Kuan Yew leaves an uncertain political heritage

Kadir Jasin points out that Singaporeans are demanding more political freedom.

PETALING JAYA: The political heritage that Lee Kuan Yew gave Singapore appears shaky, although he left his country with a strong economy, A Kadir Jasin says in his latest blog posting.

In a brief obituary of the late Singapore leader, the veteran journalist writes: “Changes have been taking place since he stepped down as Prime Minister in 1990 in spite of his best efforts to keep things the way they were.

“After decades of enjoying huge economic success and financial independence, Singaporeans are asking for greater political freedom.

“With world politics being turned on its head by information and communication technology, there isn’t a likelihood of the emergence of another Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. He was one of a kind.”

Kadir’s obituary is not as complimentary as the one written by his journalism colleague Zainuddin Maidin, although he obviously recognised Lee’s strengths.

“Lee left behind many admirers but very few friends,” he says. “Some of his friends during the independence struggle walked away from him while others were purged. Many spent years in jail.

“For driving hard bargains for his country and for his constant lecturing of other countries, including China, Lee left very few genuine friends. He and Dr Mahathir Mohamad were at constant loggerheads. About the only person in Malaysia who could be considered Lee’s friend is Daim Zainuddin. They struck out famously during the negotiation on the Malayan Railway land in Singapore.”

He says Lee achieved so much for his country that even the global media’s description of him as a “strongman” was inadequate. “He was more than that. There were many strongmen of Lee’s generation around the world but none could quite match his achievements.”

As for his leadership style, Kadir says “Lee was neither an absolute dictator nor a democrat. He ruled with iron fists but, unlike other strongmen, he did not ruin his country in the name of nationalism and race. It might even be inaccurate to describe him as a nationalist — a pragmatist, maybe.”

He says Lee was a “master” at “taking advantage of other people’s agendas and turning them into his own”. Kadir illustrates this with a brief account of how Lee gained independence for Singapore.

“Lee rode on Indian, Malayan and Indonesian nationalism to gain independence for Singapore while making sure that the Chinese-dominated colonial outpost was not swallowed up by its bigger Malay/Muslim neighbours,” he says.

“He rode on Malay nationalism led by the likes of the late Abdul Samad Ismail and Yusof Ishak while tugging on the coattails of the British to ensure that Singapore was safe from possible Malay/Muslim hegemony in the post-colonial era.

“But Lee was much more fearful of communism led by China although he was very much the product of a leftist political movement. In the post-World War II period, Singapore was the hotbed of socialism and communism.

“What truly differentiated Lee from other strongmen was his success in transforming Singapore from a British entrepot trading centre into one of the most developed economies in the world while cutting a unique political path.

“To borrow the description of a Kuala Lumpur-based Singapore diplomat, Lee ruled Singapore using the economy instead of politics.”