Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Lee Kuan Yew is dead
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:59 am Post subject: Lee Kuan Yew is dead

Quote:

Singapore has launched a seven-day period of national mourning that will end March 29 with a state funeral for Lee Kuan Yew, the country’s first prime minister who is credited with changing Singapore from a forgotten British colonial outpost into an economic powerhouse. Lee had been in hospital since February 5 and died early morning Monday. Lee’s son and current prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, announced the news, which led to tributes from leaders around the world. “I'm grieved beyond words at the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew,” the president said in a televised address. “I know we all feel the same way."

Obviously, I knew who he was, and what his reputation was in the west. He seemed to attract a lot of admiration from people who extolled "Asian values", while having only the sketchiest idea of what those were.

Odd that you always hear SIngapore described as "Confucian", the same label attached to Korea, whereas if what I have read about SIngapore is accurate, many things about it are the polar opposite of Korea, eg. the way laws are enforced.

By all accounts, Singapore is a nice place. But I wonder if people would have cut Lee so much slack on his authortarian governing style if he hadn't provided his population with such a high standard of living. If Singapore had gone belly-up economically, would he just be viewed as another dictator?

link

happyinhenan

Joined: 01 Feb 2015

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:30 am Post subject:

This is it, he gambled and he won. The reason Singapore came to life was because as a part of the new Malaysian state, ethnic Chinese citizens were destined to be second class citizens which they still are today. It would have been easy for him to set up a similar state favouring ethnic Chinese but what he did instead was realised that 'Multi-Culturalism' was the strength of the place and that would take Singapore to greatness which is what he did. This is a tiny island with no natural resources, an outpost of the British Empire. What he did was amazing and he made sure his people had to work for their place at the table.

jvalmer

Joined: 06 Jun 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 4:26 am Post subject: Re: Lee Kuan Yew is dead

On the other hand wrote:

But I wonder if people would have cut Lee so much slack on his authortarian governing style if he hadn't provided his population with such a high standard of living. If Singapore had gone belly-up economically, would he just be viewed as another dictator?

Of course. The economy is the only standard to really judge a dictator. So many dictators in this world, but so few economically successful dictators. Only a handful, and all of them seemed to be in Asia.

happyinhenan wrote:

This is it, he gambled and he won.

The 'gamble' payed off in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, for whatever reason. And you can argue that Hong Kong, and Japan were/are quasi-dictatorships. Although Park Jung-Hee wasn't alive to see the fruits of his policies. However, I can't think of any other dictators outside of the mentioned countries that have been economic successes.

jvalmer

Joined: 06 Jun 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 4:34 am Post subject:

happyinhenan wrote:

The reason Singapore came to life was because as a part of the new Malaysian state, ethnic Chinese citizens were destined to be second class citizens which they still are today.

They may be second class citizens, but the ethnic Chinese do have overwhelming control of the economy.

happyinhenan

Joined: 01 Feb 2015

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 5:00 am Post subject:

jvalmer wrote:

happyinhenan wrote:

The reason Singapore came to life was because as a part of the new Malaysian state, ethnic Chinese citizens were destined to be second class citizens which they still are today.

They may be second class citizens, but the ethnic Chinese do have overwhelming control of the economy.

Lee took a bigger gamble because the reasons for the breakaway of Singapore was to guarantee a safehaven for ethnic Chinese people and it would have been a lot easier for him to implement policies favouring ethnic Chinese but he didn't - he made it clear that whatever race, colour or creed you were, you were Singaporean first and he did it. Lee realised that Asian ethnocentrism and xenophobia had no place in a successful society and he proved it and even today - Singapore is by far the easiest place in Asia for a foreigner to gain PR and citizenship.

Chung Park Hee encouraged ultra nationalism and xenophobia - Lee went the opposite direction and took his island state to success which is massive really.

And though the Malay-Chinese are an economic powerhouse there in Malaysia, they are still marginalised in life against the ethnic Malays - that is why there are so many Malay Chinese in other countries. Their skills and entrepreneurship is recognised everywhere else but their own country. The Malaysian government are too stupid to see it though, their loss.

jvalmer

Joined: 06 Jun 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 6:55 am Post subject:

happyinhenan wrote:

Can't really compare the racial elements of the two. Singapore was already a multi-racial society before Lee took power. It would have been unwise to ignore minorities when they take up 25% of the population. You can't ignore a minority that size without encountering trouble. Whereas South Korea has been 99%+ ethnically homogeneous for at least centuries before Park took the helm. There was absolutely no need to cater to a minority, since they were insignificant at the time.

Yes, Singapore is a successful multi-ethnic society. But Korea is also a successful society, but a homogeneous one.

northway

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 7:08 am Post subject: Re: Lee Kuan Yew is dead

On the other hand wrote:

By all accounts, Singapore is a nice place. But I wonder if people would have cut Lee so much slack on his authortarian governing style if he hadn't provided his population with such a high standard of living. If Singapore had gone belly-up economically, would he just be viewed as another dictator?

This is a non sequitur though, as it's unlikely Singapore would have achieved what it did without that authoritarian governing style.

EastisEast

Joined: 29 May 2014
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:49 am Post subject:

I'm such a Trekkie. 'Lee Kwan' was a fictional character in an episode that ruled China in the near future and committed atrosities the likes of 'Ceasar, Hitler, Colonel Green, Lee Kwan ...' I think is was 'Space Seed' introducing Khan. ..but I digress ...

happyinhenan

Joined: 01 Feb 2015

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:50 pm Post subject:

jvalmer wrote:

Of course the racial/ethnic make up of the two countries was/is different but Lee could have easily gone down the route of protecting ethnic Chinese interests which would have gained him even more popularity, he didn't - he had the foresight to see that could never work in the long run and that he could build a successful multi-racial society - we are always being told that 'multi-culturalism is a failure' it is the favourite moron chant of the right wing, and Lee proved that to be wrong, Singapore developed a lot quicker than South Korea did.

Quote:

You can't ignore a minority that size without encountering trouble.

Yeah you can - it happens all the time - South Africa, Fiji, Malaysia, Rhodesia, French Algeria, Israel, Northern Ireland - it happened a lot where a large minority or even a huge majority have been ignored and in the case of Singapore's neighbour - Malaysia - still happens today, Lee could have gone down the ethnocentric route - he rejected it and showed himself to be a man of great intellect and foresight.

Quote:

Whereas South Korea has been 99%+ ethnically homogeneous for at least centuries before Park took the helm. There was absolutely no need to cater to a minority, since they were insignificant at the time.

So, Lee had the harder task then?

Quote:

Yes, Singapore is a successful multi-ethnic society. But Korea is also a successful society, but a homogeneous one.

No-one is arguing otherwise, one got there quicker than the other though.

happyinhenan

Joined: 01 Feb 2015

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 3:08 pm Post subject:

EastisEast wrote:

I'm such a Trekkie.

'Lee Kwan' was a fictional character in an episode that ruled China in the near future and committed atrosities the likes of 'Ceasar, Hitler, Colonel Green, Lee Kwan ...'

I think is was 'Space Seed' introducing Khan.

..but I digress ...

jvalmer

Joined: 06 Jun 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:10 pm Post subject:

happyinhenan wrote:

Singapore developed a lot quicker than South Korea did.

But did they? When was Singapore widely regarded as a developed country? When was South Korea? Also, Singapore is a city state with a population of 5 million. South Korea is a whole country with 20 million people at the time, and has more than doubled in population.

I do agree that Lee probably did have a harder task to get his country on the right path. But Park didn't have it easy with a divided Korea.

Anyways, despite what some people think now, I think both men were visionaries, or necessary evils (along with Taiwan's Chiang). There is little possibility that these nations could have achieved so much without an iron fist.

happyinhenan

Joined: 01 Feb 2015

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:25 pm Post subject:

jvalmer wrote:

A city state? It is an independent country with a seat at the UN, it's own defence, currency and as for 5 million people - that is as many as New Zealand and more than places like Uruguay and Norway. In fact, that it is so small, overcrowded and has no natural resources - as well as having differing cultures living in such a confined space - makes it more remarkable than what the Koreans have done. Especially with its place in the Human Development Index.

Quote:

I do agree that Lee probably did have a harder task to get his country on the right path. But Park didn't have it easy with a divided Korea.

No-one is saying Park had an easy go of it. He didn't - what he did do was play the xenophobic/nationalism card which is Lee did not - to his eternal credit, because it would have been very easy for him to do it given the circumstances.

Quote:

Anyways, despite what some people think now, I think both men were visionaries, or necessary evils (along with Taiwan's Chiang). There is little possibility that these nations could have achieved so much without an iron fist.

I agree, however, Lee deserves his credit for not playing the ethnocentrism card. It would have been very easy for him to do - and again, Singapore remains one of the very few places in Asia where foreigners are welcomed in regards PR and citizenship and that's why serious money is invested there.

jvalmer

Joined: 06 Jun 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:38 pm Post subject:

happyinhenan wrote:

A city state? It is an independent country with a seat at the UN, it's own defence, currency and as for 5 million people...

What's wrong with being a city-state? Singapore is a city-state. And an independent country.

merriam-webster: an autonomous state consisting of a city and surrounding territory

happyinhenan

Joined: 01 Feb 2015

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:45 pm Post subject:

Quote:

[quote="jvalmer"]
What's wrong with being a city-state? Singapore is a city-state. And an independent country.

Nothing wrong with it - I am just not getting your point in all this? You haven't really explained the point you are trying to make?

jvalmer

Joined: 06 Jun 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:20 pm Post subject:

happyinhenan wrote:

jvalmer wrote:

What's wrong with being a city-state? Singapore is a city-state. And an independent country.

Nothing wrong with it - I am just not getting your point in all this? You haven't really explained the point you are trying to make?

Smaller land area to develop, infrastructure costs would be a fraction of Korea's. Also, less regional issues to impede development. However, getting the needed industries to come to invest in a city-state would take a lot convincing to do. Although it seem the ones in the middle east have little issues with that. But I guess they are attracted by the easy oil dollars.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe