Spent a week in Singapore in 1989 before going on to Hong Kong. Before going to Singapore, I spent a week in Turkey. Long trip! But, I have to say that Singapore was my least favorite. I thought I'd see culture and history, but most was wiped away by the time I got there, except for a few buddhist altars in the countryside. And yes, the penalty for not flushing a toilet or having a fly swirl around your head while dining outside (fines) had been implemented shortly before I arrived. While I was there, a couple from Britain were executed as they had a layover in Singapore and a joint was found in their luggage.
That, together with the censorship of movies and newspapers (WSJ was about 30% whited out when I received it in my hotel room) made me want to get out and not return. Sadly, the locals I met were also disillusioned and saddened by their lost culture. Teens and 20 somethings could not even speak in their native tongue; they had lost their language in a few short decades.
Of course I support the citizens of Singapore and their right to vote. However, I would not ever want to visit again.
That, together with the censorship of movies and newspapers (WSJ was about 30% whited out when I received it in my hotel room) made me want to get out and not return. Sadly, the locals I met were also disillusioned and saddened by their lost culture. Teens and 20 somethings could not even speak in their native tongue; they had lost their language in a few short decades.
Of course I support the citizens of Singapore and their right to vote. However, I would not ever want to visit again.
2
I would likely be imprisoned in any nation that was opposed to free speech as a right to be honored.
What good is money and sleek rides if one's soul is kept under lock and the key is withheld by the powerful and their police?
A good friend of mine loved the place.
The homogeneous society is without the roil of cultural frictions. Once you are dependent on immigrants the model of loyalty transferred and superseding all others is all that will save the unique nationalism so many desire.
If there is more than that to recommend the place, it will thrive.
What good is money and sleek rides if one's soul is kept under lock and the key is withheld by the powerful and their police?
A good friend of mine loved the place.
The homogeneous society is without the roil of cultural frictions. Once you are dependent on immigrants the model of loyalty transferred and superseding all others is all that will save the unique nationalism so many desire.
If there is more than that to recommend the place, it will thrive.
One of the misfortunes of this successful city that this reporter left out is an entitled generation.
To the young generation that did not not go through Singapore's difficult times, who are today educated enough to speak up; that he may have so few worries and struggles in life that he has time to be so snarky, and disrespectful of the pioneer generation who build this nation, he one the entitled youths that he forgot to mention.
Don't take this article at face value. Take some time, find out what Singapore really went through and then, tell me what you think.
To the young generation that did not not go through Singapore's difficult times, who are today educated enough to speak up; that he may have so few worries and struggles in life that he has time to be so snarky, and disrespectful of the pioneer generation who build this nation, he one the entitled youths that he forgot to mention.
Don't take this article at face value. Take some time, find out what Singapore really went through and then, tell me what you think.
The young people of Singapore appear to be enthralled with the American model, like so many other youths across the world. American dominates a lot of popular culture, so it tends to get seen as "better" by those that don't know better. What is needed here is a better awareness of how countries with a system like the US actually function vs how countries with a system like that of Singapore do it. As long as Singapore can maintain a stable and honest government, they will be MUCH better off in the long run with the model that they have.
This one-party system is not sustainable! Now there are signs that the ruling People's Action Party might "split into factions". This would not pose a huge threat to its monopoly of power, unless the "factions" adopted a totally different ideology. As long as the state is run by smart and staunch adherents of Lee Kuan Yew's ideology, the system will not unravel. The question is whether and for how long Singapore has control over the changing circumstances in and outside the country?
The authors and most of the world does not understand Singapore and Asian culture. I agree the record of LKY is mixed. I agree that Singapore was hardly democratic. Unfortunately, what foreigners (and many Singaporeans) do not understand is the arrogance of power, any power. Having lived here before Malaya became independent, and watched the material progress grow, I see that cultural attributes have changed less. Put another way, one may argue that free elections should exist because they are an indicator of political freedom and tolerance. Yes, maybe. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that the SDP or any Singaporean opposition figure is some nice cuddly altruistic nice guy (or gal). Please do not be naïve. If Chiam See Tong were PM and his party dominated Parliament, you can be sure that PAP members would be excluded from participation. This is NOT an argument against democracy; it is an argument against naivete. Having spent 45 years of my 56 years in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, I can tell you there is NO such thing as an altruistic politician, whether you are Left, Right, or indifferent. Let's dispense with this nonsense, that all opposition parties in SE Asia are necessarily good, clean, humble and not autocratic. You CANNOT be popular in Asia without being autocratic. Whether you are a movie star, politician, CEO, artist, or conman, I guarantee you, if you are Asian and you want a following, you WILL be arrogant. To think otherwise is absurd.
5
One of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's dark legacies is the continued denying of residency rights to children of Gurkha police officers of the (Gurkha Contingent) Singapore Police Force, who were all born and educated in Singapore, since 1959 on the sole basis that the parents were not born in Singapore. These police officers founded the Singapore Police Force and serve for a minimum of 22 years under a treaty signed in 1950, when the island nation was a British colony, until they retire after which they and their families are repatriated to Nepal from where they are originally recruited at the age of 18. The children are also forcibly removed upon reaching their 18th birthday back to Nepal. Thousands of these children born and educated in Singapore continue to remain in limbo to this day.
The British Government had a similar treaty with Gurkha soldiers of the British Army since 1814 which they amended in 1999 (thanks to Joanna Lumley) to allow these loyal soldiers and their families to reside in the United Kingdom after retirement.
The British Government had a similar treaty with Gurkha soldiers of the British Army since 1814 which they amended in 1999 (thanks to Joanna Lumley) to allow these loyal soldiers and their families to reside in the United Kingdom after retirement.
1
In 2009, I interviewed then Law Minister Shanmugan as part of a public legal conference in Singapore. One of the questions asked was whether the voters of Singapore were able to vote for a "bad choice" in the eyes of the government. The answer was, "Yes," but with the qualification that the government reserved the right to steer the voters back to the correct choice. This is not freedom of choice, it is control.
2
It is only one Little Red Dot that the man put on the map of the world. There is no problem for ships and planes seeing the Little Red Dot to embark/land and have some fun in the Little Red Dot. That is the only reason people to go the Little Red Dot. They have been doing it for thousands of years before and will be doing the same for thousands of years more. Nothing to do with Lee Kuan Yew even.
Raffles did it before Lee Kuan Yew. Parameswara did it before Raffles. The inhabitants of the Little Red Dot will have to see who is the next Warlord that is going to control the ships and planes in the Little Red Dot
Raffles did it before Lee Kuan Yew. Parameswara did it before Raffles. The inhabitants of the Little Red Dot will have to see who is the next Warlord that is going to control the ships and planes in the Little Red Dot
1
It had been a red dot all along. But under Mr Lee's leadership this litter red dot shine like a star, a star that the world recognised and its briliancy has outshine some land that is much bigger than itself.
3
Governing the Little Red Dot is not the same as governing the Little Red Dot successfully. You claim that Singapore is a mere tourist attraction. How do you account for the many non-Singaporeans studying and working in Singapore, including Malaysians?
The problem with having a benevolent ~despot is that the concentration of power might outlive the benevolent. I'd rather have a competent, pragmatic, not particularly self-indulgent autocrat than a mercurial, hedonistic, randomly homicidal, self-delusional autocrat... but I'd prefer to decentralize power in order to reduce the probability of the latter ever replacing the former.
3
Speaking of boring Toronto, I spent a week in Singapore and partook of a national arts festival, and I would say that the Etobicoke School for the Arts (a Toronto High School) produced much higher quality arts than this tiny perfect nation state. Not to take away from LKY's accomplishments, which are many, but what Singapore excells in, such as efficiency, planning and meritocracy, it lacks in expression and daring - or it did - are things different now in what was to me at least, is a bit of a corporate Disneyland?
6
Why Americans have to tell others what they need, Singapore is a democracy, it lacks a press and free speech, but so what, no country can have it all at the same time, and it takes a strong middle class to have a functioning democracy. We don't need to look further than Afganistan/Iraq/Argentina, when you go hungry and cold, you submit yourself worse humiliation than free speech. Mr Lee did what was needed at that point of time to develop his country, Count me how many British colonies were that successful ?
16
You can't have a democracy without freedom of speech. Otherwise, Russia and Iran would be democracies as well.
7
The ' Singapore model' will certainly survive Lee Kuan Yew's death because it works, period. However, the known unknown is whether a Hong Kong type student uprise might take place. If that happens, it remains to be seen IF the political leadership decides to open the system to a western-type democracy.
1
To all this, I would say, "Give me liberty or give me a home, job, & security" - the latter, which LKY has duly gave to most of the hardworking Singaporeans. As an overseas Singaporean who has stayed in Europe and now HK, l can say this about lack of individual rights in Singapore can sometimes be overstated by foreign media. Caning & harsh punishments? Why do any rational citizen see the need to vandalise or sell drugs anyway. Free speech comes with the responsibility of reporting factual information and I recall not too long ago that this honorable newspaper apologised to him for a misleading inference.
16
At this point in Singapore's development and advanced economy, why do the 2 have to be mutually exclusive, one or the other? Are Singaporeans so feeble minded and savage that the iron fist is still needed to manage them? It certainly could be...
Han, if Singapore is so great and freedom of speech so unimportant how come you live abroad?
Did SGP get too resprictive for you?
Did SGP get too resprictive for you?
3
Lee Kuan Yew deserves respect for being the architect of Singapore's economic growth.
But Singapore in 1965, the year of its independence, was no ordinary developing country. Even then it was one of the busiest ports in the world, and sitting at the tip of one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. It benefited from its history of British colonialism by receiving the idea of rule of law and competent administration. Its neighbors were much larger but also economically incompetent and/or corrupt, which hugely benefited Singapore because it became the de facto financial center of SE Asia. Instead of competing against New York or London, it was competing against Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur. When Singapore was kicked out of the Malay Federation in 1965, Lee was so distraught he wept in public. But its small size has turned out to be a huge advantage because urban workers are much more productive than rural workers. In short, Singapore had advantages other developing countries could only dream of.
It is no coincidence that its sister city, Hong Kong, is also a prosperous bastion of modernity surrounded and lifted up by a "hinterland" of economically less prosperous areas.
But Singapore in 1965, the year of its independence, was no ordinary developing country. Even then it was one of the busiest ports in the world, and sitting at the tip of one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. It benefited from its history of British colonialism by receiving the idea of rule of law and competent administration. Its neighbors were much larger but also economically incompetent and/or corrupt, which hugely benefited Singapore because it became the de facto financial center of SE Asia. Instead of competing against New York or London, it was competing against Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur. When Singapore was kicked out of the Malay Federation in 1965, Lee was so distraught he wept in public. But its small size has turned out to be a huge advantage because urban workers are much more productive than rural workers. In short, Singapore had advantages other developing countries could only dream of.
It is no coincidence that its sister city, Hong Kong, is also a prosperous bastion of modernity surrounded and lifted up by a "hinterland" of economically less prosperous areas.
7
He was a good leader and a good man, but did not take well to critics. Is he much different than many of us?
5
It is so refreshing to read about a leader who took his country forward and enriched the country instead of himself. Imagine a world where corruption didn't exist and governments moved to lift all boats and work for the people. Looking at countries from Russia to Haiti, one can only wonder what the world would look like if these countries had true leaders, instead of politicians stuffing their pockets and enriching their friends.
9
I don't mean to demean LKY's achievement, but would like to point out that the current prime minister is his son.
3
Well, they do pay themselves millions in salary, so they did slightly enrich themselves.
2
His younger son and daughter also head two of the major government agencies in Singapore. To me, this is a sign of dictatorship (in a subtle way).
A nation, like a political party, a religion, or a person's life, needs to be built with goals grander than financial success. When a nation has no underlying reason for existence it will be neither sustainable nor inventive. The great inventions and creations or humankind come from the flourishing of ideas, not the establishment of banks.
I used to ride my push bike by LKY's house on Oxley every weekday morning. At night, the road was closed off to vehicle traffic not pedestrians. A relatively modest house which will no doubt be torn down and developed into some either grander and/or with more units which will be unfortunate but in some ways reflects Singapore's endless ability to reinvent itself over the decades since independence.
The last two GE's have clearly shown that there is general dissatisfaction with the current state of government but the manner in which candidate slates are put together (LKY was pure genius) which in effect have kept the PAP in power. The opposition has difficulty in putting qualified slates together which itself is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Keeping the balance between attracting top talent and foreign/domestic investment while keeping the masses living in HDB happy, controlling cost of living and striving towards some semblance of wage equality are hard issues. As LKY noted, the only resource that Singapore has is its people but it is a very competitive and open environment. While I do not expect protests like what happened in HK during Q4, many of the issues as it relates to opportunities for the young, real or perceived, are the same.
All that being said, Singapore will survive and I expect that it will continue to thrive due to the will power of its citizens. RIP LKY
The last two GE's have clearly shown that there is general dissatisfaction with the current state of government but the manner in which candidate slates are put together (LKY was pure genius) which in effect have kept the PAP in power. The opposition has difficulty in putting qualified slates together which itself is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Keeping the balance between attracting top talent and foreign/domestic investment while keeping the masses living in HDB happy, controlling cost of living and striving towards some semblance of wage equality are hard issues. As LKY noted, the only resource that Singapore has is its people but it is a very competitive and open environment. While I do not expect protests like what happened in HK during Q4, many of the issues as it relates to opportunities for the young, real or perceived, are the same.
All that being said, Singapore will survive and I expect that it will continue to thrive due to the will power of its citizens. RIP LKY
10
Modest? It's like a half a bunker. With Gurkha guards who force people to pass on the other side of the road.
1
The same Gurkha police officers from Nepal who serve loyally for a minimum of 22 years in the Singapore Police Force, guarding major installations there but whose children (who are born and educated up in Singapore) are denied residency rights and forcibly removed to Nepal upon reaching their 18th birthday.
In the open letter to the government Catherine Lim states, "We are in a crisis". Really? I guess she being a Singaporean does not know what a real crisis is as in the rest of the world. More freedom would be welcomed with a change of guard. But Singaporeans should not give up the pragmatic Mr.Lee Kuan Yew's basic framework of a civil,society which is inclusive of Singapore's every citizen. Hopefully, Singaporeans just tweak the system not dismantle it.Don't fix what ai'nt broke.
14
I agree that change is inevitable in Singapore. For one thing, there is little threat of a breakdown in social order if people were to have more freedom to speak their minds. For another, probably few Singaporeans believe that the Lees have a monopoly on superhuman wisdom anymore. Singapore is a sophisticated, grown-up society which knows how to dissent peacefully (as is Hong Kong). In short, they've outgrown autocracy.
11
For Singapore, yes. Unfortunately for HK, the PLA crossed the border already.
4
Singapore and Rwanda have quite a bit in common. Both are small, both having a stellar international image, but both being driven under a "father knows best" dictatorship. Both as such are living on borrowed time unless they integrate with the realities of surrounding countries. For Rwanda that would be mainly the Congo, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya. For Singapore this would be mainly Malaysia and Indonesia. Now that Lee Kuan Yew has moved on time for a change.
1
This comparison is off. Singapore is really well integrated with surrounding countries. It has to, because it doesn't have any natural resources. Unlike Rwanda, Singapore has the backing of the U.S. and China. Neighboring countries countries benefit from Singapore's financial and commercial capabilities, and would be stupid to invade. More importantly, what will distinguish it from Rwanda for a long long time is its culture.
3
I agree that the comparison is poor. Singapore is a true multiracial and multi-religious society. It has few race or religious conflicts since its founding 50 years ago. I also think the safety found in Singapore for women (and everyone, for that matter) cannot be compared to any other nation in the region and perhaps, the earth.
4
South East Asia is far less confrontational now than it was during the uncertained early years of Singapore when the neighbouring governments were more belligerent.
In fact, a good chunk of foreign talent that now make up Singapore's immigrant population is drawn from Indonesia and Malaysia. This is especially true with Peninsular Malaysia, which shares the same urban cultural and colonial roots as Singapore and allows its professional workforce to be much more compatible with the Singaporean work environment.
In fact, a good chunk of foreign talent that now make up Singapore's immigrant population is drawn from Indonesia and Malaysia. This is especially true with Peninsular Malaysia, which shares the same urban cultural and colonial roots as Singapore and allows its professional workforce to be much more compatible with the Singaporean work environment.
1
Once you make a deal with the devil, it's hard to change the terms.
Oman, which is arguably tidier than Singapore if not always as business-friendly, faces a similar challenge, with the nation-building Sultan seemingly on his death bed and no publicly anointed heir.
Oman, which is arguably tidier than Singapore if not always as business-friendly, faces a similar challenge, with the nation-building Sultan seemingly on his death bed and no publicly anointed heir.
2
When I lived in Hong Kong during the 1980s & 1990s, Singapore seemed a boring Toronto to our bustling New York. Lee's successes are apparent, but also easy to over state. At a public policy forum a senior Chinese government official was asked what lessons China could learn from Singapore. He gave the stock answer (rule of law, strong education, stable society, etc.) concluding that Lee Kuan Yew would have made a very effective mayor in China. This backhanded comment was his way of reminding those present that the challenges of governing a vast nation dwarf those of running a small city-state.
11
Sounds sorta like Seattle and its satelite cities- Mercer Island and Bellevue. JG-
1
The leader of this small city-state had addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress in 1985. Let's see which mayor of a Chinese city, will be doing that.
Last heard, all mayors of cities in China are under various level of surveillance for corruption.
Do not compare a lion with sheep.
Last heard, all mayors of cities in China are under various level of surveillance for corruption.
Do not compare a lion with sheep.
7
Yes AVB, I do agree with you on a couple of points. We have to note though, HK in the 80s & 90s still has the backing of the British government, and the advantage of being the gateway to a newly-opened Chinese economy. What does Singapore have? This is akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.
1
"We are in the midst of a crisis where the people no longer trust their government, and the government no longer cares about regaining their trust."
Sounds much more like America than Singapore.
If I was Singapore, I'd stick with what works...
Sounds much more like America than Singapore.
If I was Singapore, I'd stick with what works...
22
Singapore sounds very interesting- similar to Hong Kong. What I've read here tempts me to go see for myself. JG-
3
It's a bit boring - probably Singapore's greatest risk. Accommodation is not cheap. Best to combine with another destination in the neighborhood. No shortage of exciting, easily accessible options. Lots of fascinating architecture everywhere, to America's shame.
Its sad you have not, especially since its an important world capital. Hong Kong is the "New York" to Singapore's "DC." Much more gentle, green, safe and family-oriented. Its not perfect but pretty close.
1
There a lot of oft repeated platitudes in this article. But I suppose we all see only what we can and of that process only the images we want. The picture is never complete and Singapore shimmers so becomingly in the light that the truth is never revealed.
It goes without saying that with Lee Kuan Yew's passing, Singapore will change. Did my country's well connected propagandists induce you to write and publish this article as part of their efforts to manage the transition? No harm done but you have offered no insights either :).
It goes without saying that with Lee Kuan Yew's passing, Singapore will change. Did my country's well connected propagandists induce you to write and publish this article as part of their efforts to manage the transition? No harm done but you have offered no insights either :).
1
Singapore :A success story when you consider it's state at the time of split with Malaysia. He achieved an amazing feat and his opinion was sought by many leaders either openly or behind closed doors.
A man who knew his mind and spoke his mind. Surely history will look fondly and gratefully at his role.
A man who knew his mind and spoke his mind. Surely history will look fondly and gratefully at his role.
20
I think the key ingredient for the success of Singapore is the brutal efficiency of its government. The longevity of its leadership structure enabled the kind of long term planning and result-driven policies that are critical in effective nation building. Above all, LKY long cultivated a corruption-free, meritocratic leasership team that is long on dedication to public services and the betterment of the country, and short on the greed for personal enrichment that often comes with the attainment of power. It's fair to criticize the great man's authoritarian streak, but could he attain the same level of success without it? We don't need to look any further than our own democratic system to get the answer. Today, our democratic system is in shamble. We would like to think of ourselves as the beacon of freedom for the world but are we? The notion of one man one vote is a pure fantacy. The influence of special interests and corporation has systematically chipped away the sanctity of the democratic system. We may be free in expressions, but in other matters that are equally important - freedom for fresh air, paid sick days, equal pay, health care - the outcome is increasingly in the hands of corporation and the all powerful 0.01%. Burdened by the tedious election cycle, our government is incapable of long term strategic planning and visions. Imagine a poor, young Singapore burdened by the same ineffective governance that we have, what would have happened? Imagine that...
42
This is the type of government needed very badly in India.
5
The problem with our system is that we DO NOT have one person one vote. The Tea Party Republickers have so gerrymandered red states that they get proportionally more seats in both the state legislatures and Congress than their actual votes at he ballot box. That is why they control the Congress but will not be able to win the presidency.
7
That sounds like an attractive idea, but I think the issue is one of scale. LKY's model worked well in Singapore but it is not certain that such a model would work well in India or even China. Singapore has a limited form of democracy that the Chinese cannot reproduce. They are afraid that providing even limited freedom will get an uncontrollable number of people out on the streets. On the other hand, bringing in authoritarianism into India, even in a mild form like Singapore, will cause lock-outs, strikes, protests, perhaps riots. The scale (of population) is not right for India.
Move up the elections to benefit the controlling party...man, that sounds like every other dictatorship I've ever known.
2
Move up the election, is most parliamentary democracies do !!! UK/Australia/Israel just to name a few...
2
It will be hard for Singapore to survive beyond Lee Kuan Yew. He leaves behind unworthy successors. The Singapore model can survive only with authoritarianism (benevolent dictator). Any kind of democracy and political dissent will be the death knell for the tiny state with zero natural resources. I would say, it is the beginning of the end, as states that revolve around a single leader (who rules lifelong) usually don't survive his demise.
1
"Zero natural resources"? Have you checked the Port of Singapore lately? It happens to be the busiest in the world, despite the fact that virtually nothing is manufactured in Singapore. As they say in the real estate industry, location, location, location. Unlike Western Australia and other regions that today are rich in so-called "natural resources", Singapore's location will hold its strategic value long after others' have been depleted.
14
Well, Henry (the eighth, of that name) and his daughter, Elizabeth, were fairly authoritarian and autocratic in ruling their island nation. But they are generally recognized as having given us just about the longest lived democracy in the world and produced the country with the written constitution with the longest life, so while I don't hold any brief for Mr. Lee, there is hope for Singapore.
6
San's comments are truly uninformed.
1
Change is inevitable, the key will be to achieve this without losing what made Singapore successful in the first place - Not an altogether easy task.
4
After reading this article twice, I am still wondering what are the cracks of the Singaporean model. Are these all normal challenges of any sophisticated societies? "Tightly controlled media"? Wow, what an exaggeration. Don't insult the intelligence of people who actually lived there. It would be more credible to say "somewhat controlled media".
18
It is true, you can write whatever you want as a journalist in Singapore- just be prepared to lose your job or have your paper sued into submission. ( I think the Economist and Wall Street Journal could both attest to that.) So maybe that is not "tightly", but it is more than chilling...
6
China has a tightly controlled media. To use the same adjective for Singapore media is misleading. It is certainly a questionable tactic for Lee to use state resources to sue critics into bankruptcy. But Singapore judicial system is independent and the critic will win if he/she has a clear case. Don't we have the same type of politics in the US?
2
I was wondering what people were talking about. In Singapore i could easily get access to any news source I want and so can every local (noting they use English primarily so its easier than for Chinese regardless of the great firewall).
So the local news fawns over the government. Fine. Whatever. In a country with an open internet,who cares?
So the local news fawns over the government. Fine. Whatever. In a country with an open internet,who cares?
For any nation to offer citisens stability, that nation must minimize life's uncertainties to very low levels.
What are those uncertainties? Just look at backwards Haiti, El Salvador, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pakistan, Afghanistan.
01. pollution
02. no sewERage & ltd or no clean water
03. exposure to natural disaster (quakes, typhoons)
04. limited or no public health
05. high wealth concentration
06. political instability
07. poor living standards
08. ludicrous education standards.
09. inept or corrupt police & courts
10. low public safety
11 pathetic physical safety standards
12 etc.
Singapore started with all these plus natural-resource want. But going back to English settlement in the early 1800s, it had always been a great port.
The focus of resource poor nations should be on key needs, notably high productivity of work-age adults, rather then getting intoxicated and weepy on simply hot-button concerns.