One corporate chief who was head of a think-tank some 15 years ago passed a scathing judgment on British Cabinet ministers – that of the 20-odd Cabinet ministers, he doubted if three would be CEOs of British corporations.
So, the first premise that I worked with is that, yes, they are interchangeable. But you must interchange them at an age when they are still flexible because the older you grow, the more set you are in your ways, then the less able you are to take on a new career.
I had to choose men from all sources and it was an extremely difficult job as the economy took off. In actual practice, my formula of 80 per cent did not work because income tax returns came for last year. By the time the Finance Ministry and the Public Services Division had adjusted them and worked it out into the salary scales and made sure that everybody’s relativity was worked out, there was another one or two years, and so we were two to three years late. By which time, because we went through a buoyant period, private sector went on another 20 to 30 per cent. Under the new system the only lag will be because the income tax returns are late and analysis and review will only take another year, so it’s two years behind time …
One corporate chief who was head of a think-tank some 15 years ago passed a scathing judgement on British Cabinet ministers – that of the 20-odd Cabinet ministers, he doubted if three would be CEOs of British corporations. Who’s responsible for that? They are. They created that climate of opinion where so much hypocrisy exists and the public believes, yes, it’s glory. Therefore, you do your job for the country. You end up with what they now call “sleaze”. I spent a few days flipping through the English Sunday newspapers and they are just full of it. Contact men. You want to meet the minister? Give me sterling pounds 40,000 a year as a retainer, I’ll arrange a dinner. But it’s commonplace in Britain, where it never was. It only used to be Americans who did that. But hypocrisy has led to that same position.
Then, you know, the memoirs that people have written – Bob Hawke has a highly controversial, colourful piece. But of course it’s not in the same class as Margaret Thatcher when it comes to pounds. Harper Collins paid her sterling pounds 2.5 million. That’s an American publisher, and the London Sunday Times paid her, just for serial rights, a few million pounds.
For the past four years since I stepped down as prime minister, I’ve been studying the external economy and Singapore’s place. Prime Minister wanted me to brainstorm and look ahead. I came to the conclusion that unless there was a major upset in peace and stability, which is not very likely for the next 10 years and probably for the next 15 and maybe even 20 years for this generation, this region is going to boom because it is taking off. It started off with the Korean War in the 1950s when the United States built up Japan. Then the Vietnam War – the United States had to source their supplies from Southeast Asia. From Japan, the industrialisation went to Korea, to Taiwan, to Hongkong, to Singapore. The Plaza Agreement in 1985 pushed up the yen so the Japanese had to relocate their industries at the lower end. Then the Americans put pressure on the Koreans and on the Taiwanese and on us and pushed our currency up, so we in turn had to relocate. And now there is a web of cross-investments right across the Pacific, the western end. Unless we are fools and start going to war with each other, we are all going to boom.
Why PAP ministers are sought after
The corporate world in Singapore knows that PAP MPs have been carefully selected. A PAP MPship is like a good housekeeping seal, a hallmark of character and integrity that adds value to a person. I instituted the practice. If you look through the MP lists from 1955 onwards, you will find that in 1955 we had two barbers, two postmen, clerks. But they were unionists, they were not ordinary people. But with rising standards, every election term, I had to move with the higher educational levels of the voters. This is a demanding electorate. Everybody strives to get up to the highest he can of the education ladder. And he wants somebody who is better than him to represent him. He doesn’t want somebody he can talk down to.
So these people, PAP MPs, are sought after. But let me assure the House that the government enforces strict rules to prevent influence-peddling for the benefit of any person or company. But for that, Singapore will be just another of the governments in the Third World, which we are not. And it is important that we remain different because that is an enormous economic capital for us. Lose that and we may lose about 30 per cent of the rationale why we are different and why we attract different kinds of investments.
In Hollywood movies, you walk into the sunset and music and clouds. But in real life you live on, you become a little bit more infirm, you need medical treatment, and you have needs to meet.
But I have had to recognise, and I have told the Prime Minister, you can’t fight this. Now, a powerful wave has swept up our young and some of our not-so-young. There is an eagerness, almost anxiety, that they miss the escalator that is moving up and that can carry them to golden opportunities. And in fairness to the young, I will add this, with almost a touch of nostalgia for older and better times – it has swept up part of the older generation too. Because the old guards, they don’t just die away. In Hollywood movies, you walk into the sunset and music and clouds. But in real life you live on, you become a little bit more infirm, you need medical treatment, and you have needs to meet. For example, Dr Goh Keng Swee. Recently he resigned from the Board of the Government Investment Corporation in order to avoid conflict of interest situations with the GIC when he advises several financial institutions on investments in Singapore and abroad which may also be of interest to GIC fund managers. That’s quite a shift in the world. It’s as if I suddenly decided that I’ll join Henry Kissinger Associates. And the rewards are in, for key personnel, it’s six, seven figures. Or I don’t even have to leave Singapore. I could go back to Lee & Lee. I started the firm.
Recently, another distinguished former minister, old guard, part of my generation, was deputed by the retired MPs to see the Prime Minister, who told me of this. He was deputed to request that the commuted part of the pensions should be restored after twelve and a half years, as is the case with civil servants. It is not the case with ministers and MPs.
I know what the old guards feel. They have seen me. I’ve said, “You know the rules of the game. You went in, these were the rules, these were the pensions.” But they feel they’ve been short-changed because their fixed pensions have deprived them of their share in Singapore’s growing prosperity. So the PM has to consider the matter. It is the same society, the same old guards who sacrificed. Some of them literally took their lives into their hands when they decided to stay with the PAP and not move over to Barisan in this House in 1961. But for several of them, the history of Singapore would be different and I would not be meeting and talking to you here. We may be in a completely different age and a different world.
Now, let me talk about the recruitment of ministers. In the last 14 years, only four ministers have been recruited from the private sector – Tony Tan from OCBC, Yeo Ning Hong from Beechams, Wong Kan Seng from Hewlett Packard and Yeo Cheow Tong from Le Blond. Indeed, the last two – Wong Kan Seng and Yeo Cheow Tong – were originally from the government: Kan Seng was in the Admin Service and Yeo Cheow Tong was in EDB. All other ministers have been recruited from the public sector, either the SAF or public institutions.
For the future, the position will be more difficult, and I believe the Prime Minister will be very fortunate if he can find one out of five ministers who will come from the private sector. He keeps on trying. He never gives up, he keeps on making friends, he keeps on inviting them to tea sessions. They keep on saying, “Next time, please, when my children are grown up.” They could not afford to accept the offer he’s made to them to become MPs and ministers of state or ministers.
I believe the Prime Minister will be very fortunate if he can find one out of five ministers who will come from the private sector.
We must get a mix of ministers
Now, let me explain why it is important to have a m
ix of ministers from different backgrounds in the Cabinet. I’ll give my personal experience and example.
Lim Kim San was and is a very practical man of business. He doesn’t write speeches and books. Every time he has to make a speech I know it’s a tremendous effort and he tells me, he says, “Must I make this speech?” I say, “Yes, you have to. It’s your own constituency.” But he has a lively, practical mind. That’s why Singapore Press Holdings’ profits have increased. He’s gone in there, looked at the accounts, decided that the following changes will be made, costs will be cut, this will be amalgamated. And it has just jacked up profits, as I knew he would do.
We made him chairman of Housing and Development Board in 1960 when we formed HDB. It was crucial, life and death. If we failed, we would not be re-elected. This was the first year of office of PAP, remember? And there were a lot of zealous idealists who wanted to put theories into practice. One of them, a member of the PAP central executive committee, said, “We must be different from other builders. Other builders hire contractors who exploit workers. We will hire the workers direct, cut out the middleman, they’ll be paid more and we’ll be model employers.”
Ong Eng Guan (Minister for National Development) ordered Lim Kim San to hire the construction workers direct. Kim San was nonplussed. He came to see me in my office. He asked me a very simple question. He said, “Do you want me to build houses or do you want me to be an employer of construction workers?” He said, “If you want flats, then I know how flats are built. You leave it to me. I’ll produce you the flats. If you ask me to hire workers, better look for another chairman.”
So it is important for the PM to find younger generation Lim Kim Sans, people with different backgrounds who will sit down, cross-fertilise ideas, improve and sometimes block a plan which is theoretically marvellous but will not work out in practice.
“Let me explain,” he said. “Every contractor has an elaborate supervisory system. He has his relatives. He has his trusted ‘kepalas’. They in turn have each a gang and they know each person in that group and each person has got to produce results to deserve the pay. Now if I hire them all, including the ‘kepalas’ who don’t know each other, you’ll be lucky if you get half a flat for where you would have a flat.” So I said, “Proceed!” All these ties of kinship and personal obligations ensured success. So I overruled Ong Eng Guan and he built the flats. One block was in my constituency, opposite the former Singapore Harbour Board Union House, Cantonment Road. It’s still there. If that had not gone up, I may not have been re-elected because Nanyang University and all the Chinese middle school students targeted Tanjong Pagar to canvas against me. But they looked at the flat that was going up, they decided these little boys are not going to put up the flats, I was. That was why I came back to this House.
Later, I persuaded him to take part in the 1963 general elections and I made him Minister of National Development. On several occasions, his practical market approach to problems made a difference to the success of projects.
So it is important for the PM to find younger generation Lim Kim Sans, people with different backgrounds who will sit down, cross-fertilise ideas, improve and sometimes block a plan which is theoretically marvellous but will not work out in practice. It has a leavening effect. You need people with different backgrounds. Now if we keep to past practices, suppose we make no change, we just keep on tampering with the system, and every few years we come back here and have another long debate; I’ve had them every three, four, five years since 1972. Individuals in Singapore and corporate entities will flourish but Singapore will be depleted at its heart, at the core. And without this functioning core, you will not have your opportunities.
The Prime Minister is already 53, the Deputy Prime Minister is 43. This team will not last two election terms without considerable infusions of fresh blood. Three ministers have got two ministries each and ministers need 15 ministers of state as backups and they haven’t got it. They’ve only got seven. And they need to be recruited in order that they learn on the job and become part of the team.
The Singapore way works
If our solution – and I believe this one is a realistic solution and a sound one – works in five to ten years, the World Bank will again give us a citation as they did this year. And let me read what they said: “Not surprisingly, Singapore, which is widely perceived to have the region’s most competent and upright bureaucracy, pays its bureaucrats best.” When they use the word “bureaucracy”, these are Americans, they mean ministers too. But they went on to say, “The monthly base salary of a full minister in Singapore ranges from US$13,800 to US$17,300, while a minister of state receives the equivalent of US$5,600 to US$7,600.” They are saying, yes, it works.
One journalist told me that there is some public concern that these higher salaries would change, and I quote him, “the name of the game and attract a different type of person with different motivations.”
I am pitting my judgement after 40 years in politics – and I’ve been in this chamber since 1955 – against all the arguments on the other side. I say this is necessary for Singapore. I say face up to the facts, get a good generation in, get the best of this generation. When it works, the World Bank will cite us again. You don’t get cited because you are conventional, you follow other people. You become a model because you went against conventional wisdom and proved that they were wrong and you were right. And if we can keep honest, competent government, never mind about its being brilliant – that is a tremendous achievement.
Look at all the countries around us. They started off self-sacrificing revolutionaries – Vietnam, China. They went on long marches. Their friends died. Their families perished. Their systems are now corrupt. Their children are corrupt. We have not gone that way because we are realistic and we know adjustments have to be made. There is a price to be paid for hypocrisy. Ministers deal with billions of dollars in contracts. It is so easy. But when discovered, like Teh Cheang Wan [National Development Minister, suspected of corruption], he preferred death because he lost everything. In this society, you lose the respect of your friends and probably also of your relatives.
The fate of a country, when it’s a matter of life and death, you throw up people who put personal considerations of safety and security and wealth aside. But that’s when you have a revolutionary situation, when a whole people depend on the actions of a few. Now I believe if such a situation recurred again, some Singaporeans will again emerge and rise to the occasion.
So it is crucial when you have tranquil Singapore that you recognise that politics demands that extra of a person, a commitment to people and to ideals. You are not just doing a job. This is a vocation; not unlike the priesthood. You must feel for people, you must want to change society and make lives better. And if I had done that and got no satisfaction out of it, then I would be a fool doing it because I could have gone back to Lee & Lee umpteen years ago and ridden the boom and sat back, probably at least as rich as my brother or my two brothers – one is a doctor, another a lawyer. But why not? But somebody has to do this in order that they can prosper. And I am saying those who do this deserve not to be penalised or you will get nobody doing this.
Will it change the name of the game?
Now, one journalist told me that there is some public concern that these higher salaries would change, and I quote him, “the name of the game and attract a different type of person with different motivations.” It is possible that politically and socially uncommitted people from the higher management and professional brackets will be attracted to the idea of public office for this higher pay. I doubt it. But if it is so, and they can do better than the present ministers, they should come out and offer themselves as the alternative. That will be good for Singapore. Far better to have a credible alternative to the PAP than the motley collection of lacklustre candidates put up by the Workers’ Party, the Singapore Democratic Party, the National Solidarity Party, the Singapore People’s Party and so on and so on and so on.
None of them has ever assembled a team remotely credible as an alternative government. Yes, they have got Mr Low Thia Khiang. He is a good MP. He looks after his constituency. But you need more than a good MP. To be a movement, to be a government, you must produce 15 men with the capability to run the government. I am not sure that a good MP can run a ministry. I am not passing derogatory remarks because being a teacher and being a public speaker, especially in Teochew, is a useful attribute. The PAP had plenty of that and they were very useful for campaigning. But at the end of the day you’ve got to sit down, look at the file, masses of figures, and zero in on the critical issues and say, “no, don’t do that, do this”.
If this salary formula can draw out higher quality men into politics, whatever their motivations, I say, let’s have them. It’s better than the opposition we now have. If we can get in opposition people of the calibre of the Nominated MPs, I say Singapore is better off. At least I respect them. I can join in the argument. The only one that I find worth listening to is Mr Low Thia Khiang. The others, I switch off. And I have asked the press. They say, yes, they also switch off, it’s very difficult to put your earphones on. It is a sad commentary on the standard of Singapore opposition politics.
What makes a good government
At the heart of the question is, what makes a good government? That is the core of the question. Can you have a good government without good men in charge of government? American liberals believe you can, that you can have a good system of government with proper separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, plus checks and balances between them, regular tussles between Congress and the White House, and between the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US, and there will be good government even if weak or not so good men win elections and take charge. That’s their belief.
Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas Page 44
