I think it’s always a good idea to start with the primary sources. LKY has written a number of books in his lifetime; I’ve listed the set of books that would probably be more relevant to a non-resident of Singapore:
- The Singapore Story: The Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew Vol 1
- From Third World to First: The Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew Vol 2
- Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going
- One Man's View of the World
I will say, though, that the best LKY biography has not yet been written — and may never be written, though one remains hopeful.
Sorry, let me back up a bit. If you go to Amazon right now and purchase all the LKY-related books and biographies, you'll be getting things written before his death, which means that the narratives within would be the state-sanctioned and LKY-approved narratives of his journey.
However, in my view these books don't come near to answering the really interesting questions that emerge from a close reading of his life. For the answers to those questions, we'll have to wait for memoirs from the people close to him — his perm secs, Singapore's cabinet ministers from the second generation (who are all that are left), various other people who have worked with him and have had their differences with him.
We’re already starting to see some books published now that probably wouldn’t have ever seen the light of day had LKY still been alive. Goh Chok Tong’s memoirs (second prime minister of Singapore, and LKY’s direct successor) are an example — he provides a first-hand account of LKY’s decision making, and the book narrates some of the back room shenanigans that we don’t normally get to see given the SG government’s penchant for strict information control.
What are the really interesting questions from reading about LKY? Well, in no particular order:
- What are the limits of pragmatism? LKY was very famously pragmatic; when S. Rajaratnam proposed the National Pledge, he struck off clauses on the pledge on ‘forgetting the differences of race and religion’ because he thought it was too idealistic; he didn’t think that contemporary humans would be able to forget race and religion and achieve unity without consideration for these differences. The best they could hope for was tolerance. And yet LKY dared to believe that he could create a prosperous country with no hinterland and nearly no natural resources of its own — it’s clear that he wasn’t all about pragmatism. This tension is very interesting to me because it does seem that he is able to dream at the very limits of what is possible ... and no further. (If you live in Singapore, this interest isn’t merely philosophical; LKY’s ideas on pragmatism have very real bearing on Singapore’s policy-making today.)
- What was his decision making like? What strikes me about Singapore’s first cabinet was how willing they were to question everything, and how much they reasoned from first principles. Here’s an example: when they were setting up the Monetary Authority of Singapore, LKY wanted to have it set up like how most central banks were set up — that is, direct control over interest rates and the money supply. Finance minister Goh Keng Swee disagreed, and argued that because Singapore’s economic strategy was to be an entrepôt, it made more sense to use control of foreign exchange rates to the Singapore dollar as the primary lever of monetary policy. This meant giving up control over the interest rate (and money supply). This policy continues till today, and has become a powerful strategic tool to control Singapore’s inflation as well as its competitiveness as a port. What were the kinds of thinking that LKY used when making such decisions? How did he conduct the evaluation of such ideas? Some clues as to his methods may be found in the reflections from various government ministers made over the years; LKY had apparently very little patience for “high-falutin’ ideals or theories” and wanted to know the practical ramifications of any policy or proposed idea. He conducted his search for knowledge by consulting people with expertise or experience, and regarded ideologies (of any kind!) with distrust. This seems agreeable and easy, until you realise that he regarded the twin concepts of democracy and human rights as a form of ideology, and was willing to question its precepts from first principles, only taking from them that which benefited Singapore (or his rule over Singapore, which makes the two effectively the same).
- How did he remain so incorruptible? In my view, this is perhaps the biggest question that remains inadequately answered. The majority of mainstream narratives about LKY was that he was a highly moral man, and that he didn’t tolerate corruption of any kind because it was bad for Singapore. But this doesn’t match up with what we know of him. Multiple times during his political career, LKY had no problems completely destroying the lives and livelihoods of his opponents. His justification was that he was willing to do whatever was necessary to secure Singapore’s future. Could it be that LKY’s morals was a unique blend of ruthless pragmatism with high-brow distaste for corruption? If so, we should have a better explanation for how he turned out like so. The best explanation I’ve found was one by a former permanent secretary under LKY’s civil service; he asserted that LKY was incorruptible because he was too proud to be corrupt — he regarded corruption as a weaker man’s vice. The better man pursued power, for with power it was not necessary to pursue wealth. Through this lens, LKY may be understood as an agent of power, in the same vein that Robert Moses was an agent of power in Robert Caro’s biography The Power Broker.
Alright, so this reply is getting pretty long. I do hope, though, that this gives you some idea of the interesting questions that should emerge from a synoptic reading of the life of the only world leader who brought a country from third world to first in a single generation.