Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is embarking on a 10-day trip to the United States, during which he will receive a lifetime achievement award from the US-ASEAN Business Council.
MM Lee is the first person in the entire world to receive this award, which recognises ASEAN's contribution to US economic security.
"History will record few leaders who have accomplished so much for their country and for South-east Asia as His Excellency Lee Kuan Yew," Mr Muhtar Kint, chairman of the US-ASEAN Business Council and CEO of the Coca-Cola Company.
"As a driving force behind the growth and evolution of ASEAN, Mr Lee also helped millions of people across South-east Asia to live in an environment of peace and economic growth."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dear Mr President,
I refer to your recent compliment to our Minister Mentor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. You said Mr Lee 'helped to trigger the Asian economic miracle.' But just how momentous or crucial has this 'trigger' been?
The 'Asian economic miracle' began with the miracles of the four East Asian dragons of Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore. Since all started industrialisation around the same time, how do we know if it was Mr Lee's Singapore that helped 'trigger the Asian miracle' and not Hong Kong, Taiwan or Korea instead?
We now know that the success of the Asian miracle is rooted in export oriented industrialisation. Countries that embarked on import substitution industrialisation failed to prosper. Yet, when Mr Lee first took over the reins of government in 1959, it was precisely the route of import substitution that he took. It was only in 1965 when Singapore was separated from its Malaysian hinterland that import substitution became untenable, forcing Singapore to embark on export oriented industrialisation instead. So if there had been a 'trigger' for the 'Singapore miracle', it must have been lady luck.
Moreover, Singapore's plans for industrialisation came largely from one man - the Dutch economist Dr Albert Winsemius who was also instrumental in bringing the first multinationals like Shell and Philips onto the shores of Singapore. So if we have to name one person who 'helped trigger the Singapore miracle', it would have been Dr Winsemius rather than Mr Lee.
Finally, if all it takes is just a 'trigger', why aren't we seeing more 'miracles' all around the world? The Singapore story is no secret but an open recipe for all to see and to emulate. Yet even in Asia itself we see so many countries languishing in poverty. Does it make sense to say that Mr Lee 'triggered' China more and the Phillippines less? It doesn't make sense. So clearly, it takes more than just 'triggers' for 'miracles' to happen. Thus it makes little sense to attribute the 'Asian miracle' to any single 'trigger'.
Thank you
I refer to the letter to Straits Times by Steve Tan dated 31 Oct 2009.
Mr Tan feels that the glowing tributes by American dignitaries place in context the vision and stewardship of MM Lee. But many of those tributes don't even make sense. Mr Clinton said that MM helped millions of people across Southeast Asia to live better, more prosperous lives. Yet, much of Southeast Asia is still in poverty. Should we instead say that MM helped millions across Southeast Asia to stay in poverty?
Mr Bush said that MM has done so much for Singapore and desserves the recognition for making Singapore the thriving, prosperous nation it is today. But the fact remains that Singapore was already a thriving city under the British. MM merely inherited a Singapore that had been thriving for more than a century. Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea have similarly thrived and prospered without the stewardship of any one 'legendary' figure. This suggests that the prosperity that we experience today is not necessarily the work of any one individual but the result of something common amongst East Asians.
We should ask ourselves what this incessant pursuit of growth is for? Do we pursue growth for growth's sake? Or do we pursue growth to become prosperous? But we are already prosperous. The developed economies have shown us that as we near the apex of prosperity, growth slows naturally. Like a child who improves by 10 marks every year, very soon, he'll hit 100 marks.
When Sir Stamford Raffles brought in immigrants, Singapore was just a colony. Now that Singapore is a nation, can we continue to behave like we are a colony? When will we ever start behaving like a nation?
The recognition and honouring of our leader doesn't automatically translate to the honouring of our country. Just like the honouring of Stalin or Hitler doesn't automatically translate to the honouring of Russia or Germany.
Both MM and SM have shown us that at ages when many can no longer find gainful employment, they are privileged enough to continue to work for the millions they pocket every year.
You don't need the harshest critics to see the meaninglessness of it all. I wish MM au Revoir and 'early' retirement for the good of Singapore.
Post a Comment