Lee Mau Seng was wrongly imprisoned in Singapore from 1970 to 1973. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) describes the event in his memoir: “The major Chinese paper, Nanyang Siang Pau, turned rabidly pro-communist and pro-Chinese language and culture. We had to arrest Lee Mau Seng, the general manager.” Lee Mau Seng was eventually released on the condition that he leave Singapore. He now resides in Canada.
Harvard Political Review: Could you describe Singapore and your life there before Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew came to power in 1959?
Lee Mau Seng: I returned to Singapore after graduating from the University of Melbourne, Australia with a bachelor’s degree in commerce. I led a typical apolitical life managing the family’s conglomerate businesses, the last being Singapore’s largest vernacular Chinese newspaper, the Nanyang Siang Pau, which caused a dramatic change in my life. That life was swimmingly good, with parties and different ethnic clubs to enjoy, cuisines from numerous nationalities to savour, and hardly any racial barriers to obstruct relations. Significantly, the American Club was “the club” to join in preference to the comparatively stuffy Anglo Tanglin Club, notorious for its pre-war “no dogs and Asians allowed” policy. Things are quite different now, of course, with decades of total independence.
Singapore was and still is a polyglot society with a 75% Chinese population and other ethnicities such as Asian Indians, Malays and whites, collectively and colloquially called Europeans, and smatterings of other races, including Jews, one of whom became the First Minister of a self-governing Singapore – he was the lawyer who defended me in my trial.
In 1950, an English High Court judge decided the Maria Hertogh case. This sparked racial riots resulting in death and destruction, which in turn influenced the bedrock policy of future administrations, including that of Lee Kuan Yew, who, to his undying credit, inculcated an equal, multi-racial society to ensure peace and harmony.
HPR: How did both Singapore and your life change when Lee Kuan Yew came to power?
LMS: LKY came to power with the connivance of Whitehall on a quid pro quo – an unholy alliance based on defeating the insidious intrusion by Communists into local politics with the aim of ruling the island. However, the Red Menace was a convenient vehicle for LKY to achieve his ambition of transforming Singapore after his own image. He was the brightest brain to emerge in his generation, a hard-nosed and consummate politician, with alternating ideological agendas to suit what played best for the day. He started as a rabid socialist and ended [as] an unapologetic well-heeled capitalist. There is no question that Singapore and its citizens have benefited greatly from LKY’s legacy, but this benefit has been at the cost of civil liberties.
HPR: How did Lee Kuan Yew’s decision to imprison you come about?
LMS: I was managing our family-owned vernacular newspaper controlled by my older brother. My older brother and I had a fundamental disagreement over the paper’s policy, in that he was anti-LKY whereas I was, as you may sense, more inclined to be in favor of LKY. Owing to the basic difference in approach, I resigned from my post and let my brother run the paper as he wished. I was totally unaware of what went on in the newsroom, as I had already divested my shares and applied to emigrate to Canada. A vicious fight through the paper’s columns between LKY and my brother ensued, which I was totally unaware of since I do not read or write Mandarin. Imagine my shock when my apartment door was broken down by the Internal Security Police to arrest me. It was a clear-cut case of mistaken identity, which LKY refused to admit in his self-given papal infallibility, in spite of my brother’s open declaration of his culpability. The rest is history.
HPR: Could you describe your time in prison?
LMS: I feel my enforced privation was of little importance compared with that of the many dedicated ideologues who openly opposed LKY. They are the real heroes for their voluntary sacrifice, whereas my collision with LKY was accidental. Anyway, on to my account of my time as an involuntary guest at Harry’s Hilton – a dual reference to the POW concentration camp in North Vietnam that GIs dubbed the Hanoi Hilton and to LKY’s anglicized “Harry,” which he dumped for political expediency to seem more “native”.
Where I was interned consisted of rows of grim barracks separated for males and females. It was named Moon Crescent to create the impression that it was like a resort or holiday camp, though actually [it was] located next to the notorious Changi Prison where Allied prisoners of war were incarcerated during the Japanese occupation in World War II. I was spared any of the abuses that were common there, I surmise, due to the fact that LKY was told of my innocence. This was mentioned to me only recently by the long-retired chief of the Internal Security Department responsible for my arrest.
Every six months or so, I was taken to the Supreme Court to be judged by a panel of advisors to see if my release was commendable. Members of the panel had known me and my entire family for years and from their intimate knowledge of me, most likely sought my release, but LKY had to have his pound of flesh, even if he couldn’t get it from my brother until later.
I am not a courageous soul and often wonder what sustained me in what seemed like an eternity in solitary confinement, without the joy of spending time with my seven and nine-year-old sons, left to me by my late wife. Unless one has an objective to live for – reunion with my boys, in my case – such deprivation is tantamount to torture. The senior member of the Socialist Party tried committing suicide in prison and was released to exile himself to the U.K. I did not have a religious belief to prop up my inner spirit. Like me, LKY was an admitted atheist, so I cannot even seek comfort in thinking he will be called to account by the Creator.
I was pressured to sign what I used to call a Russian KGB confession to legitimize a wrongful conviction. It wasn’t easy to resist, but the thought of admitting to a wrong I never did and to appear on public TV controlled by the government was just too much for my conscience. Two of the newspaper’s editors succumbed to the bait, signing a confession and appearing on TV to gain their freedom. I spent the next two and a half years in solitary confinement until being released on condition that I fulfilled my original plan to emigrate to Canada.
HPR: Now, over 50 years later, how do you view Lee Kuan Yew’s decision to imprison you?
LMS: A grave injustice was inflicted on me, so it is not easy nor necessary to forgive him. However, there are far more important issues than the tribulations of one individual in my case. Headlines covering my sensational arrest were soon forgotten in the mists of time. We have to look at Singapore today and weigh its success against the inhuman deprivation of so many in the past, and question whether that deprivation was worthwhile or otherwise.
HPR: Singapore describes itself as having a parliamentary democracy and a multi-party system whereby the president is the head of state and the prime minister is the head of government. Others have described Singapore as being ruled by technocrats and others still have said that it is an authoritarian government. How would you describe the government of Singapore?
LMS: Singapore is absolutely authoritarian, supported by cadres of capable technocrats – the world’s best window-dressing for a one-party state, masquerading as a democracy with all the trimmings, like tolerating opposition parties so long they are not a serious threat. Note the retention of the Internal Security Act, which was enacted originally to combat Communism, now replaced by other threats. The Internal Security Act hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the heads of oppositionists as a silent warning to those daring to “go too far” in upsetting the ruling People’s Action Party. LKY’s son is now prime minister [and] his wife is in absolute charge of the state’s treasury, with little or no transparency. Even the president is not allowed to question the workings of the state. It’s a family business.
HPR: What are the advantages and disadvantages of Singapore’s system of government? How much emphasis should we place on personal freedoms such as freedom of speech? And are there situations where this should be curtailed?
LMS: Every government system has its positives and negatives. On balance, it is hard not to give a marginal plus to the one which exists in Singapore now. Is it worth the loss of certain personal freedoms in exchange for the undoubted material gains such as the prevalence of law and order, street safety, greenery and pollution control, minimum crime, economic expansion, admirable public and government healthcare facilities, and the best airport in the world? I could go on and on, but it may be best to cite the fact that American billionaire Jim Rogers and other notables have chosen to make Singapore their home. However, all this was achieved at great cost in the suppression of human rights of many [people] who lost their best years. My take is that despite all the good things that LKY conferred on the citizenry, history must take a step back and weigh the material gains against the ceding of individual moral values and freedom to the Great Man himself.
HPR: The coronavirus pandemic has prompted governments to expand their power to slow the spread of the virus in what The Economist describes as “arguably the greatest extension of state power since WWII.” How do you view this expansion?
LMS: The current COVID-19 pandemic is a game changer for the world’s governance. I am getting contradictory views from accredited pundits about the real motivations behind the drastic actions taken by those in charge. Where [does] the truth [lie], as both sides have produced equally convincing “evidence” in support of their stand? I think it is plausible that some of those in power may take advantage of the crisis.
HPR: It seems that countries where governments responded swiftly to COVID-19 with the harshest restrictions on travel and social gatherings are faring better than those with less interventionist governments. Can we draw from this that big government might be better able to protect citizens than small government?
LMS: There is clearly a difference between the Chinese and U.S. governing systems. The massive national lockdown ordered by Beijing was severely criticized by the U.S. as a dictatorial measure. But now that the pandemic has reached the U.S., it seems that the government there is taking the same steps with a slew of top-down diktats. Various countries, big, small, and medium, have chosen different paths to combat the disease. Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea have taken a deliberate step-by-step agenda, whereas Sweden has ignored the recommendations on lockdowns and social distancing, except on a voluntary basis. Others are taking actions with their modus operandi in full view. Therefore, I cannot say which size government is best equipped to handle the crisis. We have a whole panoply before us to choose from, which suggests there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
This piece initially ran under the title of “The Price of Progress: Interview with Lee Mau Seng.”
Image Credit: WorldAtlas.com
