Posted by Lambito > 2015-03-28 22:48 | Report Abuse

Comparing Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir

Abasir: One loved ostentation and grandeur, the other eschewed them. One thrived on and cultivated fawning courtiers, the other had zero tolerance for them.

One was always motivated by short-term gains, the other diligently kept his focus on long-term success regardless of short-term pain. One nurtured and nourished language and racial extremists, the other rooted them out ruthlessly.

One is viewed as a maverick, third-world politician, the other was and continues to be held in high esteem internationally.

One, despite his unfettered rule, left behind a divided, corrupted financially struggling nation, the other transformed his nation from a resourceless, Third World backwater into a first world state in every sense... in one generation.

Sirach: P Gunasegaran’s article captures the essence of why history will take an extremely dim view of Mahathir's legacy to Malaysia.

KCW: Material wealth or economic development is merely one of many elements of what made nations a ‘success’ story. But more importantly, is Singapore or Malaysia a happy nation?

At the end of the day, perhaps what matters is not so much whether you have the tallest twin towers in the world or the highest gross domestic product (GDP) in Asia, but whether your people lead a happy life or not.

Ng Sim Bee: I would not mind being democratically suppressed if almost all of us own a roof over our heads, low crime rate, first-class education, practice of meritocracy regardless of race, efficient public transport, clean public sector, etc.

Unless we want to be like the Philippines where they practice true democracy.

Posted by andychucky28 > 2015-03-31 01:26 | Report Abuse

Lee Kuan Yew was much more than a Singaporean and Asean leader.

He was a world leader whose advice was sought after by countries such as the United States, China, Japan, Britain, Australia and various European countries, besides Asian countries which have been influenced by Singapore's model of development.

On March 24, The Japan Times, one of the leading newspapers in that country, front paged tributes to him from Japanese leaders.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called him “one of the greatest leaders of modern times that Asia has produced”.

His official statement also noted “how much I was impressed by his profound wisdom, including when I met him in 2014”.

Further, page 6 of the same paper carried a lengthy piece on Kuan Yew's impact on China with the heading “Lee inspired Beijing to modernise. China saw blueprint in Singapore founder's leadership model.”

On the same day, the International New York Times, formerly the International Herald Tribune, one of the most influential international English language newspapers, also carried a lengthy front-page tribute which noted that the nation (Singapore) reflected the man: “efficient, unsentimental, incorrupt, inventive, forward looking and pragmatic”.

When we compare this global respect and appreciation of Lee Kuan Yew and the city state of Singapore (former president Bill Clinton was among the many world leaders who attended his funeral) with many of the opinions in Malaysia (and perhaps Indonesia), our hostility and lack of respect accorded to both leader and nation stand out.

Yet it should not be the case. Let not the green-eyed monster of jealousy and envy overcome our good sense.

That “little red dot” is a good model to emulate not just because it has done so well on most fronts – economic, social, cultural and religious.

Its GDP amounts to slightly less than Malaysia's – US$298 billion compared with ours of US$303 billion although its population of 6.9 million is much smaller than ours at 29.6 million (IMF 2012 estimates).

Its educational standards are among the highest in the world. Its public housing programme is the envy of developed countries such as the US.

Its public infrastructure can hold its own against the best anywhere.

We can and should learn from its successes not only because it is right next to us and was formerly part of Malaysia.

We should do so because our economies are interdependent with millions of Malaysians directly or indirectly working or doing business with Singapore and vice versa.

We should do so also because family ties bind millions of Malaysians and Singaporeans together – one may want to beggar one's neighbour perhaps but one's own relative?

In a real sense thus, Singapore's prosperity is also ours. There is no clearer example than what is taking place in the Iskandar project which is intended to act as a catalytic development force for the south.

The progress and standards of living of the more than 3 million Malaysians in that part depend on how we are able to work with our Singaporean (and other foreign) partners.

As we know Singapore is buying sand as far away as Cambodia for land reclamation. If we could sell the sand dredged from Sungai Kelantan to Singapore, we could have mitigated the annual flooding there and saved hundreds of million ringgit to help the flood victims.

It was Dr Mahathir who stopped the selling of sand to Singapore.

Our time to achieve Vision 2020 is running out soon. Unless our political leaders change their mindset, we will not become a developed nation.

A final word of advice to Malaysian leaders and ex-leaders: be respectful, especially to our neighbours, applaud their achievements and please do not use them as a punching bag and diversion for our own inability to progress and for our failure to improve our economy and society.

They should try not to make racist and xenophobic capital from “the little red dot” by resorting to crude means in whatever political wayang that they may be engaged in. – March 30, 2015.