Skip to main content

On Lee senior’s wife’s death

Personally, I don’t know the woman. What I do know is that she is the wife of Lee Kuan Yew, a confucian fascist. Though i am wondering if he has changed his stance now with the influx of new foreigners, but then again, we’ll have to see after some years if the proportion of citizenship given to China nationals significantly outnumbers those given to the non-Chinese. After all, he did state that ‘singapore must always be a nation with a chinese majority as they are hardworking and ‘pragmatic’, and worked hard to promote 'Chinese' culture over multiculturalism, and Mandarin as the unofficial language of the nation - both of which define him, as stated, a 'confucian fascist'.

Secondly, she is the mother of the Lee Hsien Loong. Another bloke who stated that, ‘singapore isn’t ready for a non-chinese PM’, whilst doing bugger all to ensure that it will ever be. Rather, nothing is being done to ensure the egalitarian multiculturalism is given anything that lip-service.

Besides this, both have contributed to the oppression and ensuing degeneration of the ‘singaporean’ persona to the point that, well, the national pastime is eating, shopping and gambling, people are generally averse to all contradiction, and quite unable of critical thought beyond superficial levels. Bigotry, self-absorption and apathy is now the culture of the confucianised singapore of today.

it is not by what we do that we ought to be judged, but what we ought to have done but failed to, given our ability and position to do so.

What part did Lee’s wife have to play in all of this. I have no idea. Perhaps she was a gentle nice women who couldn’t talk her husband and son out of their stances. Perhaps she knew no better. What I do know is that her existence did nothing to deter her husband and son from what they did. And in this, she became a part of the problem and not the solution. She may have very well been a very nice gentle person. But it is not by what we do that we ought to be judged, but what we ought to have done but failed to, given our ability and position to do so.

What is it about the death of some prominent person that leads people to queue for miles to say ‘bye’ to a person whom we were not allowed to have tea with whilst they were alive. Perhaps in death, we recognise some similarity between our experiences as it is something we all have to contend with in our own lives and with our own friends and families.

Perhaps, in the ability to look upon the mortal coil of a prominent person bereft of life, we can attempt to convince ourselves that we are no different, that we are equals.

Or perhaps, being able to say a final farewell by filing past the body of a prominent other is one way to feel that we are ourselves significant enough to be able to do so. Something like having a ‘manchester united’ banner at the rear window of one’s car; owning a lock of Lennon’s hair; or some celeb’s toilet seat resplendent with stains of varying sizes and tones; or even sitting at the feet of some prominent oppositional leader, as do the minions of singapore’s ‘oppositional’ sector; or wearing a t-shirt that reads, ‘I was in Rome at the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor and all I got was this t-shirt’.

The significance of a person is not vindicated by the approbation of the relatively insignificant, especially where the former is responsible for the insignificance of the latter.

The Lees have lived and thrived at the expense and diminution of many. I won't say, 'rest in peace', i'd say, 'go answer for your sins', as i will mine despite the good i've done.
Or perhaps, in being able to send condolences to a prominent person, or say that we queued for hours to do the ‘file past’, or sat in sackcloth and ashes and gnashed our teeth and beat our breasts let’s us feel that we are truly good and nice people. And by being able to do so at the death of the prominent enables our appreciation of our goodness to be further amplified by its being exhibited and expressed at a prominent event. Something like the difference between crying at a grave located at Hakeldama as opposed to Golgotha.

And does this not simply enable us to put up with all sorts of inequalities in our lifetimes because, in death, we are all equals? All of these, I suppose, contribute to the maintenance of oppression, inequality and, in the longer run, the refinement of fascism via the dulling of the senses of the masses to the point that they might be reduced enough to not know better.

So, as far as tributes to Lee’s wife and mother goes, as stated in the comments section of other sites, the achievements of her husband and son, financially and politically, at the expense of the people, is tribute enough. I’ll leave the dead to bury the dead.



  1. "Bigotry, self-absorption and apathy is now the culture of the confucianised singapore of today." - This seems to apply to all capitalist societies... OH, and to a communist society as well. I wonder where you hail from.

  2. Yes. To capitalist societies as well, except that in a non-confucianised capitalist society, people are not likely to shrug it off with an, 'everywhere also like that one lorrr'. Rather, they do something about it. That is the main difference between apathy-turned-culture as the culture itself tends to maintain the former. In the UK, for instance, people are well aware of it and do something about it. There is a world of difference when it comes to 'the conflict between culture and the way things are' vs. 'culture maintaining the way things are'. Every society is a mix of the two. But the difference between societies/cultures is in the degree to which they are mixed. It is this point that would distinquish, say, India/Britain from China/Singapore.

    As for communist societies being the same, there is little evidence to suggest that as there aren't any communist societies to provide said evidence. And don't bother pointing to the USSR or China as they were/are 'state capitalist societies'. Anyway, socialism is based on empathy and egalitarianism - unlike capitalism and confucianism, which depend on its absence for 'progress'.

  3. Yup. The problem with 'confucian singapore' as you call it is they are so protective of the culture that they keep finding fault with everything but the cultural cause of it. Not like in the 70s. Things were really a-changing that time. Everyone coming together and becoming like each other. Now everyone is just becoming confucian. The chines became confucian first, then everyone became chinese.

  4. Very deep ed. I don't think the confucian singaporeans of all races today will have the brains to understand it. Thanks.

  5. "The Lees have lived and thrived at the expense and diminution of many. I won't say, 'rest in peace', i'd say, 'go answer for your sins', as i will mine despite the good i've done."

    So true!


Post a Comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…