Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew has promoted Asian value for several years. The success of Asian value has to do with Singapore's economic achievement, social stability, racial harmony, and efficient government, which have further strengthened the confidence of Singaporeans towards the idea of Asian value. This paper examines two main hypotheses. One is Singapore's achievement on political stability, social harmony and economic growth, which are closely related to the promotion of Asian value. The other one is that Mr. Goh Chok Tong, successor of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, continues to follow the policy of Asian value. However, given the different cultural backgrounds in Asia, this paper argues Asian value is not good enough to represent countries in Asia. Instead, Asian value, originally advocated by Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, should be renamed as Singapore value. This paper is divided into four major parts. The first part introduces the content of Asian value, which is based on Confucianism. By linking Confucianism and the development of political economy in Singapore, Mr. Lee's Asian value emphasizes the priority of economy over democracy, and the priority of group over individuals. The second part of the paper analyzes the implementation of Asian value in Singapore, which includes three characters, i. e. authoritarian leadership, tight social control, and Asian-style democracy. Each of these three characters is carefully examined in the paper. Regarding Asian-style democracy, for example, it contains five elements, i. e. patron-client communalism, ruled by law, authority, predominant political party, and a strong state. Each of these five elements is clearly analyzed in the paper. A strong state, for instance, means the ruling government has overwhelming power to extend its control into all levels of the society. Civil societies are relatively quite weak in Singapore. Finally, this paper examines three issues about Asian value. The first one is whether Asian value has the legitimacy to represent all countries in Asia. The answer is negative, mainly because Asia is so diversified by many different cultures and civilizations. Secondly, it is the issue of consistency, examining whether Mr. Lee Kuan Yew was able to apply Asian value to public affairs during his leadership in Singapore from 1959 to 1990. The answer is generally positive. The last one is the issue of continuity on Asian value to see whether Mr. Lee's successor is able to follow this policy. Mr. Goh Chok Tong has become the leader of Singapore since 1990 and he actually continues to implement Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's policy on Asia value. The conclusion of the paper is that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew did successfully promote and implement Asian value in Singapore, but, to be more pragmatic, Asian value should be renamed as Singapore value.