So can Yew

Lee Kuan's relevance

Related story

Singapore parliament convenes in post-Lee Kuan Yew era

In death as in his life, Lee Kuan Yew remains a divisive figure. His supporters hail a visionary, once-in-a-generation leader who had the fortitude to push through vital reforms that transformed the stagnant Malaysian backwater to a thriving, independent market economy that is the envy of the globe. Prior to its independence in 1965, Singapore's per capita GDP was US $511. Today, at US $78,762, it boasts the third-highest per capita GDP in the world.

The small city state has quickly become a vital cog in the global economy: it is the 14th largest exporter and the 15th largest importer in the world. Lee played a central role in Singapore's meteoric rise. He did this by using his unlimited political powers, which he gained on being elected the inaugural prime minister of Singapore in 1965. He systematically sidelined communists—their ideal of a socialist utopia, he believed, was outdated—instituted a system of meritocracy and ruthlessly punished the corrupt. So the cult of Lee Kuan Yew grew, as the 'double-starred first-class honors in law' from Cambridge slowly built a formidable global repute as a hyper-efficient manger and a leader of unrivalled charisma.

But Lee Kuan Yew was also someone who liked to gloat over how he silenced his critics. He limited press freedom. And his personality cult and brutal suppression of rival political outfits helped cement the People's Action Party's vice-like grip over Singapore: the party, under his guardianship, has ruled the country of 5.4 million continuously for the last 55 years. His legacy abroad is dodgy as well. On the pretext of taking their country on the path of Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, third-world autocrats and dictators have found an excuse to curtail democratic freedoms at home. Lee is a hero of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and other power-addicted leaders of Eastern Europe like former Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili (who liked to pass around Yew's bestselling Singapore: From the Third world to The First among his cronies). King Mahendra, it is said, was also inspired by Lee's brand of 'enlightened dictatorship'. Since Lee believed people were born intelligent (or not), he would not hesitate to dismiss his political opponents and media critics as 'bumbling fools' who had nothing better to do than envy his meteoric rise.

Mahendra certainly tried to imitate Lee's leadership, as did, knowing or unknowingly, his second son, Gyanendra, each time to disastrous consequences for the cause of democracy in Nepal. But there are still plenty of political and business leaders in Nepal who, to this day, believe what the chaotic democratic republic needs is another enlightened dictator. And then, once a while, we get to hear our political leaders promise to transform Nepal into a Singapore overnight. But Nepal is no Singapore. The challenges of a multicultural and multiracial landlocked LDC are vastly different to a port city—75 percent ethnic Chinese—located in one of the busiest maritime trade routes in the world. Yes, our political and business leaders could take a leaf or two out of the scores of books written by (and on) Lee Kuan Yew. Our corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy, for one, could do with a Singapore-like shake-up. But, ultimately, much like Lew Kuan Yew did with Singapore back in the sixties, our leaders will have to work out their own solutions for Nepal.