Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father and architect of modern Singapore, resigned from the Cabinet a week after the ruling People’s Action Party suffered its worst performance in the polls since 1965. Lee was Prime Minister for 31 years from 1959 to 1990, and continued to lead Singapore as Senior Minister for 14 years and then as Minister Mentor since 2004.
But don’t expect him to retreat from public view since he still has a seat in parliament. He gave up his Cabinet rank, but not necessarily his power to dictate the governmental affairs of Singapore. How could his voice become irrelevant when his son is the prime minister? Remember also the threat he made in 1988 that he would rise from the grave if the next generation of leaders led Singapore in the wrong direction.
While Lee’s resignation won’t necessarily mean an actual diminution of his stature and role inside the PAP, it marks the first time in five decades that he has no official Cabinet position. Lee resigned despite the re-election of PAP because he was blamed by many for the reduced popularity of the ruling party. His strong leadership style may have worked before, but it’s now increasingly being rejected by younger voters and it seems he felt compelled to resign to reverse the declining reputation of the party he founded.
But, as expected, he didn’t step down without making some pointed statements about his enemies. He even chastised the young generation for failing to remember the humble beginnings of Singapore and its transformation into a prosperous global city under his leadership.
Nobody is questioning Lee’s economic stewardship. In fact, even his critics admit that it’s his greatest legacy. But Singapore’s young and educated citizens aren’t happy anymore with the built-in authoritarian features of the political system established by Mr Lee. They want a free press, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly – in short they prefer a real and working democracy. Indeed, some of these democratic rights are absent or lacking in Mr Lee’s political philosophy.
That PAP was ready to sacrifice Lee could be an indication of its recognition of the growing discontent in Singapore, and the PAP might be preparing an overhaul of its image to restore public confidence. Maybe it realized that a different PAP has to emerge soon if it wants to maintain its political dominance. Unfortunately for Lee, he would have had to call the shots from behind the scenes.
But despite his reduced role in Singapore government, he’s still considered a legendary figure in modern Southeast Asia politics. Indeed, he is the last strongman standing among post-war leaders of democratic societies in the region, with his contemporaries either dead or retired. Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines was ousted in 1986, Suharto of Indonesia was forced to resign in 1998, while Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia retired in 2003. Lee, meanwhile, still holds a seat in parliament.
Lee may be 87 years old, but don’t count him out yet. The old man could still reinvent himself – especially if he thinks he will outlive everybody.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
John Chan
Lee Kuan Yew gave Charlie Rose an interview on PBS, he sounded very weary of China’s rise and military buildup, he insisted that the US was the stabilizing factor in SE Asia and the US must stay in SE Asia.
In case Singapore were attacked by Indonesia and/or Malaysia, and Singapore were on the verge of collapse, I just wondered whom Singapore would ask for help, the USA or China. If the US does not oblige Singapore’s call for help, would Singapore rather to be overwhelmed and gone for good? It is an interesting puzzle as seemly belligerent as Lee’s attitude toward China.
John
The word is wary not weary John C.
By the way, he is Chinese and he helped create a country where non Chinese are second class citizens, so if he is wary about CCP Chinese aims, then I am also.
Not agreeing with CCP China does not make a person racist or xenophobic, just a history major.
John Chan
@John, I am really confused; Singapore is a western style democracy, but you said it does not respect the core value of democracy, such as equality and liberty. India claims it is the largest western style democracy, but it maintains an inhumane caste system that discriminates and abuses human being by birth, India does not respect the core value of democracy, equality and liberty too. Do you mean that western style democracy is nothing but a façade of authoritarianism? If it is the case, then what is the difference between western style democracy and CCP authoritarianism?
Perhaps the history courses you are studying is nothing more than an elaborate neocon’s anti-China brainwashing program, that’s why you hold such prejudice against China. What a disappointment, a history major becomes ideological warfare apparatus instead of being an impartial observer of civilization development.
John
In regards to the claim of democracy by India, well thats theirs to make not mine.
Democracy is typically classified as Government by the majority choice, though that is a ideological position and there are different types of democracies. Those that try to limit impacts on thier citizens that are discrimitory are the best in my view, though that is a standard that must always be worked on.
There is no reason that China can’t be a democracy, numbers aren’t the issues, rather desires and aims are. The difference between CCP and Democratic countries is that democracies are open to change.
CCP has stated that it will never allow others to change the system by which they are in power. One is a dictatorship and authoritarian, the other is a democracy and open to change. No party or leader should stay in power too long as it limits thier growth as is commonly known.
Water that flows brings life, water that stays still stagnates.
guest
If there is a role model that the arrogant CCP looks up to, it is Lee Kuan Yew.
The CCP uses Singapore as a benchmark of an efficient authoritarian state transiting into a vigorous democracy. You can be sure that Beijing will be watching very carefully if Singaporean democracy will end up consuming itself. The implications will affect the CCP’s willingness to ease their control on power.