“Even then, the foreign press keeps saying, ‘pliable judiciary’. So I said, ‘We sue. Prove it.’ You mean to tell me I won my libel cases because the judges favoured me? Every case is documented – what the man said, what he said in reply to my claim and so on.
“That kind of an opposition, if you do not check, it will degrade the system.”
He added, “The system of government in China will change. It will change in Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam. It is changing in Singapore. But it will not end up like the American or British or French or German systems. What are we all seeking? A form of government that will be comfortable, because it meets our needs, is not oppressive, and maximises our opportunities. And whether you have one-man-one-vote, or some-men-one-vote or other-men-two-votes, those are forms which should be worked out. I’m not intellectually convinced that one-man-one-vote is the best. We practise it because that’s what the British bequeathed us and we haven’t really found a need to challenge that.”
To work, he argued, the system would have to be adapted to suit the social, economic, and cultural context of the societies in which it was to be applied.
“Each country in Asia will chart its own way forward. Every country wants to be developed and wealthy. They will adopt and adapt those features or attributes of successful countries which they think will help them succeed. If these features work and improve their rate of progress, they will be permanently incorporated. If they do not work or cause difficulties, they will be abandoned. It is akin to social Darwinism, a process of trial and error in which survival is the test of what works.
“Simply modelling a system on the American, British or West European constitution is not how Asian countries will or can go about it. The peoples of Asia want higher standards of living in an orderly society. They want to have as much individual choice in lifestyle, political liberties and freedoms as is compatible with the interests of the community. After a certain stage of advance in education and industrialisation, a people may need representative government, however chosen, in order to reconcile conflicting group interests in society and maintain social order and stability. Representative government is also one way for a people to forge a new consensus, a social compact, on how a society settles the trade-off between further rapid economic growth and individual freedoms.
“In Singapore, the British gave us their form of parliamentary government. Our problem has been how to maintain stability in spite of the destabilising tendencies of one-man-one-vote in a new society divided by race, language and religion. We have had to put political stability as the first priority. As we progressed to higher educational and economic levels, we have widened participation in decision making. But no Singaporean leader can afford to put political theory above the practical need of stability and orderly progress. On this, I believe I speak for most, if not all of Asia, at present.”
(Address to the Asahi Shimbun symposium, May 9, 1991; text on page 372)
Preconditions for democracy
Violence in Pakistan. Lee is not convinced that the country has the right ingredients for democracy to take root and flourish.
Lee argued often that democracy was not an inevitable form of government. Certain cultural and societal preconditions needed to prevail before it could take root. Where these were lacking, the system had to be adapted to suit the local circumstances if it was not to be doomed to failure.
“Take Pakistan. In 1988, after General Zia Ul Haq, the president, was killed … Professor Elie Kedourie … who has studied Pakistan, … wrote: ‘Civilian, constitutional government was proved to be inept, corrupt, and quite unable to arrange a Third World economy, or deal with the ills and conflicts of a divided society suffering from deep rivalries, mutual fears and antagonisms … For such a style of government to be practicable and tolerable, it has to be rooted in attitudes to, and traditions of, governance which are common ground between the rulers and the ruled: the supremacy of law, the accountability of those in power and continuous intercourse with the public from whom they derive their authority; the sturdiness of civil society, and the practical impossibility for any government to ride roughshod for long over its innumerable and multifarious interests and associations. None of this, of course, obtains in Pakistan … Here the ruling tradition was of Oriental despotism where the will of the ruler was law …May it not be that a regime of elections, parliaments and responsible government is unworkable in countries like Pakistan, and that to persist in attempts to set up or restore such a regime must lead to continual tumults in the body politic, and successive interventions by the armed forces?”
“Six years ago, Mrs Imelda Marcos fled the country … so did Eduardo Cojuangco. Yet they were able to return and contest in elections for president. They were among the top four candidates. The president, Fidel Ramos, got 5.3 million votes, Cojuangco got 4.1, and Mrs Marcos 2.3. In other words, had Cojuangco and Mrs Marcos combined, their votes could have beaten Fidel Ramos. A society where such remarkable events are possible needs a special kind of democracy. In other societies, when a dictator is overthrown, the wife and close collaborators would probably have been mobbed and lynched before they got away, and if they got away, would never return.
“… one simple but fundamental problem. The majority of the voters, both in the Philippines and in Pakistan, are peasants or farmers. The landlords control their lives and their votes. The majority of members elected into the legislatures of both countries are landlords. They have blocked legislation for land reforms without which there can be no fundamental change in the economy. They have also blocked moves to have the children of their peasants educated. They prefer to have them uneducated but loyal …
“Neither country has a background for democratic government. There are no habits in the people for dissension or disagreement within a restrained and peaceful context. Murders and violence are part of every Filipino election. The lawlessness that is in Sind province, the shootings … between Sindhis, Muhajirs, Pashtuns, Baluchis in Karachi bear witness to the absence of a civic society.”
(November 20, 1992; text on page 376)
The liberal crusade: end of objectivity?
To Western advocates of human rights and democracy who sought to pressure Asian societies into adopting the standards of the West, Lee counselled patience. As the world was drawn ever closer together, norms for decent behaviour would be established. Attempting to force Western standards on Asian societies not only smacked of cultural arrogance, it risked throwing these societies into chaos and confusion.
“These contacts will influence their behaviour, because their values, perceptions and attitudes will change. There will be no convergence to a common world standard. But we can expect more acceptable standards where bizarre, cruel, oppressive practices will become shameful and unacceptable. We cannot force faster change, unless the advanced countries are prepared to intervene actively. If a target delinquent government collapses and the country breaks down, are the donor countries prepared to move in and put the country together again? In other words, re-colonise and create the preconditions for democracy?”
(Address at Asahi Forum, November 20, 1992; text on page 376)
Even some Western societies, he contended, did not display an inclination towards the democratic ideal. Yet, inexplicably, many in the West continued to champion democracy as having universal applicability.
“The West, led by America, puts the credo simply as democracy is universally good for all peoples, and that to progress, modernise and become industrial societies, they should become democracies. Now that the Cold War has ended, I hope it is possible for Western political scientists to write in more objective terms. Why has democracy not worked in most of these newly independent countries? In particular, why has an American-based constitution failed to work in America’s only former colony, the Philippines? The Philippines experiment in democracy started with independence and elections in 1946. That experiment in democracy failed in 1972 with martial law, long before Marcos was ousted in
1986. A second American-based constitution was promulgated by President Aquino in February 1987. Whilst a constitutional commission was sitting to frame this constitution, four coups were attempted. In May 1987, elections were held for a Senate and a House of Representatives. This still did not settle the loyalty of the armed forces because three more coup attempts followed. …
“When Western commentators are not writing to convert a Third World country to democracy, they are more objective. For example, when they discuss the Soviet Union, they say openly that democracy will not work. …
“European historians ascribe Russia’s lack of a liberal civic society to the fact that she missed the Renaissance (middle 15th to end 16th century) and also the Enlightenment (18th century). These were the two leavening experiences that lifted Western Europe to a more humane culture. Now if democracy will not work for the Russians, a white Christian people, can we assume that it will naturally work with Asians?”
(Address to the Asahi Shimbun symposium, May 9, 1991; text on page 372)
Huntington’s U-turn
Former critic of Lee Kuan Yew, Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, has since changed his views. “You’ll be surprised. I’ve got good things to say of you,” he told Lee about his new book.
Singapore’s system of government, which Lee had fashioned over the years, would go with him to his grave. So predicted Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. He argued that Singapore’s clean and efficient system of government would not outlive its founder as it was not underpinned by democratic institutions and values.
The professor was just one of several Western commentators who had crossed swords with Lee. For many of these liberal critics, Lee was the arch spokesman for the argument that Asian countries would evolve their own representative systems, suited to their society’s ethos, cultures, traditions and stages of progress.
Finding these views an apology for authoritarianism and repression, many of them gunned for Lee, and Singapore, believing he should not be allowed to succeed lest doing so lent credence to his views. So, when Huntington called on Lee at the Istana and informed him that his new book, The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of the World Order, would soon be published, Lee figured he could expect more of the same.
“During this visit, he said, ‘My book is coming out,’ and I said, ‘I’m ready for it.’ He said, ‘No, you’d be surprised. I’ve got good things to say of you.’ And he has,” said Lee.
He came to know about the Harvard don in 1968 and met him regularly despite having crossed swords with him several times. In his latest book, the professor lauded the Singapore government’s initiative to foster a sense of shared values among the Republic’s multiracial community. He called it an “ambitious and enlightened effort to define a Singaporean cultural identity”, noting that the five values drawn up as a moral anchor for Singaporeans in 1991 were shared by the ethnic and religious communities here and had helped to distinguish Singapore from the West.
To Lee, the observation indicated that Huntington had changed his view about the universality of American values and democratic practices. He now understood the rule for peace in a multi-civilisational world, having seen what had happened in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda. This rule for peace was based on finding common elements and expanding the values, institutions and practices which people had in common with others, Lee told reporters in December 1996, in an impromptu press conference called after an election rally. Praising Professor Huntington for having shown the courage to drop his previous assumption that Western civilisation and values were universal, Lee said, “In other words, he accepts that America cannot remake the world in its own image …”
Quoting from the book, published in 1996, Lee pointed out that the Harvard don now believed that although Western civilisation was unique, it would be “false, immoral and dangerous” to believe it was universal. He realised the world had to be accepted as it was, with different languages, cultures and religions. “Many other things follow, there will be differences in values, social systems, and their spillover into political systems.”
Not surprisingly, these views earned Lee a fair deal of opprobrium from liberal critics. His opponents labelled him an eloquent spokesman for soft authoritarianism, or a “kinder, gentler” form of political dictatorship. Others saw his critique of the democratic system as a cynical attempt to entrench his ruling People’s Action Party in power. He was unperturbed, believing he had history and the logic of the argument on his side. Besides, Singapore’s success was his best riposte.
He was also to become a leading critic of the Western liberal notion that mankind had reached the “end of history”, with liberal democracies being the ultimate social and political order for all societies. To him, this liberal triumphalism, brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, was a pious myth to be taken with a liberal dash of salt.
His views, expressed with characteristic candour and forcefulness, provoked many equally strong reactions. One of these was from South Korea’s opposition leader Kim Dae Jung, who argued that democracy was not alien to Asian culture. Its advance was being thwarted by Asian authoritarians of whom Lee was the most articulate. Noting this, a somewhat bemused Lee replied:
“Kim Dae Jung wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine, ‘Democracy is our destiny.’ They got him to write a counter article to my conversation and they want me to reply. I don’t think it’s necessary. He makes assertive statements. Where are the concrete examples that these things are going to happen? If it’s going to happen, why are they so excited about it? All the authoritarians, all the contrarians will die away because it is an inevitable tide of history.
“The very fact that they’re so vexed about it and try to demolish me shows a lack of faith in the inevitable outcome they predict. They say I am the most articulate of the authoritarians and giving them sustenance. Rubbish. If history is on their side, that liberal democracy is inevitable, then just ignore me. Don’t give me publicity. Right?
“I don’t believe that because a theory sounds good, looks logical on paper or is presented logically, therefore that is the way it will work out. The final test is life. What happens in real life, what happens with people working in a society.”
The young, Lee believed, held the key to the future. Education was a priority for his government. The Cabinet believed initially that equalising opportunities would narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots in society. But over the years, many among them were drawn to the conclusion that equality of opportunities alone would not always lead to equality of results.
7
The Nature of Human Society
When the controversial Bell Curve hypothesis was published in 1994, suggesting that some men and ethnic groups were less well endowed intellectually than others, it raised a shrill stir in American political and intellectual circles. The authors, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, were derided as racists, bigots and pseudo-scientists. Critics charged that the book was unhelpful to efforts to improve race relations in the United States, or worse, part of a neo-Nazi plot to keep ethnic minorities down.
For Lee Kuan Yew, however, the book was unremarkable. To him, the hypothesis revealed nothing new. It merely confirmed what had long been commonsense knowledge – that not all men or all races were equally able. He had drawn this conclusion long ago, from his own observations of the differences in ability within a society and between differing cultures.
The uproar in the West, he believed, stemmed from a stubborn refusal of its politically correct intelligentsia to accept the facts which nature had decreed. The result: policies based on wrong premises, which were doomed to disappointment; grand hopes of levelling society failed to deliver results because they went against the grain of the inherent inequalities in ability among men.
Lee would have none of this. To him, government policy, be it on education, social spending or the search for talent, could not be a matter of wishful thinking.
Bell curve �
�� Social commentator Charles Murray and Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein, in their book, The Bell Curve: Intelligence And Class Structure In American Life, argued that human intelligence is largely transmitted genetically.
“The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more … the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow.
“By the 1970s, when we looked at the old examination results and the present, and we saw the pattern in the housing estates – one-room, two-rooms, three-rooms, four-rooms, five-rooms – it fits exactly with educational attainments. That the more intelligent and hardworking you are, the higher your educational levels, the higher your income.
“Supposing we had hidden the truth and taken the American approach and said, all men are equal. Then they (the less able or well-off) will demand equal results. And when the results are not equal, they will demand more equal treatment.
“I decided if I didn’t bring it out, my successors will face a problem of credibility. Because they can’t bring it out, they will say we’re trying to escape the responsibility. So I started giving it to the community leaders, then to the media leaders, then to the teachers – finally brought it out into the open. There’s no other way. Not to come to terms with this is to deceive yourself and be pursuing policies which would bring no good.”
Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas Page 19