Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas

by Han Fook Kwang

  On the whole, I think it is more difficult to achieve a working democracy than to make some progress in human rights. Greater respect for human rights is a worthwhile objective. The only practical way forward is the step-by-step incremental approach. Standards of what is civilised behaviour vary with the history and culture of a people, and with the level of deterrence or punishment people in a society are accustomed to.

  “Perhaps the West must admit to itself that people living in other continents and other cultural groups with firmly rooted traditions can be thoroughly happy even without the democratic structures which Euro-Americans consider indispensable.”

  Our common humanity requires us to persuade all peoples and their governments to move towards more humane, open, responsible and accountable government. Governments should treat their own people, including prisoners, in a humane way. Helmut Schmidt wrote in Die Zeit on May 29, 1992, after a visit to China, on the Yellow Emperor: “It seems that the formative force of the Confucian cultural heritage with its tendencies towards vertical meritocracy and hierarchy according to age, with its willingness to learn and to be thrifty, and with the tendency to family and group cohesiveness, does not need Europe’s and North America’s religious ethics, which are based on a totally different spiritual concept, in order to achieve equal economic performance. Perhaps the West must admit to itself that people living in other continents and other cultural groups with firmly rooted traditions can be thoroughly happy even without the democratic structures which Euro-Americans consider indispensable. Therefore we should not ask China to profess democracy, but we should insist on respect of the person, personal dignity and rights.”

  And one cannot ignore the history, culture and background of a society. Societies have developed separately for thousands of years at different speeds and in different ways. Their ideals and their norms are different. American or European standards of the late 20th century cannot be universal.

  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?

  Attitudes are changing. Worldwide satellite television makes it increasingly difficult for any government to hide its cruelties to its own people. By international convention, what a government does with its own people is an internal matter and does not concern foreign governments. This convention is difficult to uphold when people worldwide see and condemn the cruelties and want something done to stop them. On the other hand, Western governments often use public opinion as an excuse to interfere with another government’s actions. But are Western governments prepared to help financially to ease the severe economic difficulties which are often the cause of upheavals and their suppression by force? Only if they are do they have a moral right to interfere and to be listened to. Eventually the international community will find a balance between non-interference in a country’s internal affairs and the moral right to press for more civilised standards of behaviour by all governments. However, I doubt if there will ever be a common universal standard of what is acceptable behaviour.

  In the next 20 to 30 years, few societies will be isolated. All will be ever more open to outside contacts, through trade, tourism, investments, TV and radio. 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?

  Take the case of Burma. Tough sanctions can break the grip of the military regime. It is better to do it with UN Security Council authority. When the regime breaks down and disorder breaks out in Burma, the UN must be prepared to move in and restore order. Do they move in as peacekeepers or peacemakers? As peacekeepers, they will not be able to control the minorities who are armed and have been fighting the Burmese government since independence in 1947. The Karens, Kachins and others, all want independence. Should they get their independence? Or should they be put down and incorporated into one Burmese union or made into more autonomous states in a loose federation? Will advanced countries undertake the responsibilities for their fate?

  If Japan presses for democracy in return for ODA, is she prepared to undertake the responsibility for the integrity of the state and the people’s welfare if a government loses its capability to govern, or otherwise disintegrates?

  An analogous dilemma faced the United States in Iraq. Iraqi Republican guards and forces were on the run. President Bush decided not to break the Republican guards. If he brought down the Iraqi government, he would run the risk of the Shi’ites in the south and the Kurds in the north rising up in rebellion against the Sunni Muslims. If President Bush had decided on an imposed democracy, the result would have been difficult. One-man-one-vote means that the Shi’ites who outnumber the Sunnis will become the majority group to the Iraqi government. Then Iraq would get closer to Iran which would be unacceptable to the United States and to Saudi Arabia. Worse and more likely, Iraq would have been broken up into three states, with Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the centre and Shi’ites in the south.

  Therefore, for geopolitical reasons, the American mission to convert the world to democracy and human rights had to be put aside. The US allowed Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship to carry on. The likelihood of an unsatisfactory geopolitical balance in the Gulf was the reason.

  Some questionable assumptions

  There are some flaws in the assumptions made for democracy. It is assumed that all men and women are equal or should be equal. Hence one-man-one-vote. But is equality realistic? If it is not, to insist on equality must lead to regression. Let me put it to the test in some theoretical situations. If we had a world government for this small interdependent world, will one-man-one-vote lead to progress or regression? All can immediately see that the developed and educated peoples of the world will be swamped by the undeveloped and uneducated, and that no progress will be possible. Indeed if the UK and US had given universal suffrage to their peoples in the 19th century, then economic and social progress might well have been less rapid.

  If we had a world government for this small interdependent world, will one-man-one-vote lead to progress or regression?

  The weakness of democracy is that the assumption that all men are equal and capable of equal contribution to the common good is flawed. This is a dilemma. Do we insist on ideals when they do not fit into practical realities of the world as we know it? Or do we compromise and adjust to realities?

  Lee proposed modifying Singapore’s voting system to give those aged 35 to 60 years, married and with children, two votes each to reflect their heavier responsibilities and bigger contributions to society. He made these comments in an interview with Warren Fernandez and other Singapore reporters in Perth at the end of his visit to New Zealand and Australia, on May 8, 1994.

  Some men, two votes?

  FERNANDEZ: May I take up a point that was made in the citation in your honour at the University of Melbourne, which referred to your contribution to the post-colonial debate on the nature of representative government? In that regard, could I refer to your comments to the American journal, Foreign Affairs, about the possibility of a “some-men-two-votes system” for Singapore? Is this on the cards? Have there, for example, been Cabinet discussions about it?

  Constitutional amendments – Since 1965, more than 25 amendments have been made to the constitution. Major ones include the 1972 provision which sets a two-thirds majority vote in a national referendum to vote on the sovereignty of Singapore, the implementation of the Group Representation Constituency in 1988 and the creation of an Elected Presidency office in 1991.

&nb
sp; LEE: No, this is purely my point of view. I have told my younger colleagues a long time ago that we should not make unnecessary changes to the constitution, but that they have to look ahead and keep in mind that no constitution can stay unchanged for all time. The nature of society will change, the external environment that Singapore faces will change, and we have to change. If you want one-man-one-vote or representative government to succeed, from time to time, you will have to adjust your system to make it more viable, and less volatile.

  The New Zealanders have run their one-man-one-vote system for 170 to 180 years. But because they have had some 12 years of hardship as their economy ran into trouble, they first voted for a Labour government. That Labour government inflicted pain on them, so they voted for the opposition, National Party. The National government also inflicted pain on them. So they decided to change the system.

  It nearly happened in Britain. In the ’70s and ’80s, they were discussing proportional representation because the old system was not producing results.

  The Japanese have had to change their multiple-members constituency system. In America, in the old days, one-man-one-vote excluded blacks. Then the mood changed, and they decided that it would look very bad for them with the world, especially black Africa. So after the black civil rights movement in the 1960s, they included blacks in one-man-one-vote.

  It is not going to satisfy the purists, who believe that big or small, all contributors to society should have one vote.

  It is not necessary to change our system at present. But, later, we may have to give more weighting to the people whose views should carry more weight because their contributions are greater, and their responsibilities are greater; in which case, we should consider giving those between the ages of 35 and 60, married and with families, one extra vote. Their contribution to the economy and to society is greatest at this stage of life. Also, they need to vote for themselves and also for their children. Their children have an interest that needs to be protected. Once past 60, their children would have grown up, and would vote for themselves. Then the parents should drop back to one vote. But during those critical years, 35–60, people who carry twice as much responsibility should have two votes. This will make for a more viable system and a more stable society.

  It is not going to satisfy the purists, who believe that big or small, all contributors to society should have one vote. But at the end of the day, we need a system that works, that enables representative government to function in an effective way.

  FERNANDEZ: You have said Singapore may need to consider such a change in the future. When do you think this is likely to happen?

  LEE: Maybe in 15 to 20 years. It is a sound way of moving forward. Don’t go into proportional representation and these other complicated formulas, hoping that out of coalitions, you will get stability and therefore right decisions.

  LIANHE ZAOBAO: But under what circumstances should such a change in the system be made?

  LEE: When the system no longer begins to work as efficiently. Because the population has changed in its complexion.

  If by 2020 our population policies have not increased our birth rates so that there are enough young workers to make up for those over 60 who have retired from the work force, and we are also unable to get new immigrants to replace Singaporeans who have emigrated, then we will have a lot of old people – about 30 per cent of the population.

  Then the interests of the old will be disproportionate in influencing policies, as has happened in some countries of Europe and in America. Then the system will malfunction.

  FERNANDEZ: So, in a way, this proposal is tied to the ageing of the population in Singapore?

  LEE: Yes. I believe this is one problem we are bound to face. It is already a problem in America. President Reagan tried in 1982 to cut back on social security because it was going to bankrupt the country. But the old people just solidly voted against him and so Reagan backed off.

  There are not enough old people in Singapore yet. But I think in 20 years there will be. They would have run through their CPF. We tell them today, keep your CPF in reserve because you will need it, you will live till 75. But they don’t believe us. Or if they do, they push it to the back of their minds. But in 20 years’ time, when they are over 70 years old and they have run out of their CPF, they are going to vote for a government that promises them more.

  I see more and more of my generation as I wander through the HDB blocks, in senior citizens’ corners.

  FERNANDEZ: In which case, would it not be even more difficult to change the system in 20 years’ time?

  LEE: Therefore the need for good timing by the government, before the situation gets out of hand, to shift the centre of gravity to the people who are at their most productive and carrying the responsibilities for the next generation. They have to bring up the next generation and protect their children’s future interests. So it’s logical to give one vote for themselves and one vote for their children.

  FERNANDEZ: How do you think such a change to the system will be received by Singaporeans?

  LEE: We have to do what is fair and practical to avoid the system malfunctioning.

  LIANHE ZAOBAO: But you are not so worried about the youngsters?

  LEE: No, not so much. The youngsters will become more productive as they gain experience. That’s not the problem. The fickleness or volatility of the young has not been a serious problem. Once they get married and have children, they sober up. But the problem of old people without enough savings will not be easy to handle. We have to keep family ties and obligations strong to solve this problem.

  I see more and more of my generation as I wander through the HDB blocks, in senior citizens’ corners.

  While declaring himself an “unrepentant socialist”, Lee argued that social democrats would have to find ways to keep workers motivated to put in their maximum effort. Only then could socialist countries develop and be in a position to improve workers’ lives, he said at the opening session of the Asian Socialist Conference in Bombay on May 6, 1965. For the time being, the socialist credo of giving each according to his need might have to be put on hold. Lee suggested a less utopian but more practical stand: “From each his economic best, To each his economic worth.”

  An unrepentant socialist

  It is 12 years since the first Asian Socialist Conference in Rangoon in 1953. They have been 12 years of many disappointments and few successes for democratic socialists. Many of the leaders who foregathered on that occasion are now no longer able to lead their countries towards socialism.

  Quite a number are in gaols, put there by governments that assert themselves as equally if not more socialist and nationalist than the people they have displaced. Why have these things happened? Why have the hopes of inevitable progress towards a socialist world so lamentably failed to materialise in Asia? How is it that some manifestly non-socialist governments in the region have made more economic progress and increased their Gross National Product more rapidly than countries in Southeast Asia that have had socialist governments?

  True, the capitalists, and in particular the Americans, have poured in aid and investments, and perhaps a part of this massive economic transfusion has to some degree benefited the workers. And for a long while Americans preferred to support only anti-communist governments. Indeed they used to find it difficult to distinguish socialists from communists.

  Why then did not the advanced countries in Europe with socialist governments give corresponding assistance to their counterparts in Asia? We knew that the communists would never help the democratic socialists. But what of the democratic socialist governments in Europe? Perhaps they did not have the abundance of resources to have helped the enormous populations of South Asia to any appreciable degree. But the fault was nearer home.

  The democratic socialists who were in charge of some of these governments in South Asia lacked the managerial and technical expertise in administration, management and the technological and industrial skills to be able to r
ealise their plans for economic transformation. The lack of these instruments of policy implementation could have been made up by borrowing expertise from abroad. This could have helped these countries tide over the period of transition when local men were acquiring the training and skills. Indeed some of this was done on an appreciable scale as in India, with technical assistance from both United Nations agencies and direct from government to government.

  But the most grievous indictment against the democratic socialists for their failure to put up a better showing is that in preaching individual human liberties and human freedoms, they forgot to insist, as the communists and the capitalists did, on the individual human duty to work hard and give his utmost. For in the last analysis the better life is produced only by sustained and intense effort.

  As democratic socialists we should uphold all individual human liberties. Perhaps we have underestimated the human problems of finding the techniques of organising men for production, and of persuading men to accept the disciplines of modernised agricultural and industrial production, if we are to fulfil their dreams. If we want to mobilise human resources, to pitchfork our countries and backward economies into the industrial and technological era, then no person has the right to slack.

  The capitalists make people work through monetary incentives which we call sweated and exploited labour. The communists do it by regimentation and exhortation and a systematically induced state of semi-hysteria for work, using both the stick and the carrot. The democratic socialist is less ruthless and consequently less efficient, torn between his loathing for regimentation and mass coercion and his inhibition to making more effective use of the carrot by his desire to distribute the rewards more fairly and equally too soon.

  I am an unrepentant socialist. But in my own state, I have to concede that because it takes a long time to inculcate the high values of public duty and sense of service to the community, performance has been best only when workers are offered high incentives for high performance.