# data[].attributes.body
3 Things to Know About Tomorrow's Business Leaders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today's young business leaders are poised to outperform their more established counterparts - and that's not just the usual energy and naivety of youth talking.

Today's young leaders are emerging at a time when forces have converged to broaden people's expectations of business. This generation contains some of the savviest and most connected consumers in history. Many of them have seen their parents work in, and potentially be let go from, uninspiring business environments. They've grown up in an era when corporate scandal was frequent and corporate responsibility became a department.

On the other hand, they've also seen the extraordinary rise of social enterprises and start-ups that answer the question: "What problem are we trying to solve?" long before they ask: "What's the next big money maker?"

And now they're setting the bar higher.

Don't get me wrong. Up-and-coming leaders need and love profitability just as much as their predecessors, but they're savvy enough to see profit as the end, not the means. The big differentiator will be that successful leaders of the future will tap into the extraordinary value and competitive advantage that comes when their companies' missions - their core reasons for being - draw others in. They will hard-wire their operations to work effectively with others across society to deliver those missions and leverage resources in entirely new ways - and outperform the market as a result.

Here's what the new generation of CEOs will do differently.

Young leaders know why they're in business in the first place

For the next generation of game-changers, the payday (and what a payday it will be) grows out of setting ambitious missions that people actually care about. It seems so obvious, doesn't it? After all, a mission statement is your most important declaration to the world about why your business even exists. But take a look at most company missions and you'll find things like relevance and purpose woefully lacking.

Here are three red flags to look out for:

Uninspired mission statements are chronically narcissistic. This business of "we're going to be the #1" or "the industry leader" raises exactly one question: besides shareholders, who cares? Many up-and-coming leaders are starting to better understand that if consumers, employees, communities and even governments don't care about their company's mission, they'll be in dire straits fairly quickly.

Uninspired mission statements focus on the business model. A business model is not a mission and it never will be. Worse yet, elevating the business model to the level of mission makes a company far less capable of pivoting when market changes demand that their model evolves. Our future CEOs have grown up in an environment where the most agile businesses have been best at weathering storms.

Uninspired mission statements talk about how a company will behave. I'm reminded of a retail chain that seeks to "please customers and treat employees well". Since when did the bare minimum of behaviour constitute a mission?

Successful leaders of the future will understand the bigger picture. They will recognize the interplay between society's most pressing issues and the ability of their industries and companies to simultaneously solve those issues and thrive. They will recognize that major problems, left unchecked, will eventually block their business objectives.

Think about it. Nike won't survive if the world continues to become less physically active. Neither will ESPN. Banks lose relevance if the majority of a population can barely afford everyday expenses. An energy company doesn't stand a chance if it runs out of product. The theory holds true for pretty much any company of any size in any industry.

Put simply, future leaders will embrace missions that are visionary and describe what their companies will deliver to the world. And those missions will matter to a much larger group than just shareholders.

Young leaders see untapped value that's there for the taking

By now our new mainstream corporate heroes are solving massive problems during the course of daily business. This has huge implications.

First, they'll need to learn how to play really well with others. Corporations are famous for creating and then operating inside safe and controlled corporate bubbles. The new vanguard is about to burst that bubble. Truly ambitious missions require other people's participation - governments, non-profits, academics, to name just a few. Future leaders will need to define new ways to work with these groups more authentically and systemically than typical efforts seen today. If they get this right, our young leaders will start to experience a level of broad-based support from unlikely actors who actually want their companies to win. It will create a tailwind experienced by very few in the corporate sector so far, and illuminate the ridiculous amount of untapped value being left on the table today.

When a more broadly supported corporate mission is delivered authentically and consistently, companies can realize surprising cost savings and fewer barriers to business. The PR crises, risk-mitigation headaches, employee-retention or productivity issues that drain valuable dollars - they can all dissipate dramatically, freeing up resources for innovation and more strategic reinvestment. Imagine an employee base so proud of what they are working towards that they consistently over-deliver with great products, services and efficiency savings. If your own employees or others want you to win because you stand for something worth fighting for, they'll do whatever they can to help you.

Finally, missions that create shared purpose expand available market opportunity. Driving towards a mission that means something (and delivering on it) inherently expands the size of the pie versus an exhaustive and expensive effort to expand the size of an arbitrary slice. Because these companies are fundamentally solving a bigger problem, there's a bigger portion of the population to innovate for and a broader base of business opportunities to expand into legitimately over time.

There are some established companies we can look to for inspiration. Take Google, for example. Its mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". Democratizing access to information everywhere? That's world-changing. And it shows up in a ton of different ways, from emergency alerts that are the product of government partnerships to a re-imagined ISP experience (currently being tested in a few US cities) that provides connection speeds that are faster, cheaper and more reliable than anything people have experienced before. In an industry fraught with political challenges and sensitivities, Google is finding new ways to work across sectors. The result is expanded market opportunity and a roster of essential and valuable new supporters.

Indeed, those who lead the way will have big challenges pioneering how to get things done across the traditionally well-defined tri-sector territories. But they'll also be poised to extract significant business value (and profitability) that has been left on the table for a very long time.

Young leaders will stay off the Titanic

The vast majority of businesses currently operate within a system that puts shareholders first and incentivizes quarterly returns over sustainable growth. You could argue that deeply embedded corporate norms and a very powerful establishment will continue to stand in the way of progress, but I don't buy it. We're now talking about a century-old corporate financing legacy system whose time has come and gone. Young leaders don't have to put up with that, and many of the world's bravest CEOs today are already showing the way.

As an example, take a look at Tesla's eight-year, infinite-mile warranty. This was a bold move in a world where three-year, 36,000-mile warranties have long been the norm. Then Tesla did the unthinkable and extended its warranty to existing owners as well. CEO Elon Musk addressed investors and acknowledged the likely negative impact on short-term earnings. And then he went ahead and extended the warranties anyway. That's a clear signal that Tesla puts the interests of its customers and faith in its product ahead of any arbitrary, short-term KPI. It bucks the system in a big way, and it will also pay off far more in the long run.

Today, however, we're seeing new leaders buck the system entirely. They're finding alternate forms of capital, demanding new structures and resisting arbitrary corporate norms that have existed for decades.

I can't wait to see the group of revolutionaries who have the courage to go after missions that are bigger than themselves in the mainstream corporate world. And really, while the next generation may be pre-wired for this, real shifts will occur as the most established leaders of today make this seismic shift. These leaders will chart new territory for sure: resisting the creation of internal corporate bubbles and rewiring organizations for authentic multisector relationships - possible because they will lead business missions that unite, rather than separate.

From what I've seen so far, plenty of young people (and even a few current CEOs) have the guts to take this on. And if that's the sense of entitlement this generation is supposed to have, then I say bring it on.
Have you read?
Author: Lisa MacCallum, Formerly Nike Inc Vice President (2001-2014), currently independent adviser, author, speaker and Young Global Leader. Image: A man walks past a wall painting labelled the "Map of Start-up" at the Google Campus start-up space in the Gangnam district of Seoul, May 8, 2015. REUTERS/Thomas Peter Why start-ups need female founders
10 lessons from a start-up entrepreneur
3 factors that drive leadership success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 things to know about tomorrow's business leaders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a not-for-profit foundation in 1971, and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the Forum is tied to no political, partisan or national interests.

# data[].attributes.body
12 Fictional Characters Leaders can Learn from

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 fictional characters that leaders can learn from - Real Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Movies, TV programs and books have played a part in our lives for decades. So, from Darth Vader and Walter White to Iron Man and James T. Kirk, here are 12 fictional characters from which every leader can learn valuable lessons from.

# data[].attributes.body
15 Tips for Instilling Leadership Skills in Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Entrepreneur and Connector

6 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Many leaders also serve as parents, happily balancing a daily workload with ball games and family dinners. Along the way, most of these leader-parents also realize the influence they have over young minds. Today's children are tomorrow's leaders, especially if those children have parents who are leaders.

While leadership skills can come naturally, children learn lessons along the way that significantly impacts them later in life. The right words at the right time can make all the difference.

Here are 15 great tips to help you instill the right skills in the future leaders in your life.

1. Set a good example.

As a leader, you realize the importance of setting a good example for your team. This is even truer of your role as a parent. By allowing your children to see how well you balance your business and personal roles, you'll teach them accountability through effective leadership.

2. Encourage team activities.

Early on, identify your children's interests and encourage their participation in group activities. Whether it's joining a scouting troop, participating in sports or joining the school band, children learn valuable lessons about teamwork through these activities.
Related: To Raise a Well-Adjusted Adult, Teach Your Kid Early About the Value of Reputation
3. Emphasize perseverance.

The best leaders learn to handle failure as gracefully as they handle success. It's important to expose future leaders to disappointment rather than protecting them from it. Children need to learn to handle the loss and move forward when the other team wins or someone else is elected class president.

4. Build negotiation skills.

Every good leader knows the art of compromise. Instead of giving your children a firm "yes" or "no" to a request, make an offer and allow them to counter that offer by offering solid points. Teach them negotiation skills like never giving up something without asking for something else in return.

5. Hone decision-making abilities.

Children should learn how to make good decisions as early in life as possible. Because children become overwhelmed by too many choices, narrow down the options to two or three, whether a child is deciding on afternoon activities or a movie to watch. My wife Kristy says "Teach your children to weigh the pros and cons of each option in order to make the most informed decision possible. This will help them to make correct decisions in everyday life."

6. Practice confident communication.

When you go to a restaurant, do you place orders for your children? You can actually turn a simple dinner into a confidence-building exercise by having your children speak directly to servers. Allowing them to order and speak directly to servers will help them gain confidence in themselves and be able to communicate what they need.

7. Encourage work.

Often children are eager to begin working in some capacity. If your child wants to set up a lemonade stand, support them and encourage it. Once your children are old enough, they can take on work opportunities like babysitting and mowing neighborhood yards, provided you live in a safe neighborhood. These early jobs can be essential to building leadership skills in children.
Related: How to Raise Entrepreneurial Kids
8. Enroll in summer camp.

Summer camp is filled with opportunities to participate in team-building activities. Once youth reach a certain age, they may even be asked to help counselors. While many camps require counselors to be 18, a regular camp attendee may be able to land a spot assisting counselors, where they'll be tasked with leading groups of younger children.

9. Have family game night.

Instead of spending an evening staring at your respective screens, consider an evening of board games instead. A family game night not only provides a unique way to spend time together, it helps children learn to be a good sport, play by the rules, and think strategically.

10. Teach project planning skills.

As a family, you likely have many planned events, from family vacations to visiting relatives. As you prepare, don't leave children out of the planning process. Treat each event as though it were a business project, holding brainstorming sessions and delegating smaller tasks to your young family members.

11. Use vision boards.

One fun way to teach children goal-setting is through the use of vision boards. They'll have fun cutting out pictures and arranging them on a board, and in the process they will learn how to visualize what they want to achieve.

12. Avoid jumping in.

When your child works on a project or activity, it can be tempting to jump in and help, especially if you see your child struggling. Instead, consider stepping back and letting your children work through it themselves. After the fact, you can review the obstacles and challenges that emerged during the task and ask for ideas on how things could have been done differently.

13. Find a mentor.

As great an example as you are to your children, a mentor can be invaluable. A trusted friend or family member can be a great mentor, especially if that person is accomplished in an area in which your child expresses interest. There are also organizations that can supply screened members as mentors.

14. Encourage reading.

Studies have shown the benefits of reading for fun in childhood, with children who read having greater intellectual progress in a variety of subjects. Young readers tend to learn more about the world, even when the reading is of a frivolous nature.

15. Reward optimistic thinking.

The fact that optimism is connected to success should not be lost on your family. Reward optimism, especially when that optimism is connected to attempting to reach a goal.

Financial expert Miranda Marquit teaches that "to teach your children money management you need to allow them to make mistakes. Have them make a list of what they want, then help them to prioritize what on the list is more important and have them save for it." This will teach them valuable lessons that will help them throughout their whole life. It will also help them know what they can and can't afford.

In small ways, today's leaders can prepare younger generations for their future as business leaders. Each of these suggestions will not only create better leaders, but can help children perform better in school and develop better personal relationships throughout life.

Related: Richard Branson on Parenting and Work-Life Balance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 Tips for Instilling Leadership Skills in Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Entrepreneur and Connector 6 min read Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Many leaders also serve as parents, happily balancing a daily workload with ball games and family dinners. Along the way, most of these leader-parents also realize the influence they have over young minds.

# data[].attributes.body
Manage Yourself First

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you can't manage your own life, how can you expect to manage other people? Think about it for a second. Don't all the business management tips you have come across so far pretty much come down to answering that question in one way or another?

How do you go about managing a business project that requires managing the personalities, quirks, character issues and emotional pendulums of others?

Business management is about more than just telling underlings what to do and when to do it. It is about more than asking co-workers to politely get back in the game instead of furtively tweeting away about whatever life event took place the night before. These business management tips essentially boil down to getting you to look at how you manage yourself as a means of learning to manage others.

Time Exploitation

Morning person or night owl? Which type are you? Managing life at 10:30 in the morning may be a breeze for you, while you have trouble remembering if you kissed the kid goodnight or not by 10:30 at night. Take a serious look at how well you manage your life through different periods of the day to get a better understanding of the reality that everybody's biological clock is set to a different time zone. Managing others will become easier and more effective if you make the effort to find out when the people you are counting on to do their best work...do their best work. For instance, if you've got two people who do their best work early in the day and two people who do their best work in the afternoon, project management begins by assigning the introductory elements to the morning people and the secondary elements to those who are just coming into their own after lunch.

Setting Goals

The value of setting goals that are strictly defined cannot be overestimated when it comes to managing a team. Do you set goals for yourself? You're running a business, right? So, yeah, of course you do. If you manage goals for yourself effectively, then you intuitively know that effective management of others is based on ensuring that everybody is aware of the strictly defined overall goal as well as the strictly defined goal for their individual part in the process. If people know the goal and the mission and given the tools to success your success will skyrocket. The key is setting goals for everyone in your organization that are tough but achievable.

Think about the way you manage your personal life. You clearly set goals for yourself, right? When you achieve those goals, you make a point of not rewarding yourself, right? Of course not! Who does that? But what you probably don't do is reward yourself monetarily every time you achieve a goal. Setting rewards for accomplishing strictly defined goals doesn't have to mean actual cash payment. Rewards can range from a new desk chair where all the wheels work, to a day off from work, to tickets for a ballgame. Be creative in organizing your reward system and you will find that managing other people becomes much easier. There is more to life than money. More business owners need to understand this.

You know what? You hate meetings. The people you manage hate meetings. Everybody hates meetings. That is one of the two absolute truths in America. Unfortunately, you can't manage a business of more than one person without holding meetings. What you can do is take a tip from the way you manage your life away from the office. Do you hold a meeting to discuss who will take out the garbage? Do you hold a meeting to discuss what to have for dinner? Maybe, but probably not. The point being that you don't need to call an official meeting when you can just easily provide all the particular information in the form of a report or e-mail or conference call or just, you know, dropping in on people and talking. People pay more attention to their e-mails than they do at meetings. This is second absolute truth in America. When it comes to business management tips, maybe you've been looking in the wrong places. Just find the nearest mirror and look at your own life. The way you manage it probably says a lot about how you should manage others.
Please share on social media if you found this post helpful. If you have a comment or question I would be happy to discuss.
Like this column? Sign up to subscribe to email alerts and you'll never miss a post.

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Manage Yourself First, Then You Can Effectively Manage Others

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you can't manage your own life, how can you expect to manage other people? Think about it for a second. Don't all the business management tips you have come across so far pretty much come down to answering that question in one way or another?

# data[].attributes.body
10 Personality Traits Needed to Succeed in Finance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 personality traits needed to succeed in finance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your resume can check every box on and you may hit all the right notes in your cover letter, but if you don't let have the 'right' personality, then you're unlikely to get an offer. Soft skills and personality traits are key to getting hired.

# data[].attributes.body
It's Time For Businesses to Embrace Young Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Early in my career I was hired to be the managing editor of a daily business newspaper. I remember my first day on that job well.

As I walked around and introduced myself, I quickly realized I would be managing people twice my age and that I was considerably younger than most of the staff. Upon introducing myself as the new managing editor, some people laughed, some ignored me. One person chastised me by saying, “You’re the new editor? Give me a break. I’ve been working at this place longer than you’ve been alive.”

At the end of the day, I approached the publisher and shared my concerns and observations. The publisher responded candidly: “Look, I didn’t want to like you. I interviewed a lot of people for this job, but the fact is you were the best qualified. So, I decided to take a risk and I hired you. You can do this job. It’s not going to be easy, but you can do it.”

The publisher was right. That job wasn’t easy; it was hands down the most difficult job I’ve ever had. But that’s not the point. What I really want business leaders to ponder is the publisher’s decision to take a risk and hire someone young.

Youth Movement

It’s worth pondering because far too few leaders are opting to do this at a time when the business world desperately needs to hire young leaders.

Almost every single sector, save for technology, is predominantly led by people in the baby boomer generation, or those born between 1946-1964. When this generation came of age, the boomers were the largest generation in history and had the opportunity to move into positions of power and influence and stay there.

However, at the end of 2015, and for the first time in 34 years, boomers are no longer the workforce majority. It is now Generation Y, also known as millennials, and the majority of workers are in their late 20s and early 30s.

We’re experiencing the largest shift in human capital in history, yet one generation still holds nearly all the power in nearly every sector in nearly every corner of the world and the proverbial baton isn’t getting passed.

Consider these statistics:

Gallup reports that less than one-third of U.S. employees have been engaged in their jobs and workplaces during the past 17 years.

Deloitte’s Shift Index demonstrates that the profitability of 20,000 U.S. organizations has been declining since 1965.

The Conference Board reports that job satisfaction has been on a steady decline since 1987.

Executive research projects continually draw the same conclusion: succession planning isn’t a priority for 70 percent of executives.

Why is this happening?

For starters, we inherited institutions designed for the 20th century, which are unable to cope with the mounting pressures of constant change. Many organizations are still structured to maximize efficiency by way of clearly defined roles, which automatically creates resistance to any variance.

Whether they realize it or not, many companies today are structured such that they actively discourage passion.

Think about it. In the 20th century, corporations were built for scalable efficiency. Jobs were well defined and organized to support processes designed to meet plans and forecasts. Workers were trained to protect company information. Any collaboration with those outside of the organization was highly monitored or even discouraged. Most innovation was driven from within the company’s four walls, often without feedback or customer interaction.

Now we’ve moved into the 21st century — the talent economy. And today’s workers certainly don’t want to work in Industrial-era organizations with clearly defined roles, organizational silos, top-down management or predictability.

In the turbulent and competitive marketplace, we need leaders who are willing to disrupt the status quo, working in collaboration with young professionals willing to innovate and bring new solutions to the forefront. We need talent generation.

Consider Google. Employees are drawn to Google because working there means something more than just working for a technology company. In fact, Google is successful for reasons that have very little to do with what the company actually does.

Google was built on the premise that people want meaningful work, knowledge of what’s happening in their environment and the opportunity to shape that environment. Simply put, Google put its employees at the center of everything.

In other words, Google embodies the two trademarks of a 21st century organization: People first and future focused. Google has grown into a business that earns almost $90 billion in annual revenues and continually earns honors as the best company to work for in the world.

When more leaders make the conscious decision and take the appropriate actions to value people more than profits and invest in the next generation of talent, that’s not only when we will succeed at collaboration and innovation, it’s when we will reverse the decline, resolve the conflicts and ultimately prevent our economy from failing.

That publisher who decided to take a risk and hire me? I later found out the publisher had to convince the newspaper’s owner and board of directors to hire me. I was the youngest person and the only female on record to have held that leadership role.

I was a risk. And yet, the publisher advocated for me to have the opportunity to lead. But isn’t that every leader’s responsibility?

We desperately need leaders who are willing to disrupt status quo and work alongside and advocate on behalf of younger generations. The best leaders seek to add value to an organization, not slow it down or kill it entirely. The best leaders realize they don’t have all the answers and will benefit from the insights of a generation raised amid disruption and rapidly evolving technology and seeing the world through a different lens.

Employee engagement and productivity have steadily been declining for more than 50 years, and few have raised their voices in opposition or dedicated themselves to initiating a change.

It’s time to think about leadership, because our leadership is aging and our talent practices are failing. It’s time for a change. It’s time to make the future a priority for every generation.

Sarah Sladek is CEO of XYZ University, a leadership advisory firm. This article is based on insights from her most recent book, “Talent Generation.” To comment, email editor@talenteconomy.io.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's Time for Businesses to Embrace Young Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Early in my career I was hired to be the managing editor of a daily business newspaper. I remember my first day on that job well. As I walked around and introduced myself, I quickly realized I would be managing people twice my age and that I was considerably younger than most of the staff.

# data[].attributes.body
Kung Fu Panda (2008)

# data[].attributes.body
Whale Rider (2002)

# data[].attributes.body
The Power of Humor in Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leading with Laughter: The Power of Humor in Leadership | Paul Osincup | TEDxNapaValley

# data[].attributes.body
Steve Jobs Leadership Skills Breakdown - How To Motivate People

# data[].attributes.body
The Explainer: What It Takes to Be a Great Leader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Explainer: What It Takes to Be a Great Leader

# data[].attributes.body
The Paradox of Value Akshita Agarwal  TED-Ed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Get a daily email featuring the latest talk, plus a quick mix of trending content.

By subscribing, you understand and agree that we will store, process and manage your personal information according to our Privacy Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine you're on a game show and you can choose between two prizes: a diamond ... or a bottle of water. It's an easy choice - the diamonds are more valuable. But if given the same choice when you were dehydrated in the desert, after wandering for days, would you choose differently?

# data[].attributes.body
Ten Signs You're a Boss but Not a Leader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dear Liz,

I like my job but I'm having problems with my manager, "Brian."

Brian is super smart. I could never criticize his subject matter expertise or his intelligence. He goes to a lot of meetings with the top executives and he has a great reputation with that group.

The problem with Brian is that if he isn't in a meeting, Brian spends his day hunched over his computer, working. He doesn't talk to anybody. He hates to be bothered. He hates to have to do the manager part of his job, but he supervises the IT department. He has 12 employees.

He loves coding. That's what he wants to do. He loves to create custom reports for the executives. He hates to talk to his employees and avoids conversation with us.

Brian has never called a meeting as long as I've been in the department (14 months). Last year at my annual review, he said, "I hate these meetings!" in an angry voice just as we sat down.

I said, "Brian, I already got my 3.4% raise. If you prefer, we don't have to walk through my performance review. We can just talk about my 2018 plan. I don't care that much about the performance feedback stuff and the numeric ratings."

Brian said, "You think I want to do this? I don't. I have to."

I said, "You can send me the performance review form and your comments."

He said, "No, if I have to sit through one of these things, so do you." I sat there. He gave me high marks in the important categories and a few average marks that I think he threw in just to justify my unexciting pay raise.

Apart from that one review meeting which was horrible, Brian has never given me any feedback at all.

He has never praised or criticized me. I don't think he knows my role, what I care about, how I think or what I want in my career. He has never asked for my opinion.

He has never asked for any employee's opinion and he has no relationship with any of us. He hides out from us. If Brian had a private office, we would never see him.

We're afraid to bother Brian. We tiptoe around him. He's not a jerk but he's not in the right position, either. He's very smart technically but he has no ability or, I guess, desire to interact with his team.

Two people have left since I started here and three others are job-hunting. Brian constantly complains about how he can't keep people in the department, but he's clueless about his part in that problem.

I want to do something about the "Brian problem" rather than just quit. If I transfer internally, I have to get Brian's blessing. That's how our company works. He wouldn't want to lose me but I'm sure he'd rather lose me to another department than to another employer.

Ironically, without any feedback from Brian I still know the company values me. I've heard other managers praising me and I heard our VP telling Brian "Hang onto Amelia, she's a godsend!"

That kind of feedback would never make it back to me through Brian, of course.

What should I do?

Thanks Liz,

Amelia

Dear Amelia,

Brian may not have chosen his uncommunicative style.

He may have a preference for coding over conversation because he struggles with the kind of interaction you want from your manager.

Brian sounds like a guy who should be in a senior technical role, not a management role. It's sad to see good employees leaving your company while Brian's higher-up managers remain clueless to the lack of fit between the IT leadership role and Brian's skill set.

It's a shame that all of you are stuck in a frustrating situation when it would be so easy to get Brian into a role where he would be happier and so would the employees who currently report to him.

If you are going to leave the company if you can't transfer internally, then you have nothing to lose by exploring options inside and outside of your organization at the same time.

Start an external job search. When your job search engine is up and running, begin looking at internal opportunities. Begin telling managers you trust that you are open to changing roles.

When you are ready, ask Brian for a one-on-one meeting. Tell him that you're very glad to have learned all the things you've learned from him, and that you respect him as a subject matter expert.

Tell him that it's time for you to change roles and you would like his support in moving to another department where you can have a more collaborative relationship with your boss.

Brian may prefer to champion you in changing departments to changing his management style to suit you.

You can tell Brian the truth about your reason for leaving the department. You can tell him that you think he's an amazing technical whiz but not the most contented IT manager you've ever met.

The more truth you tell Brian and other company leaders, the more other people will begin to acknowledge and eventually to speak their truths, too. Your secret leadership void is not much of a secret. It's just that so far, nobody has been talking about it.

Folks like Brian get stuck in inappropriate leadership roles all the time. Because Brian does a great job presenting to the leadership team and because your team produces great work, few managers may suspect that your department lacks a chief.

Here are ten signs that someone is a manager, but not a leader:

1. The boss has good ideas but they don't ask for your input. They lay new plans on you instead of working with their team to produce an even better plan.

2. They communicate in writing about topics that should be discussed one-on-one or in a group.

3. They think about the work to be completed, but they don't think about developing their employees or creating a fantastic culture in the department. They may not realize that department culture is a thing, much less a critical thing!

4. They find it easier to tell people what to do than to ask them "What do you think we should do?"

5. If you asked the boss-but-not-a-leader how a certain employee is doing, they'd say "That person hit their goals this month so I guess they're doing okay." They don't know how their employees are doing. They aren't tuned into their employees' needs, feelings, challenges, triumphs and goals.

6. They give instructions or orders, but they don't ask employees "How do you think we should hit the goal?" They make it hard for team members to share their opinions.

7. They don't see the point in acknowledging people for their contributions. They may say "It's a job -- I'm not going to thank people for doing their jobs!"

8. They see their employees' obligations to them and to the firm. They don't see their obligation to their employees.

9. They ignore or look down their nose at "touchy-feeling" things like discussing sticky topics at a staff meeting (sticky topics could include confusion over roles, group norms and expectations, stalled communications or stress on the team). Even in a crisis -- for instance, a key employee walking off the job never to return -- the boss-not-a-leader will say "You guys handle it. We don't need to talk about that."

10. They do not have a vision for the department or for themselves. How can anyone be a leader without a vision?

There are plenty of non-leaders in leadership roles but we can't blame them for being there. Somebody said "Want to be a manager? The job pays more and you have more authority" and they said "Okay."

We all have the choice to continue working for someone who's in a leadership role but not leading, or to look for something better.

I predict that you'll do brilliantly moving up and out of your role either inside your organization or someplace new.

I predict that Brian will do fine, too. He cannot hide out forever. Somebody will put two and two together or some departing employee will spill the beans and things will shift. You don't have to be there to see it happen!

All the best to both of you,

Liz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ten Signs You're A Boss -- But Not A Leader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dear Liz, I like my job but I'm having problems with my manager, "Brian." Brian is super smart. I could never criticize his subject matter expertise or his intelligence. He goes to a lot of meetings with the top executives and he has a great reputation with that group.

# data[].attributes.body
Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Robert Downey Jr., Michael Keaton, and Tom Holland in Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

# data[].attributes.body
The Rise of Nike: How One Man Built a Billion-Dollar Brand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Rise of Nike: How One Man Built a Billion-Dollar Brand

# data[].attributes.body
Bill Gates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article is about the co-founder of Microsoft. For other people with the same name, see Bill Gates (disambiguation).

# data[].attributes.body
How Great Leaders Inspire Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership -- starting with a golden circle and the question: “Why?” His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Wright brothers…

# data[].attributes.body
Muhammed Yunus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Muhammad Yunus ( Bengali: মুহাম্মদ ইউনূস; born 28 June 1940) is a Bangladeshi social entrepreneur, banker, economist, and civil society leader who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for founding the Grameen Bank and pioneering the concepts of microcredit and microfinance. These loans are given to entrepreneurs too poor to qualify for traditional bank loans. In 2006, Yunus and the Grameen Bank were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts through microcredit to create economic and social development from below". The Norwegian Nobel Committee said that "lasting peace cannot be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty" and that "across cultures and civilizations, Yunus and Grameen Bank have shown that even the poorest of the poor can work to bring about their own development". Yunus has received several other national and international honours. He received the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.

In 2008, he was rated number 2 in Foreign Policy magazine's list of the 'Top 100 Global Thinkers'.

In February 2011, Yunus together with Saskia Bruysten, Sophie Eisenmann and Hans Reitz co-founded Yunus Social Business - Global Initiatives (YSB). YSB creates and empowers social businesses to address and solve social problems around the world. As the international implementation arm for Yunus' vision of a new, humane capitalism, YSB manages incubator funds for social businesses in developing countries and provides advisory services to companies, governments, foundations and NGOs.

In 2012, he became Chancellor of Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland. Previously, he was a professor of economics at Chittagong University in Bangladesh. He published several books related to his finance work. He is a founding board member of Grameen America and Grameen Foundation, which support microcredit.

Yunus also serves on the board of directors of the United Nations Foundation, a public charity created in 1998 by American philanthropist Ted Turner's $1 billion gift to support UN causes.

In March 2011, the Bangladesh government fired Yunus from his position at Grameen Bank, citing legal violations and an age limit on his position.

The third of nine children, Yunus was born on 28 June 1940 to a Bengali Muslim family in the village of Bathua, by the Kaptai road in Hathazari, Chittagong in the Bengal Presidency of the British Raj, present Bangladesh. His father was Hazi Dula Mia Shoudagar, a jeweler, and his mother was Sufia Khatun. His early childhood was spent in the village. In 1944, his family moved to the city of Chittagong, and he moved from his village school to Lamabazar Primary School. By 1949, his mother was afflicted with psychological illness. Later, he passed the matriculation examination from Chittagong Collegiate School ranking 16th of 39,000 students in East Pakistan. During his school years, he was an active Boy Scout, and travelled to West Pakistan and India in 1952, and to Canada in 1955 to attend Jamborees. Later while Yunus studied at Chittagong College, he became active in cultural activities and won awards for drama. In 1957, he enrolled in the Department of Economics at Dhaka University and completed his BA in 1960 and MA in 1961.

After his graduation, Yunus joined the Bureau of Economics as a research assistant to the economics researches of Professor Nurul Islam and Rehman Sobhan. Later, he was appointed lecturer in economics in Chittagong College in 1961. During that time, he also set up a profitable packaging factory on the side. In 1965, he received a Fulbright scholarship to study in the United States. He obtained his PhD in economics from the Vanderbilt University Graduate Program in Economic Development (GPED) in 1971. From 1969 to 1972, Yunus was assistant professor of economics at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro.

During the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, Yunus founded a citizen's committee and ran the Bangladesh Information Center, with other Bangladeshis in the United States, to raise support for liberation. He also published the Bangladesh Newsletter from his home in Nashville. After the War, he returned to Bangladesh and was appointed to the government's Planning Commission headed by Nurul Islam. However, he found the job boring and resigned to join Chittagong University as head of the Economics department. After observing the famine of 1974, he became involved in poverty reduction and established a rural economic programme as a research project. In 1975, he developed a Nabajug (New Era) Tebhaga Khamar (three share farm) which the government adopted as the Packaged Input Programme. In order to make the project more effective, Yunus and his associates proposed the Gram Sarkar (the village government) programme. Introduced by president Ziaur Rahman in the late 1970s, the Government formed 40,392 village governments as a fourth layer of government in 2003. On 2 August 2005, in response to a petition by Bangladesh Legal Aids and Services Trust (BLAST) the High Court had declared village governments illegal and unconstitutional.

His concept of microcredit for supporting innovators in multiple developing countries also inspired programmes such as the Info lady Social Entrepreneurship Programme.

In 1976, during visits to the poorest households in the village of Jobra near Chittagong University, Yunus discovered that very small loans could make a disproportionate difference to a poor person. Village women who made bamboo furniture had to take usurious loans to buy bamboo, and repay their profits to the lenders. Traditional banks did not want to make tiny loans at reasonable interest to the poor due to high risk of default. But Yunus believed that, given the chance, the poor will repay the money and hence microcredit was a viable business model. Yunus lent US$27 of his money to 42 women in the village, who made a profit of BDT 0.50 (US$0.02) each on the loan. Thus, Yunus is credited with the idea of microcredit.

In December 1976, Yunus finally secured a loan from the government Janata Bank to lend to the poor in Jobra. The institution continued to operate, securing loans from other banks for its projects. By 1982, it had 28,000 members. On 1 October 1983, the pilot project began operation as a full-fledged bank for poor Bangladeshis and was renamed Grameen Bank ("Village Bank"). Yunus and his colleagues encountered everything from violent radical leftists to conservative clergy who told women that they would be denied a Muslim burial if they borrowed money from Grameen. By July 2007, Grameen had issued US$6.38 billion to 7.4 million borrowers. To ensure repayment, the bank uses a system of "solidarity groups". These small informal groups apply together for loans and its members act as co-guarantors of repayment and support one another's efforts at economic self-advancement.

In the late 1980s, Grameen started to diversify by attending to underutilized fishing ponds and irrigation pumps like deep tube wells. In 1989, these diversified interests started growing into separate organisations. The fisheries project became Grameen Motsho ("Grameen Fisheries Foundation") and the irrigation project became Grameen Krishi ("Grameen Agriculture Foundation"). In time, the Grameen initiative grew into a multi-faceted group of profitable and non-profit ventures, including major projects like Grameen Trust and Grameen Fund, which runs equity projects like Grameen Software Limited, Grameen CyberNet Limited, and Grameen Knitwear Limited, as well as Grameen Telecom, which has a stake in Grameenphone (GP), the biggest private phone company in Bangladesh. From its start in March 1997 to 2007, GP's Village Phone ( Polli Phone) project had brought cell-phone ownership to 260,000 rural poor in over 50,000 villages.

- Dr. Muhammad Yunus while talking about reason behind creating Grameen Bank

The success of the Grameen microfinance model inspired similar efforts in about 100 developing countries and even in developed countries including the United States. Many microcredit projects retain Grameen's emphasis of lending to women. More than 94% of Grameen loans have gone to women, who suffer disproportionately from poverty and who are more likely than men to devote their earnings to their families.

For his work with Grameen, Yunus was named an Ashoka: Innovators for the Public Global Academy Member in 2001. In the book Grameen Social Business Model, its author Rashidul Bari said that Grameen's social business model (GSBM) has gone from being theory to an inspiring practice adopted by leading universities (e.g., Glasgow), entrepreneurs (e.g., Franck Riboud) and corporations (e.g., Danone) across the globe. Through Grameen Bank, Rashidul Bari claims that Yunus demonstrated how Grameen Social Business Model can harness the entrepreneurial spirit to empower poor women and alleviate their poverty. One conclusion Bari suggested to draw from Yunus' concepts is that the poor are like a "bonsai tree", and they can do big things if they get access to the social business that holds potential to empower them to become self-sufficient.

Yunus was awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, along with Grameen Bank, for their efforts to create economic and social development. In the prize announcement The Norwegian Nobel Committee mentioned:

Muhammad Yunus has shown himself to be a leader who has managed to translate visions into practical action for the benefit of millions of people, not only in Bangladesh, but also in many other countries. Loans to poor people without any financial security had appeared to be an impossible idea. From modest beginnings three decades ago, Yunus has, first and foremost through Grameen Bank, developed micro-credit into an ever more important instrument in the struggle against poverty.

Yunus was the first Bangladeshi to ever get a Nobel Prize. After receiving the news of the important award, Yunus announced that he would use part of his share of the $1.4 million (equivalent to $1.74 million in 2018) award money to create a company to make low-cost, high-nutrition food for the poor; while the rest would go toward setting up an eye hospital for the poor in Bangladesh.

Former US president Bill Clinton was a vocal advocate for the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Yunus. He expressed this in Rolling Stone magazine as well as in his autobiography In a speech given at University of California, Berkeley in 2002, President Clinton described Yunus as "a man who long ago should have won the Nobel Prize [in Economics and] I'll keep saying that until they finally give it to him." Conversely, The Economist stated explicitly that while Yunus was doing excellent work to fight poverty, it was not appropriate to award him the Peace Prize, stating: "... the Nobel committee could have made a braver, more difficult, choice by declaring that there would be no recipient at all."

He is one of only seven persons to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal. Other notable awards include the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 1984, the World Food Prize, the International Simon Bolivar Prize (1996), the Prince of Asturias Award for Concord and the Sydney Peace Prize in 1998, and the Seoul Peace Prize in 2006. Additionally, Yunus has been awarded 50 honorary doctorate degrees from universities across 20 countries, and 113 international awards from 26 different countries including state honours from 10 countries. Bangladesh government brought out a commemorative stamp to honour his Nobel Award.

Yunus was named by Fortune Magazine in March 2012 as one of 12 greatest entrepreneurs of the current era. In its citation, Fortune Magazine said "Yunus' idea inspired countless numbers of young people to devote themselves to social causes all over the world."

In January 2008, Houston, Texas declared 14 January as "Muhammad Yunus Day".

Yunus was named among the most desired thinkers the world should listen to by the FP 100 (world's most influential elite) in the December 2009 issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

In 2010, The British Magazine New Statesman listed Yunus at 40th in the list of "The World's 50 Most Influential Figures 2010".

Yunus received 50 honorary doctorate degrees from universities from Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Peru, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, the UK, and the US. United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, invited Yunus to serve as an MDG Advocate. Yunus sits on the Board of United Nations Foundation, Schwab Foundation, Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, Grameen Credit Agricole Microcredit Foundation. He has been a member of Fondation Chirac's honour committee, ever since the foundation was launched in 2008 by former French president Jacques Chirac in order to promote world peace.

Yunus has become a well-known international figure. He has delivered numerous lectures around the world, and has appeared on popular television shows, including The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2006, The Colbert Report in 2008, Real Time with Bill Maher in 2009 and The Simpsons in 2010.[citation needed ] On Google+, Yunus is one of the most followed person worldwide, with over two million followers.

In early 2006 Yunus, along with other members of the civil society including Professor Rehman Sobhan, Justice Muhammad Habibur Rahman, Dr Kamal Hossain, Matiur Rahman, Mahfuz Anam and Debapriya Bhattacharya, participated in a campaign for honest and clean candidates in national elections. He considered entering politics in the later part of that year. On 11 February 2007, Yunus wrote an open letter, published in the Bangladeshi newspaper , where he asked citizens for views on his plan to float a political party to establish political goodwill, proper leadership and good governance. In the letter, he called on everyone to briefly outline how he should go about the task and how they can contribute to it. Yunus finally announced that he is willing to launch a political party tentatively called Citizens' Power ( Nagorik Shakti) on 18 February 2007. There was speculation that the army supported a move by Yunus into politics. On 3 May, however, Yunus declared that he had decided to abandon his political plans following a meeting with the head of the interim government, Fakhruddin Ahmed.

In July 2007 in Johannesburg, South Africa, Nelson Mandela, Graça Machel and Desmond Tutu convened a group of world leaders "to contribute their wisdom, independent leadership and integrity to tackle some of the world's toughest problems." Nelson Mandela announced the formation of this new group, The Elders, in a speech he delivered on the occasion of his 89th birthday. Yunus attended the launch of the group and was one of its founding members. He stepped down as an Elder in September 2009, stating that he was unable to do justice to his membership due to the demands of his work.

Yunus is a member of the Africa Progress Panel (APP), a group of ten distinguished individuals who advocate at the highest levels for equitable and sustainable development in Africa. Every year, the Panel releases a report, the Africa Progress Report, that outlines an issue of immediate importance to the continent and suggests a set of associated policies. In July 2009, Yunus became a member of the SNV Netherlands Development Organisation International Advisory Board to support the organisation's poverty reduction work. Since 2010, Yunus has served as a Commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Digital Development, a UN initiative which seeks to use broadband internet services to accelerate social and economic development. In March 2016, he was appointed by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth, which was co-chaired by presidents François Hollande of France and Jacob Zuma of South Africa. Yunus urged Myanmar to end violence against Rohingya Muslims.

The Government announced a review of Grameen Bank activities on 11 January 2011, which is ongoing. In February, several international leaders, such as Mary Robinson, stepped up their defence of Yunus through a number of efforts, including the founding of a formal network of supporters known as "Friends of Grameen".

On 15 February 2011, the Finance Minister of Bangladesh, Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, declared that Yunus should "stay away" from Grameen Bank while it is being investigated. On 2 March 2011, Muzammel Huq - a former Bank employee, whom the government had appointed Chairman in January - announced that Yunus had been fired as Managing Director of the Bank. However, Bank General Manager Jannat-E Quanine issued a statement that Yunus was "continuing in his office" pending review of the legal issues surrounding the controversy .

In March 2011, Yunus petitioned the Bangladesh High Court challenging the legality of the decision by the Bangladeshi Central Bank to remove him as Managing Director of Grameen Bank. The same day, nine elected directors of Grameen Bank filed a second petition. U.S. Senator John Kerry expressed his support to Yunus in a statement on 5 March 2011 and declared that he was "deeply concerned" by this affair. The same day in Bangladesh, thousands of people protested and formed human chains to support Yunus. The High Court hearing on the petitions, was planned for 6 March 2011 but postponed. On 8 March 2011, the Court confirmed Yunus's dismissal.

A Danish documentary, Caught in Micro Debt, produced and directed by journalist Tom Heinemann, aired on Norwegian national television NRK in November 2010. It made a number of allegations against Yunus and Grameen Bank. Those allegations were disproved by later inquiries. The documentary accused Yunus and Grameen Bank of diverting 7 billion taka (about 100 million US dollars) given by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) from Grameen Bank to another organisation called Grameen Kalyan in 1996. This allegation was widely spread in the Bangladeshi electronic media in December 2010. On 6 December, NORAD published a statement clearing Yunus and the Bank from any wrongdoing on this point, following a comprehensive review of NORAD's support commissioned by the Minister of International Development.

However, the allegations quickly spread through the Bangladesh media. Leading Bangladeshi economist Rehman Sobhan stated "Rather than first seeking clarification and response from Grameen Bank as to the validity of the TV programme, some sections of the media and society pounced on it with unseemly enthusiasm, using it as an opportunity to cite wrongdoing in a widely respected organization." Yunus asked for consistent and transparent investigations on these matters.

Accusation of 'loan sharking' and effectiveness of microfinance

The allegations against Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank were made in a context where some people began to question the effectiveness of microfinance, prompted by the actions of some for-profit microfinance institutions (MFIs) in India and Mexico. Coercion, peer pressure and physical harassment were reportedly used as loan repayment practices in some specific MFIs. Commercialisation of microcredit prompted Yunus to state that he "never imagined that one day microcredit would give rise to its own breed of loan sharks."

The lure of profits attracted some for-profit MFIs to hold initial public offerings (IPOs), including the largest Indian MFI, SKS Microfinance, which held an IPO in July 2010. In September 2010, Yunus criticised the IPO; in a debate with SKS founder Vikram Akula during the Clinton Global Initiative meeting, he said, "Microcredit is not about exciting people to make money off the poor. That's what you're doing. That's the wrong message completely." Calculations of actual interest rate vary, but one estimate puts average Grameen rates at about a 23% interest rate (comparable to the inflation rate). At the same time the organisation enjoyed a tax-free status for a period of several years which now has been removed.

Sympathizers of Yunus allege that the government of Bangladesh is exploiting this "moral crisis around microcredit" to oust Yunus.

Though Grameen Bank was quickly cleared by the Norwegian government of all allegations surrounding misused or misappropriated funds in December 2010, in March 2011 the Bangladeshi government launched a three-month investigation of all Grameen Bank's activities. This inquiry prevented Muhammad Yunus from participating in the World Economic Forum.

In January 2011, Yunus appeared in court in a defamation case filed by a local politician from a minor left-leaning party in 2007, complaining about a statement that Yunus made to the AFP news agency, "Politicians in Bangladesh only work for power. There is no ideology here". At the hearing, Yunus was granted bail and exempted from personal appearance at subsequent hearings.

These investigations fueled suspicion that many attacks might be politically motivated, due to difficult relations between Sheikh Hasina and Yunus since early 2007, when Yunus created his own political party, an effort he dropped in May 2007.

At 72 years old, he was 12 years beyond the legal retirement age for civil servants in Bangladesh in 2011. Government spokespersons called for Yunus to step down and declared, "We need to redefine the bank's role and bring it under closer regulation."

The government as chairman Muzammel Huq, himself a foundational figure of the Grameen Bank and one of senior managers together with Yunus of GB Research and Operations until the early 2000s. He has publicly criticised Yunus, saying, "I think he is a good man with a small heart ... He cannot give credit to anyone but himself".

On 27 January 2011, Yunus appeared in court in a food-adulteration case filed by the Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) Food Safety Court, accusing him of producing an "adulterated" yogurt whose fat content was below the legal minimum. This yogurt is produced by Grameen Danone, a social business joint venture between Grameen Bank and Danone that aims to provide opportunities for street vendors who sell the yogurt and to improve child nutrition with the nutrient-fortified yogurt. According to Yunus's lawyer, the allegations are "false and baseless". At the request of Yunus's lawyers, pointing procedural irregularities and errors, this case is now considered by the High Court.

Investigation by a 2012 independent public commission examining the Grameen Bank assert that Yunus misrepresented his authority and abused his powers during his tenure in management. The report establishes that legal challenges exist for authority of the Grameen Bank to have acted as guarantor and to have forwarded credit to independent private enterprises during Dr. Yunus's tenure. The report raised specific questions relating to a) establishment and financing of GrameenPhone, a for-profit telecommunications entity initially established as a trust for the Grameen Bank borrowers together with Norwegian government owned multinational Telenor by Dr Yunus, and b) simultaneous management and operational financing of private enterprises established by Dr Yunus applying resources of the Grameen Bank. The commission also examined the legal status of the Grameen Bank and concluded that it was de jure public i.e. government entity, of which incompetent oversight by the state and (potentially unwitting) misrepresentation by Dr. Yunus in past resulted in the popular perception of the private ownership. The commission report refers to obstruction of commission investigations by current Grameen Bank management, representatives of Telenor, the Government of Bangladesh, and by partisans of Dr. Yunus. Full implications of the report are thus far not closely examined in either state-controlled elements of Bangladeshi media, or by pro-Yunus press releases, where these implicate Dr Yunus as at least accessory to corruption at the nexus of the Bangladeshi public-commercial establishment, in collusion with other parties.

Microfinance has been criticised in the foreign media. The Guardian (UK) asked whether microfinance was a 'neoliberal fairytale'. The article pointed out criticisms including that most loans are not used to create small businesses, but instead 'consumption smoothing'.

The trial of Muhammad Yunus is the series of trials launched by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh against Muhammad Yunus. The former put the latter on trial in 2010 and ultimately removed him from Grameen Bank, citing that too old to run the Bank which he founded in 1983. In 2013, he was put on trial for a second time because he had supposedly received earnings without the necessary permission from the government, including his Nobel Peace Prize earnings and the royalties from his book sales. The article claims that this series of trials against Yunus has puzzled billions of people around the world, from the 8.3 million underprivileged women of Grameen Bank to US President Barack Obama. Likening Hasina's political vendetta against Yunus to a modern-day replay of the conflict between Archimedes and General Marcellus, the article predicts that the " banker to the poor" may face a fate similar to the father of mathematics for asking Hasina not to disturb the Grameen Bank. Vikas Bajaj wrote in the Taking Note editorial blog of The New York Times on 7 November 2013:

The government of Bangladesh has played its trump card in its long-running campaign against Grameen Bank and its founder Muhammad Yunus. Last week, legislators passed a law that effectively nationalizes the bank, which pioneered the idea of making small loans to poor women, by wresting control of it from the 8.4 million rural women that own a majority of its shares.

For many years, Yunus remained a follower of Hasina's father, Sheikh Mujib, the founding father of Bangladesh. While teaching at Middle Tennessee State University, Yunus founded the Bangladesh Citizen's Committee (BCC), as a response to West Pakistan's aggression against Bangladesh and its leader Sheikh Mujib. After the outbreak of the war of liberation, the BCC selected Yunus to become editor of its newly published Bangladesh News Letter. Inspired by the birth of Bangladesh in 1971, Yunus returned home in 1972, to help Mujib rebuild the nation shattered by a long and bloody war. The relationship did not end after Mujib's death. Yunus maintained a professional relationship with Mujib's daughter, Hasina. Yunus appointed Hasina-along with US first lady Hillary Clinton-as co-chair of a microcredit summit held 2-4 February 1997. At this event, 50 heads of state and high-level officials from 137 nation-states gathered in Washington, DC, to discuss solutions to poverty. At this macroevent for microcredit, Hasina had nothing but praise for her fatherly figure. In her statement she praised,"the outstanding work done by Professor Yunus and the Grameen Bank he founded.. . . The success of the Grameen Bank has created optimism about the viability of banks engaged in extending micro-credit to the poor. The inaugural ceremony of Grameen Phone, the largest telephone service in Bangladesh, took place at Hasina's office on 26 March 1997. Using Grameen Phone, Hasina made the first call to Thorbjorn Jagland, the then-Norwegian prime minister. When her conversation ended with Jagland, she received another call, this one from Laily Begum, a Grameen telephone employee. However, this long relationship was doomed in 2007 after Yunus disclosed his intention to form a political party, Nagorik Shakti

The government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina waged a destructive campaign against Grameen and its founder, Muhammad Yunus. The New York Times reports, " Her actions appear to be retaliation for Mr. Yunus's announcement in 2007 that he would seek public office, even though he never went through with his plans". According to Times of India, one other factor contributed to her brash decision against Yunus: the Nobel Peace Prize

Hasina thought that the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee would give her the prize for signing a peace treaty, the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in 1997. On 9 March, Attorney General Mahbubey Alam revealed the government's attitude when he said, "Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize..." He went on to challenge the wisdom of the Nobel committee for not awarding the prize to his master, Hasina, for the CHT accord.

On 11 January 2007, Army General Moeen U Ahmed staged a military coup. Meanwhile, Yunus turned down his request to become the nation's fourth Chief Advisor after Khaleda Zia's term ended. Yunus, however, suggested the general pick Fakhruddin Ahmed for the job. Fakhruddin took office on 11 January 2007 and made it clear on his very first day that he intended not only to arrange a free and fair election but also to clean up corruption. While Khalada and Hasina criticised Fakruddin and claimed that it was not his job to clean up corruption, Yunus expressed his satisfaction. In an interview with the AFP news agency, Yunus remarked that politicians in Bangladesh only work for money, saying, "There is no ideology here." Hasina had a harsh reaction to Yunus' comments, calling him a "usurer who has not only failed to eradicate poverty but has also nurtured poverty." This was Hasina's first public statement against Yunus. One could make an analogy between Yunus' involvement as a nonpolitician and the role that Czech writer Václav Havel played in his country after the overthrow of the Communist regime. Later Yunus announced the name of this prospective political party, Nagorik Shakti (Citizen's Power), saying he had a mission to enter the political arena in his nation in hope of changing its identity from "bottomless basket" to "rising tiger." However, on 3 May, Yunus published a third open letter and put his political ambitions to rest.

Bangladesh government launched the first trial against Yunus in December 2010, one month after the release of Caught in Micro Debt, a documentary by Tom Heinemann. Screened on Norwegian television on 30 November 2010, the film broadcast the allegation that Yunus stashed approximately $100 million in 1996 into Grameen Kalyan, a sister company of Grameen Bank. however, Yunus denied the allegations. After completing a full investigation, the Norwegian government found Yunus innocent. However, Prime Minister Hasina used the situation as to increase sustained attacks on Yunus: these included claims that Yunus' age means he is too old to run the bank, Grameen has created companies unlawfully, and the bank operates as an organ of the government.[clarification needed ] The bank has denied all illegalities, arguing, among other things, that age limits do not apply in this case since Grameen, like BRAC, is a special bank. Yunus has also become subject to legal harassment over three criminal cases. A criminal defamation case was filed against Yunus for criticising politicians in 2007. A food inspector filed another case against Yunus, alleging that yogurt manufactured by the Grameen-Danone was adulterated. The final blow came on 3 March 2011. Bangladesh Bank informed Grameen in a letter that Yunus had been removed from Grameen, citing that he was older than the mandatory retirement age of 60, even though nine of the bank's directors-who were elected by 8.3 million Grameen Bank borrowers-allowed him to stay on the job after he had crossed that threshold. Backed by nine boards of directors, 22 thousand employees, and 8.3 million Grameen borrowers, Yunus defied the government order, returned to Grameen's headquarters in Dhaka, and lodged an appeal at Dhaka High Court against the decision. However, Justice Mohammad Momtazuddin Ahmed and Justice Gobinda Chandra Tagore delivered the verdict against Yunus, claiming that Yunus' posting as the MD of Grameen since 1999 was illegal as he had reached the age of 60 by then. However, Yunus still did not lose faith in the justice system. Backed by international leaders (e.g., Hillary and Bill Clinton), national leaders (e.g., Sir Fazle Hasan Abed) and 8.3 million Grameen borrowers, Yunus filed an appeal in Bangladesh Supreme Court against the High Court's verdict. The full bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque heard the appeal on 15 March and delivered the verdict which upheld Yunus removal by government.

On 2 August 2012, Sheikh Hasina's approved a draft of "Grameen Bank Ordinance 2012" to increase government control over the bank. Currently, that power resides with the bank's directors-consisting of nine poor women-who were elected by 8.3 million Grameen borrowers. Hasina also ordered a fresh investigation into the activities and financial transactions of Yunus in his later years as managing director of Grameen, but people see the move as nothing more than an attempt to destroy his image. The prime minister also alleged that Yunus had received his earnings without the necessary permission from the government, including his Nobel Peace Prize earnings and the royalties from his books. On 4 October 2013, Bangladesh's cabinet has approved the draft of a new law that will give the country's central bank closer control over Grameen Bank, raising the stakes in a long-running dispute with the pioneering microlender. The Grameen Bank Act 2013 was approved at a cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on Thursday. It was passed by parliament on 7 November 2013, and replaced the Grameen Bank Ordinance, the law that underpinned the creation of Grameen Bank as a specialised microcredit institution in 1983. The government new plan is to break Grameen into 19 pieces. The New York Times reports:

Since then, the government has started an investigation into the bank and is now planning to take over Grameen - a majority of whose shares are owned by its borrowers - and break it up into 19 regional lenders.

In 1967, while Yunus attended Vanderbilt University, he met Vera Forostenko, a student of Russian literature at Vanderbilt University and daughter of Russian immigrants to Trenton, New Jersey, United States. They were married in 1970. Yunus's marriage with Vera ended within months of the birth of their baby girl, Monica Yunus, in 1979 Chittagong, as Vera returned to New Jersey claiming that Bangladesh was not a good place to raise a baby. Monica became an operatic soprano based in New York City. Yunus later married Afrozi Yunus, who was then a researcher in physics at Manchester University. She was later appointed as a professor of physics at Jahangirnagar University. Their daughter Deena Afroz Yunus was born in 1986.

Yunus's brother Muhammad Ibrahim is a former professor of physics at the University of Dhaka and the founder of The Center for Mass Education in Science (CMES), which brings science education to adolescent girls in villages. His other brother Muhammad Jahangir (d. 2019) was a television presenter and a social activist in Bangladesh.

The Yunus Centre, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, is a think tank for issues related to social business, working in the field of poverty alleviation and sustainability. It is 'aimed primarily at promoting and disseminating Professor Yunus' philosophy, with a special focus on social business' and currently chaired by Prof. Muhammad Yunus.

Yunus, Muhammad (1974). Three Farmers of Jobra. Department of Economics, Chittagong University.

-- (1976). Planning in Bangladesh: Format, Technique, and Priority, and Other Essays; Rural Studies Project, Department of Economics. Chittagong University.

--; Isalama, Saiyada Manajurula; Rahman, Arifa (1991). Jorimon and Others: Faces of Poverty. Grameen Bank.

-- (1994). Grameen Bank, as I See it. Grameen Bank.

Yunus, Muhammad, Moingeon, Bertrand and Laurence Lehmann-Ortega (2010), "Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience", April-June, vol 43, number 2-3, Long Range Planning, pp. 308-325

-- (2017). A World of Three Zeroes: the new economics of zero poverty, zero unemployment, and zero carbon emissions. Scribe Publications.

In 2006, awarded Nobel Peace Prize for his finance work.

Chosen by Wharton School of Business in Philadelphia as one of The 25 Most Influential Business Persons of the Past 25 Years, covered in a PBS documentary.

In 2006, Time magazine ranked him as one of the top 12 business leaders, including him among "60 years of Asian Heroes."

In 2008, Yunus was voted 2nd on the list of Top 100 Public Intellectuals in an open online poll conducted by Prospect Magazine (UK) and Foreign Policy (United States).

In 2009, Yunus was awarded the Golden Biatec Award, the highest award bestowed by Slovakia's Informal Economic Forum Economic Club, for individuals who exhibit economic, social, scientific, educational and cultural accomplishments in the Slovak Republic.

1. ^ Yunus, Muhammad (14 October 2003). গিরেবর উপকাের লােগ োদেখ বਗ਼ োলাক অামােদর বઘাংেক টাকা জমা রাখেত এিগেয় এেসেছ ড় মઓহামઅদ ইউনકস. Prothom Alo (Interview) (in Bengali). Interviewed by Rahman, Matiur. Dhaka. Archived from the original on 12 October 2007.

2. ^ "The Graduate Program in Economic Development - Vanderbilt University ...". 11 December 2012. Archived from the original on 11 December 2012.

3. ^ Yunus to receive Nichols-Chancellor's Medal Archived 18 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Vanderbilt News, 12 March 2007; Retrieved: 9 September 2007

4. ^ Yunus, Muhammad; Jolis, Alan (2003). Banker to the Poor: micro-lending and the battle against world poverty. New York: Public Affairs. pp. 20-29. ISBN 978-1-58648-198-8.

5. ^ Yunus, Muhammad; Jolis, Alan (2003). Banker to the Poor: micro-lending and the battle against world poverty. New York: PublicAffairs hc. pp. 46-49. ISBN 978-1-58648-198-8.

6. ^ "About Grameenphone". Grameenphone. 16 November 2006. Archived from the original on 10 August 2007. Grameenphone is now the leading telecommunications service provider in the country with more than 10 million subscribers as of November 2006.

7. ^ Clinton, Bill (2004). My Life: The Presidential Years. New York: Vintage Books. p. 329. ISBN 978-0-375-41457-2. Muhammad Yunus should have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics years ago.

8. ^ Sydney Peace Prize recipients, Sydney Peace Prize Foundation website; Retrieved: 9 September 2007

9. ^ Mustafa, Sabir (5 April 2007). "Bangladesh at a crossroads". BBC News. At first glance, the current state of Bangladesh appears to be a paradox: a country under a state of emergency, but where the general public seem quite content.

10. ^ High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth - Commissioners World Health Organization.

11. ^ শেখ হাসিনার প্রতিহিংসার শিকার ড. ইউনূস. The Daily Sangram (in Bengali). Archived from the original on 9 July 2015.

12. ^ প্রধানমন্ত্রী শেখ হাসিনার হিংসা আর ভয়ের কারণই ড. ইউনূসের সাথে দন্দ্বঃ টাইমস অব ইন্ডিয়া [Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's jealousy and fear is the reason. Doubts with Yunus: The Times of India]. Amader Shomoy (in Bengali). Archived from the original on 23 September 2013.

13. ^ Bari, R. (2011). Grameen Social Business Model: A Manifesto for Proletariat Revolution. AuthorHouse. p. 158. ISBN 9781468565652.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Muhammad Yunus ( Bengali: মুহাম্মদ ইউনূস; born 28 June 1940) is a Bangladeshi social entrepreneur, banker, economist, and civil society leader who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for founding the Grameen Bank and pioneering the concepts of microcredit and microfinance. These loans are given to entrepreneurs too poor to qualify for traditional bank loans.

# data[].attributes.body
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When mysterious letters start arriving on his doorstep, Harry Potter has never heard of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

They are swiftly confiscated by his aunt and uncle.

Then, on Harry's eleventh birthday, a strange man bursts in with some important news: Harry Potter is a wizard and has been awarded a place to study at Hogwarts.

And so the first of the Harry Potter adventures is set to begin.

Publishers:
UK Print - Bloomsbury
US Print - Scholastic
eBook - Pottermore
Digital Audiobook - Pottermore
UK Illustrated - Bloomsbury
US Illustrated - Scholastic
UK MinaLima edition - Bloomsbury
US MinaLima edition - Scholastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - J.K. Rowling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Autem tantas scripserit id eum. Consul vocibus et vix, sed iusto paulo omnium ex, dicit tation ut vel.

# data[].attributes.body
Lee Kuan Yew

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lee Kuan Yew (born Harry Lee Kuan Yew; 16 September 1923 - 23 March 2015), often referred to by his initials LKY, was a Singaporean statesman and lawyer who served as the founding Prime Minister of Singapore between 1959 and 1990, and Secretary-General of the People's Action Party between 1954 and 1992. He was the Member of Parliament (MP) for Tanjong Pagar from 1955 until his death in 2015. Lee is widely recognised as the founding father of the modern Singaporean state, and for his leadership in turning the island into a highly developed city state.

Lee was born in Singapore during British colonial rule. After graduating from Raffles Institution, he won a scholarship to Raffles College (now the National University of Singapore). During the Japanese occupation, Lee escaped being the victim of a purge, before subsequently starting his own businesses while working as an administration service officer for the Japanese propaganda office. After World War II ended, Lee briefly attended the London School of Economics before transferring to Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge to study law, graduating with a double first degree in 1947. He was called to the Bar from the Middle Temple in 1950. Upon his return to Singapore, he practised as an advocate and solicitor whilst campaigning for the British to relinquish their colonial rule.

Lee co-founded the People's Action Party (PAP) in 1954 and won his first seat at the Tanjong Pagar division during the 1955 general election. He became the de facto opposition leader in parliament, to Chief Ministers David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock of the Labour Front. Lee led his party to its first electoral victory in 1959 and was appointed as the state's first prime minister. To attain complete home rule from Britain, Lee campaigned for a merger with other former British territories in a national referendum to form Malaysia in 1963. Racial strife and ideological differences later led to Singapore's expulsion from Malaysia and subsequent independence in 1965, less than two years after the merger.

With overwhelming parliamentary control at every general election, Lee oversaw Singapore's transformation into a developed country with a high-income economy within his premiership. In the process, he forged a highly effective, anti-corrupt government and civil service. Lee eschewed populist policies in favour of long-term social and economic planning, championing civic nationalism through meritocracy and multiracialism as governing principles, making English the lingua franca to integrate its immigrant society and to facilitate trade with the world, whilst mandating bilingualism in schools to preserve the students' mother tongue and ethnic identity. Lee stepped down as prime minister in 1990, but remained in the Cabinet under his successors, holding the appointments of Senior Minister until 2004, then Minister Mentor until 2011. He died of pneumonia on 23 March 2015, at the age of 91. In a week of national mourning, about 1.7 million residents and world leaders paid tribute to him at his lying-in-state at Parliament House and community tribute sites.

An advocate for Asian values and a proponent of pragmatism, Lee's premiership especially in the West was described as being semi-authoritarian and characterised as a sort of a hybrid regime or a guided democracy. Critics have accused him of curtailing press freedoms, imposing narrow limits on public protests, restricting labour movements from industrial or strike action through anti-union legislation and co-option, and bringing defamation lawsuits against prominent political opponents. However, others argue his actions were necessary for the country's early development, and that he was a benevolent dictator.

Lee was born at home on 16 September 1923, the first child of Lee Chin Koon, a Semarang born Singaporean, and Chua Jim Neo, at 92 Kampong Java Road in Singapore, then part of the British Empire. Both of Lee's parents were English-educated third-generation Straits Chinese, with his paternal side being of Hakka descent from Dabu County. He was named 'Kuan Yew', meaning 'light and brightness', alternately meaning 'bringing great glory to one's ancestors'. Lee's paternal grandfather Lee Hoon Leong, who was described as "especially westernised", had worked on British ships as a purser, and hence gave Lee the Western name 'Harry'. While the family spoke English as its first language, Lee also learned Malay. Lee would have three brothers and one sister, all of whom lived till old age.

Lee was not close to his father, who worked as a storekeeper within the Shell Oil Company and had a gambling addiction. His mother Chua would often stand up against her husband for his poor fiscal management and parenting skills. The family was considered prosperous with a high social standing compared to recent immigrants and had the means to hire servants. During the Great Depression the family fortunes declined considerably, though Lee's father retained his job at Shell. Later in life, Lee described his father as a man with a nasty temper and credited his mother with holding the family together amidst her husband's gambling addiction.

In 1930, Lee enrolled at Telok Kurau English School where he spent six years of his primary education. Attending Raffles Institution in 1935, Lee did poorly in his first two years but later topped the Junior Cambridge examinations. He also joined the Scouts and partook in several physical activities and debates. Lee was the top scorer in the Senior Cambridge examinations in 1940 across the Straits Settlements and Malaya, gaining the John Anderson scholarship to attend Raffles College. During the prize-awarding ceremony, Lee met his future wife Kwa Geok Choo; she was the only girl at the school. His subsequent university studies at Raffles College were disrupted by the onset of World War II in Asia, with the school being converted into a medical facility in 1941. The war arrived in December of that year and following the British surrender in February 1942, the Japanese occupation of Singapore began.

Lee was amongst the Chinese men rounded up by the Japanese operation. By his own account, he feared getting caught by the (military police) and reported with a friend to be screened. He attempted to leave the next morning but was ordered to join a group of already segregated men. Lee requested to collect his clothes first and managed to spend a second night in the dormitory before successfully leaving the site the next day when a different guard cleared him through. He later learned that the group of men were likely taken to the beach and executed.

Lee obtained a Japanese language proficiency certificate in August 1942 and worked in a friend's company and then the Kumiai, which controlled essential items. He got a job with the Japanese propaganda department ( Hōdōbu) in late 1943 and worked for the Japanese occupation force as an English specialist. Working at the top of the Cathay Building, he was assigned to listen to Allied radio stations for Morse code signals. By late 1944, Lee knew Japan had suffered major setbacks and planned to move to the Cameron Highlands with his family to avoid a possible British invasion. He was tipped off that he was being followed and abandoned the plan. He engaged in private enterprises and black market sales for the rest of the war.

The rapid Japanese victory in the Malaya-Singapore campaign had a major impact on Lee as he recalled: "In 70 days of surprises, upsets and stupidities, British colonial society was shattered, and with it all the assumptions of the Englishman's superiority". In a radio broadcast made in 1961, Lee said he "emerged [from the war] determined that no one-neither Japanese nor British-had the right to push and kick us around... (and) that we could govern ourselves." It also influenced his perceptions of raw power and the effectiveness of harsh punishment in deterring crime.

University, marriage and politics

Lee chose not to return to Raffles College after the war and pursued higher education in the United Kingdom. He sailed from Singapore on his 23rd birthday on the MV Britannic, arriving in the UK on 3 October. He initially enrolled at the London School of Economics, but found himself disliking life in the British capital. He visited Cambridge in November and was introduced to W. S. Thatcher, Censor of Fitzwilliam House. He was admitted into the following year's Lent term and matriculated in January 1947, reading law at Fitzwilliam College.

Prior to his departure from Singapore, Lee had begun a relationship with Kwa, whom he had kept in contact during the war. They married in secret at Stratford-upon-Avon in December. Lee graduated First Class in both parts of the Tripos with an exceptional Starred-First for Part II Law in 1949 with Kwa. As the top student of his cohort, he was awarded the Fitzwilliam's Whitlock Prize; Lee was called to the Bar from the Middle Temple in 1950.

If you value fairness and social justice, not only to the people of Britain but also to the millions of British subjects in the colonies, return another Labour government.

During his studies, Lee's political convictions and anti-colonial sentiments were hardened by personal experiences and an increasing belief that the British were ruling Singapore for their own benefit. He supported the Labour Party against the Conservatives whom he perceived as opposing decolonisation. In the leadup to the 1950 United Kingdom general election, Lee engaged in politics for the first time and actively campaigned for a friend, David Widdicombe in Totnes constituency, driving Widdicombe around in a lorry and delivering several speeches on his behalf.

Before returning to Singapore, Lee dropped his English name, Harry. Notwithstanding, even until the end of his life, old friends and relatives referred to him as Harry.

Lee's barrister's wig and container, on display in the National Museum of Singapore.

Lee and his wife returned to Singapore in August 1950 on board the MS Willem Ruys. He joined the Laycock and Ong law firm founded by British lawyer John Laycock. Laycock was a co-founder of the pro-British Progressive Party and Lee represented the party during the 1951 legislative council election as an election agent. Lee was called to the Singapore bar on 7 August 1951.

During the postal union strike in May 1952, Lee negotiated a settlement which would mark his first step into the labour movement. In due course, Lee represented nearly fifty trade unions and associations against the British authorities on a basis. The disputes often centered around wages and Laycock eventually requested Lee to cease taking on such cases as it was hurting the firm. Activists and clients said that Lee was preparing to enter politics and was trying to burnish his 'pro-labour' credentials among the trade unions, which he later confirmed.

In May 1954, the left-wing University Socialist Club published an article 'Aggression in Asia' in the club's magazine The Fajar, and the student editors were charged with sedition. Lee became junior counsel to Denis Pritt. The court squashed the charges and the two counsel gained a reputation through the trial, with Lee thereafter becoming a "major leader" of the movement against British rule. During the same year, Lee also appealed on behalf of the students arrested during the 13 May incident. The colonial government upheld the sentences, though the case enhanced Lee's reputation as a "left-wing lawyer" and marked his first involvement with the Chinese intelligentsia.

During his studies in Britain, Lee met Goh Keng Swee and Toh Chin Chye via the Malayan Forum. The forum sought to promote an independent Malaya which included Singapore and met at 44 Bryanston Square in London. Lee and his contemporaries deliberately avoided the topic of forming a political party to avoid charges of subversion, beginning work on forming a political party only after returning to Singapore.

Lee had sought to build support among the English-educated, Malay, and Indian communities by taking on cases against the British authorities. In the course of his work, Lee became acquainted with the journalist Sinnathamby Rajaratnam; Abdul Samad Ismail, a writer for the Malay newspaper Utusan Melayu; and Devan Nair. He next turned his attention to the Chinese-speaking majority and was introduced to Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan, leaders of the influential bus and factories unions. While the unions had been infiltrated by communists, Lee consciously sought their support as he wanted a popular front. With elections approaching in 1955, Lee and his associates debated the name, ideology, and policies of the party they wanted to create at 38 Oxley Road.

The People's Action Party (PAP) was inaugurated on 21 November 1954 at the Victoria Memorial Hall. As the party still lacked members, trade union leaders rounded up an estimated audience of 800 to 1,500 supporters. Lee had also invited Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tan Cheng Lock, presidents of the United Malays National Organisation and Malayan Chinese Association. In his inaugural speech, Lee denounced the British for the slow transition to self-rule, demanded their immediate withdrawal, and said that the PAP would pursue a Singapore-Malaya union. Lee became secretary-general of the party, a post he held until 1992, barring a brief period in 1957.

In July 1953, Governor John Nicoll initiated the Rendel Commission to provide for a transition to self-rule. The commission created the legislative assembly and opened 25 of 32 seats for direct contest in the upcoming 1955 election. The PAP and Labour Front, led by Lee and David Marshall respectively, both criticised the concessions as "inadequate". The PAP faced manpower constraints but decided to prioritise resources and contest four seats as a protest gesture. In a rally speech, Lee said he chose the Tanjong Pagar division as it was a "working class area" and that he did not want to represent "wealthy merchants or landlords".

During the campaigning period, the British press labelled Lee as a " commissar" and accused the PAP of being a "communist-backed party". Democratic Party (DP) challenger Lam Thian also capitalised on Lee's inability to converse in Chinese. Lee's proposal for a multilingual debate was never reciprocated by Thian, though he eventually made his maiden Chinese speech after several hours of coaching. On polling day, 2 April, the ruling Progressive Party captured only four seats, shocking both the British establishment and its opposition. Lee defeated his competitors and won Tanjong Pagar, with the PAP winning three of their four contested seats. He pledged to work with Marshall and the new Labour Front government.

Any man in Singapore who wants to carry the Chinese-speaking people with him cannot afford to be anti-Communist. The Chinese are very proud of China. If I had to choose between colonialism and communism, I would vote for communism and so would the great majority.

Lee to an Australian journalist a week before the riot

On 23 April 1955, workers from the Hock Lee Amalgamated Bus Company began a strike under the direction of Fong Swee Suan, leader of the Singapore Buses Workers' Union (SBWU). As SBWU's legal advisor, Lee worked with Marshall's government to negotiate a resolution, which was initially agreed by the SBWU but then reneged on by the company. Seeking to exert greater pressure, Lee, Fong and Lim Chin Siong addressed the strikers on 1 May ( May Day), where Lee called the government a "half-past six democracy". The strike subsequently escalated into a riot on 12 May.

Lee, Marshall and the company agreed on a further resolution on 14 May, which conceded to several of the strikers' demands. In an emergency legislative assembly sitting on 16 May, Chief Secretary William Goode accused Lee of losing control of the PAP to Lim. Lee was constrained between defending the actions of his colleagues and denouncing them, instead reiterating the PAP's committal to non-violence. Marshall defended him and the PAP as "decent men" against Goode's accusations and called upon the party to "purge themselves of communists".

The riot led the public to perceive the PAP as being led by "young, immature and troublesome politicians", resulting in a shortfall of new members. It deepened the divide between two emerging factions, with Lee's faction advocating Fabian's brand of socialism for gradual reform and Lim's faction, later described by Fong as "favour(ing) a more radical approach". Lee was convinced that Lim and Fong's influence were pushing the party toward "political disaster". After consulting his allies Toh Chin Chye, S. Rajaratnam and Byrne, Lee censured the two men privately and demanded they change strategies or leave the party.

By 1956, Lee believed that the PAP "had been captured by the communists" and privately endorsed the Labour Front government purge of suspected "leftists" in the aftermath of the 1956 Chinese middle schools riots. The arrestees included his rival Lim and several other PAP members. When other leftist members captured six seats in the PAP central executive committee (CEC) elections on 4 August 1957, Lee refused to allow his allies to assume their appointments and said that his faction had "lost their moral right" to enforce the party's founding philosophy. Overtures were made by fellow CEC member T. T. Rajah to remain in his post, to which he declined. The government arrested the leftist leaders on 22 August and Lee was restored as secretary-general on 20 October. He later blamed the attempted takeover on lax admission rules to the party and permanently distrusted the leftists thereafter. On 23 November 1958, the party constitution was amended to implement a cadre system. The right to vote in party elections and run for office were revoked from ordinary party members, whom now had to seek approval from the CEC to be a cadre and regain these privileges. Lee credited the Vatican system where the pope pre-selects its cardinals for the idea.

The Labour Front government's conciliatory approach to the Hock Lee strikers led to a drastic increase in strikes. Frustrated by his limited powers, Marshall demanded further constitutional reforms towards the aim of "true self-government". Lee supported Marshall in his efforts, though he initially threatened an opposition boycott over wording disputes in the agreement.

Between 1956 and 1958, there would be three rounds of constitutional talks. Lee was part of Marshall's 13-member delegation to London in April 1956. Marshall's demands for independence were repeatedly rejected by Colonial Secretary Alan Lennox-Boyd and Lee departed early over Marshall's refusal to compromise. He criticised Marshall for his "political ineptitude" in the British press and received widespread media and radio coverage. He returned to London in March 1957 as part of a five-member delegation led by the new chief minister Lim Yew Hock. Britain conceded to Singapore's self-governance but also demanded that a tripartite Internal Security Council be established, which proved controversial back home. Marshall challenged Lee to seek a fresh mandate from his Tanjong Pagar constituents, which Lee accepted. In the June 1957 by-elections, Lee was reelected with 68.1% of the vote.

Lee returned to London for the third and final talks in May 1958, where it was agreed that Singapore would assume self-governance with a Yang di-Pertuan Negara as head of state, with Britain retaining control of defence and foreign policy. The British House of Lords passed the State of Singapore Act on 24 July 1958, which received royal assent on 1 August, and would become law following the next general election.

As the 1957 City Council election in December approached, a Hokkien-speaking candidate, Ong Eng Guan, became the PAP's new face to the Chinese electorate. The 32-seat city council's functions were restricted to up-keeping public amenities within city limits, but party leaders decided to contest the election as a "dry run" for the upcoming general election. Lee limited the PAP to contesting 14 seats to avoid provoking the government and formed an electoral pact with the Labour Front and United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) to jointly tackle the new Liberal Socialist Party. The PAP campaigned on a slogan to "sweep the city clean" and emerged with 13 seats, allowing it to form a minority administration with UMNO's support. Lee and the rest of the CEC unanimously endorsed Ong to become mayor.

Early in 1959, Communications and Works Minister Francis Thomas received evidence of corruption on Education Minister Chew Swee Kee. Thomas brought the evidence to Lee after the chief minister dismissed the matter. Lee tabled a motion in the assembly on 17 February, which forced Chew's resignation. As the expiry of the assembly's term approached, the PAP was initially split on whether to capture power but Lee chose to proceed. While picking the candidates, Lee deliberately chose people from different racial and education backgrounds to repair the party's image of being run by intellectuals. In the 1959 general election held on 30 May 1959, the PAP won a landslide victory with 43 of the 51 seats, though with only 53.4% of the popular vote which Lee noted.

The PAP's victory reportedly created a dilemma within the 12-member CEC as there was no formal process in place to choose a prime minister-elect. A vote was purportedly held between Lee and Ong Eng Guan and after both men received six votes, party chairman Toh Chin Chye cast the tie-breaking vote for Lee. When interviewed nearly five decades later, Toh and one other party member recalled the vote, but Lee and several others denied the account. Lee was summoned by Governor William Goode to form a new government on 1 June, to which he requested the release of arrested PAP members. On 3 June, Singapore became a self-governing state, ending 140 years of direct British rule. Lee was sworn in as Prime Minister of Singapore on 5 June at City Hall, along with the rest of his Cabinet.

Lee's first speech as prime minister to a 50,000-strong audience at the Padang sought to dampen his supporters' euphoria of the PAP's electoral win. In the first month of Lee taking power, Singapore experienced an economic slump as foreign capital fell and Western businesses and expatriates left for Kuala Lumpur in Malaya, fearing the new government's anti-colonial zeal. As part of an 'anti-yellow culture' drive, Lee banned jukeboxes and pinball machines, while the police under Home Affairs Minister Ong Pang Boon raided pubs and pornography publications. The government cracked down on secret societies, prostitution and other illegal activities, with TIME magazine later reporting that a full week passed without "kidnapping, extortion or gangland rumble(s)" for the first time. Lee also spearheaded several 'mobilisation campaigns' to clean the city, introduced air-conditioning to government offices, and slashed the salaries of civil servants. The last act provoked anger from the sector, which Lee justified as necessary to balance the budget.

In February 1960, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) superseded the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) and assumed responsibility of public housing. With strong government support, the HDB under chairman Lim Kim San completed more flats in three years than its predecessor did in thirty-two. Government expenditure for public utilities, healthcare and education also increased significantly. By the end of the year, however, unemployment began to rise drastically as the economy slowed. Lee reversed anti-colonial policies and launched a five-year plan to build new industries, seeking to attract foreign investors and rival Hong Kong. Jurong, a swampland to the island's western coast was chosen to be the site of a new industrial estate and would house steel mills, shipyards, and oil refineries, though Finance Minister Goh Keng Swee was initially worried the venture would fail.

The government promoted multiculturalism by recognising Malay, English, Tamil and Chinese as the official languages of the new state and sought to create a new national Malayan identity. The Ministry of Culture under S. Rajaratnam held free outdoor concerts with every ethnic race represented in the performances. Lee also introduced the People's Association, a government-linked organisation to run community centers and youth clubs, with its leaders trained to spread the PAP's ideology. Youth unemployment was alleviated by the establishment of work brigades.

Lim Chin Siong was Lee's main political rival and formed the Barisan Sosialis after his expulsion from the PAP.

Lee took measures to secure his position in the aftermath of the 1957 party elections. In 1959, he delayed the release of leftist PAP members arrested under the former Labour Front government and appointed five of its leaders, including Lim Chin Siong, as parliamentary secretaries lacking political power. Lee clashed further with Lim when the government sought to create a centralised labour union in the first half of 1960. Trouble also arose from former mayor and Minister of National Development Ong Eng Guan, who Lee had appointed in recognition of Ong's contribution to the PAP's electoral win. Ong's relocation of his ministry to his Hong Lim stronghold and continued castigation of the British and civil servants was regarded by his colleagues as disruptive and Lee removed several portfolios from Ong's purview in February 1960.

In the party conference on 18 June 1960, Ong filed "16 resolutions" against the leadership, accusing Lee of failing to seek party consensus when deciding policy, not adhering to anti-colonialism and suspending left-wing unions. Lee regarded it as a move to split the party and together with his allies expelled Ong from the party. Ong resigned his seat in December, precipitating the Hong Lim by-election on in April 1961 which he won against a PAP candidate. The death of the PAP assemblyman for Anson that April triggered a second by-election. For the first time, Lim's faction openly revolted against Lee and endorsed Workers' Party chairman David Marshall who won the seat.

Lee assumed responsibility for the two by-election defeats and submitted his resignation to party chairman Toh Chin Chye on 17 July. Toh rejected it and upheld Lee's mandate. Lee moved a motion of confidence in his own government in the early hours of 21 July after a thirteen-hour debate which had begun the preceding day, narrowly surviving it with 27 "Ayes", 8 "Noes" and 16 abstentions. The PAP now commanded a single seat majority in the 51-seat assembly after 13 of its members had abstained. Lee expelled the 13 who had broken ranks in addition to Lim, Fong and Woodhull.

Lee and his colleagues believed that Singapore could only survive through merger with Malaya and was unwilling to call for complete independence. Merger would allow goods to be exported to the peninsula under a common market, while devolving unpopular internal security measures to Kuala Lumpur. Malaya's ruling Alliance Party coalition dominated by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) had repeatedly opposed the scheme and was apprehensive that Singapore's Chinese majority would reduce 'Malay political supremacy'. Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman backtracked after the PAP's Hong Lim by-election defeat, fearing a "pro-communist government" in Singapore should Lee fall from power. On 27 May 1961, Tunku announced that Malaya, Singapore, and the British colonies of North Borneo and Sarawak should pursue "political and economic cooperation". Lee endorsed the program six days later and commenced negotiations on the formation of Malaysia.

In August 1961, Lee and Tunku agreed that Singapore's defence, foreign affairs and internal security would be transferred to the federal government, while education and labour policy remained with the state government. Lim Chin Siong and his supporters saw Lee's ceding control of internal security-then controlled by the Internal Security Council with British, Malayan, Singaporean representatives-to the federal government as a threat as Tunku was convinced they were communists. In a meeting with British Commissioner General Lord Selkirk, Selkirk reaffirmed that the British would not suspend Singapore's constitution should Lee be voted out. Lee saw the meeting as a British endorsement of Lim and accused it as a plot against his government. On 13 August, Lim founded the Barisan Sosialis and became its secretary-general, with 35 of 51 branches of the PAP defecting. Lee anticipated a Barisan win in the next election and saw 'independence through merger' as the only means for the PAP to retain power.

Beginning on 13 September 1961, Lee gave twelve multilingual radio speeches outlining the benefits of merger in what he called the 'Battle for Merger'. The speeches proved to be a massive success for Lee's campaign, while Barisan's demands for equal airtime were rejected. Lee employed full use of state resources to suppress his opponents by revoking the Barisan's printing permits, banning or relocating its rallies, and purging its supporters from the government, while the judiciary and police engaged to "obstruct, provoke and isolate" the party. The Barisan lambasted Lee for securing only 15 seats in the Malaysian parliament for Singapore in contrast to North Borneo (16) and Sarawak (24), despite both having a combined population well below Singapore's 1.7 million. Singapore citizens would also be categorised as "nationals" and not be granted Malaysian citizenship. On 6 December, the legislative assembly voted 33-0 in favour of the agreements struck by Lee and Tunku, which the Barisan boycotted.

A referendum for merger was scheduled for 1 September 1962. Lee ensured that the ballot lacked a "no" option, with all three options having varying terms for admission into Malaysia. The ballot was crafted by Lee and Goh Keng Swee to capitalise on a mistake which the Barisan had made the previous year. The Barisan had inadvertently endorsed merger under terms "like Penang" (a state of Malaya) with full citizenship rights, not realising that Malayan law entitled only a native-born to qualify for automatic citizenship, which would disenfranchise nearly one third of those eligible to vote; it issued a clarification but never recovered from the mistake. Lee placed the flag of Singapore alongside option A with the terms of Singapore retaining control of education and labour policy, while portraying the Barisan's choice as option B favouring entry into the federation with no special rights, next to the flag of Penang. When Lim called for his supporters to submit blank votes, Lee countered that blank votes would count as a vote for the majority choice. 71% eventually voted for option A, while 26% cast blank votes. In November, Lee embarked on a ten-month visit to all fifty-one constituencies, prioritising those with the highest count of blank votes.

The Malayan government considered the arrests of Singapore's left-wing groups as non-negotiable for the formation of Malaysia. Tunku felt that Lee lacked the initiative to suppress "pro-communist elements" and warned that a Malay-led dictatorship would be instated to prevent a "socialist majority" in the next Malayan election. As the Malayans increased pressure on the Internal Security Council (ISC) to take action, Lee began supporting the idea of a purge in March 1962. The Malayan and Singapore special branches collaborated on an arrest list of major opposition members, though doubts arose if Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan could be classified as 'communists'. Up until the end of November 1962, the British declined to support the operation without a pretext, noting that Lim and the Barisan Sosialis had not broken any laws.

The Brunei revolt on 8 December led by A. M. Azahari provided a "heaven-sent opportunity" to take action, as Lim had met Azahari on 3 December. The Malayan government convened the ISC to discuss the operation, while Singapore's Special Branch produced alleged evidence of the communist control of Barisan. On 13 December, Lord Selkirk gave his authorisation for the arrests to proceed on 16 December. However, Lee's attempt to add two Malayan parliamentarians opposed to the formation of Malaysia into the arrest list caused the Malayan representative to rescind his consent, stopping the operation. Tunku suspected that Lee was trying to eliminate his entire opposition, while Lee felt that Tunku was evading his shared responsibility for the arrests.

An ISC meeting was scheduled to be held on 1 February 1963 to remount the operation. During the interim period, Lee had added three names from the United People's Party, one of them being former PAP minister Ong Eng Guan. Selkirk expressed concerns that Ong's arrest lacked any justification and Lee conceded that it was meant as a "warning" to Ong. Tunku told Geofroy Tory, the British High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur on 30 January, that 'if this operation failed, merger with Singapore was off'. Selkirk was pressured to put his reservations aside and finally consented. On 2 February, Operation Coldstore commenced across Singapore, with 113 detained including Lim and 23 others from Barisan Sosialis. Lee offered Lim a path into exile which Lim rejected. The Malayans and British later pressured Lee to retract his comment when he said he "disapproved" of the operation.

In his memoirs, Lee portrayed himself as reluctant in supporting the operation, though declassified British documents revealed that Lee was "somewhat more enthusiastic" than he eventually admitted.

Lee's proclamation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963; note the two flags atop the City Hall building.

On 31 August 1963, Lee declared Singapore's independence in a ceremony at the Padang and pledged loyalty to the federal government. With the conclusion of the trials of Barsian Sosialis' leaders, Lee dissolved the legislative assembly on 3 September and called for a snap election. He touted "independence through merger" as a success and utilised television and the mass media effectively. In conjunction with Sabah (formerly North Borneo) and Sarawak, Lee proclaimed Singapore as part of Malaysia in a second ceremony on 16 September accompanied by a military parade. Lim Chin Siong's arrest had however generated widespread sympathy for the Barisan and a close result was predicted. Australian and British officials expected a Barisan win. When the PAP defeated the Barisan in a landslide victory on 21 September, it was seen as a public endorsement of merger and Lee's socio-economic policies.

Relations between the PAP and Malaysia's ruling Alliance Party quickly deteriorated as Lee began espousing his policies to the rest of the country. The United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) was also shocked by the loss of three Malay-majority seats to the PAP in the recent 1963 Singapore election. Ultra-nationalists within UMNO alleged that Lee sought to overthrow the Malay monarchies and infringe on rural life. Lee's attempts to reconcile the PAP with UMNO were rebuffed as the latter remained committed to the Malaysian Chinese Association. Further hostility ensued when the PAP decided to contest in the 1964 Malaysian general election in contravention of a gentlemen's agreement that it would disavow itself from peninsula politics. Lee's speeches in Malaysia attracted large crowds and he expected the PAP to win at least seven parliamentary seats. The party ultimately won only one seat in Bangsar, Selangor under Devan Nair. Lee and other party insiders later conceded that UMNO's portrayal of the PAP as a "Chinese party" and its lack of grassroots in the peninsula had undermined its support from the Malay majority.

Ethnic tensions had risen prior to the April election when UMNO secretary-general Syed Jaafar Albar utilised the Utusan Melayu to accuse Lee of evicting Malays from their homes in March 1964. Lee explained personally to the affected neighbourhoods that the scheme was part of an urban renewal plan and that eviction notices had been sent to everyone irrespective of race. Albar responded by warning Lee to not "treat the sons of the soil as step-children" and led calls for the deaths of Lee and Social Affairs Minister Othman bin Wok on 12 July. On 21 July, the 1964 race riots in Singapore erupted during a celebration of Prophet Muhammad's birthday, lasting four days, killing 22 and injuring 461. Further riots occurred in late-August and early-September resulting in communities self-segregating from each other, which Lee characterised as "terribly disheartening" and against "everything we had believed in and worked for". Lee never forgot the Malay PAP leaders who stood against UMNO during the turmoil and as late as 1998, paid tribute to them for Singapore's survival.

Lee's perceptions that merger was becoming infeasible was also due to the federal government's obstruction of his industrialisation program and its imposition of new taxes on Singapore in November 1964. He authorised Goh Keng Swee to renegotiate with Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Razak Hussein on Singapore's place in the federation in early 1965. Seeking to provide an alternative to the Alliance Party government, Lee and his colleagues formed the Malaysian Solidarity Convention (MSC) with the Malayan and Sarawakian opposition on 9 May, with its goals for a Malaysian Malaysia and race-blind society. The MSC was seen by UMNO as a threat to the Malay monopoly of power and special rights granted to Malays under Article 153. UMNO supreme council member and future prime minister Mahathir Mohamad called the PAP "pro-Chinese, communist-oriented and positively anti-Malay", while others called for Lee's arrest under the Internal Security Act for trying to split the federation. Mathathir in his speech stated the huaren (ethnic Chinese) of Singapore were of "the insular, selfish and arrogant type of which Mr. Lee is a good example...They are in fact Chinese first, seeing China as the center of the world and Malaysia as a very poor second".

Such fears were sincerely felt by the UNMO leaders as one UMNO politician who was friendly with Lee privately told him: "You Chinese are too energetic and clever for us...we cannot stand the pressure". Many UMNO politicians felt threatened by Lee, a politician who sought to appeal to both ethnic Chinese and Malay voters. Albar warned in a speech that the Malay voters of Singapore must have been "misled" into voting for the PAP, and the UNMO would not allow this to happen in the next election. Lee later wrote of Tunku that was "a nice man", but "he was a prince who understood power and knew how to use it. He did not carry a big stick, but he had many hatchet-bearers who would do the job for him while he looked the other way and appeared as benign as ever". Tunku was a Malay aristocrat who spent his undergraduate years at Cambridge by his own admission on "fast women" rather than studying and whom Lee contemptuously noted had been awarded a degree at Cambridge that he did not deserve solely because he was an aristocrat. Tunku in turn felt threatened by Lee, a man who had worked his way up via his intelligence and self-discipline, which made him very different from the people in his world.

On 26 May, Lee addressed the Malaysian parliament for the final time, delivering his speech entirely in the Malay language. He challenged the Alliance Party to commit itself to a Malaysian Malaysia and denounce its extremists, and also argued that the PAP could better uplift the livelihood of the Malays. Then-social affairs minister Othman Wok later recounted: "I noticed that while he was speaking, the Alliance leaders sitting in front of us, they sank lower and lower because they were embarrassed this man (Lee) could speak Malay better than them". Then-national development minister Lim Kim San also noted: "That was the turning point. They perceived [Lee] as a dangerous man who could one day be the prime minister of Malaya. This was the speech that changed history." Prime Minister Tunku labelled the speech as the final straw which contributed to his decision on 29 June that Singapore's secession was necessary. The more extreme UMNO politicians such as Albar were pressing to have Lee arrested and martial law proclaimed, but Tunku chose to accept Singapore's secession instead. The British Prime Minister Harold Wilson also quietly pressured Tunku to accept Singapore's secession and warned him against a declaration of martial law. As Britain was defending Malaysia from Indonesian attempts to annexe the country, Britain was in a strong position to apply pressure on Malaysia. Lee in his memoirs stated that Singapore owed Wilson a major debt for his role in pressuring Tunku for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Lee announcing Singapore's separation from the federation on 9 August 1965

Lee summoned Law Minister Edmund W. Barker to draft documents effecting Singapore's separation from the federation and its proclamation of independence. In order to ensure that a 1962 agreement to draw water from Johor was retained, Lee insisted that it be enshrined in the separation agreement and Malaysian constitution. The negotiations of post-separation relations were held in utmost secrecy and Lee tried to prevent secession until he was persuaded to finally relent by Goh on 7 August. That day, Lee and several cabinet ministers signed the separation agreement at Razak's home, which stipulated continued co-operation in trade and mutual defence. He returned to Singapore the following day and convened the rest of his cabinet to sign the document, whereupon it was flown back to Kuala Lumpur.

On 9 August 1965 at 10am, Tunku convened the Malaysian parliament and moved the Constitution of Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Bill 1965, which passed unanimously by a vote of 126-0 with no PAP representatives present. Singapore's independence was announced locally via radio at the same time and Lee broke the news to senior diplomats and civil servants. In a televised press conference that day, Lee fought back tears and briefly stopped to regain his composure as he formally announced the news to an anxious population:

Every time we look back on this moment when we signed this agreement which severed Singapore from Malaysia, it will be a moment of anguish. For me it is a moment of anguish because all my life. ... You see, the whole of my adult life [...] I have believed in Malaysian merger and the unity of these two territories. You know, it's a people connected by geography, economics, and ties of kinship.... We could not achieve multiracialism and integration in Malaysia.

In his memoirs, Lee said that he was unable to sleep. Upon learning of Lee's condition from the British High Commissioner to Singapore, John Robb, the British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, expressed concern, in response to which Lee replied:

Do not worry about Singapore. My colleagues and I are sane, rational people even in our moments of anguish. We will weigh all possible consequences before we make any move on the political chessboard.

Lee began to seek international recognition of Singapore's independence. Singapore joined the United Nations on 21 September 1965, and founded the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on 8 August 1967 with four other South-East Asian countries. Lee made his first official visit to Indonesia on 25 May 1973, just a few years after the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation under Sukarno's regime. Relations between Singapore and Indonesia substantially improved as subsequent visits were made between the two countries.

Singapore has never had a dominant culture to which immigrants could assimilate even though Malay was the dominant language at that time. Together with efforts from the government and ruling party, Lee tried to create a unique Singaporean identity in the 1970s and 1980s-one which heavily recognised racial consciousness within the umbrella of multiculturalism.

Lee and his government stressed the importance of maintaining religious tolerance and racial harmony, and they were ready to use the law to counter any threat that might incite ethnic and religious violence. For example, Lee warned against "insensitive evangelisation", by which he referred to instances of Christian proselytising directed at Malays. In 1974 the government advised the Bible Society of Singapore to stop publishing religious material in Malay.

The vulnerability of Singapore was deeply felt, with threats from multiple sources including the communists and Indonesia with its confrontational stance. Adding to this vulnerability was the impending withdrawal of British forces from East of Suez. As Singapore gained admission to the United Nations, Lee quickly sought international recognition of Singapore's independence. He appointed Goh Keng Swee as Minister for the Interior and Defence to build up the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and requested help from other countries, particularly Israel and Taiwan, for advice, training and facilities. In 1967, Lee introduced conscription for all able-bodied male Singaporean citizens 18 years of age to serve National Service (NS) either in the SAF, Singapore Police Force or the Singapore Civil Defence Force. By 1971, Singapore had 17 national service battalions (16,000 men) with 14 battalions (11,000 men) in the reserves. In 1975, Lee and Republic of China premier Chiang Ching-kuo signed an agreement permitting Singaporean troops to train in Taiwan, under the codename "Project Starlight".

One of Lee's most urgent tasks upon Singapore's independence was to address high unemployment. Together with his economic aide, Economic Development Board chairman Hon Sui Sen, and in consultation with Dutch economist Albert Winsemius, Lee set up factories and initially focused on the manufacturing industry. Before the British completely withdrew from Singapore in 1971, Lee also persuaded the British not to destroy their dock and had the British naval dockyard later converted for civilian use.

Eventually, Lee and his cabinet decided the best way to boost Singapore's economy was to attract foreign investments from multinational corporations (MNCs). By establishing First World infrastructure and standards in Singapore, the new nation could attract American, Japanese and European entrepreneurs and professionals to set up base there. By the 1970s, the arrival of MNCs like Texas Instruments, Hewlett-Packard and General Electric laid the foundations, turning Singapore into a major electronics exporter the following decade. Workers were frequently retrained to familiarise themselves with the work systems and cultures of foreign companies. The government also started several new industries, such as steel mills under 'National Iron and Steel Mills', service industries like Neptune Orient Lines, and the Singapore Airlines.

Lee and his cabinet also worked to establish Singapore as an international financial centre. Foreign bankers were assured of the reliability of Singapore's social conditions, with top-class infrastructure and skilled professionals, and investors were made to understand that the Singapore government would pursue sound macroeconomic policies, with budget surpluses, leading to a stable valued Singapore dollar.

Throughout the tenure of his office, Lee placed great importance on developing the economy, and his attention to detail on this aspect went even to the extent of connecting it with other facets of Singapore, including the country's extensive and meticulous tending of its international image of being a "Garden City", something that has been sustained to this day.

Lee introduced legislation giving the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) greater power to conduct arrests, search, call up witnesses, and investigate bank accounts and income-tax returns of suspected persons and their families. Lee believed that ministers should be well paid in order to maintain a clean and honest government. On 21 November 1986, Lee received a complaint of corruption against then Minister for National Development Teh Cheang Wan. Lee authorised the CPIB to carry out investigations on Teh, but Teh committed suicide before any charges could be pressed against him. In 1994, he proposed to link the salaries of ministers, judges, and top civil servants to the salaries of top professionals in the private sector, arguing that this would help recruit and retain talent to serve in the public sector.

In the late 1960s, fearing that Singapore's growing population might overburden the developing economy, Lee started a " Stop at Two" family planning campaign. Couples were urged to undergo sterilisation after their second child. Third or fourth children were given lower priorities in education and such families received fewer economic rebates.

In 1983, Lee sparked the "Great Marriage Debate" when he encouraged Singapore men to choose highly educated women as wives. He was concerned that a large number of graduate women were unmarried. Some sections of the population, including graduate women, were upset by his views. Nevertheless, a match-making agency, the Social Development Unit (SDU), was set up to promote socialising among men and women graduates. In the Graduate Mothers Scheme, Lee also introduced incentives such as tax rebates, schooling, and housing priorities for graduate mothers who had three or four children, in a reversal of the over-successful "Stop at Two" family planning campaign in the 1960s and 1970s.

Lee suggested that perhaps the campaign for women's rights had been too successful:

Equal employment opportunities, yes, but we shouldn't get our women into jobs where they cannot, at the same time, be mothers...our most valuable asset is in the ability of our people, yet we are frittering away this asset through the unintended consequences of changes in our education policy and equal career opportunities for women. This has affected their traditional role ... as mothers, the creators and protectors of the next generation.

-  Lee Kuan Yew, "Talent for the future", 14 August 1983

The uproar over the proposal led to a swing of 12.9 per cent against the PAP government in the 1984 general election. In 1985, some especially controversial portions of the policy, that gave education and housing priorities to educated women, were abandoned or modified.

Singapore has traditionally relied on water from Malaysia. However, this reliance has made Singapore subject to the possibility of price increases and allowed Malaysian officials to use the water reliance as political leverage by threatening to cut off supply. To reduce this problem, Lee decided to experiment with water recycling in 1974. As a result of such efforts, Singapore has achieved self-sufficiency with its water supply since the mid-2010s.

Under Lee tree planting was pursued, in 1963 he began a tree-planting campaign which aimed to plant 10,000 saplings a year and in 1971 a 'Tree-Planting Day' was established. One of the goals of this was to increase rainfall. He also made efforts to clean Singapore's waters for collection and use.

Lee meeting Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 1982

Lee looked forward to improving relationships with Mahathir Mohamad upon the latter's promotion to Deputy Prime Minister. Knowing that Mahathir was in line to become the next Prime Minister of Malaysia, Lee invited Mahathir to visit Singapore in 1978. The first and subsequent visits improved both personal and diplomatic relationships between them. Then UMNO's Secretary-General Mahathir asked Lee to cut off all links with the Democratic Action Party; in exchange, Mahathir undertook not to interfere in the affairs of Malay Singaporeans.[citation needed ]

In June 1988, Lee and Mahathir reached an agreement in Kuala Lumpur to build the Linggui dam on the Johor River. Lee said he had made more progress solving bilateral issues with Dr Mahathir from 1981 to 1990 than in the previous 12 years with the latter's two predecessors, Tun Abdul Razak and Tun Hussein Onn. Mahathir ordered the lifting of the ban on the export of construction materials to Singapore in 1981, agreed to sort out Malaysia's claim to Pedra Branca island and affirmed it would honour the 1962 Water Agreement.

One day before Lee left office in November 1990, Malaysia and Singapore signed the Malaysia-Singapore Points of Agreement of 1990 (POA). Malayan Railways (KTM) would vacate the Tanjong Pagar railway station and move to Bukit Timah while all KTM's land between Bukit Timah and Tanjong Pagar would revert to Singapore. Railway land at Tanjong Pagar would be handed over to a private limited company for joint development, the equity of which would be divided 60% to Malaysia and 40% to Singapore. However, Prime Minister Mahathir expressed his displeasure with the POA, for it failed to include a piece of railway land in Bukit Timah for joint development in 1993.

In 1961 the Singaporean government arrested two CIA agents who attempted to bribe a Singaporean official in exchange for providing information to the CIA. Lee requested 35 million dollars in economic aid in exchange for the covert release of the two agents. The Americans rejected this offer however and presented a counter-offer of 3.3 million dollars to be given directly to Lee and the People's Action Party. The men were later released without any financial exchange. Lee revealed this incident in 1965 which led to the Americans to deny it ever occurred, however Lee later made public a letter of apology from the US Secretary of State Dean Rusk over the incident.

Lee Kuan Yew and his wife Kwa Geok Choo with United States President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Reagan on 8 October 1985 at the White House

Lee fully supported the US involvement in the Vietnam War. Even as the war began to lose its popularity in the United States, Lee made his first official visit to the United States in October 1967, and declared to President Lyndon B. Johnson that his support for the war in Vietnam was "unequivocal". Lee saw the war as necessary for states in Southeast Asia like Singapore to buy time for stabilising their governments and economies. Lee cultivated close relationships with presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, as well as former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. In 1967 Nixon, who was running for president in 1968, visited Singapore and met with Lee, who advised that the United States had much to gain by engaging with China, culminating in Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to China.

In the 1980s, closer defence relations between Singapore and the United States enabled Singapore to acquire advanced American weapon platforms and capabilities. The United States provided Singapore with aircraft such as the F-16 and the E-2C airborne early warning (AEW) to strengthen its air defences.

In October 1985, Lee made a state visit to the United States on the invitation of President Reagan and addressed a joint session of the United States Congress. Lee stressed to Congress the importance of free trade and urged it not to turn towards protectionism:

It is inherent in America's position as the preeminent economic, political and military power to have to settle and uphold the rules for orderly change and progress... In the interests of peace and security America must uphold the rules of international conduct which rewards peaceful cooperative behaviour and punishes transgressions of the peace. A replay of the depression of the 1930s, which led to World War II, will be ruinous for all. All the major powers of the West share the responsibility of not repeating this mistake. But America's is the primary responsibility, for she is the anchor economy of the free-market economies of the world.

In May 1988, E. Mason "Hank" Hendrickson was serving as the First Secretary of the United States Embassy when he was expelled by the Singapore government.[incomplete short citation ] The Singapore government alleged that Hendrickson attempted to interfere in Singapore's internal affairs by cultivating opposition figures in a " Marxist conspiracy". Then-First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong claimed that Hendrickson's alleged conspiracy could have resulted in the election of 20 or 30 opposition politicians to Parliament, which in his words could lead to "horrendous" effects, possibly even the paralysis and fall of the Singapore government. In the aftermath of Hendrickson's expulsion, the U.S. State Department praised Hendrickson's performance in Singapore and denied any impropriety in his actions. The State Department also expelled Robert Chua, a senior-level Singaporean diplomat equal in rank to Hendrickson, from Washington, D.C. in response. The State Department's refusal to reprimand Hendrickson, along with its expulsion of the Singaporean diplomat, sparked a rare protest in Singapore by the National Trades Union Congress; they drove buses around the U.S. embassy, held a rally attended by four thousand workers, and issued a statement deriding the U.S. as "sneaky, arrogant, and untrustworthy".

Singapore did not establish diplomatic relations with China until the U.S. and Southeast Asia had decided they wanted to do so in order to avoid portraying a pro-China bias. His official visits to China starting in 1976 were conducted in English, to assure other countries that he represented Singapore, and not a "Third China" (the first two being the Republic of China and People's Republic of China).

In November 1978, after China had stabilised following political turmoil in the aftermath of Mao Zedong's death and the Gang of Four, Deng Xiaoping visited Singapore and met Lee. Deng, who was very impressed with Singapore's economic development, greenery and housing, and later sent tens of thousands of Chinese to Singapore and countries around the world to learn from their experiences and bring back their knowledge as part of the opening of China beginning in December 1978. Lee, on the other hand, advised Deng to stop exporting Communist ideologies to Southeast Asia, an advice that Deng later followed. This culminated in the exchange of Trade Offices between the two nations in September 1981. In 1985, commercial air services between mainland China and Singapore commenced and China appointed Goh Keng Swee, Singapore's finance minister in the post-independence years, as advisor on the development of Special Economic Zones.

On 3 October 1990, Singapore revised diplomatic relations from the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China.

Lee opposed the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978. The Singapore government organised an international campaign to condemn Vietnam and provided aid to the Khmer Rouge which was fighting against Vietnamese occupation during the Cambodian-Vietnamese War from 1978 to 1989. In his memoirs, Lee recounted that in 1982, "Singapore gave the first few hundreds of several batches of AK-47 rifles, hand grenades, ammunition and communication equipment" to the Khmer Rouge resistance forces.

Lee (middle) meets with United States Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Singapore's Ambassador to the United States Chan Heng Chee in 2000

After leading the PAP to victory in seven elections, Lee stepped down on 28 November 1990, handing over the prime ministership to Goh Chok Tong. By that time, he had become the world's longest-serving prime minister. This was the first leadership transition since independence. Goh was elected as the new Prime Minister by the younger ministers then in office. When Goh Chok Tong became head of government, Lee remained in the cabinet with a non-executive position of Senior Minister and played a role he described as advisory. Lee subsequently stepped down as secretary-general of the PAP and was succeeded by Goh Chok Tong on 2 December 1992.

In April 1996, Lee and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, disclosed that they had purchased apartments located at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28 from Hotel Properties Ltd, a real estate developer listed on the Stock Exchange of Singapore, at substantial discounts ranging from 5 to 12 per cent. The dispute arose amidst rampant property speculation in Singapore. Upon learning of the issue, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong swiftly initiated an immediate investigation into the matter. While Singapore law permits the provision of special discounts or rebates to relatives and associates of directors, it is imperative that such transactions receive approval from shareholders.

This disclosure prompted sufficient public disquiet for Lee to appear before Parliament to explain the purchases. Lee said that as he was a prominent figure, the developer had a "legitimate incentive" to provide discounts for publicity, and that he had previously purchased a car and acquired services from his tailor and cobbler at a discount. The amount saved was donated to charity.

In December 2004, Lee stepped down to become Minister Mentor. Expressing concern about the declining proficiency of Mandarin among younger Chinese Singaporeans, he started a year-long campaign called "" (Mandarin is Cool!) to garner interest in using Mandarin.

On 13 September 2008, Lee underwent treatment for abnormal heart rhythm ( atrial flutter) at Singapore General Hospital. The treatment was successful, and he was well enough to address a philanthropy forum via video link from the hospital. On 28 September 2010, he was hospitalised for a chest infection, cancelling plans to attend the wake of the Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Balaji Sadasivan.

In November 2010, Lee's private conversations with James Steinberg, US Deputy Secretary of State, on 30 May 2009 were among the US Embassy cables leaked by WikiLeaks. In a US Embassy report classified as "Secret", Lee gave his assessment of a number of Asian leaders and views on political developments in North Asia, including implications for nuclear proliferation.

In January 2011, the Straits Times Press published the book Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going. Targeted at younger Singaporeans, it was based on 16 interviews with Lee by seven local journalists in 2008-2009. The first print run of 45,000 copies sold out in less than a month after it was launched in January 2011. Another batch of 55,000 copies was made available shortly after.

After the 2011 general elections in which the Workers' Party, a major opposition political party in Singapore, made unprecedented gains by winning a Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Lee announced that he decided to leave the Cabinet for the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, and his team to have a clean slate. Some analysts, such as Citigroup economist Kit Wei Zheng, believed that the senior Lee had contributed to the PAP's poor performance. In particular, he stated during campaigning that the voters of Aljunied constituency had "five years to live and repent" if they elected the Workers' Party, which some viewed as having backfired for the PAP as the opposition went on to win Aljunied.

In a column in the Sunday Times on 6 November 2011, Lee's daughter, Lee Wei Ling, revealed that her father had peripheral neuropathy. In the column, she recounted how she first noticed her father's ailments when she accompanied him to meet the former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in Connecticut in October 2009. Wei Ling, a neurologist, "did a few simple neurological tests and decided the nerves to his legs were not working as they should". A day later, when interviewed at a constituency tree-planting event, Lee stated: "I have no doubt at all that this has not affected my mind, my will nor my resolve" and that "people in wheel chairs can make a contribution. I've still got two legs, I will make a contribution".

The State flag flying at half-mast at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) following the death of Lee Kuan Yew

On 15 February 2013, Lee was admitted to Singapore General Hospital following a prolonged cardiac dysrhythmia, which was followed by a brief stoppage of blood flow to the brain. For the first time in his career as a Member of Parliament (MP), Lee missed the annual Chinese New Year dinner at his constituency, where he was supposed to be the guest-of-honour. He was subsequently discharged, but continued to receive anti-coagulant therapy.

The following year, Lee missed his constituency's Chinese New Year dinner for the second consecutive time owing to bodily bacterial invasion. In April 2014, a photo depicting a cadaverous Lee was released online, drawing strong reactions from netizens. According to Lee's daughter, Lee Wei Ling, Lee had discussed euthanasia which is not a legal option in Singapore.

On 5 February 2015, Lee was hospitalised for pneumonia and was put on a ventilator at the intensive care unit of Singapore General Hospital, although his condition was reported initially as "stable". A 26 February update stated that he was again being given antibiotics, while being sedated and still under mechanical ventilation. From 17 to 22 March, Lee continued weakening as he developed an infection while on life support, and he was described as "critically ill".

On 18 March that year, a death hoax website reported false news of Lee's death. The suspect is an unidentified minor who created a false webpage that resembled the PMO official website. Several international news organisations reported on Lee's death based on this and later retracted their statements.

On 23rd of that same month, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced his father's death at the age of 91. Lee had died at 03:18 Singapore Standard Time ( UTC+08:00). A week of national mourning took place, during which time Lee was lying in state at Parliament House. As a mark of respect, State flags at all Government buildings were flown at half-mast. During this time, 1.7 million Singaporean residents as well as world leaders paid tribute to him at Parliament house and community tribute sites throughout the country. A state funeral for Lee was held on 29th of that same month and attended by world leaders. Later that day, Lee was cremated in a private ceremony at the Mandai Crematorium.

I'm not saying that everything I did was right, but everything I did was for an honourable purpose. I had to do some nasty things, locking fellows up without trial.

Lee in 2010 during an interview with Seth Mydans of the New York Times and the former International Herald Tribune, reflecting on his legacy during his premiership

As prime minister from 1959 to 1990, Lee presided over many of Singapore's advancements. He oversaw Singapore's transformation from an island nation with a high illiteracy rate and no natural resources into a developed country with a high-income economy within a single generation, commonly termed (from his autobiography) as 'From the third world to the first world'. Singapore's gross national product per capita (GNP) rose from $1,240 in 1959 to $18,437 in 1990. The unemployment rate in Singapore dropped from 13.5% in 1959 to 1.7% in 1990. External trade increased from $7.3 billion in 1959 to $205 billion in 1990. In other areas, the life expectancy at birth for Singaporeans rose from 65 years in 1960 to 74 years in 1990. The population of Singapore increased from 1.6 million in 1959 to 3 million in 1990. The number of public flats in Singapore rose from 22,975 in 1959 (then under the Singapore Improvement Trust) to 667,575 in 1990. The Singaporean literacy rate increased from 52% in 1957 to 90% in 1990. Telephone lines per 100 Singaporeans increased from 3 in 1960 to 38 in 1990. Visitor arrivals to Singapore rose from 100,000 in 1960 to 5.3 million in 1990.

Notably, these economic accomplishments were achieved in large part due to Lee's stewardship of public administration through relevant and targeted public policy; Lee introduced measures to jumpstart manufacturing of finished goods for export ( export-oriented industrialisation) and sought to create a conducive business environment in the trading nation to attract foreign direct investment (through the establishment of the Economic Development Board, EDB). Lee also forged a symbiotic and mutually dependent relationship between the People's Action Party with the National Trades Union Congress, whereby the governing political party received certain input from the labour grassroots, whilst the national trade union centre is led by prominent PAP party politicians who usually have ministerial portfolios within the Government. The Government's tight control over trade union activities and industrial relations, ensured near-total industrial peace, that was assessed to be a prerequisite for rapid economic development.

Lee was a staunch promoter of economic globalisation and a vocal opponent of protectionism. Lee said that Singapore's only natural resources are its people and their strong work ethic. In addition, Lee was focused on social policies such as improving and mandating higher public standards for education, sanitation and hygiene, whilst concurrently improving public health by expanding modern health care and greatly increasing the quantity and quality of high-rise affordable housing (through the establishment of the Housing and Development Board, HDB) for working- and middle-class families. Various world leaders had also praised Lee. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once wrote of Lee: "One of the asymmetries of history is the lack of correspondence between the abilities of some leaders and the power of their countries." Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher praised "his way of penetrating the fog of propaganda and expressing with unique clarity the issues of our time and the way to tackle them".

Lee's achievements in Singapore had a profound effect on the Communist leadership in China, who made a major effort, especially under Deng Xiaoping, to emulate his policies of economic growth, entrepreneurship and subtle suppression of dissent. Over 22,000 Chinese officials were sent to Singapore to study its methods. He has also had a major influence on thinking in Russia in recent years. On the other hand, proponents of liberal democracy especially in the West criticised Lee's rule as authoritarian and as intolerant of dissent, citing his numerous attempts to sue political opponents and newspapers who express unfavourable opinions of Lee. Reporters Without Borders, an international media advocacy group, requested Lee and other senior Singaporean officials to stop taking libel suits against journalists. Lee was a co-inventor of " Asian values".

Critics accuse him of curtailing press freedoms, often imposing limits on public protests which prevented further occurrences, restricting labour movements from industrial action or strike action, suppressing wage growth of skilled workers (in order to be competitive with developing countries) amid widening and high levels of income inequality along with wealth inequality (relative to other developed countries), had encouraged an elitist mindset as well as filing defamation lawsuits against prominent political opponents. However, supporters argued in retrospect that his actions were necessary for the country's early development, and various international political analysts note that Lee's governance was generally pragmatic and benevolent. During the three decades in which Lee held office, Singapore grew from a developing country to one of the most developed nations in Asia and the world.

Action against Far Eastern Economic Review

In April 1977, just months after a general election which saw the People's Action Party winning all 69 seats, the Internal Security Department, under orders from Lee, detained Ho Kwon Ping, the Singapore correspondent of the Far Eastern Economic Review, as well as his predecessor Arun Senkuttavan, over their reporting. Ho was detained under the Internal Security Act which allows for indefinite trial, held in solitary confinement for two months, and charged with endangering national security. Following a televised confession in which Ho confessed to "pro-communist activities", he was fined $3,000. Lee Kuan Yew later charged FEER editor, Derek Davies, of participating in "a diabolical international Communist plot" to poison relations between Singapore and neighbouring Malaysia.

In 1987 Lee restricted sale of the Review in Singapore after it published an article about the detention of Roman Catholic church workers, reducing circulation of the magazine from 9,000 to 500 copies, on the grounds that it was "interfering in the domestic politics of Singapore."

On 24 September 2008 the High Court of Singapore, in a summary judgment by Justice Woo Bih Li, ruled that the Far Eastern Economic Review magazine (Hugo Restall, editor), defamed Lee and his son, the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong. The court found the 2006 article "Singapore's 'Martyr': Chee Soon Juan" suggested that Lee "ha[d] been running and continue[d] to run Singapore in the same corrupt manner as Durai operated [the National Kidney Foundation] and he ha[d] been using libel actions to suppress those who would question [him] to avoid exposure of his corruption". The court ordered the Review, owned by Dow Jones & Company (in turn owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp), to pay damages to the complainants. The magazine appealed but lost.

Lee commenced proceedings for slander against opposition leader J. B. Jeyaretnam for comments he made at a Workers' Party rally in the 1988 general election. Lee alleged that Jeyaretnam's speech at the rally implied he had tried to cover up the corruption of the former Minister for National Development, Teh Cheang Wan, by aiding and abetting his suicide. The action was heard by Justice Lai Kew Chai, who ruled against Jeyaretnam and ordered him to pay damages of S$260,000 plus costs to Lee. Jeyaretnam lost an appeal against the judgment.

In 1999, the former President of the Republic of Singapore Devan Nair who was living in Canada, remarked in an interview with the Toronto The Globe and Mail that Lee's technique of suing his opponents into bankruptcy or oblivion was an abrogation of political rights. Devan Nair also described Lee as "an increasingly self-righteous know-all" surrounded by "department store dummies". In response to these remarks, Lee sued Nair in a Canadian court and Nair countersued. Lee then brought a motion to have Nair's counterclaim thrown out of court. Lee argued that Nair's counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an inflammatory attack on the integrity of the Singapore government. However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to throw out Nair's counterclaim, holding that Lee had abused the litigating process and therefore Nair had a reasonable cause of action.

Lee wrote in one of his memoirs that Nair was forced to resign as president due to his alleged alcoholism, a charge which Nair denied.

International Herald Tribune defamation case

In 2010 Lee, together with his son Lee Hsien Loong, and Goh Chok Tong, threatened legal action against The New York Times Company, which owns the International Herald Tribune, regarding an op-ed piece titled "All in the Family" of 15 February 2010 by Philip Bowring, a freelance columnist and former editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review. The International Herald Tribune apologised in March that readers of the article may "infer that the younger Lee did not achieve his position through merit". The New York Times Company and Bowring also agreed to pay S$60,000 to Lee Hsien Loong, S$50,000 to Lee and S$50,000 to Goh (totalling about US$114,000 at the time), in addition to legal costs. The case stemmed from a 1994 settlement between the three Singaporean leaders and the paper about an article, also by Bowring, that referred to "dynastic politics" in East Asian countries, including Singapore. In that settlement, Bowring agreed not to say or imply that the younger Lee had attained his position through nepotism by his father Lee Kuan Yew. In response, media-rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders wrote an open letter to urge Lee and other top officials of the Singapore government to stop taking "libel actions" against journalists.

On 15 September 2006, at the Raffles Forum hosted by the School of Public Policy, Lee made a remark as to how the "Malaysian and Indonesian governments systematically marginalise its Chinese people", by bringing up topics such as the May 1998 riots of Indonesia and Ketuanan Melayu, which subsequently caused a short diplomatic spat. He then described the systematic marginalisation of the Chinese in Malaysia, which aroused a strong response from the Malaysian government. Politicians in Malaysia and Indonesia expressed dissatisfaction with this and demanded the Singaporean government to explain and apologise for Lee's remarks.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad criticised Lee Kuan Yew for his "arrogance and disrespect" for neighbouring countries and countered that Malaysia could also question Singapore's marginalisation of its local Malays and other minorities such as the Eurasians and Indians. Former Indonesian President B. J. Habibie also described the " little red dot" term in reference to Singapore as an incentive for Indonesian youth to learn from Singapore's achievements, and that the original intention was distorted. On 30 September, while Lee Kuan Yew apologised to the Malaysian Prime Minister at the time Abdullah Badawi for his remarks, he did not fully retract his remarks.

Alarmed that Singapore's fertility rate was falling precipitously low, Lee launched the Graduate Mothers' Scheme in 1983, giving tax deductions for children to women with university degrees, and priority in admission to primary schools to graduate mothers with 3 or more children.

In his speech at the 1983 National Day Rally, Lee said, "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."

"If we continue to respond ourselves in this lopsided manner we will be unable to maintain our present standards," he added. "Levels of competence will decline. Our economy will falter, the administration will suffer, and society will decline.., for every two college graduates in 25 years' time there will be one graduate and for every two uneducated workers there will be three."

In June 1984, Lee's government rolled out grants for low income and low education women to undergo sterilisation. If a woman and her husband had no O-level passes and fewer than 3 children, the woman could receive a $10,000 grant for undergoing sterilisation. Sterilized lower-class parents were also given priority primary school admission for their existing first and second children. The uproar over the proposal led to a swing of 12.9 per cent against the People's Action Party in the general election held later that year. In 1985, especially controversial portions of the policy that gave education and housing priorities to educated women were eventually abandoned or modified.

A proponent of nature over nurture, Lee averred that " intelligence is 80% nature and 20% nurture" and attributed the successes of his children to genetics.

In 2011, WikiLeaks published diplomatic cables attributing controversial comments on Islam to Lee. WikiLeaks quoted Lee as having described Islam as a "venomous religion". Lee called the remarks "false" and looked up to MFA's filenote of meeting and found no record of the claim, stating: "I did talk about extremist terrorists like the Jemaah Islamiyah group, and the jihadist preachers who brainwashed them. They are implacable in wanting to put down all who do not agree with them. So their Islam is a perverted version, which the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Singapore do not subscribe to". He added that "Singapore Muslim leaders were rational and that the ultimate solution to extremist terrorism was to give moderate Muslims the courage to stand up and speak out against radicals who hijacked Islam to recruit volunteers for their violent ends".

In Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, Lee stated that Singaporean Muslims faced difficulties in integrating because of their religion and urged them to "be less strict on Islamic observances". His remarks drew fire from Malay/Muslim leaders and MPs in Singapore, prompting a strong reaction from his son Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister at that time, who said "My views on Muslims' integration in Singapore differed from the Minister Mentor's. Muslims are a valued and respected community, who have done a good deal to strengthen our harmony and social cohesion." Lee Kuan Yew then told the media "I made this one comment on the Muslims integrating with other communities probably two or three years ago. Ministers and MPs, both Malay and non-Malay, have since told me that Singapore Malays have indeed made special efforts to integrate with the other communities, especially since 9/11, and that my call is out of date." Subsequently, he added: "I stand corrected. I hope that this trend will continue in the future."

Under Lee's tenure as prime minister, homosexuals were arrested and prosecuted under section 377A of the penal code. In his later years, Lee appeared to become more supportive of LGBT issues, expressing a belief that homosexuality was genetic and questioning the rationale behind its criminalisation. He believed that homosexuality would eventually be accepted in Singapore, but advocated for a measured and "pragmatic approach" toward the matter "to maintain social cohesion."

One of Lee's abiding beliefs was in the efficacy of corporal punishment in the form of caning. In his autobiography The Singapore Story, Lee described his time at Raffles Institution in the 1930s, mentioning that he was caned there for chronic lateness by the then headmaster, D. W. McLeod. He wrote: "I bent over a chair and was given three of the best with my trousers on. I did not think he lightened his strokes. I have never understood why Western educationists are so much against corporal punishment. It did my fellow students and me no harm".

Lee's government inherited judicial corporal punishment from British rule, but greatly expanded its scope. Under the British, it had been used as a penalty for offences involving personal violence, amounting to a handful of caning sentences per year. The PAP government under Lee extended its use to an ever-expanding range of crimes. By 1993, it was mandatory for 42 offences and optional for a further 42. Those routinely ordered by the courts to be caned now include drug addicts and illegal immigrants. From 602 canings in 1987, the figure rose to 3,244 in 1993 and to 6,404 in 2007.

School corporal punishment (for male students only) was likewise inherited from the British, and is still in use in schools, permitted under legislation from 1957. Lee also introduced caning in the Singapore Armed Forces, and Singapore is one of the few countries in the world where corporal punishment is an official penalty in military discipline.

Lee and his wife, Kwa Geok Choo, were married on 30 September 1950. Both spoke English as their first language. Lee first started learning Chinese in 1955, at the age of 32. During World War II, he learned the Japanese language to help him survive, and worked as a Japanese translator during the Japanese occupation of Singapore.

Lee and Kwa have two sons and a daughter. His elder son Lee Hsien Loong, is the third prime minister of Singapore. Several members of the Lee family hold prominent positions in the Singapore society. His younger son Lee Hsien Yang was president and CEO of SingTel, and Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS). Lee's daughter Lee Wei Ling, a neurologist and epileptologist, was director of the National Neuroscience Institute. Lee's daughter-in-law Ho Ching, was executive director and CEO of Temasek Holdings. His wife Kwa Geok Choo, died on 2 October 2010, at the age of 89.

Lee identified as a Buddhist in name and would practice Buddhist rituals on occasion. He has also been described as agnostic and has stated that he "neither [denies] nor [accepts] that there is a God". In his later years, Lee practised meditation under the tutelage of Benedictine monk Laurence Freeman, director of the World Community for Christian Meditation.

Lee was diagnosed with dyslexia in adulthood.

Lee was a founding member of the Fondation Chirac's honour committee, which was launched by former French President Jacques Chirac to promote world peace. He was also a member of David Rockefeller's "International Council", which included Henry Kissinger, Riley P. Bechtel, George Shultz and others. Additionally, he was one of the "Forbes' Brain Trust", along with Paul Johnson and Ernesto Zedillo.

In 1979, oil painter Chua Mia Tee depicted Lee's return from London after the Merdeka Talks. In 1991, Chua presented an oil painting of Lee to the Minister himself, depicting him against a backdrop of Singapore's transformation. In 1992, artist Lai Kui Fang presented historical oil paintings of Lee's 1959 swearing-in ceremony as prime minister, which are now part of the National Museum of Singapore's collection.

In 2008, artist Ben Puah unveiled Hero, a solo exhibition of Lee portraits at Forth Gallery.

In 2009, artist Richard Lim Han presented Singapore Guidance Angel, a solo exhibition of Lee portraits at Forth Gallery. In the same year, freelance designer, Christopher "Treewizard" Pereira, began making caricature figurines of Lee which range from 12 cm to 30 cm. Comics artist and painter Sonny Liew depicted Lee as part of the series Eric Khoo is a Hotel Magnate at Mulan Gallery. In addition, Cultural Medallion recipient Tan Swie Hian also began a painting of Lee and his late wife titled A Couple. The painting, which took Tan five years to complete, was partially damaged by a fire in 2013. It depicts Lee and Kwa in their youth, is based on a 1946 black-and-white photograph of the couple in Cambridge University and incorporates in its background Tan's poem in memory of Kwa. A Couple was purchased by art collector Wu Hsioh Kwang.

In 2010, Valentine Willie Fine Art gallery asked 19 local artists to imagine a future without Lee. The resulting exhibition, Beyond LKY, included artist a triptych of Lee as a father figure looming over a tiny kneeling figure with the words, "Papa can you hear me"; an installation of a broken piano with a tape recorder playing a crackling version of Singapore's National Anthem; white ceramic chains hanging on a wall; and an installation of hammers smashed together. That year, Korean artist Kim Dong Yoo depicted Lee in Lee Kuan Yew & Queen Elizabeth II (2010), an oil-on-canvas portrait of Lee using small images of Queen Elizabeth II's head, a reference to Singapore being a former British colony and current member of the Commonwealth. Indian-Swiss novelist Meira Chand's A Different Sky, published by UK's Harvill Secker in 2010, features Lee in his early years as a lawyer and co-founder of the People's Action Party.

In 2011, the iris image of Lee's eye was captured and artistically rendered to resemble a sand art gallery piece. His eye image with his autograph was auctioned off to raise funds for the Singapore Eye Research Institute. In 2012, urban artist Samantha Lo depicted Lee in her controversial Limpeh series, featuring his image in Shepard Fairey-inspired stickers, mirrors and collages.

In 2013, poet Cyril Wong published The Dictator's Eyebrow, a poetry collection revolving around a Lee-like figure and his eyebrow's thirst for recognition and power. In the same year, a group of Tamil poets from three countries, including Singapore Literature Prize winner Ramanathan Vairavan, produced Lee Kuan Yew 90, a collection of 90 new poems celebrating Lee's legacy. Artist Sukeshi Sondhi also staged An Icon & A Legend, a solo exhibition at featuring 20 pop art style paintings of Lee. Speed painter Brad Blaze was commissioned to craft a portrait of Lee, Trailblazer: Singapore, to raise funds for Reach Community Services Society. In August, a bronze bust of Lee, cast by contemporary French artist-sculptor Nacera Kainou, was unveiled at the Singapore University of Technology and Design as an early birthday present to Lee from the Lyon-Singapore Association and the municipality of Lyon.

In 2014, Bruneian painter Huifong Ng landed an exhibition after painting a portrait of Lee. In May of that year, illustrator Patrick Yee produced the children's picture book A Boy Named Harry: The Childhood of Lee Kuan Yew, published by Epigram Books. The series was later translated into Mandarin. Chinese artist Ren Zhenyu also created expressionist portraits of Lee in electric hues as part of his Pop and Politics series. Vietnamese artist Mai Huy Dung has crafted a series of oil painting portraits of Lee. Ukrainian artist Oleg Lazarenko also depicted Lee as part of his painting Lion of Singapore. In October 2014, cartoonist Morgan Chua released LKY: Political Cartoons, an anthology of cartoons about Lee published by Epigram Books, featuring a 1971 Singapore Herald cartoon of Lee on a tank threatening to crush a baby representing press freedoms. The Madame Tussauds Singapore museum also unveiled a wax figure of Lee and his late wife, Madam Kwa Geok Choo seated and smiling together against a backdrop of red flowers formed in the shape of two hearts. The statues were created based on a photograph that was taken by Madam Kwa's niece, Ms Kwa Kim Li, of the pair on Valentine's Day in 2008 at Sentosa. Another wax figure of Lee Kuan Yew resides at Madame Tussauds Hong Kong.

In February 2015, weeks before Lee's death, Helmi Yusof of The Business Times reported on how "In the last few years, artworks featuring Lee Kuan Yew have turned into a flourishing cottage industry". Artworks included Jeffrey Koh's seven LKY Pez candy-dispenser sculptures, paintings of Lee in the manner of Van Gogh, and Korean sculptor Park Seung Mo's three-dimensional image of Lee made using stainless steel wires. In the same month, illustrator Patrick Yee launched the second title in his picture book series about Lee, called Harry Grows Up: The Early Years of Lee Kuan Yew, at an exhibition at the National Library, Singapore. On 24 March 2015, the National Parks Board named a Singapore Botanic Gardens orchid hybrid called the "Aranda Lee Kuan Yew" in honour of Lee's efforts work in conservationa and environmentalism. In March 2015, a portrait of Lee by Ong Yi Teck, comprising Lee's name written about 18,000 times, went viral on social media. The portrait was made in tribute to Lee, who was then critically ill.

Days after Lee died in 2015, 16-year-old blogger Amos Yee released a video, Lee Kuan Yew is Finally Dead!, which criticised Lee and compared him to Jesus Christ. Yee also posted on his blog a stick-figure cartoon depicting Lee having sex with Margaret Thatcher, a personal and political ally of Lee's. For his actions, Yee was charged with insulting religious feelings and obscenity, and sentenced to four weeks imprisonment despite his youth. In April 2015, an exhibition of 300 oil paintings on Lee and Singapore opened at Suntec City. Presented by art collector Vincent Chua, The Singapore Story featured 80 portraits of Lee and a life-size statue of Lee shaking hands with Deng Xiaoping when the Chinese statesman visited Singapore in 1978.

In July 2015, veteran actor Lim Kay Tong portrayed Lee in the historical film , including a re-enactment of the iconic press conference when Lee announced that Singapore would be separated from Malaysia That same month, actor Adrian Pang played Lee in The LKY Musical opposite Sharon Au's Kwa Geok Choo. In October 2015, sculptor Lim Leong Seng exhibited a 75 cm bronze sculpture he made of Lee, entitled Weathering Storms As One. In November 2015, the Singaporean Honorary Consulate General in Barcelona unveiled a bust of Lee at Cap Roig Gardens in Costa Brava. In 2015, the Asian edition of featured the late Lee Kuan Yew on its cover. Lee is also central to the 2015 graphic novel The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye.

Lee receives the Order of Friendship from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on 15 November 2009 in Singapore

Lee received a number of state decorations, including the Order of the Companions of Honour (1970), Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (1972), the Freedom of the City of London (1982), the Seri Paduka Mahkota Johor (1984), the Order of Great Leader (1988) and the Order of the Rising Sun (1967).[433]

In 1999, Lee was named one of Time's Most Influential People of the 20th Century.[54]

In 2002, Lee became a fellow of Imperial College London in recognition of his promotion of international trade and industry and development of science and engineering study initiatives with the United Kingdom.[434]

In 2006, Lee was presented with the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

In 2007, Lee was conferred an honorary Doctorate in Law at the Australian National University in Canberra, albeit amid protest from 150 students and staff.[435]

In October 2009, the US-Asean Business Council conferred upon Lee its first Lifetime Achievement award, at its 25th anniversary gala dinner in Washington, D.C. His tribute, the former United States Secretary of State and 1973 Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger.[436] A day later he met United States President Barack Obama at the Oval Office in the White House.[437][438]

On 15 November 2009, Lee was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship by President Dmitry Medvedev on the sidelines of APEC Singapore 2009.[439]

On 29 April 2010, Lee was named in the Time 100 list as one of the people who most affect our world.[440]

On 14 January 2011, Lee received the inaugural Gryphon Award from his alma mater, Raffles Institution, given to illustrious Rafflesians who have made exceptional contributions to the nation.[441]

On 19 October 2011, Lee received the Lincoln Medal in Washington DC-an honour reserved for people who have exemplified the legacy and character embodied by Abraham Lincoln.[442]

On 21 February 2012, Lee was conferred the Kazakhstan Order of Friendship by Ambassador Yerlan Baudarbek-Kozhatayev, at the Astana.[443]

On 10 September 2013, Lee was conferred Russia's Order of Honour by Ambassador Leonid Moiseev for his contributions for forging friendship and co-operation with the Russian Federal and scientific and cultural relations development.[444]

On 22 May 2014, the title of Honorary Doctor of the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was presented by the Russian government to Lee.[445]

In 2016, Lee was conferred the Order of the Paulownia Flowers. The award was backdated to 23 March 2015, the date of his death.[446]

In December 2018, China conferred a posthumous China Reform Friendship Medal on Lee for his "critical role in promoting Singapore's participation in China's reform journey". In former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's southern tour, he urged Chinese leaders to learn from the Singapore model. Alan Chan Heng Loon, Singapore-China Foundation chairman and Lee's chief private secretary, said that Mr. Lee's administration did a lot to build China-Singapore ties.[447]

Chan, Heng Chee (1984). A Sensation of Independence: A Political Biography of David Marshall. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195826074.

Conboy, Kenneth J. (January 1989), "Opportunities for Bush to Bolster the U.S.-Singapore Relationship" (PDF), Asian Studies Backgrounder, 86

Régnier, Philippe (1991). Singapore: A City-state in South-East Asia. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 9789814713573.

Jones, Matthew (2000). "Creating Malaysia: Singapore security, the Borneo territories, and the contours of British policy, 1961-63". The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 28 (2): 85-109. doi:10.1080/03086530008583091. S2CID 159579207.

Turnbull, C. M. (2009). A History of Modern Singapore: 1819-2005. NUS Press. ISBN 9789971694302.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lee Kuan Yew (born Harry Lee Kuan Yew; 16 September 1923 - 23 March 2015), often referred to by his initials LKY, was a Singaporean statesman and lawyer who served as the founding Prime Minister of Singapore between 1959 and 1990, and Secretary-General of the People's Action Party between 1954 and 1992.

# data[].attributes.body
The Essential Leadership Skills to Be a Better Leader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Leadership Skills that Every Leader Should Have