Lee Kuan Yew on Tiannamen Square Massacre

[Uiler]

Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of Singapore and the one who turned Singapore into the successful country it is today made this comment about Tiannamen:

"If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew

The upper estimates from student groups of deaths were 2000-3000 (lower from the government 200-300). So Lee Kuan Yew is saying that he would have personally willing to order the deaths of 100-1000 times the number of students who were actually shot at Tiannamen if he was the one in charge.

Personally I think this brings another perspective, the perspective from the Chinese/Confucian POV rather than the Western perspective that we most commonly hear.

So do people think that Lee Kuan Yu is correct? That even if 100-1000 times the number of students died at Tiannamen Square died it would have been worth it to stop China sliding into stability?

Though of course this raises the question of whether Tiannamen would have resulted in the slide into instability anyway. This is where I find Chinese and Western perspective diverges with them taking opposite views (Chinese: yes, instability, war; Western: no, democratic reforms).

And what he believed would have happened if the students at Tianamen had succeeded:

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/other/culture.html

The regime in Beijing is more stable than any alternative government that can be formed in China. Let us assume that the students had carried the day at Tiananmen and they had formed a government. The same students who were at Tiananmen went to France and America. They've been quarreling with each other ever since. What kind of China would they have today? Something worse than the Soviet Union. China is a vast, disparate country; there is no alternative to strong central power.

And how to govern Chinese:

"Supposing Catherine Lim was writing about me and not the prime minister...She would not dare, right? Because my posture, my response has been such that nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac...Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society."

So is he correct about governing Chinese? And that if Tianamen had succeeded it would have resulted in the destruction of China and 100 years of instability?

 

[CurtSibling]

This is just more anti-Chinese propaganda.

If you want to do the maths, the deaths of a few thousands is not worth
the deaths of maybe millions in a 100 years of chaos. The bottom line is
that we cannot judge a place like China with our Western morals.

Or we should deal with our own societies problems first...

.

 

[silver 2039]

China is a vast, disparate country; there is no alternative to strong central power.

Ahem...*points to India*

 

[CurtSibling]

How much control over the different social sects does India really have?

What about that bombing in Mumbai recently?

.

 

[silver 2039]

How much control over the different social sects does India really have?

Thats the point. It doesn't. And the country has yet to decend into chaos and civil war.

What about that bombing in Mumbai recently?

Pakistani ISI, what about it?

 

[bathsheba666]

ermm, This is the point of view of an authoritarian autocrat.
Hitler could just as easily uttered this sentiment.

It's a howl of protest from a dictator preferring a quiet life.

Let's shoot Lee Kuan Yew instead, if he thinks this is acceptable behavior, and let democracy progress.

 

[Dann]

Lee Kuan Yew still preaching? I thought he's retired and passed on the country to his son already?

I admire the man, but his ego sometimes comes across as too strong.

So is he correct about governing Chinese?

I would think yes. We have been used to a strong and firm government for all of our history. Any 'weakness' soon leads to chaos and then regime change. It would take a supreme effort and virtually the total transformation of society in order for Western style democracy to become the preferred system. Taiwan may be used as a counter-argument to this but it should be noted that they are now having trouble with the system as well. Note the recent extra-constitutional moves to oust Chen Shui Bian.

And that if Tianamen had succeeded it would have resulted in the destruction of China and 100 years of instability?

Perhaps not destruction, but the political entity that comes out of it will definitely be weaker than today, and possibly geographically smaller too, as it will not have the will or clout to prevent separatism. In its initial phase it might end up like Russia under Yeltsin, or even become a giant banana republic. It would take decades and generations to recover, and by then its political clout will have gone down the gutter.

At any rate, a person of Lee Kuan Yew's stature saying this publicly sends shivers down one's spine. Perhaps we should be thankful he did not become leader of a larger nation.

 

[Dong2Long]

So is he correct about governing Chinese? And that if Tianamen had succeeded it would have resulted in the destruction of China and 100 years of instability?

China should divide into about 15-17 new nations, as the people of today want. The evil red chinese leaders who have no regard for human life, should - in a philosophical sense - be eradicated. The people have no real say; they are exploited and abused by those evil ones in power. Good and evil arise when you have a moral basis, and absolute right and absolute wrong. Without that basis, you can call murder of 200,000 of those that you govern (terrorize as the evil red government of mainland china does) and not think much of it. Stalin did it to millions upon millions, and history has still not fully unmasked his cesspool of evil; at least he does not govern, nor does Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler, et. al. But the decrepit evil that is the red chinese threat... the government & political leaders... has yet to be eradicated.

England, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Australia... they are stable, yet the masses free. Each has unique ways of cultural governance. Were the Chinese free of the yoke of the evil red menace -- the evil Chinese Communists -- they would take their own path. Unstable? Yes, for an evil communist... extinction would loom in terms of political power. Evil regimes like those in Red China, North Korea, and even the throcracy of Iran, and repression of Syria, have no place in a civilized, free human world. Only in the infinite morass of "that which is" can philosophically be used to rationalize the terror these evil people and groups inflict.

200,000 killed = more stable for China, as long as it is the evil red chinese leadership, not the students of China.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

At any rate, China is not ready for democracy any time soon. Democracy is just another western rhetoric to weaken China.

At any rate, a person of Lee Kuan Yew's stature saying this publicly sends shivers down one's spine. Perhaps we should be thankful he did not become leader of a larger nation.

My country would die for to have a leader like Lee. The rate of development in Singapore since it is separated from Malaysia speaks for itself.

 

[silver 2039]

My country would die for to have a leader like Lee. The rate of development in Singapore since it is separated from Malaysia speaks for itself.

Far easier to develope a tiny city state than to develope a nation the size of Malaysia.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

Far easier to develope a tiny city state than to develope a nation the size of Malaysia.

I agree about that, but it also takes leadership to do so.

 

[Shaihulud]

I wish the old man should just shut up and leave it to the younger generations, whilst there are some truths to what he has to say, his senility has made him more and more brusque. It won't be long when he offends someone we shouldn't have, and then what?

China should divide into about 15-17 new nations, as the people of today want.

Now who would want that? Most Chinese wouldn't want that to my understanding, and that means the majority of the world. The autocrats of China are not that bad, its not exactly liberal or democratic, but it works, i wouldn't be exactly surprised if the living standards of Chinese exceeds that of Indians and they had a much longer climb from the gutters.

 

[nihilistic]

China should divide into about 15-17 new nations, as the people of today want.

Which "people of today"? The problem with you, and many others that post here, is that you assumed what you want must be what they want, whether the 'they' be in the mid east or the far east.

If you want China to transition to a democracy, that's fine. But the agent of change (as preceived anyway) for that to happen cannot be foreign. Democracy cannot be imposed in Iraq and neither can it be imposed in China, especially by a foreign power. Keep in mind that however the regular Chinese dislike their government they still remember what the colonial powers did in China.

That's why engagement is almost always a better policy than isolation.

 

[Dann]

@Dong2Long
You are overestimating ideology, and underestimating Chinese nationalism. Even if you completely replace the government and the political system China will not allow itself to be split into a hodgepodge of 2-acre states like YOU want if it has any say in the matter. Why do you think the ROC government on Taiwan also claims Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia? 15-17 new nations "as the people of today want?" Hah! More like as her enemies wish!

@Gr3yL3gion
So would my home country. But I fear our more "chaotic" culture would not go well with his governing style. Singapore's miracle achievement is due not to Lee's efforts alone, but also due to the obedient temperament and cooperativeness of her people.

 

[amadeus]

Sorry, Grey, I really feel for you. They got Lee and you got Mahathir.

Talk about getting the short end of the stick.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

Sorry, Grey, I really feel for you. They got Lee and you got Mahathir.

Talk about getting the short end of the stick.

It could get worse. Under Mahathir Malaysia did progress alot more than he's predecessors, so he's ok in my book.

Though I can't really understand why you are so eager to bash him at every single opportunity.

 

[amadeus]

His frequent anti-Semetic rants, his mad conspiracies about the U.S., and his support for Islamist fundamentalism.

 

[Dann]

Heh. The first two are actually job requirements for that part of the world. Every Malay politician has to say those in order to appear legit. As for the third, that's just not true.

Agree with Gr3yL3gion. Mahathir wasn't that bad. As authoritarian and devious as they come, yes. But Malaysia prospered under him. So it's all good.

 

[ThERat]

do not fall into the trap to think it was LKY alone who was responsible for Singapore's success. There are a lot of factors, besides being equipped with excellent infrastructure and civil service by the British, a location that is superb for trading, etc.

LKY was always ruthless, just remember operation cold store where his own old comrades were imprisoned without trial. Some of them spend decades in prison without any trial.
If you want to find out more about Singapore, read here. The man who almost was the first PM of Singapore
Lim Chin Siong

more on that, simply scroll down the link
Spore history

These days LKY is an old senile man and nobody inSingapore dares to tell him to shut up and leave us all alone with his antics. His immense arrogance pisses off anyone off that has not been brainwashed by the Singapore system. The country reminds one more of North Korea than a democracy (of course you got all the freedom to make money and travel). It is actually extremely fragile theses days.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

@Dann. That's just spot on, without me saying it.