Tag: PAP

Bertha Henson: Mourn Now Fight Later

Such a strange thing is happening in the ether. The normally silent majority seemed to be speaking up. They are thumping those who had hogged the online space with their cutting, unkind comments about anything to do with the Government. Or the People’s Action Party. Or Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

I was surprised at first at the outpouring of online emotion, so protective of Mr Lee and his legacy. I can’t help but think that those who have been sitting at the sidelines of the Internet space have decided to put their gloves on. Woe is you who dare to say anything rude about Singapore’s first prime minister! Whack! Bam! Slam!

As for those who think that the Internet is about letting anyone speak their mind, however inane and insane their words, they are finding out that this is not the case. The internet herd, typically anti-establishment and even rude, is turning the other way.

Yet I wish we could stop fighting, at least for the next few days. Can we stop arguing about the merits and demerits of the man who’s just died? About whether people are right to want to wear black this Sunday or whether some MP’s idea of a tribute being a workout is daft? About whether too much expression is symptomatic of the mentality of sheep or any kind of criticism of the man is out of line?

I gather that online friendships have been broken; a lot of “unfriending’’ going on these days. Some people are vying to be more demonstrative of their admiration than others, at least that is how it is being construed in some quarters. Others who have always taken a hard anti-LKY line have softened, prompting charges of bending with the wind. Gosh. The death of Lee Kuan Yew is inspiring a lot of emotions. May we not let them pit ourselves against each other.

Last night, friends and I encountered an admittedly drunk young woman alone in a bar, telling us about how she had split up with her boyfriend after an argument about the kind of leader Mr Lee had been. It seemed to be fundamental point of difference for her. I guess at any other time, the couple wouldn’t have had such a big blow-up. The difference is the timing: Mr Lee has just died.

Yes, he has died, which is why I don’t think we can have much meaningful or rational discussion – at least online – at the moment. Think of those times when you lost a loved one, you would sit quietly and cry, recall last moments or reminisce about good times. Friends at the wake will be respectful, even if they did not know the deceased. Mr Lee has a large family, and I don’t mean his immediate one. That’s why people jump at any sign of impropriety. Even family members will quarrel about funeral arrangements, like whether wearing black is the right protocol. I, for one, had wondered if it was “good form’’ to clap while his funeral cortege passed along the road earlier today and decided to close the FB discussion because I was worried that it would get out of hand.

Therefore, we are now commenting on the eulogies. Should eulogies be positive or are they actually propagandistic? Should they have some critical comments or would this be considered nasty? Or should they be balanced? And “balanced’’ according to who? It is inevitable that when a public figure has passed on, people feel the need to pass judgment. On him. And on others who have passed judgment on him Methinks Mr Heng Swee Keat wrote the best eulogy and that is because he did “reporting’’ – he told us what we didn’t know about Mr Lee’s working style. His use of the “red box’’ (plus picture) to hold all the parts together is brilliant.

Frankly, I am beginning to have my fill of foreigners weighing in on the man’s legacy, after not being able to get enough of it earlier on. The key players have weighed in, and now the fringe actors are doing so. I can’t even recognize the Mr Lee whom some of them have described. He was either saint or Satan. Then there are those who put a sting in the tail, to conform to their own ideals of what a leader should be like. I think Mr Lee would have waved away all these speeches and eulogies. He had said before that it was for Phd students to mull over. In other words, history will decide.

I agree. I think we should mourn now – and fight later.

Source: https://berthahenson.wordpress.com

March 27, 2015
Death Of Lee Kuan Yew A Personal Clarion Call For Singapore

I understand how some feel about the tributes to Mr Lee Kuan Yew being overwhelming and maybe even overbearing. Speaking for myself, 95% of my newsfeed on Facebook is filled with news of his bereavement, eulogies, and almost “real time” coverage of his body lying in state in Parliament building.

However, the thing is this. An event like this doesn’t happen often. To me, Mr Lee’s passing is a turning point of sorts – not in the way foreign media or political pundits may paint it to be, but as a kind of communal yet personal clarion call for Singapore.

This is perhaps best reflected by 5 Rs…

1) Reflection – Mr Lee’s demise compels us to reflect upon many things. How much Singapore has changed over the past 50 years since its founding. What we have done well – and not so well – and what lessons do we bring into the future? This applies not just for us collectively but individually too (yes, I’ve done a fair amount of soul-searching).

2) Reminiscence – Reading on Singapore’s history and LKY’s role in it brings forth a deep sense of nostalgia. There are so many chapters in our nation’s story that are deeply intertwined with our daily lives. This is a time to sit back and re-live those times. To me, it is the real ‪#‎SG50‬ event.

3) Resolution – I don’t know about you, but watching the old videos of how LKY turned around Singapore and looking at the long winding queues of people waiting hours to pay their respects ignited something fierce in me. Somehow, the problems and issues I face pale in comparison to what is being stirred inside.

4) Revolution – No, I am not talking about a political revolution more so than a national one. Love him or loathe him, Mr Lee’s death has sparked something in many of us. For the first time in like forever, the silent majority have made their feelings felt everywhere – online and offline. We are not emotionless and passionless. We care and we show it when the occasion calls for it.

5) Reunification – I am not sure about you, but I feel that there is a certain coming together of Singaporeans with this event. People from all walks of life, young and old, educated and less educated, rich and poor, all united in one spirit to offer their respects. The process of queuing and waiting, the generous giving of drinks and snacks, the willingness to extend the opening hours – from 10 am to 8 pm, then till midnight, and then 24 hours – binds us together like nothing I’ve seen here in a long time.

Let us put aside our ideological differences temporarily, at least for 4 more days this week, and spend our time ‪#‎RememberingLeeKuanYew‬.

There will always be time enough to resume our battles and pit our wits later.‪#‎ThankYouLKY‬ ‪#‎RIPLKY‬

Source: Walter Lim

March 27, 2015
Lee Kuan Yew: Judge Him By The Prosperity We Enjoy

Probably no Singaporean besides Lee Kuan Yew has ever been loved, and hated to such a degree.

For every comment we’ve seen praising Old Lee, there’s bound to be another wishing he’d burn in hell.

We’ve heard of how Old Lee crafted Singapore into the nation it is today, building a propsrous city despite the odds stacked against us ever making it.

We’ve also heard tales of his ruthless streak, and alleged human rights abuses such as the unfair detention of supposed dissidents using the Internal Security Act as a guise.

The biggest question when looking back at the life of this man and his contributions remains: Would Singapore be better without Lee Kuan Yew at the helm?

We can speculate, but we’ll never know for sure.

What we can answer is this: “Has Singapore prospered under its first ever Prime Minister?”

(1) Housing

As Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew assembled a great team of leaders in their own right, people with brilliant ideas.

He gave them the rein to develop those ideas, so long as they were practical, and stood up to reason and feasibility.

One of those that changed our landscape forever – HDB flats.

Despite the West criticising how such high-rise monsters would stain our landscape, the issue at hand was, “how can the government house the expected boom in Singapore’s population, affordably?”

Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee spearheaded this development.

Against all opposition, especially the poor sould who had to be evicted for flats to be built, it was done.

Generations of Singaporeans 40 years down the road have a place to call their own.

(2) Transport

Planning started in 1967, and took place throughout the 1960s.

Foreign specialists were brought in to assist state boards in the planning of what would be the most ambitious transport project in Singapore’s history.

The first train line was launched in 1987.

In 28 years, we’ve a public transport network that can rival the best in the world.

We can sneer at Singapore’s MRT network, compared to say, the London subway.

The tube opened in 1890.

This was Singapore in 1890.

The MRT is still a work in development, as we can see from the many breakdowns it continues to suffer.

But we can take pride in how quickly work progressed.

Guess who started the ball rolling.

(3) Education

In 1966, Lee mandated that all students learn a “mother tongue” – the language associated with their ethnicity.

This, besides the English language.

This came at a time when most former colonies were trying to strengthen their own national identity by falling back on their ethnicity.

“If we were monolingual in our mother tongues, we would not make a living. Becoming monolingual in English would have been a setback,” he wrote in his memoirs. “We would have lost our cultural identity, that quiet confidence about ourselves and our place in the world.”

Today, we can deal with the West, our most prominent neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, and the rising global power – China.

At that time, Lee Kuan Yew spoke English and Malay.

He would go on to learn Mandarin and other dialects well into his thirties just so he could communicate when the time came for it.

The man lived as an example of adaptibility, and forced us to be versatile as well – for our own benefit down the road.

(4) Society

The greatest criticism of Lee Kuan Yew has to be his iron-fisted rule, and his ruthlessness when it came to clamping down on people who opposed his policies.

As theories go – Lee played the Malaysia card to get Singapore out of British rule, then he antagonised the Malaysians so Singapore would get the boot and forced to become independent, giving him a free rein to sculpt this nation according to his vision.

That’s pretty damn well-played!

1950s Singapore was marked by the Maria Hertogh riots, Hock Lee bus riots, and the Chinese Middle School riots.

The 1960s – the Prophet Muhammad Birthday riots and Konfrontasi, which was essentially an Indonesia-Malaysia issue, which led to insugencies spilling over to Singapore.

That culminated in the MacDonald House bombing

This was the climate in which Lee Kuan Yew had to forge a nation.

Would anything besides an iron-fisted approach work?

A united China came about only because of a ruthless Qin ruler.

The next united China was built on the back of another single-minded leader, Mao Zedong.

These legendary men brought China out of civil war, forged stability out of destruction, and enabled China to prosper today.

The same goes for Singapore, albeit on a less dramatic scale.

Leadership must adapt to the times, and Singapore in its infant phase as a nation demanded stability and unity.

Lee Kuan Yew got that done.

In Sum

Look around you.

50 years – that’s what it took to build all this.

Some overseas might still mistake Singapore for a part of China, but on the whole, our nation is globally recognised and respected.

We have prospered – on the domestic front, and on the foreign front.

That was what Lee Kuan Yew wanted, that is what he set out to build, and that’s what we enjoy now.

50 years.

Times have changed, and Lee’s methods might not work today.

But they did then.

It’s time to push forward, to adapt to a new world order, and to better Singapore.

All this, while respecting the band of men who brought us this far.

Lee was the leader of that band.

Source: http://redwiretimes.com

March 26, 2015
Robert Kuok: Lee Kuan Yew Is The Greatest Chinese Outside Mainland China

On his regular visits to Hong Kong, Mr Lee Kuan Yew observed that when people there failed in business, they blamed themselves or bad luck, picked themselves up and tried again.

He wondered how to encourage that entrepreneurial spirit among Singaporeans, and would put the question to powerful businessmen he met there. South-east Asia’s richest man, Mr Robert Kuok, remembers how he responded to Mr Lee: “I told him, you have governed Singapore too strictly, you have put a straitjacket on Singapore. Now, you need to take a pair of scissors and cut it.”

The Malaysian tycoon would sometimes invite other Hong Kong businessmen to meet Mr Lee, who was always ready to talk politics.

But on his last trip, in May 2012, Mr Lee was more subdued. His wife had died, and he visited another old friend, media mogul Run Run Shaw, who was ill. Mr Lee sat quietly by Sir Run Run’s wheelchair, saying little but patting the centenarian’s knee from time to time.

“He had grown far more mellow,” recalled Mr Kuok in an interview at his Deep Water Bay home in March 2013. It was a different side of a man he had known for seven decades.

They were born 20 days apart – Mr Lee on Sept 16 and Mr Kuok on Oct 6, 1923 – and met in 1941 as students at Raffles College in pre-war Singapore. “We’re both pigs, born in the Year of the Pig,” Mr Kuok said with a laugh, referring to the Chinese zodiac sign.

Did that make them stubborn? No, he said. “Greedy. See food, eat. See power, grab.” From Hong Kong, Mr Kuok presides over an US$11.4 billion (S$15.4 billion) family business empire that spans the Shangri-La hotel chain to logistics to being the world’s biggest processor of palm oil.

He said they were not especially close in school. Harry, as the young Mr Lee was known then, already had a reputation for pugnacity. “He was combative, wanting to win every argument. Not someone you would take an immediate great warmth and liking to,” said Mr Kuok. And because Harry was “intellectually a cut above the average”, there was “a slight feeling of superiority” about him. He did not mix much, though he did attend the college’s annual fancy dress ball in 1941 in Malay garb complete with a songkok. Mr Kuok went as a Mandarin.

On Dec 8 that year, their lives were disrupted when the first Japanese bomb landed, bringing World War II to Singapore.

Mr Kuok returned to Johor Baru, where his parents ran a shop selling rice, sugar and flour. By the time he returned to Singapore in 1955, he had established a sugar refining business that would be the foundation of his fortune and earned him the title of Malaysia’s Sugar King.

Mr Lee was a lawyer and rising politician, and a founder of the People’s Action Party.

They would meet occasionally and Mr Kuok found Mr Lee “still pretty curt”, but now he was obsessed with Singapore. In 1970, Mr Kuok received a call from the Istana inviting him to the Prime Minister’s Office. Mr Lee wanted his views on Malaysia, saying his analyses were more down-to-earth than the official briefings he received. These meetings occurred regularly till 1973 when Mr Kuok moved to Hong Kong. After that, they met mostly when Mr Lee visited Hong Kong.

“Over the years, he shed a lot of his stiffness,” he said, though they did not agree on everything.

“Politically, I did not share all his views,” revealed Mr Kuok, citing as an example the benchmarking of ministerial pay to the private sector.

He thought Mr Lee was too obsessed about Singapore. “He wanted to talk about politics all the time. There is more to life than politics. To me, there is more to life than business.”

Yet it was Mr Lee’s single-mindedness that made Singapore thrive, Mr Kuok acknowledged, and it helped that he possessed “all these strong leadership traits – an intimidating attitude, presence of face and body”.

“He was very sure of himself, resolute, even ruthless. But he turned Singapore into a model nation, put in place a government that cared for its people, and made sure that others would not bully Singapore,” he said. “The greatest Chinese outside the mainland is Lee Kuan Yew.”

Source: www.straitstimes.com

March 26, 2015
Jean Marshall: Lee Kuan Yew And David Marshall Were Exceptional Speakers With Different Styles

Before I knew either Mr Lee Kuan Yew or David Marshall, I remember being at a political meeting at the university in 1957 or 1958. I can’t remember the circumstances, but both David and Mr Lee spoke on the future of Singapore.

After my years at the London School of Economics, I was not unfamiliar with political speeches. But it struck me that here were two exceptional speakers of great difference in their styles.

Mr Lee was a master of silence and the pause. He could pause and everybody would be absolutely on edge as to what he was going to say next. David had a different, sometimes more oratorical, style. He could inspire people and take them out of themselves to be something bigger than themselves.

Both of them were of course lawyers of some eminence, and I think they both respected each other as lawyers. But David had a very different personality from Mr Lee and it was at times difficult for them to appreciate each other because they really looked at life in very different ways.

David’s emotional reactions were a very important component of his personality. Mr Lee appeared to have ironed out or not used emotional reactions, or possibly covered them up.

David believed that every human being has value, and that the individual has a value that can’t be ironed out because every individual is worthy of respect and is important.

Of course this is difficult when it comes to working out public policy. But it did permeate his views about Singapore’s post-colonial status, the need for independence, and the need for public participation in the political process.

It also permeated his professional life and the way he fought in court – not necessarily for high fees either – but for people he thought would otherwise be denied justice.

This outlook could place him at odds with the systematic planning and thinking that Mr Lee and his team had, from the very beginning, planned, worked on and maintained for years and years.

For instance, one policy to which David took great exception was the “stop at two” policy. He was very against that and said so. He felt it was taking away a very fundamental right for people to choose to have or not to have children.

Mrs Lee was very friendly. We talked about knitting patterns, education policies, children – all kinds of things. I was very relaxed with Mrs Lee and I think she was relaxed with me. I was not relaxed with Mr Lee. He could be very, very acerbic.

We would host them for dinner when David was ambassador to France from 1978 to 1993 but I was never relaxed. I think Mr Lee was probably just as awkward with David as David was with him. They were painfully correct with each other and Mr Lee then probably still regarded David as a bit of a maverick – though he did later express appreciation for David’s work in France.

David had immense admiration for what the PAP team had achieved in Singapore.

Let nobody say that David held back in paying tribute to the achievements of Mr Lee and his government!

Mr Lee’s way of doing things was different from David’s, but David said, and not only to me, that he could never have achieved what the PAP had achieved through its organisation, cohesiveness and sheer abilities.

David saw the PAP as a juggernaut which did iron out legitimate opposition at various times in its history. I think it would be very difficult for David ever to forget that.

But he would be very capable of openly showing admiration for many of the ministers and PAP people who concern themselves with some of the issues that David was concerned with.

For instance, all the conversations that have been taking place about the people who feel left out, the people who are being left out. There is a real concern, for whatever reason, among the ministers and PAP of today about that group. That’s a group that David certainly would have been concerned about.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

March 26, 2015