Q&A with PM Lee at NUS forum
-
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.
-
What can I say? Our kids are no longer O level nia.
-
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.
Certainly pap should asked themselve what if they lost.
Seem like pap are pretty very much confidence in winning this ge.
But do not underestimate the opposition members and the voters.
You cannot read or catch voters heart and mind.
-
Originally posted by Clivebenss:
Apr 6, 2011 - Straits Times
Q&A with PM Lee at NUS forum...
New citizens committed to Singapore...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.Yes MM Lee is indeed unique, but the PAP has since bitten the hand that feeds it.
Perhaps the reason why MM Lee is 'unique' is because MM Lee grew up in a time where post WW2 and the independence of Singapore, the political playing field then wasn't plagued by the hyper-inflated GRC system of elections, every candidate whether partisan or independent had a fair chance of winning, the political scene of the time was vibrant and robust. The war had just ended, the British had just left, Singaporeans were active in forming their new government and no man could proclaim himself king.
For instance, in the 1963 elections [link], a total of (approx) 209 candidates vied for 51 seats (an average of 4.10 candidates vying for EACH parliamentary seat, of which 16 candidates were 'independents'). The GRC system of elections was first implemented in 1988 at 3 MPs per GRC but by 2001, the average size of GRCs had swelled to 5.4 MPs per GRC, single seat constituencies available for contest fell from 42 (GE1988) to 9 (GE2006) notwithstanding the a small growth in overall parliamentary seats. No candidate contested the 2006GE as an independent [pict link]. The average candidates vying for each parliamentary seat in 2006 was approx 1.56 candidates per parliamentary seat). Lost was the universal novelty, innovation and conviction needed for political contest- both independent and partisan, Singapore had grown into a notional democracy with one big political party lording over small and notional opposition parties whose hopes and dreams the PAP belittles as a 'lost cause'.
No political insurance was now necessary according to PM Lee.
The PAP have installed themselves as 'King', Singaporeans could now entertain themselves in their 2 new spanking casinos.
Perhaps it was the PAP recurrent persecution and jailing of opposition members, perhaps it was the PAP biased GRC scheme and its natural predisposition to gerrymandering, perhaps it was PAP's blatant hijacking and manipulation of the PA, the civil service and public funds ('How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain'), ('‘Adviser over MP’ raises many questions'[alt link]), ('Upgrading should be a separate issue from the General Election') and perverting the civil service ('Town Council Act (CAP 329A) states clearly that Govt must work with Town Councils (run by MPs) to implement LUP') to serve its own partisan political hegemonic gain that gave politics in Singapore a bad name.
Whatever the case, I believe that it is perhaps the result the PAP's irrepressible desire for political hegemony that has led both itself and society down the road towards political apathy if not sterility.
Simply put, Singapore has now become a country divided along the lines of the have vs. the have nots, the consequence of PAP's hegemonic suppression of political integrity, diversity and innovation through its needless expansion of GRC sizes in pursuit of hegemonic PAP political dynasty.
- 'Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor', (by Bruce Einhorn): "No. 2 Singapore-.. Ratio of income or expenditure, share of top 10% to lowest 10%: 17.7". [BW,16Oct2009].
~ "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"-- Matthew 25:40 (NIV)
Rgds
B.C.Quote:There is only one MM, and he is unique: PM Lee
04:46 AM Apr 06, 2011
by Ng Jing Yng
Following his speech at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum last night, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong fielded more than a dozen questions from the audience. Here are some excerpts:
...
How does the position of Minister Mentor contribute to the stability of Singapore? ... do you have the aspirations of being MM?
Mr Lee: There is only one MM ... He is Mr Lee Kuan Yew and he is unique.
And his role and his contributions are also unique ... 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 is a very precious resource ...
Because they have high respect for him, they have high respect for Singapore ...
But there will not be another MM and I will not be another MM.
Why high salaries and potential leadership positions have failed to attract new candidates from the private sector, compared to the Opposition parties?
Mr Lee: We're looking for a certain type of person, certain job specifications ... but also commitment, integrity, purpose.
When you're going into the Opposition or going into the Government, I'm not sure that the job specifications are the same ... ...
URL http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore...unique--PM-LeeEnd-notes/ References:
- 'PM Lee says countries worldwide respect and admire Singapore's proven system': "Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament...I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?.. " [CNA:03May2006][YouTube/@1m10s]
- 'Singapore ministers set for million-dollar pay hike': "...'If we don't do that ... corruption will set in and we will become like many other countries,' Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean was quoted as saying in the Straits Times last week." [Reuters5Apr2007]
- 'Town Council Act (CAP 329A) states clearly that Govt must work with Town Councils (run by MPs) to implement LUP': "It is a joke that for some strange reasons or another, Mr Shanmugan’s ministerial colleague has refused to obey the Town Councils Act by choosing not to work with Hougang Town Council and even has the audacity to TWIST the facts by claiming that 'it is the role of the grassroots advisers to implement the LUP' through his press secretary when it was stated NOWHERE in the Town Councils Act that the LUP has to be carried out by the grassroots advisers! From beginning to end, there was no mention of the words 'Grassroots advisers', 'People Association' or 'PAP losing candidates' and so how did Mr Eric Low come into the picture at all? " [TR, 29Oct2009][alt link]
- 'How PAP uses taxpayer-funded grassroots for political gain': "The People’s Association (PA), ..Like all other stat boards, it receives a yearly grant from the government to run its programmes and cover operational costs. .. It spent a total of $320 million last year.However unlike most stat boards, whose chairmen are usually the permanent secretary of the parent ministry or some other senior civil servant, PA’s chairman is none other than the Prime Minister [pict]. .. No other public sector board in Singapore has so many “Men in White” on it..." [G Giam, 10Oct2009].
- 'Upgrading should be a separate issue from the General Election': "We are concerned about the linking of public housing upgrading and estate renewal programmes to electoral support for the PAP in a constituency. The prioritization of upgrading programmes should be based on sound criteria and be kept a separate issue from the general election.." [petitiononline.com]
- '‘Adviser over MP’ raises many questions': "PAP MPs are appointed as advisers to the grassroots organisations in their wards by the People’s Association (PA). In the two opposition wards, the PA picked the PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls as the grassroots advisers." [ST, 22Oct2009][alt link] -
I doubt there is sufficient transparency on how much money goes to each constituency and their programmes.
If the Opposition is opposing for opposing sake, then they wouldn't win the votes would they? I doubt he understands that Mr Low stands as a member of Parliament and should be respected and given similar privileges so that he can choose to distribute the privileges to the people in his own way, whether in LUP or covered walkways or whatever he believes will bring benefits to the people.
Instead of that, what we are receiving is that if you do not support PAP policies, your constituency suffers.
Victimise the people for their votes? I wonder if he understands what went through the minds of the voters whenever they look back. It will only perpetuate anger and displeasure at the ruling party.
-
Scenario1:
i once saw people on a sinking ship fulla holes in the middles of a huge ocean...fulla holes.no one wanted to repair it even though it was sinking....then some people founded some material to repair the holes on sinking ship.then some found a dinghyand floated it in the middle of the huge ocean.
so some started patching up the ship with material and found it was difficult because they didnt have the right engneer or people with knowledge to fix it.then some decided to climb into the dinghy b4 the ship sinks.
so the situation ended where one group of people climbed into a small dinghy in the middle of the ocean.the other stayed back on sinking ship scratching heads trying to know how to fix the holes on sinking ship with water gushing out of the many holes.
results:people in dinghy were found 1 month later dried up like ikan bilis.
sinking ship sank a bit at a time until there was no way get materials to fix the holes underwater.everyone died on it...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scenario 2:sinking ship had people and no one cared much n pretended ship would fix itself somehow...everyone died as ship slowly sank.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
captain of ship was dry n comfy all the while until he was on the roof top of his sinking ship a few metres from circling sharks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
solution:
1)either u get experts to fix the holes on sinkin ship.
2) build another brand new ship b4 old ship eventually sinks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
note;
if u dun get the story...then dont bother readin it.
