Drawing on his answers to these and many other questions, Lee’s own writings and speeches, and other publicly available sources, we tried to distill his most important strategic insights into a book that was published February 1st, Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013).
Given the respect that Lee commands among leaders in the U.S. and China, his observations about the dynamics between those two countries are of particular interest. He does not subscribe to the declinism that is increasingly common among U.S. commentators, emphasizing America’s regenerative capacities as well as the myriad challenges that China confronts in trying to sustain a robust rate of growth. At the same time, he argues, given China’s historical experience and present momentum, one should not be surprised that it eventually aspires to be the world’s preeminent power. It is accustomed to a Sino-centric international system in which its neighbors pay it tribute, it will soon have the world’s largest economy, and it is making it harder for the U.S. military to operate in the Asia-Pacific.
These trends, among others, have crystallized a strategic competition between the U.S. and China. Unlike most observers, however, Lee was discussing the inevitability of such a competition in the 1990s, when it was common to hear that the dissolution of the Soviet Union had yielded a unipolar international system. In 1993, for example, in an essay for Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Kristof cited Lee’s observation that the international system would have to reconfigure itself to accommodate the China of 30 or 40 years hence. “China,” Lee noted, “is [not] just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of the world.” Three years later, he ventured that China might be able to contest U.S. preeminence in three decades.
In a nod to his panoramic worldview, Arnaud de Borchgrave dubbed Lee the “Kissinger of the orient” (incidentally, Henry Kissinger has stated on many occasions that no world leader has taught him more than Lee). One of the limitations to that analogy, of course, is that while Kissinger has had the opportunity to shape the foreign policy of the world’s preeminent power, Lee has been constrained to implementing his vision in one of its smallest countries: with an area of 697 square kilometers, Singapore is only about 3.5 times as large as Washington, DC. That he emerged as one of the world’s leading strategic thinkers is further remarkable given his responsibilities; while the leader of a stable, secure, and prosperous country might have more time to contemplate trends in international order, he was consumed with far more exigent tasks: creating a country amidst hostile conditions and then preventing it from collapsing.
Given the gravity of those tasks, it is not surprising that Lee has grown accustomed to speaking honestly, succinctly, and forcefully—not as an idle provocateur, but as one who believes that candor is essential to developing prudent policies. In a January 1950 address to Malay students in England, he stated that “between platitudes and personal convictions…it is my duty to state my convictions vigorously,” and warned against “ignoring unpalatable facts and avoiding unpleasant controversy.”
It is doubtful that any observer would agree with all of Lee’s judgments (indeed, he would probably be disappointed if one did), especially concerning governance. Given his success in modernizing Singapore as well as his criticisms of democratic excess—he famously argued in 1992 that the “exuberance of democracy leads to undisciplined and disorderly conditions which are inimical to development”—he is often characterized as an enlightened authoritarian who advocates “Asian values.” He is not, however, a reflexive supporter of the “Beijing Consensus”: essentially, a fusion of authoritarian governance, state capitalism, and incremental reforms. Indeed, Lee increasingly discusses the challenges that the information revolution will pose to Chinese governance. Above all, then, he is not an ideologue, but a pragmatist: he does not see governance as the process of executing policy in accordance with principles, but rather, of developing principles by using trial and error to determine which policies work. This judgment will doubtlessly frustrate those who believe that certain values are intrinsically superior, even universal; given the challenges that presently confront both East and West, however, it has much to recommend it.
Ali Wyne is an associate of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a contributing analyst at Wikistrat.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Bankotsu
Michael Barr on the backward and racist views of Harry Lee Kuan Yew:
Harry Lee Kuan Yew: Race, Culture and Genes
…This article has described in detail the character of Lee Kuan Yew's racial views
substantially using his own words as evidence. After a lifetime of being circumspect
on the question of race, Lee has finally spoken openly, revealing himself as
doctrinaire racist. Yet it would be a mistake to condemn Lee as a hard line racist in
every sense of the word. Such a characterisation of his views would be a distortion of
both his logic and his natural disposition.
There can be no doubt that Lee is a racist in
the sense that he believes that some races and some ethnically-based cultures are
inherently superior to others.
His own words leave no doubt about this assertion,
though it should be recognised that this in itself hardly makes him remarkable in Asia…
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN004070.pdf
Zhang Jun-lin
Whether you like him or not because of his style of politics and governing, Singapore is the best ever leader of a developing country, a visionary, a socially responsible leader, a man who cares for the future of his small country bereft of resources bar human beings. People of neighbouring developing countries are craving for such a leader! Alas, there is none so far ………. ! Salute to Lee Kwan Yew!
Bankotsu
"Salute to Lee Kwan Yew!"
Salute this racist crackpot? No way.lol.
Kim’s Uncle
Love him or dislike him, the results speak for themselves! Singapore is neither a crappy commie dictatorship or an economic backwater. Under his leadership little Singapore is a 1st world country compare to the mess the commies made everywhere else !
Jack
Uncle Kim,you are exactly liek LKY,bring out the worst and compare to Singapore,that is why in his whole life,LKY only compared Singapore to Bangladish and Africa,or the Phillipno for their maids,an example,to voters,if you dont follow my policy,your mother an sisters will have to work as maids like the Philippines,HaHaha,of course Ang Mohs (The whites) like him because he does not give them economic problems and help to enrich their MNCs,unlike commies but do watch up that commis are getting their inspiration from him,Chairman Xi sent a big delegation to Singapore after taking office on how to get support without democracy,this is going to be the challenge to th Ang Moh Yanks who go around the world claiming that democracy is the ONE!Chairman Xi still wants to prove that it is not with support from Lee KY.
jessie
kim's uncle
well said :)
Cyrus
Great Man
Bankotsu
50th Anniversary of Operation Cold Store, unleashed by the Harry Lee Kuan Yew PAP that destroyed the political left wing in Singapore and curtailed democracy.
http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/2013/02/50th-anniversary-of-operation-cold-store.html
Jack
@Bankotsu,Yes,right,you dig deeper,you get more info on how Lee KY exploited the situation for himself and his family.
The followinh social media provides some answers;
Sammyboy forum
http://www.sammyboy.com/
TR EMERITUS
http://www.tremeritus.com/
Kanes
All Singapore's wealth comes from its sea port – one of the busiest in the world. Other industries prosper because of this central hub the sea port created.
Kra Ismuth Canal was on drawing board for the past 300 years. It never happened. It is a small incision across Thailand (shorter than Suez and Panama canals) that can cut thousands of kilometers in distance for ships, save trillions of dollars and time. Ships will then bypass Singapore. At some point this will become a reality. It will shift Singapore's prosperity to Thailand and Hong Kong.
Jack
Lee K Y 's main strategic mistake is that he does not see CCP, the Chinese Communist party,against it he spent the bulk of his tome fighting against,as a looming threat to world peace.Instead at this later stage of his life when he is helping his son fighting for his political survival,he suggested to the son to get help from his old enemy,CCP, via Firewall warfare,as China developed advanced technique to censor internet,of course it does not go so well, as CCP is very busy fighting fire for themselevs,they do not have the time to fight fire for an old enemy,for a start,the communists in China do not like Lee in the first place,Mao's journals in China are still angry wtih Lee K Y.
John Chan
@Jack,
What the hell are you talking about? Singapore meets every criterion of the western style democracy and developed nation model; party parliament, free election, internal security act, capitalist free-market economy, freedom of religion, freedom of communication and expression, and freedom of travel, you name it in the developed world it got it. It even has a US military base.
One minute you said LKY and CCP are friends, next minute you said CCP and LKY are foes, it seems you subscribe double think and double speak.
Bankotsu
Singapore doesn't really have a real democracy. It is closer to a one party dictatorship.
John Chan
Up to now, one only can say Singapore’s ruling party plays a tough/dirty party games, the voters still can vote at their own wish, regardless the voters are brainwashed or not. Looking at the anti-China clique, they are no better than the Singaporean voters.
Mudslinging, negative campaign, robo-calling, vandalizing opponent’s campaign signs, systematically excluding individual candidates, illegal prorogation of parliament, underfunding opposition’s operations, limiting opposition questioning time, stuffing committees and agencies, …, these are all part of democracy, I don’t believe Singapore can out do the old school democracies in the West.
So labelling Singapore not real democracy is overkill.
Bankotsu
"So labelling Singapore not real democracy is overkill."
It's just the facts. Singapore is a one party dictatorship under the control of Lee family and his peranakan clique.
It's not overkill. Don't harbour illusions about Singapore.
Andao
No one – except PAP politicians – will claim Singapore is a democracy.
Vic
He is a big fish in a small pond.
PeterDownUnder
Imagine what Malaysia would have been like if they hadn't split off Singapore and was run by LKY.
Bankotsu
The malays would finish Harry Lee Kuan Yew off.
Caesar
No. He ran it in a manner to which a British colonial administrator would have aspired…
If he ran it like that , singapore would have ended up as india. He ran it on his own unique principles after he saw that the british-ness wasn't for him. That is why he ditched his name Harry.
I think the west would like to think they have a hand in singapores success, but singapores success is uniquely singaporean/chinese
William
It would not have ended up like India, It would have ended up like Hong Kong.
William
Its uniquely Lee Kuan Yew. had he ran it like a typical Chinese educated Singaporean at the time, Singapore would have most likely ended up like Taiwan. There are things that only could come up fom some one with a Englsh education. Chinese educated people don't have a inherent mistrust of big government spending in things like educated, healthcare etc.
Bankotsu
"Its uniquely Lee Kuan Yew. had he ran it like a typical Chinese educated Singaporean at the time, Singapore would have most likely ended up like Taiwan."
It is mainly to suppress the chinese population of Singapore. Harry Lee is a peranakan, he is not chinese, he is wary of the chinese population in Singapore.
"For goodness sake, Lee Kuan Yew practically filled the entire cabinet with inbred Peranakans. For the last few decades in Singapore, the top positions in civil service, statutory boards, armed forces, GLCs have all along been going disproportionately to the Peranakans. That is one reason why Singapore has been run to the ground.
Lee Kuan Yew worked with the Japanese Kempeitai and later the British colonizers to suppress the non-Peranakan Chinese. That's why he has always been wary of non-Peranakan Chinese and could only entrust power to his own family members and his other Peranakan cronies."
http://tomorrow.sg/archives/2009/02/17/peranakans__going_the_way_of_the.html
William
Really, all peranakan? Where is the proof besides a silly comment. Lee Kuan Yew had the support of one critical part of the sinkeh community, the business community and heads of clan associations.
Jack
The West does indeed played a big part in the early success of Singapore,Goh Keng Swee,the man who charted the economic policy,a graduate of London School of Economics,followed the West ,Lee KY is a lawyer,he copied the Westen laws selectively to his own advantage.
Sean
He took what he could from the better aspects of the British administration and threw out the rest. If you look at Singapore closely, you will find a clear Confucian Bureacratic Authoritarian regime just like almost all Chinese dynasties of the past.
There is a strong civil service which selects best candidates from the national (or even Imperial haha) examinations, a strong one party state where the State decides the path and the people/citizenry follow, a state which assumes the function of civil institutions, leading to a comparatively much weaker Civil movement/groups. It does not get more Chinese than that. To top it off, he is a Lee, the same surname as the Tang Dynasty Emperor Lee Shi Min (~700 AD), Prime Minister Li Su of the State of Qin (China, ~3BC), Tang Dynasty poet Li Bai. Hell even his great grand father was a 7th grade official in the Qing Dynasty in China. He is also Hakka btw, not Hokkien like me. Famous Hakkas include General Guan Yu from the Three Kingdoms Era (200-300 AD) of the State of Shu Han, a historical and literary figure.
We Chinese can do anything to survive and during that era of a bullying drug peddling British Empire, the only way to do so was to study English. We learn from our enemies and be willing to bear great humiliation and subsequently outpower and outperform them. This has been the strategy of Emperor Liu Bang of the Han Dynasty (200BC to ~200 AD) in dealing with the Xiong Nu barbarians to the Northwest, and so it is now.
And yes this is coming from a Singaporean, in case you are wondering.
Bankotsu
'“I have never been overconcerned or obsessed with opinion polls or popularity polls,” he once said, echoing a sentiment that he has conveyed throughout his career. '
Because he is a minority peranakan in a majority chinese state. He is not really a chinese at all. He has no popularity among the masses that's why he doesn't care about polls.
Only naive westerners would go and believe in this fraud. Does Kissinger know that Harry Lee Kuan Yew is not chinese but a peranakan or not?
What makes Singapore different? The majority of Singapore's population is ethnically Chinese, but Singapore is largely free of corruption, has sound institutions and the rule of law dominates. It's nothing like China. The answer lies in a historical division in Singapore's Chinese community between the babas and the sinkeh. The sinkeh, comprising the majority of the city-state's population, were the recent immigrants from China, or whose parents were born in China. They spoke Chinese, lived like Chinese and considered themselves overseas Chinese. In Indonesia, such Chinese were called the totok.
The babas, on the other hand, also known as Straits Chinese, were Chinese more in name than practice. They were the descendants of the very early Chinese immigrants (Hokkiens from the Fujian province) to the straits settlements of Malaya (Penang, Singapore and Malacca). They assimilated with both the local Malays and the colonising British, whom they especially admired. The babas developed their own culture, cuisine and language – Malay liberally sprinkled with Hokkien.
It was the babas who were the framers of Singapore's rules and institutions. Many of Singapore's most prominent Chinese have had baba backgrounds. Lee Kuan Yew, who became prime minister of Singapore aged just 35, is the most obvious example. He claims a Hakka heritage, although his upbringing was that of a baba: at home, he spoke English with his parents and baba Malay to his grandparents. "Mandarin was totally alien to me and unconnected with my life," Lee said of his childhood.
For Lee, Chineseness was an acquired skill and later a political necessity. He was not brought up as a Chinese with a focus on China, but as a baba who looked to England. He followed the conventional career path of a baba and went to London to study law. And so Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore became Harry Lee of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. His father had given him and two of his brothers English, as well as Chinese, names. Did Lee run Singapore as a piece of Asia mired in Chinese ways? No. He ran it in a manner to which a British colonial administrator would have aspired…
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/648273/
Michael Barr explores the complex and covert networks of power at work in one of the world's most prosperous countries – the city-state of Singapore. He argues that the contemporary networks of power are a deliberate project initiated and managed by Lee Kuan Yew – former prime minister and Singapore's "founding father" – designed to empower himself and his family. Barr identifies the crucial institutions of power – including the country's sovereign wealth funds, and the government-linked companies – together with five critical features that form the key to understanding the nature of the networks. He provides an assessment of possible shifts of power within the elite in the wake of Lee Kuan Yew's son, Lee Hsien Loong, assuming power, and considers the possibility of a more fundamental democratic shift in Singapore's political system…
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ruling-Elite-Singapore-Influence/dp/1780762348/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1360208872&sr=8-4&keywords=michael+barr+singapore
Jack
@Bankotsu,
please,please,haven't you ever heard about Leegalised corruption?well,it is a well known term in Singapore,it is actually invented in wall Street but Lee KY took it over and make it a legend in Singapore.I wonder you ever stay in Singapore before,PALP is losing the support of the people,they are on the way OUT in 2016,stop dreaming!