EAST Asia has been where talk of so-called Asian values had been the rage for decades; none probably articulated the idea of placing economic prosperity above political freedoms more convincingly than the late Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding leader.
Except for Singapore and lately China, the rest of the so-called Asian tigers such as South Korea, Taiwan and for a while Hong Kong parlayed economic prosperity into political liberalisation. Despite Singapore having regular elections, it is still effectively a one-party state today.
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines loosened up politically after strongmen leaders Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Suharto and Ferdinand Marcos Senior gave way.
Then there is Thailand which seems to outsiders like a country of endless coups and revolving-door governments. It, too, has advanced economically despite the appearance of constant political upheavals.
What to make of all this? I just got hold of a very erudite biography of former Thai prime minister Anand Panyarachun by Dominic Faulder. As East Asian leaders go, Anand is sui generis.
He was unelected, having served as prime minister, twice, for less than two years from 1991-1992, after two successive military coups. Yet, he will likely be remembered as the best prime minister Thailand never elected.
Dr Mahathir probably paid Anand one of the best accolades when he said Anand put all elected politicians to shame.
A patrician Cambridge-educated career diplomat, Anand was not the likeliest candidate for prime minister. Yet the unusual political funk of early 1990's Thailand presented him with unique opportunities which he grasped with great aplomb, picking a cabinet entirely composed of competent and incorruptible technocrats.
Under his watch, peace finally came to Cambodia after the murderous debacle of Khmer Rouge rule and Anand was instrumental in putting on course the Asean Free Trade Area.
Domestically, Anand came to grips with Thailand's HIV/AIDS health crisis and introduced a host of economic and legislative reforms before handing over power under his own self-imposed deadline.
Many would understandably argue that his first term ought to have been five years, not just one. But Anand probably read the political tea leaves well enough and calculated that he was able to gain free rein to do what he wanted done precisely because the country's many and varied power brokers knew he did not covet political power.
His Midas touch would have disappeared the minute he was seen to want to prolong his term.
When, after handing back power and politicians dilly-dallied about calling another election so soon after a particularly expensive previous one, the military disastrously stepped in again in May 1992, leading to mass protests and bloody suppression and a dramatic intervention by the Thai king.
Under such a gloomy national mood, it again fell on Anand to try to right things. Anand would not be distracted from what he perceived to be his only real mission the second time around: to ensure fresh elections were called as soon as possible.
His mission was accomplished about three months hence, whence he handed the levers of power to newly elected prime minster, Chuan Leekpai.
So why was Anand so unique among leaders even in a region with a predilection for authoritarian leaders?
My guess is that he knew like few do that governing cannot be divorced from political discourse and accommodation, however messy that may be. His time in power was only a political band-aid and cannot, indeed, must not, last longer than necessary.
If so, maybe Singapore provides the next best political model? Anand made a telling remark here: "One has to understand that Lee Kuan Yew was no democrat, but having said that doesn't mean you have to be negative about his credentials or aspirations.
"There is no way anyone can tell whether if Lee had become prime minister of a larger country he would have been equally successful."
The writer views developments in the nation, region and wider world from his vantage point in Kuching
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times