Transcript

Irene
When he became foreign minister in ’65, he was actually in Malaysia. And so when he arrived at the airport, the questions were being fired by the reporter. What is Singapore’s foreign policy? He had to literally make it up on the fly. He was unbriefed. He didn’t even have a chance to meet the Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew yet. He had no discussion with his cabinet colleagues about what should be Singapore’s foreign policy. He formed it right from the get-go.

Jimmy
On the fly, as it were.

Irene
Literally, literally. When he came back to Singapore, his office, there’s just one secretary, there’s one desk, and that’s him. And that’s basically the MFA. And it took some time before he got a permanent secretary. So when you say he’s a longest-serving foreign minister, that’s correct, but as a founding foreign minister, that gives him not only the platform to shape it from nothing, but also to give it its life and its spirit and its substance, which I think served Singapore well.

[Music playing]

Jimmy
You’re listening to BiblioAsia+, a podcast produced by the National Library of Singapore. At BiblioAsia, we tell stories about Singapore’s past, some familiar, others forgotten, all fascinating.

The National Pledge that generations of school kids recite every morning – that’s because of Rajaratnam. Singapore’s entry into the United Nations – that’s Rajaratnam too. Singapore’s longest serving foreign minister – that too is Rajaratnam. A journalist turned politician turned diplomat, S. Rajaratnam wore many hats in the service of Singapore. His contribution to Singapore is so great that to cover this man’s life adequately required 20 years of research and writing and over 1,200 pages of gripping prose.

My name is Jimmy Yap, and I’m the Editor in Chief of BiblioAsia, a publication of the National Library of Singapore. With me in the studio is Irene Ng, herself a former journalist turned politician turned biographer. The second volume of a biography of one of Singapore’s founding fathers has recently been published, and it’s a great read that manages to capture the drama of the times. Irene, thank you for coming on the show, and congratulations on the great launch.

Irene
Thank you, Jimmy. It’s great to be here.

Jimmy
The Lion’s Roar is a remarkable work. It’s over 700 pages, about one of the founding fathers of modern Singapore. This volume, which is the second volume of two, covers Rajaratnam’s life from 1963 onwards. Obviously, a very significant period in Singapore’s history. But before we talk about this very important book, can you tell us about Rajaratnam? Maybe your first meeting with him. When was that and what was he like?

Irene
I was formerly a newspaper journalist, and I had known Mr Rajaratnam since the late 1980s, when I was covering local and regional politics. He was always very generous and helpful. I asked him for quotes, rung him up at night at home. And he’s a great source of background information as well. Because he, being a former journalist, knew how difficult it is sometimes for us to make sure that our reports are accurate, capture the nuances, and he was very prepared to go off-record for background information, so he’s a great source, as well as a great mentor.

I look to him for inspiration. As a journalist, he had excelled in his field, and yet he has never bragged about his days as a journalist. Whenever I meet him, he never says, “Oh, I did this when I was a journalist. I was an award-winning short writer.” Never found out about those until I began researching him. You ask my impressions of him, I found him modest, reticent, reserved. He’s only very animated when he talks about his ideas and ideals for Singapore. I think he saw in me a young mind, that needs to be shaped or inspired, so that I understand the vulnerabilities of Singapore and what made him fight so hard for these ideals and hoping that the younger generation can similarly be inspired. So that’s my impression of him.

Jimmy
It was interesting to me that you connected and part of it was that he knew how hard it was to be a journalist.

Irene
You’re right, Jimmy. And also, he wants to make sure that journalists can do a good job. All through his life, when he was a culture minister, he had dealt with newspapers and editors, and his concern always was the standard of journalism in Singapore. And he always believed that the key to maintaining excellence in Singapore journalism is to encourage good journalists to pursue their passion, and to facilitate their interest in bringing insightful news to the wider audience. So when I was in The New Paper, he understood that my job was to make important news digestible to the young reader. So I remember once I wanted to interview him about ASEAN and also about the [Prime Minister] transition to Goh Chok Tong. And I turned up in his office and what happened was the night before, I used to cycle to work. I cycled from East Coast to Times House in Kim Sing Road in those days.

Jimmy
Oh my goodness, that’s a long ride.

Irene
It’s a long ride. And the night before, I had an accident. A taxi hit my back wheel, and I flew across the road. So I had grazes on my nose, my chin, and I had a swollen lip. I decided I’m still going to go for the interview the next day, because I don’t want to postpone it. It’s important that he made the time for me. So I turned up in his office with swollen lips and with grazed cheeks and a cut over my nose and his eyes widened. But the perfect gentleman didn’t make me feel uncomfortable, made me feel perfectly at ease and just carried on with the interview as if there was nothing untoward at all with my appearance. So I was very impressed by his graciousness and his ability to put people at ease. A great diplomat.

Jimmy
Actually my next question is actually regarding the interactions you’ve had with him. This is one of those interesting anecdotes that you have. Are there any other interesting anecdotes that give us a flavor of the man?

Irene
Well, once we had dinner in a restaurant, and I was surprised that he accepted. You know, he’s just truly a gracious man. He has no sense of “I’m the minister, and therefore you have to treat me with great awe and respect.” I thought that he’ll be waiting for me in the restaurant. But he thought I would be waiting for him in the bar. So there was a miscommunication. So when we arrived, I couldn’t find him, and I saw him later, about 20 minutes later. But he was just waiting patiently, and there was no fuss, [he] didn’t say, “Why are you late? I have to hurry and go off now, and how dare you keep me waiting?” I explained the situation, and no problem, we just sat down, have a nice dinner. And of course, throughout the dinner, he talked about Greek philosophers, talked about how in the days of Socrates, people sat around the table and talked about important things, meaningful ideas, and not talk about food and what sort of drink they drink.

I was very impressed because you think that somebody of his stature would see such little inconveniences like keeping him waiting for 20 minutes as an insult, but that’s Rajaratnam, that’s the man. And he’s just being himself. So if he had a chance to talk to you about ideas, he would just go into his own world and there he will be flowing like a stream full of beautiful insights that stay with me for a long time.

Jimmy
That’s it sounds like, I wish I had the opportunity to have at least a coffee, although I would try not to keep him waiting.

Irene
I wouldn’t want to do that again if I could.

Jimmy
Let’s talk a little bit about the book that you’ve just launched, The Lion’s Roar.

It’s the second volume of a two-volume biography on Rajaratnam, but tell us about it. All we’ve mentioned so far in the podcast is that it deals with his life from 1963. But how is the book structured and what are some of its main themes?

Irene
Well, because this book is from 1963 until his death in 2006, the first eight chapters deal with the Malaysia years. And I devoted that amount of space to the Malaysia years, because I thought it really defined the passion and conviction that he had for the vision of a non-communal nation, one that is free, independent. and fair and just, and that gives equal opportunities to people regardless of their race, language, or religion.

And the fight that he mounted, the audacious campaign for a Malaysian Malaysia, I thought, captured that aspect of him that many people may not appreciate, especially since I have access to archival documents where he drafted the manifesto, where there were notes of meetings of his organisation, of the first gathering of the opposition leaders in Malaya for this Malaysia Malaysian campaign. Eight chapters, and after that, there are quite a few chapters on MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] as well as his labour years. But if you ask me what the great themes are, it has to do with his belief in the power of the human will. That’s the great theme, but allied to it is the power of his ideas and the power of his transformative leadership, because you can have ideas, but if you don’t have the conviction and the drive and the ability to turn those ideas into reality, then it’s just nice ideas.

Similarly, you might have the human will, but if you don’t have the vehicle, if you don’t have the ingenuity and the guts to create a vehicle, in this case, a political vehicle, to drive forward your ideas and make sure that it brings the support of the people, then it’s just will, isn’t it? A lot of us can say that, “Oh, I have the will to do this,” but whether you can achieve it or not is also another issue. But in him, you can see all these factors in play. And so to me, it’s a very human story that has a relevance to all of us, regardless of our walk of life. You don’t have to be a politician. You don’t have to be a statesman to appreciate this book, because I think there are lessons in it for every one of us.

Jimmy
Your two volumes represent 20 years of hard work, and they come up to over 1,200 pages. Why should a young Singaporean today want to read about Rajaratnam? Why does he deserve this level of attention?

Irene
The power of his ideas continue to be relevant today, as well as the power of his vision. Let’s take 21 July 1964. That’s the race riots in Singapore. At that time, Rajaratnam, he was the point man dealing with the federation leaders on the race riots. And there was a chance that the PAP [People’s Action Party] could be arrested because of the instigation by the Malay Ultras against the PAP leadership.

So Lee Kuan Yew was under great stress with death threats on his life. And Rajaratnam was doing his level best to counter the pernicious rumours spread by the Malay Ultras, whom he and his colleagues have suspected were instigating the riots. And despite their best efforts, a second riot broke out in September.

And can you imagine, for someone in the middle of that, where your whole life is to build a non-communal nation, one that’s united and just, and to see this happening all around you, it’s literally like your whole world is crumbling around you. So he himself said, he thought that, during the riots, I thought that it would all collapse, it meaning his vision of a non-communal nation.

Yet, he persevered. He hatched this strategy of an audacious Malaysian Malaysia campaign. That is, he’s going to bring the message of a non-communal nation to the entire Malaysia, get the support of the people, and so that he can make this vision become reality, and the Malay Ultras will see that this vision has merit, that it’s valid, that it will work.

Devastating moment that he had was when Lee Kuan Yew came to him on the 7 August 1965 and said, “We have to separate. Tunku says, if we don’t, there’ll be race riots, there’ll be a bloodbath, and we don’t want to take the responsibility for that.” So Raja was basically the last man standing when it came to signing the separation agreement.

So when he did, it was a traumatic moment for him because it signifies defeat. And it was shameful because he let down everyone who believed in him, all his allies who joined him in this Malaysian Malaysia campaign. Yet, from that moment of great torment, he could still rise and come up with the National Pledge.

If you can just visualise that, a man who’s really at the bottom of the pit when it comes to his dreams, when it comes to his vision, when it comes to what he’s been fighting for, and picking himself up and finding that strength and the inner conviction to write the National Pledge that would capture exactly the vision that he had been fighting for all along, but he had seen crushed in Malaysia to fight for a non-communal nation regardless of race, language or religion.

And I think that the triumph of the human will, the rise of the human spirit out of the sense of great defeat, is something that all of us, I think, can identify with in our lives. May not be in the same scale, we don’t have the responsibility of the lives of 2 million people at that time in Singapore. We don’t have the responsibility of 10 million people at that time in the whole of Malaysia.

But in our own lives, I think we are faced in our setbacks. But how do you still hold on to your ideals because you believe in it so much and continue to press on despite all the things that has been thrown at you to keep you down? I think that’s a great example of one lesson that’s useful for all of us.

Jimmy
I was actually very impressed reading your account about how Lee Kuan Yew did his level best to make sure that when he had to persuade Rajaratnam, Rajaratnam would not attempt to sway the other PAP members into rejecting the proposal by Tunku.

I think you captured that moment very well. The sense at that point of how his dreams were all, you know, crushed and initially he refused to sign the document.

Irene
That’s right. Twice he refused. And then poor Lee Kuan Yew has to go and see the Tunku twice.

Jimmy
Right? He has to go and see the Tunku and ask the Tunku to talk to Rajaratnam. I thought that was amazing. When you talk about the pledge, these are ideals for Singapore, but they’re very much his own ideals, aren’t they?

Irene
That’s right. He’s a man who entered politics with a firm set of convictions. Unlike some modern-day politicians in other parts of the world who enter politics just to ride on the populist tide. They just put a finger in the air and say, okay, how do I get into power? And then they just go with the issues.

But not Rajaratnam and his generation of leaders. They came into politics to achieve a better society, and in his mind what is that better society is this vision of a non-communal nation just and fair, regardless of race, of language and religion. So they came in with that vision and so how do you achieve that, and that was his lifelong mission.

Jimmy
It definitely comes across. Now, your books are obviously much more detailed than anything that has ever been written about Rajaratnam for obvious reasons. Did you find during your research anything that was, that surprised you? Or that you think would surprise the ordinary Singaporean?

Irene
Most people are familiar with the battle-hardened politician that Rajaratnam was because he’s very quick on the uptake when it comes to addressing critics, very ferocious in his writings, attacking ideas that he thought were dangerous for Singapore. So he has a reputation for being quite good with a knuckle duster when it comes to what he thinks are groups, and interests that may harm Singapore.

But there’s also a very endearing and soft side to him that I discovered when I wrote the book. For instance, I didn’t realise that he was an animal lover. He would pick up stray cats, and there would always be a stray cat or two in his house. And he loves dogs as well. So there would be a German Shepherd [and] at one point, Silky Terrier.

His later life, he doted on pugs. And the cats and dogs live happily in his house. At that time in the ’70s, it was not a very usual thing for people with animals to bring their animals to vets. So this local vet is having trouble getting funding, getting space to set up an animal hospital. But he turned to Raja, and Raja gave him his full support. So when the animal hospital was set up in Whitley Road in 1985, Rajaratnam opened it. So this was an aspect of him that very few people know about.

Another aspect is of course his great love for his wife, Piroska Feher. She’s a Hungarian he met in London during the war in the late 1930s. She was a Lutheran, so when he married her, it was without the parents knowing it, because the family is a very strict Jaffna Tamil caste, very caste conscious as well. And Raja knew that the parents would not agree, but so he married her in secret in London during the war and just brought her home after the war and the family didn’t accept her for some time.

But the love that he had for his wife was very deep, and he always liked to say that they are very different in temperament because he’s reserved and contemplative. He loves books. The wife loves gardening, loves classical music, a bit more gregarious, outspoken but they got along very well. So Dennis Bloodworth – this is one of the couple’s good friends, a foreign journalist – says that they complement each other, and there’s no doubt about the great love between them.

And you can see that in the many episodes of his life where she tries to protect him wherever she can from working too hard, although that sometimes doesn’t work. So when he got a heart attack in London, she was really beside herself because everybody was thinking, including the state, was preparing for a state funeral. But he made it through, and he ended up to be the one who outlived his wife.

And I think if you read the last few chapters of my book, you’ll find a very different Raja. The Raja without the Piroska is, I would say, a man who has lost the colour in his life. I think that would be a very human aspect of him that many of us will not appreciate until you read the book.

Jimmy
I definitely, you know, was very moved when I read the last few chapters after she had passed on. And, it got a bit dusty when I was reading that and I choked up a bit.

So, Irene, I think, you know, what a lot of listeners would like to know is how did Lee Kuan Yew view Rajaratnam? What was their relationship like? You know, was it cordial?

Irene
Their relationship went back a long way, right till 1952, that’s when they first met. At the time, Mr Rajaratnam was a famous newspaper columnist with the Singapore Standard. And his writings would garner great support from the public because he writes, number one, so well and so impactful, anti-colonial tirades and very powerful ones.

So, people take notice of him. So Mr Lee Kuan Yew heard of this fellow called Mr Rajaratnam and asked to meet him. So Dr Goh Keng Swee, who knew Mr Rajaratnam, introduced them. And at that time, Mr Lee was relatively unknown compared to Mr Rajaratnam, who was the famous one. And Mr Lee wanted Mr Rajaratnam’s help, he wanted Rajaratnam to help him in his postal strike campaign. At the time, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was representing the Postal and Telecommunications Uniform Staff Union. And negotiations with the chief secretary had failed, and the postmen decided to strike. And Mr Lee knew that the other newspapers like The Straits Times would just ignore him.

Mr Lee was in fact trying to build up mass support through the unions by gaining victories in strikes with selected groups that were anti-colonial in their temperament and in their issues. So Rajaratnam being anti-colonial and always looking for a good cause to back, decided to do that and help Mr Lee, and Mr Lee won the postal strike. I would say largely because of Mr Rajaratnam’s support, which gave him so much publicity and roused up the people to be up in arms against the colonial powers. So that’s where the relationship started. And since then, Mr Lee relied on Mr Rajaratnam for his masterful communication skills, as well as for his strategic ideas on how to approach political issues and how to present them and project them to the public.

And from there he became the core of the PAP leaders who met in Oxley Road at the basement of Mr Lee’s house. And the rest is history. But see they started out as not equals. I would say Mr Rajaratnam was more powerful and more famous. There was no doubt that he was the more charismatic man, and he was a more powerful speaker able to rouse up the crowds in speeches.

So Mr Lee also is known for his strategic way of thinking through issues and policies. So Mr Lee was a leader of the group, but they are a relationship of equals. So he was first among equals from the beginning. Over the years when they had to go up against the pro-communists and the communists and later on the communalists, Mr Lee relied a lot on Mr Rajaratnam’s dauntless spirit, and his sense of “We can beat this, Harry”, which is what he called Mr Lee. We must not let them win. And he will find a way to counter the narratives from the pro-communists or the communists. He’ll find a way to mount a campaign that will put them on the back foot. So Mr Lee looked to Mr Rajaratnam for ideas as well as for the encouragement.

So Mr Lee wrote once in my, in the foreword for my volume one, that he [Rajaratnam] gave him the energy and the heart to carry on fighting. This is why I called Rajaratnam the Singapore Lion, for the first volume. Gave him the heart to carry on fighting.

So later on when Mr Rajaratnam became the foreign minister, there was the first cabinet of independent Singapore. Their relationship was still one of equals, but of course with PM Lee in charge of foreign policy, as well of all the policies, but foreign policies was very existential to the country’s survival. And he left it to Mr Rajaratnam in the first three months basically, because he [Lee] was holed up in Changi Cottage, at the advice of the security police. So Mr Rajaratnam basically had to improvise and start, start to pick up the threads of what would be the foreign policy of Singapore. So when you look at the foundations of the relationship, it was one of equals, but it depended on a lot of trust in each other. That doesn’t mean that they have the same views on issues or policies. In fact, they had quite robust debates behind closed doors. Even in the cabinet memos, you can see how Mr Rajaratnam disagreed with some of his policies. So it’s one of equals, I would say, and one of healthy respect. But as Mr Lee said, Mr Rajaratnam would not concede just because he’s Prime Minister. It shows mutual respect as well as the friendship that they’ve had all these years.

Jimmy
I like the fact that Mr Rajaratnam never backed down, right, with, with Mr Lee. You know, he fought as much as he could for remaining in Malaysia, and, there were always disagreements. But as you say, I think he didn’t just agree to Mr Lee’s suggestions and then try and undermine him behind his back. He was very, very honest and forthright in that.

Irene
And he’s honourable in another sense as well. He believed in the concept of collective responsibility. So once a decision is made by the cabinet, even though he might not feel comfortable with it, he would go out and defend it to the hilt, as if it was his decision as well.

No one would know of the disagreement behind doors. No one would know of his reservations. Because he wanted to present an image of a united government who was determined, filled with resolve, and could not be divided.

Jimmy
Rajaratnam is known for many things, but I think he’s probably best known for being Singapore’s first and longest serving foreign minister. You know, what do you think is his main legacy in Singapore’s foreign policy? And I know it’s a hard question to answer because he was there for so long, and he was there at a very critical moment when there was no MFA.

Irene
When he became foreign minister in ’65, he was actually in Malaysia. And so when he arrived at the airport, the questions were being fired by the reporter. What is Singapore’s foreign policy? He had to literally make it up on the fly. He was unbriefed. He didn’t even have a chance to meet the Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew yet. He had no discussion with his cabinet colleagues about what should be Singapore’s foreign policy. He formed it right from the get-go.

Jimmy
On the fly, as it were.

Irene
Literally, literally. When he came back to Singapore, his office, there’s just one secretary, there’s one desk, and that’s him. And that’s basically the MFA. And it took some time before he got a permanent secretary. So when you say he’s a longest-serving foreign minister, that’s correct, but as a founding foreign minister, that gives him not only the platform to shape it from nothing, but also to give it its life and its spirit and its substance, which I think served Singapore well. I don’t think you can think of a better founding foreign minister than Rajaratnam, because of the qualities that he had.

Jimmy
He didn’t have that much of a diplomatic experience. He did such a tremendous job as Singapore’s foreign minister. What qualities do you think it is that allowed him to be that?

Irene
I would think there are several factors. One, of course, was his journalist background. He used to write very serious geopolitical articles and columns, and he reads widely, you know, for every article that he writes, including every speech that he writes later, he would research deeply. So he has this amazing reservoir of knowledge, but he also knows how to draw from his extensive reading to think on the spot.

He has strategic thinking, and he has a way of also joining all the dots. So as foreign minister, you’re required to be able to make sense of all the complex factors that you see before you. He has that ability, partly because he has been exercising his brain that way all his adult life before he became foreign minister.

And I think another factor is his own personality. He is very quick on the uptake. He is able to perform under stress, and in fact, Lee Kuan Yew says that he performs best under stress. And he rises to the challenge whenever a challenge is presented to him. That’s part of his package. He has self-confidence, he’s resilient, he’s adaptable.

And that comes also from his life experience. He had such an eventful life before he became foreign minister. His life in London, for instance, when he was stranded there during the war, and it was that time he mixed around with the Afro-Asian nationalists and it piqued his interest in international politics.

So there he picked up all the nuances and all the latest ideas on nationalism. It’s both his experience, his career as a journalist before, as well as his own personality. I think all that came together to make a perfect package for a founding foreign minister of Singapore.

Jimmy
I take it for granted that, you know, Singapore’s in the UN [United Nations], Singapore’s in ASEAN. And then I read that, you know, he had to work quite hard, actually to get Singapore admitted into the UN.

And Singapore wasn’t initially meant to be in ASEAN. And I think that’s one of the great things about the book is that it helps you look at things that you take for granted and look at them with new eyes. And that I really appreciated that. You know, he was Singapore’s also first culture minister for a shorter period obviously, than as foreign minister, but at a very critical point, right? This was when Singapore was in Malaysia at the time. And he was, I think he became culture minister in 1959. So, you know, what, what do you think his legacy was as culture minister?

Irene
Well, it relates back to his great theme of his life, to create a multiracial society and to bring the different races together to create a Singaporean Singapore. But when he became culture minister in ’59, it was altogether a different Singapore than what we experience today. In those days, the different communal groups do not understand each other. They speak different languages, they stay in different parts of the island, and they don’t interact with one another. And there were also stereotypes and prejudices against each other.

One of his greatest experiments was to bring the different races together on the same stage so that they perform together. So you have a Chinese dance, and then after that you have a Malay dance, and then you have Indian drums. You get all the different performers to come on the same stage, at the same time you draw the different races together as the audience. It was quite controversial in those days because there are some purists who believe that, why are you diluting the culture by mixing with the other races? Because eventually what happened, which is what Rajaratnam wanted, was there will be a Malay dance to Chinese music performed by Indians, for instance, or a Chinese opera, set to Indian drums. But Rajaratnam wanted that interaction between the different races so that they understand each other and they can accept each other and hopefully see each other as fellow Singaporeans.

So when he had this idea about people imagining themselves as one people, you can only imagine yourself as one people if you experience it. So when you’re gathered together, you’re standing next to an Indian, standing next to a Malay and you’re Chinese, and you’re enjoying a performance together. You don’t think of yourself as Chinese, you think yourself as a fellow Singaporean. And that’s when the first imagination starts. And from imagining, you become yourself, part of a greater whole and then you become a true Singaporean because that’s what you identify yourself as first rather than you think of, I’m Chinese first. No, I’m Singaporean first. But it all starts from that kernel that he planted through the Aneka Ragam concerts, the multicultural concerts which today we take for granted.

Jimmy
I did not realise how important the Aneka Ragam concerts were. You mentioned in your book also that he’s grossly unappreciated that he was the labour minister when the British pulled out, or accelerated their pullout from the region. And I think partly it’s unappreciated because, frankly, he did a lot of stuff and it maybe was overshadowed, but it was actually important, wasn’t it?

Irene
You’re right. Partly it’s overshadowed, but partly it’s also because he’s not the type to talk about himself or about his achievements. He never talked about his labour ministry years, for instance, in his oral history. Nobody asked him the question and he never volunteered. But the years that he was labour minister, 1968 to 1971, were critical years when the British were pulling out. And in fact, in 1968, when Singapore received a thunderbolt of the British withdrawal, by 1971, there were already predictions that Singapore could not survive because the British bases make up such a large percentage of the economy in Singapore as well as employment.

So when Rajaratnam was parachuted into the labour minister’s hot seat, he also had foreign minister’s job to worry about. But it was considered important enough for him to do it. And I asked Mr Lee Kuan Yew why. Mr Lee said, very frankly, he knew that Rajaratnam would not be daunted by the problems and he would take them on. That’s him. He saw a problem, he will rise to the challenge, he would take them on.

And the challenges were massive. Ten percent unemployment already and that was before the British pulled out. And there was about 100,000 of people who were going to be thrown out of jobs when the British pulled out and there were about 25,000 new workers coming to the market after school every year.

So all of these jobs have to be created. So Rajaratnam took the unpopular decision, or rather the cabinet took the unpopular decision, but Rajaratnam was given the task of carrying the unpopular decision through parliament. And he succeeded again because of his personality, his experience and his determination.

And he did it without losing the trust of the unions, which itself is a major achievement. And the labour reforms that he pushed through in parliament basically laid the foundation for the tripartite system that we find are so useful for Singapore’s competitive advantage, and which remains today. And I think it’s underappreciated because the credit is often given to the technocrats. Usually Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee. Usually these two figures.

As my research shows, without Rajaratnam, none of their ideas would have succeeded. Because you need someone to carry them through, to persuade the people in parliament, and to talk to the unions, and to be a face that they can trust. Because the unions at that point had a very tense relationship with Lee Kuan Yew, because Lee Kuan Yew has been closing down unions or being very harsh on them.

But Rajaratnam, with his personality and his patience in engaging the unionists, brought them around eventually. And Goh Keng Swee is great with that, with plans, but he is not a great communicator. But Rajaratnam put it in very stark terms. You know, either we, stride forward, or we starve. Very stark, very stark imagery.

So I think without Rajaratnam, we would not have survived that very critical period. And because we did, here we are.

Jimmy
Actually, in addition to all that, he also had credibility, right? Because he was a unionist at one point himself. He helped start up the Singapore National Union of Journalists.

Irene
That’s correct. You obviously read the book. The unionist knew him as a rebel rouser because in his anti-colonial journalist days, he used to have very close relations with the unionists. He founded the Union of Journalists and he also founded the Unemployment Society in those days. So his concern for the workers and for labour relations is been established, although it’s not very widely known today. And Lee Kuan Yew how to use that to help the government to implement this very tough labour reform.

Jimmy
Tell me you know, you first approached the trustees of his estate in, back in 2004 to suggest writing his authorised biography. What made you decide that you wanted to write his biography?

Irene
Well, as I said, I’ve known him since the 1980s, and eventually, over the years, as I began to drop in, in his house, I noticed that he was deteriorating, as all of us would at some point. But it was particularly sad to see him lose his mental edge. I thought that something must be written about him so that people will not forget.

Rajaratnam has achieved so much that I’m so convinced that without Rajaratnam, I think Singapore’s future would be so much darker. And I’m not sure whether Lee Kuan Yew would have succeeded to the extent that he did. So I thought it was very important to record that. So I started in 2004. I approached Lee Kuan Yew for support because Lee Kuan Yew has just written his memoirs and I thought it’s a good time to now start writing about Rajaratnam, and immediately Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave his support and then I approached the estate’s trustees because at that time Rajaratnam was no longer able to make decisions for himself. He was suffering from dementia and the trustees gave their support and also approached his family, his extended family, because he has no children in Seramban, his two nephews and they gave their support.

So with all the support, I could take on the mantle as an authorised biographer. And with that, I get access to papers, especially his private papers. And I went down to Seramban as well to speak to the relatives and to his friends there and to look at the house. I had full access to his house in Chancery Lane. So I spent quite a lot of time going through his boxes which were gathering dust and discovering notebooks and photos and the kind of books that he would devour.

He has 10,000 volumes, and I was heartbroken to just look at this man and to realise that if he passes on and nobody knows his story, it would be such a travesty. So I was just trying to do my part to tell his story and make sure that he’s not forgotten as far as I can.

Jimmy
I think you’ve done a tremendous job, and I say this because the second volume, I devoured it because it was very interesting. It reads very well. You managed to capture the drama. There are lots of interesting details. What did you find was the biggest challenge in writing this volume? Which was harder to write, the first or the second volume?

Irene
Well, for the second volume, there was a massive amount of research because of his years in the foreign ministry. And because I understand that the issues relating to regional politics and regional relations are sensitive. This is just a fact. I made sure that whatever I read, I master the sources. I understand the nuances. And to do that, I have to read more.

So, let’s say I read an episode about Singapore relations with Malaysia over one episode and I wanted to write about it and if I have any doubt, any question, I will not start. I will continue researching. I will ask for more papers or I’ll do more interviews to fill in the gaps. And that takes time and sometimes, the most difficult part is what to leave out after gathering all that material because everything is interesting, and there are so many quotes that I wish I could have squeezed into the book, but that would have made it very difficult to lift. I struggle over everything that I leave out. And what I leave in, I make sure that, number one, it’s accurate, can be supported by evidence, and number two, that it’s readable and engaging. The context is put in place so that when a reader who doesn’t know anything about regional politics, if they come into the book, they’ll say, I understand it because it’s being told in a story. It is not told in the form of academic treaties, as it were. It’s a story, so it’s something that can draw people into the drama of the moment. So that itself takes a lot of time because it’s a skill and it’s a skill that has to be constantly honed because I’m never satisfied with the way I phrase things. It could always be better. So I’ve done so many rewrites that I fear, I could have taken longer if I allowed myself to do so, but I think, okay, there must be a cut-off point, and so I cut off and here you have the book.

Jimmy
Can I ask you, and I want to give you this opportunity to, to address something. You know, one, obviously you’ve done a lot of research. So I just want to talk, one, about your research process, and two, you know, what if people say, “Oh, you know, she’s a former PAP MP [Member of Parliament] and she’s got access and MFA’s clearing everything. This is just a sanitised version of this man. Why should we read it? It’s propaganda. What would you say to that?

Irene
That’s an excellent question. You know, I’m based in the UK now, and I’ve been reading a lot of biographies. Partly as research, and partly also because I want to understand the process that professional biographers go through.

So, Winston Churchill has authorised biographers, so did Margaret Thatcher, Charles Moore, who wrote three volumes, and in America, you have volumes on Lyndon Johnson by a very serious biographer. And they also have access to all the government papers and the private papers of their subjects. But no one will accuse them of propaganda.

But in Singapore, I think that kind of question does reflect two things to me. I think a serious biographer is quite a different sort of animal as opposed to, let’s say, a Q& A type of biographer, where you take everything from the horse’s mouth and you just print it on paper. In my case, there’s a lot of sifting going through. And true, I was a PAP MP. And before that I was a journalist. But when I approached the biography, I approached it as a serious biographer. I don’t wear my PAP hat on. I do wear my journalist hat on in terms of analysing the data and writing. But above all of that, I wear my serious biographer hat in the sense that this is my subject, I want to make it compelling, I want to be accurate. At the same time, I want to be fair. Fair to the man, fair to the times. Because we can’t judge the man according to today’s standards. We have to understand the context in which he worked, the trends that were swirling around him, the thinking of the time, and the challenges of the time against the circumstances of that time.

And for that, I have to go into his world, and I have to immerse myself in those times. And that takes a certain kind of a mindset. And it’s not a mindset that comes just because you think that I want to perpetuate a propaganda. Because if you do that, then what’s the point of spending 20 years of my life to write propaganda? It’s not worth my life. It’s not worth my time.

I’m a person who pursues something only if I feel it’s worthwhile. So, spending 20 years of my life on one man, Rajaratnam, it’s a real investment of my life. And I wouldn’t do it if it’s propaganda, you know, I would only do it if I think it’s worthwhile. Something that I think is a story worth telling, that can stand as public scrutiny, that can meet the criticisms of the public once they read the book.

But if people come to the book with a sudden perception already, then number one, they will read it with that lens that is propaganda, and then they may not get the full flavour of the book in terms of the full complexity of the man, his failures, his weaknesses, as well as his triumphs and his achievements. But that’s what makes the man.

And if there’s any weakness that I have in this book, really, I think it would be this. That I couldn’t have a third volume. Because there’s so much more that I wanted to squeeze in into second volume. There’s so much more. But it’s just about right to be two volumes. And I think hopefully people would pick it up and read it with an open mind. And at the end of it, judge it on its own merits, not thinking about whether this woman was a PAP woman before, or whether she was trying to spread propaganda, as you said. I consider myself a writer, a serious writer, who takes her job very seriously. So I hope that it will meet the expectations of the people when they read it.

Jimmy
No one spends 20 years of their life on a project to create propaganda. The whole book is a page turner and I think that’s a credit to the amount of work you had to do in order to excavate all these details and all these anecdotes that really make it come alive. And I have to say, reading this book, you also see the man’s flaws. He was not possibly the world’s best person at organising things. MFA is, you know, I’m sure it’s a wonderful ministry, but I’m not sure how much of that organisation was due to Rajaratnam himself versus maybe the civil servants who helped build it up. You brought out the fact that organising people was not necessarily his strongest point.

Irene
That’s right. I think there’s quite a lot of anecdotes about how he couldn’t remember his staff, couldn’t remember their salary ranks, and it took Dhanabalan, his successor, to really set that ship on the right track. So yes, I was quite frank and detailed about his weaknesses as well, but when it comes to the larger picture, his strategic oversight, his mastering of the geopolitics, basically trumps housekeeping details.

Jimmy
Well, just to reassure everyone that one, this is not a hagiography, and two, it’s a good read. I really enjoyed it.

Irene
Thank you.

Jimmy
So moving away from these very heavy topics, we just want to wind up this podcast by asking hopefully a lighter question. So, Irene, what do you read for leisure?

Irene
Well, I’ve been reading a lot of biographies but I’m trying to move to fiction because I think that fiction can really pique your interest in terms of how you visualise different worlds. And that’s what Rajaratnam did as well. He reads so widely. Science fiction as well ,and comics, and because they, they give you a different window to the world and translations of great works from authors from different parts of the world. All these are a crucial tool widening our mental framework. So I’m trying to move more into fiction, although my inclination is always to read biographies because for me it’s a job. So it’s like a quite useful tool set. And when I read a biography, I don’t read so much for the content as much as for the technique, but now that this book is over, I’ll go back to fiction and I’m picking up Tan Twan Eng, which is a Penang-born author who’s made waves internationally with historical novels, and I find that quite fascinating.

Jimmy
In writing all this, which biographies inspired you?

Irene
Well, I look for techniques in award-winning biographies.

Jimmy
Right.

Irene
So, Caro, who wrote the five volumes of Lyndon Johnson.

Jimmy
Robert Caro.

Irene
Robert Caro. And I took heart in the fact that between volumes four and five, he took more than 10 years. And I was listening to his interviews as well, to understand his writing process, and I found that helpful and also validating because he had the same problem as I did, which is the massive amount of material that you have and how to write that and combine all the different episodes into a fascinating read.

And he’s a very respected biographer. Another that I enjoy reading is Charles Moore. He’s the authorised biographer of Margaret Thatcher, and he had access to all her files, and also government papers. And one point he made is that, which was quite interesting to me, because there was a debate about, in Singapore at least, about the Freedom of Information Act, whether all files should be released to whoever who asked for it.

And Charles Moore himself felt that it would be a pity if that was the case, because then politicians would be very careful about what they write down. And not only that, they would leave out very important decisions that they made, and so you have no clue about how they make decisions. Whereas in his case, and also in my case, because everything is noted down in documents, I had access to how they basically frame their arguments for a certain decision.

For instance, the hanging of the Marines in 1968. I revealed for the first time in my book that Rajaratnam basically did not agree with Lee Kuan Yew’s decision to go ahead and hang the Marines for the terrorist attacks on McDonald’s house. And that’s the first time that anyone has heard of it. But it’s only possible because there were primary documents carefully kept and when I read Charles Moore’s comment about how he appreciates that. If the politicians of today in UK will be more circumspect and a biographer in the future, would find it very hard to put together a very accurate account of their subjects because of the Freedom of Information Act that’s now in the UK.

And so for the role of a serious biographer, if you have access to the papers, it’s a privilege, but you also have to handle it with sensitivity, in the sense that you come to it with a sense of fairness. You discover new facets of the character, you double check accounts, because even what’s on paper may contradict with another account.

So it takes quite a bit of investigative work and that’s what Charles Moore did as well. So I found it, number one, validating. At the same time, it’s also quite encouraging as I pursue this course of trying to make sure that my biography of Rajaratnam is as authoritative and credible as possible.

Jimmy
You’ve been a journalist, you’ve been an MP, and now you’re the foremost, world’s foremost expert on Rajaratnam. What are your plans next?

Irene
I think writing is in my blood. You know, I started off as a journalist. It’s my first job, and I stayed in the job until I joined politics. And even then, I felt that I needed to write, and therefore, I started on this book on Rajaratnam. So I think I’ll continue writing, but what I will write about is something that I will have to reflect on, and also think what will be worthwhile for me to do going forward.

Jimmy
Will you be spending 20 years of your life on it?

Irene
Hopefully not.

Jimmy
It’s a long time. We know what Rajaratnam’s Singapore dream was, right? It’s encompassed in the pledge. What, Irene, is your Singapore dream? Or what is your dream for Singapore?

Irene
If I may just go back to Rajaratnam’s dream, One reason why I identify so much with that dream is because I was an outsider in Singapore.

I was born in Malaysia, in Penang to be exact, and I’ve lived for the first 16 years under a communal system. I’ve experienced what it’s like to be identified based on your race. So where your race and your skin colour basically determines your life chances. So if you’re Chinese, you can’t rise above a certain level in Malaysia because, purely because of your classification as Chinese.

So you may be a good student, you may even be a top student, but it doesn’t mean you can get a scholarship. Doesn’t even mean that you can get into university because of the quota system. And even if you may be the most hardworking person in the office, doesn’t mean you get to the top. But in Singapore, when I came over, I really appreciate the system because it is truly meritocratic.

I had no relatives here. I came without any friends. I started from scratch with nothing. And when I joined as a journalist, there were far more high-flying people around me. SPH [Singapore Press Holdings] scholars from Oxford, Cambridge. At that point, I had a degree from the NUS [National University of Snigapore]. Basically, in those days, the political desks were made up of SPH scholars.

But the fact that I was able to be where I was and to be tapped on the shoulder for politics is something that I think would only happen because I was in Singapore. And this also goes back to how the foundations were laid by the founding generation of a meritocratic, non-communal nation. And because of that dream that the founding generation had, which has achieved by the time I became a journalist, I enjoyed the fruits of it.

But I never took it for granted because I’ve experienced the other side. So my Singapore dream is for this dream to continue and I do not take it for granted. And I don’t think anybody should. Because of the rise of ethnic sentiments, of demagogues appealing to ethno-nationalist sentiments as well, and you have foreign powers trying to work through the populations by pulling on their ancestral heartstrings, on ethnic bonds. I think Singaporeans just have to continue to remember that what we have is exceptional and special, and it’s been the product of great sacrifice and struggle by the preceding generations.

And therefore our generation has to take it forward and make it better and be an inspiration to the world who face similar problems but could never work out a solution.

Jimmy
It seems to me that in some ways, Rajaratnam’s dream of a meritocratic society based on justice and equality is something that very much appeals to you. It was one of the things that probably drew you to the whole topic to begin with, wasn’t it?

Irene
Precisely that. It resonated with me. And you’re absolutely right that’s what kept me going. This realisation of how special this ideal is and how important it is to make sure that we continue to be the keeper of the flame.

So one point that I hope the government will take up is to enshrine this National Pledge to be on par with the constitution. Because I do fear that because it’s taken for granted so much, and political moods change, there’s intellectual fashions change, and the pledge could be changed also, by a future government, even retracted, merely by gazette, and there goes, poof, the vision of your founding generation. I hope that the National Pledge could be protected and preserved for the future generation by treating it on par with the constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority for any amendment. I think that would be one important way to make sure that the aspirations in the pledge, as well as being a very powerful symbolic move to the world, that Singapore will remain special, not only today, but tomorrow.

Jimmy
I will sign a petition for that. Irene, thank you very much for joining us on BiblioAsia+. I do want to urge everyone to read Irene’s latest book, The Lion’s Roar, the second volume of her authorised biography on Rajaratnam. It’s available, of course, in bookstores and in libraries. So you can buy it or borrow it. For a taste of what’s in the book, BiblioAsia has published an extract from that book, and you can find it on the BiblioAsia website at biblioasia.nlb.gov.sg.

Irene, once again, thank you very much for being here, and I know it’s a very hot day, and you had to walk from the Istana. So she’s that kind of person who will walk from the Istana all the way to the National Archives and we’re truly privileged to have you both as a guest and that someone bothered to do such an amazing job on Rajaratnam. Thank you very much, Irene.

Irene
Thank you, Jimmy. You’re wonderful as well.