By Shahidan Said
Lee Kuan Yew’s recent visit to Malaysia saw a flood of predictable commentaries from his admirers in blogosphere. Most members of his fan club have probably neither read anything substantive on the history of the struggles of the people of Singapore, nor grasped the significance of Singapore’s comprador role in Empire’s scheme of things in the region.
We have become accustomed to the standard chorus of mindless sheep-like bleating from such admirers who describe Kuan Yew as an outstanding statesman. One such hagiographical contribution in the blogs recently was from Tunku Abdul Aziz, who describes himself…’ as a dyed in the wool admirer of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s Minister Mentor…because Lee undoubtedly played an important and historic role in the creation of Malaysia as a political entity.’ Tunku Aziz further adds, ‘ Enriching himself or his family has never been part of his game plan…He has never wavered in his belief right at the outset that corruption, humanity’s greatest curse, was not going to be a feature of Singapore’s governance model… Singapore operates a justice system that is incorruptible.’
Let us examine these assertions a little more closely. That Singapore has achieved an excellent record in cleaning its civil service from corruption, thus ensuring its citizens get their service as of right and are not subjected to the under table tolls imposed by corrupt civil servants as is often the case in Malaysia, is indeed without dispute. We should do all we can to strive to achieve such desirable standards without compromise in Malaysia as well. While successful in wiping out corruption in the sphere of routine day-to-day level of interaction between civil servants and citizens, it is absurd to conclude that this achievement suggests that Singapore has an incorruptible governance model. While the elimination of corruption at this level is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition to describe Singapore as having an incorruptible governance model.
As an activist in Transparancy International, Tunku Aziz waxes lyrical about Lee Kuan Yew’s achievements from a one-dimensional prism of an anti-corruption campaigner. He addresses the issue of corruption at the formal expression of this cancer to the exclusion of addressing corruption at the level of political power, which is different to the day-day-day corrupt practices most citizens face in their daily lives as they go about their business. In other words, corruption must be addressed holistically, including at the macro political level. Beneath the corruption-free image that is projected lays a corrupt social order in which citizens’ lives are policed at their work place, in their housing schemes and in educational institutes by the ruling party. All the levers of power and decision making are controlled by the PAP and dissent is ruthlessly crushed. This is a model of the corporate state. The reward for acquiescence in this scheme of things is a higher standard of living than that enjoyed by the citizens in the hinterland.
The very structure of the PAP, which has ruled Singapore since independence, is totally corrupt. The PAP is not an open party, but operates on an exclusivist principle whereby cadres are introduced and vetted on a secretive basis. This Leninist principle of organization is to ensure that the leadership - meaning Kuan Yew, his cronies and their children - are assured control of the party, as they indeed have been in control for the past half century. This method of membership selection ensures those privileged to belong to the party remain grateful for being given entry to the exclusive political organisation. It is a system of perpetuating the position of the leaders who have let you into the inner sanctum of the only ‘legitimate’ political organisation in Singapore.
In his excellent book on Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew, TJS George draws parallels with the Vatican’s process of electing the Pope. The Cardinals are selected through a secretive process by the Pope and the Pope is in turn selected through a secretive process, excluding all other members, by the Cardinals. At the level of power and decision making, Singapore’s elite, without doubt, ranks among the most corrupt globally.
Singapore’s treasury has been denuded of tens of billions of dollars in the recent collapse of Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions in which investments were made through Temasek Holdings. This sovereign fund is managed by Kuan Yew’s daughter-in-law. Don’t hold your breath for any consequences to arise for the mismanagement of the people’s money, nor is there going to be an open discussion of these loss-making adventures anytime soon. Should Transparency International not concern itself with the opaque non-transparent decision making affecting Singapore’s citizens by members of Lee’s family on issues such as these? ‘Enriching himself or his family has never been part of his game plan’, asserts Tunku Aziz in tribute to Lee’s incorruptibility. Should the handling of sovereign funds and other national treasures without accountability by members of the Lee family not raise questions?
This very corrupt structure of the party was one of many charges laid against the PAP, resulting in its expulsion from the Socialist International (SI), an international social democratic movement whose members include the European, Japanese and Australian/New Zealand labour parties. The SI found the anti-trade union laws and other repressive legislation implemented by the PAP to emasculate the labour movement violated SI principles. Other repressive laws cited were the printing presses ordinances carried over from colonial rule to curtail freedom of expression. In fact newspapers with articles critical of the regime have also been closed down and editors of newspapers detained. The student’s unions have seen their leaders who are not pro-establishment victimized and even tried in the ‘incorruptible’ courts on trumped up charges. Most damning from the point of view of the SI was the PAP’s use of the Internal Security Act to detain opposition leaders, some for decades.
How do the MT commentators praise Kuan Yew as a statesman when there is a mountain of evidence to prove that the PAP is, and has always been, a repressive party run by thugs? How do these commentators oppose the repressive legislation here in Malaysia but support it in Singapore?
To assert, as Tunku Aziz does, that ‘Singapore operates a justice system that is incorruptible’ in view of the accumulated evidence to the contrary is therefore astoundingly stupid. True, as mentioned above, in the mundane day-to-day crime prevention/business sphere, the justice system delivers. Has Tunku Aziz been in deep slumber when media critics and opposition activists have been railroaded through Singapore’s ‘incorruptible’ judicial system into bankruptcy and political oblivion over the years? The US State Department likes to protest such infringements of human rights violations which occur in countries that are not hitched to the US bandwagon. Singapore is given an easy ride even when one of its own US citizens, formerly a Singapore national, was last year sentenced to several months’ imprisonment for questioning the integrity of the ‘incorruptible’ justice system in Singapore. No wonder, then, that in a poll in the Singapore press, quoted by opposition activist, Dr Chee Soon Juan, in an interview with Lorraine Hahn on CNN’s Talk Asia, “… 93 percent of Singaporeans have indicated that they are fearful, that they were afraid to speak up even if they didn't agree with government policy.” ( http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020529cn.htm)
cont...
Lee Kuan Yew’s recent visit to Malaysia saw a flood of predictable commentaries from his admirers in blogosphere. Most members of his fan club have probably neither read anything substantive on the history of the struggles of the people of Singapore, nor grasped the significance of Singapore’s comprador role in Empire’s scheme of things in the region.
We have become accustomed to the standard chorus of mindless sheep-like bleating from such admirers who describe Kuan Yew as an outstanding statesman. One such hagiographical contribution in the blogs recently was from Tunku Abdul Aziz, who describes himself…’ as a dyed in the wool admirer of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s Minister Mentor…because Lee undoubtedly played an important and historic role in the creation of Malaysia as a political entity.’ Tunku Aziz further adds, ‘ Enriching himself or his family has never been part of his game plan…He has never wavered in his belief right at the outset that corruption, humanity’s greatest curse, was not going to be a feature of Singapore’s governance model… Singapore operates a justice system that is incorruptible.’
Let us examine these assertions a little more closely. That Singapore has achieved an excellent record in cleaning its civil service from corruption, thus ensuring its citizens get their service as of right and are not subjected to the under table tolls imposed by corrupt civil servants as is often the case in Malaysia, is indeed without dispute. We should do all we can to strive to achieve such desirable standards without compromise in Malaysia as well. While successful in wiping out corruption in the sphere of routine day-to-day level of interaction between civil servants and citizens, it is absurd to conclude that this achievement suggests that Singapore has an incorruptible governance model. While the elimination of corruption at this level is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition to describe Singapore as having an incorruptible governance model.
As an activist in Transparancy International, Tunku Aziz waxes lyrical about Lee Kuan Yew’s achievements from a one-dimensional prism of an anti-corruption campaigner. He addresses the issue of corruption at the formal expression of this cancer to the exclusion of addressing corruption at the level of political power, which is different to the day-day-day corrupt practices most citizens face in their daily lives as they go about their business. In other words, corruption must be addressed holistically, including at the macro political level. Beneath the corruption-free image that is projected lays a corrupt social order in which citizens’ lives are policed at their work place, in their housing schemes and in educational institutes by the ruling party. All the levers of power and decision making are controlled by the PAP and dissent is ruthlessly crushed. This is a model of the corporate state. The reward for acquiescence in this scheme of things is a higher standard of living than that enjoyed by the citizens in the hinterland.
The very structure of the PAP, which has ruled Singapore since independence, is totally corrupt. The PAP is not an open party, but operates on an exclusivist principle whereby cadres are introduced and vetted on a secretive basis. This Leninist principle of organization is to ensure that the leadership - meaning Kuan Yew, his cronies and their children - are assured control of the party, as they indeed have been in control for the past half century. This method of membership selection ensures those privileged to belong to the party remain grateful for being given entry to the exclusive political organisation. It is a system of perpetuating the position of the leaders who have let you into the inner sanctum of the only ‘legitimate’ political organisation in Singapore.
In his excellent book on Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew, TJS George draws parallels with the Vatican’s process of electing the Pope. The Cardinals are selected through a secretive process by the Pope and the Pope is in turn selected through a secretive process, excluding all other members, by the Cardinals. At the level of power and decision making, Singapore’s elite, without doubt, ranks among the most corrupt globally.
Singapore’s treasury has been denuded of tens of billions of dollars in the recent collapse of Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions in which investments were made through Temasek Holdings. This sovereign fund is managed by Kuan Yew’s daughter-in-law. Don’t hold your breath for any consequences to arise for the mismanagement of the people’s money, nor is there going to be an open discussion of these loss-making adventures anytime soon. Should Transparency International not concern itself with the opaque non-transparent decision making affecting Singapore’s citizens by members of Lee’s family on issues such as these? ‘Enriching himself or his family has never been part of his game plan’, asserts Tunku Aziz in tribute to Lee’s incorruptibility. Should the handling of sovereign funds and other national treasures without accountability by members of the Lee family not raise questions?
This very corrupt structure of the party was one of many charges laid against the PAP, resulting in its expulsion from the Socialist International (SI), an international social democratic movement whose members include the European, Japanese and Australian/New Zealand labour parties. The SI found the anti-trade union laws and other repressive legislation implemented by the PAP to emasculate the labour movement violated SI principles. Other repressive laws cited were the printing presses ordinances carried over from colonial rule to curtail freedom of expression. In fact newspapers with articles critical of the regime have also been closed down and editors of newspapers detained. The student’s unions have seen their leaders who are not pro-establishment victimized and even tried in the ‘incorruptible’ courts on trumped up charges. Most damning from the point of view of the SI was the PAP’s use of the Internal Security Act to detain opposition leaders, some for decades.
How do the MT commentators praise Kuan Yew as a statesman when there is a mountain of evidence to prove that the PAP is, and has always been, a repressive party run by thugs? How do these commentators oppose the repressive legislation here in Malaysia but support it in Singapore?
To assert, as Tunku Aziz does, that ‘Singapore operates a justice system that is incorruptible’ in view of the accumulated evidence to the contrary is therefore astoundingly stupid. True, as mentioned above, in the mundane day-to-day crime prevention/business sphere, the justice system delivers. Has Tunku Aziz been in deep slumber when media critics and opposition activists have been railroaded through Singapore’s ‘incorruptible’ judicial system into bankruptcy and political oblivion over the years? The US State Department likes to protest such infringements of human rights violations which occur in countries that are not hitched to the US bandwagon. Singapore is given an easy ride even when one of its own US citizens, formerly a Singapore national, was last year sentenced to several months’ imprisonment for questioning the integrity of the ‘incorruptible’ justice system in Singapore. No wonder, then, that in a poll in the Singapore press, quoted by opposition activist, Dr Chee Soon Juan, in an interview with Lorraine Hahn on CNN’s Talk Asia, “… 93 percent of Singaporeans have indicated that they are fearful, that they were afraid to speak up even if they didn't agree with government policy.” ( http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020529cn.htm)
cont...
