Tag: Lee Kuan Yew

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

April 7, 2015
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

April 7, 2015
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

April 7, 2015
Hussin Mutalib: There Are Better Ways To Remember Contributions Of Lee Kuan Yew

As Singaporeans, we will remember Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s contributions, sacrifices and legacies. Let us forge a consensus on how best to value his imprint on Singapore.

Some suggestions have been aired, including erecting a statue, declaring the date of his death a public holiday and renaming iconic edifices such as Merdeka Bridge and Changi Airport, with the latter the subject of an online petition.

Garnering signatures and pressuring our Government via petitions is not the best way to pay tribute to him. In fact, it dishonours one of his governing principles, namely, not to rule by populist pressures.

Lest we forget, our Government has turned down previous petitions with greater popular support.

Before we proceed to find more meaningful ways to acknowledge his leadership role in transforming Singapore to what it is today, we should perhaps list the institutions, programmes, endowments, scholarships, et cetera, that already bear his name.

This would enable us to see what can be done to accord greater credence to his contributions and to do so proportionately without going overboard.

In our zeal to honour him, let us not ape what some countries have done, namely, deifying the status of their leaders. While Mr Lee’s standing as the founder of modern Singapore is recognised, we should not overlook the indefatigable support and sacrifice of his Cabinet lieutenants and other comrades since the 1950s, as well as many segments of Singapore society.

His death also offers us a timely, if not golden, opportunity to reflect on his legacies. Our guiding principle should be the commitment to continue his positive, praiseworthy policies, and a determination to review and leave behind his less acceptable vestiges.

If we approach his passing in this dignified, tempered manner, his contributions would not be in vain and we could prepare and look forward to the next phase of the Singapore story with an even greater sense of inclusiveness, commitment and confidence.

*This commentary by Hussin Mutalib first appeared on Voices, Today, on 6 Apr 2015.

Source: www.todayonline.com

April 7, 2015
Singapore: A Fascinating Alternative To The Welfare State
Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore, died last week at age 91. Almost every obituary has remarked on the radical transition his leadership heralded. As John Fund wrote at National Review:

By embracing free trade, capital formation, vigorous meritocratic education, low taxes, and a reliable judicial system, Lee raised the per capita income of his country from $500 a year to some $52,000 a year today. That’s 50 percent higher than that of Britain, the colonial power that ruled Singapore for 150 years. Its average annual growth rate has averaged 7 percent since the 1970s.

Part of the reason for Singapore’s remarkable climb up the international income ladder is bread and butter capitalism. The Fraser nstitute’s Freedom of the World report lists Singapore as the second freest economy in the world — right behind Hong Kong. As Frasier scholars have demonstrated year after year, economic growth and free markets go hand and hand.

But Singapore has done something even more remarkable than its economic accomplishments. It has built an alternative to the European style welfare state. Think of all the reasons why people turn to government in other developed countries: retirement income, housing, education, medical care etc. In Singapore people are required to save to take care of these needs themselves.

At times the forced saving rate has been as high as 50% of income. Today, employees under 50 years of age must set aside 20% of their wages and employers must contribute another 16%. These funds go into accounts where they grow through time until specific needs arise. For example, one of the uses for these savings is housing. About 90% of Singapore households are home owners – the highest rate of home ownership in the world.

In health care, Singapore started an extensive system of “Medisave Accounts” in 1984 – the very year that Richard Rahn and I proposed “Medical IRAs” for America in the Wall Street Journal. Today, 7 percentage points of Singapore’s 36% required savings rate is for health care and is deposited in a separate Medisave account for each employee. Individuals are also automatically enrolled in catastrophic health insurance, although they can opt out. When a Medisave account balance reaches about $34,100 (an amount equal to a little less than half of the median family income) any excess funds are rolled over into another account and may be used for non-health care purposes.

For many years, the only two scholars in the Western world who paid much attention to Singapore were Washington University economist Michael Sherraden and me. Michael approached the Singapore experience from a left-of-center perspective and I came from the opposite direction. We both ended in the same place: this is an alternative to the welfare state that works.

Lately, quite a number of other scholars have discovered Singapore, especially its health care system – again, with both right and left finding a lot to admire. It’s taken almost three decades, but Singapore is now the subject of a book by Brookings Institution, a whole slew of posts by Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll, and a good overview by Tyler Cowen, with links to other studies and comments.

Sherraden recently summarized some of Singapore’s major social policy innovations as follows:

Step by step, the Singapore state created a new social policy system that had asset building as its central structure…. In the world of social policy, it would be hard to overstate the exceptionality and the extent of this innovation…. During the past 25 years, Singapore policy has taken important steps toward lifelong asset building, beginning very early in life. These innovations include EduSave, the Baby Bonus, Child Development Accounts, and related asset-building incentives.

For John Fund, Singapore’s most significant accomplishment is the avoidance of the mistakes of other countries:

I believe that the least appreciated part of Lee Kwan Yew’s legacy is his method of ensuring that one generation won’t bankrupt future generations by selfishly living beyond its means. It’s a welfare state that works, and one he always said was available to any political leader with the courage to tell his people the truth about the limits of government’s power to pass out goodies.

For my part, I would summarize the philosophy of Singapore as follows:
- Each generation should pay its own way.
- Each family should pay its own way.
- Each individual should pay his own way.
- Only after passing through these three filters should anyone turn to the government for help.
If the United States had adopted a similar approach to public policy, there would be no deficit problem in this country.

Source: www.forbes.com
April 6, 2015