Customer Reviews

From Third World to First : The Singapore Story: 1965-2000

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Lee, Singapore's Prime Minister from the 50s to 1991, continues where he left off in his previous book of memoirs. After expulsion from Malaysia in 1965, Lee's government took the island nation from the Third World to its current First World status.

"From Third World to First" is organized by themes. In one chapter, he recounts four decades of progress in (say) building an armed forces. Then, at the beginning of the next, the timer is reset to the 1960s and a new narrative begins about attracting investors to Singapore. This format better allows Lee to explain his motivations in each area, but readers who are unfamiliar with Singapore's history will likely be disconcerted.

The impression one gets is of a government that meticulously addresses each problem area, working with a cool efficiency: a sharp contrast with the tumultous events of the first book.

While Lee is generous with praise, especially for his colleagues, the narrative is often self-serving. It's not exactly boasting - the man's achivements are very real - but it left a sour taste in my mouth. His trademark scathing criticisms, often directed at political enemies, are also less than graceful. His often ruthless treatment of the opposition is glossed over.

Still, the book is a good read, particularly for its gripping subject matter: the journey of a tiny, resource-poor island into affluence, set in the midst of the Cold War. Non-Singaporean readers will be particularly interested with the second half of the book, which is entirely devoted to Lee's personal dealings with assorted international leaders.

A minor annoyance: the editing is sloppy. Grammatical quirks are scattered throughout the text, which is surprising considering Lee's usually excellent grasp of the language.

There are two parts to this book.

First part is about development of Singapore - social, economic and political. The second part deals with foreign relations.

As an Indian, I truly admire Singapore. From what it was in 1965 to what it is today, is an educating experience. Awesome to most third world nations - fighting poverty, population growth and other social maladies.

Lee Kwan Yew had a clear vision, set himself clear goals. Above all, what led to his success is his execution skills.

Rule of law certainly helped. What I adore is the team he surrounded with to create such laws and ensure its implementation regardless of obstacles.

Singapore is a wealthy society today. Secure economically and politically.

In my observation, he had 3 primary principles towards building a nation
a) Rule of Law
b) creating a fair society (not welfare society)
c) Expenses less than income (as simple as that)

All his domestic policies were based on above principles.

I like the way he treated hawkers in Singapore's streetwalks. While ensuring cleanliness of Singapore, he provided alternative solutions so that hawkers continued their business for livelihood in a better environment. Contrast this to Maharashtra government's (Indian state) efforts in cleaning and sprucing up Mumbai's Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus area. Vendors keep coming back.

Singaporeans enjoy high savings rate, because of CPF. A guaranteed security for its citizens when they retire. Contrast this to America's 401k. When Enron collapsed, savings of many employees evaporated even as executives pocketed millions in bonus pays!

Although Singapore is a free market economy, its philosophy concerning workers and employees are caring and genuine, unlike in the United States.

Singapore is an epitome of benign dictator ship, democracy, capitalism and socialism co-existing for the general welfare of the nation.

Lee's book is a revelation for all countries of the world. The three primary principles can act as a catalyst is resolving problems.

Singapore is one of the few nations in recent history, which has managed to transform itself from a struggling third world nation to a high tech society in less than fifty years. All this was possible - aside from many other factors - because of the genius of one man: Lee Kuan Yew. This book is the story of his quest to change Singapore.

The first part of the book deals with the various projects he initiated or oversaw that changed Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew gives an overview of what he did to deal with those problems facing every developing nation - crime, education, housing, investment etc...
Reading his memoirs, one cannot help but admire this man's moral character and sense of purpose, other leaders of developing nations would do well to learn from this man.

The second part of the book gives Mr Yew's views on nearly every country Singapore has had significant dealings with. His views are, as he himself says on many occasions, not meant to be politically correct. This means that those fluent in `diplomatese' may find his language crude and some of his views upsetting.

Not surprisingly the last part of the book, which deals with his family and his personal life is very brief. Given the formal tone throughout, it would not be in keeping to speak at length about his own personal life, although no doubt that would be interesting reading.

For those students of economics or politics and for those curious about Singapore or the Asia-Pacific region in general, I would highly recommend this book. The writing is extremely clear and the chapters are arranged in a logical order, (unlike the haphazard ranting in other memoirs) which makes reading a pleasure rather than a pain. Read this book to be inspired.

This book is a must read for people who wants to find out more about Singapore. One would be able to better understand the intimate details of the problems that Singapore faced during the period of nation building from 1965 onwards and the considerations, principles and the people involved in solving them. In his book, difficult issues like going against his friend Dr. Toh and the suicide of a minister were discussed in a very frank manner. The book also showed that Mr. Lee is a sharp observer of people, his account of his meetings with leaders like Suharto, Reagan and many more gives you insight only available if you have up close and personal contact with them. Another plus point for the book is that it is written in simple english and yet was able to bring complex ideas across to the readers. Good read!

Overall, an interesting book if you follow politics and international relations. Like Manuel Noriega (whose biography I also read,) KY Lee comes across as a little arrogant and full of hubris. Granted, he has far more political tact, leadership ability and statesmanship than the dethroned Noriega. Lee chronicles his efforts at nation building through establishing a military and police to efforts at laying down infrastructure. He explains his endeavors at brokering trade ties to the West. Much of the book is spent focusing on foreign policy with various corners of the world. He gives particular attention to relations with surrounding nations in Southeast Asia, China, the U.S., Japan, Britain and Europe.

He demonstrates a great deal of ingenuity in leadership and public policy, despite his authoritarian traits. In some respects, he exhibits some socialistic traits (e.g. national housing plan, state airline and telecom, state-owned hospitals) in his approach to politics, yet he has some rather astute and brilliant ideas on political economy (e.g. individual savings accounts, medical savings accounts) that market-oriented conservatives in the West long for. He outlines his ideas and implemented policies with clarity and detail. Perhaps, one of his most brilliant displays of leadership and grasping macroeconomic principles is his implementation of a worker savings scheme or mandatory IRA as opposed to the costly pay-as-you-go Social Security schemes of the West. Just as Chile's system had done, Singapore suceeded in spurring capital investment. The savings scheme allowed workers to build equity instead of relying on intergenerational wealth redistribution schemes like Social Security. The problem with pay-as-you-go state pension schemes is that the capital is not invested, but disbursed immediately to recepients and this only after administrative overhead for the bureaucracy is docked. It only represents a national liability not an asset. He rightly understood that homeowners make better stewards than renters and sought to increase home ownership through various measures such as forced savings.

His authoritarian brand of capitalism and leadership has had a positive role in Singapore's economic development. Singapore's commitment to the rule of law and order has kept it free from corruption and the so called crony capitalism (e.g. the nepotism and corruption of the Marcos' and the Suharto's.) All things considered, Kuan Yew Lee exhibits extraordinary leadership ability in a seeming ordinary world. People can criticize Lee for having made Singapore into little more than a thinly disguised dictatorship with an authoritarian brand of capitalism and a stern rule of law society, but most so called democracies in the world afford their citizens considerably less economic freedom than Singapore. While democracies relish in their so called personal freedom, they seem to think everything is up for a vote whether an individual's property or the fruits of his labor. Moreover, democratizing has become analogous with socializing. Singapore is by no means a free-market utopia, but Singapore's public sector only taps about 15% of the national economy. Perhaps, the West could get some economics lessons from Singapore.

The world seems to split in their judgement against Mr Lee (I'm sorry, in Chinese, his surname, or last name in the USA, comes in the front). The third world nations tend to look upon him while the developed nations tend to view him as a dictator. As a Singaporean and after reading his book, I cannot stop to give my point of view.

Mr Lee is a great visionary and Asian states in the 50s and 60s cannot be ruled like those states in the western world. Singapore ran into chaos with racial riots and problems with Malaysia. Indeed, we were kicked out of the Malayan Federations due to differences in point of view, deeply rooted in the differences of religion and race. That day proved to be the happening days and the greatest day in the history of Singapore.

To overcome those problems, Singapore cannot be open and people cannot be given that many "rights" since everything is "wrong". Singapore has to be sensitive towards neighbouring countries, which happened to be Muslim majority, while adopting western way of economic development.

THere are lots of criticisms from within Singapore about those harsh rules but without those rules, things cannot be straighten and Singapore cannot adopt new and effective policies quickly. Indeed, when one reads that book, we must appreciate that a too democratic government will do more harm to a third world country than a semi-dictatorial one. Mr Lee is not a total dictator, he is hard and tough, and that's what a developing nation needs.

Singapore is unlike Hong Kong, which tend to enjoy racial and cultural homogenity. Again, harsh rules are important to make sure the minorities are taken care of. Indeed, Singapore has the fairest policy for the minorities as compared to the US and many countries in the western worlds... we cannot discredit that since Chinese remain the majority but power sharing has been deeply rooted in the Singapore culture as all races are given equivalent representation in the government.

We are a small nation, though many African countries would have admire our strategic location, but sincerely, many of these countries are also strategic themselves. Indeed, it is the reason that Singapore has no resources and that the culture in Singapore is to continue upgrade itself to compete with the rest of the world, that makes Singapore what it is today.

Mr Lee is the captain of the ship, Singaporeans are the crews. WIthout a good and tough captain, the ship has no direction but without good crews, the ship cannot get to sail.

Again, Singapore cannot be served as an example to the rest of the world, cos we are too small and we have our own unique problem. We can just act as an inspiration to the rest. This is again what the US should be... rather than imposing on the rest of the world their style of democracy and human rights, they should allow forms of government that are suitable for each cultures to develop.

I believe this is the hidden message behind this book.

That seems to be the choice for many in the third world, at least that is what is implied by Lee Kuan Yew. The story of Singapore should be viewed against the backdrop of so many countries in the world still mired in poverty even after decades of structural adjustment and liberalization and being fully committed to capitalism. Or compare with recently reformed former communist countries now striving to be integrated into the world economy. The title of Lee's book is no coincidence. These countries are still third world, all in the shadow of Singapore, which by contrast has arrived - a first world nation.

FROM THIRD WORLD TO FIRST is then preaching to the converted. Those who want the economic success of Singapore. It should not be surprising to learn that this book is a big seller in many countries where Singapore is regarded as a model of economic progress. Lee has a following outside his own country and away from the metropolitan countries. His autocratic style of government and economic policies are seen as an appropriate mix for many third world scenarios. The book is written with this audience in mind and Lee is quite clear in stating that the US (government and people) are not his primary concerns; he seems to be saying we can't understand him. "They [us] want to promote democracy and human rights everywhere except where it would hurt themselves as in the oil-rich Arabian peninsula." With this one sentence Lee dismisses the major criticism about Singapore - it's not a democracy. So what? Lee would argue.

Wheras this book is a fairly detailed analysis of Singapore's economic history, and its development strategies as highlighted here are interesting to readers of economic development. Lee is sensitive to criticism and on a broader scale his book is aimed at US and UK audiences. Underlying the economics is an unmistakable political argument - an attempt to justify the human rights abuses, denial of rights and abolishment of freedoms most of us take for granted. Most westerners say Singapore is a lovely country...to visit.

I am glad that FROM THIRD WORLD TO FIRST is simply an interesting distraction and that I was not faced with the reality of the choices - either being made by me or for me - prosperity or freedom. It's something to read about but not to be experienced.

This book really shows you what's behind the man and how he thinks. A real insight into an important leader.

It is helpful that he breaks the chapters down by subject. The sections on foreign leaders are quite interesting. Lee has a knack for understanding and observing people, although he does display a bias for more free-market, socially conservative leaders (think Reagan over Carter). Also, look for quirky character profiles on Burma's Ne Win and Indonesia's Suharto.

I also think some of his explanations for his controversial actions are plausible and should be accepted. For example, his policy of suing foreign publications that do not agree to print an official response from the government verbatim makes sense. There is far too much sensationalist journalism attacking governments, and any good newspaper needs to be prepared for the other side's point of view. Furthermore, while some radicals think banning chewing gum and spitting infringe on our rights, quite frankly I see gum, cigarettes, and spit on the sidewalks in the US and it's disgusting. Good for Lee for taking pride in his city!

At the end of the day, Lee is full of himself, but more than almost anyone else, he has the right to be!

I do not agree entirely with Gopalan Nair. I am not a fervant supporter of Harry Lee and indeed I voted against his party when I lived in Singapore and will continue to do so. But after I had left Singapore to live in Hong Kong 12 years ago, gradually I came closer to Lee's view of the world, especially when I travelled extensively and frequently in China many years ago and also when I lived in Indonesia between 96 to 97. I think that many Singaporeans are like me - it's a love-hate relationship with the old man, who was prime minister even before I was born!

I am a bit disappointed with the second book which I think is not as good as the first. Not that it is bad; it is still first rate but I have expected more from Lee. Since a fairly young age, I have read many books about Lee and a lot of his speeches. While his first book reveals quite many things about him that I did not know before, the second book is a let down in this regard. Indeed, before I read it I was excited about how Lee would explain or explain away the Tan Wah Piow, Francis Seow and Tang Liang Hong affairs. But no, Lee is a statesman now and Tan, Seow and Tang were just minor characters not worth dwelling on - maybe Lee thought.

The second book, however, will give foreigners a good grasp of Lee's view of life and why Singapore is governed the way it is. I also cannot agree more with Lee on the impact of sending Singaporeans to mainland China, as my own China dream was shattered when I was there. Lee, however, was trying too hard in his book to please the present Chinese communists, who, I think, in the words of Chris Patten, are a bunch of wankers - still.

I think Gopalan may be related to former President Devan Nair. If Lee is really that evil, it is not for Devan Nair, Toh Chin Chye or Ong Pang Boon to turn around to point their fingers - they were together with Lee in the same boat for too long. And I also remember vividly nearly 13 years ago a question that an MP from Lee's party posed to me - after a lengthy discussion about the merits or demerits of his party's rule in Singapore following my rejection to help him in constituency work - How do you argue with success?

I hope Harry Lee will write the third volume.

Lee was the Prime Minister of Singapore, an island and a city-state. He uses this book to keep us remember that his focus is mainly on economics, but not democracy. We can see that he is trying to describe Singapore as a heaven, in terms of its green environment, economic development and social stability. If you want democracy,you'd better go to the US.

He also argued that he was doing the best for Singapore, at least he think he was. But please remember that Asians have a different value from the West, and it often makes people hard to accept it. Lee had worked as the Prime Minister in Singapore for about 40 years, and he has all the rights to talk about his experience when he worked in his office as well as diplomacy.

You shall not expect he talk much about Singapore internal affairs, because he does not want to! You can see although it is called 'The Singapore Story', about two thirds of its content is about his dimlomatic relations with other countries.

Do not need to take this book so seriously, as Lee is using it to 'educate' the new generation of Singapore as well as defending himself. Read it as a novel and you may find it more interesting, at least I do.