AH challenge: Lee Kwan Yew a major world statesman

[Michael E Johnson]

According to this he was-different Lee Kwan though


https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=931&highlight=quan

Li Quan (General) 1961-1995

When one thinks of the Eugenics War the name Khan Singh usually
springs to mind.Its becoming more evident that the "power behind the
throne" in the Great Khanate was General Li Quan.Li Quan was first
noticed as the brilliant eugenic Chinese general who lead the
campaign against Taiwan in September-October 1992 at Chairman Minseis
behest.Once the command structure of the Khanate was established in
1993 Li Quan quickly became the leading general.Quan argued
forcefully for an "East then West " military strategy for the
Khanate.The nations conquered first would be South Korea,Japan,the
Philippines,Singapore.Once the Khanate had firmly controlled East
Asia it could then move West striking out at
Australia,Turkey,Israel ,South Africa and eventually Russia, Europe
and the United States.Quan was overruled by Khan Singh who was eager
to bring the "order of the Khanate" to the West.Quan was against the
campaign but he lead the invasion of Australia with vigor.Despite the
huge loss of manpower and resources the Khanate captured the Pacific
superpower in only 7 months.After Australia and New Zealand's
surrender in May 1994 Quan clamored for a focus on South Korea and
Japan but was again overruled by Khan Singh and General Muhammad
Hasan of Iran who both wanted a worldwide front.Quan cringed at the
decision to attack the United States and Israel along with South
Korea in June 1994.He privately said "Khan Singh is determined that
we will win the world,even if were are defeated doing so".Quan threw
himself into the South Korea campaign and that nation was conquered
in less than 3 months.Quan's hoped for invasion of Japan was again
held up when General Hasan fumbled the invasion of Turkey in October
1994.The Great Khanate had to divert nearly half its army to Syria
and Iraq to prevent a total catastrophe.Li Quan always displayed a
balance of thoughtfulness and ruthlessness.He successfully argued
against General Hasans desire for an all out nuclear exchange with
Israel after it nuked Tehran in retaliation for Tel Aviv noting"Once
we conquer the world we will still have to live in it".However his
campaign in South Korea was brutal and civilian causalities were
high.Li Quan had always argued that the Khanate was overextending
itself but the arrogance of Khan Singh,Hasan and others on the
command staff didnt allow them to believe that their superior lot
could ever be defeated by a pack of weakling normals.It's ironic that
Quan ultimately lost his life in the fight he had longed for the
whole time he lead the Khanate forces-the Battle of the Sea of
Japan.That defeat did more that save Japan from invasion but
fractured the Khanate into several warring camps who either wanted to
stop the expansion and consolidate their current holdings or continue
to expand.This infighting created a valuable opening for the
Democratic Alliance and the Khanate was destroyed a year and a half
after that pivotal battle.What if Khan Singh had swallowed his
enormous pride and listened to the sound military advice of General
Li Quan?Scary thought but it would make a good book.

Travis Mitchell
The History Journal
April 10,2000

 

[Thande]

Then again that's a conscious decision originally instituted so as not to antagonise Malaysia and Indonesia, which wouldn't be an issue in TTL. In fact Lee might well decide to play up on British patriotism, emphasizing unity and discouraging the nationalist movements of the UK's component nations.

He sounds like a more effective Gordon Brown

Of course it is naturally in the interests of any foreign-born leader to emphasise supranational unity.

 

[galanx]

Not that different. Probably less emphasis on welfare but you have to remember that it wouldn't change that much given the relatively short time period we're talking about.

In many ways a Lee government would probably be like a cross between Thatcher's Conservatives and New Labour- he would still break the unions but there'd probably be a lot of emphasis on retraining those people and getting them into service economy jobs as opposed to manufacturing.

And shutting down any media that doesn't constantly praise the government and turning the country into a one-party state by bankrupting opposition politicians through kangaroo courts.

And, of course, reinstating the hereditary principle by appointing his son as the next leader.

Maybe he could emigrate to Venezuela and become Hugo Chavez?

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

Could we do it by incorporating Singapore into the U.K.?

Or, for a rather crazier idea, the US?

 

[Keenir]

And shutting down any media that doesn't constantly praise the government and turning the country into a one-party state by bankrupting opposition politicians through kangaroo courts.

And, of course, reinstating the hereditary principle by appointing his son as the next leader.

Maybe he could emigrate to Venezuela and become Hugo Chavez?

what are you babbling about?

 

[Wendell]

Or, for a rather crazier idea, the US?

As interesting as that could be it is extraordinarily unlikely.

 

[Wendell]

Not that different. Probably less emphasis on welfare but you have to remember that it wouldn't change that much given the relatively short time period we're talking about.

In many ways a Lee government would probably be like a cross between Thatcher's Conservatives and New Labour- he would still break the unions but there'd probably be a lot of emphasis on retraining those people and getting them into service economy jobs as opposed to manufacturing.

There would probably be a conscious effort to either bring the UK into NAFTA or more fully into the EEC. Lee has stated in his memoirs that he has always seen postwar Britain as nothing more than a second-rate power and he would definitely try to integrate it's economy into a wider bloc. Assuming he takes power at the head of a Liberal government in the late '70's/early '80's, Britain might well be part of the Eurozone now, for example.

I like the idea of this U.K. joining NAFTA.

 

[Thande]

Or, for a rather crazier idea, the US?

That would be crazily unlikely even for an ordinary government, never mind one already run by someone foreign-born.

I would expect an emphasis on Britain standing alone based on that (being prone to accusations of selling out to international organisations) though some level of Europe or NAFTA is probably unavoidable given the overall situation.

 

[Susano]

Of course teh question is wether the guy really would be as sucessful as major world statesman. After all, it appears to me his sucess lies in micromanaging Singapore, something that doesnt work so well with non-city states.

 

[Flocculencio]

Of course teh question is wether the guy really would be as sucessful as major world statesman. After all, it appears to me his sucess lies in micromanaging Singapore, something that doesnt work so well with non-city states.

He definitely wouldn't be as successful as he was in Singapore- as you say, that's due to the ability to micromanage.

However, I think it would be interesting to see how Britain would develop under a non-ideological leader, as opposed to OTLs Right wing vs Left wing struggle that went on until New Labour.

 

[Flocculencio]

And shutting down any media that doesn't constantly praise the government and turning the country into a one-party state by bankrupting opposition politicians through kangaroo courts.

And, of course, reinstating the hereditary principle by appointing his son as the next leader.

Maybe he could emigrate to Venezuela and become Hugo Chavez?

Wow, someones got a chip on their shoulder.

What's the problem? He did what needed to be done and now we're liberalising. Democracy doesn't work without the economic underpinnings- we've got those now and are moving towards it. I'm a middle-class Singaporean, I've got an incredibly high standard of living, security, a decent health plan- I don't care if I don't have absolutely free speech (a state of affairs that, as I said, is rapidly changing).

Comparing him to Hugo Chavez makes no sense- last time I checked Lee was the opposite of populist.

Besides, in the context of TTL, he obviously wouldn't be able to take those steps seeing as he would be working within the framework of an already developed liberal democracy.

 

[Flocculencio]

Or, for a rather crazier idea, the US?

You wouldn't be able to make him a major statesman though. Perhaps as an appointed secretary or something but not as an elected official since he'd be ineligible for President (and I doubt US voters in the 70's would vote in a nonwhite president anyway).

 

[Thande]

He definitely wouldn't be as successful as he was in Singapore- as you say, that's due to the ability to micromanage.

However, I think it would be interesting to see how Britain would develop under a non-ideological leader, as opposed to OTLs Right wing vs Left wing struggle that went on until New Labour.

I would argue that Britain had little of an ideological divide between the parties between 1945 and 1979 - but the resulting consensus was not always the most appropriate one. What would LKY's attitude to the welfare state be?

 

[Flocculencio]

I would argue that Britain had little of an ideological divide between the parties between 1945 and 1979 - but the resulting consensus was not always the most appropriate one. What would LKY's attitude to the welfare state be?

He'd have to accept it to a certain extent, seeing as it was already an entrenched part of British society- he'd probably try to redirect it's emphasis though. I suspect a lot of welfare funding would be directed towards reeducating people for more relevant jobs.

 

[galanx]

Wow, someones got a chip on their shoulder.

What's the problem? He did what needed to be done and now we're liberalising. Democracy doesn't work without the economic underpinnings- we've got those now and are moving towards it. I'm a middle-class Singaporean, I've got an incredibly high standard of living, security, a decent health plan- I don't care if I don't have absolutely free speech (a state of affairs that, as I said, is rapidly changing).

Really? Happy to hear it. When you launch your opposition party, I'll be the first to contribute to the welfare fund for your wife and children.

Chip on my shoulder?
Of course I do. I live in Taiwan (permanent resident, Taiwanese wife and children). Lower standard of living, decent health plan and absolutely free speech: actually, probably too much by any reasonable standard, but nobody ever accused the Taiwanese of being reasonable, bless'em.

Security? Not so much, and a helluva lot less if Lee had his way.

Comparing him to Hugo Chavez makes no sense- last time I checked Lee was the opposite of populist.

As to Hugo Chavez, I was referring to Lee's well known propensity for shutting down opposition media and political parties. Certainly I would never accuse him of having any bias toward helping the poor.

Besides, in the context of TTL, he obviously wouldn't be able to take those steps seeing as he would be working within the framework of an already developed liberal democracy.

In which case he'd be your standard right wing crank, supported by some think tank while he whinges about the lower classes, taxes, and the inferior races threatening to overwhelm us all.

Though if in the framework of a liberal democracy he'd be a nice liberal democrat, why is it so hard to imagine that in the framework of a Latin American caudilloism he wouldn't want to be El Jefe? The Fujimori of...?

 

[Keenir]

Really? Happy to hear it. When you launch your opposition party, I'll be the first to contribute to the welfare fund for your wife and children.

I think the question isn't "when is Flocc launching his opposition party?" but "does Flocc want to launch an opposition party?" or "why would Flocc launch an opposition party?"

I think everyone in AH.com would contribute to the fund.

As to Hugo Chavez, I was referring to Lee's well known propensity for shutting down opposition media and political parties.

Name one democracy where some opposition groups were not tolerated. (even the USA isn't exempt from that list)

 

[Flocculencio]

Really? Happy to hear it. When you launch your opposition party, I'll be the first to contribute to the welfare fund for your wife and children.

Why would I do that?

No opposition party has a credible plan of action- if something works for now why change it?

You seem to be assuming that liberal democracy can spring full-fledged from nowhere. Alas, in societies that haven't been prepped for it economically (by which I mean an educated population with a strong and secure middle class) or historically (in the case of the Anglo-American democracies which developed it slowly) it won't work because people without a liberal democratic mindset are too easily subverted*.

Singapore was under tight control until the late 80's, loosened up in the '90's and is liberalising even more in this decade. We've developed financial security for the vast majority of our citizens, have an extremely stable middle class and now things can start to move and liberalise. I think your view is profoundly unfair- you want to talk about Taiwan? Let's talk about Taiwan.

Up 'til the late 80's Taiwan was effectively a dictatorship (under a regime much more forceful and violent than anything ever seen in Singapore) but with increasing prosperity and a drive towards liberality it was able to make the transition into a democracy. The entire process took forty years- and Taiwan had a twenty year head start on Singapore in developing an independent country. Look at South Korea, pretty much the same pattern, again under a much more harsh regime than Singapore has ever had and again with a twenty year head start.

And yet you expect Singapore to hop, skip and jump into liberal democracy when it's much younger, much less homogenous and much more resource poor than the above two?

*Two exceptions to this rule are India and Japan. However these are not liberal democracies- India works because all the different interests somehow balance each other out and the whole shebang muddles along somehow and Japan has a veneer of liberal democracy over a highly structured, culturally-specific oligarchic system.

 

[Flocculencio]

Though if in the framework of a liberal democracy he'd be a nice liberal democrat, why is it so hard to imagine that in the framework of a Latin American caudilloism he wouldn't want to be El Jefe? The Fujimori of...?

Incidentally I don't think he'd be a nice liberal democrat. I think he'd be more like a less ideological Thatcher.

 

[Faeelin]

You seem to be assuming that liberal democracy can spring full-fledged from nowhere. Alas, in societies that haven't been prepped for it economically (by which I mean an educated population with a strong and secure middle class) or historically (in the case of the Anglo-American democracies which developed it slowly) it won't work because people without a liberal democratic mindset are too easily subverted.

So, what's your prediction for China?

 

[Flocculencio]

So, what's your prediction for China?

I'm the wrong person to ask. I really don't know enough about China- I'd like to think it'll go the way of Taiwan but development is really too uneven. You've got the selected cities where everything's nice and advanced with a functioning middle class and then you've got the rest of China which is a hellhole.