Editor’s Note: Terry F. Buss is a Fellow at the U.S. National Academy of Public Administration. He wrote this column exclusively for Tuoi Tre News.

I’ve spent 40 years teaching public leadership in graduate and training programs in the US and abroad in hundreds of courses numbering thousands of students. Many of these courses were taught to public managers in Asia, frequently in Vietnam. Deciding which leaders to include in the class was challenging with two exceptions, one, Ho Chi Minh, the other, Lee Kuan Yew, who would be on everybody’s list.  Most scholars and experts I think would agree.

Lee Kuan Yew is a great choice because his leadership as Prime Minister helped Singapore move from a “third world to first” world economic, political and social success in just one generation. Few thought this could happen in a country only as large as a medium-sized city with few resources and huge barriers, including some hostile neighbors. The fact that so many world leaders, journalists, and scholars sought his council is testimony to his leadership abilities.

Having worked for seven years in the region, I think Lee Kuan Yew has much to teach us about leadership generally.

The authoritarian approach            

Much has been written about Lee Kuan Yew’s authoritarian approach in guiding Singapore. Critics reject authoritarian approaches mostly for ethical, philosophical or ideological reasons. I think this misses the point of what he accomplished and how he did it. First, there is no reason at all to believe that his political opposition would have succeeded in developing Singapore. Second, Singapore was an experiment that needed to be tried, and that would not likely have happened in another way.  And third, his approach always seemed to keep in mind the needs and interests of the people, not only in words but also in deeds (Plato refers to this as being a “philosopher king”).

Others see Lee Kuan Yew’s authoritarian approach as being counterproductive for other countries, citing the rise of Middle Eastern strong men as examples. But, this also misses the point.  These newly emerging dictators would have turned out the way they are without Lee Kuan Yew as a reference model. And, these new dictators did not follow his model below to the letter in any case.

His most appropriate quote: "You know, the cure for all this talk [above] is really a good dose of incompetent government.”

A successful leader

The key to understanding Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership is to recognize that he had a realistic view of Singapore—a new country with few resources except for its people, but one with a good geographical location. A good leader always focuses on the people and builds success around them. He also realized that the world did not owe Singapore anything and was not likely to be of much help as evidenced by the poor showing of other former colonies elsewhere.  Singaporeans would have to fend for themselves: self-reliance.

Lee Kuan Yew understood that the people’s support could be earned by making them proud to be Singaporean. So, Lee Kuan Yew undertook to make Singaporeans proud. This in turn would make the people want to take part in Singapore’s development or at least not stand in its way.

So successful was this approach that part of the “Singaporean identity” is one where people take great pride in the quality of their work and the values they live by. Any visitor to Singapore will feel this identity at work beginning when exiting a plane or taking a taxi.

Lee Kuan Yew is often criticized for enforcing “petty” laws against the population: prohibiting chewing gum, maintaining neat haircut, jaywalking, and the like. What critics do not realize is that these were symbolic of what a successful society should be. He knew that these minor infractions often lead to larger one, and perhaps a lack of discipline.

Lee Kuan Yew had a strategic vision for Singapore that was compelling, but also highly disruptive to traditional society. Singapore’s transformation would entail a complete reengineering of society: education, language, infrastructure, environment, housing, defense, and economics, while at the same time achieving a balance between rich and poor by building the middle class.

Under his leadership, he created a first class education system—the National University of Singapore (NUS) is among the top ranked universities in the world. He pressured Singaporeans who were mostly of Chinese descent to speak Mandarin, rather than other dialects; and made NUS an English speaking university. He developed infrastructure that encouraged public transportation, efficiently moved traffic around the city; and through innovative canals, kept the city from flooding to name two initiatives. While others dithered, Singapore became a truly green city. These are tangible things people can see.

He understood that everyone must benefit from transformation, not just a few: no one left behind. He accomplished this by creating massive housing projects affordable to many Singaporeans. In the process, he tackled multicultural problems with major ethnic groups by compelling people to live together, not in segregatd neighborhoods. Most importantly, Lee Kuan Yew saw economic opportunities that would create jobs for many people in shipping, banking, health care, and high tech. He knew that these jobs would require education and in some cases English language ability, so he invested heavily in these.

Lee Kuan Yew new that his authoritarian approach might create opportunities for corruption especially in government where control can lead to exploitation and self-aggrandizement. He took care of this by creating a civil service that was well-paid and merit-based. In exchange, civil servants would not only be held accountable for their actions, but would be severely punished for corruption. A journalist once asked Lee Kuan Yew about being a wealthy public servant, the implication being that he was somehow corrupt. He responded that he was a highly paid public servant.

To realize his ambitions for Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew spoke frankly and honestly about every issue or problem faced along the road to development. This candor and transparency let people know that what he said was what meant. No hidden agenda. People want leaders to be genuine and authentic.

Lee Kuan Yew in spite of his accomplishments, never took much credit for Singapore’s success. Rather, he repeatedly emphasized that Singaporeans were responsible for what had been achieved. He knew that a good leader must ensure that the people “own” the transformation process, rather than being victims or bystanders. At the same time, he understood that while owning the process was key, actually allowing too many people to manage it was not. He paid no attention to public opinion polls.

As a leader, Lee Kuan Yew was quite unemotional and very workman-like. He rejected the current theories that call for leaders to be “emotionally intelligent,” that is, empathizing with their problems. He did not pander to “political correctness.” I believe he saw this a weakness.

He was very much “hands on” in running Singapore. He was not just a strategist or cheerleader.

Lee Kuan Yew was a charismatic leader. What was unique about him was that he also knew what he wanted to do and did it. Too often being charming, engaging and attractive are not accompanied by competence.

Given the depth of Singapore’s transformation and the barriers erected or encountered in its execution, many leaders would have given up or settled for lesser accomplishments. The strength of a good leader is perseverance. Perseverance, in turn, must be accompanied by commitment. These, of course, reflect confidence that strategic goals can be achieved. The universal consensus seems to be that there has never been anyone more committed and confident than Lee Kuan Yew.

In sum, Lee Kuan Yew was what Confucian philosophers would call a “superior person,” in that he embodies the successful government leader articulated by Confucius some 2,500 years ago.

One essence of the Confucian leader is self-awareness: strengths, weaknesses, positives, negatives, good and bad. Throughout his writings, it’s clear that he engaged in introspection and was well aware of who he was, what he was doing, and whether he succeeded.

The future

I think, unfortunately, that Lee Kuan Yew was one of a few (Ho Chi Minh being another), not seen before and not to be seen again.  It is quite rare to find an effective leader who is also very smart, insightful and strategic. He was likely always “the smartest guy in the room” where ever he went. But, he was also in the right place at the right time—post-colonial Singapore with the leadership skills Singapore needed. I think he would have been as successful no matter where he found himself. But that remains an open question.

Is his leadership style appropriate for Singapore’s future? Naysayers are out in droves since his death, denigrating Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership in the past, but also as something to be avoided in the future. Whether they are right is a silly question. Singapore is no longer a sleepy colony. But not so fast: “…even if you are going to lower me to the grave and I feel that something is going wrong [in Singapore], I will get up.”