Saturday, April 4, 2015

Can-Do Lee Kuan Yew

 
The 20th century produced few greater statesmen and perhaps no greater pragmatist.

The New York Times
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Columnist
Can-Do Lee Kuan Yew
MARCH 23, 2015

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/11/01/opinion/cohen-circular/cohen-circular-thumbLarge-v3.jpg
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.

You can follow me on Twitter or join me on Facebook.
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
Related Coverage
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/03/14/world/asia/00lee-kuan-yew-adv-obit-slide-A21E/00lee-kuan-yew-adv-obit-slide-A21E-thumbStandard.jpg
A memorial at the Tanjong Pagar Community Club in Singapore on Monday after the death of Lee Kuan Yew, the city-state’s founding father and first prime minister.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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
http://pimage.timespeople.nytimes.com/4992/3880/cropped-49923880.jpg?0.980964150512591
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...
  • 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: