Lesson On "Psephology"

 Have you heard this word before?

There was the day way back in 1977 when parliament became a 'classroom' and Mr Lee Kuan Yew taught this new word to all who were present:

"In case the press gets me wrong, it is psephology and not psychology. I have a dictionary here. It is the science of how people vote. Just in case they dispute my definition, I have brought the Shorter Oxford Dictionary and it is in the addenda. It is not in the body of the dictionary itself. It is a new science. Psephology - the study of trends in voting or elections. From Greek psephos (pebble) because when the Greek voted he threw a pebble."

If You Know How Much Lee Kuan Yew Cares

1. THE NIGHT BEFORE HIS HEART OPERATION to insert a stent in 1996, his second operation in two months, he was on his feet for more than 2 1/2 hours engaging about 1,700 undergraduates at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU).

He felt it was important to be talking to young Singaporeans about the future of the country and their role in it.

He wanted to help them understand how the country got to where it was and how to avoid the pitfalls that troubled other advanced countries.

As he said, " “They have grown up in a time of growing security and comfort and, by the time they learnt the pitfalls, it may be too late. So, why not try to lessen it?”

His concern for the younger generation grew stronger in the face of his old age and certain mortality.

2. THE DAY AFTER HIS STENT OPERATION, he kept up with his engagements and flew to Hong Kong to meet Bill Clinton putting Singapore before self.

3. In an essay for the Straits Times published on Oct 23 2011, Dr Lee Wei Ling, daughter of Lee Kuan Yew wrote:

Like my mother did when she was alive, I accompany him so that I can keep an eye on him and also keep him company. After my mother became too ill to travel, he missed having a family member with whom he could speak frankly after a long tiring day of meetings.

At the age of 88, and recently widowed, he is less vigorous now than he was before May 2008 when my mother suffered a stroke. Since then I have watched him getting more frail as he watched my mother suffer. After my mother passed away, his health deteriorated further before recovering about three months ago.

He is aware that he can no longer function at the pace he could just four years ago. But he still insists on travelling to all corners of the Earth if he thinks his trips might benefit Singapore.

We are at present on a 16-day trip around the world. The first stop was Istanbul for the JPMorgan International Advisory Council meeting. We then spent two days in the countryside near Paris to relax. Then it was on to Washington DC, where, in addition to meetings at the White House, he received the Ford's Theatre Lincoln Medal.

As I am writing this on Thursday, we are in New York City where he has a dinner and a dialogue session with the Capital Group tonight, and Government of Singapore Investment Corporation meetings tomorrow. After that, we will spend the weekend at former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger's country home in Connecticut. Influential Americans will be driving or flying in to meet my father over dinner on Saturday and lunch on Sunday.

Even for a healthy and fit man of 88, the above would be a formidable programme. For a recently widowed man who is still adjusting to the loss of his wife, and whose level of energy has been lowered, it is even more challenging.

But my father believes that we must carry on with life despite whatever personal setbacks we might suffer. If he can do something that might benefit Singapore, he will do so no matter what his age or the state of his health. For my part, I keep him company when he is not preoccupied with work, and I make sure he has enough rest.

References:
http://bit.ly/1InBXjA
http://bit.ly/1DAaDtQ

Limits To Freedom Of Speech

 

You live in dreamland if you believe that freedom of speech and rights are boundless. 

Freedom of speech and expression of rights are possible only within boundaries. You can argue where those boundaries should be but you cannot argue for boundlessness. Take away the boundaries and what you have is anarchy. 

Some boundaries are unspoken. They represent the standards upheld by the communities or organisations where people live or work. Some are clearly defined by laws providing people with a means to seek redress and legal recourse for their grievances or disputes. 

Indeed it is law and order that gives rise to meaning. One is able to plan for the future because laws make the world predictable and render the actions that you take meaningful and purposeful. 

Even the universe is governed by laws of nature. Can you imagine a universe not governed by laws of nature? Can anything meaningful arise from such a universe? The answer is obvious. 

You are able to understand what I write, even if you disagree with what I write, because I follow the rules of grammar of the English language which makes what I write meaningful. 

If you take your car out today, you are able to reach your destination safely if you and everyone else follow traffic rules. 

Studies have shown that the child who grows up with no boundaries or poorly enforced boundaries is an insecure child who lacks ownership of his own life, has little self-control and lacks respect for others. 

How do you identify the child who lacks boundaries?

He's the one who walks freely into your room regardless of whether your room is open or closed and does whatever he wants. He changes the TV channel as he pleases regardless of what anyone else is watching, and he blames everyone else for his mistakes. It's either the teacher's fault, brother's fault, neighbour's fault or friend's fault when something goes wrong. It's never his fault. In short, he is unable to take responsibility for his actions. 

Boundaries define acceptable behaviour. They tell you how you can express your speech and your right without infringing upon the right of another. Boundaries are what enable the different communities within a society to co-exist in harmony and safety and to have a healthy respect for each other's differences. 

Boundaries represent responsibilities, the responsibility of the individual and the collective responsibility of the different communities. A breach of any boundary leads to consequences that one has to bear. Boundaries are meaningless if they do not carry responsibilities. Boundaries are meaningless if they are not enforced. 

One may argue that the person who denies the existence of boundaries in free speech and rights is an immature person, just like the child who grows up without boundaries and has little self control. 

For him, freedom of speech means he should be allowed to say anything he wants under the sun - never mind if it hurts or insults people or if it's true - without having to assume responsibility for it. Such a person lacks self-control (must say whatever he wants to say), respect for others (don't care if it insults or hurts others) and is immature (don't want to bear responsibility for his speech). 

In the US, freedom of speech is a protected right under the First Amendment. Even then, free speech is not absolute. There are limits to what is protected. The existence of limitations means there are boundaries. 

Certain types of speech, particularly speech that can harm others, are not protected. Such speech includes obscenity, fighting words (words that may lead to violent confrontation), true threats, child pornography, defamation (the act of injuring another's reputation by any slanderous communication, written or oral; the wrong of maliciously injuring the good name of another; slander; detraction; calumny; aspersion) or invasion of privacy. Speech related to national security or state secrets may also not be protected.

Boundless free speech? It's a myth. It doesn't exist. 

Don't believe? Look at the people who champion it. You will find that the freedom they espouse applies only to themselves.

Freedom Of Speech Is Not Lawlessness

You live in dreamland if you believe that freedom of speech and rights are boundless.

Freedom of speech and expression of rights are possible only within boundaries. You can argue where those boundaries should be but you cannot argue for boundlessness. Take away the boundaries and what you have is anarchy.

Some boundaries are unspoken. They represent the standards upheld by the communities or organisations where people live or work. Some are clearly defined by laws providing people with a means to seek redress and legal recourse for their grievances or disputes.

Indeed it is law and order that gives rise to meaning. One is able to plan for the future because laws make the world predictable and render the actions that you take meaningful and purposeful.

Even the universe is governed by laws of nature. Can you imagine a universe not governed by laws of nature? Can anything meaningful arise from such a universe? The answer is obvious.

You are able to understand what I write, even if you disagree with what I write, because I follow the rules of grammar of the English language which makes what I write meaningful.

If you take your car out today, you are able to reach your destination safely if you and everyone else follow traffic rules.

Studies have shown that the child who grows up with no boundaries or poorly enforced boundaries is an insecure child who lacks ownership of his own life, has little self-control and lacks respect for others.

How do you identify the child who lacks boundaries?

He's the one who walks freely into your room regardless of whether your room is open or closed and does whatever he wants. He changes the TV channel as he pleases regardless of what anyone else is watching, and he blames everyone else for his mistakes. It's either the teacher's fault, brother's fault, neighbour's fault or friend's fault when something goes wrong. It's never his fault. In short, he is unable to take responsibility for his actions.

Boundaries define acceptable behaviour. They tell you how you can express your speech and your right without infringing upon the right of another. Boundaries are what enable the different communities within a society to co-exist in harmony and safety and to have a healthy respect for each other's differences.

Boundaries represent responsibilities, the responsibility of the individual and the collective responsibility of the different communities. A breach of any boundary leads to consequences that one has to bear. Boundaries are meaningless if they do not carry responsibilities. Boundaries are meaningless if they are not enforced.

One may argue that the person who denies the existence of boundaries in free speech and rights is an immature person, just like the child who grows up without boundaries and has little self control.

For him, freedom of speech means he should be allowed to say anything he wants under the sun - never mind if it hurts or insults people or if it's true - without having to assume responsibility for it. Such a person lacks self-control (must say whatever he wants to say), respect for others (don't care if it insults or hurts others) and is immature (don't want to bear responsibility for his speech).

In the US, freedom of speech is a protected right under the First Amendment. Even then, free speech is not absolute. There are limits to what is protected. The existence of limitations means there are boundaries.

Certain types of speech, particularly speech that can harm others, are not protected. Such speech includes obscenity, fighting words (words that may lead to violent confrontation), true threats, child pornography, defamation (the act of injuring another's reputation by any slanderous communication, written or oral; the wrong of maliciously injuring the good name of another; slander; detraction; calumny; aspersion) or invasion of privacy. Speech related to national security or state secrets may also not be protected.

Boundless free speech? It's a myth. It doesn't exist.

Don't believe? Look at the people who champion it. You will find that the freedom they espouse applies only to themselves.

He Gave Of His Money Too

From Hard Truths Page 120

"This is to give you an idea of what my market value is worth," said Lee Kuan Yew as he handed us some papers. 

Listed in the printouts were his earnings from his memoirs, speaking engagements and appointments to various advisory boards since stepping down as Prime Minister in November 1990. 

He has donated all of it - without taking any tax deductions - to charity, with the bulk to three educational endowment funds. Since 1991, he has donated almost $13 million to charity (S$12.2 million and the rest in various currencies).

He Lives A Spartan Lifestyle

Mr Lee Kuan Yew worked to give Singaporeans a good life but cared little about the luxuries in his own life.

This is a ham dangong, or salted egg jars in Cantonese. People used it to store water and then ladled water from it to wash themselves.

Do you know that right up to 2003 before Mrs Lee Kuan Yew's first stroke, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his family at Oxley Road were still using the ham dangong? A water heater was installed in the bathroom only after Mrs Lee had a stroke so that she could have a warm shower.

The Most Important Policy That Was A Major Stabilising Factor For Singapore

"The most intrusive social policy in Singapore has turned out to be the most important one....And that is a rule on ethnic balance in every single block of HDB flats. Every single block and every single precinct has a rule on ethnic balance, which means that on the same floor and taking the same lifts up and down every day, you have a certain interaction that's quiet, unstated and normal.

But it also means, critically, that the kids go to kindergartens and primary schools that are quite close to where they live.

And when you grow up together, you're not just in the same classroom together, you play some sports together, you just become more comfortable with each other...

We can never think that the natural workings of society would somehow produce cohesion - usually the opposite happens in most societies."

- Tharman Shanmugaratnam

Source: The Sunday Times, April 12 2015

Lee Kuan Yew: The Architect Of The Singapore Water Story

 Malaysia’s first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman once remarked to a British diplomat that he would “switch off the water supply” if Singapore did not do what he wanted...

"If anyone had suggested in 1965 that within fifty years Singapore could dream of achieving water self-sufficiency, he or she would have been laughed out of court."
- Kishore Mahbubani, Dean
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore 


Yet this impossible goal is on its way to being realized in 2061 when the existing agreements to buy water from Malaysia will lapse - thanks to Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Lee came into power at a time when the country faced serious water challenges. Water rationing exercises were common. The two agreements to buy water from Malaysia did not give Mr Lee peace of mind.

Malaysia’s first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman once remarked to a British diplomat that he would “switch off the water supply” if Singapore did not do what he wanted.

The priority that Mr Lee placed on water is reflected in his words said at the inaugural Singapore International Water Week in 2008: “This [water] dominated every other policy. EVERY OTHER POLICY HAD TO BEND AT THE KNEES FOR WATER SURVIVAL."

In other words, almost from day one, Singapore has ranked water as a top priority.

Right from the beginning Mr Lee had determined that it was important for us to use every drop of water that came down from the sky. Today Singapore is one of just a few countries in the world to harvest urban storm water for future use.

The idea to turn waste water or sewage into potable drinking water began in the 1970s but it took decades of research and gruelling work by PUB engineers before NEWater was officially launched in 2003.

Our increasing self-sufficiency in water meant that water could no longer be used by Malaysia as a political leverage against Singapore and henceforth both countries could focus on mutually beneficial cooperation.

NEWater will meet 40% of our water needs by 2020 and 55% by 2060.

Desalinated water can meet up to 25% of water needs.

Water collected in reservoirs will meet the rest of our water needs.

The Marina Barrage (17th reservoir) is a man-made marvel of engineering innovations that had won many international awards including the top prize at the American Academy of Environmental Engineers’s Excellence in Environmental Engineering Competition in 2009.

The result of Singapore's relentless quest to look for water solutions means that today Singapore is a global leader in water research.

The water research institutes in NUS and NTU are ranked No. 1 and 2 respectively by Lux Research's ranking for top water research institutes in the world. (See here: http://bit.ly/1Fpnsxt)

The Marina Barrage is more than just a dam. It is Mr Lee Kuan Yew's gift to us of the can-do Singapore Spirit where seemingly impossible dreams can be turned to reality.

#thankyouLKY #rememberingLKY

The Worries That Drove Mr Lee To Write Books

By Warren Fernandez

Extract:
Soon after The Singapore Story, the first of the two-part memoirs of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was published in 1998, a copy landed on my desk in the Straits Times newsroom.

I had not expected it. It was from Mr Lee, and was signed by him. He penned a simple message that seemed characteristic of him: "To Warren Fernandez, With my thanks for the attention to detail and to the broad shape of the book to make it reading friendly."

It was a kind reward for our efforts. I was one of several journalists roped in to assist him with the editing of his manuscript. This followed on from an earlier book on him that my colleagues and I had written, titled Lee Kuan Yew: The Man And His Ideas.

Admittedly, as a young journalist then barely out of my 20s, being asked to critique the work of the country's founding father seemed a daunting task. So, when the opportunity arose, I asked him with some trepidation exactly what he was expecting us to do, and why he was taking such great pains with his book.

He answered matter-of-factly: "I want it to be read. No use if I write it and people don't read it. I want them to read it, especially the young, and understand how we got here."

This recollection came to me last Sunday when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recounted how Mr Lee had been relentless in his efforts to secure Singapore's future, including writing book after book in his final years.

"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," said PM Lee in his eulogy to his father at the University Cultural Centre.

"Why did he do this? So that a new generation of Singaporeans could learn from his experience, and understand what their security, prosperity, and future depended on."

Indeed, Mr Lee seemed determined to give his memoirs his best shot. He was assiduous in seeking out and responding to our critiques. Initially, I had wondered if he would really be open to our suggestions. But I soon discovered that each time we sent him our views, a revised version would come back in a flash.

"Is this better? Does it work now?" he would ask.

We replied: Could we have more details? More personal anecdotes? More context to help explain the point being made, and guide the reader along?

Again the revisions would come, with a similar response: "Does this work?"

Back and forth it went, version after version, so many that we sometimes found it hard to keep track of all of them. Mr Lee never seemed to tire of the process. And so over time, the caricature of the man as a fearsome leader, who brooked no dissent and was impervious to others' opinions, became less and less real to me.

So, you might ask, just what was Mr Lee so worried about that he felt a need to put all these thoughts to paper? Was it a concern that younger Singaporeans might not support his ruling People's Action Party as strongly as their parents had?

Obviously as a political leader, he must have wanted his party to continue to win support, but his concerns seemed to go much further. I came to this conclusion gradually as I pondered his responses to questions we posed him on various occasions.

He would say often that his primary concern was not just the support for, or survival of, the PAP, but for whoever could deliver good government in the interests of the people of Singapore.

"Do people have good jobs? Do they get the education to prepare for those jobs? Can they afford to buy their own home? How will they defend those homes? How will they provide for their children? These are the issues that cut to the bone," I recall him saying, in words to that effect.

Beyond these were even deeper issues which he seemed especially concerned that younger Singaporeans grasped - not just intellectually but also instinctively - namely, just how unlikely a nation Singapore is, how deep the emotive pulls of race and religion can be, or how these latent forces can be so easily roused and whipped into a frenzy for political effect.

And how vulnerable a little red dot like Singapore was, and remains - even though, or perhaps especially as, it has prospered over the years - in a world where the positions of seemingly friendly countries could ebb and flow, and change without much warning.

Read the full article here: 
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/worries-drove-mr-lee-write-books

Published: The Sunday Times, 5 April 2015

Lee Wei Ling's thoughts

I am Lee Kuan Yew's daughter. I was brought up in a rather undemonstrative family. Papa's death was indeed a painful event for me, but I will not show my pain to the world. So I was amazed at the outpouring of emotion that usually phlegmatic Singaporeans displayed on my father's passing.

My father never sought popularity. Whilst not arrogant, he was openly dismissive of rogues, charlatans and crooks. And though he had a great rapport with regular people - he began his political career representing postal workers and his base was always the unions - he never suffered fools gladly, especially if they were pretentious and high-ranking. As everyone knows, he was not cuddly.

And yet when he died, Singaporeans cried as they would for a loved one. Never demonstrative himself, he elicited demonstrative crowds in the hundreds of thousands who thronged Parliament House and the 18 tribute sites the People's Association organised.

On the last day of the lying in state, I received a phone call from an old classmate who told me his wife was crying because she was unable to pay her respects in time. I could not help, for how could I justify helping a friend's wife jump the queue?

The next day was the funeral. The casket was carried by eight high-ranking officers, two each from the army, navy, air force and police. It was raining cats and dogs at the time we were to leave Parliament House.

We proceeded with the ceremony anyway, just as Papa had decided to do in 1968 when it rained cats and dogs during the National Day Parade. And just as he and his Cabinet members stood in the rain that day, his family walked through the rain at his funeral.

I saw schoolchildren drenched despite their ponchos, their faces contorted by crying although it was impossible to see any tears through such heavy rain. Tens of thousands of regular Singaporeans, including children and the elderly, stood in the rain, some with inadequate umbrellas or ponchos, others bareheaded and seemingly oblivious to the rain. The roar of "Lee Kuan Yew" was deafening.

A friend of mine, a neurosurgeon who competes in Ironman events, stood for four hours in the rain with his two daughters. He e-mailed me about it after the funeral. I e-mailed back: "Why didn't you spend that time training?"

He replied: "I wanted to show my solidarity with the nation in mourning his passing and have my daughters grow up remembering that poignant moment of the multitude who gathered at the roadside to honour him. The rain brought out the best in Singaporeans."

I asked another doctor friend who had been involved in Papa's care since 1996: "What does LKY's death tell us about Singapore and Singaporeans?" I added that I did not trust my own feelings on this issue because my view of Papa would be coloured by my being his daughter.

My friend replied: "LKY transcends all spectrums, hence this great spontaneous outpouring of grief and remembrance. He is regarded as among the world's greatest statesmen, and would have been even more recognised if he had been born in a larger country. Luckily for Singapore, we had him.

"His insistence on honesty, character, integrity and incorruptibility is now more clear and resonant than ever. His speeches made decades ago find a refreshing relevance in today's world. It is unlikely that there will ever be anyone quite like him again in our lifetime."

We are all aware how the Western press, cynical about Singapore's democracy, and rather condescending about our economic success and our law and order, has ascribed all our achievements to my father's authoritarian rule. If he had been such an authoritarian, how did the public suddenly like him in death?
Indeed, in the last few weeks of Papa's life in the intensive care unit, I, my brother Hsien Yang, his wife Suet Fern and their children were receiving e-mails from hundreds of strangers enquiring about Papa's health and conveying their good wishes and prayers.

Indeed, we have been receiving such letters for years, strangers writing to us out of the blue to convey their good wishes to Papa.
Hsien Yang and I warned the State Funeral Organising Committee preparing for the lying in state that the turnout may be bigger than they had planned for. But when the time came, the outpouring of sorrow and the massive crowds who queued for long hours to pay their last respects were beyond even what we had anticipated.
I don't think Singaporeans suddenly woke up on March 23 and decided they loved and were grateful to Lee Kuan Yew. His death was the occasion, not the cause, for the expression of feelings that were always there.

We need not be concerned about impressing foreigners. Papa thought he was answerable only to his own people. Even then, he wanted to do only what was right, regardless of whether it was popular or politically correct. It is now apparent that though he never courted popularity, most Singaporeans know how much he did for them and that he devoted his life to his country.

As he himself put it towards the end of his life: "I have spent my life, so much of it, building up this country. There's nothing more that I need to do. At the end of the day, what have I got? A successful Singapore. What have I given up? My life."

I was educated in Chinese-language schools up to the equivalent of the O levels. My anti-colonial sentiments are hence somewhat stronger than those who attended English-language schools.
I watch with despair when Singaporeans buy into the dismissive views of some Westerners about Singapore. And I was very happy to see Singaporeans reject Western journalists who wrote dismissively of Papa and the response of Singaporeans to his death.

We must keep our heritage and respect the culture and language of our different races and be proud of Singapore. Never be impressed by the white man who thinks he is superior to you. We are no less and probably more capable than he is. If Papa and his Old Guard colleagues did not believe that, they would not have fought for independence and built up this country.

We should walk proud with no chip on our shoulder, and retain the mutual respect and empathy that we now know we are capable of. It will make life a little easier and our interaction more pleasant. We should do this in our everyday life without the need of some tragic event like Papa's death to bring out our better selves.

Papa's death revealed a lot of good things about Singapore and Singaporeans. There will never be another Lee Kuan Yew. Let's not miss the chance to learn the lessons Papa's death taught us about ourselves.

If there were any unresolved conflicts within me since Papa's last serious illness and subsequent death, writing this article has exorcised them. In the coming days and months, I will have to start planning for my own life after Papa - and so must my fellow Singaporeans.

suntimes@sph.com.sg

Published 5 April 2015

Lee Kuan Yew: death of an outstanding statesman

By Bob Hawke, former prime minister of Australia

Published :30 March 2015

Lee Kuan Yew was quite simply, and unquestionably, one of the outstanding national leaders of the last hundred years. He worked on a small canvas, but what he achieved in tiny Singapore not only transformed the lives of his own people profoundly, but had an immense impact beyond Singapore in shaping the Asia of today.

Harry Lee, as he was affectionately known, was perhaps the last of that generation of leaders who guided their countries through the drama and turmoil of decolonisation to independence. It is hard now to recall how difficult and dangerous those times were in Southeast Asia. He brought Singapore into being as a sovereign independent state against the background of the fight against communism in the Malayan Emergency, the contest with Sukarno’s Indonesia in Confrontation, the bitter split from the union with Malaysia, and Britain’s strategic withdrawal from Asia.

He found himself leading a country deeply divided on religious and ethnic lines, surrounded by powerful potential enemies, with a weak economy and no natural resources at all. Those who criticise the paternalistic and at times authoritarian style of government he developed to deal with all this might pause to consider the scale of the challenges he faced.

Lee offered the people of Singapore an implicit deal: in return for accepting his system of politics, he offered them stability, security, clean government and prosperity. And he delivered on that deal beyond anyone’s wildest dreams — including perhaps his own.

Just take one extraordinary measure. Singapore today has the third highest per capita GDP in the world, measured in PPP terms, behind only Qatar and Luxembourg. It is 50 per cent higher than Switzerland’s, and not far from double Australia’s. That is the scale of his achievement.

There can be few examples in history of such an outstandingly successful nation created so completely by the vision, will and leadership of a single individual.

But his achievement extended far beyond Singapore itself. He was a key architect of ASEAN, and through that made a central contribution to the emergence of Southeast Asia as a model to the world of effective regional cooperation and integration. No one did more than Lee to make our nearer region as stable and harmonious as it is today.

But perhaps even more importantly, Lee had a profound impact on the wider Asian region through his remarkable influence on China. He understood, perhaps before anyone else outside China, and perhaps even before Deng Xiaoping himself, just what China could achieve if it found a way to harness market economics and an open trading and investment regime.

Deng himself acknowledged Lee as his mentor, after a famous visit Deng paid to Singapore in 1978 the year before he launched the economic reforms which have made the largest economy in the world. Lee explained to Deng how the Singapore model could be applied on a much larger scale in China. And the rest is history. Of those outside China, perhaps only Nixon and Kissinger had a comparable role in shaping China’s path to wealth and power.

Lee was also immensely influential in Washington, where he was much admired by generations of US leaders as a strategic thinker of great depth, and a master of old-fashioned statecraft. He understood much more clearly than many Americans themselves just how important America’s role in Asia was, and just what was needed to sustain it. After the Cold War he was central to America’s decision to stay engaged in Asia, and he was a key supporter of my efforts through the creation of APEC to create a framework through which that could happen.

And more recently he has been among the most prescient and influential in urging America to respond and adapt intelligently to the new realities created by China’s rise. He urged Americans to remain an active regional strategic player, but he also urged them to recognise that it needed to take a new role, one that recognised and to a degree accommodated China’s growing power and aspirations for a greater role of its own. We may all regret that this statesmanlike voice will no longer be heard in Washington.

More particularly, Lee Kuan Yew was a great friend of Australia’s, if at times an outspoken one. He had a great influence on this country, and on my own approach to my task here as Prime Minister. In the early 1980s, around the time I took office, Lee famously remarked that unless it reformed Australia was in danger of becoming the ‘poor white trash of Asia’. I thought he was right, and his harsh but fair comment helped galvanise my determination to undertake the reforms that would save us from that fate and set us on a better path.

Finally, let it be remembered, Harry Lee was good company. Formidably bright and sharp in argument, but kindly, gracious and charming too. I doubt that I ever enjoyed more intellectually stimulating conversations with a fellow leader, and games of golf with him on his private course in Singapore were among the most enjoyable I have known. A great bloke, and, by any standards, a great man.

The Hon. Bob Hawke AC was the Prime Minister of Australia from 1983-1991.

This article was first published by the Australian Financial Review.

Ref: http://bit.ly/1CGlt3X

Lee Kuan Yew's Alternative To European Style Welfare State

Many European governments have made promises they must either default on or impose draconian taxes to pay for.

Singapore has avoided that problem.

The key is to ensure that one generation won’t bankrupt future generations by living beyond its means.

John Fund, American political journalist and columnist for National Review wrote:

"I believe that the least appreciated part of Lee Kwan Yew’s legacy is his method of ensuring that one generation won’t bankrupt future generations by selfishly living beyond its means. It’s a welfare state that works, and one he always said was available to any political leader with the courage to tell his people the truth about the limits of government’s power to pass out goodies.

In 2013, when Singapore broadened its medical-benefits program, the local Straits Times newspaper made clear the government’s philosophy: “The first [priority] is to keep government subsidies targeted at those who most need them, rather than commit to benefits for all. Universal benefits are ‘wasteful and inequitable,’ and hard to take away once given, [finance minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam] said.

That mindset is embodied in Singapore’s philosophy of welfare, which rests on four pillars:

Each generation should pay its own way. 
Each family should pay its own way. 
Each individual should pay his own way.

Only after passing through these three filters should anyone turn to the government for help. But it will be there when needed."

Ref: http://bit.ly/1DFa72i

CHANGI AIRPORT: LEE KUAN YEW'S BABY

By LIEW MUN LEONG
Chairman of Changi Airport Group

CHANGI Airport is today a strategic international air hub, where more than 100 airlines connect Singapore to more than 300 cities across the world.

With more than 480 "World's Best Airport" awards from various quarters under its belt, it is now also known as the most-awarded airport in the world.

Many may not realise that the airport was the brainchild of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

In mid-1975, he decided it was advantageous to build the new international airport in Changi, and was single-minded about pushing it from its Paya Lebar location to the new site.

The year before that, however, we had started construction works to expand Paya Lebar airport to meet the rapidly growing aviation sector. I was then a young engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD), busy building a new aircraft parking apron and clearing resettlement cases - 11,000 families had to be resettled for construction of the second runway at Paya Lebar to proceed.

But Mr Lee, in a flight over Boston's Logan Airport, saw the genius in developing an offshore airport for Singapore. Building it on the Changi coast would give us the flexibility to expand the aerodrome towards the sea to meet future expansion needs; and it was better that the high decibels from aviation be directed out to sea instead of affecting the population in the city.

Moreover, building out to sea would mean there would be no need to restrict the height of future nearby developments, hence liberating several hectares of much-needed land for development.

There were, however, uncertainties about implementing this strategic shift to Changi. Some quarters in the government questioned whether the PWD was up to handling such a large-scale project and within a tight time frame at that. Rightly or wrongly, the perception back then was that the PWD was an old, conservative and bureaucratic department handed down from the British colonial days.

Some sceptics derided the PWD as having experience in building only drains, sewers, roads, bus stops, government offices and schools, and asked whether the department had the expertise and human resources for such a mammoth undertaking.

There were also doubts that we could complete Changi Airport by mid-1981, when more than half the site had to be reclaimed from the sea. But Singapore urgently needed a new airport by mid-1981 and we couldn't afford to delay this any further.

"THE THREE WISE MEN"

Mr Lee roped in a trio of top civil servants he called "The Three Wise Men'' to study the feasibility of building the new airport at Changi.

Port of Singapore Authority chairman Howe Yoon Chong, Housing Development Board chief executive Teh Cheang Wan and JTC chairman Woon Wah Siang had, among them, led many successful major national developmental programmes in Singapore and therefore had the credentials to do a feasibility study on the Changi project.

Mr Howe confidently concluded that the project could be implemented - and in time - by the PWD, with the PSA executing the sea reclamation work. Mr Lee later appointed Sim Kee Boon, a legendary leader in the civil service with a great eye for detail, to drive the project.

Mr Lee had invested his most capable civil servants in this undertaking.

We built the first runway as an extension of the existing British-built military runway. It was then 2,000 m long; we extended it to 4,000 m by expunging Tanah Merah Road.

Mr Lee wanted to see where the extension would be. He wanted an aerial view, so we arranged for a Skyvan, a military passenger transport plane, to take him to a height for a bird's eye view of the construction site. In order for him to spot the site from up there, we tied big, yellow aviation balloons to the working bulldozers.

Mr Lee was very involved from the beginning.

He wanted the airport to be built within a garden city. He wanted a lot of trees planted, saying he wished to "see a jungle" when driving to the airport.

We had to count trees daily and I sent telexes to Mr Sim, detailing the number of casuarina and rain trees we had planted.

AN ABIDING INTEREST

Mr Lee's interest in Changi Airport never waned.

As recently as last November, he had visited the airport for an update of its latest developments, especially Project Jewel, the airport's retail and lifestyle complex. By then, he was not very mobile, so we took him around in a buggy and also went on the train connecting Terminal 2 to Terminal 3. When I asked him if he had enjoyed the train ride, he replied: "Yes, but too short."

Even till his last days, he would never fail to ask me, even in a weakened voice: "How is Changi Airport?"

What would have happened if he had not had the vision to move the airport to Changi?

If we had remained in Paya Lebar, we would not have had the flexibility to build the third runway - unless we forgo Tampines town - or the fourth terminal, let alone the fifth; of course, there would also be no Project Jewel.

Changi Airport was his baby, and it has become an icon. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was truly the Father of Changi Airport.

Ref:
http://bit.ly/1bR1x5U

LEST WE FORGET.....

Mr Lee Kuan Yew emphasized again and again that it is the QUALITY OF PEOPLE and LEADERS that will determine Singapore's success. 

CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, DETERMINATION: These are the strengths that will see Singapore through. 

"..not the grand monuments in brick and mortar or steel and concrete, with which so many other new nations try to impress themselves and their followers."

When Parliament moved to its present building in 1999, Mr Lee Kuan Yew reminded the House: 

“...the importance of this Chamber did not, and does not, depend upon its size and its grandeur, but upon the quality of the men and women who occupy it as representatives of the people… By the standards of other public and private buildings in Singapore, it is modest by comparison. That is a virtue. Behind the understatement lie great strengths of character, integrity, and determination. That is what will see Singapore through, not the grand monuments in brick and mortar or steel and concrete, with which so many other new nations try to impress themselves and their followers.”