Singapore a multiracial meritocracy

Singapore a multiracial meritocracy

It's interesting that Singapore's Mentor Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said yesterday, "Singapore is a multiracial meritocracy."

He could have said instead,"Singapore is a multiracial democracy", for Singapore follows the British parliamentary system – the prime minister is the head of government, which is elected by the people.

But he used the word "meritocracy" instead. A trained lawyer and a speaker as good as MM Lee does not use words carelessly.

Noteworthy too is his remark about the relative unimportance of Singapore. He said:

Singapore cannot take its relevance for granted. Small countries perform no vital or irreplaceable functions in the international system. Singapore has to continually reconstruct itself and keep its relevance to the world and to create political and economic space. This is the economic imperative for Singapore.

What is remarkable is his drive --

"We have to be different from others in our neighbourhood and have a competitive edge", he said --

and his pragmatism:

"We must never delude ourselves that we are a part of the First World in Southeast Asia, a Second and Third World group of countries… Singapore’s destiny would be very different if we were sited in Europe or North America."

Would his People's Action Party (PAP) have enjoyed uninterrupted power for 40 years – ever since Singapore was granted self-government by Britain in 1959 – had the city state been part of Europe or North America?

The PRI dominated Mexico even longer – ever since the party was founded in 1929 till the 1990s. Franco dominated Spain from 1939 till his death in 1975. Salazar dominated Portugal from 1932 till he fell ill in 1968 – he died two years later.

The LDP has dominated Japan since the party was founded in 1955 – it lost the 1993 election only to return to power in a coalition a year later and won the next election in 1996.

The difference is Singapore, unlike Japan, has only two elected opposition members of parliament.

In his speech, MM Lee alluded to his own achievements as Singapore's first prime minister. He said:

Singapore has since 1965 plugged into the international economic grid. We welcomed multinational companies (MNCs) to invest and manufacture in Singapore when the conventional wisdom was that MNCs exploit Third World countries. As an open economy, we took full advantage of globalization.

And China learnt from Singapore, he said: "Since 1996, we have trained over 16,000 Chinese officials."

Stressing the importance of good leadership, he said:

"A mediocre PM and cabinet will decline our standing with other countries…"

Umm, excuse me. Our standing with other countries may decline if we have a mediocre PM and cabinet. But can a mediocre PM and cabinet decline our standing with other countries? They may decline an invitation to visit other countries or to hold talks with other countries. But can they decline our standing with other countries?

"Decline", in the sense of "refuse", can be a transitive as well as an intransitive verb. But "decline", in the sense of "diminish", is an intransitive verb.

That's what Encarta says.

But language is constantly changing and MM Lee, who will be 86 in September, keeps himself updated on everything.

He urges the same openness on Singapore to help the city state make economic progress:

Globalisation cannot be reversed because the technologies that made globalisation inevitable cannot be uninvented... Singapore has to embrace this reality and remain open to talent, capital, technology and immigrants to make up for our low birth rate (total fertility rate of 1.29) with around 35,000 babies each year.

MM Lee's speech on The Fundamentals Of Singapore's Foreign Policy: Then And Now is good reading as a short summary of Singapore's history and current thinking about the benefits of globalization -- and that while there will be competition between America and China, conflict is not inevitable.

One can only hope so.

For only once in recent history has a major power peacefully ceded supremacy to another. That was during the Second World War when Britain became the junior partner of the Anglo-American alliance. Churchill realized he did not have the strength and resources to match America and Russia.

Personally, I am very much in favour of what MM Lee calls the status quo. It is impossible to resist the soft power of America.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26621.1