ASIA
SEPTEMBER 21, 1998 VOL. 152 NO. 11
The Singapore Story
In the first volume of his new memoir, the city-state's Senior Minister writes about a boyhood caning, war with Japan and other career-shaping events
By LEE KUAN YEW
My earliest and most vivid recollection is of being held by my ears over a well in the compound of a house where my family was then living, at what is now Tembeling Road in Singapore. I was about four years old.
I had been mischievous and had messed up an expensive jar of my father's 4711 pale-green scented brilliantine. My father had a violent temper, but that evening his rage went through the roof. He took me by the scruff of the neck from the house to this well and held me over it. How could my ears have been so tough that they were not ripped off, dropping me into that well? Fifty years later, in the 1970s, I read in Scientific American an article explaining how pain and shock release neuropeptides in the brain, stamping the new experience into the brain cells and thus ensuring that the experience would be remembered for a long time afterwards.
I was born in Singapore on 16 September 1923 in a large two-story bungalow at 92 Kampong Java Road. My mother, Chua Jim Neo, was then 16 years old. My father, Lee Chin Koon, was 20. Their parents had arranged the marriage a year previously. Both families must have thought it an excellent match, for they later married my father's younger sister to my mother's younger brother.
My father had been brought up a rich man's son. He used to boast to us that, when he was young, his father allowed him a limitless account at Robinsons and John Little, the two top department stores in Raffles Place, where he could charge to this account any suit or other items he fancied. He was educated in English at St. Joseph's Institution, a Catholic mission school. He said he completed his Junior School Certificate, after which he ended his formal education--to his and my mother's eternal regret. Being without a profession, he could only get a job as a storekeeper with the Shell Oil Company when the fortunes of both families were destroyed in the Great Depression.
I grew up with my three brothers, one sister and seven cousins in the same house. But because they were all younger than I was, I often played with the children of the Chinese fishermen and of the Malays living in a nearby kampong, a cluster of some 20 or 30 attap- or zinc-roofed wooden huts in a lane opposite my grandfather's house. It was a simpler world altogether. We played with fighting kites, tops, marbles and even fighting fish. These games nurtured a fighting spirit and the will to win. I do not know whether they prepared me for the fights I was to have later in politics. We were not soft, nor were we spoiled. As a young boy, I had no fancy clothes or shoes like those my grandchildren wear today.
We were not poor, but we had no great abundance of toys, and there was no television. So we had to be resourceful, to use our imagination. We read, and this was good for our literacy, but there were few illustrated books for young children then, and these were expensive. I bought the usual penny dreadfuls and followed the adventures of the boys at Greyfriars--Harry Wharton and Billy Bunter and company. I waited eagerly for the mail boat from Britain, which arrived at Tanjong Pagar wharf every Friday, bringing British magazines and pictorials. But they too were not cheap. When I was a little older, I used the Raffles Library, where books could be borrowed for two weeks at a time. I read eclectically but preferred westerns to detective thrillers.
Life was not all simple pleasures, however. Every now and again my father would come home in a foul mood after losing at blackjack and other card games at the Chinese Swimming Club in Amber Road and demand some of my mother's jewelry to pawn so that he could go back to try his luck again. There would be fearful quarrels, and he was sometimes violent. But my mother was a courageous woman who was determined to hang on to the jewelry, wedding gifts from her parents. A strong character with great energy and resourcefulness, she had been married off too early. In her day, a woman was expected to be a good wife, bear many children and bring them up to be good husbands or wives in turn. Had she been born one generation later and continued her education beyond secondary school, she could easily have become an effective business executive.
She devoted her life to raising her children to be well-educated and independent professionals, and she stood up to my father to safeguard their future. My brothers, my sister and I were very conscious of her sacrifices; we felt we could not let her down and did our best to be worthy of her and to live up to her expectations. As I grew older, she began consulting me as the eldest son on all important family matters, so that while still in my teens, I became de facto head of the family. This taught me how to take decisions.
My maternal grandmother had strong views on my education. In 1929, before I was six, she insisted that I join the fishermen's children attending school nearby, in a little wood and attap hut with a compacted clay floor. The hut had only one classroom with hard benches and plank desktops, and one other room, which was the home of our scrawny middle-aged Chinese teacher. He made us recite words after him without any comprehension of their meaning--if he did explain, I did not understand him.
After two to three months of this, I pleaded with my mother to be transferred to an English-language school. She won my grandmother's consent, and in January 1930 I joined Telok Kurau English School. Now I understood what the teachers were saying and made progress with little effort. In my final year, 1935, I came first in school and won a place in Raffles Institution, which took in only the top students.
I enjoyed my years in Raffles Institution. I coped with the work comfortably, was active in the Scout movement, played cricket and some tennis, swam and took part in many debates. But I never became a prefect, let alone head prefect. There was a mischievous, playful streak in me. Too often, I was caught not paying attention in class, scribbling notes to fellow students or mimicking some teacher's strange mannerisms. In the case of a rather ponderous Indian science teacher, I was caught in the laboratory drawing the back of his head with its bald patch.
Once I was caned by the principal. D.W. McLeod was a fair but strict disciplinarian who enforced rules impartially, and one rule was that a boy who was late for school three times during one term would get three strokes of the cane. I was always a late riser, an owl more than a lark, and when I was late for school the third time in a term in 1938, the form master sent me to see McLeod. The principal knew me from the number of prizes I had been collecting on prize-giving days and the scholarships I had won. But I was not let off with an admonition. I bent over a chair and was given three of the best with my trousers on. I did not think he lightened his strokes. I have never understood why Western educationists are so much against corporal punishment. It did my fellow students and me no harm.
I was asleep in the "E" block of raffles college at 4 o'clock in the early morning of 8 December 1941, when I was awakened by the dull thud of exploding bombs. The war with Japan had begun. It was a complete surprise. The street lights had been on, and the air-raid sirens did not sound until those Japanese planes dropped their bombs, killing 60 people and wounding 130. But the raid was played down. Censors suppressed the news that the Keppel Harbor docks, the naval base at Sembawang, and the Tengah and Seletar air bases had also been attacked.
The students at Raffles College were agog with excitement. Those from upcountry immediately prepared to leave by train for home. Nearby everyone believed Singapore would be the main target of the attack, and it would therefore be prudent to return to the countryside of Malaya, which offered more safety from Japanese bombers. The college authorities were as confused as the students. Nobody had been prepared for this. Two days later we heard that on the same morning the Japanese had landed at Kota Bharu in Kelantan. Malaya was not to be spared after all.
Within days, the hostels were nearly empty. Lectures were suspended, and students asked to volunteer for a Raffles College unit of the Medical Auxiliary Services (MAS). I volunteered for the MAS, and cycled daily from my home (in Norfolk Road since 1935) to my post in the college three miles away. We were not provided with uniforms--there was no time for that--but we were each given a tin helmet and an armband with a red cross on it and paid a small allowance of about $60 a month, for which we worked on a roster round the clock. We were organized into units of six. There was no fear. Indeed there was barely suppressed excitement, the thrill of being at war and involved in real battles.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Freedom in Singapore and Ministerial Salaries
The Straits Times, Singapore
5th April 2007
Following up on protests at the Australian National University (ANU). In the context of the global contest for talent, how much does it matter that some people see Singapore as a place that restricts individual freedoms?
MM Lee: Let me first challenge the assumption that people see Singapore as a place that restricts individual freedom. This is the stereotype that the Western media purveys of Singapore. But businessmen and talented people who work for these companies are better informed; otherwise we wouldn’t have attracted the talent we have.
The ANU knew they would get flak from the human-rights people for offering me an honorary degree. So too the Imperial College London for making me a Fellow just a few years ago; so too Melbourne University.
So what does it prove? These are people who understand what’s happening in the real world and understand the real Singapore.
The press works up a storyline that Warwick University finds Singapore’s academic freedom restricted, so they don’t come.
I think the real reason is they worked out their sums and they found it was not economical.
You’ve got some of the top names from America, and even Australia has got the University of New South Wales setting up a campus.
So let’s not ourselves be drawn in to purvey this line.
What is the individual freedom that you are deprived of? Are you prevented from saying what you want? Are you prevented from exercising your rights as a citizen?
Since we are trying to attract talent, does it matter that they see us in this light?
No. The people that have the talent will have the wit to investigate, to know what they are in for.
You know the number of unsolicited mails that I get and PM gets from people completely without motive? They’ve come, they know the old Singapore.
And what they are saying is, it’s a very good place - safe, wholesome, everything works - and they wish they could have the basics we have established.
And if you allow this to be degraded, you’ll never put the present Singapore together again.
If we didn’t have more self-confidence in what we are doing and we listened to what is prescribed for us, we wouldn’t be here.
You cannot bring Singapore from where it was to where it now is without long periods of stable government and experienced ministers.
You watch the development of Taiwan or South Korea.
The period of transformation took place when they had governments that stayed for a long time, ministers and civil servants who acquired experience and expertise and improved the system and got it to a high state.
And once they liberalised, like they did in Taiwan, you look at the growth rates. You look at their stability, you look at what their future promises.
I meet their journalists; they come to Singapore. If you read Tian Xia and several other very reputable papers, they are full of admiration for what we have achieved.
Now how does Taiwan get back to stability and growth and sanity?
It’s facing a very difficult future in which China is growing bigger and bigger year by year, stronger and stronger.
And they are not in a position to go independent because the Americans will not support them because it means war.
So what is the rational thing to do? Is the rational thing to say ‘I change the Constitution’ and provoke the Chinese into a clash?
That’s what the present President is attempting to do because then he thinks he will be able to rally votes. I mean, you are now into mass manipulation of attitudes in order to win votes by deceiving people that this is a way forward, when there is, in fact, no way forward.
You look at South Korea. They are now with a generation that voted in a new government completely at variance with US policies.
Without the US, South Korea is in dire difficulties with the North. But you have a younger generation that says, out with the Americans.
So does it make sense?
I want to ask about ministerial salaries. Your view on how well the system has worked to bring in talent?
Every time there is a pay revision to catch up with benchmarks, this debate will come up again.
But you ask yourself: Do you want the present system where it’s completely above board?
And while we are not recruiting all of the very best, we are recruiting some of the very best, because quite a few of the very best do not want to give up their private lifestyle and their family life.
Yes, you can get a person to give up and make a sacrifice for one term.
But will you get a man or woman to serve successive terms, gain experience, become a really competent person, a very competent minister and sacrifice his family, their welfare, their comforts and their children’s future and education, going abroad etc? It’s not possible.
They’re at the top of their cohort. We talent spot. We headhunt for people who not only have just academic qualifications but track records of performance.
How did I learn this? Because in the early days, looking for talent, I put in bright PhDs. Didn’t work. We even had a Rhodes scholar.
We found that we needed other qualities: character, motivation, judgment, stability, temperament, ability to connect with people.
So, finally, we worked out a system where we looked at a person in totality: How does he perform in real life, whether as a businessman, as a CEO, as a doctor, as a lawyer, whatever?
Supposing I had served just one term. Would I have known this? No. Because I’ve served since 1959, and successive elections we fine-tuned and learned in the process.
You go back to a revolving-door government: the first two years you learn how to do your job; next two, three years, you begin to do the job. Before you know where you are, you’re out. Next government comes in.
And that’s what’s happening in many parts of the world.
Carefully consider.
You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government.
You get that alternative and you’ll never put Singapore together again: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again… and your asset values will disappear, your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is, your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people’s countries, foreign workers.
Just think. We have a population of three-point-something (million) and we are carrying and able to give jobs to another 1.3 million people.
How does that happen? Why can’t the 1.3 million people get jobs in their own countries?
It must be something that we’re doing which is right, that creates economic prosperity, that creates growth, that requires talented people to join us, to help us produce all these extra goods and services.
You know the absurdity of all this?
The total cost of ministers’ salaries, of all office holders, the present cost is 0.13 per cent of government expenditure (and 0.022 per cent of GDP).
It amounts to $46 million. We are quarrelling about whether we should pay them $46 million or $36 million, or better still $26 million. So you save $20 million and jeopardise an economy of $210 billion? (This was the size of Singapore’s GDP in 2006.)
What are we talking about?
You know fund managers? I’m chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and we put $5 billion, $10 billion with top fund managers, just to benchmark how we are performing against the best in the market.
We have about three or four top US investors and we track what they do and we compare what we are doing.
And you have to pay them not 0.13 per cent. Win or lose, whether the stocks go up or down, they take their cut. You ask GIC employees; I’m the chairman of GIC. I’m being paid as Minister Mentor, the Senior Minister before that, and even as Prime Minister before that, a fraction of what the top managers in GIC earn.
But they are handling over US$100 billion (S$151 billion). They make a mistake, we lose $10, $20, $30 billion overnight when the stock market collapses.
So for the average family earning $1,500, $3,000, we are talking of astronomical figures.
But for people in government like me, having to deal with these sums of money which we have accumulated through the sweat of our brow over the last 40 years, you have to pay the market rate or the man will up stakes and join Morgan Stanley or Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs. And then you’ve got an incompetent man and you’ve lost money, by the billions.
So get a sense of proportion.
Would you like to share how much you are paid?
It’s in the Budget. I’m paid $2.7 million. A top lawyer, which I could easily have become, today earns $4 million. And he doesn’t have to carry this responsibility. All he’s got to do is advise his client. Win or lose, that’s the client’s loss or gain.
But there are top people in other countries who don’t get paid as much but who are also corruption-free, who have also done a good job.
Let me put the American system and then you will understand why if we ran that system, we’re in trouble.
If you become President of the United States like Bill Clinton was, or George W. Bush, you earn about less than a million dollars. But you have the White House, you have Airforce One…When you leave office, you write your memoirs, you’re paid by the tens of millions. And Bill Clinton, for every speech he makes, it’s at least a million or half a million or he doesn’t go. And he starts a foundation. They all do this.
You take Alan Greenspan. He sacrificed his earnings as a very expert financial specialist and he took on as a job as chairman of the Federal Reserve, at a pittance. As Paul Volker did.
But he’s already got a huge sum of money and when he leaves, he can increase the huge sum of money because of the standing that he has.
He makes a statement and says there could be a recession in the second half of this year and the world stock market goes down.
Can we afford a revolving-door government? Suppose after five years, I go out and say ‘OK, I write my memoirs, I become a lobbyist’. How does that get the country going?
I say this is a system we worked out. It’s above board, it’s working. And if you’re going to quarrel about $46 million, up or down another $10 or $20 million, I say you have no sense of proportion; you don’t know what life is about. And just think, what would your apartment be worth with a poor government and the economy down?
We talk about the Government as fu mu guan (a Chinese phrase that refers to public officials as parents who care for their children). So people hope that leaders are not there for the money, that they are willing to make that extra sacrifice.
Those are admirable sentiments, but we live in the real world. It took a lot of persuasion to get Ng Eng Hen, Vivian Balakrishnan, Balaji Sadasivan to give up their lucrative practices and become ministers and ministers of state, and no guarantee they would succeed.
Ng Eng Hen six years ago, when he first entered politics, was making $4.5 million and he came in and took a job that paid him about $600,000.
Balaji was earning also in the same category. He was a top brain surgeon with very high skills. He took a chance. When he was not made a minister in the selection process, Goh Chok Tong, then Prime Minister, said ‘Would you like to go back to your private practice?’
He says ‘No, I’m going to do this as a senior minister of state’. But he’s made sufficient to look after his family and children, and his wife is a doctor. So I think that’s a sacrifice.
I started off as a socialist, believing that all men should be given equal opportunities and equal rewards. I know that doesn’t work.
You have competition and reward the winner.
You look at golf, tennis, swimming, badminton, anything you like. The first prize is an enormous sum. And to get that first prize, you start spending your life, sweating your guts out to master a certain skill which (is) admired and supported by hundreds, if not thousands of millions of people watching you.
It is a competitive world in which we live and if we can’t compete, we’re not going to live well.
5th April 2007
Following up on protests at the Australian National University (ANU). In the context of the global contest for talent, how much does it matter that some people see Singapore as a place that restricts individual freedoms?
MM Lee: Let me first challenge the assumption that people see Singapore as a place that restricts individual freedom. This is the stereotype that the Western media purveys of Singapore. But businessmen and talented people who work for these companies are better informed; otherwise we wouldn’t have attracted the talent we have.
The ANU knew they would get flak from the human-rights people for offering me an honorary degree. So too the Imperial College London for making me a Fellow just a few years ago; so too Melbourne University.
So what does it prove? These are people who understand what’s happening in the real world and understand the real Singapore.
The press works up a storyline that Warwick University finds Singapore’s academic freedom restricted, so they don’t come.
I think the real reason is they worked out their sums and they found it was not economical.
You’ve got some of the top names from America, and even Australia has got the University of New South Wales setting up a campus.
So let’s not ourselves be drawn in to purvey this line.
What is the individual freedom that you are deprived of? Are you prevented from saying what you want? Are you prevented from exercising your rights as a citizen?
Since we are trying to attract talent, does it matter that they see us in this light?
No. The people that have the talent will have the wit to investigate, to know what they are in for.
You know the number of unsolicited mails that I get and PM gets from people completely without motive? They’ve come, they know the old Singapore.
And what they are saying is, it’s a very good place - safe, wholesome, everything works - and they wish they could have the basics we have established.
And if you allow this to be degraded, you’ll never put the present Singapore together again.
If we didn’t have more self-confidence in what we are doing and we listened to what is prescribed for us, we wouldn’t be here.
You cannot bring Singapore from where it was to where it now is without long periods of stable government and experienced ministers.
You watch the development of Taiwan or South Korea.
The period of transformation took place when they had governments that stayed for a long time, ministers and civil servants who acquired experience and expertise and improved the system and got it to a high state.
And once they liberalised, like they did in Taiwan, you look at the growth rates. You look at their stability, you look at what their future promises.
I meet their journalists; they come to Singapore. If you read Tian Xia and several other very reputable papers, they are full of admiration for what we have achieved.
Now how does Taiwan get back to stability and growth and sanity?
It’s facing a very difficult future in which China is growing bigger and bigger year by year, stronger and stronger.
And they are not in a position to go independent because the Americans will not support them because it means war.
So what is the rational thing to do? Is the rational thing to say ‘I change the Constitution’ and provoke the Chinese into a clash?
That’s what the present President is attempting to do because then he thinks he will be able to rally votes. I mean, you are now into mass manipulation of attitudes in order to win votes by deceiving people that this is a way forward, when there is, in fact, no way forward.
You look at South Korea. They are now with a generation that voted in a new government completely at variance with US policies.
Without the US, South Korea is in dire difficulties with the North. But you have a younger generation that says, out with the Americans.
So does it make sense?
I want to ask about ministerial salaries. Your view on how well the system has worked to bring in talent?
Every time there is a pay revision to catch up with benchmarks, this debate will come up again.
But you ask yourself: Do you want the present system where it’s completely above board?
And while we are not recruiting all of the very best, we are recruiting some of the very best, because quite a few of the very best do not want to give up their private lifestyle and their family life.
Yes, you can get a person to give up and make a sacrifice for one term.
But will you get a man or woman to serve successive terms, gain experience, become a really competent person, a very competent minister and sacrifice his family, their welfare, their comforts and their children’s future and education, going abroad etc? It’s not possible.
They’re at the top of their cohort. We talent spot. We headhunt for people who not only have just academic qualifications but track records of performance.
How did I learn this? Because in the early days, looking for talent, I put in bright PhDs. Didn’t work. We even had a Rhodes scholar.
We found that we needed other qualities: character, motivation, judgment, stability, temperament, ability to connect with people.
So, finally, we worked out a system where we looked at a person in totality: How does he perform in real life, whether as a businessman, as a CEO, as a doctor, as a lawyer, whatever?
Supposing I had served just one term. Would I have known this? No. Because I’ve served since 1959, and successive elections we fine-tuned and learned in the process.
You go back to a revolving-door government: the first two years you learn how to do your job; next two, three years, you begin to do the job. Before you know where you are, you’re out. Next government comes in.
And that’s what’s happening in many parts of the world.
Carefully consider.
You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government.
You get that alternative and you’ll never put Singapore together again: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again… and your asset values will disappear, your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is, your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people’s countries, foreign workers.
Just think. We have a population of three-point-something (million) and we are carrying and able to give jobs to another 1.3 million people.
How does that happen? Why can’t the 1.3 million people get jobs in their own countries?
It must be something that we’re doing which is right, that creates economic prosperity, that creates growth, that requires talented people to join us, to help us produce all these extra goods and services.
You know the absurdity of all this?
The total cost of ministers’ salaries, of all office holders, the present cost is 0.13 per cent of government expenditure (and 0.022 per cent of GDP).
It amounts to $46 million. We are quarrelling about whether we should pay them $46 million or $36 million, or better still $26 million. So you save $20 million and jeopardise an economy of $210 billion? (This was the size of Singapore’s GDP in 2006.)
What are we talking about?
You know fund managers? I’m chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and we put $5 billion, $10 billion with top fund managers, just to benchmark how we are performing against the best in the market.
We have about three or four top US investors and we track what they do and we compare what we are doing.
And you have to pay them not 0.13 per cent. Win or lose, whether the stocks go up or down, they take their cut. You ask GIC employees; I’m the chairman of GIC. I’m being paid as Minister Mentor, the Senior Minister before that, and even as Prime Minister before that, a fraction of what the top managers in GIC earn.
But they are handling over US$100 billion (S$151 billion). They make a mistake, we lose $10, $20, $30 billion overnight when the stock market collapses.
So for the average family earning $1,500, $3,000, we are talking of astronomical figures.
But for people in government like me, having to deal with these sums of money which we have accumulated through the sweat of our brow over the last 40 years, you have to pay the market rate or the man will up stakes and join Morgan Stanley or Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs. And then you’ve got an incompetent man and you’ve lost money, by the billions.
So get a sense of proportion.
Would you like to share how much you are paid?
It’s in the Budget. I’m paid $2.7 million. A top lawyer, which I could easily have become, today earns $4 million. And he doesn’t have to carry this responsibility. All he’s got to do is advise his client. Win or lose, that’s the client’s loss or gain.
But there are top people in other countries who don’t get paid as much but who are also corruption-free, who have also done a good job.
Let me put the American system and then you will understand why if we ran that system, we’re in trouble.
If you become President of the United States like Bill Clinton was, or George W. Bush, you earn about less than a million dollars. But you have the White House, you have Airforce One…When you leave office, you write your memoirs, you’re paid by the tens of millions. And Bill Clinton, for every speech he makes, it’s at least a million or half a million or he doesn’t go. And he starts a foundation. They all do this.
You take Alan Greenspan. He sacrificed his earnings as a very expert financial specialist and he took on as a job as chairman of the Federal Reserve, at a pittance. As Paul Volker did.
But he’s already got a huge sum of money and when he leaves, he can increase the huge sum of money because of the standing that he has.
He makes a statement and says there could be a recession in the second half of this year and the world stock market goes down.
Can we afford a revolving-door government? Suppose after five years, I go out and say ‘OK, I write my memoirs, I become a lobbyist’. How does that get the country going?
I say this is a system we worked out. It’s above board, it’s working. And if you’re going to quarrel about $46 million, up or down another $10 or $20 million, I say you have no sense of proportion; you don’t know what life is about. And just think, what would your apartment be worth with a poor government and the economy down?
We talk about the Government as fu mu guan (a Chinese phrase that refers to public officials as parents who care for their children). So people hope that leaders are not there for the money, that they are willing to make that extra sacrifice.
Those are admirable sentiments, but we live in the real world. It took a lot of persuasion to get Ng Eng Hen, Vivian Balakrishnan, Balaji Sadasivan to give up their lucrative practices and become ministers and ministers of state, and no guarantee they would succeed.
Ng Eng Hen six years ago, when he first entered politics, was making $4.5 million and he came in and took a job that paid him about $600,000.
Balaji was earning also in the same category. He was a top brain surgeon with very high skills. He took a chance. When he was not made a minister in the selection process, Goh Chok Tong, then Prime Minister, said ‘Would you like to go back to your private practice?’
He says ‘No, I’m going to do this as a senior minister of state’. But he’s made sufficient to look after his family and children, and his wife is a doctor. So I think that’s a sacrifice.
I started off as a socialist, believing that all men should be given equal opportunities and equal rewards. I know that doesn’t work.
You have competition and reward the winner.
You look at golf, tennis, swimming, badminton, anything you like. The first prize is an enormous sum. And to get that first prize, you start spending your life, sweating your guts out to master a certain skill which (is) admired and supported by hundreds, if not thousands of millions of people watching you.
It is a competitive world in which we live and if we can’t compete, we’re not going to live well.
Friday, September 14, 2007
The Man Who Saw It All - Times (2005)
Lee Kuan Yew and his ideas helped to make Asia what it is today. Now, in a candid, wide-ranging conversation with TIME, he shares his hopes and fears for the region's future
By Simon Elegant and Michael Elliott | Singapore
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS / NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE
Lee Kuan Yew transformed Singapore, and his influence still resonates around Asia
Posted Monday, December 5, 2005; 20:00 HKT
In years past, Lee Kuan Yew's office was famous among visitors for its arctic air conditioning and Spartan furnishing. A few Chinese scrolls apart, there was little decoration and sometimes barely a sheet of paper to be seen. Singapore's founding father first moved into the office on the second floor of the former British governor-general's residence in 1971, having already served six years as Prime Minister. He retired in 1990 to become Senior Minister and later Minister Mentor, but still works out of the same rooms.
The L-shaped office may have changed little over the years, but at a recent meeting there were small but telling signs that the formidable 82-year-old leader has mellowed—a little. For one thing, the temperature has crept up noticeably. And while most surfaces are still bare, the table behind Lee's computer is covered with untidy piles of books. Lee says that his current favorite isn't one of the stacked tomes on terrorism or economics but the sprawling 17th-century Spanish novel Don Quixote. "A new translation," he enthuses. "Very good." It's something of a shock that the man best known for his cold-eyed pragmatism is reveling in a book whose hero spent his time tilting at windmills and gave his name to an English adjective meaning impractical and idealistic.
Still, despite his more relaxed demeanor, when Time spoke to him for nearly five hours over two days this fall, it was clear that neither age nor heart surgery 10 years ago have changed Lee's basic personality: sharp intelligence allied with an unsentimental, almost clinical rationality and supreme confidence in his own judgment. But there is another side to Lee that has been blossoming in recent years—that of the geopolitical thinker and analyst, a role he clearly relishes. The man who once concerned himself with every aspect of Singaporeans' lives—right down to who they should marry and how many children they should have—now seems to be less obsessed with the fate of the island state, and more concerned with China's "peaceful rise" and the threat of militant Islam. Asked about Singapore's future development over the next 10 years, Lee shrugs. "My son will do what he wants to do with his team," he says, referring to Singapore's current Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong. "Let him decide," the elder Lee adds later. "It's his call."
Lee can be forgiven for lifting his eyes to the horizon. Once the subject of withering criticism from human-rights groups for his authoritarian ways and intolerance of dissent, he is now widely acknowledged as Asia's most respected senior statesman. Others may pen lengthy memoirs and seek to use their years on the world stage to tout their punditry and powers of prediction. Some can even lay claim to having guided far larger countries or served as leaders for longer than Lee. But Lee is unique. It is not just that his cold-eyed, totally nonideological analysis has set him apart from other observers of Asia. There is another factor that is just as important an explanation of Lee's influence. From his days as a clerk and a black-market broker during the brutal Japanese occupation of Singapore—which he was lucky to survive—through his years as an agitator for independence from Britain, from his time spent talking to the Americans during the Vietnam years to his role as a confidant of China's leadership, Lee has seen it all. He has been a participant observer of the most significant historical shift of our times—the steady ascent of Asia, home to 60% of the world's population, from the twin shames of Western colonialism and poverty to its coming economic and political dominance. Everyone who lives in Asia today thinks they are watching history being made; Lee Kuan Yew is one of those who can say, without fear of contradiction, that he helped make it.
Now, with his own son and a hand-picked team of technocrats in place in Singapore, Lee has time to turn his thoughts outward, to Asia—and beyond—while trying to divine the forces that will confront a new generation of leaders. It is an opportune time for such musings, a moment of balance when the critical observer can look back and forward and see the region on the cusp of profound change. Symbolic of a new order has been a string of summits and conferences in Asia. The parade of presidents, prime ministers, princes and their attendant ministers began with the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit held in mid-November at South Korea's seaside city of Pusan. And it will end with the opening on Dec. 14 of the first East Asia summit in Kuala Lumpur.
The summit may not live up to its hype; few such gatherings do. But it is not unreasonable to see the meeting in Kuala Lumpur as a punctuation mark in the 60-year-long progress of Asia. The leaders of the 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will meet together with those of Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand—and China. The U.S will not be present. Some of the more breathless commentary on the summit sees parallels to the meeting of European leaders in Messina in 1955, which laid the foundations for what has become the European Union. Lee, characteristically, takes a view which is more hardheaded yet fully aware of the historical significance of the meeting. "I see the first stage as an ever-enlarged series of free-trade areas, [leading to] one big free-trade area within 10 to 15 years," Lee told Time. "The next step would be a kind of low-key European economic community, 20 to 30 years down the road, because [Asia is] at very different stages of economic development." Lee recognizes that bringing India and China into the fold marks a moment of profound significance. The revival of these "two ancient civilizations," he says, is a double-edged sword. "It would mean great prosperity for the region, but could also mean a tussle for power."
For nearly five hours over two days this fall, Singapore's Minister Mentor LEE KUAN YEW spoke with TIME's Michael Elliott, Zoher Abdoolcarim and Simon Elegant on everything from China's rise to radical Islam, from American values to Singapore's first family. Lee was thoughtful, animated, defiant, playful, even emotional—and always provocative
By Simon Elegant and Michael Elliott | Singapore
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS / NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE
Lee Kuan Yew transformed Singapore, and his influence still resonates around Asia
Posted Monday, December 5, 2005; 20:00 HKT
In years past, Lee Kuan Yew's office was famous among visitors for its arctic air conditioning and Spartan furnishing. A few Chinese scrolls apart, there was little decoration and sometimes barely a sheet of paper to be seen. Singapore's founding father first moved into the office on the second floor of the former British governor-general's residence in 1971, having already served six years as Prime Minister. He retired in 1990 to become Senior Minister and later Minister Mentor, but still works out of the same rooms.
The L-shaped office may have changed little over the years, but at a recent meeting there were small but telling signs that the formidable 82-year-old leader has mellowed—a little. For one thing, the temperature has crept up noticeably. And while most surfaces are still bare, the table behind Lee's computer is covered with untidy piles of books. Lee says that his current favorite isn't one of the stacked tomes on terrorism or economics but the sprawling 17th-century Spanish novel Don Quixote. "A new translation," he enthuses. "Very good." It's something of a shock that the man best known for his cold-eyed pragmatism is reveling in a book whose hero spent his time tilting at windmills and gave his name to an English adjective meaning impractical and idealistic.
Still, despite his more relaxed demeanor, when Time spoke to him for nearly five hours over two days this fall, it was clear that neither age nor heart surgery 10 years ago have changed Lee's basic personality: sharp intelligence allied with an unsentimental, almost clinical rationality and supreme confidence in his own judgment. But there is another side to Lee that has been blossoming in recent years—that of the geopolitical thinker and analyst, a role he clearly relishes. The man who once concerned himself with every aspect of Singaporeans' lives—right down to who they should marry and how many children they should have—now seems to be less obsessed with the fate of the island state, and more concerned with China's "peaceful rise" and the threat of militant Islam. Asked about Singapore's future development over the next 10 years, Lee shrugs. "My son will do what he wants to do with his team," he says, referring to Singapore's current Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong. "Let him decide," the elder Lee adds later. "It's his call."
Lee can be forgiven for lifting his eyes to the horizon. Once the subject of withering criticism from human-rights groups for his authoritarian ways and intolerance of dissent, he is now widely acknowledged as Asia's most respected senior statesman. Others may pen lengthy memoirs and seek to use their years on the world stage to tout their punditry and powers of prediction. Some can even lay claim to having guided far larger countries or served as leaders for longer than Lee. But Lee is unique. It is not just that his cold-eyed, totally nonideological analysis has set him apart from other observers of Asia. There is another factor that is just as important an explanation of Lee's influence. From his days as a clerk and a black-market broker during the brutal Japanese occupation of Singapore—which he was lucky to survive—through his years as an agitator for independence from Britain, from his time spent talking to the Americans during the Vietnam years to his role as a confidant of China's leadership, Lee has seen it all. He has been a participant observer of the most significant historical shift of our times—the steady ascent of Asia, home to 60% of the world's population, from the twin shames of Western colonialism and poverty to its coming economic and political dominance. Everyone who lives in Asia today thinks they are watching history being made; Lee Kuan Yew is one of those who can say, without fear of contradiction, that he helped make it.
Now, with his own son and a hand-picked team of technocrats in place in Singapore, Lee has time to turn his thoughts outward, to Asia—and beyond—while trying to divine the forces that will confront a new generation of leaders. It is an opportune time for such musings, a moment of balance when the critical observer can look back and forward and see the region on the cusp of profound change. Symbolic of a new order has been a string of summits and conferences in Asia. The parade of presidents, prime ministers, princes and their attendant ministers began with the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit held in mid-November at South Korea's seaside city of Pusan. And it will end with the opening on Dec. 14 of the first East Asia summit in Kuala Lumpur.
The summit may not live up to its hype; few such gatherings do. But it is not unreasonable to see the meeting in Kuala Lumpur as a punctuation mark in the 60-year-long progress of Asia. The leaders of the 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will meet together with those of Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand—and China. The U.S will not be present. Some of the more breathless commentary on the summit sees parallels to the meeting of European leaders in Messina in 1955, which laid the foundations for what has become the European Union. Lee, characteristically, takes a view which is more hardheaded yet fully aware of the historical significance of the meeting. "I see the first stage as an ever-enlarged series of free-trade areas, [leading to] one big free-trade area within 10 to 15 years," Lee told Time. "The next step would be a kind of low-key European economic community, 20 to 30 years down the road, because [Asia is] at very different stages of economic development." Lee recognizes that bringing India and China into the fold marks a moment of profound significance. The revival of these "two ancient civilizations," he says, is a double-edged sword. "It would mean great prosperity for the region, but could also mean a tussle for power."
For nearly five hours over two days this fall, Singapore's Minister Mentor LEE KUAN YEW spoke with TIME's Michael Elliott, Zoher Abdoolcarim and Simon Elegant on everything from China's rise to radical Islam, from American values to Singapore's first family. Lee was thoughtful, animated, defiant, playful, even emotional—and always provocative
Lee Kuan Yew hit back at Australians (2007)
Australians may no longer be the white trash of Asia, but their style of governance would run Singapore into the ground, the city-state's outspoken former prime minister said on Wednesday.
Lee Kuan Yew made the remark after receiving an honorary doctorate of law from Australian National University (ANU), partly for his friendship to Australia.
About 50 students held up banners with wording like "no doctorates for dictators" and chanted slogans outside the venue at the ANU's Canberra campus where Mr Lee received the award.
The 83-year-old, Singapore's first prime minister and now a minister mentor in its government, said he was no stranger to hostile receptions.
Having praised Australia's "exceptional growth" of the past 15 years during his acceptance speech, Mr Lee later told reporters that Australian-style governance would not work in the city-state.
"It's not going to change me and I'm not going to change you," he said of Australian criticism of his autocratic style.
"We're going to prosper, you're going to prosper.
"But if I allowed you to run my country it will spiral downwards and hit rock bottom," he said.
Asked about a remark he made in the 1980s that Australians were destined to become the "poor white trash of Asia", Mr Lee said it was apt for that era.
"There are some words sometime said in the heat of an argument which perhaps at that time was warranted."
The award citation said ANU conferred the doctorate on the grounds of Mr Lee's service to developing Singapore, international statesmanship and friendship to Australia.
Mr Lee led Singapore for more than 30 years until 1990 under a regime which placed prosperity and racial harmony ahead of human rights and Western-style democracy.
He has since served as a senior adviser to his successors.
ANU arts-law student Ben Lyons said it was deeply offensive that the university was giving a doctorate of law to someone who used the justice system to repress dissent.
"There are a lot of students as well as academics who are quite angry about both the fact that we're giving Lee Kuan Yew a doctorate and the way it was conducted," Mr Lyons said.
"It seems to have been done with a great deal of secrecy."
He thought the honour had been conferred for ANU's financial benefit through strengthened ties with the National University of Singapore.
Some law students argue the award may be invalid because it was not discussed by the honorary degree committee before approval by the ANU Council.
Defending the move, ANU Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Chubb said: "Ultimately, whatever process you follow, it's a decision of the council anyway."
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said earlier in the week that while there had been international concern about human rights issues in Singapore, Mr Lee was a "great regional leader".
"The fact is in the overall sense, Singapore has been a spectacular success," Mr Downer said.
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown on Wednesday said ANU had crassly used its degree system to honour an undeserving figure.
"(Mr Lee's someone) who's not a democrat, who's a traitor to democratic ideals and who has eliminated opposition effectively, including having people jailed and held in jail without sentence," Senator Brown told reporters.
"He eliminated opposition as effectively as he eliminated chewing gum."
Lee Kuan Yew made the remark after receiving an honorary doctorate of law from Australian National University (ANU), partly for his friendship to Australia.
About 50 students held up banners with wording like "no doctorates for dictators" and chanted slogans outside the venue at the ANU's Canberra campus where Mr Lee received the award.
The 83-year-old, Singapore's first prime minister and now a minister mentor in its government, said he was no stranger to hostile receptions.
Having praised Australia's "exceptional growth" of the past 15 years during his acceptance speech, Mr Lee later told reporters that Australian-style governance would not work in the city-state.
"It's not going to change me and I'm not going to change you," he said of Australian criticism of his autocratic style.
"We're going to prosper, you're going to prosper.
"But if I allowed you to run my country it will spiral downwards and hit rock bottom," he said.
Asked about a remark he made in the 1980s that Australians were destined to become the "poor white trash of Asia", Mr Lee said it was apt for that era.
"There are some words sometime said in the heat of an argument which perhaps at that time was warranted."
The award citation said ANU conferred the doctorate on the grounds of Mr Lee's service to developing Singapore, international statesmanship and friendship to Australia.
Mr Lee led Singapore for more than 30 years until 1990 under a regime which placed prosperity and racial harmony ahead of human rights and Western-style democracy.
He has since served as a senior adviser to his successors.
ANU arts-law student Ben Lyons said it was deeply offensive that the university was giving a doctorate of law to someone who used the justice system to repress dissent.
"There are a lot of students as well as academics who are quite angry about both the fact that we're giving Lee Kuan Yew a doctorate and the way it was conducted," Mr Lyons said.
"It seems to have been done with a great deal of secrecy."
He thought the honour had been conferred for ANU's financial benefit through strengthened ties with the National University of Singapore.
Some law students argue the award may be invalid because it was not discussed by the honorary degree committee before approval by the ANU Council.
Defending the move, ANU Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Chubb said: "Ultimately, whatever process you follow, it's a decision of the council anyway."
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said earlier in the week that while there had been international concern about human rights issues in Singapore, Mr Lee was a "great regional leader".
"The fact is in the overall sense, Singapore has been a spectacular success," Mr Downer said.
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown on Wednesday said ANU had crassly used its degree system to honour an undeserving figure.
"(Mr Lee's someone) who's not a democrat, who's a traitor to democratic ideals and who has eliminated opposition effectively, including having people jailed and held in jail without sentence," Senator Brown told reporters.
"He eliminated opposition as effectively as he eliminated chewing gum."
Lee Kuan Yew visits to Indonesia (2007)
July 27, 2007
Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has brushed aside allegations that the Defence Cooperation Agreement with Indonesia would allow Singapore to infringe on Indonesia's sovereignty.
He said this during his five day visit to Jakarta which ended today. Shereena Sajeed with this report.
Singapore and Indonesia negotiated the Defence Cooperation Agreement and Extradition treaty as a package.
They were signed in April this year but the DCA has run into problems.
Some Indonesian legislators have said they'd reject it.
One legislator recently said it was akin to selling off the state to foreigners.
On this point, Mr Lee said that Singapore has been training in Indonesia for years.
"We were here by your leave and licence. In fact your president at that time, Pak Harto, told me don't be afraid to us because he knew that we're a small country. Here a big country and we afraid that we're be eaten up he said. Don't be afraid to us."
Mr Lee also stressed that the agreements must be honoured.
"We reach an agreement and I think we should stick to agreements. Otherwise, everytime you want something from us you said ‘if you don’t do this we do that’. At the end of the day you’re the very big country and we’re a little red dot. But please, give a red dot a certain breathing space. We need to have our obligation honoured.
On the Extradition Treaty, Mr Lee said Singapore's fund industry would not go into steep decline if Indonesia were to pull out the money allegedly being hidden in Singapore.
He clarified that only about 30 billion of the 890 billion dollars in foreign funds managed in Singapore is from Indonesia.
Earlier in the week, Minister Mentor Lee also met Indonesian Vice President Yusuf Kalla.
The region's economy and in particular the economy of Indonesia topped discussions during the meeting
Mr Lee told reporters that he sees Indonesia having good economic growth in the next two years.
But he added that its also important for Indonesia to make good use of the five years after that in the next presidential election.
He said Jakarta should go at the same speed as Vietnam when it comes to economic policies.
Mr Lee said the Vietnamese can push ahead very fast as they have younger leaders who have abandoned old policies and welcomed investments.
MM Lee: So Indonesia can grow as fast because it’s got a huge population underemployed, and therefore wants the labour conditions, industrial conditions put in order. I think investments can flow in. Indonesia can recover its buoyancy as before the financial crisis in 1997.
Touching on Singapore-Indonesia ties, Mr Lee described the relationship between the two economies as complementary .
MM Lee: I think nothing basically has changed. If anything the complementary nature of the two economies and the two countries is probably as strong as it ever was before. I mean we are small but we are nimble. We move swiftly and change much faster than they can change because we are a smaller craft to handle and we are connected with high-credit ratings around the world, in all the major banks in Singapore. The assessments of the Singapore fund-managers and the security agencies, I mean financial security houses is a factor in how the international financial community sees Indonesia’s growth. So we play a complementary relationship with Indonesia’s economic growth. I mean otherwise why should they say come and invest. I mean they tell us frankly if you come and invest, others will come and invest but we came and invested when they were down and out and they said sell back. We got to go in accordance with the law.
MM Lee also spoke about the importance of minimizing wastage
MM Lee: We turned around what was a loss-making into breakeven and made profits because we put financial controllers in charge which cut down wastage. That’s how it turned around. You know the Singapore model. First thing we do is to cut waste. So that’s why the Gulf States employ Singapore professionals as their financial officers. I mean you can go to any of the Gulf States, Abu Dhabi Qatar Dubai any number of CFOs are Singaporeans. One, integrity. Two, good governance. Three, cost-cutting. So we cut down a lot of wastage in the purchasing and other leakage of funds and turn it around.
Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has brushed aside allegations that the Defence Cooperation Agreement with Indonesia would allow Singapore to infringe on Indonesia's sovereignty.
He said this during his five day visit to Jakarta which ended today. Shereena Sajeed with this report.
Singapore and Indonesia negotiated the Defence Cooperation Agreement and Extradition treaty as a package.
They were signed in April this year but the DCA has run into problems.
Some Indonesian legislators have said they'd reject it.
One legislator recently said it was akin to selling off the state to foreigners.
On this point, Mr Lee said that Singapore has been training in Indonesia for years.
"We were here by your leave and licence. In fact your president at that time, Pak Harto, told me don't be afraid to us because he knew that we're a small country. Here a big country and we afraid that we're be eaten up he said. Don't be afraid to us."
Mr Lee also stressed that the agreements must be honoured.
"We reach an agreement and I think we should stick to agreements. Otherwise, everytime you want something from us you said ‘if you don’t do this we do that’. At the end of the day you’re the very big country and we’re a little red dot. But please, give a red dot a certain breathing space. We need to have our obligation honoured.
On the Extradition Treaty, Mr Lee said Singapore's fund industry would not go into steep decline if Indonesia were to pull out the money allegedly being hidden in Singapore.
He clarified that only about 30 billion of the 890 billion dollars in foreign funds managed in Singapore is from Indonesia.
Earlier in the week, Minister Mentor Lee also met Indonesian Vice President Yusuf Kalla.
The region's economy and in particular the economy of Indonesia topped discussions during the meeting
Mr Lee told reporters that he sees Indonesia having good economic growth in the next two years.
But he added that its also important for Indonesia to make good use of the five years after that in the next presidential election.
He said Jakarta should go at the same speed as Vietnam when it comes to economic policies.
Mr Lee said the Vietnamese can push ahead very fast as they have younger leaders who have abandoned old policies and welcomed investments.
MM Lee: So Indonesia can grow as fast because it’s got a huge population underemployed, and therefore wants the labour conditions, industrial conditions put in order. I think investments can flow in. Indonesia can recover its buoyancy as before the financial crisis in 1997.
Touching on Singapore-Indonesia ties, Mr Lee described the relationship between the two economies as complementary .
MM Lee: I think nothing basically has changed. If anything the complementary nature of the two economies and the two countries is probably as strong as it ever was before. I mean we are small but we are nimble. We move swiftly and change much faster than they can change because we are a smaller craft to handle and we are connected with high-credit ratings around the world, in all the major banks in Singapore. The assessments of the Singapore fund-managers and the security agencies, I mean financial security houses is a factor in how the international financial community sees Indonesia’s growth. So we play a complementary relationship with Indonesia’s economic growth. I mean otherwise why should they say come and invest. I mean they tell us frankly if you come and invest, others will come and invest but we came and invested when they were down and out and they said sell back. We got to go in accordance with the law.
MM Lee also spoke about the importance of minimizing wastage
MM Lee: We turned around what was a loss-making into breakeven and made profits because we put financial controllers in charge which cut down wastage. That’s how it turned around. You know the Singapore model. First thing we do is to cut waste. So that’s why the Gulf States employ Singapore professionals as their financial officers. I mean you can go to any of the Gulf States, Abu Dhabi Qatar Dubai any number of CFOs are Singaporeans. One, integrity. Two, good governance. Three, cost-cutting. So we cut down a lot of wastage in the purchasing and other leakage of funds and turn it around.
Did Lee Kuan Yew want Singapore ejected from Malaysia? (2005)
uesday, November 01, 2005
Did Lee Kuan Yew want Singapore ejected from Malaysia?
M.G.G.Pillai
pillai@streamyx.com
IT IS FORTY YEARS SINCE Singapore was ejected from Malaysia, on 9 August 1965, less than two years after it was formed on 16 September 1963; though in Malaysia the date is August 31, and the publication two months ago of the late Patrick Keith's book, Ousted.
We have different opinions on the affair. We are told, officially and in the history books, that it was a cordial affair. The Star repeats that canard. It was anything but cordial. The two prime ministers - Tunku Abdul Rahman of Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore - though both from Cambridge, did not get along. The Tunku, 62 at the time, believed in nature and Mr Lee, then 43, in nurture. Mr Lee upped the ante throughout, let people who were opposed to separation lead the negotiations, did not read the signals from Kuala Lumpur as he would now at 80.
The talks were bound to fail. The Peoples' Action Party saw itself as replacing the Malaysian Chinese Association in the Alliance, as the National Front was known at that time. The main Singapore negotiators, which included the then culture minister and later deputy prime minister, Mr S. Rajaratnam, did not want to leave Malaysia. Neither did Mr Devan Nair, the PAP MP for Bangsar, later President of Singapore and now living in exile in Canada. Whatever the history books might say, the fact is the Tunku took the decision while recuperating for shingles in a London clinic.
It took Mr Lee and his cabinet by surprise when Tun Razak, then Malaysian deputy prime minister, informed Mr Lee about it. There were furious negotiations between Malaysia and Singapore in the run up to the negotiations. The then Singapore deputy prime minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye, wrote to the Tunku and saw him, but he was told Singapore could stay if Mr Lee was out of the picture. Dr Toh's decline in Singapore politics began then in independent Singapore.
Mr Lee was brash then. He saw the PAP as the premier Chinese party in Malaysia and Singapore, which of course the Tunku did not agree. Mr Lee was emboldened by the 1964 general elections, when crowds from what is now Suleiman Court to the area surrounding Selangor Club turned up to hear him although PAP was returned in only one constituency, Bangsar. But there was the implied understanding that the PAP would remain in Singapore. The PAP broke that. It was downhill after that, which culminated in Singapore's expulsion two years later.
Mr Lee's message was not acceptable to UMNO at that time, nor is it now though it is much modified, and the assistant minister for information, Syed Jaafar Albar, the father of the Malaysian foreign minister and who did not want Singapore out although he resisted Singapore in Malaysia. On Singapore's independence, the PAP became the DAP and Mr Lim Kit Siang, Mr Devan Nair's assistant at that time, tool over. Mr Nair returned to Singapore in the 1969 general elections. Mr Lee did not want Singapore ejected from Malaysia, but when that was inevitable, he brought Singapore to what it is today: an efficient island republic but its people are brash, arrogant.
But this will last only so long as it gets its water from Johore. I happen to think Singapore will eventually have to merge with Malaysia, but as an adjunct of Johore. Patrick Keith's book is correct from his perspective as a senior information official of the Malaysian foreign ministry, but he wrote it from an official point of view. He knew the Tunku well, but he did not know what transpired behind his back. But it is important for an official point of view that contradicts the official history. There are other official accounts waiting to be written from the perspective of officials.
The history of Singapore's ejection from Malaysia is not as simple as it is made out in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur; as it should be. But we are not interested in the past but the UMNO version of the day. We are now worrying over an UMNO MP's description of the Indian as "keling". But more than 30 years ago, the man who was to become Malaysia's deputy prime minister was convicted for using that word. Much of Malaysia's written history, particularly the Tunku's papers in government (which is how I know of the details, recovered from the wastepaper basket at a time when the Tunku was to be decried at any cost, and is now in the National Archives). We have to read the politician's account to find out what happened. Mr Lee's account, in the first part of his autobiography, is the first politician's account of the ejection, but it is from his perspective.
No Malaysian politician has written his story (in English). Most are restrained by the official history, and I hear personal stories about the time, some important and some self-serving but nevertheless important. But they are a dying breed. The Malaysian politician who was one at the time of ejection is now in his late seventies or older. But he has not written his memoirs, although he has much to say. Once retired, the politician is forgotten and consigned to the political dustbin. Tun Mahathir does not see it that way. He is active in politics, though he resigned from office two years ago. But he has no plans yet to write his memoirs, which he should. He was elected in 1964, was against Singapore coming into Malaysia, was regarded as an ultra in Singapore, and against Singapore leaving, one of whom Mr Lee called the "ultras".
So we are left with the official history written with UMNO help and with no official papers of retired politicians. This is so with the history of Singapore's ejection from Malaysia. The University Kebangsan Malaysia has a "Scholar in Residence" programme, by which prominent Malaysians are invited to write their history of the country, or aspects of it. Tun Ghazali Shafie has written his memoirs on the formation of Malaysia in Malay, which is now being translated into English. This scheme allows aging Malays in Malaysia and Singapore to write their memoirs.
But the money is why they write it. A Singapore journalist told me, when I asked him why he had not written his memoirs, that it is a matter of economics: he would get more writing his journalistic pieces than he would writing his memoirs. The same rationale holds in Malaysia. But it enables the future historian to write sensibly of the events of the present time. Now we know of only different accounts by foreign historians and political scientists. It is also true that the foreigner gets an interview easier than the local. It is depicted in the ads. There is in "Deeparaya" until there is a Caucasian present if we believe the advertisements we see on television by government agencies or companies.
The non-Malay perception in Malaysia is different from the Malay. The Malay is the ruling power and non-Malay not. The perceptions therefore differ, for each carry with them his respective historical baggage. That is changing now. The country is divided between the rulers and the ruled. Many Malaysians - me, for instance, and I am 66 though I can remember Malay ruled by the British - know only the coalition controlled by UMNO, first the Alliance and then the National Front, and the history they learnt in school is what UMNO tells them the history of Malaysia.
With the press controlled by the National Front, the Star has whitewashed the ejection of Singapore by Malaysia. They have not explained why Singapore was ejected; only it was peaceful. But it was anything but. I was reporter with Reuters in Singapore though at the time of its ejection, I was in Trivandrum and it was my cousin, a professor of history then at the University of Kerala, who told me of it. I had seen it coming and could talk intelligently of the break. My view then and today is that the ejection of Singapore was preceded by often vociferous exchange of words and Mr Lee did not want the break. But history in Singapore and Malaysia says otherwise.
Did Lee Kuan Yew want Singapore ejected from Malaysia?
M.G.G.Pillai
pillai@streamyx.com
IT IS FORTY YEARS SINCE Singapore was ejected from Malaysia, on 9 August 1965, less than two years after it was formed on 16 September 1963; though in Malaysia the date is August 31, and the publication two months ago of the late Patrick Keith's book, Ousted.
We have different opinions on the affair. We are told, officially and in the history books, that it was a cordial affair. The Star repeats that canard. It was anything but cordial. The two prime ministers - Tunku Abdul Rahman of Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore - though both from Cambridge, did not get along. The Tunku, 62 at the time, believed in nature and Mr Lee, then 43, in nurture. Mr Lee upped the ante throughout, let people who were opposed to separation lead the negotiations, did not read the signals from Kuala Lumpur as he would now at 80.
The talks were bound to fail. The Peoples' Action Party saw itself as replacing the Malaysian Chinese Association in the Alliance, as the National Front was known at that time. The main Singapore negotiators, which included the then culture minister and later deputy prime minister, Mr S. Rajaratnam, did not want to leave Malaysia. Neither did Mr Devan Nair, the PAP MP for Bangsar, later President of Singapore and now living in exile in Canada. Whatever the history books might say, the fact is the Tunku took the decision while recuperating for shingles in a London clinic.
It took Mr Lee and his cabinet by surprise when Tun Razak, then Malaysian deputy prime minister, informed Mr Lee about it. There were furious negotiations between Malaysia and Singapore in the run up to the negotiations. The then Singapore deputy prime minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye, wrote to the Tunku and saw him, but he was told Singapore could stay if Mr Lee was out of the picture. Dr Toh's decline in Singapore politics began then in independent Singapore.
Mr Lee was brash then. He saw the PAP as the premier Chinese party in Malaysia and Singapore, which of course the Tunku did not agree. Mr Lee was emboldened by the 1964 general elections, when crowds from what is now Suleiman Court to the area surrounding Selangor Club turned up to hear him although PAP was returned in only one constituency, Bangsar. But there was the implied understanding that the PAP would remain in Singapore. The PAP broke that. It was downhill after that, which culminated in Singapore's expulsion two years later.
Mr Lee's message was not acceptable to UMNO at that time, nor is it now though it is much modified, and the assistant minister for information, Syed Jaafar Albar, the father of the Malaysian foreign minister and who did not want Singapore out although he resisted Singapore in Malaysia. On Singapore's independence, the PAP became the DAP and Mr Lim Kit Siang, Mr Devan Nair's assistant at that time, tool over. Mr Nair returned to Singapore in the 1969 general elections. Mr Lee did not want Singapore ejected from Malaysia, but when that was inevitable, he brought Singapore to what it is today: an efficient island republic but its people are brash, arrogant.
But this will last only so long as it gets its water from Johore. I happen to think Singapore will eventually have to merge with Malaysia, but as an adjunct of Johore. Patrick Keith's book is correct from his perspective as a senior information official of the Malaysian foreign ministry, but he wrote it from an official point of view. He knew the Tunku well, but he did not know what transpired behind his back. But it is important for an official point of view that contradicts the official history. There are other official accounts waiting to be written from the perspective of officials.
The history of Singapore's ejection from Malaysia is not as simple as it is made out in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur; as it should be. But we are not interested in the past but the UMNO version of the day. We are now worrying over an UMNO MP's description of the Indian as "keling". But more than 30 years ago, the man who was to become Malaysia's deputy prime minister was convicted for using that word. Much of Malaysia's written history, particularly the Tunku's papers in government (which is how I know of the details, recovered from the wastepaper basket at a time when the Tunku was to be decried at any cost, and is now in the National Archives). We have to read the politician's account to find out what happened. Mr Lee's account, in the first part of his autobiography, is the first politician's account of the ejection, but it is from his perspective.
No Malaysian politician has written his story (in English). Most are restrained by the official history, and I hear personal stories about the time, some important and some self-serving but nevertheless important. But they are a dying breed. The Malaysian politician who was one at the time of ejection is now in his late seventies or older. But he has not written his memoirs, although he has much to say. Once retired, the politician is forgotten and consigned to the political dustbin. Tun Mahathir does not see it that way. He is active in politics, though he resigned from office two years ago. But he has no plans yet to write his memoirs, which he should. He was elected in 1964, was against Singapore coming into Malaysia, was regarded as an ultra in Singapore, and against Singapore leaving, one of whom Mr Lee called the "ultras".
So we are left with the official history written with UMNO help and with no official papers of retired politicians. This is so with the history of Singapore's ejection from Malaysia. The University Kebangsan Malaysia has a "Scholar in Residence" programme, by which prominent Malaysians are invited to write their history of the country, or aspects of it. Tun Ghazali Shafie has written his memoirs on the formation of Malaysia in Malay, which is now being translated into English. This scheme allows aging Malays in Malaysia and Singapore to write their memoirs.
But the money is why they write it. A Singapore journalist told me, when I asked him why he had not written his memoirs, that it is a matter of economics: he would get more writing his journalistic pieces than he would writing his memoirs. The same rationale holds in Malaysia. But it enables the future historian to write sensibly of the events of the present time. Now we know of only different accounts by foreign historians and political scientists. It is also true that the foreigner gets an interview easier than the local. It is depicted in the ads. There is in "Deeparaya" until there is a Caucasian present if we believe the advertisements we see on television by government agencies or companies.
The non-Malay perception in Malaysia is different from the Malay. The Malay is the ruling power and non-Malay not. The perceptions therefore differ, for each carry with them his respective historical baggage. That is changing now. The country is divided between the rulers and the ruled. Many Malaysians - me, for instance, and I am 66 though I can remember Malay ruled by the British - know only the coalition controlled by UMNO, first the Alliance and then the National Front, and the history they learnt in school is what UMNO tells them the history of Malaysia.
With the press controlled by the National Front, the Star has whitewashed the ejection of Singapore by Malaysia. They have not explained why Singapore was ejected; only it was peaceful. But it was anything but. I was reporter with Reuters in Singapore though at the time of its ejection, I was in Trivandrum and it was my cousin, a professor of history then at the University of Kerala, who told me of it. I had seen it coming and could talk intelligently of the break. My view then and today is that the ejection of Singapore was preceded by often vociferous exchange of words and Mr Lee did not want the break. But history in Singapore and Malaysia says otherwise.
Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew Part 8
DIVORCE BY STEALTH
Keng Swee urged that the separation be presented to the British as a fait accompli when parliament reassembled on August 9. The necessary constitutional amendments must first be made granting Singapore independence, with all three readings taking place on that day. Ismail readily agreed to this. Razak was greatly amused and said that perhaps PAP tactics were the best.
Ismail said two documents needed to be drawn up: an amendment to the constitution making the secession of Singapore possible, and an act giving Singapore independence under that amendment. In the interests of security, civil servants should not be brought in to prepare these, and he asked if we could do the work. Ismail and Razak must have thought through the necessary constitutional procedures. Keng Swee said Eddie [Barker] (Singapore's minister for law) would try to produce a draft for them in a week to 10 days, and that was agreed. Keng Swee impressed upon both of them the imperative need for secrecy.
On the morning of Friday, August 6, I traveled by car to Kuala Lumpur. Choo and the children stayed behind in the Camerons until Saturday so people would see them and think I was still there.
Neither Keng Swee nor Eddie was sure that the Tunku, who was now back [from London], had not changed his mind, in which case everything was off. But when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur that afternoon, they were there with the documents. After I had studied and approved them, they went to see Razak, Ismail and Kadir Yusof, the attorney general. The meeting went on for hours and hours as I waited impatiently and alone at Singapore House.
Late in the evening, Eddie phoned to say that Tan Siew Sin wanted amendments included whereby we would take over the guarantees that the central government had given the IMF and the World Bank for loans granted to Singapore, a niggling detail. I agreed to that, and Eddie and Kadir Yusof started work on the drafts.
But it took them until well after midnight. When he returned to Singapore House with Keng Swee, Eddie said they had all got drunk while waiting, and when the documents were finally ready, he was the only one sober enough to want to read them before he signed. Razak, who liked Eddie from their hockey-playing days in Raffles College, said, "Eddie, it's your draft. It's your chap who typed the final document, so what are you reading it for?" So Eddie, too, signed without further ado - "sign buta" (signing blindly), as he told me in Malay.
Keng Swee was so soused that he had gone straight to bed. But Eddie went through the documents, was greatly relieved to find no mistakes, then handed them to me. After I had quickly scanned the amendments myself, I looked at Eddie and said, "Thanks, Eddie, we've pulled off a "bloodless coup.'"
With the documents signed, even if the British persuaded the Tunku and his colleagues not to take it through Parliament, once I had published the agreements and the proclamation of independence in the government gazette, Singapore's relationship with Malaysia would change irrevocably.
SUDDENLY, INDEPENDENCE
It was like any other Monday morning in Singapore until the music stopped. At 10 a.m., the pop tunes on the radio were cut off abruptly. Stunned listeners heard the announcer solemnly read out a proclamation - 90 words that changed the lives of the people of Singapore and Malaysia:
"Whereas it is the inalienable right of a people to be free and independent, I, Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore, do hereby proclaim and declare on behalf of the people and the government of Singapore that as from today, the ninth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five, Singapore shall be forever a sovereign, democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society."
Separation! What I had fought so hard to achieve was now being dissolved. Why? And why so suddenly? It was only two years since the island of Singapore had become part of the new Federation of Malaysia.
At 10 a.m. the same day, in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, the Tunku explained to Parliament: "In the end we find that there are only two courses open to us: to take repressive measures against the Singapore government or their leaders for the behavior of some of their leaders, and the course of action we are taking now, to sever with the state government of Singapore that has ceased to give a measure of loyalty to the central government."
The House listened in utter silence. The Tunku was speaking at the first reading of a resolution moved by deputy prime minister Tun Razak, to pass the Constitution of Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Bill, 1965, immediately.
Under Malay-Muslim custom, a husband, but not the wife, can declare "Talak" (I divorce thee) and the woman is divorced. They can reconcile and he can remarry her, but not after he has said "Talak" three times. The three readings in the two chambers of parliament were the three talaks with which Malaysia divorced Singapore. The partners - predominantly Malay in Malaya, predominantly Chinese in Singapore - had not been compatible. Their union had been marred by increasing conjugal strife over whether the new Federation should be a truly multiracial society, or one dominated by the Malays.
DIFFICULT TO FIX
What were the real reasons for the Tunku, Razak and lsmail to want Singapore out of Malaysia? They must have concluded that if they allowed us to exercise our constitutional rights, they were bound to lose in the long run. The Malaysian Solidarity Convention would have rallied the non-Malays and, most dangerous of all, eventually made inroads into the Malay ground on the peninsula. The attitudes and policies of the PAP had already won the unswerving loyalty of our Malay leaders in Singapore; they never wavered even under the stress of the race riots in 1964, nor did they respond to appeals to race, religion or culture, or to the usual blandishments offered to draw them back into the UMNO fold.
This was the nub of the matter. The PAP leaders were not like the politicians in Malaya. Singapore ministers were not pleasure-loving nor did they seek to enrich themselves. UMNO had developed to a fine art the practice of accommodating Chinese or Indian ministers in Malaya who proved troublesome, and had, within a few years, extended its practice to Sabah and Sarawak. Razak once offered Keng Swee 5,000 acres of the best quality rubber land, to be planted with seedlings of the best high-yielding strains from the Rubber Research Institute. With an embarrassed laugh, Keng Swee protested that he would not know what to do with it and ducked the inducement.
Nor was it easy to compromise us. Keng Swee and I once accompanied the Tunku and Tan Siew Sin to a "mess" in Kuala Lumpur run by wealthy Chinese merchants. These "messes" were men's clubs where excellent food was provided by the best restaurants, where members and their friends could gamble at mahjong or poker, and where attractive call girls and even starlets were available. We had a good meal and when they played poker afterwards, I joined in. But as soon as the girls arrived, Keng Swee and I pleaded pressing engagements and made ourselves scarce. We could not afford to give hostages to fortune. If we had stayed, we would thereafter have been open to pressure from the Malaysian leaders. They considered us difficult, almost as dangerous and elusive to handle as the communists, and much too ideological. Worse, we always acted constitutionally and hence were difficult to fix.
NO MORE BULLYING
There were other considerations. If we had remained in Malaysia, the commission of inquiry into the 1964 race riots would continue to hear damaging evidence against Jaafar Albar and UMNO, which would receive widespread publicity. Then there would be the hearing of my libel action against Albar and the editor of the Utusan Melayu, who would be thoroughly cross-examined in court on all the incendiary passages they had published about me. That would mean a devastating exposure of key UMNO leaders' methods of incitement to racism and bloody riots.
The Tunku's solution to these problems was Separation. Singapore would be out of Malaysia and he would control Singapore through the supply of water from Johor and other levers of pressure. He told Head [Britain's high commissioner] on August 9, "If Singapore's foreign policy is prejudicial to Malaysia's interests, we could always bring pressure to bear on them by threatening to turn off the water in Johor."
The Tunku and Razak thought they could station troops in Singapore, squat on us and if necessary close the Causeway and cut off our water supply. They believed, not without foundation, that Singapore could not exist on its own - what better authority than the speeches of the PAP leaders themselves, myself included, and the reasons we had given for it? As Ghazali bin Shafie, the permanent secretary, external affairs ministry, said soon after separation: After a few years out on a limb, Singapore would be in severe straits and would come crawling back - this time on Malaysia's terms.
No, not if I could help it. People in Singapore were in no mood to crawl back after what they had been through for two years in Malaysia, the communal bullying and intimidation. Certainly Keng Swee and I, the two directly responsible for accepting this separation from our hinterland, were not about to give up. The people shared our feelings and were prepared to do whatever was needed to make an independent Singapore work.
Keng Swee urged that the separation be presented to the British as a fait accompli when parliament reassembled on August 9. The necessary constitutional amendments must first be made granting Singapore independence, with all three readings taking place on that day. Ismail readily agreed to this. Razak was greatly amused and said that perhaps PAP tactics were the best.
Ismail said two documents needed to be drawn up: an amendment to the constitution making the secession of Singapore possible, and an act giving Singapore independence under that amendment. In the interests of security, civil servants should not be brought in to prepare these, and he asked if we could do the work. Ismail and Razak must have thought through the necessary constitutional procedures. Keng Swee said Eddie [Barker] (Singapore's minister for law) would try to produce a draft for them in a week to 10 days, and that was agreed. Keng Swee impressed upon both of them the imperative need for secrecy.
On the morning of Friday, August 6, I traveled by car to Kuala Lumpur. Choo and the children stayed behind in the Camerons until Saturday so people would see them and think I was still there.
Neither Keng Swee nor Eddie was sure that the Tunku, who was now back [from London], had not changed his mind, in which case everything was off. But when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur that afternoon, they were there with the documents. After I had studied and approved them, they went to see Razak, Ismail and Kadir Yusof, the attorney general. The meeting went on for hours and hours as I waited impatiently and alone at Singapore House.
Late in the evening, Eddie phoned to say that Tan Siew Sin wanted amendments included whereby we would take over the guarantees that the central government had given the IMF and the World Bank for loans granted to Singapore, a niggling detail. I agreed to that, and Eddie and Kadir Yusof started work on the drafts.
But it took them until well after midnight. When he returned to Singapore House with Keng Swee, Eddie said they had all got drunk while waiting, and when the documents were finally ready, he was the only one sober enough to want to read them before he signed. Razak, who liked Eddie from their hockey-playing days in Raffles College, said, "Eddie, it's your draft. It's your chap who typed the final document, so what are you reading it for?" So Eddie, too, signed without further ado - "sign buta" (signing blindly), as he told me in Malay.
Keng Swee was so soused that he had gone straight to bed. But Eddie went through the documents, was greatly relieved to find no mistakes, then handed them to me. After I had quickly scanned the amendments myself, I looked at Eddie and said, "Thanks, Eddie, we've pulled off a "bloodless coup.'"
With the documents signed, even if the British persuaded the Tunku and his colleagues not to take it through Parliament, once I had published the agreements and the proclamation of independence in the government gazette, Singapore's relationship with Malaysia would change irrevocably.
SUDDENLY, INDEPENDENCE
It was like any other Monday morning in Singapore until the music stopped. At 10 a.m., the pop tunes on the radio were cut off abruptly. Stunned listeners heard the announcer solemnly read out a proclamation - 90 words that changed the lives of the people of Singapore and Malaysia:
"Whereas it is the inalienable right of a people to be free and independent, I, Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore, do hereby proclaim and declare on behalf of the people and the government of Singapore that as from today, the ninth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five, Singapore shall be forever a sovereign, democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society."
Separation! What I had fought so hard to achieve was now being dissolved. Why? And why so suddenly? It was only two years since the island of Singapore had become part of the new Federation of Malaysia.
At 10 a.m. the same day, in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, the Tunku explained to Parliament: "In the end we find that there are only two courses open to us: to take repressive measures against the Singapore government or their leaders for the behavior of some of their leaders, and the course of action we are taking now, to sever with the state government of Singapore that has ceased to give a measure of loyalty to the central government."
The House listened in utter silence. The Tunku was speaking at the first reading of a resolution moved by deputy prime minister Tun Razak, to pass the Constitution of Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Bill, 1965, immediately.
Under Malay-Muslim custom, a husband, but not the wife, can declare "Talak" (I divorce thee) and the woman is divorced. They can reconcile and he can remarry her, but not after he has said "Talak" three times. The three readings in the two chambers of parliament were the three talaks with which Malaysia divorced Singapore. The partners - predominantly Malay in Malaya, predominantly Chinese in Singapore - had not been compatible. Their union had been marred by increasing conjugal strife over whether the new Federation should be a truly multiracial society, or one dominated by the Malays.
DIFFICULT TO FIX
What were the real reasons for the Tunku, Razak and lsmail to want Singapore out of Malaysia? They must have concluded that if they allowed us to exercise our constitutional rights, they were bound to lose in the long run. The Malaysian Solidarity Convention would have rallied the non-Malays and, most dangerous of all, eventually made inroads into the Malay ground on the peninsula. The attitudes and policies of the PAP had already won the unswerving loyalty of our Malay leaders in Singapore; they never wavered even under the stress of the race riots in 1964, nor did they respond to appeals to race, religion or culture, or to the usual blandishments offered to draw them back into the UMNO fold.
This was the nub of the matter. The PAP leaders were not like the politicians in Malaya. Singapore ministers were not pleasure-loving nor did they seek to enrich themselves. UMNO had developed to a fine art the practice of accommodating Chinese or Indian ministers in Malaya who proved troublesome, and had, within a few years, extended its practice to Sabah and Sarawak. Razak once offered Keng Swee 5,000 acres of the best quality rubber land, to be planted with seedlings of the best high-yielding strains from the Rubber Research Institute. With an embarrassed laugh, Keng Swee protested that he would not know what to do with it and ducked the inducement.
Nor was it easy to compromise us. Keng Swee and I once accompanied the Tunku and Tan Siew Sin to a "mess" in Kuala Lumpur run by wealthy Chinese merchants. These "messes" were men's clubs where excellent food was provided by the best restaurants, where members and their friends could gamble at mahjong or poker, and where attractive call girls and even starlets were available. We had a good meal and when they played poker afterwards, I joined in. But as soon as the girls arrived, Keng Swee and I pleaded pressing engagements and made ourselves scarce. We could not afford to give hostages to fortune. If we had stayed, we would thereafter have been open to pressure from the Malaysian leaders. They considered us difficult, almost as dangerous and elusive to handle as the communists, and much too ideological. Worse, we always acted constitutionally and hence were difficult to fix.
NO MORE BULLYING
There were other considerations. If we had remained in Malaysia, the commission of inquiry into the 1964 race riots would continue to hear damaging evidence against Jaafar Albar and UMNO, which would receive widespread publicity. Then there would be the hearing of my libel action against Albar and the editor of the Utusan Melayu, who would be thoroughly cross-examined in court on all the incendiary passages they had published about me. That would mean a devastating exposure of key UMNO leaders' methods of incitement to racism and bloody riots.
The Tunku's solution to these problems was Separation. Singapore would be out of Malaysia and he would control Singapore through the supply of water from Johor and other levers of pressure. He told Head [Britain's high commissioner] on August 9, "If Singapore's foreign policy is prejudicial to Malaysia's interests, we could always bring pressure to bear on them by threatening to turn off the water in Johor."
The Tunku and Razak thought they could station troops in Singapore, squat on us and if necessary close the Causeway and cut off our water supply. They believed, not without foundation, that Singapore could not exist on its own - what better authority than the speeches of the PAP leaders themselves, myself included, and the reasons we had given for it? As Ghazali bin Shafie, the permanent secretary, external affairs ministry, said soon after separation: After a few years out on a limb, Singapore would be in severe straits and would come crawling back - this time on Malaysia's terms.
No, not if I could help it. People in Singapore were in no mood to crawl back after what they had been through for two years in Malaysia, the communal bullying and intimidation. Certainly Keng Swee and I, the two directly responsible for accepting this separation from our hinterland, were not about to give up. The people shared our feelings and were prepared to do whatever was needed to make an independent Singapore work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
