THE WISDOM OF LEE KUAN YEW
"If we are to survive as a
free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede
to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as
much(sic)constitutional rights as you concede
yourself."
- Lee Kuan Yew Legislative Assembly Debates Sept 21, 1955
"But we either believe in
democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically,
without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic
processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be
allowed...
If you believe in democracy, you must
believe in it unconditionally.
If you believe that men should be
free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free
speech, of free publication.
Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at
nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a
government to be deterred from doing what it knows to right, and
what it must know to be right... "
- Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates April 27, 1955
"Let us get down to
fundamentals. Is this an open, or is this a closed society?
Is it a society where men can preach ideas - novel, unorthodox,
heresies, to established churches and established governments
-
where there is a constant contest for men's hearts and minds on the
basis of what is right, of what is just, of what is in the national
interests,
or is it a closed society where the mass
media - the newspapaers, the journals, publications, TV, radio -
either bound by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, men's
minds are fed with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a
particular orthodox political philosophy ?
That is the first question we asked
ourselves.
I would like to see minds stimulated and debate provoked, and truth
refined and crystallized out of the conflict of different evidence
and views.
I, therefore, welcome every and any opportunity of a chance to
agree, or to dissent, in order that out of thesis comes synthesis -
thesis, anti-major premise, anti-premise, synthesis, so we
progress...
I welcome every opportunity to meet members of the opposition, and
so do members of my party, over the radio, over the television,
university forums, public rallies.
We never run away from the open encounter.
If your ideas, your views cannot stand the challenge of criticism
then they are too fragile and not sturdy enough to
last.
I am talking of the principle of the
open society, the open debate, ideas, not intimidation, persuasion
not coercion...
Sir, the basic fundamentals we asked
ourselves...is whether the duties of the Minister of Information
and Broadcasting are to produce closed minds or open minds, because
these instruments - the mass media, the TV, the radio - can produce
either the open minds receptive to ideas and ideals, a democratic
system of life, or closed and limited.
But I know that the open debate is a painful process for closed
minds...
But let me make this point: that 5 million adult minds in Malaysia
cannot be closed - definitely not in the lifetime of the people in
authority.
It is not possible because whatever the
faults of the colonial system, and there are many...they generated the open mind, the
inquiring mind."
- Lee Kuan Yew Dec 18, 1964 Malaysian Parliamentary
Debates
Is this not an ironical
development in Singapore History ?
This Singapore Government evolved from the spirit of our
forefathers supporting the political ideas espoused from a younger
MM LKY in the 1950s and 1960s.
That was a tumultuous period when Singaporeans of that period
supported a younger LKY in his battles with the Malay ULTRAS from
UMNO that were taking away the political and civil space of other
ethnic communities in Malaysia, and saw Singapore majority Chinese
population as a threat in diluting their own numbers in a larger
Malaysia set up.
According to research papers from declassifed documents at the
Public Records Office in London, Dr Kua Kia Soong from Malaysia -
wrote in his book : MAY
13[color=darkred], that the riots in 1963 was a result of
the purposeful attempt by a clique of Malay politicians to create a
crisis situation that will allow them to usurp power from Tunku
Abdul Rahman.
It was a soft coup with Tunku's deputy - Tun Abdul Razak - being
the secret hand that finally benefitted from the May 13 riot to
take control away from Tunku, who was seen as ineffective and too
accomodating to the other ethnic races at the expense of the
Malays, who claimed the rights of being Bumiputra.
The irony in this matter is that Dr M. Mahathir published
researches traced the Malay ethnic roots to actually originating
from Yunan province in China; and the true sons of the soil as the
Bumiputra should be those neglected hill tribes in Peninsula
Malaya, the various long-house living head-hunting tribes in
Sarawak, and the various ethnic tribal groups that is unique to
Sabah.
The present Singapore Government fear of public display of
grieviances has as much to do with their fear of losing control
over public trust and confidence - as there are simply too many
skeletons in their cabinet and under the carpet.
The fear of popular public opinion going against himself is simply
too much a nightmare to allow LKY's democratic idealism to be
implemented now that he is in political control.
It is fine for him to be a leading vocal rabble rouser, acting
against the Colonial Government, and also acting against the larger
interest of Singapore merged with Malaysia; but it is a totally
different cup of tea for another rabble rouser to work against
him.
Such is the malleable principled belief of a political leader who
is respected to be a supposed father figure of Singapore.
Prior to the merger of Singapore as part of Malaysia, many
experienced Singaporeans dealing with Malay Politicians - in which
he was warned of the imbalance in the terms of merger that is
disadvantageous to Singaporeans - had LKY heeded those calls
perhaps the baggage of history as we know it today, could have been
avoided.
Unfortunately, the outcome of a failed merger has resulted in an
insecure and paranoid MIW Government led by MM LKY for the last 40
over years - with hard set negative reaction to any form of
dissent.
Is this present state of intolerance to public dissent an outcome
from a deep reflection by LKY after the eviction from Malaysia -
that it was his perpetual very cutting and public dissent with the
Federal Government that resulted in Singapore being evicted ?
In politics, one man's failure is everyone else's
burden.