Rey Angelo F. Salazar
ENG101 – ENG101 – U U
October 14, 2011
A Man that is Synonymous to Singapore A Critical Essay
The essay was a good read. Not long enough to make me sleep and I am drawn enough to read the profile many times. The flow of irony from the first sentence to the last kept me asking more questions as they were answered paragraph by paragraph. He was described as a towering Asian leader yet he came from a tiny country called Singapore. He loves his country but has relatively few close Singaporean friends and confidants. These contradictions and ironies made Lee interesting and the essay as well.His strengths were enumerated at the last part of the first paragraph, reinforcing his place at the top among the Asian leaders at his time.
On the second paragraph, his legacies were stated in lieu with other Asian leaders of the time. He did not become corrupt, and did not stay in power for too long. He left his country with wealth, wisdom and competitive youth that will drive the country to the top. It is appalling for me as a Filipino reader to see our former president Marcos and other leaders to be compared to Lee Kuan Yew as his total opposite.
A biography written by James Minchin as the most balanced description of Lee entitled No Man Is an Island: A Study of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Y ew. ew. It was said that it is difficult for Lee to be viewed distinctly apart from Singapore, but as his weaknesses describes him, he actually isthe
island. Every great man has considerable flaws and no one can reach his triumph without
acknowledging them. As he breaks through all his insecurities, vulnerability, emotional detachment and restless energy, he shaped Singapore and let the small territory shape him too.
Lee actually lives by the conflict theory management that you either dominate or be dominated. As his story go on the fourth paragraph, his submission to the colonial British and the more extreme Japanese created the Lee that invented Singapore. He knows how to follow; therefore, he knows how to lead. He admired his colonial roots as he ruled with force but with
respect to the citizen’s human rights. The author’s choice of words was spot on to paint a picture of Lee. Some can’t be found in my vocabulary. It is a good thing though because it can be found in a dictionary.
This is definitely not a story of rags to riches. His family should be well off for him to study in different prestigious schools and universities. He had learned different languages and they had a maid that taught him Cantonese. He thrived in diversity. Not just he is used to it, but because he found the strength from variety of races that lived in Singapore. He also knows which people to surround him with to push him right to the top. He is a guy that knows what he wants.
Metaphors of different kinds were used in the essay to describe Lee. It is a good device in relaying the intensity of the message and how the author wants to depict him. On the sixth paragraph, he was actually referred to as “this” like he was an object or something. Funny, yet it was effective.
The author also throws some personal stuff about him. His vulnerability on the third paragraph as he cried during the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was enforced. The story of his ancestry and his roots on the fifth paragraph.And his sensitivity to hot temperature on the ninth paragraph. These things made the readers (me in particular) feel closer to Lee, not just being informed about his greatness but how he can be as common as you and me.
As the eighth, ninth, and tenth paragraph threw in some more of his limitations, strengths and skills, he also acknowledged two conflicting ideas and challenged himself to make them work. He also turned negative traits of some parts of Singapore, weed them out and made them one of the power house of this little country. And the map always kept his humility by his side as Singapore is just a small red dot in Southeast Asia.
It is difficult not to compare this profile to the U.P. presidential profile of Gonzalez and Lopez. As much as we want to tell everything about the subject – their background on how they become to be – a too lengthy profile is just too tiring for a reader. As a coffee book, two cups are needed just to finish one profile and to understand the people behind the words.
And let me just say this, we (the Filipino people) can use some Lee Kuan Yew in our lives. He acknowledged diversity as a strong point of a society and built Singapore with it. Merging different ideologies, conflicting beliefs and unlike faiths to create a bigger and better little country. Unity existed out of dissimilarity out of Lee’s nose. Good thing that religion did not became an object that obstructed Lee’s way to greatness. Faith and belief should not be a hindrance to success. I am not against religion as a tool for society’s order, what I hate are the people that creates these bullocks interpretations of their sacred books.
The problem with our country is the people that supposed to be teaching us values, morals and ethics are the exact same people who tolerate such corrupt behavior. They think that as long as the money is given to the church, no matter where it came from, good will arise from that “small donation”. But it will actually just spread more evil. These priests are actually giving these “philanthropists” the licenseto be corrupt, as long as some percentage of it goes to the selfish, stinky, dirty pickled old men that we actuall y call priests.
