There was a time not very long ago when this little island of only 224 square miles (227 when the tides ebbed) was no more than a tiny tropical colony that embodied the very quintessence of the mysterious and exotic Orient. And, like the Hong Kong of Somerset Maugham's novels, Singapore conjured up visions of incense rising from the altars of temples, mosques, of bustling markets and multicoloured streets and delicate oriental beauties gliding past.

Today, little remains of the substance of these romantic visions. The visitor to Singapore would probably be impressed. Most Singaporeans in the republic would appear to be very much happy and prosperous. All but the island on which it sits is man's creation. Despite the few natural resources and limited space, Singapore has become one of South East Asia's main manufacturing centres and may soon be the world's third biggest port. And as Singaporeans are fond of noting, the city is perhaps the greenest and cleanest in Asia.

The spectacular achievements of Singapore has, among other things, meant for its 2.1 million citizens, the region's highest standard of living. In the galaxy of third world countries, all newly independent ex-colonies, where many make their homes in tin huts or grass sheds, most Singaporeans reside in modern, government built high rise apartments and new ones are being built every half-hour.

Criticism of any sort, radical or otherwise is largely confined to a small group of students, journalists, and left-wingers many of whom reside in Lee's highly efficient political detention centres. However, gradually, a few dissenting views have been coming forthwith from abroad and the book by T.J.S. George who is the political editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, presents a well argued, polemical and damning picture that raises profoundly pertinent questions which bear thinking.

A toothy, translucent triangle

Although the book appears to have the episodic format of a novel at times, there's nothing fictional about its subject. The author weaves through plot, and sub-plot, up one cul de sac after another until the hero finally emerges cut off, as it were, from the ebb and flow of ideology. George holds back little, and his questions are to the point. 'Is what is known and cherished about Lee in the West seen in the perspective of present conditions in Singapore and of the geopolitical realities of South East Asia as a whole? Are Lee's obvious achievements their own complete justification or are there features in them which raise doubts about their ultimate worth? Is the political philosophy on which Lee has built tenable? What are the ultimate values he holds up for his people and what are their long term implications?

Can you judge a man by his friends? Norman Kirk and his mate Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee emerges from the pages of the book as an arrogant, charismatic, puritanical and omnipresent figure. George's judgements on Lee the Man are very illuminating except perhaps to the eyes of his idolators, and are as exact as they are concise. As George puts it, 'when relaxed Lee is handsome.' When 'lighting-up time comes, and when he smiles, he transforms his forbidding countenance into a toothy, translucent triangle of charm under a canopy of dancing eyebrows.' The author cites several opinions of Lee. In one instance Prof. N. Parkinson, then lecturing at the University of Singapore wrote of Lee:

"Utterly without charm, his expression is one of barely concealed contempt for his opponents, for his followers, perhaps for himself—one cannot imagine that he is even capable of friendship.

A religion of anti-communism

In short, George describes Lee as a man 'marked by the fact that he does not quite belong anywhere and has had to produce himself—his style and his attitudes—out of his own deep mind.' Inevitably, his concept of Singporeanism' and of 'the rugged society' is only partly a political device 'to ensure Singapore's seperate identity: partly it is a way of compensating for his alienation by making a society in his own image—the projection on to the national scene of an individual's complex psychological problems.'

A graduate of Cambridge, Lee's youthful idealism took root and found expression under the banners of the Malayan Forum in London. Even then, Lee had already begun to see his own path when he emphasised that in all the Asian countries which had achieved independence since the war, the returned students had led the nationalist movements. Lee was making clear too at this point, his own ideological base: "Communism.... is the biggest threat to the newly established governments of Asia. How far these governments can counter the appeal and force of communism will depend on how far they are bold enough to carry out social reforms in the teeth of their own vested interests whether they can without the communist religion, do all that a communist State can do for the masses. Ten years later, Lee was to become Prime Minister of Singapore and he set out to do exactly that and in the process making a religion of anti-commnism.'

In the 50's when Lee formed the Peoples Action Party, he coldly entered into an anticolonial alliance with the communists. One point of significance is the immense advantage that Lee was able to derive from British attempts to check local communist movements. At many points in his bid to win control over the Singapore political arena, Lee came very close to losing out to the communists within his own ranks. As soon as he was safely ensconced in power, he proceeded to crush his former allies with a vengence.

Soon after coming into power, Lee proceeded to make it clear that he would have no second thoughts on abridging democratic rights, and of his reasons for doing so. From the very start, he made it clear that he believed 'in assuming all the power necessary to translate his ideals into reality.' And the PAP's emergence as a dominant party was initiated on the basis of the integrity and efficiency of Lee' administration. Lee's method of getting popular support was achieved through providing a 'palpably achievement-oriented government.'

1984

In referring to Singapore's highly creditable growth in GNP during the last few years, George cites Ian Buchanan's first ever Marxist analysis of Singapore's economy situation in his book 'Singapore in South East Asia'. The thesis quite simply showed that the kind of prosperity Singapore had achieved was strictly within colonial terms of reference, leaving the exploitative character and the serious imbalances in the economic system basically untouched. Buchanan referred to Sinagpore as 'a colonial metropolis' and as a corollary 'the Singapore leadership has to impose a certain political form on the island state.... the establishment of a garrison state in which it is considered essential to regiment society and for the PAP to assume an authoritarian stance in domestic politics.'

The spectacular achievements of the PAP in providing cheap housing flats for a large number of the population were also, as George points out, a means of providing the government the means of destroying the slums which had been breeding grounds of political dissatisfaction. In this regard George cites an Economist report on a British businessman who was quoted as saying that the Toa Payoh (one of Singapore's biggest housing estates) was '1984 in concrete steel'.

Perhaps the most revealing chapter of the politics of Singapore is the one titled 'Strategy for Repression'. The author asserts that 'the rapidity of Singapore's apparent progress was matched equally by parallel developments in the political organisation of society' and Singapore was soon to become one of the most shining examples of 'capitalist totalitarianism' as opposed to communist totalitarianism. There was a time when Lee was the champion of the students in London, a nationalist, a champion of the workers rights, an advocate of popular causes etc. Things changed drastically however when Lee came into power. Some extracts from his speeches may prove particularly illuminating:

Speaking in London in 1 962, 'At a time when you want harder work with less return and more capital investment, one man one vote produces just the opposite.'

'Government to be effective must at least give the impression of enduring, and a government which is open to the vagaries of the ballot box when the people who put their crosses in the ballot boxes are not illiterate but semi-literate, which is worse, is a government which is already weakened before it starts to govern.... If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are being governed whether they like what is being done, then I have not the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their own interests. This is a fact which the educated understand but we are all caught up in this system which the British export ail over the place hoping that somewhere it will take root.'

And perhaps, even more startling, 'We have over a hundred political detainees, men against whom we are unable to place even an iota of evidence,' but as George cites, Lee claimed their detention was necessary to maintain normal standards of society.

Putting out fire

Among other things, the details of which are too harrowing and elaborate to deal with here, Lee introduced several bills in Parliament and these included the most fearsome of all, the Internal Security Act which gave the government unlimited powers to arrest any citizen and to hold him without trial initially for a period of two years; the abolishment of the Jury system which had been operative since its founding and of which no debate whatsoever was permitted as soon as the law was changed. To top it all. Lee initiated the total subjugation of the trade union movement which were often the base of powerful left-wing leaders in the PAP.

George often seems to me to write like a man trying to put out a fire with a hose that is too powerful for him. He rarely spares any punches as when he writes:

Power did not make Lee Kuan Yew an autocrat. Instinct did. A child who invariably got what he wanted: a schoolboy who was idolised by his family into believing he was someone apart from the crowd; an undergraduate who impressed his mates as self-centred and domineering; a qualified barrister whose ability fostered an overwhelming contempt for others; a Chinese with instinctive faith in elitism and the theory that some are born to rule while others are born to be ruled; a man alienated by his upbringing; driven by a need to make a place for himself—Lee Kuan Yew was a natural authoritarian.'