Leaders among leaders

Lessons from the first 10
TODAY Weekend • April 12, 2008, Sat

In a speech to mark the launch of the National Library Board's book, Singapore: The First 10 Years of Independence, last week, Mr Ho Kwon Ping, chairman of the Singapore Management University Board and Mediacorp, touched on the issue of leadership. Below are excerpts from his speech.

LEADERSHIP is, according to this one definition: "The ability to secure the willing commitment of people to the achievement of specific objectives."
There are four concepts here: "willing commitment", "people", "specific objectives" and "ability". This book, Singapore: The First 10 Years, shows us not just how effective our leaders were in the midst of an uncertain future, but how they managed to elicit a high level of willing commitment from those working for them. The first 10 years demonstrated the quality of the relationship that Singaporeans had with their leaders.
This relationship was grounded in our leaders' strong self-belief — not conceit — which was in turn rooted in open, realistic acknowledgement of their individual strengths and weaknesses.

The so-called "First 10" members of the first Cabinet, had a hard-nosed view of their own abilities and shortcomings, and in the face of crisis, never descended into grandstanding, bickering or blaming. Each had his own contribution to make as part of a team:
• Dr Goh Keng Swee in education, economy and defence
• Dr Toh Chin Chye in party organisation, health and social services
• Mr S Rajaratnam in culture and foreign affairs
• Mr Ong Pang Boon in labour, environment and home affairs
• Mr Jek Yeun Thong in labour, culture and technology
• Mr Yong Nyuk Lin in education and health
• Mr Eddie Barker in law, labour and home affairs
• Mr Lim Kim San in national development, finance and environment
• Mr Othman Wok in social affairs, sports and culture.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew as first among equals, or primus inter pares, provided the vision, direction and organisational discipline.

The First 10 were remarkable in adhering, in the same breath, to a visionary, idealistic vision of a multi-racial society based on meritocracy — unlike the communal politics across the Causeway — but at the same time, to a very pragmatic, multi-cultural policy, which recognised the reality of ethnic divides.

As the word "ability" suggests, leadership takes practice, feedback and support to become effective. Apart from their innate intuition, charisma, influence and magnetism, the "First 10" forcibly taught themselves the ability to reinvent and to recreate Singapore as the environment around it changed. Their foremost ability was the capacity for forward thinking and, in today's business jargon, change management.

Singapore's first Cabinet leaders not only fulfilled my definition of leadership, they also demonstrated the essential attributes of leadership at the personal level.

First, leadership is not just a management or political technique but is a natural consequence of one's integrity or "character", which is itself the sum total of one's experience and values.
Singapore's first Cabinet comprised not the largely-homogeneous, high-achieving President Scholars and civil servants who now populate Parliament. They were a mixed bag of people from all walks of life, thrown together by the call of history.

Second, leadership is both aspirational and inspirational in that it enables both the leader and the led to touch the better part of their own selves.
A good leader not only gets things done but enables us, in the doing, to transcend our smaller selves and makes us feel that we have touched the better part of our selves.

Third, leadership requires the courage to follow convictions contrary to prevailing views and even one's own inclination, and arises from the ability to have been honest with oneself, by nurturing and listening to the voice within oneself.
By definition, leadership implies being different from the rest. This is most often easier said than done, because being different carries a price. It can range from social stigma and ridicule to imprisonment, physical deprivation and even death.

And fourth, that leadership involves making difficult judgement calls which lead to irrevocable action — not debate and discussion.
It is not the academic review and evaluation of facts, like what a doctor or scientist might do — nor is it the listing of pros and cons, leading to the passive critique of the armchair intellectual. Instead, it is the making of a decision, which is based, at best, on imperfect knowledge and may be grounded more on principle rather than rationality, intuition rather than facts.

What is the key lesson from observing our first-generation leaders? In confronting the communist challenge, then the fragility of independence and the uncertainty of economic growth, our first batch of leaders never had the luxury of hindsight, knowledge that they would become spectacularly successful. They faced failure every day, but giving up was simply not an option.

I believe leadership begins by learning to listen to the voice within you, to be true to your own deeper self against all other countervailing forces, and to act on it. And by recollecting, and reflecting, on the occasions when you have listened to and acted according to your deeper voice, you are in fact preparing for the time when your inner resolve will be tested at a time of leadership — which you may or may not even be seeking.

Skilful rhetoric and oratory, or solid organisational skills, always helps a leader, but it is above all the acting upon one's principles, which defines a leader and serves as a mirror to other people's notions of what is best within themselves and inspires them to give the best of themselves.
This implies that exemplary leadership may be the most powerful kind of leadership.

Earlier, I gave you a somewhat standard definition of leadership. My own preferred, somewhat personal definition of leadership is this: A leader is the voice through which people hear their fears transformed into hope.
Fear and hope are after all, the two primordial human emotions which propel us to transform the world around us — fear of what we are capable of descending to and hope of what we can become instead. The transformation of this fear to hope is the leader's task.
The transformational role of leadership was exhibited every day by our first generation of leaders, not only in speeches but in their everyday actions.

Singapore's first Cabinet leaders have all long disappeared from the scene, save for (Minister Mentor) Lee. The orderly succession planning he set in motion with (Senior Minister) Goh and (Prime Minister) Lee Hsien Loong, will face an uncertain transition. Singapore's next Prime Minister is probably not even in politics today and certainly will not have the legitimacy of previous PMs, conferred by MM Lee.

A new group of leaders must emerge and hopefully with them, a generation of Singaporeans who know our past, present and future — and imbued with the wisdom, which only a knowledge of our history can impart — they can ensure Singapore will not be only a blip in the story of world civilisations, but an enduring, independent and vibrant city state.