From CNN:
More at the link.
Over the years, I’ve occasionally referred to him as an autocrat. But not having read a whole lot about him (partly because no full-length biography seems to yet exist), I’m not 100 percent sure that’s fair.
Is it Lee’s fault that Singapore is a near-one-party state?
What’s the best thing he did? And the worst?
I guess that some will point to illiberal policies like the death penalty and caning. Is that his fault? And if it is, is it fair to expect every country to have the values of western European liberalism?
Perhaps the big decline in ethnic riots since the 1960’s show that the governance model Lee championed was more or less that what Singaporeans needed. Or perhaps that’s nonsense.
Does this show he was way off base all along, or should the gaffes of recent years be ignored as coming from an elderly man starting to lose touch?
I have strong opinions on a lot, but here I’m uncertain.
Off base on what?
He was the leader that Singapore needed at the time where Singapore needed it. His policies may not be what Singapore needs now. For his dealing with Singapore in a time of communism, racial riots, survival in a hostile neighbourhood, I begrudge him no honours.
I was born after his firebrand days (I barely remember him passing power to Goh Chok Tong; I was in primary school then), so I’m no authority, but the best thing he did, IMO, was to focus on racial integration. Keep in mind that the British ruled by segregation - the Malays, Chinese, Indians and Europeans were segregated into enclaves, and within the ethnic groups they empowered “chiefs” to deal with matters. I believe it would have resulted in an existential threat to society, as well as opened the door to corruption and conflict. For a case study, compare with Malaysia, who had very similar origins but never had the policy of racial and religious integration.
As for the worst… probably population control. Singapore has one of the lowest birth rates in the world now, and I don’t know if LKY had anything to do with it, but his government was all over the map with regards to population.
He did his part for the nation, and I’m glad I was born into a Singapore that had him, but he’s not been relevant for a long time now. Still sad to see him go.
His was another case of “Only Nixon Could Go to China.” His policies spurred Singapore on the path to prosperity through such socialistic (or otherwise statist) things as getting people out of the slums and into high-quality public housing. His government got away with all of that and more without provoking Washington, because he was impossible to Red-bait. Such was the story of all of the Asian Tigers, including Hong Kong and Macau, in their own way.
Such was not the case for nearly all of Latin America, and Iran, and Congo/Zaire, and…
Is this the biggest part of what Lee and his party did for racial integration, or is something else more important?
(Background is that 82 percent of Singapore residents live in public housing.)
That, as well as the Group Representation Constituency policy for electing MPs. Group representation constituency - Wikipedia
This basically ensures that certain seats in Parliament must be held by racial minorities in Singapore. It has been criticised as favoring the ruling party, but I think the base idea is sound. Besides, one of the opposition parties managed to win a GRC just last election, so it’s not like GRCs inherently shut out the opposition. When the opposition gets good enough to win a GRC, then they should win them.
I think this articledescribes the pros and cons of Lee’s rule of Singapore really well.
In short, LKY was a pragmatist. Be it free speech, education, labour movement, religion or even chewing gum as long as it stands in the way of Singapore’s survival, it is thrown out. The media was state controlled, dissidents were suppressed and policies were crafted to ensure that Singapore would be an economic powerhouse. The end justifies the means indeed.
Racial integration was a big thing for LKY (and Singapore). According to the official history text, communists would often use the race card to provoke riots and violence. Even now Singapore is still really sensitive to this. We had a riot just last year, the very first after decades, and everyone was on tip-toes. It doesn’t help that for Singapore’s case, there are primarily countries which are primarily Malay - Malaysia and Indonesia.
Other intrusive policies include education. I remembered my grandfather telling me how Mandarin schools were shutting down as the government insisted all primary and secondary school education to be conducted in English, except for our Mother Tongue subjects. This was important, as the rest of the world was using English as the lingua franca. I still remembered being punished if I utter anything in Mandarin (usually a scolding, or demerit point, or being ordered to stand outside the classroom).
Likewise, before that, the government under LKY banned all Chinese dialects from public broadcasts, insisting o the use of Mandarin.
The irony is that now we have a significant portion of our Chinese youngsters aren’t really good at Chinese, and can’t speak Mandarin really well. The government was back-pedalling on their stance about Chinese/Mandarin due to the advent of China. I have no idea how that is handled now in schools.
There are also lots of bans and fines and corporal punishments. Singapore was a fine city indeed. If you were caught littering, you have to wear the Orange Vest of Shame and spend a couple of hours cleaning up the streets. I need not talk much about Michael Fay.
The crux is, end of the day, LKY was a firm believer in Confucianism, where the well-being of family requires sacrifice on the part of each family member, and the well-being of the country requires sacrifice on the part of each family. It worked for LKY because, despite being a modern Qin Shihaung, was genuinely (I believe) concerned for the country.
Except for 3000 plus pages across the three volumes of his memoirs, and the three or four books he’s penned since,
Not to mention the book from Singapore’s state newspaper about him, the book of photographs, the coffee table book about his policies
there is a huge amount written about the man.
Yes
Binlingual policy for Singapore, medium of instruction as english
Law and order
Worst - depends on your point of view.
yes - read his speeches - he wanted to be feared, read what he said about urinating in lifts, read what he said about meeting people in a dark alley with a hatchet
the ethnic riots were not all they seemed - they had as much to do about religion, about deliberatly inflammatory (and inaccurate reporting) as anything else.
they were a one off, there were not “a series of ethnic riots” in Singapore
having said all of this - what’s happening here in singapore to me is kinda surreal - the outpouring of grief is incredible
His city state, with no natural resources, runs at a surplus, almost always has. Four official languages and ethnicities, happy together. They are only a couple of years from being water independent, no longer relying on Malaysia and the causeway water line. By building reservoirs,(beautiful and on a tiny island not an easy thing!), and developing cutting edge technology.
You may be unaware but just before the British abandoned S’pore to its fate, as the Japanese advanced, they destroyed every factory, and hospital, the only source of fresh water, basically everything that would keep people alive, before jumping on a boat to Australia. An entire generation grew up without grandparents, a big deal in an Asian society! Dead not just from treatment by the Japanese, but by the ruthlessness of the colonial masters who blew up everything with no regard to their suffering.
The island was destroyed, families were destroyed, nothing was left standing. What this man accomplished, in his time, was nothing short of astounding, by any measure. In 50 yrs they became the Tiger economy of SE Asia. Filled with happy, safe, well educated, well fed and housed citizens. He kept getting reelected because the citizens could see measurable improvement in their country and their lives, every term! He really could lead, when he said ‘eat more brown rice!’, they did, ‘speak more Mandarin!’, they did.
The BBC had a collection of comments from world econimists on his feats, yesterday, it was quite a read.
Remarkable man, amazing legacy.
I don’t want to detract from what he has achieved - which is much.
I also see though, a lot of propaganda in what you’re saying.
Here’s a question for you - what natural resources does Hong Kong have? (and what resources did they have pre-handover?)
Singapore is one of the best ports in the region - and it always was.
Prior to self govt, then merger and separation, Singapore was already a thriving entrepot port, with good (relatively speaking) rule of law, good infrastructure, an (again relatively speaking) educated work force, and also - it did well from immigration of particularly hardy and entrepreneurial grade of immigrant.
Throughout the history of Singapore it was a sought after jewel - and it a desirable port.
Very few could have done what LKY did,
But I would also like to pay tribute to two other things
a) Singapore wasn’t a total swamp prior to his election
b) He had a visionary team around him that also created and implemented some of the policies that are responsible for Singapore’s success - he may have been the sales person of some of these policies, but he wasn’t always the architect
There is no right and wrong, of course, and I respect your opinion. But Hong Kong is twice the size, has huge manufacturing and fisheries sectors. And, a resource that can never be overstated, access to fresh water. I encourage you to seek photos of what Hong Kong looked like at the close of the war compaired to photos of Singapore. It is a striking contrast.
Say what you will, it takes a boatload of good governance to shepherd your country from that moment in time, to where S’pore stands in the world today. No government is without flaws, of course. No system is perfect. But his way seems to have been a great fit for this society, through these times. He deserves all the praise he’s receiving, I feel.
Yes…LKY was unique. He did what quite possibly no one else could. I just get peeved that the contributions of the great men around him seem to be forgotten.
And that Singapore is portrayed as a total backwater. It wasn’t without its advantages.
Side note: Lee Kuan Yew bun leaves bad taste
Rest in peace, you old bat.
Singapore’s done all right for itself, and that’s to his credit, even if a gum-chewing slob like me wouldn’t much want to live there.
I read yesterday in 50 yrs average income in S’pore went from $500 a year to $50,000. That’s an enviable achievement for any leader I think.
According to Tom Pepinsky (an Associate Professor of Government at Cornell University) the change of Singaporean GDP per capita from the 1960’s to today rose, but not as dramatic as China, Myanmar, or even Indonesia. It also started from an excellent position due to “the incredible legacy of openness, infrastructure, and stability that the British rule left this tiny country.” Something to think about.
Except that as the Bristish fled before the approaching Japanese, they blew up every bit of infrastructure including the harbour and the only source of fresh water.
‘Excellent position’ indeed.