Lee Kuan Yew, Iswaran and the Singapore miracle

 

Singaporeans have much to be grateful to the founder of their republic, Lee Kuan Yew.

Having shed tears on live TV after being booted out of Malaysia in 1965, Lee turned into a supreme global statesman by single-handedly leading his country to unrivalled economic success.

Although he stepped down as prime minister 34 years ago, Lee’s legacy has lived on.

Earlier this year, Singapore retained its position as the world’s leading business environment for the 15th consecutive year.

Singapore’s economic success was founded on Lee’s unyielding war against corruption and corrupt practices, and a steadfast adherence to good governance based on the rule of law and expeditious access to justice.

Concepts of intellectual honesty, meritocracy, integrity, accountability, transparency, justice, equity, fairness and many other prophetic values were built into both government and corporate governance, and jealously supervised by a judiciary and a legal industry made up of the best legal minds.

Meanwhile, the politics of race, religion, language and hate speech, which some Malaysian politicians seem to build their careers on, were abhorred.

Instead, social justice was anchored as the paramount consideration for attaining peace, prosperity and a harmonious existence for the nation.

Most importantly, the state took the role of protector and guardian of all religions, and never interfered with the beliefs and faith of any individual person – provided these were practiced peacefully and with mutual respect.

Lee was ably supported by his cabinet, and his methods have been followed strictly by successive administrations led by Goh Chok Tong, Lee Hsien Loong, and now Lawrence Wong.

The progressive steps taken down south were nothing new to me as I had learned about them from books about religion, economics and philosophy that I had read since my younger days.

I marvel at the Singapore miracle, achieved without the support of natural resources, and built solely on the premise of being an ethical society based on meritocracy and sheer hard work.

It is a feat no other country has achieved since World War II.

In my view, Justice Vincent Hoong’s 98-page judgment in an extremely rare corruption case involving Singapore’s transport minister S Iswaran, which hit the headlines around the world recently, was a snapshot of its remarkable success.

It was unique in the sense that it was a judgment focused solely on sentencing after a plea of guilt – something I read with great interest. In Malaysia, we tend not to write long judgments on guilty pleas save where it is necessary to set out in extenso sentencing principles to guide the subordinate courts.

Investigations into Iswaran’s wrongdoings were quick, and the prosecution was fast and civilised.

It saw negotiations between the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the accused’s lawyers on the charges, which ended with the prosecution amending the charges to the satisfaction of the accused, who then agreed to plead guilty.

Iswaran had even resigned on his own volition before being charged in court, showing proper respect for the rule of law and the basic tenets on which a democratic government is run.

The judgment itself focused on three aspects. It talked about corruption and corrupt practices. It also set out the jurisprudence related to when a sentence is liable to be reduced or increased notwithstanding the positions taken by the prosecution and the defence. The judgment also set out the charges and the statement of facts in full, allowing for a truly transparent procedure.

Unlike Singapore, corruption is rampant in Malaysia. Following the 2018 general election, corruption cases were selectively loaded on to leaders who were no longer in government. Prosecutions were initiated against corrupt civil servants as well. However, it was always the receiver and hardly ever the giver who was prosecuted.

Iswaran’s case showed Singapore to be markedly different. Shortly after Iswaran was sentenced, proceedings were commenced against the alleged giver of the purported bribes, ignoring the fact that he has been a big name in the corporate world for a very, very long time. Since that case is ongoing, I will refrain from further commenting on this aspect.

In contrast, Malaysia tends to give the impression that it uses its laws to persecute, stifle dissent, and silence whistleblowers. On the other hand, cases can also be willed away with use of the attorney-general’s absolute power to secure a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (or DNAA) for a favoured accused.

In my view, such practices only serve to destroy our constitutional framework, leaving the rakyat the loser.

The reality is that the governance of this country was on par with Singapore until the old Umno was declared illegal by the courts, the right to appeal to the Privy Council abolished, and Lord President Salleh Abas brutally removed.

Only the rulers can arrest the nonsense that has gone on in the administration of the country and the rule of law since then, by using Article 38 of the Federal Constitution in the manner I have advocated previously.

Singapore has shown its determination to stamp out corruption over the last six decades, and did so again emphatically recently. Its efforts have borne much fruit.

The time has come for Malaysia to sit up, take notice, and follow. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.