PM Lee’s extract of interview on Singapore’s leadership:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory…
April 15, 2008
Beyond kissing babies
What makes a good Cabinet minister? Why were DrNg Eng Hen and Mr
Raymond Lim made ministers so rapidly? Chinese-language daily
Lianhe Zaobao posed these and other questions to Prime Minister Lee
Hsien Loong in an interview published last Sunday. Extracts from
the interview:
EYE FOR A LEADER: One of the issues
foremost on PM Lee’s mind is leadership renewal. Singaporeans have
high expectations of ministers but, in reality, it is difficult to
find leaders who are perfect, he says.
Since you assumed office 3 1/2 years ago, there have been many
policy changes, in areas like education, medical subsidies,
transport and CPF. What characteristics did
the young ministers display in pursuing these reforms? Are there
differences between them, your generation and the previous
generation of ministers?
This is not an issue of differences between two generations of
ministers. Times are different now and the circumstances have
changed. The way we craft and implement policies must also adapt to
the new environment.
Decades ago, when the economy was not that developed, we could
be bold and resolute because we were very clear about what must be
done. You could not go wrong as long as you moved in that
direction.
In the current environment, we cannot say for sure that no
problem will arise. We must think clearly how a policy must be
adjusted to achieve our goal, to avoid undesirable effects. This is
not easy.
Regardless of whether it is to do with car population control or
health care or goods and services tax (GST) adjustment, you have to
ask: What negative effects could there be?
What can be done to try and reduce these negative effects, to
reduce misunderstanding, fear and unnecessary pressure among the
people in the face of new policies?
It is not as easy to implement policies in this manner. The
policies we rolled out in the last two or three years were
deliberated and formulated over many years.
In the past, the Government adopted a rather paternalistic
approach, saying this is right and we should just follow. But now
you are worried that people do not understand, have fears and are
discontented. Is the Government’s leadership style moving towards
one of equal footing?
What you are describing are two extremes. We were not completely
paternalistic in the past, and we are not completely populist
today. We do not parrot the views of others.
Regardless of who the leader is, he must have his own views and
ideas. If you have no ideas, you should not be a leader. If I do
only the things that everyone agrees with, there will definitely be
problems.
As a leader, besides listening to the people, you also have the
responsibility of analysing, understanding and explaining the
issues, trying to convince the people, striving for consensus, so
that the nation can move ahead.
We are working more on this now. The people are relatively
better-educated and can better understand the issues, including the
nature and the difficulties of the issues.
On the other hand, the policies today are more complex. If we
cannot explain the policies to the public in simple language, it
will be very hard for them to accept these policies.
Our style has indeed changed, but we still must maintain our
resolute and objective leadership style.
Ministers populist?
Do you feel that your ministers are populist?
We have to achieve good results in an election every five years,
which is the basic requirement of a democratic system. But we
cannot make decisions according to what is popular.
A minister should not be a MrNice Guy who knows only how to
please the people. He should not follow the views of other people
blindly. He must tell people what he believes in and what his stand
is.
Every decision made by the people holding office will have a
negative effect; every choice has a good and bad side.
You must pick the one with the least number of bad points and
the most number of good points. This is not a matter of simple
calculations, but a judgment, a choice. In the short term, your
decision may not be accepted by the people, but you must realise
that this is a long-term plan which is more appropriate.
Means testing and GST
Some people have been critical of some policies formulated by
our ministers recently, for example, means testing in hospitals.
Minister Khaw Boon Wan set the start point low when he was
considering the personal income ceiling for means testing. It was
then raised to more than $2,000, and it was finally set at $3,200.
Perhaps the minister had a Plan A or a Plan B…?
You have to ask Minister Khaw Boon Wan. This is his style, his
way of doing things. I think the public would not have accepted it
if he had begun at $3,000, and it became $1,500 eventually.
This is because people hope there will be some compromise after
discussions. We will make the adjustment if it is reasonable. But
sometimes, we feel that there is no alternative but to carry on
with the original plans even after discussions.
Let’s take the GST – it was raised from 5
per cent to 7 per cent last year. Many people feel that we should
have done it slowly and raised it step by step. But my view is that
the GST is not a popular policy, and if we
want to raise it, we should do so when the economy is growing
strongly.
The people will be more receptive, and the Government will have
the ability to adopt several measures to help the people cushion
the impact.
I prefer to do it fast and adopt several measures to cushion the
impact at the same time. If the adjustment is slow and the increase
small, the measures to cushion the impact will not be so generous
and timely.
What is the Government currently most worried about?
In the short term, we are worried about whether the people can
adapt to economic restructuring and whether we can attract
investments and jobs to grow the economy. If we cannot grow the
economy, then there is no need to talk about other issues. We have
often talked about the social safety net and the quality of life,
but they cannot be done without economic growth.
In the long term, the issue of leadership is very important.
Cohesion and the leadership issue are related.
It is not easy to enhance cohesion and continue leadership
renewal, and it is not easily understood by others.
It is not easy to maintain a system like Singapore’s, to have
good and carefully chosen leaders. Whether in developed or
developing nations, the systems will differ. The conditions are
different in different countries, so too the system and mode of
operation.
Our way of doing things best suits our situation and our
environment, but the problem is how to maintain this leadership
quality.
Few countries can maintain a selection and appointment system
which is fair, open and based on merit from the highest to the
lowest level.
Minister as CEO
The Government is seeking first-class talent from the top 1 per
cent, but most people wonder why the Government cannot accept the
next best talent, for example, talent from the top 5 per cent. What
is your view?
Many people ask why the Government is so picky and accepts only
the top talent when we talk about the broad principles, but they
adopt a different attitude when they look at individual ministers.
They will ask why this minister is not good enough, is not capable
enough and has little eloquence.
In reality, it is difficult to find leaders who are perfect.
There are few people who are very capable and can connect with
the people, while being willing to dedicate themselves to society
and take up the responsibility to lead.
Of course, there are different grades of leaders. Let’s take the
example of our grassroots leaders. We can find these devoted
volunteers in every constituency. We can also find suitable
candidates to run as MPs.
However, I believe Singaporeans have high expectations of
ministers, the deputy prime minister and the prime minister.
In many countries, the ministers are like the directors of the
ministries, and the deputy ministers or the permanent secretaries
in the ministries are the real chief executives. The ministers’
speeches are usually drafted by the officials, and the specific
policies and policy details are formulated by the officials.
If there is a major change in policy, unless the officials
agree, the minister cannot make the change.
In Japan and other countries, it is not necessarily the
ministers who answer the MPs’ queries, but the deputy ministers or
the officials who do so.
It is different in Singapore. The minister is the chief
executive of the ministry – he decides on the policy and guidelines
and then personally explains in Parliament the rationale and aims
of the policy.
Some people ask why the Government is so concerned that more
than 100 top students are staying abroad every year. We are
concerned as we have to rely on the top youngsters to create a
future for Singaporeans. If they go overseas and stay for a long
time in another country, it would not be easy for them to switch to
politics here as they would have lost touch with Singapore to a
certain degree.
They may hold Singaporean passports and their families may be
here. But in the 10 to 20 years they are away, not having gone
through the ups and downs in Singapore, and being unfamiliar with
the worries of Singaporeans, the likelihood of them joining
politics will be reduced and this will worsen the shortage of
political talent.
Even if they are in Singapore working in the private sector or
in a particular profession, and even if they are very capable, in
their 30s or 40s, their way of thinking and social circles would be
limited after being involved in a particular profession for a long
time.
It may not be possible for them, overnight, to become ministers
in white shirt and trousers, with the ability to interact well with
the people.
Ng Eng Hen was a surgeon who succeeded in becoming a minister,
but he needed some time initially to adapt.
Surgeons do not have to consider policies every day. They see
patients and are concerned about the patients’ condition, treatment
and the required operation. Such experience and way of thinking are
different from those needed in policy formulations. But Ng Eng Hen
is able to excel in his job as he has strong learning and working
capabilities. Regretfully, there are not many people who are like
him.
Ministers who have worked in government departments – for
example, Tharman (Shanmugaratnam) or Khaw Boon Wan – will face
smaller differences, but the disadvantage is they have never worked
in the private sector.
Winning qualities
Q: Ministers like Ng Eng Hen and Raymond Lim who did not come
from government departments have been placed relatively quickly in
policy-making positions. According to your observations, what
special traits do they possess?
PM LEE: Firstly, they possess the spirit
to work hard when they agreed initially to switch from their jobs
to become ministers of state.
Secondly, with their strong abilities, upon taking up their new
positions, they were able to quickly master and understand which
were the important issues and problems that should be addressed
first.
Thirdly, they need to explain the policies. They are able to
convey the problems and their views when they are in Parliament, at
seminars or interacting with the grassroots, and make people feel
that they understand the voters’ views.
There are basic conditions to becoming a minister, but
individual ministers have different strong points. Some ministers
are good at explaining the problems and interacting with the people
and are more approachable.
But if every minister knows only how to carry a baby and display
his friendliness, then we have a problem.