Transcription
To some of us sensitive flowers in the west. The authoritarianism that underpins that approach to managing a society feels uncomfortable to us.
This tense interrogation took place in May of 2015. On one side, the man who was then Singapore's deputy prime minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam. On the other, Steven Sackur, host of what was then the BBC's flagship program, Hard Talk. Sackur has just hit Singapore with a classic question full of BBC arrogance, using the label "authoritarianism."
In the content that follows, you will witness a textbook masterclass in intellectual takedown. Tharman, operating at the top of his game, will dismantle every one of Sackur's accusations with clear logic and subtle irony. From the definition of press freedom to the profound governing philosophy of a trampoline, not a safety net.
Ten years later, as we look back on this exchange, it becomes more profound than ever. Because history, it seems, has played a cruel joke. The Anglo-American model of governance that Sackur was so proud of is now in trouble, while the Singapore he interrogated continues its success. This is a brilliant lesson in governance from a decade ago. Let's continue.
Yeah. So that's that's a caricature. I mean, even The Economist, which is not exactly a cheerleader for Singapore, has, uh, would say, as it just did on its, in its, um, uh, editorial form of orbiter when Mr. Lee Kuan Yew passed away, uh, that Singapore has free, fair, and regular elections. We are a parliamentary democracy. Not in exactly the same mold as Britain or the United States, certainly. No.
But we are a parliamentary democracy, and an elected government makes decisions which it feels are the best in the best interest of the country today and for the future, and we are accountable for it.
Yeah. I mean, it's a democracy of sorts. You, you don't have a genuinely free, truly liberated press.
Not in the British sense.
No. Well, not in any, I mean,
but in the,
much as I'd like to take credit for the notion of a free press, not a British idea.
I didn't mean it entirely as a compliment, but I, but as a, as a description.
Uh, you, but as a description.
You are missing page three of The Sun newspaper, and that's no great loss. I agree. But, but, but actually, there is a serious point when when journals that are respected and and have a role to play, like, you know, the Far Eastern Economic Review for years and years areounded by no. The rules are very clear and simple there. Singapore is an extremely open society by virtue of the number of foreign publications that are circulated, you know, well over 5,000. The fact that Singaporeans are probably more than any other society broadband penetrated. The fact that they're English educated and have 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 of reply. And when publications, as you know very well, uh, refuse to publish, uh, 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 Griffiths' point this morning, a liberal order economically, socially, and politically. We all need some liberty, some 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 a free med, the freest possible media is not the only liberty we aspire to. I, 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, 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.
Well, I did, I, I think we're getting into a very interesting area, and Singapore to me is the sort of, um, 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'd 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 a China, for example, and we'd say "not free society." You know, they have capitalism of of a sort, but they certainly don't have democracy. And we'd say "not free and dysfunctional politically." You sit in neither camp 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 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, uh, political economy and innovation and long-term sustainable economic success through innovation, whether 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, uh, Lee Kuan Yew would never have expected that Singapore would remain what it is today forever. Uh, 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, social choices. It 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, information they read on the internet or in the media, are able to make their own minds up. I think that's a very, that's a worthy ideal to 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 religious belief, the freedom to aspire in life and achieve what you want through hard work. Very important liberty.
But simplistically put, is there going to be room for more individualism in Singapore?
Yes.
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 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 technologically 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.
But will Singapore always be the kind of society where the government says, ultimately, you can't live there because the quota for your particular ethnic grouping has already been reached. You've got to go and live there. Is it going to be that kind of society forever?
That's, uh, imponderable. I think it'll be naive to think that, uh, you can lift it and people will be, they will automatically gravitate towards diverse, uh, neighborhoods, and you won't, in fact, get the reverse. Because if you look at the most advanced democracies, that's exactly what's happened. You have, you have in the United States, you have in France, you have in Germany, you have even in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, half the Muslim population lives in your bottom 10% of neighborhoods. Did it happen because of some random chance, or does it happen because that's the natural workings of society? We have to address these facts honestly and realize that, look, human beings aren't perfect. Everyone has biases, discomforts, a sense of liking or distrust for each other. And there is a role of government and elected representatives to unify people. And it doesn't happen through speeches. It means you need mechanisms, you need instruments. They mustn't be too constraining on individual choice, but you do need to constrain something. And do you end up a better society or don't you? That's the test. Not whether the government is right. Do you end up a society that people feel more comfortable in? That's the real test. And I'm, it's easy to talk about Singapore, but quite frankly, this is a challenge we all face.
Oh, absolutely. I mean, listen, I, I know full well that the, the sorts of issues that come out of of making, uh, an ethnically diverse nation work are extremely important to a whole bunch of nations far beyond Singapore, not least my own. But, but it seems to me you are now facing some of the problems that, uh, other nations have have faced for quite a long time. Let's talk a couple of specifics. One, immigration.
Big issue in Singapore today. In fact, one could argue it's one of those issues which is is prompting a new kind of very active, passionate debate where opposition is actually, you know, coming out onto the streets, using the internet in ways that we haven't seen before. Because your government looks at the demographics of Singapore, looks at the need to keep growth going, and thinks, you know, our own people aren't having many babies. We are going to have to manage continued immigration into the country to the tune of, I think by 2030, the plan was to turn a population of what, 5.3 million into 6.9 million.
Not a plan, but they were, it wasn't a plan.
It was mooted anyway, and it drew an awful lot of opposition from native Singaporeans.
Uh, so what are you going to do? You know, you've got, you've got this problem. You need the numbers, but immigration, like in so many nations around the world, is now a hot and difficult political issue. What are you going to do?
So, it's a, it's a challenge that many countries face, and small countries face it more than others. Switzerland faces it in a very, um, pointed way. Another small country that, um, uh, not only needs people for the sake of numbers, but its companies need talent and specialized skills to compete internationally. But we are a society. We are not just, uh, St. Gallen, or Stoodgard, or San Diego. We are a country. We are a nation. And that means it has to be a nation that people feel is their own. It's got to have social mores and, uh, a tone that people feel is Singaporean, but with an openness that allows us to take advantage of the skills and expertise and track records and networks of foreign, for foreign, foreign individuals. So staying open but remaining Singaporean at the core is what we have to achieve. And it's a matter of balance.
What are you actually, are you going to bring in this new, uh, what, 30% of your population by 2030 or not?
So, we, we already at one-third of our workforce that is foreign, and we hope to keep it there as long as we can without letting it rise indefinitely.
And that's, uh, something we implement through labor market rules. We've got levies, we've got quotas, and so on. Uh, but you, you can't have a free-for-all. You can, if you are one city in a larger country, but we are a country by ourselves, and you need a balance. And integrating foreigners in our society is just as important as thinking about the numbers, just as important as thinking about the quantity. You've got to integrate people as well as you can. And Singaporeans have to feel that, yes, this is my country, but I'm proud to be working in a world-class team.
Now, another challenge you face, uh, is on the size of government. You know, you've talked already with me about the, uh, investments made in housing, for example, and that's going to increase. I know it's a huge part of the public budget. Education, you know, we all, I mean, British politicians are in the election, they say we're failing in education. Look at Singapore and they cite your amazing exam record and your numbers of skilled graduates and the way in which you skill up your people. So you invest huge amounts in education. If you look at the figures, you know, your, your government is actually an advocate of massive state spending. I mean, that's the way you run your country. And because you've got such a successful economy, you've managed to do it without, you know, with budget surpluses until last year, where you just fell into into a deficit. And I don't know whether you are worried that looking forward, particularly if you mix demographics with the size of your government and the ambition of your government, you are going to run into real problems.
So, uh, I think we're a very interesting case of a country that has low government spending, by the way, by most standards, as a percentage of GDP, low taxes.
As long as your GDP keeps climbing.
Uh, yes, but, but our starting point is not a bad one. We've got relatively low government spending and revenues, but we are able to achieve the social outcomes that countries with much larger spending do. And how do we do it? I think one of the very important lessons of the last 50 years is that traditional concepts of welfare and social expenditure and government intervention have led to a weakening of private initiative and personal responsibility. Not because that was the intent. It never was the intent. It was never the social democratic intent to weaken private initiative and family responsibility. I mean, look at the Scandinavian countries. They're one of the, they used to be amongst the most hardworking countries in the world. The Swedes were incredibly hardworking, industrious people.
You're using past tense. Are you?
Present active tense. Uh, I, I, and I don't, I, you know, they're, they're, they're a good society in many ways. So I didn't mean to.
Well, Swedes will get the chance to comment on this.
Society in many ways. They're, and they're willing to pay high taxes to keep their system going. But the point is, there are ways in which an active government can intervene to support social mobility, to develop opportunities, and to take care of the old, which doesn't undermine personal and family responsibility. And that's the compact that we are trying to achieve. It's almost a paradox.
You mean you're a bit more, a bit more ruthless? Is that what you're saying?
No, we are, we are, we are achieving a paradox of active government support for personal responsibility rather than active government support to take over personal responsibility or community responsibility of a safety net.
So, we, we believe in a concept of support for you taking up opportunities. So we don't have.
I believe in the sometimes simplicity of yes or no answers. What about 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 of a successful?
I believe in the notion of a trampoline.
[Music] [Applause]
Yeah. So people are just bouncing up and down in Singapore?
No, it's a, it's a, 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 home ownership, which is why we have 90% home ownership, and amongst the low-income population, more than 80% 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. Keeping that culture going is what keeps a society vibrant.
Yeah. Actually, sorry to stop you for a sec, but I completely forgot to publicize this very important vote we're having, uh, which you guys have all taken up without me even prompting you. So, just by way of getting those who haven't voted to vote, you know, we have got this question which we're going to review at the end, but we can see where it's going already. After 50 years of growth and prosperity, Singapore will face the same structural challenges as the rest of the developed world. Well, uh, 71% of you disagree, presumably you believe, uh, as the Americans would say, in Singaporean exceptionalism, um, which is an interesting idea. Do you believe in Singapore?
No, I don't. I don't at all.
Very little of what Singapore does is invented in Singapore. Very little. Uh, our whole, to use the jargon, SOP, you know, standard operating procedure, whether it's in cabinet or statutory board or a small public agency, is look at the rest of the world, try to get some idea, some technique, some method that has worked well, and see how we can do it in Singapore, if possible, better. Try to avoid the mistakes that have happened. So that's an advantage of smallness. By the way, we never thought that we had it all in our minds. We never, we never think today that we've got it, we've got it all worked out, and this is a successful model, and that's it. We are never in a golden mean.
But actually, getting back to smallness, what you described, and it's fascinating, the, the interventionism of the Singaporean government in the, in the housing, uh, system, for example, or indeed in the education system. I mean, it, it's, it's been so successful, but it is so, um, micromanaged. I mean, that that couldn't happen in a large country, could it?
Well, I think the, the thought experiment that's more, uh, useful is what has happened in a large country and how could you have avoided it? How could you have avoided the, what's happening in the, how do you pronounce the French term, "banlieue"? Uh, how could you have? What I described about your minority populations in Britain, how, how could you have avoided Baltimore? How could you have avoided Ferguson? It's not rocket science. There are many thoughtful observers who point to what was happening decade after decade. And it's not about left or right, by the way. It's not about Democrat against Republican or Labor against Conservative.
It's partly about centralization and authority. In the United States, whether we're talking about policing, or whether we're talking about education or housing, in the end, Americans want their decisions to be taken, uh, at a much more local level, by and large. You know, there's a fear of big government and Washington intruding in people's lives. And many decisions are taken not just at the state level, but at the municipal level, including things like policing, right?
Whereas in Singapore, you guys are quite straightforward. You've got an extraordinarily centralized nation-state, city-nation state, and it is all run from one place, the center.
Yeah, it is a city, of course. And if you want to compare it, you can compare it to other American cities. St. Gallen, by the way, is larger than Singapore. And you have to ask, what is the responsibility of elected representatives? If we believe in social inclusion, if we believe in opportunities for all, we have to accept it doesn't happen automatically because of the invisible hand of the market or the invisible hand of society. It happens because you've got policies that seek to foster and encourage it. And what happened in the examples I've just cited, is that you've got policies that went in the other direction, and they trap people. They trap people where they started. If you're black, if you're low income, you end up where you started. I may be oversimplifying, but that's the tragic truth. And that comes out of 50 years of evidence.
And you.
And we try to eliminate.
You are the world's perhaps greatest example of a meritocracy.
No, I'd never put it that way.
No. All right. Well, I'll put, I'll put it that way for you, then. You are.
I would say, I would simply say we've taken lessons from abroad. We've tried to do what makes sense in our circumstance, and we've got to keep evolving our methods.
Right.
We've got to keep evolving our methods.
I've got to shut up and let the audience ask proper questions in a moment, but one more from me. You've got a problem. You, you made, I mean, Singapore made its great strides in the '60s, '70s, '80s when the rest of Asia was, as we touched on earlier, you know, uh, many of its countries were under terrible misrule, misgovernment. Their economies were shot to pieces, and and you guys, because you were extraordinarily efficiently governed, could make great competitive strides. It's a bit different now. I mean, Asia's full of of tearaway growth economies, you know, obviously there's China, but there are many others too. Uh, suddenly the, the idea of Singapore being the, the great tearaway success of Asia in relation to all the others isn't so true. And maybe foreign investment, for example, might begin to think, you know what, Singapore's gone as far as it can go. There are other places we could put our money and see it, see it, uh, bear fruit better than Singapore in the future. Are you worried about that?
Well, Singapore wouldn't be where it is today if it didn't have to compete very hard against formidable competitors. They weren't always in Asia. They weren't always in the immediate neighborhood, but it's always been about competition. And that's how we've moved up from one level, from, you know, highly labor-intensive, low-skill, low-wage, uh, production to what is now basically high-skill, high-wage enterprise. And it's a constant race. But don't forget the intangibles. Don't forget the intangibles. There's some advantage in being constant in keeping to your promise, sticking to the contract, and building confidence amongst every investor that in 20 years' time and 30 years' time, the rules are not going to change.
And being constant, does that mean that Lee Kuan Yew's family will always be in charge?
No, I, I think that that'll be most, uh, uh, unusual. It's a meritocracy. It'll be most unusual if that was the case. Certainly, it's not the way in which I, if I can, I can't speak on behalf of them, but it's not the way most Singaporeans would expect it to be. And certainly, you really wouldn't want it to be a situation like, um, I mean, if you look at.
I thought about the United States, either the Bushes or the Clintons. So let me, let me, uh, I mean, to be frank, if you look at, um, parliamentarians below the age of 30 in India, every single one of them is a member of a political dynasty. Every single one of them. So let's, we believe in meritocracy. It's hard work. It's sometimes imperfect. There are always advantages in family connections and wealth. But we've got to keep working against that.
What we have just witnessed was a classic lesson in governance from a decade ago. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, with his calm wisdom and powerful logic, perfectly countered every interrogation from his BBC host. He challenged the West's narrow definition of press freedom, emphasizing that a society must balance multiple liberties, such as the freedom for a woman to walk the street safely at night. He offered the profound metaphor of a trampoline, not a safety net, highlighting the core of Singapore's social contract to strengthen personal responsibility through active government support.
The most interesting part, however, is the historical irony of this 2015 dialogue when viewed from today. Back then, Steven Sackur interrogated Singapore's model from his perch as a star pupil of the Anglo-American world. But in the decades since, we have seen the United Kingdom he was so proud of endure the chaos of Brexit, political turmoil, and economic stagnation. The model of governance he championed faced growing division and disorder, and the very unfreedoms he questioned have now appeared in a more extreme form in the West's own escalating cancel culture and speech policing. In stark contrast, Singapore has continued its track record of stability, prosperity, and success over the past decade.
This 10-year-old dialogue, like a time capsule, leaves us with several questions to reflect on. First, after witnessing the turmoil in Western societies over the past decade, does Tharman's argument that multiple freedoms must be balanced now seem more persuasive than it did then? Second, his philosophy of a trampoline, not a safety net, which emphasizes personal responsibility versus the Western welfare model, which has proven to be more sustainable? And finally, and most critically, when the examiner from a decade ago now seems to be in trouble himself, should we, with more humility and openness, begin to reexamine the very models of governance represented by the UK and the US that we have long taken for granted?
We are eager to hear your thoughts in the comments below. If you believe this brilliant lesson in governance from a decade ago has provided you with valuable insight, please like, share, and subscribe to our channel. Thank you for watching.