Category: Singapuraku

  • The Lee Kuan Yew Steamboat Battelship

    The Lee Kuan Yew Steamboat Battelship

    The day was Sep 26, 1958. The late Mdm Kwa Geok Choo, wife of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, received a puzzling telegram from her husband. It read: “ARRIVING TODAY BATTLESHIP = LEEKUANYEW”.

    It was sent from Sibu in Sarawak, when the late Mr Lee was practising as a lawyer in Lee & Lee, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wrote on Facebook on Monday (Apr 6).

    “My mother did not understand the message. Was my father coming home on a battleship? The Lee & Lee secretary called the British Naval Base at Sembawang to check if any battleship was arriving from Sarawak, but they knew nothing about it,” Prime Minister Lee recounted.

    Turns out, it was a dinner request.

    “My father did arrive home that day, but not by battleship. He explained that he wanted steam boat for dinner, but as “steam boat” was two words, and telegrams were charged by the word, he wrote “battleship” instead, to save words and money!”

    Mr Lee shared the childhood memory, after discovering the telegram while sorting through his father’s belongings at home.

    “Sadly, since we had not understood the message, we did not have steam boat for dinner that night,” he said.

    The Prime Minister’s anecdote drew hundreds of amused comments on Facebook. Many quipped that from now on, Singaporeans should refer to steam boat as “battleship”, as a nod to Mr Lee.

    Was amazed to find this old telegram when sorting through my father’s things at home. My parents had kept it all these…

    Posted by Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday, 5 April 2015

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Zulfikar Shariff: Lee Kuan Yew’s Legacy On Islam And Discrimination Of Malays Should Not Be allowed To Perpetuate

    Zulfikar Shariff: Lee Kuan Yew’s Legacy On Islam And Discrimination Of Malays Should Not Be allowed To Perpetuate

    Alhamdulillah, most of my friends are those who have not been indoctrinated.

    There are Muslims who have good intentions but lack political understanding. They assume that with his death, LKY does not have any further effect on Muslims. We should then move forward and not discuss him anymore.

    But that is the problem when someone lack appreciation of political narratives and try to make a claim on political effects. Let me make this simple to understand. An institution is made up of 3 primary components: routines, expected behaviour and shared goals. The government is an institution through the existence of the 3 characteristics.

    The shared goals (or shared reality) is a set of ideas, values, philosophies that are developed through the institution. In the PAP and government, how Muslims are engaged and treated owes a lot to Lee Kuan Yew’s views of reducing Islam to its bare minimum

    His demands for rejection of various aspects of Islam were not adopted through any objective measure. Rather, they were granted legitimacy simply through the force of his demands.

    Ideas do not die with the death of its advocates. They live on. The way Lee Kuan Yew discriminates the Muslims, lives beyond his natural life.

    Thus, the only way to challenge the ideas and halt its promotion is to challenge the narrative surrounding Lee Kuan Yew. Delegitimise his interaction and management of the community and his ideas of how the Muslims should be discriminated (while pretending to support) loses currency.

    So for those who want to keep quiet and accept his legacy, that is your right. Do that. Those who want to promote him as the spirit of Singapore’s development, you can do that too.

    The rest of us will tear down the fiction of Lee Kuan Yew’s history. Not because we want to discuss the man.

    But because his ideas on how the community should be discriminated and how Islam should be rejected cannot be allowed to live on.

     

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff

  • The Lee Kuan Yew Foundation

    The Lee Kuan Yew Foundation

    Lee Kuan Yew was a giant revered for his brilliant mind, shrewd political instinct, and fearless candor. In the week since his passing, we’ve reminisced about his life – beginning the debate over his legacy and how we will remember him.

    Singaporeans from all walks of life have shared how Lee Kuan Yew touched them, whether through small gestures of warmth or the grand gesture of stewarding us into the nation we are. The story of how he took the CIA to task about an allegedbribery scandal in 1960 lit up social media, with Singaporeans taking pride in the maverick that Lee Kuan Yew was. Leaders from every corner of the globe have taken turns to shower acclaim on his life, his success and his counsel. For their part, his detractors have cautioned against an overly effusive telling of the Lee Kuan Yew story, pointing to his social engineering, lawsuits against the press, and treatment of political opponents.

    Whoever is right, it is indisputable that Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy towers over Singapore like the skyscrapers that dominate the new Marina Bay skyline. Never ornate, their clean lines exemplify the future orientation and simplicity that Lee Kuan Yew adopted in tackling Singapore’s challenges. They can be seen from miles away, commanding an undeniable presence.

    But as with the skyscrapers, it is easy to forget that Lee Kuan Yew’s accomplishments rest on a foundation of unconventional thinking.

    The People’s Action Party was founded in response to his belief that the status quo, Singapore under the British, was no longer right for the country – he fought forMerdeka. He maintained a fearlessness to “defy conventional wisdom” and in the process transformed a society “from where it is to where it has never been – indeed, where it as yet cannot imagine being”. This, in Henry Kissinger’s words, is what makes him a “great leader” and is the same boldness of mind that led to many of Singapore’s audacious projects, including the Marina Bay land reclamation project in the 1970s that literally laid the ground for the pillars that rise from it today.

    These were the building blocks of Lee Kuan Yew’s power as a transformative figure: an enterprising instinct, unconstrained by existing authority or the way things had been; an unmitigated pragmatism that called things as they were – so as to fix them; an ambitious vision, buoyed by compassion. It was unencumbered brilliance that, in his own words, was about trying to be “correct, not politically correct”.

    If Lee Kuan Yew had bowed to his critics, we might still be raw ingredients, separated by race, language or religion. He and his team provided the sweet sauce to bring the rojak together – even if it meant limiting our right to choose what language to study, where to live, or whom to live among.

    Today, new divisions are developing in Singaporean society. We need the same innovativeness – not simply the same policies – to face these new challenges. In a speech to the Singapore Press Club in 1996, he said: “Thirty years ago, my colleagues, younger and more dreamy eyed, settled the words of our pledge. We did not focus our minds on our navels or we would have missed the rainbow in the sky. We pursued that rainbow and that was how we came to build today’s Singapore.”

    His eyes were always fixed on making Singapore better, scanning the horizon without the glare of the past. It is our turn to do the same.

    Like Lee Kuan Yew who stood on the foundation of his British education to build a stronger Singapore without the British, we too must stand on the foundation of his legacy to build a stronger Singapore than we already have, now that we have lost him. And like him, we must fight for it, regardless of the powers that be.

    But we cannot allow his legacy to be constrained by his policies, his past successes, or his party. As important as they are, they are temporal, as was he. Buildings get torn down, political parties gain and lose dominance, ideas lose currency – the world will change, and we must adapt along with it.

    Lee Kuan Yew knew this. In his latest memoir, he wrote, “because of my house, neighbouring houses cannot be built high. (…) Demolish my house, change the planning rules, and the land value will go up. I don’t think my daughter or my wife or I, who lived in it, or my sons who grew up in it, will bemoan its loss.” In the same vein, we mustn’t overly sentimentalize the structures that Lee Kuan Yew built; his legacy must not become the convention he so often combated against.

    He is the father of modern day Singapore not because he leaves us with towering skyscrapers where there once was water, nor because he’s lifted us to a standard of living unimaginable fifty years ago. It is because he leaves behind a people inspired by his bold vision of a stronger Singapore and a blueprint for how to make it possible through his example: his independence and pioneering spirit; his fearlessness in the face of stark odds; his pragmatism, compassion and passion for the cause of Singapore.

    These are the characteristics that made him the man he was and is the enduring legacy that we must be thankful for and live up to.

    It is perhaps fitting that, like Lee Kuan Yew who wept at the shattering of a union he so fervently believed in, Singaporeans today mourn the end of a union that has been at our very heart. In Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s words, “Lee Kuan Yew was Singapore”. His values are the true inheritance a father has bequeathed to his nation – values we must remember, keep safe, and do proud.

    Thank you, Mr Lee.

     

    Source: http://singaporepolicyjournal.com

  • Sanjay Perera: Lee Kuan Yew’s Legacy In Our Collective Trust

    Sanjay Perera: Lee Kuan Yew’s Legacy In Our Collective Trust

    “Where does Singapore go from here?” (April 4) is an excellent piece that calls on Singaporeans to reflect on the precious legacy handed down to us from the first-generation leaders and people.

    The sense of loss from Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s passing is not only national but, for some of us, personal. A close friend’s sibling, when paying her last respects at Mr Lee’s bier, asked permission to stand there a little longer to say a prayer. She stood there for 10 minutes.

    She informed her brother that Mr Lee’s death reminded her of their father’s demise. It connected her to the memory of what their parents told them about coming to Singapore as immigrants to start a new life.

    This is understandable. I recalled the loss of my own father, a pioneer in local broadcasting who worked closely with Mr Lee and the first-generation leaders, during Mr Lee’s funeral.

    My father’s working experience was intertwined with the country’s struggle for success and the political compact that had to be forged with the populace.

    He was the television floor manager when Mr Lee cried over Singapore’s separation from Malaysia. Despite the tears and Mr Lee’s request to stop for a while, the cameras kept rolling. That iconic moment is part of the national consciousness.

    My father spent nights in discussions and going through the speeches of ministers and Mr Lee before they were broadcast. It was a time of synergy, and all the talent that could be mustered was used to enhance political stability.

    Sometimes, when my father was required to see Mr Lee at the Istana, a car was sent to fetch him from his office at Caldecott Hill.

    The reason: As my father did not drive at the time, Mr Lee did not want him to be given lifts by others who would then try to influence his thinking en route to see the Prime Minister.

    After those discussions, if it was going to rain, Mr Lee would ask a security officer to drop my father off at a bus stop or taxi stand to make his own way back. He often came home late, as Mr Lee was hard at work.

    Despite my disagreements with some of Mr Lee’s policies, my father would remind me that many may yet realise how much we are indebted to Mr Lee. The turnout at his funeral vindicates this view.

    It is indeed left to us to carry on the strengths of his legacy. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that Singapore carries on successfully and peaceably.

    Those who choose to push the country onto a path that countermands this for reasons motivated primarily by past quarrels, but cloaked in the guise of democracy, and instigate verbal violence on social media, are irresponsible.

    Political change must arrive responsibly. Those who fail to understand this undermine a legacy that has been placed in our trust.

     

    *This article by Sanjay Perera first appeared on Voices, Today, on 7 Apr 2015.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Bus Driver In India Names Son Jeyaprakash Lee Kuan Yew After Singapore’s First Prime Minister

    Bus Driver In India Names Son Jeyaprakash Lee Kuan Yew After Singapore’s First Prime Minister

    MR B. Jeyaprakash, a bus driver working for a government transport company in India’s Tamil Nadu state, has never been to Singapore and, until last month, had never heard of Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

    But he was so moved by the outpouring of grief over the Singapore leader’s passing that he named his newborn son Jeyaprakash Lee Kuan Yew.

    Mr Jeyaprakash, 37, lives in the town of Mannargudi, which has a population of 70,000.

    Soon after Mr Lee’s death, placards with photographs of Mr Lee were put up across the town. On the day of his funeral in Singapore, more than 300 people from Mannargudi and nearby villages marched silently for 4km behind a wreath for Mr Lee. The procession stopped in the centre of town, where people bowed and prayed before a photo of Mr Lee.

    The tribute moved Mr Jeyaprakash so deeply that he decided on the spot to name his son after Mr Lee. “I wasn’t planning to give him that name. I had gone to the bazaar to buy milk and saw this procession and memorial for Mr Lee. So I stopped and heard people talking about all the great things he had done for Singapore. There was so much respect for him,” said Mr Jeyaprakash.

    “That was the first time I heard Lee Kuan Yew’s name. I didn’t even ask my wife, I just decided on the spot that my son should have an auspicious name. So I put Sir’s name in the hope that my son will do very well in life.”

    His son was born at 1pm on March 23, the same day Mr Lee died.

    In Tamil Nadu, parents sometimes name their children after international and historical figures, including Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Nikita Khrushchev and Winston Churchill.

    Mr M. Karunanidhi, leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party and former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, named his son M. K. Stalin.

    Mr Jeyaprakash’s mother is unable to pronounce her grandson’s name. But his wife, Ms Bhagiyalakshmi, 27, has no such problems.

    “It is the name of a great man and leader,” she said, smiling broadly. “Lee Kuan Yew!”

    The baby, dressed in pink, sleeps peacefully in his mother’s arms as people talk around him. “He doesn’t cry that much and he is much easier to take care of than my daughter at the same age,” said Ms Bhagiyalakshmi.

    Mr Jeyaprakash has been reading up on Mr Lee in the local Tamil newspapers.

    He cut out a photo of Mr Lee from a newspaper and plans to hang it on a wall.

    “If I have a photograph in the house, I can point to it and then tell people about my son’s name.”

    He is also donating 10,000 rupees (S$220), nearly his month’s salary of 12,000 rupees, for a museum being planned in town for Mr Lee.

    Still, the grandmother looks doubtful about being able to pronounce the name. “I just cannot pronounce the name. I call my son ‘thambi’, so I will call my grandson ‘thambi’ too,” she said. “Thambi” means “son” in Tamil.

    But Mr Jeyaprakash has a solution for that: “I told her to call him ‘Mr Lee’ for now, and then we will see.”

    NIRMALA GANAPATHY

    BACKGROUND STORY

    AUSPICIOUS NAME

    I heard people talking about all the great things he had done for Singapore. There was so much respect for him… I didn’t even ask my wife, I just decided on the spot that my son should have an auspicious name.

    – Mr Jeyaprakash, on naming his son Jeyaprakash Lee Kuan Yew, after the late Singapore leader

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

deneme bonusu