From Lee Kuan Yew to Lawrence Wong: The changing leadership styles of Singapore’s Prime Ministers

From Lee Kuan Yew to Lawrence Wong: The changing leadership styles of Singapore’s Prime Ministers

Professor Terence Lee from&nbsp, the Sheridan Institute of Higher Education in Perth said Mr Lee’s management tone was “rather unrelenting”.

Critics may perhaps explain him as “on the stronger part of authoritarian”, said the&nbsp, professor of humanities and social sciences, whose research interests include South Asian politics. &nbsp,

However, Mr. Lee is unfeccably successful in ensuring both Singapore’s survival and growth.

In 1965, the establishment PM reportedly said:” Over 100 centuries ago, this was a habitat, lake. Now, this is a modern metropolis. Ten years from today, this will be a district. Not fear”.


In 1990, Mr. Goh Chok Tong assumed the position of prime minister, a time when Singapore’s economy prospered and residents enjoyed money, safety, and security, according to experts.

” We had this whole enormous boom across anything. According to Prof. Lee, home values and income probably doubled during that period.

” Mr. Goh really oversaw Singapore becoming what we would call a global city today. He was in charge of that area when the 1990s saw the biggest growth in globalization.

Prof Lee noted that very early on, yet before he became Prime Minister, Mr Goh had attempted to set the tone for a “kinder and gentler” Singapore.

He emphasised compromise- creating and the need to&nbsp, stabilize financial growth with cultural cohesion, for instance launching a committee to improve Singapore’s “heartware”.

However, Prof. Lee noted that” that quickly deteriorated with the Catherine Lim saga, when he decided that he needed to have an authoritarian streak in him.”

Local author Lim criticized the ruling PAP and its governing ideology in two pieces published in 1994. Mr. Goh responded, saying that if she wanted to make political comments, she should form a political party, and that what she had written was “out of bounds” in political discourse.