Tag: Lee Kuan Yew

  • Zulfikar Shariff: Lee Kuan Yew Is Self-Serving Opportunist

    Zulfikar Shariff: Lee Kuan Yew Is Self-Serving Opportunist

    The last few days, the PAP Internet Brigade had been trying to promote their party and the “late great LKY”. The way they speak of him is almost Messianic.

    Let us understand who Lee Kuan Yew was. Let us understand his values..

    He is someone who will do anything for his own benefit.

    During the Japanese occupation, Lee Kuan Yew was a collaborator.

    He worked with the Japanese Propaganda service (the Hodobu). At the Hodobu, Lee Kuan Yew translated English language news for the Japanese propaganda department.

    He admitted to being well informed about the progress of the war “because for a year and a half….(he) was working in the propaganda department…” (Han, Fernandez, Tan 28)

    And yet, this hypocritical self-interested collaborator criticised the locals who collaborated with the Japanese during occupation. He said:

    “Young locals learnt enough Japanese to be employable, but beyond that most people were decent. They did not want to cooperate or collaborate with the enemy…”

    Further, he referred to those who worked closely with the Japanese as
    opportunistic.

    The luckiest of the opportunists according to Lee Kuan Yew were “contractors whom the Japanese needed to obtain basic supplies, or who were in building construction.”

    However, he admitted to being one of this “lucky” opportunists. He was in construction and did work and supplies for the Japanese military.

    With his partner, “a Shanghainese called Low You Ling… a small contractor in the construction business…we got odd jobs from Japanese companies and from the butai, the regiments that garrisoned Singapore.”

    He also teamed up with a Japanese civilian Mr Kageyama to supply the Japanese military and companies.

    When the Japanese started to lose the war, Lee Kuan Yew became worried.

    “I decided it would be better to get out of Singapore while things were still calm, I could resign from Hodobu without arousing suspicion over my motives. I applied for leave and went up to Malaya to reconnoitre Penang and the Cameron Highlands, to find out which was the safer place.”

    When he came back from Cameron Highlands, he found out that the Japanese Secret Police had become suspicious of him. He decided to stay put.

    According to Lee Kuan Yew, after the Japanese surrender, “anti-Japanese groups took the law into their own hands. They lynched, murdered, tortured or beat up informers, torturers, tormentors and accomplices- or suspected accomplices- of the Japanese… But in the last days, many collaborators managed to melt away, going into hiding or fleeing upcountry to Malaya or to the Riau islands in the south.

    The liberation did not bring what everybody wanted: punishment for the wicked and reward for the virtuous. There could be no complete squaring of accounts…”

    If all the collaborators were arrested and punished, we probably would not have the PAP today.

    References:

    Han, Fook Kwang, Sumiko Tan, and Warren Fernandez. Lee Kuan Yew: The man and his ideas. Singapore Press Holdings, 1997.

    Yew, Lee Kuan. The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Vol. 1. Marshall Cavendish International Asia Pte Ltd, 2012.

     

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff

  • Secret Documents Reveal Extent Of Negotiations For Separation

    Secret Documents Reveal Extent Of Negotiations For Separation

    Museums play an important role in a nation’s history. They serve as repositories of national history, preserving and showcasing artefacts and documents central to our shared understanding of the past, so that we can better understand our present.

    Curators and public educators in charge of museums and their exhibitions also play a key role in shaping our sense of the past, and hence our sense of self, and our shared national identity.

    In this respect, there is a small but vitally interesting exhibit titled We Built A Nation at the National Museum of Singapore’s gallery on local history, the Stamford Gallery.

    It may lack the glamour and scale of the international exhibition from the British Museum now displayed in our National Museum of Singapore. But our local exhibit has great historical significance for Singapore and adds to our understanding of the circumstances that led to our independence.

    The Stamford Gallery and the other newly opened galleries in the National Museum feature the history of Singapore starting from pre-colonial days to the Japanese Occupation and the post-World War II era.

    The first part of the Stamford Gallery features the birth of the nation of Singapore. The copy of the Proclamation of Independence is displayed behind a glass panel on a wall. This document is mounted in a simple, minimalistic manner.

    The printed Proclamation of Independence – an independence that arose as a result of the federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak to form the independent state of Malaysia, was signed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

    It states: “Now I, Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, do hereby proclaim and declare, on behalf of the people of Singapore, that as from today, the 16th day of September, 1963, Singapore shall be forever a part of the sovereign democratic and independent State of Malaysia, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and more equal society.”

    That last sentence would prove portentous. The hope for a “more just and more equal society” was one of the key points that contributed subsequently to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.

    The pursuit of a “more just and more equal” society, a “Malaysian Malaysia”, by the Singapore leaders and members of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention was not supported by Malay leaders of the central government in Malaysia. The progress towards a “more just and more equal society” would occur in the independent nation of Singapore, separated from Malaysia.

    Inside the gallery are a few selected papers taken from the previously classified “Albatross” file. “Albatross” referred to Malaysia. How did the name come about? The merger with Malaysia did not yield the intended benefits, “and it became an Albatross round our necks”, explained Dr Goh Keng Swee in a 1980 oral history interview.

    This formerly top secret file contains highly confidential documents kept by Dr Goh, who was one of the founding fathers of modern Singapore. He was a trusted right-hand man of Mr Lee and served as Finance Minister, Minister for Defence, Minister for Education and Deputy Prime Minister. He played a leading role in the negotiation for the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.

    He kept the Albatross file safely over the decades. This file provides details of the thinking and efforts linked to the separation and formation of Singapore, as an independent nation.

    The glass case contains three important documents from the Albatross file that reveal vital aspects of our history.

    LETTER

    The first is a letter handwritten by Mr Lee.

    It stated: “I authorise Goh Keng Swee to discuss with Tun Razak, Dato Ismail and such other Federal Ministers of comparable authority concerned in these matters in the Central Govt any proposal for rearrangements of Malaysia.”

    This letter granted Dr Goh the authority to negotiate on behalf of Mr Lee with Malaysian leaders such as then Malaysian Minister for Home Affairs, Dato (Dr) Ismail Abdul Rahman; and the then first Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein.

    From July to early August 1965, Dr Goh had a series of negotiations and meetings with Tun Razak and Dr Ismail.

    Dr Goh and Mr Lee played a major role in the separation of Singapore from Malaysia and the birth of Singapore as an independent nation. The timeline above the display lists the developments from July 1964 to August 1965.

    MEMO FROM PM

    The second key document is a typewritten “Memorandum from the Prime Minister” marked “Top Secret”. It revealed Mr Lee’s thinking and considerations in 1965. In the first paragraph, he noted the potential constitutional rearrangements.

    He stated: “It will not be long before we will have to take a decision on the future of Singapore and of Malaysia. I believe that soon after the Puasa month we will have to respond to an open move by the Tunku. It will demand that we take a public position.”

    Tunku Abdul Rahman was then the Prime Minister of Malaysia. He also played a leading role in our separation and independence. Puasa month refers to the Muslim fasting month.

    Mr Lee pointed out: “Before we make this decision we should be clear in our minds on the options open to us and on the consequences not only of the short term but also the long term of each and every one of the possible decisions we make.”

    Earlier, on Dec 19, 1964, Tunku Abdul Rahman proposed to Mr Lee possible constitutional rearrangements. On Jan 22, 1965, Tunku wrote to Dr Goh offering complete autonomy except in the areas of defence and foreign affairs, if Singapore gave up the Federal Parliament seats.

    In this top secret memorandum, Mr Lee analysed the situation and effects.

    He noted: “When the Tunku first informed Keng Swee in December last year (1964) of his desire to have Singapore “hive off” from Malaya, it generated considerable excitement amongst us first because this showed their realisation that we cannot be

    fixed in Malaysia and the supremacy of Malay communalists assured forever. Next, it gave us an escape, if there is to be trouble in Malaya with communal clashes over language and other issues.

    We might in such a rearrangement insulate ourselves from communal conflict which is building up in Malaya.”

    Tunku’s offer to “hive off” would provide Singapore “an escape, if there is to be trouble in Malaya with communal clashes over language and other issues”. Mr Lee was concerned about racial tensions. He noted in this memorandum that Singapore “might in such a rearrangement insulate ourselves from communal conflict which is building up in Malaya”.

    He highlighted that the “greatest attraction of this rearrangement is our hope to get the benefits of all worlds – the common market, political stability with economic expansion, and autonomy in Singapore without interference from KL. The picture of a prosperous and flourishing Singapore doing better than the rest of Malaysia is most attractive”. KL refers to Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia.

    In some ways, his optimistic view of Singapore’s development was prescient and visionary. Mr Lee also acknowledged one of the trade-offs which was to “give up our ability to influence events in Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak”.

    It could be interpreted from this memo that Mr Lee was receptive towards this “hiving off” of Singapore as it reduced the problems linked to communal conflicts, while providing room for autonomy, political stability and economic growth in a “prosperous and flourishing Singapore”.

    His analysis in the secret memo and his handwritten letter disclosed his thinking with regard to the “hive-off” proposal and possible “rearrangement”, as well as the behind-the-scenes efforts to secure the well-being of Singapore. He was open to negotiations that could lead to Singapore benefiting from “political stability with economic expansion, and autonomy in Singapore without interference from KL”.

    HANDWRITTEN NOTES FROM DR GOH

    The third notable document consists of detailed notes handwritten by Dr Goh of his meeting on July 20, 1965, in Tun Razak’s office from 11.05am to 11.55am with the two Malaysian leaders, Deputy Prime Minister Tun Razak and Home Affairs Minister Ismail.

    Dr Goh noted that only Mr Lee, Mr Lim Kim San, Mr Edmund William Barker and himself were privy to this negotiation. He warned: “Any premature leak will jeopardise (the) scheme.”

    During this second meeting on the process of separation, Dr Goh persuaded his Malaysian counterparts that the only way out “was for Singapore to secede, completely”, and “it must be done very quickly, and very quietly, and presented as a fait accompli”.

    These three documents from the Albatross file highlight that the Separation was a negotiated process between the two parties from Malaysia and Singapore.

    In the past, popular descriptions of Singapore’s history tended to portray Singapore as being “booted out” or “expelled” by Malaysia. The exhibition of the Albatross documents, and the narration of events accompanying the exhibits, provide a more nuanced view.

    Together, the picture they paint is that of Singapore’s leaders negotiating the terms of Singapore’s exit with Malaysia’s leaders. It might have been Tunku who first proposed that Singapore “hive off” in December 1964, but by the time negotiations were seriously under way in July 1965, it is clear that Dr Goh and Mr Lee were striving to make the best of the situation.

    Dr Ismail, a key Malaysian leader, who was a first-hand witness and participant of these historic developments, stated that “in spite of what was believed, the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was by mutual agreement”. Leaders of both countries thus played vital roles in the formation of our independent nations and the paths ahead.

    A museum’s presentation of the past requires interpretation and curation. The Albatross file exhibits deepen and broaden our understanding of our past and present as an independent nation, with a vision of a “prosperous and flourishing Singapore”. This 1965 vision of Singapore as “prosperous and flourishing” remains highly relevant today.

    As we journey towards the next 50 years with our leaders, let us stay united and dedicated to fulfilling and upholding this vision, as well as the ideals and values of our National Pledge.


    •The writer, Edmund Lim, is a Singaporean pursuing his PhD at Nanyang Technological University.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

     

  • Bilahari Kausikan: Singapore’s Undiplomatic Diplomat

    Bilahari Kausikan: Singapore’s Undiplomatic Diplomat

    I like him, I like him not. I have listened to some of his speeches, sat in on some of his briefings and followed his Facebook posts closely.

    Ambassador at large Bilahari Kausikan impresses with his intellect, witty rejoinders and say-it-as-it-is statements. He can go berserk when attacking critics of Singapore. In a recent Facebook post, he said a freelancer was writing critical articles about Singapore for a Malaysian website because of the money she can make out of it.

    And just the other day, Kausikan had this smart-ass post on Han Hui Hui, who is facing charges of causing public nuisance during a protest rally at Hong Lim Park: “I think HHH… should plead not guilty for reasons of insanity.”

    Nothing seems to scare him, even making unsavoury statements about  politics and politicians of other countries. Earlier this month, he waded into Malaysian politics when he wrote that Chinese Malaysians were being delusional if they think the principle of Malay dominance can be changed. “Malay dominance will be defended by any means,” he thundered. Malaysian opposition politician Tony Pua hit back calling Singapore the mercenary prick of South-east Asia.

    He brings back images of an era when Lee Kuan Yew reigned supreme with his undiplomatic attacks on countries like Malaysia, Australia, India. Kausikan, as the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was at the centre of it all when LKY and Mahathir Mohamad were taking relations
    between the two countries to the edge of the cliff.

    It is the school of LKY that Kausikan graduated from and you can see heavy doses of what he has learnt in his responses. Recently, he got into a verbal fight with France and its European allies when he accused Paris of being “hobbled by its own absolutist beliefs” on human rights. Two European ambassadors responded but Kausikan wanted to have the last word.

    “Why throw the weight of the state against discrimination against one religion or group, while acquiescing in the systematic vilification of another religion, Islam, in the name of freedom of speech?” he asked in a pointed reference to the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine.

    There are enough examples like these to show how undiplomatic this diplomat has become. No one in government seems to have pulled him back and so far his messy musings don’t seem to have affected Singapore’s relations with other countries.

    Maybe, they have come to terms with a man they consider to be a loose cannon who doesn’t have policy-making powers. It might also be possible that Singapore considers such a character useful to tell the world what Singapore really feels about world affairs but does not articulate publicly.

    Kausikan is a breath of fresh air in the civil service where officers hardly say a word in public for fear of reprisals from their bosses. Kausikan is an open book; his views, whether you like them or not, are there for readers to agree with or dispute. And I am sure he will be ready to respond robustly against his detractors.

    A good measure of the man is available in an interview he gave to a Public Service Division publication, Challenge.  “I say what I think. I’m me, I can’t be anything but me,” he said.

    For all his candour, he remains rather cagey when it comes to commenting on Singapore’s policy missteps. He has been silent on how Singapore got into a mess when the public housing policy backfired under Mah Bow Tan or when the exuberant immigration policy caused a transport nightmare for the government.

    History will salute him if he does that.

    P N Balji is a veteran Singaporean journalist who is the former chief editor of TODAY newspaper, and a media consultant. The views expressed are his own.

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • Amos Yee’s Appeal To Overturn Jail Term And Conviction Dismissed

    Amos Yee’s Appeal To Overturn Jail Term And Conviction Dismissed

    Teen blogger Amos Yee had an appeal against his prior conviction and jail sentence dismissed by the High Court on Thursday (Oct 8).

    Yee was expected to attend the hearing for his appeal to be heard, but did not show up. His lawyer, Mr Alfred Dodwell, who filed the notice of appeal on Jul 9, was present.

    Justice Tay Yong Kwang decided to conduct the hearing without the 16-year-old, who has already finished serving his 4-week prison sentence. Following a hearing that lasted about two hours, the appeal was dismissed.

    The teen was found guilty of two charges in May this year, after a two-day trial. Yee was convicted of one count of making offensive or wounding remarks against Christianity and one count of circulating obscene imagery.

    Said Justice Tay: “Yee used offending words against the central figure of the Christian religion.”

    The High Court judge added: “Yee’s attitude of complete disregard for others … is not commonly seen. He did not respect anyone.” Justice Tay noted that the blogger had “openly defied” court orders and made sure his “bravado” was made known.

    The defence argued that Yee was exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech and provoke “critical discussion”. Said Mr Dodwell: “Yes, Amos has been rude but were his actions a crime?”

    In response, Justice Tay said: “This is not freedom of speech, this is a licence to humiliate others. It seems like Yee is throwing stones at his neighbour’s flat to force his neighbour to notice him.”

    The judge also had sharp comments on the blogger’s manner of speech.

    “Yee used coarse, hard-hitting words to arouse emotions … vulgar insults to deliberately provoke readers and draw them out,” he said, adding that the 16-year-old should “wean himself off his preference for crude, rude language (and engage in) real debate”, which can “flourish in an environment of goodwill, reasoning and civil language”.

    CASE HISTORY

    Apart from the two charges Yee was convicted of, a third charge regarding statements Yee made in a YouTube video about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been withdrawn.

    Yee uploaded the controversial video on Mar 27, just five days after Mr Lee’s passing, in which the teen likened Mr Lee to Jesus and criticised the founding Prime Minister.

    He was arrested two days later, after several police reports were made against him, and charged in court on Mar 31. Yee was initially granted bail, set at S$20,000, with the condition that he would not post materials online while his case was before the courts.

    He later flouted these conditions on Apr 14 by publishing a post asking the public for donations. His parents refused to post bail again, and Yee was instead bailed out by family counsellor Vincent Law.

    However, Yee flouted his bail conditions a second time on Apr 29 following two blog posts that touched on the terms of his bail and accusing his father of being abusive, causing Mr Law to discharge himself as bailor.

    Yee, on his way to the courthouse the next day, was struck by a 49 year old man who wanted to “teach him a lesson”. Neo Gim Huah was sentenced to three weeks’ jail.

    After being remanded at the Institute of Mental Health for two weeks for psychiatric assessments, Dr Cai Yiming concluded that Yee does not suffer from any mental disorder.

    After Yee’s sentencing on Jul 6, Mr Dodwell had said his client was “remorseful”, but added: “Let’s not run away with the idea that just because he’s remorseful and stuff, that is in relation to the social context. Whether this was a crime or not, still remains a question we want to determine in the High Court”.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Court Application Filed On Lee Kuan Yew Interview Agreement With Government

    Court Application Filed On Lee Kuan Yew Interview Agreement With Government

    The executors of the estate of Mr Lee Kuan Yew have filed an application seeking guidance from the Courts on proper interpretation of an interview agreement between the late Mr Lee and the Government.

    The court application was filed by Mr Lee’s younger children, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, on Sep 2 and a pre-trial conference was held on Tuesday (Sep 22).

    The agreement relates to the custody and use of certain interviews given by Mr Lee, Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, to the Oral History Department, a spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said.

    The Government will establish the proper interpretation and status of the agreement before the Court, the AGC added.

    The next pre-trial conference will be held on Oct 27.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com