文章吧-经典好文章在线阅读:李光耀:新加坡赖以生存的硬道理读后感10篇

当前的位置:文章吧 > 经典文章 > 读后感 >

李光耀:新加坡赖以生存的硬道理读后感10篇

2022-04-04 03:31:48 来源:文章吧 阅读:载入中…

李光耀:新加坡赖以生存的硬道理读后感10篇

  《李光耀:新加坡赖以生存的硬道理》是一本由Singapore: Straits Times Press著作,Singapore: Straits Times Press出版的Hardcover图书,本书定价:39新元,页数:522,文章吧小编精心整理的一些读者的读后感,希望对大家能有帮助。

  《李光耀:新加坡赖以生存的硬道理》读后感(一):Hard Truths to keep Singapore going

  《Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to keep Singapore going》, Strait Times Press, 2011.

  厚厚一大本,海峡时报于2010年对李光耀做的系列访谈。以此前读英文书速度来看,不到两月,看得不算慢了。

  李光耀是政治强人,对新加坡有特殊意义。他对目标的坚持,对信念的坚持,对理想的坚持,俱是作为一个政治人物所不可或缺的。在新加坡独立之初时,若无此类坚定意志,可能今日之新国将完全不同。

  他坚持双语教育,坚持吸收最优秀人才入人民行动党,坚持有限自由,坚持科教立国,坚持予公务员高薪,坚持小国灵活外交,数十年一以贯之。虽已暮年,但他对数十年来之坚持仍坚信无疑。或许今日中国,需要这样的人物,以坚定的信念推动改革。

  他是华裔,但并不亲华,甚至对中国心存警惕。在中美两强之间推美为善意霸权,警惕中国坐大。实际上这也是新加坡多年以来对华政策的出发点。作为小国,如此做法无可厚非。外交需从他人立场去思考问题。在这点上,从新加坡入手,相当有趣。

  《李光耀:新加坡赖以生存的硬道理》读后感(二):THE MAN WHO BUILT A COUNTRY WITH VULNERABILITY

  在看过之前那本李光耀访谈集小书之后我又去图书馆借了这本2011年出的长篇访谈。这本书是李光耀和海峡时报的7位记者的谈话集,时间跨度在2009年到2011年。李在这本书里详细阐述了他的建国方略和对新加坡未来的思考。在Youtube上有个节选访谈,大概概括了他的一些基本观点,推荐看一下。这本书比较长(450页),如果看不完那就看个浓缩版好了。

  我对李光耀的兴趣始于《Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s insights on China, the United States, and the World》,他的分析思路清晰很有洞见。虽然有很多在我看来有些偏执,但是不妨碍读者理解他所认识的世界形式。那本书主要是关于地缘政治的,我还想看看他对于经济发展和社会政策的论述,于是就找到了这本更详细的。

  李光耀这个人其实从并不招左翼待见。在观察者网站上,你可以看到一系列批评他任人唯亲搞独裁政治的黑幕(1,2,3)。但我觉得如果因此就对李在新加坡的工作不屑一顾,那不是正确的学习态度,同时也没有抓住新加坡经验的关键——那就是一个以国家利益出发,实用主义至上的政治家所开创的一条独特的发展道路。而归根结底,他正是意识到了新加坡的脆弱性并据此建立了一个不同寻常的国家。

  对于李来说(至少在他自己这么讲的,鉴于他这个人还是很有信誉的,我在这里就不对他的意图做过多阐释),他本来是想成为马拉西亚联邦的一部分,但是他发现马来西亚无法提供一个多民族共存的国家的时候,毅然接受了自己独立建国的命运。在1965年的新加坡是一个彻彻底底的第三世界国家。人口规模小不说,基本上没有像样的经济和任何的发展基础。李光耀的现实眼光是这样的:与其自力更生,不如利用跨国企业(MNC),并且发挥自己的比较优势,建立一个独特的小众市场(niche market):

  We’re in Singapore, which gives us six hours range, a market of about two plus billion people reached by air. We climbed up the ladder within one generation. How did we do it? Because we looked at the outside world and said, look, this is the way we go, maximise our strengths and we got here. How do we go further up? By not competing with Chinese and Indians wehre we know they’re going to enter in a big way. We succeed by staying in little niches, securing qualities which they cannot match, like credibility, reliability, intellectual property and the rule of law. They cannot match that for a long time.(p.153)

  …

  What have we got to offer to the MNCs? Not cheaper labor or land, but high quality infrastructure to justify the higher cost. The Vietnamese are very smart. We can see it from the students that we give scholarships to. They catch up and they are one-third of our salaries, one quarter the price of our land. So we got to offer what we have that they cannot offer: stability, security, connectivity, good healthcare, schooling for children because the top people want their children with them and they want good schools. (p.160)

  所以李坚持不依赖于制造业,因为根据新加坡的人口规模和工资水平,无法支持廉价制造业。所以要么往价值链的高端进军:依赖高素质的人口(大学、职业教育),以及法治社会保护大公司的利益(知识产权)。要么就是在金融领域里面把新加坡作为一个MNC进入东南亚的基地(结算、贸易)通过给MNC打工完成原始积累获得技术。他们做的不仅仅是请进来,还有彻底的学习(当然这样的代价也是很明显的,就是新加坡高度受国际经济环境的影响,这也是建立淡马锡等主权基金的原因之一;另外一点就是新加坡至今没有一个自己的国际品牌)。

  同时进入这个思考等式的还有其他因素:安全防务以及生产力。安全就是新加坡作为一个多种族国家如何在不友善的邻国中保持不被侵略(说老实话我无法弄明白这部分有多少是精细的计算有多少是杞人忧天),保证一个安全的商业环境。生产力当然包括语言(英语),以及技能。为了提升人力资本,新加坡大量投入职业教育(中低端)以及高端的科技研发。他认为必须用R&D来抵消人力成本的上升。

  李认为新加坡的人口规模小到连产生一个足够质量的知识和经济精英阶层都有困难。这也是他的人民行动党坚持彻底的精英主义(以及相对开放的移民政策)的缘由:通过有效地吸纳社会个方的精英人士到党内来组建执政集团。冷酷无情地打击反对派。李自己说理由是因为不想通过党派斗争来分散社会的注意力。他认为新加坡的人口无法支撑起一个有效的两党或者多党环境:

  Is there an alternative? I don’t see it. One way is for the PAP to break up into two parts. Will that help? For one, two elections? Then what? And then the opposition that doesn’t get into power will say, I want to come back to the PAP. I don’t want to sit out in the opposition benches. Makes no sense, right? We are going to tap the same limited talent pool. (p.65)

  所以只要他的政党能保证种族多元化,机会均等,基本的住房医疗,以及任人唯贤(meritocracy)以及有效的精英吸纳,那么一党就够了。但一个问题是这种结构过于紧张的政治体系有很强的寒蝉效应(Chilling effect),于是他还创制了那著名的高薪养廉的做法,给新加坡的部长们上百万的年薪,吸引他们到公共部门里面来工作。

  李光耀对于精英的看法也是很有意思的。一方面他持有一个比较古板的决定论:受保守派政治理论家Charles Murray(《钟形曲线》的作者)的影响,他认为先天基因决定了人的聪明才智,所以人是生来不平等的。虽然李早期左倾,他在剑桥期间接受了不少英国费边社的平等思想,但是当他开始管理新加坡了之后他发现事实是聪明人和普通人的差异太大了。他决定一定要把这种个人动机的不同效用最大化,而不是强行施行平均主义(这也是他很钦佩邓的一点,在不同场合都说过邓是他最崇拜的人)。基于这个思路,他有意识的削弱新加坡的社会保障体系,拒绝福利国家的立场。他的立场是“发展,而不是平均”(“Grow, not equalise.” p.212)。也就是我们常说的饼做大,而不是只关注分饼的方法。这便是一个发展型国家构想。

  但他又并非无条件地拥抱精英。这点和Christopher Hayes所描述的美国精英主义的变化(《Twilight of Elites》)有一个质的的区别。他说到:

  It’s a divide between the successful and the less successful which happens in every society. The successful have forgotten that without the peace and stability that made their education, their job or their business opportunities possible, they would never have made it. But having made it, they think they made it on their own. Some students from the top schools like Raffles Institution or Hwa Chong, they go abroad and they think that they had done it on their own. They don’t owe the government or society anything. They are bright chaps, but how did they make it? Because we kept a balance in society. We peace, stability, we built up our education system and enabled the brightest to rise to the top. Even those who are less bright were given the opportunities to go as far as they can. (p.68)

  所以他并不是持庸俗的精英决定论,而是看到了一个社会里社会个阶层保持和谐的重要性。只不过在他的计算里,精英是提供这个社会前进的主要动力,而普通人则是保证社会稳定的重要因素罢了。但是要做到这些,对于新加坡来说不是自然的,而是需要被人为塑造的。李光耀坚持认为新加坡不是一个正常国家,而是一个雏形,因为这些基础的社会结构并没有存在。比方说新加坡缺乏共同的语言、缺乏共同的价值观,也没有单一的宗教信仰可以凝聚不同种族。他笃信社会制度(social institution)的作用,所以他通过创制那些制度来然国家走上“正常”的轨道。

  即便他可以从内部改变新加坡,但是无法改变的是一个小国的地缘环境。这里他的社会达尔文主义思考又一次找到了用武之地。当今天中国的媒体批评李媚美的时候,为什么他要持这个态度?他认为在目前的考量之下,这样是对新加坡最好的:

  At this moment I think the American outcome is best for us. I don’t see the Chinese as a benign power as the Americans. I mean, they say 不称霸. If you are not ready to be a hegemon, why do you keep on telling the world you are not going to be a hegemon? You are just not a hegemon, all right? But I know the Americans are hegemon but a gentle one. I’ve got on with them. Why not leave the present hegemon in place? (p.310)

  他认为新加坡的生存建立在向大国证明其价值之上——而且要比他的邻国们表现出更多的价值。于是新加坡采购美国的武器,把军队交给美国训练,开放港口让美国驻军。用以换回军事保障和先进武器。因为除此之外没有哪个超级大国愿意并且有能力保证新加坡的生存。这是他选择美国并且一再表示美国不能从东亚撤出的一个初衷。毕竟在地缘政治里利益是最重要的。他对中国的态度是现实的,虽然中国不凌霸小国,但是根深蒂固的大国心态常常让新加坡担心:

  They expect us to be more respectful – you must respect me. They tell us countries big or small are equal, we’re not a hegemon. But when we do something they don’t like, they say you made 1.3 billion people unhappy. When they make us unhappy? You know it is 百万-unhappy. So please know your place. (p.331)

  我在好几个访谈里都看到他提起这一点,我的理解是这一个对于严格的等级关系的反感(但是美国不指示新加坡么,这他从来没仔细讲过)。恐怕还是他的计算告诉他同中国建立太密切的关系无法带来太多的更多的利益吧。

  我不想在这里评价李的人品或者性格。我只是觉得他是一个很好的学习对象,特别是从国家的角度理解发展和生存。并不是说没有人比他聪明,而是谁会愿意事无巨细地把他的思想分享给普通读者?书里有很多细节。我这本篇没有仔细分析他的政治手腕。但是如果你看过Bueno de Mesquita写的《政治生存的逻辑》或者《独裁者手册》,那肯定觉得新加坡真是个再好不过的案例了。

  不管如何,我觉得对于新加坡经验的学习是必要的而且有益的。下价值判断固然容易,但是在发展道路的理论资源依然相对匮乏的今天,任何的经验都是有意义的。

  原文在墙外:http://www.makzhou.warehouse333.com/2013/04/20/2942/

  《李光耀:新加坡赖以生存的硬道理》读后感(三):《新加坡的硬道理—李光耀》

  《李光耀:新加坡赖以生存的硬道理》读后感(四):Lee Kuan Yew: The pragmatic statesman that founded Singapore

  Apart from spirituality, philosophy and psychology, biography has always been part of my reading obsession. You can only learn great things from great people, by reliving their lives or equivalently, their episodes of history.

  Lee Kuan Yew is a legendary figure and the fascination started when I conducted some research comparing Singapore with Hong Kong, primarily due to personal interests. And oh, Singapore looks much more appealing than Hong Kong, its landscape, outlook, culture and system, which will or perhaps has already overtaken the latter.

  There have been two published volumes of Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs and I am about to start. This one is slightly different from an autobiography, as it illustrated a somewhat spontaneous Lee Kuan Yew by the Questions & Answers layout. Eleven chapters are included, ranging from politics, diplomats to his early life and family. In each, a plain introduction is first given, followed by Lee’s answers to various questions, some of them really touched fundamental issues as democracy and nepotism, and it ends with a conclusion and photographs. I would say that the structure does engage readers like me and despite its length, I managed to finish it within five days.

  Questions were addressed to Lee in a series of interviews, taken place in Istana between 2009 and 2010. Lee was 86 or 87 then and his beloved wife past away during that period after 61 years’ of company. So we have a more sentimental Lee in this book, who confided his attachment and his gratefulness to having her in life and the adjustments he made to cope with her absence. In that sense, this book is worth reading. Probably, we won’t be seeing a new one to come.

  I would like to give some summary of Lee’s background and early life here. Lee was born to a wealthy Chinese family in Singapore (or Malaya by then), learnt English as his first language, Malay the second. It wasn’t until his entering politics that Lee started to pick up Mandarin and Hokkien. Educated in prestigious Raffles Institution, spend a term in LSE and later transferred to Cambridge for a bachelor degree in Law. Being subject to British and Japanese colonial control and witnessing the Second World War must have greatly influenced Lee. He met his wife before he made a move to Britain and fortunately, she received a scholarship to complete a Law degree in Cambridge, so they both studied there and got married in Stratford secretly. He was initially working as a lawyer in Singapore with his wife, but later stepped into politics as he commented: who would practice law in a chaotic country? And he fought on until early 1990s and much later his elder son Lee Hsien Loong became the prime minister, while Lee remained as the MM, Minister Mentor, serving as a living databank for young governors. He has two sons and one daughter, eight grandsons and daughters, if I was correct. And they are all successful, except one grandson had Albino and Asperger’s syndrome.

  Lee Kuan Yew is probably the greatest leader in the second half of the last century. While other politicians rejuvenated their countries like Margaret Thatcher, Lee founded a nation. Although Singapore is a city-state with only four million citizens, Lee started from nowhere. Singapore joined Malaysia and was later forced to leave, gained its independence and industrialization by attracting investments from MNCs, survived the communist surge and developed SAF (Singapore Armed Force), transformed its economy by devising new measures pulling foreign talents, and look at Singapore now, 90% of its population have a stake in the nation—a house subsidized by the government, and it has gained independent water supply. It is a better, more competent place than its rival, Hong Kong, although the latter now has got China.

  Lee is remarkable not because he is holding certain unpopular values, but due to his persistence and conviction in his own righteousness. He has no regret in life, not because there isn’t any, but he said all decisions made were the best options he had at the time, given such and such circumstance and alternatives. The most significant trait of Lee is his power in persuading people—he is firm in what be believes and he will never give way to his opponents unless they have more convincing reasons, which is seldom the case. He is neither conservative nor liberal, he said he is simply pragmatic: this is the difficulty now we encounter, this is the circumstance, and this is our capability and chance, so we still could make a good living given all the conditions. He is correct, but not politically correct. This is another argument that I buy completely. He is utterly candid, there are topics other politicians won’t ever go into, due to the fear of losing popularity and subsequently, political power, while Lee endeavors, he regards Singapore as his heir and whatever he does, is in favor of Singapore, not his own interests. He said talents were born, determined by genetics, and he makes no effort in masking his preference for meritocracy and elitism. He is infidel, and although he does not speak Chinese as his first language, he has inherited the essence of Chinese culture—being practical, pragmatic, and recognizes life as what it is. “That’s life”, “That’s that”, “You have to accept life”, these have occurred repeatedly in Lee’s speech.

  He is a man of insight, he is a living history, and he is courageous and passionate. He knows what is right and he is obstinate on insisting what is right. He is knowledgeable that he understands China more than I do. This man with his wisdom, owns my admiration.

评价:

[匿名评论]登录注册

评论加载中……