Beyond fighting corruption: What Sri Lanka can learn from Singapore’s nation-building model

Sri Lanka's future will not be determined solely by economic policies or anti-corruption campaigns. Sustainable national development requires stronger institutions, capable leadership, merit-based systems, and strategic focus. The lessons from Singapore are therefore broader than anti-corruption. The country succeeded because it created an ecosystem where corruption became increasingly risky, competence became highly valued, meritocracy became embedded in institutions, and national resources were concentrated on carefully chosen priorities. Sri Lanka need not replicate Singapore's model. Indeed, it cannot. However, Sri Lanka can adapt the underlying principles

Corruption remains one of the most persistent obstacles to economic growth, social justice, and public confidence in many developing countries. It weakens institutions, discourages investment, distorts public spending, and erodes trust between citizens and the state. Sri Lanka's economic crisis exposed many long-standing governance weaknesses, including allegations of corruption, inefficiency, political patronage, and poor accountability. As the country seeks to rebuild its economy and institutions, an important question emerges: can Sri Lanka learn from countries that have successfully transformed themselves?

One country frequently cited in discussions on governance reform is Singapore.

Singapore's success is often attributed to its strong anti-corruption framework. However, focusing solely on corruption risks overlooking a more important lesson. Singapore's transformation was not merely about punishing corruption. It was about building a state founded on competence, meritocracy, and strategic focus. Sri Lanka cannot copy Singapore. The two countries differ significantly in size, political culture, history, geography, and administrative structures. Yet while systems cannot be transplanted wholesale, principles can be adapted. The Singapore experience offers valuable insights into how nations can build effective institutions and restore public confidence.

Fighting corruption: The foundation of trust

When Singapore gained independence in 1965, it faced many of the same challenges confronting developing nations today. Resources were limited, institutions were still evolving, and corruption was not uncommon. The Government recognised early that corruption would undermine national development and investor confidence. Consequently, anti-corruption efforts became a central pillar of governance.

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was empowered to investigate corruption allegations independently. Citizens were encouraged to report wrongdoing, and corruption complaints were treated seriously regardless of the status of those involved. Singapore made reporting corruption simple and accessible. Public awareness campaigns repeatedly reinforced the message that combating corruption was not solely the Government's responsibility but a national obligation. Equally important was the credibility of enforcement.

The law applied not only to ordinary citizens but also to ministers, senior officials, and influential individuals. Over the decades, several high-profile investigations demonstrated that no position was considered immune from scrutiny. The recent conviction of former Singapore minister S. Iswaran attracted international attention because it reinforced a longstanding principle: public trust matters, and even relatively modest benefits accepted improperly by public officials can undermine confidence in Government.

The message was unmistakable. Corruption carried consequences. For Sri Lanka, the challenge extends beyond creating laws or establishing commissions. The greater challenge is convincing citizens that accountability mechanisms operate impartially and independently.

Many Sri Lankans remain sceptical because investigations often appear selective, prolonged, or inconclusive. Public confidence is weakened whenever individuals perceive that political influence, institutional connections, or personal relationships can shield wrongdoers from accountability. Trust cannot be legislated. It must be earned through consistent action.

The often-ignored factor: Building a competent state

While anti-corruption efforts receive much attention, Singapore's success was equally dependent on building a highly competent public sector. Lee Kuan Yew understood that eliminating corruption alone would not guarantee development. Governments also needed capable institutions staffed by talented individuals who could formulate policies, implement reforms, and deliver services efficiently. Competence became a national priority. Singapore invested heavily in education, leadership development, public administration, and institutional excellence. Public servants were expected to meet high professional standards, and performance mattered. The emphasis was not merely on loyalty or seniority but on results. This is an area where Sri Lanka faces significant challenges.

The country possesses many talented professionals, academics, public servants, military officers, entrepreneurs, and technical experts. Yet institutional systems do not always place the most capable individuals in positions where they can contribute most effectively.

Political considerations frequently influence appointments. Changes in Government often lead to changes in leadership positions regardless of professional expertise or organisational continuity. When competence becomes secondary to connections, institutions inevitably suffer. A country's development trajectory depends heavily on the quality of its institutions. Roads, ports, power stations, hospitals, schools, and investment strategies ultimately depend on the quality of decision-making within Government. Fighting corruption is essential, but competence is what converts national potential into tangible results.

Meritocracy: Rewarding ability rather than connections

Another pillar of Singapore's success was meritocracy.

The principle was straightforward: opportunities should be based primarily on ability, performance, and achievement rather than family background, political affiliation, ethnicity, or personal connections. No system is perfect, and meritocracy itself continues to be debated internationally. Nevertheless, Singapore's commitment to identifying and promoting talent created a culture where individuals believed effort and ability could lead to advancement.

This had profound implications for national development. Talented individuals were attracted to public service because they saw pathways for professional growth. Institutions benefited from stronger leadership and technical expertise. In Sri Lanka, public discourse frequently highlights concerns regarding patronage, favouritism, and politicisation. Whether in recruitment, promotions, appointments, or resource allocation, perceptions of unfairness can significantly damage morale and public confidence.

Meritocracy does not mean ignoring social realities or inequalities. Rather, it means ensuring that institutions consistently seek the best people for critical responsibilities. A nation cannot achieve excellence if its systems fail to identify, retain, and empower talent.

The challenge for Sri Lanka is therefore not merely institutional reform but cultural reform — creating an environment where competence and integrity are rewarded more consistently than political loyalty or personal networks.

Becoming excellent at a few things

Perhaps one of Singapore's most overlooked lessons is strategic focus.

Singapore never attempted to become a global leader in every sector. Instead, it identified areas where it possessed competitive advantages and concentrated resources on becoming world-class in those domains. Shipping, logistics, aviation, financial services, trade facilitation, advanced manufacturing, and education became strategic priorities. The country's leaders recognised an important reality: small nations cannot compete everywhere. Success often comes from choosing carefully and executing exceptionally. Sri Lanka sometimes faces the opposite challenge.

National development discussions frequently include long lists of priorities, ambitious visions, and multiple sectors targeted simultaneously. While ambition is important, resources are finite. The question is not what Sri Lanka wants to do. The question is what Sri Lanka can do exceptionally well. The country possesses several natural advantages.

Its strategic location in the Indian Ocean places it near major global shipping routes. It has significant potential in maritime services, logistics, tourism, higher education, renewable energy, technology services, and selected agricultural exports. Rather than spreading resources thinly across numerous initiatives, Sri Lanka may benefit from identifying a limited number of sectors where it can achieve genuine international competitiveness. The Singapore experience suggests that national success often comes not from doing everything adequately but from doing a few things exceptionally well.

Accountability must begin at the top

Another important lesson concerns leadership accountability.

Strong institutions depend not only on rules but also on culture. In many countries, including Sri Lanka, public trust is damaged when institutions appear reluctant to acknowledge mistakes, investigate misconduct internally, or hold senior figures accountable. A recurring criticism from citizens is that organisations sometimes close ranks to protect colleagues or superiors when allegations emerge. Such perceptions can be more damaging than the original wrongdoing.

Institutional credibility is strengthened when leaders demonstrate willingness to investigate misconduct transparently, admit failures, and take corrective action. Singapore's reputation was built partly because accountability was seen to apply across the hierarchy. For Sri Lanka, strengthening accountability mechanisms within institutions may be just as important as strengthening external oversight. Public trust grows when citizens believe that institutions serve the public interest rather than institutional self-preservation.

The way forward

Sri Lanka's future will not be determined solely by economic policies or anti-corruption campaigns. Sustainable national development requires stronger institutions, capable leadership, merit-based systems, and strategic focus. The lessons from Singapore are therefore broader than anti-corruption. The country succeeded because it created an ecosystem where corruption became increasingly risky, competence became highly valued, meritocracy became embedded in institutions, and national resources were concentrated on carefully chosen priorities. Sri Lanka need not replicate Singapore's model. Indeed, it cannot.

However, Sri Lanka can adapt the underlying principles. The country could strengthen whistle-blower protection, improve the independence of anti-corruption agencies, professionalise public administration, reduce political interference in institutions, promote merit-based appointments, and develop long-term national strategies focused on areas of genuine comparative advantage. Most importantly, it can rebuild public confidence by demonstrating that accountability applies equally to everyone.

The lesson from Singapore is not that corruption disappeared completely. No society has achieved that. The lesson is that strong institutions, competent leadership, merit-based governance, and strategic clarity can gradually transform a nation's trajectory. For Sri Lanka, the challenge is not simply to punish corruption after it occurs. The challenge is to build a system where integrity, competence, and excellence become the foundations of national progress.

That may be Singapore's most valuable lesson of all.

 (Leong Sze Hian has served as the president of 3 professional bodies and a human rights NGO, and the honorary consul of 2 countries. An alumnus of Harvard University, he has authored 5 books, over 1,000 media interviews, Wharton Fellow; and Colonel Nalin Herath, Secretary General of the Ceylon Chamber of Shipping, former Director General of the Institute of National Security Studies (INSS), Non-Resident Fellow at the London Dialogue, and a researcher and writer on strategic affairs, trade, maritime affairs, and economic development).