Malaysia’s independent radio station, BFM 89.9 interviewed Thum Ping Tjin, Research Associate at the Centre for Global History at the University of Oxford and co-ordinator of Project Southeast Asia, on Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore.

Lee Chwi Lynn: We’ve established, possibly, the motivating factors for why Singapore was the way it was, why we had to part ways. You mentioned the economy earlier and he (Lee Kuan Yew) is described as having instituted an economic diversification plan which limited Singapore’s vulnerability to international economic conditions and improved its prospects for continued growth, which is very important when you’re looking at a country of that size and with its lack of natural resources. So what policies did he implement and used to ensure this?

Thum Ping Tjin: Well you know Lynn, again, I think we need to unpack the question a bit because Lee was not the economic mastermind, Goh Keng Swee was the economic mastermind. Of the big five in the PAP Cabinet – Lee Kuan Yew, Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam and Ong Pang Boon – only one is left, Ong Pang Boon.

But each of them contributed very very different things to the PAP and they worked incredibly well together as a team. Lee was the unquestioned leader, he was the master politician, he was the one who could get things done but he wasn’t the economic mastermind. That was Goh Keng Swee. And I feel it is very unfair to credit economic success to Lee Kuan Yew even though it’s become so popular to talk about Singapore’s economic success being the result of Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee Chwi Lynn: I think almost every obituary today has kind of included that in the discussion – he was responsible in some way or, you know, in a big way for the economic success.

Thum Ping Tjin: If you think of stability as a key ingredient for economic success, yes.

If you think of bureaucratic competence, efficiency – those are the things that Lee Kuan Yew brought although he wasn’t the only one. Toh Chin Chye was the steel spine of the PAP, he was a very effective party leader. Ong Pang Boon was the party’s organising secretary and also the link to the Chinese educated. Rajaratnam was the philosopher of the group but Goh Keng Swee was the economist and again, you know we talk first about Singapore’s economic success. It is important to remember that Singapore was a very very rich country before Lee Kuan Yew.

By 1930, Singapore was the richest country in Asia in terms of per capita income. And after the war, by 1950, Singapore had recovered already. So the only place in Asia which could claim to be richer was metropolitan Tokyo which of course is a city not a whole country.

So Singapore was fabulously rich, but Singapore’s big problem was that it was an exploitative colonial economy and it had no workers rights. It ruthlessly exploited the population, the working class. So Singapore was incredibly unequal.

The mean income in Singapore in 1950 was around 1,200 Malayan dollars, but the median and modal of income was the same as the poverty line, which was about 100 Malayan dollars. So if you imagine, the rich in Singapore was so rich that they pulled up the average, the mean to 12 times the modal and the median income which was the poverty line.

That was Singapore’s problem and Lee Kuan Yew’s great success was recognising that, working with the trade unions, helping to make Singapore a much more egalitarian and much more socialist, much more democratic place. It was a place where for the first time, regardless of your birth, you actually had opportunities; you actually, even if you didn’t speak English, for example, – that discrimination against non-English speaking – work was rampant in Singapore; the introduction of the women’s charter.

So the PAP’s great achievement under Lee Kuan Yew was not to make Singapore rich, it was to make Singapore fair and I think that is missing in a lot of obituaries.

Lee Kuan Yew – the early Lee Kuan Yew, the 1960s and 70s Lee Kuan Yew – and the 1960s and 70s PAP was a socialist party that aimed to make Singapore a fair place that treated all its citizens fairly, and that is their real legacy.

Lee Chwi Lynn: On that note, an article in Time Magazine back in 1999 claimed that what really sets this complex man apart from Asia’s other nation-builders is what he didn’t do. He did not become corrupt and he did not stay in power too long. Would you agree with this?

Thum Ping Tjin: Well, not really…. You’ll find that as an academic my answers tend to be “not really” rather than “yes” and “no” (laughter).

He did not become corrupt. Yes, absolutely. But ask yourself – Singapore is a country with no natural resources. Instead, its wealth lies upon foreign investment, foreign capital flowing in. If you become corrupt in Singapore, you can’t plunder your country’s natural resources. You have to create an environment where foreign capital keeps flowing in. Then you take your cut of that foreign capital. That’s how you would become corrupt in Singapore. Now if you look at what the PAP’s leaders have done in the last two decades, where salaries – the Prime Minister’s salary is now upwards of $2 million. And ask yourself, is that corruption, or is that simply having predictability and transparency in your corruption. That is a question that Singaporeans need to ask ourselves when we are faced with the vote at the ballot box.

As to the other half of your question, [whether] he did not stay in power too long. Well, he’s still an MP as of yesterday, right? And he only left the cabinet in 2011, and as a direct result – not because he chose to leave, but as a direct result of the PAP’s lowest vote share since independence. He could have retired – if he had left the cabinet in 1991, I think his obituaries would be far more generous and far kinder, and I think people would remember him with greater fondness. But he chose to stay on as Minister Mentor and continued to intervene heavily in Singapore politics for a long time. And of course, his son is Prime Minister, so he still has influence there. So I think he stayed on in power too long, if you ask me.

Lee Chwi Lynn: And throughout the course of his very very long career, how were the policies of the People’s Action Party justified? Because, of course, these are policies which, while they guaranteed Singapore some measure of success, also came under fire.

Thum Ping Tjin: Yes. I think that, again, my big fear now that Lee Kuan Yew has passed on, is that we take his justifications for those policies as some sort of gospel. Lee Kuan Yew loved to use the word “pragmatic”, and that’s what he was as a politician as well. Whatever worked at the time, he would use. And that included his justifications for his policies, which changed dramatically over the course of his political career.

Between 1955 – 1959, he was a massive champion for democracy, transparency, freedom – and all these things went out the window once he got into power, because he didn’t want his own policies to be questioned. Then from 1959 until 1963, and even 1965, he championed a Malayan identity, he championed the idea of a greater Malaysia; after ’65 he championed an independent Singapore, and of course, not having electoral certainty, he still was a very socialist and talked about equality and fairness and meritocracy.

But from 1980 or so, once the last vestiges of Singapore’s opposition were shut down, then he switched started becoming far more openly authoritarian, and justified his policies in terms of pragmatism, efficiency, and of course later on he articulated this “Asian values” – as if one can generalize about a region of 3-4 billion people and say that there’s such a thing as “Asian values” – but these are all things to use to justify his policies at the time.

Interview Part 1
Interview Part 3

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

期盼来年好运连连? 鼠年“拜鼠”逗乐网民

人们都盼望明天会更好,尤其是华裔都会在农历新年前后到神庙烧香拜佛,盼望今年的晦气过完了,来年就好运连连,然而有一名小伙子却异想天开,趁着“鼠”年即将到来,就捉了一只老鼠,烧香祈求来年有好运头。 一段长约34秒,相信是在马来西亚发生的“拜鼠”仪式视频在社交媒体上流传,令见者不禁破口大笑。 视频中只见一名身穿紫色“林梦夜跑”(LIMBANG NYE NIGHT RUN)T恤的年轻男子拿着香,朝向装着一只老鼠的老鼠笼下跪拜拜。 男子口中似乎念念有词地祈求在来临的鼠年能够好运连连且发财,引起躲在摄影机后的人们笑出声。但是男子并没有在意,还在拜了数下后,将香枝插到老鼠笼前放置的塑料香炉中,香炉中当时已经有一些香枝了,且还用钱币充当香灰。 放置老鼠笼的墙壁上,还有黄纸红字写着“老鼠神”。 男子在插好香枝后,才转过身来笑。 有关视频的帖文还写道,“2020鼠年行大运”。 有关的视频自周日(12日)被上载后,就已经吸引了4万9000人观看,还有804人转发。 大部分网民都对此视频按赞和大笑,更有网民笑言,只捉一只老鼠不够,要多捉几只;不过有者也不鼓励这种迷信和崇拜行为,认为农历新年的意义,更应着重家庭团聚、反省自己过去一年得失,还来的更有意义。

人权律师拉维:有违议长应保持中立精神 陈川仁对部长声明表态不妥

撰文:人权律师M.Ravi  翻译:北雁 在本周二(2月12日),国会议长陈川仁在脸书发文表示,同意卫生部当初不把艾滋病患数据泄漏事件公之于众的决定和考量。 陈川仁表示“密切”聆听了颜金勇的解释,最后又把问题抛给群众,询问他们如果在相同情境下,他们会怎么做。当然本文并非要讨论群众该做什么,而是针对身为国会议长的陈川仁先生,指出他的可为和有所不可为。 身为议长,陈川仁就是国会中的首席官员,他有责任主持议会,确保议会事务顺利进行,而不是卷入议会和议员们的辩论,他有责任保持公正不偏袒。 2017年,他受委为第十届国会议长,也承诺在主持议会事务上会保持“不偏袒、中立和客观”。诸君也可到国会网站,上面也阐述了议长必须对所有议员一视同仁不偏袒。 然而,他在脸书对课题发表上述声明,是否已贬低了议长的身份,形同摒弃了他强调、也理应维护的客观公正? 以下为陈川仁对艾滋数据泄露事件发表观点的脸书贴文: 根据《议会法》(特权豁免权和权利)(第217章)第3(1)条,议长的豁免权和权限,自共和国创立以来就和英国国会类同。在厄尔斯金梅(Erskine May)撰写的《议会惯例》–一本有关议会程序和守则的权威教科书,也提到下议院院长的主要性质,即是保持权威和公正。 那么假设国会议员、在此情况下就是议长本身–若藐视议会程序,那么有几个方案可以遵循。 一,提呈违反特权动议,交特权委员会审理议长。…