It seems the Australian government-academic establishment is running out of Asian autocrats to fete. Chancellor Allan Hawke and Vice Chancellor Ian Chubb of the Australian National University (ANU) are the latest to join the Australian movers and shakers who laud distasteful people -- in their case, former Singaporean prime minister Lee Kwan Yew, who now holds an ANU honorary doctorate.
That the ANU could impugn its reputation for excellence in Asian studies and human rights law to further the ambitions of its top two officers is surprising enough. That these men should ram through the award by shelving university processes of review and then praise Lee's "integrity," "commitment to advancing the causes of peace and prosperity" and "international statesmanship [sic]" is downright contemptible. But credit where credit's due: Lee would applaud their methods.
Hawke and Chubb, no doubt, will be unmoved to hear of Lee's most recent slur against a head of state -- hardly proper protocol, one might think, for the recipient of a gong for statesmanship. Nonetheless, on April 4, Lee trotted out an attack on President Chen Shui-bian (
The problem with this salvo was that it wasn't just personal; it was a bouquet to China and a put-down directed at millions of Taiwanese people who believe in democracy and liberty. So a personal attack on Lee for his cardigan despotism and hubris is perfectly in order -- because so much of Singapore and its neuroses are linked to Lee's person.
Lee's record on human rights is poor. He, like other autocrats in the region, demeans his people by labeling liberties of press and academic freedom as Western conceits that are not conducive to "Asian" societies. This mentality -- culturalist bordering on racist -- set up one of the more enduring intellectual hoaxes of the 1990s, namely that there exist "Asian values" (as opposed to Western or Judeo-Christian values, presumably, though his argument was never coherent). And these values, funnily enough, seem to absolve people such as Lee for oppressive behavior -- as long as an economic return is delivered.
Lee's legacy of authoritarianism lives on. This week saw the banning of a documentary about a long-time political prisoner in Singapore, Said Zahari. Suffice it to say that Singapore's credibility is shaky if it can't face up to events of 30 years ago and cites social order as a pretext for shutting down debate.
And if it wasn't clear before, it should be now: With the latest pay rise that lawmakers have awarded themselves (justification: lavishing millions of dollars on the "most talented" legislators and executive officials beats corruption), the Singaporean state can now be dubbed the world's most lucrative -- and sanitized -- protection racket. Lee, who these days goes under the risible title of "minister mentor," will himself pocket another small fortune. But even by Singaporean standards, this self-aggrandizement is so brazen that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has promised to donate his new riches to charity.
Lee Kwan Yew, his son and their supporters can keep their city-state kleptocracy and their largely pliant people. And long may he be courted by foreign academic powerbrokers and governments dazzled by his connections.
But Lee Kwan Yew is no friend of Taiwan. Until Singapore learns to deal with domestic political opponents other than by intimidating, bankrupting, arresting and torturing them, there is little to learn from Lee's fiefdom or his lectures. Taiwan has seen it all before -- and left it behind.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past