Lee Kuan Yew

The wise man of the East

Authoritarians draw the wrong lessons from Lee Kuan Yews success in Singapore

Mar 28th 2015 | From the print edition

IF YOU seek his monument, look around Singapore. Wealthy, orderly, efficient and honestly
governed, it is not the work of Lee Kuan Yew alone. But even his severest critics would agree that
Mr Lee, who died this week at the age of 91, played an enormous part (seearticle). Singapores
leader from before self-government from Britain in 1959, he was prime minister until 1990, leaving
the cabinet only in 2011. Under him Singapore, with no natural resources, was transformed from a
tiny struggling island into one of the worlds richest countries.
Admirers look to Singapore as a model, and Mr Lee as a sage. Part of his influence stemmed from
his role as a clear-eyed, blunt-speaking geostrategist. He was an astute observer of the defining
contest of the timesChinas emergence and how America reacts to it. More than that, though, the
admirers look to Singapores combination of prosperity and one-party rule. They see flaws in
Western-style democracy: its short-termism; its disregard for non-voters such as children and
foreigners; and its habit of throwing up unqualified leaders. Mr Lees meritocracy promises a
solution.

Chinas leaders, especially, are fascinated by Mr Lees firm grip on power: it is no accident that the
second-most-powerful man in the Chinese hierarchy is not running the economy or the interior
ministry, but is President Xi Jinpings enforcer, Wang Qishan (see article). Others, including
Rwandas authoritarian president, Paul Kagame, who is seeking to rewrite the constitution to allow
himself a third term (seearticle), enthusiastically compare themselves to Singapores founding
father. Mr Lee does indeed have much to teach the world; but when his admirers conclude that
Singapore proves authoritarianism works, they are drawing the wrong lesson.
Pyongyang with broadband
Mr Lee got many things right, especially in his choice of economic managers. They kept government
small, the economy open and regulation simple, transparent and effective. Singapore often heads
the World Banks ease of doing business rankings. It has deftly exploited the advantages that
made it a successful entrepot as early as the 14th century: a fine natural harbour and strategic
position on the Malacca Strait, through which an estimated 40% of world maritime trade now passes.
Foreign investment has poured in.

Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore

Political stability and social order were part of the attraction. With a big ethnic-Chinese majority but
sizeable Malay and Indian minorities, Singapore suffered race riots in the 1960s. Since then ethnic
harmony has been preserved: by quotas in public housing that enforce integration; by restrictions on
inflammatory speech; and by harsh penalties for lawbreaking (including corporal and capital
punishment). Strikes and other forms of protest have been extremely rare. Social policies are
illiberalhomosexual acts, for example, remain illegal.
Throughout, Mr Lees own Peoples Action Party (PAP) has had a vice-like grip on power. The
political system is based on the Westminster model inherited from Britain, but modified to prevent
the emergence of a serious opposition party. Constituencies have been designed to magnify the
distortions of a first-past-the-post system. In the most recent general election in 2011 the PAP won
60% of the votes, but more than 90% of the seats. Mr Lee and other leaders have also used
defamation suits to defend their reputations. The mainstream press was tamed. Opposition leaders
have found themselves bankrupt.

Critics mock Singapore for being like North Korea or Disneyland with the death penalty, as William
Gibson, an American novelist, described it in 1993. But Mr Lees defenders argue that the
restrictions are a small price to pay for stability and prosperity. GDP figures do not lie: Mr Lees
policies have worked. Singapore is a thriving city-state. Unlike North Korea or Disneyland, it offers a
real challenge to the liberal notion that growth, prosperity and freedom go together.
Only one Lee Kuan Yew
But four peculiarities of Singapore make it look like an anomaly, rather than a model for the leaders
of China and Rwanda or others who think the best thing for their people is their own unending and
unquestioned rule. The first is size. Singapore is a city with a foreign policy, which gives it a
cohesion that more politically and ethnically chaotic countries cannot match. Second, this cohesion
is reinforced by the turbulent circumstances of its birth. After a painful divorce from Malaysia in 1965,
the government has never let Singaporeans forget that a Chinese-majority island, surrounded by
Muslim-majority Indonesia and Malaysia, would always be vulnerable. Third, it shines by comparison
with its less well-run neighbours. Rather as Hong Kongs prosperity was based on being Chinese but
not entirely part of China, Singapore has flourished by being in South-East Asia, but not of it.
However, the most important reason for Singapores singular experience is Mr Lee himself.
Incorruptible, he kept government unusually clean. He ensured that Singapore pays its ministers and
civil servants high salaries. Under todays prime minister, his son Lee Hsien Loong, the bureaucracy
has remained efficient and untarnished. Unlike many other independence leaders, Mr Lee designed
a system to outlast him. Singapores government claims it has faced enough electoral competition to
keep it honest, but not so much that there was a high risk of losing power. So it has been able to
eschew populism and take decisions in the countrys long-term interests.
But outside Singapore, maintaining probity requires checks and balances. In much of the developing
world, critics are regarded as enemies and those in opposition are treated as traitors whether their
complaints make sense or not.
Even in Singapore the model may not long outlast its creator. Singaporeans are having few children
and ageing fast. The government faces demands for more social spending. Growth depends on
immigration, angering natives who feel the influx is suppressing their wagesand making it
impossible to get a seat on the tube. That balance between competition and inevitable re-election is
shifting. The Singapore model may yet prove unsustainable even in Singapore.
From the print editi