Was Deng Xiaoping inspired by Lee Kuan Yew?
***All Sources are Hyperlinked with the Quotations in this article.
Did, or was Deng Xiaoping inspired by Lee Kuan Yew? This is a common argument made by plenty of Southeast Asians, particularly in the Philippines. Now the context of these statements is the reasons why China did the 'Opening-Up' and developed itself rapidly. Was it the cause and inspirations of Lee? No, it wasn't. While Deng did admire Lee's abilities and achievements in Singapore (as an amazing Statesman he was), particularly in terms of city planning, public management, and controlling corruption. During his visit to Singapore in 1978, Deng was impressed by the city-state's transformation from a backwater fishing village to a leading global city. This visit marked a shift in China's perception of Singapore, from a negative view to seeing it as a model worth studying. Deng's respect for Lee and the Singapore model was evident in his subsequent actions, including sending a high-level CPC delegation to Singapore and initiating hundreds of official trips to learn from Singapore's development.
However, it's important to note that while Deng found admiration in Singapore, he was firmly rooted in Marxism-Leninism. Deng's concepts of 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics' as well early theoretical development of it never changed before or after his admiration of Lee, he always maintained the Marxist perception and Party Line, if we were to read his dissertations before and after his visit to Singapore, you'll find no change in his perceptions or ideology, for example here he is in 1957 talking about the productive forces in context of China's socialist development:
"Is our socialist system good or not? There has to be a correct answer to this. Whether this system is good or not depends on whether or not it can promote the development of productive forces ... If the Soviet Union had adopted workers' councils at that time, how would order have been established? At that time, was the one-long system conducive to the development of the productive forces, or was the workers' councils conducive to the development of the productive forces? Of course, it's a long system. So it is not right to emphasize that the workers' councils are good and absolutely good at all times ... It should be said that our current system is suitable for the development of productive forces. If we compare it with the United States, we can't compare the living standards of the people of their countries, and neither can the Soviet Union; But the pace of our development is very fast, and the development of industry in the USSR and in all the people's democracies of Eastern Europe has already surpassed that of the capitalist countries. The speed of development can be seen by all of us, and this is relatively easy to solve. The important thing is that we should always learn lessons, and see what was reasonable in the past and what is unreasonable now, and what is unreasonable must be corrected and made up; We must adhere to what was reasonable in the past and what is still reasonable now. As long as we adopt this attitude, we are likely to make fewer mistakes; If there is a mistake, it will be corrected, so that small mistakes will not become big mistakes, partial mistakes will become all mistakes, and temporary mistakes will become long-term mistakes."
And here he is March 1978, just before his visit to Singapore in November still stressing the Marxist application of the Productive Forces:
"The first point is the necessity of understanding that science and technology are part of the productive forces. The Gang of Four raised a hue and cry over this, confounding right and wrong and sowing much confusion in people’s minds. Marxism has consistently treated science and technology as part of the productive forces. More than a century ago, Marx said that expansion of the use of machinery in production requires the conscious application of natural science. Science too, he said, is among the productive forces. The development of modern science and technology has bound science and production ever more tightly together. It is becoming increasingly clear that science and technology are of tremendous significance as productive forces."
--- Deng Xiaoping, Speech At the Opening Ceremony of the National Conference On Science, March 1978
And now here he is after the Singapore visit:
"Modernization does represent a great new revolution. The aim of our revolution is to liberate and expand the productive forces. Without expanding the productive forces, making our country prosperous and powerful, and improving the living standards of the people, our revolution is just empty talk. We oppose the old society and the old system because they oppressed the people and fettered the productive forces. We are clear about this problem now. The Gang of Four said it was better to be poor under socialism than to be rich under capitalism. This is absurd. Of course, we do not want capitalism, but neither do we want to be poor under socialism. What we want is socialism in which the productive forces are developed and the country is prosperous and powerful. We believe that socialism is superior to capitalism. This superiority should be demonstrated in that socialism provides more favourable conditions for expanding the productive forces than capitalism does. This superiority should have become evident, but owing to our differing understanding of it, the development of the productive forces has been delayed, especially during the past ten-year period up to 1976. In the early 1960s, China was behind the developed countries, but the gap was not as wide as it is now. Over the past 11 or 12 years, from the end of the 1960s through the 1970s, the gap has widened because other countries have been vigorously developing their economies, science and technology, with the rate of development no longer being calculated in terms of years, not even in terms of months, but in terms of days. For a fairly long period of time since the founding of the People’s Republic, we have been isolated from the rest of the world. For many years this isolation was not attributable to us; on the contrary, the international anti-Chinese and anti-socialist forces confined us to a state of isolation. However, in the 1960s when opportunities to increase contact and cooperation with other countries presented themselves to us, we isolated ourselves. At last, we have learned to make use of favourable international conditions."
-- Deng Xiaoping, We Can Develop A Market Economy Under Socialism, 1979
As we can see, his Marxist pragmatism never wavered, when people say he was inspired by Lee, where do they get this information from? Do they equate admiration to inspire? Because they don't correlate, the speech in March 1978 was part of the Four Modernisation policy the progenitor to the ‘Opening-Up’, which originated by Zhou Enlai but supported by Deng, there's more evidence of Deng being inspired by Lenin's New Economic Policy, than Lee's development of Singapore, as Professor Zeng Changqiu (of School of Politics and Administration, Central South University) said:
"After reflecting on the traditional socialist model, Deng Xiaoping found that Lenin's 'thinking on the new economic policy was relatively good' when he led the whole party to carry out socialist modernization. The theory and practice of China's reform and opening up is the inheritance of Lenin's New Economic Policy in the new historical period."
Lee's Singapore was more of a study project than something to be inspired of, at end of the day when Deng formulated the Opening-Up he was sending CPC delegates across the world to study new technology, methodologies, theories, practices to bring home to the motherland to enhance on the development they've been isolated of due to anti-Socialist bulwark and Ideological Adventurists. As I already explained in another article 'The Metaphysical Vacuum of China’s Socialist Development':
"And importantly, the next statement Lenin says is exactly what China has been doing since the 'Opening-Up':
'We must not be afraid of Communists ‘learning’ from bourgeois experts, including merchants, petty capitalist co-operators and capitalists, in the same way as we learned from the military experts, though in a different form. The results of the ‘learning’ must be tested only by practical experience and by doing things better than the bourgeois experts at your side; try in every way to secure an improvement in agriculture and industry, and to develop exchange between them. Do not grudge them the ‘tuition’ fee: none will be too high, provided we learn something. Do everything to help the masses of working people, to come closer to them, and to promote from their ranks hundreds and thousands of non-Party people for the work of economic administration.'
[V. I. Lenin, The Tax in Kind]
China opening up the country to foreign investments and sending the Youth to foreign universities to learn new methods, practices, and technology, is one of the main reasons China has developed themselves so rapidly, people can decry that Chinese Workers are being exploited all they like, but the Scientific practices have been more of a positive than a negative for China’s development!"
For those not familiar, Lenin's Tax in Kind was his manifesto to the New Economic Policy for Soviet Russia, it's the same manifesto that Deng himself was inspired by, along with Marx's and Engels critique of Capitalism. As he expressed himself:
"Recently some comrades suggested that Mao Zedong Thought serve as the guide for the study of political economies. It is true that Comrade Mao Zedong has developed the theory on political economics. However, the theories of Marx and Engels or Capital should always be used as the guide for studying capitalism at its initial and developing stages, and Lenin’s Imperialism, the Final Stage of Capitalism for studying imperialism. In the study of socialism, Lenin and Stalin as well as Comrade Mao Zedong have made important contributions to its development. Therefore, Mao Zedong Thought cannot be regarded as the sole guide for studying political economics. What if someone should ask you which works of Mao Zedong’s would best serve as a guide for studying imperialism? It would be hard to give a definite reply. Of course, Comrade Mao Zedong has contributed to the exposition of imperialism, adding such ideas as the thesis that imperialism is a paper tiger. However, Capital and Imperialism, the Final Stage of Capitalism have already dealt with the basic theories concerning capitalism and imperialism. How to regard Mao Zedong Thought is a serious matter of principle. We should see to it that Mao Zedong Thought is not vulgarized, which would bring harm to ourselves and to the international communist movement."
-- Deng, Xiaoping, Correctly Disseminate Mao Zedong Thought, 1960
Ultimately, all of Deng's decisions were a result of his mastery of Dialectical Materialism, the Scientific Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism, and Scientific Socialism, China would've stilled developed rapidly with and without Lee's Singapore, his contributions are tiny to the rest of the historic world where China mostly got their studies from, Lee's Singapore is only but a footnote in China's development, but for the people of Singapore it is a miracle. To say he was "inspired" by Lee, is historically and factually incorrect, as it not only dissuades the true and real causes of China’s development, but also blunts Deng Xiaoping’s theories as nothing but works of Lee Kuan Yew, and not Deng himself, whom spent most of his life guiding the party as a éminence grise from the ‘War of Liberation’ (aka Chinese Civil War) and ‘War of Resistance’ (aka 2nd Sino-Japanese War), to the creation of the People’s Republic of China, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, to the Four Modernisations (aka Opening Up) periods, he did all these achievements himself surviving two purging attempts on his life by the ideological adventurists Red Guards of the Gang of Four, all through guidance of Marxism-Leninism, unless you were to say Deng and Lee have been secretly meeting each other since the 50s, Deng was inspired by Marxist-Leninist ideas, not Lee. If China wasn’t stagnated during the Cultural Revolution, it would’ve developed much earlier, Deng states this himself saying:
“Of course, we do not want capitalism, but neither do we want to be poor under socialism. What we want is socialism in which the productive forces are developed and the country is prosperous and powerful. We believe that socialism is superior to capitalism. This superiority should be demonstrated in that socialism provides more favourable conditions for expanding the productive forces than capitalism does. This superiority should have become evident, but owing to our differing understanding of it, the development of the productive forces has been delayed, especially during the past ten-year period up to 1976. In the early 1960s, China was behind the developed countries, but the gap was not as wide as it is now. Over the past 11 or 12 years, from the end of the 1960s through the 1970s, the gap has widened because other countries have been vigorously developing their economies, science and technology, with the rate of development no longer being calculated in terms of years, not even in terms of months, but in terms of days. For a fairly long period of time since the founding of the People’s Republic, we have been isolated from the rest of the world. For many years this isolation was not attributable to us; on the contrary, the international anti-Chinese and anti-socialist forces confined us to a state of isolation. However, in the 1960s when opportunities to increase contact and cooperation with other countries presented themselves to us, we isolated ourselves. At last, we have learned to make use of favourable international conditions.”
— Deng Xiaoping, We Can Develop A Market Economy Under Socialism, 1979