Only mad
60-year olds fault Kwame Nkrumah for Ghana's
development quagmire (2)
By: Prof Lungu
May 23, 2016
"....The
theses...circulating in magazines, books, online
publications, and presses over the last 30 years
that... Kwame Nkrumah's Ghana failed to develop
at the same rate as Singapore, that... Kwame
Nkrumah is responsible for Ghana's development
quagmire, are bunkum theses...They are...without
facts and data...In 2016, and for the last 60
years or so,...Yew could not fairly be elevated
as more "astute" compared to Kwame Nkrumah on
the matter of regional associations. Again, to
advance a contrary message is to absolve those
from your/our "native-country" who took up the
banners of "unhappy" foreign governments engaged
in a "Cold War" by proxy on your/our Father's
Land...Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, every Ghanaian
ought to know, was many miles ahead of Lee Kwan
Yew in matters of economic development and
vision...", (Prof Lungu, 21 May 16).
Titled "RE Ghana: lessons from Nkrumah’s fallout
with his economic adviser", our article was a
fair critique of the un-tethered essay by
Professor Tignor. As a result of comments
received on that article, we presented the first
in our "Definitive" series of essays, "Only mad
60-year olds fault Kwame Nkrumah for Ghana's
development quagmire", on 15 May, to deal
4-square with the false, unproven narrative that
Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew bettered Ghana's Kwame
Nkrumah in development and economic performance.
And so, as readers who have been
following the discourse know, this is the second
in that multi-part "Only mad 60-year olds"
series in which we provide additional
information that is data-bounded, consistent
with history, and represent a fair
interpretation of the record regarding the
performance of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana,
versus lawyer, Lee Kwan Yew, of Singapore.
TO HUMBLY RESEARCH WITH DILIGENCE IS DIVINE:
Again, the theses that have been circulating
wildly in magazines, books, online publications,
and presses such as the claim by Professor
Tignor and Kwabena Yeboah, etc., that Nkrumah
failed to develop Ghana even near the same rate
as Yew did for Singapore, or that Kwame Nkrumah
is responsible for Ghana's development quagmire
are all bunkum. They are ignorant, un-tethered
ideas without basis in fact as far as the
post-independence period (1957-1966, the period
we can rationally compare and contrast), is
concerned.
It is all bunkum unless the
people who advance those ideas want the same
world to believe that relying on coup-plotter
narratives, Cold War-era newspaper headlines,
and Johnson-CIA propaganda, make them serious,
informed, critics. In that case, they may want
to tell us they believe in the "truth" of Rip
Van Winkle, as well.
Now, dear reader,
observe that we use "60-year olds" largely as a
metaphor.
Further, we are only
interested in "post-independent" Ghana under
Kwame Nkrumah, 1957-1966, a period for which
there is comparative data, 1966 being the year
Nkrumah's government was overthrown.
Our
senses is, a serious critic must today be
prepared to take a mere 30-60 minutes, or so, of
their time to examine actual facts, data, and
theories related to a subject they intend to
pontificate on using the human knowledge port
known as the INTERNET.
As for us, we
usually encourage all of our friends, including
those we have the privilege of mentoring, to
recognize that there is precious little written
record by man that is not also available on the
internet free of charge. (However, there are
people and websites that will sell you the same
information, including free data provided by
governments and non-governmental organizations
(NGO), if you open your wallet).
Due
diligence research of actual records on the part
of Professor Tignor and others may well have
forestalled our "Only mad 60-year olds" essay
series. But, if that had occurred, it would have
deprived us the opportunity to deal with these
key questions related to Nkrumah's actual
record.
So, for that, we are grateful to
Professor Tignor and Kwabena Yeboah.
Here are two (2) fundamental points for the
Kwame Nkrumah critic: (1) Like Nkrumah,
Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew struggled and fought to
form and maintain regional associations with
countries within Singapore's geographic,
historical, and socio-economic spheres
(2) Kwame Nkrumah's style of governance achieved
for Ghana greater political and economic success
during his own time, compared to efforts by Lee
Kwan Yew of Singapore.
On those counts,
Kwame Nkrumah cannot, rationally, be responsible
for Ghana's development quagmire that shows that
"... today, income per capita in Singapore is
$33,000 and Ghana is $1,500...".
This
second paper in our "Only mad 60 year olds"
series takes up the matter identified under our
current Item 1 (i.e., regional associations and
"confabulations").
In 2016,and for the
last 60 years or so, Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew
could not be fairly elevated as more "astute"
compared to Kwame Nkrumah on the matter of
regional associations. Again, to advance a
contrary message is to absolve those from
your/our "native-country" who took up the
banners of "unhappy" foreign governments engaged
in a "Cold War" by proxy on your/our Father's
Land.
To advance a contrary message is
to absolve those who again and again stole power
by the barrel of the gun. It is to absolve those
who mis-managed the country, including "rascal
civilians" like Busia, who upon ascension to
power repeatedly failed Ghana the harder they
tried over 60 years to banish the philosophy and
ideas of Kwame Nkrumah.
MEMO TO KWAME
NKRUMAH CRITICS: There is no common sense
path to development of Ghana if so-called
leaders uncritically and meanly oppose and
belittle Kwame Nkrumah's basic propositions that
Ghana's resources belong to Ghanaians, that
Ghanaians can develop Ghana, but that, it is
Ghanaians who must first believe in themselves
and the Ghana-centered values, goals, and
objectives they hope to achieve through social
living, politics, business, even through the
courts, as necessary.
Being mute on this
matter does not inspire, nor is it patriotic,
considering that like Lee Kwan Yew, Kwame
Nkrumah is the founding father of Ghana. In
fact, nothing else will inspire Ghanaians to
uncommon acts of patriotism that will fast-track
Ghana's development precisely because unlike
latter day "rulers and leaders", Kwame Nkrumah
never stole a pesewa or "state enterprise" from
the peoples' coffers.
AFRICAN CONTINENTAL
FACT vs. SINGAPORE REGIONAL ASSOCIATION The
last we head, Kwabena Yeboah was telling the
world "...Lee Kwan Yew was not interested in
regional associations, confabulations and
continental ambition...".
But, surely,
and still, not so fast!
Clearly, Nkrumah
recognized that Ghana is located on the "Dark
Continent" of Africa, a place long represented
by Europeans as inhabited by ignorant,
uncivilized, and un-Christian Black people who
needed redemption and civilization. The Black
people on the Continent had no rights to their
own resources. Therefore, they were arbitrary
partitioned into European "possessions" by white
people sitting around large tables in Berlin,
Germany, by and large in 1844-1845, with
hip-pocket "colonial" maps mostly made by
missionaries and self-seeking adventurers and
thieves.
It is uncontroversial: At
independence, Kwame Nkrumah recognized that
Ghana was not an island, that the European
"possessions" and their "Partition of Africa"
had to be ameliorated in other to allow Ghana, a
newly independent state, to make progress
towards development and true independence.
Hence, his strong support of the proposal for
the formation of an African continental
government.
On the other hand, it is a
lot easier to see why Lee Kwan Yew would not
have fundamental interest(s) in "continental...
confabulations" of any kind.
It is just
common sense.
Singapore, after all, is an
island located on the east Asia extremity.
Singapore, after all, has since the 1800s
been a singular multi-cultural immigrant society
of predominant ethnic Chinese, native Malays,
and immigrant Indians inhabiting a 719.1 square
kilometers (277.6 sq mi). In 1963, the
population of Singapore was 1.8 million.
Contrast all of that with Ghana in
sub-Sahara Africa where the 7.3 million
population in 1963 were composed of more than 50
ethnic groups inhabiting a land area that is
greater than 239 square kilometers (92,000
square miles), a country created mainly through
European fiat, and an African population sharing
almost the same forms of European subjugation
with virtually every other country on the
African Continent.
Buy, saying that Lee
Kwan Yew was not interested in "continental
associations" does not mean he was not
interested in "regional association". There is a
difference.
To the point, it is a mighty
long jump and a gross mis-representation of the
history to claim that Lee Kwan Yew "was not
interested in regional association".
That
is simply not true, if we must be charitable.
THE FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA IN SHORT HISTORY
Fact is, when Yew's PAP party first came to
power is 1959, Lee actually believed that
"Singapore's future lay with Malaya":
"....They felt that the historic and economic
ties between Singapore and Malaya were too
strong for them to continue as separate nations.
Furthermore, Singapore lacked natural resources,
and faced both a declining entrepôt trade and a
growing population which required jobs. It was
thought that the merger would benefit the
economy by creating a common market, eliminating
trade tariffs, and thus supporting new
industries which would solve the ongoing
unemployment woes..."
Fact is, the
efforts expended by Yew's PAP for "Malaya" were
rebuffed by: "...the sizable pro-communist
wing of the PAP...strongly opposed to the
merger, fearing a loss of influence as the
ruling party of Malaya, United Malays National
Organisation, was staunchly anti-communist and
would support the non-communist faction of PAP
against them..."
As the history goes, on
9 July, 1963: "...the leaders of Singapore,
Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak signed the
Malaysia Agreement to establish the Federation
of Malaysia...(supported by the)....British
government...who...believed that the merger
would prevent Singapore from becoming a haven
for communism..."
Mr. Yew of Singapore
was thus right smack at the center of that
regional association, an undefeatable supporter
of that regional "confabulation".
See
photo (below):
"The founding father of
modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew declaring the
forming of the Federation of Malaysia on 16
September 1963 in Singapore".
Unfortunately for Mr. Yew, the union known as
the "Federation of Malaysia" had a mighty rocky
road to travel from the get go. Due to racial
tensions and inability to resolve political and
social conflicts, some of which resulted in
violence (some, between the ethnic Chinese and
Malays in Singapore):
"... Tunku Abdul
Rahman (the Malaysian Prime Minister) decided to
expel Singapore from the federation. Goh Keng
Swee, who had become skeptical of merger's
economic benefits for Singapore, convinced Lee
Kuan Yew that the separation had to take place.
UMNO and PAP representatives worked out the
terms of separation in extreme secrecy in order
to present the British government, in
particular, with a fait accompli...// ...//On
the morning of 9 August 1965, the Parliament of
Malaysia voted 126–0 in favor of a
constitutional amendment expelling Singapore
from the federation; hours later, the Parliament
of Singapore passed the Republic of Singapore
Independence Act, establishing the island as an
independent and sovereign republic...//
...// A tearful Lee Kuan Yew announced in a
televised press conference that Singapore had
become a sovereign, independent nation. In a
widely remembered quote, he stated: "For me,
it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole
adult life, I have believed in merger and unity
of the two territories...The new state became
the Republic of Singapore, with Yusof bin Ishak
appointed as its first President..."
5 POINTS ON YEW'S AFFINITY FOR ASSOCIATIONS
Dear reader, if you did not know previously, you
know now: (1) Singapore was actually expelled
from the regional association in its geographic,
social, and historical sphere(s)
(2) It
was actually another individual (Goh Keng Swee)
who foresaw that dis-association from the
Malaysian "confabulation" would possibly be a
net positive for Singapore because it in fact
meant independence from Britain.
(3) The
expulsion from that "Regional Association"
actually occurred on 9 August 1965, a mere 6
months before the overthrow of Nkrumah's
government in Ghana.
(4) Further, when
Suharto resigned on 21 May, 1966, an event Mr.
Yew did not have any hands in, that action alone
allowed what was known as the "Konfrontasi"
between Malaysia and Singapore to cease. It
enabled Singapore to develop in peace, beginning
in 1966, the same year Nkrumah's government was
overthrown by the Johnson CIA.
(5)
Crucially, the following year, in 1967,
Singapore became a founding member of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
KWAME NKRUMAH WAS JUST AS ASTUTE,
POSSIBLY MORE: So, tell, us, how can any
African or Ghanaian for that matter, how can
they claim, critically, that Lew Kwan Yew never
favored "regional associations?
How can
any African or Ghanaian critically claim that
Lew Kwan Yew of Singapore was a better political
strategist in 1957-1966, compared to Kwame
Nkrumah of Ghana?
Surely, it cannot be
because Nkrumah's government was overthrown by
the Johnson CIA and western powers, and traitors
from Ghana, just as Lew Kwan Yew was beginning
to find his moorings.
Or can it?
Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, after all, was
singularly instrumental in the conceptualization
and formation of the Organization of African
United (OAU) in 25 May 1963, in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. This is essentially the same
"confabulation" that still exists today as the
African Union, notwithstanding the white-wash in
name spearheaded by the South African
pubic-coffer- thief Jacob Zuma, since 2002. You
know, the same Jacob Zuma who spent:
"...£13 million of public money...on...a new
cattle kraal, chicken run, amphitheatre and...a
swimming pool...(arguing that)... the water
could be used to fight a fire...(who)...Even
before he won the presidency in 2009...faced no
less than 783 charges of alleged corruption,
fraud and racketeering..."
But, Dr. Kwame
Nkrumah never stole a pesewa that belonged to
Ghanaians.
Then there is all that lose
talk about the performance of Nkrumah in the
sphere of economics and development.
Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, every Ghanaian ought to
know, was many miles ahead of Lee Kwan Yew in
matters of economic development and vision,
given their individual country's unique
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats (SWOT).
That, we will take up in
Part 3 of this series, next time.
SOURCES: 1. Prof Lungu. RE: Lessons from
Nkrumah’s fallout with his economic adviser,
Ghanaweb, 8 May 16,
(http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/RE-Lessons-from-Nkrumah-s-fallout-with-his-economic-adviser-436894/).
2. Prof Lungu. Only mad 60-year olds fault
Kwame Nkrumah for Ghana's development quagmire.
Ghanaweb, 15 May 16
(http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/browse.archive.php?date=20160515/).
3. History of Singapore,
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore/)
4. Robyn Klingler Vidra. The Pragmatic
‘Little Red Dot’: Singapore’s US Hedge Against
China, Undated.
(http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SR015/SR015-SEAsia-Vidra-.pdf/).
5. Ravi Menon: An economic history of
Singapore - 1965-2065. Keynote Address, 5
August, 2015,
(http://www.bis.org/review/r150807b.htm).
6. David Blair. Judges have the last word in
Zuma’s epic battle with the rule of law. The
Telegraph,
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/02/judges-have-the-last-word-in-zumas-epic-battle-with-the-rule-of/).
Visit for more information:
www.GhanaHero.com. Read Mo'! Listen Mo'! See
Mo'! Reflect Mo'! Prof Lungu is
Ghana-Centered/Ghana-Proud! Subj: Only mad
60-year olds fault Kwame Nkrumah for Ghana's
development quagmire (2). (Definitive Serial).
Twitter: https://twitter.com/professorlungu
Support Fair-Trade Oil Share Ghana
Campaign/Petition
https://www.change.org/p/ghana-fair-trade-oil-share-psa
-campaign-ftos-gh-psa/ Brought to you
courtesy www.
|