Transcription
Perhaps we could start off by asking Mr. Lee a couple of big picture questions. Mr. Lee, in your view, and looking at the crowd we have here today, what should be uppermost in the minds of idealistic university students who are truly wanting to change the world, to make the world a better place?
Your mic is on. Oh, yeah, you don't need this. Well, first, I don't think anybody can change the world. President Obama is President of the United States of America, but he can't change America very much. It has already a set society, and change will be marginal with this president. And that goes for much of the European world, and that goes for China and India, and for Japan, and it'll become eventually for Singapore. What you can change is the influence you have have within your own circle. If you are successful, you'll be able to influence your family, your friends, your relatives. If you're more successful, you'll be able to influence those who are not even your friends, but who live within your orbit, in this case, Singapore. If you're truly outstanding, then you might make an impact on people in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, ASEAN countries, maybe for those who are lucky enough who speak Chinese, make an impact in China, and those who who speak Hindi, maybe an impact in India. So the first thing I would suggest you concentrate on is make a success of your studies, because the more successful you are, the wider your circle of influence. The less successful you are, the less people will pay attention to you. They may be kind, they may be polite, but they say, "Doesn't know much."
Thank you, Mr. Lee. If I could just ask another very big picture question, what do you think is Singapore's biggest challenge over the next decade?
I think our biggest challenge is not just over the next decade, but over the next few decades is to maintain the kind of growth, the kind of uplift of not just the material well-being of the population, but also its cultural standards and a civilized way of living. Uh, I was given notice of this question, so I thought it'd be useful if I did a comparison between ourselves and our immediate neighbors. Per capita, according to the World Bank, in 1965, when it became independent, we were $500. $12,000 per capita. Malaysia was $3,335. Philippines $183. Thailand $136. Vietnam and Indonesia, not available. By 19, sorry, by 2010, both the World Bank estimate Singapore that reached a per capita of $43,000. $324. Malaysia $8,500. Indonesia $3,40. Philippines $2,130. Thailand $4,680. Vietnam $1,172. There's a similar assessment by the IMF, more or less following the same differences. Singapore at $43,000. Malaysia at $8,000. Indonesia at $3,000. Philippines at $2,000. Thailand at $4,000. At $1,000. Now, this is per capita for the whole country. Say, I don't think you can compare Singapore, which is a capital city, with the whole of Malaysia or Indonesia. But let's just take Kuala Lumpur or Jakarta or Bangkok or Manila, and you multiply by the national average, above the national average by a factor of two or three. Even so, will be two and a half times that of Malaysia, assuming that Kuala Lumpur has a per capita income which is two and a half times that of the national income. We have seven times that of Indonesia, 10 times that of Philippines, five times out of Thailand, and 18 times that of Vietnam. And what is the reason? First, because we have had since '65 an undivided society, solidly behind a meritocratic system, pushing for higher standards of education, higher standards of performance, and meritocratic at every level. So the best people became taking or took over the best jobs. What will change? First, a political divide, which has already happened. But if that political divide remains a political divide and not a national divide, when national issues are concerned, then the impact on our growth will not be very much. But if the political divide leads to a national divide, and you have constant bickering, as you do have in say, America, between Democrats and Republicans, or Britain, between Conservatives and Labour, or France or Germany, then I think we become just another ordinary country with the same problems. So my worry about the future is, well, we have the same national solidarity, that same desire to increase educational levels, increase performance, and having best people in the best jobs or holding the most important jobs. Once we veer away from that meritocratic system, our performance will drop. It's like an orchestra. According to, there was a period of during the Cultural Revolution in China, and Mao's expertise should go out of the window. In other words, anybody who is readed, who works hard in the fields, can do any job. If you try to form an orchestra out of the best farmers, hardly likely to get a symphony. Now, in real life, you must have people trained in every field, expertise acquired, so that their talents are best directed in the direction in which they can be most successful. We haven't done so badly, but we can do better. And I think our biggest challenge is to keep those principles in mind and not say, "Well, you know, I'm now a graduate, so I deserve more." This is one of the problems we now have. 50% of our population are graduates in the present cohort. But are they really as good as the former graduates in the 1950s? The graduates were 3 to 5% of the cohort. Today, because of the expansion of our universities, National University, Nanyang Technological, SMU, and then the polytechnics becoming graduates of universities in Britain, whose polytechnics have converted themselves into universities, you have a situation where 50% of the population says, "I'm a graduate, I expect these rewards," and they're not going to get it because there isn't the jobs for people of that caliber. The top jobs will still go to the top 5% or 6% or 7%. That's about it. And whether you're a graduate or not, the all, the all it means is that it can put on your CV, and then they'll call you up for an interview, and they'll make up their minds what your degree is worth, what your university is like, but what you are really worth. And as I've said, if you take the lowest in the 50%, it doesn't mean that because they got a university degree from Newcastle or some Moc University or whatever, therefore you've joined the top 5 to 6%. You haven't. The jobs still go to the people who are performers. And even if you're not a graduate, but you've got the ability and you got the drive, you will be in the top 5 to 7%. That's the reality, which I think I have to ask you to, to bear in mind after you graduate and you seek jobs. Don't say, "I'm a graduate, I deserve X number of dollars because that's what my predecessor has gone." Your predecessors were a smaller percentage of the cohort. You may be at the lower end of the 50% of the cohort, and the economy will pay you in accordance to your worth. And all the degree gives you, so put it on your CV, and maybe if they look at your university, they say, "Well, all right, worth an interview," but they'll judge you for what you're worth. And I consider that to be the most important single problem which university children will face. We now have 50% graduates. You tell me, has the population become 50% cleverer than before? No, the rules of genetics do not change.