Being A Malay

Feeling like the least favourite child by Nur Dianah Suhaimi

Nur Dianah Suhaimi: Feeling like the least favourite childAugust 17, 2008 (The Straits Times)

As a Malay, I’ve always been told that I have to work twice as hard to prove my worth.

When I was younger, I always thought of myself as the quintessential Singaporean. Of my four late grandparents, two were Malay, one was Chinese and one was Indian. This, I concluded, makes me a mix of all the main races in the country. But I later realised that it was not what goes into my blood that matters, but what my identity card says under ‘Race’.Because my paternal grandfather was of Bugis origin, my IC says I’m Malay.

I speak the language at home, learnt it in school, eat the food and practise the culture. And because of my being Malay, I’ve always felt like a lesser Singaporean than those from other racial groups.

I grew up clueless about the concept of national service because my father was never enlisted.He is Singaporean all right, born and bred here like the rest of the boys born in 1955. He is not handicapped in any way. He did well in school and participated in sports. Unlike the rest, however, he entered university immediately after his A levels.

He often told me that his schoolmates said he was ‘lucky’ because he was not called up for national service.‘What lucky?’ he would tell them. ‘Would you feel lucky if your country doesn’t trust you?’

So I learnt about the rigours of national service from my male cousins. They would describe in vivid detail their training regimes, the terrible food they were served and the torture inflicted upon them - most of which, I would later realise, were exaggerations.But one thing these stories had in common was that they all revolved around the Police Academy in Thomson.

As I got older, it puzzled me why my Chinese friends constantly referred to NS as ‘army’. In my family and among my Malay friends, being enlisted in the army was like hitting the jackpot.

The majority served in the police force because, as is known, the Government was not comfortable with Malay Muslims serving in the army. But there are more of them now.

Throughout my life, my father has always told me that as a Malay, I need to work twice as hard to prove my worth. He said people have the misconception that all Malays are inherently lazy.

I was later to get the exact same advice from a Malay minister in office who is a family friend. When I started work, I realised that the advice rang true, especially because I wear my religion on my head.

My professionalism suddenly became an issue. One question I was asked at a job interview was whether I would be willing to enter a nightclub to chase a story. I answered: ‘If it’s part of the job, why not? And you can rest assured I won’t be tempted to have fun.’

When I attend media events, before I can introduce myself, people assume I write for the Malay daily Berita Harian. A male Malay colleague in The Straits Times has the same problem, too.

This makes me wonder if people also assume that all Chinese reporters are from Lianhe Zaobao and Indian reporters from Tamil Murasu.

People also question if I can do stories which require stake-outs in the sleazy lanes of Geylang. They say because of my tudung I will stick out like a sore thumb. So I changed into a baseball cap and a men’s sports jacket - all borrowed from my husband - when I covered Geylang.

I do not want to be seen as different from the rest just because I dress differently. I want the same opportunities and the same job challenges.Beneath the tudung, I, too, have hair and a functioning brain.

And if anything, I feel that my tudung has actually helped me secure some difficult interviews.Newsmakers - of all races - tend to trust me more because I look guai (Hokkien for well-behaved) and thus, they feel, less likely to write critical stuff about them.

Recently, I had a conversation with several colleagues about this essay.

I told them I never thought of myself as being particularly patriotic. One Chinese colleague thought this was unfair. ‘But you got to enjoy free education,’ she said.

Sure, for the entire 365 days I spent in Primary 1 in 1989. But my parents paid for my school and university fees for the next 15 years I was studying.It seems that many Singaporeans do not know that Malays have stopped getting free education since 1990.

If I remember clearly, the news made front-page news at that time.We went on to talk about the Singapore Government’s belief that Malays here would never point a missile at their fellow Muslim neighbours in a war.

I said if not for family ties, I would have no qualms about leaving the country. Someone then remarked that this is why Malays like myself are not trusted. But I answered that this lack of patriotism on my part comes from not being trusted, and for being treated like a potential traitor.

It is not just the NS issue.

It is the frustration of explaining to non-Malays that I don’t get special privileges from the Government. It is having to deal with those who question my professionalism because of my religion. It is having people assume, day after day, that you are lowly educated, lazy and poor.

It is like being the least favourite child in a family. This child will try to win his parents’ love only for so long. After a while, he will just be engulfed by disappointment and bitterness.

I also believe that it is this ‘least favourite child’ mentality which makes most Malays defensive and protective of their own kind.

Why do you think Malay families spent hundreds of dollars voting for two Malay boys in the Singapore Idol singing contest? And do you know that Malays who voted for other competitors were frowned upon by the community?

The same happens to me at work. When I write stories which put Malays in a bad light, I am labelled a traitor. A Malay reader once wrote to me to say: ‘I thought a Malay journalist would have more empathy for these unfortunate people than a non-Malay journalist.’But such is the case when you are a Malay Singaporean.

Your life is not just about you, as much as you want it to be. You are made to feel responsible for the rest of the pack and your actions affect them as well.

If you trip, the entire community falls with you. But if you triumph, it is considered everyone’s success.

When 12-year-old Natasha Nabila hit the headlines last year for her record PSLE aggregate of 294, I was among the thousands of Malays here who celebrated the news. I sent instant messages to my friends on Gmail and chatted excitedly with my Malay colleagues at work.Suddenly a 12-year-old has become the symbol of hope for the community and a message to the rest that Malays can do it too - and not just in singing competitions.

And just like that, the ‘least favourite child’ in me feels a lot happier.Each year, come Aug 9, my father, who never had the opportunity to do national service, dutifully hangs two flags at home - one on the front gate and the other by the side gate.I wonder if putting up two flags is his way of making himself feel like a better-loved child of Singapore.

ndianah@sph.com.sg

My comments:

Hi Friends,

The Sunday Times Forum Page published a truncated version of my letter about Malays and SAF. The editor chose to keep some salient points about how ST journalist Nur Dianah Suhaimi's father felt when he was not enlisted into the SAF on account of his race but left out my point that yes, things have improved, but there is strong evidence that there are still places in the SAF where certain races are kept out as a matter of policy.

I believe that if we want to change, we should go the whole hog; we should go the full 9 yards! No half-measures; no tokenisms.We are all Singaporeans-all the races. Chinese, Malays,Indians,Eurasians,ex-Malaysians,ex-AngMo's,Ex-filipinos etc. Faham? Comprehende (pidgin Spanish)

You get the idea now?

Security vetting for sensitive posts should be on a case-by-case basis;personnel should be vetted based by race-blind basis.

I do not think I can make it any clearer than this.I have chosen to republish Nur Dianah's letter at the top of my post as I have realised, naively, that the average attention span of netizens is about one paragraph long.

Many would have just glanced over her letter the last time and all my effort of trying to bring about change by highlighting how hurtful SAF policies have been to Malays would have come to nought!

Since the Straits Times/Sunday Times has so kindly quoted Nur Dianah's article by its proper title, and by publishing it has imlicitly endorsed it ( Yes-I think so), I sincerely hope that "gahmen leaders"; policy makers and community leaders can read her very signficant and poignant letter.

I recall that when Nur Dianah's letter was published last August (2008), Professor Tommy Koh ( whom I admire much for still trying to change things from within) made an online comment supporting her viewpoint.I still hope that Prof. Tommy Koh would become our next President!

Cheers,
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

Issues Singaporeans want PM to address during National Day Rally.

Today on 93.8Live, listeners were asked to call in to say what topics PM Lee should address during the National Day rally...I have provided the standard PAP model answers along with my own comments for each of the topics:

1. Why so many foreign talents? Are they really talents? Can we limit the number or implement Singaporeans-first policy? The issue that cropped up most often among the callers was the Foreign Talent issue - about 70% of those who called in.

The PAP has standard answers for this question. Foreign talents help to keep the labor cost down. They take up jobs that Singaporeans do not want or don't have the skills for. Without them, businesses will go somewhere else in search of cheaper labor. We cannot implement Singaporeans-first policy because that will limit the flexibility of businesses to hire people. Imported labor keeps Singapore competive.

If you're not tired of listening to these standard answers, you can hear them again at the National Day rally when our PM speaks. At the end of the day, whether this policy is good or not good, it is how much it benefits the majority of Singaporeans who are workers rather than business owners. Before we go further lets put things into perspective - our foreign talent policy is not a normal one, it is a policy on steriods. The PAP govt carried the FT policy to its extreme with about 30% of our work force made up of foreigners higher than all developed nations. Such a high % makes us dependent on foreign labor and the policy irreversible because of this dependence.

Importing cheap foreign workers in such large numbers result in many distortions. We are told that it is necessary to get cheap labor to keep Singapore competitive. This is not true. Singapore is an expensive place to do business high rent, high utilities (2nd highest in the word), high cost of transport (ERP, COE) and high cost of various govt services. To keep the total cost of doing business contained, cheaper labor is imported to keep this component of cost down so that the rest of the cost can remain high. Much of the rented space is owned by the govt or its GLCs that benefit from the high rent. The distortion is quite incredible - a foodcourt where each stall can cost $8000 to rent per month and the income of cleaners there can be as low as $600/month. Very few countries suffer from such a huge rent-income differential (if you know, tell me).

This policy has hurt a large segment of the population. It has caused structural unemployment among older workers who find it hard to get a job because employers can always import younger workers. It has worsened the income gap and increased poverty in Singapore.

2. Is it possible to have a minimum wage?The PAP standard answer for this is it will cause unemployment and cost of business to go up. Their standard alarmist answer is businesses will pack up and run away.

My view is the PAP has pursued policies that caused the income gap to balloon and a large segment of the Singaporean workforce to have such low wages that implementing a minimum wage will cause problems down the road. The PAP has created a situation that makes it hard to implement a minimum wage because we have an economy with so many low wage workers. Full explanation here.

3. What will the govt do for the old? What can the govt do for the poor? Safety nets? The standard answer is govt cannot afford to take care of the poor, old and sick. The govt cannot afford safety nets. If it implements schemes to help people in need, it will have to resort to higher taxes. It is better to rely on philanthropy and charities (such as RenCi & NKF?) to take care of the underprivileged (Read PM Lee's speech on this idea here).

It is not true that taking care of the weakest in our society will result in higher taxation. For a start, taking care of the old and sick probably only requires our existing annual budget to be properly allocated to where it is needed most rather that other forms of spending such as grand buildings, rebranding campaigns and overspending in other areas. Talking about taxes what happened to the $5B surplus in 2007 from the GST increase that was meant to help the poor - maybe just doing what it says, the govt can go a long to solve these problems. The strange thing I observe is Singaporeans like to migrate to countries with higher taxes,minimum wages and more comphrensive safety nets. ....why?..

On Sunday I suggest you tune in to the live broadcast of the National Day Rally. Listen to what PM Lee has to say and think hard about the issues. As a citizen, it is your responsibility to do so because at the end of the day, you have to cast a vote to decide on your future and your children's future (not the best estate upgrading plan). You have to decide if the PAP govt has the right solutions for problems Singaporeans face or a better solution is possible. You have to decide if the PAP govt puts your interest first or does it put other interests above that of ordinary citizens. If PM Lee drowns us with the worthless standard answers that we have heard so many times, he won't be worth 1% of the $3+M we pay him every year.

Education for Jobs; The Great Training Robbery

Abstract :

Dr. Berg's study, based on extensive data, challenges some conventional assumptions about the relationship between education and jobs--many workers are overeducated for their jobs; salaries are not necessarily closely related to education; many teachers and social workers earn less than plumbers and professional athletes; an employee's productivity does not vary systematically with his years of formal education; the rate of turnover is positively associated with high education. Among workers in lower-skilled jobs, dissatisfaction increases as educational levels rise. Better educated employees are often rated as less productive. The practice of basing teachers' salaries on credits they earn toward higher degrees actually encourages teachers not to teach since those who feel overtrained tend to seek administrative positions or better-paying jobs in industry. In the armed forces high-school graduates are not uniformly and markedly superior to nongraduates and training on the job is more important than educational credentials. Dr. Berg asserts that it is fundamentally subversive of education and democratic values not to see that, in relation to jobs, education has its limits. The crucial employment issue is the overall level of employment and the demand for labor in a less than full employment economy. (NL)

What does that mean exactly?

(1) If workers are over-educated, it means that there are keen competition for the job. So in order to land that job, you must have something offer. If everything else is the same, then those with the extra education will be preferred.

(2) Different profession earns differently not because of the education required to perform the profession, rather it is demand and supply

(3) Productivity do not have a direct correlation with education. Instead the direct correlation is attitude

Chinese History

The Spring and Autumn period in China was marked by great intellectual fervor leading to the flowering of a “hundred schools” of thought.

Confucianism which was founded by Confucius and later promulgated by his disciples, the most prominent of whom is Mencius, is only one of the many schools.

Arising around the same time as Confucianism is Taoism, represented by Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi, Mohism by Mo Zhi and Legalism by Xun Zi, Shang Yang, Sheng Bu Hai, and Han Fei Zi. Sun Wu, Pang Juan and Sun Bin are Fa Jia or militarists, Zhang Yi, Su Qin are the “Zhong Heng Jia” which belong to neither schools.

The most influential school of thought during this period will turn out to be Legalism and not Confucianism.

During 330BC, the state of Qin under Duke Xiao appointed Shang Yang as its Prime Minister. Shang Yang is a strict legalist who change the entire Qin bureaucracy along the principles of legalism - the aristocracy lost their place and power, rewards were given to those who contributes to the state, harsh punishments were meted for offenders, the King is regarded as above all - the reforms Shang Yang introduced into Qin transformed it from a weak backward state in western China into a military powerhouse in less than 3 decades - not quite unlike the Meiji Restoration Japan were to experienced centuries later.

Shang Yang was subsequently put to death by Duke Xiao’s successor, King Xiaowen on false charges of formenting rebellion. His body was torn apart by 5 chariots, ironically a punishment which he introduced himself. However, by then, Qin was arguably the strongest feudal state in China. Further expansion and consolidation by King Xiaowen, King Zhaoxiang and King Zhuangxiang (Lee Buwei was his premier) lay the foundation for the unification of China under Emperior Qin Shi Huang.

So to say that Emperor Qin Shi Huang united China was not entirely correct for by his reign, Qin became so powerful that it was only a matter of time before the remaining six states are wiped out. If Qin adopted Confucianism as the state idealogy, it will never have grown strong, let alone unite China!

After Qin was overthrown by the Han, the early Han Emperors Wen Di and Jin Di are Taoists. They adopted Lao Zi’s “Wei er bu zhi” doctrine to rule China, leading to the golden era of “Wen Jing Zi Zhi”, a rare period of stability and prosperity in China’s tumultuous history.

Confucianism is only adopted as a state idealogy and governance during the reign of Emperor Wu of Han - “Ba4 Chu2 Bai3 Jia1, Wei2 Zhun1 Kong3 Shu4″ and Confucianism became the sole dominant philosophy in China subsequently and even then there were periods where it was displaced by Taoism (Ming’s Jiajing) and Buddhism (Northern Wei’s Xiaowen Emperior).

In short, Confucianism led to much stagnation in the intellectual progress of China especially during the Ming and Qing dynasties which saw the West catching up and exceeding China. The industrial revolution could never have happened in China then because of the rigidity and dominance of Confucianism. Western ideas and inventions were looked upon with scorn by Confucianists who advocated that the Emperor is the “Son of Heaven”, China is the center of the universe and did not need playtoys of the western barbarians. This would prove to be fatal as China was reduced to a semi-colony status with its treaty ports and foreign settlements by the western powers towards the end of the 19th century.

Singapore’s limits: The curse of the GDP

By Eugene Yeo, Consultant Editor

[In this two part series, Eugene Yeo writes about the two chief limiting factors of Singapore's uccess: the growth-at-all cost economic policy and an unthinking, unquestioning, subservient citizenry]

In his National Day speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that Singapore is now in a stronger economic position after a turbulent start to the year. (read full article here)

‘As a result, growth in the first half of the year was minus 6.5 per cent – a very significant contraction, but less bad than we had feared,’ he said.

There’s no guessing that the ‘growth’ he is referring to is Singapore’s Gross Domestic Product or GDP, the perennial barometer of our nation’s success.

Singapore is a nation obsessed with numbers and none the more so than the GDP. It is on the lips of every minister and it is little wonder since a substantial portion of their astronomical pay is pegged to the GDP.

Every few days, the mainstream media will update the entire nation on the latest GDP forecast. When the GDP growth is good, the government takes credit for it and raises its own pay. If the growth is negative as is of now, it is an inevitable consequence of the global financial turmoil.
No leaders in the world is so beholdened to the GDP like ours. Malaysia’s Najib Razak waxes lyrical about “1Malaysia”, China’s Hu Jintao talks about building a “harmonious society” and Hong Kong’s Donald Tsang frequently promises to ensure the “civil liberties” of the people.
How many Singaporeans even understand the meaning of GDP?

By definition, the GDP a basic measure of a country’s economic performance, is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a nation in a year.

It is a sum of the total output of a country, but tells us virtually nothing about the income gap, the cost of living, the per capital consumption and most importantly the welfare of the people, especially the poor, needy and destitute.

The Singapore government’s selective and myopic focus on the GDP has led to a gross neglect of other areas culminating in a widening income gap as shown by our Gini Coefficient, which is one of the highest amongst the 30 most developed economies in the world.

Though Singapore’s per capita GDP is roughly 11% higher than Hong Kong’s, our per capita consumption is about 21% lower. This means that the average Singaporean spends 21% less than the Hong Konger. We have to save much more and spend less to maintain the same standard of living.

Unlike other first world countries, Singapore lacked a social safety net. Recent studies have shown that the CPF is hardly adequate to meet the retirement needs of Singaporeans as it is mostly used to service mortage loans for inflated public housing.

The high cost of living, coupled with education and medical expenses mandates most young parents to work long hours and save for the future leading to a low domestic consumption which increases our reliance on foreign investments and exports.

Singapore has one of the highest saving and investment rates in the world, During the past 20 years it has averaged about 37%, and for several years during the 1980s it approached 50%! Thus, Singapore typically invests between two and three times as much of its income as the United States. (Source: FRBSF)

U.S. economist Kenneth Kasa wasn’t impressed by the Singapore model of development:
“We cannot rule out the possibility that Singapore invests too much and is dynamically inefficient.”, he wrote.

Where have all our budget surpluses gone to? Not surprisingly, a portion of it ends up with our two sovereign wealth funds - Temasek and GIC, flushed with billions of dollars.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam of the Reform Party argued that our budget surpluses can be better utilized by re-investing it in the people, our most precious asset:

“The budget surplus having been taken from the pockets of Singaporeans then represents money that not only could have, but should have, been returned to the citizens of Singapore in the form of lower taxes, fees and charges. It could have also been used to finance much higher domestic investment in education or in health and welfare.”, he said. (read full article here)
The GDP growth over the last three decades which is contributed by every Singaporean has gone to enrich mainly the state with the ordinary citizens “improverished” by standards of the developed world.

We may have a roof over our heads and three meals a day, but everyday life is a continuous struggle to keep ourselves and families afloat especially for the middle class which is becoming squeezed by the rising costs of living and stagnant wages.

To assess if our nation’s GDP growth from the years 2002 to 2008 has really benefitted us, we only need to ask ourselves these questions:
1. Are we happier?
2. Are we having an easier life?
3. Do we feel secure about our future and that of our children?

The key task of the government is to care for the people and not primarily to generate GDP growth which is only a means to the end. If the current growth-at-all cost policy cannot provide for the well-being of the people, then an urgent rethink of the economic blueprint is necessary.

Can Singapore afford to grow at a slightly slower rate and yet able to reap more intangible benefits from the “software” of the citizenry.

In a less stressed society, young Singaporeans may be more inclined to get married and start a family. Increasing our birth rates will reduce our dependence on foreign workers. Instead of spending their entire lives in pursuit of the 5Cs, Singaporeans may find more worthy and meaningful goals in their lives. An increased emphasis on citizens to show that they matter to the state will instill a far greater sense of belonging in them than just mere decoration of the the neighborhood with flags.

In the early years after independence, when we are still a developing country, GDP growth matters above everything else. We need foreign investments to generate years of growth in order to jump-start the economy.

Now, we are already a developed economy. We are losing our advantage as a low-cost manufacturing hub to neighboring countries like China, Vietnam and India. We have to progress to the next stage of an intelligent and creative economy that generates real value to keep us ahead of our competitors. A ‘top-down’ approach simply will not work because creativity can only thrive in adversity.

Singapore needs to produce a Bill Gates, a Larry Page, a Bernard Kouchner, a Barack Obama who dares to go against conventions and fight for their beliefs, ideas and vision.

We have one of the highest education standards in the world. Our college students excel in Mathematics and Science, often triumphing over the Americans and Europeans in international competitions, but why are we so far behind them in terms of creativity?

The real problem with Singapore is that we have produced too many technocrats, bureaucrats and yes-men. We need more thinkers, innovators and visionaries who dare to blaze a trail of their own against conventions.

The government needs to liberalize the political arena to allow the people to freely question its policies without any fear for there is a rebel in every genius, innovator and visionary. We are a nation of sheeps, obeying orders and following blindly what the government says without ever thinking or questioning and this is another limiting factor to our future success as I will elucidate on in my next article - An unthinking and unquestioning Confucianist society”.

Lee Kuan Yew: Race, Culture and Genes

Lee Kuan Yew: Race, Culture and Genes
By Michael D. Barr (Department of History, University of Queensland)

"Three women were brought to the Singapore General Hospital, each in the same
condition and needing a blood transfusion. The first, a Southeast Asian was given the
transfusion but died a few hours later. The second, a South Asian was also given a
transfusion but died a few days later. The third, an East Asian, was given a
transfusion and survived. That is the X factor in development."

Racism is rarely far from the surface of Asian societies, and this is especially true
of those multiracial societies that feel the need to promote racial tolerance as part of
official ideology. Yet even in these cases, promoting racial tolerance does not
necessarily imply the promotion of racial indifference. Singapore's multiracialism, for
instance, encourages a high consciousness of one's race even as it insists on tolerance.
Further, it has been considered by many as a covert form of discrimination in favour
of the majority Chinese and against the minorities, especially the Malays. This article
is an attempt to advance our understanding of Singapore's idiosyncratic version of
multiracialism by casting new light on the thinking of its primary architect, Senior
Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Despite official denials there can be little doubt that there is an unofficial
pro-Chinese bias in Singapore, and that in spite of the structures of "meritocracy" and
sometimes because of them, the Malay minority in particular has suffered structural
discrimination. Even a cursory survey of recent history confirms this impression. For
two decades after separation from Malaysia in 1965, for instance, the Singapore
government had an unofficial policy of excluding Malays from the Singapore Armed
Forces and the police force because of concerns about their loyalty. Not only did this
practice deny Malays a traditional source of employment, but it made other employers
reluctant to hire them because they were, technically, still eligible to be called up. (1)
At the same time, the government exaggerated, possibly unintentionally, the structural
impediments to Malays' educational advancement. At the time of separation from
Malaysia, Malay students in Singapore had already been disadvantaged inadvertently
because they were streamed through Malay-language schools which were staffed by
under-qualified teachers, and which used substandard Malay-language text books. (2)
These schools had very high attrition and failure rates from the beginning, but after
separation even the successful students faced unique linguistic and academic hurdles
in their pursuit of higher education. After separation, not only did the Malays find that
their language had little economic value, but they discovered that their schools had
not prepared them for tertiary education in the new Singapore. The first problem was
that unlike Chinese-educated Chinese attending Nanyang University, and
English-speaking Chinese, Indians and Eurasians attending the University of
Singapore, the Malays had no tertiary institutions in which they did not face a
language barrier. In fact Malay students' command of English was so poor that they
alone were required to take an oral examination as part of their entry requirements to
university. Further, as part of the push for national and economic survival in
newly-independent Singapore, university scholarships were restricted to those
students pursuing technical and science disciplines, and the inadequately staffed and
poorly resourced Malay-stream schools had left their students singularly ill-equipped
to qualify or compete for these scholarships. (3) The Malay's problem was
compounded by their continuing socio-economic marginalisation, (4) and by the
near-universal perception that their underachievement reflected their racial and
cultural defects: that they had grown up in the "soft," lethargic Malay Culture which
did not encourage studiousness, enterprise or hard work. Between their educational
and employment disadvantages, and the psychological impact of being told that their
problems were the result of their ethnic culture, it is not surprising that Malays are
still at an economic disadvantage today.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the saga of Singapore's Malays, however, is
not the actual discrimination, but the fact that Singapore's multiracial meritocracy has
provided the rationale for its justification, and that this rationale has been effective to
the point that even Malay teachers have come to accept this "cultural deficit"
explanation of Malay underachievement. (5) The perception of the cultural deficiency
of the Malays is, to some extent, a continuation of the prejudices fostered by the
British colonial authorities who regarded the Malays as slow and lazy because they
preferred their agrarian kampong lifestyle to working in tin mines for money. (6) This
interpretation, however, ignores the role of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in
moulding the ideological and social perceptions of Singaporeans. Although no
nation's history can ever be reduced to the story of one man, Lee Kuan Yew had such
a paramount role in making modem Singapore that an understanding of that society
cannot be complete without an attempt at understanding Lee himself. The remainder
of this article is devoted to contributing to our understanding of Lee's views on race.
Lee Kuan Yew

Understanding any aspect of Lee Kuan Yew's career requires a syncretic
approach. but fully understanding his racial views stretches holistic analysis to new
limits. Lee's views on race have been a matter of much private, but little published
comment. This now changes with the publication of his authorised biography, Lee
Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas, (7) in which Lee speaks about race with
unprecedented candour. Upon close inspection, Lee's racial beliefs prove not to be an
aberration or idiosyncrasy in his thinking, but the consummation of his world view
and his political thought.

Until the late 1990s, Lee rarely allowed his public record to be sullied by any
explicit statement that could be construed as racist, though on occasions he has come
close to doing so. He has, for instance, argued that there are links between economic
performance and race. In 1993, Lee wrote an article for The Economist in which he
speculated on the state of the world in the twenty-first century, with special emphasis
on Asia. (8) Lee put his own views into the mouth of a fictional Chinese Singaporean,
Wang Chang, who then discussed his views with his friend, Ali Alkaff. Lee painted a
picture of a prosperous twenty-first century East Asian industrial belt consisting of
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and coastal China, while South and South East
Asia (except for Singapore) languished by comparison. Singapore, although
geographically part Of South East Asia, was economically on a par with the more
prosperous East Asian region. (9) In the subsequent "discussion" of these predictions,
"Wang Chang" made it clear that race was a factor in his assessment, since he based
his forecasting "on a people's culture, heredity and organisational strengths." (10) A
few years earlier, Lee used his 1989 National Day Rally address to defend the
Government's programme of encouraging Chinese immigration from Hong Kong on
the basis that the birth rate of Singapore's Chinese is lower than that of the Indians
and Malays. The numerical preponderance of the Chinese must be maintained, said
Lee, "or there will be a shift in the economy, both the economic performance and the
political backdrop which makes that economic performance possible." (11) Lee
enumerated several reasons why maintaining the Chinese proportion of the population
at current levels was necessary for economic prosperity - including the "culture" and
"nature" of the Chinese. Without a hint of irony, Lee also took the opportunity to
assure Malays that they need not fear Hong Kong immigrants taking their jobs
because the immigrants will all be high income earners. In 1977 Lee treated
Parliament to a four hour post-election victory speech which could best be described
as "uninhibited." In this speech, Lee told the multi-racial chamber, "I understand the
Englishman. He knows deep in his heart that he is superior to the Welshman and the
Scotsman.... Deep here, I am a Chinaman." (12) In recent times, Lee has not only
been more forthright about his racial views but he has also confirmed that he held
them at least as early as the beginning of the 1970s. In October 1989, in an interview
with Malaysia's New Straits Times Lee revealed that after he read Mahathir
Mohamad's The Malay, Dilemma (13) in 1971 in 1971 or 1972, he found himself "in
agreement with three-quarters of his analysis of the problem" of the economic and
educational under-performance of the Malays. (14) According to Lee and Mahathir,
the problem was both cultural and genetic. (15) Lee noted with approval that
Mahathir's views were the "result of his medical training, and... he was not likely to
change them." (16)

Indiscretion
While Lee has been moderately circumspect in most of his public statements on
race, there have been rare occasions on which he has shown less discretion than usual.
The earliest such documented occasion was on 27 December 1967, when Lee
addressed a meeting at the University of Singapore. (17) After his speech there was a
question and answer session, in which a question was asked about "the most
important factor, the X-factor, in development." (18) Two members of the audience
have given the author independent and almost identical accounts of Lee's answer.
According to Chandra Muzaffar, Lee responded in these terms:
"Three women were brought to the Singapore General Hospital, each in the same
condition and each needing a blood transfusion. The first, a Southeast Asian was
given the transfusion but died a few hours later. The second, a South Asian was also
given a transfusion but died a few days later. The third, an East Asian, was given a
transfusion and survived. That is the X factor in development." (19)

Herman Paul independently gave the following account of Lee's answer: "There
were 3 women, one of them from East Asia, another from South Asia and the 3rd from
S-E Asia. They were admitted to the Singapore General Hospital. Their condition was
precarious, and they all received blood transfusions. The woman from S-E Asia
passed away. The woman from East Asia survived. The woman from South-East Asia
(20) passed away. " (21)

Each listener took the Southeast Asian to be a Malay or perhaps a member of one
of the aboriginal races of the region. Each of them took the South Asian woman to be
an Indian, and the East Asian who survived was Chinese, or perhaps Japanese or
Korean. Lee revealed in this speech, as reported by Chandra Muzaffar a perception of
a racial hierarchy of Asians, in which the Chinese and other East Asians are at the top,
Malays and other Southeast Asians are at the bottom, and Indians and other South
Asians are in between. On this occasion Lee made no attempt to disguise his views on
race with discussion of related factors, such as culture. He was talking about the
inherent, genetic, strength and weakness of the different races. The emphasis that Lee
has placed on culture and race in economic development has varied over the years.
Only 27 months after Lee argued that race is the "X-factor" in development, Lee
credited "ethnic factors" with being one of the variables in economic development,
though on this occasion he contradicted his December 1967 statement by arguing that
these "ethnic factors" were a minor consideration compared to "cultural factors." (22)
Regardless of the balance between the two factors in Lee's thinking, there is no room
to doubt that both race and culture play related if different roles in Lee's political
thought.

Hierarchy
The hierarchy of races revealed in Lee's December 1967 parable helps to explain
a similar hierarchy of humiliation to which Lee referred four years earlier, when he
said, "Humiliation and degradation by foreign European powers is bad enough. It was
worse at the hands of a conquering Asian nation like Japan - and it will be even worse
if it should be by a neighbouring power in South-East Asia." (23) In fact, Lee's racial
hierarchy is much more complex than he indicated on either of these occasions. In
1982 he revealed his belief that Jews share with East Asians a place at the top of the
racial pyramid. and that both occupy a higher place than Americans:
"Let us not deceive ourselves: our talent profile is nowhere near that of, say, the
Jews or the Japanese in America. The exceptional number of Nobel Prize winners
who are Jews is no accident. It is also no accident that a high percentage, sometimes
50%, of faculty members in the top American universities on both the east and west
coasts are Jews. And the number of high calibre Japanese academics, professionals,
and business executives is out of all proportion to the percentage of Japanese in the
total American population." (24)

More recently, commenting upon Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein's The
Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, (25) Lee told his
authorised biographers:
"The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ
and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians
score more... the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities
that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money
on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow." (26)

A reading of the evidence cited above suggests that Lee has always had an
agenda based on the racial and cultural superiority of Singapore's Chinese population.
If this analysis is accurate, however, it requires a complementary argument which
accounts adequately for the fact that Lee did not begin acting on these beliefs until the
late 1970s. On the surface, such a line of argument appears plausible, since there are
no shortage of external factors which could have restrained Lee's sinocentric bias until
the early 1980s. His early hostility to Chinese education, culture and language, for
instance, can be explained by the fact that Lee regarded Chinese culture as a threat to
Singapore's stability because it was so closely associated with Chinese chauvinism,
Chinese communism and loyalty to the People's Republic of China. (27) As well as
these internal communal factors, it is known that Lee considered that allowing even
the appearance of creating a sinocentric culture in the 1960s or 1970s would have
heightened tensions between Singapore and its Malay neighbours. (28) These were
sufficient reasons for Lee to continue his campaign of gutting Chinese education and
building a communally neutral multiracialism. By 1979, however, Singapore's
political and regional landscape had been totally transformed. Chinese culture was
succumbing to the constant incursion of English language education and Western
influence through the media. Nanyang University, almost the last institutional bastion
of Chinese culture and Chinese communism. was demoralised, (29) and the
Chinese-educated were on the verge of becoming a minority in the electorate. (30)
This meant that Chinese culture was no longer seen as a major threat to Singapore's
internal stability. Furthermore, Singapore's relations with both Malaysia and Indonesia
had reached a new high thanks to the spirit of regional solidarity within ASEAN,
prompted by the fall of Vietnam in 1975. (31) The post-separation siege mentality
towards the Malay world was now redundant, if it had ever been valid. This
development coincided roughly with the retirement, enforced or otherwise, of most of
the "old -guard" of PAP leaders. By the mid-1980s Lee had surrounded himself with
younger second generation leaders Substantially dependent upon his patronage, thus
relieving Lee of another constraint. The sinicization of Singapore was now a political
possibility for Lee, and according to the logic of this argument, he then took the
opportunity to act on his racial beliefs.

While this thesis goes some way towards explaining Lee's actions, it faces
serious problems. It is important. for instance, to acknowledge that not only did Lee
show no signs of acting on Chinese racial or cultural supremacist beliefs until the very
end of the 1970s, but for many of those years he was widely demonised as an enemy
of Chinese culture. Alex Josey wrote in1974 that "within ten or fifteen years, Lee
Kuan Yew expects the Chinese language to be unimportant, " (32) and this seemed a
fair assessment. The majority of Chinese parents were choosing English as the first
language for their children’s education since English was the language which led to
good jobs and upward social mobility. (33) Nanyang University was struggling to
survive and was under a continuing cloud of suspicion that it was fostering Chinese
chauvinism and communism. This suspicion had lead the Government to "disperse"
former communist Chinese-educated students to universities in Australia, Canada and
New Zealand, rather than allow them to study at Nanyang. (34) In 1971 two Chinese
language newspapers, Sin Chew Jit Poh and Nanyang Siang Pau were brought to heel
for allegedly promoting Chinese chauvinism and accusing the government of killing
Chinese education and the Chinese language.(35)

These factors by themselves undermine the thesis that Lee was always a closet
Chinese Supremacist. Consideration must be given also to the testimony of Lee's
close associates from those early decades, who flatly contradict the picture of Lee
Kuan Yew as a Chinese cultural or racial supremacist. Goh Keng Swee was Lee's
right hand man for twenty years in government, at one stage rising to the position of
First Deputy Prime Minister. When Goh was shown Chandra Muzaffar's account of
Lee's December 1967 parable, he was genuinely shocked and lost for words. Finally
he stammered. "I can't imagine he spoke in such crude terms." (36)

E.W. Barker, a Minister in Lee's Cabinet for more than twenty years and his
friend for more than two decades before that, was equally adamant in interview that
"there was nothing of this race business in Cabinet. I wouldn't have served if it was a
pro-Chinese government, but it was not." (37) While Lee believed in his heart that the
Chinese were genetically and culturally superior, he separated this belief from his
public policy. Only in the late 1970s did his racial beliefs begin to exert a noticeable
influence upon public policy. The discrepancy between the picture of the Chinese,
racial and cultural supremacist which we are able to paint from a collage of' Lee's
words is barely reconcilable with Lee's public record up to the late 1970s and with the
accounts given by his close associates of forty and fifty years. It is obvious that the
thesis that Lee was restrained from acting on his beliefs by external forces is
insufficient. As is the case with most aspects of Lee's career, the story is much more
complicated, and requires a detailed study of the gradual development of his political
thought.

Origins
At this stage it is important to consider the origins of Lee's racial views. It is
natural to assume that Lee's beliefs stem directly from prejudices he learnt as a child.
While there is a certain likelihood in this line of approach, Lee's own accounts suggest
that he arrived at his racial views as a result of observation, empirical enquiry and
study as an adult: "I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that's the
most unlikely thing ever to have been, because millions of years have passed over
evolution, people have scattered across the face of this earth, been isolated from each
other, developed independently had different intermixtures between races, peoples,
climates, soils. ...I didn't start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading,
watching, arguing, asking, that is the conclusion I've come to." (38)

Lee maintains that at some stage before the late 1960s he had acted under the
assumption that all races were equal, but bitter disappointment convinced him that the
reality was otherwise: "When we were faced with the reality that, in fact, equal
opportunities did not bring about more equal results, we were faced with [an]
ideological dilemma. ... In other words, this Bell curve, which Murray and Herrnstein
wrote about, became obvious to us by the late '60s." (39)

The evolution of Lee's racism was a long process. According to Lee himself he
began to form his views on race while he was a student in London. (40) He has
described how his ideas firmed in 1956 on a visit to Europe and London, (41) and
then reached their full force in the Malaysia period. (42) The details and implications
of Lee's account of the development of his racial views are considered later in this
article, but one must be sceptical that his adult mind was ever a tabula rasa on the
question of race. Lee likes to consider himself a pure empiricist who can rise above
preconceptions and prejudices, but it seems reasonable to assume that the very
questions he asked as an adult, and his early fascination with questions of race sprang
from an existing, possibly unconscious world view in which race was an all-pervasive
feature.

In racially conscious Singapore it would have been difficult to have grown up
without exposure to racial stereotyping. Further, the Chinese of Lee's parents' and
grandparents' generations grew up in a culture which emphasised familial piety and
ancestor worship and who were naturally proud of both their ancestry and their
tenuous association with the glories of Chinese civilisation. Ethnic pride can slip
easily into racial prejudice in the most racially unconscious society, and Singapore
was and is anything but racially unconscious. We might believe Lee when he
maintains that he had, at some stage in his early adult life, come to the intellectual
conviction that all races are equal. His childhood, however, was steeped in racial
stereotyping that meant that questions of race were never far from the surface of his
dynamically inquisitive mind, and deep seated stereotypes were always ready to
challenge race-blind explanations of the world. Hence, when he visited other
countries, even as a student, he took his racial consciousness with him. He has told his
biographers, "I visited Europe during my vacation (as a student) and then saw India,
Pakistan, Ceylon, Indonesia, Japan, Germany ... You look for societies which had
been more successful and you ask yourself why." (43) Note Lee's assumption that a
society's "success" can be judged by a universal standard of progress and
development.

For Lee it was natural to judge peoples according to the how high up the ladder
of progress they had climbed, and his background made him prone to place people in
racial and cultural categories when making such judgements.

Rationale
Lee may have brought the kernel of his racial prejudices intact from childhood,
but as an adult he has woven an intricate argument to rationalise and develop his view.
His argument rests on four pillars: an environmental determinism based upon a
distortion of Arnold Toynbee's "Challenge and Response" thesis; a medieval scientism
which gives an important role to ductless glands in determining a person's and a
people's drive to achieve; a Lamarckian view of evolution; and a belief in
culturally-based eugenics and dysgenics. The influence of Arnold Toynbee on Lee
since the mid-1960s is well documented in speeches and inter-views. From 1967
onwards Lee acknowledged Toynbee as a source of his ideas. (44) It is less
well-known that Lee began quoting Toynbee's "Challenge and Response" thesis in
Cabinet meetings as soon as the PAP came to power in 1959, (45) and that Toynbee
was widely read and vigorously discussed in Lee's circle of friends at Cambridge
University. (46) The connection between Toynbee's thesis and Lee Kuan Yew's racial
beliefs is convoluted, but it is the lynch pin of Lee's rationalisation of his Chinese
racial suprematism.

Toynbee
Central to the thesis propounded by Toynbee in A Study of History, was the
notion that societies and civilisations develop in response to certain challenges.
Toynbee argued that "civilizations come to birth in environments that are unusually
difficult and not unusually easy." (47) The Sinic Civilisation, wrote Toynbee, was
nurtured in the north of China, where the climate was severe, and swamps and regular
floods made agriculture difficult, and so it became a "hard" society. (48) Conversely,
societies that were nurtured in easy environments, without challenges from people or
nature are inherently weak. in Volume I of Study, Toynbee repeated a parable
originally told by Ellsworth Huntington in his Civilisation and Climate. It was the
story of a group of savages from the tropics who travelled north into the colder
climate. Upon the onset of the first winter, some returned to the tropics, "resumed the
old life and their descendants are untutored Savages to this day." (49)

All of the others perished except for one group which invented clothes,
constructed shelter, learned to dry meat and store it, and discovered how to make fire.
"And in the process of adjusting themselves to a hard environment they advanced by
enormous strides, leaving the tropical part of Mankind in the rear." (50) No one
should suggest that Lee, Toynbee or Huntington believed that this parable was
literally true. The story does demonstrate, however, Toynbee's lesson of the
importance of the challenge of climate and more generally, of the environment,
whereby those people whose civilisations grew in the "soft" life of the tropics were
left behind by their hardier cousins in harsher climates. Lee has taken Toynbee's
arguments and used them to justify a dismissive attitude towards the Malayan and
Indian Cultures. This logic explains the hierarchy of hardiness of the three women in
Lee's parable. The Southeast Asian died first because she came from an easy tropical
climate. The South Asian lived a little longer because the climate of the Subcontinent
is less amenable than that of tropical Southeast Asia. The East Asian lived because she
- or at least her ancestors - came from a very harsh climate which brought out tougher
qualities in her people. With a harsh climate go many challenges which develop a
plethora of cultural and racial characteristics in a people.

In 1965, in an interview on Australian television, Lee discussed the differences
between the Malays and the Chinese in Malaysia: "One is the product of a civilisation
which has gone through all its ups and downs, of floods and famine and pestilence,
breeding a people with very intense culture, with a belief in high performance in
sustained effort, in thrift and industry. And the other people. more fortunately
endowed by nature, with warm sunshine and bananas and coconuts, and therefore not
with the same need to strive so hard. Now, these two societies really move at two
different speeds. It's like the difference between a high- revolution engine and a
low-revolution engine. I'm not saying that one is better or less good than the other.
But I'm just stating a fact that one was the product of another environment another
history, another civilisation, and the other is a product of another different climate,
different history." (51)

Lee found an unwitting ally for his views on cultural suprematism in the
Scandinavian social scientist, Gunnar Myrdal. The connection was made by Lee
himself in his 1971 commemorative lecture at his old college at Cambridge University,
in which he argued this case at length: "It is in part the difference between the more
intense and exacting Sinic cultures of East Asia and the less demanding values of
Hindu culture of South and South-east Asia, that accounts for the difference in
industrial progress between Eastern and Southern Asia. The softer and more benign
Hindu civilisation spread through Burma, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia, meeting the
Sinic civilisation on the borders of Vietnam....

Gunnar Myrdal, in his "Asian Drama" (52) voluminously sets out the reasons for
lower achievements amongst these peoples [of South and South-cast Asia]. He terms
them "soft societies." Their expectations and desire for achievement are lower. Had he
studied the Sinic civilisations of East Asia - Korea, Japan, China and Vietnam - he
would have come to the opposite conclusions, that these were hard societies. (53)
While references to Gunnar Myrdal began only after the publication of Myrdal's
Asian Drama in 1968, Lee had expressed similar views long before this. In 1965, at
the height of both Indonesia's Confrontation with Malaysia, and Singapore's
difficulties with Kuala Lumpur, Lee made a revealing speech in which he dismissed
the threat from Indonesia because of the soft and indulgent nature of its culture,
though at this stage the term "soft culture" was not part of Lee's vocabulary: "...these
were not cultures which created societies capable of intense discipline, concentrated
effort over sustained periods. Climate, the effects of relatively abundant society and
the tropical conditions produced a people largely extrovert, easy-going and leisurely.
They've got their wars, they have their periods of greatness when the Hindus came in
the 7th and again in the l2th centuries in the Majapahit and the Srivijaya empires. But
in between the ruins of Borobudur and what you have of Indonesia today, you see a
people primarily self-indulgent." (54) These are merely two examples of Lee's many
Myrdalian statements which express a condescending attitude towards the indigenous
cultures of South and Southeast Asia.

Early in 1967, Lee expounded his views on the stultifying effects of living in the
tropics, and explained why Singapore is the exception to the rule: "There is only one
other civilization near the Equator that ever produced anything worthy of its name.
That was the Yucatan peninsular of South America - the Mayan Civilization. There is
no other place where human beings were able to surmount the problems of a soporific
equatorial climate. You can go along the Equator or 2 degrees north of it, and they all
sleep after half past two if they have had a good meal. They do! Otherwise they must
die earlier. It is only in Singapore that they don't. And there were good reasons for this.
First, good glands, and second, good purpose." (55)

There are three noteworthy points in this excerpt, apart from the confirmation of
Lee's environmental determinism. First, the reference to the Mayan Civilisation is
almost certainly derived directly from Arnold Toynbee's Study. (56) Second, Lee has
either overlooked or dismissed the former greatness of the Javanese Culture, since
acknowledging it would have qualified his theory of environmental determinism.
Third, this quotation introduces Lee's idiosyncratic ideas about the role of glands, and
allows Lee to take a deft step from justification by culture to justification by
physiology and thus genetics.

Ductless Glands
According to Lee, ductless glands, especially the adrenal gland, play a crucial
role in determining the drive of people, both as individuals and as races. In 1966, Lee
told the Socialist International: "There are believed to be two influences on the
efficacy of human resources. First, biological, and second cultural factors.
Anthropologists all emphasize the cultural influence as the factor which causes
variations in capacity between men, tribes and nations but they do not discount
altogether the possibility of biological differences between man and man because of
differences in their ductless glands. I would have certain reservations about attributing
all differences completely to cultural factors for I remember the Australian aborigines,
who, in spite of considerable exposure to a new, society they were suddenly
confronted with, have yet been unable to adjust and to emerge as an equal in his new
environment. As against that. we have the negroes in Africa transported into slavery in
America who have emerged as scientists, doctors, lawyers, boxers, high jumpers,
runners and so on." (57)

Leaving aside the question of Lee's ignorance of Australian Aborigines and
Afro-Americans, this speech demonstrated that Lee perceived that there was a direct
link between ductless glands, the drive to achieve, and race. In 1971, Lee explicitly
linked his views on ductless glands to Toynbee's "Challenge and Response" thesis,
and erroneously attributed his own ideas to Toynbee.

Describing the challenge of planning a reserve army after Singapore's separation
from Malaysia, Lee said, "Toynbee's "Challenge and Response" summed up our
position. If we did not have it in us, enough output from the adrenal and other ductless
glands, we would have fallen flat on our faces." (58) The author's research has failed
to uncover any reference in Study which could justify Lee's attribution of his views on
glands to Toynbee, which is not surprising since, despite the impression created by
Lee, Toynbee devoted sixty four pages of Study to arguing that race is not a factor in
determining a civilisation's rate of development. (59) Lee, however, has taken
Toynbee's views on the role of the environment. and developed a view of race based
on a much stricter theory of environmental determinism than was ever advocated by
Toynbee.

Lamarck
The connection in Lee's mind between race and the development of the ductless
glands is based upon his adherence to his personal Lamarckian theory of evolution,
according to which acquired characteristics can be inherited. Hence, "hard" and "soft"
countries not only produce "hard" and "soft" cultures, but their people acquire "hard"
and "soft" physiological characteristics. This explains why in Lee's parable of
December 1967, the woman from the "hard" East Asian society lived after her
operation, while the women from the "soft" South Asian and Southeast Asian societies
died. The evidence for believing that Lee holds a Lamarckian view of evolution is
found most overtly in a series of speeches In the 1960s. These speeches express his
admiration for the energy and drive displayed by those of "migrant stock," who have
inherited their "good glands" from their parents, and his peculiar notion of
acclimatisation as genetically passed down through generations. The speeches also
reveal a fear that he and the ethnic Chinese of Singapore will lose the drive which has
made them successful, not only because they have left the "hard environment" of their
forebears and are now living in the tropics, but because they are also living in a more
prosperous, but "softer" and thus inferior culture. (60)

Migrant Stock
Lee developed, or at least rationalised, his Lamarckian theories during his two
month tour of Australia and New Zealand in 1965, though his thoughts had been
turned in this direction for some time. Soon after his return from the tour, Lee gave a
lecture to public servants at the Political Study Centre. There he told his audience that
he began his tour grappling with the problems of large scale migration. He was
fascinated by the similarities between Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, in so far
as they are all new communities built by migrants from nothing. (61) Throughout the
tour, Lee's preconceived but unclear ideas were confirmed and he became
increasingly convinced that the similarities between Australia, New Zealand and
Singapore were of major significance in that each of them were migrant communities
which were evolving further away from their original stock." (62) Lee opined that the
tough migrant cultures of Australia, New Zealand and Singapore had produced
societies with "a tremendous amount of enterprise" which he characterised as a
"frontier spirit." (63) The problem in Lee's mind, however, was that as prosperity
comes to a migrant people, life becomes easier, the culture becomes softer, and the
genes "go down":

"We are not unlike the other migrant groups in the South Pacific. We share a lot
of their characteristics. We share a lot of their problems. And one of these problems is
to secure what we have created for prosperity. Which means, you and me, the genes
going down. ...You have come with certain equipment. Your cultural values, your
habit patterns, your techniques, the drive, the push, the thrust, to conquer nature and
make a life. But in the process you become a different people." (64)

Migrants and their descendants, it appears, have tremendous reserves of stamina
and determination, but they are constantly faced with the challenge of maintaining
their genetic inheritance because they are now living in a culture and an environment
different from the one in which their ancestors developed their good genes. Less than
a week later, Lee resumed his theme with a slightly different twist at an Institute of
Engineers' dinner after his hostess unwisely told him that she was thinking of
migrating to Australia or New Zealand: I was spending the whole evening advising
my hostess what a ghastly error it is for people to migrate... I told her of my
experience. Three generations here, and I haven't got a climate I am used to yet." (65)

Lee believes that he is acclimatised to northern China because that was the ancestral
home of the paternal line of his ancestors. For some reason, possibly related to the
patrilineal nature of Chinese culture, Lee chooses to ignore the ancestors of his
mother, who is generally thought to have been part-Malay. (66) He seems also to have
forgotten the difficulty he had in coping with the cold of England while he was a
student at Cambridge University. (67) It is tempting to discount Lee's words as an
aberration, especially when taken in the context of the rest of this undisciplined
speech, some of which is quoted later in this article. It is now known that earlier in the
day, Lee sent a secret letter to the Australian Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, in
which he expressed deep pessimism for the future of Malaysia, and pleaded with
Menzies to speak to Tunku Abdul Rahman on Singapore's behalf. (68) There can be
little doubt that the mood of despair expressed in the letter continued Into the evening,
and was deepened when his hostess rather insensitively sought his advice about
emigrating. It may have been Lee's black mood that prompted him to speak wildly on
this occasion, but there can be little doubt that he was nevertheless conveying his true
thoughts, since he presented the same argument in an interview with Gerald Stone
seven years later: Lee: I'm extremely sensitive to changes in temperature, humidity,
mainly because I think after four generations here I'm still not acclimatised.

Stone: You came from Northern China?
Lee: Mid-China, but the climate doesn't suit me. (69)

While Lee regularly complains about Singapore's stifling humidity, he wears his
discomfort like a badge of honour. He believes that he does not belong in the tropics,
but was "stranded" there by his great-grandfather one hundred years before he was
born. (70) "My great grandfather came here with nothing," Lee told an audience in
1967. "He made something and decided to get out while the going was good! My
tragedy started when he left his son behind ... and here I am." (71) In Lee's mind,
finding the humidity uncomfortable is a sign that he still has the "good genes" and the
"good glands" of his ancestors. The Chinese of Southeast Asia have yet another
reason to be proud of their genes, because not only are they mostly Chinese, but they
are of "migrant stock" which by its nature is more hardy and enterprising than the
genes of those who accepted the world as it was and stayed at home:
"We came here into the mud flat, and built this out of the marshes. And I felt
what they felt that if anybody feels they can come over in a canoe and take it over,
then I say, over my dead body... That, I think, is at least one of the qualities of the
migrant. He carries with him some of the qualities of the desperate circumstances
which impelled his forefathers to leave their more comfortable societies and pit their
luck and kill against unknown odds." (72) Two years later, Lee proudly proclaimed
that "very few such cities on the equator the climate and the stupor, the heat and the
humidity notwithstanding - have the cultural verve and dynamism of a migrant
community which have made this place throb with life and vitality." (73) It is just as
well that migrants' genes are hardier than average, because in other ways they are of a
lower standard than those of their racial confreres, since they are descended from
"peasant stock." (74) If he and other Chinese Singaporeans can maintain their genetic
and glandular standards, it is good news for Singapore, but it is a constant battle
against the climate and the environment. As Lee explained to a group of trade
unionists in Adelaide: "The Chinaman who came out to Southeast Asia was a very
hard working, thrifty person. I mean he faced a tremendous stride [sic] because he
faced floods, pestilence, famine..., [but] we are getting soft. You know, all sunshine
and bananas growing on trees and coconuts falling down by themselves - this affects
people. To a certain extent, you can try and counter it.... Up to a point we can strive to
lessen the burden.... This is a problem all migrants face. You are part of one culture,
one civilization and culture. But it is a different climate." (75)

In fact climate is only one of the factors against which the Chinese had to battle
in coming to Southeast Asia. They were also coping with the debilitating effect of
moving from a superior to an inferior civilisation. At the Institute of Engineers' dinner
in April 1965, Lee continued his dissertation on the problems of migrating to Australia
or New Zealand: "I told my hostess that where I think it is a ghastly error all this large
movements of human beings seeking a better life is that one has got to be quite sure
that in the end [one] is going to offer a higher civilization. Otherwise, you end up just
eating more beef steak and pork chops and mutton chops and what happens when
people cease to want to buy your dairy produce and leave you stranded in the South
Pacific as I am stranded in Southeast Asia. ...I advised her against settling in Australia
and New Zealand because I am quite sure that her progeny will regret all this because
they were unlikely to create a civilization vaster and greater than the one they left
behind. I say, before you leave behind all these things just make sure you are going to
create something better. And if you are not going to, then perhaps it shouldn't be done
because this is the way I thought about my great grandfather leaving me here." (76)
Lee argued that the debilitating effects of climate and moving to an inferior
civilisation were too great to resist in the long term, (77) although measures could be
taken to slow down their effects.

Cultural Eugenics
The last plank of Lee's racial logic is his view of cultural eugenics and dysgenics.
Lee believes that some cultures have social customs which are naturally eugenic while
others are burdened with dysgenic sexual mores. He believes, for instance, that the
Catholic Church suffers from a dysgenic culture: "All the bright young men became
Catholic priests and did not marry. Bright priests, celibate, produce no children. And
the result of several generations of bright Fathers producing no children? Less bright
children in the Catholic world." (78)

Of more practical relevance to the development of Lee's politic I thought is his
view that the genetic quality of the Malays is low because of their dysgenic Culture.
In 1989 Lee confirmed his general agreement with Mahathir Mohamad's The Malay
Dilemma, which argued in part: "Malays abhor the state of celibacy. To remain
unmarried was and is considered shameful. Everyone must be married at some time or
other. The result is that whether a person is fit or unfit for marriage, he or she still
marries and reproduces. An idiot or a simpleton is often married off to an old widower,
ostensibly to take care of him in his old age. If this is not possible, backward relatives
are paired off in marriage. These people survive, reproduce and propagate their
species. The cumulative effect of this can be left to the imagination." (79)

Of these and other arguments which purportedly account for the supposed
backwardness of Malays, Lee said: "From that book I realised that [Dr Mahathir]
believed in it as a medical man - that these were problems of the development of the
Malay race, Anthropological problems, and these were strongly-held views. Indeed, I
found myself in agreement with three-quarters of his analysis of the problem - that the
Malays had always withdrawn from competition and never really entered into the
mainstream of economic activity; that the Malays would always get their children or
relatives married off regardless of whether it was good or bad." (80)

The Ashkenazi Jews, on the other hand, are among an elite of races which have a
thoroughly eugenic culture: "From the 10th to 11th century inEurope, in Ashkenazim,
the practice developed of the rabbi becoming the most desirable son-in-law because
he is usually the brightest of the flock. ... So he becomes the richest and wealthiest.
He marries young, is successful, probably bright. He has large numbers of children
and the brightest of the children will become the rabbi and so it goes on." (81)

The Chinese also have benefited from centuries of practising cultural eugenics,
though his logic works only if you assume that a person's economic status directly
reflects his or her-intelligence and energy: "In the older generations, economies and
culture settled it. The pattern of procreation was settled by economics and culture. The
richer you are, the more successful you are, the more wives you have, the more
children you have. That's the way it was settled. I am the son of a successful chap. I
myself am successful, so I marry young and I marry more wives and I have more
children. You read Hong Lou Meng, A Dream of the Red Chamber, or you read Jin
Ping Mei, and you'll find Chinese society in the 16th, 17th century described. So the
successful merchant or the mandarin, he gets the pick of all the rich men's daughters
and the prettiest village girls and has probably five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten
different wives and concubines and many children. And the poor labourer who's dumb
and slow, he's neutered. It's like the lion or the stag that's outside the flock. He has no
harems, so he does not pass his genes down. So, in that way, a smarter population
emerges." (82)

If Lee believes that this is the natural order of affairs for Chinese, it is no wonder
that he raised the possibility of reintroducing polygamy as part of his eugenics
programme. (83) Lee's propensity to identify intelligence with economic status seems
to have been a deep-seated trait which had been with Lee since childhood. In his old
age he told his authorised biographers, "In primary school, I had no trouble doing well.
Probably because my fellow students were poor and they were not very bright and
advantaged ... I had no trouble staying ahead of the class." (84) It must be
acknowledged that Lee was speaking retrospectively, and that his words stop just
short of explicitly drawing a direct, let alone a causal link between the economic
status of parents and the intelligence of children. His words are not, therefore,
unequivocal proof that Lee formed these ideas in childhood. They do, however,
suggest that many of his ideas of the elite are built upon the prejudices associated with
economic class. For all of Lee's supposed empirical reasoning and his theorising, his
elitism and geneticism looks suspiciously like the conceit born of a pampered and
privileged childhood.

The Anthropologist
Lee's racial hierarchy appears to have been based initially on his interpretation of
Toynbee, but Lee needed to confirm his theories by observation. Speaking of his
racial views in the 1990s, he told his biographers: "This is something which I have
read and I tested against my observations. We read many things. The fact that it's in
print and repeated by three, four authors does not make it true. They may all be wrong.
But through my own experience, meeting people, talking to them, watching them, I
conclude yes, there is this difference. Then it becomes part of the accepted facts of life,
for me." (85)

We will probably never know all of the experiential factors which fostered Lee's
perception of racial differences, but he has intimated that his travels in Europe during
the 1940s and 1950s contributed to a perception of a European racial hierarchy similar
to that which he revealed for Asia in the 1960s. His reminiscence also indicates how
little it took to convince Lee that he was correct once he had already made up his
mind:
"On my first visit to Germany in 1956,we had to stop in Frankfurt on our way to
London. We had [earlier] stopped in Rome. This languid Italian voice over the
loudspeaker said something ... And there were Italian workers trundling trolleys at the
airport. It was so relaxed, the atmosphere and the pace of work. Then the next stop
was Frankfurt. And immediately, the climate was a bit cooler and chillier. And a voice
came across the loudspeaker: "Achtung! Achtung! " The chaps were the same, porters,
but bigger-sized and trundling away. These were people who were defeated and
completely destroyed and they were rebuilding. I could sense the goal, the
dynamism. ... I also visited Switzerland when I was a student in '47, '48, on holiday. I
came down by train from Paris to Geneva. Paris was black bread, dirty, after the war. I
arrived at Geneva that morning, sleeping overnight. It was marvellous. Clean,
beautiful, swept streets, nice buildings, marvellous white pillowcases and sheets,
white bread after dark dirty bread and abundant food and so on. But hardworking,
punctilious, the way they did your bed and cleaned up your rooms. It told me
something about why some people succeed and some people don't. Switzerland has a
small population. If they didn't have those qualities, they would have been
overrun ...(86)

Lee did not spell out explicitly the logic of environmental determinism, but this
passage reveals an emerging pattern in Lee's thinking. First, he is apparently blessed
with the ability to determine a culture's character from an airport stopover or froma
short holiday. Second, cultures which evolved in cooler, harsher climates were more
worthy of his admiration than those which developed in warmer and more sultry
climes. Although he did not highlight the climatic difference between Geneva and
Paris, as he did between Frankfurt and Rome, it is unlikely to be a coincidence that in
both instances Lee perceived the harsher, cooler climate as having produced the
"people who succeed."

Climate
The logic by which Lee synthesised his first principles is now evident. We know
that Lee took Toynbee's "Challenge and Response" thesis and turned it into a theory
of environmental determinism whereby the characteristics of a people, both cultural
and physiological, are largely the result of environmental influences. In his own mind,
Lee has obscured the division between culture and genetics. As he told his authorised
biographers, the "drive to protect your own offspring is ... in the genes. And built into
that is a certain cultural pattern, which varies from society to society." (87) He
considers those peoples who evolved in a harsh climate, such as the Chinese, to be
tougher, more resolute and more innovative than those who evolved in tropical climes.
The effect of the environment on people was thus comprehensive. It affected both the
character of the civilisation which they created, and their physiology, because
inherited characteristics can, in Lee's Lamarckian view of evolution, be inherited. This
means that people who lived in an environment which required more stamina to
survive and flourish passed oil to-their offspring some of the improvements that they
inadvertently made in themselves: better genes and better ductless glands. Those of
"migrant stock" have particularly good genes because their forefathers must have had
exceptionally good glands, otherwise they could not have braved the unknown and
made a new life for themselves. Lee's great fear, however, is that the good genes
which developed through living in a harsh environment can be lost through living an
easier life in a softer climate.

Lee's perception of the migrant's good glands is actually critical to his racial
hierarchy as it applies in Singapore, since most Singaporean Chinese are descended
from illiterate peasants who, in China's culturally eugenic society, would normally be
"neutered." Lee's emphasis on the migrant's good glands flatly contradicts his elitism,
the logic of cultural eugenicism, and his usual practice of blindly equaling economic
status with talent and intelligence. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is a
rationalisation developed specifically for the "benefit" of Southeast Asia's Chinese
population who, on the basis of his usual logic, should be dumb and slow. The fact
that Lee resorts to such a deft piece of sophistry supports the argument that his racial
world view, as explained and defended in adulthood, is an attempt to justify his
preconceived notions of the racial hierarchy, rather than the result of dispassionate
logic applied to empirical evidence. While his adult experiences probably did
influence the development of his world view and his political thought, the essence of
his conclusions regarding the hierarchy of Asian races owes more to the prejudices he
learnt as a child than it does to his observations of the porters at Rome and Frankfurt
airports, or to his reading or Arnold Toynbee and Gunnar Myrdal. (88)

Not a Social Darwinist
This article has described in detail the character of Lee Kuan Yew's racial views
substantially using his own words as evidence. After a lifetime of being circumspect
on the question of race, Lee has finally spoken openly, revealing himself as
doctrinaire racist. Yet it would be a mistake to condemn Lee as a hard line racist in
every sense of the word. Such a characterisation of his views would be a distortion of
both his logic and his natural disposition. There can be no doubt that Lee is a racist in
the sense that he believes that some races and some ethnically-based cultures are
inherently superior to others. His own words leave no doubt about this assertion,
though it should be recognised that this in itself hardly makes him remarkable in Asia.
He is also a racist in the sense that he has integrated his racial views into his political
agenda and he has created a regime which accentuates racial categorisation. This
assertion, too, is beyond dispute, yet it should be acknowledged that affirmative
action programmes in the United States and Australia are based upon racial
classifications and are widely accepted as part of modem liberal orthodoxy. Of equal
significance to our study of his political thought are the aspects of political and
personal racism that Lee has avoided by his eclectic approach. Lee's idiosyncratic
rationalisation of his racial views, for instance, has undermined the tendency to
dismiss any race as being irredeemably inferior, or unchangeably superior. He has not
conceived of any race as being supreme, even though some are more intelligent and
hardier than others. Unlike Social Darwinian racists, he does not base his views on the
assumption that any race is a lower or higher evolutionary form of humanity. He sees
no unbridgeable divide between races. Although his environmental determinism,
Lamarckian view of evolution and cultural eugenicism may explain the higher
intelligence and better glands of those who hail from a "hard" society, they also create
a firm line of continuity between the different races, and give each race the capacity to
change for the better or the worse: hence Lee's efforts to "improve" racial
communities by "tinkering" with their cultures. (89) The result has been that despite
instances of overt racial discrimination by Lee's government, and more common
occasions of discrimination in Singaporean society, Lee has created a society which
has a relatively low level of racial tension, despite having a high level of racial
consciousness. Considering his own racial views and the nature of the society he
inherited, this is a remarkable achievement which, despite its shortcomings, should be
acknowledged.

Our understanding of the nature of Lee's views on cultural and racial evolution
now enables us to perceive a new depth in Lee's public policies and in the
development of his political thought. More significantly, it gives us a fresh insight
into the deep fears which have driven Lee throughout his public life, and especially
since his sinicisation in the late 1970s Lee has married pessimism, progressivism and
geneticism to produce a vision of a horrible world where every step on the road to
progress creates new problems which will drag civilisation down to the depths again -
unless the elite takes charge and applies itself creatively and scientifically to
overcoming these challenges. (90) Such an attitude is, of course, the height of hubris,
but this does not concern Lee. By the late 1970s Lee was very comfortable with
hubris. He had been almost single-handedly transforming and re-transforming the
physical, political, linguistic and cultural landscape of Singapore for nearly two
decades. He had been making and breaking careers and industries, politicians and
ideologies, and setting patterns of work, procreation and education for about two
million people. He had assumed more control of his countrymen's lives than the Pope
claims over the lives of Catholics. Furthermore, by the early 1980s ill health and old
age amongst his colleagues meant that he could now foresee the day when he would
be the last of the "old guard" left in Cabinet a paramount leader without rivals, rather
than a primus inter pares. Lee himself spoke of the difference this set of retirements
has made to Cabinet. The old guard leaders were never compliant and were forthright
in their opposition to many of Lee's policies. (91)

After their retirement, however, he did not "waste time taking opinions all
around" the Cabinet, but simply told his colleagues what he wanted and it was up to
them to disagree. (92) One does not have to be a Western liberal to see that this
near-omnipotence and unrivalled pre-eminence is not healthy for either the nation or
the leader. Lee's new freedom, combined with his perception that cultural and
dysgenic disaster were imminent seem to have been at the heart of Lee's quixotic
approach to politics in the 1980s. His eugenics policies and the sinicization
programme converged as the complementary answers to the challenge of the West,
degenerating genes and the search for talent.

Source: http://www.sfdonline.org/, 08/14/1996

Dismantling the myths of the PAP system

http://temasekreview.com/?p=5203
For far too long, the autocratic regime and its sycophantic mouthpiece have dominated political discourse in Singapore. They have been the ones to set the agenda for the populace to believe in with no questions asked.

In the face of the worst economic recession Singapore has ever experienced, let us revisit the myths which has been propagated and perpetuated about the necessity and merits of the “PAP system” of governance in order for them to maintain their political hegemony.

The 5 myths below have been often repeated ad nauseaum till they are deeply etched in the collective consciousness of Singaporeans:
1. Singaporeans owe a debt to Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP from transforming Singapore from a third to first world country.
2. Singapore needs to open its doors to the global economy in order to enjoy years of uninterrupted economic growth.
3. Singapore cannot afford to spend more to help needy Singaporeans to prevent going down the slippery slope of welfare.
4. Singapore needs a strong one-party state to ensure social stability and economic progress.
5. Only the PAP knows how to govern the nation. The opposition is irresponsible and will fritter away our precious reserves by the billions if they were to come to power one day.

Now let us dissect and dismantle the myths one by one.

1. With due respect to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, he has put together a capable and formidable team in the early years of Singapore’s independence to kickstart our economy, but he can hardly take the credit all by himself.

The true architect of Singapore’s success story is Albert Winsemius, a Dutch economist who was a long-term Chief economic adviser to Singapore from 1961 to 1984, playing a major role in the formulation of Singapore’s national economic development strategy.

With his help, Singapore attracted big oil companies like Shell and Esso to establish refineries here. In the 1970s, Singapore was upgrading its industrial capacity to use higher technological methods, including electronics. He personally went to persuade large Dutch electronics companies like Philips to set up production plants in Singapore.

He also proposed that Singapore could be developed as a financial centre, as well as an international centre for air traffic and sea transport. Over the next twenty years, these predictions proved to be accurate.

Singapore also owed its success to the PAP Old Guards like Mr Goh Keng Swee, Mr Toh Chin Chye, Mr E W Barker, Mr Ong Pang Boon and Mr Hon Sui Sen who were Lee’s “lieutanents” in office and a docile, sensible, hardworking and thrifty citizenry willing to work hard and save up for the sake of the next generation.

Under British colonial rule, Singapore is already a major trading entrepot in the region by virtue of its unbeatable strategic position at the tip of the Malay Peninsula thereby giving it leverage to control shipping traffic passing through the Straits of Malacca, one of the busiest sea lanes in the world.

To attribute Singapore’s success over the years solely to Mr Lee Kuan Kew is not only a travesty of truth and justice, but an insult to our pioneers and ordinary Singaporeans on the streets who have given their sweats, blood and tears to build our nation to where it is today.

2. As a small island with no natural resources, we are heavily dependent on external trade for our survival and prosperity. It is true especially in the early years when political stability, social cohesion and economic openness are key factors propelling us ahead of our competitors.

However, our vulnerabilities become clearly exposed now in the current global economic turmoil when Singapore becomes the first country in Asia to slip into recession and is poised to be one of the worst performing economies in the near future.

Singapore will be more resilient if we have a higher domestic consumption, a more diversified economy and vibrant home-grown enterprises to cushion the fallout from the loss in exports and trade.

The deficiencies of our economic model are caused by the narrow mindset and myopic view adopted by the PAP to pursue growth at all costs in the shortest possible time.

Our domestic consumption is low compared to other developed Asian economies because of high cost of public housing and ordinary living, a mandatory pension scheme requiring citizens to contribute 20% of their monthly salary to it and relatively low wages kept depressed by the influx of cheaper foreign workers.

Our economy is heavily focused on a few “winners” like the manufacturing and electronics sectors in the past, the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry now and the gaming industry in the future.

Gigantic state-linked companies such as DBS, Capitaland and NTUC are squeezing the life out of local startups and enterprises with their virtual monopoly over the economy rendering them both unimaginative and uncompetitive.

We have already moved past the initial stages of developing our then labor-intensive fledging economy and we need to rethink our current economic blueprint now in order to compete on a different level with other developed countries where creativity, passion, entrepreneurship and a willingness to take calculated risks are essential and pivotal qualities for success in a new world order.

3. Under the combined propaganda machinery of the PAP and SPH, “welfare” has become a dirty word in official parlance. We have been told repeatedly to be self-reliant and not to depend on the government for cash handouts, but isn’t it the responsibility of the incumbent government of the day to care for the people who voted for them into power in the first place ?

The welfare system of Western countries have often been used by the regime to obsfuscate the issue. It is both irrational and unreasonable to equate “welfare” for Singaporeans to the promotion of a welfare state. Singaporeans do not expect the government to support them for the rest of their lives after retirement.

All we ask for is for the government to make the present living conditions more bearable for us by reducing the cost of living and to be more generous with the distribution of aid to needy and vulnerable Singaporeans.

We do not expect the regime to be as generous as the Hong Kong government to give its elderly citizens a monthly allowance amounting to 80% of their last drawn pay. Much more can be done to alleviate the hardship and suffering of our senior citizens who have contributed to the nation-building process during their productive years.

The Singapore government is filthy rich by first world standards. It is not as if it is a pauper, why is it so stingy in rendering financial assistance to the poor ? Would it rather spend billion of dollars to bail out distressed banks which went eventually to lining the pockets of its rich executives or help its own citizens ?

4. In the early years of Singapore’s nationhood, a strong government is crucial to bring about political stability and social harmony so that we can focus on developing the economy to uplift the lives of our people.

The regime has conveniently corrupted the definition of a “strong” government with that of a one-party state. A strong government can exist in the presence of a sizable opposition in Parliament to check on the ruling party while a one-party state though appearing “strong” on the surface, has inherent deficiencies caused by the over-concentrating of power in the hands of a few.

The only reason why the regime appears strong on the outside is that the key decision makers belong no more to an inner clique of a particular family of which even ordinary MPs without any portfolios are excluded. Only one center of power exists to give the orders, the rest simply follow behind like blind sheeps thereby giving the facade of a clear sense of direction and purpose in the formulation and implementation of policies.

The Finance Minister Mr Tharman gave Singaporeans a glimpse of how the PAP system worked when he remarked in Parliament in response to an opposition MP’s question that they work on a system based on “trust”. What was not mentioned is how much trust he has in the system itself. Is it a 100% trust ? Ask yourself whether you ever trust anybody in your life including yourself completely without any doubts.

A self-serving totalitarian state which do not hesitate to make use of the police and media to suppress dissenting voices from its own people is not a strong government. On the contrary, it is a weak government precisely because it is unable to stand up to external challenges and defeat them based on its own strengths and merits alone without resorting to foul play.

A strong government is one which can face up to the challenge of any opposition without resorting to ‘fixing’ them. A strong government is one which is fully accountable to the people and is not afraid of being scrutinized. A strong government does not hide things from the people and is completely honest, transparent and above board. A strong government does not make use of state instruments like the police and media to suppress political dissent because it knows it owes its power to the people who voted for it. And lastly, a strong government does not sue its critics to silence them because it has faith in its own ability to win them over by their reasoning and argument. By these 5 counts, the PAP does not qualify to be a strong government. It is no more than a weak, pathetic and cowardly bully which makes use of its position as the incumbent to quash its political opponents.

History have shown us that such “strong” states like the U.S.S.R and Nazi Germany did not last long while others like South Korea and Taiwan only manage to avert a similiar implosion like the former by making a peaceful transition to democracy.

If a one party state has worked for Singapore in the past, that’s because it has only benefitted a small of group of people with links to the regime. It is not going to work now and in the future where a rapid changing geo-political landscape will require a diversity of ideas and views to cope and tackle the problems which may surface . A one party state stifles creativity, innovation and passion in the population and will ruin us politically, socially and economically in the long run.

Can we expect the regime to check on itself ? Time and time again, we have been proven otherwise. There is a serious lack of accountability and transparency from the Singapore government in spite of its frequent lame attempts to ingratiate itself with these attributes as defining yardsticks for its rule.

5. As the present financial turmoil has shown us, we do not need a profligate opposition to fritter away our precious reserves. A substantial proportion of it is already missing. I guess most Singaporeans would prefer the sum of $58 billion lost by Temasek to be spent on helping the poor and needy rather than go to make a few hundred millionaires out of Merrill Lynch’s employees.

What we really need is not the empty promises made by the PAP to safeguard our reserves, but a proper calibrated system of checks and balances to guide the modus operandi of the government and a real opposition in Parliament to ensure accountability and transparency from the government.

The regime’s glaring deficiencies is exposed for all to see with its inept handling of the Temasek fiasco. We are talking about the loss of $58 billion dollars and more of our reserves and not a single question is asked in Parliament. The perpetuator of this disaster did not have to face the music and the state media even have the gall to suggest she ran for political office in the future !

In other developed countries, an independent Commission of Inquiry will be called immediately to probe into the loss. The regime will never risk eroding further whatever little public trust and confidence they have left by revealing the full extent of losses incurred by Temasek and GIC because it has been using the reserves all along to frighten Singaporeans from voting the opposition into power.

The myths of the PAP system are fast being dismantled on a daily basis with alternative news sources from the internet. Even the mainstream media is finding hard to spin fairy tales on behalf of the regime without appearing ludicrous itself. The regime can continue to believe in its own propaganda, but less and less Singaporeans, especially the young are taken in by them.

Eventually, Singaporeans will become so averse to the one-sided reports carried by the mainstream media that they will be completely switched off, preferring to read only what they want to read on the internet even though its factual accuracy cannot be independently verified and that will finally send the myths of the PAP system into their death throes.

Comment 1:
A good article describing the current situation in Singapore.
After Goh C.T.’tookover’ from Lee K.Y. and with the passing of the 1st generation PAP ministers, the PAP is totally governed by Lee K.Y. and is totally different from the PAP of the old guards.
He has put in place a team of people whose loyalty is to him and not the people of Singapore. PAP is the proverbial rooster who reckons its crow is responsible for the rising of the sun –without the PAP, S’pore would be really backward. Nothing could be further from the truth. Equivalent countries like Taiwan and HK are doing better than S’pore in many areas.
Thanks to the internet many have completely stopped reading SPH newspapers which constantly spew out half-truths and PAP propaganda.

Comment 2:
I am looking at the long term future of Singapore.Look, we have moved being manufacturing to the high tech manufacturing (micropolis) to a IT hub to a Bio Science Hub to a service industry to a financial hub. Looking at the strategies that the SG gov have taken to bring prosperity to the countries, we can conclude that whatever we can do, other can do better or faster. (Good thing Malaysia is badly managed compared to us) Manufacturing is now China, IT belongs to India, Finance will be dead for the next few years. As a service industry, we currently lack customer to service. Donald Trump gaming industry just went bottom up meaning casinos, which were suppose to be recession proof are dying. How will SG casino survive? Furthermore, this fishy business of Sands stopping all their projects in the world including Macau to continue to build in SG is very super fishy. Think about it, if you can build a casino in SG and Macau, where would you build? Macau, cause there are more customers from China and its a proven gambling heaven. Why would you build in SG? So all signs are pointing to a fact that SG is heading for some very big storms and I cant see any light at the end of the tunnel. Anyone can help?