Talk:Lee Kuan Yew/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Comments

In my opinion, Mr Lee really should stay away fom the government. He has retire from the post of Prime minister, but still he is interrupting the government by becoming a minister from post to post. Let's see ( Prime minister to Senior minister to Minister mentor). What is the point? Something fishy eh!

---

Why no mention of Singapore's breakaway from Malaysia in 1965? In my opinion, this is the single most pivotal event in Mr. Lee's career.

---

Why no mention of Lee as a controversial figure in the eyes of Western liberal democrats?

---

A ruler who eventually hands his power to his own son. Democracy? Open Society? No Conspiracy?

Eugenics. Most people are satisfied to see the GDP per capita increasing. Slivester 13:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

---

You mean George H. Bush? The saga haven't ends yet, Jeb Bush will be the next president.

Lee Kuan Yew as a Japanese Imperial Army Intelligence Officer?

There seems to be this insistance in added information about him working "for the Japanese Imperial Army during WW2." Perhaps some verification of that line may be presented here for deliberation? --Huaiwei 14:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.thecore.nus.edu.sg/landow/post/singapore/government/leekuanyew/chron.html

1943-1944 Works as English-language editor for Japanese "information or propaganda department called the Hobudu," learning that Allies are winning war (63).--192.169.41.33

Hello Huaiwei, about Lee kuan Yew's collaboration with the Japanese, if you bother to read through the external link on the same page (The one to Time), there it mention he once collaborated with the Japanese.

"During the Japanese occupation of Singapore he worked for a Japanese government propaganda department--although it has long been rumored that he was secretly passing intelligence to the British."

Also, in his memoir, there within, he mentioned he worked as a transcriber of Allied radio reports for the Japanese. Now get your facts right before you do the vandalism!

More from Asiaweek, courtesy of Google

http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/98/0925/cs1-2.html

"For the most part, Lee delivered, providing previously unknown details about his life during the Japanese Occupation, during which he worked as a black-market trader, a glue-making entrepreneur and a transcriber of Allied wire reports for the Japanese."

More can also be said about his own Law firm Lee & Lee, previously holding an unusual monopoly on the conveyancing services for all HDB public housing.--81.178.187.180

Let me now explain why I have to end up revertig all those latest edits again, starting from the chain of edits after Mozzerati have reverted.

• You insisted on adding "he worked for the Japanese Imperial Army as an Intelligence Office holding a senior rank." Now tell us what is the relevance of this compared to him working as "a transcriber of Allied wire reports for the Japanese" (according to your asiaweek article), or as an "English-language editor for Japanese "information or propaganda department" (from the NUS source), both of which made no mention of his "senior rank," and neither did it mention he was directly involved in intelligence, let alone holding office? A transcriber or an editor is not quite the same as an intelligence officer.

• Secondly, someone added "The media is largely controlled by the ruling party and sometimes hostile towards members of the opposition. This has resulted in a repressive environment in which the citizens fear to speak up on political issues." This point has POV problems, obviously, and more importantly, what is the relevance of this additional point to Lee Kuan Yew's page?

• The point about him being an elitist can probably stay. I edited it back into the latest revert. Discussions about him working for the Japanese as an editor or transcriber can go back too, but I dont think it should be writtern as an "intelligence officer", or to leave a vague reference to him having worked for them with no specific reference to the actual things have have done.

Thats all. And finally, I dont see why anyone have to mess up my personal talk page by posting the entire bunch of contents above into it (and in the wrong position too, messing up the formatting), not to mention vandalising the main page itself again. Whoever he is, he appears to be turning this into a personal vendetta against me, when clearly I am not the only one undoing his edits and vandalising acts?--Huaiwei 04:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not appreciate this public slander toward a man who helped turn Singapore into one of Asia's economic powers. I have lived in Singapore all my life, and I feel that we owe a lot to him. He may be stubbornly old fashioned, but move on already. This article is heavily biased and no body i know calls him Lee Con You. And he is not the Mental Minister, but the Minister Mentor. I do hope that you do show more respect in the future. I suggest Wikipedia get someone else to rewrite this article--220.255.106.135

Eugenics?

It should be noted that Lee is a strong supporter of eugenics.

Why? ωhkoh [Т] 06:03, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

He's considered a strong supporter of eugenics because of his policy of encouraging female university graduate students to marry and have children as opposed to the lower income class. The following are 2 quotes by Lee which illuminate his stance on eugenics. However, I don't know if they have been taken out of context, but it's worth noting that Stephen Jay Gould in his book The Mismeasure of Man criticised Lee's policy of encouraging marriages specifically among female university graduate students.

• If you don't include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society...So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That's a problem. -Lee Kuan Yew in 1983 National Day Rally

• We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two... We will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellecually and culturally anaemic. -Lee Kuan Yew in 1967.

Ethereal 10:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is all true, but he is talking about the social values and finacial ability of a certain class, not the genetic strength of one group over an other. Yes this is social engineering, but to call it eugenics is to over state the case in the extreme. LA JAY

Please sign when you post in future. Do it by adding ~~~~ after your message. That will post your user name and date of post. More to the topic, if Lee was more of an environmentalist than a hereditarian, then why should he be more concerned with encouraging the more intellectually-minded social classes to marry and have children rather than helping out those who are disadvantaged? It's difficult to qualify a practice as eugenic in nature rather than social engineering because of the vagueness of definitions involved. Social engineering encompasses eugenics, in any case, so the two are not mutually exclusive. Ethereal 15:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To say that encouraging intellectually-minded social classes to marry and have children = eugenics ignores the basic concept of intelligence being formed from BOTH nature and nurture. 35.10.236.85 05:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Issues with NPOV

• "Many Allied Soldiers and fellow Singaporeans were killed because of his war time work with the Japanese Military".

This seems to me more of an opinion than a fact. Source?

• "thus became the most prominent traitor of Singapore at that moment"

Source? Seems more like an opinion since I don't think opinion polls were taken during WW2.

• "He is widely respected and feared but hated by the people of Singapore,"

Hated? Source? I stongly dispute the accuracy of this statement. Personally, I don't know of anyone who "hates" him. And I lived in Singapore for 18 years.

• "who he rules roughshod with an iron fist, with fines and imprisonment for any minor travesty."

"roughshod" and "travesty" are not neutal language. Maybe "who he rules with an iron fist. Singapore is known for its numerous fines and imprisonment for minor crimes."

• "He has often claimed, though unjustified, the credited as the architect of its prosperity"

"though unjustified" is an opinion. Whether true or not, sentence also does not make sense grammatically. I suggest "He is often credited as the architect of its prosperity. However, others like his Deputy Prime Minister, an economist, Dr. Goh Keng Swee, also played a significant role in the economy."

• The "Personal life and family" section reads more like an accusation of nepotism. This should be an article about Lee's *personal life and family*. This looks familar though. I've seen it on anti-PAP websites :-).

This article is heavy on criticims and opinions and lacking on facts about "Lee Kuan Yew". Having read Wiki's NPOV policy, I think this article fails on "Fairness and sympathetic tone", amongst other things. I'm new to editing Wiki articles so I'm open to ideas.

--Leonard Wee, Auckland 03:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quote by Lee Kuan Yew

Here is the quote by LKY saying he preferred to be feared rather than loved:

• "Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless." (Lee Kuan Yew, 1998, The Singapore Story) Ethereal 15:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

This reveals to us the real character of Mr. Lee. Hitler and Napoleon also loved Machiavelli and the similiarities are chilling. I wonder how Mr. Lee will be remembered when he is no longer on planet Earth. He may be an outstanding politician but he is definitely no Mahatma Gandhi. What about the teachings of 'loving your enemies' and 'blessing those you curse you'? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

November 26?

I can't believe it. In local history books and as evidenced from this website[1], Goh became PM on November 28, not 26. The same applies to Lee Kuan Yew.

Tan 12:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Christian detention

See [2] for

In view of the insurgent local Christian missionaries which was responsible for boosting the Christian population from 10% in 1980 to 19% in 1988, a series of leaders, including Lee Kuan Yew, condemned "insensitive evangelization" as a serious threat to racial harmony. This was evidenced in the fact that several arrests attempts, under the Internal Security Act, had been made by Lee Kuan Yew against Catholic and Protestant insurgent groups who had attempted to turn against the government.

Official restatements of the virtue of and necessity for religious tolerance were mixed with threats of detention without trial for religious extremists. It was noted, however, as early as 1974, the government had "advised" the Bible Society of Singapore to stop publishing materials in Malay.

Tan 14:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My interpretations of the source you gave are as follow:

• Lee's comment on "insensitive evangelization" refers to instances of "christian proselytization directed at Malays". It is not related to the increase in Christian population which is mainly from the Chinese community.
• The 1987 ISA arrest of Tan Wah Piow and others was due to their underground pro-Marxist subversive activities, under the cover of a Roman Catholic organization. This is not related to any evangelical activity per se. Therefore, if you are refering to the 1987 arrest, then describing it as "christian detention" is quite misleading; and "detection of pro-Marxist activists" would be more appropriate.
• I am not sure if any "arrests attempts" were actually made but failed. The source you gave does not mentioned any "arrests attempts". But it is clear that Lee did issued a warning that the ISA would be used against those who posed a serious threat to racial harmony, considering the lessons learned from the 1964 and 1968 racial riots. The principle involved is "preventive detention", but usually a stern warning or "advice" will do the trick. ;-)

Also, the Internal Security Act does not empowered the government to carry out secret detention, unlike the detention of enemy combatants by the US at Guantanamo Bay. In other words, any arrests made under the ISA is publicly known. Obviously, some facts are not easy to find, I will be interested in any further information you may provide. -- Vsion 08:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Read [3] to reanalyse the facts (it may also help in expanding the article).

Tan 19:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the article says :

... 1987 the government detained a group of Roman Catholic social activists, accusing them of using church organizations as cover for a Marxist plot. ... ...

• it shows that the 1987 arrest of a small group of catholics is because of alleged Marxist plot , not evangelical activities in general.
• the proselytising towards non-Muslims might caused some unpleasantness and disgust, but it does not consitute an internal security threat. Whereas "proselytising towards Muslims" is extrememly provocative (same anywhere in the world, not just Singapore), which is a main concern of ISD and they are ready to use ISA against (hence the warning, "advice", etc). On the other hand, it is unlikely ISA will be used against "proselytising towards non-Muslims", so I don't think the "warning" extends to these. -- Vsion 17:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

phrase

What was meant by "was throughly absorbed with the British lifestyle"? It needs to be edited, but I'm not sure what the author meant by it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

credit accounts

"... and unlimited credit accounts at John Little’s and Robinsons. "

Did they had credit accounts at that time? What is the source for this? -- Vsion 06:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name

The name Harry on Lee Kuan Yew should be in bold. Although he did not use it officially nowadays, but his birth certificate states as Harry Lee Kuan Yew, thus it should be bracketed, yet bold. Unless you link the page to me yourself.

Tan 23:24, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

What is bolded is the name given in the article title; additions (such as titles and alternative or additional names) are not part of the bolding. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Give me the link first to the policy page.

Tan 00:33, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

Just look at other pages. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where? I want the link, please? Otherwise I will treat it as vandalism not giving for proper definition if you revert again. Tan 01:22, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

I must concur with Mel Etitis on this one. Your interpretation of the bolding style rule is incorrect, and your last edit resulted in a sentence which makes no sense to me, a native English speaker. Kelly Martin 17:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

He did not show the policy page that this is not allowed! Tan

That's not his job. He explained his edit - you should familiarise yourself with the style conventions if you intend to challenge them. It's not hard to look it up. I'm reverting it now. --khaosworks 17:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan has reverted this four times in the last 24 hours; I've reported that at the 3RR page; could you revert his change, as I'm out of reverts myself? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, don't do that. He did not give proper explanations in the first place. Also, he is lying at my first revert. See [[4]]

Tan 01:47, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I'm not going to do the revert myself as I'm doing RC patrol at the moment and I prefer not to do content reverts while doing vandalism reverts. I'm sure someone else will come along and attend to it soon enough.

To Mr Tan: Mel's edits are not vandalism; what you have here is a content dispute and, by definition, a content dispute is not vandalism. Please refrain from referring to good-faith edits as 'vandalism'. Kelly Martin 17:54, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

That's OK — in fact Khaosworks has done it now (and cleared up an obscure passage into the bargain). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of pages where more than the article title itself is bolded, see Paul McCartney, Bill Clinton. The logical rule seems to be to bold the persons full name(s). Zocky 18:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that there are differences between those examples and this. Neither of them, for example, has part of the name in brackets. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably this one shouldn't either. It's just like with James Paul McCartney. His full name has a first part that he doesn't use. So, if there's a particualr need to distinguish his full name from the one his mostly known under, we can use "Harry Lee Kuan Yew, more commonly known as Lee Kuan Yew..." or "Lee Kuan Yew (born Harry Lee Kuan Yew..." Zocky 18:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that it's not clear what the status of the "Harry" is. The text claims that it was given to him by his grandfather, which suggests that it was at best a nickname. there's no indication that it was used by anyone aside from his grandfather. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's plenty of hits on google for "Harry Lee Kuan Yew" [5] and a cursory reading of some of them shows that he is indeed (also) known by this name. [6] uses him to explain how Westernised asian names are used. We could leave it like I did it, or maybe do something like what's done on Bruce Lee - explain the name(s) lower on the page. Zocky 18:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's true enough — though it still doesn't explain what its status is. Is it a nickname or his actual name? It seems to me that the previous state of the article (mentioning the "Harry" in the text) was clear and sufficient. Mr Tan has suddenly decided to add it to his name in the summary, though in brackets, and the result is confusion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Harry) Lee Kuan Yew

Lee was born registered as "Harry Lee Kuan Yew". I know and have stated that he is officially known as Lee Kuan Yew, but the fact that only use "Lee Kuan Yew" in his speeches should not ne excluded.

Tan 17:11, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citations, please. He signs off as Lee Kuan Yew, he is overwhelming referred to in journalistic reports as Lee Kuan Yew, his autobiography is authored by Lee Kuan Yew - for all intents and purposes, he never uses the name except when informally addressed by friends. --khaosworks 12:01, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr Chua and Mel, I do agree with what you say. He is addressed as "Lee Kuan Yew" in the news reports, and that is why I wrote it as "formally addressed as Lee Kuan Yew". I have evidenced for the fact that he was born as "Harry Lee Kuan Yew".

I'm sorry, but I found the origin of his name is his official biography, so I cannot provide you with any Internet websites, and the official bography is the citation. The book in Chinese is, in English translation (I cannot type it out in Chinese for I have just repaired my computer and yet to retrieve my Chinese Star software)

Lee Kuan Yew--recollections, 1923-1965.

Thanks. Any objections in reverting to the old style?

Tan 21:22, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

The way it now is neutral between "Harry" being an official name that isn't much used and being a nickname used on occasion; why don't we leave it until a citation can be given one way or the other? For most of the time that you've been editing this article it's not only been placed after his full name, but in brackets, so it can't be that urgent that it be placed in front of his name, unbracketed, and bolded. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition, even if he was born "Harry", that's not the name he uses most often and formally now, so at best it should read "Lee Kuan Yew, (born Harry Lee Kuan Yew)" or something similar, i.e. the formal name being given prominence. --khaosworks 13:37, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

See how the Malays and westerners address themselves first. For example, Fred Korematsu, in bold is addressed as Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu, so the full name should be at the beginning of the article, while his formal styling comes next.

Tan 23:36, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

That's not the same. When Fred Korematsu refers to himself like that it is plainly not a formal usage, but a contraction of his full name. In contrast, when Lee Kuan Yew refers to himself as Lee Kuan Yew, it is not a contraction of Harry Lee - he fully intends it to be his official name. --khaosworks 15:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that he has corrected his name? Tan 23:56, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

You will also note that in government webpages (example), the Minister Mentor is referred to as simply "Lee Kuan Yew" throughout. --khaosworks 16:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

1. At the moment, at least, you are alone in wanting your version. To replace it with an edit summary that refers to the Talk page is thus not acceptable. You haven't yet supplied evidence that "Harry" is his real name rather than a nickname.
2. Even if 1. weren't the case, you reverted a large number of my edits that corrected your English; that's not only unacceptable, it's simple vandalism. It's difficult if not impossible to think of a good-faith reason for you to do so. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you didn't say that you corrected the grammar. I'm targeting at the name, so I reverted everything in the process. My version? Go and check his official Chinese biography. I have already done the best that I can, but I'm afraid that I cannot type the name out in Chinese. Lee himself acknowledged that Harry is his real name.

Tan 00:14, 5 June 2005 (UTC)

Again, you miss the point. Harry Lee may be his real name, but it's certainly not the name he uses formally, and thus should not be the name that is given prominence. --khaosworks 16:25, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

This applies to George W. Bush, whose name is George Walker Bush! Lee must have the idea of using Lee Kuan Yew, just like leaving out a portion of their full name into official use, and in news Bush is addressed as "George W. Bush" rather than his full name "George Walker Bush". However, it is not common among the Chinese people, so you may be a bit astonished. Do you get my point? If agreed, I go back to the old style.

Mr Tan 11:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Î

No, I don't get your point. Explain more clearly. --khaosworks 12:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm also unclear (and the use of initials is surely irrelevant to the present point). I'm also unsure what Mr Tan means by "real name" in this context, and how this fits with what the text says about "Harry" being given to him by his grandfather. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that by "real name" he is suggesting that Harry Lee Kuan Yew is the name on Lee's birth certificate. I do not know whether this is the case or not, but that does not preclude it being suggested by his grandfather (my own Chinese name on my birth certificate was my grandfather's contribution, for example). --khaosworks 14:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

So what Tan actually means is that "Harry" was suggested by his grandfather, and that the suggestion was adopted by his parents. We still need some confirmation of this, though (not only of the basic fact, but also of the ordering on the birth certificate). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I want to highlight that the birth name should be used in the very first part of the article. Even though Lee may be only using "Lee Kuan Yew" formally, that does not mean that he has changed his birth name, for I don't see anywhere else he has dropped of the "Harry", thus his full name should still be "Harry Lee Kuan Yew". So, "Harry Lee Kuan Yew" should be in the first part of the article, and "Lee Kuan Yew" should be mentioned as "formally styled as". The current version of the article, however, states that he is not only known as "Lee Kuan Yew" but also as "Harry Lee Kuan Yew", which should not be the case.

Mr Tan 15:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't changed my birth name, but I would be annoyed if someone insisted on referring to me as "Chua Seng Leng Terence" instead of the less unweildy "Terence Chua" outside of official documentation that needs to duplicate my birth certificate/IC/passport (where I have no choice). Again, he is referred to as Lee Kuan Yew in all government texts, so it is the formal name that is most used. You are quite alone in this, Tan. Please accept consensus. --khaosworks 15:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

There is another point where Mel Etitis is wrong. In his biography, he stated that all his siblings, except Suan Yew, had western names. However, I have just got a quote from his biography, stating that

"When my youngest brother "Suan Yew" was born, I told my parents not to give him a Western name, because we are not Christians. After consideration, my parents heeded for my advice..."

Mr Tan 15:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)User:Mr Tan

But what we want is the fact, not consensus. If there are people like this, wikipedia will be full of mistakes.

Otherwise I have an alternative. Change "sometimes known as" to "born Harry Lee Kuan Yew". Any opinion?

Mr Tan 15:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)User:Mr Tan

Wait. Mr Chua, did you say " formal name"? Formal name does not mean full name. So long I have stated "Formally addressed as" I believe that this should get your point, for it stress the point that "Lee Kuan Yew" is always used. And that is what I want in this very article itself. Anymore opinion?

Mr Tan 15:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tan

We're not arguing about whether he is named Harry Lee or not. I accept that he has been called Harry Lee - that's well known. The question is which is to be given prominence, and consensus seems to be that the name most used is to be given prominence. That is how the article is worded at the moment. --khaosworks 15:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, no, you are wrong again. He is not called "harry Lee", just "Lee Kuan Yew", in terms of official news reports, government reports, etc (excluding birth certificate). Didn't my version stresses on his prominence of his formally styled name, at the same time stressed that he is in actual fact "Harry Lee Kuan Yew"? So what's the big fuss?

Mr Tan 16:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) User:Mr Tan

That was what I was saying: he's called "Lee Kuan Yew" formally. He is also called Harry Lee informally. Both are his names. Your version puts Harry Lee Kuan Yew at the top of the article. The current version is the other way around. We should place the formal address first. --khaosworks 16:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You said that informally means that Harry is merely his nickname. That is not true, however. Like the westerners, they have also such a similar name system like Lee. Let me show a table to explain more clearly:

• Harry Lee Kuan Yew=Ronald Wilson Reagan
• Lee Kuan Yew=Ronald Reagan.

Looking at the table, we can see that the "Wilson" is ommitted, that applies to "Harry", for Ronald Wilson Reagan is formally addressed as Ronald Reagan. The same applies to Lee Kuan Yew. And I want the style exactly like Ronald Reagan, the titile of the page "Lee Kuan Yew", but his full name "Harry Lee Kuan Yew" in bold. That is what I mean.

Mr Tan 03:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)User:Mr Tan

Well, you're not going to get it, because as I have tried to explain time and time again, irrespective of whether his full name is Harry Lee Kuan Yew or not, the fact that Lee Kuan Yew is the formal name used most often and in official documents and correspondence means that it should be given prominence and Harry Lee (in bold, as you will note) be given secondary status. --khaosworks 04:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Why? In all other articles, the full name is written in bold with primary status. This is making the article as an odd one out, making it strange. I have already explained that Lee Kuan Yew is his formally adressing style, and this goes exactly to Ronald Reagan, but it has no mention in that article itself. I do not totally believe in consensus, but rather with the style with most of the other articles. Opinions? Or I assume that everyone have made themselves understood.

User:Mr TanMr Tan 06:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're either deliberately refusing to understand or are incapable of understanding, and I can see why JM Bell washed his hands of you - I will do the same. --khaosworks 12:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

For some reason you've started to use a peculiar tactic. let's get this straight: the argument isn't won by the last person to write a comment. It is not acceptable for you to assume that you can do what you like just because no-one has replied to you within a certain time (all too oftem you insist on answers within an hour or so). If you don't like the principle of consensus, why not find another project, one that works in a way that you do like? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't work well all the time, in fact it can make matters sometimes worse. You want me to call down a hundred people to this article for a consensus? Three to four people involved in a consensus? How about the rest of the people?

Just get to Ronald Reagan and see the structure of the article--that is what I want, working on sensible real-world laws, the law of the nature--that is better.

TanMr Tan 12:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems that there are no more comments--I assume that everyone have made this understood, and I making the appropriate changes. Please feel free to post any doubts in my talk page or here if you still have any disagreements.

TanMr Tan 14:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just look up to my last comment. That no-one has replied to your latest comment for a couple of hours does not mean that your views have been accepted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the simple fact of the matter is, I'm no longer replying because it's obvious you're not understanding or refusing to, so there's no longer any real point in discussing it. Your view is not accepted as consensus, simple as that. Continuing to whine about it won't help. --khaosworks 14:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

What you want me to do? You still do not get the point, and I want to reach an agreement. I have already explained; and I can't whine for I'm not a dog. You are the one not understanding, for you did not accept the Ronald Reagan issue in the first place. I'm not going to look at the consensus, for only three of us are involved. I hold out for three days, and if by that time there is no opinion, I will do the appropriate edit.

TanMr Tan 14:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But you are whining — interminably. We don't always get our own ways; you need to learn to live with that. I've often found that I'm out-voted on articles, and that changes I want to make can't be made. Go and do something else. There is an opinion, it's just that you don't like it. If you make this edit despite no-one else here agreeing with it, you're just going to find that it's reverted again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not like some of wikipedia rules--nor do I care about your opinion---see what User:Zocky have to say. The edit seems misleading, as he says.

Tan Mr Tan 14:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not you like the rules is immaterial (and you should be grateful to them; they're often all that's standing between you and a permanent block from editing). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't want to reach an agreement. You want us to agree with you. Ronald Reagan is a different case from this article. One more time, is how it works:

The article name, Ronald Reagan, is how he is known generally. Ronald Wilson Reagan is his formal name (i.e. name as used on formal documentation), which happens to be his full name.

The article name, Lee Kuan Yew, is how he is known generally. Lee Kuan Yew is his formal name (i.e. name as used on formal documentation), which does not happen to be his full name.

The article should place the formal name first. And any other known names second. --khaosworks 15:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have read the message. I'm not throwing tantrums; just asking Zocky to come over to analyse the problem. For this dispute, other users are welcome, this dispute is permanently on (at least not in the case of you two, User:Khaosworks and User:Mel Etitis). For me, I agree to the point of "formally styled as", so everybody is strongly to post their views or vote. No interruptions, please, especially Mel, if the discussion remains just as stagnant.

Mr Tan 15:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you show me a policy or semi-policy page stating to support your claims? If that is the case, I apologise for all trouble and mishaps, but I don't want doubts to be floating in my mind. If consensus is excluded, there should be no reason for me to revert, but I have to follow the law.

User:Mr TanMr Tan 15:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "consensus is excluded"? It does not seem to make sense in the context of the conversation. What claim do you want support of? Be specific. --khaosworks 15:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is do you have any policy/semi-policy to back your claims that the fomal name be placed first, rather than the full name? Or the reverse?

Mr Tan 16:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Non-European and non-Western (names and titles): "Apply Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules cover a specific problem." --khaosworks 16:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and please give me some time to sort things out.

Mr Tan 16:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This point maybe the answer to the dispute from the link you stated above (I'm sleepy and a bit confused now, sorry):

In East Asian names, look at common English usage to decide whether the western first-name last-name or the eastern last-name first-name order should be used. As a rule of thumb, Japanese names should usually be given in the western, Chinese names in the eastern order. A redirect from whatever order is not used, is almost always a good idea. Again, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles).

Mr Tan 16:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed something, but if I had written the intro, knowing what I know from the above discussion, I would have written, "Harry Lee Kuan Yew, usually known as Lee Kuan Yew..." and so on. I believe this would conform perfectly well to the wikipedia conventions. Deb 16:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree, but my style is, Harry Lee Kuan Yew (...), formally addressed as Lee Kuan Yew stresses the point that in the news, government papers, he is addressed as Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Tan 16:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is partly that Mr Tan suddenly changed the summary without explanation, and getting any sort of information about it was a long, painful, drawn-out process, which has doubtless played a rôle in solidifying positions. But there's also the problem that the only reason we have to accept that "Harry" is part of his real name, on his birth-certificate, is Mr Tan's claim — and he's too often proved to be inaccurate in his claims for us to just swallow what he says. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with those who say that Mr. Tan has to prove that "Harry" is indeed part of his full name, and not just a nick-name. That said, I don't see how Harry Lee Kuan Yew is any different from Anthony Charles Lynton Blair or James Earl Carter, Jr.. Our policy is normally to give the full name first, not the "formal name," whatever the hell that is. But before I would support a change, Mr. Tan is going to have to provide a source for his claim that Harry is, indeed, a part of his full name, rather than a nickname. john k 17:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See his biograhies:

• The Singapore Story (ISBN 0130208035)
• 李光耀 hui yi lu: 1923-1965. (I haven't install my Chinese software, sorry!)

You can find the sources there, and see that Harry is his real name.

Mr Tan 03:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does it say that it is on his birth certificate? --khaosworks 04:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Then why his brothers (except Suan Yew), and his sister have western names, see "When my youngest brother "Suan Yew" was born, I told my parents not to give him a Western name, because we are not Christians. After consideration, my parents heeded for my advice...", or just check his biography--there are a lot of biographies, English and Chinese alike, stating about his early life--I have stated two of them already.

Mr Tan 05:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not really answering my question, though. --khaosworks 19:16, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

From a different perspective, I feel it is very inappropriate to start off the article with "Harry Lee ......". His grandfather gave him the English name "Harry" way back in 1920s during the colonial time hoping this would help him better associate with the British ruling class. Then came world war II; Lee became anti-colonial, pro-independence and nationalistic. For over fifty years as a public figure, he rejected the use of "Harry" in formal settings to disassociate himself with colonialism. Now, to insist on putting back "Harry" into his name; it is like turning the clock back to the 1920s; this is totally antithesis of what this man represents. As Tan said, Lee even advised against giving his younger brother a western name. Wikipedia is not a birth-registry. Using "Lee Kuan Yew" just makes more sense here. -- Vsion 05:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter rejected his full name of "James Earl Carter," to the extent of having "Jimmy Carter" appear on the ballots in elections he was running in. Presidents Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge also completely eschewed use of their actual first names (Stephen, Thomas, and John). The motives for this are obviously different, but if Harry is actually part of his name, I don't see as the basic issue at hand is any different. john k 19:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But Vsion surely has a good point. While it wouldn't be grounds not to mention "Harry" at all, it's odd to open the article by naming him in a way that he rejected. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By a complete coincidence, talk in the Common Room turned to Lee Kuan Yew yesterday after lunch (sparked by a discussion between an orientalist and an economist), and I took the opportunity to ask about the name. There was no certainty, though both believed that it wasn't actually on Lee's birth certificate, and that he only started using it at Cambridge in order to fit in, dropping it with distaste later. The orientalist is going to check the copies of Lee's books – which are in the Oriental Institute library here – and let me know what he finds. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Get to the point here: May I know who did you ask? The orientalist or the economist? And also, how can you assume that he rejected the "Harry"? Can you please provide citations concerning this claim? To further stress the point here from Vsion: "he rejected the use of "Harry" in formal settings to disassociate himself with colonialism.", rejecting the use of Harry in formal settings does not amount to the fact that he has totally dropped off his name in his identity card. Unless somebody can provide a piece of solid evidence that his name is "Lee Kuan Yew" and no longer "Harry Lee Kuan Yew", I do not see why the Harry should not be mentioned at the very start of the article.

Mr Tan 09:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no objections in his name for the past 12 hours or so, so I'm putting it as Harry Lee Kuan Yew. Please post all objections in this very talk page itself.

Mr Tan 04:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you that silence does not equate assent? Wait for Mel's colleagues to come back with one answer or another. --khaosworks 04:38, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh..Allright. Apologies. He is on the net the whole night, yet no reply. Neverr mind about that. But what if the silence is going to drag on for a month?

Mr Tan 05:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing in your message that warranted response. You started with an aggressive but completely obscure "Get to the point here", went on to ask a pointless question which had already been answered in what I'd said before, and then demanded a citation when I'd just said that my colleague was going to check for me. Your poor manners only get worse. I'm interested that, when on User talk:SlimVirgin I referred to this habit of demanding answers and then pretending that a lack of response meant that everyone agrees with you, you claimed to have "turned over a new leaf". I now wonder what you think that phrase means. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am very sorry if you feel that my attitude is rude, but to me, I feel that my attitude is assertive, rather than aggressive. Anyway, I have seen your point. I would be also be very happy if you can let me know the name of the orientalist that you are refering to, and the location of the "Oriental Library" that you are refering to.

Mr Tan 13:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's the Oriental Institute library here in Oxford. I'll ask my colleague if he objects to having his name posted here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This case, for the time being, shall rest. I shall see to your response in the near-future.

Mr Tan 14:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er....I entered the conversation too late, but I must say I agree that "Harry" dosent have a place in this page title in particular, and I would only barely agree to it being mentioned as part of his full name. I would like to point out that name changes do occur to people officially, and yes, the name on my birth certiciate is "slightly" different from the one on my IC now, because it has an English name included! :D Do Lee Kuan Yew still have the word "Harry" in his current official full name now? I strongly doubt so.--Huaiwei 14:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I see that your message has little or no relation to the conversation. Wait for Mel Etitis' response first.

Mr Tan 14:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan is, of course, wrong; your comment is relevant to the discussion, and your question is important. Thanks for joining in. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A portion of it; at least. Never mind; I just hope that you can give us a comment as soon as possible from your colleagues. Good luck.

Mr Tan 16:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see where Mel has given a reply concerning Mel; but I have posted a message to him already.

Mr Tan 15:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a little over three days since I mentioned this — with a weekend in between. As you've given no evidence for your desired edit, there's no great rush. Wait until I go into College and see my colleague. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proceed to [7] and [8] for the "Harry". Discussion needed.

Mr Tan 03:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan has simply directed you to his talk page when my intent was that he transfer the conversation here. In the interests of keeping everything neatly on this page, let me paste the relevant extracts here:

Check the book: 李光耀回忆录：1923－1965 for more information. In the book, note this sentence from the book: 我出世的时候, 家里.... 但是, 祖父出于对英国人的仰慕, 给我多加了一个洋名 Harry. 于是我的全名 变成 "Harry Lee Kuan Yew". Lee stated this, and he must have a birth certificate. Since he stated that this is the "full name", a full name is always stated in the birth cert. I believe that your "Terence" must be included in the birth cert? I suppose? He must have the same case as you.

Mr Tan 03:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The passage he quotes can be translated as: "When I was born, in the family... But, grandfather because he admired the English people, gave me an additional Western name Harry. Thus, my full name became 'Harry Lee Kuan Yew'." My reply:

As I said, put it up on Talk:Lee Kuan Yew. While I can see that "chuen ming" is "full name", a "full name" does not necessarily mean it must be on the birth certificate. My first name is, but that's because my parents registered it - I have many friends whose "full names" include a Christian name but the same are not on their birth certificate.

That being said, the passage is still suggestive, and if you can track down the English version, it would go a long way towards verifying your claim. The title of his English memoir is The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. If you find the English version, quote it, and tell us which page it is on. I say again, put this up on Talk:Lee Kuan Yew so the others can see it. --khaosworks 03:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

If someone has access to a copy of the English version of the memoir, perhaps they can find the relevant page - Mr Tan says it is in the first chapter - so that it can be verified. --khaosworks 04:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I marched up to my bookshelf, and quote from page 28 (chapter 2):

"But my grandfather's admiration for the British made him add "Harry" to my name, so I was Harry Lee Kuan Yew. My two younger brothers, Kim Yew and Thiam Yew, were also giben Christian names - Dennis and Freddy respectively. At that time few non-Christian Chinese did this, and at school later I was to find myself the odd boy out with a personal name like "Harry". When my youngest brother, Suan Yew, was born in 1933, I persuaded my parents not to give him a Christian name since we were not Christians."

Not much, but as I said before, it is not of major concern whether "Harry" was his birth name or not. The fact is the book is copyrighted to Lee Kuan Yew, not Harry Lee Kuan Yew. Tells us alot, dosent it?--Huaiwei 04:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about 于是我的全名 变成 "Harry Lee Kuan Yew"? Of course, how about Jimmy Carter? Jimmy Carter full name is "James Earl Carter, Jr.". And the full name is addressed at the start of the page.

"Lee Kuan Yew" is his formal styling, but did he ever say that is his full name or he has changed his name? Yes, he is addressed as "Lee Kuan Yew" in all official documents, but that does not amount to him changing his name. If he doesn't, then his full name should still be "Harry Lee Kuan Yew". So, like Jimmy Carter, the Harry should be included for the convinence of the reference of the general public. Opinions?

Mr Tan 06:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have waited for days but I have yet to receive a response. If people disagree that "Harry lee Kuan Yew" is his full name, why is there a phrase which put him as "He is also known as Harry Lee Kuan Yew."? What the meaning of this? If this is so, you might as well put up "Harry Lee Kuan Yew" instead. Mr Tan 05:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also known as doesn't mean that it is his full name - it simply means he is also known as that. I am still unconvinced that Harry Lee is his birth certificate name; and in any case, it is still something that he no longer users. My view is that the paragraph reads fine as it is. It is neutral as to whether the name is his birth name or not, it emphasises rightly that "Lee Kuan Yew" is the name he primarily uses, and it mentions that he is also known as Harry. It covers all the bases and does not need revision. --khaosworks 05:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

While I have scanned between the English and Chinese versions of is biographies, the Chinese biography acknowledges that "Harry lee Kuan Yew" is his full name but not the English. It is because that he neither officially announced that he changed his name, or merely that he does not want to use the "Harry", makes us into such a jumbled-up state.

To conclude the matter, I would suggest that something be written as "born Harry Lee Kuan Yew" since you say that he no longer uses his name. I have tried that, but Mel reverted it. Opinions? Mr Tan 05:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have already stated my view. We don't know for sure he was born Lee Kuan Yew. So the current version is vague enough to cover that. --khaosworks 10:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have already stated how he got his "Harry" in the article itself. However, the Harry could merely be a nickname.

However, I also have doubts to my last sentence that it is a nickname. In his biography, I noticed that Lee was awkward for having "Harry" in his name for he is not a Christian. Opinions? Mr Tan 11:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not "Harry Lee Kuan Yew". He (1) no longer refers to himself as Harry Lee Kuan Yew, because he specifically states that he does not like to refer to himself with a Western name when he is an Asian; (2) it may be in his British birth certificate, but he is no longer a British citizen.

His Western name is used informally between close friends, but never in public. This does not mean that his full name is Harry Lee Kuan Yew. Mandel 08:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

By Mel Etitis

khaosworks has it right here. I'm still waiting to hear from my colleague. The world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia, and a wait of a few days won't hurt anyone. I've had to wait much longer than this when I've e-mailed people for information. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I managed to do a search as well, and found it in his biography. Unable to cite the URL, but it was said that he abandoned his Anglicized "Harry Lee" for his original and native Chinese name. That's great!

MOnophiliac: Seriously speaking though, its amazing how we can actually have this debate about not our name, but Mr. Lee's. Considering the fact that the name "Lee Kwan Yew" has been used more often in the media and almost every where else, it should be the formal name. His other name "Harry" was most probably a personal family name, so we ought to let him keep it for his own personal use. Afterall, its not everyday you hear him introducing himself, or being introduced as, Harry Lee Kwan Yew.

Copyedit

The latest additions have introduced so much poor English into the article that it needs a thorough overhaul; I'll do it when I can, but I've placed the "copyedit" tag to alert memners of the copy-editing team (in case they can find time before me). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But I have only contributed two or three paragraphs of information! Anyway, I have tried copyediting on my new information, so, if you see no more mistakes, I will suggested that the tag be removed. Thanks.

Mr Tan 11:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've succeeded only in adding more mistakes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then, please, explain why and help me do the appropriate ammendments. I really want to learn and know why. Thanks.

Mr Tan 13:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I've long come to the conclusion that you're unteachable. However, I've copy-edited the article. There may be more to be done; I didn't have time to do a thorough job. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Become a Featured Article candidate?

This article already has a size of 34kb, and it is already considered a very informative article, thus having the potential to become a featured article.

If anybody wish, I would be happy to work with him/her to make Lee Kuan Yew as the first Singapore-related featured article, but more information and some copyediting is needed first.

People who are interested may list their names below to be a participant of working on Lee Kuan Yew.

Thanks.

Mr Tan 12:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not a chance; the article has to be stable... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very true... but I need more people to provide more information first....please. Mr Tan 16:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some sections, particularly the ones at the end, are a bit too short. Johnleemk | Talk 15:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Several spelling mistakes and sentence phrasing

I have found several spelling mistakes and have corrected them, such as Administration not adminstration. Some sentences were also reconstructed. --Tohlz 18:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I've just noticed the edit war, with various editors defending the article against an anon vandal. I've protected the article for the moment, in the hope that whoever it is will go away. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I doubt they will. It's not just this article; they create articles with spurious attack names that redirect or duplicate the edits they make here, or vandalise other articles by substituting the same edits. They've been doing this for quite some time now, and they vandalise the user pages of those that block them. I'm actually toying with the idea of range blocking the entire iPrimus Australian ISP and/or informing the ISP to see if that gets anybody's attention. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's amazing how many sad little people with no lives there are. I suppose that we should feel sympathy for them, but it's difficult when they're being so irritating and destructive. You might raise it at AN to get some advice about the best course. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

They aint gone away yet. Today they created Li Kuan Yew to try and get round the protection. Incidentally, if finding a job for ones "nephew" is nepotism, then could finding a job for ones father be called patriotism? -- RHaworth 12:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If so, then finding a job for one's mother would be materialism. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh-emm-jee, this is really international vandalism: my whois search indicates that some of the vandals are on iPrimus, Optus and Telestra (Australia), Cox Communications (Atlanta, U.S.), and some from Amsterdam, the Netherlands (I like that bit about the names). Figured some of them got wind from an IRC channel and decided to have a ball with this. --Bash 00:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

When will this article be unlocked? Is it safe now? Mandel 20:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected it, to test the waters. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

References

This article needs references (see WP:CITE) to back it up, or else it will fail dreadfully in peer review and FAC. LKY's autobigoraphy would be a good start. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Harry is official name

The book Who's Whi in Singapore talks about notable people in Singapore. Like his brothers Freedy, Dennis, Lee's name is stated as Lee Kuan Yew, Harry and not Lee Kuan Yew alone, just like his brother Lee Kim Yew, Dennis. It is thus justified that his name Harry is not merely a nickname, although he never use it in official settings. I hope that the edit on his name Harry is his official name can be allowed the green light, or please state your objections otherwise. Thanks. Mr Tan 12:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is the publisher of that book?--Huaiwei 17:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Who's Who Publications. Edited by Low. His name is Ker Thiang, if Im'm not mistaken. You may find a few copies at the Woodlands Regional Library, Reference section. Mr Tan 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't usually go to the libraries. Maybe I will try the library at Victoria Street, since it has a 7 storey reference library. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Harry" is an official name, but Lee Kuan Yew was (and still is) very anti-British and refused to use his English name (although his father is pro-British). This can be seen from his biography. That is also the reason why Lee Hsien Loong and Co. don't have English names. --Terrancommander 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

This article has only be edited for vandalism or reverting it. Should we semi protect the page to ban anons and new users from editing, like what its done to the George W Bush article. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Semi-protection is only for serious vandalism and is temporary in nature. The vandalism level here appears to be quite manageable to me. Dubya, on the other hand, has about 70% of all edits made to it consisting of either vandalism or reversion of vandalism. Johnleemk | Talk 03:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvements

The article is not too bad now, but we really need to improve this article. More information, about career, pre self government and the early years. This should be on the Singapore COTF. A good one to improve, since its FAC worthy. --Terence Ong 10:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will support the COTF and contribute. We could use Tony Blair or some other politicians FA articles as guides on how to organize this article. --Vsion 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)