Political Commentary
Supplement To May 17 Commentary ‘The GE 2011 Political Demise Of Lee Kuan Yew: A Supreme Irony’
Although I had already completed my series of commentaries on GE 2011, one of them—on Lee Kuan Yew—had attracted so many responses from readers (more than 300) that I thought it would be useful to follow up with a supplement to the commentary, in order to recapitulate the readers’ most cogent arguments in their pro- or anti-LKY stand, and in so doing, indicate my own.
Any controversy surrounding Lee Kuan Yew attests to his phenomenal influence and impact on the society: Singapore will never see his like again.
My political commentary had, oddly, provoked completely opposing responses—praise from his critics and condemnation from his supporters, both sides also vigorously attacking each other. Their positions crystallized around a pivotal point in the debate: what was owing to Lee Kuan Yew as the founder of modern Singapore. The supporters said, ‘He’s done so much for Singapore. How dare you criticize him? You’re being ungrateful!’, and the critics retorted, ‘He’s also done much harm too. How dare you criticise those who are only telling the truth about him?’
The rancorous debate is likely to go on as long as Mr Lee is still around, and perhaps even after he passes from the scene. But for now, in our need to do some calm and level-headed stock-taking after a historic GE 2011, it will be important to take a closer look at a quandary that has dismayingly polarized Singaporeans, and see how we can clarify and try to resolve it.One way of doing this is to place the debate in the context of the universal moral dilemma which actually it is all about: Does the end justify the means? Or, in a recasting of the famous aphorism of Deng Xiaoping: Does it matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mouse? Thus, with special reference to the Singapore situation, the question becomes: if Mr Lee’s end or goal for Singapore was a safe, secure, prosperous society, was it justified by the various means he used to achieve it? Did his achievements, since they were unquestionably great, warrant any cost, however high, that had to be paid for them?
It is necessary, in our deliberations, to keep in mind what precisely were the means used by Mr Lee that had so incensed the critics. The means in question were NOT those ruthless ‘knuckleduster’ actions to tame unruly elements, including the Communists and the communalists, in the early years. They were NOT the severe government measures to punish people for spitting, littering, vandalizing. They were NOT even the draconian death penalty, a policy regularly condemned by western liberal democracies.
So what were they? They were the means that had caused tremendous anguish and suffering to Singaporeans who were either too frightened not to comply with government edicts, or had no means of legal redress. Two groups can be singled out for special mention. The first comprised women who had suffered from the government’s policy, in the days of severe population control measures. To abide by the ‘stop at two’ order, they had to undergo abortions or sterilizations, or if they chose to be defiant, pay penalties such as losing out on a place for the third child in a school of their choice. This was arguably an even greater penalty than a monetary one, since education was first priority for parents, a disposition Mr Lee chose to ruthlessly exploit. The agonizing decisions that women had to make, which, in some cases, must have conflicted with their religious beliefs, as well as the trauma of having their rights violated at the most fundamental level of human sexuality and fertility, can only be imagined.
The second group comprises political dissidents who paid an extremely high price for their daring to challenge the government. Financial ruin could be complete, resulting in livelong bankruptcy. Fleeing Singapore, their home for many years, and going into exile in a foreign country must have been unimaginably painful. Even more traumatizing must be indefinite incarceration, as in the case of Chia Thye Poh who was a prisoner for more than 30 years.
The magnitude of the suffering can only be understood if we remember that the policies of control and punishment lasted decades, thus affecting thousands of Singaporeans, including their families. The two extreme examples singled out were only the tip of a brutal iceberg, for less conspicuous were the hardships caused, for instance, to hundreds of parents whose children were affected by the Mother Tongue language policy and who decided to emigrate rather than see them struggle daily to cope with learning Mandarin.
The suffering caused by the policies takes on an even more poignant note if we ask: Were those policies at all necessary? Were they the result of one man’s unshakeable faith in his own convictions? What did they achieve in the end?
I have gone to some trouble to dwell on this shadowed part of Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy, simply to balance it against the other, bright, illustrious, more touted half. Ultimately, such a very mixed legacy attracts both gratitude and resentment, both praise and blame. The concluding argument must be this: that in an ‘inclusive’ society which Singapore professes to be, where everyone is cared for, the victimization of even a small segment of its population cannot be glossed over for the greater good of the whole. In a society that wants to have a human face, any policy that dehumanizes the people, even if only a tiny minority, cannot be condoned simply because it benefits the majority. In the end, the material prosperity of such a society becomes its travesty, not its pride.
The vastness of Mr Lee’s achievements might have blinded his supporters to the high price in human terms that had been paid for it. Daily witnessing the evidence of the remarkable achievements in a gleaming city that is now considered world-class, and probably unaware of the inhuman acts because these had received scant attention in the history books or the media, the supporters naturally have only a very incomplete picture. Everyone is human; Mr Lee is human, after all, said his apologists. But a flaw of leadership that translated into hardship for thousands is a different proposition. Ultimately, no end, no matter how noble, can justify the ignoble means to achieve it. If the mouse is the prize, the cat need not resort to the blackest, vilest measures to catch it.
Having said all this, I would urge, with the same impassioned voice of both the supporters and the critics, that now that the matter of Mr Lee’s future role in Singapore has been settled (as a result of the most unexpected events of GE 2011), it is time to put the divisiveness behind us. To the critic who is also a die-hard skeptic insisting that as long as Mr Lee is around, even if no longer a cabinet minister, he will continue to exert his influence over the Prime Minister who is also his son, the answer must be: Most unlikely. For Mr Lee, whose blunt, forthright ways put him above the need for any prevarification, would never have resigned if he had not meant to. He would have realised that there would not be the same bonding with, and hence the same degree of influence over, the newly reconstituted PAP leadership. In any case, which person of conviction and self-pride—and Mr Lee has both aplenty—would want to return to a position from which he had been virtually ousted?
So did Mr Lee’s resignation show that he was accepting responsibility for the PAP’s worst performance at the polls in 40 years, and by extension, admitting, even if only tacitly, that some of his past deeds had indeed caused great unhappiness to the people who were only able to show their resentment in GE 2011?
In the new post-GE 2011 atmosphere of healing and starting afresh, the answer is no longer important. Indeed, it may even be unhelpful, in the light of the new situation that Mr Lee is now in. Almost immediately after GE 2011, he returned with renewed energy and enthusiasm to his role as traveling world consultant and statesman. With his enormous experience and expertise, he will continue to benefit Singapore, but no longer in the old controversial role. If he is clearly putting that part of the past behind him, it would be most unseemly for Singaporeans to continue debating about it. Indeed debate about whether or not he deserves gratitude may even be distasteful to him. Therefore, in recognition of and respect for his new position, the acrimonies surrounding him should be laid to rest once and for all, as part of the closing of the old era, and the welcoming of a new one.
May 31st, 2011 at 11:14 am
For me, I can accept his utter ruthlessness as a politician to secure and hold on to power, but I draw the line at incarcerating someone for decades even when that person no longer poses a danger. That to me crosses the line from ruthless to plain evil.
May 31st, 2011 at 12:13 pm
“He Whose Name Cannot Be Mentioned” or HWNCBM is like Singapore’s very own banyan tree.
Nothing good can grow from underneath its vast canopy. All the sunlight is blocked. Only parasitic plants drawing nutrition directly from the banyan tree will thrive.
Where would Singapore be without HWNCBM? Conversely, where would HWNCBM be without Singapore and a compliant/loyal population?
Bottomline: We are a democracy. We voted for his ideas and his ilk. We deserve what we got.
60% of us still supports PAP. If the 40% disagrees, they’ve got 5 years to persuade the 60% majority.
May 31st, 2011 at 12:19 pm
My biggest worry is that the process of power consolidation at this moment may lead to a new power center.
Though the process appears to be friendly to majority, but the real fact is that more power are consolidated to one pair of hands.
May 31st, 2011 at 1:02 pm
I still cannot forgive him for the draconian “stop-at-two” policy. Our current population decline can be traced to that policy and as a result we have to open the immigration floodgate to admit enormous number of foreigners who will alter our social fabric forever!!!
It is akin to pressing the immigrant reset button just like some PAP supporters who often use the “our fore fathers are once foreigners too” argument!!
My response to that is how many times must we press the reset button?
May 31st, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Delicately balanced presentation and well crafted by an scintillating analyst. The means cannot fully justify the ends in all situations. Can those who were acting under the ethos for over five decades with all its material success make that paradigm shift that reflects the culture of the opposition which was emerged? Can we disown the past and make the U-turn to claim the future? Is there a time for repentance along with the season to celebrate.
May 31st, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Delicately balanced presentation and well crafted by an scintillating analyst. The means cannot fully justify the ends in all situations. Can those who were acting under the ethos for over five decades with all its material success make that paradigm shift that reflects the culture of the opposition which had emerged? Can we disown the past and make the U-turn to claim the future? Is there a time for repentance along with the season to celebrate.
May 31st, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Delicately balanced presentation and well crafted by a scintillating commentator. The means cannot fully justify the ends in all situations. Can those who were acting under the ethos for over five decades with all its material success make that paradigm shift that reflects the culture of the opposition which had emerged? Can we disown the past and make the U-turn to claim the future? Is there a time for repentance along with the season to celebrate.
May 31st, 2011 at 1:16 pm
I still cannot forgive him for the draconian “stop-at-two” policy. Our current population decline can be traced to that policy and as a result we have to open the immigration floodgate to admit enormous number of foreigners who will alter our social fabric forever!!!
It is akin to pressing the immigrant reset button but some PAP supporters like to use the “our fore fathers are once foreigners too” argument to rebut the critics!
My response to that is how many times must we press the reset button? The effect of every reset will last about 100 years, that is, 1 to 2 generation, in order for the new social fabric to form. The next question is do we want the new Singapore?
Two examples come to mind:
1) Indian from India still practice caste system. And they brought it with them now!!! Do you know how long it will take to get rid of it???
2) The current PRCs are Chinese from a communist state. Their upbringing is completely contrary to our!! Some of them enjoy dog meat!
Do you like the new Singapore? I detest it!!
May 31st, 2011 at 1:28 pm
/// Even more traumatizing must be indefinite incarceration, as in the case of Chia Thye Poh who was a prisoner on Sentosa Island for more than 30 years. ///
This sentence is ambiguous. He was imprisoned under ISA on the mainland for 23 years, and subsequently placed under house arrest for another 9 years, part of which was on Sentosa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_Thye_Poh
May 31st, 2011 at 2:47 pm
You highlight only two groups who suffered. There are many more who suffered and continue to suffer.
I will mention just one group. The poor and uneducated have a hard time getting their foreign spouses into Singapore. I am not talking of PR or citizenship. Even social visits are denied. Families were forcefully divided. This has been going on for decades. JBJ spoke on this.
May 31st, 2011 at 3:00 pm
To TWOG
Thanks for drawing my attention to the error. I will have it corrected at once.
May 31st, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I ask this question which is similar to ask whether we should owe LKY anything.
Was it necessary to have Singapore a part of Malaysia? Was it true that Singapore could not go alone without being a part of Malaysia.
We have seen that Singapore survived after ejection from malaysia. We survived because LKY guided Singapore ( if we want to believe all those pro-Singapore arguments). If that was so why did we need to join Malaysia in the first place? The Barisan Socialis and many others who paid the price had said so that we need not join Malaysia and could have survived?
Was it necessary to join Malaysia bcos Singapore was potentially a candidate for a Communist take-over (if we are to believe LKY words)? We jailed the Communist or the Communist sympathizers even after separation and we were successful at the end.
When I use 2 of the above arguments as my perimeters, I begin to see that Singapore joined Malaysia bcos it was the dream of someone to be PM of a bigger Singapore(through Malaysia).
If Singapore was to be the stepping stone for LKY to realise his personal ambition, why should we still believe that without LKY Singapore would be doomed? For this reason we have to “honour” LKY. To me that’s rubbish.
I never found any leader ruling a country for >30 years who can be considered clean and not corrupted. Is Singapore the special case?
May 31st, 2011 at 4:44 pm
When LKY was ruling Sinapore, we were a nation of immigrants determined to make Singapore a good place for themselves and their descendents. Singapore became such a success through their hardwork and respect for order. LKY happened to be the right person for that time because he frowned on corruption and lawlessness. So let us not be hood-winked into thinking LKY is the ONE person responsible for Singapore’s success. Put him as a leader in another country and he WILL fail miserably. Think he can do the same in, say, Indonesia?
May 31st, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Call me a die-hard critic and skeptic…..but unlike you i am not naive about him. When he walks no more on this earth then at last there will be new act and a new page.
May 31st, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Dear Catherine Lim.
I remember at one time in the midst of Tan Wah Piow saga in the mid-70s, students applying to study at the two local universities(University of Singapore and Nanyang University) had to apply for Certificate of Suitability(COS)from then Min. of Interior and Defence before these two universities could process our applications. I was one of those affected.
This is most severe form of restriction in education of our youth. Together with the deliberate move to control growth in tertiary education almost 35 years ago, we are now facing the effects of insufficient talents (even now only 20% of cohort are tertiary educated compared with over 35% in OECD countries). Was LKY afraid of growing educated populace challenging his absolute rule ?
He was right as I understand that the bulk of anti-PAP sentiment in GE2011 can be found in most of our tertiary educated youth and young adults. With a declining old folks who are die-hard PAP supporters, their voting support for LKY can only decline, indeed magnified come GE2016.
Liberal tertiary education in S. Korea(liberated from martial law in 1991), Taiwan(martial law was lifted in 1987) and Hong Kong – 3 of the 4 “Tigers” – had grown these economies way ahead of Singapore in the last 10 years. They achieved economic growth through higher productivity without the need to import foreign “talents” to raise our GDP. They grew their own talents.
This is one price which I like to add to the two you stated we are paying …importing foreign “talent” to grow our economy, the ramifications of which are only too obvious.
William Wong
May 31st, 2011 at 6:00 pm
So what? The guy resigns so let’s all stop talking about all the things he did and move on? This is the dumbest thing you’ve ever written Ms Lim.
May 31st, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Dear Catherine,
Besides the grand notion of him taking responsibility for the poll results, is there not a possibility that he is also using the opportunity to remove all senior leaders (read GCT) that may be perceived to rank above his son, whether in terms of experience, seniority or popularity, in case anyone try and usurp the ‘throne’?
Do you truly believe that after his resignation, he will not try and influence, or at the very least give his views on future policies that the PAP government fomulates? Will he not continue to be relied on for his experience and the respect that his peers in other countries have for him?
If he will not and is truly retiring for a well-deserved rest, then my question is why now? Why not 2 weeks before the GE, since his position as MP is meaningless as he is relying heavily on others (eg. Koo Tsai Kee) to serve his constituents?
If he continuse to be influential, what difference does the resignation make now?
For all his talk about “for the good of the nation”, his resignation is in my opinion an attempt to continue to ensure that real power stays within the family, and that his legacy is lasting, at least until he is laid to rest.
May 31st, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Well, to put it simply, no one’s perfect. Who are we to judge LKY? Will any of us, you and me be able to do what he did and get us to where we are today? You know the answer. Let’s just move on to the new era and stop the finger-pointing. LKY simply did whatever he could at that point in time.
May 31st, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Precisely, Ms Catherine Lim … As per my comment posting as The Pariah on 17 May 2011 at 5:18pm against your originating article posting entitled “The GE 2011 Political Demise of Lee Kuan Yew: A Supreme Irony”:
“For all the pluses that LKY gave Singaporeans, the one major minus in his legacy is the killing of natural opposition as one of the pillars of institutional checks-and-balances that LKY subscribes to almost instinctively.
Somehow, a man so great couldn’t believe that Unity from Diversity is a stronger glue for Singapore’s future.”
If our Founding Father had allowed (or better still, fostered) that natural opposition as an institutional check-and-balance, all those examples of “means” that you cited in this article would have tempered or preempted the ill consequences, where applicable.
By this stage of our nationhood, Singaporeans would have found that greater strength from UNITY IN DIVERSITY.
Instead, we are now saddled with the PAP legacy of UNITY FROM SYCOPHANCY.
Will Singaporeans navigate successfully the risks of a Greater Divide (eg, the Haves vs the Have-Nots, the Young vs the Old, the Native Citizens vs the New Mints, etc)?
Can a PAP legacy of 40-odd years be “TRANSFORMED” (much less “REFORMED”) within the next 2 years, 3 years?
It is not about the occasional operational kop-out.
It is about the underpinning PAP values of: (a) Exploiting the weak, (b) Favouring the strong and (c) Preserving party over country.
Can a leopard change its spots?
If we can’t change a leopard’s spots, we can change a leopard to a lion – “Convert to Subvert”.
What do you think, Ms Catherine Lim?
May 31st, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Catherine, I have always enjoyed reading your lucid writings. But your latest article gives the impression you penned it after attending one of “their” tea parties. Come 2016, you will be the oldest PAP candidate standing for elections!!
May 31st, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Does the end justify the means? Lee Kuan Yew was one who believe that talk of human rights is superfluous on an empty stomach.
May 31st, 2011 at 10:56 pm
“Therefore, in recognition of and respect for his new position, the acrimonies surrounding him should be laid to rest once and for all, as part of the closing of the old era, and the welcoming of a new one.”
Try telling that to those whose lives have been destroyed by incarceration, financial ruin, exile.
May 31st, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Here’s some food for thought. I’m sure I’ll get flamed for this.. but I think we all respect Lincoln, don’t we? You know, the one with the famous line “government of the people by the people for the people”.
In Lincoln’s times, he was far from being a ubiquitously well-respected person. He was a controversial figure in by his own. He had a hardline stance for abolition. There were moderates who were wary of the consequences of his fiery stands. There were hawks who criticised his stand for being still too soft. But to cut the story short, his election to presidency raised enough fears to bring about secession and finally civil war, thanks to his hardliner beliefs.
So, there he was, commander in chief of the north in the civil war – a war that cost many lives on both sides. Nevermind about his stands against slavery, during this war, he had to align and yield to some slave but marginal states for their support.
As we know, towards the end of the war, he was assassinated by a fellow American who sympathised with the south. In fact, there was an alleged attempt even much earlier, just before his inauguration. So you see now, so much our present one-dimensional image of a person so respected by all, isn’t it?
The hypothetical question is – could this destructive conflict’ve been avoided? Could the same ends be achieved with different means? Could there’ve been a more civil approach to bring everyone together? Could peace and time’ve worked to the north’s advantage instead of a hardline approach? Could the moderates’ve prevented the bloodbath? Could the hawks’ve reduced the blood spilled by snipping the bud?
There were detractors. However, those were of his times. Now, these questions are meaningless as we stand. We respect Lincoln for holding his beliefs and doing what he thought was needed of him in those times.
May 31st, 2011 at 11:50 pm
A man like LKY can move a mountain or two on the land, but when faced with the ocean, he cannot shift the seas. His ideologies were harsher than the bitterest of opinions of his foes, but when some hills were levelled in the past to remove opposition to his ideas, such actions are not reversible, and has not been woeful by the man himself. He has made history by possible means, but in the end, when land ends and the oceans arrive, that legacy will become a figment of textbooks.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:30 am
mindsoffire @ 11.50PM marine parade, changi airport, southern islands, etc. were once ocean.
June 1st, 2011 at 6:26 am
Thank you Catherine!
William Wong, I think even now with all the young graduates, there r plenty of opportunities for Singapore to use them and let them grow. The new global world requires our youngsters to think outside the box. Moreover, the new world does not require the constant plug & play cheaper FT but the creative young Singaporeans to work together to achieve a better future for Singapore. I always believe 1+1=whatever we want. Maybe the babyboomer-management needs to let the young ones try more and be more willing to take the extra risks for mistakes: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/its-a-jungle-out-there-and-boomers-bite-hardest-20110525-1f4iv.html
Burk, MOROON!!! Keep your mouth shut!
Mary, no one will say u r a dumb if u just keep ur mouth shut!
Pariah, I like it, change the leopard!
Hi for flaming and .. thought, I wish that u live another 100 years to see a Lincoln equivalent of Lao Lee’s famous line.
June 1st, 2011 at 10:03 am
Without ethics, morals and Heaven, everything goes. Anything is permissible. The powerful prey on the powerless, the strong gobble up the weak, survival of the most ruthless or fittest, the law of the jungle. The end justify the means. Hitler, stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other dictators killed by the millions. Terrorists, Inquisitors, Crusaders, Jihadists justify whatever means in the name of their religions. Idee Fixe or fosilized mindsets within the human minds create all the happenings in the outside world. Change the mindset or exercise a paradigm shift and the whole external world changes. AS WITHIN SO WITHOUT. The external world is an exact image of our thoughts or mindsets
June 1st, 2011 at 10:13 am
I will always be grateful to LKY after excluding all the negatives that had been done to make Singapore what it is today.
What was done was for the greater good of the majority and not for the good of the minority, as much as we try and like to, we can only try to please most but not all. I am sorry if i sound obnoxious but this is life, not some Hollywood movie where saving a single person (even though it will jeopardise the community as a result) will give an end result where the world is saved,all the time, YAY!
The Stop at 2 policy, my mother gave birth to 4 sons, i had seen the astronomical hospital cost for the 3rd and 4th child but i had never encountered the difficulty for my 2 brothers entering kindergarten, primary and secondary schools. But then i was a carefree kid with no worries in the world, maybe my parents hide the difficulties well enough so that their kids need not worry too.
For the people being imprisoned and bankrupted, i see nothing wrong in the actions that was taken, it was a product of turbulent times where most of us now have no experience with. The only one which i am not sure of as being justified are those who were held under ISA under the MARXIST conspiracy in the 80′s. That story as far as i know were not given a proper closing to it’s ending and if they people held were guilty or unjustifiably held.
There are stories of parents migrating to other countries because their kids are pressured by the education system. Well good! for the kids as their parents have the means and resources to migrate but what about those (which i am sure are much more)who doesn’t have the same means? We are stuck here, trying more harder to make something of ourselves here. We who stayed (those who can take the pressure and those who can’t take but can’t afford to migrate) are many times more in numbers that the complainers who pick up and left the land of their births, why must we accomodate the minority and risk holding back the majority? It’s not easy (and i am sorry being obnoxious again) to make all this decisions by the government but the Greater Good comes first.
I currently hate the government for being arrogant in making their policies and not bothering to engage us about it but i am thankful to them for bringing prosperity to Singapore due to that same policies.
I hate the government for bringing way too many Foreign talents to Singapore due to the bad policies (Stop at 2 but mostly now it’s too expenspive to have a kid and not time to raise one) made in the past but these Foreign talents are necessarry to keep the economy chugging along and they too contribute in the consumer spending spreading money around.
I hate the MP’s in my GRC taking us for granted (we being the STRONGHOLD of PAP and also the bad quality of opposition fighting at our GRC)as we looked and compare at other GRC’s (hint: this GRC’s have a big opposition support)that has better facilities and more activities to engage the community but i have nothing to be thankful for them PAP MP’s since we had never elected an opposition to govern us before to compare with.
I hate the government talking us down with regards to our complaints and feedbacks, not knowing truly the situation on the ground before replying back and there is no positive comment for them under this case.
Working in the government is a thankless job (compensated by the pay maybe), trying to please so many people that has different and unrealistic aspirations. I do not envy them doing this job (but sometimes once in a blue i envy their pay)but i still wish them all the luck in the world doing a GOOD JOB to make Singapore great.
And to LKY, even though you may sound obnoxious during the last election (the Aljunied remark)and think that you deserve the multi million pay packet (what you need it for in your old age)and encourage the retirees to continue working and accept a pay cut if needed (easy for you to say since you get a raise instead), i will always be grateful for what you had done to Singapore. You were forceful/rough/combative/blunt when it’s called for. Seriously without you at the pinnacle ably help by your 1st (and maybe 2nd) Gen colleagues, Singapore is not what it is today. To me it’s justified to equate Singapore to you.
June 1st, 2011 at 11:50 am
It must be obvious by now that what LKY did was essentially more to consolidate his own authority and preserve his own self-interests in the name of “doing good for the whole of Singapore”.
Just imagine what has LKY to lose if Chia Thye Poh and so many others were given a fair trial in an open court based on pure evidence alone instead of being detained under such manipulative political tools such as ISA and Marxist communist conspiracry theories bordering on one man’s lone accusations.
I am sure if he had not resorted to such ruthless tactics to deal with his political opponents, he would have equally achieved the same success for Singapore and remained a greatly respectable man now.
June 1st, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Whatever it may be,the Truth will prevail.The adverse or good consequencies of what LKY had done in his political career to the people and his opponents,will affect him later ,not neccessary in this life but the hereafter. You reap what you sow is a universal spiritual law. From a spiritual standpoint,whatever religion it may be,one has to bear the consequences of one’s action; be it good or bad in the after life. Being an agnostic or atheist is irrevelent at this point ,because when death occurs,the spiritual Truth will reveal to the dead. When a person is dead, he cannot bring all his money or love ones with him.What he brings with him will be the deeds whatever good or bad he has committed in his life.
June 1st, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I am neither a detractor or a supporter of LKY. I always believe that at certain point in the evolution of society we require different strategies or policies to survive or spurt growth.
With LKY legacy my misgivings is not so much the cost perse if 1000 going at the sacrifice of 5 perhaps i cannot fault the maths. But the issue is not so much the maths. It is the lack of foresight despite marshalling what he deems as the best and most expensive resources they were not able to understand simple calculations and implications. Take the population policy they should be able to exponentially compute the population at certain point in time and they should have map in the societal changes; the education policy the gestation period and many others.The flipflop of the early and deferred retirement which led to immense consequences and dislocations (Latter of course not entirely due to him)
Question therefore is : Losers all round!
June 1st, 2011 at 4:21 pm
In another 50 years, the history books of Singapore will be rewritten/revised/readjusted/rebalanced by the future generations.
In another 100 years, very few people in Singapore (whether she survived as an independent state or not) will care about what Lee Kuan Yew or the PAP had done for Singapore. Only the causes of the demise of LKY and the PAP will be remembered by our future generations.
A new power centre will emerage in Singapore and this power will take stock of and account for the ills that the PAP and its leadership had inflicted upon the society through its exception-becomes-the-norm unpopular policies (such as the “Stop-at-Two” and the “Economic Progress at All Costs) in order to make redress for the repression, suppression, subjugation and maginalisation.
Only then can Singapore and Singaporeans really move on, not otherwise.
June 1st, 2011 at 4:24 pm
I have just retuened from Hong Kong and I see that HK is comparable if not even better than Singapore.Prior to handling back to China,HK was under British rule and even now China has the policy of one country but two systems. In other words,the people in HK govern themselves. There wasnt a LKY or PAP running HK but it has developed into a finacial hub and certain places like Peking and Shanghai to name a few are comparable if not better than Singapore. Even though it is under Communist rule, there is far greater political freedom there than in Singapore. The HK airport is huge in comparison with Singapore. The fact that one in three Singaporeans would like to emigrate if they could is an indication that Singapore is not a happy place to live in. We spend millions of dollars buying the latest weapons from the US but would any NS really fight for Singapore? In fact Singapore is not defensible and so why spend miilions of dollars as well as wasting time having our young do NS when no-one in the army would be willing to die for the country that they feel doesnt belong to them but to the PAP.
June 1st, 2011 at 11:28 pm
I am sorry that I have to disagree with you Catherine that if he is clearly putting that part of the past behind him, it would be most unseemly for Singaporeans to continue debating about it. Indeed debate about whether or not he deserves gratitude may even be distasteful to him. I dont see him being pensive and going to retirement peacefully without advicing the PM who is his son what to do in the future. In fact he has said that Singapore needs another 900,000 immigrants plus foreign workers. In HK they already have a population of 7 million and the tour guide has said that HK is now overcrowded. HK is a much larger island than Singapore.So I do not see how we can accomodate a population of 7 million people as Singapore is only a tiny dot on the map. A scientist has conducted a trial regarding overcrowding by putting two similar size cages; one with only 5 mice while the other had twenty mice.By taking blood for adrenalin (which is a stress hormone) from the mice in both cages, he found that the ones in the overcrowded cage had a higher level of adrenalin; indicating that overcrowding can be a cause of stress.(admittedly the cause of stress is multifactorial)but overcrwoding is certainly one of the major factor contribuing to stress. The motive behind a open door policy for Tom’Dick and Harry, to migrate to Sinhgapore is political. The PAP hope that diluting the Singaporean population with foreigners irrespective of their qualifications ,will vote for the PAP in the next election.The motive therefore is primarily political; irrespective of the suffering of Singaporeans as a consequence of this; LKY even called his fellow Singaporeans as lazy etc. I therefore wonder if LKY really is serious about the welfare of his fellowmen and to his country. I think that LKY once said that having a 7 million population in Singapore in unsustainable and also not feasable. So why does he mention that he wants another 900,0000 foreigners in Singapore? There are many foreigners who work as clerks,saleman and salewoman,hawker assitants etc besides construction workers.Apart from the lattter, most of the other jobs could be filled by Singaporeans. The goverment alleged that they have created 30,000 jobs in the two casinos.However, most of the jobs in the casinos are filled by foreigners and not Singaporeans. It is ironic that very soon Singapore will have foreigners exceeding Singaporeans who are unable to emigrate.. In the next few elections we could see that there will be PAP candidates who are foreigners. In time to come if the PAP is not overthrown constituionally, Singapore will eventually become a nation of immigrants. Many Singaporeans who are able to emigrate will do so, but for the rest, they will become the minoirty instead of the majority. The PAP and LKY will be responsible for giving the island to foreigners.
June 2nd, 2011 at 1:50 am
don’t worry, any protests to the criticisms of the old lee is just “noise”.
June 2nd, 2011 at 4:48 am
Unfortunately, 60.1% of the population still believe that the wicked deeds which LKY did were “necessary”, and all in the interests of the population. They still do not grasp that the ends which were supposedly justified by the means were all about tightening his grip on power. Don’t believe for a minute that he is retiring. The latest manoeuvres are aimed at removing Goh and his allies so as to clear the way for a dynastic succession and perpetuating a third Lee generation to continue lording it over us.
To swingtime: I second what you say. I also think we owe it to the heroes of a past generation to clear their names, restore their reputations and accord them their rightful place in Singapore’s history and the fight for independence. That can only happen if we do not allow LKY to whitewash history and write it the way the Japanese write about the Nanjing “incident”. That can only happen if we break the PAP’s/Lees’ stranglehold on power in this country.
June 2nd, 2011 at 4:51 am
Unfortunately, 60.1% of the population still believe that the wicked deeds which LKY did were “necessary”, and all in the interests of the population. They still do not grasp that the ends which were supposedly justified by the means were all about tightening his grip on power. Don’t believe for a minute that he is retiring. The latest manoeuvres are aimed at removing Goh and his allies so as to clear the way for a dynastic succession and perpetuating a third Lee generation to continue lording it over us.
To swingtime: I second what you say. I also think we owe it to the heroes of a past generation to clear their names, restore their reputations and accord them their rightful place in Singapore’s history, in the fight for independence and for basic human rights. That would be justice. But that can only happen if we do not allow LKY to whitewash history and write it the way the Japanese write about the Nanjing “incident”. That can only happen if we break the PAP’s/Lees’ stranglehold on power in this country.
June 2nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
I agree with all those assessment that he will continue to weld his power and influence albeit an informal one, through father/son relationship. His resignation is primarily to preserve the party power and longevity. Because he’s still of the view that ONLY PAP knows best and is the better party to govern Singapore. If he is serious about paving way for the natural evolution of singapore’s political scene, he should totally resign from his senior advisor post to GIC. I mean, what EXACTLY does he do /provide in his role to GIC? Why do we need a father/son/daughter-in-law to solely govern our massive reserves? Are we saying there’re no one else who are equally qualified or even better/trustworthy to challenge that status quo even today? Come on, get real. The more reasons why we need a strong, and fiercely independant President who can stand up to the “system/establishment” and give its people back transparency, accountability and civl rights.
June 2nd, 2011 at 1:36 pm
LKY ruled Singapore from 1959 to 1990. As a lawyer, trained in the intricacies of legal aspects, he used Laws to control the Masses – the ISA’s detention without trail and evidence, sure-win law suits to bankruptcy, knuckle-duster in a cul-de-sac, etc.
GCT warmed the PM seat from 1990 to 2004. He had to step down, even though he had expressedly stated in no uncertain terms that he would only hand over PM-ship to LHL in 2007. As a technocrat, trained in Economics, he used “Pricing” to control the Masses. During his tenure, instead of creating more jobs for the people, he lost thousands of jobs because he could not get the MNCs to stay; moreover, many of the local SMCs also closed down.
LHL, trained as a Mathematician, being very calculative, could not wait until 2007, so he elbowed GCY out in 2004. Since From 2004 to 2011, he used mathematical calculations to rule the Masses. So, he could not see the ground shift. His calculative measures backfired and will continue to backfire – e.g. opening of gambling dens of Casinos and Economic Progress at ALL Costs. This is his present legacy and will also be his future.
LHL has been sitting on the PM-ship for 7 years now, yet he could not see it coming. He did not sense the need to reform. He did not reform. But now he is talking about “reform”. (Better change the PAP brand name to the Reform Party lah.)
He not only did not change any of his own father’s past draconian laws and measures but, instead, introduced 19 new laws and amended many others, including the Penal Code, to suppress and depress the people even further.
He tried to be his own man but his father’s bayan tree shadow keeps shading him until the last GE on 7 May 2011. Therefore, he cannot even establish himself in his Premiership.
Being so inefficient and ineffective, he had to have 9 other people (not counting the other Ministers and Ministers of States) to help him carry his Premiership – i.e. 1 MM, 2 SMs, 2 Deputy PMs, 3 Ministers-in-PMO, and the President SR Nathan. Each of these get at least $3,000,000 a year from the people’s tax coffers.
He did not continue with his predecessor’s promises of a “Swiss Standard of Living” and “Gracious Living”, but he wanted us to “Get Together and Move Ahead” but instead we, the majority, had to get together in misery and become slaves to be manipulated, while he and his small group of ivory-tower elitists moved ahead with giving themselves the world’s highest salaries, as politicians. Yet still not sufficient, he had to give 8 months bonus plus a 10-14 months ‘secret’ variable component or performance allowance. That works out to getting 30-34 months pay for works done in 12 months!
His “Economic Progress at ALL Costs” means 3 things:
Open the flood gate for foreigners to come and work in Singapore to provide low cost manpower to foreign MNCs, so as the attract Direct Foreign Investments.
To grow the GDP so that Ministers’ salaries and bonuses and performance allowances, pecked to the highest income of Private Sector and linked to the GDP Growth, will continue to rise higher and higher.
The “ALL Costs”, while on the one hand allows Ministers and CEOs to benifit tremendously, on the other, it creates all sorts of ills for society and make Sinkgaporeans sink deeper into misery and suffering.
Now, at this point in time, based on his own past 7-year performance, if he could not keep his own promises, nor his predecessor’s promises, how then can we trust him again to keep his words?
Can he really reform based on his effectiveness and efficiency? Can he really reform based on his sincerity?
Will he not fail us again?
Or,Is he really reforming or actually Consolidating his Own Power to prepare for one of his own kind to take over the PM-ship in the near future?
Do we want a TOTAL Revamp of the Whole Sickening Elitist System or just cosmetics of “Listening to the People and Consensus” to allow the PAP to hold on to power forever and ever?
June 2nd, 2011 at 1:57 pm
/// Crystal-ball Prophecy June 2nd, 2011 at 1:36 pm
LKY ruled Singapore from 1959 to 1990. As a lawyer, trained in the intricacies of legal aspects, he used Laws to control the Masses – the ISA’s detention without trail and evidence… ///
Crystal – I thought detention without trial is bad enough, but detention without trail – I shudder at the thought of it. At least we know that Nelson Mandela was detained on Robben Island, Chia Thye Poh in Whitley Road Detention Centre and later confined to Sentosa. But to disappear without trail like Amelia Earhart??? Shudder, shudder…..
June 2nd, 2011 at 4:26 pm
For the last 10years, MIW are the only one progressing….! Our people are divided because of them! We were divided into Single vs Married, Landed vs Hardlander, Express vs Normal, English group Vs Chinese group, PAP residents vs opposition party residents etc etc!
As a native single Singaporean, i felt we are the loser and our priority as a citizen fall behind the foreigners and PR.Take the case of HDB flat; Singles are force to buy only resale flat. But why should a local born single Singaporean compete with PR and pay the same price for a resale flat? Due to the stronger S$, PR can any point of time cash out and go back to their country but not us! I am not angry with the PR but on our policy maker.
Below are my observations which i have also written to Dr Tan Cheng Bock on the 23rd May 2011; Dr Tan has not made known his intention to run for President then.
the stall rental has increased from a few hundred dollars a month to a few thousand dollars all in the name of “privatisation”. The government is the only one benefited from this game. It is ridicule that while the ministers continue drawing their high pay and yet increase the rental at the same time asking the hawkers not to increase their selling price!
Few years ago, there was this very elderly (in her 80′s i think) woman on the state financial handout scheme. she has a son (already grown up but some medical condition)to take care. She picked card boards for some extra money. She was prudent and managed to save a couple of hundred dollars in the bank. However, her financial assistance handout was stopped immediately just because she has that few hundred dollars in the bank’s account! I do not understand the logic for that!
At the same time on the other hand, while the majority are facing job cut, high living cost, the same minister was so generous to hand out a lot of money to foreign coaches and players just for winning that table tennis medals. Despite what the newspaper had written, i wondered how many on the ground were really happy and felt proud of having that medal? We were cheering for and very happy when our own local fellow such as Joseline Yeo won the medals but not the others…
Policy changes are as a result to suit the needs of the government and not for the benefits of the majority Singaporean &/or the Country as a whole. The main reason for the high living cost in Singapore is the result of policies introduced by the government to squeeze out every cent to pay their own pocket!
I asked among my friends and nobody seems to know what is the function of our elected president? We perceived him to have a simple and easy job but earning a lot of money in the process! All he does is to shakehands, wave hands, smile at camera, attending gala dinners..that’s all! Did he ever question the government? Unlike Mr Ong TC, this current president is only a Yes man! Do we need to have a President doing nothing but costing a lot of money every month? That money can help many segments of the Singaporean.
Good teachers are transfered from neighbourhood school to teach in the reputable school. Then priority in school given to those who either donate or do voluntaray work in that school. Only the rich benefited from these!
Inspite of the mess and blunders the MIW created, it is very difficult to accept yet they are paying themselves 8 months bonus at the end of the day! Especially for the last 10 years, i think the MIW are the only one progressing….in this Country.
June 3rd, 2011 at 1:41 am
My apologies.
There are some typo errors in my last comment, e.g.
“detention without trail and evidence” should read as “detention without trial and no need for evidence”,
“GCY” should read as “GCT”,
“Since From” should read as “From”.
June 3rd, 2011 at 11:42 am
Thanks for writing again, Catherine.
You are absolutely right that he’s only human and does makes error but he makes no apologies about it and does an excellent/controversial u-turn-the most famous being the ‘Stop at two policy’ When I was in primary school, I remember seeing the posters of two cute little girls sharing an apple under a umbrella-the slogan ‘Two is enough’. The programme was sooo ‘successful’ that in the 80′s, the population is on the the decline and in the 80s, the immediate reversal where graduate woman are enticed to have 3 or more kids much to the chagrin and embarasement of the aforementioned groups. MM has never mentioned this and had not stood corrected. Now, Singapore’s population continues on the downward slide and had to the depend on FT to boost the economy which ironically creates multiple sets of social issues….tsk tsk
June 3rd, 2011 at 1:22 pm
sade marquis – if you think about this stop-at-two policy, it is not really an about turn. The problem is that there’s some eugenic element in it and it was rather sensitive to spell it out then. I can only put it as – it was successful with the wrong target segment. Stop-at-two was observed mainly by those who, according to the government of the day, should be producing more. OTOH, those who should not be producing were still producing 3, 4, 5 or even more children. This policy was later tweaked to ask those “who can afford it” to produce more. Eugenics and race come into play.
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:21 pm
To “stop the debate and move on” and to accept or even believe Lee Kuan Yew has truly decided to call it a day, one of the most important things to do is to start dismantling the Lee dynasty and cronies (loyalists and their children) system. i do not wish to mention names but it is clear to anyone who knows anything about the political scene whom I am referring to. And a more down to earth relook at the totally elitist philosophy of the establishment would go a long to heal this now very divided country.
June 3rd, 2011 at 6:29 pm
“If he is clearly putting that part of the past behind him, it would be most unseemly for Singaporeans to continue debating about it. Indeed debate about whether or not he deserves gratitude may even be distasteful to him. Therefore, in recognition of and respect for his new position, the acrimonies surrounding him should be laid to rest once and for all, as part of the closing of the old era, and the welcoming of a new one.”
I wonder if they can be so easily laid to rest when there is one set of “truths” proclaimed in the MSM and taught in schools while another set of “truths” have no rights to be heard. This can only lead to a divided nation. We need a “Truth and reconciliation commission” and healing to progress. Hope remaking is not just about a fresh coat of paint on the outside but inner healing for the nation.
June 4th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
In the context of those years, there’s nothing wrong with the “stop at two policy”. If the population growth is faster than the economy can keep up, the result will be widespread poverty.
June 4th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
The current problem of greying population and slow growth is not the result of “stop at two”. It’s a common problem in the world’s cities.
June 6th, 2011 at 11:01 am
For those who still want to deny our population problem is the result of the stop-at-two policy, i would like to bring your attention to the following study:
http://countrystudies.us/singapore/14.htm
by
Barbara Leitch Lepoer, ed. Singapore: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989
June 6th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Catherine please go home. The Obedient Wives Club need you back home. Please, you have caused enough mayhem here since we took you in.
June 6th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
@Ram,
If you are unable to stage a rebuttal then I suggest you shut up!!! You have no right to ask anybody to go home!!!
June 6th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
@Michael,
Did Barbara say how much is due to policy, how much is due to social trends of urbanisation and affluence? Is it 5% or 95%? Is it more than 50%? She didn’t and can’t give any figure. You also can’t.
On the other hand, all cities around the world are facing the same issues, regardless of their policies or lack thereof, whether it’s pro or against birth control.
It’s clear what is the biggest ultimate influence that’s proven everywhere else in the world under all sorts of conditions.
June 6th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
@Potong Pasiris,
No, I can’t. But it is obvious that right from the onset of the “disincentives”, Singapore’s population growth fall from +ve to below replacement in a SHORT span of time in the 70s!
June 6th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
“Between 1969 and 1972, a set of policies known as “population disincentives” were instituted to raise the costs of bearing third, fourth, and subsequent children.”
“Fertility declined throughout the 1970s, reaching the replacement level of 1.006 in 1975, and thereafter declining below that level.”
Now, that’s how short it is!! Natural??? You tell me!!!
June 6th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Initially, we only have 1 variable to work with, i.e. economy progress. The gov added another variable “disincentives”. Both works in the same direction. At the very least, the “disincentives” would have hasten/accelerated/”fill in yourself description” the process if it is left alone.
At the very least, it is always easier to solve a single variable problem than a two variables problem.
We would have more time to solve our population problem if it is not accelerated!!!! We would not have to resort to such drastic action as taken by the gov to liberalise our immigration policy and in such a hurry!!
June 6th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
BTW, I find it disheartening that I have to provide the proof to link singapore’s population decline with the social engineering and yet those opposition camp(pro-pap) don’t have to provide any proof to delink them!! They just say “no”!!
I will no longer response if there is no proof otherwise!!!
And btw, “birth control”, besides PRC, which democratic countries do this:
“Civil servants received no paid maternity leave for third and subsequent children; maternity hospitals charged progressively higher fees for each additional birth; and income tax deductions for all but the first two children were eliminated. Large families received no extra consideration in public housing assignments, and top priority in the competition for enrollment in the most desirable primary schools was given to only children and to children whose parents had been sterilized before the age of forty. Voluntary sterilization was rewarded by seven days of paid sick leave and by priority in the allocation of such public goods as housing and education.”
Birth Control, indeed!
I don’t know what to say!!!
June 6th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
@Michael,
Ok, let’s see India for how economic growth will “slowly but surely” (as your assumption says) take care of population growth. Or maybe population growth will swamp out economic growth?
By the way, how sure is Barbara (or you??) that the 1970-1975 decrease in rate was due largely to policies or the socio-economic changes starting in the 60s? Is it 50% or 5% influence? Barbara said nothing.
Singapore is one of the fastest growing economies in the world at that time. Mind you, it took less than two generations to reach near full employment and full housing ownership.
All other cities face the same problem now, whether they practice birth control or not. Are they having an easier time and easier solutions since they “have only 1-variable to work with”?
June 6th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
I am speechless to dwell on 5%, 50%, 95% for social manipulation!!
Good luck to PAP’s reform!
Bye!!
Speechless!
ooh, I shouldn’t have reply!! Slap myself. I promise this will be the last!
June 6th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
I think I want to slap myself twice but I am curious.
Is there any social engineering specialist who can enlighten me on how to calculate a policy influence on society using a mathematical formula? How do you derive such a formula?
I am just curious!
June 6th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
eh, Michael, u can reply to my post.
I thought PAP moles will only stake out in websites like TR. Dinno there’s so many PAP Moles here.
Dun waste your breath lah. Toking to them is Sai Hei (Cantonese for waste of time).
They’ll just argue til the cows come home.
June 6th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
@Michael, the two are interdependent so it’s immeasurable. Nobody definitely ascertain that population control didn’t play a part in maximising the benefits of economic progress and economic progress chugged along better with population control. It’s dicey to pinpoint one specific policy as the culprit. Nobody can conclude that, except when used as a political point.
@Sade, polarisation. Never the twain shall meet. Either you’re with us or you’re with them. In between, it’s no man’s land. Huh?
June 7th, 2011 at 10:19 am
@sade marquis,
Don’t worry, pap moles has distinct traits — they like to score their own goal!!!
Did you see his last reply? He think it is immeasurable!!! Then how come he question Barbara regarding the % of linkage?? Isn’t that stupid??
Speechless but very funny nevertheless!
June 7th, 2011 at 11:59 am
@Michael,
Ok, I let you win. The problem is 100% due to the policy and 0% due to social changes. Better?
That’s the problem with Sade and you guys. Blatant bias.
June 7th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Score own goal again! After being criticised for scoring own goal, you simply show that you are really true to your color and trait, by stupidly scoring own goal again!
“I let you win”, this is what a child would resort to when he loses an argument or a game. Similar to Tin Pei Ling stomping her feet ….. Hahahaha …
Come on, grow up lah.
June 7th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
The Singapore Story… I’ve lived through it all.
As a product of Empire, I enjoyed many freebies like education and healthcare under the Brits. It was the 50s, and there was rampant corruption, vice and poverty, and an undercurrent of discontent.
When the PAP came into my consciousness, I was a teenager, a rebel of sorts, all fired up by the buzzword of the day: Merdeka! In LKY I saw a charismatic leader, and he proved his mettle when Singapore was granted independence.
First there was the drive to root out corruption and it has been a resounding success in both the public and private sectors.
Then the grand design to build a better Singapore with affordable housing, jobs for everyone and to redress overpopulation with family planning.Through the years, I could see the changes and benefits of these initiatives.
From zinc-roofed dwelling, my family progressed through 2-room, 4-room and 5-room flats, all at affordable prices. In the early years, the jobless were pressed into “Works Brigades” to tackle public projects and barracked in unopened schools, complete with flag raising and lowering ceremonies. I lived next to one such facility that helped keep the restive unemployed off the streets. On family planning, I was pre-sold on “Stopping at Two” as I had observed the hardships of my parents in providing for a large brood.
Things began to unravel around the 1980s with the promotion of the “Swiss standard of living by the year 2000.” This well-intentioned program to raise living standards through skills upgrading and high wages, culminating in the recent push for high GDP and the influx of FT, has led to the current high cost of living in a first world city, and a yawning income gap. It is the plight of the “left behind” folks who have raised the ire of concerned citizens. What went wrong and what can be done would continue to be the subject of endless debate.
What I’ve witnessed are the before and after of the PAP, and its past is very different from its present. As for its transformation, only time will tell.
June 8th, 2011 at 12:03 am
@Potong Aljunied, the world can be square as you like, if you think that discredits the PAP. Can? Better? More soothing on your ego and pride?
I’m not here to turn you or convince you really. I’m just putting down what I think is more balanced and justifiable.
I’m certainly not here for a shouting match. So, own goal, whatever goal. I lose, you win. It’s fine whatever assessment you want to make. But I’d advise you to be less judgemental about those who say something different from yourself as though they’re your enemies.
Ok, it’s really up to others to decide what’s more balanced and what’s more biased.
June 8th, 2011 at 12:13 am
@ Michael,
Eh, we are not bloody bias man!
It is just that in the past there was only ONE Voice. THE WORD Of a certain brand of chocolate (that melts in your mouth) was taken as the TRUTH and NOBODY dared challenge him. Everything that he said was published by the mainstream media and repeated AD Nauseam until the people believed it is true.
The fact that I grew up in that era and I must say that I do not quite fit into the masses and I do question status quo and challenge the authorities even while I was in the civil service.
What we are fighting for is FREE SPEECH-which is suppose to be the birthright of every citizen in a FREE COUNTRY.
Take for example Hongkong. Despite the fact that everyone is fighting for their own survival and working hard to eke out a living, Hongkongers will take time off from their jobs to fight for causes close to their hearts-like the minimum wage for daily-rated workers.
As I see it, we have taken the first baby steps towards active citzenry!
June 8th, 2011 at 12:15 am
sorry, my post was directed to Potong Pasiris and not Michael.
It was an honest mistake…
June 8th, 2011 at 12:17 am
I concur. Active citizenry is the right path as this is our home! We are responsible for her success and failure!
June 8th, 2011 at 1:03 am
@Sade,
You’ve very elegant and noble ideas, but try not to incite your civil protests into a lynching party on a “mole” for just saying what he thinks is fair. That’s unbecoming of someone fighting for free speech.
June 8th, 2011 at 1:07 am
I think the debate on the “stop-at-two” policy is very important because if you recognize that the policy has indeed hasten/accelerated the population decline then I believe the solution to our current problem is in this history!
As Barbara mentioned in her study, the “stop-at-two” policy has the same effect as the natural social progress. And it is also clear that the current policy to encourage more birth is not working as it is mild and it is working against a tide!
As such, I believe the solution is to enact new policy that have to be more intense than the “stop-at-two” policy to reverse the direction! Besides “sweets”, we could also include disincentives to family having less than two children!
This is just a thought but I thought that if you want to go against a tide then it better be intense else any mild effort would be futile!
I know two wrongs do not make a right but if our population growth is not reverse the result could be disastrous! Singapore might not be a viable country as our population would eventually die off or we have to admit so many foreigners that we might as well convert Singapore into a company instead!
June 9th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Catherine, You are amazing. You deserved sainthood.
I wish to repeat on this closing on LKY:
“Therefore, in recognition of and respect for his new position, the acrimonies surrounding him should be laid to rest once and for all, as part of the closing of the old era, and the welcoming of a new one.”
My “back-breaking” bow in respect.
June 10th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Whether intentions and agendas were good or bad at the beginning, whether they changed on route, whether they are relevant or not today, this video, to me, says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpQCT8h9mzk
June 10th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Hi Dr Catherine Lim, you have done it again. Keep up your valuable contributions to the society. You have opened up many minds and eyes but there will always be some who will cast aspersions on your abilities. Just ignore these fools. LKY was part of Singapore for the past 52 years and yet continues to be the Member of Parliament. No one should write him off. Till the day he was completely devoid of any political representation in Singapore, the people of Singapore will continue their comments on him. I won’t be surprised if the discussion continues even after that as thousands of people have been affected by his arrogant and authoritarian rule. The sensible thing he should have done was to step down when he made his son LHL as the prime minister of Singapore. I sincerely believe LHL would have made a better Prime Minister if he was left alone to rule Singapore instead of the two former Prime Ministers breathing on his neck and stifling him from doing his job. It showed the extent of LKY’s greed to hold on to the power despite the fact that his son was in charge. He doesn’t trust anyone. But due credit must be given for his earlier vast contributions which have led to the success story of Singapore. If we don’t do that, we will be accused of being an ungrateful lot without due appreciation for his past contributions. So, I salute him for his earlier contributions and now let me dwell on how he had manipulated his own comrades of arm who had withstood the many adversaries in their time to protect and support him to be the first prime minister of Singapore. In the earlier days, it was trade unionists like Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, James Puthuchery, Dominic Puthuchery, Sydney Woodhull, Jamit Singh, Devan Nair, S T Bani, Chia Thye Poh, Kuo Pao Kun and many others who played a pivotal role in paving the way for LKY to attain the ultimate goal of capturing the power from the then Labour Front government headed by the first chief minister of Singapore Mr David Marshall (later replaced by Lim Yew Hock). I have to mention all these names because most of the younger generation of today may not even know there were chief ministers before the self government rule was introduced in 1959. David Marshall and to a greater extent Lim Yew Hock was instrumental in negotiating with the British government to agree to the Self-Government concept for Singapore? LKY was lucky in that he was at the right place at the right time and grabbed the opportunity to manipulate all his comrades at arm at that time. And once he had achieved his goal he found ways to dump all of them and branded them as leftists. They may have been left wing activists with the rise of anti-colonial and nationalist sentiments, working against the British and it was easy to brand them as communists by the British. So, the term got stuck with these patriotic activists. Is it fair to condemn and jail them, taking into consideration of their past services to the nation? We must be magnanimous in forgiving them, if they have strayed, but due recognition must be given for their struggle against the British. Who knows, without them, we would not have LKY in the limelight. It is not fair to call LKY as the founding father of modern Singapore. This would be disrespectful to Sir Stamford Raffles, as we had already acknowledged him to be the rightful owner of this title as he was instrumental in finding the modern Singapore and the architect of its many early achievements including the status of free port, which was the chief reason Singapore prosper in the early days. We do not want to rewrite history for convenience sake. (http://countrystudies.us/singapore/4.htm). So, we have to find a new title befitting LKY’s contributions to later Singapore after the British rule. Perhaps, the Father of Ultra Modern Singapore would be apt in my opinion. I beg to stand corrected. The PAP of earlier years was one which gave its ministers and other office holders freedom of thoughts and implementation of policies. Every office holders were the founder members of PAP, thus, every individual has his own standing in the party which resulted in implementing the individual minister’s policy. Like the great visionary Dr Goh Keng Swee who was appointed as the new Minister of Finance, whose strategy was to encourage foreign and local investment using a wide variety of measures, ranging from low tax rates and tax holidays to the establishment of a new industrial estate in the Jurong area. He was responsible in turning the economy of Singapore and making it a successful one. Together with his able economic adviser Dr Albert Winsemius from Germany, he was the true architect of the economic success of Singapore and not LKY. The other important ministers who played very heavy responsibilities in shaping the success for the ultra modern Singapore were: S Rajaratnam (Culture & Foreign), Toh Chin Chye (Deputy Prime Minister), Ong Pang Boon (Home Affairs & Education), Ong Eng Guan (National Development), Ahmad Ibrahim (Labour) and others. LKY was only the captain of a football team (a very good one at that, I must admit) which consists of other important players, without whom the team could not have scored. Yes, when the team wins in the final, the captain was privileged to receive the trophy on behalf of the team. But he can’t claim that he was the sole person responsible for winning the cup. SAN
June 10th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Dear Dr Lim, It seems that even in your website you cannot remain impartial. You have to be either an Anti-LKY or a pro-LKY. Judging by the comments here, any attempt to neutralise LKY in the slightest way would be deemed as a pro-PAP rant. Singapore is now more polarised than ever, we will never be the same again.
June 10th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
To PaulPeters, I see that you have read the book by our greatest “admirer” Dr Mahathir. Lets go back in history now.. when we were begging to merge with Malaysia, Singapore was one of the poorest nations in Asia, or according to Dr Albert Weiss., the country that seemed destined to go to the dump. This is a fact, no one could have expected in their wildest dreams that we’ll end up where we are today. Our only hope back then was to merge with a larger population, i.e Malaysia, in the face of the CONFRONTASI threat by Indonesia, and a non-existent economy. Now, I’m not a pro-LKY or anti-LKY supporter, but this was how it was back then. I do not know whether LKY really wanted to be ruler of the Malayan pennisula or not but thank god they kicked us out. Do try to have a more open mind in things, and seriously…Dr Mahathir is a really sad, old man.
paul peters May 31st, 2011 at 4:20 pm I ask this question which is similar to ask whether we should owe LKY anything.
Was it necessary to have Singapore a part of Malaysia? Was it true that Singapore could not go alone without being a part of Malaysia…..
June 11th, 2011 at 12:01 am
Dear Catherine,
There seems to be many aspects to you at least on this subject matter. I choose to see you in the interview you gave to Crispina Robert (ST 29 May 2011) http://heresthenews.blogspot.com/2011/05/i-have-loved-and-lived.html
I thought you were most gracious in that article. And as you commented in your earlier post, in private informal discussion, one can tone down the “portentous, baleful terms” and speak with greater humanity. (Though I would ask, why can’t we speak with humanity even in public announcements and statement? We do not have to be the product of the arrogant PAP, no?)
But whatever your views of Lee Kwan Yew the person, it is your narrative of history that I find disappointing, specifically the three classes of victims you identified: the victims of the family planning policy, the political dissidents, and the victims of the mother tongue policy (which specifically means Chinese).
I am reminded of the time I read some misguided feminist’s literature that condemned the views, policies, and politics of “Dead, White Men” of the 19th century, and excoriated them for being conservative and for not treating women as equals.
What was missing from the feminists’ assessment of those “Dead, White Men” and your assessment of the not-yet-dead Lee Kwan Yew is the historical context.
Certainly, from the vantage of today with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, with the declining fertility rate one can clearly see the stupidity and redundancy of the family planning policy of the 1970s. But what did people see then?
The early 70s were fragile years. The British had pulled out. Malaysia was still waiting for us to fail and go crawling back to the federation, on their terms. And we were still developing and establishing our industries and economy. We were self-sufficient in neither food nor water. And the post-war baby boom years had only just ended.
And the lessons of history is that poor, impoverished countries become poorer and even more impoverished as population exploded uncontrollably.
The protests (silent or otherwise) against the family planning policy were based on stark principles. (The right to breed like rabbits?) No one had the foresight nor the clairvoyance to say, this is stupid. We don’t need the family planning policy. Most people are choosing of their own accord to stop at two. Some (even then) don’t even start. In 10 years or so, we are going to see a problem of not enough babies.
Of course, if there was such a clairvoyant, he might have been ignored anyway.
With all the evidence available to the policy makers then, they made policies as they understood the situation and the consequences then.
[Even so, my sister, the fourth child was born in 1971 and my father paid dearly for the maternity and other charges. He did so with all the equanimity his faith could give him. "Render to Caesar..." he said.]
You mentioned Chia Thye Poh so to recap, he was a Barisan Socialis MP. He quit parliament together with the other BS MPs with the objective of “extra-parliamentary” struggle against the ruling party. The BS MPs were arrested under the ISA, and all the rest were released when they agreed to renounce violence and sever all links with the communists. Chia refused on principle that the agreement was tantamount to an admission of guilt.
But everyone else ditched their principle and got on with their lives. Apparently Chia didn’t get the memo. He didn’t even seek to challenge the reason for his detention before the ISA advisory board. Principle. Pride. Ego. Whatever.
As for the other “dissidents”, they ranged from opposition members who were sued again and again (e.g. J.B.J. & Chee Soon Juan), usually for making spurious accusations they could not prove (and based on the many ridiculous online comments I’ve read, they should be elected MPs because they represent a large segment of Singaporeans); to those who self-exile (i.e. run away).
The first category has already been defended by the PAP. The best evidence that the PAP will play fair if the opposition plays fair (in terms of slander) is Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang. They have never made slanderous accusations, and they have never been sued.
As for the self-exiled, I read the chapter in Subhas Anandas book on Francis Seow. I don’t have the book with me for reference, so this is what I remember in a nutshell: Seow lied to put Lee Kwan Yew in a spot, and when push came to shove, he ran instead of fighting. Mr Anandas expressed disappointment in him.
Of course we cannot generalise to all the self-exiled. Just as no two dissidents may have the same motivations, neither are all dissidents in the same category. So while all may have suffered, I am not sure that all had no cause to suffer. Or that all had injustices done to them.
So I will leave it at that.
My point, and I do have one, is that what motivations does one ascribe to the PAP and to Lee Kwan Yew?
Do we believe that the stop-at-two policy was a policy against one’s natural rights to procreate? To what end? Was the mother tongue policy a means to torture children? To what end?
Again, as an aside, I was one of those victims who had not passed Mandarin since Primary 6, so I have reasons to be as aggrieved as any other victim of the mother tongue policy. But I am not.
Perhaps I would have done better in Mandarin with a more flexible approach such as the ones now introduced. If so, I blame not Lee Kwan Yew, the PAP, or MOE. I would sooner blame the teachers, & the Chinese language and culture chauvinists. I do not believe a more flexible approach to teaching Chinese could have been implemented at that time. The Chinese language teachers would have protested, and walked out. Even recently, when Ng Eng Hen said that Chinese language weightage in the exam might be lowered, there was a big protest and near revolt by the Chinese-speaking community, if not just the Chinese language teachers.
Culture and chauvinism are still strong political elements. Why is it that even now after so many years, there are no Malay-language SAP schools? (Okay, not a fair question.)
To return to my point. One may disagree with Lee’s decision, often with the clarity of hindsight, but often without the understanding of the context, concerns, and constraints of the times, or the zeitgeist of the times. But his choices has always been for the good of Singapore. To explain what we do not understand, we ascribe less than noble intent and motivations. We assume petty human foibles where there were none. Or shortsightedness when it is the simple lack of clairvoyance.
Or as Lee has put it many times. We do not understand or remember the historical context of the decisions made. We stand in the clinically safe present and pass judgement on choices made historically, in the miasma of doubt, uncertainty, and limited knowledge.
I do not expect anyone to think him a saint. Brilliant tho he may be, he is neither perfect nor infallible. But he is not evil. And that is where I disagree with your pronouncement of his “ignoble means”, his “blackest, vilest measure” by reason of a “flaw in leadership”.
That is a pronouncement of judgement that no one has a right to call upon him without a demonstration of an understanding and consideration of the historical context.
June 11th, 2011 at 12:27 am
Reply to Josh T (June 10, 2011 8:06 pm):
Singapore was never one of the poorest nation in Asia. As a bastion of the British Empire it was the Rome of its day in the Far East, attracting fortune seekers from all around the region. In the sunset years of the empire, Singapore still possessed the greatest seaport and naval base in the region, a thriving entrepot trade, and was the trading hub for tin, rubber and other commodities. What it lacked then, and now, were natural resources. So it was predicted that because of this, Singapore would not survive without joining a bigger entity like Malaysia.
However by imitating Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong in attracting foreign investment by MNCs, Singapore prospered against all odds. In addition Singapore is blessed with the advantage of geography, straddling the sea and air routes, and these were to underpin the development of the economy when the Brits departed.
One thing the government failed to do was to actively develop local enterprise, unlike Taiwan and South Korea, but that is another story.
June 11th, 2011 at 7:50 am
Lest we forget, We the Citizens of Singapore, had a choice to vote and run for Parliament, and only in the very recent election, chose overwhelmly the incumbent party policies which enabled many to lead the very lifestyles which have enticed others to do likewise.
Respect the results.
Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, Mah Bow Tan and Wong Kan Seng are no longer in the cabinet (incl S Jeyakumar and Lim Boon Heng who wisely chose not to run). The PM has given more responsibility to the highly respected ‘Super’ Tharman. Low Thia Khiang has shown his organizational ability to attract capable candidates to stand and win with the Workers Party, and show what they can contribute.
There will always be ‘casualties of war’ in any society, and I do hope we continue to work together to move the country forward.
June 11th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
What would Low Thia Kiang do with Chia Thye Poh if he were in LKY’s situation in those times? the communist averse Brits were still around, at least militarily; secret societies were still powerful; agitators: people who prefer to work up the crowd, for labor or political reasons whatsoever, were still active. Having no natural resources, Singapore needed to stabilized quickly, to draw investors. What would LTK do to bring the situation under control quickly. People were different then. The situation was also different. It’s no mean feat.
June 11th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Tan Choon Hong,
That’s warped reasoning. You speak like Singapore will inevitably succeed because of its “best” location. Is there such a thing as “best” location? There’s no such thing.
In this way, not only are you trivialising the contribution of the government, you’ve also diminished the hardwork and determination of the people our government has been leading. If the government didn’t have the foresight as it did, we may end up a corrupted and inefficient backward city with more poverty and less education, even though the trade ships still stop over.
In any case, it’s absolutely wrong to imagine Singapore has the “best” optimal position. There’s no such thing as a incomparably best port location. Some hours along the Malaysian peninsula or towards Sumatra or Batam makes no difference to ships. Actually, Singapore has no natural advantage except being first mover historically. There are many large ports around Singapore in Malaysia and Indonesia. In fact, the nearest port is just next door in Johor. We’ve lost big shippers next door, remember?
June 11th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Tan Choon Hong,
By the way, the British didn’t leave Singapore with a thriving city. The British left a port city true. But it was teeming with disparate groups in poverty, corruption and little education. A large part of the GDP depended directly on the British who was leaving and resulting in more unemployment. The communists were in town and also moving in from the north. It was a bleak dark world then. It was very far from the rosy picture you’re trying to paint.
June 13th, 2011 at 2:05 am
Hitler never thought he was evil and neither did his supporters.
In his small selfish little megalomaniac unloved world, he was only doing good for his nation.
But in reality, it was all for himself.
We must bear in mind, the Nazis view the Jews as inferior non Aryan stock in the same manner that people here have been labelled daft and etc.
Despite widespread coverage of the atrocities, there are still many youths adoring Nazism just as the well established facts about our very own dictator fall on deaf ears on the impressionable.
June 13th, 2011 at 9:12 am
Min thang, the comparison you use is highly exaggerated, and disproportionate, unless you could show proof of killing fields or unmarked graves in Singapore, because that’s what the Nazi left behind. I know you are desperate to proof a paint a picture, but it is better for your standing if you can use a more appropriate example.