Lee Kuan Yew - as his critics see him

by S. Pathiravitana

The difference between the democracy of Sri Lanka and the democracy of Singapore showed up well when a question asked by the Spiegel, a German newspaper, from Singapore's new Mentor Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, soon after he created for himself this new title after he resigned from his premiership. As one of his critics may point out the new office is to keep a kind of avuncular eye on the old place he managed so successfully for over several decades.

The avuncular interest is a phenomenon that may not be seen in western style democracies, but something that perhaps fits itself, as he imagines, to the old Asian values that he now respects.

The question

The question that Spiegel asked him was, "During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?"

Turning the question over in his mind Lee asked himself loudly, "Why should I be against democracy?" and then went on to answer the question. "The British came here, and never gave me democracy, except when they began to leave." It reminds you of what happened in Ceylon.

The Britsh came here, and never gave us democracy until the last minute of the 150 years they stayed here, and then they overturned the whole bucket of universal franchise over us disregarding the protests from some of our old hands who said that every vatti amma and fish monger had no special interest in running governments, except in crafting for sale their products of fish and mukunu enna, which could be done in any case without state help.

The British were not disposed towards taking that advice, coming as it did from the mouths of old Ceylonese fogeys. Although in Britain a separate institution was set up to house old fogeys called the House of Lords, whose advice the Lower House always sought.

How did Lee Kuan, a man who styled himself so well in English manners and culture to earn the sobriquet from a British Cabinet Minister as being the 'best bloody Englishman East of Suez,' react to Spiegel's question? His reaction was, "But I cannot run my system based on their rules.

I have to amend it to fit my peoples' position." Lee may not have been quoting the Bhagavad Gita when he gave that reply, but that is the gist of the Gita philosophy, which is that - one should not follow what is suitable for another's way of life, but follow what is your own, for that suits you best. Blindly following

We Ceylonese, on the contrary, have been following Britain all the way down faithfully, learning to hold a straight bat even in the worst of times, playing the on drive with text book accuracy and rarely mistiming a full blooded cover drive. While Lee who had seen and enjoyed watching cricket in England played his own style of cricket. Watching him play this game of politics it reminds you of the scintillating brilliance of that exceptional performer, Sathasivam, the cut and polish with which he dispatched the opposition through the covers over and over again.

While talking to the Spiegel he tells its editor, "In multi racial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests or social interests, you vote in accordance with your race and religion." We already have a foretaste of what goes on in our own Parliament. But let us leave Lee to reveal his own fascinating insights into the workings of multi racial parliaments.

"Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that..."

And that, Spiegel edges in "...turned Singapore de facto into a one party state. Critics say that Singapore resembles a Lee Family Enterprise. Your son is the Prime Minister, your daughter-in-law heads the powerful Development Agency..." And Lee joins in with "... and my other son is CEO of Singapore Telecoms, my daughter is head of the National Institute for Neurology. This is a very small community of 4 million people. We run a meritocracy. If the Lee Family set an example of nepotism, that system would collapse.

If I were not the prime minister, my son could have become prime minister several years earlier. It is against my interest to allow any family member who's incompetent to hold an important job because that would be a disaster for Singapore and my legacy. That cannot be allowed." Well, that is Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, sharp, quick witted and smart.

He has many admirers for the manner in which he has set about elevating this little island, as many have acknowledged, into the neatest, cleanest, crimeless city in the entire planet. He has, nonetheless, many critics who appreciate what he has done but not with the way he has done it.

He has not been gentle with his opponents and rivals in making his way to the throne. That may be what happens when you are keen on getting to the top anywhere. But Lee can turn around and say that he has always acted legally under the laws set up by the British for this colony, including the dreaded Internal Security Act.

If he has kept his rivals out of the scene it would have been under the Internal Security Act which provided for trouble makers to be detained for long periods without trial or exiled to a nearby island. One of his critics in the Seventies when Lee was in power was the political editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, T.J.S. George from India.

He sees Lee quite diffferently. In his book, 'Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore', he has this about him: "Lee, it appears, is sinless only by his own definition of sin. It is his definitions and ideas which become policy in Singapore. To the extent that policy stems from one man's notions of life and morality its validity is restricted to the duration of that man's office.

Lee's valiant efforts to raise his notion to the level of a lasting philosophy do not carry with them the promise of success because they depend so heavily on executive power and on a series of questionable premises about people's willingness to go on accepting the exercise of such power."

Yes, things do last only for a time. That may be relevant criticism. He even supplements it with with a bit of old Chinese philosophy.

He admits that Singapore in the 70s gave the impression 'of a people generally satisfied with their government.' That picture, he says, has to be seen against the background of the metaphor used by an old Chinese sage who advised his king, that if he wanted the people to remain peaceful he should keep their stomachs full. That, as we can see, Lee has already done quite well.

The Singaporeans today enjoy greater comforts than the average Englishman who once lorded it over the Singaporean. To use the economic jargon, a Singaporean today has a per capita GDP of $22,000, a couple of thousands more than the average per capita GDP of those who managed him when they were his former masters.

Chinese saying

What actually that aged Chinese sage said was, keep the stomachs full so that their heads would be empty. And that appears to be the truth of Lee's Singapore achievement.

But to be truthful, such aims and ambitions are not a Lee monopoly. It is the aim and ambition of nearly all governments in the world today, whether of the West or that of the East.

Because material development is all that they seek. The spiritual aims which were once universally held sacred by all earlier human societies have now disappeared under the compelling new philosophy of consumerism - man lives by his stomach alone.