Former Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀), praised as Singapore’s founding father, has died at the age of 91, and the question of whether Lee was the “glory” or “dictator” of Singapore has once again become a hot topic.
Singapore is a nation made up mainly of Chinese together with Malays and Indians. After World War II, it became independent from Britain and in 1963 it entered into a federation with Malaysia only to leave the federation and form an independent country in 1965.
Thanks to its English-language policy, globalization has made it an active part of the world economy, and its average per capita income is now more than US$50,000.
Leading Singapore to independence has been the greatest boost to Lee’s position in history. He studied law at Cambridge University and became a lawyer in the 1950s, which helped him bring about Singapore’s independence from Britain and Malaysia.
It is said that Malaysia either abandoned or expelled Singapore due to its underestimation of the financial and economic potential of Singapore’s Chinese society.
If both Hong Kong and Macau, two other former colonies, had continued under foreign rule, perhaps they too could have gained independence instead of being returned to Chinese rule. Due to Beijing’s deceptive “one country, two systems” policy, the glory of Hong Kong, the Pearl of the Orient, which used to shine brighter than Singapore, has faded.
China may brag about being an “ancient civilization” and a “big power” compared with Britiain, but its democratic capacity and magnanimity is much inferior to that of the UK.
Lee led Singapore to independence and glory, but the city-state’s success has been limited to economic prosperity. His political attitude reflected the lack of democratic awareness in Chinese culture, and as a result, the country is now wealthy but not free. From this perspective, he was more Chinese than British.
Former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) and Lee were good friends, but Chiang failed to build the fragments of the old China into a new country after relocating to Taiwan, leaving a politically fragmented Taiwan behind. Since he failed to resolve the problem before he died, he could hardly compete with Lee in terms of historical importance.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Singapore’s Lee could have benefited each other, but Lee Kuan Yew only cared about Singapore’s interests, and had no sympathy toward turning Taiwan into a normal, healthy nation. Meanwhile, since he always thought highly of himself, he was unwilling to submit himself to the talented but arrogant Lee Teng-hui, and the two eventually parted ways.
Some Taiwanese and Chinese have chosen to emigrate to Singapore, which attaches excessive importance to economic development. Its national development might be restricted if it does not review its short-sighted utilitarianism and attach significance to democratic values.
Many Taiwanese officials liked to visit Singapore in the past, but they only gained a superficial understanding by such fleeting visits and learned nothing from the Singaporeans. Now, they like to visit China and make tours to places situated behind the ranks of missiles targeting Taiwan.
Some party, government and military officials have even left the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and joined the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and their actions are absolutely embarrassing. Without a Taiwanese awareness, there will be no glory for the nation.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US