\n<\/p>\n
My father, Lee Kuan Yew<\/a>, was the founder of Singapore. He guided the nation through its first 31 years with a firm hand as prime minister, pioneering a system of government that some have called benevolent autocracy.<\/p>\n His People\u2019s Action Party monopolized political power and denied the people some basic freedoms. Under my father, it was also dedicated to ensuring shared prosperity, clean government and high-quality public services such as affordable housing. Singapore became a spectacular success,<\/a> an oasis of stability, prosperity and efficiency.<\/p>\n Today that luster is tarnishing.<\/p>\n The party, which has governed uninterrupted since 1959, is no longer living up to its obligations to the people. At the same time, it is becoming more authoritarian, introducing oppressive laws in recent years. Singapore is still an autocracy but no longer the benevolent one my father envisioned.<\/p>\n This will be on the minds of many Singaporeans when they vote in parliamentary elections on Saturday. Today many people feel<\/a> that they are living in a country that primarily benefits the wealthy, members of the ruling party and their cronies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n I revered my father and always wanted to believe well of him. But even I have come to realize that benevolent autocracy is a myth. Singaporeans need and deserve more open and accountable government, real multiparty democracy with a viable opposition and an end to a single party\u2019s grip on power.<\/p>\n A simple family dispute<\/a> led me to this realization.<\/p>\n My father, who remained influential until his death in 2015, lived frugally in our old family home throughout his political career and retirement. He was focused on the well-being of Singapore and its people, not self-aggrandizement, and had said that he wanted the house demolished after his death.<\/p>\n My sister and I wanted to honor that wish. This put us at odds<\/a> with our older brother, Lee Hsien Loong, who was prime minister for 20 years until last year and remains a powerful figure. The house, which has symbolic political value to him and the ruling party, is still standing, against my father\u2019s wishes.<\/p>\n This disagreement should have stayed in the family. Instead, my wife, my son<\/a> and I have faced a campaign of legal retribution. In 2022, fearing arrest, I left Singapore with my wife for Britain, where we have been granted asylum<\/a> and live today.<\/p>\n My father was a product of Singapore\u2019s struggle for nationhood. He believed a firm hand was needed after full independence from Britain in 1963, a bitter separation with Malaysia two years later and the country\u2019s emergence as a tiny, multiracial, resource-poor city-state in the middle of the Cold War.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n He held officials to high standards and removed those who fell short. He interacted with and listened to a wide spectrum of Singaporeans and was ready to adjust his approach when circumstances changed.<\/p>\n This is no longer the case. Today\u2019s ruling elite is out of touch, and Singapore\u2019s vaunted reputation<\/a> for efficient, corruption-free governance is in danger.<\/p>\n The government has long claimed that the salaries it pays to its ministers, among the highest in the world, help prevent official corruption and ensure top-quality administration. Singapore still performs well<\/a> in corruption perception indexes, but perception lags reality. A slew of scandals<\/a> in recent years has implicated government<\/a> ministers<\/a>, ruling party politicians<\/a> and influential<\/a> state-linked<\/a> companies<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Economist\u2019s latest index of countries most affected by crony capitalism<\/a>, which was released in 2023, ranked Singapore fourth, after Russia, the Czech Republic and Malaysia. A number of cases indicate that because of its carefully cultivated clean image, Singapore has become a prime destination<\/a> for those seeking to launder money<\/a>, evade international sanctions or otherwise dodge financial scrutiny<\/a>, including wealthy Chinese<\/a> citizens, Russian<\/a> entities and drug<\/a> and arms dealers<\/a> from Myanmar<\/a>.<\/p>\n More important to average citizens is that Singapore\u2019s wealth is no longer<\/a> being fairly distributed. The country has become a playground<\/a> of the superrich and is routinely ranked as one of the world\u2019s most expensive cities<\/a> to live in. Providing inexpensive, quality public housing was once a point of national pride<\/a>; today many citizens can\u2019t find affordable apartments, or they face competition for jobs<\/a> from foreigners. Public transport breakdowns<\/a>, flooding<\/a> and data breaches<\/a> add to the sense of decline in government competence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n At the same time, the government has doubled down on autocracy, introducing<\/a> repressive<\/a> and overly broad<\/a> laws<\/a> in recent years. These are described as necessary to protect national security and social harmony or to combat fake news<\/a>, but they give the government even more tools to silence dissent. As it did in my father\u2019s time, the government continues to use police investigations<\/a>, defamation lawsuits and other legal<\/a> actions to intimidate political opponents, civil society groups<\/a> and other critics<\/a>. In February, with elections imminent, a court found<\/a> Pritam Singh, the leader of the opposition Worker\u2019s Party, guilty of lying under oath to a parliamentary inquiry, which he denies.<\/p>\n There is no chance that the government, headed by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, will fall on Saturday. The People\u2019s Action Party holds 83 of Parliament\u2019s 93 elected seats and has a firm grip on the institutions of state power and the media.<\/a> Singapore\u2019s elections are not free and fair<\/a>. Critics cite last-minute changes to electoral boundaries as signs of gerrymandering<\/a>. A short nine-day campaign period and limitations<\/a> on freedom of speech also put the opposition at a clear disadvantage.<\/p>\n In the previous elections, in 2020, the ruling party won 61 percent<\/a> of the popular vote, among its worst showings, and the Worker\u2019s Party took 10 seats, the most ever for an opposition party. Those results made clear that a growing number of Singaporeans want change. The underlying public concerns that contributed to the 2020 outcome have only intensified since then.<\/p>\n Singaporeans deserve open and accountable government and more say in the policies that affect them. Genuine democracy also will help make Singapore more resilient in withstanding the challenges of a fracturing world. Even my father predicted a day \u201cmust come\u201d<\/a> when the People\u2019s Action Party would no longer be in power.<\/p>\n As successful as Singapore\u2019s system was under my father, it is clear now that it really works only with a man like him in charge. The political scientist Samuel Huntington probably said it best<\/a>: \u201cThe honesty and efficiency that Senior Minister Lee has brought to Singapore are likely to follow him to his grave.\u201d<\/p>\n That prediction has sadly come true.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Lee Hsien Yang is a son of Singapore\u2019s founder, Lee Kuan Yew. He is a former chief executive officer of Singapore Telecommunications Limited and held a number of other public- and private-sector roles. He is a member of the Progress Singapore Party.<\/p>\n The Times is committed to publishing <\/em>a diversity of letters<\/em><\/a> to the editor. We\u2019d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some <\/em>tips<\/em><\/a>. And here\u2019s our email: <\/em>letters@nytimes.com<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Follow The New York Times Opinion section on <\/em>Facebook<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Instagram<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>TikTok<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Bluesky<\/em><\/a>, WhatsApp<\/em><\/a> and <\/em>Threads<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n