Lee Hsien Loong
Singapore
“Yes, of course, every time I sell the land, I put money into the Reserves, but I am not putting the money into the Reserves all today. I am putting it in a stream of payments, 30 years apart.”
“Speaker, Sir, I do not think it was a very difficult question to figure out, that when I spoke to MTI, I spoke to the Minister, because Mr Gan Kim Yong is the Minister for Trade and Industry.”
“" I think that would have been unjust because he has not been charged. If there is a case, the case has not been heard, he has not been found guilty or acquitted or whatever. I cannot prejudge a case based on an incomplete investigation – started recently, or a partial investigation, just entered into the formal phase.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, Mr Leong is quibbling over words. In February, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin told me, "I offer to resign". I said, "Yes, sort out your constituency first". In other words, decision taken. The moment to execute it, I will decide. So, it is quite clear. Legally, he has not resigned.”
“Sorry, Mr Speaker, to respond to Ms Poa on why not no pay leave. It is my judgement to make. The Civil Service works in one way; their basis is if you have been convicted, then you are on zero pay and other consequences will follow.”
“I am very happy to note that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim appreciates the second key and is seeking a third. And I hope that it portends a change in your attitude towards the Elected President and his custodial powers. But I think the Brazil example is a very interesting one.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,557 lines we hold for Lee Hsien Loong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 32.
“If we abolish it, we may be sending the wrong signal that our stance has changed, and the rules have shifted. But because of the Penal Code amendments, section 377A has become a symbolic issue, a point for both opponents and proponents to tussle around. The gayactivists want it removed. Those who are against gay values and lifestyle argue strongly to retain it. And both sides have mobilised to campaign for their causes. There was a Petition to remove section 377A. It accumulated a couple of thousand signatures which were presented to this House. Therefore, there was a counter-petition to retain it, which collected 15,000 signatures - at least, according to the newspapers. I have not counted the signatures - 16,000. An hon. Member: 15,560.”
“The Chinese-speaking Singaporeans are not strongly engaged, either for removing section 377A or against removing section 377A. Their attitude is: live and let live. So, even in this debate in these two days, Members would have noticed that there have been very few speeches made in Parliament in Mandarin on this subject. I know Mr Baey Yam Keng made one this afternoon, but Mr Low Thia Khiang did not. It reflects the focus of the Chinese-speaking ground and their mindsets. So, for the majority of Singaporeans, their attitude is a pragmatic one. We live and let live. The current legal position in Singapore reflects these social norms and attitudes, as Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Hri Kumar explained yesterday. It is not legally neat and tidy. Mr Hri Kumar gave a very professional explanation of how untidy it is, but it is a practical arrangement that has evolved out of our historical circumstances. We are not starting from a blank slate, trying to design an ideal arrangement; neither are we proposing new laws against homosexuality. We have what we have inherited and what we have adapted to our circumstances. And as Mr Hri Kumar pointed out, we inherited section 377A from the British, imported from English Victorian law - Victorian from the period of Queen Victoria in the 19th century - via the Indian Penal Code, via the Straits Settlements Penal Code, into Singapore law. Asian societies do not have such laws, not in Japan, China and Taiwan. But it is part of our landscape. We have retained it over the years. So, the question is: what do we want to do about it now? Do we want to do anything about it now? If we retain it, we are not enforcing it proactively. Nobody has argued for it to be enforced very vigorously in this House.”
“Gay groups hold public discussions. They publish websites. I have visited some of them. There are films and plays on gay themes. In fact, sometimes people ask, "Why are there so many? Aren't there other subjects in the world?" But since we have allowed it in the last few years, maybe this is a letting off of pressure. Eventually, we will find a better balance. There are gay bars and clubs. They exist. We know where they are. Everybody knows where they are. They do not have to go underground. We do not harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policemen. And we do not proactively enforce section 377A on them. But this does not mean that we have reached a broad social consensus, that this is a happy state of affairs, because there are still very different views amongst Singaporeans on whether homosexuality is acceptable or morally right. And we heard these views aired in Parliament over these last two days. Some are convinced, passionately so, that homosexuality is an abomination, to quote Prof. Thio Li-ann's words yesterday. Others, probably many more, are uncomfortable with homosexuals, more so with public display of homosexual behaviour. Yet others are more tolerant and accepting. There is a range of views. There is also a range of degrees to which people are seized with this issue. Many people are not that seized with this issue. And speaking candidly, I think the people who are very seized with this issue are a minority. For the majority of Singaporeans - this is something that they are aware of but it is not the top of their consciousness - including, I would say, amongst them a significant number of gays themselves. But, also, I would say, amongst the Chinese-speaking community in Singapore.”
“This is the way the majority of Singaporeans want it to be. So, we should strive to maintain a balance, to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values, but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and contribute to the society. We have gradually been making progress towards achieving a closer approximation to this balance over the years. I do not think we will ever get a perfect balance, but I think we have a better arrangement now than was the case 10 or 20 years ago. Homosexuals work in all sectors, all over the economy, in the public sector and in the civil service as well. They are free to lead their lives, free to pursue their social activities. But there are restraints and we do not approve of them actively promoting their lifestyles to others, or setting the tone for mainstream society. They live their lives. That is their personal life, it is their space. But the tone of the overall society, I think, remains conventional, it remains straight, and we want it to remain so. So, for example, the recent case of Mr Otto Fong, who is a teacher in Raffles Institution. He is gay and he is a good teacher by all accounts. He put up a blog which described his own sexual inclinations, and explained how he was gay. He circulated to his colleagues and it became public. So MOE looked at this. The school spoke to the teacher. The teacher understood that this was beyond the limit, because how he lives is his own thing. But what he disseminates comes very close to promoting a lifestyle. So, they spoke to him, he took down his blog. He posted an explanation, he apologised for what he had done, and he continues teaching in RI today. So there is space, and there are limits. De facto, gays have a lot of space in Singapore.”
“But there is growing scientific evidence that sexual orientation is something which is substantially inborn. I know that some will strongly disagree with this, but the evidence is accumulating. We can read the arguments and the debates on the Internet. Just to take one provocative fact, homosexual behaviour is not observed only amongst human beings but also amongst many species of mammals. So, too, in Singapore, there is a small percentage of people, both male and female, who have homosexual orientations. They include people "who are often responsible, invaluable, and highly respected contributing members of society". I quote from the open letter which the petitioners have written to me, and it is true. They include people who are responsible and valuable, highly respected contributing members of society. And I would add that among them are some of our friends, our relatives, our colleagues, our brothers and sisters, or some of our children. They, too, must have a place in this society, and they, too, are entitled to their private lives. We should not make it harder than it already is for them to grow up and to live in a society where they are different from most Singaporeans. And we also do not want them to leave Singapore to go to more congenial places to live. But homosexuals should not set the tone for Singapore society. Nor do we consider homosexuals a minority, in the sense that we consider, say, Malays and Indians as minorities, with minority rights protected under the law - languages taught in schools, cultures celebrated by all races, representation guaranteed in Parliament through GRCs and so on. And this is the point which Ms Indranee Rajah made yesterday in a different way. This is the way Singapore society is today.”
“Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is the basic building block of our society. It has been so and, by policy, we have reinforced this and we want to keep it so. And by "family" in Singapore, we mean one man one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit. If we look at the way our Housing and Development Board flats are, our neighbourhoods, our new towns, they are, by and large, the way Singaporeans live. It is not so in other countries, particularly in the West, anymore, but it is here. I acknowledge that not everybody fits into this mould. Some are single, some have more colourful lifestyles, some are gay. But a heterosexual stable family is a social norm. It is what we teach in schools. It is also what parents want their children to see as their children grow up, to set their expectations and encourage them to develop in this direction. I think the vast majority of Singaporeans want to keep it this way. They want to keep our society like this, and so does the Government. But, at the same time, we should recognise that homosexuals are part of our society. They are our kith and kin. This is not just in Singapore. This is so in every society, in every period of history, back to pre-historic times, or at least as long as there have been records - biblical times and probably before. What makes a person gay or homosexual? Well, partly, it could be the social environment. If we look at the ancient Greeks and Romans, it was quite normal for men to have homosexual relationships - an older man with a young boy. It does not mean that that was all they did - they had wives and children. But, socially, that was the practice. So, I think, the social environment has something to do with it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this parliamentary debate is on the amendments to the Penal Code, but the hottest debate is on one section which is not being amended - section 377A. Both Mr Siew Kum Hong and Prof. Thio Li-ann quoted me with approval in their speeches yesterday, so I think I should state my position and the Government's position on this matter. Because of the review of the Penal Code and the amendments, I think the gay community and the activists have staged a push to get the Government to open this subject and to abolish section 377A. They have written an open letter to me as Prime Minister, they have also petitioned Parliament on this issue on the grounds of constitutional validity, and the constitutional argument was made by Mr Siew Kum Hong yesterday in Parliament. I do not have to go into the details. It was rebutted very cogently by Ms Indranee Rajah and very passionately by Prof. Thio Li-ann. They are not my legal advisers. I take my legal advice from the Attorney-General, and his advice to the Government is quite clear. The continued retention of section 377A would not be a contravention of the Constitution. The Government has not taken this matter lightly. We had a long discussion amongst the Ministers. We had an extensive public consultation on the Penal Code amendments and we decided on this issue - to leave things be. Let me, today, focus on the policy issue - what we want the law to be, and explain our thinking, our considerations, why we came to this conclusion. I would ask these questions: what is our attitude towards homosexuality? "Our", meaning the Government's attitude and Singaporeans' attitude too. How should these attitudes and these values be reflected in our legislation? Many Members have said this, but it is true and it is worth saying again.”
“As at 1st July 2007, there are a total of 234 Administrative Officers. This comprises the following: (a) 4 Administrative Officers in grades MR4 and above; (b) 145 Administrative Officers in grades SR9 and above, but excluding MR4; and (c) 85 Administrative Officers at the timescale level. MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR STATE LAND 2. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (a) whether there is a regular cleaning, upkeeping and grass-cutting schedule for State land; and (b) if so, if it is possible to place the name of the agency in charge of the upkeep of these areas, on the signage in the vicinity.”
“Non-Constituency MP Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the remuneration received by the board of directors of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, in particular, the amount of fees received by directors who hold political office. GIC does pay directors' fees to members of its board. However, GIC board members who concurrently hold political office or who are employed as GIC staff do not receive any director's fees. PERMANENT RESIDENTS (Figures) 2. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, for each of the last 10 years (a) how many persons were granted permanent residency in Singapore; (b) what were the 20 most common nationalities of such persons granted permanent residency; and (c) how many Singapore Permanent Residents became Singapore citizens.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have stated my position, explained my reasons, and said that I do not expect Ministers or MPs to follow my example. I have my reasons to do it which, I think, Members understand.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has put it well. This is a message which has to be presented, not just by me or my Ministers but by all the MPs and, in fact, by all the grassroots leaders in all of the constituencies. I know there have been grassroots leaders who say, "I support you, but give me arguments which I can use to persuade people why you are doing the right thing." And that is what I have tried to do today.”
“It is difficult to think of another country with a similar set of government institutions that work so well ... " "Yet, Singapore's future remains uncertain. While it continues to grow quickly, the challenges of becoming a knowledge-based economy are immense. Singapore has done it in the past and thus serves as an admirable model of what is possible. It remains to be seen if the country can continue in the future." It is the task of all of us to get the best team to lead Singapore, and to prove that Singapore's success can continue well into the future. [Applause.] 6.40 pm”
“And by having good people who are in touch with your needs, doing their best to make your life better, and who care for Singapore. This is going to be a controversial and emotive issue for a long time. But I am convinced that we are doing the right thing. The cost of building the team to serve Singaporeans is tiny, compared to what they can deliver, what is at stake. What is the cost of having the wrong team in charge of Singapore? It is what the Beijing News article called "zi hui cheng ben ", ie, opportunity cost of making the wrong decision. Where would we be now, if we had not thought of NEWater many years ago? How would our children be coping if we did not have first-class schools in every HDB town and 40% of every cohort failed PSLE, which used to be the case when I was in school? What price do we put to safe streets and law enforcers whom the public can trust? Have we made the right decision? I am convinced so, but time will show and Singaporeans will decide. By the next election, we will present our report card to Singaporeans, then judge us on our performance, whether this Government has delivered on its promises, whether you have better jobs, better lives. Mr Speaker, Sir, on Monday, RAdm Teo quoted a piece from Richard Vietor, a Harvard Business School professor, who wrote a chapter on Singapore Inc. I think some of his passages are worth quoting. I will just read you this: "Singapore has become a rich country. It has remained secure in Southeast Asia amid countries far larger and somewhat less stable than itself. Singapore has done this through a combination of great leadership, effective developmental strategies, and strong government institutions.”
“If Asia continues to thrive, some of these adjustments are going to be large. But we have to do them. Not a fresh decision, but as a consistent policy already debated and decided upon. This policy is for the future. Mr Lim Swee Say explained it yesterday as "Old Lim Swee Say" and "New Lim Swee Say". So I told him both Lim Swee Says better make a speech in Parliament, which he did. But let me put it my way. We are preparing for the future against the backdrop of a new globalised Asia completely transforming itself. And this policy is intended to work not for us, but for a new generation of Singaporeans. The test is not whether my present Ministers will leave because I know some MPs asked, "Who has left yet?" I think Ms Sylvia Lim asked that question too. The test is whether we have good Ministers here to face good MPs in this Chamber in 10 or 20 years' time. We must and we will tackle the problems which people feel and which make them sour on this issue - income gap, middle-aged workers, healthcare costs. These are important priorities for me and my team, and we have started many programmes to deal with them: Workfare to help the lower-income workers; ComCare to help the needy; improvements to Medisave, MediShield, Medifund to make healthcare more affordable; and upgrading of HDB flats to enhance the value of your property and improve your quality of life. This applies even to rental flats; it goes all the way throughout our society. We will do more to help those who are in trouble - the poor, the needy and the unemployed. How can we do so most effectively? By building a good team which will grow the economy, conceive the ideas to tackle these and future problems.”
“This might have made the package easier to explain and might have shown more sensitivity because we have just done hard policies with the GST. But this is a problem which is very urgent. It is urgent because it has been seven years since we last adjusted. Since then, the private sector has surged ahead. You have seen the charts RAdm Teo has shown to you for the benchmarks, particularly for MR4. The Government held back after 9/11. It held back after SARS. In fact, it had not merely held back; it took pay cuts of 10% and, after SARS, another 10%. We took the pay cuts but, in the last two years, the gap has still widened, and the private sector is now rallying ahead. If we look ahead, the whole of Asia is booming. Many Singaporeans are going after opportunities all over Asia. If Singapore does as well as we expected to do, then the opportunities and rewards in the private sector are going to be tremendous. And not just the dollars, but the excitement, thrill, the adrenalin of going into new markets, starting new businesses, creating a new presence in first-tier Chinese cities, second-tier Chinese cities, the Middle East, India, and Central Asia. If we wait till next year or the year after, the Government will lose people, the service will say this is a government which shies away from a politically prickly decision and, meanwhile, we will lose ground further. By the time we move, even a 33% increase will not be enough. So we cannot afford that. We have to move now. And we have to keep on adjusting as the private sector moves, because this is a dynamic situation and we have to stay abreast of it. That is why the Ministerial Statement says we are making one move on 1st April 2007, a second step on 1st January 2008 and the third step on 1st January 2009.”
“So you can see that we have been stringent in our evaluation. Only two Ministers were in the highest bracket of eight to 10 months' bonus, more than a third were in 0 to 5 months' range, and the rest were in the middle, and similar numbers for the Ministers of State. The Parliamentary Secretaries are on a more stringent scheme. I should explain that this is not over and above the benchmark. This is part of the benchmark. So when we say MR4, it is not a guaranteed amount. It depends on growth and performance, but we depend on every person giving of his best so that, as a team, we can deliver results for Singapore. Sir, these are all the arguments which we can make and which I think are strong arguments why we should do this. But despite these arguments, I know that a lot of people still find the Ministers' salaries policy difficult to accept. And I think there are some reasons for this. The income gap is widening, the economy is doing well, but some people and businesses are still facing difficulties. As one grassroots leader told Mr Lim Boon Heng: "Ministers' pay goes up, our pay did not go up, our business has not improved, prices of goods and services have also gone up." These are real problems on the ground which people feel and which colour their perceptions. So some people say, "In principle, I support the salary revision, but this is not a good time." I agree. RAdm Teo said, "But we must do it in good time", meaning early. But I would concede that this is not a good time now because we have just raised GST, not everything has been sorted out in the economy. But on the other hand, firstly, there is no good time. Secondly, and more importantly, there is urgency. I considered waiting one year.”
“But because different Ministers have different responsibilities, I also have for each Minister a performance bonus. The Prime Minister decides how much the Minister will get, how he has performed in his portfolio. I do not want Teo Chee Hean to spend all this time worrying about the bottom 20%. What will happen to the SAF? But I do want other Ministries, like MCYS, to worry about the bottom 20%; MOM to worry about jobs; MTI to worry about generating growth, getting investments, and that goes into the performance bonus for each one of the Ministers. There is a range, because not all the Ministers carry the same burden or have the same responsibilities. And the load will vary from year to year because the challenges and the circumstances change. If there is SARS, if there is a security issue, if there is an economic recession or an education transformation, *Cols. 533-534 our focus goes there. But there is a distribution, some get more, some get less. I have a table which I will ask the Clerk to distribute which shows you the numbers and the distribution. [Copies of Table* distributed to hon. Members.]”
“One ASEAN Minister told me that the system was like that and there was nothing cloak-and-dagger or underhanded about it. The system is like that. As a Minister, once a year, she and her family are entitled to one holiday, fully paid, anywhere in the world. Is that better for us? We have decided to be open, upfront, transparent - what you see is what you get (Wysiwyg), or, in this case, what you see is what they get. No hidden perks, no post public sector benefits, which is what Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned in the Straits Times, only the pension for the office-holders which is the same as what the civil servants receive and even that has been frozen since 1994. We are going to study how to include the pension into the benchmark comparison as well as whatever superannuation benefits which the private sector has. It is not so easy because, in the private sector, you have golden parachutes, golden handcuffs, all kinds of things, which do not show up in the annual pay. So I am not sure if I count them in, whether I am going to be behind or further ahead, but I think we should find out what the status is, so that we can understand the real comparison and position. Besides, these salaries are not fixed. One-third of the Ministers' package is presently variable, after the revision, half is going to be variable and it depends on two things - the GDP, how well the economy is performing and his individual performance. Teo Chee Hean has explained why we have chosen GDP as the umbrella indicator to bring everything together, not just low-income family, but also middle-income, high-income, security, infrastructure, housing, health. It all comes down to GDP. Because with that, I can solve many problems.”
“The government acknowledges that it is proving more difficult to recruit high quality candidates from the private and wider public sectors." So you can be a 5,000-year-old country like China, 1,000-year-old country like Britain, a 250-year-old country like America, or a 42-year-old country like Singapore. Human nature takes a long time to change. What do they do? They cannot raise salaries, but find other ways around the problem - short term in office, then make up earnings through lectures, connections. Bill Clinton's earnings, you have heard Mrs Josephine Teo yesterday, as an ex-President, $40 million in lecture fees, that is not bad; $12 million in book advance, never mind the royalties per book. And the wife also can write a book, she also has $8 million book advance. Somebody said to me, "But that is all right. That is private sector. It is good for him." If you are in a job and you are calculating how do you look after yourself day after tomorrow, after your retirement, what does that do to your motivation, your commitment, your sense of responsibility in the public sector, in the job? But if you do not do that, how do you take care of your family? That is the system, that is the revolving door. Do we want that? There is another approach. You can top up salaries with additional perks. In Hong Kong, until 1997, it was a British colony, so every civil servant has a fully paid holiday for the family to the UK every year because it is meant for the expatriates, Englishmen. So even the Hong Kongers who were recruited into the service, they also get a holiday in Britain. Even the Hong Kongers whose children are Hong Kong Chinese get an allowance for their children to be educated in public schools in the UK. That is part of the terms of service. Other countries too.”
“And I would quote a passage from Chief Justice Roberts' annual report last year. The whole of his annual report was devoted to this one subject of judicial salary. I will just quote one paragraph: "The dramatic erosion of judicial compensation will inevitably result in a decline in the quality of persons willing to accept a lifetime appointment as a federal judge. Our judiciary will not properly serve its constitutional role if it is restricted to (1) persons so wealthy that they can afford to be indifferent to the level of judicial compensation, or (2) people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase. Do not get me wrong - there are very good judges in both of those categories. But a judiciary drawn more and more from only those categories would not be the sort of judiciary on which we have historically depended to protect the rule of law in this country." So the Americans have a very, very serious problem. So, too, the British. They also have a policy. Top end of senior civil service pay, they call it the "SCS", senior civil service. So we have at least 80% of the private sector median for broadly comparable jobs, and the Ministers are linked to the senior civil service. So comparable jobs, private sector, median 80%, we are looking for comparable jobs, private sector, median 2/3. So, in fact, their formula is more generous than our formula but they have not been able to do it. The latest report by the independent salaries review body - they have a salaries review body - said, "Since 2002, we made clear that the government was failing to fund the senior civil service pay system in such a way as to meet its own targets.”
“The reality is they cannot master the political consensus to pay more realistic salaries because the politicians are in low standing, the public will not support it. In some countries, the politicians rank below used car salesmen in public trust. You say you want to pay yourself, what have you done to justify this? But benchmarking to the private sector is not something special to Singapore. The other countries tried it too, although they had not been able to do it. The Americans tried it, the British tried it, did not work. Yesterday, Mr Shanmugam delivered an outstanding speech in the House, not all the Members were here. One part of the speech which the newspapers did not report was what he said about what happened in America in the Judiciary which is, according to the American Chief Justice Roberts, a constitutional crisis. And he went on to the details, but I think it is an important subject. Let me explain again what happened to America. America established a market-based framework in 1989 to adjust government salaries annually, based on increases in private sector wages. So every time the private sector went up, the government went up, benchmarking to the private sector. They made one adjustment. They were supposed to follow through every year. Congress never followed through for fear of a public backlash. So now, the whole system is stuck because all the salaries are related - the Congressmen, Secretaries of the Departments, civil servants, Judges - all their salaries are inter-related and if they do not move on, the Congressmen, everybody is stuck. So the Judges are particularly without recourse because nobody speaks for the Judges. And that is how they have ended with a constitutional crisis.”
“But will that approach do better at producing a team for Singapore and producing a successor leadership, a new PM, DPM and Cabinet for Singapore? Just as a thought experiment, I would ask Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim to produce their line-up of Ministers, their dream team. Name it. They do not have to be Workers' Party members. You can take and choose any Singaporean, including PAP Members. If you cannot find a complete line-up for the Cabinet, at least tell us who will you appoint as Minister for Finance, who will you appoint for Minister for Law, from the best people out there in the private sector. Tell us and tell Singaporeans how much you intend to pay them. The median wage? 100 times the 20th percentile? How much do you want to pay them? Is it realistic to have such a dream team if you do not pay them properly? Then Singapore can decide. I am not saying that we have the best possible team, that this team is perfect. I readily concede that we need to reinforce it. I readily concede that the ability and the skills of the Ministers vary. Each is different, some are stronger than others, some have skills which complement one another. But every Minister is worth his pay. Those who make the grade stay, others who do not leave. And by paying properly, we can improve, we can strengthen the team over time. We can compare with other countries. But, unfortunately, the comparison was done wrongly by Mr Low and some others. Because if you compare with other countries, you will find that other countries also face the problems of paying their political leaders properly. It is not true that low pay works better for them.”
“But whatever the formula, whatever the detailed number, the reality which you cannot run away from is that the private sector is moving, it is moving up, and so must we. Several MPs suggested that we delegate our responsibility for setting pay to an independent pay commission. There is a conflict of interest, we cannot settle our own pay, let somebody else do it. But I do not believe this will settle the matter because whatever the commission recommends, finally, the responsibility comes back to the political leadership. The buck stops here. If he recommends high, are you going to take it? If he recommends low, are you going to solve your problem? Who will answer for the outcome? So, finally, the responsibility lies with the political leadership. The Cabinet is accountable to Parliament, it is accountable to all Singaporeans. Every five years, Singaporeans have to judge and decide whether we have done the right thing, whether we have delivered on our promises, whether they have got value for money. And, in fact, at every election, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong have made this an issue. Starting from the very first election in 1984 which I contested, when Mr Chiam See Tong made a very powerful speech at the Fullerton Square and said, "One month salary for the Minister, one year's work for the worker and you still don't have." So that, finally, is the test. Are we doing the right thing? The people have to decide whether we have kept the trust with the voters. The Opposition and some other MPs too disagree with this Government's approach and have suggested various other ways of doing it. Ms Sylvia Lim made a pitch just now to say this is unrealistic, only 0.1% of people in that top category. Why not look at the median wage, which is US$2,000 or S$3,000?”
“Business Times published a table on Monday, listing the companies in the Straits Times Industrial Index. I do not think they have data for all of them but they have data for most of them. So they published a list of the CEOs and how much they were earning. I have taken that and made a table which I would like the Clerk now to distribute. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.] This is what you see in the Business Times, but I have also added a column for market capitalisation. Just for a sense of size. 55 companies. The top-earner was Venture Corp - Mr Wong Ngit Liong earning $16.75 million plus, followed by Wee Cho Yaw, $9 million, all the way down to a company called "People's Food", earning quarter million dollars. The middle number of these 55 would be probably between 27 and 28 - Comfort Delgro and Genting International - for $1.75 million. So $1.75 million for two companies with market capitalisation of $4 billion to $5 billion. My Ministers are earning $2.2 million. I think we passed the sanity check. But I would also ask you to look at the market capitalisation column because it is interesting. What are the biggest companies? The banks - $30 billion plus. SingTel is the biggest, $50 billion. And I would ask you this question. If Singapore Inc were a listed company, what would its market capitalisation be? Think about it. My GDP, which is the profit earned in a year by Singapore Inc, is $210 billion. The price earning ratio on the SGX average is now 20. If I calculated a market capitalisation, if Singapore Inc went for IPO, this is a $4 trillion company. So I think that we are well within the right ballpark for what these jobs are worth as Ministers.”
“So if you can find me some more vets like them, please tell me. I will invite them to tea. There have been many suggestions from Members to improve the benchmark. Mr Teo Chee Hean dealt with most of them yesterday. You can argue about the technicalities and refine them, and we will consider the refinements and improve the benchmark incrementally. For example, Ms Denise Phua suggested having a range around the benchmark rather than at a single point. I think, in the private sector, they call them compa-ratios. You have a benchmark and you then plus or minus maybe 20% or so. We do not have that exactly but, effectively, we do that. For example, we often appoint Acting Ministers - the substantive grade is Senior Minister of State. So he is not receiving the MR4 benchmark. He is receiving one below that, SR5 Permanent Secretary's salary. If he is confirmed, he goes to MR4 and there is also room for Ministers to be promoted to MR3 and MR2. So Ministers have this range above and below the benchmark but whatever the fine print, the benchmark is basically sound. Mr Teo Chee Hean has also explained why the $2.2 million figure which the benchmark has produced this year is reasonable. I leave the technical verification to PSD and the Minister-in-charge, but I apply a reality check. First reality check - $2.2 million ranks 206 amongst private sector earners. Are the 206 jobs in the private sector more important than being a Minister and being a Senior Permanent Secretary? I think, presently, there are only four Permanent Secretaries who are in the MR4 grade and above and the Ministers. 206 jobs in the private sector bigger than those? 50 maybe, 100 possibly; 200, I do not believe so. My second reality check - what are the CEOs of the companies earning?”
“And I am saying this again here by special request of the Ministry of Education and MTI because they are very worried that people may take that engineers column literally and the students will stop studying engineering and go and do law. So I think Ms Lee Bee Wah did us a favour, explaining that engineers have done very well and lots of bright students ought to go and study engineering. Or veterinary surgeons. There was one letter in the Straits Times which says Dr Lee Boon Yang is a vet, so you should pay him a vet salary. Dr Lee Boon Yang is not just a vet. He was a vet. He was spotted by Mr Goh Chok Tong, who invited him to tea and assessed that he was not just a vet, and fielded him. From Parliamentary Secretary, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Minister of State, Minister - he proved himself at each step. He is steady, has judgement, can size up people, can get good people to work for him and get things done. So such a person can do many things, whatever his original training, and I should say, in case Members do not know, that quite a lot of very talented people became vets in the 1960s and 1970s. Colombo Plan scholarships were offered for veterinary science. At that time, pig farms were a significant part of our economy and we needed vets to look after them. So if you look at the vets who have done well in the public sector, it is not just Dr Lee Boon Yang. Cheng Tong Fatt, who became Permanent Secretary (National Development) and he became an Ambassador to China; Chin Siat Yoon, currently Ambassador to China; Ngiam Tong Tau, the brother of Ngiam Tong Dow, CEO of the AVA (Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority) for many years. Three very able people - all three of whom separately were awarded the Meritorious Service Medal.”
“For example, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, according to Dr Lee Boon Yang who has known him for many years, has held this view ever since Dr Lee has known him. He supports the PAP on everything else but on this one, he thinks we should not do it. I respect those views, but I cannot agree with that. In particular, I would disagree with Ms Denise Phua when she talks about the nexus of power and money. I am not worried about somebody wanting to become PM for the sake of $4 million. I am worried about somebody wanting to become PM and hoping to collect $400 million – pay is zero, but collect $400 million under the table. That is what we fear. We do not expect Ministers to earn as much as top-earners in the private sector but it must not be too far out of line from what a person of similar ability can earn outside, otherwise it becomes not workable. That is the principle on which the benchmark is based. First, estimate what the successful corporate executive or professional can earn, then you apply a discount, then you work out a formula that is fair and stick to that formula - whether the things go up or down, follow that formula. When the private sector moves, we also adjust. That is what we call 2/3M48. There are some people who want to benchmark Ministers against their previous professions. For example, they say engineers are paid, I think, $600,000 and there are so many engineers in Cabinet, so that is what you should be paid. Ms Lee Bee Wah was quite alarmed. She raised it just now to point out that quite a number of engineers are no longer in that list because they have moved out to become Chief Executives and other things.”
“Many MPs have raised the other side of this - the question of moral authority. They have made this argument that public service requires selflessness and sacrifice, that Ministers especially must have moral authority to lead, not just to manage. Therefore, you cannot expect wages comparable to the private sector. That is the gist of the points made by many MPs like Dr Thio Li-ann, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Denise Phua, Miss Eunice Olsen and others. I agree with these propositions in principle. You must be selfless, you must have some sacrifice, you must have the moral authority to lead, to get people to follow you and, therefore, it cannot be exactly the same as the private sector. So I will differ slightly from Shanmugam. Shanmugam says, "Why should there be any sacrifice?" I say, "Let there be a sacrifice so there is no doubt that the person in this is not making money and not in this to make money. But let us ask: where does moral authority come from? I think it comes from leaders who care for the people, who improve the lives of the people, who are motivated to serve others and not enrich themselves, and from leaders demonstrating that they are more often right than they are wrong. You need a bit of financial sacrifice. Some, but this is not an auction. You sacrifice "X", I sacrifice "2X", you match me, and the one who makes the biggest self-sacrifice will get the job. You look at the countries which have low-paid Ministers. Do they have higher standing with their people because of that? I know that Ms Denise Phua, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and others disagree with this. And I know that many of those who have spoken up for the opposite view hold their views out of deep conviction.”
“We have to have a whole system assessing the project objectively on many criteria. Some we can measure, some we have to judge, some it is subjective feel. And, at the end of the process, we must have the integrity of the system and the quality of the judgment, so that Singaporeans know that we have done the right thing. The participants agree that we have done the right thing, and nobody suspects or alleges any hanky panky. So we did that. And, at the end of it, through proper procedures and due diligence, the Evaluation Committee picked the two best projects for Singapore. Who else can do that in the world? Merrill Lynch wrote us up and I quote: "Singapore's process was transparent, supported by the community and attracted the world's largest and best IR companies. The government's decision was accepted and respected by all parties, and people believe the two winners were the best bidders." Think about that. What kind of civil service, what kind of Ministers do we need to make that happen? Prof. Jayakumar was on the Committee; Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Mr Raymond Lim, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Mr Mah Bow Tan, supported by Permanent Secretaries, Singapore Tourism Board and Sentosa Development Corporation. System discipline, no leaks, no bribes, no monkey business. Therefore, we get the best projects for Singapore. How much would it have cost to just adjust half a point here, half a mark there, and you come up with a different outcome? How much in that kind of a society would participants have found ways to encourage people to come to such outcomes? But, in Singapore, they knew what the game was and we got the best outcome for Singapore. I think that is worth quite a lot. So competitive salaries is one of the basic requirements to protect the integrity of our institutions.”
“Therefore, because we have this system, we can deal with big issues, big things, properly. Take the IR. For the two tenders, billions of dollars were at stake. One was $5 billion and the other was $4 billion. What is remarkable about them? It is not that they came, but how we handled them. Usually, for big projects, because so much money is at stake and it is so easy to corrupt people, we do a tender on price. They have to seal their bid and put it into the box. Witnesses open the box. It is quite objective - highest price wins. I wanted to do that for the IR, because it is such a big project, and a big subjective element in assessing the project. And if we decided to go on beauty parade, then there will be arguments - choose the best one, were you really fair and so on. So I stayed very firm to the line that I want the project to be tendered, and we designed a tender scheme to make it work. Unfortunately, it could not work. So I visited Las Vegas. I went to four of the casinos, talked to their CEOs. They all raised this with me. They said, "This won't work. You won't get the best project." So I asked, "What should we do?" The reply, "Fix the price and compete on quality." I said, "How do I assess the quality? It is subjective." They said, "You have to do that. Otherwise, you will not get a good project." Some very clever people said, "We know what you are trying to do. You want to design a tender to make us do the right thing." Says a Chief Executive, "I am a mathematician too. I know how these tenders work. So if you set these rules, I will play your game. But I think you are setting the wrong rules and you are making us play the wrong game." So when I came back, we changed the policy and we decided on a beauty parade. It is not Miss Universe.”
“In Asia, China is fighting a wave of corruption, not just ordinary corruption but top-level corruption - government officials, Party leaders. The Party Secretary of Shanghai, Chen Liangyu, Politburo member, removed. Mayors, Vice Mayors, some of them executed. They can execute one corrupt person. Can they eradicate the practice of corruption? So the problem continues. In South East Asia. Yesterday, Mr Lim Swee Say told Members one story. I will tell Members another. I met a prominent South East Asian businessman very recently. I told him that corruption is a problem. He said, "Yes, money politics. The government says they will eradicate it, but it cannot be eradicated. It's permanent." Why? Many reasons. But one factor - and a major factor - is that the public sector salaries are way below the market. We have got to keep our system clean at all costs. "At all costs" means, if anybody does wrong, however high up it goes, it will be investigated. And if there is any allegation, however high up that allegation goes, it will also be investigated. We have done it with Ministers. I have been investigated because of Hotel Properties Limited (HPL). Younger ones may not remember, but it was 10 years ago. We had a long debate in this House. So has the Minister Mentor. Nobody is above the law. What will happen if people are not properly paid? Well, it will start with small things. Eventually, it will get worse, and then we will be just like the others. I can tell Members some stories about that, but I will have to save that for another time. Our whole system works like this. It is a culture which is well established. Everybody knows the rules. Everybody knows that if he touches something which is wrong, he will be found out. Anyway, he should feel bad about himself.”
“Where? Instead, because of this, we have got the Government clean, efficient, capable. So, when we had the Asian financial crisis and SARS, team Singapore rose to the challenge. When faced with competitive challenges from China and India, the team comes up with new policies to keep Singapore competitive - the Biopolis, the IRs, create new jobs, replace old jobs lost, Workfare, ComCare. Could we have done all these? Would we have had the instruments, the team and the capability to do these had we not moved boldly in 1994, and again moved in 2000? If we had hesitated on 11th September 2001, then we would be 30% behind where we are now, and I think we would have already lost many people. We will be in deep trouble today. Without proper pay, the integrity of the system will also be at risk. High pay does not guarantee a clean system. Enron is an example. Some MPs have mentioned. I concede that. But, nevertheless, proper pay enables us to keep the system clean. Look at so many countries fighting corruption all over the world, all over Asia, all over South East Asia. Members will say that these are backward countries. We are now First World. Even in the developed countries, in the UK - Tory government, Labour government - they have problems of sleaze. What does "sleaze" mean? "Sleaze" means Ministers giving advantages, Ministers receiving benefits, Ministers staying in hotels, Ministers arranging for things to go through. This is Britain, not a 42-year-old country. In the United States, the Republicans lost the mid-term elections. Iraq was an issue but so was sleaze, because their Congressmen and Senators were found doing bad things with money and the voters punished them. But that does not clean up the system.”
“This is the view of somebody who headed the School of Government in Harvard. This system of paying people properly has worked. We are not arguing the merits of this pay increase in the abstract, just in principle, in an ideal world or in theory. But with the benefit of the experience of the last 20 years operating the system, adjusting it and moving step by step. Look at the last 10-15 years since 1994. We have maintained an inflow of talent in the civil service, not just the Administrative Officers but also the other services - the uniformed services, teachers. The quality of the service has gone up because we have had the inflow. We have been able to turn over the under-performers. We have brought good people in, and it is no longer so easy now for the private sector to poach from the Government. One private sector media executive, who was in the Government, says, "You must say this because we used to be able to poach people from the Government any time. Now we can't poach AOs any more." We have cleaned out. The under-performers have gone. And it has made an enormous difference to the quality of the service. I know some MPs want us to do public lynching - this person, for the following shortcomings, hang, drawn and quartered. Ministers even better! If I did that, would I have civil servants and Ministers? Do you do that in your companies? It is always with finesse and politeness - resign, given notice amicably. So, just because you do not see us exercising discipline visibly and ostentatiously does not mean that we are not managing the system tightly and properly. For the Ministers, we have brought in people in each election. Money corrupts, says Prof. Thio. Power corrupts, yes. But in this system, have we had wrong people come into Government and corrupt the system?”
“Otherwise, we are not going to get good people; and if we do not have good people, the standard of government will go down over time. And if we have a bad team, it is very difficult to build back with good men, because good men and women will not want to work for a bad boss, and will not want to belong to a dud organisation. They want to go where the excitement, the challenge and the quality is. So we are here, we cannot go down and come back. We go down, and we go down further. Just now, I mentioned the Dean of the Kennedy School. Now I read to Members an email from a friend of mine. This is the former Dean of the same Kennedy School, Graham Allison, whom I have known for 25 years. He was the Dean and he is now a Professor there. They make a study of governments. That is their profession. I will read you his email. He was in Korea. "On Friday, I picked up the Straits Times, and on the front page saw the story about your comments about Ministers and civil servants' salaries falling behind the benchmarks in the private sector. The notion that the Minister making $1.2 million might be underpaid will strike most Americans as incredible. But I would say right on." He is not just doing a rah rah. He explains: "Singapore's demonstrated interest in "first-class governance" is a fascinating topic for study. In any other realm of life, we believe that there is a connection between financial rewards and the ability to recruit and sustain a first-class workforce. Yours is one of the few governments in the world that practises that bit of common sense. Good for you." "In any other realm of life, we believe that there is a connection between financial rewards and the ability to recruit and sustain a first-class workforce." This is not just an uneducated view.”
“" And if you have no bosses and you are your own employer, your clients will ask, "Will you have time for my problems?" So the MPs who have come in as backbenchers have a very tough time. And the MP's allowance is not going to make good the sacrifices but it is going to be an important gesture to recognise the effort that they have put in. And so, when we revised the rest of the salaries this time, we not only revised the MP's allowance but re-pegged it to restore the relativity which was there in 1994. And I am quite sure that Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong have also experienced this, not abstractly, but themselves, because without this proper MP's allowance, I think it would have been very difficult for them to continue as practically full-time MPs for nearly 20 years. Therefore, this way, we built up a high quality Parliament. This Parliament may be small. It is only 84 plus 9 plus one, which is 94. But it compares well with Parliaments in any developed countries - US, UK or Australia - anytime. We are not as eloquent as the British in the House of Commons. We may not be as rude as the Australians in Canberra Parliament, or maybe we are just more tongue-tied. In Canberra, Paul Keating, who was Prime Minister, would call the Opposition - I looked this up, by the way - "sleazebag, harlot, piece of criminal garbage, animals on the other side". I apologise for the unparliamentary language. In that, we cannot compare. But in the quality of the debate, in the preparation which goes into the speeches, in the thinking, we compare with any of them. Man for man, if you meet them, I think our people measure up, and that has shown itself even in this debate, this time, on this subject. But to keep it like this, we have to pay people properly.”
“Will we and our children be better or worse off in 10 or 20 years' time? It is not just Ministers, we also need quality MPs. Therefore, we need a proper MP's allowance. We considered this very carefully back in 1994 when we first went on this benchmarking. Should we benchmark MPs to a token amount or a substantial allowance? We hesitated to set a substantial allowance for fear of people pursuing the job for the allowance. The concern is not on the PAP side because we put our candidates through a whole series of tests and chances are, if somebody is like that, we will catch him early; and if we do not catch him early, we will throw him out soon. But how about the Opposition candidates? Do they have the same Quality Control? In the last General Election, the NSP team in Pasir Ris GRC said that if they were elected, they would provide free healthcare and contribute one-third of the MP's allowance to a community fund. They could only do this because we had revised the MP's allowance up. Fortunately, the voters were not taken in, so I have Teo Chee Hean who is here today as well as Michael Palmer and several others. Eventually, we decided that we will have a substantial allowance to reflect the quality of the people we want. Backbench MPs who do their jobs conscientiously make major sacrifices of their time and career and this is so whether the MPs are working in large firms or running their own businesses and practices. I say this frankly, the MPs will not want to say it of themselves, but they all know that it is true. Your top boss may say, "Marvellous! This is national service. It adds to the lustre of the firm." Your direct boss or the one above him will say, "You make up your mind. Do you want to be a lawyer or do you want to be an MP?”
“Before the last General Election, I spent a long time talking to many people, specifically talent - spotted and head-hunted key potential candidates, some office-holders, others who could make particular contributions. I did not just depend on the tea sessions that whoever came in for tea and they percolate up and eventually we are left with whatever comes up. We looked at their profile and we went out to talent spot. The people who saw me, nobody accepted on the spot. In fact, if anybody had accepted on the spot, I would straightaway have made a mental mark and probably would have wondered, "Should I proceed?" Because it would have shown that he did not understand what a big thing it was that I was asking him. But, fortunately, after they had time to think it over and discussed it with their family members, and several more chats with me, a good number agreed to come in for various reasons. One said, "I am a sucker for a challenge". One said, "Yes, I want to do it. My family agrees. I can come in." Another one said, "Well, I really am not keen because I do not think I am good enough. But if you tell me that you cannot find somebody more suitable and you think that I am up to the mark, I am prepared to go on your word." I did not discuss pay with them. But I know that amongst those who came in, from the private sector, people like Grace Fu, Teo Ser Luck, Masagos, most took pay cuts. Ditto for those promoted from the backbenchers like Gan Kim Yong or Iswaran. They knew this too because they know what the scales are. But despite this, they agreed to come in. If the gap between the Ministers and the private sector is wider and widening, will it make it easier or harder for me to assemble a new team? Will Singapore have a better or poorer choice of leaders?”
“We had seven musketeers or samurais, three doctors - Balaji, Vivian and Ng Eng Hen. They are still with us. They have all served well but they have taken different routes. Ng Eng Hen has become Minister; Vivian was acting Minister and subsequently became Minister. When I promoted Ng Eng Hen and Vivian, I spoke to Balaji. I said, "You have done good. Your Ministers are satisfied with you but I am not ready to promote you to be Minister yet. I do not think you are ready but I am promoting Ng Eng Hen and Vivian, and I have to tell you, to be fair to you. So if you feel that you want to decide that this is not for you and you want to go back, do something else, or go back to neurosurgery, this is the time you have to think about it." Balaji said to me, "I am staying. I am a neurosurgeon. I calculate all possible consequences, good and bad, before I operate. I have come in. I have decided. I have stopped practising." At first, we encouraged the doctors to half-practise so that they keep their hand in just in case, but Balaji and, in fact, the other two all decided that it is not fair to the patients. They are no longer au fait operating everyday, not current with the latest developments. If they make an operation, even assisting somebody else, something goes wrong, it is on their conscience. Balaji told me "I have come in, this is my future and this is what I am going to do. If you find me useful as an MOS, I will be happy to serve." So I said, "Good for you. I think the more of you." That is the sort of people we are looking for. But it is not easy to find people who are like that.”
“And that is why we have this line-up of 24 new candidates in the last General Election. And that is why Parliament today has a changed composition - sounds different, feels different. Sometimes, for the older Members, they say, "Wow, the world has moved on. How do I continue to make a contribution in this debate?" We value people to whom an income is irrelevant and who will do what they feel they want to do regardless of the pay. When we find them, we will field them if they are suitable. But I cannot design the system on the assumption that everyone is like that because not everyone is like that. It is very hard to persuade a good person to take the plunge. In China, "xia hai" means go into the private sector. I think in Singapore, this is "deng shan ", climbing the mountain to enter the Government - they think very carefully. They have to disrupt their lives, enter the hurly-burly of politics with all these uncertainties - so many demands and new responsibilities, public exposure and constant scrutiny, loss of privacy. Ministers are like a fish in a goldfish bowl, MPs too, in fact. Quite a number of candidates asked me before they came in, "If I become an MP, can I still wear shorts and go to the hawker centre for my Sunday breakfast?" I said, "Yes, go ahead. I do it once in a while. If people wave at you, you wave back at them. If they do not wave at you, you better get scared." But loss of privacy is a real problem. And risk of failure, not just a loss to themselves, but also the risk to Singapore, the shame, obligation and the burden of the knowledge that you may have let Singapore down. Because not everybody succeeds and not everybody does equally well. And even if you do okay, others may do better and there will be comparisons made. You take the 2001 batch.”
“So the question is: how should our system work so that we can find the best top team for Singapore? Will it make it easier to find this team and will we get a better outcome by making it harder for people to come in and making salaries low so that you will not come in unless you are prepared to take a large pay cut. How does that help Singaporeans have a better choice? Let me tell you the PAP's experience in recruiting talent. We are looking for able and committed people. They are moving up their careers. Some of them are at the peak of their professions. Some of them have careers, but they have decided that they will spend time doing community work. Mr Lim Biow Chuan is one of them. Ellen Lee was another. Others have become almost full-time volunteers or have become full-time volunteers, unpaid workers, like Denise Phua. The key criterion for us is not how successful their careers have been or how much they earn, but whether they have shown that they care, not just for themselves, but for others beyond their immediate families. And that is a question I ask their referees when I write letters to the referees to give me their views. Have they shown, in any way, that they care for others and have done something for others? For office-holders, we are looking for people who can run a Ministry, make things happen, take a higher view and persuade people to follow them. I can tell you that we have turned down people who are very successful in their professions and, in fact, who are visibly keen to be fielded. Because we did not feel comfortable, we were not quite sure what their motivations were. On the other side, we have searched out people doing good work in the grassroots who can contribute on a wider stage.”
“But I do not worry and the US is not worried either. I mean I am concerned but I am not alarmed. But, in Singapore, do you want an instant PM? I can have instant trees - just plant and water - tree-planting day. But a PM? It happens in other countries. In Britain, the Labour Party has been in power. This is their 10th year. So if the Conservatives win the next election, David Cameron and his team will have hardly anybody amongst them who has ever been in government and they will be in charge from day one. One journalist, very astute, asked me, "Dalai Lama zao dao le ma?" Have you found the Dalai Lama? But I am not looking for one Dalai Lama, one anointed leader. I must find and bring in the whole team of MPs and political office-holders. Then amongst themselves, eventually, some of them will become Ministers, some will become DPMs and they will settle, and one will emerge, and will become the next PM. I am already 55 years old this year. I just drew my CPF. MM retired at 67. SM retired at 63. Singapore should not have a 70-year-old Prime Minister. So what sort of people are we looking for for this succession? We are looking for people in their early or late 30s, young enough to be young still in 10-15 years' time, and somebody to come out from that group. And I want to be able to assemble together the best possible group of such young 30s and 40s, so that we can offer Singaporeans the best choice. Then, 10 years from now, one of them, at least, will be ready to take over as PM. Last election, I had brought in quite a number of under 30s, the P65s. But I need to reinforce the team further. Next time, I need the P70s and then the P75s. And then, I will have a more rounded team.”
“I joined politics in 1984 and took over as PM after 20 years in 2004. I was the longest-serving Deputy Prime Minister in the world. Happily so. Therefore, it is not too early now to start looking for the next PM. Building the next team and leadership of the team is my most important task. At every election in the last few terms, we have brought in new Ministers and MOSs, people with potential, or Backbenchers and became Ministers. In 1997, we had Mr Lim Swee Say and Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim. In 2001, we had Dr Ng Eng Hen, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Dr Balaji Sadasivan and Mr Raymond Lim. That was a bumper year. In 2006, last year, I had RAdm Lui Tuck Yew, Ms Grace Fu and Mr Lee Yi Shyan as MOSs, and Mr Masagos and Mr Teo Ser Luck as Parliamentary Secretaries. And we have promoted, from the Backbenchers, Mr Gan Kim Yong, Mr S Iswaran, Mr Zainul Abidin and Mrs Lim Hwee Hua. So we have a strong team in place because of what we have been doing. Now, we must plan for the succession. Take the Minister for Law, Prof Jayakumar, for example. He is 67 years old. By 2011, he would be 72. I must have a successor ready by then. I have been discussing this with Prof Jayakumar. In fact, he has been discussing this with me. He is anxious that I find a successor because, he says, by 2008, ie, next year, he would have been the Minister for Law for 20 years. I will have to find a successor, either from the present MPs or maybe a lawyer in the university, AG's Chambers or in private practice. Where do I find him or her? Take the next PM. Mr Lim Swee Say said yesterday, "I do not know who the next PM will be." Other countries sometimes have instant PMs or Presidents. I do not know who the next US President will be.”
“I will read just one passage: "To the New Guards soon joining us, may I say this: Welcome to you. Some of you will discover before long that you have joined a Holy Order that expects total commitment from you. That will be your moment of truth. You will then regard the present condition of the Republic not as a pinnacle of achievement but as a base from which to scale new heights." I was one of those who entered politics in 1984. I was there. Mr Wong Kan Seng, Dr Lee Boon Yang, Mr Mah Bow Tan, Mr Speaker, Mr Yeo Cheow Tong and Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon are still Members of this House. I think many of us were there. We will remember the occasion and the words. So how do you keep this going? You have got to build the strongest possible team in the Cabinet, in the Government, to govern the country, serve Singaporeans now and well into the future. How do you sustain it? Keep the good people coming. We have a team in place, but we have to look ahead. You look at the people who are coming up today - public service leaders, such as Ravi Menon. He was in the news recently. He was Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, about-to-be Second Permanent Secretary, MTI. He started 20 years ago in MAS, did not make the cut for the PSC Scholarships. Rumour has it that he failed the IQ test. One of the brightest souls but, fortunately, there are second chances in Singapore. He did well in MAS. I spotted him, persuaded him to go to MOF. It is a new field but he took the challenge. He did well, was given broader responsibilities. So, this year, he is going to be 2PS, MTI. It took 20 years to develop such a person. The Ministers are an equally long process. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong entered politics in 1976. He spent 14 years before becoming PM in 1990.”
“He asked, "So how is it in Singapore you can do that?" I said, "It is our system, our people. It is because we care, but it is also because we know that if we screw up for the long-term, in five or 10 years' time, there is a high chance that a lot of us are still going to be here to pick up the mess, and we do not want to make a mess for ourselves, and therefore we serve Singapore well." So we are looking for Ministers like that. It is not just competence. We are looking for Ministers who must be committed and dedicated to Singapore, are trusted and supported by the people, and determined to improve the people's lives. To do that, they must have a sense of duty and responsibility to build this nation. They must have a desire to serve and to give back to society, a conviction that Singapore is worth fighting for and, finally, the confidence that, if they join the Government, they can do something worthwhile. You are not writing on water and then the river flows on and you have wasted your time. You are building in stone and concrete for long after you have retired, as Mr Tan Gee Paw said. He is not a Minister, but the same ethos pervades the system. And these remain the overriding requirements when we look for people in political office. What is their mission? It is not just maximising the value of our business, but making Singapore something special: a home for all our people, a land of opportunity, an inclusive society, a bright future for our children. Dr Goh Keng Swee said it best. He made a valedictory speech in 1984. He was still Minister. This was his last major speech before he retired. I think it was not published because some parts were sensitive - still are - but the Establishment was there, heard him and has not forgotten.”
“Mr Siew Kum Hong yesterday said Ministers should lead, not manage. I say they have to do both. If we have Ministers who only make political speeches but do not know what is happening in their Ministries, we will be in big trouble. The Minister has to be on top of his Ministry. He is not just presiding as a non-Executive Chairman. He is at least the full-time Chairman, sometimes the CEO, and he sets the tone, makes the big decisions and directs the Permanent Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the Directors, and makes things happen. On top of that, we expect him to go out and deal with his constituents, to hug babies from time to time, and to come here and charm MPs from time to time. It is all part of the job. Those are the Ministers whom we are looking for. Therefore, we need Ministers who have learned this job for years, not just people who rotate in and out of Government. I discussed this last year with an American professor. Not just any professor, but the Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, David Ellwood. He was visiting Singapore for the first time and was amazed at what he saw. He said politicians all over the world tend to focus narrowly on short-term issues. But, here, how is it we are forward-looking, tackling longer-term challenges? What is it which makes Singapore different that we can do this? And he recounted his own experience. He is an academic, studies poverty in America, and spent his whole career on the subject. Then, the Clinton Administration came in, he went into the government to try and achieve something, and became an Assistant Secretary. But after two-and-a-half years, the kaleidoscope turned, and he was out. He pushed for welfare reform. But you cannot reform a welfare system in two-and-a-half years. You may need 20 years.”
“And if we still operated the Ministries of Defence, Finance or Education the way we did back in the 1960s and 1970s when Dr Goh was running them, we would be antediluvian - out of this world, left behind. So I need good Ministers in the Ministries of Finance, Defence and Education at the same time. But not just in these three places, but also the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources to deal with water; MICA to deal with the new media; and the other Ministries too. So we need a strong and comprehensive team in the Cabinet. Every Minister has got to be on top of his job. We have outstanding civil servants. I am proud of them. Some of the MPs have suggested maybe our civil servants do not work hard enough, not assessed rigorously enough, maybe they should be publicly chastised and we should see when you punish them. But I say these are good guys, by and large, and, as a team, there are very few like that in the world. We are proud of them. But that does not mean that, because we have good civil servants, we do not need good Ministers. In fact, if we have good civil servants and we have weak Ministers, the civil servants cannot work and the system will freeze up and we will be in auto-pilot mode. Because, if you want to change GST, if you want to do Workfare, if you want to transform the whole education system or Medisave, these are not bureaucratic fine-tunings by civil servants who write papers. These are political decisions by Ministers who say, "Yes, I want to do this. It is a big thing, it is difficult, but I am going to decide. If the Cabinet agrees, we will sell it to the people. With the civil servants in this framework, now let us see how we can best achieve this." So the Ministers have to both lead as well as manage.”
“And every visitor who comes to Singapore from Asia or Africa and even from Europe, Eastern Europe, they ask me, "How do you do this?" Recently, I met President Museveni from Uganda and the first thing he asked me was, "Can Singapore do an industrial park in Uganda?" It is a great compliment to us. This quality of the Government is one of our most critical assets, most sustainable competitive advantages, built up over many years, very hard for other countries to replicate. It is what Mr Lim Swee Say calls "da ruan jian ", ie, big software. You can replicate computer systems, a department here and there, maybe a service bureau. But for the whole government to work like this, it has to be either all there or it is not there. And so we had better zealously uphold and improve upon it. To maintain this quality of Government, we need a first-class team - officials, MPs, Ministers. This job has become a lot more complex. In the old days, they called it "government"; now they call it "governance". It sounds a bit more erudite but, basically, it means it has become more complicated. In the early days, the Prime Minister could rely on a few key Ministers. So Minister Mentor Lee had Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr Hon Sui Sen, Mr S Rajaratnam, Mr Lim Kim San and, wherever there was a problem, he would send a key Minister to go there to fix the problem. Dr Goh Keng Swee was in the Finance, and when we needed to build up a Defence Ministry, he went to MINDEF. After a while, he went back to Finance because the Ministry of Finance needed to be sorted out some more; then he went to Education when he was needed there. One man, multiple Ministries, but one after the other because, after all, it was just one man. But, today, the responsibilities of all of the Ministries have grown.”
“But after the revolution passed and we went into peace and tranquility, they found that left to itself or left to chance, party politics in Singapore is not going to produce a new leadership equal to the task at hand. If we had not done anything, the PAP would have been like Mr Chiam See Tong's Singapore People's Party - same leadership, same cadres, same ideas, of the past, not of the future. Therefore, Minister Mentor and others went out systematically building a successor team. That is why we are all here today. And this approach has worked. We have had a second generation of leaders, one transition; a third generation of leaders, a second transition. And it is a system of government which delivers results. NEWater - to turn a strategic vulnerability into a competitive advantage. Education - excellent schools for all, outstanding post-secondary institutions. You look at our ITEs. ITE East looks like a university; 7,000 study there. When the Middle East folks saw ours, they wanted to build the same. Our architects are now in the Middle East building four ITEs for them. We will help them. Clean, non-corrupt government and many other things that we take for granted in Singapore, which are unimaginable in most parts of the world. Other countries are very keen to learn from our success. You look at the cooperation projects we have in China, India, Russia, and the Middle East. I tell our people, be careful, we only have one civil service. We can only run one country well. So do not over stretch yourself. Do not think that we can make mini-Singapore all over the world. But people are very interested to learn from us. They want to know how our system works, how our Government works, how they can do the same, how we can help them to get there.”
“" So we are a First World city, we will have clean water, we will have safe food, no problem. They should ask themselves: are we in that happy position? How does Singapore become a First World city? Were we born like this? How will Singapore remain such a city? Supposing the PAP does not painstakingly build up the present and the future teams of MPs and Ministers, will one magically emerge like Brigadier Generals in Mr Lim Biow Chuan's example? Because yesterday he said, in the US Army if 50 BGs are put in an aeroplane, and they disappear over the Atlantic Ocean, another 50 will emerge. If the 90 people in Parliament today disappeared into the South China Sea, will another 90 people emerge? Will Singapore survive, much less prosper, without a capable team in charge? How did we get here? With strong political leadership and effective government. It did not happen automatically or by chance. It will not happen automatically. It only happens through a deliberate and systematic process to build the team, to build in talent at all levels. Civil service - scholarships, career development, recruitment in-service and from outside, Singaporeans and some from overseas. MPs - nation-wide search and exhaustive tea sessions. Ministers - systematic head hunting of talent, with the right character, right leadership attributes and team building, so that there are not so many prima donnas. If I have David Beckham and Marilyn Madonna, I may become busier rather than more successful. We did not start out like this. The first generation - Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Rajaratnam, Othman Wok - they were thrown up by revolutionary times.”
“We are a tiny, multi-racial, multi-religious, one little red dot out of so many little dots in the middle of South East Asia, lack land, lack air space, lack sea space, lack water, and, sometimes, also run short of sand and granite, operating in a fast-changing competitive global environment against very powerful competitors. So, in this situation, what is our model? Our model is "paranoid" government - a Government which worries all the time, which plays a crucial role in this system. It is proactive and looks ahead over the horizon. Whenever people tell you not to worry, you start getting concerned. You listen to people and businesses, you respond to their needs. You produce imaginative sound policies to transform Singapore. You are totally committed to improving the lives of all Singaporeans. That is our system. But it is not just words, it is not just rules, it is not just Instruction Manuals, or IMs, it is how the people inside work the system. It means that you must have a strong effective government - small, lean, efficient - but gathering the best possible team to provide the country with the best possible national leadership. Some people think that now that we look like a First World city, we have arrived, good things will happen to us automatically, and do not need to make a special effort. Why do you need a high quality Government? Mr Low Thia Khiang made this argument. He cited Finland, Denmark, Switzerland. But others think so too. So I will cite one letter which was published in the Straits Times' Forum page, and he said exactly this: "It is not that citizens do not appreciate the fact that Singapore ticks but all First World cities tick - hygienic eating places and clean running water are commonly available in all First World cities.”