Singapore demonstrates power of patriotic autocracy
Re: “Singapore: why it’s done well”, Letters, December 13.
To make a comparison between Lee Kuan Yew’s success in Singapore and Bill Gates’ dropping out of Harvard is quite ludicrous. Lee was a man of great intellect with a pragmatic approach to life. He was a shining example of patriotic autocracy and how effective for development it can be. When freed of self-interest, this method of governance is far more efficient than democracy, with its muddling and indecisive committees.
To Somsak Pola’s concluding question, the answer must be a very affirmative yes. Had Lee been the leader of Thailand, he would have been just as successful as he proved to be in Singapore. Singapore’s success is not due to its natural assets. It has advanced to its current status because Lee had the ability to recognise those assets, but, more importantly, he had the considerable intellect to employ them for the betterment of his people and country.
Like any great leader, Lee first analysed his country’s assets – its geographical position and its natural and human resources. Lee made the most of them.
Thailand is a much larger country and has correspondingly greater assets. Clever leaders will always take advantage of these to further the interests of the country and its people and their position in the world. It’s about recognising and using what is available.
His Majesty the King set an example in this direction many years ago with his royal projects and “sufficiency economy” policy. It is perhaps unfortunate for Thailand that His Majesty enjoys the status of a constitutional rather than an absolute monarch. Nobody has greater understanding of Thais and Thailand than the King does. He has given his life to his country. For that we must all be grateful.
JC Wilcox
