National Geographic interviews a dinosaur
-
National Geographic interviews a dinosaur
Dec. 27 2009 - 04:59 pm
Lee Kuan Yew, Social, Darwinism, National Geographic
The interview with Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew in the January edition of National Geographic is a pretty soft piece of journalism that takes a few perfunctory swipes at the Lee Kuan Yew/Singapore Story while buying into its key myths in a rather unquestioning fashion. For example, the author of the piece, Mark Jacobson, states that few living leaders have "dominated their homeland's national narrative the way Lee Kuan Yew has". That's true but partly down to the fact that LKY and his supporters have controlled the historical narrative in Singapore using the education system and restrictions on free speech, in much the same way as Suharto did in Indonesia (more of which in an upcoming post).Jacobson does talk about repression in Singapore but doesn't really seem to understand how it has been used to subvert the historical record.
Given that the author seems totally enamoured by his encounter with the great leader, it is perhaps unsurprising that he has not opted for a deeper examination. Cloyingly, Jacobson describes LKY as looking "like a flint-eyed Asian Clint Eastwood circa Gran Torino", while suggesting that telling a Singaporean you're off to interview LKY is like informing "a resident of the Emerald City that you're late for an appointment with the Wizard of Oz". Time to reach for the sick bag.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the interview is LKY's restatement of his Social Darwinistic views.
"I have always thought that humanity was animal-like," he says. "The Confucian theory was man could be improved, but I'm not sure he can be. He can be trained, he can be disciplined."
Warm words to inspire a nation, don't you think?
Later, he bemoans the lazy Singaporeans who complain that the influx of cheap foreign labour is driving down wages. If Singaporeans are falling behind, he explains, it is because "the spurs are not stuck into the hide".
There are not many countries in the world where people would persistently vote into power a leader who thinks they are all worthless ants but then there are not many governments that manage to combine relatively soft repression with impressive economic growth.
The following short film by Singaporean director Martyn See is a revealing portrayal of some of the ants responsible for the "Lee Kuan Yew miracle". These layabouts clearly need LKY to give them a kick up the arse. Singapore's censors have deemed that this is hardcore stuff, only for those over 16, as it contains depictions of poverty and destitution in Singapore, some of which may be real:
http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/the-asia-file/national-geographic-interviews-a-dinosaur
-
CONTINUED FROM:
MM Lee Criticizing Singaporeans
-
Let him criticize all he wants :D I myself already hate my own country and I am thinking of getting out of this shithole and going to somewhere like NZ or AUS when I grow up. The way he criticizes Singaporeans while he gets nothing to blame only makes him a hypocrite, especially when he gets fat salaries through our tax while all we get is his criticism.
-
national geographic on politics????
i think that they be interested in reporting on some sightings of wild, young turk(eys) on the loose in this sgforums speaker's corner
-
When i saw the topic
gosh i thought out from nowhere
got a living dino in tis world
or rather a talking dino?
-
maybe next time got cookbook magazine come and interview our LKY for his successful recipe from 3rd world to 1st world status within a generation and giving all this ungrateful young turks a chance to emigrate after getting their first class education here...
steady lah , lau lee, way to go....yeah!! woot woot....
-
Originally posted by Bentsb05:
maybe next time got cookbook magazine come and interview our LKY for his successful recipe from 3rd world to 1st world status within a generation and giving all this ungrateful young turks a chance to emigrate after getting their first class education here...
steady lah , lau lee, way to go....yeah!! woot woot....
Who should we thank for transforming Hong Kong 3rd world island into a 1st world island?
The Brits?
Weren't we under the Brits also?
Singapore is a strategic port, Raffles saw the significance long ago, that's why he bought it from the Sultanate. LKY wrest it from the Brits, put Singapore into mortal peril and then through much hardship brought Singapore to where it is today (but then decides to betray Singaporeans by selling it out to foreign talents), when all the same could have been done if it was under the British. Look at Hong Kong as a colony of the British till 1997, it's successes overshadows Singapore's.
Let me guess, still a student?
-
Originally posted by Bentsb05:
maybe next time got cookbook magazine come and interview our LKY for his successful recipe from 3rd world to 1st world status within a generation and giving all this ungrateful young turks a chance to emigrate after getting their first class education here...
Bentsb05, I observed that you have very naive views about PAP, Singapore and LKY.
How old are you? You don't seem to know much about Singapore politics.
-
Waste time.
-
From PAP to Singaporeans: “You die, your business!”
December 29, 2009
It has been 5 days since we broke the news about Lee Kuan Yew’s disparaging remarks about Singaporeans made in a recent interview with the National Geographic magazine and none of the SPH papers in any language have reported on it.
Speaking to journalist Mark Jacobson, Lee spoke about the ruling party’s liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies as if he was their principal architect.
Though he said he was aware of the fact that “many Singaporeans are unhappy with the influx of immigrants”, Lee continued to insist that it is for the “good” of the nation:
“Over time, Singaporeans have become less hard-driving and hard-striving. This is why it is a good thing that the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants.” Lee was quoted saying.
Lee described the country’s new subjects as “hungry,” with parents who “pushed the children very hard.”
“If native Singaporeans are falling behind because the spurs are not stuck into the hide, that is their problem,” he quipped.
There are 82 PAP MPs in Parliament and none of them have come out in the open to dispute the remarks made by Lee. Can we therefore conclude that all of them agree with Lee ?
This is as good as saying to Singaporeans in Hokkien – “you die your business!” which should not be a surprise to Singaporeans anyway.
Despite being the richest country in Asia after Japan, Singaporeans enjoy few social welfare benefits which explain why the country continues to suffer a brain drain of its brightest citizens yearly to other countries like Australia, Canada and United States.
The government can afford to lose billions of dollars in failed overseas investments without blinking an eyelid, but unable or unwilling to provide a basic social safety net for Singaporeans, especially those from the low income group.
The PAP has long eschewed any form of “welfare” for Singaporeans on the grounds that it will retard our competitiveness by creating a “crutch” mentality in the populace.
As such, Singaporeans are exhorted to work for as long as they can till the day they drop dead. One minister even urged local workers to be “cheaper, faster and better” when he should walk his talk first by reducing his own bloated salary.
Our per capita income is the fourth highest in the world, but our income gap as measured by the Gini Coefficient is the second highest in Asia after Hong Kong whose figures are skewed by a disproportionately higher number of billionaires. On the other hand, Japan has one of the lowest income disparity between the rich and poor.
This discrepancy is hardly surprising as the PAP has opened the floodgate to immigrants who flock to Singapore in search of a better life.
One does not need to be an economist to figure out that the influx of cheap foreign labor will increase the profit margin of big businesses and companies thereby raising the income of their owners and directors while helping to depress the wages of ordinary Singaporeans.
At the same time, business costs are lowered contributing to GDP growth without necessarily increasing productivity which explains why GDP is a very poor reflection of the distribution of wealth and the overall well-being of the citizens in a country.
Furthermore, a certain percentage of PAP ministers’ multi-million annual salary is pegged to GDP figures which may explain the PAP’s perpetual obsession with the GDP.
To the average Singapore worker eking out a living in the streets, GDP means nothing to him or her at all. All he/she cares for is whether his/her pay is sufficient to support oneself and family, to start a family, raise the children up and to retire comfortably when he/she is old.
20 years ago, it will not be too difficult to achieve the Singapore dream. Young couples are able afford a HDB flat relatively easily, they face little competition from foreign workers for jobs, the cost of living is low compared to today’s standard and before 2003, they are able to withdraw their CPF in one lump sum to enjoy life in their golden years.
Today, Singaporeans are facing an increasingly bleak, uncertain and insecure future. The monthly median wage of a Singapore worker is only $2,600, about the same 10 years ago while inflation has more than tripled, especially that of public housing.
A graduate fresh out of school will earn no more than $2,800 a month. After paying the tuition loan, one will have little savings left to buy even a car, let alone get married and start a family.
A new four-room HDB flat in Seng Kang cost less than $200,000 in 1999. A similar-sized flat in nearby Punggol now fetches close to $300,000. In the recently launched Dawson BTO project at Queenstown, a five room flat cost on average $666,000.
Acccording to a financial consultant, a couple should earn a minimum of $7,500 monthly before they should even think of buying such a flat and even then, they have to cough out a few hundred dollars every month in cash in addition to their CPF to finance the property which leaves very little for their retirement needs.
Life is never smooth-sailing. What if we are retrenched and replaced by a foreign talent in our mid 40s, met with an accident which renders us permanently unfit to work, afflicted with an incapacitating disease like kidney failure or get embroiled in some lawsuits? How are we going to continue support ourselves and families?
A netizen, Tracy Tan shared this heart-wrenching story on the Vote PAP out facebook:
“I know of a lady who has kidney problems, heart ailment and is half blind. She can’t work because of her health problems. She is 40yrs+, a single parent with a Sec 3 daughter. She is poor, sick and helpless. She approached Family Service Centre for help. FSC saw her need and helped her to pay her HDB rental, utility bill and conservancy charges. In addition, she received $300 per month and $250 school pocket fund for her daughter for meals at school. After helping her for two years, FSC recently told her that it can’t help her with the $300 per month and her daughter’s school pocket fund although her situation remains the same. She was referred to Jayakumar’s MPS. They wrote her a letter to SE CDC to support her case. The reply from the CDC was that “she had been helped for two years already and they can’t help her anymore”. She went back to her MP and he said that he can’t help her anymore as he had already written to CDC for her.”
The above story is not an isolated case, but one which we can easily identify with in our everyday life and it can well happen to you or me one day.
The PAP does provide temporary forms of financial assistance to the needy in the form of NTUC vouchers, utility bill rebates and waival of conservancy charges, but these are stop-gap measures which address only the symptoms of the disease and not its underlying cause.
If this lady is unable to find or hold a long-term job, then it is the duty of the government to step in to help family for as long it is necessary till her daughter complete her studies and start working.
There are many needy Singaporeans who are in dire straits and yet not able to qualify for state support due to its stringent criteria: one must be certified either permanently unfit to work forever by a medical specialist or completely destitute meaning that one has no living relatives left before one can apply for Public Assistance (PA) and even then, it is granted only on a case by case basis.
Another real life story: a 73 year old lady has to pick used cardboards for a living in Toa Payoh Lorong 7. She has a fifty year old son who is mentally challenged and therefore unable to hold on a permanent job. She could not qualify for PA because she still has a son, never mind the fact that nobody wants to employ him!
The PA scheme which is run by the Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports, offers only $330 monthly to its recipients which is surely insufficient to maintain a decent standard of living fit for a human being in Singapore.
A few years ago, the amount is only $290 and when PAP MP Dr Lily Neo asked MCYS Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan to increase the sum so that PA recipients can have three meals a day as an entitlement, he shot back: “How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?”
It is not as if MCYS is so cash-strapped that it is unable to provide more to the PA recipients. Dr Vivian just unveiled a $10-million dollar Community Integration Fund to make new citizens and PRs feel “welcomed” in Singapore. Why not spend it to help Singaporeans who have contributed to the nation in one way or another?
The primary role of the elected government of the day is to take care of its citizens who voted for it, not to compete with other nations in terms of some obscure economic indicator, flaunt one’s wealth to the world by saving distressed foreign banks or jet around the globe at the expense of taxpayers to lecture other leaders on how to run their countries.
Lee’s latest remarks will demolish any future attempts by the PAP to portray itself as a party which cares for Singaporeans. He has already stated very clearly in no uncertain terms: if Singaporeans are unable to keep up with the immigrants, don’t ever expect the PAP to help us – it is our business, not theirs.
For a young graduate struggling to start a family due to sky-rocketing costs of public housing, it is not the business of the PAP to bring the prices down.
For a middle-aged man who is retrenched because his company manages to find a younger and cheaper replacement from China or India, it is not the business of the PAP to help him find another job.
For an elderly man who has to work as a cleaner to support himself because he has no savings left in his CPF, it is not the business of the PAP to ensure he has three basic meals a day.
This is the kind of society Singapore has become under 44 years of uninterrupted PAP rule – cold, unfeeling and materialistic. Can such a country ever hope to attract the best talent in the world to settle here? Is it little wonder that Singapore is getting the “discards” from China and India and not their crème de la crème who prefer to migrate to U.S, Canada, Europe and Australia?
The PAP’s economic policies have already taken a toll on the low income group and are now affecting the middle class. The rich businessmen, doctors, lawyers, accountants and engineers may think they have “prospered” under PAP rule, but wait a minute – stop and ponder over the future of your children.
Do you want them to grow up competing with foreigners over a coveted place in a Singapore university? Do you want them to fight tooth and nail with the more “hard-driving and hard-striving” immigrants for a job which pays no more than $2,000 a month? Do you wish to see them perpetually stressed, frustrated and unhappy because they are unable to make enough money to finance their lifestyle? And lastly, do you really bear to see your children working for as long as they are able to because they are unable to retire?
Even for PAP members with connections inside the system – your futures are not as secure as it seems. Unless you belong to the elite, you may soon find yourselves replaced by their new “pets” from China, India, Malaysia, Philipines, Bangladesh, Timbuktu and god knows where.
The PAP is not even a political party now after the departure of the Old Guards in the 1980s. It is nothing more than an empty shell filled by department store dummies whose only purpose is to masquerade Singapore as a “parliamentary democracy” to the rest of the world.
As Lee puts it succinctly himself:
“To be the prime minister, you don’t have to know every instrument, but you got to recognise, ah, he’s a good violinist, he’ll be the first violinist, he’ll be the double bass. He will play the viola, he will have the trumpet, he will do the drums. Then you coordinate them and then you have great music. And if you already have a great orchestra, you can put a dummy there and you still got great music.”
Now we know why none of the 82 PAP MPs dare to contradict the old man – because they are all dummies who do not deserve a seat in parliament in the first place.
So Singaporeans, the next time some PAP MP come up to you and promise to voice your concerns in parliament, just remind them of the PAP’s mantra to Singaporeans:
“YOU DIE, YOUR BUSINESS!”
-
What an eyesore and earsore this LKY.
-
-
I think it should be more aptly titled "Interview with the Vampire", from Anne Rice's novel.
-
You will see Leestat telling all the Ministers, "drink from me and live forever".
-
perharps he was referring to Pandora....where the Nivi was using Bow and Arrow....and look Blue in colour.... : )
-
if you are the MM or PM, you would have said "dont worry guys, just study / work hard and the government will take care that you will keep your pay."
what do you think Singaporeans will do? Likely most will be have a "take it easy attitude" since my pay is protected by our government.
China is already here, strong and plentiful. We have to face it positively instead of running from it.
Cheap labour is not only found in Singapore. It is almost everywhere. USA, New York, Japan, Australia, UK, Europe. There are also complaints everywhere. The basic question remains, Accept or Reject.
Accept to survive. Reject to suicide.
There are also many people who find excuses to be lazy. So are you one of those who complaint here and there, then refuse to work?
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
Who should we thank for transforming Hong Kong 3rd world island into a 1st world island?
The Brits?
Weren't we under the Brits also?
Singapore is a strategic port, Raffles saw the significance long ago, that's why he bought it from the Sultanate. LKY wrest it from the Brits, put Singapore into mortal peril and then through much hardship brought Singapore to where it is today (but then decides to betray Singaporeans by selling it out to foreign talents), when all the same could have been done if it was under the British. Look at Hong Kong as a colony of the British till 1997, it's successes overshadows Singapore's.
Let me guess, still a student?
a tale of 2 cities.
hongkong, korea, taiwan, china, japan are very much homogenous places where confucianism and a strong belief in hard work run deep and play a very important aspect in their daily lives. Hongkong was a land of opportunities where free trade reigns under covetous british rule for a hundred years with a big question mark hanging over its future when the lease was running to its end in pre 1997 times. As such, the people of hongkong work their guts out day after day, not knowing what lies ahead for their families but mostly hoping that they can emigrate to other cities primarily where there are many chinese too. Quite a fair bit emigrated here then.This hard work characteristic of the hongkongers (which LKY is bemoaning our lack of here as we been mollycoddled for far too long) plus the driving fear of the communist china takeover propel hongkong to being one of the economic miracles of today's asia besides japan, korea, taiwan and singapore which majority incidentally share a similar shade of skin (any co incidence?). With such an attitude, coupled with the large amount of hardworking immigrants from commies china coming in to add to its labour force, it is no wonder that hongkong was so successful as a free enterprise place before the takeover and still is after its takeover as china has adopted a one country, two systems approach to it. Thus hongkong is still able to build upon its momentum as a free trade area from its british era days to today and it is still fuelled by cheap labour from its massive hinterland. (singapore too)
singapore on the other hand, is a young independent country, with the majority being chinese but lesser in number as compared to hongkong and certainly not homogenous. We went through the birth pangs after being thrown out suddenly and left to die. Being not homogenous has its disadvantages as shown by its past tensions and riots from religious, race and languages differences, a problem which other places like hongkong, japan, korea, taiwan dont face much of.
But did our leaders fret? Did they run away when they could??? After all some were overseas scholars and were pretty qualified to be able to walk into any western country they wish, including LKY. Hell no!! Instead he and his able leaders rolled up their sleeves and quickly drew up a blue print for the young nation and charted its progress through turbulent waters and avoiding the jagged rocks which has sunk many in this part of the world albeit they were better built with natural minerals and resources.
3rd world to 1st in less than 50 years of independent rule! Co-incidence again?
-
Why not we all move to brunei. Equally rich as Singapore but the Sultan takes good care of it's people. The people are given free pieces of land to build bungalows and it is free to visit a doctor for any citizen. A total heaven!
-
Originally posted by Bentsb05:
a tale of 2 cities.
hongkong, korea, taiwan, china, japan are very much homogenous places where confucianism and a strong belief in hard work run deep and play a very important aspect in their daily lives. Hongkong was a land of opportunities where free trade reigns under covetous british rule for a hundred years with a big question mark hanging over its future when the lease was running to its end in pre 1997 times. As such, the people of hongkong work their guts out day after day, not knowing what lies ahead for their families but mostly hoping that they can emigrate to other cities primarily where there are many chinese too. Quite a fair bit emigrated here then.This hard work characteristic of the hongkongers (which LKY is bemoaning our lack of here as we been mollycoddled for far too long) plus the driving fear of the communist china takeover propel hongkong to being one of the economic miracles of today's asia besides japan, korea, taiwan and singapore which majority incidentally share a similar shade of skin (any co incidence?). With such an attitude, coupled with the large amount of hardworking immigrants from commies china coming in to add to its labour force, it is no wonder that hongkong was so successful as a free enterprise place before the takeover and still is after its takeover as china has adopted a one country, two systems approach to it. Thus hongkong is still able to build upon its momentum as a free trade area from its british era days to today and it is still fuelled by cheap labour from its massive hinterland. (singapore too)
singapore on the other hand, is a young independent country, with the majority being chinese but lesser in number as compared to hongkong and certainly not homogenous. We went through the birth pangs after being thrown out suddenly and left to die. Being not homogenous has its disadvantages as shown by its past tensions and riots from religious, race and languages differences, a problem which other places like hongkong, japan, korea, taiwan dont face much of.
But did our leaders fret? Did they run away when they could??? After all some were overseas scholars and were pretty qualified to be able to walk into any western country they wish, including LKY. Hell no!! Instead he and his able leaders rolled up their sleeves and quickly drew up a blue print for the young nation and charted its progress through turbulent waters and avoiding the jagged rocks which has sunk many in this part of the world albeit they were better built with natural minerals and resources.
3rd world to 1st in less than 50 years of independent rule! Co-incidence again?
a tale of 2 cities.
hongkong, korea, taiwan, china, japan are very much homogenous places where confucianism and a strong belief in hard work run deep and play a very important aspect in their daily lives. Hongkong was a land of opportunities where free trade reigns under covetous british rule for a hundred years with a big question mark hanging over its future when the lease was running to its end in pre 1997 times. As such, the people of hongkong work their guts out day after day, not knowing what lies ahead for their families but mostly hoping that they can emigrate to other cities primarily where there are many chinese too. Quite a fair bit emigrated here then.So what are you telling us, the successes of Hong Kong and Singapore is directly attributable to race? We are talking about successes of Hong Kong to the 1997, not talking about the future of Hong Kong, where it would be in another 50 years or whether the citizens will emigrate to Canada.
Hong Kong's success and Singapore's is due to it's location as a port and demographics, it has nothing to do with LKY. If you put an above average Prime Minister on the seat, Singapore with her hard working citizens would have produced similar or even better results.
This hard work characteristic of the hongkongers (which LKY is bemoaning our lack of here as we been mollycoddled for far too long) plus the driving fear of the communist china takeover propel hongkong to being one of the economic miracles of today's asia besides japan, korea, taiwan and singapore which majority incidentally share a similar shade of skin (any co incidence?). With such an attitude, coupled with the large amount of hardworking immigrants from commies china coming in to add to its labour force, it is no wonder that hongkong was so successful as a free enterprise place before the takeover and still is after its takeover as china has adopted a one country, two systems approach to it. Thus hongkong is still able to build upon its momentum as a free trade area from its british era days to today and it is still fuelled by cheap labour from its massive hinterland. (singapore too)
What type of mollycoddling did the PAP do to make Singaporeans mollycoddled? Free housing, free education or free medical care?
(I think when you make this kind of statement, you owe every Singaporean an explanation of why you think we are mollycoddled) PRC immigrants or foreign talents come here because they make much more here compared to China, they can even make more in other places like Japan or US. But then the issue here isn't about providing a better life for PRCs, it's about Singaporeans. A country which my parents took great pains to build so that they can give their children and children's children a better place to live. But it seems like the PAP government have betrayed the citizens of Singapore by having an open door policy for immigration, allowing any Tom Dick and Harry to get citizenship.What is the direct consequence of this policy? Increased price levels for housing, higher unemployment rate amongst the Singapore citizens (low wage levels causes Singaporeans to shy away from some jobs, afterall if your labour supply is unlimited and your labour demand is limited, wages will drop), transportation system in shambles as carriages are packed like sardines, healthcare system in turmoil as hospitals don't have the capacity to handle the increased in population. The Health Minister just realised that our hospitals are over capacity recently, when it has been like that for at least 5 years. Good response time.
singapore on the other hand, is a young independent country, with the majority being chinese but lesser in number as compared to hongkong and certainly not homogenous. We went through the birth pangs after being thrown out suddenly and left to die. Being not homogenous has its disadvantages as shown by its past tensions and riots from religious, race and languages differences, a problem which other places like hongkong, japan, korea, taiwan dont face much of.
But did our leaders fret? Did they run away when they could??? After all some were overseas scholars and were pretty qualified to be able to walk into any western country they wish, including LKY. Hell no!! Instead he and his able leaders rolled up their sleeves and quickly drew up a blue print for the young nation and charted its progress through turbulent waters and avoiding the jagged rocks which has sunk many in this part of the world albeit they were better built with natural minerals and resources.
3rd world to 1st in less than 50 years of independent rule! Co-incidence again?
Depends on how you define homogeneity. Hong Kong is 95% Chinese, Singapore is 75% Chinese.
To some 95% might not be considered homogenous too. So you sidetrack all my earlier points to talk about race now? Like I said before, even without LKY, Singapore would have become just as good as it is now, even better, Hong Kong is a good example. Hong Kong is the same as Singapore, both lacking in natural resources. On the contrary, Hong Kong has it's fair share of riots because of it's close proximity to mainland China, something not faced by Singapore. Each has it's fair amount of challenges, both lack natural resources, but you my point is. Why has Hong Kong made it despite being under the British rule? Stop skirting around my points. Singapore's success is due to it's hardworking population and strategic location, it has nothing to do with the tyrant.
Hong Kong from 3rd world to 1st in less than 50 years. Now who is the LKY of Hong Kong?
-
What is the measurement of success?
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
What is the measurement of success?
More reserves in the pockets of the Lee government and less money in the hands of her citizens?
Then they sit on the boards of GICs getting big pay packets, but never take responsibility for any failures only taking credits for successes. Actually that's the success of PAP, not the success of Singaporeans. How they managed to wrest so much from people but nobody seems to understand. That is the political naivety of Singaporeans. Li Ao also thinks that Singaporeans are politically sterile.
-
Success?
-
Originally posted by Bentsb05:
a tale of 2 cities.
hongkong, korea, taiwan, china, japan are very much homogenous places where confucianism and a strong belief in hard work run deep and play a very important aspect in their daily lives. Hongkong was a land of opportunities where free trade reigns under covetous british rule for a hundred years with a big question mark hanging over its future when the lease was running to its end in pre 1997 times. As such, the people of hongkong work their guts out day after day, not knowing what lies ahead for their families but mostly hoping that they can emigrate to other cities primarily where there are many chinese too. Quite a fair bit emigrated here then.This hard work characteristic of the hongkongers (which LKY is bemoaning our lack of here as we been mollycoddled for far too long) plus the driving fear of the communist china takeover propel hongkong to being one of the economic miracles of today's asia besides japan, korea, taiwan and singapore which majority incidentally share a similar shade of skin (any co incidence?). With such an attitude, coupled with the large amount of hardworking immigrants from commies china coming in to add to its labour force, it is no wonder that hongkong was so successful as a free enterprise place before the takeover and still is after its takeover as china has adopted a one country, two systems approach to it. Thus hongkong is still able to build upon its momentum as a free trade area from its british era days to today and it is still fuelled by cheap labour from its massive hinterland. (singapore too)
singapore on the other hand, is a young independent country, with the majority being chinese but lesser in number as compared to hongkong and certainly not homogenous. We went through the birth pangs after being thrown out suddenly and left to die. Being not homogenous has its disadvantages as shown by its past tensions and riots from religious, race and languages differences, a problem which other places like hongkong, japan, korea, taiwan dont face much of.
But did our leaders fret? Did they run away when they could??? After all some were overseas scholars and were pretty qualified to be able to walk into any western country they wish, including LKY. Hell no!! Instead he and his able leaders rolled up their sleeves and quickly drew up a blue print for the young nation and charted its progress through turbulent waters and avoiding the jagged rocks which has sunk many in this part of the world albeit they were better built with natural minerals and resources.
3rd world to 1st in less than 50 years of independent rule! Co-incidence again?
PAP propaganda line again.
-
Feels really like a Tale of Two Cities...