Thoughts on Lee Kuan Yew's Passing

At a conference in spring 1999 I presented a paper discussing variations in democracy among ASEAN states.  I freely admit now, 16 years later, that the paper was somewhat underthought and possibly naive in assigning democratic status to some ASEAN members.  I will also never forget the comment by the discussant--"you can not call it an apple if it is really a pear and you can not call Singapore a peculiarly Asian form of democracy when it is not a democracy."  I have continued throughout my academic career to follow political development in Southeast Asia, particularly as related to questions of security and development in the South China Sea.  While I do not claim to be an expert on politics in Singapore, I have followed and somewhat digested the same information available to the rest of the world regarding the development of Singapore into a highly respected economic entity and well regarded member of the international community in general.  And the man responsible for founding this rise to respectability and economic well-being is now dead.  At 91 years of age, Lee Kuan Yew passed away yesterday.

For my two cents, the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew must properly be considered of mixed quality.  Lee's guidance of Singapore from a British colony to part of the Malay Union to an independent city-state helped transform a mid-size port city into a global trade center.  And, Lee did step aside without being forced out in 1990.  Lee leaves as a legacy efficient government, successful public housing and utility development, low business tax rates, quality educational institutions, a clean city, and very low crime rates.

I will, however, stop short of the praise given by President Obama, who called Lee "a visionary" and "a giant of history".  I am also left wondering about whether or not it is good that "No small number of this and past generations of world leaders have sought his advise on governance and development," (President Obama).  Why am I doubtful--Lee Kuan Yew was also a--what is that favority word of mine for power mongering, dictatorial leaders?  Not that being one of these is always a bad thing, again I am waffling about Lee because of the good he did, but the rest of the story needs the light as well.

Lee oversaw restriction of free speech, social engineering programs, limits on public protest, entrenchment of a one party system, etc.  Lee arrested and held without trial political opponents, some of them for decades.  Lee even stated, "The Japanese demanded total obedience, and got it from nearly all.  My appreciation of governments, mu understanding of power as the vehicle for revolutionary change, would not have been gained without this experience."*   He was basically arguing that he learned how to wield power from the Japanese during the occupation of Singapore during WWII--fascinating at the least, mostly disheartening.

In 1987 Lee stated, "I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters - who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think." (The Straits Times, April 20, 1987) So, there are two sides to the Lee Kuan Yew story.  Lee the state builder, Lee the nation-builder vs. Lee the dictator.

*Wright, Stephen.  2015.  "Lee Kuan Yew, Founder of Modern Singapore Dies at 91," AP March 22. 

         Archived at: http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=12QpjS8O