Lee Kuan Yew – giant of a repressive decade

This article was first published on The Online Citizen on August 8, 2011

I consider myself a child of the ’80s. Born in 1975, I first became conscious of the world around me in the 1980s.

Even by Singapore’s standards, there were a lot of changes in that decade. Many of these changes have gone on to become integral and fundamental to what Singapore is today.

Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) were introduced in 1988. Much of the foundation of today’s transport system were laid, with the AYE, BKE, ECP and PIE being opened throughout the decade and the MRT being officially opened in 1988 (after a soft launch in 1987 with just five stations – I still remember my dad taking me to ride the train from Ang Mo Kio on its first day!). Even the hotly-debated topic today, the Elected Presidency, was first mooted in the 1980s.

Echoes from the darker events of the ’80s still resonate today as well. The much-hated graduate mother scheme has reared its head again in the pre-campaigning for the Elected Presidency, with questions have been asked whether Dr Tony Tan had supported or opposed it. The likes of Teo Soh Lung and Vincent Cheng, as well as others involved in social enterprise Function 8, have continued to raise questions about the 1987 so-called Marxist conspiracy.

One man dominated the landscape through all these developments and events: Mr Lee Kuan Yew. He was the Prime Minister through the entire decade, stepping down only in 1990. Mr Lee’s dominance of the 1980s was all the more reinforced with the retirement of his colleagues from the First Generation leadership throughout the 1980s, starting with Toh Chin Chye in 1981, continuing with Goh Keng Swee in 1984 and culminating with S. Rajaratnam in 1988. In comparison, Mr Lee took another 21 years more to leave the Cabinet, which occurred only this May in the wake of the General Elections.

What then were the 1980s like? If we had to identify one single theme from the decade, what would it be?

Unfortunately, I would have to say: repression. The scars of the 1987 detentions lasted for 3020 years; it is only in recent years, that the former detainees have felt able to tell their own stories and ask the questions that have cast such doubt on the government’s official account. The treatment of Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, the first opposition politician to win a parliamentary election in post-independence Singapore, left a sour taste, with Mr Jeyaretnam being disqualified from Parliament despite a strongly-worded judgment in his favour by the Privy Council. The actions against Mr Francis Seow sent a warning signal to other would-be dissidents, while the muzzling of the Law Society and hence the legal profession continues today.

These events from the 1980s, followed by the defamation suits in the 1990s and criminal prosecution of the civil disobedience activists in the 2000s, did much to silence dissent and instill the much-discussed climate of fear in Singapore. It is only this year, that this climate of fear has been reduced, if not dissipated.

Mr Lee was a driving force, if not the main player in the government, in all of these events. So as I looked back at the 1980s, I could not help but think of Mr Lee. He was truly a giant in Singapore’s history. Sadly, he was also the dominant figure in this repressive decade.

National Day 2009: thoughts on being Singaporean

The NDP organising committee asked me to contribute something to the NDP website. So I wrote this. It's been awhile since I've written something like this, so it took some time to get back into the groove.

Also, when I first looked at the website, some of the articles (e.g. by Prof Tommy Koh and Viswa Sadasivan) were long and thoughtful, and I thought I'd better match up to those standards. I wanted this piece to be thoughtful and reflective, but more importantly I wanted it to be authentic and heartfelt, and not a cliched collection of stereotypical platitudes and jingoistic rhetoric.

When I was done, I was unsure about it. It's a little bittersweet and not rah-rah at all. I'm sure some will even find it negative and a downer. In fact, I considered including Alfian Sa'at's quote ("If you care too much about Singapore, first it’ll break your spirit, and finally it will break your heart.") but decided that it went too far and also it was not quite correct -- what could break your spirit and heart is not the nation, but the government. But I make no apologies for feeling how I feel, and I really do believe that more Singaporeans agree with my sentiments than may appear to be the case.

---

National Day 2009

I wrote this after returning from a business trip. I've always found that being away helps to me to see more sharply, how I feel about Singapore and being Singaporean.

I used to enjoy travelling out of Singapore; indeed, at one time I even wanted to emigrate. But it's different now. When I'm away without my wife, I look forward to coming home to her and our pets. When I'm away with my wife, we look at the pictures and videos of our pets on my cellphone. We even worry about the stray cats in our neighbourhood whom we help to feed, about whether the other cat-feeders are taking care of the strays. Nowadays, landing at Changi always brings the sense of comfort and relief of coming home.

These sentiments speak to my roots in and my affinity to this country. The sense of acceptance and belonging here is central to the idea of being Singaporean. And I like to think that more Singaporeans share this feeling than not – even those who profess to feel alienated by certain policies in this country, do so because they care so deeply about her.

I am currently reading President Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope. He begins the book by discussing the deep divisions in American politics today, and then points out that Americans still have more in common than not.

I firmly believe that it is the same for Singapore. Quite apart from the universal values shared by most or all human beings, such as hard work, thrift and fillial piety, there are more hopes and values that unite Singaporeans than we sometimes care – or dare – to admit.

We are grateful for our amazing progress and growth since independence, which has lifted our standard of living with a speed experienced only in a few other countries. This is thanks to meritocracy and social mobility, which continue to form the bedrock of our system. And so we insist that ability married with hard work must be able to get one everywhere and that being born poor must not sound the death-knell for one's dreams. Because so many of us have benefited from the powerful force of social mobility, we understand the dangers of the growing stratification of our education system.

We have an innate sense of justice and equality, of fairness and equity. We are all equal under the law and under the Constitution, and we cry foul at perceived unfairness and bullying tactics. And so we want the administration of our country to be guided not by pragmatism and political expediency but by justice and fairness, which is why we cheer the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang when they stand fast to these principles and resist the carrot and stick of lift upgrading.

We have compassion for the less fortunate, and we empathise and sympathise with others. We know, that there but for the grace of God go ourselves. That is why when disaster strikes our unfortunate fellow human beings elsewhere, we do not stint on aid and support, as with the tsunami of 2004 and the Sichuan earthquake of 2008. That is also why we want the kinder, gentler society that was first mooted years ago, knowing that we are rich enough to do better than $330 per month of Public Assistance for single-person households, even though such households do receive a lot of other help.

We value openness and transparency, because we know how important the absence of corruption in Singapore has been to our success, especially in light of the devastating effects of corruption in other countries. We also want to have more say in our destiny, because Singapore is our country and her future is intimately intertwined with ours. These are why we want greater accountability and transparency in how the country is run and how our investments are managed, so that we can be confident that our precious reserves are treated with the due care that they deserve.

We need tolerance and understanding of one another and one another's differences, so that persons of faith can practise each of our religions and speak and act openly and freely. But we must all acknowledge the realities of the country we live in, and always stay mindful of other persons' sensitivities and opinions and respect the boundaries required of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.

Most of all, we want a Singaporean Singapore. Just like how we wanted a Malaysian Malaysia and not a Malay Malaysia, we do not want a Chinese, Indian, Malay or Other Singapore. And so we want to celebrate the things that make us all the same and bring us together, and refrain from constantly emphasising our differences such as with the ubiquitous CMIO classification.

These are truths and values that many, if not most or all, Singaporeans hold close to their hearts. They may sit uncomfortably with some amongst us. But they are what Singaporeans think and say, in private, in coffeeshops and on the Internet, and the more honestly we confront these hard truths, the sooner we will resolve them and turn these challenges for Singapore into strengths of Singaporeans.

So this National Day, let's reflect a little on what really binds Singaporeans together, more than food and our undeniable love for it, the little details of our everyday existence like buying Toto and 4D, and shared experiences like National Service. Let's think about how we can, in each of our own little ways, contribute to making Singapore the happy, prosperous, progressive and democratic society based on justice and equality. And then let's make a start at converting thought into action. Because that is the true commitment of a Singaporean to Singapore.

Siew Kum Hong is a corporate counsel and a former Nominated Member of Parliament (2007-2009).

Re-writing the Pledge

I've been back in Singapore for a week, but in between spending time with my girlfriend, spending time entertaining my boss' boss who was in town this past week, two great gigs (The Cure and Mercury Rev) and catching up on jet-lagged sleep, I've not had time or energy to update this blog.

Before I went off, The New Paper had contacted me about a project they were doing in conjunction with National Day. They wanted to re-write the Pledge in light of modern realities. I thought it was pretty interesting, and gave it a shot.

Initially, I had all these ideas about the different values I wanted to bring forward. I wanted to talk about equality and rights, helping the less fortunate, and recognising the validity of types of successes other than economic and financial success. But in the end, I realised that the Pledge needed to be general and universal, instead of particular and specific. Otherwise, it would not resonate.

I also felt that the original Pledge was, on the whole, an excellent articulation of some very universal values. At one point, I wanted to send in an unchanged Pledge, simply because it was so uncontroversial, and to then make the point that we have still some ways to go in accomplishing its ideals.

But then I thought that would've been a little gimmicky. So in the end, I tried to preserve the more fundamental values from the original Pledge, while updating it in light of modern-day realities. The result is below. I've also reproduced the accompanying article.

We, the citizens of Singapore
with our diverse
backgrounds and beliefs,
pledge to live in mutual respect
and compassion,
to uphold our freedoms
and defend our rights,
and to strive for justice and equality,
and progress and prosperity,
in a successful, happy
and democratic society.

From The New Paper, July 27, 2007

'Let's embrace our diversity'

COOL. That was Mr Siew Kum Hong's reaction when we asked him to reinterpret the pledge.

And certain parts of former Deputy Prime Minister S Rajaratnam's pledge need updating, the NMP feels.

He said: 'Mr Rajaratnam wrote the pledge in 1966, shortly after independence. Those were times when race, language and religion were seen as divisive factors.

'That explains the emphasis on being 'one united people, regardless of race, language or religion'.'

Then, Singapore and Malaysia had just split and the 'spectre of race riots' still hung over Singapore, but one generation later, Mr Siew feels that racial and religious identities need not be overshadowed by the Singaporean identity.

Instead, we should embrace our diversity, Mr Siew said.

'So (in my pledge), I've moved away from the focus on 'one united people' to focus on diversity and the need for mutual respect and acceptance.

'This is especially important in the modern, more cosmopolitan society that Singapore is today.'

Mr Siew also feels that rights and liberties have been overlooked.

'The pledge can be seen as utilitarian, even though the concept of rights and liberties could be implied from the reference to justice,' he said.

'I think modern Singapore would demand that those values be brought to the fore and given explicit emphasis.'

But there are some parts of the pledge Mr Siew wouldn't change.

'The values mentioned in the last three lines are universal values that will never go away,' he said.

'In some ways, we have not yet accomplished some of those values. But they are targets we must continuously strive for.'

- Elysa Chen

Legalese: My posting of this article is based on my rights under the defence of general fair dealing in Section 35 of the Singapore Copyright Act (Cap.63), as this article was written about me and heavily quoted me, and I am making a strictly non-commercial use of it. Other persons will therefore not have any such rights to, and therefore should not, post this article.