Drawing the wrong lessons from Singapore

When the Maldives and Singapore gained independence in 1965, both countries faced similar challenges. Both were small and lacked natural resources. Singapore had it worse. It was plagued by high unemployment, urban slums, congested roads, pollution, and lack of water. Its very survival seemed uncertain after being expelled from a federation with Malaysia. But today, it is one of the world’s greatest economic success stories.

President Abdulla Yameen and his cabinet tout Singapore as a development model for the Maldives. But is Yameen’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) drawing the right lessons from Singapore?

Under Yameen, the Maldives is heading towards one-party rule, similar to that in Singapore. The PPM, through its majority in the parliament, has stacked the state’s independent institutions, destroyed decentralization and brought the judiciary under its fist. The opposition appears to have been silenced; its leaders are under house arrest, in jail or in exile. Ruling party officials, in public and in private, have said that western style democracy is unsuited for the Maldives. They speak admiringly of Singapore’s combination of prosperity and one-party rule. However, if Yameen and the PPM conclude that Singapore proves authoritarianism works, they are drawing the wrong lesson.