Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas

by Han Fook Kwang

  At the heart of the question is, what makes a good government? That is the core of the question.

  My experience in Asia has led me to a different conclusion. To get good government, you must have good men in charge of government. I have observed in the last 40 years that even with a poor system of government, but with good strong men in charge, people get passable government with decent progress.

  On the other hand, I have seen many ideal systems of government fail. Britain and France between them wrote over 80 constitutions for their different colonies. Nothing wrong with the constitution, with the institutions and the checks and the balances. But the societies did not have the leaders who could work those institutions, nor the men who respected those institutions. Furthermore, the esteem, the habits of obedience to a person because of his office, not because of his person, is something that takes generations to build into a people. But the leaders who inherited these constitutions were not equal to the job and their countries failed and their system collapsed in riots, in coups and in revolution. So every time I hear people criticising us. When we are successful, they say we are sterile. When you are not successful, they say look at the slums, look at the degradation, look at the filth. These are the wiseacres. We have got to live with the consequences of our actions and we are responsible for our own people and we take the right decisions for them.

  You look at the old Philippines. The old Ceylon. The old East Pakistan and several others. I have been to these countries and places. When I went to Colombo for the first time in 1956 it was a better city than Singapore because Singapore had three and a half years of Japanese Occupation and Colombo was the centre or HQ of Mountbatten’s Southeast Asia command. And they had large sterling reserves. They had two universities. Before the war, a thick layer of educated talent. So if you believe what American liberals or British liberals used to say, then it ought to have flourished. But it didn’t. One-man-one-vote led to the domination of the majority Sinhalese over the minority Tamils who were the active and intelligent fellows who worked hard and got themselves penalised. And English was out. They were educated in English. Sinhalese was in. They got quotas in two universities and now they have become fanatical Tigers. And the country will never be put together again. Somebody should have told them – change the system, loosen up, or break off. And looking back, I think the Tunku was wise. I offered a loosening up of the system. He said, “Clean cut, go your way.” Had we stayed in, and I look at Colombo and Ceylon, or Sri Lanka, I mean changing names, sometimes maybe you deceive the gods, but I don’t think you are deceiving the people who live in them. It makes no great difference to the tragedy that is being enacted. They failed because they had weak or wrong leaders, like the Philippines.

  Singapore must get some of its best in each year’s crop of graduates into government. When I say best, I don’t mean just academic results. His ‘O’ levels, ‘A’ levels, university degree will only tell you his powers of analysis. That is only one-third of the helicopter quality. You’ve then got to assess him for his sense of reality, his imagination, his quality of leadership, his dynamism. But most of all, his character and his motivation, because the smarter a man is, the more harm he will do society.

  But I also believe from my experience that Muller and Van Lennep are right, that at 21 the man is fully developed and you can discover what he is if you can test him assiduously enough. But by 30, 25 to 30, it’s obvious what he is. You want men with good character, good mind, strong convictions. Without that Singapore won’t make it. My problem is how do you do that when the booming economy is drawing them away?

  You want men with good character, good mind, strong convictions. Without that Singapore won’t make it. My problem is how do you do that when the booming economy is drawing them away?

  Forget conventional attitudes

  I don’t think we can afford to be inhibited by conventional attitudes. Now editors of our newspapers, when they were given copies of the White Paper, were surprised at the high earnings of the top men in the professions. My answer is, let’s have these figures every year independently verified. IRAS is not cooking them up. We know how much people are earning. Let’s have them. Under oath of secrecy, a group of men independent of the government and the IRAS can testify and verify.

  In any team, like a football team, there are strikers who score the goals. But he needs his fullback, his wings, to feed the ball in to him. And he has to decide how to deploy them.

  But what is it we are arguing about? The government today – ministers, cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, political secretaries, everybody – cost $17 million a year. That’s the cost, working a GDP of nearly $90 billion growing at 8 per cent, which is $6 billion a year. You have wrong men here, it’s a disaster. There’s no way a prime minister can argue that any minister can walk out of his cabinet and get this kind of salary. Just as there was no way when I was a partner of a legal firm and we shared profits in a certain ratio that any partner could walk out and get that share.

  In any team, like a football team, there are strikers who score the goals. But he needs his fullback, his wings, to feed the ball in to him. And he has to decide how to deploy them. And really we are arguing at the end of the day whether by this formula which over three, four years will pay them $5 million more, the whole lot … What on earth are we arguing about? Except people get envious and they say, “Oh well, they should really wwbe sacrificing.”

  If it were possible to carry on with the system, I would be in favour of carrying on with what I’ve been familiar with. But I know it is not possible. I have explained to you on my recent journey how I met three persons and immediately the changed circumstances became obvious to me. And I came back reinforced in my belief that the Prime Minister has to move and move quickly.

  Let me take Members now to a different angle to this problem. He is like the conductor of an orchestra. He’s got to make great music. I think the best metaphor or simile for a prime minister is really a conductor; in other words, he’s got to know something about each instrument; what sounds they make, where they come in. When I started my job I didn’t, but I had to learn it quickly – home affairs, finance. You have to have stability. You have to have an economy going. You’ve got to have labour relations, education, national development, housing, the whole lot. You must know how to deploy your resources, not just money, but manpower. So at any one time a certain sector is the important one and I send my best minister and my best permanent secretary to support him to make sure that that sector succeeds.

  And he’s got to decide how he rewards them. Now he needs people in his team who are goal-scorers. Any team, to win, must have sharpshooters. In other words, in government, you must have ideas, you must create new concepts, build new institutions and be innovators and not simply followers of orthodoxy.

  Let’s blow a few trumpets

  I’ll give you a few examples from the past. It’s like blowing the trumpet of the old guards, but maybe they deserve to have a few trumpets blown on their behalf.

  We had massive unemployment in 1959, more than 14 per cent. Every year 55,000 to 60,000 children were born, 4 per cent of our population growth. Quite frightening, beyond the capability of Singapore to solve it. We knew industrialisation was the only way. Commerce could not solve it. United Nations sent a team; Dr Albert Winsemius [the late Dutch economist who was Singapore’s economic adviser for nearly 25 years until 1984] was their leader. He recommended, yes, proceed. Dr Goh discussed it with him and I discussed it with Dr Goh and met him and said, “Right, let’s try EDB [Economic Development Board] and sell Singapore to America, to Europe, to Japan as a manufacturing centre.” Nobody had an EDB in the world. We formed one.

  And we put in our brightest and our best. You want to know why you’ve got good jobs, why you are doing well? Because every year I allowed Dr Goh to have his pick. Of course you make mistakes. Some are bright, but they are not much use, lacking judgement. But within a couple of years you know who’s got
judgement, sense of reality, imagination, leadership, dynamism, plus the powers of analysis. They served Singapore well. We innovated.

  He created that organisation and he also built up Jurong, invested hundreds of millions of dollars, built roads, canals, filled up the earth, put in power, put in water. And for five years it was empty, capital lying fallow. We watched it, wringing our hands because two years in Malaysia, the finance minister of Malaysia squeezed us and didn’t give us pioneer certificates. We nearly failed.

  But we did not fail. I gave Dr Goh the best permanent secretary we had – Hon Sui Sen – to help him. He became chairman of EDB and he was a very good judge of people and persons, a very quiet man, didn’t make great speeches, but understood people and knew who could do what. He built up a good team and from EDB sprang TDB (Trade Development Board), sprang DBS, because we had to build up the finances to help people start their industries. This is not administration, doing a job. This is entrepreneurship on the political stage, on a national scale. We changed the complexion of Singapore. You can bring him back to life and reward him?

  I make no apologies for collecting the most talented team I could find. Without them, none of you would be enjoying life today in Singapore, including the reporters up there.

  In 1968, we were looking for ways to fill up our economy. Hon Sui Sen came to see me. He said, “Let’s take a chance. Change our foreign exchange regulations. Release it.” We were part of the sterling era. We had foreign exchange controls. He said, “Cancel it. Let’s start the Asian Currency Unit. Collect all the dollars in the region, lend it to the world. We will be the link between New York closing and London opening.”

  I listened intently. I said, “Proceed.” Took the Bills through. Today, Singapore is the third largest foreign exchange trading centre in the world, next to New York and London. We have also got a budding futures trading exchange in Simex. We have a great potential for growth and very high value-added. Can you thank Hon Sui Sen?

  True, it wasn’t all his idea. But he had the good sense to listen to people with ideas. So a Dutch banker called Van Oenen, who worked for Bank of America, who was a friend of Winsemius, said, “Try.” But we made it work. Now, everybody wants to be a financial centre. We have overseas HQ. Kuala Lumpur immediately followed. We have no patent on it. They studied our laws. They upped the stakes. So we have to keep on innovating, moving ahead. You do that with a bunch of mediocrities?

  I make no apologies for collecting the most talented team I could find. Without them, none of you would be enjoying life today in Singapore, including the reporters up there. I say this without any compunction. Who pays for all this? A Singapore economy which has been so finely tuned that it is able to take advantage of every opportunity that comes our way.

  This is political entrepreneurship

  You want to know entrepreneurship? Without Dr Goh Keng Swee, there is no Singapore Armed Forces. He is the SAF. 1965 – we were suddenly independent. I said, “You are a corporal in the Singapore Volunteers. You know something about this. Better learn something more. Start it.” He came back one day in February 1966 and he told me, “You know, we’ve got two battalions.” And, you know, they were in Malaysia for two years. He said, “So, more than half the battalions are now Malaysian Malays.”

  So when one battalion came back from Sabah and the Malaysian Regiment refused to move out of their camp, they had to be put up at Farrer Park and they might have gone on riot or mutiny. So he came to see me. He said, “You have made me as if I am a British general in charge of troops, half of whom are Italians.” So we worked day and night to sort that out so that we would have troops who are Singaporeans. Had we failed, I wouldn’t be here to tell you this story. We got the Israelis, we studied the Swiss, we got an SAF that nobody believes is just for show.

  But the most important entrepreneurship is really the structuring of Singapore. I was determined that before the soldier fights for Singapore he must have something to fight for. Each family must own their home. So I set out right from the word go against any opposition from any quarter to build up the Central Provident Fund. At each salary increase I pushed something into CPF and built up the home ownership programme that today gives 91 to 92 per cent who own their homes, which are going up in value year by year because the infrastructure is getting better, the economy is getting better and they are rising with it. So you can sell one five-room flat in Singapore and buy two bungalows in Perth. But before you do that, remember, your five-room will go up in price; your two bungalows there will be empty and will go down in price.

  It was Robin Hood but I succeeded in giving everybody their own home.

  I take this as a matter of fact. Things have to be done which are unpleasant. I changed the acquisition laws and cleared off compensation for sea frontages so that we could reclaim the land, then we’ve got East Coast Parkway. Fire sites – I reclaimed and acquired the right to acquire as of occupied status. It was Robin Hood but I succeeded in giving everybody their own home. Of course, not me alone, but the concepts, the planning, I make no bones, I took responsibility, and it has succeeded. I put in Medisave in place. I faced opposition in the Cabinet. Ministers came back from China and said, “Wonderful place. Everybody has got the same medical services and for free.” I listened to this and I said, “Why do you believe this fairy tale?” I put 4, 5 per cent aside. I changed the minister and I put Mr Goh Chok Tong as Minister for Health. I said, “Implement this.” And today we have our viable national health service which avoids waste, no buffet syndrome, but guarantees adequate support for everybody, adequate health.

  The CPF [Central Provident Fund] also. Low interest rates, yes, but it has paid for all the infrastructure of our roads, bridges, airports, container ports, telecommunications, MRT, land reclamation. An ordinary group of people would think that up? If we didn’t have the entrepreneurs, we would not be here. And look at all the housing estates. Public housing in Singapore is not an apology for slums. You go to Britain, you go to America and vandalism and crime. Have you ever asked why it is different? Because from my own experience, as I went around on constituency tours in ’62 and ’63, I discovered there were grassroots organisations, kompang groups, Muslim mutual fund groups, clan associations, retailers’ associations. I organised them and I made them community centres’ management committees and they ran the place for themselves, for their community. From them I formed Citizens Consultative Committees, altered the face of Singapore. Then as we moved into the housing estates, the same experience. I said, “Start zone committees, residents’ committees every five, ten blocks.” So there is a nervous system of human beings transmitting messages, getting people together so that they know they are a community and not just anonymous individuals who shut their flat doors and live their own private lives …

  In five to ten years, when it works and Singapore has got a good government, this formula will be accepted as conventional wisdom.

  Finally, let me put the issue very simply. I have been through this life and had I lived a different life in Lee & Lee, I would never have had this experience. Because I have gone through this, I say “do it”. I am in a position to judge. I say I’m prepared to put my experience and my judgement against all the arguments the doubters can muster. In five to ten years, when it works and Singapore has got a good government, this formula will be accepted as conventional wisdom.

  What were the economic objectives of the PAP when it formed the government in 1959? Lee explained in this speech to the Rotary Club on February 24, 1960 that although the PAP was a revolutionary party determined to change the existing social order of the day, it would work with industry and business to increase prosperity for all, but with one important difference: at the end of the day, it would strive for a more just and equal distribution of opportunities for education and advancement.

  What I mean by a more just and equal society

  A socialist believes that society as a whole will benefit, and there will be more happiness for more people, if
all are given equal opportunities for education and advancement regardless of class or property.

  I must confess to some hesitation in accepting your invitation to address the Rotary Club. I had, when the PAP was in the opposition, declined your invitation. You will forgive me if I explain why I declined in the past, and what considerations prompted me to accept on this occasion.

  The political beliefs of the PAP would not normally commend themselves to a group of people who are successful in a given order of society. By the very nature of your constitution, your members are those who have succeeded in life. According to Article 3, Section 2 of your constitution, which lists out the qualifications for active membership, it is clear that only those who have already made good, or who are most likely to succeed, are admitted into your fellowship. It was not unnatural to infer that your membership consists of people who, having done well under an existing social order, are satisfied with that social order and therefore extremely anxious that nobody should alter things in case they may not do so well under a new order. Not wanting to arouse more animosity from those who are not likely to be politically sympathetic to the PAP, I did not take advantage of the opportunity you offered me in the past to inflict my political views on your members. However, now that the PAP is the governing party, although you probably still do not agree with its political objectives, you may be interested to know what these objectives are.