Congratulations to all elected MCOBA JPM members for the session 2010-2012!
PRESIDENT
Tan Sri Megat Najmuddin (Won Uncontested)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Dato' Faidz Darus (Won Uncontested)
VICE PRESIDENTS
1. Aziz Ishak
2. Bahari Atan
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
1. Razif Tan Sri Aziz
2. Raja A. Shah
3. Dato' Latt Shariman
4. Dato' Abdullah Zawawi
5. Hakim Hamzah
6. Azli Abdullah (Matt Bab)
7. Mohamed Zain Yusoff
8. Hisham Badrul (Spice)
9. Ahmad Salim Razi (Asraz)
10. Helmi Had Sabtu
Sunday, July 25, 2010
MCOBA: Let other Malaysians in, too
MCOBA: Let other Malaysians in, too
2009/12/16
JEREMIAH TAN, Kuala Krai
IT is very heartening to read of a non-Malay being inducted as a member of the Malay College Old Boys' Association (Mcoba), an exclusive all-Malay alumni group ("MCKK old boys enrol first non-Malay" -- NST, Dec 14).
But can we really assume that the perception that racism rules the daily lives of Malaysians has been utterly quashed by this single act, as the report claims? I wonder, though I will concede that it is certainly a good first step that must be emulated in the search for 1Malaysia. In that respect, there is still a lot more to be done, especially in our institutions of higher learning.
First, the Malay College Kuala Kangsar might consider another step forward by opening its doors to non-Malay Malaysian students, thus showing that we are indeed serious and sincere in wanting to make 1Malaysia a reality.
No higher learning institution should be monopolised by one race. Having a good mix of Malaysians should be the norm. If MRSM (Maktab Rendah Sains Mara) can open their doors to other races, I don't see why MCKK or UiTM (Universiti Teknologi Mara) cannot follow suit.
If, after 52 years of independence, UiTM still feels uneasy about admitting students of other races in Malaysia, something is surely very wrong. Furthermore, if it can open its doors to foreign students, it does not make sense that fellow Malaysians are deprived of the educational opportunities the university offers.
Similarly, students from vernacular schools need to be given the chance to study with others at boarding schools (Sekolah Menengah Sains) so that they will learn to live with all the communities that make up Malaysia.
2009/12/16
JEREMIAH TAN, Kuala Krai
IT is very heartening to read of a non-Malay being inducted as a member of the Malay College Old Boys' Association (Mcoba), an exclusive all-Malay alumni group ("MCKK old boys enrol first non-Malay" -- NST, Dec 14).
But can we really assume that the perception that racism rules the daily lives of Malaysians has been utterly quashed by this single act, as the report claims? I wonder, though I will concede that it is certainly a good first step that must be emulated in the search for 1Malaysia. In that respect, there is still a lot more to be done, especially in our institutions of higher learning.
First, the Malay College Kuala Kangsar might consider another step forward by opening its doors to non-Malay Malaysian students, thus showing that we are indeed serious and sincere in wanting to make 1Malaysia a reality.
No higher learning institution should be monopolised by one race. Having a good mix of Malaysians should be the norm. If MRSM (Maktab Rendah Sains Mara) can open their doors to other races, I don't see why MCKK or UiTM (Universiti Teknologi Mara) cannot follow suit.
If, after 52 years of independence, UiTM still feels uneasy about admitting students of other races in Malaysia, something is surely very wrong. Furthermore, if it can open its doors to foreign students, it does not make sense that fellow Malaysians are deprived of the educational opportunities the university offers.
Similarly, students from vernacular schools need to be given the chance to study with others at boarding schools (Sekolah Menengah Sains) so that they will learn to live with all the communities that make up Malaysia.
Dr M: OIC has failed to unite Muslims
Wednesday December 16, 2009
Dr M: OIC has failed to unite Muslims
KUALA LUMPUR: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has lambasted the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for failing to unite Muslims.
“It often serves to emphasise the division within the Muslim world. The disagreements bet-ween member countries are so obvious as to expose their disunity,” he claimed yesterday.
Dr Mahathir, who was prime minister when Malaysia chaired the OIC in 2003, said the organisation’s problem was that it comprised governments of countries, and so the countries’ interests took precedence over religion.
“As an organisation of governments, the OIC is unable to consider anything purely on the basis of religious injunctions or in the interest of religion.
“Even the injunction of Islam that all Muslims are brothers cannot override certain other national priorities,” he said in his keynote address at the Second International Muslim Unity Convention here.
The OIC, he added, worked on a basis of consensus, which was not conducive to organisational decision-making.
Dr Mahathir suggested the setting up a chain of Muslim non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Muslim communities and countries to restore the unity of Muslims regardless of sects or differences.
Such NGOs, he said, should focus on promoting Muslim brotherhood, reducing misunderstandings or suspicions, acquiring knowledge and skills and pushing for better education systems, among others.
Muslim NGOs, he added, must launch a concerted campaign to stop the revenge mentality which led to blind retaliation.
“Muslims are very angry. In anger, they lash out at everyone, including other Muslims. They blow themselves up in revenge, killing at random, not so much their enemies as their own people.
“After they have lost their lives, what have they gained?
“Today, Muslims are deeply divided into many different sects which often are violently pitted against each other,” he said.
True Muslims, Dr Mahathir added, must stop the fighting, reduce the divisions and restore the brotherhood and unity of Muslims.
Dr M: OIC has failed to unite Muslims
KUALA LUMPUR: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has lambasted the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for failing to unite Muslims.
“It often serves to emphasise the division within the Muslim world. The disagreements bet-ween member countries are so obvious as to expose their disunity,” he claimed yesterday.
Dr Mahathir, who was prime minister when Malaysia chaired the OIC in 2003, said the organisation’s problem was that it comprised governments of countries, and so the countries’ interests took precedence over religion.
“As an organisation of governments, the OIC is unable to consider anything purely on the basis of religious injunctions or in the interest of religion.
“Even the injunction of Islam that all Muslims are brothers cannot override certain other national priorities,” he said in his keynote address at the Second International Muslim Unity Convention here.
The OIC, he added, worked on a basis of consensus, which was not conducive to organisational decision-making.
Dr Mahathir suggested the setting up a chain of Muslim non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Muslim communities and countries to restore the unity of Muslims regardless of sects or differences.
Such NGOs, he said, should focus on promoting Muslim brotherhood, reducing misunderstandings or suspicions, acquiring knowledge and skills and pushing for better education systems, among others.
Muslim NGOs, he added, must launch a concerted campaign to stop the revenge mentality which led to blind retaliation.
“Muslims are very angry. In anger, they lash out at everyone, including other Muslims. They blow themselves up in revenge, killing at random, not so much their enemies as their own people.
“After they have lost their lives, what have they gained?
“Today, Muslims are deeply divided into many different sects which often are violently pitted against each other,” he said.
True Muslims, Dr Mahathir added, must stop the fighting, reduce the divisions and restore the brotherhood and unity of Muslims.
Education for the real world
Saturday November 21, 2009
Education for the real world
INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Government plans call for developing school pupils in other than academic pursuits, with less emphasis on exams, to equip young people better for life. But some parents still baulk at the change.
FOR years, Singapore’s schools have been steering a bit away from their traditional teaching towards a 21st century “ideas” economy. The pursuit, however, has been sporadic rather than countrywide. But come 2016, an institutional transformation will take place in all primary schools.
The revamp, announced last week, is aimed at making pupils adept at not only Science and English, but also at thinking and communicating.
In seven years’ time – when enough buildings and teachers are in place – all Singapore primary schools (attended by thousands of foreigners) will introduce full-day sessions.
More importantly, they will do away with mid- and end-year exams in Primary One and Two, and only graduates would be allowed to teach.
The future classroom will introduce 7- and 8-year-olds to outdoor education, where music and visual arts will be given as much importance as traditional subjects.
“For kids of this age, exams will not figure at all,” one official said. They will be replaced by assessments of a student’s progress.
Thirdly, children will be encouraged to take up co-curricular activities (CCAs) from Primary 1.
On the longer hours, a senior official said: “We are not adding on academic content to make it a burden to students; we’re trying to build their life skills as well as values, … rebalancing the focus of our system.”
Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen said: “We want to have caring citizens ... and students to be independent learners and confident (people).”
These changes, to be extended later to secondary schools, will in part end a system inherited from the British that emphasised exams and rote learning.
It proved successful in producing an educated, disciplined workforce that turned Singapore into a developed nation. Besides, the secondary schools are regularly ranked the world’s top three in Science and Maths.
But in a world in which nations compete with ideas and technical skills, Singapore’s education system has outlived some of its usefulness.
In my course of reporting in recent years, I have frequently heard executives of multinational corporations complain that our data-skilled workers lack initiative and require hand-holding.
This is what the new education system hopes to rectify. The result so far has been impressive.
One neighbourhood primary school has infused robotics into its science teaching, with students designing simple robots and learning about their inner workings.
Thousands of students at another school are taught not only to identify a healthy, nutritious meal, but also to cook it.
Others require their pupils to write compositions on a tablet PC, using PowerPoint for images and colour fonts.
At Hougang Primary, seven-year-olds share their classrooms with an assortment of insects, plants and skeleton frames.
The secondary schools are even more into the game, including practising entrepreneurship.
At a premium school they ran an art gallery carnival, drawing up proposals for manpower costing, concept plans and profit margins.
These experiments are not confined to the top schools. Many “unbranded” ones also excel in them.
One of them has allowed students to operate a general store that sells products and services (like photocopying) to other students. In Jurong Junior College and Fuchun Primary, students can buy shares in businesses in their schools.
Junior college students have met to tackle Singapore’s declining birth rates, while polytechnic youths created a new fragrance and began marketing it to romancing couples – and invented a health-food chocolate for sale to the public.
The strategy is to develop students who are not academically inclined but skilled in other areas like IT, music, sports or designing.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said Singapore’s economy needs all kinds of talented people.
“We now have to try and bring up people who do not necessarily do well in the universities, but who will do well in life,” he said.
On the weaknesses of the current system, one blogger said it successfully produced many A-grade students who were unable to put knowledge to good use “like starting a business.”
Not everyone believes this change can be achieved soon, at least not until the government relaxes its control on this regulated society.
Some do not think it can be – or need be – done at all. Parents who have a fixation on exams and high marks are among the biggest stumbling blocks.
A prominent blogger quoted from a speech given by Sir Ken Robinson, an expert in creative and cultural education, who said children had no need to be taught to be creative.
The reason: they already are creative, and often it is the schools that are educating them out of their creative capabilities, he said.
On the subject of feared failure, Sir Ken said: “Kids will take a chance. If they don’t know, they’ll have a go. They’re not frightened of being wrong ...
“By the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong. And we run our companies this way. We stigmatise mistakes,” he added.
The determination of Singapore’s mothers to fight for their children’s high grades has played a major role in the nation’s education.
With the new strategy, it could prove negative for their kids when they fail to re-adapt.
Education for the real world
INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Government plans call for developing school pupils in other than academic pursuits, with less emphasis on exams, to equip young people better for life. But some parents still baulk at the change.
FOR years, Singapore’s schools have been steering a bit away from their traditional teaching towards a 21st century “ideas” economy. The pursuit, however, has been sporadic rather than countrywide. But come 2016, an institutional transformation will take place in all primary schools.
The revamp, announced last week, is aimed at making pupils adept at not only Science and English, but also at thinking and communicating.
In seven years’ time – when enough buildings and teachers are in place – all Singapore primary schools (attended by thousands of foreigners) will introduce full-day sessions.
More importantly, they will do away with mid- and end-year exams in Primary One and Two, and only graduates would be allowed to teach.
The future classroom will introduce 7- and 8-year-olds to outdoor education, where music and visual arts will be given as much importance as traditional subjects.
“For kids of this age, exams will not figure at all,” one official said. They will be replaced by assessments of a student’s progress.
Thirdly, children will be encouraged to take up co-curricular activities (CCAs) from Primary 1.
On the longer hours, a senior official said: “We are not adding on academic content to make it a burden to students; we’re trying to build their life skills as well as values, … rebalancing the focus of our system.”
Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen said: “We want to have caring citizens ... and students to be independent learners and confident (people).”
These changes, to be extended later to secondary schools, will in part end a system inherited from the British that emphasised exams and rote learning.
It proved successful in producing an educated, disciplined workforce that turned Singapore into a developed nation. Besides, the secondary schools are regularly ranked the world’s top three in Science and Maths.
But in a world in which nations compete with ideas and technical skills, Singapore’s education system has outlived some of its usefulness.
In my course of reporting in recent years, I have frequently heard executives of multinational corporations complain that our data-skilled workers lack initiative and require hand-holding.
This is what the new education system hopes to rectify. The result so far has been impressive.
One neighbourhood primary school has infused robotics into its science teaching, with students designing simple robots and learning about their inner workings.
Thousands of students at another school are taught not only to identify a healthy, nutritious meal, but also to cook it.
Others require their pupils to write compositions on a tablet PC, using PowerPoint for images and colour fonts.
At Hougang Primary, seven-year-olds share their classrooms with an assortment of insects, plants and skeleton frames.
The secondary schools are even more into the game, including practising entrepreneurship.
At a premium school they ran an art gallery carnival, drawing up proposals for manpower costing, concept plans and profit margins.
These experiments are not confined to the top schools. Many “unbranded” ones also excel in them.
One of them has allowed students to operate a general store that sells products and services (like photocopying) to other students. In Jurong Junior College and Fuchun Primary, students can buy shares in businesses in their schools.
Junior college students have met to tackle Singapore’s declining birth rates, while polytechnic youths created a new fragrance and began marketing it to romancing couples – and invented a health-food chocolate for sale to the public.
The strategy is to develop students who are not academically inclined but skilled in other areas like IT, music, sports or designing.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said Singapore’s economy needs all kinds of talented people.
“We now have to try and bring up people who do not necessarily do well in the universities, but who will do well in life,” he said.
On the weaknesses of the current system, one blogger said it successfully produced many A-grade students who were unable to put knowledge to good use “like starting a business.”
Not everyone believes this change can be achieved soon, at least not until the government relaxes its control on this regulated society.
Some do not think it can be – or need be – done at all. Parents who have a fixation on exams and high marks are among the biggest stumbling blocks.
A prominent blogger quoted from a speech given by Sir Ken Robinson, an expert in creative and cultural education, who said children had no need to be taught to be creative.
The reason: they already are creative, and often it is the schools that are educating them out of their creative capabilities, he said.
On the subject of feared failure, Sir Ken said: “Kids will take a chance. If they don’t know, they’ll have a go. They’re not frightened of being wrong ...
“By the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong. And we run our companies this way. We stigmatise mistakes,” he added.
The determination of Singapore’s mothers to fight for their children’s high grades has played a major role in the nation’s education.
With the new strategy, it could prove negative for their kids when they fail to re-adapt.
English essential for business and trade
Thursday November 26, 2009
English essential for business and trade
DEPUTY Education Minister Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi’s comment that the private sector should use Bahasa Malaysia and not English is irrational, retrogressive and does not stand to reason.
The Deputy Minister’s views have not gone down well as indicated by the strong reaction and disagreement to his suggestion from various quarters.
At a time when our prime minister frequently emphasises the need for Malaysia to compete globally, to attract foreign investment and to turn Malaysia into a high-income nation, the call to the private sector to use Bahasa Malaysia and not English does not make business sense and defeats the PM’s call.
The private sector in Malaysia, I am certain, is patriotic and respects Bahasa Malaysia as our national and official language.
However, they realise that for them to do business and trade with the international community, using English is a necessity as they must be able to communicate in a language acceptable to all.
Every level-headed Malaysian who subscribes to reason and logic will unanimously agree that teaching, learning and using the English language must never be made into an issue when it is done in the interests of our future generation and for the sake of our nation’s progress and its future well-being.
We have to be pragmatic and progressive in this era of globalisation. It is essential for the Government to adopt a practical and open-minded approach towards English, which can contribute to Malaysia’s progress, while remaining firm and steadfast in ensuring that Bahasa Malaysia is the country’s official and national language.
We learn and use English as it is an international language for science and technology, business and commerce.
Malaysians should strive to be bilingual or even trilingual, now that most Malaysians, particularly the younger generation, have mastered Bahasa Malaysia.
Malaysians may lose out in the field of information and technology in the new millennium if they are not proficient in English.
The ability to learn and use English or any other language should be seen as a progressive move to improve our knowledge and expertise.
The fear of the English language, which some still regard as a legacy of British colonialism, is clearly misplaced and needs to be rectified.
To overcome this, more needs to be done to convince parents and students, particularly those in the rural areas, about the importance of learning English as a tool for science, technology, business and commerce as well as progress and modernisation.
TAN SRI LEE LAM THYE,
English essential for business and trade
DEPUTY Education Minister Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi’s comment that the private sector should use Bahasa Malaysia and not English is irrational, retrogressive and does not stand to reason.
The Deputy Minister’s views have not gone down well as indicated by the strong reaction and disagreement to his suggestion from various quarters.
At a time when our prime minister frequently emphasises the need for Malaysia to compete globally, to attract foreign investment and to turn Malaysia into a high-income nation, the call to the private sector to use Bahasa Malaysia and not English does not make business sense and defeats the PM’s call.
The private sector in Malaysia, I am certain, is patriotic and respects Bahasa Malaysia as our national and official language.
However, they realise that for them to do business and trade with the international community, using English is a necessity as they must be able to communicate in a language acceptable to all.
Every level-headed Malaysian who subscribes to reason and logic will unanimously agree that teaching, learning and using the English language must never be made into an issue when it is done in the interests of our future generation and for the sake of our nation’s progress and its future well-being.
We have to be pragmatic and progressive in this era of globalisation. It is essential for the Government to adopt a practical and open-minded approach towards English, which can contribute to Malaysia’s progress, while remaining firm and steadfast in ensuring that Bahasa Malaysia is the country’s official and national language.
We learn and use English as it is an international language for science and technology, business and commerce.
Malaysians should strive to be bilingual or even trilingual, now that most Malaysians, particularly the younger generation, have mastered Bahasa Malaysia.
Malaysians may lose out in the field of information and technology in the new millennium if they are not proficient in English.
The ability to learn and use English or any other language should be seen as a progressive move to improve our knowledge and expertise.
The fear of the English language, which some still regard as a legacy of British colonialism, is clearly misplaced and needs to be rectified.
To overcome this, more needs to be done to convince parents and students, particularly those in the rural areas, about the importance of learning English as a tool for science, technology, business and commerce as well as progress and modernisation.
TAN SRI LEE LAM THYE,
Success comes from ‘hunger’
Sunday December 13, 2009
Success comes from ‘hunger’
By CINDY POH
YOUNG entrepreneurs imparted precious pearls of wisdom at a panel discussion during the recent Global Entrepreneurship Week at the Gardens Mall in Kuala Lumpur recently.
Entitled ‘Empowering Youths in Entrepreneurship’, the event was jointly organised by Youth Entrepreneurs Malaysia (YEM), Leaderonomics, and Warisan Global Sdn Bhd.
Dash
“An entrepreneur needs to always stay ‘hungry’ and ‘foolish’ enough to constantly ask questions, make mistakes in order to grow, and have a point of view,” said Dhakshinamoorthy Balakrishnan, or more popularly known as Dash, Warisan Global’s chief executive officer (CEO).
And Dash is no stranger to the business world. From a young age, he demonstrated considerable business talent when he gave Mathematics tuition classes under a hut in order to sustain his own studies.
At 44, Dash has been at the helm of three businesseses, including the two companies he sold for profit.
He said that the spirit of entrepreneurship meant that an individual could start as an entrepreneur at anytime of his or her life, without being restricted by conditions or circumstances.
The panel also featured American entrepreneur-in-residence with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Michael Levin, YEM co-founder Michael Teoh, Leaderonomics CEO Roshan Thiran, and young aspiring entrepreneur Sabrie Salleh.
Teoh
Among the issues highlighted was whether youths should go straight into entrepreneurship right after graduating or gain some experience in the working world first.
Teoh, the youngest of the panelists at 22 years old, said that students need not be a full-fledged ‘businessman’ in order to be an entrepreneur.
He added that they could even start practising to be one now by doing something in a small scale, such as organising a bazaar at their campuses.
“This way, the students can practise to be in action and be equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge,” he said.
Roshan, whose articles on leadership appear regularly in The Star, said that the decision to be an entrepreneur was a personal one, and depended on the individual’s background and experience.
The panel discussion also discussed the question of how a higher education institution should go about encouraging the spirit of entrepreneurship in its students.
Sabrie, who is currently undertaking his Masters in Entrepreneurship at HELP University College, commented that most students had a mindset that entrepreneurship meant opening up a stall.
Roshan
“I’m not stereotyping, but this is true of many students in Malaysia. Sometimes, it is up to the individual’s instincts and passion in becoming an entrepreneur,” he said.
On the importance of conducting a business with passion, Dash said that students needed to hunger for success.
“This is perhaps lacking among students where some actually do it as escapism from having to work under someone and instead, becoming the boss themselves.
“Others would expect a grant from the government to start off, which ought not to be practised. Rather, you need to ask yourself what exactly is your trigger factor,” he said.
At the same event, YEM also unveiled the results of the 550 Youth Entrepreneurs Research in Malaysia, where 550 youths aged 20 to 29 were surveyed on matters concerned with their interests in entrepreneurship.
More than 50% of the surveyed youths said that they were interested to set up their own business and most would prefer to begin in the services sector.
Success comes from ‘hunger’
By CINDY POH
YOUNG entrepreneurs imparted precious pearls of wisdom at a panel discussion during the recent Global Entrepreneurship Week at the Gardens Mall in Kuala Lumpur recently.
Entitled ‘Empowering Youths in Entrepreneurship’, the event was jointly organised by Youth Entrepreneurs Malaysia (YEM), Leaderonomics, and Warisan Global Sdn Bhd.
Dash
“An entrepreneur needs to always stay ‘hungry’ and ‘foolish’ enough to constantly ask questions, make mistakes in order to grow, and have a point of view,” said Dhakshinamoorthy Balakrishnan, or more popularly known as Dash, Warisan Global’s chief executive officer (CEO).
And Dash is no stranger to the business world. From a young age, he demonstrated considerable business talent when he gave Mathematics tuition classes under a hut in order to sustain his own studies.
At 44, Dash has been at the helm of three businesseses, including the two companies he sold for profit.
He said that the spirit of entrepreneurship meant that an individual could start as an entrepreneur at anytime of his or her life, without being restricted by conditions or circumstances.
The panel also featured American entrepreneur-in-residence with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Michael Levin, YEM co-founder Michael Teoh, Leaderonomics CEO Roshan Thiran, and young aspiring entrepreneur Sabrie Salleh.
Teoh
Among the issues highlighted was whether youths should go straight into entrepreneurship right after graduating or gain some experience in the working world first.
Teoh, the youngest of the panelists at 22 years old, said that students need not be a full-fledged ‘businessman’ in order to be an entrepreneur.
He added that they could even start practising to be one now by doing something in a small scale, such as organising a bazaar at their campuses.
“This way, the students can practise to be in action and be equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge,” he said.
Roshan, whose articles on leadership appear regularly in The Star, said that the decision to be an entrepreneur was a personal one, and depended on the individual’s background and experience.
The panel discussion also discussed the question of how a higher education institution should go about encouraging the spirit of entrepreneurship in its students.
Sabrie, who is currently undertaking his Masters in Entrepreneurship at HELP University College, commented that most students had a mindset that entrepreneurship meant opening up a stall.
Roshan
“I’m not stereotyping, but this is true of many students in Malaysia. Sometimes, it is up to the individual’s instincts and passion in becoming an entrepreneur,” he said.
On the importance of conducting a business with passion, Dash said that students needed to hunger for success.
“This is perhaps lacking among students where some actually do it as escapism from having to work under someone and instead, becoming the boss themselves.
“Others would expect a grant from the government to start off, which ought not to be practised. Rather, you need to ask yourself what exactly is your trigger factor,” he said.
At the same event, YEM also unveiled the results of the 550 Youth Entrepreneurs Research in Malaysia, where 550 youths aged 20 to 29 were surveyed on matters concerned with their interests in entrepreneurship.
More than 50% of the surveyed youths said that they were interested to set up their own business and most would prefer to begin in the services sector.
Why more woman are petitioning for divorce
Tuesday December 15, 2009
Why more woman are petitioning for divorce
IKIM Views with PROF DATUK DR ZALEHA KAMARUDDIN
IN order to understand the concept of divorce, one must appreciate the different nature of marriage from the Islamic perspective. The difference in the concept of marriage is reflected in the approach adopted for divorce.
In Western society, marriage is viewed from the perspective of individual happiness. If the notion of romantic love and individual happiness are not realised in a marriage, divorce is seen as an easy option.
In Islam, however, the welfare of the family as a unit is given greater emphasis than individual happiness. In modern Malaysian Muslim society, though the marriage institution still plays an important role, its stability has been challenged.
Various studies have shown that the trend towards individual happiness is more pronounced now due to many factors. These challenges must be addressed seriously by policy makers to ensure that the family, which is the foundation of society, remains stable on all fronts.
Despite the fact that the aim of the Shari’ah is to establish a healthy family unit through marriage, Islam does recognise divorce. Divorce is, however, couched in the context of important moral and human principles. Islam commands husbands and wives to consort with each other with kindness or to part from each other with kindness.
Notwithstanding Qur’anic affirmations of equality and justice, rationality and strong moral exhortation, studies show that women were not given adequate access to the divorce process. Despite reforms in legislation which have been passed in a majority of Muslim countries to correct abuses in Muslim society, there is widespread exploitation of divorce laws, and Malaysia is said to be no exception. It is therefore pertinent to see whether there is empirical evidence to support this contention especially in relation to access to the divorce process.
A national study on divorce conducted by the Department of Shariah Judiciary in 2005 shows that females made up the majority of applications presented in the Shariah courts of all states in Malaysia.
Zaleha in her 2008 research indicated that although the husband may not wish to institute divorce proceedings, neither does he have much interest in the marriage itself. This indifference on the part of the husband may motivate the wife to petition for divorce.
Where women are economically dependent on their husbands, this in many cases acts as a deterrent to divorce in Malaysia. However, since there has been an increase in female participation in the labour market of Malaysia (46.7%), women have gained more economic power. The options open to them also increased with divorce being one such option.
Another factor which may explain why more women are petitioning for divorce in some states of Malaysia is the changing role of women in the family. Besides being economically independent, there is an awakened consciousness of equality and non-discrimination. Women are increasingly becoming more vocal about inadequacies in their marriage. They are choosing to pursue their careers and higher education, thus giving themselves more opportunities to participate in activities outside traditional stereotypes, which confine them to roles as home-makers and mothers.
Legal aid, which was introduced to Malaysia in 1971 with the prime objective of assisting litigants with limited means to initiate legal proceedings, including divorce, has also assisted women to petition for divorce.
Although there are some states with higher incidence of male petitioners, possible explanations for this must be explored. One study (Kuchiba et.al., 1979) which tends to support the trend for males being more likely to institute divorce proceeding in Malaysia shows that in most cases in Malay society, the wife is the one who instigates the divorce by persuading the husband to expedite matters through divorce via talaq. It would appear on paper that the men are petitioning, but, in reality, both parties agree to divorce. Due to the process being expedited via divorce through talaq, the husband seems to be initiating the divorce.
The discrepancy in the percentages of female plaintiffs between states directly correlates with legal provisions, implementation of these provisions, education levels, exposure on marital rights and responsibilities and the socio-economic status as well as the local culture. With the increase in the number of women gaining more financial independence, the percentages of female divorce plaintiffs are expected to increase in the future.
Another factor which cannot be ignored when considering the low number of women petitioning for divorce is linked to economic dependency. Although there are many women currently in the work force, one study on Americans (Weitzman, 1985) reveals that compared to men, there are more unemployed women. Upon divorce, these women are faced with a higher chance of being plunged into poverty. So whilst economic dependency may remain hidden during marriage, it becomes a public problem when women are confronted with poverty.
The financial loss suffered by women upon divorce is more often than not far greater than that suffered by men. Women will be more concerned about division of property, settlement of maintenance, and arrangements regarding children. Since women are more likely to retain the care of children, these matters are of more concern to them.
All the above empirical evidence shows that generally Muslim women in Malaysia do have equal access to divorce. The next important question would be where they would go from there. The future seems so bleak.
Why more woman are petitioning for divorce
IKIM Views with PROF DATUK DR ZALEHA KAMARUDDIN
IN order to understand the concept of divorce, one must appreciate the different nature of marriage from the Islamic perspective. The difference in the concept of marriage is reflected in the approach adopted for divorce.
In Western society, marriage is viewed from the perspective of individual happiness. If the notion of romantic love and individual happiness are not realised in a marriage, divorce is seen as an easy option.
In Islam, however, the welfare of the family as a unit is given greater emphasis than individual happiness. In modern Malaysian Muslim society, though the marriage institution still plays an important role, its stability has been challenged.
Various studies have shown that the trend towards individual happiness is more pronounced now due to many factors. These challenges must be addressed seriously by policy makers to ensure that the family, which is the foundation of society, remains stable on all fronts.
Despite the fact that the aim of the Shari’ah is to establish a healthy family unit through marriage, Islam does recognise divorce. Divorce is, however, couched in the context of important moral and human principles. Islam commands husbands and wives to consort with each other with kindness or to part from each other with kindness.
Notwithstanding Qur’anic affirmations of equality and justice, rationality and strong moral exhortation, studies show that women were not given adequate access to the divorce process. Despite reforms in legislation which have been passed in a majority of Muslim countries to correct abuses in Muslim society, there is widespread exploitation of divorce laws, and Malaysia is said to be no exception. It is therefore pertinent to see whether there is empirical evidence to support this contention especially in relation to access to the divorce process.
A national study on divorce conducted by the Department of Shariah Judiciary in 2005 shows that females made up the majority of applications presented in the Shariah courts of all states in Malaysia.
Zaleha in her 2008 research indicated that although the husband may not wish to institute divorce proceedings, neither does he have much interest in the marriage itself. This indifference on the part of the husband may motivate the wife to petition for divorce.
Where women are economically dependent on their husbands, this in many cases acts as a deterrent to divorce in Malaysia. However, since there has been an increase in female participation in the labour market of Malaysia (46.7%), women have gained more economic power. The options open to them also increased with divorce being one such option.
Another factor which may explain why more women are petitioning for divorce in some states of Malaysia is the changing role of women in the family. Besides being economically independent, there is an awakened consciousness of equality and non-discrimination. Women are increasingly becoming more vocal about inadequacies in their marriage. They are choosing to pursue their careers and higher education, thus giving themselves more opportunities to participate in activities outside traditional stereotypes, which confine them to roles as home-makers and mothers.
Legal aid, which was introduced to Malaysia in 1971 with the prime objective of assisting litigants with limited means to initiate legal proceedings, including divorce, has also assisted women to petition for divorce.
Although there are some states with higher incidence of male petitioners, possible explanations for this must be explored. One study (Kuchiba et.al., 1979) which tends to support the trend for males being more likely to institute divorce proceeding in Malaysia shows that in most cases in Malay society, the wife is the one who instigates the divorce by persuading the husband to expedite matters through divorce via talaq. It would appear on paper that the men are petitioning, but, in reality, both parties agree to divorce. Due to the process being expedited via divorce through talaq, the husband seems to be initiating the divorce.
The discrepancy in the percentages of female plaintiffs between states directly correlates with legal provisions, implementation of these provisions, education levels, exposure on marital rights and responsibilities and the socio-economic status as well as the local culture. With the increase in the number of women gaining more financial independence, the percentages of female divorce plaintiffs are expected to increase in the future.
Another factor which cannot be ignored when considering the low number of women petitioning for divorce is linked to economic dependency. Although there are many women currently in the work force, one study on Americans (Weitzman, 1985) reveals that compared to men, there are more unemployed women. Upon divorce, these women are faced with a higher chance of being plunged into poverty. So whilst economic dependency may remain hidden during marriage, it becomes a public problem when women are confronted with poverty.
The financial loss suffered by women upon divorce is more often than not far greater than that suffered by men. Women will be more concerned about division of property, settlement of maintenance, and arrangements regarding children. Since women are more likely to retain the care of children, these matters are of more concern to them.
All the above empirical evidence shows that generally Muslim women in Malaysia do have equal access to divorce. The next important question would be where they would go from there. The future seems so bleak.
Dr M: Don’t snub English, it is language of success
Tuesday December 15, 2009
Dr M: Don’t snub English, it is language of success
By NURBAITI HAMDAN
SHAH ALAM: The Government has ignored the language of knowledge and success by snubbing English as a teaching medium for Mathematics and Science subjects in schools, says Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
The former Prime Minister said to acquire knowledge, one must have a good command of English, which he described as a universal language.
“Without knowledge, we will be left behind or worse, colonised. Knowledge must be acquired even if it comes in English,” he said.
Dr Mahathir argued that it would not make one any less patriotic by speaking in a foreign language.
“It is not about the language of the English people. You do not become an Englishman just because you speak the language,” he told a press conference after presenting a keynote address at the 17th Islamic World Academy of Sciences Con¬ference at a hotel here yesterday.
The conference was opened by the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah.
Dr Mahathir said patriotism did not come in native languages but rather in wanting great things that can only be derived from the power of knowledge.
He also felt that the current leadership had failed to understand the importance of the language.
On July 8, Deputy Prime Minis¬¬ter Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin announced that the Government had decided to reverse the teaching of Mathema¬¬¬tics and Science in English policy (PPSMI) and revert to Bahasa Malaysia in national schools, Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools from 2012.
Muhyiddin said the Government made the decision after carefully studying the results of studies conducted about PPSMI which showed that the policy had not been implemented as planned.
Dr M: Don’t snub English, it is language of success
By NURBAITI HAMDAN
SHAH ALAM: The Government has ignored the language of knowledge and success by snubbing English as a teaching medium for Mathematics and Science subjects in schools, says Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
The former Prime Minister said to acquire knowledge, one must have a good command of English, which he described as a universal language.
“Without knowledge, we will be left behind or worse, colonised. Knowledge must be acquired even if it comes in English,” he said.
Dr Mahathir argued that it would not make one any less patriotic by speaking in a foreign language.
“It is not about the language of the English people. You do not become an Englishman just because you speak the language,” he told a press conference after presenting a keynote address at the 17th Islamic World Academy of Sciences Con¬ference at a hotel here yesterday.
The conference was opened by the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah.
Dr Mahathir said patriotism did not come in native languages but rather in wanting great things that can only be derived from the power of knowledge.
He also felt that the current leadership had failed to understand the importance of the language.
On July 8, Deputy Prime Minis¬¬ter Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin announced that the Government had decided to reverse the teaching of Mathema¬¬¬tics and Science in English policy (PPSMI) and revert to Bahasa Malaysia in national schools, Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools from 2012.
Muhyiddin said the Government made the decision after carefully studying the results of studies conducted about PPSMI which showed that the policy had not been implemented as planned.
MCKK old boys enrol first non-Malay member
MCKK old boys enrol first non-Malay member
2009/12/14
KUALA LUMPUR: The perception that racism rules the daily lives of Malaysians was quashed on Saturday when a retired police officer was given the rare distinction of being the first non-Malay to be inducted as a member of the Malay College Old Boys Association (Mcoba), an exclusive all-Malay alumni group.
Liew Yong Choon coached basketball at the residential school for more than 20 years and brought big successes along the way to Malay students in the Chinese-dominated sport.
Apart from voluntarily coaching the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK) basketball team to become school champions in the late 1970s and 1980s, Liew spent a lot of his free time with the students, acting as a counsellor.
He also gave his charges tuition in English, Maths and Science and would set academic targets for them, failing which they would be suspended and not able to train with the team for several days.
Liew took pride in bringing an all-Malay basketball team to play in Chinese tournaments and made the team a crowd favourite.
He was named honorary member at the Mcoba annual dinner in front of royalty and luminaries who included the Sultan Perak Sultan Azlan Shah, the Raja Muda of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah, Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and former national police chief Tun Hanif Omar.
The appointment reinforced a statement by association president Tan Sri Megat Najmuddin Megat Khas in his speech at the start of the function that the old boys of MCKK, despite their upbringing in a closed community boarding school environment, were never known to be racist nor racial fanatics.
"Why this outlook, why this cosmopolitan outlook which one would not normally associate with an enclosed one-race environment?" he asked and went on to answer it by quoting a popular belief among old boys that they were not racists because of their exposure to a multiracial teaching faculty.
However, today, Megat Najmuddin added, the teaching staff is totally Malay and the question he posed was how do MCKK students escape the embrace of racial fanaticism.
"This is a genuine concern and perhaps we have travelled along the communal paths far too far that somehow we have to come together again as 1Malaysia."
2009/12/14
KUALA LUMPUR: The perception that racism rules the daily lives of Malaysians was quashed on Saturday when a retired police officer was given the rare distinction of being the first non-Malay to be inducted as a member of the Malay College Old Boys Association (Mcoba), an exclusive all-Malay alumni group.
Liew Yong Choon coached basketball at the residential school for more than 20 years and brought big successes along the way to Malay students in the Chinese-dominated sport.
Apart from voluntarily coaching the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK) basketball team to become school champions in the late 1970s and 1980s, Liew spent a lot of his free time with the students, acting as a counsellor.
He also gave his charges tuition in English, Maths and Science and would set academic targets for them, failing which they would be suspended and not able to train with the team for several days.
Liew took pride in bringing an all-Malay basketball team to play in Chinese tournaments and made the team a crowd favourite.
He was named honorary member at the Mcoba annual dinner in front of royalty and luminaries who included the Sultan Perak Sultan Azlan Shah, the Raja Muda of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah, Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and former national police chief Tun Hanif Omar.
The appointment reinforced a statement by association president Tan Sri Megat Najmuddin Megat Khas in his speech at the start of the function that the old boys of MCKK, despite their upbringing in a closed community boarding school environment, were never known to be racist nor racial fanatics.
"Why this outlook, why this cosmopolitan outlook which one would not normally associate with an enclosed one-race environment?" he asked and went on to answer it by quoting a popular belief among old boys that they were not racists because of their exposure to a multiracial teaching faculty.
However, today, Megat Najmuddin added, the teaching staff is totally Malay and the question he posed was how do MCKK students escape the embrace of racial fanaticism.
"This is a genuine concern and perhaps we have travelled along the communal paths far too far that somehow we have to come together again as 1Malaysia."
5 Ways to Wow Your Boss
5 Ways to Wow Your Boss
by Caroline M.L. Potter, Yahoo! HotJobs
It's more important than ever to make sure your boss is happy with your performance. In tenuous times, your supervisor is one of the few people who may be able to shield you from a layoff. She may also be able to help you pursue a promotion down the road.
However, like any relationship, the one between you and your boss can get stale. You may grow complacent over time or you may never start off on the right foot. The good news is that it's never too late to breathe new life into how you work with your supervisor, thanks to these expert tips from Alexandra Levit, author of "New Job, New You: A Guide to Reinventing Yourself in a Bright New Career."
If you heed these five hints, you'll not only contribute to your job security; you'll also win your boss's admiration and appreciation -- as well as a little loyalty.
1. Be humble. In other words, be mindful of the fact that it's not all about you. Says Levit, "Don't approach your boss with a sense of entitlement, as though he is personally responsible for furthering your career. Instead, focus on learning what you can do to make his life easier, contribute to your company's goals, and make him look good to his boss."
2. Be honest. Everyone makes mistakes -- and you're no exception. Be forthcoming about it from the start. "Admit if you do something wrong, and then ask your boss how you can rectify the situation. Don't allow yourself to get caught in a maze of lies or excuses that will result in a loss of credibility," she advises.
3. Be respectful of the boss's time. If you think your plate is full, consider that of your boss. Use your time together wisely and efficiently. Levit suggests, "Appear in her office with a checklist of things you need to cover, and don't dwell too long on any particular subject. Your boss will be more receptive to meeting with you if she knows you'll be in and out of his office quickly."
4. Be self-sufficient. Be mindful of the fact that your supervisor doesn't have the bandwidth to hold your hand through every crisis or help you make every difficult decision that lands on your desk.
"Only approach your boss with a problem or complaint if you've explored all options for resolving it yourself. When you do, be prepared to have a solution at hand that you could implement with her help," says Levit, who is also a contributor to The Wall Street Journal.
"Choose your battles wisely, and decide carefully if bringing an issue to your boss's attention is really necessary or if you would be better off letting it go," she adds.
5. Be a "can-do" employee. Redefine the concept of a "yes man" (or "yes woman") at the office. She advises, "When your boss asks you to do something, accommodate him, if possible. The words 'I don't have time' should never escape your lips. If you know something needs to be done, do it without being prodded, and if your boss asks for help in a group setting, be the first to volunteer."
If you're always amenable, Levit believes, "Your boss will quickly come to see you as a huge asset to the team and as someone he can count on."
by Caroline M.L. Potter, Yahoo! HotJobs
It's more important than ever to make sure your boss is happy with your performance. In tenuous times, your supervisor is one of the few people who may be able to shield you from a layoff. She may also be able to help you pursue a promotion down the road.
However, like any relationship, the one between you and your boss can get stale. You may grow complacent over time or you may never start off on the right foot. The good news is that it's never too late to breathe new life into how you work with your supervisor, thanks to these expert tips from Alexandra Levit, author of "New Job, New You: A Guide to Reinventing Yourself in a Bright New Career."
If you heed these five hints, you'll not only contribute to your job security; you'll also win your boss's admiration and appreciation -- as well as a little loyalty.
1. Be humble. In other words, be mindful of the fact that it's not all about you. Says Levit, "Don't approach your boss with a sense of entitlement, as though he is personally responsible for furthering your career. Instead, focus on learning what you can do to make his life easier, contribute to your company's goals, and make him look good to his boss."
2. Be honest. Everyone makes mistakes -- and you're no exception. Be forthcoming about it from the start. "Admit if you do something wrong, and then ask your boss how you can rectify the situation. Don't allow yourself to get caught in a maze of lies or excuses that will result in a loss of credibility," she advises.
3. Be respectful of the boss's time. If you think your plate is full, consider that of your boss. Use your time together wisely and efficiently. Levit suggests, "Appear in her office with a checklist of things you need to cover, and don't dwell too long on any particular subject. Your boss will be more receptive to meeting with you if she knows you'll be in and out of his office quickly."
4. Be self-sufficient. Be mindful of the fact that your supervisor doesn't have the bandwidth to hold your hand through every crisis or help you make every difficult decision that lands on your desk.
"Only approach your boss with a problem or complaint if you've explored all options for resolving it yourself. When you do, be prepared to have a solution at hand that you could implement with her help," says Levit, who is also a contributor to The Wall Street Journal.
"Choose your battles wisely, and decide carefully if bringing an issue to your boss's attention is really necessary or if you would be better off letting it go," she adds.
5. Be a "can-do" employee. Redefine the concept of a "yes man" (or "yes woman") at the office. She advises, "When your boss asks you to do something, accommodate him, if possible. The words 'I don't have time' should never escape your lips. If you know something needs to be done, do it without being prodded, and if your boss asks for help in a group setting, be the first to volunteer."
If you're always amenable, Levit believes, "Your boss will quickly come to see you as a huge asset to the team and as someone he can count on."
The ups and downs of teaching
Sunday December 6, 2009
The ups and downs of teaching
TEACHER TALK
By NITHYA SIDDHU
While teachers impart knowledge and contribute to student progress, they too need to reflect and evaluate their triumphs and failures as the year comes to an end.
I always thought teaching was a simple matter of telling the class what you knew and then testing them and giving them grades. How was I to know how complicated the life of a teacher could be? — Frank McCourt
AS THE year draws to a close, my thoughts inevitably return to how the year has been for me. In particular, my life as a teacher this year. What did I really achieve? How much of what I taught sank in and made a difference? How much of it succeeded in bringing about positive change? What did I do right this year? What mistakes did I make?
Despite the years of experience I now have as a teacher, what new thing did I learn this year? Did I make an effort to be innovative? Did I create some ripples?
I ask all these questions of myself, but I sometimes wonder, “Do others also reflect and ask such questions?” Well, I know one thing. Frank McCourt did.
The Pulitzer-winning author and teacher, who passed away in July, was always hungry for ideas and information, often asking questions and seeking answers.
He not only wrote Angela’s Ashes, but also wrote about his teaching experiences in Teacher Man.
The book was about him — of his teaching career, how he coped, how he suffered, what his students were like, what they could be, what he would have liked them to be, and what some would never be, what his personal life was like, as opposed to his professional one.
The challenges of facing children with different personalities, wondering how to treat each one of them, getting it right, getting it wrong, learning by making mistakes, hitting the right note, hitting the wrong one, managing, inspiring, taking it in his stride, cursing, appreciating, procrastinating, caring too much or not caring at all, touching lives, being the brunt of parents’ complaints, being aware of diversity, mannerisms, upbringing, personality, attitude, being shouted at, shouting back, striking a chord, not striking one, bobbing, swimming, drowning — what a life! And, McCourt lived it.
An Irish man, this remarkable teacher was once very poor; as a child in Ireland, he even stole to survive extreme poverty; as an adult in America, he found his niche, first in teaching and then in writing.
He was a man who wasn’t sure if he were doing the right thing in class. He tried to understand the young charges he taught while he “examined his conscience”. Reading Teacher Man will make you realise how funny he was and how he inspired despite the glaring personal weaknesses he claimed he had.
Recently I borrowed the book to read it again. Parts of it made me laugh and parts of it made me feel like crying. And, I felt this kinship. The understanding that flows from one teacher to another. The empathy. The sympathy. The truth of our professional existence.
He was Irish, while I am Malaysian, yet as teachers our worlds are the same — our worries, our concerns, our weaknesses, our mistakes, our triumphs, our acceptance of the limitations of our students, and also that of ours. How similar we really are.
The work we do — it may be appreciated, it may be not. It may be glorified, it may be condemned. It may help a child find his way in life, or it may have little impact. It may also bring enlightenment or it may not. It may make a difference, or it may not.
But, the fact remains — we, who are teachers, have to do our jobs. We can either do them very well, making the most of our skills, knowledge and potential, learning as well as teaching, contributing significantly to student progress – or, we could do a cursory job and be done with it. The choice is ours.
As the year ends, think about it. Reflect. How are you as a teacher? Do you still harbour doubts about your own ability?
If you do, be brave and remember McCourt’s words, “You have to make your own way in the classroom. You have to find yourself. You have to develop your own style, your own techniques. You have to tell the truth or you’ll be found out.”
Every teacher is capable of doing good. To Frank McCourt – thank you for sharing your life with us and making us, the common teacher, realise how much we do for other people’s children.
The ups and downs of teaching
TEACHER TALK
By NITHYA SIDDHU
While teachers impart knowledge and contribute to student progress, they too need to reflect and evaluate their triumphs and failures as the year comes to an end.
I always thought teaching was a simple matter of telling the class what you knew and then testing them and giving them grades. How was I to know how complicated the life of a teacher could be? — Frank McCourt
AS THE year draws to a close, my thoughts inevitably return to how the year has been for me. In particular, my life as a teacher this year. What did I really achieve? How much of what I taught sank in and made a difference? How much of it succeeded in bringing about positive change? What did I do right this year? What mistakes did I make?
Despite the years of experience I now have as a teacher, what new thing did I learn this year? Did I make an effort to be innovative? Did I create some ripples?
I ask all these questions of myself, but I sometimes wonder, “Do others also reflect and ask such questions?” Well, I know one thing. Frank McCourt did.
The Pulitzer-winning author and teacher, who passed away in July, was always hungry for ideas and information, often asking questions and seeking answers.
He not only wrote Angela’s Ashes, but also wrote about his teaching experiences in Teacher Man.
The book was about him — of his teaching career, how he coped, how he suffered, what his students were like, what they could be, what he would have liked them to be, and what some would never be, what his personal life was like, as opposed to his professional one.
The challenges of facing children with different personalities, wondering how to treat each one of them, getting it right, getting it wrong, learning by making mistakes, hitting the right note, hitting the wrong one, managing, inspiring, taking it in his stride, cursing, appreciating, procrastinating, caring too much or not caring at all, touching lives, being the brunt of parents’ complaints, being aware of diversity, mannerisms, upbringing, personality, attitude, being shouted at, shouting back, striking a chord, not striking one, bobbing, swimming, drowning — what a life! And, McCourt lived it.
An Irish man, this remarkable teacher was once very poor; as a child in Ireland, he even stole to survive extreme poverty; as an adult in America, he found his niche, first in teaching and then in writing.
He was a man who wasn’t sure if he were doing the right thing in class. He tried to understand the young charges he taught while he “examined his conscience”. Reading Teacher Man will make you realise how funny he was and how he inspired despite the glaring personal weaknesses he claimed he had.
Recently I borrowed the book to read it again. Parts of it made me laugh and parts of it made me feel like crying. And, I felt this kinship. The understanding that flows from one teacher to another. The empathy. The sympathy. The truth of our professional existence.
He was Irish, while I am Malaysian, yet as teachers our worlds are the same — our worries, our concerns, our weaknesses, our mistakes, our triumphs, our acceptance of the limitations of our students, and also that of ours. How similar we really are.
The work we do — it may be appreciated, it may be not. It may be glorified, it may be condemned. It may help a child find his way in life, or it may have little impact. It may also bring enlightenment or it may not. It may make a difference, or it may not.
But, the fact remains — we, who are teachers, have to do our jobs. We can either do them very well, making the most of our skills, knowledge and potential, learning as well as teaching, contributing significantly to student progress – or, we could do a cursory job and be done with it. The choice is ours.
As the year ends, think about it. Reflect. How are you as a teacher? Do you still harbour doubts about your own ability?
If you do, be brave and remember McCourt’s words, “You have to make your own way in the classroom. You have to find yourself. You have to develop your own style, your own techniques. You have to tell the truth or you’ll be found out.”
Every teacher is capable of doing good. To Frank McCourt – thank you for sharing your life with us and making us, the common teacher, realise how much we do for other people’s children.
Lessons learnt abroad
Sunday December 6, 2009
Lessons learnt abroad
By ALYCIA LIM
It is not the learning alone, but the total experience that lures our students to foreign shores.
WITH the strong value of the British pound and the Australian and the US (United States) dollar against the Malaysian Ringgit, one would think that local parents will refrain from sending their children abroad for studies. However, this does not seem to be the case.
There are already about 23,000 Malaysian students currently studying in Australian institutions of higher learning, over 13,000 in the United Kingdom (UK) and another 6,000 students in the US.
These numbers are poised to grow even further despite the bleak economic outlook. StarEducation spoke to education consultants, counsellors, students and parents to find out the “pull’’ factor and what attracts the ever increasing number of Malaysian students to foreign universities.
With so many institutions to choose from, Tony Tan, managing director of education consultancy Studylink says that he always asks students what they are looking for when they decide to study in another country.
“Some people may want to live in a city, but others may like to be in a quieter place. Of course, the cost factor plays a big role as well when deciding on where to go.”
Tan says that he has met many businessmen and executives who can afford to pay for their child’s education abroad, but when it comes to the crux of the matter — that is on deciding on the institution itself — they rely on word-of-mouth from friends and relatives, to get a better idea and to be assured.
Unfortunately, this may not always be the best option for the student, as university rankings may be misleading at times, especially when a student is already interested in a particular course.
“Instead of looking at the rankings, what is more important is for students to know what they want, and find a suitable institution that best fits their needs,” he says.
Parents and students often enrol in an institution based on the university’s ranking, but often end up feeling shortchanged as they do not experience what they had hoped for.
Studying Down Under
One of the most popular study destinations amongst Malaysians is Australia.
Australian Education International education counsellor Louise McSorley says, “Australia is a popular choice amongst Malaysians because of its close proximity to home.
“Parents may also feel more comfortable and assured knowing that their child is only a few hours away by flight.”
She adds that there may also be a sense of familiarity amongst Malaysian students, because there are already many Asians in Australia and students may be able to assimilate better into the community without going through too much of a culture shock.
For Conie Wee, 22, a pharmacy student in the University of South Australia, her decision to study in Adelaide was made after careful consideration.
“Coming from Kota Baru, I wanted to experience studying in a different environment while still living in a laid back place.
“I decided to come to Adelaide in Australia, because apart from the environment, I also felt I was more used to the Australian education system as opposed to the US education system. The UK was not an option at all as it was quite expensive at the time I applied for a place in university.”
Fortunately for her, fitting into the study environment in Adelaide was smooth sailing, as she was lucky enough to meet people who helped her find her footing.
“All I had to do was to ask, and the people around were more than willing to help.”
Tan says that instead of looking at rankings alone, students should decide on finding an institution that fits their requirements.
Living in Adelaide turned out to be a pleasant experience for C. Kughan, 21, who believes that the greatest advantage one has in studying in the city is the fact that it is close to home.
He adds, “I love the laid back culture and the beaches here are beautiful!”
As for living costs, both Conie and Kughan say they spend about A$1,200 (RM3,740) per month on living expenses, including rental.
But over in the state of Victoria, Tasha Amir, 24, who currently studies in the University of Melbourne, pays much more for her city life.
Living in a studio apartment, Tasha forks out A$1,200 (RM3,740) for rental alone each month, plus about A$700 (RM2,180) for food, transport, and entertainment.
In response to the high lodging cost, Louise says, “housing is getting more expensive, but it is not just the students who are paying a lot to live in the city. The economy is booming, and more people are drifting to urban areas, so it is advisable for students to sort out their lodging before they leave.”
Albeit the high living costs, Tasha’s father, Amir Hassan, who is an IT consultant says: “Studying overseas really helped me as it opened my eyes and made me see things from a different perspective. I was lucky to get a government scholarship then because my parents could not afford to send me overseas.
“Since I can afford to send my children overseas, I want them to share and enjoy that experience.”
Asked if he wants his daughter to live in Australia, Amir says he sent her overseas not only to get an education but to let her see the good and bad sides of both countries.
“No place is perfect, and by going to Australia, I hope she gains all the exposure learning about a different culture, and eventually come back to Malaysia to be an element of change here for our country,” he shares.
What about the US?
Dr Coffman: The US is seen as an alternative because tuition fees have not gone up.
With such high costs involved in sending their children to Australia, many parents are also now looking at alternatives.
According to Open Doors 2009, an annual report on student mobility, there has been a 9.5% increase in the enrolment of Malaysian students to the US since last year. Malaysia ranks 21 in the order of countries sending their students to the United States. Malaysian-American Commission on Educational Exchange executive director Dr James Coffman says, “More Malaysians are looking at the US as an alternative for their tertiary studies because tuition fees have not gone up as much compared to the UK and Australia. He adds that accommodation costs are much more affordable, ranging from US$300 (RM1,020) to US$1,500 (RM5,000) per month, although students who are keen on studying in bigger cities like Boston, New York and areas in California will be incurring higher rentals and expenses.
Student Edeleen Lunjew, who is currently doing her undergraduate studies at North Dakota State University majoring in Psychology, decided to try the best of both worlds.
Taking a 2+2 American Degree Programme in a local private college, she managed to get some experience studying locally, and moved to the US in her final two years of study.
Wanting to experience what her parents experienced, Edeleen says that she decided on going to the US as her parents had lived there while her father was pursuing a Masters degree.
Edeleen pays US$290 (RM980) each month on rental and bills and about another US$300 (RM1,020) for other expenses.
UK still attractive
According to the British Council, Malaysians are present in all parts of the UK, although most students prefer larger cities like London, Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham and Liverpool due to familiarity.
There has also been a sudden increase in the student intake last year due to the weakening of the British Pound.
Statistics from the British Council’s Higher Education Student Data showed a jump in numbers, from 11,870 students in 2007, to 13,390 students in 2008.
University of Portsmouth Masters degree student Kingston Liu, who lives in a student dormitory that costs £85 (RM475) a week, says he spends about £500 (RM2,790) to £600 (RM3,350) each month on his total living expenses.
Having recently completed his undergraduate degree in Melbourne, Australia, Kingston says that meals served in restaurants do not vary much from those in Melbourne, but adds that groceries, clothings and books are much cheaper in the UK.
It is also to experience a different lifestyle with the locals and international students, says this friendly and outgoing lad.
However, it is the reverse for 22-year-old Ooi Kean Shean, who says there is nothing like bringing that experience back home.
Currently in his fourth year, Kean Shean, did a twinning programme at Penang Medical College with the Dublin Royal College of Surgeons Ireland.
“I plan to start working in Malaysia, so it is much better to finish my course here and familiarise myself with the types of diseases in this region.”
Although he wished he could have stayed in longer in the UK, the soon-to-be doctor says that he is happy to be back for he can now focus on his studies and “let go of the little things such as household chores so that I can focus on my studies”.
Employment
For many students, the biggest reason for going overseas to complete their tertiary education is to enhance their employability prospects.
But working professionals say that a new graduate should be able to prove that he is competent and has the soft skills.
Tan says that “going overseas may help a student build his self-confidence, but that is not a guarantee that an overseas graduate would be better than a local graduate.”
S. Chan, a human resource officer from a leading accounting firm, says that when hiring graduates, what matters is not so much the institution they graduate from — rather, it is their attitude and the recognition they get in their respective fields that matter.
Chan adds that for specialised fields like accounting, it is more important to be certified by an accounting professional body, and successful applicants are usually those who are able to speak and present themselves well.
Futurestep ASEAN client development leader Lee Beng Khim says that while most multinational companies may require candidates to have minimum qualifications like a diploma or a degree, the candidate’s work experience typically plays an important role.
“Some multinational companies may prefer candidates from foreign universities because of the perception that they are typically more exposed to different nationalities and cultures and have better communication and interpersonal skills, enabling them to cope better in a matrix organisation.”
At the end of the day, Lee says that motivation is the fundamental factor.
If a candidate has all the relevant experience but is not motivated or does not have that ‘drive’ to do the job, then he or she will not be successful, he adds.
Lessons learnt abroad
By ALYCIA LIM
It is not the learning alone, but the total experience that lures our students to foreign shores.
WITH the strong value of the British pound and the Australian and the US (United States) dollar against the Malaysian Ringgit, one would think that local parents will refrain from sending their children abroad for studies. However, this does not seem to be the case.
There are already about 23,000 Malaysian students currently studying in Australian institutions of higher learning, over 13,000 in the United Kingdom (UK) and another 6,000 students in the US.
These numbers are poised to grow even further despite the bleak economic outlook. StarEducation spoke to education consultants, counsellors, students and parents to find out the “pull’’ factor and what attracts the ever increasing number of Malaysian students to foreign universities.
With so many institutions to choose from, Tony Tan, managing director of education consultancy Studylink says that he always asks students what they are looking for when they decide to study in another country.
“Some people may want to live in a city, but others may like to be in a quieter place. Of course, the cost factor plays a big role as well when deciding on where to go.”
Tan says that he has met many businessmen and executives who can afford to pay for their child’s education abroad, but when it comes to the crux of the matter — that is on deciding on the institution itself — they rely on word-of-mouth from friends and relatives, to get a better idea and to be assured.
Unfortunately, this may not always be the best option for the student, as university rankings may be misleading at times, especially when a student is already interested in a particular course.
“Instead of looking at the rankings, what is more important is for students to know what they want, and find a suitable institution that best fits their needs,” he says.
Parents and students often enrol in an institution based on the university’s ranking, but often end up feeling shortchanged as they do not experience what they had hoped for.
Studying Down Under
One of the most popular study destinations amongst Malaysians is Australia.
Australian Education International education counsellor Louise McSorley says, “Australia is a popular choice amongst Malaysians because of its close proximity to home.
“Parents may also feel more comfortable and assured knowing that their child is only a few hours away by flight.”
She adds that there may also be a sense of familiarity amongst Malaysian students, because there are already many Asians in Australia and students may be able to assimilate better into the community without going through too much of a culture shock.
For Conie Wee, 22, a pharmacy student in the University of South Australia, her decision to study in Adelaide was made after careful consideration.
“Coming from Kota Baru, I wanted to experience studying in a different environment while still living in a laid back place.
“I decided to come to Adelaide in Australia, because apart from the environment, I also felt I was more used to the Australian education system as opposed to the US education system. The UK was not an option at all as it was quite expensive at the time I applied for a place in university.”
Fortunately for her, fitting into the study environment in Adelaide was smooth sailing, as she was lucky enough to meet people who helped her find her footing.
“All I had to do was to ask, and the people around were more than willing to help.”
Tan says that instead of looking at rankings alone, students should decide on finding an institution that fits their requirements.
Living in Adelaide turned out to be a pleasant experience for C. Kughan, 21, who believes that the greatest advantage one has in studying in the city is the fact that it is close to home.
He adds, “I love the laid back culture and the beaches here are beautiful!”
As for living costs, both Conie and Kughan say they spend about A$1,200 (RM3,740) per month on living expenses, including rental.
But over in the state of Victoria, Tasha Amir, 24, who currently studies in the University of Melbourne, pays much more for her city life.
Living in a studio apartment, Tasha forks out A$1,200 (RM3,740) for rental alone each month, plus about A$700 (RM2,180) for food, transport, and entertainment.
In response to the high lodging cost, Louise says, “housing is getting more expensive, but it is not just the students who are paying a lot to live in the city. The economy is booming, and more people are drifting to urban areas, so it is advisable for students to sort out their lodging before they leave.”
Albeit the high living costs, Tasha’s father, Amir Hassan, who is an IT consultant says: “Studying overseas really helped me as it opened my eyes and made me see things from a different perspective. I was lucky to get a government scholarship then because my parents could not afford to send me overseas.
“Since I can afford to send my children overseas, I want them to share and enjoy that experience.”
Asked if he wants his daughter to live in Australia, Amir says he sent her overseas not only to get an education but to let her see the good and bad sides of both countries.
“No place is perfect, and by going to Australia, I hope she gains all the exposure learning about a different culture, and eventually come back to Malaysia to be an element of change here for our country,” he shares.
What about the US?
Dr Coffman: The US is seen as an alternative because tuition fees have not gone up.
With such high costs involved in sending their children to Australia, many parents are also now looking at alternatives.
According to Open Doors 2009, an annual report on student mobility, there has been a 9.5% increase in the enrolment of Malaysian students to the US since last year. Malaysia ranks 21 in the order of countries sending their students to the United States. Malaysian-American Commission on Educational Exchange executive director Dr James Coffman says, “More Malaysians are looking at the US as an alternative for their tertiary studies because tuition fees have not gone up as much compared to the UK and Australia. He adds that accommodation costs are much more affordable, ranging from US$300 (RM1,020) to US$1,500 (RM5,000) per month, although students who are keen on studying in bigger cities like Boston, New York and areas in California will be incurring higher rentals and expenses.
Student Edeleen Lunjew, who is currently doing her undergraduate studies at North Dakota State University majoring in Psychology, decided to try the best of both worlds.
Taking a 2+2 American Degree Programme in a local private college, she managed to get some experience studying locally, and moved to the US in her final two years of study.
Wanting to experience what her parents experienced, Edeleen says that she decided on going to the US as her parents had lived there while her father was pursuing a Masters degree.
Edeleen pays US$290 (RM980) each month on rental and bills and about another US$300 (RM1,020) for other expenses.
UK still attractive
According to the British Council, Malaysians are present in all parts of the UK, although most students prefer larger cities like London, Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham and Liverpool due to familiarity.
There has also been a sudden increase in the student intake last year due to the weakening of the British Pound.
Statistics from the British Council’s Higher Education Student Data showed a jump in numbers, from 11,870 students in 2007, to 13,390 students in 2008.
University of Portsmouth Masters degree student Kingston Liu, who lives in a student dormitory that costs £85 (RM475) a week, says he spends about £500 (RM2,790) to £600 (RM3,350) each month on his total living expenses.
Having recently completed his undergraduate degree in Melbourne, Australia, Kingston says that meals served in restaurants do not vary much from those in Melbourne, but adds that groceries, clothings and books are much cheaper in the UK.
It is also to experience a different lifestyle with the locals and international students, says this friendly and outgoing lad.
However, it is the reverse for 22-year-old Ooi Kean Shean, who says there is nothing like bringing that experience back home.
Currently in his fourth year, Kean Shean, did a twinning programme at Penang Medical College with the Dublin Royal College of Surgeons Ireland.
“I plan to start working in Malaysia, so it is much better to finish my course here and familiarise myself with the types of diseases in this region.”
Although he wished he could have stayed in longer in the UK, the soon-to-be doctor says that he is happy to be back for he can now focus on his studies and “let go of the little things such as household chores so that I can focus on my studies”.
Employment
For many students, the biggest reason for going overseas to complete their tertiary education is to enhance their employability prospects.
But working professionals say that a new graduate should be able to prove that he is competent and has the soft skills.
Tan says that “going overseas may help a student build his self-confidence, but that is not a guarantee that an overseas graduate would be better than a local graduate.”
S. Chan, a human resource officer from a leading accounting firm, says that when hiring graduates, what matters is not so much the institution they graduate from — rather, it is their attitude and the recognition they get in their respective fields that matter.
Chan adds that for specialised fields like accounting, it is more important to be certified by an accounting professional body, and successful applicants are usually those who are able to speak and present themselves well.
Futurestep ASEAN client development leader Lee Beng Khim says that while most multinational companies may require candidates to have minimum qualifications like a diploma or a degree, the candidate’s work experience typically plays an important role.
“Some multinational companies may prefer candidates from foreign universities because of the perception that they are typically more exposed to different nationalities and cultures and have better communication and interpersonal skills, enabling them to cope better in a matrix organisation.”
At the end of the day, Lee says that motivation is the fundamental factor.
If a candidate has all the relevant experience but is not motivated or does not have that ‘drive’ to do the job, then he or she will not be successful, he adds.
The role of the board in succession planning
Friday November 27, 2009
The role of the board in succession planning
Whose Business Is It Anyway? - By John Zinkin
FRANCE’S President De Gaulle is reputed to have said the cemeteries of the world are filled with the graves of indispensable men.
The sad truth is nobody is indispensable and therefore succession planning is critical to the sustained success of any organisation.
Yet time and again, boards fail to plan succession effectively.
In case boards think succession planning is an operational problem, or is too sensitive for them to get involved in, directors must remember that it is in fact one of the six principal responsibilities of a board.
The Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance makes it quite clear that boards must oversee: “Succession planning, including appointing, training, fixing the compensation of and where appropriate, replacing senior management.”
Chapter 1 of the Green Book on Enhancing Board Effectiveness reinforces this, stating that boards of government-linked companies are responsible for selecting the CEO and proactively planning for succession as well as understanding the pool of future leaders.
Many boards do a good job of finding and replacing CEOs. Few, however, understand the bench of talent below the CEO, consisting of the organisation’s first and second line.
Yet it is their responsibility to know these people well enough to make informed judgments when their names come up for review.
Boards must therefore realise that they are not just responsible for making sure that the right CEO is appointed and that he/she is performing according to their expectations; they are also responsible for ensuring that the senior management members are fit for key roles.
This means boards must understand the key jobs in the first and second line of management, what the responsibilities entail, the required skills and competencies to do the jobs, the appropriate personality attributes, and of course the required values, which I discussed in my last article.
They then must have a clear picture of how each candidate for the jobs in question fits these parameters: Do they have the necessary skills and competencies? If not, can they acquire them in the time available before moving into the job? Do they have the right temperament for the job?
Not all senior jobs require the same personality characteristics, and putting people with the wrong temperament into jobs can be a guarantee of failure, even if they appear to have the right skills and competencies.
As Peter Senge pointed out, there are three types of leaders: captains, navigators and shipbuilders. They have quite different skills and temperaments.
Captains are good at deciding where they are going, when they will leave port, when they need to arrive, and at allocating crew responsibilities accordingly.
They are in their element when the ocean gets really rough and unpredictable.
They are highly skilled at energising the crew to do the right things at the right moment, and this is never more important than in a typhoon that risks sinking the ship.
Captains must be good communicators, as the phrase “this is your captain speaking” makes clear.
Navigators are skilled at plotting courses once they know where they are going and how long they have to get there.
They will evaluate all the options and advise their captains on the best route to take, what course corrections are likely to be needed and they track progress continuously to make sure that when the typhoon strikes, they can take avoiding action and still get back on course.
From a technical perspective, navigators need higher levels of skill than captains, though their interpersonal skills do not have to be as highly developed as they have less communicating to do.
Like captains, navigators must keep calm in typhoons and work out alternative courses of action for their captains to take.
Thus good captains need good navigators to succeed. Yet both need good shipbuilders, for if the ship is poorly built, it will not respond to the navigator’s course corrections.
It will not matter how effective the captain is in telling the crew what to do; the ship will still run onto the rocks and sink.
So shipbuilders are essential. But we need to remember that good shipbuilders build ships in dry docks.
Temperamentally they are not good at dealing with typhoons. They need the certainty of dry land and are less good at handling the uncertainty of the ocean.
They are not quick decision-makers, but great project managers instead. Putting a good shipbuilder in the role of a captain or navigator in a typhoon is to ask for trouble.
Successful companies need these three types of leaders at all levels in the organisation and they must be able to work together.
Boards must recognise this and understand which type of leader they are dealing with in succession planning lest they choose wrongly and risk sinking the ship.
• The writer is CEO of Securities Industry Development Corp, the training and development arm of the Securities Commission.
The role of the board in succession planning
Whose Business Is It Anyway? - By John Zinkin
FRANCE’S President De Gaulle is reputed to have said the cemeteries of the world are filled with the graves of indispensable men.
The sad truth is nobody is indispensable and therefore succession planning is critical to the sustained success of any organisation.
Yet time and again, boards fail to plan succession effectively.
In case boards think succession planning is an operational problem, or is too sensitive for them to get involved in, directors must remember that it is in fact one of the six principal responsibilities of a board.
The Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance makes it quite clear that boards must oversee: “Succession planning, including appointing, training, fixing the compensation of and where appropriate, replacing senior management.”
Chapter 1 of the Green Book on Enhancing Board Effectiveness reinforces this, stating that boards of government-linked companies are responsible for selecting the CEO and proactively planning for succession as well as understanding the pool of future leaders.
Many boards do a good job of finding and replacing CEOs. Few, however, understand the bench of talent below the CEO, consisting of the organisation’s first and second line.
Yet it is their responsibility to know these people well enough to make informed judgments when their names come up for review.
Boards must therefore realise that they are not just responsible for making sure that the right CEO is appointed and that he/she is performing according to their expectations; they are also responsible for ensuring that the senior management members are fit for key roles.
This means boards must understand the key jobs in the first and second line of management, what the responsibilities entail, the required skills and competencies to do the jobs, the appropriate personality attributes, and of course the required values, which I discussed in my last article.
They then must have a clear picture of how each candidate for the jobs in question fits these parameters: Do they have the necessary skills and competencies? If not, can they acquire them in the time available before moving into the job? Do they have the right temperament for the job?
Not all senior jobs require the same personality characteristics, and putting people with the wrong temperament into jobs can be a guarantee of failure, even if they appear to have the right skills and competencies.
As Peter Senge pointed out, there are three types of leaders: captains, navigators and shipbuilders. They have quite different skills and temperaments.
Captains are good at deciding where they are going, when they will leave port, when they need to arrive, and at allocating crew responsibilities accordingly.
They are in their element when the ocean gets really rough and unpredictable.
They are highly skilled at energising the crew to do the right things at the right moment, and this is never more important than in a typhoon that risks sinking the ship.
Captains must be good communicators, as the phrase “this is your captain speaking” makes clear.
Navigators are skilled at plotting courses once they know where they are going and how long they have to get there.
They will evaluate all the options and advise their captains on the best route to take, what course corrections are likely to be needed and they track progress continuously to make sure that when the typhoon strikes, they can take avoiding action and still get back on course.
From a technical perspective, navigators need higher levels of skill than captains, though their interpersonal skills do not have to be as highly developed as they have less communicating to do.
Like captains, navigators must keep calm in typhoons and work out alternative courses of action for their captains to take.
Thus good captains need good navigators to succeed. Yet both need good shipbuilders, for if the ship is poorly built, it will not respond to the navigator’s course corrections.
It will not matter how effective the captain is in telling the crew what to do; the ship will still run onto the rocks and sink.
So shipbuilders are essential. But we need to remember that good shipbuilders build ships in dry docks.
Temperamentally they are not good at dealing with typhoons. They need the certainty of dry land and are less good at handling the uncertainty of the ocean.
They are not quick decision-makers, but great project managers instead. Putting a good shipbuilder in the role of a captain or navigator in a typhoon is to ask for trouble.
Successful companies need these three types of leaders at all levels in the organisation and they must be able to work together.
Boards must recognise this and understand which type of leader they are dealing with in succession planning lest they choose wrongly and risk sinking the ship.
• The writer is CEO of Securities Industry Development Corp, the training and development arm of the Securities Commission.
Hang Tuah
Hang Tuah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hang Tuah is a legendary warrior/hero who lived during the reign of Sultan Mansur Shah of the Sultanate of Malacca in the 15th century. He was the greatest of all the laksamana, or sultan's admirals, and was known to be a ferocious fighter. Hang Tuah is held in the highest regard, even in present-day Malaysian Malay culture, and is arguably the most well-known and illustrious warrior figure in Malaysian history and literature.
Hang Tuah's Career
Hang Tuah's illustrious career as an admiral or laksamana includes tales of his absolute and unfaltering loyalty to his Sultan, some of which are chronicled in Sejarah Melayu (the semi-historical Malay Annals)[1] and Hikayat Hang Tuah (a romantic collection of tales involving Hang Tuah).
Hang Tuah became the Sultan's constant aide, accompanying the King on official visits to foreign countries. On one such visit to Majapahit, Taming Sari, a famous Majapahit warrior, challenged Hang Tuah to a duel. After a brutal fight, Hang Tuah emerged as winner and the ruler of Majapahit bestowed upon him Taming Sari’s kris or weapon. The Taming Sari kris was named after its original owner, and was purported to be magical, empowering its owner with invincibility. It is said to be the source of Hang Tuah’s alleged supernatural abilities.
Hang Tuah also acted as the Sultan's ambassador, travelling on his Sultan's behalf to allied countries. Another story concerning Hang Tuah's legendary loyalty to the Sultan is found in the Hikayat Hang Tuah, and involves his visit to Inderaputra or Pahang during one such voyage. The Sultan sent Hang Tuah to Pahang with the task of persuading the princess Tun Teja, who was already engaged, to become the Sultan's companion. Tun Teja fell under the impression that Hang Tuah had come to persuade her to marry him, not the Sultan, and agreed to elope with him to Melaka. It was only during the voyage home that Hang Tuah revealed his deception to Tun Teja.
The Hikayat Hang Tuah and Sejarah Melayu each carry different accounts of this incident, however. The Hikayat records that it was Hang Tuah who persuaded Tun Teja to elope with him, thus deceiving her. Sejarah Melayu, however, claims that it was another warrior, Hang Nadim, who deceived Tun Teja.
Perhaps the most famous story in which Hang Tuah is involved is his fight with his closest childhood companion, Hang Jebat. Hang Tuah's deep loyalty to and popularity with the Sultan led to rumours being circulated that Hang Tuah was having an illicit affair with one of the Sultan's stewardess dayang. The Sultan sentenced Hang Tuah to death without trial for the alleged offense. The death sentence was never carried out, however, because Hang Tuah's executioner, the Bendahara, went against the Sultan’s orders and hid Hang Tuah in a remote region of Melaka.
Believing that Hang Tuah was dead, murdered unjustly by the Sultan he served, Hang Jebat avenged his friend's death. Hang Jebat's revenge allegedly became a palace killing spree or furious rebellion against the Sultan (sources differ as to what actually occurred). It remains consistent, however, that Hang Jebat wreaked havoc onto the royal court, and the Sultan was unable to stop him, as none of the Sultan's warriors dared to challenge the more ferocious and skilled Hang Jebat. The Bendahara then informed the Sultan that the only man able to stop Hang Jebat, Hang Tuah, was still alive. The Bendahara recalled Hang Tuah from his hiding place and the warrior was given full amnesty by the Sultan and instructed to kill Hang Jebat. After seven gruelling days of fighting, Hang Tuah was able to kill Hang Jebat.
It is notable that the two main sources of Hang Tuah's life differ yet again on the details of his life. According the Hikayat Hang Tuah, it was Hang Jebat who avenged his friend's death, only to be killed by the same friend, but according to Sejarah Melayu, it was Hang Kasturi. The Sejarah Melayu or the Malay Annals are unique in that they constitute the only available account of the history of the Malay Sultanate in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century[2], but the Hang Jebat story, as the more romantic tale, remains more popular.
Hang Tuah continued to serve Malacca after the death of Hang Jebat. Later in his life, as Hang Tuah progressed in his years, the warrior was ordered by the successive Malaccan Sultan to court a legendary princess on the Sultan's behalf. The Puteri Gunung Ledang (Princess of Mount Ledang) was so named because she resided on Mount Ledang at the Melaka-Johor border. According to legend, the Princess met with Hang Tuah, and only agreed to marry the Sultan if he satisfied a list of requirements, or pre-wedding gifts. The list included a golden bridge linking Melaka with the top of Gunung Ledang, seven trays of mosquito livers, seven jars of virgins' tears and a bowl of the Sultan's first born son's blood. Hang Tuah knew the tasks would not be fulfilled, and was said to be so overwhelmed that he failed his Sultan that he flung his kris into a river and vowed only to return to Melaka if it resurfaced, which it never did. It was also said that he then vanished into thin air. According to other sources, however, Hang Tuah lived until old age, and his body is said to be have been buried in Tanjung Kling in Melaka, where his tomb can still be seen today.
Hang Tuah the Legend
Hang Tuah is famous for quoting the words "Takkan Melayu Hilang di Dunia" which literally means "Malays will never vanish from the face of the earth" or "Never shall the Malay(s) (race) vanish from the face of the earth". The quote is a famous rallying cry for Malay nationalism.
He remains an extremely popular Malay legend, embodying the values of Malay culture at the time, when allegiance and loyalty were paramount above all else. The Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat story, whether completely true or not, represents a paradox in the Malay psyche about loyalty and justice, and remains a point of debate among students of Malay history and literature.
Hang Tuah in Media
Hang Tuah is a prominent legendary figure in Malaysia's popular culture and his story has been adapted into several movies. The more famous of these movies include Hang Tuah, starring the late P. Ramlee in the titular role, and Puteri Gunung Ledang, which starred M. Nasir as Hang Tuah. In 1995, XX Ray 2, a film by Aziz M. Osman was made and tells about modern scientists were sent back in Hang Tuah's era. In the film, Hang Tuah (played by Jalaluddin Hassan) got the quote Takkan Melayu Hilang Di Dunia from one of the scientists from future (played by Aziz M. Osman).TUAH film, which starred (Jamal Abdillah)
Hang Tuah Hypothesis Research & Facts
What really came into accounts of researchers and historian are the name 'Hang' itself. There no such name present for a Malay from that time until today. Even the culture did not describe the meaning of 'Hang'. The name 'Hang' actually descends from China. It was believed that an entourage from China sent by its Emperor to settle down in Melaka as a sign of diplomatic friendship. To tie the strong bond between these two kingdoms, a princess from China, 'Hang Li Poo' were ordered to marry the Sultan. The Sultan placed the princess up on a hill and later named 'Bukit Cina' or Chinese Hill. Few men from the entourage were actually warriors and bodyguards for the princess. Some of these men or their descendants were believed to be :
1. Hang Too Ah
2. Hang Jee Fatt
3. Hang Lee Ker
4. Hang Lee Kiew ,the warriors said the be in the Legend. The name 'Hang' was a surname from China and still today. Chinese names normally carries in 3 words. How it combined into a 2 words name were because the Malay culture in naming after conversion to Islam and at the same time remaining their names. These warriors blended in the Malay culture and proclaimed by the Sultan as the protected ones even they were converted or not. But how about Hang Kasturi? It should be 'Hang Kar Tu Ree' in Chinese. Notice that it had over 3 words that differed from a Chinese name. The answer could be because Hang Kasturi was actually their Malay friend who was very close and they grew up together. So to honor their friendship, the surname 'Hang' was awarded to him. Thus, the name 'Hang Kasturi' existed in the legend. There were few names which gave rise to the history of Melaka that carries the surname 'Hang'. Which were Hang Nadim and Hang Biajin (Hang Tuah's son). Both were also warriors. Their chronicles were too insufficient to be placed among the icons.
This hypothesis research was carried out by Department Of History, National University Of Malaysia (UKM).
Places and things named after Hang Tuah
In Malaysia
• Four roads in Malaysia are named after Hang Tuah: Jalan Hang Tuah in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Malacca, and in Taman Khalidi Bharu, Muar, Johor
• The Royal Malaysian Navy has a frigate named KD Hang Tuah.
• A strip along Jalan Hang Tuah has been renamed Hang Tuah Mall and popularised as a tourist attraction.
In Indonesia
• Streets : Jalan Hang Tuah in Medan, Pekanbaru, and Jakarta
• University of Hang Tuah in Surabaya, Indonesia
• The Indonesian Navy also has a frigate named KRI Hang Tuah.
Further reading
• Richard O. Winstedt, A History of Malaya.
See also
• Hang Jebat
• Hang Li Po
• Puteri Gunung Ledang (film)
• Puteri Gunung Ledang (musical)
Reference
1. ^ Britannica CD - Sejarah Melayu
2. ^ Sejarah Melayu (The Malay Annals)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hang Tuah is a legendary warrior/hero who lived during the reign of Sultan Mansur Shah of the Sultanate of Malacca in the 15th century. He was the greatest of all the laksamana, or sultan's admirals, and was known to be a ferocious fighter. Hang Tuah is held in the highest regard, even in present-day Malaysian Malay culture, and is arguably the most well-known and illustrious warrior figure in Malaysian history and literature.
Hang Tuah's Career
Hang Tuah's illustrious career as an admiral or laksamana includes tales of his absolute and unfaltering loyalty to his Sultan, some of which are chronicled in Sejarah Melayu (the semi-historical Malay Annals)[1] and Hikayat Hang Tuah (a romantic collection of tales involving Hang Tuah).
Hang Tuah became the Sultan's constant aide, accompanying the King on official visits to foreign countries. On one such visit to Majapahit, Taming Sari, a famous Majapahit warrior, challenged Hang Tuah to a duel. After a brutal fight, Hang Tuah emerged as winner and the ruler of Majapahit bestowed upon him Taming Sari’s kris or weapon. The Taming Sari kris was named after its original owner, and was purported to be magical, empowering its owner with invincibility. It is said to be the source of Hang Tuah’s alleged supernatural abilities.
Hang Tuah also acted as the Sultan's ambassador, travelling on his Sultan's behalf to allied countries. Another story concerning Hang Tuah's legendary loyalty to the Sultan is found in the Hikayat Hang Tuah, and involves his visit to Inderaputra or Pahang during one such voyage. The Sultan sent Hang Tuah to Pahang with the task of persuading the princess Tun Teja, who was already engaged, to become the Sultan's companion. Tun Teja fell under the impression that Hang Tuah had come to persuade her to marry him, not the Sultan, and agreed to elope with him to Melaka. It was only during the voyage home that Hang Tuah revealed his deception to Tun Teja.
The Hikayat Hang Tuah and Sejarah Melayu each carry different accounts of this incident, however. The Hikayat records that it was Hang Tuah who persuaded Tun Teja to elope with him, thus deceiving her. Sejarah Melayu, however, claims that it was another warrior, Hang Nadim, who deceived Tun Teja.
Perhaps the most famous story in which Hang Tuah is involved is his fight with his closest childhood companion, Hang Jebat. Hang Tuah's deep loyalty to and popularity with the Sultan led to rumours being circulated that Hang Tuah was having an illicit affair with one of the Sultan's stewardess dayang. The Sultan sentenced Hang Tuah to death without trial for the alleged offense. The death sentence was never carried out, however, because Hang Tuah's executioner, the Bendahara, went against the Sultan’s orders and hid Hang Tuah in a remote region of Melaka.
Believing that Hang Tuah was dead, murdered unjustly by the Sultan he served, Hang Jebat avenged his friend's death. Hang Jebat's revenge allegedly became a palace killing spree or furious rebellion against the Sultan (sources differ as to what actually occurred). It remains consistent, however, that Hang Jebat wreaked havoc onto the royal court, and the Sultan was unable to stop him, as none of the Sultan's warriors dared to challenge the more ferocious and skilled Hang Jebat. The Bendahara then informed the Sultan that the only man able to stop Hang Jebat, Hang Tuah, was still alive. The Bendahara recalled Hang Tuah from his hiding place and the warrior was given full amnesty by the Sultan and instructed to kill Hang Jebat. After seven gruelling days of fighting, Hang Tuah was able to kill Hang Jebat.
It is notable that the two main sources of Hang Tuah's life differ yet again on the details of his life. According the Hikayat Hang Tuah, it was Hang Jebat who avenged his friend's death, only to be killed by the same friend, but according to Sejarah Melayu, it was Hang Kasturi. The Sejarah Melayu or the Malay Annals are unique in that they constitute the only available account of the history of the Malay Sultanate in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century[2], but the Hang Jebat story, as the more romantic tale, remains more popular.
Hang Tuah continued to serve Malacca after the death of Hang Jebat. Later in his life, as Hang Tuah progressed in his years, the warrior was ordered by the successive Malaccan Sultan to court a legendary princess on the Sultan's behalf. The Puteri Gunung Ledang (Princess of Mount Ledang) was so named because she resided on Mount Ledang at the Melaka-Johor border. According to legend, the Princess met with Hang Tuah, and only agreed to marry the Sultan if he satisfied a list of requirements, or pre-wedding gifts. The list included a golden bridge linking Melaka with the top of Gunung Ledang, seven trays of mosquito livers, seven jars of virgins' tears and a bowl of the Sultan's first born son's blood. Hang Tuah knew the tasks would not be fulfilled, and was said to be so overwhelmed that he failed his Sultan that he flung his kris into a river and vowed only to return to Melaka if it resurfaced, which it never did. It was also said that he then vanished into thin air. According to other sources, however, Hang Tuah lived until old age, and his body is said to be have been buried in Tanjung Kling in Melaka, where his tomb can still be seen today.
Hang Tuah the Legend
Hang Tuah is famous for quoting the words "Takkan Melayu Hilang di Dunia" which literally means "Malays will never vanish from the face of the earth" or "Never shall the Malay(s) (race) vanish from the face of the earth". The quote is a famous rallying cry for Malay nationalism.
He remains an extremely popular Malay legend, embodying the values of Malay culture at the time, when allegiance and loyalty were paramount above all else. The Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat story, whether completely true or not, represents a paradox in the Malay psyche about loyalty and justice, and remains a point of debate among students of Malay history and literature.
Hang Tuah in Media
Hang Tuah is a prominent legendary figure in Malaysia's popular culture and his story has been adapted into several movies. The more famous of these movies include Hang Tuah, starring the late P. Ramlee in the titular role, and Puteri Gunung Ledang, which starred M. Nasir as Hang Tuah. In 1995, XX Ray 2, a film by Aziz M. Osman was made and tells about modern scientists were sent back in Hang Tuah's era. In the film, Hang Tuah (played by Jalaluddin Hassan) got the quote Takkan Melayu Hilang Di Dunia from one of the scientists from future (played by Aziz M. Osman).TUAH film, which starred (Jamal Abdillah)
Hang Tuah Hypothesis Research & Facts
What really came into accounts of researchers and historian are the name 'Hang' itself. There no such name present for a Malay from that time until today. Even the culture did not describe the meaning of 'Hang'. The name 'Hang' actually descends from China. It was believed that an entourage from China sent by its Emperor to settle down in Melaka as a sign of diplomatic friendship. To tie the strong bond between these two kingdoms, a princess from China, 'Hang Li Poo' were ordered to marry the Sultan. The Sultan placed the princess up on a hill and later named 'Bukit Cina' or Chinese Hill. Few men from the entourage were actually warriors and bodyguards for the princess. Some of these men or their descendants were believed to be :
1. Hang Too Ah
2. Hang Jee Fatt
3. Hang Lee Ker
4. Hang Lee Kiew ,the warriors said the be in the Legend. The name 'Hang' was a surname from China and still today. Chinese names normally carries in 3 words. How it combined into a 2 words name were because the Malay culture in naming after conversion to Islam and at the same time remaining their names. These warriors blended in the Malay culture and proclaimed by the Sultan as the protected ones even they were converted or not. But how about Hang Kasturi? It should be 'Hang Kar Tu Ree' in Chinese. Notice that it had over 3 words that differed from a Chinese name. The answer could be because Hang Kasturi was actually their Malay friend who was very close and they grew up together. So to honor their friendship, the surname 'Hang' was awarded to him. Thus, the name 'Hang Kasturi' existed in the legend. There were few names which gave rise to the history of Melaka that carries the surname 'Hang'. Which were Hang Nadim and Hang Biajin (Hang Tuah's son). Both were also warriors. Their chronicles were too insufficient to be placed among the icons.
This hypothesis research was carried out by Department Of History, National University Of Malaysia (UKM).
Places and things named after Hang Tuah
In Malaysia
• Four roads in Malaysia are named after Hang Tuah: Jalan Hang Tuah in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Malacca, and in Taman Khalidi Bharu, Muar, Johor
• The Royal Malaysian Navy has a frigate named KD Hang Tuah.
• A strip along Jalan Hang Tuah has been renamed Hang Tuah Mall and popularised as a tourist attraction.
In Indonesia
• Streets : Jalan Hang Tuah in Medan, Pekanbaru, and Jakarta
• University of Hang Tuah in Surabaya, Indonesia
• The Indonesian Navy also has a frigate named KRI Hang Tuah.
Further reading
• Richard O. Winstedt, A History of Malaya.
See also
• Hang Jebat
• Hang Li Po
• Puteri Gunung Ledang (film)
• Puteri Gunung Ledang (musical)
Reference
1. ^ Britannica CD - Sejarah Melayu
2. ^ Sejarah Melayu (The Malay Annals)
Lee Kuan Yew
Lee Kuan Yew
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a Chinese name; the family name is 李 (Li).
Lee Kuan Yew
李光耀
Minister Mentor
Assumed office
12 August 2004
President S.R. Nathan (1999-Present)
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (2004-Present)
Preceded by Post created
Constituency Tanjong Pagar Group Representation Constituency (Tanjong Pagar)
________________________________________
1st Prime Minister of Singapore
In office
5 June 1959 – 28 November 1990
President Yusof bin Ishak (1965-1970)
Benjamin Henry Sheares (1970-1981)
C.V. Devan Nair (1981-1985)
Wee Kim Wee (1985-1993)
Deputy Toh Chin Chye (1959 to 1968)
Goh Keng Swee (1968 to 1984)
S. Rajaratnam (1980 to 1985)
Goh Chok Tong (1985 to 1990)
Ong Teng Cheong (1985 to 1990)
Preceded by None (post created)
Succeeded by Goh Chok Tong
________________________________________
Senior Minister
In office
28 November 1990 – 12 August 2004
President Wee Kim Wee (1985-1993)
Ong Teng Cheong (1993-1999)
S.R. Nathan (1999-Present)
Preceded by S. Rajaratnam
Succeeded by Goh Chok Tong
________________________________________
Born 16 September 1923 (age 86)
Singapore
Political party People's Action Party
Spouse(s) Kwa Geok Choo
Lee Kuan Yew, Honorary GCMG, Honorary CH (Chinese: 李光耀; pinyin: Lǐ Guāngyào; POJ: Lí Kng-iāu; born 16 September 1923; also Harry Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Kwan-Yew) was the first Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore, from 1959 to 1990.
As co-founder and first secretary-general of the People's Action Party (PAP), he led the party to a landslide victory in 1959, oversaw the separation of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965 and its subsequent transformation from a relatively underdeveloped colonial outpost with no natural resources into a stable, First World Asian Tiger. He has remained one of the most influential political figures in South-East Asia.
Under the administration of Singapore's second prime minister, Goh Chok Tong, he served as Senior Minister. He currently holds the post of Minister Mentor, a post created when his son, Lee Hsien Loong, became the nation's third prime minister on 12August 2004.[1][2]
Family background
In his memoirs, Lee refers to his immigrant background as a fourth-generation Chinese Singaporean: his Hakka great-grandfather, Lee Bok Boon (born 1846), emigrated from the Dapu county of Guangdong province to the Straits Settlements in 1862. His mother Chua Jim Neo was a Hokkien Nyonya.[citation needed]
The eldest child of Lee Chin Koon and Chua Jim Neo, Lee Kuan Yew was born at 92 Kampong Java Road in Singapore, in a large and airy bungalow. As a child he was strongly influenced by British culture, due in part to his grandfather, Lee Hoon Leong, who had given his sons an English education. His grandfather gave him the name "Harry" in addition to his Chinese name (given by his father) Kuan Yew. He was mostly known as "Harry Lee" for his first 30 or so years, and still is to his friends in the West and to many close friends and family.[3] He started using his Chinese name after entering politics. His name is sometimes cited as Harry Lee Kuan Yew, although this first name is seldom used in official settings.
Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo were married on 30 September 1950. They have two sons and one daughter.[4] Kwa Geok Choo's roots can be traced from Min Nan Tong'an.[5][6]
Note: Family tree mostly based on Memoirs of LEE KUAN YEW; Pinyin of Lee is Li
Lee Bok Boon
b.1846 Seow Huan Neo
b.1850.est
Lee Hoon Leong
b.1871 Ko Liem Nio
b.1883
Lee Chin Koon
b.1903 Chua Jim Neo
b.1907
Lee Kuan Yew
b.1923 Kwa Geok Choo
b.1921
Wong Ming Yang
b.1951 Lee Hsien Loong
b.1952 Ho Ching
b.1953 Lee Wei Ling
b.1955 Lee Hsien Yang
b.1957 Lim Suet Fern
b.1957
Lee Xiu Qi
b.1980 Li Hongyi
b.1987 Li Shengwu
b.1985
Lee Yi Peng
b.1982 Li Haoyi
b.1989 Li Huanwu
b.1986
Li Shaowu
b.1995
His elder son Lee Hsien Loong has been Prime Minister of Singapore since 2004.
Several members of Lee's family hold prominent positions in Singaporean society, and his sons and daughter hold high government or government-linked posts. His elder son Lee Hsien Loong, a former Brigadier-General, has been the Prime Minister since 2004. He is also the Deputy Chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), of which Lee himself is Chairman. Lee's younger son, Lee Hsien Yang, is also a former Brigadier-General and is a former President and Chief Executive Officer of SingTel, a pan-Asian telecommunications giant and Singapore's largest company by market capitalisation (listed on the Singapore Exchange, SGX). Fifty-six percent of SingTel is owned by Temasek Holdings, a prominent government holding company with controlling stakes in a variety of very large government-linked companies such as Singapore Airlines and DBS Bank. Temasek Holdings in turn was until 2009 run by Executive Director and CEO Ho Ching, the wife of Lee's elder son, the Prime Minister. Lee's daughter, Lee Wei Ling, runs the National Neuroscience Institute. Lee's wife Kwa Geok Choo used to be a partner of the prominent legal firm Lee & Lee. His younger brothers, Dennis, Freddy, and Suan Yew were partners of the same firm. He also has a younger sister, Monica.
Early life
Lee was educated at Telok Kurau Primary School, Raffles Institution, and Raffles College. His university education was delayed by World War II and the 1942-1945 Japanese occupation of Singapore. During the occupation, he operated a successful black market business selling tapioca-based glue called Stikfas.[7] Having taken Chinese and Japanese lessons since 1942, he was able to collaborate as a transcriber of Allied wire reports for the Japanese, as well as being the English-language editor on the Japanese Hodobu (報道部 — an information or propaganda department) from 1943 to 1944.[8][3]
After the war, he briefly attended the London School of Economics before moving to Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge University, where he studied law, graduating with Double Starred First Class Honours. (He was subsequently made an honorary fellow of Fitzwilliam College.) He returned to Singapore in 1949 to practise as a lawyer in Laycock and Ong, the legal practice of John Laycock, a pioneer of multiracialism who, together with A.P. Rajah and C.C. Tan, had founded Singapore's first multiracial club open to Asians.
Early political career – 1951 to 1959
Pre-People's Action Party (PAP)
Lee's first experience with politics in Singapore was his role as election agent for his boss John Laycock under the banner of the pro-British Progressive Party in the 1951 legislative council elections. However, Lee eventually realised the party was unlikely to win mass support, especially from the Chinese-speaking working class. This was especially important when the 1953 Rendel Constitution expanded the electoral rolls to include all local-born as voters, resulting in a significant increase in Chinese voters. His big break came when he was engaged as a legal advisor to the trade and Students' unions which provided Lee with the link to the Chinese-speaking, working-class world (later on in his career, his People's Action Party (PAP) would use these historical links to unions as a negotiating tool in industrial disputes).
Formation of the PAP
On 12 November 1954, Lee, together with a group of fellow English-educated middle-class men whom he himself described as "beer-swilling bourgeois", formed the "socialist" PAP in an expedient alliance with the pro-communist trade unionists. This alliance was described by Lee as a marriage of convenience, since the English-educated group needed the pro-communists' mass support base while the communists needed a non-communist party leadership as a smoke screen because the Malayan Communist Party was illegal. Their common aims were to agitate for self-government and put an end to British colonial rule. An inaugural conference was held at the Victoria Memorial Hall, attended by over 1,500 supporters and trade unionists. Lee became secretary-general, a post he held until 1992, save for a brief period in 1957. UMNO's Tunku Abdul Rahman and MCA's Tan Cheng Lock were invited as guests to give credibility to the new party.
In opposition
Lee comprehensively won the Tanjong Pagar seat in the 1955 elections. He became the opposition leader against David Saul Marshall's Labour Front-led coalition government. He was also one of PAP's representatives to the two constitutional discussions held in London over the future status of Singapore, the first led by Marshall and the second by Lim Yew Hock, Marshall's hardline successor. It was during this period that Lee had to contend with rivals from both within and outside the PAP. While he had to keep a safe distance from his pro-communist colleagues as they actively participated in mass and often violent actions to undermine the government's authority, he also consistently maintained his opposition to the ruling coalition, often attacking it as incompetent and corrupt. Lee's position in the PAP was seriously under threat in 1957 when pro-communists took over the leadership posts, following a party conference which the party's left wing had stacked with fake members.[9] Fortunately for Lee and the party's moderate faction, Lim Yew Hock ordered a mass arrest of the pro-communists and Lee was reinstated as secretary-general. After the communist 'scare', Lee subsequently received a new, stronger mandate from his Tanjong Pagar constituents in a by-election in 1957. The communist threat within the party was temporarily removed as Lee prepared for the next round of elections. It was during this period that he had the first of a series of secret meetings with the underground communist leader, Fong Chong Pik (or Fang Chuan Pi) whom Lee referred to as the Plen, short form for plenipotentiary.
Prime Minister, pre-independence – 1959 to 1965
Self-government administration – 1959 to 1963
In the national elections held on 1 June 1959, the PAP won 43 of the 51 seats in the legislative assembly. Singapore gained self-government with autonomy in all state matters except defence and foreign affairs, and Lee became the first Prime Minister of Singapore on 5 June 1959, taking over from Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock.[10] Before he took office, Lee demanded and secured the release of Lim Chin Siong and Devan Nair, who had been arrested earlier by Lim Yew Hock's government.
Lee faced many problems after gaining self-rule for Singapore from the British, including education, housing, and unemployment. In response to the housing shortage, Lee established the Housing and Development Board (HDB), an agency which began a massive public housing construction programme.
Merger with Malaya, then separation – 1963 to 1965
Main article: Singapore in Malaysia
After Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman proposed the formation of a federation which would include Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak in 1961, Lee began to campaign for a merger with Malaysia to end British colonial rule. He used the results of a referendum held on 1 September 1962, in which 70% of the votes were cast in support of his proposal, to demonstrate that the people supported his plan. During Operation Coldstore, Lee crushed the pro-communist factions who were strongly opposing the merger and who were allegedly involved in subversive activities.
On 16 September 1963, Singapore became part of the Federation of Malaysia. However, the union was short-lived. The Malaysian Central Government, ruled by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), became worried by the inclusion of Singapore's Chinese majority and the political challenge of the PAP in Malaysia. Lee openly opposed the bumiputra policy and used the Malaysian Solidarity Convention's famous cry of "Malaysian Malaysia!", a nation serving the Malaysian nationality, as opposed to the Malay race. PAP-UMNO relations were seriously strained.
Racial riots followed, such as that on Muhammad's birthday (21 July 1964), near Kallang Gasworks, in which 23 people were killed and hundreds injured as Chinese and Malays attacked each other. It is still disputed how the riots started, and theories include a bottle being thrown into a Muslim rally by a Chinese, while others have argued that it was started by a Malay. More riots broke out in September 1964, as rioters looted cars and shops, forcing both Tunku Abdul Rahman and Lee Kuan Yew to make public appearances in order to calm the situation. The price of food also rose dramatically during this period, due to the disruption in transport, which caused further hardship.
Unable to resolve the crisis, the Malaysian Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, decided to expel Singapore from Malaysia, choosing to "sever all ties with a State Government that showed no measure of loyalty to its Central Government". Lee was adamant and tried to work out a compromise, but without success. He was later convinced by Goh Keng Swee that the secession was inevitable. Lee Kuan Yew signed a separation agreement on 7 August 1965, which discussed Singapore's post-separation relations with Malaysia in order to continue co-operation in areas such as trade and mutual defence.
On national television, Prime Minister Lee announces the separation of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia on 9 August 1965.
The failure of the merger was a heavy blow to Lee, who believed that it was crucial for Singapore’s survival. In a televised press conference, he broke down emotionally as he announced the separation (this particular conference is used as evidence by supporters of Lee that he had not intentionally instigated the breakup of Malaysia):
"For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole adult life, I believed in merger and unity of the two territories. ... Now, I, Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore, do hereby proclaim and declare on behalf on the people and the Government of Singapore that as from today, the ninth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five, Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of the people in a most and just equal society."
On that day, 9 August 1965, the Malaysian Parliament passed the required resolution that would sever Singapore's ties to Malaysia as a state, and thus the Republic of Singapore was created. Singapore's lack of natural resources, a water supply that was beholden primarily to Malaysia and a very limited defensive capability were the major challenges that Lee and the Singaporean Government faced.[11]
Prime Minister, post-independence – 1965 to 1990
In his biography, Lee Kuan Yew stated that he did not sleep well, and fell sick days after Singapore's independence. Upon learning of Lee's condition from the British High Commissioner to Singapore, John Robb, Prime Minister Harold Wilson expressed concern, in response to which Lee replied:
"Do not worry about Singapore. My colleagues and I are sane, rational people even in our moments of anguish. We will weigh all possible consequences before we make any move on the political chessboard..."
Lee began to seek international recognition of Singapore's independence. Singapore joined the United Nations (UN) on 21 September 1965, and founded the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on 8 August 1967 with four other South-East Asian countries. Lee made his first official visit to Indonesia on 25 May 1973, just a few years after the Konfrontasi under Sukarno's regime. Relations between Singapore and Indonesia substantially improved as subsequent visits were made between Singapore and Indonesia.
Singapore has never had a dominant culture to which immigrants could assimilate even though Malay was the dominant language at that time. Together with efforts from the government and ruling party, Lee tried to create a unique Singaporean identity in the 1970s and 1980s -- one which heavily recognised racial consciousness within the umbrella of multi-culturalism.
Lee and his government stressed the importance of maintaining religious tolerance and racial harmony, and they were ready to use the law to counter any threat that might incite ethnic and religious violence. For example, Lee warned against "insensitive evangelisation", by which he referred to instances of Christian proselytising directed at Malays. In 1974 the government advised the Bible Society of Singapore to stop publishing religious materials in Malay.[12]
Decisions and policies
Lee had three main concerns — national security, the economy, and social issues — during his post-independence administration.
National security
The vulnerability of Singapore was deeply felt, with threats from multiple sources including the communists, Indonesia (with its Confrontation stance), and UMNO extremists who wanted to force Singapore back into Malaysia. As Singapore gained admission to the United Nations, Lee quickly sought international recognition of Singapore's independence. He declared a policy of neutrality and non-alignment, following Switzerland's model. At the same time, he asked Goh Keng Swee to build up the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and requested help from other countries for advice, training and facilities.
With Britain's announcement in 1967 of its intention to pull out or cut down the troops from Singapore and Malaysia, Lee and Goh introduced National Service, a conscription programme aimed at producing a large reserve force that can be mobilized at short notice. In January 1968, Singapore bought some AMX-13 French-made tanks and then in 1972 purchased another 99 refurbished tanks.[citation needed] In 1969, Singapore bought Strikemasters (armed jet Provosts) from Britain and based them at RAF Tengah, where the government set up pilot training. Later, Singapore was able to establish strong military relations with other nations of Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) and other noncommunist states. This partially restored the security of the country following the withdrawal of British troops on 31 October 1971. Singapore still maintains conscription today, even though the security threats that originally led to the introduction of the policy have been since eradicated.
Economic issues
The separation from Malaysia signified a permanent loss of a common market (though it was part of the Merger agreement, it was never set up) and an economic hinterland. Economic woes were further exacerbated by the British military withdrawal East of the Suez that would eliminate over 50,000 jobs. Although the British were backing out from their earlier commitment to keep their bases till 1975, Lee decided not to strain the relationship with London. He persuaded Harold Wilson to allow the substantial military infrastructure (including a dockyard) to be converted for civilian use, instead of destroying them in accordance with British law. With advice from Dr. Albert Winsemius, Lee set Singapore on the path of industrialization.
In 1967, the Economic Development Board was established to attract foreign investment, offering attractive tax incentives and providing access to the highly skilled, disciplined and relatively low-paid work force. At the same time, the government maintained tight control of the economy, regulating the allocation of land, labour and capital resources. In the balancing of labour and capital, specifically the labour unions and employers of Singapore, a form of tripartite corporatism was introduced to provide stability and consistent economic growth that arguably ended exploitation and major strike activity simultaneously. Modern infrastructure like the airport, the port, roads, and communications networks were improved or constructed with state intervention. The Singapore Tourist Promotion Board was set up to promote tourism, which would eventually create many jobs in the service industry and prove to be a major source of income for the country.
In formulating economic policies, Lee was primarily assisted by his ablest ministers, especially Goh Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen. They managed to reduce the unemployment rate from 14 percent in 1965 to 4.5 percent in 1973. Some structural problems, however, have remained in Singapore including the heavy foreign ownership of capital.
Designating official languages
Lee continued the colonial legacy of using English as the language of the workplace and as the common language among the different races, while recognising Malay, Mandarin Chinese, and Tamil as the other three official languages. All state schools now use English as the medium of instruction, although there are also "mother tongue" lessons in students' respective languages. Malay remains the theoretical "national language" of Singapore, although a majority of Singaporeans do not speak it.
Lee discouraged the usage of non-Mandarin Chinese dialects (such as Hokkien, Teochew and Cantonese) by promoting Mandarin as the 'Mother Tongue' of ethnic Chinese, with a view to a common language of communication within the Chinese community. In 1979, Lee officially launched the first Speak Mandarin Campaign. He also cancelled the broadcasting of television programmes in non-Mandarin dialects, with the exception of news and operas for the benefit of the older audience. Since that time, most younger Chinese Singaporeans are no longer able to speak non-Mandarin Chinese dialects fluently, thus encountering some difficulty when communicating with their dialect-speaking grandparents. However, many dialect words (especially Hokkien words) persist as a component of "Singlish", a pidgin version of English which is very widely spoken in colloquial settings, despite official disapproval.
In the 1970s, graduates of the Chinese-language Nanyang University were facing huge problems finding jobs because of their lack of command in the English language, which was increasingly required in the workforce, especially in the public sector. In response, Lee had Nanyang University absorbed by the English-language University of Singapore; the combined institution was renamed the National University of Singapore. This move greatly affected the Chinese-speaking lecturers and professors, who would now have to teach in English. It was also opposed by some Chinese groups who had contributed significantly to the building of Nanyang University and therefore had a strong emotional attachment to the school. These protests went unheeded, and the English-language policy prevailed; it is nowadays cited as a key element in Singapore's economic success.
Government policies
Like many countries, Singapore was not immune to corruption. Lee was well aware how corruption had led to the downfall of the Nationalist Chinese government in mainland China. Fighting against the communists himself, he knew he had to 'clean house'. Lee introduced legislation giving the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) greater power to conduct arrests, search, call up witnesses, and investigate bank accounts and income-tax returns of suspected persons and their families. The CPIB was given the authority to investigate any officer or minister, and several ministers were later charged with corruption.
Lee believed that ministers should be well paid in order to maintain a clean and honest government. In 1994 he proposed to link the salaries of ministers, judges, and top civil servants to the salaries of top professionals in the private sector, arguing that this would help recruit and retain talent to serve in the public sector.
In the late 1960s, fearing that Singapore's growing population might overburden the developing economy, Lee started a vigorous 'Stop-at-Two' family planning campaign. Couples were urged to undergo sterilisation after their second child. Third or fourth children were given lower priorities in education and such families received fewer economic rebates.
In 1983, Lee sparked the 'Great Marriage Debate' when he encouraged Singapore men to choose highly-educated women as wives. He was concerned that a large number of graduate women were unmarried. Some sections of the population, including graduate women, were upset by his views. Nevertheless, a match-making agency Social Development Unit (SDU) was set up to promote socialising among men and women graduates. Lee also introduced incentives such as tax rebates, schooling, and housing priorities for graduate mothers who had three or four children, in a reversal of the over-successful 'Stop-at-Two' family planning campaign in the 1960s and 1970s. By the late 1990s, the birth rate had fallen so low that Lee's successor Goh Chok Tong extended these incentives to all married women, and gave even more incentives, such as the 'baby bonus' scheme.
Corporal punishment
Main article: Caning in Singapore
One of Lee Kuan Yew's abiding beliefs has been in the efficacy of corporal punishment in the form of caning. In his autobiography The Singapore Story he described his time at Raffles Institution in the 1930s, mentioning that he was caned there for chronic lateness by the then headmaster, D.W. McLeod. He wrote: "I bent over a chair and was given three of the best with my trousers on. I did not think he lightened his strokes. I have never understood why Western educationists are so much against corporal punishment. It did my fellow students and me no harm."[13]
Lee's government inherited judicial corporal punishment from British rule, but greatly expanded its scope. Under the British, it had been used as a penalty for offences involving personal violence, amounting to a handful of caning sentences per year. The PAP government under Lee extended its use to an ever-expanding range of crimes.[14] By 1993 it was mandatory for 42 offences and optional for a further 42.[15] Those routinely ordered by the courts to be caned now include drug addicts and illegal immigrants. From 602 canings in 1987, the figure rose to 3,244 in 1993[16] and to 6,404 in 2007.[17]
Introducing mandatory caning for vandalism in 1966, Lee told Parliament: "[...] if (the offender) knows he is going to get three of the best, I think he will lose a great deal of enthusiasm, because there is little glory attached to the rather humiliating experience of having to be caned."
It was in 1994, with the intensely publicised caning, under that vandalism legislation, of the American teenager Michael Fay, that judicial caning came to the notice of the rest of the world. Such was the level of media coverage that many in the U.S. and elsewhere know Singapore for one thing only, its use of the cane.
Caning in schools (for male students only) was likewise inherited from the British, and this is in widespread use to discipline disobedient schoolboys, still under 1957 legislation.[18] Lee also introduced caning in the Singapore Armed Forces, and Singapore is one of few countries in the world where corporal punishment is an official penalty in military discipline.[19]
Relations with Malaysia
Mahathir bin Mohamad
Lee looked forward to improving relationships with Mahathir bin Mohamad upon the latter's promotion to Deputy Prime Minister. Knowing that Mahathir was in line to become the next Prime Minister of Malaysia, Lee invited Mahathir (through then-President of Singapore Devan Nair) to visit Singapore in 1978. The first and subsequent visits improved both personal and diplomatic relationships between them. Mahathir asked Lee to cut off links with the Chinese leaders of the Democratic Action Party; in exchange, Mahathir undertook not to interfere in the affairs of the Malay Singaporeans. In addition, each country refrains from selling its newspapers in the other. In December 1981, Mahathir changed the time zone of the Malay Peninsula in order to create just one time zone for Malaysia, and Lee followed suit for economic and social reasons. Relations with Mahathir subsequently improved in 1982.
In January 1984, Mahathir imposed a RM100 levy on all goods vehicles leaving Malaysia and Singapore. However, when Musa Hitam tried to discourage Mahathir's policy, the levy was doubled to discourage the use of Singapore's port, and a breakdown in relations with Malaysia was evident. In June 1988, Lee and Mahathir reached agreement in Kuala Lumpur to build the Linggui dam on the Johor River. Lee approached Mahathir in 1989, when he intended to move the railway station and its associated customs facilities from Tanjong Pagar in southern Singapore to Woodlands at the end of the Causeway, in part because of an increasing number of cases of drug smuggling into Singapore.
This caused resentment in Malaysia, as some of the land would revert to Singapore when the railway tracks were no longer used, and also because Malaysia would lose its railway station in the city centre. In response, Mahathir designated Daim Zainuddin, then Minister of Finance of Malaysia, to settle the terms. After months of negotiation, an agreement was reached involving the joint development of three main parcels of land in Tanjong Pagar, Kranji, and Woodlands. Malaysia had a sixty per cent share, while Singapore had a forty per cent share. The Points of Agreement (POA) was signed on 27 November 1990, a day before Lee stepped down as Prime Minister. However, disputes between the two countries continue, and the agreement remains unimplemented.
Senior Minister – 1990 to 2004
After leading the PAP to victory in seven elections, Lee stepped down on 28 November 1990, handing over the prime ministership to Goh Chok Tong. He was then the world's longest ever serving Prime Minister.[20]
This leadership transition was meticulously planned and executed. The recruitment and grooming of the second-generation leaders took place as early as the 1970s. In the 1980s, Goh and the younger leaders started to assume important cabinet positions. Prior to the official transition, all other first-generation leaders (the "old guard") retired, including Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam and Toh Chin Chye.[citation needed] This was the first leadership transition since independence. By stepping down when he was still mentally alert and in good health, Lee set himself apart from other strong contemporary Asian leaders such as Mao Zedong, Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos, and Ne Win.
When Goh Chok Tong became head of government, Lee remained in the cabinet with a non-executive position of Senior Minister and played a role he described as advisory. In public, Lee would refer to Goh as "my Prime Minister", in deference to Goh's authority. In practice, Lee's opinions still carry much weight with the public and in the cabinet. He has continued to wield much influence in the country and is ready to use it when necessary. As he said in a 1988 National Day rally:
"Even from my sick bed, even if you are going to lower me into the grave and I feel something is going wrong, I will get up."
Lee subsequently stepped down as the Secretary-General of the PAP and was succeeded by Goh Chok Tong in November 1992. Lee has refrained from official dealings with all ASEAN governments, including Malaysia, so as not to cross lines with his successor, Goh Chok Tong. He played a major role, however, in diplomacy, such as with the agreement of the transfer of public-administration software for the development and management of China's Suzhou Industrial Park with then Vice-president Li Lanqing on 26 February 1994.
Minister Mentor – 2004 to present
On 12 August 2004 Goh Chok Tong stepped down as Prime Minister and was succeeded by Lee's eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong. Goh became the Senior Minister, and Lee Kuan Yew assumed a new cabinet position of Minister Mentor. Regarding gambling laws, Lee stated that he was "emotionally and intellectually" against gambling. However, he made no opposition to his son's proposal to allow casinos in the country, stating: "Having a casino is something the new leaders will have to decide".
Recently, Lee has expressed his concern about the declining proficiency of Mandarin among younger Singaporeans. In one of his parliamentary speeches, he said: "Singaporeans must learn to juggle English and Mandarin". Subsequently, , beginning in December 2004, a one-year long campaign called 华语 Cool! was launched, in an attempt to attract young viewers to learn and speak Mandarin.[21]
In June 2005, Lee published a book, Keeping My Mandarin Alive, documenting his decades of effort to master Mandarin, a language which he said he had to re-learn due to disuse:
"...because I don't use it so much, therefore it gets disused and there's language loss. Then I have to revive it. It's a terrible problem because learning it in adult life, it hasn't got the same roots in your memory."
In an interview with CCTV on 12 June 2005, Lee stressed the need to have a continuous renewal of talent in the country's leadership, saying:
"In a different world we need to find a niche for ourselves, little corners where in spite of our small size we can perform a role which will be useful to the world. To do that, you will need people at the top, decision-makers who have got foresight, good minds, who are open to ideas, who can seize opportunities like we did... My job really was to find my successors. I found them, they are there; their job is to find their successors. So there must be this continuous renewal of talented, dedicated, honest, able people who will do things not for themselves but for their people and for their country. If they can do that, they will carry on for another one generation and so it goes on. The moment that breaks, it's gone."
Singapore General Elections 2006
Main article: James Gomez
Lee's Tanjong Pagar GRC was not contested by opposition parties. He was one of several PAP leaders to criticise James Gomez over a controversy surrounding Gomez's application for a minority certificate from the Elections Department. Gomez had wrongly claimed that he submitted the application, but admitted his mistake a few days later, but only after he was confronted with video evidence contradicting his claim. Lee branded Gomez a liar and challenged Gomez to sue for libel to clear his name. The controversy became a major issue during the election.
Legacy and memoirs
Legacy
During the three decades in which Lee held office, Singapore grew from being a developing country to one of the most developed nations in Asia, despite its small population, limited land space and lack of natural resources. Lee has often stated that Singapore's only natural resources are its people and their strong work ethic. He is widely respected by many Singaporeans, particularly the older generation, who remember his inspiring leadership during independence and the separation from Malaysia. He has often been credited with being the architect of Singapore's present prosperity, although a key role was also played by his Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, who was in charge of the economy.
Memoirs
Lee Kuan Yew has written a two-volume set of memoirs: The Singapore Story (ISBN 0-13-020803-5), which covers his view of Singapore's history until its separation from Malaysia in 1965, and From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (ISBN 0060197765), which gives his account of Singapore's subsequent transformation into a developed nation.
Awards
• Lee has received a number of state decorations, including the Order of the Companions of Honour (1970), Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (1972), the Freedom of the City of London (1982), the Order of the Crown of Johore First Class (1984), the Order of Great Leader (1988) and the Order of the Rising Sun (1967).[22]
• Lee has also received other decorations which include the highest honour of Honorary Fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1988), and Man for Peace (1990).[citation needed]
• Lee was awarded the Ig Nobel Prize in 1994.[23]
• In 2002, Lee was formally admitted to the Fellowship of Imperial College London in recognition of his promotion of international trade and industry, and development of science and engineering study initiatives with the UK.[24]
• In 2006, Lee was presented with the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
• In 2007, Lee was conferred an honorary Doctorate in Law at the Australian National University in Canberra, albeit amid protest from students and staff.[25]
• In October 2009, Lee was conferred the first Lifetime Achievement award by the US-Asean Business Council at its 25th anniversary gala dinner in Washington. In his tribute, former US Secretary of State and 1973 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Dr Henry Kissinger said:[26]
"He has become a seminal figure for all of us. I've not learned as much from anybody as I have from Mr Lee Kuan Yew. He made himself an indispensable friend of the United States, not primarily by the power he represented but by the quality of his thinking.
Meeting the US President at the White House oval office a day later, President Obama introduced him as: [27][28]
"... one of the legendary figures of Asia in the 20th and 21st centuries. He is somebody who helped to trigger the Asian economic miracle."
Health
On 13 September 2008, Lee, 84, underwent successful treatment for abnormal heart rhythm (atrial flutter) at Singapore General Hospital, but he was still able to address a philanthropy forum via video link from hospital.[29]
Controversies
Devan Nair
Devan Nair, the third President of Singapore and who was living in exile in Canada, remarked in a 1999 interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail that Lee's technique of suing his opponents into bankruptcy or oblivion was an abrogation of political rights. He also remarked that Lee is "an increasingly self-righteous know-all", surrounded by "department store dummies". In response to these remarks, Lee sued Devan Nair in a Canadian court and Nair countersued. Lee then brought a motion to have Nair's counterclaim thrown out of court. Lee argued that Nair's counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an inflammatory attack on the integrity of the government of Singapore. However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to throw out Nair's counterclaim, holding that Lee had abused the litigating process and therefore Nair has a reasonable cause of action.[30]
Defamation judgment
On 24 September 2008 the High Court, in a summary judgement by Justice Woo Bih Li, ruled that the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) magazine (Hugo Restall, editor), defamed Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The court found the 2006 article "Singapore's 'Martyr': Chee Soon Juan" meant that Lee Kuan Yew "has been running and continues to run Singapore in the same corrupt manner as Durai operated NKF and he has been using libel actions to suppress those who would question to avoid exposure of his corruption."[31] The court sentenced FEER, owned by Dow Jones & Company (in turn owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp), to pay damages to the complainants. FEER appealed[31] but lost the case when the Court of Appeal ruled in October, 2009 that the Far Eastern Economic Review did defame the country's founder Lee Kuan Yew and his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.[32]
References
1. ^ "Why it's no change in Singapore". The Editor (press review) (London: guardian.co.uk). 16 August 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2004/aug/16/theeditorpressreview.
2. ^ "Singapore told to feel free". The Guardian. Associated Press (London). 13 August 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/13/1.
3. ^ a b McCarthy, Terry. Lee Kuan Yew, Time Asia, Hong Kong, 23 August 1999.
4. ^ "The Cabinet - Mr LEE Kuan Yew". http://www.cabinet.gov.sg/CabinetAppointments/Mr+LEE+Kuan+Yew.htm. Retrieved 26 April 2008.
5. ^ 新加坡內閣資政李光耀 Xinhuanet.com. (Chinese)
6. ^ 李光耀劝扁勿藉奥运搞台独 Zaobao.com, 19 November 2007. (Chinese)
7. ^ Ooi, Jeff (2005). ""Perils of the sitting duck"". Archived from the original on 25 November 2005. http://web.archive.org/web/20051125194719/http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/2005/11/i_went_into_act.php. Retrieved on 6 November 2005.
8. ^ Pillai, M.G.G. (1 November 2005). ""Did Lee Kuan Yew want Singapore ejected from Malaysia?"". Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 13 October 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071013161748/http://www.malaysia-today.net/columns/pillai/2005/11/did-lee-kuan-yew-want-singapore.htm.
9. ^ Mauzy, Diane K.; Milne, R.S. (2002). Singapore Politics Under the People's Action Party. London & New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-24653-9
10. ^ Hoe Yeen Nie (2 June 2009). "State of Singapore came into being 50 years ago on 3 June". Channel News Asia (Singapore). http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/433440/1/.html.
11. ^ For one journalist's personal view of these events, see Pillai, M.G.G., "Did Lee Kuan Yew want Singapore ejected from Malaysia?", Malaysia Today, 1 November 2005.
12. ^ Public-domain information from the US State Department Country Guide.
13. ^ Lee Kuan Yew, "The Singapore Story", Time Asia, Hong Kong, 21 September 1998.
14. ^ Judicial caning in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei at World Corporal Punishment Research.
15. ^ Singapore: Table of offences for which caning is available at World Corporal Punishment Research.
16. ^ Singapore Human Rights Practices 1994, US State Department.
17. ^ Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007, US State Department, released 11 March 2008.
18. ^ Regulation No 88 under the Schools Regulation Act 1957 (extract).
19. ^ Armed Forces Act, 1972.
20. ^ Erlanger, Steven, "New Leader takes Singapore's helm", The New York Times, 29 November 1990.
21. ^ zaobao.com
22. ^ "Bio of Lee Kuan Yew". Governmentof Singapore. http://www.pmo.gov.sg/AboutGovernment/CabinetAppointments/MMLeeKuanYew/. Retrieved 10 September 2008.
23. ^ "List of Ig Nobel past winners". Archived from the original on 11 January 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20060111004730/http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html..
24. ^ "Commemoration Day pride". Reporter (Imperial College London). 13 November 2002. http://www.imperial.ac.uk/college.asp?P=3736.
25. ^ Skehan, Craig (28 March 2007). "Hostile welcome for Lee Kuan Yew". Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/03/28/1174761533651.html.
26. ^ "Warm tributes from old friends". The White House. October 29, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-and-minister-mentor-lee-kuan-yew-singapore-meeting.
27. ^ "Obama welcomes 'legendary' Lee Kuan Yew". AFP. October 29, 2009. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gCvuRK0yenAnx8seMxjlAG59nC7w.
28. ^ "Remarks by President Obama and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore before Meeting". The White House. October 29, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-and-minister-mentor-lee-kuan-yew-singapore-meeting.
29. ^ "Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew hospitalized", International Herald Tribune, Paris, 13 September 2008.
30. ^ Lee v. Globe and Mail (2001), 6 C.P.C. (5th) 354 (Ont.S.C.J.).
31. ^ a b "Editor 'defamed' Singapore leader, BBC News Online, London, 24 September 2008.
32. ^ "Singapore backs Lee in media case" BBC News Online, 8 October 2009.
Secondary sources
• Barr, Michael D. 2000. Lee Kuan Yew: The Beliefs Behind the Man. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
• Gordon, Uri. 2000. Machiavelli's Tiger: Lee Kwan Yew and Singapore's Authoritarian regime
• Josey, Alex. 1980. Lee Kuan Yew — The Crucial Years. Singapore and Kuala Lumpur: Times Books International.
• Kwang, Han Fook, Warren Fernandez and Sumiko Tan. 1998. Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas. Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings.
• McCarthy, Terry (23 August 1999). "Lee Kuan Yew". Time Asia (Hong Kong). http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/lee1.html.
• Minchin, James. 1986. No Man is an Island. A Study of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a Chinese name; the family name is 李 (Li).
Lee Kuan Yew
李光耀
Minister Mentor
Assumed office
12 August 2004
President S.R. Nathan (1999-Present)
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (2004-Present)
Preceded by Post created
Constituency Tanjong Pagar Group Representation Constituency (Tanjong Pagar)
________________________________________
1st Prime Minister of Singapore
In office
5 June 1959 – 28 November 1990
President Yusof bin Ishak (1965-1970)
Benjamin Henry Sheares (1970-1981)
C.V. Devan Nair (1981-1985)
Wee Kim Wee (1985-1993)
Deputy Toh Chin Chye (1959 to 1968)
Goh Keng Swee (1968 to 1984)
S. Rajaratnam (1980 to 1985)
Goh Chok Tong (1985 to 1990)
Ong Teng Cheong (1985 to 1990)
Preceded by None (post created)
Succeeded by Goh Chok Tong
________________________________________
Senior Minister
In office
28 November 1990 – 12 August 2004
President Wee Kim Wee (1985-1993)
Ong Teng Cheong (1993-1999)
S.R. Nathan (1999-Present)
Preceded by S. Rajaratnam
Succeeded by Goh Chok Tong
________________________________________
Born 16 September 1923 (age 86)
Singapore
Political party People's Action Party
Spouse(s) Kwa Geok Choo
Lee Kuan Yew, Honorary GCMG, Honorary CH (Chinese: 李光耀; pinyin: Lǐ Guāngyào; POJ: Lí Kng-iāu; born 16 September 1923; also Harry Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Kwan-Yew) was the first Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore, from 1959 to 1990.
As co-founder and first secretary-general of the People's Action Party (PAP), he led the party to a landslide victory in 1959, oversaw the separation of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965 and its subsequent transformation from a relatively underdeveloped colonial outpost with no natural resources into a stable, First World Asian Tiger. He has remained one of the most influential political figures in South-East Asia.
Under the administration of Singapore's second prime minister, Goh Chok Tong, he served as Senior Minister. He currently holds the post of Minister Mentor, a post created when his son, Lee Hsien Loong, became the nation's third prime minister on 12August 2004.[1][2]
Family background
In his memoirs, Lee refers to his immigrant background as a fourth-generation Chinese Singaporean: his Hakka great-grandfather, Lee Bok Boon (born 1846), emigrated from the Dapu county of Guangdong province to the Straits Settlements in 1862. His mother Chua Jim Neo was a Hokkien Nyonya.[citation needed]
The eldest child of Lee Chin Koon and Chua Jim Neo, Lee Kuan Yew was born at 92 Kampong Java Road in Singapore, in a large and airy bungalow. As a child he was strongly influenced by British culture, due in part to his grandfather, Lee Hoon Leong, who had given his sons an English education. His grandfather gave him the name "Harry" in addition to his Chinese name (given by his father) Kuan Yew. He was mostly known as "Harry Lee" for his first 30 or so years, and still is to his friends in the West and to many close friends and family.[3] He started using his Chinese name after entering politics. His name is sometimes cited as Harry Lee Kuan Yew, although this first name is seldom used in official settings.
Lee and his wife Kwa Geok Choo were married on 30 September 1950. They have two sons and one daughter.[4] Kwa Geok Choo's roots can be traced from Min Nan Tong'an.[5][6]
Note: Family tree mostly based on Memoirs of LEE KUAN YEW; Pinyin of Lee is Li
Lee Bok Boon
b.1846 Seow Huan Neo
b.1850.est
Lee Hoon Leong
b.1871 Ko Liem Nio
b.1883
Lee Chin Koon
b.1903 Chua Jim Neo
b.1907
Lee Kuan Yew
b.1923 Kwa Geok Choo
b.1921
Wong Ming Yang
b.1951 Lee Hsien Loong
b.1952 Ho Ching
b.1953 Lee Wei Ling
b.1955 Lee Hsien Yang
b.1957 Lim Suet Fern
b.1957
Lee Xiu Qi
b.1980 Li Hongyi
b.1987 Li Shengwu
b.1985
Lee Yi Peng
b.1982 Li Haoyi
b.1989 Li Huanwu
b.1986
Li Shaowu
b.1995
His elder son Lee Hsien Loong has been Prime Minister of Singapore since 2004.
Several members of Lee's family hold prominent positions in Singaporean society, and his sons and daughter hold high government or government-linked posts. His elder son Lee Hsien Loong, a former Brigadier-General, has been the Prime Minister since 2004. He is also the Deputy Chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), of which Lee himself is Chairman. Lee's younger son, Lee Hsien Yang, is also a former Brigadier-General and is a former President and Chief Executive Officer of SingTel, a pan-Asian telecommunications giant and Singapore's largest company by market capitalisation (listed on the Singapore Exchange, SGX). Fifty-six percent of SingTel is owned by Temasek Holdings, a prominent government holding company with controlling stakes in a variety of very large government-linked companies such as Singapore Airlines and DBS Bank. Temasek Holdings in turn was until 2009 run by Executive Director and CEO Ho Ching, the wife of Lee's elder son, the Prime Minister. Lee's daughter, Lee Wei Ling, runs the National Neuroscience Institute. Lee's wife Kwa Geok Choo used to be a partner of the prominent legal firm Lee & Lee. His younger brothers, Dennis, Freddy, and Suan Yew were partners of the same firm. He also has a younger sister, Monica.
Early life
Lee was educated at Telok Kurau Primary School, Raffles Institution, and Raffles College. His university education was delayed by World War II and the 1942-1945 Japanese occupation of Singapore. During the occupation, he operated a successful black market business selling tapioca-based glue called Stikfas.[7] Having taken Chinese and Japanese lessons since 1942, he was able to collaborate as a transcriber of Allied wire reports for the Japanese, as well as being the English-language editor on the Japanese Hodobu (報道部 — an information or propaganda department) from 1943 to 1944.[8][3]
After the war, he briefly attended the London School of Economics before moving to Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge University, where he studied law, graduating with Double Starred First Class Honours. (He was subsequently made an honorary fellow of Fitzwilliam College.) He returned to Singapore in 1949 to practise as a lawyer in Laycock and Ong, the legal practice of John Laycock, a pioneer of multiracialism who, together with A.P. Rajah and C.C. Tan, had founded Singapore's first multiracial club open to Asians.
Early political career – 1951 to 1959
Pre-People's Action Party (PAP)
Lee's first experience with politics in Singapore was his role as election agent for his boss John Laycock under the banner of the pro-British Progressive Party in the 1951 legislative council elections. However, Lee eventually realised the party was unlikely to win mass support, especially from the Chinese-speaking working class. This was especially important when the 1953 Rendel Constitution expanded the electoral rolls to include all local-born as voters, resulting in a significant increase in Chinese voters. His big break came when he was engaged as a legal advisor to the trade and Students' unions which provided Lee with the link to the Chinese-speaking, working-class world (later on in his career, his People's Action Party (PAP) would use these historical links to unions as a negotiating tool in industrial disputes).
Formation of the PAP
On 12 November 1954, Lee, together with a group of fellow English-educated middle-class men whom he himself described as "beer-swilling bourgeois", formed the "socialist" PAP in an expedient alliance with the pro-communist trade unionists. This alliance was described by Lee as a marriage of convenience, since the English-educated group needed the pro-communists' mass support base while the communists needed a non-communist party leadership as a smoke screen because the Malayan Communist Party was illegal. Their common aims were to agitate for self-government and put an end to British colonial rule. An inaugural conference was held at the Victoria Memorial Hall, attended by over 1,500 supporters and trade unionists. Lee became secretary-general, a post he held until 1992, save for a brief period in 1957. UMNO's Tunku Abdul Rahman and MCA's Tan Cheng Lock were invited as guests to give credibility to the new party.
In opposition
Lee comprehensively won the Tanjong Pagar seat in the 1955 elections. He became the opposition leader against David Saul Marshall's Labour Front-led coalition government. He was also one of PAP's representatives to the two constitutional discussions held in London over the future status of Singapore, the first led by Marshall and the second by Lim Yew Hock, Marshall's hardline successor. It was during this period that Lee had to contend with rivals from both within and outside the PAP. While he had to keep a safe distance from his pro-communist colleagues as they actively participated in mass and often violent actions to undermine the government's authority, he also consistently maintained his opposition to the ruling coalition, often attacking it as incompetent and corrupt. Lee's position in the PAP was seriously under threat in 1957 when pro-communists took over the leadership posts, following a party conference which the party's left wing had stacked with fake members.[9] Fortunately for Lee and the party's moderate faction, Lim Yew Hock ordered a mass arrest of the pro-communists and Lee was reinstated as secretary-general. After the communist 'scare', Lee subsequently received a new, stronger mandate from his Tanjong Pagar constituents in a by-election in 1957. The communist threat within the party was temporarily removed as Lee prepared for the next round of elections. It was during this period that he had the first of a series of secret meetings with the underground communist leader, Fong Chong Pik (or Fang Chuan Pi) whom Lee referred to as the Plen, short form for plenipotentiary.
Prime Minister, pre-independence – 1959 to 1965
Self-government administration – 1959 to 1963
In the national elections held on 1 June 1959, the PAP won 43 of the 51 seats in the legislative assembly. Singapore gained self-government with autonomy in all state matters except defence and foreign affairs, and Lee became the first Prime Minister of Singapore on 5 June 1959, taking over from Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock.[10] Before he took office, Lee demanded and secured the release of Lim Chin Siong and Devan Nair, who had been arrested earlier by Lim Yew Hock's government.
Lee faced many problems after gaining self-rule for Singapore from the British, including education, housing, and unemployment. In response to the housing shortage, Lee established the Housing and Development Board (HDB), an agency which began a massive public housing construction programme.
Merger with Malaya, then separation – 1963 to 1965
Main article: Singapore in Malaysia
After Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman proposed the formation of a federation which would include Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak in 1961, Lee began to campaign for a merger with Malaysia to end British colonial rule. He used the results of a referendum held on 1 September 1962, in which 70% of the votes were cast in support of his proposal, to demonstrate that the people supported his plan. During Operation Coldstore, Lee crushed the pro-communist factions who were strongly opposing the merger and who were allegedly involved in subversive activities.
On 16 September 1963, Singapore became part of the Federation of Malaysia. However, the union was short-lived. The Malaysian Central Government, ruled by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), became worried by the inclusion of Singapore's Chinese majority and the political challenge of the PAP in Malaysia. Lee openly opposed the bumiputra policy and used the Malaysian Solidarity Convention's famous cry of "Malaysian Malaysia!", a nation serving the Malaysian nationality, as opposed to the Malay race. PAP-UMNO relations were seriously strained.
Racial riots followed, such as that on Muhammad's birthday (21 July 1964), near Kallang Gasworks, in which 23 people were killed and hundreds injured as Chinese and Malays attacked each other. It is still disputed how the riots started, and theories include a bottle being thrown into a Muslim rally by a Chinese, while others have argued that it was started by a Malay. More riots broke out in September 1964, as rioters looted cars and shops, forcing both Tunku Abdul Rahman and Lee Kuan Yew to make public appearances in order to calm the situation. The price of food also rose dramatically during this period, due to the disruption in transport, which caused further hardship.
Unable to resolve the crisis, the Malaysian Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, decided to expel Singapore from Malaysia, choosing to "sever all ties with a State Government that showed no measure of loyalty to its Central Government". Lee was adamant and tried to work out a compromise, but without success. He was later convinced by Goh Keng Swee that the secession was inevitable. Lee Kuan Yew signed a separation agreement on 7 August 1965, which discussed Singapore's post-separation relations with Malaysia in order to continue co-operation in areas such as trade and mutual defence.
On national television, Prime Minister Lee announces the separation of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia on 9 August 1965.
The failure of the merger was a heavy blow to Lee, who believed that it was crucial for Singapore’s survival. In a televised press conference, he broke down emotionally as he announced the separation (this particular conference is used as evidence by supporters of Lee that he had not intentionally instigated the breakup of Malaysia):
"For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole adult life, I believed in merger and unity of the two territories. ... Now, I, Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore, do hereby proclaim and declare on behalf on the people and the Government of Singapore that as from today, the ninth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five, Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of the people in a most and just equal society."
On that day, 9 August 1965, the Malaysian Parliament passed the required resolution that would sever Singapore's ties to Malaysia as a state, and thus the Republic of Singapore was created. Singapore's lack of natural resources, a water supply that was beholden primarily to Malaysia and a very limited defensive capability were the major challenges that Lee and the Singaporean Government faced.[11]
Prime Minister, post-independence – 1965 to 1990
In his biography, Lee Kuan Yew stated that he did not sleep well, and fell sick days after Singapore's independence. Upon learning of Lee's condition from the British High Commissioner to Singapore, John Robb, Prime Minister Harold Wilson expressed concern, in response to which Lee replied:
"Do not worry about Singapore. My colleagues and I are sane, rational people even in our moments of anguish. We will weigh all possible consequences before we make any move on the political chessboard..."
Lee began to seek international recognition of Singapore's independence. Singapore joined the United Nations (UN) on 21 September 1965, and founded the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on 8 August 1967 with four other South-East Asian countries. Lee made his first official visit to Indonesia on 25 May 1973, just a few years after the Konfrontasi under Sukarno's regime. Relations between Singapore and Indonesia substantially improved as subsequent visits were made between Singapore and Indonesia.
Singapore has never had a dominant culture to which immigrants could assimilate even though Malay was the dominant language at that time. Together with efforts from the government and ruling party, Lee tried to create a unique Singaporean identity in the 1970s and 1980s -- one which heavily recognised racial consciousness within the umbrella of multi-culturalism.
Lee and his government stressed the importance of maintaining religious tolerance and racial harmony, and they were ready to use the law to counter any threat that might incite ethnic and religious violence. For example, Lee warned against "insensitive evangelisation", by which he referred to instances of Christian proselytising directed at Malays. In 1974 the government advised the Bible Society of Singapore to stop publishing religious materials in Malay.[12]
Decisions and policies
Lee had three main concerns — national security, the economy, and social issues — during his post-independence administration.
National security
The vulnerability of Singapore was deeply felt, with threats from multiple sources including the communists, Indonesia (with its Confrontation stance), and UMNO extremists who wanted to force Singapore back into Malaysia. As Singapore gained admission to the United Nations, Lee quickly sought international recognition of Singapore's independence. He declared a policy of neutrality and non-alignment, following Switzerland's model. At the same time, he asked Goh Keng Swee to build up the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and requested help from other countries for advice, training and facilities.
With Britain's announcement in 1967 of its intention to pull out or cut down the troops from Singapore and Malaysia, Lee and Goh introduced National Service, a conscription programme aimed at producing a large reserve force that can be mobilized at short notice. In January 1968, Singapore bought some AMX-13 French-made tanks and then in 1972 purchased another 99 refurbished tanks.[citation needed] In 1969, Singapore bought Strikemasters (armed jet Provosts) from Britain and based them at RAF Tengah, where the government set up pilot training. Later, Singapore was able to establish strong military relations with other nations of Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) and other noncommunist states. This partially restored the security of the country following the withdrawal of British troops on 31 October 1971. Singapore still maintains conscription today, even though the security threats that originally led to the introduction of the policy have been since eradicated.
Economic issues
The separation from Malaysia signified a permanent loss of a common market (though it was part of the Merger agreement, it was never set up) and an economic hinterland. Economic woes were further exacerbated by the British military withdrawal East of the Suez that would eliminate over 50,000 jobs. Although the British were backing out from their earlier commitment to keep their bases till 1975, Lee decided not to strain the relationship with London. He persuaded Harold Wilson to allow the substantial military infrastructure (including a dockyard) to be converted for civilian use, instead of destroying them in accordance with British law. With advice from Dr. Albert Winsemius, Lee set Singapore on the path of industrialization.
In 1967, the Economic Development Board was established to attract foreign investment, offering attractive tax incentives and providing access to the highly skilled, disciplined and relatively low-paid work force. At the same time, the government maintained tight control of the economy, regulating the allocation of land, labour and capital resources. In the balancing of labour and capital, specifically the labour unions and employers of Singapore, a form of tripartite corporatism was introduced to provide stability and consistent economic growth that arguably ended exploitation and major strike activity simultaneously. Modern infrastructure like the airport, the port, roads, and communications networks were improved or constructed with state intervention. The Singapore Tourist Promotion Board was set up to promote tourism, which would eventually create many jobs in the service industry and prove to be a major source of income for the country.
In formulating economic policies, Lee was primarily assisted by his ablest ministers, especially Goh Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen. They managed to reduce the unemployment rate from 14 percent in 1965 to 4.5 percent in 1973. Some structural problems, however, have remained in Singapore including the heavy foreign ownership of capital.
Designating official languages
Lee continued the colonial legacy of using English as the language of the workplace and as the common language among the different races, while recognising Malay, Mandarin Chinese, and Tamil as the other three official languages. All state schools now use English as the medium of instruction, although there are also "mother tongue" lessons in students' respective languages. Malay remains the theoretical "national language" of Singapore, although a majority of Singaporeans do not speak it.
Lee discouraged the usage of non-Mandarin Chinese dialects (such as Hokkien, Teochew and Cantonese) by promoting Mandarin as the 'Mother Tongue' of ethnic Chinese, with a view to a common language of communication within the Chinese community. In 1979, Lee officially launched the first Speak Mandarin Campaign. He also cancelled the broadcasting of television programmes in non-Mandarin dialects, with the exception of news and operas for the benefit of the older audience. Since that time, most younger Chinese Singaporeans are no longer able to speak non-Mandarin Chinese dialects fluently, thus encountering some difficulty when communicating with their dialect-speaking grandparents. However, many dialect words (especially Hokkien words) persist as a component of "Singlish", a pidgin version of English which is very widely spoken in colloquial settings, despite official disapproval.
In the 1970s, graduates of the Chinese-language Nanyang University were facing huge problems finding jobs because of their lack of command in the English language, which was increasingly required in the workforce, especially in the public sector. In response, Lee had Nanyang University absorbed by the English-language University of Singapore; the combined institution was renamed the National University of Singapore. This move greatly affected the Chinese-speaking lecturers and professors, who would now have to teach in English. It was also opposed by some Chinese groups who had contributed significantly to the building of Nanyang University and therefore had a strong emotional attachment to the school. These protests went unheeded, and the English-language policy prevailed; it is nowadays cited as a key element in Singapore's economic success.
Government policies
Like many countries, Singapore was not immune to corruption. Lee was well aware how corruption had led to the downfall of the Nationalist Chinese government in mainland China. Fighting against the communists himself, he knew he had to 'clean house'. Lee introduced legislation giving the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) greater power to conduct arrests, search, call up witnesses, and investigate bank accounts and income-tax returns of suspected persons and their families. The CPIB was given the authority to investigate any officer or minister, and several ministers were later charged with corruption.
Lee believed that ministers should be well paid in order to maintain a clean and honest government. In 1994 he proposed to link the salaries of ministers, judges, and top civil servants to the salaries of top professionals in the private sector, arguing that this would help recruit and retain talent to serve in the public sector.
In the late 1960s, fearing that Singapore's growing population might overburden the developing economy, Lee started a vigorous 'Stop-at-Two' family planning campaign. Couples were urged to undergo sterilisation after their second child. Third or fourth children were given lower priorities in education and such families received fewer economic rebates.
In 1983, Lee sparked the 'Great Marriage Debate' when he encouraged Singapore men to choose highly-educated women as wives. He was concerned that a large number of graduate women were unmarried. Some sections of the population, including graduate women, were upset by his views. Nevertheless, a match-making agency Social Development Unit (SDU) was set up to promote socialising among men and women graduates. Lee also introduced incentives such as tax rebates, schooling, and housing priorities for graduate mothers who had three or four children, in a reversal of the over-successful 'Stop-at-Two' family planning campaign in the 1960s and 1970s. By the late 1990s, the birth rate had fallen so low that Lee's successor Goh Chok Tong extended these incentives to all married women, and gave even more incentives, such as the 'baby bonus' scheme.
Corporal punishment
Main article: Caning in Singapore
One of Lee Kuan Yew's abiding beliefs has been in the efficacy of corporal punishment in the form of caning. In his autobiography The Singapore Story he described his time at Raffles Institution in the 1930s, mentioning that he was caned there for chronic lateness by the then headmaster, D.W. McLeod. He wrote: "I bent over a chair and was given three of the best with my trousers on. I did not think he lightened his strokes. I have never understood why Western educationists are so much against corporal punishment. It did my fellow students and me no harm."[13]
Lee's government inherited judicial corporal punishment from British rule, but greatly expanded its scope. Under the British, it had been used as a penalty for offences involving personal violence, amounting to a handful of caning sentences per year. The PAP government under Lee extended its use to an ever-expanding range of crimes.[14] By 1993 it was mandatory for 42 offences and optional for a further 42.[15] Those routinely ordered by the courts to be caned now include drug addicts and illegal immigrants. From 602 canings in 1987, the figure rose to 3,244 in 1993[16] and to 6,404 in 2007.[17]
Introducing mandatory caning for vandalism in 1966, Lee told Parliament: "[...] if (the offender) knows he is going to get three of the best, I think he will lose a great deal of enthusiasm, because there is little glory attached to the rather humiliating experience of having to be caned."
It was in 1994, with the intensely publicised caning, under that vandalism legislation, of the American teenager Michael Fay, that judicial caning came to the notice of the rest of the world. Such was the level of media coverage that many in the U.S. and elsewhere know Singapore for one thing only, its use of the cane.
Caning in schools (for male students only) was likewise inherited from the British, and this is in widespread use to discipline disobedient schoolboys, still under 1957 legislation.[18] Lee also introduced caning in the Singapore Armed Forces, and Singapore is one of few countries in the world where corporal punishment is an official penalty in military discipline.[19]
Relations with Malaysia
Mahathir bin Mohamad
Lee looked forward to improving relationships with Mahathir bin Mohamad upon the latter's promotion to Deputy Prime Minister. Knowing that Mahathir was in line to become the next Prime Minister of Malaysia, Lee invited Mahathir (through then-President of Singapore Devan Nair) to visit Singapore in 1978. The first and subsequent visits improved both personal and diplomatic relationships between them. Mahathir asked Lee to cut off links with the Chinese leaders of the Democratic Action Party; in exchange, Mahathir undertook not to interfere in the affairs of the Malay Singaporeans. In addition, each country refrains from selling its newspapers in the other. In December 1981, Mahathir changed the time zone of the Malay Peninsula in order to create just one time zone for Malaysia, and Lee followed suit for economic and social reasons. Relations with Mahathir subsequently improved in 1982.
In January 1984, Mahathir imposed a RM100 levy on all goods vehicles leaving Malaysia and Singapore. However, when Musa Hitam tried to discourage Mahathir's policy, the levy was doubled to discourage the use of Singapore's port, and a breakdown in relations with Malaysia was evident. In June 1988, Lee and Mahathir reached agreement in Kuala Lumpur to build the Linggui dam on the Johor River. Lee approached Mahathir in 1989, when he intended to move the railway station and its associated customs facilities from Tanjong Pagar in southern Singapore to Woodlands at the end of the Causeway, in part because of an increasing number of cases of drug smuggling into Singapore.
This caused resentment in Malaysia, as some of the land would revert to Singapore when the railway tracks were no longer used, and also because Malaysia would lose its railway station in the city centre. In response, Mahathir designated Daim Zainuddin, then Minister of Finance of Malaysia, to settle the terms. After months of negotiation, an agreement was reached involving the joint development of three main parcels of land in Tanjong Pagar, Kranji, and Woodlands. Malaysia had a sixty per cent share, while Singapore had a forty per cent share. The Points of Agreement (POA) was signed on 27 November 1990, a day before Lee stepped down as Prime Minister. However, disputes between the two countries continue, and the agreement remains unimplemented.
Senior Minister – 1990 to 2004
After leading the PAP to victory in seven elections, Lee stepped down on 28 November 1990, handing over the prime ministership to Goh Chok Tong. He was then the world's longest ever serving Prime Minister.[20]
This leadership transition was meticulously planned and executed. The recruitment and grooming of the second-generation leaders took place as early as the 1970s. In the 1980s, Goh and the younger leaders started to assume important cabinet positions. Prior to the official transition, all other first-generation leaders (the "old guard") retired, including Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam and Toh Chin Chye.[citation needed] This was the first leadership transition since independence. By stepping down when he was still mentally alert and in good health, Lee set himself apart from other strong contemporary Asian leaders such as Mao Zedong, Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos, and Ne Win.
When Goh Chok Tong became head of government, Lee remained in the cabinet with a non-executive position of Senior Minister and played a role he described as advisory. In public, Lee would refer to Goh as "my Prime Minister", in deference to Goh's authority. In practice, Lee's opinions still carry much weight with the public and in the cabinet. He has continued to wield much influence in the country and is ready to use it when necessary. As he said in a 1988 National Day rally:
"Even from my sick bed, even if you are going to lower me into the grave and I feel something is going wrong, I will get up."
Lee subsequently stepped down as the Secretary-General of the PAP and was succeeded by Goh Chok Tong in November 1992. Lee has refrained from official dealings with all ASEAN governments, including Malaysia, so as not to cross lines with his successor, Goh Chok Tong. He played a major role, however, in diplomacy, such as with the agreement of the transfer of public-administration software for the development and management of China's Suzhou Industrial Park with then Vice-president Li Lanqing on 26 February 1994.
Minister Mentor – 2004 to present
On 12 August 2004 Goh Chok Tong stepped down as Prime Minister and was succeeded by Lee's eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong. Goh became the Senior Minister, and Lee Kuan Yew assumed a new cabinet position of Minister Mentor. Regarding gambling laws, Lee stated that he was "emotionally and intellectually" against gambling. However, he made no opposition to his son's proposal to allow casinos in the country, stating: "Having a casino is something the new leaders will have to decide".
Recently, Lee has expressed his concern about the declining proficiency of Mandarin among younger Singaporeans. In one of his parliamentary speeches, he said: "Singaporeans must learn to juggle English and Mandarin". Subsequently, , beginning in December 2004, a one-year long campaign called 华语 Cool! was launched, in an attempt to attract young viewers to learn and speak Mandarin.[21]
In June 2005, Lee published a book, Keeping My Mandarin Alive, documenting his decades of effort to master Mandarin, a language which he said he had to re-learn due to disuse:
"...because I don't use it so much, therefore it gets disused and there's language loss. Then I have to revive it. It's a terrible problem because learning it in adult life, it hasn't got the same roots in your memory."
In an interview with CCTV on 12 June 2005, Lee stressed the need to have a continuous renewal of talent in the country's leadership, saying:
"In a different world we need to find a niche for ourselves, little corners where in spite of our small size we can perform a role which will be useful to the world. To do that, you will need people at the top, decision-makers who have got foresight, good minds, who are open to ideas, who can seize opportunities like we did... My job really was to find my successors. I found them, they are there; their job is to find their successors. So there must be this continuous renewal of talented, dedicated, honest, able people who will do things not for themselves but for their people and for their country. If they can do that, they will carry on for another one generation and so it goes on. The moment that breaks, it's gone."
Singapore General Elections 2006
Main article: James Gomez
Lee's Tanjong Pagar GRC was not contested by opposition parties. He was one of several PAP leaders to criticise James Gomez over a controversy surrounding Gomez's application for a minority certificate from the Elections Department. Gomez had wrongly claimed that he submitted the application, but admitted his mistake a few days later, but only after he was confronted with video evidence contradicting his claim. Lee branded Gomez a liar and challenged Gomez to sue for libel to clear his name. The controversy became a major issue during the election.
Legacy and memoirs
Legacy
During the three decades in which Lee held office, Singapore grew from being a developing country to one of the most developed nations in Asia, despite its small population, limited land space and lack of natural resources. Lee has often stated that Singapore's only natural resources are its people and their strong work ethic. He is widely respected by many Singaporeans, particularly the older generation, who remember his inspiring leadership during independence and the separation from Malaysia. He has often been credited with being the architect of Singapore's present prosperity, although a key role was also played by his Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, who was in charge of the economy.
Memoirs
Lee Kuan Yew has written a two-volume set of memoirs: The Singapore Story (ISBN 0-13-020803-5), which covers his view of Singapore's history until its separation from Malaysia in 1965, and From Third World to First: The Singapore Story (ISBN 0060197765), which gives his account of Singapore's subsequent transformation into a developed nation.
Awards
• Lee has received a number of state decorations, including the Order of the Companions of Honour (1970), Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (1972), the Freedom of the City of London (1982), the Order of the Crown of Johore First Class (1984), the Order of Great Leader (1988) and the Order of the Rising Sun (1967).[22]
• Lee has also received other decorations which include the highest honour of Honorary Fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1988), and Man for Peace (1990).[citation needed]
• Lee was awarded the Ig Nobel Prize in 1994.[23]
• In 2002, Lee was formally admitted to the Fellowship of Imperial College London in recognition of his promotion of international trade and industry, and development of science and engineering study initiatives with the UK.[24]
• In 2006, Lee was presented with the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
• In 2007, Lee was conferred an honorary Doctorate in Law at the Australian National University in Canberra, albeit amid protest from students and staff.[25]
• In October 2009, Lee was conferred the first Lifetime Achievement award by the US-Asean Business Council at its 25th anniversary gala dinner in Washington. In his tribute, former US Secretary of State and 1973 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Dr Henry Kissinger said:[26]
"He has become a seminal figure for all of us. I've not learned as much from anybody as I have from Mr Lee Kuan Yew. He made himself an indispensable friend of the United States, not primarily by the power he represented but by the quality of his thinking.
Meeting the US President at the White House oval office a day later, President Obama introduced him as: [27][28]
"... one of the legendary figures of Asia in the 20th and 21st centuries. He is somebody who helped to trigger the Asian economic miracle."
Health
On 13 September 2008, Lee, 84, underwent successful treatment for abnormal heart rhythm (atrial flutter) at Singapore General Hospital, but he was still able to address a philanthropy forum via video link from hospital.[29]
Controversies
Devan Nair
Devan Nair, the third President of Singapore and who was living in exile in Canada, remarked in a 1999 interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail that Lee's technique of suing his opponents into bankruptcy or oblivion was an abrogation of political rights. He also remarked that Lee is "an increasingly self-righteous know-all", surrounded by "department store dummies". In response to these remarks, Lee sued Devan Nair in a Canadian court and Nair countersued. Lee then brought a motion to have Nair's counterclaim thrown out of court. Lee argued that Nair's counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an inflammatory attack on the integrity of the government of Singapore. However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to throw out Nair's counterclaim, holding that Lee had abused the litigating process and therefore Nair has a reasonable cause of action.[30]
Defamation judgment
On 24 September 2008 the High Court, in a summary judgement by Justice Woo Bih Li, ruled that the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) magazine (Hugo Restall, editor), defamed Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The court found the 2006 article "Singapore's 'Martyr': Chee Soon Juan" meant that Lee Kuan Yew "has been running and continues to run Singapore in the same corrupt manner as Durai operated NKF and he has been using libel actions to suppress those who would question to avoid exposure of his corruption."[31] The court sentenced FEER, owned by Dow Jones & Company (in turn owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp), to pay damages to the complainants. FEER appealed[31] but lost the case when the Court of Appeal ruled in October, 2009 that the Far Eastern Economic Review did defame the country's founder Lee Kuan Yew and his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.[32]
References
1. ^ "Why it's no change in Singapore". The Editor (press review) (London: guardian.co.uk). 16 August 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2004/aug/16/theeditorpressreview.
2. ^ "Singapore told to feel free". The Guardian. Associated Press (London). 13 August 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/13/1.
3. ^ a b McCarthy, Terry. Lee Kuan Yew, Time Asia, Hong Kong, 23 August 1999.
4. ^ "The Cabinet - Mr LEE Kuan Yew". http://www.cabinet.gov.sg/CabinetAppointments/Mr+LEE+Kuan+Yew.htm. Retrieved 26 April 2008.
5. ^ 新加坡內閣資政李光耀 Xinhuanet.com. (Chinese)
6. ^ 李光耀劝扁勿藉奥运搞台独 Zaobao.com, 19 November 2007. (Chinese)
7. ^ Ooi, Jeff (2005). ""Perils of the sitting duck"". Archived from the original on 25 November 2005. http://web.archive.org/web/20051125194719/http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/2005/11/i_went_into_act.php. Retrieved on 6 November 2005.
8. ^ Pillai, M.G.G. (1 November 2005). ""Did Lee Kuan Yew want Singapore ejected from Malaysia?"". Malaysia Today. Archived from the original on 13 October 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071013161748/http://www.malaysia-today.net/columns/pillai/2005/11/did-lee-kuan-yew-want-singapore.htm.
9. ^ Mauzy, Diane K.; Milne, R.S. (2002). Singapore Politics Under the People's Action Party. London & New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-24653-9
10. ^ Hoe Yeen Nie (2 June 2009). "State of Singapore came into being 50 years ago on 3 June". Channel News Asia (Singapore). http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/433440/1/.html.
11. ^ For one journalist's personal view of these events, see Pillai, M.G.G., "Did Lee Kuan Yew want Singapore ejected from Malaysia?", Malaysia Today, 1 November 2005.
12. ^ Public-domain information from the US State Department Country Guide.
13. ^ Lee Kuan Yew, "The Singapore Story", Time Asia, Hong Kong, 21 September 1998.
14. ^ Judicial caning in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei at World Corporal Punishment Research.
15. ^ Singapore: Table of offences for which caning is available at World Corporal Punishment Research.
16. ^ Singapore Human Rights Practices 1994, US State Department.
17. ^ Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007, US State Department, released 11 March 2008.
18. ^ Regulation No 88 under the Schools Regulation Act 1957 (extract).
19. ^ Armed Forces Act, 1972.
20. ^ Erlanger, Steven, "New Leader takes Singapore's helm", The New York Times, 29 November 1990.
21. ^ zaobao.com
22. ^ "Bio of Lee Kuan Yew". Governmentof Singapore. http://www.pmo.gov.sg/AboutGovernment/CabinetAppointments/MMLeeKuanYew/. Retrieved 10 September 2008.
23. ^ "List of Ig Nobel past winners". Archived from the original on 11 January 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20060111004730/http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html..
24. ^ "Commemoration Day pride". Reporter (Imperial College London). 13 November 2002. http://www.imperial.ac.uk/college.asp?P=3736.
25. ^ Skehan, Craig (28 March 2007). "Hostile welcome for Lee Kuan Yew". Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/03/28/1174761533651.html.
26. ^ "Warm tributes from old friends". The White House. October 29, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-and-minister-mentor-lee-kuan-yew-singapore-meeting.
27. ^ "Obama welcomes 'legendary' Lee Kuan Yew". AFP. October 29, 2009. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gCvuRK0yenAnx8seMxjlAG59nC7w.
28. ^ "Remarks by President Obama and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore before Meeting". The White House. October 29, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-and-minister-mentor-lee-kuan-yew-singapore-meeting.
29. ^ "Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew hospitalized", International Herald Tribune, Paris, 13 September 2008.
30. ^ Lee v. Globe and Mail (2001), 6 C.P.C. (5th) 354 (Ont.S.C.J.).
31. ^ a b "Editor 'defamed' Singapore leader, BBC News Online, London, 24 September 2008.
32. ^ "Singapore backs Lee in media case" BBC News Online, 8 October 2009.
Secondary sources
• Barr, Michael D. 2000. Lee Kuan Yew: The Beliefs Behind the Man. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
• Gordon, Uri. 2000. Machiavelli's Tiger: Lee Kwan Yew and Singapore's Authoritarian regime
• Josey, Alex. 1980. Lee Kuan Yew — The Crucial Years. Singapore and Kuala Lumpur: Times Books International.
• Kwang, Han Fook, Warren Fernandez and Sumiko Tan. 1998. Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas. Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings.
• McCarthy, Terry (23 August 1999). "Lee Kuan Yew". Time Asia (Hong Kong). http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/lee1.html.
• Minchin, James. 1986. No Man is an Island. A Study of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
