ORIGINAL LI VEI-CHEN CHINESE VINTAGE PHOTO editor of newspapers Nanyang Siang

$292.40 Buy It Now, FREE Shipping, 30-Day Returns, eBay Money Back Guarantee
Seller: memorabilia111 ✉️ (808) 100%, Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan, US, Ships to: US & many other countries, Item: 176277815884 ORIGINAL LI VEI-CHEN CHINESE VINTAGE PHOTO editor of newspapers Nanyang Siang. A VINTAGE ORIGINAL 4X6 INCH PHOTO FROM 1929 DEPICTING LI VEI- CHEN WHO WAS EDITOR OF MANY NEWSPAPERS LIKE NANYANG SIANG PAU. 
Nanyang Siang Pau or Nanyang Business Daily (simplified Chinese: 南洋商报; traditional Chinese: 南洋商報; pinyin: Nányáng Shāngbào) was founded by philanthropist-entrepreneur Tan Kah Kee on 6 September 1923 in Singapore, currently published in Malaysia. Nanyang Siang Pau is one of oldest Chinese-language newspapers in the country, with only Kwong Wah Yit Poh having been published longer. It has been published continuously except for four months in 1923 and 1924 and during the World War II between 1942 and 1945, before publication resumed on 8 September 1945. Contents 1 History 2 See also 3 References 4 External links History Originally started in Singapore, the newspaper first ventured into Kuala Lumpur in 1958, but the newspaper remains printed in Singapore. In 1962, the headquarters of Nanyang Siang Pau moved to Kuala Lumpur, first with Jalan Travers, Brickfields and followed by Jalan Bangsar in 1972.[1] The Singapore edition of the paper has merged with Sin Chew Jit Poh on March 16, 1983 to form the current Lianhe Zaobao, and has since ceased to exist.[citation needed] In August 1932, the Nanyang Daily was separated from Tan's company. The newspaper company name was changed to Nanyang Press in 1975. In 1993, Nanyang Press took over the management of another Chinese daily, China Press and a year later, its office moved to Section 7, Petaling Jaya, its current location. Nanyang had its initial public offering (IPO) in 1989, the first Chinese daily to be listed in Bursa Malaysia. Until the late 1980s, it was Malaysia's highest-selling Chinese newspaper, before being overtaken by Sin Chew Daily, which is also the highest-selling Chinese newspaper outside of Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan. On 28 May 2001, Huaren Holdings, the investment arm of the political party MCA, bought over Nanyang Press, in a controversial transaction that led to mass boycotts of the newspaper by the Chinese community. By June 2005, Nanyang has raised more than RM240 million for Chinese education in Malaysia, through its Top Ten charity concerts in conjunction with Carlsberg Malaysia. in 2006, Huaren Holdings disposed 21.02% of its share to Ezywood Options Sdn Bhd, a company owned by Tan Sri Tiong Hiew King.[2] Huaren's remaining stake were exchanged for a share in Media Chinese International Ltd (MCIL) in 2008, but then disposed of its entire holding in MCIL in 2010.[3] See also Other Chinese language newspapers in Malaysia: China Press, its sister publication Guang Ming Daily Kwong Wah Yit Poh Sin Chew Daily Oriental Daily News Related newspaper Nanyang Siang Pau, former Singaporean edition, merged with Sin Chew Jit Poh to form Lianhe Zaobao in 1983 Lee Kuan Yew's next target was the Singapore Herald which, according to one source, had managed to incur his hostility almost from the moment it began publication. The Herald's editorial intention to be pro-Singapore, as distinct from pro-government, naturally irritated the thinskinned Lee, and he reacted. Even before the May 1971 confrontation, the Prime Minister and his Press Secretary, Li Vei-chen, were denying normal press facilities to the Herald, banning its reporters from official press conferences and briefings, withdrawing governmental advertising and refusing to give the paper government press releases. Furthermore, members of Parliament and all government agencies cancelled their Herald subscriptions; even teachers tried to pressure children to have their parents stop buying the paper.  Dr. Shirle Gordon who was to be evicted as undesirable and the newspapers were reporting this account. SINGAPORE HERALD was warned by the Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Mr. Li Vei-chen, who told the newspaper not to print the story. The newspaper felt that it was news since lots of people were going to see this woman being evicted. They said they have to make a judgement here, they were determined not to make a storm and a spectacle out of this. So they printed the news and the result was, the HERALD was denied press releases and barred from press conferences. Four executives and editorial staff were arrested under the Internal Security Act after Lee’s speech during the “Seminar on Communism and Democracy” on April 28, 1971, which marked the start of the government’s crackdown on the print media, according to Seow (1998).   The Internal Security Department operation started at 3a.m. on May 2, 1971, netting in Lee Mau Seng, the former general of the newspaper, and whose family owned and controlled the pan-Malaysian daily; Shamsuddin Tung Tao Chang, the editor-in-chief; and senior editorial writer Ly Singko. Public relations officer Kerk Loong Seng was picked up the next day.   Lee said in his same speech that Tung had ‘played up’ crime in Singapore but ‘played down’ government news in the Singapore edition - the opposite to the Malaysian edition. This was also followed by attempts to bring in a Malayan Chinese Association activist from Kuala Lumpur to be the Singapore news page editor and the playing up of more communist-related news to the point where it got ‘bold’ when Singko was brought into the team.   Singko was ‘a well known opportunist and Chinese chauvinist’, noted Lee. He had been warned previously by the authorities for his editorials for the Sin Chew Jit Poh, and was offered more money to join the Nanyang Siang Pau ‘to work up, to stoke up heat over Chinese language, education, and culture’. However, no specifics were mentioned (Seow, 1998). This, Lee opined, was because the city-state was doing ‘too well’. In his words, ‘some people wanted to sour up our ground’ for the important centre in Southeast Asia, which would have created unsettling effects of considerable emotions.   The government made its arrests on the basis that Lee Mau Seng had briught Shamsuddin into the newspaper that led to a change in editorial policy slanted towards ‘glamourizing communism and stirring up communal and chauvinistic sentiments over language and culture’. A similar allegation was made about Ly Singko, which the authorities contend as another person who would ‘reinforce the new Nanyang policy’.   This was reflected in a government statement released on the same day where the above three were arrested:   “The Nanyang Siang Pau has made a sustained effort to instill admiration for the communist system as free from blemishes and endorsing its policies, while highlighting in the domestic news pages the more unsavoury aspects of Singapore life. The glamourizing of the communist way of life at this juncture of Singapore’s history is made all the more sinister by the fact that both Shamsuddin Tung and Ly Singko are journalists with a Kuomintang and anti-communist background.   “A study of the Singapore and Malaysian editions of the paper in the last six months shows that the policy in regard to Singapore was deliberate and calculated. In the Malaysian edition, no attempt is made to play up communist achievements or to stoke communal sentiments over Chinese language and education.   “On the contrary, in the Malaysian edition there is general support for that government’s educational policies. On the other hand, in the Singapore edition, not only are communist achievements played up but the impression is built up of Chinese language and education fighting desperately for survival against a hostile environment.   “None of the editorials which appeared in the Singapore edition to work up fears over Chinese language and education appeared in the Malaysian edition. These propaganda changes first started in the last quarter of 1970, several months before the recent spate of news about China and the American ping-pong team visiting China in April 1971. In its campaign to work up disruptive and dangerous emotions, the paper continuously echoes the pro-communist cry that Singapore’s independence is ‘phoney’ by maliciously referring to Singapore as having undergone 150 years of colonial fetters, and that Singapore has not ‘in fact enjoyed real political freedom’.   “In a deliberate campaign to stir up Chinese racial emotions, the paper sets the mood of tension, impending conflict and violence by persistently reminding its readers of the violence, turmoil and unrest of the turbulent 1957-59 period of Singapore’s history.   “By April 28 the Nanyang had reached the stage in the campaign when it was prepared to use conscious falsehoods to whip up communal fears. In its editorial of that day, the paper, under the pretext of criticism, openly incited communal hatred against the government. Having over the weeks depicted the government as the oppressors of Chinese education and language, it went one step further. It branded the government as “pseudo-foreigners” who forget their ancestors. This is the battle ry that was once used by Malay Chauvinists in Singapore against their multiracial compatriots before the island plunged into communal violence. “The policymakers of Nanyang are determined and appear to be in a hurry to create trouble in Singapore. While he was general manager, Lee Mau Seng, who does not read or write Chinese, employed two formerly anti-communist journalists to work up pro-Chinese communist news and stoke up emotions on Chinese language and culture which will, if unchecked, lead to a communal explosion. Though Lee Mau Seng handed over the management of Nanyang to his brother, Lee Eu Seng, in February this year, he still maintained a close working relationship with Tung Tao Chang. There are all the signs of what in Special Branch terms is called a ‘black operation'. “Lee Mau Seng may have been emboldened by the belief that his family wealth gives him power and immunity. They may also be under the delusion that by posting as champions of Chinese language and culture they could inhibit the government from action to stop them in their mischief. The Singapore government must, and will continue to take action against all those who allow themselves to be used by outside sources to the detriment of Singapore. The government will not be deterred by the wealth, professional, social or political status, or the protective patronage of powerful groups outside Singapore.   “The government has taken action to prevent these men, who, under cover of defending Chinese language and education, are letting loose forces which will sharpen conflict along race, language and cultural lines. (Straits Times, 3 May 1971).     Lee Mau Seng’s brother, Lee Eu Seng, subsequently made public a personal statement commenting over the arrests of the four newsmen executives the next day.   “As chairman and chief executive, I have always been responsible for the policy of Nanyang Siang Pau and I have never allowed it to be influenced by any group or organization from either here or abroad. It is necessary to state very clearly that in Singapore, the newspapers have a clear and definite duty to bring to attention of the government (since there is no opposition in Parliament to do so) the wishes, criticisms, and legitimate grievances of the general public. If the government uses the Internal Security Act to silence all criticisms they are depriving the people of Singapore the right of expression and dissent.” (Straits Times, 4 May 1971)   The newspaper itself published an editorial on the same day expressing its protests over the arrests. It called on the government to withdraw ‘all grave accusations’. It also demanded   ‘the respect due to us as an independent newspaper’ and ‘clarification after careful study of the incident’   It was the government’s turn to take to the stage as ministers met journalists at a press conference to address the rising tensions on the afternoon of May 3, 1971. Led by the city-state’s first foreign affairs minister, S.Rajaratnam, the Culture Minister and the home affairs minister sought to alleviate concerns and worries about the media industry in light of the arrests made.   Rajaratnam assured those present that ‘the government was not against any newspaper which was critical of government’. There would also be ‘no change in its liberal attitude towards newspapers’, he said.   Seow (1998) noted that it was the concurrent acting minister of labour who was calling the shots and directing the show, apart from a few statements by Jek. This, despite the fact that Culture Minister Jek Yuen Thong’s ministry oversaw all media-related matters; and Dr Wong Lin Ken’s home affairs ministry (MHA)which handles the Internal Security Department (ISD). The latter also answers directly to the Prime Minister then.   Seow opines this reflected the level of trust and faith that Lee had in Rajaratnam instead of Jek and Wong – both who should be the ones to answer and address the audience. Wong subsequently returned to academia after being told by Lee senior that he did not ‘want a liberal’ (Straits Times, 5 May 1971) in his cabinet, and later committed suicide.   The Straits Times broadsheet editorialized the arrests the next day.   'The Singapore government’s action must be judged not by the canons of freedom of the press, but the purpose of regulations expressly designed to maintain security, to prevent subversion and to guard against communal conflict.   ‘The paper’s policy in Singapore, the government said, gradually changed until glamourised Communism and stirred up ‘communal and chauvinistic sentiments’. This is the essential accusation, although it is not proof – while it may invite suspicion – of what the Special Branch calls a ‘black operation’ organized from outside the country.   The Nanyang complains in its editorial that its policy has been misunderstood,and it is difficult to justify the assumption of ‘misunderstanding’ with the disclosure that cabinet ministers on two occasions last year warned the paper’s general manager that the Nanyang’s policy had become a security problem. That is the whole gravamen of the government’s case. It acted in the direct interests of security (Straits Times, 4 May 1971).   On the same day, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a brief reply to Lee Eu Seng’s statement. It seemed as a mere acknowledgment of what the former had said.   ‘Mr. Lee Eu Seng, chairman and chief executive of Nanyang Sian Pau, who was away in Europe the past year and reassumed control of the paper in February this year in a statement issued yesterday asserts that he has always been responsible for the policy of Nanyang Siang Pau. The government has taken note of this.’ (Straits Times, 5 May 1971)   The Nanyang Siang Pau rebutted with a second editorial,‘The Journalist’s Bounden Duty’, on May 5, 1971. The paper ‘categorically opposed racialism and that it had never supported communism,’ and replied seriatim to the government’s ‘three grave allegations’ placed on it. Lee Eu Seng also took his turn. He issued another statement denying the charges made against the newspaper by the administration. He again called for the release of his brother and the three other newspaper executives.   He included evidence to refute the allegations made. His brother had returned on January 22 before the May 13 riots in 1969 because of his wife’s illness. Both later left for Hong Kong in the same month to seek medical assistance. This was used to counter the allegation that the Lee Mau Seng had played a part in inciting the riots. (Polsky, 1971)   Lee Eu Seng also said the decision to hire Shamsuddin Tung and Ly Singko was made by him. His brother had not met both of them before they were hired. ‘It was absurd’, Lee Eu Seng concluded in his letter, that the Nanyang Siang Pau, which had ‘no foreign capital participation, and widely known for its fierce independence should be mentioned in the same context as papers receiving foreign funds by the prime minister, who recently spoke on 'black operations’.   Seow (1998) noted that the then ISD director had apparently reported to the Prime Minister that there was no evidence found that the executives wanted to disrupt the city state’s internal security. However, he was later replaced.   The government later offered to release the executives if the newspaper changed its editorial policy. (Straits Times, 1 May 1971)   However, the Nanyang Siang Pau rejected the offer – stating that it was ‘fighting for a principle’ and accused the authorities of ‘depriving the people of Singapore of freedom of speech’. This act of defiance was to be a watershed that led to the newspaper coming under the control of the government.   The newspaper’s three executives were subsequently detained without trial. They were alleged to have glamourized and stirred up communism, as well as ‘communal and chauvinistic sentiments over language and culture’.   This was ironic, considering that Tung was a Chinese Muslim and Ly a Roman Catholic. Both also supported the anti-communist Kuomintang – a political party based in Taiwan whose leaders fled to the coastal province after losing the 1949 civil war against the communists on mainland China (Seow, 1998).   The case against Ly was even more ironic because he had sent his children to English schools. The accusations of Ly being a Chinese chauvinist would certainly run against the government’s case. Nevertheless, the government pressed on with its claims. On May 15, 1971, Rajaratnam said the newspaper had ‘glorified the communist system’ and had gone ‘out of its way to confirm the allegations of unfriendly external forces that Singapore is becoming a Third China’. (Sunday Times, 23 May 1971).   A week later, the MHA announced Lee Mau Seng and the other three executives had confessed under interrogation to ‘glamourizing the communist system and working up communal relations over Chinese language and culture.’ Their public confession coincided with formal detention orders made against them. However, they were denied their right to counsel.   The allegations made against Lee Mau Seng resulting in a two year detention period were:   1. Under your management of control, the Nanyang Siang Pau had deliberately and systematically instilled admiration for the Communist system. This had been achieved by presenting the Communist system as one free from blemishes. And whilst endorsing its policies, you had highlighted in the domestic new pages the more unsavoury aspects of Singapore life   2. You had insulted the Nanyang Siang Pau to arouse communal sentiments over the Chinese language, education and culture, and created the impression that Chinese language and education were fighting desperately for survival in Singapore against a government hostile to the Chinese.   3. In your campaign to work up disruptive and dangerous emotions, you had continuously echoed in the Nanyang Siang Pau the pro-communist cry that Singapore’s independence was ‘phoney’ by maliciously referring to Singapore as having undergone ‘150 years of colonial fetters’ and that Singapore had not ‘in fact enjoyed real political freedom’.   4. You had used deliberate falsehood to whip up communal fears and openly incite communal hatred against the government. (Legal Cases, 1971)   The three executives – Shamsuddin, Ly and Kerk – also faced similar, if not, the same allegations in the orders made against them.   The Nanyang Siang Pau ran a blank editorial column the next day in protest. Lee Eu Seng went one step further at a conference (Straits Times, 27 May 1971). He demanded that an open trial be held for the four executives on account of what the prime minister said once before which he repeated. ‘The Singapore government does not flinch from any face to face encounter when the truth is involved,’ said Lee Eu Seng.   He even suggested alternatives. ‘Let the government face the people. Or they could set up a public commission of inquiry into these so-called black operations in Singapore.’ This would be the first of many fruitless calls.   Lee also denied that the paper set out to glamourise communism. He used readership surveys to back up what he said – one that was conducted in March that year among residents staying in public housing. The surveys showed that readers wanted to read more about China and crime stories. ‘Is that influencing policy or is it reflecting what our readers want to read? In this particular case, I certainly detect McCarthyism, that is, guilt by association,’ said Lee Eu Seng.   He also denied stirring up racial feelings. ‘Singapore consists of a majority of Chinese. And being a Chinese-language paper, we naturally would encourage the study of the Chinese-language.' The government made its serve back. On May 25, 1971, authorities produced the photocopy of a document. It was purported to be an editorial directive sent by Shamsuddin Tiung on the instructions of Lee Eu Seng. The recipient was Lin Pin, the editor of the ‘Important News Page’ section of the newspaper on April 2, 1971.   It read:   The managing director has directed that as from today, all news reports about China, except those that are libelous and slanderous, should, irrespective of their length and importance, be translated in full and printed on the front page. Should there be insufficient space on the front page, they may be printed in other pages (Straits Times, 26 May 1971).   Lee Eu Seng rebutted on the same night. ‘It was issued at the peak of the international ping-pong competition when teams from Canada, Britain and the U.S. were all invited to play in China. The world would be watching the coming events with great interest and furthermore, by issuing a signed memo, it clearly showed there was nothing secret or sinister.’ (Straits Times, 26 May 1971)   The government replied the next day. ‘If this is so, then why did Mr. Lee give instructions to destroy this memo?’ (Straits Times, 27 May 1971). No evidence was adduced, which Seow compares akin to a classic non sequitur: ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’   The newspaper’s executives applied for writs of habeas corpus while they were detained. Lee Mau Seng, Shamsuddin Tung and Ly Singko applied on May 5, 1971, three days after they were arrested. Kerk Loong Seng did so six days later. However, their applications were grounded as their constitutional right of access to counsel was denied.   This case only received its attention on May 26, 1971. A preliminary hearing on the right of access to counsel was held for their applications (Seow, 1994).The hearing was adjourned after the attorney general argued that those under ISD arrest can be denied for access for up to a month. The four executives were held incommunicado for three weeks.   The hearing was later resumed on June 8, 1971. The four detainees repudiated ‘in very categorical terms’ that they had ‘admitted glamorizing the communist system and working up communal emotions over the Chinese language and culture' (Straits Times, 9 June 1971).   Lee Mau Seng, in his affidavit, affirmed that he had planned to emigrate to Canada with his family. He received clearance in 1969, but his wife’s illness delayed their departure. He re-applied in 1971 and agreed to take over the reins at the newspaper while waiting for the new permits. This took place from January 1970 to January 1971. It was also to allow his brother Lee Eu Send to take an extended holiday.   Lee Mau Seng’s affidavit also exposed authorities’ efforts to manipulate the newspaper. It read:   I was deeply dissatisfied in the course of the following months by interference and attempted interference in the publication of the paper by Mr. Li Vei Chen, press secretary to the prime minister, who casued me and my paper a great deal of trouble because we refused to obey orders issued by him. Because of refusal to comply with those unwarranted interferences, I incurred the wrath and displeasure of this office, and the Nanyang Siang Pau came under a ban which prevented it from receiving government press releases and notices. (Straits Times, 9 June 1971)     Lee Mau Seng’s reply, though not direct, implied that it was actually the prime minister who had directed these efforts (Seow, 1998).   Shamsuddin stated that it was ‘farcical’ to suggest that he was ‘ever a party to a campaign to work up disruptive and dangerous emotions'. Singko, on the other hand, said that he had never thought of engaging in any black operations, and also claimed that his detention was mala fide.   Kerk cited the nature of his public relation duties that created little contact for him when it came to the newspaper’s editorial policy. He added that he never sought to influence or change that policy.   Their lawyer, David Marshall, argued that the government’s accusation of glamourising communism and stirring up Chinese chauvinistic sentiments were intentionally left vague and obscure. The allegations were false and there were no details, he added. Besides, all news reports carried in the newspaper were translated from foreign and western news agencies. Marshall even suggested a trial in camera under the Sedition Act.   This would allow the defendants to rebut allegations made about their efforts in arousing communal feelings and disaffection towards the government, he said, as they can produce copies of the offending editorials to make their point.   However, the attorney-general’s argued that as this was an executive act, no court was able to inquire into reasons for a detention order. This would only be allowed if the country’s president ordered it to be so suspecting mala fide. Hence, no presidential action was akin to a fatal blow to the applicants’ case and chances of success.     This proved true on July 13, 1971, as the chief justice ruled that ‘the constitution had clearly provided beyond a shadow of a doubt the right of an arrested person to consult his lawyer if he so wished and that this right must be accorded to him by the by the relevant authority within a reasonable time after he arrest’ (Straits Times, 14 July 1971).   However, the court ruled also that it was not open to them to examine whether the detention orders brought against the four executives of the newspaper were wrongly issued. Hence, this meant that it was not a justiciable issue.   Lee Eu Seng observed the chief justice’s ruling in disbelief:   The judgment of the Chief Justice shows clearly that the Internal Security Act overrules the basic principles of human liberty without allowing any recourse to existing legal institutions. The Internal Security Act should only be utilized under the most exceptional of circumstances. This is not so in the case of the arrest of the four top executives of the Nanyang Siang Pau. It has been clearly shown that the original chages of ‘black operations’ are totally unfounded. To detain people for an indefinite period of time without trail is a clear act of injustice and in this case clearly shows indifference to public opinion. Mr Lee Kuan Yew during the course of debate in the Legislative Assembly in 1955 expressed similar sentiments, and I quote: “If it Is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law – and if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states – then what is it?’(Chauvinism and Mr. Lee, 1974) and (Farrow, 1974).   The case against the newspaper’s executives was at best tenuous. The prime minister had acknowledged that Lee Mau Seng was illiterate in Chinese. This implied that it was questionable as to whether knew or was aware of what was being printed or published.   It was also clear that Lee Mau Seng had not hired the two Nanyang newspapermen. His connection with the newspaper was temporary, and he was brought in to only cover duties for his brother who was away on leave in Europe.   More importantly, most of the ‘so-called offensive articles, which precipitated the press crisis of 1971, appeared long after his resignation from the paper’. It was a fact he confirmed in a letter to the Hongkong Standard from Canada.   The case against Shamsuddin Tung and Ly Singko, both who have had a long history of anti-communism has also been touched upon, while that of Kerk, is simply too bizarre for words (Seow, 1998). Perhaps the main problem that faced the newspaper was that it was fiercely independent in editorial policy. It was also owned by a wealth family, which had no need, and refused to kowtow to the government. And such a publication could work the people against the administration.   On January 28, 1973, Lee Eu Seng was finally arrested. The reason:‘using his newspaper to incite the people against the government over issues of Chinese culture’ (Straits Times, 29 Jan 1973).   Apparently, the prime minister had not forgotten him: ‘People with long histories have long memories. And I happen to have a long memory’ (Straits Times, 29 Jan 1973).   No charges were brought in court against Lee Eu Seng, similar to what the other four newspapermen faced. Lee was detained under the ISA for five years.   Soon after, the newspaper’s publishing and printing permits under his name were revoked. These were reissues under the name of Tan Chin Har, a senior editorial writer. The prime minister also introduced amendments to the press law to deprive Lee Eu Seng of his shares in and control of his newspaper.   Lee Mau Seng was later released two-and-half-years later in October 1973. This came after he made a ‘public statement admitting his past mistakes’, pending emigration to Canada . En route, Lee Mau Seng disclosed in an interview at Hong Kong that he had signed a ‘Russian Confession’ to obtain his release. He said: ‘I never understood the meaning of raw power and the nuances of politics in Singapore until I was hit. This had been an education.’ (Predicting unrest, 1973) Choosing When To Go by Lee Kuan Yew               All the passages below are taken from Lee Kuan Yew’s book, “One man’s View of the World,” published in 2013.   My daily routine is set. I wake up, clear my email, read the newspapers, do my exercises and have lunch. After that, I go to my office at the Istana, clear more papers and write articles or speeches. In the afternoons and evenings, I sometimes have interviews scheduled with journalists, after which I may spend an hour or two with my Chinese teachers. I have made it a habit to exercise daily. At the age of 89, I can sit up and I do not need a walking stick. When I was in my 30s, I was fond of smoking and drinking beer. I quit smoking because it was causing me to lose my voice at election campaigns. That was before medical research linked smoking to lung and throat cancer, among other things. Oddly enough, I later became hyper-allergic to smoke. The drinking gave me a beer belly and it was showing up in pictures appearing in the press. I began to play more golf to keep fit, but later on turned to running and swimming, which took me less time to achieve the same amount of aerobic exercise. Now, I walk on the treadmill three times a day ---12 minutes in the morning, 15 minutes after lunch and 15 minutes after dinner. Before dinner, I used to swim for 20 to 25 minutes. Without that, I would not be in my present condition physically. It is a discipline.        I continue to make appointments to meet people. You must meet people, because you must have human contact if you want to broaden your perspective. Besides people in Singapore, I meet those from Malaysia, Indonesia, and, from time to time, China, Europe and the United States. I try not to meet only old friends or political leaders, but people from a variety of fields, such as academics, businessmen, journalists and ordinary people. I have cut down on my overseas trips significantly, because of the jetlag, especially when travelling to the US. Until 2012, I was still travelling to Japan once a year to speak at the Future of Asia Conference --- now into its 19th year, organised by the Japanese media corporation, Nihon Keizai Shimbun (Nikkei). For a time, I was going to China nearly once a year, although I am reluctant to go to Beijing now because of the pollution. But the leaders are there, so you have to go there to meet them. The JP Morgan International Council, which I am on, did me the honour of holding its 2012 annual meeting in Singapore, so did the Total Advisory Board. Going to France is all right. It is a 12-hour direct flight on an Airbus 380, there and back. But to go to New York is much more tiring --- especially because of the time change, from night into day and day into night. Travelling overseas helps me widen my horizons. I see how other countries are developing. No country or city stays static. I have seen London and Paris change, over and over again. Being out of government means I am less well-informed of what is going on and the pressures for change. I therefore go by the decisions of the ministers, by and large. I seldom express a contrary opinion --- at least, much less than when I was in government and attended Cabinet meetings, which allowed me to participate fully in the debates. Occasionally, when I disagree strongly with something, I make my views known to the Prime Minister. There was au instance of this when the government was looking to reintroduce Chinese dialect programmes on free-to-air channels. A suggestion was made: "Mandarin is well-established among the population now. Let us go back to dialects so the old can enjoy dramas:" I objected, pointing out that I had, as prime minister, paid a heavy price getting the dialect programmes suppressed and encouraging people to speak Mandarin. So why backtrack? I had antagonised an entire generation of Chinese, who found their favourite dialect programmes cut off. There was one very good narrator of stories called Lee Dai Sor on Rediffusion, and we just switched off his show. Why should I allow Cantonese or Hokkien to infect the next generation? If you bring it back, you will find portions of the older generation beginning to speak in dialects to their children and grandchildren. It will creep back, slowly but surely. Every country needs one language that everybody understands. It was a difficult enough task integrating the four language streams the British left us with. The Chinese schools, where the majority of Chinese students were enrolled, were proud of their language, especially with the rise of a new Communist China from 1949. I had to fight on many fronts to make English the language of all schools and the mother tongues the second language. Chinese language chauvinists battled against this policy tooth and nail. The Chinese newspapermen and schools wanted to prop up their student and readership numbers. Because my command of Chinese then was inadequate, Li Vei Chen, my Chinese press secretary at the time, kept the Chinese press, Chinese middle schools as well as Nanyang University and their staff and supporters under tight control to minimise or prevent demonstrations, go-slows and strikes. Eventually, it was the market value of an education in English that settled the problem. Hence, we have today's Singapore, with English connecting us to the world and attracting the multinational corporations, and the mother tongues as second language keeping us linked to C'hina, India and Indonesia. This was a critical turning point. Had the people chosen the other path, Singapore would be a backwater. For sentimental reasons and practical reasons of trade and business with China, we need Chinese as a second language. But we certainly do not need the dialects. To undo now what we had spent so much time, energy and political capital achieving --- the removal of' dialects from the mass media---would be very foolish.               -----------------------------------------   Life is better than death. But death comes eventually to everyone. It is something which many in their prime may prefer not to think about. But at 89, I see no point in avoiding the question. What concerns me is: How do I go? Will the end come swiftly, with a stroke in one of the coronary arteries? Or will it be a stroke in the mind that lays me out in bed for months, semi-comatose? Of the two, I prefer the quick one. Some time back, I had an Advanced Medical Directive (AMD)) done which says that if I have to be fed by a tube, and it is unlikely that I would ever be able to recover and walk about, my doctors are to remove the tube and allow me to make a quick exit. I had it signed by a lawyer friend and a doctor. If you do not sign one, they do everything possible to prevent the inevitable. I have seen this in so many cases. My brother-in-law on my wife’s side, Yong Nyuk Lin, had a tube. He was at home, and his wife was lying in bed, also in a poor shape. His mind was becoming blank. He is dead now. But they kept him going for a few years. What is the point of that? Quite often, the doctors and relatives of the patient believe they should keep life going. I do not agree. There is an end to everything and I want mine to come as quickly and painlessly as possible, not with me incapacitated, half in coma in bed and with a tube going into my nostrils and down to my stomach. In such cases, one is little more than a body. I am not given to making sense out of life --- or coming up with some grand narrative on it ---other than to measure it by what you think you want to do in life. As for me, I have done what I had wanted to, to the best of my ability. I am satisfied. Different societies have different philosophical explanations for life and the hereafter. If you go to America, you will find fervent Christians, especially in the conservative Bible Belt covering much of the country's south. In China, despite decades of Maoist and Marxist indoctrination, ancestral worship and other traditional Buddhist or Taoist-based religious practices are commonplace. In India, belief in reincarnation is widespread. I wouldn't call myself an atheist. I neither deny nor accept that there is a God. The universe, they say, came out of the Big Bang. But human beings on this earth have developed over the last 20,000 years into thinking beings, and are able to see beyond themselves and think about themselves. Is that a result of Darwinian evolution? Or is it God? I do not know. So I do not laugh at people who believe in God. But I do not necessarily believe in God -- nor deny that there could be one. I had a very close friend, Hon Sui Sen, who was a devout Roman Catholic. When he was dying, the priest was there next to him. At 68, he was young, but he was also absolutely fearless. As a Roman Catholic, he believed that he would meet his wife in the hereafter. I wish I can meet my wife in the hereafter, but I don't think I will. I just cease to exist just as she has ceased to exist---otherwise the other world would be overpopulated. Is heaven such a large and limitless space that you can keep all the peoples of the world over the thousands of years past? I have a large question mark on that. But Sui Sen believed that and it gave him a certain tranquillity of mind as he went through his last moments with his priest. His wife, who died in November 2012, believed they would meet again. Those around me who may have tried to proselytise to me no longer do so because they know it is a hopeless case. My wife had a friend she knew from school who was very religious and kept trying to convert her. In the end, she stayed away from her friend, saying: "It is absurd. Every time we meet she wants to convert me into a Christian." She did not believe in the afterlife --- although, admittedly, it is comforting if you believe there is an afterlife even if there is none. With every passing day I am physically less energetic and less active. If you ask me to go out in the heat of the sun at two o'clock to meet people, shake hands and kiss babies, I will not be able to do it. I could do it 20, 30 years ago, but not anymore. You take life as it comes, with your physical capabilities declining over the years. Sometimes my secretary would see me resting in my office and would ask me whether they should cancel the next meeting. Sometimes, I would say: "No, let's get on with it." I need 15 minutes for a shut-eye, so that my mind can concentrate after that. But if I cannot, I would say: "Yes, put it off: Let me have a nap." You cannot predict what your physical condition will be like. However rigorous and disciplined I am, it will still be a downhill slide. In the end, my greatest satisfaction in life comes from the fact that I have spent years gathering support, mustering the will to make this place meritocratic, corruption-free and equal for all races --- and that it will endure beyond me, as it has. It was not like that when I took office. The Lim Yew Hock government was already going corrupt. Younger Singaporeans may not be familiar with a man by the name of Mak Pak Shee, a member of that government. He was an Indian Cantonese with a moustache, and he was what you would call a fixer --- somebody who facilitated the fulfilment of favours for a fee. Singapore, as it stands, is the one corruption-free spot in a region where corruption is endemic. The institutions have been created to keep it that way, with the anti-corruption bureau. People are promoted on the basis of merit, not of race, language or religion. If we uphold these institutions, we will continue to make progress. That is my greatest hope. [295-301]                                       -------------------------------               An editorial team from The Straits Times comprising Han Fook Kwang, Elgin Toh, Zuraidah Ibrahim, Chua Mui Hoong and Shashi Jayakumar (an administrative Officer on secondment to the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy) asked the questions below.   Q: You have said before that you consider yourself a nominal Buddhist. Would you still describe yourself as such?   A: Yes, I would. I go through the motions and the rituals. I am not a Christian. I am not a Taoist. I do not belong to any special sect.   Q: When you say "rituals”, what do you mean?   A: On set days you've got to give offerings to your ancestors --- food and so on. All that is laid out by the servants. But it will go off after my generation. It is like clearing the graves during Qing Ming. With each passing generation, fewer people go. It is a ritual.   Q: Where do you draw your comfort from, if not from religion?   A: It is the end of any aches and pains and suffering. So I hope the end will come quickly. At 89, I look at the obituary pages and see very few who have outlived me. And I wonder: How have they lived? How have they died? After long illness? Incapacity? When you are 89 you will think about these things. I would advise that if you do not want to be comatose or half-comatose in bed and fed through a tube, do an AND. Do not intervene to save life.   Q: The number of people who do this in Singapore is still very low, for some reason.   A: Well, because they don't want to face up to it.   Q: Are you in favour of  euthanasia, which some countries have legalised?   A: I think under certain conditions where it is not used to get rid of old people and it is a personal decision of a man taken rationally to relieve himself from suffering, I would say yes, like the Dutch. So in my AMD, I am in fact saying: "Let me go."   Q: If a grandchild of yours comes to you and asks you what a good life is, what do you say to him?   A: I have grandchildren in their 20s. They don't ask me what a good life is. They know what it is. There's been a change in the physical world they live in, the people they meet, a change in generations and different objectives to what people do in life.   Q: Are you saying that it is not possible to influence young people these days?   A: No, you can influence the basic attitudes from the day they are born to about 16 or 17. After that --- sometimes earlier --- they have a mind of their own and they are influenced by what they see around them and by their peers.   Q: You spoke about not believing you would meet your wife in the hereafter. Do you not hold out such a hope, even in your quieter moment? Is it not human to do so?   A: No, it goes against logic. Supposing we all have a life after death, where is that place?   Q: Metaphysical, perhaps?   A: So we are ghostly figures? No, I don't think so.   Q: How often do you think of' Mrs Lee?   A: I have an urn with her ashes and I have told my children to put my ashes next to hers in a columbarium, for sentimental purposes.   Q: And hope?   A: Not really. She's gone. All that is left behind are her ashes. I will be gone and all that will be left behind will be ashes. For reasons of sentiment, well, put them together. But to meet in afterlife? Too good to be true. But the Hindus believe in reincarnation, don't they?   Q: It is in the Hindu creed, yes.   A: If you lead a good life, you come out in a better shape in the next world. You lead a bad life, you become a dog or something.   Q: So do the Buddhists.   A: But they are not so sharp in their conceptions of the hereafter.   Q: Is your routine these days very different compared to when you were still in Cabinet?   A: Of course. The pressure is not there.   Q: But you are somebody who has always coped very well with pressure.   A: Well, the pressure of office means a decision has to be made. And when several decisions come at the same time, you've got to look at the questions carefully and decide. Once you have decided, you cannot backtrack. It is a different kind of pressure.   Q: Do you miss having that sort of pressure?   A: No, no. Why should I miss it? I have done my share.   Q: And would you say you miss attending Cabinet meetings, and the opportunity to interact with younger ministers?   A: No, I think the time has come for me to move on. I am 89. Compared to my world and the reference points that I have fixated in my mind, the map of Singapore --- the psychological map of Singapore --- has changed. I used to visit the houusing estates. I used to know people from the residents' committees well. I interacted with them. I had a good feel of the ground. Now I do not have that. I have to go by reports, which is not the same thing. So I have to leave it to the people in charge who do go around.   Q: Do you regret the decision to step out of government shortly after the 2011 general election?   A: No. How can I carry on making decisions when I am losing the energy to make contact with people on the ground? It requires a lot of physical energy. The mental effort does not bother me because I have not had a stroke nor am I going into dementia. But I lack the physical energy. Before this interview, I had a light lunch, did my treadmill routine and then rested for 15 minutes. I did not need that in the past.   Q: So you have no unfinished business that you had wanted to...   A: No, I have done what I had wanted to do. I gave up my duties as prime minister to Gob Chok Tong. I helped him. He passed them on to Lee Hsien Loong. It is a different generation now. So my contributions are less meaningful --- except when they want to go back on dialects.   Q: How is your health, if I may ask?   A: I was recently hospitalised after experiencing what the doctors said was a transient ischaemic attack. But I have since recovered fully and have returned to work. If you take into account the fact that I am in my 90th year... the doctors have told me there is no benchmark for people of that age.   Q: You set the benchmark. So you are reasonably happy with your physical and mental state at the moment?   A: No, you have to accept the gradual decline in your physical abilities. So far the mental capabilities have not declined, which has happened to some of my friends. I am grateful for that. I think it is largely due to inherited genes. But the physical ageing --- you cannot stop it.   Q: Your mental faculties --- could that be due to your mental habits as well? You are someone who has kept himself mentally very occupied and interested in what is happening.   A: Yes, of course. And I keep on learning new words and phrases in Chinese, so that I am forced to. It is like playing mahjong.   Q: Have your dietary habits changed over the years?   A: Well, I no longer eat to my heart's content. I stop before I am full. I also try to eat more vegetables and less protein.   Q: At an interview with The Straits Times when you turned 80, you said one worry you had was the narrowing window that people who are ageing tend to have, and that it gets smaller and smaller, that would be the end of existence. Is that something that you still think about --- keeping that window open?   A: Yes. Otherwise I would be sitting alone. Why should I meet you and talk to you?   Q: Are you afflicted by loneliness sometimes?   A: You have to distinguish between loneliness and solitude. I had a friend who was one of the brightest students in Cambridge. He is dead now. His name was Percy Cradock. He had a wife who was Danish and had diabetes. She had lost two legs. Percy used to say: "I enjoy my solitude." And I said: "Get hold of the computer and go on Google. You can get all the poems that you have read and enjoyed, purple passages from works of literature. You just type in the keywords. It will come out.” And he did.   Q: What newspapers – or Internet sites --- do you read regularly?   A: I read The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobai.  I used to read Berita Harian also but now I don't. I used to be very good with my Malay but it is not necessary now that most Malays in Singapore speak English. I follow closely on the Internet news on Singapore, the region, China, Japan, Korea, America, India and Europe. The Middle East --- occasionally. Latin America --- almost zero, because it is not relevant to us. Too far away.   Q: What particular Internet sites?   A: Google. I prearrange for news from the various regions to be automatically passed on.   Q: What books or movies have you read or watched recently?   A: I do not watch movies.   Q: And books?   A: Usually I read biographies of interesting people. I am not attracted to novels --- make-believe, or recreations of whatt people think life should be.   Q: Any recent one that you enjoyed particularly?   A: One on Charles de Gaulle. France was lost. He was a nobody. He went to London and said: "I am France." And he went to Algiers and told Alphonse Juin, who had obeyed the Vichy government and was in charge there: "As a Marshal of France, you ought to be ashamed of yourself." That was a pretty bold man. And he walked back to Paris, of course, with the Allied troops having cleared the way for him.   Q: What are your foremost preoccupations these days? What are the things that keep you awake?   A: I think our changing population. With an overall fertility rate of 1.2 --- we have no choice but to take in migrants. It is difficult to get Singaporeans to change their mindsets. The women are educated. They want a different lifestyle, not to be stuck with early marriages and children. They want to travel first, see the world, enjoy life and marry later, by which time they will have trouble having children.   Q: Any hopes for Singapore?   A: Well, the hope is that it will keep a steady course and uphold all these institutions which make it different from the rest of the region. [302-310] On his four of America in the In -  ete.its of the Chhieee OonsUtu-  lional Party, formerly the China  Reform Party, which was originated  by Kang Vu-Wei in 1R98, Mr li  Vei-Chen stated that he had re  oelved considerable support frre  the Preema-sons wherever he went  7 he,e A ere noiv ten Chinese papers  puhii.shed In Canada and the Unite-'  .states belonging to the rrcwnissti  and the Constltuttonattsta, with ,  conunon purpose tn view, the over-  throw of Natlonans in flu it exinta In  China. While China wa.s a republic  in name, it neverthelej(.s has  constitution, no president, no par-  liament, no legislature and no suf-  frage Th« Nationatteta have done  away with the ooostUutlon as  existed at one time, and u  belief of the Constitutionaiut^  the Preenasons that the constit  tfcm most be preserved AKa'.ns  Nationalists and t.helr count i , .nade 
  • Condition: Used
  • Type: Photograph
  • Original/Licensed Reprint: Original

PicClick Insights - ORIGINAL LI VEI-CHEN CHINESE VINTAGE PHOTO editor of newspapers Nanyang Siang PicClick Exclusive

  •  Popularity - 0 watchers, 0.0 new watchers per day, 21 days for sale on eBay. 0 sold, 1 available.
  •  Best Price -
  •  Seller - 808+ items sold. 0% negative feedback. Great seller with very good positive feedback and over 50 ratings.

People Also Loved PicClick Exclusive