• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Lee Kuan Yew, founder of modern Singapore, passes away at 91

Status
Not open for further replies.

ElyrionX

Member
We have been mourning him in SingaporeGAF (http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=624556) but this probably deserves its own thread.

Reuters said:
By Rujun Shen and Rachel Armstrong

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first prime minister, died on Monday aged 91, triggering a flood of tributes to the man who oversaw the tiny city-state's rapid rise from a British colonial backwater to a global trade and financial center.

U.S. President Barack Obama described Lee, who ruled Singapore for three decades, as "a true giant of history" whose advice on governance and economic development had been sought by other world leaders down the years.

Lee had receded from public and political life over the past few years, but he was still seen as an influential figure in the government of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, his oldest son.

In his lifetime, Lee drew praise for his market-friendly policies but also criticism at home and abroad for his strict controls over the press, public protest and political opponents.

"The prime minister is deeply grieved to announce the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the founding prime minister of Singapore," the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement.

He died at 3:18am local time (3:18 p.m. EDT) at Singapore General Hospital, where he had been admitted on Feb. 5 suffering from pneumonia.

The government has declared a period of national mourning until his funeral on Sunday. Lee's family will hold a private wake in the next two days, then his body will lie in state at parliament from Wednesday to Saturday.

Thousands of people had been leaving flowers and cards at the hospital over the past three days, praying for his recovery, and many rushed back there when they awoke to the news of his death.

"I'm so sad. He is my idol. He's been so good to me, my family and everyone," said Lua Su Yean, 64. "His biggest achievement is that from zero he's built up today's Singapore."

"Harry" Lee became Singapore's first prime minister in 1959 and held onto power for 31 years, overseeing the island's transformation from a port city battling crime and poverty into one of Asia's most prosperous nations.

Even after stepping down as leader in 1990 - signing off as the world's then longest-serving prime minister - the acerbic Lee stayed on in the cabinet until 2011. He was a member of parliament until his death.

His leadership of Singapore was seen as a model for developing countries across the world, and politicians of all stripes said they took inspiration from his policies.

"Minister Mentor Lee's views and insights on Asian dynamics and economic management were respected by many around the world, and no small number of this and past generations of world leaders have sought his advice on governance and development," Obama said in a statement.

Thousands are expected to pay their respects at the Istana, or presidential palace, a grand colonial-era building where a condolence book has been set up.

"My tears welled up as I received the sad news," said another former Singapore prime minister, Goh Chok Tong, who succeeded Lee. "He was my leader, mentor, inspiration, the man I looked up to most," Goh posted on Facebook.

Dozens of world leaders are expected to travel to Singapore for Lee's funeral. His wife, Kwa Geok Choo, was the last Singaporean to be given a state funeral. In 2010 her coffin was carried on a ceremonial gun carriage to a suburban crematorium.

"As Singapore marks its 50th anniversary of independence this year, its founding father will be remembered as one of the most inspiring Asian leaders," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement.

STRAIGHT TALKING

Lee, a British-educated lawyer, is credited with building Singapore into one of the world's wealthiest nations on a per capita basis with a strong, pervasive role for the state and little patience for dissent.

Singapore is now home to many of the world's ultra-rich, lured by low taxes and a high standard of living.

"His was a voice that spoke clearly and directly, even if his views might be controversial," said Simon Tay, chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.

Lee, a fourth-generation Singaporean, co-founded the People's Action Party (PAP), which has ruled the city since 1959 and led the newly born country when it was separated from Malaysia in 1965.

He stepped down as prime minister in 1990, handing power to Goh Chok Tong, but remained influential as senior minister in Goh's cabinet and later as "minister mentor" when his eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong, became prime minister in 2004.

The older Lee advocated free-wheeling market capitalism while keeping tight control over social behavior, from banning chewing gum to caning graffitists.

Lee wrote a handful of books and voiced strong opinions on everything from eugenics and the "slothful" sport of golf to fengshui and astrology, which he decried as "utter rubbish!"

(Reporting by Singapore bureau; Writing by Jeremy Laurence and Rachel Armstrong; Editing by Mark Bendeich)

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0MI08Y20150322?irpc=932
 

Bleepey

Member
Is he as awesome as he seems? He seemed to have made Singapore a powerhouse despite them having no resources.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Is he as awesome as he seems? He seemed to have made Singapore a powerhouse despite them having no resources.

One of the most important factors of Singapore's success is... the fact that it's a major port hub for the region.

Lee Kuan Yew may have had a hand in that fact... but it's a little disingenious to attribute Singapore's success to anything else (whatever you think it may be - person, policy, culture, etc) without recognition of that fact.


It'd be like saying that my state (Western Australia) is amazing in spite of our minerals export (we're not).
 

ElyrionX

Member
One of the most important factors of Singapore's success is... the fact that it's a major port hub for the region.

Lee Kuan Yew may have had a hand in that fact... but it's a little disingenious to attribute Singapore's success to anything else (whatever you think it may be - person, policy, culture, etc) without recognition of that fact.


It'd be like saying that my state (Western Australia) is amazing in spite of our minerals export (we're not).

I think that's severely understating the man's contribution. Lee Kuan Yew was selfless, incorruptible and had a brilliant mind. Urban planning, national defense, education, racial harmony; so many of these policies shaped the country into what it is today and all because one man had the foresight to enact them and the leadership to execute on the grand vision. Our economic advantage as a major port could have easily been squandered away under a less capable leader.
 

Meadows

Banned
One of the greatest pragmatists in world history. Exhibit A in the argument against mindless ideology-driven politics.
 
His book From Third World To First is a bit self congratulatory but it's a great overview of all the challenges that faced Singapore on independence. Ethnic tensions between Chinese and Malay, communist subversion, corruption, the threat from much larger Malaysia and a lack of resources all could have doomed the country and a lot of the credit for the success has to go to LKY.
 
I think that's severely understating the man's contribution. Lee Kuan Yew was selfless, incorruptible and had a brilliant mind. Urban planning, national defense, education, racial harmony; so many of these policies shaped the country into what it is today and all because one man had the foresight to enact them and the leadership to execute on the grand vision. Our economic advantage as a major port could have easily been squandered away under a less capable leader.

I lurk in SG Gaf sometimes and have seen yourself and others complain about people being disrespectful to LKY at this time. While I agree on a personal level that it's stupid to jump up and down about him at a time like this, on a level I understand why. The discourse about LKY and Singapore in general ignores any and all flaws on the country and the man in general and just talks about the paradise that people think it is.

While Singapore is amazing and a lovely place it needs a lot of hard work to get to that and a lot of hard work to maintain, and dare I say a lot of hard work in the future to IMPROVE. Don't let Singapore and Singaporean discourse and culture follow this whole deference to your elders/LKY/whatever so that you can't criticise anything, otherwise you end up like a China, which is modernising through brute force, not through skill and innovation like Singapore has. Only by being thoughtful and critical of your past can you make sure you can have an even better future.

Not sure if this came off well but to try and TL: DR it, Singapore is great but has a ways to go, don't brush over stuff and Singapore will become even better.
 

ElyrionX

Member
I lurk in SG Gaf sometimes and have seen yourself and others complain about people being disrespectful to LKY at this time. While I agree on a personal level that it's stupid to jump up and down about him at a time like this, on a level I understand why. The discourse about LKY and Singapore in general ignores any and all flaws on the country and the man in general and just talks about the paradise that people think it is.

While Singapore is amazing and a lovely place it needs a lot of hard work to get to that and a lot of hard work to maintain, and dare I say a lot of hard work in the future to IMPROVE. Don't let Singapore and Singaporean discourse and culture follow this whole deference to your elders/LKY/whatever so that you can't criticise anything, otherwise you end up like a China, which is modernising through brute force, not through skill and innovation like Singapore has. Only by being thoughtful and critical of your past can you make sure you can have an even better future.

Not sure if this came off well but to try and TL: DR it, Singapore is great but has a ways to go, don't brush over stuff and Singapore will become even better.

I actually think that is a great perspective to have. On the way home today, the local radio stations were paying tribute to him and his accomplishments. Amidst all that, I thought to myself, "so what were his failures?", and found myself a lot more curious about that than his accomplishments since those were a lot more obvious.

And to be very frank, I believe the man showed signs in the past few years that he has lost touch with the ground and what Singapore really needs. In no way does this diminish his legacy though.
 

Renekton

Member
I'm from Singapore's neighbor Malaysia which is rich in natural resources, fertile land and excellent port location. We even got lots of petroleum. Singapore was formed because Malaysia's leader kicked him into a tiny island with nothing. Malaysia was destined for greatness and Singapore was doomed from the start.

Somehow Lee turned Singapore into this nation of overachievers and high per capita income. Whereas Mahathir (Lee's contemporary in Malaysia) turned Malaysia into a deeply-corrupted country with low education standards and racism-driven politics.
 

duckroll

Member
Lee Kuan Yew is without a doubt a great man and a visionary. But like all great political leaders who had to establish a nation in trying times, questionable things were done in the process. Is he the most admirable moral person? Absolutely not. Are all his politics progressive and worth celebrating? No. But he achieved a lot, and I think we just have to look around Singapore to other South East Asian countries to see how they are doing politically and economically, to see that the governance he laid the foundation for has significant benefits.

I actually think that is a great perspective to have. On the way home today, the local radio stations were paying tribute to him and his accomplishments. Amidst all that, I thought to myself, "so what were his failures?", and found myself a lot more curious about that than his accomplishments since those were a lot more obvious.

The Graduate Mothers' Scheme is probably one of his more public failures. Failure in understanding the problem it wanted to tackle, and failure in not realizing how bad it reflected on the government socially. They back-peddled on that pretty quickly. In terms of questionable things he has done to make the country what it is, Operation Coldstore is also something which I think remains controversial historically. It's not something which gets talked about much other than how it was "necessary to root out the communist agenda", but it's not something to be proud of at all. It's interesting to think about what could have happened if that didn't take place though, because the PAP could have been out of power before modern Singapore was fully established.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Lee Kuan Yew is without a doubt a great man and a visionary. But like all great political leaders who had to establish a nation in trying times, questionable things were done in the process. Is he the most admirable moral person? Absolutely not. Are all his politics progressive and worth celebrating? No. But he achieved a lot, and I think we just have to look around Singapore to other South East Asian countries to see how they are doing politically and economically, to see that the governance he laid the foundation for has significant benefits.

Not to talk the man down or anything, but it certainly helps the modernization process when approximately an eighth of the world's shipping passes through your city given its key geographic location, you have a fairly advanced bureaucratic and administrative system left in place by the British that means comparatively you were very wealthy by South East Asian standards even at the point of independence, and you remain only a city-state and don't have to deal with the traditional rural-urban divide that plagues so many other modernization projects. Singapore had it relatively easy compared to pretty much any other emerging ex-colonial nation. I think Lee Kuan Yew's main achievement was acting as a political stabilizer to prevent radical insurgents, the rest was a matter of staying on the tracks.
 

Jimrpg

Member
No he's not.

That said it's sad he's passed away.

Look at how prosperous Singapore is. And then cross the border and look at the state of Malaysia or any other SE Asia country. Singapore's GDP per capita is one of the highest in the world. Number 3 behind Qatar and Luxembourg. They have a lot less land to look after, but they got to where they were with hardly any resources except the work ethic of their population.

I sit here in Malaysia and the people here have little money, and not much development here to speak about especially away from Kuala Lumpur. Heck, I have to go all the way into KL to actually go to a decent computer shop to get parts.

If he did questionable things, its arguable they were a small price to pay for leading his nation from nothing to a prosperous nation.
 

Jimrpg

Member
Not to talk the man down or anything, but it certainly helps the modernization process when approximately an eighth of the world's shipping passes through your city given its key geographic location, you have a fairly advanced bureaucratic and administrative system left in place by the British that means comparatively you were very wealthy by South East Asian standards even at the point of independence, and you remain only a city-state and don't have to deal with the traditional rural-urban divide that plagues so many other modernization projects. Singapore had it relatively easy compared to pretty much any other emerging ex-colonial nation. I think Lee Kuan Yew's main achievement was acting as a political stabilizer to prevent radical insurgents, the rest was a matter of staying on the tracks.

With all due respect, that's kind of belittling their achievements, Singapore could have easily slacked off in their work ethic, been reduced to political infighting, been governed poorly but over the course of 60-70 years have continued to grow prosperous. You could also say that these shipments could have gone to any port in South East Asia, but they never did, because Singapore provided a great service and was a great transport hub despite their higher value dollar versus all the other SEA countries.

The rural-urban divide that you mention goes both ways, even though Malaysia has oil reserves, Singaporeans GDP per capita is 3x better off than Malaysia, when Singapore is strictly a services country.

The fact that they started with nothing and maintained their prosperity is whats impressive about Singapore especially when no other country in their region is in the same ball park.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
With all due respect, that's kind of belittling their achievements, Singapore could have easily slacked off in their work ethic, been reduced to political infighting, been governed poorly but over the course of 60-70 years have continued to grow prosperous. You could also say that these shipments could have gone to any port in South East Asia, but they never did, because Singapore provided a great service and was a great transport hub despite their higher value dollar versus all the other SEA countries.

The rural-urban divide that you mention goes both ways, even though Malaysia has oil reserves, Singaporeans GDP per capita is 3x better off than Malaysia, when Singapore is strictly a services country.

The fact that they started with nothing and maintained their prosperity is whats impressive about Singapore especially when no other country in their region is in the same ball park.

They really didn't start off with nothing, though. Singapore *started* with one-eighth of the world's shipping traffic; this was a largely British achievement (well, even more a geographic one, given that at least some coastal city on the underside of the Malay peninsula was going to be a winner, but the British were responsible for making it Singapore specifically). Singapore's job was thus one of maintenance, which is what I just said Lee Kuan Yew did very well. In 1962, Singapore's GDP per capita in modern USD was $471.9 and Japan's was $633.6. In comparison, Malaysia was largely very poor indeed, with most people on subsistence wage and Singapore having approximately 6x their GDP per capita. Saying that Singapore 'started with nothing' is grossly misrepresenting the situation. The British surrendered to the Japanese in front of a Ford plant (旧福特汽车工厂), just one of the many industrial factories already present in Singapore prior to independence which had no real equivalent in Malaysia.

Singapore's analogue is not Malaysia; the structural and economic opportunities available to them were vastly different in 1960. Singapore's analogue is Hong Kong, and Singapore and Hong Kong broadly did as well as each other up until the late '90s, which probably has more to do with the CCP than it does Singapore.

Incidentally, this thread sort of shows why Lee Kuan Yew was so good at stability. His personal cult is rather impressive, helped in part by the repression of freedom of speech and the curtailment of opposition parties that he put in place.
 
Not to talk the man down or anything, but it certainly helps the modernization process when approximately an eighth of the world's shipping passes through your city given its key geographic location, you have a fairly advanced bureaucratic and administrative system left in place by the British that means comparatively you were very wealthy by South East Asian standards even at the point of independence, and you remain only a city-state and don't have to deal with the traditional rural-urban divide that plagues so many other modernization projects. Singapore had it relatively easy compared to pretty much any other emerging ex-colonial nation. I think Lee Kuan Yew's main achievement was acting as a political stabilizer to prevent radical insurgents, the rest was a matter of staying on the tracks.

not sure what you mean . most of the population live in kampongs then, we had not much of any kind of industry and we don't even have enough water. Staying on the tracks will mean that we stay a 3rd world country, the British never cared about changing the mass population standard of living and at most establish us as cheap labors for something like manufacturing MNC and Port workers .

LKY did have some polices that is not so white but he (and his government then) produce so much more results not to mention his influence on China which in some small way helped China to became what China is now.

They really didn't start off with nothing, though. Singapore *started* with one-eighth of the world's shipping traffic; this was a largely British achievement (well, even more a geographic one, given that at least some coastal city on the underside of the Malay peninsula was going to be a winner, but the British were responsible for making it Singapore specifically). Singapore's job was thus one of maintenance, which is what I just said Lee Kuan Yew did very well. In 1962, Singapore's GDP per capita in modern USD was $471.9 and Japan's was $633.6. In comparison, Malaysia was largely very poor indeed, with most people on subsistence wage and Singapore having approximately 6x their GDP per capita. Saying that Singapore 'started with nothing' is grossly misrepresenting the situation. The British surrendered to the Japanese in front of a Ford plant (旧福特汽车工厂), just one of the many industrial factories already present in Singapore prior to independence which had no real equivalent in Malaysia.

Singapore's analogue is not Malaysia; the structural and economic opportunities available to them were vastly different in 1960. Singapore's analogue is Hong Kong, and Singapore and Hong Kong broadly did as well as each other up until the late '90s, which probably has more to do with the CCP than it does Singapore.

Incidentally, this thread sort of shows why Lee Kuan Yew was so good at stability. His personal cult is rather impressive, helped in part by the repression of freedom of speech and the curtailment of opposition parties that he put in place.

Funny that you mentioned HK. HK have another Benefit in that the British Army never pull out until China took over.

LKY and his government have to implement the NS system that many people is still unhappy about to prevent regional intrusion. relationship with Indonesia was bad , Malaysia maybe a threat ,etc.
Will you invest in a country that may be invaded easily and thus losing your assets ?
There were many issues after our Independence , the British did not leave us that much .
 

Madness

Member
Singapore is a great non-Western success story that shows that the future of Asia can be just as bright. It's really very much like Switzerland where many different ethnicities come together to work towards a unified country. Malaysians, Chinese, South Indians aka all Singaporeans now. It is a major port city, a major financial power and financial hub, and will be one of the powers of Asia as the latter half of the century starts. My friend who went spoke praises of the country, it's Skypark tower with that large infinity pool on the edge overlooking the skyline.
 

Renekton

Member
They really didn't start off with nothing, though. Singapore *started* with one-eighth of the world's shipping traffic; this was a largely British achievement (well, even more a geographic one, given that at least some coastal city on the underside of the Malay peninsula was going to be a winner, but the British were responsible for making it Singapore specifically). Singapore's job was thus one of maintenance, which is what I just said Lee Kuan Yew did very well. In 1962, Singapore's GDP per capita in modern USD was $471.9 and Japan's was $633.6. In comparison, Malaysia was largely very poor indeed, with most people on subsistence wage and Singapore having approximately 6x their GDP per capita. Saying that Singapore 'started with nothing' is grossly misrepresenting the situation. The British surrendered to the Japanese in front of a Ford plant (旧福特汽车工厂), just one of the many industrial factories already present in Singapore prior to independence which had no real equivalent in Malaysia.
Malaysia already had tin and rubber refineries which were cash cows at the time. Our ports were nothing to sneeze at either.
 
This thread is shockingly small for the death of someone so significant. I'm guessing people don't know just how important he was in shaping Asian politics over the course of his lifetime, including inspiring China's current political/economic model.
 

Foolworm

Member
I think it's a bit of a shame that LKYgets so much time in the limelight, but it's not really his fault. Still, I think the contributions of others like Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee or S Rajaratnam, to name a few, are just as deserving of admiration. LKY really had a crack team, which made all the difference.

That being said, LKY was a modern Bismarck. I'm sure history will treat him favorably.

RIP.
 

Bleepey

Member
I think it's a bit of a shame that LKYgets so much time in the limelight, but it's not really his fault. Still, I think the contributions of others like Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee or S Rajaratnam, to name a few, are just as deserving of admiration. LKY really had a crack team, which made all the difference.

That being said, LKY was a modern Bismarck. I'm sure history will treat him favorably.

RIP.

Do you have any recommended reading? I am kinda interested in people who were nation builders.
 

Foolworm

Member
Do you have any recommended reading? I am kinda interested in people who were nation builders.

Their respective biographies are a good place to start. LKY's series provides a good master narrative, but the various cabinet ministers really fill in the nitty-gritty and sometimes offer a different perspective.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Malaysia already had tin and rubber refineries which were cash cows at the time. Our ports were nothing to sneeze at either.

Yeah, this is true - I mean, no industrial production, but a fair bit of resource and commodity exports and definitely better placed than say, Indonesia was at the same time. Trouble is, for every Johor Bahru at Malaysia's independence, they had a desperately poor hinterland. Singapore didn't have to support anything but itself.
 

Jb

Member
Singapore is a great non-Western success story that shows that the future of Asia can be just as bright. It's really very much like Switzerland where many different ethnicities come together to work towards a unified country. Malaysians, Chinese, South Indians aka all Singaporeans now. It is a major port city, a major financial power and financial hub, and will be one of the powers of Asia as the latter half of the century starts. My friend who went spoke praises of the country, it's Skypark tower with that large infinity pool on the edge overlooking the skyline.

According to a book I read by the Economist's editors Singapore under LKY is the model the CCP is trying to emulate as much as possible, as opposed to any western one. I'm interested to see if Singapore's brand of state capitalism can remain successful and influential in the long run.
 

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
I think that's severely understating the man's contribution. Lee Kuan Yew was selfless, incorruptible and had a brilliant mind. Urban planning, national defense, education, racial harmony; so many of these policies shaped the country into what it is today and all because one man had the foresight to enact them and the leadership to execute on the grand vision. Our economic advantage as a major port could have easily been squandered away under a less capable leader.

I dont know much about the man but I'm immediately suspicious when someone uses this kind of fawning language.
 

Foolworm

Member
Yeah, this is true - I mean, no industrial production, but a fair bit of resource and commodity exports and definitely better placed than say, Indonesia was at the same time. Trouble is, for every Johor Bahru at Malaysia's independence, they had a desperately poor hinterland. Singapore didn't have to support anything but itself.

I look at it from the opposite perspective, though: for every metropolis Malaysia had, there was a resource-rich hinterland it could also exploit. Singapore had no such luxury; all Malaysia had to do was shut off the taps and it was curtains. Saying that Singapore had it 'relatively easy' and describing LKY's role as 'mainly a stabilizer' is understating things a great deal.
 

Azih

Member
Singapore isn't corrupt. I think that's an astounding achievement and has to be attributed to Lee Kuan Yew. It's really the major factor that keeps so many Asian countries down.

Corruption saps a country's resources and the vitality of its citizens like nothing else.
 

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
Wow the passing of a titan. Though he did some questionable stuff in the name of politics and all that, he did bring much prosperity to the tiny city state of Singapore. It is an economic power house internationally and benefited many people who went there to work. Though now days, Singapore is also known as the safe haven for the super rich as well, making itself the next Switzerland...
 

Bleepey

Member
Singapore isn't corrupt. I think that's an astounding achievement and has to be attributed to Lee Kuan Yew. It's really the major factor that keeps so many Asian countries down.

Corruption saps a country's resources and the vitality of its citizens like nothing else.
Africa would be a better example. I can only imagine what somewhere like Nigeria would be like if it had leaders that gave a shit.
 
This isn't North Korea we are talking about though.
To some others it is similar =/
It does not help the perspection when our local media under report his less than savoury policies. There are a lot of Singaporeans who does not know much or any of his failed moves.
 
Here's an obit for him that's not quite as fawning, but still goes over his accomplishments.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/22/lee-kuan-yew?CMP=share_btn_fb

As for corrupt or not, this is certainly an issue -

When a former President of Singapore, Ong Teng Cheong, surprisingly and daringly asked for an accounts of Singapore's national reserves, the government replied that it would take 56 years to do so. Of the country's two sovereign wealth funds, the Prime Minister is the chairman of one and his wife is the CEO of the other. The current Prime Minister, of course, is the oldest son of Lee Kuan Yew. He is also the highest paid Prime Minister in this world, even after reducing his annual salary from $3.8 million to $2.2 million, a figure that's 40 times the average income in Singapore. To this day though, nobody knows how wealthy the Lee family is because there's no accountability or transparency.

The Prime Minister's brother, Brigadier-General Lee Hsien Yang, is the current chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, a statutory board under the Ministry of Transport, and was formerly the CEO of Singtel, a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings. Their uncle, Kwa Soon Bee, was the former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health. Their cousin Edmund Lee was the Chief Executive of DBS Vickers. Another cousin Kwa Chong Seng was the former Deputy Chairman of Temasek Holdings. And that's merely the tip of the iceberg.

Then there's the judiciary. The government has a habit of suing critics and foreign publications for perceived slander and libel. The country's judges routinely reach a verdict in favor of the government. Opposition leaders have been exiled and imprisoned. The longest serving political prisoner in the modern era was not Nelson Mandela, as popularly thought, but Chia Thye Poh, who was imprisoned in one form or another for 32 years. The local media are all government owned.

The reason people like you think that there's no corruption in Singapore is because the government has effectively legalized and monopolized corruption for themselves. This is nepotism at its finest.

Sure, there's no corruption as far as bribes and such. But all of this certainly seems a little shady and incestual.
 

Qvoth

Member
let's just say it's not by coincidence lhl is the prime minister, lhl's wife is CEO of temasek
this my own opinion here, but corruption is acceptable if the country actually benefits from it, and in this case nobody can argue singapore progressed because of lky and his families
 

JohnCYQ

Member
let's just say it's not by coincidence lhl is the prime minister, lhl's wife is CEO of temasek
this my own opinion here, but corruption is acceptable if the country actually benefits from it, and in this case nobody can argue singapore progressed because of lky and his families

Their leadership perhaps, but let's not forget the brilliant civil servants that have or are currently working under them. Having leaders but no capable people working under them would have produced a rather different result, the same way you wouldn't credit brilliant artwork in a game solely to the art director - you must have capable artists to achieve what you see after all.

Also, let's not forget the combination of:
1) A small country (less areas to develop and maintain)
2) Geographical advantage as a trade hub (that has already been discussed here)

Unless of course, you were to argue that in the hypothetical situation where Malaysia and Singapore's Leadership swapped back in the 60s, and actually believe that LKY and his group would have had the same level of success in transforming Malaysia into what Singapore is today.

...not to belittle his accomplishments, but I do not believe we would have seen the same level of success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom