• Sun Yat Sen
  
• Chiang Kai Shek
  
• Mao Zedong
  
• Deng Xiaoping
  
• Lee Kuan Yew

I personally would rank Lee Kuan Yew as among the top of the list before Sun Yat Sen and Deng Xiaoping ...! What's your opinion?

You might want to make it a poll.

Lee Kuan Yew managed a nation-state less than half the size of Hongkong or just 1/4 the size of the entire Taipei so you can't compare him to the rest of the great leaders...

Lee Kuan Yew ,Lee bring Singapore from third world to first world and remember he never starve his people ,a great leader is a leader that never starve his citizen ,sun was other , you want to compare the best all time Genghis Khan is no 1 .

you want to compare Lee Kuan Yew to those great statesman?

It's like asking - who are the cleverest businessmen ( not comparing $$ ) from this list when you have Bill Gates, Robert Murdock and Uncle Joe who run a very successful supermarket downtown. Uncle Joe did well but he is simply not in the class as the above two.

the above 4 leaders actually have their own era which came after the other - Dr Sun, Old Chiang, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping from 1911 - 1990s spanning some 80 years. Those 4 shaped the past and future of china.

It depent how you see,this great four statesman of yours too are like compare to Genghis Khan ,Lee a great statesmen of his own ,actually Lee shall not included here since this section for China history .

I do not need to you advise me , [remark edited] .

Deng Xiaoping.
Lee could make a good municipal governor.
But international politics for great states is another level of complex issues.

IMO, PM Lee is among the most respected political leaders not only in Asia region but in comparing to the whole world as well. Due to the fact that he's 100% of Chinese descendant and that Singapore is a city-state with a majority of her population is Chinese therefore I would include PM Lee as among contemporary Chinese political leaders. Needless to address about the geographical, social, and political condition in Singapore during the past 50 years since there is so much information have already been published already regarding the remarkable achievements and progess that Singapore (under the leadership of PM Lee) has accomplished! Singaporeans are fast approaching and enjoying the highest living standard among the most developed nations on earth ....!

Well ... actions speak louder than political rhetorics .... I would still take my hat off to PM Lee regarding his savy political skills and effective leadership!

Note: Poll added and thread name changed from "contemporary leader" to leader since 1911

Deng Xiaoping does seem to have a good economic policy that continue to shape China today and he did gain back Hong Kong.

Best leader of PRC: I have to agree with Deng.

Best leader of ROC: Jiang Jingguo. Jiang made many Taiwanese rich, and unlike his dictator father who strictly favored mainlanders for government positions, he welcomed Taiwanese into positions of power. Jiang Jingguo was a far better politician than his father, and became more flexible as he grew older. Just like it took a staunchly anti-communist politician like Richard Nixon to open dialogue with the PRC, Jiang Jingguo's early career was highly repressive but became more flexible during the 70's when he gradually allowed opposition members to criticize his rule. And he loosened controls on the media in the early 80's.

Jiang Jingguo was not diehard authoritarian like his father. He knew that KMT would eventually become a Taiwanese party, and adjusted his policies to that incoming reality.

That is the key difference between Jiang Jingguo and Deng Xiaoping's political legacy. Both are economic pragmatists.

it saddens me that Chiang Jr. only become more and more opened in response to US's discontent. If Chiang and his son would have just lighten up earlier, things could have been a lot better.

I agree that US pressure played a role and accelerated the pace of reforms. Especially Reagan's influence during the early 80's.

Technically, we could blame Thatcher for that, not Deng.

Anyway, the Cultural Revolution was by and large one of the worst periods of Chinese History, Mao set back the progress of China so many years, and the Legions of Red Guards that followed him didn't help at all. It was Deng Xiaoping that made china great, he was able to not only stop, but reverse to some degree these terrible acts, as well as doing what he did, as a Communist in a Communist fanatic China, the fact that he was able to Introduce capitalism into China, let alone have it succeed as well as it did (Eat that Mikhail!) is a true wonder, i'd say Deng is up there with Qin Shi Huang as one of the Greatest Chinese Leaders of all time.

Look at the state China was in in the late '70's and how Deng was able to turn everything around 180 degrees. He saw economic reform as the only way out of the embarrassing situation China's gotten herself in by adopting some stupid Western ideology. And he held on to that believe. To him, economic reform was paramount. Everything else would have to take second place. Tiananmen Square is a good example of not allowing anything that could have a remote chance of undermining his reforms. Like me, he must've reflected to himself why the 100 days reform of the late Qing did not succeed like the Meiji restoration did in Japan. His vision and his indefatigable pursuit of economic reform has will be remembered by history. He is truely a giant.

Just one question though, why did Deng Xiaopeng succeed and Mikhail Gorbachev fail?

but babyblue, i would agree with you on the Meiji point, if Mao was the new Qin Shi Huang, Deng Xiaopeng was China's answer to Meiji and Peter.

Lee Kuan Yew undoubtedly wins hands down. There are a number of reasons for this, and they go to the nature of being a statesman. A statesman must not only manage the economy, and rule the country, he must do so in a fashion which promotes the wellbeing of all the ruled, and that includes their human rights.

I am fascinated by the comparison between Deng and Lee which many have made. Many deride Lee, and say that Deng managed a great power whereas Lee only managed a city state. But the comparison is flawed.

In many respects it is much easier to make a success out of a resource-rich, populous, poor, large country than it is to make a success out of a resourceless, densely populated, poor, island state. Lee did the latter, and a long time before Deng. Deng used Lee as a model for his economic reform. Moreover, Lee did much to awaken leaders in the mainland to the necessity for economic liberalism.

So Lee's economic success is the greater even though the country is the smaller. The fact that Singapore has had a disproportionate role in Asian and world politics is a tribute to Lee as well.

Finally, a comment on human rights. While Lee is often criticised for being a tough political operator (and I recognise others have harsher words for him), he was never party to the massacre of people because they were protesting against his government. Deng will always be remembered as the man who agreed to send the tanks into Tienanmen Square. The new leaders in the PRC now recognise, to their credit, that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable in a modern state. Deng did not.

So by that one little incident in tianamen is worse than the thirty-something years of tyrrany under Mao? seven million people died in famines alone, not to mention the Red Guard Gang wars, it was Deng who put a stop to this, so what if he showed brutality in ONE incident, Mao was brutal for almost 30 years.

I was not comparing Deng with Mao. I was comparing Deng with Lee.

I make no apologies for Mao, and I certainly am not interested in finding the worst tyrant in Chinese history (where would one start?). I was saying that I believed Lee was the best on the list, and justifying my selection against those who chose Deng.

Okay, so Deng Turns a Backward Country Into a Future Superpower, and yet, because of ONE incident, which as i stated was absolutely nothing in comparison to his predecessor, is suddenly inferior to someone who turned a Tiger Economy into, a Tiger Economy? how is he (Lee) any better than Chiang Kai-shek's son? or Yen Chia-kan? or even Chiang himself? why not put John So and Sir Edward Youde on the list as well then?

With the greatest respect, I think you need to look at your history a little more closely. You dismiss Lee Kuan Yew as someone who "turned a Tiger Economy into a Tiger Economy." The facts do not bear this out.

Singapore still had a kampong in the middle of it until Lee closed it down. I remember taking a rickshaw down Orchard Road when it was a nothing backing onto a dirty creek.

You forget that Singapore has no resources. It has no minerals, no land for food, and it had no capital base either. Lee adopted a strategy of turning it into an entrepot and transshipment hub, knowing that planes flying between Europe and Australia/NZ, and between the US and Asia, needed somewhere to stop to refuel, and that ships needed somewhere to do likewise.

When Singapore left Malaysia, it was not the rich state in the Federation, but it accelerated much faster that Malaysia did. if you comment was true, then Malaysia should have experienced the same rate of growth as Singapore. It did not, and it still does not have the same foreign exchange reserves that Singapore does. Singapore was a net exporter of capital before any other Asian country other than Japan, and Japan had industrialisation prior to the First World War.

------

This question's already answered in my previous reply. Gorbachev's policy of Glasnost ruled out any action such as taken by Deng in Tiananmen Square.

WOoooo...

I am not sure if I would even comment on THAT statement, so I shall refrain. Perhaps you can reword it?

Sun Yat Sen

if there were no Sun Yat Sen there would be no ROC or PRC, but a Nation ruled by the non-Han Qing dynasty. Deng Xiao Ping - a Hakka from Sichuan - would be my 2nd favorite, because he was brave enough to support some capitalism - which actually goes against Communist Rules. I admire Sun Yat Sen for overthrowing the non-Han imperialist and setting up China's first Republic -> the Republic of China that lasted until 1949. He also respected China's ethnic minorities (ie Tibetans, Zhuang, Manchu, Mongol, etc) and was/is a unifying figure of Modern China (both the ROC and PRC).

Okay, but Singapore is a City State, Taiwan and Hong Kong were both very similar to Singapore, so why don't the Governors of HK and rulers of Taiwan get your recognition? Granted Taiwan does have natural rescources, but HK does not, other than a natural deep water harbour, which i believe Singapore has as well. The point is, no matter how great the administrator of a City, can he compare with a great administrator of a Country or an Empire? the answer is no.



umm, forgive my ignorance on the subject, but is that somehow related to Presterokia?

every period n every circumstances, we need diff set of leaders...
imagine puttin LKY against the Qing Dynasty....

I personally think the best leader after 1911 was Sun Yat Sen as he tried his best to Unify the country and fight off War Lords.

I personally beleive the 1989 Tiananmen Sqaure incident was the only fault done by the Deng Xiao Ping administration (not sure if it was ordered and/or supported by Deng though). But i personally believe Sun Yat Sen and Deng Xiao Ping are both heros, but i have to give more credit to the Father of Modern China(Sun Yat Sen) for having to travel around the world and giving speeches to try to get overseas & local chinese support to overthrough Imperialism and War Lords, is a tough job >.< In addition, he had no fault during his short rule of China's first Republic =)

Check this awesome video about Sun Yat Sen =) --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HA-aJjgn0A

Deng Xiao Ping succeeded becuase he said: It does not matter whether the cat is black of white. As long as it cathces mouses, it is a good socialist cat!

Gorbachev, on the other hand, followed what Adam Smith said.

Oops forget to state who the best leader is:

Imho, we need a different type of leader for different time, Sun Zhong Shan to topple the Qing dynasty; Mao Ze Dong to unite forcefully a divided China devastated from European influences; Zhou En Lai and then Deng Xiao Ping for the country in peace time.

Sun Zhong Shan is like Li Shi Min of Tang dynasty - rise against an old rotten regime
Mao Ze Dong is like Qin Shi Huang - cruel but necessary to unite the country in time of chaos
Zhou En Lai and Deng Xiao Ping are like Qian Long of Qing dynasty - leaders in time of peace

Lee Kuan Yew is not even Chinese, he's Singaporean...

You're right.
In fact, aside from Sun Yat Sen, I admire Zhou En Lai in running state affairs, and he's more capable than Mao. Deng Xiaoping, according to mine, is a good economist, whose openness gave china a chance to prosper.

Mao is like Nasser of Egypt while Deng is like Sadat. (Nasser used socialism in improving egypt, while Deng Opened egypt to foreign investment.)

It all depends on what is used to measure who was the best. In terms of policy, i would have to choose Deng- he was the catalyst in instigatingthe new direction on economic and social policy- it was a brave move which set China on the road to recovery after the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution, and it was Deng who got China into the position it is in today. However, in terms of personal greatness Mao Zedong was China's best leader- he managed to cultivate a cult of millions of people who worshipped the very ground he trod on, and even after such policy disasters as the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward there were still many Chinese who thought he could do no wrong. The other options can all be credited with achievements, but Deng and Mao hold the top two spots.