Reason for Visit to India:

Lee Kuan Yew was in India following an invitation from Prime Minister Rao and Finance Minister Manmohan Singh. Despite the proximity to Indian elections, he noted the commitment of Indian opposition leaders to free-market principles.

India’s Path to Reform:

Lee was optimistic about India’s economic reforms continuing post-election. He emphasized that delays in adopting reforms would disadvantage India, especially in competition with fast-growing countries like China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Myanmar.

ASEAN and India:

ASEAN countries had agreed to make India a dialogue partner. Lee expressed reservations about India becoming a full ASEAN member, fearing it would change the group’s dynamics. He cited Indonesia’s role in ASEAN as a large country that allows smaller members equal rights, which could be upset by India’s entry.

Political Populism in Elections:

Lee acknowledged that the imperatives of democratic elections sometimes require political promises that may be hard to fulfill. He mentioned that he also faced this situation in Singapore’s early elections.

Leadership Convictions and Obligations:

He emphasized that leaders must enter politics out of conviction, not as a career. Once in power, their decisions directly impact the lives of the people who trusted them, underscoring the weight of responsibility.

Evolution of Singapore:

Lee said that Singapore’s success wasn’t planned but forced by circumstances, such as separation from Malaysia. By aligning with the industrialized world, Singapore managed to “leapfrog” its regional peers. This, he attributed partly to luck, and partly to strategic choices.

Challenges in Governance:

He admitted that early on, he had to make some commitments he would have preferred not to make, due to the demands of democratic elections. Over time, these had to be moderated to align better with practical governance.

Overall, the insights cover a broad range of issues from economic reforms and international relations to the inner workings of democratic governance.

Global Integration vs. National Autonomy:

Late Lee Kuan Yew argues that nations still function autonomously, but the reality of global economic integration means that countries cannot isolate themselves without facing significant consequences. Cutting off from the international community, as demonstrated by the old Soviet Union’s economic autarky, leads to bankruptcy.

Pressure from Global Labor Force:

Even major economies like the United States, Japan, and Europe can’t escape external pressures, particularly from poorly paid workers in developing countries. These workers can produce goods and services at a fraction of the cost, thereby causing unemployment in developed nations.

Transfer of Jobs:

The former Prime Minister of Singapore points out that jobs are moving to places where they can be done more economically. Initially transferred to Malaysia and Indonesia from Singapore, these jobs are further moving to countries like Myanmar and other Southeast Asian nations as the wages in developed countries rise.

Technological Influence:

Globalization is powered by advancements in technology. Communication technologies have reduced the significance of geographical location, allowing work to be done from virtually anywhere. This capability intensifies the competition among nations, making it vital to adapt and upgrade.

Impact on Semi-Developed Countries:

Semi-developed countries like Singapore find themselves in an intermediate stage, where workers must upgrade their skills to compete. Companies have to find more economical options to stay profitable; for instance, Singapore Airlines outsources clerical work to Bombay to save costs.

Jobs Diffusion and Economic Restructuring:

The increasing capabilities of well-educated workforces in countries like India will lead to a global redistribution of jobs. Developed and semi-developed economies must restructure to adapt to these shifts.

Challenges for the Disconnected:

Countries that are unable to connect to this global network, often due to unstable conditions or lack of infrastructure like Rwanda and Somalia, find themselves increasingly marginalized in the new global landscape.

Overall, Lee Kuan Yew paints a picture of a world increasingly interconnected yet still divided into nation-states, each grappling with the transformative and often disruptive forces of globalization.

Cultural Erosion:

Lee Kuan Yew discusses the potential risk of losing cultural identity due to the pervasive influence of global media. He warns that uncritically absorbing foreign cultures, exemplified by watching American sitcoms, could lead to individuals becoming rootless, floating aimlessly without a strong cultural or ethical anchor.

Role of Government:

In terms of government intervention, Lee emphasizes the importance of imparting basic values to young people both at home and in schools to counteract external influences. Borrowing from the Catholic Church’s notion that the first 12 years of upbringing are pivotal, he argues that in Singapore’s context, 18 years might be necessary to instill a strong value system.

Democratic Constraints:

When questioned about the democratic implications of such intervention, Lee counters that the government’s actions are guided by the will of the people who elected it. He dismisses the abstract concept of “liberal opinion,” stressing his government’s accountability to its constituents.

Preserving Core Values:

Despite technological and social shifts, Lee is confident that his electorate supports the government’s efforts to maintain core cultural and ethical values. He insists that adopting elements of foreign cultures, like technology and fast food, doesn’t necessitate a compromise in these core values.

Gum Chewing and Cultural Nuances:

In a lighter vein, Lee takes issue with the habit of chewing gum, pointing out its detrimental effects on public infrastructure like trains. He uses this example to illustrate that the fear of Western ridicule should not deter a community from maintaining its unique practices and values.

In this segment, Lee Kuan Yew explores the challenges and responsibilities that governments face in preserving cultural identity amid the tide of globalization. He stresses that while absorbing global influences is inevitable, a strong internal compass of values must be maintained.

Self-Perception as a Statesman:

Lee Kuan Yew is reluctant to label himself as a statesman, despite receiving such praise. He suggests that such a designation is for others to bestow and that he remains humble, not allowing it to inflate his ego.

Admired Statesmen:

When asked about statesmen he admires, Lee Kuan Yew mentions Charles de Gaulle, Mao Zedong, and Mahatma Gandhi, though he notes each had their limitations. For example, he points out that while Gandhi’s teachings were instrumental in his era, they may not be wholly applicable to modern India.

Common Traits of Statesmen:

Lee identifies the defining quality of a statesman as the ability to rise above personal interests to significantly impact the lives of their people. He specifically mentions how Mao Zedong’s efforts laid the groundwork for Deng Xiaoping to modernize China, suggesting that such transformative leadership defines greatness.

Assessment of Deng Xiaoping:

Lee credits Deng Xiaoping with steering China towards modernization, defying expectations. He contrasts this to the short-term idealism of youth-led movements like Tiananmen Square, suggesting that Deng’s pragmatic approach has set China on a more sustainable and impressive trajectory.

Role in Singapore Politics:

Finally, in the context of his own political career, Lee Kuan Yew describes himself as a “supernumerary consultant,” focused on aiding his successors. He implies that his own legacy depends on the success of those who follow him, emphasizing the importance of continuity in governance.

Through this dialogue, Lee Kuan Yew delves into the essence of statesmanship, reflecting on its impact both in historical and contemporary contexts. He stresses the importance of transformative leadership that serves the greater good, over personal ambition or short-lived idealism.