与心灵对话

　　LET us start by asking the right question: What is this about? It's not just about the salaries of ministers or MPs or civil servants, it's about our future: How can Singapore produce the best government to secure a bright future for ourselves and our children?

　　Ask yourself four questions: What kind of government do we want? What kind of people do we need to run such a government? How can we sustain this system for the long term? And then only ask yourself the last question, how should we pay those people serving in government as ministers or as civil servants?

　　We can look at other models around the world. The Swiss model is one of invisible government: low-profile, the 30-odd cantons take charge, it is highly decentralised, the country runs itself. They have a president but they take turns, one year, one term. He also runs the Cabinet. It's just pro forma. A model for Singapore?

　　Another model might be Japan, say, in the 1980s, before the bubble burst. I would call it autopilot government. Strong civil service, rotating ministers. Civil service highly competent, managing the policies, basically maintaining the status quo. Ministers, politicians advised by civil servants. Any time the civil servant tells you something, you had better listen because he has spent 30 years there. You are likely to be there maybe 18 months. The system worked very well maintaining stability in a calm environment. When the weather changes and you must dive and manoeuvre, you have a problem because your civil servants can't do that. You need ministers to come out and do that. And if you don't, you are in turbulence, which is what happened to Japan in the 1990s, after the bubble burst. They couldn't change policy.

　　The third example, I will cite New Zealand but there are many countries like that and I would call it routine government - government which works as a matter of course, salaries are lower than in the private sector. Some good people come in from time to time but they are not trying to assemble the best possible team either in the civil service or in the political leadership. Once in a while you have a strong leader like Helen Clark in New Zealand or John Howard in Australia and they last several terms, 10 years, maybe longer. Then the kaleidoscope changes, leaders come, leaders go. It works but it does not aspire to be at the peak all of the time.

　　I'm not saying that these are bad systems for these countries. They work for these countries in their circumstances. But Singapore's situation is totally different. We are tiny, multiracial, multireligious, one little red dot out of so many little dots, in the middle of South-east Asia, we lack land, airspace, sea space, water, sometimes we 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, is proactive, 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're totally committed to improving the lives of all Singaporeans. That's our system.

　　But it's not just words, it's not just rules, it's not just an instruction manual or IM, it's how the people inside it work the system. It means 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, no 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.

　　It's not that citizens don't 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. But they should ask themselves: How did Singapore become a First World city? Were we born like this? How will Singapore remain such a city? Supposing the PAP doesn't painstakingly build up the present and future teams of MPs and ministers, will one magically emerge? We are not like the US. Mr Lim Biow Chuan said that in the US Army, if 50 brigadier-generals are put in an aeroplane, and it disappears over the Atlantic Ocean, another 50 will emerge.

　　Will Singapore survive, much less prosper, without a capable team in charge? How did we get here with a strong political leadership and effective government? It didn't happen automatically or by chance.

　　It only happens through a deliberate and systematic process to bring in talent at all levels. Civil service: scholarships, recruitment, career development in service and from outside, some from overseas. MPs: nationwide search and exhaustive tea sessions. Ministers: systematic hunting of talent with the right character, right leadership attributes and team-building so that there are not so many prima donnas. If I had David Beckham and Maradona, I may become busier, rather than more successful.

　　We didn't start out like this. The first generation - Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Rajaratnam, Othman Wok - were thrown up by revolutionary times. But after the revolution passed and we went into peace and tranquillity, we found that, left to itself or left to chance, party politics in Singapore was 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 SPP (Singapore People's Party) - same leadership, same cadres, same ideas of the past, not of the future.

　　Mr Lee, the Minister Mentor, and others went systematically building a successor team. That's why we are all here today. We've had a second generation of leaders, and a third generation.

　　It's a system of government which delivers results: Newater, which turns 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.

　　Clean, non-corrupt government and many other things that we take for granted in Singapore 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, the Middle East. I tell our people: be careful, you have only one civil service. You can run only one country well. So don't overstretch yourself. Don't think that you can make little mini-Singapores 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. 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 Youweri Museveni from Uganda. The first thing he asked me was: 'Can Singapore do an industrial park in Uganda?' It's 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, and very hard for other countries to replicate. It's what Mr Lim Swee Say calls da luan jian (big software). You can replicate computer systems, departments 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'd 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. Sounds a bit more erudite but basically it means it's become more complicated.

　　In the early days, the prime minister could rely on a few key ministers. So MM Lee had Goh Keng Swee, Hon Sui Sen, Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San, and wherever there was a problem he would send a key minister there to fix it. Goh Keng Swee was in finance, and when we needed to build up a Defence Ministry, he went to Defence. After a while, he came back to Finance because Finance needed more sorting out. Then we needed education, he went to Education. One man, multiple ministries.

　　Today, the responsibilities of all the ministries have grown. If we still operated Defence or Finance or Education the way we did back in the 1960s or 1970s, we would be antediluvian - out of this world, left behind.

　　We have outstanding civil servants. I'm proud of them. Some of the MPs have suggested that perhaps civil servants don't work hard enough, are not assessed rigorously enough, and should be publicly chastised. But I say these are good guys, by and large. As a team, there are very few like that in the world. We are proud of them.

　　But because we have good civil servants doesn't mean we don't need good ministers. If we have good civil servants and weak ministers, the system will freeze up and we will be in autopilot mode.

　　If you want to change GST, or do Workfare, or transform the education system, or Medisave, these are not bureaucratic fine- tunings by civil servants. These are political decisions by ministers.

　　Mr Siew Kum Hoong said ministers should lead, not manage. I say they have to do both. If we have ministers who only make political speeches but don't know what's happening in their ministries, we will be in big trouble. The minister has to be on top of his ministry. He's not just presiding as a non-executive chairman. He is at least the full-time chairman, sometimes the CEO. He makes the big decisions and directs the Permanent Secretary, and makes things happen. On top of that, we expect him to go out and deal with his constituents, we expect him to hug babies from time to time, we expect him to come here (to Parliament) and charm MPs from time to time. It's all part of the job. Therefore, we need ministers who have done this job for years, not people who rotate in and out of government.

　　I discussed this last year with the dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Professor David Ellwood. Visiting Singapore for the first time, he 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 you can do this?'

　　He cited his own experience. He's an academic, spent his whole career studying poverty. He joined the Clinton administration to try and achieve something, became an assistant secretary. But after two-and-a-half years, he's out. He pushed for welfare reform but you can't reform a welfare system in two-and-a-half years. You may need 20 years.

　　He asked: 'So how is it in Singapore you can do that?' I said: 'Well, it's our system, it's our people, it's because we care, but it's also because we know that if we screw up, in five or 10 years' time, there's a high chance that a lot of us are still going to be here to pick up the mess and we don't want to make a mess for ourselves. And therefore, we serve Singapore well.'

　　So we are looking for ministers who are committed and dedicated to Singapore, trusted and supported by the people, 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, then 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 Tan Gee Paw said. He's not a minister but the same ethos pervades the system.

　　These remain the overriding requirements when we look for people in political office. What is their mission? It's 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, his last major speech before he retired. I'll 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. Wong Kan Seng, Lee Boon Yang, Mah Bow Tan, Mr Speaker, Yeo Cheow Tong, Yu-Foo Yee Shoon are still Members of this House. We will remember the occasion and the words.

　　You look at the people coming up today, public service leaders. Ravi Menon was in the news recently. He started 20 years ago in MAS. Didn't make the cut for the PSC scholarships. Rumour has it 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's a new field but he took the challenge. He did well, was given broader responsibilities. So now this year, he's 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. I joined politics in 1984. I 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 that team is my most important task. We must plan for the succession. Take Law Minister Jayakumar. He's 67 years old. By 2011, he would be 72. I must have a successor ready by then. I've been discussing this with Jayakumar, in fact he has been discussing this with me. He is anxious that I find a successor because he says by next year, he would have been Law Minister for 20 years. I have to find a successor either from among the present MPs or a lawyer in the university or the AG's Chambers or in private practice

　　Take the next PM. Other countries sometimes have instant PMs or instant presidents. I don't know who the next US president will be but I don't worry and the US is not worried either. I mean, I'm concerned but I'm not alarmed. But in Singapore, do you want an instant PM? I can have instant trees. But a PM?

　　In Britain, Labour has been in power for almost 10 years. If the Conservatives win the next election, David Cameron and his team will have hardly anybody amongst them who has been in government. And they will be in charge from day one.

　　One journalist, very astute, asked me: 'Have you found the Dalai Lama?' But I'm not looking for one Dalai Lama, one anointed leader. I must find and bring in a whole team of MPs and political office holders. Amongst themselves, eventually, some will become ministers, some will become DPMs and one will emerge and become the next PM.

　　I'm already 55 this year. I just withdrew my CPF. MM retired at 67, SM retired at 63. Singapore should not have a 70-year-old Prime Minister.

　　We are looking for people in their 30s, young enough to be young still in 10, 15 years' time. I want to be able to assemble together the best possible group of young 30s, 40s, so that we can offer Singaporeans the best choice. Ten years from now, one of them at least will be ready to take over as PM.

　　We are looking for able and committed people. They are moving up in their careers. Some of them are at the peak of their professions. Some of them have careers but have decided that they will do community work. Lim Biow Chuan is one of them. Ellen Lee was another. Some 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 family. That is a question I ask their referees when I write letters to them 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. We have turned down people who are very successful in their professions and in fact were visibly keen to be fielded, because we were not quite sure what their motivations were.

　　We also searched out people doing good work at the grassroots level who can contribute on the wider stage, and fielded them in the last election. That's 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.

　　In Singapore, entering politics is like climbing a mountain. They have to disrupt their lives, enter the hurly-burly of politics with all its uncertainties. So many demands and new responsibilities, public exposure and constant scrutiny. Loss of privacy. Ministers are like fish in a goldfish bowl. MPs too. Some 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 say yes, go ahead, I do it once in a while. If people wave at you, you wave back at them. If they don't wave at you, you better get scared.

　　You take the 2001 batch. We had seven musketeers or samurais, of whom three were doctors: Balaji, Vivian and Ng Eng Hen. Ng Eng Hen has become Minister, Vivian was Acting Minister, subsequently became Minister. When I promoted Ng Eng Hen and Vivian, I spoke to Balaji. I said, you've done good. Your ministers are satisfied with you but I'm not ready to promote you to be a minister yet. I don't think you are ready but I'm promoting Ng Eng Hen and Vivian and I have to tell you, to be fair to you. If you want to decide that this is not for you and you want to go back to neurosurgery, this is the time. Balaji said to me: 'I'm staying. I'm 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, keep their hands in. But they all decided it would not be fair to their patients, since they are no longer operating every day. If something goes wrong, it'd be on their conscience.

　　Before the last election, I spent a long time talking to many people. I didn't just depend on the tea sessions. Of the people who saw me, nobody accepted on the spot. If anybody had accepted on the spot, I would have made a mental mark and wondered: Should I proceed? Because it would have shown that he didn't understand what a big thing it was I was asking of him.

　　But fortunately, after they had time to think it over and discuss it with their family members and after several more chats with me, a good number agreed to come in, for various reasons. One said: 'I'm a sucker for a challenge.' Another said: 'Yes, I want to do it, my family agrees, I can come in.' Yet another one said: 'Well, I really am not keen because I don't think I'm good enough but if you tell me that you can't find somebody more suitable and you think that I'm up to the mark, I'm prepared to go on your word.'

　　I didn't discuss pay with them but I know that among 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 backbenches, such as Gan Kim Yong or Iswaran.

　　Now, if the gap between the ministers and the private sector is 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? Will we all and our children be better or worse off in 10 or 20 years' time?

　　It's not just ministers. We also need quality MPs. Therefore, you need a proper MP's allowance. We considered this carefully back in the mid-1990s when we first went on this benchmarking: Should it be a token allowance 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. But how about the opposition candidates? Do they have the same quality control?

　　In the last General Election, the National Solidarity Party team in Pasir Ris GRC said that if they were elected, they would provide free health care, and contributed one-third of their MP 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.

　　Eventually we decided that we will have a substantial allowance to reflect the quality of the people we want. Backbench MPs who do their job conscientiously make major sacrifices of their time and their career. 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 you will say: 'You make up your mind: do you want to be a lawyer or do you want to be an MP?' And if you have no bosses and you are your own employer, your clients will ask: 'Will you have time for my problems?'

　　The MPs who have come in as backbenchers have a very tough time. The allowance is not going to make good these sacrifices but it's an important gesture to recognise the effort that they have put in.

　　This way, we've built up a high-quality Parliament. This Parliament may be small, only 84 plus nine NMPs, plus one NCMP. But it compares well with Parliaments in developed countries. We are not as eloquent as the British in the House of Commons. We may not be as rude as the Australians in Canberra 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, the animals on the other side'. I apologise for the unparliamentary language but in that we cannot compare.

　　But in the quality of the debate, in the preparation that goes into the speeches, in the thinking, we compare with any of them. And, man for man, if you meet them, I think our people measure up. That has shown itself even in this debate on this subject.

　　Just now I mentioned the dean of the Kennedy School. Now I read you an e-mail from a former dean, Graham Allison, whom I've known for 25 years. 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 a minister making $1.2 million might be underpaid will strike most Americans as incredible. But I would say, 'Right on!''

　　He's 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's 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 practise that bit of common sense. Good for you.'

　　His is not an uneducated view. It is the view of somebody who headed the School of Government in Harvard.

　　We are not arguing the merits of this pay increase in the abstract, but with the benefit of the experience of the years of operating the system, adjusting it and moving step by step.

　　In the civil service, we've maintained an inflow of talent, not just the Admin officers but also the other services. Quality has gone up because we've been able to turn over the under-performers, we've brought good people in and it's no longer so easy now for the private sector to poach from the government.