With PAP raising its polled vote percentage to 69.86% in parliamentary elections, it is clear that its citizens have demonstrated more trust in the continued legacy of lKY than an Opposition which could never brought victory on a single or united platform on a new and promising road for a better Singapore
It was September 16, 1923, lee Kuan Yew was born to lee Chin Koon and Chua Jim Neo, as their first child in Singapore. lee was a fourth generation Singaporean having a Hakka and Chinese Peranakan origin. He was named initially as Kuan Yew, which literally means “light and brightness”, but its alternative meaning refers to “bringing great glory to one’s ancestors”. The prefix Harry was added by his anglophile paternal grandfather to his name. But later, he was known popularly as lKY and remained so till his death on March 23, 2015. He transformed Singapore to the most Westernised place in Asia from a barren colonial outpost within a very short span of time wherein once no drinking water, no space and virtually no natural resources were available. He raised its per capita GNP much higher than that of its former colonial master Great Britain. Thus he truly deserves what Richard Nixon once said, “…had lee lived in another time and another place, he might have attained the world stature of a Churchill, a Disraeli, or a Gladstone.”
The People’s Action Party (PAP) which he co-founded in 1954 has defined a brand new identity and future for Singapore. Notwithstanding all the odds in his political career, he fully succeeded in bringing economic growth while tightly controlling political opponents, media on his long journey to promote Asian values. He had shown his own way of exercising political power. Effective exercise of political power demands legitimacy or right to rule. There was a time when “rulers in ancient states from Mesoamerica to China went to great lengths to legitimate their positions through monumental architecture, wealth creation, and ideologies that privileged relationship to the Gods or the cosmos” (Kurtz 1984), but lKY followed what Rousseau predicted in 1762, “The strongest is never strong enough to be the master forever unless he transforms strength into right and obedience into duty.” His supreme faith in Asian values accompanied by a strong sense of authoritarian democracy has guided him throughout his entire stint of power.
lKY’s central focus was on the “solidarity of society” as echoed by the legendary French philosopher Emile Durkheim some hundred and fifty years back. To him, democracy and societal values born at the cradle of American civilisation is not enough to define development and order in Asian societies, particularly the East Asian societies. But sociologists like Mancur Oslon strongly deliberates that national decline come mainly through sclerosis, the rigidity of interest groups, firms, labour, capital and the State. Whereas an American-type system provides flexibility, laissez faire and adaptability to facilitate change in a globalised era than a government-controlled economic policy and a system based on Confucianism. lKY’s firm faith in family values leads to the conclusion that the ruler or the government does not try to provide for a person what the family best provides. He argues, “There is a little Chinese aphorism which encapsulates this idea: Xiushenqijiazhiguopingtianxia. Xiushenmaens look after yourself, cultivate yourself, do everything to make yourself useful; Qijia look after the family; Zhiguo look after your country; Pingtianxia, all is peaceful under heaven. We have a whole people immersed in these beliefs.”
Even after retirement, lKY has worked like a mentor and inspired many across Asia for heralding pragmatic changes in tune with culture, context and development needs of respective states. As Zakaria (1994) precisely notes, “lee has embarked on another career of sorts as a world-class pundit, speaking his mind with impolitic frankness. And what is often on his mind is American-style democracy and its perils.” He has grown beyond the stature of his office and toiled hard to bring the best for his island nation within a generation only. Hence his larger than life image and the unique governance model, he has left behind, has a deep impact on the life and times of Singaporeans.
However, lKY has been criticised for being too authoritarian and rustic at times. In a book called, The Ruling Elite of Singapore: Networks of Influence and Power (2014), Michael Barr strongly argues the lee family and a group of English educated Chinese finally run the levers of power in the country. Meritocracy is said to have provided equal opportunities to all in Singapore’s multicultural society. This raises a bigger question and practically meritocracy simply intensifies inequalities within the Singaporean society. In a society wherein growing inequality is so visible, will there be a possibility of Hong Kong type pro-democracy movementsIJ In both Hong Kong and Singapore, there has been a fast rise of living costs, influx of foreigners which is largely seen as a potential threat to local, cultural and social spaces and most importantly, the emergence of a more vocal and politically conscious digitised young generation. last September, hundreds of people thronged Hong lim Park of Singapore and organised a “Return Our Central Provident Fund (CPF)”. Around the same time, Hong Kong had also witnessed a huge “Occupy Central Movement” demanding transparency and right to have their voice in choosing their own leadership. Hong Kong has strong prospects for pro-democracy protests or movements as it has a very powerful and relatively independent media, a liberal and outspoken academic fraternity and fiercely independent unions. On the other hand, lKY’s Singapore has a tightly controlled media and laws like Newspaper and Printing Presses Act which allows the Government to censor or close down any newspaper or any particular news. Moreover, the academic community in Singapore is not autonomous like the way it is in Hong Kong. Hence, a scenario like Hong Kong may not arise in Singapore in the near future.
The year 2015 was extremely significant for Singapore for two reasons: first, the country is celebrating its 50th year of independence and this was the first election in half a century without the presence of its godfather, lKY. The font of all authority, legitimacy, fear and orthodoxy for over half-century, the lKY factor was not only crucial for the PAP but also for the electoral politics and for an entire generation of voters for whom he was equivalent to Singapore. Many political pundits have predicted that this parliamentary election would see a role reversal in Singaporean politics. lKY was the PM of the country from 1959-1990 and he led the PAP victorious in seven consecutive elections. Since then he continued as a “Senior Minister” (1990-2004) and “Minister Mentor” (2004-2011), and finally passed on the Prime Minister’s position to his deputy Goh Chok Tong, and at last to his son lee Hsien loong. The absence of his activism in politics had a direct bearing on the performance of the party. But this parliamentary election in Singapore has finally brought home the message crystal clear: “lKY legacy continues”. Voters gave the PAP 69.86 per cent votes, an upward movement from 60.14 per cent in 2011. In the last Parliament, the PAP had 80 seats, but this time the party has got 83 seats out of 89. The Worker’s Party (WP) has won 6 seats and retained its position as the main Opposition party with 39.75 per cent vote share by driving into a corner other smaller parties like the Singapore Democratic Party (31.23%) and Reform Party (20.6%). The intelligentsia, psephologists and the online survey’s predicted the entrenched position of the Opposition in this election. In fact the concern about first-time young voters’ wave against the PAP was blown out of proportion and the main Opposition party, the WP, has lost its vote share from earlier 46.6 per cent to 39.8 per cent. The main factors behind the success of the PAP are: lKY’s legacy and “the people of Singapore acknowledged that the success of Singapore was due, in large part, to the vision, courage and determination of Mr lee and other founding fathers” (Koh 2015); an unorganised and immature Opposition in which voters have not seen any future and finally the leadership of PM lee, his hard work and promise to make the next 50 years of Singapore much better than before.
“If so, then the large swing should be read as a vote of contentment with the PAP, or representing a diminished desire for elected Opposition MPs in Parliament. Instead, it is more akin to tactical retreat by Opposition supporters, to back the PAP on its path of moderate reform, while spurring the fragmented and substandard Opposition into doing better” (Hoong 2015). People have demonstrated more trust in the continued legacy of lKY than an Opposition which could never brought victory on a single or united platform on a new and promising road for a better Singapore. It seems the Singapore voters had taken to heart what PM lee appealed, “Vote for the PAP to make the Opposition work harder”. But the PAP needs to deliver and address the pressing problems of the country while taking care of the concerns of the young generation. It is for sure that unlike Fidel Castro and Kim II Sung, the embodiment and dominant legacy of lKY — who fought against all odds to make Singapore’s long journey successful from third world to the first world — would continue. Fondly, he may be remembered the way he desired, “Between being loved and feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless.”
(The writer is a Delhi-based independent political analyst. Views expressed here are of the writer)