Transcription
Do you believe... Does Singapore believe in the notion of a safety net for those who fall between the cracks? I believe in the notion of a trampoline. [Applause]
It's 2015 and BBC journalist Stephen Sackur is grilling Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam about its policies. They are at a symposium in Switzerland. And Sackur is asking some tough questions about democracy and human rights in Singapore, a country that doesn't have many of the freedoms that many Western countries have. They are currently discussing what is by Tharman's own admission "Singapore's most intrusive social policy". Let's see what we can learn from how Tharman responds to Sackur.
"To some of our sensitive flowers in the West, the authoritarianism that underpins that approach to managing a society feels uncomfortable to us."
"Yeah, so that's a caricature. I mean, even The Economist, which is not exactly a cheerleader for Singapore, has suggested in an editorial when Mr. Lee Kuan Yew passed away that Singapore has free, fair, and regular elections. We are a parliamentary democracy, not in exactly the same model as Britain or the United States, certainly. But we are a parliamentary democracy and an elected government makes decisions which it feels are in the best interests of the country today and for the future. And we are accountable for it."
Notice how Tharman focuses on the good things Singapore has. He also anticipates counter-arguments by agreeing that some of Singapore's institutions are different from Western countries. Finally, he explains that policies are done in the best interests of the people, thus providing a reason for government policies which Sackur considers authoritarian.
Sackur then questions whether Singapore is a true democracy by questioning a specific policy.
"Yeah, I mean, it's a democracy of sorts. You don't have a genuinely free, truly liberated press. Not in the British sense."
"I didn't mean it entirely as a compliment, but as a description. [Applause]"
Tharman uses humor to his advantage and gently advances his point despite repeated interruptions from the interviewer. Sackur then tries to corner Tharman by giving a specific example.
"You are missing page three of the Sun newspaper, and that's no great loss, I agree. But actually, there is a serious point when journals that are respected and have a role to play, like, you know, the Far Eastern Economic Review, for years and years are hounded by..."
"The rules are very clear and simple. Singapore is an extremely open society by virtue of the number of foreign publications that are circulated: well over five thousand. The fact that Singaporeans are probably more than any other society broadband penetrated. The fact that they're English educated and have access to a whole world of information on the internet. It's an extremely open society, there's no doubt about it. We are unconventional in requiring in our laws that we have the right of reply when foreign publications publish something that we feel is false or misleading. We just have the right to reply. And when publications, as you know very well, refuse to publish a reply, we impose restrictions on them that affect the advertising revenues. Unconventional, you might not agree with it. But the larger point is this: I think we all need some humility. We all need some humility on the ways that best advance a liberal order. To take Lord Griffith's point this morning: a liberal order economically, socially and politically. We all need some liberty, some humility as to how we achieve that. Not just for today, but for tomorrow. How do you sustain it? How do you best sustain it? The most thoughtful observers in the West are of the view that you need some buffers. You need some margins of safety. And you need some compromises on some liberties in order to achieve others. And the freest possible media is not the only liberty we aspire to. I do think it's a good idea, by the way, it appeals to my ideals, but it's not the only liberty you aspire to. You do aspire to a liberty of being able to walk the streets freely. Particularly if you're a woman or a child, at any time of the night. You aspire to the liberty of living in a city that's not defined by its most disorderly elements. You aspire to the liberty of having an opportunity for an education and a job regardless of your race or your social background. And you aspire to liberty or practicing your own religion without fear of bigotry or discrimination. Those are very important liberties in many societies, and they're lacking in many societies."
Tharman avoids talking specifically about the controversial example Sackur mentioned, as that would put him in defense mode. Instead, he focuses on a larger point, questioning the assumption that the country must have a press similar to the US or UK to be a genuine democracy or even a good country. Then he moves to an even larger point: there are many ideals, and no country can achieve them all. Hence, there's more than one way of governing a society. Obviously, it's easier to speak like Tharman if you know your stuff and think through issues beforehand.
"Well, I did. I think we're getting into a very interesting area, and Singapore to me is the sort of body politic which we in the West struggle to define in a way because maybe we have a slightly sort of simplistic binary approach to this. We either want, you know, we look at free societies like, I suppose, mine or Western European or the US models, we would say free societies. And then we would look at China, for example, and we'd say a not free society. You know, they have capitalism of a sort, but they certainly don't have democracy, and we'd say not free and dysfunctional politically. You sit in neither camp uncomfortably, as far as we're concerned. We can't really pigeonhole you. But here's a thought for you: Maybe your system is coming to a crossroads or a turning point because the digital age is changing things somewhat, you know, the information flows and the top-down approach that your society has taken perhaps don't fit so easily into a digital age. And I just wonder, you know, when there are theories about the relationship between political economy and innovation and long-term sustainable economic success through innovation, where Singapore is going to have to change. And whether the authoritarian model, if you don't mind me using that word, is going to have to be reviewed and fundamentally adapted. What do you think?"
"So, Lee Kuan Yew would never have expected that Singapore would remain what it is today forever. I don't expect, and I don't think any of my colleagues in government expect it's going to remain this way forever. It has to evolve. We start with the cards we are dealt with. We start with history shapes choices. And the history I described briefly earlier on did shape choices, it shaped social choices, shaped political choices, but we must never be trapped by our history. We have to keep evolving. And it is, it is a worthy ideal to aspire for a system where individuals are well educated, are good judges for themselves of the information they read on the internet, on the media, are able to make their own minds up. I think that's a very worthy idea to aspire towards. But how do we do it in a way that's self-sustaining? And to to think that you simply, if all forces are let loose, whether it's the media or anything else, that you're able to achieve the liberties that matter most to people: safety, freedom of of of religious belief, the freedom to aspire in life and achieve what you want through hard work."
If Tharman is offended by Sackur repeatedly saying that Singapore is an authoritarian country, he doesn't show it. Instead, he again challenges the assumptions underlying the interviewer's questions: first, that Singapore is unchanging; second, that we can immediately and easily allow certain liberties without threatening other more important liberties.
"Simplistically put, is there going to be room for more individualism in Singapore?"
"Yes, it's in the future. So, if you look at Singapore today compared to not even 50 years ago, 10 years ago, it's a vastly different place. It's a vastly different place. Singaporeans are educated, discerning, skeptical and critical people. They know what's what, there's no doubt about it. And Singapore continues to evolve. It's a function, of course, of the fact that we've had some success in education. It's a function, of course, of the fact that, as you say, it's a digital world, it's an open world. So there's no doubt about it. But let's not think that we are all moving teleologically towards that destination that you now see in the United States or UK. We'll all have to evolve, and we all need some humility as to how we progress democracy."
Thaman repeats what he did previously, and does even better. In the final sentence of his answer, he gently calls out the interviewer's ideas by saying "we all need to be humble as to how democracy progresses."
A few minutes later, the conversation progresses to whether Singapore has a safety net. Given Singapore has neither unemployment insurance nor a minimum wage, questions on this topic can be very tricky.
"Do you believe in the education of a safety net?"
"So, we we believe in a concept of support for you taking up opportunities. So we don't have honesty."
"I believe in the sometimes simplicity of yes or no answers. What about so this idea of a safety net? Do you believe? Does Singapore believe in the notion of a safety net for those who fall between the cracks?"
"I believe in the notion of a trampoline."
Tharman's analogy enables him to stay in the game. It's funny and succinct. It also makes the interviewer change the subject, allowing Tharman to explain the rationale behind the relative lack of a safety net. In other words, why the Singapore government favors supporting people conditional on them working hard, instead of unconditional support.
"So people are just bouncing up and down in Singapore?"
"I mean, it boils down to what policies you're talking about. If you provide help for someone who's willing to study in education, to study hard, if you provide help for someone who's willing to take up a job and work at it, and make life not so easy if you stay out of work, if you provide help for someone who wants to own a home, and we are very generous in our grants for homeownership, which is why we have 90% home ownership and amongst the low income population, more than 80% percent own their homes. It transforms culture. It's not just about transactions, it's not about the size of grant, it's about keeping alive a culture where I feel proud that I own my home and I earn my own success through my job. I feel proud that I'm raising my family. It is keeping that culture going is what keeps a society vibrant."