TODAYONLINE.

COM

WE SET YOU THINKING

SUNDAY, 5 APRIL 2015

SPECIAL EDITION MCI (P) 088/09/2014

The tributes to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew continue to flow as life returns to normal at a market at Toa Payoh Lorong 8 on Wednesday, three days after the State Funeral Service. PHOTO: WEE TECK HIAN

REMEMBERING

MR LEE KUAN YEW

SPECIAL ISSUE

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Tribute cards for the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew by the PCF Sparkletots Preschool (Bukit Gombak Branch) teachers and students displayed at the Chua Chu Kang tribute centre. PHOTO: KOH MUI FONG

COMMENTARY

Where does Singapore go from here?

CARL SKADIAN

DEPUTY EDITOR

his past week, things have been,

how shall we say diferent
in Singapore.
These were the Quiet Hours. After
a frenzied week, when Singapore careened from grief to the need to say
thanks, and then back to mourning
and grief again, life has settled back
into more familiar rhythms.
The national colours have luttered
proudly atop lagpoles again, black ribbons have been taken down from Facebook proiles, Parliament House and
the Padang have fallen quiet.
And yet
When Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong appeared on national television at 8am on Monday, March 23, to
announce that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had

died a few hours earlier, he said: I am

grieved beyond words at the passing of
Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I know that we all
feel the same way.
I think the Prime Minister expected
many Singaporeans to mourn the loss,
but even he must have been surprised
by just how many did.
As of the last telling, close to two
million people headed to Parliament
House and the various tribute centres
set up around the island to pay their
respects and to remember the founding Prime Minister of Singapore in
their own ways. How many more did
so at temples, mosques, churches or at
home, with friends and family or alone,
well never know.
The seemingly-endless queues gave
rise to their own ecosystem of Good Samaritans who spontaneously turned up
to give out water, food, umbrellas and
other creature comforts to make the
wait, which ran into as long as 10 hours

for some, more bearable. Servicemen

and other volunteers went about their
duties quietly, eiciently, even as oicials worked to revise plans that had
to be adjusted after their irst contact
with a grieving nation.
Last Sunday, about 100,000 people
lined the streets to bid Mr Lee goodbye
as he embarked on his inal journey,
despite the buckets that rained down.
Many more were glued to TV screens,
wherever they could ind them, to watch
the funeral procession and service. It
seemed as if an entire nation came to a
halt when the Singapore Civil Defence
Force sounded the alert for a minute of
silence to be observed.
Now, the oicial mourning period
is over, and there is that enemy of the
grieving to contend with: Time. After the frenzy of activity, Singapore
now has time to catch its breath and
ponder the week that was. As anyone
who has been through the hell that is

the funeral of a loved one can tell you,

the hardest part comes next, when the
frenzy of activity that has kept the mind
busy is over.
Alone, without the necessary and
fortifying distractions of a period of
mourning in the company of others,
we now have to collect our thoughts,
make sense of what exactly it is that we
have lost, and igure out how to move
on from here.
So, what now?
If we can learn anything from the
reams of newspaper copy put out over
the seven-day period of national mourning, from the blanket coverage on television and radio, the endless chatter
in the digital ether, it is this: Mr Lee
was an exceptional man, and he built
an exceptional country.
But and there is always a but
this fact presents its own set
of challenges.
For someone like me, who grew up in

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

early Singapore, the startling changes

that have taken place have not seemed
as phenomenal as they ought to be. It
has been more of a process of osmosis
a skyscraper comes up here, a new
rail station there, ungainly Hawker
Hunters blossom into sleek F15SG Eagles soaring over National Day Parades,
one generation of able leaders morphs
into the next, policies debated in one
term are brought to fruition in the next,
even if the debate has become sharper,
more cantankerous.
This is the natural order of things,
is it not?
Growing up in a Catholic school, I
had hantam bola buddies of every conceivable stripe. Folks of my generation
have an easy familiarity with Selamat
Hari Raya, Happy Deepavali; Muslims say a cheery Merry Christmas to
Christians, who reciprocate with gifts
of fare, carefully prepared to ensure
non-halal ingredients are avoided. We
gather on weekends, a veritable GRC
of buddies, similar despite our diferences, engaging in the raucous banter
that only the sharing of a single tongue
would allow.
Girlfriends and boyfriends, husbands and wives, children, more and
more, families and lovers look diferent
from the way they did in the past. But
there are no second looks, no raised
eyebrows when a newspaper columnist
describes his children as Chindians.
This is the natural order of things,
is it not?
At school, in army camps, at work,
no one bothers if you grew up in a tworoom lat in Tanglin Halt, as I did, or a
six-room bungalow in Namly Drive, as
a primary school classmate did. There
are so many scholars whose parents are
hawkers and taxi drivers that these stories have become boring, routine, not
worth a mention in the news. Whether
you drive a Ford or a Ferrari, you will
be ticketed if you break the law; and you
cant jump queue simply by telling me
who your father or mother is, because
all you will get is a smirk. Nothing is going to be diferent for you, just because.
Again: This is the natural order of
things, is it not?
It was former foreign minister
George Yeo, perhaps, who summed
up most succinctly Mr Lees contributions to Singapore. Quoting from the
monument to Sir Christopher Wren
in London, he said when asked about
the founding Prime Ministers most
important contribution to Singapore:
We should just look all around us.
Look around you. And I mean, really
look, not just at the towering achievements on these shores, but beyond
as well.
Look at the newspapers and at the
reports of the howls of protest after a
report about the leader of a neighbouring country who had the gall to turn up
at a Thaipusam celebration in the garb
of another ethnic group.
Find out about the lawmakers in
a faraway land who invited the leader of another country to speak in direct opposition to a plan by their own
president to strike a nuclear deal with
Iran. Debate how it came to be that a

Let us dedicate
ourselves as
one people to
build on his
foundations,
strive for
his ideals,
and keep
Singapore
exceptional
and successful
for many years
to come.
Prime Minister
Lee Hsien Loong
at 8aM on MarCh 23

nominee for the post of national police

chief, outed as a suspect in a bribery
case, was later cleared of charges by a
court, while the leader who nominated
him faces questions about why the candidacy was dropped.
Look all around you.
Look at the pictures in the following pages that show kings, a former
American President and the sitting
leader of a nation of over a billion people
in attendance for the funeral of a man
who once in an almost distant time
led a tiny nation of just ive million.
Look around you the next time you are
in the immigration queue at an airport
in Australia or the United States, and
ask yourself what right you have to be
in the line for automated clearance.
That is the great Myth of Singapore
Exceptionalism, that this is the natural
order of things.
It is the vision of one man, and the
hard work of those he led, that has given
rise to this. It is too easy to be complacent, to think that things have always
been this way, and that they will remain
so no matter what we do. Too easy to
think the world owes us living. That
were small but tough, that those ads
which advertise our muscular prowess
at half-time of the football game are
enough to keep Singapore where it is,
and that its perhaps time we took our
collective foot of the gas pedal, because,
well, look how far weve come!
In the Quiet Hours, let your thoughts
drift to where complacency will lead us,
because if it was one thing Mr Lee kept
reminding us about, it is that we have
no right to be here. Weve crashed the
party. Now, we have to keep proving
that we belong.
Look around you.
There is one other thing our minds
should drift to in the Quiet Hours,
before the memory of the days after
March 23, 2015 fade into grey, before
we once again get caught up in the consuming endeavour that is life, before
consigning events to an archive we will
revisit every once in a while times
too few and far between to serve any
useful purpose beyond nostalgia:
There is a common thread that
ties together the speeches made by
the Prime Minister in the week that
was a word to the wise, if you will.
That they came from a man so obviously wracked by grief at times should
give us further pause and engender
some thoughtfulness of what is expected of us in the days, months and
years ahead. These are the years we
will have to navigate without the light
that has guided us since the earliest
days of the Republic.
The irst, delivered at 8 am on March
23, said: Let us dedicate ourselves as
one people to build on his foundations,
strive for his ideals, and keep Singapore
exceptional and successful for many
years to come.
The refrain, at the funeral service
at the University Cultural Centre on
March 29: We come together not only
to mourn. We come together also to
rejoice in Mr Lee Kuan Yews long and
full life, and what he has achieved with
us, his people, in Singapore. We come

together to pledge ourselves to continue

building this exceptional country.
Let us shape this island nation into
one of the great cities in the world, relecting the ideals he stood for, realising
the dreams he inspired, and worthy of
the people who have made Singapore
our home and nation.
For Mr Lee, many of the Old Guard
leaders, and some members of the Pioneer Generation, the words of Mr Lee
Hsien Yang, in his eulogy at the cremation service at Mandai, are appropriate: Your work is done and your rest
is richly deserved.
For those of my generation, who have
gone from two-roomers in Tanglin Halt
to better things, from kopi-o kosong in
recycled condensed milk tins to Kopi
Luwak, and, yes, from Third World to
First, Mr Lee will have our enduring
gratitude. We are champion grumblers,
and we have moaned about the muzzling of some Opposition voices, about
the endless chiding and cajoling from
on high, and about the policies that
gave some quarters in the West cause
to accuse us in not so kind terms
of being little more than sheep forever following a shepherd in search of
greener grazing grounds, never mind
the routes he took us on.
But deep down, we know life has
gotten better year by year. In the vernacular of todays generation, we have
moaned about First World problems.
Champion grumblers, indeed.
But for those for whom the events
of the week of national mourning were
their irst personal brush with the history that Mr Lee created, the words of
the Prime Minister should resonate
more. A gauntlet has been thrown
down. Will it be picked up?
For many who were in the queues,
at tribute centres, lining the streets
as the gun carriage trundled by, SG50
will be but a waystation on a longer
journey. For most of those who are in
school now, or just being enlisted, or
just starting work, for the couples who
will put last week behind them and experience joy as they exchange wedding
vows this weekend and the next, and
the one after that because yes, life
must go on SG100 will be an even
more meaningful milestone.
The rest of us will turn the future
over to you soon. How will you follow the prescription dispensed by the
Prime Minister for moving on from
the grief? How to build on Mr Lees
foundations, strive for his ideals, and
keep Singapore successful for many
years to come?
Perhaps for you, in these Quiet
Hours, the proper tonic is a good, exhortative dose of Mr Lee Kuan Yew
himself, taken from a speech made to
the Singapore Press Club on June 7,
1996, but just as relevant today, almost
20 years hence:
The sky has turned brighter.
Theres a glorious rainbow that beckons those with a spirit of adventure,
and there are rich indings at the end
of that rainbow.
To the young and not so old, I say,
look at the horizon, follow that rainbow,
go ride it!

WE SET YOU THINKING

EDITOR
Walter Fernandez
DEPUTY EDITOR
Carl Skadian
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
loh Chee kong
JaSon tan
DIGITAL EDITOR
Mae lYnn tan
VISUAL EDITOR
Mugilan raJaSegeran
VOICES EDITOR
derriCk a Paulo
FEATURES EDITOR
ChriStoPher toh
SPECIAL PROJECTS EDITOR
ariel taM
CORPORATE SERVICES ROSALIND PNG
CIRCULATION SUNNY ISSAC
EDITORIAL SUPPORT DOReeN SAbAI
MEDIACORP PRESS LTD

today@mediacorp.com.sg
www.facebook.com/todayonline
www.twitter.com/todayonline
Caldecott broadcast Centre,
Andrew Road, Singapore 299939
Tel: 6236 4888 | Fax: 6534 4217
NEWS HOTLINE 6822 2268
CIRCULATION HOTLINE 1800 698 6329
ADVERTISING HOTLINE 6333 9888

SPECIAL ISSUE
PRODUCTION TEAM:
Shahiron Sahari
NG bOON Chew
huang QinQin
tan Jun-lei
aliCia Wong

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

The first among our

founding fathers is no more.
The seven-day period of national mourning for former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew drew an unprecedented
outpouring of emotion from Singaporeans. In this special edition, we take a look back at a historic week for Singapore
and present our reports from those seven days as a keepsake. This special edition divides the events into two parts,
beginning with a chronological retelling of the mourning period, from the private wake at Sri Temasek,
through the days of massive queues at Parliament House, and on to the private cremation at Mandai.
The back of the book comprises pages from our special edition on that fateful Monday, March 23, 2015.

Members of the public gather at Raffles Place to watch on a screen the live broadcast of the State Funeral Service of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew on Sunday, March 29. PHOTO: MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: His life and times, 1923 - 2015

Sept 16, 1923
Mr Lee Kuan Yew was
born to Mr Lee Chin Koon
and Mdm Chua Jim Neo

1936 to 1942
Graduates from Telok Kurau
English School, attends Raffles
Institution and Raffles College
before studies are interrupted
by WWII

1920

Feb 10, 1952

His first son,
Mr Lee Hsien
Loong, who
will become
Singapores
third Prime
Minister, is
born

1942 to 1945
Japanese Occupation of Singapore, during
which Mr Lee worked as a clerk and
transcriber for the Japanese, and ran his
own businesses on the side

1947
Enters Cambridge after briefly
attending London School of
Economics

1930

Nov 21, 1954

Elected
Secretary-General of the
Peoples Action
Party, which he
founded with
Toh Chin Chye,
S Rajaratnam,
among others

April 2, 1955
Wins seat in
Tanjong Pagar,
remains MP of
the ward for 60
years; daughter
Lee Wei Ling is
born the same
year

1957
Youngest
child Lee
Hsien Yang
is born

1950

Oct 21, 1981

PAP loses
monopoly of
Parliament
when Workers
Partys JB
Jeyaretnam
wins the Anson
by-election

Dec 22, 1984

PAP loses
Potong Pasir
seat to Mr
Chiam See Tong
in the General
Election; Mr Lee
Hsien Loong is
elected into Ang
Mo Kio GRC

Oct 9, 1985
Addresses the
US Congress
during an
official visit to
the US

1988
Introduces the Group
Representation
Constituency scheme
to ensure minority
representation in
Parliament. But
scheme has been
criticised by Opposition as hindering
electoral competition

1961
Campaigns
for Singapore
to merge with
Malaya

Sept 16, 1963

Singapore joins
Malaya as an
autonomous
state after
declaring
independence
from British

Aug 9, 1965
Chokes back
tears while
announcing
Singapores
expulsion from
Malaysia

Aug 9, 1966
First National
Day Parade
held at Padang

May 14, 2011

Announces retirement
from Cabinet with Mr Goh
Chok Tong after General
Election to give Mr Lee
Hsien Loong a fresh clean
slate. Also revealed to
have peripheral neuropathy, a disease affecting the
nerves

1966 early 1970s

Launched bilingual
policy where all
students have to learn
their Mother Tongue
as a second language.
Conscription begins
after strong lobbying
by Mr Lee. Family
planning polices
encouraging people to
have small families
culminating in the
Stop at Two campaign
also introduced

1976-1978
Visits China, and
two years later,
Chinese leader
Deng Xiaoping
returns the visit,
setting in stone
decades of
bilateral cooperation with China

Sept 7, 1979
Launches
Speak
Mandarin
campaign

1970

Nov 28, 1990

Steps down as Prime
Minister, handing
over leadership to Mr
Goh Chok Tong.
Becomes Senior
Minister. That same
year, Mr Lee Hsien
Loong is appointed
Deputy Prime
Minister

Nov 5, 1992
Steps down as PAP
secretary-general, a
post he held for 38
years. In the same
year, Mr Lee Hsien
Loong is diagnosed
with cancer

Jan 1994
Proposes in Parliament
that formal benchmarks
be introduced to link
ministers and senior civil
servants salaries to
private sector; White
Paper published later
that year and approved
by Parliament

1990
May 7, 2011
PAP loses a GRC
to an opposition
party the
Workers Party
for the first time

June 21, 1949

Graduates from
Cambridge with rare
double-starred Firstclass honours

1940

1960

1980
Oct 2, 2010
Mrs Lee
passes away

May 30, 1959

Leads PAP to
historic win of
43 out of 51
seats in
Legislative
Assembly;
becomes
Singapores first
Prime Minister

Dec 23, 1947

Marries fellow law undergraduate Kwa
Geok Choo in secret in England. Official
wedding was held on Sept 30, 1950

2012 to 2013
Public concerns over
Mr Lees health mount.
He misses his constituencys Chinese New
Year dinner for the first
time in 2013 but makes
an appearance at the
National Day Parade

Oct 2003
Mrs Lee suffers a
stroke while in
London with Mr
Lee. She would go
on to have another
two strokes before
she passed away in
2010

Aug 12, 2004

Mr Lee Hsien Loong is
appointed Prime
Minister, while Mr Lee
assumes newly-created role of Minister
Mentor

2000
Nov 7, 2014
Celebrates the PAPs
60th anniversary at
Victoria Theatre
and Concert Hall,
where he receives a
standing ovation

Feb 5, 2015
Mr Lee is admitted
to Singapore
General Hospital
(SGH) after falling ill
with severe
pneumonia

March 23, 2015

Mr Lee passes
away at SGH. He
was 91.

2010
Photos: Reuters, AP

TODAY

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Singapore
and the world
mourn Mr Lee
Thousands send condolences,
global leaders pay tribute to a
lion among leaders
LOH CHEE KONG

ASSOCIATE EDITOR
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

he Republic lost its founding

Prime Minister on Monday,
March 23, and the world
mourned the death of a global statesman.
The announcement in the wee hours
of the morning Mr Lee Kuan Yew
died at 3.18am, and the Prime Ministers Oices announced his death a
little after 4am left many at a loss
for words, coming as it did at the end
of a week during which Singaporeans
feared the worst after a series of statements chronicling his failing health
made the front pages of local newspapers on successive days.
Over the course of the day, tens of
thousands continuously thronged sites
across the island including the Istana
main gate, Parliament House, Tanjong
Pagar Community Club and the Singapore General Hospital, where Mr Lee
had been warded to pen their tributes and condolence messages.
Singaporeans from all walks of life
also took to social media to pay tribute to Mr Lee, whose death came only
months before Singapores 50th National Day.
The Republics embassies and consulates across Asia saw streams of Singaporeans and locals turning up to sign
condolence books, while global leaders
past and present wrote of the sadness
they felt after the loss of a giant of history who will be remembered for generations to come, in the words of United
States President Barack Obama. In his
condolence note among the irst to
arrive from a world leader Mr Obama said his discussions with Mr Lee in
2009 were pivotal to the US policy of
rebalancing to the Asia-Paciic region.
Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi
Jinping described Mr Lee as a uniquely inluential statesman in Asia, while
India Prime Minister Narendra Modi
called him a lion among leaders.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe hailed Mr Lees incomparable
leadership and unparalleled insights

and praised him for playing a key role

not only in achieving Singapores remarkable economic growth and prosperity, but also in securing peace and
stability of the Asia-Paciic region and
the world.
Regional leaders including Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and
Indonesian President Joko Widodo also
paid tribute to Mr Lees leadership.
Corporate bigwigs here and abroad
also expressed their condolences, as
did some of his political adversaries.
Even football clubs in Germany and
England took to social media to ofer
their condolences.
While Mr Lee had been in ill health
for more than a month, his death hit
Singaporeans hard. As the hearse
carrying his body made its way to
Sri Temasek, the oicial residence of
the Prime Minister within the Istana
grounds, where a two-day private wake
was held, many members of the public
who gathered outside the Istana main
gate could not contain their emotions.
Cries of Mr Lee! Mr Lee! erupted.
Just hours after the announcement
of the death, Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong addressed Singaporeans in a
live broadcast. In a voice choked with
emotion, and a visage etched with grief,
the Prime Minister said: I am deeply
saddened to tell you that Mr Lee Kuan
Yew passed away peacefully this morning at the Singapore General Hospital...
The irst of our founding fathers is no
more. He inspired us, gave us courage,
kept us together, and brought us here.
He fought for our independence, built a
nation where there was none, and made
us proud to be Singaporeans. We wont
see another like him.
He added: To many Singaporeans, and indeed others too, Lee Kuan
Yew was Singapore. As Prime Minister, he pushed us hard to achieve
what had seemed impossible. After
he stepped down, he guided his successors with wisdom and tact. In old
age, he continued to keep a watchful
eye on Singapore. Singapore was his
abiding passion. He gave of himself,
in full measure, to Singapore ... I am
grieved beyond words at the passing
of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I know that we
all feel the same way.
Other members of the Cabinet were
also despondent, as they wrote heart-

felt tributes to the man who had been

so inluential in their political careers.
Education Minister Heng Swee Keat,
who was once Mr Lee Kuan Yews
principal private secretary, said he
did not have the words to express his
gratitude for everything that he had
done for Singapore, while Manpower
Minister Tan Chuan-Jin expressed a
similar sentiment: One is at loss for
words in moments like this. How does
one fully articulate a nations grief or
pay tribute?
Law and Foreign Minister K Shanmugam said: Mr Lee is no more. I am

tearing as I write this. What is there to

say about Mr Lee Kuan Yew that has
not already been said?
He added: Each time I think about
him now, I tear. Each time I read a
tribute to him, I choke. It is diicult
to describe in words, the grief I feel.
With lags lying at half-mast, and
students in all public schools observing
a minute of silence during morning assemblies, the Republic began its weeklong mourning period. Moments after
the Prime Ministers Oice announced
details of where Singaporeans could
sign condolence books and pen their

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

tributes, long queues started to form.

Mr S N Pillai, 50, was among the
irst in line at the Istana. The security
guard is a long-time resident in Mr Lees
Tanjong Pagar ward, and recalled how
Mr Lee had told him to study hard some
four decades ago.
Another Tanjong Pagar resident,
Mr Loke Wai Tong, 76, said Mr Lee had
taken care of everything the residents
needed. We lost somebody who fought
for us against the British, fought for our
rights, Mr Loke said.
Tanjong Pagar GRC Member of Parliament Indranee Rajah told reporters

how Mr Lee always had the interests

of the common man at heart despite
the weighty job of steering the nation.
One thing which struck me or lasted as a memory was during the SARS
(severe acute respiratory syndrome)
period ... One question that he asked
during that period was: What about
the taxi drivers? How is this afecting
their ability to earn a living? Because
he knew at that time ... people were
reluctant to go on public transport or
to take public taxis. His immediate
concern ... was for their welfare, said
Ms Indranee. In the midst of all the

Prime Minister
Lee Hsien
Loong posted
on Facebook an
image of a flag at
half-mast at the
Istana on March 23
following Mr Lees
death. PHOTO: MCI

big picture planning, he did not forget

the common man.
Young Singaporeans also joined in
the expressions of grief, with many saying they learnt about Mr Lee from their
parents. One, student Christopher Lim,
15, said: He is a great man, someone
who has helped Singapore accomplish
a lot. My parents always told me how
grateful we should be to him.
On the irst day of the private wake,
some 1,200 visitors, including Cabinet
ministers, MPs, Brunei Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, Hong Kong tycoon Li
Ka-shing and SGH nurses, paid their

last respects at the private wake at the

Istana. Many could not hold back their
emotions, and emerged teary-eyed. Mr
Ho Nam Hua, 67, had left a message last
Sunday at Teck Ghee Community Club
for Mr Lee. He was back again the day
Mr Lees death was announced and he
intended to pay his respects at Parliament House the next day.
I woke up at 7 plus and turned on
the television. When I saw the news, I
cried and woke up my son, he said in
Mandarin. (On Sunday), I came here to
leave a message Mr Lee, get well soon.
Today, I wrote Mr Lee, please go well.

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW TRibuTes flow

(Clockwise from top left): A family paying tribute to Mr Lee at the East Coast GRC Community Tribute; patrons watching the news about Mr Lees passing at a coffee shop in Bishan; people
viewing videos of Mr Lee at a chinese medicine shop; Mr S Gunasegaran praying quietly outside the Istana; the state flag flying at half-mast during morning assembly at Raffles Girls School (Secondary).

From a trickle of visitors into snaking lines

A

s the hearse bearing the late

Mr Lee Kuan Yews body
pulled up to the Istanas Main
Gate at around 1pm on Monday, March
23, a hush fell, broken only by frenzied
triggering of camera shutters as the
vehicle drove through, before a chorus
of cries some calling out Mr Lees
name pierced the air.
A private family wake was held at
Sri Temasek, the oicial residence of
the Prime Minister, for Mr Lee until
March 24, and the Main Gate of the
Istana was the chosen gathering point
for many members of the public seeking
to pen condolence notes and express
their appreciation for Mr Lee and his
lifetime of public service.
By evening, the trickle of visitors
spotted at daybreak had transformed
into sombre, snaking lines. Many in the
queue were older Singaporeans who
had met Mr Lee in the past, during his
visits to their neighbourhoods, or other
such community activities.
Teary-eyed, they clutched bouquets
of orchids, white lilies, white roses
one visitor brought blooms in the colours of the national lag and came
dressed to mourn in muted shades
of clothing.

The scene at the Istana was replicated in other areas that had been set
up to allow Singaporeans to pay tribute
to the nations founding prime minister, and the mood elsewhere across
the island was one of quiet, sometimes
tearful, grief. From sunrise, when state
lags at government buildings, schools,
community centres and elsewhere were
unfurled and raised to half-mast, to
late in the evening, as workers made
detours from their commutes home to
pay respects, it was near impossible to
venture into any corner of the island
where Mr Lee Kuan Yew did not loom
large in thought or conversation.
Outside the Istana, elderly folk came
hand in hand with their grandchildren
and told them stories of Mr Lees contributions to Singapore. At Monday
morning assembly in schools, Majulah
Singapura rang out loud and proud. In
Bishan, cofee shop patrons ignored the
beverages at hand and sat glued to television screens recounting the news of
the day, and the life and times of Mr Lee.
Later in the afternoon, the Istana
turned into a hive of activity as guests
attending the private wake, including Deputy Prime Ministers Tharman
Shanmugaratnam and Teo Chee Hean,

tycoon Li Ka Shing and foreign dignitaries, began arriving.

At Tanjong Pagar Community Club,
meanwhile, the mood was solemn
among visiting residents and grassroots volunteers. Visitors, several of
whom struggled to keep their emotions
in check, were guided and assisted by
grassroots volunteers who wore white
shirts, black pants and tags with black
lanyards. A few who held their composure until then broke down after depositing lowers and other keepsakes
before moving on to view photos of
Mr Lees public appearances from the
1950s to his inal years, which were on
display. A documentary of Mr Lees contributions to Singapore was also played
on repeat. In the early afternoon, students in school uniform began arriving
after lessons ended. Some took pictures
of the photo display, and parents also
spent some time talking to their young
children about Mr Lee.
Teck Ghee Community Club began
to draw visitors in the morning, and by
afternoon, residents were also making
their way to Ang Mo Kio Central Stage
as soon as it had been set up. As a video
of Mr Lee played on stage, wreaths and
bouquets began arriving.

Elderly folk
came hand
in hand
with their
grandchildren,
as they told
the younger
ones stories
of Mr Lees
contributions
to Singapore.
In the case
of some
families, three
generations
were present.
Story by:
Ng Jing Yng,
Amanda Lee,
Valerie Koh,
Jean Khoo, Xue
Jianyue, Siau Ming
En, Angela Teng,
Matthias Tay

Photos by:
Tristan Loh, Koh Mui
Fong, Jason Ho,
Reuters and AP

Over at Parliament House, a mix of

curious tourists and working professionals on their lunch breaks dropped
by, and despite the sunny weather, the
mood was sombre. Many came and
went quietly, but by 4.15pm, oicials
stationed there said almost 1,000 notes
had been left there.
The Singapore General Hospital,
where well-wishers irst began gathering the previous Friday, was another
spot of choice for those who wanted to
pay tribute to Mr Lee. At the Quad outside Block 7, young and old alike arrived
steadily throughout the day, and placed
lowers, cards and letters beneath a
large black sign with the words: We
Remember with Gratitude.
Wherever they went, and whether
they left lowers, balloons, cards or offered a silent prayer, the grief was palpable, and the sentiment was the same.
Mrs Choi Heng, 68, a retiree, summed
up the thoughts of many, saying in Mandarin: I dont think theres going to be
another (leader) like Mr Lee Kuan Yew
I always tell my grandson to respect
him because he must be respected for
doing all those things that he had done
for Singapore... It was so diicult in the
past but he made things better.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Mr Lee a giant among men: Ministers

Senior leaders at a private wake
speak glowingly of Mr Lees
commitment, which enabled
Singaporeans to live a better life

abinet Ministers former

and present paid tribute to
founding Prime Minister Lee
Kuan Yew at Sri Temasek at the Istana
on Monday, March 23, where a private
wake was held.
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance
Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam
said: We have lost Lee Kuan Yew, but
Singapore will live on and better still,
because of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The foundations that he built up are the foundations for the future everything,
education, housing ownership, multiracialism, tripatism, clean government
everything that was Lee Kuan Yew
is what will hold us for the future.
Present to receive the visitors were
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and
his wife Ho Ching.
Other senior leaders that visited the
Istana include Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, Defence Minister
Ng Eng Hen, Education Minister Heng
Swee Keat, Law and Foreign Afairs
Minister K Shanmugam, and Communications and Information Minister Dr
Yaacob Ibrahim. Former Cabinet Ministers Othman Wok and S Dhanabalan
came to give their condolences to the
Lee family as well.
Also present was Minister for Social
and Family Development Chan Chun
Sing, who described the outpouring
of support for the Lee family he saw
at Tanjong Pagar Community Club.
I think that speaks a lot of how Mr
Lee has touched the lives of so many
residents in Tanjong Pagar. We have
people who are old, people who are
even on crutches, coming to pay their
respects to Mr Lee, he said. And I
think over the last so many years, he
has done so many things for the Tanjong
Pagar residents, especially the older
generation will remember him fondly.
Writing on his Facebook page earlier
in the day, Dr Ng said Mr Lees vision
and commitment enabled poor families like mine to move up and give my
children a better life today. I owe him
a debt of gratitude.
On her Facebook page, Senior Minister of State for Health and Manpower
Amy Khor said: Mr Lee invites superlatives. He was a giant among men. I can
only marvel at his razor sharp intellect,
his astute political judgment, his debating skills, his discernment of global and
regional trends, his far-sighted vision,
and most of all, his devotion to the cause
of Singapore.
As a woman, I also feel that Mr Lee
has done much for the advancement of
women in Singapore. He in fact laid the
foundations for women, like myself, to
freely pursue our aspirations when he
provided equal access to education and
economic opportunities for all.

We have lost
Lee Kuan Yew,
but Singapore
will live on
and better still,
because of
Mr Lee Kuan
Yew. The
foundations
that he built
up are the
foundations
for the future
everything,
education,
housing
ownership,
multiracialism,
tripatism,
clean
government
everything
that was Lee
Kuan Yew
is what will
hold us for the
future.
From top: Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen, former Cabinet minister S Dhanabalan and
DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam were among the leaders at the wake. PHOTOS: THE STRAITS TIMES

Mr Tharman
Shanmugaratnam
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
AND FINANCE MINISTER

Minister in the Prime Ministers

Oice Grace Fu also spoke of Mr Lees
role in uplifting the role of women in
Singapore, pointing to the establishment of the Womens Charter.
That a regular Singapore woman
like me, born, bred and educated in Singapore, could assume a CEO position
in a local MNC which invested in many
countries, is testament to what Mr Lee
had done for women in Singapore. He
gave us the opportunities to realise our
dreams and the privilege of choosing
our own destiny to be educated, to
pursue a career, to build a family and
to be what we want to be.
His relationship with his wife and
the role she played in his life in both
private and oicial capacities also
inspired many women in Singapore,
said Ms Fu, whose father was press
secretary to Mr Lee Kuan Yew from
1972 to 1993.
With tears in his eyes, labour chief
and Minister in the Prime Ministers
Oice Lim Swee Say, who was at the
community tribute site at the Bedok
Town Centre, said: We are sad because
Mr Lee is no longer with us. We are
grateful because he changed our lives
for the better. Obviously were going to
miss him a lot. Even though he will no
longer be living with us in this world,
Im sure for most of us, if not all of us,
Mr Lee will forever be living in our
hearts. May he rest in peace.
The outpouring of support from his
residents, who were looking forward to
having the opportunity to pay their last
respects, also made him appreciate that
Singapore was fortunate to have had
a leader like Mr Lee, he added.

10

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

PRIVATE WAKE AT SRI TEMASEK

A time of profound sadness and grief

From relatives, friends, and the nurses from SGH who took care of him, to Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament and
Brunei Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, some 1,200 attended the private wake of Mr Lee Kuan Yew on Monday, March 23.
Many of them could not hold back their emotions at the wake held at Sri Temasek, the oicial residence of the Prime Minister within the Istana grounds.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Clockwise from
above: SGH nurses
who looked after Mr
Lee; former Cabinet
Minister Mr Othman
Wok; Bruneis Sultan
Hassanal Bolkiah
and wife, Queen
Raja Isteri Pengiran
Anak Hajah Saleha;
and Emeritus Senior
Minister Goh Chok
Tong and his family
all came to pay their
respects to Mr Lee at
the private wake.
Facing page bottom
left: Hong Kong
tycoon Li Ka-shing
and his son Richard
with Ms Ho Ching.
Bottom left:
Transport Minister
Lui Tuck Yew.
PHOTOS: THE STRAITS TIMES

12

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW TRibuTes flow

Education Minister Heng Swee Keat (right) and Member of Parliament Baey Yam Keng looking at messages to Mr Lee Kuan Yew written by visitors to the Tampines Community Tribute. PHOTO: RAJ NADARAJAN

Mr Lees red box

HENG SWEE KEAT

Education Minister

r Lee Kuan Yew had a red

box. When I worked as Mr
Lees Principal Private Secretary, or PPS, a good part of my daily
life revolved around the red box. Before
Mr Lee came in to work each day, the
locked red box would arrive irst, at
about 9am.
As far as the various oicers who had
worked with Mr Lee could remember,
he had it for many, many years. It is a
large, boxy briefcase, about 14cm wide.
Red boxes came from the British government, whose ministers used them
for transporting documents between
Government oices. Our early ministers had red boxes, but Mr Lee is the
only one I know who used his consistently through the years. When I started
working for Mr Lee in 1997, it was the
irst time I saw a red box in use. It is
called the red box, but it is more a deep
wine colour, like the seats in the chamber in Parliament House.
This red box held whatever Mr Lee
was working on at any one time.
Through the years, it held his papers,
speech drafts, letters, readings and a

whole range of questions, relections

and observations. For example, in the
years that he was working on his memoirs, the red box carried multiple early
drafts back and forth between his home
and the oice, scribbled over with his
and Mrs Lees notes.
For a long time, other regular items
in Mr Lees red box were the cassette
tapes that held his dictated instructions and thoughts for later transcription. Some years back, he switched to
a digital recorder.
The red box carried a wide range of
items. It could be communications with
foreign leaders, observations about the
inancial crisis, instructions for the
Istana grounds staf or even questions
about some trees he had seen on the expressway. Mr Lee was well known for
keeping extremely alert to everything
he saw and heard around him. When
he noticed something wrong, like an
ailing rain tree, a note in the red box
would follow.
We could never anticipate what
Mr Lee would raise it could be anything that was happening in Singapore
or around the world. But we could be
sure of this: It would always be about
how events could afect Singapore and

As his PPS,
I saw the
punishing
pace of work
that Mr Lee
had set
himself. I had
a boss whose
every thought
and every
action was
for Singapore.

Singaporeans, and how we had to stay

a step ahead. Inside the red box was
always something about how we could
create a better life for all.
We would get to work right away.
Mr Lees secretaries would transcribe
his dictated notes, while I followed up
on instructions that required coordination across multiple government
agencies. Our aim was to do as much
as we could by the time Mr Lee came
into the oice later.
While we did this, Mr Lee would be
working from home. For example, during the period when I worked with him
(from 1997 to 2000), the Asian Financial
Crisis ravaged many economies in our
region and unleashed political changes.
It was a tense period, as no one could
tell how events would unfold. Often,
I would get a call from him to check
certain facts or arrange meetings with
inancial experts.
In the years that I worked for him,
Mr Lees daily breakfast was a bowl of
dou hua (soft bean curd) with no syrup.
It was picked up and brought home in
a tiin carrier every morning, from a
food centre near Mr Lees home. He
washed it down with room temperature water. Mr Lee did not take cofee
or tea at breakfast.
When Mr Lee came into the oice,
the work that had come earlier in the
red box would be ready for his review
and he would have a further set of instructions for our action.

From that point on, the work day

would run its normal course. Mr Lee
read the documents and papers, cleared
his emails and received oicial calls by
visitors. I was privileged to sit in on
every meeting he conducted. He would
later ask me what I thought of the meetings it made me very attentive to
every word that was said and I learnt
much from him.
Evening was Mr Lees exercise
time. Mr Lee had described his extensive and disciplined exercise regime
elsewhere. It included the treadmill,
rowing, swimming and walking
with his ears peeled to the evening
news or his Mandarin practice tapes.
He would sometimes take phone calls
while exercising.
He was in his 70s then. In more
recent years, being less stable on his
feet, Mr Lee had a simpler exercise
regime. But he continued to exercise.
Since retiring as Minister Mentor in
2011, he had been more relaxed during his exercises. Instead of listening
intently to the news or taking phone
calls, he shared personal stories and
joked with his staf.
While he exercised, those of us in the
oice would use that time to focus once
again on the red box, to get ready all
the days work for Mr Lee to take home
with him in the evening. Based on the
days events and instructions, I tried
to get ready the materials that Mr Lee
might need. It sometimes took longer

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

than I expected and, occasionally, I had

to ask the security oicer to come back
for the red box later.
While Mrs Lee was still alive, she
would drop by the Istana at the end of
the day to catch a few minutes together
with Mr Lee, just to sit and look at the
Istana trees that they both loved. They
chatted about what many other old couples would talk about. They discussed
what they should have for dinner or
how their grandchildren were doing.
Then back home went Mr Lee,
Mrs Lee and the red box. After dinner, the couple liked to take a long stroll.
During his days as Prime Minister,
while Mrs Lee strolled, Mr Lee liked
to ride a bicycle. It was, in the words of
those who saw it, one of those old-man
bicycles. None of us who have worked
at the Istana can remember him ever
changing his bicycle. He did not use it
in his later years as he became frail,
but I believe the old-man bicycle is still
around somewhere.
After his dinner and evening stroll,
Mr Lee would get back to work. That
was when he would open the red box
and work his way through what we had
put into it in the oice.
Mr Lees study was converted out
of his sons old bedroom. His work
table was a simple, old wooden table
with a piece of clear glass placed over
it. Slipped under the glass are family memorabilia, including a picture
of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
from his National Service days. When
Mrs Lee was around, she stayed up
reading while Mr Lee worked. They
liked to put on classical music while
they stayed up.
In his days as Prime Minister,
Mr Lees average bedtime was 3.30am.
As Senior Minister and Minister Mentor, he went to sleep after 2am. If he
had to travel for an oicial visit the next
day, he might go to bed at 1am to 2am.
Deep into the night, while the rest
of Singapore slept, it was common for
Mr Lee to be in full work mode.
Before he went to bed, Mr Lee would
put everything he had completed back
in the red box, with clear pointers on
what he wished for us to do in the oice.
The last thing he did each day was place
the red box outside his study room. The
next morning, the duty security team
would pick up the red box, bring it to
us waiting in the oice and a new day
would begin.
Let me share two other stories involving the red box.
In 1996, Mr Lee underwent balloon
angioplasty to insert a stent. It was his
second heart operation in two months,
after an earlier operation to widen a

Mr Heng speaking to a visitor at the Tampines Community Tribute. PHOTO: RAJ NADARAJAN

coronary artery did not work. After the

operation, he was put in the intensive
care unit for observation. When he regained consciousness and could sit up in
bed, he asked for his security team. The
security oicer hurried into the room
to ind out what was needed. Mr Lee
asked: Can you pass me the red box?
Even at that point, Mr Lees irst
thought was to continue working. The
security oicer rushed the red box in
and Mr Lee asked to be left to his work.
The nurses told the security team that
other patients of his age, in his condition, would just rest. Mr Lee was 72 at
the time.
In 2010, Mr Lee was hospitalised
again, this time for a chest infection.
While he was in the hospital, Mrs Lee
passed away. Mr Lee had spoken about
his grief at Mrs Lees passing. As soon
as he could, he left the hospital to attend the wake at Sri Temasek.
Mr Lee was under doctors orders to

I have taken some time to

describe Mr Lees red box. The
reason is that for me, it symbolises his
unwavering dedication to Singapore so
well. The diverse contents it held tell us
much about the breadth of his concerns
... the daily routine of the red box tells us
how his life revolved around making
Singapore better, in ways big and small.

return to the hospital at the end of the

night. But he asked his security team
if they could take him to the Singapore
River instead. It was late in the night
and Mr Lee was in mourning. His security team hastened to give a bereaved
husband a quiet moment to himself.
As he walked slowly along the bank
of the Singapore River, the way he and
Mrs Lee sometimes did when she was
alive, he paused. He beckoned a security oicer over. Then he pointed out
some trash loating on the river and
asked: Can you take a photo of that?
Ill tell my PPS what to do about it tomorrow. Photo taken, he returned to
the hospital.
I was no longer Mr Lees PPS at the
time. I had moved on to the Monetary
Authority of Singapore to continue with
the work to strengthen our inancial
regulatory system that Mr Lee had
started in the late 1990s. But I can
guess that Mr Lee probably had some
feedback on keeping the Singapore
River clean. I can also guess that the
picture and the instructions were ferried in the red box the next morning
to the oice. Even as Mr Lee lay in the
hospital. Even as Mrs Lee lay in state.
The security oicers with Mr Lee
were deeply touched. When I heard
about these moments, I was also moved.
I have taken some time to describe
Mr Lees red box. The reason is that,
for me, it symbolises his unwavering
dedication to Singapore so well. The

diverse contents it held tell us much

about the breadth of his concerns, from
the very big to the very small; the daily
routine of the red box tells us how his
life revolved around making Singapore
better, in ways big and small.
By the time I served Mr Lee, he was
the Senior Minister. Yet, he continued
to devote all his time to thinking about
the future of Singapore. I could only
imagine what he was like as Prime
Minister. In policy and strategy terms,
he was always driving himself, me and
all our colleagues to think about what
each trend and development meant for
Singapore and how we should respond
to them in order to secure Singapores
well-being and success.
As his PPS, I saw the punishing pace
of work that Mr Lee had set himself. I
had a boss whose every thought and
every action was for Singapore.
But it takes private moments like
these to bring home just how entirely
Mr Lee devoted his life to Singapore.
In fact, I think the best description comes from the security oicer
who was with Mr Lee both of those
times. He was on Mr Lees team for
almost 30 years. He said: Mr Lee
is always country, country, country.
And country.
This year, Singapore turns 50.
Mr Lee would have turned 92 in September. He entered the hospital on
Feb 5. He continued to use his red box
every day until Feb 4.

14

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Mourning moves into public phase

Thousands gather to pay
their respects as the casket is
moved to Parliament House
LOH CHEE KONG

AssocIATe edITor
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg
TEO XUANWEI

dePUTY NeWs edITor

xuanwei@mediacorp.com.sg

he seven-day period of mourning for Singapores founding

Prime Minister moved into
a more formal phase on Wednesday,
March 25, when the body of Mr Lee
Kuan Yew was transferred from Sri
Temasek the Prime Ministers oficial residence on the Istana grounds
to Parliament House, where it lay in
state until Saturday, March 28.
Mr Lees casket was carried on a
ceremonial gun carriage in a solemn

procession that saw it traverse the

lawns of the Istana, before it made its
way through parts of the Central Business District.
In doing so, it aforded Singaporeans, who had thus far travelled in droves
to the various tribute centres nationwide, a way to pay their last respects
in person to a man who had touched
many lives.
Preparations for the lying-in-state
began on the Tuesday, with barricades

Members of the
public taking
pictures and
shouting Thank
you, Mr Lee!
as Mr Lee Kuan
Yews coin leaves
the Istana on a
ceremonial gun
carriage to lie in
state at Parliament
House. PHOTO: AP

for queues and tentages for people to

go through security scans set up outside Parliament House. A huge turnout
was expected, with organisations and
companies making plans to ferry their
members and employees, respectively,
to the venue. Credit Suisse and DBS,
for example, were understood to have
chartered buses to provide transport
for employees from their oices.
Several irms, including BNP Paribas Singapore, Standard Chartered

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Bank Singapore and law irm Rajah

& Tann, also allowed their staf to
take time of from work to pay their
respects. Staf of the National Trades
Union Congress could also request for
time of, subject to work exigencies, its
spokesperson said.
A BNP Paribas Singapore spokesperson said: Mr Lee was instrumental in building Singapore into the key
inancial hub it is today and we believe
that it is important for our employees
to have the chance to pay their last
respects to the founding father of this
successful nation.
StanChart Singapore CEO Neeraj
Swaroop added: Mr Lee Kuan Yew
had dedicated himself to building a

nation where there was none, pursued

a vision for Singapore and built a irstclass country that every Singaporean
should be proud of ... For a man who
had done so much for Singapore, this
is the least that we can do.
At 9am on March 25, a coin-bearer
party led by Brigadier-General Ong
Tze-Chin, Commander 3rd Division,
and comprising eight oicers from the
Army, Navy, Air Force and Police Force
draped the State lag over Mr Lees
casket, the highest State honour accorded to a leader. The coin bearers
then carried the casket and made their
way to the gun carriage waiting just
outside the entrance of Sri Temasek.
Eight pallbearers, made up of peo-

ple who had worked for Mr Lee at the

Istana and in his Oice, were behind
the carriage as part of a 70m foot procession. The Singapore Armed Forces
(SAF) Band played Beethovens Funeral March No 1 during the procession, which was led by his family members including Mr Lees three children
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,
Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien
Yang and seven grandchildren.
The carriage passed by a military
line of honour comprising 48 personnel from the SAF Military Police Command, and 20 representatives from Mr
Lees Tanjong Pagar ward and Mr Lee
Hsien Loongs Teck Ghee ward.
After the foot procession, the car-

riage proceeded towards The Istana

main building, making its way past a
garden. A dozen Istana landscape technicians and horticulturalists were lined
up along the entrance to the garden.
At The Istana Plaza, President Tony
Tan and Emeritus Senior Minister Goh
Chok Tong ofered their respects, along
with 90 staf from the Presidents Oice,
and the Prime Ministers Oice, and 24
Ceremonial Guards. As the carriage
came to a stop, a bag piper from the
Singapore Gurkha Contingent played
Auld Lang Syne.
The carriage then made its way out
of the Istana grounds. By then, a sea
of oice workers, parents with young
children in tow, retirees and youth
some of whom had streamed in three
hours earlier had gathered at the
Istanas main gate, alongside a contingent of journalists, including some from
international media outlets.
One of the crowd, administrative
oicer Aminah Harun, 51, said she
took time of from work to witness the
historic moment. He is the father of
Singapore. No matter how, we must
come, she said.
Along the funeral procession route
that passed through Orchard Road,
Bras Basah Road and North Bridge
Road, crowds thickened as the minutes
ticked away.
From staying updated by tuning in
to news reports on the radio and live
webcast, to iddling with their cameras
and smartphones, the crowd waited in
hushed anticipation until the blares of
Auld Lang Syne played on a bagpipe
emanated from the Istana grounds.
Moments later, the gun carriage
bearing Mr Lees casket emerged at
9.38am, trailed by his immediate and
extended family barring his daughter, Dr Lee Wei Ling, who was unwell.
Clapping, and cheers such as We
will miss you, Mr Lee and Good
job, Mr Lee, erupted from teary-eyed
mourners, while others tossed lower
bouquets in the direction of the gun carriage as it made its ive-minute journey
to Parliament House.
At Parliament House, the casket was
received by the Chief of Defence Force
Ng Chee Meng, Commissioner of Police
Hoong Wee Teck, Speaker of Parliament
Halimah Yaacob, as well as the Prime
Minister and the rest of the family.
Unlike previous State funerals for
the countrys leaders, the State funeral
for Mr Lee saw, for the irst time, the
tri-service chiefs Chief of Army Perry Lim, Chief of Navy Lai Chung Han
and Chief of Air Force Hoo Cher Mou
being part of the irst Vigil Guards,
which also consisted of LieutenantGeneral Ng and Chief of Staf-Joint
Staf Chia Choon Hoong. The traditional mounting of Vigil Guards during
the lying-in-state period symbolises
the highest form of respect accorded
to the deceased.
Mr Lees friends and former colleagues also held vigil at Parliament
House. They were joined by representatives from various national agencies,
as a relection of his diverse contributions to nation-building, the Government said.

16

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW Final jouRney to paRliament house

FROM SRI TEMASEK TO THE MAIN GATE

A last trip around lush Istana

For the last time, Mr Lee Kuan Yew left Sri Temasek on Wednesday, March 25, with a send-of by eight personal staf who had served and worked
closely with him. At 9am, after a private farewell from his family, Mr Lees casket was placed on a gun carriage and the funeral
procession began. Passing the garden, the procession was met by President Tony Tan and Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong
at the Istana Plaza, where they said their goodbyes, along with staf from the Presidents Oice and the Prime Ministers Oice, as
well as Ceremonial Guards. From there, the procession passed through the main gate, beginning its journey towards Parliament House.

From top-left: The Guard of Honour

draping the national lag over Mr Lees
coin in the Istana before the procession
left for Parliament House, where the public
could pay their last respects; Mr Lees
grandsons holding a portrait of him as
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and other
family members leave Sri Temasek; The
gun carriage and procession making their
way out of Sri Temasek; President Tony
Tan, his wife Mrs Mary Tan and Emeritus
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong bowing
along with the rest of the Istana staf as the
gun carriage heads for the main gate.
PHOTOS: MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION,
THE STRAITS TIMES

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

THROUGH ORCHARD ROAD, BRAS BASAH ROAD AND NORTH BRIDGE ROAD

History comes to the Historic District

Exiting the Istana main gate, the procession was greeted by a sea of oice workers, parents with young children
in tow, retirees and youth. Passing through Orchard Road, Bras Basah Road and North Bridge Road at
a gentle pace, the procession was accompanied by occasional cries from the crowd calling Mr Lee Kuan Yews name.

Above: The gun carriage bearing Mr Lees state-flag-draped casket travelling on North Bridge Road. Below: People lined the streets, with some struggling to hold back tears, as the gun carriage passed by.
PHOTOS: JASON HO, WEE TECK HIAN

18

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW Final jouRney to paRliament house

AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Final arrival at Parliament House

Arriving at Parliament House, Mr Lee Kuan Yews casket was received by eight pallbearers representing the three branches of Government:
The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. Among them were Mr Benny Lim, Permanent Secretary (National Development, National Security
and Intelligence Coordination and the Prime Ministers Oice); Mr Aaron Maniam, director of the industry division at the Ministry of Trade and
Industry; and Mr See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts. Once the casket was placed in Parliament House, the irst Vigil Guards
a irst for a State funeral began their watch, among them the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Above left: The gun carriage carrying the body of Mr Lee Kuan Yew from the Istana arrives at Parliament House. Above right: Mr Lees casket is carried out from the gun carriage to be moved into Parliament
House. Below: The national-flag-draped casket is received by Mr Lees family. PHOTOS: REUTERS, MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

INSIDE PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Lying in state
Visitors were ushered into Parliament House in groups of 30 to 40. Initially told to pause before Mr Lee Kuan Yews casket and then bow, visitors were
later told to file past the casket instead before they were led out, so the queues could move more quickly. Joining the public were Cabinet ministers and
foreign dignitaries, including ASEAN Secretary-General Le Luong Minh and Sultan Ibrahim of Johor, as well as President Tony Tan and his wife.

Above: Chief of Defence Force, Lieutenant-General Ng Chee Meng, with Chief of Army, Major-General Perry Lim; Chief of Navy, Rear-Admiral Lai Chung Han; Chief of Air Force, Major-General Hoo Cher
Mou; and Chief of Staff, Joint Staff, Brigadier-General Chia Choon Hoong performing the first Vigil Guard as President Tony Tan and Mrs Mary Tan pay their respects to Mr Lee Kuan Yew at Parliament
House; Below: Mourners filing past Mr Lees coffin. PHOTOS: MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN, OOI BOON KEONG

20

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

An emotional Parliament
House bids teary farewell
Members of Parliament share
heartwarming tales of Mr Lee
in special sitting of Parliament.
NG JING YNG

jingyng@mediacorp.com.sg

packed House came together

on Thursday, March 26, in a
historic sitting to pay tribute to
the Republics founding Prime Minister.
A dozen Members of Parliament
(MPs), including Speaker Halimah Yacob, rose to pay tribute to the late Mr
Lee Kuan Yew, in front of a public gallery illed with, among others, civil servants, former MPs and members of the
Old Guard such as Mr Othman Wok,
Mr Ong Pang Boon and Mr Jek Yeun
Thon, who had fought many political
battles with Mr Lee.
The absence of Mr Lee was keenly
felt: A bouquet of white lowers occupying an empty seat was conspicuous
amid a full house in Parliament. It was
where Mr Lee used to sit.
Several of the MPs struggled to
keep their emotions in check, wiping
away tears as they spoke. The solemn
mood was punctured by heartwarming accounts of Mr Lee. Leader of the
House Ng Eng Hen quipped that he
could hear Mr Lees reprimand in his
ear for the long wait that Singaporeans
had to endure to pay their last respects
to Mr Lee in Parliament House. I am
sorry that they had to wait so long,
Dr Ng said to Mr Lee. My Cabinet
colleagues walked through the crowds
thanking our people for their patience.
Singaporeans smiled, replied that the
wait was little compared to what you
have done for them.
One by one, the MPs paid tribute to
diferent aspects of Mr Lees life from
his unbridled passion for the country
and his conviction as a politician, to his
ability to make unpopular but necessary decisions. They also recounted
how much they learnt from him as a
mentor, and his caring and sensitive
side underneath a tough exterior.
Mr Lee may have had his critics:
Even at the special Parliamentary sitting, Opposition leader Low Thia Khiang showered Mr Lee with praise but
took a jibe at Peoples Action Party
policies, which Mr Low claimed society
has paid a price for. But going by the
overwhelming adulation from Singaporeans for Mr Lee since the news of his
death broke, Dr Ng declared that the
public has pronounced the inal judgment of his lifes work.
Alluding to Mr Lees famous stance
that he did not care too much about
how history would judge him, Dr Ng

told the House: Today, we have the

opportunity to tell Mr Lee if he could
hear us and I believe he can. Mr Lee,
we would like to tell you that Singaporeans have decided.
He added: Thousands upon thousands lined the streets on your journey
from Sri Temasek to this Parliament
House and queued for hours under the
hot sun to pay their respects here.
They did so spontaneously, an outpouring of gratitude and admiration
for what you have done for their lives
... Singaporeans, young and old have
pronounced the inal judgment of your
lifes work. It is a great work that has
surpassed all expectations.
Nominated MP Chia Yong Yong admitted that she was critical of Mr Lees
policies as a young adult, and noted that
many have also accused Mr Lee as being arrogant and ruthless.
But she said: I am convinced that if
I were born in Singapore in an earlier
era, or if I were born in a similar era,
but in another Asian country, I would
not, being a girl with disability coming
from a poor family with no connections, I would not have been able to go
to school, enter a profession and serve
the community today.
Mr Low hailed Mr Lee as an extraordinary political leader born of a
turbulent and uncertain era whose outstanding wisdom and courage steered
the country out of extreme challenges.
Acknowledging Singapores leap
from Third World to First within one
generation, Mr Low said the success
arose not only from Mr Lees extraordinary ighting spirit and tenacity, but
also from his sincerity.
He said: However, I dont think the
Peoples Action Partys one-party rule
is the key to Singapores fast economic
development, strong social cohesion
and unity. This is because not an insigniicant number of Singaporeans
were sacriiced during the process of
nation-building and policymaking and
our society has paid a price for it. This
is why Mr Lee is also a controversial
igure in some peoples eyes.
Dr Ng said that Mr Lee had his critics and took unpopular decisions in the
early years of independence, such as
extending working hours and slashing
the number of public holidays. (But) Mr
Lee would often warn voters against
politicians with silver tongues purveying sweet promises, empty promises.
He gained a fearsome reputation as one
who eschewed the easier, more popular
but ultimately wrong paths, he said.
Several speakers also shared anecdotes that illustrated Mr Lees character. Dr Ng recounted that the MPs
planned to celebrate Mr Lees 90th

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Flowers on the seat

occupied by the late
Mr Lee Kuan Yew in
Parliament, placed
by Dr Yaacob
Ibrahim before the
special sitting on
Thursday, March
26. PHOTO: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION

birthday last year at a time when he

had become frail and needed intravenous nutrition. The celebrations were
called of when Mr Lee health took a
turn for the worse, but he surprisingly
showed up. I found out later that he
overruled his doctors, saying he must
attend Parliament because he had given
his commitment, said Dr Ng. At age
90, frail and hydrated, Mr Lee kept his
word to be here.
Dr Ng also noted how in 2009, Mr
Lee unexpectedly joined a debate on a
motion about equality in Parliament af-

ter reading news reports about it. An

86-year-old gentleman, doing physiotherapy, reading newspapers. Lesser
mortals would have thought of other
things, but Mr Lee said, Ive to make
a speech in Parliament, he said.
Former Deputy Prime Minister
Wong Kan Seng shared how Mr Lee
had nagged him to go home and recommended doctors to him after learning
that he was diagnosed with transient
ischaemic attack (TIA). It turned out
that Mr Wong did not have TIA.
I was relieved and I believe he was

very relieved too, Mr Wong said. Mr

Lees physical health declined in recent
years, although he was still mentally
sharp. It pained me each time I saw him
appearing in public attending to the call
of duty. I would have preferred to remember him when he was much itter
physically and not so gaunt and frail.
Mr Wong, who stepped down from
Cabinet in 2011, called the day of the
special Parliamentary sitting one of
the saddest days in my life.
He said: No words can truly ascribe or relect his contributions and

the great impact he made on the lives

of millions of Singaporeans, including
mine. His policies enabled me, son of
hawker parents, to become a Deputy
Prime Minister. Many poor families
children have done well too. Many in
this House came from humble beginnings. Social mobility is not an abstract
theory in Singapore.
The sitting concluded with everyone
in the House including members of
the public and the Old Guard in the public gallery rising to observe a minute of silence, with their heads bowed.

22

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

A minute of silence being observed for the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew at the special Parliament sitting. PHOTO: MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION

SPECIAL PARLIAMENT SITTING

In grief, we have
become more
united as Sporeans
On Thursday, March 26, 12 Members of
Parliament rose to pay tribute to Mr Lee Kuan
Yew. Two of their speeches are reproduced here.
HALIMAH YACOB

Speaker

n behalf of this House and with

a heavy heart, I wish to place
on record the demise of Mr Lee
Kuan Yew, the Honourable Member of
Parliament for Tanjong Pagar GRC and
founding Prime Minister of Singapore,
on March 23, 2015.
Mr Lees demise is a great loss to
Parliament and the people of Singapore,
and it is with great sadness that this
House pays tribute to the man we know
as the founding father of Singapore. Mr
Lee was an outstanding parliamentarian and his speeches in this House were
never dull or inconsequential. It was in
this House that he fought many battles
and shaped numerous policies to set
Singapore on the right trajectory.
Mr Lee founded the Peoples Action Party in 1954 and took part in the
landmark 1955 Singapore Legislative
Assembly election. At the age of 31,
Mr Lee secured the seat of Tanjong
Pagar a seat he held for 14 successive General Elections and one by-election. His parliamentary career spanned
nearly 60 years, earning him the honour
of being the longest-serving Member of
Parliament in Singapore and, undoubt-

edly, the most illustrious of them all.

Mr Lee became the irst Prime Minister of Singapore after the Peoples
Action Party secured 43 of the 51 seats
in the Legislative Assembly during the
General Election of 1959. He took the
reins of leadership for 31 years and led
the then ledgling Singapore through a
most uncertain time. He gave the founding generation hope and a clear sense
of direction, especially when Singapore
was taking its irst, tentative steps as
an independent nation. This was just
what our forefathers needed.
Mr Lee was a conviction politician.
When asked in his memoirs what it took
to be a politician, he said: You must
have convictions. Mr Lee, himself, did
not set out with the aspiration to be a
politician. In his memoirs, he recounted
that he returned to Singapore from his
overseas studies to be a lawyer. But he
was driven to assume public oice by

In a speech to Parliament in 1999,

Mr Lee said that he wanted Members
of Parliament whose instincts are
immediately for Singaporeans. He reminded us
that Parliament as an arena for the contest of wits
and wills over matters of policies will always
remain important because of our system of
parliamentary democracy, but that we must
make no mistake ... In this Chamber, we are
playing for keeps. The future of Singapore and its
people ... is not a question for light-hearted banter.
Mdm Halimah Yacob
SPEAKER

two convictions: One, he wanted a Singapore without a colonial master, and

two, he wanted a system that focused
on meritocracy.
In Parliament, Mr Lee set very high
standards for himself and expected
the same from all the other Members
of Parliament too. In a speech to Parliament in 1999, Mr Lee said that he
wanted Members of Parliament whose
instincts are immediately for Singaporeans. He reminded us that Parliament
as an arena for the contest of wits and
wills over matters of policies will always
remain important because of our system
of parliamentary democracy, but that
we must make no mistake ... In this
Chamber, we are playing for keeps. The
future of Singapore and its people ... is
not a question for light-hearted banter.
Even when he was ill and quite frail,
Mr Lee would make tremendous efort
to attend Parliament sittings as he took
his duties very seriously.
Mr Lee never linched from taking
hard decisions, many of which were
taken in this august Chamber. In 1968,
when speaking on the Employment Bill,
he said: We will be judged as a government by results. These results depend,
among other things, upon the morale
and enthusiasm of the people, and the
pace set by their leaders in Parliament
and outside.
Mr Lees abiding concern was the
interest and welfare of the people, even
if there were painful adjustments to
be made in the short term. People respected and followed him because of
one very important element and that
is trust. They trusted that he did not
make decisions for his own self-aggrandisement or personal beneit, but truly
for the beneit of Singapore.
Mr Lees personal leadership and
his style and values helped shape the
tone and the kind of Parliament that we
have inherited today. Deeply committed to Singapore, passionate to ensure
not just Singapores survival, but also
its success, he was a leader par excellence. He had devoted his entire life to
make the life of all Singaporeans better.
Mr Lee has left a deep impact on this

House and we will feel the vacuum. The

least that we as parliamentarians can
do now is to uphold the values that he
held dear when he was alive.
In 1999, when we moved to this Chamber from the old Parliament House,
Mr Lee said: The importance of this
Chamber did not, and does not, depend
on its size and its grandeur, but upon the
quality of 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. But 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 statements and
monuments in brick and mortar or steel
and concrete, with which so many other
new nations try to impress themselves
and their followers. Mr Lee could very
well have described himself and his own
life when he made that statement.
Mr Lee reminded us that, Nobody
believed that we could make it, but we
have. But there is no reason to believe
that we will continue to make it. We
will continue to make it only if there
are tough-minded people who know
the diference between the froth and
the substance.
Honourable Members, it now falls
upon us as Members of this House to ensure that we continue Mr Lees legacy of
a responsible and efective Parliament, a
duty we owe to the people of Singapore.
The House records with deep regret
the passing of the Honourable Member
of Parliament for Tanjong Pagar GRC
and founding Prime Minister of the
Republic of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan
Yew. On behalf of all Members, I wish
to express our deepest sympathy and
condolences to the family of the late
Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
I also wish to thank the thousands
that have braved the hot sun to pay
their last respects to Mr Lee for your
support and sympathy. In this moment
of grief, we have become even more
united as Singaporeans. Mr Lee Kuan
Yews death is indeed a grievous loss to
Singapore and this House.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Aspiring to his example is greatest tribute

DR NG ENG HEN

Minister for Defence

and Leader of the House

or such a monumental life, any

eulogy will fall short and I seek
your pardon. But to honour his
memoryandreminduswhathislifestood
for, I propose to capture the essence of
Mr Lee through his speeches the
very words he used in this Parliament.
Even at the dawn of his political career, Mr Lee identiied closely with the
hopes and aspirations of common Singaporeans. In his irst election in 1955,
he told the voters of Tanjong Pagar
that out of 25 divisions, he wanted to
represent workers, wage earners and
small traders, not wealthy merchants
or landlords. This was why he chose
Tanjong Pagar, not Tanglin. The residents of Tanjong Pagar believed and
trusted him and elected him by a handsome margin. Astonishingly, Mr Lee
would be returned as their MP for 13
subsequent elections. He would serve
as Member of Parliament for Tanjong
Pagar for 60 years, from 1955 to 2015,
and is the only MP that Tanjong Pagar
has ever had since elections started in
Singapore, predating our independence. I doubt this record will ever be
broken in our parliamentary history.
But Mr Lee and his Government
did not get re-elected time and time
again because they dispensed sweet
words. Indeed, Mr Lee would often
warn voters against politicians with
silver tongues purveying sweet promises, empty promises. He gained a fearsome reputation as one who eschewed
the easier, more popular but ultimately
wrong paths, as he recounted in his
book Hard Truths.
Flattery fell lat on him, as did lofty
but pretentious ideals. For Mr Lee, the
acid test was how the idea or proposal
would make Singapore stronger. If it
weakened this countrys foundations,
he would reject it, even if it was politically incorrect to say so and attracted
widespread criticism. If it would make
Singapore better, then no obstacles, no
preconceived notions, no preset habits
were too deeply entrenched to uproot
or overcome. Indeed, he would attack
these hindrances squarely and vigorously to improve our circumstances.
That was the Lee Kuan Yew the world
knew and respected throughout his
political life.
In 1968, an MP asked in Parliament
how the British withdrawal would impact Singapore. Mr Lee told Singaporeans matter of factly that the British
bases made up 20 per cent of the GNP
(Gross National Product) and tens of
thousands of jobs would be lost. He
spoke plainly on this drastic impact.
Singaporeans would have to adapt
and adjust, without any whimpering
or wringing of hands, as a way of life
which they have been accustomed to
over 30 years comes to an end.
When another MP followed and

asked if economic aid from the British

could ease the efects of the pull-out,
Mr Lees quick and unequivocal rejoinder was that any aid should not make
us dependent on perpetual injections
of aid from the outside, that we cannot change our attitude to life, that the
world does not owe us a living and
that we cannot live by the begging
bowl ... The best way of meeting the
problem is to go about it quietly and
intelligently discussing our problems
in a low key and with as little fuss and
bother as possible.
There was steel in the tone of these
replies, but Mr Lee revealed later in
1999 that he knew how serious the
problem really was. He said: 1968 to
1971 ... were critical years for our young
Republic. We knew we either made it
or we would fail. We worked hard, we
worked smart and, most important,
we worked as a team. By the time the
British withdrew in October 1971, we
had avoided massive unemployment ...
Mr Lee said: With as little fuss as
possible. But in those critical years (it)
would mean a fundamental overhaul of
what Singaporeans had indeed become
accustomed to but could not aford. To
stop the rot, Mr Lee rooted out corruption, and attacked the malaise that aflicted our society and economy. What
followed would remake the work environment, industrial relations, schools,
skills upgrading, productivity, defence
and security ... ridding Singapore of
unsavoury, unproductive and unsustainable habits and customs inherited
from its past.
We in Government and as MPs on
the ground know how diicult it is to
carry unpopular policies, even if they
are right. Why did Mr Lee and his Government choose to persuade Singaporeans to do, again and again, what was
necessary but painful? Mr Lee himself
provided us the answer.
He said in 1968 in this House: If
we were a soft community, then the
temptation would be to leave things
alone and hope for the best. Then,

Members of
Parliament holding
vigil at Parliament
House before
attending a special
parliamentary
session to pay
tribute to
Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
PHOTO: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNICATIONS
AND INFORMATION

Great strength
of character,
determination
and integrity.
Mr Lee Kuan
Yew had
all of these
qualities and
more. He kept
his promises.
What he said
he would do,
he would
and more.
Dr Ng Eng Hen
MINISTER FOR DEFENCE
AND LEADER
OF THE HOUSE

only good fortune can save us from

the unpleasantness which reason and
logic tell us is ahead of us. But we are
not an easy-going people. We cannot
help thinking, calculating and planning for tomorrow, for next week, for
next month, for next year, for the next
generation. And it is because we have
restless minds, forever probing and
testing, seeking new and better solutions to old and new problems, that we
have never been, and I trust never shall
be, tried and found wanting.
Mr Lee spoke these words in 1968
to remind Singaporeans that unless
they were willing to change and continuously adapt, even if it meant shortterm pains, Singapore could not rise.
In return for the peoples trust and
willingness to do what was needed,
Mr Lee and his Government promised
a better Singapore after these reforms
more industries and more jobs
... improved standards of education,
health services, social amenities and
housing for all ...
As prescient as these words were, it
seemed an unattainable dream when
Mr Lee made these promises in 1968.
Singapores per capita GDP then was
around Myanmars today. It would take
a further two decades of constant efort
and continuous change, seeking new
and better solutions, which included
CPF (Central Provident Fund) reforms
and the introduction of NS (National
Service) in 1967. But at the end of it,
Mr Lee and his Government delivered. Cabinet colleagues remember
Mr Lee, our mentor, often reminding
us to under-promise and over-deliver.
Say less and do more. What you promise, you must deliver and more. Mr Lee
walked his talk.
Even in his twilight years, Mr Lee
kept a constant watch over Singapores
future in the world. Singapores wellbeing was his obsession, and as everyone knows, woe betide anyone who
tried to knock it down. He was never
complacent about our fundamentals
and his singular passion was to make

sure that Singapore remained well positioned for the future.

In 2009, Mr Lee, at 86 years, unexpectedly joined a debate on a motion
about equality in this House.
He said: Sir, I had not intended
to intervene in any debate. But I was
doing my physiotherapy just now and
reading the newspapers and I thought
I should bring the House back to earth
... and remind everybody what is our
starting point, what is our base, and if
we do not recognise where we started
from, and that these are our foundations,
we will fail. An 86-year-old gentleman
doing his physiotherapy, reading his
newspaper a lesser mortal would
have thought of other things but
Mr Lee said: Ive to make a speech
in Parliament.
Mr Lee went on to explain why the
Constitution of Singapore enjoins us
(the Government) to speciically look
after the position of the Malays and
other minorities. Our Constitution
states expressly that it is a duty of the
Government not to treat everybody as
an equal. It is not reality, it is not practical, it will lead to grave and irreparable
damage if we work on that principle.
Mr Lee refused to be swayed by ideology that could not work. He dubbed
these as highfalutin ideas that misled
Singaporeans. As a result today, many
countries come to Singapore to study
how we have maintained our harmony
in a multiracial society.
Above all, Mr Lee believed that ultimately it was in the quality of its people
and leaders that determined a nations
chances of success.
When Parliament moved in 1999,
Mr Lee never believed in the size of this
Chamber and its grandeur. He believed
that with the understatement lies great
strength, character, integrity and determination, and that is what will see
us through.
Great strength of character, determination and integrity. Mr Lee Kuan Yew
had all of these qualities and more. He
kept his promises. What he said he
would do, he would and more whether
it was for individuals or an entire nation.
As we honour his memory, we resolve to learn from his example to
be men and women, individually and
collectively as a nation, to have that
great strength of character, integrity
and determination. These values, as
Mr Lee emphasised, would see us
through diicult times. We must maintain the, as he put it, restless minds,
forever probing and testing, seeking
new and better solutions to old and
new problems, (so) that we have never
been, and I trust never shall be, tried
and found wanting.
We must aspire to these qualities
that Mr Lee asked of us, because that
would be the greatest tribute to the
memory of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, of what
he stood for, fought against and desired
for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans. THIS IS AN EDITED EXCERPT FROM
DR NGS SPEECH

24

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

And the crowds

just kept on coming
More than 450,000 people
6,500 an hour queued over
82 hours at Parliament House
LOH CHEE KONG

ASSOCIATE EDITOR
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg
TEO XUANWEI

DEPUTY NEWS EDITOR

xuanwei@mediacorp.com.sg

The massive
crowd in the
queue at a holding
area beside the
floating platform
on Friday, March 27.
PHOTO: JASON HO

ver the four days of the lyingin-state phase, Singaporeans

turned up in full force to pay
their last respects to Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Despite repeated advice from the
authorities to not join the queue but
to head to the tribute centres spread
across the island instead, the crowd
grew relentlessly, prompting the authorities to temporarily suspend the
queue on Friday, March 27, a day before
the lying in state was to end.
By the time the queue was temporarily halted, the estimated waiting time
to enter Parliament House had reached
more than 10 hours. Barricades were
put up to prevent people emerging from
City Hall MRT station from crossing
the road to get to the Padang.
Apologising for the temporary suspension, the State Funeral Organising
Committee said in a statement that it
sought the publics understanding that
the decision was taken to protect the
safety and well-being of those wishing
to pay respects to Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
The committee noted that there had
been a sharp increase in the daily number of visitors since the lying in state
began on the Wednesday.
By 10pm on the irst day, some 37,000
people had paid their last respects at
Parliament House. The number spiked
to almost 148,000 a day later. As of 11pm
on Friday, more than 290,000 people
had paid their respects to Mr Lee at
Parliament House.
We would like to accommodate as
many as possible in this overwhelming outpouring of respect and love for
Mr Lee Kuan Yew. However, to ensure
safety of individuals due to the large
crowds and to limit the physical discom-

fort of the long wait, especially for the

elderly and young children, the queue
line will be temporarily suspended,
the committee said on Friday.
Earlier in the day, it was announced
that a live video feed of the lying in state
was set up, but it did little to quell the
desire of Singaporeans seeking to pay
their respects in a meaningful way,
as some of them put it.
The huge crowd prompted at least
one national leader to express his concern over public safety and the wellbeing of those in the queue. Thanking
Singaporeans for their patience and understanding in enduring the long wait,
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean
said the authorities were concerned
for the health and safety of the people
who have to wait for a very long time,
particularly those who may be a little
older, those with children and so on.
After the temporary suspension
lasting about seven hours, the queue
resumed at 6.15am on Saturday. In all,
454,687 people an average of 6,500
visitors per hour paid their respects
at Parliament House during the lyingin-state phase.
As a result of the overwhelming
response, the number of Singapore
Armed Forces personnel involved in the
State Funeral was doubled from about
2,800, said the State Funeral Organising Committee. A total of about 300
tents and 1,000 barricades were set up
to manage the queues.
Mr Ang Guan Cheong, 27, and his
family were the last in the seemingly
never-ending streams of people who had
thronged Parliament House, but for him,
being last was a blessing in itself. Speaking to Channel NewsAsia after they left
Parliament House at about a quarter to
midnight on Saturday, Mr Ang said: According to Chinese tradition, it is actually
a great honour to be the last person to
pay respects. Its symbolic (and) of great
importance. So my family is ... blessed
to be given this opportunity, because it
was totally unplanned.
His father, Mr Henry Ang, 62, added:
We were very, very fortunate that we
did not need to wait six to seven hours.
Everybody knows Mr Lee is the greatest man.

The huge turnout and massive outpouring of grief had caught the authorities of guard. On the irst day of
the lying in state, the State Funeral
Organising Committee had to change
plans and extend visiting hours twice
in the span of just over three hours.
The visiting hours for Mr Lees lying in state were initially set at 10am
to 8pm daily until Saturday. So exceptional was the number that showed
up on the irst day that the authorities
announced barely two hours after the
public were allowed in to pay their
respects that closing hours would be
pushed to midnight for the irst day.
When crowds continued to thicken,
an announcement was made at about
2.45pm that Parliament House would
remain open for 24 hours until 8pm
on Saturday.
In tandem, public transport operators also extended their service hours
to around the clock for two days.
Singaporeans of all ages and races,
and from all walks of life halted their
daily activities as the nation entered
the public mourning phase for Mr Lee,
in a display of the extent to which the
Republics founding Prime Minister
had touched their lives.
From witnessing the procession carrying his casket to Parliament House, to
attending the lying-in-state ceremony,
they came in droves schoolchildren,
housewives, seniors, disabled people
and even foreigners. In particular, the
chance to pay their last respects to Mr
Lee at close quarters drew droves of
mourners and caused confusion on the
irst day over where queues started
snaking lines stretched to at least eight
hours wait at times even after many
had thronged the numerous tribute
sites set up since Mr Lees death.
As a result, the authorities had to improvise plans, diverting queues to several places including Hong Lim Park,
Fort Canning, Clarke Quay and New
Bridge Road.
While there were confusion on the
irst day over where the entrances were
and grouses about the multiple queues
forming up, tempers largely remained
cool. By the second day, the queue was
more orderly, with the Padang being

used as a holding area.

Nevertheless, the crowds were too
much to bear for some, with ambulances spotted arriving at various times
over the four days.
Many people were stirred into spontaneous acts of kindness to bring a
measure of respite from the piercing
mid-day sun or long wait. Individuals prodded the old and handicapped
to proceed to the front of the queues,
while banks, restaurants and hotels in
the vicinity of the lines gave away cartons of water and snacks, for instance.
Others came up with gestures of
appreciation for Mr Lee. Artisan des
Fleurs, a lorist at Rales Xchange,
gave out white roses to those heading
to Parliament House, with the owner,
who declined to be named, saying only
that Lee Kuan Yew is a great man and
were doing this to show our respect.
The choir from St Johns College,
from Mr Lees alma mater Cambridge
University, also attended the lying-instate ceremony to perform a moving
rendition of the popular 1998 National
Day Parade song, Home.
Although many had to wait for several hours for their chance to pay their
respects to Mr Lee, they were unperturbed. Madam Yu Soo Sing, 75, said:
We should be grateful for what he has
done for us, putting in place policies that
give us this comfortable environment
to live in. Hes not perfect and hes not
alone in building up this nation, but
we cant deny his sacriices and contributions.
Commenting on the absolutely
overwhelming response shown by
Singaporeans, Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan told TODAY: I think people
are inally realising what a huge impact
he had on our lives as individuals, as
families and as a country we wouldnt
have a country and citizenship, and we
wouldnt have had all the opportunities
weve had. He has literally made this
country and made us one united people.
All around, you see people ... prepared to wait for eight hours or more.
I think that just shows you the depth of
feeling and appreciation Singaporeans
have. This is once in a lifetime.

26

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW The public Queues

IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

Thousands battle heat to pay respects

For hours on Wednesday, March 25, thousands waited in the sun until it was finally their turn to take a few precious minutes to say their
final farewell to Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Undeterred by estimated waiting times that extended as long as eight hours, visitors formed long
lines that snaked through the Central Business District, encouraged by simple acts of kindness provided by individuals along the
way. Drinks, fans and snacks were among the items handed out and, by the evening, portable toilets were set up at Hong Lim Park.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Facing page, counterclockwise from top: A massive

line formed at noon from
the underpass leading to
Clarke Quay from Parliament
House; Members of the
public queuing at Hong Lim
Park to enter Parliament
House; The long queue
snaked all the way to the
Padang at about 7pm.
This page, top: Undeterred
by the sweltering heat,
thousands lined up at
Empress Place and on
Cavenagh Bridge.
Right: As day gave way to
night, people continued
queuing at Empress Place for
a chance to pay their respects
to Mr Lee.
PHOTOS: RAJ NADARAJAN,
KOH MUI FONG, ROBIN CHOO,
WEE TECK HIAN, MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN

28

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW The public Queues

No let-up as crowds continue to swell

The confusing lines that threaded through the Central Business District on the irst day of Mr Lee Kuan Yews public wake gave way
on the second day, March 26, to a tidier state of afairs, as tents and barricades were lined up with military precision on the Padang, bringing
more order to the queues. Waiting times shortened for many, and clearer signs and more ushers lessened the confusion. But the crowds swelled at
nightfall, leading ushers to once again warn of seven-hour waits while more tents and barricades were brought out to accommodate the numbers.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Counterclockwise from top: The queue from Parliament House where Mr Lee Kuan Yew lies in state stretched to
the Asian Civilisations Museum.
Tents were put up at the Padang to shelter those queuing from the heat, as seen from Swissotel The Stamford.
At dawn, Social and Family Development Minister Chan Chun Sing greeted people waiting in line at the Padang
to gain entry into Parliament House to pay their respects to Mr Lee.
Members of the public waited in line at the Padang crossing at Saint Andrews Road in front of the Singapore
Recreation Club at daybreak.
At dusk, the crowd outside the Asian Civilisations Museum swelled.
PHOTOS: JASON HO, WEE TECK HIAN DON WONG WONG PEI TING

30

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW The public Queues

I got some time of earlier from work today and decided to make this trip with my family. There are six of us; I think
three of them should be in Parliament House by now. Ater paying our respects, we will be having a family dinner.
Mr Lawrence Lim (with flowers), 40
WITH (FROM LEFT) WIFE MOON YEO, 38, AND SISTER-IN-LAW YEO ZILIN, 24

Faces in the crowd

Wave after wave of Singaporeans turned up at Parliament House to pay respects to
founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, undaunted by hours of waiting in the sweltering heat. Here, some share
with TODAY why the fleeting minutes spent in the presence of Mr Lees casket are well worth the wait.

When I came
out ater
paying my
respects,
I thought,
Whats next?
I believe that
it is for us to
take (Mr Lees)
vision forward.
That will
be his wish.
Mr Joshua Gopal
Sundram, 38
WHO WORKS IN THE
SINGAPORE ARMED
FORCES, WITH WIFE
ANGELINE LIM, 39,
AND DAUGHTER
KAYLA JOY SUNDRAM, 3.

To see
more, go to
www.today
online.com/
rememberinglky

Mr Preston Samuel, 20, an ITE College East student, volunteering his time with the CD Lionhearters by
distributing drinks to those waiting in line at the Padang. He clocked in 12 hours yesterday, starting at 7am. He is
looking forward to a good shower when his shift ends today. PHOTO: DON WONG

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Renee Ng turned
four years old on
March 29. She
spent some time
on foot with her
parents during their
two-hour wait on
Friday to pay their
last respects to Mr
Lee at Parliament
House. She said she
was tired, but eager
to go home to
get some playtime.
PHOTO: DON WONG

Reporting by:
Siau Ming En, Laura
Philomin, Ng Jing Yng,
Jean Khoo, Angela Teng
and Lee Yen Nee

I brought my grandson
to pay our last respects
because it is a special day,
history in the making. He has
done so much good for us. I
remember shaking his hand at
an election rally a long time ago.
Hes a very sincere and fair man.
Mr Teo Ho Peng, 73

He is our founding
father and, as part of
the pioneer generation, I know
the diiculties in the past.
But today, there are so many
beneits. Now, when I visit the
doctor, its so much cheaper.
Really grateful to him.
Ms Lam Siew Kiew, 65

We never expected to join to the queue. We were thinking of paying

our respects somewhere outside, near Parliament House. But we
thought about it and decided we didnt want to regret later and so were in line.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew is a

very great man. Hes
the best Prime Minister we
have ever known. Without
him, Singapore wouldnt be
so successful and prosperous.
We are very grateful for all his
eforts, for what he has done for
us in terms of (the economy) and
in terms of how (he) changed
Singapore into a modern city,
from a Third World country
into a First World country.

Nicole Ong (third from left), 16

Ms Estella Yeo, 26

PAYA LEBAR METHODIST GIRLS SCHOOL (SECONDARY) STUDENT

32

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

World leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and former United States President Bill Clinton observing a moment of silence. PHOTO: AP

Tributes pour in from world leaders

Mr Lees death was also seen as
the worlds loss, as 170 foreign
dignitaries came to pay tribute
JASON TAN

ASSOCIATE EDITOR
jasontancc@mediacorp.com.sg

he outpouring of tributes to Mr
Lee Kuan Yew from world leaders and the steady stream of
foreign digitaries who lew here to pay
their last respects to him speak of Mr
Lees reputation as a respected statesman whose loss will be felt as keenly
around the globe as in Singapore.
In the words of his son, Mr Lee
raised Singapores standing on the
global stage far above what anyone
might have reasonably expected from
such a small state.
At crucial turning points, from the
British withdrawal East of Suez to the
Vietnam War to the rise of China, his
views and counsel inluenced thinking
and decisions in many capitals, said
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in
his eulogy at the University Cultural
Centre (UCC) on March 29.
The global respect that the late Mr
Lee commands was evident in the continous stream of condolence messages
and tributes that poured in throughout
the week of oicial mourning.
In a statement released shortly after
the announcement of Mr Lees passing,
United States President Barack Obama
said he appreciated Mr Lees wisdom,
including discussions they held during
his trip to Singapore in 2009 when he
was formulating his Asia-Paciic policy.
He was a true giant of history who

will be remembered for generations to

come as the father of modern Singapore
and as one (of) the great strategists of
Asian afairs, Mr Obama said.
Chinas President Xi Jinping called
Mr Lee an old friend of the Chinese
people, adding that the late leader was
the founder, pioneer and promoter of
China-Singapore relations.
Closer to home, Malaysian Prime
Minister Najib Razak, who visited
Parliament House to pay respects to
Mr Lee on March 26, said Mr Lees
achievements were great, and his legacy is assured.
Even former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who often did not see eye to
eye with Mr Lee, was moved to pen a
tribute on his blog.
At the Singapore Embassy in Bangkok, seven former Thai prime ministers Prem Tinsulanonda, Anand
Panyarachun, Chuan Leekpai, Banharn Silapa-archa, Somchai Wongsawat, Abhisit Vejjajiva and Yingluck
Shinawatra turned up to sign the
condolence book.
He was one of my very good friends
while we worked together. We were
both Prime Minister at the same time,
said Mr Prem, who called on Singaporeans never to forget Mr Lee. We
were very close and helped each other
often. If there was no Lee Kuan Yew, I
believe there would be no Singapore.
Dozens of world leaders past and
present travelled to Singapore to pay
their respects to Mr Lee in private at
the Istana and during the lying in state
at the Parliament House, including former Indonesian Presidents Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Megawati Sukarnoputri, King of Bhutan Jigme Khesar

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.
Dr Henry Kissinger
FORMER UNITED STATES
SECRETARY OF STATE

Namgyel Wangchuk, and former US

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
A commentary written by Dr Kissinger that preceded his arrival in Singapore spoke of Mr Lee fondly.
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, wrote Dr Kissinger, in what PM Lee later described
as a moving eulogy.
In all, 170 foreign dignitaries from
27 countries, regions and international
organisations attended the four-day lying in state for Mr Lee.
Many countries also mourned the
late leader in their capitals, with Bhutan
and New Zealand lying their national
lags at half-mast on March 29 to mark
the state funeral service.
India did the same, while also declaring a national day of mourning
with no oicial entertainment across
the country.
Australia and New Zealand passed
parliamentary motions to mark his
passing.
Mr Lee did not just lead his country;
he also made his country, said Australian PM Tony Abbott in his parliamentary motion. In the mid-1950s, when he
irst came to prominence in Singapore,
his country was poor and friendless.
Today, it is rich and well connected.
Mr Abbott was among the two dozen
world leaders who attended the state
funeral service at the UCC on March
29, along with the Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah, former US President Bill
Clinton, Prime Ministers Shinzo Abe
and Narendra Modi of Japan and In-

dia, as well as President Joko Widodo

of Indonesia.
Alongside 2,200 guests, the foreign
leaders listened in rapt attention for
more than two hours as speaker after
speaker, led by PM Lee, recounted the
legacy and life of Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Mr Lee was not just a perceptive
observer of world afairs, but a statesman who articulated Singapores international interests and enlarged our
strategic space, said PM Lee in his eulogy. In the process, he built up a wide
network of friends and acquaintances,
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 included Deng Xiaoping, Margaret
Thatcher, Helmut Schmidt, George
Shultz, as well as President Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger, who are here
this afternoon.
They valued his candour and insight. Hence despite being so small,
Singapores voice is heard, and we enjoy far more inluence on the international stage than we have any reason
to expect.
As the funeral service came to an
end, a minute of silence was observed,
followed by a recitation of the Pledge
and a stirring rendition of Majulah
Singapura.
As the casket was carried out of the
hall before its inal journey to Mandai
Crematorium, the world leaders stood
with their heads bowed, a poignant
farewell to a man mourned by many
Singaporeans in the hall and across
the globe.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Clockwise from above: Former Indonesian President Susilo

Bambang Yudhoyono and his wife paying their respects on Friday,
March 27; Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and wife Rosmah
Mansor on Thursday, March 26; Israeli President Reuven Rivlin
with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his wife Ho Ching
behind him on March 27; Former US Secretary of State Dr Henry
Kissinger with Madam Ho Ching on Saturday, March 28.

34

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

The heavens opened

and cried for him
Thousands gather to view the
funeral procession in heavy rain
and to watch the funeral service
LOH CHEE KONG

ASSOCIATE EDITOR
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg
AND TAN WEIZHEN

weizhen@mediacorp.com.sg

n his eldest sons words, the heavens opened and cried for him. But
the heavy downpour did not deter
tens of thousands of Singaporeans from
lining the streets and spending hours
under the rain on Sunday, March 29, to
send of their founding Prime Minister
on his inal journey.
From all walks of life and regardless of age, race or creed, they were
there to witness Mr Lee Kuan Yews
cortege making its way from Parliament House, where his body had been
lying in state for the previous four
days, to the National University of Singapores University Cultural Centre
(UCC) for a funeral service attended
by 2,200 guests.
Among them were Old Guard members who fought shoulder-to-shoulder
with Mr Lee in the Republics tumultuous early years and foreign dignitaries
such as former United States President Bill Clinton, former US Secretary
of State and Mr Lees close friend Henry Kissinger, Japanese Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe, Indian Prime Minister
Narendra Modi, Australian Prime
Minister Tony Abbott, and other regional leaders.
Across the island, people gathered
to watch the service, which lasted more
than two hours, at cofeeshops, shopping malls and community centres,
among other places.
The service, which was telecast
live on television and the Internet, was
also watched by Singaporeans living
overseas and people around the world,
with screenings organised in several
countries including China, Hong Kong,
Canada, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia
and Thailand.
As a mark of respect, countries such
as New Zealand, India and Bhutan lew
their lags at half mast.
At the solemn service, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was the irst of
10 speakers to deliver eulogies. The
others included President Tony Tan
Keng Yam, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, Mr Ong Pang

Boon, one of the few surviving members of the Old Guard, former Cabinet
Minister S Dhanabalan and unionist
G Muthukumarasamy.
In painting a broad sweep of Mr Lees
impact on Singapore, the Prime Minister touched on Mr Lees role in turning Singapores vulnerability in water
security into a strength. He recalled
how Mr Lee personally managed all
aspects of the Republics 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 to use. He
cleaned up the Singapore River and
Kallang Basin, he said. He dreamed
of the Marina Barrage long before it
became feasible and persevered for
decades ... And he lived to see it become a reality.
PM Lee noted that today, Singapore
has moved towards self-suiciency in
water, and become a leader in water
technologies. So perhaps, it is appropriate that today, for his State Funeral,
the heavens opened and cried for him,
he said, choking back his tears.
Mr Lees second son, Mr Lee Hsien
Yang, gave the inal eulogy at the UCC.
Two wreaths were then laid by PM
Lee and President Tan, in that order,
and a lone bugler from the Singapore
Armed Forces military band sounded
the Last Post.
As the service drew to a close, sirens from the Singapore Civil Defence
Forces Public Warning System rang
out across the country at 4.35pm
the cue for a minute of silence to be
observed as a mark of respect to
Mr Lee. The nation fell silent and came
to a standstill.
At MRT stations, trains pulled to
a stop and commuters stood still and
bowed their heads. Similar scenes were
played out at places such as Changi Airport, cruise and ferry terminals, and
shopping malls. Flight landings and
take-ofs were suspended for a short
period, and the despatch of buses from
interchanges was halted. Checks at the
Tuas and Woodlands checkpoints were
also stopped.
The service ended with those gathered at the UCC, as well as tens of
thousands around the island, reciting
the Pledge with hand on heart and
singing a rousing rendition of the National Anthem.
Despite the torrential rain that day,
the State Funeral Organising Committee estimated that more than 100,000

people lined the streets along the funeral

procession route. It added that almost
2,000 police oicers were deployed to
ensure the cortege and the accompanying convoy had a smooth passage.
The 15.4km funeral procession saw
Mr Lees cortege making its way past
signiicant landmarks such as Old
Parliament House, City Hall and the
Padang, where Mr Lee oversaw the
countrys irst National Day Parade
50 years ago, and from where a battery of ceremonial guns boomed out a
21-gun salute that reverberated across
the downtown area.
The procession also passed the
NTUC Centre and Trade Union House,
as well as the housing estates of Tanjong
Pagar, Bukit Merah and Queenstown.
The heavy rain coupled with the
low clouds over the Padang led to
the Republic of Singapore Air Forces
Black Knights scrapping plans to ly a
Missing Man Formation, where one
aircraft would leave the four-aircraft
lying formation as an aerial salute.
Nonetheless, a four-aircraft lypast
was lown by the RSAF Black Knights
to honour Mr Lee.
The entire funeral procession route
was lined by crowds, and while some
organisations such as the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and the labour movement gathered their members to pay tribute, most who turned
up were driven by a spontaneous desire
to bid a inal farewell to a founding
father. Cries of Lee Kuan Yew, and
Thank you, Mr Lee erupted, and
people broke down in tears as Mr Lees
cortege drove past.
By the time the funeral service at
the UCC ended, hundreds of Singaporeans had also made their way to
the roads leading to the Mandai Crematorium and Columbarium, where a
private ceremony was held by PM Lee
and his family.
Sembawang resident Yeo Bee
Kheng was among those who wanted
to be there at Mr Lees inal destination, as Mr Yeo put it. The 51-year-old
retiree said he cycled 10km from his
home to Mandai Road, cutting through
forest paths.
He, like Mr Lawerence De Silva, 42,
and his wife, who made their way there
from Yishun, echoed what a nation united in grief had ofered as an explanation for an unprecedented outpouring
of tributes over the previous week. It
was the least we could do.
At the Mandai Columbarium, the
state lag that covered the casket was

presented to PM Lee.
About 300 people attended the private funeral service, where Mr Lees
three children and two of his grandchildren delivered moving eulogies and
provided glimpses of what Mr Lee was
like away from the public eye. Following
this ceremony, Mr Lee was cremated.
PM Lee, who spoke irst, shared how
his father had been there for him when
he learnt how to ride a bicycle. Once,
when I was just getting the hang of
balancing on two wheels, he pushed
me of from behind to get me started.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

I pedalled of across the ield, thinking he was still supporting and pushing me. Then I looked back and found
that, actually, he had let go and I was
cycling on my own! He was so pleased
and so was I.
He also thanked the people who had
played a role in caring for his father,
such as the late Mr Lees niece Kim Li
and other friends, who would take turns
to accompany his father on outings, as
well as Mr Lees medical team and his
security team.
Mr Lee Hsien Yang, in his eulogy,

shed light on his fathers preference

for Chinese names. He was given the
name Harry at birth. But he soon felt it
did not it him and the fact that he was
a son of Singapore. When Papa was 10,
his youngest brother Suan Yew was
born. Papa persuaded his parents that it
was not a good thing to give Suan Yew
a Western name. Decades later, when
Papa entered politics, he also found
his name Harry a political liability,
he said. When the late leaders three
children were born, they were given
only Chinese names.

The bugle
player playing
the Last Post.
PHOTO: THE STRAITS TIMES

Dr Lee Wei Ling, revealing that her

father developed Parkinsons disease
three years ago, paid homage to his
ighting spirit, saying that the astonishing outpouring of emotion in the
previous week was because people
knew he would always ight for them.
They knew he was ready to ight for
them till his last breath, she said.
His grandson, Mr Li Hongyi, said
his grandfathers charisma came
not from showmanship, but from
pure substance.
Yeye showed me you could make a

diference in this world. Not just that

you could make a diference, but that
you could do it with your head held
high, he said.
Mr Li Shengwu, who is Mr Lee Hsien
Yangs eldest son, recounted the talks
he would have with his grandfather
about politics and the state.
As you might guess, we didnt always agree. But, at the dining table,
he never argued opportunistically, he
never took a position he didnt believe for tactical advantage, he said.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY XUE JIANYUE

36

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW FuneRal PRocession and state FuneRal

BRAVING THE RAIN, MOURNERS STAND WITH FLAGS, BANNERS

The final farewell

After a week that saw more than a million people paying their respects to Singapores founding Prime Minister, more than
100,000 lined the streets for Mr Lee Kuan Yews last trip past several landmarks that represent milestones in his career. Despite
the downpour, they stood with their flags and banners for the fleeting moment when his cortege went past to say their final goodbyes.

Counterclockwise
from far left:
The State Funeral
Procession out of
Parliament House;
The crowd waiting
at the Padang
during the State
Funeral Procession;
Members of the
public roaring
Lee Kuan Yew
and waving the
national flag as
the gun carriage
bearing the late
Mr Lee drives past
Cantonment Road.
PHOTOS: RAY CHUA, RAJ
NADARAJAN, KOH MUI FONG

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

HEADS OF STATE, MEMBERS OF PUBLIC AMONG MOURNERS

A stately and solemn farewell

About 2,200 guests were present at the University Cultural Centre for the State Funeral Service, including members of the late Mr Lees family,
President Tony Tan, Cabinet ministers, the judiciary and foreign leaders among them former United States President Bill Clinton,
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Some members of the public were also invited for the service,
during which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his brother Hsien Yang delivered eulogies, as did members of the Old Guard and Dr Tan.

Above: Prime
Minister Lee Hsien
Loong wiping
away tears during
the service.
Right: Mr Lee and
his wife Ho Ching
bowing to mourners
after the State
Funeral yesterday.
PHOTOS: THE STRAITS TIMES,
MINISTRY
OF COMMUNICATIONS
AND INFORMATION

38

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW State funeRal SeRvice

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong meditating at Parliament House in front of Mr Lee Kuan Yews casket before the start of the State Funeral. PHOTO: FACEBOOK

Ten eulogies were delivered at the State Funeral on Sunday, March 29. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
delivered the first of these, speaking in English, Malay and Mandarin. His remarks in English are reprinted below.

Lets pledge to continue

building this exceptional nation
LEE HSIEN LOONG

Prime Minister

his 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 KUAN YEWS

EARLY YEARS
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 had left an indelible mark
on him. He had been a British subject in colonial Singapore. He had sur-

vived hardship, danger and fear during 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 the
Federation of Malaysia. He worked tirelessly to bring about this 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 Singapores
fortunes.

BUILDING A NATION
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 been
expelled from Malaysia because we
were majority Chinese.
Instead, Mr Lee went for the nobler
dream of a multiracial, multi-religious
nation. Singapore would not be based
on race, language or religion, but on
fundamental values multiracialism,
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 Singapore Armed
Forces (SAF) from only two infantry
battalions and one little wooden ship
into a well-trained, well-equipped and
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 with the SAF, and went in on SAF
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

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

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 draft
speeches, to sound less unyielding to
human frailties. And often, he took
in their amendments, but would preserve his core message. As he said: I
always tried to be correct, 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 Hokkien. MediaCorp
has been broadcasting his speeches this
week, reminding us that his was the
original Singapore Roar: Passionate,
formidable and indomitable.
Above all, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was
a ighter. In crises, when all seemed
hopeless, he was ferocious, endlessly
resourceful, irm 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 ight when we were in Malaysia against the communalists, when his
own life was at risk; Separation, which
cast us out into a hazardous world; and
then the withdrawal of British military
forces from Singapore, which threatened the livelihoods of 150,000 people.
Because he never wavered, we did
not falter. Because he fought, we took
courage and fought with him, and prevailed. And thus, Mr Lee took Singapore from Third World to First.
In many countries, anticolonial
ighters and heroes would win independence and assume power, but then
fail fail at nation building because the
challenges of bringing a society together, growing an economy and patiently
improving peoples lives are very different from the challenges of ighting
for independence, mobilising crowds,
getting people excited and overthrowing a regime. But Mr Lee and his team
succeeded at nation building, together
with his team of ministers.
Just weeks after Separation, he
boldly declared: Ten 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 got
ixed. 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 this
efort a marathon with no inish line.
He enabled his economic team
Goh Keng Swee, Hon Sui Sen, Lim
Kim San to design and carry out
plans to attract investments, grow the
economy and create prosperity and
jobs. As he said: I settled the political
conditions so tough policies could
be executed.
However, Mr Lee was also 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 to house our people
Queenstown, Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio
to be followed by many more. We had
roofs over our heads and became a nation of homeowners. 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 whom
he served the people of Singapore.
When SARS struck in 2003, he worried about taxi drivers, whose livelihoods were afected because tourists
had dried up, and pressed us to ind
ways to help them.
Mr Lee also cared for the people
who served him. One evening, he rang
me up. Just a few years ago, one of my
mothers WSOs (woman security oicers) was having diiculty conceiving
a child and he wanted to help her. He
asked me whether I knew how to help
her adopt a child. He was concerned for
people not only in the abstract, but also
personally and individually.
Internationally, he raised Singapores standing in the world. Mr Lee
was not only a perceptive observer of
world afairs, but also a statesman who
articulated Singapores international

us to speak about Mr Lee later on.

Thank you, Mr Ong.
Mr Lee received many awards in his
long life, but wore them lightly. When
he 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 to
invite the accomplished musicians in
the orchestra to rise and receive the
ovation for the music they have produced. 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 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 conidence 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 Mr Lee
Kuan Yew I will always support him. I
was born in 1948 and I am 48 years old
(the year was 1996, there was some issue then). I know what he has done for
me and Singapore. She and her gen-

Because he never wavered, we did not falter. Because he fought, we

took courage and fought with him, and prevailed. And thus, Mr Lee took
Singapore from Third World to First.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

interests and enlarged our strategic

space. At crucial turning points, from
the British withdrawal East of Suez and
the Vietnam War to the rise of China,
his views and counsel inluenced thinking and decisions in many capitals.
In the process, he built up a wide
network of friends and acquaintances,
in and out of power. He knew every Chinese leader from Mao Zedong and every
United States 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, whom we are honoured to have
here 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.
And hence, despite being so small, Singapores voice is heard and we enjoy far
more inluence 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 a team that included 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 with

eration knew that ... if you follow Lee

Kuan Yew, you will survive.
LEAVING HIS MARK
ON SINGAPORE
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 the worn bits instead of
buying new ones. He imparted these
values to the Government.
Even when old and frail, on his 90th
birthday, when he came to Parliament
and MPs celebrated his birthday in
Parliament, he reminded them that
Singapore must remain clean and incorruptible, and that MPs and ministers had to set the example.
He pursued his 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. Thats all. Easy to say, very
few do it. And 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 then conventional wisdom that multinational corporations (MNCs) were rapacious and
exploitative, and he wooed foreign
investments from MNCs personally
to bring us advanced technology, to
bring us overseas markets and to create for us good 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
more than 30 years ago, 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 inancial
sector for many years, he eventually
decided to rethink and liberalise, but
to do so in a controlled way. And this
was how Singapores inancial centre
took of in a new wave of growth, to
become what it is today. He was always clear what strategy to follow, but
never so ixed to an old strategy as to
be blind to the need to change course
when the world changed.
Nothing exempliies this better
than water security, which was a lifelong obsession of his. He entrenched
the PUBs 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 to use. He cleaned
up the Singapore River and Kallang
Basin. He dreamed of the Marina Barrage long before it became feasible and
persevered for decades until, inally,
technology caught up and it became
feasible and it became a reality.
And he lived to see it become a reality. When PUB invented NEWater and
when desalination became viable, he
backed the new technologies enthusiastically. The result today is Singapore
has moved towards self-suiciency in
water, become a leader in water technologies and turned a vulnerability into
strength. So perhaps, it is appropriate
that today, for his State Funeral, the
heavens opened and cried for him.
Greening Singapore was another of
his passions. On his travels, when he
came across trees or plants that might
grow well here, he would collect saplings and seeds, and hand-carry them
home. He used the Istana grounds as
a nursery and would personally check
on the health of the trees. Not just in
general, but (also) individual, particular trees. If they had names, he would
know their names. He knew their
scientiic names. Singapores Prime
Minister was also the Chief Gardener
of the City in a Garden.
He had a relentless drive to improve
and continued to learn well into his 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 how
to save a ile, how to ind a document
that had vanished somewhere on his
hard drive. And if he could not ind
me, he would consult my wife.
He made a ceaseless efort to learn
Mandarin over decades. He listened to
tapes of his teacher, talking, conversing with him every day, in the morning
while shaving at home, in the evening
CONTINUED ON PAGE 40

40

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW State funeRal SeRvice

Lets pledge to
continue building
this exceptional nation
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 39

while exercising at Sri Temasek. He

kept up his Mandarin classes all his life.
Indeed, his last appointment on Feb 4
this year, before he was taken gravely
ill early the next morning, was with his
Mandarin tutor.
He inspired all of us to give our best.
And he was constantly thinking about
Singapore. At one National Day Rally
in 1988, he declared: 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. Indeed, even after he left
the Cabinet, occasionally, he would
still raise with me issues that he felt
strongly about.
During the Budget debate two years
ago MPs hotly debated the cost of
living, public transport and so many
other matters preoccupying Singaporeans. Mr Lee felt we had lost sight of
the fundamentals that underpinned our
survival. He emailed me, sending me a
draft speech. He told me he wanted to
speak in the Chamber to remind Singaporeans of these unchanging hard
truths what our survival depends
on. But I persuaded him to leave the
task to me and my ministers. And he
took my advice.
But his biggest worry was that
younger Singaporeans would lose the
instinct for what made Singapore tick.
And this was why he continued writing books into his 90s Bilingualism,
Hard Truths, One Mans View Of The
World and at least one more guided by
him, still in the process of being written, on the history of the PAP. 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
depend upon.
One of Mr Lees greatest legacies
was preparing Singapore to continue
beyond him. He believed that a leaders
toughest job was ensuring succession.
So he systematically identiied and
groomed a team of successors. He made
way for Mr Goh Chok Tong to become
Prime Minister after him, but stayed
on in Mr Gohs Cabinet to help the new
team succeed. He provided stability
and experience, and quietly helped
build up Mr Gohs authority.
He knew how to guide without being
obtrusive, to be watchful while letting
the new team develop its own style, its
authority. He described himself as a
mascot, but everyone knew how special this mascot was and how lucky we
were to have such a mascot.
It was likewise when I took over.
Mr Goh became Senior Minister and
Mr Lee became Minister Mentor, a
title he felt relected his new role Increasingly, he left policy issues to us,
but would share with us his reading of
world afairs and his advice on major
problems that he saw over the horizon.

Some other Prime Ministers told me

they couldnt 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 conidante 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 lifetime partner
who, as he said, had helped him 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 wasnt very demonstrative, much
less touchy feely. So, not new age, but
he loved us deeply.
After my irst wife Ming Yang
died, my parents suggested that I
try meditation. They gave me some
books to read I read the books, but
I didnt make much progress. I think
my father had tried meditation too,

him becoming legal adviser to so many

trade unions and was excited by the
hubbub in Oxley Road whenever elections happened, and our home became
the election oice.
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 that
he made to every corner of Singapore.
For him, it was back-breaking work,
week after week, every weekend, rallying the peoples support for a supremely
important decision about Singapores
future. For me, these were not just Sunday outings, but also an early political
education.
I remember election night in 1963,
the crucial General Election when the
PAP defeated the pro-communist Barisan Sosialis. My mother sent me to
bed early, but I lay awake in bed to
listen to the election results until the
PAP had won enough seats to form the
Government again. And then I think 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

We come together not only to mourn. We come together also to rejoice

in Mr Lee Kuan Yews long and full life, and what he has achieved with
us, his people in Singapore.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

also not too successfully. His teacher told me later that when he told
Mr Lee 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 ight the cancer. He found me a teacher and spoke
to him personally. With a good teacher
to guide me, I made better progress.
In his old age, after my mother died,
my father started meditating again and
this time with help from Ng Kok Song,
whom he knew from GIC. Kok Song
brought a friend to see my father. The
friend was a Benedictine monk who did
Christian meditation.
My father was not a Christian, but
was happy to learn from a Benedictine
monk and 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 the few months after the 2011
General Election. I was by then nearly
60 and he was by then 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 ceremonies began at Parliament House, we
had a few minutes. I sat by him and
meditated.
Of course, growing up as my fathers
son could not but mean being exposed
to politics very early. I remember as a
little boy, knowing that his constituency was Tanjong Pagar, I was proud of

slept on the loor in my parents bedroom

at Temasek House in Kuala Lumpur, because the house was full of ministers who
had come up from Singapore. And 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 was not asleep, and the date was
Aug 7, 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 Singapores independence. We all
wanted Mr Lee to be present with us on
Aug 9 to celebrate this milestone. More
than anybody else, it was he who fought
for multiracialism, which ultimately
led to our 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 lifes work come
to fruition. At last years National Day
Parade, when Mr Lee appeared and
waved, the crowd gave him the most
deafening cheer of the whole parade.
Last November, the Peoples Action
Party celebrated its diamond anniversary at Victoria Concert Hall, where Mr
Lee 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 Pauls Cathedral in London was
built by Sir Christopher Wren, the fa-

mous architect. He was the architect

of the cathedral and is buried in the
cathedral, which was his masterpiece.
There is a Latin epitaph on his grave,
and it reads: Si monumentum requiris,
circumspice. It means if you seek his
monument, look around you. Mr Lee
Kuan Yew built Singapore. To those
who seek Mr Lee Kuan Yews 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 Lees
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: We intend to see
that (Singapore) will be here a thousand years from now. And thats your
duty and mine. Mr Lee has done his
duty, and more. It remains our duty
to continue his lifes work, to carry
the torch forward and keep the lame
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 have
mourned him. Hundreds of thousands
queued patiently for hours, in the hot
sun and through the night, to pay respects to him at Parliament House.
I visited the queue at the Padang:
Many Singaporeans, not so few nonSingaporeans, who came out of deep
respect and a sense of compulsion,
that here was a man they wanted to
do honour to. Many more wrote heartfelt 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. And
later in this funeral service, all of us
in this hall, across our island and in
far-lung lands will observe a minute of silence, say the National Pledge
and sing Majulah Singapura together.
We have all lost a father. We grieve
as one people, one nation. But in our
grief, we have displayed the best of
Singapore. Ordinary people going to
great lengths to distribute refreshments and umbrellas to the crowd
and help one another in the queue late
into the night. Citizen soldiers, Home
Team, cleaners, all working tirelessly
around the clock. Our shared sorrow
has brought us all together and made
us stronger and more resolute.
We come together not only to mourn.
We come together also to rejoice in
Mr Lee Kuan Yews long and full life,
and what he has achieved with us, his
people in Singapore. We come together
to pledge ourselves to continue building
this exceptional country. Let us shape
this island nation into one of the great
cities in the world, relecting the ideals
he stood 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.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

PRIVATE SERVICE FOR FAMILY AND FRIENDS

Mandai, the final stop

Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yews casket made its final stop at Mandai Crematorium, where a private funeral service
was held before the cremation. The flag that was draped over his casket was folded and presented to his eldest child Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Eulogies were then delivered by two of the late Mr Lees grandsons, as well as his children Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang.

Above: Members of the public watching as the funeral cortege arrives at Mandai Crematorium. Below: The Singapore flag that was draped over the casket presented to Mr Lee. PHOTOS: THE STRAITS TIMES, WEE TECK HIAN

42

RemembeRing LEE KUAN YEW PRivate funeRal seRvice

Farewell, Papa
I will miss you
This is an excerpt of the eulogy
by Dr Lee Wei Ling at the
private service held at Mandai.

fter Mama died in October

2010, Papas health deteriorated rapidly. The past ive years
have been challenging. But as always,
Papa was determined to carry on as
normal as possible, as best as he could.
He developed Parkinsons disease
three years ago, which severely limited
his mobility. He had great diiculty
standing and walking. But he refused
to use a wheelchair or even a walking
stick. He would walk, aided by his security oicers (SOs).
Papa was also plagued by bouts of
hiccups that could only be controlled
by medication which had adverse side
efects. Over and above the frequent
hiccups, his ability to swallow both
solids and liquids was impaired, a not
uncommon problem in old age.
Papa searched the Internet and tried
a wide variety of unorthodox hiccup
therapies. For example, he once used
rabbit skin and then chicken feathers
to induce sneezing, so as to stop the
hiccups. Although the sneezing sometimes stopped his hiccups, it did not do
so consistently enough. Papa also tried
reducing his food intake, because he felt
that eating too much could precipitate
hiccups; hence, he lost a lot of weight,
and appeared thin and gaunt.
Papa was stubborn and determined.
He would insist on walking down the
steps at home, from the veranda to
the porch where the car was parked.
Ho Ching had a lift installed so Papa
need not negotiate those steps. But
when he was aware and alert, he refused the lift though it was a struggle
for him to walk down those steps even
with three SOs helping.
But the lift was not installed in vain.
On several occasions when he was ill
and needed to be admitted to Singapore General Hospital (SGH), he did
not protest when the SO guided him
into the lift. Still, even when ill, if he
was asked if he wanted to use the lift,
the answer would invariably be no.
The SOs were an integral part of
Papas life, even more so in the last
ive years. They looked after him with
tender loving care, way beyond the call
of duty. One doctor friend, who came
to help dress a wound Papa sustained
when he fell, noticed this and said to
me: The SOs look after your father as
though he is their own father.
Papa believed that goodwill goes
both ways. He was very considerate
towards his SOs. Once, while in Saudi
Arabia on an oicial trip, one SO came
down with chickenpox. The doctors decided that the SO should be isolated in
some hospital in Saudi Arabia for two

weeks. Pa thought that very unkind

to the SO and insisted that the SO return to Singapore together with the
rest of the delegation. He wasnt going
to leave any Singaporean behind, not
least an SO.
Sensing he was special, all the SOs
have been very kind to Papa. On behalf
of my family, I would like to thank all of
them. I know each of them well, even the
number of children they have. To me,
they were not only staf whose job was
to look after Papa, but also friends of
the family. They helped me pull out the
SIM card from my BlackBerry when it
hung; they were friends for me to share
food and goodies with whenever the
opportunity arose.
Soon after my father died, Yak called
to inform me. After being in my room
alone and unable to go back to sleep, I
went downstairs to the SOs room and
sat with the two SOs on duty, watching
black-and-white footage of Papa in his
younger days. I needed the company
of friends. Jun zi zhi jiao dan ru shui
there is a Chinese saying that the
relationship between two honourable
gentlemen is as understated as plain
water. That was the relationship between the SOs and me.
One occasion, while having lunch at
home, Papa choked on a piece of meat. It
went down his trachea and obstructed
his airlow. Fortunately, the SOs knew
what to do. Assistant Superintendent of
Police (ASP) Yak and Kelvin together
carried out the Heimlich manoeuvre

Mr Lee Kuan Yews

casket being put
in place before the
private service.
PHOTO: THE STRAITS TIMES

several times, but to no avail, because

Pas abdominal muscles were very tense.
Yak then called for help over his
walkie-talkie. Liang Chye was the only
senior SO downstairs, and, sensing
something strange in Yaks voice, he
came running up. They formed a human chain. Liang Chye, the shortest
and probably the strongest, was positioned behind Papa; the tallest, Yak, at
the furthest end of the human chain;
and Kelvin, the one of middle height,
between the two. They coordinated
their pull and after several attempts,
the piece of meat was inally ejected.
By this time, Papa had already turned
purple. But within seconds of the meat
being dislodged, he was mentally alert.
I would like to give special thanks to
Liang Chye and Kelvin, and especially
ASP Yak, whose presence of mind saved
Papas life. To all the SOs who have
served Papa over the years, I thank
you on behalf of my family.
I would also like to thank all the
nurses, doctors and specialists who
have looked after Papa over the years,
especially those who were involved
in the last ive years of his life, when
his medical problems multiplied and
became more complicated. At a ripe
old age of 91, he had multiple medical
problems and many specialists, so the
list of people to thank is a very long
one. I am grateful to each and every
one of them for all the care they have
provided to Papa.
When Pa was not well at home, I was
the irst line of defence. I would handle
on my own what I could at home. At
other times, though, I had to call the
relevant specialists outside of oice
hours when Papa had a medical emergency. Since the most common emergency was pneumonia, one particular
doctor was called most frequently. He
doesnt wish to be named, so Ill call him
Dr X. After several calls, I learnt that
Dr X would be up by 5.45am to send
his children to school. One morning at
5am, I had to call him. I apologised for
waking him up and asked him to tell his
registrar on duty at SGH what to do,
adding: You dont need to rush in to
see Pa. You can see him after you have
sent your children to school. Dr X replied: Today is Sunday. But even on
Sundays, he made his rounds at SGH.
During his last illness, Pa had to be
cared for in the Medical Intensive Care
Unit of the Singapore General Hospital. This was a very diicult time for
Papa, the medical staf, as well as for
the family. The MICU staf were diligent and meticulous in their care, and
no efort was spared to help Papa and
tend to his every need. The doctors had
meetings twice a day to discuss how to
proceed, including on weekends and
Chinese New Year.
Again, I thank all the doctors involved in this last ight. That includes
not only the respiratory specialist who
ran the ICU, who played the most important role, but also Dr X, who decided on what antibiotics to use, and the
cardiologists, and others who advised
on how to maintain nutrition whilst
Pa was sedated and intubated on the
respirator. Thank you all doctors,

nurses and physiotherapists who

have helped Papa be as comfortable as
possible in his inal days. My family is
extremely grateful to all of you.
I also want to thank the Prime Ministers Oice staf who kept the oice
running smoothly in Papas absence.
Thank you all for being with Papa and
for helping to ease his sufering in the
last ive years of his life. Thank you for
being here with us today, to bid farewell to Papa.
My brothers have said much about
Papa. I just want to focus on one point:
What have I learnt from Pa? What is
the biggest lesson he taught me?
The inluence parents have on children depends on many things. To a certain degree, it depends upon the temperament of the parent and the child.
Temperamentally, I am very similar
to Papa. So similar that in a given situation, I can predict how he would feel and
respond. For example, the SOs would
look on with some amusement at the
way Pa struggled to complete his 12 minutes on the treadmill, even on days that
he was tired. He may rest in between
bouts on the treadmill, but he was always determined to hit 12 minutes. The
SOs were amused because they knew
I was equally fanatical about exercise.
Today, I have run up and down my 20m
corridor 800 times, making it to 16km.
Once, about 15 years ago, my father
told me: Mama and I should be very
happy that you remain single and hence
will be able to look after us in our old
age. But you will be lonely. Also, you
have inherited my traits, but in such
an exaggerated way that they are a
disadvantage to you.
Papa, I know you would have preferred if I had married and had children. But I have no regrets, no regrets
I was able to look after you and Mama
in your old age.
What is the most important lesson
I have learnt from Papa? It is never to
push around anyone simply because he
or she is weaker than me or in a socially
inferior position. And never to let anyone
bully someone else if I am in a position
to stop such bullying. If I saw someone
being bullied unfairly by his superior,
I should have no hesitation to come to
the rescue of the victim. Since I am by
nature pugnacious like my father and I
enjoy a ight so long as it is for a just and
good cause, I learnt these lessons readily.
We have seen an astonishing outpouring of emotion on the passing of
my father this week. There are many
reasons people feel this way about Papa.
But I think one reason is that they know
Papa was a ighter who would always
ight for them no matter what the odds
were. They know that he was ready to
ight for them till his last breath.
This morning, I noticed that the
maid, in setting the dining table, had
moved away Papas chair and placed
it against the wall. It was a poignant
reminder that this farewell is forever.
I have been controlling my feelings for
this past week, but looking at this unexpected scene, I nearly broke down. But I
cant break down, I am a Hakka woman.
Farewell, Papa. I will miss you. Rest
in peace.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Your work is done, your rest is richly deserved

This is the full eulogy of
Lee Hsien Yang at the private
service held at Mandai.
apa was born in 1923 when
Singapore was part of the British Empire, the Straits Settlements lag luttered over Government
House, and the people of Singapore
sang God Save the King. He was given
the name Harry at birth.
But he soon grew to feel that it did
not it him and the fact that he was a
son of Singapore. When Papa was 10,
his youngest brother Suan Yew was
born. Papa persuaded his parents that it
was not a good thing to give Suan Yew
a Western name. Decades later, when
Papa entered politics, he also found his
name Harry a political liability. In truth,
two decades before, he had already felt
it was not right for him.
When Loong, Ling and I were born,
Papa gave us only Chinese names, and
used the Wade Giles romanisation system to spell the names. As Papa was
from a Peranakan household, he sought
the help from the court interpreter
Mr Wong Chong Min in the choice of
names. Two years ago, Loong while
walking around Queenstown met the
son of Mr Wong the man who had
named the three of us.
The names parents choose for their
children embody the hopes, aspirations
and dreams they have for them. Chinese
names in particular, with their many
possible wonderful layers of meaning,
allegory and poetry, lend themselves
well to this.
For their eldest son, Papa and Mama
chose the name (Hsien Loong). It
meant illustrious dragon. It was an
appropriate and auspicious name for
a boy, especially one born in the Year
of the Dragon.
For my sister, they chose the name
(Wei Ling), which means the
beautiful sound of tinkling jade. I suppose Mama thought that that was an
appropriate and feminine name for a
daughter, although I dont think it in any
way circumscribes Lings development!
For me, they chose the name
(Hsien Yang). Some people think that
since Im named Yang, I was born in the
Year of the Goat, which is not the case.
Instead, my name had more literary
origins, and was derived from a quote
from the three letter classics ().
Mama used to tease me when I was
young that my name meant illustrious
show-of. In fact, the phrase it was derived from means to
do good deeds, in order to bring honour
to ones parents.
I am sure many Singaporeans travelling abroad have received compliments on Singapore and its transformation over the last 50 years. Usually the
conversation would quickly acknowledge the role of Lee Kuan Yew.
I would not acknowledge my relationship I would just nod and say,
yes, its been a remarkable journey.

Mr Lee Hsien Yang delivering a eulogy for his father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, at Mandai Crematorium. PHOTO: THE STRAITS TIMES

I have suggested to them (my children) should they

be asked whether they might be related to Lee Kuan
Yew, that a good answer was to say their name was
spelt Li, not Lee ... This response which I suggested
was not meant to mislead and obfuscate; it is born
out of a desire to be recognised for who we are as individuals and not
for whom we are related to. We are immensely proud of Papa and his
achievements, and yet perhaps it is part of our DNA to seek our own
way in life. I am sure that Papa would not have wanted it otherwise.
Unsolicited compliments like this are
the most authentic and heartfelt.
Keeping private my family connection only served to enhance the pleasure. Sadly, as I developed a more visible
public proile, it has become harder not
to be recognised as Lee Kuan Yews son.
I have taught my children never to
mention or launt their relationship
with their grandfather, that they needed to make their way in the world on
their own merits and industry. I have
suggested to them should they be asked

whether they might be related to Lee

Kuan Yew, that a good answer was to
say their name was spelt Li, not Lee.
Li is one of the most common Chinese
surnames in the world.
This response which I suggested
was not meant to mislead and obfuscate; it is born out of a desire to be recognised for who we are as individuals
and not for whom we are related to.
We are immensely proud of Papa and
his achievements, and yet perhaps it is
part of our DNA to seek our own way

in life. I am sure that Papa would not

have wanted it otherwise.
Papa, thank you for a lifetime of
service to the people of Singapore. You
made this little red dot the nation all of
us are proud to call home.
Papa, thank you for being a wonderful
husband and companion to Mama. For
loving her completely and caring for her
illness and during your lives together.
Papa, thank you for being my own
special father. Always there to guide,
counsel and advise me, every step of
the way, but also prepared to step back
and to let me ind my own wings and
make my own way.
Papa, thank you for loving my wife,
and my children, Shengwu, Huanwu
and Shaowu. You have been a loving
grandfather to each of them, sharing
small pleasures, enjoying their companionship.
Papa, it is hard to say goodbye. Your
work is done and your rest is richly deserved. In our own diferent and diverse
ways, my family and I will continue to
honour you and your memory in all
that we do.

TODAYONLINE.COM

WE SET YOU THINKING

MONDAY, 23 MARCH 2015

SPECIAL EDITION MCI (P) 088/09/2014

19232015

Lee Kuan Yew

Architect of
modern Singapore
As for me, I have done what
I had wanted to do, to the best
of my ability. I am satisfied.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew addressing a crowd on National Day, June 3, 1962. National Day was then celebrated on June 3 to mark the day in 1959 when Singapore attained self-government. Photo: AP

We wont see another like him

A nation, led by PM Lee Hsien
Loong, mourns the first of
our founding fathers is no more
CArl SkAdiAn, Deputy Editor, and
loh Chee kong, Associate Editor

r Lee Kuan Yew, Singapores

visionary founding Prime
Minister and architect of
the countrys rise from a ledgling island nation expelled from Malaysia
to one envied worldwide for its rapid
economic progress, far-sighted political leadership and all-round eiciency,
died this morning.
He was 91.
Mr Lees death came a few months
shy of the 50th anniversary of the Republics independence on Aug 9.
In a brief statement announcing
his death, the Prime Ministers Oice
(PMO) said Mr Lee, whose health had
been deteriorating over the past two
years, died peacefully at the Singapore
General Hospital at 3.18 this morning.

The Prime Minister is deeply grieved

to announce the passing of Mr Lee
Kuan Yew, the founding Prime Minister
of Singapore, PMO said in statement
issued just past 4am.
At about 6.20am, the Cabinet also
issued a statement: We will always
remember his sound guidance, his constant questioning, and his fatherly care
for Singapore and for all of us. Let us
dedicate ourselves to Singapore and
Singaporeans, in the way that Mr Lee
showed us.
Mr Lees last public appearance was
on Nov 7 last year, at the 60th anniversary celebrations of the Peoples Action
Partys (PAP) which he founded in
1954 held at Victoria Memorial Hall.
PAP chairman Khaw Boon Wan
said in a statement that Mr Lee had
devoted his whole life to Singapore. Mr
Khaw said: Millions of Singaporeans
have improved their lives because of his
dedication and sacriice. As we mourn
his passing, lets also re-dedicate ourselves to building on his legacy, for the
Party and for Singapore.

Mr Lee had been warded at SGH

since Feb 5 after coming down with
severe pneumonia. Despite a later
statement that his condition had improved, he never recovered. His condition worsened progressively last week,
statements from the PMO said, and a
inal update on his deterioration which
arrived on Sunday afternoon said his
condition had weakened further. At
4:05am today, the announcement that
Singapore had been bracing itself for
and dreading for more than a month
was made.
The Republic now enters a sevenday period of national mourning - from
today to Sunday - for its founding leader,
a man who inspired awe and was regarded as an intimidating presence at
the start of his tenure as Prime Minister in 1959, but who later became synonymous with Singapores success and
was widely viewed with respect and
admiration even if it was grudging
in some quarters.
As a mark of respect to Mr Lee, State
lags on all Government buildings will

be lown at half-mast during the week

of mourning.
A private family wake will be held
today and tomorrow at Sri Temasek
the Prime Ministers oicial residence
on the Istana grounds. From today to
Sunday, condolence books and cards
will be placed at the Istanas main gate
for the public to pen their tributes to
Mr Lee. Condolence books will also be
opened at all overseas missions.
Mr Lees body will lie in state at
Parliament House from Wednesday to
Saturday, for the public to pay their respects. A State Funeral Service will be
held at 2 pm on Sunday at the National
University of Singapores University
Cultural Centre.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,
the eldest of Mr Lee Kuan Yews three
children, addressed the nation this
morning via live television.
With his voice choking with emotion
at times, he spoke in English, Mandarin
and Malay. In his English speech, he
said: The irst of our founding fathers
Continued on PAge 46

46

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Continued froM Page 45

is no more. He inspired us, gave us courage, kept us together, and brought us

here. He fought for our independence,
built a nation where there was none, and
made us proud to be Singaporeans. We
wont see another like him.
He added: I am grieved beyond
words at the passing of Mr Lee Kuan
Yew. I know that we all feel the same
way. But even as we mourn his passing, let us also honour his spirit. Let
us dedicate ourselves as one people to
build on his foundations, strive for his
ideals, and keep Singapore exceptional
and successful for many years to come.
May Mr Lee Kuan Yew rest in peace.
Across a grieving nation, which had
been bracing itself for bad news since
it was announced a little more than
a month ago that Mr Lee had been
warded and subsequently put on a
mechanical ventilator, grief gave way
slowly to tributes for a man regarded
as a modern-day titan, not just in Singapore, but in much of the world.
On the Internet, where his legacy
was a more divisive subject than it was
elsewhere, an unprecedented outpouring of condolence messages ensued,
even though the news broke in the wee
hours. Tributes from the public and political leaders began streaming in soon
after PMOs announcement.
Said Emeritus Senior Minister Goh
Chok Tong, who succeeded Mr Lee as
Prime Minister in 1990, on Facebook:
My tears welled up as I received the sad
news. Mr Lee Kuan Yew has completed
his lifes journey. But it was a journey
devoted to the making of Singapore.
He has bequeathed a monumental legacy to Singaporeans a safe,
secure, harmonious and prosperous
independent Singapore, our Homeland.
He was a selless leader. He shared his

experience, knowledge, ideas and life

with us. He was my leader, mentor, inspiration, the man I looked up to most.
He made me a proud Singaporean.
Now he is gone. I mourn but he lives
on in my heart. On behalf of Marine
Parade residents, I ofer our profound
condolences to PM Lee Hsien Loong
and his family.
President Tony Tan said: Mary and
I are deeply saddened by the passing of
Mr Lee Kuan Yew. We extend our deepest condolences to his children Mr Lee
Hsien Loong, Ms Lee Wei Ling and Mr
Lee Hsien Yang, and their families.
In his three-page condolence letter
to the Prime Minister, Dr Tan paid tribute to Mr Lees achievements, such as
how he rallied Singaporeans together
after forced separation from Malaysia
in 1965. Many doubted if Singapore
could have survived as a nation but
Mr Lee rallied our people together and
led his cabinet colleagues to successfully build up our armed forces, develop our infrastructure and transform
Singapore into a global metropolis,
Dr Tan wrote.
Condolences from world leaders also
streamed in, with Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott and New Zealand
Prime Minister John Key among the
irst to pay tribute to Mr Lee.
United States President Barack
Obama said he was deeply saddened
to learn of Mr Lees death. Ofering his
condolences on behalf of the American
people, Mr Obama described Mr Lee
as a remarkable man and a true giant
of history who will be remembered for
generations to come as the father of
modern Singapore and as one the great
strategists of Asian afairs.
Mr Obama said his discussions with
Mr Lee during his trip to Singapore in
2009 were hugely important in help-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew,

then SecretaryGeneral of the
Peoples Action
Party, speaking at
a rally for the
Singapore general
election at
Fullerton
Square in 1972.
Photo: Ministry of
inforMation and the
arts ColleCtion,
Courtesy of national
arChives of singaPore

ing him to formulate the US policy of

rebalancing to the Asia Paciic. (Mr
Lees) views and insights on Asian dynamics and economic management
were respected by many around the
world, and no small number of this and
past generations of world leaders have
sought his advice on governance and
development, he added.
Obituaries also appeared on the
websites of international media, including The New York Times, The Financial
Times, The Economist, the BBC and
the South China Morning Post.
The outpouring of grief relected
the stature of a man who led a team of
able and equally visionary leaders and
oversaw Singapores rise by formulating policies aimed at overcoming the
myriad challenges faced by a tiny nation set amid what he described at the
outset as a volatile region.
His ideas spanned the gamut, from
Singapores place in the larger world,
the defence of an island just 50km
across, housing, education and economic policies, to the seemingly mundane, but which he explained were
equally critical; these ranged from
the orderly rows of trees seen across
the island, for example, to the 1970s
relegation of males with long hair to
the back of queues to blunt the appeal
of Western hippie subculture, which
was deemed unhealthy for the countrys development.
At every turn along the way, and
even after he stepped down from his
last post in Cabinet following the May
2011 General Election, Mr Lee ceaselessly reminded Singaporeans of his
prescription for the countrys success
or lit into its ills with his signature
blend of a politicians oratory, a courtroom lawyers ability to wield a rapier
to opposing arguments and a knack for

persuasion. The merits of his arguments

were always discussed, sometimes debated, but the astute observer always
arrived at the same conclusion that
Mr Lee never stopped thinking about
the challenges facing this country.
As he put it himself memorably:
Even from my sick bed, even if you
are going to lower me into the grave
and I feel something is going wrong,
I will get up.
His visionary leadership drew praise
from all over the world, and the success
of Singapore gave it a relevance and
weight in global afairs that few small
states ever achieve. Former US President Bill Clinton, for example, called
him one of the wisest, most knowledgeable, most efective leader in any
part of the world for the last 50 years.
Other world leaders were similarly
efusive in their praise, and many, including heavyweights such as Chinas
Deng Xiaoping and Britains Margaret
Thatcher, eagerly sought his views as
they themselves sought to transform
their countries.
To be sure, Mr Lee had his share
of detractors. He went after what he
deemed political duds with a vengeance, resorting sometimes to surprisingly sharp language: He once described how he carried a igurative
hatchet in his bag, a weapon he would
use against troublemakers.
His use of lawsuits against political
opponents and Western media outlets
which were accused of meddling in
Singapore politics drew much criticism, as did his iron grip on the local
press he insisted at the outset that
there was no Fourth Estate role for
it, and that its business was as a nationbuilding entity.
Mr Lee also waded into areas citizens deemed private, such as his ventures into social engineering via the
Graduate Mothers Scheme or the
Speak Mandarin And Not Dialects
campaign, and drew lak as a result.
Policies such as the banning of chewing gum, meanwhile, drew a mix of
criticism and ridicule internationally.
He remained unapologetic, however,
insisting that whatever he did was in the
better interests of Singapore. He stood
by his belief, which he explained starkly
in an interview published by National
Geographic magazine in 2010, that to be
a leader, one must understand human
nature. I have always thought that humanity was animal-like. The Confucian
theory was man could be improved,
but Im not sure he can be. He can be
trained, he can be disciplined.
It was a theme he touched on several
times, including as early as 1987, when
he shrugged of criticism of meddling
thus: I am often accused of interfering
in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I
did not, had I not done that, we wouldnt
be here today. And I say without the
slightest remorse, that we wouldnt be
here, we would not have made economic
progress, if we had not intervened on
very personal matters who your
neighbour 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.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

EARLY YEARS
Mr Lee Kuan Yew was born on Sept 16,
1923, the eldest child of Mr Lee Chin
Koon and Madam Chua Jim Neo. The
relatively prosperous family included
three brothers, Dennis and Freddy Lee,
Lee Suan Yew, and a sister, Monica.
A natural at school, he topped the
standings for the national Senior Cambridge exams among students in British
Malaya, which included Singapore, and
went on to Rales Institution, but World
War II interrupted his progress. After
the war, armed with sterling grades, he
went to London and earned a law degree from Cambridge. The war years
and his time in London stirred a political awakening in the young Mr Lee.
Upon his return in 1950, Mr Lee and
his wife the love of his life and the
woman he once described as smarter
than he, Madam Kwa Geok Choo set
up the law irm of Lee & Lee. His law
career was short-lived, however, and
after a few years, he turned his gaze
towards politics.
A brief but necessary retelling of
this period, shorn of much of the complexity of those times, saw him set up
the Peoples Action Party and lobby
successfully for self-government
from the British and enter into merger
with Malaya. It was what he irmly believed was necessary for the survival of
a tiny island with no natural resources
to speak of.
The merger ultimately collapsed,
undone by sharp diferences in political and economic policies between
the ruling parties on both sides, which
boiled over into racial unrest between
the Chinese and Malays.
On the morning of Aug 9, 1965, Singapore was expelled from the Federation. Hours later, at a press conference,
a visibly emotional Mr Lee explained
why he had believed for the whole
of my adult life that merger was the
right move, but that separation was
now inevitable, and called for calm. It
was during this press conference that
the indelible image of him with tears in
his eyes came to be. It was a powerful
testament to the anguish that separation wrought in him.
For a nation suddenly cut adrift,
uncertain of what the future would
bring or, indeed, if there was one
his vow that there would be a place
for all in Singapore managed to bring
a measure of solace, and some steel, to
the occasion.
THE ARCHITECT OF
MODERN SINGAPORE
From the beginning, he and his team
set out to remake Singapore in every
sense of the word. The larger details
of how they set about to do it and the
results they achieved have been the
subject of efusive praise, academic
tomes, and much more besides.
From rehousing a squatter population in Housing Board lats with modern
amenities, to conjuring up the defence
of Singapore from practically nothing,
to formulating an economic policy that
took a ledgling nation to borrow the

title of his book From Third World to

First, Mr Lee had a leading hand in all.
There were numerous other decisions he took that have been the subject
of much less publicity, but which have
had signiicant claim to the success
Singap ore has enjoyed. The policy to
adopt English as the lingua franca for
Singapore, the approach to foreign
policy, and even the decision to site
the airport in Changi instead of redeveloping the old Paya Lebar site, are
among them.
Essentially, as recounted in the
book, Lee Kuan Yew: The Man And
His Ideas, the prescription for the transformation of the nation boiled down to
three elements: his view of the problem,
his analysis of how it could be solved,
and his assessment of Singapore society and what was needed for it to grow.
In an interview with American journalist Fareed Zakaria published in
1994, Mr Lee described the route he
and his team took to remake Singapore. We have focused on basics in
Singapore. We used the family to push
economic growth, factoring the ambitions of a person and his family into our
planning. We have tried, for example,
to improve the lot of children through
education, he said.
The government can create a setting in which people can live happily
and succeed and express themselves,
but inally it is what people do with their
lives that determines economic success
or failure. Again, we were fortunate we
had this cultural backdrop, the belief
in thrift, hard work, ilial piety and loyalty in the extended family, and, most
of all, the respect for scholarship and
learning.
He added: There is, of course, another reason for our success. We have
been able to create economic growth
because we facilitated certain changes
while we moved from an agricultural
society to an industrial society. We had
the advantage of knowing what the end
result should be by looking at the West
and later, Japan. We knew where we
were, and we knew where we had to go.
We said to ourselves, Lets hasten, lets
see if we can get there faster.
As Singapores success rounded into
view, Mr Lee was often praised for his
farsightedness. Less well-known, but
just as important, was his obsession
with detail, which ranged from how buttons should work down to the state of
cleanliness of the toilets at the airport.
His prescriptions for excellence
across all areas rapidly iltered down
to the citizenry and, together with what
has come to be known as the Pioneer
Generation, Mr Lee and his team delivered success to Singapore in such meteoric fashion that the term miracle
has routinely been used to describe the
transformation of the country without a trace of hyperbole.
Even while he was leading this transformation, however, Mr Lee had his eye
on the future, speciically, an orderly
and smooth transfer of power; it was
something he viewed as critical to Singapores future success, and which was
practically unheard of in the region and
much of the developing world.

Singapore was
never meant
to be sovereign
on its own.
To survive,
we had to
be diferent,
indeed
exceptional.

His intentions were telegraphed early, and moves were put in place after the
1984 General Elections. Much discussion of a handover ensued, and by the
time Mr Goh Chok Tong was sworn in
as Singapores second Prime Minister
on Nov 28, 1990, the momentous event
was viewed as routine.
Mr Lee was then appointed Senior
Minister in Mr Gohs Cabinet, a role
akin to that of sage, and one which afforded him the opportunity to give his
thoughts and advice on the issues confronting Singapore, though, by his own
admission, he was keen to let the second-generation leadership run things
and make the key decisions.
His views were also sought on matters beyond Singapore. Many leaders
around the world, as well as leading
media commentators, considered him
an oracle of sorts on geopolitics, one to
be tapped for his wellspring of insights
into global afairs.
Much of what he thought of the
world was shaped by experience, and
he was viewed, irst and foremost, as
a pragmatist whose irm ideas of what
would work and what would not were
uncoloured by theories. In an interview
with American journalist Tom Plate,
he said: I am not great on philosophy
and theories. I am interested in them,
but my life is not guided by philosophy
or theories. I get things done and leave
others to extract the principles from
my successful solutions. I do not work
on a theory.
Instead I ask: what will make this
work? So Plato, Aristotle, Socrates
I am not guided by them. I read them
cursorily because I was not interested
in philosophy as such. You may call me
a utilitarian or whatever. I am interested in what works.
With the template for the transfer
of power in Singapore set, the nation
underwent a similar process on Aug 12,
2004, when Mr Lee Hsien Loong was
sworn in as the countrys third Prime
Minister. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was subsequently appointed Minister Mentor
in his sons Cabinet, while Mr Goh assumed the mantle of Senior Minister.
In his speech at the swearing-in ceremony of the younger Mr Lee, President S.R. Nathan neatly encapsulated
the factors that led to Singapores success, while also tracing the arc of Mr
Lee Kuan Yews inluence on the island
republic, its unlikely beginnings, and
its future path.
This is only the second political
changeover in nearly 40 years of our independence. Just as Mr Lee Kuan Yew
did, Mr Goh is stepping aside to make
way for a younger man when the country is in good working order, he said.
Political self-renewal is essential if
the leadership is to refresh and remake
itself, stay relevant to the changing
political, economic and social environment and connect with a younger
generation. An orderly and planned
self-renewal process is being built into
our political system. This is unique to
Singapore and has served us well. It is
the best way to ensure that Singapore
maintains a consistent course, and
continues to progress and prosper with

each generation.
Mr Nathan added: The political
changeover also marks a generational change. Mr Lee Kuan Yew led the
founding generation who fought for
independence and made Singapore
succeed. The second generation, under Mr Goh, had the less obvious but
equally challenging task of building a
nation and rallying the people, when
times were getting better and life more
comfortable. Mr Lee Hsien Loong
now leads the post-independence generation, who have grown up amidst
peace, comfort and growing prosperity.
Mr Lee and his government must engage the young on external and domestic issues which afect their future, update policies to relect the aspirations of
a younger generation of Singaporeans
and adapt their style to stay in tune
with the times.
Singapore was never meant to be
sovereign on its own. To survive, we
had to be diferent, indeed exceptional.
We progressed and thrived because
we built strong institutions founded on
sound values integrity, meritocracy,
equality of opportunities, compassion
and mutual respect between Singaporeans of diferent ethnic, religious and
social backgrounds. The government,
judiciary, civil service, unions, schools
and the media have promoted the interests of the common people. The public,
private and people sectors have built
a national consensus on what the challenges are and how we can overcome
them. The people and government are
united.
He continued: These are valuable
strengths and intangible assets critical
to Singapores long-term survival and
continued success. We must do all we
can to preserve them.
As Minister Mentor, Mr Lees preoccupation with Singapores well-being
continued. When he spoke in public, it
was usually to remind Singaporeans
of what worked for the country, and
why it was necessary to do so. At his
last appearance at his Tanjong Pagar
wards National Day dinner on Aug 16,
2013, for example, he ofered his views
on one of his pet topics bilingualism.
Speaking before a crowd clearly enthralled that he had turned up despite
feeling unwell, he said: Education is
the most important factor for our next
generations success. In Singapore, our
bilingualism policy makes learning dificult unless you start learning both
languages, English and the mother
tongue, from an early age the earlier the better.
During his years as Minister Mentor, actors on the global stage continued
to seek his views; he was a frequent
guest on forums that included worldwide business leaders and appeared
every now and then in the pages of
leading publications.
As a measure of the stature he continued to enjoy, the high-powered board
of French oil giant, Total, held its meeting in Singapore, instead of Paris, for
the irst time. During the meeting, Mr
Lee announced that he, after 19 years
on the board, intended to step down.
Continued on page 48

48

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

n behalf of the people of

Singapore, I would like to
convey my most heartfelt
condolences to you and your family
on the passing of your dear father,
Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Mr Lee dedicated his entire life to
Singapore from his irst position as a
legal adviser to the labour unions in the
1950s after his graduation from Cambridge University to his undisputed role
as the architect of our modern Republic. Few have demonstrated such complete commitment to a cause greater
than themselves.
Mr Lee was elected into the British Legislative Assembly in 1955 and
became Singapores irst Prime Minister after leading the PAP to victory
in the 1959 general election when Singapore was granted full internal selfgovernment. At that time, Singapore
faced problems of high unemployment,
poor infrastructure and a hostile external environment. To secure Singapores access to land, water and natural resources, Mr Lee led Singapore to
join the Federation of Malaysia before
declaring independence from Britain
in 1963. However, the problems were
exacerbated when Singapore lost its
economic hinterland after our forced
separation from Malaysia in 1965. Many
doubted if Singapore could survive as
a nation, but Mr Lee rallied our people together and led his Cabinet colleagues to successfully build up our
armed forces, develop our infrastructure and transform Singapore into a
global metropolis.
Even when Singapores urban development was still in its early phases, Mr
Lee already had the vision of establishing Singapore as a liveable Garden City.
Mr Lee initiated the ambitious project

President Tony Tans

condolence letter to
PM Lee Hsien Loong
to clean up the Singapore River and
Kallang River which were then heavily
polluted by garbage, sewage and industrial waste. The Singapore River now
forms part of the Marina Bay, which is
not only a valuable source of fresh water
for our city state, but also a place which
is enjoyed by Singaporeans and tourists
from around the world. Mr Lee also set
up the Housing Development Board to
develop our public housing estates to
give every citizen a stake in the nation.
Today, because of Mr Lees farsightedness, Singapore is hailed as a model of
sustainable and inclusive development
for developing cities around the world.
Mr Lee made lasting contributions
towards the building of a meritocratic
and multicultural Singapore. As Singapores irst Prime Minister, Mr Lee
put in place measures to ensure that
university places, government contracts, and appointments into public
oice would go to the most deserving
candidates based on merit and regardless of race and religion. Mr Lee also
established English as the common
working language and the main medium of instruction in our schools so
that all Singaporeans would have equal
opportunities to learn, communicate
and work regardless of race. Each ethnic group was encouraged to learn its

Our thoughts are with you, wrote President Tan.

mother tongue as a second language to

preserve the cultural and community
identity of the group. Because of these
policies, Singaporeans today are able
to leverage on our bilingual and bicultural edge to take advantage of the
opportunities that present themselves
around the world.
A leader who placed service before

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 47

Total chairman Christophe de Margerie would have none of it, however,

and declared: I refuse his dismissal,
your resignation. If you dont mind, you
will stay as a member of our advisory
board, which means you can come
whenever you wish. It will be always
our pleasure.
Despite his advancing age and differing role in government, one thing
did not change: His commitment to
Singapore and his determination to
see to it that everything, no matter
how trivial it seemed, worked the way
it should.
The keen observer would have spotted him in the unlikeliest of places.
Here, being regaled by Formula 1
boss Bernie Ecclestone as the travelling motor circus staged its irst night
race beneath the twinkling lights of
Marina Bay. There, riding a golf cart
through the soon-to-be-opened Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort
and being briefed on its attractions
and workings.
He also continued to worry about the
way younger Singaporeans would view
the challenges facing the country, and
tried to drive the lessons he had learnt
to them through his books.
The watershed general election of

Mr Lee Kuan Yew speaking to a student during a visit to Raffles Girls Primary School. Mr Lee believed that
education is the most important factor for the next generations success. PHOTO: DON WONG

May 2011, beyond being historic in

sending more opposition politicians to
Parliament than ever before with the
irst loss of a Group Representation
Constituency (GRC), also led to the

end of Mr Lees decades in the Singapore Cabinet.

On May 14 that year, barely a week
after the elections, Mr Lee and Mr Goh
jointly resigned from Cabinet, and ex-

self-interest, Mr Lee stepped down as

Prime Minister in 1990 to allow for a
smooth leadership renewal after he
had built up a younger team of Cabinet
ministers. Nevertheless, he continued
to serve and advance Singapores interests at home and abroad as Singapores
Senior Minister from 1990 to 2004 and
then as Minister Mentor from 2004 to
2011. He had spent more than 50 years
in the Cabinet and was the worlds
longest-serving Prime Minister when
he stepped down in 1990.
Through Mr Lee, Singapore earned
international recognition and established cooperative relations with major
countries afecting our region. Mr Lee
was one of the irst to recognize Chinas
potential under Deng Xiaopings reforms. Mr Lees brilliant intellect and
candour of opinion led many international leaders and foreign diplomats to
seek his views on developments in the
region and around the world. Widely revered as a senior statesman, Mr Lee was
conferred numerous international accolades throughout his political career.
Many aspects of our lives bear
Mr Lees imprint be it our HDB
estates, our gardens, or the SAF.
Without his remarkable foresight and
relentless pursuit of Singapores development, the Singapore that we know
today would not exist. Singapore was
his passion and he continued serving
Singapore till the last days of his life.
Singaporeans owe an eternal gratitude
to Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The greatest tribute that Singaporeans can pay him is to
treasure and build upon the legacy that
Mr Lee and his team have left us, and
make Singapore an even better home
for our future generations.
Our thoughts are with you at this
time of sorrow.
plained in a letter that they felt the
time has come for a younger generation to carry Singapore forward in a
more diicult and complex situation.
The letter added: After a watershed general election, we have decided to leave the Cabinet and have a
completely younger team of ministers
to connect to and engage with this
young generation.
Mr Lee continued to remain in politics after this; he held on to his oice
as Member of Parliament for Tanjong
Pagar GRC, but while he remained
active behind the scenes, recurring
bouts of ill-health took their toll, and
he gradually receded from view, if not
in inluence, and made fewer and fewer
appearances in public.
On Feb 5 this year, he was warded
in hospital with severe pneumonia, but
it was only two weeks later, on Feb 21,
that Singaporeans learnt of the severity of his illness, when a statement from
the Prime Ministers Oice announced
that he was in the Intensive Care Unit
of the Singapore General Hospital and
was on mechanical ventilation. Despite
a later statement that his condition had
improved, he never recovered.
Mr Lee leaves behind his sons Hsien
Loong and Hsien Yang, and a daughter,
Wei Ling, as well as seven grandchildren.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

I am grieved beyond
words: PM in live address
I

am deeply saddened to tell you

that Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed
away peacefully this morning
at the Singapore General Hospital ...
The irst of our founding fathers is
no more. He inspired us, gave us courage, kept us together, and brought us
here. He fought for our independence,
built a nation where there was none,
and made us proud to be Singaporeans. We wont see another like him.
To many Singaporeans, and indeed
others too, Lee Kuan Yew was Singapore. As Prime Minister, he pushed
us hard to achieve what had seemed
impossible. After he stepped down,
he guided his successors with wisdom
and tact. In old age, he continued to
keep a watchful eye on Singapore.
Singapore was his abiding passion.
He gave of himself, in full measure,
to Singapore.
As he himself put it towards the end
of his life and I quote: I have spent
my life, so much of it, building up this
country. Theres 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 am grieved beyond words at the
passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I know

that we all feel the same way. But

even as we mourn his passing, let us
also honour his spirit. Let us dedicate
ourselves as one people to build on his

SEVEN DAYS OF
NATIONAL MOURNING
The Prime Minister has declared a period of National
Mourning from March 23 to March 29.
As a mark of respect to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the
State lags on all Government buildings will be lown at
half-mast from today to Sunday.
A private family wake will be held from March 23 to
March 24 at Sri Temasek.

foundations, strive for his ideals, and

keep Singapore exceptional and successful for many years to come. May
Mr Lee Kuan Yew rest in peace.

ESM Goh leads leaders tributes to Mr Lee

he Republics leaders paid tribute on social media to Mr Lee

Kuan Yew, with Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who succeeded Mr Lee as Prime Minister in
1990, leading the tributes.
Mr Goh wrote on Facebook: My
tears welled up as I received the sad
news. Mr Lee Kuan Yew has completed
his lifes journey. But it was a journey
devoted to the making of Singapore.
He has bequeathed a monumental legacy to Singaporeans a safe,
secure, harmonious and prosperous
independent Singapore, our Homeland.
He was a selless leader. He shared his
experience, knowledge, ideas and life
with us. He was my leader, mentor, inspiration; the man I looked up to most.
He made me a proud Singaporean.
Now he is gone. I mourn but he lives
on in my heart. On behalf of Marine
Parade residents, I ofer our profound
condolences to PM Lee Hsien Loong
and his family.
Also writing on Facebook, President Tony Tan said: Mary and I are
deeply saddened by the passing of Mr
Lee Kuan Yew. We extend our deepest condolences to his children Mr Lee
Hsien Loong, Ms Lee Wei Ling and Mr
Lee Hsien Yang, and their families.
As Singapores founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee dedicated his life to Singapore, and served Singapore till his

inal days, said Dr Tan, whose oice had

also sent a condolence letter to Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Dr Tan said: His vision to build a
prosperous, meritocratic and multiracial Singapore deied expectations.
When others doubted our chances of
survival, he strove for excellence. Today, much that deines Singapore bears
his inluence: Security and the rule of
law, our cultural diversity and our economic progress, our public housing and
our gardens. Without Mr Lees strong
leadership and immense contributions,
the Singapore that we know today
would not have existed.
Mr Lees passing is a great loss to
all of us and to Singapore. It is up to
us to honour the legacy of Mr Lee and
the founding generation of Singapore
by building upon their work to make
Singapore an even better place for
generations to come.
Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew
posted a note on Facebook: Mr Lee
Kuan Yew missed and remembered
forever. You devoted your life to make
Singapore exceptional and our lives
better. You taught us all what it means
to be Singaporean. I am truly grateful to you.
Education Minister Heng Swee Keat
changed his Facebook cover photo to
a picture of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his
late wife in his younger days. He wrote:

Today we lost a founding father of Singapore. I hope Mr Lee is able to be with

Mrs Lee once again, and that they may
rest in peace together. In this moment
of grief, please join me in expressing our
deepest condolences to Mr Lees family.
I do not have the words to express
my gratitude for everything that Mr
Lee has done for Singapore. Our lives
have been transformed because Mr
Lee had a vision of a better life for all
Singaporeans, and dedicated his entire life to this mission. Mr Lee and
his team built a deep rapport with
our pioneer generation, and together, they achieved what many thought
was impossible.
Mr Lee has lived a full and meaningful life. Let us come together as one
people to express our appreciation, relect on what we have gone through together as a people, and resolve to build
on the legacy that Mr Lee has left us.
The Peoples Action Party (PAP) has
set up a tribute page at http://www.
tributetolky.org and changed its logo
on its Facebook page to black and white
as a sign of respect.
While we mourn the passing of one
of the greatest leaders of our Party, we
celebrate his incalculable contributions
to Singapore and its people, it said on
its Facebook page.
Thank you Mr Lee Kuan Yew, may
you rest in peace.

Mr Lees body will lie in state at Parliament House from

March 25 to March 28, for the public to pay their respects.
Those who wish to pay their last respects at Parliament
House can do so from 10 am to 8 pm daily from Wednesday to Saturday.
A State Funeral Service will be held at 2 pm on
March 29 at the University Cultural Centre, National
University of Singapore.
The State Funeral Service will be attended by the late
Mr Lees family, friends and staf, the President, Cabinet
Ministers, Members of Parliament, Old Guards, senior
civil servants, grassroots leaders and Singaporeans from all
walks of life. The State Funeral Service will be followed by a
private cremation at Mandai Crematorium.
Condolence books and cards will be available in front of
Istana by the Main Gate from Monday to Sunday, for those
who wish to pen their tributes to the late Mr Lee. Condolence books will also be opened at all Overseas Missions for
overseas Singaporeans and friends.
The public can express their condolences and share
their memories of the late Mr Lee at the oicial website,
http://www.rememberingleekuanyew.sg.
The public can call the 24-hour hotline at 6336 1166 with
queries, or visit http://www.rememberingleekuanyew.sg
and http://www.facebook.com/rememberingleekuanyew
for more details.

50

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

He was a true giant of history who will be remembered
for generations to come as the father of modern Singapore
and as one the great strategists of Asian afairs.
United States President Barack Obama

Leaders around the world mourn a giant

escribing Mr Lee Kuan Yew as
giant igure and paying tribute
to his inluence on the world
stage, past and present world leaders
mourned Mr Lees death this morning.
United States President Barack
Obama said he was deeply saddened
by the news. He called Mr Lee a remarkable man and a true giant of history
who will be remembered for generations to come as the father of modern
Singapore and as one the great strategists of Asian afairs.
A visionary who led his country
from Singapores independence in 1965
to build one of the most prosperous
countries in the world today, he was a
devoted public servant and a remarkable leader, Mr Obama said. (Mr

ential force for stability and prosperity

and a friend to the United States, Mr
Bush said.
United Kingdom Prime Minister
David Cameron said that Mr Lee personally shaped Singapore in a way that
few people have any nation.
Mr Cameron said: He made his
country into one of the great success
stories of our modern world. That Singapore is today a prosperous, secure
and successful country is a monument
to his decades of remarkable public
service.
He noted that the late Margaret
Thatcher, a former British PM, once
said that there was no Prime Minister
whom she admired more than Mr Lee
for the strength of his convictions, the

Lees) views and insights on Asian

dynamics and economic management
were respected by many around the
world, and no small number of this and
past generations of world leaders have
sought his advice on governance and
development.
Adding that he appreciated Mr Lees
wisdom, Mr Obama said that his discussions with Mr Lee during his trip
to Singapore in 2009 were hugely important in helping him formulate US
policy of rebalancing to the Asia Paciic.
Mr Obamas predecessor, Mr George
W Bush, called Mr Lee the father of
todays Singapore who transformed
his country and helped usher South
East Asia into the modern era. The
Singapore he leaves behind is an inlu-

Singaporeans laud one of the

greatest leaders of the 20th century
ven before day broke, Singaporeans began expressing their
gratitude and respect for the
late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, following the
news of his passing early this morning.
Minutes after a statement appeared
on Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loongs
Facebook page at 4.07am announcing
the elder Mr Lees death, comments
began appearing on the page.
The labour movement and various
organisations also issued statements
expressing their condolences, while the
Peoples Association announced that 18
community sites would be set up for
members of the public to pay tribute to
Singapores founding Prime Minister.
By March 24, six of the planned sites
will be ready. The six sites are in Ang
Mo Kio GRC, Tanjong Pagar GRC, East
Coast GRC, Chua Chu Kang GRC, Jurong GRC and Tampines GRC.
Wrote Mr Sebastian CK Lim on
Mr Lee Hsien Loongs Facebook page:
The man who gave us all a better life in
Singapore has inally gone to his welldeserved resting place ... but I shall not
mourn his loss but instead celebrate
his life. He had spent his entire lifetime
making sure that all of us would not
sufer the impoverished conditions that
our forefathers who came here did ...
May your spirit be always around this
nation, especially in our hour of need.
Ms Cheryl Tay wrote: Lets honour
the passing of a great man by treasuring
our country and leaving it a better place
for the next generation as Mr (Lee Kuan
Yew) has. By 8am, more than 8,500
people had commented on the post, and
it was shared more than 28,000 times.

On the Peoples Action Partys Facebook page, over 1,000 people had
commented by 8.15am. Wrote Ms Chan
Ying Ying: Thank you for building up
Singapore and letting us live in a society based on meritocracy. Without it, I
wont be where I am today. May peace
be with Mr Lee (Hsien Loong) and all
his family.
On the PAPs tribute website
http://www.tributetolky.org one
message read: Though never granted
the privilege and honour of being a Singapore citizen, I grew up in the city in
the days just after independence and
witnessed the birth of a nation whose international status now knows no equal,
thanks to the vision, determination and
integrity of Lee Kuan Yew.
Mr Lee proved that honesty and honour could achieve far more than the corruption and greed that characterised so
many governments and world leaders
at the time, the commentator wrote.
The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) called Mr Lee a true
ighter for our workers.
From the time he fought alongside
the Postal and Telecommunications
Uniformed Staf Union for better pay
and terms, he has always had the welfare and interests of workers at heart
and in mind. As the co-founder of the
Peoples Action Party (PAP), he forged
a strong symbiotic relationship with
the NTUC. As the irst Prime Minister
of Singapore, he championed a strong
spirit of tripartism, bringing labour,
management and government together, said NTUC secretary-general and
Minister in Prime Ministers Oice Lim

He had
spent his entire lifetime
making sure
that all of us
would not
sufer the
impoverished conditions that
our forefathers who
came here
did ... May
your spirit
be always
around
this nation,
especially in
our hour of
need.
Mr Sebastian
CK Lim
WRITING ON MR
LEE HSIEN LOONGS
FACEBOOK PAGE

Swee Say and NTUC president Diana

Chia in the statement.
The Singapore Chinese Chamber of
Commerce and Industry hailed Mr Lee
as a statesman extraordinaire, and
expressed appreciation for his concern
for the development of the Chinese community, as well as his encouragement
of local enterprises to invest in China
and neighbouring countries.
The Islamic Religious Council of
Singapore (MUIS) said the late Mr Lee
helped the Malay-Muslim community
grow by, for example, facilitating the
formation of MUIS as a statutory body.
He will also always be remembered
for his strong support for the introduction of the Mosque Building Fund
Scheme in 1975, which helped the community to rally together and strengthen
this key community institution during
Singapores period of rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, MUIS said.
Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy (NUS), Professor Kishore
Mahbubani, who spent 33 years with
the Singapore Foreign Service, said:
(Mr Lee) was a tough taskmaster. Yet,
I never failed to learn valuable lessons
from each encounter. Having watched
him interact with several global leaders, including Reagan, Thatcher, Mitterrand and Kohl, I saw irst-hand how
they were blown away by his breadth of
vision, acute geopolitical analyses and
wise policy solutions.
He added: When the dust of history settles and the deinitive books
are written on twentieth century history, Mr Lee will emerge as one of the
greatest leaders of the century.

clarity of his views, the directness of his

speech and his vision of the way ahead.
Mr Cameron said: His place in
history is assured, as a leader and as
one of the modern worlds foremost
statesmen.
Former UK PM Tony Blair said Mr
Lee was one of the most extraordinary
leaders of modern times.
He was a genuine political giant.
He was the irst to understand that
modern politics was about efective
Government not old-fashioned ideology. Whether in the economy, social
cohesion or law and order, he applied
methods of rigorous analysis and detailed implementation, said Mr Blair.
He built Singapore into the success
story it is today by intelligence, wisdom
and determination in equal measure.
As a result Singapore has a respect and
admiration far above its size.
Australian Prime Minister Tony
Abbott said his country mourned the
passing of a giant of our region. Fifty
years ago, Lee Kuan Yew led a vulnerable, ledgling nation to independence,
he said. Today, thanks to his vision
and determination, Singapore is one of
the worlds most successful countries.
In Lee Kuan Yews own words, Singapores remarkable journey has been
from third world to irst. Thanks to
his leadership, Singapore is now one
of the worlds most prosperous nations,
a inancial powerhouse, and one of the
worlds easiest places to do business.
Mr Abbott said the region owes
much to Mr Lee. Here in Australia
and beyond, leaders sought and learned
from his wise counsel, he added.
New Zealand Prime Minister John
Key said Mr Lees courage, determination, commitment, character and ability made him a formidable leader who
held the respect of Singaporeans and
the international community alike.
He added: I had the honour of meeting Mr Lee in 2007 during his last
oicial visit to New Zealand. He was
well known for his insights and foresight but what struck me most was
his unwavering determination to see
Singapore succeed.
United Nations Secretary-General
Ban Ki Moo said Mr Lee was a legendary igure in Asia, widely respected
for his strong leadership and statesmanship.
During his three decades in oice,
he helped Singapore to transition from
a developing country to one of the most
developed in the world, transforming
it into a thriving international business hub, said Mr Ban. As Singapore
marks its 50th anniversary of independence this year, its founding father
will be remembered as one of the most
inspiring Asian leaders.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

All I can say is,

I did my best
True to his word, Singapore
remained Mr Lee Kuan Yews
concern till the end of his life
hen he breathed his last
early this morning, the Republics irst Prime Minister had also been Tanjong Pagars
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 irst years of
Independence into a thriving economic
miracle that is marvelled the world
over for overcoming improbable odds.
Mr Lee has also elevated this ledgling nations 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 loored by its
leaders 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 Lees 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 Singapores 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
Lees 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 ones merits and abilities.
His irm 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 whos 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 Republics irst-generation leaders had with the Malaysian
governments politics of communalism
during the brief, unhappy merger between the two from 1963 to 1965.
On independent Singapores founding on 9 August 1965, multiracialism
was written into the Constitution the
irst 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 shuled the people
together. Had we not done this, it would
have led to a diferent Singapore, he
recalled in the book Hard Truths To
Keep Singapore Going, referring to
his Governments 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 youre prepared to die for one another, he added.
But diminishing the tendencies of
communities to revert to communally-inluenced 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.
Relecting 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 diferent races, languages,
cultures, religions, and an equal basis

Then SecretaryGeneral of the

Peoples Action
Party, Mr Lee Kuan
Yew (centre), with
party members on
Polling Day, 1955.
Photo: Ministry of
inforMation and the
arts ColleCtion,
Courtesy of national
arChives of singaPore

What
motivated
me? Internal
stability and
peace. We treat
everybody
equally. We
judge you on
your merits.
This is a level
playing ield.

for competition. Thats 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 Singapores
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 ield. 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 efort 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 Peoples Action Party (PAP) Government continues to tie
individual efort 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 Governments 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, Singapores vulnerabilities
an 80-storey building standing on
marshy land made it imperative that
the political leadership was made up of
the cream of societys 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 diferent 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 Singapores independence.
And over decades, Mr Lee singlehandedly 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
Continued on Page 52

52

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 51

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 Shells 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.
Thats the business of a leader. Not to
go follow the crowd. Thats 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 traic.
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 mudlat 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 deied 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? Singapores gross domestic product of US$970 million in 1965
was on par with Jamaicas, but by the
time Mr Lee stepped down in 1990, the
igure had surged to US$34.5 billion,
similar to that of the Czech Republic.
Mr Lees 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 eforts also played
a signiicant role in the countrys 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 oice 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 igure hovers at around 85 per cent today
Mr Lees housing policies over the
years changed every Singaporeans 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 signiicance 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 own-

Mr Lee leading
his Tanjong Pagar
GRC team-mates
in thanking the
residents for their
support in the 2006
General Election,
when he was
Minister Mentor.
PHOTO: TODAY FILE PHOTO

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. Thats
the business of
a leader.

ership 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 Singapores 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 peoples,
and hence the countrys, 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 eicient 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 proitably
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 testi-

ied 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 Singapores
systems, including of housing, social
security and industry, in a bid to replicate these back home.
For instance, Mr Tony Blairs New
Labour came to look at the CPF system where once British MPs had
slammed Mr Lees remarks that Mrs
Thatchers 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 Lees 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 inluence
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 inluence 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 oice, I read and analysed every speech of Harrys. 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 beneited the Republic
on many fronts, ranging from security
stability to economic opportunities.
His friendship with members of Harold Wilsons 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

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

leaders such as Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak and Indonesias
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 Lees 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 Chinas Deng Xiaoping
played a central role in Singapores being
able to tap into Chinas 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 Lees good relations with them enable Singapore, and
the leaders who came after Mr Lee, to
ride on those good relationships.
One reason for Mr Lees prominence
as a statesman was the Western worlds
regard of him as Chinas interlocutor.
Said former British Prime Minister
Tony Blair: One of (the) things that
Harry did incredibly efectively was he
became the interlocutor of the emerging East with the Western countries,
because if youre 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, hes able to say to the Western
leadership, Look, this is how you want
to think about this.
Mr Lees intimate knowledge of
China stemmed from his early realisation of her emerging importance,
and his eforts 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 Singapores
growth model in attempting Chinas
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 Dengs endorsement, several
hundred delegations, most of them unoicial, 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 Singapores 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 oice.
But he largely set the tone and form
of the Republics political system, the
framework of which has endured to
date. One of these unique features
was an efective 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 Lees 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 governments knuckleduster 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 Lees
bottom line was that wrong ideas have
to be challenged before they inluence
public opinion and make for problems.
Domestically, the press was free to
operate, as long as it kept to the nationbuilding role he said was necessary for
a young nation, counter to the Wests
deinition 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

Mr Lee Kuan
Yew speaking at
the launch of his
book My Lifelong
Challenge in 2011.
PHOTO: ERNEST CHUA

Im very happy
that Ive got a
good, happy
family. Ive
got a happy
marriage.
Ive got three
children
Im very proud
of, I cant
ask for more.

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 Afairs 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-onevote 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 worlds
longest-serving prime minister then
Mr Lee decided not to do so, again with
Singapores 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.
Ill 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
oice, addressing them as my Prime
Minister and seeing them in their ofices, 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 cant tell them what to
do as their great achievements, their
great breakthroughs. Thats for them to
work out with younger Singaporeans.
Nevertheless, Mr Lee still spoke up
whenever he deemed it necessary; step-

ping 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 aford 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 efort and attention
from an honest and efective 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
irst time, allowed a glimpse into the
personal life of Mr Lee.
More than any other facet of his
private life, it was Mr Lees 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 bedridden after she sufered 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 conidante.
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: Im very happy that Ive got a
good, happy family. Ive got a happy
marriage. Ive got three children Im
very proud of, I cant ask for more.
Despite his contributions to Singapore, Mr Lees muted personal appraisal
of his lifes 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. TEO XUANWEI

54

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Mr Lee waving from a unit at The River Vista @ Kallang during his visit to the new HDB property and the Kolam Ayer ABC Waterfront in 2010, when he was Minister Mentor. TODAY FILE PHOTO

From mudflat
to metropolis
Our strategy was to make
Singapore a First World
oasis in a Third World region
he singular motif in Mr Lee
Kuan Yews blueprint for this
unlikely city-states success
was an unrelenting drive to be outstanding and the visionary knew the
most dramatic display of this, following independence, would be by swiftly
metamorphosing Singapores look and
feel to his exacting standards.
This strategy of viscerally distinguishing the Republic to potential investors derived from Mr Lees astute
conclusion that sound, far-sighted planning of its landscape was central to its
lasting success, be it in fostering social
cohesion, spurring economic viability
or overcoming its vulnerabilities.
This is why he personally had a hand
in many of its physical developments.
His ideas and thinking continue to inluence new projects, such as Punggol
Eco-Town and Marina Barrage.

GREENING A COUNTRY
Mr Lees irst project of this strategy,
creating a clean and green Singapore,
was the most cost-efective and yet
most far-reaching a single-handed
crafting of the Republics reputation as
a fastidious Garden City.

He planted a mempat tree in Farrer

Circus on June 16, 1963, to symbolise
the birth of his annual Plant-A-Tree
campaign and marked its half-century in 2013 by planting a rain tree in
Holland Village Park.
He sought to eradicate the rough
and ready ways of people through
anti-spitting and anti-littering campaigns and legislation placing the
Anti-Pollution Unit, set up in 1970,
under the Prime Ministers Oice
to signal his personal interest in the
cause. He also resettled street hawkers into properly-designed food centres and markets.
This objective of creating a First
World oasis to leapfrog the rest of
South-east Asia, as the Israelis had
done in their own region, was so that
businessmen and tourists would pick
Singapore as a base.
Describing the impact of showing of
a neat and spruced-up city lined with
shrubs and trees to visiting chief executives who were considering investing millions here, Mr Lee wrote in his
memoirs: 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.
This belief sprung from his own reactions in his travels: What impressed
me was not the size of the buildings, but
the standard of their maintenance. I

Over 100 years

ago, this was
a mudlat,
swamp.
Today, this
is a modern
city. Ten years
from now,
this will be a
metropolis.
Never fear!
Mr Lee in 1965

knew when a country and its administrators were demoralised from the
way the buildings had been neglected
washbasins cracked, taps leaking,
water-closets not functioning properly,
a general dilapidation and inevitably,
unkempt gardens.
In 1973, a Garden City Action Committee was set up to report regularly
to Mr Lee on national greening eforts.
Ex-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong
once remarked that Singapore was
possibly the only country where gardening reports were read in Cabinet.
But Mr Lee pursued greening for
more than the economic or aesthetic
beneits. Ensuring the island was clean
and green, and not only within privileged neighbourhoods, served the purpose of creating a sense of equal-ness
in this society critical for a ledgling
nation made up of immigrants without
a common historical experience.
Greening raised the morale of the
people and gave them pride in their
surroundings ... We did not diferentiate between middle-class and workingclass areas, he said. No society like
that will thrive. We were going to have
National Service. No family will want
its young men to die for all the people
with the big homes and those owning
the tall towers.
Over the decades, Mr Lee continued to act as Singapores chief gardener. Numerous tales are told of how
he would send back notes of trees and
plants he came across overseas that
he thought would do well in Singapore.
Former civil service mandarin Peter Ho recalls how Mr Lee once sent
the Ministry of Defence a memo he
had driven past Khatib Camp and noticed that it was sparsely planted. He
suggested trees and plants he thought

would be suitable. Apart from this

awe-inspiring familiarity with all these
botanical details, it struck me then how
serious he was about the greening of
Singapore, said Mr Ho.
An iconic tribute to his legacy today
is the S$1 billion Gardens by the Bay
project aimed, naturally, at boosting
Singapores economic and tourism appeal, and for which its CEO Tan Wee
Kiat has credited Mr Lees support.
HOUSING
With a housing crisis on its hands in
1959, the Peoples Action Party (PAP)
had to set about tackling the challenge
of re-housing Singaporeans from slum
settlements into public housing blocks.
The Housing and Development Board
(HDB) estimated the Government had
to build an average of 14,000 housing
units per year from 1959 to 1969, but the
private sector then had the capability
to provide only 2,500 a year.
It was also a politically sensitive
venture, having to break up the racial enclaves that were a colonial legacy and assuage Muslim fears that
the demolition of many dilapidated
small mosques was not anti-Islam (a
programme to build new and bigger
mosques with the communitys help
was pioneered).
Redevelopment required phasing
out 8,000 farms rearing 900,000 pigs
and many food-ish ponds. These farmers knew no other livelihood and, used
to living in shanty huts with a hole in
the ground or a bucket in an outhouse,
they sufered culture shock and could
not break their habits when moved into
high-rise lats.
Many refused to use the lifts and
some even brought their pigs, ducks

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

The defence of Singapore

National Service would bring
political and social benefits
ith the impending British
withdrawal, Singapore
needed to build a Singapore
Armed Forces (SAF) from scratch to
avoid being cowed and intimidated by
its larger neighbours. Mr Lee Kuan Yew
assigned this responsibility to Dr Goh
Keng Swee, who was a corporal in the
British-led Singapore Volunteer Corps
until it surrendered in February 1942.
After the prime ministers letters for
assistance to the Indian premier Lal Bahadur Shastri and Egyptian president
Gamal Abdel Nasser did not receive
positive replies, Mr Lee instructed Dr
Goh to proceed with assistance from
the Israelis, but kept this under wraps
in order not to provoke grassroots antipathy from Malay Muslims in Malaysia and Singapore.
While Dr Goh felt that Singapore
should build up a regular army of 12
battalions between 1966 and 1969, Mr
Lee proposed a small standing army
with the capacity to mobilise a reserve
force population.
Mr Lee preferred that the money
be spent on infrastructure needed to
raise and train National Service battalions than on the recurrent costs of
a large army.

National Service would bring political and social beneits I wanted the
defence plan to aim at mobilising as
large a part of the population as possible, in order to galvanise the people
in their own defence while they had this
strong feeling of patriotism as a result
of their recent experiences, Mr Lee
wrote in his memoirs.
Dr Gohs revised plan put up in November 1966 would mobilise a large section of the population while the regular
component of the armed forces would
consist of 12 battalions.
To attract and retain talent in the
highest echelons of the SAF, Mr Lee
later tabled a legislation to amend the
National Service Ordinance in February 1967 so that those who enlisted in
the SAF as a full-time career would be
guaranteed jobs in the government,
statutory boards or private sector when
they left full-time service and go into
the reserves. The bill was passed a
month later.
In 1971, Mr Lee proposed the SAF
Overseas Scholarship scheme, which
Dr Goh reined. Through the scheme,
some of the best students were recruited into the SAF over the years.
Without a yearly intake of about
10 of our best students, the SAF would
have the military hardware but without the brain power to use them to best
advantage, Mr Lee said.

Mr Lee talking with national servicemen during a National Day celebration at Tanjong Pagar Community
Centre in 1970, when he was Prime Minister. The celebration was held in honour of NS youth.
PHOTO: MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS COLLECTION, COURTESY OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE

Mr Lee visiting the Flower Dome at Gardens by the Bay in 2011. TODAY FILE PHOTO

and chickens to live with them.

We had a resettlement unit to
deal with the haggling and bargaining involved in every resettlement,
whether of hawkers, farmers or cottage industrialists. They were never
happy to be moved or to change their
business, Mr Lee recounted. This
was a hazardous political task which,
unless carefully and sympathetically
handled, would lose us votes in the
next election.
But the result of this massive exercise was a home-owning society more
than 90 per cent of the 85 per cent of
Singaporeans living in HDB lats today own their homes. This, Mr Lee
and then Minister for Finance Goh
Keng Swee facilitated by expanding
the Central Provident Fund (CPF) in
1968 so workers could tap their savings

to buy a home.
Said Mr Lee: If you ask people to defend all the big houses where the bosses
live I dont think thats tenable. So,
we decided from the very beginning,
everybody must have a home, every
family will have something to defend ...
and that home we developed over the
years into their most valuable asset.
For example, Mr Lee mooted upgrading programmes in 1989 to prevent
older estates from looking like slums,
substantially raising their worth.
He also asked the HDB in 1974 to
improve the quality and vary the lat
designs and landscaping of new towns
to add distinctiveness and character by
exploiting unique site features such
as undulating terrain and ponds, a
visionary idea encapsulated in the new
Punggol Eco-Towns concept.

Ater
Independence,
I searched
for some
dramatic way
to distinguish
Singapore
from other
Third World
countries
and settled
for a clean
and green
Singapore
Greening
is the most
cost-efective
project I have
launched.
Mr Lee in
his memoirs

Mr Lee had spoken of the importance of having a strong SAF on several

occasions, including at the Temasek
Societys 30th anniversary dinner dialogue in 2012. From the day we started,

I knew that we needed a strong SAF

and I believe that still remains today.
Without a strong SAF, there is no
economic future, there is no security,
he said.

WATER

squatters and 600 pig farmers, as well

as relocating 5,000 street hawkers
who were accustomed to doing business rent-free into proper buildings
where they had to pay rent and utilities
charges. Disgruntled, many of them
voted against the PAP for years after.
But this massive engineering job
of laying underground sewers for the
whole island, so streams and rivers were
free of sewage and aquatic life would
return, was undertaken with the determination to inch Singapore towards
water self-suiciency, addressing one
of its greatest security vulnerabilities.
The project paved the way for waterways to become essential water catchment areas. The 15th of these was the
Marina Barrage, which sprang from Mr
Lees idea in the 1980s to dam the mouth
of the Marina Channel to create a freshwater reservoir in the heart of the city.
And though the 10-year river
clean-up cost a hefty US$240 million (S$325 million) and had a political
price, Mr Lees vision was vindicated
when land values along the riverbanks
soared, as did tourism and business.
If not for Mr Lees political will
and extraordinary insight, this mudlat would never have physically transformed into the metropolis it is today.
Without this futurist, hosting pinnacle events on urban solutions and
sustainable development such as the
World Cities Summit and Singapore
International Water Week would have
been beyond the city-states reach.

Mr Lee realised water resource management had to be central to a states

development plans decades before the
world became aware of the importance
of doing so and made this a national
priority he took a direct hand in.
Small wonder, since Singapore depended on its neighbour Malaysia for
the bulk of its water supply. In 1971, Mr
Lee set up the Water Planning Unit in
the Prime Ministers Oice and asserted that every other policy has to bend
(at) the knees (for) our water survival.
There has never been a Prime Minister anywhere else who has had so much
interest in the environment in general,
and water in particular, said Professor
Asit Biswas and Dr Cecilia Tortajada,
authors of The Singapore Water Story,
who were instrumental to PUB winning
the Stockholm Water Industry Award
in 2007.
There are few episodes more telling of Mr Lees foresight and political
courage to make tough decisions for the
long-term good than his plan to dam up
all streams and rivers. The most ambitious part of this was the clean-up of
the ilthy Singapore River and Kallang
Basin a daunting exercise that, because the river drew hordes of squatters, hawkers and backyard industries,
reluctant bureaucrats sidestepped until
Mr Lee delivered an ultimatum in 1977.
It was an unpopular move that entailed moving out more than 40,000

56

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

The economic
pragmatist
Live with the world as it is,
not as we wish it should be
e was a man unafraid to challenge the popular ideologies
of the day; he had no truck
with dogma. Right up to the end of
his life, Mr Lee Kuan Yew believed in
constantly adapting to the hard realities of a changing world, and to refresh
his mental map, he ceaselessly sought
out the views of experts, academics,
industry, political leaders, journalists
and the man in the street.
But having listened to and processed
their arguments, he did not let himself
be swayed if he absolutely believed
something was in the best long-term
interest of Singapore. Changi Airport
and a large part of the Singapore
economic miracle stands today as
a symbol of this.
When Singapore wanted to expand
its airport operations in the early 1970s,
a British aviation consultant proposed
building a second runway at the existing airport in Paya Lebar as that would
entail the lowest land acquisition costs

and the least resettlements.

Although the Cabinet accepted the
recommendation, Mr Lee asked for a reassessment by American consultants,
and then a further study by a committee of senior oicials on the viability
of transforming the RAF airield in
Changi into a commercial airport. Both
said to stay with the Paya Lebar plan.
But Mr Lee was unsure whether
that would be wise or sustainable for
Singapore in the long run, recalling lessons he had picked up on his travels: I
had lown over Bostons Logan Airport
and been impressed that the noise footprint of planes landing and taking of
was over water. A second runway at
Paya Lebar would take aircraft right
over the heart of Singapore city ... we
would be saddled with the noise pollution for many years.
Reluctant to give up on his preference for the Changi site, he appointed
the chairman of the Port of Singapore
Authority, Mr Howe Yoon Chong
who had a reputation as a bulldozer
to chair a top-level committee for a
inal reappraisal. They reported that
Changi was do-able.

And so, despite the fact the 1973

oil crisis had just struck and growth
in South-east Asia was uncertain following South Vietnams fall to the communists, Mr Lee took the S$1 billion
gamble in 1975 to build the new Changi
Airport demolishing buildings, exhuming thousands of graves, clearing
swamps, reclaiming land from the sea
and completed the building in six years
instead of 10.
To say the least, that gamble has
paid of handsomely, entrenching Singapore as a vital tourism, aviation and
economic node.

Mr Lee being led

on a tour of Changi
Airports Terminal 3
by CAAS directorgeneral and
CEO Lim Kim
Choon in 2007,
when Mr Lee was
Minister Mentor.
PHOTO: WEE TECK HIAN

THE ACID TEST:

WOULD IT WORK FOR US?
How Mr Lee turned around the improbable story of Singapore abounds
with examples like this, where he stuck
to a hard-nosed, pragmatic approach
coupled with a visionary outlook in
implementing solutions he believed
would make Singapore survive and
last, even if it went against so-called
conventional wisdom.
In a developing country situation,
you need a leader ... who not only understands the ordinary arguments for or
against, but at the end of it says, Look,
will this work, given our circumstances? Never mind what the British, what
the Australians, what the New Zealanders do. This is Singapore. Will it work
in this situation? he said.
Mr Lee demonstrated time and

I always
tried to be
correct, not
politically
correct.
Mr Lee

again his ability to put on the lenses of

a pure empiricist who could rise above
prejudices and preconceptions.
Early on, he ditched the Fabian
school of socialism a style of governance he had been so enamoured with
during his university days in Britain
that he had subscribed to the societys
magazines for years after his return.
He saw that its ideals would not work in
reality. We have to live with the world
as it is, not as we wish it should be, he
once famously said.
In the early years, in deiance of
the prevailing theory then that multinational corporations were neo-colonialist exploiters who sucked developing
nations dry of their cheap land, labour
and raw materials, Mr Lee acting on
the advice of the Republics Dutch economic guru Albert Winsemius actively courted foreign investors with a
liberal economic policy which included
attractive tax and iscal incentives.
Dr Winsemius practical lessons
on how European and American companies operated showed Mr Lee how
Singapore could plug into the global
economic system of trade and investments by using their desire for proits.
He explained the bold decision thus:
The question was, how to make a living? How to survive? This was not a
theoretical problem in the economics
of development. It was a matter of life
and death for two million people.
Looking back, Mr Lee believed that
staying pragmatic ensured Singapores

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

survival and success. If there was one

formula for our success, it was that we
were constantly studying how to make
things work, or how to make them work
better ... What guided me were reason
and reality. The acid test I applied to
every theory or scheme was, would
it work? This was the golden thread
that ran through my years in oice.
If it did not work, or the results were
poor, I did not waste more time and
resources on it.
LEAP OF FAITH
Living with reality did not mean resigning to fate or operating in safe mode
on the contrary, Mr Lee was restless
about innovating and turning adversity
into opportunity. Many things could
go wrong, hed said, but: The crucial
thing is: Do not be afraid to innovate.
Former civil service head Peter Ho
said many of the big leaps forward in
the early years of ledgling Singapore
were nothing more than acts of faith.
It is a myth that everything in
Singapore is planned down to the nth
degree, that nothing is expected to go
wrong, and that the government operates in a fail-safe mode, said Mr Ho.
The irst container port at Tanjong
Pagar was a big risk, as the container
was by no means a proven mode of
transportation. But Lee Kuan Yew
gave Mr Howe Yoon Chong, who was
then Chairman of PSA, enough leeway
to make the move to Tanjong Pagar.
Indeed, Mr Ho added, that willingness to try things out spawned a
generation of state entrepreneurs who
created, almost out of nothing, national
icons like Singapore Airlines, DBS, ST
Engineering, Changi Airport, Singtel,
and so on. The national computerisation programme is another example,
started in the Ministry of Defence,
which transformed Singapore.
Early on, Mr Lee and his team recognised the importance of science and
technology to the economy (English
was chosen as a medium for school
education in part because it best conveyed such subjects).
CLIMBING ON
OTHERS SHOULDERS
Mr Lee was also always looking for solutions for Singapore by drawing lessons
from other countries experiences or
seeking out experts. No need to reinvent the wheel, as he repeatedly said.
On his travels, he watched how
a society, an administration, is functioning. Why are they good?. He took
notes on matters as diverse as tree
species or industries that might work
for Singapore.
It was through this form of inquiry
that, for instance, Mr Lee instituted
various anti-pollution measures here.
He started vehicle inspections after
seeing cars lining up at garages to be
certiied up to mark when he was in
Boston in 1970; and he sited factories
away from residential areas because he
saw Japans troubles with Minamata
disease and pollution in the early 1970s.
I preferred to climb on the shoul-

ders of others who had gone before

us, he said.
And if the help of experts was needed
in order for problems to be solved, Mr
Lee would get them no matter where
they came from. For instance, when
Singapore urgently needed to build up
defence forces as a deterrence against
potential blowback from Malay Ultras
after Independence in 1965, and India
and Egypt did not respond to requests
for help to build up battalions and coastal forces, Mr Lee turned to the Israelis
in spite of possibly agitating Malay
Muslims in Singapore and in Malaysia.
Nonetheless, when the irst groups
of Israelis, led by Colonel Jak Ellazari,
came in November that year, they
were called Mexicans to disguise
their presence.

persuaded that our regulatory stance

had to change.
Mr Lee, who was then Senior Minister, came up with a calibrated broad
plan that he discussed with and sought
PM Goh Chok Tongs approval for. This
led to a major review of policies and the
transformation of MAS.
In a 1999 interview, Mr Lee pointed
to the game-changer of e-banking and
the Internet. If this government carries on the way I did over the last 30
years, protecting local banks to make
them grow, then its in for trouble. We
are a venue for 200 of the worlds biggest
and most competitive banks. Unless we
get ourselves up to a comparable level,
well be like New Zealand, where all
their own banks have been taken over
and are foreign-owned.

on homosexuals we say, okay, leave

them alone, but lets leave the law as it
is for the time being. While places like
China and Taiwan already had more
liberal policies, he said: But we have a
part Muslim population, another part
conservative older Chinese and Indians. So, lets go slowly. Its a pragmatic
approach to maintain social cohesion.
Mr Lee also reversed his earlier and
long-held objections to holding Formula
One races and allowing casinos in Singapore. He recognised that the F1 had
a jet-set following and could generate
economic spin-ofs for Singaporeans.
The larger goal of advancing Singapores position on the world stage also
swayed Mr Lee, as he emphasised how
the race allowed us to telecast our
unique skyline to billions around the

WINNING
INVESTOR CONFIDENCE

Mr Lee touring the casino at Resorts World Sentosa with Resorts World Sentosa CEO Tan Hee Teck
(left) and Genting International chairman Lim Kok Thay in 2010, when Mr Lee was Minister Mentor.

FINANCIAL SYSTEM REFORM

While Mr Lee stood by unpopular decisions that were for the long-term good,
he also knew when to change course
to maintain Singapores relevance or
capture future opportunities.
For years, Mr Lee had believed in
strict regulation of the inancial system and in protecting the local banks.
But then the 1997-98 Asian Financial
Crisis broke.
Recalled Mr Heng Swee Keat, who
was then Mr Lees Principal Private
Secretary and who later served as
Managing Director of the Monetary
Authority of Singapore (MAS): Our
stringent rules, while appropriate in the
past, were now stiling growth and our
banks were falling behind. Mr Lee was

Said Mr Heng: If Mr Lee had not

initiated the changes in the late 1990s,
and sought to turn adversity into opportunities, we would not have become
a stronger inancial centre today. To
prepare ourselves to open up our inancial system in the midst of one of
the worst inancial crisis is, to me, an
act of great foresight and boldness. It
has the stamp of Mr Lee.
CASINOS, F1 AND GAYS
To be part of the 21st-century world
and the ruthless competition for talent,
tourism dollars and investors meant
delicately recalibrating some issues of
huge social sensitivity to Singaporeans.
In a 2007 interview, Mr Lee said Singapore took an ambiguous position

Said Mr Lee: If I have to choose one word to

explain why Singapore succeeded, it is confidence. This was what made foreign investors site their factories and refineries here.
It was not just the infrastructural developments and development policies pursued
by Mr Lee and his team, but also the personal
confidence that they evoked in investors.
For instance, within days of the October
1973 oil crisis, Mr Lee sent a clear signal to
oil companies that the Government did not
claim any special privilege over their stocks
of oil in the refineries here.
Had the Government blocked these
stocks from export, there would have been
enough oil for Singapores own consumption
for two years but it would have undermined the countrys reputation for reliability,
Mr Lee said.
He personally met the CEOs and
managing directors of Shell, Mobil, Esso,
Singapore Petroleum and British Petroleum in November, to reassure them that
Singapore would share in any cuts they imposed on the rest of their customers.
International confidence in the
Singapore Government grew and the oil
industry expanded into petrochemicals in
the 1970s.
By the 1990s, Singapore had become the
worlds third-largest oil-refining and trading centre, and the largest fuel oil bunker
in volume.

world. (The inaugural night race was

held in 2008.)
On casinos which he once said
would be allowed only over my dead
body he explained in a New York
Times interview in 2007: I dont like
casinos, but the world has changed and
if we dont have an integrated resort
like the ones in Las Vegas, well lose.
So, lets go. Lets try and still keep it
safe and maia-free and prostitutionfree and money-laundering free. Can
we do it? Im not sure, but were going
to give it a good try.
He added: We have to go in whatever directions world conditions dictate
if we are to survive and to be part of this
modern world. If we are not connected to
this modern world, we are dead. Well go
back to the ishing village we once were.

58

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Mr Lee sharing a light moment with Ms Lim Sau Hoong, an award-winning Singaporean designer and businesswoman, at the launch of the 30th anniversary of the Speak Mandarin Campaign at NTUC Auditorium
in 2009. Ms Lim was cited by Mr Lee as someone whose efective bilingualism allowed her to make a contribution to director Zhang Yi-mous opening ceremony at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. TODAY FILE PHOTO

The language of survival

Everyone should learn English
and their native language
is to become the second one.
ew might have realised the signiicance at that time, but in
making English Singapores
lingua franca, a decision he made
within only a few weeks of separation
from Malaysia in 1965, Mr Lee Kuan
Yew gave the Republic a ighting chance
of overcoming the formidable crises
post-Independence.
Adopting the international language
of business, diplomacy, and science and
technology was about the only way this
resource-less tiny island could guarantee its survival after losing its economic
hinterland in Malaysia. Unemployment
was at 14 per cent and rising.
Mr Lee captured the moves criticality in his memoirs: Without it, we
would not have many of the worlds multinationals and over 200 of the worlds
top banks in Singapore. Nor would our
people have taken so readily to computers and the Internet.
Just as importantly, picking this
race-neutral language demonstrated
his governments anti-communalistic
stance, helping to keep the peace in a
newborn nation made up of a polyglotsettler populace who had struggled for
years with racial and religious strife.
We treat everybody equally. We
judge you on your merits. This is a level
playing ield. We do not discriminate our
people on race, language, religion. If you
can perform, you get the job, he said.
This decision was not so intuitive
in that post-colonial era as it seems in
hindsight. Other newly-independent

African countries, Malaysia and India,

for example, were throwing out the
English language along with the British yoke in a it of nationalism.
In Singapore too, language was a
political issue except that in its case,
English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil
were recognised as the four oicial
languages, with Malay the national language and English the main language
of commerce and administration.
NANTAH OPPOSITION
But the force with which Mr Lee pursued
English language proiciency met with
opposition, most robustly from Nanyang University (Nantah) graduates.
They raised the issue of Chinese
language and culture in the 1972 and
1976 general elections, after Mr Lee
did away with vernacular schools and
made Nantah, a source of pride among
the Chinese community as it was the
only Chinese-language tertiary institution outside China then, switch to
teaching in English. The latter move
was despite the reservations of many
of his colleagues and when it failed, he
forced Nantah to merge with Singapore
University in 1978.
His most powerful riposte to these
opponents: All three of his children
were sent to Chinese-medium schools.
(From age six, they also had Malaylanguage tuition at home.)
Mr Lee himself, born to Englishspeaking parents, had started to pick
up Mandarin again only at age 32 and
spent years sweating blood to master it, a story he recounted in detail in
his 2011 book, My Lifelong Challenge:
Singapores Bilingual Journey.

BILINGUALISM

We are the
only country
in the region
that uses
English as
our working
language, the
main medium
of instruction
in our schools.
This has given
our young
a strong
advantage of
growing up in
a multicultural,
multilingual
society, all
speaking the
international
language of
commerce
and trade,
English, and
their mother
tongues,
Chinese,
Malay, Tamil
and others, as
their second
languages.
Mr Lee at the
launch of the
English Language
Institute of
Singapore in 2011

For the sake of building a community

that feels together, Mr Lee pushed
through the bilingualism policy in 1966.
All students had to learn their mother
tongue, Mandarin, Malay or Tamil, depending on their race, as a second language, and this became a compulsory
and critical examination subject in 1969.
We insisted on the mother tongue
because I saw the diference between
the Chinese-educated and the Englisheducated. The English-educated were
rootless, he explained to a team of authors, citing Rales College students
indiference although a massive riot
was boiling at Chinese High School in
1956, in response to an anti-communist
crackdown by the then David Marshall
Government.
If Singapore students all turned
out like those in the university hostel,
Singapore would fail, he said.
The nexus between language and
culture was crucial to creating a rugged, tightly-knit society with cultural
ballast because with the language go
the literature, proverbs, folklore, beliefs, value patterns, he believed.
He later said: I have no doubts that
if we lose ... our sense of being ourselves,
not Westerners, we lose our vitality. So
that was our irst driving force.
IMPERFECT IMPLEMENTATION
But the various initiatives Mr Lee rolled
out in subsequent years to put proiciency in mother tongue on par with
that in English were to divide opinions,
especially among the Chinese, even up
to the present. Indeed, he described

bilingualism in 2004 as the most dificult policy he had had to implement.

Mr Lee set up Special Assistance
Plan schools in 1978 for students who
were more proicient in both English
and Mandarin to pursue both the subjects as irst languages. Critics said the
scheme caused ethnic segregation because these schools did not ofer other
mother tongues.
The following year, he also launched
the Speak Mandarin Campaign to eradicate the use of dialects.
While not an insigniicant number
beneited from the bilingualism policy, particularly after Deng Xiaoping
opened up China, many struggled with
learning Mandarin. It was partly because many Chinese families retained
strong loyalties to the diferent dialects
spoken by their forefathers, but more
importantly, it was caused by the way
schools were teaching the language.
Mr Lee acknowledged as much during a parliamentary debate in 2004 on
changes to Chinese language learning.
The imperfect implementation of what
he maintains was a sound policy, he
said, caused interest in the Chinese
language to be killed by the drudgery of
rote memorising. He regretted not implementing the modular system earlier.
Relecting on his belated realisation
that language ability was, at best, only
loosely linked to intelligence, Mr Lee
admitted in 2009 that successive generations of students paid a heavy price
because of my ignorance.
In November 2011, he started the
Lee Kuan Yew Fund for Bilingualism to
support ideas that would promote the
learning of English and mother tongue.
Even towards the end, at his last appearance at the National Day Dinner in
his Tanjong Pagar ward shortly before
his 90th birthday, he was exhorting
parents to give their children an early
start in bilingualism. TEO XUANWEI

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

A place for all

This is not a country that
belongs to any single community:
It belongs to all of us.
e was the man who wove multiculturalism into the very DNA
of Singapore, in the conviction
that a small nation could not be divided
against itself and continue to exist.
This is not a Malay nation, this is not
a Chinese nation, this is not an Indian
nation, Mr Lee Kuan Yew declared in
1965, upon Singapores split from Malaysia due to irreconcilable diferences
over how society should be organised.
While Malaysia chose bumiputra
dominance and communal politics,
Singapore would be the model multicultural nation, unique in the region.
Everybody will have his place equal:
Language, culture, religion, he vowed.
Ever wearing the lenses of harsh reality, however, Mr Lee believed work ensuring racial harmony was never done.
Forty-ive years later, Mr Lee made
a rare intervention in Parliament in
2010 having interrupted his physiotherapy session to bring what he felt
was a needed reality check to those arguing for equal treatment for all races.
This premise was false and lawed,
said the Minister Mentor, pointing to
Article 152 of the Constitution, which
makes it the Governments responsibility to constantly care for the interests
of the racial and religious minorities
in particular recognising the special
position of the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore. It would
take decades, if not centuries, he
added, for Singapore to reach a point
where all races could be treated equally.
What some did not understand was
that, for Mr Lee, multiculturalism was
the only way to ensure Singapores survival but it would ever be a work in
progress, an aspiration not to be confused with an ideology of race-blindness, because the facts of reality pulled
in the opposite direction. That was the
paradox Singapore had to grapple with.

FOUNDATIONS FOR HARMONY

In the initial years of Independence,
many people advocated catering to
the racial majority in Singapore. But
Mr Lee and his team refused, having
made clear from the start: One thing
we should not do is to try and stile the
other mans culture, his language, his
religion, because that is the surest way
to bring him to abandon reason and
rationality and stand by his heritage.
The May 1969 racial riots, which
spilled over to Singapore from Malaysia,
leaving four dead, drove home the explosive nature of race relations. Mr Lee
vowed that whoever starts trouble we
smack him down a zero-tolerance
approach enforced over the decades.
Beyond this security dimension,
multiculturalism would also distinguish Singapore to the world. Thats

what will stand out against all our

neighbours, he pointed out.
There would be equal basis for competition, with a meritocratic Civil Service leading the way, where ability, and
not race, mattered.
Just as vital was the need to break
up the racially-segregated housing enclaves that were a legacy from the British. As part of our long-term plan to
rebuild Singapore and re-house everybody, we decided to scatter and mix
Malays, Chinese, Indians and all others alike and thus prevent them from
congregating ... On resettlement, they
would have to ballot for their new highrise homes, said Mr Lee, who grew up
playing with the kids of Malay and Chinese ishermen from a nearby kampung.
But the Government soon found
that when owners sold their lats and
could buy resale lats of their choice, the
enclaves re-formed. So, ethnic group
ceilings were introduced in 1989. While
this depressed prices for certain resale
lats, Mr Lee wrote: This is a small
cost for achieving our larger objective
of getting the races to intermingle.
MOSQUE BUILDING
When it came to Singaporean Malays
beliefs, nonetheless, special sensitivity
was shown. A 1994 interview revealed
the pragmatism of Mr Lees thinking.
You cannot have too many distinct
components and be one nation, he said,
but there are circumstances where it
is wise to leave things be we put the
Muslims in a slightly diferent category
because they are extremely sensitive
about their customs, especially diet.
In such matters one has to ind a
middle path between uniformity and
a certain freedom to be somewhat different. I think it is wise to leave alone
questions of fundamental beliefs and
give time to sort matters out.
When dilapidated small mosques
(surau) built on state land had to be
removed for redevelopment, Mr Lee
proposed a plan to replace each surau
with bigger, better mosques in every
housing estate through contributions
from the Malay-Muslim community.
Ex-Cabinet minister Othman Wok
recalled: He said he would instruct the
Civil Service to prepare a circular for all
Malay-Muslims working in the government service to donate voluntarily to the
mosque building fund, and the deduction will be through CPF. That was a
good idea. Readily, they gave 50 cents.
This freed Singapore from the pressure that could be brought to bear if the
mosques were bankrolled by the oil-rich
Saudis, said Mr Lee in retrospect; it
also gave our Malays pride in building
their mosques with their own funds.
GROUP REPRESENTATION
CONSTITUENCIES
One controversial measure to ensure
minority representation was the Group

Representation Constituency scheme,

which Mr Lee pushed through in 1988.
He noted that where people in the
1950s and 1960s voted for the party regardless of candidates, once the PAPs
dominance was established and people
expected it to be returned to power, they
began voting for the MP. They preferred one who empathised with them,
spoke the same dialect or language, and
was of the same race, said Mr Lee.
It was going to be diicult if not impossible for a Malay or Indian candidate
to win against a Chinese candidate.
To end up with a Parliament without
Malay, Indian and other minority MPs
would be damaging. We had to change
the rules. In addition, this would stymie Chinese chauvinist tendencies by
any political party, he added.
SELF-HELP GROUPS
Another initiative that drew criticism
was the formation of self-help groups.
Having found that, since the days of
the British, a larger percentage of Malay students were consistently poorer
in mathematics and sciences, Mr Lee
decided the Government could not keep
the diferences in exam results secret.
To have people believe all children
were equal, whatever their race, and
that equal opportunities would allow all
to qualify for a place in a university, must
lead to discontent. The less successful
would believe the Government was not
treating them equally, he wrote.
In 1980, he roped in Malay community leaders to tackle the problem of Ma-

(Clockwise from top

left) Mr Lee visiting
the family of
Mr Balbir Singh
at Block 81
Strathmore Avenue
in 2007, when he was
Minister Mentor;
MM Lee visiting
Mr Sinnappu
Kanapathipillai
(right, seated). who
was wheelchair
bound and
benefited from
the Lift Upgrading
Project, at his
Spottiswoode Park
home in 2006;
A student from
Elias Park Primary
School dressed in
a traditional Malay
outfit during the
schools racial
harmony day
celebration.
TODAY FILE PHOTOS

lay underachievement, leading to the

irst self-help group, Mendaki, in 1982.
But Deputy Prime Minister S Rajaratnam, who crafted the National
Pledge, was opposed, fearing the move
towards community-based self-help
groups would strengthen communal
pulls. Mr Lee wrote: While I shared
Rajas ideal of a completely colour-blind
policy, I had to face reality and produce
results. From experience, we knew Chinese or Indian oicials could not reach
out to Malay parents and students in the
way their own community leaders did.
Over the years, Malay students
achievements improved. Mendakis
progress spurred the formation of the
Singapore Indian Development Association in 1991 and the Chinese Development Assistance Council in 1992.
In another instance, Mr Lees refusal
to spell out anything less than the hard
truth, as he saw it, continued to draw
lak in the last years of his life.
His remarks that Islamic piety stood
in the way of Muslims integrating with
other communities made in his book
Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going,
published in 2011 upset many. Soon
after, he issued a statement explaining
that the comment was made two or
three years earlier and that ministers
and MPs, both Malay and non-Malay,
have since told me that Singapore Malays have indeed made special eforts
to integrate with the other communities and that my call is out of date.
I stand corrected, but only just this
instance! I hope that this trend will
continue in the future.

60

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Members of Parliament sitting at the opening of the second session of the third parliamentary session in 1975 (left) and during the opening of the 11th parliamentary session in 2006.
PHOTOS: MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS COLLECTION, COURTESY OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE, TODAY FILE PHOTO

Team Spore strong

ministers, shared goals
The single decisive
factor that made for
Singapores development
he Singapore Story clearly did
not come down to Mr Lee Kuan
Yew alone. As he acknowledged: I was fortunate to have had a
strong team of ministers who shared a
common vision. They were able men determined to pursue our shared goals.
But in this regard, perhaps Mr Lees
most critical accomplishment for a
young Singapore was his exceptional
leadership acumen in putting together
the right team unearthing political
gems and administrative mandarins
speciically suited for the challenges of
the day, and whipping into shape a civil
service machinery to implement policy.
As those who worked with him have
said, he had the uncanny ability to attract the best in the country.

THE CORE TEAM

From winning the high-stakes battle
against the communists to surmounting the myriad post-independence challenges of unemployment, a housing
shortage, securing international recognition and building an army from
scratch to name just a few pivotal
roles were played by stalwarts such as
Goh Keng Swee and S Rajaratnam.
One of those roles over the decades
was to keep Mr Lee in check. They
helped me stay objective and balanced,
and saved me from any risk of megalomania, which could so easily come with
long years in oice, he said of his core
collaborators with whom, in 1954, he
founded the Peoples Action Party (PAP)
along with others such as Toh Chin
Chye, who chaired the party until 1981.
Of all his Cabinet colleagues, Mr Lee
said later, it was Dr Goh his former
economics tutor at Rales College

who made the greatest diference to

the outcome for Singapore. The architect of Singapores modern economy
and armed forces, Dr Goh was a hopeless campaign orator and that was
where their partnership was perfect
I settled the political conditions so
his tough policies we together formulated could be executed, Mr Lee said.
In his eulogy for Dr Goh in 2010, Mr
Lee described how he would challenge
my decisions and make me re-examine
the premises on which they were made.
As a result, we reached better decisions
for Singapore His robust approach
to problems encouraged me to press
on against seemingly impossible odds.
By contrast, Rajaratnam, Singapores irst foreign minister, was the
voice of the nation, the man who embodied the multiracial vision of Singapore
in the National Pledge that he penned
in 1966. A man of great moral courage
and enormous charm, said Mr Lee in
his 2006 eulogy, his contribution was
not in bricks and mortar but in ideas,
sentiments and spirit.
Dr Toh in turn was the redoubtable
ighter and bulldog; without him
holding the fort in the PAP, we might
never have held the party together.
In 1965, pressed to scramble together an army to cope with the impending
withdrawal of British troops, Mr Lee
freed Dr Goh from the Finance Ministry and replaced him with Mr Lim Kim
San brought in two years earlier
as Minister for National Development
after his sterling work in resolving the
housing shortage as head of the Housing and Development Board (HDB).
In 1970, to successfully convert and
commercialise former British army
lands and facilities, Mr Lee promoted
the most capable Permanent Secretary, Hon Sui Sen the irst chairman of the ledgling Economic Development Board to take over the Finance
portfolio. A measure of Mr Lees savvy

(Below) The first

Central Executive
Committee
(Protem) of the
Peoples Action
Party (PAP) at the
PAPs inauguration
held at Victoria
Memorial
Hall in 1954.

decision: Euromoney magazine named

Hon the Economic Minister of the Year
in 1982, a year before he died in oice.
BUREAUCRACYS BEST BRAINS
It was not just political leaders that
Singapore needed, but also able mandarins to drive the bureaucratic machinery and, more crucially, build the
economy having set up several new
industries, senior civil servants were
nominated to top appointments when
Mr Lees government found it hard to
ind people to run them.
Mr Lee, said Permanent Secretary
to the Public Service Division Yong
Ying-I, was a superb judge of talent,
with the magnetic leadership to draw
outstanding people to work with him.
They included former heads of Civil
Service Lim Siong Guan and Sim Kee
Boon (who later, as chairman of the
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore,
turned Changi Airport into an icon), as
well as others who were not only technically able, but also entrepreneurial,
innovative and yet realistic.
One was JY Pillay, whom Mr Lee described as equal to the best brains in
America. He built Singapore Airlines
into a world-class carrier and helped develop the inancial sector, among other
contributions. There was also George
Bogaars, who headed the Civil Service
and was chairman of Keppel Shipyard.
One of Mr Lees schoolmates at Rafles Institution was the tough-talking

Howe Yoon Choong, who declined when

Mr Lee asked him to enter politics in
1953 he believed Singapore needed
civil servants. As CEO of the HDB in
the 1960s, he fast-tracked the public
housing programme, and as chairman
of the Port of Singapore Authority, went
against the advice of professionals and
built Singapores irst container port.
He was inally drafted into politics and,
as a Cabinet minister, championed the
building of the Mass Rapid Transit system and Changi Airport.
Many of these best minds have described Mr Lee as having a zeal that
could convert others he was a conviction politician, a superb persuader
and mobiliser who persuaded the Civil
Service to also begin to believe that
what Lee was ighting for was their
ight as well, said Ms Yong.
INSTILLING AN
EFFICIENCY ETHOS
Beyond the people at the top, Mr Lee
knew the importance of being backed
up by an eicient administrative machinery as well to carry out his governments programmes. His imprint is in
the very ethos, processes and framework of todays Public Service.
Right after separation, he personally
drove the overhauling of a bureaucracy
that had become ridden with lackadaisical and complacent mandarins one
famous example was how he tore into
oicers after inding light switches that
did not work in a government bungalow. Sloppiness would not be tolerated.
He set out in unequivocal terms the
ethos he expected: I want those who
believe that joining the government
service means automatically you are
going up the ladder to forget it.
He also drove the pace of change
by keeping close tabs on key assignments and projects, with an exacting
eye for detail. For instance, he asked
for a monthly report on the progress
of the NEWater project even after he
stepped down in 1990.
The story is also told of how Mr Lee
wanted a weekly report of the state of
cleanliness of the toilets at Paya Lebar
Airport. The then airport manager
Mr Wong Woon Liong decided he had
better ask for a daily report in that

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Mr Lee, the Peoples Action Partys co-founder and its first Secretary-General, honoured with a standing ovation at the PAP60 commemorative event at the Victoria Concert Hall in November 2014. TODAY FILE PHOTO

case; and his operations director in turn

requested an hourly report. Hence,
Singapores clean airport toilets.
Ms Yong recalled accompanying
Mr Lee to visit the new Khoo Teck
Puat hospital a few years ago; he asked
about problems with the building design causing the corridors to get wet
when it rains. This attention to detail
by the boss matters. If the boss cares,
everyone down the line cares, she said.
MERIT AND INCORRUPTIBILITY
Central to the foundation of an efective Public Service were merit-based
recruitment and anti-corruption measures. Mr Lee ensured no individual politician, Civil Service leader or inluential
person was allowed to appoint their
friends and family. He strongly believed
the Public Service should be stafed by
each generations inest talent. So, Public Service Commission scholarships to
famous universities were ofered to top
students, and those who performed well
in service were fast-tracked.
Mr Lee argued that for Singapore to
succeed, the system should enable the
best, most suitable man for the job: You
must have an open recruitment system,
proper appraisal systems, not just go
by word of mouth of some individuals.
At the same time, he took a keen interest in promotions and appointments
in statutory boards, quasi-government
institutions and trade unions to ensure
elites who were also attuned to the governments thinking formed the ruling
class in every level of society.
To attract the best talent, he believed in ensuring competitive pay for
all schemes of service. But at the same
time this would be a clean wage policy he guided the service away from
providing staf quarters and cars very
early on. Today, there are virtually no
hidden beneits, said Ms Yong.

Mr Lee demanded incorruptibility

this was central to investors conidence, distinguished Singapore from
the rest of the developing world and was
the cornerstone of its survival. In 1959,
he moved the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau directly under the Prime
Ministers Oice, signalling that graft
would not be tolerated under his watch,
no matter the position of the culprit. For
instance, investigations were opened
in 1986 against then National Development Minister Teh Cheang Wan, who
later committed suicide.

From the time he came into our

lives, he has engaged our dreams,
mobilised our energies, and led us
as if promising us to lead us to the
promised land. He had the will to move
us, believing he could rouse the people
to take up the challenge. He seemed so
sure he knew how to do it with certainty.
Former President S R Nathan, who worked with the
labour movement before transferring to the Ministry
of Foreign Afairs and later Defence in the early years

He said: The moment key leaders

are less than incorruptible, less than
stern in demanding high standards,
from that moment the structure of
administrative integrity will weaken,
and eventually crumble. Singapore can
survive only if ministers and senior oficers are incorruptible and eicient.
He set a personal example of thrift
and frugality: A simply-furnished ofice and home, and entertaining foreign dignitaries comfortably, but not
lavishly, said Ms Yong. Ministers and
civil servants not only ly on normal
commercial airlines, but Singapore
Airlines has been instructed never to
hold a plane for any minister who is late
SIA also does not give upgrades to
civil servants, she added.

ENGAGING AND MOBILISING

For all his toughness and demanding
standards, Mr Lee also continually
engaged civil servants to explain his
thinking and ensure that the Public
Service was working towards the same
shared objectives for instance, in the
early days, he would take them along
on community visits so that they could
better grasp problems on the ground.
He would also hold meetings at
which he would gather Members of
Parliament, Permanent Secretaries,

Contrary to popular perception,

PM Lee was not a dictatorial
Prime Minister who railroaded his proposals through a meek, spineless Cabinet
Ultimately, while he responded fully to
criticisms of his proposals from Cabinet
colleagues, PM Lee was prepared to be
persuaded to modify his position and accept the views of the younger ministers.
Prof S Jayakumar, former Cabinet minister

and senior and younger Administrative

Oicers to discuss how Singapore was
to progress further; they were invited
to speak up and contribute ideas.
He makes it a point to hear from
those with expertise and experience.
He is persuasive, but he can be persuaded, Mr Lees former principal
private secretary Heng Swee Keat,
now Education Minister, once noted.
If something mattered to Mr Lee,
said former head of Civil Service Peter Ho, he was prepared to roll up his
sleeves and show the way leadership
from the front. In one oft-cited episode
in 1967, he spent a few hours instructing
ministers and civil servants on the importance of writing in clear and simple
English. Do not write in code so that

only those privy to your thoughts can

understand, he told them.
Clarity of thought was a lesson he
drilled home again and again. As Mr
Heng recalled, Mr Lees favourite question was So?. If you update him on
something, he will invariably reply with
So?. You reply and think you have answered him, but again he asks, So?
His instinct is to cut through the clutter, drill to the core of the issue, and
identify the vital points.
Mr Ho added: As civil servants, we
were constantly amazed by Lee Kuan

Lee Kuan Yew is the

political messiah,
Goh Keng Swee is the architect,
Hon Sui Sen is the builder and
Lim Kim San provides business
insights. In a way, Singapore
and Lee Kuan Yew were lucky
to have such a team then.
Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, former head
of the Civil Service who served as
Permanent Secretary under Mr Lee

Yews breadth and depth we had to be

as sharp as he. To present our views, we
had to be thorough in our research, and
compelling in our arguments, to win the
case. It created, in my view, a culture of
excellence in the Civil Service. Never
take short cuts, or the intellectuallylazy argument, or short-change other
points of view. Otherwise, Lee Kuan
Yew would snif out these weaknesses.
At the end of the day, for Mr Lee, it
was about stoking people to work for
you and work with you. Youve got to
enthuse them with the same ire and the
same eagerness that pushes you along
... That is a very big factor in leadership
at the end of the day, you must also
have the idealism to succeed, to make
people come with you. TEO XUANWEI

62

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

A leader shaped by
the post-war crucible
This lesson will
never be forgotten

ver his lifetime, Mr Lee Kuan

Yew had to sing four national
anthems: British, Japanese,
Malaysian and inally Singaporean.
This relected the progression and momentous events of his life that shaped
him into the leader he became. The
Japanese Occupation and life as a student in Britain profoundly shaped his
view of the world and human nature,
while the political struggle for power
and self-government honed his leadership style and tactics.
But it was in the pre-war years that
Mr Lees initiation into the politics of
race and religion took place.
With World War II raging in Europe
in 1940, Mr Lee, who had planned to
read law in London, took up a scholarship to study at Rales College instead (after having come in irst in
Singapore and Malaya in the Senior
Cambridge examinations).
It was at Rales College that he
encountered Malayism, a deep and
intense pro-Malay, anti-immigrant sentiment among indigenous Malays who
had been given special political and
economic rights, and who feared being
overwhelmed by hard-working Chinese
and Indian immigrants.
Coming from the Malayan states,
their attitude contrasted with that of
the Singapore Malays, who were accustomed to equal treatment in a British
colony that made no distinction among
the races.
It was also at Rales College that
Mr Lee formed lasting friendships with
some who would later be close political
colleagues, including the late Toh Chin
Chye and Goh Keng Swee, then a tutor
in economics.
THE JAPANESE OCCUPATION
The Japanese invasion in December
1941 disrupted studies at Rales College and heralded the most important
foundational years of Mr Lees life.
The Japanese had shattered the colonial system and the myth of British
superiority the idea that, as many
had believed, the British empire would
last a thousand years. We literally saw
a whole society disintegrate it collapsed overnight. And we were serfs,
to be trampled on, to do the Japaneses
bidding. And that did something to a
whole generation; we said, No! Why?
This is my life, my country! I have something to say!
The Japanese were cruel, unjust and
vicious. In his irst encounter with a
Japanese soldier, Mr Lee was slapped,
made to kneel and sent sprawling with
a boot. He worked as a clerk, as a transcriber for the Japanese, and ran his

own businesses (such as manufacturing glue) to survive.

The Japanese Military Administration governed by fear. Punishment was
so severe that crime was very rare, at
a time when people were half-starved
with deprivation. As a result I have
never believed those who advocate a
soft approach to crime and punishment, claiming that punishment does
not reduce crime, Mr Lee said.
The Occupation was his irst lesson on power, government and human
reaction, he said. I learnt more from
the three-and-a-half years of Japanese
Occupation than any university could
have taught me. I had not yet heard
Maos dictum that power grows out
of the barrel of a gun, but I knew that
Japanese brutality, Japanese guns,
Japanese bayonets and swords, and
Japanese terror and torture settled the
argument as to who was in charge, and
could make people change behaviour,
even their loyalties.
STUDENT LIFE IN ENGLAND
After the war, Mr Lee pursued his law
studies in England. It was there, in the
late 1940s, that he came to seriously
question the continued right of the
British to rule Singapore.
He was treated roughly as a colonial
by some landladies and shopkeepers,
treatment he resented from social inferiors. And I saw no reason why they
should be governing me; theyre not
superior. I decided, when I got back, I
was going to put an end to this.
He took part in a discussion group
called the Malayan Forum, which
pressed for an independent Malaya
and a non-violent end to British rule.
Its members included Dr Toh and
Dr Goh, as well as Tun Abdul Razak,
who would later become Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Mr Lees time in Britain also helped
form his initial political philosophy.
In his irst term at the London School
of Economics before he transferred
to Cambridge, where he graduated with
double irst-class honours Mr Lee
was introduced to the general theory
of socialism in political scientist Harold
Laskis lectures. He was immediately
attracted to it.
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,
he said.
But he would later alter his views
on Fabian socialism. They were going to create a just society for the
British workers the beginning of a
welfare state, cheap council housing,
free medicine and dental treatment,

Mr Lee speaking at a rally of more than 100,000 people in August 1963, when he was Prime Minister,
to press for compensation for civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation. PHOTO: AP

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

free spectacles, generous unemployment beneits. Of course, for students

from the colonies, like Singapore and
Malaya, it was a great attraction as the
alternative to communism.
We did not see until the 1970s that
that was the beginning of big problems
contributing to the inevitable decline of
the British economy.
PAP AND THE FIGHT FOR
SELF-GOVERNMENT
Returning home to Singapore in 1950,
Mr Lee continued to witness the injustice of a whites-on-top society.
You might be a good doctor, but if
you are an Asian, you would be under
a white doctor whos not as good The
injustice of it all, the discrimination,
struck me and everybody else, he said.
This was a lesson that stayed with him
when, later, he set up a merit-based,
race-neutral Civil Service in independent Singapore.
Mr Lee started work at a law irm
and became legal adviser to several
trade unions.
In 1952, when negotiations between
the Postal and Telecommunications
Uniformed Staf Union and the government failed, the union carried out
the irst strike since Emergency Regulations were introduced in 1948, upon
Mr Lees reassurance that this was
not illegal. The publicity enhanced
his reputation.
Mr Lee and his coterie, which included S Rajaratnam and Dr Toh, became
convinced that the unions could serve
as the mass base and political muscle
they had been seeking. He linked up

with left-wing Chinese-educated unionists such as Lim Chin Siong and Fong
Swee Suan in 1954. And the Peoples
Action Party was launched on Nov 21
that year born out of a marriage of
convenience with the pro-communist
trade unionists.
The next year, the PAP won three
of the four electoral seats it contested;
Mr Lee won the Tanjong Pagar seat
with the largest number of ballots
cast for any candidate, and by the
widest margin.
But as the partys mass base continued to expand considerably, the Malayan Communist Party set out to capture
the Peoples Action Party (PAP) itself.
In August 1957, during the partys
third annual conference, pro-communist elements managed to win half
the central executive committee seats.
However, ive were detained during
a government security sweep and
Mr Lee and his colleagues took the
opportunity to create a cadre system,
where only cadres could vote for the
CEC and only the CEC could approve
cadre membership.
In later years, Mr Lee would say of
learning to be a streetwise ighter in
the political arena: I would not have
been so robust or tough had I not had
communists to contend with. I have
met people who are utterly ruthless.
MERGER AND DEFEATING
THE PRO-COMMUNISTS
The British inally agreed to self-government for Singapore (except in matters of defence and foreign relations)
and Mr Lee became Prime Minis-

ter of Singapore at the age of 35, when

the PAP captured 43 of the 51 seats in
the Legislative Assembly elections of
May 1959.
But still, the pro-communists were
growing in strength among the unions,
and Mr Lee could not simply move
against them without losing the support of the Chinese-speaking workers.
Union with Malaya thus provided
the perfect issue on which to force
a break with the partys left-wing elements, which were opposed to the
merger. After a vote of conidence was
called in 1961 a vote Mr Lees government barely won with 26 votes out of
51 several assemblymen broke away
to form the Barisan Sosialis.
The months that followed were the
toughest, most exhausting ight for political survival yet for Mr Lee, against
adversaries he later described as formidable opponents, men of great resolve.
Bringing the battle with the procommunists fully out into the open, he
campaigned at the grassroots, speaking daily in Malay, English and Chinese;
and did a series of 12 radio broadcasts
on the battle for merger, arguing why
Singapore needed the hinterland for
its economic survival.
When the merger referendum was
held in September 1962, the PAP carried the day 71 per cent of votes went
to the form of merger that Mr Lee had
campaigned for.
On Aug 31, 1963, Mr Lee declared
Singapores independence from British rule and, on his 40th birthday
on Sept 16, Singapore merged with
the Federation of Malaya, Sabah and
Sarawak to form Malaysia.

INTO THE FIRE OF

MALAY COMMUNALISM
The merger would prove to be shortlived a costly experience that brought
into violent conlict the two major races
in Singapore, as well as the PAP and the
Federal government. As Mr Lee put it,
the party had jumped out of the frying
pan of the communists into the ire of
the Malay communalists.
The United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) leaders were determined to maintain total Malay supremacy. They were worried by the
inclusion in the Federation of Singapores Chinese majority and that the
PAP might make inroads in Malaysia
for Mr Lee openly and strongly opposed the bumiputra policy, calling for
a Malaysian Malaysia where Malays
and non-Malays were equal.
UMNO leader Syed Jaafar Albars
stoking of racial lames reached a watershed during the race riots of July
1964. The Singapore Governments
memorandum that later set out the
events leading to the riots concluded
that those in authority in Kuala Lumpur did not restrain those indulging in
inlammatory racist propaganda.
In September, a second wave of racial riots erupted in Singapore. And
by December 1964, both sides were
groping towards a looser arrangement
within the Federation. While Mr Lee
tried to ind a compromise with Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul
Rahman, the latter became more and
more sold on total separation.
Goh Keng Swee eventually convinced Mr Lee that secession was inevitable which was a heavy blow to
Mr Lee, who believed Singapores very
survival lay within Malaysia.
A MOMENT OF ANGUISH

Every
time we
look back
on this moment
when we signed this
agreement which
severed Singapore
from Malaysia, it
will be a moment of
anguish. For me, it is
a moment of anguish
because all my life ...
you see, the whole of
my adult life ... I have
believed in merger
and the unity of
these two territories.
Mr Lee fought back tears as
he formally announced the
separation and the full independence
of Singapore on Aug 9, 1965,
in a televised press conference

On Aug 9, 1965, in a televised press

conference, Mr Lee fought back tears
as he formally announced the separation and the full independence of
Singapore, saying: Every time we
look back on this moment when we
signed this agreement which severed
Singapore from Malaysia, it will be a
moment of anguish. For me, it is a moment of anguish because all my life ...
you see, the whole of my adult life ... I
have believed in merger and the unity
of these two territories.
But he and his team were determined to make Singapore succeed,
despite the odds and that in building
the foundations for a new country, they
would never forget what came before. I
would like to believe that the two years
we spent in Malaysia are years which
will not be easily forgotten, years in
which the people of migrant stock here
who are a majority learnt of the terrors
and the follies and the bitterness which
is generated when one group tries to
assert its dominance over the other on
the basis of one race, one language, one
religion, Mr Lee said in 1965.
It is because of this that my colleagues and I were determined, as from
the moment of separation, that this lesson will never be forgotten.

64

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Mr Chiam See Tong being congratulated by his supporters after winning the seat of Potong Pasir for the sixth time at the 2006 General Election. TODAY FILE PHOTO

When the gloves came off

In my bag I have a hatchet,
and a very sharp one
hen journalist Dennis
Bloodworth in 1989 described Mr Lee Kuan Yew
as bloody-minded and ruthless with
his adversaries. He stomps them into
the ground, he was using metaphors no
less graphic and remorseless than ones
Mr Lee was wont to use about himself.
As he famously said in a book interview: Everybody knows that in my
bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp
one. You take me on, I take my hatchet,
we meet in the cul-de-sac. Thats the
way I had to survive in the past. Thats
the way the communists tackled me.
It was in the rough-and-dirty politicking of pre-Independence Singapore
that this Cambridge-trained lawyer
learnt to be a tough street-fighter, taking on the British, the communalists
in Malaysia and the pro-communists,
people who were utterly ruthless, in
his words. And that was the style with

which he took on his later adversaries,

or potential adversaries be they unionists, the media or political opponents.
Anyone who takes me on needs to
put on knuckle-dusters, he once said.
Indeed, in many instances, he saw
his own foes as foes also of the long-term
good of Singapore and he was determined that nothing should undermine
all that had been achieved.
As he thundered at a 1980 General
Election rally: You unscramble this
the confidence, the organisation upon
which Singapore thrives and youve
had it. And let there be no mistakes
about this whoever governs Singapore
must have that iron in him or give it up!
This is not a game of cards this is
your life and mine! Ive spent a whole
lifetime building this and as long as
I am in charge nobody is going to
knock it down!
THE LABOUR UNIONS
One of the earliest challenges for
Mr Lees team was the labour unions.

A landmark confrontation took place

two years after Independence.
The president of the Public Daily
Rated Employees Union, K Suppiah,
refused to negotiate over grievances
and launched an illegal strike involving 2,400 workers and threatening to
embroil another 14,000. The strikes
leaders were arrested and labour laws
were changed to ban all strikes in certain essential services.
This was a turning point in the nations industrial history from the happy, riotous 1950s when union power
was on the rise, to a highly vulnerable
state where the government could not
allow any union to jeopardise Singapores survival, according to Mr Lee.
He persuaded union leaders that to win
investors confidence and create jobs,
industrial peace was necessary.
And to enforce this peace particularly in a key entity such as in the national airline, Singapore Airlines he
was ready to break heads.
Singapore Airlines at its birth in 1972
was a key project aimed at boosting

the international linkages the economy

needed, and Mr Lee had personally
secured the pact for SIAs first and
most lucrative route then, to London.
So when its pilots association took illegal industrial action in 1980, Mr Lee
confronted them, threatening: I do
not want to do you in, but I will not let
anyone do Singapore in.
Fifteen ex-co members were
charged and convicted, and the association was deregistered and re-formed
as the Air Line Pilots Association Singapore (ALPA-S).
In 2003, following a leadership ouster at ALPA-S and a dispute with management that threatened to cost the
airline hundreds of millions of dollars in
losses, the Senior Minister summoned
14 of the union leaders to the Istana for
a two-hour meeting.
As he later told a global forum: In
Singapore, when we decide that they
are breaking the rules of the game, the
unspoken rules as to how we survive,
how we have prospered, then either
their head is broken or our bones are
broken So we are telling them, both
management and unions, you play this
game, there are going to be broken
heads. Lets stop it.
But the iron fist was not the only

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

thing Mr Lee was about. Permanent

Secretary Yong Ying-I highlighted the
care with which he had designed the Labour Court not involving lawyers in
hearings, so as to encourage settlement
of disputes rather than an adversarial
approach; and there being no fees to act
as an obstacle. The top priority was to
give companies and workers no excuse
not to settle.
POLITICAL OPPONENTS
For all his ruthless legal actions against
key political opponents since the Peoples Action Partys (PAP) dominance
of Parliament was broken in the 1980s,
Mr Lee was not against the idea of having a good parliamentary opposition
something that would provide ministers with sparring partners to keep
them on their toes.
I have said if we have a credible
First World opposition, well treat them
with First World civility, he wrote. If
you are polite to me, Im polite to you,
but Ill demolish your policy. It is the
job of every government to do that if
you want to stay in power.
On Mr Chiam See Tong, he noted:
Ive never been rough with Chiam.
Hes gentle, Im gentle. Hes a decent
man and I respect him for that.
But woe betide those who accused
him of corruption or misusing his powers
of oice; or who set out to be destructive
trouble-makers. Mr Lee unleashed the
full force of not only his oratory, but also
his legal weaponry on them.
And he made no bones about using
libel suits to remove his political rivals.
If we had considered them serious
political igures, he said of Mr Chiam
and Workers Partys Low Thia Khiang
in 2003, we would not have kept them
politically alive for so long. We could
have bankrupted them earlier.
His iercest and most bitter antagonist was Mr Joshua Benjamin
Jeyaretnam. After winning the 1981
Anson by-election, Mr Jeyaretnam
became a thorn in the PAPs side. Although barred from contesting the
1988 General Election upon conviction
of misappropriating funds, he spoke at
the campaign rallies and alleged that

Mr Lee had tried to cover up former

National Development Minister Teh
Cheang Wans corruption. He lost the
defamation suit and was ordered to
pay S$260,000 in damages to Mr Lee.
Other actions followed in 1995 and
1997, brought by other PAP MPs, and
in 2001 Mr Jeyaretnam was declared
bankrupt. Mr Lee said bluntly in 1997:
As long as Jeyaretnam stands for what
he stands for a thoroughly destructive force for me we will knock him.
There are two ways of playing this.
One, you attack the policies; two, you
attack the system. Jeyaretnam was
attacking the system, he brought the
Chief Justice into it. If I want to ix you,
do I need the Chief Justice to ix you?
He brought the Chief Justice into the
political arena. He brought my only
friend in university into our quarrel.
How dare he!
Another Opposition leader who became the target of two libel suits by
Mr Lee was Singapore Democratic

Above left:
Mr J B Jeyaretnam,
Mr Lees fiercest
and most bitter
antagonist.
Above right:
Mr Low Thia
Khiang speaking
at a Workers Party
rally. TODAY FILE PHOTOS

Supposing Catherine Lim was writing

about me and not the Prime Minister ...
she would not dare, right? Because
my posture, my response has been such that
nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put
on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac
... Anybody who decides to take me on needs
to put on knuckle-dusters. If you think you can
hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no
other way you can govern a Chinese society.

Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan

irst after the 2001 GE and again in 2008
for an article in the SDPs newsletter. In
the latter case, Mr Lee took the stand
along with fellow plaintif Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
The point Mr Lee was making in all
this, said former Cabinet Minister S
Jayakumar, was: He is prepared for a
robust criticism of his policies. He can
be criticised for foolishness, maybe even
for incompetence, for arrogance, but his
red line was: Not on reputation and integrity he would want to demonstrate
that that is a red line, you justify it. Hes
prepared to justify his record.
THE MEDIA
To Mr Lee, the idea of a free press as
the fourth estate was anathema.
Freedom of the press, freedom of
the news media, must be subordinated
to the overriding needs of the integrity
of Singapore, and to the primary purposes of an elected government, he
declared in 1971 to a General Assembly
Of The International Press Institute.
And that was what he set out to drill
into the Singapore media to act as
a positive agent in nation-building. He
would brook nothing less.
In a speech to the Singapore Press

Mr Lee in The Man And His Ideas, 1997

Political reform need not go hand

in hand with economic liberalisation.
I do not believe that if you are libertarian,
full of diverse opinions, full of competing
ideas in the market place, full of sound
and fury, therefore you will succeed.
Mr Lee in 2004

(Mr Lee was) a tough man he had to be. If

he wanted to deal with the colonial power
and at the same time get rid of the enormously
popular let-wing front in Singapore, he had to be
not only astute, but also streetwise a ighter.
The late journalist Dennis Bloodworth,
who lived in Singapore from 1956 until his death in 2005
Dr Chee Soon Juan.

Club in 1972, Mr Lee warned: When

any newspaper pours a daily dose of language, cultural or religious poison, I put
my knuckle-dusters on. Do not believe
you can beat the state. Indeed, former
Singapore Press Holdings English and
Malay Newspapers Division Editor-inChief Cheong Yip Seng described the
1970s as the bare-knuckles phase in
the turbulent history of governmentmedia relations.
In 1973, for example, Mr Lee demanded that a Sunday Nation writer
be sacked for decrying the relentless
pursuit of good grades what Mr Lee
saw as a critique of education policy.
The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act of 1974 set the framework for
greater government control of the media; later amendments restricted the
circulation of foreign publications that
engaged in Singapore politics or refused
to grant the Government a right of reply.
This was because Mr Lee believed the
foreign press should be observers and
not participants in domestic politics.
If we do not stand up to answer
our critics from the foreign media,
Singaporeans, especially journalists
and academics, will believe that their
leaders are afraid of or unequal to the
argument, and will lose respect for us,
Mr Lee wrote in his memoirs.
Over the years, restrictions were imposed on the local circulation of various
international publications that refused
to print in full the Governments reply
to articles: Time Magazine, the Asian
Wall Street Journal, Asiaweek magazine, the Economist.
The Far Eastern Economic Review,
in addition to having its circulation cut
from 9,500 copies to 500 in 1987, also
was hit with a libel suit, which Mr Lee
won, in 1989. The International Herald
Tribune came in for a couple of libel
suits in 1994.
To criticisms that he came down
too hard on the media and political
opponents, Mr Lee countered: Wrong
ideas have to be challenged before they
inluence public opinion and make for
problems. Those who try to be clever at
the expense of the government should
not complain if my replies are as sharp
as their criticisms.

66

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Mr Lee standing on the running board of a government vehicle as he addresses the crowd in a slum area to seek a halt in the racial violence that rocked Singapore in July 1964, when he was PM. PHOTO: AP

The great persuader

Dominance of the public
platform was my strength
e did not crave to be popular; rather, Mr Lee Kuan Yew
sought to persuade people to
see his point of view.
A forceful orator in part due to his
legal training, his ability to sway his listeners contributed greatly to Mr Lees
efectiveness over the years. The man
shaped in the turbulent power struggles of pre-independence Singapore
grasped full well the importance of being able to win over the crowd, though
he refused to be led by it.
A leader concerned with being popular was a weak leader, he believed, and he
preferred to be feared than to be loved.
In an interview in 1975, Mr Lee said: My
job is to persuade my lock, my people,
and thats the right way ... What the

crowd thinks of me from time to time, I

consider totally irrelevant The whole
ground can be against me, but if I know
this is right, I set out to do it, and I am
quite sure, given time, as events unfold,
I will win over the ground.
His former Cabinet colleague, the
late Goh Keng Swee, said of his persuasive powers: He gets his way not, as
some opposition people say, by dictating to other people, but by persuading
them. He spends an awful lot of time
persuading people.
A LOCAL RONALD REAGAN
Mr Lee did not mince words nor try
to be politically correct. He once described himself as a local Ronald
Reagan (referring to the charismatic former-actor-turned-United States
President), able to speak to the people
over the blather of the media, in ref-

erence to his success at defending his

position against political opponents
and the media.
Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh,
who heard Mr Lee speak to a crowd of
hostile port workers at Tanjong Pagar
in 1963, recounted: Through his sheer
charisma, eloquence and persuasiveness, and using a mixture of Malay
and English, he was able to turn the
meeting around.
Gifts or not, communication and
persuasion were something Mr Lee
worked at relentlessly.
Working with the labour unions
to build a political support base after
his return from Britain, he learnt to
speak the common peoples languages Malay, Chinese and simpliied
English instead of the BBC-standard
natural to him.
He took up Mandarin classes again
with renewed determination in 1955 at
the age of 32, and by the 1959 elections,
had mastered it well enough to speak
without a script. I won the respect of
the Chinese-speaking for working hard
at their language, he recollected.

For the 1961 Hong Lim by-election,

Mr Lee sweated blood to master Hokkien devoting an hour to learning it
three to ive times a week, so he could
get his views across to the uneducated.
To learn a new language in his late
30s amid day-to-day work required superhuman concentration and efort, he
recalled. The irst time I made a Hokkien speech in Hong Lim, the children
in the crowd laughed at my mistakes
wrong sound, wrong tones, wrong
sentence structure, wrong almost everything. But I could not aford to be shy
or embarrassed. It was a matter of life
and death.
MASTER STORYTELLER
AND POP STAR
Over the months of September and October 1961, Mr Lee gave a series of 12 radio talks campaigning for merger with
Malaysia, explaining why it was crucial
for Singapores survival. The broadcasts were made in Malay, Mandarin
and English, three times a week each.
It was a gruelling experience.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

On one occasion, Radio Singapore

staf were alarmed when they looked
through the studios glass panel and did
not see me at the microphone. One of
them spotted me lying on my back, lat
on the loor in a state of collapse, as she
thought, Mr Lee recounted. He had,
in fact, lain down to recover from my
exhaustion and recharge my batteries
in between recording the three diferent versions of my broadcast.
Those broadcasts showed Mr Lee
to be a master storyteller, said former
Singapore Press Holdings Editor-inChief (English and Malay Newspapers
Division) Cheong Yip Seng, who was
then a Senior Cambridge-year schoolboy. Every broadcast ended with the
listener in suspense and anxious for
the next instalment, the way ordinary
folk at that time lapped up the kung fu
serials broadcast over Redifusion by
Lei Tai Sor in Cantonese.
He could explain complex issues
in simple terms, in a way the masses,
usually in the thousands and then not
well-educated, could understand. His
deep, powerful voice rose and fell for
emphasis and efect, and he spoke with
great passion, determined to convince.
While radio had a wide reach,
Mr Lee believed in also taking his
message directly to the ground. After
the merger referendum in September
1962, he visited constituencies to shore
up support for elections the next year.
Those 10 months between December 1962 and September 1963, Mr Lee
said, were the most hectic of his life:
He made as many as 10 speeches a
day, in Malay, English and Hokkien or
Mandarin. I became a kind of political
pop star, he said.
SPEECH THAT
CHANGED HISTORY
But possibly his most important speech
yet came in May 1965, nearly two years
after Singapore had become part of Malaysia, when he laid out his case against
communal politics. His audience: The
Malaysian Parliament.
He caused a sensation addressing
them in Bahasa. Former Minister for
Social Afairs Othman Wok said: I
noticed that while he was speaking,
the Alliance leaders sitting in front of
us, they sank lower and lower because
they were embarrassed this man could
speak Malay better than them.
Former Cabinet colleague, the late
Lim Kim San, noted: That was the
turning point. They perceived him as
a dangerous man who could one day
be the Prime Minister of Malaya. This
was the speech that changed history.
On Aug 9, 1965, Singapore was
kicked out of Malaysia and became an
independent state.
AT RALLIES
After independence, with the Peoples
Action Party making a clean sweep of
Parliament seats for close to two decades, Mr Lee institutionalised the practice of addressing the nation in his National Day Rally, which was broadcast on
television to reach as many as possible.

Speaking in English, Malay and Chinese in the years most important political speech, he would give an overview
of the Governments performance, spell
out the key challenges and talk about
policy changes and, more often than
not, remind his audience colourfully of
Singapores vulnerabilities.
With only notes, I would speak for
one to two hours on the important issues of the day ... I had to learn how to
hold the audience, both at the National
Theatre and over television, and get
them to follow my thought processes,
Mr Lee said.
He felt at his best as an orator without a script. I had better rapport with
my audience when I expressed my
thoughts as they formed and lowed
in my mind, whereas if I had a script,
I could not get my message across with
the same conviction and passion.
He was in his element in the election
hustings, delivering iery, no-holdsbarred oratory in the evenings at mass
rallies in the constituencies. But particularly memorable were his speeches
at Fullerton Square in the midday heat
to reach out to oice workers.
Sometimes there would be a heavy
shower and I would be drenched while
the crowds sheltered under umbrellas
or took cover on the ive-foot-way of ofices around the square, Mr Lee said.
Former Cabinet minister George
Yeo recalled one such wet Fullerton
rally in 1980.
So the umbrellas sprouted open
and the crowds started idgeting and
you could sense that they would soon
disperse. But (Mr Lee) did not miss a
beat. He continued. He looked them in
the eyes. He addressed them as if he
was talking to each and every one of
them personally.
Mr Lee said: The people stayed
and I carried on. Although wet, I never
felt the cold; my adrenaline was pouring out. The spoken word on television
made a far greater impact than the
written script in newspapers. My dominance of the public platform was my
strength throughout my political life.
His trademark combativeness and
candour during the hustings, nonetheless, did not always sit well with a
newer generation of Singaporeans. In
the 2011 General Election, his remarks
to reporters that Aljunied voters would
have ive years to live and repent if
they voted in the Workers Party team
sparked a storm.
Asked about the potential backlash,
he said: I am 87. I am speaking the
truth. I do not want to be hypocritical.

I have never been overconcerned or obsessed

with opinion polls or popularity
polls. I think a leader who is, is
a weak leader. Between being
loved and being feared, I have
always believed Machiavelli
was right. If nobody is afraid
of me, Im meaningless.
Mr Lee in his memoirs

Mr Lee felt at his best as an orator without a script. I had better rapport with my audience when I expressed my
thoughts as they formed and flowed in my mind. TODAY FILE PHOTO

Whatever he wanted his interlocutors

to hear, he engaged them such that
they focused their entire attention on what
he had to say He also had a great ability to
communicate his ideas to small and large
groups Depending on the situation, his audience
might be made up of many who may not be wellversed in English. On such occasions, he would
comment or criticise using a Malay or Chinese
(dialect) expression that resonated with the
average man and even humoured the audience.
Former President S R Nathan

You see he has

remarkable persuasive
powers and he gets his
way not, as some opposition
people say, by dictating to
other people, but by persuading
them. He spends an awful
lot of time persuading people.
Late Cabinet minister Goh Keng Swee

68

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Mr Lee having a word with then Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, seated beside Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, as then President S R Nathan makes the opening speech during the opening of the 11th
parliamentary session in 2006, when Mr Lee was Minister Mentor. TODAY FILE PHOTO

Political renewal, a life and death matter

My most important job
was to get a team that
could carry on the work
hile the obsession of many
political leaders especially those of new nationstates was with holding on to power
for as long as possible, Mr Lee Kuan
Yews, from the very beginning, was
the search for his successors.
In fact, it was barely over a year into
his task of governing a newly-independent Singapore when almost the entire
Old Guard leadership were relatively
young that he expressed his worries
in 1966 about the Republics very thin
crust of leadership, for it was a lifeand-death matter, in Mr Lees words,
that developing countries such as Singapore had good political leadership.
And by the 1968 elections, his eforts
to assemble a group of successors had
begun bright PhD holders such as
Chiang Hai Ding and Wong Lin Ken
were ielded, but he quickly learnt that
political leadership required other
qualities besides a disciplined mind
able to marshal facts and igures.
There is a heavy price to pay if mediocrities and opportunists ever take
control of the government of Singapore, he once said, because this tiny,

resource-less island had nothing except

its strategic location and the people
who can maximise this location by organisation, management, skills and,
most important of all, brains.
Five years of such a government,
probably a coalition and Singapore
will be down on her knees ... Once in
disarray, it will not be possible to put
it together again.
HEADHUNTING
When then-Finance Minister Hon Sui
Sen asked in 1976 to retire after one
more election, what Mr Hon said had
a profound inluence on Mr Lees
conviction that my most important
job was to get a team that could carry
on the work, otherwise we would fail.
He said, You know, when these
chairmen and CEOs come to see me,
they are not just looking at me, they are
looking for who will be taking my place.
Because their investments are going to
go on a long time 10, 15, 20 years
and I wont be here, Mr Lee recounted.
Helped by his closest collaborators,
Dr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S Rajaratnam, Mr Lee endeavoured tirelessly to
work out a system that would uncover,
from a tiny catchment area, potential
successors who could excel in an environment with a small margin for error.

My experience
... has led me
to conclude
that we need
good men to
have good
government.
However good
the system of
government,
bad leaders
will bring
harm to their
people. On
the other
hand, I have
seen several
societies well
governed in
spite of poor
systems of
government,
because good,
strong leaders
were in charge.
Mr Lee in his
book From Third
World To First

These eforts ranged from systematically scouring the countrys top

executives, academics and civil servants; to starting the Singapore Armed
Forces Overseas Scholarship in 1971
to groom the best brains at a young
age (by 1995, four former SAF scholars
had entered politics and later became
Cabinet Ministers Lee Hsien Loong,
George Yeo, Lim Hng Kiang and Teo
Chee Hean).
Mr Lee even studied the headhunting processes of top multi-national corporations he eventually adopted in
1983 Shells system of assessing a candidates helicopter qualities and
included evaluations by psychologists
and psychiatrists in the Peoples Action
Partys famous tea sessions with potential political recruits.
The attempts to inject new blood
into the leadership were not without
stress. Several old-guard ministers
were concerned about the pace at which
they were being replaced, he wrote in
his memoirs.
PAYING COMPETITIVE SALARIES
Although the means of identifying able
men and women were eventually settled, Mr Lee faced the challenge of
convincing them to serve in politics.
The controversial solution he pushed

through in 1985 of paying oice-holders

reasonable salaries also aimed at
deterring corruption saw him lock
horns with Opposition MPs for three
hours in Parliament. The issue was
revisited several times over the years,
especially following Mr Lees radical
proposal in 1995 to peg ministerial
salaries, based on a formula, to the six
highest-paid individuals in the private
sector and it remains contentious
today for many Singaporeans.
Nonetheless, his response to the debate over the latest review of ministers
pay in 2011 left no doubts as to Mr Lees
continued conviction that this was how
to get good people to step forward.
To ind able and committed men
and women of integrity, willing to spend
the prime of their lives, and going
through the risky process of elections,
we cannot underpay our ministers and
argue that their sole reward should be
their contribution to the public good,
he said in January 2012.
We did not take Singapore from the
Third to the First World by headhunting ministers willing to sacriice their
childrens future when undertaking a
public service duty. We took a pragmatic course that did not require people
of calibre to give up too much for the
public good. We must not reduce Singapore to another ordinary country in

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Mr Lee and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the PAP60 commemorative event at the Victoria Concert Hall in November 2014. TODAY FILE PHOTO

the Third World by dodging the issue of

competitive ministerial remuneration.
This was a clean wage, however
there were none of the frills of oice,
such as houses or a State plane, that
other countries ministers enjoyed. Permanent Secretary of the Public Service
Division Yong Ying-I noted: We are
possibly the only country in the world
where ministers are not driven around
in chaufeured limousines, but drive
themselves in their own cars to work
and to many public engagements.
In 2006, when the saga involving
Hotel Properties came to light, Mr Lee
wanted the issue of unsolicited discounts for purchases of new condominium units made by him and then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
explained in Parliament.
There had been market talk that
the two leaders had been ofered units
in all of HPLs property projects. Following a parliamentary debate, no
impropriety was found in the sales.
Nevertheless, the saga led to new
rules for ministers, such as having to
clear all property purchases with the
Prime Minister, whether for occupation or investment.
At the conclusion of the debate, then
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said he
had not taken the decision to investigate
the matter lightly, noting that much was
at stake in terms of the reputation of
the Government and the political cost,
among other things.
But, referring to Mr Lee Kuan Yew,
he said: Integrity is the cornerstone of

the PAP government. Senior Minister

laid this cornerstone. It will survive the
Senior Minister.
The decision to give this a full and
public hearing raised eyebrows internationally. Almost anywhere in Asia,
few would have cared. But this was Singapore, which takes pride in its image
of incorruptibility, noted an Asiaweek
article. (The discounts, incidentally,
were treated as unsolicited gifts and
given to the Government.)
To Mr Lee, there was no room in
government for self-aggrandisement
or personality cults. Until his bronze
bust was unveiled at the Singapore
University of Technology and Design
in August 2013, in all of six decades
there were no public statues or buildings, and only two schools of learning,
named after him.
HANDING OVER THE REINS
What set Mr Lee apart from many leaders was the visible, planned manner in
which he orchestrated handing over the
reins in November 1990. He had originally aimed to step down in 1988, believing the sooner I give up, the younger
I will be and the more active I can be
to make sure that the team succeeds
The later I give up, the older and slower
I will be, the more risky its success.
As far back as 1980, he had announced a nucleus of seven names
including Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony
Tan, Mr S Dhanabalan and Mr Ong
Teng Cheong from whom Singa-

They say,
oh, lets have
multi-party
politics. Lets
have diferent
parties change
and be in
charge of the
Government.
Is it that
simple? You
vote in a
Division Three
government,
not a
Division One
government,
and the whole
economy will
just subside
within three,
four years.
Finished.
Lee Kuan Yew
on Aug 15 2008

pores next leader would be chosen. He

gave a landmark speech in the rain for
an hour, urging Singaporeans to help
him test out the second-generation
leadership for the sake of Singapores
leadership self-renewal.
Mr Lee let the younger ministers
pick their own leader after the 1984
election, they unanimously chose
Mr Goh and it was years later that he
revealed that his irst choice had been
Dr Tan as he found Mr Goh wooden.
Weeks before he passed the baton to
Mr Goh, Mr Lee told foreign magazine
Worldlink: I think my mission will not
be complete until the system has been
handed over and works without me.
Whether my colleagues and I have succeeded or failed depends upon whether
Singapore works without us.
ETHOS OF STEWARDSHIP
Mr Lee remained in the Cabinet until
2011, irst as Senior Minister, then as
Minister Mentor. His staying on attracted criticisms periodically about
whether he had truly relinquished power, particularly after it emerged that his
son would be the third Prime Minister.
But Mr Lee himself, as well as Prime
Ministers Goh and Lee Hsien Loong,
asserted that his role had evolved to become a resource person, or a guardian
to the younger team. Indeed, Mr Lee
had begun the process of ceding the
reins well before he oicially handed
over in 1990.
As he told a rally crowd in the 1988

General Election: This time you are

casting your vote not in judgment over
my performance because I did not make
the decisions For four years, (Goh
Chok Tong and his younger colleagues)
have made all the major decisions. Yes,
I presided over the Cabinet meetings,
but even when I disagreed with them,
I have not over-ruled them.
This had included, for instance, modifying his position to take in the younger
ministers views on the shape of the
Elected President scheme, which was
enacted in 1991, and not objecting to the
plans to have casinos here even though
he was once dead set against the idea..
Speaking to a team of journalists
interviewing him for a book in 2009,
Mr Lee said: As long as Im of value,
my value is to try and consolidate what
weve achieved in Singapore. Im not
interested in consolidating any leader
or any system. Having seen this place
rise, I do not want to see it fall its
as simple as that.
This ethos of honest stewardship,
observed Ms Yong, has permeated
beyond the political sphere with key
ramiications. Singapores bureaucracy, unlike others, having delivered
professionally-run companies such as
Singapore Technologies, Keppel and
Singapore Airlines, devolved power
and deliberately withdrew from control. To use power for the right purpose, and to be able to give it up and
withdraw at the right time, is a critically
important ethos we have imbibed from
him, she said. TEO XUANWEI

70

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Policies for the bedroom and beyond

We would not have
made economic progress
if we had not intervened
on very personal matters
r Lee Kuan Yew did not seek
to remake only Singapore; he
wanted to remake Singaporeans too. His governments social engineering eforts ranged from changing social habits that were a legacy of
coolie ancestors to even, controversially, who should have babies so as to
breed talent.
I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens, he
said in 1987. Had I not done that, we
wouldnt be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse ... we would
not have made economic progress if
we had not intervened on very personal matters.
To make Singapore a First World
oasis in a Third World region, he told
The New York Times, we built the infrastructure The diicult part was
getting the people to change their habits
so they behaved more like First World
citizens, not like Third World citizens
spitting and littering all over the place.
The carrot was used and, more often
than not, a big stick.
There were campaigns more than
200 in the 70s and 80s and the
Keep Singapore Clean Campaign in
1968 was one of the irst. There were
ines for littering, jaywalking, spitting,
urinating in lifts, failing to lush toilets
and smoking in certain areas. (Mr Lee
was himself a smoker who quit in his
30s when it caused him to lose his voice
in election hustings)
With typically blunt imagery,
Mr Lee said: Mine is a very matterof-fact approach to the problem. If you
can select a population and theyre educated and theyre properly brought up,
then you dont have to use too much of
the stick because they would already
have been trained. Its like with dogs.
You train it in a proper way from small.
It will know that its got to leave, go outside to pee and to defecate.
No, we are not that kind of society.
We had to train adult dogs who even
today deliberately urinate in the lifts.
To improve the image Singaporeans
presented to tourists, a concerted effort was made with the launch, in June
1979, of the annual National Courtesy
Campaign. Being polite, Mr Lee said
in his speech, was a desirable attribute
which was found in cultivated societies.
Still, it was another measure that
the Republic became famous for around
the world.
For many years, Mr Lee had been
concerned about used gum stuck to
pavements, buses and lifts, which made
for costly maintenance, but had resisted a ban. But when the MRT began
running in 1987 and vandals gum prevented doors from closing, the Government banned chewing gum in 1992.

BIRTH RATES
The Governments reach extended to
the bedroom. A population boom in the
early years threatened to overwhelm
the ledgling nations housing, education and medical infrastructure, as well
as strain the economy as well. So, the
Stop at Two policy was born.
The Family Planning and Population
Board was set up in 1966 to achieve zero
population growth. Abortion was legalised and voluntary sterilisation encouraged among lower-educated women.
Disincentives were imposed on those
who had more than two including
reduced beneits in housing allocation,
maternity leave and tax deductions,
and lower priority for school places.
But by 1980, population growth had
fallen below replacement level to 1.5
per cent, from 2.8 in 1970 which the
Government realised only upon analysis in 1983.
Referring to criticism that it had
been wrong, Mr Lee wrote: Yes and
no. Without lower population growth,
unemployment and schooling problems
would not have been solved, he argued.
But we should have foreseen that the
better-educated would have two or fewer children, and the less-educated four
or more. In hindsight, we would have
reined and targeted our campaign differently right from the 1960s, he said.
In recent years, the Government
poured money and efort into trying to
get Singaporeans to have more babies,
but the low birth rate has persisted. Mr
Lee dismissed as absurd the accusation that the Stop at Two policy was to

The Family
Planning and
Population Board
float on Maxwell
Road during the
1975 National
Day Parade.

blame. Couples reluctance was caused

by changed lifestyles and mindsets, he
wrote, which no amount of inancial
perks could alter. I cannot solve the
problem and I have given up, he said,
leaving the task to the new generation
of leaders.

PHOTO: MINISTRY OF
INFORMATION AND THE

GRADUATE MOTHERS SCHEME

ARTS COLLECTION,
COURTESY OF NATIONAL
ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE

I started of
believing all
men
were equal.
I now know
thats the
most unlikely
thing ever to
have been ...
I didnt start
of with that
knowledge.
But by
observation,
reading,
watching,
arguing, asking
and then
bullying my
way to the
top, that is the
conclusion Ive
come to.
Mr Lee in 1997

Even more controversial was what

arose from that 1980 census about
better-educated women having fewer
children. Mr Lee articulated his controversial eugenicist idea of breeding
talent in his 1983 National Day Rally,
televised live to the nation.
He told Singaporeans with trademark bluntness: If you dont include
your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf,
you would end up a more stupid society
... So what happens? There will be less
bright people to support dumb people in
the next generation. Thats a problem.
He wrote later in recollection: The
press named it the Great Marriage
Debate. As I had expected, the speech
stirred a hornets nest.
The next year, Mr Lee and then Education Minister Goh Keng Swee decided
to grant graduate mothers priority in
the best schools for their third child.
The controversial Graduate Mothers
Scheme proved divisive among the
public and the Cabinet, with egalitarians such as Deputy Prime Minister S
Rajaratnam outraged. The backlash
contributed to the Peoples Action Partys 12-percentage-point drop in votes
in that years General Election, and the

scheme was dropped soon after.

But Mr Lee continued to hold on to
his view that humans were gifted unequally by nature. He had cited studies of identical twins brought up separately, which found evidence that about
80 per cent of a persons make-up was
from nature and the rest from nurture.
While government policies could
help equalise opportunities at the starting point, he wrote in Hard Truths To
Keep Singapore Going: I tell people
frankly God has made you that way ... I
can give you extra tuition, better environment, but the incremental beneits
are not that much. And their peers with
bigger engines will also make progress.
So the gap will never be closed.
Still ... we are always trying: Give
them extra tuition, give them extra
attention, encourage them. So when I
receive an honorarium for my speaking engagements, I donate the money
to give out scholarships and prizes to
the lower end to encourage them to
do well and upgrade from ITE to polytechnics and so on. Occasionally, some
do make it.
One measure of this era that did
survive, however: The Social Development Unit (now called the Social Development Network), set up in 1984 to
facilitate socialising between men and
women graduates. While the Governments matchmaking eforts drew some
ridicule over the years, Mr Lee averred:
Traditional methods of choosing marriage partners had been ruptured by
universal education. The Government
had to provide alternatives to the family matchmakers of old.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Mr Lee meeting US President Barack Obama in the Oval Oice in Washington in 2009, when he was Minister Mentor. The two leaders exchanged views on the evolving situation in Asia and the world. Photo: ReuteRs

All the world was his stage

Mr Lee built close ties with both
Asian and Western leaders,
who valued his unique insights
n 1967, when Singapore was two
years independent and he was a
young Premier of only 44, a report
described Mr Lee Kuan Yew giving a
talk at Harvard University. As he spoke
about the escalating Vietnam War and
the role of the United States, the Crimson university newspaper suggested:
Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of the
city-state of Singapore, is a Mayor who
talks as though he may one day be a
world statesman ... His concern for the
fate of South-east Asia, fortiied by his
spectacular economic successes and
his ambitious style, makes Lee a potential international strongman.
Five decades on, this description
seems prophetic. Mr Lee is to be credited with leading Singapores early transformation from Third World to First, as
relected in the title of the irst volume
of his memoirs. More than any other
member of the founding generation of
local politicians, he shaped politics and
ensured continuity. Singapores survival and success are his touchstones.
Yet, more than this, Mr Lee is remembered not only as the irst Prime
Minister of Singapore; his inluence has
transcended our city-state.

PRAGMATISM PLUS
Mr Lee came to power in a generation
of nationalists who sought independ-

ence from the Western powers in the

1950s and 1960s, such as Gamal Abdel
Nasser of Egypt and Jawaharlal Nehru
of India. These charismatic leaders captured the headlines of that tumultuous
era and live on in their national histories. Not all, however, have enjoyed the
same longevity or continued to enjoy
standing and relevance.
Yet Mr Lee was never an idealist nor
a demagogue of Third World ideology
and utopian theories. One might even
say that he does not leave behind a coherent, theoretical framework or populist slogan. He was famously pragmatic
to focus on what works. But this did not
mean he had no regard for principle.
Rather, he blended the two.
In a recent assessment, Ambassador-at-Large and former Permanent
Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign
Afairs Bilahari Kausikan remarked:
He understood that international order is the prerequisite for international
law and organisation. So while you may
work towards an ideal and must stand
irm on basic principles, you settle for
what is practical at any point of time,
rather than embark on quixotic quests.
A major factor that shaped Mr Lees
world view was his experience of the
Japanese occupation, as he himself has
alluded to on several occasions. The illusion of colonial superiority and of Singapore as the impregnable fortress
was so suddenly and savagely torn
apart that the experience anchored
Mr Lee to an unsentimental view of
human nature and a focus on power.
This was reinforced by events in the

early history of Singapore: Konfrontasi

with Sukarnos Indonesia, the exit from
and tensions with Malaysia, and the
withdrawal of the British bases in 1971.
NIMBLE AMONG THE GIANTS
These experiences drove Mr Lee to be a
shrewd and nimble diplomat to ensure
stability and security for Singapore in
a diicult world. A key part of Mr Lees
foreign policy can in this context be
understood as eforts to engage with
the powerful and especially with the
US. During the Cold War, Mr Lee and
Singapore made every efort to befriend
America as the dominant superpower
in Asia in the post-WWII world and
bulwark against communism.
Survival was moreover not only
accepting American protection and,
while Singapore did not become a US
ally, Mr Lee emphasised a broader
engagement. As Ms Chan Heng Chee,
former long-serving Ambassador to
the US, recounted: For Lee Kuan
Yew, the US role in Asia was not just a
military one. The US ofered markets,
technology and investments to the region that no other power could match.
This was essential for the emergence of
the four Asian tigers and the ASEAN
(Association of South-east Asian Nations) countries.
Another important dimension in
Mr Lees foreign engagements arose
as he developed a close relationship
with China. Beginning from Deng
Xiaopings historic visit to Singapore
in 1978, Mr Lee made every efort to

engage the reforming China, politically and economically.

Yet as he developed this relationship with China, Mr Lee was not one
to indulge in the idea that China and
Asias future could be separated from
the American role. Instead, with his
knowledge and access to the reforming
China, Mr Lee played a major role in
helping America and the West better
understand China.
When the Tiananmen incident on
June 4, 1989, triggered US threats of
sanctions and boycotts, Mr Lee articulated a view of human rights and
Asian values that responded to Western criticism. While not the only Asian
spokesman with such views, then and
now still controversial, his testimony
held weight among world leaders not
only because of his innate understanding of China, but because he had built
up long-standing ties and trust.
Conversely, Mr Lee also shared other somewhat less welcome insights
into China. This was never easy. He
believed that China and the rest of
Asia would beneit from the continued
presence of the US.
In his keynote address after receiving a lifetime achievement award from
the US-ASEAN Business Council in
Washington, DC, in 2009, Mr Lee said:
The size of China makes it impossible
for the rest of Asia, including Japan
and India, to match it in weight and
capacity in about 20 to 30 years. So
we need America to strike a balance.
His comments were misconstrued
by some netizens and commentators in
China. But throughout, Chinese leaders
from Deng Xiaoping and Mr Jiang
Zemin to Mr Hu Jintao and Mr Xi Jinping have understood that this and
Continued on Page 72

72

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

CONTINUED FROM PAgE 71

Mr Lees other remarks were always

intended to be in their countrys interest. This combination of insight, access
and credibility with both Chinese and
Western leaders allowed Mr Lee to play
a signiicant role in one of the most important issues in the world: The evolving US-China relationship.
UNVARNISHED VIEWS
FOR A LISTENING WORLD
Some might think a statesman should
be above politics and controversy,
something of a popular and secular
saint spouting about world peace. But
Mr Lee was never afraid of controversy. He did not court headlines deliberately, but neither would he self-censor
if it meant his views were less sharply
focused and expressed. As a 32-yearold, Mr Lee said: I have been accused
of many things in my life, but not even
my worst enemy has ever accused me
of being afraid to speak my mind.
This was one of his key strengths, in
Mr Kausikans view: The disciplined
clarity of his thought and expression
was one of the primary sources of the
inluence Mr Lee wielded, disproportionate for the leader of a small country
like Singapore. His views were valued
because they were unvarnished and
gave a fresh and unique perspective. He
said things that leaders of much larger
and more powerful countries may well
have thought and may have liked to say,
but for one reason or another, could not

while maintaining the freedom to be

itself as a sovereign and independent
nation. Both parts of the equation a
maximum number of friends and freedom to be ourselves are equally important and interrelated.
Friendship, in international relations, is not a function of goodwill or
personal afection. We must make ourselves relevant so that other countries
have an interest in our continued survival and prosperity as a sovereign and
independent nation. Singapore cannot
take its relevance for granted. Small
countries perform no vital or irreplaceable functions in the international system. Singapore has to continually reconstruct itself and keep its relevance
to the world and to create political and
economic space. This is the economic
imperative for Singapore.
Yet Mr Lee also forged close personal friendships with world leaders,
amity that has helped Singapore in
many areas, from security to economics. His personal ties with regional
leaders such as late Malaysian Prime
Minister Tun Abdul Razak and Indonesian President Suharto smoothed
the way for the founding of ASEAN in
1967. His friendship with members of
United Kingdom Prime Minister Harold Wilsons government helped delay
the British troops withdrawal to late
1971, buying Singapore time to build
up its own defence forces. He also held
long-term friendships with world leaders and senior oicials such as British
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,

words: He put things succinctly and

with the right nuance.
Despite his personal friendships
with world leaders, he was not afraid
to stand up to a greater power where
needed. There were famous instances, such as in 1968, when he turned
down a direct appeal by Indonesian
President Suharto to pardon two Indonesian marines for the MacDonald
House bombing; and in 1994, when, as
Senior Minister, he refused American
appeals against the caning of Michael
Fay. In widely reported comments on
local television, he had said of the US:
The country dares not restrain or punish the individuals, forgiving them for
whatever they have done... Thats why
the whole country is in chaos. Drugs,
violence, unemployment and homelessness, all sorts of problems in its society.
Former President S R Nathan also
recalls how Mr Lee declined a gift from
late Chinese Premier Hua Guofeng on
his irst visit to China in 1976. The gift
was a book by Australian academic Neville Maxwell on the 1962 Sino-Indian war,
and Hua told Mr Lee that it was the
correct version of the India-China war.
Mr Nathan said: When PM took the
book, he looked at the front and back
cover and then handed it back to Premier Hua, saying, Mr Prime Minister,
this is your version of the war. There
is another version, the Indian version.
And in any case I am from South-east
Asia its nothing to do with us. Hua
showed no reaction, but a silence fell
in the room.

TAKING ON
THE WESTERN MEDIA
Mr Lee Kuan Yews candid views on democracy and development were often cited and
criticised by international media, particularly
those from the West. He was seen as the main
proponent of the Asian values debate, as it
was dubbed in the 1980s and 1990s. These special Asian characteristics meant that Western
democracy, law and order human rights, in
other words could not be universally applied.
The divide between East and West sharpened
particularly after the bloody 1989 Tiananmen
Square crackdown on student protesters.
For Mr Lee, this meant taking on his detractors and he had many in a long-running
battle with Western news organisations and
academics. He took umbrage particularly at
cases where he perceived them as interfering in Singapore politics. Among his notable
Top: Then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
critics were American journalist William Saire
Mr Lee at the Istana in 2012; Then Indonesian President and British journalist Bernard Levin from the
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Mr Lee at the Istana be- Times, whom Mr Lee challenged to a face-tofore the APEC Economic Leaders Meeting in 2009, when face interview on the BBC after Levin wrote a

scathing article on Singapore and Lee in the

United Kingdom press. After Levin declined,
Mr Lee took out full-page paid advertisements
in several British newspapers to lay bare the
facts and reveal that Levin had refused to take
part in the televised debate.
Mr Lee put it best in a 1988 address to
the American Society of Newspaper Editors
in Washington, DC: Singapores domestic
debate is a matter for Singaporeans. We allow
American journalists in Singapore in order to
report Singapore to their fellow countrymen.
We allow their papers to sell in Singapore so
that we can know what foreigners are reading
about us. But we cannot allow them to assume a role in Singapore that the American
media play in America, that of invigilator,
adversary and inquisitor of the administration. If allowed to do so, they will radically
change the nature of Singapore society, and
I doubt if our social glue is strong enough to
withstand such treatment.

Mr Lee was Minister Mentor. PHOTOS: REUTERS, TODAY FILE PHOTO

themselves prudently say. And so he

made Singapore relevant.
Speaking in 2009, Mr Lee had said
of Singapores foreign policy fundamentals: Independence was thrust
upon Singapore. The fundamentals of
our foreign policy were forged during
those vulnerable early years. They remain relevant because small countries
have little power to alter the region, let
alone the world. A small country must
seek a maximum number of friends,

German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt

and Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping.
Said Ms Chan Heng Chee: He put
great store in developing personal relationships. These relationships bought
Singapore space. It was not just a
question of bonhomie and sociability,
though I have seen Mr Lee charm
his hosts in the US. They sought his
company for his strategic insights, his
understanding of the region and his
take on the world. He had a way with

Even to this day, I sometimes get

asked about this incident (by) people
who cannot bring themselves to believe
that the PM of a small country like Singapore would have dared to incur Chinese displeasure by such a response.
COMMANDING
THE WORLD STAGE
Another, related strength was his ability to command the world stage as few

others could. When Mr Lee requested

an audience, he got it whether it was
an interview with CNN and other international media, a personal audience
with Chinese leaders or tete a tete discussions in the capitals of the West.
Among testaments to his strategic
insights was being called The Grand
Master by eminent American strategic
thinkers. Former US President George
H W Bush once said: In my long life
in public service, I have encountered
many bright, able people. None is more
impressive than Lee Kuan Yew.
Former US Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger has also said: 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 inluence ... 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 than the technical problems of
the Singaporean economy and so he always had a tremendous inluence on us.
Mr Lee himself said at the age of
89 in One Mans View Of The World:
I continue to make appointments to
meet people. You must meet people,
because you must have human contact
if you want to broaden your perspective. Besides people in Singapore, I
meet those from Malaysia, Indonesia,
and, from time to time, China, Europe
and the United States. I try not to meet
only old friends or political leaders, but
people from a variety of ields, such as
academics, businessmen, journalists
and ordinary people.
Asked how he wished to be remembered, he said: I do not want to be remembered as a statesman ... I do not
classify myself as a statesman. I put
myself down as determined, consistent,
persistent. I set out to do something,
I keep on chasing it until it succeeds.
That is all ... Anybody who thinks he is a
statesman ought to see a psychiatrist.
His was a role and reputation built
not on any single statement or thought.
Mr Lee was valued on the world stage
because of his decades of engagement
across the region and the world at the
highest level, and his ability and effort to analyse and present what he
saw in the clearest, unvarnished way.
He spoke and acted in a way that was
unique to him, valued by so many and
of continuing relevance to world afairs.
In doing this, Mr Lee lived up to
the imperative he set for Singapores
survival: Make Singapore relevant to
others, so it is in their interest to have
Singapore around.
His departure leaves the international stage empty in a way that no one
in Singapore or indeed across Asia can
readily ill. SIMON TAY AND DENYSE YEO

Simon Tay is chairman of the Singapore

Institute of International Afairs (SIIA)
and associate professor at the National
University of Singapores Faculty of Law.
Denyse Yeo was an editor at the SIIA.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

The special relationship with China

Food Zone. These projects provide avenues for existing and aspiring leaders from both sides and at diferent
levels to meet each other regularly to
strengthen personal ties.
Emeritus Senior Minister Goh
Chok Tong said: Mr Lees good relations with Chinas leaders enabled
Singapore and the leaders who came
after Mr Lee to ride on those good relationships.

Mr Lee played a vital part

in Beijings transformations
and in building bilateral ties
he relationship between China,
one of the largest countries in
the world, and Singapore, a little red dot in South-east Asia, has been
widely regarded as special or unique.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew has been instrumental in building this relationship.
Over the past few decades, China
has successfully made two simultaneous transformations.
Internally, it has lifted itself from
being one of the poorest economies to
becoming the worlds No 2.
Externally, it has broken out of isolation to become part of the international system.
Why has Singapore under Mr Lee
succeeded in building a special relationship with China?
The answer is simple: Mr Lee, and
Singapore, have been an important
part of Chinas dual transformations.
He once told journalist Tom Plate,
in Giants Of Asia: Conversations With
Lee Kuan Yew: The ideas that Deng
Xiaoping formed, if he had not come
here (in the 1970s) and seen the Western multinationals in Singapore producing wealth for us, training our people so as a result we were able to build
a prosperous society, then he might
never have opened up ... opening up
the coastal SEZs (Special Economic
Zones) that eventually led to the whole
of China opening up by joining the
World Trade Organization ...

THE PRE-DENG ERA

Since the late Deng, Chinese leaders

have appreciated Mr Lees contribution to Chinas modernisation, viewing
him as its close friend. Even though
this relationship began under Deng,
the initial efort was laid by Mr Lee in
the pre-Deng years.
Up to 1970, China did not recognise
Singapores existence as an independent state and Mr Lee was often derided as a running dog of United States
and British imperialism.
When the US began to normalise
ties with China under then President
Richard Nixon, Mr Lee saw a chance
to improve Singapores relations with
China. He visited China in 1976, meeting Mao Zedong and his successor,
Hua Guofeng. Although Mao and Hua
did not impress Mr Lee very much,
ties between the countries slowly
improved.
Mr Lees irst visit to Beijing helped
cement Singapores commercial ties
with China. At the same time, Chinese perception of Singapore began
to change.
However, real change in the Singapore-China relationship took place
only after Deng returned to power in
the late 1970s.

LEE AS CHINAS INTERLOCUTOR

TO THE WORLD

LEE AND DENG

Deng was the Chinese leader whom

Mr Lee most respected. Although
Deng did not make any published comments on Mr Lee, he spoke about Singapore during his landmark Southern
Tour to Chinese cities in 1992: There
is good social order in Singapore.
They govern the place with discipline.
We should draw from their experience
and do even better than them. His
comments soon unleashed a wave of
Chinese study visits to Singapore.
Yet, the Republic had influenced
Deng earlier on, starting from his reform or open door initiatives in December 1978 to allow foreign businesses to set up in China.
He had visited Singapore only a
month earlier and showed great interest in its social and economic development experience. Mr Lee believed
that what Deng saw in Singapore had
shocked him and strengthened his
resolve to open up his country to the
world. Dengs 1992 comment was a
reairmation of the Singapore model
that he had seen 14 years earlier.
Why did Deng trust Mr Lee and the
Singapore model? First, both leaders
had a strong mission to build up their
respective countries.
Second, both considered their
countries long-term national interest as a priority. Mr Lees engagement
with China during the Cold War was
in Singapores national interest. Similarly, Deng believed that listening to
Mr Lees analysis of the world was in
Chinas national interest.
Third, the men shared a high level of mutual respect and trust, partly
due to their similar pursuit of national interest and pragmatism in solving
problems they encountered.

In celebration of the
20th anniversary of
diplomatic relations
between Singapore
and China, Mr Lee
and then Chinese
Vice-President Xi
Jinping, who was
on an oicial visit to
Singapore, unveiled
the Deng Xiaoping
marker at the
Asian Civilisations
Museum in
November 2010,
when Mr Lee was
Minister Mentor.
The marker is part
of the National
Heritage Boards
eforts to enrich
the publics
understanding of
Singapores role
in regional and
world history, as
well as honour
the achievements
of one of Chinas
outstanding
leaders.

Zheng Yongnian
is professor and
director of East
Asian Institute,
National University
of Singapore.

Mr Lee recounted in his book From

Third World To First what he told
Deng during his 1978 visit to Singapore: ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) governments regarded radio broadcasts from China
appealing directly to their ethnic Chinese as dangerous subversion ... Deng
listened silently. He had never seen
it in this light He knew that I had
spoken the truth. Abruptly, he asked:
What do you want me to do?
Not long after, China stopped
broadcasting to South-east Asia.
AFTER DENG

In 1992, the Chinese Communist Party held its 14th National Congress and
formally incorporated Dengs theory
on a socialist market economy into
the partys charter. Deng had retired
from politics and rarely appeared in
public. But the solid foundation laid by
him and Mr Lee helped drive the bilateral relationship forward. As China
continued its steady growth, economic and business ties between the two
countries deepened.
The main reason is that Singapore
has constantly made itself relevant to
Chinas development by sharing its experiences and best practices. In 1994,
when China initiated a new wave of industrialisation, the China-Singapore
Suzhou Industrial Park was established. In 2007, when Chinas environmental problems became a hot issue
before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the
idea to jointly build an eco-city was
broached and later developed into the
Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city.
Other key projects include the Sino-Singapore Guangzhou Knowledge
City, Singapore-Chengdu High-Tech
Park and the Sino-Singapore Jilin

Singapores relationship with China

is special not only because Mr Lee
(and Singapore) have contributed to
Chinas modernisation, but also because he (and Singapore) have helped
the world, particularly the West, and
China to understand each other.
No leader appears to be as candid
as Mr Lee; he often reminded China
how to integrate itself into the world.
At times, his comments ruled feathers, particularly among the younger
generation of Chinese. But Chinas
leaders understand that Mr Lees
comments were in its interest.
In the same way, Mr Lee helped
the West to understand China. Since
Deng, the West has frequently dismissed Chinas growth and its sustainability. Mr Lee would tell the
Americans and Europeans that Chinas growth was indeed real. He often
cautioned the US against underestimating China and trying to contain
this rising power. Because of his innate understanding of China, Mr Lees
views were sought and closely listened
to by other world leaders.
Former US Secretary of State
George Shultz once said: He (Mr Lee)
didnt just go see leaders in Beijing. He
was able to travel in the country and
see people in all sorts of occupations
and age levels, so he is a very penetrating observer ... I found that very valuable to listen to what he had to say, as
we tried to formulate in the US how
we would approach China.
Today, China is an important player on the world stage and its leaders
can talk directly to other world leaders everywhere. But Chinese leaders
continue to appreciate Singapores
view on the world. As then Vice-President Xi Jinping told Mr Lee during the
2008 Beijing Olympic Games: We will
need you for a long time. I have been
to Singapore, I know what you have
and our people want to learn. We get
more from you than from America.
Singapore is constantly inding ways
to stay relevant to China. Both countries now cooperate in new areas such
as financial cooperation, food safety
and social management. For China, it is
even more important to get its relationship right with a small, neighbouring
country such as Singapore. This will be
the best litmus test of its peaceful rise.
ZHENG YONGNIAN

74

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

Long-term vision helped cement US ties

Mr Lee was seen as a vital
interpreter of events in Asia by
successive American Presidents
r Lee Kuan Yew has been the
most instrumental factor in
the development of Singapores relations with the United States.
In fact, bilateral ties were initially very
much centred on the friendship between Mr Lee and successive American
leaders who deeply respected his strong
conviction, clear big-picture vision and
extraordinary strategic leadership.
The Vietnam War could be said to
have strengthened Mr Lees cachet and
standing with Washington. Mr Lee saw
American participation in the war as
buying time for non-Communist states
in Southeast Asia, and played a role in
stifening US resolve to resist Communism. Singapores independent and
non-aligned foreign policy orientation
gave him great credence within the
American policy establishment, as a
neutral party supporting their military
campaign in Vietnam.
Mr Lee remained a vital interpreter of events in Asia long after
the Vietnam War ended. His standing in American policy circles has
been explained by Foreign Minister K
Shanmugam, who notes that Mr Lee
recognised some fundamental truths
about the US and the world well before
other states and leaders. Mr Lee saw
that strong US presence was vital to
maintain peace and balance in Asia as
the Asian economies developed, and
supported it long before it was fashionable to say so. Singapore was often
in the minority of voices, sometimes
even alone, in speaking up for the US
in the developing world and forums
such as the Non-Aligned Movement.

BELIEF IN AMERICAS STRENGTH

Later, again under Mr Lees leadership, Singapore stepped up to help the
US maintain its presence in the region
even as the US drew down its assets
elsewhere. In November 1990, in one of
his last acts as Prime Minister, Mr Lee
signed a Memorandum of Understanding with then US Vice President Dan
Quale in Tokyo, ofering enhanced use
of facilities in Singapore to American
military aircraft and naval vessels as a
contribution to sustaining US forward
military position in Southeast Asia.
But as he worked with American
statesmen at the strategic level and
preserved the balance of power in Asia,
Mr Lee saw laws within American society. Although he praised Americas
strengths, its enterprising spirit and
openness to talent, Mr Lee did not
shy away from speaking of Americas
weaknesses such as the widespread
availability of guns, and as he puts
it, the breakdown of civil society and
erosion of the moral underpinnings of
American society.

As American leaders valued Mr

Lees views on geopolitics and the world
order, and admired his accomplishments, they did not take to heart his
criticism. In some cases, American
opinion makers also agreed with Mr
Lees analyses of the problems troubling their country. They knew that Mr
Lee believed in the American can-do
way and that the US is the only country
with the strength and determination to
deal with the challenges faced by the
global community. Even as the US was
afected by the recent inancial crisis
and some saying it was in decline, Mr
Lee repeatedly reminded others not
to underestimate American creativity,
resilience and innovative spirit. He was
conident the US will ind its feet again.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger writes: Lee has made
himself an indispensable friend of the
United States, not primarily by the
power he represents, but by the excellence of his thinking. His analysis is of
such quality and depth that his counterparts consider meeting with him as
a way to educate themselves ... Every
American president who has dealt with
him has beneitted from the fact that,
on international issues, he has identiied the future of his country with the
fate of democracies. Furthermore, Lee
can tell us about the nature of the world
that we face, especially penetrating insights into the thinking of his region.
Lees analyses shed light on the most
important challenge that the United
States confronts over the long term:

US Vice-President
Joe Biden (left)
during his meeting
with Mr Lee at the
Istana in July 2013.
PHOTO: REUTERS

How to build a fundamental and organic

relationship with Asia, including China.
There is nobody who can teach us more
about the nature and the scope of this
efort than Lee Kuan Yew Lee is not
only one of the seminal leaders of our
period, but also a thinker recognised
for his singular strategic acumen.
Mr Lees long-term vision and strategic intellect singlehandedly contributed to the cementing of the close ties
that Singapore now enjoys with the
US. Singapore and US oicials often
articulate that Mr Lee has established
the institutions and processes for both
countries to pursue strategic interests
that would normally be impossible between a small island state and the
global superpower. American policymakers would always recall how Mr
Lee developed the basis of bilateral
defence cooperation, especially access
arrangements for American forces in
Singapore. They also believed that it
was Mr Lees persuasive inluence that
laid the ground for the US to enter into
negotiations with the Singapore Government on a bilateral free trade agreement. Through Mr Lees readiness to
meet a large number of oicials from
the American policy establishment,
substantial linkages have been built up
that are now permanent and regular
exchanges between the Singapore and
US authorities.
Diferences in policy and governance have surfaced from time to time.
There will always be diferent priorities and emphasis in policy imple-

mentation, but bilateral ties are now

locked into a pragmatic partnership
going beyond individual personalities.
The solid foundation established by
Mr Lee has allowed both countries to
focus on the strategic issues and the
big picture to substantiate the unique
relationship. Ultimately, the ability
of Singapore to articulate regional
concerns and views, particularly on
geopolitical and strategic issues, and
to foster consensus in various international forums on common challenges
facing the world will ensure a continuous dialogue and cooperation between
the two countries.
Singapore leaders will continue to
have access to the top policy-makers
in Washington. Yet, they would need
to establish their own level of inluence
and strategic value to the US. Countries
in Asia have new leaders who can engage the US directly and in their own
ways. This is diferent from the situation when Mr Lee was in government.
The quality of Singapores strategic
assessment of developments in Asia
and beyond will determine the level
of conidence, trust and value which
American policy-makers will accord
to Singapore. ONG KENG YONG

Ong Keng Yong is Executive Deputy

Chairman of the S Rajaratnam School
of International Studies at Nanyang
Technological University. This piece was
written in his personal capacity.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who was then Prime Minister, hosting a reception for late Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman at Sri Temasek, the oicial residence of the Prime Minister of Singapore, in 1969.
Photo: Ministry of inforMation and the arts ColleCtion, Courtesy of national arChives of singaPore

A close but diicult relationship

Ties between Malaysia and
Singapore have been marked
by their share of ups and downs
he Republics often tumultuous
relationship with its neighbour
across the Causeway during
Mr Lee Kuan Yews tenure as Prime
Minister was often attributed to his
personal relationship with Malaysias leaders.
But in Mr Lees view, the root cause
of the problems that arose when Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965
lay in our diametrically diferent approaches to the problems facing our
two multiracial societies.
A multiracial society of equal citizens was unacceptable to the UMNO leaders of Malaysia in 1965 and
remained unacceptable in 1999,
he said in his 2000 memoirs From Third
World to First, referring to the United
Malays National Organisation, the largest party in Malaysias ruling coalition.
Malaysian politicians wanted independent Singapore to be obliging
and accommodating in an abang-adik
(big brother-little brother) relationship with little brother giving way
graciously to Malaysian interests,
Mr Lee said.
Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman tried to use three levers the

military, economy and water to force

Singapore to follow Malaysias lead.
We countered the military leverage by building up the SAF (Singapore
Armed Forces). We overcame their
economic hold by leapfrogging them
and the region to link up with the industrial countries, Mr Lee said in 2000.
But Singapore had no choice but
to continue to rely on Malaysia for
water, which was to remain a major
sticking point in bilateral relations for
four decades.
Relations across the Causeway became relatively trouble-free for a few
years after Mr Abdul Razak Hussein
became Malaysias Prime Minister in
September 1970.
To mark improving bilateral relations since Singapores independence,
Mr Lee made his irst oicial visit to
Malaysia in March 1972. Mr Razak
returned the visit in 1973. During the
Razak years, relations between the
two countries were equable, with few
serious disagreements, said Mr Lee.
Mr Lee had a good working relationship with Malaysias third Prime
Minister, Hussein Onn, whom he described as open and direct in their
dealings, coming straight to the point,
unlike Razak.
Despite the amicable relations between Mr Lee and Mr Hussein, bilateral
ties remained impeded by UMNO lead-

A multiracial
society
of equal
citizens was
unacceptable
to the UMNO
leaders of
Malaysia
in 1965 and
remained
unacceptable
in 1999.
Mr Lee, in
his memoirs

ers who were suspicious of Singapore.

As Singapore grew, the Malaysian
attitude towards economic cooperation was one of, in Mr Lees words,
envy and disdain. Malaysia subsequently took a series of measures to
reduce the import and export of goods
through Singapore. For example, from
1973, all goods shipped from one part
of Malaysia to another had to be consigned from their own ports, in order
to qualify for import tax exemption.
Timber exports to Singapore were
also banned, badly afecting the islands plywood factories and sawmills.
Johor leaders had also convinced
Mr Hussein that Singapore was out to
harm the Malaysian state and prevent
its economic progress, noted Mr Lee.
Malaysia continued to take a series
of actions that would slow down the
Singapore economy.
For example, the Johor state government banned the export of sand
and turf, while the federal government ruled that from 1977, all exports
from Johor to East Malaysia had to
be shipped through the Pasir Gudang
port, instead of Singapore.
Despite such developments on the
economic front, Mr Lee still had a good
start with Malaysias fourth Prime
Minister, reaching out to Dr Mahathir
Mohamad while he was still Deputy
Prime Minister by inviting him to visit

Singapore in 1978.
Expecting Dr Mahathir to succeed
Mr Hussein, Mr Lee had wanted to
put their old antagonism behind them.
Back in May 1965, during a session of the Malaysian Parliament in
Kuala Lumpur, Dr Mahathir had denounced Singapores Peoples Action
Party, led by Mr Lee, as pro-Chinese,
communist-oriented and positively
anti-Malay.
Dr Mahathir subsequently made
several visits to Singapore, during
which they had long and frank exchanges of several hours each to clear
the air surrounding our suspicions of
each other, Mr Lee said.
Mr Lee told Dr Mahathir about
Singapores fears that Malaysia would
cut of the water supply to the Republic something that Malaysia publicly
threatened to do whenever their bilateral diferences cropped up though
the guarantee of water supply was part
of the 1965 Separation Agreement.
Dr Mahathir said he accepted an
independent Singapore and would not
undermine it.
I believed I had satisied him that
I was not interested in out-manoeuvring him, that I wanted a businesslike relationship, Mr Lee said.
Despite the diferences between
the two that would emerge in later
Continued on Page 76

76

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 75

years, Mr Lee said he had made more

progress solving bilateral issues with
Dr Mahathir from 1981 to 1990 than in
the previous 12 years with the latters
two predecessors.
Dr Mahathirs visit to Singapore in
December 1981 a few months after
he took oice saw the two countries
resolve many of their bilateral issues.
Dr Mahathir ordered the lifting of
the ban on the export of construction
materials to Singapore.
Malaysia agreed to return its unoccupied military camp in Singapore,
and for the Republic to acquire a portion of Malayan Railway land at Tanjong Pagar station for an expressway
extension. Both parties also agreed
to sort out Malaysias claim to Pedra
Branca island.
In 1982, Mr Lee visited Dr Mahathir in Kuala Lumpur, where the two
leaders moved from solving bilateral
problems to negotiating new areas of
cooperation under the Five-Power Defence Agreement, to counterbalance
the Soviet Unions bases in Vietnam.
During the visit, Malaysia also afirmed it would honour the 1962 Water Agreement, to provide 250 million
gallons of water per day to Singapore.
But it was not long before relations
soured. In January 1984, an RM100
levy was imposed on all goods vehicles leaving Malaysia for Singapore,
while October that year saw Malaysia
reduce its import duty on a variety of
foodstuf, mostly from China, provided
that they were imported directly from
the country of origin into Malaysia.
When Malaysia was told that the
move violated rules of the General
Agreement on Tarifs and Trade (the
precursor of the World Trade Organization), the policy was amended to exempt duty on goods imported via sea
and airport, but not via a land route
such as the Causeway.
Relations were also strained when
Israeli President Chaim Herzog made
a state visit to Singapore in November 1986.
Before stepping down as Prime
Minister in 1990, Mr Lee tried to resolve outstanding issues with Malay-

sia. These included the relocation of

Singapores customs and immigration
facilities from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands, to stop drug traickers from
tossing drugs out of train windows.
After several months of negotiations, a Points of Agreement was
signed on Nov 27, 1990 the day before Mr Lee stepped down.
The two countries agreed on joint
development of three main parcels
of land at Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and
Woodlands, with Malaysia having a
60 per cent share and Singapore 40 per
cent. Three years later, however, Malaysia said the agreement was unfair as
it did not include a piece of railway land
at Bukit Timah for joint development.
And despite Dr Mahathir conirming that Malaysia would move its Customs, Immigration and Quarantine
(CIQ) post to Woodlands in April 1992,
Malaysia decided in June 1997 to retain
its CIQ at Tanjong Pagar.
Even after stepping down as Prime
Minister, Mr Lees views continued
to draw strong reactions from across
the Causeway. In September 1998,
for example, excerpts from Mr Lees
memoirs of the events leading to separation from Malaysia in his memoirs
carried by Singapores newspapers
before the books launch angered
Malaysian leaders.
Despite such diplomatic hiccups,
Mr Lee continued to follow up on unresolved bilateral issues. However,
it was only in 2010 that Singapores
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and
his Malaysian counterpart, Mr Najib
Razak, inally managed to settle outstanding issues relating to the 1990
Points of Agreement (POA), including
moving the Malaysian Railway station
from Tanjong Pagar to the Woodlands
Checkpoint in July 2011.
Summing up Singapores ties with
Malaysia, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said in
his 2000 memoirs: At the end of the
day, however deep-seated diferences
between the two, both sides know that
if they lash out at each other without
restraint, there is a risk of unscrambling the interracial harmony that
holds each countrys multiracial society together.

Mr Lee and former Indonesian President Suharto in Jakarta in 2006. Mr Lee, then
Minister Mentor, was on a five-day visit to Indonesia. PHOTO: REUTERS

Building rapport
with Indonesia
Mr Lee had a good relationship
with Suharto, but also sought
to better understand Jakarta
in the post-strongman era

M
Mr Lee being
welcomed to his
Putrajaya office
by then Malaysian
Prime Minister
Dr Mahathir
Mohamad in 2001.
Mr Lee, then Senior
Minister, was
making his second
visit to Malaysia
in 12 months to
resolve a string
of long-running
disputes between
Singapore and
Malaysia.
PHOTO: REUTERS

r Lee and Suharto had a

good personal relationship
throughout their political careers, despite low points in bilateral ties.
One was the execution of two Indonesian marines in Singapore for the
1965 bombing of MacDonald House in
Orchard Road, despite a direct appeal
by Suharto.
However, Mr Lees gesture to lay
lowers on the marines graves in 1973
helped soothe the tension and showed
Singapores commitment to improving
relations with Indonesia.
The empat mata meetings between Suharto and Mr Lee during Association of South-east Asian Nations
and other meetings further helped
build rapport and conidence.
Mr Lee wrote in his book From
Third World To First: Our friendship
overcame the many prejudices between
Singaporeans of Chinese descent and
Indonesians. Throughout the 1970s and
80s, we met almost every year to keep
in touch, exchange views and discuss
matters that cropped up.
During the 1997-98 inancial crisis
and as the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) put pressure on Indonesia to undertake structural reforms,
Mr Lee was against sudden regime
change in Indonesia. He believed discontinuity would worsen its already
precarious situation.
Despite Suhartos fall from power in
1998 and against popular opinion in Indonesia, Mr Lee saw him as a patriot.
Writing in From Third World To
First, he viewed the change with concern and some sorrow: It was an immense personal tragedy for a leader
who had turned an impoverished Indonesia of 1965 into an emerging tiger
economy, educated his people and built
the infrastructure for Indonesias con-

tinued development.
In a display of personal diplomacy,
Mr Lee made a trip to see Suharto
shortly before the Indonesian leader
died in 2008.
In contrast, Mr Lees views of Suhartos successors were mixed. His initial
reaction to the prospect that Mr B J
Habibie, who served as Vice-President
to Suharto, would take over from the
latter was less than positive. But later,
even after Mr Habibie remarked that
Singapore was a little red dot in a sea
of green, Mr Lee reassessed him to be
highly intelligent, but mercurial and
voluble, as he wrote in From Third
World To First.
Mr Lee also credited Mr Habibie
for Indonesias decentralisation eforts
that empowered the districts and municipalities, which helped prevent separatist tendencies from mushrooming.
Later, in Tom Plates 2010 Conversations With Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Lee
would say of Indonesia: Successor
Habibie made a mess of it. Then Gus
Dur made a bigger mess. Megawati
calmed it down. SBY (Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono) has improved it slightly,
but theres a long way to go.
Beyond personalities, Mr Lee also
made a number of visits to the country
to meet a broad range of political actors
in order to better understand post-Suharto Indonesia. This habit of reaching
out to senior Indonesian leaders continues today Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong held retreats with his Indonesian
counterpart in 2010, 2012 and 2013.
PUSHPANATHAN SUNDRAM AND SIMON TAY

Pushpanathan Sundram is former

deputy secretary-general of ASEAN for
ASEAN Economic Community, managing
director at EAS Strategic Advice, Asia and
senior research fellow at the Singapore
Institute of International Affairs (SIIA).
Simon Tay is chairman of SIIA and
author of Asia Alone: The Dangerous
Post-Crisis Divide from America.

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

Mr Lee speaking at the opening of the Fifth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting at Shangri-La Hotel in 1972, when he was Prime Minister. Photo: Ministry of inforMation and the arts ColleCtion, Courtesy of national arChives of singaPore

Preserving Spores security via ASEAN

The regional grouping helped
buttress solidarity while
maintaining a balance of power
our decades ago, Indonesia,
together with Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Singapore,
established the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, at a
time when the region was in turbulence.
It was August 1967: the Cold War
was at its peak, dividing the region
into communist and non-communist
blocs, with a fault-line running right
through the heart of South-east Asia.
The United States war campaign in
Vietnam was also intensifying.
Compounding the situation were
the disputes between South-east Asian
countries. Singapore had been forced
out of Malaysia two years earlier.
Indonesia had recently wound up
konfrontasi with Malaysia and Singapore. Malaysia and the Philippines
were also locked in a dispute over Sabah, while Brunei had put down, with
the help of British forces, an internal
rebellion aided by Indonesia.
For Mr Lee Kuan Yew, these factors reinforced the fact that Singapore
was situated in a turbulent, volatile,
unsettled region.

THE NEED FOR ASEAN

ASEANS formation was therefore
based on an overarching rationale to
counter communism and act as a unifying force during the Cold War. It was
hoped that member states would also
build their own resilience by managing their diferences and preventing
proxy wars in the region.

In From Third World To First, Mr

Lee wrote: The unspoken objective of
ASEAN was to gain strength through
solidarity ahead of the power vacuum
that would come with an impending British and later a possible US withdrawal.
It was clear that the leaders Mr
Lee, former Indonesian President Suharto and former Malaysian Prime
Ministers Hussein Onn and, later, Mahathir Mohamad shared an innate
understanding of the situation and different sensitivities of the region during
ASEANs formative years.
Mr Lees views of the grouping were
shaped by Konfrontasi with Indonesia
and the Vietnam War. To him, ASEAN
was a vehicle that would not only buttress regional solidarity, but also maintain a delicate power balance between
Indonesia, the largest power in Southeast Asia, and its neighbours.
Mr Lee ensured that the voices of
smaller states were not lost. In a 1999
Asiaweek interview, he said: We dont
pick quarrels. As ASEANs smallest
member, we have to stand our ground,
or our rights will be rolled over.
When Vietnam invaded and occupied Cambodia in 1978, for example,
Mr Lee was the irst to write to then
Thai Prime Minister Kriangsak Chamanan and Chair of ASEAN to urge
the organisation to stand united and
steadfast in supporting the Cambodian coalition and pressure Vietnam
to withdraw its troops. He later wrote:
We had spent much time and resources to thwart the Vietnamese in Cambodia because it was in our interest
that aggression be seen not to pay.
Mr Lee saw ASEAN as a means to
preserve the security of a small state
like Singapore, especially with its pre-

dominantly ethnic Chinese population,

in a sea of Malays. He helped cement
the fact that Singapore is a South-east
Asian country by recognising China in
1990 only after Indonesia had done so.
By using his friendship with Suharto
and being sensitive to Indonesias feelings on thorny issues, such as China, Mr
Lee was able to carve out a reasonable
space for Singapore in ASEAN. Mr Lee
wrote in From Third World To First:
Under Suharto, Indonesia did not act
like a hegemon. This made it possible
for the others to accept Indonesia as
irst among equals.
FUTURE OF ASEAN

Pushpanathan
sundram is former
deputy secretarygeneral of asean
for asean
economic
Community,
managing director
at eas strategic
advice, asia and
senior research
fellow at the
singapore institute
of international
afairs (siia).
simon tay is
chairman of siia
and
author of asia
alone: the
dangerous
Post-Crisis divide
from america.

Later, with the collapse of communism,

the reality of a multi-polar world and
Chinas growing heft in the region,
ASEAN continued to maintain a strategic balance of power in the region.
The grouping engaged the worlds
major powers through multilateral
mechanisms such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit and
the ASEAN Plus Three Meeting, which
includes China, Japan and South Korea.
At the same time, ASEAN needed
a new force for unity: Economics. This
economic imperative started in 1992, after Mr Lee had stepped down, with the
launch of the ASEAN Free Trade Area
and its goal of economic integration.
ASEAN enlarged from 1997 onwards to include new members. By the
2003 ASEAN Summit, member states
would call for closer economic integration and the creation of an ASEAN
Community by 2020, a goal which has
now been advanced to 2015.
As one of the founders of ASEAN, Mr
Lee had from the start engaged with new

members and encouraged their opening

and entry into the regional group and
international community. For example,
ASEAN and Singapore had worked
hard on the Cambodian question early
on, with Mr Lee personally travelling
the world to highlight the issue.
Yet, Mr Lee also rapidly adjusted to
the realities and possibilities of the postCold War world. In a 1999 Asiaweek
interview, he said: Theres no great
ideological divide between the ASEAN
countries. The communist system is
gone. We are just varying degrees of
democracy or of authoritarianism. Every country wants economic and social
progress. After the severe inancial and
economic setbacks, nobodys got time
for ideological or expansionist issues.
Vietnam, in particular, came into focus for him. Mr Lee irst visited it in the
early 90s and had been appointed an
adviser to its government. He then made
visits to the Singapore-Vietnam industrial parks that were opened as part of
inter-governmental cooperation.
Vietnams successful integration
into ASEANs fold is proof that economic integration is indeed the path
forward. Already, the organisation has
announced that it has achieved 80 per
cent of its goals in the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint to be an
integrated market by 2015.
As Mr Lee put it in 2011s Hard
Truths to Keep Singapore Going: The
logic of joining markets is irrefutable
and it will happen.
When, and not if, economic integration occurs, it would certainly validate
Mr Lees conidence in ASEANs ability
to serve as a viable force for unity and
prosperity. PUSHPANATHAN SUNDRAM
AND SIMON TAY

78

REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW

The love of his life

Without her, I would
be a diferent man,
with a diferent life.

he was his closest friend, his

tower of strength, for more
than three-quarters of his life
the woman who got his attention
when she bested him in school, who
ran their household and their law irm,
and without whom he would have been
hard-pressed to enter politics.
Madam Kwa Geok Choo and Mr Lee
Kuan Yew were often seen as inseparable. But the Singapore public found out
just how much she meant to him only
when he published his memoirs in 1999
telling all for the irst time about the
great love of his life and revealing an
unexpected side to his unsentimental,
hard-nosed public face.
At Rales College, she had beaten
him to be the top student in English and
economics at the end of the irst term,
giving Mr Lee stif competition for the
coveted Queens Scholarship.
When the Japanese Occupation interrupted their studies, they reconnected under diferent circumstances:
Mr Lee and her brother-in-law ran a
business making stationery glue.
With their friendship blossoming by
September 1944, Mr Lee knew Mrs Lee
well enough to invite her to his 21st
birthday dinner, an event not without
signiicance in those days.
With the end of the war, Mr Lee
decided to read law in England on his
familys savings. Mrs Lee, who was twoand-a-half years older than Mr Lee, said
she would wait for his return.
In the months before he left in September 1946, the couple spent a lot of
time together and took photographs.
Mr Lee wrote in his memoirs: We
were young and in love, anxious to
record this moment of our lives ... We
both hoped she would go back to Rafles College, win the Queens Scholarship to read law and join me wherever
I might be.
She was totally committed. I sensed
it. I was equally determined to keep my
commitment to her.
Indeed, Mrs Lee was awarded the
Queens Scholarship the next year.
However, the Colonial Oice could not
ind her a university place for that academic year and said she would have to
wait till 1948.
Mr Lee, who was studying at Cambridges Fitzwilliam College, managed to eventually arrange a meeting with the mistress of Girton
College and persuaded her to take in
Mrs Lee.
She arrived in Britain in October.
And two months later, during the
Christmas vacation, they decided to
get married at Stratford-upon-Avon.
But they kept their marriage a secret
as they felt her parents, her college
and the scholarship authorities might
not approve.

SHE WAS HIS

INSURANCE POLICY
Back in Singapore in August 1950, the
young couple got married on Sept 30
for a second time. They started their
careers doing their pupillage at Laycock & Ong and, in 1955 with Mr Lees
brother Dennis, they set up the law irm
Lee & Lee.
When the Peoples Action Party was
formed, Mrs Lee helped draft its constitution. In the 1959 general election,
she even gave a speech on radio urging
women to vote for the party.
One of Singapores best conveyancing lawyers, she also in 1965 helped
Law Minister Eddie Barker draft the
clauses in the Separation Agreement
to guarantee the water agreements
with the state of Johor. And for most
of Mr Lees political career, she was his
unoicial speech proofreader indeed,
since his irst speech to the Malayan
Forum in 1950.
But for the most part, she devoted
herself to the role behind the scenes
of being her husbands staunchest
supporter, running both the household, especially after the birth of their
irst son Hsien Loong in 1952, and the
law irm as Mr Lee immersed himself
in politics.
Not only did her income enable him
to continue in oice over the years, she
also put his mind at ease, Mr Lee said
once, for in case anything untoward
should happen to me, she would be able
to bring up my three children well.
While she was often seen by Mr Lees
side over the years at oicial functions
and on oicial trips, Mr Lee said he
made a point not to discuss the formulation of policies with her, and she
was scrupulous in not reading notes or
faxes that were sensitive.
But he did pay attention to her uncanny gut feel for peoples characters.
She would tell me whether she would
trust that man or not. And often she is
right, he said.
When he penned his memoirs, she
would stay up with him until 4am going over the drafts, correcting, critiquing and getting him to write clear
and crisp.

Mr and Mrs Lee at the Tunku Abdul Rahman Hall after the installation ceremony of Malaysias King,
the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, in Kuala Lumpur in 1961, when Mr Lee was Prime Minister.
PHOTO: YUSOF ISHAK COLLECTION, COURTESY OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF SINGAPORE

FACED CRISES TOGETHER

In terms of their relationship as a couple, they did not dodge diicult personal problems, but faced them and
sorted them out early on, Mr Lee said.
We gradually inluenced each others
ways and habits, we adjusted and accommodated each other. We knew that
we could not stay starry-eyed lovers all
our lives, that life was an ever-ongoing
challenge with new problems to resolve
and manage.
When their younger son Hsien Yang
married in 1981, Mr Lee wrote the newlyweds a letter with advice on marriage:
We have never allowed the other to
feel abandoned and alone in any mo-

I have been
proofreading
and sometimes
correcting his
speeches from
his earliest
1950 speech
to the Malayan
Forum
in London.
Mrs Lee in a
press interview

ment of crisis. Quite the contrary, we

have faced all major crises in our lives
together, sharing our fears and hopes,
and our subsequent grief and exultation. These moments of crisis have
bonded us closer together.
Mr Lees brother, Mr Lee Suan Yew,
described the couple as being inseparable they had to be seated together
at family dinners.
While her husband did not prefer
the arts, Mrs Lee loved classical music.
And he, being very much in love with
his wife, would comply and follow her
to the Esplanade and listen to some
concerts, Mr Lees brother said.
Others, such as former minister
George Yeo, who had the opportunity to observe the couple on overseas

trips, spoke of their very special close

relationship. Education Minister Heng
Swee Keat recalled their bantering over
Mr Lees sweet tooth and how Mrs Lee
would with good humour keep score
of the weeks ration.
While she sat quietly and unobtrusively, anyone who saw them would
know how much strength her presence
gave her husband at oicial events.
HER STROKE AND
HIS TOUGHEST MOMENTS
In October 2003, Mrs Lee sufered a
stroke while she and Mr Lee were in
London. She was lown back to Singapore for an operation. As Mr Lee had
already planned to have a prostate

SUNDAY 5 APRIL 2015

The proud father

Ive got three children
Im very proud of.

way from the public eye,

Mr Lee Kuan Yew was an
Eastern father who, while
not ostentatious about showing love and
afection, made it evident to his family.
His family was his greatest personal
achievement, he once said: ... Ive got
a good, happy family. Ive got a happy
marriage. Ive got three children Im
very proud of. I cant ask for more.
Elder son Hsien Loong was born in
1952, daughter Wei Ling in 1955 and son
Hsien Yang two years later. Mr Lee and
his wife took pains to ensure they grew
up living normal lives after he became
Prime Minister in 1959 when they were
aged seven, ive and two, respectively.
For one thing, they decided not to
live at Sri Temasek, the Prime Ministers oicial residence at the Istana,
because that would be a very bad thing
for them. Youd get an inlated idea of
who you are, what you are, with all the
servants around and the gardeners.
But watching his children grow up
also constantly reminded Mr Lee of
the need to build a safe and wholesome
environment for our children to live in.
Mrs Lee did most of the nurturing
and would return from work to their Oxley Road home daily to have lunch with
the kids. She would use the cane when
they were very naughty, but for Mr Lee,
a stern rebuke was efective enough,
he said. Having a violent father turned
me against using physical force.
Mr Lee made a point of spending time
with his children. At least once a year,
sometimes twice, he would take the family to Cameron Highlands or Frasers
Hill for two weeks. His brother Mr Lee
Suan Yew said: Hes not a physical person; hes not a man wholl hug you and
so on, but his love for the children was
also tremendous. His kind of love was
operation, they were admitted to
Singapore General Hospital in adjacent rooms, with a sliding door between them so they could keep each
other company.
Mrs Lee recovered, but as the stroke
left her with a tendency to neglect the
left side of her body, Mr Lee would
sit on her left at the dining table and
prompt her to eat the food on the left
side of her plate. He also took care of
her medication a reversal of roles, for
it was Mrs Lee who used to ensure he
kept his cholesterol level under control.
They continued to travel together
and Mr Lee would always choose hotels
with swimming pools so she could get
her exercise, which he helped her with.
But in 2008, she sufered two strokes
which left her unable to get out of bed,
move or speak.
As her condition deteriorated, she responded almost exclusively to Mr Lees
voice. His most diicult moments came

very Eastern, not Western in style.

Mr Lee was also a practical father.
At a time when he himself, being raised
English-speaking, was picking up Mandarin to win political support among
the Chinese-speaking masses, his three
children spent the irst 12 years of their
education at Chinese-medium schools.
He said: I spoke to my kids in Mandarin until they got to secondary school
Geok Choo, my wife, spoke to the kids
in English. From the age of six, they had
Malay tuition at home.
His elder son was even made to join
the Scouts, where he could interact with
Malay children. Education in three
languages was very important with
the merger with Malaysia a reality. It
was a chance for the children to expand
their social circle, Mr Lee explained.
The education of his children was a
very important responsibility to him as
a father and he was satisied when all
three earned scholarships. Loong followed in his political footsteps and later
became Prime Minister of Singapore;
Mr Lee Hsien Yang took the business
track, helming Singapore Telecommunications and other irms, for example;
while Ms Lee Wei Ling went the medical route and became director of the
National Neuroscience Institute.
HIS SONS CANCER

An old photograph
of his family
presented to
Mr Lee as a token
of appreciation at
the launch of the
Chinese edition
of Lee Kuan Yew:
Hard Truths To
Keep Singapore
Going in 2011.
TODAY FILE PHOTO

One of Mr Lees most anxious moments

was when Mr Lee Hsien Loong, then
Deputy Prime Minister, was diagnosed
with lymphoma in October 1992. The
elder Mr Lee, who was in Johannesburg
with his wife, got a call from his son.
I immediately rang back, fearing bad
news. It was devastating. A biopsy of a
polyp found in his colon had been diagnosed as cancer, a lymphoma.
Former minister George Yeo said
Mr Lee was distressed and had to take
Valium as he could not sleep. But when
he met the South Africans, you could
at the end of each day: She would
stay awake waiting for him to return
from work and he would spend an hour
or more by her bedside, talking to her
and reading her the news and her favourite poems and books.
His brother recalled how at family dinners, at 10pm hell say, Im
sorry I have to leave you now and go
back home and read her favourite storybooks. Even when abroad, he would
speak to her via webcam.
To ill the empty blank spaces
now that she was unable to accompany
him for meals and walks, Mr Lee kept
himself occupied honing his Mandarin. To cope at night with hearing the
sounds of his wifes discomfort in the
next room, he took up meditation. The
constant stress of her illness, he said,
was harder on him than the stresses
of the political arena.
I cant break down. Life has got
to go on. I try to busy myself, but

not tell he kept up the pretence until

the matter came out after he left South
Africa. Watching him ... and the anguish
that he must have had as a father it
reminds me of this Chinese expression
of the knifes edge on your heart and
maintaining appearances nonetheless.
In the end, intensive chemotherapy
cleared up the cancer cells. The specialists said that if the cancer did not recur
in ive years, he would be considered
cured. We waited anxiously for the ive
years to elapse. October 1997 came and
passed without mishap, said Mr Lee.

In the last few years of his life, it was his

daughter who gave Singaporeans rare
glimpses of the man her father was, in
her newspaper columns for The Sunday
Times. She described, for instance, his
devoted care of her mother when she
was ill and how, after her death, his
health and spirits deteriorated.

In October 2011, she wrote of how

she now travelled overseas with Mr Lee.
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.
Though more frail than he used to
be, he insisted on travelling and doing
what had to be done to beneit Singapore. For my part, I keep him company
when he is not preoccupied with work
and I make sure he has enough rest,
said the single Dr Lee, who lived in the
family home with her father.
She has also written about what it
was like growing up as the daughter
of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. My every move,
every word, is scrutinised ... One friend
said I lived in a glass house. After my
fathers recent comment on my lack of
culinary skills, another observed, You
live in a house without any walls. Fortunately, I am not easily embarrassed.

from time to time in idle moments,

my mind goes back to the happy days
when we were up and about together,
Mr Lee said.
Mr Lees pain at his wifes death in
October 2010 was evident in the words
of his eulogy: Without her, I would be
a diferent man, with a diferent life.

She devoted herself to me and our

children. She was always there when
I needed her.
She has lived a life full of warmth
and meaning. I should ind solace in
her 89 years of life well lived. But at
this moment of the inal parting, my
heart is heavy with sorrow and grief.

They have never

made a show of
being a loving couple in public.
Even in private, they have rarely
demonstrated their love for each
other with hugs or kisses. It was
only ater my mothers second
stroke that I saw my father kiss
my mother on her forehead to
comfort her. They dont seem
to feel the need for a dramatic
physical show of love.

At the end of the day,

what I cherish most
are the human relationships.
With the unfailing support
of my wife and partner,
I have lived life to the fullest.
It is the friendships I made
and the close family ties I
nurtured that have provided
me with that sense of satisfaction
at a life well lived, and
have made me what I am.

Dr Lee Wei Ling

Mr Lee at his 80th birthday celebrations

HIS DAUGHTERS
COMPANIONSHIP

Today is published by MediaCorp Press Ltd, Caldecott Broadcast Centre, annex Building, Level 1, andrew Road, Singapore 299939 Tel: 6333 3888. Printed by KHL Printing Co Pte Ltd, 57, Loyang drive, Singapore 508968. Tel: 65432222