Say what you like about him but Singapore’s late first Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had a genius for manipulating the Western narrative when it came to all things Chinese. Mr. Lee, the original WOG (Western Oriental Gentleman) started out as “Harry Lee” and had made a point of only wanting to speak English as an Englishman and refused to speak “Singlish” or anything resembling a Chinese dialect. However, he realized that the English educated would never help him get into power and so he taught himself the language of the streets, ensured the name Lee Kuan Yew would be the one the public knew and before you knew if he was “Chinese.” Once in power, he then tried to redefine Chinese culture to his own liking. He kept the public persona of Lee Kuan Yew but went to war on Chinese dialects. It was a mixture of wanting to ensure the Chinese-dialect street agitators would never do to him what they had to done to the colonial government but at the same time wanting to stay Chinese enough to capitalize on a Chinese market should it ever grow.
Singapore’s meteoric rise is well documented and Mr. Lee saw
to it that his colleagues went on a process of “leadership renewal,” while he
had himself hired as a well-paid consultant in the cabinets of his successors. Mr.
Lee, who had shamelessly used Western expertise (particularly that of Dr. Winsemius)
and capital to build Singapore, proceeded to promote the Singapore Success
story as a success story of Asian Values under a wise Asian ruler. He told his “fellow
Asian Leaders” that he had the secret formula for success and at the same time
he promoted himself across the Western World as the man who knew Chinese and
Asian culture. How successful was he? Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister
of the UK, talked about how she’d ask her friend “Harry Lee of Singapore” about
Chinese Culture.
As the so-called premier expert of all things eastern and
western, one of Mr. Lee’s greatest lines was to announce that “Democracy was
incompatible with Chinese culture.” The motivations behind this message were obvious.
To his Western Audience, it was the message that they could pump capital in Asia
and not worry about what the common folk felt because they’d follow their
leaders. To the Asian audience, there was a message to follow the leadership
and prosperity would follow.
It’s tough to argue against Mr. Lee because he was right in
so many ways. Singapore remains a fairly pleasant place or at least pleasant enough
for you to get looks of “what the heck are you complaining about,” from your American
and European friends and the Asian countries that prospered like Taiwan and South
Korea also did so under strong authoritarian rule. Then, there’s the giant
story of China, which has gone from a backwater in the 70s to a world power set
to change the nature of geopolitics and remains under one party rule. Mr. Lee
has been described as probably the best nation builder by non-other than
Charlie Munger, the number two man of Berkshire Hathaway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbU6vaEiohY
While it’s hard to argue with Mr. Lee and his track record,
he was, however, not perfect. As a Singaporean who grew up with Mr. Lee in the
80s, it was clear that while Mr. Lee set high standards for many things, age somehow
mellowed Mr. Lee into being, how do you say – a bit more flexible. The Prime
Minister who said he always sacked and replaced the chief when things went
wrong, actually started berating the public when members of the public were not
pleased with the Minister in charge of security when a terrorist was allowed to
limp out of a highly secured facility.
Mr. Lee’s flexibility in the high standards and good
planning were particularly visible in the area of Chinese culture and democracy.
As the proclaimed “father of the nation,” Mr. Lee stressed that it was a
Singaporean Singapore rather than a Chinese Singapore. He also threw his weight
behind a pledge to “build a democratic society based on justice and equality.”
However, once he got himself his consulting position, he felt that Chinese
culture and democracy were somehow incompatible.
Unfortunately, that’s not quite true. If you look at the
other two places outside Mainland China, namely Hong Kong and Taiwan, things
like democracy and individual liberties are taken very seriously. In the last
two years Hong Kong, which is Chinese sovereign territory (Despite one country
two systems, it is clear that Hong Kong’s Chief Executive reports to China’s
President), you’ve seen things like the Umbrella Movement, where ordinary
people have taken to the streets in protest against draconian surveillance laws.
In Taiwan, which claims to be China (Taiwan’s position is that it is the
government of China in exile in Taiwan, whereas China claims that Taiwan is a renegade
province) is famous for legislators who are so passionate that they end up
brawling.
Needless to say, Singapore gets rather smug when scenes of
the mess in Hong Kong and Taiwan get shown on TV. Our calm and clean little
pond compares well with their rather less calm and clean places. It’s
especially true with Hong Kong, which is Singapore’s largest rival for banking
business. Our private banking sector has been particularly blessed as the
wealthy take their money out Hong Kong and park it in Singapore.
However, this smugness fails to take into account two key
factors. The first is geopolitics. Singapore is an independent and sovereign
nation. Our immediate neighbors are Malaysia and Indonesia. While there was “Konfrantassi”
in our early years, Singapore has had a relatively peaceful relationship with
its immediate neighbours in the last 40-years. Malaysia and Indonesia are
unable to make laws for Singapore nor can they bar other countries from recognizing
the existence of Singapore.
Taiwan and Hong Kong by contrast have a different
relationship with their big neighbor – China. Hong Kong was a Crown Colony and
then it became a “special administrative” region of the People’s Republic. In
theory Hong Kong is allowed to operate under its own set of rules and only leaves
defense and foreign policy of Beijing. In theory, the Chinese government has
signed a treaty agreeing to leave Hong Kong alone under a system of “One
Country-Two-Systems.”
Practice is a different story. Much as Hong Kong readers
will protest it – the fact remains “ONE COUNTRY two systems.” Hong Kong is
China and its very reason for existence is China. People go to Hong Kong to get
into China and while the Chinese government has refrained from sending tanks
into Hong Kong the way it sent them into Tiananmen Square, its capable of doing
its part to see that the investors head for Shanghai, which is China-China – or
One Country: One System.
There’s a different twist with Taiwan. Unlike Hong Kong,
Taiwan is not a part of China. For many years, Taiwan under the Kuomingtang
(KMT) claimed to be the rightful government of China which was in exile in
Taiwan, whereas the Communist Party (CCP) claimed that Taiwan was a renegade
province of China. While Taiwan is to all intents and purposes a sovereign
nation, it is not recognized as one. While Taiwan has plenty of money, China freezes
out Taiwan from just about every recognizable international body. The rules of
geopolitics are simple – size matters. While Taiwan is democratic and has
plenty of money, nobody is going to get on the wrong side of a billion consumers.
Even pro-independence Taiwanese politicians tread carefully to avoid
unnecessary conflict with China.
So, comparing Singapore with Hong Kong and Taiwan is an “Apple-versus-Oranges”
comparison. Singapore has a certain amount of control over its economic and
political destiny in the same way that Taiwan and Hong Kong do not.
The second point that one should take note off is that
despite the relative difficulties that Hong Kong and Taiwan face when compared
to Singapore, neither appear to be rushing towards a Singapore style of “Daddy
knows it All” government. Taiwan in particular takes pride in its democratic
system of government:
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4118874
Many years ago, the Economist stated that if you looked at East Asia with ethnographic lenses, you’d notice that outside of Japan and South Korea, the countries that have done best are primarily Chinese. Of the Chinese majority countries, Hong Kong put everything into overpriced real estate, Singapore put everything into government, China put it into the party apparatus. Taiwan by contrast had entrepreneurship. Think of the semiconductor industry, which had a heavy presence of Taiwanese entrepreneurs. Is there a link between democracy and value-creating entrepreneurship and is it sustainable: Well, it appears that Taiwan has done respectively well given that its not even a recognised nation?
Democracy and individual liberties are not bad for business
and Chinese culture has shown that it is not against business. Chinese people steeped in Chinese culture have also shown that they treasure individual liberties and democratic process as much as other people who have experienced democracy and the protection of individual liberties. This is something that non-Chinese people should remember whenever they talk about how Chinese culture is incompatible with democracy.
1 comment
What's democrazy? Is it a means or an end?
Post a Comment