MUMBAI, India (AP) -- The Mumbai slum of Rafiq Nagar has no clean water for its shacks made of ripped tarp and bamboo. No garbage pickup along the rocky, pocked earth that serves as a road. No power except from haphazard cables strung overhead illegally.
And not a single toilet or latrine for its 10,000 people.
Yet nearly every destitute family in the slum has a cell phone. Some have three.
When President Barack Obama visits India Nov. 6, he will find a country of startlingly uneven development and perplexing disparities, where more people have cell phones than access to a toilet, according to the United Nations.
It is a country buoyed by a vibrant business world of call centers and software developers, but hamstrung by a bloated, corrupt government that has failed to deliver the barest of services.
Its estimated growth rate of 8.5 percent a year is among the highest in the world, but its roads are crumbling.
It offers cheap, world-class medical care to Western tourists at private hospitals, yet has some of the worst child mortality and maternal death rates outside sub-Saharan Africa.
And while tens of millions have benefited from India's rise, many more remain mired in some of the worst poverty in the world.
Businessman Mukesh Ambani, the world's fourth-richest person, is just finishing off a new $1 billion skyscraper-house in Mumbai with 27 floors and three helipads, touted as the most expensive home on earth. Yet farmers still live in shacks of mud and cow dung.
The cell phone frenzy bridges all worlds. Cell phones are sold amid the Calvin Klein and Clinique stores under the soaring atriums of India's new malls, and in the crowded markets of its working-class neighborhoods. Bare shops in the slums sell pre-paid cards for as little as 20 cents next to packets of chewing tobacco, while street hawkers peddle car chargers at traffic lights.
The spartan Beecham's in New Delhi's Connaught Place, one of the country's seemingly ubiquitous mobile phone dealers, is overrun with lunchtime customers of all classes looking for everything from a 35,000 rupee ($790) Blackberry Torch to a basic 1,150 rupee ($26) Nokia.
Store manager Sanjeev Malhotra adds to a decades-old -- and still unfulfilled -- Hindi campaign slogan promising food, clothing and shelter. "Roti, kapda, makaan" and "mobile," he riffs, laughing. "Basic needs."
There were more than 670 million cell phone connections in India by the end of August, a number that has been growing by close to 20 million a month, according to government figures.
Yet U.N. figures show that only 366 million Indians have access to a private toilet or latrine, leaving 665 million to defecate in the open.
"At least tap water and sewage disposal -- how can we talk about any development without these two fundamental things? How can we talk about development without health and education?" says Anita Patil-Deshmukhl, executive director of PUKAR, an organization that conducts research and outreach in the slums of Mumbai.
India's leaders say they are sympathetic to the problem.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, an economist credited with unleashing India's private sector by loosening government regulation, talks about growth that benefits the masses of poor people as well as a burgeoning middle class of about 300 million. He describes a roaring Maoist insurgency in the east -- which feeds in large part on the poor's discontent -- as the country's biggest internal security threat.
Sonia Gandhi, chief of the ruling Congress Party, has pushed laws guaranteeing a right to food and education, as well as a gargantuan rural jobs program for nearly 100 million people. But as many as 800 million Indians still live on less than $2 a day, even as Mumbai's stock exchange sits near record highs.
Many fear the situation is unsustainable.
"Everybody understands the threat. Everybody recognizes that there is a gap, that this could be the thing that trips up this country," says Anand Mahindra, vice chairman and managing director of the Mahindra & Mahindra manufacturing company.
Private companies have tried to fill that gap, and Tata sells a 749 rupee ($16) water purifier for the poor. Mafias provide water and electricity to slumdwellers at a cost far higher than what wealthy Indians pay for basic services.
"For every little thing, we have to pay," says Nusrat Khan, a 35-year-old maid and single parent who raises her four children on less than 3,000 rupees ($67) a month and blames the government for her lack of access to water and a toilet.
The government is spending $350 million a year to build toilets in rural areas. Bindeshwar Pathak, the founder of the Sulabh Sanitation and Social Reform Movement, estimates the country needs about 120 million more latrines -- likely the largest sanitation project in world history.
"Those in power, only they can change the situation," says Pathak, who claims to have helped build a million low-cost latrines across India over the past 40 years. "India can achieve this -- if it desires."
In the slums of Mumbai, home to more than half the city's population of 14 million, the yearning for toilets is so great that enterprising residents have built makeshift outhouses on their own.
In Annabhau Sathe Nagar, a raised latrine of corrugated tin empties into a river of sewage that children splash in and adults wade across. The slum in east Mumbai has about 50,000 residents and a single toilet building, with 10 pay toilets for men and eight for women -- two of which are broken.
With the wait for those toilets up to an hour even at 5 a.m., and the two-rupee (4-cent) fee too expensive for many, most people either use a field or wait to use the toilets at work, says Santosh Thorat, 32, a community organizer. Nearly 60 percent have developed piles from regularly waiting to defecate, he says.
Conditions are far worse in Rafiq Nagar, a crowded, 15-year-old slum on the lip of a 110-acre garbage dump.
Most of the slumdwellers are ragpickers who sort through heaps of trash for scraps of plastic, glass, metal, even bones, anything they can sell to recyclers for cash. A pungent brew of ripe garbage and sewage blows through the trash-strewn streets, as choking smoke from wood fires rolls out the doorways of windowless huts. Children, half clothed in rags, play hopscotch next to a mysterious gray liquid that has gathered in stagnant puddles weeks after the last rainfall.
Just beside the shacks, men and women defecate in separate areas behind rolling hills of green foliage that have sprung up over the garbage. Children run through those hills, flying kites.
Khatija Sheikh, 20, splurges to use a pay toilet in another neighborhood 10 minutes away, but is never sure what condition it will be in.
"Sometimes it's clean, sometimes it's dirty. It's totally dependent on the owner's mood," says Sheikh, whose two young children use the street. Her home is less than five feet from an elevated outhouse built by a neighbor that drops sewage next to her walls.
Since there are no water pipes or wells here, residents are forced to rely on the water mafia for water for cooking, washing clothes, bathing and drinking. The neighborhood is rife with skin infections, tuberculosis and other ailments.
A large blue barrel outside a home is filled with murky brown water, tiny white worms and an aluminum drinking cup. To fill up two jerry cans costs between 40 ($.90) and 50 ($1.10) rupees a day, about one-third of the average family's earnings here.
"If the government would give us water, we would pay that money to the government," said Suresh Pache, 41, a motorized rickshaw driver.
Instead, it has issued demolition notices throughout the slum, which sits illegally on government land. Pache, whose home was razed 10 times, jokes that the destruction is the only government service he can count on.
Yet the world of technology has embraced the slumdwellers with its cheap cell phones and cut-rate calling plans that charge a sliver of a penny a minute. Pache bought his first phone for 1,400 rupees ($31) four months ago. Since then, his wife, a ragpicker, found two other broken models as she scoured the garbage dump, and he paid to have them repaired.
He speaks with fluency about the different plans offered by Tata, Reliance and Idea that cost him a total of 300 rupees ($6.70) a month. Now, when his rickshaw breaks down, he can alert his wife with a call. She uses her phone to tell the recyclers where she is in the dump so they can drive out to her, saving her the time and effort of dragging her bag of scraps to them.
Mohan Singh, a 58-year-old bicycle repairman, says his son uses their 2,000 rupee ($45) Orpat phone to play music and talk to relatives. Thorat, the community organizer, shows photographs of his neighborhood and videos of a pre-school he started on his Nokia cameraphone, while his second phone rings in his pocket. Sushila Paten, who teaches at the pre-school, organizes a phone chain with her Samsung to instantly mobilize hundreds of people in the streets when violent thugs show up demanding "rent" from the squatters.
In fact, the spread of cell phones may end up bringing toilets.
R. Gopalakrishnan, executive director of Tata Sons, one of India's most revered companies, says the rising aspirations of the poor, buttressed by their growing access to communications and information, will put tremendous pressure on the government to start delivering.
People already are starting to challenge local officials who for generations answered to no one, he says.
"I think there are very, very dramatic changes happening," he says.
Monday, November 1, 2010
‘I don’t know what I’m defending anymore’
‘I don’t know what I’m defending anymore’
By Ewen Boey – October 30th, 2010
Email Facebook Twitter Print
392yahoo_ntu
Young Singaporeans like Lim Zi Rui are becoming increasingly disillusioned and they’re not afraid to let it show.
The 23-year-old final-year aerospace engineering student was among a 1,000-strong crowd who attended a Ministerial Forum organised on Friday by Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Students’ Union.
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong was the guest-of-honour.
During a dialogue session after SM Goh’s main address, Lim stood up and asked if the Minister was aware that many young people no longer felt a sense of ownership in Singapore.
“When I was younger, I was very proud of being a Singaporean,” said Lim as reported in The Straits Times.
“But that was about five, ten years ago. Five years later, with all the changes in policies and the influx of foreign talent, I really don’t know what I’m defending any more.”
He said this was a view that many of the men he served with during National Service also held.
“I feel that there is a dilution of the Singapore spirit in youth… We don’t really feel comfortable in our country any more,” he said.
Mr Goh replied, “‘This is one early sign of danger… If this is happening, it is very serious.” He went on to ask Mr Lim why he felt disconnected.
Mr Lim told SM Goh, ”‘I’m still serving as an officer and I definitely would love to defend Singapore.”
But he said the key difference between him and his foreign friends was, “I tell them, this is my country. I can’t just leave here whenever I want to. You can come and play and work here, but I have to stay here.”
SM Goh responded by defending the government’s policy of welcoming foreigners.
“You want to have a home. Who’s going to build your HDB flat?” said the Minister.
Lim replied that due to the inability to afford the sky-high public housing prices, his brother had to call off his engagement.
“My brother got engaged, but lost his engagement because he could not afford an HDB flat,” said Lim, who went on to state that his question was not about “integrating foreigners”.
“My question was, how are we going to help the younger generation feel a sense of belonging to Singapore? I don’t think it’s about integrating foreigners,” said Lim.
“This is your country,” SM Goh replied. “What do you want me to do to make you feel you belong?”
“For my part, don’t worry about me,” Mr Lim said. “I will definitely do something, if I can, for Singapore. But I can tell you honestly that the sentiment on the ground is a bit different.”
“If this is happening, it is very serious,” said SM Goh.
“If the majority feel they don’t belong here, then we have a fundamental problem. Then I would ask myself: What am I doing here? Why should I be working for people who don’t feel they belong over here?” asked SM Goh.
Earlier on during the dialogue session, the Minister made the point that the next General Elections, due to be held by February 2012, would be a “watershed” for the future of Singapore from which a “fourth Prime Minister and a core team of younger ministers will emerge”.
SM Goh also challenged the young undergrads in his audience to “make a difference to Singapore” by joining local politics.
By Ewen Boey – October 30th, 2010
Email Facebook Twitter Print
392yahoo_ntu
Young Singaporeans like Lim Zi Rui are becoming increasingly disillusioned and they’re not afraid to let it show.
The 23-year-old final-year aerospace engineering student was among a 1,000-strong crowd who attended a Ministerial Forum organised on Friday by Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Students’ Union.
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong was the guest-of-honour.
During a dialogue session after SM Goh’s main address, Lim stood up and asked if the Minister was aware that many young people no longer felt a sense of ownership in Singapore.
“When I was younger, I was very proud of being a Singaporean,” said Lim as reported in The Straits Times.
“But that was about five, ten years ago. Five years later, with all the changes in policies and the influx of foreign talent, I really don’t know what I’m defending any more.”
He said this was a view that many of the men he served with during National Service also held.
“I feel that there is a dilution of the Singapore spirit in youth… We don’t really feel comfortable in our country any more,” he said.
Mr Goh replied, “‘This is one early sign of danger… If this is happening, it is very serious.” He went on to ask Mr Lim why he felt disconnected.
Mr Lim told SM Goh, ”‘I’m still serving as an officer and I definitely would love to defend Singapore.”
But he said the key difference between him and his foreign friends was, “I tell them, this is my country. I can’t just leave here whenever I want to. You can come and play and work here, but I have to stay here.”
SM Goh responded by defending the government’s policy of welcoming foreigners.
“You want to have a home. Who’s going to build your HDB flat?” said the Minister.
Lim replied that due to the inability to afford the sky-high public housing prices, his brother had to call off his engagement.
“My brother got engaged, but lost his engagement because he could not afford an HDB flat,” said Lim, who went on to state that his question was not about “integrating foreigners”.
“My question was, how are we going to help the younger generation feel a sense of belonging to Singapore? I don’t think it’s about integrating foreigners,” said Lim.
“This is your country,” SM Goh replied. “What do you want me to do to make you feel you belong?”
“For my part, don’t worry about me,” Mr Lim said. “I will definitely do something, if I can, for Singapore. But I can tell you honestly that the sentiment on the ground is a bit different.”
“If this is happening, it is very serious,” said SM Goh.
“If the majority feel they don’t belong here, then we have a fundamental problem. Then I would ask myself: What am I doing here? Why should I be working for people who don’t feel they belong over here?” asked SM Goh.
Earlier on during the dialogue session, the Minister made the point that the next General Elections, due to be held by February 2012, would be a “watershed” for the future of Singapore from which a “fourth Prime Minister and a core team of younger ministers will emerge”.
SM Goh also challenged the young undergrads in his audience to “make a difference to Singapore” by joining local politics.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Fate of historic train station stirs nostalgia in Singapore
On Tuesday 12 October 2010, 10:37 SGT
No more glittering shopping malls, chic restaurants and expensive condos, please!
The fate of a shabby but historic Malaysia-owned train station tucked away in an obscure corner of ultramodern Singapore's port and business district is stirring nostalgia for a bygone age.
The Tanjong Pagar station, built during British colonial rule over the two countries, is to be vacated by July 2011 under a recent deal to settle a longstanding land dispute between the two neighbours.
The Singapore terminal is to be relocated to Woodlands, a northern suburb across a narrow strip of water from Malaysia. A causeway that includes the rail tracks connects the two countries.
With its faded facade and four imposing life-size marble sculptures atop the main entrance, the station is an anomaly in a landscape dominated by office towers, hotels and high-rise apartment blocks.
The four sculptures represent agriculture, commerce, transport and industry -- key symbols of economic prosperity during the heyday of British rule until the late 1950s.
Time seems to stand still in the cavernous but sparsely furnished passenger hall of the 78-year-old terminal, which relies on exhaust fans and breezes blowing in from outside to provide relief from the stifling tropical heat.
Lunchtime is always busy -- not from passenger traffic but from customers of Malaysian delights offered by food stalls such as the greasy Ramly Burger, featuring a beef or chicken patty wrapped in a fried egg.
There are no digital boards showing departure and arrival times of the service, which stops at sleepy towns until reaching Kuala Lumpur seven hours later even though the Malaysian capital is just 367 kilometers (228 miles) away.
Instead, a blue board with the service schedule is mounted on one side of the hall and any changes to the timing have to be made manually by station staff.
The future of the station as well as other Malaysian railway land to be handed back to Singapore will be part of an ongoing review by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) on land use in the next 40 to 50 years.
"The land parcels will be put to optimal use," the Ministry of National Development said.
In a country where land is scarce and many colonial buildings have been refitted for commercial use, a group of Singaporeans has started a petition to preserve the station and its rich history for future generations.
"I want them to know that once upon a time, this station connected Singapore to the rest of the world... before Internet made it easy to Google for anything," Carolyn Seet, who started the petition in July, told AFP.
"Old buildings remind you of your roots," said Seet, an IT specialist who also created a public Facebook account called "Turn Tanjong Pagar Station into a Museum."
On Facebook, Seet wrote: "Not another restaurant. Not another condo. We need some culture and history. Think Musee D'Orsay. Not just about making money!"
The Musee D'Orsay is a museum in Paris housed in a former railway station.
Seet says she hopes to gather at least 1,000 signatures by the end of the year before handing the petition to the office of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
The petition contains a few proposals including turning the station into a museum to showcase the roles of various means of transport in Singapore's rapid rise from a sleepy tropical port to a world trading hub.
As of the first week of October, the petition had gathered just 360 signatures.
Seet says her campaign is driven partly by the demolition of several history-rich buildings to make way for the country's urban development, and she worries her two young boys will have no inkling of Singapore's past from the urban architecture.
"To me, this is the last bastion," Seet said of the station, which holds plenty of fond childhood memories since it was there that she embarked on her first train ride to Malaysia.
Ho Weng Hin, an architectural conservation specialist who is co-authoring a book on the building's history, said the British made a strategic decision to have the railway building next to the port.
"The station was built next to the port for a good reason," said Ho, a partner of architectural restoration and research consultancy Studio Lapis.
"It is from here that valuable Malayan commodities such as tin and rubber were transported to the rest of the world. The railway line expanded British clout in Malaya," he said.
Malaysia, formerly known as Malaya, was under British rule until the late 1950s. Singapore joined the Federation of Malaysia briefly in 1963 before it gained statehood in 1965.
Ho said the station could be described as Singapore's version of New York City's famous Grand Central Terminal building.
"Part of what makes a city great is you have the different chapters of its history still functioning and still accessible to the people," he said, adding that historic train stations in Milan and Tokyo have been preserved and kept accessible to the general public.
Lai Chee Kien, an assistant professor with the National University of Singapore's department of architecture, also feels the station's colourful past makes it worth conserving.
"There are not many places left in Singapore that can evoke memories of the pre-independence period," he said.
"Before airplanes became prominent, the railway was the main source of goods and passengers.
"Together with Keppel Harbour, the railway station is an important building that connected people to a larger history involving Singapore and Malaysia."
For 63-year-old Masudul Hasan, who has operated a drinks stall at the station for 26 years, there is little he can do except wait for the day when he will have to lower the shutters for good.
"I will miss the place, it has been so many years," said Masudul, who sleeps for just four hours and spends the rest of his time at the stall.
No more glittering shopping malls, chic restaurants and expensive condos, please!
The fate of a shabby but historic Malaysia-owned train station tucked away in an obscure corner of ultramodern Singapore's port and business district is stirring nostalgia for a bygone age.
The Tanjong Pagar station, built during British colonial rule over the two countries, is to be vacated by July 2011 under a recent deal to settle a longstanding land dispute between the two neighbours.
The Singapore terminal is to be relocated to Woodlands, a northern suburb across a narrow strip of water from Malaysia. A causeway that includes the rail tracks connects the two countries.
With its faded facade and four imposing life-size marble sculptures atop the main entrance, the station is an anomaly in a landscape dominated by office towers, hotels and high-rise apartment blocks.
The four sculptures represent agriculture, commerce, transport and industry -- key symbols of economic prosperity during the heyday of British rule until the late 1950s.
Time seems to stand still in the cavernous but sparsely furnished passenger hall of the 78-year-old terminal, which relies on exhaust fans and breezes blowing in from outside to provide relief from the stifling tropical heat.
Lunchtime is always busy -- not from passenger traffic but from customers of Malaysian delights offered by food stalls such as the greasy Ramly Burger, featuring a beef or chicken patty wrapped in a fried egg.
There are no digital boards showing departure and arrival times of the service, which stops at sleepy towns until reaching Kuala Lumpur seven hours later even though the Malaysian capital is just 367 kilometers (228 miles) away.
Instead, a blue board with the service schedule is mounted on one side of the hall and any changes to the timing have to be made manually by station staff.
The future of the station as well as other Malaysian railway land to be handed back to Singapore will be part of an ongoing review by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) on land use in the next 40 to 50 years.
"The land parcels will be put to optimal use," the Ministry of National Development said.
In a country where land is scarce and many colonial buildings have been refitted for commercial use, a group of Singaporeans has started a petition to preserve the station and its rich history for future generations.
"I want them to know that once upon a time, this station connected Singapore to the rest of the world... before Internet made it easy to Google for anything," Carolyn Seet, who started the petition in July, told AFP.
"Old buildings remind you of your roots," said Seet, an IT specialist who also created a public Facebook account called "Turn Tanjong Pagar Station into a Museum."
On Facebook, Seet wrote: "Not another restaurant. Not another condo. We need some culture and history. Think Musee D'Orsay. Not just about making money!"
The Musee D'Orsay is a museum in Paris housed in a former railway station.
Seet says she hopes to gather at least 1,000 signatures by the end of the year before handing the petition to the office of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
The petition contains a few proposals including turning the station into a museum to showcase the roles of various means of transport in Singapore's rapid rise from a sleepy tropical port to a world trading hub.
As of the first week of October, the petition had gathered just 360 signatures.
Seet says her campaign is driven partly by the demolition of several history-rich buildings to make way for the country's urban development, and she worries her two young boys will have no inkling of Singapore's past from the urban architecture.
"To me, this is the last bastion," Seet said of the station, which holds plenty of fond childhood memories since it was there that she embarked on her first train ride to Malaysia.
Ho Weng Hin, an architectural conservation specialist who is co-authoring a book on the building's history, said the British made a strategic decision to have the railway building next to the port.
"The station was built next to the port for a good reason," said Ho, a partner of architectural restoration and research consultancy Studio Lapis.
"It is from here that valuable Malayan commodities such as tin and rubber were transported to the rest of the world. The railway line expanded British clout in Malaya," he said.
Malaysia, formerly known as Malaya, was under British rule until the late 1950s. Singapore joined the Federation of Malaysia briefly in 1963 before it gained statehood in 1965.
Ho said the station could be described as Singapore's version of New York City's famous Grand Central Terminal building.
"Part of what makes a city great is you have the different chapters of its history still functioning and still accessible to the people," he said, adding that historic train stations in Milan and Tokyo have been preserved and kept accessible to the general public.
Lai Chee Kien, an assistant professor with the National University of Singapore's department of architecture, also feels the station's colourful past makes it worth conserving.
"There are not many places left in Singapore that can evoke memories of the pre-independence period," he said.
"Before airplanes became prominent, the railway was the main source of goods and passengers.
"Together with Keppel Harbour, the railway station is an important building that connected people to a larger history involving Singapore and Malaysia."
For 63-year-old Masudul Hasan, who has operated a drinks stall at the station for 26 years, there is little he can do except wait for the day when he will have to lower the shutters for good.
"I will miss the place, it has been so many years," said Masudul, who sleeps for just four hours and spends the rest of his time at the stall.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The great class divide in Singapore By Ewen Boey – October 1st, 2010
By Raju Gopalakrishnan, Reuters
SINGAPORE - Along a sun-splashed cobblestone street in central Singapore, coatless bankers with loosened ties quaff imported beers in a neighbourhood of gaily painted shophouses called Duxton Hill.
The scene is almost European. And for long-time residents of this Southeast Asian city-state at the crossroads of some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, a bit bemusing. Just a couple of years ago late-night revellers used to tumble out of ill-lit pubs and grimy, illicit brothels on Duxton Hill.
The transformation is a microcosm of the reinventions Singapore has undergone to keep an island with almost no resources and roughly the size of New York City competitive in a neighbourhood of fast-growing emerging markets.
Boutique funds, advisory firms and brokerages are putting down roots in a revamped Duxton Hill, where opium and gambling dens run by Chinese triad gangs flourished last century.
Singapore has attracted hundreds of such firms in the past decade, lured by its light-touch registration requirements and relatively benign regulatory climate, even as Switzerland, the world’s leading wealth manager, gets tougher on bank secrecy.
“Our vision of this place is the Singapore version of London’s West End,” said Ed Peter, 47, a Swiss-born fund manager who has been buying up shophouses in Duxton Hill.
The neighbourhood, in truth, bears little resemblance to London’s theatre district, but it’s also a far cry from its shady past.
“It’s going upmarket. It’s cool. It’s funky,” said Peter, speaking effusively at his office in a three-storey building which housed an Elvis impersonator bar just two years ago. “You’ve got half the financial community here.”
Next door, the raunchy Aristocats pub closed shop a few months ago, providing space for Daun Consulting, a private equity adviser, to expand from its upper-level offices.
Peter, Deutsche Bank’s head of asset management for Asia Pacific, Middle East and Africa before setting up his own firm in Singapore, manages about $650 million .
The squeaky clean city of 5.1 million, nicknamed the “nanny state” for its propensity for micromanagement, is fast emerging as one of the world’s hottest destinations for wealth — and the wealthy, who now have casinos and theme parks for play, and seaside mansions and penthouses to stay.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore at end-2009 — the most in Asia and up about 40 percent from a year ago.
The Boston Consulting Group estimates private banks alone in Singapore manage about $500 billion in assets. The numbers are dwarfed by the estimated $2 trillion in private wealth managed in Switzerland, but the growth in Singapore is startling, wealth managers say.
“In the last 10-12 years I’ve seen Singapore really take a leadership role in changing the landscape of the wealth management industry,” says Deepak Sharma, chairman of Citi Private Bank.
“The regulatory environment in Singapore is one of the finest. It has one of the best standards in the world, but at the same time, it is consultative. It engages the industry.”
GO EAST YOUNG MAN
The big players, including Swiss giants UBS AG and Credit Suisse who have a global stranglehold on private wealth management, are among those looking East. UBS, usually chary about its plans, says it will hire 400 new staffers in the Asia-Pacific region in the next few years.
Credit Suisse said net new assets from clients in Asia climbed to 11.5 billion Swiss francs in 2009 from 8.4 billion in 2008. In the first six months of this year, net new assets came in at 7.1 billion Swiss francs.
Morgan Stanley plans to double its Asia headcount in wealth management over the next three years, largely focussing on the top end of the market.
JPMorgan Chase & Co plans to triple its private banking assets in Asia over the next five years and plans to increase its headcount in the region by 40 percent over the current 400, a company spokesman in New York said this week.
“I believe Singapore will be the true private banking hub,” said Massimo Hilber, managing partner at private Swiss bank Marcuard who, like Peter, has an office on Duxton Hill. “All the big players are here, and the smaller players like us. You have to be here.”
Why Singapore?
First, assets held by Asia-Pacific’s high net worth individuals – people owning more than $1 million excluding home, collectibles and durables – surged 31 percent in 2009 to $9.7 trillion, overtaking Europe, according to CapGemini/Merrill Lynch.
Second, high net-worth individuals seeking high-return investments are turning to emerging markets. Accordingly, portfolios of such individuals included 22 percent in Asia-Pacific investments in 2009, up from 19 percent in 2008, and will soon overtake Europe, the CapGemini study says.
Many of these changes are focussed on Singapore, which is at the crossroads of new wealth being created in China, India and Indonesia, some of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Singapore, which has the world’s highest concentration of millionaires, is poised to grow its own economy 13-15 percent this year, possibly the fastest rate in the world.
Hong Kong is Asia’s other big financial centre, but tends to focus on investment banking and deal-making in China rather than in the management of private wealth, bankers say.
“Hong Kong probably makes great business sense from an investment banker perspective, but I don’t think it has invested as much in itself in creating a place for families to live,” says Nick Pollard, Asia chief executive of private banker RBS Coutts.
“What Singapore has done very well is that it has almost created a whole infrastructure, not just a place to work, but also a place to live, a place to educate your children, a place to have great fun.”
FINE CITY
Stuffy. Staid. A “fine city” where every minor transgression attracts a fine. Where the sale of chewing gum is banned, and caning is prescribed for offences such as vandalism.
That was, and in some cases still is, Singapore.
But about five years ago, the government launched a concerted effort to change the image. Two casinos sprang up this year at a cost of about $11 billion in a city where gambling had been banned. It’s the only country in the world where the Formula One Grand Prix is held at night.
Singapore impeccably conducted its third F1 race on September 26, with Fernando Alonso winning on a balmy tropical night, driving his Ferrari through 61 laps around the city’s business district.
Top music acts including Mariah Carey, Sean Kingston, Chris Daughtry and Adam Lambert performed at different areas around the circuit. Some of the jet-setting crowd partied after the race at a newly opened rooftop bar at the $5.3 billion Marina Bay Sands casino resort, built by Las Vegas Sands on reclaimed land around the mouth of the Singapore River.
Sentosa island, just offshore Singapore, is being redeveloped as a home for the seriously wealthy, with golf clubs, a sailing marina and sea-facing bungalows priced at $20 million and more. Genting Singapore’s Resorts World casino and Universal Studios theme park opened in February, raking in S$503.5 million in the first three months.
“Rebranding Singapore as a global city and tourism hub fits in very well with its natural advantage, which is its strategic location in the centre of Southeast Asia and good transportation links,” said Kit Wei Zheng, a Citigroup economist.
The aim is simple. Make the city more attractive for high-end foreign talent and wealth. Turn tourism into a money spinner. Focus on services as manufacturing shifts to lower-cost countries in the region. And make it easy for foreigners to work.
It is the latest incarnation of a city that emerged from British colonial rule in the 1960s as a gritty port town. Founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his People’s Action Party — dressed in trademark white shirts and pants — set out to scrub the city clean of corruption in all its manifestations.
By the 1970s, the port had become one of the world’s busiest and was soon complemented by the opening of top-ranked Changi international airport.
By the 1980s, Singapore was a regional manufacturing hub, particularly for electronics. Then it reinvented itself as a financial hub, and by the 1990s was one of the world’s leading centres for foreign exchange trading. A decade ago, the PAP patriarchs began building an education and bio-tech hub.
NUMBER 10
The common denominator for each Singapore incarnation has been to make it easy to do business. Be the fastest shipper, the most proficient manufacturer, the state with the least red tape.
For the Singapore financial industry, that comes from what they call “Number 10″. That’s 10 Shenton Way, not Downing Street but the address represents an institution similarly powerful — the headquarters of MAS, the central bank.
“The regulatory environment is fair as opposed to arbitrary, random and difficult,” says Peter, the fund manager. “The rule of law is incredibly important. This is probably the best-managed country on the planet. It’s managed in a pro-active business-friendly way.”
Funds with less than 30 institutional investors can set up shop without a licence from MAS. While MAS is set to introduce tighter rules next year, Singapore remains one of the easiest jurisdictions for funds to begin operations.
But as regulation is tightened in Europe and the United States following the 2008 financial crisis, and Switzerland responds to concerns about its bank secrecy laws, Singapore, too, has come under the spotlight.
In November, Singapore was taken off the OECD “grey list” of nations not implementing international disclosure standards, but has yet to sign a tax treaty with the United States.
“The business model for private bankers is going to change — they can no longer tell customers just to put their money in Singapore and they will make sure no one ever knows about it,” said Edmund Leow, principal at law firm Baker & McKenzie, Wong & Leow.
“Instead, bankers are already marketing themselves as providing the best advice on how to legitimately minimize the amount of money their customers have to pay in tax.
“This is a global trend. I think Singapore is doing what most other countries are doing and shouldn’t be disadvantaged compared with other wealth management centres.”
RISKS OF REINVENTIONS
Singapore’s seismic reinventions were possible because the government nipped any political opposition in the bud and voters who have seen their per capita incomes grow seven-fold over the years were not inclined to grumble much.
But as Singapore undergoes its latest manifestation as a “global city”, with an ever-mounting proportion of foreign residents crowding the roads and competing for space and jobs, the government is having to soothe escalating criticism from the “heartland”, the sprawl of government housing blocks in the interior of the island where much of the citizenry lives.
Take, for example, Pipit Road, where a public housing compound is set amid factories and warehouses. People there live in tiny one-room apartments and are among the least well-off in Singapore.
Elderly residents shuffle along through corridors to the open area at the ground level, many with vacant stares.
“Look at my life. Do you think I have the time?”, said Seet Siew Buay, a 49-year-old woman when asked if she had seen the casino resorts or heard of the F1 race. “I have to look after them,” she said pointing to a 26-year-old son with learning and speech disabilities and an unemployed common-law husband.
They subsist on the S$300 given to the son each month in welfare, and Wong’s savings from his days as a carpenter. Singapore households earn an average income of S$7,440 a month, according to government statistics, but the bottom 20 percent earn only S$1,274.
There is some anger in the Pipit Road housing block at what is seen as the headlong rush to attract foreign investment and wealth.
“The bloody government will get the money,” said a middle-aged man, who called himself Jack. “We will get nothing. But somehow we still vote for them.”
Having a super-rich pool of foreigners in the city poses the risk of accentuating social tensions. Already, housing prices are rising faster than in the rest of the region. Porsches, Jaguars and Ferraris flash by in the streets. The number of international schools in the city catering mostly to foreigners has risen five-fold in the last decade or so.
The number of overseas workers — mostly for menial and blue collar jobs — has also risen rapidly to around 1.8 million, a figure that also includes foreigners who have become permanent residents. That means one in three people in Singapore is a foreigner, one of the highest such proportions in the world outside the Middle East.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed those rising concerns in his August 9 National Day speech saying that without an inflow of workers to make up for “the shortage of workers and the “shortfall of babies in our population”, the economy and society would stagnate.
“I understand Singaporeans’ concerns about taking in so many foreign workers and immigrants. Some of us wonder: Will it change the ethos of our society? Will it mean more competition for us at work, or for our children in schools? Will the new arrivals strike roots here? Can they adjust to us, and we to them? These are valid concerns which we must address.”
One way to ensure some trickle-down effect from Singapore’s rapid growth is on public spending.
The government plans to spend $44 billion alone in the next decade on extending the commuter rail network to cope with a population projected to grow another 25 percent in the next few years following a 25 percent increase the past decade.
“There is a certain degree of discontent, but it is not brewing over and spilling out into unrest,” said Gerald Giam, an executive councilor of the opposition Workers’ Party. “It is something we need to keep a watch on.”
ST. JACK
Over at Duxton Hill, it’s getting to evening and executives are winding their way home, some hailing a cab, one or two clambering onto bicycles.
It’s still a ribald place around the edges. Some of the old bars still operate. In a few corners, one can almost imagine Jack Flowers, the protagonist of Paul Theroux’s novel “St. Jack” about Singapore in the 1960s, rifling his deck of porno cards in a seedy shophouse doorway and asking a tourist: “Can I get you anything? Anything at all you need?”
For Peter, the fund manager, Singapore has what he needs.
“This place works,” he says, strolling down the cobbled street on Duxton Hill. “Take a look at the airport. In how many countries in the world do you find your luggage on the carousel when you come out? In Geneva, you wait 25 minutes. In the US of A, you worry, will your bags show up?”
Peter, who worked in private banking in Europe and Hong Kong before setting up in Singapore in 2005, is also involved in a chain of wine shops in Singapore, and vineyards in Australia.
On Singapore’s social tensions, he becomes reflective and says: “It’s a new risk that’s worth watching. Is it a big risk? No.” Then reverting to his natural ebullience, he says: “This place has the potential to be Monaco and Luxembourg, and Geneva or even London.”
SINGAPORE - Along a sun-splashed cobblestone street in central Singapore, coatless bankers with loosened ties quaff imported beers in a neighbourhood of gaily painted shophouses called Duxton Hill.
The scene is almost European. And for long-time residents of this Southeast Asian city-state at the crossroads of some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, a bit bemusing. Just a couple of years ago late-night revellers used to tumble out of ill-lit pubs and grimy, illicit brothels on Duxton Hill.
The transformation is a microcosm of the reinventions Singapore has undergone to keep an island with almost no resources and roughly the size of New York City competitive in a neighbourhood of fast-growing emerging markets.
Boutique funds, advisory firms and brokerages are putting down roots in a revamped Duxton Hill, where opium and gambling dens run by Chinese triad gangs flourished last century.
Singapore has attracted hundreds of such firms in the past decade, lured by its light-touch registration requirements and relatively benign regulatory climate, even as Switzerland, the world’s leading wealth manager, gets tougher on bank secrecy.
“Our vision of this place is the Singapore version of London’s West End,” said Ed Peter, 47, a Swiss-born fund manager who has been buying up shophouses in Duxton Hill.
The neighbourhood, in truth, bears little resemblance to London’s theatre district, but it’s also a far cry from its shady past.
“It’s going upmarket. It’s cool. It’s funky,” said Peter, speaking effusively at his office in a three-storey building which housed an Elvis impersonator bar just two years ago. “You’ve got half the financial community here.”
Next door, the raunchy Aristocats pub closed shop a few months ago, providing space for Daun Consulting, a private equity adviser, to expand from its upper-level offices.
Peter, Deutsche Bank’s head of asset management for Asia Pacific, Middle East and Africa before setting up his own firm in Singapore, manages about $650 million .
The squeaky clean city of 5.1 million, nicknamed the “nanny state” for its propensity for micromanagement, is fast emerging as one of the world’s hottest destinations for wealth — and the wealthy, who now have casinos and theme parks for play, and seaside mansions and penthouses to stay.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore at end-2009 — the most in Asia and up about 40 percent from a year ago.
The Boston Consulting Group estimates private banks alone in Singapore manage about $500 billion in assets. The numbers are dwarfed by the estimated $2 trillion in private wealth managed in Switzerland, but the growth in Singapore is startling, wealth managers say.
“In the last 10-12 years I’ve seen Singapore really take a leadership role in changing the landscape of the wealth management industry,” says Deepak Sharma, chairman of Citi Private Bank.
“The regulatory environment in Singapore is one of the finest. It has one of the best standards in the world, but at the same time, it is consultative. It engages the industry.”
GO EAST YOUNG MAN
The big players, including Swiss giants UBS AG and Credit Suisse who have a global stranglehold on private wealth management, are among those looking East. UBS, usually chary about its plans, says it will hire 400 new staffers in the Asia-Pacific region in the next few years.
Credit Suisse said net new assets from clients in Asia climbed to 11.5 billion Swiss francs in 2009 from 8.4 billion in 2008. In the first six months of this year, net new assets came in at 7.1 billion Swiss francs.
Morgan Stanley plans to double its Asia headcount in wealth management over the next three years, largely focussing on the top end of the market.
JPMorgan Chase & Co plans to triple its private banking assets in Asia over the next five years and plans to increase its headcount in the region by 40 percent over the current 400, a company spokesman in New York said this week.
“I believe Singapore will be the true private banking hub,” said Massimo Hilber, managing partner at private Swiss bank Marcuard who, like Peter, has an office on Duxton Hill. “All the big players are here, and the smaller players like us. You have to be here.”
Why Singapore?
First, assets held by Asia-Pacific’s high net worth individuals – people owning more than $1 million excluding home, collectibles and durables – surged 31 percent in 2009 to $9.7 trillion, overtaking Europe, according to CapGemini/Merrill Lynch.
Second, high net-worth individuals seeking high-return investments are turning to emerging markets. Accordingly, portfolios of such individuals included 22 percent in Asia-Pacific investments in 2009, up from 19 percent in 2008, and will soon overtake Europe, the CapGemini study says.
Many of these changes are focussed on Singapore, which is at the crossroads of new wealth being created in China, India and Indonesia, some of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Singapore, which has the world’s highest concentration of millionaires, is poised to grow its own economy 13-15 percent this year, possibly the fastest rate in the world.
Hong Kong is Asia’s other big financial centre, but tends to focus on investment banking and deal-making in China rather than in the management of private wealth, bankers say.
“Hong Kong probably makes great business sense from an investment banker perspective, but I don’t think it has invested as much in itself in creating a place for families to live,” says Nick Pollard, Asia chief executive of private banker RBS Coutts.
“What Singapore has done very well is that it has almost created a whole infrastructure, not just a place to work, but also a place to live, a place to educate your children, a place to have great fun.”
FINE CITY
Stuffy. Staid. A “fine city” where every minor transgression attracts a fine. Where the sale of chewing gum is banned, and caning is prescribed for offences such as vandalism.
That was, and in some cases still is, Singapore.
But about five years ago, the government launched a concerted effort to change the image. Two casinos sprang up this year at a cost of about $11 billion in a city where gambling had been banned. It’s the only country in the world where the Formula One Grand Prix is held at night.
Singapore impeccably conducted its third F1 race on September 26, with Fernando Alonso winning on a balmy tropical night, driving his Ferrari through 61 laps around the city’s business district.
Top music acts including Mariah Carey, Sean Kingston, Chris Daughtry and Adam Lambert performed at different areas around the circuit. Some of the jet-setting crowd partied after the race at a newly opened rooftop bar at the $5.3 billion Marina Bay Sands casino resort, built by Las Vegas Sands on reclaimed land around the mouth of the Singapore River.
Sentosa island, just offshore Singapore, is being redeveloped as a home for the seriously wealthy, with golf clubs, a sailing marina and sea-facing bungalows priced at $20 million and more. Genting Singapore’s Resorts World casino and Universal Studios theme park opened in February, raking in S$503.5 million in the first three months.
“Rebranding Singapore as a global city and tourism hub fits in very well with its natural advantage, which is its strategic location in the centre of Southeast Asia and good transportation links,” said Kit Wei Zheng, a Citigroup economist.
The aim is simple. Make the city more attractive for high-end foreign talent and wealth. Turn tourism into a money spinner. Focus on services as manufacturing shifts to lower-cost countries in the region. And make it easy for foreigners to work.
It is the latest incarnation of a city that emerged from British colonial rule in the 1960s as a gritty port town. Founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his People’s Action Party — dressed in trademark white shirts and pants — set out to scrub the city clean of corruption in all its manifestations.
By the 1970s, the port had become one of the world’s busiest and was soon complemented by the opening of top-ranked Changi international airport.
By the 1980s, Singapore was a regional manufacturing hub, particularly for electronics. Then it reinvented itself as a financial hub, and by the 1990s was one of the world’s leading centres for foreign exchange trading. A decade ago, the PAP patriarchs began building an education and bio-tech hub.
NUMBER 10
The common denominator for each Singapore incarnation has been to make it easy to do business. Be the fastest shipper, the most proficient manufacturer, the state with the least red tape.
For the Singapore financial industry, that comes from what they call “Number 10″. That’s 10 Shenton Way, not Downing Street but the address represents an institution similarly powerful — the headquarters of MAS, the central bank.
“The regulatory environment is fair as opposed to arbitrary, random and difficult,” says Peter, the fund manager. “The rule of law is incredibly important. This is probably the best-managed country on the planet. It’s managed in a pro-active business-friendly way.”
Funds with less than 30 institutional investors can set up shop without a licence from MAS. While MAS is set to introduce tighter rules next year, Singapore remains one of the easiest jurisdictions for funds to begin operations.
But as regulation is tightened in Europe and the United States following the 2008 financial crisis, and Switzerland responds to concerns about its bank secrecy laws, Singapore, too, has come under the spotlight.
In November, Singapore was taken off the OECD “grey list” of nations not implementing international disclosure standards, but has yet to sign a tax treaty with the United States.
“The business model for private bankers is going to change — they can no longer tell customers just to put their money in Singapore and they will make sure no one ever knows about it,” said Edmund Leow, principal at law firm Baker & McKenzie, Wong & Leow.
“Instead, bankers are already marketing themselves as providing the best advice on how to legitimately minimize the amount of money their customers have to pay in tax.
“This is a global trend. I think Singapore is doing what most other countries are doing and shouldn’t be disadvantaged compared with other wealth management centres.”
RISKS OF REINVENTIONS
Singapore’s seismic reinventions were possible because the government nipped any political opposition in the bud and voters who have seen their per capita incomes grow seven-fold over the years were not inclined to grumble much.
But as Singapore undergoes its latest manifestation as a “global city”, with an ever-mounting proportion of foreign residents crowding the roads and competing for space and jobs, the government is having to soothe escalating criticism from the “heartland”, the sprawl of government housing blocks in the interior of the island where much of the citizenry lives.
Take, for example, Pipit Road, where a public housing compound is set amid factories and warehouses. People there live in tiny one-room apartments and are among the least well-off in Singapore.
Elderly residents shuffle along through corridors to the open area at the ground level, many with vacant stares.
“Look at my life. Do you think I have the time?”, said Seet Siew Buay, a 49-year-old woman when asked if she had seen the casino resorts or heard of the F1 race. “I have to look after them,” she said pointing to a 26-year-old son with learning and speech disabilities and an unemployed common-law husband.
They subsist on the S$300 given to the son each month in welfare, and Wong’s savings from his days as a carpenter. Singapore households earn an average income of S$7,440 a month, according to government statistics, but the bottom 20 percent earn only S$1,274.
There is some anger in the Pipit Road housing block at what is seen as the headlong rush to attract foreign investment and wealth.
“The bloody government will get the money,” said a middle-aged man, who called himself Jack. “We will get nothing. But somehow we still vote for them.”
Having a super-rich pool of foreigners in the city poses the risk of accentuating social tensions. Already, housing prices are rising faster than in the rest of the region. Porsches, Jaguars and Ferraris flash by in the streets. The number of international schools in the city catering mostly to foreigners has risen five-fold in the last decade or so.
The number of overseas workers — mostly for menial and blue collar jobs — has also risen rapidly to around 1.8 million, a figure that also includes foreigners who have become permanent residents. That means one in three people in Singapore is a foreigner, one of the highest such proportions in the world outside the Middle East.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed those rising concerns in his August 9 National Day speech saying that without an inflow of workers to make up for “the shortage of workers and the “shortfall of babies in our population”, the economy and society would stagnate.
“I understand Singaporeans’ concerns about taking in so many foreign workers and immigrants. Some of us wonder: Will it change the ethos of our society? Will it mean more competition for us at work, or for our children in schools? Will the new arrivals strike roots here? Can they adjust to us, and we to them? These are valid concerns which we must address.”
One way to ensure some trickle-down effect from Singapore’s rapid growth is on public spending.
The government plans to spend $44 billion alone in the next decade on extending the commuter rail network to cope with a population projected to grow another 25 percent in the next few years following a 25 percent increase the past decade.
“There is a certain degree of discontent, but it is not brewing over and spilling out into unrest,” said Gerald Giam, an executive councilor of the opposition Workers’ Party. “It is something we need to keep a watch on.”
ST. JACK
Over at Duxton Hill, it’s getting to evening and executives are winding their way home, some hailing a cab, one or two clambering onto bicycles.
It’s still a ribald place around the edges. Some of the old bars still operate. In a few corners, one can almost imagine Jack Flowers, the protagonist of Paul Theroux’s novel “St. Jack” about Singapore in the 1960s, rifling his deck of porno cards in a seedy shophouse doorway and asking a tourist: “Can I get you anything? Anything at all you need?”
For Peter, the fund manager, Singapore has what he needs.
“This place works,” he says, strolling down the cobbled street on Duxton Hill. “Take a look at the airport. In how many countries in the world do you find your luggage on the carousel when you come out? In Geneva, you wait 25 minutes. In the US of A, you worry, will your bags show up?”
Peter, who worked in private banking in Europe and Hong Kong before setting up in Singapore in 2005, is also involved in a chain of wine shops in Singapore, and vineyards in Australia.
On Singapore’s social tensions, he becomes reflective and says: “It’s a new risk that’s worth watching. Is it a big risk? No.” Then reverting to his natural ebullience, he says: “This place has the potential to be Monaco and Luxembourg, and Geneva or even London.”
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Corruption and the importance of financial matters
“How could fraud go undetected in a statutory board over a two-year period?”
That’s the common question asked by Yahoo! Fit-To-Post (FTP) users regarding the two senior Singapore Land Authority (SLA) officers who were charged with committing S$11.8 million fraud.
Koh Seah Wee, 40, a deputy director at SLA’s Technology and Infrastructure Department, is facing 249 fraud charges.
Christopher Lim Chai Meng, 37, a manager in the same department, is suspected to have conspired with Koh to cheat SLA.
The pair allegedly rendered false invoices for bogus maintenance contracts in transactions between January 2008 and March 2010, worth S$11.8 million.
Over 130 comments have been left behind by FTP users with the best-rated one by Esther, who wrote, “Yet another case to prove high pay does not guarantee corruption-free leadership.”
Another FTP user Youlahthan also questioned the level of audits and checks in government departments.
“Our government department has so many checks in place and yet such things happened. What’s going on? Have we become too complacent, as to let our guards down? Or have our “elite” become greedy to begin with?” he said.
Lily32sg agreed: “SLA should have a team of audit personnel’s and they are responsible for such failures. The authorities should also check if the entities/vendors that the contracts have been outsourced to have any investments connected to these 2 fellows.”
Another user KRK27 said, “You mean to say SLA auditors just did not notice S$11.8million amiss somewhere? They just go through the bills and invoices and not the physical worksites for inspection.”
News reports say Koh awarded maintenance contracts to various companies and was responsible of approving payments ranging from S$25,000 to S$60,000 without any work being done to fulfil the contracts.
According to The Straits Times, Koh used his “earnings” to buy his wife Yeing Nyok Sea a S$1.6 million Lamborghini and his mum-in-law, Kok A Mui, a $300,000 Mercedes Benz coupe.
He also invested in property at Axis@Siglap along East Coast Terrace, and well as purchased various unit trusts.
The SLA is a statutory board under the Ministry of Law. Its mission is to optimise land resources for the economic and social development of the country, ensuring the best use of State land and buildings.
In a joint statement on Tuesday, the SLA and the Ministry of Law said cash and assets worth about $10 million have been located and secured so far.
The two officers were said to have conspired with each other and the business entities involved to enable them to circumvent the checks and balances in the processes.
The Law Ministry set up an independent review panel following the matter in June to look into how the irregularities could have taken place.
The Panel was also asked to recommend improvements to SLA’s systems and processes, some of which have already been implemented.
Disciplinary investigations have also been ordered into the actions of two other officers, whose oversight might have allowed the fraud to go undetected.
That’s the common question asked by Yahoo! Fit-To-Post (FTP) users regarding the two senior Singapore Land Authority (SLA) officers who were charged with committing S$11.8 million fraud.
Koh Seah Wee, 40, a deputy director at SLA’s Technology and Infrastructure Department, is facing 249 fraud charges.
Christopher Lim Chai Meng, 37, a manager in the same department, is suspected to have conspired with Koh to cheat SLA.
The pair allegedly rendered false invoices for bogus maintenance contracts in transactions between January 2008 and March 2010, worth S$11.8 million.
Over 130 comments have been left behind by FTP users with the best-rated one by Esther, who wrote, “Yet another case to prove high pay does not guarantee corruption-free leadership.”
Another FTP user Youlahthan also questioned the level of audits and checks in government departments.
“Our government department has so many checks in place and yet such things happened. What’s going on? Have we become too complacent, as to let our guards down? Or have our “elite” become greedy to begin with?” he said.
Lily32sg agreed: “SLA should have a team of audit personnel’s and they are responsible for such failures. The authorities should also check if the entities/vendors that the contracts have been outsourced to have any investments connected to these 2 fellows.”
Another user KRK27 said, “You mean to say SLA auditors just did not notice S$11.8million amiss somewhere? They just go through the bills and invoices and not the physical worksites for inspection.”
News reports say Koh awarded maintenance contracts to various companies and was responsible of approving payments ranging from S$25,000 to S$60,000 without any work being done to fulfil the contracts.
According to The Straits Times, Koh used his “earnings” to buy his wife Yeing Nyok Sea a S$1.6 million Lamborghini and his mum-in-law, Kok A Mui, a $300,000 Mercedes Benz coupe.
He also invested in property at Axis@Siglap along East Coast Terrace, and well as purchased various unit trusts.
The SLA is a statutory board under the Ministry of Law. Its mission is to optimise land resources for the economic and social development of the country, ensuring the best use of State land and buildings.
In a joint statement on Tuesday, the SLA and the Ministry of Law said cash and assets worth about $10 million have been located and secured so far.
The two officers were said to have conspired with each other and the business entities involved to enable them to circumvent the checks and balances in the processes.
The Law Ministry set up an independent review panel following the matter in June to look into how the irregularities could have taken place.
The Panel was also asked to recommend improvements to SLA’s systems and processes, some of which have already been implemented.
Disciplinary investigations have also been ordered into the actions of two other officers, whose oversight might have allowed the fraud to go undetected.
Prosperity in Asia - Strong Econ Fundamentals to avoid freeloaders
The government is making it harder for foreign investors who want to become Singapore Permanent Residents — even if they happen to be wealthy multi-millionaires.
In a bid to better manage the pace of the growth of immigrants, the government has introduced a new set of guidelines under its Global Investor Programme (GIP), which targets wealthy foreign businessmen to set up shop in Singapore.
With effect from this Friday, foreign entrepreneurs applying for the GIP need to have an annual company turnover of $30 million, an increase from the $10 million required under the previous ruling.
Another significant change is the amount that foreign investors need to invest in Singapore.
Currently, GIP applicants must invest a minimum amount of $1 million. But from January next year, the amount will be raised to $2.5 million.
Under the previous rules, those investing at least $2 million can utilize up to half the amount on an owner-occupied private home. That option will no longer be available.
The new guidelines will also exclude the main candidate’s parents and parents-in-law from his or her GIP application for PR status.
The GIP is offered by Contact Singapore, an alliance of the Economic Development Board and the Manpower Ministry. It was started in 2004 to ease the way for foreign entrepeneurs and businessmen to set up and run their business here.
According to The Straits Times, a spokesman for Contact Singapore would not reveal the number of investors who have become PRs through this method.
Although some of those changes will be effective from January next year, all applications are subjected to the new requirements as the average processing time for an application is eight months.
The tougher rules come at a time when the government is tightening the influx of PRs and foreigners into the country.
Those applying for PR and citizenship face more stringent criteria such as a higher income bar and residential requirements to ensure that they can contribute to Singapore economically and also integrate well into society.
And these measures seem to have taken effect.
In 2009, 59,500 foreigners were granted PR status as compared to 79,200 in the year 2008.
The GIP is similar to other government schemes which aim to attract the wealthy by offering PR status. They include the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Financial Investor Scheme, which targets foreigners with a minimum of $20 million in net personal assets.
Other countries such as New Zealand and Australia also offer such schemes.
Still, there is a concern that the new measure would drive away investors.
Mr Leong Wai Ho, senior regional economist at Barclays Capital, told the same paper that the changes would not deter investors from applying for the scheme as most “definitely will have more than that amount to invest”.
However, he noted that “removing the property option might be detrimental for the property market outlook in the near term, but it removes speculative measures”.
Political observer, Eugene Tan of Singapore Management University said that the changes show that the government is addressing the concerns of Singaporeans, especially those who feel that PR status is given away easily.
He said, “In a way, it is raising the bar, and so that helps enhance the talent pool here.”
In a bid to better manage the pace of the growth of immigrants, the government has introduced a new set of guidelines under its Global Investor Programme (GIP), which targets wealthy foreign businessmen to set up shop in Singapore.
With effect from this Friday, foreign entrepreneurs applying for the GIP need to have an annual company turnover of $30 million, an increase from the $10 million required under the previous ruling.
Another significant change is the amount that foreign investors need to invest in Singapore.
Currently, GIP applicants must invest a minimum amount of $1 million. But from January next year, the amount will be raised to $2.5 million.
Under the previous rules, those investing at least $2 million can utilize up to half the amount on an owner-occupied private home. That option will no longer be available.
The new guidelines will also exclude the main candidate’s parents and parents-in-law from his or her GIP application for PR status.
The GIP is offered by Contact Singapore, an alliance of the Economic Development Board and the Manpower Ministry. It was started in 2004 to ease the way for foreign entrepeneurs and businessmen to set up and run their business here.
According to The Straits Times, a spokesman for Contact Singapore would not reveal the number of investors who have become PRs through this method.
Although some of those changes will be effective from January next year, all applications are subjected to the new requirements as the average processing time for an application is eight months.
The tougher rules come at a time when the government is tightening the influx of PRs and foreigners into the country.
Those applying for PR and citizenship face more stringent criteria such as a higher income bar and residential requirements to ensure that they can contribute to Singapore economically and also integrate well into society.
And these measures seem to have taken effect.
In 2009, 59,500 foreigners were granted PR status as compared to 79,200 in the year 2008.
The GIP is similar to other government schemes which aim to attract the wealthy by offering PR status. They include the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Financial Investor Scheme, which targets foreigners with a minimum of $20 million in net personal assets.
Other countries such as New Zealand and Australia also offer such schemes.
Still, there is a concern that the new measure would drive away investors.
Mr Leong Wai Ho, senior regional economist at Barclays Capital, told the same paper that the changes would not deter investors from applying for the scheme as most “definitely will have more than that amount to invest”.
However, he noted that “removing the property option might be detrimental for the property market outlook in the near term, but it removes speculative measures”.
Political observer, Eugene Tan of Singapore Management University said that the changes show that the government is addressing the concerns of Singaporeans, especially those who feel that PR status is given away easily.
He said, “In a way, it is raising the bar, and so that helps enhance the talent pool here.”
Prosperity in Asia
SINGAPORE, Sept 28, 2010 (AFP) – The ranks of Asia-Pacific millionaires are likely to continue growing faster than those from developed countries as regional economies led by China and India power ahead, a report said Tuesday.
The study on high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) -- defined as anyone with investable assets of at least one million US dollars -- was issued by Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management and consultancy firm Capgemini.
"Moving forward, China and India will lead the way in the region with economic expansion and HNWI growth likely to keep outpacing more developed economies," the Asia-Pacific Wealth Report said.
It cited figures first released in a global study in June that showed the region's millionaires numbered three million in 2009, up 25.8 percent from the previous year and surpassing that of Europe for the first time.
Also last year, Asia-Pacific millionaires' collective wealth totalled nearly 10 trillion US dollars, which was worth more than the combined riches of their European counterparts for the first time, it said.
"The region holds much promise and is a strategic focus for every wealth management firm with global aspirations," said Wilson So, regional wealth management head at Merrill Lynch.
Australia, China and Japan accounted for 76.1 percent of the region's millionaires and 70 percent of its wealth last year, the report said.
The number of millionaires in Hong Kong rose 104.4 percent in 2009 year on year, the fastest growth in the world.
Their combined wealth also soared 108.9 percent, the biggest jump globally, the report said.
"Wealth accumulation in Hong Kong resumed last year, as its economy and assets benefited from rising investments from China," So said.
In India, the millionaire population and collective wealth rose 51 percent and 54 percent, respectively, in 2009, the report said.
Japan was the single largest HNWI market in the Asia-Pacific last year, accounting for 54.6 percent of the millionaire population and 40.3 percent of the wealth, but the growth was slower compared to other Asian markets.
China remained the second-largest HNWI base in the region, and fourth-largest in the world, with 477,000 millionaires.
"The Asia-Pacific proved to be the most resilient region in the economic crisis," said Bertrand Lavayssière, managing director for global financial services at Capgemini.
"The region's aggregate growth is likely to outpace the world economy in 2010 and 2011, as domestic demand and intra-regional trade help to offset any ongoing weakness in exports to advanced economies."
The study on high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) -- defined as anyone with investable assets of at least one million US dollars -- was issued by Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management and consultancy firm Capgemini.
"Moving forward, China and India will lead the way in the region with economic expansion and HNWI growth likely to keep outpacing more developed economies," the Asia-Pacific Wealth Report said.
It cited figures first released in a global study in June that showed the region's millionaires numbered three million in 2009, up 25.8 percent from the previous year and surpassing that of Europe for the first time.
Also last year, Asia-Pacific millionaires' collective wealth totalled nearly 10 trillion US dollars, which was worth more than the combined riches of their European counterparts for the first time, it said.
"The region holds much promise and is a strategic focus for every wealth management firm with global aspirations," said Wilson So, regional wealth management head at Merrill Lynch.
Australia, China and Japan accounted for 76.1 percent of the region's millionaires and 70 percent of its wealth last year, the report said.
The number of millionaires in Hong Kong rose 104.4 percent in 2009 year on year, the fastest growth in the world.
Their combined wealth also soared 108.9 percent, the biggest jump globally, the report said.
"Wealth accumulation in Hong Kong resumed last year, as its economy and assets benefited from rising investments from China," So said.
In India, the millionaire population and collective wealth rose 51 percent and 54 percent, respectively, in 2009, the report said.
Japan was the single largest HNWI market in the Asia-Pacific last year, accounting for 54.6 percent of the millionaire population and 40.3 percent of the wealth, but the growth was slower compared to other Asian markets.
China remained the second-largest HNWI base in the region, and fourth-largest in the world, with 477,000 millionaires.
"The Asia-Pacific proved to be the most resilient region in the economic crisis," said Bertrand Lavayssière, managing director for global financial services at Capgemini.
"The region's aggregate growth is likely to outpace the world economy in 2010 and 2011, as domestic demand and intra-regional trade help to offset any ongoing weakness in exports to advanced economies."
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Slain terror suspect had plan to attack Singapore
Slain terror suspect had plan to attack Singapore
AP Wednesday, July 28, 2010
*
JAKARTA, Indonesia – A slain Indonesian terrorism suspect and associates planned to attack Singapore and a map with one of the city-state's subway stations marked in red was found on his body after he was shot dead, police said Wednesday.
Ahmad Maulana's plot came to light during the interrogation of Abdullah Sunata, Indonesia's most-wanted terror suspect arrested last month in Central Java, said Col. Peter Golose of Indonesia's counterterrorism unit.
Golose did not identify a specific target, but said a map of Singapore with a major subway station marked with a red circle and arrow was discovered in a backpack on Maulana's body.
Maulana, who is said to have received training in the southern Philippines, was fatally shot during a police raid in the capital Jakarta in May. He was accused of involvement in a jihadist training camp in Indonesia's Aceh province.
"Maulana has associates in Malaysia and also in Singapore," Golose told reporters on the sidelines of a two-day de-radicalization workshop attended by officials and non-governmental organizations from Singapore and Saudi Arabia. "We are investigating what they have planned ... because Maulana's network still exists."
Maulana's associates are affiliated with the Southeast Asian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, Golose said.
Indonesia has battled Islamist militants with links to Jemaah Islamiyah since 2002, when extremists bombed a nightclub district on Bali island, killing 202 people, mostly foreign tourists.
Authorities previously said Sunata's new network, uncovered in February, had plans to launch a Mumbai-style terrorist assault and kill President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and other high-profile targets during August Independence Day celebrations.
AP Wednesday, July 28, 2010
*
JAKARTA, Indonesia – A slain Indonesian terrorism suspect and associates planned to attack Singapore and a map with one of the city-state's subway stations marked in red was found on his body after he was shot dead, police said Wednesday.
Ahmad Maulana's plot came to light during the interrogation of Abdullah Sunata, Indonesia's most-wanted terror suspect arrested last month in Central Java, said Col. Peter Golose of Indonesia's counterterrorism unit.
Golose did not identify a specific target, but said a map of Singapore with a major subway station marked with a red circle and arrow was discovered in a backpack on Maulana's body.
Maulana, who is said to have received training in the southern Philippines, was fatally shot during a police raid in the capital Jakarta in May. He was accused of involvement in a jihadist training camp in Indonesia's Aceh province.
"Maulana has associates in Malaysia and also in Singapore," Golose told reporters on the sidelines of a two-day de-radicalization workshop attended by officials and non-governmental organizations from Singapore and Saudi Arabia. "We are investigating what they have planned ... because Maulana's network still exists."
Maulana's associates are affiliated with the Southeast Asian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, Golose said.
Indonesia has battled Islamist militants with links to Jemaah Islamiyah since 2002, when extremists bombed a nightclub district on Bali island, killing 202 people, mostly foreign tourists.
Authorities previously said Sunata's new network, uncovered in February, had plans to launch a Mumbai-style terrorist assault and kill President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and other high-profile targets during August Independence Day celebrations.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
America's Immigration Success Story Mary C. Water 05.29.07, 12:00 PM ET
America's Immigration Success Story
Mary C. Water 05.29.07, 12:00 PM ET
Debates about American immigration policy focus on how we should control our borders and what we should do about the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working throughout the country. But the debate really reflects Americans' deep fears about the long-term integration of the more than 30 million immigrants who have arrived on our shores since we liberalized our immigration laws in 1965.
Some worry about whether English is endangered as our national language. Others claim that poor immigrants tax our welfare and health care systems. Some question whether immigrants will become loyal and patriotic Americans. All focus on what will happen in the future--about what will happen to the children and grandchildren of today's newcomers.
On that subject, comparing these newcomers with Europe's second-generation immigrants shows that America is doing a lot that is right. The riots in French cities, the home-grown second-generation terrorists in Britain and the dismal employment and education statistics for the second generation in Germany all contrast sharply with the latest research on the successful integration of the second generation in the U.S.
In Pictures: America's Immigrants Through History
In the New York Second Generation Study we surveyed a large group of second-generation young adults in New York City whose parents had come from Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and Russia. We found impressive educational and occupational mobility. While most of the immigrant parents had low-level "immigrant jobs," their adult children all resembled other New Yorkers their age much more than they resembled their parents. And they all had high school and college graduation rates higher than native New Yorkers of the same racial backgrounds.
Dominicans had higher educational outcomes than Puerto Ricans, West Indians did better than native blacks and the Chinese surpassed every other group in the city, including native whites. In national studies these patterns of social mobility hold for a wide variety of groups. And despite the urgent fears of many Americans about the place of English as our national language, all the research shows rapid language assimilation--the second generation is overwhelmingly fluent in English and the third generation speaks only English.
An emerging consensus in the research on the second generation reaches an optimistic conclusion on both social and economic integration. This is good news for all of us, since one out of every five children under the age of 18 today is a child of an immigrant
Why is the second generation doing so much better in the U.S. than in Europe? It is not because we have better official integration policies. In fact the U.S. does not have a government program of integration and multiculturalism, as many other nations do. Our success is because of several distinct American advantages.
First, our birthright citizenship laws mean that the children of immigrants who are born in America are automatically citizens, fully accepted with all the same rights and responsibilities as the native born. In many European countries there are people whose parents or even grandparents were the original immigrants, who may never have visited the country their ancestors came from, but who are still considered "foreigners."
Second, unlike many European countries our educational system is more flexible, less rigidly tracked, and allows more "second chances" for the children of immigrants to succeed academically even if they start school with English language deficits or other disadvantages owing to their parents immigrant status.
Third, our work laws and economy encourage legal immigrants to enter the labor market and begin economic integration immediately. Many European countries have barriers to employment for immigrants, which make them dependent on the welfare state and engender much native-born resentment against immigrants and their children.
Finally, our civil rights laws and practices, such as affirmative action and antidiscrimination legislation, while designed to redress injustices suffered by African-Americans, are benefiting many children of immigrants who are black or Hispanic and thus qualify for inclusion in diversity initiatives in universities and corporate workplaces.
On the whole, America is reaping the benefits of our immigrant-friendly economic and civic structure. But while Western Europe has a lot to learn from the U.S. on the subject of immigration there is one area in which the U.S. would do well to learn a lesson from across the Atlantic.
Many of the inclusive practices and policies outlined above do not apply to undocumented immigrants and their children who live among us, work in our fields and factories and struggle to raise their families in the shadows of illegality. The estrangement evident among the European second generation who do not feel fully included in their own societies could characterize the children of undocumented immigrants, especially those who were born abroad and face severely blocked chances for higher education and employment.
To make matters worse, misguided congressmen have routinely introduced legislation that would deny citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born on our soil--a change that has heretofore correctly been rejected by lawmakers. One only has to look to Germany or Switzerland to see that denying birthright citizenship does not cause immigrants or their children to return to their country of origin, but it does cause anger, disengagement and long-term resentment.
America needs to recognize that undocumented immigrants and their children are not leaving anytime soon. Including these immigrants and their children as equals in our economy and our society will have long-run positive benefits for them and ultimately for all of us.
In Pictures: America's Immigrants Through History
Mary C. Waters is M.E. Zukerman Professor of Sociology at Harvard University and the co-editor of The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965, Harvard University Press, 2007.
Mary C. Water 05.29.07, 12:00 PM ET
Debates about American immigration policy focus on how we should control our borders and what we should do about the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working throughout the country. But the debate really reflects Americans' deep fears about the long-term integration of the more than 30 million immigrants who have arrived on our shores since we liberalized our immigration laws in 1965.
Some worry about whether English is endangered as our national language. Others claim that poor immigrants tax our welfare and health care systems. Some question whether immigrants will become loyal and patriotic Americans. All focus on what will happen in the future--about what will happen to the children and grandchildren of today's newcomers.
On that subject, comparing these newcomers with Europe's second-generation immigrants shows that America is doing a lot that is right. The riots in French cities, the home-grown second-generation terrorists in Britain and the dismal employment and education statistics for the second generation in Germany all contrast sharply with the latest research on the successful integration of the second generation in the U.S.
In Pictures: America's Immigrants Through History
In the New York Second Generation Study we surveyed a large group of second-generation young adults in New York City whose parents had come from Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and Russia. We found impressive educational and occupational mobility. While most of the immigrant parents had low-level "immigrant jobs," their adult children all resembled other New Yorkers their age much more than they resembled their parents. And they all had high school and college graduation rates higher than native New Yorkers of the same racial backgrounds.
Dominicans had higher educational outcomes than Puerto Ricans, West Indians did better than native blacks and the Chinese surpassed every other group in the city, including native whites. In national studies these patterns of social mobility hold for a wide variety of groups. And despite the urgent fears of many Americans about the place of English as our national language, all the research shows rapid language assimilation--the second generation is overwhelmingly fluent in English and the third generation speaks only English.
An emerging consensus in the research on the second generation reaches an optimistic conclusion on both social and economic integration. This is good news for all of us, since one out of every five children under the age of 18 today is a child of an immigrant
Why is the second generation doing so much better in the U.S. than in Europe? It is not because we have better official integration policies. In fact the U.S. does not have a government program of integration and multiculturalism, as many other nations do. Our success is because of several distinct American advantages.
First, our birthright citizenship laws mean that the children of immigrants who are born in America are automatically citizens, fully accepted with all the same rights and responsibilities as the native born. In many European countries there are people whose parents or even grandparents were the original immigrants, who may never have visited the country their ancestors came from, but who are still considered "foreigners."
Second, unlike many European countries our educational system is more flexible, less rigidly tracked, and allows more "second chances" for the children of immigrants to succeed academically even if they start school with English language deficits or other disadvantages owing to their parents immigrant status.
Third, our work laws and economy encourage legal immigrants to enter the labor market and begin economic integration immediately. Many European countries have barriers to employment for immigrants, which make them dependent on the welfare state and engender much native-born resentment against immigrants and their children.
Finally, our civil rights laws and practices, such as affirmative action and antidiscrimination legislation, while designed to redress injustices suffered by African-Americans, are benefiting many children of immigrants who are black or Hispanic and thus qualify for inclusion in diversity initiatives in universities and corporate workplaces.
On the whole, America is reaping the benefits of our immigrant-friendly economic and civic structure. But while Western Europe has a lot to learn from the U.S. on the subject of immigration there is one area in which the U.S. would do well to learn a lesson from across the Atlantic.
Many of the inclusive practices and policies outlined above do not apply to undocumented immigrants and their children who live among us, work in our fields and factories and struggle to raise their families in the shadows of illegality. The estrangement evident among the European second generation who do not feel fully included in their own societies could characterize the children of undocumented immigrants, especially those who were born abroad and face severely blocked chances for higher education and employment.
To make matters worse, misguided congressmen have routinely introduced legislation that would deny citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born on our soil--a change that has heretofore correctly been rejected by lawmakers. One only has to look to Germany or Switzerland to see that denying birthright citizenship does not cause immigrants or their children to return to their country of origin, but it does cause anger, disengagement and long-term resentment.
America needs to recognize that undocumented immigrants and their children are not leaving anytime soon. Including these immigrants and their children as equals in our economy and our society will have long-run positive benefits for them and ultimately for all of us.
In Pictures: America's Immigrants Through History
Mary C. Waters is M.E. Zukerman Professor of Sociology at Harvard University and the co-editor of The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965, Harvard University Press, 2007.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam
I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam Channel NewsAsia - Thursday, April 8Send IM Story Print
I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam
SINGAPORE: It has been almost a year since Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam was persuaded to take over the leadership of the Reform Party, following the death of its founder — his father JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ). The 50—year—old former hedge fund manager, who gave up his job to focus on politics full—time, says that at the time the Opposition party was a "drifting, rudderless empty vessel".
While Mr Jeyaretnam sees his work as a continuation of his father’s lifelong mission, he also wants to be seen as "his own man" with his own brand of "economically—competent" politics. And perhaps having witnessed firsthand his father’s costly legal battles, he recently told Loh Chee Kong that he wants the Reform Party to steer clear of legal minefields.
’I’ve got nothing to hide’
Why did you enter politics? Was it what your father expected of you? And is the JBJ legacy a boon or a bane to your own political career?
My father had always hoped that one of us (Kenneth or his younger brother Philip Jeyaretnam) would follow him into politics ... My father’s legacy is not really an issue any more because I’m seen as my own man.
When we did our walkabout with the Singapore Democratic Alliance last Sunday, I was sitting with my members at a table (at the void deck of a block of flats) and a guy at the next table said: "Hi Kenneth, how’s it going?" People do come up and approach me now.
You had previously kept a low profile. Were you prepared for the media scrutiny?
I’m ready for any scrutiny — I’ve got nothing to hide. Obviously, it’s an uphill struggle to get your message across in the mainstream media. But because of the rise of the new media, we’ve been getting our message across ... but we have to be in control of the content.
One of the things I’m concerned about is that we don’t put out anything that is potentially libellous, inflammatory or seditious, that could lead to potential legal problems.
You have spent a large part of your life overseas. Will that count against you getting elected? Can you relate to the average Singaporean?
Let’s get it straight: Do you think that I left Singapore by choice? I couldn’t get a job here.
I had a "double first" (first—class honours in two separate subjects) from Cambridge. After I graduated in 1983 — which was two years after my father was elected into Parliament — I wanted to return to Singapore.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore rejected my application after one round of interviews. A lot of financial institutions and banks also rejected my applications.
Anyway, I’m not here to whine. I’ve succeeded in London. I’ve built a successful career in the financial sector and in hedge fund management. It has given me a perspective of seeing how an open, democratic society operates.
People find me approachable, proactive, capable — even though some people say I speak with an English accent.
’The party was in a bad state’
It’s been almost a year since you took over leadership of the Reform Party. What was the experience like?
When I was elected as secretary—general, it was actually a bit of a shock because I found the party was in quite a bad state. It was like a drifting, rudderless empty vessel. Morale had dwindled, the number of members had decreased and there hadn’t been central executive committee meetings for about four or five months ...
But since then, the responses I’ve gotten have been much more than I expected. We’ve definitely created a watershed in Singapore politics. For the first time, you’ve got an Opposition party that is perceived as economically competent, credible, and proposing alternative policies that could really make a difference or change Singapore.
With your brand of politics, are you trying to appeal to the intelligentsia?
We appeal to all sections of Singapore. I went on a house—to—house visit in West Coast GRC recently in a low—income area. We got a very enthusiastic response there ... there haven’t been elections there for 20 years.
We appeal to the professional classes because of our economic policies and perceived economic competence. We definitely appeal to most Singaporeans who think there should be more opposition in Parliament — that we need to move towards a two—party system.
Rising property prices is one area that the Reform Party is concerned about. How would the party do things differently from the Government?
There’s a conflict of interest in the Government’s role as the owner of 79 per cent of the land and the provider of housing ... they have a vested interest in seeing property prices rise. We’ve said that we would like to see more private sector competition with the HDB in the provision of low—cost housing.
I don’t think this would lead to lower quality because first, you have a regulator to ensure that standards are maintained. Second, competition usually leads to higher quality.
If you get into Parliament, do you see yourself as a full—time Member of Parliament? What would your priorities be?
I’m already a full—time politician and I’ll certainly devote the major part of my time. Being an MP is not the ultimate objective, because every political party’s objective should be to get to be the government and that’s what I’ll be working for.
The PAP may be against the two—party system but it’s inevitable, as we have seen in Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. The problem with the one—party system is not corruption — at least not in Singapore because the Government is not corrupt — but it leads to a society closed to new ideas, with too many "yes men".
’We are fairly united’
What is your take on the state of Opposition unity here?
You can’t force Opposition unity but I think it will definitely happen. That’s the basis of our purported alliance with the SDA (Singapore Democratic Alliance) — it would not be to just fight an election but to coordinate our actions in Parliament.
We don’t all have to agree on exactly the same policies, but we all have the same objective, so it would be wrong to talk about Opposition disunity. We are fairly united.
If you team up with the SDA’s Chiam See Tong to contest a Group Representation Constituency, wouldn’t you find yourself in the shadow of a veteran Opposition figure?
Mr Chiam is much—loved and respected by his constituents. He has done a great job in Potong Pasir. But let’s be frank: In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.
Mr Chiam and I share the same view that the purpose of a political party is to form a government. He has spoken many times about the Opposition forming, not at the next General Election but by the election after that, to be in a position to be seen as an alternative government — which is something the Reform Party has also said.
I can’t comment on our election strategy. It’s completely shocking that we haven’t seen the boundaries ... that is grossly unfair to the Opposition.
What do you hope Singaporeans see Kenneth Jeyaretnam as?
I hope that I’ll be seen as somebody who transformed Singapore politics — I hope that doesn’t sound too arrogant — and who made (participating in politics) seem like a normal and patriotic duty, rather than something to be shunned or avoided out of fear.
The writer is a freelance correspondent.
I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam
SINGAPORE: It has been almost a year since Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam was persuaded to take over the leadership of the Reform Party, following the death of its founder — his father JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ). The 50—year—old former hedge fund manager, who gave up his job to focus on politics full—time, says that at the time the Opposition party was a "drifting, rudderless empty vessel".
While Mr Jeyaretnam sees his work as a continuation of his father’s lifelong mission, he also wants to be seen as "his own man" with his own brand of "economically—competent" politics. And perhaps having witnessed firsthand his father’s costly legal battles, he recently told Loh Chee Kong that he wants the Reform Party to steer clear of legal minefields.
’I’ve got nothing to hide’
Why did you enter politics? Was it what your father expected of you? And is the JBJ legacy a boon or a bane to your own political career?
My father had always hoped that one of us (Kenneth or his younger brother Philip Jeyaretnam) would follow him into politics ... My father’s legacy is not really an issue any more because I’m seen as my own man.
When we did our walkabout with the Singapore Democratic Alliance last Sunday, I was sitting with my members at a table (at the void deck of a block of flats) and a guy at the next table said: "Hi Kenneth, how’s it going?" People do come up and approach me now.
You had previously kept a low profile. Were you prepared for the media scrutiny?
I’m ready for any scrutiny — I’ve got nothing to hide. Obviously, it’s an uphill struggle to get your message across in the mainstream media. But because of the rise of the new media, we’ve been getting our message across ... but we have to be in control of the content.
One of the things I’m concerned about is that we don’t put out anything that is potentially libellous, inflammatory or seditious, that could lead to potential legal problems.
You have spent a large part of your life overseas. Will that count against you getting elected? Can you relate to the average Singaporean?
Let’s get it straight: Do you think that I left Singapore by choice? I couldn’t get a job here.
I had a "double first" (first—class honours in two separate subjects) from Cambridge. After I graduated in 1983 — which was two years after my father was elected into Parliament — I wanted to return to Singapore.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore rejected my application after one round of interviews. A lot of financial institutions and banks also rejected my applications.
Anyway, I’m not here to whine. I’ve succeeded in London. I’ve built a successful career in the financial sector and in hedge fund management. It has given me a perspective of seeing how an open, democratic society operates.
People find me approachable, proactive, capable — even though some people say I speak with an English accent.
’The party was in a bad state’
It’s been almost a year since you took over leadership of the Reform Party. What was the experience like?
When I was elected as secretary—general, it was actually a bit of a shock because I found the party was in quite a bad state. It was like a drifting, rudderless empty vessel. Morale had dwindled, the number of members had decreased and there hadn’t been central executive committee meetings for about four or five months ...
But since then, the responses I’ve gotten have been much more than I expected. We’ve definitely created a watershed in Singapore politics. For the first time, you’ve got an Opposition party that is perceived as economically competent, credible, and proposing alternative policies that could really make a difference or change Singapore.
With your brand of politics, are you trying to appeal to the intelligentsia?
We appeal to all sections of Singapore. I went on a house—to—house visit in West Coast GRC recently in a low—income area. We got a very enthusiastic response there ... there haven’t been elections there for 20 years.
We appeal to the professional classes because of our economic policies and perceived economic competence. We definitely appeal to most Singaporeans who think there should be more opposition in Parliament — that we need to move towards a two—party system.
Rising property prices is one area that the Reform Party is concerned about. How would the party do things differently from the Government?
There’s a conflict of interest in the Government’s role as the owner of 79 per cent of the land and the provider of housing ... they have a vested interest in seeing property prices rise. We’ve said that we would like to see more private sector competition with the HDB in the provision of low—cost housing.
I don’t think this would lead to lower quality because first, you have a regulator to ensure that standards are maintained. Second, competition usually leads to higher quality.
If you get into Parliament, do you see yourself as a full—time Member of Parliament? What would your priorities be?
I’m already a full—time politician and I’ll certainly devote the major part of my time. Being an MP is not the ultimate objective, because every political party’s objective should be to get to be the government and that’s what I’ll be working for.
The PAP may be against the two—party system but it’s inevitable, as we have seen in Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. The problem with the one—party system is not corruption — at least not in Singapore because the Government is not corrupt — but it leads to a society closed to new ideas, with too many "yes men".
’We are fairly united’
What is your take on the state of Opposition unity here?
You can’t force Opposition unity but I think it will definitely happen. That’s the basis of our purported alliance with the SDA (Singapore Democratic Alliance) — it would not be to just fight an election but to coordinate our actions in Parliament.
We don’t all have to agree on exactly the same policies, but we all have the same objective, so it would be wrong to talk about Opposition disunity. We are fairly united.
If you team up with the SDA’s Chiam See Tong to contest a Group Representation Constituency, wouldn’t you find yourself in the shadow of a veteran Opposition figure?
Mr Chiam is much—loved and respected by his constituents. He has done a great job in Potong Pasir. But let’s be frank: In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.
Mr Chiam and I share the same view that the purpose of a political party is to form a government. He has spoken many times about the Opposition forming, not at the next General Election but by the election after that, to be in a position to be seen as an alternative government — which is something the Reform Party has also said.
I can’t comment on our election strategy. It’s completely shocking that we haven’t seen the boundaries ... that is grossly unfair to the Opposition.
What do you hope Singaporeans see Kenneth Jeyaretnam as?
I hope that I’ll be seen as somebody who transformed Singapore politics — I hope that doesn’t sound too arrogant — and who made (participating in politics) seem like a normal and patriotic duty, rather than something to be shunned or avoided out of fear.
The writer is a freelance correspondent.
Monday, February 22, 2010
U.S. Prof lambasts Singapore’s “Temasek model” for investing in failing individuals and products
U.S. Prof lambasts Singapore’s “Temasek model” for investing in failing individuals and products
February 10, 2010 by admin
Filed under Headlines
Leave a comment
Written by Our Correspondent
Beijing-born Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) political economist Professor Huang Yasheng had criticized Singapore’s state-linked enterprise model dominated by its two giant sovereign wealth funds GIC and Temasek Holdings as a “sure-fire way to stifle the economy in the long run.”
In a recent speech made at the Civil Service College, Prof Huang urged Singapore to “rethink” the “Temasek model” and warns that Singapore’s state management model has “milked this system for all it is worth.”
“The private sector is the best way to grow the economy. It has the most productive, most innovative and entrepreneurial culture. The state-owned enterprise system doesn’t give you that….You are already hitting the wall. Retaining this strategy could mean sacrificing future growth that is possible only through a bigger, more dynamic private sector,” he said.
Prof Huang felt that governments should not get involved in venture financing as they are using taxpayers’ monies and questions how the government can defend its decisions to invest in “failing individuals and projects”:
“Nine out of 10 investment projects fail. Does the government have such a high tolerance for risk? It’s taxpayers’ money, right? I don’t think, politically, it’s legitimate for the government to keep investing in failing individuals and failing projects. How do you defend these decisions?,” he asked.
Temasek Holdings is led by the wife of Singapore’s prime minister Ho Ching. It had lost billions of dollars in failed overseas investments such as Thailand’s Shin Corp, Australia’s ABC learning, and U.S’s Merrill Lynch. Ho Ching is an engineer by training.
GIC has been headed by Lee Kuan Yew since its inception in 1981, a lawyer by profession who has never worked in the financial industry before.
Prof Huang opined that Singapore should expand its private sector in order to compete with China and India:
“Maybe a better way is for the government to fund more basic research and then allow universities, private equity firms, venture capital firms and rich individuals to take care of the rest. That is because even when the state sector is well managed, it is not as innovative as the private sector, he says. From a technological development point of view, you need a bigger private sector to compete, to come up with new products, processes and technologies, to better compete with India and China.”
Under Singapore’s state-model enterprise, civil servants are often placed in leadership positions in its major state-linked companies and research agencies. For example, the current head of A*STAR is Lim Chuan Poh, a former Chief of Army with no prior experience in the private sector.
Prof Huang felt that creative thinking is often in short supply with civil servants leading the charge due to the culture they are immersed in:
“Civil service culture is about discipline. It’s about execution. It’s about efficiency. Entrepreneurial culture is about challenging the authorities, questioning the existing ways of doing businesses, moving away from the routines and norms. It’s about the unconventional, rebellious and diverse. These values are almost polar opposites.”
He also criticized Singapore’s education system for “not producing diversity in ideas and unconventional ways of solving problems” and warns that Singapore risks going down in history as an “economic has-been” if it fails to exploit the potential of its private sector.
Prof Huang had hit the nail on the right spot about the macroeconomic problems plaguing Singapore – its one-dimensional political economy. However, he is not aware of the political implications of the “Temasek model” which serves two purposes: one, to ensure the continued political hegemony of the ruling party, or rather a select group of people and two, to keep the citizenry weak so that no alternative centers of power can emerge to challenge the status quo.
As entrepreneurs are fiercely independent, unconventional and rebellious by nature, they cannot be brought easily under control or co-opted into the system. Having a few rich self-make millionaires running around will pose a threat to the political elite, as Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra and South Korea’s Lee Myuang Bak had shown.
Unfortunately, for a repressive, insecure and paranoid regime which is bent on complete control and dominance at all costs, it is unlikely to see the profound wisdom in Prof Huang’s words and Singapore will have to pay the price for its ignorance one day when we are overshadowed completely
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/02/10/u-s-prof-lambasts-singapores-temasek-model-for-investing-in-failing-individuals-and-products/
February 10, 2010 by admin
Filed under Headlines
Leave a comment
Written by Our Correspondent
Beijing-born Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) political economist Professor Huang Yasheng had criticized Singapore’s state-linked enterprise model dominated by its two giant sovereign wealth funds GIC and Temasek Holdings as a “sure-fire way to stifle the economy in the long run.”
In a recent speech made at the Civil Service College, Prof Huang urged Singapore to “rethink” the “Temasek model” and warns that Singapore’s state management model has “milked this system for all it is worth.”
“The private sector is the best way to grow the economy. It has the most productive, most innovative and entrepreneurial culture. The state-owned enterprise system doesn’t give you that….You are already hitting the wall. Retaining this strategy could mean sacrificing future growth that is possible only through a bigger, more dynamic private sector,” he said.
Prof Huang felt that governments should not get involved in venture financing as they are using taxpayers’ monies and questions how the government can defend its decisions to invest in “failing individuals and projects”:
“Nine out of 10 investment projects fail. Does the government have such a high tolerance for risk? It’s taxpayers’ money, right? I don’t think, politically, it’s legitimate for the government to keep investing in failing individuals and failing projects. How do you defend these decisions?,” he asked.
Temasek Holdings is led by the wife of Singapore’s prime minister Ho Ching. It had lost billions of dollars in failed overseas investments such as Thailand’s Shin Corp, Australia’s ABC learning, and U.S’s Merrill Lynch. Ho Ching is an engineer by training.
GIC has been headed by Lee Kuan Yew since its inception in 1981, a lawyer by profession who has never worked in the financial industry before.
Prof Huang opined that Singapore should expand its private sector in order to compete with China and India:
“Maybe a better way is for the government to fund more basic research and then allow universities, private equity firms, venture capital firms and rich individuals to take care of the rest. That is because even when the state sector is well managed, it is not as innovative as the private sector, he says. From a technological development point of view, you need a bigger private sector to compete, to come up with new products, processes and technologies, to better compete with India and China.”
Under Singapore’s state-model enterprise, civil servants are often placed in leadership positions in its major state-linked companies and research agencies. For example, the current head of A*STAR is Lim Chuan Poh, a former Chief of Army with no prior experience in the private sector.
Prof Huang felt that creative thinking is often in short supply with civil servants leading the charge due to the culture they are immersed in:
“Civil service culture is about discipline. It’s about execution. It’s about efficiency. Entrepreneurial culture is about challenging the authorities, questioning the existing ways of doing businesses, moving away from the routines and norms. It’s about the unconventional, rebellious and diverse. These values are almost polar opposites.”
He also criticized Singapore’s education system for “not producing diversity in ideas and unconventional ways of solving problems” and warns that Singapore risks going down in history as an “economic has-been” if it fails to exploit the potential of its private sector.
Prof Huang had hit the nail on the right spot about the macroeconomic problems plaguing Singapore – its one-dimensional political economy. However, he is not aware of the political implications of the “Temasek model” which serves two purposes: one, to ensure the continued political hegemony of the ruling party, or rather a select group of people and two, to keep the citizenry weak so that no alternative centers of power can emerge to challenge the status quo.
As entrepreneurs are fiercely independent, unconventional and rebellious by nature, they cannot be brought easily under control or co-opted into the system. Having a few rich self-make millionaires running around will pose a threat to the political elite, as Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra and South Korea’s Lee Myuang Bak had shown.
Unfortunately, for a repressive, insecure and paranoid regime which is bent on complete control and dominance at all costs, it is unlikely to see the profound wisdom in Prof Huang’s words and Singapore will have to pay the price for its ignorance one day when we are overshadowed completely
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/02/10/u-s-prof-lambasts-singapores-temasek-model-for-investing-in-failing-individuals-and-products/
Saturday, January 9, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF MINISTER MENTOR LEE KUAN YEW’S INTERVIEW WITH MARK JACOBSON FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ON 6 JULY 2009 (NGO Mag)
TRANSCRIPT OF MINISTER MENTOR LEE KUAN YEW’S INTERVIEW WITH MARK JACOBSON FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ON 6 JULY 2009 (FOR NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE JAN 2010 EDITION)
Q: “I don’t think you’d be dazzled but this is what they give when they interview a big shot.”
Mr Lee: “Okay. Barbara Poulson, she’s the CEO, owner?”
Q: “She’s the editor. The writers don’t deal with the CEO. The writers go economy class.”
Mr Lee: “Thank you.”
Q: “It was interesting. The thing about National Geographic is the joke but it’s not really a joke, I guess, the photographers go business class and the writers go economy class. I never cared for that very much myself.”
Mr Lee: “The writers go by economy class.”
Q: “The photographers go business class.”
Mr Lee: “They’d get tired. They don’t have, what do you call it, DVD?”
Q: “No, you can watch it. In the airplane, the DVD is about this close to your face, so you can’t really move very much. It’s sort of like sitting in the first row of the movie theatre. So actually I’ve interviewed Presidents and I was born in 1948, there’ve been 10-12 American Presidents. They come and they go. But I’ve never interviewed anybody who has stayed the length that you have. It’s like interviewing George Washington and Thomas Jefferson rolled up into one, so it’s kind of nice.”
Mr Lee: “It was one of these cataclysmic moments in history when empires dissolved and invading armies came in and lorded it over us for three-and-a-half years, in this case the Japanese Imperial army who were quite brutal and then the Communists who were armed to fight the Japanese, made a bid for power. So after all that, we came through as the Communists would call it the crucible of fire.”
Q: “The crucible of fire. In your book, you said that the three years of Japanese Occupation were the most, probably the most important years of your life. Do you feel that way, do you still feel that way?”
Mr Lee: “Yes, of course. First, I was in my late teens, they captured Singapore in February 1942. I was 18-plus and they didn’t leave until 1945 when I was 21-plus.”
Q: “Those are significant years in anybody’s life.”
Mr Lee: “So I was Chinese male, tall and they were going for people like me because this was the centre for the collection of ethnic Chinese donations to Chungking to fight the Japanese. So when they came in, they were out to punish us. So they slaughtered 50,000, well the numbers estimate go up to about 90,000 but I think verifiable numbers would be about 50,000. And just randomly but for a stroke of fortune, I would have been one of them.”
Q: “Well, 1945 seems to be a, if you look back over history, 1945 was a cataclysmic year for humanity in general. You see difference between the combination of the detonation of the atom bomb and the discovery of the Nazi camps. So at that point, tell me what you think? It seems that humanity began to stop thinking of itself as made in the image of the creator so maybe it weren’t so wonderful.”
Mr Lee: “I don’t think I ever started off with that hypothesis or that basis. I always thought that humanity was animal-like and that Confucian theory was Man can be improved. I’m not sure it can be but it can trained, it can be disciplined. I’m not sure you can actually change the character of a man but you can discipline him and make him, you make a left-hander write with his right hand but you can’t really change his natural born instincts to use his left hand. But a Confucianist belief Man is perfectible which is an optimistic belief.”
Q: “I would say so.”
Mr Lee: “And there are many American sociologists who also would like to prove that to be correct, the latest one being the professor who has done some research insists why ethnic Jews and Asians and West Indian Blacks do so well in America and they came to the conclusion that’s because they emphasised upbringing and education.”
Q: “Actually, I went to the University of California at Berkley back in the 1960s and early 70s, I never graduated, then I went back and finished my degree in 2004 to show my children their father wasn’t a bum and it was interesting to see how the demographic composition of US, that’s the number one public college in the United States. It was like half of the graduating class was Asians and it was interesting and it made me feel like I would never have gotten there.”
Mr Lee: “Most of the Asians settled in California because of the climate.”
Q: “It was sort of striking because you feel like, what you’re saying is interesting because it’s like some people seem to thrive in certain environments and some people don’t, I don’t know why.”
Mr Lee: “Well, we’ve got ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indians here. The settled ones have become less hard-driving and hard-striving and we’ve got recent migrants, they are hungry, they’re determined to succeed having uprooted themselves and they’re doing better.”
Q: “Is that okay? Is that fine, I mean?”
Mr Lee: “No it worries the old citizens. They say look this is fierce competition, my children won’t be getting the scholarships because they’re doing well in schools, they push their children very hard. In fact, they need no pushing. They come here from China with no English language and they know that without English, they won’t get along. So there are many cases of boys and girls aged 12, 13 who come into our secondary schools and by the time, they finish the schools, they top the class in English.”
Q: “That’s interesting, it’s like my grandparents came to New York. When they came in, they don’t speak English and they did great. They just really tried hard and made a life for themselves and I think after a number of generations, it’s very difficult to keep that kind of drive up.”
Mr Lee: “Of course, of course.”
Q: “Do you think that’s inevitable or do you think that people just get lazy or what?”
Mr Lee: “No, I think the spurs are not stuck on your hinds. They are part of the herd, why-go-faster? But when you’re lagging behind, you must go faster to catch up with the herd. I’m quite sure that there are children of the migrants who strive arduously. When they grow up in the same schools as the Singaporeans, the same playing fields, same environment and they begin to adopt Singaporean habits in the ways of living and thinking. So I’m quite sure they’d become like us. Well, because we’re shrinking in our population, our fertility ratio is about 1.29.
Q: “I actually wanted to ask you about that.”
Mr Lee: ”So it’s a worrying factor. So we’ll need a constant inflow but we’re a small population, so we get the inflow and we get the inflow from the educated end of the population, both Indians and Chinese and they’ve got surplus populations. Well, I won’t say surplus but they’ve got huge population, huge numbers.”
Q: “They have people to spare, that’s for sure.”
Mr Lee: “No and they’ve got fierce competition there, so when they come here, higher standards of living for the time being, better social environment with jobs.”
Q: “What would you say the parents of the second or third generation of Singaporeans and their children are not able to compete with the new people? How do you tell them?”
Mr Lee: “We tell them look they have got to work harder or they’ll become stupid. It’s just that they don’t see the point of it. Why race when you can canter and save your energy and do other things? Art, ballet, sports whereas these new migrants, they spend all their time slogging away in the library or at home.”
Q: “You’re not saying that arts, sports and ballet are not important, are you?”
Mr Lee: “No, I’m not saying they are not important but an inordinate amount of time is spent on extra-curricular activities.”
Q: “I told my son if you stop playing basketball, you do better on these tests but I like playing basketball. I said, well.”
Mr Lee: “Well, I think it’s an inevitable evolution of any society and therefore, a regular inflow of migrants without too huge a deluge will keep that society on its toes.”
Q: “You have 25 per cent here of people who are expatriates. Is that too much?”
Mr Lee: “Well, there’s a little discomfort in some areas because in some areas, they seem to congregate, the new ones. The Indians somehow find the East Coast congenial. They concentrate there, so they become very obvious. The Chinese are more scattered, not so obvious except in the food courts where they are doing the hard work because Chinese cooks from China are willing to work for $1,000 less a month and they’re just as good. So the employer looks for them.”
Q: “Well suppose, if you were the owner of a restaurant and you were going to hire a chef.”
Mr Lee: “I’d choose the best chef.”
Q: “You’d chose the best chef. It wouldn’t make a difference how much you have to pay.”
Mr Lee: “Well, because the customer will make up for any difference. I mean, good chefs are difficult to come by. That’s as simple as that.”
Q: “The talent.”
Mr Lee: “It’s the taste buds, your nostrils, sense of colour, et cetera.”
Q: “We ate dinner at Iggys, somewhere at the Regency Hotel. He was telling us, we were eating the food and he’s sitting there watching us eat which is so disconcerting I have got to say and he was explaining how they put together each dish. It was like listening to a painter telling you.”
Mr Lee: “Yes, they make it an art.”
Q: “It was an art form.”
Mr Lee: “It’s not only just food. It’s presentation, it’s for the eyes, for the smell, for the texture and so on.”
Q: “You have a favourite food hawker?”
Mr Lee: “I can’t go.”
Q: “Or is it really too good to say?”
Mr Lee: “Well, I can’t go anymore because so many people want to shake my hands and I become a distraction, I can’t really get down to my food.”
Q: “So can you have take-out?”
Mr Lee: “Well, that’s not quite the same. I tend to go to restaurants when I go out and I try restaurants with a quiet corner where I can sneak in and sneak out with my friends and not have a crowd wanting to shake hands with me.”
Q: “One of the things that I did when I came, I’ve been here about two weeks, and I know I have this interview with you. So they say what are you doing in Singapore? I say well, I’m going to interview the MM and they said, oh yeah. I said well, what would you ask him if you have a chance and people have a lot of question. So I have integrated my questions with their questions.”
Mr Lee: “That’s all right.”
Q: “I thought probably you would appreciate that.”
Mr Lee: “I’m 85 coming on to 86 this September. I’ve had many eggs thrown at me.”
Q: “One thing that really struck me, coming from an American perspective is how much people, as much as they may seem to complain, they obviously feel a sense of home here and they love this place and this is their home and whatever problems they may have with whatever, that love of it comes through which I don’t think the people really in a place like America can really appreciate that. In America, what do they know about Singapore? They know it has an exotic name, the chewing gum and the guy that got caned. That’s it. And one of my missions here is to kind of like explode certain mythologies that people might have about this place.”
Mr Lee: “Well, the Americans who’ve been here and done business, stayed here especially, if you ask them, they produced, the Americans get together and help each other, so they produced a book for new commerce, new entrants. So every three, four years they change and they give out all the eccentricities of the Singapore society, where do you get good food, what you have to watch out for, where they give you a bum rap and so on. And I think high on the list is the clean environment, no graffiti, safe personally, health et cetera, clean air, clean water and clean food except for some isolated cases and a safe environment for their children. I mean, where can you go out and jog at three o’clock in the morning and nothing happens? I think you can see them. You’re staying at the marina around there?”
Q: “I’m staying at Merchant Court.”
Mr Lee: “Merchant Court? Opposite?”
YY: “In fact, just next to Clarke Quay.”
Mr Lee: “Yes, yes. You can. Nobody has been mugged, nobody has been raped. The crime rate is the lowest in Southeast Asia because we have a fairly disciplined population. Everybody is educated, nobody, there are a few dropouts who go in for glue sniffing and drugs and so on but we keep the numbers down and we rescue as much of them as we can. But the social delinquency rate amongst young people is at a minimum.”
Q: “One thing that struck me is how you never see a policeman. I live in New York and I see police, cops all the time.”
Mr Lee: “You have got to show your presence to scare people, I mean, that I’m around. But in Singapore, we’ve got what you call neighbourhood police, that they are stationed in the neighbourhood. There’s a little neighbourhood post for each precinct and they stay there for two, three, even four years, so they get to know everybody there. So any stranger comes in they know and they become friends with the neighbourhood. So apart from the occasional round in a car, they make sure that houses are properly locked up and not left open inviting thieves.”
Q: “It’s not necessary to be driving around with the search light and all of the stuff like that. That’s the way it is in most places, really. This is a law abiding society in general.”
Mr Lee: “Well, it’s the education in the schools and at home partly because we’re such a densely populated kind of buildings, all high rises, so you have got to develop habits which are considerate to your neighbours. If you have loud blaring noise going through the walls, partition walls to the neighbours, they’ll soon complain to the the neighbourhood police or somebody will come up to say will you tone your volume down because you’re waking up the neighbourhood. And they learn to accommodate each other because we don’t allow our ethnic groups to choose to live together. When they are resettled, they have got to ballot for their neighbours, so you get Malays, Indians, Chinese all shuffled around together when in the first generation, they used to sell and relocate themselves, so we have quotas and no precinct should have more than this quota of the population. So in other words, we bring about an integration by spreading them which means we spread them in the schools too.”
Q: “And it’s worked.”
Mr Lee: “It’s worked. And so we have a more homogenous and more homogenous in the sense that they haven’t changed their religions, the Malays are still Muslims and they go to the mosques every Friday and they’ve slightly different habits. The influence from the Middle East has made them have head-dresses for no rhyme or reason.”
Q: “Actually, it’s an interesting question that just came up recently that I was going to ask you about. I know that you put a premium on racial harmony and religious harmony and it’s actually more or less legislated here, right?”
Mr Lee: “Yes, because you can have enormous trouble once religions clash.”
Q: “Well, the two things I’ve been interested to ask you about that because I agree with you is number one, the recent rise of Evangelical Christians in Singapore.”
Mr Lee: “As a result of American efforts.”
Q: “I don’t know if it’s American efforts but I went to the New Creation Church and you might as well have been in Tennessee , it was exactly the same. As soon as you walked through the door, it was exactly the same but it seemed very popular. Is that a new monkey (?) ranch in there?”
Mr Lee: “No, I don’t think so. You see most Chinese here are Buddhists or Taoist ancestor worshippers, I’m one of them, so it is a tolerant society, it says whatever you want to believe in, you go ahead. And these youngsters, the educated ones, Western-educated especially, now they are all English-educated, their mother tongue is the second language. Therefore, they begin to read Western books and Western culture and so on and then the Internet. So they begin to question like in Korea that what is this mumbo-jumbo, the ancestors and so on? The dead have gone, they’re praying before this altar and asking for their blessings and then they have got groups, Christian groups who go out and evangelize. They catch them in their teens, in their late teens when they’re malleable and open to suggestions and then they become very fervent evangelists themselves. My granddaughter is one of them. She’s now 28. My wife used to tell her look, don’t go for any more of these titles, just look for MRS. It’s just around the corner, God will arrange it.”
Q: “Well, in the US, as you say, it’s import from the US or an export. These people have been very politically active.”
Mr Lee: “Well, they know here that if you get politically active, you will incite the Buddhist, the Taoist, the Muslims, the Hindus and others to do similar response. We used to teach in the schools in the 1980s to get back some moral values as a result of Westernisation, Confucian culture as a subject in itself for the Chinese whereupon the Malays, the Indians and so on, they reacted. They wanted not Confucian culture, they wanted their religion, so we decided we’ll stop this. So we took the concepts of Confucianism and put it into civic subject, that society is more important than the individual, that the individual must care for the society and the interests of the society must take precedence over the individual, which is contrary to the American or Western system which says the individual trumps everything, freedom trumps everything, freedom of speech, freedom of whatever you tolerate even at the expense of making others feel inconvenient. If I don’t like abortion, you’re a doctor who aborts people, I shoot you.”
Q: “That may happen, that’s valid I think there is a rather large emphasis on individual autonomy in Western cultures that is sometimes detrimental to the larger society. But that’s the way you’re brought up, that’s what we’re used to, so it becomes….”
Mr Lee: “No, it’s the philosophy of society you start with. You get all the Kantian theories and the Rousseau and so on, so gradually it evolved and then along comes Maddox and Jefferson’s the right to happiness of the society and so on. So it’s an optimistic sort of approach to life. The Chinese start off with a completely different end of the stick that all men are born the same and you have got to educate them and perfect them, otherwise, they will not improve. So they put a lot of emphasis on upbringing at home and in the schools. Well, we’re losing part of it because the Chinese schools have disappeared. We’re trying to preserve it or introduce it into the English speaking schools but the teachers now are also educated in English speaking schools and have lost the old traditions. So they’re trying to get them to go to China and see how they preserve these qualities. But we find that in the cities, they’re also changing.”
Q: “So when, don’t take this the wrong way, but when you decided to close the Chinese stream education and the college, what was the rationale behind that and do you ever regret doing that?”
Mr Lee: “No, I regret not doing it faster because politically, if there’d been a violent electoral protest in the next elections because they’re so wedded to the idea that language means, culture means, life means everything. But I’m a pragmatist and you can’t make a living with the Chinese language in Singapore. The first duty of the government is to be able to feed its people, to feed its people in a little island. There’s no hinterland and no farming, you have got to trade and you have got to do something to get people buy your goods or services or get people to come here and manufacture themselves, export, ready-made markets and multinationals which I stumbled on when I went to Harvard for a term in 1968 and I said oh, this could solve my unemployment problem. So we brought the semiconductors factories here and one started, the whole herd came and we became a vast centre for production of computers and computer peripherals. But they all speak English, multinationals from Japan, Europe, whatever European country they come from, they speak English. So Chinese-educated were losing out and they were disgruntled because they got the poorer jobs and lesser pay. So eventually our own Members of Parliament were Chinese-educated and graduates from the Chinese university said okay, we have got do something. We’re ruining these people’s careers. By that time, the university was also losing its good students and getting bum students. Because they took in poor students, they graduated them on lower marks and so the degree became valueless. So when you apply for a job with a Chinese university degree, you hide your degree and produce your school certificate. So I tried to change it from within, the Education Minister was Chinese-educated and English-educated to convert it from within because most of the teachers have American PhDs. So they did their thesis in English but they’ve forgotten their English as they’ve been teaching in Chinese, so it couldn’t be done. So I merged them with the English speaking university. Great unhappiness and dislocation for the first few years but when they graduated, we put it to them do you want your old university degree or you want English university degree? All opted for the English university degree. That settled it.”
Q: “In recent events as China begins to ascend, I mean, would you?”
Mr Lee: “No, no. It makes no difference. We are not going to tie ourselves to China to the extent it makes us hostage. I mean, we have many investments there because the older generation are Chinese-educated, they feel comfortable but the younger generation, they have enough Chinese who want to go there and do business and they can ramp it up if you want because once you are able to listen and speak and read without writing, you can pick it up. And not everybody wants to go there and we’ve been offering scholarships to their top universities, Beijing, Qinghua, Hudan, very few takers. They say nah, I want to go to America or Britain because they know they’re coming back here and competing in English.”
Q: “Do you think that, I mean, one question I wanted to ask you was building a country from scratch is obviously an enormous achievement, accomplishment.”
Mr lee: “No, it’s not a nation. It’s a society in transition. You need a few hundred years to build a nation.”
Q: “Oh really?”
Mr Lee: “Yes.”
Q: “You have a lot of countries running around claiming they’re nations. You don’t think they really are nations?”
Mr Lee: “Well, we make them say the national pledge and sing the national anthem but suppose we have a famine, will your Malay neighbour give you the last few grains of rice or will she share it with her family or fellow Muslim or vice versa?”
Q: “Depends on the person, doesn’t it? No, it doesn’t?”
Mr Lee: “No, I think there comes a time, I read a book by Edward Wilson who was Harvard.”
Q: “I know who he is.”
Mr Lee: “And he wrote about human beings.”
Q: “Actual past ones.”
Mr Lee: “And he described the Maoris. So when two tribes were fighting, the third tribe will come and see which tribe is more our side, more genes like us and they joined that side. So it’s an instinct. Can you overcome that instinct? Edward Wilson says culture can overcome because he’s American, he knows a mix of Europeans and others. But it takes many, many years. Yes, they all do the military service, equal treatment, equal pay, equal hardship, job opportunities but we live in concentric circles. Cross marriages, yes a few, usually the parents are most unhappy. Then where do you belong, the children of the cross marriages? Sometimes they get reabsorbed in their father ethnic group and they carry the father’s surname. Sometimes, if you become a Muslim then whether you’re male or female, you join the other side. But it has happened to the margins more and more. But I think the instinct, the human instinct is still there. I mean, it’s in America.”
Q: “I live in New York which is similar to Singapore in a way.”
Mr Lee: “No, I mean, I used to talk to an Indian. He was the administrator of Agra and we were driving back to Delhi. This was in the late 1970s. So he was telling me he was writing a thesis on Shakespeare, a highly-educated man. At that time, English-educated, that generation. So I said, supposing I pretend as a caste, supposing I pretend I’m a Brahmin, high caste and I invite you to dinner, he said yeah I’ll come. You give me a good dinner, I’ll come. Now supposing I want to marry your daughter? He says that’s different. The most thorough inquiries will be made. So I said supposing I tell you I came from Calcutta and how you’re going to find me. He says no, you’ve got to live somewhere in Calcutta, you must have your family, your neighbours, your friends in Calcutta, we’ll find out. Then we’ll know what caste you belong to.”
Q: “So as long as you have enough human trail people will figure out who you are.”
Mr Lee: “Yes, and in Japan, they do it a different way. They exclude the Chinese and the Koreans who have been there for generations. They’re still not Japanese citizens. Some had become since the West started criticizing them because you may have a Japanese name and you speak perfect Japanese, but for promotions, where is your home village? Never mind, I come from Tokyo, Osaka or Kobe. No where is your home domicile and they will trace you there.”
Q: “So what you’re saying now is this somewhat contradictory to the programme that you have here where you have the quotas? It’s really human nature, the people hang out with their own kind. Can you legislate that? Can you do anything about that?”
Mr Lee: “It takes times. You can have a certain, as I said, concentric circles. They overlap at the outer circles. You start with your family, your relatives, your immediate friends and then your school friends and other friends in the outer fringe. In the outer circles, you have common ground but you can even invite them into your home and visit each other on festive occasions and so on but when it comes to marriage and becoming part of the family, that’s a very different happiness.”
Q: “Is it, will it be your goal to break down those barriers or it’s not worth doing, it’s just a waste of time?”
Mr Lee: “I think we just leave it alone.”
Q: “You just leave it alone.”
Mr Lee: “You try to break it down, you’re going to cause a lot of unhappiness and the older generation vote solidly against.”
Q: “As Singapore moves along, I mean, answer me this question, who has the hardest job?”
Mr Lee: “Hardest job?”
Q: “You or your son?”
Mr Lee: “It’s to keep going at the same pace, same quality of governance at all levels, more integrated. I mean not assimilated but more integrated, more easy to get along with each other, a more cohesive society and a better-educated society at all levels, not just the few at the top at universities or polytechnics. Even the dropouts now we’re putting them into technical institutes where they learn hands-on preparing engines, electrical equipment and so on in a fairly splendid surroundings because otherwise the old trade schools, they’ll say ah, already you’re a failure. But now they go into air-conditioned buildings looking the same like polytechnics. You don’t feel shy about being seen there. You come out with a certificate and if you make the grade, they will go up one step to the polytechnic where you’ll learn nearly a degree status and if you do well in the polytechnic, you go on to university.”
Q: “Do you think that the world is more complicated now than it was when you were a young man, when you were in the 1960s when Singapore first became independent?”
Mr Lee: “Of course, I mean everyday is more globalised and more complicated. You look at this swine virus. In the old days, it’d have died in the village where the Mexican got it. He wouldn’t have been traveling to Mexico City. Now it goes to Mexico City, it infects people there, within 24 hours, it’s around the world.”
Q: “That’s one thing I want to ask. As the country moves along, we won’t call it a nation, as the country moves along...”
Mr Lee: “It’s a nation in the making. The optimistic view. We must have optimism.”
Q: “Absolutely or else why bother to get up in the morning?”
YY: “Mark, MM has another appointment if you want to spare two minutes.”
Mr Lee: “I give you 45 minutes, you carry on.”
Q: “Carry on?”
Mr Lee: “Yeah, yeah, it’s all right. If you’ve come all the way two weeks, I can postpone my appointment later.”
Q: “I appreciate that very much. But I will stick to only the questions I have.”
Mr Lee: “No, when you say you spent two weeks here, that means you’re doing a serious piece.”
Q: “It’s a serious piece and also as I told you, I’m very anxious to give a realistic portrayal of the place that people have a lot of illusions about. So therefore, I want to find out really what’s going on. Let’s ask you a question about Singapore. One of the things that people say about Singapore is it’s too, life is too easy here. People have lost their curiosity and that’s the problem. How do you respond to that?”
Mr Lee: “No, I don’t think that is so much.., that’s a stereotype view. If they’ve lost their curiosity, they wouldn’t be striving so hard to get to university, to travel abroad, to go to higher education institutes abroad, to learn higher skills. I mean, I’m undergoing physiotherapy because I had a fall on the bicycle, so I’m stuck there for one hour talking to the physiotherapist and she’s upgrading herself, she’s done her training here. Her next stage is to go to Australia and get a degree in physiotherapy. I said is the hospital sending you? She said no, I’m paying on my own. I said will you get a pay rise when you come back? She said no but my chances of promotion will be there. So you see it’s not that they have lost the curiosity. I mean, they’re prepared to spend two years in Perth or Brisbane or Sydney. That’s where they get the most physiotherapists because their children are great sportsmen.”
Q: “It’s truly they keep on driving their motorcycles into the wall and then they get up and say, let’s do it again.”
Mr Lee: “So there is this curiosity to find out about the world and it’s affecting how they live. I mean, she was 32-years-old. I said are you married. She said no. I said you shouldn’t leave it too late. She said well, I haven’t found the right person. I said how is that? you are meeting fellow nurses, you better join, you have got a social development unit where you meet men above board, they are looking for spouses, you are looking for spouses and you meet in groups, unless you decide we are friends, and you want to cultivate a closer relation, and she said no, no, no, I'm a Christian, that limits my choice to 20 per cent of the population and we meet in Church."
Q: "Do you feel a complacency among the people here?"
Mr Lee: "No, a complacency in the sense that their expectations are high and they expect their expectations to be met. But they want higher and higher opportunities, more and more opportunities."
Q: "Why does Singapore have to be number one in everything? Why can't you just be one of the ten great cities of Asia? What's wrong with that idea?"
Mr Lee: "If we don't strive to be number one, you won't be number ten. You will be number ten. You try to be number one, you might be number two or number three. Do your best. You don’t have to be number one but do your best and try to be number one. That's our attitude. Look, we have got no natural resources, we have got nothing except human beings in a small strategic location."
Q: "You have got a good location."
Mr Lee: "But you must have people with training, with skills, well-organized, disciplined and productive. I mean so if we didn’t have an efficient port, we wouldn’t be the biggest container port in the world. Where are the container TEUs from? We are not a big manufacturing China centre, they are from China, they are from Europe or Japan, but they transit through to Singapore because that's where they come in and six hours before they are in, they telegraph what containers they want removed, where they are."
Q: "I was there, I was very impressed. It was pretty cool."
Mr Lee: "So they arrive, immediately work starts, cleared, loaded, off they go in four or five, six hours depending on the number of containers."
Q: "Do you use a personal computer?"
Mr Lee: "Yes, I do."
Q: "And do you are really up on this stuff?"
Mr Lee: "Well otherwise I'm out of the loop. I used to correct my copies and fax it back. Then I find the young ministers are all correcting each other's copies on the net. So I decided I better learn this or I'll be out of it altogether."
Q: "What do you think really the overall effect that the internet is going to be in the general sense and especially in a government like the one that you have here where suddenly like there is this degree of personal freedom as given to people by using the internet and a lot of this stuff on the internet is not stuff you really want your children to see for instance."
Mr Lee: "What can you do?"
Q: "What can you do? Is that the answer?"
Mr Lee: "You have got to decide as the Chinese have decided that they have to take the risk and they try to minimize the risk and censor this and censor that."
Q: "Do you approve that?"
Mr Lee: "No, but we cannot censor it because you just go to some server outside and you have got access, so it's a waste of time."
Q : "And also no matter what you do, you are not going to be able to, these hacker guys, you can't beat them."
Mr Lee: "You have got to leave it to the parents and the schoolteachers and peer groups, to say look don’t waste your time doing this."
Q: "One thing that puzzles in Singapore is actually a very interesting place because of different paradoxes I find in this country. What would be, forgive me if this a little bit on the lewd side, why would you ban Playboy for instance and allow prostitution?"
Mr Lee: "We banned Playboy in the 1960s when it was a different world in a different standard. It is still banned, that's all. I mean why do you want buy Playboy now if you can go into the internet? You get more than what you get in Playboy, that's that."
Q: "I'm not going to ask you if you looked at it recently."
Mr Lee: "No, you can't, I mean it's not possible. It's part of the globalized village we live in and we have got to learn to adapt and live a sufficiently wholesome life to succeed. If you become addicted to all this porn and drugs and gambling on the net, then you are finished. I mean in Korea, they have become addicts at this."
Q: "I think that there is a lot of addiction in that, yes, there's no doubt about it. Speaking of that, so what made you decide to have these casinos?"
Mr Lee: "When I was a student in England, the only casino in Europe was in Monaco."
Q: "I remember that."
Mr Lee: "The younger ministers have said look, we must have a casino, otherwise, we are out of the circuit of this fast set that goes around the world, with F1 and so on. And it will increase the tourist trade because the casino will pay for all the shows. Otherwise, the shows are too expensive. So I've been resisting it and I've told the Prime Minister, I said no, no, don’t do that, you'll bring mafias here and money laundering and all kinds of crime."
Q: "I think it is a definite risk."
Mr Lee: "Then I see the British having casinos and Switzerland having casinos. I said God, the world has changed. If I don’t change, we'll be out of business. So alright, we'll put up two casinos, so obviously they are not going to target Singaporeans because there are not enough numbers for two casinos. So they got to bring them in from China, India and elsewhere and we have passed legislation to say that any family can ask for a ban on …"
Q: "A person from that family."
Mr Lee: "And the Singaporeans when they go in, they have got to pay $100."
Q: "That doesn’t sound quite fair."
Mr Lee: "No, they are going, driving up to a place called Genting, Star Cruises come in and they go outside the territorial limit and they gamble. So I said you do that because I do not want to be blamed and the Prime Minister doesn’t want, and his Cabinet doesn’t want to be blamed for those who get addicted. And there will be those who will get addicted."
Q: "How do you, are you still morally opposed to them or does pragmatism always take precedence in your thinking?"
Mr Lee: "Well, it is useless to resist when it is everywhere."
Q: "Well, the fact that it's everywhere, maybe it is the reason to resist."
Mr Lee: "No, you cannot stop it. You want to cut off the internet? You want to cut off your cellphones? You want to cut off satellite TV? Then you will become like Myanmar. It's not possible."
Q: "No, thank you. That's interesting. I hate to be jumping around but I don’t want to take so much of your time. What do you do about this kind of thing? I would assume in a government, it is easier to legislate people having less children than it is to legislate having them more children."
Mr Lee: "No, we can't legislate. We don’t legislate, we just encourage and we say if you have the third child, you will get these benefits."
Q: "Well, legislate is the wrong word but …"
Mr Lee: "We encourage them with incentives. Yeah, we pay for full pay leave, we don’t burden the employer because the employer will then say look I'm not going to employ these women. So the government pays for them, the employer is entitled to two-three months, three months?"
YY: "Four months now."
Mr Lee: "No, no. Employer two months, we pay two months and it will become six months and so on."
Q: "During the 1960s and the 1970s, you ran a programme 'Two is Enough'. Did the government succeed too well?"
Mr Lee: "No, it has happened all over Asia. It has happened in Hong Kong, it has happened in Korea, they never had this Stop at Two, it has happened in Japan, it is the education that the women and equal job opportunities. Once the women are educated, they have equal job opportunities, some of them earning as much if not more than men, there is a certain independence of choice. I mean they say what’s the hurry? Singlehood is no burden, my daughter is 55, unmarried, mother has been nagging her when she was in her 30s, she's quite happy."
Q: "Do you feel an urge to have more grandchildren or is it."
Mr Lee: "I've got two boys who have got grandchildren but I feel sad for her. Because when my wife is gone and I'm gone, this hotel which keeps her going. She will have to manage it."
Q: "I mean the thing is like, occasionally, it seems like the Singapore Government succeeds as I was talking to a gentleman today, he said in India, they propose a lot of things, and fairly high percentage are never going to get done right but in Singapore, things are proposed and you do it. And you finish it. Therefore, if it is a mistake, then you have to redo it."
Mr Lee: "No, what is the mistake? We can't undo women's education, equal job opportunities. But the whole problem springs as I was talking to this physiotherapist, I said suppose you were not educated to a point where you are independent, your mother and father would have got you matched off."
Q: "Matched off, what does that mean?"
Mr Lee: "Father and mother will look for another father and mother with an appropriate background, no inherited diseases and similar social affluence and then they marry them off, they get them together and meet and no objections and then you are married. Then you love the man, or you love the woman you marry. But she's educated and she's thinking of a degree in physiotherapy and upgrading herself and so…"
Q: "There is this feeling that you want to keep the society going."
Mr Lee: "Well, fortunately for us."
Q: "And reproduction is an important part of that, right?"
Mr Lee: "I've been urging them. The only developed societies that have succeeded are Sweden and France and that's not that they have succeeded, they have just about reached replacement rate. And we've studied their incentives and they are enormous. Crèches, full pay leave for husband and wife, nine months and you can extend it and so on and free nurseries, factories and offices have nurseries and feeding rooms for the mothers. We will get to that stage eventually but meanwhile, it takes a long time to change mindsets."
Q: "That's true."
Mr Lee: "Since we are small population and we can top up, we are topping up. The trouble is the moment they come here, they also have one or two children because they begin to think like Singaporeans. Why? I will lose my chance of promotion. So I'm out of business for six months, nine months, I come back, the others have overtaken me."
Q: "Well, I think that's what I've heard. A lot of people say like well, foreign workers have come here and they've just come to work. That's what they do, they are here to work, so it's hard to compete with people who are just don’t have any other distractions. I mean I've heard this several times."
Mr Lee: "Without them, what will happen to us? We will shrink and eventually, one- and-a-half workers will have to support two parents and is that sustainable?"
Q: "I don’t know, probably not."
Mr Lee: "Therefore, the one worker will move out rather than pay the heavy taxes. And move out and give remittances to his parents wherever he is."
Q: "So, well, this is a question that came up several times when I have been driving around in the taxicab, all I have to do is say “how's business?” and then you don’t have to say another word. The Singapore people, they just start talking."
Mr Lee: "The tourists have gone down."
Q: "And they have all these life stories."
Mr Lee: "Swine fever and so on."
Q: "Then I would say I'm going to see the MM, what would you ask him? And he goes…and one thing did come up which is not, I don’t mean to…one of the things he said well, he's the father but he should let us go. Then with words like as a patriarch of the country, is there a point in which you should step away because the perception is I guess that I know what you really do, but the perception is that you are still the face of the country."
Mr Lee: "Well, no, that's a public perception which is not held by those in the know. I mean all the top executives know that they are dealing with the ministers and the decisions are made by the ministers. My job is really as a long-range radar to look out for opportunities and for threats. So I can sit down and talk to you because I have got nothing urgent in my tray."
Q: "I'm glad to hear that."
Mr Lee: "I cannot work at that old pace. I can work with subjects that require contemplation, time, which really is backed up by my experience and my feel of how things will develop."
Q: "Well, nobody knows Singapore better than you."
Mr Lee: "I mean, I guess, supposing I had not intervened in the casino debate, the religious groups would fought tooth and nail to stop it and the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were in a lot of trouble, so I stood up and said look, I understand the views, I was of the same view but I'll tell you the reason why I have changed my mind and that had a calming effect because if you don’t do this, you are not going to be part of the modern world. Either you accept that this is part of today's globalized world and you have F1 and all this glitzy events, closed roads, light up the city and so on, or you are out of business. And in Singapore, if you are out of business, you are out of food."
Q: "Singapore is always been about business. They say in America, business of America's business, I think it's true here too, right?"
Mr Lee: "It has to be. Otherwise, we won't survive."
Q: "When you look out the window, and you see all these big buildings, is this what you envision? Is this the world that you hoped to be?"
Mr Lee: "After we were booted out from Malaysia, before Malaysia or during Malaysia, we thought we'll grow together as a commercial centre of the federation, the capital being Kuala Lumpur, like Washington, we'll be a kind of New York. But once we were out on our own, I studied what happened to Malta, Gibraltar, all the island colonies and Hongkong and I thought we were in a similar position to Hongkong, so I knew that high-rises will be inevitable. And Hongkong is all economy, they have packed all of them together in a little piece of flat land across the Bay, across the harbour, and very few houses up on the hills, on the peak, because that's where the British overlords used to stay and moreover it's costly because they have got to have retaining walls otherwise, you have landslides and so on. So we decided we'll have to spread out over the whole island and have high density living but with lots of green spaces and room for recreation and breathing space. The school I was at was the best school in Singapore, Raffles Institution, now we have Raffles City, four big high rises designed by I M Paye. But what's the choice? It's a prime site, so the school has now got spanking new buildings, where is it now? Bishan which is near Bishan Park but it has lost, but that old school we thought, I thought about it hard and it was made of bricks and mortar and boards, so they keep it going in a tropical climate, prone to white ants, will be a very expensive business. So I said let's give up."
Q: "I mean one of the things, what is the value of past place like Singapore? Several people actually use the same metaphor, it's interesting, I have two movies in my head, I have the movie of the world that I grew up in, and I have the movie of the way things are now. One in my head is getting very frayed of the past and I'm sure you know what I'm talking about."
Mr Lee: "I used to cycle to school. Empty roads, when it rains, I have got to have a raincoat. Now it's just not done, with all these huge buses and cars, so my grandchildren are advised not to travel by bicycles. London has lost a lot of its ancient buildings but it's got enough solid buildings of stone like St Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey or the Houses of Parliament which are very costly to maintain and they keep that as icons. Well, also the Oxbridge Colleges, they are very uncomfortable to live in, I mean you want a brand name, you try and get there but choose a nice new building annex that they have built, if you are put into one of the old rooms, then you are cold and it's several centuries old."
Q: "I mean they didn’t have central heating then."
Mr Lee: "Now, they have put in some central heating, I mean they are piped."
Q: "Never so cold as I was in London."
Mr Lee: "But that's a trade off. So we keep a few along the riverside and amongst the better buildings which are worth preserving because it's not so expensive and they are also architecturally interesting. So there are few landmarks. In my own constituency, I've got two streets which have been kept up and the rest have just gone high rise but they have been kept up and used for other purposes, no longer domestic but boutique restaurants, studios and so on. Otherwise, you can't justify the economic costs of maintaining them."
Q: "As you get older, do you get more sentimental?"
Mr Lee: "Sorry."
Q: "As you get older, do you feel more sentimental and nostalgic or do you manage to avoid that? I mean I know you are a pragmatist."
Mr Lee: "No, it was a nice leisurely place, large spaces, I would travel along what is called now Mountbatten Road, used to be called Grove Road and there was a swamp on one side and now we have all built up areas, it was an airport, now the airport is gone, the British flying boats used to land on the river which I remember. I mean look, do you want to, if we were the size of let's say the US, lots of empty spaces, then you might be able to keep more of it. But I see New York hasn’t kept much of it either."
Q: "Well, it's a mix. In Manhattan, it's true."
Mr Lee: "You have kept the churches because they are made of stone."
Q: "The Empire State Building is still there."
Mr Lee: "But the Empire State Building now looks tacky compared to the others….”
Q: “It looks great!”
Mr Lee: “It looks old fashioned."
Q: "Well, the view, I mean the Chrysler Building is a work of art. Most of the buildings they've built since then are not works of art."
Mr Lee: "That's what you think but the architects. Their grandchildren would say what a wonderful architect that was. I mean aesthetic taste varies with each generation."
Q: "I don’t know. I think there's a kind of, did you see that building, a picture from China and the building just fell over. I know you don’t have that kind of construction processes here."
Mr Lee: "You see the Chinese are nouveou riche and the contractors want to be part of the nouveou riche, so they …"
Q: "I mean how does it feel if you were living in a building next door, I feel I have got to move."
Mr Lee: "They are in a very fast transition and they see their neighbours getting very wealthy and they say I must get wealthy too because my children, the money that I have got a house, got a car and so on. So they take these shortcuts at the expense of public safety. Bridges have fallen down, when they built this enormous barrage up the Yangtze River and the Three Gorges, Jiu Rongji had a very hard time knocking heads together. It's the process of getting rich in transition and watching your neighbours get rich and you say I must get there too quick or I lose my opportunities. That's that."
Q: "I don’t want to take more of your time. Let me just ask you a couple more things. How would you like to be remembered?"
Mr Lee: "I don’t think I can decide that. I live my life in accordance to what I think is worth doing. I never wanted to be in politics. I wanted to be a lawyer and make a good living, to be a good advocate but I was thrown into it as a result of all these political earthquakes that took place. So I was saddled with the responsibility and I just have to be responsible to get the place going. That's all and I mean we’ve got here and I can't decide what posterity is going to do. I studied law and in the law, the British said you can will yourself, you can will your property, the longest you can do it is life and lives in being and 21 years thereafter. After that, you can't control your trust. So in my case, I can't go that long. All I can do is to make sure that when I leave, the institutions are good, sound, clean, efficient and there's a government in place which knows what it has got to do and is looking for a successive government of quality. That's all I can do."
Q: "If you were to leave the stage in the larger sense, and say in ten years, I think you are seen as a cult figure as you have just said about the casino thing, I mean does it have to be somebody like you to keep the place going or …"
Mr Lee: "No, I mean look America got going long after Jefferson, George Washington and all that."
Q: "But I think …(indistinct)… who did big things."
Mr Lee: "Nobody, Charles de Gaulle says nobody, I am not indestructible. When I read his biography, I read in English, and he said that, I said that is a wise man. So I remembered that and I know that come a certain time, and I didn’t expect to live so long either, it's just good medicine and good surgery that has kept me here."
Q: "We used to have a joke, if I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself."
Mr Lee: "Well, it so happened and I just do what I think I can contribute to make the place, to consolidate what has been gained and it can still go to waste. It can still spiral down."
Q: "Through no fault of anybody's?"
Mr Lee: "Look, I once had to make an impromptu speech in Sydney, I've just come from New Zealand. So in the end they said no speech, no speeches and the Premier of the state made a very well-prepared speech so I had to respond. So what do I say off the cuff? I said I've just come from New Zealand and I'll tell you what my thoughts were. In 100 years from now, I go back to New Zealand and there will be the grass, the sheep, the cows, the tornados or hurricanes at Wellington, and there will always be this green pleasant place and not industrially developed because it's the last stop in the bus line and in 100 years from today, I'm not sure that there'll be a Singapore. It depends on what my successors do. I mean that's the cards we were handed. So it's not up to me. What is up to me is make sure the place is ticking, make sure the institutions are there, the systems are in place, make sure there is a government that is fit for the job and then it is up to them to ensure continuity. That's that."
Q: "Do you feel satisfied that that's moving along quite well? Or do you worry?"
Mr Lee: "I think for the next ten years, with this team in charge, it is going to be fine. Whether they will do well for the next 10-15 years depends on whether they get a younger team in place, well imbibed into the methods of the government, integrity, ability, and making decisions for the public good, and not for your personal benefit. That's all. It is difficult because it means sacrificing privacy and sacrificing pay. Now we solved the pay problem or semi-solved it by giving them 80 per cent of the average of six major salary earners."
Q: "Is that how you arrived at it?"
Mr Lee: "Yeah, but we are always lagging behind because whenever there's a downturn, we don’t give the rise. Whenever there's an upturn, the private sectors goes up, shoots up suddenly and we can't keep pace because the public says no, this is too much."
Q: "Well, when people are getting US$16 billion bonuses for bringing the country into the ground, it is hard to keep up."
Mr Lee: "I was once asked about the enormous, the best paid ministers in the world. I said you should look at the wives. The lowest-paid ministers have wives who are glittering with jewels and with big mansions."
Q: "So that means they are corrupt."
Mr Lee: "No, I didn’t say that."
Q: "That was pretty way to be said."
Mr Lee: "But it's true. So Singaporeans have to decide. Do you want to underpay a minister and you have the kind of shenanigans as you have in the British Parliament? You know they repair their homes in the country and in London and charge it to their account. Or you pay them a proper wage and said after that, look after everything. Nobody gets any special perks. That's your salary, you buy your car, you do what everything is yours. Official entertainment, you have got an expense account. Your secretary monitors it and audits channel clears it. So everything is above board and the public knows that. So whatever they grumble, they know that they are not being shortchanged."
Q: "There are grumbles but there are always grumbles."
Mr Lee: "There must be. Singaporeans are champion grumblers."
Q: "Thank you so much.
Q: “I don’t think you’d be dazzled but this is what they give when they interview a big shot.”
Mr Lee: “Okay. Barbara Poulson, she’s the CEO, owner?”
Q: “She’s the editor. The writers don’t deal with the CEO. The writers go economy class.”
Mr Lee: “Thank you.”
Q: “It was interesting. The thing about National Geographic is the joke but it’s not really a joke, I guess, the photographers go business class and the writers go economy class. I never cared for that very much myself.”
Mr Lee: “The writers go by economy class.”
Q: “The photographers go business class.”
Mr Lee: “They’d get tired. They don’t have, what do you call it, DVD?”
Q: “No, you can watch it. In the airplane, the DVD is about this close to your face, so you can’t really move very much. It’s sort of like sitting in the first row of the movie theatre. So actually I’ve interviewed Presidents and I was born in 1948, there’ve been 10-12 American Presidents. They come and they go. But I’ve never interviewed anybody who has stayed the length that you have. It’s like interviewing George Washington and Thomas Jefferson rolled up into one, so it’s kind of nice.”
Mr Lee: “It was one of these cataclysmic moments in history when empires dissolved and invading armies came in and lorded it over us for three-and-a-half years, in this case the Japanese Imperial army who were quite brutal and then the Communists who were armed to fight the Japanese, made a bid for power. So after all that, we came through as the Communists would call it the crucible of fire.”
Q: “The crucible of fire. In your book, you said that the three years of Japanese Occupation were the most, probably the most important years of your life. Do you feel that way, do you still feel that way?”
Mr Lee: “Yes, of course. First, I was in my late teens, they captured Singapore in February 1942. I was 18-plus and they didn’t leave until 1945 when I was 21-plus.”
Q: “Those are significant years in anybody’s life.”
Mr Lee: “So I was Chinese male, tall and they were going for people like me because this was the centre for the collection of ethnic Chinese donations to Chungking to fight the Japanese. So when they came in, they were out to punish us. So they slaughtered 50,000, well the numbers estimate go up to about 90,000 but I think verifiable numbers would be about 50,000. And just randomly but for a stroke of fortune, I would have been one of them.”
Q: “Well, 1945 seems to be a, if you look back over history, 1945 was a cataclysmic year for humanity in general. You see difference between the combination of the detonation of the atom bomb and the discovery of the Nazi camps. So at that point, tell me what you think? It seems that humanity began to stop thinking of itself as made in the image of the creator so maybe it weren’t so wonderful.”
Mr Lee: “I don’t think I ever started off with that hypothesis or that basis. I always thought that humanity was animal-like and that Confucian theory was Man can be improved. I’m not sure it can be but it can trained, it can be disciplined. I’m not sure you can actually change the character of a man but you can discipline him and make him, you make a left-hander write with his right hand but you can’t really change his natural born instincts to use his left hand. But a Confucianist belief Man is perfectible which is an optimistic belief.”
Q: “I would say so.”
Mr Lee: “And there are many American sociologists who also would like to prove that to be correct, the latest one being the professor who has done some research insists why ethnic Jews and Asians and West Indian Blacks do so well in America and they came to the conclusion that’s because they emphasised upbringing and education.”
Q: “Actually, I went to the University of California at Berkley back in the 1960s and early 70s, I never graduated, then I went back and finished my degree in 2004 to show my children their father wasn’t a bum and it was interesting to see how the demographic composition of US, that’s the number one public college in the United States. It was like half of the graduating class was Asians and it was interesting and it made me feel like I would never have gotten there.”
Mr Lee: “Most of the Asians settled in California because of the climate.”
Q: “It was sort of striking because you feel like, what you’re saying is interesting because it’s like some people seem to thrive in certain environments and some people don’t, I don’t know why.”
Mr Lee: “Well, we’ve got ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indians here. The settled ones have become less hard-driving and hard-striving and we’ve got recent migrants, they are hungry, they’re determined to succeed having uprooted themselves and they’re doing better.”
Q: “Is that okay? Is that fine, I mean?”
Mr Lee: “No it worries the old citizens. They say look this is fierce competition, my children won’t be getting the scholarships because they’re doing well in schools, they push their children very hard. In fact, they need no pushing. They come here from China with no English language and they know that without English, they won’t get along. So there are many cases of boys and girls aged 12, 13 who come into our secondary schools and by the time, they finish the schools, they top the class in English.”
Q: “That’s interesting, it’s like my grandparents came to New York. When they came in, they don’t speak English and they did great. They just really tried hard and made a life for themselves and I think after a number of generations, it’s very difficult to keep that kind of drive up.”
Mr Lee: “Of course, of course.”
Q: “Do you think that’s inevitable or do you think that people just get lazy or what?”
Mr Lee: “No, I think the spurs are not stuck on your hinds. They are part of the herd, why-go-faster? But when you’re lagging behind, you must go faster to catch up with the herd. I’m quite sure that there are children of the migrants who strive arduously. When they grow up in the same schools as the Singaporeans, the same playing fields, same environment and they begin to adopt Singaporean habits in the ways of living and thinking. So I’m quite sure they’d become like us. Well, because we’re shrinking in our population, our fertility ratio is about 1.29.
Q: “I actually wanted to ask you about that.”
Mr Lee: ”So it’s a worrying factor. So we’ll need a constant inflow but we’re a small population, so we get the inflow and we get the inflow from the educated end of the population, both Indians and Chinese and they’ve got surplus populations. Well, I won’t say surplus but they’ve got huge population, huge numbers.”
Q: “They have people to spare, that’s for sure.”
Mr Lee: “No and they’ve got fierce competition there, so when they come here, higher standards of living for the time being, better social environment with jobs.”
Q: “What would you say the parents of the second or third generation of Singaporeans and their children are not able to compete with the new people? How do you tell them?”
Mr Lee: “We tell them look they have got to work harder or they’ll become stupid. It’s just that they don’t see the point of it. Why race when you can canter and save your energy and do other things? Art, ballet, sports whereas these new migrants, they spend all their time slogging away in the library or at home.”
Q: “You’re not saying that arts, sports and ballet are not important, are you?”
Mr Lee: “No, I’m not saying they are not important but an inordinate amount of time is spent on extra-curricular activities.”
Q: “I told my son if you stop playing basketball, you do better on these tests but I like playing basketball. I said, well.”
Mr Lee: “Well, I think it’s an inevitable evolution of any society and therefore, a regular inflow of migrants without too huge a deluge will keep that society on its toes.”
Q: “You have 25 per cent here of people who are expatriates. Is that too much?”
Mr Lee: “Well, there’s a little discomfort in some areas because in some areas, they seem to congregate, the new ones. The Indians somehow find the East Coast congenial. They concentrate there, so they become very obvious. The Chinese are more scattered, not so obvious except in the food courts where they are doing the hard work because Chinese cooks from China are willing to work for $1,000 less a month and they’re just as good. So the employer looks for them.”
Q: “Well suppose, if you were the owner of a restaurant and you were going to hire a chef.”
Mr Lee: “I’d choose the best chef.”
Q: “You’d chose the best chef. It wouldn’t make a difference how much you have to pay.”
Mr Lee: “Well, because the customer will make up for any difference. I mean, good chefs are difficult to come by. That’s as simple as that.”
Q: “The talent.”
Mr Lee: “It’s the taste buds, your nostrils, sense of colour, et cetera.”
Q: “We ate dinner at Iggys, somewhere at the Regency Hotel. He was telling us, we were eating the food and he’s sitting there watching us eat which is so disconcerting I have got to say and he was explaining how they put together each dish. It was like listening to a painter telling you.”
Mr Lee: “Yes, they make it an art.”
Q: “It was an art form.”
Mr Lee: “It’s not only just food. It’s presentation, it’s for the eyes, for the smell, for the texture and so on.”
Q: “You have a favourite food hawker?”
Mr Lee: “I can’t go.”
Q: “Or is it really too good to say?”
Mr Lee: “Well, I can’t go anymore because so many people want to shake my hands and I become a distraction, I can’t really get down to my food.”
Q: “So can you have take-out?”
Mr Lee: “Well, that’s not quite the same. I tend to go to restaurants when I go out and I try restaurants with a quiet corner where I can sneak in and sneak out with my friends and not have a crowd wanting to shake hands with me.”
Q: “One of the things that I did when I came, I’ve been here about two weeks, and I know I have this interview with you. So they say what are you doing in Singapore? I say well, I’m going to interview the MM and they said, oh yeah. I said well, what would you ask him if you have a chance and people have a lot of question. So I have integrated my questions with their questions.”
Mr Lee: “That’s all right.”
Q: “I thought probably you would appreciate that.”
Mr Lee: “I’m 85 coming on to 86 this September. I’ve had many eggs thrown at me.”
Q: “One thing that really struck me, coming from an American perspective is how much people, as much as they may seem to complain, they obviously feel a sense of home here and they love this place and this is their home and whatever problems they may have with whatever, that love of it comes through which I don’t think the people really in a place like America can really appreciate that. In America, what do they know about Singapore? They know it has an exotic name, the chewing gum and the guy that got caned. That’s it. And one of my missions here is to kind of like explode certain mythologies that people might have about this place.”
Mr Lee: “Well, the Americans who’ve been here and done business, stayed here especially, if you ask them, they produced, the Americans get together and help each other, so they produced a book for new commerce, new entrants. So every three, four years they change and they give out all the eccentricities of the Singapore society, where do you get good food, what you have to watch out for, where they give you a bum rap and so on. And I think high on the list is the clean environment, no graffiti, safe personally, health et cetera, clean air, clean water and clean food except for some isolated cases and a safe environment for their children. I mean, where can you go out and jog at three o’clock in the morning and nothing happens? I think you can see them. You’re staying at the marina around there?”
Q: “I’m staying at Merchant Court.”
Mr Lee: “Merchant Court? Opposite?”
YY: “In fact, just next to Clarke Quay.”
Mr Lee: “Yes, yes. You can. Nobody has been mugged, nobody has been raped. The crime rate is the lowest in Southeast Asia because we have a fairly disciplined population. Everybody is educated, nobody, there are a few dropouts who go in for glue sniffing and drugs and so on but we keep the numbers down and we rescue as much of them as we can. But the social delinquency rate amongst young people is at a minimum.”
Q: “One thing that struck me is how you never see a policeman. I live in New York and I see police, cops all the time.”
Mr Lee: “You have got to show your presence to scare people, I mean, that I’m around. But in Singapore, we’ve got what you call neighbourhood police, that they are stationed in the neighbourhood. There’s a little neighbourhood post for each precinct and they stay there for two, three, even four years, so they get to know everybody there. So any stranger comes in they know and they become friends with the neighbourhood. So apart from the occasional round in a car, they make sure that houses are properly locked up and not left open inviting thieves.”
Q: “It’s not necessary to be driving around with the search light and all of the stuff like that. That’s the way it is in most places, really. This is a law abiding society in general.”
Mr Lee: “Well, it’s the education in the schools and at home partly because we’re such a densely populated kind of buildings, all high rises, so you have got to develop habits which are considerate to your neighbours. If you have loud blaring noise going through the walls, partition walls to the neighbours, they’ll soon complain to the the neighbourhood police or somebody will come up to say will you tone your volume down because you’re waking up the neighbourhood. And they learn to accommodate each other because we don’t allow our ethnic groups to choose to live together. When they are resettled, they have got to ballot for their neighbours, so you get Malays, Indians, Chinese all shuffled around together when in the first generation, they used to sell and relocate themselves, so we have quotas and no precinct should have more than this quota of the population. So in other words, we bring about an integration by spreading them which means we spread them in the schools too.”
Q: “And it’s worked.”
Mr Lee: “It’s worked. And so we have a more homogenous and more homogenous in the sense that they haven’t changed their religions, the Malays are still Muslims and they go to the mosques every Friday and they’ve slightly different habits. The influence from the Middle East has made them have head-dresses for no rhyme or reason.”
Q: “Actually, it’s an interesting question that just came up recently that I was going to ask you about. I know that you put a premium on racial harmony and religious harmony and it’s actually more or less legislated here, right?”
Mr Lee: “Yes, because you can have enormous trouble once religions clash.”
Q: “Well, the two things I’ve been interested to ask you about that because I agree with you is number one, the recent rise of Evangelical Christians in Singapore.”
Mr Lee: “As a result of American efforts.”
Q: “I don’t know if it’s American efforts but I went to the New Creation Church and you might as well have been in Tennessee , it was exactly the same. As soon as you walked through the door, it was exactly the same but it seemed very popular. Is that a new monkey (?) ranch in there?”
Mr Lee: “No, I don’t think so. You see most Chinese here are Buddhists or Taoist ancestor worshippers, I’m one of them, so it is a tolerant society, it says whatever you want to believe in, you go ahead. And these youngsters, the educated ones, Western-educated especially, now they are all English-educated, their mother tongue is the second language. Therefore, they begin to read Western books and Western culture and so on and then the Internet. So they begin to question like in Korea that what is this mumbo-jumbo, the ancestors and so on? The dead have gone, they’re praying before this altar and asking for their blessings and then they have got groups, Christian groups who go out and evangelize. They catch them in their teens, in their late teens when they’re malleable and open to suggestions and then they become very fervent evangelists themselves. My granddaughter is one of them. She’s now 28. My wife used to tell her look, don’t go for any more of these titles, just look for MRS. It’s just around the corner, God will arrange it.”
Q: “Well, in the US, as you say, it’s import from the US or an export. These people have been very politically active.”
Mr Lee: “Well, they know here that if you get politically active, you will incite the Buddhist, the Taoist, the Muslims, the Hindus and others to do similar response. We used to teach in the schools in the 1980s to get back some moral values as a result of Westernisation, Confucian culture as a subject in itself for the Chinese whereupon the Malays, the Indians and so on, they reacted. They wanted not Confucian culture, they wanted their religion, so we decided we’ll stop this. So we took the concepts of Confucianism and put it into civic subject, that society is more important than the individual, that the individual must care for the society and the interests of the society must take precedence over the individual, which is contrary to the American or Western system which says the individual trumps everything, freedom trumps everything, freedom of speech, freedom of whatever you tolerate even at the expense of making others feel inconvenient. If I don’t like abortion, you’re a doctor who aborts people, I shoot you.”
Q: “That may happen, that’s valid I think there is a rather large emphasis on individual autonomy in Western cultures that is sometimes detrimental to the larger society. But that’s the way you’re brought up, that’s what we’re used to, so it becomes….”
Mr Lee: “No, it’s the philosophy of society you start with. You get all the Kantian theories and the Rousseau and so on, so gradually it evolved and then along comes Maddox and Jefferson’s the right to happiness of the society and so on. So it’s an optimistic sort of approach to life. The Chinese start off with a completely different end of the stick that all men are born the same and you have got to educate them and perfect them, otherwise, they will not improve. So they put a lot of emphasis on upbringing at home and in the schools. Well, we’re losing part of it because the Chinese schools have disappeared. We’re trying to preserve it or introduce it into the English speaking schools but the teachers now are also educated in English speaking schools and have lost the old traditions. So they’re trying to get them to go to China and see how they preserve these qualities. But we find that in the cities, they’re also changing.”
Q: “So when, don’t take this the wrong way, but when you decided to close the Chinese stream education and the college, what was the rationale behind that and do you ever regret doing that?”
Mr Lee: “No, I regret not doing it faster because politically, if there’d been a violent electoral protest in the next elections because they’re so wedded to the idea that language means, culture means, life means everything. But I’m a pragmatist and you can’t make a living with the Chinese language in Singapore. The first duty of the government is to be able to feed its people, to feed its people in a little island. There’s no hinterland and no farming, you have got to trade and you have got to do something to get people buy your goods or services or get people to come here and manufacture themselves, export, ready-made markets and multinationals which I stumbled on when I went to Harvard for a term in 1968 and I said oh, this could solve my unemployment problem. So we brought the semiconductors factories here and one started, the whole herd came and we became a vast centre for production of computers and computer peripherals. But they all speak English, multinationals from Japan, Europe, whatever European country they come from, they speak English. So Chinese-educated were losing out and they were disgruntled because they got the poorer jobs and lesser pay. So eventually our own Members of Parliament were Chinese-educated and graduates from the Chinese university said okay, we have got do something. We’re ruining these people’s careers. By that time, the university was also losing its good students and getting bum students. Because they took in poor students, they graduated them on lower marks and so the degree became valueless. So when you apply for a job with a Chinese university degree, you hide your degree and produce your school certificate. So I tried to change it from within, the Education Minister was Chinese-educated and English-educated to convert it from within because most of the teachers have American PhDs. So they did their thesis in English but they’ve forgotten their English as they’ve been teaching in Chinese, so it couldn’t be done. So I merged them with the English speaking university. Great unhappiness and dislocation for the first few years but when they graduated, we put it to them do you want your old university degree or you want English university degree? All opted for the English university degree. That settled it.”
Q: “In recent events as China begins to ascend, I mean, would you?”
Mr Lee: “No, no. It makes no difference. We are not going to tie ourselves to China to the extent it makes us hostage. I mean, we have many investments there because the older generation are Chinese-educated, they feel comfortable but the younger generation, they have enough Chinese who want to go there and do business and they can ramp it up if you want because once you are able to listen and speak and read without writing, you can pick it up. And not everybody wants to go there and we’ve been offering scholarships to their top universities, Beijing, Qinghua, Hudan, very few takers. They say nah, I want to go to America or Britain because they know they’re coming back here and competing in English.”
Q: “Do you think that, I mean, one question I wanted to ask you was building a country from scratch is obviously an enormous achievement, accomplishment.”
Mr lee: “No, it’s not a nation. It’s a society in transition. You need a few hundred years to build a nation.”
Q: “Oh really?”
Mr Lee: “Yes.”
Q: “You have a lot of countries running around claiming they’re nations. You don’t think they really are nations?”
Mr Lee: “Well, we make them say the national pledge and sing the national anthem but suppose we have a famine, will your Malay neighbour give you the last few grains of rice or will she share it with her family or fellow Muslim or vice versa?”
Q: “Depends on the person, doesn’t it? No, it doesn’t?”
Mr Lee: “No, I think there comes a time, I read a book by Edward Wilson who was Harvard.”
Q: “I know who he is.”
Mr Lee: “And he wrote about human beings.”
Q: “Actual past ones.”
Mr Lee: “And he described the Maoris. So when two tribes were fighting, the third tribe will come and see which tribe is more our side, more genes like us and they joined that side. So it’s an instinct. Can you overcome that instinct? Edward Wilson says culture can overcome because he’s American, he knows a mix of Europeans and others. But it takes many, many years. Yes, they all do the military service, equal treatment, equal pay, equal hardship, job opportunities but we live in concentric circles. Cross marriages, yes a few, usually the parents are most unhappy. Then where do you belong, the children of the cross marriages? Sometimes they get reabsorbed in their father ethnic group and they carry the father’s surname. Sometimes, if you become a Muslim then whether you’re male or female, you join the other side. But it has happened to the margins more and more. But I think the instinct, the human instinct is still there. I mean, it’s in America.”
Q: “I live in New York which is similar to Singapore in a way.”
Mr Lee: “No, I mean, I used to talk to an Indian. He was the administrator of Agra and we were driving back to Delhi. This was in the late 1970s. So he was telling me he was writing a thesis on Shakespeare, a highly-educated man. At that time, English-educated, that generation. So I said, supposing I pretend as a caste, supposing I pretend I’m a Brahmin, high caste and I invite you to dinner, he said yeah I’ll come. You give me a good dinner, I’ll come. Now supposing I want to marry your daughter? He says that’s different. The most thorough inquiries will be made. So I said supposing I tell you I came from Calcutta and how you’re going to find me. He says no, you’ve got to live somewhere in Calcutta, you must have your family, your neighbours, your friends in Calcutta, we’ll find out. Then we’ll know what caste you belong to.”
Q: “So as long as you have enough human trail people will figure out who you are.”
Mr Lee: “Yes, and in Japan, they do it a different way. They exclude the Chinese and the Koreans who have been there for generations. They’re still not Japanese citizens. Some had become since the West started criticizing them because you may have a Japanese name and you speak perfect Japanese, but for promotions, where is your home village? Never mind, I come from Tokyo, Osaka or Kobe. No where is your home domicile and they will trace you there.”
Q: “So what you’re saying now is this somewhat contradictory to the programme that you have here where you have the quotas? It’s really human nature, the people hang out with their own kind. Can you legislate that? Can you do anything about that?”
Mr Lee: “It takes times. You can have a certain, as I said, concentric circles. They overlap at the outer circles. You start with your family, your relatives, your immediate friends and then your school friends and other friends in the outer fringe. In the outer circles, you have common ground but you can even invite them into your home and visit each other on festive occasions and so on but when it comes to marriage and becoming part of the family, that’s a very different happiness.”
Q: “Is it, will it be your goal to break down those barriers or it’s not worth doing, it’s just a waste of time?”
Mr Lee: “I think we just leave it alone.”
Q: “You just leave it alone.”
Mr Lee: “You try to break it down, you’re going to cause a lot of unhappiness and the older generation vote solidly against.”
Q: “As Singapore moves along, I mean, answer me this question, who has the hardest job?”
Mr Lee: “Hardest job?”
Q: “You or your son?”
Mr Lee: “It’s to keep going at the same pace, same quality of governance at all levels, more integrated. I mean not assimilated but more integrated, more easy to get along with each other, a more cohesive society and a better-educated society at all levels, not just the few at the top at universities or polytechnics. Even the dropouts now we’re putting them into technical institutes where they learn hands-on preparing engines, electrical equipment and so on in a fairly splendid surroundings because otherwise the old trade schools, they’ll say ah, already you’re a failure. But now they go into air-conditioned buildings looking the same like polytechnics. You don’t feel shy about being seen there. You come out with a certificate and if you make the grade, they will go up one step to the polytechnic where you’ll learn nearly a degree status and if you do well in the polytechnic, you go on to university.”
Q: “Do you think that the world is more complicated now than it was when you were a young man, when you were in the 1960s when Singapore first became independent?”
Mr Lee: “Of course, I mean everyday is more globalised and more complicated. You look at this swine virus. In the old days, it’d have died in the village where the Mexican got it. He wouldn’t have been traveling to Mexico City. Now it goes to Mexico City, it infects people there, within 24 hours, it’s around the world.”
Q: “That’s one thing I want to ask. As the country moves along, we won’t call it a nation, as the country moves along...”
Mr Lee: “It’s a nation in the making. The optimistic view. We must have optimism.”
Q: “Absolutely or else why bother to get up in the morning?”
YY: “Mark, MM has another appointment if you want to spare two minutes.”
Mr Lee: “I give you 45 minutes, you carry on.”
Q: “Carry on?”
Mr Lee: “Yeah, yeah, it’s all right. If you’ve come all the way two weeks, I can postpone my appointment later.”
Q: “I appreciate that very much. But I will stick to only the questions I have.”
Mr Lee: “No, when you say you spent two weeks here, that means you’re doing a serious piece.”
Q: “It’s a serious piece and also as I told you, I’m very anxious to give a realistic portrayal of the place that people have a lot of illusions about. So therefore, I want to find out really what’s going on. Let’s ask you a question about Singapore. One of the things that people say about Singapore is it’s too, life is too easy here. People have lost their curiosity and that’s the problem. How do you respond to that?”
Mr Lee: “No, I don’t think that is so much.., that’s a stereotype view. If they’ve lost their curiosity, they wouldn’t be striving so hard to get to university, to travel abroad, to go to higher education institutes abroad, to learn higher skills. I mean, I’m undergoing physiotherapy because I had a fall on the bicycle, so I’m stuck there for one hour talking to the physiotherapist and she’s upgrading herself, she’s done her training here. Her next stage is to go to Australia and get a degree in physiotherapy. I said is the hospital sending you? She said no, I’m paying on my own. I said will you get a pay rise when you come back? She said no but my chances of promotion will be there. So you see it’s not that they have lost the curiosity. I mean, they’re prepared to spend two years in Perth or Brisbane or Sydney. That’s where they get the most physiotherapists because their children are great sportsmen.”
Q: “It’s truly they keep on driving their motorcycles into the wall and then they get up and say, let’s do it again.”
Mr Lee: “So there is this curiosity to find out about the world and it’s affecting how they live. I mean, she was 32-years-old. I said are you married. She said no. I said you shouldn’t leave it too late. She said well, I haven’t found the right person. I said how is that? you are meeting fellow nurses, you better join, you have got a social development unit where you meet men above board, they are looking for spouses, you are looking for spouses and you meet in groups, unless you decide we are friends, and you want to cultivate a closer relation, and she said no, no, no, I'm a Christian, that limits my choice to 20 per cent of the population and we meet in Church."
Q: "Do you feel a complacency among the people here?"
Mr Lee: "No, a complacency in the sense that their expectations are high and they expect their expectations to be met. But they want higher and higher opportunities, more and more opportunities."
Q: "Why does Singapore have to be number one in everything? Why can't you just be one of the ten great cities of Asia? What's wrong with that idea?"
Mr Lee: "If we don't strive to be number one, you won't be number ten. You will be number ten. You try to be number one, you might be number two or number three. Do your best. You don’t have to be number one but do your best and try to be number one. That's our attitude. Look, we have got no natural resources, we have got nothing except human beings in a small strategic location."
Q: "You have got a good location."
Mr Lee: "But you must have people with training, with skills, well-organized, disciplined and productive. I mean so if we didn’t have an efficient port, we wouldn’t be the biggest container port in the world. Where are the container TEUs from? We are not a big manufacturing China centre, they are from China, they are from Europe or Japan, but they transit through to Singapore because that's where they come in and six hours before they are in, they telegraph what containers they want removed, where they are."
Q: "I was there, I was very impressed. It was pretty cool."
Mr Lee: "So they arrive, immediately work starts, cleared, loaded, off they go in four or five, six hours depending on the number of containers."
Q: "Do you use a personal computer?"
Mr Lee: "Yes, I do."
Q: "And do you are really up on this stuff?"
Mr Lee: "Well otherwise I'm out of the loop. I used to correct my copies and fax it back. Then I find the young ministers are all correcting each other's copies on the net. So I decided I better learn this or I'll be out of it altogether."
Q: "What do you think really the overall effect that the internet is going to be in the general sense and especially in a government like the one that you have here where suddenly like there is this degree of personal freedom as given to people by using the internet and a lot of this stuff on the internet is not stuff you really want your children to see for instance."
Mr Lee: "What can you do?"
Q: "What can you do? Is that the answer?"
Mr Lee: "You have got to decide as the Chinese have decided that they have to take the risk and they try to minimize the risk and censor this and censor that."
Q: "Do you approve that?"
Mr Lee: "No, but we cannot censor it because you just go to some server outside and you have got access, so it's a waste of time."
Q : "And also no matter what you do, you are not going to be able to, these hacker guys, you can't beat them."
Mr Lee: "You have got to leave it to the parents and the schoolteachers and peer groups, to say look don’t waste your time doing this."
Q: "One thing that puzzles in Singapore is actually a very interesting place because of different paradoxes I find in this country. What would be, forgive me if this a little bit on the lewd side, why would you ban Playboy for instance and allow prostitution?"
Mr Lee: "We banned Playboy in the 1960s when it was a different world in a different standard. It is still banned, that's all. I mean why do you want buy Playboy now if you can go into the internet? You get more than what you get in Playboy, that's that."
Q: "I'm not going to ask you if you looked at it recently."
Mr Lee: "No, you can't, I mean it's not possible. It's part of the globalized village we live in and we have got to learn to adapt and live a sufficiently wholesome life to succeed. If you become addicted to all this porn and drugs and gambling on the net, then you are finished. I mean in Korea, they have become addicts at this."
Q: "I think that there is a lot of addiction in that, yes, there's no doubt about it. Speaking of that, so what made you decide to have these casinos?"
Mr Lee: "When I was a student in England, the only casino in Europe was in Monaco."
Q: "I remember that."
Mr Lee: "The younger ministers have said look, we must have a casino, otherwise, we are out of the circuit of this fast set that goes around the world, with F1 and so on. And it will increase the tourist trade because the casino will pay for all the shows. Otherwise, the shows are too expensive. So I've been resisting it and I've told the Prime Minister, I said no, no, don’t do that, you'll bring mafias here and money laundering and all kinds of crime."
Q: "I think it is a definite risk."
Mr Lee: "Then I see the British having casinos and Switzerland having casinos. I said God, the world has changed. If I don’t change, we'll be out of business. So alright, we'll put up two casinos, so obviously they are not going to target Singaporeans because there are not enough numbers for two casinos. So they got to bring them in from China, India and elsewhere and we have passed legislation to say that any family can ask for a ban on …"
Q: "A person from that family."
Mr Lee: "And the Singaporeans when they go in, they have got to pay $100."
Q: "That doesn’t sound quite fair."
Mr Lee: "No, they are going, driving up to a place called Genting, Star Cruises come in and they go outside the territorial limit and they gamble. So I said you do that because I do not want to be blamed and the Prime Minister doesn’t want, and his Cabinet doesn’t want to be blamed for those who get addicted. And there will be those who will get addicted."
Q: "How do you, are you still morally opposed to them or does pragmatism always take precedence in your thinking?"
Mr Lee: "Well, it is useless to resist when it is everywhere."
Q: "Well, the fact that it's everywhere, maybe it is the reason to resist."
Mr Lee: "No, you cannot stop it. You want to cut off the internet? You want to cut off your cellphones? You want to cut off satellite TV? Then you will become like Myanmar. It's not possible."
Q: "No, thank you. That's interesting. I hate to be jumping around but I don’t want to take so much of your time. What do you do about this kind of thing? I would assume in a government, it is easier to legislate people having less children than it is to legislate having them more children."
Mr Lee: "No, we can't legislate. We don’t legislate, we just encourage and we say if you have the third child, you will get these benefits."
Q: "Well, legislate is the wrong word but …"
Mr Lee: "We encourage them with incentives. Yeah, we pay for full pay leave, we don’t burden the employer because the employer will then say look I'm not going to employ these women. So the government pays for them, the employer is entitled to two-three months, three months?"
YY: "Four months now."
Mr Lee: "No, no. Employer two months, we pay two months and it will become six months and so on."
Q: "During the 1960s and the 1970s, you ran a programme 'Two is Enough'. Did the government succeed too well?"
Mr Lee: "No, it has happened all over Asia. It has happened in Hong Kong, it has happened in Korea, they never had this Stop at Two, it has happened in Japan, it is the education that the women and equal job opportunities. Once the women are educated, they have equal job opportunities, some of them earning as much if not more than men, there is a certain independence of choice. I mean they say what’s the hurry? Singlehood is no burden, my daughter is 55, unmarried, mother has been nagging her when she was in her 30s, she's quite happy."
Q: "Do you feel an urge to have more grandchildren or is it."
Mr Lee: "I've got two boys who have got grandchildren but I feel sad for her. Because when my wife is gone and I'm gone, this hotel which keeps her going. She will have to manage it."
Q: "I mean the thing is like, occasionally, it seems like the Singapore Government succeeds as I was talking to a gentleman today, he said in India, they propose a lot of things, and fairly high percentage are never going to get done right but in Singapore, things are proposed and you do it. And you finish it. Therefore, if it is a mistake, then you have to redo it."
Mr Lee: "No, what is the mistake? We can't undo women's education, equal job opportunities. But the whole problem springs as I was talking to this physiotherapist, I said suppose you were not educated to a point where you are independent, your mother and father would have got you matched off."
Q: "Matched off, what does that mean?"
Mr Lee: "Father and mother will look for another father and mother with an appropriate background, no inherited diseases and similar social affluence and then they marry them off, they get them together and meet and no objections and then you are married. Then you love the man, or you love the woman you marry. But she's educated and she's thinking of a degree in physiotherapy and upgrading herself and so…"
Q: "There is this feeling that you want to keep the society going."
Mr Lee: "Well, fortunately for us."
Q: "And reproduction is an important part of that, right?"
Mr Lee: "I've been urging them. The only developed societies that have succeeded are Sweden and France and that's not that they have succeeded, they have just about reached replacement rate. And we've studied their incentives and they are enormous. Crèches, full pay leave for husband and wife, nine months and you can extend it and so on and free nurseries, factories and offices have nurseries and feeding rooms for the mothers. We will get to that stage eventually but meanwhile, it takes a long time to change mindsets."
Q: "That's true."
Mr Lee: "Since we are small population and we can top up, we are topping up. The trouble is the moment they come here, they also have one or two children because they begin to think like Singaporeans. Why? I will lose my chance of promotion. So I'm out of business for six months, nine months, I come back, the others have overtaken me."
Q: "Well, I think that's what I've heard. A lot of people say like well, foreign workers have come here and they've just come to work. That's what they do, they are here to work, so it's hard to compete with people who are just don’t have any other distractions. I mean I've heard this several times."
Mr Lee: "Without them, what will happen to us? We will shrink and eventually, one- and-a-half workers will have to support two parents and is that sustainable?"
Q: "I don’t know, probably not."
Mr Lee: "Therefore, the one worker will move out rather than pay the heavy taxes. And move out and give remittances to his parents wherever he is."
Q: "So, well, this is a question that came up several times when I have been driving around in the taxicab, all I have to do is say “how's business?” and then you don’t have to say another word. The Singapore people, they just start talking."
Mr Lee: "The tourists have gone down."
Q: "And they have all these life stories."
Mr Lee: "Swine fever and so on."
Q: "Then I would say I'm going to see the MM, what would you ask him? And he goes…and one thing did come up which is not, I don’t mean to…one of the things he said well, he's the father but he should let us go. Then with words like as a patriarch of the country, is there a point in which you should step away because the perception is I guess that I know what you really do, but the perception is that you are still the face of the country."
Mr Lee: "Well, no, that's a public perception which is not held by those in the know. I mean all the top executives know that they are dealing with the ministers and the decisions are made by the ministers. My job is really as a long-range radar to look out for opportunities and for threats. So I can sit down and talk to you because I have got nothing urgent in my tray."
Q: "I'm glad to hear that."
Mr Lee: "I cannot work at that old pace. I can work with subjects that require contemplation, time, which really is backed up by my experience and my feel of how things will develop."
Q: "Well, nobody knows Singapore better than you."
Mr Lee: "I mean, I guess, supposing I had not intervened in the casino debate, the religious groups would fought tooth and nail to stop it and the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were in a lot of trouble, so I stood up and said look, I understand the views, I was of the same view but I'll tell you the reason why I have changed my mind and that had a calming effect because if you don’t do this, you are not going to be part of the modern world. Either you accept that this is part of today's globalized world and you have F1 and all this glitzy events, closed roads, light up the city and so on, or you are out of business. And in Singapore, if you are out of business, you are out of food."
Q: "Singapore is always been about business. They say in America, business of America's business, I think it's true here too, right?"
Mr Lee: "It has to be. Otherwise, we won't survive."
Q: "When you look out the window, and you see all these big buildings, is this what you envision? Is this the world that you hoped to be?"
Mr Lee: "After we were booted out from Malaysia, before Malaysia or during Malaysia, we thought we'll grow together as a commercial centre of the federation, the capital being Kuala Lumpur, like Washington, we'll be a kind of New York. But once we were out on our own, I studied what happened to Malta, Gibraltar, all the island colonies and Hongkong and I thought we were in a similar position to Hongkong, so I knew that high-rises will be inevitable. And Hongkong is all economy, they have packed all of them together in a little piece of flat land across the Bay, across the harbour, and very few houses up on the hills, on the peak, because that's where the British overlords used to stay and moreover it's costly because they have got to have retaining walls otherwise, you have landslides and so on. So we decided we'll have to spread out over the whole island and have high density living but with lots of green spaces and room for recreation and breathing space. The school I was at was the best school in Singapore, Raffles Institution, now we have Raffles City, four big high rises designed by I M Paye. But what's the choice? It's a prime site, so the school has now got spanking new buildings, where is it now? Bishan which is near Bishan Park but it has lost, but that old school we thought, I thought about it hard and it was made of bricks and mortar and boards, so they keep it going in a tropical climate, prone to white ants, will be a very expensive business. So I said let's give up."
Q: "I mean one of the things, what is the value of past place like Singapore? Several people actually use the same metaphor, it's interesting, I have two movies in my head, I have the movie of the world that I grew up in, and I have the movie of the way things are now. One in my head is getting very frayed of the past and I'm sure you know what I'm talking about."
Mr Lee: "I used to cycle to school. Empty roads, when it rains, I have got to have a raincoat. Now it's just not done, with all these huge buses and cars, so my grandchildren are advised not to travel by bicycles. London has lost a lot of its ancient buildings but it's got enough solid buildings of stone like St Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey or the Houses of Parliament which are very costly to maintain and they keep that as icons. Well, also the Oxbridge Colleges, they are very uncomfortable to live in, I mean you want a brand name, you try and get there but choose a nice new building annex that they have built, if you are put into one of the old rooms, then you are cold and it's several centuries old."
Q: "I mean they didn’t have central heating then."
Mr Lee: "Now, they have put in some central heating, I mean they are piped."
Q: "Never so cold as I was in London."
Mr Lee: "But that's a trade off. So we keep a few along the riverside and amongst the better buildings which are worth preserving because it's not so expensive and they are also architecturally interesting. So there are few landmarks. In my own constituency, I've got two streets which have been kept up and the rest have just gone high rise but they have been kept up and used for other purposes, no longer domestic but boutique restaurants, studios and so on. Otherwise, you can't justify the economic costs of maintaining them."
Q: "As you get older, do you get more sentimental?"
Mr Lee: "Sorry."
Q: "As you get older, do you feel more sentimental and nostalgic or do you manage to avoid that? I mean I know you are a pragmatist."
Mr Lee: "No, it was a nice leisurely place, large spaces, I would travel along what is called now Mountbatten Road, used to be called Grove Road and there was a swamp on one side and now we have all built up areas, it was an airport, now the airport is gone, the British flying boats used to land on the river which I remember. I mean look, do you want to, if we were the size of let's say the US, lots of empty spaces, then you might be able to keep more of it. But I see New York hasn’t kept much of it either."
Q: "Well, it's a mix. In Manhattan, it's true."
Mr Lee: "You have kept the churches because they are made of stone."
Q: "The Empire State Building is still there."
Mr Lee: "But the Empire State Building now looks tacky compared to the others….”
Q: “It looks great!”
Mr Lee: “It looks old fashioned."
Q: "Well, the view, I mean the Chrysler Building is a work of art. Most of the buildings they've built since then are not works of art."
Mr Lee: "That's what you think but the architects. Their grandchildren would say what a wonderful architect that was. I mean aesthetic taste varies with each generation."
Q: "I don’t know. I think there's a kind of, did you see that building, a picture from China and the building just fell over. I know you don’t have that kind of construction processes here."
Mr Lee: "You see the Chinese are nouveou riche and the contractors want to be part of the nouveou riche, so they …"
Q: "I mean how does it feel if you were living in a building next door, I feel I have got to move."
Mr Lee: "They are in a very fast transition and they see their neighbours getting very wealthy and they say I must get wealthy too because my children, the money that I have got a house, got a car and so on. So they take these shortcuts at the expense of public safety. Bridges have fallen down, when they built this enormous barrage up the Yangtze River and the Three Gorges, Jiu Rongji had a very hard time knocking heads together. It's the process of getting rich in transition and watching your neighbours get rich and you say I must get there too quick or I lose my opportunities. That's that."
Q: "I don’t want to take more of your time. Let me just ask you a couple more things. How would you like to be remembered?"
Mr Lee: "I don’t think I can decide that. I live my life in accordance to what I think is worth doing. I never wanted to be in politics. I wanted to be a lawyer and make a good living, to be a good advocate but I was thrown into it as a result of all these political earthquakes that took place. So I was saddled with the responsibility and I just have to be responsible to get the place going. That's all and I mean we’ve got here and I can't decide what posterity is going to do. I studied law and in the law, the British said you can will yourself, you can will your property, the longest you can do it is life and lives in being and 21 years thereafter. After that, you can't control your trust. So in my case, I can't go that long. All I can do is to make sure that when I leave, the institutions are good, sound, clean, efficient and there's a government in place which knows what it has got to do and is looking for a successive government of quality. That's all I can do."
Q: "If you were to leave the stage in the larger sense, and say in ten years, I think you are seen as a cult figure as you have just said about the casino thing, I mean does it have to be somebody like you to keep the place going or …"
Mr Lee: "No, I mean look America got going long after Jefferson, George Washington and all that."
Q: "But I think …(indistinct)… who did big things."
Mr Lee: "Nobody, Charles de Gaulle says nobody, I am not indestructible. When I read his biography, I read in English, and he said that, I said that is a wise man. So I remembered that and I know that come a certain time, and I didn’t expect to live so long either, it's just good medicine and good surgery that has kept me here."
Q: "We used to have a joke, if I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself."
Mr Lee: "Well, it so happened and I just do what I think I can contribute to make the place, to consolidate what has been gained and it can still go to waste. It can still spiral down."
Q: "Through no fault of anybody's?"
Mr Lee: "Look, I once had to make an impromptu speech in Sydney, I've just come from New Zealand. So in the end they said no speech, no speeches and the Premier of the state made a very well-prepared speech so I had to respond. So what do I say off the cuff? I said I've just come from New Zealand and I'll tell you what my thoughts were. In 100 years from now, I go back to New Zealand and there will be the grass, the sheep, the cows, the tornados or hurricanes at Wellington, and there will always be this green pleasant place and not industrially developed because it's the last stop in the bus line and in 100 years from today, I'm not sure that there'll be a Singapore. It depends on what my successors do. I mean that's the cards we were handed. So it's not up to me. What is up to me is make sure the place is ticking, make sure the institutions are there, the systems are in place, make sure there is a government that is fit for the job and then it is up to them to ensure continuity. That's that."
Q: "Do you feel satisfied that that's moving along quite well? Or do you worry?"
Mr Lee: "I think for the next ten years, with this team in charge, it is going to be fine. Whether they will do well for the next 10-15 years depends on whether they get a younger team in place, well imbibed into the methods of the government, integrity, ability, and making decisions for the public good, and not for your personal benefit. That's all. It is difficult because it means sacrificing privacy and sacrificing pay. Now we solved the pay problem or semi-solved it by giving them 80 per cent of the average of six major salary earners."
Q: "Is that how you arrived at it?"
Mr Lee: "Yeah, but we are always lagging behind because whenever there's a downturn, we don’t give the rise. Whenever there's an upturn, the private sectors goes up, shoots up suddenly and we can't keep pace because the public says no, this is too much."
Q: "Well, when people are getting US$16 billion bonuses for bringing the country into the ground, it is hard to keep up."
Mr Lee: "I was once asked about the enormous, the best paid ministers in the world. I said you should look at the wives. The lowest-paid ministers have wives who are glittering with jewels and with big mansions."
Q: "So that means they are corrupt."
Mr Lee: "No, I didn’t say that."
Q: "That was pretty way to be said."
Mr Lee: "But it's true. So Singaporeans have to decide. Do you want to underpay a minister and you have the kind of shenanigans as you have in the British Parliament? You know they repair their homes in the country and in London and charge it to their account. Or you pay them a proper wage and said after that, look after everything. Nobody gets any special perks. That's your salary, you buy your car, you do what everything is yours. Official entertainment, you have got an expense account. Your secretary monitors it and audits channel clears it. So everything is above board and the public knows that. So whatever they grumble, they know that they are not being shortchanged."
Q: "There are grumbles but there are always grumbles."
Mr Lee: "There must be. Singaporeans are champion grumblers."
Q: "Thank you so much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)