Faculty members from the Programmes of Government and International Relations and International Journalism debate on Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy

On 8 April, teachers and students sat together at UIC to join the “Dialogue between Government and International Relations (GIR) and International Journalism (IJ) Faculties-Lee Kuan Yew: A contested legacy” organised by the Division of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Prof Ustina Markus, Programme Director of GIR and moderator of the debate, introduced Lee Kuan Yew as the founding father of independent Singapore, with the country being described as transitioning from the "third world to the first world in a single generation" under his leadership.

“Lee co-founded the People's Action Party in 1954 and was its first secretary-general until 1992, leading the party to eight consecutive victories in the general elections. He was the first Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990. In the process, he forged a widely admired meritocratic, corruption-free and highly efficient government as well as a civil service. After Lee chose to step down as Prime Minister in 1990, Lee's successor, Goh Chok Tong, appointed him as Senior Minister, a post he held until 2004, when his eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong, became the nation's third prime minister. Lee Kuan Yew then assumed the advisory post of Minister Mentor until he left the Cabinet in 2011. In total, Lee held successive ministerial positions for 56 years,” Prof Markus said.

Prof Ustina Markus

The introduction was followed by the screening of part of a documentary about Lee produced by Radio Television Hong Kong, and a young Singaporean teen’s self-made footage of likening Lee to Jesus and Hitler to share people’s controversial views on democracy, freedom of expression, cultural hegemony and clean government, etc.

Prof Markus invited the panel, Dr Charles Wu, Assistant Professor of GIR, Dr Edgar Yuen, Associate Professor and Dr James Gomez, Associate Professor & Programme Director of IJ, to comment on the late Singapore leader’s contested legacy.

Dr Edgar Yuen addressed the similarities between Hong Kong and Singapore, some issues of concern for the general public in China and what they hope China can learn from Singapore, such as clean government and public housing scheme.

Dr Edgar Yuen

Dr Charles Wu analysed Chiang Ching-kuo and Lee’s like-minded friendship. Charles pointed out that Taiwan learnt from Singapore’s economic model and changed its focus from a labour-intensive industry to an IT and a R&D industry. However, Dr Wu added, what was done in Singapore and wasn’t done in Taiwan is the public housing scheme. He highlighted the critique on Taiwan’s skyrocketed housing prices. The region has failed to compete against Singapore’s economic policies and “Young people can’t afford a house of their own” he said.

Dr Charles Wu

Dr James Gomez clarified the concept of “free public housing”: people in Singapore do not own public houses but they have loans, a 99-year leasehold. He also explained Singapore’s long and complex history, from the British Colony and Japanese occupation to its independence from Malaysia in 1965 and onwards.

Dr James Gomez

Prof Markus raised a question to the panel: “Do you think Singapore’s economic miracle could have happened under a more democratic regime and with less government intervention in the economy?”

Dr Gomez thought the keyword of democracy is the freedom to innovate. “If Singapore had enough freedom, we could have had a more innovative economy. Innovation is not a strength of Singapore. We are not known for innovative industries. The creative industry is struggling to express itself in theatre, film, art… These are the industries that have disappeared under Lee’s regime. People are afraid to put forward ideas. The state is taking an essential role in the economy and the cultural of innovation is not there.” Dr Gomez added: “If there were enough freedom and opportunities, I think we would have more diversity in the economy.”

Ustina continued that Lee was also a divisive figure, attracting criticism for stifling media freedom and for the harsh treatment of political opponents: “Does Lee Kuan Yew fit your definition of a dictator?”

Dr Yuen commented that there are two factors that define a “dictator”. One is the high concentration of power in one person’s hand, which was the case under Lee’s rule. He concentrated the power of the state enterprise in his and his family’s hands. However, the government and the enterprise he possessed is a clean government, which means that even though Lee and his family run the state-owned company, it was devoid of corruption.

The other factor is whether there is an independent judicial system. Is the judge free to make legal decisions? Rather than defining whether Lee was a dictator, Dr Yuen raised some questions before laying any definition.

“Often, authoritarian regimes are associated with corruption. Why is Singapore considered such a ‘clean’ country to do business in and to what extent do Singaporeans feel their government is free of corruption? How about democratic reform? Lee was often criticized for jailing political opponents and stifling political opposition. What will happen now that he is gone, and is the monopolization of political power a form of corruption? Was Lee a good guy or bad guy and why do you categorize him as such?” Prof Markus asked.

The panel compared Singapore with mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong on a variety of aspects.

Reporter: Sze Ying Cheong

Photographer: Song Siyi (IJ, Year 2)

(from MPRO, with special thanks to IJ Programme and Samuel Burgess)