Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Lee Kuan Yew, founder of Singapore dies.

  • 23-03-2015 7:10am
    #1
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭


    Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew passed away aged 91.

    Surely one of the 20th century's most capable and intellectual statesman.

    Carved a country out of nothing, and brought it from third world trading post to one of the world's richest countries. Not exactly a democrat, an exponent of 'Asian values' and a form of development that stands in contrast to the political norms of the West.

    A razor sharp politician and at times un-apologetically ruthless, but a firm believer in meritocracy and excellence in governance.

    Even in retirement he kept a close eye on those running Singapore, he held the title of 'minister mentor'. One of his most famous quotes upon handing over the reigns to his son was ; 'And even from my sickbed, even if you are going to lower me into the grave and I feel that something is going wrong, I will get up.'

    Certainly no ordinary statesman and Singapore will be in deep mourning for the next few days.

    A decent primer on those unfamiliar with him are the following interviews, with Charlie Rose in the 2000's and one from the 60's.





    On the Vietnam War:



Comments

  • #2
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Amazing what he has achieved. Took a patch of land with no natural resources and created a city state that is the envy of South East Asia in terms of quality of living and life.

    Anyone who has been there cannot be impressed to how the place works, how clean it is, how well run and how safe it is. No doubt quirky with some strange laws but others could definitely take note in how to run an economy.


  • #3
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    The tough laws wouldn't suit everyone, but a lot to be said for the zero tolerance for hooliganism and yobbery. If you can get arrested for leaving chewing gum on the pavement you're hardly likely to engage in worse law-breaking.


  • #4
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    jank wrote: »
    Amazing what he has achieved. Took a patch of land with no natural resources and created a city state that is the envy of South East Asia in terms of quality of living and life.

    Anyone who has been there cannot be impressed to how the place works, how clean it is, how well run and how safe it is. No doubt quirky with some strange laws but others could definitely take note in how to run an economy.

    It's funny, but I get the feeling that if the Third Reich had survived there would be posters on an alternate forum saying exactly the same thing.


  • #5
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    ^ fourth post and and we're Godwinned. :)


  • #6
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    porsche959 wrote: »
    ^ fourth post and and we're Godwinned. :)

    Forgot Godwin, what about that Genghis Khan fella, he achieved amazing things too didn't he.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    No idea. Lee Kuan Yew achieved amazing things. The lack of Western-style democracy in Singapore does not nullify them. Comparing him to someone who started a World War seems wrong-headed to me.


  • #8
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    porsche959 wrote: »
    No idea. Lee Kuan Yew achieved amazing things. The lack of Western-style democracy in Singapore does not nullify them. Comparing him to someone who started a World War seems wrong-headed to me.

    That wasn't really the point I was going for. It was more to highlight what can be ignored safely in threads of this kind. This man was a dictator, sure not the worst but he appears to be forgiven because he created a decent economy? Is that right?


  • #9
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    karma_ wrote: »
    That wasn't really the point I was going for. It was more to highlight what can be ignored safely in threads of this kind. This man was a dictator, sure not the worst but he appears to be forgiven because he created a decent economy? Is that right?

    Fair enough. But one has to examine his record in the context of comparable examples in similar countries in the region, as well as against international norms. For example, neighbouring Malaysia has similar(ish) restrictions on democracy and the media, but problems with racial conflicts that Singapore does not, a less developed economy, and a higher crime rate (though still lower than in most Western countries).


  • #10
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    Sometime in 1975, my fourth class teacher came into class slightly late after lunch.
    "Children, I have some very sad news. A great man, General Franco, leader of Spain, has died".
    "Mrs. Beamish, wasn't he a dictator?"
    A BENEVOLENT DICTATOR, CHILDREN!!"


  • #11
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    Communist authoritarianism vs capitalist authoritarianism?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAxYODiXEAA2epY.png


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #13
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Nah mate, it sums up your philosophy that the economy trumps human rights. Well played missing the entire point by the way. Let's just dispense with democracy while we're at it eh?


  • #14
    donaghs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭donaghs


    Banjoxed wrote: »
    Sometime in 1975, my fourth class teacher came into class slightly late after lunch.
    "Children, I have some very sad news. A great man, General Franco, leader of Spain, has died".
    "Mrs. Beamish, wasn't he a dictator?"
    A BENEVOLENT DICTATOR, CHILDREN!!"

    Yew wielded power like a dictator when it suited him, but a clear difference was that raising living standards was very important to him. He wasn't interested in a permanent state of repression like Franco. Or genocide or foreign conquest like others mentioned.

    But I don't buy the notion of "asian values". Lots of precedent for various nations and groups to try and use the "culture" excuse to explain a lack of democracy, and to make such a policy more palatable locally, and paint democracy as a foreign value.
    Plenty of people in the 30s saying democracy had failed. Lots of people today on Russia Today TV saying such things about "western democracy".


  • #15
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    I'd imagine that for Singaporeans, the good will very much outweigh the bad. What Lee achieved in what was an impoverished backwater is undeniable. The massive public housing scheme, for example, meant that countless people were able to move out of squalid slums into comfortable homes with an impressive range of services near at hand.

    "Asian values" were undoubtedly a fig leaf for an intolerance of dissent of course, and some of the attempts at social engineering were farcical (a government dating agency)! Unnecessary too, as I'd imagine that Lee's Peoples Action Party would have comfortably won any truly free election. In the last election, the opposition had their best ever performance, so it will be interesting to see what the future holds.


  • #16
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #17
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It's almost as patently ridiculous as a libertarian out in show of support for a dictator.


  • #18
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    It was reported that one of this most successful decisions was to make English the primary language of Singapore. He said that then the Chinese or Malay or the Indians could then not own the national identity of Singapore as he wanted to create a national identity and culture of Singapore. Many signs are are written in 4 languages with English being the most prominent.
    He also stipulated that housing should be allocated to people via a quota system. So that every area and block would have a general representation of the people of Singapore. So no ghettos or enclaves in mark contrast to Europe.

    He was regarded as the ultimate practical politician who would dump policy if it did not work even though ideologically if could be favored. He looked at the results of his polices not the good intentions which the vast majority of politicians do. Every politician has good intentions but when policies fail, they normally double down and keep at it rather than admit failure and change. He was not afraid of this.

    I think the reverence the people of Singapore show him is a testament to his greatness in their eyes and shows the world what can be done with strong institutions, a work ethic, free markets, an open economy and most importantly no holds barred decision making and continuous examination of these decisions.


  • #19
    smashey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,676 ✭✭✭✭smashey


    I lived in singapore from 1994 until 2000. When I first moved there LKY was then Senior Minister while Goh Chok Tong was Prime Minister. Lee was still very active and watching some of his speeches in Parliament over the period and indeed, some interviews he gave with various organisations, he was fascinating to listen to, captivating. He held the audience in the palm of his hand. There was a supreme intellect, a clear vision and a steely determination to do what he thought was best for Singapore. The Singapore of today is most certainly the success it is because of him. It has been very noticeable for me over the past few days that all the people from these Islands and the States who were in Singapore with me over that period and who I am still in contact with have all been saddened by his passing and full of respect for what he did. As am I. That says a lot for me. While there are aspects of Singapore Government and laws that might not sit easily with some Western takes on democracy, the simple fact is that it works. It works better than most. It was a pleasure to live and work there.

    RIP Lee Kuan Yew. You made a lasting impression and left an indelible mark on a Donegal man.


  • #20
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,688 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    I backpacked through SE Asia and after months of bumpy roads and overall chaos in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia arriving in Singapore was like a home for a westener compared to the rest of SE Asia, it had familiar shops and chain restaurants in air conditioned sky scrapers and giant malls, transport systems which work ad the place was spotlessly clean. I remember crossing the border the Singaporese customs checking the petrol tanks of all Singapore citizens leaving the country to go to Malaysia for a weekend of debauchery at much lower prices than in Singapore. The customs there were logging the petrol of all citizens, iirc the law was that Singaporeans had to have a 75% full tank of petrol going to Malaysia to prevent them taking advantage of fuel prices that were a lot, lot lower in oil rich Malaysia. It struck me the level of control he wielded.

    I think in general he did a great job and anyone I know who lived there enjyed their time. However that shouldn't mean we shouldn't question his liberal use of the death penalty or the lack of democracy. Also while Singapore is virtually crime free when walking the streets thats not to say crime there doesn't exist, its just on a much higher level than what is apparent at first glance.


  • #21
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Can someone give me one good reason why the free-market capitalists are out in force in favour of this guy? For I see the same faces out, bitterly opposed to left-leaning leaders. Leaving aside the good he has done this comes across as rank hypocrisy, I can't chew gum in Singapore, the government owns something like 80% of the land, it costs 80000 dollars just to have the right to own and drive a car, men aren't allowed to be homosexual.... and a rake of other issues.

    Is creating a good economy above all else in this equation, surely human rights must come first?

    What is it I'm missing?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    donaghs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭donaghs


    karma_ wrote: »
    Can someone give me one good reason why the free-market capitalists are out in force in favour of this guy? For I see the same faces out, bitterly opposed to left-leaning leaders. Leaving aside the good he has done this comes across as rank hypocrisy, I can't chew gum in Singapore, the government owns something like 80% of the land, it costs 80000 dollars just to have the right to own and drive a car, men aren't allowed to be homosexual.... and a rake of other issues.

    Is creating a good economy above all else in this equation, surely human rights must come first?

    What is it I'm missing?

    I'm not saying I'm a cheerleader for Singapore. But, I can see its not just "the economy" which people appreciate. Often when people talk about putting "the economy" (supporting business before citizens) before all else, average people's quality of life, the environment and even living standards suffer.

    However, the key point about Singapore, especially in comparison with its neighbours is there firstly, most people have a good standard of living financially. Then, there are other factors such as clean drinking water - from taps everywhere - something remarkable in southeast Asia (or Roscommon).

    Good public transport - which leads to the next question as to why people need cars in such a small area with good public transport. Many appreciate the restrictions on traffic and exhaust emissions.

    Low crime rate. Tidy litter-free streets. Lots of parks and greenery. Very good healthcare.

    LGBT rights is still an issue there, but again, compared with their nearest neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia, its comparatively better. Lee Kew said that he thinks its for the people to change laws on homosexuality, not the government, and that he didn't think people should be harrassed for being homosexual. Bit of a cop out considering how Singaporean democracy works, but still more progressive than its two nearest neighbours.

    Also, Singapore isn't just about free markets and "the economy", when you consider that 80% of people live in Public Housing.


  • #23
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #24
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Firstly I'm not a free marketeer by any stretch of the imagination, I recognize the important role the state in creating conditions where even the poorest are empowered.

    LKY was very much the embodiment of that Deng Xiao Ping quote 'it doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice'. He was a hard headed pragmatist, and wasn't a slave to ideology. Their civil service is among the best in the world (if not the best, the smartest, highest IQ people in the country end up in the public service) is about best practice and results and not peddling consensus from clientelist politicians.

    For instance the slum clearance programme and the ability of local Singaporeans to purchase high quality low cost public housing isn't free marketeerism at all. Their public education system is superb, as are their Universities.

    The civil liberties part of me doesn't approve of the harsh legal system (and judges are hand picket by the ruling party according to their loyalty, so that aspect isn't healthy) and some of the East German style attempts at social engineering but you take the good with the bad. Another critique I'd have about the place is the lack of an arts scence (though this is changing) and young people don't play enough sport as their pushed into education by overbearing parents (this isn't an exclusively a Singaporean problem, see South Korea and most ethnic Chinese parents)


  • #25
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    karma_ wrote: »
    Leaving aside the good he has done this comes across as rank hypocrisy...

    Is creating a good economy above all else in this equation, surely human rights must come first?
    The thing is that even if one does leave aside the economic success of Singapore, in terms of freedom and democracy is still ranks better than pretty much everywhere in the region except for Tiawan (ROC), Japan and South Korea - none of which are exactly poster boys for political and press freedom:

    Country|Freedom in the World 2014|2014 Index of Economic Freedom|2014 Press Freedom Index|HDI
    Brunei Darussalam|not free|moderately free|difficult situation|0.852
    Burma|not free|repressed|difficult situation|0.524
    Cambodia|not free|mostly unfree|difficult situation|0.584
    China|not free|mostly unfree|very serious situation|0.719
    Hong Kong|partly free|free|noticeable problems|0.891
    Indonesia|partly free|mostly unfree|difficult situation|0.684
    Japan|free|mostly free|noticeable problems|0.890
    Korea, North|not free|repressed|very serious situation|
    Korea, South|free|mostly free|noticeable problems|0.891
    Laos|not free|mostly unfree|very serious situation|0.569
    Macau|n/a|mostly free|noticeable problems|0.882
    Malaysia|partly free|moderately free|difficult situation|0.773
    Philippines|partly free|moderately free|difficult situation|0.660
    Singapore|partly free|free|difficult situation|0.901
    Taiwan|free|mostly free|satisfactory situation|0.882
    Thailand|partly free|moderately free|difficult situation|0.722
    Vietnam|not free|mostly unfree|very serious situation|0.638

    Meanwhile it also ranks with the highest Human Development Index in the region, indeed 9th in the World (above Ireland), which measures a little bit more than how successful an economy is, but also includes life expectancy, education, as well as more economically orientated indicators, such as income levels.

    But leaving this aside the above for a moment, let's look at the accusation of hypocricy for a moment Karma, in relation to Venezuela:

    Country|Freedom in the World 2014|2014 Index of Economic Freedom|2014 Press Freedom Index|HDI
    Venezuela|partly free|repressed|difficult situation|0.764

    As you can see Venezuela score on much the freedom front is on a par with Singapore, the main difference is that Venezuela has a much lower HDI and economic freedom rating. Certainly press freedom for both is in the same rank.

    In short, it's like Singapore in terms of freedom, but a crappier place to live.

    In that light and your accusation of hypocrisy, would you care to explain your defense of Venezuela and her 'free' press:
    karma_ wrote: »
    It's not beneficial no. However neither is media owners or editors with vested interest who were obviously slanted against him from the off. It was not about free speech with them, that was the elephant in the room.

    There was no middle ground with the media in Venezuela, it was all opposition oriented, which was unhealthy in itself.
    So when it came to Chavez, to paraphrase you, "can someone give me one good reason why socialists are out in force in favour of this guy? For I see the same faces out, bitterly opposed to right-leaning leaders."

    So for all your complaints of hypocrisy, you're actually quite happy to indulge in it yourself, it appears, which really does not put you in a position where you can point the finger and not be laughed at.


  • #26
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    So in short, it's a complete double standard for it still revolves back to 'the economy'. If we are talking about intent to do good then teh same people wouldn't be so bitterly opposed to the likes of Chavez, his intent was to alleviate the burden of the poor but he got no credit from the same quarter for that.

    Rank hypocrisy, at least be honest about it.

    Oh and by the way, feel free to trawl through my posting history, I'm an unapologetic lefty, no doubt about that at all.


  • #27
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    karma_ wrote: »
    So in short, it's a complete double standard for it still revolves back to 'the economy'.
    No, in short the greater hypocrite is the hypocrite who accuses others of hypocrisy. Even if your accusations are valid, you're in the same mire with those you accuse.
    If we are talking about intent to do good then teh same people wouldn't be so bitterly opposed to the likes of Chavez, his intent was to alleviate the burden of the poor but he got no credit from the same quarter for that.
    And of course, Lee Kuan Yew's intent was to oil the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the workers. Every day he would rise and toast to Mammon, his god and master...

    And there we have another example of ideological conceit, the presumption that one political side of the spectrum is on the side of good and so the other cannot be. Religions used to (and in some cases still do) peddle the same logic, BTW.
    Oh and by the way, feel free to trawl through my posting history, I'm an unapologetic lefty, no doubt about that at all.
    I didn't have to trawl through your history. The almost mythical propensity for left-wing blindness to the negatives of Chavez is pretty well known; all it took was a quick search for any post by you with either "Venezuela" or "Chavez" in the text to find the inevitable post where you would be acting as his apologist.

    You didn't disappoint.

    Hear that? It's people laughing at your moral high ground.


  • #28
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    No, in short the greater hypocrite is the hypocrite who accuses others of hypocrisy. Even if your accusations are valid, you're in the same mire with those you accuse.

    And of course, Lee Kuan Yew's intent was to oil the wheels of capitalism with the blood of the workers. Every day he would rise and toast to Mammon, his god and master...

    And there we have another example of ideological conceit, the presumption that one political side of the spectrum is on the side of good and so the other cannot be. Religions used to (and in some cases still do) peddle the same logic, BTW.

    I didn't have to trawl through your history. The almost mythical propensity for left-wing blindness to the negatives of Chavez is pretty well known; all it took was a quick search for any post by you with either "Venezuela" or "Chavez" in the text to find the inevitable post where you would be acting as his apologist.

    You didn't disappoint.

    Hear that? It's people laughing at your moral high ground.

    See the thing is, I don't necessarily disagree that Yew did a decent job for the people there, not my cup of tea of course but if the citizenry were happy with their lot then I have no complaints... and I took great care not to mention this before as I saw a golden opportunity, and it certainly didn't disappoint.


  • #29
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #30
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    karma_ wrote: »
    See the thing is, I don't necessarily disagree that Yew did a decent job for the people there, not my cup of tea of course but if the citizenry were happy with their lot then I have no complaints... and I took great care not to mention this before as I saw a golden opportunity, and it certainly didn't disappoint.
    No, you just called anyone who spoke positively of him a hypocrite, while being happy to do the same for Chavez who ultimately was no different, beyond being less successful.

    I'd bow out, if I were you; you've lost all credibility here.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Again Permabear, I'm just coming from an angle of intent, no more, no less. I just found it a more interesting point in this when I saw where the eulogies were emanating from. How is intent for one admired but not the other?


  • #32
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    No, you just called anyone who spoke positively of him a hypocrite, while being happy to do the same for Chavez who ultimately was no different, beyond being less successful.

    I'd bow out, if I were you; you've lost all credibility here.

    When did I ever have credibility with you?


  • #33
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    karma_ wrote: »
    When did I ever have credibility with you?
    You misunderstand; you've lost credibility with pretty much everyone here.


  • #34
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    karma_ wrote: »
    Again Permabear, I'm just coming from an angle of intent, no more, no less. I just found it a more interesting point in this when I saw where the eulogies were emanating from. How is intent for one admired but not the other?
    Yet admiration for Yew's good intentions is hypocritical, but for Chavez's intentions is all right? Or are you presuming that only Chavez had good intentions?


  • #35
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You misunderstand; you've lost credibility with pretty much everyone here.

    You know, I think I will bow out now.

    By the way, not the only double standard on this forum I see.


  • #36
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,612 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    I think there is a couple of significant differences between LKY and Chavez. Guarded approval for LKY's economic legacy is not the same as open and warm approval for Chavez.

    The key difference is that LKY was successful at promoting economic prosperity for his people. Chavez on the other hand was not. That's more than a trite observation: economic prosperity brings political stability. Its a virtuous circle, and not one Chavez was able to achieve - or even seemed interested in achieving.

    Singapore has practically no natural resources and is short of everything, including water. Venezeula on the other hand has huge oil reserves. Singapore's economic success is built on a hugely open, trade orientated economy, friendly to FDI and business, and politically stable. Of course, thats not to disregard that LKY also directly interfered in the economy to achieve specific ends, but political stability and business friendly environments do require rule of law. The case of Singapore is obviously going to be cited by those who see free trade, low taxes and business friendly policies as key to economic development. I dont think LKY was an anarcho-capitalist though, far from it. I think he just went with what worked.

    Venezuela on the other hand has huge natural resources - Chavez had an immense advantage, which he wasted. The economy of Venezeula is a basket case. As the oil price has collapsed, the tide has gone out and all the mismanagement, populism, corruption, incompetence and hostility to business and trade has come home to roost. Say what you like about Chavez, well meaning or not he had no idea how to develop or run a successful economy.

    The other difference to my mind is that LKY was an authoritarian, but within the rule of the law (though easier because he was writing it I guess). Chavez was a populist dictator - a political streetfighter. The difference might seem slight, but Chavez spent much of his time pursuing slights, rabble rousing, insulting political opponents and foreign investors, and picking fights with domestic business and otherwise playing to the gallery. All of this served to undermine the rule of law in Venezeula and create a state of chaos that is obviously not going to be either politically or economically successful.

    I don't approve of either, but Chavez supporters were thrilled by his strongman antics so its a bit rich that LKYs undoubted economic/political success is struck out on the basis of LKY suing reporters for libel and some odd social engineering attempts.


  • #38
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    karma_ wrote: »
    Again Permabear, I'm just coming from an angle of intent, no more, no less. I just found it a more interesting point in this when I saw where the eulogies were emanating from. How is intent for one admired but not the other?

    That is the ultimate cop out.

    Perhaps you should re-read my post as you speak like a classic politician.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94821508&postcount=18

    Note this part.
    He was regarded as the ultimate practical politician who would dump policy if it did not work even though ideologically if could be favored. He looked at the results of his polices not the good intentions which the vast majority of politicians do. Every politician has good intentions but when policies fail, they normally double down and keep at it rather than admit failure and change. He was not afraid of this.

    Chavez and his cronies may have the same intent as Lee Kuan Yew, however the latter is judged on the results while the former is judged on his intent. Funny that, one is the card carrying socialist the other the ultimate pragmatist. Again, its a cop out. One should ALWAYS judge a legacy on the results as for that is what ultimately matters....

    One country is rich in natural resources (second largest oil reserves in the world) yet one cannot buy simple goods like toilet paper or bread. The other has no natural resources but affords its citizens a quality of life unparalleled anywhere else in the region and similar to that of places like Switzerland. So yes, people will look somewhat favorably to LKY and his achievements.


  • #39
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    On the matter of LKY suing reporters for libel. Is this not fair game, or do people think reporters should be allowed to say what they like? Of all the libel cases LKY brought to court he never lost.


  • #40
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0323td.html

    a good article by Theodore Dalrymple on Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew

    I wish we had a leader like LKY in Ireland or even in Europe


  • #41
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    porsche959 wrote: »
    ^ fourth post and and we're Godwinned. :)

    I don't want to comment for or against the fourth post but:
    Fifth post and we're Godwinlawed. Godwin simply postulated that Hitler or Naziism would sooner or later come up in internet discussion, or words to that effect. He never said it was a mortal sin to mention Hitler or Nazis or compare them to something. Godwin is now a cyber-hostage, an infallible cyber-Pope, almost as ubiquitous as Adolf himself. Maybe that was Godwin's plan, to achieve immortality.
    Anyone remember that scene in The Life of Brian where the man was being stoned to death for uttering "Jehovah"? And as he was stoned he shouted "Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah." Here, stone me to f---g death. Hitler, Hiter, Hitler. Naziism, Naziism, Naziism. Third Reich, Third Reich, Third Reich!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    karma_ wrote: »
    Nah mate, it sums up your philosophy that the economy trumps human rights. Well played missing the entire point by the way. Let's just dispense with democracy while we're at it eh?

    Considering that Singapore's economic strategy since independence has been essentially sending out girls in bikinis holding giant signs saying "we're an offshore tax haven! Come here and hide all your taxable income!" it's not even really a case of the economy trumping human rights, it a case of the private law (where privilege literally comes from) of a tiny few trumping the rights of the majority.


  • #43
    Duffy the Vampire Slayer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,382 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49691/fareed-zakaria/a-conversation-with-lee-kuan-yew

    An interesting interview with him here.


Advertisement