Even
though I have read it twice and made notes all over the place, I had a hard
time trying to write a review on this. Maybe because the topics covered were
rather wide ranging.
However,
it is a good easy read in sense because it is arranged into question and answer
manner. Therefore, you can read it and drop off without being lost. Each chapter, the authors actually summaries
the questions and answers very well.
Growth for people?
People for growth?
As
asked by Economics professor, Linda Lim.
The
general impression that still leaves me unsatisfied is really whether we can go
for an economy model, a style of living that is like the Scandinavian
countries? Sad to say, I don't really
think that MM Lee thoroughly answered that.
Why
do we have to grow so fast now, inviting so many foreign talents? Because “if we don't take this chance to grow
right now while our neighbours like China and India are growing, we are stupid”
- to answer it in his words.
However,
it still doesn't answer the key question – why do we need to grow? And
fast?
It
seems that is really about the vulnerability of the nation - an inescapable,
permanent condition of the Singapore as an independent republic as listed on
page 17. We need strong financial power
to be free.
This
freedom from being bullied by our nations is underscored by our dependence on
Malaysia on water and even sand for construction, and the massive amount of
money put into defence. As long as the country experiences growth, it will have
the resources to take care of any social issues.
Therefore,
we grow and fast so that we can have money – money allows us to do many things
that we don’t possess and give us a sense of security. Because, in lee's word, “Singapore is a chronometer.
We may never get a second chance if Singapore breaks”.
Page
57. What keep Singapore together? Economic necessity of peace and stability and
growth.
But
really, all these don’t mean anything to me as an individual? I think
Singaporeans are really feeling this disconnection as the country gets more and
more congested.
Pg
296 - In 1970, of a 2 million pop, only 2. 9 % were non-residents. By 2009, with
a population of 4.99 million people, 36 % was PRs and non-residents.
When
asked on Pg 112, why are other countries with small populations such as Denmark
and Norway, able to support competitive, multi- party politics?
His
Answer: If you believe that we're just like Norway or Sweden or Denmark, then I
think we won't survive. We are not. Denmark and Sweden can get by with mediocre
government, Singapore cannot. It will sink.
That’s
the thing. I can agree that due to Singapore’s vulnerability, we need to keep
growing. However I don’t think I am
satisfied with the answer of why we can’t go the Scandinavian countries way of placing
equality over growth, sacrificing some economic growth to level up the
society.
Then
again, I am one of the spoilt younger generation – taking Singapore’s growth
for granted.
Pg
70 – “People take what they have as a new base. “
I see just want a clean, incorruptible
government. But how deep it is as Lee says, Americans went to 2 world
wars. First World War – backs were
carriers of ammo. Second war, they fought together .but when they came back,
the blacks when back to the slums, whites the suburbs.
Thus
we cannot take Singapore’s success for granted.
Genetics, social welfare
and homosexuality:
I
find his entire pragmatic approach attractive mainly because I am also very
pragmatic. However, I have to say that
it is not sexy and does not inspire.
Still, it is interesting to read how learned MM Lee is in evolutionary
biology. In essence, pragmatism, hard
evolutionary biology science and real world experiences shaped his views and
policies.
Pg
50 – His Fundamental belief is that no matter what is one's background, one
should have enough to make sure that you are not stunted and you can perform
and achieve your best.
Pg
186 -
Human
beings are born unequal, and no amount of social engineering can significantly
alter one's lots in life. The solution
is to create the condition for the ablest to go as far as possible and create
the surpluses that can be redistributed.
Pg
187 –
In
his own admission, Lee was also attracted to the ideal of an equal, just and
fair society. But once in office, he sees the performances of various races.
Since 1959, Lee learnt fast that talk of an equal society and distributing it
was empty talk unless there was income to redistribute. It was more important
to create wealth and worry later how to redistribute it.
Pg
212 –
We
work towards equal opportunities in life not equal results.
Lee’s
genetics view work for and against the idealist. Often most idealists will
disagree that people are born different but the same genetic views of MM Lee
support homosexuality.
In
summary: “Grow not equalise.”
Pg
304:
Lee's
geopolitical views were driven by his beliefs that genes shape human
behaviours.
2
core convictions: relations among individuals, groups are determined by genetic
factors. Hence we tend to help those
that are most similar to ourselves genetically.
Politics and the general
population
Page
68 – society is such that interest of the upper middle class will be divergent,
and they don't think they should subsidise the lower classes. There will then
be divergence. Politics is always
holding the middle ground for most votes.
Page
174:
“Chaps
at the bottom are going to be unhappy? Well we are watching the median upwards.
That's politics”
Ministerial pay and
elitism:
Pg
122 –
Question:
Aren't you concerned that your ministerial pay polices remain deeply unpopular?
On
this issue, I agree that we have to be practical and pay the minsters
well. Bob Rubin, Hank Paulson, Larry
Summers. All were mentioned in the Inside Job. Half a term, one and half term
etc and according to the “Inside Job”, they all manipulate the financial system
and regulations to benefit themselves later. Paul Vocker is an unusual man and was
the only Chairman of the Federal Reserve or top US financial government
official that granted an interview in the Inside Job.
He
goes on to quantify that once quality at the very core goes down, in all
subsidiary organisations, quality will go down. No man can judge a man
accurately if that latter person is superior to him.
MM
Lee says that it is the people's expectation – Office is for honour. I think
yes, they are compensated in some other manner – not all CEO will have the
general public giving eulogy when they pass away but as a minister, you will
have some form of spiritual compensation. So pay the minister well, but still
give them a discount of the best paid people, afterall they are still
compensated in the form of public respect.
Pg
104 – Writer Catherine Lim recounted her experiences with Western audience
thus: “ A forum, a British Businessman said give us your Lee Kuan Yew, we will
give you our Tony Blair and throw in Cherie Blair as well. “
Page
87 – The western media believes theirs is acme of perfection and that anything
that deviates and is successful must be knocked down. If we are not successful,
why would they bother to attack us?
Lee
has no patience for the litany for the criticism of elitist leadership. PAP
leadership selection model is no a hypocritical system that pays lip system to
being egalitarian. Reality is as society becomes developed, leaders often come
from the same social circles, educational background. Oxbridge graduates stock Whitehall in United
Kingdom. In China, second generation are relatives and acquaintances of country
founding father.
Sad
but true.
Opposition and
democracy:
Pg
45 – It is true. “Contrary to what the critics claim, the opposition's main
problem has nothing to do with the state of civil liberties. It is that the PAP
has left no stone unturned.
Pg
46 - “Only one virtue in democracy – it allows governments to be thrown out
without violence.” Same as what 易中天 says in “帝国的终结” 。
Pg
82 – What political party helps an opposition party to come into power? Why
should we not demolish them before they can get started. If you are polite to
me, I will be polite to you. But I will demolish your policy.
Pg
61 – PAP does only one tenth the gerrymandering in elections.
Climate Change and the
Environment:
Pg
336:
Lee
is a complete realist when it comes to Global warming. He accepts that rising
CO2 will cause sea levels to rise.
But
he does not believe that self- interested nation- states can get together to
agree to binding cuts in emissions.
Conclusion:
There
is no perfect system. As a while, the human race is trying to still trying to
find the perfect form of government. Afterall, the poster child of perfect government
- United States, has appeared to be incapable of effective long-term
government.
But
if don't help me to see the benefit for myself, I don't see a reason to slough
it out.
In
the older days, the world probably needed more authoritarian government because
information can't flow as fast. As
technology advances with Twitter and Facebook, we see the Arab Spring. Now
technology will enable us to engage more, to create more buy in.
Of
course, I may just be at the bottom rung of society and hence I feel the need
for consultation. However, it is true, when there is more buy in, there is more
commitment. And as the TED
talk (Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies) shows,
the more equal the country is, the happier the people are.
The
ultimate question or balance in the end is this: are we a nation judge that
ensuring our security through economic success is more important than
everything else.
Another
must read: pg. 360 – Singapore for Lee was a conscious choice – the rest of us,
who were born here just had to live with it.
Singapore
was a near miracle, an accident of history. “When you come in, you are joining
an exceptionally outstanding organisation. It is not an ordinary organization
that created this.. It came about by an stroke of luck, if you like, plus hard
work, plus an imaginative team, original team. “
Frivolous:
Pg
409 – MM Lee encourages the teaching of mediation in schools. Same as Singapore
Google dude.
Page
84 – in 1974 management shares were created of the press holdings and given to
the local banks. Banks are politically neutral and interested in stability.
On Malaysia:
Pg
30 – This is how rational and pragmatic countries operate. We don't have to
love each other to work with each other. A convergence of interests does not
erase emotions but can temper them.
Singapore
stood for all those that Malaysia chose not to become – meritocracy,
multiracisim and protection of minorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment