A Sense of Perspective: Why Lee Kuan Yew is not a despot
Some brave soul indirectly called MM Lee a despot to his face during an NUS forum, causing a bit of a hoo-ha amongst the blogerati here in Singapore. (mr brown, mr miyagi, and Agagooga)
From Lively Exchanges - Feb 2, 2005:
My name is Jamie Han, history honours student.
I’m not questioning your decisions in the past, I’m sure at those times, there was a need for consensus and stability. But I think we have come to the stage where stability is already here and that, in order to progress, the minority viewpoints have to be heard.
And I’m not saying that the People’s Action Party is corrupt or anything now.
The truth of the matter is this: No matter how enlightened a despot is, ultimately, he’ll turn into a tyrant if there are no checks and balances in place.
My understanding of Jamie’s words, which is after all 2nd hand information because one often wonders about the accuracy of the Straits Times, is that he did not actually say that MM Lee is a despot. My interpretation of what he said was that the present system of governance in Singapore is susceptible to abuse by despots, if there ever is one who rises to a position of power.
Of course, it is not surprising that most people drew the inference that Jamie’s words were directed at MM Lee himself, after all, Lee Kuan Yew the man has a history of being a tough man in politics. Jamie clarified that:
And at no time were any of his comments directed personally at Mr Lee, he added.
The truth of the matter is, once you strip out the inference that Jamie’s words were directed at MM Lee, his arguments are actually not all that objectionable.
It is true, that the present concentration of power in the executive CAN POSSIBLY be abused. To its credit, the PAP has thus far avoided the worst excesses of concentrations of power in the hands of the executive. Granted, there are rumours of somewhat dodgy practices here and there, or even the erection of a few grandiose monuments by various departments, but they’re nothing to shout ‘Petronas Towers‘ or ‘Three Gorges Dam‘ about.
It is also true that media licensing laws give monopoly power to state-owned media, thus guaranteeing that freedom of speech is curtailed to a certain extent. This however is increasingly a moot point, as this very blog itself shows. The government wants an active, information-enabled citizenry that participates in the growth and prosperity of Singapore, to always make it a place that people would want to live and play. That objective is incompatible with muzzling free speech.
I think the critics of the PAP place an undue emphasis on old media, when what they should really be fighting for is to keep new media, such as blogs, free from government interference. This tunnel-vision preoccupation with media licensing laws actually shows a lack of creativity and foresight on the part of our misbegotten ‘opposition’.
More importantly, we must not lose our sense of perspective when criticising the government, or political figures. I mean, seriously, does anyone really think Lee Kuan Yew is a despot? Hitler was a despot. Ditto Stalin and Mussolini. Contemporary examples include Robert Mugabe and Kim ‘I So Ronery’ Jong-Il. I really cannot see how any logical and/or rational person can put Lee Kuan Yew in this list.
Lee Kuan Yew may be authoritarian, maybe even autocratic, but certainly far from being a despot.
Straits Times - MM’s call: Dare to break conventions - Feb 1, 2005
Politics is not for me, says undergrad who used ‘despot’ word - Feb 2, 2005
