Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
OVER the years, I came to knowthree Lee Kuan Yews: the toughprime minister, the perfectionistwriter, and the elder statesman.
The first time I met Mr Lee wasin May 1969. I was a youngassistant lecturer newly returnedfrom Cornell. The Prime Ministerhad come to speak to the staff of theUniversity of Singapore.
A week earlier he had been deeplydisturbed by the reactions ofstudents who did not seem tounderstand the gravity andimplications of the May 13 racialriots in Malaysia, judging by theirquestions and mood at his publiclecture.
The PM was seized by thepotential contagious impact onSingapore, then a fledgling nation.How could he make themunderstand the stakes and ourvulnerabilities?
I stood up to say something indefence of the students. Mr Leedismissed what I said. I came backwith another response. Someonewho was present mumbled: “She isvery young.”
Mr Lee was seen as a stern,no-nonsense, authoritarian figure.He was respected and feared. Hebrooked no opposition. He felt theweight of the immense tasks aheadof him. He probably disagreed withand did not like most, if not all, ofmy writings as a political scientistfor the next two decades.
I saw him again after I returnedfrom my posting as the PermanentRepresentative to the UN. I wasinvited to the Istana with TommyKoh and Kishore Mahbubani tolunch with him.
It was 1993. We ate simply in asmall room. There I met a differentLee Kuan Yew. He was putting forthhis views on the world. The ColdWar was over, the Soviet Union hadcollapsed, the US and Europe weretriumphalist. He was thinkingthrough his assessment of the newpower configuration and what thismeant for Singapore.
In hindsight, he was positioningSingapore in the new world order toensure maximum prospects for itssurvival. We were his soundingboard. He wanted us to challengehis conclusions.
I realised then that he was opento argument, but you had to havestrong arguments. He was rigorousand robust in arguing back, like anadvocate in court. After severallunches, I learnt gradually that hisbrusque and strong response was hisdebating style. If the argument wasgood, he would accept it.
This was demonstrated again in1995 when he started writing hismemoirs. He sent each draft chapteraround to a few people to critique. Iwas one of them.
He would ask what we thought ofwhat he had written, and how he
could improve it. Was it tedious?Factual errors, statistics,misremembered dates, he took in atonce. He accepted comments telling
him it was tedious and he wouldlose the reader’s interest.
There were occasions when oneor a couple of us would disagree
with his reading of an event orconclusion in his analysis ofdomestic or internationaldevelopments. Again if the
arguments were good he deleted oramended the paragraphs.
But it did not end there. Hewould revise his chapter and send itback to us to ask again: Is thisbetter? Could he improve it further?Only when we had no furthercomments did he leave the draft.
I was posted to Washington bymid-1996. I received his faxedchapters in the morning. Mycomments were sent to him bynoon. My astonished secretarywould come to my office at 2.30pmto say he had sent back the revisedversion. It was 2.30am in Singapore.
This rhythm of exchange wasrepeated again and again. He was aperfectionist.
As ambassador in Washington, Iaccompanied him and Mrs Lee whenhe visited the US as Senior Ministerand later Minister Mentor.
Whatever his title, Americans atthe highest levels – presidents,secretaries of state, defence ortreasury, elected representatives –made time for him. They wanted tohear his assessments of Asia and theworld.
Ex-presidents and primeministers of other countries do notnormally get a White House meetingwith American presidents. Mr Leewas the rare exception. The captainsof industry and business, thechairmen and CEOs too were eagerto get a share of his time andinsights.
Mr Lee knew how to put a pointacross that landed the punch andleft a strong impression with hisAmerican hosts. He never toldanyone what they wanted to hear.He told them what he thought. Inthese meetings he infused Americanofficials and industry withconfidence and trust in Singaporeand Singaporeans. He created ourbrand name, and investmentsflowed into our country.
Mr Lee was strong and energeticwhen he came to the US in themid-1990s. His visit was the bestthing for an ambassador, for hisname opened doors. I noticed thenthat sometimes when asked aquestion, he would admit franklythat he did not know the answer. Hewas a mellower and morephilosophical Lee Kuan Yew.
I came to know how close anddevoted he was to Mrs Lee. He wastouchingly solicitous of her andmore so as she became frail after herfirst stroke. But her presence calmedhim. Later, after her death, hehimself turned frail.
In 2010 when he went toWashington to receive the LincolnMedal, his last trip to the US as itturned out, he was widely acclaimedas “one of the great statesmen ofAsia”.
Everyone spoke of how he built aremarkable success of Singapore outof so little. The admiration andrespect for him and for Singaporewere genuine and universal. Theysaw him as the last of the era ofgreat post-war leaders.
It is hard to sum up Lee KuanYew. He was truly a patriot. Heworked indefatigably for Singapore.He had the interest of his country atheart.
My wish is that youngerSingaporeans should read abouthim, know him and understand hisrole in the making of our nation.
OCT 27, 2009: MM Lee with Prof Chan at the US-Asean Business Council’s 25th anniversary gala dinner at MandarinOriental hotel, where he was presented with a lifetime achievement award by the council. ST FILE PHOTOS
Perfectionistwriter
Elderstatesman
Toughprime minister
Chan Heng Chee,ambassador-at-large andchairman of the Lee Kuan YewCentre for Innovative Cities atthe Singapore University ofTechnology and Design, wasambassador to the United Statesfrom 1996 to 2012 and is aformer political science lecturer
1 9 2 3 - 2 0 1 5
THE THREE LEE KUAN YEWS THAT I KNOW
20 ● ● W E D N E S D A Y , M A R C H 2 5 , 2 0 1 5