Ladies and Gentlemen,
Lee Kuan Yew, the tyrant and dictator of Singapore island from 1959 till his death a few days ago had a disgraceful record of jailing and torturing those who disagreed with him including his victims Chia Thye Poh who spent 3 decades in jail, while JB Jeyaretnam was repeatedly sued through his famous tactic of defamation lawsuits, not to mention Chee Soon Juan and numerous others who faced a similar fate.
The name of Lee Kuan Yew will live in those who really know the history of the island among men such as Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Franco of Spain and Stalin of Russia. If there is any difference between him and any of these men, it is only a question of degree. In their cases, they actually shot their political opponents, whereas he didn't shoot them. Instead in Lee's case he imprisoned and tortured them. As to whether it is worse to jail a man for decades or to shoot him right away is a question I will leave you to decide.
Just as Stalin brought great economic success to Russia, just as Hitler brought great economic success to Germany under the Third Reich, so did the tyrant Lee Kuan Yew. But it begs the question whether whatever success at this price is worth the success at all? Was the success in Singapore through the imprisonment of an innocent man Chia Thye Poh for 31 years without any trial worth the economic success he claims?
Was the success Singapore has achieved through bankrupting Chee Soon Juan, denying him a job, sending him to jail when he is totally innocent, worth any success that he and his son enjoying the position of Prime Minister claim?
Singapore today thanks to Lee Kuan Yew is a mindless conformist ignorant society who have lost their ability to think independently. Because it is necessary to be politically correct at all times they willingly place this tyrant on a pedestal all because it is the only profitable and safe thing to do. In Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore today being politically incorrect, like I am, means you are attacked not only by the government who have to break your spirit, but also by the average citizen. It would also mean the denial of housing, your job, your security and victimization for the rest of your life.
But I don't want to be politically correct. For me it is important to speak my mind which I have done throughout my life including the time I spent in Lee Kuan Yew's island. I don't want to be another digit among these disgraceful conformists that Lee Kuan Yew and his son demands.
But other than me, there is another Singaporean presently within the island of the father and son who refuses to be another digit in Lee Kuan Yew's island. His name is Amos Yee and he his is 17. A few days ago, he put up a video titled "Amos Yee: Lee Kuan Yew is finally dead". You can see the video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR8-8CteuRw
In the video he calls Lee Kuan Yew a dictator, a hypocrite who hoodwinked Singaporeans into believing there was democracy by merely holding elections. He also claims that Lee Kuan Yew's books contain nothing but self aggrandizement taking pictures with famous politicians and posting those in his books. Please see the Yahoo report here https://sg.news.yahoo.com/police-report-lodged-over-amos-yee-anti-lee-kuan-yew-video-063152918.html
Lee Kuan Yew's Singaporeans like a pack of attack dogs obeying their master at his command, have in unison begun mindlessly attacking Amos Yee and demanding his lynching. Singapore police have arrested him on Sunday.
Why? Has he said anything that is not true? Is not Lee Kuan Yew a disgraceful dictator who jailed and silenced the entire clueless citizenry into obedience? Is he his family and his son not corrupt by paying or rather stealing $3.7 million a year each and calling it a salary? Is he not guilty of nepotism on an industrial scale, when he makes his clueless son Prime Minister and every one of his relatives both near and distant multi millionaires through open blatant shameless corruption? Has he not hijacked the courts and turned his judges into Kangaroos to serve his purpose and jail and bankrupt his critics?
If all that I said is true, why is Amos Yee guilty of anything? After all he has said exactly that and no more. And even if what I said is not true, does not Amos Yee have the right to freedom of expression? He has also attacked Jesus Christ. And why not if that is his belief? Is there a law in Singapore that everyone has to be a Christian?
Lee Kuan Yew's son who has been given the position of Prime Minister through his father's disgraceful nepotism is treading on thin ice by arresting Amos Yee. Today is not what Singapore was 20 years ago. The people are demanding their freedom. And persecuting Amos now for his individual beliefs may turn out the biggest mistake Lee's clueless son ever made. With increasing numbers of Singaporeans now becoming increasingly awakened over their rights, Amos Yee's arrest may well be a catalyst and trigger to even more citizens being outraged by Lee Kuan Yew and his son's excesses and thanks to Amos Yee may well turn out to be the birth of a nascent revolt. I hope it does.
Why don't they arrest me here in California, USA for categorically stating that Amos Yee was absolutely right because the recently deceased Lee Kuan Yew was indeed a ruthless disgraceful dictator. After all this blog is not only being read by Singaporeans in that island, it's popularity has been hitting through the roof. Just like Amos Yee, I want to tell Lee Kuan Yew's son to go ahead and sue me if he wants. And to use Amos Yee's language, I will be "happy to dance with him".
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Fremont, California USA
Tel: 510 491 8525
"Nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul-de-sac," he said. "If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try."
Admitting in his somewhat quaint Cambridge English that he was a ruthless political street-fighter, Lee went on to say something even more revealing: "There is no other way to govern a Chinese society."
To prove the point, Lee was admired nowhere more than in Beijing, where the Communist Party shared his conviction that Chinese society is somehow so uniquely pesky as to require an iron fist.
Throughout his dominance of Singapore for almost 50 years, China's leaders were mesmerized by Lee's ability not only to run an efficient authoritarian one-party state, but his finesse in making that respectable in Western capitals with a confection of Confucian ideas and what he called "Asian values."
As Deng Xiaoping was launching the dramatic economic changes that rescued China from the catastrophic misrule of Mao Zedong, he was impressed by what was being called the "Singapore model" during a visit to the city-state in 1978.
Later, in 1992, jump-starting the frenetic Chinese development that continues to this day, Deng reassured hardline colleagues who feared losing control by pointing again to Singapore.
"The social order in Singapore is quite good," he said, "They run things strictly, and we should borrow from their experiences, and run things even better than they do."
No gum chewing
Of course the tens of thousands of Chinese officials who have been sent to study Singapore in the past 20 or so years are aware that the place is smaller than a city district in Beijing, and that many of the things that make it work cannot conceivably be replicated in the vastness of the Chinese mainland.
Still, it is the idea of Singapore, more than the reality, that resonates.
Although Lee was a devout anti-communist, the structures of his People's Action Party and the Communist Party of China are almost identical because both were based on Lenin's Vanguard Party as vehicles to gain power, stay in power and decide everything.
They share the autocratic instinct to order the minutest details of peoples' lives.
Chewing-gum is famously banned in Singapore, and there are fines for not flushing a public toilet.
Move over to China and this month alone there have been edicts from Beijing ordering that the characters in video role-playing games must obey the country's single-child policy; and that the public dancing that is a favorite form of exercise for elderly Chinese "will no longer vary from community to community but will instead become a nationally unified, scientifically arranged all-new activity that brings positive energy to the people."
The party even extended its grip to the afterlife. When the Dalai Lama mused that he might not reincarnate after his death, Beijing ruled that would be illegal, ordering him to reincarnate, or else.
In Singapore, Lee locked up opponents without trial, and used the courts to bankrupt critics and defamation suits to bully the international press into silence.
In 1994, the New York Times issued a groveling apology to avoid colossal damages after suggesting that the Lee family was one of Asia's political dynasties.
Lee had insisted that his son became prime minister, which he is still, and his daughter-in-law head of Singapore's sovereign wealth fund not through nepotism, but because they just happened to be the best candidates.
Publications that do not have local offices to sue have been braver, describing Singapore as "Disneyland with the death penalty" and "Pyongyang with broadband."
But for all his authoritarian ways, Lee was not murderous, was not an egomaniac and he does not make it to the major leagues of dictatorship where cruelty and kleptomania abounds.
Gift of prosperity
Lee's extraordinary economic legacy is not in doubt. As Prime Minister Steven Harper put it: "His memory will live on in the stability and prosperity of the peaceful and dynamic Southeast Asian nation to which he contributed so much of his life."
Canadian politicians can only dream of being as popular as Lee was in Singapore.
Of course they might be if Canadians' incomes had increased by almost 10,000 per cent in 50 years. The average income in Singapore, $500 a year in 1965, is more than $50,000 today.
In my view, Lee would have been re-elected time after time, had he not indulged his arrogant and vindictive streak.
In fact, the truly negative side of his legacy is his contempt for his fellow Chinese.
Lee's assertion that "there is no other way to govern a Chinese society" is simply another way of saying that Chinese people do not deserve the same human rights as others, that they are unworthy of democracy.
Such ideas may be popular in Beijing, but they are hardly visionary or statesmanlike.