Lee Kuan Yew dies at 91

[Camikaze]

He strikes me as someone that should be respected, but not adored. It seems fairly undeniable that he succeeded in creating a prosperous Singapore (though prosperous for whom?), but it's impossible to excuse torture and his abuse of the rule of law. In the context of a siege mentality it's certainly explicable, but that never makes it justifiable.

Though I think the extent to which he does seem to have been adored might be a reminder that whereas a lot of us in different political & geopolitical climates might assume there's some sort of inherent universal appeal in certain civil liberties, that's not necessarily the case (and this can be seen to a lesser extent in the frequently noted difference between the US & Europe).

 

[christos200]

RIP. A great politician who led his nation to the stability and prosperity it is seeing today.

 

[Masada]

I guess for similar reasons. Geographic locations of peoples are socially constructed, after all.

Yes, although in this case the claim is based on appeals to shared culture and race.

Though I think the extent to which he does seem to have been adored might be a reminder that whereas a lot of us in different political & geopolitical climates might assume there's some sort of inherent universal appeal in certain civil liberties, that's not necessarily the case (and this can be seen to a lesser extent in the frequently noted difference between the US & Europe).

It's more complicated than that. The PAP was a socialist party at the outset and was to the left of the PP and LF. A significant number of its initial members and the bulk of its political support came from supporters of the banned MCP. LKY admits that he knew his party was a front for the MCP but goes on to brag that it was all part of a Master Plan to build a mass base on the back of the MCP. The truth is more complicated than that. In 1957 the Communists took over the party and were only foiled because LYH launched a crackdown on the MCP before the plotters could finish. Fast-forward to the 1959 elections and LKY runs a campaign that capitalizes on opposition to LYH's anti-Communist crack-down (the MCP might well have won a free and fair election had they not been banned) and corruption in the LF. He wins and then increases the intensity of the campaign against the MCP. So it's not at all true to suppose that Singaporeans just didn't value their civil liberties: the 1957 elections were about civil liberties. Furthermore, the previous elections in 1955, 1951 and 1948 were also tried to civil liberties issues not least the British crackdown on the MCP and the left more broadly which had little support. The replacement of the Pro-British/Pro-Capitalist PP with the LF, and then the replacement of the LF with the more left-wing PAP show that.

 

[Domen]

Just like in case of Singapore, which is mostly inhabited by North-East Asian culture and race, surrounded by South-East Asian Malays.

 

[Masada]

Just like in case of Singapore, which is mostly inhabited by North-East Asian culture and race, surrounded by South-East Asian Malays.

It's way way more complicated than that.

 

[christos200]

While Lee Kuan Yew indeed was not a democrat (at least in the Western sense of the word), he gave stability to his nation and made it economically prosperous. It is true that Singapore was already developed as a British colony but the political stability and Lee Kuan Yew's policies helped a lot in the unprecedented economic growth of Singapore.

Anyway, does a nation really need to be a democracy to prosper? There are other ways to prosper besides the Western one and other values besides the ones promoted in the West. Stability and economical development are quite important and I personally would have preferred to have a Lee Kuan Yew in Greece and a not so democratic regime that allowed economic growth instead of the socialists and democrats who bankrupted the country.

 

[aelf]

Though I think the extent to which he does seem to have been adored might be a reminder that whereas a lot of us in different political & geopolitical climates might assume there's some sort of inherent universal appeal in certain civil liberties, that's not necessarily the case (and this can be seen to a lesser extent in the frequently noted difference between the US & Europe).

The most infuriating thing is this: A lot of these people who 'don't believe' in civil liberties would squeal like pigs taken to the slaughter when their civil liberties are being violated in ways that are more serious than banning chewing gum. The mentality behind it, especially among the new generations, seems to be one of, "Well, it's not me who has to suffer; I benefited."

It's one thing if these people are some kind of committed fascists with strict discipline and penchant for fighting larger-than-life struggles. A lot of them are just egotistical and empty-headed idiots. This country is full of them, God help us.

Maybe that's why we need someone like Lee Kuan Yew again. Without the whip, many people wouldn't even know who they are.

Anyway, does a nation really need to be a democracy to prosper? There are other ways to prosper besides the Western one and other values besides the ones promoted in the West. Stability and economical development are quite important and I personally would have preferred to have a Lee Kuan Yew in Greece and a not so democratic regime that allowed economic growth instead of the socialists and democrats who bankrupted the country.

Cows in some of the better farms also "prosper" in cow terms (think Kobe beef and the like). They are well-fed and hardly suffer until it's time for them to be slaughtered. I think humans are a bit more than that, though.

 

[christos200]

While in Greece where we have democracy we prosper and the "authoritarian" Singapore suffers.

 

[aelf]

Did I not say that? We are prospering in this cow farm. That your badly-run cow-and-other-animals farm is not is just too bad. Don't worry, your farm might be bought over by an industrial giant called the Troika soon.

 

[christos200]

Compare India and China. Tell me which nation has developed the most in terms of living conditions? The democratic India or the authoritarian China? And I do not understand at all you comparison to farms. People are not slaughtered. They may not be able to express their opinion and vote for who they want and a few of them may be send to jail, but the vast majority of people prefer stability and a good work to democracy and unemployment, overtaxation and a bad economy.

And I have no problem with Troika. If the Greeks are unable to fire the privileged public workers who are clients of the political parties and confront the all powerful and corrupt trade unions that have destroyed Greece, then the Germans should do it. During the monarchy, the military junta and the period when Greece was ruled by the right wing New Democracy during the first years of democracy (1974 - 1981), the debt was only 20% of the GDP. When the socialists won the elections and ruled until 1989, the debt had skyrocketed to 90% of the GDP. So much for democracy and socialism.

Meanwhile Singapore, under a strong and non corrupt government was able to prosper. China too, despite the vast corruption, was able to prosper due a strong government committed on economic reforms.

Between a Lee Kuan Yew and the so called socialists, I would choose a Lee Kuan Yew.

 

[aelf]

Well, yeah, people are not literally being slaughtered (although that does happen in China). But their lives are still being fed to the metaphorical meat grinder. You think people in Singapore are so happy? They're not. You can have all material riches and still be missing something.

You can choose to live in a prosperous cow farm if you want. That's a valid choice. But, at the end of the day, I still think that you're just a cow.

 

[christos200]

Well, better to be a cow in a prosperous farm than a chicken that is slaughtered in a corrupt and bankrupt democratic farm.

And tell me if you believe there is one person here who prefers to live in democratic Greece instead of authoritarian Singapore. Would you?

 

[Domen]

< complaining about democracy and how it ruined Greece >

Blame the Greeks (i.e. yourselves), because they invented democracy.

 

[Tee Kay]

And tell me if you believe there is one person here who prefers to live in democratic Greece instead of authoritarian Singapore. Would you?

*puts hands up*

Though preferably in another locale from one in which you reside.

 

[aelf]

Well, better to be a cow in a prosperous farm than a chicken that is slaughtered in a corrupt and bankrupt democratic farm.

And tell me if you believe there is one person here who prefers to live in democratic Greece instead of authoritarian Singapore. Would you?

And tell me if you believe there is one person here who prefers to live in authoritarian North Korea instead of the democratic South. Would you?

 

[christos200]

No. Anyway, I do not believe that democracy is superior to authoritarianism but neither do I believe that authoritarianism is superior to democracy. It is a case to case situation. Some countries are best suited as authoritarian regimes and some others as democracy. Depends on a lot of things (the society, culture, ethnic groups, economy).

 

[aelf]

Oh, I guess. But I don't think you get to choose what suits you when it suits you. Those people who love authoritarianism better love it when they're being whipped.

On the whole, I think democracy is a safer choice.

 

[christos200]

It's not like you in the US have a real democracy. You only vote two parties whose policies are mostly similar.

 

[NovaKart]

I think only one of the people who's posted in this thread is in the US and no one on this page.

Anyway, democracy isn't just about voting but also having civil liberties. Maybe in its strict sense it's only about voting but I mean most people expect a democracy so defend the rights of its citizens. This is often a problem in the USA like with government agencies spying on people but at least there are ways that people can fight against this through the legal system. I don't know how this compares to Singapore because I don't know much about civil liberties there.

Also I wouldn't say the democrats and republicans have mostly similar policies. I suppose in some issues but others like abortion and healthcare are very divisive.

 

[LamaGT]

No. Anyway, I do not believe that democracy is superior to authoritarianism but neither do I believe that authoritarianism is superior to democracy. It is a case to case situation. Some countries are best suited as authoritarian regimes and some others as democracy. Depends on a lot of things (the society, culture, ethnic groups, economy).

I actually sort of agree, it's easy to talk about civil liberties and democracy and what not being the most important things, and saying it's better to live in Greece than Singapore, when you are richer than 6 out of 7 billion people. A lot of people in this world would prefer stability and peace and a sound economic policy, even at the cost of a few civil liberties (even though few people are usually affected by this). They're nice to have, for sure, but since our world is imperfect, trade-offs have to be made.
Plus, democracy does not equal civil liberties, and most democracies are so only on the surface (and they're not necessarily in the third world).

The most important factor in determining a good government is its intelligence and its intentions. Cleptocracies and idiocracies (for lack of a better term) are bad, and terrible when combined (like in Ukraine right now). LKY's government was the opposite, despite its authoritarian streak (indeed I think LKY basically had the same idea as I do)