Apr 6, 2011 - Straits Times
A 90-MINUTE question-and-answer session followed Prime Minister
Lee Hsien Loong's address at the NUS ministerial forum on Tuesday
night.
The students peppered PM Lee with questions, ranging from
fielding new citizens as election candidates, to social equality
and the relevance of Group Representative Constituencies in the
coming general election.
Some questions drew applause, others laughter from the
1,200-strong audience. PM Lee spoke candidly, switching between
seriousness and humour with ease.
Here are edited excerpts from the Q&A session with PM
Lee:
Moderator: Mr Lee, when I took on this role as
moderator, many of my fellow undergraduates expressed much
scepticism with the nature of such a forum. They primarily wondered
to what extent can they really ask questions. Well, to my mind I
believe that they can pretty much ask any question they deem
reasonable because the nature of such a forum and the objective of
such a forum is for you to speak up and engage in a meaningful
discussion. Do you think that my understanding of the forum's
objectives are accurate?
PM Lee: Oh, I think the more frankly you speak
and ask, the more valuable this session will be and the more
interesting it will be. If you ask boring questions, I'm forced to
give you boring answers. So please don't.
Moderator: I invite the first question from the
floor.
GRC to stay for a long time to come
Q: My name is Jason Lim from the faculty of
Arts and Social Sciences, NUS. Since the elections are coming up
pretty soon, my question is regarding the group representation
constituency (GRC) system. From what we understand, the purpose of
having the GRC system is to ensure there is minority representation
in Parliament. However, we see that there is Mr Michael Palmer,
(who) looks set to contest in his newly-carved out Punggol East
single-member constituency (SMC).
In that case, if he were to win his SMC, doesn't it debunk the
theory that we need the GRCs to ensure a minority representation
since a minority is able to win his ward?
PM Lee: The answer is no. The answer is no
because one swallow doesn't make a summer. One SMC doesn't prove
that we don't have a problem. One candidate standing in Punggol
East, we will see how Michael Palmer does.
He hasn't won yet, mind you, but does that mean that I can field
in any constituency in Singapore, as a single, a minority candidate
against a Chinese candidate and other things being equal, the
minority will do well, as well as the Chinese?
I do not think so. I do not think so now and I don't think it
will be for a very long time to come. Even within the Chinese it
makes a difference whether or not you are Teochew nang (man),
especially if you go to places like Hougang. It makes a very big
difference. So what more between Chinese and non-Chinese?
And in a society, in a city where every constituency now has
got, more or less, a balanced mix - majority Chinese and some
minorities - the minorities will always be at a disadvantage. And I
think, therefore, we will need the GRC system for a long time to
come, regardless of what happens in Punggol East. Although if you
ask me, I will put my money on Michael Palmer winning.
Q: My name is Muhammad Farouq Osman. I'm a year
2 NUS sociology major. The government has been arguing that in
Singapore there is social mobility. This is probably true but a
serious analysis of mobility in Singapore should make a distinction
between absolute mobility and relative mobility. Relative mobility
is the true measure of mobility - for example, we can say that both
students from high-income family and low-income family experience
improvement in their life chances but what matters is whether both
groups improve at the same rate.
Sadly, in Singapore this isn't the case because the playing
field isn't level. We might be doing well in terms of absolute
mobility but in terms of relative mobility, we are doing absolutely
badly and this is exacerbated by the fact that although Singapore
is a First World country, it has a Third World wage structure - and
this is according to the Straits Times, not from anywhere else. And
even Professor Tommy Koh ...
PM Lee: Do you believe everything you read in
the Straits Times?
Q: Ya, I mean, my last question is: how do you
ensure that the forthcoming fourth generation leadership truly
understands Singapore's social realities?
PM Lee: I have a lot of sympathy for what you
say. Mobility is, whether you call it absolute or relative
mobility, it's something which is very difficult to achieve in a
stable society because the people who are successful will tend to
have children who are successful; the people who are less
successful will tend to have kids who don't have as good a
headstart in life.
We can try and even it out. I think in Singapore we have done a
lot to even it out. But to make everybody have the same headstart
in life, I have to take away kids from parents and put them all in
one creche and mix them up, and I don't think that's a good
solution. So what we can do is to make sure that even if you come
from a poor home, that the opportunities are there and the
investments are there.
We are starting very young, with pre-school, because we
discovered that the better-off kids all went to kindergarten and by
the time they reach Primary one, they can read, they can write,
they can sing, they can dance.
And the other kids who didn't go to kindergarten were at a
disadvantage. So we've got very generous subsidies for low-income
kids going to kindergarten; we've got generous subsidies for
low-income families putting their kids into childcare, where they
can also get good environment and education. And we encourage the
parents to take advantage of this so that their kids get a
headstart in life.
We can do what I described just now in my speech ? make every
school in Singapore a good school. You don't have to go to Raffles
Institution or Anglo Chinese School or Hwa Chong Institution to get
a good education. Any school you go into, we have good committed
teachers, excellent facilities and the opportunity to move into
different classes and do different things if you show talent and
promise.
I think we have been able to do that. I was at a community
function this weekend and one secondary school put up some art
displays, pictures, paintings done by their students, ceramics,
flower arrangement. And I spoke to the teacher. This was Naval Base
Secondary School.
It's not a famous school. I think most of you may not have heard
of it. But I was very warmed to see what the teacher was doing
because I had cited them previously ? (at the) National Day Rally.
I said this is a school where they've got a good art programme.
They get talented kids. And the students, one year, they went to
Spain. But that year they didn't go to the Alhambra. And the
teacher came to see me, she says, 'I'm going to Spain this year
with my kids. I'm going to take them to the Alhambra this year'.
It's an ordinary neighbourhood school but we can provide this
because we've got Edusave, because we've got opportunity, funds;
because the government cares about it.
I think that's not doing a little bit. That's doing quite a lot.
We can do more, but finally what it depends on is the kids
themselves and their parents ? to want to move up and to take
advantage of the opportunities which are there and we must help
them.
We cannot close off doors for them. You do not want people to
dress differently then you laugh at the other guy ? says, 'Oh, he
doesn't know how to dress, he doesn't know how to speak, he doesn't
know how to hold his glass properly so he doesn't belong'. He feels
awkward, which is what happens in Britain, for example, between the
upper classes and the working classes.
But we want everybody to feel comfortable with one another,
whether you are in a hawker centre, whether you are in the park,
whether you are in a cinema. We are all Singaporeans together. We
should try and keep it like that as long as we can ? and then you
can study it in your sociology class!
Live with the consequences of your choice
Q: My name is David. I'm from the NUS and I'm a
student in the faculty of arts and social sciences ... studying
political science. There's a pretty strong line-up of opposition
members in this coming election and my question is, in the
unfortunate event that the PAP loses let's say one or two GRCs, how
will this affect leadership renewal and what are the contingency
plans of the PAP?
PM Lee: I think we fight to win and the voters
have to decide. And we take the opposition seriously in every
constituency, and all our MPs have been working hard and preparing.
When you are going into battle, you do not ask what will happen if
we lose. You ask, 'How do I make sure that we win' and I think
that's what we are focused on. But whatever the outcome, these are
very serious decisions which voters are making when they go to the
polls and mark their ballot paper. They have to think carefully and
they have to live with the consequences of their choices.
Singapore can't afford to have a bad PM
Q: I'm a 4th year Singapore Management
University law student. My question pertains to the idea of picking
our leaders. Why are our leaders picked instead of letting them
emerge? Doesn't this presuppose that those who were picked will
know how to pick eventually. And with respect to your example of a
national team, for every 'A team' that is sent to the World Cup,
there's actually ... the English Premier League, there are many
competing teams to send that very one 'A team'. So if a team is
being picked, wouldn't the situation be as bad as our national
team? Hope to hear your views.
PM Lee: I don't want to say anything about our
national football team. But notwithstanding the travails of the
national football team, other countries only have one national
football squad and they win the World Cup from time to time.
Why do we have to pick leaders? We cannot pick leaders. I cannot
say who my successor will be. My predecessor didn't pick me. But
what I can do is to make sure that I bring in to the net a group of
people - half a dozen, maybe 10 who show promise, have talent and
hopefully amongst them will develop someone whom the rest will
acknowledge to be their leader.
If it doesn't, then they'll have to work in a different way. But
group dynamics are such (that) you have a group of people, after
some time they work with one another, either they acknowledge one
leader or they cannot work together and it breaks up. We have to
hope that it works together and I think, looking at the people,
they will work together.
Is it guaranteed? No. If I leave it to emerge from the bottom as
you described, magically, will the magic always work? I very much
doubt that. If I didn't invite people to tea, how many people will
stand up and say, 'I want to be part of this?' And of those who
stand up, how many will actually be the best candidates for the
jobs which we are looking for?
I think, there are very few countries who do it like Singapore.
So your question is a very reasonable one. The only other country
which does it, something similar to us, is China. It's China
because they have a system where they got their key people all over
the country kept track of by their zhong zu pu ? central
organisation department. It's a super-powerful Public Service
Division. And in principle at least, they know where you are, a few
thousand cadres, all over China. They track you, they develop you
and eventually by some process or consultation, they come to a
consensus, or maybe there's some tussle internally, which we don't
know, and then they say, 'Okay, next leader probably Xi Jinping;
next premier probably Li Keqiang'.
And more than five years before that, you already see the faces
coming and they are being prepared. They travel the world, they
make speeches, they go to Davos and they maximise the chance that
when a person comes into a position, he knows what he is doing.
The Americans don't do that. They have a campaign. (US President
Barack) Obama came from nowhere. No, I don't mean that in a good or
a bad sense, but just a description that he came from nowhere.
Nobody really knew him as a plausible quick candidate. (People)
expected him to lose to Hillary Clinton in the primaries but he
won. He swept the country, he became the President. You've also had
bad presidents in America. You're a political scientist, right? Or,
you are a lawyer. But if you look up the history books, the history
books will tell you who are some of the bad presidents.
But in Singapore, you cannot afford to have a bad prime
minister. So that's why we are minimising our risks but it is not a
100 per cent fail-safe solution.
Q: Sir, can I be allowed to press my point?
PM Lee: Yes, please.
Q: On the theme of sustainability, which is
more risky: to leave it to hope for the people who are picked or
something that is organic and emerged.
PM Lee: You have to pour a lot of water to make
the organic plants grow. It doesn't grow by itself, it doesn't
emerge automatically. And if what does emerge automatically will
not necessarily be the best person or the best solution. In an
ideal situation we don't have to do anything, right? I just do my
job. After one, two terms, I say, 'Well, I have completed my
responsibility, you find your next Prime Minister'. Where does he
emerge from? At that point, and he comes and say well, like Jimmy
Carter. (US president) Jimmy Carter emerged also from nowhere. He
said, 'Hi, I'm Jimmy Carter, I'm a peanut farmer and I'm running
for President'. And this was after Watergate and he became
President and many consequences followed that. Now he's a very
distinguished ex-president but when he was the president, the world
held its breath.
Q: Sir, exactly that and USA is still around
and functioning as a super power because it's sustainable.
PM Lee: And Singapore is like USA, as a super
power?
Q: I take your point. Thank you, Sir.
No upgrading, so can I pay less tax?
Q: My name is Seah Yin Hwa. I'm a 4th year
student, I'm an engineering major from NUS. Just like many people
in the audience, I served my national service and when I graduate
this year, I'll be paying taxes. But I guess the main difference
from everyone over here is that I come from a constituency where
the majority of my fellow people decided to pick a Teochew nang
that doesn't wear the white uniform. So my question is, basically
why are we being penalised for our choice of MP.
PM Lee: How are you penalised?
Q: When it comes to upgrading, what is being
told to us is that we do not have the funds to actually go ahead
with lift upgrading as well as shelters to the bus stops. When I
look over across the road to Aljunied GRC, they have
everything.
PM Lee: Low Thia Khiang says he has no
difficulty funding the lift upgrading programme.
Q: No, my question is ...
PM Lee: Your question is, why is the opposition
ward not treated at least as good as and maybe even better than the
PAP ward? And the answer is that there has to be a distinction
because the PAP wards supported the government and the policies
which delivered these good things.
All the basics apply to everybody ? your roads, your trains,
your houses, your schools, your hospitals, your security and
defence. But the extras which comes down to the upgrading
programmes ? it?s a national programme, but between the people who
voted and supported the programme and the government, and the
people who didn't, I think if we went and put yours before the PAP
constituencies, it would be an injustice.
Q: So having said that, can I pay less taxes
and maybe take one or two years off my NS?
PM Lee: How shall I put this? If you were on an
offshore island and not part of the SAF security defence, such a
thing could be imagined. But the SAF, defence, taxes, all the
facilities which have been provided, go to everybody. Priority,
first and second, who comes first, who has to wait. Somebody has to
wait.
Moderator: OK can we have the next question
...
PM Lee: But you can do something about it, you
know. You don't have to keep on voting for people not in
white-on-white.
Q: My name is Tay Xiong Sheng. I'm a third year
student from Nanyang Technological University majoring in
biological sciences. Let's say, in a scenario which is highly
unlikely, that yourself, the Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Senior
Minister Goh Chok Ting, Deputy Prime Teo Chee Hean and Deputy Prime
Minister Wong Kan Seng all sat on the same plane, and let's say the
plane didn't land. Now who do you think in your current Cabinet is
the most capable person to take over you as prime minister?
PM Lee: Those who didn't get onto the aeroplane
will have to have a meeting to decide ... But that is one of the
reasons why we never ever all get onto the same aeroplane
together.
New citizens committed to Singapore
Q: You were lamenting the fact that there
hasn't been enough people to take over. If this is due to young
people not being interested in politics and not wanting to put
themselves forward, is this a consequence of years of People's
Action Party policies of, if I can use the word, 'depoliticising'
the masses? My second question is: There seems to be a new trend of
having new citizens to serve as MPs. I'm trying to see the wisdom
behind this, because people who have just become citizens for
two/three years ? they do not know what I went through, they do not
know how I live and they are going to represent me in Parliament?
I'm just wondering what's the logic behind this.
PM Lee: Well, the first question, whether it's
because the PAP has depoliticised the society, I wouldn't put it
like that. I would say it's because we are living in a time of
peace and stability. If we had riots and revolutions like Egypt or
Tunisia or Libya or Yemen, then I think there'll be a lot of people
who will come forward and who would be passionate and wanting to
fight and wanting to be leaders and getting involved in
politics.
But why do all of you not actively participate in politics
except to get a ticket to come here and attend this question and
answer this evening? Because we've created a stable environment
where you have many other things to do with your lives and the
running of the country is in good hands, you think, and can be left
to others to take care of. So that makes it harder for young people
to want to go in and say: 'I'm going to devote myself, my life to
politics'. There would be some, but for most people they will say,
'I'd like to be a lawyer, I'd like to be an engineer, I'd like to
be a doctor, I'd like to be an accountant, I'd like to be a
professor' ? I'd better say that, I'm in NUS. But (to say) I'd like
to go into politics, not that many. That's the reality.
The other reason why it is difficult for us to get young people
to come into politics is because once you've gone into the private
sector and pursued your career, it's very hard to switch and come
in and do a government-type job, not just to become a minister.
Even to enter a government department and be a government civil
servant, it's very hard to do. We try hard to recruit civil
servants mid-career. We recruit you when you are young; we try and
recruit you when you are not so young but have some experience; but
we find that it's very difficult to get people to switch over
because your mindset has already been developed in a certain
direction. You want to do business, you want to pursue deals, you
know your profession, you know your own contacts. You go into the
Government, you have to learn all over again - new skills, new
habits of thinking, new uncertainties, whether you'll make it or
not. Not so easy to do.
The more opportunities there are in the private sector,
especially not just in Singapore but also overseas, in China and
India and the Middle East and all over the world, the harder it
will be for us to get people to go from that path to come in and
become MPs and ministers.
MPs, I can get some, not enough but some. Ministers, very much
not enough and I think that is a weakness which we have to try very
hard to address. So that's an honest answer.
Your second question: Why do we take new citizens? They may have
been new citizens but they have spent quite some time here, have
struck roots here, have family here. We are satisfied that they are
committed to Singapore and they will serve. They've seen the world,
they've seen what it's like elsewhere, there's a comparison, they
know what is precious here and all the more I think if they've
decided that this is their home, they will defend it.
Q: Can I ask one more thing. If they have left
their country for better pastures elsewhere, how do I have the
guarantee that they won't leave us when there are better
opportunities elsewhere?
PM Lee: We have to assess the people: Why did
they leave their country? What made them come here? If you look at
some countries you will understand why people leave. Again, this is
an open session, so if I explain all that in detail I will cause
more misunderstandings. But just look around you and you will fully
understand why some people leave their country. And as for this
being a new trend, may I remind you ? you're a student now so this
was probably before you were born ? but the first Cabinet in 1959
had nine members.
Only two were born in Singapore ? Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew
and one other. And everybody else came from all over: S. Rajaratnam
from Jaffna in Sri Lanka, then Ceylon; Goh Keng Swee from Malacca,
Hon Sui Sen from Penang, some from China. Only two were born in
Singapore.
So that is how we get the strongest Singapore team. I think the
core has to be Singaporean. If most people in the team were not
born here, that would be tough to hold the core together. But
around a strong core, I can bring in people who are immigrants, who
are new citizens but who have shown that they are committed to
Singapore.
Q: My name is Yernar Zharkeshov. I'm a student
from Kazakhstan at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. I'm
here to learn. I'm a big admirer of Singapore economic miracle. I'm
fascinated with the transition of leadership in this country. I
have two short questions. First, how does the role of Minister
Mentor contribute to the political stability in Singapore? And
second, is the position of Minister Mentor going to be
institutionalised in the Singapore political system and, if yes,
then in the long run, do you have any aspirations to become a
Minister Mentor?
PM Lee: First, there's only one Minister
Mentor. We can give him any title that we like, he is Mr Lee Kuan
Yew. And he's unique and his role and his contribution is also
unique.
How does it contribute to stability? I think as far as running
the government is concerned ? he is not running the government, my
team is running the government ? but in terms of his international
stature, in terms of his network, in terms of the weight which
people give to what he says, I think he's a very precious
resource.
Just look at his most recent trip. He went to Taiwan, he met all
of the people in Taiwan, he came back. He went to, via Hong Kong
went to Shenzhen, met the party secretary in Shenzhen. At 87 years
old. Everybody met him, not for old time's sake but because they
valued his ideas. They wanted to bounce ideas off him and because
they have high respect for him, they have high respect for
Singapore ? both sides of the Straits and many parts of the world.
And I think that's something valuable which we should keep for as
long as MM is able to contribute. But there will not be another MM
and I will not be an MM.
Q: My name is Gan Yee Kiat. I'm from the
faculty of accountancy in NTU. Looking at the current slate of PAP
candidates, we can tell that a lot of them are from unions and
probably the civil service. I would like to know if the policy of
allocating ministerial wages is on the basis that if they leave
government service they can get an equivalent high-paying job in
the private sector? I was wondering if these people really left the
civil service, would they be able to get an equivalent high-paying
job there? And, if so, maybe they deserve the high pay, but if not,
then perhaps this calls for a revision of the ministerial pay
benchmarks.
PM Lee: I don't think we need to revise the
benchmarks just because they came from the government or the
unions. The reason that I can get good people from the government
and the unions is because I have a pay system which is working
properly. People do not enter politics to get rich but neither will
they enter politics if, as a result, they and their family will
become poor.
Because I've got a good pay system ? I got benchmarks, I got a
formula which follows the market up and down and is at roughly the
right level ? so I have got high quality people in the system and
they are doing well.
And if you read the Economist article which I referred to just
now, they mentioned this point: that we are not ashamed to pay our
civil servants properly and at the top they said $2 million, which
I think is a bit of an overestimate but ... they said as a result
you have high quality civil servants and this is something which
Western countries can emulate. And I think it's something which is
not easy to accept emotionally.
But is the right thing for Singapore. If you want the system to
work for the long term, you must be honest about it. What do I pay
for? I pay for the importance of the job and how difficult it is to
do. I pay for the quality of the person whom I'm looking for to
occupy that position and do that job. And I think given the
responsibilities which they are holding ? I mentioned finance just
now, and defence. But I could make a similar argument for the other
ministries, although I think finance and defence are amongst the
most difficult ones. I think those jobs easily merit the pay which
the ministers are getting.
Why Obama paid less than S'pore minister
Q: If I may add on ... It has been shown that
US President Barack Obama is actually paid less than a Cabinet
minister in Singapore. I'm quite sure we agree that his job is a
lot tougher than our Cabinet ministers, being the leader of the
free world and all. So if that's the case, how do you justify our
ministerial pay being higher than that of Barack Obama?
PM Lee: Well, there are several answers to
this. One is that retired US presidents go on book tours. They
write books. They are paid $10 million in advance, they get
somebody to help them write at home and they make a lecture tour.
Every lecture ... their book tour, they make money. Every lecture ?
(former US president) Bill Clinton, $100,000 to $200,000 for half
an hour. The lecture is more or less the same, whichever one you
happen to listen to. But every time you go, he gets paid $100,000
to $200,000.
That's the system. I think that's not a good system for us. We
don't want ministers to retire and go on lecture tours. That's
point number one.
Point number two, because of the (US) President's pay being set
at a level which is not quite right, so all the rest of the civil
service and government pay in the American system has to take
dressing from there and come down ... And they have a very serious
problem because as a result of this, their judges are underpaid,
their civil servants are underpaid.
One year, the Chief Justice, Rehnquist, who's died now, wrote
his annual judicial report to Congress, and he said to Congress:
'You're going to have a very serious constitutional problem because
a senior judge sitting on the bench hearing the case with junior
lawyers arguing in front of him is paid less than a junior lawyer
on Wall Street. And where do you think the talent will go and what
do you think the consequences will be for our system?' So that's
their problem, that's not our problem, but I think we should learn
from their problems and try and avoid making that kind of
mistake.
Q: I'm a South Korean student studying
mechanical engineering at NUS. My question has to do with the fact
that you said the lack of talent government positions or lack of
interest among young people to join political parties has to do
with the stability in Singapore. So while maintaining that
stability in Singapore, do you see this changing in the next 10 to
20 years, and has that to do with your perhaps public education
system?
PM Lee: I think if the situation is like this:
we will continue to have that challenge over the next 10 to 20
years. I don't know what we can do in the public education system.
We can tell people how important it is that the country has good
government. But from telling him that the country must have good
government to telling him that, therefore, you must take an
interest in this and involve yourself and engage yourself, there is
quite a distance.
Young people are on Facebook, young people play video games,
young people spend time socialising, they spend time on social work
activities, they spend time on religious activities, they have
their lives to pursue. I don't think ? unless there's some big
thing which they are fighting over ? politics will be at the top of
the agenda.
Can elected high-calibre opposition candidates serve in
Cabinet?
Q: My name is Kelvin Phua, I'm from NUS
political science and a new media major. Your analogy about
national football team: you say that we have to have a strong
football team so that we can have an 'A team', not a 'B team'. But
we tend to forget that the national football team is drawn from
many domestic football clubs. If, let's say, the PAP loses a few
GRCs in the upcoming election and if the opposition parties have
got really high-calibre candidates, will the PAP ever consider
drawing all these individuals into the Cabinet and give them
portfolios since they are able to perform like the PAP
candidates?
PM Lee: If they will join the PAP we will
consider the matter. But I would take your point which was also
raised earlier and I forgot to raise: is true that the national
team is drawn from a national league of many football clubs and the
PAP similarly must draw from a wide range of society in order to
bring people in. And in fact that is what we do try to do.
We don't just look inside the PAP ranks. Eventually they end up
in the PAP ranks and by the time we introduce them (to) the press,
they all wear white and white.
But they were not born wearing white and white. They came from
the grassroots. Some of them were in their private lives, some were
in the civil service, some were lawyers, some were doctors, a few
were business people. And we bring them in wherever they are. And
when we drink tea, we combed the whole national league, all the
leagues, B division, C division ... We will even go and investigate
the rugby teams because we must make sure we have not left anybody
overlooked.
Q: But Sir, precisely ... The point of what you
said ? that we must bring every talented individual into the
Cabinet ? isn't case. Why should we refuse them the chance to serve
Singapore if they are capable, even if they don't wear
all-white?
PM Lee: No, because when you are governing you
have to have one party discipline. And they are not wearing white
because they have decided that they do not want to be with the PAP,
and they wish to be challenging the PAP and that's the basis on
which the voters have elected them.
So the voters, having elected them on the basis that they say
they want to challenge the PAP, now you say: 'Can I become part of
the PAP?' That's a completely different proposition, which I don't
think whoever is the opposition will take. You should put this
question the next time you have an opposition leader sitting here,
then you'll get a good answer. I can't get into their minds.
Q: In light of today's discussion on
leadership, what are some key leadership principles that you've
learnt over the years from important mentors?
PM Lee: That sounds like a long lecture you
know. I won't give you a long lecture but I'll give you just a few
points. One, you must expect to be under stress. It's a tough job.
You will have to deal with unexpected situations, conflicts,
problems which do not look as if they've got easy solutions, people
problems. And unless you got the stomach for that, you shouldn't be
in this business.
Two, you do not know everything yourself. You cannot do
everything yourself. You must depend on other people and trust
other people, and you must be able to get other people to trust you
and work with you. And in many different fields.
If I'm dealing with something on housing, I may have an idea but
I'll discuss it with Mah Bow Tan. He's running housing. On defence
or security I will talk to my minister. And if it's important
enough, I'll bring it up and discuss it with all of the ministers
so that everybody has a view and we build the team together.
Three, you are the leader. You have a responsibility to your
people. You have to look after them. You have to make the right
decision for them. And if you decide after thinking over carefully
that you have to do this, it's right, you have to have the courage
to tell them and persuade them and do it.
As Tony Blair said after he finished being PM, 'It's very easy
for leaders to say yes, it's very hard for leaders to say no'. But
if you say yes all the time, you're not a leader.
And I think that if you want to lead, you have to pay attention
to some of this and it has to be part of your personality. And if
you're not comfortable with that, well, then you play a different
role. But if you let it get to your head and you think that, 'Ah,
now I'm the boss and I can just give instructions and things will
happen, then you will realise as Mao Zedong said, my writ only
extends a little bit beyond Zhong nan hai. Zhong nan hai is where
they lived in Beijing and that's where you have absolute control.
Beyond that, if people don't respect you, if people do not give
weight to what you say or what you argue, your influence goes to
zero.
But basically, put your heart into it and do the best you can.
And if people trust you, you owe it to them to rise to the
occasion.
Q: The PAP has recently introduced a young
slate of new candidates. Can I ask what is being put in place to
ensure a smooth transition, especially some of them are just fresh
out from the Singapore Armed Forces. A few of them are army
generals? How do they remain relevant to the older generation in
terms of how they relate to the ground, especially our older
generation ? let's say, my parents and my grandparents in terms of
maybe dialects and languages and ideals?
PM Lee: They're not the first one to have done
this. I mean those of us before, we managed somehow or other and
the voters managed with us. We learnt together. I think they are
fast learners. They will find their feet on the ground. They're
hitting the ground running. As for the connection between the
younger MPs and the older ones, I think there are two answers.
Firstly, our range of MPs in Parliament contains a mix. So you
have younger MPs as well as younger candidates, as well as older
candidates, so that you have somebody you can identify with, the
voters have somebody they can identify directly with.
Secondly, I think some young people are quite good at talking to
old folks. They have old folks at home, they have relatives and I
think they can establish a similar rapport. Language may be a
problem because of dialect, but other than that, the empathy, the
concern and the human engagement, I think that can be done whether
the MP is young or old. It depends on the MP.
But I don't know what your impression is? What made you ask this
question? ... Do you have somebody in mind?
Q: No, no. I'm just an open question.
Tin Pei Ling 'a good grassroots leader'
PM Lee: You're sure? ... You may not have
anybody in mind but I think the audience does. So are you asking
about Tin Pei Ling? Let me tell you what I feel. As far as the web
is concerned, all the flaming, that's the way the web is. But
unfortunately in Singapore sometimes ? or I don't know whether it's
in Singapore ? it's anonymous. People get carried away and you just
throw invective and vitriol.
I don't think it adds anything either in terms of credit to the
debate, to the people who are doing that, or raises the quality of
the debate.
But as far as the candidate is concerned, Tin Pei Ling, we first
noticed her, I think it was in this hall. In 2007, we had a (PAP)
convention. She was one of the speakers and she impressed the
audience. She spoke sense, she engaged with the audience. She was
bilingual. So we made some enquiries because the party is always
looking for names and faces.
It turned out that she was in Ulu Pandan, which is Chris de
Souza's constituency. So we asked (him). Chris de Souza says, yes,
she's one of the youth activists. Her parents are also grassroots
leaders. Father and mother ran a coffeeshop. And when they were
sick, she helped to run the coffeeshop and she served the customers
coffee, teh, teh-C and so on.
So she knows what it is to be poor and to work hard and she is a
good grassroots leader. So Chris de Souza put her up as a potential
MP. We put her through tea sessions, the interviews ? same like all
the other candidates. And finally the party decided to field her.
And I think we made the right decision. It looks like she's going
to MacPherson. I think that she will work very hard to make it a
success. And I'm confident she'll make a good MP in due course. So
I hope that answers a question which you didn't ask.
Effective system to induct people
Q: The question I'd like to ask is whether the
4th generation prime minister will be contesting in an SMC. With
the 4th generation leaders, the 'A team' is probably coming from
the new batch of PAP candidates. And with most of the new
candidates set to contest in GRCs, it is of concern that the 4th
generation PM may be one who enters politics and Parliament by
riding on the coat tails of other ministers.
This is a concern because the 4th generation PM should be one
who starts off his political career by getting into Parliament
through contesting in an SMC, proving that he has won the support
of his constituents by his own merits. Just like yourself, SM Goh
and MM Lee, the first three generations of PMs have proven
themselves to be leaders of leaders by winning the respect and
support of the constituents. Will it be the same for the 4th
generation PM?
PM Lee: I don't follow your argument. You look
at Teo Chee Hean. You didn't include him in your list of potential
leaders. But if you ask who in the Cabinet potentially can be a PM,
he is my Deputy Prime Minister and he's one of them. And he's
helming Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC as the leader of the GRC, the anchor
person. Do you doubt that if he stood in a single, he would win? I
don't think so. Did he come in on a single? No. He came in in
Marine Parade in a by-election in 1992 ? Marine Parade GRC with Mr
Goh Chok Tong as the anchor minister. People didn't know him. He
was new, he was newly-retired from the navy ... So he needed time
to find his feet. Within one term, he found his feet. The voters
got to know him. Next term, in 1996, he went to, at that time it
was called Pasir Ris GRC. He won. The people we're bringing in now
are not ready to be PM today. But somebody amongst them or amongst
the next batch ? but I hope amongst the earlier ones ? one day I
hope will be the PM. And by the time he's a PM, he must be able to
stand up and say, I am here as of right and with the full support
of Singaporeans.
The path there, we will try to make it so that it works. But at
the same time, he has to prove himself each step of the way. We've
got this system. It's an effective, successful way to induct
people.
Q: I agree with you that the Government has
done an excellent job in transforming our country into one that's
among the best globally. Returning to your analogy of the plane
ride, you talked about how the plane needs to fly higher and
faster. Are we overlooking the fact that the passengers themselves
need to be kept happy and that they would not feel discomforted by
the faster and higher rides that we're planning for them?
Q: Considering the socioeconomic
transformations that are taking place in the region, and
Singapore's demographic labour dynamics, how prepared is the
forthcoming generation of leaders to contend with the strategic
demographic and labour demands and expectations and challenges of
Singapore?
Q: Senior Minister Goh recently said in the
newspapers that they're having trouble attracting people from the
private sector to join the PAP to form the leadership team.
However, I see that the opposition has managed to attract many
people from the private sector. So I'm curious: why is it that the
high salaries and the potential of a leadership position has not
attracted these people from the private sector, but they have gone
to the opposition instead? So is there something fundamentally
wrong or should we revise the old chestnut of paying top dollar for
top talent?
Q: There is this general feeling that with the
GRC system, the new candidates are coming in and not having to
contest and not being able to prove their mettle. So, this being
the fourth generation of leaders, and the key of leadership being
the ability to connect with people on the ground, would it not help
to address all these rumblings on the ground to have as many of
these new candidates as possible running in an SMC so they can show
that they truly can connect with the ground before they get
nurtured for higher leadership?
PM Lee: I think the GRC question, I've really
addressed earlier. I've explained why I think it makes sense to
bring in people through the GRCs and in time they must establish
themselves. Whether they're in a GRC or in a single seat, they must
add value to the slate. If they don't, the PAP knows what to do. I
mean it doesn't serve us any purpose to carry passengers. We're
looking for the best people and we're looking for the best way to
bring them in and get them established as strong leaders.
The private sector, why the opposition has got people and the
Government hasn't: I'm not sure whether we're looking for exactly
the same people. There are a lot of people in the private
sector.
We're looking for a certain type of person, certain job
specifications, and not just job specifications, but also
commitment, integrity, purpose. And when you're going into the
opposition, when you're going into the Government, I'm not sure the
job specifications are the same.
So the difficulty bringing in people in from the private sector,
I would say with the salaries where they are now, the salary is not
the major factor. We can bring people in, they will do the job.
It's a realistic salary. They will take the sacrifice.
The challenge with bringing people in from the private sector is
because they're already set in their careers, they know what
they're doing; to come in change track, change system, change
thinking, may succeed, may not succeed, (is of) high risk to them.
Not high risk to us because if we bring them in, it doesn't work,
well, we just throw them back out. But supposing you're one of
those who might be thrown back out, you might not look at it with
such equanimity. And that is a challenge.
The demographic and labour question, is the fourth generation
leadership aware of this? I think they must be aware of this. The
third generation is also very aware of this. We have no solution to
the demographic problem now. We've got many baby incentives,
results almost zero. Conclusion, we should do away with the baby
incentives! But we have them, we have just to tell people, please
try harder. And the fourth generation will have no magic solution
either.
As for non-quantifiable aspects of growth, I think having a
healthy family life and good work-life balance is one of them. And
you're quite right, we have to watch not just Gross Domestic
Product numbers. but also the quality of life, also the cohesion of
our society and how, to say that we will make people happy, I think
that's a very ambitious job for any government. It's beyond the
power of the government to order people to be happy, but to make
the conditions where people can express themselves and their
talents and their abilities and their interests and live in a
peaceful, stable, congenial environment.
And I think we can make this one of the best environments in the
world to live, small as the island is and crowded as the island is.
I think that is something which we can do. So we're not solely
focused on GDP. We need GDP to grow so that we can do many good
things, but we also must make sure that in Singapore people have
balanced, fulfilling, wholesome and happy lives.
Moderator: Thank you very much PM Lee.
