'Why, according to Lee Kuan Yew, are Western democratic systems unsuited to East Asia?\r'

' lee(prenominal) Kuan Yew, blossoming minister of capital of Singapore in the midst of 1959 and 1990, and direct Senior Minister of his country, commands much venerate and act upon in both the eastmost and the West. This respect and influence reaches to the highest echelons of ball leaders, to the adenylic acidle multitude of academics, commentators and development strategists, and to the millions of people who brave out in easternmost Asia. Regardless of whether or non this esteem is notwithstandingified and deserved, ti is real, and in that respectfore must be analysed, interpreted, criticised or praised while not forgetting the richness and gear up his beliefs and proclamations oblige had, and bequeath assume.\r\nAny word of honor of world politics, particular(prenominal)ly in eastern United States Asia, kindlenot ignore the hows, whys and wherefores of the current situation and the influence that current ideas and thought may pay on the future. leewards views energise undoubtedly regulate his own country, for certain capture influenced former(a) g e realwherening bodys in the region, and impart definitely patronage their markon the short- to mid-term future of easterly Asiatic politics. This explicates the argues why this es judge solely deals with him.\r\nThe essay is dissever into tierce chief(prenominal) sections. Firstly, I get out discuss downwinds ideas and policies, and why he believes in an ‘Asian values view of the politics of the region. Secondly, I will explore some of the responses that have a bun in the oven been made in op panorama to his views, and tripletly, I will present some observations and conclusions of my own. These observations will draw on some opposite problems and inconsistencies with leewards ideas. Let us turn wherefore to the man and his ideas.\r\nThe central theme racecourse through any study or discussion of his policy-making ideas and actions is the importance that marke t-gardening has on shaping the ball club and its structures. The sh be history, traditions, make-up, worldview and tender relationships atomic number 18 the key factors that prep be how a state should be unionized and g everyplacened. Thus, if the finale is different between dickens sets of peoples, then the resulting state structure and organisation type will also be different. Culture is the driver, the basis of ordination and the legitimacy used by those in government agency to decree what is best for their people.\r\nThis viewpoint is a lot referred to as the ‘Asian values agreement (Ng, 1997, Theodore de Bary, 1999, Hague & Harrop, 2001) and is summed up succinctly by the epithet of a famous interview with lee side which appeared in a 1994 edition of exotic Affairs †‘Culture is Destiny (Zakiria, 1994). The importance that Lee places on the heathen aspect of a gild does not mean that what is aright for his country is also right for former (a) countries. Whilst consistently dismissing westbound-, and in exceptional, US-style parliamentary systems as valid models for Singapore, he does not show that the US-style system is neccessarily wrong for the US.\r\nIt is not my clientele to itemise people whats wrong with their system. It is my duty to tell people not to inflict their system indiscrimately on societies in which it will not work (Zakiria quoting Lee, 1994, p. 110). This neverthelesst be seen as a statement recognising the speciality of semipolitical systems depending on the society / culture in question. Whilst Lee has been described as being authoritarian, semi-, or soft-authoritarian, he surely doesnt make claims for the world to be establish on an Asian values system.\r\nIt appears that his position is more concerned more or less safekeeping hold of power in Singapore rather than exporting it close to the world. The main, get along as Lee calls it, cultural reason why westerly democratic syst ems are unsuited to eastbound Asia is the difference between the place and status of the individual in those societies. The fundamental difference between western sandwich concepts of society and government and eastbound Asian concepts… is that Eastern societies believe that the individual exists in the context of his family. He is not primeval and separate.\r\nThe family is part of the extended family, and the friends and the wider society. The designr or government does not try to return for a person what the family best provides (Zakiria quoting Lee, 1994, p. 113). This focalisation on the moral and virtuous touch sensation of society is stongly linked to Confucianism, so oft portrayed as being basically East Asian and al focuss compared with westerly systems. Lees manifestation of this doctrine is used by him to legitimate and promote an East Asian society based on ironlike hierarchical structures to bring about social and political stability.\r\nIn the East the main object is to have a regular society so that everybody can have maximum enjoyment of his freedoms. This freedom can yet exist in an arranged state and not in a natural state of contention and revolt (Zakiria quoting Le, 1994, p. 111). These three main features of Lees take on East Asias political and social humour †culture, the place in society of the individual, and a well-ordered society †are avowedly affected and influenced by the West over time, and are not seen as underdeveloped without the preserve of colonial ruler and imperialism. … ur Confucianism has been weaken by 120 years of British rule and education in British and other English-speaking universities (IHT, 2001). But, despite this impact Lee steadfastly denies any upgrade infusion of Western land into East Asia, especially Singapore. … this doesnt mean we are qualifying to be like a Western society. The values are different (de Borch, 2001). Lee is not the torch-holder for everyon e though. Whilst he receives praise from his counterparts around the world, there are many in the academic and development strategist world that potently disagree with him.\r\nOf course, it is not just a simple case of disagreeing over a matter of opinion, there are many valid and strong arguments against Lees ideas. From this uncounted of arguments, I have identified three main strands of contestation †historical arguments against Lees ‘Asian values, the speculative arguments concerning discussions of what democracy should be and how it should be followed in East Asia, and the problems and criticisms of the actually live governing style of Lee. First then, arguments against Lee taken from history.\r\n at that place are twain key aspects to this †the relevance of Confucianism to East Asia today, and exhibit of a democratic tradition end-to-end East Asias past. Famously, Max Weber theorised about the particular contribution to advanced capitalism of the Ã¢â‚¬Ë œProtestant ethic. This, in turn, explained how other cultures, including Confucian cultures, were not suited to advanced capitalism. intelligibly this can now be questionned, especially if, as many commentators have express, that East Asia is economically dynamic.\r\nIf Confucianism explains the economic boom in East Asia today, does it not also explain that regions stagnation for four centuries? Zakiria, 1994, p. 125). Kin Dae Jung, paternity in response to the ‘Culture is Destiny interview, identifies a strong tradition and history of democratic ideals and institutions in East Asias past. This suggests that an argument could be made for ‘Asian values actually referring to a much more democratic system than the Confucian-based one that Lee propagates. A original anaylsis makes it clear that Asia has a rich hereditary pattern of democracy-oriented philosophies and traditions. Asia has already made great strides toward democratization and possesses the necessary con ditions to develop democracy in time beyond the level of the West (Jung, 1994, p. 91).\r\nThe countenance major criticism of Lee comes from studies of the theoretical nature of democracy and what it means, shuold mean, or can mean to East Asia. The basic forego is that why should democracy only be relevant to particular cultures and why should particular cultures have to follow other political paths? This highlights the argument for democracys universality. There is nothing special about torturing the Asian focussing… human rights are human rights (Vatikiotis cited by Hague & Harrop, 2001, p. 29).\r\nThe rejection of Western-style democracy by East Asian leaders is also seen by some as merely an let off for not moving beyond ‘soft-authoritarianism and into democracy. This is strongly tied up with the observation that this is just the most effective way for leaders such as Lee to rule their countries. The biggest obstacle is not its cultural hereditary pattern but the resistance of authoritarian rulers and their apologists (Jung, 1994, p. 194). The third area of opposition to Lees ideas that can be identified is that of problems with the actually exisitng state and society structures and institutions.\r\nFor some, just observing Lees form of rule is enough to reject his arbitrarinesss of what is the correct way to govern. These doubts stem chiefly from the Singapore governments undeniably harsh treatment of the opposition, as demonstrate in its most recent elections (Ng, 1997, p. 21) Also, there appears to be two threats to the whole ‘Asian values theory. Firstly, we have on the one surpass Lee purporting to leave the individuals nonpublic matters to the individual, whilst on the other it can be discover that his government is actually intruding into the private sphere more than ever (Jung, 1994, p. 90).\r\nSecondly, an outside(a) threat is apparent from the global spread of modernisation. … as an inevitable consequence of industrialisation, the family-centred East Asian societies are also apace moving toward self-centred individualism. Nothing in human history is permanent (Jun, 1994, p. 21). In conclusion it must be said that Lees position in East Asia, and his reverance amongst Western opinion-formers should not distract us from dissecting and criticising his ideas.\r\nIt is not good enough to assume that cultural traits should determine, worse still, justify the actions of governments, particularly Lees. There should be certain aspects to a government and society that are unacceptable no matter what setting. Lee makes much of the imply for a ‘well-ordered society. The heavy-handed way this society is brought about blatantly contradicts Lees notions of freedom. He talks of East Asians being able to have â€Å"maximum enjoyment of his freedoms” but Lees notion of what is behaving and what is misbehaving sets a Singaporeans realm of freedom for him.\r\nThis is certainly not the fr eedom that John Stuart hoagie wrote about. It could be argued that it is better to have a society that is not so ‘well-ordered but democratic, than it is to live in a society such as one that Lee envisages; faith must be move with society to check its members activities rather than have all aspects of life limited by an all-seeing government. Lees ways may also only be suited to a subatomic state such as Singapore. tied(p) he admits that, within that small population, total control is practically impossible.\r\nThis for me leads to the heart of the importance placed by Lee on ‘Asian values and why Western ideas of democracy are unsuited to East Asia. It is very hard to shunning the conclusion that the plea of ‘Asian values is solely a political smokescreen to maintain power. It is even harder to escape this conclusion when the man himself proclaims: So when Americans tell me: you ought to govern in this way, I say thank you very much, I have listened to you v ery carefully, if I dont think we are ready for that, I have to do it my way (IHT, 2001, my emphasis).\r\n'