Lee was a tough father figure respected and loved by Singaporeans. Are there Singaporeans who feel otherwise? Of course but they are relatively few. Singaporeans reelected him and the PAP in free elections after free elections despite whatever his weaknesses was — they knew the character of the man, he delivered and the opposition lost more because of the weakness of their argument. People outside Singapore must realize that many who vote for the opposition do so not because they want the opposition to take over but do so as a check against a government that by and large even they support. Lee’s legacy is best decided by Singaporeans who know the man, his policies and the circumstances of the time better.
This bit by Mr Cohen about Albert Einstein meeting LKY is total nonsense.
Einstein died in 1955 while LKY was only elected to the Singapore Legislative Assembly in 1955 and it was as a member of the opposition. Einstein visited Singapore only once in his entire lifetime and that was in 1922, a year before Lee was born.
Prof. Einstein was widely acknowledged to be a genius in physics but time travel he did not master.
New Mandala readers may also be interested in Michael Barr’s and Geoff Wade’s articles over at East Asia Forum on what Singapore would be like without LKY written in 2011 and 2013 respectively:
I was not aware that Einstein and LKY ever met. Einstein visited Singapore in 1922 – some ten months before LKY was born! – in order to solicit funds for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. LKY was only elected leader of the Singapore opposition in April 1955, the month that Einstein died. Surely if Einstein had made an unlikely later visit to Singapore shortly before dying, it would been Chief Minister David Saul Marshall, a fellow Jew, who would have feted him, rather than LKY.
The latter part of the exposition is especially accurate and reflects the sentiments of this Singaporean perfectly. The main fault of Lky is leaving a team of politicians mentally and emotionally distanced from the common people who carry his prejudices without his wisdom, experience, passion and commitment, and crippling any opposition to them.
The economy is truly not a competitive one with a few companies owning most home owned brands in Singapore.
The elections are another point of contention with the government splitting up districts and allocating them to far flung constituencies in what might be seen as an attempt to control the number of votes in or against their favour.
One may even cast doubt on the secrecy of our votes as voters are allocated to different sections, lanes and boxes based on our identity card numbers.
If the ruling party has been reduced to having sycophancy as their main hiring criteria instead of talent and passion, the situation in Singapore shall continue in a downward spiral.
Open dialogue, open hearts, active change and a reintegration of its people; foreigners, locals and it’s distanced ministers are truly required to improve the situation in Singapore.
The first two comments make clear how difficult rational discussion of LKY is for some people in the immediate aftermath of his death. It may in that respect give us a (very) small taste of the prospects for rational discussion of King Bhumibol in the immediate aftermath of his demise. (Of course, many NM readers will be eagerly awaiting the reactions of David Marshall’s grand-nephew to that event!)
In the context of Multiculturalism which we all have our values, belief, norms and culture (VBNC), LKY had his VBNC and had put context into it. The imposition of his VBNC during his governance shaped our VBNC, me included. Some may aligned to him while others may not. Being a Malay and a Muslim, I had my experienced with discrimination here and that shifted my VBNC from him. Just like his other colleagues who did not aligned to his VBNC and sufferred a rather cruel fate. From various interviews, I can say that he was the master of Pavlov’s clasical conditioning and we are / were his trained dogs.
K. Supachai Srisupa-aksorn, the former chairman of the Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative and key suspect in the alleged 12-billion-baht embezzlement scandal explained how to donate (multi-million) pelf to Wat Dhammakaya: “He said he had donated 386 million baht to the temple and another 248 million to abbot Phra Dhammachayo (personally) between 2009 and 2010 to support the religion . . . He said his donations had not been made in secret to Phra Dhammachayo. He put his cheques inside an envelope which he placed inside another golden bag before giving the donation to the abbot. Like other followers wanting to make donations, he had queued up to donate the money, with temple staff collecting the bags containing the donations . . .”
To donate pelf of millions K. Supachai said he queued!
Indeed crooks could be very well-mannered and devout …. and I am NOT referring to K. Supachai.
The inscription under the dome of St Pauls in London says this of its designer, Christopher Wren: “Reader, if you are searching for his monument, look around you.” On a visit to Singapore, I was reminded how much this would also apply to Lee Kwan Yew.
Wren’s epitaph, with a couple of word changes, could also be his:
HUIUS CIVITATIS CONDITOR LEE KWAN YEW,
QUI VIXIT ANNOS ULTRA NONAGINTA,
NON SIBI SED BONO PUBLICO.
LECTOR, SI MOMENTO REQUIRIS, CIRCUMSPICE.
Ms. Welsh’s article is useful contribution to the effort now beginning to try to assess the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew, but her effort shows how difficult it will be to make a fair and comprehensive assessment.
As someone who lived in Singapore under the governments of both Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, I would like to make my own small inputs.
I don’t think that Ms. Welsh’s assessment that LKY did not trust his own people is entirely accurate. It should not be forgotten that the PAP always subjected its hold on power to elections. Yes, the PAP used all the tools of government, including detention without trial (a tool inherited from the British colonialists), to give themselves advantages in those elections. Yes, LKY was unnecessarily tough, even cruel to opposition leaders such as JB Jeyaretnam. But elections were held regularly and the vote was apparently counted honestly. Setbacks in elections, even minor ones, were usually followed by party introspections and efforts to improve policies or address public concerns. It might be more accurate to say that LKY trusted a public that had accurate (according to him) information, adequate education and a full appreciation of the consequences of their votes. Few Singaporeans would say that they would have been better off if Jeyaretnam, however nice a man, had led the country.
I recall listening to one of LKY’s campaign speeches in which he told the crowd the bad economic news of the day and explained the limits of government power to make things better. It was a refreshing contrast to the speeches of most politicians who scramble to promise more goodies.
I believe LKY trusted the people to make wise decisions in the interest of society if they were given the proper incentives. I have heard this described as an “incessant search for bigger sticks and better carrots.” He did not trust the people to make wise choices for society, however, if left to their own devices.
It is true that LKY fostered a kind of elitism, but at least the LKY elite was based largely on merit and performance. Those at the upper levels of the elite, including PAP stalwarts, who failed in either competence or morality were quickly removed from power and position.
He may, as Ms. Welsh notes, have had some less than favorable and less than politically correct opinions about Singapore Malays and Islam, but it is also true that he spoke fluent Malay, supported Malay politicians in the PAP and had a thorough understanding of the Malay community.
I don’t think it is quite right to say that LKY favored foreigners over Singaporeans. It is more accurate to say that he welcomed foreign capability — whether in hi-tech ideas and global business acumen or low-cost hard work — over Singaporeans who were incompetent or lazy. As a foreigner working in Singapore I had to prove education and competence and my employer had to say that it could find no Singaporeans of comparable abilities before I could get a work permit.
It is difficult to understand how the economy could continue to grow at a healthy rate and per capita income increase if it were true that the Singapore economy is not “a genuinely competitive one.”
Reducing government corruption is certainly one of LKY’s great achievements, but a business survey I worked on in 1993 showed that there was still corruption in private sector business, with kickbacks often paid to purchasing officers. I presume LKY thought that could simply be left to company leaders and market forces to deal with.
Ms. Welsh is correct in that Lee Kuan Yew was respected more than loved. That is probably the way he wanted it.
An interesting expose by an outsider. Dr Welsh offers a rather thin analysis of LKY, replete with the usual criticisms and rather superficial commendations, when and where, they do appear. Opinion is divided on LKY and on LHL, but one is always better prepared, when one comes from the source. As my great uncle was once one of LKY’s defenders, and later a detractor, sent off as Ambassador to France, Spain and Portugal, I have a perspective that doesn’t derive solely from academic treatises and short sabbaticals, but a unique perspective as a minority native son, long after my great-great grandparents (Sassoon and Kadoorie) once owned Singapore and Shanghai and Hong Kong, yet destined to be replaced by native
Chinese, which was entirely natural.
Perhaps it might be useful to actually gain perspectives from individuals who spent a portion of their lives in places like Singapore and Malaya/Malaysia. I can tell you that, I respect your attempt, but you have not even remotely touched on the complexity of LKY. When Albert Einstein came to Singapore, years ago, and was feted by LKY, Einstein was asked by LKY why Jews were always good at physics, to which Einstein replied, “The same reason Chinese are always good at business. We write things down”.
No academic synopsis can provide such insight. I still have my cousin’s photo of Einstein and LKY staring at each other, very intently.
Wat Dhammakaya welcomes the obscenely pecunious. The Abbot Dhammachayo will launder your money, he’ll launder your soul.
“I used to be very confused about why we have to make donations, but the abbot explained everything,” said one devotee, Pitchanan Jirakolpipat, 36. “We do it to attain inner peace.”
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
Given that Einstein died in 1955 and LKY became PM in 1959, I think I’d rather trust an “outsider’s” perspective than yrs.
I find it surprising you call her an outsider. She spent her formative years in M’sia. And until recently she lived and taught in S’pore.
When I first heard her speak, I was surprised. She sounded local. Then I learnt she had spent her childhood in KL.
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
Lee was a tough father figure respected and loved by Singaporeans. Are there Singaporeans who feel otherwise? Of course but they are relatively few. Singaporeans reelected him and the PAP in free elections after free elections despite whatever his weaknesses was — they knew the character of the man, he delivered and the opposition lost more because of the weakness of their argument. People outside Singapore must realize that many who vote for the opposition do so not because they want the opposition to take over but do so as a check against a government that by and large even they support. Lee’s legacy is best decided by Singaporeans who know the man, his policies and the circumstances of the time better.
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
This bit by Mr Cohen about Albert Einstein meeting LKY is total nonsense.
Einstein died in 1955 while LKY was only elected to the Singapore Legislative Assembly in 1955 and it was as a member of the opposition. Einstein visited Singapore only once in his entire lifetime and that was in 1922, a year before Lee was born.
Prof. Einstein was widely acknowledged to be a genius in physics but time travel he did not master.
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
So Wren built St. Pauls and LKY Singapore. I thought that there were a few more persons involved.
Assess Lee Kuan Yew? Which one?
New Mandala readers may also be interested in Michael Barr’s and Geoff Wade’s articles over at East Asia Forum on what Singapore would be like without LKY written in 2011 and 2013 respectively:
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/06/23/singapore-without-lee-kuan-yew/
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/09/13/singapore-after-lee-kuan-yew/
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
PS. Love to see the photo! Can’t you post it?
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
I was not aware that Einstein and LKY ever met. Einstein visited Singapore in 1922 – some ten months before LKY was born! – in order to solicit funds for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. LKY was only elected leader of the Singapore opposition in April 1955, the month that Einstein died. Surely if Einstein had made an unlikely later visit to Singapore shortly before dying, it would been Chief Minister David Saul Marshall, a fellow Jew, who would have feted him, rather than LKY.
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
The latter part of the exposition is especially accurate and reflects the sentiments of this Singaporean perfectly. The main fault of Lky is leaving a team of politicians mentally and emotionally distanced from the common people who carry his prejudices without his wisdom, experience, passion and commitment, and crippling any opposition to them.
The economy is truly not a competitive one with a few companies owning most home owned brands in Singapore.
The elections are another point of contention with the government splitting up districts and allocating them to far flung constituencies in what might be seen as an attempt to control the number of votes in or against their favour.
One may even cast doubt on the secrecy of our votes as voters are allocated to different sections, lanes and boxes based on our identity card numbers.
If the ruling party has been reduced to having sycophancy as their main hiring criteria instead of talent and passion, the situation in Singapore shall continue in a downward spiral.
Open dialogue, open hearts, active change and a reintegration of its people; foreigners, locals and it’s distanced ministers are truly required to improve the situation in Singapore.
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
The first two comments make clear how difficult rational discussion of LKY is for some people in the immediate aftermath of his death. It may in that respect give us a (very) small taste of the prospects for rational discussion of King Bhumibol in the immediate aftermath of his demise. (Of course, many NM readers will be eagerly awaiting the reactions of David Marshall’s grand-nephew to that event!)
Assess Lee Kuan Yew? Which one?
Thanks, Prof Barr. Magnificent.
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
In the context of Multiculturalism which we all have our values, belief, norms and culture (VBNC), LKY had his VBNC and had put context into it. The imposition of his VBNC during his governance shaped our VBNC, me included. Some may aligned to him while others may not. Being a Malay and a Muslim, I had my experienced with discrimination here and that shifted my VBNC from him. Just like his other colleagues who did not aligned to his VBNC and sufferred a rather cruel fate. From various interviews, I can say that he was the master of Pavlov’s clasical conditioning and we are / were his trained dogs.
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
Very accurate and well written.
Bangkok’s last Red Shirt fortress
K. Supachai Srisupa-aksorn, the former chairman of the Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative and key suspect in the alleged 12-billion-baht embezzlement scandal explained how to donate (multi-million) pelf to Wat Dhammakaya: “He said he had donated 386 million baht to the temple and another 248 million to abbot Phra Dhammachayo (personally) between 2009 and 2010 to support the religion . . . He said his donations had not been made in secret to Phra Dhammachayo. He put his cheques inside an envelope which he placed inside another golden bag before giving the donation to the abbot. Like other followers wanting to make donations, he had queued up to donate the money, with temple staff collecting the bags containing the donations . . .”
To donate pelf of millions K. Supachai said he queued!
Indeed crooks could be very well-mannered and devout …. and I am NOT referring to K. Supachai.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/490668/former-klongchan-head-defends-phra-dhammachayo
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/493326/phra-dhammachayo-to-report-to-dsi-mar-26
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
The inscription under the dome of St Pauls in London says this of its designer, Christopher Wren: “Reader, if you are searching for his monument, look around you.” On a visit to Singapore, I was reminded how much this would also apply to Lee Kwan Yew.
Wren’s epitaph, with a couple of word changes, could also be his:
HUIUS CIVITATIS CONDITOR LEE KWAN YEW,
QUI VIXIT ANNOS ULTRA NONAGINTA,
NON SIBI SED BONO PUBLICO.
LECTOR, SI MOMENTO REQUIRIS, CIRCUMSPICE.
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
New Mandala readers maybe interested in Tom Pepinsky’s take on how far did Lee Kuan Yew bring Singapore economically.
http://tompepinsky.com/2015/03/23/singapore-from-third-world-to-first/
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
Ms. Welsh’s article is useful contribution to the effort now beginning to try to assess the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew, but her effort shows how difficult it will be to make a fair and comprehensive assessment.
As someone who lived in Singapore under the governments of both Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, I would like to make my own small inputs.
I don’t think that Ms. Welsh’s assessment that LKY did not trust his own people is entirely accurate. It should not be forgotten that the PAP always subjected its hold on power to elections. Yes, the PAP used all the tools of government, including detention without trial (a tool inherited from the British colonialists), to give themselves advantages in those elections. Yes, LKY was unnecessarily tough, even cruel to opposition leaders such as JB Jeyaretnam. But elections were held regularly and the vote was apparently counted honestly. Setbacks in elections, even minor ones, were usually followed by party introspections and efforts to improve policies or address public concerns. It might be more accurate to say that LKY trusted a public that had accurate (according to him) information, adequate education and a full appreciation of the consequences of their votes. Few Singaporeans would say that they would have been better off if Jeyaretnam, however nice a man, had led the country.
I recall listening to one of LKY’s campaign speeches in which he told the crowd the bad economic news of the day and explained the limits of government power to make things better. It was a refreshing contrast to the speeches of most politicians who scramble to promise more goodies.
I believe LKY trusted the people to make wise decisions in the interest of society if they were given the proper incentives. I have heard this described as an “incessant search for bigger sticks and better carrots.” He did not trust the people to make wise choices for society, however, if left to their own devices.
It is true that LKY fostered a kind of elitism, but at least the LKY elite was based largely on merit and performance. Those at the upper levels of the elite, including PAP stalwarts, who failed in either competence or morality were quickly removed from power and position.
He may, as Ms. Welsh notes, have had some less than favorable and less than politically correct opinions about Singapore Malays and Islam, but it is also true that he spoke fluent Malay, supported Malay politicians in the PAP and had a thorough understanding of the Malay community.
I don’t think it is quite right to say that LKY favored foreigners over Singaporeans. It is more accurate to say that he welcomed foreign capability — whether in hi-tech ideas and global business acumen or low-cost hard work — over Singaporeans who were incompetent or lazy. As a foreigner working in Singapore I had to prove education and competence and my employer had to say that it could find no Singaporeans of comparable abilities before I could get a work permit.
It is difficult to understand how the economy could continue to grow at a healthy rate and per capita income increase if it were true that the Singapore economy is not “a genuinely competitive one.”
Reducing government corruption is certainly one of LKY’s great achievements, but a business survey I worked on in 1993 showed that there was still corruption in private sector business, with kickbacks often paid to purchasing officers. I presume LKY thought that could simply be left to company leaders and market forces to deal with.
Ms. Welsh is correct in that Lee Kuan Yew was respected more than loved. That is probably the way he wanted it.
Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy – a matter of trust
An interesting expose by an outsider. Dr Welsh offers a rather thin analysis of LKY, replete with the usual criticisms and rather superficial commendations, when and where, they do appear. Opinion is divided on LKY and on LHL, but one is always better prepared, when one comes from the source. As my great uncle was once one of LKY’s defenders, and later a detractor, sent off as Ambassador to France, Spain and Portugal, I have a perspective that doesn’t derive solely from academic treatises and short sabbaticals, but a unique perspective as a minority native son, long after my great-great grandparents (Sassoon and Kadoorie) once owned Singapore and Shanghai and Hong Kong, yet destined to be replaced by native
Chinese, which was entirely natural.
Perhaps it might be useful to actually gain perspectives from individuals who spent a portion of their lives in places like Singapore and Malaya/Malaysia. I can tell you that, I respect your attempt, but you have not even remotely touched on the complexity of LKY. When Albert Einstein came to Singapore, years ago, and was feted by LKY, Einstein was asked by LKY why Jews were always good at physics, to which Einstein replied, “The same reason Chinese are always good at business. We write things down”.
No academic synopsis can provide such insight. I still have my cousin’s photo of Einstein and LKY staring at each other, very intently.
Dissent and repression persist in Myanmar
Even the good cop bares his teeth from time to time. And he talks and talks and not giving an inch over the army’s dead hand on the helm, stringing people along and making conciliatory noises while the order to attack or crack down goes out. Sorted.
Dissent and repression persist in Myanmar
“Did I miss it, or is there no mention of Thein Sein?”
No you certainly did not.
The day he accepted the complaint from the students rep., ROL or discipline democracy called it as you like is on Thein Sein side.
Bangkok’s last Red Shirt fortress
Wat Dhammakaya welcomes the obscenely pecunious. The Abbot Dhammachayo will launder your money, he’ll launder your soul.
“I used to be very confused about why we have to make donations, but the abbot explained everything,” said one devotee, Pitchanan Jirakolpipat, 36. “We do it to attain inner peace.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/thai-temples-gospel-of-wealth-draws-protests-1426048060