Transcription
Dr. Go was being posted back to Mindf for his second tour as Minister of Defense. He believed he needed a team of people to take a look at what's going on. People who he said starts off with at least mental capacity to do this.
Starting the ICF was a complete new thing. We never had to build a military defense capability ourselves before and Dr. Go in order to encourage us to try things to think broadly. He had this saying which was plastered all over the SCF. And I said the only way to avoid making mistakes is to not do anything and the final analysis will be the ultimate mistake.
I found it totally remarkable that before Miss Lee met any group of people whether it is speaking to a Singapore audience on something or before he met foreign leaders the most important question in his mind was in the beginning in Singapore there were the 1G leaders. One thinks of the legendary politicians Mr. Lieuanu Dr. Gokui as Rajar Ratnam. Well, alongside them, they needed to be a 1G civil service. And today, I'm joined by a legendary civil servant, someone who served under them and could say proudly that they helped Singapore transform from third world to first. So, it is my great privilege that I welcome Mr. Limong onto the podcast today. Mr. Lim, thank you for coming on.
>> Thanks very much for having me.
>> I wanted to start uh at the beginning of your career uh where you were in the public works department.
>> Yeah. um take us through what Singapore was like during that period in time, what you were working on and what were kind of the early lessons that you had, you know, literally doing the dirty work that shaped your outlook on policy in the future.
>> You know, I studied at the University of Bradley from 1965 to 1969. uh frankly having been exposed to just studying in university um your thoughts about the future are things like uh you know whether you can go on to do a PhD um in fact I had an offer um of PhD fellowship at Cambridge but um uh when I asked uh approval from the public service commission since you know you you take a government scholarship and you have a bond to serve um and they said no Singapore desperately needs you at least that's the feeling they convey. So there was back in Singapore and you just wait a couple of months as to to see where you are posted. So I got posted first to public works department since I graduated as mechanical engineer that made a lot of sense. Um but it was frankly only just a few weeks and then I got posted uh to uh first I had uh at uh the mech the mechanical branch to look after all the mechanical equipment of the government and then I I got posted for a few weeks branch uh which uh runs a seage system in Singapore um which is a job um basically of civil engineers um but they still needed a few mechanical engineers to look after um mechanical equipment and uh in pumping stations that they got. So um uh I I spent almost a year in in Suridge brand. So more my experiences there. So as to what conditions are like you know I've always got an open mind. You go to a place and you say um what can I learn from here? What can I do which is useful here? Um and uh and um so I need to describe to you the very first day uh I turned up for work at the branch which at uh at that time Pay area Kimchuan Sage Treatment Works. Um and as I um entered the gate I saw um a couple of um um workers just painting up a road roller which was obviously rusted. they painting it uh the gray color. Uh and I went in and asked why are the people painting that uh that rusting road roller and I was told oh because they're going to condemn it. You know condemnation is just a term that's used in government that uh if a piece of equipment is no longer um working properly or beyond economical repair um you need to condemn it as a piece of equipment which is not worth keeping. Uh and after you've been able to dispose of it with a contamination certificate, then you can go buy a replacement piece of equipment. So um so they told me that the reason they painting it up is because um uh they need to condemn the road roller to get um a good replacement. Um that of course made it even more mystifying. If you are going to condemn a piece of equipment, why are you painting it? Uh so they explained to me well you know it's because um uh there's going to be a mechanical engineer um uh sent in to inspect the piece of equipment and to certify that it is beyond economic repair. But if they will come and see that road roller all rusted up they will say that the reason is because you didn't look after the piece of equipment properly. So here are the men painting it up so that we won't be blamed um for the condition of road roller. You know the thing that struck me here is wow you know sort of um uh we got clever people they think carefully about what needs to be done in order to get the approval that they need. So uh as I uh started work um in the treatment works my perspective is always about how I can how can I be helpful to the people here. So here are mechanics and technicians working under me whose knowledge is way beyond anything that I can ever know for the for the equipment that they have to maintain. Um so so as a young engineer coming in and here are the mechanics who are more than double my age. How do you how do you make yourself useful? And of course the usefulness I find is because I go in as an engineer and uh if you want to buy um spare parts and so forth you need the engineer to certify this is required and the mechanics cannot do the certification themselves. So that's where I come in useful because I have to certify and so I have to understand um to a uh to to a significant extent as to what is they trying to do. Uh so basically position yourself as helpful to the mechanics and technicians. You have to get the job done. Um but let me describe to you another particular incident. At that time Singapore was was uh subject to flooding quite frequently and there was this massive flood that happened my time where um uh the rivers overflowed and there was this pumping station we had at Paliba which um which became totally flooded um and the pumps ceased to work. Um and before we can get the pumps going, we have to get the water out of, you know, because the pumps are located in a deep kind of well, you know, deeper than most basements you find. Um and so how do you do that? Uh and so they had these pumps working and uh and the pumps um really couldn't um do the job of pumping the water out of such a deep well. Um and so um I asked the workers to to join the pumps together you know sort of and there's one pump which feeds water into into another similar pump so that there'll be greater suction power and the workers turned around to me and said you know nobody has ever done this before um which set me back thinking about what I studied in my engineering at university um and I reckoned um well this this is my um um so reputation um at stake in the minds of um these workers. Then I decided that yeah you know um I believe it will work and I believe it will be helpful. So I told them to do it yeah carry on to do it. If the engineer you tell the workers they'll do it. uh and I'm sure I rose several notches up in their um in their eyes um that the system didn't break down and um and and did did um show itself useful for purpose. So my approach in all this always is uh you think you try um and um if you try and something doesn't work then be prepared to switch tracks. um that it's it's not a matter of pride or um it's always a matter of getting the job done.
>> Just from those two stories you recounted, it's the lesson that you or philosophy that started to develop back then was this idea of just being helpful and trying to solve the problem, trusting your expertise at the same time. Fast forward within a year, you were then called up to be one of Dr. goes um team, one of a young team of civil servants.
>> Do you know how that actually transpired? Why did you choose for example younger folks like yourself who are just fresh out of university as opposed to maybe people who are much more seasoned experience?
>> I think Dr. Go was being posted back to when they for his second tour as Minister of Defense. Um and um he believed he needed a team of people to just take a take a look at what's going on. Uh people who he said starts off with um with at least the mental capacity to do this. Um I was thought to know in fact in the process of um of this um uh latest book on the best is yet to be um I read there one of the um um people who wrote notes on on um on the past um this professor Lu Pchen who was the chief defense scientist of MIDV and he said that he had a hand in in um choosing um all the young engineers that were brought in. I I didn't know that until until he wrote that in the book. Um but all I knew at that time was uh uh Dr. Go um looked like he was given a free hand um to choose whichever civil servants he want from the whole public service. Um and uh and he called call me up go to his office to um be interviewed which he did with a whole series of other people. So uh so I turned up in Mind together with people like Philip Yo and Chongqiwa and um there's a whole bunch of really young people who who is there not because we had um we understood all the technicalities but people who at least look like um they have the energy and the mental capacity to learn new things fast and be prepared to try out stuff which um um nobody has ever done in Singapore before because we never have a defense ministry and we never had to build an armed forces before.
>> and immediately it threw you into the deep end.
>> I'm not terribly sure it's all that deep. The first appointment I got was as project director to to get going um at that time what we call the junior flying club is now called the youth flying club. Um and Dr. go's idea with the junior flying club was to get young people interested um in becoming fighter pilots for the air force. Um and so we created this club and and invited students from secondary school um uh and the junior colleges um and when they get to junior college um to send them for flying training to get what is known as a private pilot's license. Um and so that was the idea. I set up a junior flying club from scratch. Um and and so I worked on that. So maybe a story there again you know Dr. Go remember you as minister for finance. He was a man who is very very careful about spending money. I just want to make sure you get you you spend your money wisely and responsibly. Um and he decided since we going to have all these young people get flying training to get a private pilot's license. He decided that instead of the normal training which take place on light aircraft um he said we should try to use gliders for this purpose because you know the point about the gliders is you get it into the air and and then the plane just glides without an engine running. Um and so he decided that that we should get gliders to do the private pilot license training with um at least the initial training. Um and he decided that we should buy power gliders. So I went along um with somebody who was going to be kind of the chief pilot for the junior pilot instructor for junior flying club. uh we bought 11 of these power gliders, brought them back to Singapore, uncreated a number of them, started flying and soon discovered that we couldn't use the gliders over Singapore. You know, the gliders stay up in the air because what is called thermals, you know, it's convection current up and we discovered that you you get very little of it over Singapore probably because because of our whole environment, the fact that we are an island and so forth. So, so we couldn't use um the gliders. So, so got back to Dr. Go and we decided just to abandon the project and go back to the normal way people train which is get people on the sess and the light aircraft. Um and and just to add on to to that story, it was once we discovered that power gliders were no longer useful, one of the important things I learned from Dr. Go is this point about you know if you discover you try something if it doesn't work just drop it and move on to get something that works. So I don't think we uncreated all the 11 power gliders that we bought. Um but but the few that we did we discovered soon enough we couldn't use the power gliders. So just dispose of the rest even the ones that we are not even uncreated. That was a very very important lesson that I learned and that I learned you know cut your losses and don't waste your time and don't waste don't waste your energies on something which you already know is not working simply because you've taken the decision and you are fearful that somebody may come along and so say that was a stupid idea why did you do a stupid decision it was about you just just learn as you go and make sense out of what you do and what doesn't work just cut it and move on.
>> When one today thinks about you know uh starting for example an air force from scratch many people think oh you know you got to buy all this equipment you have to you know get all this training which is equally crucial but no one really thinks oh you know I need to start a pipeline of talent earlier on get people actually interested. uh this is one of the maybe more underrated components I guess in the development of our air force.
>> Dr. Go saw that when you talk about the SEF as a whole right that Singapore does not have a military tradition. Many parents would not consider that uh uh that um you know having um having their sons join the armed forces is a is a good career choice. So here um even more extreme Dr. Go felt that trying to get the future fighter pilots which all had to be your own citizens um it is something you have to first sort of um convince the public and convince um the the youth um about the good sense about something exciting for their future. And here um again going back to Dr. Go we made a crucial decision. The question was since at that time we never had the any idea of having women as our fighter pilots. Um uh question is whether we ought to bring girls into a junior flying club and Dr. G said yes because these are going to be our future mothers. uh and you want you want them to be supportive of their sons um becoming fighter pilots. So that's how so far thinking um uh and broad thinking Dr. Go was.
>> uh to say you open the junior flying club bring the girls in right together with the boys. I've interviewed Madame Tan and Tanukan who was his biographer and I've interviewed Wiki Bang who wrote his intellectual biography. They both added different elements of Dr. Go's thinking. Um especially with regards to maybe his approach towards public policy as a whole that he treats it very holistically.
>> I wanted to ask you, you know, as someone who worked with him to literally start our modern defense force in Singapore, what else do you see in him that you think more Singaporeans should know of? Starting the ICF was a complete new thing. We never had to build a military defense capability ourselves before. Um and Dr. Go um in order to encourage us to try things to think broadly um he had this saying which was plastered all over the SEF and I said the only way to avoid making mistakes is to not do anything.
>> and that in the final analysis will be the ultimate mistake. He's just encouraging us all, you know, the key is about thinking, about trying, about discovering what works and what doesn't work so well. Um uh uh and and and and therefore knowing that the real problem is if you have people trying and whether for reasons of pride or for reasons not being able to recognize it just keep going on the path which doesn't work. So he want to encourage us to say that um yes be very questioning ask ask ask all the good questions um but the most important thing is try um and see whether it works or it doesn't work and improve on what you can and move on um when it doesn't work. So, so that's a terribly important thing. He introduced a frame of mind, a culture in the SCF which is about curiosity, about learning, about discovery.
>> Yeah. And in the meantime, I wanted to ask you about another role that you had soon after your time in mind, which was that you were Mr. Lieuan's first PPS. So for many of us who don't know, can you tell us what the PPS actually does at the start?
>> Well, the PPS that that name is principal private secretary. I actually went through a few discussions with him as to what we should call that that appointment. Well, you're the principal private secretary. It's it's um you the secretary, you the assistant um to Mr. Leewan, US Prime Minister. And um in many ways, what you do is totally dependent on what he tells you to do. um and um uh in a surprising kind of way. A lot of people like to ask me the question because Mr. Leewan's persona is somebody who's very strict and very demanding and and people always wondering know how was it like to serve um under Miss Lewanu for three years and my answer was those are the freest years of my life. It's because I was his secretary I should only be dealing with what he tells me to deal with. whereas in all my other appointments previously um in public work department and mind and later on when I became permanent secretary um I'm in charge of organizations I'm in charge of certain um uh of of um leading people to to produce um good results u and and because because I am in charge I set the agenda I can tell people this the strategy we want to adopt problem. These are the deadlines and so forth. But for the three years under it's he who sets um the the kind of jobs and the jobs for me to undertake. So those became the previous years of my life in the sense of I got a lot of time to think of issues, a lot of time to read, a lot of time to just learn as we go and particularly because Muani was really really to my mind an excellent teacher. He got me to sit in every one of his meetings um um with officials with other ministries or with with um foreign foreign leaders and so forth. um um he was very strict in keeping me out of all his political meetings um um in the sense of within the political party people's section party but other than that he brought me into all the meetings which was helpful to him because because there already records of the meetings and he left it to me to clear the records. But for me it was an enormous um learning opportunity. um so time was filled with learning but the specific things to do and the deadlines and all that were said I'm sleep on you.
>> One of the things that I saw in a lot of the my readings of third party accounts of him and even in your book was that many people kind of ascribe him to being a person who understood how power worked and some call him the master of power dynamics. understanding power dynamics in your book you wrote that was like one of the first few key lessons that you you you spoke about with him. Can you say more about what that actually meant?
>> Well, although people people talk about he understood power and very often you understand that kind of statement by meaning he uses power to bully people and so forth but that was not what I found. um uh I I found it totally um remarkable that before um M. Lee met any group of people and know whether it is speaking to a Singapore audience on something or or or before he met um foreign leaders. um the the the most important question in his mind was about who am I speaking to? What are they concerned about? what can he do which will be helpful or will be beneficial for the people he's speaking to. He was very clear know for example that when he speak to foreign leaders he says it's important that for Singapore that that we we don't go around with a begging bull. um but instead you all the time present yourself as we understand we have to look after ourselves um we have to do what we can for ourselves but really asking so but what's your concern so how can we understand what their concerns are because their concerns are what what takes up their times their time and their energies. um so so I did find that very very um helpful, very significant. um As a point, there's another thing I want to say though for Mr. Lee. I I remember the very first day I reported um for work under him, he said that you know in the course of your work, you are going to have to deal with foreign officials. He say when you deal with foreign officials you look them in the eye. you never look on the ground because they need to respect you as a representative of the country for you know is such and and that was such a remarkable statement for me um um on my instruction to sort of say as Singapore we carry ourselves um as Singaporeans proud of our country and proud of ourselves and saying that we have a job to do and we are serious about getting it done. We are a serious people whom you can trust um you can trust to to deliver on our promises and you can trust to take ourselves seriously so that so that you know that whatever we say is something that that we are going to carry through. And in the same way they are going to deal with us on the basis of we are going to take them seriously at what they speak about.
>> To contextualize for the listeners, you were relatively young at this point in time, right? You were.
>> Oh, how I was I was 31.
>> Yeah. I remember it was like you were like in your early 30s. So I was wondering was that actually intimidating for you to be in such a room for example where you know a lot of these figures seem larger than life and perhaps older and maybe they feel more seasoned so therefore there was a you felt intimidated. Do you ever feel that?
>> No not really being because first I mean if I go see them they will know that I'm seeing them because Mr. Leewanu has sent me to see them. So I'm obviously carrying a message and a message from M Lee Kwanu and and yeah so so so they take you as as seriously simply because you are speaking in Muanu's name.
>> Yeah. What other things about him that you you feel that maybe a Singaporean today tends to underappreciate that you think this should carry on? Some of the values, some of the lessons that you learned that you think, you know, if someone in 2030 is looking back at our early history and they want to learn something from Lee, this is something that they should definitely take away with.
>> Well, you know, Mr. Lee was very um clear about the governance of a country. It says um you think about it if you're running a company um you might think that to improve the performance of a company um you may want to remove later your underperformers or your marginal performers right for Mr. is very clear. He says but when you run a government you cannot run it like you run a company that that you have to look after everyone in the country. So that was quite striking to me. that the whole essence of of governance of country and the most after all the most important asset for any government is the trust of its people first and also of course the trust that you can that you can build for other people or other countries to have in you. The most particular thing is the trust that you have in your people and in order an integral part of trust is for people to recognize for your own people your public in Singapore to recognize that um uh that they can trust you. We can say that three aspects of trust. First that um u you care about them. uh that your heart and your intentions are good. Second that you know what to do. that you are somebody who can um solve problems and and put the country on a good path. And third that um you'll do what you say um so that you just not making empty promises but it is something great.
>> That you have to deliver.
>> So it's like care, competence and commitment.
>> That's a great way that's a great way to phrase it. Yeah.
>> you became permac and I had to also ask about literally you spending 21 years in the Ministry of Defense. Um, for context, like it's a remarkable how Singapore actually went from zero military to a full-fledged modern armed forces that we have today. Like when people think about the military nowadays, people are kind of they don't have a maybe a rosy view of a of the military and they don't think of the military as a place of innovation fundamentally. A lot of people think of milit military as maybe perhaps legged or adopters. But I think in your time especially when you were leading uh uh as the permac you kind of saw the military as a place of testing on testing on new ideas and later on a lot of the ideas that you started uh when you were in mind became a greater public service initiatives as well. So I wanted to ask you this question about the military which was what was it unique about building up a military from ground zero that you think most people actually tend to underappreciate?
>> Very important part of of thinking about the military is really about thinking about the future. one one must appreciate right um and that the whole idea that we have about the military is is to is to keep Singapore safe and to keep Singapore secure um and the belief of the government that we must have a military capability which is effective for deterrence and the whole point about deterrence is to maintain maintain peace and security. So you succeed if you are able to maintain the peace. Now a lot of people think of military in terms of going to fight and winning the battles. But in the case of Singapore, the idea is how do you develop a military so that you avoid getting to have to fight. Um, I want to say also that u when you look at major pieces of military equipment, very often from the time you first conceive of the need for a piece of equipment to the time that you that it actually becomes operationally ready very easily is 10 years. You know, whether you talk in terms of of building your armored units or you talk in terms of building the air force, anytime you think of a major piece of equipment, from time you think about wanting to acquire it to the time you actually get it operationally ready is probably 10 years. Now you would say how do you know what you need in 10 years time? This is the kind of thing which really drives you to sort of say you have you have to yes of course you have to take your chances yes of course you have dream possibility but frankly if you just see what you're trying to do is build a capability which will offer you the deterrence you think of it differently because you are thinking of it in from a defense perspective when I when I was in mind as permanent secretary I mean one of the things that drove me was to introduce this concept of total defense um you know total defense having at that time just five components of u military defense and civil defense and economic defense social defense and psychological defense um the idea there was to say that um it's not only about military defense it's about the whole of nation being involved in building up that strength and that capability as a nation. The whole idea being how do you maintain peace? How do you build up security for yourself? Um and most particularly because ma because we run a system which is very very dependent on national service and very dependent on the reserves as a major part of your army what they call the army or the army order of battle. The psychological part um you know the the willingness of your own people to be um defending Singapore becomes critical in this domain. So that's why you talk about psychological defense, social defense um being just the critical foundations of the defense of Singapore and there is this also the element of economic defense which is about you know how you look after the economy so that your economy is stable and um and that you can rely upon it to operate even through crisis. So it's this kind of thinking you know that that we are there to maintain peace and security for Singapore and whatever whatever we can do to um um enhance our capabilities to that end that is what we should do. One of the through lines in your work as a public servant is that you've been a strong advocate of concentrating talent within the government as well.
>> And I think that spends or comes from the time in mind especially mainly because as you you've pointed out earlier Singapore when it first started didn't have the culture of wanting people to join the military as a good career. So then you need to solve that problem of how do you actually crowd in talent and that also later influenced your thinking in terms of public service as a whole needs more talent.
>> What's your approach or the way you thought about talent management? How do you actually in a sense stack talent in your favor? My approach when when you're thinking about about people right um is uh every person comes along with his particular talents and abilities and what we should be trying to do within our various public service organizations and most particularly as a government as a whole for the country should always be what can you do to help your people develop their talents and abilities and to be able to contribute view their talents and abilities according to their capabilities. So to me the talent issue really started with the idea about we really want to help every person realize in the best way that we can do realize their talents and abilities. there because you run many organization through a hierarchical system. Then obviously you have to pay particular attention to the people who can reach the higher levels because they carry the bigger responsibility to develop all the people under them to be able as an organization to be the best it can possibly be. So obviously then you pay your you you pay particular attention to trying to spot your people who have the talent to reach the highest levels. um you you pay particular attention to try to spot this talent as early as possible because the earlier you can spot the talent the the more and the earlier you can focus on developing them and the earlier you can get value out of their capability. So that's so that really was the idea of talent a recognition that as you look for people at the higher levels obviously there are fewer of such candidates and so if we have a mechanism by which we are able to let's say make the best assessment that we can it is human assessment so sometimes you make mistake but but you try to make the best that you can to spot the people who can reach the highest levels That's how you get the maximum value for the organization as a whole, not only for the individual person that you put and that you later try to bring on top. No, but this thing particularly in in in the armed forces um became particularly critical because um you in in modern warfare you running military organizations which are highly mobile where things change very fast. Um and basically therefore you need to have relatively young energetic people, people with that energy and with that capability both mentally and physically to be in your to be in your senior positions and your top appointments. So almost in mind therefore you you have this need to develop your commanders in compressed time because you need to have commanders and need to have senior staff officers with all that energy both mentally and physically. And therefore the earlier you can spot them and the faster you can develop them the more you are able to benefit from what they do because there comes a time where physically it's not is not reasonable.
>> uh to expect it of the law. So that's the reason for concentrating for putting all that particular effort to try to recognize um who can reach the highest levels. But as they run as they run this the system that we implement in mind was actually an interest to see um how we can best develop talents and abilities of people at every level. It was not simply a matter of just thinking of the people on the top. M there's a more general lesson across the whole of public service as well but perhaps it is felt the most acutely in the military.
>> Oh yeah right. There is a other strand to your thinking which is that you are obsessed with the future and part of it is that you this idea of scenario planning especially when you're going back to what you said earlier from where you start the conceptualization of say a certain asset to the point of its actual execution implementation takes 10 years and you're obsessed about the future and you took this idea of you know scenario planning thinking about the future into the much more broader public service and one of the the conclusions you had was with regards to the future scenario of Singapore. The kind of possible threats to Singapore is that we either have a home divided, a hotel Singapore.
>> I think the first set of national scenarios we developed scenario planning was first developed in in mind for the SCF actually the first set of scenarios were developed really for the SCF within Mindf only it's only when I got posted out of ministry of defense to the prime minister's office in a public service division that I decided that this was really very critical for Singapore to be thinking about the future and so to the scenario planning framework there. And the first set of scenarios we produced which was published I think in 1997 um it had two two scenarios developed for the external environment and two for the internal environment. the two for the external environment to be frank I can't remember what they were I don't think many people can um but because this is virtually 30 years ago but the two internal scenarios many people involved in scenarios can remember them even pan civil service and these two scenarios were hotel Singapore and home divided hotel Singapore really posits that you could have a future in which Singaporeans stick around in Singapore only when things are nice and comfortable and when things become um become you know uncomfortable um they they run away from Singapore let us say so that was a hotel thing it's just like tourists they come along when when there's everything is peaceful and secure but if there's trouble they're going to stop coming so that was the hotel Singapore scenario the home divided scenario was like saying you and I we may be working in the same office but in the evening I go home to my HTV flat and you go home to your condominium and there's a brick wall between us. So home divided is really talking about about divisions within society itself um which may be economic and may be social um but they are divisions within themselves. So these are two scenarios we developed. The whole idea of scenarios very critical for us to understand. The scenarios are developed not as um not as predictions about the future. They are developed as possibilities of how the future may be. When we developed the first set of scenarios we went around we talked to every member of cabinet including at that time Mr. Lee Kwanu and Mr. Gokong who who had taken over from him as as prime minister and every minister, every permanent secretary, everyone whom we think can um can answer the question, you know, what keeps you awake at night? How could things um develop for Singapore? Anyone here? So we spoke to journalists, we talk we spoke to to both both foreigners as well as Singaporeans just to get these ideas. And so we put these ideas on how things may go wrong for Singapore. And in order to make it more easier for us to um uh uh to to to visualize that future, in order easier for us to help people think about ways to mitigate um these kinds of issues. we drew up scenarios about the future. Scenarios as I said are not predictions. they are all possibilities and we are saying in order to think about the future for Singapore you have to think in terms of of possibilities I want to say one thing that developed interestingly at that time was Mr. Go Chukdong was then already prime minister. his office was having to prepare a speech for him at one of the graduation ceremonies in one of our IHLS and he asked whether we got ideas and we sent the two scenarios hotel Singapore home divided to his office. Mr. Kukakong went through it and said they are very interesting scenarios but he says they are both negative. Can you think of a positive scenario? Frankly, this is not normal scenario methodology. Okay. Scenarios normally are developed in terms of how things may may go in future and how things particularly may go wrong in future and therefore what can you do to prepare for it. But here's the private minister asking you can you develop a positive scenario. It was an interesting challenge. It is not in the normal way of scenario planning but we just sat down and asked ourselves what would we do in terms of policies and in terms of um um um actions that could be taken to mitigate the effects or even minimize the the probability of these scenarios happening. While all the time in all humility recognizing that that um that these scenarios are all there, you are not undermining the validity of the scenarios by working out things to try to mitigate the effects or to minimize the possibility of scenarios. So we produced a scenario called Singapore 21 which contained ideas about things like how do we how do we build resilience? how do you build racial and religious harmony in Singapore and things like that. Um and so he presented that to Mr. Bogdong which he found very interesting and took up many of the ideas and quite frankly discovered something which we had not conceived of when we started scenario planning which was with Singapore 21. we now could go to the ministries to say this is the this is a positive future that we can think about and this is what serves as a kind of strategic framework for government policy going forward. So that's very scenario planning and and that is why I I moved on it.
>> Yeah. uh you you were then you also then had to kind of implement this idea of upgrading the public service for the 21st century. Part of the Singapore success story was that you know the civil service was professional was meritocratic and it really delivered a lot of public goods for the Singaporean citizen. Why do you feel that need at that point in say 95 to really go on this spree to like you know we need to modernize and try to upgrade the public service and what were you looking to upgrade actually.
>> you go to civil service today and you talk about their values the civil service today just three values they talk integrity service and excellence right integrity as being that you are trustworthy and you are incorruptible and things like that um uh service as a reminder to all civil servants that your job is to serve the people and to serve um the private sector in Singapore where they depend on government for approvals and licenses and things like that. These are the people that you serve. This is why you exist as a government to serve to serve the people and and and various companies and so forth. And third is about excellence which is about being the best that you can be in everything that we undertake do as a government. We need to be the best that we can be. All right. So with that as a backdrop, what I wanted was to um have a public service which imbibes these politics which really has to be the best that it can possibly be has might try to do the best it can in whatever it undertakes. And what this means is is not simply of doing today's job well. It's a matter of being innovative about being willing to take in new ideas being on a track where you are continuously improving. and that was the idea idea behind PS21 to create an awareness on people about service to the public to talk in terms about public service which is welcoming of change as a way by which you you you you keep improving. uh uh we talk about the public service as aware for the future. So you have to position the public service for the future. It's not good enough just to do a good job today. you have to assure the sustainability of that success going in the future and scenario planning was an important part of that of that exercise. So, so really PS21 which stood for public service for 21st century was a call um a whole exercise to bring the civil service to do a great job today and to position Singapore for for success and for sustainability of the success and to enhance his survivability for the future.
>> Yeah. Earlier you spoke about the idea of being nimble of you know being energetic and and being willing to move fast and cut losses and part of it was you were in the early phase of Singapore's nation building you were also relatively young but as civil service mature as well as governments mature they tend to be more bureaucratic in nature and one of the challenges that Singapore faces is that now you face a form of innovators dilemma what has allowed you to be innovative in the past could create kind of new dogmas or doctrines that might not be relevant for the future. Then the follow on question is how how do you actually get you know the public service as a whole to be more open-minded to change or to to to actually be able to implement you know some of these initiatives that you've proposed for example.
>> well um I can't speak about the public service today I'm only speaking public service at my time right.
>> uh and what thing about implementation as I said.
was, uh, that we had developed a scenario called Singapore 21, and that was a framework. I can talk to my permanent secretaries because I was head of civil service. I talked to permanent secretaries to sort of that that's what we need to do, that the transformation we want to make for the future.
So here I need to elaborate a bit further about scenario planning. Scenario planning is really, is really about saying, uh, understanding what the driving forces are which can shape the future that that any organization may face because, after all, scenario planning is something which, which, uh, which is useful for organizations and is also useful, uh, for us as a country.
So, so scenario planning deals with, and with, with recognizing the driving forces and knowing that there are two kinds of driving forces. One is the predetermined elements, the kind of things you know, things like population. Like Mindv today can have already a fairly good idea five years from now how many national servicemen they can, and they can have available. But there's also this other thing called critical uncertainties, uh, where you acknowledge that we don't really know how the future can turn out, but we have to try to prepare ourselves no matter what future turns out. So, like one of the critical uncertainties is, um, in geopolitical terms, the relationship between, between the US and China. Uh, will they, will they be more cooperative, cooperative in future? Will they be more, um, combative, almost, uh, in future? What is it? But irrespective of how it turns out, you have to recognize this is a critical uncertainty which we have to prepared for.
The, the point to recognize about scenario planning, though, is that obviously, when we look at the driving forces, uh, we're looking at factors which we can identify as factors important, uh, which can have a heavy influence, uh, on Singapore and future. So, it is what I would call, you're dealing with what is called the known unknowns. You know what you do not know, and you create these scenarios on the basis of how diff, how things may turn out, uh, differently in future, and that is why you have several scenarios because things may turn out differently, but you're dealing with a known unknowns. You know, if you are dealing with, first, if you're dealing with the known knowns, it means you're dealing with a world where nothing changes, then, of course, you work out your standard operating procedures, you know exactly what to do. You're not surprised by new things day by day. But some things can still be treated that way.
But we also know that things are changing very fast in all kinds of different domains. Then there's this known unknowns, where you know what you do not know. But I think that we are now facing a situation where you have to ask yourself, how do you position yourself for the unknown unknowns? Now, the point about the unknown unknowns is, you cannot use scenario planning for the unknown unknown, by definition. Um, and so trying to create a scenario based on, based on what you do not know becomes, what you don't, when you don't know what you do not know, you, it is impossible, you can't run that scenario, and that is, I think, a major, a major challenge for Singapore as you think about the future.
So, let me do, uh, uh, uh, raise this point by thinking about the future, um, by bringing us back to 1965, or even when Singapore became independent, or even before that, 1959, when Singapore attained internal self-government while the British were still, um, their colonial masters. When in 1965, when Singapore became independent, we were third world, and you would say our natural, natural ambition, of course, in economic and to some extent in social terms also, is to be first world. So, Mr. Kwanu, in a sense, as prime minister, right, when he travels, visits other countries, sees other things in the world, he sees something in Japan, he said, that's good for Singapore. He makes a point of telling the, his ministers and telling the, the, the civil servant, right, this is what is important for Singapore. So, similarly, he sees stuff in Europe, and he sees stuff in America, and you bring, you bring home the ideas. But we don't copy blindly, right? And that's one thing good about Singapore. We copy the ideas, but we improve along the way. So, in that kind of scenario, where you're copying other people who are definitely in technological, civilizational terms, already way ahead of Singapore, um, you copy, you improve on what, on what you see. In a period of 30 to 40 years, Singapore, it say, itself became first world.
>> Yeah.
>> Now, here's the point. If our, if the, um, our expertise that, or our competency that, that we developed most particularly was copy and improve. When you copy and improve somebody who is 30, 40, maybe even 50 years ahead of you, in 30 to 40 years, you yourself became first world. If what we then now keep in Singapore, what's been very good is copy and improve. Who are you copying today is a critical question.
>> Yeah.
>> Because, let's say we're talking about AI, right? Are we talking about AI today?
>> I would say that if you are copying people in AI, maybe the leaders are only three years ahead of you. Then we have to ask ourselves seriously, what does it mean to think about getting our way into the future by copying somebody who's three years ahead of you? When we started, we were copying somebody who's 30, 40, or 50 years ahead of you.
>> And remember, when you're copying somebody 30 years ahead of you, there are certain things you have to change. You hope you can change through the homes, because the home has the biggest impact on the children growing up. The values, the, the, the ideas, you know, the, uh, as to what would make it possible for the children to be as successful as possible. If the homes can direct us nicely, but if the homes cannot, then you will end up having to do it through the schools. And just think about the schools, right? If you count two years kindergarten, six years primary school, six years secondary school, two years NS, four years to get the first degree, that's 20 years. So, if you want to try to change something and you can't, and it wouldn't naturally come through the homes, you have to change it through the schools. That's a minimum 20 years thing. In order to have clarity as to what you need to do for the 20 years, you need to have a strategic goal which is 25 to 30 years ahead.
Now, this, this is the big challenge in the days, in the early days from our independence and and so forth, because you're copying somebody 40, 50 years ahead of you. Maybe in 30 years, you could become first world. In that time, of course, major changes took place in Singapore, our sense of working hard, our sense of no one owes us a living, our sense of being able to consider a technical or engineering career, like happened to me, which was not the way we thought before, you know, of, um, uh, when we were just a British colony. Um, all these things could be brought together, and copying from somebody else who's gone ahead, and we made good in one generation is fine. But today, as we think about future, the question is, is the future such that our homes will be able to bring us there in a way that gives hope and opportunity and a good future for the children, or is it not good enough? That's a critical question. And I'm taking a long time to answer this question because it's quite complicated in a sense, but I want to give you a story, right?
This is Block 71, once. And I came, this girl who was doing a startup, and she was really excited about her startup. And I asked her, so what has been your biggest challenge for your startup? And she said, um, my mother. Understand the mother. The mother is saying, you know, you, with the degree that you got, and NS, and so forth, you can easily get a well-paying job outside, and it's fairly stable. We don't even know whether this startup will still be alive six months from now. And therefore, she said, the biggest challenge is her mother, because her mother loves her, because her mother is protective of the children, because the mother wants the best future possible for the children. But the message to my mind is, what it means is that for what the startup is doing, all these things that we're trying to do in terms of creativity, in terms of innovativeness, that just leaving it to the homes will not deliver what we need.
I believe as a country that if we see our future as needing a high level of innovativeness, a high level of creativity, a high level of, let's say, initiative and imagination, that is not something that's going to simply happen through our homes. It is not something that's simply going to happen simply on the basis of what we see other countries doing because if the homes are not delivering, we'll need to do it through the schools. For the schools to do it, it needs to be on a path which is get to something which is 25, 30 years into the future.
>> Now, that's a completely different kind of, of challenge.
>> Yeah.
>> Than the kind of formula we could use.
>> Yeah.
>> When we're following somebody who is three, four decades ahead of us.
>> One of the big points in your answer just now is that Singapore now needs to move into this space where we become an indigenous innovator, right? The, the returns on imitation towards innovation is like slightly decreasing, or decreasing a lot more to achieve a certain first world status. I guess my question to you is, what, what do you think is needed? What are the ingredients needed to kind of create the unlock for Singapore, for us to really be at the forefront of innovation?
>> I, I, I think I need to be very careful about this, right? We are a small country. We are a small economy. We've got a small population. So, so to, to be realistic about it, you are never going to be in the forefront about all these areas and so forth. To be able to imbibe an idea and go on a basis of what can I do with this technology, what can I do with this new, new development, that is where the innovativeness comes in. It is not about, let me just copy what somebody else is doing. It's because I think when you are talking about getting on a path that can get you to a good situation for the survivability and sustainability of Singapore 20, 30 years from now, um, that you can't get there simply by copying people. So, so I just want to be clear when I talk about innovativeness and imagination and so forth. It is not like you are going to be able to do everything and, and be right in front of everything. It is about a spirit which says, yes, I'm aware of what's going on in the world, but it is about a challenge to my imagination.
What can I imagine myself being able to do with these things and not be constrained on the basis of, you know, who else has done it? If nobody else has done it, then I'm not prepared, then, then I think it's too risky to do it. But rather to go back to Dr. Go's premise. He said the only way to avoid making mistakes is to not do anything. It's about saying, yeah, but the biggest threat, as it were, to your future is this unwillingness to try. Things are changing so quickly. The only way you can actually know, and in many ways, interestingly, the only way you can even be clear about the questions, you and the answers you need to get, the questions you need to ask, come to you only when you actually get on and try. It is not like you have all the answers before you try. It is the questions arise when you decide to try.
>> Yeah.
>> You never thought about it. So, this is, this is the challenge I believe. Um, if you look in terms of, of Singapore and how do we make that, how do you make that way into the future so that you, you are able to imagine for yourself and you are willing to, yeah, just this whole attitude of, of, of trying and learning as you go and, and, um, discovering the possibilities and being at par with the best in the world. I want to tell this thing, you know, one time I was speaking to a Swiss professor who had been, um, uh, involved in, in giving various ideas for Singapore's future and things like that, right? And, and I asked him a typical simple question, which is, so what do you think we can do better in Singapore? And his answer to me, this is not the exact words, but this is the spirit of his answer. Or he says, there's a problem with you guys in Singapore. You are world class. And now you have to think for yourself the way going forward. Don't always go on the basis of what other people are doing and therefore what you should be.
>> What you should be following to do is a different way of thinking.
>> Yeah. Locally in Singapore, are there any kind of policies or kind of things that we can do to have that mindset shift?
>> Having a clarity of your strategic goal. For example, you know, if you were to say that being highly innovative, highly creative, uh, is, uh, is necessary for the survivability and sustainability of success for Singapore. Then you're going to sit down and you're going to say, okay, um, what do we need to change? What do we need to change in terms of national attitudes? What do we need to change in terms of the way parents encourage or, or guide their children? What do you need to change in terms of the way we deliver lessons in school to, you know, this is, after all, innovative and so forth, is a frame of mind, is an attitude, uh, it's a perspective which says, which says, uh, you know, the worst mistake we can make is to not try. But trying and, and, uh, uh, trying is only for the purpose of keeping on improving as you go. Okay.
>> Yeah. I, I still struggle to fully conceptualize the full implications of it. Mainly because I think there's a huge coordination problem, right? Like if everyone wants to be innovative, let's say within the government, you can't do that. For example.
>> Ah, right. No, I agree. I agree with you. You know, this thing about being innovative, right? Um, one of the big dangers we face in Singapore is that if you were to tell all our young people, be innovative, be creative, don't be bound by the past and all that. There could be some people who turn out and say, if that's the case, then I can talk anything I like.
>> Even if some people get upset, it's okay. Uh, so, so what we've been trying to do, for example, in national education, whether it is in schools and so forth, you have to, it's very important. We may have to modify the way we teach. But national education becomes even more critical. If we are moving, moving strongly on this line of being innovative and creative, you need also to be able to move strongly on the point of saying, remember, we are doing all these things because we believe the best thing we can do is to help every Singaporean be the best they can possibly be. But they can only be the best they can possibly be if they are able to maintain, um, the racial harmony and religious harmony. If they are able to maintain peace and security and stability for Singapore, there, all these things, the foundations, the, and, and environment to allow you, uh, to, to move on this path, totally dependent on your being able to keep things going. So, national education becomes very important.
So, this is why you have to think about it. I agree with you holistically. But if I can take just a little bit, uh, more time to mention this. How do we decide what the strategic goal is when we are dealing with something which is the unknown unknowns? And my proposition is, for example, if I were to bring you and your friends, group of people, and if I were to ask you, tell me, how is a successful Singapore 30 years from now? How would you describe that successful Singapore? If you ask me, I think it'll be one that is economically vibrant, open, and inclusive.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> All very good. Then I say, okay, now let's get down to the descriptors, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Which is, yeah. So, so you described it. So, we go next level. And so, say, okay, now what are we talking about? What, what's the prevailing culture?
>> Yeah.
>> Because at the end of the day, I believe it is the culture. What is regarded as the culture, the national characteristics, you know, which gives you this winning profile to have, you know, this wonderful economy and, and inclusiveness. So, so we have to discuss that. So what do we need?
>> Shape the culture.
>> You have to shape the culture. The attitudes of the people towards life, the attitudes of the people towards, um, let's say, innovation, what is their attitude? So, my point is that if we now run a session, right, that you talk to your, uh, to your friends and say, what is that future Singapore 30 years from now? And the reason I say 30 years from now, remember, is because if we can have a sense in our mind what the strategic picture is like 30 years from now, we can then ask the question for each of the characteristics. For example, you talk about, about, uh, you know, about the vibrant economy and all that. For each of the characteristic, we can then ask, what do we need to stop doing that we are currently doing? Because what we're doing today will not get us there. What do we need to start doing today, which we are not doing, but we need to do to get us there? That's the kind of question we can begin to ask when you are clear where you're trying to go to.
>> Makes sense.
>> Now, I tell you the interesting thing. I do hold workshops where I talk to people who are just interested in these things. So, of say, 30 years from now, how do you, how would you describe the success of Singapore 30 years from now? There are a good number of people who find it extremely difficult to answer that question because they are more used to operating on the basis of reacting to a situation. In other words, if you, if you tell me what the situation is 30 years from now, I can tell you the Singapore that is necessary to survive and to do well in that kind of situation. But since we're dealing with an unknown unknowns, I can't tell you what the situation is like, and therefore, I can't also give you an idea of what it is. But on the other hand, I do find, and particularly the younger people in their 20s and 30s, I find that they can answer the question.
>> Yeah.
>> Because I rather suspect they are not answering my question directly. My question is, how would you describe the successful Singapore 30 years from now? I believe they are not answering my question directly. What they are answering, actually, is the question, what would make Singapore a great place for my grandchildren? It's no longer their children, or their grandchildren. What would make Singapore a great place for my grandchildren? And that is the answer that they are giving.
>> Well, interesting. Which is still, which is still a good answer because it really says what will give us that sense of stability, that sense of direction to feed the hopes and aspirations of people, not just for today, but going into the future. And when I talk 20 to 30 years, it's deliberate for two reasons. One is because there are certain things, let's say, about national characteristics and national competencies, which we need to use the school system to bring about, which takes you a minute or two, 20 years. But at the same time, talking 20 to 30 years also presents a challenge for anybody who says that idea is out of this world, is impossible. For which our question to them is, you mean we can't do it even if we have 30 years?
>> That's a kind of mental perspective.
>> Which will make us think differently.
>> The last question I have for you is, given all that you know now, what is one piece of advice you give to a fresh graduate entering the working world today?
>> I would say, chase the opportunity, don't chase the money. When you chase the money, you are being paid for what you know today, what you have learned from your past, and what you know today. When you chase opportunity, you are building your future so that you have the continuing ability to find, you know, continuing ability to build your life, to chase after your aspirations, to keep earning good money for your future. But if you chase the money, you're only doing things for yourself today.
>> H.
>> With that problem, thank you so much for your time and coming on.
>> Okay, my pleasure.
>> Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you are watching this on YouTube, please consider subscribing and turning on notifications for whenever new episodes are out. If you're on Spotify or Apple, it would help us greatly if you could leave a five-star review on those platforms. Once again, thank you for tuning in to The Front Row.