LKY: Propagating an autocrat?

It’s SG50 man, and I thought the right thing to do for a bookworm like me was to buy the book “Up Close with Lee Kuan Yew: Insights from colleagues and friends.”

The book is obviously a tribute to the man who once graced our little red dot, transformed her completely and turned it into a radiating red beacon, sending economic ripples of guiding light around the world - far and wide.

I read it in two MRT train rides (all 300 plus pages). I highlighted it feverishly – as usual. And it was a pleasant read amidst the numerous repetition of effusive praises from admirers who had worked with the man. Not to mention a few principal private and press secretaries who had added to the resonating chorus of endorsements.

It has been one years since LKY’s final send off, and the nation is still mourning. Some sectors of the country even turned personal mourning into a national obsession. I therefore hope I had done my patriotic duty.

But let the reader be forewarned here. The book is mostly praise-galore bursting out of the pages. Recall that it’s a tribute in memory of LKY?

They say that history is written by the victors and the book is unmistakably its victory chant. As such, you will not find people like Chee Soon Juan, the late Francis T. Seow or C.V. Devan Nair being invited to contribute a chapter or two in it. Editorially speaking, they would have hampered its effusive and resonant flow.

Needless to say, they would have offered a different opinion about LKY and it would be an editorial nightmare to separate the vindictive chaff from the redeeming wheat. You see, Devan Nair once wrote that “Lee is gifted with a brilliant brain and an eloquent tongue. But the capricious gods omitted to equip him with the saving grace of that essential wisdom which makes for true greatness.” He accused LKY of betraying the ideals which launched the PAP into political orbit.

And Francis Seow once quoted Dr Reinhold Niebuhr’s warning about “the depth of evil to which individuals and communities may sink when they try to play the role of God to history,” and he wrote that “Singaporeans, too, especially Harry Lee Kuan Yew and his successor in title, can profit from this warning.” So much for birds of a feather flocking together.

Here, I recall that Donald Trump’s son once described his dad as a polarizing man. I think LKY would be equally polarizing – minus the shameless narcissism and excessive self-love of course. And the words of his son (LHL) is instructive. At the wake, LHL made this pointed observation, “Mr Lee Kuan Yew built Singapore. To those who seek Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s monument, Singaporean can reply proudly: “look around you.””

Perhaps judging the man alone would give trigger-happy cause for one to polarize towards immoderate views, but taking him in the context of what Singapore is today may make for a fairer, a more tempered assessment? I guess if it takes fifty years to build a nation from bottom up, then for whatever methods that were applied during that time by the leaders, it may just take the next 50 years to not only sustain and grow the country, but to vindicate it.

Of course, LKY is far from perfect. He once said that he had made mistakes but he did not regret them. This is also the same man who said, “I stand by my record. I did some sharp things to get things right – too harsh – but a lot was at stake. But at the end of the day, what have I got? Just a successful Singapore.” The admission in that statement is “too harsh” and the punch-line is “just”. You can see how for him, the end somehow justifies the means and he was not inclined to be apologetic about it – at least not in public. Character flaw or the iron-clad will of a visionary? You be the judge.

And LKY would not have built Singapore from ground up without equally able colleagues and friends. In the book, SR Nathan recalled that his comrade-in-arms, Dr Goh Keng Swee, would say to LKY, “Why don’t you shut up and talk some sense?” SR Nathan also recalled that “this happened on many occasions with Dr Goh and other ministers (referring to the old guards like Lim Kim San, Eddie Barker and S. Rajaratnam) but Mr Lee would also tell them off if they were wrong.”

His principal private secretary Andrew Tan also remembered similar anecdotal exchanges between Dr Goh and LKY. “He was an anglophile, Dr Goh would say, referring to Mr Lee’s close ties with British leaders of the day. If Mr Lee had his way, perhaps the British, rather than the Israelis, would have played a greater part in the build-up of Singapore’s defence. But Dr Goh got his way. The two did not always see eye to eye, but that was the strength of their relationship.”

I can’t say that I did not have a fuller picture of our founding father after reading the book. It was indeed an up-close-and-personal experience. Many things can be said about LKY and Philip Yeo led the charge here when he wrote: “Unlike some other countries, there are no framed pictures or statues of Mr Lee all over Singapore. To many he may seem like an autocrat, and yes, he was firm. But he only wanted what was best for our young nation.”

Here is another opinion by Robert Kuok about LKY in the book: “Kuan Yew achieved a lot and became Prime Minister of Singapore in 1959. He was definitely ruthless. I was close to the action because my brother William, a senior figure in the Malayan Communist Party, felt the heat, although he never directly clashed with him.” There you have it, the words ”autocrat” and “ruthless” appeared in two opinions.

Regarding his methods, LKY epitomizes this saying well: “When you’re wrestling a gorilla, you don’t quit when you are tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired (or dead).” And this was the same man who in an interview minced no words: “When I say I’ll do something, they know I’m going to do it. So when I say I’m going to fix that guy, he will be fixed. Let’s make no bones about it. I carry my own hatchet. If you take liberties with me, I’ll deal with you. I look after myself because when you enter a blind alley with the communists, only one person comes out alive and I have come out alive. So I’m not afraid of going into an alley with anybody, let alone the foreign press.” (page 90 of Hard Truths).

I guess some may say that in his early years of political struggle for survival, LKY may have overkilled the communist gorilla with Operation Coldstore where more than 100 people were detained in 1963 without trial under the Preservation of Public Service Security Ordinance. I have to admit that that part of history will always cast a shadow over his enduring legacy. The grievance will always be deeply felt by those who had suffered the deprivation of their freedom, dignity and future as a result.

But this is also the man who lived and breathed Singapore. He repeatedly said that whatever he did, he did it for Singapore. In the book, Robert Kuok observed that “Kuan Yew had a super gung-ho style. He was like such a powerful elephant that when he stomped on the ground, all the plants were crushed. But in so doing, he created a miracle called Singapore.”

The book focused on that miracle that we are witnessing today. LHL’s firm reminder to Singaporeans to “look around you” tells us much about what LKY and his team had done for Singapore. Lim Siong Guan said that “if I had to describe the man in just three words, I would say he is strategic, patriotic and relentless.” Li Ka-Shing wrote, “Of all the many people that I know, Mr Lee was the one whom I respect the most.” And Wee Cho Yaw added, “Singapore’s success story…is primarily due to Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s vision, intellectual superiority, determination to succeed and his courage to press ahead with necessary policies even when he is aware that they would be unpopular. Truly, without Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore would not be what it is today.”

What I personally discovered in the book was the many things about LKY that were not mentioned in his previous books I have read. Apart from scoring a First Class with special distinction, that is, a Starred First, which is exceptionally rare in Cambridge, and having a fabulous mind, strongly determined, disciplined, and uncompromising, LKY was also compassionate, thoughtful even.

Ho Meng Kit recounted this incident: “In December 1992, my fourth child and second son, Samuel was born…with a rare syndrome where his blood platelets are trapped in a giant hemangioma in his stomach wall. He was bleeding at birth. As it was a rare condition, his diagnosis and treatment were not typical, and he was in hospital for almost three months. I was looking after him while doing my job (as Lee’s PPS). It was a tough time then, juggling the uncertainty of Samuel’s illness and not allowing this to affect my duties. Mr Lee knew about my situation and would ask frequently about Samuel. He wrote to me hoping that the illness would be treatable and that Samuel would not be permanently affected. He was concerned. Samuel is now 22 years old and in his second year of studies at an Institute of Technical Education. He is fully functional although he walks with clutches. He is a happy adult. He passed his “O” level examinations, plays violin and swims.”

LKY had in fact shown such compassion on a few occasions. When the wife of Ng Kok Song, the Group Chief Investment Officer of GIC, was diagnosed with fourth stage stomach cancer – just about the same time Mrs Lee had her stroke in London in 2003 – LKY said to Kok Song, “You go back and tell her I asked about her…Now both of us are in the same boat. You are looking after your wife and I am looking after my wife.”

In addition to this, Tan Guong Ching, his PPS, recalled that “Mr Lee never went around believing he knew everything. And that was why he sought the opinions of others. Before he made any major decision, he always sought second or maybe even third opinions.” Moses Lee said that Mr Lee “was truly a lifelong learner…He was constantly challenging, questioning and probing, absorbing new ideas, viewpoints and information which would be useful for charting the future of Singapore.” There are other interesting snippets of LKY in the book that you will just have to read it on your own.

But my point here is to answer the question I first posed in my title, “LKY: propagating an autocrat?” Bearing in mind that the word “autocrat” has two shades of meaning: “A person ruling with unlimited authority” and “One who has undisputed influence.” One is couched as “authority unlimited” and the other as “influence not in dispute.” Subtle distinction?

It is undeniable that LKY is many things to many people. Some call him a great leader, a visionary, a master pragmatist, and others call his a benevolent dictator and even a fear-inducing totalitarian.

You see, in writing this, I am not attempting to give a balance view of the history of what actually happened in the early tumultuous pre-independence years. It is clearly beyond me in scope and depth here. I was born way after that in 1970. My intention is thus far less ambitious. My generation was not even near to the historical epic center of that time.

However, what I wish to do is to remind the reader that LKY is a man of his time. He was born between numerous shifting political tectonic plates so to speak. He was a political actor, no less brilliant of course, trying to make sense of the varying political and ideological scripts – most of which were clearly raw, muddled and even contradictory.

In the Darwinian-like political struggle for survival and viability at that time, he did what he had to do and some may say that what he had done was more inexcusable than excusable. Be that as it may, no critics of any earnest weight would deny that Singapore is where she is today because of LKY and his indefatigable team.

In the end, I would have to make up my mind about the man. Although I have not met him, I have read quite a lot about him. And I would take my cue from what Mrs. Lee has to say about her husband of 63 years.

In his 80^th birthday in 2003, she was asked about what was the most misunderstood thing about LKY, and she replied, “I read somewhere that “few statesmen can command as much respect and condemnation simultaneously as Lee.” I will leave it to these writers to argue which one has most misunderstood Kuan Yew.””

In my view, Mrs Lee not only played the much quieter role in politics (as compared to her husband), she also played the wisest one. She knew when to leave well enough well enough alone. In other words, she left it to history future to vindicate history past. And like pubescent boys fighting over their dream girl, Mrs Lee left idealism to wrestle it out with pragmatism in the power swamp we call politics.

I guess she saw with foresight that when the dust finally settles, what is distilled from the infernal ego-cock-fight will be this: Idealism without pragmatism is lame and pragmatism without idealism is blind (to borrow Einstein’s quote about science and religion). The two stubborn allies therefore have to work synergistically together – both knowledge (idealism) and experiences (pragmatism) – in order make things work.

In my view, LKY was in the beginning struggling to marry the two. That accounts for the rough start. This is unavoidable. Recall he was the product of his time, a political actor held between contrasting ideological scripts? But over the years, I think he struck a workable balance between the two with some occasional tension of course. 

And when he stepped down and handed the leadership mantle over to the next generation of leaders, he left behind a legacy that we as Singaporean can all be proud of. It is one that is generally sound, with strong economic and social fundamentals, and with a government that is free from systemic corruption. It will therefore be up to the next generation of leaders to sustain, protect and improve on it. 

His critics may have been right about him or may have misunderstood him. Or it may be a mixed reaction of both. But the more pertinent question for us, the future generation of Singapore, is this, "How do we go forward with this?"

And for good or bad, our thriving nation would have to start the process of healing and come to terms with her past so as to push for our future. Maybe in the next fifty years, we see our younger generations earnestly striving to close this gap? Cheerz.

LKY is not perfect.

Let’s face it, Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) is not perfect. And Margaret Thatcher was wrong to say that “he was never wrong.” He was in fact an unreasonable man because he once told those he led this: “Reasonable men adapt; unreasonable men change the world.” The impression he left then was that he was going to change the world and 50 years later, he had indeed changed it. His unreasonableness bore much fruits.

LKY’s world started with a little red dot and it was once condemned as an improbable nation. Now it is bursting at the technocratic seam with endless possibilities (and challenges too).  No longer just a little red dot, it shines brightly throughout the globe. I guess when it comes to governing a troubled, resource-scarce nation, Singapore under LKY comes closest to being a  shining city on the hill. And if Deng Xiaoping was to be believed that China under Mao had 70% of it correct, then in my view, LKY had more than 90% of it correct. You can go to the bank with that. And it is in line with what LKY once told an American magazine, “I am not interested in being politically correct. I’m interested in being correct.” Now that’s hands-down pragmatism with an attitude.

As far as the eyes can see when perched on the Singapore flyer, our little island state has braved through all the odds to become a first World economy with strong fundamentals, an efficient civil service, and an above-board government. Of course, if we want to see the glass half-filled, we can start casting stones with issues like the ISA and the defamation laws in Singapore. We even have our very own political detainee who had served in detention longer in toto than the longsuffering Nelson Mandela (refer to this post: Singapore rebels).

I suspect the fault-finding sleuth would not stop there. There is also the government controlled media, the dominant one-party rule, the narrowly-focused meritocracy breeding entitlement and elitism, the one-track academic system, and the high costs of living. Just to name a few. But let’s turn our focus on how far we have come as a nation-state under his leadership. In other words, let’s look at our achievement in the last 50 years. Let’s separate the man and his methods and the “improbable nation” that he and his team had led over the years.

Now, the caveat is that no man is perfect. This is a fact, an established one. If you want to live an unblemished life, then find a hermitage in the middle of nowhere, away from people and their annoying habits, and live out the rest of your days as a monk.  And if hell is other people, so said Sartre, then dealing with a nation of them is going to be a journey into the heart of perdition.  LKY knew intimately that running a country is not like competing in a Miss Congeniality contest and he once said, “You must have convictions. If you don’t have convictions, you are going in for personal glory or honour or publicity or popularity, forget it.”

After all is said and done, underscore “done”, LKY was right when he said that history will judge him. And when asked how he would like history to judge him, LKY said, “I’m dead by then. There’ll be different voices, different standpoints but I stand by my record. I did some sharp and hard things to get things right. Maybe some people disapproved of it. Too harsh, but a lot was at stake and I wanted the place to succeed, that’s all. At the end of the day, what have I got? A successful Singapore. What have I given up? My life.”  

I guess that most of his vision for Singapore was realized. She has made it. And she has made us proud. This is one man who had given his life for a cause and he was uncompromising about it. He once told a public official who had failed him these words, “I don’t accept excuses; I only recognize failures.” On another occasion, his reply to a written note in answering a query he made was this, “I only need a one-sentence answer, why did you give me three paragraphs?” Surely, he doesn’t sugar-coat his words. He will defend his position tooth and nail. In an interview on the foreign press, he threw the gauntlet down by saying, “So when I say I’m going to fix that guy, he will be fixed. Let’s make no bones about it. I carry my own hatchet. If you take liberties with me, I’ll deal with you.” And his idea of regional diplomacy when push comes to shove was an ultimatum-like statement describing Singapore as a “poisonous shrimp” liable to kill its swallower.

So, if Apple had Steve Jobs, then I guess Singapore had her LKY. One is a corporate visionary; the other is an determined nation builder – a tireless innovator of institutional governance to be exact. His characteristic intransigence may be seen by many as unreasonable but he persisted nevertheless and we are now enjoying the fruits of his tough sacrifices.

There is actually many things that you can say about LKY. But one thing stands out most strikingly is that he was never one who coveted after popularity. He was more of a get-things-done kind of person.  One civil servant who worked under him commented, “He seemed to us like a force of nature. He was the leader of the pack, the alpha male…hard headed and hard nosed.”

His toughness can be seen in the way he dealt with foreign governments. When Bill Clinton intervened in the Michael Fay’s affair, LKY did not back down. He stood by his principles (only reducing the canning by two strokes from six to four) and later won the respect of the former American President with these words, “Why have I not met this man before?” If you expect him to curry favor with international leaders, then the only curry that is stewing in his pot is to do what is right and not what is popular. In 1968, he “turned down a direct appeal by then President Suharto to pardon two Indonesian marines who had been sentenced to death for planting a bomb during Konfrontasi that killed several Singaporeans.”

In the now famous incident in 1976, he met the Chinese Premier, Hua Guofeng, and told the Premier how he felt when he was handed a book that shed favorable light on the Sino-Indian War of 1962. LKY said, “Mr Prime Minister, this is your version of the war. There is another version, the Indian version. And in any case I am from Southeast Asia – it’s nothing to do with us.” Of course, you can take it that this man was self-opinionated, or even socially aloof, but one thing you cannot say about him: gutless.

So, have no misconceptions about LKY, he was stern, disciplined and a no-nonsense leader. At the time when he took over the reins of government from colonial rule in 1963 and later from its breakaway from Malaysia in 1965, LKY didn’t have the luxury of choices. It is either Singapore has got a future or it has none. Desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures. He therefore led Singapore with the force of a chastening storm. He once described himself as “very determined” and said, “If I decide that something is worth doing, then I’ll put my heart and soul to it. I’ll give everything I’ve got to make it succeed. So I would put my strength, determination and willingness to see my objective to its conclusion.”  

To the best of his ability and insight, he had led by example. He tolerated no special treatment for any of his own staff. SIA was directed not to delay its flight schedule just because a minister was late. The latter would just have to take the next flight. SIA also does not give upgrades to civil servants. LKY left no stone unturned when it comes to a clean government. He knew his leadership and Singapore depended on it, and at the same time, could not afford to be seen otherwise. He once said, “The moment key leaders are less than incorruptible, less than stern in demanding high standards, from that moment the structure of administrative integrity will weaken, and eventually crumble. Singapore can survive only if ministers and senior officers are incorruptible and efficient.”

With competitive salaries, institutional vigilance and integrity, and unsurpassed discipline, his cabinet and government have kept their noses and pockets clean. In fact, the CIA once tried to pay off his party with $1 million dollars to cover up an incident but LKY was a steel rod in the cinder block about it. As far as records go, LKY wore his signature PAP all-white overall unblemished, stain-free. And he wore it proudly. This tribute by a career public servant says it all, “It is worth noting that there is a distinction between systemic corruption and ad hoc corruption by individuals. We do not have systemic corruption.”

Although LKY is not religious (he only considered himself a nominal Buddhist), he was in many ways a god-sent. I say this because history has shown us that where there is a will (power and opportunity), there is a way (to corruption). In fact, I dare say that it is our default position. Our nature is simply and irrevocably to self-preserve and self-profit. The leaders of the colonial past and our post-colonial present, especially in most of the African states, have time and time again proven this personal axiom unswervingly true. I dread to think of Singapore being led by the likes of Idi Amin, Gaddafi or even the king of Swaziland.

LKY had toed the line from the start and he had made it clear that you cross it at your own peril. He was no doubt harsh about it but he was no less revolutionary in upholding the integrity and honor of government. I guess he could not be seen to be any lesser when he was leading a fragile, vulnerable and almost hopeless country immediately after Independence. You can say that it comes with the territory. And it was upon this sure foundation that he painstakingly built a multiracial, multireligious and multicultural first world cosmopolitan city-state.

Charles de Gaulle once said, “Leaders of men are later remembered less for the usefulness of what they have achieved than for the sweep of their endeavor.” LKY had indeed left a deep impact in Singapore and his legacy will sweep through history with a very broad and enduring stroke. And one of the things he will be remembered for by those who had worked with him is his very intense and probing curtness at the end of a question, “So?” What he meant was this: “So, what does this mean for Singapore?” Everything he did was subordinated to the best interest of Singapore.

Now, coming back full circle, LKY was not perfect. But I have a feeling that he would rather be right than perfect. And some may even say that he was too tough a task-master and that he led with more hard power than soft. But whichever way you look at it, I think LKY was a product of his time. No man is an island unto himself. Our decisions and actions do not exist in an ideological vacuum. When caught in the eye of a storm, we all act in a way that will get us out of it. LKY was no exception. As such, there will inevitably be some misjudgments, missteps and miscalculations. That is what being a human is all about: what’s more a human leader of a once very troubled nation! But what redeems us at the end of the day is a spirit of never giving up and LKY epitomizes that spirit most valiantly.

He once said, “By nature, I’m not a person who’s tied to theories. Theories should evolve from practice.” The editors of the book, The Big Ideas of Lee Kuan Yew, expressed somewhat the same sentiments in their afterword: “Idealism is the stuff that youthful dreams are made of; experience is the most rigorous tutor of the art of the possible.” I guess if experience is a strict and tough teacher, then LKY was his most willing and promising student.

So, after all the polemic dust have settled, I guess the one thing LKY comes closest to perfection is his devotion to Singapore. His life stands as a testament to it. This is what he has to say in his own words, “Singapore is my concern till the end of my life.” And looking at Singapore now, that is, 50 years after Independence, it truly shows. Cheerz. 

* All sources and quotes from the book, The Big Ideas of Lee Kuan Yew, and Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. His admission of being a nominal Buddhist is from the book, One Man's View of the World (@ pg 302).

Singapore rebels

I wonder whether my children will ever come to know of a detainee named Chia Thye Poh. Or read about the life of Lim Chin Siong. Or be inspired by these words spoken by Lim Hock Siew, “Some of you may have heard that when you are young, you are idealistic, when you’re old, you are realistic. Now this is the kind of rubbish that is used by those who have either lost their ideals, or have sold their ideals for self-interests.”

I am sure these names are alien to my children. I have no doubt that they will be familiar with the exploits of our founding father, LKY, and his luminary son, LHL, and the   2^nd prime minister of Singapore, GCT. I don’t need to spell their names out. I don’t even need to mention them by their initials. My children can recite their names by heart because their portraits and accomplishments are all emblazoned like wall banners in their school together with the other prominent cabinet ministers in Singapore.

But who is Thye Poh or Chin Siong or the indefatigable Marshall? What have they done for Singapore? What were their accomplishments? How have they contributed to the development of our garden city-state? Why is remembering what they did for Singapore, if any, important to my children? Are they part of Singapore’s history? Or are they forgettable characters, even unmentionables? Or better still, are they to be left alone like the many neglected small islands in the Indonesian Archipelago? What can I tell my children about them?  

Well, taking it all in, I can tell my children that the history of Singapore is a history of triumphs and defeats, success and failure, tears of joy and sorrow, and of winners and losers. I can tell them that they can learn from the winners of history as well as the losers. Maybe, I should tell them that there are no losers in history; just people who are living in the shadow of the winners and are therefore conveniently forgotten.

My children need to know that politics is a complicated  arena which is sometimes no different from the Darwinian struggle for survival and self-replication. Only those who wield sheer willpower and determination would be naturally selected to surf on the crest of the overriding wave while those who are less initiated and determined, at times, unknowingly hapless, would be dragged down by the political undertow. Maybe, I have said too much and my children would be squirming by now.

But my point is this, if history is written by winners, then those who have conceded defeat (for whatever reason) should at least be assigned a historical footnote that is of course subordinated to the winners’ main narrative. In other words, their voices should still be heard – albeit softly and discreetly. And here are a few footnotes of Singapore history that I would like my children to read about. I hope they will not just learn about how they had lost the struggle but also about how they had stood strong with resolve in spite of the defeat.

Of course they are not perfect, nobody is. They are in fact ordinary people but with quite an extraordinary story to tell. Their lives in brief are well narrated in the book Dissident Voices written by veteran journalist Clement Mesenas. This book is the source of all my quotes and information here.

When my children think about the longest prisoner detained by the government of a sovereign state, their thoughts immediately go to the late Nelson Mandela. The latter served 27 years in prison. But in Singapore, we do have our own political detainee who served 22 years in prison and another 9 years in house arrest, in Sentosa to be exact. Altogether, Chia Thye Poh was denied his freedom (in varied forms) for 31 years.

Now that’s a long time to be locked up for something he allegedly did or believed in when he was only 25 years old in 1966. Ideological differences aside, when Chia was allowed to talk to the press, he said, “The best years of my life were taken away just like that without a charge or trial.”

Chia was already 56 years old when he finally got his freedom back in full. After his release, Chia did his best to salvage the lost years by working as a freelance translator from home, earning a few hundred dollars a week, and taking care of his aged parents. He even got his masters in development studies and later attained his doctorate from the Institute of Social Studies at the Hague in the Netherlands in 2006.

This is a man who had led a hardscrabble life and was once granted a chance by the authority to recant but he refused. In the book, he told the author why, “To renounce violence is to imply you advocated violence before. If I had signed that statement, I would not have lived in peace.”

Wow, what price to pay for a peace of mind! Chia rather give up his external freedom just so that he could protect and preserve the freedom of his own conscience. And for the whole 31 years, he did just that. I guess when he was released, he not only got his freedom back - for what it’s worth - he also got something much more valuable than that, a well-fought after and enduring peace of mind.

Now, it is said that we should let bygones be bygones. This is easier said than done especially when you had been locked up for the most part of your productive life because you were once perceived as a threat to the state for holding on to your beliefs. This was the same question he was asked, that is, did he bear any grudge against those who authorized his detention? To that question, Chia replied, “I have no personal grudge against anybody. My main concern is the policy (of detention without trial), because if the policy is not fair, many people will suffer.”

What can my children learn here? What can they learn about the life of this man, our very own longest serving political detainee? I guess the one virtue that stands out for me is forgiveness. On that score, Chia lived out the legacy of Nelson Mandela most admirably.

Next comes the champion of the underdog, David Marshall. This is
one man my children will look up to. Not so much for being Singapore’s first Chief Minister in 1955. Or for being widely regarded as Singapore’s greatest criminal lawyer for whom it was said that LKY, when he argued in Parliament for the abolition of the jury system, remarked in passing, “David Marshall is responsible for two hundred murderers walking freely the streets of Singapore.” Or for his appointment as Singapore’s ambassador to France, Spain, Portugal and Switzerland and for receiving the
Meritorious Service Medal in 1990.

Any one of those accolades, except maybe that setting-murderers-free thingy, would have been worthy of my children’s admiration. But what I personally feel is worth their deepest esteem is found in what David Marshall once said here in an interview: “I don’t think I had leadership qualities…for me a leader is a great administrator, organizer…I’ve been a vivid
personality. But that doesn’t mean I have leadership quality. I had the fire of anger, the excitement of great ideas, emotional approach almost uninhibited, but not the intellectual organizational approach of great leaders.”     

David Marshall was a man who knew of and admitted to his own limitations and shortcomings. During his short stint of one year as the Chief Minister, he initiated a slew of policy ideas concerning CPF, labor reforms and usage of multi-lingualism in the Legislative Council. However, he readily admitted that did not have the administrative tenacity or brilliance to follow them through. He owned up to what he can and cannot do. His capacity for self-awareness was of humbling depth. That is a quality that I find 
wanting in our media-centered, internet-driven, attention-craving younger generation.

Of course such quality will take many years to cultivate. And I trust that when my children are looking for a role model to inspire them, they will find one in David Marshall.

In addition, he was also a vocal critic of some of the government policies, in particular, the tightly censored and controlled media and the high ministerial salary. On the latter, he defiantly commented, “I don’t see the necessity of owning a Mercedes-Benz and a swimming pool – and a couple of mistresses. You know $96,000 a month for a prime minister and S$60,000 a month for a minister – what the hell do you do with all that money? You can’t eat it. Your children don’t need all that money.”

I guess this is one man who doesn’t mince his words. He once exclaimed that he wanted to fight till he’s dead. That would naturally be an honorable end for him. But jingoism and gung-ho-ism notwithstanding, I would be contented if my children could grow up taking after the side of this man which fights for what he believes in and never gives in or up.

The next personality in the footnote of history is Lim Chin Siong. I would tell my children that this man was once regarded as LKY's "general". In fact, he so impressed LKY that David Marshall recounted how LKY introduced him in the early years, "Meet the future Prime Minister of Singapore...Don't laugh! He's the finest Chinese orator in Singapore and he will be our next Prime Minister of Singapore."

Wow, that was quite a recommendation from the future and longest serving PM of
 Singapore. Alas, the honeymoon period between them did not last long. Although Lim was one of the founding partners of the PAP when it was first formed in November 1954, he exited the party in 1961 as he was opposed to the merger with Malaya. He then formed Barisan Sosialis and rivaled PAP in the election.

Of course, I don't think my children need to know the details of why he was arrested, which was believed to be due to his association with the leader of the Brunei revolt, but he was nevertheless imprisoned for six
 years from 1963 to 1969. After his release, he married in Britain and had two sons. He then tried to return to politics in 1979 but was unsuccessful. He later died of a heart attack in February 1996.

So what can my children learn from this man, who was once earmarked by LKY for great things? Well, maybe this tribute in his obituary by LKY himself says it all. "I liked and respected him for his simple lifestyle and his selflessness. He did not seek financial gain or
 political glory. He was totally committed to the advancement of his cause. He and many of his comrades, graduates from the Chinese middle school, taught my colleagues and me the meaning of dedication to a cause."

Out of all that, I guess my children will do well to always lead a simple and selfless life and be committed to what they put their mind to. Words to live by, in my humblest view.

Finally, the last person on my list is Dr Lim Hock Siew. He was the one whose quote I borrowed from when I started this letter. It is a quote about keeping one’s idealism close to the heart throughout one’s life. Here is the quote in full: "Some of you may have heard that when you are young, you are idealistic, when you’re old, you are realistic. Now this is the kind of rubbish that is used by those who have either lost their ideals, or have sold their ideals for self-interests. Each should not wither one's ideals or convictions. If anything, it should only consolidate and make it more resolute. If age has anything to do with it, it is only by way of expression and application of these ideals and convictions having the benefit of youthful experiences. And a life without convictions, without idealism is mere meaningless existence."

My children should know that next to Chia Thye Poh, Dr Lim was the second longest detainee in Singapore. He served 20 years under lockup. He was arrested during Operation Coldstore in February 1963 when he was suspected of being a communist. He could have been released after the first 10 years, but he refused certain demands made by the authorities, which would have compromised his character. He then stood his ground and made a statement insisting on his innocence. For that defiance, his imprisonment was extended for a further 10 years. He was only 32 years old then and his son was just 5 months old.

Dr Lim died in June 2012. At this funeral, his son recalled, “When I was growing up, my memories of my father were more of me visiting him in prison and getting to know him. It was tough – kids can be quite cruel and I didn’t know how to explain his absence.”

My children should know that Dr Lim lived his life valiantly and selflessly, standing firm on his principles and keeping the morale of fellow detainees high. He also fought for the rights of the political prisoners. After his release, he continued his medical practice at his Rakyat Clinic on Balestier Road and “tended to the sick and even gave transport money to those in dire need.” 

Dr Lim lived a quiet life and died almost anonymously. Although he did not live to see the day the authorities reform the law on detention without trial, he will still be remembered for having the courage to stand up for what he believed in.

Let me end with these words by a Methodist minister, Daniel Koh Kah Soon, who wrote a letter to The Straits Times on 7 June 2012 after Dr Lim’s death, “…One day, I hope, his side of the story will be given a fairer hearing, and that a respected academic will write a properly researched book of the contribution of political leaders like him. It speaks volumes of his character that in spite of his incarceration, he kept his conviction and stood his grounds – qualities which people who aspire to political office should have. I am certain that he will be respected by those who know him as a politician who loved his country and cared deeply for the poor.”

And on that note, Dr Lim together with the rest of the people mentioned here will always be respected for keeping their faith in humanity, accepting their lot in life and making the best of it. Herein ends the lessons for my children. Indeed, without the essential footnotes, the main narrative of history somehow just feels a little wonky. Cheerz.