- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 15,744
- Points
- 83
could it be her turn to use her own pink knuckle duster? revenge time!!
Political Commentary
Supplement To May 17 Commentary ‘The GE 2011 Political Demise Of Lee Kuan Yew: A Supreme Irony’
Although I had already completed my series of commentaries on GE 2011, one of them—on Lee Kuan Yew—had attracted so many responses from readers (more than 300) that I thought it would be useful to follow up with a supplement to the commentary, in order to recapitulate the readers’ most cogent arguments in their pro- or anti-LKY stand, and in so doing, indicate my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any controversy surrounding Lee Kuan Yew attests to his phenomenal influence and impact on the society: Singapore will never see his like again.
My political commentary had, oddly, provoked completely opposing responses—praise from his critics and condemnation from his supporters, both sides also vigorously attacking each other. Their positions crystallized around a pivotal point in the debate: what was owing to Lee Kuan Yew as the founder of modern Singapore. The supporters said, ‘He’s done so much for Singapore. How dare you criticize him? You’re being ungrateful!’, and the critics retorted, ‘He’s also done much harm too. How dare you criticise those who are only telling the truth about him?’
The rancorous debate is likely to go on as long as Mr Lee is still around, and perhaps even after he passes from the scene. But for now, in our need to do some calm and level-headed stock-taking after a historic GE 2011, it will be important to take a closer look at a quandary that has dismayingly polarized Singaporeans, and see how we can clarify and try to resolve it.
if Mr Lee’s end or goal for Singapore was a safe, secure, prosperous society, was it justified by the various means he used to achieve it?One way of doing this is to place the debate in the context of the universal moral dilemma which actually it is all about: Does the end justify the means? Or, in a recasting of the famous aphorism of Deng Xiaoping: Does it matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mouse? Thus, with special reference to the Singapore situation, the question becomes: if Mr Lee’s end or goal for Singapore was a safe, secure, prosperous society, was it justified by the various means he used to achieve it? Did his achievements, since they were unquestionably great, warrant any cost, however high, that had to be paid for them?
It is necessary, in our deliberations, to keep in mind what precisely were the means used by Mr Lee that had so incensed the critics. The means in question were NOT those ruthless ‘knuckleduster’ actions to tame unruly elements, including the Communists and the communalists, in the early years. They were NOT the severe government measures to punish people for spitting, littering, vandalizing. They were NOT even the draconian death penalty, a policy regularly condemned by western liberal democracies.
So what were they? They were the means that had caused tremendous anguish and suffering to Singaporeans who were either too frightened not to comply with government edicts, or had no means of legal redress. Two groups can be singled out for special mention. The first comprised women who had suffered from the government’s policy, in the days of severe population control measures. To abide by the ‘stop at two’ order, they had to undergo abortions or sterilizations, or if they chose to be defiant, pay penalties such as losing out on a place for the third child in a school of their choice. This was arguably an even greater penalty than a monetary one, since education was first priority for parents, a disposition Mr Lee chose to ruthlessly exploit. The agonizing decisions that women had to make, which, in some cases, must have conflicted with their religious beliefs, as well as the trauma of having their rights violated at the most fundamental level of human sexuality and fertility, can only be imagined.
The second group comprises political dissidents who paid an extremely high price for their daring to challenge the government. Financial ruin could be complete, resulting in livelong bankruptcy. Fleeing Singapore, their home for many years, and going into exile in a foreign country must have been unimaginably painful. Even more traumatizing must be indefinite incarceration, as in the case of Chia Thye Poh who was a prisoner on Sentosa Island for more than 30 years.
The magnitude of the suffering can only be understood if we remember that the policies of control and punishment lasted decades, thus affecting thousands of Singaporeans, including their families. The two extreme examples singled out were only the tip of a brutal iceberg, for less conspicuous were the hardships caused, for instance, to hundreds of parents whose children were affected by the Mother Tongue language policy and who decided to emigrate rather than see them struggle daily to cope with learning Mandarin.
The suffering caused by the policies takes on an even more poignant note if we ask: Were those policies at all necessary? Were they the result of one man’s unshakeable faith in his own convictions? What did they achieve in the end?
The concluding argument must be this: that in a ‘inclusive’ society which Singapore professes to be, where everyone is cared for, the victimization of even a small segment of its population cannot be glossed over for the greater good of the whole.I have gone to some trouble to dwell on this shadowed part of Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy, simply to balance it against the other, bright, illustrious, more touted half. Ultimately, such a very mixed legacy attracts both gratitude and resentment, both praise and blame. The concluding argument must be this: that in a ‘inclusive’ society which Singapore professes to be, where everyone is cared for, the victimization of even a small segment of its population cannot be glossed over for the greater good of the whole. In a society that wants to have a human face, any policy that dehumanizes the people, even if only a tiny minority, cannot be condoned simply because it benefits the majority. In the end, the material prosperity of such a society becomes its travesty, not its pride.
The vastness of Mr Lee’s achievements might have blinded his supporters to the high price in human terms that had been paid for it. Daily witnessing the evidence of the remarkable achievements in a gleaming city that is now considered world-class, and probably unaware of the inhuman acts because these had received scant attention in the history books or the media, the supporters naturally have only a very incomplete picture. Everyone is human; Mr Lee is human, after all, said his apologists. But a flaw of leadership that translated into hardship for thousands is a different proposition. Ultimately, no end, no matter how noble, can justify the ignoble means to achieve it. If the mouse is the prize, the cat need not resort to the blackest, vilest measures to catch it.
In any case, which person of conviction and self-pride—and Mr Lee has both aplenty—would want to return to a position from which he had been virtually ousted?Having said all this, I would urge, with the same impassioned voice of both the supporters and the critics, that now that the matter of Mr Lee’s future role in Singapore has been settled (as a result of the most unexpected events of GE 2011), it is time to put the divisiveness behind us. To the critic who is also a die-hard skeptic insisting that as long as Mr Lee is around, even if no longer a cabinet minister, he will continue to exert his influence over the Prime Minister who is also his son, the answer must be: Most unlikely. For Mr Lee, whose blunt, forthright ways put him above the need for any prevarification, would never have resigned if he had not meant to. He would have realised that there would not be the same bonding with, and hence the same degree of influence over, the newly reconstituted PAP leadership. In any case, which person of conviction and self-pride—and Mr Lee has both aplenty—would want to return to a position from which he had been virtually ousted?
So did Mr Lee’s resignation show that he was accepting responsibility for the PAP’s worst performance at the polls in 40 years, and by extension, admitting, even if only tacitly, that some of his past deeds had indeed caused great unhappiness to the people who were only able to show their resentment in GE 2011?
In the new post-GE 2011 atmosphere of healing and starting afresh, the answer is no longer important. Indeed, it may even be unhelpful, in the light of the new situation that Mr Lee is now in. Almost immediately after GE 2011, he returned with renewed energy and enthusiasm to his role as traveling world consultant and statesman. With his enormous experience and expertise, he will continue to benefit Singapore, but no longer in the old controversial role. If he is clearly putting that part of the past behind him, it would be most unseemly for Singaporeans to continue debating about it. Indeed debate about whether or not he deserves gratitude may even be distasteful to him. Therefore, in recognition of and respect for his new position, the acrimonies surrounding him should be laid to rest once and for all, as part of the closing of the old era, and the welcoming of a new one.
Political Commentary
Supplement To May 17 Commentary ‘The GE 2011 Political Demise Of Lee Kuan Yew: A Supreme Irony’
Although I had already completed my series of commentaries on GE 2011, one of them—on Lee Kuan Yew—had attracted so many responses from readers (more than 300) that I thought it would be useful to follow up with a supplement to the commentary, in order to recapitulate the readers’ most cogent arguments in their pro- or anti-LKY stand, and in so doing, indicate my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any controversy surrounding Lee Kuan Yew attests to his phenomenal influence and impact on the society: Singapore will never see his like again.
My political commentary had, oddly, provoked completely opposing responses—praise from his critics and condemnation from his supporters, both sides also vigorously attacking each other. Their positions crystallized around a pivotal point in the debate: what was owing to Lee Kuan Yew as the founder of modern Singapore. The supporters said, ‘He’s done so much for Singapore. How dare you criticize him? You’re being ungrateful!’, and the critics retorted, ‘He’s also done much harm too. How dare you criticise those who are only telling the truth about him?’
The rancorous debate is likely to go on as long as Mr Lee is still around, and perhaps even after he passes from the scene. But for now, in our need to do some calm and level-headed stock-taking after a historic GE 2011, it will be important to take a closer look at a quandary that has dismayingly polarized Singaporeans, and see how we can clarify and try to resolve it.
if Mr Lee’s end or goal for Singapore was a safe, secure, prosperous society, was it justified by the various means he used to achieve it?One way of doing this is to place the debate in the context of the universal moral dilemma which actually it is all about: Does the end justify the means? Or, in a recasting of the famous aphorism of Deng Xiaoping: Does it matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mouse? Thus, with special reference to the Singapore situation, the question becomes: if Mr Lee’s end or goal for Singapore was a safe, secure, prosperous society, was it justified by the various means he used to achieve it? Did his achievements, since they were unquestionably great, warrant any cost, however high, that had to be paid for them?
It is necessary, in our deliberations, to keep in mind what precisely were the means used by Mr Lee that had so incensed the critics. The means in question were NOT those ruthless ‘knuckleduster’ actions to tame unruly elements, including the Communists and the communalists, in the early years. They were NOT the severe government measures to punish people for spitting, littering, vandalizing. They were NOT even the draconian death penalty, a policy regularly condemned by western liberal democracies.
So what were they? They were the means that had caused tremendous anguish and suffering to Singaporeans who were either too frightened not to comply with government edicts, or had no means of legal redress. Two groups can be singled out for special mention. The first comprised women who had suffered from the government’s policy, in the days of severe population control measures. To abide by the ‘stop at two’ order, they had to undergo abortions or sterilizations, or if they chose to be defiant, pay penalties such as losing out on a place for the third child in a school of their choice. This was arguably an even greater penalty than a monetary one, since education was first priority for parents, a disposition Mr Lee chose to ruthlessly exploit. The agonizing decisions that women had to make, which, in some cases, must have conflicted with their religious beliefs, as well as the trauma of having their rights violated at the most fundamental level of human sexuality and fertility, can only be imagined.
The second group comprises political dissidents who paid an extremely high price for their daring to challenge the government. Financial ruin could be complete, resulting in livelong bankruptcy. Fleeing Singapore, their home for many years, and going into exile in a foreign country must have been unimaginably painful. Even more traumatizing must be indefinite incarceration, as in the case of Chia Thye Poh who was a prisoner on Sentosa Island for more than 30 years.
The magnitude of the suffering can only be understood if we remember that the policies of control and punishment lasted decades, thus affecting thousands of Singaporeans, including their families. The two extreme examples singled out were only the tip of a brutal iceberg, for less conspicuous were the hardships caused, for instance, to hundreds of parents whose children were affected by the Mother Tongue language policy and who decided to emigrate rather than see them struggle daily to cope with learning Mandarin.
The suffering caused by the policies takes on an even more poignant note if we ask: Were those policies at all necessary? Were they the result of one man’s unshakeable faith in his own convictions? What did they achieve in the end?
The concluding argument must be this: that in a ‘inclusive’ society which Singapore professes to be, where everyone is cared for, the victimization of even a small segment of its population cannot be glossed over for the greater good of the whole.I have gone to some trouble to dwell on this shadowed part of Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy, simply to balance it against the other, bright, illustrious, more touted half. Ultimately, such a very mixed legacy attracts both gratitude and resentment, both praise and blame. The concluding argument must be this: that in a ‘inclusive’ society which Singapore professes to be, where everyone is cared for, the victimization of even a small segment of its population cannot be glossed over for the greater good of the whole. In a society that wants to have a human face, any policy that dehumanizes the people, even if only a tiny minority, cannot be condoned simply because it benefits the majority. In the end, the material prosperity of such a society becomes its travesty, not its pride.
The vastness of Mr Lee’s achievements might have blinded his supporters to the high price in human terms that had been paid for it. Daily witnessing the evidence of the remarkable achievements in a gleaming city that is now considered world-class, and probably unaware of the inhuman acts because these had received scant attention in the history books or the media, the supporters naturally have only a very incomplete picture. Everyone is human; Mr Lee is human, after all, said his apologists. But a flaw of leadership that translated into hardship for thousands is a different proposition. Ultimately, no end, no matter how noble, can justify the ignoble means to achieve it. If the mouse is the prize, the cat need not resort to the blackest, vilest measures to catch it.
In any case, which person of conviction and self-pride—and Mr Lee has both aplenty—would want to return to a position from which he had been virtually ousted?Having said all this, I would urge, with the same impassioned voice of both the supporters and the critics, that now that the matter of Mr Lee’s future role in Singapore has been settled (as a result of the most unexpected events of GE 2011), it is time to put the divisiveness behind us. To the critic who is also a die-hard skeptic insisting that as long as Mr Lee is around, even if no longer a cabinet minister, he will continue to exert his influence over the Prime Minister who is also his son, the answer must be: Most unlikely. For Mr Lee, whose blunt, forthright ways put him above the need for any prevarification, would never have resigned if he had not meant to. He would have realised that there would not be the same bonding with, and hence the same degree of influence over, the newly reconstituted PAP leadership. In any case, which person of conviction and self-pride—and Mr Lee has both aplenty—would want to return to a position from which he had been virtually ousted?
So did Mr Lee’s resignation show that he was accepting responsibility for the PAP’s worst performance at the polls in 40 years, and by extension, admitting, even if only tacitly, that some of his past deeds had indeed caused great unhappiness to the people who were only able to show their resentment in GE 2011?
In the new post-GE 2011 atmosphere of healing and starting afresh, the answer is no longer important. Indeed, it may even be unhelpful, in the light of the new situation that Mr Lee is now in. Almost immediately after GE 2011, he returned with renewed energy and enthusiasm to his role as traveling world consultant and statesman. With his enormous experience and expertise, he will continue to benefit Singapore, but no longer in the old controversial role. If he is clearly putting that part of the past behind him, it would be most unseemly for Singaporeans to continue debating about it. Indeed debate about whether or not he deserves gratitude may even be distasteful to him. Therefore, in recognition of and respect for his new position, the acrimonies surrounding him should be laid to rest once and for all, as part of the closing of the old era, and the welcoming of a new one.
