Transcription
If someone were to give you India today, can you do to India what you did to Singapore over the last three decades? I uh I'm Indian by origin. Um and um you've done a remarkable job in Singapore in a few uh few decades. How do you think India can improve in similar ways?
How well you think India's government is doing in separating religion and politics and perhaps what advice could you give to India's new breed of leaders. >> I think all the governments want your advice other side of the balcony. >> Me? >> Yeah. >> Um I don't really have a question but since you've asked me I will go ahead. >> No, I know. That's okay. That's okay. We're just we're just doing questions.
Good evening, Premier U. Uh question. I uh I'm Indian by origin. Um and um you've done a remarkable job in Singapore in a few uh few decades. How do you think India can improve in similar ways? Uh are you familiar? And how do you think the same same things can happen within that country?
India has been a country that has enormous potential and for the last five decades have missed many opportunities to achieve its potential with the IT it's beginning to emerge as a great player in the IT software business I'm told is because there's no ministry to regulate it. So I was interested to watch your new minister for it being questioned. I can't remember whether it was CNBC or CNN or whatever, but he he vehemently and he he was a very able debater. He vehemently asserted that his job was to help the IT industry, not to it. that because it required 24 hours power he will ensure that there's enough power throughout India that power and telephones will be spread all over India so that full advantage can be taken of it. Well, if he can do that and get his other ministers to do that and change the way the bureaucracy works, India will achieve its potential.
Uh I have some reservation because I've had several disappointments. For example, when your last or former prime minister Naringham Rao met my prime minister a few years ago and said you have 7 million foreign tourists come visit you. Why not bring them to India? He said yes delighted. So we put up a plan, beautiful sketch plans of hotels that we will build, tour coaches that we will bring, but we needed an airline with landing rights. And he agreed that Singapore Airlines will form a joint venture with Tata and compete against Air India and all these tourist destinations will be direct flights from Singapore. The minister for civil aviation says no this is a family heirloom. Prime Minister was overruled. The plan is gathering dust for the last 5 years. Now a new plan is out to sell Air India up to 40%. So Singapore Airlines is in discussions with Tata to buy 40%. I am tempted, it's not my business, but I was thinking of dropping a little note to the chairman of Singapore Airlines to say, does 40% give us management control? We're putting in let's say 20% of that 40% and will be run around by Air India management and Air India unions where does it go so why not start a new airline but then it'll be back to the same old story so I don't know what's going to happen we try
>> My name is Anu Singh and I'm also a student at the Luan school originally from India. Five years ago at the founding dinner, you had predicted great things for China and India. I'm cited to India's secular democracy as key to its future success. Five years on, I just wanted to ask your opinion on how well you think India's government is doing in separating religion and politics and perhaps what advice could you give to India's new breed of leaders. I think all the governments want your advice.
>> Nearly it's nearly as sensitive and difficult a question as the last one. >> But I'll give you a my experience of India. I think despite all the failings, highly bureaucratic red tape, uh, inefficient uh, linkages between central and state governments, unwieldy coalitions in the center and unwieldy coalitions in the states, the progress is made is quite remarkable. I mean, six, seven, 8% growth. Once Manuan Singh and uh Chidamaram opened up in the 90s after the IMF said you got to open up.
Uh I think India is under some constraints but not the result of the politicians but the result of the nature of the constitution and nature of the society. China is homogeneous. 90% Han. So when the president stands up and the TV is on more than 90% understanding because the minorities are also learning Chinese. So given the those constraints is done well. Any Indian leader speaking in any language at one time doesn't reach more than say 40%. You speak in Hindi, you might get the Hindi north. You speak in English, you get the upper classes throughout the country, maybe 30%. You speak in Tamil, you get 70 million in Tamil Nadu and Tagal. Uh you speak in Mallayalam I don't know how many 40 million. So that is an enormous uh diversity which makes it difficult to get the same policies through and you can see that after each election you get a tussle of how to form co governing coalitions. But on the other hand because it's kept this uh constitution fluid. So a country with about 30 40 different ethnic groups and 320 dialects and languages has held together. That's quite a an achievement.
Uh then you have the problem the constitution. I was in Bombay two years ago and now this is a fact I don't think but Deputy Chief Minister will take offense at my recounting what actually took place and his position. So he asked me if I would spend 3 hours discussing how to make Bombay a world financial center. So I thought well why not? So he brought all his main ministers, state ministers and his officials. Halfway through the dialogue, I asked him, "Who governs Bombay?" He said, "There's a committee that runs Bombay." I said, "But who provides it with the revenue?" I said, "We do." The state government. What happens to Bombay's revenue? It goes to the state government. I said, "Then how do you dispense with that revenue?" He says, "Well, we spread it throughout the Russia state because there are so many farmers and so on. Everybody has got to be looked after." I then said to him, if you want Bombay to become like uh Shanghai Pong, then you make it a self-governing unit, which the Chinese have done in Shanghai, in Tenchin, in Chuning and a few other cities in recently. Then they deal direct with the central government. The central government gives them the funds for the infrastructure and the revenue is shared with the central government, not with the Shanghai doesn't share revenue with either Changu or Church or any of the neighboring states. It shares it with the central government. And the central government has invested enormous sums of money to make it the dragon head that goes up the Yangi River right up to the Tibetan mountains and uh you there was a period when you had empty building blocks but it doesn't matter. central government has decided this is going to be a great international center and they set out to make it one and now it is one. So I said do that. He looked at me he says what will happen to my farmers. I said you just got to deal with the central government says the central government won't give me anything more. So the discussion ended there. So I said, "Well, then how do you solve this airport which is not world class? The road from the airport to the city which is not what you expect of a first world financial center and the city itself the planning is not as good as it would be if it were governed separately. This can't be done."
So two days later I was I was in Delhi and I met the prime minister. I said this problem can be solved. You see China make it an independent unit. The prime minister looked at me and said you don't understand. I will never get this pass to parliament. I said why you have to go to parliament? Yes. said all this requires an amendment in the legislation and in the constitution and that requires a twothirds majority of some in the central government and in the states we'll never get it passed. So Bombay will always be at the mercy of the Maharashtra government and the Maharashtra government quite wisely takes its revenue and gives it to the farmers because they are the people who voted them in. So I until you break that chain how do you break the chain sir
My name is Satsa Krishna I'm an officer of the Indian administrative service and a huge admirer of your work I think you're the only true nation builder in this world apart from Kimalataturatur I have two questions for you one if someone were to give you India today can you do to India what you did to Singapore over the last three decades and flowing from that second what according to you are the fundamental cannons of good governance which you would like to give as an advice to our politicians. Thank you.
First, no single person can change India because it speaks 320 different languages. Man Singh can speak Hindi. I'm not sure they can speak Punjabi. I think he can. But at any one time, he will have only about 200 million people out of 1,00 1.2 two billion people understanding him. So that is a structural problem which cannot be overcome. Uh if you compare that with China, 90% speak one language and when the president of China or the leader in China speaks, 90% understand him. So it's a much easier country to lead than India. Secondly, as I've explained, India consists of many different dialect and nation groups. Uh there is no connection between the history and development of the Tamil language or the Telugu language and Punjabi. So India is a creation of the British Raj and the railway system it built and therefore it has this limit it has its limitations.
Uh what was the second question? >> What politicians? >> Well they are quite simple. First, integrity, absence of corruption. Second, meritocracy, the best people for the best jobs. And third, a fair level playing field for everybody. We were lucky in Singapore because we started with a plastic young society. So we chose English as our working language which was a neutral platform for everybody. Nobody had the advantage. Secondly, uh is a small country and therefore you can have your edict run throughout the whole country. Uh India is very different. You can say something in Delhi and somebody in Bangalore decides something differently and that's that I mean so I do not think it's possible for anybody to do to India what it takes to bring India together quickly. It's diverse. Therefore, it has to work at its own speed, it own cultural tempo and each marches to a different drum beat. It took me a long time to understand this because like many students of British Empire history, I thought India was more than a concept. India was India because I grew up and I went to India. I realized that there are many different Indas and they are still true today. Yes, you have the English language that binds the English speaking Indians, but that's only up to a point. I think the English speaking Madrasi and the English speaking uh Bombay is probably the only place in India where the various groups meet and feel at home with each other. So if you can make the whole of India like Bombay then you've got a different India.