Can Lu Kewen succeed where Lee Kuan Yew failed? Will Australia like Singapore pay the price for its leader's China obsession?
In the 70'swhile Lu Kewen was still practising his Mandarin at the ANU , Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew had already set Singapore on its road to China. This policy was driven in part by Lee's views on Chinese racial superiority ( see for example http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=79541)
Then in 1999 Lee disaster struck:
It seemed like a fine idea when Singapore agreed with China in 1994 to build a giant $30 billion industrial park in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou to serve as a model for attracting foreign investment to the world's most populous nation.
Five years later, the venture is heavily in debt — undermined by local officials who set up a rival park close by, forcing Singapore to cut its interests in the original project, Singapore officials say.
Singapore's senior minister, Lee Kuan Yew — who played a leading role in the effort to replicate the island-state's capitalist-style efficiency in the industrial heartland of China — conceded this week that the project had not turned out as planned and had made him more cautious about investments in China.
(http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/10/01/suzhou.2.t.php)
Now Australia has Lu Kewen in 2008:
My view is, how do you unfold a future relationship with China which has got great economic opportunities (inaudible) on both sides of the ledger, for us and for the Chinese; develop further, our political dialogue with the Chinese on a whole range of areas; become genuine partners with China in the course of the 21st century. Big challenges, climate change, us working with China. Access to the Chinese services market, huge opportunity for Australian business.
Working with the Chinese on some of our common challenges in the wider Asia Pacific region, including the South Pacific. I think these are big things that we need to work together on.
(http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Interview/2008/interview_0083.cfm)
A number of Australian China "experts" have supported Lu's obsession, arguing that his ability to speak Mandarin is going to open doors for Autsralia that may but for Lu remain closed (see for example http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23494545-28737,00.html). These commentators appear not to have fully appreciated the disadvantages they labour under when dealing with any Asian culture.
As Lee Kuan Yew put it:
The main challenge for Singaporeans doing business with China lies in their different mindsets, said Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
It is more than just the matter of understanding the Chinese culture and history, or speaking the language, he said.
It is also a question of understanding their different mindsets and appreciating its government's complexity and responsibility to its people.
'Their environment, their background, their geographical position are different from ours.
'Therefore, the way our people see things are certainly not the same.'
( Source:Singaporeans face different Chinese mindset. By Irene Ng.
11 December 2000,Straits Times)
The question we should all be asking is :Will Australia like Singapore pay the price for its leader's China obsession?
Then in 1999 Lee disaster struck:
It seemed like a fine idea when Singapore agreed with China in 1994 to build a giant $30 billion industrial park in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou to serve as a model for attracting foreign investment to the world's most populous nation.
Five years later, the venture is heavily in debt — undermined by local officials who set up a rival park close by, forcing Singapore to cut its interests in the original project, Singapore officials say.
Singapore's senior minister, Lee Kuan Yew — who played a leading role in the effort to replicate the island-state's capitalist-style efficiency in the industrial heartland of China — conceded this week that the project had not turned out as planned and had made him more cautious about investments in China.
(http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/10/01/suzhou.2.t.php)
Now Australia has Lu Kewen in 2008:
My view is, how do you unfold a future relationship with China which has got great economic opportunities (inaudible) on both sides of the ledger, for us and for the Chinese; develop further, our political dialogue with the Chinese on a whole range of areas; become genuine partners with China in the course of the 21st century. Big challenges, climate change, us working with China. Access to the Chinese services market, huge opportunity for Australian business.
Working with the Chinese on some of our common challenges in the wider Asia Pacific region, including the South Pacific. I think these are big things that we need to work together on.
(http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Interview/2008/interview_0083.cfm)
A number of Australian China "experts" have supported Lu's obsession, arguing that his ability to speak Mandarin is going to open doors for Autsralia that may but for Lu remain closed (see for example http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23494545-28737,00.html). These commentators appear not to have fully appreciated the disadvantages they labour under when dealing with any Asian culture.
As Lee Kuan Yew put it:
The main challenge for Singaporeans doing business with China lies in their different mindsets, said Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
It is more than just the matter of understanding the Chinese culture and history, or speaking the language, he said.
It is also a question of understanding their different mindsets and appreciating its government's complexity and responsibility to its people.
'Their environment, their background, their geographical position are different from ours.
'Therefore, the way our people see things are certainly not the same.'
( Source:Singaporeans face different Chinese mindset. By Irene Ng.
11 December 2000,Straits Times)
The question we should all be asking is :Will Australia like Singapore pay the price for its leader's China obsession?
Comments
Post a Comment