Thailand may well be the international centre for honorary degrees (thanks to the prolific honours bestowed on the king) but others are keen to get in on the act. Last week I received the following invitation:
The Chancellor, Dr Allan Hawke, would like to invite the academic staff of the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific to a special ceremony at which he will be conferring the degree of Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, on Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Minister Mentor and former Prime Minister of Singapore. The ceremony will take place at 11am on Wednesday, 28 March, in the Great Hall of University House and will be followed by a reception in the central courtyard. Guests are asked to be seated in the Hall by 10.45am. The ceremony is a special occasion to honour Mr Lee’s achievements and further the University’s relationship with Singapore. The Chancellor hopes you will join him for this event. If you have your own academic regalia, you are welcome to join the Chancellor’s Academic Procession – please indicate this in your reply and we will advise arrangements for gowning and processing.
My question is … why? In response to my email enquiries I have been told that the award is being made to Lee Kuan Yew “on the grounds of his service to the development of Singapore, his international statesmanship and his friendship with Australia”. Under the ANU guidelines for honorary degrees I assume the award is being provided on the basis of “outstanding creative achievement by the person as a scholar in any field of scholarship, letters or the arts; or outstanding creative contribution by the person in the service of society”.
At least one of my colleagues at ANU has also wondered out loud about this. Andrew Leigh writes:
On March 28, ANU will give an honorary doctorate to former Singaporean PM Lee Kuan Yew. I have rather mixed feelings about this. True, he presided over significant growth from 1959-90 (Singapore is now richer than New Zealand). But his regime was a pretty autocratic one… Lee Kuan Yew also abolished trial by jury, and incarcerated one opposition MP for 32 years. Singapore certainly isn’t as bad as China on the democracy front, but I hope the ceremony doesn’t gloss over his political record when talking about the many good things he’s done for his country’s standard of living.
When a similar honour was bestowed in 2000 by the Chinese University of Hong Kong it was met with vigorous protest. Here is a brief extract from the CU protest web site:
Legislative Councillor and Chinese University council member, Cheung Man-kwong, opposes the plan. “It will be a shame to CU. Mr Lee is an exemplary model of someone who is good at using the law to suppress people. He is an important leader in Asia but an academic institution should avoid conferring a honorary degree to someone known for his autocratic style.” Another petition organiser said: “Public order laws, press freedom, and academic freedom are areas the police state of Singapore encroached upon one by one in its 35-year-rule. When a Hong Kong university confers a doctorate degree to Lee Kuan Yew, the value of this society is changing for the worse. The basic premise of right and wrong is being compromised.”
I am sure that there are many at the ANU (and elsewhere) who know much more about Lee Kuan Yew’s record than I do. I would be interested to hear their thoughts on this honour.
[For an interesting overview of honorary degrees see Wikipedia. Interesting background includes: "In 1996 Southampton College at Long Island University awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Amphibious Letters to muppet Kermit the Frog. Although some students objected to awarding a degree to a puppet, Kermit delivered an enjoyable commencement address and the small college received considerable press coverage."]
87 responses so far ↓
1 anon // Mar 20, 2007 at 5:07 pm
First off, let me say I aint a Lee Kuan Yu fan. I think Singaporean politics is boring at best and depressing at worst.
But you got to give a guy credit: he single-handedly turned a 3rd world nation with no natural resources into a 1st world nation within 40 years. That exceeds even the miraculous achievement of Japan. No other country in the world has matched that achievement. And he did it with a mostly clean government and a relatively stable multi-cultural society. Which puts shames Japan, Korea, Thailand, the Philipines, and Burma to shame.
So yeah, the guy isn’t perfect. But pretty much every other statesman of the past 40 years (and yes, I’m including HMK Bhumibol in that comparison as well) has done a helluva lot worse.
2 Srithanonchai // Mar 20, 2007 at 5:57 pm
One thing is for sure — if a few Australian academics in their fields had achieved what Lee Kuan Yu has achieved in his, Australia would not only be a place were foreigners can get their cheap degrees, but would also be a choice destination of the intellectual elite of the world. (Just to put things a little bit in perspective…)
3 Pig Latin // Mar 20, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Robert Mugabe will have his taken away…
Srithanonchai, the field of being a tyrant?
Lee Kuan Yew
Bachelor of Tyranny (1:1 hons)?
4 Srithanonchai // Mar 20, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Pig Latin: Putting Lee Kuan Yew into the category of “tyrant” seems grossly reductionist to me. Do you truly think that Lee and Mugabe are basically the same?
5 Pig Latin // Mar 20, 2007 at 8:54 pm
The same? Only in that man by nature is tyrannical. The point I’ve failed to articulate has been that honorary degrees can be taken away…
Grossly reductionist? Well how else would one refer to big brother number one.. “Mr Singapore”?
6 Suriyon Raiwa // Mar 20, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Anon … LKY did nothing “single-handedly”. One could go on about the roles of Goh Keng Swee and Dr Wensimius in post-1965 Singapore’s transformation, but there is a better way to make this point. In 1999, there was a book launch in Singapore for a volume called “Lee’s Lieutenants: Singapore’s Old Guard”. The book–very good–profiles a series of those who had played important roles in post-1965 policy-making and administration. The organizers of the launch wanted, naturally, some of those profiled (and still living) to attend. All refused. Why? Resentment at having been shoved aside by an LKY eager to claim full credit for what Singapore had become … The bottom line on this honorary degree is quite simple. Are universities like the ANU meant to be custodians and promoters of certain values or not? If so, do those who manage the ANU believe that LKY shares the universities values? If they do believe this, let them grant the degree in good conscience. But if they do believe this, they will, I fear, believe anything. Even the most cursory examination of LKY’s own attitude toward higher education makes clear the farcical nature of this planned gesture on the ANU’s part …
7 Pig Latin // Mar 20, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Also — please enlighten me to the intellectual elite not residing in Australia? Do you think that a nation of 21 million should contain more of these smarty-pants? Basically we’re all convicts here remember… We’ve got so much space we’re in prison!
8 jeplang // Mar 20, 2007 at 10:31 pm
I am firmly opposed to the granting of honorary degrees.
Some years ago the ANU granted an honorary PhD to a man who ,I believed, should have been granted the actual degree.In my view ,the honorary degree demeaned his contribution to Australian wildlife biology.
Whenever young South-east Asians ask me about the standing of the ANU,I tell them it is over-rated,even though all my degrees are from the ANU.
9 Srithanonchai // Mar 20, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Pig Latin: You’ve got all my sympathy! In that case, it is an honor that LKY accepts the honorary doctorate, not the other way round. Maybe, ANU should even include his son and his daughter-in-law? Since Singapore seems to be a family affair, so should be the honorary degrees!
10 John Francis Lee // Mar 20, 2007 at 11:21 pm
You cannot be serious when you as “why”? The answer is in the opening statement… to “further the University’s relationship with Singapore”. ANU is after all a business enterprise, although you may forget that given your perspecive.
11 Pig Latin // Mar 21, 2007 at 12:06 am
Indeed Srithanonchai! Honorary degrees for all honorable enough to accept them!
Giving institutions enough credit in your existence to be either underrated or overrated is tantamount to sado-masochism.
The ANU has bloody good libraries.
12 Srithanonchai // Mar 21, 2007 at 1:41 am
PL: Given that I have been living in Thailand for quite some time, your sentence “The ANU has bloody good libraries” really is sado.
BTW: Does ANU have an honorary degree promotion — offer one, get two more free? With John, I would say “The son is the future!”
13 polo // Mar 21, 2007 at 2:29 am
Interesting that in the early 1960s ANU backed out of giving King Bhumibol an honorary degree because, I think, Thailand was a military dictatorship and the king had never graduated from university in the first place. But some other Uni gave him one instead.
14 Tara // Mar 21, 2007 at 7:13 am
Singabloodypore has a post and appeal on this topic as well.
This is probably a stupid thing to say, but, the King really didn’t graduate university?
15 anon // Mar 21, 2007 at 2:02 pm
He studied at Université de Lausanne, but didn’t graduate. As a student, he was seriously injured in a car accident, and while recovering, he got distracted by the 15 year old Sirikit. Engagement, marriage, and coronation put a stop to his studies.
16 New Mandala » Lee Kuan who? // Mar 21, 2007 at 8:35 pm
[...] degree to Lee Kuan Yew. A search of the ANU web-site uncovers nothing on the matter except my previous New Mandala post. On the ANU web’s billboard we are advised of such gems as the prohibition [...]
17 Batman // Mar 21, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Can we articulate a liittle bit more about what a farce that this is- a tyrant receiving an honorary LAW doctorate who is someone who has stopped any political freedom or opposition by subverting the law. The judiciary is totaly compliant to this man who uses defamation laws to silence any critic. Mugabe uses violence but LKY uses 1984 Orwellian methods to control the human spirit. Srithanonchai, please read up a little more before posting platitudes about this man.
18 John Francis Lee // Mar 21, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Listening to you speak of HM the King’s finishing at university or not, I was recently pointed to Ivan Illich, and to his views on “an Education”, among others. He was a fairly well educated man himself.
I know that you all like to use the efficiency economy as a stand-in for the junta when it’s time to crack the whip, but HM the King’s views are consonant with Illich’s in this respect as well.
Regardless who is using what idea for what reason, ideas do stand or fall on their own. I quite admire HM the King’s formulation and certainly Illich has offered a very rigorous analysis along the same lines.
You fellows trying to tar the sufficiency economy with the same brush used to tar the junta remind me of the bigots in the USA who denounced Walt and Mearsheim’s thesis on the grounds that David Duke loudly praised it.
Somehow I’d expected more from fellows who’d spent someone’s big bucks on such glamorous “educational packages”.
19 Robin // Mar 22, 2007 at 12:11 am
I agree with Batman.
Furthermore, Lee Kuan Yew should have adopted Sufficiency Economy principles when he was formulating Singapore. If anybody should be awarded an honorary doctorate it should be HMK Mister Bhumibol. Dr. Lee Kuan Yew just read 1984… and even cast a NUS Psychology Professor (legitimate) as Goldstein! Now we have pseudo ingsoc in Singapore where the soc is really corp.
Regardless of all this, fuel is expensive for the Batmobile… Maybe an honorary degree for whoever invented the engine for the Prius next?
20 Degrees of justice » The Road to Surfdom // Mar 22, 2007 at 10:00 am
[...] Some more comment here and here. [...]
21 yvbi // Mar 22, 2007 at 6:48 pm
The Chancellor, Dr Allan Hawke, Joins the ever increasing conga line…. I wonder how many $ MM LEE paid !
22 Srithanonchai // Mar 22, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Batman: “Srithanonchai, please read up a little more before posting platitudes about this man.” > Will do as soon as I will have finished some more important things! BTW: where did YOU get your degree from?
23 Oliver // Mar 22, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Those, who are interested in Lee Yuan Yew, should “Singapore’s Authoritarian Capitalism” by Chistopher Lingle, Lingle is an American Academic, who was forced out of Singapore by Lee, for responding making comments in the International Herald Tribune (c.1994). Suppressing free speech, Lee prosecuted Lingle, in absentia, in Singapore and won of course. [There are references to the inceident on line, but the book is better].
Of course, Lee is the power behind the PAP and will not stop at using the Law to suppress opposition.
There is a so called Speaker’s Corner in Singapore, where people can speak provided they obtain a permit and tell the police the topic.
In earlier days, Lee had a programme calling for the sterilisation of some Singaporeans and set-up meetings, so the educated would couple. In a word, “eugenics”. [Reseach it. Not making this up.]
If, like me. you have lived a few years in Singapore, it evident that there is no Free Press and the worse sides of US and Australia are presented in the Straits T. Yes, Australia;, “The Poor White Trash of Asia”, to quote Dr. no Mr. Lee .
Honorary doctorates are slap in the face of real researcher. But, Lee Kuan Yew! That is a double assault. One assault is to the pursuit of free speach and the other to “real” academia.
A good topic for the Occasional Address? ” Compliant Judiciaries in Asia”.
24 Srithanonchai // Mar 22, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Batman/Oliver: I have to admit that I am quite satisfied living in Thailand, politically speaking (even under present conditions), and as far as my research activities and writings are concerned. Of course, I am not happy with the pervasive cronyism and corruption in most spheres of society here.
Some years back, a Singaporean academic told me that she had spoken up critically in a meeting. The minister present asked for her name. Some time later, a friend of hers working in Singapores secret police (or whatever this is called) called her on the phone. He warned her that her remark in that discussion had made it into her personnel file in his agency, and that she should be more careful in the future if she ever wanted to get a job in state academic institutions. That was when the term “fascism” (lacking a more accurate expression) sprang to my mind.
25 Young Labor Left » Blog Archive » Snap Action! Protest ANU’s Honorary Doctorate for Lee Kwan Yew // Mar 23, 2007 at 4:33 am
[...] article linked above), Michael McKinley (in the ABC’s coverage), and on their personal blogs. Andrew Walker of the RSPAS at New Mandela has also posted a letter from Stephen Dobbs of the University of [...]
26 anon // Mar 23, 2007 at 5:21 am
Srithanonchai, that happens all the time in Thailand, except that the Rector or the Dean gives you a call, not the police.
27 Batman // Mar 23, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Srithanonchai: “BTW: where did YOU get your degree from?” Sorry you have lost me. I am a bit slow- what your point?
28 Srithanonchai // Mar 23, 2007 at 12:40 pm
anon: That might very well be the case. Still, it is my impression that there are many Thai academics who are comparatively open in voicing their criticism. Yet, it is also true what an NGO worker some time back told me, “Thailand still is a rather closed society.” So the direction, scope, and strength of criticism certainly is limited.
I would apreciate if you could provide some examples, so that I might get a better idea of when this sort of warnings are used.
29 Tony // Mar 23, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Mmmmmm? He certainly has achieved a political and economic miracle here in Singapore but having lioved here for 4 years and being married to a Singaporean, I certainly do not approve of the things that go on here.
Imrisoning the opposition without charge? For 32 years! A record only beaten by Nelson Mandela. Temasek are raking it in and only today the PM has said that his ministers only get 1.2 m pa and it should be 2.2m pa! Yeah right, of course it should. To govern less 3m voters?
This reeks of a purely political move.
30 jennifer loh // Mar 24, 2007 at 4:39 pm
dear all,
just chipping in my two cents’ woth.
firstly , i am a singaporean and even i feel that it is such a blatant display of hypocritical accolade on the part of anu, with regards to the decision to confer upon lky a honorary doctorate.
his government’s intent and methods doesnt warrant a doctorate, it justifies a coup d’etat , to say the least.
its ironic that i am posting this while being buffered by distance(in australia),
but lke any singaporeans living overseas- we actually become more politically aware as a result of this longing for home.
consequently, i have decided that i will return to singapore to do my part in eradicating this totalitarian despot.
31 anon // Mar 25, 2007 at 2:42 am
Let me chirp in on this…
Lee might have installed an oppressive regime, but it isn’t nearly as bad as the regimes in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. But Lee also played a large role in Singapore’s extremely fast economic and human development.
It leaves me asking: what would I rather have, a crappy government, a vibrant economy, and a healthy well educated population, or a crappy government, poverty, and the education standards of Indonesia? I wish there was a third choice, but there aren’t really any in Southeast Asia. Heck, even Japan and Korea produced tons of corruption and several despots during the past 50 years.
So give the guy credit – he might not be the greatest statesman in Asia, but he’s certainly one of the better ones.
32 Kamal // Mar 25, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I am tired of Australians, dissing my Singapore government. They have done so much for us Singaporeans and they including Mr Lee deserve the recognition.
By race I am Indian making me a minority in Singapore. But that has never stopped me from progressing in bureaucratic Singapore. I can’t say the same for the minorities in Australia who despite having degrees can’t get jobs.
So Australia before you make so much of noise as you always do and start fixing your own problems first.
It should be an honour to ANU that Mr Lee has accepted the degree.
33 Pig Latin // Mar 25, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Kamal,
What has bloody gahmen done for Australia lah?
Provided a great launch pad at Changi for migrants to get back to wherever they migrated from? Provided a beacon of security in a region that doesn’t always agree with our (formerly?) monoistic culture … ?
Thankyou for providing a secure hub and being a beacon for the benefits of colonialism!
Despite this obvious gratitude, the ANU giving your hero LKY a honorary degree for being so great is some strange disrespect!
The ANU giving a degree to LKY highlights the ever increasing polarity between virtue and economics.
Thankyou for contributing to the divide!
34 bill parker // Mar 26, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Suriyon Raiwa says much of what I feel about the LKY degree conferring. As a graduate and former staff member of ANU I am disgusted. Free speech and expression of ideas, informed discussion and debate have never been of concern to LKY. Once again the filthy dollar is justification for any deviant behaviour. ANU must be hoping to get more full fee paying students. I would rate Mugabe and Yew as similar, it is just a matter of ‘degree’ and circumstances.
35 david // Mar 27, 2007 at 4:34 am
Pig,
Firstly, yes, Singapore is what it is today not only because of LKY but his entire cabinate but it also boils down to the man in charge, so I don’t see whats wrong with crediting the leader. The thing about all big western democracies is that they feel that democracy is the only way to economic & social success. This may not be the case look at China today, it has opened up significantly but it is still predominantly communist. Today the moment Shanghai sneezes the entire world catches a cold. Lee is not perfect he did make a few blunders during his term in office such as the suzhou project, but these are nothing compared to what he has helped singapore achieve. As they say one man’s meat could be another man’s poison. How a country is governed depends very much on the economical and social climate of that country. We shouldn’t force a type of government onto another country just because it was “proven” to be successful. Singapore is one such case Singapore is a small country without natural resources, without anything in fact. If it were to plunge into a fully democratic government upon independence, there would be so much debating that nothing gets done. Mauritius is one such example, they became independent right about the same time as Singapore 1968 but their GDP per capita is currently 1/2 that of Singapore. Yes it could swing either way, had Singapore gotten somone like Suharto the future would be very bleak. I guess Singapore was lucky to get LKY.
36 blueheeler // Mar 27, 2007 at 11:34 am
Well, LKY-bashing is easy enough, and many have done just that here. But hey, what about criticisms of ANU for handing this honour to him? Most recently, the hanging of the Viet-Aussie drug-mule in S’pore probably summed up Aust/S’pores’ ‘love-hate’ relationship on the ideological front. So who/what is ANU pandering to, and why? I’m not surprised that in the near future, ANU will be announcing an off-site campus in S’pore to cash in on the foreign-degree market here.
37 John Francis Lee // Mar 27, 2007 at 4:34 pm
blueheeler :
S’pore aims to grow education sector to 5% of GDP by 2015
Similar quote in People’s Daily Online
38 George // Mar 28, 2007 at 5:51 pm
The academics in Singaporean universities are almost double paid than their counterparts in Australia. This fact alone would be more than enough to could justify the honoral degree, I believe. So shut up, you good-for-nothing Australians!!
39 Jack // Mar 28, 2007 at 7:33 pm
While I myself ain’t exactly a fan of LKY, i find all these arguments by westerners are quite amusing. Most of the time you try to impose your values on us but least you forget we ASIANS have completely different cultures and moral values than our western counterparts. Look at IRAQ, what a mess it is in now exactly because g.Bush is trying to impose his values and systems on a totally different environment. All those dictator definition of LKY has so far been given by a minority singaporeans plus his critics in the western media but do they have to live in singapore? are they stakeholders of this small island nation? Can they even comprehend running a country that is so small, with no resources except for her men and women and constantly being targetted by its neighbours?? look globally and you can see the seeds of western values being imposed and failed. Singaporeans, the majority at least have faith in this Govt although we may disagree with certain ways are being done. But nothing is perfect in this world.
40 Srithanonchai // Mar 28, 2007 at 8:35 pm
“completely different cultures and moral values” > If this was true, how come that we can communicate, and how could NUS aim to be the “classroom of the world”?
41 Vordhosbn // Mar 28, 2007 at 9:14 pm
All these arguments by westerners?
How do you know everyone here is a westerner?
Jack, have you considered that it is your own imposition and projection of values here is what infact causes problems, seen in extreme examples with IRAQ and the WEST…?
Furthermore, it is these same prejudices that Lee Kuan Yew has used to his advantage post decolonisation.
Without the West – what do you think Singapore would be? It’s a mutual dependancy. Furthermore, one could argue that Singapore isn’t really apart of the ‘east’ anymore at all. Not as a result of its economic position, but more to do with the adoption of the cosmocrat attitude…
42 Srithanonchai // Mar 28, 2007 at 10:49 pm
In fact, Singapore prides itself of being a part of the “first world” (the West plus Japan). They cringe every time you put them in the same category as Thailand, The Philippines, Malaysia, or Indonesia. It is only when we talk about human rights and democracy that they suddenly discover their “Asianness.”
43 William // Mar 28, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I have been living in Singapore for 34 years. I have never felt oppressed(except by neighbouring countries trying to impose their will/and so called “democracy” on us). “police state” dont make me laugh. I am a person who travels the world constantly, why dont all of you just focus on making each of your own homes a better place. let the honorary degree go, there are more important things in life. LKY sometimes does things which not all singaporeans agree with and we can always change it at the ballot boxes if we want too. We have the internet, we have the information(even this forum), if we feel strong enough against anything he or the sing gov does, they will be changed but they have helped us to a better life and i respect that. I m not even going to bother to comment about some of the countries around us.
44 Jackie // Mar 28, 2007 at 11:55 pm
It disgusts me to hear my countrymen speaking so arrogantly in a country which is conferring him with an honourary degree.
ANU should not have done it at all. I was born and raised in SG and never liked the way he ran the country with an iron fist and with fear. It may have been warranted back in the 60’s but certainly not in this day and age. His arrogance will bring him down one day.
45 W // Mar 29, 2007 at 10:39 am
Kamal said “I can’t say the same for the minorities in Australia who despite having degrees can’t get jobs.”
Kamal, speak for yourself mate. I am a minority Asian myself and me and most of my Asian friends did not have much trouble getting professional job here.
46 J Ng // Mar 29, 2007 at 11:49 am
As a person who used to live in fear in Lee Kuan Yew regime, and left Singapore. I think Lee has got Superior form of government. When he did the spiraling down action during the interview with SBS TV, the dreaded feeling of fear returns.
Australia, with ANU help, should put in place meritocracy, detention without trail and death penalty.
Why.
1. Look at the State governments, there are few talents. The Fed govt is slow in implementing policies because the opposition parties, lobby groups and mass media are putting obstacles to a fast and agile decision making – so that Australia is able to move faster to capture the economic opportunities the world present. We need a single-party democractic system, and to do this … those who opposite will have their financials investigated, lawsuits for defamatory comments on the ruling party and revoking of press licences and confiscation of assets
2. Australia is now Number One in illicit drug and alcohol related incidents. Death penalty will do wonder for traffickers. Full stop. Alcoholics will be named and shamed in public, such as what Singapore did to its former President Devan Nair (who has to escape to US … He is no longer our problem) Drug addicts should be subject to the harsh cold-turkey detox treatment where they will be deprived of their addictions until they are cured.
3. Vandalism, graffiti and hoons should be subjected corporal punishment such as caning, Singapore military-style reforms and re-education. Once we break them and ensure that they do not pose a threat to the public, they will be released from reformative institutions.
4. By the way, the protesters at ANU need to be dealt with too … expel the students and fired the staff. The students should be marked for life, in case they cause problems in future. The staff, make sure they will not find another job in this great nation of ours.
I believe most Australians, including ANU, will not be able to related to the above regime, It is about time we establish the Australian Action Party, and with the help from the Chinese and their spies in Australia, align the new values of Australia to Singapore’s and China’s and create a utopia on this continent of ours.
Advance Australia Fair!
47 J Ng // Mar 29, 2007 at 11:57 am
I have more to add …
If we have a single-party government, all the talents will be concentrated in the ruling party and do wonders for Australia.
The less talented can form the oppositions and by establishing group representation and shifting of constituency boundaries and bankruptcy, the oppositions will remain where they are. By the way, all the shadowing positions should be done away with.
We will also pay the ruling party a salary higher than what Singapore ministers are getting. (They are the highest paid government officers in the world and their pay is tagged to the highest private-sector pay)
The ruling party will be people with integrity. Australia will not have problems with clowns such as Brian Burke’s people and the Santos type.
48 J Ng // Mar 29, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I have more to add …
All the social ills, we need policies in place that force people to learn to manage their finances and lives. If the people chose to do wrong, one strke and they are out. No welfare for them.
The last things this nation need are pesticides who cannot managed their own lives. (We do not need to publish suicide rates … like what the Singapore did)
(from the speeches of Lee Kuan Yew) There is a need to have a greater discrepancies in income distribution in order for a country to prosper.
Advance Australia Fair!
If an Australian leader did what Lee Kuan Yew did at the ANY ceremony, I think the degree would be revoked and the Australian High Commisioner would be summoned to the Istana.
Majullah Singapura!
49 An observer // Mar 29, 2007 at 1:14 pm
42. Srithanonchai | March 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
In fact, Singapore prides itself of being a part of the “first world” (the West plus Japan). They cringe every time you put them in the same category as Thailand, The Philippines, Malaysia, or Indonesia. It is only when we talk about human rights and democracy that they suddenly discover their “Asianness.”
hello Srithanonchai
If you are a Thai, looks at your country present situation before commenting on others. How can an elected govt just taken over by force using undemocratic means. So what the heck are your talking about human rights and democracy? Shame on you!
50 Srithanonchai // Mar 29, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Hi Observer:
No, I am not Thai. Now what?
It was certainly “refreshing” to see that, at the same time that mass public protests against the government were held in Bangkok, Malaysian authorities in Putrajaja used mounted police to break up a tiny gathering of protesting workers, and the Singaporean police forced people from the opposition, who had set up a table on a pavement during the election campaign (!), to pack up. Reason: They did not have a “permission.”
Maybe, the Thais even went far beyond the standards of the “first world” in this instance, while Malaysia and Singapore both remained well within the behavioral standards of third-world, or “Asian”, authoritarianism.
51 J Ng // Mar 29, 2007 at 4:17 pm
To the observer,
At least in Thailand, when an elected person try to be a Lee Kuan Yew, there are institutions around to bring the person to earth.
And let’s not forget the important moderator role of the Thai King in ensuring that things do not get out of hand.
BTW, Singapore will never allow foreigners to take over their telecommunication, banks, etc
But Singapore thinks it is OK to do so … ” unto others what it does not allow others to do to it” … Think about it
All the Singapore talk about meritocracy, Asian values, etc They are all designed to cover up what is essentially a authoritarian regime, which do money laundering (remember the SGD$10,000 dollar note), support the Burmese regime, the Indonesian tycoons and corrupt Aussies … As long as it is money, it is good for Singapore.
But again, it is Singapore’s choice.
At the end of the day, more Singaporeans are escaping from the island. I dare the Singapore govt to publish the figures of people leaving the country for good. And don’t be surprised to find the govt ministers’ children among them.
52 J Ng // Mar 29, 2007 at 4:34 pm
To … 38. George | March 28th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
“The academics in Singaporean universities are almost double paid than their counterparts in Australia. This fact alone would be more than enough to could justify the honoral degree, I believe. So shut up, you good-for-nothing Australians!!”
We all know money can do wonders …
Following your argument, the PAP ministers should get their well-deserved raise then. There is nothing wrong being the most highly paid government ministers in the world. In fact, they should be holding more directorships and getting their honorariums and fees from the private sector. All these while the same govt is making statements about not helping the lower-income groups or the less fortunate and even increasing the GST.
About good-for-nothing Australians, I know a number of them are working to make this world a better place to live. In fact, a some are working hard to make sure that tiny countries like Singapore will not be bullied and has a place in this planet. (Consider the 5-power defense arrangement and RAAF base in Singapore)
53 Jack // Mar 29, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I am so bewildered whenever I read news about fellow singaporeans loud-mouthing the country overseas only for the purpose of entertaining western media. The bottom line is this, in Singapore, it is Singaporeans who should determine how they want their country to be run. We have a system for an election, although some may argue that it may not be a fair one. But think about it, we are given a chance, yet, times and times again, the majority spoke and handed over to the same party. Why? partly because we have trusts in them, partly because we have no choice. If you think you can run the country better then, come back and offer your service, be constructive for the sake of the nation, but please don’t go round yelling without offering much alternatives. If you truly can offer better alternatives then stand for election. Please do not tell me that the PAP will go after you, because if you have nothing to hide, then you should have nothing to fear! Look at the Workers Party, they did pretty well, in fact I support Sylvia Lim and had hoped that she would be elected, but the people has spoken. Do you trully believe, opposition party like Chee Soon Juan is preferred by fellow Singaporeans? He is a joke and westerners, especially the media likes to use him as an example to put down Singapore for their own agenda. Think about it, at the end of the day, who lives in Singapore, who cares more about this tiny nation? it is us, Singaporeans not the westerners!! Like LKY said, you have your own country to run, we have our own country, everyone would prosper given the system most suitable for each. But please do not try to impose your values on us. Let us, Singaporeans decide. For those minority Singaporeans, who are playing to the western media, instead of being constructive, you have your freedom, otherwise, do you think you would be writing like this? Think about it! If you think Singapore is not suitable for you, then you are always welcome to seek for a better place to live. Nobody is stopping you. But if you do love this nation, then, please remember in true democracy as you have so often quoted, means, you should let the majority rule. FULL STOP!
54 Jack // Mar 29, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Srinthanochai, I am sure you know that even among asians we have different moral values and cultures. Your comparison using NUS arguments does not make sense. What does the goal of being no1 in education ha to do with values? Even between Malaysians and Singaporeans, there are differences in values. Again let me ask you, are you a singaporean? if you aren’t then, why should we listen to a foreigner who is trying to tell how to best run my country when he does not have interests in it? if you are a singaporean, then you have every right to criticise the Govt, but at the end of the day, be constructive, offer alternative for the betterment of this nation. Stand up for election, do something useful in Singapore. Otherwise, please let the majority of fellow singaporean to live our own life the way we see fit for our future.
55 jerry // Mar 29, 2007 at 10:20 pm
To add on the comments posted by Suriyon Raiwa ..I am a singaporean and I must admit that LKY is quite over rated..Non of the history books we read at school mention anything about dutch economist Dr Albert Winsemius helping out singapore in development back in the 60’s -70’s.. So you guys can see, LKY is trying to create a fake impression that he created singapore single handed.
56 Jack // Mar 29, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Vordhosbn,
All these arguments by westerners?
How do you know everyone here is a westerner?
Jack, have you considered that it is your own imposition and projection of values here is what infact causes problems, seen in extreme examples with IRAQ and the WEST…?
>> I did not assume all here are westerners, do not play with words. You presume it not me. I merely stated the fact that most arguments about democracy are often based on western democracy. Democracy in Singapore is deemed suitable for a little tiny island nation, with no resources and surrounded by “friendly” neighbours. I did not impose my values by giving examples of IRAQ, I meant to tell you that so called western democracy does not work on every country in this world. each has their own constraints. Again you presume my arguments as such.
Without the West – what do you think Singapore would be? It’s a mutual dependancy. Furthermore, one could argue that Singapore isn’t really apart of the ‘east’ anymore at all. Not as a result of its economic position, but more to do with the adoption of the cosmocrat attitude…
>> This is the fact that LKY himself acknowledged, without security and stability Singapore would not have reached where we are now. But then we never asked for the same system to be implemented here. We are fine the way we are.
In fact we have been fine for many decades with our own system based on our own values.
57 Srithanonchai // Mar 29, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Jack: I am a European. My posts contained a number of incentives to problematize certain issues. If this is too much for your sensitive Singaporean soul, I am sorry for you. If you have to hide behind demands for “constructive” suggestions, and the insistence of non-interference by “outsiders”, I am even more sorry.
Obviously, I know that Asian’s have different values. And this does not only apply to collectivities such as Malaysians and Singaporeans. Even within these “entities”, you can find different values. For example, I know Singaporean citizens who value an open discussion, and I know Jack, who wants to abort it by reference to non-interference, and constructive suggestions.
Hopefully, this response satisfies you.
58 AN // Mar 29, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Jack,
I find it really weird that just because we Singaporeans discuss about Singapore in the western media, such as here, you decide that we are ‘loud-mouthing the country overseas only for the purpose of entertaining western media’. Don’t you think you are jumping to conclusion a little too much??
Going by your logic, aren’t you loud mouthing the Singaporeans (your own country men) for the purpose of entertaining the western media?
Just because most of the Singaporeans who can vote (which is less than half of the Singaporeans in Singapore and not including Singaporeans staying in overseas) have chosen to vote for PAP does not mean the rest cannot voice their opinions. It is like saying since majority of the people here do not believe LKY deserved his honorary degree but you think so, you should not be posting in this forum. Indeed, you should be glad that you have this ‘freedom’ to post here. What an irony!!
It seems, to you, we cannot be constructive just because we have different opinions. If that is the case, why do we bother having the parliaments, meetings, forums, discussion etc?? What do you bother to post here??
It is hypocrite for you to advocate democracy since you obviously do not tolerate adverse opinions or believe in the freedom of speech.
Many Singaporeans are directly impacted by the policies implemented in Singapore. We definitely have the right to discuss about the state of affairs in Singapore, when we like, where we choose to. Therefore, keep your arrogant attitude to yourself and stop telling us what to do. FULL STOP!!
59 AN // Mar 30, 2007 at 12:34 am
Jack,
I disagreed with the few points below:
1) why should we listen to a foreigner who is trying to tell how to best run my country when he does not have interests in it?
If you have read Chinese history on the romance of the three kindoms, you would have realise Zhuge Liang does not really belong Shu Kingdom but he manage to make it a prosper country that is on par with the other 2 kindoms. He does not have any interest in it either.
Why rule off someone’s suggestion just because he is not a Singaporean?? We should be mature enough to listen to others then decide what is our course of actions. To reject other’s opinion just because they are not born within a country only narrow what one can hear, see and achieve.
2) if you are a singaporean, then you have every right to criticise the Govt, but at the end of the day, be constructive, offer alternative for the betterment of this nation.
In the earlier post, you are saying that the Singapore who criticise govt are ‘loud-mouthing the country overseas for the purpose of entertaining western media’. Now, you say we have every right to criticise the govt. Don’t you find that contradictory?? Are you saying we have the right to criticise the govt but if we do so, we are doing our country a disservice?? Please, make up your mind!! You either encourage or discourage it. The way you phrase it, it seems like we are at fault anyway.
And, just because you do not find some of the opinions constructive does not mean others would think so too. Therefore, please do not try to stop people from posting their opinions, no matter if you agreed with them or otherwise??
Lastly, if you have even been in Singapore, you would have realise that Singapore commoners’ suggestions are seldom, if ever, heeded. Read up on NKF saga. You would have a better idea. Therefore, please do not tell us to offer alternatives that will not be followed. For example, so many Singaporeans suggest, instead of pegging ministers’ pay to top earners, let it be peg to 80 times the median pay instead. If so, Govt would not need to increase the GST to increase their money. That would be a good way to cut cost without erording the nation competitivenesss or causing grief to the people. You think Govt will follow to this constructive advice that is definitely be for the betterment of this nation?? Of course, just because I find it a constructive advice does not mean you or the govt would agreed with me.
3) please let the majority of fellow singaporean to live our own life the way we see fit for our future.
Please speak for yourself. Just because you do not want to listen to other’s opinion does not mean rest or majority of the Singaporeans are not interested as well. Isn’t it weird that just because you do not want to listen to others’ opinion, you want to stop them from speaking out? What about the rest of us who might be interested? If you are not interesting in others’ views and experience, you can stop reading about them. Do not tell people to stop voicing their opinions as if you represent all Singaporeans.
60 Srithanonchai // Mar 30, 2007 at 12:34 am
AN: “Many Singaporeans are directly impacted by the policies implemented in Singapore. We definitely have the right to discuss about the state of affairs in Singapore…”
One might add that the Thais also have this right, since it was the decision of the Lee family (father, son, and daughter-in-law) in favor of buying Shin Corporation from Thaksin Shinawatra (a fellow ASEAN head of government–very ethical, indeed!) via Temasek that finally led to the military coup, the abrogation of the constitution, and martial law.
Already before the sale, Singapore was seen my many Thais as a regional neo-colonial power, using its economic prowess. No need to say what the view of Singapore was after the sale, and after the coup…
61 AN // Mar 30, 2007 at 1:11 am
Srithanonchai,
As you can see from my post above, I believe everyone has the freedom of speech.
I said that only to emphasis to Jack that Singaporeans have to right to discuss about Singapore even if it is not deem constructive by him, especially since we are directly impacted by the policies implemented in the state.
As for Thai’s view of Singapore, I can understand. I am sure Singapore govt would not sell Singtel to foreign company. However, I hope you, as well as other Thais, can understand that is a decision made by the ruling party. Most Singaporeans I know do not support their move either.
I hope Singapore Govt selfish actions do not cause disharmony between people in both countries. Just as Thaskin do not represent all Thai people, LKY, his son and/or his daugher-in-law does not represent all Singaporeans.
62 Srithanonchai // Mar 30, 2007 at 1:34 am
AN: To me, your position is sensible, and so I have no problem with it. However, I am a European. To many Thai observers, all this might be a lot more on the emotional side.
63 AN // Mar 30, 2007 at 2:37 am
Srithanonchai,
I do understand it would be harder for the Thai observers to see it the way I do. However, I cannot force them to change their opinions the way I like it. I can only hope that when they get in touch with more Singaporeans, they will realise not all Singaporeans behave like Singapore Govt or approve of their actions.
64 Sawarin // Mar 30, 2007 at 3:08 am
AN:
Trust me, Thai society is as diverse as other living societies. A good size of enlightened Thais are aware of the fact that the coup has little* to do with Singaporeans, let alone Shin Corp/Temasek business deal. ‘Many Thais’ who view Singapore as a neo-colonial power are Thais who read BKK Post, Nation, Matichon, Manager, Krungthep Turakit, Thai Post, Kom Chad Luek, Thai Rath, Daily News, etc. etc. daily. It’s a tragedy that international community still relies on these garbage broadsheets.
65 AN // Mar 30, 2007 at 11:34 am
Sawarin,
Similar to Thai, there are many Singaporeans who think differently.
There are Singaporeans who read Straits Times and believe in the propaganda too.
It is indeed a tragedy, not only because of the reliance on garbage broadsheet, but also because of the people who read them as if they are the biblical truth.
It is depressing to see intelligent, well-educated people refusing to analysis information from media and their environment to reach their own conclusion.
66 Srithanonchai // Mar 30, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I did not know that Bangkok Post, The Nation, Matichon, Krungthep Thurakit (by implication: all Thai newspapers) are “garbage broadsheets.”
67 Sawarin // Mar 30, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Srithanonchai: the so-called quality papers are really garbage broadsheets (valueless- as in its orginal fr). There’s no single paper you can rely on in Thailand. Both broadsheets and tabloids are equally hopeless, as hopeless as the current social and political reality of Thailand. Think 20 Singapore Straits Times ciculating day-in day-out and you’ll understand why Thai politics is (always) in limbo and a concept of civil society is never materialised.
68 Srithanonchai // Mar 30, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Sawarin: It is never advisable to “rely” on papers, and certainly not on “single” ones, not even in Europe, the US, or Australia. For this reason, both in Europe etc. and in Thailand, one should use a range of papers and other channels of information. Obviously, however, newspaper consumption in Thailand is very low. Given your “hopeless” perspective, you must be close to living in an internal socio-political exile, maybe as a forest monk?
69 Taxi Driver // Mar 31, 2007 at 2:12 am
If the ANU proposed to honor King Bhumipol with an honorary law degree, will New Mandala protest?
70 Pete // Mar 31, 2007 at 4:35 am
We are right off the track here. I would like to suggest to you all that you should read about Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam before you continue posting comments. The whole point being, does L.K.Y. deserve such an honour?
His governments achievements are irrelevant and besides the point.
The only analogy I can think of which comes close to describing the situation in Singapore is it is basically controlled by the ultimate triad gang. One ruler, no opposition worth speaking of, a climate of fear, control of all the press, control of the media, international governments in their pockets.
The government of L.K.Y. has manipulated every aspect of the law to create a city state which is under their complete control while managing to maintain the face of democracy.
He is certainly creative, crook as a dog’s hind leg though.
I have had first hand experience as to the vice like grip that man holds on to power. Poor old J.B.J. has experienced much worse.
The honour bestowed upon him is so far this year the biggest bottom licking exercise I have read about and frankly it disgusts me.
The next honour from the A.N.U. might as well be to the Chinese government for outstanding human rights behaviour and environmental awareness……
71 Jack // Apr 2, 2007 at 10:05 pm
AN,
Please read my posts carefully and do not generalise my comments. I did not criticise Singaporeans who discuss about Singapore in the western media. What I disagreed with is the contents in which singapore is described by these singaporeans are often “customised” to attract their attention. These are what i term loud-mouthing. An obvious example is the letter supposedly written by Chee Soon Juan. Further example is those who attacked singapore for hanging the nguyen guy. Let me just again say this, Chee Soon Juan is clearly playing to the western media for whatever motives he has, but time again and again showed that he does not have the support of singaporeans. look at how the sdp fared in the last GE as compared to workers’ party. It is obvious that singaporeans are generally tired of his tactic and prefer non-confrontational ones adopted by the Sylvia Lim and her WP. But then it saddens me that everytime there is a report on singapore, CSJ would receive the attention. Simply because reports of someone being “victimised” suits their purpose. But seriously, do you really think singaporeans at large would vote for him?
Secondly, on the nguyen case, regardless how cruel it may seem to you, the law is clearly stated when one arrives in singapore, yet if you opt to take the risks then you must bear the risks. I am sure his was a tragic case, but what about the victims of drug addicts and their families, is it fair to them?
I myself do not agree with many policies adopted by the PAP, but I would not sell my soul to western media for their use in projecting my country in a way to suit only their purpose of “demonising” our culture and way of life.
I stand by what I said, there are no doubts many flaws in LKY and his policies in the past and present. But give the circumstances faced by them at those times and the results which we are enjoying now, they had to be done. It takes time to change how we do things, and no one would expect overnight adjustments. But what we do and how we do should be affected by the so called western democracy or even other asian democracies. Each nation faces their own constraints and I don’t think one should be faulted for wanting to enhance the life of our countrymen. FULL STOP!!
72 Jack // Apr 2, 2007 at 10:06 pm
It is obvious that Srithanonchai has hidden motives just as he is using names which do not even reflect his roots. What have you got to hide?
73 Srithanonchai // Apr 3, 2007 at 12:36 am
Jack: “hidden motives”, “What have you got to hide?” Wow – such a mystery… On the first point: no hidden motives, I can assure you. On the second point: my real name.
74 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 8:50 pm
LKY afterword: Mercer Human Resource Consulting just published their quality of life survey of cities all over the world. Singapore ranks 34th. No sign of Bangkok, Jakarta, or Manila amongst the top 50…
75 Chris // Apr 8, 2007 at 1:53 am
I think it’s actually an insult to a person brilliant as LKY to receive an degree from a substandard uni such as ANU. The only reason why people land in ANU is usually because they can’t make the grade to better metropolitan uni’s such as Sydney, UNSW, Melbourne or Monash.
76 Srithanonchai // Apr 11, 2007 at 5:42 pm
LKY up-date: It has been announced that his son had just increased his salary as PM of Singapore by 25% to 2 million US dollar per year. All this for governing a tiny city state!
77 willy // Apr 16, 2007 at 4:54 pm
For a sampling of LKY’s persecution, check out the review of Francis Seow’s book, To Catch A Tartar, at http://mindbloggingstuff.blogspot.com/2004/07/lee-kuan-yew-that-very-few.html
78 Vicki // Apr 18, 2007 at 9:09 pm
For one, I disagree with Chris (75th post) on this. Based on rankings, ANU is far higher than any of those in my opinion, substandard Universities. It tops Singapore’s NUS in surveys. I’m sorry Chris, in Singapore, we PAY a measly sum to enter those schools you’ve mentioned. People who can’t enter Singapore Unis and can’t afford more expensive UK and US education go there. Where I live, I get lame brochures with the rest of my junk mail to study at Monash/Melbourne with shitty grades.
As for Lee, while I don’t passionately advocate pro-Lee feelings, I do feel that this man has done much for Singapore that not many can replicate.
No, I don’t mean that the ends justify such means, but being such a small country that we are, without proper planning from the government, how are we supposed to survive? Can we really? Are we really mature enough as a nation to make wise and weighed decision regarding matters on a national level? It took decades for the Swiss to master this. I do not completely agree with all his decisions, but you guys make him sound inhuman, and that’s not what he is. Every leader has made their fair share of mistakes, and I don’t think Lee deserves such violent condemnation.
79 Paul Coddington // May 10, 2007 at 2:31 am
“Are universities like the ANU meant to be custodians and promoters of certain values or not?”
The ANU is the last to be concerned with such values.
They have quite a nasty track record when it comes to abusing students and covering it up. That, and I can personally testify that within 6 months of commencing my PhD scholarship I was asked to falsify research to “up the publication rate” (I refused).
As for students who are victims of bullying, I can only quote the ANU’s own legal representative, part of a tirade against a mobbing victim: “we have left you alone and stranded in a foreign country – noone cares what happens to you… the University is most pleased with this outcome. This will never be investigated, ever!”
80 Cody // Jul 3, 2007 at 5:47 pm
The ANU is an excellent University. Slightly better than Melbourne, and infinitely superior to Monash and UNSW.*
*Not just my opinion. Supported by most University ranking tables.
81 Sean // Jun 12, 2008 at 4:57 pm
seriously, if u havent stayed in singapore, u wouldnt understand how much MM LEE has done for the country. NOBODY FROM THE OUTSIDE WILL UNDERSTAND. the doctorate is to really mark him as someone that has really achieved something. NOT SOMETHING THAT U ( the one sitting down there, complaining, can do. i can assure u) MM LEE has set the foundations in singapore, so well that any of us here are not the type that take to the streets and protest like hooligans. if u wanna protest, u should do it in a way that will not affect the fabric or operation of society. i shall not name countries here, but u all know that if everyone thinks they are right, then there is no need for the government.
ppl say that we are suppressed. IN WHAT WAYS? if u break the law, u go to jail or u pay a fine. its that simple. ppl talk abt religion. ohh u do bad things and u go to hell, u do gd things and u go to heaven. same here. that is why in singapore, thru no oppression, but proper understanding of the law, that singapore can function even with maverick ideas because the latter is placed in forums in newspapers in intellectual medium, not physical ones on the road or hands, arms, legs, fighting for that matter. in singapore, if u use ur fist, u are finished.
u name any company, any organisation, they have a branch in singapore and we GODAM MAKE SURE THEY ARE SAFE. safe to function, safe to make singapore an international place, safe ENOUGH, TO EVEN PROGAGATE THEIR BUSINESS ETC. this is why investments flourish in singapore since the day singapore was created.
why? MM LEE has set the foundations for a country to prosper. the rate that we are growing, is faster than any country around us. LEMME REITERATE, u talk to any singaporean, and u are bounded to have a listening ear and then plans for investment, plans for progress, no triad gangs to threaten u. this is why, we worked. we make sure an investment works. we MAKE GODAM SURE ABOUT THAT.
82 Grasshopper // Jun 12, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Sean, your comment is gold! gold!!!
1) if u break the law, u go to jail or u pay a fine. its that simple.
2)u name any company, any organisation, they have a branch in singapore and we GODAM MAKE SURE THEY ARE SAFE.
Clearly these should be in fledgling countries constitutions………………… . . . .
—- i’ll say it again, gold!!!!
83 Singapore Guy // Oct 5, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I was rolling up my sleeves and getting ready to take a swing at some idle foreigners who know nothing about Singapore but who are so ready to portray it as some kind of Orwellian monster state that sucks the life-blood of her hapless people. Then Sean spoke and it seemed redundant for me to say anything else! But because I’m something of a windbag and because I’m still full of indignant energy that needs to be released, I will speak “a little”.
Some of you people from so-called Western democracies are so bloody arrogant and full of yourselves. You think only *your* version of human rights is the right one. Let me tell you … human rights means more than the right to free speech. Human rights also means the right to security, the right to freedom from gang and political violence, the right to having a roof over one’s head, the right to eat at least two good meals a day, the right to education etc. Sometimes a country’s situation is such that you need a government with an iron will and autocratic control to get the country into shape so that her people can have a shot at achieving all of those above-mentioned rights. If autocracy was what was needed to get young fledgling tumultuous Singapore into shape, then that’s the mantle that any responsible government should assume, for the sake of the people. Lee Kuan Yew and his cadre recognized this and did what was needed. In so doing he exchanged certain less pressing rights for others that were more urgently needed at the time. I for one think he did the right thing. If he treated one individual more harshly, it was to give a thousand others a greater chance at success. True leaders don’t consider the fate of one man to be more important than the fate of a thousand others under his leadership. If someone needs to fall on the concertina wire and be sacrificed so that others may breach the barrier, so be it. A leader that balks and gets squeamish at violating the rights of an individual ultimately pisses away the success of the entire group. Whould that have been better?
Today my parents are retired and living in comfort. I went on a full government scholarship to study in the United States. All of this was possible because the “autocracy” that Lee started built a stable foundation for Singaporeans, regardless of whether the same beneficiaries recognize it or not. True it is that in this day and age the government could stand to loosen up a bit and be less uptight about things, but honestly, in the big scheme of things, life is good for the average Singaporean. But all you Westerners can say and do in your prissy prattling ignorance is to gripe and condemn and refuse to give credit where credit is due. In truth, the Singapore government has managed Singapore better than most Western governments have managed their own countries. Many Western countries mollycoddle their citizens, doling out taxpayers money to indolent and undeserving people, robbing them of the incentive to be industrious and to take personal responsibility for their own lives, robbing from people who are hardworking and using their hard-earned tax-contributions to support losers. So this is what YOUR human rights have achieved? To make wimps and lamers of your people? Give me a stiff spine and an autocratic whip-wielding government any day!
Frankly, ANU and Australia can keep that honorary doctorate. Lee’s and Singapore’s achievements should not be sullied by so much worthless trash.
84 suthi mayteekoon // Oct 6, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Dear Decent People: Let’s look at it this way. An honorary degree is a farce. If anybody should get one, don’t let it upset you. Put yourself in good humor and just laugh.
85 Ladyboy // Oct 9, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Perhaps it is now time to give an honorary degree to leading Singaporean opposition figure JB Jeyaratnam who just passed away. He gets my admiration rather than Mr Lee Kuan Yew or nast Singapore guy
86 True Singaporean // Oct 19, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Lee Kuan Yew should not be bestowed with ANY honor. Doing so brings dishonor to the institute that gives it to him. Why do I say so? Am I not a Singaporean?
Yes I am. Sometimes I feel ashamed to be one. I live in a climate of fear. I long for true democracy, but do not dare to fight for it. I have a mouth but I cannot speak. I have hands and legs but I dare not fight.
Unlike people all over the world who fights hard for their freedom, for democracy and to be free, Singaporeans like myself hide behind the comfort of their home, type away on the computer, to complain about something they have the right to, but dare not change.
Yes, I am a Singaporean, but I wish I am elsewhere, for as long as there is Lee Kuan Yew, our country will not be free.
87 clement // Dec 8, 2008 at 4:36 pm
politics is dirty business; let’s not mince words and pretend otherwise. politics without the rough & tumble is like asking the mechanic to fix-up your 20 year old car without getting grease on his white overall? doesn’t take a highly-educated idiot with a ph.d to know that…
and singapore at that point in time was in dire need of repairs, won’t you agree dr. C? of course, the end does not justify the means. what ever it was, we have come a long way since.
heh, even the australian government apologized to the oborigines recently, didn’t it? let he who is without sin cast the first stone…
let the fruit speak for itself. an evil tree CANNOT bear GOOD FRUIT.
that the average singaporean is living in daily fear is RUBBISH. we had an austrian student-intern 24 years old (studying in frankfurt, germany) who stayed with us for a month (HDB 4 room) and he was simply overwhelmed by what we have – different people groups living in harmony, security and progress (not to mention the bbq sambal stingray we had at bedok hawker center).
by and large, the PAP has indeed kept its word to the electorate – that’s the sole reason why we have returned the present goverment to power for the last 40+ years. can we sincerely say the same for ANY western counterparts? has there been any new initiatives from the west beside legalizing same-sex marriages? and reckless capitalism bringing the whole world down the slippery slope to hell?
we do not need lofty ideals; coming from closet politician(s) out to promote academic ideals from the safety of their adopted countries. here we seek the well-being of every singaporean – not misguided welfarism.
majullah singapura!
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.