citizens. This ability depends on how a country uses its available resources. As a result, the index measures a set of institutions, policies and factors that define the levels of sustainable economic prosperity today and in the medium term.

In the Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2017 (published by INSEAD, Adecco) the locations are: Switzerland (1), Singapore (2) Brazil (81). In the Human Development Index (UN-UNDP) the locations are: Norway (1), Singapore (11), Brazil (75).

The Innovation Index 2015 (INSEAD, Cornell University, WIPO) includes Switzerland (1), Singapore (7), Brazil (70). Singapore is overtaken by USA, UK, Finland, Sweden for obvious reasons.

Does this mean that everything in Brazil is bad or mediocre? No, there are islands of excellence that unfortunately are surpassed by the immense political and business mass that seeks the easy and sinuous way to fulfill their vicious ends. The universities of Brazil are the best in Latin America, the academic quality is respectable, there are important companies. But it's not enough.

Was the situation always bad in Brazil? At what point did the course go? Juscelino Kubischeck), president between 1955 and 1961, proposed to overtake the country in 50 years, so began with a daring and visionary decision, the creation of Brasilia as a new capital. The work of Lucio Costa and Oscar Niemeyer show us this great vision. In 1961, astronaut Yuri Gagarin who visited Brasilia said: "I have the feeling of landing on a different planet, not on earth" (El Comercio, April 21, 2010, Houses: 6).

With Kubischeck, everything, the vision, the dream and the ambition to be a great country ended. Today Brazil is just a gigantic territory, nothing more; A clumsy giant who falls and drags others with him. With Kubischeck, the will of greatness, the ambition, was over.

By contrast, Lee Kuan Yen had the clear vision from the beginning. At the same time that Kubischeck projected 50 years onwards, having everything at hand (a large territory, resources, a large population) Kuan Yew also projected, with nothing (practically with one hand behind and another forward). The difference is that he had the support of a people who shared their shortcomings and desires, their fears and ambitions, and that they had to choose between winning or dying. That took Singapore to where it is now.

What does Singapore have? I only mention some decisive factors. Leadership, the communion of the people with the leader, the intentionality. Lee Kuan Yew left for eternity in 2015, although he left the government before, but the successors did not dedicate themselves to distribute the loot, continue with his legacy, the new generations maintain the vision and spirit of greatness.

The following chart shows some current facts referring to Singapore and Brazil. In the vertical axis the general conditions that are expressed in indicators are represented; It is appreciated that Singapore is always above and that since 2000 Brazil has stagnated or declined notoriously.

Drawing on the imagination, let's look at some counterfactual details: What would have happened if Lee Kuan Yew, continuing Kubischeck's vision, would have been the leader of Brazil and the people would have shared their mission, and would have been willing to follow the rules, fleeting present for the future? The result would have been very impressive perhaps and Brazil would be one of the five world powers. If Kuan Yew had been alone, he would have given the same name as Joao, Pele, Kaka or Zeze, and the country would have always been on the path of mediocrity.

 In the opposite case and only after 1980, what would have happened, if Singapore fell into the hands of the groups that now govern Brazil? It would have disappeared from the map, they would have seen the first bidder and Singapore would again be the brothel, the brothel passing through those distant seas, as it was before Kuan Yew became indignant and decided to create a respectable society.

We must thank God because Singapore now exists, because it serves as a model for countries like Peru, who have everything but do not dare to make the leap, not the step, the leap to be great (and without using the false door as it is intends to join the OECD).

Progress of a country, leadership, vision -carrier Metaphor

The vision and firm government, conditions for development of a country. Metaphor carrier

 

Introduction

On March 23, 2015 died Lee Kuan Yew, called the "founding father" of modern Singapore; who came to power in 1959 and made this small territory into a giant in terms of economic performance and development. For many it was a visionary and a leader with an iron hand, for others an authoritarian ruler. For all is undeniable his driving ability and the results achieved in this country. The development of a country is the holy grail of the rulers and the people, for this you need against previous basic elements without which this condition is crazy or an inordinate desire.

Governments must be leaders with a vision of greatness that moves to its personal conduct and government, with an oriented people sharing his vision of grandeur and that makes commitments and is aligned firmly and consistently with the major objectives. In short, the leader and the people governed should share a national ethos of greatness, development, work and cooperation.

Economic growth through is get by optimal and planned exploitation of natural resources and historical riches that the country possesses. Natural resources are the seas, farmland, mines, forests, oil and gas fields, nature reserves, historic and cultural riches are the historic centers surviving peoples in the past built their civilizations.

Training, development and use of the full capabilities of the country's population; so it will be possible wisely and efficiently utilize available resources, to achieve economic growth that will provide support to development.

In exceptional cases where the natural and historical riches are not present, but the ethos of greatness overcomes this limitation with the vast array of creative ability of its people to create wealth and achieve tangible and intangible, which supports the growth and thus development. These people are destined for development and a prosperous future for its people. The most notorious case is that of Singapore, perhaps the only one in the modern age or older.

There are numerous cases where there exists the wealth without but at the same time is absent the ability to use it, imagination or potential hidden in them. They are backward countries, whose fate is uncertain.

An aircraft carrier is a ship with immense proportions in every sense: the mass of the vessel, the fuel that allows scrolling, the crew, the complexity of relations between the crew and the leaders, the need for a path and purpose. The presence of a boss who also fully understands the characteristics of their ship, its crew, opportunities and threats in the environment, the strengths and weaknesses of your ship and people efficiently and effectively exercise its role of leader is needed. Weakness or lack of attributes determine the failure of the mission; return home without achieving goals or simply destruction. In a sense, running a large aircraft carrier is like running a country. (US Navy Truman)

The unique situation of Singapore

The amazement for Singapore situation leads to ask why they achieved this level of development?  What resources or factors have succeeded? How do they do it?

The answer is simple and is geared directly to the leadership of the country, if we understand that a country is like a ship. This well-built ship has an orderly, disciplined crew, aware of their roles, which strictly follows the rules imposed by a captain or guide. These rules are not arbitrary because reflect the need to reach a goal, achieve neither personal nor useful for the captain only, social, collective destiny.

The guide has certainly charisma and credibility, has a right and proper dealings with the population, acts consistently fulfilling himself the rules that are validated for the crew, knows the course, knows the dangers that arise when they deviate from the route, and most importantly, knows the destination and reason are directed toward it.

Singapore is like an aircraft carrier, well built, well managed, with a highly trained crew who know their role, their place in the group, which relies on its leader, who knows his destination. The great captain of that ship called Singapore was Lee Kuan Yew, who not only created and designed this ship, but clearly defined destination and the route to follow.

There are attributes of visionary recognized by many and character of authoritarian by other, the following article demonstrates that the vision and authoritarianism, which really correspond to the firmness and consistency in government affairs, are not opposites, on the contrary both are necessary and functional whenever the ethos of national greatness is present.

In Figure 1 it shows that the vision and authoritarianism are complementary when vision is of grandeur (visionary leader, authoritarian); when there is no vision but authoritarianism,  the results are not expected in terms of growth or development.

Some countries shown based on degrees of vision and development, the development line is also indicated. Above this line, vision regulates or limits the negative conditions that may appear depending on authoritarianism. Singapore and South Korea were organized by leaders with vision and authoritarianism, both are developed. Countries with less authoritarianism but with a definite vision of what they want also located also above line of development (Germany, Chile, Israel, and USA).

At the bottom it is observed that countries with different degrees of authoritarianism but lacking a vision do not achieve the desired development. Economic growth may be present, although it is clear that only the sale of goods and services does not improve the conditions of a society.

In Figure 3 we can see which are the principles, standards, compliance with laws which also explains the results of a vision and a strong government; these principles go beyond the person or leader who was eventually in charge of the country. In undeveloped countries, the principles at the level of individuals or institutions are absent, are only lyrical pronouncements, but not moral boosters right actions.

Warlords, leaders of revolts, each other's happened and you never know where they're going. Government actions are not guided by principles but by dogmas, beliefs created and imposed by the misleaders. They think they are predestined, sent from heaven, rebuilders of the country, saviors of the people and much more.

This situation guides the imagination to pirate ship where the greed for loot continuously generates riots, everyone wants to own fortune, and we continually walk to drift or changing course. A favorable wind can drive the pirate ship apparently the desired port, regardless of who is the captain; when there is no wind the ship just becomes uncontrolled and uncertain.

For several years, Lee Kuan Yew was no longer head of government but their successors maintain their vision and the course of his ship. Just in case a madman, schizophrenic or addicted to hallucinogens holds the office of head of state in Singapore, the ship will crash and inevitable will sink.

The graph 4 confirms the association between leadership, monitoring principles, vision, firmness of the government and hence people development

Some images of Singapore show that modernity and development are visible in the order, cleanliness, care of the environment, in the skyline.

By contrast, in countries below the line of developing the disorder, the apparent modernity, poverty and hopelessness are the constants in life. These countries have vast natural resources, huge potential historic resources, but a lack of vision and strong rule, political stability, a shared vision that transcends the ruler or government groups in power, hinder progress safely and securely. Their destination is the failure (the ship sinks, crashing against the rocks or remains adrift)

As a final thought, it can be argued that there are no excuses for avoid the effort to get the development of a country. The attribution of responsibilities to others is one sign of incompetence from seudo leaders, are excuses to justify their predatory acts against their peoples. Anyone cannot be guiding an enormous aircraft carrier; anyone cannot be ruler of a country unless the elected destination was failure, misery, moral and spiritual degradation.

 

The stark reality of Caracas and other Venezuelan, cities or any other country rich in resources, but poor ethos.

Image from Peru. This scene is more common than is supposed, may be the principal or any inner city.