Mrs Thatcher said: “In office, I read and analysed every speech of Lee. He had a way of penetrating the fog of propaganda and expressing with unique clarity the issues of our time and the way to tackle them. He was never wrong …”
fog of propaganda , has become especially vile today, it 's always refreishing going back watching LKY or even his son , it's like a breath of fresh air. Pragmatism reason logic. Not the usual garbage you see from Western Media or Chinese captured media of the west.
I don't usually comment on RU-vid videos but this is not okay. Authoritative? Fine that's fair. But who's to say it's worse that a full fledged democracy? We get things done, our unemployment is low, corruption is low, no guns, no drugs, high average household income, world class education. But of course people on the outside think "freedom" is more valuable than everything else, look at where you are and look at where we are. We don't need your pity.
+Nichole Tan Yea, keep it real, Singaporean! I hope by 2030 Singapore will have the highest gdp/ca. Which is also very likely.. Spore's gdp/ca outpassed the US now, and many European countries! their economics or political models ain't that great or working! keep what is working!! keep it real, keep it practically adaptive.
Those who are outside want an 'unrestrained freedom' on Singapore, knowing full well that an unchecked freedom will destroy this tiny island state , then they can laugh at your suffering by the side line.
U don't need too MUCH freedom. Look at the west... it is a shithole. That's what happens when you tell everyone that you are "special and important". The west is always arrogant.
There seems to be much envy or even scornfulness from western media of the overwhelming global respect for Lee Kuan Yew, tending to focus on how he 'ruled with an iron fist', as a feeble attempt to taint his astounding achievements. To enlighten these 'ang moh' neanderthals of the political scene in Singapore from the point of our independence in 1965, 1. Threat of chaos from the pro-communist and other extremists in the 1960-70s prompted the need for containment by force of any persons out to cause social disharmony and unrest. 2. As Singapore grew socially and economically stable from the late 1970s, and as media extended its outreach, we saw the PAP debate over affairs of the state with the opposition parties at free elections on television. 3. It was not that the opposition was suppressed and 'cracked down' as commonly sensationalised by western media, but rather that they lacked substance and had rarely any viable alternative to the wide variety of topics/ issues at hand from election to election; at every stage of Singapore's development over the past decades. (Watch the way members of the opposition speak at the debates and see how the seem to defeat themselves in their speech every time, struggling to keep composure.) 4. Mr Lee had left his position of power as PM in 1990; it has been 2 decades now, if there was an 'iron fist' lording over Singapore that we so much depended on. Since then we have survived fine with this 'fist' shelved and even emerged as the country with the highest per capita GDP in the recent years. So lack of freedom of speech you say? We are free to express ourselves in any way we like, without disrupting social harmony. We also like that our government is effective in resolving urgent issues with veto power, granted by the people who have voted them in. We like our pragmatist version of democracy and we like it sensibly so. Take a look at how western complete democracy has left governments in a stymied, trying to implement crucial policies that happen to be unpopular with myopic local communities (who cannot identify with the gravity of situations, and would rather focus on their most immediate frustrations) Take a look at the capable leaders in many western cabinets whom have obsessively devoted their resources and efforts to contend with and defame their political rivals at the expense of their people whom have voted them in to serve. Many at times, a party dismisses an important policy proposed by another, paranoid that any success made for the country from policies initiated by their rivals would put them at a disadvantage. Should the power to make crucial decisions be left to the foolish majority? (By foolish I mean inexperienced and lacking in knowledge and expertise to make sensible decisions on an issue) I'd say leave it to a specialised team of the best and brightest, who are able to weigh all viable options as well as consequences, making contingency plans on every choice, because such has always been our success model that the world today can only marvel at.
Democracy is the highest form of government as Mr Lee said and he did it! He was a nation father whom cared, protected, educated, inculated ways & ideas to his ppl & we benefited them in the long run. Despite all the misconceptions that others thought he was a dictator; we virtually knew that was all wrong allegations! I fully agreed with you on all points; well said & analysed! 🙌 Let's keep up with his values & always united as one Singapore! We ❤ LKY!
Way to twist Lee's own words on democracy into one to fit your own anti-western agenda. At least it's a 7 year old comment from a different generation.
be honest, Singapore's mode can give us China some ideas, but China can't really take them all, not all of these ideas are suitable for a country large than Singapore hundreds of thousands of times.
People in the West ! Please u dont use your own interpretation of freedom just from press or media restriction, politic etc in Western concept. I am from NZ n been lived in Asian countries which have very different perspective on using freedom platform. He's authoritarian but a very different interpretation term with us the West. Singapore at 50s n 60s is in the brink of communist, particularly hardline Maoist, which wanted to make Singapore a beacon of communism mirrored in China at the time. Been succeeded at the time, Singapore will not this advance, either being rationed state or another Malaysian possession. He is also being authoritarian in order to silence race politics heated at the time with every race competing for supremacy. LKY has a vision of building Singapore as Venice of Asia, prosperous wealthy n ordered n he used Asian, particularly Chinese tradition of order society. Yes hes authoritarian but is it worst than 'democratic countries' outside the West n its allies ? Because i see many 'democratic countries' fail to achieve its democratic causes, some even fall to the ground because of raw freedom n misunderstanding of democracy. U can achieve freedom by the way of hard times first n sacrifice before enjoying the fruit. Even democracy in the West was achieved after authoritarian dictatorship plutocracy been learned n studied. So u cant just focus on the perceived negatives or u r only pouring down ur jealousy by the success. And also dont forget that if he was being an absolute authoritarian, he would have enriched himself n persecute current opposition in which for the first time won 1 constituency from his PAP. Respect to LKY n Singapore.
+Aotearoa Seniores hahaa Phillipines has the media and political system like the US, just compared the difference between these two countries of SEA! huge difference, we know what's working.
Can USA President Donald Trump today be compared to LKY as Trump with his governance [semiauthoritarian style vis a vs Executive Orders] to reorder USA societal mores and "Make America Great" (MAG) slogans? 11 July. 2019
Xi was chairing the Boao Conference. He cannot leave China to attend Lee Kuan Yew's funeral at that time but in the Boao Conference opening ceremony, he spent a few minutes to praise and THANK Lee for making what China is today.
Hong Kong Crisis today can learn from the Singapore model to foster dialogue with Xi Jinping, reportedly who admire LKY's governance style. There is intense agitation and even belligerence to remove Carrie Lam. Who will come forward -- with LKY 's tenacity and confidence -- to negotiate with Xi Jinping on HK going forward to 2047 during the TRANSITION era? In ?2005? Speech by LKY in Citibank lecture on Leadership, he reminded HK to come up with its own model of governance incl more Mandarin study, the lingua Franca of PRC. 11 July 2019
Raymond A. LEW singapoee has better housing than hk, airport, airline, mrt, cleaner and safer as well. Yes. Hk need to work with china and learn from singapore. Having Democracy doesn’t mean you will succeed and have better quality of living.
This is typical western denial of the ability of the communist party of China's ability by giving all its rise to Singapore. True, China did learn some of its policies but due the differences in land mass and populations between the two many successful Singapore policies are not applicable. Singapore is an inspiration to China that an Asian country can be rich and prosperous in a short time. The other is to separate politics from economics. For example public housing and industrial parks. Even governance is different. LJY ensure his party to be ruling Singapore is by "guided democracy" and gerrymandering . That is changing rules and electorates anytime. China uses a meritocracy of training and selecting government officers with elections by the party within only.
Singapore has different political party and independent candidate contesting in national election, while China doesn't allow that, except communist party candidates. How is that possible it's a model politically? Except probably its open economy policy which may have some influence on China drive to modernization.
Correct, but politically, it is impossible for China to adopt Singapore's model because only communist party is allowed to exist, others are banned indefinitely. So it can never be the blue print for China as a whole except may be some of its economy policy.
China is as poor 'as a churchill mouse'. So, where does China's foreign currency come from? The over-sea Chinese remittance mainly from the Malay Archiplegos through the Bank of China in Singapore and Hong Kong too. China land with overseas foreign investors today. You may call China's system of 'pseudo-capitalism.
what is a good govt.A good govt is a govt that takes good care of its citizens. A lot of ppl mistake Singapore as authoritarian, but we can actually say what we want about the govt. I regard Singapore under Mr Lee somewhat like a very strict parent,teaching the kids moral values and disciplining the child when he misbehave.if not, the child will get pampered or spoilt by the parents.In the end, even the parent could not control the child's conduct.Look at Taiwan when the President becomes a slave of the ppl and keep on apologizing to the ppl when the citizens are not happy.They criticize and used very harsh language on the politicians on mass media.Just as Lee KUAN Yew had said, if the leader did not have the respect of the people,how can he run the ctry,even he has the best intention for the ppl.
+Generalissimo Genesis normal people don't really care about if their leader is a dictator, if this dictator can fulfill their demand in jobs, education, housing, food... then there is no need to replace him with another never-been-a-leader guy?
Singapore has one of the highest gdp/ca, china is 2nd largest economy now and set to overtake usa by 2030 according to IMF as the biggest economy. So do you think these "dictators" are self serving or do you think they are doing smth right?
China is not only dictator but it invaded Tibet, East Turkistan and Inner Mongolia for the recources and the inspiration got it from western world. But they have the guts to call later as their ethnics. This thge different to western colonialist, one day they left, but China is still there.
may i remind you that tibet, east Turkestan was invented by IMPERIALIST by annexation, killing other tribe group who are living there. when god created the world, god did not say that WHICH LAND BELONGS TO SPECIFIC RACE,TRIBE, ETHNIC study more about HUMAN MIGRATION WAVE tibet, xinjiang are located in SAME REGION WITH CHINESE HEARTLAND ( one bloc) those land belongs to THEM TOO. they are NATIVE TO THOSE LAND white people are invader because THEY COME FROM ANOTHER REGION. red indian is a native because THEY LIVE THERE BEFORE THE WHITE ARRIVAL.
456inthemix give me proof about what you say. Don't give me any fake information online, I need a specific document to prove whether China invaded Tibet. a long time ago, Tibet was already a part of China(no invading Tibet).
@@ona2779 I highly recommend you look back at some of the interviews or even rallies when he was giving it. His mandarin is better spoken than most of us in Singapore.
Poor Chinese leaving their own country, China benefitting themselves in many rich foreign countries without counting their blessings hopelessly. Just be humble!
this seem so weird! for my impression, majority of Singaporean don't speak mandarin esp the youngsters! the language they use to talk is English language. and the way they speak English language does not contain the accent of British nor American... Lee Kuan Yew does not implement the Chinese to speaks own language, he wants the Singaporean to only speak English!! One more thing, majority of Singaporean are from Malaysia!! >
That is not true at all... it depend on who you are speaking to & what you are talking about. So to say a majority of youngsters don't speak mandarin is blatantly wrong. Since the education system likely ensures you can speak at least 2 languages... people use the most practical for a given topic or person. He didn't want Singaporean to only speak English... the very idea of it would be a huge disadvantage for the citizens, why settle for 1 if you have the ability to learn more than 1.
