LKY model aggravated Sri Lankan crisis
-
This is a statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2006statements/655/
Lee Kuan Yew in a recent publication has paid himself a cheap compliment by comparing the tragic situation of Sri Lanka with Singapore. He attributes Sri Lanka's collapse from a one time better position than Singapore to the present crisis to the one man, one vote (universal franchise) system. He is using the Sri Lankan example to evade the criticism against him for turning Singapore into a one party state with no political rights for anybody. He appears to be indicating that in a multi-ethnic society political rights will necessarily lead to the majority suppressing the minority. The way to avoid this is to deny political rights to everybody and to have what he calls, strong leaders.
First of all a comparison of the city state of Singapore with a small population of 4.4 million with Sri Lanka bears no validity. If at all he should have compared the situation with a similar place to Singapore like Hong Kong which has also achieved equal or better economic progress without having a strong leader or a surveillance system controlled by big brother, as it exists in Singapore. The two places have reasons other then their political systems that have enabled their economic success. Both are modern city centres with high technology and completely geared to modern capitalism and with no agricultural base as the mainstay of the economy. The transformation of both of these centres, Hong Kong and Singapore, into metropolitan centres was achieved during colonial times and continued thereafter. If there is any compliment to be paid it should be to those who initially shaped the destinies of these places in that manner. Sri Lanka on the other hand was used basically as a plantation economy by the British and was conceived always as primarily an agricultural economy.
This is perhaps the reason why large sections of the educated Sri Lankan people who were much better educated than those in Singapore and Hong Kong until the mid-fifties, could not find suitable employment as there were no drastic economic changes to assimilate their talents. So many of these people migrated to places like Singapore and also contributed to the development of those places. Thus in trying to understand the crisis of Sri Lanka it is necessary to see as to why Sri Lanka failed to modernise her economy and to get the benefits of modern technology and administration to run a viable state which could create greater opportunities. Where opportunities are limited naturally the equality of opportunity cannot be realised and the group that suffers most is likely to be the minorities.
Another area in which Sri Lanka failed is in the improvement of its administrative system which both Hong Kong and Singapore were able to achieve, although by different means. Sri Lanka's police service is extremely primitive and even barbaric and while it remains so it is not possible to achieve any form of rule of law. Singapore is a rule of law centre in the extreme sense. Hong Kong is also a rule of law centre but has been able to combine it with liberalism. In both places the policing systems are very modern with highly educated persons and well regulated systems which have, to a high degree, eliminated corruption. As for the civil administration this too is highly modernised in both Singapore and Hong Kong and technology plays a great role in ensuring efficiency. The main obstacle to efficiency, which is corruption, as mentioned earlier has been to a very large degree eliminated. In Sri Lanka the elimination of corruption was never seriously attempted and therefore nothing has been achieved on this score.
Thus, the comparison, if it has any validity must be made on more real causal links between the actual situations of these places.
As for the leadership factor one of the reasons for the aggravation of the Sri Lankan situation and the cause for it rising to the levels of violence as exists now was the deliberate attempt by Presidents J.R. Jayawardene and later R. Premadasa in trying to introduce a Lee Kwan Yew style system to the country. Both of these men were great admirers of Lee and openly followed an ideological position of trying to introduce what they called the 'Singapore model' to Sri Lanka. Like in Singapore they wanted to close the electoral map. The introduction of the 1978 Constitution with an absolute power model, violence used constantly against persons in political opposition and the infamous referendum of 1982 were among the many measures of trying to get control over the population as Lee Kuan Yew had achieved in Singapore.
The violence in Sri Lanka, reaching extreme high points was a direct result of this attempt. It was only the minorities, particularly the Tamils who were able to resist this thrust and they did so by arming themselves. The ethnic issues which have always existed in the country were transformed into armed struggle only due to the use of ruthless military repression from the beginning of the Jayawardene regime in 1977. Jayawardene provoked the Tamil militants with a command to one of his military leaders to 'wipe out the Tamil rebellion in three months' and report to him. In 1983 by allowing 13 bodies of soldiers killed in the North to be brought into Colombo he provoked a racial riot which changed the character of the conflict completely. In this way began a lethal armed struggle between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil militants. This is what Lee Kwan Yew talks of as being incapable of resolution. That conflict did not come about as a result of adult franchise which was introduced in 1931 but due to president Jayawardene's attempt of trying to use the Tamil conflict as a background for him to pursue absolute power in the same way that Lee Kuan Yew had done in Singapore. He played with fire for very limited personal political ends and reaped a harvest of violence that created the very situation Lee Kuan Yew is talking about. Had not Jayawardene made Lee Kuan Yew his mentor perhaps we would be talking about a different kind of Sri Lanka. -
he forgot to include ironically,corruption in sg
-
Thaksin of Thailand was probably another who has copied somewhat the so-called leadership or top-down governing system of LKY resulting in uprising against him.
He could have carried on governing Thailand to greater success today given the many improvements he had brought about if he had tried to be more democratic and won over the support of all his people with more accountable democratic governance which is the only system assuring people to be truly free from crony-ism or corruptions, legalised or otherwise.
If president Yunoyuno of Indonesia is to copy LKY's autocracy, he too will predictably suffer the same fate.
The only reason perhaps why LKY was able to pull off his brand of autocracy in the Little Red Dot is his skilfull manoeuvring of westminister's law and order to impose his will on the people through legalistic wrangling of laws and regulations to get his way.
As long as he could get any of his wishes passed as laws through the parliament which is essentially under his thumb there is nothing he could not do to get his own way despite all the objections and illogics and irrationality.
No one was able to stand up to his dare as he had the power to demote them or kick him out of government without accountability to any one.
So he had pushed through schemes many laws including paying himself and his ministers any salaries he like, GRC election which is no election at all and even his own double-pay one for working and one for retiring without anyone among his cabinet daring to question him.
His top-down autocracy is not benefitting the majority of citizens but no one is able to stand up to him due to his having taken full control of the whole governing system.
Good or bad is his system should perhaps be left to history to judge. All citizens could see is a stalemate of some kind for years where the people are getting poorer due to people being unable to contribute to the country under such a system. -
It's much harder for a big country to progress fast economically than a small country.
-
they shld have gotten Lee to run their country and Lee would have solved all their problems.
-
Hehehe.....
The whole family would have been long assassinated by the LTTE, the citizens of other countries are not so kiasi like Singaporeans.
-
had lee ran the country, there would be racial harmony and no ltte you dummy!
-
He ran the whole country down and set it back by 40 years by depriving citizens of their own political, cultural and social vibrancy with hypocrisy like GRC which did not address racial harmony at all but only provide an convenient excuse for him to maintain tight-fisted political grip of power.Originally posted by Mat Toro:had lee ran the country, there would be racial harmony and no ltte you dummy!
Read a comment on LKY's top-down political system from an expert (Professor Garry Rodan) posted in another thread below:
Q: Among other issues, your insights include politics in Singapore. What do you think is the status of democracy in Singapore now, compared to 10 years ago? Is the Singapore experience unique?
A: Singapore does not have a democratic political system. It has an authoritarian system that systematically obstructs genuine political competition for the exercise of state power. In the last 10 years, though, this has been combined with various new opportunities for Singaporeans to engage in PAP-controlled or sponsored forms of political participation. In effect, authoritarian rule has become more sophisticated but the scope for competing with the PAP hasn't significantly changed. -
PAP-controlled regime is no better than Death Eater-dominated UK Ministry of Magic.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
we have cultural and social vibrancy, more than that we have, prosperity, peace and racial harmony, exactly because of the policies of PAP.
He ran the whole country down and set it back by 40 years by depriving citizens of their own political, cultural and social vibrancy with hypocrisy like GRC which did not address racial harmony at all but only provide an convenient excuse for him to maintain tight-fisted political grip of power.
It worked. You just cant argue with success babe. So wake up.
Read a comment on LKY's top-down political system from an expert (Professor Garry Rodan) posted in another thread below:
Q: Among other issues, your insights include politics in Singapore. What do you think is the status of democracy in Singapore now, compared to 10 years ago? Is the Singapore experience unique?
A: Singapore does not have a democratic political system. It has an authoritarian system that systematically obstructs genuine political competition for the exercise of state power. In the last 10 years, though, this has been combined with various new opportunities for Singaporeans to engage in PAP-controlled or sponsored forms of political participation. In effect, authoritarian rule has become more sophisticated but the scope for competing with the PAP hasn't significantly changed.
Democracy is not necessarily a good thing, just look at India, philippines and even Isia. -
What's this fixation with the Third World in Asia?
Only fools will look backwards for comparison. -
The only reason perhaps why LKY was able to pull off his brand of autocracy in the Little Red Dot is his skilfull manoeuvring of westminister's law and order to impose his will on the people through legalistic wrangling of laws and regulations to get his way.
i agree with the above comment. one of the major factors that continue the PAP rule is passing controversal laws and regulations to get his way.
too bad at the beginning point of time, non of elders generation could sense what is to follows and fail to stop him. now, it make the younger generations like ourselves even a higher mountain to climb to get back real democracy into singapore. -
orginal posted by Mat toro.we have cultural and social vibrancy, more than that we have, prosperity, peace and racial harmony, exactly because of the policies of PAP.
does influx of hundreds of thousands of FT from india, china is what you call cultural and social vibrancy? for goodness sake, peace and racial harmony arent exactly the credit of PAP. do you see racial fights in Malaysia?? do we have to give credit Ummo?
It worked. You just cant argue with success babe. So wake up.
Democracy is not necessarily a good thing, just look at India, philippines and even Isia.
to certain extent it work. but the success we heard over the news is mainly coming from the GLC company, keppel corp, sem corp, ST eng, SIA , SINGTEL.
to the larger extent most SME still struggle to keep up. look at creative tech and osim who use to be darling name of the PAP but note they arent doing too well lately.
your comparison is flaws. we should be compare to country like HK, korea, Taiwan and probably Japan not india, philippines.
why dont you say we compare to afgans? since the media openness is in the the ranking.
i hope ppl like yourself can give examples and explaination to some PAP policy instead of just living in past laurels. -
thats how they usually do it to make themselves feel 'high', and unfortunately it looks like the infection has spread down among its lackeys & poodles..Originally posted by LazerLordz:What's this fixation with the Third World in Asia?
Only fools will look backwards for comparison. -
Some people never realized that theories will always be theories. If LKY had really run Sri Lanka, will it really be peaceful?
If Sri Lanka's way of governance is to be applied here, will Singapore still be as peaceful or be as messy as Sri Lanka?
If this... if that... only IFs, only talk, no action.
If it really works, the world would be peaceful. -
one medicine don't cure all sickness
-
Have you read Deathly Hallows yet? PAP are like the Death Eaters. Both are despotic.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Some people never realized that theories will always be theories. If LKY had really run Sri Lanka, will it really be peaceful?
If Sri Lanka's way of governance is to be applied here, will Singapore still be as peaceful or be as messy as Sri Lanka?
If this... if that... only IFs, only talk, no action.
If it really works, the world would be peaceful. -
Not yet. I don't think I will touch it. If somebody tells me the story, I don't mind.Originally posted by iveco:Have you read Deathly Hallows yet? PAP are like the Death Eaters. Both are despotic. -
What do you suggest? Dynastic rule by the mandate of heaven or communism?Originally posted by Mat Toro:It worked. You just cant argue with success babe. So wake up.
Democracy is not necessarily a good thing, just look at India, philippines and even Isia. -
To a certain extent. You can't compare Singapore with India, Philippines or Indonesia. In terms of mass, they are greater. In terms of population, they are more numbers. The sheer amount of land mass and number of people only mean that it will be harder to control even if democracy is a success.Originally posted by Mat Toro:It worked. You just cant argue with success babe. So wake up.
Democracy is not necessarily a good thing, just look at India, philippines and even Isia. -
well, so who is to say democracy is they best system when it clearly doesn't work in these countries?
-
So which system is the best system if democracy is not the best system.Originally posted by Mat Toro:well, so who is to say democracy is they best system when it clearly doesn't work in these countries?
Which system other than democracy has brought about the greatest advancements in civilizations and scientific and technological progress responsible for unprecedented material wellbeing of masses.
If Singapore leaders are so sure they can do away with democracy why not abolish elections, and constitutions.
Isn't it sheer hypocrisy to wear the sheep clothing of democracy to hide the wolf's ugly face of authoritarian and high-handed rule which serve only the benefit of the ruling party. -
we shld make comparisons with other states which are more successful, rather than comparing us with a distressed state and saying how fortunate we were.....
-
Nothing is best in this world. There will bound to be weaknesses somewhere, like it or not.Originally posted by Mat Toro:well, so who is to say democracy is they best system when it clearly doesn't work in these countries? -
x2. It's about going for the least flawed of all competing systems.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Nothing is best in this world. There will bound to be weaknesses somewhere, like it or not.