PRUDENT negotiators may be labelled as "kiasu" by disappointed delegates offering terms deemed unfavourable ("Lee Kuan Yew was 'kiasu', says Mahathir"; Sunday).
Singapore's success was due to its meritocratic system of governance and corruption-free administration.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew embraced a merger with then Malaya to become Malaysia because he had a vision of a vast hinterland and resources from which Malaysia could develop into a Malaysia for Malaysians. There was an almost equal balance of Chinese and Malays, with the Indians forming the third-largest group. To Mr Lee's horror, the Malaysian government was promoting a Malaysia for Malays, so a split was inevitable.
To say Singapore is small and therefore has fewer problems and is easy to govern is just an excuse.
At the time of the split, Malaysia had almost five times the population of Singapore. Statistically, it should have more brilliant and capable people, if they were harnessed through a meritocratic system. Malaysia also has natural resources from 13 states, from which to finance the building of infrastructure.
Singapore had only the will and grit of its founding fathers and a populace of poor migrants to fight for survival on equal opportunity.
We had our racial riots too. There was no need for give and take on minority races as they had their rightful place in society, contributing towards nation-building. We had to build an army from scratch to defend our fledgling nation. We had to attract the right foreign investments.
After leading Singapore from a Third World to a First World country, Mr Lee stepped aside for his successors, remaining in the Cabinet for ease of transition and continuity.
He may have disagreed with some new policies, but he never openly berated his successors. He did not have to because they are capable and ably supported by a team dedicated to raise the Singapore standard even higher.
Lin Howard
Singapore's success was due to its meritocratic system of governance and corruption-free administration.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew embraced a merger with then Malaya to become Malaysia because he had a vision of a vast hinterland and resources from which Malaysia could develop into a Malaysia for Malaysians. There was an almost equal balance of Chinese and Malays, with the Indians forming the third-largest group. To Mr Lee's horror, the Malaysian government was promoting a Malaysia for Malays, so a split was inevitable.
To say Singapore is small and therefore has fewer problems and is easy to govern is just an excuse.
At the time of the split, Malaysia had almost five times the population of Singapore. Statistically, it should have more brilliant and capable people, if they were harnessed through a meritocratic system. Malaysia also has natural resources from 13 states, from which to finance the building of infrastructure.
Singapore had only the will and grit of its founding fathers and a populace of poor migrants to fight for survival on equal opportunity.
We had our racial riots too. There was no need for give and take on minority races as they had their rightful place in society, contributing towards nation-building. We had to build an army from scratch to defend our fledgling nation. We had to attract the right foreign investments.
After leading Singapore from a Third World to a First World country, Mr Lee stepped aside for his successors, remaining in the Cabinet for ease of transition and continuity.
He may have disagreed with some new policies, but he never openly berated his successors. He did not have to because they are capable and ably supported by a team dedicated to raise the Singapore standard even higher.
Lin Howard
