Untitled Document

Speech by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew during the Parliamentary debates on Singapore 21 on 6 May 1999

Mr Deputy Speaker, first, let me congratulate the members of the Committee and its Chairman for having spent so much time and effort to crystallise 6,000-odd views into a few pages.

The discussions in this House, which I have read and sometimes listened to give hope that what we started umpteen years ago is being pushed forward. No society is static. No society remains, either going up or going down. We did the easier part, getting raw, basic clashes to be muted, distributing the population into mixed housing estates, sending them to the same schools, preventing them from segregating. It will take much more to get them to finally accept each other and begin to trust each other. And it takes just one mishap and you will find segregation begins all over again. Only those who have seen in raw life what happens to people when they clash - and your uniform is your face, your shape, your appearance - will understand what primeval hate is.

We now have a stable, quiet, relatively placid situation. And on this, we build. I have seen societies of a very high standard go down in its civility. The Britain I went to in the 1940s, after seven years of war - 1939 to 1945 - was a very civil society, which I admired greatly. Now, bombs, lone bomber, IRA bombs, football hooligans. What went wrong? I do not know. Immigrants? Travel? Foreign influence? TV? But something has been lost.

I have seen the Japanese as conquerors and I saw them rehabilitate and re-establish themselves. I could not help reluctantly, but admire their sterling qualities as a nation, as a race, the Yamato race. And they have all the advantages of homogeneity, solidarity and total commitment to each other. But even they now, under the impact of globalisation, open to foreign influences, are faced with heart-wrenching problems of both their economic restructuring which will alter the nature of their society and life-time employment, and also the way in which they interact with the world. Japan now has over a million families working abroad. How do they re-absorb the children of these engineers, executives, managers who have been educated in Japanese schools but exposed to foreign influences? I know of Japanese diplomats who have travelled all over the world with their families, and their children have been unable to fit in, and have settled in Los Angeles or London, or elsewhere. They are faced with very serious problems of change, and so are we.

The past is valuable in telling us how we got here, and having us understand what are our perils, what are our fault lines, and do not mistake them. They are not going to disappear in 20, 30, 40 years. But if we are aware of it, it is like living with an earthquake fault. We can build buildings which may be able to stand the shocks. That is my hope.

I am disappointed with the Opposition, particularly Mr Chiam. It is Singapore's culture that if you are the Opposition, you oppose. And he is unable to see, good man though he is in many ways, that this is a basic issue of the future of our society. He says it is a PR effort. Enormous amount of energy, work went into it! I read the Committee's deliberations or summaries of it, and congratulated and encouraged the Minister of Education. It is in the right direction. But it is not easy, and it will not be accomplished in one generation. Some of the things that some Members have spoken of may not be achieved in 20 generations. You can have cultural change and acculturation. But to have a DNA change, to have it into one melange, that is not easy.

Will we become one tribe? Not possible. If we try, we will bring misfortune to ourselves. Because there are tribal elements in our society that say: I want to be myself. The Sikhs do not want to be absorbed. The various Muslim sects themselves do not want to be absorbed by other sects, let alone by other religions. And I say, leave well alone, let us find common ground, because those are the cards that we were dealt with. So much easier if we are all one race, one language, one religion. And that was Jafaar Albar's cry when he wanted to beat us down: Satu bangsa, satu bahasa, satu ugama. That excludes me, of course, and excludes a lot of other people.

So having gone through that stress, we came to the conclusion that we have to be the opposite, tolerant of each other, accommodative, multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-cultural. In other words, I am not foisting myself on you. But we face severe challenges. What has gone before cannot be extrapolated easily into the future.

In the last eight and a half years since I resigned as Prime Minister, I have had the advantage of time and the opportunity to attend meetings with top bankers, top executives in different parts of the world, and I concluded that our previous aspiration of becoming the centre for Southeast Asia is inadequate, because this is a global stage, whether you like it or not. Therefore, to play in this global market, you must have talent of a global standard. Perhaps more time should be spent to get this message across. Maybe the Member for Ayer Rajah would better understand. Yes, we have good bankers. But he is wrong, if he believes that the Singapore banks are thriving because they are wonderful bankers. Because I protected them with Koh Beng Seng. I prevented the foreign banks from opening branches and having ATMs, and allowed Singapore banks to place their ATMs and their branches throughout all the HDB estates, and they grew. And now they have become important financial international institutions for us. But if they continue to play in that league, we will be wiped out. Why do I say that? Because of the speed with which technology is going. Because I have been exposed as a member of an international advisory board of a big American bank, I have seen the speed at which they themselves are changing, and they are spreading throughout the world. And we cannot stop them. We cannot continue with this protectionism.

I gave away the productivity prize at Suntec City to some 30, 40 people. One of them was a Citibank man, and Citibank is one of the best retail banks in the world. So I asked him, after the ceremony, "When we liberalise, what do you expect?" He said "I will treble my customer base." I said, "Why?" He said, "I have got international products." Banking is no longer just taking in your deposits and then lending it out on mortgages. As a society matures, people earn enough to begin to want to make sure that their money is put to good use, will multiply, and in their retirement, they have a comfortable nest egg. So banks offer this. A good bank has got a whole panoply of products. What is it you want? Children's education, I offer you this; your old age, offer you that. Therefore, Citibank combined with Travellers. Why? Travellers has developed in America the most extensive network of customers to whom they offer the widest panoply of products - insurance, anything you want, mutual funds, the lot. But it has not got the international reach to customers world-wide. Citibank has that. They came together. And once they have settled their internal problem of two managements coming together, all those super-products which our banks cannot think of, but which Travellers has already worked out, and are all in computers, they will go worldwide, and you are wiped out.

Citibank does not want branches any more. With an educated population, you only need an ATM. And in time, you do not even need any ATM. You can do Internet banking. You need the ATM only for drawing out cash. And once you have the cash card, you do not need the ATM. You put your cashcard, your smartcard into your computer, and you draw and you top up, or you pay in. So where is the ability of the Singapore Government to protect our four big banks? It will be gone in 10 years or less. So unless we move forward, and fast, we are wiped out. We will be marginalised, and marginal players in our own domestic base. And it is a very dangerous position to be in. We will be like New Zealand. They have been wiped out. There is not a New Zealand-owned bank that can back the New Zealand economy if it runs into trouble.

I have spoken to the bankers for the last six, seven years to move, but they have run in the same old way, too comfortable, please give us more time. And they did nothing in that time until we decided to move and we said, "Right, we will move. DBS and POSBank with the top management will take over your business." That forced OCBC to start looking, to upgrade it management. It wanted a Chinese because it thinks it is important that the Chinese culture in the bank must not be upset; hunted and found Mr Alex Au, who made Hang Seng Bank a success in Hong Kong, and was taken by StanChart in London. They brought him back here.

But it is more than one man. Neither Alex Au nor Mr John Olds can succeed unless they find a team to inject into every department the level of expertise that we will require to meet the competition. Ten years ago, if you had asked me, I would say we were doing not badly in banking. Now I am convinced we are headed down the hill. And this is an enormous opportunity for us. We are one of the few countries, besides Hong Kong, where our banks are standing up. We have got the credibility; we have the resources. This is the time we can upgrade ourselves and form partnerships with banks in the region, upgrade them, inject capital, inject expertise.

It is not just in banking. I could go on ad infinitum, because I spend much time on it. The same globalisation process is forcing SIA and NOL to compete world-wide. You can be a beautiful regional airline. You will be marginalised. Because the customer wants to go to odd places that SIA does not go to. I want to go to Buenos Aires, Santiago. The American airlines are going global. The Europeans have seen the light and they have decided they must have a few airlines that can compete globally. So they have lifted their restrictions within Europe and allowed free competition, so that in the next few years, two, three or maybe more airlines will emerge who can then take on the Americans and go global. Then wherever you are stranded, Seoul, Nairobi, Lagos, you just go to the airline, whichever airline, and say, "Here is my ticket. I want out." We have not got the critical mass to go global. So we have to team up and go global in a relay team, So SIA, like it or not, teams up with Air New Zealand, Ansett. Code-sharing alone with Delta Airlines and Swissair does not work. It is going with Lufthansa. It has got to go into some other network so that when you book into an SIA ticket, stranded anywhere in the world, there is this relay that will take you out.

You have to be a global player. That means your management must be global, of that standard. Same with NOL. NOL unfortunately bought into APL, just before the market turned down. But if you want to be in that industry, you got to cover all the Pacific Basin ports. So it is in trouble and Temasek is the biggest shareholder. Temasek decided to look for the best Chief Executive, shortlisted them and decided on a Dane who ran Maersk, one of the top shipping container lines. It is the only way we go. Either we go that way or we are marginalised and our horizon shrinks.

Finally, we come to the total talent. Why do I bring up unmarried graduate mothers? Because the talent pool cannot expand or even retain its present size if you take out of that pool your best mothers. It is as simple as that. And the impact is being felt. We talk of creativity, entrepreneurs, initiative, drive, yes. At the end, in any field, the top men have got top minds, good balance, good judgement. You can take any member of any US Fortune 500. And that is drawing out of a pool of 260-something million Americans. We have 3 million Singaporeans who are not reproducing themselves in the optimal way. If we do not draw in these talents, we will be marginalised. The other countries in South East Asia will offer markets. The banks want to come. Huge customers to whom they can sell new products which the local banks will not be able to offer. All this will go on but so long as Singapore has got its four banks competing, we will be all right.

Yes, every Singaporean counts. That is important. But when the final decision is made, as with every committee and as with every Cabinet, some people's judgement counts more than others. And no Prime Minister will stay long in his job if he does not understand that. You listen to every Minister. You are not an expert in banking. I was not. You have to go by the judgement, having read all the details, whose judgement you think is sound. And all this is possible only if there is not only leadership but a leadership that can interpret its will and its plans into action.

I learned a lot from the Catholic Church. They have lasted nearly 2,000 years. The churches that have no hierarchy they have not lasted very long. We have the Quakers, Baptists, and so on. But this church has lasted 2,000 years. They have a core of Cardinals who then elect the Pope. And they have a priesthood that keeps the faith and the flock. We need them. We need a core of people who are dedicated to the survival of Singapore and Singaporeans because every Singaporean counts. But for their survival, we need this extra. If your computer has got 32 megabytes and you are putting in a program that requires 128, you'd better go out and start buying extra and put it in. And if you find your Pentium II too slow, you go and buy your Pentium III, or you are not in the game. You cannot download, you cannot interact.

Finally, it comes down to what kind of an administration do we have that will be able to translate the ideas, the plans of a Government. And what kind of a political establishment do you have that will ensure that there is a flow of talent, of talented people, Singaporeans, and they have to be. This is one area where non-Singaporeans are out because I am entrusting the future of 3 million people into your hands. And I want to make quite sure that your instincts are immediately for Singaporeans. I do not know whether other political parties will ever be able to duplicate what we have done. But the PAP has built up a cadre of membership of several thousands of which some 80 are Members of Parliament and a grassroots leadership which Mr Ang Mong Seng has said is now 20,000-odd.

But most important is the core in the civil service of expertise on how to run the various Ministries. So at the end of the day, we need this framework. Yes, we are safer now than in the 1960s which used to worry me because I could count the number of people on whom I had to depend to get things done. But without that hard core, there is no Singapore.

I have listened to Mr Simon Tay. I wish it were possible that just by our being civic minded, by having more NGOs, we will throw up another leadership. It will not. It does not happen that way. That is the problem many countries face.

At the end of the day, in Indonesia, they have to choose between an elite which has been brought together by 32 years under President Suharto. It may or may not be able to completely abandon its past, but it is a conglomeration of different talents in Indonesia that has been able to run the country. They may change at the top. But the central core of people who have been running the system, whoever gets to the top will find that he has to draw from the same group.

That is the problem that the Malaysian opposition faces. UMNO has been at the heart of Government since 1955. Keadilan has got to offer an alternative. What is the alternative? That is their problem. As a very shrewd political commentator, Samad Ismail, said, "That's their problem."

What is the alternative? And that is Singapore's problem. You have listened to Mr Chiam. You have listened to Mr Jeyaretnam. I ask you, "What is the alternative?" I am not interested in what political scientists say. I am interested in the real workings of Singapore. Why have we brought Mr Simon Tay and the others in as Nominated MPs? Because we want to hear serious men and women with serious ideas so that we can engage the population in a dialogue. But will you come out and spend the next 30 years of your life running around building a grassroots organisation? And at the end of the day, when election time comes, put up the posters, find the people whom you can enthuse and vote for you? That is a different problem.

And that comes back to the nature of our society. You come back to Singapore 21. We are not Americans. In certain respects, I wish we could have become more American in their grassroots volunteerism. Sometimes, late in the evening, when I finish with my work, I will check with my wife who has been reading all the literature that I brought home. All the various associations send me their newsletters. And she would talk to me about the American newsletter. This is 20, 30 years ago. As a result, they keep on sending it to me till today.

In the early days, the first American expatriates came, they formed a committee to help other expatriate wives and families to familiarise themselves, where to shop, where to get doctors, dentists, what is reliable, what is not reliable. And they formed committees to help newly-arrived wives to adjust. The American Embassy had nothing to do with it. The Singapore International Foundation has to go out, send people from Singapore to Sydney, Perth, Vancouver and London to organise them. That is culture. One has a civilisation where in covered wagons they went across the prairies and fought the Red Indians and said, "I am going to form a town here. And this is High Street, this is Main Street. I am the banker, you're the sheriff, he's the mayor. Now, let's get going." That is a different history, started with the Mayflower and a lot of other ship-loads of them.

We have a different past. And if you dismantle what we have done so far, you will never rebuild anything to take its place in time. We have got this far and I am greatly encouraged that we are pushing this big boulder up the hill. If you can achieve half of what this S21 Report says, in the next 20 years, that is a tremendous triumph. And it will require tremendous efforts to get there. But I take great satisfaction that there is a team in place that can do this and can listen to Tan Cheng Bock who has a different point of view.

On OB markers, let me put it very simply. If your intention is to improve Singapore, you do not worry about OB markers. It is as simple as that. It is when your intention is to twist your Minister's tail, to show that you are smart, that is risking it. I think Claire Chiang says, "Should not criticise people when they make foolish suggestions." But this is part of the open debate. If you do not demolish a stupid suggestion, it may take root and it would create problems for us to demolish it later. It is a free country. But you must not be afraid. No American is afraid to be demolished. He comes out with something stupid, he gets a clout, he shrugs it off, maybe comes up with another silly letter. But in our society, face is important. So we will try, when you twist my tail, I will only tweak your ear. But this is a serious business and I think we should be able to make it.