7.19pm, 29 March 2015 – playground – HDB estate – Choa Chu Kang.
My son, 8 years old, is playing with his friends.
My mind is elsewhere – Mandai crematorium. LKY. His life ended a week ago. By now, his flesh and bones would largely be ash. (Having gone to collect my mother-in-law’s ashes slightly over a year ago, I realise that not all of the bones turn to ash.)
What an extraordinary life.
The first Prime Minister of Singapore, one member of the extremely talented group of men, has made his final journey. Lee Kuan Yew is no more.
8.49pm, 29 March 2015 – back in my flat
It has been a pretty exhausting day. Soaked with emotion. I can’t fully understand the feeling. Some 12 days have passed since the announcement made by the Prime Minister’s Office on 17 March 2015 about LKY’s critical condition and 7 days since the announcement of his death. I’ve been having mixed feelings about him and his death. On 23 March 2015, when I woke up at 6am and looked at my phone, I discovered via Facebook posts that LKY had passed away. A strange quiet feeling filled my mind. It had not yet sunk in.
How did I react? Nothing. No feeling. The moment had arrived and I had no emotion to record.
Just a few days earlier on Wednesday, 18th March 2015, I was asked via Facebook as to how I would react if LKY passed away. This was my response:
“Twenty to thirty years ago, there were a whole bunch of my friends that used to talk about opening table for just such an event. And I would have gladly joined them in celebration even if it was just to drink coke.”
To be precise, when I was pursuing my law degree, I remember having a conversation with some friends about local politics and one of them remarked about how we would react if LKY passed away. All of us agreed, at that time (1993/1994), we would throw a party. The image of Lee Kuan Yew that I had in my mind at that time was of a tyrant, a dictator and a person that had caused great anguish to the families of many Singaporeans for the sake of consolidating his own power.
Many of my friends (who are in their late 40s now) felt a deep resentment for LKY at that time. (Bearing in mind that most of my friends were my fellow law undergraduates, we were not a proper sample of the broader society. )
We were not a generation that had experienced either the Japanese Occupation or British Rule. We didn’t experience the merger in 1963 or the separation in 1965. My generation was born soon after independence. Perhaps the most significant political event experienced by us when we were politically conscious was Operation Spectrum in 1987. I was 19. Many of my friends were skeptical of the government’s story about the Marxist conspiracy. Some things just did not gel. I had a sense that this was either a case of over-reaction to the activities of social workers or a deliberate frame up to scare a new generation of voters that were beginning to swing towards the opposition.
Starting from the 1981 Anson by-election, the voting pattern in Singapore started shifting. The Worker’s Party led by JB Jeyaretnam and the Singapore Democratic Party led by Chiam See Tong were making inroads into the minds of the electorate. I remember that Lee Kuan Yew had some words of scorn for younger voters that, according to him, did not understand how fast things can fall apart in Singapore. At that time, the impression that I had was that Operation Spectrum was intended to instill a fresh sense of fear in the minds of Singaporeans. It was a sense of fear that was beginning to disappear and the PAP was in danger of losing more seats. (1980 GE – PAP’s popular vote = 77.77% with all seats to PAP, 1984 GE – PAP’s popular vote = 64.8% with WP and SDP capturing 2 seats.)
To this day, the real motivations behind the 1987 arrests are unclear. The last arrest and detention under the ISA was in 1979 and the 1987 arrests arrived after a 8 year non-use of the ISA. To put it into perspective, from 1963 to 1979, there were arrests under the ISA every single year. My parents were not very interested in politics and they had been PAP voters all the while. Nevertheless, they would say on and off that I shouldn’t speak too much about politics because I will get arrested. It was something that the general population had grown to expect. Say something wrong about the PAP and you will get arrested. )
I went to primary school in the 1970s and to secondary school from 1981. During my school years, we didn’t learn about Hock Lee bus riots, racial riots, etc. that is so much a part of the curriculum these days. The Singapore history that we read about included Sang Nila Utama and the founding of Singapore by Stamford Raffles and the growth of the sea port. During those days, there was no active attempt at spelling out a national narrative through the education system. We were, however, brought up to fear the authorities.
Nevertheless, the general prosperity and stability and the relatively long disuse of the ISA was beginning to embolden more youths. The 1987 arrests may well have been intended to put the brakes on the opposition’s ability to organize and the increasing support for the opposition. (Despite the 1987 arrests, the downward trend of the PAP’s popular vote continued in the 1988 and 1991 elections with the PAP hitting a low of 61% of the vote. I suspect that the arrests actually made it worse for the PAP in terms of popularity. New batches of voters were less afraid and more defiant when threatened.)
I remember being very angry with LKY and his Cabinet ministers for what I perceived to be unjust imprisonment on trumped up charges. Unlike today, PAP in those days wasn’t in an overdrive mode trying to educate people about the 1950s and the 1960s. I wasn’t aware of Operation Coldstore, the Communist treat of the 1950s or the circumstances of the merger. All I saw was the imprisonment of students, Catholic Church activists and lawyers. False accusations, detentions without trial, total surveillance – we were living in an Orwellian nightmare. (Over the years, reading and researching on the detentions, I have become more convinced that these were not Marxists conspirators. Tharman Shanmugaratnam has gone on record and expressed doubts about the arrests and it appears the Dhanabalan’s Cabinet resignation was, in part, due to his disagreement over the arrests. Ex-President Devan Nair also expressed his doubts about the Marxist conspiracy arrests. )
The LKY that I grew to hate in the 1990s was a power-hungry man that maneuvered his old-guard leaders out of the way and arrested and detained political opponents and activists. As CV Devan Nair had written in the forward to Francis Seow’s “To Catch a Tartar” in 1994:
“Today every member of that superb team has been eased out of power and influence in the name of political self-renewal, while Lee himself has ensured that he presides, as Secretary-General of the ruling party, not as he once did, over equals who had elected him, but over a government cabinet and a judiciary made up entirely of his appointees or nominees. In relation to old guard leaders, Lee had been no more than primus inter pares. He had perforce to deal with equals, and they were fully capable of speaking their minds.”
“To Catch a Tartar” is banned in Singapore. The beauty of books banned in Singapore is that they are easily available across the border in Malaysia. I got to read Francis Seow’s account of the events surrounding the detentions in 1987 and 1988 as well as Francis Seow’s own detention. Francis Seow was once the Solicitor General and at the time of his arrest and detention he was the President of the Law Society. He stood for elections under the Workers’ Party banner and eventually escaped from Singapore when charges were brought against him for alleged Tax evasion.
Whilst the Straits Times always presented the official narrative, there were ample opportunities to get hold of alternative sources of information if one tried hard enough. Books that come to mind now include Christopher Tremevan’s “Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore”, Seow’s “Media Enthralled” and “Lee’s Lieutenants” which was a compilation of academic writings on the contributions of the old guard.
And that’s the other matter. Censorship: the banning of books, the restriction of the circulation of books and the defamation suits. As a law student in the 1990s, what I was witnessing was totally at odds with the Constitutional values that I was learning about. I encountered incidents of censorship of the arts. Playwrights often came under the radar of the authorities because of the theme of their plays. I used to follow the local arts scene closely in the 1990s and the heavy hand of the authorities was evident.
I witnessed, first hand, the sleight of hand practiced by the media in the way they reported. Some events that I attended at the SCWO and Substation were reported with a different slant from the actual event. I understand fully what is meant by the phrase “nation-building” press. Of course, as I came to fully understand the legislative framework under which the press operates, it was obvious as to how the state maintained that total control.
Gerrymandering was another issue that really irked me. The redrawing of electoral boundaries, the introduction of the GRCs and the political use of Town Councils as well as upgrading projects caused me to be a really angry young man. I had nothing but hate for the PAP and, of course, LKY. It was impossible to imagine that anybody else could have masterminded this.
My mind is filled with impressions of injustice during the LKY years: Hounding JBJ with lawsuits, convicting him and getting him disbarred and eventually removing appeals to the Privy Council after that Court produced a scathing judgment against the Singapore authorities in JBJ’s case.
Between 1963 (Operation Coldstore) and 1987/88 (Operation Spectrum) there were 485 publicly verifiable arrests made under the Internal Security Act. The Communist boogeyman was so effective in drumming up support for these arrests that the government was doing it with impunity.
I was comfortable in using the word ‘dictator’ to refer to LKY. Whilst these decisions would have been Cabinet decisions, somehow LKY always loomed large and I had the sense that he was probably the sole or main decision maker when it came to these arrests and detentions.
Not many Singaporeans had the empathy to put themselves into the shoes of those wrongfully detained and to understand the suffering of the families of the detainees. How does it feel to have your father imprisoned when you are very young and not to see him for a decade or two? How do we wipe off the tears of the spouses? How do we compensate for the lost years of those detainees’ lives?
In deifying LKY after his death, many Singaporeans have gone overboard in painting a picture of the man beyond what he is. I read one facebook post that referred to him as a Nelson Mandela. If Mandela was a Singaporean, he would have arguably languished in prison longer than he did in South Africa. In fact, we hold the record for having the longest serving political detainee in the world.
I could go on and on about different aspects of the ‘LKY way’ that disturbed me, riled me up and caused me to hate the man. It is safe to say that the word ‘hate’ can be used. Would I have hastily compared him to a Hitler or a Stalin? No. His most extreme weapon was detention without trial. There have been no reports of extra-judicial killings or disappearances in Singapore politics. This dictator was also delivering the goods on the economic front. He wasn’t focused on amassing wealth for himself at the expense of all others. He was committed to the betterment of the overall society. The term benevolent dictator has come to be used to refer to him.
As LKY slowly went into the background as Minister Mentor, I started having less of that hatred against the man but, he still remained the symbol of repression.
Over the last 7 days, some Singaporeans have expressed negative views against LKY and they have been taken to task as ‘ingrates’. There was a letter written to the forum page urging Singaporeans to take negative commentators to task. Police reports have been filed. While I understand the need to be respectful at times like these, I can also understand the reason for the strong feelings held by LKY’s detractors.
Strangely, despite all the hatred I had for the man in the 1990s, I found myself searching for a reaction on that Monday morning when I woke up to the news of his death. There was no emotion. Not sad. Not happy or rejoicing. Neutral. Just neutral.
THE REHABILITATION
Over the years, as part of a personal, spiritual journey, I have come to value forgiveness. In my personal life, being at the receiving end of a cheating wife in my first marriage, I experienced emotions bordering on depression. In the end, forgiving her turned out to be the most healing experience. I have, since then, made it a regular practice to let go of negative emotions that I may have had against particular individuals in my life. Reconciliation through forgiveness heals the mind in a way that is difficult to explain.
That forgiving attitude has made it easier for me to not hold a person’s past misdeeds against him. When the PMO’s office announced on 17 March that LKY was critically ill, I started pondering about the man. I wasn’t feeling anything in particular. He’s already 91. There was nothing that I had personally to really hold against him. I was, in fact, somewhat disturbed by the fact that his family may be delaying the decision to take him off life support. (He had made an Advanced Medical Directive and didn’t wish to be on life support.) There was a little irony, I felt, in him being held captive in his body against his wish. (To be fair, given the scarcity of information surrounding his condition, we are not sure when he was taken off life support.)
On the morning of 21 March 2015, whilst meditating I got distracted by thoughts of him. I found myself praying for him to have a quick painless death. I was surprised at my own action. I did It again on Sunday morning (22 March 2015). I found myself rationalizing that whatever he may have done, I don’t need to hold It against him. That’s his journey and his karma. My position as a fellow travelling soul is to pray for and transfer merits to all souls.
On 23 March, it finally happened. In the morning, PM Lee addressed the nation and I watched it on Channel News Asia. I felt sad for the first time. It was clearly because I put myself in Lee Hsien Loong’s shoes and imagined how difficult it must be to announce the death of your own father to the world. He had the burden of making the announcement as the Prime Minister of this country but he is also a son who had lost his father. He was fighting back his tears as he spoke. I felt myself getting a little teary-eyed.
That night, I was contemplating on the bodily prison and the man-made prison. LKY came to be trapped in his body in his final days. Those that he imprisoned were trapped within concrete walls. They are both prisons. I posted this on Facebook:
What does a prison look like?
There are walls?
Metal? Steel? Concrete?
Bones? Flesh? Skin?
Does it hurt to be locked in
Behind bars?
For words, thoughts and views?
For age and ill health?
How do loved ones weep
For the ones imprisoned
By the firm claws
Of laws and death?
A 7-day mourning period was announced on the morning of his passing and Channel News Asia went on overdrive. Round the clock, non-stop special features in memory of LKY. It went on and on and on ad nauseam. By midweek, it was taking a toll on me. Some of the documentaries were obviously part of a propaganda effort to whitewash history and to build an early electoral advantage for the party.
Myths were now being created. Singapore’s development was being presented as a one man show. That fishing village to modern metropolis storyline was being peddled incessantly. Whilst I did not rejoice at his death and even felt a little sad, I found the deification of LKY rather horrifying.
Last week, if you consumed information through Channel News Asia and the Straits Times, you would have been presented with no alternative but to think that LKY single handedly introduced a housing policy, education policy, economic policy, etc. The term Founding Father has been used. I suspect that it will get stuck.
This myth-making prompted me use the hashtag #notmyfather when I made some comments on facebook. It wasn’t a popular thing to do last week. Some (not most) people can be pretty aggressive when they are grieving.
If, as a nation, we are going to use the term “Founding Father”, I believe that we would truly be ingrates not to include men like Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Lim Kim San, Rajaratnam, Ong Pang Boon, Ahmad Ibrahim, Othman Wok, EW Barker and Lee Khoon Chye. I am sure that I am leaving out others. But, these men stand out. When it comes to the economy, one man stands out as a towering figure and it is not LKY. It is Goh Keng Swee. How about housing the nation? Lim Kim San stands out.
LKY has himself acknowledged that it wasn’t a one-man show:
“How can we say who contributed more? Without Dr Toh holding the fort in the PAP, we might never have held the Party together. Without Lim Kim San putting up the buildings, the whole Party could have been smashed up and been washed out in September 1963.”
LKY has also credited Rajaratnam for being a strong proponent of multiculturalism and the PAP’s positioning on racial harmony was done largely through the writings and speeches of this man. The first Cabinet of independent Singapore created a vision for Singapore on a collegiate basis. This was not a Cabinet that operated in a fashion where there was Prime Ministerial dominance.
If we are going to give an accolade to LKY as the founding father, it is important that this should be a shared honour with the other team members.
Deva Nair: “Lee Kuan Yew, let me acknowledge with pride, was the superb captain of a superb team, but like all the best captains at the end of the game, they come to believe that they have scored all the goals themselves.”
What has happened is that last week’s myth making has taken it one step further. LKY did not only score all the goals. He was the only player on field. That is clearly not true. It is important that history is not adulterated like this simply because we want to give an over-the-top tribute to the man.
Nobody should take away the credit from the government of the 1960s to 1980s in improving Singapore economically. However, we have to stop peddling the myth that Singapore was a fishing village in 1965.
The nauseating propaganda was putting me off.
And then the queues happened. On Wednesday, I witnessed the crowds queuing up outside parliament with the line snaking all over the place. Starting from Parliament House the queue stretched back over Cavenagh Bridge running along Circular Road and back over the Elgin Bridge and back under the bridge towards Clarke Quay, going over Coleman bridge and stretching back New Bridge road all the way up to Hong Lim Park. It was overwhelming. I was walking from my office at New Bridge road to Funan and was emotionally overwhelmed by the queue. Walking along this mass of grieving Singaporeans suddenly stirred something in me. This is not about LKY the man. This is about LKY the idea.
My countrymen were coming out to say their farewell to a man that in many ways had come to represent the Singapore story. The rise of Singapore as an economic powerhouse in a short time frame after independence occurred through the sound leadership of some exceptional men assisted by able and efficient civil servants and supported by an army of citizens. The hardworking men and women of Singapore that came to be ranked as the most productive workforce on the planet have always been the unsung heroes of the Singapore miracle. These dedicated and uncompromisingly hardworking people had in LKY a symbol of themselves. Somehow, I felt that what really drew most of us inexorably towards Parliament House last week was that our supreme symbol of ourselves had passed away. An era in our National psyche has ended. We have now moved into the truly post-LKY era.
His death has provided us with a moment of catharsis.
For sure, lifelong supporters of the PAP would have paid their respect to him and that should come as no surprise. However, many of my friends that have been voting routinely for the opposition and even despised him in the 1990s have gone to Parliament House to pay their last respects. This is bigger than LKY the man. This is about a nation recognizing its identity.
In Parliament, on 20 Aug 2009, LKY asked this rhetorical question: “Are we a nation?” He answered it himself: “In transition”.
Singaporeans in their hundreds of thousands have come out to express their grief, respect or gratitude. The elderly, the young, the handicapped, the able bodied, Chinese, Malays, Indians, new citizens, businessmen, government officials, civil servants, office workers, blue collar workers – they have all come. They seem to have answered that question. Are we a nation? Yes we are!
1.2 million people have paid their tribute. A population that is usually averse to public displays of emotion was out in force.
Singaporeans have often debated about our national identity. We have often wondered what makes us Singaporean. We end up picking up on trivial externalities like our love for food and our kiasu mentality. Well, what really makes us special? How about some things that LKY is himself lionized for? Efficient, incorrupt, hardworking, disciplined.
Perhaps, the man does, to a large extent, represent who we are collectively (warts and all).
On Friday, 27 March, I was feeling heavy-hearted and beginning to feel somewhat exhausted. I had been voraciously consuming all the news on LKY’s passing: the outpouring of grief, the response of foreign dignitaries, the reports and opinion pieces of local and foreign journalists, pictures and online postings of facebook friends, etc.
I was feeling conflicted. I don’t do tears for dictators.
Am I an ingrate for not expressing gratitude for the things we have as a nation today? Have I not forgiven the man for the things that he had done to his political adversaries?
I had a long conversation with my wife on the night of 27th March. She had similar conflicts in her mind. We clarified our emotions and I came to better understand myself.
I don’t need to compromise my sense of what is morally right and wrong. If I expressed some gratitude to the man, it doesn’t have to mean that I have agreed that nothing wrong has happened in our politics. I can forgive a person and still insist today on higher moral standards in our politics.
GRATITUDE
What is there to be grateful about?
Firstly, let me clarify that my gratitude here is not to one person but to the collective. The first Cabinet, the Civil Servants and external advisers of that time and the hardworking people. LKY, being the leader of that generation, represents more than just himself as a person. My gratitude is to that collective as represented by and now symbolized by him.
The most important thing that I have benefitted from in this country is education. My father moved to Singapore in the 1950s. His brother, my uncle, still lives in India. I have first cousins that are pretty intelligent but don’t have a proper education beyond 8th standard to 10th standard. I am thankful to my parents for having decided to live in Singapore and thankful to God for the privilege of having been born in post-independence Singapore.
After I got my PSLE results and did well enough to qualify for Raffles Institution, my parents were delighted. My father was a school watchman. There are not many post-colonial nations that provide for an educational system based entirely on merit. Most of my friends at RI were not from rich families. There were, of course, some. Predominantly, these were sons of cleaners, hawkers, road sweepers, junior civil servants and other low income parents. It really did not matter. We were received based on merit and not affiliation or donations.
At the 188th Founder’s day celebration of RI, Lee Kuan Yew was the Guest-of-Honour. He said the following:
“188 years ago, Sir Stamford Raffles established RI to provide a sound education for the future leaders of the land. The school’s mission has not changed. RI has produced generations of leaders at all levels: in politics and government, the professions, academia, business, sports and the arts. Rafflesians must give back to the community, do their best for their own personal advancement and for the wider public good.
RI must always remain a school that admits students on the basis of merit, and not on their parents’ status or wealth. They must be able, whatever their race or social backgrounds. RI also attracts bright students from other countries. This makes RI the leading school in Singapore. The ideals of Singaporeans and Rafflesians are meritocracy and multiculturalism, regardless of their race, religion or mother tongue.
I am a beneficiary of that meritocratic system. Some of my fellow students came in big cars, like descendants of the Eu Tong Sen family; some in unpressed clothes from Chinatown on buses and bicycles. But our goal was to achieve excellence. From RI, I went on to Raffles College and, subsequently after the war, to Cambridge. But my formative years were from 1936 to 1940 at RI.” – Lee Kuan Yew
I can say quite safely that I too am a beneficiary of that meritocratic system. (I’m aware that our brand of meritocracy has led to its own set of problems of elitism. That’s for us to remedy as we go along.)
In developing Singapore’s post-independence education strategy, the Cabinet decided on nurturing that meritocracy. I am thankful for that for I benefitted from it.
When I doing my Bar in London, I remember being asked by a doctor from India whether my father was a lawyer. My answer was, “He is a cleaner and I am proud of it.” As a Singaporean, such a question was irrelevant to me. Yet, I realized that for an Indian from India it was not easy to appreciate that a society could come without the kind of stratification that exists in India.
True it is that Singapore is not the only country that allows someone from a low-income family to get a good education and make something of himself. But, this is where I have been born. This is where I got the opportunities. I am grateful to those that were responsible for laying a sound infrastructural foundation for me to get a good education.
In my mind, I took some time to say: Thank You.
On 28th March 2015, I reached Choa Chu Kang after work. I walked towards the LKY Tribute Centre.
I lit a candle. I bowed 3 times in front of his picture. I wrote a short thank you note addressed to the First Cabinet.
I came back home with a sense of relief.
THE STATE FUNERAL
I watched the whole funeral ‘live’ on TV.
The procession made it’s way from parliament house to The university cultural Centre at NUS. It passed key landmarks in Singapore. Memories of his mixed legacy flooded my mind.
The eulogies were, at times touching and at other times veered towards propaganda.
The Last Post – Never before did it have so much meaning for me. It was not just about letting a leader have his final rest. It was about laying the past to rest.
This man has been too much a part of my system. My political consciousness has been, over the years, dominated by the things that happened in the LKY era. That era is now over.
It’s our turn now. To build a future as we imagine it. We can build a gentler, kinder and more caring society. We can build a more open and transparent system of government. We can build a more free society on our own terms. We can move towards a society that is more tolerant of differing ideas and is able to debate vigorously and yet honour and respect each person’s individuality.
The pledge was recited.
We haven’t always lived up to it. It is time we did.
“We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.”
The Anthem was played.
I haven’t been much of a fan of patriotism but I can relate to the idea of a community that I’m part of and to which I have responsibilities.
I cried. I looked at my wife and she was crying.
My son looked puzzle. He asked why we were crying and pointed out that LKY was not family.
We didn’t answer.
I guess, we are All one family of humans.
After all the elaborate drama of Living is done we go back to the elements.
There’s a Tamil saying:
Even a King that wears a glorious crown will in the end be no more than a fist of ash. (முடி சார்ந்த மன்னரும் முடிவில் பிடி சாம்பல் ஆவார் )
I write to rehabilitate a memory. I write to heal.
It is time to move on.
Wow.
Amazing eulogy….
Whether given live or not,
This is touching and powerful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you
LikeLike
Thank you for writing. I’m a similar age so experienced a similar journey of emotions. Perhaps less intensely for I am different, but I understand all that you felt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great piece. While I may not agree with everything you’ve written here, I, too, felt a conflicting set of emotions the past week.
Thank you for taking the time to write it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. I don’t think I have managed to explain the full complexity of how I have felt, but I have tried to make sense of it as best as I can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am 60 this year; you could imagine the repugnance I had towards Lee in the 80’s would have been more patent at the time as I was older than you then. And to think I had adored him as a kid, lapping up his speeches on TV and radio and waiting for the transcripts in the newspapers with a dictionary and a scrapbook in hand.
So on the occasions I needed to discuss or merely talk about Lee, I unfailingly would point to the man’s dark side, that he would willingly sell himself to the Devil to have people believe he was omnipotent. Yet, I feel God (I am Catholic) would not judge him harshly; he would be redeemed.
Lee will forever be intertwined with Singapore’s destiny. You are right; the long queues saw him as a symbol of the nation, never mind his flaws. I can’t disagree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A very moving article . As a person born in the early sixties my perception of him was what a unbending,revengeful and unforgiving person he was. Till to date after his passing I have not felt any emotions of grief for him.In fact I have felt nothing. Maybe it’s because I have not lived in Singapore for the last 10 years.But the ensuring propaganda,professions of grief some bordering on hysteria and undeserving praise in the last 12 days have not helped me change my mind either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Devi. In the end, I have to recognise that I had no feeling of grief associated with him as a person.
LikeLike
Complex feelings … very well summed up:
“… a nation recognizing its identity.”
Time to live up to our pledge, Indeed!
Wonderfully expressed, and touching!
Thank you for sharing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you BT Gan
LikeLike
You summed up what I felt over the past week. Thanks for that.
Whatever that happened in the past, we can’t change. But we can forge a better future together.
But reconciliation have to start coming from his son. Perhaps for the ones who were wrongfully detained.
Whatever it is, as we witnessed, we are increasingly becoming divisive.
Whatever happened to the cohesiveness that we had in the 80s-90s, probably got lost somewhere in our search for prosperity.
I’m grateful yet unconvinced on our progress as a nation.
And what he leaves behind is a legacy of success on the economic front. But not sure about success on our identity as one united citizens. Let’s just hope I’m wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This will be part of our next phase of development as a nation. 50 years is a short time frame. Moving forward, we need to learn to listen to each other. The whole shouting down and shutting down mentality has to give way to listening, understanding and debating logically. We don’t need to shut out opposing views.
LikeLike
We did well on the economic front (as a developing nation), but the headwind is now much stronger. Politically, I wish LKY has split PAP into 2 parties resulting in better governance like any 2-party system. I am still looking forward to the day when we have an effective opposition (like in UK, US or Australia).
LikeLike
We have a 1 party government elected by the citizens of the country, if it is not effective, the people will vote them out. We currently have a 2-party parliament already, just that the opposition party is not strong enough to govern the nation.
If we have 2 strong parties like US, UK and Australia, we have to be prepared to have some policies changes every time a different party is governing leading to some wastage in resources. We have a fairly balanced government and this is good for a small nation with multi-racial. we cannot afford to have a government that favours a particular racial group or favours the workers.
A 2-party coalition government will be disastrous as parliament will be spending time fighting for votes instead of spending time on issues that will build the nation!
LikeLike
Thanks for writing this, and sharing your history of political consciousness, which is very refreshing. In the posts that have been written this past week, the soul searching reflections, the instinctive reactions of different generations of Singaporeans has been penned down. And this is important for our history.
Also sharing my post, written early last week.
http://www.lilbluebottle.com/in-memoriam/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Lyn. You are right. It is great to see many Singaporeans sharing their thoughts and it is especially heartening to read the complex tapestry of experiences that make up our nation. Sometimes the official narratives that we are presented give such a flat, one-dimensional view of the Singapore experience.
LikeLike
Very interesting read. I really appreciated the further education and the transparency in which you write. God bless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you
LikeLike
Very poignant post, thanks for sharing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Kian Ming
LikeLike
Mr. LKY did what he did for the good of the majority and the nation at that point in time. Political opponents who have Singapore’s interest at heart are/were still around and a few are in parliament.
If you think someone has the intention to harm your beloved family, I am sure you will do all you can to protect them first, rightly or wrongly. This is what he had done. We are his family.
Yes, to the family of those who have been detained, it is very difficult to come to terms that one of their family members is being captured but they have to ask if the actions of this family member is threatening the well being of LKY’s “family” – the nation. This is similar for parents to ask if his/her child has done something wrong to be detained in school.
Indeed, it is time to move on and hopefully, more will be inspired to stand up and collectively do what is necessary to protect our “family” in a more holistic way!
LikeLike
I think before one can make a statement like your second paragraph, it’s necessary to know more about what actually happened in operations coldstore and operation spectrum.
I suggest you watch the videos on youtube about operation coldstore. The truth is out there after research into declassified documents in the UK by a Singaporean historian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As far as Operation Spectrum is concerned, I am pretty convinced that those detained were not Marxist conspirators. i also don’t buy into Tan Wah Piow as a Communist/Marxist mastermind behind those arrested under Operation Spectrum. I have read about his trouble with the law in the 1970s and there are too many holes in the official story.
Some detentions, like that of Dr Poh Soo Kai, are quite dodgy considering that he is alleged to have given treatment to an injured bomber in Malaysia at a time when his passport indicated that he was in Singapore.
I have read about the declassified British documents. I would like to spend a bit of time when I am free to read through them myself. From the second hand (but reliable) rendition of them, it appears that the British did not see the BS members as being Communist United Front members and that LKY was seeking to neuter his political opposition.
That part of our history really needs to be addressed with more thorough scholarship.
LikeLike
Beautiful piece and I can relate to it. I felt sad with his passing but it was a very complex feeling. Hard to pen down for someone who grew up seeing, listening and reading LKY day in day out for more than 30 years, be it in the newspaper or on the 9 pm news broadcast and not always agreeing with his politics, especially in his latter years.
Yes, LKY did what he thought was necessary but some of the darker episodes should not be whitewashed. I thought LTK’s speech in parliament was fair but many emotional people out there obviously do not think so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Subrathiru,
I like your article very much. It helps me to overcome my ambivalent feelings too.
If you were in RI from 1936 to1940, that had nothing to do with LKY. Which means the British administration in Singapore were already practising meritocracy, wasn’t it?
I joined RI in 1958 also before LKY’s time and now already 71 years old.
But your son is only 8 years old now ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was in RI from 1981 to 1984 and in RJC from 1985 to 1986. Being from a poor family, the equal opportunity that I got in education is something that I treasure much.
And yes, my son is 8 years old. I am 47. i married late. 🙂
You are right that meritocracy at RI was something that the British were already practising. LKY himself made note of that and said that he was influenced by that and felt that it was important to maintain that model. There is much about the PAP government and its policies in the 1960s and 1970s that represented a continuity from our colonial past. One reason why it is difficult for me to place the man on a pedestal is that while credit should be given to him and his team of Ministers, we should not forget about the context in which these things were accomplished: an existing framework of a disciplined and orderly civil service, the port industry and above all an industrious citizenry.
LikeLike
My friend, a Malaysian, forwards your article to me. He thinks it is a good read, especially to those from Singapore. I am grateful to receive and I thank you very much for your thoughts. I am in my 60s and I have migrated to Australia in the late 70s after serving my NS. I share some similar sentiments. But, in the end, death is the greatest of all levelers. The Law of Constant has always indicated that for those who win, there are always those who lose. I cannot help thinking of BS’s Dr Lee SC and his family and, also, cannot help wondering what Singapore would be like in the alternative. I suppose it would not be any real different as the real driving force of Singapore is the quality and type of migrants that Singapore have. My grandfather migrated from China and he was a “coolie tau” at the waterfront. Anyhow, I have a feeling that LKY’s favourite song is probably “El Condor Pasa”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Chris. I am not sure about your reason for migrating but I know of friends and family members that migrated in the 1980s because of teh political climate in Singapore and the repressive environment. Care to share if that played any part in your decision to migrate?
LikeLike
Thank you, a truly balanced and reflective account of LKY. The over the top eulogies of LKY by the MSMs turned me off. I stopped reading them.
Only today, I turned on this old laptop and stumbled into your blog post. I am supposed to be going back to my books, preparing for the coming exam, some subjects you are teaching. I cannot help but to complete reading your long article as well as the comments by your readers.
I was also the beneficiary of the LKY policies. I made a decent living as a regular SAF officer, raised two kids and they went through studying in all the Raffles’ schools, and are now doing well in their respective careers. Many in the queue line would have benefitted somewhat as Singapore grew economically.
Yet, what was achieved was no justification for the injustice and the hurt caused to quite a number of people.
I shared similar feelings as you on those events you mentioned. I have no hatred towards him nor do I have any feeling of affection for him.
Funny, when the announcement of LKY’s death was made, those events came up first in my mind, That stopped me from feeling sad of his passing. Honestly I felt a relief, that Singapore could finally move forward and hasten the pace towards a more participative political system. Truly hope so, but not too hopeful. The social media could hasten the pace of change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An excellent essay – thoughtful, sincere and well written. I share your sentiments.
I just want to comment about all the grieving.
I think a lot of the people who shed tears during the mourning period, whether at tribute centres, Parliament House, the Istana or within their own homes did so without necessarily having any feelings for the man. The press has gone overboard about the “grieving”.
Crying and tears do not equate with love nor even liking. It is natural for people to cry at seeing sad things, for example when watching a movie or attending the wake of someone you hardly or never knew, such as a parent of a friend. You feel for the people who are affected that is why you cry, not because you like or love the deceased.
Words also evoke tears. The press has of course done an excellent job with all the tributes, recollections, eulogies, etc. I teared many times reading all through the week, but do I love him? Most definitely not.
I dare say most of the older people cried for themselves at the memories of their own difficult lives, triggered by his passing. He represented their own journeys through life.
People also cry when they see others cry. It is infectious.
Outpouring of grief? I am not so sure. I would call it an outpouring of gratitude. Moreover Singaporeans do not want to be left out – everybody is doing it – so I must do it too – join the queues.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, this ‘grieving’ is rather interesting. As for myself, I didn’t feel any love for the man. It was the weight of history that made me cry when the Anthem was played. What he had done – positive and negative. What we as a people had gone through. What more we could have been if not for the type of politics represented by that motionless flesh and bones in that coffin that was soon to turn into ashes.
So much drama whilst alive… no more than dust in the end.
LikeLike
Hi Subra, may I please suggest that you present your quotation from Mr LKY’s Founder’s Day speech with a visual difference, like a different font, colour, indentation or one of those [blockquote] HTML tags?
At present, it is easy to miss the start of the quotation, and the reader may end up thinking that the “I” in the quote refers to your goodself, leading to the conclusion that YOU were at RI from 1936 to 1940.
I believe you reader Chia YeeKim (8 Apr 2015 11:42am) has made the error.
So did my father. He thinks you’re 91 and with an 8-year-old son. I have assured him it’s totally possible.
Thank-you for your kind consideration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hahaha…. i literally laughed out loud… and my son is reading this with me.
i realise the problem now. I will adopt your suggestion.
LikeLike
Thank-you.
LikeLike
Excellent essay, Subrathiru. Compassionate, sensitive, insightful & acutely intelligent. Well done!
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is nothing to forgive when Lee Kuan Yew left this world without asking or even hinting about wanting to seek forgiveness. His son should do the right thing for his father before it is too late. Apologise to the families of those his father imprisoned like what the South Korean President did. Seek the forgiveness of Dr Beatrice Chen, now in her 80s and widow of Dr Lim Hock Siew who was imprisoned for 20 years. She suffered discrimination in the hospital where she worked and had to raise a five month old son when Dr Lim was imprisoned.Seek the forgiveness of Pak Said Zahari now in his 80s and in ill health. He was imprisoned for 17 years and his promising career as a newspaper editor ruined. Similarly, seek the forgiveness of Dr Poh Soo Kai, now in his 80s who was imprisoned for 17 years. His career as a gynaecologist ended with his imprisonment. Reconcile with them before it is too late.
As for moving on, all survivors and their families have moved on although they will never forget what Lee did to them. How do you think they are still alive today if they have not moved on? There is a world of difference between forgiving and moving on. They are aware that Lee was too proud to ask for forgiveness and they never expected that to happen. They moved on without even telling the next generation of how they suffered. They worked hard and fed their families without Lee’s help.
Today, we are beginning to hear the stories of those Lee Kuan Yew imprisoned. For every book that is published by or for the survivors, how many are published by Lee and his supporters to contradict what they say. Does moving on mean obliterating the past and letting the stories of Lee go unchallenged? Come on, let’s be fair to the survivors and let their stories be told after more than half a century of deception.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Soh Lung, thank you for commenting on this post. I have always wondered how the victims and the families of the victims would have felt and are still feeling. At the end of the day, my viewpoint as a fellow countryman is only as an observer. The closest I have come to understanding the experience of detainees is through reading books. I have been acquainted with Kevin de Souza when I was practising but we never spoke about Operation Spectrum.
What I have written here is my own personal journey. I have for far too long carried a hatred in my heart for LKY. Inevitably, talking about Operation Coldstore and Operation Spectrum gets me really angry. It is not possible to characterise the detentions as anything other than unjust.. Personally, I consider even the detention of the JI suspects as unjust. If there was evidence, they should have been prosecuted and allowed to defend themselves in a court of law.
When I wrote this post, it was about coming to terms with something within myself. I had to somehow deal with the anger. I can’t carry on by holding on to that bitterness. I needed to move on.
But, I don’t think that moving on will involve whitewashing the past. As a nation we have to confront that past and the historical record has to be set right. One of the more disturbing features of the continued propaganda today is the presentation of what was done as not only right in terms of evidence but also as the right sacrifice to have made for the prosperity that has been achieved.
Honestly, I don’t buy into the idea that we needed to have a trade-off. This prosperity could have been accomplished without having to detain political opponents and civil society activitists.
Moving on is a personal exhortation to let the man go in my consciousness. The rehabilitation is not the rehabilitation of LKY the man but LKY the very bad memory in my mind. I needed to let go.
As a country, we should have a responsibility towards truth. I make no exhortation to my countrymen to move on in terms of the inaccuracies in the past. The past forms an important part of the narrative of who we are as a people and how we define our moral conscience as a nation.
I have made an exhortation to our society to live up to our pledge. Justice and Equality are key components of that pledge. To live true to that oath that we take, we must not allow compromise on issues of justice whether it is about the past or the future. The future is not raised on a cloud of fuzzy idea but on the concrete foundation of the present. If in this present moment we do not address our historical injustices, then we will never build the firm foundation of justice that is necessary for a better society tomorrow.
Whilst I seek to bury the memory of the man, I do not seek to bury our history and the suffering of our countrymen.
On a personal note, Soh Lung, I have seen how you were hounded by LKY. As a teen it was infuriating for me to see how he destroyed young lives. I sincerely hope that the truth will eventually be firmly established. Perhaps, the PM could do something to help the process. Perhaps, an apology is one way. I am personally a fan of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. That is a model of justice that allows victims and oppressors to heal their wounds and move forward.
For now, given the status quo as it, the only thing that I can hope for is for more voices from amongst the ex-detainees and their families to emerge to address this huge gap in our national narrative.
LikeLike
Thank you for this wonderful write up. As a Malaysian (of Indian origin) I can tell you this much. Multiculturalism & an un- compromising system of education in Singapore are the gifts bestowed on present & future generations. Such an inheritance has been denied Malaysians. Your insight, your wisdom, your balanced perspective & your humanity come across with such frankness. I would nominate you for high office indeed!
LikeLike
You were not around during “Operation Cold Store” when many so-called “Communists” were rounded up by the Malaysian Govt. at the instigation of the PAP. These people included 2 doctors, Dr.Lim Hock Siew and Dr. Poh Soo Kai, whom I personally worked with and knew. Dr.Lim Hock Siew, who was detained for 19 years, told a group of doctors 5 years into his detention, that he was promised that he would be released if he signed a document, renouncing Communism. Dr. Lim told us how could he sign that document when he was NEVER a Communist. I know Dr. Lim was a true socialist as , after his release after 19 years of incarceration,, he went back into private practice in Balestier Road. Some of his patients told me that he would waive his fees for those who were too poor. He has since passed away.,sadly.
LikeLike
Hi Subrathiru Soh Lung Teo & Everyone Else here,
Thank you both and other who have contributed. I’m in my early 70s and vividly remember how I viewed him Le Kuan Yew as an early teenager in 1959 when I first saw and encountered him minutes before he made his political rally speech that won him ~56% popular votes. He came at me, a young kid, literally like an angry gorilla with its hands hanging to touch the ground to spring at me. He was more than twice my height and even my size and mass. So intimidating was he at this younger teenage who all he did was looked at him with amazement for ~20 metres. His bald forehead for his 37 years was some years younger than my dear daddy.
So, as I write this, I vividly recall how he stared and focus on me pacing quicker towards me until his team guys called out to him to cross over to the Paramount theatre to make his rally speech. He came from Serangoon Garden Way across the bus terminus and his manner came across to me after hearing his rally piece and expressions, as one as, “A chap who can do no wrong and anyone who isn’t with him and even just with curious looks he likes not can do no right”. And so I understand my late dear daddy why he was banging his huge heavy teak writing desk when it was announce that PAP had won! As after that opposite our house, was a man in house arrest who wasn’t allowed to even peek through his front windows curtains, let alone look out his front door as he didn’t even have that type of collapsible iron gate of that time. I knew why the police cars plied by often daily. I knew why. Because, no ones should know what he looked like and learn who he was! That man was…?
The sense & sensible sane discussions in social media alone puts paid to the Lee Kuan Yew idealism of pragmatism with by way of his undefined, “It is better to be practical than to be legal and logical”. Command from such a qualified lawyer educated in Cambridge for UK’s Westminster Laws, I’ve since then been aghast at his version of deterrence by way of MDP and bragged later of how drug trafficker numbers had drop to MDP hangings. Even about Michael Faye’s artistic talents painted on an SMRT train car, he had his deterrent brag of the 3 lashes of the Rotan as, “It is a bit harsh, but he broke our laws”! Would he have done and said the same to one of his flesh and blood who did the same as Michael Faye? ABSOLUTELY NO!
That said, Chris Tan on April 8, 2015 believes that “Anyhow, I have a feeling that LKY’s favourite song is probably “El Condor Pasa”. Sorry but he had said that, “Listening to music is a waste of time”! Did not Shakespeare say that, “He who loves no music is dangerous”! And he was so “gunho” self styled oppressive that he will unload all of his thoughts of a week of more to anyone he knows to be a silent and “willing” listener whether they are in tuned and/or understood him or not! THAT IS The one-track mind guy he was. So one track minded prouder than a peacock was he that despite all of his compromising with his inner circles reasoning and counter, he was still very much the “winner must take all” as his “What’s wrong with collecting more money” to Ngiam Tong Dow who as Civil Service Finance Head was up against his COE idealism!
I could go on and on but what’s the point as he is after all now just “a fistful of ash” as Subrathiru said. Because too, of the son Lee Hsien Loong who he made PM3, he had responded to social media critics as, “He is very much a man of his own”, is more of “A chap of his father making and image, languishing in his cool pool of water and still executing his father’s taught self-righteous political processes”!
Thus, since “Experience is the finest (better than “best” commonly known) teacher, it is for more true PG and their children Singaporeans to make good of what’s truly bad of Lee Kuan Yew and in his son Lee Hsien Loong to make good from lessons learned of the PAP “patriarch” who is even credited by his son as “The Founder of PAP”, when it was late Dr. Toh Chin Chye who was and first named it “AP” for “Action Party”. And was changed to PAP after late Dr. Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, etc joined the first 4 of AP!
So there you are, that’s the other side of the LKY that not too many know now even in this internet social media age. But the numbers are rising and his son Lee Hsien Loong “total fortunes” from his father is fast dwindling to reach geometric scale. As his father’s muzzled MSM is not winning the technology capabilities of this new information age. How hard they may try to make small of social media with his “Humans are not designed for the internet” followed by “be proper in social media” in reality reflect more badly on him and themselves as leaders with greater impact then on all categories of Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners across the board as whole! Even as we critic them both, we’ve actually been “teaching and helping” him to end his father’s given keeps! So, in conclusion as it is well known, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks” as also with such centric politicians, “Pride comes before a fall” they can’t subscribe to so obviously as “Old habits die hard”, both good and bad!
LikeLike
Hi. What chances does your son have of being Prime Minister of Singapore if he has the necessary skills?
I am ex Singaporean, Indian by race and my wife a beautiful Chinese lady. I asked my boss, who a very, very senior official in the PAP if my children, if they all the necessary skills, could they aspire to be the Prime Minister of Singapore. His simple and curt reply was “NO”….”NEVER”
LikeLike
It is an issue for which a straight and direct answer is going to be impossible. As an Indian myself, my starting point has to be that it is not easy for someone from a minority race to be a PM. Few societies have been able to get past the issue of race in choosing a leader from a minority community. Some have succeeded. But, really few. In fact, it appears that the gender barrier has been easier to break that the racial barrier.
The interesting question about whether Chinese Singaporeans would accept a non-Chinese PM is not one that is easy to answer. People will not openly admit it if race is a factor for them. Some have, as your boss has clearly done.
However, the choice of a PM is not the direct choice of the people in our system. It is the political party that chooses its party leader. People vote at the General Elections on the basis of political parties. So, if the PAP were to select Tharman as their leader, PAP supporters will still vote for the PAP and so long as the PAP is able to satisfy the middle ground of voters, those voters will vote for the PAP. They just need a majority of seats in Parliament and the leader of their party will become PM. The question is, therefore, not whether the general population can accept an Indian PM. The question is whether the power elites in the PAP are willing to select an non-Chinese leader.
I have seen many online comments that speak very favourably of Tharman. Some of them calling for Tharman to be PM. So, I won’t underestimate my fellow Singaporeans. The problem lies primarily within the political parties.
LikeLike
First I would thank you for your response. You answered my question and I quote “The question is whether the power elites in the PAP are willing to select an non-Chinese leader.”
I was twenty five and filled with the stupidity of youth and overcome with euphoria and elation when I heard this memorable radio message: “Whereas it is the inalienable right of a people to be free and independent, I, Lee Kuan Yew, prime minister of Singapore, do hereby proclaim and declare on behalf of the people and the government of Singapore that as from today, the ninth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five, Singapore shall be forever a sovereign, democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society.” – Lee Kuan Yew, 9 August 1965, 10am, radio broadcast.
Within three years the promise made was overwhelmed by nepotism and cronyism. My euphoria dissipated and I left in 1969 and never to return. Fifty years later, far away, the words of August 9th, 1965 still ring in my ears, the ringing is an empty sound.
Fast forward thirty two years and from the lips of this brilliant Cambridge educated lawyer [double first] come these word: “Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle-dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no way you can govern a Chinese society.”
– Lee Kuan Yew, The Man and His Ideas, 1997
LikeLike
Why I’ll Never Return to Singapore
An eye-opening write-up that shows – luxury, forced city orderliness and artificial
lifestyles alone does not make a nation great. Read on friends.
Last week was my final week living in Singapore. I don’t plan on ever returning.
Last week was my final week living in Singapore. I don’t plan on ever returning.
Why I’ll Never Return to Singapore
Danny Dover @dannydover
Last week was my final week living in Singapore. I don’t plan on ever returning.
Behind the curtains of the hawker stands and the brand new five billion dollar casino, there
is a struggle in Singapore. A struggle that is constrained to the small boundaries of this
city-state but reflects issues rooted in the human experience. What happens when everything
goes right?
Singapore, in its current political state, has only been around for 50 years. In this short time,
it has defied all odds and become one of the worlds most outstanding countries. It leads the
world in education, banking and shipping, and has created an everyday existence of unrivalled
cleanliness, safety and stability. In Singapore, even petty theft is uncommon.
IMG_0710
But Why?
One answer is pride. Every student in Singapore starts their day by vocally and harmoniously
declaring their pride in their country. Similarly, they start each class by verbally acknowledging
their teachers. Unlike most schools, Singapore mandates curriculum on empathy and cultural
understanding. The wars of foreign countries are studied in school so that the mistakes of
others will not be repeated by Singaporeans.
After graduating, every citizen is required to do active service in the military. Historically,
Singapore hasn’t been a warring nation, so the excess manpower in the military is assigned
to civil work. Again, pride is the outcome.
In Singapore, people simply do as they should do. They actually follow the golden rule.
But How?
Singapore was founded with an extreme sense of the necessity of survival. From the beginning,
government officials declared that they would do whatever was necessary to survive as an
independent nation. Whatever was necessary.
The leaders of Singapore’s educational system saw the importance of math and science and
built a system almost exclusively around those two areas. The political leaders saw the
benefits of being inclusive and uninhibitedly opened the country’s borders to foreigners. The
leaders understood the importance of tourism dollars and literally added land to their island
city-state in order to build a world class casino.
Singapore’s leaders set Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to grade their government’s
performance and within 50 short years surpassed them all. In essence, everything went right.
This, I believe, is the reason Singapore is a country in struggle.
In 2001, Singaporean student, Lysher Loh made national news after committing suicide.
Lysher was a 10-year-old girl. She cited stress at school as the reason for taking her life.
Unfortunately, her case is not an isolated one. The suicide rate in Singapore is rising at an
unprecedented 29% a year. With people between the ages of 20-29, the increase is a
horrifying 80%.
In a school system built to produce scientists, bankers and mathematicians, an artsy student
was deemed a failure. The school system is one of the world’s most efficient but it is only able
to produce a limited type of human widgets.
When the census was taken in 2011, it was revealed that only about 60% of Singapore’s
population were Singaporean. The rest were foreigners. Singapore has become so open,
that outsiders are getting close to outnumbering locals.
During my months in Singapore, I walked around and tried to investigate the heritage of
the people. Time and time again, citizens laughed and said “what heritage?”
IMG_0744
Like all current global citizens, modern Singaporeans are living in a time of change. New
media is helping to facilitate conversations that used to happen in small groups behind
closed doors. For the first time, open letters to the heads of education are going viral on
Facebook and political critiques are spreading on YouTube. The conversation is spreading
and fuelled by the Internet, the voices are getting louder.
So Why Won’t You Be Returning?
I would describe my time living in Singapore as sterile. Nothing particularly bad happened
but it wasn’t particularly good either. Daily life was convenient but it was only the bare
minimum of living. I had everything I needed to be comfortable but I didn’t have anything
that inspired me. Even though there wasn’t a language barrier, I encountered a hefty
communication barrier. In my experience, people were polite but conversations rarely
moved past surface-level niceties. Of the conversations that I took part in and overheard,
the vast majority of them were about work. I routinely watched people work 15 hours days
and stress over strict deadlines. Yes it was living and they were making progress but it
wasn’t holistic and people openly admitted to me that it wasn’t fulfilling.
There are an incredible amount of amazing places in the world. I don’t want to waste my
limited time and resources in places that doesn’t make me better.
So then, what happens when everything goes right?
In the case of Singapore, it meant that more serious questions had to be asked. The country
had accomplished amazing feats in some of the world’s most competitive and lucrative
industries but at what cost? When a country is founded on the idea of surviving regardless
of the cost, what happens when it thrives? In the case of Singapore, its spirit stagnates.
—–
Sources:
Suicide statistics:
Samaritans of Singapore (SOS): http://www.samaritans.org.sg/
“Suicides hit all-time high in Singapore in 2012″ – AFP News: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/suicides-hit-time-high-singapore-2012-112353103.html
Population statistics:
Singaporean Government (National Population and Talent Division, Prime Minister’s Office): http://population.sg/resources/work-pass-framework/
LikeLike
Lee Kuan Yew (and the original core leaders) deserved the accolades and appreciation. But the public veneration of Lee on his death was overdone; he was made a demi-God, especially by the sycophantic media.
Lee was a street-smart politician, a clever operator, from the early years of the 50s. He took up union cases for postal, health workers not just as a lawyer but as an ambitious politician out to cultivate ground support and recognition, and to counter the Chinese-educated activists courting street support too.
Before he became PM in 1959 of self-governing Singapore, he was vehement against the ISA and for press freedom, having lived and studied in England for some years. But soon after, he himself used ( abused) the ISA too often : the most egregious case was his erstwhile political colleague Chia Thye Poh, who was detained for some 32 years, longer than the detention of Nelson Mandela. (Chia, in his 70s, is still alive; wonder how he feels now, having lost most of his adult years.) Another curious case was Ho Kwong Ping, now a prominent businessman, intellectual,; he was detained for a few weeks while working as a journalist for the Far Eastern Economic Review and his father then was ambassador to Thailand. So too was Francis Seow after contesting the general elections, for consorting with the Americans; Seow was charged too for possessing pornographic materials found in his residence by the police. And the “Marxist plotters” were mostly well-meaning social activists. Lee called it a plot to overthrow the government – how preposterous to ascribe such revolutionary prowess to such motley bunch! And Lee publicly castigated the Catholic Archbishop for not supervising the few priests who were accused of offering spiritual counsel to the plotters.
Lee effectively emasculated the press with the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, making it mandatory for yearly renewal of the printing licence and creating management shares that invest in “trusted” directors dominant voting weight. Also, successive Chairmen and CEOs of the SPH group were former ministers, permanent secretaries.
Free of significant political opposition and aided by compliant media, Lee was able to formulate, implement his (mostly correct) policies successfully. He (and his team) did it with missionary zeal, resulting in today’s Singapore.
Would Lee have been as successful running another country, say, Malaysia, Indonesia, on same foundation of incorruptibility, meritocracy, efficient public administration, open economy… ? The entrenched interests in such countries against a smart, clean leadership would have been extremely difficult. He campaigned for two years for a Malaysian Malaysia after Singapore joined – it contributed to race riots and then eviction from Malaysia in 1965.
.
Many Singaporeans do acknowledge and respect Lee for his vast contribution, but it was excessive for the local media to have indulged in such hagiolatry. Lee himself would have cringed at it.
LikeLike
To Subrathiru, Andrew Tan, Teo Soh Lung and many sane and sensible others,
Don’t get me wrong, but hasn’t Lee Kuan Yew been given undue accolades based purely on “bread and butter” supply which is now dwindling and a going into a down spiral? Lets put on our more sane thinking caps to critically analyse Lee Kuan Yew real motivation in his life! let first then never look away from his entire political life of bragging and more brags spoken and even written! What should we think of such brags just because “WE” the smart ones have bread on OUR tables and WE the smarter ones even have butter to enhance it for our pallet “from him”? NO one else can do or provide better and soulful too holistically? Answer to this is a dilemma? No biased indeed?
So What do you think?
As a teen younger than Amos Yee now being clobbered by the like father like son he made PM3, I attended one of his rally in 1959 at Serangoon Gardens Bus Terminus on invitation by by late father. And after that view Lee Kuan Yew as one “Who can do no wrong and no one who is not with and about him can do no right”. And it had nothing to do with the way he came at this small little glaringly and who was there out of curiosity by way of his dad. I looked at that tall chap looking somewhat handsome at 37 and was aghast at the way with his intimidating look and manner he came towards me from Serangoon Garden Way to go to the former Paramount Theatre for his rally speech. Coming at me at the Kensington Road end of the bus terminus for no good reason was so stark it imprinted in my my now past the 70s. No good reason other than he was obviously on top of the world that such an attitude pre-rally speech was showing his impressionist self as “resolute leader to be! That has held out truth this about till today. Because, all SG he built is more of a Bricks & Mortar island city state. Because in his son he left us all a lousy legacy of:
1. Low Productivity workforce of many of Lee Kuan Yew’s not defined FTs with fake qualifications via CECA promoted and implemented by George Yeo with and as Foreign Minister in PM2 Goh Chok Tong PAP government.
2. And now with the AEC that L$L is so GUNHO of, more PMETs ARE GOING TO BE JOBS & FAMILIES SCREWED BY HIM IF enough of his pap’s DAFT Sinklies STILL PUT him IN PARLIAMENT with a high enough 2/3rd majority number of seats! THAT WILL SURELY BE THE END OF THE SINGAPOREANS NATION RACE! – MARK MY WORD! Because if enough daft Singaporeans can’t see his destructive legacy in his son as PM3 for only one more term of destructive policies, Singaporean will surely become a total totally saleable commodity indeed
3. Need I add more to a society of even professors like Kishore Mahbubani as dean of LKY School of Public Policy whom I engage in not minor conversation with. And what Prof. Tommy the Ambassador-At-Large and so many more are willing sales item for purely materialist acquiring for a price are so willing sooth sayers for for all of Lee Kuan Yewism? They got souls? 35 cents EP is Lee Kuan Yewism-PAPS’s finest example as his is called by those who didn’t make in pass primary 6 detested by Lee Kuan Yew explicitly! Wasn’t it Prof Walter Woon who saintly made his most quick exit as AG of PAP because he cannot be bought nor coerced at any prized!
So, without reserve I have for 4 decades viewed LKY was nothing more than a Monotone Monologue Monomaniac Moody Moony Loony Megalomaniac of a politician who made politics really dirty and most unwarranted in a docile society he exaggerated as potentially explosive if it is not ruled with an iron hand like he did! because he self-righteously knew from Dr. Goh Keng Swee the first Generation that Singaporeans are one of the worlds most hard working and diligent
All because he feared competition to the extend till he couldn’t see any goodness and/or creativity innovative substance in anyone else who do not see to eye with him. Thus he was nothing but a coy leery nefarious chap who reveres in doing the opposite of respect for other by his very conning for power. And once attaining it, he cowers under pressure of legitimate discussion by using his high position via threats and other leery means
And so he covered his greatest fear with great dirty political deceits by using those who are The TRULY GREAT 1ST GENERATION OLD GUARDS CHAMPIONS OF Singaporeans. Like Dr. Goh Keng Swee who by abusing his contributions gotr Singaporeans in his “eulogy” ending on his funeral day with “And I GAVE HIM THE TOUGHEST and the true Founder of PAP Dr. Toh Chin Chye was even sideline for someone’s pap as the “Founder of PAP”? Of Singapore is no enough for him? And with so much magnetic pull towards his papa, how does he as PM3 be that “Very much a man of his own” as his papa bragged for him to press of him being his princelin for PM3 after PM2 as a Goh but not a Lee has completed the tax based structure prepare on a diamond starded platter? much like the same he was brought up! How else could a PM3rd of Sgf then be so succinct to tell of hmself as mostly likely to BE THE ONLY SG PM (meaning PAP) to have 20 years of apprenticeship in ordr to be PM3? And also self confessed as without 20/20 vision too?
Enough evidence out ther since 2004 when he became PM3 designate until daft voters gave him mandate in GE2006 for his tears and wanting to FIX the oppsition if we Singaporeans want more of them in our parliament. To cause him to not have time to be PM3 too, “Sleepless in SG” and not in “Seattle” (movie!) eh? Such adriod leery fluid must surely fill his blood cessel as well as veins!
Plese be not afraid to let this through dear Subrarithu.
Thank you,
Renny Li
LikeLike
OPEN LETTER TO AMOS, HIS PARENTS AND PM LEE Post date: 7 Apr 2015 – 12:12pm
Dear Amos,
Wow, I am impressed. What a beautiful video and what an amazing delivery. I don’t think I have ever seen an 8 minute video with such am impact.
Of course, the outpour of criticism your piece has caused, has been vast. The immature have made imbecile comments on your hairstyle while the too mature have been preoccupied with your use of profanities. Many of the more sophisticated commentators have been somewhat positive, but still typically in the form “he may have some points, but timing, format or something else was wrong”.
What it seems most of your detractors fail to realize is that your video was as perfect as it was intended. They say the journey is the destination, and in communication the content is only part of the message. Other, sometimes equally important, parts of a message are style, format and timing of delivery. You wanted Lee loyalists to know what you think of their deity and you wanted the whole world to know that there is another side to the late Lee Kuan Yew. You wanted people to know that, despite his real (but often exaggerated) achievements, Lee Kuan Yew was in fact a horrible person. And wow, have you managed to get the message across.
That Lee Kuan Yew was a horrible person should not, of course, surprise anyone. Many, if not most, leaders of countries and corporations are not nice people. You simply don’t get to the top by being Mr. Nice Guy. And although you might find exceptions to this rule, in the subclass of leaders that Lee Kuan Yew belonged to, the dictator, I doubt you will find any. The way Lee Sr. treated his political adversaries should be plenty of evidence for any doubters.
And if more evidence is needed, the following quote by LKY himself should remove any shadow of doubt: “Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless.” What kind of person would rather be feared than loved and respected? Only a very horrible person indeed.
Not only was he a horrible person, but odds are he was not a particularly good father either. After all, what kind of father would want to put his son in a position he is so obviously unfit to have? Lee Hsien Loong lacks the three essential qualities needed to be a successful dictator: charisma, an unflinching self-confidence and ruthlessness. Lee Hsien Loong is uncharismatic, insecure and instills fear more like a cat than a tiger. Lee Jr.’s rule is bound to end in failure, and both father and son must have known that. Nevertheless, LKY put his son in this position.
The saddest part of Lee Kuan Yew’s life is that he did not have the wisdom to leave at the right time. He did not have sufficient trust in his own people to leave the stage and set Singaporeans free. Instead he insisted on ruling by fear, first directly, then indirectly, to the bitter end. Had he had the wisdom to relinquish power, in the mid-80s for instance, his legacy could have been that of a super Pinochet: an autocratic leader that created an economic miracle with minimal bloodletting. But LKY never learned that love trumps fear every day of the week. He never understood that his people have grown up and can indeed be trusted with democracy and a free media. How sad it is that he did not set his people free, but instead relied on fear and control, not realizing how detrimental these are to human happiness.
His reliance on fear, rather than love, respect and trust is also a personal tragedy for LKY. His legacy will now always be tainted by defamation suits, repressions of basic freedoms and allegations of nepotism. But maybe even worse: He could never know if the people who surrounded him loved and respected him, or were frightened of him. How anguishing it must have been, to lie there on the death bed and wonder: Did my people ever love me? Or were their feelings just thinly disguised fear? These sad questions he will now bring with him to eternity.
So, Amos, your point that LKY was a horrible person is one that ever more Singaporeans will realize. You wanted to make this point and you wanted as many people as possible to get the message. You also wanted to make the point so clear so that there would be no room for you, or others on your behalf, to backtrack and say that your message had been misunderstood or misinterpreted. In a society of fear, like Singapore is today thanks to LKY, the way people mince their words and doublespeak can be deafening. So many of the intellectuals and politicians are so careful with their words to avoid being sued or lose their jobs that you sometimes need a PhD to understand what they really mean. Your 8 minute video, including the expletives (no, I don’t believe they were thrown in there for fun or out of immaturity), was crystal clear and communicated to Singaporeans and foreigners alike what you think of the late Lee Kuan Yew.
The timing, to get maximum impact, was of course no accident either. More than a million views and unprecedented media coverage makes that abundantly clear.
So, while the immature focus on your hair, and while the more intellectually oriented commentators, encapsulated in their PAP-fear, keep saying “he had some points, but…”, my judgment is this: what a stroke of genius your 8 minute video is. Created to have maximum impact on the waning Lee regime, you have succeeded tremendously. I congratulate you unreservedly.
Dear parents of Amos,
You must be scared. You must be terrified. And your fear is perfectly understandable. Your son has taken on a powerful dictatorial regime, and has done so in a way that not only reaches a dozen of his friends, but in a way that has reached millions of people. You have seen what the regime does to its critics. You have seen the faiths of Chia Thye Poh, JBJ, Chee Soon Juan and lately also Roy Ngerng. You don’t want your son to go through the miseries that these people have had to endure. That you are terrified is easy for any parent to understand.
Yet, you must try to be strong and courageous. It is not the first time a young man has taken on a powerful regime. What your son had done is pointing out an unpleasant fact, a hard truth in the words of LKY. What Amos has done is very similar to the well-known fable: he has shouted out that the emperor is naked. And he has shouted so loud and clear that the whole world has heard. In the fable, of course, it is the emperor that is the fool, not the child yelling out the truth. And so it is with your son and the Lees: the Lees are the naked fools and what Amos has done is to help people see this. No repercussions against the child were recorded in the fable. How the dying Lee regime will react to your brave boy’s call-out is still work-in-progress. Let us be hopeful they learn from the fable.
If you are religious, you can also take comfort in another story of a young man who took on a powerful regime: Jesus. He took on the Roman Empire and powerful priests. We all know how this story ended: Jesus was crucified in an attempt to scare others and put a definitive end to his preaching. But when his detractors thought they had won, the story took an unexpected turn: Jesus rose from the dead, his followers multiplied, the Roman Empire collapsed and Jesus’ ideas live on even today, 2000 years later.
Your son will be spared the physical crucifixion, but the Lee family propaganda machine is working in overdrive to crucify him in the media. Maybe they think they are winning, but I think they are fighting a lost cause. Already now, the PAP regime’s harsh response to Amos’ video is shifting many Singaporean’s sympathy from the Lees to Amos. And even if Amos still may have a million or two detractors in Singapore, be not in doubt who the world sympathizes with. A Google news search indicates there are now more than 2000 news articles about your son worldwide. Maybe 200 of them are from Singapore and the rest are from the international media. And while the Lee family has used every trick in the book to try to portray Amos as a villain in the state controlled media, the international media’s sympathy lies with Amos. In autocratic regime v. 16 year old vlogger, the sympathy of the international media and public opinion will always be with the latter. So, even if Amos may have a couple of million detractors in Singapore, he has tens of millions supporters outside Singapore.
I realize foreign support may not be too comforting all the time Amos is in Singapore. However, try to remain strong in this difficult time.
Amos has already achieved more than many of us will do in a lifetime. That is something to be proud of.
To Mr. Lee Jr,
As Amos’ parents, must you be scared. How terrifying it must be to see that a 16 year old boy’s 8 minute video ripping your father apart resonates so well with your populace. You have held no punches in order to stop this boy. The police and judiciary are on your side, you have crucified him in the media and he has been given a gagging order. But to what effect? The only result is that the whole world has heard his message too. I assume one of your advisors have informed you about the Streisand effect by now. Well, you have learned it the hard way.
To be true, you did not have any good options once Amos’ video went viral. Ignore it and a new precedent for
freedom of expression would have been set. Attack the boy (the option you chose) and be condemned worldwide and see the video go global.
The truth is that, the moment the video went viral, you were check mate. It is simple, your time is up. Most of the authority you had went to the grave with your father, and the rest has now vanished with your response to Amos’ video. You can try to hold on to power for a few more years, or you can leave now and in a dignified way. But be not mistaken: The ship is sinking and you can be sure your comrades are already looking for the life boats, whether it is the SDP or Switzerland. They say that the most powerful force in the world is an idea whose time has come. You are smart enough to realize that the time has come, so get out know, and save your dignity and legacy.
I have claimed you don’t possess the qualities needed to be a successful dictator. But don’t despair; the personality traits that make you a bad dictator are the same that are likely to make you a good father. Dictators tend to be horrible people and bad fathers. Your lack of charisma, your more down to earth self-confidence and the fact you are more of a cat than a tiger, are all qualities that make you a good father.
One of the lessons I have learned in life is that it is better to focus on what you are good at, rather than trying to fix your flaws. My not-so-humble recommendation to you is this: Resign, live the rest of your life out of the public eye, and spend your time being a good father and grandfather. That, I truly believe, is how you can achieve happiness and it is also the best way to preserve your own and the Lee family’s legacy. 11 years at the helm is a long time under any circumstances; no one can fault you for stepping down now. If you at the same time manage to shepherd Singapore peacefully to democracy, you may one day even be hailed as Asia’s Gorbachev
.
So, Amos, what the coming weeks and months will hold for you no one knows. What punishment the dying Lee regime will mete out to you is difficult to predict. They are now currently busy with your crucifixion in the media and have levelled three, clearly politically motivated, charges against you. The ensuing public backlash is already well underway, with ever more Singaporeans breaking free from the shackles of fear and speaking up for your, and their own, rights. Many people see that they could be you, or you could be their son.
The government must be getting cold feet and try to think of ways to get out of the mess. The problem is that for Lee Jr. there is no easy way out of the hole he is in. Drop the charges and freedom of expression will have gained a foothold in Singapore that his autocratic regime cannot survive. Press on with the charges and the domestic and international fall-out will continue, gradually eroding support for the PAP.
So, it may very well be that you have managed to check mate the Lee regime, Amos. The demise of LKY and your 8 minute video may turn out to mark the tipping point that took Singapore on a path to freedom and democracy.
No matter how things turn out, you deserve credit, not critique, for what you have done. Watching your video and reading your blog, I could not stop to think how remarkably similar you are to the founder of Facebook, Marc Zuckerberg. In the free world, people like you go on and make great companies and make the world a better place in the process. Soon, I believe, the situation will be the same in Singapore.
A friend of mine, a Singaporean citizen who is also impressed with what you have done, wants to help you along the way by giving you a grant of S$10,000. Consider it as credit for what you have already achieved or a small compensation for the hardship you are currently going through. There is a condition attached with the money, however. The money must be used for one, or a combination, of the following:
· Paying for your legal defense (but not any fines, damages, etc.)
· Studying abroad
· Starting a company
A boy named Sue will contact you in the near future with instructions on how you can call the money.
Yours sincerely,
F. Reedom
F Reedom is a pseudonym. A pseudonym is used as the author’s family is afraid of repercussions from the PAP government if full name is used. The author hopes to one day be able to express his views in Singapore without fear.
The author is a foreigner who has worked in financial consultancy and wealth management. He has a post graduate degree in finance and economics from a world leading university.
LikeLike