Winner (Open Category)
What Happens After a Titan Leaves? Examining Singapore Through and Beyond Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s Legacy.
A lion among leaders. One of the most extraordinary leaders of modern times. A visionary statesman whose uncompromising stand for meritocracy, efficiency and education transformed Singapore into one of the most prosperous nations in the world. These were amongst the effusive words which world leaders used to describe Mr Lee Kuan Yew, upon his passing in 2015. Such was his unwavering dedication and remarkable contributions to Singapore, that many still joke online today that Mr Lee would be ready to rise from his grave to act as Singapore’s beacon of hope once again, should she ever be heading in the wrong direction.
Undoubtedly, the significance of Mr Lee to me is a largely positive one, much like that of the Singaporean public at large. The cards dealt to Mr Lee upon Singapore’s independence were not great – besides the lack of natural resources or a common national identity or shared history to bind the nation, the British military withdrawal soon followed, taking with it security, over 20% of Singapore’s Gross National Product and 25000 jobs at the military bases. Today, being born in Singapore compares to being dealt pocket aces in Texas Hold ‘Em poker – but in the much more important context of the game of life.
Singapore is not a utopia, it certainly isn’t perfect, nor will it ever be. The nature of policymaking suggests that there will be inevitable trade-offs with each decision, and everyone’s definition of an ideal state would certainly differ. But it sure is close to one, in most aspects. Singapore ranks highly in virtually every measurable social indicator, whether it is education, healthcare, quality of life, safety or housing. A melting pot of different cultures living in harmony and governed by merit, Singapore is associated with numerous positive values, including incorruptibility, efficiency and fairness today. Mr Lee’s pragmatic leadership has undoubtedly shaped a nation for generations to come for the better.
Even as Mr Lee’s critics have highlighted his draconian measures, they too could not cast aspersions on the fact that he did what he felt was best for the Singapore he envisioned, rather than for his own personal gain. While described as a benevolent dictator by some – the strongman that Mr Lee was, he was no domineering figure who imposed his will on all regardless of discourse. After all, his successor, Mr Goh Chok Tong, had been the first choice of his peers but not Mr Lee. He was also always quick to acknowledge his strong team of first generation leaders, reiterating that Singapore’s success was not to his sole credit. And unlike the many authoritarian leaders of his age, he was careful not to let a cult of personality grow around him. As The Economist best puts it “If you seek his monument, look around Singapore. Wealthy, orderly, efficient and honestly governed”.
And yet despite the vast merits of Mr Lee, we should be mindful not to misplace our nostalgia for Mr Lee’s reign in the wrong areas. Countries like the Philippines in the region have already seen authoritarianism romanticised under a revisionist lens, and it is imperative that the same not happen to Singapore for nefarious reasons.
Few would argue against the fact that key fragments of Mr Lee’s authoritarian legacy have yet to be properly examined by the Singaporean public at large, none less so than Operation Spectrum. With allegations of a Marxist conspiracy targeted at subverting the Singapore’s socio-political system, it saw the arrest and detention of 22 people without trial. Historians have contended with the allegations, claiming that they were likely politically motivated. The then-Senior Minister of State Tharman Shanmugaratnam also chipped in that he did not believe those arrested were out to subvert the system in a 2001 interview. Mr Lee himself did not believe that those arrested were part of a Marxist conspiracy, according to notes taken by the Internal Security Department at a private meeting between him and Catholic church leaders. Nevertheless, the Government he led persisted with the stand that the activities of the ex-detainees had posed a threat to national security, and the incident remains largely unknown amongst Singaporeans today, with press coverage scant.
But we should not hear the Singapore story just from the side of those who can be heard, it is important for us to incorporate even the less pleasant side of Mr Lee’s Singapore legacy, which helps us decide upon the values which we envision for Singapore today, and our vision for it. And no discussion can be complete about Mr Lee’s legacy without the authoritarian mark he made.
The hallmark of Mr Lee’s style of governance was certainly that of an iron fist. “Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him” as enthused by the man himself, in a 1980 rally. He always believed that it was important for his leadership to decide and do what was right for Singapore, even if it would have been unpopular with the public. And trusted him the people did. After all, the government he led were buoyed by their performance legitimacy, with economic success and the creation of a shared Singaporean identity around the principles of meritocracy. Mr Lee’s words rang more soundly during his premiership, where the Singapore machine was oiling its gears to turn from Third World to First.
However, the Singapore today is vastly different from the Singapore Mr Lee first led.
Mr Lee said he did not believe that one-man, one-vote was the best system, but the eugenicist in him would have relished at least the fact that he left in his wake an electorate that had become amongst the best educated in the world.
Perhaps the next generation of political leaders agree that a post-Lee Kuan Yew Singapore should be without the iron fist he had ruled with – for signs of dismantling his authoritarian legacy have already started. That was made all the more apparent to me during my internship at the People’s Association’s People and Government Engagement Division (PGED). The very nature of PGED’s work greatly contrasted from Mr Lee’s management of Singapore. PGED acts as an intermediary between the people and the government, facilitating policy discussions and dialogues at the ground level to ensure timely and well communicated policy engagement and the incorporation of feedback from the citizenry directly into policy implementation.
Gone are the days of Strongman politics, and in its place lies its usurper, policy co-creation. The nationwide Forward SG exercise has been especially emblematic of this shift, with close citizenry policy engagement a sign of the new, more consultative approach that has been taken up by the 4th Generation political leadership. I have also personally been involved with policy co-creation. As a policy paper writer under MAJU, a youth-led policy research initiative, I have been engaging with government agencies to co-create policy alongside peers who share fervent enthusiasm in policymaking and in charting Singapore’s future.
Recognising the important role that citizens play in policymaking and actively engaging them is an apt step. Of course, it is equally important that the citizenry understand the technocratic principles underlining much of Singapore’s unpopular policies. But much as the leaders of a post-Lee Kuan Yew Singapore need strong public trust to succeed, they also need to trust that the citizenry is aware of what’s best for Singapore, and of what makes Singapore, Singapore. And engaging them to get their views, will definitely make for a more cohesive, and more Singaporean Singapore.
It is also time to take the shackles off certain draconian policies that stand out like a sore thumb, remnants of a lingering authoritarian past. Strong public support for the Death Penalty has often been cited by the government in its reasoning for its continued presence in the Singapore punitive system. However, transparency has been lacking on information that has indicated no statistical proof supporting the death penalty’s deterrent effect, and the risk of irreparable, unjust conviction arising from legal oversight or prejudice.
When Singaporeans supporting the death penalty were asked hypothetically whether they would still favour the death penalty given evidence suggesting it was not a superior deterrent to life imprisonment; and in view of evidence of wrongful executions, support for the death penalty dropped overall to just 49.7% and 31.9% on average respectively (Chan et al., 2014). These survey results indicate that the majority support for the death penalty in Singapore is merely superficial. Given that new information presented on the death penalty has caused major plunges in public support for its administration, this has thoroughly invalidated state rationale of majority public support in its implementation of the death penalty, with the volatility of public opinion testament to the fragility of majority support the state claims to command.
Singapore stands among Iran, Saudi Arabia and China as the only countries who have recorded drug-related executions in recent years (as pointed out by rights group Amnesty International). Its abolition would ironically be much like how Mr Lee ruled, a pragmatic decision made in line with the changing times for the betterment of Singaporeans, with an iron fist against current public sentiment. But as we all know, Mr Lee did he felt was best for Singapore. Even as public opinion has not shifted towards abolition, it is only a matter of time before we should take the right step for Singapore.
Singapore has always been a dynamic, vibrant nation. The only thing constant in Singapore is change, as characterised by the endless scenes of construction every day in our city state. As we approach the 100thanniversary of Mr Lee’s birth, let us continue to cherish and remember his legacy as a form of empowerment, imparting the parts of his legacy that have helped created the belief in our nation to succeed against all odds and remain united regardless of race, language or religion. But let us also not forget that the Singapore today calls for a different style of governance, and policies that are dynamic enough to keep up with the times and the wishes of Singaporeans, while retaining their technocratic vigour. And when we do continue to succeed, we know that the greatest Singaporean patriot would definitely be looking down with pride in his eyes.
References
Chan, W. C., Tan, E. S., Lee, J., & Mathi, B. (2014). Public Opinion on The Death Penalty in Singapore: Survey Findings (Ser. NUS Law Working Paper 2018/002). NUS Law.
MARUAH Singapore 