In 1960, Cameroon and Singapore Were Both Poor, Singapore Moved Ahead of Cameroon – Why?

By Hans Ngala

In the 1960s, Cameroon and Singapore were both poor countries that had just both regained freedom from colonial European countries. French Cameroon had gained independence in 1960 and British Southern Cameroons got conditional independence by joining as a two-state federation with French Cameroon a year later. Around the same period in far away, Singapore the country was looking up to Kenya which had also recently gained independence around the same period. However, half a century later, Kenya and Cameroon have made very little progress with way more natural resources than Singapore.

In fact, Nigeria’s former president, Olusegun Obasanjo and Greg Mills write that “back in 1968, it was Singapore looking to Africa for lessons on growing its economy. That year, recalled Kenya’s former Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, ‘a team of Singaporeans came to Kenya to learn our lessons, since we were then a more developed country than they were.’

Forty years later, Odinga reflects, ‘I took a study trip to Singapore with six ministers. That was the latest in many trips taken by the Kenyan government, about which no report was ever written, and where the participants kept everything to themselves”.

They write that Singapore’s GDP per capita now stands at US$52,887 – over 50 times more than at independence and nearly 20 percent greater than that of the United Kingdom, the former colonial power – while over the same period, per capita incomes in sub-Saharan Africa have increased just US$200 to average US$1,000.

What has Singapore done different to achieve this economic miracle while African countries have been left behind?

Tharman Shanmugaratnam, now Singapore’s president, was asked a similar question by the BBC’s Steven Sackur at the 45th St. Gallen Symposium in 2015. Shanmugaratnam was prime minister at the time and his answer was: “…We took advantage of disadvantage. We converted permanent disadvantage into continuing advantage and that’s a very fundamental attitude of mind. What disadvantage did we have?” he asked rhetorically before going on “We were not a nation that was meant to be. It’s a diverse group of people coming out of colonial, migration patterns. Very different origins, very different belief systems and religions. We were small, no domestic market. Decolonization happened suddenly and the British withdrew their military forces quickly and it impacted a very large part of the economy. We were surrounded by much larger neighbors to our south, about fifty times the size of Singapore…We had every disadvantage you could think of, for a nation and we did not expect to survive. We were not expected to survive. But that to Lee Kuan Yew and the pioneer team of leaders was converted to advantage…”.

Singapore didn’t let its colonial past define her and the tiny nation-state with few natural resources (when compared to Cameroon), was able to pull itself by the proverbial bootstraps and rise above its circumstances.

Cameroon has only had two presidents since independence, Ahmadou Ahidjo who ruled from French Cameroon’s independence in 1960 until 1982 when he stepped down. Biya has clung to power since then and his lengthy stay in power has resulted in little economic improvement for the lives of Cameroonians. Millions of Cameroonians live below the poverty line while Biya and his ministers live in opulence. Roads in Cameroon remain in disrepair and have only begun being renovated in the last few months, ahead of election day on 12 October, 2025 as Biya seeks to legitimize his stay in power in an election which many Cameroonians are sure he will yet “win” again.

Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew stayed in power for over 30 years but his long stay translated to transparent government, strategized government spending and creation of economic opportunities which helped make Singapore the success story it is today. On the other hand, a country like Cameroon has seen an over-centralization of power into the hands of two men who did little to elevate the economic status of their country. While some observers argue that Ahidjo comparatively did more than Biya in the area of infrastructure, what this argument misses is that the geopolitics, demographics and economics of the 1960s, 70s and early 80s have vastly changed from those of the last 20 years. The rise of the internet, an oil-driven global economy and clean energy debates as well as the exponential growth in Cameroon’s population from a mere 4 million in the 1960s and 70s to its current 29 million, means that the realities are vastly different now.

Singapore’s story is not an isolated one. Another striking example is Dubai, one of the seven emirates of the United Arab Emirates. Like Singapore, Dubai began its modern economic journey with significant limitations. Though oil was discovered there in the 1960s, reserves were relatively small compared to its Gulf neighbors like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Instead of relying solely on oil, Dubai’s rulers, especially Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum and later Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, invested strategically in infrastructure, aviation, logistics, tourism, and financial services. Today, Dubai International Airport is one of the busiest in the world, Emirates Airlines has become a global brand, and the city has positioned itself as a hub for global trade, real estate, and innovation.

The key to both Singapore’s and Dubai’s success lies in visionary leadership, diversification of the economy, and a commitment to governance systems that prioritize efficiency. While corruption exists everywhere to varying degrees, these nations managed to keep it relatively contained by building institutions that reward merit, encourage private investment, and enforce accountability. Leaders in Singapore and Dubai understood early that wealth does not lie only in natural resources but in human capital and strategic positioning. Both invested heavily in education, urban planning, and technology, creating environments where talent and business could thrive.

Cameroon, by contrast, has suffered from the so-called “resource curse.” Blessed with fertile land, oil, gas, timber, and minerals, the country has paradoxically failed to transform these endowments into broad-based prosperity. Instead, revenues have often been siphoned off through corruption or used for short-term political gain rather than long-term development. Poor governance, weak institutions, and over-centralization of power have stifled innovation and discouraged private enterprise.

Another critical factor is infrastructure and ease of doing business. Singapore and Dubai became global trade and investment magnets by ensuring efficiency—ports that work, airports that connect, and systems that minimize bureaucratic red tape. In Cameroon, infrastructure remains patchy and basic services like electricity, roads, and internet connectivity are unreliable. This undermines investor confidence and keeps both domestic and foreign businesses from flourishing.

For Cameroon to change course, it must embrace reforms at the core of governance. Transparent leadership, decentralization of power, and investment in human capital are essential. Education and vocational training should be prioritized to prepare a young, growing population for global opportunities. Equally important is diversifying the economy away from dependence on raw commodities toward manufacturing, technology, and services.

Singapore and Dubai prove that small nations with limited natural resources can become global economic leaders when guided by vision, discipline, and innovation. Cameroon has all the raw ingredients—land, resources, and a vibrant people. What it lacks is the political will and strategic governance to unlock its potential. Unless it reforms boldly, Cameroon will continue to watch resource-poor nations like Singapore and Dubai thrive while its citizens remain trapped in poverty.