I am in awe of Lee Kuan Yew. Sat down to watch his interview with Charlie Rose, and in 1 hour, he made me nod my head numerous times, and made me wanna take notes. His intelligence and knowledge is just incredible.
Of course, nagging thoughts of his authocratic harshness stays. Especially when he talked about the importance of history, which is a good thing. But beneath those wise words on how we can learn for history, one gets a sense of his hard concern with legacy, and obsession on how greatness gets remembered, rather than being concerned with the little people. I’ll give you this example:
LKY: (about Iraq) Casualties have crossed the 1,000 mark. It`s a disaster. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. They`re killing each other and they`ll continue to kill each other.
I think you have to look at it in the long term. All this will be forgotten, but how did you, at the end of the day, hold your head up and said, I came to do good, and I did good.
You did not go as conquerors. But alas, for various reasons, you didn`t get the blessings of the UN. Otherwise, it would have been much easier. And you had to carry the burden of being an occupying force. You go through with this, leave it in better shape, and you`ll still be a leader of the world.
ROSE: There is also this lesson, whether it`s Singapore or China or Vietnam
or Iraq, you have to learn from history.
LKY: Yes.
So that was my one quibble (in bold, which I read as a referral to himself…), as well as the very thing that his haters like to pick on…the fact that this -is- a great man, and the tragic lives of the small men will be secondary (in his eyes) to the legend of the big man. That all this (the 100,000s that died) will be forgotten, might be sadly true. But that is his main concern. Which is uncomfortable for me to accept.
And I do know many that cannot accept that. Yet, I must bashfully admit the inhuman in me and I remain in awe of his charisma and sharp intellect. As mentioned in a conversation last night, some people like their leaders they can identify with, that they can warm up to. I personally don’t like my leaders to be the everyday man so in touch with the masses. I’ll leave that to my next door neighbour or the town mayor/local minister. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe leaders should be untouchable and distant. It takes a special individual to connect with the people, while inspiring awe at the same time, be charismatic, with intelligence clearly beyond the everyday man, to lead. Call it elitist, but I think that’s called personal preference.