The 20th century produced few greater
statesmen and perhaps no greater pragmatist.
The
Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Columnist
Can-Do Lee Kuan
Yew
MARCH 23, 2015
HO CHI MINH CITY,
Vietnam — The Vietnamese, like many Asians, flock to Singapore to shop.
They hit those cool, fragrant malls on Orchard Road. A few among the affluent
go there to see a dentist or a doctor or have a baby. They are drawn,
also, by something less tangible, the sense of prosperity and purring
efficiency, as if by some miracle the Alpine order and cleanliness of
Switzerland had been conjured up in the Tropics. They exhale, freed from
the raucous agitation of modern Asian life, and are rocked in a Singaporean
cradle of convenience where, it seems, nothing can go
wrong.
You don’t have to
like Singapore to admire it. Once you begin to admire it, of course, you
may discover in yourself a sneaking affection. The achievement of Lee Kuan
Yew, the nation’s founding father, who died Monday at the age of 91, is
immense. The 20th century produced few greater statesmen and perhaps no
greater pragmatist.
The measure of that
achievement is that the ingredients of disaster abounded in Singapore, a
country that is “not supposed to exist and cannot exist,” as Lee said in a
2007 interview with The New York Times. “We don’t have the ingredients of a
nation,” he noted, “the elementary factors: a homogeneous population, common
language, common culture and common destiny.” Instead, it had a combustible
ethnic and religious hodgepodge of Chinese, Malays and Indians gathered in a
city-state of no natural resources.
Yet Lee made it work,
where many nations with far more of those attributes of nationhood — Argentina
prominent among them — failed, and where, from the Balkans to the Middle East,
sectarian differences have proved insurmountable and often the catalyst of war
and national unraveling.
The fact that the
elements for cataclysm exist does not mean that cataclysm is inevitable.
Lee demonstrated this in an age where the general cacophony, and the need to
manage and spin every political minute, makes statesmanship ever more
elusive. The determining factor is leadership. What defines
leadership above all is conviction, discipline in the pursuit of a goal,
adaptability in the interest of the general good, and
far-sightedness.
Lee’s only religion
was pragmatism, of which religion (as generally understood) is the enemy,
because, to some adherents, it offers revealed truths that are fact-resistant.
Any ideology that abhors facts is problematic. (If you believe land is yours
because it was deeded to you in the Bible, for example, but other people live
there and have for centuries, you have an issue pregnant with violence.) Lee
had one basic yardstick for policy: Does it work? It was the criterion of a
forward-looking man for whom history was instructive but not imprisoning. He
abhorred victimhood (an excuse for sloppy thinking and nationalist delusion)
and corruption. He prized opportunity, meritocracy, the work ethic of the
immigrant and education.
Western democracy was
not for him. It was too volatile for a nation that had to be forged and then
fast-forwarded to prosperity. He was authoritarian, harsh when necessary. Free
speech and political opposition were generally suppressed; the only liberalism
was of the economic variety. Lee tapped into an Asian and Confucian
inclination to place the communal good above individual rights; he also cowed
Singaporeans into fear. Overall, it worked. Singapore became a booming
commercial and banking center. Prosperity elided differences, even if the
yawning gap between rich and poor is a growing issue, as throughout the
world.
There is no single
model for all humankind, even if there is a universal aspiration for freedom
and the means to enjoy it. Technological hyper-connectedness does not produce
political consensus. Pragmatism also involves accepting this, weighing the
good against the bad (while standing against the heinous) and exercising
patience.
The Singaporean
miracle became an Asian reference. If Asia has been pragmatic about
conflict — notably in the handling of tensions between India and China — it
owes much to Lee. China’s model — authoritarian, free-market, economically
open but politically closed — was plainly influenced by Lee’s Singapore.
Narendra Modi’s push to clean up India has led to talk of an Indian Lee Kuan
Yew. One measure of Lee’s greatness is that, as Singapore’s former ambassador
to the United Nations, Tommy Koh, put it to me in an email, the strong
institutions he planted ensure that “his passing will have no negative impact
on the future of Singapore.”\
How much more
demanding of open political systems will prosperous Asians be? We will see,
but I would not bet on rapid change. Desirability does not equal necessity, at
least not yet. Lee made one other big Asian contribution: He valued American
power, believed in its stabilizing regional influence. He was not an American
declinist, once telling the political scientist Joseph Nye that China could
draw on a talent pool of 1.3 billion people, but the United States could draw
on the world’s seven billion people and recombine them in a diverse culture
that exudes creativity in a way that ethnic Han nationalism
cannot.
In this, too, Lee was
right.
A version of this
op-ed appears in print on March 24, 2015, in The International New York Times.
Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
The comments section
is closed. To send a letter to the editor, write to letters@nytimes.com.
- All 144
- Readers’ Picks 91
- NYT Picks 5
- See All Comments
newest
NYT
Pick
Chris
Brady
Madison, WI Yesterday
I was skeptical about
Singapore when I was growing up in the 80s, and all you'd heard about it was
with regards to the severe punishments meted out for misdemeanor
crimes.
Having visited Singapore twice in the past 3-4 years, though, my opinions on it changed greatly. It was probably a better exemplar of modernity than most places I've been to in the US, with great standards of food, culture, and education.
It was particularly striking when one reads about where they started from, particularly after WWII. The differences were easy to cast into relief when you cross the border into Malaysia, and see what Singapore could have become had they not pursued independence - a more middling society, strewn with garbage, with potential to break out into modernity, but stuck under the thumb of religious backwardness that would do all possible to not allow that to happen.
I'll never be 100% onboard with the punishments in Singapore, but everything I was told by friends who were from there is that the reasons Singapore gained that harsh reputation have gradually been eroding and may have been temporarily necessary to spur some of the differences you see between them and their neighbors. It's a possibility. In any case, I became a fan of the country Mr. Yew played such a part in and mourn his passing. For what there was to criticize, there is a lot that went right.
Having visited Singapore twice in the past 3-4 years, though, my opinions on it changed greatly. It was probably a better exemplar of modernity than most places I've been to in the US, with great standards of food, culture, and education.
It was particularly striking when one reads about where they started from, particularly after WWII. The differences were easy to cast into relief when you cross the border into Malaysia, and see what Singapore could have become had they not pursued independence - a more middling society, strewn with garbage, with potential to break out into modernity, but stuck under the thumb of religious backwardness that would do all possible to not allow that to happen.
I'll never be 100% onboard with the punishments in Singapore, but everything I was told by friends who were from there is that the reasons Singapore gained that harsh reputation have gradually been eroding and may have been temporarily necessary to spur some of the differences you see between them and their neighbors. It's a possibility. In any case, I became a fan of the country Mr. Yew played such a part in and mourn his passing. For what there was to criticize, there is a lot that went right.
- Flag
- 34Recommend
- Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
NYT
Pick
Condelucanor
Colorado Yesterday
All the media seems
to be eulogizing Mr. Lee as a benevolent leader who accomplished great things
for his city state. Of course there is the "minor" difficulty of his decades
long authoritarian rule. Rome appointed dictators for only 6 months and only
in a time of existential crisis. Problems arose when these terms of office
were extended, until eventually the Republic fell and the Empire followed. I
know of few "benevolent" dictators in history and Mr. Lee's political
opponents would probably question the application of that term to his rule. A
country, even a city state, is not a corporation. While someone might admire
Bill Gates or Steve Job as corporate leaders, I wouldn't want their style of
corporate rule to become my government. Likewise, I wouldn't want Mr. Lee's
style of economically progressive despotism to be adopted in this country. I
am surprised that Roger, who is typically one of the voices of reason in the
syndicated media has written about Mr. Lee's "success" with so few
reservations.
- Flag
- 17Recommend
- Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
NYT
Pick
Global
Citizen
USA Yesterday
One measure of a
great leader is whether he was good for his people and country and if he left
it better than when he found it. LKY was indisputably great by that measure.
Similarly Churchill was an imperialist and his policies towards British
colonies (especially India) were exploitative but he was great leader for his
people. That being said, founding fathers have a special place among leaders
because they are revered for giving birth to their countries.
I lived in Singapore for nearly four years in recent past. I had heard American stereotypes of Singapore as "twelve whips for chewing gum" and "cabbies as secret police" variety. I found it to be one of the most comfortable, safe, clean and orderly places I have ever seen. If cities were watches, Singapore is a chronometer! It is safe enough for an eight year old to take a taxi or ride MRT (subway) alone.
When I asked my Singaporean secretary if she would rather have democracy, she replied that what good is democracy if it can't give me a security, order and a good life. Most Singaporeans I met admire US creativity, power and vibrancy but they intensely dislike our politics, the disrespect we show our leaders, circus-like election process and our arrogance.
LKY's true legacy is long term thinking, the values he imparted and the institutions he founded. I have no doubt that those will serve Singapore well into the future.
I lived in Singapore for nearly four years in recent past. I had heard American stereotypes of Singapore as "twelve whips for chewing gum" and "cabbies as secret police" variety. I found it to be one of the most comfortable, safe, clean and orderly places I have ever seen. If cities were watches, Singapore is a chronometer! It is safe enough for an eight year old to take a taxi or ride MRT (subway) alone.
When I asked my Singaporean secretary if she would rather have democracy, she replied that what good is democracy if it can't give me a security, order and a good life. Most Singaporeans I met admire US creativity, power and vibrancy but they intensely dislike our politics, the disrespect we show our leaders, circus-like election process and our arrogance.
LKY's true legacy is long term thinking, the values he imparted and the institutions he founded. I have no doubt that those will serve Singapore well into the future.
- Flag
- 52Recommend
- Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
NYT
Pick
R.
Rodgers
Madison, WI Yesterday
In the 1970s I was
skeptical about the argument that the authoritarianism and forced-march
industrialization in the Asian tigers would be worthwhile in the long run
because the ultimate result would be more widespread prosperity and hence a
more open and democratic society. By now, the record of Taiwan and South Korea
(and many other countries to some extent) shows that the optimistic model can
work. On the other hand, Singapore still stands out as a country where
prosperity and a growing middle class has not yet resulted in a transition to
a more democratic and open society. Perhaps now it will finally start to
change, but I wouldn't bet on it. I wonder how many people -- in Singapore or
elsewhere -- still really care about democracy.
- Flag
- 5Recommend
- Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
NYT
Pick
Principia
St. Louis 16 hours ago
It's not unusual for
small countries WITHOUT natural resources to become richer than neighboring
countries who are "burdened" with natural resources and leaders vying to
control the resources. This vying for control destroys creative democratic
systems. Think Saudi Arabia v. Hong Kong.
Books have been written to explain this small country effect and Singapore is certainly not alone. So, on that score, I cannot heap congratulations on Lee as a mastermind of planning. Instead, heap the congratulations on the people of Singapore and Hong Kong and some luck being situated as small port city states where creativity and creating value instead of pumping mining it or pumping it out of the ground are rewarded. Both of these city-states situated around heavy, burdened and always trading super-states. A perfect situation.
But to write these articles without mentioning Singapore's Internal Security Act, much like Malaysia's, allowing preventative detention and branding political opponents "subversive" is incredible. I'm stunned by all the praise and am reminded once again that our own intellectuals are rethinking democracy as perhaps not the best system among the rest. Real people, leaders of pro-democracy movements, have been thrown in jail and had their lives ruined.
Over the last decade, I see a real gravitation among American intellectuals, including liberals, to what Plato might have referred to as "benevolent dictatorships". This makes me wonder where we're headed...
Books have been written to explain this small country effect and Singapore is certainly not alone. So, on that score, I cannot heap congratulations on Lee as a mastermind of planning. Instead, heap the congratulations on the people of Singapore and Hong Kong and some luck being situated as small port city states where creativity and creating value instead of pumping mining it or pumping it out of the ground are rewarded. Both of these city-states situated around heavy, burdened and always trading super-states. A perfect situation.
But to write these articles without mentioning Singapore's Internal Security Act, much like Malaysia's, allowing preventative detention and branding political opponents "subversive" is incredible. I'm stunned by all the praise and am reminded once again that our own intellectuals are rethinking democracy as perhaps not the best system among the rest. Real people, leaders of pro-democracy movements, have been thrown in jail and had their lives ruined.
Over the last decade, I see a real gravitation among American intellectuals, including liberals, to what Plato might have referred to as "benevolent dictatorships". This makes me wonder where we're headed...
- Flag
- 3Recommend
- Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter
Recent
Comments
bebopluvr
3 hours ago
I would have hoped
Mr. Cohen would have stronger sympathies for his colleagues in Singapore. He
enjoys the right of saying nearly anything...
celeste
5 hours ago
Call me a pragmatist.
We are who we are. As a Singaporean, I'm very proud to be a Singaporean. Just
like any countries, our leaders may not...
Lynn
12 hours ago
"China could draw on
a talent pool of 1.3 billion people, but the United States could draw on the
world’s seven billion people and recombine...
Loading...
Read More
View all 144
comments
144
Comments
Readers shared their
thoughts on this article.
The comments section
is closed. To send a letter to the editor, write to letters@nytimes.com.
- All 144
- Readers’ Picks 91
- NYT Picks 5
No comments:
Post a Comment