Fathership

OP-ED: Lee Suet Fern and Lee Hsien Yang have always yearned for the top job as PM

Lee Suet Fern had long thought that Hsien Yang was destined to helm the position for the nation's coveted office, even suggesting that this legacy was one their son might eventually continue.

|6 min read
OP-ED: Lee Suet Fern and Lee Hsien Yang have always yearned for the top job as PM

Politics in Singapore is often regarded as a product of merit rather than legacy.

However, Lee Hsien Yang’s recent moves suggest a different approach—one rooted in legacy, rebellion, and whispers of dynastic ambition.

Lee Hsien Yang, once a quiet fixture in Singapore's elite circles, has increasingly stepped into a role as an unlikely dissident, raising questions about his true intentions and psychological motives.

Many who have closely followed Lee Hsien Yang’s public life note an undercurrent of frustration – perhaps even a hint of regret – surrounding his exclusion from contention for the premiership.

Through the years, his demeanour has occasionally reflected a quiet but discernible tension, a seeming resentment directed at what some view as a missed opportunity.

“His actions suggest a sense of capability on par with his brother, and perhaps a lingering discontent over his exclusion,” observe seasoned media members familiar with his trajectory.

Such exclusion, if indeed deeply felt, might represent more than mere sibling rivalry; it may hint at an enduring struggle with unresolved ambitions that extend back decades.

Lee Hsien Yang was always in the shadows of his brother

After Cambridge (class of ’79), Lee joined the army, taking a year off to earn his MS in management science at Stanford in ’89. Lee spent 15 years in the military; his last post before he parachuted into Singtel in 1994 where he was appointed director of the joint operations and planning directorate, later becoming CEO.

In Lee Kuan Yew's memoir From Third World to First: The Singapore Story, the elder statesman celebrated Hsien Loong’s accomplishments but seemed guarded when discussing Hsien Yang.

Five of the nine pages dedicated to the Lee family delve into Hsien Loong’s stellar academic achievements, his swift ascension through Singapore’s military, political, and governmental ranks, and his steady guidance of the economy during challenging times.

“Loong was always interested in what was going on in the country and in government,” his father writes with pride. Anecdotes abound—stories of Hsien Loong learning Malay, raising an albino son, and battling cancer—offering a deeply personal glimpse into his life and character.

By contrast, Hsien Yang’s portrayal is sparse.

Described briefly as a Cambridge First, Hsien Yang is noted to have had “the potential to be head of the civil service, [but] preferred the challenge of the private sector.”

When critics accused his appointment as Singtel’s CEO of being nepotistic, Lee Kuan Yew defended it as a decision rooted in meritocracy: “It would have been a disaster for him, and for the system of meritocracy that I had set up, if he had been appointed because of me. The officers he served with and his peers knew better,” he asserted.

“So did the fund managers. Singtel shares did not weaken.”

Lee Kuan Yew overhyped Hsien Yang's credibility - or at least tried to

Many Singaporeans, however, may find that last statement by Lee Kuan Yew hard to reconcile with Hsien Yang’s track record at Singtel.

By the time he had taken his $17 billion bid for Optus in 2001, investor confidence had already faltered, with shares dropping 22 percent that April. Despite the global telecommunications sector’s surge, Singtel’s performance under his six-year tenure remained largely stagnant—a source of contention among Singapore’s fund managers and a stark contrast to his brother’s celebrated rise.

Singtel under Lee was ranked the 18th greatest wealth destroyer in a 2001 study of 5,069 global firms by The Economist.

Hsien Yang’s resignation from Singtel in 2007 fuelled online speculation, with rumours of marital issues related to alleged infidelity with a Singtel-Optus employee in Perth. However, this remains unproven.

On Lee's resignation, Lee told a press conference that year he did not have a specific reason for wanting to step down. “It’s really hard to find a reason. At some point in time you decide that you have been in a role for some time and you would want to look for change, and 12 years us a very long time for tenure of any CEO."

There was dark talk of new jobs for Lee Hsien Yang.

A mid-ranking ambassadorship was mooted and then dismissed because, as one telecommunications analyst who knows him put it, "he doesn't like travelling, he really is a hometown boy". Speculation had it that he might move over to the Singapore Press Holdings board or go back to the military. Or, like his higher-achieving elder brother and dynamic father, perhaps move into politics.

But politics was out. “I’ve said many times before that I do not think politics is something I am suited for. I have no great interest to pursue a career in politics,” Hsien Yang said at the time.

Another former Singtel executive found the statement shoddy given that both Hsien Yang and Suet Fern had long thought that Hsien Yang was destined to helm the position for the nation's coveted office, even suggesting that this legacy was one their son might eventually continue.

“You could sense a shared conviction between them that perhaps the PM’s office was their family’s by right."

Despite claiming that he is not interested in politics, Hsien Yang joined Progress Singapore Party in 2020. Netizens were quick to accuse Hsien Yang of joining politics to spite his brother as part of their long-running feud over the fate of their father's house in Oxley Road.

In 2024 exclusive interview with The Financial Times, Lee Hsien Yang and Suet Fern expressed concerns that Hsien Loong used state mechanisms to hinder their branch of the family from entering politics, particularly regarding any future political aspirations of their son, Li Shengwu.

Ego, power, and legacy

Whether Lee Hsien Yang’s journey is driven by resentment or dynastic illusion, his ambitions appear to be shared by his family. His son Li Shengwu is said to represent the embodiment of their collective aspirations, a future once envisioned for Lee Hsien Yang himself.

While Lee’s public image remains that of a disciplined businessman, those close to the family note an intricate web of frustration, ambition, and a lingering belief in a legacy they feel was unjustly denied.

Lee Hsien Yang’s evolving role has raised many questions. His story is almost Shakespearean, with denied ambitions morphing into a personal rebellion, a legacy quest that he may now hope his son will fulfil.

Perhaps what is most perplexing to Singaporeans is this lingering notion of leadership as family inheritance.

Such dynastic perceptions seem out of sync, even dangerously detached from reality in a society like Singapore that is deeply rooted in meritocratic ideals, albeit with a smattering of cronyism.

As Lee Hsien Yang’s saga unfolds, his motivations remain shrouded in mystery, hinting at a personal journey not yet complete—a rebellion against legacy, or perhaps a rebellion for it.

Read next article ⬇️

Fear-mongering over US tariffs necessary because S'poreans are complacent

Fear-mongering over U.S. tariffs is a PAP scare tactic, says PPP’s Goh Meng Seng. But it’s also necessary given Singaporeans’ complacency in thinking years of economic prosperity would not burst the island's utopian bubble.

|4 min read
Fear-mongering over US tariffs necessary because S'poreans are complacent

Singapore’s economy is heavily reliant on global trade, with exports accounting for a significant portion of its GDP (about 170%) — think electronics, shipping, manufacturing.

U.S. tariffs, even at 10% on Singapore’s exports, could disrupt supply chains. Growth forecasts? Down 1.5%.

If U.S.-China tariffs spike, China’s economy slows, and Singapore suffers. Fewer ships, quieter factories, jobs on the line. With living costs up 4%, families are already stretched.

PAP say "be worried"; PPP say "don't bluff"

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has described the tariffs as marking a “seismic change” in the global order, signaling the end of rules-based globalization. Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong echoed this, noting that Singapore can no longer rely on a stable global trading system, raising the risk of a recession.

People's Power Party chief Goh Meng Seng calls PM Wong's statement "fear-mongering". They call the PAP’s warnings “scare tactics” to spook voters into sticking with the safe bet.

Crises usually send Singaporeans running to the PAP, but Goh’s betting on change. Voters are livid about housing costs and stagnant wages—why obsess over tariffs when you can’t afford a flat?

PAP has historically benefited from a “flight to safety” during crises, where voters favor stability. However, according to Goh, this strategy may be less effective now, as voters are more polarized and focused on local issues like housing affordability.

PPP: US tariffs on Singapore is "ikan bilis"

The PPP’s claim that the government is overreacting could stem from the fact that Singapore’s 10% tariff is relatively low compared to others (e.g., 26% for India). They might argue that Singapore’s diversified trade partnerships (e.g., with ASEAN, EU, and Japan) and free trade agreements could cushion the blow.

But they miss the forest for the trees. Tariffs aren’t just about U.S. trade—they disrupt global flows.

A slowdown anywhere hits our ports, factories, and wallets. Brushing it off as “ikan bilis” is reckless, like ignoring a leak in a ship.

The PPP’s skepticism taps voter frustration, but it underestimates a real economic storm.

Additionally, some opposition figures may believe the government’s messaging exaggerates immediate risks to rally voters, when the full economic impact might take time to materialize.

COVID-19 measures were also an overreaction but look at where it got Singapore

PM Wong referenced the COVID-19 response, where early government action was criticized as overreach but later proved necessary. This suggests a pattern: proactive warnings about external risks (like tariffs) aim to prepare Singaporeans for tough times, even if the full impact isn’t immediate.

According to Goh, he said to "let the big boys (US and China) hash it out" - reiterating that the tariffs are temporary and for Singapore to focus on domestic issues.

Goh rightly highlights domestic pain—housing and jobs are urgent—but dismissing tariffs ignores how global shocks amplify local struggles.

Some analysts argue that Singapore’s agile economy and government interventions (e.g., support for SMEs) could mitigate damage. The PPP might be banking on this resilience -- an irony seeing that PAP's policies created this resilience - to argue that panic is premature.

Election noise means opinions from political parties need to be taken with a grain of salt

With the General Election (GE2025) set for May 3, opposition parties are differentiating themselves by challenging the PAP’s narrative. Calling out “fear-mongering” appeals to voters frustrated with the PAP’s dominance. The PPP’s critique is partly electoral posturing.

Conversely, the PAP’s emphasis on unity and preparedness could be seen as leveraging the crisis to bolster its campaign.

However, dismissing the tariff threat as “fear-mongering” overlooks the broader economic stakes that affect the livelihood of all Singaporeans, and is nothing short of myopic.

Read next article ⬇️

PPP's Goh Meng Seng - Trump's tariffs will not last so why worry?

Even a “short” tariff is cause for worry. It’s like saying a heart attack won’t kill you because it only lasts a minute.

|3 min read
PPP's Goh Meng Seng - Trump's tariffs will not last so why worry?

Goh Meng Seng’s claim—“Trump’s tariff will not last”—seems to gloss over the issues of uncertainty.

In a Facebook post published by Goh, he said: "Trump's Tariff will not last. At most, it's between China and US but even for that, it will be much moderated."

His Facebook post, while likely aimed at calming nerves and challenging the PAP’s narrative, underestimates how even a fleeting tariff can ripple through a trade-dependent economy like Singapore’s.

The problem with "It won't last"

Goh’s assertion that Trump’s tariffs are a short-term blip sounds reassuring, but it misses the forest for the trees. Uncertainty is the real poison in global trade, and Singapore, with its open economy, is particularly allergic.

Even a temporary 10% tariff on Singapore’s exports to the U.S. spooks investors and businesses. A “short” tariff could still scare off a chip fab or logistics hub - of which Singapors economy is largely based on, costing billions in future growth.

Singapore’s role as a transshipment hub means it’s hyper-sensitive to global trade flows. A brief tariff could disrupt just-in-time manufacturing or shipping schedules, leading to delays, higher costs, and lost contracts. For example, electronics, a key export, rely on tight margins—any hiccup can cascade.

If China’s economy slows due to tariffs on U.S. goods, Singapore’s exports to China (think components, chemicals) could tank.

Even a three-month tariff war could shave 1.5% off GDP, per analyst estimates, hitting jobs and wages. That’s not a “bloop”; that’s a retrenchment notice.

Goh’s point might be that Singapore’s resilience—built on diversified trade partners and government agility—can absorb a temporary shock.

Fair enough.

We’ve got FTAs with the EU, ASEAN, and Japan, and the PAP’s track record of rolling out SME aid is solid.

But resilience doesn’t mean immunity. Uncertainty breeds hesitation—businesses pause hiring, and consumers tighten belts.

Why uncertainty is the real villain

Trade isn’t just about tariffs; it’s about confidence.

Singapore thrives on predictability—stable ports, clear trade rules, and a government that doesn’t surprise you.

SMEs, which employ 70% of Singapore’s workforce, can’t plan if tariffs might vanish or double. Should they eat the 10% cost? Pivot to new markets? Lay off staff? The indecision itself is paralyzing.

Trump’s tariffs aren’t just about Singapore. If the U.S.-China trade war escalates, global demand could slump, hitting Singapore’s exports across the board.

Does Goh Meng Seng have a point?

To give Goh some credit, he’s likely trying to counter the PAP’s “sky is falling” narrative ahead of GE2025.

The PAP’s warnings—PM Wong’s “seismic change,” SM Lee’s globalization eulogy—can feel like election scare tactics.

Goh’s post taps into that skepticism, suggesting the PAP’s hyping a temporary issue to rally voters.

And he’s not entirely wrong: Singapore’s economy has weathered shocks before (SARS-08, COVID-19), and a short tariff might not trigger Armageddon. The government’s got tools—subsidies, retraining programs, trade pivots—that could soften the blow.

But Goh’s oversimplifying.

The damage—lost contracts, spooked investors, job cuts—lingers.

And if Trump’s tariffs spark a broader trade war (say, EU retaliates or China doubles down), Singapore’s caught in the crossfire. Goh’s confidence feels like a campaign soundbite, not a strategy.

Goh’s “it won’t last” is refreshingly defiant, but it’s also naive. He’s betting on resilience without acknowledging the chaos a “bloop” can unleash.

Read next article ⬇️

Vivian Balakrishnan's Facebook blooper also bloop-bloop in 2015

Is the Facebook glitch in the System or the Man?

|2 min read
Vivian Balakrishnan's Facebook blooper also bloop-bloop in 2015

Back in 2015, during the General Election’s Cooling-Off Day — a sacred 24-hour no-campaigning zone— Vivian Balakrishnan’s Facebook page was caught posting.

The Elections Department (ELD) issued a stern reminder about the rules, and Vivian’s team chalked it up to a “technical bug” causing “recurrent auto-posting,” later confirmed by Facebook (Straits Times, 2015).

Most gave Vivian the benefit of the doubt but fast-forward a decade, and that “one-off” glitch is starting to look like a feature, not a bug.

Another "bug" bites

On March 13, 2025, Vivian’s official Facebook page “liked” a post by Calvin Cheng suggesting pro-Palestinian activists be shipped to Gaza with no return ticket — a diplomatic disaster in a single click.

The backlash was instant, with netizens and activist groups like Monday of Palestine Solidarity slamming it as tone-deaf, especially given Vivian’s parliamentary nods to Palestinian causes.

By April 2, Vivian denied liking the post, claiming “unauthorized activity” and reporting it to Meta for investigation.

One too many glitches

Vivian’s social media has gone off-script, and the “bug” excuse is wearing thin.

In 2015, we could shrug it off—social media was still a wild frontier, and bugs weren’t uncommon.

But in 2025, when Singaporeans are dodging phishing scams and securing their Singpass with 2FA, a minister’s verified account getting “hacked” or “bugged” raises red flags.

When a minister’s account keeps glitching, it erodes confidence.

If Vivian’s team can’t secure a Facebook page, how do we trust them with cybersecurity or foreign policy?

With GE2025 looming, Singaporeans want leaders who can keep up — on policy and on Facebook.

Anything less, and Vivian risks being debugged by the ballot box.

Read next article ⬇️

Singapore cannot be truly neutral in the US-China conflict

Choosing neutrality would mean avoiding economic and security alignment with either side, but Singapore’s reliance on both markets forces pragmatic engagement. It's not a test of neutrality — it’s power.

|3 min read
Singapore cannot be truly neutral in the US-China conflict

Can Singapore stay neutral in an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape?

Former Trade Minister and current Minister of Education Chan Chun Sing’s said in a CNA podcast that it's not about choosing sides—sometimes that’s decided for you—but about making Singapore so valuable that everyone wants a piece.

While Chan’s perspective highlights Singapore’s pragmatic diplomacy, it sidesteps a stark reality: neutrality, in the face of deep economic and strategic entanglements with both the US and China, is a mirage.

Neutrality promises impartiality but Singapore's reality mocks it

Singapore cannot be truly neutral in the US-China tariff war due to its deep economic, strategic, and geopolitical entanglements with both powers.

In 2023, China devoured 14% of Singapore’s exports ($83 billion) and supplied 13% of imports, while the US took 13% of exports ($76 billion) and 10% of imports.

US foreign direct investment ($234 billion) is a growth engine, while China’s Belt and Road Initiative exploits Singapore’s ports, processing 37 million TEUs in 2024.

Singapore backs US-led Indo-Pacific frameworks like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF). Launched in 2022, IPEF’s 14-nation coalition (excluding China) aims to boost trade and supply chains.

China, excluded from IPEF, views it as a US strategy to counter its regional influence, a sentiment echoed by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who labeled it an attempt to “decouple” economically and “incite confrontation.”

In 2024, China’s state media jabbed at Singapore’s IPEF role, hinting at trade blowback but nothing came out of it as of today. However, the message was clear: neutrality is a fantasy when your biggest trading partner feels betrayed.

Walking a regional tightrope with ASEAN

Singapore’s security reliance on the US, especially for deterrence in a volatile region, tilts its strategic calculus.

Neutrality would require distancing itself from US defense cooperation, but this is unlikely given Singapore’s need for a counterbalance to regional threats, including China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea that affects ASEAN.

Singapore has no claims but supports a rules-based order, implicitly aligning with US freedom-of-navigation operations against China’s claims. This stance, articulated in Singapore’s 2024 Foreign Policy Report, draws China’s ire, undermining perceptions of neutrality.

As an ASEAN linchpin, Singapore pushes for regional unity but ASEAN’s fractures—Cambodia and Laos cozy up to China, while the Philippines and Vietnam lean US—make neutrality a diplomatic minefield.

Singapore's real play is not neutrality, but power

Choosing neutrality would mean avoiding economic and security alignment with either side, but Singapore’s reliance on both markets forces pragmatic engagement.

Favoring one risks alienating the other, yet remaining aloof could marginalize Singapore in global trade networks.

Instead, Singapore pursues strategic autonomy—hedging bets, diversifying partners, and maximizing flexibility. This approach, allows Singapore to navigate the conflict without being fully subsumed by either side.

In 2023, Singapore's S$600 billion economy grew 1.2% despite tariff headwinds, proving its adaptability.

Singapore’s edge lies not in avoiding sides but in making itself so valuable that sides compete to win its favor.

That’s not neutrality — it’s power.

Read next article ⬇️

WP do not have to worry about an opposition wipeout — they will win Aljunied & Hougang

By framing the election as an existential threat, Pritam aims to ensure WP supporters turn out in force, particularly in strongholds where voter turnout can make or break a result.

|3 min read
WP do not have to worry about an opposition wipeout — they will win Aljunied & Hougang

Workers' Party (WP) new face, Harpreet Singh, recently let slip that he doesn’t want to be “parachuted” into a “safe seat", according an interview with The Straits Times.

Harpreet's comment reveals the party’s belief in “safe seats” like Hougang and Aljunied, suggesting internal confidence in their electoral strongholds.

By admitting there are “safe seats,” Harpreet confirmed what many suspect: Hougang (WP’s turf since 1991) and Aljunied (theirs since 2011) are as close to a sure bet as it gets in Singapore’s PAP-dominated landscape.

In GE2020, WP held Hougang with 61.2% of the vote and Aljunied with 59.9%. These margins, while not overwhelming, reflect consistent voter loyalty in a political landscape dominated by the People’s Action Party (PAP), which won 83 of 93 seats in the last election.

Yet, WP leader Pritam Singh continues to warn of a potential “opposition wipeout,” as highlighted in a Channel News Asia report early this year.

Pritam's wipeout narrative

Pritam Singh’s emphasis on a potential wipeout, as articulated in his call for party unity, appears designed to galvanize supporters and prevent complacency.

By framing the election as an existential threat, Pritam aims to ensure WP supporters turn out in force, particularly in strongholds where voter turnout can make or break a result.

Yet, this narrative risks undermining the WP’s credibility.

Harpreet’s admission of safe seats suggests the party privately believes its core constituencies are secure. Publicly warning of a wipeout, then, could be perceived as disingenuous, especially by a discerning electorate.

If voters sense the WP is exaggerating risks to manipulate sentiment, trust in the party could erode—a dangerous prospect when authenticity is a currency in short supply.

It is also not helpful that Pritam himself was convicted for dishonesty.

Earlier this year, Pritam was convicted on two counts of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee. The case stemmed from his handling of former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s false statements in Parliament in 2021, where she fabricated a story about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station.

Playing the 'underdog' card

Pritam Singh isn’t daft. He’s a lawyer, an MP, and a guy who’s navigated Singapore’s political minefield for years. His wipeout narrative isn’t about doubting WP’s grip on Hougang or Aljunied—it’s about firing up the base.

In Singapore, where voter apathy can creep in, scaring supporters into showing up is Politics 101.

But there’s a flip side. Overplaying the underdog card risks crying wolf.

If WP’s seats are as safe as Harpreet implies, Pritam’s gloom-and-doom could erode trust.

Voters aren’t stupid—they see through spin.

And in a city where trust in institutions is high (78% of Singaporeans trust the government, per a 2023 Edelman survey), coming off as manipulative isn’t a great look.

Pritam’s banking on fear to mobilize, but he might be underestimating how savvy Singaporeans are.

With GE2025 around the corner, WP should ditch the drama and double down on policy.

Safe seats or not, elections are won by showing up for the heartlands, not by shouting “wipeout” from the rooftops.

In a nation of pragmatists, substance trumps spin every time.