Founding father and first prime minister of modern Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, who died this week at age 91, was hailed as a development guru because he transformed a tiny island with no resources to speak of from an underdeveloped country to one with a per capita income of that of a developed country.

This was a remarkable achievement made more noteworthy by the fact that it was accomplished in a very short time in economic terms. Thanks to his leadership, Singapore has been held up by many as a model for developing countries.

Here in Jamaica, one of the favourite pastimes of some academics and politicians is to bemoan the fact that in the 1960s Jamaica, by all economic indicators, was more advanced than Singapore but today is much poorer by all measures of human development. The much-heralded success of Singapore is supposed to provide lessons for other aspiring developing countries to emulate.

Each country is unique, therefore every developing country cannot simply do exactly what was done in Singapore. There are certain policies which may be applicable in part or in modified form in other countries.

Butm, what lessons can Jamaica learn from Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew?

Singapore’s rapid economic growth was accompanied by curtailments on human rights, inflexible rules and draconian punitive measures. Since these measures are an integral component of the Singaporean model, the question which must be asked is, what are the appropriate lessons that Jamaica should glean and apply?

The lessons include the very important conclusion that small size and lack of non-human resources do not prevent economic development. This will be much to the chagrin of those who attribute Jamaica’s persistent poverty to being small and not being blessed with deposits of oil.

There are always opportunities in the world economy, even in a state of crisis or recession, but they are seized only by countries and firms that move quickly, proactively and decisively. In addition, it is necessary to focus on opportunities which are not constrained by what you do not have, eg economies of scale, and which depend on what you have, eg beautiful natural environment, or what can created, eg an educated workforce.

The Singaporean experience demonstrates the value of a rules-based society and a crime-free environment as a prerequisite to being a country where people can live, work and raise a family. Rules come before development, not the contrary as some Jamaicans think.

There is no one type of relationship between capitalism and democracy. There are different types of capitalism and different types of democracy. Many forms of democracy do not meet the loft standards of the ideal-type Western democracy. Indeed, as both Singapore and China have proven: capitalism can flourish with authoritarian forms of government.

It’s ironic that the countries, like China and Singapore, with the best record of economic growth in the last 30 years have their own unique blend of capitalism with an authoritarian political regime directing a developmental role for the State.

The real lesson is that every country must design its own development strategy and pursue the form of governance which suits the prevailing conditions and their traditions. Alas this requires political leadership and visionary strategy and the courage to implement its policies. Vision and courage are part of leadership, but leaders are born, not made.

Is Jamaica still waiting for its own Lee Kuan Yew?