Comment on the video:
This is good. I would have veered into hagiography. This is more balanced. Some thoughts:
1) LKY believed in the conventional wisdom (then) that Singapore was too small to survive. And so he believed in merger with the Federation of Malaya. Goh Keng Swee did not believe in merger. The two tumultuous years in the Federation would bear out Goh's misgivings. So Tungku Abdul Rahman (TAR) suggested "hiving off" Singapore as a confederated state. A less perfect (and less equal) union where Singapore would have more autonomy, and fewer (federal) rights. LKY delegated the task of negotiating this "hiving off" to Goh Keng Swee. Goh met with the Malaysian leaders and counter-proposed a complete separation. TAR agreed, and Singapore was evicted. LKY was devastated. If you asked Malaysians, some might tell you LKY was upset his political ambition in the federation had been crushed. Certainly, leading Singapore to (possible) desolation would have weighed heavy on his mind and soul (if he had one). The point is, Separation was not as one-sided (Malaysia Expelling Singapore) as it might have been presented.
2) The faux pas of Barisan Sosialis boycotting post-independence elections. The PAP had one-party rule after Separation to 1981, in part because the only other party that could win elections was Barisan Sosialis and they chose to boycott the elections to make some political point - perhaps they wanted the complete and utter failure of Singapore to be laid at the feet of the PAP, and then the Barisan Socialis can sweep in and rescue Singapore from the mismanagement of the PAP. Well, that required the PAP to fail spectacularly. Which they failed to do. That left PAP with free reign to governed, and only to contest elections against fringe parties and candidates with no credibility.
3) @21:03 "Lock them up or shoot em? Nah, let's just sue them!" I find this critique of the PAP or Lee quite disingenuous and hypocritical. Also quite selective. Yes, there are opposition politicians who frequently get sued. J. B. Jeyaretnam was mentioned in the video. And yes, he famously (or infamously) said many things in the heat of the campaign that got him into trouble. And he was a lawyer! JBJ was also the first opposition politician to get into parliament in 1981. He was flamboyant, colourful, and passionate. But not very prudent. And in the grand scheme of things, he did not accomplish anything lasting. Then there is Chiam See Tong. He was the second opposition politician to get into parliament. And he held his seat for about 27 years. And was never sued by the PAP. Low Thia Khiang, opposition MP was in parliament for 29 years. Was never sued (AFAIK) by the PAP. The point is, if you are defamed, what recourse, what remedy do you have? If you are a dictator, you can shoot them or sue them, which is the lawful, kegitimate path?
4) Singapore's Demographic Crisis. AKA "The Stop at Two" policy. Blame it on the population control policies? It is a convenient bogeyman. But the reality is every developed country (and some less developed countries) are having the same "demographic crisis". If Singapore's low birthrate and low fertility (TFR) can be blamed on the "Stop at Two" campaign of the 70s, then what does Japan blame? South Korea? Italy? Spain? Norway?
No comments:
Post a Comment