Human nature is inherently evil
I believe that human nature is inherently evil, and it must be restrained to stop the evil side. While it may be frustrating to say so, I still think so.
We have conquered space, but we have not yet learned how to conquer our own primal instincts and emotions that are necessary for our survival in the Stone Age, but not in the Space Age.
Although Confucianism believes that human nature can be improved, I have always thought that human beings are like animals, and I am not sure if they can be improved, but I think that training can be carried out and discipline can be carried out...... You can get someone who is used to using their left hand to write with their right hand, but you can't really change their innate instinct.
People think that people are equal, or should be equal...... But is this idea realistic? If it is not realistic, then the pursuit of equality will lead to regression.
One of the most basic facts is that no two things are perfectly equal, nothing is equally small, and nothing is equally big. Things are never created equal. Even for very similar twins, there is a precedence at birth, with the first coming taking precedence over the last arrival. This is true of humans, of tribes, and of nations.
Humans are not equal, they are in an extremely competitive position. The USSR has already failed because they are trying to equalize the interests so that no one will work hard, but everyone does not want to get less than others.
I also thought that people were equal at first...... Now I know that this is the least possible thing to achieve, because humans have evolved over millions of years, scattered all over the world, isolated from each other, and independently pursued development, with different races, ethnicities, climates, and soil conditions...... This is something I read about in books, and my own observations confirm it.
For any society, out of 1,000 newborns, there must be a significant percentage of babies who are close to genius, a significant percentage of babies who are ordinary people, and a significant percentage of babies who are a little stupid...... It is those who are close to genius and those who are above the ordinary level that ultimately determine what the future holds......
We want a fair society, we want to give everyone equal opportunities, but deep down in our minds, we never fool ourselves into thinking that there are two people who are exactly the same in terms of perseverance, motivation, dedication, inner endowment, etc.
On this issue, Friedrich M. Hayek's views in his book The Fatal Conceit are very clear and authoritative, and echo my long-standing thoughts, but his book fails to illustrate the unwiseness of some of the great intellectuals, including Albert J. Hayek. Einstein. These great men tend to think that the human brain can design a better system than the "social justice" that "historical evolution" or "economic Darwinism" has brought over the centuries.
No regime, no religion, no one idea can conquer the world or reshape it as it envisions. The diversity of the world is all too stark, and different races, cultures, religions, languages and histories require different paths to democracy and free markets. In a globalized world, societies are interconnected by satellites, television, the Internet, and easy access to travel, so societies influence each other.
What kind of social system can best meet the needs of a people at a certain stage of development is determined by social Darwinism.
I would describe myself as a liberal
Perhaps by European standards, I am somewhere between a socialist and a conservative.
I would describe myself as a liberal. On the one hand, I advocate for equal opportunities and strive to give everyone the opportunity to achieve the best development; On the other hand, I still have a certain amount of compassion and hope that those who fail will not fall deeper and deeper into the difficult situation...... I want the system to work at maximum efficiency, but at the same time take into account those who are not in a good position because their natural conditions do not provide them with enough resources, or they themselves lack the conditions to work hard......
I am a liberal, because I don't stick to a certain theory about governing the world and governing society. I'm pragmatic, and I'm willing to face the problem head-on and say, "Okay, what's the best way to solve it?" How can we create the greatest happiness and welfare for the greatest number of people?
I grew up in a family of three generations, which unconsciously made me admire Confucianism, which will subtly permeate your brain. Confucianism believes that if everyone strives to be a "gentleman", then society can function benignly. The ideal gentleman is somewhat similar to a gentleman...... This means not doing evil things, trying to do good, being filial to your parents, being faithful to your wife, raising your children well, and being kind to your friends, so that he is a good citizen who is loyal to the emperor......
The inherent philosophy of Confucianism holds that if you want a society to function well, you must take into account the interests of the majority of people, and the interests of society must take precedence over the interests of individuals. This is the main difference from American culture, which puts personal interests first.
During my travels and visits, I pay attention to how a society, a government works, and I think about why they work well...... Human thoughts don't just come from reading, you can get it from books, but if you don't combine book knowledge with your own situation, book knowledge is useless. I myself often relate what I read to my own situation......
It is important not to ignore the importance of having a discussion with a person of great knowledge, and I think it is much better than simply reading the literature tirelessly. Because through a short exchange, you can extract the knowledge of the other person and the essence of the other person's thoughts.
Singapore's model cannot be easily replicated, and I think it's the biggest contribution I've made and the most valuable thing.
Character, experience, and thoughts
My thoughts come from my character...... And some of my life experiences. When your whole world collapses, you encounter a series of unforeseen and unexpected circumstances. That's how my life is.
Had the Japanese not invaded in 1942, British Empire rule in Southeast Asia might have lasted another 1,000 years, but in fact it ended in 1942. I never thought that the Japanese would conquer Singapore and drive the British out, but they did, and treated us in a brutal way, including myself......
Before Mao Zedong proposed "power from the barrel of a gun", I knew deeply what power is. The Japanese showed this, but the British did not.
At that time, the British Empire was coming to an end, and with its dominance in the technical, commercial and intellectual spheres, there was no need for brutal force. It was only in 1868 that they used Indian convict laborers to build this huge government office building on the hill to rule over the people...... I learned from the British how to govern the country, how to run the people, and how the Japanese used power.
The Japanese invasion of Singapore taught me the most profound lesson in political education, because over the course of three and a half years, I saw the meaning of power, that power, politics and government are closely intertwined, and that I also understood what people who are stuck in power politics do to survive. First the British were here, they were the masters in the inherent, full sense of the word, and then the Japanese came, and we always ridiculed the Japanese as short-handed, short-sighted, and squinted.
When my colleagues and I in senior Cabinet positions look back on our busy early years governing Singapore, we all realize that our turbulent student days taught us a lot. We met street bullies, and if we hadn't experienced this ordeal, then we would have been brought down. If we have never felt the danger and are as safe as a dog in a hut behind a fence, we will be run over and die in dangerous traffic......
Our children did not experience the difficult years of brutal aggression, nor did the younger generation of ministers. The fierce struggle created the older generation of ministers, and those of us who were weak, slow-moving, or easily nervous became the early victims. Those of us who are left are the ones who survived what Darwin called natural selection, and we all have a strong survival instinct.
What have I learned since 1973? I have learned some more fundamental and eternal truths about human beings and human society, how to make human beings and human societies better, and that the risk of regression and collapse is ever-present...... I realized how fragile a civilized society is...... I also learned the importance of personal achievement.
In my 50s, almost 60s, I realized that all earthly glory and success were fleeting compared to intellectual, moral, and spiritual satisfaction, and that all sensual pleasures and pleasures were fleeting...... I can't help but begin to wonder how much of what I have is innately determined and how much is acquired. If I hadn't been through the trials of hard fighting, would I have been different from where I am now?
Having made life-or-death decisions and experienced major crises, my vision, ambition and ability to prioritize have fundamentally changed, and I believe this change will have a profound impact on me. Perhaps the so-called "hardware" (i.e., my body, spirit, and emotions) has not changed, but my "software" (i.e., my perception of God, glory, or money) has been profoundly influenced by my life experiences.
In other words, no matter how good the "hardware" is (determined by nature), there is no "software" (which is nurtured), and the "hardware" will not be of much use.
The tough test is achievement, not commitment
The truth of logic and reasoning can only be conclusively tested in practice.
The tough test is achievement, not commitment. Millions of helpless Asians don't care or want to know any theories, they just want to live a better life, they want a more egalitarian and just society.
If we are to create good economic conditions, we must find practical solutions to the problems of growth and development, not look for theories of one kind or another. This is also in line with the requirements of sanity.
My life is not guided by some philosophy or some theory. I do things well, let others summarize theories or principles from my way of success, I don't engage in theories. Instead, I ask: How do you do this well? If I look at a list of solutions and find something that works, I try to figure out the principles behind that solution.
Therefore, I was not guided by Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc., and I was only interested in what works in reality...... If I'm faced with a difficulty, a major problem, or a series of conflicting things and the initial solution doesn't work, then I first look to see if there are alternatives. I would choose a plan with a high probability of success, but if it fails, I have other options, don't hang yourself from a tree.
We are not theoreticians, and we do not engage in theoretical worship. We are faced with real problems, people have to find jobs, they have to earn money, they have to buy food, they have to buy clothes, they have to buy houses, they have to raise children...... We may have read some theories, and we may be skeptical, but we must keep a realistic and pragmatic mind, and not be bound and limited by theories. If a plan works, we implement it, and that's how Singapore is today.
When faced with a theory, the question we need to consider is: is it feasible? Can it bring benefits to the people? One of the dominant economic theories of the time was that multinational corporations would squeeze a country clean by squeezing cheap labor and cheap raw materials...... I think that if cheap labor is idle, why not if multinationals want to take advantage of it? We can learn from multinationals that we may never learn without them...... The school of development economics sees this as oppression, and our experience strongly refutes this view. We are just keeping our feet on the ground, and we are by no means deliberately picking on advanced theoretical principles.
I don't think a theory is necessarily feasible just because it sounds pleasant or seems logical. In the end, a theory must be put to the test in life, that is, it must look at what appears in real life and what it can bring to the people in a society.
I don't think the U.S. system is necessarily ideal or applicable. I noticed that the British were constantly trying to imitate the Americans...... Those who blindly follow the American system believe that as soon as American officials begin to reveal secrets, then such behavior should become fashionable, and this behavior shows that your society is a free society and that if any minister or court suppresses the truth, you are obliged to poke it to the opposition.
Is this a reasonable idea? This is still new and has not yet been proven in practice. If you damage the foundation of society, it will have a negative impact on the next generation or the next generation. If there are two systems in front of you, one that has been tested in practice and the other that has not been tested, and I am a conservative, I will definitely choose the former, and as for whether the latter is viable, why not leave it to others and let them prove it?
If a system can promote the prosperity of science and technology, bring happiness to the people, and solve social problems, it would be very foolish to abandon such a system for fear of causing controversy...... The ultimate proof is what it can bring to society.
Leaders I admire
Charles de Gaulle, Deng Xiaoping, Winston Churchill.
De Gaulle was admired because of his great courage. His country was occupied, he was a one-star general, and he represented France...... When the British, the Americans regained North Africa, he traveled to Algeria and Algiers, where he saw a four-star French general. So de Gaulle said: "Giraud, you are a French general, why do you want American soldiers outside to protect you?" "He's a strong-willed man, he's got courage, he's got a lot of courage.
Deng Xiaoping was a great man who led impoverished China to what it is today, with the world's most powerful economy just around the corner. Without Deng Xiaoping, China would have been able to follow the Soviet Union's old path.
I admired Churchill because he might have given up if he had been someone else, but he said, "We will fight on the beaches, we will fight in the fields, we will fight in the streets, we will never surrender." "It takes a great deal of willpower, courage and determination to utter such words of never surrender to the Germans when one's own army has suffered defeat.
If you ask Americans who they admire, they will say Roosevelt. But Roosevelt had in his hands the great military and industrial power of the United States.
Doesn't put yourself in the ranks of politicians
I don't want to be remembered as a politician. First of all, I would not put myself in the ranks of politicians. I consider myself a strong-willed, consistent, and persistent person, and I keep my feet on the ground. I will persevere until I succeed. Nothing else...... Anyone who considers themselves a politician needs to see a psychiatrist.
I don't think I can decide how others will remember me. In life, I only do what I think is valuable. I never wanted to be political. I wanted to be a lawyer, make a good living, and be a good consultant, but due to a series of political shocks, I had no choice but to engage in politics. So I have a big responsibility on my shoulders, and I'm responsible for keeping the country running......
All I can do is make sure that when I leave, the systems are good, sound, clean and efficient, and that the existing government knows what it wants to do and that it knows how to source high-quality candidates for the next government.
I'm not saying that everything I do is right, but everything I do is based on a noble purpose. I have to do something unpleasant and lock up some people without trial. Seal the coffin, and then you will judge me. I might still do something like this before I close my eyes.
