Kuan Yew’s conundrum

Yet another old-timer has left us. Good old Lee Kuan Yew, the father of Singapore and a contemporary of Tunku Abdul Rahman himself, has departed.

He departs a full 25 years after the Tunku, no less but of course, Tunku was 20 years older than Lee.

I remember reading his biography as a teenager, “No Man is An Island” and being very impressed with the man’s political prowess.

My late grandfather, who lived to a ripe old age himself, recounted stories of Lee during Lee’s brief time as a Malaysian parliamentarian.

The stories dripped of awe but also resentment, if I’m honest. The awe was due to Lee’s magnificent rhetorical skills and intellectual prowess.

The resentment was from how Lee outclassed our home-grown parliamentarians and according to my grandfather, managed to “liberate” Singapore from Malaysia

In the blink of an eye (as Malays say “pejam celik pejam celik”), 50 years has passed since Singapore left the Malaysian federation.

Two whole generations of Malaysians and Singaporeans or perhaps three, were born and raised without experiencing this brief political marriage.

We have become very different people. The Singaporeans whom I’ve met in London, even those of a similar culture and religion (Malay-Muslims) have a very differently mindset.

You can tell a Singaporean Malay after speaking to him or her for a few minutes.

It does make me think, if Singapore had not left the federations and Lee eventually became the prime minister (trust me, it was only a matter of time!), Malaysia would have been a different place indeed.

But would it be a better place? Herein lies the conundrum. Lee’s leadership was stellar, visionary and took his nation towards the goal of becoming a first world oasis in a corner of the third world.

But he was also unabashedly a tyrant. He simply made no bones about it. He did not try to hide behind flimsy excuses. Here are some of his reported quotes:

“We have to lock up people, without trial, whether they are communists, whether they are language chauvinists, whether they are religious extremists. If you don’t do that, the country would be in ruins.

“The successful, whether you’re a scholar, a Mandarin or a successful businessman or successful farmer, you had more than one wife.

“In fact, you can have as many as your economic status entitles you or can persuade people to give their daughters up to you. In other words, the unsuccessful are like the weak lions or bucks in a herd, they were neutralised.

“So over the generations you must have the physically and the mentally more vibrant and vital, reproduce. We are doing just the opposite. We introduced monogamy.

“It seems so manifestly correct. The West was successful, superior. Why? Because they are monogamous. It was wrong. It was stupid.

“If you can select a population and they're educated and they're properly brought up, then you don't have to use too much of the stick because they would already have been trained.

“It's like with dogs. You train it in a proper way from small. It will know that it's got to leave, go outside to pee and to defecate. No, we are not that kind of society. We had to train adult dogs who even today deliberately urinate in the lifts

"If nobody is afraid of me, I'm meaningless."

Pardon me for thinking so, but these are not the sayings of a merciful, democratic leader. Rather, they portray a man who was harsh and autocratic in his rule.

I have read many laudatory articles about Lee since his death and even before, but I have never seen anyone disclaim his iron-fisted rule.

This is Lee’s conundrum – does one have to be a tyrannical, autocratic leader who condescends towards the less capable members of the nation in order to achieve the Singaporean level of development?

On one hand, a single mind, unfettered by diverging national visions, can be better focused towards a goal.

If you have several changes of government over the course of 50 years, you are unlikely to attain a great distance in your national vision.

It is no different from the analogy of a long drive – if you had to drive to Penang and made several stopovers along the way, you will need more time to get there.

If you had a single leader with a single unwavering vision, the course towards becoming a developed nation becomes far more doable.

However, that does compromise one thing – freedom of speech and political expression. What if you disagreed with Lee and his ideas?

What if you believed that people have a right not to progress? That’s right – there is such a thing as “progressivist fundamentalism”.

Some people may prefer a simpler way of life and may resist urbanisation. However, if you want to become a developed nation, some sacrifices would have to be made.

Are these sacrifices a fair price to pay? It depends on whom you ask, really. For those who have had to sacrifice their lifestyles for the sake of national progress, then probably not.

These people gave up their simple, stress free kampung lifestyle for the highly stressful, competitive lifestyles required for “progress”.

On the other hand, after the the results have been had as in the case with Singapore, then who could argue?

For me personally, national discontent at any level is unacceptable (though possibly unavoidable).

We cannot attain more than material progress by simply stepping on political opponents like “lalang” (pun wholly intended).

There will be massive discontent and this would translate into a high unhappiness quotient. Of course, this cannot be objectively proven but I do think it can be perceived on the ground.

Whatever our analyses, Uncle Lee has left us. His mark has been indelible on the region’s history. But it would be good to learn from his choices. We have, after all, similar situations to face. – April 8, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.