Ndindi Nyoro and Babu Owino Fault Ruto’s Singapore Economic Blueprint, Cite Kenya’s Unique Realities
He argued that Kenya’s slow progress is itself a product of neglecting elementary issues, such as security, police reforms, macro-economic stability, infrastructure development, and land reforms.
MPs Ndindi Nyoro (Kiharu) and Babu Owino (Embakasi East) on Citizen TV's JKLive show on January 14, 2026. Photo/Courtesy.
By Ruth Sang
Kiharu MP Ndindi Nyoro and Embakasi East MP Babu Owino have put on record their disapproval of President William Ruto’s standing reference for the alteration of the Kenyan economy, arguing that the comparison sidestepped some glaring differences between both countries. The two legislators argue that Kenya and Singapore operate in highly differing economic, demographic and structural conditions, thereby rendering the analogy impracticable and potentially misleading.
In an interview for JKLive on Wednesday, Nyoro warned against learning lessons from nations with contrasting circumstances to those of Kenya. He registered that comparisons have meaningful consequences only where there exist shared realities. By way of illustrating his point, Nyoro put forth, “Banana farmers do not point at orange or pear farmers and declare they have succeeded. Likewise, Kenya cannot look at an economy such as Singapore’s and say that we have moved far.” He further went on to expound that certain degrees of economic resemblance are termed into valuation, and there just is none between Kenya and Singapore.
According to Nyoro, a great deal of divergence in income levels exists between the two countries. He laid emphasis on the GDP per capita of Singapore being near USD 90,000, hence Kenya being around USD 3,000, laying bare that gap in wealth and productivity. This very difference, he argued, mirrors a totally different economic setup and development stages. He proceeded to explain that the significant growth of Singapore was backed by huge State-intervention in the economy, especially in the early years. Observing from the Singapore Exchange, Nyoro remarked that large shares of the leading companies are under State-linked firms such as Temasek Holdings. This model of State-led capitalism, he said, is in radical contrast to what exists in Kenya today, namely privatization and liquidation of State enterprises.
In Nyoro’s opinion, Kenya’s economic travels seem more reminiscent of South Korea’s than Singapore’s. He stated that Kenya and South Korea have populations of about 50 million each, whereas Singapore has just slightly over six million people. He also outlined how successful Asian economies deliberately guided private sector growth from labor-intensive industries to capital- and technology-intensive production. These countries, he added, relied heavily on foreign direct investment (FDI) to boost industrial growth.
Nyoro cautioned against equating remittances with FDI. The former mostly goes into consumption, while the latter is towards the long term and productive capacity. He said that none of the Asian success stories relied on political favoritism or blurred lines between political authority and economic incentives. He stated that corruption, which distorts markets and incentives, is a major impediment to Kenya’s growth. Therefore, for sustainable development, he argued, Kenya ought to invest in human capital.
Babu Owino reinforced the critique by considering geographical and demographic realities. He endowed that the size of Singapore is only 736 sq.km., about the size of Nairobi; Kenya is about 580,000 sq.km. Owino pointed out that Kenya is almost 800 times larger than Singapore and has a population of about 58 million compared to Singapore’s 6.1 million. Therefore, he queried the propriety of applying Singapore’s model for development given such differences.
Owino further contended that Kenya already possesses a well-defined development framework in the form of Vision 2030, which was set up during the presidency of Mwai Kibaki. The strategy foresaw double-digit growth based on economic growth in tourism, manufacturing, and micro, small, and medium enterprises; social progress attained through education, health, and sanitation; and political reforms in terms of justice and integrity in the electoral process. He argued that Kenya’s slow progress is itself a product of neglecting elementary issues, such as security, police reforms, macro-economic stability, infrastructure development, and land reforms.
According to Owino, turning away from such basics to lofty comparisons has held back serious progress. He held from that moment that Kenya could not aspire towards Singapore until basic needs are met by ordinary citizens. The statements made by the two Members of Parliament have now compounded the debate in the country on whether Singapore could be an apt model for Kenya’s development, with critics telling the government to pursue the implementation of its bottom-up agenda instead of lofty international comparisons.
About Author
