“Singapore” may have become a campaign buzzword, but it raises fundamental questions that the country must confront–both proponents and sceptics alike. We live in a political culture where being in opposition, or simply outside government, often translates into opposing for the sake of it. Yet nations do not progress by dismissing ambition. They progress by daring to dream–and by doing the hard work required to turn those dreams into reality.
Singapore itself was once a dream. Its people imagined a country that did not yet exist, worked deliberately towards it, and eventually brought it into their lived experience. For leaders who insist that “pulling a Singapore” is impossible, the real question is this: why should Kenyans resign themselves to the perpetual fate of a developing country, when leadership is precisely what propelled Singapore to where it is today? Is it that we lack agile, visionary leadership capable of steering such transformation?
Any leader seeking political power should be expected to harness the dreams and aspirations of Kenyans and articulate credible pathways to prosperity. Rather than emphasising impossibilities, leadership should inspire hope and outline practical routes to development. In this sense, President William Ruto deserves credit for igniting this conversation. It now presents an opportunity–not for blind applause–but for rigorous interrogation of how, in both rhetoric and action, his administration intends to lead Kenya towards this oft-cited “Singapore moment”. What foundations have been laid? And how do current policies measure up against what the pathway to Singapore actually entailed?
Singapore’s journey is instructive. After a complex colonial history and brief political flirtations with Malaysia and Japan, the city-state gained self-governance from Britain in 1959 under the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew. Operating within a parliamentary system with a ceremonial presidency, Lee established strong, stable political leadership. His People’s Action Party built an executive-centric governance model anchored in a meritocratic civil service, long-term planning, strict discipline and firm political control.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
In Kenya today, there are echoes–however faint–of attempts to consolidate parliamentary strength in support of executive policy, most recently through broad-based political arrangements. This inevitably raises legitimate questions: to what extent does numerical strength in Parliament serve the public interest, and when does it merely entrench power? These are questions that must be asked openly.
Lee Kuan Yew was clear about the role of government. He believed in equalising opportunities, not outcomes. In his view, when the state focuses on equalising results, people fixate on sharing the rice bowl rather than learning how to farm the rice. This philosophy underpinned Singapore’s emphasis on meritocracy, productivity and discipline.
There is a sense in which the current Kenyan administration’s appetite for difficult and unpopular decisions mirrors this approach. The President has repeatedly argued that his government should not chase popularity. But this raises a critical question: what strategic thinking underpins these tough choices, and to what extent are they genuinely aimed at expanding opportunities rather than consolidating power or privileging a few? Tough rhetoric, often delivered from the vantage point of privilege, must ultimately be judged by whether it advances the national interest rather than personal or political gain.
Crucially, Lee and his government earned the trust of Singaporeans. Citizens accepted painful reforms because they trusted the values and strategic clarity guiding them. Central to this trust was an uncompromising commitment to honesty and integrity in public office. Strict anti-corruption laws, high standards for officials and clear consequences for misconduct fostered confidence in leadership.
As Kenyans debate the road to Singapore, we must therefore ask uncomfortable but necessary questions. What is the true size and structure of our economy? Who has benefited from billions in tax relief over the past three years? Beyond silencing or attacking dissenting voices, what concrete steps is government taking to entrench zero tolerance for corruption, accountability, transparency and public service as a moral obligation? These were not peripheral issues in Singapore’s rise–they were foundational pillars that reassured investors, ensured efficient use of public funds and created a predictable, fair business environment.
Kenya can get to Singapore, and the time to begin that journey is now. Whether the “Singapore of Africa” narrative was a campaign flourish or a carefully considered roadmap, the fact that the conversation is happening is itself valuable. Kenya already possesses one of the most critical ingredients Singapore relied on: a well-educated, skilled and ambitious population.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
To unlock this potential, education and skills development must be treated as long-term national investments, not short-term costs. This requires a genuine commitment to meritocracy, equal opportunity and social responsibility. Singapore’s success was not built on technical competence alone; it was anchored in ethical leadership, respect for the rule of law and institutions that applied rules equally to all. Property rights were protected, public institutions were predictable, and citizens trusted the state.
Persistent public insults, contemptuous rhetoric and personalised political attacks–often amplified by elite and legacy politicians–undermine this trust. They erode dignity and contradict the very values that powered Singapore’s transformation. If Kenya is serious about following a similar path, leadership from the very top must model restraint, professionalism and ethical conduct.
The road to Singapore will only resonate with Kenyans–and gain real traction–if leadership embraces civility, transparency, accountability and fairness, rather than intimidation or derision. Without these, “Singapore” will remain a slogan. With them, it can become a destination.