REMEMBERING LEE KUAN YEW 2
Daniel Contra Harry

Mr Lee Kuan Yew was one of the greatest political leaders in Asia, if not in the world. But, he was still human. Though I agree with him 95% of the time, a respectful remembrance of the great man is not complete without stating the 5% that I disagree. I'm sure Mr Lee himself  would have appreciated and approved it. So, here goes ...

1. On interfering in Singaporeans’ private lives:

“I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.” (The Straits Times, 20 April 1987)

My opinion is that it remains unproven whether such intrusions into the private lives of citizens were necessary to attain economic progress. In fact, a people who had their volition and autonomy habitually taken away would not be able to learn to think for themselves and would remain dependent and infantile. That would surely be detrimental to the development of our labor resources and ultimately, our long-term economic prospects.

2. On eugenics: 

“There are many sons of doctors who have married doctors. Those who married spouses who are not as bright are tearing their hair out because their children can’t make it. I have lived long enough to see all this play out.” “So when the graduate man does not want to marry a graduate woman, I tell him he’s a fool, stupid. You marry a non-graduate, you’re going to have problems, some children bright, some not bright. You’ll be tearing your hair out. you can’t miss. It’s like two dice. One is Jack, Queen, King, Ace, other also Jack, Queen, King, Ace. You throw a Jack, Queen, King, Ace against dice two, three, four, five, six, what do you get? You can’t get high pairs, let alone a full flush.” (Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going)

I think latest research has shown that inheritance of characteristics is much more complicated than that, especially for something as fluid, as unpredictable, as multi-faceted and as undefinable as intelligence. Also, we do not marry someone for the sole purpose of producing intelligent children alone; we marry our spouse because we love him/her.

3. On love: 

"I don’t believe in love at first sight. I think it’s a grave mistake. You’re attracted by physical characteristics and you will regret it." (Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going)

I think love at first sight is possible because you can make an unconscious yet great judgement in a split second. Research from psychological and behavioral economics as detailed by Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Blink" tells us that the adaptive unconscious in our mental processes can work rapidly and automatically from relatively little information. For those of us fortunate enough to experience it, we know that this is true. Love at first sight is not about beauty, but a eureka moment that is both authentic and enduring.

4. On the art of governance: 

“[i]f I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely, without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I have not the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their own interests.” (May, 1962, at the Royal Society of International Affairs, London, Lee Kuan Yew in his own words, 1959-1970)

I think it is unwise to rely on the judgement of one man, even if that man is yourself; or rather, especially if that man is yourself. Feedback from the subjects of such judgement is vital if we are to escape the errors brought about by personal prejudice.

5. On political opposition: 

“If we had considered them serious political figures, we would not have kept them politically alive for so long. We could have bankrupt them earlier.”  (Straits Times, Sept 14 2003)

To put your opponents at a disadvantage, even if it is in our power to do so, would make our victory hollow and invalid. I think the best way to defeat them is to utterly out-think, out-speak and out-do them in so convincing a fashion that they are left with no choice but to remain silent or to resort to irrationality. When our opponents become silent or irrational, we will win elections easily.