Kenya vs Singapore: Why we were equals in 1963 but worlds apart today

President William Ruto speaks with a lot of conviction about catapulting Kenya to the heights that Singapore has scaled in the last 60 years.

Singapore has become our benchmark, primarily because at the time Kenya got its independence in 1963, the two countries were at par. Like Kenya, Singapore grappled with myriad problems, among them racism that pitted citizens of Malaysian and Chinese origin against each other, and corruption. 

In 1963, Kenya had a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $926.6 million against Singapore's $917.6 million. Today, Kenya cannot hold a candle to Singapore whose GDP now stands at $498 billion against Kenya's $113.4 billion. 

There is nothing out of the ordinary that Singapore did to leapfrog and leave us choking in the wake of its dust. Its leaders were focused, instituted genuine governance reforms, set their priorities right and chose development over rhetoric. Singapore's first Prime Minister Kuan Yew understood from the outset that he needed to tame corruption and racism, which could easily derail the grand plan he had for his country. 

Meanwhile, Kenya has been stuck in the ruts of corruption and tribalism. Corruption has become a sport of honour and readily propels one to public office where gorging is perpetual. Yew, and his son Lee Hsien Loong, who also served as Prime Minister, did not countenance mindless accumulation of wealth by government functionaries. 

Here, primitive accumulation of wealth is in vogue. Some of our leaders have a juvenile compulsion to flaunt wealth and opulence they cannot account for instead of pushing real development evident in the number of schools, hospitals, roads built, a conducive business environment, improved agricultural production, reduced crime rates and creation of jobs. 

Kenya's corruption ratings are depressing. In 2024, Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index placed Kenya among the most corrupt countries globally at position 121 out of 180 ranked. Singapore was among the least corrupt at position three. 

Our fight against corruption has become a circus as the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions trade accusations over their inability to secure convictions in high-profile corruption cases. 

Singapore outsmarts Kenya because it has empowered the Singapore Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau with investigative and prosecutorial powers. But most importantly, there is no politicisation of corruption or retreating into tribal cocoons once someone is caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The corrupt carry their crosses.

Kenya's other failure is its jocular leaders. They spend the first two years celebrating; homecoming parties and recouping their losses during campaigns. They sober up in the third year but realise they need to appease aggrieved voters, hence, spend the remaining two years pacifying them.

Theirs is an endless circle of campaigns, which runs counter to the constitutional provision of a three-month campaign period before an election. Our collective leadership must sober up and not only realise it has an obligation to voters, but honour the social contract it has with Kenyans. 

Times are changing, and with heightened scrutiny of their actions, most leaders have now chosen to hide their incompetence behind the false narrative that a five year-term is not adequate for them to deliver their pledges. They want Kenyans to believe that a seven-year term is the silver bullet for their problems.

Nothing, however, could be farther from the truth, and that false notion won't fly. Argentina, Japan, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the US, some of the most developed countries, have four-year renewable terms, which has never stopped them from scaling the heights. In Singapore, the term limit is six years.

Our leaders must be ready to take the bull by the horns and confront our challenges head-on. Delivery is not in longevity, rather, it is in commitment and altruistic intentions. Our leadership must acknowledge where it, and past regimes, fell short and endeavour to correct the mistakes.