Confessions of a Singaporean

These are my comments for an excerpt from the book "Confessons Of An American Media Man" published in the Straits Times on the 15th Jan 2007.

Statement 1: "... Lee had built a top government team that single-handedly transformed impoverished Singapore, which was abandoned half a century ago as a lost cause by the ever-pragmatic British"

This statement is inaccurate because Lee did not inherit an impoverished Singapore. On the contrary, he inherited a Singapore that has fluorished since 1819 when Sir Stamford Raffles established a trading port here. It was Raffles who first saw Singapore as the natural stop-over point in the trade route between the Far East and Europe from which Singapore derived and continues to derive much of its prosperity.

While the impoverishment caused by World War II may have destroyed buildings and infrastructures, these were easily rebuilt. What could not be destroyed and which Lee inherited was a population of industrious workers and resourceful merchants who have been building businesses from scratch for more than a century already. So World War II was really just a blip in an otherwise continuous history of prosperity.

World War II impoverished Japan and Germany too and they too rose from their ashes achieving economic miracles that do not pale in comparison to ours. Yet, we do not find any of their leaders so obsessed with crediting themselves to having "single-handedly" transforming their nations.

The British didn't abandon us as much they were compelled to release us in the wake of the wave of nationalism sweeping across Asia. They certainly did not abandon the Falklands islands which were far less useful than Singapore.

Statement 2: "The city state has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world"

There are many poor people in oil rich nations. The same is true in Singapore. Much of the city's wealth lies in the hands of the government, which squanders on ill-conceived investments while leaving little for its citizens.

Statement 3: "The Singapore Cabinet invariably fields a team whose collective IQ is at least equal to that of its neighbours' Cabinets combined"

If all that it takes is 'smart' government for a nation's success, never mind the quality of its people, then surely Philippines, which have seen American leadership for more than fifty years ought to be prosperous by now? But Philippines is still struggling today. Was American leadership in Phillipines not quite as 'smart' then? What happens when 'smart' Singapore leadership gets parachuted into Suzhou, China? The Suzhou experience suggests that 'smart' government just might not be what you tout them to be.

Statement 4: "Its civil servants are paid well"

Yes, our prime minister is paid nearly ten times as much as what your president receives and he says the amount is necessary for him to stay incorruptible and the reason why George Bush doesn't receive as much is because he is receiving a lot more from 'kickbacks'. You wonder what is it that he is assinuating.

Statement 5: " ... not sensationalising frictions and counts as one world-class daily newspaper, The Straits Times"

Not when its own credibility is at stake, such as in the recent NKF case when it was being sued for libel, you get pages and pages of frontpage news on the misgivings of NKF.

What good is a newspaper that reports the good about the govt all the time? The lack of negativity in a newspaper doesn't make it positive. It certainly doesn't make Singapore a paradise.

Statement 6: "omni-present, oppressive, lawless, marauding drug gangs who roamed the streets and terrorised the citizenry ... The British had largely ignored the gangsters during their reign ... problem mushroomed into a living nightmare. ... We had the army arrest them and put them in jail ... We didn't have trials ..."

The period you described existed in the 19th century in the early days of Singapore as a Straits settlement. By the time Lee came about, the 'marauding' gangs and secret societies have already faded into history. What Lee put in jail were student activists and opposing political factions, including former comrades. These were hardly the diehard criminals you've portrayed them to be (or have been led to).

Statement 7: "Mr Plate, haven't you noticed? The streets of Singapore are safe."

It is one thing to say that Singapore streets are safe and another altogether to say that it is the direct result of jailing harmless socialists. No such punitive actions happened in Japan, Taiwan or Hong Kong. Are their streets any more unsafe?

It is nearly always safe to walk in a place where everyone else is reasonably well off so that they do not have to resort to crime for a living.

Statement 8: "He does not care that much what the Western press thought about him, unless Singapore's overall image was hurt."

On the contrary, he does care very much about what the West thought of him as exemplified by the numerous law suits such as those brought against the Far East Economic Review on comments that were directed squarely on his family.

Statement 9a: "Gwendoline Yeo ... suggested that I visit Singapore ... I scoffed at the idea. I'd only been to China once ... why should I waste a trip on tiny little Singapore? ... I decided to call on the government of Singapore ... I'll stay 5.0 days ... I'll write one column ..."

Statement 9b: "... Bill Safire had not only gotten the Singapore story wrong ... the brilliant columnist had never visited Singapore. I had, many times. This was the difference"

Your opening statements (9a) suggests that you've never been to Singapore, even likened it to a place in China, and the column in LA Times was the result of just 5.0 days visit to Singapore. Yet, your later statement (9b) suggests that the column in LA Times was the result of many visits to Singapore, which seems to contradict your earlier statements.

I shall assume the opening statements (9a) are correct and that the column in LA Times was the result of '5.0' days visit to Singapore, which in your opinion made all the 'difference' as compared to Bill Safire. My question is, what difference does 5.0 days make apart from giving you a tourist's perspective of our country?

Statement 10: "Well, a balanced perspective doesn't fly very long in the American political press"

You refer to your own perspective as balanced. I find that strange as seldom do writers make judgements about their own perspectives (especially in a positive way). Self-praise is no praise and whether or not we have been balanced rather than biased can only be judged by others.

Do you seriously believe that a mere 5.0 days gives you a geniune understanding of Singapore, let alone allow you to form a 'balanced' perspective? What other perspective can you possibly have, other than those you were fed in the 5.0 days you were in Singapore?

From the people you spoke to, it is apparent that your 5.0 days were spent largely with Lee and his team. That hardly entitles you to a balanced view does it? Did you speak to anyone from the opposition?

Statement 11: "Yes, he did things the Singaporean way ... it works."

Your writings betray a commonly held impression that Singapore works today largely as a result of what Lee did for us. I beg to differ. If indeed it was his 'genius' alone that brought us prosperity, then there ought to have been just one East Asian dragon instead of four, for Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea didn't have Lee Kuan Yew but have succeeded all the same. Hong Kong, given its similar size and historical background, serves as a good mirror for us. If there had been no Lee, then more likely than not, the Singapore of today may more closely resemble the Hong Kong of today. And the Hong Kong way worked too.