End of an era
As long as he was alive, even after he had left office, Lee Kuan Yew continued to lead his people as a mentor & guide
The writer is an author, a public policy analyst and a former federal secretary. He teaches at the Lahore University of Management Sciences
Some months ago while I was in Singapore, I asked my host what might happen if the grand old man, Lee Kuan Yew, was no more around. He paused for a while in disbelief, collected himself and then hastened to add that the process of change in the country had been so institutionalised that it was now irreversible despite any hiccups that may occur. With the demise of Lee Kuan Yew, however, an era has come to an end. As long as he was alive, even after he had left office, he continued to lead his people as a mentor and guide. His sane advice and worldview carried weight far beyond Singapore’s shores.
Lee Kuan Yew's illustrious career started at a young age as a symbol of resistance against the communists and as a freedom fighter against British rule. He worked assiduously to create a federation with Malaysia and felt deeply anguished when the arrangement did not work with resource-less Singapore abandoned midstream. Forget agriculture, the country did not even have potable water. It was a tiny 700 square kilometre-island without any hinterland. A diverse, multiethnic mix of Chinese, Malay and Tamil made nation-building a daunting task. He did not have homogeneity at his disposal and yet had a dream of a common destiny for the assorted population. Trade, industry and locational edge for a future as a trans-shipment port were the only options. The country needed a sound base line, an enabling infrastructure and a well thought-out policy framework.
The country's major policy framework rested on three critical thinking capabilities, foremost being to think ahead, foresee early signals, and make corresponding moves with an eye on the future. The second capability made room for a well-designed policy review mechanism with a view to staying relevant. The third capability, 'thinking across', underlined going far beyond Singapore’s shores to learn from the experiences of other nations. Lee Kuan Yew possessed an open mind and drew on the success stories from across the world. Whether it was the building of a world class airport or turning Singapore into a garden city, he followed and adapted the best practices from around the world. In his own words, the modern city-state was almost 70 per cent adaptation of best world practices and unique experiences.
An efficient and professional civil service was the key driver of growth. The role perceived for it was that of a catalyst for change and it was at the back end for rearguard actions to cover the flanks. The best people were sought on merit-based precepts to man challenging assignments. Performance and professionalism were not only benchmarked but duly rewarded. Civil servants were offered market-based salaries with commensurate growth in the wage market as the country turned into a powerhouse of business and finance.
Lee Kuan Yew's significant contribution was in social engineering where he used Singapore’s multiethnic mix as a building block in the process of national reconstruction. Chinese, who made up over 74 per cent of the population, constituted the largest ethnic and linguistic group followed by the Malays and Tamils. At the time of independence, Lee Kuan Yew was under great pressure to declare Chinese as the state and official language. He, however, was aware of the volatile ethnic mix and ‘thought ahead'. He had a vision for the future and opted for the sensible course. He knew that the country was part of the south-east Asian community. He did not wish to repeat the example of Sri Lanka where Sinhala trumped the Tamil language and sowed seeds of discord. His incisive mind could foresee the role which English could play as a medium and transform Singapore into a leading business and financial hub. He declared English as the state language. The three main languages spoken in the island were recognised as national languages with equal status. The policy bore dividends.
This draws analogy with our situation, with regards to where we faltered on the language issue and the kind of price the nation had to pay on that count. Soon after independence in Feburary 1948, a Bengali legislator, Dhirendranath Datta, sought an amendment in the rules of the Constituent Assembly to allow a member to speak in Bengali, along with in Urdu and English. This innocuous demand received a very strong reaction by the UP and Punjab-led political and bureaucratic elite. Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan perceived it as a move to weaken Pakistan’s unity.
The Quaid-e-Azam, despite poor health, flew to Dhaka to reiterate in public meeting and at a gathering at Dhaka University that Urdu would be the country’s only state language. The language controversy, though resolved after many years, sowed the seeds of discord and ultimately caused the country’s break-up when the struggle for political and economic rights gained momentum. We, as a nation, were unfortunate to miss the defining moment of acknowledging our plurality as a new republic. The leadership in Singapore was far more discernible on the issue and had an ingrained faith in cultural plurality.
According to his detractors, Lee Kuan Yew ruled with an iron hand. A deeper understanding, however, reveals that he continued to seek democratic legitimacy for his policy choices. In his wisdom, he always felt that the issues faced by his country needed firm handling.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 21st, 2015.
Lee Kuan Yew's illustrious career started at a young age as a symbol of resistance against the communists and as a freedom fighter against British rule. He worked assiduously to create a federation with Malaysia and felt deeply anguished when the arrangement did not work with resource-less Singapore abandoned midstream. Forget agriculture, the country did not even have potable water. It was a tiny 700 square kilometre-island without any hinterland. A diverse, multiethnic mix of Chinese, Malay and Tamil made nation-building a daunting task. He did not have homogeneity at his disposal and yet had a dream of a common destiny for the assorted population. Trade, industry and locational edge for a future as a trans-shipment port were the only options. The country needed a sound base line, an enabling infrastructure and a well thought-out policy framework.
The country's major policy framework rested on three critical thinking capabilities, foremost being to think ahead, foresee early signals, and make corresponding moves with an eye on the future. The second capability made room for a well-designed policy review mechanism with a view to staying relevant. The third capability, 'thinking across', underlined going far beyond Singapore’s shores to learn from the experiences of other nations. Lee Kuan Yew possessed an open mind and drew on the success stories from across the world. Whether it was the building of a world class airport or turning Singapore into a garden city, he followed and adapted the best practices from around the world. In his own words, the modern city-state was almost 70 per cent adaptation of best world practices and unique experiences.
An efficient and professional civil service was the key driver of growth. The role perceived for it was that of a catalyst for change and it was at the back end for rearguard actions to cover the flanks. The best people were sought on merit-based precepts to man challenging assignments. Performance and professionalism were not only benchmarked but duly rewarded. Civil servants were offered market-based salaries with commensurate growth in the wage market as the country turned into a powerhouse of business and finance.
Lee Kuan Yew's significant contribution was in social engineering where he used Singapore’s multiethnic mix as a building block in the process of national reconstruction. Chinese, who made up over 74 per cent of the population, constituted the largest ethnic and linguistic group followed by the Malays and Tamils. At the time of independence, Lee Kuan Yew was under great pressure to declare Chinese as the state and official language. He, however, was aware of the volatile ethnic mix and ‘thought ahead'. He had a vision for the future and opted for the sensible course. He knew that the country was part of the south-east Asian community. He did not wish to repeat the example of Sri Lanka where Sinhala trumped the Tamil language and sowed seeds of discord. His incisive mind could foresee the role which English could play as a medium and transform Singapore into a leading business and financial hub. He declared English as the state language. The three main languages spoken in the island were recognised as national languages with equal status. The policy bore dividends.
This draws analogy with our situation, with regards to where we faltered on the language issue and the kind of price the nation had to pay on that count. Soon after independence in Feburary 1948, a Bengali legislator, Dhirendranath Datta, sought an amendment in the rules of the Constituent Assembly to allow a member to speak in Bengali, along with in Urdu and English. This innocuous demand received a very strong reaction by the UP and Punjab-led political and bureaucratic elite. Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan perceived it as a move to weaken Pakistan’s unity.
The Quaid-e-Azam, despite poor health, flew to Dhaka to reiterate in public meeting and at a gathering at Dhaka University that Urdu would be the country’s only state language. The language controversy, though resolved after many years, sowed the seeds of discord and ultimately caused the country’s break-up when the struggle for political and economic rights gained momentum. We, as a nation, were unfortunate to miss the defining moment of acknowledging our plurality as a new republic. The leadership in Singapore was far more discernible on the issue and had an ingrained faith in cultural plurality.
According to his detractors, Lee Kuan Yew ruled with an iron hand. A deeper understanding, however, reveals that he continued to seek democratic legitimacy for his policy choices. In his wisdom, he always felt that the issues faced by his country needed firm handling.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 21st, 2015.