Lee Kuan Yew dies at 91

[Plotinus]

It wasn't exactly a surprise, but it's still epochal news.

THERE was no vainglory in the title of the first volume of Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs: “The Singapore Story”. Few leaders have so embodied and dominated their countries: Fidel Castro, perhaps, and Kim Il Sung, in their day. But both of those signally failed to match Mr Lee’s achievement in propelling Singapore “From Third World to First” (as the second volume is called). Moreover, he managed it against far worse odds: no space, beyond a crowded little island; no natural resources; and, as an island of polyglot immigrants, not much shared history.

I don't know which is more remarkable: that he took a tiny swamp with no resources and a hellish climate and turned it into one of the most advanced countries in the world, or that he never actually wanted to do this in the first place, famously crying on TV when the country became independent at what he then thought was his failure to keep it part of a larger, more secure nation.

The problem facing Singapore today is the one it's been facing, in a way, for a couple of decades: how to maintain and build on Lee's incredible legacy while avoiding or overcoming its more negative aspects. What do you think Singapore's future holds? What do you think of Lee's legacy: did he make the right decisions, creating harmony and prosperity at the cost of some civil liberties? Was he a hero, a villain, or a bit of both?

I'll say this much at least: in Singapore, his epitaph should be the same as Wren's: Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

 

[Cutlass]

R.I.P. Impressive accomplishments. I've never studied the place so know little about it.

 

[Tahuti]

RIP. I'd like such a leader with a comparable temperament for the Netherlands.

 

[Borachio]

at the cost of some civil liberties

This is something of an understatement, isn't it?

Human rights activists, foreign scholars and opposition party members have pointed out that members of the opposition parties often suffer "misfortunes" of various kinds, including arrest, sued into bankruptcy especially in defamatory lawsuits, and imprisonment,[30] with the convictions and bankruptcy in turn barring the opposition candidates from standing in elections.

In Singapore, the executive has greater power than the legislature. Regularly held political elections since 1959, run according to the simple plurality voting system, have seen the PAP remain in power and a very small number of elected opposition parliamentarians. With an overwhelming majority in parliament, the PAP government has been able to amend the Constitution without much obstruction, introducing multi-member constituencies, unelected parliamentary membership, and other institutional changes that have, in effect, strengthened the government's dominance and control of Parliament."[33]

"With incumbency comes electoral advantages that have further secured the PAP's position. From this powerful location, it has effectively propagated the idea that it is more important for a small country with limited resources and talent to have a meritocratic , pragmatic and economically-orientated government than one that is limited by principles of accountability, transparency and checks and balances."[34]

"The PAP government has taken pains to present its principles of meritocracy and pragmatism as a viable alternative to liberal democracy and multi-party competition, sometimes by drawing from a specious notion of Confucian values and Asian culture to construct ideological bulwarks - like "Asian democracy"- against the criticisms of the so-called liberal West. By crediting meritocracy and pragmatism for creating the right conditions for economic success, the PAP government has been able not only to justify its (liberal) democratic deficit, but also to produce ideological resources and a structure of authorization for the maintenance of a one-party dominant regime. In "pragmatic" terms, Singapore's considerable economic success is justification enough for its authoritarian means."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Singapore

 

[Plotinus]

This is something of an understatement, isn't it?

Yes, definitely. However, while I abhor much of Singapore's record on civil liberties and human rights, it's worth remembering that in many ways it's no worse than most other places in the region. For example, homosexuality is (incredibly) illegal in Singapore, but it is in Malaysia too. So it seems to me that the common narrative of "Lee created an undemocratic authoritative state as the price of prosperity and peace" isn't quite accurate; rather, undemocratic authoritative states are normal around there, and Lee just created a more benevolent one than the others (or at least a more successful one). Plus one should be circumspect about some of these issues. Certainly Singapore has effectively had a one-party state for most of its history, but it is still a democracy, at least in form, and while the PAP has used dubious tactics of various kinds it's hardly on a ZANU-PF level. People were conditioned to vote for them, not forced to. I've met people in the west who genuinely thought that Singapore was a fascist state. There are serious issues, but it's not on that level.

I do think that Singapore will ultimately fail if they can't loosen up and sort out the various human rights issues, because they can't be taken seriously on the world stage without doing so. So in some ways Lee's legacy will have to be left behind. The question is whether the foundations he created are strong enough to survive that without the whole thing falling apart. It's very much an Apple post-Jobs sort of situation.

 

[aelf]

I don't know which is more remarkable: that he took a tiny swamp with no resources and a hellish climate and turned it into one of the most advanced countries in the world, or that he never actually wanted to do this in the first place, famously crying on TV when the country became independent at what he then thought was his failure to keep it part of a larger, more secure nation.

This is also not accurate. Singapore was not "a tiny swamp". It was a prosperous Crown Colony with a thriving entrepot trade. It is worth remarking here that the narrative of turning a "tiny swamp" into a bustling port used to be applied to Sir Stamford Raffles, who was not too long ago dubbed Singapore's founding father. Now that role has been ascribed completely to Lee Kuan Yew. Such are the vagaries of propaganda.

That he executed a nation building effort successfully in this region is still remarkable, but it's not something that he was reluctant to do. He actively pursued policies that caused a rift to grow between Singapore and the Malaysian Federation. He never wanted to play second fiddle, and the Separation was, if not something that he might actually have wanted, not as unexpected as it is portrayed. Why did he cry? Theatrics might have been a reason, since he was himself a strong proponent of the Merger with Malaysia. If he didn't make it look like his earlier dream was crushed, he might have been seen as flip-flopping.

Speaking of flip-flopping, perhaps the most damning fact about his political career was how he changed his tack completely once he was in power. He was pro-unions and a fiery advocate of free speech when he was in the opposition. Once he took power, though, all that changed, as you know well enough.

 

[Tahuti]

He was pro-unions and a fiery advocate of free speech when he was in the opposition. Once he took power, though, all that changed, as you know well enough.

Free speech and 'Pro-Unions' are not to be seen as ideological categories. The more one thinks in terms of ideologies outside of culture, the more likely one misunderstands politics wholesale. He needed free speech advocates (probably to be able to say things to the guy in power at the time) and unions to get to power. The time simply came for him to abandon them. Which is understandable, I guess.

 

[aelf]

Well, I understand politics well enough. Of course, that's how some people in parts of the world expect politicians to behave. That's not what people respect about them, though, or about him.

 

[Crime Doesn't Pay]

For example, homosexuality is (incredibly) illegal in Singapore, but it is in Malaysia too.

The law is not enforced IIRC.

 

[Crime Doesn't Pay]

This is also not accurate. Singapore was not "a tiny swamp". It was a prosperous Crown Colony with a thriving entrepot trade. It is worth remarking here that the narrative of turning a "tiny swamp" into a bustling port used to be applied to Sir Stamford Raffles, who was not too long ago dubbed Singapore's founding father. Now that role has been ascribed completely to Lee Kuan Yew. Such are the vagaries of propaganda.

That he executed a nation building effort successfully in this region is still remarkable, but it's not something that he was reluctant to do. He actively pursued policies that caused a rift to grow between Singapore and the Malaysian Federation. He never wanted to play second fiddle, and the Separation was, if not something that he might actually have wanted, not as unexpected as it is portrayed. Why did he cry? Theatrics might have been a reason, since he was himself a strong proponent of the Merger with Malaysia. If he didn't make it look like his earlier dream was crushed, he might have been seen as flip-flopping.

Speaking of flip-flopping, perhaps the most damning fact about his political career was how he changed his tack completely once he was in power. He was pro-unions and a fiery advocate of free speech when he was in the opposition. Once he took power, though, all that changed, as you know well enough.

Could you provide sources for these claims?

 

[aelf]

Could you provide sources for these claims?

Which ones?

I don't have any sources at the moment. Whatever I know is a cumulation of things I've read while living a long time in Singapore.

Singapore's history as a Crown Colony and a successful port is widely known. That's the part that boggles my mind the most. Why is the tale about the "tiny swamp" swallowed so easily? That used to be told as part of the tale of Singapore's founding by the British, but now it's been set in the middle of the 20th century, which stretches credulity to breaking point.

Lee Kuan Yew's politics when Singapore was part of Malaysia are also pretty well known. He was bargaining hard for greater influence in Federal politics, and his rhetoric and maneuvering played an important role leading up to Malaysia's decision to kick Singapore out. Even the official histories in Singapore say as much.

What is not known for certain are his motivations, of course. Did he really have enough of Malaysian politics and wanted out himself? Did he really cry on television as part of an act to make himself seem sincere? I've read a few articles about this that I would need to dig up, but there will never be concrete answers, I suspect. But if he didn't seem too interested in accommodating the Federal government, I don't think it makes any sense for him not to have anticipated that the Separation could happen given his stance.

 

[Crime Doesn't Pay]

He actively pursued policies that caused a rift to grow between Singapore and the Malaysian Federation.

Such a manipulative thing would not surprise me - I recall one of his quotes praising Machiavelli.

This is the one that interests me the most. So I guess this one.

I'm not saying your claims are false - I just want sources and/or places I can do more reading on this.


I have ambivalent views on the man.

 

[Snorrius]

Rest in peace, Lee Kuan Yew, the Great Man who have lived long and fulfilling life.

 

[Masada]

So it seems to me that the common narrative of "Lee created an undemocratic authoritative state as the price of prosperity and peace" isn't quite accurate; rather, undemocratic authoritative states are normal around there

That might have been true during the Cold War. But South Korea and the Republic of China have both democratized now while Japan has always been a better democracy than Singapore (albeit a flawed one).*

Certainly Singapore has effectively had a one-party state for most of its history, but it is still a democracy, at least in form, and while the PAP has used dubious tactics of various kinds it's hardly on a ZANU-PF level.

Was Suharto's New Order a democracy?

The question is whether the foundations he created are strong enough to survive that without the whole thing falling apart. It's very much an Apple post-Jobs sort of situation.

He's been out of effective power for quite some time now and nothing has happened. I don't expect that to change.

Could you provide sources for these claims?

The swamp claim is easy. In 1960, Singapore had a GDP per capita of $2530 which compares with a Malaysian figure of $986. And Malaysia was, outside of Singapore, the wealthiest state in SEA. Granted, it isn't quite on the same level as Japan which was at $7079 but it's was still double to quadruple its SEA neighbors.**

* Singapore likes to think of itself as an East Asian state in Southeast Asia.
** All numbers from the IMF and in 2010 constant dollars.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

A small point: I am less impressed with developing a very small nation than a bigger one. The challenges are way more easy to handle (since way less complex / diverse) and you can succeed relatively easy by finding your niche in the global market rather than when you have a larger nation where a complex and diverse domestic economy has to learn to stand.
But I don't want so say it hence was a peace of cake. Just saying.

 

[aelf]

Such a manipulative thing would not surprise me - I recall one of his quotes praising Machiavelli.

This is the one that interests me the most. So I guess this one.

I'm not saying your claims are false - I just want sources and/or places I can do more reading on this.

I'll provide some sources now.

But we either believe in democracy or we don't. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed... If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right...

-Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955

In his memoirs, Lee recounted that he had intended to return to Singapore to work as a lawyer. Upon his return, Lee worked in John Laycock's law firm for $500 per month. He also worked as a legal advisor to the trade and students' unions (Lee, 2000).

Spoiler The Straits Times :

Impossible to co-operate with Singapore while Lee is premier

The Minister of Finance, Mr. Tan Siew Sin said today that co-operation with the Singapore Government was out of the question as long as Mr. Lee Kuan Yew remained Prime Minister in the island state.

He told the House of Representatives: "It would be far easier for the camel to pass through the eye of the proverbial needle than for the Central Government to co-operate with the Government of Singapore.

Mr. Tan made a scathing attack against Mr. Lee, whom he described as the "greatest, disruptive force in the entire history of Malaysia and Malaya."

He warned that Mr. Lee's idea of partitioning Malaysia would only lead to bloodshed, as had happened in India and Cyprus.

"Any man who can make these proposals, coolly and carefully," he said, "has boundless capacity for mischief. His statement is probably the most mischievous of the lot.

"I say this in sorrow rather than in anger. Only a warped mind, frustrated in its quest for power, can support this idea."
How can thse kachang puteh parties pose a threat?

Dr. Tan Chee Khoon, said it was not correct to say the Opposition parties which formed the Malaysis Solidarity Convention -- the PAP, UDP, PPP and SUPP -- were a "threat" to the Alliance.

Quoting statistics of the last election, in which the Socialist Front scored 16.1% of the total votes and the PAP, UDP and PPP together getting over seven per cent of the votes, Dr. Tan asked: "How could these kachang puteh parties pose a threat?" (The Straits Times, 1965)

Link

"It is clear that Mr. Lee regrets joining Malaysia because he is frustrated. He finds his avenue to power rather effectively blocked. He wants to clear this."
- Mr. Tan Siew Sin, Malaysian Minister of Finance

Sources

Lee Kuan Yew (2000). From Third World to First. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.

The Straits Times (1965). "Impossible to co-operate with Singapore while Lee is premier," June 2.

 

[bathsheba666]

Now he's gone, are they going to be given a 2nd amendment ?

The right to bear gum ?

 

[Snorrius]

Malaysians lost their chance when they blocked LKY's path to power.

 

[Masada]

Malaysians lost their chance when they blocked LKY's path to power.

In the 1964 election, which was PAPs only run at a Federal election it got 2% of the vote. It was not a success and the man himself did not pitch it as such at the time.

 

[Domen]

* Singapore likes to think of itself as an East Asian state in Southeast Asia.

I have also read posts by Australians who describe themselves as "Westerners" rather than "Sahulans", "Papuans Bis", "Oceanians", etc.

I guess for similar reasons. Geographic locations of peoples are socially constructed, after all.