2015-03-27

谬误百出的作文-;李光耀故事


李光耀故事


 “許多華人青年看了巴金、魯迅之類,除了反日,思想也跟着民國時代上海的潮流而左傾。李光耀因為不懂華文,不看中文書,年輕時沒有上這條船。”
英文書裡馬克思主義著作絕對不比中文少,還影響了著名的Cambrige 5.


戰後李光耀昇讀劍橋大學,讀經濟系,三四十年代的劍橋,許多學生左傾,崇拜蘇聯。劍橋經濟系受經濟學家凱恩斯的影響,一主張均富,二主張政府干預。李光耀在劍橋,沾染了社會主義思想,而且看見華人不論成績多好,還是二等公民。”
看到這裡,真要吐血。李光耀是先(1946)到LSE(倫敦政經學院)受了laski的社會主義思想影響,然後(1947)去了劍橋Fitzwilliam學院念法律。什麼狗屁經濟系,凱恩斯,作者是在做白日夢?事實是,李光耀一直都是實行社會主義,或“新加坡特色的自由市場社會主義”,新加坡的房屋政策就是例子。李曾經表示過,他不反對共產主義(其實是同情),他只是非常討厭列寧的那一套黨派方法,因為當時星共林清祥表面和他合作,暗地裡卻用地下黨要奪合作夥伴的權。


李光耀歸國後



“年輕的李光耀,戰後劍橋畢業,留在英國實習四年歸國。”
不知道這4年怎麼算出來的,李光耀1946年9月16日出發去英國(應該是10月到達),1950年8月回國。一共不到4年,主要是學習,不是實習。3年本科,一年考中殿的Bar 執業資格(大律師/訴訟律師),沒有實習就回國了。即使算上考試那年,也就1年”實習“。



"李光耀回到馬來,見到華人為馬共操控,他以英文律師的專業,義務替工會打官司,訂契約"
是否義務,我不知道。我認為是有基本的報酬和工資的。李當時是在黎覺律師行工作,他老闆黎覺(Lycock) 派他去為工會打官司的。反正他應該有領黎覺的工資(雖然他家裡富裕),而且一開始不是他自己找上工會的。可能是黎覺不想工會受共產黨控制才主動去幫他們。不過,這位作者真會編。無論如何,他去為工會做法律顧問,絕對不是為了反對馬共。事實是,李光耀1952年開始為工會打官司,馬共林清祥在1955年代表人民行動黨競選議員當選。當時和馬共是蜜月期。直到50年代末李光耀才和馬共決裂。


後面那些對話,說得好像在現場一樣,懶得去評論了。







 







2015-03-26

命运原本没有给他足够大的画布

(I have made minor corrections in sina's translation below)

Henry A. Kissinger: The world will miss Lee Kuan Yew 

命运原本没有给他足够大的画布


命运原本没有给他足够大的画布


  命运原本没有给他足够大的画布
基辛格撰文
  李光耀是一位伟人,他是(我的)一位亲密的私人朋友,我认为这是我生命中最大的幸事之一。一个需要从最初混沌中产生秩序的世界将会怀念他的领导能力。
  李光耀是以新加坡国父的形象出现在国际舞台之上的,新加坡当时还是一个只有一百万人的城市。他成为了一個世界政治家,他的行为举止就像是给世界各地领导人作出的良心表率。

  命运最初看起来没有向他提供一幅能够超越一般性地方性成就的画布,在去殖民地化的第一阶段,新加坡成为马来亚的一部分。由于新加坡多数华裔人口和占(馬來西亞)多数的马来人关系紧张,更多的是出于给这个难驾驭的城市上一堂有关依赖性的课,马来西亚切断了与新加坡的联系。毫无疑问,马来西亚希望现实将会治療新加坡的独立精神。
  但是伟成就於其能够拥有超越物质盘算的透彻视野。李光耀没有按照传统智慧行事,他选择了独立建国。这一选择反映了他对新加坡人民的品质抱有深厚的信心。他宣布,虽然没有可以依赖的经济资源,而且作为(前)殖民海军基地这个重点產业已消失,但这个坐落在沙州的城市仍能实现繁荣,取得国际地位,这要基于它的主要资产:新加坡人民的智慧、勤劳和专注。
  一位伟大的领导人(會)将他的社会从最所在之處領到来它从未到過的地方,其实是(當時)人们无法想像得到的地方。李光耀和他的同事们坚持教育质量,打击腐败,和精英管治,他们把新加坡人均年国民收入从1965年独立时的500美元提高至今天的大约55000美元。在一代人的时间内,新加坡成为了世界金融中心,东南亚领先的知识大都会。地区主要医院的所在地,新加坡还是国际事务及会议所喜愛的举办地点。它是通过坚持特别的实用主义来实现这一点:向最好的人才提供工作,鼓励他们采用来自世界各地最佳实践。

李光耀 
李光耀
  

      卓著的表现只是这一成就的一个部分。卓著的领导能力甚至更加重要。随着数十年时间的逝去,看到李光耀作为全球战略秩序的导师(就现实层面来说只是一个中等城市的市长)跃上国际舞台是令人感动的,也是鼓舞人心的。李光耀去一趟华盛顿访问在美国來說是全国性的事件,(美國)总统(親自)与他的对话几乎是自然而然的,内阁和国会的重要成员想与他举行会谈,他们这样做并不是想听新加坡的国家问题。李光耀鮮有为获得援助去游说决策者。他的主题是美国对于和平世界的保衛和成长不可获缺的贡献。他的对话者们并非为了聽取请愿而来,而是为了向一位我们时代真正的、深刻的全球思想家学习。
  对于我来说,这一进程始于李光耀1967年访问哈佛大学,那时他成为一個剛獨立的新加坡的总理没有多久。他与公共管理学院(现在的肯尼迪学院)的高级教职员工举行会谈,會議邀请他们就越南战争发表观点。教职员工(在他们中我是一位持异见的成員)的最主要分歧就是约翰逊总统到底是一個战犯还是一個精神病患者這樣的问题。李光耀回应称:“你们让我恶心。”这不是因为他个人支持越战的立场,而是因为新加坡的独立和繁荣取决于美国的坚韧、团结和决心。新加坡没有要求美国去做新加坡不会竭尽全力的事情,但是,加强和创建世界秩序的框架需要美国的领导能力。
  超过45年间,李光耀和我在国际会议、研究团体、董事会会议上见面,也单独对话和到对方家里作客,我们总计见过数百次,他在会面期间详细论述了这些主题。他没有劝导,他从不感情用事,他不是冷战分子,他是追求世界秩序和负责任领导能力的朝圣者。他理解中国的相关性、中国巨大的潜力,他经常就这一点向世界进行启蒙。但最后,他坚持认为,没有美国,世界将无法实现稳定。

基辛格 
基辛格

  李光耀在国内的执政方法与美国目前的宪法理论的观点不符,但即便是这样,说句公道话,托马斯-杰斐逊时代的民主就符合吗?在杰斐逊的时代,人们的选举权是有限的,投票要有满足财产条件,那时候还存在奴隶的问题。现在不是讨论是否有其它选项的时候。如果新加坡当时选择了批评者所说的道路,它可能因为种族問題而崩溃,就像是叙利亚向我們展示的局面那样。对于新加坡独立初期数十年至关重要的体系架构是否被无必要地延长了,则是另一个讨论的话题。
  我在写悼词开始时提到我与李光耀的友谊,他不是能说许多动感情话的人。他几乎总是谈及实质性内容,但人们能够感受到他的情感牵托,与李光耀的对话是对支撑一个人目标感的信任投票。他将生命献给了公众服务,将大部分的时间用于共同探索。
  李光耀生命的大悲剧是他深爱的妻子由于中风,失去了交流的能力。在妻子生病期间,李光耀每晚会坐在床边,为妻子阅读。他认为妻子能听懂他的话,尽管现实证据与此背道而驰。
  也许这就是李光耀在他那个时代的角色。他对于我们的世界抱有同样的希望。他为更好世界而奋斗,尽管现实证据是模糊的,但我们中的许多人听到了他的声音,我們永远不会忘记他。(新浪国际 严伟江 陈智勇)

----
 March 23


Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.
Lee Kuan Yew was a great man. And he was a close personal friend, a fact that I consider one of the great blessings of my life. A world needing to distill order from incipient chaos will miss his leadership.
Lee emerged onto the international stage as the founding father of the state of Singapore, then a city of about 1 million. He developed into a world statesman who acted as a kind of conscience to leaders around the globe.
Fate initially seemed not to have provided him a canvas on which to achieve more than modest local success. In the first phase of decolonization, Singapore emerged as a part of Malaya. It was cut loose because of tensions between Singapore’s largely Chinese population and the Malay majority and, above all, to teach the fractious city a lesson of dependency. Malaya undoubtedly expected that reality would cure Singapore of its independent spirit.
But great men become such through visions beyond material calculations. Lee defied conventional wisdom by opting for statehood. The choice reflected a deep faith in the virtues of his people. He asserted that a city located on a sandbar with nary an economic resource to draw upon, and whose major industry as a colonial naval base had disappeared, could nevertheless thrive and achieve international stature by building on its principal asset: the intelligence, industry and dedication of its people.
Life and legacy of Lee Kuan Yew(2:04)
Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore and co-founder of the People’s Action Party, has died at age 91. Lee led Singapore’s rise from British tropical outpost to global trade and financial center. (Reuters)
A great leader takes his or her society from where it is to where it has never been — indeed, where it as yet cannot imagine being. By insisting on quality education, by suppressing corruption and by basing governance on merit, Lee and his colleagues raised the annual per capita income of their population from $500 at the time of independence in 1965 to roughly$55,000 today. In a generation, Singapore became an international financial center, the leading intellectual metropolis of Southeast Asia, the location of the region’s major hospitals and a favored site for conferences on international affairs. It did so by adhering to an extraordinary pragmatism: by opening careers to the best talents and encouraging them to adopt the best practices from all over the world.
Superior performance was one component of that achievement. Superior leadership was even more important. As the decades went by, it was moving — and inspirational — to see Lee, in material terms the mayor of a medium-size city, bestride the international scene as a mentor of global strategic order. A visit by Lee to Washington was a kind of national event. A presidential conversation was nearly automatic; eminent members of the Cabinet and Congress would seek meetings. They did so not to hear of Singapore’s national problems; Lee rarely, if ever, lobbied policymakers for assistance. His theme was the indispensable U.S. contribution to the defense and growth of a peaceful world. His interlocutors attended not to be petitioned but to learn from one of the truly profound global thinkers of our time.
This process started for me when Lee visited Harvard in 1967 shortly after becoming prime minister of an independent Singapore. Lee began a meeting with the senior faculty of the School of Public Administration (now the Kennedy School) by inviting comments on the Vietnam War. The faculty, of which I was one dissenting member, was divided primarily on the question of whether President Lyndon Johnson was a war criminal or a psychopath. Lee responded, “You make me sick” — not because he embraced war in a personal sense but because the independence and prosperity of his country depended on the fortitude, unity and resolve of the United States. Singapore was not asking the United States to do something that Singapore would not undertake to the maximum of its ability. But U.S. leadership was needed to supplement and create a framework for order in the world.
Lee elaborated on these themes in the hundreds of encounters I had with him during international conferences, study groups, board meetings, face-to-face discussions and visits at each other’s homes over 45 years. He did not exhort; he was never emotional; he was not a Cold Warrior; he was a pilgrim in quest of world order and responsible leadership. He understood the relevance of China and its looming potential and often contributed to the enlightenment of the world on this subject. But in the end, he insisted that without the United States there could be no stability.
Lee’s domestic methods fell short of the prescriptions of current U.S. constitutional theory. But so, in fairness, did the democracy of Thomas Jefferson’s time, with its limited franchise, property qualifications for voting and slavery. This is not the occasion to debate what other options were available. Had Singapore chosen the road of its critics, it might well have collapsed among its ethnic groups, as the example of Syria teaches today. Whether the structures essential for the early decades of Singapore’s independent existence were unnecessarily prolonged can be the subject of another discussion.
I began this eulogy by mentioning my friendship with Lee. He was not a man of many sentimental words. And he nearly always spoke of substantive matters. But one could sense his attachment. A conversation with Lee, whose life was devoted to service and who spent so much of his time on joint explorations, was a vote of confidence that sustained one’s sense of purpose.
The great tragedy of Lee’s life was that his beloved wife was felled by a stroke that left her a prisoner in her body, unable to communicate or receive communication. Through all that time, Lee sat by her bedside in the evening reading to her. He had faith that she understood despite the evidence to the contrary.