Hong Kong loyalists pining for a firm hand, à la Lee Kuan Yew, should think again
Stephen Vines says coercive rule no longer goes down well in Singapore
The death of the Singaporean patriarch Lee Kuan Yew has predictably led to a flurry of commentaries lamenting the lack of similarly firm leadership here in Hong Kong.
They completely miss the point about why Hong Kong has succeeded in ways that Singapore has not. Hong Kong's freer way of life has not only had beneficial social and economic consequences but has resulted in international competitiveness in ways that dwarf Singapore, especially in the financial and legal sectors.
This is not to deny that Singapore, under Lee's leadership, achieved enormous economic success, but its international reach is actively challenged by the alternative that exists, thanks to the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary and freedom of speech that creates an environment conducive to the operations of sophisticated global companies.
It is puzzle why those who shout loudest about being Hong Kong loyalists vie to be first in line to disparage the SAR given the smallest of opportunities.
Not only should they be ashamed, but they should know a little more about Singapore, where things are happening that challenge the stranglehold on power enjoyed by Lee's People's Action Party (PAP).
The PAP's share of the vote sunk to its lowest level since independence in the last general election, voices challenging the authoritarianism of the government are pronouncedly louder and there are indications of unrest in the country's Muslim community. Meanwhile, many of the brightest and best in Singapore have been voting with their feet and moving to places with a more liberal atmosphere, Hong Kong among them.
Yet the widespread mourning over the death of Lee is genuine and a great many people believe Singapore would be a much lesser place without his distinct way of ruling.
However, it takes a leap into a rather dark place to conclude that this form of rule is what Hong Kong needs. Even the government's most deranged supporters do not seriously believe that Leung Chung-ying is even vaguely comparable to Lee in terms of stature, and few would trust him with the powers in the hands of Singapore's rulers.
Yet, the call for firm leadership is appealing, especially in a place where political paralysis is the order of the day. But what does this mean? Are those advocating this kind of leadership thinking that Hong Kong would benefit without the constraints of an independent judiciary, without the right to express opposition, without a free media and given the draconian powers that keep criticism to a minimum?
If this is what they believe, they should have the decency to be upfront and spell it out. Or is it that they do not understand what successful firm leadership really means? Do they believe, for example, that Winston Churchill, who led Britain through the second world war, was thwarted by a system that threw him out of office at the conclusion of the war?
Voters sought an alternative because they understood that the demands of peacetime recovery required a different kind of leader, and they were right. In voting Churchill out of office, they were proving the strength of a democratic system that allows its people to demonstrate an intelligent appreciation of the country's needs, as opposed to the needs of the leaders.
Successful strong leadership is always based on widespread popular support. Lee managed to secure this for many years but when that support started to fade, he deployed coercion to retain power for himself and his successors. This leaves a more complex legacy than is being suggested in the current assessment of Lee's leadership.
Hong Kong needs to think carefully before travelling down a road that many Singaporeans no longer wish to travel.
