TR EMERITUS

Straits Times, 3 November 2009 Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments that the United States should remain engaged in East Asia have drawn criticism on the website of a state-owned newspaper in China. The Chinese-language Global Times, a sister publication of the flagship People's Daily noted for its international coverage, said it reported on Sunday a speech Mr Lee made in Washington last week, and within hours, it claimed to have received more than 500 comments online. In his keynote address delivered at the US-Asean Business Council's 25th anniversary gala dinner last Thursday in Washington, MM Lee said the US should remain engaged in Asia. '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 America to strike a balance.' He also warned Washington that it risked losing its global leadership if it did not remain engaged in Asia. MM Lee was conferred a lifetime achievement award for helping to foster US-Asean relations at the dinner last week. Many of those who responded were upset and said that MM Lee had treated the Chinese as outsiders although they had treated Singaporeans as 'among their own'. 'Lee Kuan Yew spoke for the feeling of those in the West who fear China's rise would harm their vested interests,' said one netizen. Another described MM Lee as 'a political animal', saying that while he 'relies on China to develop his country's economy, he is ushering wolves here to deal with China'. A third posting said: 'Just because he has achieved some success in Singapore, he dares to play the guiding light that shows US the way. If he has the stuff, he should go to Africa and offer tips on how to shake off poverty and achieve wealth.' Another posting brushed off his comments as insignificant as Singapore was a small country. 'Lee Kuan Yew had made such comments likely because Singapore is a small country that needs an interplay of balances in the international arena,' said the netizen. 'However, what significance do his words carry when the reality is that for a voice to be heard and the views realised, one needs to be truly powerful?' the netizen added. - ST  Read More →

From our Correspondent A forumer at the popular forum for Singapore women moms4mom had started a thread proclaiming MM Lee as a national hero! Using the moniker "industrious birdie", she wrote: "At the age of 86, he is still so charming and inspiring. I dread the day we would lose such a great leader. He has set standards difficult, if ever possible, for anyone to pass.....How can Singapore repay what MM and his family had done for this country? He's mine and dear hubby's national hero!" In an immediate response, tinkerbell wrote: "Oh yes, me too! He is my national hero too! I respect him so much and will forever be grateful to him! I even wanted to name my son after his English name. I will make sure I will educate my son about MM Lee's contributions to the country." Chirpleader concurred: "MM Lee is my hero. I am going to make sure that my kids know what he has done for Singapore. I want them to be proud of MM Lee of his achievements." Actually the forumers need not tell their children about MM Lee because he is in the news almost every other day. Not a single week passed without MM Lee dispensing his usual "pearls of wisdom" to Singaporeans or to some wretched country in the world. It is hard to miss him given the extensive publicity he is getting day in and out from the state media. Years of relentless propaganda through the government-controlled media have elevated MM Lee to the status of a great leader and international statesman. However, his contributions to Singapore are grossly exaggerated while his flaws are hidden away from public view. Though MM Lee is one of the founding fathers of Singapore, he is only after all a servant to the country. We do not really have to be grateful to him (eternally). Without a capable team of colleagues and a population which is hardworking, thrifty and honest, MM Lee will not be able to achieve anything. Singapore owes its success today not only to him, but to many other leaders as well. Our economic policy was formulated by Goh Keng Swee with advice from Dutch economist Albert Winsemius. In fact, MM Lee made some critical mistakes which led to perpetual headaches for Singapore now. For example, our birth rate  is so low because of the "stop at two" policy introduced by him in the 1970s and we have no choice but to encourage immigration to replace our declining population. MM Lee's harsh treatment of his political opponents leads indirectly to the creation of a climate of fear enshrouding the citizenry with few citizens interested in politics. This necessitates the ruling party to raise the salaries of MPs and ministers so as to entice capable men and women to join the government. There is no proper system of leadership succession and renewal both within and outside the ruling party for the entire Singapore seems to revolve around him. He should have retired gracefully from politics in 1991 when he stepped down as Prime Minister. A great leader is one who knows when to go when the time is ripe. Just that readers of this site will never understand the blind faith these women forumers have in MM Lee, neither will they be able to see our reasoning that having an overwhelming "cult figure" in Singapore is unhealthy and undesirable. No individual is greater than the country itself. For all his accomplishments, MM Lee is only a citizen of Singapore just like you and me. We do not have to go out of the way to ensure that our children will remember him. In China today, few are able to recall Chairman Mao or even Deng Xiaoping, let alone the great Emperors in the past who have brought periods of peace and prosperity in feudal China. History will have a more objective assessment of MM Lee's merits and faults in 10 to 20 years to come after his passing.  Read More →

OPINION During a PAP convention at Downtown East to celebrate its 50th year in power, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the PAP will have the next generation of political leaders in place by the next general election in 2011 or 2012. Some candidates, including potential office holders, have been identified, he said, but the team that can one day take over from him and his senior colleagues is not complete now. In other democracies, aspiring politicians who wish to serve their nation will join a political party which shares their values and visions at a young age before working their way up the party hierarchy. Not so in Singapore where the ruling party has to go out of the way to "recruit" potential candidates into their fold to be fielded in the general election, many of whom are political green-horns with little grassroots experience or support base. Under usual circumstances, it is risky to field so many new and untested candidates in a general election, but the PAP has cleverly engineered the electoral system in such a way that they can be almost assured of a victory by riding on the "coat-tails" of a heavyweight minister in a GRC. Such a system fails to distinguish the real political talents to the riff-rafts and allows mediocre men and women to enter Parliament through the "back-door" too easily which also leave them beholden to the senior leaders of the party. A capable, charismatic and influential leader is one who is acknowledged by his peers and not appointed from above. The PAP's system of "self-renewal" is focused on recruiting "sheep" and not real leaders who may otherwise threaten the balance of power in the party. Singapore is the only country in the world with two previous prime ministers remaining in the cabinet. Like seedlings growing in the shadow of a big tree, the junior leaders in the PAP will have little opportunity to display their leadership skills and capabilities fully when the party elders are the ones who wield the power behind the throne. The Singapore system is not quite unlike the mandarinate system in feudal China where court officials were appointed at the Emperor's pleasure and held limited power. There are qualified and experienced leaders in the current cabinet who can take over PM Lee as the next Prime Minister of Singapore. There is really no need for him to scour for another successor from outside the government now. Upon relinquishing his position, his cabinet members will be able to elect or appoint one suitable candidate to lead the nation among themselves. The key question is: will Singapore's 4th Prime Minister be given free rein to lead the nation if MM Lee and/or PM Lee still remain in the cabinet? Singapore's two sovereign wealth funds - GIC and Temasek Holdings, are led by MM Lee and his daughter-in-law Ho Ching respectively. Will we expect any change in the management? It may be more important for PM Lee to pick a trusted successor than a capable one. Singapore's political system is largely built in the image of its founding father MM Lee to entrench the PAP in power forever. The next Prime Minister must preserve the system to prevent an alternative party other than the PAP from assuming power. Unfortunately, as history has shown, family wealth never passes three generations and future generations of leaders who are born in different eras seldom the same ideals and visions of their predecessors. Before Mao Zedong passed away, he appointed a trusted and compliant subordinate Hua Guofeng to take over him in order to protect the interests of his closed family members, especially his wife Jiang Qing, part of the Gang of Four responsible for the excesses of the Cultural Revolution. Being a mediocre leader, Hua was unable to hold the fort and was ousted by Deng Xiaoping after only 3 years in power. Deng dismantled many of Mao's socialist programs and set China on the path of economic liberalization which will surely be opposed vehemently by the revolutionary Mao had he still been alive. Closer to home, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad chose Abdullah Badawi as his successor when he retired in 2003 because he thought that Badawi was loyal and obedient to him. Badawi charted a development plan for Malaysia which was radically different from Mahathir and peeved him so much that he spent two entire years haranguing and heckling his successor till he stepped down. As we can see from these two examples, it is impossible for a leader to expect his legacy to be preserved intact after he is gone and even if he passed his position to his son or daughter, there is no guarantee that they will follow his wishes. After the passing of Taiwan's first President Chiang Kai Shek, his son Chiang Ching Kuo took over him as leader of Taiwan. However, the younger Chiang did not pass his position to his son when he died. He appointed his Vice-President Lee Teng Hui as his successor who ironically went on to dismantle the Chiang family's power base in Taiwan. PM Lee said that both the PAP and Singapore's success depends on the quality of its national leaders. It cannot be more true for a small island state with a tiny population - our human resource is our greatest asset. Having obedient "sheeps" as followers may help leaders consolidate their positions within the party, especially if their position is weak to begin with. However, there will be no capable leaders to feel the power vacuum when the strongman leaves the political scene altogether. For the sake of Singapore, the PAP should democratize its own organizational structure first and allow talented leaders to emerge from within its ranks rather than "parachute" them from outside. Leadership is a quality which has to be incalculated through the baptism of fire and not when it is handed over on a silver platter. In the first place, few Singaporeans are interested in politics. During the 2006 elections, PM Lee admitted himself that many of their first-choice candidates refused to stand for elections. Can Singapore afford to be led by unwilling leaders who have to be coaxed and enticed to "serve" the people? The current system which is meant to keep a few particular persons in power is untenable in the long run for it does not permit or promote free competition in politics even within the PAP itself. Under this tightly controlled system, no alternative centers of power will ever emerge within the PAP itself to challenge the ruling elite, let alone outside the party. Singapore is plunged into dire straits now because of the selfish interests of a few persons so intoxicated by power that they simply refuse to let go. A ruling party without an internal mechanism of check and balances dominating a state without an opposition is a recipe for disaster. All it needs is one Robert Mugabe to assume power and the country will fall into ruins in a few years' time. PM Lee should allow his colleagues and the people to decide on the next Prime Minister to ensure that he or she will be accountable to the nation instead of the person who gives him/her the job. Ultimately, nobody is indispensable to Singapore. Our nation is far greater than any person or family no matter how great their past contributions may be. Will PM Lee be brave enough to remove the deadwood from his party and bring in some solid people with real calibre and ability? Sheeps only know how to follow the herd blindly. They will not be able to bring us far. What Singapore really need is a visionary who can inspire the entire nation to greater heights.  Read More →