(A version of this article, in Croatian, appeared in Tuesday's edition of Jutarnji List, Croatia's largest newspaper.)
An Expat in Zagreb
By Roger Malone
Lee Kuan Yew died Monday. Almost no one in Croatia noticed, but for all of Asia and many other places, Lee’s death is momentous. Lee was the founding father of Singapore, taking control of the country 50 years ago when Malaysia, worried about growing Chinese influence, threw the city-state out of the country. Beyond this, he was an elder statesman whose voice carried throughout Asia.
During my decade in Singapore, his presence was everywhere. The sparkling international airport was built because Lee wanted the island to become a regional air hub. Movies and other media were censored because that fit into Lee’s vision of a harmonious society. Even in his later years, Singapore opened its doors to gambling because Lee eventually acquiesced.
While there is room to criticize Lee’s methods, his success is undeniable. In 1965, when the former British colony gained its independence, the country was still reeling from its occupation by Japan in World War II and the political turmoil that followed. Lee had bet the country’s future on a merger with neighboring Malaya – it became Malaysia by adding an “si” for Singapore – and wept on television as he announced Singapore was on its own.
Against all odds, Singapore today is the envy of most counties. Despite having no natural resources and no history of independence, the city-state became a modern, gleaming metropolis with high-tech industry, top-rated universities, a thriving cosmopolitan culture, low crime and high-end shopping. Its zoo is spectacular, its new casino is a global architectural icon, and public transportation is spotless. GDP per capita is about $62,000, the 7th highest globally, and the country is ranked by one consulting firm as the most liveable place on the planet.
I never met Lee during my time in Singapore, but I met his eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong, the current prime minister, several times and interviewed him once. And as reports spread of the elder Lee’s deteriorating health, I began wondering whether any part of the Singapore story could be useful to Croatia. The two countries have comparable populations, but Croatia somehow produces more football stars and Singapore more economic stars.
I don’t believe Singapore’s success can be copied anywhere. Like many rising leaders of the time, Lee stifled politicians who opposed his vision. Operation Coldstore in 1962, was an effort by Singapore, Malaya and Britain to put the communist opposition on ice and led to the arrests of more than 100 suspected communists. But unlike other rising leaders, he ruled an island with few places for opposition movements to hide. He ruled as prime minister without real opposition for three decades, and his influence lingered well into his son’s turn at the helm.
The real difference, though, was how Lee used his power. After all, other Southeast Asian leaders also acquired near absolute power, but didn’t create a Singapore. Cambridge educated, Lee had a vision for Singapore, which he set into motion quickly. Speaking of the separation with Malaysia in his memoirs, Lee wrote, “The people … were prepared to do whatever was needed to make an independent Singapore work. I did not know I was to spend the rest of my life getting Singapore not just to work, but to prosper and flourish.” By all evidence, Lee’s efforts were truly an extension of what he believed was best for the country.
Almost immediately after independence, Lee said he was “sickened” by corruption and vowed to eradicate it. Like many countries, he created anti-corruption legislation and institutions, but he also backed these efforts by paying civil servants – from ministers to clerks – enough to make bribery less tempting and imposing harsh penalties on anyone who was still tempted. Things were different in neighboring Indonesia, where President Suharto’s term overlapped with Lee’s as prime minister. Suharto, who left office in 1998 amid anti-government protests, is thought to have stolen up to $35 billion from the country. Despite improvements, the New York Times reports corruption remains endemic in Indonesia.
Lee was also quick to welcome foreign direct investment and make it easy for companies to set up shop in Singapore. In 1968, three years after independence, Texas Instruments signed a $6 million deal to open a semiconductor and circuit board plant in Singapore. By 1974, after about a decade of independence, total foreign investment in Singapore was 20 times greater than in 1963. By 2013, annual foreign investment in Singapore was equal to about 20 percent of GDP. For several years, Singapore has topped the World Bank rankings for ease of doing business.
Without question, Singapore’s economic story cannot be copied, and the next chapter, free of Lee’s presence and driven by young people without personal experience of how far Singapore has come, is unpredictable. Singapore’s astonishing progress over the past decades is a result of a unique combination of power, vision and compassion. Not everyone would agree to the pragmatic trade-offs Lee made as he built his nation, but 5.4 million Singaporeans are better off today than they would have been without him. And some of his measures can serve as lessons for others.
[Follow Roger Malone on twitter at @ExpatinZagreb or at www.expatinzagreb.blogspot.com]
An Expat in Zagreb
By Roger Malone
Lee Kuan Yew died Monday. Almost no one in Croatia noticed, but for all of Asia and many other places, Lee’s death is momentous. Lee was the founding father of Singapore, taking control of the country 50 years ago when Malaysia, worried about growing Chinese influence, threw the city-state out of the country. Beyond this, he was an elder statesman whose voice carried throughout Asia.
During my decade in Singapore, his presence was everywhere. The sparkling international airport was built because Lee wanted the island to become a regional air hub. Movies and other media were censored because that fit into Lee’s vision of a harmonious society. Even in his later years, Singapore opened its doors to gambling because Lee eventually acquiesced.
While there is room to criticize Lee’s methods, his success is undeniable. In 1965, when the former British colony gained its independence, the country was still reeling from its occupation by Japan in World War II and the political turmoil that followed. Lee had bet the country’s future on a merger with neighboring Malaya – it became Malaysia by adding an “si” for Singapore – and wept on television as he announced Singapore was on its own.
Against all odds, Singapore today is the envy of most counties. Despite having no natural resources and no history of independence, the city-state became a modern, gleaming metropolis with high-tech industry, top-rated universities, a thriving cosmopolitan culture, low crime and high-end shopping. Its zoo is spectacular, its new casino is a global architectural icon, and public transportation is spotless. GDP per capita is about $62,000, the 7th highest globally, and the country is ranked by one consulting firm as the most liveable place on the planet.
I never met Lee during my time in Singapore, but I met his eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong, the current prime minister, several times and interviewed him once. And as reports spread of the elder Lee’s deteriorating health, I began wondering whether any part of the Singapore story could be useful to Croatia. The two countries have comparable populations, but Croatia somehow produces more football stars and Singapore more economic stars.
I don’t believe Singapore’s success can be copied anywhere. Like many rising leaders of the time, Lee stifled politicians who opposed his vision. Operation Coldstore in 1962, was an effort by Singapore, Malaya and Britain to put the communist opposition on ice and led to the arrests of more than 100 suspected communists. But unlike other rising leaders, he ruled an island with few places for opposition movements to hide. He ruled as prime minister without real opposition for three decades, and his influence lingered well into his son’s turn at the helm.
The real difference, though, was how Lee used his power. After all, other Southeast Asian leaders also acquired near absolute power, but didn’t create a Singapore. Cambridge educated, Lee had a vision for Singapore, which he set into motion quickly. Speaking of the separation with Malaysia in his memoirs, Lee wrote, “The people … were prepared to do whatever was needed to make an independent Singapore work. I did not know I was to spend the rest of my life getting Singapore not just to work, but to prosper and flourish.” By all evidence, Lee’s efforts were truly an extension of what he believed was best for the country.
Almost immediately after independence, Lee said he was “sickened” by corruption and vowed to eradicate it. Like many countries, he created anti-corruption legislation and institutions, but he also backed these efforts by paying civil servants – from ministers to clerks – enough to make bribery less tempting and imposing harsh penalties on anyone who was still tempted. Things were different in neighboring Indonesia, where President Suharto’s term overlapped with Lee’s as prime minister. Suharto, who left office in 1998 amid anti-government protests, is thought to have stolen up to $35 billion from the country. Despite improvements, the New York Times reports corruption remains endemic in Indonesia.
Lee was also quick to welcome foreign direct investment and make it easy for companies to set up shop in Singapore. In 1968, three years after independence, Texas Instruments signed a $6 million deal to open a semiconductor and circuit board plant in Singapore. By 1974, after about a decade of independence, total foreign investment in Singapore was 20 times greater than in 1963. By 2013, annual foreign investment in Singapore was equal to about 20 percent of GDP. For several years, Singapore has topped the World Bank rankings for ease of doing business.
Without question, Singapore’s economic story cannot be copied, and the next chapter, free of Lee’s presence and driven by young people without personal experience of how far Singapore has come, is unpredictable. Singapore’s astonishing progress over the past decades is a result of a unique combination of power, vision and compassion. Not everyone would agree to the pragmatic trade-offs Lee made as he built his nation, but 5.4 million Singaporeans are better off today than they would have been without him. And some of his measures can serve as lessons for others.
[Follow Roger Malone on twitter at @ExpatinZagreb or at www.expatinzagreb.blogspot.com]
This blog comes as a real surprise. Lee Kuan Yew was a unique politician in his own time and circumstances. He controlled Singapore in every aspect without derailing the country. He was an exception. Just look at the Philippines in Marcos' time and Hong Kong right now under C.Y. Leung. Lee Kuan Yew himself once said that he admired the vitality and resilience of Hong Kong people. These qualities Singaporeans were and are still lacking. But the ways Singapore has been ruled are exactly the reasons for this outcome. It takes a largely submissive population to achieve the success of Singapore given a capable leader like Lee Kuan Yew. Personally, I don't like this stifling atmosphere in Singapore. (Other foreigners may feel differently when they stay there.) Older generations like my father's family, who still live there, are sincerely thankful for what the government has done. But they don't care about things like freedom of speech. They also don't realize loads of other problems behind the prosperity on the surface. Younger generations (like Roy Ngerng Yi Ling) who dare criticize the government are slashed immediately. Sadly, Hong Kong is following the socio-political steps of Singapore right now. Given my background, I'm really not so excited by the Singaporean model.
ReplyDeleteThis article may interest you as well: https://thestandnews.com/international/lee-kuan-yew-lessons-from-a-strongman/. There are many good articles on this site. But they are almost all written in Chinese.
My point was not to analyze whether Singapore as a whole was a good or bad example or to examine its failures and successes. As I mention in the piece, there is room to criticize Singapore, but there is also lessons that others, including Croatia, can consider. Would I like Croatia to follow Singapore step for step? No. But that doesn't mean one can't learn from it.
ReplyDelete