What's new

Lee Kuan Yew

Great words by a great man. His arguments about the caste system is spot on. Government should have no business in getting involved in castes. But reservation is a necessary evil in a society like India. Lets hope we move from caste based reservation to economic condition based reservation.
 
As you read the piece by Ambassador Bhadrakumar, please ask yourself if the schism that seems to appear between the kinds of ideas that seem to animate the Indian Diaspora and the kinds of Ideas that rational Indian leadership seems to be posing, is healthy - a more robust articulation, sustained for a period of time, of these ideas by Indian officials will help propel these ideas in to the general public sphere where they can get a hearing in a wider audience - and in this way prepare opinion not just to the challenges bu the identification of opportunities for regional alignments that can attenuate imperial reach of Western powers.

@muse; do not get taken in by all the Indian reactions that you see in PDF. Most PDF members (the Indian ones) are not even in the age group where their counsel is being taken by policy-makers. Sure they must have a Vote to use, but that is where it ends.

Now most (visible) Diplomacy is sometimes just posturing. While (invisible) Diplomacy (which is probably the real thing?) is based on less volatile and transient matters. E.G. Chuck Hagel's statement (as Citizen Joe, not DefSec) will get responses from India in both areas of Diplomacy. Indian foreign policy making is in for the long haul. Which is why India's dialog with Pakistan is "uninterupted and uninterruptible" (to use a favorite quote of Mani Shankar Aiyar). Like-wise is the case with China. In case of Pakistan the tone and tenor of that dialog has been variable; reflecting in some part, ground realities. But it is still on. And it is New Delhi-driven, not Washington D.C.-driven.

In the Sino-Indian dialog; fortunately the volatile and potentially incendiary component is far less, therefore the visible aspects of Diplomacy have been much less dramatic. Which has left the invisible aspects undisturbed to move at a clipping pace; ergo the flourishing Business Relationship between India and China that Bhadrakumar writes about. Consider the irony of one fact; most of the Indian imports from China are 'project exports' that will help beef up Indian infrastructure and power sectors, thus increasing India's strategic abilities in the long run. Has that been a cause for discomfort between India and China? :)

That has not been the case with Indo-Pak relations. Hence the much required MFN relationship has remained hostage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[MENTION=1640] Consider the irony of one fact; most of the Indian imports from China are 'project exports' that will help beef up Indian infrastructure and power sectors, thus increasing India's strategic abilities in the long run. Has that been a cause for discomfort between India and China? :)

That has not been the case with Indo-Pak relations. Hence the much required MFN relationship has remained hostage.

Lets keep Pakistan out of this - Pakistan is of no use to anyone, not even itself, at least for the time being - With greater and deeper understanding and cooperation between China and India, in particular with a view to keep Asia free of Western Imperial shenanigans, will have a salutary and stabilizing effect ensuring that sane avenues of conflict attenuation are followed as the "enabling" role of Western powers is limited.
 
June 29, 2013

629987719.jpg


Lee Kuan Yew, founding father of modern Singapore, remains a powerful presence in the current government led by his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The question that hovers over Singapore today is how long and in what form his model may endure once he is gone. He was praised for the efficiency and incorruptibility of his rule.



Lee Kuan Yew: Grand master of the game

The founder of Singapore built “a first-world oasis in a third-world region”

If he played chess, you could call Lee Kuan Yew the grand master of the game. It was his vision, drive and single-mindedness that set the small island state on a course of stubborn independence, turning the trading post into an international powerhouse of shipping, trade, commerce, banking, tourism and industry while keeping its principles at the fore.

But chess is a Russian game. For Yew, a master of the traditional board game maejong would be a better analogy given his and his island’s Asian ties.

There is a Chinese proverb: Do not judge a man until his coffin is closed. Though he may be nearing the end of his long life, he’s unwilling to decide on his legacy.

“Close the coffin, then decide,” he said. “Then you assess him. I may still do something foolish before the lid is closed on me.”

A master communicator with a close connection to the pulse on his island state, he is aware that that clock is ticking down.

“So, when is the last leaf falling?” as the man who made Singapore in his own stern and unsentimental image, contemplating age, infirmity and loss.

Influential political figure

“I can feel the gradual decline of energy and vitality,” he said in a recent interview. His ‘Singapore model’ of economic growth and tight social control made him one of the most influential political figures of Asia. “And I mean generally, every year, when you know you are not on the same level as last year. But that’s life.”

No longer in day-to-day control but, for as long as he lives, the dominant figure of the nation he created.

But in these final years, he said, his life has been darkened by the illness and death of his wife and companion of 61 years, bedridden and mute after a series of strokes.

“I try to busy myself,” he said, “but from time to time in idle moments, my mind goes back to the happy days we were up and about together.”

Agnostic and pragmatic in his approach to life, he spoke with something like envy of people who find strength and solace in religion. “How do I comfort myself?” he asked. “Well, I say, ‘Life is just like that.’”

“What is next, I do not know,” he said. “Nobody has ever come back.”

Libel suits

The prime minister of Singapore from its founding in 1965 until he stepped aside in 1990, Lee built what he called “a first-world oasis in a third-world region” — praised for the efficiency and incorruptibility of his rule but accused by human rights groups of limiting political freedoms and intimidating opponents through libel suits.

His remains a powerful presence within the current government led by his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The question that hovers over Singapore today is how long and in what form his model may endure once he is gone.

Always physically vigorous, Lee combats the decline of age with a regimen of swimming, cycling and massage and, perhaps more important, an hour-by-hour daily schedule of meetings, speeches and conferences both in Singapore and overseas. “I know if I rest, I’ll slide downhill fast,” he said.

“I’m trying to keep fit, presenting a vigorous figure, and it’s an effort, and is it worth the effort?” he said. “I laugh at myself trying to keep a bold front. It’s become my habit. I just carry on.”

He brushed aside the words of a prominent Singaporean writer and social critic, Catherine Lim, who described him as having “an authoritarian, no-nonsense manner that has little use for sentiment.”

“She’s a novelist!” he cried. “Therefore, she simplifies a person’s character,” making what he called a “graphic caricature of me.” “But is anybody that simple or simplistic?”

Moment of anguish

But repeatedly, in looking back over his life, he returns to his moment of greatest anguish, the expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965, when he wept in public.

That trauma presented him with the challenge that has defined his life, the creation and development of a stable and prosperous nation, always on guard against conflict within its mixed population of Chinese, Malays and Indians.

“We don’t have the ingredients of a nation, the elementary factors,” he said in an interview with the International Herald Tribune, “a homogeneous population, common language, common culture and common destiny.”

Younger people worry him, with their demands for more political openness and a free exchange of ideas, secure in their well-being in modern Singapore. “They have come to believe that this is a natural state of affairs, and they can take liberties with it,” he said. “They think you can put it on auto-pilot. I know that is never so.”

The kind of open political combat they demand would inevitably open the door to race-based politics, he said, and “our society will be ripped apart.”

A political street fighter, by his own account, he has often taken on his opponents through ruinous libel suits.

He defended the suits as necessary to protect his good name, and he dismissed criticism by Western reporters who “hop in and hop out” of Singapore as “absolute rubbish.”

In any case, it is not these reporters or the obituaries they may write that will offer the final verdict on his actions, he said, but future scholars who will study them in the context of their day.

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

Lee Kuan Yew: Grand master of the game | GulfNews.com

-----------------

A dictator like him in Pakistan or a "democratically" elected leader in Pakistan. Who would you choose.
 
Even Lee Kuan Yew believe this about India.

Lee says: “India is not a real country. Instead it is thirty-two separate nations that happen to be arrayed along the British rail line.”

this is what I have been sharing with this forum. Its no doubt that India is a great civilization but a country that have been put together by Britain. Without Britain, there would be no India today.

And many Indians would clearly disregard Mr Lee, But he has created Singapore. What had India done? India would be wise to consider his words.
 
Even Lee Kuan Yew believe this about India.

Lee says: “India is not a real country. Instead it is thirty-two separate nations that happen to be arrayed along the British rail line.”

this is what I have been sharing with this forum. Its no doubt that India is a great civilization but a country that have been put together by Britain. Without Britain, there would be no India today.

And many Indians would clearly disregard Mr Lee, But he has created Singapore. What had India done? India would be wise to consider his words.

Without USA, there would have been no Republic of China aka Taiwan.
 
A lot of people fail to take into account some external factors, and instead attribute all of Singapore's apparent success to one single person.

Ironically (or not), the West does not harp about "democracy, freedom of speech/freedom of expression, anti-racism (against discrimination based on religion, race etc), and other Western values" when it comes to the case of Singapore.

It just conveniently happens to be the case that Singapore is a launch pad for Western firms, military and expatriates to 'penetrate' Asian heartland.

----


Another factor that is often conveniently ignored, is that, due to its extremely and decidely pro-Western political stance on all issues, Singapore has been 'blessed' by the infusion of all forms of managerial, technological, educational capacity-building knowledge transfer from the West.

A good 5 years before Singapore officially gained independence, a certain Western economist by the name of Albert Winsemius happened to reach the shores of Singapore, and decided to steer it towards economic stability well into the 1980s.

SG


Not to forget, that Singapore was a major stop in the British Empire's ring of ports around the world, which is why Singapore was one of the first cities in the "East" to have telephone service in 1879, three years after A. G. Bell patented his invention.

SingTel.com - Milestones & History


In my calculation, 1879 happens to be a good 86 years prior to Singapore's official independence in 1965.

----------

Singapore's first (and probably only) 'full fledged' university offering courses in a wide variety of disciplines, NUS, was established in 1905 - around a good 60 years before Singapore's official independence.


--------


Singapore port was established by "Sir Stamford Raffles" in 1819 for the British Empire, at a "strategic location", a good 146 years before the official independence of Singapore.



--------------------


In short, Singapore had already been very well 'embedded' in the Western/Anglo-American system of trade, commerce, international politics and intent of military domination long before its official independence.

Add a generally well ordered populace that likes to abide by every command of authoritarian figures but never dares to think outside the box or question authority, you have the perfect recipe for 'development' in Singapore guided by an authoritarian figure.


There is nothing unique about it, as other East Asian Tigers have shown. South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Malaysia too progressed quite rapidly.

Dubai too, rose from the 'ashes' so to speak, in quick time and gained prominence (though, perhaps due to the desert environment, their local population is lacking in the intellectual sphere somewhat compared to their counterparts in most, non-desert areas).
 
this is what I have been sharing with this forum. Its no doubt that India is a great civilization but a country that have been put together by Britain. Without Britain, there would be no India today

look at the map of British India just before independence
around 45% of landmass which makes up present day republic of india was never part of British India
 
look at the map of British India just before independence
around 45% of landmass which makes up present day republic of india was never part of British India

But Britain had de facto control over the Princely states. As an Indian, you should know this fact. I don't see you out here that often but you lie like many of other Indians in here.

Without USA, there would have been no Republic of China aka Taiwan.

No, without Kim Il Sung, CCP most likely would be able to take over Taiwan. don't just look at one instance in history, all events are interconnected.
 
No, without Kim Il Sung, CCP most likely would be able to take over Taiwan. don't just look at one instance in history, all events are interconnected.


Your security is guaranteed by the might of USA and without them you will be part of PRC in a week or so.
 
The economic model that Singapore prospered on cannot last long. As the economies in the ASEAN region rises, the significance of Singapore as a trade hub will fall. Singapore doesn't have any natural resources or huge manufacturing infrastructure. Heck, even its drinking water comes from Malaysia.
LKY was lucky to be in right time and place to do big things. But this luck may not continue in the future..
 
Add a generally well ordered populace that likes to abide by every command of authoritarian figures but never dares to think outside the box or question authority, you have the perfect recipe for 'development' in Singapore guided by an authoritarian figure.

That +a Benevolent Dictator = Instant Development.
 
The story of Singapore is not a unique one. Most city states like HongKong, Luxembourg, Dubai etc. have an advantage over larger nations when it comes to rapid economic growths. Running and sustaining the economic development of a large country with diversity and complexities is far more difficult, but the results are longer terms. City states can rise fast, but can fall equally fast too. The development of city states are largely dependent on external factors than internal, and those external factors can change fast. LKY did good for Singapore, but making him a visionary is stretching it a little.
If some of the cities like Tokyo, Shanghai, KualaLumpur etc. became independent countries, they too would have some of the biggest per capita GDP's
 
The story of Singapore is not a unique one. Most nation states like HongKong, Luxembourg etc. have an advantage over larger nations when it comes to rapid economic growths. Running and sustaining the economic development of a large country with diversity and complexities is far more difficult, but the results are longer terms. Nation states can rise fast, but can fall equally fast too. The development of nation states are largely dependent on external factors than internal, and those external factors can change fast. LKY did good for Singapore, but making him a visionary is stretching it a little.

Nation states or city states.
 
Back
Top Bottom