Why the Lee family saga can be good for Singapore

It should be seen by Singaporeans as a call from Lee Kuan Yew to be no longer docile sheep awaiting instructions, but path-finding, questioning explorers seeking a better course for their country.

Ong Hean Teik, Free Malaysia Today

Many have expressed the view that the Lee family dispute is an embarrassment and bad for Singaporeans.

In fact, behind every cloud is a silver lining, and there may actually be a beautiful rainbow waiting for Singaporeans who can see beyond this saga.

There is no doubt that Lee Kuan Yew worked hard for Singapore’s success. As he himself put it, “At the end of the day, what have I got? A successful Singapore. What have I given up? My life!”.

He also famously threatened that if something were to go wrong with Singapore, he would get up to set it right even if on his deathbed and about to be buried.

And so perhaps this Lee sibling conflict can be seen as a lesson designed for Singaporeans by Kuan Yew himself – but from beyond his grave.

For Singapore and Singaporeans to progress in this modern ever-evolving world, they must challenge established ideas and brave new frontiers in thought and action. This can only happen if no institution is considered infallible, opinions are constantly challenged and no one is idolised.

While every family would happily emulate the professional achievements of the Lees, none would want to follow their acrimonious personal discord.

Thus, Singaporeans are being shown that for all the wonderful success the Lees, or anyone else, has achieved, they are merely mortals, with good traits to follow and bad erring faults to avoid.

Only by considering every institution to be equally fallible and open to criticism would the young dare embark on independent and pioneering thought so much needed for continued innovation and success today.

That Kuan Yew himself was open to criticism comes across clearly when reading what those close to him had to say.

Eddie Barker, respected friend and fellow lawyer, spoke of being summoned by an angry Kuan Yew to his office, demanding to know why Barker had criticised his proposal so aggressively at a cabinet meeting. Barker recalled replying, “You told us to speak openly, not to be a Yes-man. If that is what you want, starting tomorrow I shall agree with everything you say.” Lee’s reply to Barker was to continue speaking honestly and openly.

A month before Barker’s retirement, Kuan Yew pointed to him at a cabinet meeting and said, “He’s always disagreeing with me. Why don’t you guys do it more often?”

Similarly Andrew Tan, his personal private secretary wrote of being given a wedding present which was pushed across a long table which was caught just before it fell off; Kuan Yew was immediately and openly admonished by Mrs Lee in front of the embarrassed young man, “Harry, that’s not the way to give a present”.

If Lee Kuan Yew did not consider himself infallible and is open to criticism, then perhaps Singaporeans and all their institutions must learn not to be excessively sensitive and defensive when criticised. After all no one has a monopoly on ideas or initiatives for the betterment of society and country.

There is ample proof that Kuan Yew was himself worried about the inability of his countrymen to emulate the entrepreneurial spirit of others right up to his latter days.

Robert Kouk, a life-long friend, wrote about receiving a letter from Kuan Yew in 2010 asking why Singaporeans were not more like the people of Hong Kong. Kouk hesitated, wondering if he should reply honestly, and after being reassured that Kuan Yew was indeed seeking an honest opinion, replied that it was “because he had straight-jacketed too many of his people in his zeal and impatience to develop Singapore too quickly”.

There is much good in the Singapore system but the reluctance to question and challenge authority is not among them.

The questions raised by the younger Lee siblings and the open invitation by the eldest to be questioned in Parliament should be seen by Singaporeans as a call from Kuan Yew to be henceforth no longer docile sheep awaiting instructions, but path-finding, questioning explorers seeking a better course for their country.