Lee Kuan Yew – a tribute to a great leader

Lee Kuan Yew (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I first posted this in LinkedIn, but I feel that it is appropriate to have it in my blog. Read on...
-----


March 29, 2015



I am penning this down, to pay my respect for Singapore’s founding father – in a few more years, half of my life would have been lived in the country he has built. I will pay my respect by being a good (foreign) worker, and if I ever become one, a good citizen.

My family and I watched Mediacorp’s airing of Lee Kuan Yew’s achievements and Singapore’s history, up to the coverage of his funeral and the service held at UCC. Here are some pointers that I picked up, and may we all learn from it:

Keep up with the times. When he gave a speech at the US Congress, he was recognized, not simply because he knew how to talk, but because he knew his country, and he knew other countries. He discussed the current issues of unemployment in the US, and so, he earned the recognition of being a leader who knows, not only one who can talk. As many Singaporeans who grew up with him attest, "he (LKY) never gave empty promises. He delivered.

Build for the future, not just today. LKY looked at Singapore, and as he went around to build bilateral relationships and to attract investors, he realized that to be viable, Singapore has to take up English as the primary language. English became the primary language in trades and in government offices. Even then, for Singapore not to lose its racial culture and tradition, mother was made a requirement in schools. As he put it, he himself rediscovered the treasure of the Chinese language and culture when he learned Hokkien and Mandarin. He only didn’t see today, but he saw 10-, 20-, 30-years into the future.

> I love this one. Being in the software development business, I would often tell myself, and some colleagues, to build for the future, not just today. I practiced the habit of designing and developing applications that can and will stand the test of time.
Choose to be unpopular. Doing what is right will make you an easy target for critics, especially if the change you are making is going to impact so many. And doing what is right means becoming tough and firm, and this could be easily construed as being rigid and uncompassionate. But doing what the people wants, or what your supporters suggest, of what the masses mandate, isn’t always the best way to ‘please’ the people. As it was stated by the speaker, “If you want to be popular, you will misgovern.”

Know what you are dealing with. Perhaps the most significant of the traits of the system that Singapore has is because it ‘borrows’ from the world’s best-in-class practices. As I’ve often heard from fellow management leaders, what LKY did was to study the different system of the world’s governments, and to pick on what is the best practice, and what can be applied to Singapore, and that he did.

Be pragmatic. Even then, when he knew what he was doing, he didn’t immediately executed plans and actions. He had his fellow leaders to consult with, and they slowly built and planned, and planned and built. They had all the data to support their plans, and yet, they moved slowly – but surely.

Be firm. When a plan is put into action, and there are hiccups along the way, or some things don’t work out as planned, be firm. Even when things go along the way they were expected or planned to be, there will always be unsatisfied observers and detractors. If you easily cave in to the pressure, you lose.

Be clean and honest. When you go up the ladder of leadership, and many doors open up to you, don’t be tempted to gorge on your ‘rights and privileges’. Always remember that when you have served your term, or when you have lived your life, the history you leave behind will not only be in your name, but in your family’s, and in your nation’s.

Practice integrity. It was very commendable how he practiced integrity, and fought against corruption. And having lived a life of integrity, it wasn’t difficult for him to tell others of the same high mandate for a leader. If not, detractors will easily find a spot and make it their point of argument against you.

Be tough. Having made integrity his own personal mandate, LKY required it of his nation. He set up CPIB, and anybody who is found to be corrupt, or doing something illegal and is caught and makes a bribe, will have a heavier and harsher punishment.

Surround yourself with equally honest leaders. He didn’t look at the skin color, or the spoken language, but he offered the same chance of becoming a leader to serve the people to potential citizens, who perhaps showed the same qualities as he possessed. I didn’t hear or read of a cabinet member or an MP who was found to be corrupt or debased. A stark contradiction of many leaders past and present.

Include opposition. It was very revealing that while many accused LKY of being close-minded who didn’t entertain others’ views, one fellow leader said that he wouldn’t like you and wouldn’t listen to you anymore if you agreed to everything he said. He wanted somebody who will oppose him and give the other side of the story, and to reason out with you, present the idea and provide the basis for doing so. Indeed, what better way to see the same scenario from somebody else’s eyes! A devil's advocate, anyone?

Listen to others. No matter how smart you are, you will not always see the whole picture on your own. And when you close your ears to others, and gets puffed up in your own proud heart, your downfall is imminent. Be humble, remain humble and always look back from whence you came.

Delegation. Don’t be power hungry. Don’t think you will live forever, and that even all your life, you will stay in power. Train new leaders, and learn to let go. Prepare for your own future by preparing new leaders, and therefore, ensure the continuity of what you have started. That he did, and saw to it that everything is in place, even long before he passed away.

Frugality. It is quite contrary to know that LKY lived his life in frugality, especially that the wealth of Singapore is open to him. He also didn’t abuse his power and privilege. Actually he didn’t need to spend a single dime, only to speak up and request for a new set of clothes, a new set of furniture, the latest TV or computer set, and stores would be on their toes to give him what he asks for – free of charge. Yet he did not. A 60-year old sofa set. A vacuum-tube monitor and an outdated PC. A very simple 2-storey house. And for his contemporaries, borrowed pair of shoes, borrowed coat. Are we missing something here?

Practicality. A chair is a chair, and if it serves its purpose, why seek an elaborate one. And if it still serves its purpose, why replace it and throw it away?

Focus at the task in hand. He always made it a point to be never lingering around issues, but always focused at the task in hand. No wasted time, no wasted opportunity.

Career and family are both equally important. It was with amusement that I watched the open forum where LKY was conversing with a lady, aged 27, who is currently taking up PhD D. She is not married, and she doesn’t have a boyfriend. She would be around 29 by the time she finishes her PhD D, and if she does enter into a relationship after a few more years, and gets married, she’d be around 35 by the time she gets pregnant. LKY stressed that at that age, the dangers of pregnancy, especially for the baby, is increasing. And yet, he didn’t tell her not to pursue the PhD D. He did remark that having a family is more satisfying than a PhD D, but in the end, he jokingly told her, “I hope you catch your PhD D and your boyfriend.”

Keep up with your family. Even when his tasks as a leader was so exacting, he made it a point to have a time together with his family – regularly. Needless to say, he was successful, not only as a leader, but also as a father and as a grandfather.

Fidelity. He married the woman he loves, and he loved the woman he married. No return, no exchange. His wife became the strong support who goes with him anywhere he goes. As it was told, where he is seen, there she was. Yet at the start, they were competitors, she scoring higher than him. But along the way, they became friends, then a couple. Together, they forged the Singapore we all know today is.

Have nothing else to prove. He didn’t show off his status with new gadgets. He didn’t brag about his status with shining cars. He didn’t declare his wealth with huge mansions. He didn’t attend sessions wearing designer clothes. In fact, he had to mend the tear on the jacket that he wore for years and years. Why? Because he had nothing else to prove. Having done what he should, and with an overwhelming mark of excellence, he didn’t need anything else to add on. His work is proven, and he didn’t need to speak about it.

He has passed away, and he is gone. We will miss him. As said in an artist’s epitaph, the same can be said about Lee Kuan Yew:

If you are looking for his work, look around Singapore.

Related articles

• Lee Kuan Yew is gone. Where does Singapore go now?
• Lee Kuan Yew: The Man Behind Modern Singapore
• His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen pay respects to late Lee Kuan Yew
• Special Parliamentary Sitting on Lee Kuan Yew to be broadcast 'live'
• Singapore teenager charged for insulting Lee Kuan Yew
• Opposition politician on Lee Kuan Yew's leadership - BBC News
• Lee Kuan Yew: Authoritarian Leader Who Transformed Singapore into Global Trading, Financial centre
• Scenes of emotion as Singapore mourns Lee Kuan Yew
• Lee Kuan Yew's Death Lands Teenage Blogger into Trouble in Singapore
• Founding father of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew was a true giant of history: President Obama

Retiring early (doesn't always mean) living longer

As mentioned, here is the other article that debunked the previous one that says after 55, you'll die early if you continue working.

I have watched a documentary many years ago about this one, where is says that we reach a certain age where our body becomes very fragile, and at the same time, sensitive to changes. This means that much of our muscles tend to get more painful with each use. But the less we use them, the more they get tight and tough - and becomes harder to use the next time.

That is our old-age problem. And we live with it so long and as long as we live.

Read on...
-----

No truth to retirement-lifespan link

Letter from Larry Haverkamp

I REFER to the letter “Retire early, live longer” by Tan Kok Tim (Aug 3). It refers to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s comments in “I don’t think there should be a retirement age: MM” (July 29).


The author claims Mr Lee is wrong to say people should keep working. He argues that people will live longer if they retire early and cites a study by Boeing Aerospace retirees which found that staff who retired at 50 had an average lifespan of 86, and that those who retired at 65 lived to an average age of only 66.8 years.

He says the study found that “for every year a person works beyond age 55, he lives an average of two years less”.
Mr Tan is not correct. Boeing Corporation has put out a one-page paper on its webpage titled: “Let’s retire the rumour about life expectancy.” It explains that the graphs and study attributed to Boeing are a hoax.

The first sentence of the paper is: “An incorrect but alarming chart that claims to show the life expectancy of Boeing retirees has been circulating on the Internet.

“It is not based on fact. There is no correlation between age at retirement and the life expectancy of Boeing retirees.
“We examine data regularly for trends. Our data shows that life expectancy of a Boeing retiree does not depend on age at retirement ... (This analysis) is based on 4,699 random samples over thirty years.”

According to Ms Julie Curtis, an actuary at Boeing: “The idea that working longer will shorten a Boeing employee’s life expectancy simply isn’t true.

“I’ve been looking at the data since 1983, and the length of a retiree’s life is unrelated to the age at his or her retirement. Our retirees tend to live a long time no matter how old they are when they retire.”

Boeing adds: “The first inaccurate life expectancy chart surfaced in the early ’80s, and versions of it have been floating around for years — almost as an ‘urban myth’.”

So, it looks like Minister Mentor’s intuition about working longer to live longer might not be so far off after all. Other research backs it up.

A study published in the British Medical Journal looked at 3,500 workers in the petrochemical industry who retired at ages 55, 60 and 65. It found that employees who retired at 55 had a significantly increased mortality compared with those who retired at 65. It noted, however, that some workers may have taken early retirement for health reasons.

An expert on ageing, Ms Sally Greengross, is chief executive of the International Longevity Centre in Britain, and claims that greater social engagement and involvement is key to improving the health of older people. “Work is a huge part of this equation, and provides mental and physical activity, self-esteem, social interaction and income for many of us. Sudden retirement may not be the honeymoon we expect it to be,” she said.

The director-general of Age Concern, Mr Gordon Lishman, has a similar view. He said: “After stopping work, it is vital for older people to stay mentally and physically active to enjoy a fulfilling retirement.”

My two cents: A worthwhile pastime is writing letters to Today. After completing this one, I feel rejuvenated already.


From TODAY, Voices - Thursday, 05-Aug-2010
-----

Related articles by Zemanta

• Retiring earlier and living longer (myleadingleads.blogspot.com)
• Letters: Is It Fair to Raise the Retirement Age? (nytimes.com)
• Main Advantages of Early Retirement (brighthub.com)
• Why Not Raise The Retirement Age? Ctd (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• The Problem of Early Retirement (wallstreetpit.com)
• Dire Predictions About the Public Pension Gap (bucks.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Social Security and Life Spans (outsidethebeltway.com)
• How to Retire Early (money.usnews.com)
• Longer Life Expectancy Straining Social Security, Analysts Say (foxnews.com)
• Robert Powell: Fix Social Security by hiking retirement age (marketwatch.com)

Room for political robustness

SINGAPORE BEYOND LKY

Singapore can prosper even if differences exist

Letter from Poh Lee Heng

I refer to “Singapore beyond Lee Kuan Yew” (April 22).

I am 45 years old and have seen and benefited from the transition of Singapore from Third World to First under the strong but dominant leadership of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. I am very pleased that there is at least a debate about the future of Singapore beyond Mr Lee.

There should be more such debates as this is an issue of great national interest. The more we debate about it, the better we will be prepared for any unexpected scenario.

Mr Ho Kwon Ping is spot-on by saying that “for Singapore’s sake, the People’s Action Party (PAP) had better be sustainably competent, because there is no dependable, tested Opposition party as fallback for the country. The price of the PAP’s extraordinarily successful half-century of governance is that the system is now particularly vulnerable to the internal self-renewal of the PAP”.

The Singapore political system is highly efficient but not robust and as Mr Ho had pointed out, very dependent on the PAP.

China’s political system is efficient compared with India’s but India’s system is relatively more robust.

For a party to be in power for so long and remain corrupt-free and efficient is due to the strong leadership of Mr Lee and its current leaders.

In addition, the current leadership is self-disciplined and constantly reminding themselves of their duty toward the people of Singapore.

But in the absence of a strong leader, there is no guarantee that it will continue to do so.

I personally would rather live with a certain amount of instability due to political differences, in exchange for political robustness. I think Singapore has matured vastly over the last 20 years and can survive and prosper even if there are political differences.

Mr Lee, Singapore’s founding father, is in a great position to put our political system on a road map to robustness and this should cut across party interests.

I hope that Singapore will continue to be a great country for my children who are now in their teenage years.

From TODAY, Voices – Thursday, 23-April-2009

Singapore beyond Lee Kuan Yew

I SAY
Ho Kwon Ping

IT IS perhaps Mr Lee Kuan Yew's fate, as one of very few successful nation-founders who retired on their own accord, to have periodic questions asked about his legacy. After all, the overwhelming majority of revolutionary leaders or nation-founders had more courage than wisdom, and few retired willingly.

The considerable earlier achievements of Mr Mao Zedong, Mr Fidel Castro, or even Mr Robert Mugabe, were severely diminished by their clinging to power long past their peak. In modern history, perhaps only China's Mr Deng Xiaoping and Mr Lee Kuan Yew knew not only when to retire, but how to guide their countries to a sustainable, stable future.

Mr Deng has long passed from China's scene, but the country remains firmly focused on Mr Deng's vision of a peaceful and prosperous country, attaining its rightful place in the world. In Singapore, Mr Lee remains a vibrant mentor, though slower of gait and mellower in temperament.

So the question is: When he is no longer around, how will Singapore fare? Will it, as the political scientist Professor Samuel Huntington, once predicted, that the system created by Mr Lee "will follow him to his grave"?

This was the broad thrust of a recent forum entitled "Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew". As one of the speakers, I raised two questions. First, whether political renewal within the People's Action Party (PAP) can produce leaders of sufficient calibre that people will continue to support the unique one-party-dominant system characteristic of the Singapore system of governance. Because if they do not, we will be sailing in uncharted waters.

And second, should the waters ever turn choppy, can tomorrow's generation find their way through the storm, with or without the PAP? In other words, how will Singapore society and its people fare and fend for themselves beyond Mr Lee?

Let's take the first issue of political renewal within the PAP. For Singapore's sake, the ruling PAP had better be sustainably competent, because there is no dependable, tested opposition party as fallback for the country. The price to Singapore of the PAP's extraordinarily successful half-century of governance is that the system is now particularly vulnerable to the internal self-renewal of the PAP.

Will the Singapore system of self-renewal work beyond Mr Lee and after the present generation of leaders depart the scene? The only possible answer, since we have not yet crossed that bridge, is that we do not know. But future leaders will certainly not enjoy the huge political legitimacy arising from approval by Mr Lee.

The risk to successful self-renewal in Singapore beyond Mr Lee is not only the paucity of talent and the difficulty of identifying, recruiting and grooming leaders.

Another risk, over time, is the spectre of internal schisms within the PAP. The party's extraordinary cohesion over 50 years is due not only to the PAP's compelling vision and its centrist positioning, but owes much to the forceful personality of Mr Lee. Whether factionalism can be kept in check after this present generation of leaders including its mentor, have left the scene, is an imponderable. But given its past record, the chances are reasonably good.

The second question I raised was this: If the PAP, for whatever reason, fails to lead Singapore, will Mr Lee's legacy then unravel? Or can the people of Singapore muddle their way through even if the leadership renewal of the PAP fails to deliver what it has done for the past 50 years?

To borrow from United States President Barack Obama, I think the answer is "yes, we can". Mr Lee's greatest legacy, I believe, is that the Singapore which he so passionately shaped will outlive not only him, but even his own party should that ever come to pass.

Perhaps because he is the quintessential realist with no illusions about the difficulty of creating a genuine nation out of different ethnic groups with their own traditions, and still recognises that the fault lines of race and religion continue to lurk in the background, Mr Lee has made nation-building one of the single most critical political imperatives of his leadership. And he has largely succeeded.

No Singaporean or foreigner questions today that we have a shared identity, common values and aspirations. This is no small achievement.

And so, 44 years after nationhood, the acute sense of vulnerability which suffused the Lee Kuan Yew era with an urgent dynamism, is inevitably giving way to a more relaxed and confident nation.

Will that translate into a complacent and cocky generation, ultimately descending into the hubris which will destroy Mr Lee's legacy? Or will a sense of "concerned gungho-ness", shaped by the collective memory of vulnerability but inspired by the promise that theirs is a destiny they will continue to shape on their own, define my children's generation?

Contrary to popular stereotype, young people today are not apathetic. They may be disinterested in electoral politics, but they are increasingly involved in civil society and community issues. They seek expression not in Speakers Corner but in alternative digital media and social networking sites. Singaporeans studying overseas remain engaged about Singapore issues and many are returning home, no doubt partly because of dire job prospects in the West, but also because their sense of belonging is strong.

Visitors to Singapore marvel at how we have managed fundamental diversities of race and religion so well. But now that we are a single, cohesive nation, there is a need to encourage a different kind of diversity — not in race or religion — but in outlook and analysis.

Thankfully, the once-rigid Singapore system is beginning to cultivate and celebrate diversity in our schools and universities, in social and cultural life.

The definition and measure of success and achievement is also broadening. In my interaction with my children and their friends, or with Singapore Management University students, I sense that young Singaporeans are responding positively to these trends. I do not believe that their sense of ownership over their country is any less than the youth of other countries.

In short, the Singapore of Lee Kuan Yew is changing — as it should and as he would have wished it to. By responding to tomorrow's generation, today's leadership is ensuring Singapore's survival.

-----
This is an edited extract of a speech delivered at a forum entitled "Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising the Singapore Way". It was organised by the Asia Journalism Fellowship programme, an initiative of Temasek Foundation and the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information.
-----

From TODAY, Voices – Wednesday, 22-April-2009

Possible Singapores, beyond LKY

Loh Chee Kong

cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

(From left) Prof Mahbubani, Mr Cherian George and Mr Ho.

Wee Teck Hian

A PEOPLE'S Action Party (PAP) split by internal schisms. Future leaders bereft of the "huge political legitimacy" that could be gained from endorsement by the man with unmatched moral and historical authority. These are some of the leadership fates that could befall a post–Lee Kuan Yew Singapore, as hotelier Ho Kwon Ping sees it.

And such "imponderable" scenarios could help explain why a "system of elders" is now taking shape in the political landscape.

"Perhaps it is to restrain factionalism, arbitrate disagreements, groom and assess future leaders, that the positions of senior minister and minister mentor have been institutionalised," said Mr Ho, who feels the PAP's "extraordinary cohesion" over five decades has owed much to "the forceful personality of Lee Kuan Yew".

Mr Ho, who is also MediaCorp chairman, was speaking yesterday alongside Professor Kishore Mahbubani at a seminar organised by Nanyang Technological University's Asian Journalism Fellowship programme. The topic? "Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising the Singapore Way".

Of this future, Prof Mahbubani, who is Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, would not rule out a "significant reversal" of Mr Lee's legacy, or the rise of a stronger Opposition usurping the one dominant party system — though he gave each scenario only a "one-sixth probability".

While a "smooth and seamless transition" was a two-thirds likelihood, Prof Mahbubani harked back to the words of former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee, after the PAP's long monopoly of parliament was broken in 1981. "As (Dr Goh) has wisely told us, failure happens when we fail to consider the possibility of failure."

So, for instance in the unlikely event of a strong opposition arising, would Mr Lee's legacy be weakened? In fact, the "sharper political debates" arising could make Singaporeans more aware of the "precious political legacy they have enjoyed", said Prof Mahbabuni.

On the other hand, as has happened in South Korea and Taiwan, it could also lead to the old legacies being quickly lost and forgotten by the new generation. "I am frequently shocked when I meet younger Singaporeans who have never heard of Dr Goh," he said.

Both speakers were not alone in expressing uncertainty over how Singapore's future, sans Mr Lee, would play out. During the Q&A session, which was off-the-record, the audience raised concerns such as how the country would be deprived of its most astute and influential critic — and whether Mr Lee's legacy, or indeed Singapore, could unravel.

While Mr Lee's retirement would "create a huge political vacuum", Prof Mahbubani believes Singapore has "done a lot" to protect his legacy, such as instilling a deep culture of meritocracy and incorruptibility.

And Mr Ho had no doubt Singaporeans could "muddle their way through", even if the PAP's leadership renewal "fails to deliver what it has done for the past 50 years".

Mr Lee's greatest legacy, he said, "is that the Singapore which he so passionately shaped will outlive not only him, but even his own party, should that ever come to pass".

The reason: In his single most critical imperative — nation building — Mr Lee has largely succeeded, said Mr Ho, who has found young Singaporeans to own a strong sense of involvement and ownership in the country, contrary to stereotype.

"Equally contrary to some people's wishful thinking, there is not likely to be dramatic, broad-brush social or political liberalisation," said Mr Ho. "This is not a pent up society waiting for the demise of the strongman in order to overturn highly unpopular laws."

Rather, the Government has the support of the politically-vital heartland in its pragmatic, incremental approach to change, even as it responds to tomorrow's generation, he said.

From TODAY – Tuesday, 21-April-2009

Possible Singapores, beyond Lee Kuan Yew

Channel NewsAsia - Tuesday, April 21

SINGAPORE: A People’s Action Party (PAP) split by internal schisms. Future leaders bereft of the "huge political legitimacy" that could be gained from endorsement by the man with unmatched moral and historical authority. These are some of the leadership fates that could befall a post—Lee Kuan Yew Singapore, as hotelier Ho Kwon Ping sees it.

And such "imponderable" scenarios could help explain why a "system of elders" is now taking shape in the political landscape.

"Perhaps it is to restrain factionalism, arbitrate disagreements, groom and assess future leaders, that the positions of senior minister and minister mentor have been institutionalised," said Mr Ho, who feels the PAP’s "extraordinary cohesion" over five decades has owed much to "the forceful personality of Lee Kuan Yew".

Mr Ho, who is also MediaCorp chairman, was speaking on Monday alongside Professor Kishore Mahbubani at a seminar organised by Nanyang Technological University’s Asian Journalism Fellowship programme. The topic? "Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising the Singapore Way".

Of this future, Prof Mahbubani, who Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, would not rule out a "significant reversal" of Mr Lee’s legacy, or the rise of a stronger Opposition usurping the one dominant party system — though he gave each scenario only a "one—sixth probability".

While a "smooth and seamless transition" was a two—thirds likelihood, Prof Mahbubani harked back to the words of former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee, after the PAP’s long monopoly of parliament was broken in 1981. "As (Dr Goh) has wisely told us, failure happens when we fail to consider the possibility of failure."

So, for instance in the unlikely event of a strong opposition arising, would Mr Lee’s legacy be weakened? In fact, the "sharper political debates" arising could make Singaporeans more aware of the "precious political legacy they have enjoyed", said Prof Mahbabuni.

On the other hand, as has happened in South Korea and Taiwan, it could also lead to the old legacies being quickly lost and forgotten by the new generation. "I am frequently shocked when I meet younger Singaporeans who have never heard of Dr Goh," he said.

Both speakers were not alone in expressing uncertainty over how Singapore’s future, sans Mr Lee, would play out. During the Q&A session, which was off—the—record, the audience raised concerns such as how the country would be deprived of its most astute and influential critic — and whether Mr Lee’s legacy, or indeed Singapore, could unravel.

While Mr Lee’s retirement would "create a huge political vacuum", Prof Mahbubani believes Singapore has "done a lot" to protect his legacy, such as instilling a deep culture of meritocracy and incorruptibility.

And Mr Ho had no doubts Singaporeans could "muddle their way through", even if the PAP’s leadership renewal "fails to deliver what it has done for the past 50 years".

Mr Lee’s greatest legacy, he said, "is that the Singapore which he so passionately shaped will outlive not only him, but even his own party, should that ever come to pass".

The reason: In his single most critical imperative — nation building — Mr Lee has largely succeeded, said Mr Ho, who has found young Singaporeans to own a strong sense of involvement and ownership in the country, contrary to stereotype.

"Equally contrary to some people’s wishful thinking, there is not likely to be dramatic, broad—brush social or political liberalisation," said Mr Ho. "This is not a pent up society waiting for the demise of the strongman in order to overturn highly unpopular laws."

Rather, the government has the support of the politically—vital heartland in its pragmatic, incremental approach to change, even as it responds to tomorrow’s generation, he said.

— TODAY/so

From Yahoo! News – Tuesday, 21-April-2009
The original article is here.