Суровые истины во имя движения Сингапура вперед

by Lee Kuan Yew, Ли Куан Ю

Mr Lee Kuan Yew described Hard Truths as his all-time "favourite" book. He stayed in the public eye for 60 years - as the revolutionary leader who steered Singapore into independence, as the Prime Minister who transformed the Republic into a First World country , and as Minister Mentor, the elder statesman. Based on 32 hours of interviews, this book picks up where his memoirs of 1999 and 2000 left off. It deals with what it takes to keep a successful Singapore going.

Published by Straits Times Press.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Biography, History, Economics, Asia, Memoir

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Lee Kuan Yew was born in Singapore in 1923. He was educated at Raffles College, Singapore and Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, England. He was called to the Bar, Middle Temple, London, in 1950 and practised law in Singapore. He became advisor to several trade unions.

In 1954, he was a founder of the People's Action Party and was Secretary General up to 1992.

Mr Lee became Singapore's Prime Minister in 1959, serving successive terms until he resigned in November 1990, when he was appointed Senior Minister by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. He was re-appointed again after the 1991, 1997 and 2001 general elections.

In August 2004, Mr Lee was appointed Minister Mentor by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and was reappointed again after the 2006 general elections. He stepped down as Minister Mentor in May 2011, and was appointed Senior Advisor to the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.

Reviews

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disclaimer: I am a naturalized citizen of Singapore, having resided here for 28 years (as of 2012) and married into a Singapore family 23 years ago. I gave up US citizenship and never looked back.

Lee Kwan Yew is simply the most seminal, inspirational and effective political leader of the post World War II world. One is hard pressed to find any statesman who comes close. After the ordeals of British colonial rule and the Japanese occupation, Singapore struggled to survive. On that fateful day ... August 9, 1965 ... when Singapore was ejected from its Federation from Malaysia, Lee Kwan Yew was faced with the challenge of survival. He not only endured but built a phenomenally successful republic, a vibrant center for business, services and tourism. To do so, he had to impose his will on a reluctant population and drag them in to the modern world. He succeeded. As he enters his final days, he imparts some invaluable lessons and insights in this book to the citizens and next generation of leaders.
The most engaging feature of this book is how it presents the human side of LKY. His 60 year marriage to his wife Choo, his role as a father and grandfather, his recollections of his student days in the UK. One has to be careful about taking LKY on and disagreeing with him; however, while I loved 98% of his book, I respectfully demurred on a few minor points. LKY has a vision of Bill Clinton as a vibrant, dynamic leader and characterizes his impeachment by the US Congress as "shameful". In reading LKY's book about the importance of integrity, honesty and truth, it is hard to rationalize his approval of Clinton. My other disagreements concerned some of his views on genetics and intermarriage of Singaporeans. It is hard to accept the notion that people are born with certain qualities that enable them to be superior. With Singapore's outstanding education system, the field can be levelled and the door open for advancement. On intermarriage of Singaporeans with foreigners (which Lee seems to frown upon), I can only offer my own life (and the incredible SIngapore Girl who accepted my proposal) as a rebuttal to this notion. Nevertheless, this book is a great read about the accomplishments and legacy of one of the 20th Century’s greatest leaders.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book interesting for Lee Kuan Yew's views, and definitely not for the interview format in which they were presented.

The journalists barely contributed anything valuable at all: they were clearly cowed by LKY, unable to debate him into any concessions or to challenge his more extreme views. To their credit, they did present others' well-worn criticisms, but after LKY rejects the arguments, immediately gave up pursuing the issues any further. The interview summaries are rather sycophantic, uncritically praising "pragmatism" and finishing each time with twee sentiments.

The journalists and Lee Kuan Yew were very upfront with their belief that the role of the media is to support the government, and I suppose there's no reason to expect a better effort on their part here.

LKY's analysis of Singapore's strategic advantages and disadvantages was very impressive in its insight, and it's not surprising that Singapore's economic policy and resultant growth far outclasses that of many Western countries. (Just compare Singapore's response to the GFC with Australia's.)

But this technocratic approach (value-free pragmatism) also contains a strong disregard for constitutionalism (the belief that there are principles to which a government must abide); LKY is repeatedly dismissive of the concerns of the people (eg the non-compensated compulsory acquisitions of coastal properties), and blurs national interest and partisan interests many times.

I enjoyed Rachel Lin's chapter towards the end (aside from the requisite twee ending) because many of her concerns were similar to my own; she does a lot to humanise the book in her responses to the man who regrets nothing.

[Nisá · Rating 5 out of 5]

"I used to ride with Tunku Abdul Rahman in his car. He treated me as a courtier. I had to follow him to weddings and all social functions. Everywhere, they had new mosques. I said, "Tunku, why don't you build clinics?" "No, no," he said, "Kuan Yew, you don't understand these things. This is a Malay society. They need to pray. You just give them the right prayers and a little bit of better life and they will be happy, they will work with you."

*This is coming from a Malay man with position himself. And now you wonder why the Malay race will never progress or somewhat oppressed? Look in the mirror. Religion and race are two separate components.

[Min]

"Q: Many Americans are willing to die for their country, which they believe is a land of opportunity for people of all kinds. Is that how you see Singapore?

A: No, it’s more than that. This is a near miracle. When you come in, you are joining an exceptionally outstanding organisation. It’s not an ordinary
organisation that has created this. You’re joining something very special. It came about by a stroke of luck, if you like, plus hard work, plus an imaginative, original team. And I think we can carry on. Singapore can only stay secure and stable, provided it’s outstanding.

... [The editor:] I paused. I had never seen it in that way before: that Singapore was a near miracle, an accident of history. All those national education lessons had drawn some sort of a narrative thread through our past, as if where we are today was the natural result of a chain of dominoes that led back to Raffles. That’s not really true, I thought. There’s nothing natural about how we got here. It took decades of development, choices made over generations, at all levels, to reach this point. There were always options, always paths that we could have taken. For the one set of paths we’ve taken, we’ve got this result. It’s a result that is, in some respects, really miraculous."

[Brit Cheung · Rating 3 out of 5]

（the review is confined to the first 4 chapters）
Mr LKY is full of charisma and state vision despite being controversial for his ardent advocacy of meritocracy and the genetic beliefs.

what he did were to serve Singapore's interests and its future is his perpetual preoccupation. He has an exceptional sense of crisis for his country. When the outside world marvel at what Singapore has achieved and its stunning transformations, he always keeps wary and vigillent for the country's looming threat. He is too clearly about Singapore's advantages and predicaments. What you see could be deceptive and illusionary, the ostensible prosperity of the country could be transitory if the country falls into the pitfall of a policy blunder. Singapore must have a powerful and productive,highly efficient government. If Singapore failed to be aware of its singularity that distinguish it from any other state and if a mediocre governance prevails , the country is doomed. That could come as a reason for his relentless support for a strong government and meritocracy and that is the harsh truth of singapore.

He explicitly elaborated that Singapore is a sort of 80-storey mansion built on the unstable marsh . The mansion would possibly collapse if blunder were to made. Any threatening blunder would give birth to unpleasant consequences even devastations.

His unduplicatable experience mould him the hard core and his penetrating views on complex international issues.
Why Singapore can earn the respects of the major powers and what a role can this city-state play and wins its reputation in the international community and how can it proceed to survive amid its hostile neighbors ,the book gives illuminating perceptions. Its bilingual policy and congenial interaction with almost all major powers were thoroughly and prudently conceived,whereby Mr LKY dedicated all his toil and wisdom.

Singapore has an inextricable relations with the United State and China.
In reading the book, I perceived Even before early 1980s Mr LKY has sensed the inexorable rise of China and began to establish close relations with it, I really want to explore what made him so confident on his judgements.

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

If Tom Plate's Conversations with LKY was a four star read for me, I would rate Hard Truths as a 4.5 star read. Hard Truths is presented as a dialogue in question and answer format and like Conversations with LKY, this allows LKY's voice to come through. You can almost hear the rhythm of his speech rolling off the pages of the book (and indeed, the copy I borrowed came with a DVD featuring excerpts from the interview where you really could hear LKY speak). By reproducing his blunt observations, the hard-hitting assessments of Singapore's future, on politics, etc almost verbatim, you get a slightly different feel than you would reading his other books written in standard prose format like volumes 1 and 2 of The Singapore Story. So why is Hard Truths worth (at least) an extra half star?

Well, for one thing, while Tom Plate's book was based on 2 days' worth of interviews and came up to slightly over 200 pages, Hard Truths was based on interviews held over 16 sittings from Dec 2008 to Oct 2009. Hard Truths clocks in at close to 450 pages and allows for a much more detailed exploration of LKY's views on a wide range of topics, from Singapore's vulnerability, and race and religion, to his family, homosexuality and even whether he believes in feng shui ! And whereas Plate (to my annoyance) tried hard to inject his own personality and spin into Conversations with LKY, Hard Truths is entirely about the man. The only hint of the personalities of the Straits Times team behind Hard Truths comes through from the introductory paragraphs preceding each chapter, where the journalists must about their responses to LKY.

I'm always impressed whenever I hear LKY speak, whether he's giving a speech or is at a dialogue session. His grasp of the issues, the clarity of thought, his "tell it as it is" approach. You may not always agree with him, but you can see where he's coming from and at the very least, you respect how his actions are guided by a set of considered and consistent principles. Which in LKY's case, as he reiterates throughout the interview, is his "abiding concern for Singapore".

When I read Conversations with LKY, the thing that struck me and really stuck in my mind was LKY's assessment of the quality of the US Secretaries of State over the years, and how the Secretaries in recent years lack the deep understanding of Asia and their inability to appreciate how developments in the region fit into a cultural and historical context that has been shaped over the centuries. That and his anecdote about Jimmy Carter being completely out of his depth as POTUS. For Hard Truths, the first thing that really struck me was LKY's defence of high ministerial salaries. That it is fair to expect people to step up to serve not for the money, but for the honour of serving one's country. But you can only get people to make this sacrifice of their personal space and time for one term. If you want your Cabinet to stay for 2, 3, 4 terms, this isn't sustainable. The second thing that stuck with me was LKY's account of his relationship with his wife, how they met, how he got her into Cambridge, and how he would read to her nightly after she became bedridden and lost her ability to speak after several strokes. It reminded me that LKY wasn't just an elder statesman, Singapore's first PM who did battle with the communists and cut down his political enemies. He was also a husband and a father.

I stopped buying books a couple of years back as a space and cost-saving measure, opting to make use of the library instead (the library gets my vote for greatest utility derived from my tax dollars). I only buy books that I've already read, love and absolutely have to own a copy of. Hard Truths is one of those books.

[Wesley Kam · Rating 4 out of 5]

An aged Moses writes the book of Deuteronomy leading up to his last days, warning the nation of Israelites he had led through the unforgiving wilderness the past 40 years. Moses reminds them of the unlikely circumstances on which their nation had emerged from, inclining them to learn from their past mistakes and hold true to commandments that it might go well with them. “Lee Kuan Yew -Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going” flows in the same vein, in essence preparing a new generation for a new set of challenges.

With the passing of his wife, Lee knew the days he had left to make an impact on his life’s work, the nation of Singapore, were numbered. A new generation of Singaporeans who had not experienced the tumultuous rise of early Singapore was about to inherit the nation he has given his blood, sweat, and famous tears of 1965. He had to make peace with his abiding concern that we should take this nation for granted, lest it made him get up from his grave. This led Lee to collaborate with The Straits Times editor, Han Fook Kwang, to produce “Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going”, based on numerous interviews over hundreds of hours. Every interview is reminiscent of Lee in parliamentary debate, a relentless cut-and-thrust repartee, yet weighted in sagely wisdom.

Personally, I am a skeptic of the product of Lee’s unimaginative, pragmatic, authoritarian style of politics that has led Singapore to be dubbed Disneyland with the death penalty (Gibson, 1993). However, Lee pulled no punches when weighing in on the issues of our Singaporean community through a grating political lens, drawing me in from beginning to end. From here on forth, I will be discussing Lee’s views on issues prevalent in Singapore community.

Firstly, an issue faced by the Singaporean community is its lackluster national identity. This is an issue as national identity determines one’s sense of belonging to a place, in turn determining one’s commitment to a nation (Shamai, 1991). Lee, in his book, affirms the importance of a national identity, citing the American Democrats’ resistance toward assimilation policies in favour of multi-cultures as a problem for the state (Han Fook Kwang, 2011). Yet, Lee does not seem to have an answer as to what our Singaporean National Identity could be based on, except that of the “economic necessity of peace and stability and growth” (Han Fook Kwang, 2011).

Singapore’s national identity has never been founded on firm ground, lacking traditional means of ethnic nationalism and its nascence precludes the success of typically long-term nation-building efforts (Ortmann, 2009). Lee’s pragmatic approach to governance means that no values or ideology are ever held sacred in ensuring the survival of Singapore, leaving the thin thread of “economic necessity” to unite a nation (Saxena, 2011). With nothing but the rational economic instincts of self-preservation and self-gain to unite us, all it takes is an economic crisis or better opportunities elsewhere before it’s every man for himself once again. To me, to have Lee’s notion of a national identity is to have none at all!

Secondly, a compounding issue is intolerance with regard to the openness to immigration in Singapore. Intolerance is not a new challenge for Singapore, though its focus has evolved over the decades from racial intolerance to that toward immigrants. The controversial Population White Paper meted out in 2013 that projects a 6.9 million Singaporean population by means of increasing immigration (National Population and Talent Division, 2013). Locals responded with hostility toward the new immigration policy, staging three major protests (Chang, 2013). In spite of the backlash, Lee does not change his position about the influx of foreigners in Singapore, asserting that the ends will justify the means. Talking about the low fertility rate in Singapore and the economic ramifications of an ageing population, he claims that Singapore will have much to owe to such an open borders policy just decades down the road in typical paternalistic fashion (Han Fook Kwang, 2011).

I believe the intolerance of foreigners could inadvertently raise the Singaporean national identity. Since the founding of Singapore, “bloc notions” had been responsible for a heightened sense of national identity; first in the Malay community when the Chinese and Indians were welcomed by British colonial masters, then in the Singapore community when we were separated from Malaysia (Milner, 2009). Though ethnic nationalism is off the cards, a sense of civic nationalism could be cultivated through a “bloc notion”, clearly defining group boundaries between Singaporeans and immigrants (Ross, 2009). What is truly Singaporean might then be distilled from the melting pot that is our city, creating a core identity for our society through which immigrants might be able to take as true north for successful assimilation. Thus, I disagree with Lee’s insistence that economic principles are the antidote for these issues of our community, believing instead in an organic social construction of national identity through a bloc notion, which could in turn give immigrants a reference for assimilation.

The third issue in community in Singapore raised in “Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going” is meritocracy. Meritocracy is the concept that “pay and privilege should be awarded solely on the basis of merit, however defined” (Arrow, Bowles, & Durlauf, 2000). In theory, meritocracy should equalize opportunities in Singapore offsetting inequalities in family background with the promise of social mobility through the rational and neutral allocation of resources (Teo, 2018). Lee affirms the merits of meritocracy, citing benefits such as the recruitment of the most capable leaders in government to navigate the “sampan” that is Singapore in “rough waters”, controversially justifying their astronomical income (Han Fook Kwang, 2011). He also maintains that meritocracy cultivates a competitive society, polishing Singapore’s most valuable resource—its talent (Han Fook Kwang, 2011). Lee’s position on meritocracy does not budge, leaning back on Singapore’s precarious geopolitical context at the risk of coming across as overly paranoid.

However, the meritocracy has been “practiced so extremely” in Singapore that it has backfired on its initial promises of social mobility, leading us to the fourth issue: inequality. Though a bright-eyed believer in socialist ideals in his youth, he had come to accept the “realities” of social Darwinism in his early days as a politician. Evident in policies like the Graduate Mothers’ Scheme, Lee’s controversial take on inequality is that it is a result of genetics, which causes a wide disparity between the elites and those he refers to as “duds” in no ambiguous manner (Han Fook Kwang, 2011). Lee’s seemingly parochial attribution of capabilities to genetics has hence led to the internalization of narratives of mobility and worth, producing a long-held acquiescence toward inequality in Singaporean society (Teo, 2018).

I have chosen to discuss the third and fourth issues in community together, as I believe inequality and meritocracy are intimately related. Lee’s obstinacy on his stance on meritocracy is theoretically backed but lacks empathy. While Lee is right that economic prosperity is high on Singaporeans’ list of priorities due to strong Asian values, this relentless economic pursuit has cast a shadow over the plight of those lagging behind on the socioeconomic ladder. Though Singapore’s economic machine has managed to prosper the nation in absolute terms, the relative deprivation felt by those marginalized by inequality is cause for worry (Rahim, 1999). It simply does not matter how rich one becomes if he looks to his left and right and sees the rest have become even richer. Meritocracy, as practiced in Singapore, rubs salt in the wounds of the marginalized with the narrative that those at the top deserve to be where they are, and inversely, those at the bottom deserve to be where they are. This dissuades the affluent elite from wealth redistribution policies and is compounded by the fact that top policymakers make up the affluent elite as well. Lee’s regime has left bodies in its wake as it bulldozes to economic conquest and does not show signs of slowing down anytime soon, especially if it continues to be undergirded by the meritocratic narrative of deservedness.

The fifth and last issue raised in “Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going” pertains to the target audience of the book – the next generation of youth in Singapore and our infamous political apathy. Likening youth to fruit (strawberries and durians in particular) has been a common theme in recent years, and Lee seems to agree to a tangent. When asked to share his views on the political apathy of youth in Singapore, he puts it simply, saying “they’re too comfortable” (Han Fook Kwang, 2011). The “prospect of losing everything”, Lee remarks, was what had kept him going, and wistfully comments that the youth of today might never grasp such an outlook (Han Fook Kwang, 2011). He is right. After all, what is there to fight for when all has been laid on a silver platter?

I appropriately conclude this review on this note, as Lee’s greatest contribution through “Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going” are not his astute observations or nuggets of wisdom, but his ability to draw even the most apathetic into the debate on issues in Singapore. In all his obstinance and paranoia, Lee inadvertently answers the one question that defines my generation: why should I care? While most would be prepared to gobble down every of Lee’s views in reverence of Singapore’s biggest political celebrity, it is his shortcomings that have defined this book for me. Lee wasn’t always right, and our leaders might never be. There will always be a need for the unlikely members of society to throw down the gauntlet with regard to the evolving issues of our Singaporean community.

Works Cited
Arrow, K., Bowles, S., & Durlauf, S. (2000). Meritocracy and Economic Inequality. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Chang, R. (2013, October 6). Third Population White Paper protest draws smaller crowd. Retrieved from The Straits Times: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...
Gibson, W. (1993, January 4). Disneyland with the Death Penalty. Retrieved from Wired: https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/
Han Fook Kwang, Z. I. (2011). Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. Singapore: Straits Times Press.
Milner, A. (2009). the Malays. John Wiley and Sons.
National Population and Talent Division. (2013, January). A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore. Retrieved from Strategy Group: https://www.strategygroup.gov.sg/docs...
Ortmann, S. (2009). Singapore: The Politics of Inventing National Identity. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs , 23-46.
Rahim, L. Z. (1999). The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community. Oxford University Press.
Ross, M. H. (2009). Culture in Comparative Political Analysis. In A. S. Mark Irving Lichbach, Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure (pp. 134-161). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Saxena, N. (2011). Virtuous cycles: the Singapore public service and national development. Singapore: Ministry of Foreign Affairs .
Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: an empirical measurement. Geoforum, 347-358.
Teo, Y. Y. (2018). This Is What Inequality Looks Like. Ethos Books.

[Clarisse · Rating 4 out of 5]

To say that LKY is a smart and remarkable man would be an understatement. His vast knowledge of the world and his ability to foresee challenges has undoubtedly made him one of the most respectable and well-known man in the world. As the title suggests, this book really revealed the ‘hard truths’ that many Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, fail to see and understand. In this book, LKY touched on many topics, ranging from the economy and governance to cultural and social issues, while also sharing insights on his leadership experience. While ‘hard truths’ is a recollection of the past and Singapore’s achievements, it is also remains a crucial guide for future leaders in understanding how to tackle problems, especially in the context of Singapore. As someone who is clueless about the world of politics, this book has helped understand the reason behind different policies in place, as well as broaden my perspectives regarding the challenges that LKY believed Singapore will inevitably face one day.

For example, when LKY said Singapore should not try to be a manufacturing hub due to our sure loss to our competitors, I thought he was being pessimistic and had lack believe in the capabilities of Singaporeans. However, as I read on, he mentioned the small land size and lack of natural resources in Singapore, which made it difficult for Singapore to even stand out from others. He brought up the point on leveraging on Singapore’s world-class brands (i.e SIA), clean systems, and anti-corruption government to built a reliable and credible environment for potential investors, helping me understand more about our Singapore economy.

[Lea Tan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book gave great insights to the mind of Singapore's founding father in the most direct and provocative manner. Helped young sgeans understand the history and milestones that our grandparents and parents have been through. Awesome read.

[Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book gives a fascinating look at how Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership helped lift Singapore out of income inequality during the 1960s, especially when most Singaporeans were stuck in low-paying blue-collar jobs. The author delves into two of Lee’s core principles—first-principle thinking and surrounding himself with talented people—that really shaped Singapore’s economy. Lee’s first-principle thinking helped him navigate complex economic models, choosing strategies that fit Singapore's unique needs, like focusing on high-paying industries to help raise incomes. He also believed in building a strong team, bringing in experts like Dr. Goh Keng Swee, whose ideas for targeted investments in industries like electronics and shipping boosted wages and transformed the workforce. Fast-forward to today, these principles still matter as Singapore deals with new challenges like an aging population and the need for skilled foreign talent. However, the book raises questions about whether Lee’s approach, especially the focus on meritocracy, might unintentionally widen income gaps. It’s a thought-provoking read that not only captures Lee’s impact but also encourages reflection on how his ideas could evolve for modern Singapore.

[Tan Eu Ning · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book elucidates many invaluable lessons we can learn from Lee, a highly respected figure in the world. The unedited interview transcripts not only exhibit Lee’s candour, but also allows readers to have a glimpse of his worldview. After reading the book, I am enlightened that Singapore exists today entirely because Lee decided to step up, sacrifice his private life and enter politics. We are very fortunate that the right decisions were made at crucial points and things eventually fell into place. However, the fact that Singapore came about so unexpectedly also reiterates that success could easily be taken away from us. Hence, Singapore cannot rest on its laurels and should always anticipate changes. This book has made me appreciate our homeland more and not take for granted the comfort I am living in today. I would definitely recommend this book to all Singaporeans who did not go through the revolutionary period like Lee did.

[Teo Hong · Rating 5 out of 5]

Felt like a series of bedtime stories, conversations with Singapore's great grandfather.

May not fully understand (international relationships, especially ME) or agree (nature vs nurture) with all of his stories but I guess they all reflect his pragmatic and realistic views on matters and life.

Really liked how he suspended judgement on the present leaders too, understanding that the climate and set of challenge that they face are not the same as what he went through.

Thank you Ah Gong.

[Matthew Chia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great insight into the mental database of a brilliant man. Many lessons to be learned here.

[Vyas · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for anyone looking to grasp the challenges of governing Singapore and for insights into the man who made the "near miracle" of a nation what it is today.

[Simon Ang · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going – How True are They?

Centred around 32 hours of interviews with our late Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going (Han et al., 2011) documents some of Mr Lee’s most contentious views on various communal issues. This book review seeks to evaluate Mr Lee’s thoughts from a psychological perspective and explore their implications on issues surrounding inequality, the integration of the Muslim and immigrant communities, freedom of the press, and gender against the backdrop of an increasingly globalised twenty-first century Singapore.

Mr Lee espouses Social Darwinism with an almost-deterministic slant. Not only does he believe that “human beings are created unequal” (p. 186), he is also of the more contentious view that around 70 to 80 per cent of a person’s attributes is dictated by their genetic makeup (p. 114). Thus, he proposes that mediocre parents are more likely to give birth to duds, intelligent parents will almost invariably pass on their good genes to their descendants, while the union of a graduate man and a non-graduate woman tend to produce a mix of offspring who are cognitively well-endowed and others who are less so (p. 200). Granted, research has shown that the heritability of general intelligence is considerably high, in the neighbourhood of 50 to 80 per cent (Plomin, 2001), and intelligence also appears to play a substantial role in predicting long-term socioeconomic success. Results from meta-analyses of multiple regression studies have demonstrated that intelligence accounted for approximately 20 to 30 per cent in the variance of educational and occupational achievements respectively (Strenze, 2007), a moderate strength of effect (Cohen, 1988). The attendant consequence, according to Mr Lee, is that as a society develops, social homogamy arises and the population inevitably organise itself into strata (p.114) where the genetically gifted and successful pass on the advantages to their children in a manner that is reminiscent of the Matthew effect in sociology – the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer (Merton, 1968). While Mr Lee’s theory seems to check out at first blush, it ultimately falls prey to an overly narrow conceptualisation of intelligence. However, not all is gloom and doom; Mr Lee also sees the importance of ameliorating the effects of the widening rungs in the social echelon by ensuring equal opportunities for all (p. 212). More recently, educational programmes such as the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) Skills Subject Certificate (ISSC) have also been introduced to encourage the less academically-inclined students to pursue alternative paths to success. This shows that the government has come to recognise that intelligence can come in multiple forms and are invested in helping people who possess the less conventional forms of intelligence apply themselves in society.

Mr Lee also highlights the difficulties in integrating the Muslim community into the larger Singaporean community, due in part to their distinct religious practices and the pressure to observe their religious injunctions (p. 229), which has inhibited their interaction with individuals from other religions in a social context (p. 234) and discouraged intermarriage (p. 228). He goes as far as to claim that the teachings and practices of Islam, at least in its political manifestation, are incompatible with modernity (p. 236). Similar sentiments have also been widely echoed by right-wing political commentators in the West, such as the likes of Steven Crowder (The Liberty Daily, 2017) and Milo Yiannopoulos (The Rubin Report, 2016). In two polls of 2000 Canadians conducted by Léger Marketing in 2013 and 2014, 42 per cent of Canadian Muslims believe the difference between Western society and their own cultures is too great to be reconciled (Todd, 2015). The challenge in integrating the local Muslim community is also compounded by the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism catalysed by Saudi Arabia’s propagation of Wahhabism (p. 234). Arabisation has taken the Singaporean Muslim community by storm over the past decade (Shanmugam, 2016) as Malay vernaculars – such as tudung, hari raya, and terima kasih – are superseded by their Arabic counterparts such as hijab, Eidul Fitri syukran, while more Malay women are trading in their baju kebaya for the Arabian abayas and donning the niqab, the head dress that covers the entire face apart from the eyes (Saat, 2018). The impetus is thus on the religious and community leaders to promote the practice of moderate Islam and to defend the Muslim community against religious extremism and exclusivity.

In the face of a greying population and falling fertility rate, Mr Lee recognises the importance of immigrants in sustaining the economy and replacing ourselves (pp. 266 – 267). According to a Sunday Times survey conducted in 2006, a majority of Singaporeans objected to the government’s open-door policy out of fear of losing jobs; thought that foreign talent enjoyed all the benefits of living in Singapore, but none of the responsibilities; and were unconvinced that importing more foreign talent would create jobs (pp. 269 – 270). Mr Lee, however, believes that we can minimise the foreigners’ influence on the locals by spreading them out across the country and that foreigners can serve as a healthy source of competition to motivate Singaporeans to achieve more (p. 279). Today, it is relieving to know that Singaporeans’ attitude towards immigrant has improved over the years. In a more recent study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) published in 2019, almost 90 per cent of respondents felt that they could learn a lot from the immigrants’ cultures and that it is a good idea to have people of various nationalities living together in the same neighbourhood (Zhuo, 2019). However, the same poll also suggests that the general sentiment among Singaporeans is that immigrants should be doing more to integrate into society (ibid.). Community leaders should thus take cue from the findings and create more opportunities for the integration of immigrants.

Mr Lee concedes that it is important for the press to adopt an independent view but is adamant that press freedom must not undermine government policies (p. 85). Cognisant of the profound threats and vulnerabilities facing our nation, such as the resentment from neighbouring countries which see us as the “interloper” in the region (p. 17) who are living off their resources (p. 25), Mr Lee proclaims that the peace and progress as enjoyed by millions of Singaporeans today is not an entitlement but the result of careful social engineering and stringent selection of competent leaders. He asserts his position that liberal democracy is infeasible and will lead to political instability in a multicultural Singapore (pp. 53 – 54), which could lead to the nation’s demise. Likening the country to a chronometer, Mr Lee aptly sums up our state of vulnerability: “You drop it, you break it, it's finished. Some countries, you get a second chance, you buy spare parts, you put it back again. I'm not sure we'll ever get a second chance." (p. 47, para 3). Instead, he suggests that the “economic necessity of peace and security” (p. 58) serves as an utilitarian thread that holds the social fabric together. As pessimistic as it may seem, it is likely that this common interest may continue to be the mortar of our society until we can arrive at a more viable alternative.

Perhaps one of Mr Lee's more controversial beliefs lies in the domain of gender differences. He suggests that women are inherently biologically different from men in unique ways that make them more suitable, and thus mainly responsible, for child-rearing (pp. 361 to 362) – a position that would deeply offend the liberal-minded in this day and age. However, there is an abundance of literature in psychology that supports Mr Lee’s postulation that women are superior to men in the. One common line of argument postulates that women make for better caregivers in general as they are likely to be more agreeable than men (Budaev, 1999; Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Feingold, 1994). Agreeableness is one of the core traits known collectively as the Big-Five in personality psychology; these are personality traits that have been derived through factor analysis. Agreeable people are tender-minded, compassionate, friendly, and helpful, qualities that are conducive to successful childcare. In a separate speech at the National Day Rally in 1983, Mr Lee famously the die was cast, there was no way for them to revert our policies and have the women return to their primary role as mothers; they would not be in favour of it (Saw, 2016). Women have already become an indispensable part of the economy (ibid.). Even until today, these views are still relevant in guiding government policies in paternity and maternity leaves, so as to create a more egalitarian working environment for both genders.

The book has provided me with valuable insights into the astute opinions of the late Minister Mentor and furthered my understanding of the unique set of challenges and social issues in Singapore. It was an engaging read as the combative Mr Lee presented his arguments in a logical, compelling, and illuminating fashion that is intelligible even to the politically uninitiated. A treasury of wisdom and immense knowledge, Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going is a timeless masterpiece that has aged well, and which is worth re-reading for years to come.

References
Budaev, S. V. (1999). Sex differences in the Big Five personality factors: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 801-813.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Costa, P., Jr, Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322-331. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.2.322

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429-456. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429

Han, F. K., Ibrahim, Z., Chua, M. H., Lim, L., Low, I., Lin, R., & Chan, R. (2011). Lee Kuan Yew: Hard truths to keep Singapore going. Singapore: Straits Times Press.

Saw, S. (2016). Population policies and programmes in Singapore (Second ed.). Singapore: ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute.

Shanmugam, K. (2016, January 20). Religion, terrorism and threats to Singapore, the region. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/...

Plomin, R. (2001). The genetics of g in human and mouse. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 136–141.

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63

Saat, N. (2018, August 15). Arabisation and the threat to Singapore culture. Today. Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/commentar...

Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35, 401–426.

The Liberty Daily. (2017, May 24). Steven Crowder: Political Islam incompatible with Western civilization [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gapwM...

The Rubin Report. (2016 March 24). On the Brussels attacks (Pt. 1) | Milo Yiannopoulos | politics | Rubin report [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OAnm...

Todd, D. (2015, March 26). Most Canadians believe Western and Islamic societies "irreconcilable:"

Poll. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-b...

Zhuo, T. (2019, August 4). Most Singaporeans agree they can learn from immigrants, but feel the group needs to integrate more into society. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...

[Gabriel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) is undeniably one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. Former US President Bill Clinton once praised him as “one of the wisest, most knowledgeable, most effective leaders in any part of the world for the last 50 years”. (p. 82) Personally, I have idtentified three values of his that stand out. First is his tenacity. LKY never backed down from a fight, regardless of criticism or public reaction. With a clear vision in mind, he set himself to work with the pure goal of seeing Singapore succeed. Critics were abundant and challenges were a dime a dozen, from the separation from Malaya to the threat of losing our water supply. Yet this was a leader who was determined to succeed.

Second is his pragmatism. Despite his position and power, LKY was always conscious of how things were happening on the ground. He was not one to chase ideals but centred his thinking on realism. What is the truth, the real truth that some bury away and avoid? By understanding our constraints, he was able to lead the nation to success.

Thirdly, LKY had, in my personal opinion, a sense of humility. Although this great leader was best known for shutting down his opposition and remaining steadfast in his beliefs, he also demonstrated a quiet consciousness of his personal limitations. Despite the wealth of knowledge and experience he had, he never disregarded the opinions of his younger ministers and even acknowledged that his views could be outdated.

Thus, LKY is a visionary leader due to the values aforementioned. With such a clear expectation of how Singapore should turn out, LKY also faced many challenges in trying to navigate politics and nationhood.

One issue LKY faced was the vulnerability surrounding Singapore at that time.

Singapore was a small nation state that had yet to establish itself in the world, let alone the region. Thus, in his time, LKY had placed a great emphasis on national defence, spending a significant portion of the national budget on military equipment, facilities and the training of troops. Compulsory conscription was also introduced which required all Singaporean men to undergo 2 years of national service. LKY recognised that our size, geographical location and age meant we had to quickly learn how to defend ourselves instead of relying on alliances. Hence, NS was portrayed to be very mentally and physically challenging, perhaps to show the world that Singaporean soldiers were a force to be dealt with. During National Day Parades (NDPs), military troops and vehicles would parade around, to display to the public, and the world, our military might.

Today, the portrayal of NS seems to have changed slightly. A large effort has been put into trying to appease the public through means such as giving out monetary tokens to servicemen and taking more precautions to ensure the safety of troops. This could be in view of the training accidents over the years and more attention being drawn to athletes having to serve despite having opportunities to further their sporting career.

As the world grows more volatile with the unpredicatibility of North Korean leadership and newer conflicts such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This may not seem like a concern to Singapore which does not currently have territorial issues, it serves as a reminder of our vulnerability and the possibility that even in this age, aggressors could launch an attack on us anytime. In this light, current public opinion on our large defence budget is likely to be maintained. NDP military displays have remained a staple in our parades, with more aspects of our national defence being showcased. The 2022 NDP showcased police, paramedics, bomb diffusers and other less commonly seen security professions performing drills to display their readiness. Even during Covid-19, when the parade had to be decentralised and scaled down, military vehicles could still be seen moving around the heartlands.

Therefore, while some may argue that Singapore is no longer as vulnerable as before, we can never let our guard down.
Another issue LKY faced was having to establish a system of succession for nation leaders that would ensure Singapore’s continued success. During LKY’s term as Prime Minister, the opposition was relatively weak as compared to the People’s Action Party (PAP). Thus the PAP consistently enjoyed a large share of the seats in parliament without experiencing much friction. When the issue of leadership succession arose, the Singapore government strived to be democratic but LKY recognised that the unstable nature of such a system could mean a change of leadership and hence a disruption in his long term plans for Singapore.
In order to ensure his plans would continue, the next generation of leaders were carefully selected according to a strict criteria. By cherry picking the best leaders, the opposition was unable to compete and could not even field enough candidates, allowing two of PAP’s candidates to enter government without even having to fight an election. This goes against the fundamentals of a democracy as there is no choice allowed, where the public had no say in whether they approve of the candidate as there is no alternative.
In our current age, the tradition of handpicking leaders remains an open secret, but the extent to which this is done has definitely been adjusted. The most stark difference can also be seen in the demographics of the candidates. Apart from increased inclusion in terms of genders and races, the type of backgrounds candidates come from now varies more. No longer are we presented with a team full of scholars who excelled academically and are well to do financially. Taking the GE2020 election for instance, we saw candidates like Desmond Tan who could only afford university education upon receiving the government scholarship (The Straits Times, 2020). Many of the candidates also have community work experience where they volunteered at an organisation or had initiated their own plans.

Hence, what is presented to the public is not a group of like-minded high flyers who will echo the same sentiments as before, but hopefully a team of leaders who have different lived experiences and different thoughts. It is also interesting to note that the opposition has indeed strengthened quite significantly with the addition of political powerhouses like Jamus Lim and Pritam Singh, with Workers’ Party (WP) managing to secure Sengkang GRC (Group Representation Constituency), in addition to Aljunied GRC and Hougang SMC (Single-Member Constituency). Thus the cloud of confusion over the extent of our democracy can be argued to have lifted slightly.

Another point of contention was LKY’s economic decisions. LKY recognised that Singapore lacked the market size to compete with much bigger countries like China, which dispelled any possibility that Singapore could rely solely on itself for economic success. LKY This view was bolstered by globalisation and the growing awareness globally that for any country to succeed, international trade was something that could not be ignored. Due to our small population, LKY feared that we would not be able to generate enough innovative talent to enable our multinational corporations (MNCs) to compete abroad. Thus, LKY looked to focus on small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which could act as much needed suppliers for MNCs. We also strayed from the manufacturing market that was dominated by our more established counterparts and looked beyond our walls, welcoming foreign labour. These measures were effective as they capitalised on opportunities in the market while leveraging on our strengths. Thus Singapore was able to quickly establish its place in the economy.

However, the economy today is drastically different from when we first started. As the world progressed and advanced into the digital era, so too has Singapore. We continue to ensure our relevance in the world such as in the semiconductor industry, by supplying microchips amidst a global shortage. We have also shifted our focus from labour workers to attracting foreign talent in the form of high-skilled workers, who can help to boost the quality of our labour force. Technological advances have also allowed for more innovation and entrepreneurship, allowing both our SMEs, like Carousell, and our MNCs, like Shoppee to grow and thrive. As opposed to LKY’s time, innovation has become a distinct feature of Singapore’s economy. Singapore is one of the most innovative cities in the world, with some of the most innovative companies such as Siemens and ABB having their key innovation centres based here. (EDB, 2022) Local universities such as NTU also pride themselves in being at the forefront of technological innovation. Thus while our emphasis on global trade and foreign talent remain, it is undeniable that Singapore is moving in a new direction than before.

Overall, LKY has certainly inspired me to be a better leader and provided me with much food for thought. Prior to reading this book, I had always wondered why LKY had led the way he did. Did this man truly not care about anything else but Singapore? Now, having had an insight into his thoughts and rationales, I can safely say that yes, Singapore was his top priority. This leads me to reflect upon my own convictions and purpose of being a leader. I question if I possess the same resolve and passion as LKY to fight for the causes that I hold dear. I wonder if I will be able to weather the storms that come, even if not all my crew agrees with where I steer the ship. But if there is anything I have learnt from LKY, it is that we must have the resolve to take the first step. We must be willing to do whatever it takes for our cause, for our communities. We must accept that as leaders, we have that responsibility to not succeed, but try. Not for ourselves, but for the many that are counting on us. As the new generation, we have to keep striving to make Singapore a better place, in whatever way we can. But as we reach for the stars, our toes must always remain on the ground. We must learn from those who passed us the baton. We must strive to do better.

Word Count: 1680

References:

Han, F. W. et. al. (2011). Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going.

The Straits Time. (25 June 2020). Singapore GE2020: Profiles of PAP’s new candidates. https://www.straitstimes.com/politics...

Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB), as of 24 August 2022. Innovation. https://www.edb.gov.sg/en/our-industr...

[Cornelius Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone who have any interest in politics should give this book a read. This is a inspiring book that includes hard truth that is unpopular although it’s true. It talks about issues ranging from businesses to racial harmony in Singapore

[Lynn Neo · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Even from my sickbed, even if you are going to lower me to the grave and I feel that something is going wrong, I will get up.” This famous quote strikes a chord with many Singaporeans as a testament to how much Lee Kuan Yew has sacrificed his blood, sweat and tears for this country ever since Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965. Although I have never been supportive of how he ruled Singapore with an iron fist, but I am still able to fully admire him for how he managed to transform Singapore from a fishing village into a first world nation. Lee’s “Hard truths to keep Singapore going” is an eye-opening memoir which talks about highly controversial issues ranging from race and religion to personal trivia questions, revealing to us the more personal side of him.

The first issue I would be discussing is the surge of foreign migrants in recent years which became one of the biggest sources of unhappiness among Singaporeans. This was especially clear in the 2011 General Elections where both rational and emotional reactions surfaced (Kishore Mahbubani, 2015). Students found themselves struggling while their foreign counterparts went onto academic honour rolls and took top awards in many competitions; adults had to fight for jobs and housings with the foreign talent pool. The government granted about 18,500 new citizenships every year from 2008 to 2012 (Goh, 2013) and this gave rise to a large wave of dissatisfaction among the locals. The 2013 population White Paper exacerbated the problem as the number of foreigners increased by 66 percent from the year 2000 to 2009. A reason used by Lee to justify the need for more immigrants is our aging population as well as falling birth rates, which would ultimately lead to a decline of our economy. Locals expressed their dissatisfaction through social media platforms and the service industry has even received complaints about how the Chinese nationals struggle to serve our non-Chinese speaking citizens and tourists due to the language barrier. The high influx of foreigners means that their presence is made excessively visible in public places and some even received heavy backlash from locals about their inconsiderate behaviours. The falling sense of national identity can be seen in a 2017 survey whereby almost half of the 2000 respondents feel that excessive foreign talent can dilute the cohesiveness of society (Mohan, 2018).

Although I am not supportive of the idea of the government opening the immigration floodgates, but in certain situations it is deemed as necessary. Singaporeans often lament about how foreigners are “stealing” their rice bowls, but I deem this argument invalid as most of the jobs which they are doing are those of which Singaporeans are not willing to do! They are considered unwanted jobs like climbing up the scaffoldings at construction sites, sweeping the roads and washing the dishes. However, as a student myself, I do see how foreign students are indeed excelling their studies with flying colours while we struggle to match their standards. This has placed excessive unnecessary pressure on us and as what many of us would put it, these foreign students are here to “spoil bell curve”.

The next issue raised by Lee is the issue of religious and racial divide. In recent years, the Christians have also begun to make their voices heard and presence known in public over the more controversial issues like homosexuality and the building of casinos. The percentage of Christians increased from 14.6% in 2009 to 18.8% in 2015 and this has created an atmosphere of fear that the religious leaders might attempt to influence politics with their own religions. In 2015, thousands of Christians and some Muslims donned white on the day Hong Lim Park was swarmed in pink. This clash of views among the different religious groups in Singapore is also highly controversial as all parties have their own different beliefs and seek to promote values which they believe in. The government also implemented various policies such as putting racial quotas for public housing estates to ensure that the different religions mingle and changing the electoral system to bridge the gap among the different races and religions to safeguard the interests of the minorities. In 2016, the government announced the system of reserved elections where an election is reserved for a specific racial group if that group has not seen any representative for five continuous terms (Yong, 2016). However, I feel that such policies only serve to further highlight the inherent distinction and divide among the different races, especially in the most recent change to the presidential election. By doing this, it undermines the abilities of the minority group and also sparked off a debate on how the candidate’s race is determined by the panel.

The next issue is the problem of inequality, which goes beyond income inequality but also human intellect. Singapore ranked 149 out of 157 countries on an index which rank how successful countries have been in tackling income inequality between the rich and poor (CNA, 2018) as 73% of Singapore’s wealth is owned by the top 20% (Koh, 2016). Despite several measures implemented by the government such as offering of financial assistance schemes for students, SkillsFuture for the lower waged workers to upgrade their skills and various pioneer generation packages for the elderly, wealth inequality is still a pressing problem which remains an uphill task. “I can give you extra tuition, better environment, but the incremental benefits are not that much. And their peers with bigger engines will also make progress. So the gap will never be closed”. The truth has never been presented so well and Lee offered us a very harsh truth of how society is like. We are all born different and have different maximum capacities; there is only so much which some people can do (Teo, 2018) Albert Einstein once said, “If you judge a fish on its abilities to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it is stupid”. The government has recognized the need to extend their scope beyond just the academics field, but also to non-academic related ones like the sporting and musical scene such as the Singapore Sports School as well as School of the Arts. Despite these efforts, I am still very pessimistic as we all know it is difficult to rely on sports or the arts to survive in a society like Singapore where the most recognition and credits still go to those with academic merits.

Another issue is how millennials today are generally politically apathetic. Youths today are described as the “strawberry generation” – unable to take hardships and deeply self-entitled. Most younger Singaporeans tend to turn away from the public service industry and instead lean more towards the private service where career prospects are brighter and more lucrative. Personally, I am of the view that the government is one of the reasons why youths are not willing to enter the political arena. We need no reminders on how punishments are meted out to those who attempt to speak out against the government; these people have nothing to gain but everything to lose- the way our government handles their critics is highly unacceptable. That aside, it is also how the lure of the private sector is too strong where things are more stable and certain. Simply put, youths today have everything served to them on a plate and the comforts their private sector career can bring them far outshines what the political scene offers them. Therefore they do not see a purpose in fighting for any cause.

Last but not least, Singapore is also grappling with the issue of a brittle economy where we heavily rely on external parties for our economic growth. Singapore’s economy is mainly driven by external factors such as exports, financial services and tourism (Sloman). The economy relies largely on Western countries and MNCs for growth as seen in how Singapore’s external demand for it exports grew from 70 to 76% in the last 10 years and thus, any changes in the global landscape would shake the economy of Singapore. A country with almost no natural resources, it is indeed a challenge to rely on ourselves. Therefore in May 2000, the first NEWater plant was built and it became the fourth source of national tap. Malaysia was no longer Singapore’s only supplier of clean water, making us a more self-sustaining country.

Lee’s book is definitely an unconventional one which truly broadened my views about the man himself as well as the struggles Singapore was once put through. I appreciate how Lee dared to voice out his honest opinions on even the most controversial topics at hand, allowing me to better understand why he did what he did despite how there are still some policies and actions of his which I am skeptical about. Some parts of the book really struck me hard because of his brutal honesty, but it has definitely allowed me to look at his governance and leadership in a different light.

[Min Xin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going is an essential book for any active citizen of Singapore. It contains wisdom that LKY accumulated over his years. These are lessons that he learned through his experience. I pray none of us will have to go through what he did to learn these lessons. For any of us who love Singapore and hope to see her grow, we must educate ourselves with what LKY terms the hard truths.

Over the past year, I gradually developed an interest in Singapore’s political scene and policies. This has largely been a result of having the opportunity to engage different communities, especially youth, and in particular, youth-at-risk. I was confronted with community issues of poverty and inequality. I saw these as major factors as to why some youth seem to have a different starting point and do not have the family or social support that I had growing up. Naturally, I began to question some of our policies – the fixation on economic growth, education and meritocracy, and the amount of resources being put into our social service sector, just to name a few. The late Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is a man I have highly respected since I read the stream of testimonials and watched the videos that followed his passing in 2015. He is well- celebrated not only as Singapore’s founding prime minister, but as a global statesman. I count it my privilege to have gleaned from his wisdom and clarity on world issues, albeit I could only do it from a book.

[min · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hard Truths are factual unpleasantries that most people do not admit. In Hard Truths, Lee Kuan Yew candidly gives his harsh opinions that may be politically incorrect on several controversial issues regarding Singapore’s governance in sixteen face-to-face interview sessions with seven Straits Times journalists. Written in an enthralling question-and-answer style, Hard Truths gives readers a glimpse into Lee’s unique perspectives on leadership in his own words.

One dominant characteristic highlighted by Lee is having convictions. Lee believes that if one does not have convictions, it may be because of reasons such as personal glory, honour, publicity or popularity, instead of true passion for the cause (Ibrahim et al., 2011, p. 75). During the period Lee took helm, Singapore was in uncertainty and distress. Racial riots were askew, with high tension between racial groups. Hence, Lee and his team had the single-minded focus to revolutionise Singapore, and ‘keep Singapore going’. For Lee, his cause is simply Singapore’s success. With this conviction, he was prepared, regardless of the sacrifices he had to make. For the other leaders, they recognised that if they, as capable leaders, did not step in, Singapore could potentially collapse, affecting their family, businesses and everything else that mattered to them.

Lee’s conviction to Singapore’s success is exemplified through his continual presence in Singapore’s politics and desire to groom the next generation. Even though Lee had stepped down from his Prime Minister position in 1990, he continued to serve as Senior Minister, Minister Mentor and a Member of Parliament up till his death in 2015. Utilising his vast experience, Lee mentors and advises younger ministers on decision-making. He does not flaunt his political clout, instead providing them guidance and support. Acknowledging the fact that circumstances have changed, he does not criticise the current leadership and processes. When asked about his opinions, he directs the interviewer to question the younger ministers instead (Ibrahim et al., 2011, p. 62).

Lee’s strong, no-nonsense personality shines throughout the interviews. When the interviewers remarked that Lee’s convictions may not have been perceived positively, he retorts that he is not interested in other people's opinions, and does not allow himself to be affected (Ibrahim et al., 2011, p. 78). It is this same conviction that allows Lee to make tough, unpopular decisions that were fundamental to Singapore’s long-term economic and social growth. One such decision was the phasing out of dialects during the Speak Mandarin campaign, to promote social cohesiveness between the different dialect groups of Chinese Singaporeans, as well as successfully implementing the social policy of bilingual education.

Frequently highlighted by Lee as a trait of a successful leader is practicing empathy. As such, a community leader should stay in touch and communicate with the community. Lee previously visits constituencies and new estates to talk to residents (Ibrahim et al., 2011, p. 62). Despite his struggles to pick up Chinese and Hokkien as an English-educated bourgeois, he did not relent. Instead, he communicated with the working-class masses in their familiar language to understand their problems and interests (Ibrahim et al., 2011, p. 375). This allowed him to propose suitable social policies, ensuring the government’s interests are aligned with the community’s, so that families could live better lives. Remaining objective, he acknowledges effort made by political opponents, such as Low Thia Khiang, Worker’s Party leader and leader of the opposition in Singapore’s Parliament. He remarked that Low retains control of Hougang as he ‘wins the ground’ by attending every funeral, every wedding, and every complaint.

This is further illustrated when the topic of elitism within PAP’s leadership is broached. The pragmatic and realistic Lee admits that PAP’s leadership selection favours the elite who have explicitly shown their leadership capability, such as determination, resourcefulness and stamina. These qualities can be seen in scholars who have performed well academically, as well as the top in various professions. Aligning with his governing principle of meritocracy, Lee asserts that the objective criteria of a chosen leader being successful is performance-based. A successful minister is one who can achieve their intended outcome - being popular with the masses through empathy and sound decision-making (Ibrahim et al., 2011, p. 105). To surmise, other than explicit knowledge, a successful leader should have a high level of contextual intelligence, defined as a combination of IQ, EQ and tacit knowledge, which is accumulated from on-the-job experience (Ibrahim et al., 2011, p. 129). He further explains that although most ministers are part of the elite who received a better social and educational foothold compared to the working class, there are exceptionally successful ministers from non-elite origins, including non-scholars Wong Kan Seng and Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

Lee uses his convictions about bettering Singapore as his guiding principles for decision-making, not wavering at the face of uncertainty. However, even the ‘best leaders’ do not make the best decisions all the time. As Lee reflected upon his political career, he admitted that some of his convictions, such as fighting for a Malaysian Malaysia, were a mistake. Nonetheless, Lee does not regret his past decisions. He stands by his convictions, explaining that he did what he thought was right given his knowledge and circumstances then (Ibrahim et al., 2011, p. 374). He perceives his past mistakes as learning points for better decision-making.  

The largest challenge faced would be the lack of leadership continuity. Along with the stringent leadership criteria, this is perpetuated by Singapore having a population of three million people. Hence, Singapore has a smaller pool of potential leaders and successors compared to countries like China.

Next, lack of a strong conviction dissuade the younger population from pursuing politics. Young Singaporeans have not experienced the economic hardship during the 1960s, doubting and disbelieving Singapore’s vulnerable economic and social position (Ibrahim et al., 2011, p. 126). Instead of having to constantly worry over the country’s affairs, most would rather have a comfortable, well-paying job in the private sector. He points out that leaders should be highly motivated and passionate to their convictions, such as MP Denise Phua. Instead of treating the task like a job, she campaigns aggressively for disadvantaged children as she personally feels for them due to her son being autistic (Ibrahim et al., 2011, p. 209).

Hard Truths allowed me, as a reader, to learn about traits of successful leaders, and the challenges faced in their communities. Lee’s style of leadership can be perceived as either stubborn by critics, or simply wanting the best for the nation by advocates. Still, one cannot help but to admire and respect him for moulding Singapore from a Third to a successful First-World nation today.

[Li HanLin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review of Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Legacy

In Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Legacy, the founding father of Singapore shares his vision for transforming a post-colonial island into a global powerhouse. With his sharp insight and unwavering commitment to nation-building, Lee Kuan Yew created a framework for Singapore’s success that was grounded in the values of meritocracy and social integration. The book stands as a profound testament to Lee’s leadership and the intellectual rigor behind his policies, which continue to shape Singapore’s identity today. Lee’s candid reflections provide not just a history but a guide on the principles that helped Singapore thrive, making it an indispensable resource for anyone interested in understanding the nation’s remarkable journey.

Social Integration and Meritocracy

One of the central themes of Lee’s governance philosophy was his commitment to social integration. He recognized that Singapore’s diverse racial and ethnic makeup could be both an asset and a challenge. To foster unity, Lee introduced key measures aimed at creating a cohesive society. For example, he made English the official working language to bridge communication gaps between Singapore’s various ethnic groups. This decision was not just pragmatic but visionary; it allowed for the development of a common ground that transcended individual ethnic identities. Lee believed that by facilitating effective communication, Singapore could overcome divisiveness and promote cooperation across racial lines.

The book eloquently recounts how Lee tackled the challenge of racial segregation within the housing system. Despite the natural tendency for different communities to cluster in specific areas, Lee’s public housing policies ensured that Singaporeans of all races lived side by side in HDB flats. This wasn’t just about physical integration, but also about fostering a mindset of inclusivity, where no community was left behind. The book sheds light on the foresight behind these policies and the delicate balance Lee maintained to prevent ethnic enclaves from forming. It highlights how these policies were critical in shaping the harmonious multiracial society that Singapore is known for today.

Alongside social integration, Lee was equally passionate about meritocracy, which he considered the cornerstone of Singapore’s development. The meritocratic system he championed emphasized that individuals should be rewarded and promoted based on their abilities and achievements, regardless of their background or ethnicity. This commitment to meritocracy helped ensure that Singapore’s limited human resources were utilized in the most efficient and effective way, fostering both economic growth and social mobility.

A significant achievement of Lee’s meritocratic system was the implementation of the O-Level exams, which evaluated students based on their academic and co-curricular performance, allowing them to advance irrespective of their socio-economic background. The book discusses how this system became a model of fairness, with Lee’s vision for an egalitarian society where education and opportunity were open to all, regardless of family background.

However, Lee acknowledges that implementing meritocracy is not without its complexities, especially in the context of a multicultural society. The book delves into the challenges Lee faced in applying meritocratic principles, particularly in sensitive areas like national defense, where cultural and religious factors sometimes conflicted with ideal meritocratic outcomes. These candid reflections offer readers a nuanced understanding of the challenges Lee faced in balancing meritocracy with the realities of Singapore’s diverse society.

Challenges to Social Integration and Meritocracy in the Modern Context

While the book effectively captures the historical context in which Lee’s principles were applied, it also provides a sobering analysis of how these same principles face new challenges in the modern era. One of the most pressing issues is the rise of religious conservatism and self-imposed social exclusion, especially among Singapore’s Muslim community. The book explores how new media and increased religious awareness have led to a growing divide, which threatens the inclusivity Lee so strongly championed. This shift in religious attitudes among certain communities is a reminder that social integration is an ongoing process, requiring constant attention and adaptation to changing societal dynamics.

Additionally, the book highlights the challenges posed by globalization and technological advancements, which have contributed to widening income inequalities in Singapore. Despite Lee’s commitment to meritocracy, these global forces have introduced new disparities that threaten to undermine the very ideals of social mobility and equal opportunity that he espoused. The growing wealth gap, coupled with the increasing number of foreign workers and the influx of talent, presents new challenges to Singapore’s social fabric, making it difficult to maintain the ideal of meritocracy in a world of rapidly changing economic landscapes.

The book also addresses the evolving nature of Singapore’s housing policies in response to these new realities. As the country’s affluence grows, many Singaporeans are upgrading to private housing, which could potentially lead to the emergence of ethnic enclaves in more affluent areas. This shift poses a challenge to Lee’s original vision of integrated, diverse communities, as the growing disparities in wealth and housing could undermine the success of his housing policies.

Conclusion

Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Legacy is an insightful and thought-provoking book that provides an in-depth look at the guiding principles behind Singapore’s success. Lee’s legacy of meritocracy and social integration shaped the nation’s development and continues to influence its policies today. However, as the book expertly demonstrates, the evolving challenges of the modern world require that these principles be adapted to address new realities. While Lee’s vision remains a powerful foundation, the future of Singapore will depend on how it evolves to meet the demands of a rapidly changing global landscape.

In summary, this book not only offers a retrospective on Singapore’s remarkable transformation under Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership but also serves as a valuable resource for understanding the complex dynamics of governance, social integration, and meritocracy in a multicultural society. It is a must-read for those interested in the story of Singapore and the leadership that made it one of the world’s most successful nations.

[Yen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having spent my entire life in Singapore, “Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going” (Han et al, 2011) proved to be deeply relatable and stands out from other volumes written on Mr. Lee with its candid and genuine tone throughout. When asked if he would choose to be a politician again, Mr. Lee expressed his reluctance and it was the circumstances that driven him to take up the mantle, having felt that he led his supporters down. Mr. Lee provided thought-provoking insights based on years of experience that my generation would not have gone through especially in Singapore’s formative years. He answered questions pertaining to prevailing social issues that I had previously oversimplified. Some instances of these issues are not specific to Singapore but our unique predicament starting out as a third world country with no natural resources require innovative solutions to tackle with prevailing issues – income inequality, reliance on government, views on eugenics, open-door policy, mandatory national service and even keeping Singapore green which we Singaporeans take for granted but is often the first comment that foreigners would have about Singapore. I would like to share my thoughts on the former three issues in this short review and hopefully inspire you to pick up this book and explore the other thought-provoking yet touchy issues raised by Mr. Lee.

On Income Inequality and Reliance on Government
Many of us recognize Singapore as one of the wealthiest countries, coming in 3rd with a GDP per capita of int$93,905. However, we also have one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world and Mr. Lee mentions that “the pursuit of high growth inevitably leads to a widening income disparity" (p. 143), “if we can make the growth and we choose not to, then we are stupid” (p. 167). As dire income inequality is, I agree with Mr. Lee to prioritize growth and help the gifted individuals “go the furthest so they can bring jobs in for the masses, redistributing the surpluses” (p.186). However, now that we have attained first world status, income inequality remains unchanged and our Gini coefficient even rose from 0.458 to 0.459. Despite similar GDPs profiles, Scandinavian countries boast a much lower Gini coefficient, ranging from 0.247 to 0.269 (p. 143). Thus, it begs the question - are we doing enough to strive towards equality? Admittedly, there are measures in place by the Ministry of Manpower to improve the situation such as to retrain and upgrade older workers to improve their skillset and thus employability (p. 182). However, this remains a challenge as pick-up rates for such schemes like SkillsFuture remain drastically low at 6.3%. Therefore, is it wise to continue to render additional help to the lower strata if they themselves choose not to pick up the aid made available? Or is the help rendered (in the case of retraining schemes) even remotely useful at all? It is a moral dilemma to allocate more resources to help the struggling working class as it then becomes unfair to the other classes that also contribute to the nation yet do not benefit from the reallocation. Instead, this could inevitably encourage a welfare state in the case of Britain and Europe (p. 200) where the underclass is over-reliant on the government. Such socialist societies with “a slower growth economy in favor of solving social issues” (p. 168) may theoretically sound viable but real-world anecdotes from other countries have proven otherwise. Therefore, Mr. Lee was wise enough to avoid promoting any form of reliance and opt for empowering citizens through means like education.

On his views on Eugenics
Mr. Lee’s views on inequality extend beyond income, but also human intellect. Surprisingly, Mr. Lee was not always so firm in his belief towards eugenics back in the 1930s when he “thought (that) people were innately equal and it was the unequal opportunities that resulted in some doing better” (p. 187). During his time as Prime Minister, he observed that “performance varied substantially between different races in Singapore” (p. 188). He cited the Indian caste system (p. 189) and Chinese Imperial exam to illustrate Darwinism as human nature to seek progression and “concluded that the decisive factors were the people, their natural abilities, education, and training” (p. 188). However, if individuals like Lim Chee Onn, son of a taxi driver (p. 198) had adhered to this belief seeing it pointless to work hard, it would have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, our community is so fixated with attaining quantifiable success that we neglect other non-quantifiable aspects like creativity. Quoting Aesop Jr, “if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid”. As such, it is crucial for our nation to start promoting other paths to success apart from the well-worn traditional path. Currently, there are initiatives in creating such alternatives in the form of music, art and sports schools. More importantly, our society needs to adopt an open-minded view towards these alternatives instead of dismissing them as to “offer(ing) no future”, a common sentiment that many older generations have passed down and encouraging the younger generation to take up more “practical” well-paying jobs.

In conclusion, I am deeply inspired by how Mr. Lee’s leadership that undoubtedly shaped today’s Singapore. Admittedly, before reading this book I had several qualms regarding Singapore’s policies (which I still do regarding the high ministerial pay, eugenics). However, I have come to appreciate aspects of Singapore that I would not have otherwise. As the saying goes, “the grass is always greener on the other side”, it is always easier to find fault in our system and choose to migrate to “better countries”, causing Singapore its “brain-drain” phenomenon. In reality, “the grass is greener where you choose to water”. Given the number of talented individuals and our leading education, it remains baffling that none that we have groomed have come close to Mr. Lee’s calibre. Regardless, Hard Truths has truly illustrated community leadership driven by genuine intentions that I would hope to witness in my generation, to go against odds and forge a better community.

[Choonghwan · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a book of a series of interviews between LKY and journalists of a Singaporean newspaper, ranging from his well-known policies - such as dual language education, immigration policy, authoritarian political system - to private lives of him and his family.

He is a man of paradox. Despite being an ethnic Chinese himself and the fact that roughly 70 % of the population are likewise, he set English as Singapore’s first and primary language. Though educated in Cambridge, he argued there were Asian values to be honored. He simultaneously opened its economy widely and tightened a grip on social and political cohesiveness.

As his health deteriorates in his 80s after decades of a political career, it is a timely attempt to capture and preserve one of the greatest political minds for the future generation.

It is a pity that there is no more LKY who dares to speak hard truths and sticks to them. The more political correctness prevails across democracies in the world, the harder we are going to miss him.

[PMP · Rating 4 out of 5]

I need to write Han Fook Kwang a thank you note. This could have been another concrete block of a book, but with some deft manouevring, Han convinced the titan of Asian geopolitics to drop the idea of a third instalment to his autobiography series, and submit instead to a series of interviews. Han and his team of young and old journalists cap and sock the revealing, highly-entertaing interview sequences with what appear to be factual backdrop, but in fact serve as sly little digs at the interviewee. For all the subversiveness of the interviewers and the offensiveness of the interviewee, Lee emerges as a human being after all. That is something that, left to himself, I suspect he could not possibly have known how to do. The myth is turning into a man at last.

[Clarence Wx · Rating 4 out of 5]

LKY is definitely a force to be reckon with. His pragmatic and practical ways have made Singapore what she is today, though it may be aggressive. This book has freshen my thoughts and opinions on Singapore and answered(or at least gave me a clearer picture) the many doubts and queries I personally have regarding her present and her future. It is also nice to know some of my take in life coincides with LKY.

[Jules · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting read. Have come to appreciate Singapore a lot more, now that I understand its history a little better. Am quite in awe of Lee, and admire the way he thinks, and like how steadfast he is with his opinions. Quite liked the format of the book as well-made it very accessible.

[Wan Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Its tough to be a Singaporean.I am glad to be in this country.

[Xi Xi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like his sheer sense of realities.
very inspiring, I would say.

[Erwinchong · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found the idea of this book intriguting and am glad to know most of the tough political issues faced on/ for my country...

[Kuku · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good insight on LKY's personal thoughts and political views. May not agree fully with his views but respect his fortitude and self-belief