What's new

Lee Kuan Yew

Azizam

BANNED
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
3,512
Reaction score
-8
Country
Sri Lanka
Location
United Kingdom
Lee Kuan Yew is one of the greatest politicians to ever live so I believe he deserves his own thread and as his ideas can be utilised by many other countries across the globe, the thread deserves to be in the "World Affairs" section.

Lee Kuan Yew is a former prime minister of Singapore who is credited for rapid development and success for Singapore. He was in charge of Singapore from 1959 to 1990 and was the longest serving prime minister in the world. He believed in a Singapore that is superior to its nations in intelligence and performance rather than a state that is capable of just surviving and he rejected the idea of Singapore being a client state under its two bigger neighbours. His policies and way of governance came under much criticism from the West due to his "undemocratic" way of ruling but he rejected the notion that democracy is the perfect solution for the East. In just 30 years under his rule, per capita of Singapore went from $1000 to $30,000. This thread is to discuss his ideas on good governance and his own experience.

A short introduction:


Early Years

Lee Kuan Yew was born into a wealthy Chinese family that had resided in Singapore since the 19th century. After World War II, Lee studied law at Fitzwilliam College, in Cambridge, UK. In 1950, he was admitted to the English bar, but instead of practicing law there, Lee returned to Singapore to do so.

Political Beginnings

At the time, Singapore was British colony and held Britain's main naval base in the Far East. The country was was ruled by a governor and a legislative council, mostly comprising wealthy Chinese businessmen who were appointed rather than elected by the people. In the early 1950s, Singapore buzzed with talk of constitutional reform and independence, and Lee banded with other like minds to challenge the governing structure of the country. Soon breaking from this group and taking a more radical stance, in 1954 Lee became secretary-general of his own party, the People's Action Party.


Singapore Independence

Once in office, Lee Kuan Yew introduced a five-year plan calling for urban renewal and construction of new public housing, greater rights for women, educational reform, and industrialization.

His plan also called for a merger of Singapore with Malaysia, and after Malayan prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman proposed the formation of a federation that would include Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, Lee began to campaign in favor of the effort and to end British colonial rule for good.

To show that the people of Singapore were supportive, Lee used the results of a referendum held in September 1962, in which 70 percent of the votes were cast in favor of the proposal.

So in 1963, Singapore joined the newly created Federation of Malaysia. In elections held shortly after, the PAP retained its control of Singapore's Parliament, and Lee held onto his post as prime minister.

Growing tension between Chinese and Malays in the Federation, however, resulted in rioting in Singapore, notably marked by the Prophet Muhammad Birthday Riots, or Sino-Malay riots, of the summer of 1964. A year later, with racial strife continuing, Lee was told by his Malaysian colleagues that Singapore must leave the federation.

Lee was passionate about working out a compromise, but his efforts proved fruitless, and he signed a separation agreement on August 7, 1965.

The failure of the merger was a serious blow to Lee, who believed that unity was crucial for Singapore's survival. In a televised press conference, he was emotionally drained as he announced the formal separation and Singapore's full independence:

"For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life ... I believed in Malaysian merger and unity of the two territories. You know that we, as a people, are connected by geography, economics, by ties of kinship ... It literally broke everything that we stood for ... now Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of the people in a most and just equal society."

With the broken union came problems beyond Lee's personal grief: Singapore's lack of natural resources and a limited defensive capability were major challenges.

Singapore needed a strong economy to survive as an independent country, and Lee quickly spearheaded a program to transform it into a major exporter of finished goods. He also encouraged foreign investment and made moves to ensure a rising standard of living for workers.

And when Lee's main opposition party decided to boycott Parliament from 1966 onward, the PAP won every seat in Parliament in the elections of 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1980.

Lee resigned as prime minister in November 1990. He remained the leader of the PAP until 1992.

In the end, Lee ran his country efficiently and brought prosperity unheard of before his tenure, at the cost of a mildly authoritarian style of government. By the 1980s, Singapore, under Lee's guidance, had a per capita income second only to Japan's in East Asia, and the country had become a chief financial center of Southeast Asia.

http://www.biography.com/people/lee-kuan-yew-9377339#indonesia-independence
 
Last edited:
LKY's Singapore is a rare example of an authoritarian government which isn't corrupt or brutal in any way.
It's really not that rare. Almost every developed nation in Asia, including Japan, industrialised under authoritarian rule and I think the same factors apply to industrialised Western nations up to some extent. This is why Lee argues that sometimes, some aspects of democracy have to sacrificed for the greater benefit of a country.

I think that in a developing a country, vast majority has no clue regarding politics and they are often manipulated into voting a certain political figure while not having an understanding of who they vote and why. This makes politicians worry about how people perceive them than advancing national interests. This by no means indicates that authoritarian rule is the absolute path to success as seen from leaders like Saddam Hussein whose who was irrationally corrupted and violent. Majority of developing countries today are in a state of dilemma where some are stuck with authoritarian rulers who are not acting upon the interests of country and others are stuck with politicians who are more worried about their vote bank.
 
Last edited:
LKY's Singapore is a rare example of an authoritarian government which isn't corrupt or brutal in any way.

Exactly why democracy has become a liability for all countries; the east Asian system of democracy is far more better suited with decisive leadership.

It's really not that rare. Almost every developed nation in Asia, including Japan, industrialised under authoritarian rule and I think the same factors apply to industrialised Western nations up to some extent. This is why Lee argues that sometimes, some aspects of democracy have to sacrificed for the greater benefit of a country.

I think that in a developing a country, vast majority has no clue regarding politics and they are often manipulated into voting a certain political figure while not having an understanding of who they vote and why. This makes politicians worry about how people perceive them than advancing national interests. This by no means indicates that authoritarian rule is the absolute path to success as seen from leaders like Saddam Hussein whose who was irrationally corrupted and violent. Majority of developing countries today are in a state of dilemma where some are stuck with authoritarian rulers who are not acting upon the interests of country and others are stuck with politicians who are more worried about their vote bank.

This is why western nations are so keen on democracy implementation in developing countries so that they can manipulate the opposition into weakening governments.

The moment a strong government comes in the centre, their funding and backing of a hostile opposition starts.

Case and point, you and us.
 
I like his views regarding "Asian Democracy". Sure democracy is something we should want to achieve but taking into account the culture and values of Asian countries. Him and Mahatir are leaders that modern day Asian prime ministers should look up to.
 
Great man
True father of the nation for singapore
 
Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew Talks America's Strengths And Weaknesses

By Graham Allison, Robert Blackwill, and Ali Wyne

Both in the United States and abroad, many influential observers argue that the U.S. is in systemic decline. Not so, says Lee Kuan Yew, the sage ofSingapore. Lee is not only a student of the rise and fall of nations. He is also the founder of modern Singapore. As prime minister from 1959 to 1990, he led its rise from a poor, small, corrupt port to a first-world city-state in just one generation.

Today, Singapore’s six million citizens have incomes higher than those of Americans. He has served as a mentor to every leader of China since Deng Xiaoping initiated China’s march to the market, and every American president since Richard Nixon has sought his counsel about the U.S. role in Asia. In the pages of Forbes and elsewhere, he has consistently emphasized America’s resilience. Here is how he summarized that judgment to us when we interviewed him in May 2011:

America will not be reduced to second-rate status. Historically, the U.S. has demonstrated a great capacity for renewal and revival. America’s strengths include an ability to range widely, imaginatively, and pragmatically; a diversity of centers of excellence that compete in inventing and embracing new ideas and new technologies; a society that attracts talent from around the world and assimilates them comfortably as Americans; and a language that the lingua franca of those who rise to the top of their own societies around the world.

Lee cites America’s “can-do approach,” “entrepreneurial culture,” and “great urge to start new enterprises and create wealth.” He notes the primacy that Americans accord to the “individual’s interest,” which makes them “more aggressively competitive.” Uniquely among analysts of national competitive advantages, perhaps because he speaks both English and Mandarin, he gives great weight to the comparative ease of learning English rather than Chinese. Indeed, he boldly suggested to one of China’s leaders that China adopt English, rather than Chinese, as its first language—as Singapore has done.

In Lee’s assessment, demographics are also an increasingly important factor. Noting that America’s total fertility rate of 2.0 exceeds that of most western European countries as well as that of its chief challenger, China, he recently observed that “the U.S. could become the slowly aging leader of a rapidly aging world” this century. Thus, he believes that “America will remain the sole superpower” for at least two to three more decades.

Nonetheless, Lee is frank in describing what he considers to be fundamental problems with U.S. government and culture. It has been unable to tackle its exploding debt, he asserts, because presidents do not get “reelected if they give a hard dose of medicine to their people.” In a social-media-fueled era of 24/7 news, furthermore, those who prevail in elections are not necessarily those who are most capable in governing, but those who can present themselves and their ideas “in a polished way.” He doubts that such contests “in packaging and advertising” can produce leaders in the mold of “a Churchill, a Roosevelt, or a de Gaulle.” Instead, he laments conditions in which “to win votes you have to give more and more. And to beat your opponent in the next election, you have to promise to give more away.”

Lee warns about the growing risk of America’s losing its “self-help culture” and going “the ideological direction of Europe.” If it continues that slide, he says bluntly, “the U.S. will be done for.” He also gives U.S. immigration practices a failing grade, declaring that “multiculturalism will destroy America.” The key question is: “do you make the Hispanics Anglo-Saxons in culture or do they make you more Latin American in culture?”

Lee sees the 21st century as a “contest for supremacy in the Pacific” between the U.S. and China. In his view, “America’s core interest requires that it remains the superior power” there. But he worries about America’s ability to sustain its strategic focus. About the Obama administration’s much-touted, recent “pivot” toward Asia, this observation of his comes to mind: Americans think of international relations like a movie, imagining that we can hit the “pause” button when we focus elsewhere and push “play” when we return to Asia. But “it does not work like that. If the United States wants to substantially affect the strategic evolution of Asia, it cannot come and go.”

Weighing all of the pros and cons, Lee is still not selling America short. He is betting that despite seemingly overwhelming current economic challenges, “America’s creativity, resilience, and innovative spirit will allow it to confront its core problems, overcome them, and regain competitiveness.”

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew Talks America's Strengths And Weaknesses - Forbes

I like his views regarding "Asian Democracy". Sure democracy is something we should want to achieve but taking into account the culture and values of Asian countries. Him and Mahatir are leaders that modern day Asian prime ministers should look up to.
I don't really like Mahatir, he is intellectually inferior to LKY. Even Malaysia today is not very competent when compared to Singapore. LKY on the other hand was a true visionary and a genius who built Singapore virtually out of nothing. You should read some of his books to understand what condition Singapore was in at the start of his rule. You are right, every country has its own development model and it should discover the most compatible model for the path towards development.
 
Back
Top Bottom