There is an old Latin saying: “De mortuis nihil nisi bonum,” which means: “Don’t talk badly about the deceased.” The idea seems quite self-explanatory, but when it comes to modern-day politicians, today anything seems to be fair game.

Last week, Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of modern Singapore, passed away. Interestingly, the politicians and media outlets have taken radically different angles on his life and death.

Barack Obama hailed Lee as “a true giant of history,” adding that “no small number of this and past generations of world leaders have sought his advice.” Meanwhile, David Cameron called Lee’s story “one of the great success stories,” and Putin has awarded Lee with an “Order of Honor.”

But, leading news and op-ed outlets have adopted a radically different attitude on Lee. In Politico Magazine, writer Ben Judah has published a piece called “The Curse of Lee Kuan Yew: How Lee is being used to re-legitimize tyranny.” Meanwhile, The New Yorker has been equally critical, with a piece entitled: “Can Authoritarian Capitalism Outlive Lee Kuan Yew?”

So, who are we to believe? Let’s begin with a concise (and neutral) biography of the man.

As a young man, Lee experienced the Japanese invasion of Singapore from 1942 to 1945. “Suddenly, the Japanese came in,” said Lee in an interview during his later years, adding: “a very cruel people.” According to Lee, as a young man, he had a very close encounter with death when the Japanese army was dividing up those who were physically fit from those who weren’t. “A group I had been separated from was taken to the beach and shot. It could have been me.”

In 1959, Lee’s People’s Action Party gained power, propelling Lee to Prime Minister until his retirement in 1990. During that time, Singapore’s economy exploded. Today, Singapore is considered one of Asia’s “Four Tigers,” (along with South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan). Between the 1960′s and the 1990′s, the Four Tigers have experienced growth rates exceeding 7 percent per year, and have developed into high-income economies.

By politicians, Lee has been praised for instituting a fantastic educational system, with an emphasis on science and technology. From a financial perspective, he believed in competitive markets, and the opportunity to advance in society based on achievements.

As for the media channels, the big criticism has been the lack of free speech, and an unfair court system. In a 1986 speech, Lee stated quite matter-of-factly: “We have to lock up people, without trial, whether they are communist or religious extremists. If we don’t do that, the country would have been in ruins today.”

Very interestingly, Lee believed in a bilingual society which taught both English, and Mandarin Chinese. His book, published in 2011, is entitled: “My Lifelong Challenge: Singapore’s Bilingual Journey.”

Lee’s insistence on two languages highlights his complex relationship with Singapore’s multi-cultural identity. Back in 1819, an Englishman, by the name of Sir Stamford Raffles, set up a British port on the island. Aside from the Japanese invasion during WWII, for almost 150 years, Singapore was a British colony. In August, 1965, due to popular demand, Singapore became independent.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Lee would often take investors to the monument of Sir Stamford Raffles, close to the port he established over a century earlier. “Lee used him to personify the positive and upscale aura of British imperial tradition,” writes John Curtis Perry. “Its stability and dignity, its language and global connections – all of these were attractive to the potential foreign investors whom Lee fervently wanted to court.”

Lee’s success as a financial leader is unquestionable. The real question is whether Lee could have accomplished it without imprisoning his political opponents, or expelling foreign journalists who criticized his government. Over the years, papers like The International Herald Tribune and the Far Eastern Economic Review, were sued for libel by the Singaporean government.

Meanwhile, a week after Lee’s death, a teenager in Singapore has been imprisoned for posting a video to YouTube highly critical of Lee’s anti-free-speech policies. It remains clear that despite Lee’s achievements, he also had some flaws as a leader. Only time will tell whether Lee will be remembered as a tyrant or a business mogul.