Indians in India mourn Lee Kuan Yew's passing: We feel like orphans.

When Singapore's founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was taken on his final journey, emotions soared - not just on the streets of the city-state, but also thousands of kilometres away in India.

Despite it being a public holiday in India, Indians and Singaporeans gathered together on Sunday (Mar 29) at the Singapore High Commission in New Delhi to say their final goodbyes to Mr Lee.

Mr Lim Thua Kuan, Singapore's High Commissioner to India, said: "It is not only Singaporeans who feel this way. Over the past week, we have seen many Indian nationals who have come over to our embassy to sign the condolence book and each have their own links to Singapore.

"It is very gratifying for me as High Commissioner to know that the emotions that are being displayed in Singapore reach across the seas to other countries, including India."

While people teared as they bade Mr Lee farewell, the Indian flag flew at half-mast on top of the presidential palace, parliament house and elsewhere in honour of Singapore’s founding father. Mr Lee was one of the few world leaders who had personal relations with almost all India's prime ministers.

The grief also spilled onto the streets of southern Indian city Chennai in Tamil Nadu, where Mr Lee is seen as someone who is the 'people's own.' The city's Singapore Consulate General office swelled with fans and admirers of the former prime minister.

"Whatever I am today is all thanks to Mr Lee Kuan Yew," said a Chennai resident. "It is of great grief, it is something I can't believe that the great founding Prime Minister of Singapore has left us. We feel like orphans now."

With his death, Mr Lee's legacy remains to inspire not just those in Singapore. but also other countries, including India.

Eulogy by ESM Goh Chok Tong

Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave his life to us. To truly appreciate this, you had to have marched alongside him in his long political journey. Or studied him closely – his words and actions, his ideas and vision, his values and philosophy. Or carried along by his passion in building a nation and improving the lives of Singaporeans.

Or lived his worries, day in and day out.

To Singaporeans, he was our first Prime Minister, our leader who fought for our Independence, the man who turned Singapore from Third World to First, our national father. For me, he would always be my teacher.

I first met Mr Lee in 1958 when I went to his law office to invite him to speak to the Raffles Institution students. He was the Leader of the Opposition.

Later, I nervously chaired the talk to a packed hall. That was my high point in school.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew was Singapore. But it surprised me that he had earned that accolade just two years after Singapore’s independence. On a field trip with my class of international students to Puerto Rico in 1967, a Puerto Rican excitedly shouted “Chino, Chino” when he saw me. I shouted back, “Singapore!” He replied, “Lee Kuan Yew!”

Mr Lee drove his people hard because he had to toughen fledgling Singapore quickly. As he put it, he had to account for the lives of millions of Singaporeans. He rallied and united a disparate population to share a common identity. He braved necessary long-term painful policies. Farmers were resettled and land acquired. Old mosques and temples made way for public housing, roads and schools. Gangsters and drug traffickers were detained without trial.

Some people allege that these policies lacked compassion. But Mr Lee taught people how to fish and brought the fish to Singapore waters. He housed and schooled millions. He gave us safe streets and parks. He was a leader, not a populist politician. The outpouring of grief, gratitude and love for him says it all. People know that Mr Lee did immense good for them.

Mr Lee consulted widely with colleagues and people he trusted. He told his Backbenchers to bring out the people’s concerns and gossip from the coffee shops and the hawker centres. Mr Lee never muzzled anyone. But he robustly defended his convictions and Singapore’s interests, very often to the discomfort of his critics. To those he believed were out to destroy Singapore, he put on his knuckle-dusters.

Mr Lee was a good teacher. He was always scanning the future, anticipating challenges, pre-empting problems, and thinking out solutions. He shared with the Cabinet useful articles, his conversations with world leaders, and insights from overseas trips. He studied best practices and explored innovative ideas for Singapore Where there were no precedents, he thought out creative and innovative solutions.

Mr Lee was a worrier. He worried incessantly whether Singapore would survive after he and the Old Guard were gone. He wanted to be judged on this, not by the city he had built and the lives he had improved. As Singapore prospered, and hard times and history forgotten, he did not believe that able, committed and honest leaders would emerge naturally, unlike his generation who were born with fire in their bellies to fight for independence, multi-racial equality and a fair and just society.

And so, Mr Lee single-mindedly planned for leadership succession.
He emphasised character, motivation, commitment and ability over academic grades. He underlined the importance of having the moral authority to govern.

In pushing for leadership renewal, he had to cut short the political careers of his old colleagues. This was painful for him. He said that it was “emotionally difficult but necessary … I had to do it, whatever my own feelings”. I know he felt for them. He would occasionally ask me about them.

Learning from Mr Lee, I too planned for leadership renewal. He was surprised when, soon after the 2001 General Election, I intimated my intention to step down. He told me that there was no hurry. I explained that Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was already approaching 50. I wanted to give him a long runway to lead Singapore and develop the 4th generation leadership.

After I took over as Prime Minister, Mr Lee was punctilious in observing the protocol of my office. He made sure he arrived before me for all events. As I respected him as my elder and mentor, I told him to dispense with this practice at non-formal events. But he explained that it was important to observe this protocol.
Otherwise, people might draw the wrong conclusion that he did not respect me and take their cue from there.

I valued Mr Lee’s advice when he was Senior Minister in my Cabinet. He sought to understand my thinking and objectives, and suggested refinements, and sometimes alternatives, to my policies and programmes. But he always made it clear that the decision was mine to make. He was, as he put it, a resource and data bank.
We lunched regularly. Our conversations never drifted far from his life’s work. We shared many common concerns, including the emerging trend of income stratification and social fragmentation. He worried about almost every aspect of Singapore. He never ceased sharing and I kept on learning. Once in a while, he showed his soft side.

We talked about our families and health. After Mrs Lee’s death, I glimpsed how lonely and sad he was. Sadly, we had to discontinue our lunches in 2013 because of his health. Sadly, his physical health declined. Sadly, Mr Lee is gone.

I cannot put his legacy more eloquently than his Old Guard comrade, the late S Rajaratnam. He wrote:
“There is one monument which I think would bring warmth and comfort to him in the twilight years of his life. And that is the city and society which he, more than anybody else, has literally built out of nothing…

“The question today is not what Mr Lee has done – what he has done is on record and indelible – but whether the city and society he has built will endure after he is gone…. (And) how much of the past that will help shape the future will be remembered and understood by succeeding generations.”

Mr Lee has completed his life-journey. He transformed our lives.
He touched our hearts. We grieve. But I believe Mr Lee would say, “What to do? This is life.” He would want us to move on with the Singapore Story. He would want us to fight our own battles and conquer our own peaks. He would want Singapore to succeed long after he is gone. We must honour him.

I have seen and heard many acts of kindness over the past week – Singaporeans helping those who need help, staying strong together even as we mourn. This shared, compassionate moment is the people’s tribute to Mr Lee.

Let us stay united, across race and language, religion, across young and old, across rich and poor, across our whole society, to write an exciting sequel to his and our Singapore Story.

Thank you, Mr Lee.

Eulogy by PM Lee Hsien Loong

This has been a dark week for Singapore.

The light that has guided us all these years has been extinguished. We have lost our founding father Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who lived and breathed Singapore all his life. He and his team led our pioneer generation to create this island nation, Singapore.

Mr Lee did not set out to be a politician, let alone a statesman, as a boy. In fact, his grandfather wanted him to become an English gentleman! But events left an indelible mark on him. He had been a British subject in colonial Singapore. He had survived hardship, danger and fear in the Japanese Occupation. These life experiences drove him to fight for independence.

In one of his radio talks on the Battle for Merger many years ago, in 1961, Mr Lee said: “My colleagues and I are of that generation of young men who went through the Second World War and the Japanese Occupation and emerged determined that no one – neither the Japanese nor the British – had the right to push and kick us around.”

Mr Lee championed independence for Singapore through merger with Malaya, to form a new Federation of Malaysia. He worked tirelessly to bring this about, and succeeded. Unfortunately the merger did not last, and before long, we were expelled from Malaysia. Separation was his greatest “moment of anguish”, but it also proved to be the turning point in Singapore’s fortunes.

From the ashes of separation he built a nation. The easiest thing to do would have been to appeal to Chinese voters alone. After all, Singapore had to leave Malaysia because we were majority Chinese. Instead, he went for the nobler dream of a multi-racial, multi-religious nation. Singapore would not be based on race, language or religion, but on fundamental values – multi-racialism, equality, meritocracy, integrity and rule of law. Mr Lee declared: “This is not a country that belongs to any single community; it belongs to all of us.”

He checked would be racial chauvinists, and assured the minorities that their place here was secure. He insisted on keeping our mother tongues, even as English became our common working language. He encouraged each group to maintain its culture, faith and language, while gradually enlarging the common space shared by all. Together with Mr S Rajaratnam, he enshrined these ideals in the National Pledge.

He kept us safe in a dangerous and tumultuous world. With Dr Goh Keng Swee, he built the SAF from just two infantry battalions and one little, wooden ship, into a well-trained, well-equipped, well-respected fighting force.

He introduced National Service (NS), and personally persuaded parents to entrust their sons to the SAF. He succeeded, first because he led by example – his two sons did NS just like every Singaporean son, and in fact my brother and I signed up as regulars in the SAF on scholarships. Second, people trusted Mr Lee, and believed in the Singapore cause. Hence today we sleep peacefully at night, confident that we are well protected.

Mr Lee gave us courage to face an uncertain future. He was a straight talker, and never shied away from hard truths, either to himself or to Singa­poreans. His ministers would sometimes urge him to soften the tone of his drafts – even I would sometimes do that – to sound less unyielding to human frailties. He often took in their amendments, but he would preserve his core message. “I always tried to be correct,” he said, “not politically correct”.

He was a powerful speaker – moving, inspiring, persuasive, in English and Malay, and by dint of a lifelong hard slog in Mandarin and even Hokkien. MediaCorp has been broadcasting his old speeches this week, have reminded us that his was the original Singapore Roar – passionate, formidable and indomitable.

Above all, Lee Kuan Yew was a fighter. In crises, when all seemed hopeless, he was ferocious, endlessly resourceful, firm in his resolve, and steadfast in advancing his cause.

Thus he saw us through many battles: the Battle for Merger against the communists, which most people thought the non-communists would lose; the fight when we were in Malaysia against the communalists, when his own life was in danger; separation, which cast us out into a hazardous world; and then the withdrawal of British forces from Singapore, which threatened the livelihoods of 150,000 people.

Because he never wavered, we didn’t falter. Because he fought, we took courage and fought with him, and prevailed. Thus Mr Lee took Singapore and us all from Third World to First.

In many countries, anti-colonial fighters and heroes would win independence and assume power, but then fail at nation building because the challenges of building a nation and growing the economy and improving peoples’ lives are very different. But Mr Lee succeeded at nation building, together with his team of ministers.

Just weeks after Separation, he boldly declared that “10 years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear!” And indeed he made it happen. He instilled discipline and order – ensuring that in Singapore, every problem gets fixed. He educated our young. He transformed labour relations from strikes and confrontation to tripartism and cooperation. He campaigned to upgrade skills and raise productivity, calling their effort a marathon with no finish line.

He enabled his economic team – Goh Keng Swee, Hon Sui Sen, Lim Kim San – to design and carry out their plans to attract investments, grow the economy, and create prosperity and jobs. As he said, “I settled the political conditions so that tough policies … could be executed”.

However, Mr Lee was clear that while “the development of the economy is very important, equally important is the development of the nature of our society.” So he built an inclusive society where everyone enjoyed the fruits of progress. Education became the foundation for good jobs and better lives. HDB new towns sprung up one after another – Queenstown, Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio, to be followed by many more. 

We had roofs over our heads, and became a nation of home owners. With Devan Nair in the NTUC, he transformed the union movement into a positive force, cooperating with employers and the Government to improve the lot of workers.

Mr Lee cared for the people of Singapore whom he served. When SARS struck in 2003, he worried about taxi drivers, whose livelihoods were affected because tourists had dried up, and pressed us hard to find ways to help taxi drivers. Mr Lee also cared for the people who served him. One evening, just a few years ago, he rang me up. One of my mother’s WSOs (woman security officers) was having difficulty conceiving a child, and he wanted to help her. He asked whether I knew how to help her to adopt a child. He was concerned for people not just in the abstract, but personally and individually.

Internationally, he raised Singa­pore’s standing in the world. Mr Lee was not just a perceptive observer of world affairs, but a statesman who articulated Singapore’s international interests and enlarged our strategic space. At crucial turning points, from the British withdrawal “East of Suez” to the Vietnam War to the rise of China, his views and counsel influenced thinking and decisions in many capitals.

In the process, he built up a wide network of friends, in and out of power. He knew every Chinese leader from Mao Zedong and every US president from Lyndon Johnson. He established close rapport with President Suharto of Indonesia, one of our most important relationships. Others he knew included Deng Xiaoping, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Schmidt, George Shultz, as well as President Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger, who we are honoured to have here with us this afternoon. They valued his candour and insight. As Mrs Thatcher said, “(Mr Lee) had a way of penetrating the fog of propaganda and expressing with unique clarity the issues of our times and the way to tackle them. He was never wrong.” Hence despite being so small, Singapore’s voice is heard, and we enjoy far more influence on the world stage than we have any reason to expect.

Mr Lee did not blaze this path alone. He was the outstanding leader of an exceptional team – Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Othman Wok, Hon Sui Sen, Lim Kim San, Toh Chin Chye, Ong Pang Boon, Devan Nair, and quite a number more. They were his comrades, and he never forgot them. So it is very good that Mr Ong Pang Boon is here today to speak about Mr Lee.

Mr Lee received many accolades and awards in his long life, but he wore them lightly. When Mr Lee received the Freedom of the City of London in 1982, he said: “I feel like a conductor at a concert bowing to applause, but unable to turn around and invite the accomplished musicians in his orchestra to rise and receive the ovation for the music they have played. For running a govern­ment is not unlike running an orchestra, and no Prime Minister ever achieves much without an able team of players.”

Because he worked with a strong team and not alone, because people knew that he cared for them and not for himself, and because he had faith that Singaporeans would work with him to achieve great things, Mr Lee won the trust and confidence of Singaporeans. The pioneer generation, who had lived through the crucial years, had a deep bond with him. I once met a lady who owned a successful fried rice restaurant. She told me: “Tell Lee Kuan Yew I will always support him. I was born in 1948, and I am 48 years old (this was 1996). I know what he has done for me and Singapore.” She and her generation knew that “跟着李光耀走不会死的” – if you follow Lee Kuan Yew, you will survive.

Mr Lee imbued Singapore with his personal traits. He built Singapore to be clean and corruption-free. His home was spartan. His habits were frugal. He wore the same jacket for years, and patched up worn bits instead of buying new ones. He imparted these values to the government. Even when old and frail, when MPs celebrated his 90th birthday in Parliament (in 2013), he reminded them that Singapore must remain clean and incorruptible, and that MPs and ministers had to set the example.

He pursued ideas with tremendous, infectious energy. He said of himself: “I put myself down as determined, consistent, persistent. I set out to do something, I keep on chasing it until it succeeds. That’s all.” Easy to say, very few do it. This was how he seized opportunities, seeing and realising possibilities that many others missed.

So it was he who pushed to move Paya Lebar airport to Changi. It was he who rejected the conventional wisdom then that multi-national corporations (MNCs) were rapacious and exploitative, and wooed foreign investment from MNCs to invest in Singapore, to bring us technology, overseas markets and jobs.

He was not afraid to change his mind when a policy was no longer relevant. When he saw that our birth rates were falling below replacement, he scrapped the “Stop at Two” policy and started encouraging couples to have more children. That was almost 30 years ago. Having upheld a conservative approach to supervising our financial sector for many years, he eventually decided the time had come to rethink and liberalise, but to do so in a controlled way. This was how Singapore’s financial centre took off in a new wave of growth, to become what it is today. He was always clear what strategy to follow, but never so fixed to an old strategy as to be blind to the need to change course when the world changed.

Nothing exemplifies this better than water security, which was a lifelong obsession of his. He entrenched the PUB’s two Water Agreements with Johor in the Separation Agreement, he personally managed all aspects of our water talks with Malaysia. He launched water saving campaigns, built reservoirs, and turned most of the island into water catchment to collect the rain to process and use. He cleaned up the Singapore River and Kallang Basin. He dreamed of the Marina Barrage until finally technology caught up and it became feasible, and it became a reality. And he lived to see it happen. When PUB invented NEWater, and when desalination became viable, he backed the new technologies enthusiastically. The result today is Singapore has moved towards self-sufficiency in water, become a leader in water technologies, and turned a vulnerability into a strength.

It is perhaps appropriate that today the heavens opened and cried for him.

No issue was too small for him. On travels when he came across trees or plants that might grow well here, he would collect saplings and seeds and hand carry them back to Singapore. He used the Istana grounds as a nursery, and would personally check on the health of the trees, not just in general but particular trees. Singa­pore’s Prime Minister was also the Chief Gardener of the City in a Garden.

He had a relentless drive to improve. He continued to learn well into old age. At 70, to write his memoirs, he started learning how to use his computer. Every so often he would call me for help – sometimes late at night – and I would give him a phone consultation, talking him through the steps to save a file, or find a document which had vanished somewhere on his hard drive. And if he could not find me, he would consult my wife.

He made a ceaseless effort to learn Mandarin over decades – listening to tapes of his teacher in the morning while shaving at home, and in the evening while exercising at Sri Temasek. He kept up his Mandarin classes all his life. Indeed, his last appointment on Feb 4, before he was became gravely ill early the next morning, was with his Mandarin tutor.

He inspired all of us to give our best.

He was constantly thinking about Singapore. He declared at one National Day Rally (in 1988) that “Even from my sickbed, even if you are going to lower me into the grave and I feel something is going wrong, I will get up." And he meant that. And indeed, even after he left the Cabinet, he would still occasionally raise with me issues he felt strongly about.

During the Budget Debate two years ago, MPs hotly debated the cost of living, public transport and other matters pre-occupying Singa­poreans. Mr Lee felt that we had lost sight of the fundamentals that underpinned our survival. He emailed me a draft speech and said he wanted to speak in the Chamber, to remind Singaporeans of these unchanging hard truths – what our survival depended on. But I persuaded him to leave the task to me and my ministers. And he took my advice.

His biggest worry was that younger Singaporeans would lose the instinct for what made Singapore tick. This was why he continued writing books into his 90s – Bilingualism, Hard Truths, One Man’s View of the World, and at least one more – guided by him and still being written – on the history of the PAP. So that a new generation of Singaporeans could learn from his experience, and understand what their security, prosperity, and future depended on.

One of Mr Lee’s greatest legacies was preparing Singapore to continue beyond him. He believed that a leader’s toughest job was ensuring succession. He systematically identified and groomed a team of successors. He made way for Mr Goh Chok Tong to become Prime Minister, but stayed on in Mr Goh’s Cabinet to help the new team succeed. He provided stability and experience and quietly helped to build up Mr Goh’s authority. He knew how to guide without being obtrusive, to be watchful while letting the new team develop its own style and its own authority. He described himself as a “mascot” – everyone knew how special this mascot was, and how lucky we were to have this mascot.

It was likewise when I took over. Mr Goh became Senior Minister and Mr Lee became Minister Mentor, a title he felt reflected his new role. Increasingly he left policy issues to us, but he would share with us his reading of world affairs, and his advice on major problems that he saw over the horizon. Some other Prime Ministers told me that they could not imagine what it was like to have two former PMs in my Cabinet. But I told them it worked, both for me and for Singa­pore.

For all his public duties, Mr Lee also had his own family. My mother was a big part of his life. They were a deeply loving couple. She was his loyal spouse and confidante – going with him everywhere, fussing over him, helping with his speeches, and keeping home and hearth warm. They were a perfect team, and wonderful parents. When my mother died, he was bereft. He felt the devastating loss of a life partner, who as he said had helped him to become what he was.

My father left the upbringing of the children largely to my mother. But he was the head of the family, and cared deeply about us, both when we were small, and long after we had grown up. He was not very demonstrative, much less touchy feely, but he loved us deeply.

After my first wife Ming Yang died, my parents suggested that I tried meditation. They gave me some books to read, but I did not make much progress. I think my father had tried it too, also not too successfully. When his teacher told him to relax, still his mind and let go, he replied: “But what will happen to Singapore if I let go?”

When I had lymphoma, he suggested that I try meditation more seriously. He thought it would help me to fight the cancer. He found me a teacher and spoke to him personally. With a good teacher to guide me, I made better progress.

In old age, after my mother died, my father started meditating again, with help from Ng Kok Song, whom he knew from GIC. Kok Song brought a friend to see my father, a Benedictine monk who did Christian meditation. My father was not a Christian, but he was happy to learn from a Benedictine monk. He even called me to suggest that I meet the monk, which I did. He probably felt I needed to resume meditation too.

And to give you some context, this was a few months after the 2011 General Election. I was nearing 60 by then, and he was nearly 90. But to him I was still his son to be worried over, and to me he was still a father to love and appreciate, just like when I was small.

So this morning, before the ceremony began at Parliament House, we had a few minutes. I sat beside him, and I meditated.

Of course, growing up as my father’s son could not but mean being exposed to politics very early. I remember as a little boy, I knoew his constituency was Tanjong Pagar, I was proud of him becoming legal advisor to so many trade unions, and being excited by the hubbub at Oxley Road whenever elections happened, and our home became the election office.

I remember when we were preparing to join Malaysia in the early 1960s, going along with my father on constituency visits – the “fang wen” tours he made to every corner of Singa­pore. For him, it was back­breaking work week after week, rallying the people’s support for a supremely important decision about Singa­pore’s future. For me, these were not just Sunday outings, but also an early political education.

I remember election night in the 1960s, the crucial general election when the PAP defeated the pro-communist Barisan Sosialis. My mother sent me to bed early, but lay awake to listen to the election results until the PAP had won enough seats to form the government again. Then I fell asleep.

I remember the day he told me, while we were playing golf at the Istana, that should anything happen to him, he wanted me to look after my mother and my younger brother and sister.

I remember the night the children slept on the floor in my parents’ bedroom at Temasek House in Kuala Lumpur, because the house was full of ministers who had come up from Singapore. Every so often my father would get up from the bed to make a note about something, before lying down to rest again. But obviously he wasn't asleep. The date was 7 August 1965, two days before Separation.

Growing up with my father, living through those years with him, made me what I am.

This year is the 50th anniversary of Singapore’s independence. We all hoped that Mr Lee would be present with us on August 9 to celebrate this significant milestone. More than anybody else, it was he who fought for multi­racialism, which ultimately led to independence as a sovereign republic. It was he who united our people, built a nation, and made our 50th anniversary worth celebrating. Sadly, it is not to be.

But we can feel proud and happy that Mr Lee lived to see his life’s work come to fruition. At last year’s National Day Parade, when Mr Lee appeared and waved on the big screen at the floating platform, the crowd gave him a deafening cheer. Last November, the People’s Action Party celebrated its diamond anniversary at the Victoria Concert Hall, where Mr Lee had founded the party 60 years ago. Party members were so happy to see that Mr Lee could be there, they gave him a rousing, emotional standing ovation. Those of us who were there will never forget it.

St Paul’s Cathedral in London was built by Sir Christopher Wren. He was the architect, and he is buried in the cathedral, which was his masterpiece, his life’s work. The Latin epitaph on his grave reads: si monumentum requiris, circumspice (If you seek his monument, look around you). Mr Lee Kuan Yew built Singapore. To those who seek Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s monument, Singaporeans can reply proudly: “look around you”.

I said the light that has guided us all these years has been extinguished. But that is not quite so. For Mr Lee’s principles and ideals continue to invigorate this Government and to guide our people. His life will inspire Singaporeans, and others, for generations to come.

Mr Lee once said that “we intend to see that (Singapore) will be here a thousand years from now. And that is your duty and mine”. Mr Lee has done his duty, and more. It remains our duty to continue his life’s work, to carry the torch forward and keep the flame burning bright.

Over the past month, the outpouring of good wishes, prayers and support from Singaporeans as Mr Lee lay ill has been overwhelming, and even more so since he passed away on Monday. People of all races, from all walks of life, young and old, here and abroad – hundreds of thousands queued patiently for hours, in the hot sun and through the night, to pay respects to him at the Parliament House.

I visited the queue at the Padang. Many Singaporeans and not so few non-Singaporeans, came out of deep respect and compulsion...Many more penned messages and took part in tribute ceremonies at community sites all over the island. Thousands of overseas Singaporeans gathered in our embassies and consulates to remember Mr Lee. At the end of this funeral service, all of us – in this hall, across our island, and in far flung lands – will observe a minute of silence, say the National Pledge, and sing Majulah Singapura together. 

We have all lost a father. Together, we have grieved as one people, one nation. We are all in grief. But in our grief, we have displayed the best of Mr Lee’s Singapore. Everyday Singaporeans, going to great lengths to share refreshments and umbrellas with the crowd, helping each other in the queue, late into the night. Citizen soldiers, Home Team, cleaners, all working tirelessly round the clock. Our shared sorrow has brought us together, and made us stronger and more resolute.

We came together not only to mourn. Together, we celebrate Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s long and full life, and what he has achieved with us, his people in Singapore.

Let us continue building this exceptional country. Let us shape this island nation into a great metropolis reflecting the ideals he fought for, realising the dreams he inspired, and worthy of the people who have made Singapore our home and nation.

Thank you Mr Lee Kuan Yew. May you rest in peace.

EULOGY BY HENRY A KISSINGER: The world will miss Lee Kuan Yew

23 March 2015

Lee Kuan Yew was a great man. And he was a close personal friend, a fact that I consider one of the great blessings of my life. A world needing to distill order from incipient chaos will miss his leadership.

Lee emerged onto the international stage as the founding father of the state of Singapore, then a city of about 1 million. He developed into a world statesman who acted as a kind of conscience to leaders around the globe.

Fate initially seemed not to have provided him a canvas on which to achieve more than modest local success. In the first phase of decolonization, Singapore emerged as a part of Malaya. It was cut loose because of tensions between Singapore’s largely Chinese population and the Malay majority and, above all, to teach the fractious city a lesson of dependency. Malaya undoubtedly expected that reality would cure Singapore of its independent spirit.

But great men become such through visions beyond material calculations. Lee defied conventional wisdom by opting for statehood. The choice reflected a deep faith in the virtues of his people. He asserted that a city located on a sandbar with nary an economic resource to draw upon, and whose major industry as a colonial naval base had disappeared, could nevertheless thrive and achieve international stature by building on its principal asset: the intelligence, industry and dedication of its people.

A great leader takes his or her society from where it is to where it has never been — indeed, where it as yet cannot imagine being. By insisting on quality education, by suppressing corruption and by basing governance on merit, Lee and his colleagues raised the annual per capita income of their population from $500 at the time of independence in 1965 to roughly $55,000 today. In a generation, Singapore became an international financial center, the leading intellectual metropolis of Southeast Asia, the location of the region’s major hospitals and a favored site for conferences on international affairs. It did so by adhering to an extraordinary pragmatism: by opening careers to the best talents and encouraging them to adopt the best practices from all over the world.

Superior performance was one component of that achievement. Superior leadership was even more important. As the decades went by, it was moving — and inspirational — to see Lee, in material terms the mayor of a medium-size city, bestride the international scene as a mentor of global strategic order. A visit by Lee to Washington was a kind of national event. A presidential conversation was nearly automatic; eminent members of the Cabinet and Congress would seek meetings. They did so not to hear of Singapore’s national problems; Lee rarely, if ever, lobbied policymakers for assistance. His theme was the indispensable U.S. contribution to the defense and growth of a peaceful world. His interlocutors attended not to be petitioned but to learn from one of the truly profound global thinkers of our time.

This process started for me when Lee visited Harvard in 1967 shortly after becoming prime minister of an independent Singapore. Lee began a meeting with the senior faculty of the School of Public Administration (now the Kennedy School) by inviting comments on the Vietnam War. The faculty, of which I was one dissenting member, was divided primarily on the question of whether President Lyndon Johnson was a war criminal or a psychopath. Lee responded, “You make me sick” — not because he embraced war in a personal sense but because the independence and prosperity of his country depended on the fortitude, unity and resolve of the United States. Singapore was not asking the United States to do something that Singapore would not undertake to the maximum of its ability. But U.S. leadership was needed to supplement and create a framework for order in the world.

Lee elaborated on these themes in the hundreds of encounters I had with him during international conferences, study groups, board meetings, face-to-face discussions and visits at each other’s homes over 45 years. He did not exhort; he was never emotional; he was not a Cold Warrior; he was a pilgrim in quest of world order and responsible leadership. He understood the relevance of China and its looming potential and often contributed to the enlightenment of the world on this subject. But in the end, he insisted that without the United States there could be no stability.

Lee’s domestic methods fell short of the prescriptions of current U.S. constitutional theory. But so, in fairness, did the democracy of Thomas Jefferson’s time, with its limited franchise, property qualifications for voting and slavery. This is not the occasion to debate what other options were available. Had Singapore chosen the road of its critics, it might well have collapsed among its ethnic groups, as the example of Syria teaches today. Whether the structures essential for the early decades of Singapore’s independent existence were unnecessarily prolonged can be the subject of another discussion.

I began this eulogy by mentioning my friendship with Lee. He was not a man of many sentimental words. And he nearly always spoke of substantive matters. But one could sense his attachment. A conversation with Lee, whose life was devoted to service and who spent so much of his time on joint explorations, was a vote of confidence that sustained one’s sense of purpose.

The great tragedy of Lee’s life was that his beloved wife was felled by a stroke that left her a prisoner in her body, unable to communicate or receive communication. Through all that time, Lee sat by her bedside in the evening reading to her. He had faith that she understood despite the evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps this was Lee Kuan Yew’s role in his era. He had the same hope for our world. He fought for its better instincts even when the evidence was ambiguous. But many of us heard him and will never forget him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-world-will-miss-lee-kuan-yew/2015/03/23/80867914-d172-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

The vision of Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Clean rivers where Singaporeans can go fishing or do water sports.

THE BIG CLEAN-UP OF SINGAPORE RIVER AND KALLANG RIVER

Precious water!

At the opening of the Upper Peirce Reservoir on 27 February 1977, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said that keeping the waterways of Singapore clean need to be a priority. There he set the target of a decade for the Ministry of Environment to clean up both the Singapore River and the Kallang River.

The rivers' pollution had grown as for decades, the river residents had lived in unsewered premises and disposed their farm wastes into the river. These included families living on bum boats, hawkers, squatters, pig farms and duck farms. At least 26,000 families and 2,800 cottage industries had to be relocated during this massive clean-up.

When the clean-up was completed in 1987, he envisaged the Marina Barrage by damming the Marina Channel.

The Economist- Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore; An astonishing record

ONE of the world’s great economic success stories, Singapore owes much of its prosperity to a record of honest and pragmatic government, the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew, who has died aged 91.

He retired as prime minister in 1990 but his influence shaped government policy until his death, and will continue to do so beyond.

Born when Singapore was a British colony, the young Mr Lee saw the humiliation of the colonial power by Japan and the tough years of Japanese occupation. A brilliant scholar, he thrived in London and Cambridge after the war and came back to Singapore to assume a leading role in the anti-colonial struggle, co-founding the People’s Action Party (PAP), which governs Singapore to this day.

Mr Lee was its leader, and Singapore’s prime minister, when it won self-government from Britain in 1959. He led Singapore into merger with Malaysia in 1963 and, after their divorce in 1965, as a small, fragile independent nation. Singapore’s prosperity and orderliness won admirers East and West, and came to be viewed as a kind of model.

True to his word, Singapore remained Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s concern till the end of his life

BY TEO XUANWEI

When he breathed his last early this morning, the Republic’s first Prime Minister had also been Tanjong Pagar’s Member of Parliament for six decades — the longest-serving, and more remarkably, outlasting the last of his Old Guard leadership comrades by more than 25 years.

Mr Lee died at 3.18am today at Singapore General Hospital, where he had been warded since Feb 5 after coming down with severe pneumonia. He was 91.

When Lee Kuan Yew entered the scene as a raw opposition politician in 1955, Singapore was but a colonial outpost populated by a polyglot of migrants, common only in their desires to eke out a livelihood here.

He departs having guided Singapore through the trying first years of Independence into a thriving economic miracle that is marvelled the world over for overcoming improbable odds.

Mr Lee has also elevated this fledgling nation’s place on the world stage far beyond that of ordinary city-states, partly because of its extraordinary achievements, but also because many global leaders have been floored by its leader’s astute analysis of geopolitical trends and developments — he continued this role even after handing over the reins after 31 years as Prime Minister by travelling the globe as a world-class pundit.

But Mr Lee’s enduring legacy is also the distinct brand of governance he had wrought, while the fundamental principles he adhered to in his 31 years as Prime Minister remains the bedrock on which Singapore’s steady ascension continues.

Opinions about him vary, from respect and worship, to fear and disdain, but few can quarrel with this: Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew were, are, and will continue to be indissociable. Such is Mr Lee’s imprint on Singapore.

If one had to distil the core principle of governance in Singapore, it would be meritocracy — Mr Lee determined early on that the government should equalise opportunities and not outcomes, and rewards must be allocated on the basis of one’s merits and abilities.

His firm belief stemmed from the “injustice” he saw in the 1950s when “the whites were on top” by default. “You might be a good doctor, but if you are an Asian, you would be under a white doctor who’s not as good,” he once recounted to a group of authors. “The injustice of it all, the discrimination, struck me and everybody else.”

He also wrote in his memoirs: “It struck me as manifestly fair that everybody in this world should be given an equal chance in life, that in a just and well-ordered society there should not be a great disparity of wealth between persons because of their position or status, or that of their parents.”

That governance of a vulnerable state sitting in a volatile region had to be neutral in terms of race, language and religion was buttressed by the deep misgivings the Republic’s first-generation leaders had with the Malaysian government’s politics of communalism during the brief, unhappy merger between the two from 1963 to 1965.

On independent Singapore’s founding on 9 August 1965, multiracialism was written into the Constitution — the first post-colonial state to do so.

It was the only way to forge a sense of nationhood for a people of mostly settlers, Mr Lee knew, and this togetherness was critical for a tiny island with a Chinese-majority population sitting amid far larger Malay neighbours.

“We took some drastic decisions at the beginning and shuffled the people together. Had we not done this, it would have led to a different Singapore,” he recalled in the book Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going, referring to his Government’s dispersal of racial enclaves among various kampungs through balloting into public housing estates. Inter-racial mingling was key if the people were to identify themselves not only by their race, but also by their nationality, he decided.

“There must be a sense of self, a sense of identity, that you are prepared to die for your country, that you’re prepared to die for one another,” he added.

But diminishing the tendencies of communities to revert to communally-influenced behaviours was always going to be an arduous task: Racial enclaves again congregated in the various housing estate subsequently and a trend of voting along racial lines emerged in the 1980s.

Reflecting his resolve to entrench multiracialism in Singapore, Mr Lee introduced ethnic quotas for Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks in 1989 and pushed through the Group Representation Constituency in 1988 to enshrine minority representation in Parliament, despite vociferous criticisms of these moves. Among other things, opponents said the quota constraints warped property transactions and the GRC system was counter-intuitive to meritocratic ideals.

Mr Lee was unmoved. “In Singapore, what will identify a Singaporean with the changing circumstances? An acceptance of multiracialism, a tolerance of people of different races, languages, cultures, religions, and an equal basis for competition. That’s what will stand out against all our neighbours.”

The clearest testament to his multiracial, and meritocratic principles towards governance was in the choice of “race-neutral” English as Singapore’s lingua franca, although Malay, as the language of the indigenous people, was retained as the national language.

“What motivated me? Internal stability and peace. We treat everybody equally. We judge you on your merits. This is a level playing field. We do not discriminate our people on race, language, religion. If you can perform, you get the job,” he explained.

To his mind, getting the best results from a meritocratic society also meant the government must not supplant individual effort and responsibility; people must not lose the drive to provide for themselves. That, and seeing in Britain and Sweden how debilitating it was to subsidise a man for the rest of his life, was why he eschewed welfarism, despite being a loyal supporter of the Fabian school of thought in his youth.

As he wrote in his memoirs: “We noted by the 1970s that when governments undertook primary responsibility for the basic duties of the head of a family, the drive in people weakened. Welfare undermined self-reliance. People did not have to work for their families’ wellbeing. The handout became a way of life. The downward spiral was relentless as motivation and productivity went down. People lost the drive to achieve because they paid too much in taxes. They became dependent on the state for their basic needs.”

To this day, the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government continues to tie individual effort and responsibility to many of its help programmes for the lower-income, such as the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme.

The creation of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) and the 3M healthcare financing system (Medisave, MediShield, and Medifund) are other examples of the Government’s drive to ensure that individuals themselves, and not the state, provide for most of their own needs.

Mr Lee realised that, as a country with no natural resources, the only way Singapore could survive, let alone thrive, was to have capable people leading it. His view was informed by how so many newly-independent former colonies had plunged into riots, coups and revolutions under inept leaders who had inherited sound constitutions from the British and French.

Indeed, Singapore’s vulnerabilities — “an 80-storey building standing on marshy land” — made it imperative that the political leadership was made up of the cream of society’s talent.

He said once: “Can you have a good government without good men in charge of government? American liberals believe you can, that you can have a good system of government with proper separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, plus checks and balances between them ... and there will be good government, even if weak or not so good men win elections and take charge.

“My experience in Asia has led me to a different conclusion. To get good government, you must have good men in charge of government. I have observed in the last 40 years that even with a poor system of government, but with good strong men in charge, people get passable government with decent progress.”

It was a challenge that Mr Lee had started thinking about barely one year into Singapore’s independence.

And over decades, Mr Lee single-handedly devised the ways to spot and draft into government the capable, honest and dedicated, from schemes such as the Singapore Armed Forces overseas scholarships in 1971 to recruit the top brains — the PAP government has, over the years, had many of these scholars eventually become Cabinet ministers, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong — to getting psychiatrists and psychologists to review potential candidates amid lengthy and thorough meetings with leaders that have become known as “tea sessions”.

He also spent years studying the hiring processes of multinational companies — eventually adopting in 1983 Shell’s system, which judged individuals for the “helicopter quality” of his or her powers of analysis, imagination and sense of reality — and was the chief advocate of pegging ministerial salaries to the six highest-paid individuals in the private sector so that the best would be willing to step into politics and be less susceptible to corruption.

“Because of our relentless and unceasing search for talent both at home and abroad to make up for the small families of the well-educated, Singapore has been able to keep up its performance,” said Mr Lee.

Not one to be beholden to ideologies and theories, Mr Lee cared only about whether a solution worked. He said once: “My job as a leader is to make sure that before the next elections, enough had developed and disclosed itself to the people to swing them around. That’s the business of a leader. Not to go follow the crowd. That’s a washout, the country will go down the drain.”

And where possible, Mr Lee “preferred to climb on the shoulders of others who had gone before us” in looking for solutions, an example of which was how he learnt, from his various trips overseas, ways to tackle the environmental problem by siting factories away from residential areas and implementing anti-pollution controls for traffic.

His pragmatic and empirical approach allowed him to be farsighted and visionary in his policies, which enabled Singapore to so swiftly transform itself from a mudflat to a metropolis.

At a time when Singapore was wrestling with the reality of being dismembered from its economic hinterland after Separation, for instance, Mr Lee and then-Finance Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee defied the then accepted wisdom that multinational companies were exploiters of cheap land, labour and raw materials in Third World countries, instead welcoming them to create a livelihood for Singaporeans and teaching them skills and knowledge.

The result? Singapore’s gross domestic product of US$970 million in 1965 was on par with Jamaica’s, but by the time Mr Lee stepped down in 1990, the figure had surged to US$34.5 billion, similar to that of the Czech Republic.

Mr Lee’s early emphasis on changing the physical landscape here quickly, to make Singapore, in his words, a “First World oasis in a Third World region” — clearing the city of street vendors, farmers and kampung dwellers, and his greening efforts — also played a significant role in the country’s rapid economic development.

As he explained in his memoirs: “Visiting CEOs used to call on me before making investment decisions. I thought the best way to convince them was to ensure that the roads from the airport to their hotel and to my office were neat and spruce, lined with shrubs and trees.

“Without a word being said, they would know that Singaporeans were competent, disciplined and reliable, a people who would learn the skills they required soon enough.”

Giving all Singaporeans clean and green environs also created a sense of equal-ness. “If we did not create a society which is clean throughout the island, I believed then and I believe now, we have two classes of people: The upper class, the upper middle and even middle class with gracious surroundings; and the lower middle and the working class, in poor conditions. No society like that will thrive,” he said in Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going.

More than overhauling the look of Singapore from squatter settlements to orderly housing blocks through the impressive Five-Year Building Programme from 1960 to 1965 — the HDB built almost 55,000 housing units for the lower-income in that period, raising the proportion of the population in public housing from a tad over 9 per cent to close to one-quarter; the figure hovers at around 85 per cent today — Mr Lee’s housing policies over the years changed every Singaporean’s life.

His CPF Home Ownership Scheme in 1968 gave Singaporeans the chance to own a valuable asset — the Republic has among the highest home-ownership rates in the world today at over 90 per cent. His direction to HDB in 1974 to improve the quality and variety in HDB new towns, as well as the introduction of upgrading programmes for older estates in 1989, enhanced the value of these assets.

The result was that many Singaporeans, in a couple of decades, accumulated considerable assets.

Writing about the significance of creating a “home-owning society” in his memoirs, Mr Lee said: “I was convinced that if every family owned its home, the country would be more stable. I believed this sense of ownership was vital for our new society, which had no deep roots in a common historical experience.”

Mr Lee was nothing if not a keen attendant to every factor that would translate to Singapore’s continual success — even extending his hand into Singaporeans’ daily habits.

He proclaimed, to the shock of many, that as much as 80 per cent of a people’s, and hence the country’s, predisposition to success was down to nature. But Mr Lee also felt that culture was a key determinant in the equation.

He set about in earnest launching a series of campaigns to radically change Singaporeans’ habits and ethos, ranging from anti-spitting drives in the 1960s and eradicating the use of dialects, to extolling the “admirable qualities” of Japanese and, notoriously, banning chewing gum.

He did not care about the hectoring from critics about Singapore becoming a “nanny state”: “First we educated and exhorted our people. After we had persuaded and won over a majority, we legislated to punish the wilful minority. It has made Singapore a more pleasant place to live in. If this is a ‘nanny state’, I am proud to have fostered one.”

He also said: “We had one simple guiding principle for survival, that Singapore had to be more rugged, better organised and more efficient than others in the region. If we were only as good as our neighbours there was no reason for businesses to be based here. We had to make it possible for investors to operate successfully and profitably in Singapore despite our lack of a domestic market and natural resources.”

Mr Lee contentiously waded into the even more intimate aspects of Singaporeans’ lives; the “Great Marriage Debate” in his 1983 National Day Rally about the dangers of having “less bright people to support more dumb people in the next generation” because women graduates were not having enough children, and the “Stop at Two” and “Graduate Mothers” schemes testified to his determination to shape the make-up of Singapore society.

While Western commentators and media were often quick to highlight blemishes in Singapore and its system that Mr Lee built, world leaders, such as Mr Richard Nixon, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, and Mr Deng Xiaoping, frequently expressed their admiration and respect rather more readily.

Many leaders — of developed and developing countries alike — came with or sent their delegations here, and continue to do so, to study Singapore’s systems, including of housing, social security and industry, in a bid to replicate these back home.

For instance, Mr Tony Blair’s New Labour came to look at the CPF system — where once British MPs had slammed Mr Lee’s remarks that Mrs Thatcher’s government needed to trim the excesses of the welfare state — while the Vietnamese asked him in 1991 to become their economic adviser despite openly attacking his stance during its occupation of Cambodia just years prior.

But more than his policies and programmes, Mr Lee’s insightful views of global developments and their impact on the world, delivered in his inimitable straight-shooting style, were always keenly sought.

No less than former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger paid Mr Lee this tribute: “There is no second Lee Kuan Yew in the world. Normally one would say that the leader of a country of the size and population of Singapore would not have a global influence … But precisely because Singapore can survive only by competition with much more powerful neighbours, and precisely because its well-being depends on stability and progress in the area, his views were always in a much larger context then the technical problems of the Singaporean economy and so he always had a tremendous influence on us.”

The doors of many world leaders, both past and present, were always open to Mr Lee — a mark of his stature and standing, given how few would dispense such treatment to the former prime minister of a small state, which less than half a century ago few had held out hope of survival.

Perhaps the most well-known testimony of Mr Lee as the seminal states­man came from Mrs Thatcher.

“In office, I read and analysed every speech of Harry’s. He had a way of penetrating the fog of propaganda and expressing with unique clarity the issues of our times and the way to tackle them. He was never wrong.”

That Mr Lee, throughout the years, had impressed, and forged close personal relationships with leaders around the world also benefitted the Republic on many fronts, ranging from security stability to economic opportunities.

His friendship with members of Harold Wilson’s government helped delay the British troops’ withdrawal to late 1971, thereby buying Singapore time to build up its own defence forces.

The strong personal bonds regional leaders such as Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak and Indonesia’s President Suharto shared with Mr Lee facilitated the founding of the Association of South-east Asian Nations in 1967, which helped foster a stable environment in which the Republic could grow.

And if not for Mr Lee’s place in the eyes of the Australian, Indonesian, and Taiwanese leaders, the Singapore Armed Forces might not have acquired the permission for much-needed training space.

The close ties he maintained with the United States laid the ground for the bilateral Free-Trade Agreement signed by his successor, Mr Goh Chok Tong, in 1993. And the mutual respect between Mr Lee and China’s Deng Xiaoping played a central role in Singapore’s being able to tap into China’s economy ahead of many others, such as the setting up of the Suzhou Industrial Project in 1994 and the Tianjin Eco-city subsequently.

Mr Goh noted: “Mr Lee’s good relations with them enable Singapore, and the leaders who came after Mr Lee, to ride on those good relationships.”

One reason for Mr Lee’s prominence as a statesman was the Western world’s regard of him as China’s interlocutor.

Said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair: “One of (the) things that Harry did incredibly effectively was he became the interlocutor of the emerging East with the Western countries, because if you’re an American leader or European leader, you talk in the same language. But he understands the West, he understands how we think, he understands how we work and he also has got these huge insights into China, the other major countries in your region, and so, he’s able to say to the Western leadership, ‘Look, this is how you want to think about this’.”

Mr Lee’s intimate knowledge of China stemmed from his early realisation of her emerging importance, and his efforts in pursuing closer ties, particularly with Mr Deng — whom he described as “the most impressive leader I had met”.

The admiration was mutual; Mr Deng looked to emulate Singapore’s growth model in attempting China’s opening-up. After one of his visits to Singapore, Mr Lee related in his memoirs, Mr Deng said China “should draw from their experience, and do even better than them”.

“After Deng’s endorsement, several hundred delegations, most of them unofficial, came from China armed with tape recorders, video cameras and notebooks to learn from our experience. Singapore had been given the imprimatur of their supreme leader.”

The awe-inspiring story of Singapore’s development was not achieved by Mr Lee alone, and he acknowledged the importance of Old Guard comrades such as Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Hon Sui Sen, and Toh Chin Chye in his book: “I was fortunate to have had a strong team of ministers who shared a common vision. They were able men determined to pursue our strong goals ... They helped me stay objective and balanced, and saved me from any risk of megalomania which could so easily come with long years in office.”

But he largely set the tone and form of the Republic’s political system, the framework of which has endured to date. One of these unique features was an effective civil service machinery — Mr Lee had exacting demands of the bureaucracy, and indeed, never hesitated to dish out a dressing down when there was sloppiness — which was also “sensitive and responsive to the needs and moods of the people”. The future of Singapore, Mr Lee once said, was in the hands of “you, the admin machinery; (and) my colleagues and I, the political leadership”.

Thus, not only has the PAP government kept up Mr Lee’s unceasing obsession with succession planning, its leadership has also, like Mr Lee, continued to take a close personal interest in appointments in a wide range of institutions, such as statutory boards and trade unions.

The PAP government’s “knuckle-duster” approach to its opponents, be they opposition politicians or press critics, was a source of much criticism, however.

He has invited relentless scrutiny and labels such as “autocratic” and “draconian” with his libel suits — against politicians such as the late J B Jeyaretnam and Mr Chee Soon Juan, as well as publications including the Asian Wall Street Journal — but Mr Lee’s bottom line was that “wrong ideas have to be challenged before they influence public opinion and make for problems”.

Domestically, the press was free to operate, as long as it kept to the nation-building role he said was necessary for a young nation, counter to the West’s definition of it as a “fourth estate”.

Though Western advocates of democracy and human rights have attempted since the 1970s to press their standards on Singapore and other Asian societies, Mr Lee would not be moved — he emerged as the spokesman of sorts, with his “Asian values” argument, against the assertion that there was only one path of governance.

In other words, peculiar local circumstances had to dictate the form and workings of democracy, as he said in an interview with Foreign Affairs magazine in 1994: “It is my business to tell people not to foist their system indiscriminately on societies in which it will not work ... What are we all seeking? A form of government that will be comfortable, because it meets our needs, is not oppressive, and maximises our opportunities. And whether you have one-man-one-vote, or some-men-one-vote or other-men-two-votes, those are forms which should be worked out.”

Although he could have held on to power beyond 1990 — he was the world’s longest-serving prime minister then — Mr Lee decided not to do so, again with Singapore’s interests in mind.

“The sooner I give up, the younger I will be and the more active I can be to make sure that the team succeeds. I’ll be around to make sure that the team can succeed. The later I give up, the older and slower I will be, the more risky its success,” he explained.

And although he had his choice of successor — current President Tony Tan — Mr Lee let the incoming crop of ministers “contend amongst themselves and decide who will be the leader”.

Although he continued as Senior Minister and Minister Mentor, Mr Lee accorded Mr Goh and Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Deputy Prime Minister and his son, the protocol demanded of their office, addressing them as “my Prime Minister” and seeing them in their offices, for instance.

For Mr Lee, all he was interested in was “to make sure that an error which is avoidable because of my experience should not be committed, if I can help it”.

He added: “I can’t tell them what to do as their great achievements, their great breakthroughs. That’s for them to work out with younger Singaporeans.”

Nevertheless, Mr Lee still spoke up whenever he deemed it necessary; stepping in during the acrimonious wage dispute between Singapore Airlines and its pilots in 2003, robustly advocating in Parliament the new formula for ministerial pay the following year, and his caution to Aljunied residents in the 2011 General Election about the consequences of their vote.

He has also consistently engaged younger generations of Singaporeans, attending dialogue sessions regularly with the tertiary institutions.

Outside of Singapore, Mr Lee assumed the role of consultant — he sat on several boards and committees — guest speaker (frequently, on China) and advocate of Singaporean business in his retirement.

For someone who never kept a diary because he said it would have “inhibited his work”, Mr Lee also made use of his time after stepping down to write his two-volume memoirs to remind younger Singaporeans that “we cannot afford to forget that public order, personal security, economic and social progress and prosperity are not the natural order of things, that they depend on ceaseless effort and attention from an honest and effective government that the people must elect”, as he wrote in one preface.

Through these, as well as other books by journalists he granted interviews to, Singaporeans were, for the first time, allowed a glimpse into the personal life of Mr Lee.

More than any other facet of his private life, it was Mr Lee’s falling in love, courtship, romantic secret marriage in the United Kingdom and deep love for Madam Kwa Geok Choo that most captivated many Singaporeans.

They learnt how Mrs Lee packed his luggage when he needed to travel, kept an eagle eye on his diet, and was the one on whom he depended to improve his speeches and writing. They read about how he made it a point to read Mrs Lee her favourite poems every night after she became bed-ridden after she suffered two strokes in 2008, how she most recognised his voice, and they saw and heard, at her funeral in 2010, how severely Mr Lee was devastated by the departure of his closest confidante.

For someone who had no religious faith, Mr Lee even turned to meditation to help himself cope.

Asked by a group of journalists about his greatest personal achievement, the man of whom most only saw the stern, strong public face for decades said: “I’m very happy that I’ve got a good, happy family. I’ve got a happy marriage. I’ve got three children I’m very proud of, I can’t ask for more.”

Despite his contributions to Singapore, Mr Lee’s muted personal appraisal of his life’s work could not have summed up better how he had gone about a duty he saw as his concern “till the end of my life”: “All I can say is, I did my best. This was the job I undertook, I did my best and I could not have done more in the circumstances. What people think of it, I have to leave to them. It is of no great consequence. What is of consequence is, I did my best.”

http://www.todayonline.com/rememberinglky/all-i-can-say-i-did-my-best?singlepage=true

Minimum Wage And Unemployment

 
And so SDP continues their populist call for minimum wage.

Minimum wage does not lift people out of poverty. People can be lifted out of poverty only through education, training, acquisition of relevant skills and be gainfully employed.

Every round of raising the minimum wage without any corresponding rise in productivity is added costs for doing business.

Businesses respond to the added costs by reducing the number of workers they hire or trimming costs in other areas including reducing job training opportunities for the low-skilled worker. In the long run, they turn to automation as the alternative. Some simply pull the shutters down and call it a day.

Thus minimum wage, instead of lifting the low-skilled or unskilled worker out of poverty, renders them more vulnerable to being unemployed and irrelevant.

In the US, Seattle's $15 minimum wage law will soon take effect on 1 April 2015. But restaurants across the city are already making the financial decision to close.

Washington Policy Center writes that the city is experiencing a rising trends in restaurant closures.

[The closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.

The shut-downs have idled dozens of low-wage workers, the very people advocates say the wage law is supposed to help. INSTEAD OF DELIVERING THE PROMISED 'LIVING WAGE' OF $15 AN HOUR, ECONOMIC REALITIES CREATED BY THE NEW LAW HAVE DROPPED THE HOURLY WAGE FOR THESE WORKERS TO ZERO.

Restaurants close for many reasons, but Seattle has an added a unique factor. Seattle Magazine reports, “...another major factor affecting restaurant futures in our city is the impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour.” About 36% of restaurant earnings go to paying labor costs.] - Washington Policy Center

Read also:
https://www.facebook.com/SingaporeMatters/photos/pb.710654255687637.-2207520000.1426480982./731936246892771/?type=3&theater

Ref:
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/seattles-15-wage-law-factor-restaurant-closings

STAYING RELEVANT TO SURVIVE AND PROSPER

 

 In 2013, Singapore was granted Permanent Observer Status on the Arctic Council. No mean feat for a small country without natural resources that is not even an Arctic state.

What is this Arctic Council?

It is a high level inter-governmental body established in 1996 to promote cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, in particular on issues pertaining to sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic.

With this status, Singapore has gained an important platform to participate in a body that shapes policies in the Arctic, important because whatever developments that take place in the Arctic north will have implications on Singapore, whether they be the melting of the ice cap on Singapore as a low-lying island or the opening up of new sea routes on Singapore as a seaport.

As a permanent observer Singapore has the right not only to attend meetings of the Arctic Council but also to propose and finance policies.

So how did Singapore, a country without any inherent strategic weight, do it?

Economic success at home and foreign policy abroad.

Singapore must first be a successful country at home in order to command the respect of other countries.

Economic success at home has given Singapore a voice in the international space. In that international space, Singapore has built a REPUTATION FOR DELIVERING ON GOOD FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVES.

ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting) is one such initiative.

A big idea from a small country, ASEM was conceived by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1995.

Mr Goh outlined his proposal to the French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur in a restricted meeting during an official visit to France. The French Prime Minister saw the strategic benefits of the proposal and agreed to bring the EU members on board. Mr Goh, on his part, would canvass for support from the Asean States.

Well, the rest is history.

Since ASEM, Singapore has also initiated the Asia-Middle East Dialogue (AMED) and the Forum for East Asia–Latin America Cooperation (FEALAC).

Such initiatives benefit not just Singapore but other countries as well.

In a speech at S Rajaratnam Lecture (17 Oct 2014) on "The Practice of Foreign Policy for Sustained Growth", ESM Goh Chok Tong had likened a country to a bird that needs two wings to fly, a domestic wing and an external wing, and the two are interdependent.

He said:
"Our ability to exercise influence disproportionate to our size comes from our reputation of being a successfully run country. If Singapore did not have good governance, policies and programmes, other countries would not have paid any attention to us. A mediocre Singapore would not command the respect of foreign leaders, and even the most brilliant diplomats would be powerless to wield much influence on Singapore’s behalf. To exercise influence in foreign policy, Singapore leaders must be supported by their record of good performance at home."

In his COS speech in parliament, Law and Foreign Minister K Shanmugam emphasized again that the survival and prosperity of Singapore depends on Singapore being relevant.

He made these points on RELEVANCE:

1. To ensure Singapore's continued survival and prosperity, Singapore must remain relevant.

2. Our relevance is not a given. It stems from our success. No one will pay us any attention if we are a failed state.

3. To remain relevant internationally, we must be exceptional.

Success must not be taken for granted. Success was built upon good governance delivered by men and women of talent and integrity. It must continue to be so.

Ref:
http://www.aseminfoboard.org/
http://en.reingex.com/AMED-Asia-Middle-East-Dialogue.shtml
http://www.fealac.org/about/info.jsp
http://bit.ly/1ybV3BS

Photograph: Alexandra Kobalenko/Getty
http://on.fb.me/1LdHvhS