Remembering Lee Kuan Yew

TODAYON L I N E .C OM

W E S ET YOU TH I N K I N G

MONDAY, 23 MARCH 2015

SPECIAL ED ITION MCI (P) 088/09/2014

19 2 3 –2 01 5

Lee Kuan uan Yew Archite Architect ct of of modern Singapore As for for me, I have have done what what I had wanted wanted to do, to the the best of my abili ability ty.. I am satisfied.

2

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who was then Prime Minister of Singapore, addressing a crowd on National Day, June 3, 1962.

MONDAY 23 MARCH 2015

PHOTO: AP

‘We won’t see another like him’ A nation, led by PM PM Lee Hsien Hsien Loong, mourns — ‘the ‘the first of our foundi founding ng fathers fathers is no more’ more’ BY CARL SKADIAN Deputy Editor and LOH CHEE KONG Associate Editor

M

r Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s visiona ry founding Prime Minister and architect of the country’s rise from a fledgling island nation expelled from Malaysia to one envied worldwide for its rapid economic progress, far-sighted political leadership and all-round efficiency, died this morning. He was 91. Mr Lee’s death came a few months shy of the 50th anniversary of the Republic’s independence on Aug 9. In a brief statement announcing his death, the Prime M inister’s Office (PMO) said Mr Lee, whose health had been deteriorating over the past two years, died peacefully at the Singapore General Hospital at 3.18 this morning.

“The Prime Min ister is deeply grieved to announce the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Yew, the founding Prime Mi nister of Singapore,” PMO said in statement issued just past 4am. At about 6.20am, the Cabinet also issued a statement: “We will always remember his sound guidance, his constant questioning, and his fatherly care for Singapore and for all of us. Let us dedicate ourselves to Singapore and Singaporeans, in the way that Mr Lee showed us.” Mr Lee’s last public appearance was on Nov 7 last year, at the 60th anniversary celebration s of the People’s People’s Action Party’s (PAP) — which he founded in 1954 — held at Victoria Memorial Hall. PAP chairman Khaw Boon Wan said in a statement that Mr Lee had devoted his whole life to Singapore. Mr Khaw said: “Millions of Singaporeans have improved their lives because of his dedication dedication and sacrifice. A s we mourn his passing, let’s also re-dedicate ourselves to building on h is legacy, for the Party and for Singapore.

Mr Lee had been warded at SGH be flown at at half-mast during the week week since Feb 5 after coming down with of mourning. severe pneumonia. Despite a later A private family wake will be held statement that his condition had im- today and tomorrow at Sri Temasek — proved, he never recovered. His condi- the Prime Minister’s official residence residence tionworsenedprogressivelylast week, on the Istana grounds. From today to statements from the PMO said, and a Sunday, condolence books and cards final update on hi s deterioration which will be placed at the Istana’s Istana’s main gate arrived on Sunday afternoon said his for the public to pen their tributes to condition had “weakened further”. At Mr Lee. Condolence books will also be 4:05am today, the announcement that opened at all overseas missions. Singapore had been bracing itself for Mr Lee’s body will lie in state at and dreading for more than a month Parliament House from Wednesday to was made. Saturday, for the public to pay their re The Republic now enters a seven- spects. A State Funeral Service will be day period of national mourning - from held at 2 pm on Sunday at the National today to Sunday - for its founding leader, University of Singapore’s University a man who inspired awe and was reCultural Centre. garded as an i ntimidating presence presence at Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the start of his tenure as Prime Minis- the eldest of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s three ter in 1959, but who later became sy n- children, addressed the nation this onymous with Singap ore’s successand morning via live television. was w idely viewed with respect and With his voice choking with emotion admiration — even if it was grudging at times, he spokein English, Mandar in in some quarters. and Malay. In his English speech, he As a mark of respect respect to Mr Lee,State said: “The first of our founding fathers flags on all Government buildings will CONTINUED ON PAGE �

4


CONTINUED FROM PAGE �

is no more. He inspired us, gave us courage, kept us together, and brought us here. He fought for our independence, built a nationwheretherewas none,and made us proud to be Singaporea ns. We won’t won’t see another another like him.” He added: “I am grieved beyond words at the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Yew. I know that we all feel the same way. way. But even as we mourn his passing, let us also honour his spirit. Let us dedicate ourselves as one people to build on his foundations, foundations, strive for his ideals, and keep Singapore exceptional and successful for many years to come. May Mr Lee Kuan Yew rest in peace.” Across a grieving nation, which had been bracing itself itself for bad bad news since since it was announced a little more than a month ago that Mr Lee had been warded and subsequently put on a mechanical ventilator, grief gave way slowly to tributes for a man rega rded as a modern-day titan, not just in Singapore, but in much of the world. On the Internet, where his legacy was a more divisive subject than it was elsewhere, an unprecedented outpour ing of condolence messages ensued, even though the news broke in the wee hours. Tributes from the public and political leaders began streaming in soon after PMO’s announcement. Said Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who succeeded Mr Lee as Prime Minister i n 1990, on Facebook: “My tears welled up as I received the sad news. Mr Lee Kuan Yew has completed his life’s journey. But it was a journey devoted to the making of Singapore. “He has bequeathed a monumental legacy to Singaporeans — a safe, secure, harmonious and prosperous independent Singapore, our Homeland. He was a selfless leader. He shared his

experience, knowledge, ideas and life with us. He was my leader, leader, mentor, mentor, inspiration, the man I looked up to most. He made me a proud Singaporean. Now he is gone. I mourn but he lives on in my heart. On behalf of Marine Parade residents, I offer our profound condolences to PM Lee Hsien Loong and his family.” President Tony Tan said: “Mary and I are deeply saddened by the passing of Mr Lee Ku an Yew. Yew. We extend our deep est condolences condolences to his children Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Ms Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, and their families.” In his three-page condolenc condolence e letter to the Prime Min ister, Dr Tan paid tribute to Mr Lee’s achievements, such as how he rallied Singaporeans together after forced separation from Malaysia in 1965. “Many doubted if Singapore could have survived as a nation but Mr Lee rallied our people together and led his cabinet colleagues to successfully build up our armed forces, develop our infrastructure and transform Singapore into a global metropolis,” metropolis,” Dr Tan wrote. Condolences from world leaders also streamedin,withAustraliaPrimeMinister Tony Abbott and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key among the first to pay tribute to Mr Lee. United States President Barack Obama said he was deeply saddened to learn of M r Lee’s death. Offering his condolences condolences on behalf of the American people, Mr Obama described Mr Lee as a remarkable man and a “true giant of history who wi ll be remembered for generations to come as the father of modern Singapore and as one the great strategists of Asian a ffairs”. ffairs”. Mr Obama said his discussions with Mr Lee during h is trip to Singapore in 2009 were “hugely important” in help-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew of People’s Action Party (PAP) speaking at the rally for Singapore General Election 1972 at Fullerton Square. PHOTO: MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS COLLECTION, COURTESY OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE

ing him to formulate the US’ policy of rebalancing to the Asia Pacific. “(Mr Lee’s) views and insights on Asian dynamics and economic management were respected by many a round the world,and no small number of this and past generations of world leaders have sought his advice on governance and development,” he added. Obituaries also appeared on the websites websites of international international media, includincluding The New YorkTimes, The Fina ncial Times, The Economist, the BBC and the South China Morning Post. The outpouring of grief reflected the stature of a man who led a team of able and equally vi sionary leaders and oversaw Singapore’s rise by formulating policies aimed at overcoming the myriad challenges faced faced by a tiny nation set amid what he described at the outset as a “volatile region”. His ideas spanned the gamut, from Singapore’s place in the larger world, the defence of an island just 50km across, housing, education and economic policies, to the seemingly mundane, but which he explained were equally critical; these ranged from the orderly rows of trees seen across the island, for example, to the 1970s relegation of males with long hair to the back of queues to blunt the appeal of Western hippie subculture, which was deemed un healthy for t he country’s development. At every turn along the way, way, and even after he stepped down from his last post in Cabinet following the May 2011 General Election, Mr Lee ceaselessly reminded Singaporeans of his prescription for the country’s success — or lit into its ills — with his signatu re blend blend of a politician’ politician’ss oratory, oratory, a courtroom lawyer’s ability to wield a rapier to opposing arguments and a knack for

persuasion. The merits of his arguments were always discussed, discussed, sometimes sometimes de bated, but the astute astute observer always always arrived at the same conclusion —that Mr Lee never stopped thinking about the challenges facing this country. As he put it himself memorably: “Even from my sick bed, even if you are going to lower me into the grave and I feel something is going wrong, I will get up.” His visionary leadership drew praise from all over the world, and the success of Singapore gave it a relevance and weight in global global affairs that few small small states ever achieve. Former US President Bill Clinton, for example, called him “one of the wisest, most knowledgeable, most effective leader leader in any part of the world for the last 50 years”. Other world leaders were similarly effusive in their praise, and ma ny, including heavyweights such as China’s Deng Xiaoping and Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, Thatcher, eagerly sought his views as they themselves sought to transform their countries. To be sure, Mr Lee had his share of detractors. He went after what he deemed political “duds” with a vengeance, resorting sometimes to surprisingly sharp language: He once described how he carried a figurative hatchet in his bag, a weapon he would use a gainst “troublemakers” “troublemakers”.. His use of lawsuits against political opponents and Western media outlets which were accused of meddling in Singapore politics drew much criticism, as did his iron grip on the local press — he insisted at the outset that there was no “Fourth Estate” role for it, and that its business was a s a nation building entity. entity. Mr Lee also waded into areas citizens deemed private, such as his ventures into social engineering via the Graduate Mothers’ Scheme or the Speak Mandarin And Not Dialects campaign, and drew flak as a result. Policies such such as the banning of chewing gum, meanwhile, drew a mix of criticism and ridicule internationally. internationally. He remained unapologetic, however, however, insisting that whatever he did was in the better interests of Singapore. He stood by his belief, belief, which he explainedstarkly in an interview published by National Geographic magazi ne in 2010, that to be a leader, “one “one must understand hu man nature. I have always thought that humanity was animal-like. The Confucian theory was man could be improved, but I’m not sure he can be. He He can be trained, he can be disciplined”. It was a theme he touched on several times, including as early as 1987, when he shrugged off criticism of meddling thus: “I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that , we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not i ntervened on very personal matters — who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. Wedecidewhat is right. Never mind what the people think.”


EARLY YEARS

title of his book — From Th ird World to First, Mr Lee had a leading hand in a ll. Mr Lee Kua n Yewwas born on Sept 16, There were numerous other deci1923, the eldest child of Mr Lee Chin sions he took that have been the subject Koon and Madam Chua Jim Neo. The of much less publicity, but which have relatively relatively prosperous family included had significant claim to the success three brothers, Dennis and Freddy Lee, Singap ore has enjoyed. The policy to Lee Suan Yew, and a sister, Monica. adopt English as the lingua franca for A natural at school, he topped the Singapore, the approach to foreign standings for the national Senior Cam- policy, and even the decision to site bridgeexamsamongstudents studentsin British British the airport in Changi instead of redeMalaya, which included Singapore, and veloping the old Paya Lebar site, are wenton to Raffles Institution, Institution,but World World among them. War II interrupted his progress. After Essentially, as recounted in the the war, armed with sterling grades, he book, Lee Kuan Yew: Yew: The Man And went to London and earned a law dede- His Ideas, the prescription for the transgree from Cambridge. The war years formation of the nation boiled down to and his time in London stirred a po- three elements: his view of the problem, litical awakening in the young Mr Lee. his analysis of how it could be solved, Upon his return in 1950, Mr Lee and and his assessment of Singapore socihis wife — the love of his life and the ety and what was needed for it to grow. woman he once once described as smarter smarter In an interview with American jourthan he, Madam Kwa Geok Choo — set nalist Fareed Zakaria published in up the law firm of Lee & Lee. His law 1994, Mr Lee described the route he career was short-lived, however, and and his team took to remake Singaafter a few years, he turned his gaze pore. “We have focused on basics in towards politics. Singapore. We used the family to push A brief but necessary retelling of economic growth, factoring the ambithis period, shorn of much of the com- tions of a person and his family into our plexity of those times, saw him set up planning. We have tried, for example, the People’s Action Party and lobby to improve the lot of children through — successfully — for self-government self-government education,” he said. from the British and enter into merger “The government can create a set with Malaya. It was what what he firmly be- ting in which people can live happily lieved was necessary for the survival of and succeed and express themselves, a tiny island with no natural resources but finally it is what peopledo with their to speak of. lives that determines economic success The merger ultimately collapsed, or failure. Again, we were fortunate we undone by sharp differences in po- had this cultural backdrop, the belief litical and economic policies between in thrift, hard work, filial piety and loyloythe ruling parties on both sides, which which alty in the extended family, and, most boiled over over into racial unrest between of all, the respect for scholarship and the Chinese and Malays. learning.” On the morning of Aug 9, 1965, SinHe added: “There is, of course, angapore was expelled from the Federa- other reason for our success. We have tion. Hours later, at a press conference, been able to create economic growth a visibly emotional Mr Lee explained because we facilitatedcertain changes why he had believed believed — for for the “whole while we moved from an agricultural of my adult life” — that merger was the society to an industrial society. We We had right move, but that separation was the advantage of knowing what the end now inevitable, and called for calm. It result shou ld be by looking at the West was during this press conferenc conference e that and later, Japan. We knew where we the indelible image of him with tears in were, and we knew where we had to go. his eyes came to be. It was a powerful We said to ourselves, ‘Let’s hasten, let’s testament to the anguish that separa- see if we can get there faster’.” tion wrought in him. As Singapore’ Singapore’ss success success rounded rounded into For a nation suddenly cut adrift, view, Mr Lee was was often praised for for his uncertain of what the future would farsightedness. Less well-known, but bring — or, indeed, if there was one just as important, was his obsession — his vow that there would be a place with detail,whichrangedfrom howbutfor all in Singapore managed to bring tons should work down to the state of a measure of solace, and some steel, to cleanliness of the toilets at the airport. the occasion. His prescriptions for excellence across all areas rapidly filtered down to the citizenry and, together with what THE ARCHITECT OF MODERN SINGAPORE has come to be known as the Pioneer Generation, Mr Lee and his team delivFrom the beginning, he and his team ered success to Singapore in such meset out to remake Singapore in every teoric fashion that the t erm “miracle” sense of the word. The larger details has routinely been used to describe the of how they set about to do it and the transformation transformation of the country — withresults they achieved have been the out a trace of hyperbole. subject of effusive praise, academic Even while he was leading this transtomes, and much more besides. formation, however, Mr Lee had his eye From rehousing a squatter popula- on the future, specifically, specifically, an orderly tion in Housing Board flats with modern and smooth transfer of power; it was amenities, to conjuring up the defence something he viewed as critical to Sinof Singapore from practically nothing, gapore’s future success, and which was to formulating an economic policy that practically unhea rd of inthe region and took a fledgling nation — to borrow the much of the developing world.

His intentions were telegraphed early, and moves were put in place after the 1984 General Elections. Much discussion of a handover ensued, and by the time Mr Goh Chok Tong was sworn sworn in as Singapore’s second second Prime Minister on Nov 28, 1990, the momentous event was viewed as routine. Mr Lee was then appointed Senior Minister in Mr Goh’s Cabinet, a role akin to that of sage, and one which afforded him the opportunity to give his thoughts and advice on the issues confronting Singapore, though, by his own admission, he was keen to let the second-generation ond-generation leadership run things and make the key decisions. His views were also sought on matters beyond Singapore. Many leaders around the world, as well as leading media commentators, considered him an oracle of sorts on geopolitics, one to be tapped tapped for his wellspring wellspring of insights into global affairs. Much of what he thought of the world was shaped shaped by experience, and and he was viewed, first and foremost, as a pragmatist whose firm ideas of what would work work and what would not were uncoloured by theories. In an interview with A merican journalist Tom Plate, he said: “I am not great on philosophy and theories. I am interested in them, but my life is not guided by philosophy philosophy or theories. I get th ings done and leave others to extract the principles from my successful solutions. I do not work on a theory. “Instead I ask: what will make this work? … So Plato, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates — I am not guided by them. I read them cursorily because I was not interested in philoso phy as such. You may call me a ‘utilitarian’ or whatever. whatever. I am interested in what works.” With the template for the transfer of power in Singapore set, the nation underwent a similar process on Aug 12 , 2004, when Mr Lee Hsien Loong was sworn in as the country’s third Prime Minister. Mr Lee Kuan Yew Yew was subsequently appointed Minister Mentor in his son’s Cabinet, Cabinet, while Mr Goh as sumed the mantle of Senior Minister. In his speech at the swearing-in ceremony of the younger Mr Lee, President S.R. Nathan neatly encapsulated encapsulated the factors that led to Singapore’s success, while also tracing the arc of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s influence on the island republic, its unlikely beginnings, and its future path. “This is only the second political changeover in nearly 40 years of our independence. Just as Mr Lee Kua n Yew did, Mr Goh is stepping aside to make way for a younger younger man when when the councountry is in good working order,” he said. “Political “Political self-renewal is essential if the leadership is to refresh and remake itself, stay relevant to the changing Singapore was political, economic and social environment and connect with a younger never meant to be sovereign generation. An orderly and planned self-renewal self-renewal process is being built into on its own. our political system. This is unique to To survive, Singapore and has served us well. It is we had to the best way to ensure that Singapore be differen different, t, maintains a consistent course, and indeed continues to progress and prosper with exceptional.

each generation.” Mr Nathan added: “The political changeover also marks a generational change. Mr Lee Kuan Yew led the founding generation who fought for independence and made Singapore succeed. The second generation, under Mr Goh, had the less obvious but equally challenging task of building a nation and rallying the people, when times were getting better and life more comfortable. Mr Lee Hsien Loong now leads the post-independence generation, who have grown up amidst peace, comfort and growing prosperit y. Mr Lee and his government must engage the young on external and domestic issues which affect their future, update policies to reflect the aspirations of a younger generation of Singaporeans and adapt their style to stay in tune with the times.” times.” “Singapore was never meant to be sovereign on its own. To survive, we had to be different, indeed exceptional. We progressed and thrived because we built strong institutions founded on sound values — integrity, meritocracy, meritocracy, equality of opportunities, compassion compassion and mutual respect between Singaporeans of different ethnic, religious and social backgrounds. The government, judiciary, civil service, unions, schools schools and the media have promoted the interests of the common people. The public, private and people sectors have built a national consensus on what the challenges are and how we can overcome them. The people and government are united.” He continued: “These are valuable strengthsandintangibleassets critical to Singapore’s long-term long-term survival and continued success. We must do all we can to preserve them.” As Minister Mentor, Mentor, Mr Lee’s prepreoccupation with Singapore’s well-being continued. When he spoke in public, it was usually to remind Singaporeans of what worked for the country, and why it was necessary to do so. At his last appearance at his Tanjong Pagar ward’s National Day dinner dinner on Aug 16, 2013, for example, he offered his views on one of his pet topics —bilingualism. Speaki ng before a crowd clearly enthralled that he had turned up despite feeling unwell, he said: “Education is the most important factor for our next generation’s success. In Singapore, our bilingualism policymakes learning difficult unless you start learning both languages, English and the mother tongue, from an early age — the earlier the better.” During his years as Minister Mentor, actors on the global stage continued to seek his views; he was a frequent guest on forums that included world wide business leaders and appeared every now and then in the pages of leading publications. publications. As a measure of the stature stature he continued to enjoy, the high-powered board of French oil giant, Total, held its meeting in Singapore, instead of Paris, for the first time. During the meeting, Mr Lee announced that he, after 19 years on the board, intended to step down. CONTINUED ON PAGE 6

6


“O

President Tony Tan’s condolence letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong

n behalf of the people of Singapore, I would like to convey my most heartfelt condolences to you and your family on the passing of your dear father, father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Mr Lee dedicated his entire life to Singapore from his first position as a legal advisor to the labour unions in the 1950s after his graduation from Cambridge University to his undisputed role as the architect of our modern Republic. Few have demonstrated to clean up the Singapore River and such complete commitment to a cause Kallang River which were then heavily greater than themselves. polluted by garbage, sewage and indusMr Lee was elected into the Brit- trial waste. The Singapore River now now ish Legislative Assembly in 1955 and forms part of the Ma rina Bay, which is became Singapore’s Singapore’s first Pr ime Min- not only a valuable source of fresh water ister after leading the PAP to victory for our city state, but also a place which in the 1959 general elections when is enjoyed by Singaporeans and tourists Singapore was granted full internal from around the world. Mr Lee also set self-government. self-government. At that time, Singa- up the Housing Development Board to pore faced problems of high unemploy- develop develop our public housing estates to ment, poor infrastructure and a hos- give every citizen a stake in the nation. tile external environment. environment. To secure Today, because of Mr Lee’s farsightedSingapore’s access to land, water and ness, Singapore is hailed as a model of natural resources, Mr Lee led Singa- sustainable and inclusive development pore to join the Federation of Malaysia for developing cities around the world. before declaring independence independence from Mr Lee made lasting contributions contributions Britai n in 1963. However, the prob- towards the building of a meritocratic lems were exacerbated when Singapore and multi-cultural Singapore. Singapore. As Sinlost its economic hinterland after our gapore’s first Pr ime Minister, Mr Lee forced separation from Malaysia in put in place measures to ensure that 1965. Many doubted if Singapore could university places, government consurvive as a nation but Mr Lee rallied tracts, and appointments into public our people together and led his cabinet office would go to the most deservi ng colleagues to successfully build up our candidates based on merit and regardarmed forces, develop our infrastruc- less of race race and religion. Mr Lee also ture and transform Singapore into a established English as the common global metropolis. working language and the main meEven when Singapore’s urban devel- dium of instruction in our schools so opment was still in its early phases, Mr that all Singaporeans would have equal Lee already had the vision of establish- opportunities to learn, communicate ing Singapore as a liveable Ga rden City. and work regardless of race. race. Each ethMr Lee i nitiated the ambitious project nic group was encouraged to learn its

self-interest, self-interest, Mr Lee stepped down as Prime Minister in 1990 to allow for a smooth leadership renewal after he had built up a younger team of Cabinet Ministers. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, he continued to serve and advance Singapore’s interests at home and abroad as Singapore’s Senior Minister from 1990 to 2004 and then as Minister Mentor from 2004 to 2011. He had spent more than 50 years in the cabinet and was the world’s longest-serving Prime Minister when he stepped down in 1990. Through Mr Lee, Singapore earned international recognition and established cooperative relations with major countries affecting our region. Mr Lee was one of the first to recognize China’s potential under Deng Xiaoping’s reforms. Mr Lee’s brilliant intellect and candour of opinion led many international leaders and foreign diplomats to seek his views on developments in the region and around the world. Widely re veredas a senior senior statesman, statesman, Mr Lee was conferred numerous international accolades throughout his political career. Many aspects of our lives bear Mr Lee’s imprint - be it our HDB estates, our gardens, or the SAF. SAF. Without his remarkable foresight and relentless pursuit of Singapore’s development, development, the Singapore that we know today would not exist. Singapore was his passion and he continued serving Singapore Our thoughts are with you, wrote President Tan. till the last days days of his life. Singapomother tongue as a second language to reans owe an eternal gratitude to Mr preserve the cultural and community Lee Kuan Yew. Yew. The greatest tribute identity of the group. Because of these that Singaporeans can pay him is to policies, Singaporeans today are able treasure and build upon the legacy that to leverage on our bilingual and bicul- Mr Lee and his team have left us, and tural edge to take advantage of the make Singapore an even better home opportunities that present themselves for our future generations. generations. around the world. Our thoughts are with you at this A leader leader who placed placed service service before before time of sorrow.”

CONTINUED FRO M PAGE �

Total chairman Christophe de Margerie would have none of it, however, and declared: “I refuse his dismissal, your resignation.If you don’tmind, you will stay as a member member of our advisory advisory board, which means you can come whenever whenever you wish. It w ill be always our pleasure.” Despite his advancing age and differing role in government, one thing did not change: His commitment to Singapore and his determination to see to it that everything, no matter how trivial it seemed, worked the way it should. The keen observer would have spotted him in the unlikeliest of places. Here, being regaled by Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone as the travelling motor circus staged its first night race beneath the twinkling lights of Marina Bay. There, riding a golf cart through the soon-to-be-opened Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort and being briefed on its attractions and workings. He also continued to worry about the way younger Singaporeanswouldview the challenges facing the country, and tried to drive the lessons he had learnt to them through his books. The watershed general election of

Mr Lee Kuan Yew speaking to a student during a visit to Raffles Girls’ Primary School. Mr Lee believed that education is the most important factor for the next generation’s success. PHOTO BY DON WONG.

May 2011, beyond being historic in sending more opposition politicians to Parliament than ever before with the first loss of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC), also led to the

end of Mr Lee’s decades in the Singapore Cabinet. On May 14 that year, barely a week after the elections, Mr Lee and Mr Goh jointly resigned resigned from Cabinet, Cabinet, and ex-

plained in a letter that they felt “the time has come for a younger generation to carry Singapore forward in a more difficult and complex situation”. The letter added: “After a watershed general election, we have decided to leave the Cabinet and have a completely younger team of ministers to connect to and engage with this young gener ation.” Mr Lee continued to remain in politics after this; he held on to his office as Member of Parliament for Tanjong Pagar GRC, but while he remained active behind the scenes, recurring bouts of ill-health took their toll, and he gradually receded from view, if not in influence, a nd made fewer and fewer appearances in public. On Feb 5 this year, he was warded in hospital with severe pneumonia, but it was only two weeks later, on Feb 21, that Singaporeans learnt of the severity of his illness, when a statement from the Prime M inister’s Office announced that he was in the Intensive Care Unit of the Singapore General Hospital and was on mechanical ventilation. ventilation. Despite a later statement that his condition condition had improved, he never recovered. Mr Lee leaves behind his sons Hsien Loong and Hsien Yang, and a daug hter, Wei Ling, as well as seven grandchildren.


Singapore was his abiding passion, says PM in live address

SEVEN DAYS OF NATIONAL MOURNING The Prime Minister has declared a period of National Mourning from March 23 to March 29. As a mark of respect to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the State flags on all Government buildings will be flown at half-mast from today to S unday. A private family wake will be held from March 23 to March 24 at Sri Tem Temasek. asek.

“I

am deeply saddened to tell you that Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed away peacefully this morning at the Singapore General Hospital ... The first of our founding fathers is no more. He inspired us, gave us courage, kept us together, and brought us here. He fought for our independence, built a nationwheretherewas none,and made us proud to be Singaporea ns. We won’t won’t see another another like him. To many Singaporeans, and indeed others too, Lee Kuan Yew was Singapore. As Prime Minister, he pushed us hard to achieve what had seemed impossible. After he stepped down, he guided his successors with wisdom and tact. In old age, he continued to keep a watchful eye on Singapore. Singapore. Singapore was his abiding passion. He gave of himself, in full measure, to Singapore. As he himself put it towards the end of his life and I quote: “I have spent my life, so much of it, building up th is country. There’s nothing more that I need to do. At the end of the day, what have

I got? A successful Singapore. What have I given up? My life.” I am grieved beyond words at the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I know that we all feel the same way. But even as we mourn his passing, let us also

honour his spirit. Let us dedicate ourselves as one people to build on his foundations, strive for his ideals, and keep Singapore exceptional and successful for many years to come. May Mr Lee Kuan Yew rest in peace.”

ESM Goh leads leaders’ tributes to Mr Lee

T

he Republic’s leaders paid tribute on social media to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, with Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who succeeded Mr Lee as Prime Minister in 1990, leading the tributes. Mr Goh wrote on Facebook: “My tears welled up as I received the sad news. Mr Lee Kuan Yew has completed his life’s journey. But it was a journey devoted to the making of Singapore. “He has bequeathed a monumental legacy to Singaporeans — a safe, secure, harmonious and prosperous independent Singapore, our Homeland. He was a selfless leader. He shared his experience, knowledge, ideas and life with us. He He was my leader leader,, mentor, mentor, inspiration; the man I looked up to most. He made me a proud Singaporean. “Now he is gone. I mourn but he lives on in my heart. On behalf of Marine Parade residents, I offer our profound condolences to PM Lee Hsien Loong and his family.” Also writing on Facebook, President Tony Tan said: “Mary and I are deeply saddened by the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. We extend our deepest condolences condolences to his children Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Ms Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, and their families.” As Singapore’ Singapore’ss founding founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee dedicated his life to Singapore, and served Singapore till his

final days, said Dr Tan, whose office had “Today we lost a founding father of Sinalso sent a condolence letter to Prime gapore. I hope Mr Lee is able to be with Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Mrs Lee once again, and that they may Dr Tan said: “His vision to build a rest in peace together. In this moment prosperous, meritocratic and multi- of grief, please join me in expressing our racial Singapore defied expectations. deepest condolences to Mr L ee’s family. When others doubted our chances of “I do not have the words to express survival, he strove for excellence. To- my gratitude for everything that Mr day, much that defines Singapore bears Lee has done for Singapore. Our lives his influence: Security and the rule of have been transformed because Mr law, law, our cultural diversity and our eco- Lee had a vision of a better life for all nomic progress, our public housing and Singaporeans, and dedicated his enour gardens. Without Mr Lee’s strong tire life to this mission. Mr Lee and leadership and immense contributions, his team built a deep rapport with the Singapore that we know today our pioneer generation, and to gether, would not not have existed. existed. they achieved what many thought was “Mr Lee’s passing is a great loss to impossible. all of us and to Singapore. It is up to “Mr Lee has lived a full and meanus to honour the legacy of Mr Lee and ingful li fe. Let us come together as one the founding generation of Singapore people to express our appreciation, re by building upon their work to make flect on what we have gone gone through to Singapore an even better place for gether as a people, and resolve to build generations to come.” on the legacy that Mr Lee has left us.” Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew Yew The People’s Action Party Party (PAP) has posted a note on Facebook: “Mr Lee set up a tribute page at http://www. Kuan Yew — missed and remembered tributetolky.org tributetolky.org and changed its logo forever. You devoted your life to make on its Facebook page to black and white Singapore exceptional and our lives as a sign of respect. better. You You taught us all what it means “While we mourn the passing of one to be Singaporean. I am truly grate- of the greatest leaders of our Par ty, we ful to you.” celebrate his incalculable contributions Education Minister Heng Swee Keat to Singapore and its people,” it said on changed his Facebook cover photo to its Facebook page. a picture of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his “Than k you Mr Lee Kua n Yew, Yew, may late wife in his younger days. He wrote: you rest in peace.” peace.”

Parliament House

Mr Lee’s body will lie in state at Parliament House f rom March 25 to March 28, for the public to pay their respects. Those who wish to pay their last respects at Parliament House can do so from 10 a m to 8 pm daily f rom Wednesday to Saturday. A State Funeral Service will be held at 2 pm on March 29 at the University Cultural Centre, National University of Singapore. The State Funeral Service will be at tended by the late Mr Lee’s family, friends and staff, the President, Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament, Old Guards, senior civil servants, grassroots leaders and Singaporeans from all walks of life. The State Funeral Ser vice will be followed by a private cremation at Mandai Crematorium. Condolence books and cards will be available in front of Istana by the Main Gate from Monday to Sunday, for those who wish to pen their t ributes to the late Mr Lee. Condolence books will also be opened at a ll Overseas Missions for overseas Singaporeans and friends.

The public can express their condolences and share their memories of the late Mr Lee at the official website, http://www.rememberingleekuanyew.sg . The public can call the 24-hour hotline at 6336 1166 with queries, or visit http://www.rememberingleekuanyew.sg and http://www.facebook.com/rememberingleekuanyew for more details.

8


He was a true giant of history who will be remembered for generations to come as the father of modern Singapore and as one the great strategists of Asian affairs. United States President Barack Obama

Leaders around the world mourn a giant D

escribing Mr Lee Kuan Yew Yew as giant figure and paying tribute to his influence on the world stage, past and present world leaders mourned Mr Lee’s death this morning. United States President Barack Obama said he was deeply saddened by the news.HecalledMr Lee a remarkremarkable man and “a true giant of history who will be remembered for generations to come as the father of modern Singapore and as one the great strategists of Asian affairs”. “A visionary who led his country from Singapore’s independence in 1965 to build one of the most prosperous countries in the world today, he was a devoted public servant and a remarkable leader,” Mr Obama said. “(Mr

Lee’s) views and insights on Asian dynamics and economic management were respected by many a round the world, and no small number of this and past generations of world leaders have sought his advice on governance and development.” Addingthat he appreciated appreciatedMr Lee’s Lee’s wisdom, Mr Obama said that his discussions with Mr Lee during his trip to Singapore in 2009 were “hugely important” in helping him formulate US’ policy of rebalancing to the Asia Pacific. MrObama’spredecessor,MrGeorge W Bush, called Mr Lee the “father of today’s Singapore” who transformed his country and helped usher South East Asia into the modern era. “The Singapore he leaves behind is an influ-

ential force for stability and prosperity and a friend to the United States,” States,” Mr Bush said. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron said that Mr Lee “personally shaped Singapore in a way that few people have any nation”. Mr Cameron said: “He made his country into one of the great success stories of our modern world. That Singapore is today a prosperous, secure and successful country is a monument to his decades of remarkable public service.” He noted that the late Margaret Thatcher, a former Britsh PM, once said that there was no Prime Minister whom she she admired more than Mr Lee for “the strength of his convictions, the

Singaporeans laud ‘one of the greatest leaders leaders of the 20th century’ centur y’

E

ven before before day broke, broke, Singaporeans began expressing their gratitude and respect for the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, following the news of his passing early this morning. Minutes after a statement appeared on Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s Loong’s Facebook page at 4.07am announcing the elder Mr Lee’s death, comments began appearing on the page. The labour movement and various organisations also issued statements expressing their condolences, while the People’sAssociation annou nced that 18 community sites would be set up for members of the public to pay tribute to Singapore’s founding founding Prime Minister. The first four community sites in Tanjong Pagar GRC, Ang Mo Kio GRC, East Coast GRC and Chua Chu Kang GRC, will be ready for the public from tomorrow at 10am. Wrote Mr Sebastian CK Lim on Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s Facebook page: “The man who gave us all a better li fe in Singapore has finally gone to his welldeserved resti ng place ... but I shall not mourn his loss but instead celebrate his life. He had spent his entire lifetime making sure that all of us would not suffer the impoverished conditions that our forefathers who came here did ... May your spirit be always around this nation, especially in our hour of need.” Ms Cheryl Tay wrote: “Let’s honour the passing of a great man by treasuring our country and leaving it a better place for the next generation as Mr (Lee Kuan Yew) Yew) has.” By 8am, more than 8,500 people had commented on the post, and it was shared more than 28,000 times.

On the People’s Action Party’s Facebook page, over 1,000 people had commented by 8.15am. Wrote Ms Chan Ying Ying: “Thank you for building up Singapore and letting us live in a society based on meritocracy. Without it, I won’t won’t be where I am today. today. May peace be with Mr Lee (Hsien Loong) Loong) and all his family.” On the PAP’s tribute website — http://www.tributetolky.org http://www.tributetolky.org — one message read: “Though never granted the privilege and honour of being a Singapore citizen, I grew up in the city in the days just after independence and witnessed witnessed the birth of a nation nation whoseinternational status now knows no equal, thanks to the vision, determination and integrity of Lee Kuan Yew.” Mr Lee proved that honesty and honour could achieve far more than the corruption and greed that characterised so many governments and world leaders at the time, the commentator wrote. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) called Mr Lee a “true fighter for our workers”. “From the time he fought alongside alongside the Postal and Telecommunications Uniformed Staff Union for better pay and terms, he has a lways had the welfare and interests of workers at heart and in mind. As the co-founder of the People’s Action Party (PAP), he forged a strong symbiotic relationship with the NTUC. As the first Prime Minister of Singapore, he championed a strong spirit of tripartism, bringing labour, management and government together,” said NTUC secretary-general and Minister in Prime Minist er’sOffice Lim

He had spent his entire lifetime making sure that all of us would not suffer the impoverished conditions that our forefathers who came here did ... May your spirit be always always around this nation, especially in our hour of need. Mr Sebastian CK Lim WRITING ON MR LEE HSIEN LOONG’S FACEBOOKPAGE

Swee Say and NTUC president Diana Chia in the statement. The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry hailed Mr Lee as “a statesman extraordinaire”, and expresse d appreciation forhis concern for the development of the Chinese community, as well as his encouragement encouragement of local enterprises to invest in China and neighbouring countries. The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) said the late Mr Lee helped the Malay-Muslim community grow by, for example, facilitating the formation of MUIS as a statutory body. “He will a lso always be remembered for his strong support for the introduction of the Mosque Building Fund Scheme in 1975, which helped the community to rally together and strengthen this key community institution during Singapore’s period of rapid urbanisation and industrialisation,” MUIS said. Dean of the Lee Ku an Yew School of Public Policy (NUS), Professor Kishore Mahbubani, who spent 33 years with the Singapore Foreign Service, said: “(Mr Lee) was a tough ta skmaster. Yet, I never failed to learn va luable lessons from each encounter. Having watched him interact with several global leaders, including Reagan, Thatcher, Mitterrand and Kohl, I saw first-hand how they were blown away by his breadth of vision, acute acute geopolitical geopolitical analyses and wise policy solutions. solutions.”” He added: “When the dust of history settles and the definitive books are written on twentieth century history, Mr Lee will emerge as one of the greatest leaders of the century.”

clarity of his views, the directness of his speech and his vision of the way ahead”. Mr Cameron said: “His place in history is assured, as a leader and as one of the modern world’s foremost statesmen.” Former UK PM Tony Blair said Mr Lee was “oneof the most extraordinar y leaders of modern times”. “He was a genuine political giant. He was the first to understand that modern politics was about effective Government not old-fashioned ideology. Whether in the economy, social cohesion or law and order, he applied methods of rigorous analysis and detailed implementation,” said Mr Blair. “He built Singapore into the success story it is today by i ntelligence, ntelligence, wisdom and determination in equal measure. As a result Singaporehas a respectand admiration far above its size.” Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said his country mourned the passing of “a giant of our region”. region”. “Fifty years ago, ago, Lee Kuan Yew Yew led led a vulnerable, fledgling nation to independence,” he said. “Today, thanks to his vision and determination, Singapore is one of the world’s most successful countries. In Lee Kuan Yew’s own words, Singapore’s remarkable journey has been from ‘third world to first’. Thanks to his leadership, Singapore is now one of the world’s most prosperous nations, a financial powerhouse, and one of the world’s easiest places to do business.” business.” Mr Abbott said the region owes much to Mr Lee. “Here in Australia and beyond, leaders sought and learned from his wise counsel,” he added. New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said Mr Lee’s courage, determination, commitment, character and ability made him a “formidable leader who held the respect of Singaporeans and the international community alike”. alike”. He added: “I had the honour of meeting Mr Lee in 2007 during his last official visit to New Zealand. He was well known for his insights and foresight but what struck me most was his unwavering determination to see Singapore succeed.” United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moo said M r Lee was “a legendary figure in Asia, widely respected for his strong leadership and statesmanship”. “During his three decades in office, he helped Singapore to transition from a developing country to one of the most developed developed in the world, transforming it into a thriving international business hub,” said Mr Ban. “As Singapore marks its 50th anniversary of independence this year, its founding father will be remembered as one one of of the most inspiring A sian leaders.”


‘All I can say is, I did my best’ True to his word, Singapore remained remain ed Mr Lee Lee Kuan Yew’ Yew’ss concern till the end of his life life

W

hen he breathed his last early this morning, the Republic’s first Prime Minister had also been Tanjong Pagar’s Member of Parliament for six decades — the longest-serving, and more remarkably, markably, outlasting the last of his Old Guard leadership comrades by more than 25 years. Mr Lee died at 3.18am today at Singapore General Hospital, where he had been warded since Feb 5 after coming down with severe pneumonia. He was 91. When Lee Kuan Yew entered the scene as a raw opposition politician in 1955, Singapore was but a colonial outpost populated by a polyglot of migrants, common only in their desires to eke out a livelihood here. He departs having guided Singapore through the trying first years of Independence into athriv ing economic miracle that is marvelled the world over for overcoming improbable odds. Mr Lee has also elevated this fledgling nation’s place on the world stage far beyond that of ordinary city-states, partly because of its extraordinary achievements, achievements, but also because many global leaders have been floored by its leader’s astute analysis of geopolitical trends and developments — he continued this role even after handing over the reins after 31 years as Pr ime Minister by travelling the globe as a world-class world-class pundit. But Mr Lee’s enduring legacy is also the distinct brand of governance governance he had wrought, while the fundamental principles he adhered to in his 31 years as Prime Mi nister remains the bedrock on which Singapore’s Singapore’s steady ascension continues. Opinions about him vary, from respect and worship, to fear and disdain, but fewcan quarrelwith this:Singapore Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew w were, ere, are, and will continue to be indissociable. Such is Mr Lee’s imprint on Singapore. If one had to distil the core principle of governance in Singapore, it would be meritocracy meritocracy — Mr Lee determined determined early on that the government should equalise opportunities and not outcomes, and rewards must be allocated on the basis of one’s merits and abilities. His firm belief stemmed from the “injustice” he saw in the 1950s when “the whites were on top” by default. “You might be a good doctor, but if you are an Asian, you you would be under a white doctor who’s not as good,” he once recounted to a group of authors. “The injustice of it all, the discrimi nation, struck me and everybody else.”

He also wrote in his memoirs: “It struck me as manifestly fair that everybody in this world should be given an equal chance in life, that in a just and well-ordered society society there should not be a great disparity disparity of wealth between between persons because of their position or status, or that of their parents.” That governance of a vulnerable state sitting in a volatile region had to be neutral in terms of race, language and religion was buttres sed by the deep misgivings the Republic’s Republic’s first-generation leaders had with the Malaysian government’s politics ofcommunal ism during the brief, unhappy merger between the two from 1963 to 1965. On independent Singapore’s founding on 9 August 1965, multiracialism was written into the Constitution Constitution — the first post-colonial state to do so. It was the only way to forge a sense of nationhood for a people of mostly settlers, Mr Lee knew, and this togetherness was critical for a tiny island with a Chinese-majority population sitting amid far larger Malay neighbours. “We took some drastic decisions at the beginning a nd shuffled the people together. Had we not done this, it would have led to a different Singapore,” he recalled in the book Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going, referring to his Government’s dispersal of racial enclaves among various kampungs through balloting into public housing estates. Inter-racial mingli ng was keyif the people were to identify themselves not only by their race, but also by t heir nationality, he decided. “There must be a sense of self, a sense of identity, that you are prepared to die for your country, that you’re prepared to die for one anothe r,” r,” he added. But diminishing the tendencies of communities to revert to communally-influenced behaviours was always going to be an arduous task: Racial enclaves again congregated in the various housing estate subsequently and a trend of voting along racial lines emerged in the 1980s. Reflecting his resolve to entrench multiracialism in Singapore, Mr Lee introduced ethnic quotas for Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks in 1989 and pushed through the Group Representation Constituency in 1988 to enshrine minority representation in Parliament, despite vociferous criticisms of these moves. Among other things, opponents said the quota constraintswarpedproperty transactions transactions and the GRC system was counter-intuitive to meritocratic ideals. Mr Lee was u nmoved. “In Singapore, what will identify identify a Singaporean with the changing circumstances? An acceptance of multiracialism, a tolerance of people of different races, languages, cultures, religions, and an equal basis

for competition. That’s what will stand out against all our neighbours.” The clearest testament to his multiracial, and meritocratic principles to wards governance governance was in the choice of “race-neutral” English as Singapore’s lingua franca, although Malay, as the PHOTO: MINISTRY OF language of the indigenous people, was INFORMATION AND THE retained as the national language. ARTS COLLECTION, “What motivated me? Internal staCOURTESY OF NATIONAL bility and peace. We We treat everybody ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE equally. We judge you on your merits. This is a level playing field. We do not discriminate our people on race, language, religion. If you can perform, you get the job,” he explained. To his mind, getting the best results from a meritocratic society also meant the government must not supplant indi vidual effort and responsibility; people must not lose the drive to provide for themselves. That, and seeing in Britain and Sweden how debilitating it was to subsidise a man for the rest of his life, was why he eschewed welfarism, despite being a loyal supporter of the Fabian school of thought in his youth. As he w rote in his memoirs: “We noted by the 1970s that when governments undertook primary responsibility for the basic duties of the head of a family, the drive in people weakened. Welfare undermined self-reliance. People did not have to work for their families’ wellbeing. The handout became a way of life. The downward downward spiral was relentless as motivation and productivity went down. People lost the drive to achieve because they paid too much in taxes. They became dependent dependent on the state for their basic needs.” To this day, the People’s Action ParWhat ty (PAP) Government continues to tie motivated individual effort and responsibility to me? Internal many of its help programmes for the stability and peace. We treat lower-income, such as the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme. everybody The creation of the Central Proviequally. We dent Fund (CPF) and the 3M health judge jud ge yo you u on care financing system (Medisave, your merits. MediShield, and Medifund) are other This is a level examples of the Government’s drive playing field. Then SecretaryGeneral of the People’s Action Party, Mr Lee Kuan Yew (centre), with party members on Polling Day, 1955.

to ensure that individuals themselves, and not the state, provide for most of their own needs. Mr Lee realised that, as a country with no natural resources, the only way Singapore could survive, let let alone alone thrive, was to have capable people leading it. His view was informed by how so many newly-independent former colonies had plunged into riots, coups and revolutions under inept leaders who had inherited sound constitutions constitutions from the British and French. Indeed, Singapore’s vulnerabilities — “an 80-storey building standing on marshy land” — made it imperative that the politica l leadership was made up of the cream of society’s talent. He said once: “Can you have a good government without good men in charge of government? American liberals believe you can, that you can have a good system of government with proper separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, plus checks and balances between them ... and there will be good government, even if weak or not so good men win elections and take charge. “My experience in Asia has led me to a different conclusion. To get good government, you must have good men in charge of government. I have observed in the last 40 years that even with a poor system of government, but with good strong men in charge, people get passable government with decent progress.” It was a challenge that Mr Lee had started thinking about barely one year into Singapore’s independence. And over decades, Mr Lee singlehandedly devised the ways to spot and draft into government the capable, honest and dedicated, from schemes such as the Singapore Ar med Forces overseas scholarships scholarships in 1971 to recruit the top brains — the PAP government has, over the years, had many of these scholars eventually become Cabinet ministers, including Prime Minister CONTINUED ON PAGE ��

10


CONTINUED FROM PAGE 9

Lee Hsien Loong — to getting psychiatrists and psychologists to review potential candidates amid lengthy and thorough meetings with leaders that have become known as “tea sessions”. He also spent years studying the hiring processes of multinational companies — eventually adopting in 1983 Shell’s system, which judged indi viduals for the “helicopt “helicopter er quality” of his or her powers of of analysis , imagination and sense of reality — and was the chief advocate of pegging ministerial salaries to the six highest-paid individuals in the private se ctor so that the best would be will ing to step into politics and be less susceptible to corruption. “Because of our relentless and unceasing sea rch for talent both at home and abroad to make up for the small families of the well-educated, Singapore has been able to keep up its performance,” said Mr Lee. Not one to be beholden to ideologies and theories, Mr Lee cared only about whether whether a solution solution worked. worked. He said once: “My job as a leader is to make sure that before the next elections, enough had developed and disclosed itself to the peopletoswing themaround.That’sthe businessof a leader. leader. Notto go follow follow the crowd. That’s a washout, the country will go down down the drain.” drain.” And where possible, possible, Mr Lee “preferred to climb on the shoulders of others who had gone before us” in looking for solutions, an example of which was how he learnt, from his various trips overseas, ways to tackle the environmentalproblembysitingfactoriesaway from residential areas and implementing anti-pollution controls for traffic. His pragmatic and empirical approach allowed him to be farsighted and visionary in his policies, policies, which enabled Singapore to so swiftly transform itself from a mudflat to a metropolis. At a time whenSingapore Singapore was wrestling with the reality of being dismem bered from its economic economic hinterland after Separation, for instance, Mr Lee and then-Finance Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee defied the then accepted wisdom that multinational companies were exploiters of cheap land, labour and raw materials in Third World countries, instead welcoming them to create a livelihood for Singaporeans and teaching them skills and knowledge. The result? Singapore’s gross domestic product of US$970 million in 1965 was on par with Jamaica’s, but by the time Mr Lee stepped down in 1990, the figure had surged to US$34.5 billion, similar to that of the Czech Republic. Mr Lee’s early emphasis on changing the physical landscape here quickly, to make Singapore, in his words, a “First World oasis in a Third World region” — clearing the city of street vendors, farmers and kampung dwellers, and his greening efforts — also played a significa nt role in the country’s rapid economic development. As he explained in his memoirs: memoirs: “Visiting CEOs used to call on me before making i nvestment decisions. I thought the best way to convince them was to ensure that the roads from the airport

to their hotel and to my office were neat and spruce, lined with shrubs and trees. “Without a word being said, they would know that Singaporeans were competent, disciplined and reliable, a people who would learn the skills they required soon enough.” Giving all Singaporeans clean and green environs also created a sense of equal-ness. “If we did not create a society which is clean throughout the island, I believed then and I believe now, we have two classes of people: The upper class, the upper middle and even middle class with gracious surroundings; and the lower middle and the working class, in poor conditions. No society like that will thrive,” thrive,” he said said in Hard Truths Truths To Keep Singapore Going. More than overhauling the look of Singapore from squatter settlements to orderly housing blocks through the impressive Five-Year Building Programme from 1960 to 196 5 — the HDB built almost 55,000 housing units for the lower-income in that period, raising the proportion of the population in public housing from a tad over 9 per cent to close to one-quarter; the figure hovers at around 85 per cent today — Mr Lee’s housing policies over the years changed every Singaporean’s life. His CPF Home Ownership Scheme in 1968 gave Singaporeans the chance to own a valuable asset — the Republic has among the highest home-ownership rates in the world today at over 90 per cent. His direction to HDB in 1974 to improve the quality and variety in HDB new towns, as well as the introduction introductionof upgradingprogrammes for older estates in 1989, enhanced the value of of these assets. The result was that many Singaporeans, in a couple of decades, accumulated considerable assets. Writing about the significance of creating a “home-owning society” in his memoirs, Mr Lee said: “I was con vinced that if every family owned its home, the country would be more sta ble. I believed this sense of ownership ownership

Mr Lee leading his Tanjong Pagar GRC team-mates in thanking the residents for their support in the 2006 General Election, when he was Minister Mentor. PHOTO: TODAY FILE PHOTO

My job as a leader is to make sure that before the next elections, enough had developed and disclosed itself to the people to swing them around. That’s the business of a leader.

was vital forour new society, society, whichhad no deep roots in a common historical experience.” Mr Lee was nothing if not a keen attendant to every factor that would translate to Singapore’s continual success — even extending his hand into Singaporeans’ daily habits. He proclaimed, to the shock of many, that as much as 80 per cent of a people’s, and hence the country’s, predisposition to success was down to nature. But Mr Lee also felt that culture was a key determinant in the equation. He set about in earnest launching a series of campaigns to radically change Singaporeans’ habits and ethos, ranging from anti-spitting drives in the 1960s and eradicating the use of dialects, to extolling the “admirable qualities” of Japanese and, notoriously, banning chewing gum. He did not care about the hectoring from critics about Singapore becoming a “nanny state”: “First we educated and exhorted our people. After we had persuaded and won over a majority, we legislated to punish the wilfu l minority. It has made Singapore a more pleasant place to live in. If this is a ‘nanny state’, I am proud to have fostered one.” He also said: “We had one simple guidin g principle for for survival, that Singapore had to be more rugged, better organised a nd more efficient than others in the region. If we were only as good as our neighbours there was no reason for businesses to be based here. We had to make it possi ble for investors to operate successfully and profitably in Singapore despite our lack of a domestic market and natural resources.” Mr Lee contentiously waded into the even more intimate aspects of Singaporeans’ lives; the “Great Marriage Debate” in his 1983 National Day Rally about the dangers of having “less bright people to support more dumb people in the next generation” because women graduates were not having enough children, and the “Stop at Two” and “Graduate Mothers” schemes testi-

fied to his determination to shape the make-up of Singapore society. While Western commentators and media were often quick to highlight blemishes blemishes in Singapore Singapore and and its its system system that Mr Lee built, world leaders, such as Mr Richard Nixon, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, and Mr Deng Xiaoping, frequently expressed their admiration and respect rather more readily. Many leaders — of developed and developing countries alike — came with or sent their delegations delegations here, and continue to do so, to study Singapore’s systems, including of housing, social security and industry, in a bid to replicate these back home. For instance, Mr Tony Blair’s New Labour came to look at the CPF system — where once British MPs had slammed Mr Lee’s remarks that Mrs Thatcher’s government needed to trim the excesses of the welfare state — while the Vietnamese asked him in 1991 to become their economic adviser despite openly attacking his stance during its occupation of Cam bodia just just years prior. prior. But more than his policies and programmes, Mr Lee’s insightful views of global developments and their impact on the world, world, delivered in his inimit able straight-shooting style, were always keenly sought. No less than former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger paid Mr Lee this tribute: “There is no second Lee Kuan Yew in the world. Normally one would say that that the leader of a country country of the size and population of Singapore would not have a global influence … But precisely because Singapore can survive only by competition with much more powerful neighbours, and precisely because its well-being depends on stability and progress in the area, his views were always in a much larger context then the technical problems of the Singaporean economy and so he always had a tremendous influence on us.” The doors of many world leaders, both past and present, present, were a lways open to Mr Lee — a mark of his stature and standi ng, given how few would dispense such treatment to the former prime minister of a small state, which less than half a century ago few had held out hope of survival. Perhaps the most well-known testimony of Mr Lee as the seminal statesman came from Mrs Thatcher. “In office, I read and analysed every speech of Harry’s. He had a way of penetrating the fog of propaganda and expressing with unique clarity the issues of our times and the way to tackle them. He was never wrong.” That Mr Lee, throughout the years, had impressed, and forged close personal relationships with leaders around the world also benefited the Republic on many fronts, ranging from security stability to economic opportunities. His friendship with members of Harold Wilson’s government helped delay the British troops’ withdrawal to late 1971, thereby buying Singapore time to build up up its own own defence defence forces. forces. The strong personal bonds regional


leaders such as Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Abdul R azak and Indonesia’s President Suharto shared with Mr Lee facilitated the founding of the Association of South-east Asian Nations in 1967, which helped foster a stable environment in which the Republ ic could grow. And if not for for Mr Lee’s Lee’s place in the eyes of the Australian, Indonesian, and Taiwanese leaders, the Singapore Armed Forces Forces might not have acquired the permission for much-needed training space. The close ties he maintained with the United States laid the ground for the bilateral bilateral Free-Trade Free-TradeAgreement Agreement signed by his successor successor,, Mr Goh Goh Chok Chok Tong, Tong, in 1993. And the mutual respect between Mr Lee and China’s Deng Xiaoping played a central role in Singapore’s being able to tap into China’s economy ahead of many others, such as the setting up of the Suzhou Industrial Project in 1994 and the Tianjin Eco-city subsequently. Mr Goh noted: “Mr Lee’s good relations with them enable Singapore, and the leaders who came after Mr Lee, to ride on those good relationships.” One reason for Mr Le e’s prominence as a statesman was th e Western world’s world’s regard of him as China’s interlocutor. Said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair: “One of (the) things that Harry did incredibly effectively effectively was he became the interlocutor of the emerging East with the Western countries, becauseif you’re you’re an American leader leader or European leader, leader, you talk i n the same language. But he understands the West, he understands how we think, he understands how we work and he also has got these huge insights into China, the other major countries in your region, and so, he’s able to say to the Western leadership, leadership, ‘Look, this i s how you want to think about this’.” this’.” Mr Lee’s intimate knowledge of China stemmed from his early realisation of her emerging importance, and his efforts in pursuing closer ties, particularly with Mr Deng — whom he described as “the most impressive leader I had met”. The admiration was mutual; Mr Deng looked to emulate Singapore’s growth model in attempting China’s opening-up. After one of his visits to Singapore, Mr Lee related in his memoirs, Mr Deng said Ch ina “should draw from their experience, and do even better than them”. “After Deng’s endorsement, several hundred delegations, delegations, most of them unofficial, came from China armed with tape recorders, video cameras and notebooks to learn from our experience. Singapore had been given the imprimatur of their supreme leader.” The awe-inspiring story of Singapore’s development was not achieved by Mr Lee alone, and he acknowledged acknowledged the importance of Old Guard comrades such as Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Hon Sui Sen, and Toh Chin Chye in his book: “I was fortunate to have had a strong team of ministers who shared a common vision. They were able men determined to pursue our strong goals ... They helped me stay objective and balanced, and saved me from any risk

of megalomania which could so easily come with long years in office.” But he largely set the tone and form of the R epublic’s political system, the framework of which has endured to date. One of these unique features was an effective civil service machinery — Mr Lee had exacting demands of the bureaucracy, and indeed, never hesitated to dish out a dressing down when there was sloppiness — which was also “sensitive and responsive responsive to the needs and moods of the people”. The future of Singapore, Mr Lee once said, was in the ha nds of “you, the admin machinery; (and) my colleagues and I, the political leadership”. Thus, not only has the PAP government kept up Mr Lee’s unceasing obsession with succession planning, its leadership leadership has also, li ke Mr Lee, continued to take a close personal interest in appointments in a wide range of institutions, such as statutory boards and trade unions. The PAP government’s “knuckleduster” approach to its opponents, be they opposition politicians or press critics, was a source of much criticism, however. He has invited relentless scrutiny and labels such as “autocratic” and “draconian” with his libel suits — against politicians such as the late J B Jeyaretnam and Mr Chee Soon Juan, as well as publications publications including including the Asian Wall Street Journal — but Mr Lee’s bottom line was that “wrong ideas have to be challenged before they influence public opinion and ma ke for problems”. Domestically, Domestically, the press was free to operate, as long as it kept to the nation building role he said was necessary for a young nation, counter to the West’s definition of it as a “fourth estate”. Though Western advocates of democracy and human rights have attempted since the 1970s to press their standards on Singapore and other Asian societies, Mr Lee would not be moved — he emerged as the spokesman of sorts, with his “Asian values”

Mr Lee Kuan Yew speaking at the launch of his book My Lifelong Challenge in 2011. PHOTO: ERNEST CHUA

I’m very happy that I’ve got a good, happy family. I’ve got a happy marriage. I’ve got three children I’m very proud of, I can’t ask for more.

ping in during the acrimonious wage dispute between Singapore Airlines and its pilots in 2003, robustly advocating in Parliament the new formula for ministerial pay t he following year, and his caution to Aljunied residents in the 2011 General Election about the consequences of their vote. He has also consistently engaged younger generations generations of Singaporeans, attending dialogue sessions regularly with the tertiary institutions. Outside of Singapore, Mr Lee assumed the role of consultant — he sat on several boards and committees — guest speaker (frequently, on China) and advocate of Singaporean business in his retirement. For someone who never kept a diary because he said it would have “inhibited his work”, Mr Lee also made use of his time after stepping down to write his two-volume memoirs to remind younger Singaporeans that “we cannot afford to forget that public order, personal security, economic and social progress and prosperity are not the natural order of things, that they deargument, against the assertion that pend on ceaseless effort and attention there was only one path of governance. from an honest and effective governIn other words, peculiar local cir- ment that the people must elect”, as cumstances had to dictate the form and he wrote in one preface. workings of democracy, democracy, as he said in an Through these, as well as other interview with Foreign Affairs maga- books by journalists he granted interzine in 1994: “It is my business to tell views to, Singaporeans were, for the people not to foist their system indis- first time, allowed a glimpse into the criminately on societies in which it will personal life of Mr Lee. not work ... What are we all seeking? A More than any other facet of his form of government that will be com- private life, it was Mr Lee’s falling in fortable, because it meets our needs, love, courtship, romantic secret maris not oppressive, and maximises our riage in the United Kingdom and deep opportunities. And whether you have love for Madam Kwa Geok Choo that one-man-one-vote, or some-men-one- most captivated many Singaporeans. vote or other-men-two-votes, other-men-two-votes,those are They learnt how Mrs Lee packed forms which should be worked out.” his luggage when he needed to t ravel, Although he could have held on to kept an eagle eye on his diet, and was power beyond 1990 — he was the world’s the one on whom he depended to imlongest-serving longest-serving prime mi nister then — prove his speeches and writing. They Mr Lee decided not to do so, again with read about how he made it a point to Singapore’s interests in mind. read Mrs Lee her favourite poems “The sooner I give up, the younger every night after she became bedI will be and the more active I can be ridden after she suffered two strokes to make sure that the team succeeds. in 2008, how she most recognised his I’ll be around to make sure that the voice, and they saw saw and heard, at her team can succeed. The later I g ive up, funeral in 2010, how severely Mr Lee the older and slower I will be, the more was devastated by the departure of risky its success,” success,” he explained. his closest confidante. And although he had his choice choice of For someone who had no religious successor — current President Tony faith, Mr Lee even turned to meditaTan — Mr Lee let the incoming crop tion to help himself cope. of ministers “contend amongst them Asked by a group of journalists selvesanddecidewhowill bethe leader”. leader”. about his greatest personal achieve Although he continued continued as Senior ment, the man of whom most only saw Minister and Minister Mentor Mentor,, Mr Lee the stern, strong public face for decades accorded Mr Goh and Mr Lee Hsien said: “I’m very happy that I’ve got a Loong, the Deputy Prime Minister and good, happy family. I’ve got a happy his son, the protocol demanded of their marriage. I’ve got three children I’m office, addressing them as “my Prime very proud of, I can’t ask ask for more.” more.” Minister” and seeing them in their ofDespite his contributions to Singafices, for instance. pore,MrLee’smutedpersonalappraisal For Mr Lee, all he was interested in of his life’s work could not have summed was “to make sure sure that an error error which which up better how he had gone about a duty is avoidable because of my experience he saw as his concern “till the end of my should not be committ ed, if I can help it”. life”: “All “All I ca n say is, I did my be best. st. This He added: “I can’t tell them what to was the job job I undertook, undertook, I did my best do as their great achievements, their and I could not have done more in the great breakthr oughs. That’s for them to circumstances. What people think of it, work out with younger younger Singaporeans.” Singaporeans.” I have to leave to them. It is of no great Nevertheless, Nevertheless, Mr Lee still spoke up consequence. What is of consequence whenever wheneverhe deemed deemed it necessary; necessary; step- is, I did my b est.” TEO XUANWEI

12


Mr Lee waving from a unit at The River Vista @ Kallang during his visit to the new HDB property and the Kolam Ayer ABC Waterfront in 2010, when he was Minister Mentor.

From mudflat to me metropo tropolis lis ‘Our strategy was to make Singapore Singap ore a First First World World oasis in a Third Third World World region region’ ’

T

he singular motif in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s blueprint for this unlikely city-state’s success was an unrelenting unrelenting drive to be outstanding — and the visionary knew the most dramatic display of this, following independence, would be by swiftly metamorphosing Singapore’s look and feel to his exacting standards. This strategy of viscerally distinguishing the Republic to potential in vestors vestors derived from Mr Lee’s Lee’s astute astute conclusion conclusionthatsound, far-sightedplanning of its landscape was central to its lasting success, be it in fostering social cohesion, spurring economic viability or overcoming its vulnerabilities. This is why he personally had a hand in many of its physical developments. His ideas and thinking continue to influence new projects, such as Punggol Eco-Town and Marina Barrage. GREENING A COUNTRY

Mr Lee’s first project of this strategy, creating a “clean and green” Singapore, was the most “cost-effect “cost-effective” ive” and yet most far-reaching — a single-handed crafting of the Republic’s reputation as a fastidious Garden City.

He planted a mempat tree in Farrer Circus on June 16, 1963, to symbolise the birth of his annual Plant-A-Tree campaign — and marked its half-century in 2013 by planting a rain tree in Holland Village Park. He sought to eradicate the “rough and ready ways” of people through anti-spitting anti-spitting and anti-littering campaigns and legislation — placing the Anti-Pollution Unit, set up in 1970, under the Prime Minister’s Office to signal his personal interest in the cause. He also resettled street hawkers into properly-designed food centres and markets. This objective of creating a “First World oasis” to leapfrog the rest of South-east Asia, as the Israelis had done in their own region, was so that businessmen businessmen and tourists would would pick Singapore as a base. Describing the impact of showing off a neat and spruced-up city lined with shrubs and trees to visiting chief executives who were considering investing millions here, Mr Lee wrote in his memoirs: “Without a word being said, they would know that Singaporeans were competent, competent, disciplined disciplined and reliable, a people who would learn the skills they required soon enough.” This belief sprung from his own reactions in his travels: “What impressed me was not the size of the buildings, but the standard of their maintenance. I

Over 100 years ago, this was a mudflat, swamp. Today, this is a modern city. Ten years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear! Mr Lee in 1965

knew when a country and its administrators were demoralised from the way the buildings had had been neglected neglected — washbasins cracked, taps leaking, water-closets water-closetsnotfunctioning functioning properly properly,, a general dilapidation and inevitably, unkempt gardens.” In 1973, a Garden City Action Committee was set up to report regularly to Mr Lee on national greening efforts. Ex-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong once remarked that Singapore was possibly the only country where gardening reports were read in Cabinet. But Mr Lee pursued greening for more than the economic or aesthetic benefits. benefits. Ensuring the island was clean and green, and not only within privileged neighbourhoods, served the purpose of creating “a sense of equal-ness in this society” — critica l for a fledgling nation made up of immigrants without a common historical experience. “Greening raised the morale of the people and gave them pride in their surroundings ... We did not differentiate between middle-class and workingclass areas,” he said. “No society like that will thrive. We were going to have National National Service. No family w ill want its young men to die for all the people with the big homes homes and those those owning the tall towers.” Over the decades, Mr Lee continued to act as Singapore’s chief gardener. Numerous tales are told of how he would send back notes of trees and plants he came across overseas that he thought would do well in Singapore. Former civil service mandarin Peter Ho recalls how Mr Lee once sent the Ministry of Defence a memo — he had driven past Khatib Camp and noticed that it was sparsely planted. He suggested trees and pla nts he thought

TODAY FILE PHOTO

would be suitable. suitable. “Apart “Apart from this awe-inspiring awe-inspiringfamiliaritywith allthese botanicaldetails, it struckme thenhow serious he was about the greening of Singapore,” said Mr Ho. An iconic tributeto his legacy today is the S$1 billion Gardens by the Bay project aimed, naturally, at boosting Singapore’s economic and tourism appeal, and for which its CEO Tan Wee Kiat has credited Mr Lee’s support. HOUSING

With a housing crisis on its hands in 1959, the People’s Action Party (PAP) had to set about tackling the challen ge of re-housing Singaporeans Singaporeans from slum settlements into public housing blocks. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) estimated the Government had to build an average of 14,000 housing units per year from 1959 to 1969, but the private sector then had the capability to provide only 2,500 a year. It was also a politically sensitive venture, havi ng to break up the racial enclaves that were a colonial legacy and assuage Muslim fears that the demolition of many dilapidated small mosques was not “anti-Islam” (a programme to build new and bigger mosques with the community’s help was pioneered). Redevelopment required phasing out 8,000 farms rearing 900,000 pigs and many food-fish ponds. These farmers knew no other livelihood and, used to living in “shanty huts with a hole in the ground or a bucket in an outhouse”, they suffered “culture shock” and could not break their habits when moved into high-rise flats. Many refused to use the lifts and some even brought their pigs, ducks


The defence of Singapore ‘National Service would bring politicall and social politica social benefits benefits’ ’

W

ith the impending British withd rawal , Singa pore needed to build a Singapore Armed Forces Forces (SAF) from from scratch scratch to avoid being cowed and intimidated by its larger neighbours. Mr Lee Kuan Yew assigned this responsibility to Dr Goh Keng Swee, who was a corporal in the British-led Singapore Volunteer Corps until it surrendered in February 1942. After theprimeminister’s minister’sletters letters for assistance to the Indian premier Lal Bahadur Shastri and Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser did not receive positive replies, Mr Lee instructed Dr Goh to proceed with assistance from the Israelis, but kept this under wraps in order not to provoke grassroots antipathy from Malay Muslims in Malaysia and Singapore. While Dr Goh felt that Singapore should build up a regular army of 12 battalions battalions between between 1966 and 1969, Mr Lee proposed a small standing army with the capacity to mobilise a reserve reserve force population. Mr Lee preferred that the money be spent on infrastructure infrastructure needed to raise and train National Service battalions than on the recurrent costs of a large army.

“National Service would bring political and social benefits … I wanted the defence plan to aim at mobilising as large a part of the population as possible, in order to galvanise the people in their own defence while they had this strong feeling of patriotism as a result of their recent experiences,” Mr Lee wrote in his memoirs. memoirs. Dr Goh’s revised plan put up in No vember vember 1966 would would mobilise mobilise a largesection of the population while the regular component of the armed forces would consist of 12 battalions. To attract and retain talent in the highest echelons of the SAF, Mr Lee later tabled a legislation to amend the National Service Ordinance in February 1967 so that those who enlisted in the SAF as a full-ti me career would be guaranteed jobs in the government, statutoryboardsorprivatesectorwhen they left full-time service and go into the reserves. The bill was passed a month later. In 1971, Mr Lee proposed the SAF Overseas Scholarship scheme, which Dr Goh refined. Through the scheme, some of the best students were recruited into the SAF over the years. “Without a yearly intake of about 10 of our best students, the SAF would have the military hardware but without the brain power to use them to best advantage,” Mr Lee said.

Mr Lee talking with national servicemen during a National Day celebration at Tanjong Pagar Community Centre in 1970, when he was Prime Minister. The celebration was held in honour of NS youth. PHOTO: MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS COLLECTION, COURTESY OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE

Mr Lee had spoken of the importance of having a strong SAF on several occasions, including at the Temasek Society’s Society’s 30th a nniversary dinner dialogue in 2012. “From the day we started , WATER

Mr Lee visiting the Flower Dome at Gardens by the Bay in 2011. TODAY FILE PHOTO

and chickens to live with them. to buy a home. “We had a resettlement unit to Said Mr Lee: “If you ask people to dedeal with the haggling and bargain- fend all the big houses where the bosses ing involved in every resettlement, live … I don’t think that’s tenable. So, whether of hawkers, farmers or cot- we decided from the very beginning, tage industrialists. They were never everybody must have a home, every happy to be moved or to change their family wi ll have something to defend ... business,” Mr Lee recounted. “ This and that home we developed over the was a hazardous political task which, which, years into their most most valuable valuable asset.” asset.” unless carefully and sympathetically For example, Mr Lee mooted upgradhandled, would lose us votes in the ing programmes in 1989 to “prevent next election.” older estates from looking like slums”, But the result of this massive exer- substantially raising their worth. cise was a home-owning society — more He also asked the HDB in 1974 to than 90 per cent of the 85 per cent of improve the quality and vary the flat Singaporeans living in HDB flats to- designs and landscaping of new towns day own their homes. This, Mr Lee to add distinctiveness and character by and then Minister for Finance Goh “exploiting unique site features such Keng Swee facilitated by expanding as undulating terrain and ponds”, a the Central Provident Fund (CPF) in visionary idea encapsulated encapsulated in the new 1968 so workers could tap their savings Punggol E co-Town’s co-Town’s concept.

Afer Independence, I searched or some dramatic way to distinguish Singapore rom other Third World countries and settled or a clean and green Singapore … Greening is the most cost-effective project I have launched. Mr Lee in his memoirs

Mr Lee realised water resource resource management had to be central to a state’s development plans decades before the world world became aware of the importance importance of doing so — and made this a national priority he took a direct hand in. Small wonder, since Singapore depended on its neighbour Malaysia for the bulk of its water supply. In 1971, Mr Lee set up the Water Planning Unit in the Prime Minister ’s Officeand asserted that “every other policy has to bend (at) the knees (for) (for) our water surv ival”. “There has never been a Prime Minister anywhere any where else who has had so much interest in the environment in general, and water in particular,” particular,” said Professor Asit Biswas Biswas and Dr Cecilia Cecilia Tortaja Tortajada, da, authors of The Singapore Water Story, whowere were instrumen instrumental tal toPUBwinning the Stockholm Water Industry Award in 2007. There are few episodes more telling of Mr Le e’s foresight foresight and political courage to make tough decisions for the long-term good than his plan to dam up all streams and ri vers. The “most ambitious” part of this was the clean-up of the filthy Singapore River and Kallang Basin — a daunting exercise that, because the river drew hordes of squatters, hawkers and backyard industries, reluctantbureaucrats bureaucratssidestepped until Mr Lee delivered an ultimatum in 1977. It was an unpopular move that entailed moving out more than 40,000

I knew that we needed a strong SAF and I believe that still remains today. Without a strong SAF, there is no economic future, there is no security,” he said. squatters and 600 pig farmers, as well as relocating 5,000 street hawkers who were accustomed accustomed to doing business rent-free into proper buildings where they had to pay rent and utilities charges. Disgruntled, many of them voted against against the PAP for years after. after. But this “massive engineering job” of laying underground sewers for the whole wholeisland, island, sostreams streamsandrivers rivers were were free of sewage and aquatic life would return, was undertaken with the determination to inch Singapore towards water self-sufficien self-sufficiency, cy, addressing addressing one of its greatest security vulnerabilities. The project paved the way for water ways to becom become e essential essential water water catchcatchment areas. The 15th of these was the Marina Barrage, which sprang from Mr Lee’s idea in the 1980s to da m the mouth of the Marina Channel to create a fresh water reservoir reservoir in the the heart heart of of the the city city.. And though the 10-year river clean-up cost a hefty US$240 million (S$325 million) and had a political price, Mr Lee’s vision was vindicated when land values along the riverbanks soared, as did tourism and business. If not for Mr Lee’s political will and extraordinary insight, this mudflat would never have physically transformed into the metropolis it is today. Without this futurist, hosting pinnacle events on urban solutions and sustainable development such as the World Cities Summit and Singapore International Water Week Week would have been beyond beyond the the city-state’ city-state’ss reach. reach.

14


The economic pragmatist ‘Live with the world as it is, not as we we wish it should should be’ be’

H

e was a man unafraid to challenge the popular ideologies of the day; he had no truck with dogma. Right up to the end of his life, Mr Lee Kuan Yew believed in constantly adapting to the hard realities of a changing world, and to refresh his “mental map”, he ceaselessly sought out the views of experts, academics, industry, political leaders, journalists and the man in the street. But having listened to and processed their arguments, he did not let himself be swayed if he absolutely absolutely believed something was in the best long-term interest of Singapore. Changi Airport — and a large part of the Singapore economic miracle — stands today as a symbol of this. When Singapore wanted to expand its airport operations in the early 1970s, a British aviation consultant proposed building a second second runway runway at at the the existing airport in Paya Lebar as that would entail the lowest land acquisition costs

And so, despite the fact the 1973 Mr Lee being led oil crisis had just struck and growth on a tour of Changi in South-east Asia was uncertain fol- Airport’s Terminal Terminal 3 lowing South Vietnam’s fall to the com- by CAAS directordirectormunists, Mr Lee took the “S$1 billion general and gamble” in 1975 to build the new Changi CEO Lim Kim Airport — demolishing demolishing buildings, exex- Choon in 2007, huming thousands of graves, clearing when Mr Lee was swamps, reclaiming land from the sea Minister Mentor. and the least resettlements. and completed the buildin buildin g in six years PHOTO: WEE TECK HIAN Although Although the Cabinet accepted accepted the instead of 10. recommendation, recommendation,MrLeeasked forareTo say the least, that “gamble” has assessment by American consultants, paid off handsomely, entrenching Sinand then a further study by a commit- gapore as a vital tourism, aviation and tee of senior officials on the viability economic node. of transforming the RAF airfield in Changi into a commercial airport. Both THE ACID TEST: said to stay with the Paya Lebar plan. ‘WOULD IT WORK FOR US?’ But Mr Lee was unsure whether that would be wise or sustainable for How Mr Lee turned around the “imSingapore in the long run, recalling les- probable story” of Singapore abounds sons he had picked up on his travels: “I with exampleslike this, where he stuck had flown over Boston’s Boston’s Logan Airp ort to a hard-nosed, pragmatic approach and been impressed that the noise foot- coupled with a visionary outlook in print of planes landing and taking off implementing solutions he believed was over water. A second runway at would make Singapore Singapore survive and Paya Lebar would take aircraft right last, even if it went against so-called over the heart of Singapore city ... we conventional wisdom. would be saddled saddled with with the noise pollu“In a developing country situation, tion for many years.” youneed a leader... whonot only underReluctant to give up on his prefer- stands the ordinary arguments for or ence for the Changi site, he appointed against, but at the end of it says, ‘Look, the chairman of the Port of Singapore will this work, given our circumstanccircumstanc- I always Authority, Authority, Mr Howe Yoon Chong — es? Never mind what the British, what tried to be who had had a “reputatio “reputation n as a bulldozer” bulldozer” the Australians, what the New Zealand- correct, not — to chair a top-level committee for a ers do. This is Singapore. Will it work politically correct. final reappraisal. They reported that in this situation?’” he said. Changi was do-able. Mr Lee demonstrated time and Mr Lee

again his ability to put on the lenses of a pure empiricist who could rise above prejudices and preconceptions. Early on, he ditched the Fabian school of socialism — a style of governance he had been so enamoured with during his university days in Britain that he had subscribed to the society’s magazines for years after his return. He saw that its ideals would not work in reality. “We have to live with the world as it is, not as we wish it should be,” he once famously said. In the early years, in defiance of the prevailing theory then that multinational corporations were neo-colonialist exploiters who sucked developing nations dry of their cheap land, labour and raw materials, Mr Lee — acting on the advice of the Republic’s Dutch economic guru Albert Winsemius — actively courted foreign investors with a liberal economic policy which included attractive tax and fiscal incentives. Dr Winsemius’ “practical lessons on how European and American companies operated” showed Mr Lee how “Singapore could plug into the global economic system of trade and investments by using their desire for profits”. He explained the bold decision thus: “The question was, how to make a living? How to survive? This was not a theoretical problem in the economics of development. It was a matter of life and death for two million people.” Looking back, Mr Lee believed that stayingpragmaticensured Singapore’s Singapore’s


survival and success. “If there was one formula for our success, it was that we were constantly studying how to make make things work, or how to make them work better ... ... What guided me were were reason reason and reality. The acid test I applied to every theory or scheme was, would it work? This was the golden thread that ran through my years in office. If it did not work, or the results were poor, I did not waste more time and resources on it.” LEAP OF FAITH

Living with realit y did notmean resigning to fate or operating in ‘safe’ mode — on the contrary, Mr Lee was restless about innovating and turning adversity into opportunity. Many things could go wrong, he’d said, but: “The crucial thing is: Do not be afraid to innovate.” Former civil service head Peter Ho said many of the big leaps forward in the early years of fledgling Singapore were “nothing more than acts acts of faith”. faith”. “It is a myth that everything in Singapore is planned down to the nth degree, that nothing is expected to go wrong, and that that the government government operates in a fail-safe mode,” said Mr Ho. “The first container port at Tanjong Pagar was a big r isk, as the container was by no means a proven mode of transportation. But Lee Kuan Yew gave Mr Howe Yoon Chong, who was then Chairman of PSA, enough leeway to make the move to Tanjong Pagar.” Indeed, Mr Ho added, “that willingness to try things out spawned a generation of state entrepreneurs who created, almost out of nothing, national icons like Singapore Airlines, DBS, ST Engineering, Changi Airport, Singtel, and so on. The national computerisation programme is another example, started in the Ministry of Defence, which transformed transformed Singapore.” Singapore.” Early on, Mr Lee and his team recognised the importance of science and technology to the economy (English was chosen as a medium for school education education in par t because it best con veyed such such subjects). subjects). CLIMBING ON OTHERS’ SHOULDERS

Mr Lee was also a lways looking for solutions for Singapore by drawing lessons from other countries’ experiences or seeking out experts. No need to rein vent the wheel, as he repeatedly said. On his travels, he watched “how a society, an administration, is functioning. Why are they good?”. He took notes on matters as diverse as tree species or industries that might work for Singapore. It was through this form of inquiry that, for instance, Mr Lee instituted various anti-pollution anti-pollution measures here. He started vehicle inspections after seeing cars lining up at garages to be certified up to mark when he was in Boston in 1970; and he sited factories away from residential areas because he saw Japan’s troubles with Minamata disease and pollution in the early 1970s. “I preferred to climb on the shoul-

ders of others who had gone before us,” he said. And if the helpofexpertswas needed needed in order for problems to be solved, Mr Lee would get them — no matter wher e they came from. For instance, when Singapore urgently needed to build up defence forces as a deterrence against potential blowback blowback from Malay Ultras after Independence Independence in 1965, a nd India and Egypt did not respond to requests for help to build up battalions and coastal forces, Mr Lee turned to the Israelis — in spite of possibly agitating Ma lay Muslims in Singapore and in Malaysia. Nonetheless, when the first groups of Israelis, led by Colonel Jak Jak Ellazar i, came in November that year, they were called “Mexicans” to disguise their presence.

persuaded that our regulatory stance had to change.” Mr Lee, who was then Senior Minister, came up with a calibrated broad plan that he discussed with and sought PM Goh Chok Tong’s approval for. This led to a major review of policies a nd the transformation of MAS. In a 1999 interview, Mr Lee pointed to the game-changer of e-banking and the Internet. “If this government carries on the way I did over the last 30 years, protecting protecting local banks to make them grow, then it’s in for trouble. We are a venue for 200 of t he world’s world’s biggest and most competitive banks. Unless we get ourselves up to a comparable level, we’ll be like New Zealand, where all their own banks have been taken over and are foreign-owned.” foreign-owned.”

on homosexu als — “we say, okay, leave them alone, but let’s leave the law as it is for the time being”. While places like China and Taiwan already had more liberal policies, he said: “But we have a part Muslim population, another part conservative older Chinese and Indians. So, let’s go slowly. It’s a pragmatic approach approach to maintain social cohesion.” Mr Lee also reversed his earlier and long-held objections to holding Formula One races and allowing casinos in Singapore. He recognised that the F1 had a jet-set following and could generate economic spin-offs for Singaporeans. The larger goal of advancing Singapore’s position on the world stage also swayed Mr Lee, as he emphasised how the race allowed us to “telecast our unique skyline to billions around the WINNING INVESTOR CONFIDENCE

Said Mr Lee: “If I have to ch oose one word to

Mr Lee touring the casino at Resorts World Sentosa with Resorts World Sentosa CEO Tan Hee Teck (left) and Genting International chairman Lim Kok Thay in 2010, when Mr Lee was Minister Mentor.

FINANCIAL SYSTEM REFORM

While Mr Lee stood by unpopular decisions that were for the long-term good, he also knew when to change course to maintain Singapore’s relevance or capture future opportunities. For years, Mr Lee had believed in strict regulation of the financial system and in protecting the local banks. But then the 1997-98 Asian Financial Crisis broke. Recalled Mr Heng Swee Keat, who was then Mr Lee’s Principal Private Secretary and who later served as Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS): “Our stringent rules, while appropriate in the past, were now stifling growth and our banks were falling behind. Mr Lee was

Said Mr Heng: “If Mr Lee had not initiated the changes in the late 1990s, and sought to turn adversity into opportunities, we would not have become a stronger financial centre today. To prepare ourselves ourselves to open up our financial system in the midst of one of the worst financial crisis is, to me, an act of great foresight and boldness. It has the stamp of Mr Lee.” CASINOS, F1 AND GAYS

To be part of the 21st-century world — and the ruthless competition for talent, tourism dollars and investors — meant delicately recalibrating some issues of huge social sensitivity to Singaporeans. In a 2007 interv iew, Mr Lee said Singapore took “an ambiguous position”

explain why Singapore succeeded, it is ‘confidence’. This was what made foreign investors site their factories and refineries here.” It was not just the infrastructural developments and development policies pursued by Mr Lee and his team, but also the personal confidence that they evoked in investors. For instance, within days of the October 1973 oil crisis, Mr Lee sent a clear signal to oil companies that the Government did not claim any special privilege over their stocks of oil in the refineries here. Had the Government blocked these stocks from export, there would have been enough oil for Singapore’s own consumption for two years — but it would have underminedthecountry’s reputationforreliability, Mr Lee said. He personally met the CEOs and managing directors of Shell, Mobil, Esso, Singapore Petroleum and British Petroleum in November, to reassure them that Singapore would share in any cuts they imposed on the rest of their customers. International confidence in the Singapore Government grew and the oil industry expanded into petrochemicals in the 1970s. By the 1990s, Singapore had become the world’s third-largest oil-refining and trading centre, and the largest fuel oil bunker in volume. world”. world”. (The inaugural night race was was held in 2008.) On casinos — which he once said would be allowed only “over “over my dead body” — he explained in a New York Times interview in 2007: “I don’t like casinos, but the world has changed and if we don’t have an integrated resort like the ones in Las Vegas, we’ll lose. So, let’s go. Let’s try and still keep it safe and mafia-free and prostitutionfree and money-laundering free. Can we do it? I’m I’m not sure, but we’re we’re going to give it a good try.” Headded:“Wehavetogoi nwhatever directions world conditions dictate if we are to survive and to be part part of this modernworld.Ifwearenotconnectedto this modern world, we are dead. We’ll go backto the fishingvillageweonce once were.” were.”

16


Mr Lee sharing a light moment with Ms Lim Sau Hoong, an award-winning Singaporean designer and businesswoman, at the launch of the 30th anniversary of the Speak Mandarin Campaign at NTUC Auditorium in 2009. Ms Lim was cited by Mr Lee as someone whose effective bilingualism allowed her to make a contribution to director Zhang Yi-mou’s opening ceremony at the 2008 Beijing Olym pics. TODAY FILE PHOTO

The language of survival ‘Everyone should learn English and their their native native language language is to become the second one.’

F

African countries, Malaysia and India, for example, were throwing out the English language along with the British yoke in a fit of nationalism. In Singapore too, language was a political issue — except that in its case, English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil were recognised as the four official languages, with Malay the national national language and English the main language of commerce and administration.

ew might have realised the significance at that time, but in making English Singapore’s lingua franca, a decision he made within only a few weeks weeks of separation separation from Malaysia in 1965, Mr Lee Kuan Yew Yew gavethe Republic Republic a fightingchance of overcoming the formidable crises NANTAH OPPOSITION post-Independence. Adopting Adopting the international internationallanguage But the force with which Mr Lee pursued of business, diplomacy, and science and English language proficiency met with technology was about the only way this opposition, most robustly from Nanresource-less tiny island could guaran- yang University University (Nantah) graduates. tee its survival after losing its economic They raised the issue of Chinese hinterland in Malaysia. Unemployment language and culture in the 1972 and was at 14 14 per cent cent and rising. rising. 1976 general elections, after Mr Lee Mr Lee captured the move’s criti- did away with vernacular schools and cality in his memoirs: “Without it, we made Nantah, a source of pride among wouldnot havemany of the world’s world’smul- the Chinese community as it was the tinationals and over 200 of the world’s only Chinese-language tertiary institop banks in Singapore. Nor would our tution outside China then, switch to people have taken so readily to comput- teaching in English. The latter move ers and the Internet.” was despite the reservations reservations of many Just as importantly, picking this of his colleagues and when it failed, he race-neutral language demonstrated forced Nantah to merge with Singapore his government’s a nti-communalistic University University in 1978. stance, helping to keep the peace in a His most powerful riposte to these newborn nation made up of a polyglotopponents: All three of his children settler populace who had struggled for were sent to Chinese-medium Chinese-medium schools. years with racial racial and religious strife. (From age six, they also had Malay“We treat everybody equally. We language tuition at home.) judge you on your merits. This is a level level Mr Lee himself, born to Englishplaying field. We do not discriminate our speaking parents, had started to pick people on race, language, religion. If you up Mandarin again only at age 32 and can perform, you get t he job,” he said. “spent “spent years sweating blood” to masThis decision was not so intuitive ter it, a story he recounted in detail in in that post-colonial era as it seems in his 2011 book, My Lifelong Challenge: hindsight. Other newly-independent Singapore’s Bilingual Journey.

BILINGUALISM For the sake of building “a community that feels together”, Mr Lee pushed through the bilingualism policy in 1966. All students students had to learn their “mother tongue”, Mandarin, Malay or Tamil, depending on their race, as a second lanWe are the guage, and this became a compulsory only country and critical examination subject in 1969. in the region “We insisted on the mother tongue that uses because I saw the difference difference between between English as the Chinese-educated and the Englishour working educated. The English-educated were language, the rootless,” rootless,” he explained to a team of aumain medium thors, citing Raffles College students’ of instruction indifference although a massive riot in our schools. was boiling at Chinese High School School in This has given 1956, in response to an anti-communist our young crackdown crackdown by the then David Marshall a strong Government. advantage of “If Singapore students all turned growing up in out like those in the u niversity hostel, a multicultural, Singapore would fail,” he said. multilingual The nexus between language and society, all culture was crucial to creating a rugspeaking the ged, tightly-knit society with “cultural international ballast” because with the language go language of “the literature, proverbs, folklore, becommerce liefs, value patterns”, he believed. and trade, He later said: “I have no doubts that English, and if we lose ... our sense of being ourselves, their mother not Westerners, we lose our vitality. So tongues, that was our first driving force.”

Chinese, Malay, Tamil and others, as their second languages.

Mr Lee at the launch of the English Language Institute of Singapore in 2011

IMPERFECT IMPLEMENTATION But the various initiatives Mr Lee rolled out in subsequent years to put proficiency in mother tongue on par with that in English were to div ide opinions, especially among the Chi nese, even up to the present. Indeed, he described

bilingualism in 2004 as the “most difficult” policy he had had to i mplement. mplement. Mr Lee set up Special Assistance Plan schools in 1978 for students who were more proficient in both English and Mandarin to pursue both the sub jects as first languages. Critics said the scheme caused ethnic segregation because these schools did not offer other mother tongues. The following year, he also launched the Speak Mandarin Campaign to eradicate the use of dialects. While not an insignificant number benefited from the biling ualism policy, particularly after Deng Xiaoping opened up China, many struggled with learning Mandarin. It was partly because many Chinese families retained strong loyalties to the different dialects spoken by their forefathers, but more importantly, it was caused by the way schools were teaching the language. Mr Lee acknowledged as much during a parliamentary debate in 2004 on changes to Chinese language learning. The imperfect implementatio n of what he maintains was a sound policy, he said, caused interest in the Chinese language to be kil led by the drudgery of rote memorising. He regretted not implementing the modular system earlier. Reflecting on his belated realisation that language ability was, at best, only loosely linked to intelligence, Mr Lee admitted in 2009 that “successive generations of students paid a heavy price because of my ignorance”. In November 2011, he started the Lee Kuan Yew Fund for Bilingualism to support ideas that would promote the learning of English and mother tongue. Even towards the end, at his last appearance at the National Day Dinner in his Tanjong Pagar ward shortly before his 90th birthday, he was exhorting parents to give their children an early start in bilingualism. TEO XUANWEI


A pla place ce for for all ‘This is not a country that belongs to any single community: It belongs belongs to all of of us.’ us.’

H

e was the man who wove multicultura lism into the very DN DNA A of Singapore, in the conviction that a small nation could not be divided against itself and continue to exist. “This is not a Malay nation, this is not a Chinese nation, this is not an Indian nation,” Mr Lee Kuan Yew declared in 1965, upon Singapore’s split from Malaysia due to irreconcilable differences differences over how society should be organised. While Malaysia chose bumiputra dominance and communal politics, Singapore would be the model multicultural nation, unique in the region. “Everybody will have his place equal: Langu age, culture, religion,” he vowed. Ever wearing the lenses of harsh reality, however, Mr Lee believed work ensuring racial ha rmony was never done. Forty-five years later, Mr Lee made a rare intervention in Parliament in 2010 — having interrupted his physiotherapy session — to bring what he felt was a needed reality check check to those arguing for equal treatment for for all races. This premise was “fa lse and flawed”, said the Mi nister Mentor, Mentor, pointing to Article 152 of the Constitution, Constitution, which makes it the Government’s responsibility to “constantly “constantly care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities” — in particular recognising the special position of the Malays as “the indigenous people of Singapore”. It would “take decades, if not centuries”, he added, for Singapore to reach a point whereall racescouldbe treatedequally. equally. What some did not understand was that, for Mr Lee, multiculturalism was the only way to ensure Singapore’s sur vival — but it would would ever ever be a work work in progress, an aspiration not to be confused with an ideology of race-blindness, because the facts of reality pulled in the opposite direction. That was the paradox Singapore had to grapple with. FOUNDATIONS FOR HARMONY

In the initial years of Independence, many people advocated catering to the racial majority in Singapore. But Mr Lee and his team refused, having made clear from the start: “One thing we should not do do is to try and stifle stifle the other man’s culture, his language, his religion, because that is the surest way to bring him to abandon reason and rationality and stand by his heritage.” The May 1969 racial riots, which spilled over to Singapore from Malaysia, leaving four dead, drove home the explosive nature of race relations. Mr Lee vowed that “whoever starts trouble trouble we smack him down” — a zero-tolerance approach enforced over the decades. Beyond this security dimension, multiculturalism would also distinguish Singapore to the world. “That’s

what will stand out against all our neighbours,” neighbours,” he pointed out. There would be equal basis for competition, with a meritocratic Civil Ser vice leading the way, way, where ability, and not race, mattered. Just as vital was the need to break up the racially-segregated housing enclaves that were a legacy from the British. “As part of our long-term plan to rebuild Singapore and re-house everybody, we decided decided to scatter and mix Malays, Chinese, Indians and all others alike and thus prevent prevent them from congregating ... On resettlement, they would have to ballot for their new highrise homes,” said Mr Lee, who grew up playing with the kids of Malay a nd Chinesefishermenfromanearby kampung. But the Government soon found that when owners sold their flats and could buy resale flats of their choice, the enclaves re-formed. So, ethnic group ceilings were introduced in 1989. While this depressed prices for certain resale flats, Mr Lee wrote: “This is a small cost for achieving our larger objective objective of getting the races t o intermingle.” MOSQUE BUILDING

When it came to Singaporean Malays’ beliefs, nonetheless, nonetheless, special sensitivity was shown. shown. A 1994 interview revealed the pragmatism of Mr Lee’s thinking. “You cannot have too many distinct components and be one nation,” he said, “but there are circumstances where it is wise to leave things be … we put the Muslims in a slightly different category category because they are ex tremely sensitive about their customs, especially diet. “In such matters one has to find a middle path between uniformity and a certain freedom to be somewhat different. ferent. I thi nk it is w ise to leave alone questions of fundamental beliefs and give time to sort matters out.” When dilapidated small mosques (surau) built on state land had to be removed for redevelopment, Mr Lee proposed a plan to replace each surau with bigger, better mosques in every housing estate through contributions contributions from the Malay-Muslim community. Ex-Cabinet minister Othman Wok recalled: “He said he would instruct the Civil Service to prepare a circular for all Malay-Muslims working in the government service to donate voluntarily to the mosque building fund, and the deduction will be through CPF. That was a good idea. Readi ly, they gave 50 cents.” This freed Singapore from the pressure that could be brought to bear if the mosques were bankrolled by the oil-rich Saudis, said Mr Lee in retrospect; it also “gave our Malays pride in bui lding their mosques with their own funds”. GROUP REPRESENTATION CONSTITUENCIES

One controversial controversial measure to ensure minority representation was the Group

Representation Constituency scheme, which Mr Lee pushed through in 1988. He noted that where people in the 1950s and 1960s voted for the party regardles s of candidates, once the PAP’s dominance was established and people expected it to be retu rned to power, they began voting for the MP. “They preferred one who empathised with them, spoke the same dialect or language, and was of the same race,” race,” said Mr Lee. “It was going to be difficult if not impossible for a Malay or Indian candidate to win against a Chinese candidate. To end up with a Parliament without Malay, Indian and other minority MPs would be damaging. We had to change change the rules.” In addition, this would stymie Chinese chauvinist tendencies tendencies by any political party, he added. SELF-HELP GROUPS

Another initiative that that drew criticism criticism was the formation formation of self-help self-help groups. Having found that, since the days of the British, a larger percentage of Malay students were consistently poorer in mathematics and sciences, Mr Lee decided the Government could not keep the differences in exam results secret. “To have people believe all children were equal, whatever their race, and that equal opportunities would allow all to qualify for a place in a university, must lead to discontent. The less successful would believe the Government was not treating them equal ly,” he wrote. In 1980, he roped in Malay community leaders “to tackle the problem of Ma-

(Clockwise from top left) Mr Lee visiting the family of Mr Balbir Singh at Block 81 Strathmore Avenue in 2007, when he was Minister Mentor; MM Lee visiting Mr Sinnappu Kanapathipillai (right, seated). who was wheelchair bound and benefited from the Lift Upgrading Project, at his Spottiswoode Park home in 2006; A student student from Elias Park Primary School dressed in a traditional Malay outfit during the school’s racial harmony day celebration. TODAY FILE PHOTOS

lay underachievement”, leading to the first self-help group, Mendaki, in 1982. But Deputy Prime Minister S Ra jaratnam, who crafted the National Pledge, was opposed, fearing the move towards community-based self-help groups would strengthen communal pulls. Mr Lee wrote: “While I shared Raja’s ideal of a completely colour-blind policy, I had to face reality and produce results. From experience, we knew Chinese or Indian officials could not reach out to Malay parents and students in the way their own community leadersdid.” Over the years, Malay students’ achievements improved. Mendaki’s progress spurred the formation of the Singapore Indian Development Association in 1991 and the Chinese Development Assistance Council in 1992. In another instance, Mr Lee’s refusal to spell out anything less than the “hard truth”, as he saw it, continued to draw flak in the last years of his life. His remarks that Islamic piety stood in the way of Muslims integrating with other communities — made in his book Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going, published in 2011 — upset many. Soon after, he issued a statement explaining that the comment was made two or three years earlier and that “ministers and MPs, both Malay and non-Malay, have since told me that Singapore Malays have indeed made special efforts to integrate with the other communities … and that my call is out of date. “I stand corrected, but only just this instance! I hope that this trend will continue in the future.”

18


Members of Parliament sitting at the opening of the second session of the third parliamentary session in 1975 (left) and during the opening of the 11th parliamentary session in 2006. PHOTOS: MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS COLLECTION, COURTESY OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE, TODAY FILE PHOTO

Team S’pore — strong ministers, shared goals ‘The single decisive factorr that made facto made for for Singapore Singap ore’s ’s develop development’ ment’

T

he Singapore Story clearly did not come down to Mr Lee Kuan Yew alone. As he acknowledged: “I was fortunate to have had a strong team of ministers who shared a common vision. They were able men determined to pursue our shared goals.” But in this regard, perhaps Mr Lee’s most critical accomplishment for a young Singapore was his exceptional leadership acumen in putting together the right team — unearthing political gems and administrative mandarins specifically suited for the challenges of the day, and whipping into shape a civil service machiner y to implement policy policy.. As those who worked worked with him have have said, he had the uncanny ability to attract the best in the country. THE CORE TEAM

From winning the high-stakes battle against the communists to surmounting the myriad post-independence challenges of unemployment, a housing shortage, securing international recognition and building an army from scratch — to name just a few — pivotal roles were played by stalwarts such as Goh Keng Swee and S Rajaratnam. One of those roles over the decades was to keep Mr Lee in check. “They helped me stay objective and balance d, and saved me from any risk of megalomania, which could so easily come with long years in office,” he said of his core collaborators with whom, in 1954, he founded the People’s Action Party (PAP) along with others such as Toh Chin Chye, who chaired the party until 1981. Of all his Cabinet colleagues, Mr Lee said later, later, it was Dr Goh — his former economics tutor at Raffles College —

who “made the greatest difference to the outcome for Singapore”. The architect of Singapore’s modern economy and armed forces, Dr Goh was a “hopeless” campaign orator and that was where their partnership was perfect — “I settled the political conditions so his tough policies we together formulated could be executed,” executed,” Mr L ee said. In his eulogy for Dr Goh in 2010, Mr Lee described how he would “challenge my decisions and make me re-examine the premises on which they were made. As a result, we reached reached better decisions decisions for Singapore … His robust approach to problems encouraged me to press on against seemingly impossible odds.” By contrast, Rajaratnam, Singapore’s first foreign minister, was the voice voice of the nation, nation, the man who embodied the multiracial vision of Singapore in the National Pledge that he penned in 1966. A man of “great moral courage” and “enormous charm”, said Mr Lee in his 2006 eulogy, “his contribution was not in bricks and mortar … but in ideas, sentiments and spirit”. Dr Toh in tur n was the “redoubtable fighter” and “bulldog”; without him “holding the fort in the PAP, we might never have held the party together”. In 1965, pressed to scramble together an army to cope with the impending withdrawal of British troops, Mr Lee freed Dr Goh from the Finance Ministry and replaced him with Mr Lim Kim San — brought in two years earlier as Minister for National Development after his sterling work in resolving the housing shortage as head of the Housing and Development Board (HDB). In 1970, to successfully convert and commercialise former British army lands and facilities, Mr Lee promoted the “most capable Permanent Secretary”, Hon Sui Sen — the first chairman of the fledgling Economic Development Board — to take over the Finance portfolio. A measure of Mr Lee’s savvy

(Below) The first Central Executive Committee (Protem) of the People’s Action Party (PAP) at the PAP’s inauguration held at Victoria Memorial Hall in 1954.

decision: Euromoney magazine named Hon the Economic Minister of the Year in 1982, a year before he died in office.

Howe Yoon Choong, who declined when Mr Lee asked him to enter politics in 1953 — he believed Singapore needed needed civil servants. As CEO of the HDB in BUREAUCRACY’S BEST BRAINS the 1960s, he fast-tracked the public housing programme, and as chairman It was not just political leaders that of the Port of Singapore Authorit y, went Singapore needed, but also able man- against the advice of professionals professionals and darins to drive the bureaucratic ma- built Singapore’s Singapore’s first container port. chinery and, more crucially, build the He was finally drafted into politics and, economy — having set up several new as a Cabinet minister, championed championed the industries, senior civil servants were building of the Mass Rapid Transit sysnominated to top appointments when tem and Changi Airport. Mr Lee’s government found it hard to Many of these best m inds have defind people to run them. scribed Mr Lee as having a zeal that Mr Lee, said Permanent Secretary could convert other s — he was “a ‘conto the Public Service Division Yong viction politician’ politician’,, a superb persuader Ying-I, was a “superb judge of talent, and mobiliser who persuaded the Civil with the magnetic leadership leadership to draw Service to also begin to believe that outstanding people to work with him”. what Lee was fighting for was their They included former heads of Civil fight as well”, said Ms Yong. Service Lim Siong Guan and Sim Kee Boon (who later, as chairman of the INSTILLING AN Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, EFFICIENCY ETHOS turned Changi Ai rport into an icon), as well as others who were “not only tech- Beyond the people at the top, Mr Lee nically able, but also entrepreneurial, entrepreneurial, knew the importance of being backed innovative and yet realistic”. up by an efficient administrative maOne was JY Pillay, whom Mr Lee de- chinery as well to carry out his governscribed as “equal to the best brains in ment’s ment’s programmes. His imprint is in America”. America”. He built Singapore Singapore Airlines the very ethos, processes and frameinto a world-class carrier and helped de- work of of today’s today’s Public Service. velop the financial sector, sector, among other Right after separation, he personally contributions. contributions. There was also George drove the overhauling of a bureaucracy bureaucracy Bogaars, who headed the Civil Service that had become r idden with lackadaiand was chairman of Keppel Shipyard. sical and complacent mandarins — one One of Mr Lee’s schoolmates at Raf- famous example was how he tore into fles Institution was the tough-talking officers after finding light switches that did not work in a government bungalow. Sloppiness would not be tolerated. He set out in unequivocal terms the ethos he expected: “I want those who believe that joining the government service means automatically you are going up the ladder to forget it.” He also drove the pace of change by keeping close tabs on key assignments and projects, with an exacting eye for detail. For instance, he asked for a monthly report on the progress of the NEWater project even after he stepped down in 1990. The story is also told of how Mr Lee wanted a weekly report report of the state of cleanliness of the toilets at Paya Lebar Airport. The then airport manager Mr Wong Woon Liong decided he had better ask for a daily report in that


Mr Lee, the People’s Action Party’s co-founder and its first Secretary-General, honoured with a standing ovation at the PAP60 commemorative event at the Victoria Concert Hall in November 2014.

case; and his operations director in turn requested an hourly report. Hence, Singapore’s Singapore’s clean air port toilets. Ms Yong recalled accompanying Mr Lee to visit the new Khoo Teck Puat hospital a few years ago; he asked about problems with the building design causing the corridors to get wet when it rains. “This attention attention to detail by the boss matters. If the boss boss cares, everyone down the line car es,” she said.

MERIT AND INCORRUPTIBILITY Central to the foundation of an effective Public Service were merit-based recruitment and anti-corruption measures. Mr Lee ensured no individual politician, Civil Service leader or influential person was allowed to appoint their friends and family. He strongly believed the Public Service should be staffed by each generation’sfinest talent. So, Pub lic Service Commission scholarships to famous universities were offered to top students, and those who performed well in service were fast-tracked. fast-tracked. Mr Lee argued that for Singapore to succeed, the system should enable the best, mostsuitable suitable man forthe job:“You “You must have an open recruitment system, proper appraisal systems, not just go by word of mouth of some individuals.” At the same time, time, he took a keen interest in promotions and appointments instatutory boards,quasi-government quasi-government institutions and trade unions to ensure elites who were also attuned to the government’s ernment’s thinking formed the ru ling class in every level of society. To attract the best talent, he believed in ensuring competitive pay for all schemes of service. But at the same time this would be a “clean wage” policy — he gu ided the service away from providing staff quarters and cars very early on. “Today, “Today, there are v irtually no hidden benefits,” said Ms Yong.

Mr Lee demanded incorruptibility — this was central to investors’ confidence, distinguished Singapore from the rest of the developing world and was the cornerstone of its survival. In 1959, he moved the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau directly under the Prime Minister’s Office, signalling that graft wouldnot be tolerated tolerated under his watch, no matter the position of the culprit. For instance, investigations were opened in 1986 against then National Development Minister Teh Cheang Wan, who later committed suicide.

From the time he came i nto our lives, he has engaged our dreams, mobilised our energies, and led us as if promising us to lead us to the ‘promised land’. He had the will to move us, believing he could rouse the people to take up the challenge. He seemed so sure he knew how to do it with certainty. Former President S R Nathan, who worked with the labour movement before transferring to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and later Defence in the early years

He said: “The moment key leaders are less than incorruptible, less than stern in demanding high standards, from that moment the structure of administrative integrity will weaken, and eventually crumble. Singapore can survive only if ministers and senior officers are incorruptible and efficient.” He set a personal example of thrift and frugality: A simply-furnished office and home, and entertaining foreign dignitaries “comfortably, “comfortably, but not lavishly ”,said Ms Yong. Yong. “Minist ers and civil servants not only fly on normal commercial airlines, but Singapore Airlines has been instructed never to hold a plane for any minister who is late … SIA also does not give upgrades to civil servants,” she added.

ENGAGING AND MOBILISING For all his toughness and demanding standards, Mr Lee also continually engaged civil servants to explain his thinking and ensure that the Public Service was working towards the same shared objectives — for instance, in the early days, he would take them along on community visits so that they could better grasp problems problems on the ground. He would also hold meetings at which he would gather Members of Parliament, Permanent Secretaries,

Contrary to popular perception, PM Lee was not a dictato dictatorial rial Prime Minister who railroaded his proposals through a meek, spineless Cabinet … Ultimately, while he responded fully to criticisms of his proposals from Cabinet colleagues, PM Lee was prepared to be persuaded to modify his position and accept the views of the younger ministers. Prof S Jayakumar, former Cabinet minister

and senior and younger Administrative Officers to discuss how Singapore was to progress further; they were invited to speak up and contribute ideas. “He makes it a point to hear from those with expertise and experience. He is persuasive, but he can be persuaded,” Mr Lee’s former principal private secretary Heng Swee Keat, now Education Minister, once noted. If something mattered to Mr Lee, said former head of Civil Service Peter Ho, “he was prepared to roll up his sleeves and show the way … leadership from the front”. In one oft-cited episode in 1967, he spent a few hours instructing ministers and civil servants on the importance of writing in clear and simple English. “Do not write in code so that

TODAY FILE PHOTO

only those privy to your thoughts can understand,” he told them. Clarity of thought was a lesson he drilled home again and again. As Mr Heng recalled, Mr Lee’s favourite question was “So?”. “If you update him on something, he will invariably reply with ‘So?’. You You reply and th ink you have a nswered him, but again he asks, ‘So?’ … His instinct is to cut through the clutter, drill to the core of the issue, and identify the vital points.” points.” Mr Ho added: “As “As civil ser vants, we were constantly constantly amazed by by Lee Kuan

Lee Kuan Yew is the political messiah, Goh Keng Swee is the architect, Hon Sui Sen is the builder and Lim Kim San provid provides es business insights. In a way, Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew were lucky to have such a team then. Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, former head of the Civil Service who served as Permanent Secretary under Mr Lee

Yew’s Yew’sbreadthand depth … we had to be as sharp as he. To present our views, we had to be thorough in our research, and compelling in our arguments, to win the case. It created, in my view, a cultur e of excellence in the Civil Service. Never take short cuts, or the intellectuallylazy argument, or short-change other points of view. Otherwise, Lee Kuan Yew Yew wouldsniff out these weaknesses.” weaknesses.” At the end end of the day, day, for Mr Lee, it was about stoking people people to “work “work for for you and work with you”. you”. “You’ve “You’ve got to enthuse them with the same fire and the same eagerness that pushes you along ... That is a very big factor in leadership leadership … at the end of the day, you must also have the idealism to succeed, to ma ke people come with you.” TEO XUANWEI

20


A lead leader er sha shaped ped by by the the postpost-war war cruci crucibl blee ‘This lesson will neverr be forgotte neve forgotten n’

O

ver his lifetime, Mr Lee Kuan Yew Yew had to sing four national anthems: British, Japanese, Malaysian and finally Singaporean. This reflected the progression and momentous events events of his life that shaped him into the leader he became. The Japanese Occupation and life as a student in Britain profoundly shaped his view of the world and human nature, while the political struggle for power and self-government honed his leadership style and tactics. But it was in the pre-war years that Mr Lee’s initiation into the politics of race and religion took place. With World War War II ragi ng in Europe in 1940, Mr Lee, who had planned to read law in London, took up a scholarship to study at Raffles College instead (after having come in first in Singapore and Malaya in the Senior Cambridge examinations). examinations). It was at Raffles College that he encountered Malayism, “a deep and intense pro-Malay, anti-immigrant sentiment”amongindigenousMalayswho had been given special political and economic rights, and who feared being overwhelmed by hard-working Chinese and Indian immigrants. Coming from the Malayan states, their attitude contrasted with that of the Singapore Malays, who were accustomed to equal treatment in a British colony that made no distinction among the races. It was also at Raffles College that Mr Lee formed lasting friendships friendships with some who would later be close political colleagues, including the late Toh Chin Chye and Goh Keng Swee, then a tutor in economics. THE JAPANESE OCCUPATION

The Japanese invasion in December 1941 disrupted studies at Raffles College and heralded the most important foundational years of Mr Lee’s life. The Japanese had shattered the colonial system and the myth of British superiority — the idea that, as many had believed, the British empire would last a thousand years. “We literally saw a whole society disintegrate — it collapsed overnight. And we were serfs, to be trampled on, t o do the Japanese’s bidding. And that did something to a whole generation; generation; we said, said, ‘No! Why? This is my life, my country! I have something to say!’” The Japanese were cruel, unjust and vicious. In his first encounter with a Japanese soldier, Mr Lee was slapped, made to kneel and sent sprawling with a boot. He worked as a clerk, as a tra nscriber for the Japanese, and ran his

own businesses (such as manufacturing glue) to survive. The Japanese Military Administration governed by fear.Punish ment was so severe that crime was very rare, at a time when people were half-starved with deprivation. deprivation. “As a result I have never believed those who advocate a soft approach to crime and punishment, claiming that punishment does not reduce crime,” Mr Lee said. The Occupation was his first lesson on power, government and human reaction, he said. “I learnt more from the three-and-a-half years of Japanese Occupation Occupation than a ny university could have taught me. I had not yet heard Mao’s dictum that ‘power grows out of the barrel of a gun’, but I knew that Japanese brutality, Japanese guns, Japanese bayonets and swords, and Japanese terror and torture settled the argument as to who was in charge, and could make people change behaviour, even their loyalties.” STUDENT LIFE IN ENGLAND

After the war, Mr Lee pursued his law studies in England. It was there, in the late 1940s, that he came to seriously question the continued right of the British to rule Singapore. He was treated roughly as a colonial by some landladies and shopkeepers, shopkeepers, treatment he resented from social inferiors. “And I saw no reason why they should be governing me; they’re not superior. I decided, when I got back, I was going to put an end end to this.” this.” He took part in a discussion group called the Malayan Forum, which pressed for an independent Malaya and a non-violent end to British rule. Its members included Dr Toh and Dr Goh, as well as Tun Abdul Razak, who would would later later become become Prime Minister of Malaysia. Mr Lee’s time in Britain also helped form his i nitial political philosophy. In his first ter m at the London School of Economics — before he transferred to Cambridge, where he graduated with double first-class honours — Mr Lee was introduced to the general theory of socialism in political scientist Harold Laski’s lectures. He was immediately attracted to it. “It struck me as manifestly fair that everybody in th is world should be given an equal chance in life, that in a just and well-ordered society there should not be a great disparity of wealth between persons because of their position or status, or that of their parents,” he said. But he would later alter his views on Fabian socialism. “They were going to create a just society for the British workers — the beginning of a welfare state, cheap council housing, free medicine and dental treatment,

Mr Lee speaking at a rally of more than 100,000 people in August 1963, when he was Prime Minister, to press for compensation for civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation. PHOTO: AP

MONDAY 23

free spectacles, generous unemployment benefits. Of course, for students from the colonies, like Singapore and Malaya, it was a g reat attraction as the alternative to communism. “We did not see until the 1970s that that was the beginning of big problems contributing to the inevitable decline of the British economy.”

PAP AND THE FIGHT FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT Returning home to Singapore in 1950, Mr Lee continued to witness the “injustice” of a whites-on-top society. “You might be a good doctor, but if you are an Asian, you you would be under a white doctor who’s not as good … The injustice of it all, the discrimination, struck me and everybody else,” he said. This was a lesson that stayed with him when, later, he set up a merit-based, race-neutral Civil Service in independindependent Singapore. Mr Lee started work at a law firm and became legal adviser to several trade unions. In 1952, when negotiations between the Postal and Telecommunications Uniformed Staff Union and the government failed, the union carried out the first strike since Emergency Regulations were introduced in 1948, upon Mr Lee’s reassurance that this was not illegal. The publicity enhanced his reputation. Mr Lee and his coterie, which included S Rajaratnam and Dr Toh, became convinced that the unions could serve as the mass base and political muscle they had been seeking. He linked up

with left-wing left-wing Chinese-educa Chinese-educated ted unionists such as Lim Chi n Siong and Fong Swee Suan in 1954. And the People’s Action Party was launched on on Nov 21 that year — born out of a ma rriage of convenience convenience with the pro-communist trade unionists. The next year, the PAP won three of the four electoral seats it contested; Mr Lee won the Tanjong Pagar seat with the largest number of ballots cast for any candidate, and by the widest margin . But as the part y’s mass base continued to expand considerably, the Malayan Communist Party set out to capture the People’s Action Party (PAP) itself. In August 1957, during the party’s third an nual conference, conference, pro-communist elements managed to win half the central executive committee seats. However, five were detained during a government security sweep — and Mr Lee and his colleagues took the opportunity to create a cadre system, where only cadres could vote for the CEC and only t he CEC could approve cadre membership. In later years, Mr Lee would say of learning to be a streetwise fighter in the political arena: “I would not have been so robust or tough had I not not had communists to contend with. I have met people who are utterly r uthless.”

MERGER AND DEFEATING THE PRO-COMMUNISTS The British finally ag reed to self-government for Singapore (except in matters of defence and foreign relations) — and Mr Lee became Prime Minis-

MARCH 2015

ter of Singapore at the age of 35, when INTO THE FIRE OF the PAP captured 43 of the 51 seats in MALAY COMMUNALISM the Legislative Assembly elections of May 1959. The merger would prove to be shortBut still, the pro-communists were lived — a costly experience that brought growing in strength among the u nions, into violent conflict th e two major races and Mr Lee could not simply move in Singapore, as well as th e PAP and the against them without losing the sup- Federal government. government. As Mr Lee put it, port of the Chinese-speaking workers. the party “had jumped out of the frying Union with Malaya thus provided pan of the communists into the fire of the “perfect issue” on which to force the Ma lay communalists”. a break with the party’s left-wing elThe United Malays National Orements, which were opposed to the ganisation (UMNO) leaders were demerger. After a vote of confidence was termined to maintain total Malay sucalled in 1961 — a vote Mr Lee’s governgovern- premacy. They were worried by the ment barely won with 26 votes out of inclusion in the Federation of Singa51 — several assemblymen broke away pore’s Chinese majority and that the to form the Barisan Sosialis. PAP might make inroads in Malaysia The months that followed were the — for Mr Lee openly and strongly optoughest, most exhausting fight for po- posed the bumiputra policy, calling for litical survival yet for Mr Lee, against a “Malaysian Malaysia” where Malays adversarieshelaterdescribedas “formi- and non-Malays were equal. dable opponents, men of g reat resolve”. UMNO leader Syed Ja’afar Albar’s Bringing the battle with the pro- stoking of racial flames reached a wacommunists fully out into the open, he tershed during the race riots of July campaigned at the grassroots, speak- 1964. The Singapore Government’s ing daily in Malay, English and Chinese; memorandum that later set out the and did a series of 12 radio broadcasts events leading to the riots concluded on the battle for merger, arguing why that those in authority in Kuala LumSingapore needed the hinterland for pur did not restrain those indulging in its economic survival. inflammatory racist propaganda. When the merger referendum referendum was In September, a second wave of raheld in September 1962, the PAP car- cial riots erupted in Singapore. And ried the day — 71 per cent of votes went by December 1964, both sides were to the form of merger that Mr Lee had groping towards a looser arrangement campaigned for. within the Federation. Federation. While M r Lee On Aug 31, 1963, Mr Lee declared tried to find a compromise with MaSingapore’s independence from Brit- laysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul ish rule and, on his 40th birthday Rahman, the latter became more and on Sept 16, Singapore merged with more sold on total separation. the Federation of Malaya, Sabah and Goh Keng Swee eventually conSarawak to form Malaysia. vinced Mr Lee that secession was inevitable — which was a heavy blow to Mr Lee, who believed Singapore’s very survival lay within Malaysia.

A MOMENT MOMENT OF ANGUISH ANGUISH

Every time we look back on this moment when we signed this agreement which severed Singapore from Malaysia, it will be a moment of anguish. For me, it is a moment of anguish becaus bec ause e all my my life life ... you see, the whole of my adult life ... I have believ beli eved ed in mer merger ger and the unity of these two territories. Mr Lee fought back tears as he formally announced the separation and the full independence of Singapore on Aug 9, 1965, in a televised press conference

On Aug 9, 1965, in a televised press conference, Mr Lee fought back tears as he formally announced the separation and the full independence of Singapore, saying: “Every time we look back on this moment when we signed this agreement which severed Singapore from Malaysia, it will be a moment of anguish. For me, it is a mo ment of anguish because all my life ... you see, the whole of my adult life ... I have believed in merger and the unity of these two territories.” But he and his team were determined to make Singapore succeed, despite the odds — and that in building the foundations for a new country, they wouldneverforget forget what came before. before. “I would like to believe believe that the two years we spent spent in Malaysia are years which which will not be easily forgotten, years in which the people of migrant stock stock here who are a majority learnt of the terrors and the follies and the bitterness which is generated when one group tries to assert its dominance over the other on the basis of one race, one language, one religion,” Mr Lee said in 1965. “It is because of this that my colleagues and I were determined, as from the moment of separation, that this lesson will never be forgotten.”

22


Mr Chiam See Tong being congratulated by his supporters after winning the seat of Potong Pasir for the sixth time at the 2006 General Election.

TODAY FILE PHOTO

When the gloves came off ‘In my bag I have a hatchet, and a very very sharp one’ one’

W

hen journalist Dennis Bloodworth in 1989 described Mr Lee Kuan Yew Yew as “bloody-minded and ruthless with his adversaries. He stomps them into the ground”, he was using metaphors no less graphic and remorseless than ones Mr Lee was wont to use about h imself. As h e famously said in a book interview: “Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul- de-sac. That’s the way I had to survive in the past. That’s the way the communists t ackled me.” It was in the rough-and-dirty politicking of pre-Independence Singapore that this Cambridge-trained lawyer learnt to be a tough street-fighter, taking on the British, the communalists in Malaysia and the pro-communists, people who were “utterly ruthless”, in his words. And that was the style with

which he took took on his later later adversaries, adversaries, or potential adversaries — be they unionists, themedia or political opponents. “Anyone who takes me on needs to put on knuckle-dusters,” he once said. Indeed, in many instances, he saw his own foes as foes also of the long-term good of Singapore – and he was determined that nothing should u ndermine all that had been achieved. As he thundered at a 1980 General General Election rally: “You unscramble this – the confidence, the organisation upon which Singapore thrives – and you’ve you’ve had it. And let there be no mistakes about this – whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him or give it up! “This is not a game of cards – this is your life and mine! I’ve spent spent a whole whole lifetime building this and as long as I am in charge — nobody is going to knock it down!” THE LABOUR UNIONS

One of the earliest challenges for Mr Lee’s team was the labour unions.

A landmark confrontation took place two years after Independence. The president of the Public Daily Rated Employees’ Union, K Suppiah, refused to negotiate over grievances and launched an illegal strike – involving 2,400 workers and threatening to embroil another 14,000. The strike’s leaders were arrested and labour laws were changed to ban all strikes in certain essential services. This was a turning point in the nation’sindustrial hist ory – from the “happy, riotous 1950s” when union power was on the rise, to a “highly vulnerable” state where “the government could not allow any union to jeopardise Singapore’s pore’s surv ival”, ival”, according to Mr Lee. He persuaded union leaders that to win investors’ confidence and create jobs, industrial peace was necessary. And to enforce enforce this peace peace – particuparticularly in a key entity such as in the national airline, Singapore Airlines – he was ready to “break heads”. heads”. Singapore Airlines at its birth in 1972 was a key project ai med at boosting

theinternationallinkagesthe economy economy needed, and Mr Lee had personally secured the pact for SIA’s first and most lucrative route then, to London. So when its pilots association took illegal industrial action in 1980, Mr Lee confronted them, threatening: “I do not want to do you in, but I will not let anyone do Singapore in.” Fifteen ex-co members were charged and convicted, and the association was deregistered and re-formed as the Air Line Pilots’ Association Association Singapore (ALPA-S). In 2003, following a leadership ouster at ALPA-S and a dispute with management that threatened to cost the airline hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, the Senior Minister summoned 14 of the union leaders to the Istana for a two-hour meeting. As he later told a global forum: forum: “In Singapore, when we decide that they are breaking the rules of the game, the unspoken rules as to how we sur vive, how we have prospered, then either their head is broken or our bones are broken … So we we are telling them, both management and unions, ‘you play this game, there are going to be broken heads’. Let’s stop it.” But the iron fist was not the only


thing Mr Lee was about. Permanent Mr Lee had tried to cover up former Above left: Secretary Yong Ying-I highlighted the National Development Minister Teh Mr J B Jeyaretnam, care with which he had designed the La- Cheang Wan’s corruption. He lost the Mr Lee’s fiercest bour Court — not not involving lawyers in defamation suit and was ordered to and most bitter hearings, so as to encourage settlement pay S$260,000 in damages to Mr Lee. antagonist. of disputes rather than an adversarial Other actions followed in 1995 and Above right: approach; and there being no fees to act 1997, brought by other PAP MPs, and Mr Low Thia as an obstacle. The top priority was “to in 2001 Mr Jeyaretnam was declared Khiang speaking give companies and workers no excuse bankrupt. Mr Lee said bluntly bluntly in 1997: 1997: at a Workers’ Party not to settle”. “As long as Jeyaretnam stands for what rally. TODAY FILE PHOTOS he stands for — a thoroughly destrucPOLITICAL OPPONENTS tive force for me — we will knock him. “There are two ways of playing this. For all his ruthless legal actions against One, you attack the policies; two, you key political opponents since the Peo- attack the system. Jeyaretnam was ple’s Action Party’s (PAP) dominance attacking the system, he brought the of Parliament was broken in the 1980s, Chief Justice into it. If I wa nt to fix you, Mr Lee was not again st the idea of hav- do I need the Chief Justice to fix you? ing a good parliamentary opposition … He brought the Chief Justice into the — something that would provide min- political arena. He brought my only isters with sparring partners to keep friend in university into our quarrel. them on their toes. How dare he!” “I have said if we have a credible Another Opposition Opposition leader leader who beFirst World opposition, we’ll treat them came the target of two libel suits by with First World World civility,” he wrote. “If Mr Lee was Singapore Democratic you are polite to to me, I’m polite polite to you, you, but I’ll demolish your policy. policy. It is the Supposing Catherine Lim was writing job of every government government to do that if about me and not the Prime Minister ... you want want to stay in power power.” .” On Mr Chiam See Tong, he noted: she would not dare, right? Because “I’ve never been rough with Chiam. my posture, my response has been such that He’s gentle, I’m gentle. He’s a decent nobody doubts that i you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac man and I respect him for that.” But woe betide those who accused ... Anybody who decides to take me on needs him of corruption or misusing his powers to put on knuckle-dusters. I you think you can of office; or who set out to be destructive hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no “trouble-makers”. Mr Lee unleashed the other way you can govern a Chinese society. full force of not only his oratory, but also Mr Lee in The Man And His Ideas, 1997 his legal weaponry on them. And he made no no bones bones about about using using Political reorm need not go hand libel suits to remove his political rivals. in hand with economic liberalisation. “If we had considered them serious I do not believe that i you are libertarian, political figures,” he said of Mr Chiam ull o diverse opinions, ull o competing and Workers’ Workers’ Party’s Low Thia K hiang ideas in the market place, ull o sound in 2003, “we would not have kept them and ury, thereore you will succeed. politically alive for so long. We could Mr Lee in 2004 have bankrupted them earlier.” His fiercest and most bitter antagonist was Mr Joshua Benjamin (Mr Lee was) a tough man — he had to be. I Jeyaretnam. After winning the 1981 he wanted to deal with the colonial power Anson by-election, Mr Jeyaretnam and at the same time get rid o the enormously became a thorn thorn in the PAP’s PAP’s side. side. Al- popular lef-wing ront in Singapore, he had to be though barred from contesting the not only astute, but also streetwise — a fighter. 1988 General Election upon conviction The late journalist Dennis Bloodworth, lived in Singapo Singapore re from from 1956 until until his death death in 2005 of misappropriating funds, he spoke at who lived the campaign rallies and alleged that

Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan — Club in 1972, Mr Lee warned: “When first after the 2001 GE and again in 2008 any newspaper pours a daily dose of lanfor an article in the SDP’s newsletter. In guage, cultural or relig ious poison, I put the latter case, Mr Lee took the stand my knuckle-dusters on. Do not believe along with fellow plaintiff Prime Min- you can beat the state.” state.” Indeed, former former ister Lee Hsien Loong. Singapore Press Holdings English and The point Mr Lee was making in all Malay Newspapers Division Editor-inthis, said former Cabinet Minister S Chief Cheong Yip Seng described the Jayakumar, was: “He is prepared for a 1970s as “the bare-knuckles phase in robust criticism of his policies. He can the turbulent history of government be criticise criticised d for for foolishne foolishness, ss, maybe maybe even media relations”. forincompetence,forarrogance,buthis In 1973, for example, Mr Lee dered line was: Not on reputation and in- manded that a Sunday Nation writer tegrity … he would want to demonstrate be sacked for decrying the relentless relentless that that is a red line, you justify it. He’s pursuit of good grades – what Mr Lee prepared to justify hi hiss record.” saw as a critique of education policy. The Newspaper and Printing PressTHE MEDIA es Act of 1974 set the framework for greater government control of the meTo Mr Lee, the idea of a free press as dia; later amendments restricted the the “fourth estate” was anathema. circulation of foreign publications that “Freedom of the press, freedom of engagedinSingaporepoliticsorrefused the news media, must be subordinated to grant the Government a right of reply. to the overriding needs of the integrity This was because Mr Lee believed the of Singapore, and to the primary pur- foreign press should be observers and poses of an elected government,” he not participants in domestic politics. declared in 1971 to a General Assembly “If we do not stand up to answer Of The International Press Institute. our critics from the foreign media, And that was what he set out to drill Singaporeans, especially journalists into the Singapore media — to act “as and academics, will believe that their a positive agent in nation-buildi ng”. He leaders are afraid of or unequal to the would brook brook nothing less. argument, and w ill lose respect for us,” In a speech to the Singapore Press Mr Lee wrote in his memoirs. Over the years, restrictions were imposed on the local circulation of various international publications that refused to print in full the Government’s reply to articles: Time Magazine, the Asian Wall Street Journal, Asiaweek magazine, the Economist. The Far Eastern Economic Review, in addition to having its circulation cut from 9,500 copies to 500 in 1987, also was hit with a libel suit, suit, which which Mr Lee won, in 1989. 1989. The International International Herald Tribune came in for a couple of libel suits in 1994. To criticisms that he came down too hard on the media and political opponents, Mr Lee countered: “Wrong ideas have to be challenged before they influence public opinion and make for problems. Those who try to be clever at the expense of the government should not complain if my replies are as sharp as their criticisms.” Dr Chee Soon Juan.

24


Mr Lee standing on the running board of a government vehicle as he addresses the crowd in a slum area to seek a halt in the racial violence that rocked Singapore in July 1964, when he was PM.

The great persuader ‘Dominance of the public platform platf orm was my strengt strength’ h’

H

e did not crave to be popular; rather, Mr Lee Kuan Yew sought to persuade people to see his point of view. A forceful orator orator in part due to his legal training, his ability to sway his listeners contributed greatly to Mr Lee’s effectiveness effectiveness over the years. The man shaped in the turbulent power struggles of pre-independence Singapore grasped full well the importance of being able to win over the crowd, though he refused to be led by it. A leader leader concerned concernedwith being popularwasa weakleader, leader,hebelieved,andhe preferred to be feared than to be loved. In an interview in 1975, Mr Lee said: “My job is to persuade persuade my flock, flock, my people, people, and that’s the right way ... What the

crowd thinks of me from time to time, I consider totally irrelevant … The whole ground can be against me, but if I know this is right, I set out to do it, and I am quite sure, given time, a s events unfold, I will win over the ground.” His former Cabinet colleague, the late Goh Keng Swee, said of his persuasive powers: “He gets his way not, as some opposition people say, by dictating to other people, but by persuading them. He spends an awful lot of time persuading people.” ‘A LOCAL RONALD REAGAN’

Mr Lee did not mince words nor try to be politically correct. He once described himself as “a local Ronald Reagan” (referring to the charismatic former-actor-turned-United States President), able to “speak to the people over the blather of the media”, in ref-

erence to his success at defending his position against political opponents and the media. Ambassador-at-Larg Ambassador-at-Large e TommyKoh, who heard heard Mr Lee speak speak to a crowd crowd of hostile port workers at Tanjong Pagar in 1963, recounted: “Through his sheer charisma, eloquence and persuasiveness, and using a mixture of Malay and English, he was able to turn the meeting a round.” round.” Gifts or not, communication and persuasion were something Mr Lee worked worked at relentlessly relentlessly.. Working with the labour unions to build a political support base after his return from Britain, he learnt to speak the common people’s languages — Malay, Chinese and simplified English instead of the BBC-standard natural to him. He took up Mandarin classes again with renewed renewed determination in 1955 1955 at at the age of 32, and by the 1959 elections, had mastered it well enough to speak without a script. script. “I won won the respect respect of the Chinese-speaki ng forworking hard at their langua ge,” he recollected.

PHOTO: AP

For the 1961 Hong Lim by-election, Mr Lee “sweated blood to master Hokkien” — devoting an hour to learning it three to five times a week, so he could get his views across to the uneducated. To learn a new language in hi s late 30s amid day-to-day work requir ed “superhuman concentration and effort”, he recalled. “The first time I made a Hokkien speech in Hong Lim, the children in the crowd laughed at my mistakes — wrong sound, wrong tones, wrong sentence structure, wrong almost everything. But I could not afford to be shy or embarrassed. It was a matter of life and death.” MASTER STORYTELLER AND ‘POP ‘POP STAR’

Over the months of September and October 1961, Mr Lee gave a series of 12 radio talks campaigning for merger with Malaysia, explaining why it was crucial for Singapore’s survival. The broadcasts were made in Malay, Mandarin and English, three times a week each. “It was a gruelling experience.


On one occasion, Radio Singapore staff were alarmed when they looked through th e studio’s glass panel and did not see me at the microphone. One of them spotted me lying on my back, flat on the floor in a state of collapse, as she thought,” Mr Lee recounted. He had, in fact, lain down “to recover from my exhaustion and recharge my batteries in between recording the three different versions of my broadcast”. Those broadcasts showed Mr Lee to be a master storyteller, said former Singapore Press Holdings Editor-inChief (English and Malay Newspapers Division) Cheong Yip Seng, who was then a Senior Cambridge-year school boy. “Every broadcast broadcast ended with the listener in suspense and anxious for the next instalment, the way ordinary folk at that time lapped up the kung fu serials broadcast over Rediffusion by Lei Tai Sor in Cantonese.” He could “explain complex issues in simple terms, in a way the masses, usually in the thousands and then not well-educated, well-educated, could understand. His deep, powerful voice rose and fell for emphasis and effect, and he spoke with great passion, determined to convince”. While radio had a wide reach, Mr Lee believed in also taking his message directly to the ground. After the merger referendum in September 1962, he v isited constituencies constituencies to shore up support for elections the next year. Those 10 months between Decem ber 1962 and September September 1963, Mr Lee said, were the most hectic of his life: He made as many as 10 speeches a day, in Malay, English and Hokkien or Mandarin. “I became a kind of political pop star,” he said.

SPEECH THAT CHANGED HISTORY But possibly his most important speech yet came in May 1965, nearly two years after Singapore had become part of Malaysia, when he laid out his case against communal politics. His audience: The Malaysian Parliament. He caused a sensation addressing them in Bahasa. Former Minister for for Social Affairs Othman Wok said: “I noticed that while he was speaking, the Alliance leaders sitting in front of us, they sank lower and lower because they were embarrassed this man could speak Malay better than them.” Former Cabinet colleague, the late Lim Kim San, noted: “That was the turning point. They perceived him as a dangerous man who could one day be the Prime Minister of Malaya. Malaya. This was the speech that that changed history.” history.” On Aug 9, 1965, Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia and became an independent state.

AT RALLIES RALLIES After independen independence, ce, with the People People’s ’s Action Action Party making a clean clean sweep sweep of Parliament seats for close to two decades, Mr Lee institutionalised the practice of addressing the nation in his NationalDayRally,whichwasbroadcaston television to reach as many as possible.

Speaking in English, Malay and Chinese in the year’s most important political speech, he would give an overview of the Government’s performance, spell out the key challenges and talk about policy changes — and, more often than not, remind his audience colourfully of Singapore’s Singapore’s vulnerabilities. “With only notes, I would speak for one to two hours on the important issues of the day ... I had to learn how to hold the audience, both at the National Theatre and over television, and get them to follow my thought processes,” Mr Lee said. He felt at his best as an orator without a script. “I had better rapport with my audience when I expressed my thoughts as they formed and flowed in my mind, whereas if I had a script, I could not get my message across with the same conviction and passion.” He was in hi s element in the election hustings, delivering fiery, no-holds barred oratory in the evenings at mass rallies in the constituencies. But particularl y memorable werehis speeches at Fullerton Square in the midday heat to reach out to office workers. “Sometimes there would be a heavy shower and I would be drenched while the crowds sheltered under umbrellas or took cover on the five -foot-way of offices around the square,” Mr Lee said. Former Cabinet minister George Yeo Yeo recalled one such wet Fullerton rally in 1980. “So the umbrellas sprouted open and the crowds started fidgeting and you could sense that they would soon soon disperse. But (Mr Lee) did not miss a beat. He He continued. continued. He looked looked them them in the eyes. He addressed them as if he was talking to each and every one of them personally.” Mr Lee said: “The people stayed and I carried on. Although wet, I never felt the cold; my adrenaline was pouring out. The spoken word on television made a far greater impact than the written scriptin newspapers. newspapers.My dominance of the public platform was my strength throughout my political life.” His trademark combativeness and candour during the hustings, nonetheless, did not always sit well with a newer generation of Singaporeans. In the 2011 General Election, his remarks to reporters that Aljun ied voters would have “five years to live and repent” if they voted in the Workers’ Workers’ Party team sparked a storm. Asked about the potential backlash, he said: “I am 87. I am speaking the truth. I do not want to be hypocritical.”

I have never been overconcerned or obsessed with opinion polls or popularity polls. I think a leader who is, is a weak leader. Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless. Mr Lee in his memoirs

Mr Lee felt at his best as an orator without a script. ‘I had better rapport with my audience when I expressed my thoughts as they formed and flowed in my mind.’ TODAY FILE PHOTO

Whatever he wanted his interlocutors to hear, he engaged them such that they focused their entire attention on what he had to say … He also had a great ability to communicate communic ate his ideas to small and large groups … Depending on the situation, his audience might be made up of many who may not be wellversed in English. On such occasions, he would commentt or criticise using a Malay or Chinese commen (dialect) expression that resonated with the average man and even humoured the audience. Former President S R Nathan

You see he has remarkable persuasive powers … and he gets his way not, as some opposition people say, by dictating to other people, but by persuading them. He spends an awful lot of time persuading people. Late Cabinet minister Goh Keng Swee

26


Mr Lee having a word with then Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, seated beside Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, as then President S R Nathan makes the opening speech during the opening of the 11th parliamentary session in 2006, when Mr Lee was Minister Mentor. TODAY FILE PHOTO

Political renewal, a life and death matter ‘My most important job was to get a team that could carry on on the work work’ ’

W

hile the obsession of many political leaders — especially those of new nationstates —was with holding on to power for as long as possible, Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s, Yew’s, from the very beg inning, was the search for his successors. successors. In fact, it was barely over a year into his task of governing a newly-independent Singapore — when almost the entire Old Guard leadership were relatively young — that that he expressed his worries in 1966 about the Republic’s “very thin crust of leadership”, for it was a “lifeand-death” matter, in Mr Lee’s words, that developing countries such as Singapore had good political leadership. leadership. And by the 1968 elections, elections, his efforts to assemble a group of successors had begun — br ight PhD holders such as Chiang Hai Ding and Wong Lin Ken were fielded, but he quickly learnt that political leadership required “other qualities besides a disciplined mind able to marshal facts and figures”. “There is a heavy price to pay if mediocrities and opportunists ever take control of the government of Singapore,” he once said, because this tiny,

resource-less island had nothing except “its strategic location and the people who can maximise this location location by organisation, management, skills and, most important of al l, brains”. “Five years of such a government, probably a coalition and Singapore will be down on her knees ... Once in disarray, it will not be possible to put it together again.” HEADHUNTING

When then-Finance Minister Hon Sui Sen asked in 1976 to retire after one more election, what Mr Hon said had a “profound influence” on Mr Lee’s conviction that “my most important job was to get a team that could could carry on the work, otherwise we would fail”. “He said, ‘You know, when these chairmen and CEOs come to see me, they are not just looking at me, they a re looking for who will be taking my place. Because their investments are going to go on a long time — 10, 15, 20 years — and I won’t be here’, here’,”” Mr Lee re counted. Helped by his closest collaborators, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S Rajaratnam, Mr Lee endeavoured endeavoured tirelessly to work out a system system that would uncover, uncover, from a tiny catchment area, potential successors who could excel in an environment with a small marg in for error.

These efforts ranged from systematically scouring the country’s top executives, academics and civil servants; to starting the Singapore Armed Forces Overseas Scholarship in 1971 to groom the best brains at a young age (by 1995, four former SA F scholars had entered politics and later became Cabinet Ministers — Lee Hsien Loong, George Yeo, Lim Hng Kiang and Teo Chee Hean). Mr Lee even studied the headhunting processes of top multi-national multi-national corporations — he eventually adopted in 1983 Shell’s system of assessing a candidate’s “helicopter qualities” — and included evaluations by psychologists and psychiatrist s in the People’sAction Party’s famous “tea sessions” with potential political recruits. The attempts to inject new blood into the leadership were “not without stress”. stress”. “Several old-guard ministers wereconcerned concernedaboutthe paceat which they were being replaced,” he wrote in his memoirs.

My experience ... has led me to conclude that we need good men to have good government. However good the system of government, bad leade leaders rs will bring harm to their people. On the other hand, I have seen several societies well governed in spite of poor systems of PAYING COMPETITIVE SALARIES government, because beca use good, good, strong leaders Although the means of identifying able were in charge. men and women were eventually setMr Lee in his book From Third World To First

tled, Mr Lee faced the challenge of convincing them to serve i n politics. The controversial solution he pushed

through in 1985 of paying office-holders reasonable salaries — also aimed at deterring corruption — saw him lock horns with Opposition MPs for three hours in Parliament. The issue was revisited several times over the years, especially following Mr Lee’s radical proposal in 1995 to peg ministerial salaries, based on a formula, to the six highest-paid individuals in the private sector — and it remains contentious today for many Singaporeans. Nonetheless, Nonetheless, his response to the de bate over the latest review of ministers’ pay in 2011 left no doubts as to Mr Lee’s continued conviction that thi s was how to get good people to step forward. “To find able and committed men and women of integrity, willing to spend the prime of their lives, and going through the r isky process of elections, we cannot underpay our ministers and argue that their sole reward should be their contribution to the public good,” he said in January 2012. “We did not take Singapore from the Third to the First World by headhunting ministers willing to sacrifice their children’s children’s future when u ndertaking a public service duty. We took a pragmatic course that did not requir e people of calibre to give up too much for the public good. We must not reduce Singapore to another ordinary country in


Mr Lee and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the PAP60 commemorative event at the Victoria Concert Hall in November 2014.

the Third World by dodging the issue of competitive ministerial remuneration.” This was a “clean” wage, however — there were none of the frills of office, such as houses or a State plane, that other countries’ minist ers enjoyed. PerPermanent Secretary of the Public Service Division Yong Ying-I noted: “We are possibly the only country in the world where ministers are not driven around in chauffeured limousines, but drive themselves in their own cars t o work and to many public engagements.” In 2006, when the saga involving Hotel Properties came to light, Mr Lee wanted the issue of unsolicited discounts for purchases of new condominium units made by him a nd then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong explained in Parliament. There had been market talk that the two leaders had been offered units in all of HPL’s HPL’s property projects. Following a parliamentary debate, no impropriety was found in the sales. Nevertheless, the saga led to new rules for ministers, such as having to clear all property purchases with the Prime Minister, whether for occupation or investment. At the conclusion conclusion of the debate,then Prime Minister G oh Chok Tong said he had not taken the decision to investigate the matter lightly, noting that much was at stake in terms of the reputation of the Government and the political cost, among other things. But, referring to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, he said: “Integrity is the cornerstone of

the PAP government. Senior Minister laid this cornerstone. It It will sur vive the Senior Minister.” The decision to give this a full and public hearing raised eyebrows internationally. “Almost anywhere in Asia, few would have cared. But this was Singapore, which takes pride in its image of incorruptibility,” noted an Asiaweek article. (The discounts, incidentally, were treated as unsolicited gifts a nd given to t he Government.) To Mr Lee, there was no room in government for self-aggrandisement or personality cults. Until his bronze bust was unveiled at the Singapore University University of Technology Technology a nd Design in August 2013, in all of six decades there were no public statues or buildings, and only two schools of learning, named after him.

HANDING OVER THE REINS What set Mr Lee apart from many leaders was the visible, planned manner in whichhe orchestrated orchestratedhandingoverthe reins in November 1990. He had originally aimed to step down in 1988, “believing the sooner I give up, the younger I will be and the more active I can be to make sure that the team succeeds succeeds … The later I give up, th e older and slower I will be, the more risky its success”. As far back as 1980, he had announced a nucleus of seven names — including M r Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan, Mr S Dhanabalan and Mr Ong Teng Cheong — from whom Singa-

They say, oh, let’s have multi-party politics. Let’s have different parties change and be in charge of the Government. Is it that simple? You vote in a Division Three government, not a Division One government, and the whole economy econom y will justt subside jus subside within three, four years. Finished. Lee Kuan Yew on Aug 15 2008

TODAY FILE PHOTO

pore’s next leader would be chosen. He gave a landmark speech in the rain for an hour, urging Singaporeans to help him test out the second-generation leadership for the sake of Singapore’s leadership “self-renewal”. Mr Lee let the younger ministers pick their own leader — after the 1984 election, they unanimously chose Mr Goh — and it was years later that he revealed that his first choice had been Dr Tan as he found Mr Goh “wooden”. Weeks before he passed the baton to Mr Goh, Mr Lee told foreign foreign magazine Worldlink: Worldlink: “I think my mission will not be complete complete until the system has been handed over and works without me. Whether my colleagues and I have succeeded or failed depends upon whether Singapore works without us.”

General Election: “This time you are casting your vote not in judgment over my performance because I did not make the decisions … For four years, (Goh Chok Tong and his younger colleagues) have made all the major decisions. Yes, I presided over the Cabinet meetings, but even when I disagreed with them, I have not over-ruled them.” This had included, for instance, modifyi ng his position to take in the younger younger ministers’ views on the shape of the Elected President scheme, which was enacted in 1991, and not objecting to the plans to have casinos here even though he was once dead set against the idea.. Speaking to a team of journalists interviewing him for a book in 2009, Mr Lee said: “As long as I’m of value, my value is to try and consolidate what we’ve achieved in Singapore. I’m not interested in consolidating any leader ETHOS OF STEWARDSHIP or any system. Having seen this place Mr Lee remained in the Cabinet until rise, I do not want to see it fall — it’s 2011, first as Senior Minister, then as as simple as that.” Minister Mentor. His staying on atThis ethos of “honest stewardship”, tracted criticisms periodically about observed Ms Yong, has permeated whetherhe had truly relinquishedpow- beyond the political sphere with key er,particula rly after it emerged that his ramifications. Singapore’s bureauson would be the third Prime Minister. cracy, cracy, unlike others, having delivered But Mr Lee hi mself, as well as Prime professionally-run professionally-run companies such as Ministers Goh and Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore Technologies, Keppel and asserted that his role had evolved to be- Singapore Airlines, devolved power come a resource person, or a guardian and deliberately withdrew from conto the younger team. Indeed, Mr Lee trol. “To use power for the right purhad begun the process of ceding the pose, and to be able to give it up and reins well before he officially handed withdrawat the right time, is a critically critically over in 1990. important ethos we have imbibed from As he told told a rally crowd in the 1988 him,” she said. TEO XUANWEI

28


Policies for the bedroom and beyond ‘We would not have made economic economic progress progress if we had not intervened on very very personal personal matters matters’ ’

M

r Lee Kuan Yew did not seek to remake only Singapore; he wanted to remake SingapoSingaporeans too. His government’s social engineering efforts ranged from changing social habits that were a legacy of coolie ancestors to even, controversially, who should have babies so as to breed talent. “I am often accused of interfering in the private l ives of citizens,” he said in 1987. “Had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse ... we would not have made economic progress if we h ad not intervened on very personal matters.” To make Singapore “a First World oasis in a Third World region”, he told The New York Times, “we built the infrastructure … The difficult part was getting the people to change their habits so they behaved more like First World citizens, not like Third World citizens spitting and litt ering all over the place.” The carrot was used and, more often than not, a big stick. There were campaigns — more than 200 in the ’70s and ’80s — and the Keep Singapore Clean Campaign in 1968 was one of the first. There were fines for littering, jaywalking, spitting, urinating in lifts, failing to flush toilets and smoking in certain areas. (Mr Lee was himself a smoker who quit in his 30s when it caused him to lose his voice in election hustings) With typically blunt imagery, Mr Lee said: “Mine is a very matterof-fact approach to the problem. If you can select a population and they’re educated and they’re properly brought up, then you don’t have to use too much of the stick because they would already have been trained. It’s like with dogs. You You train it it in a proper way from small. It will know that it ’s got to leave, go outside to pee and to defecate. “No, we are not that kind of society. We had to train adult dogs who even today deliberately urinate in the lifts.” To improve theimage Singaporeans presented to tourists, a concerted effort was made with the launch, in June 1979, of the annual National Courtesy Campaign. Being polite, Mr Lee said in his speech, was a desirable attribute which was foundin cultivatedsocieties. societies. Still, it was another measure that the Republic became famous for around the world. For many years, Mr Lee had been concerned about used gum stuck to pavements, buses and lifts, which made for costly maintenance, but had resisted a ban. But when the MRT began running in 1987 and vandals’ gum pre vented doors from closing,the Government banned chewing gum in 1992.

BIRTH RATES

The Government’s reach extended to the bedroom. A population boom in the early years threatened to overwhelm the fledgling nation’s housing, education and medical infrastructu re, as well well as strain the economy as well. So, the Stop at Two policy was born. The Family Planning and Population Board was set up in 1966 to ach ieve zero population populationgrowth.A bortionwaslegalised and voluntar voluntar y sterilisation encouraged among lower-educated women. Disincentives were imposed on those who had more than t wo — including reduced benefits in housing allocation, maternity leave and tax deductions, and lower priority for school places. But by 1980, population growth had fallen below replacement level — to 1.5 per cent, from 2.8 in 1970 — which the Government realised only upon analysis in 1983. Referring to criticism that it had been wrong, Mr Lee w rote: “Yes and no.” Without lower population growth, unemployment and schooling problems would not have been solved, he argued. “But we should have foreseen that the better-educated better-educatedwouldhavetwo or fewer children, and the less-educated four or more.” In hindsight, “we would have refined and targeted our campaign differently” ferently” right from the 1960s, he said. In recent years, the Government poured money and effort effort into trying to get Singaporeans to have more babies, but the low birth rate has persisted. Mr Lee dismissed as “absurd” the accusation that the Stop at Two policy was to

The Family Planning and Population Board float on Maxwell Road during the 1975 National Day Parade. PHOTO: MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS COLLECTION, COURTESY OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE

I started off believing all believing men were equal. I now know that’s the most unlikely thing ever to have been ... I didn’t start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading, watching, arguing, asking and then bullying bully ing my way to the top, that is the conclusion I’ve come to. Mr Lee in 1997

blame. Couples’ Couples’ reluctancewas caused by changed lifestyles and mindsets, he wrote, which no amount of financial perks could alter. “I cannot solve the problem and I have given up,” he said, leaving the task to the new generation of leaders.

scheme was dropped soon after. But Mr Lee continued to hold on to his view that humans were gifted u nequally by nature. He had cited studies of identical twins brought up separately, which found evidence that about 80 per cent of a person’s make-up was from nature and the rest from nurture. While government policies could GRADUATE MOTHERS SCHEME help equalise opportunities at the startEven more controversial was what ing point, he wrote in Hard Truths To arose from that 1980 census about Keep Singapore Going: “I tell people better-educated women women having fewer fewer frankly God h as made you that way ... I children. Mr Lee articulated his con- can give you extra tuition, better envitroversial eugenicist idea of breeding ronment, but the incremental incremental benefits talent in his 1983 National Day Rally, are not that much. And their peers with televised live to the nation. biggerengines will also make progress. He told Singaporeans with trade- So the gap will never be closed. mark bluntness: “If you don’t include “Still ... we are always trying: Give your women women graduates in your breed- them extra tuition, give them extra ing pool and leave them on the shelf, attention, encourage encourage them. So when I you would end up a more stupid society receive an honorarium for my speak... So what happens? There will be less ing engagements, I donate the money brightpeople people to support support dumb people people in to give out scholarships and prizes to the next generati on. That’s a problem.” the lower end to encourage them to He wrote later in recollection: recollection: “The do well and upgrade from ITE to polypress named it the Great Marriage technics and so on. Occasionally, some Debate. As I had expected, the speech do make it.” stirred a hornet’s nest.” One measure of this era that did The next year, Mr Lee and then Edu- survive, however: The Social Developcation Minister Goh Keng Swee decided ment Unit (now called the Social Deto grant graduate mothers priority in velopment velopment Network), Network), set up in 1984 1984 to the best schools for their third child. facilitate socialising between men and The controversial Graduate Mothers women graduates. graduates. While the GovernScheme proved divisive among the ment’s matchmaking efforts drew some public and the Cabinet, with egalitar- ridicule over the years, Mr Lee averred: ians such as Deputy Prime Minister S “Traditional methods of choosing marRajaratnam outraged. The backlash riage partners had been ruptured by contribut ed to the People’s Action Par- universal education. The Government ty’s 12-percentage-point drop in votes had to provide alternatives to the famin that year’s General Election, and the ily matchmakers of old.”


Mr Lee meeting US President Barack Obama in the Oval Office in Washington in 2009, when he was Minister Mentor. The two leaders exchanged views on the evolving sit uation in Asia and the world. PHOTO: REUTERS

All the the wo world was his stag stagee Mr Lee built close ties ties with both Asian and Western Western leaders, leaders, who valued his unique insights

I

n 1967, when Singapore was two years independent independent and he was a young Premier of only 44, a report described Mr Lee Kuan Yew giving a talk at Harva rd University. As he spoke spoke about the escalating Vietnam War and the role of the United States, the Crimson university newspaper suggested: “Lee Kuan Yew, Yew, Prime Minister of the city-state of Singapore, is a Mayor who talks as though he may one day be a world statesman ... His concern concern for the fate of South-east Asia, fortified by his spectacular economic successes and his ambitious style, makes Lee a potential international strongman.” Five decades on, this description seems prophetic. Mr Lee is to be credited with leading Singapore’s early transformation from Third World to First, as reflected in the title of the first volume of his memoirs. More than any other member of the founding generation of local politicians, he shaped politics and ensured continuity. Singapore’s sur vival and success are his touchstones. touchstones. Yet, Yet, more tha n this, Mr Lee is remembered not only as the first Prime Minister of Singapore; his influence has transcended our city-state. PRAGMATISM PLUS

Mr Lee came to power in a generation of nationalists who sought independ-

ence from the Western powers in the 1950s and 1960s, such as Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Jawaharlal Nehru of India. These charismatic leaders captured the headlines of that tumultuous era and live on in their national histories. Not all , however, have enjoyed the same longevity or continued to enjoy standing and relevance. relevance. Yet Yet Mr Lee was neveran idealist nor a demagogue of Third World ideology and utopian theories. One might even say that he does not leave behind a coherent, theoretical fra mework or populist slogan. He was famously pragmatic to focus on what works. But this did not mean he had no regard for principle. Rather, he blended the two. In a recent assessment, Ambassador-at-Large and former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bilahari Kausikan remarked: “He understood that international order is the prerequisite for international law and organisation. So while you may work towards an ideal ideal and must stand stand firm on basic principles, you settle for what is practical at any point point of time, rather than embark on quixotic quests.” A major factor that shaped Mr Lee’s world view was his experience of the Japanese occupation, occupation, as he h imself has alluded to on several occasions. The illusion of colonial superiorit y and of Singapore as the “impregnable fortress” was so suddenly and savagely torn apart that the experience anchored Mr Lee to an unsentimental view of human nature and a focus on power. This was reinforced by events in the

early history of Singapore: Konfrontasi with Sukarno’s Sukarno’s Indonesia, Indonesia, the exit from and tensions with Malaysia, and the withdrawal of the British bases in 1971. NIMBLE AMONG THE GIANTS

These experiences drove Mr Lee to be a shrewd and nimble diplomat to ensure stability and security for Singapore in a difficult world. A key part of M r Lee’s foreign policy can in this context be understood as efforts to engage with the powerful and especially with the US. During the Cold War, Mr Lee and Singapore made every effort to befriend America as the dominant dominant superpower superpower in Asia in the post-WWII world and bulwark against communism. communism. Survival was moreover not only accepting American protection and, while Singapore did not become become a US ally, Mr Lee emphasised a broader engagement. engagement. As Mr Chan Heng Chee, former long-serving Ambassador to the US, recounted: “For Lee Kuan Yew, Yew, the US role in Asia was not just just a military one. The US offered markets, technology and investments to the region that no other power could match. This was essentia l for the emergence of the four Asian tigers and the ASEAN (Association of South-east Asian Nations) countries.” Another important dimension in Mr Lee’s foreign engagements arose as he developed a close relationship with China . Begin ning from Deng Xiaoping’s Xiaoping’s historic visit to Singapore in 1978, Mr Lee made every effort to

engage the reforming China, politically and economically. Yet Yet as he developed developed this relationship with China, Mr Lee was not one to indulge in the idea that China and Asia’s future could be separated from the American role. Instead, with his knowledge and access to the reforming China, Mr Lee played a major role in helping America and the West better understand China. When the Tiananmen incident incident on June 4, 1989, triggered US threats of sanctions and boycotts, Mr Lee articulated a view of human rights and “Asian values” that responded to Western criticism. While not the only Asian spokesman with such views, then and now still controversial, his testimony held weight among world leaders not only because of his innate understanding of China, but because he had built up long-standing ties and trust. Conversely, Conversely, Mr Lee also shared other somewhat less welcome insights into China. This was never easy. He believed that China and the rest of Asia would would benefit from the continued presence of the US. In his keynote address after receiving a lifetime achievement award from the US-ASEAN Business Council in Washington, DC, in 2009, Mr Lee said: “The size of China makes it impossible for the rest of Asia, including Japan and India, to match it in weight and capacity in about 20 to 30 years. So we need need America to strike a balance.” His comments were m isconstrued by some netizens and commentatorsin China. But throughout, Chinese leaders — from Deng Xiaoping and Mr Jiang Zemin to Mr Hu Jintao and Mr Xi Jinping — have understood that this and CONTINUED ON PAGE ��

30


CONTINUED FROM PAGE ��

Mr Lee’s other remarks were always intended to be in their country’s interest. This combination combination of insight, access and credibility with both Chinese and Western leaders allowed Mr Lee to play a significant role in one of the most important issues in the world: The evolving US-China relationship. relationship. UNVARNISHED VIEWS FOR A LISTENING WORLD

Some might think a statesman should be above politics and controversy, something of a popular and secular saint spouting about world peace. But Mr Lee was never afraid of controvercontroversy. He did not court headlines deliberately, but neither would he self-censor if it meant his views were less sharply focused and expressed. As a 32-yearold, Mr Lee said: “I have been accused of many things in my life, but not even my worst enemy has ever accused me of being afraid to speak my mind.” This was one of his key strengths, in Mr Kausikan’s view: “The disciplined clarity of his thought and expression was one of the primary sources of the influence Mr Lee wielded, disproportionate for the leader of a small country like Singapore. His views were valued because they were u nvarnished a nd gave a fresh and unique perspective. He said things that leaders of much larger and more powerful countries may well have thought and may have li ked to say, but for one reason or another, another, could not

while maintaining the freedom t o be itself as a sovereign and independent nation. Both parts of the equation — a maximum number of friends and freedom to be ourselves — are equally important and interrelated. “Friendship, in international relations, is not a function of goodwill or personal affection. W We e must make our selves relevant so that other countries have an interest in our continued sur vival and prosperity as a sovereignand independent nation. Singapore cannot take its relevance for granted. Small countries perform perform no v ital or ir replacereplaceable functions in the international system. Singapore has to continually reconstruct itself and keep its relevance to the world and to create political and economic space. This is the economic imperative for Singapore.” Yet Yet M r Lee also forged close personal friendships with world leaders, amity that has helped Singapore in many areas, from security to economics. His personal ties with regional leaders such as late Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak and Indonesian President Suharto smoothed the way for the founding of ASEAN in 1967. His friendship with members of United Kingdom Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s government helped delay the British troops’ withdrawal to late 1971, buying Singapore time to build up its own defence forces. He also held long-term friendships with world leaders and senior officials such as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,

words: He put things succinctly and with the right nuance.” Despite his personal friendships with world leaders, leaders, he was not afraid to stand up to a greater power where needed. There were famous instances, such as in 1968, when he turned down a direct appeal by Indonesian President Suharto to pardon two Indonesian marines for the MacDonald House bombing; and in 1994, when, as Senior Minister, he refused American appeals against the caning of Michael Fay. In widely reported comments on local television, he had said of the US: “The country dares not restrain or punish the individuals, forgiving them for whatever they have have done... done... That’s why the whole country is in chaos. Drugs, violence, violence,unemployment unemploymentand homelesshomelessness, all sort s of problems in its society.” Former President S R Nathan also recalls how Mr Lee declined a gift from late Chinese Premier Hua Guofeng on his first visit to China in 1976. The gift was a book by Australian academic Neville Maxwell on the 1962 Sino-Indian war, and Hua told Mr Lee that it was “the correct version of the India-Chin a war”. Mr Nathan said: “When PM took the book, he looked at the front and back cover and then handed it back to Premier Hua, saying, ‘Mr Prime Min ister, this is your version of the war. There is another version, the Indian version. And in any any case I am from from South-east Asia — it’s it’s nothing to do with us.’ us.’ Hua showed no reaction, but a silence fell in the room.

TAKING ON THE WESTERN MEDIA Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s candid views on democ-

racy and development were often cited and criticised by international media, particularly those from the West. He was seen as the main proponent of the “Asian values” debate, as it was dubbed in the 1980s and 1990s. These special Asian characteristics meant that Western democracy, law and order — human rights, in otherwords—couldnotbeuniversallyapplied. The divide between East and West sharpened particularly after the bloody 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown on student protesters. For Mr Lee, this meant taking on his detractors — and he had many — in a long-ru nning battle with Western news organisations and academics. He took umbrage particularly at cases where he perceived them as interfering in Singapore politics. Among his notable critics were American journalist William Safire Top: Then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr Lee at the Istana in 2012; Then Indonesian President and British journalist Bernard Levin from the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Mr Lee at the Istana be- Times, whom Mr Lee challenged to a face-tofore the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in 2009, when face interview on the BBC afte r Levin wrote a

scathing article on Singapore and Lee in the United Kingdom press. After Levin declined, Mr Lee took out full-page paid advertisements in several British newspapers to lay bare the facts and reveal that Levin had refused to take part in the televised debate. Mr Lee put it best in a 1988 address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington, DC: “Singapore’s domestic debate is a matter for Singaporea ns. We allow American journalists in Singapore in order to reportSingaporetotheirfellowcountrymen. We allow their papers to sell in Singapore so that we can know what foreigners are reading about us. But we cannot allow them to assume a role in Singapore that the American media play in America, that of invigilator, adversary and inquisitor of the a dministration. If allowed to do so, they will radically change the nature of Singapore society, and I doubt if our social glue is strong enough to withstand such treatment.”

Mr Lee was Minister Mentor. PHOTOS: REUTERS, TODAY FILE PHOTO

themselves prudently say. And so he made Singapore relevant.” Speaking in 2009, Mr Lee had said of Singapore’s foreign policy fundamentals: “Independence was thrust upon Singapore. The fundamentals of our foreign policy were forged during those vulnerable early years. They remain relevant because small countries have little power to alter the region, let alone the world. A small country must seek a maximum number of friends,

German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. Said Mr Chan Heng Chee: “He put great store in developing personal relationships. These relationships bought Singapore space. It was not just a question of bonhomie and sociability, though I have seen Mr Lee charm his hosts in the US. They sought his company for his strategic insights, his understanding of the region and his take on the world. He had a way with

“Even to this day, I sometimes get asked about this incident (by) people who cannot bring themselves themselves to believe that the PM of a small country like Singapore would have dared to incur Chinese displeasure by such a response.” COMMANDING THE WORLD STAGE

Another, Another, relatedstrength was his ability to command the world stage — as few

others could. When Mr Lee requested an audience, he got it — whether it was an interview with CNN and other internationalmedia,a personalaudience with Chinese leaders or tete a tete discussions in the capitals of the West. Among testaments to his strategic insights was being called The Grand MasterbyeminentA mericanstrategic thin kers. Former USPresident George H W Bush once said: “In my long life in public service, I have encountered many bright , able people. None is more impressive than Lee Kuan Yew.” Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has also said: “There is no second Lee Kuan Yew in the world. Normally one would say that the leader of a country of the size and population of Singapore would not have a global influence ... But precisely because Singapore can survive only by competition with much more powerful neighbours, and preciselybecauseitswell-being depends on stability and progress in the area, his views were always in a much larger context than the technical problems of the Singaporean economy and so he al wayshada tremendous tremendousinfluence influence on us.” us.” Mr Lee himself said at the age of 89 in One Man’s View Of The World: “I continue to make appointments to meet people. You must meet people, because you must have human contact if you want to broaden your perspective. Besides people in Singapore, I meet those from Malaysia, Indonesia, and, from time to time, China, Europe and the United States. I try not to meet only old friends or political leaders, but people from a variety of fields, such as academics, businessmen, journalists and ordinary people.” people.” Asked how he wished wished to be rememremem bered, he said: “I do not not want to be remembered as a statesman ... I do not classify myself as a statesman. I put myself down as determined, consistent, persistent. I set out to do something, I keep on chasing it until it succeeds. That is all ... Anybody who thinks he is a statesman ought to see a psychiatrist.” psychiatrist.” His was a role and reputation built not on any single statement or thought. Mr Lee was valued on the world stage because of of his decades decades of engagement engagement across the region and the world at the highest level, and his ability and effort to analyse and present what he saw in the clearest, unvarnished way. He spoke and acted in a way that was unique to him, valued by so many a nd of continuing relevance to world affairs. In doing this, Mr Lee lived up to the imperative he set for Singapore’s survival: Make Singapore relevant to others, so it is in their interest to have Singapore around. His departure leaves the international stage empty in a way that no one in Singapore or indeed across Asia can readily fill. SIMON TAY AND DENYSE YEO

Simon Tay is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA) and associate professor at the National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law. Denyse Yeo was an editor at the SIIA.


The special relationship with China Food Zone. These projects provide avenues for existing and aspiring leaders from both sides and at different levels to meet each other regularly to strengthen personal ties. Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said: “Mr Lee’s good relations with Ch ina’s leaders enabled Singapore and the leaders who came after Mr L ee to ride on those good relationships.”

Mr Lee playe played d a vital vital part in Beijing’s transformations and in buildi building ng bilateral bilateral ties ties

T

he relationship between China, one of the largest countries in the world, and Singapore, a little red dot in South-east Asia, has been widely regarded as special special or unique. Mr Lee Kuan Yew has been instrumental in building this relationship. Over the past few decades, decades, China has successfully made two simultaneous transformations. Internally, it has lifted itself from being one of the poorest economies to becoming the world’s world’s No 2. Externa lly, it has broken out of isolation to become part of the international system. Why has Singapore under Mr Lee succeeded succeeded in bui lding a special relationship with China? The answer is simple: Mr Lee, a nd Singapore, have been an important part of China’s dual transformations. He once told journalist Tom Plate, in Giants Of A sia: Conversations With Lee Kuan Yew: “The ideas that Deng Xiaoping formed, if he h ad not come here (in the 19 70s) and seen the Western multinationals in Singapore producing wealth for us, training our people so as a result we were able to build a prosperous society, then he might never have opened up ... opening up the coastal SEZs (Special Economic Zones) that eventually led to the whole of China opening up by joining the World Trade Organization ...” THE PRE�DENG ERA

Since the late Deng, Chinese leaders have appreciated Mr Lee’s contribution to China’s modernisation, viewing him as its close friend. Even though this relationship began u nder Deng, the initial effort was laid by Mr Lee in the pre-Deng years. Up to 1970, China did not recognise Singapore’s Singapore’s existence as an independent state and Mr Lee was often derided as a “runnin g dog of United States and British imperialism”. When the US began to normalise ties with China under then President Richard Nixon, Mr Lee saw a chance to improve Singapore’s relations with China. He visited China in 1976, meeting Mao Zedong and his successor, Hua Guofeng. Although Mao and Hua did not impress Mr Lee very much, ties between the countries slowly improved. Mr Lee’s first visit to Beijing helped cement Singapore’s commercial ties wit h Ch ina . At the same time , Ch inese perception of Singapore began to change. However, real change in the Singapore-China relationship took place only after Deng returned to power in the late 1970s.

LEE AS CHIN A’S INTERLOCUTOR TO THE WORLD

LEE AND DENG

Deng was the Chinese leader whom Mr Lee most respected. Although Deng did not make any published comments on Mr Lee, he spoke about Singapore during his landmark Southern Tour to Chinese cities in 1992: “There is good social order in Singapore. They govern the place with discipline. We should draw from their experience and do even better than them.” His comments soon unleashed a wave of Chinese study visits to Singapore. Yet, the Repub lic h ad in flue nced Deng earlier on, starting from his reform or “open door” initiatives in December 1978 to allow foreign businesses to set up in China. He had visited Singapore only a month earlier and showed great interest in its social a nd economic development experience. Mr Lee believed that what Deng saw in Singapore had shocked him and strengthened his resolve to open up his country to the world. Deng ’s 199 2 co mment was a reaffirmation of the Singapore model that he had seen 14 years earlier. Why did Deng trust Mr Lee and the Singapore model? First, both leaders had a strong mission to build up their respective countries. Second, both considered their countries’ long-term national interest as a priority. Mr Lee’s engagement with Chin a during the Cold War was in Singapore’s national interest. Similarly, Deng believed that listening to Mr Lee’s analysis of the world was in China’s national interest. Third, the men shared a h igh level of mutual respect and trust, partly due to their similar pursuit of national interest and pragmatism in solving problems they encountered.

In celebration of the 20th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Singapore and China, Mr Lee and then Chinese Vice-President Vice-President Xi Xi Jinping, who was on an official visit to Singapore, unveiled the Deng Xiaoping marker at the Asian Civilisation Civilisationss Museum in November 2010, when Mr Lee was Minister Mentor. The marker is part of the National Heritage Board’s efforts to enrich the public’s understanding of Singapore’s role in regional and world history, as well as honour the achievements of one of China’s outstanding leaders.

Zheng Yongnian is professor and director of East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore.

Mr Lee recounted in his book From Third World To First what he told Deng during his 1978 visit to Singapore: “ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) governments regarded radio broadcasts from China appealing directly to their ethnic Chinese as dangerous subversion ... Deng listened silently. He had never seen it in this light … He knew that I had spoken the truth. Abruptly, he asked: ‘What do you want me t o do?’” Not long after, China stopped broadcasting to South-east Asia. AFTE R DENG

In 1992, the Chinese Communist Party held its 14th National Congress a nd formally incorporated Deng’s theory on a socialist market economy into the party’s charter. Deng had retired from politics and rarely appeared in public. But the solid foundation laid by him and Mr Lee helped drive the bilateral relationship forward. As China continued its steady growth, economic and business ties between the two countries deepened. The main reason is that Singapore has constantly made itself relevant to China’s development development by sharing its experiences and best practices. In 1994, when China initiated a new new wave of industrialisation, the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park was established. In 2007, when China’s environmental problems became a hot issue before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the idea to jointly build an eco-city was broached and later developed developed into the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city. Other key projects include the Sino-Singapore Guangzhou Knowledge City, Singapore-Chengdu High-Tech Park and the Sino-Singapore Jilin

Singapore’s relationship relationship with China is special not only because Mr Lee (and Singapore) have contributed to China’s modernisation, but also because he (and Singapore) have helped the world, particularly the West, and China to understand each other. No leader appears to be as candid as Mr Lee; he often reminded China how to integrate itself into the world. At times, his comments ruffled feathers, particularly among the younger generation of Chinese. But China’s leaders understand that Mr Lee’s comments were in its interest. In the same way, Mr Lee helped the West to understand China. Since Deng, the West has frequently dismissed China’s growth and its sustainability. Mr Lee would tell the America ns and Euro peans that C hina’s growth was indeed real. He often cautioned the US against underestimating China and trying to contain this rising power. Because of his innate understanding of China, Mr Lee’s Lee’s views were sought and closely listened to by other world leaders. Former US Secretary of State George Shultz once said: “He (Mr Lee) didn’t just go see leaders in Beijing. He was able to travel in the countr y and see people in all sorts of occupations and age levels, so he is a very penetrating observer ... I found that very valuable to listen to wh at he had to say, as we trie d to formu late i n the US how we would approach approach China.” Today, China is an important player on the world stage and its leaders can talk directly to other world leaders everywhere. But Chinese leaders continue to appreciate Singapore’s view on on the world. As then Vice-President Xi Jinping told Mr Lee during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games: “We will need you for a long time. I have been to Singapore, I know what you have and our people want to learn. We get more from you than from America.” Singapore is constantly finding ways to stay relevant to China. Both countries now cooperate in new areas such as fina ncial cooperation, cooperation, food safety and social management. For China, it is even more important to get its relationship right with a small, neighbouring country such as Singapore. This will be the best litmus test of its peaceful rise. ZHENG YONGNIAN

32


Long-term vision helped cement US ties Mr Lee was seen as a vital interpreter of events in Asia by successive success ive American American Presidents Presidents

M

r Lee Kuan Yew has been the most instrumental factor in the development of Singapore’s pore’s relations with the United States. In fact, bilateral ties were initially very much centred on the friendship between Mr Lee and successive American leaders who deeply respected his strong conviction, conviction,clear big-picturevisionand extraordinary strategic leadership. leadership. The Vietnam War could be said to have strengthened Mr Lee’s cachet and standing with Washington. Mr Lee saw American participation in the war as buying time for non-Communist states in Southeast Asia, and played a role in stiffening US resolve to resist Communism. Singapore’s independent and non-aligned foreign policy orientation orientation gave him great credence within the American policy establishment, as a neutral party supporting their military campaign in Vietnam. Mr Lee remained a vital interpreter of events in Asia long after the Vietnam War ended. His standing in American policy circles has been explained explained by Foreign Minister K Shanmugam, who notes that Mr Lee recognised some fundamental truths about the US and the world well before other states and leaders. Mr Lee saw that strong US presence was vital to maintain peace and balance in Asia as the Asian economies developed, and supported it long before it was fashionable to say so. Singapore was often in the minority of voices, sometimes even alone, in speaking up for th e US in the developing world and forums such as the Non-Aligned Movement. BELIEF IN AMERICA’S STRENGTH

Later, again under Mr Lee’s leadership, Singapore stepped up to help the US maintain its presence in the region even as the US drew down its assets elsewhere. In November 1990, in one of his last acts as Prime M inister, Mr Lee signed a Memorandum of Understanding with t hen US Vice President Dan Quale in Tokyo, offering enhanced use of facilities in Singapore to American military aircraft and naval vessels as a contribution contribution to sustain ing US forward military position in Southeast Asia. But as he worked with American statesmen at the strategic level and preserved the balance of power in Asia, Mr Lee saw flaws within American society. Although he praised America’s strengths, its enterprising spirit and openness to talent, Mr Lee did not shy away from speaking of America’s weaknesses such as the widespread availability of guns, and as he puts it, the breakdown of civil society and erosion of the moral underpinnings of American society. society.

As American leaders valued Mr Lee’s views on geopolitics and the world order, and admired his accomplishments, they did not take to heart his criticism. In some cases, American opinion makers also agreed with Mr Lee’s analyses of the problems trou bling their country.They knew that Mr Lee believed in the American can-do way and that the US is the only country with the strength and determination determination to deal with the challenges faced by the global commun ity. Even as the US was affected by the recent financial crisis and some saying it was in decline, Mr Lee repeatedly reminded others not tounderestimateA mericancreativity, resilience and innovative spirit . He was confident confident the US w ill find its feet again. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger writes: “Lee has made himself an indispensable friend of the United States, not primarily by the power he represents, but by the excellence of his thinking. His analysis is of such quality and depth that his counterparts consider meeting with him as a way to educate themselves ... Every American president president who has dealt with him has benefitted from the fact that, on international issues, he has identified the future of his country with the fate of democracies. Furthermore, Lee can tell us about the nature of the world that we face, especially penetrating insights into the thinking of his region. Lee’s analyses shed light on the most important challenge that the United States confronts over the long term:

US Vice-President Joe Biden (left) during his meeting with Mr Lee at the Istana in July 2013. PHOTO: REUTERS

How to build a fundamental and organic relationship with Asia, including China. There is nobody who can teach us more about the nature and the scope of this effort than Lee Kuan Yew … Lee is not only one of the seminal leaders of our period, but also a thinker recognised for his singular strategic acumen.” acumen.” Mr Lee’s long-term vision and strategic intellect singlehandedly contributed to the cementing of the close ties that Singapore now enjoys with the US. Singapore and US officials often articulate that Mr Lee h as established the institutions and processes for both countries to pursue strategic interests that would normally be impossible between a small island state and the global superpower. American policymakers would always recall how Mr Lee developed the basis of bilateral defence cooperation, especially access arrangements for American forces in Singapore. They also believed that it was Mr Lee’spersuasiveinfluence that laid the ground for the US to enter into negotiations with the Singapore Government on a bilateral free tradeagree ment. Through Mr Lee’s readiness to meet a large number of officials from the American policy establishment, substantial linkages have been built up that are now permanent and regular exchanges between the Singapore and US authorities. Differences in policy and governance have surfaced from time to time. There will always be different priorities and emphasis in policy imple-

mentation, but bilateral ties are now locked into a pragmatic partnership going beyond individual personalities. The solid foundation established by Mr Lee has allowed both countries to focus on the strategic issues and the big picture to substantiate the unique relationship. Ultimately, the ability of Singapore to articulate regional concerns and views, particularly on geopolitical and strategic issues, and to foster consensus in various international forums on common challenges facing the world will ensure a continuous dialogue and cooperation between the two countries. Singapore leaders will continue to have access to the top policy-makers in Washington. Yet, they would need to establish their own level of influence and strategic value to the US. Countries in Asia have new leaders who can engage the US directly and in their own ways. This is different different from the situasituation when Mr Lee was in government. The quality of Singapore’s strategic assessment of developments in Asia and beyond will determine the level of confidence, trust and value which American policy-makers policy-makers will accord to Singapore. ONG KENG YONG

Ong Keng Yong is Executive Deputy Chairman of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University. This piece was written in his personal capacity.


Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who was then Prime Minister, hosting a reception for late Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman at Sri Temasek, the official residence of the Prime Minister of Singapore, in 1969. PHOTO: MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS COLLECTION, COURTESY OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE

A cl close ose bu but difficul difficultt rela relati tio ons nshi hip p milita ry, economy and water — to force force Singapore to follow Ma laysia’s lead. “We countered the military leverage by building up the SAF (Singapore Armed Forces). We overcame their he Republic’s often often tumultuous economic hold by leapfrogging them relationship relationshipwith itsneighbour and the region to link up with the indusacross the Causeway during trial countries,” Mr Lee said in 2000. Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s tenure as Prime But Singapore had no choice but Minister was often attributed to his to continue to rely on Malaysia for personal relationship with Malay- water, which was to remain a major sia’s leaders. sticking point in bilateral relations for But in Mr L ee’s view, view, the root cause four decades. of the problems that arose when SingaRelations across the Causeway bepore separated from Malaysia in 1965 came “relatively trouble-free” for a few lay in “our diametrically different ap- years after Mr Abdul Ra zak Hussein proaches to the problems facing our became Malaysia’s Prime Minister in two multiracial societies”. September 1970. “A multiracial society of equal citiTo mark improving bilateral relazens was unacceptable to the UM- tions since Singapore’s independence, NO leaders of Malaysia in 1965 and Mr Lee made his first official visit to remained unacceptable in 1999,” Malaysia in March 1972. Mr Razak he said in his 2000 memoirs From Third returned the visit in 1973. During the World World to First, referring to the United Razak years, relations between the Malays National Organisation, the larg- two countrie s were “equable”, with few est party in Malaysia’s Malaysia’s ruling coalition. serious disagreements, said Mr Lee. Malaysian politicians wanted inMr Lee had a good working reladependent Singapore “to be obliging tionship with Malaysia’s third Prime and accommodating” in an abang-adik Minister, Hussein Onn, whom he de(big brother-little brother) relation- scribed as “open and direct” in their ship — “with little brother givi ng way dealings, “coming straight to the point, graciously” to Malaysian interests, unlike Razak”. Mr Lee said. Despite the amicable relations bePrime Minister Tunku Abdul Rah- tween Mr Lee and Mr Hussein, bilateral man tried to use three levers — the ties remained impeded by UMNO lead-

Ties between Malaysia and Singapore Singap ore have have been been marked by their share of ups and downs

T

A multiracial society of equal citizens was unacceptable to the UMNO leaders of Malaysia in 1965 and remained unacceptable in 1999. Mr Lee, in his memoirs

ers who were suspicious of Singapore. As Singapore grew, the Malaysian attitude towards economic cooperation was one of, in Mr Lee’s words, “envy and disdain”. Malaysia subsequently took a series of measures to reduce the import and export of goods through Singapore. For example, from 1973, all goods shipped from one part of Malaysia to another had to be consigned from their own ports, in order to qualify for import tax exemption. Timber exports to Singapore were also banned, badly affecting the island’s plywood factories and sawmills. Johor leaders had also convinced Mr Hussein that Singapore was out to harm the Malaysian state and prevent its economic progress, noted Mr Lee. Malaysia continued to take a series of actions that would slow down the Singapore economy. For example, the Johor state government banned the export of sand and turf, while the federal government ruled that from 1977, all exports from Johor to East Malaysia had to be shipped through the Pasir Gudang port, instead of Singapore. Despite such developments on the economic front, Mr Lee still had a good start with Malaysia’s fourth Prime Minister, reaching out to Dr Mahathir Mohamad while he was still Deputy Prime Minister by inviting him to visit

Singapore in 1978. Expecting Dr Mahath ir to succeed Mr Hussein, Mr Lee had wanted to put their old antagonism behind them. Back in May 1965, during a session of the Malaysian Parliament in Kuala Lumpur, Dr Mahathir had denounced Singapore’s People’s Action Party, led by Mr Lee, as “pro-Chi nese, communist-oriented and positively anti-Malay”. Dr Mahathir subsequently made several visits to Singapore, during which they had “long and frank exchanges of several hours each to clear the air surrounding our suspicions of each other”, Mr Lee said. Mr Lee told Dr Mahathir about Singapore’s fears that Malaysia would cut off the water supply to the Republic — something that Malaysia publicly threatened to do whenever their bilateral differences cropped up — though the guarantee of water supply supply was part of the 1965 Separation Agreement. Dr Mahathir said he accepted an independent Singapore and would not undermine it. “I believed I had satisfied him that I was not interested in out-manoeu vring him, th at I wanted a businesslike relationship,” Mr Lee said. Despite the differences between the two that would emerge in later CONTINUED ON PAGE 34

34


sia. These included the relocation of CONTINUED FROM PAGE �� years, Mr Lee said said he had made more Singapore’s Singapore’s customs and imm igration progress solving bilateral issues with facilities from Tanjong Pagar to WoodDr Mahathir from 1981 to 1990 than in lands, to stop drug traffickers from the previous 12 years with the latter’s tossing drugs out of train windows. two predecessors. Afte r several months of negotiDr Mahathi r’s visit to Singapore in ations, a Points of Agreement was December 1981 — a few months after signed on Nov 27, 1990 — the day behe took office — saw the two countries fore Mr Lee stepped down. resolve many of their bilateral issues. The two countries agreed on joint Dr Mahathir ordered the lifting of development of three main parcels the ban on the export of construction of land at Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and materials to Singapore. Woodlands, with Malaysia having a Malaysia agreed to return its un- 60 per cent share and Singapore 40 per occupied military camp in Singapore, cent. Three years later, however, Maand for the Republic to acquire a por- laysia said the agreement was unfair as tion of Malayan Railway land at Tan- it did not include a piece of railway land jong Pagar station for for an expressway at Bukit Timah for joint development. extension. Both parties also agreed And despite Dr Mahathir confirmto sort out Malaysia’s claim to Pedra ing that Malaysia would move its CusBranca island. toms, Immigration and Quarantine In 1982, Mr Lee visited Dr Ma- (CIQ) post to Woodlands in April 1992, hathir in Kua la Lumpur, where the two Malaysia decided decided in June 1997 to retain leaders moved from solving bilateral its CIQ at Tanjong Pagar. problems to negotiating new areas of Even after stepping down as Prime cooperation under the Five-Power De- Minister, Mr Lee’s views continued fence Agreement, to counterbalance to draw strong reactions from across the Soviet Union’s bases in Vietnam. the Causeway. In September 1998, During the visit, Malaysia also af- for example, excerpts from Mr Lee’s firmed it would honour the 1962 Wa- memoirs of the events leading to sepater Agreement, to provide 250 million ration from Malaysia in his memoirs gallons of water per day to Singapore. — carried by Sing apore’s newspapers newspapers But it was not long b efore relations before the book’s launch — a ngered soured. In January 1984, an RM100 Malaysian leaders. levy was imposed on all goods vehiDespite such diplomatic hiccups, cles leaving Malaysia for Singapore, Mr Lee continued to follow up on un while October that year saw Malaysia resolved bilateral issues. However, reduce its import duty on a variet y of it was only in 2010 that Singapore’s foodstuff, mostly from China, provided Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and that they were imported directly from his Malaysian counterpart, Mr Najib the country of origin into Malaysia. Razak, finally managed to settle outWhen Malaysia was told that the standing issues relating to the 1990 move violated rules of the General Points of Agreement (POA), including Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the moving the Malaysian Railway station precursor of the World Trade Organi- from Tanjong Pagar to the Woodlands zation), the policy was amended to ex- Checkpoint in July 2011. empt duty on goods imported via sea Summing up Singapore’s ties with and airport, but not via a land route Malaysia, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said in such as the Causeway. his 2000 memoirs: “At the end of the Relations were also strained when day, however however deep-seated differences Israeli President Chaim Herzog made between the two,both sides sides know that a state visit to Singapore in Novem- if they lash out at each other without ber 1986. restraint, there is a risk of unscramBefore stepping down as Prime bling the interracia l harmony that Minister in 1990, Mr Lee tried to re- holds each country’s multiracial sosolve outstanding issues with Malay- ciety to gether.” gether.”

Mr Lee and former Indonesian President Suharto in Jakarta in 2006. Mr Lee, then Minister Mentor, was on a five-day visit to Indonesia. PHOTO: REUTERS

Building rapport with with Indo Indonesia nesia Mr Lee had a good relatio relationship nship with Suharto, but also sought to better understand Jakarta in the post-strongman era

tinued development.” In a display of personal diplomacy, Mr Lee made a trip to see Suharto shortly before the Indonesian leader died in 2008. In contrast, Mr Lee’s views of Suharr Lee and Suharto had a to’s successors successors were mixed. His initial good personal relationship reaction to the prospect that Mr B J throughout their political ca- Habibie, who served as Vice-President reers, despite low points in bilateral ties. to Suharto, would take over from the One was the execution of two Indo- latter was less than positive. But later, nesian marines in Singapore for the even after Mr Habibie remarked that 1965 bombing of MacDonald House in Singapore was a “little red dot in a sea Orchard Road, despite a direct appeal of green”, green”, Mr Lee reassessed him to be by Suharto. “highly intelligent, but mercurial and However, Mr Lee’s gesture to lay voluble”, voluble”, as he wrote in From Third flowers on the marines’ graves in 1973 World To First. helped soothe the tension and showed Mr Lee also credited Mr Habibie Singapore’s commitment to improving for Indonesia’s decentrali sation efforts relations with Indonesia. Indonesia. that empowered the districts and muThe “empat mata” meetings be- nicipalities, which helped prevent sepatween Suharto and Mr Lee during As- ratist tendencies from mushrooming. sociation of South-east A sian Nations Later, in Tom Plate’s 2010 Converand other meetings further helped sations With Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Lee build rapport rapport and confidence. confidence. would say of Indonesia: “Successor Mr Lee wrote in his book From Habibie made a mess of it. Then Gus Third World To First: “Our fr iendship Dur made a bigger mess. Megawati overcame the many prejudices between calmed it down. SBY (Susilo Bambang Singaporeans of Chinese descent and Yudhoyono) Yudhoyono) has improved it slightly, slightly, Indonesians. Throughout the 1970s and but there’s there’s a long long way to go.” ’80s, we met almost every year to keep Beyond personalities, Mr Lee also in touch, exchange views and discuss made a number of visits to the country matters that cropped up.” to meet a broad range of political actors During the 1997-98 financial crisis in order to better understand post-Suand as the International Monetary harto Indonesia. This habit of reaching Fund (IMF) put pressure on Indone- out to senior Indonesian leaders continsia to undertake structural reforms, ues today — Prime M inister Lee Hsien Mr Lee was against sudden regime Loong held retreats with his Indonesian change in Indonesia. He believed discounterpart in 2010, 2012 and 2013. continuity would worsen its already PUSHPANATHAN SUNDRAM AND SIMON TAY precarious situation. Despite Suhar to’s fall from powerin 1998 and against popular opinion in Indonesia, Mr Lee saw him as a “patriot”. Pushpanathan Sundram is former Writing in From Third World To deputy secretary-general of ASEAN for First, he viewed the change with con- ASEAN Economic Community, managing cern and some sorrow: “It was an imdirector at EAS Strategic Advice, Asia and mense personal tragedy for a leader senior research fellow at the Singapore who had tur ned an i mpoverished In- Institute of International Affairs (SIIA). donesia of 1965 into an emerging tiger Simon Tay is chairman of SIIA and economy, educated his people and built author of Asia Alone: The Dangerous the infrastructure for Indonesia’s con- Post-Crisis Divide from America.

M

Mr Lee being welcomed to his Putrajaya office by then Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 2001. Mr Lee, then Senior Minister, was making his second visit to to Malaysia Malaysia in 12 months to resolve a string of long-running disputes between Singapore and Malaysia. PHOTO: REUTERS


Mr Lee speaking at the opening of the Fifth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting at Shangri-La Hotel in 1972, when he was Prime Minister.

PHOTO: MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS COLLECTION, COURTESY OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE

Preserving S’pore’s security via ASEAN The regional grouping helped buttress solidarity while maintaining maintai ning a balance of power power

F

our decades ago, Indonesia, together with Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Singapore, established the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, at a time when the region was in turbulence. It was August 1967: the Cold War was at its peak, dividing the region into communist and non-communist blocs, with a fault-line running right through the heart of South-east Asia. The United States’ war campaign in Vietnam was also intensifying. Compounding the situation were the disputes between South-east Asian countries. Singapore had been forced out of Malaysia two years earlier. Indonesia had recently wound up “konfrontasi” with Malaysia and Singapore. Malaysia and the Philippines were also locked locked in a dispute over Sa bah, while Brunei had put put down, with the help of British forces, an internal rebellion aided by Indonesia. For Mr Lee Kuan Yew, these factors reinforced the fact that Singapore was situated in “a tu rbulent, volatile, unsettled reg ion”. ion”. THE NEED FOR ASEAN

ASEA N’S formation was therefore based on an overarching rationale to counter communism and act as a unifying force duri ng the Cold War. It was hoped that member states would also build their own resilience by ma naging their differences and preventing proxy wars in the region.

In From Third World To First, Mr Lee wrote: “The unspoken objective objective of ASEAN was to gain strength through solidarity ahead of the power vacuum thatwouldcomewithanimpendingBritish and later a possible US withdrawal.” It was clear that the leaders — Mr Lee, former Indonesian President Suharto and former Malaysian Prime Ministers Hussein Onn and, later, Mahathir Mohamad — shared an innate understanding of the situation and different ferent sensitivities of the region during ASEAN’s formative formative years. Mr Lee’s views of the g rouping were shaped by Konfrontasi with Indonesia and the Vietnam War. To him, ASEAN was a vehicle vehicle that would not only buttress regional solidarity, but also maintain a delicate power balance between Indonesia, Indonesia, the largest power in Southeast Asia, and its neighbours. Mr Lee ensured that the voices of smaller states were not lost. In a 1999 Asiaweek interview, he said: “We don’t don’t pick quarrels. As ASEAN’s smallest member, member, we have to stand our ground, or our rights will be rolled over.” When Vietnam invaded and occupied Cambodia in 1978, for example, Mr Lee was the first to write to then Thai Prime Minister Kriangsak Chamanan and Chair of ASEAN to urge the organisation to stand united and steadfast in supporting the Cambodian coalition and pressure Vietnam to withdraw its troops. He later wrot e: “We had spent much time and resources to thwart the Vietnamese in Cam bodia because it was in our interest that aggression be seen not to pay.” Mr Lee saw ASEAN as a means to preserve the security of a small state like Singapore, especially with its pre-

Pushpanathan Sundram is former deputy secretarygeneral of ASEAN for ASEAN Economic Community, managing director at EAS Strategic Advice, Asia and senior research fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA). Simon Tay is chairman of SIIA and author of Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America.

dominantlyethnicChinese population, population, members and encouraged their opening in a sea of Malays. He helped cement and entry into the regional group and the fact that Singapore is a South-east international community. For example, Asian country by recognising China in ASEAN and Singapore had worked worked 1990 only after Indonesia had done so. hard on the Cambodian question early By using his friendship with Suharto on, with Mr Lee personally travelling and being sensitive to Indonesia’s feelthe world to highlight the issue. ings on thorny issues, such as China, Mr Yet, Yet, Mr Lee also rapidly rapidly adjusted to Lee was able to carve out a reasonable the realities and possibilities of the postspace forSingapore in ASEA N. Mr Lee Cold War world. In a 1999 Asiaweek wrote in From Third World To First: interview, he said: “There’s no great “Under Suharto, Indonesia did not act ideological ideological divide between the ASEAN like a hegemon. This made it possible countries. The communist system is for the others to accept Indonesia as gone. We are just varying degrees of first among equals.” democracy or of authoritarianism. Every country wants economic and social progress. After the severe financial and FUTURE OF ASEAN economic setbacks, nobody’s got time Later, with the collapse of communism, for ideological or expansionist issues.” the reality of a multi-polar world and Vietnam, in particular,came into foChina’s growing heft in the region, cus for him. Mr Lee first visited it in the ASEAN continued continued to maintain a stra- early ’90s and had been appointed an tegic balance of power in the region. adviser to its government. He then made The grouping engaged the world’s visits to the Singapore-Vietnam Singapore-Vietnam indusmajor powers through multilateral trial parks that were opened as part of mechanisms such as the ASEAN Re- inter-governmental inter-governmental cooperation. cooperation. gional Forum, the East Asia Summit and Vietnam’s successful integration the ASEAN Plus Three Meeting, which into ASEAN’s fold is proof that ecoincludes China, Japan and South Korea. nomic integration is indeed the path At the same time, ASEAN needed forward. Already, the organisation has a new force for unity: Economics. This announced that it has achieved 80 per economic imperative started in 1992, af- cent of its goals in the ASEAN Ecoter Mr Lee had stepped down, with the nomic Community Blueprint to be an launch of the ASEAN Free Trade Area integrated market by 2015. and its goal of economic integration. As Mr Lee put it in 2011’s Ha rd ASEAN enlarged from 1997 on- Truths to Keep Singapore Going: “The wards to include include new members. By the logic of joining markets is irrefutable 2003 ASEAN Summ it, member states and it wil l happen.” would call for closer economic integraWhen, and not if, economic integration and the creation of an ASEAN tion occurs, it would certainly validate Community by 2020, a goal which has Mr Lee’s confidence in ASEAN’s ability now been advanced to 2015. to serve as a v iable force for for unity and As oneof the founders foundersof ASEAN,Mr prosperity. PUSHPANATHAN SUNDRAM Lee had from the start engaged with new AND SIMON TAY

36


The love of his life ‘Without her, I would be a different man, with a different life.’

S

he was his closest friend, his “tower of strength”, for more than three-quarters of his life — the woman who got his attention when she bested h im in school, who ran their household and their law firm, and without whom he would have been hard-pressed to enter politics. Madam Kwa Geok Choo and Mr Lee Kuan Yew wereoften seen as insepara ble. But the Singapore public found out just how much much she meant to him only when he published his memoirs memoirs in 1999 — telling all for the first time about the great love of his life and revealing an unexpected side to his unsentimental, hard-nosed public face. At Raffles College, she had beaten him to be the top student in English and economics at the end of the first term, giving Mr Lee stiff competition for for the coveted Queen’s Scholarship. When the Japanese Occupation interrupted their studies, they reconnected under different circumstances: Mr Lee and her brother-in-law ran a business making stationery stationery glue. glue. Withtheir friendshipblossoming blossomingby September September 1944, Mr Lee knew Mrs Lee well enough to invite her to his 21st birthday dinner, dinner, “an event not without significance” in those days. With the end of the war, Mr Lee decided to read law in England on his family’s savings. Mrs Lee, who was twoand-a-half years older than Mr Lee, said she would wait for his return. In the months before he left in September 1946, the couple spent a lot of time together and took photographs. Mr Lee wrote in h is memoirs: “We “We were young and in love, anxious to record this moment of our lives ... We both hoped she would would go back to Raffles College, win the Queen’s Queen’s Scholarship to read law and join me wherever I might be. “She was totally committed. I sensed it. I was equally determined to keep my commitment to her.” Indeed, Mrs Lee was awarded the Queen’s Scholarship the next year. However, the Colonial Office could not find her a university place for that academic year and said she would have to wait till 1948. Mr Lee, who was studying at Cam bridge’s Fitzwi lliam College, managed to eventually arrange a meeting with the mistress of Girton College and persuaded her to take in Mrs Lee. She arrived in Britain in October. And two months later, during the Christmas vacation, they decided to get married at Stratford-upon-Avon. But they kept their marriage a secret as they felt her parents, her college and the scholarship authorities might not approve.

SHE WAS HIS ‘INSURANCE POLICY’ Back in Singapore in August 1950, the young couple got married on Sept 30 for a second time. They started their careers doing their pupillage at Laycock & Ong and, in 1955 w ith Mr Lee’s brother Dennis, they set up the law firm Lee & Lee. When the People’s Action Party was formed, Mrs Lee helped draft its constitution. In the 1959 general election, she even gave a speech on radio urging women to vote for for the party. party. One of Singapore’s best conveyancing lawyers, she also in 1965 helped Law Minister Eddie Barker draft the clauses in the Separation Agreement to guarantee the water agreements with the state of Johor. Johor. And for most of Mr Lee’s political career, she was his unofficial speech proofreader — indeed, since his first speech to the Malayan Forum in 1950. But for the most par t, she devoted herself to the role behind the scenes of being her husband’s staunchest supporter, running both the household, especially after the birth of their first son Hsien Loong in 1952, and the law firm as Mr Lee immersed himself in politics. Not only did her income enable him to continue in office over the years, she also put his mind at ease, Mr Lee said once, for “in case anything untoward should happen to me, she would be able to bring up my three children well”. well”. While she was often seen by Mr Lee’s side over the years at official functions and on official trips, Mr Lee said he “made a point not to discuss the formulation of policies with her, and she was scrupulous in not not reading notes or faxes that were sensitive”. But he did pay attention to her uncanny gut feel for people’s characters. “She would tell me whether she would trust that man or not. And often she is right,” he said. When he penned his memoirs, she would stay up with him until 4am going over the drafts, correcting, critiquing and getting him to write “clear and crisp”.

Mr and Mrs Lee at the Tunku Abdul Rahman Hall after the installation ceremony of Malaysia’s King, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, in Kuala Lumpur in 1961, when Mr Lee was Prime Minister. PHOTO: YUSOF ISHAK COLLECTION, COURTESY OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE

FACED CRISES TOGETHER In terms of their relationship as a couple, they did not dodge difficult personal problems, but faced them and sorted them out early on, Mr Lee said. “We gradually influenced each other’s ways and habits, we adjusted adjusted and accommodated each ot her. We We knew that we could not stay starry-eyed lovers all our lives, that life was an ever-ongoing challenge with new problems to resolve and manage.” When their youn ger son Hsien Yang Yang married in 1981, Mr Lee wrote the newlyweds a letter with advice on marriage: “We have never allowed the other to feel abandoned and alone in any mo-

I have been proofreading and sometimes correcting his speeches from his earliest 1950 speech to the Malayan Forum in London. Mrs Lee in a press interview

ment of crisis. Quite the contrary, we have faced all major crises in our lives together, together, sharing our fears and hopes, and our subsequent grief and exultation. These moments of crisis have bonded us closer closer together.” together.” Mr Lee’s brother, Mr Lee Sua n Yew, Yew, described the couple as being inseparable — they had to be seated together at family dinners. While her husband did not prefer the arts, M rs Lee loved classical music. “And he, being very much in love with his wife, would comply and follow her to the Esplanade and listen to some concerts,” Mr Lee’s brother said. Others, such as former minister George Yeo, who had the opportunity to observe the couple on overseas

trips, spoke of their very special close relationship. relationship.EducationM inisterHeng Swee Keat recalled their bantering over Mr Lee’s sweet tooth and how Mrs Lee would “with good humour keep score score of the week’s ‘ration’”. While she sat quietly and unobtrusively, anyone who saw them would know “how much strength her presence gave her husband” at official events.

HER STROKE AND HIS TOUGHEST MOMENTS In October 2003, Mrs Lee suffered a stroke while she and Mr Lee were in London. She was flown back to Singapore for an operation. As Mr Lee had already planned to have a prostate


The proud father ‘I’ve got three children I’m very proud proud of. of.’

A

way from the public eye, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was an “Eastern” father who, while not ostentatious about showing love and affection, made it evident to his fami ly. His familywas his greatest personal achievement, he once said: “... I’ve got a good, happy family. I’ve got a happy marriage. I’ve got three children I’m very proud of. I can’t can’t ask for more.” more.” Elder son Hsien Loong was born in 1952, daughter Wei Ling in 1955 and son Hsien Yang two years later. Mr Lee and his wife took pains to ensure they grew up living normal lives after he became Prime Minister in 1959 when they were aged seven, five and two, respectively. For one thing, they decided not to live at Sri Temasek, the Prime Minister’s official residence residence at the Istana, “because that would be a very bad thing for them. You’d get an inflated idea of who you you are, what you you are, with all the servants around a nd the gardeners”. But watching his children grow up also “constantly reminded” Mr Lee of “the need to build a safe and wholesome environment for our chi ldren to live in”. Mrs Lee did most of the nurturing and would return from work to their Oxley Road home daily to have lunch with the kids. She would use the cane when they were very naug naughty, hty, but for for Mr Lee, “a stern rebuke was effective enough”, he said. “Having a violent father turned me against using physical force.” Mr Lee made a point of spending time with his children. children. At least once once a year, sometimes twice, he would take the family to Cameron Highla nds or Fraser’s Hill for two weeks. His brother Mr Lee Suan Yew said: “He’s not a physical person; he’s not a man who’ll hug you and so on, but his love for the children was also tremendous.” His kind of love was

“very Eastern, not Western in style”. Mr Lee was also a practical father. At a time when he himself, being raised English-speak ing, was picking upMandarin to win political support among the Chinese-speaking masses, his three children spent the first 12 years of their education educationat Chinese-mediumschools. He said: “I spoke to my kids in Mandarin until they got to secondary school … Geok Choo, my wi fe, spoke spoke to the kids in English. From the age of six, they had Malay tuition at home.” His elder son was even made to joi n the Scouts, where he could interact with Malay children. “Education in three languages was very important with the merger with Malaysia a reality. It was a chance for the children to expand their social circle,” Mr Lee explained. The education of his children was a very important responsibility responsibility to him as a father and he was satisfied when all three earned scholarships. “Loong” followed in his political footsteps and later became Prime Minister of Singapore; Singapore; Mr Lee Hsien Yang took the business track, helming Singapore Telecommunications and other firms, for example; while Ms Lee Wei Wei Ling went the medical route and became director of the National Neuroscience Institute.

HIS SON’S CANCER

An old photograph photograph of his family presented to Mr Lee as a token of appreciation at the launch of the Chinese edition of Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going in 2011. TODAY FILE PHOTO

One of Mr Lee’s most anxious moments was when Mr Lee Hsien Loong, then Deputy Prime Minister, was diagnosed with lymphoma in October 1992. The elder Mr Lee, who was in Johannesburg Johannesburg with his wife, got a call from his son. “I immediately rang back, fearing bad news. It was devastating. A biopsy of a polyp found in his colon had been dia gnosed as cancer, a lymphoma.” Former minister George Yeo said Mr Lee was distressed and had to t ake Valiumas he could not sleep.“But when he met the South A fricans, you could

operation, they were admitted to at the end of each day: She would Singapore General Hospital in adja- stay awake waiting for him to return cent rooms, with a sliding door be- from work and he would spend an hour tween them so they could keep each or more by her bedside, talking to her other company. and reading her the news and her faMrs Lee recovered, but as the stroke vourite poems and books. left her with a tendency to neglect the His brother recalled how at famleft side of her body, Mr Lee would ily dinners, “at 10pm … he’ll say, ‘I’m sit on her left at the dining table and sorry I have to leave you now’ and go prompt her to eat the food on the left back home and and read her favourite favourite stoside of her plate. He also took care of rybook s”. Even when abroad, he would her medication — a reversal of roles, for speak to her via webcam. it was Mrs Lee who used to ensure he To fill the “empty blank spaces” kept his cholesterol level under control. now that she was unable to accompany They continued to travel together him for meals and walks, Mr Lee kept and Mr Lee would always choose hotels himself occupied honing his Manda with swimming pools so she could get get rin. To cope at night with hearing the her exercise, which he helped her with. sounds of his wife’s discomfort in the But in 2008, she suffered two strokes next room, he took up meditation. The which left left her unable to get out of bed, constant stress of her illness, he said, move or speak. was harder on h im than the stresses As herconditio condition n deteriorat deteriorated, ed,shere- of the political arena. sponded almost exclusively to Mr Lee’s “I can’t break down. Life has got voice.His most difficult momentscame to go on. I try to busy myself, but

not tell … he kept up the pretence until the matter came out after he left South Africa.Watching Watchinghim ...and the anguish that he must have had as a father — it reminds me of this Chi nese expression expression of the knife’s edge on your heart and maintaining appearancesnonetheless.” nonetheless.” In the end, intensive chemotherapy cleared up the cancer cells. The specialists said that if the cancer did not recur in five years, he would be considered cured. “We waited anxiou sly for the five years to elapse.October 1997 came and passed without mishap,” said Mr Lee.

In the last few years of his life, it was his daughter who gave Singaporeans rare glimpses of the man her father was, in her newspaper columns for The Sunday Times. She described, for instance, his devoted care of her mother when she was i ll and how, a fter her death, his health and spirits deteriorated.

In October 2011, she wrote of how she now travelled overseas with Mr Lee. “Like my mother did when she was alive, I accompany him so that I can keep an eye on him and also keep him company. After my mother mother becametoo ill to travel, travel, he missed having a family member with whom he could speak frankly after a long, tiring day of meetings.” Though more frail than he used to be, he insisted on travelling and doing what had to be done to benefit SingaSingapore. “For my part, I keep him company when he is not preoccupied preoccupied with work work and I make sure he h as enough rest,” said the single Dr Lee, who lived in the family home with her father. She has also written about what it was like growing up as the daughter of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. “My every move, every word, is scrutinised ... One friend said I lived in a glass house. After my father’s recent comment on my lack of culinary skills, another observed, ‘You ‘You live in a house without any walls.’ Fortunately, I am not easily embarrasse d.”

from time to time in idle moments, my mind goes back to the happy days when we were up and about together,” Mr Lee said. Mr Lee’s pain at his wife’s death in October 2010 was evident in the words of his eulogy: “Without her, I would be a different man, with a different life.

She devoted herself to me and our children. She was always there when I needed her. “She has lived a life full of warmth and meaning. I should find solace in her 89 years of life well lived. But at this moment of the final parting, my heart is heavy with sorrow and gr ief.” ief.”

They have never made a show o being a loving loving coup couple le in public. public. Even in private, they have rarely demonstrated their love or each other with hugs or kisses. It was only afer my mother’s second stroke that I saw my ather kiss my mother on her orehead to comort her. They don’t seem to eel the need or a dramatic physical show o love.

At the end o the day, what I cherish most are the human relations relationships. hips. With the unailing support o my wie and partner, I have lived lie to the ullest. It is the riendships I made and the close amily ties I nurtured that have provided me with that sense o satisactio satisaction n at a lie well lived, and have made me what I am.

Dr Lee Wei Ling

Mr Lee at his 80th birthday celebrations

HIS DAUGHTER’S COMPANIONSHIP

38


‘He is a father ... a father of the nation’ In this this 2012 intervi interview, ew, PM PM Lee Hsien Hsien Loong Loong shares shares his thoughts on his father.

P

rime Minister, how would you describe Mr Lee Kuan Yew as a father to you? What do you remember most about him as a child growing up? Prime Minister Lee: He was a very strict, good father. He left a lot of the looking aft er (of the) the) family to my mother, because he was always busy with politics and with his responsibilities. But you knew he was there, you knew what he thought, you knew what he expected; very strict and if he disapproved of something, and he didn’t have to say a lot, you would know it. When you needed him, he was there. At a crisis, he was the key person in the family. When I was ill with lymphoma, when my (first) wife died, we depended on him for support, not just what he says, but just being there and knowing that that things would be ok. In those situations — after that happens, does that change your relationship in anyway? PM: I suppose relationships grow over the years. Each episode, each bit of crisis or joy shared builds on it. I don’t know how you describe it compared with other people; each person has a different family. But for many families, father is one of the most important persons in your life, informing you and influencing you, setting a role model that you try to aspire aspire to. What was your fondest memory? PM: (Laughter) Well, when I was very small, he used to take us to go and look at trains. And we used to go to Holland Road — Tanglin Halt is cal led Tanglin Halt because the train stops there and there used to be a railway station there. We would go there in the evening and watchthe trainscome, come, exchange exchange tokens tokens with the station station master. master. And thenit goes on. It’s a great thrill and outing for us, for me. I must have been 5-6 years old then. And we would do that. When we went on holidays, we went to Cameron Highlands. We went there whenI was a small child.Webreak journey at Kuala Lumpur — we’d stay at the railway station, there was a station hotel in KL in those days ... and you go and look at the trains on the platform. He played golf. So, when I was a boy, he encouraged me to pick up the game. And so for quite a number of years, I would play with him, he would would take me around the course, when we were on holidays or here at Sri Temasek, on the Istana course. And that was a chance to spend time with him and chat with him. So, I mean, he didn’t do frivolous frivolous things, but he had time for the family. You spoke about how he made his presence known, made his views

that things were changing. And George Yeo Yeo made the argument in the Ministry for Trade and Industry then. He took it and he pushed for it. The world has changed and we have to change. So this ability to keep current and to keep young intellectually, mentally, mentally, I think that is very remarkable, it’s not easy.

clear. How would you describe your relationship with him: Was it formal or informal? Were there occasions when you hugged? PM: He is not very demonstrative and our family generally is not very touchyfeely. But (there was) a very deep respect and regard. He took us seriously and we held him in high respect. I think if you compare with parents today and their children, they would describe it as a much more formal relationship. I think today people are much looser in the way you treat your parents, what they say, what they think, how you would argue with them. With us, well, well, we were were a different different generation. generation. We know him to have these high standards of discipline — how did you cope with that, growing up? PM: Well he just expects you to behave in a certain way. School wise, it was not an issue — we were more or less self-propelled; our parents didn’t have to press or chase us. Most years I was not top student in class or in the school but as long as you were doing your best, managi ng, they were okay... If you have an interest, they helped us to pursue it. I didn’t play music. I didn’t really know very much or have any interest in music until one day, must have been 1967, ’66 — I must have been 14 years old, my mother bought a recorder for either my sister or my brother, but they didn’t want it. So, I took it ... and (with a tutor) learnt to read the music and learnt to read the music and learnt to play the instrument. I mean, you just follow the fingers. You can’t be too far sharp or flat. I picked up music from there — he encouraged us. I graduated from there to play in a band, to play a clarinet and tuba. He encouraged us but they didn’tmake us ... jump through hoops. So I think in that way it was a relaxed family, but they expected you, us to behave well, speak properly. Not sloppily, sloppily, use correct language and no bad language. I think those were things they were stricter (about) than many parents today. Did you ever get into trouble, were you disciplined? PM: I suppose from time to time, yes. My mother was responsible for keeping us in line. But if he disapproved disapproved of something, you would know. Have you tried to display some of those traits yourself as a father? PM: I think I’m different from him. My children are growing up in a different generation. generation. With their peers, w ith the Internet, have to bring them up in a different way. It is still early days to say yet, but I think they are manag ing. What would you consider the most valuable piece of advice your father gave while you were growing up? PM: I don’t know about a single thing. But perhaps just watching him, the way

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. PHOTO: MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION �MCI�

Are there other examples that you can cite when he is the most radical despite being the oldest? PM: (Laughs) Some of them are too radical to mention. But we’ve had to change our policies over the years. He has built up the basis, self-reliance, home ownership, education system. And then with the second-generation second-generation leadership, leadership, with the third generation, generation, we had to make a lot of changes to what was already settled. But whether it was alterin g the educationsystem, whether it was introducing new schemes for HDB, whether you are talking about even social morals, censorship, movhe fought, worked, and how he strug- ies, when we had to change, he knew gled with all the issues and challenges, why and he pushed us to go f urther I think that’s a great inspiration. Poli- because the times had changed. You cies you can understand, work out what look at other societies, how they do it. actually needs to be done. But to see We are conservative, but you look at him sweating away with his languages, other countries, they may be conservaparticularly Mandarin, every day lis- tive too. But they are also moving, how tening to the tape, having a teacher, can we not move? then exercising, exercising while lisOne day there was report that some tening to the tape playing, keeping Western tourists had been sunning the phrases, refreshing the phrases, themselves topless on Sentosa, can’t bringing the tutor home, weekends, weekends, remember when, and must have been in the study. study. Learning Mandarin and 10, 15 years ago. We were going to clamp Hokkien, especially during the 60s, is down on them and send them to court a tremendous slog for him. Even until and jail and so on. He sent me a note. old age, he’s still ta king lessons daily, He says, even when you go to Turkey, still keeping the language alive — be- youseethebeaches, beaches,women women aresunning cause he has spent so much effort. He themselves, it’s quite normal, why do we doesn’t want to lose that. I think that is need to be so puritanical about these an amazing personal example. things, just let it be. So, I said no, no, we are not quite that advanced yet. We We have to enforce our rules, but of course, as What do you admire most about times changed expectations expectations will shift. Mr Lee Kuan Yew? PM: Well, that he has given so much to So his attitude was very practical, was the country and so singula rly focused current and he moved with the times, on this obsession, to build up Singapore, often ahead of the times. I think in other to make it safe, to make it better and areas, he had views many Singaporeans to create something for Singaporeans would think very radical. radical. which actually we are not entitled to expect, but which we had done, not What advice did he give you when him alone but with his colleagues, and you became PM? And if you are in a with the population.I think that’s quite quandary, would you consult him? exceptional. People want to achieve PM: Well, we talked about it. But we things, but in ma ny countries, you see really talked about it in Cabinet. It is leaders, they have taken the country not like I maintain a private line and one great step forward, but the next he would give me secret advice. But in step, either something goes wrong or the Cabinet, he would share his views. somebody else has to take the next When I became Prime Mini ster, I can’t step. But in his case, from independremember anything specific he said, but ence struggle, to Malaysia, to early I think it gave him a lot of satisfaction independence, to nation building, to that the system of transition, of renewal managing prosperity, to transitioning was working. working. That not only had he manand having succession, and managing aged to hand over to his successor, but each of those steps while adapting as his successor had worked out in the job, times change. I think that’s very unu- succeeded. And another succession had sual. I watched him in Cabinet — as taken place, to the Third Generation, the oldest member, sometime s he’s the not just me but also my peers, George, most radical. When it came to the ca- Wong Kang Seng, Teo Chee Hean, Lim sino, he was dead against it for years Hng Kiang and company. I think that and years but eventuall y we concluded was one of the amazing things, that


he could stay in Cabinet with his successors, and it was a valuable experience, for the successors, as well as for him. I’ve talked to some other Prime Ministers who have had former Prime Ministers to live with and they tell me they cannot imagine how it can be that your predecessors predecessors are in Cabinet Cabinet and you are still still managing. Well, Well, I said we are different from you and my predecessors were different from your predecessors.

What made it work? PM: He knew how to advise, how to guide, without asserting his will in a hard way, and he knew when to let things go and to take a new direction. I told you how when we changed policies and he would very often go along with them. And not only go along but pushed us to go fur ther. But there were other areas he felt very strongly about and let h is views be known. For example, on g reening Singapore, he had very defin ite (views), his determination that this place should be clean, green and beautiful is maintained till today. He planted at the first tree planting 50 years ago and he had just planted another one recently. recently. A couple couple of yearsago,the Istanastaff put up a proposal, somewhere along the boundary, the fence; they wanted to trim a few trees, to improve visibility and security. I was going to agree and he sent me a note to say, are you sure you need to do this? This placeis green, and we make it a point to make this place green, and we have got birds and wildlife. You You want to keep keep it like that. So in the end, I didn’t cut the trees down but he felt strongly about (the issue). Thankfully he found out before they were cut. PM: Well, we kept him posted. PM, how much of an influence do you think he had on you? What role did he play in your decision to join politics? Do you think you would have been in politics if it weren’t for him? PM: Well, I think he had a very big influence on me. It’s hard to say. But he probably made me who I am, not like him, but I learnt a lot from hi m. When I went into politics, Mr Goh Chok Tong suggested it and he relayed it to me. He encouraged me to consider it seriously, so I said yes. If it hadn’t been for my father, I don’t know. I might still have found my way into politics; many of my ministers and MPs have found their way into politics without having a PM as their father. Maybe if he had not been my father, I might have felt less sense of responsibility, that I had to take this up and do it. Why do you feel this sense of responsibility? PM: Well, having seen him do it, having seen him put his life and soul i nto it, and you know why it is important, you feel it is something which, if you can contribute to, you have a duty to do. If he hadn’t been him, I had been

carrying on with my life, and you ask me to essay this — I would say, let’s give it a try, it is a challenge, but you won’t won’t feel the same deep feeling of what is involved and how much it can mean to you. But having seen him struggle with his languages, having seen him go around the constituency visits, having seen him recording, battle for merger, slogging away, and the speeches, and the rallies, and the persuasion and the campaigning, you know what you are in for and you know what it is about, which is a n advantage, but of course also a greater burden on yourself and what others expect of you. you.

Do you think you have lived up to his expectations? PM: Not for me to judge. I am sure he believes I can do better. How do you see your role in carrying on his legacy? PM: I think we are talking about him rather than me. But for anybody who comes after him, our duty is to safeguard what he h as achieved and build on that and take it a new step forward with a new generation generation of Singaporeans. Singaporeans. We are in a quite exceptional position for a small country to have carved out such a record, established such a name and demonstrated that these things can be done. Now the question is, can these be sustained and can we keep on making it better or not? And that answer is not known, because you are talking about a new generation, new expectations and a new world. When we did this, from the 1950s, 1950s, ’60s, ’70s, it was back to the war, you either do this or you die. When you say survival and ruggedness, it’s a metaphor but is not very far of the brutal truth. If you don’t do it, if you don’t make it, a lot of people are going to have a very tough time and will starve. Today, Today, Singaporeans do not believe they will starve. Maybe in the physical sense you will always have something to eat, but to believe that you can be at th is level, with this quality of life, services, government, society, society, system, I think that is not so. It can easily be very different, and persuading people that it is so, and that we have to, it is important for us, and worth our while, to keep this, and show what we can do, I think that is the responsibility of th is generation. What is the most important lesson about politics that you have learnt from your father? You must know know what what you want to PM: You do; it is not just following what other people want and what the crowd says. I think th at’s the first one. You You must have some idea what you want to achieve. Secondly, you have got to persuade people and bring them along, so you are not leading on your own; follow me, I’m leading in front but my people are with me. Thirdly, it is not just a matter of logic and argument but also of emotional persuasion persuasion and also of people sense. To be able to read people, to manoeuvre, to get through what you need to get through so that things will be done. There are a lot of many clever clever

people and the world, but not al l clever people make good political leaders. In my father, I think we had a very exceptional combination. combination.

I think I am temperamentally not like What are some of the political him. He is a qualities that he has that you wish lot harder, you have more of? more willing to PM: I think he has a very instinctive come upront ability to read a political situation — in a very direct what are the forces, forces, where where are the reway. I have my sistance is going to come from, which preerences, argu ment is likely to click, click, will fit in with how I would what the other person person wants, or if you you like things to are going to negotiate against the other be done, done, but but I person, what is the key point you must don’t spoil hold on to and the rest we can discuss. or a fight; he Whether you are discussing national ofen does. service policy, terms for water or for PM Lee Hsien Loong

railway, railway land, to know how to put the argument across and make the deal, which is in line with your overriding interests. I think he had that instinctively. stinctively. Partly t he way he was born, partly the life he lived through, having to survive the Japanese Occupation, having to negotiate with the British, having to fight with communists. If he didn’t have those or had not developed those, he would not have survived then.

How about lessons in managing racial politics? PM: That was a very important part of it. He made me learn Malay, starting from a very young age — probably aged seven? Six? — and kept it up. He himsel f spoke Malay and fluently,especially during the Malaysia period, when it was a vital asset. After we became independent, independent, the point that he always reiterated was never do to the minorities in Singapore what happened to u s when we we were a minority in Malaysia. Always make sure that the Malays, the Indians have their space, can live their way of life, and have full and equal opportunities and are not discriminated against. At the same time, help them to upgrade, improve and move forward. And I remember this, it was very early, when I had just entered politics, first year or so when I was in politics and in Cabinet, we had just set up Mendaki not long, or were going to set up Menda ki soon after that. And he said, the culture part is easy to push because people would be happy happy to pursue the culture part, the cultural activities, the singing and dancing, performances, that is not the hard part. The hard part is to focus on education, maths, upgrading, but you you need to do that to get the community forward as well. I think he was right. The advice to focus on education, and on English, maths and science, has made a big difference to the community, enabled them to move forward, and at the same time, they may able to keep their culture, their language and their identity. He knew what was a hard thing and where we needed to put the maximum efforts. Your parents’ relationship was an inspiration to many. What did you take out of that relationship? Did they give you relationship advice? PM: They did, from time to time. But the main lesson is that’s how you want

to live as husband and wife, as a couple for life. And I have tried to do that.

Mr Lee said a few times that he noticed on TV that you have the same mannerism as him, in terms of the colour of your shirt, tucking out your shirt. Would you say you are more your mother’s son or your father’s son? PM: I think I am temperamentally not like him. He is a lot harder, more willing to come upfront in a very direct way. I have my preferences, how I would like things to be done, but I don’t spoil for a fight; he often does. How much influence did the late Mrs Lee have on him, as a father, as a person, as a leader? PM: I think a very big influence because they were so close. He took her advice, her views very seriou sly, onpolicy matters and government matters, he decided with the ministers. But she had her views of the people, people, she had her views views on how he presented himself, how it came across and they made sense and he took them in. When you are married a long time, and a good ma rriage, you became in a way more more like each other. other. In their case, I think their personalities were very very contrasting. contrasting. I don’t don’t think in old age they were like each other but they were very, very compatible. Did your mother ever have to smooth your relationship with you and your father? Did you have any period in your life, growing up, when you had to turn to your mum? PM: No, I didn’t have such complicated problems. Some people do, I know — but I was lucky I suppose. But in Cabinet, when discussing policies or when deciding which way to go, have you had occasions when you disagreed with your father? Were they fierce and serious disagreements or were they manageable? Did you ever lose your temper at your father? PM: In Cabinet, we very seldom have fights. We have arguments, discussions, we have quite different views. There were one or two occasions,when we went around Cabinet in order to decide which way the consensus was. Bu t very seldom, mostly mostly we discuss, if we cannot agree, sometimes we just put it off and we come back another time, because it is not urgent. Sometimes, you reach a compromise ... and then we take another another step forward. forward. I remember when we did the economic committee, the first one, back in the mid-80s, when there was a se vere downturn. We came to Cabinet with our report. And one of our major major recommendations was to bring the tax rate down — at that time the tax rate was 40% — and we were pushing it down, our recommendation was to push it down to 25%. There was a big discussion in Cabinet, and my father was Prime Minister. Minister. He was was not in fa vour of going t hat far. So, in the end, I can’t remember how we phrased it, CONTINUED ON PAGE ��

40


CONTINUED FROM PAGE ��

but in the end end we decided that we will go, I suppose we split the difference in our way, we said we go to 33% and in long term we aim for 25%. It was a very hot discussion and spanned several Cabinet sessions. There were strong views because we were were taking a major major change, and in the end we had a compromise, but in fact it was not a compromise. It was a first step, and then over the years, we went the full way to 25%, and then at 25%, later on we had further committees, we went to 20%, where we are now. now. And the corporate corporate tax rate is now 17% I think. Very seldom, when you talk about policies, are you talking about black and white. You are talking about the range of options, youare talking about … there are always new directions you can explore, different things which you can do, and the new considerations that will come in over time. Then you look at it from a different perspective. perspective. And you say, I wish I had done something different. One of the things which he i nsisted upon, even upfront on that issue, when we weregoing in to talking about bringing taxes down, he said, you’d better introduce consumption consumption tax , GST, because you are going to need it. I was not convinced because at that time revenue was so ample that we didn’t really need the extra revenue. I thought we did our sums, you just cut everything down and you are still okay. okay. But he didn’t believe that that would remain or that was a wise way to govern; he said, better make sure you put all these things in. So we had this in the report, that you must have a goods and services tax, something that we study — that was 1985. By the time we actually did it, it was 1993/94. 1993/94. But years later, today, without that, we wouldbe in serioustrouble. trouble. But back in the mid-80s, long before anything was necessary, necessary, he said, you better put that in, you need that. So, he had this feel to sense which way things are going and what you will need some considerable distance over the horizon and be able to bring people to accept accept that and do that.

‘He will never say: Do this, do that’

want power, I thin k that is not quite the right motivation. motivation.

PM, if we could ask a few more personal questions from the early years. Mr Lee Hsien Yang Yang said when he was about to get married, he received a letter of advice from his father. D o you have have the same letter too? Yes, I have the letter. letter. I still have have it. it. PM: Yes,

Dr Lee Suan Suan Yew Yew shares shares some insights on his more serious, studious eldest eldest brothe brother. r.

What did it say, if you could share it with us? PM: Basically his advice was on how to have a happy marriage. Speaking from his own personal ex perience. perience. He spent a lot of trouble keeping in touch with us and when we were away, he would write to usand my mother would write to us every week and I would write back. And my mother’s letter would be hand-writing. His letters would would be dictated, typed, and is typed double or triple space, space, and he would go through and correct the typed version, and then add stuff and maybe have another paragraph or two in wr iting at the end, and then he would send it to me in that form. And to think of the effort, substantial pieces, 5-6 pages or more. I still have them all stored away somewhere. I hope the white ants have not eaten them. But that was that generation; he put the effort into staying in touch. I replied also, quite long letters every week. And nowadays, nowadays, you have email and Skype and I don’t think you do it quite so substantively.

W

hat was it like growing up with Mr Lee? Dr Lee Suan Yew: I could only remember the time during the war, when I was about nine, he was about 19. World War War II: That was a time when t he family was very close together, during the war years. He had just started at Raffles College and he was very upset that the war interrupted his studies there. For me, I was just going to Primary Two and my studies were interrupted. My parents didn’t want me to attend any school, the Japanese-type school, because my parents were afraid that they were training us to become young soldiers. soldiers. So I had no no real education after that. So while we were at home, he took time to play chess wit h me. He had plenty of time so he taught me the moves and all that, and I enjoyed playing chess with him. There were times when we would go out out for for meals together, together, but he was a quieter person. The rest of us siblings, we were more active, shall we say. He was more of a bookworm, the studious person, the scholar, and we would leave him alone if he was studying and all that or reading. We would continue with our own studies but we had lot of games and activities. He would have less of that.

Did he have a say in how you chose your spouse, for instance? PM: Well, I found my own. I suppose they got along. What do you think was the most misunderstood thing about Lee Kuan Yew that as a son you wish the world knew? And what would you miss most about him? PM: Well, I think he doesn’t mind what the world knows about him. People think about him as a n austere, logical and cerebral sort of person. I think he has strong feelings about quite a num ber of things, and also in his personal personal relationships relationships with my mother, mother, with the kids, he may not show it, but he feels it. What will we miss about him? I think — so many things, but I think the key thing is, that with him, you will not lose. You will be all right and you will come come through, and that sense of confidence and trust in a person, because of the experience, experience, because because of what he has gone gone through, because of what he has done, done, because of of what he has contributed and demonstrated, is not something which you can replicate with any other person. He was unique. He played a unique role in Singapore and I think we have been very lucky lucky to have have him.

PM, when you were younger, Mr Lee used to tell journalists that if you had not been his son, you would probably have been Prime Minister at a younger age. How did you feel whenever you had to hear the comment? PM: Well, I think that was a rhetorical argument from him. It’s counterfactual. I mean, I just do my best; I did not have a target date to be a Prime Minister. I was serving Mr Goh, as Deputy PM, very happily. And when Mr Goh felt ready, he said, you take over; fortunately I felt ready enough to take over. I think, in Singapore, if you are in politics to further your ambitions, you How would you want him to be are doing the wrong thing. If you are remembered? in politics you want to do good; in the PM: He never troubled himself with process, you have responsibilities and that question either. But I don’t know authorit y. Well, Well, that’s par t of the pack- what to say. He He is a father, father, he is a father age. But if you are in it because you of the nation, and he made this place.

He was unique. He played a unique role in Singapore and I think we have been very very lucky to have him. PM Lee Hsien Loong

Dr Lee said Mr Lee made him study harder.

competitive. It’s not very competitive in Singapore, but it’s very competitive in the UK. At t he rate I was going, he said you had better buck up and study hard. That’s all he had to tell me and it just clicked and I said yah, maybe I have not been pushing myself. I should really give more effort, and it paid dividends. Because, when I went to London to prepare for my pre-un iversity, I kept thinking about what he said. My parents, surprisingly, were not as astute as he was. My parents somehow knew I would make it, but big brother was more careful and he said I think you better study very h ard and that paid dividends becau se when I went for for preuniversity preparation I really put a lot of effort so that was good.

What about the relationship in the What kind of a big brother was family, among the siblings. Was it a he? There was a big, 10-year gap very close-knit family? between the two of you. Dr Lee: Yes, close-knit family. But Dr Lee: He was really a wonderful again, we would always give hi m space. brother because as an older brother, brother, he He’s a quieter person. We’re a bit more was a really responsible person, very boisterous. But he will par ticipate in wise and always always willing to give advice advice certain family activities. to us. At any tim e we say we would would like to meet him, he will say, sure come over Was there any recollection of and we’ll chat with him and he will give Mr Lee getting up to some mischief his advice. He will never say: Do this, when he was younger? do that — very seldom. He’ll just give Dr Lee: Well, no, not quite mischief. you the idea and you you decide. decide. That’s his Oh yes! I remember he was ragged, advice, and he says, well, think about it. when he first entered Raffles College. College. Those days there were ragging and he was very upset. He wore the white shirt What was the most significant and trousers, almost like the PAP uniadvice or counsel he gave to you? Dr Lee: The most significant advice form, and when he came back, it was he gave me was about my studies. He very dirty because because he was ragged and somehow felt I wasn’t pushing myself he was really fur ious. He didn’t like it hard enough. I did fairly well in school at all (laughs). And my parents just but not the way he did. A nd so when pacified him. he asked me, what would you like to do when you finish school, I said I’d What about special memories or like to take up medicine. He said, what anecdotes to share? about law? Because law is shorter and Dr Lee: Yes, Yes, one incident incident we discovit’ll cost less to the family. Then he ad- ered. We knew that he’s a very par vised me that if I want to do medicine, ticula r person. But one day, my second at that time, why not go to England and brother, brother, Dennis,worehis shoes shoes without do medicine? He said if you want to go his permission and enjoyed wearing it, to England to do medicine, you’ve got but when he returned it, he didn’t clean to study very hard because it’s very it or something and big brother was


very furious with him and we all heard about it. There was no end to th at story. From that day on, all of us knew that we must not touch his things unless we got permission to use it. But he’s not selfish. You You can use his th ings, but he feels that you must ask his permission and then return it as you found it.

‘He eats, lives and brea breath thes es S’ S’pore pore’’

York York of of the United States and and KL, the Washington DC. And he was very sad that we had to part company. He really wantedto havea real MalaysianMalaysia. And that, I have a feeling, that one is the one he had a lot of regrets about.

What about arts and culture? You are very interested in it yourself, We’ve heard how exacting and but how was he with the arts? tough he is in terms of his work, but Dr Lee: He prefers more concrete things rather than the arts. But his would you say he has a soft side? Yes, definitely yes. We no- wife, Geok Choo, loved classical music. Dr Lee: Yes, ticed that any member of the family And he, being very much in love with or friends, if they are ill, he will pay a his wife, would comply and follow her visit if he has enough time. Even dur- to the Esplanade and listen to some ing his very busy period, he’ll make the concerts. But one thing good is that effort. One thing about him, he wants because of thi s, his chi ldren, such as to make sure the person who is ill is Hsien Loong, love classical music. So given courage to get better. He’ll even that has a nice spin-off there. I think talk to the doctors and make sure the he was quite careful with the state person recovers well. When I was ill, putting money into the arts until othhe visited me in hospital, when I was in er ministers came in and said to him, Tan Tock Seng, he popped in. He was that it was very important . I think a so busy, yet he dropped in, he talked fine example is (former Minister for to the doctors to make sure that eve- Information and the Arts) George rything was all right and I recovered. recovered. Yeo. He influenced how we should put He was so happy. our money into Esplanade and look at the Esplanade today: It’s a world-class theatre and we’re bringing in worldHow about the relationship he had class artistes. with his immediate family? Would you say that’s one area that was extremely important to him? How would you describe Dr Lee: He always feels he did not have Mr Lee’s relationship with his enough time with the family when he be- wife and children? came a politician. So he made a special Dr Lee: It’s quite extraordinary. His effort to make sure there was always a love for her was truly until death did dinner together and that would be New them part. It’s so obvious, even with us, Year’s Year’s Eve dinner. dinner. We’ll We’ll always make within our family, that we have them sure we get together for birthdays, if for dinner togeth er, we must seat them he’s got time he will make sure we get together. We cannot separate them and together for birthday dinners. He has she will somehow keep an eye on his a very soft spot for my sister. We only food. He’s quite careful with his diet have one sister and somehow he’ll al- but she is even more careful with his waysbe very protective protectiveof her and make diet to make sure that he is eating the sure she’s well cared for and he’ll give right kind of food and so on. his two cents and all. His love for her, I think we all know, is very deep and he, the story went, when she was semi-comatose, at 10 o’clock Do you think there was any together, particular incident in his childhood when even we had dinner together, he’d say, I’m sorry, I have to leave you that shaped the kind of policy now, and go back home and read her decisions he made as a politician? Yes. I think when he was in her favourite story books; because she Dr Lee: Yes. England, when he was reading law. was brain locked, she could hear but He noticed that politics was very imshe couldn’t utter. So she could listen portant, that it shapes the country’s to his voice, she would recognise his future education, education, economy and so on. voice and it’s quite amazing. A man So I think he was influenced by the who’s who’s so busy will make sure that at Labour Party. He might have been in- 10 o’clock he’ll go back and read her fluenced by the socialist Labour party her favourite books, and we’re all very but he’s he’s not an extremist. touched by that. He was, I would say, very moderate, His children — he’s not a physical but I think in his mind he was was thinking person. He’s not a man who’ll hug you of Singapore, that one day he would and so on, but his love for the children come back and help solve our econo- was also tremendous. He loves them, my and the poor people and that part but he wants wants to make sure they’re they’re well showed up later on — we noticed that educated. That’s why each of them he was interested in helping uplift the became a President’s Scholar. Scholar. So gepoor people. And education as well, benetically, they were well-endowed, and cause all along he said education would at the same time they studied very be the one thing to uplift uplift the poor peo- hard and the parents would oversee ple and level up their status. their education. education. But the love for the children is very, how shall we say, not ostentatious. It’s What do you think was his very Eastern, not Western, in style. biggest regret? Dr Lee: I think that’s quite obvious. His When Hsien Loong was ill, the treregret was that Singapore was sepa- mendous anxiety ... in the parents was rated from Malaysia. I think th at’s his very obvious, but thank goodness he biggest biggest regret.His dream was to see the overcame his illness and that is an bigger picture of Singapore like New other example.

Education Minis Minister ter Heng Heng Swee Swee Keat recounts recounts his observations observations of Mr Lee Lee as the leader leader’s ’s former former Principal Private Private Secretary Secretary

C

an you describe your first meeting meeting with Mr Lee? Mr Heng Swee Keat: My very first meeting was when when he inter viewed me for for the position of Principal Private Secretar y (PPS). It was was quite an unnerving meeting because he was asking very sharp, pointed questions about my educational history, about why I chose to study certain certain subjects and my views on certain i ssues ... It lasted for almost half an hour and at the end of it, he said: “I don’t need you now, but in two months’ time, go brush up on your Chinese because we’re doing this very important project with China and you’d better be able to read and speak Chi nese fluently.” So he was very sha rp in tr ying t o read into t he person and he’s very decisive. Did this impression of him gel with everything you heard and read about the man? Mr Heng: Very much so. Duri ng the time I worked with him, I had the opportunity to attend many meetings he had with various global leaders in politics and business in variou s fields and he made the best of every meeting that he had, either in learning something important or conveying a certain point of view in a very convincing way.

The rest of us siblings, we were more active, shall we say. He was more of ... the studious person, the scholar, and we would leave him alone if he was studying. Dr Lee Suan Yew ONE OF MR LEE’S THREE YOUNGER BROTHERS

What kind of boss was he? Mr Heng: He demands very high standards, not just of me, but of everyone ... Once he asked me to check up something and, in response, I wrote him a three-paragraph note and he was quite upset. “W hy are you wasting my time? I only need one sentence.” That is his way of cutting through to an issue and he expects officials to b e able to understand what is important in that particular situation and what is not, and to be able to get to the nub of the issue quickly. You see that in the way he holds his meetings all the time. Everyone who came for his meeting came very well prepared because that was his expectation. They’re not there for a chit-chat session. They were there to d iscuss someth ing important and profound. He expects you to do your homework thoroughly. Was that his expectation of you as his PPS? To pre-empt what he wanted? Mr Heng: Yes, to anticipate what he would need and to be able able to respond quickly and to understand what is needed at any time. Because in certain situations for decision-making at that particular point in time, you only need

Mr Heng Swee Keat. PHOTO: CHANNEL NEWSASIA

that piece of information, and on other occasions, you might need more information. But to be able to understand what mattersand what doesn’t doesn’t is something that is very important to him.

Would you say that was your biggest challenge as his PPS? Mr Heng: Very much so, I think to understand how he operates and what he needs. When I worked for him as PPS, he was Senior Minister then and his job as Senior Minister then was to help Prime Minist er Goh (Chok Tong) in this transition and to mentor younger ministers and he took g reat effort in doing that. He was very proper about protocol and about how he dealt with various issues. issues. For instance, when PM Goh asked to see h im, he would always go to PM Goh’s office. He made it very clear that he was no longer in charge and all the key decisions were taken by PM Goh and his role was that of mentor and ... goal-keeper. What was his main focus as Senior Minister? Mr Heng: His focus at that time was very much to pass on his knowle dge and experience of governance, so he spent a lot of time talking to the younger ministers and sharing his experience with all of them ... He was also at that time writing his memoirs. His main purpose for writing his memoirs was to pass on his observations about how Singapore succeeded despite the odds and how we can continue to be successful to a much w ider audience, to all Singaporeans. And he took great pains in writi ng his memoirs and con veyin g these very pro found insi ghts that he had over many years of his involvement in governing Singapore. Did you assist him in any way when he was writing his memoirs? Mr Heng: He had an officer who was doing much of the resear ch work, but from time to time, I was asked to help out in checking certain facts and in reading the earlier draf ts of his memoirs. But he had a fantastic memory. CONTINUED ON PAGE ��

42


the world, the corporate chiefs would invest in Singapore and, in return, it would create dynamism in the econoeconomy and create jobs for Singaporeans. He was very effective in doing that and, at the same time, he was also meeting up with political leaders across the spectrum, so they understand our special circumstances and why we had to do things in a certa in way. How else did he surprise you? He was also not averse to meeting Mr Heng: He has a very deep way of reading. He once asked me about an the media, some of whom were very article he read many months ago. I critical of him ... In one of the sessions, was ver y sur prise d he rem embere d how he put across the circumstances that particular ar ticle. Later on as of Singapore, why we had to do things we discusse d why he was i nterested in a certain way and why our part ... I realised it was because he has a of the world is very different from very clear menta l ma p of the world America — he was very convincing and how the map was changing. He and some of these journalists were was lik e so meon e wh o w as look ing very critical, but Ithought (they) (they) went went for pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, a moving away with a far deeper understanding jigsaw puzzle, and how chan ges may of Singapore. mean a different shape of the puzzle He has always been very clear that and he was constantly looking out for we need need external space for Singapore Singapore clues as to how it might change. And to be successful. He was always very when he reads any particula r article, concerned about protectionist senit is with the v iew of looking for those timents, especially during times of clues, it was not random reading. He economic economic crisis. During the Asian fi was one of the most profound readers nancial crisis, there was an external and I think that is why he is able to pushback against globalisation. He connect very disparate pieces of in- spent a lot of time understanding the formation. He is able to connect t he situation and then going out to condots and make it very coherent and vince i nvestors a nd policym akers of he’s able to then articulate it i n a way the right course of action. He is a real that people can understand. That is model of lifelong learning. I rememhow he has been keeping himself up ber during the global fi nancial crisis, to date, looking out for changes and he read a lot of technical analysis, he evidence that his views may no long- asked very sharp questions and, at the er be valid. He had a very young and end of it, he came to h is own conclulively mind at that age — h e was 75 at sions. And he was able to overlay on all that time. He was always revising his this technical analysis a certain politiopinion, looking out for changes and cal perspective of the causes and conanticipating what might be next. sequences of the crisis and ... able to put it across in a simple way. Years l ater, I met many ban kers He travelled extensively. extensively. What was his aim? What was he looking for? who told me th at the spee ch he gave ever read read about Mr Heng: Because he had such pro- was the best that they ever found insights, many global leaders the Asian financial crisis. Because of in politics, business and other fields his grasp of a certa in issue, he was able always sought out his views. But he to convey to many of these corporate was not flat tered ... by th is attention investors in a way that yes, Asia is go to his views; neither was he bothered ing through a difficult patch, a crisis, by criticisms. He ( has a) very si mple but you have to look at the long term motivation, motivation, which is t o get these global and you look at the long-term dynaleaders to understand the relevance mism of the region, the structural reaof Singapore, so we can expand our sons have not been affected. We will external space, and in doing that, have to go through a period of reform, he helped Singapore punch above but it wil l emerge stronger ... he wa s our weight. proven right. Many of those investors I was once on a trip with him in the who acted on this had had benefited from it United States for several weeks and and by preventing a protectionist senevery day I was conveying observations timent from taking over and helping to and ideas that he picked up along the convince policymakers in the region way to the officials back home to ask to make changes and convince investhem to study and this could range tors that this remains the place to infrom how we could create better jobs vest, it helped in putt ing across ver y to the type of plants that could give bet- important messages globally. ter shade. I was very moved by how he spent every waking moment learning What were some of the views of (and) (and) thinki ng about the relevance of foreign political leaders and busithat in Singapore and those ideas that nessmen about the man himself? might be used for Singapore. Mr Heng: I remember one meeting where he met one of the most successsuccessWhat was his focus during that trip? ful venture capitalists from Silicon Mr Heng: His aim was very simple, Valley. M r Le e to ld hi m: “ I’d like to which is first to convi nce the cor po- learn from you why Silicon Valley was rate chiefs of what Singapore was so entrepreneurial.” The venture capidoing and how we were making our- talist told him: “But M r Lee, what I’ve selves relevant to the world. And if achieved pales in comparison to what we are mak ing oursel ves relevant to you have achieved. I have invested in CONTINUED FRO M PAGE ��

I remember he asked us to check the spelling, the name of a general whom he met in Russia and the name was a very complicated name, but he recalled the exact spelling as well as the year a nd the month that he met thi s general and it was quite astounding.

He spends every waking moment thinking about how Singapore can continue to be successful. He was always worried about the future and how we can position ourselves better bett er.. Mr Heng Swee Keat EDUCATION MINISTER

some very good companies, but you have the entrepreneurial quality that turned an entire country from a small trading port to one of the most successful global cities in the world and I’m here to learn from you.”

One trait you most admire? Mr Heng: I am very moved by his dedication and commitment to Singapore. During the whole period that I worked with him, I saw him at work first hand a nd even though he was no longer Prime Minister, he put every waki ng moment into m akin g Sing apore successful. He eats, lives and breathes Singapore. He spends every every wakin g moment thi nking a bout how Singapore can continue to be successful. He was always worried about the future and how we can position ourselves better. If you recall ... during the Asian financial crisis, many people were writing off this part of the world. He had this ver y deep conviction that we can be successful as a nation, but we have to do the right thin g. And if we do the right thi ng and stay together, we can overcome the odds, and the best is yet to be. So the thing ... is a very deep drive in him to make Singapore successful and he is completely dedicated to this cause. Best advice? Mr Heng: There were one or two pieces of advice he had given me that b enefited me greatly. It was a very deep learning experience for me, working wit h h im and lear nin g t hro ugh the process of osmosis. He analyses issues and he’s a very deep thinker and cuts to the crux of the matt er. In all his discussions, his favourite word is “So?” and if you tell him fact A and he says: “ So?” “Well, then fact A mean s B is likely to happen.” Then he says: “So?” Then you continue to say that if fact B, then C is likely to happen. And he wi ll end wit h: “So what does that mean for Singapore? What action should be ta ken now, now, knowing these facts and implications of these facts?” He was peeling the layers of the onion and getting everyone to think very deeply what the implications are and then peeling it layer after layer until you ge t to the c ore of it ... That’s a n amazing quality. The other one is his ability to take disparate pieces of information and connect the dots into a very coherent picture. Because of his profound understanding of history, human society and how countries compete and cooperate, he has a ver y coherent world view. A nd wit h th at coh erent world view, he is able to slot pieces pieces of information that he picked up and see how that mental map is changing all the time ... When you are able to see something slightly ahead of others, it gives us a certain edge in being prepared. And it gives us th e ability to t ake action a little earlier and that i s one of the reasons Singapore is successful. The other very impressive thing is he is extremely persuasive. In the late 1990s, the US and China had a very difficult situation to deal with and be-

cause there was a major conference in Singapore, many officials were here. Both American and Chinese officials had asked to meet Mr Lee. I recall the officials were very concerned about the meeting because each side, the Chinese and the Americans, had strong views and so did Mr Lee. He was able to give an analysis of what was at stake and how the situation should be resolved for mutual benefit and he was able to put it across in a language and a perspective that was acceptable to each side and yet the entire narr ative is completely consistent. Each side went away feeling that this indeed is what we should be doing. I remember it was quite an amazing meeting to be able to bring different parties together to discuss what was a very delicate situation in a way that each side could appreciate and it shows a certain ability to get into the minds of both sides — to understand the perspective of the Chinese side ... the American side and to yet have a very coherent coherent picture. He was not saying one thing to one side and another thing to another side. It was a very consistent analysis. He helped defuse that very difficult situation and he also helped each side to understand understa nd ... So to beable to move from the current to the future and to ma ke sure that particular episode did not affect the long-term peaceful trajector y.

Was there a clear line drawn in your relationship with with Mr Lee between personal a nd professional? Mr Heng: He always draws a very clear line between personal friendships and professional professional matters. When I was working for hi m, there were severa l of his good friends from overseas who came. Many of them had joined multinational companies and they came to lobby for their firms for Singapore to buy a particu lar product or invest in particular companies. He would very politely tell them: “Thank you very much for your proposal, but this is a matter the officials and ministers will have to decide on and I will pass this on for them to evaluate and they will evaluate objectively.” And indeed, in every instance, the evaluation of the merits of every proposal was done very objectively and very very thoroughly, regardless of whether it was a proposal that was sent to Mr Lee. But at the same time, he values friendship. Once, there was a young Prime Minister from one of the island nations who was in Singapore to call on Mr Lee. G oing strictly by protocol, Mr Lee would not need to see him. In fact, officials had recommended that there was no need for him to see this young Prime Minister. When I submitted the recommendation, Mr Lee said: “No, I will see this young man because his father and I went back many years, when we were both fighting the British for independence, and it is a friendship that I value and I will see what I can do to help this young man govern his country better.” So he was very clear when it came to friendships, and national interest it was very different,


‘I did not feel regimented or restricted’ Mr Lee Hsien Yang on growing growing up with with Mr Lee Lee Kuan Yew Yew and how he sometimes sometimes got his way. way.

I

n what areas of your life was your father most involved in? Mr Lee Hsien Yang: Well, I guess he was always busy with his work. And most of the sort of day-to-day care was taken care off by my mother. And they would consult consult and I suppose suppose at key points when one was looking at what schools schools to go to and what course course to take, they would give advice and I think he was concerned that we were well educated a nd they saw that as the key to being — the key to life. You know that they wanted us to achieve what we could. What was his involvement in your daily life? Mr Lee: When I was little, he would be in the office and we would sometimes go to the grounds in the Istana in the evenings and play, and he would be playing golf. We would often have dinner together. But usually at lunch only my mother would be at home. And your fondest memory? Mr Lee: I guess (that would be when) we had holidays, holidays, when we went went away. away. Not very far, but to Fraser’s Hills and later on to Cameron Highlands. We used to wander around the golf course and play in the streams and we would sit around the fire place in the evenings. What was it like at home — how would you see him as your father? You know, know, people think of him Mr Lee: You as being very stern and very strict. I don’t think we ever felt that at home. I think he himself felt that he had a very strict father who would often be quick

but when it came to being friendly to others and remembering friends of the past (with whom he) had gone through difficult strug gles ... he was quite prepared to spend his personal time helping this young man. As h is PPS, we had a sl ightly different relationship. He’s He’s very nurt uring and I benefited a great deal from discussing, in the meetings, discussing matters and issues ... at meetings. Often, after important meetings, he would a sk to see me and a sk wha t I learnt from the meetings. He would then explain to me why he said certain things in a cert ain way, his analysis of the meeting, what was at stake, what did we learn, what was useful for Singapore and how we might follow up on those meetings. So it was a learni ng process which I valued deeply.

Was it his way of testing your knowledge of these issues? Mr Heng: Clearly he was testing if I appreciated what the meeting was

to discipline the children, and so he did not do that with us.

Mr Lee: Well I guess (one story would be that when) I wanted to go to postgraduate study, my parents were both quite keen keen that I should go to the East Coast of the United States and I thought, you know, it would be quite fun to go the West Coast. I guess I did what I wanted wanted to do.

I think that would be a surprise to most people. And the characteristic of your father that you liked best and you most admire? Mr Lee: Well, he has a sense of integrity that is not just a question of what’s right or wrong but also doing i n what he believes in. And sometimes not necesnecessarily what is obvious or not necessarily what is popular. popular. And he’s he’s prepared prepared to say it, (whereas) many people, especially politicians, are politically correct.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang. PHOTO: BLOOMBERG

old he would have been but certainly in his late 3 0s and, you know, we didn’t talk about it.

What was it like for you when he said those things? Mr Lee: Well, I suppose after a while you sort of get u sed to it. It’s not like as if I knew how it was like not to be the PM’s son.

What was Mr Lee like as a grandfather? Mr Lee: Well, he would engage with the grandchildren sometimes. He listens to them. I think sometimes he takes on board what they have have said. They don’t don’t necessarily agree with him on things and you know are quite prepared to engage him.

What was it like to be the PM’s son? Mr Lee: I don’t know. I mean, you have to ask yourself the opposite question and I never knew that. So to me this was the normal and and after a while while I sort of got used to it. He is a great believer of discipline, as we all know. What was it like growing up with these high standards? Mr Lee: Well, I don’tremember feeli ng that there was, you know, that we lived a regimented life. I think we all did a lot of things when we were young and had a full schedule. But ... I did not feel regimented or restricted. Did you hear stories about him as a young boy? What did you hear about him as a young boy? Mr Lee: No, I was the last child and I was born quite late in life. I thin k by the time I was born I’m not sure how

about. At the same ti me, he’s also very open about hearing the views ... contrary to popular perception, he is very decisive, but very open-minded. Once he had a meeting with officials on a very special project which the Prime Minister had asked him to oversee. Certain decisions were taken. Later on, I found out some new facts and those new facts changed our anal ysis of the situation and changed changed what we should be doing. I was a very young officer then a nd had just worked with him for a few weeks ... I decided to write him a note to explain what the new facts meant and why we wanted to reconsider the decision to do something else and, to my surprise, he said: “Yes, that’s a good analysis and let us do thi s new course of action.” I have observed him in many meetings where he’s extremely open-minded and he consults very w idely and ... with people who he felt had a deep understanding of issues and has a feel

How often do they get to see him? Mr Lee: Well, when they are around we try and do Sunday lunch lunch as a routine and we gather. And sometimes we just have lunch and sometimes we have a discussion.

You know, people think of him as being very stern and very strict. I don’t think we ever felt that at home. Mr Lee Hsien Yang

So in the end even though you may have had a different point of view you would sometimes get your way or mostly get your way? Mr Lee: I think parents who are good manage to guide their children along without making them feelconstrained. Much has been said about the great relationship that your mum and dad had. If there was something that you would take from that relationship and bring to your own life what would that be? Mr Lee: I supposed they had a par tnership. It was not a relationship (that had a) superior and inferior, and in many senses he took counsel from my mother and respected her views. And I think they had a very open relationship. It’s sometimes difficult to do. ... R elationships take a lot of work to nurture and I think they did it very well.

As a son, how would you like Mr Lee Kuan Yew to be remembered? Mr Lee: I guess you know people think of him as a very strict person but I think he would often take on board Were there issues when you were views that he didn’t didn’t necessarily agree growing up that remain in your on. Sometimes he would change his mind as when you really had views on on things. And you you know I think differing points of view between that flexibility and ability to take into your father and yourself? Mr Lee: I’m sure there were but I’m accountnewcircumstancesisperhaps not sure I want to share them (laughs)! something which is not fully recognised. And it’s a very difficult thing to If there were stories that you would achieve when you have been in a position of authority for a long time. like to share what would that be?

for the ground. In all key issues, he woul d d raw up a lis t of peopl e wh o could provide insights into these issues and would have the creativity to propose new solutions. Those meetings were always fascinating because you will see the toing and fro-ing of views. The people people always came very prepared ... with very goo d analy sis, and you se e how Mr Lee changed his mind after evaluating all the information. So I wil l say he is very open-minded. He’s He’s both very persuasive and persuadable, but you have to do so with ver y thoroug h anal ysis. It’s not an idea that is just at the seat of the pants. It has to be properly thought through and the implications have to be thou ght thr ough and that ’s why (there’s) the series of questions such as “So? What does this all mean?”

Is he a different man with his family? Mr Heng: I find his love for Mrs Lee very moving. They have have been married

for many years and, on all the overseas trips, Mrs Lee will be at his side and they were a very loving couple. Mrs Lee was always very supportive in ways big and smal l. We enjoyed enjoyed a number of private dinners where some of the staff would join the couple and it’s really wonderful to see the rapport they had and how they woul d s omet ime s t ease each othe r over the choice of food or over funny things that happened during the day. So there’s a certain warmth and love that were very moving.

What about with his children? Mr Heng: I don’t get to interact with them as much, but in term s of work and his relationship with Mr Lee Hsien Loong. Mr Lee Hsien Loong was then Deputy Prime Minister and he was very proper a bout every thing ... if there was a matter to be discussed and it was under Mr Lee’s purview, it went thr ough o fficials l ike mysel f. It was a very proper relationship.

Remembering Lee Kuan Yew

Recommend Documents