COMMENT: Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore history

Yahoo Singapore

March 23, 2016

ricky l27 seconds ago

Simply put in layman term, in this article, there are some factual errors or distortion of facts and there are some analysis errors.

What are they :-

(1) The comment :- Mr LKY is obsessed with power and that he alone had to control it.

This is analysis error - because Mr LKY painfully plan for succession of power when he in power - and he gave way to 2 PMs while he is still in power. How can Mr LKY is obsessed with power and that he alone had to control it - painfully plan for power succession when he is still healthy, active and powerful?

It is his concern about political stability of Singapore and ensuring good successors to succeed him and Singapore continue to succeed that Mr LKY is not obsessed with power. Unlike Dr M - who bring down all his successors.

(2) The comment :- To keep himself in power, Mr LKY, he sacrificed the principle of Malayan unity for the expedience of Malaysia merger.

This is analysis error - Mr LKY push for Singapore and Malaysia merger for 2 main reasons. (a) Water dependency and survival on Malaysia (b) Economic hinterland from Malaysia.

At that time, if Malaysia cut supply to Singapore, Singapore will die of thirst.

If Malaysia, don't trade with Singapore, Singapore will have no business and no job to survive.

It is not Mr LKY obsessed of power as what this article say.

(3) The comment :- By provoking the spectres of racial fear and socialist takeover, he convinced the leadership of the Federation of Malaya that Singapore’s Chinese were racially and ideologically hostile.

This is an analysis error :- At that time, Communists are radical who provoking and promoting blood revolution. Mr LKY proposed a structure to contain them.

At that time, Malaysia is promoting a Malay Malaysia - where Malay will be the superior race.

But LKY is promoting a Malaysian Malaysia - where regardless of race - by merits will run Malaysia.

The article is definitely wrong that Mr LKY is obsessed with power --- it prove his hypothesis is factually correct.

ricky lnow

Now Singapore succeed due to Mr LKY foresight.

(1) He carefully groom 3 generations of Leaders to run Singapore. And there is no political upheaval in Singapore. Precisely, Mr LKY is not obsessed with power - as what this author say (factually wrong and analysis wrong).

(2) Mr LKY has done something that is humanely impossible, a mission impossible to become an Economic miracle.

From total dependant on Malaysia for water, Mr LKY has make Singapore self-sufficient in water - by turning drainage, sewage, toilet water - into drinking water. Desalinate sea water into drinking water.

Using reservoir to catch water and turn it into drinking water. Now Singapore is at the forefront of water technology that can export its expertise to the World.

When others are laughing at Singapore - for drinking urine and faeces water. Now Singapore have the last laugh.

From totally dependant on Malaysia for trade, business and food sources, Mr LKY make the whole World the hinterland for Singapore - and now Singapore do business and trade with the World.

(3) Mr LKY promote racial harmony and promote meritocracy - in the governance of Singapore - and not promoting race-based politics to run Singapore.

Singapore has succeeded to become a 1st World Country after 50 years of governance.

Mr LKY also ensure racial harmony, cultural harmony, religious harmony :- and has aptly fulfilled the following pledge :-

"We, the citizens of Singapore.

Pledge ourselves as one united people.

Regardless of race, language or religion.

Based on democracy, justice and equality.

So as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our Nation."

Singapore have fulfilled this pledge.

So this article is factually wrong, analytically wrong and even smack on distortion of fact.

Doctorate or ?

ricky lnow

And now what happen to the person for threatening to cut our water supply so that Singapore cannot survive?

And now what happen to the person who mock at us for drinking urine and faeces water?

That person suffer from karma of venomous speeches and fall from grace - politically defeated ---- for mocking a Country through its hard work and honest means to survive when the person is in a superior, advantage position.

ricky lnow

So did Donald Duck learn from the life lesson of an Elder Statesman?

Pledge ourselves as one united people.

Regardless of race, language or religion.

Based on democracy, justice and equality.

So as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our Nation."

COMMENT: Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore history

Yahoo Singapore
March 23, 2016

Dr. Thum Ping Tjin is Coordinator of Project Southeast Asia and a Research Associate at the Centre for Global History, University of Oxford. The views expressed here are his own.


View photos

(Reuters file photo)

Lee Kuan Yew was a quintessential, and perhaps the ultimate, product of a massive confluence of historical forces that defined Singapore in the twentieth century. But his legacy also represents a fundamental disruption to the broad sweep of Singapore history. This contradiction is central to understanding Lee’s place in the history of Singapore.

Innovation is a fundamental theme of Singapore. Even before there was a Singapore (and likely long after), pirates, traders, and entrepreneurs were establishing a tradition of independent thinking and action on the island. Their descendants have followed.

Singapore’s success is built upon the spontaneous creation of economic institutions like clans and guild associations and Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce; educational institutions, cultural and charitable organisations; activism, and political parties, from the first political party in Singapore, the Kesatuan Melayu Singapura (KMS), to the ruling People’s Action Party.

Sitting at the nexus of many great local and regional trading and intellectual networks, Singapore has always been cosmopolitan, deeply politicised, and constantly awash with new ideas. Singapore was a centre for pan-Islam, for overseas Chinese networks, for Malay culture and literature. Singapore has long been a public sphere where these ideas have met and found new forms of expression.

Lee, born in 1923, was a product of these innovative forms of thought and action. He was perfectly positioned to arbitrage between the ideas of nationalism and self-determination which were sweeping through Singapore, and the fading but still powerful forces of colonialism and imperialism. Taking advantage of the expansion of the Anglophone colonial educational system to rise all the way to Cambridge, he returned to Singapore in 1950 and quickly realised where the future lay. Singapore’s economic success had been built by the dynamism and vitality of Singapore’s economic innovators and entrepreneurs. Singapore’s political future would be built by the dynamism and vitality of Singapore’s political innovators and entrepreneurs – Chinese, Malay, and Tamil-speaking trade unionists, intellectuals, and community organisers. He allied himself with them and rode them all the way to the Prime Ministership in 1959.

To understand his achievements, it is necessary to dispel some of the myths which obscure Lee Kuan Yew. Lee’s government did not make Singapore rich – As Lee himself noted in 1960 in a Straits Times report, Singapore had the “highest average income in Asia - $1,200 per capita per annum”. His government’s great legacy was to make Singapore fairer. Singaporeans in the 1950s faced systemic colonial discrimination. Singapore was plagued by massive inequality; high property prices; high cost of living; congestion, overcrowding, and unemployment; and systemic colonial discrimination which privileged Europeans and English-speakers. The PAP’s systemic reforms reduced inequality, empowering Singaporeans to take advantage of opportunities that were at that point of time beyond their grasp.

However, Lee’s government did not originate many of the ideas on which Singapore’s prosperity is based. The period of 1955 – 1963 was also a time of great political upheaval, with eight elections and one referendum – an average of one vote a year. Political parties cleaved and coalesced as circumstances and issues changed. In this creative destruction lay Singapore’s future prosperity. Political parties, facing the discipline of the ballot box, fought by innovating on policy. From this arose the great ideas which would lay the foundation for Singapore’s success: The Central Provident Fund; the Housing Development Board; a flexible multilingual educational system; heavily reducing systemic class, gender, ethnic, and linguistic discrimination; industrialisation and economic development.



View photos

(Associated Press file photo)

‘An unparalleled understanding of power’

But implementation is every bit, if not more, important than the idea itself. And it was here that Lee shone. Lee’s political acumen delivered the stability that Singapore sorely needed to implement reforms. His leadership and support enabled his allies – first Lim Chin Siong, then Goh Keng Swee, Yong Nyuk Lin, and Lim Kim San, among others – to make the vast strides in labour, economic, education, and housing policy. Lee was the great enabler, making it all possible.

Lee achieved this via an unparalleled understanding of power: how it works, how it is perceived, how to win it and keep it. “The only subject which I have ever heard Lee Kuan Yew talk about with any sense of feeling is the subject of power,” British Commissioner Selkirk marvelled in 1960, “Political power is, I believe, almost an obsession to him.” But his intuitive understanding of power was accompanied by an unshakeable conviction that he alone had to control it.

In 1961, his unwillingness to compromise on power led him to cast aside the trade unionists and activists who connected his party to the people. His popularity plummeted. To keep himself in power, he embarked on a crash course for Malayan reunification, with the aim of winning the 1963 elections on the back of a successful merger. To achieve this, he sacrificed the principle of Malayan unity for the expedience of merger. By provoking the spectres of racial fear and socialist takeover, he convinced the leadership of the Federation of Malaya that Singapore’s Chinese were racially and ideologically hostile and needed to be controlled via a constitutional and security structure. This structure would be Malaysia. After its formation, Lee then turned around and attempted to overthrow the yoke he himself had placed on Singapore. This reinforced the racial suspicion that Lee had bred, hardening attitudes on racial lines. Drastically elevated racial antipathy would be Lee’s lasting legacy in Malaysia.

View photos

(AFP file photo)

Greatest failure?

Faced with a choice of stepping down from power or taking Singapore out of Malaysia, he chose the latter. This proved to be Lee’s greatest failure. After the Singapore’s separation from Malaysia, he returned to the British colonial model of using legislation, repression, and social control to enforce his will upon Singapore’s electorate. Stability was achieved. Under his leadership, Singapore progressed rapidly. From his greatest failure would be born his greatest success.

However, the inadequacies of his system became evident by the late 1970s, when new ideas were needed to meet new challenges. The PAP government was bereft. Its new policies on family planning, industrialisation, education, and housing were disasters. Lee wisely set about renewing Singapore’s government. But he accompanied this with a severe increase of government control. Most importantly, he was unable to take the most important step of renewal – removing himself.

Lee emphasised the importance of stability and firm governance in delivering Singaporean success. But his view of history was based on a narrow reading of Singaporean culture and history that privileged his own personal perspective. Lee had enabled success by yoking explosive creativity and innovation to stability and discipline. This succeeded because innovation had already thrown up ideas to implement. Lee now remained the font of all authority and the final guarantor of stability, but also the block on innovation.

History shows us that culture persists. Singapore remained a volatile, politically aware, innovative society throughout Lee’s political career. It constantly threw up new challenges to the PAP. A man with Lee’s formidable talents could deal with those challenges. But the system which Lee leaves behind, by definition, cannot because it is predicated on stability at the cost of innovation.

Today, many of the issues his government addressed have returned. As in 1950, it is very rich, but struggles with many of the same issues that motivated Lee’s rise to power: massive inequality; high property prices; high cost of living; and systemic discrimination along racial, class, and linguistic lines.

Lee, tragically, stayed in power long enough to see himself and his party become the enemy he had fought so hard against, and the system he created become the system he had fought so hard to overthrow. In thelongue durée of Singapore history, the first third of Lee’s political career will be seen as a shining light of progress – but as a whole, it will be remembered as transitional period, an exception to the fundamentally innovative and chaotic nature of Singapore.