Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas

by Han Fook Kwang

  What the Japanese say

  That’s exactly what the Japanese have been doing. So when I met them here in Singapore – this is the managing director, you know, of the company, employing some 3,500 workers. On the anniversary of the company, they invited the workers to bring all their families to come and celebrate. Nobody came! The family is not interested in the future of the company. So he said, “Why is this? Maybe it’s the wrong format. So all right, Chinese New Year, we invited them. They all came. Well, that’s progress.” His worker gets married, he turns up for the worker’s wedding. He is interested in the future of his worker. I will be hard put if you tell me to attend my workers’ wedding because I see quite a number of them are young and I don’t think I should be attending weddings, but this man did because this is what he does in Japan. And he says, “It’s very strange, you know, I was not introduced to the father-in-law, the mother-in-law and so on. We just sat around.” I said, “Well, you know, we inherited the British tradition and British bosses never attend the weddings of their workers. They were probably honoured but embarrassed and at a loss what to do.”

  On the anniversary of the company, they invited the workers to bring all their families to come and celebrate. Nobody came! The family is not interested in the future of the company.

  But the heart of the worker, that’s what productivity is about.

  Let me go back to the American Business Council. It says, “We favour the Productivity Council. We favour a portion of the fund now with the CPF to be managed by the employer as an employee’s pension and other benefit programmes.” But they point out that what’s lacking is practical work exposure for young people both secondary and university. And this applies to the educators as well. And that’s what’s wrong. We are turning out students, graduates, VITB, polytechnic students, who think that their moment of achievement has arrived when they get a diploma or their degree. And they all take pitures with their caps and gowns, and that’s the summit of their career. But any American will tell you that’s the foothill and you then begin the long climb up the mountain.

  And the Americans made a valid point when they said that if a company can show that the majority of its workers do not want a union, must we have a union? And I say, no, I agree with you. If the union serves no function, out with it.

  If we want to be a technological society, why is our transport system not geared for shift work?

  Now, let me go back to the German. He is a practical man. He says, “Never mind all these talks about campaigns and movements. What you want are special action, training, more training.” What do you mean by “productivity”? And you must train people on techniques – how to achieve a job with less effort, less time, less defects. That means training. And why is he having so much difficulty getting money out of the Skills Development Fund? One committee dealing with hundreds of applications. And if we want to be a technological society, why is our transport system not geared for shift work? Because you don’t install expensive equipment to run one shift. If you are going to install automated computerised equipment you want to run it 24 hours a day and get as much return as you can. In other words, your transport system should be geared to make it convenient for the workers to go into the second and third shifts. So he says, “Let’s sit down, coordinate working hours, recommend training priorities, tool-making, for instance, statistics on national productivity.” And he also points out the lack of realism amongst postgraduates and he thinks it can be avoided by holiday work.

  But the most impressive to me is the Japanese Chamber of Commerce. Their philosophy is one that will ensure that they will always be there out in the forefront. It permeates every sentence. I just read you extracts. It says, “Firstly, enterprises should be continuously rejuvenated by ceaseless investments, as we are of the belief that in order to compete worldwide, industries must always keep up with advanced technology. If not, senility symptoms will occur and the vitality of the enterprise will vanish.”

  Second point: “An enterprise cannot exist only with machinery.” It’s Japanese English. But, never mind, you understand what it means – it’s not the machines. “The fundamental structures of an enterprise are human beings. Therefore, the ultimate results of the progress of the enterprises will be the progress of the human being. And therefore the loyalty towards the company reflects the happiness in the employees, and it’s only rational.” So he is investing not only in the machines but in the human being and he wants lifelong investment because having invested in him, he sees no point this chap hopping off to another competitor. It’s a different philosophy. I don’t think we can achieve that because we are more like the Americans. We are immigrants and who pays us better … well, that’s the market rate and you can’t … it’s not just the company. The Singapore government, too. Chairman, PSC, tells me that this year he lost 16 top scholars, all bonded. Mind you, the inflation has gone on, so the company says, how much is the bond, $150,000, here you are, pay and out he goes. We have invested in him. I think we must index the bond for inflation and make it more expensive for the companies. What we favour is the prospect of long service where an employee will have the opportunity to innovate on his job, improve his skills and knowhow, creating an interest in his work.

  “Japanese enterprises are still on the lookout for advanced technologies and are willing to invest enormous sums of money in improving technology and manufacturing new products in order to compete in world markets.” They spent a lot of time thinking out these problems and they give me a little table to show how different employers pay differently. In Japan, basic wage, if they put down 100 as index, fringe benefit is 80 to 100. And by “fringe benefits” they mean allowances, overtime, bonuses, compulsory welfare, voluntary welfare, 80 to 100. So the total index is 180 to 200.

  In Europe and America, basic wage is 100, fringe benefit is 20; total 120. Of course, the 100 will be more because it will be a bigger wage but less fringe benefits.

  So the Japanese concept is low wage, fringe benefits equal to wages. They have worked out our fringe benefits, which the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce complains bitterly about. And it works out to Singapore’s basic wage 100, fringe benefits 50 to 60; total 150 to 160 compared to the Japanese 180 to 200. If you ask me, I say I move towards the Japanese system. It’s a safer method. It binds the link between the worker and his company.

  Let me tell you the problem. The Singapore voter has voted for the PAP since 1959; ’59, ’63, ’68, ’72, ’76, ’80 – six times. We have delivered. One day there will be a worldwide recession. I hope not in the next four years. I think we are all right. So we will win ’84, ’85. But the link is: I vote for you, PAP, now you deliver. But how does the PAP deliver? The PAP has delivered by creating conditions which allow entrepreneurs to invest and get a good return on capital, create conditions of stability, certainty, good water supply, constant power, good communications, telex, telephone, aircraft, ships, containers, the lot – high returns, trainable workers. But the linkage is wrong, you know. The Japanese linkage is better.

  No Japanese prime minister says, you vote for me, the LDP will give you all these things.

  No Japanese prime minister says, you vote for me, the LDP will give you all these things. No. Let me read you what a Japanese company does for his worker. In return for loyalty and identification with the company, he gets company welfare – medical and dental care, housing, which means hostels, housing loans, other types of loans at highly subsidised rates, family recreational facilities, education of employees’ children paid for by the company, farewell and welcoming parties. When you retire, they say farewell. When you come, they welcome you. Long service gifts, employees’ stocks, congratulatory and condolence allowances – your father dies, they give you something. Your wife has a child, they give you something. Discount on company products. What is all this about – heart, isn’t it? They get the workers’ hearts. The worker knows that if the company goes down, he is down, and so he is thinking up new ideas, and that�
��s why Toyotas, Datsuns, Hondas are outselling now all the small-range cars in Europe and America and throughout the Third World. That’s why the linkage.

  Getting out of the British system

  So we have proposed that we get out of this British system. We are not magicians and I worry for the next generation leadership. I think we transfer welfare to the company. We can’t do it overnight. And anyway, basic welfare, whether it’s health, housing, will have to be – the bare minimum must be met by the government. But I think the extras, we shift on to the company. So when the company does well, you see, just like the Japanese – whole aeroplane load of company workers follow the flag on a holiday. That means the company prospered. If the company doesn’t prosper, everybody stays at home. So there is a direct nexus. This is the problem.

  Devan Nair asked: Who does SIA belong to? SATS said, many workers said: “The Singapore government.” Some said it belongs to Joe Pillay. No worker said that SIA belongs to him.

  We have inherited the British system and you see how grievously they have harmed themselves. They say, just nationalise, oh well, just redistribute wealth, squeeze the rich until the pips squeak. It sounds wonderful at election time. When they actually squeeze the pips they find the pips have run off and settled in Majorca or some tax-free haven and removed all their capital, and the country has gone down. And when the Germans begin to face that trouble I get very worried.

  I want to end by telling you what Devan Nair [Member of Parliament and later President of Singapore] discovered when I sent him to SIA. And it’s human relations gone wrong. I am not reciting this to castigate the management, or the pilots, or the workers of SATS, but to try and get everybody in Singapore to understand how even a successful company can begin to go sour when human relations go wrong, and how they can improve in spite of their good performance if they get the human relations right. First, Devan Nair asked: Who does SIA belong to? SATS said, many workers said: “The Singapore government.” Some said it belongs to Joe Pillay. No worker said that SIA belongs to him. I have seen the Japanese – I think about 12 of them. And every one of them is proud that he is a Hitachi, or he is a Mitsubishi, or a Marubeni, or whatever man he is. And if you ask who does the company belong to: “The chairman and me – all of us.” There is no identification with the company because the management do not identify themselves with the workers, and human relations are poor. Pilots: “This is a second-class hotel; since I am flying a 747, equal to Pan Am, BA, Qantas, I want a first-class, five-star hotel,” and they got it. So the cabin crew, you know the girl that appears in the advertisements – millions of dollars – she goes into a three-star hotel, the captain and pilots – cockpit crew – go into a five-star hotel. That has been put right. Captain is the captain, he is in charge, including cabin crew. And Devan discovered that when the executives meet with the unions, everybody on the executive side wears a necktie, to the lowest clerk, to show that they are executives, you see. Everybody on the union side, open-neck shirt. There is something wrong with their psychology.

  The first thing we did in 1955 was to campaign with open necks to make it possible for the worker to identify himself with me. If I am with a necktie and a coat and he doesn’t own one, it’s difficult, isn’t it? If you cast your mind back to 1959, we changed the rules of Parliament to allow members to go without neckties. It was in the rules that we had to wear necktie and a coat. The British wanted everybody with a tie and a coat.

  And Devan said he went to Hitachi Zosen Shipyard, and he saw a man in overalls with a helmet talking to him, and he said, “Who are you?” and he said, “I am the personnel manager.” And he looked just like the other workers. And so did six other divisional directors. And one of the rules of the Japanese management system is, everybody wears the same. We are all in the same boat. Of course, some are up on the captain’s bridge, and others are in the engine room. And if the ship sinks, all will sink and the captain must go down with the ship. But at least, the heart, as the German company puts it, you know, the heart of the Japanese workers … and if you go to Korea or Taiwan where the Japanese had governed, for 40 years in the case of Korea and 50 years in the case of Taiwan, you go to their enterprises, they have learnt. They all wear the same. They all eat in the same canteen. But not in SIA; executives eat in a different canteen. All this makes for trouble, isn’t it? So the union says, “Look, you can’t deal with my workers, my members, any grievance, you deal with me.” So the union leader becomes a power broker. No manager can settle a dispute. He must see the union leader and it becomes a big issue. Well, that’s being changed. But once things go wrong, of course, then you get the “them-and-us” approach, “them” meaning the bosses.

  We will stay on top of our problems provided we understand that there is no god-given law which says that Singapore will have 5 per cent to 10 per cent growth a year. You may end up with a minus. Then you will vote another government in, madder than the last one. Then you will end up with a bigger minus. Then all the bright people will flee and leave the country.

  I’ve seen it. I was in Jamaica in 1975, in April – marvellous country, 2,000 square miles. They nationalise bauxite, they nationalise many things. They promise all things to all men. They are bankrupt. The World Bank has come to their rescue. But can they? All the good men have left. So the economy took a nosedive. Do you think you can get them to come back? It is not easy.

  You unwind this, you will not drop down on soft padi fields, it is hard, hard concrete, your bones are broken and it’s kaput.

  It’s the same problem with Sri Lanka. When Air Lanka – and you might as well know this, because when you go down, to come up again may never be possible. The President wanted to restart Air Lanka. We had several Air Lanka nationals working for SIA. So he says, “Will you release my nationals?” I said, “Of course.” Well, let me tell you that the Sri Lankans wanted to stay as SIA workers. They said, “We are seconded to Air Lanka.” So they are Sri Lankans working for SIA running Air Lanka. And if there is a change of government in Sri Lanka, they are coming back to Singapore to work in SIA.

  So, friends and fellow citizens, we have got one little island – 600 square kilometres. You unwind this, you will not drop down on soft padi fields, it is hard, hard concrete, your bones are broken and it’s kaput.

  And if you want to know why I am tough, it’s because I know what happens. I travel and I am not looking at the tourist sites. As they show me those things I am carrying on quiet conversation. I say, “Look, by the way, how much are you paid?” And you get behind the wrappings, down to the skeleton. And you know that Singapore has only one chance and that is to go up – tighter, more discipline, up the ladder. You unwind this, it’s curtains for everybody.

  Politics, to Lee, was about leadership, asserting authority and helping to take the people forward and improve their lives. He spelt out his view of politics and leadership in a speech to civil servants at the Political Study Centre on June 14, 1962. He identified three factors for the successful transformation of developing states: a determined leadership, which was durable enough to remain in office to exercise its authority and get the country moving, an efficient administration and social discipline among the people. His speech, culled from experience gained from visiting and studying countries such as India, Egypt and Yugoslavia, was broadcast over the radio in Singapore.

  Leadership makes the difference

  The tragedy about the one-man-one-vote system is that it is often easier to raise the bid, not knowing or, even worse, knowing full well that you will never be able to fulfil your promises.

  One of the most important lessons I think we have to learn, and learn very quickly, is that when people emerge to independence they don’t necessarily emerge from decadence to progress. It often happens that things get worse and there is no doubt about it, that if you allow your social organisations to sag, it will take an awfully long time to hold the thing together again to make sense. And it is easy for it to sag.

  The tragedy about
the one-man-one-vote system is that it is often easier to raise the bid, not knowing or, even worse, knowing full well that you will never be able to fulfil your promises. And the highest bidder usually wins. In all new countries, the electorate is inexperienced, unsophisticated. It’ll vote for the chap who says, “Well I give it to you. I will open up this street for hawkers and I will let you have the run of the place; I promise you the moon, the sun, stars and if there are some reserves left behind from before, well, you can exhaust it.” They are invisible. People don’t see it. And you can run through these things very quickly …

  Authority has got to be exercised. And when authority is not backed by position, prestige or usage, then it has to defend actively against challenge. But let me explain this. I went to India, that is a different composition. Authority there is not challenged. Mr Nehru is there. He is there and has been there almost as long as the Himalayas. Nobody doubts that he is going to be there as long as he lives. And that immediately produces a stiffening effect on the population, on the civil service, on the administration, the people. There is the old boy, he is going to be there, never mind all that shouting going on, everybody knows he is the man to trust.

  And you know the trade union chaps who met Devan Nair. They said, yes, that’s right. We are communists but when it comes to voting, we vote for the Congress Party. And it is true. He was talking to one of what they call serving boys – Punkawallah – gentlemen with red cap and so on, who bring you a glass of syrup water. We asked him what union he belonged to; he said, his union is communist but, of course, when it comes to election, he votes Congress: they are not to be trusted, these communists, they will do something foolish. And that is because the leadership is traditional. They have got used to him [Nehru]. He, Gandhi, were big names in India. For 50 years they fought, and authority is exercised without challenge.