Another Reply to Lee Kuan Yew from

[brelief@xxxxxxx]

Subject: Another Reply to Lee Kuan Yew from Soc.Culture.Burma

--=====================_835504099==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



--=====================_835504099==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Subject: Response III  to "Lee Kwan Yew Defends Burma" ...
Chao-Tzang 
Date: 14 Jun 1996 23:07:11 GMT

Response III  to "Lee Kwan Yew Defends Burma"...Chao-Tzang 
Fax:(604) 525-6924

     Singapore's Senior Minister Lee's defence of "Burma"  was
apparently triggered by the thoughts of the harm that might befall
Singapore if "Western - style democracy" were to land on Singapore's
glass-towered, balmy shores.
     Like most "knowledgable" pundits, he attributes Singapore's
success to "tough-minded, dedicated, determined, able and honest
leaders"--like himself, that is. In fact, he is being very modest in not
claiming sole responsibility since that is a fact.  As an individual, his
accomplishment is, by any standard, admirable.
     That a country's well-being is dependent on good, able and
honest leaders is a banal truism -- this is obvious to everyone.  In almost
every nation, there exist myths and yearnings for a strong, enlightened
savior-leader -- a white knight or a super-hero -- who brings prosperity,
security, and happiness to the impoverished, insecure, troubled masses.
     But in the real world, there are several little problems related to
the quality of leadership.  One, which nation can ensure that those who
lead or hold power will be able, honest, etc.? Two, how can a nation or
country, or anyone, ensure that leaders will be dedicated and honest?  
     Three, who and what will ensure that leader or leaders will not
be corrupted by power, or become arrogant, intolerant and scornful of
the ordinary folk (i.e., the ruled)?  Four, what if a selfish despot comes
to possess power (simply because he commands the armed force)?
     Singapore is very fortunate in that its first post-independence
leader, Lee Kwan Yew, proved to be a rare and real savior - leader, who
has remained uncorrupted by long years of power. 
     The fact of the matter is that, sadly for Burma, neither Ne Win
nor his "sons" and heirs (Khin Nyunt, etc.) are remotely like Mr. Lee or
his PAP.
     If it were so, Aung San Suu Kyi might have remained a private
person, and there would not have arisen a mass movement for political
change in Burma.
     Therefore, to insist that whoever hold power, just because they
do, are indispensible, or that they will be dedicated to serving the
country, amounts to making a wild leap into the irrational.  History has
proven time and again, that this is rarely the case.  To pin one's hope for
progress and prosperity on the chance emergence of an enlightened
despot is analogous to, to rephrase Mr. Lee's words, focusing one's mind
on one's navel.
     Regarding the problem of leadership, therefore, democracy is a
superior mechanism in that leadera and powerholders are  compelled to
behave and serve the people since they are but "temporary tentants of
power".
     To be sure, democracy is not a perfect system, but it is the least
evil of all political systems.
     Another superiory of democracy is that it is foremostly a human
- centered way of ordering society politics, and economy.  That is, it
provides all human beings, or every citizens, with the same set of rights,
and moreover recognizes the diginity of ordinary citizens, and makes
them masters of their own country and fate.
     In the sense that democracy is concerned with man as dignified
and free human beings, and not with the rights and privileges of a
certain race, a certain nation, tribe, or a certain class of people, it is
universal. 
     Although the roots of democracy lies in the West, it is by no
means "Western"     -- as is also the case with such notions as the
freemarket,  property rights,  the sanctity of ownership, etc., which also
come from the West.
     Therefore, to say that Asian culture and values are not
compatible with democracy is to say that we Asian are not in favor of
giving freedom and diginity to ordiary citizens ( i.e., to ourselves, in the
final analysis).
     A point worth pondering is that rights, freedom and human
diginity enjoyed by all citizens in a democratic sociaty are, in a
non-democracy, special privileges. They are enjoyed in full only by
those who hold power, possess weath, or are fortunate to be born into an
established  family.
     Hence, it is important that we think twice about being
railroaded into applauding those who heap scorn on democracy as being
alien (or "Western"), disorderly, economically inefficient, and etc. 
     Those who already enjoy democratic rights as elites in
authoritarian environments will, naturally, view it as a nuisance.
--=====================_835504099==_--