Leadership and Responsibility:

Lee Kuan Yew discusses his sense of responsibility as a leader not just to the citizens but also to his colleagues. According to him, this sense of duty was not something that could be taught. It emerged from a specific historical context and was deeply personal.

The Role of Historical Context:

Lee Kuan Yew was propelled into leadership due to wars and revolutions. The urgency of the situation required decisive action. In his case, it was a “crusade” rather than a vocation. He and his colleagues faced a “do it or die” situation when they were left responsible for two million people in Singapore after the withdrawal of the British.

Comparison with Other Leaders:

Lee Kuan Yew observes that leadership styles and motivations can differ widely based on the individual’s experiences and the broader socio-political environment. He contrasts his own journey with that of UK Prime Ministers like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, noting the different sets of backgrounds that gave rise to different kinds of leadership.

Bonds Forged in Struggle:

Lee emphasizes the strong bonds formed among his colleagues due to the struggles they faced. These bonds were comparable to those among comrades in battle. These experiences created a mutual understanding and trust that contributed to their effectiveness as leaders.

Uniqueness of Individual Experience:

He concludes by stating that he cannot speak for what drives other leaders due to the unique factors that shape each individual. Each leader’s sense of responsibility and approach to governance is shaped by their own history, personality, and the challenges they have faced.

American Focus on Asia:

Lee Kuan Yew refutes the idea that the United States is not concerned with Asia. He attributes the seeming lack of attention to the limitations of American political cycles, which are preoccupied with immediate issues like the Middle East and North Korea.

Shift in Global Power Dynamics:

Lee emphasizes that significant changes are taking place in Asia, particularly with the rise of economic powers like China and India. He mentions that these “tectonic plates” are shifting, and the U.S. will have to engage with a different set of Asian powers in 20 years.

American Short-Termism:

Lee points out that while lower-level American policy aides are focused on Asia’s future, the immediate attention of top U.S. leaders is diverted by short-term issues. This short-term focus is influenced by electoral cycles and media attention, leaving less intellectual capital for long-term strategic planning.

China’s Future Role:

Lee says that China’s role as either a friend or foe to the U.S. is yet to be determined and will depend on how the U.S. interacts with China. He asserts that China’s future leaders will be significantly different from the current generation, more globally oriented, and fluent in English.

Generational Shifts in Leadership:

Highlighting the future leaders of China, Lee says they will likely be fluent in English, and many will have advanced degrees from Western institutions. This generational shift implies a different set of challenges and opportunities for international relations.

Role of Minister Mentor:

Lee Kuan Yew explains the title “Minister Mentor” came about to ensure he would not have policy-making power when his son became Prime Minister. He serves more as a “data bank” for Singaporean ministers, drawing from his extensive experience. He expresses hesitance at mentoring other governments due to the complex nature of understanding a country’s people and politics.

Challenges in Leadership:

Lee touches on the necessity for a leader to understand the people and culture of their nation. He uses the example of Hong Kong’s previous chief executive C.H. Tung, suggesting that running a business differs greatly from running a country because it requires an intuitive grasp of the public sentiment.

Singapore’s Social Cohesion and Conformity:

In response to a Financial Times journalist, Lee rejects the notion that Singapore is too conformist to innovate. He asserts that social cohesion is a strength and notes Singapore’s high international education rankings as evidence that the country must be doing something right.

Quality of Education:

Lee emphasizes that the key to an effective education system lies in the quality of teachers and the system’s adaptability. He states that Singapore has learned from various international models, arguing that their ability to adapt and implement effective practices shows intellectual capabilities and out-of-box thinking.

Perception of Western Journalism:

Lee challenges the Financial Times’ journalist’s perspective, suggesting it’s a standard Western viewpoint that may not apply to Singapore. He defends Singapore’s educational and social progress, referencing an Economist article that praises Singapore’s educational achievements.

Each section captures key moments and insights from the dialogue, offering a summary of Lee Kuan Yew’s perspectives on various issues.

Adapting Global Models:

Lee Kuan Yew opens by discussing how Singapore has crafted its own system by studying countries like Japan and Germany. The objective was to adapt the best elements to suit Singapore’s unique requirements. He mentions that their approach is garnering attention, pointing to the Financial Times and McKinsey reports as examples.

Education Transformation:

He specifically highlights the evolution of Nanyang Technological University (NTU), which shifted its primary language from Chinese to English and has since been ranked among the top 50 global universities. He suggests that something must be right, but also leaves room for skepticism about university rankings.

Institutional Importance:

Lee Kuan Yew emphasizes the crucial role institutions play in a country’s development. Drawing a comparison with ancient China, where knowledge often died with the individuals, he advocates for the Western model of institutionalized knowledge. This entails publishing discoveries, critiquing, and building upon the work of others.

Learning from Around the World:

Singapore has been successful, he argues, because it doesn’t reinvent the wheel. Instead, it accumulates knowledge from global practices and builds on it, creating a system that consistently improves over generations. He cites the example of the civil service college and the LKY School of Public Policy as institutions where case studies are reviewed and critiqued for the benefit of future generations.

Prepared Leadership:

Lee Kuan Yew makes a strong case for having prepared leaders. He says ministers and Prime Ministers in Singapore have had years of training and mentorship, avoiding the ‘learning curve from zero’ issue that often plagues governments with frequent changes in leadership.

Consequences of Not Institutionalizing:

Finally, he warns that failing to institutionalize successful practices risks losing them. Documentation, discussion, and crystallization of knowledge ensure that progress is not lost but rather built upon by successors.

Challenges in Indian Politics:

Lee Kuan Yew addressed the queries of RK Mishra, an entrepreneur turned aspiring politician from India. He emphasized the complications in India’s political landscape, pointing out the absence of a clear party alignment for Mishra. The highly competitive nature of Indian politics, coupled with the influence of well-known political families, makes it a formidable terrain for newcomers. Name recognition, especially if one is from a political dynasty like the Gandhis, provides a substantial advantage in elections.

The Role of Entrepreneurs in Governance:

Yew suggested that Indian entrepreneurs, despite their successes in business, would find it difficult to enact change within the country’s bureaucratic system. Even entrepreneurs who have achieved pinnacle successes in companies like Infosys would face challenges in dealing with the inertia of government. Yew posited that these skills would be extremely valuable in government, but the bureaucracy would be a hard obstacle to navigate.

Singapore’s Success and its Imitation:

When asked about countries trying to emulate Singapore’s success, Lee noted that success is not a zero-sum game. Countries like Dubai can succeed by focusing on their unique strengths and resources. Singapore’s model relies on a homogenous management core capable of self-renewal, while Dubai has vast oil resources and relies on a diverse management core from around the world.

Comparison of Sustainability Models:

Yew indicated that each model has its merits and challenges. For Singapore, institutionalization and a homogenous core make sustainability “slightly easier.” In contrast, Dubai can sustain its success by continuously hiring high-quality management, given its abundant resources.

In summary, Lee Kuan Yew provided a nuanced view on the hurdles that aspirant politicians from non-political backgrounds face in India. He also compared different models of development, emphasizing that there is no one-size-fits-all approach.