In May 1995, the then Singaporean minister George Yeo gave a prescient speech in Tokyo talking about the future of cities, suggesting “in the next century, the most relevant unit of economic production, social organization and knowledge generation will be the city or city-region . . . a little like the situation in Europe before the era of nation-states,” the time, he might have added when maritime city-states like Venice, Genoa, or Amsterdam conspicuously flourished. Singapore now aggressively markets itself as a global city, aspiring to be more than a regional center for international commerce, perhaps even to become world maritime capital, “the new London.”

Singapore lacks any natural assets except a harbor located on one of the world’s most strategic sea lanes, the Melaka (Malacca) Straits, connecting the Indian and Pacific oceans. By carrying nearly half of the world’s annual seaborne trade, the Melaka Straits now exceed the English Channel for the title of the world’s most strategic commercial waterway. If for any reason this passageway should be closed to traffic, the entire world economy would feel painful reverberations, most acutely oil-importing China, Korea, and Japan, but America inevitably too. Singapore’s presence on this major global saltwater trade route, plus its superb sheltered deepwater natural harbor, now transformed into a leading global seaport, offers major assets. Singapore’s new sovereignty in 1965 happily coincided with revolutionary changes in how we exploit oceanic space.

Although no longer unique, the sea still provides a major medium for information flows; more than ninety percent of global internet traffic now travels through undersea fiber-optic cables as does ninety percent of intercontinental cargo. The box and the bulk carrier, the standard-size steel container and the supership, have together caused transport costs to plummet. These changes stimulated an enormous surge of world seaborne trade within which contemporary Singapore made its rise into maritime eminence by skillfully exploiting these new instruments. Nimbly moving up the economic value chain from trade to manufacturing to services, this minute nation has created a unique global commercial presence, the only contemporary maritime city-state of consequence.

The port handles a half billion tons of cargo yearly, and was among the first in Asia to accept containers. It is also the world’s top supplier of ship diesel, the major global “petro port” as a fueler of ships and mover of oil, and ranks alongside Houston and Rotterdam as a major oil refiner.

At home Singapore can dock giant merchant ships at piers close to warehouses and factories. Tides and currents scour the port’s deep-water approaches and eliminate the need for dredging except immediately next to shoreside piers. Mountain ranges on both sides of the Melaka Straits shield that waterway from most adverse weather, and Singapore, unlike its commercial rivals on the China coast, Hong Kong and Shanghai, is free of the danger of typhoons, even today a dreaded peril to the mariner.

But location is not an actor; it is acted upon. Imaginative leadership, adept at organizing and managing people for economic growth and keeping them reasonably happy while doing so, has provided the impetus. Maritime life has made Singapore what it is. As Lee Kuan Yew put it, “without the harbor, we would not be half ourselves.” How Singapore progressed by using the sea shows us the continuing importance of the maritime world as engine of the global economy.

A marriage of convenience between shrewd Chinese commercial entrepreneurship and stable British colonial governance spawned Singapore’s vitality. This union launched the city’s career as a colony and continues to nourish it today. And even though British rule has gone, that tradition of political solidity and authoritarian rule remains.

Singapore’s sedulous cultivation of the human resource, with particular but not exclusive attention to leadership, has yielded “prudent management,” often cited as the major reason for the nation’s remarkable economic achievement. A highly educated, talented, and pragmatic elite focusing on specific needs—jobs, housing, mass transport, health, and education—has propelled Singapore into modernity. The ultimate key is human. Leaders or followers, Singapore’s people provide its greatest asset.

Powerful individuals have played a vital role in this story. The assertive Sir Stamford Raffles, identified with the founding in 1819 of what he called “my colony,” remains a household word in Singapore. Another was the longtime prime minister, recently deceased Lee Kuan Yew whose keen mind and razor tongue shaped a brilliant political career. Lee’s reputation for sagacity, and readiness to offer advice, gave him the status of world statesman and elevated respect for his accomplishments.

More than any other single person, but greatly aided by several loyal and brilliant lieutenants, Lee is responsible for what Singapore is today. In a 1991 speech, he spoke to the human dynamic, and the way in which he addressed the matter illustrates nicely his authoritarian approach. “The quality of a people determines the outcome of a nation. It is how you select your people, how you train them, how you organize them, and ultimately how you manage them that makes the difference.” The key word here is manage.

Critics are quick to point out the cost to freedom imposed by an authoritarian regime. Certainly less than the Japanese military occupation in World War II, but far more than the British colonial authority, the national government has initiated, guided, and directed the lives of its citizens. The perceived efficiency of Singapore’s government gives a gloss to its recently softening authoritarianism and most of the people, pleased by rising living standards, have thus far acquiesced in strong government and given it their votes. Whether this will continue to be so remains to be seen, especially as those who did not experience the privations of the past, the way things were in 1965 when Singapore became independent, inevitably leave the scene.

The death of Lee Kuan Yew in March 2015 prompted global response, evoking wide appreciation for what he accomplished for his country, but also drawing praise from dictators and would-be dictators who lauded the man and implicitly his steely governance, themselves craving Singapore’s prosperity to justify their autocratic rule. And with his death, under the leadership of his able but ailing son, with international trade waning, Singapore faces new challenges.

John Curtis Perry is professor of Maritime History in the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Image: The Merlion statue at Merlion Park, Singapore. Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons/@fad3away