Mr Lee Kuan Yew recently created a furor. I first ignored the matter and left it as, \’the senile one speaks again!\’ My last memory of such poor content was when he had said \’non-graduate ladies in Singapore should not have children or something silly like that\’.

But, this weekend after I read Paddy Bowie\’s passionate plea in the NST for \’truth of the matter\’, I have decided to join this dialogue. I normally would like to see a good two-sided dialogue and debate on any issue, without a serious consideration regarding who \”wins the argument\”.

As Peter Vaill, my Doctoral Chairman and Professor wrote, \”winning is what you decide winning to be.\” So, here goes my contribution in the search for truth on the LKY matter in discourse.

Paddy Bowie\’s argument, while entirely correct, is only one half of the entire debate. Why? LKY did not say entrepreneurial Chinese in Malaysia are marginalized. He argued that both in Indonesia and Malaysia the Chinese community (my words) are marginalized by systematic policies to discriminate them.

Neither did LKY say the opposite, that the Chinese in Singapore especially, or the Indians or Malays are not assisted by the government. But before I develop my complete argument, allow me first to register my protest towards this \”benevolent dictator\”, who is still a true nationalist and a respected statesman for Singapore and in much of the world.

My only and singular protest is that he cannot be my preacher or teacher because he was unkind to my good friend Chandra Muzaffar who is still persona non grata in Singapore from his student days. My question is why such \’fear of one man and his ideas and ideals\’ if you are serious about this search for truth of any matter?

Now for my argument in support of LKY\’s central thesis, as I now reread it. I have only briefly met LKY once when he visited Kuala Lumpur during the fence-mending meetings in Malaysia at a dinner function hosted by ASLI. In my doctoral thesis I too struggled with a similar dilemma; what I have since called the unit of analysis issue. To me the real question is, \”can any Malaysian Chinese or non-Malay continue to live and work in this country, with dignity and a sense of destiny?\”

To address this honest and serious question comprehensively one has to analyze two sets of factors; the role of the individual and his or her sense of \”human freedoms\”, and the role of the \”cultural or organizational environment\” which facilitates or hinders this perceived role realization.

Both are equally important, necessary and sufficient conditions. Ms Bowie\’s entire argument was based only on the former and articulated based on her role in the media industry the last 50 years.

While I believe that LKY\’s entire thesis was a political one based on his \”more than 50 years involved in the politics of the region,\” including before Malaysia and well within the Federation of Malaya.

Its about the community

Let us therefore not simply throw the baby out with the bathwater; nor dismiss it as a simple and nave comment!

\"\"

I can agree with LKY in terms of the \”organizational culture or environment\” argument. In Indonesia, with their renewed Islamic extremism, especially under democratic conditions and in Malaysia, with the renewed emphasis of the Ketuanan Melayu agenda by none other than Jaafar Onn\’s grandson through the raising of the Keris, LKY is right about the \”perceived marginalization of the Chinese as a community\”.

It is not about individuals but about the community as a whole; their rights, freedoms and everything else related to their life of dignity and sense of destiny. I am sure it is a perception that more then LKY shares.

Why else would the Umno Deputy President publicly \”reprimand\” a CM of a state from another Government Party on the matter of national economic management? Why else would the Umno Youth leader and Ex-Officio vice president \”reprimand\” another MCA vice president for speaking the truth about \”political corruption\” at the lowest levels of federal governance?

Why else would a dialogue on the constitution and Article 11 be discontinued under the so-called \”Islam Hadhari\” rhetoric when Islam teaches never-ending learning and the PM says he represents all groups in the nation-state?

Why else would a DAP Forum held in the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall be so popular and most speakers may even agree with LKY if he had been \”more diplomatic in his framing of the real and core issues?\”

Ms Bowie, LKY never said Singapore is a brilliant example of lone-ranger capitalistic entrepreneurship. That is simply your pet hypothesis because you only assume the individual as the basis of all ontological analysis.

That is an entirely western idea and a limited model of \”knowing the truth\”. French philosopher Renesis Descartes popularized it under his famous \”I think therefore I am thesis\”. By the West, I mean all geography west of Istanbul.

My critique however is from the East, what is otherwise called an Oriental perspective, wherein the basic assumptions about truth also relates to the group as the unit of analysis. So, for instance, the community always knows the truth of a text within its context.

For instance, within the Abraham faiths, we go back to the historic and common knowledge of such truths through the community\’s interpretation of the revealed truths via our scriptures.

\’We must kowtow\’

Nonetheless, without getting into the details of \”how such a group KNOWS,\” you have yourself argued that LKY remains a respected elder and Minister Mentor because of his Confucian worldview assumptions.

Such a worldview would always argue that what is good \”for Ford was good for America.\” Consequently, what is good for the Singapore cabinet and government is good for all Singaporeans!

Genuine market-based entrepreneurship premised on the individual as the unit of analysis is less relevant than market-based GLC domination from within Singapore moving outwards! That is an entirely Eastern way of understanding truth! That is also probably why the Thais got very upset with Mr Thaksin because he \”sold out to another foreign government\’s stewardship fund!\”

That may also be why Tun Dr Mahathir is very upset with the Umno leadership because they too \”kowtowed\” to a foreign government only on the basis of \”fear of legal repercussions\” regarding the \”crooked or scenic bridge that became a non-bridge!\”

The context is an old rivalry between the two \”statesmen\” being fought by proxy through the sons, now! But, our son-in-law may also have sold out our interests, according to Tun Dr Mahathir\’s findings!

Finally, let me also now go one step further to try and discredit the Lone Ranger Capitalism argument for the interest of economists in Malaysia who have not fully appreciated our model of non-free market developmental economics as well.

My core thesis comes from the Amitai Etzioni\’s \”I-We Paradigm,\” which he argued in the book entitled \”The Moral Dimension: Towards a New Economics.\” Applying the model, even the Lim Goh Tongs of the world needed the Tan Sri Noah Family and the Sultan of Pahang to \”take real and material entrepreneurial risks\”.

In short they all need their \”Tonto\’s and Silvers,\” or their smart partners and equally smart technology. Ms Bowie, please ask yourself whether any of us can really \”succeed in Malaysia or Singapore\” if we do not \”kowtow\” to the political hegemonic reality? We cannot.

All of the so-called lone ranger capitalists you quoted have their \’tontos and silvers\’ but also operated under the \”good behavior code of the political imperative!\” The only difference is that in Singapore these were not at all individuals but the rather the state represented by good public stewards.

And so, Singapore continues with their modern but socialistic capitalism based on the interests of the Chinese as the predominant community. They have in fact withstood and argued against all and any universal human rights criticisms, but with disregard to the core modern human rights argument based solely on the individual as the unit of analysis.

They reject unbridled dignity defined only in terms of the political human rights argument. But, so has the US learned this lesson after 911, about protecting their national interests. That is why, even with the IMF and the World Bank in their home ground, they can say, \”you are welcome to Singapore but we have our own way for doing things and when in Singapore respect our values.\”

Robber barons

And the rest of the world did put on such \”good behavior,\” except for the representatives of the marginalized civil society in Singapore and the world, and the media who brought this into global attention.

Dear Ms Bowie, we must recognize our weaknesses of modern capitalism as practiced in Malaysia as well. While we have supported Lone Ranger Capitalism in Malaysia, we have also made some of them into Robin Hoods and legitimized \”official theft!\” Thankfully now though an American scientist is studying the Robin Hood myth to authenticate if this \”official thief is also a real civil society hero!\”

In Malaysia we have many \”official and public ordained robber barons\”. Some are called AP Kings. Others are given Tan Sri titles. Yet others are called Tengku Putras and many others, Umnoputeras!

They are robber barons of and from the public interest. As also a Putera of sorts and the Founding Secretary of the alumni of the Royal Military College, we too have failed to distinguish the difference between the robber barons and the needs of the ordinary \”proletariat\” (or the bottom 30%) who want good and basic public services, served efficiently and effectively.

But, unlike in Singapore where LKY put his own minister in jail for stealing, in Malaysia, we put them in the cabinet and ask them to preach sermons! And Mr LKY, as much as I still dislike your role as a dictator, I must admit your benevolence is coming out with the \”efficacy of the Singapore\’s Public Governance model\”.

I heard that before your last General Election you all even paid all the workers of Singapore a graduated and well deserved bonus. Instead in Malaysia we steal from the state and then ask Khazanah, Petronas or EPF to \”buy back or bail out\”.

Ms Bowie I do not want to sound very hard and over critical but the NST being your chosen vehicle for your voice may mean you perceive yourself as part and parcel of the mainstream.

In Singapore too, you will do well and excel. But if we really want to speak for the marginalized voices, as LKY tries to do, as did the Robin Hoods or Long Rangers of old, please become like the Chandra Muzaffars or the Jeyaratnams who have consistently and persistently stood for justice and righteousness, regardless of the process and on which side of the divide the evil is found!

LKY has stood the test of time and while personally I still do not like him yet, he has earned my respect for his consistent argument and wise statements on many issues; and for taking Singapore where it is today!

To conclude, as a classical optimist, I am also still hopeful that both former PMs, Mahathir and Thaksin too will also become Statesmen after their own nation-state\’s real agendas, but only time can and will tell that.

History has its own way of identifying her own heroes; when time and space allow them. In the meantime let us continue our search for truth and seek to speak the truth in love, full of grace and hope. God Bless.

(This week\’s column is dedicated to my good and faithful friend Vergis Thomas (or Mohan) who was called home to be with the Lord last Thursday. He fought the good fight and ran the good race until the very end. May we all continue in his example as a soldier, friend and faithful one).