As the discussion over Welsh independence heats up, it’s time to start looking beyond that and consider how the country should be governed and made a success.
Some might wish there was a manual on how to lead a new country. Well, the good news is that one actually exists. The bad news is that it makes clear the extent of the difficulties we will face – and they are substantial. But studying it will at least show aspiring national leaders what they will have to do.
A troublesome and obstructive neighbour
First, though, let’s establish a context. The conversation about what independence might look like for Wales is both growing and urgent: the UK appears to be becoming a failed state. It’s popular to argue that we have a population comparable in size to many smaller EU members. The Baltic states and former Yugoslav republics such as Slovenia are often evoked as evidence that an independent Wales could succeed.
Some caution is needed here, though. Both the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were federal states. When they broke up and their constituent republics became independent, their politicians and bureaucracies already had many decades of experience in autonomous policy development and decision making. Wales will lack this depth of experience when it leaves the UK.
The former Soviet and Yugoslav republics also became independent at a fortuitous time. They were welcomed with open arms by the EU, with which free trade agreements were soon signed. Becoming members was a smooth process. Their independence came at a time of cheap and abundant energy, when investment was plentiful and global markets were opening up. To the east, Russia was focused on its own problems, and anyway aspired to integrate economically with the EU “from Lisbon to Vladivostok”. Independence was thus relatively pain-free, both diplomatically and economically.
Wales will not be so fortunate. England – sullen and diminished – is likely to be a troublesome and obstructive neighbour. The EU, which once promised subsidiarity, is becoming more top-down, demanding a move to majority votes for both internal and external policy and – horrifyingly – actually prepared plans to deliberately crash the economy of a member state, plunging millions of EU citizens into poverty, to punish a government for resisting centralisation. That’s unacceptable.
A developing country
Meanwhile, globalisation is unwinding, the costs of energy and raw materials are growing, and instability is spreading. We need to be realistic: independent Wales will effectively be a developing country. Joining the BRICS group might offer better opportunities.
Supporters of Welsh independence must therefore look further afield to find an example to emulate. 6,872 miles further as the Airbus flies, to be specific.
Singapore gained its independence in a chaotic manner when it was expelled from Malaysia in 1965. Its leaders were inexperienced. The British had only established the Legislative Assembly a decade before. Lee Kwan Yew and his People’s Action Party had only formed a government in 1959. Its largest and closest neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, were engaged in armed confrontation; neither were well-disposed to Singapore. The new nation had no natural resources and little industry. Much of its population lived in slums, and it was riven by tensions between ethnic groups which, under British rule, largely lived separate lives.
Remarkably, Lee and his fellow ministers overcame these substantial obstacles and transformed their city-state into a globally-admired success. Dr Edward Jones, an economist at Bangor University, recently wrote a valuable article about this: For Wales, see Singapore? A strategy for independence. Though it’s very much an economist’s article, and reminds me of a joke about that profession: “Assume a can-opener …”. It makes many assumptions, disguising the reality that Singapore’s success was hard-won indeed, and far from guaranteed. Wales may struggle to emulate it.
Lee Kwan Yew, an outstandingly talented man and great statesman, recorded the process in his memoirs, From Third World to First. This is, in effect, a manual for governing a new nation. It should be read and reread by all who aspire to creating a prosperous sovereign Wales.
Singapore society
The question we must ask is: if we want to achieve the prosperity that Lee brought to Singapore, are we willing to use his methods?
Many will balk at this. Lee decided on a clear goal: to make Singapore clean and green compared to neighbouring countries; to use the terminology of the time, a first world haven in a third world region. To make this a reality, the city and its people had to be transformed to conform with Lee’s vision, whether willingly or not.
The people were to speak the languages decreed by the state, and if they couldn’t their children would be educated in those languages anyway. Citizens were expected to behave in a cultivated and community-minded manner. If they chose not to, well, they would be made to.
Drugs undermine social values, so drug trafficking warrants a mandatory death sentence there, even for 1kg of cannabis. Using drugs and other offences warrants physical punishment by caning, leaving lasting physical and psychological scars. Plain-clothes police are ever watchful for crimes such as littering. These and other anti-social behaviours, such as spitting, are heavily fined.
To keep his new society honest, Lee instituted merciless anti-corruption laws. Government ministers were paid millions, equivalent to multinational CEOs. Lee’s Singapore became a strict meritocracy: academic high-achievers were identified and cultivated for promotion through the ranks. Political opposition faced tough libel laws, with critics receiving massive fines, often bankrupted or forced into exile.
Substandard housing was summarily demolished and replaced with publicly-owned apartments. Tax incentives encourage families both to improve their level of education and to have three or four children. Looking after elderly relatives is required by law.
A clear national vision
Singapore’s admirers also skim over the uncomfortable fact that much of its success rests on the work of hundreds of thousands of migrant workers from India and Bangladesh. They live crammed into barracks, isolated from the bulk of the population. Not to mention the tens of thousands of low-paid ‘maids’ from Indonesia or the Philippines, who free up Singapore’s middle classes to focus on their office jobs.
I don’t write this to criticise Singapore. Lee’s government had to work with what they had, and they succeeded. It helped that Asian cultures are more collectivist and respectful of authority than European cultures, so the population was largely supportive. The world now looks at the results with envy.
Nevertheless, a newly independent Wales will face many of the same domestic and international challenges that confronted Singapore. Like that country, the legacies from London’s rule will be widespread social deprivation, poverty, and rejection of education. We have massive under-investment in people, property, and infrastructure. We will need to decide on a clear national vision, then make it happen.
Could Wales accept Singaporean discipline? Could the Welsh prioritise collective wellbeing over individual freedoms, as Singaporeans have? If we aren’t willing to be as single-minded and ruthless as Lee Kwan Yew, we need to discover other, equally effective ways to create the future Wales. It won’t be easy. We need to be clear-eyed and ready for the challenges we will face.
