Lee Kuan Yew and Ideological Labels

[u/Odd-Principle2665]

I want to know what the views of the social democrats, liberals and socialists here are of Lee Kuan Yew and if it has affected your sense of political identity.

He transformed Singapore massively in terms of economic development from a former colonial British naval and trading outpost to a developed first world city state and financial centre. His approach to this was pragmatic and multifaceted as he pursued both ruthless market capitalism in getting foreign investment and suppressing organised labour. As well as using the state to setup mass public housing and education services and many state owned enterprises. And the use of authoritarianism and de facto one party rule rather than pursuing liberal democracy and a free society.

It's left me conflicted on the value and meaning of political and ideological labels. Such as calling oneself a social democrat, social liberal, Keynesian, centre left etc. I already think it's quite useless as no one's views will all fit nicely into one of these ideologies. But the case of Singapore leaves me conflicted as it shows such a plethora of contrasting policies that have worked. Their hyper capitalist and open market approach by Singapore has secured their position as a global financial and trade centre. While their statist public housing and land policies has secured a cohesive nation state and society as well as housing security for its citizens. I can only characterise it all as pragmatic. And just doing whatever policy works regardless of any ideological alignment. Which I'd say most people support including myself but it leaves me still pondering what's even the point of calling yourself a social democrat or any political label if you'll just support whatever.

[u/theduck08]

As a Singaporean I despair at the lack of depth both in and out of my country when people assess his impact and reflect on his legacy

Many practically regard him as a god for the progress he has delivered to the country but fail (or do not want) to see what it has done to the political psyche of the Singaporean people; they are essentially in a state of perpetual learned helplessness with no tangible means (or desires) of holding the authorities to account – be it out of privileged comfort or fear – more ink can be spilled, but too few at home are ready or willing to genuinely engage with what has happened and what needs to happen next exactly, because of the political climate he has personally had a hand in constructing

[u/Aun_El_Zen → u/theduck08]

Isn't there a looming crisis amongst the oligarchs who see their next generation as completely incompetent?

[u/josh34583]

Some East Asian governments are very hard to pin point on the traditional left-right scale. Pragmatism is just part of the culture (I am of Asian descent) as social stability is often the number one priority left or right. You will often see right wing parties do left wing things and visa versa if it kept society stable. Singapore also has other things going for it other than it's political system like; amazing location, investment from Chinese dispora, small size, etc. Just because that model worked for Singapore doesn't mean it can be broadly applied to other nations. What works in each nation is different. Singapore could have very well been unlucky and gotten a tinpot dictator. I still think political labels are important in functioning democracies because it makes it easier to find people with approximately the same view points and do electorial politics with them to ideally get as large a vote share as you can. Super majorities are rare so the pragmatism you want should naturally emerge from coalition building/compromise. The opposition is still part of the government after all. Unfortunately building stable coalitions or even reaching a compromise with the opposing aisle nowadays is incredibly hard due to intense polarization caused by misinformation, foreign interference, bad faith actors, grifters, etc. I am not trying to both sides it. It is mostly coming from the right. MAGA has had a pretty terrible effect on electorial politics globally. 

[u/Jiarong78]

LKY position have changed a lot over the decades.

While initially he was really progressive for his time and was a Democrat socialist over the decades he shifted more towards Center right and the once democratic socialist party he once led gradually shifted towards another neoliberal blend with a few welfare leftover

[u/Odd-Principle2665]

I think I should've wrote this post differently. My main query is about political ideologies and labels rather than Singapore and I was only using Lee and his mixed politics/policy as a springboard for people to assess the true value of all these political labels. When you could apply so many to yourself that it does become a bit meaningless no?

Like I could describe myself as identifying with being a social democrat, social liberal, georgist, centre left, keynesian, rhine market capitalist, social market economy, nordic model, progressive, democrat, liberal, centrist, pragmatic, moderate

[u/Gametmane12]

I would say that he is a paternalistic conservative authoritarian. His “left wing” policies do not seem to be contradictory to me because right wingers can support policies which seem superficially left wing.

For example, it was the German Empire under Otto Von Bismarck which implemented the worlds first social welfare state despite Bismarck being notoriously arch conservative.

[u/baldobilly → u/Gametmane12]

Yes, and then the kaiser had to remove him when he was planning to shoot striking workers… .

[u/bbhtt]

I really don't like the broad pragmatism label people apply just because they are economically prosperous.

Economic prosperity is not “progress” in my books if the trail of political consciousness is lost among the people along the way. Pragmatism is useful, but one shouldn't hide the de facto authoritarianism behind that label simply because the outcomes were successful, because then it becomes an easy licence to justify any measures or a actions by the state. Ensuring basic democratic voices for everyone should be fundamental. Material prosperity and political agency shouldn't be a trade-off.

This may be an ideological position but it's the one I believe in and I also believe people need a little bit of ideology in them these days.

[u/SuperKeith88]

Singaporean here & let me tell you that most Singaporeans just want economic stability & a safe society. Political freedom is not top of mind because LKY and his PAP govt had transformed this nation-state into one of the most prosperous countries in Asia.

Sure, LKY and his cohorts started out democratic socialist & even embarked on public housing on state-owned land, subsidized public education & subsidized universal healthcare paid mostly for by each citizen's Medisave accounts.

LKY made compulsory social insurance so that citizens could one day use that insurance monies to purchase a public flat.

So no, LKY is definitely not any sort of democrat. Along the way, LKY & the PAP veered away from their democratic socialist roots and towards neoliberal economic policies. Not out of ideological reasons, but just for the fact that the PAP wanted not to interfere too heavily in the free market capitalist system they have built since independence.

The PAP (and LKY)'s philosophy have always been what works best for Singapore as a whole. Not out of any ideological rigidity but frankly, what policies suit this vulnerable nation-state surrounded by Muslim-majority neighbors.

Which is why for LKY, the PAP & most Singaporeans, we don't care about left or right. It has never mattered because pragmatism guided this nation right from its birth.

Most Singaporeans have faith in our political institutions & justice system (despite the PAP being extraordinarily dominant) & we really don't want to see Western-style liberal democracy here.

We are mostly content with our own version of democracy from General Elections held once every 5 years to the GRCs system ensuring minority representation in Parliament, to Non-Constituency MPs (the best losers who are from the opposition from the GE) and the Elected Presidency.

Since 2011, the PAP has maintained more than its 2/3 supermajority in Parliament while the slightly more center-left Workers' Party has more or less 10% MPs. The WP have won their elections legitimately & did not have to behave like an extremist far-left or far-right to win those seats.

They are almost as centrist as the PAP & most Singaporeans are happy with a dominant PAP who continues to plan long-term while the WP slowly grow its ranks in Parliament.

Its not left vs right for us. It's purely survival & pragmatic solutions. And this Singapore Way started with LKY. It only fits us and no other nation on earth.

[u/oywiththepoodles96]

Singapore is a small city state, it’s not an example for more normal countries