OPINION
During a dialogue session with NUS alumni, Dr Ng Eng Hen was asked a question which has been on the mind of many Singaporeans for quite some time already - Why is MM Lee still not stepping down?
That somebody dared to voice out this question publicly is an indication of the tide of public opinion turning against Lee's continued tenure in the Singapore government.
A former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee has remained in the cabinet in various capacities since stepping down officially in 1990.
He would be around 87 or 88 years old by the time the next election is called, an age at which most politicians would have retired saved for dictators who died in their offices.
While there is an increasing number of Singaporeans who are calling for Lee's retirement, some of his hardcore supporters are of the view that he is still "adding value" to Singapore and Singaporeans
Dissecting Lee's legacy
Lee's fans argued that he is indispensable to Singapore as he was the chief architect behind Singapore's stunning transformation from a third to first world within a single generation.
With due respect to Lee, his accomplishments have been blown out of proportion and he does not deserve so high an accolade he is getting now from both Singaporeans and foreigners alike.
Lee is fortunate that he was blessed with capable and committed colleagues in the government, a hardworking and subservient citizenry and Singapore's unbeatable geographic position at the tip of the Malay Peninsula for Singapore's spectacular success whose ingredients are already in place when Lee became Prime Minister in 1959.
The British did not bequeath a swamp to Singapore, but a thriving port which was one of the more prosperous parts of Asia in the aftermath of World War Two.
Singapore's economic success was achieved at the expense of the citizens' civil and political liberties under Lee which resulted in the archaic, obsolete and repressive third world political system dominated by Lee's ruling party instead of a vibrant multi-party democracy befitting of Singapore's status as a first world nation.
Furthermore, the fruits of Singapore's economic gains are distributed unevenly with the rich getting the bulk of the share and the poor getting no more than crumbs as evident by Singapore's widening income gap which is the highest among the thirty most developed nations in the world.
Given Lee's mixed track record in office, Singaporeans must wonder how much "value" can he add on to Singapore and Singaporeans.
Redundancy of the Minister Mentor position
Singapore is the only country in the world with a position of "Minister Mentor" in the cabinet who earns almost as much as the Prime Minister himself.
A National Geographic magazine journalist who interviewed Lee recently questioned in his landmark article - "The Singapore Solution" on the exact role of Lee.
Indeed, many Singaporeans are wondering what Lee is doing to deserved such a high salary paid for by Singapore taxpayers.
In a speech to an audience of Japanese business leaders, Lee admitted that he is "not doing much work except forecasting."
Since when did any country need to pay so much money to engage a "forecaster" which is no better than the fortune tellers we see plying their trade along Albert Street outside the Kwan Im Tong Temple?
Besides, Lee's "forecasts" are seldom correct which often makes a mockery out of Singapore.
In 2007, he boldly proclaimed that Singapore will be entering a "golden period" for the next few decades. A year later, Singapore became the first Asian country to enter into a recession and is still barely out of it.
His "services" doesn't come cheap
Hong Kong tycoon Lee Ka Shing once said famously that he isn't the richest man in Asia who is from Singapore. We all know who he is referring to.
As Minister Mentor, Lee takes home a whooping $3 million dollars a year, or more than 6 times that of U.S. President Barack Obama.
And this amount doesn't include the frequent overseas trip he has been making.
Below is a list of Lee's overseas trips since May 2009:
1. 19 - 27 May 2009: Japan and China.
2. 2 - 6 June 2009: United Kingdom.
3. 13 - 19 June 2009: Malaysia (not recorded)
4. 13 - 23 September 2009: United Kingdom, Armenia and Russia.
5. 21 - 31 October 2009: United States of America.
6. 19 January 2010: France
[Source: Prime Minister's Office]
Some of these overseas trips can well be made in his personal capacity, e.g. the trip to U.S. in October 2009 to receive an award from the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council and to attend an interview on the Charlie Rose show and the most recent trip to France to attend the Total International Advisory Committee meeting in Paris.
These trips can easily cost Singapore taxpayers another million dollars or so. Are they really necessary? What additional "value" do they add to Singapore and why can't they be made by any other minister in the cabinet?
If Lee is really that concerned about Singapore, he could simply offer his advice in an non-official capacity instead of continuing to be on the payroll of taxpayers after more than 50 years.
After all, his son is the current Prime Minister in Singapore and he can always have a good talk with him at home over dinner or a cup of tea.
As a senior statesman who is already very wealthy by Singapore standards, Lee would have won more respect from Singaporeans had he followed the example of his namesake in Korea, South Korean President Lee Myuang-Bak who donated his entire 5 year salary to charity.
Frequent faux pauses strain ties with other countries
Some may be inclined to believe the relentless propaganda by the state media that Lee is "adding value" to Singapore with his frequent overseas trip.
On the contrary, whenever he opens his mouth overseas, Singaporeans better run for cover in anticipation of the load of brickbats which will be hurled against them by angry citizens in other countries infuriated by Lee's remarks.
Lee's frequent faux pauses is embarrassing not only him, but his son the Prime Minister and are sounding nothing more than his daily farts of German gas.
In 2008, he dismissed then U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama as a "light-weight" and a "flash in the pan". Imagine a former U.S. President making the same remarks at his son, he would probably expel the U.S. Ambassador in Singapore for "interfering in domestic politics."
To his dismay, Barack Obama won the presidency and Lee soon found himself sitting together with the "flash in the pan" at the White House grinning in front of the cameras a year later.
When he made a grand tour of various Malaysian states in June 2009, the Malaysian Chinese press initially gave him extensive positive publicity till he made some snide remarks about Penang's infrastructure being lacking behind Ipoh.
Penang is ruled by the opposition Democratic Action Party (an off-shoot of the PAP) while Ipoh is the capital of Perak, a state previously governed by the opposition before it was ousted by the Barisan Nasional via a "constitutional coup."
Naturally, the pro-opposition Chinese papers like Sin Chew Daily turned against him including his arch nemesis Dr Mahathir Mohamad who wrote sarcastically on his blog Che Det that the "little Emperor" from the south had come to teach Malaysians how to run their country again.
In October 2009, Lee peeved off the mainland Chinese when he urged the U.S. to maintain a strategic presence in the Asia-Pacific to counter-balance China's influence which is rising in the region.
Predictably, he was flamed mercilessly as a "traitor to the Chinese race" by disgusted Chinese netizens to the extent that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao had to step in to defuse the tension by defending Lee as making the remarks in his personal capacity which will have no negative repercussions on bilateral ties.
Lee's uncontrolled Freudian slips are also impairing his son's efforts to woo Singaporeans over to his side.
Conscious of the fact that many Singaporeans are unhappy with the ruling party's pro-foreigner policies, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has been trying hard to reassure Singaporeans that they remain a "priority" for his administration.
Not too long after he said that, his father managed to peeve off the entire Singapore with another insensitive remark in an interview with the National Geographic magazine.
He told the journalist Mark Jacobson that though he was aware of the fact that “many Singaporeans are unhappy with the influx of immigrants”, he continued to insist that it is for “good” of the nation:
“Over time, Singaporeans have become less hard-driving and hard-striving. This is why it is a good thing that the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants.” Lee was quoted saying.
Lee described the country’s new subjects as “hungry,” with parents who “pushed the children very hard.”
“If native Singaporeans are falling behind because the spurs are not stuck into the hide, that is their problem,” he quipped.
[Source: The Singapore Solution]
Out of touch with the aspirations of young Singaporeans
Lee came to power in 1959 when Singapore was still a young nation of immigrants and many were willing to follow him in search of a better life.
After fifty years of nation-building, Singaporeans have managed to forge a common national identity.
Young Singaporeans who are born after 1965 have different aspirations in life as compared to their parents, but Lee's mindset is still stuck stubbornly in the 1960s and 1970s when his words alone ruled supreme.
It is evident from Lee's recent speeches that he is completely out of touch with the aspirations of young Singaporeans.
In the aftermath of the 2006 elections, he chided Singaporeans for clamoring for more opposition in parliament:
"Please do not assume that you can change governments. Young people don’t understand this."
A few months later, he threatened to send in the army should the PAP lose an election one day:
"Without the elected president and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it."
At a time when many Singaporeans are becoming disgruntled at the widening income gap between the rich and the poor, Lee dismissed its relevance during a Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum last year:
"A widening income gap is inevitable in the face of globalization and it matters little so long the government continues to create jobs for Singaporeans."
Singapore has the highest income-gap among the thirty most developed economies in the world, caused partly by the flawed and myopic policies of Lee.
Flawed, myopic and disastrous polices
In his defence of Lee's relevance to Singapore, Dr Ng Eng Hen said:
"MM spots pitfalls, he tells you what to avoid. He pushed for F1, for the IRs. So you decide."
What pitfalls can Lee spot when he is guilty of making several policy blunders in the past which has resulted in Singapore's current predicament such as the "Stop at Two" policy and the bilingual policy?
Lee is one of the strongest proponent of the PAP's ambitious plan to increase Singapore's population to 6.5 million people.
The policy was implemented hastily with little prior analysis or planning, leading to an influx of foreigners over the last few years.
The number of HDB flats was not increased to meet rising demand from an expected increase in population via immigration.
According to the HDB Infoweb, only slightly more than 11,000 flats were built between the years 2006 and 2008. In 2008 alone, there were more than 90,000 PRs and 20,000 new citizens.
The lack of foresight on the part of HDB to build more flats led to sky-rocketing prices of public housing which we see today.
Lee claimed that the PAP is very "stringent" with who they accept as Singapore citizens and only "real talents" are allowed entry.
Perhaps Lee should take a walk in the HDB heartlands when he is free or read the papers to realize that many of his new pets are construction workers, masseurs, cleaners and even prostitutes who are economic refugees flocking to Singapore to find work because they cannot survive in their homelands.
Because we have allowed too many foreigners into Singapore in too short a time, we now end up with the major problem of how to integrate them into our society without causing a rise in social tension and conflicts.
And what is the PAP doing to sort out the mess they have created? By throwing in another $10 million dollars of taxpayers' monies into the sea.
A recent Wall Street Journal article wrote that the influx of cheap foreign labor into Singapore during the last few years had depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living, especially that of public housing, decreased labor productivity and led to an overall decline in the standards of living which can be attributed to some of the misguided policies introduced by the PAP of which Lee played a pivotal role.
Impediment to leadership renewal within the PAP
When Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan was asked by a resident during a dialogue session last year if he ever considered running for the top job, he was momentarily stunned before answering sheepishly: "What? Do you want me to get into trouble?"
If even such a senior leader of the PAP dare not contemplate challenging Prime Minister Lee for his position, what say the other junior members of the party?
As a matter of fact, the PAP has long ceased to be political party and is no more than a political vehicle for Lee to continue his stranglehold on power.
Like a big tree shadowing all other smaller trees which grow beneath it, Lee's presence will be an impediment to genuine leadership renewal within the PAP and for real leaders to emerge and take charge of its destiny fully.
Right now, Lee's control of the PAP is so complete that nobody has any hope of advancing up the party hierarchy without his prior approval.
The cadre system implemented by him in the early 1960s in the aftermath of the split with Barisan Sosialist ensures that only trusted aides are roped into the powerful CEC whose Secretary-General is none other than his son.
Though party elections are held biannually, they are proving to be a farce. When Dr Ng, Lee's blue-eyed boy fell short of the votes needed to be in the CEC, he was appointed to sit on it anyway.
Even in an outright one-party state like Communist China, there is an informal system of party renewal entrenched - party members above the age of 70 are expected to step down from the highest decision-making organ in the country - the powerful Politburo. Yet in a supposedly democratic nation like Singapore, we have one 86 year old man who simply refuse to bulge and retire to allow younger leaders to take over him.
To be fair to the PAP, they do have capable leaders within its ranks like Tharman, Dr Ng Eng Hen, Khaw Boon Wan and Teo Chee Hean, but their hands are completely tied so long as Lee remains in the cabinet.
Conclusion
Lee is way past his sell-by date. He should retire graciously like Dr Mahathir Mohamad instead of ending up like Suharto being booted out of office by the people.
Not only is he not adding any value to Singapore and Singaporeans, his continued presence is going to be a liability to the PAP in the next general elections where more young Singaporeans will be eligible to vote.
Nobody can deny Lee of his place in Singapore's history. He has done his part for Singapore and it is time he retires and enjoy the remaining days of his life. The longer he stays on, the more wrath he will incur from the people.
It will be a shame if Lee were to die in office being cursed by his own subjects as being a power-hungry despot instead of an enlightened Asian leader which commands the respect of Singaporeans and the international community.
Read More →
Survey finds 30% of Singapore secondary school students claim... I refer to the CNA report, “An underreported problem? Survey finds 30% of Singapore secondary school students claim they have been bullied.” (May 30) and “Jail for man who punched taxi driver for overtaking him” (June 05).
Most of us don’t like to see the occurrences of bullying in schools, as it reflects where...
Trump blinked again on tariffs, but China isn't in the clear I refer to the CNA’s Commentary: Trump blinked again on tariffs, but China isn't in the clear. (May 15)
One deniable fact: There are no winners on either side (between China and the United States) in the trade and tariff war. Yet, Trump still persists to do it.
It is not surprising that Trump has increased China's...
Podcasts didn't decide GE2025 I refer to the CNA’s Commentary: Podcasts didn't decide GE2025, but they changed how Singaporeans engage with politics (May 9).
The 2025 General Election has several features/characteristics that deserve our attention, discussion and
reflection:
In today era, technological revolution, innovation and advancement...
This is not a game of cards I can appreciate parties wanting to hold their cards close to their chest, but the smoke and mirrors games on nominations day, the shuffling of the DPM from a seat he had openly been declared to be defending, and other ministers shuffling constituencies leaves one feeling the PAP thinks it is playing a game of cards.
Constituency...
Is a Parliament full of PAP MPs really better for Singaporeans? I refer to The Online Citizen GE2025 news report, “Lee Hsien Yang: Is a Parliament full of PAP MPs really better for Singaporeans?” - (April 14), and “The Straits Times’ report, “GE2025: Singaporeans will go to the polls on May 3, Nomination Day on April 23” (April 15), and The Online Citizen GE2025 report,...
𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝... Is the PAP of today exceptional, with unmatched competence and delivery? Afterall, that is their justification for the highest salaries in the world. Let’s look at its more recent track record.
Large numbers of NRIC numbers were recently unmasked, leaving Singaporeans exposed to identity theft, fraud, abuse and scams....
GE2025: Red Dot United to contest in Holland-Bukit Timah I refer to the CNA news, “GE2025: Red Dot United to contest in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC but may make way for Singapore Democratic Party” (April 10),
“More opposition 'star catches' are emerging. Is Singapore's political scene maturing?” (April 10) and “PSP says government response to Trump tariffs 'overblown',...
How the end of Ukraine war could be secured, even with waning... I refer to the CNA’s commentaries, “How the end of Ukraine war could be secured, even with waning US support” (Mar 4), “Lessons from the Trump-Zelenskyy meltdown- for friends and foes” (Mar 1) and “Will Trump tariffs push China to change economic tack?” (Mar 3).
Foremost, we need to recognise the reality...
Singapore Army Recruits Deserve a Minimum Wage Singapore Army Recruits Deserve a Minimum Wage: National Service Should Not Come at the Expense of Opportunity Costs
Singapore’s National Service (NS) has long been a cornerstone of the nation’s defense, requiring young men to dedicate two years of their lives to military, civil defense, or police service. While...
From Deepseek to Huawei, US tech restrictions on China are... I refer to the CNA’s Commentary, “From Deepseek to Huawei, US tech restrictions on China are backfiring” (Jan 31).
Would it be practical, useful and effective for the United States to continually pursue an aggressive containment strategy to hobble China’s tech push? Undoubtedly, the answer is obviously not.
There...
