PM's Interview with NRC Handelsblad<

TRANSCRIPT OF PRIME MINISTER GOH CHOK TONG’S INTERVIEW
WITH MR MAX CHRISTERN OF NRC HANDELSBLAD
ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1996 AT THE ISTANA

Q: “Your upcoming visit to Holland; you’re going there at the beginning of October. You’ve been there ten years ago. What were your first impressions and how are you looking at the country now?”
Mr Goh: “My impressions were based on discussions with the leaders. At that time the single-most important issue was the Single European Market and I believe the other big issue for Europe and also for the Netherlands was the rising unemployment. You could see the trend towards higher unemployment. I think those were the two major issues of concern to the Dutch leaders.
This time, I would expect the leaders to be concerned with the European Monetary Union, the implications for Netherlands, the implications for Europe. I also sense that the other big issue is welfare reforms that have taken place in Germany and France. I believe the Netherlands, too, will be caught up in how to moderate the demands for more and more welfare.”
Q: “Yes, that’s one of the things we’re working on. I have a feeling Asia is looking at that with very much interest because the systems here tend to be different from ours. Will you talk with our Prime Minister about those things and share experiences?”
Mr Goh: “Yes, not necessarily at the formal meeting but at the dinner table, lunch and so on. We could be discussing all those.”
Q: “The visit itself has a lot of business aim also?”
Mr Goh: “I would say several aims. First, to better understand Europe through Dutch eyes because a lot of things are happening in Europe and the future of Europe is of concern to us in Asia. I want to have a better understanding, both the political as well as the economic evolution in Europe. Secondly, I want to forge closer ties between Netherlands and Singapore and also my personal ties between Prime Minister Wim Kok and between the other ministers.
The economic issue will be important for us. There’s the WTO Ministerial Conference coming up. We want to make sure that both of us work together at the WTO meeting. Netherlands and Singapore are free traders. I believe our position will be common at this coming Conference. And, of course, I want to see whether we can do more trade with one another, invest more in Singapore and hopefully maybe some investments in Netherlands by Singapore investors. So, I’m bringing along a small team of business people.”
Q: “We’ve seen that happening in the past by Dutch businessmen who came to Asia looking for opportunities here. Singapore is until now not there in terms of companies in Holland, but do you think that will change? Will Holland be a hub for Europe?”
Mr Goh: “I don’t see that happening over the next five, perhaps even eight years because the concentration of our companies is now in Asia where there is very robust growth in China, vigorous growth expected to come for Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand. So, it’s unlikely, given the resources in manpower that we have, that we’ll be going far away to Europe because our expertise is here. But some Singapore companies have more capital now and with the additional capital, we see that quite a few are now moving to Europe. But these are mainly property development companies. They would either invest in a hotel or in office space or they would acquire some companies as majority shareholder or some shares as minority shareholder. That is coming but I don’t see a big wave of this happening over the next five to eight years.”
Q: “I understand you’re going to look into environmental technology, for instance; that’s one of the things Singapore thinks it can learn from Holland. What other areas are there? Why especially these areas?”
Mr Goh: “We think the demand for environmental technology will increase in Asia. As countries develop, they will pay more attention to the environment with the pollution of urban centres, more motor-cars on the road. Such measures will become more important here and certainly, we see some prospects for business. You have it in Netherlands so we don’t have to start from scratch. We can learn from you and, better still, encourage your small and medium-size companies to work with us here, position themselves for this increased demand later on.
What other areas can we learn from Netherlands? Generally, we want to see how you overcome problems. In a sense, Netherlands and Singapore are similar. Both of us are actually small countries in our own context. The only resource is people and I want to know how Netherlands has been able to overcome great odds in the past and be what it is today and I believe there will be great challenges for your country in the coming years. How do you intend to overcome these challenges?
I would also want to pay some attention to your R&D. I was impressed by the level of R&D in 1986 when I was there. You spend much more on R&D. You’re much better in research in the electronics field, Philips and so on. So I want to see what we can do to learn from you and perhaps get into some partnership on R&D.”
Q: “It is interesting to get those companies to Singapore. Already, quite a few are here. Will you try to attract more Dutch companies and see if you can get them here?”
Mr Goh: “Yes, if we can. If we can’t, we have got to find a way to work together because personnel for R&D is in short supply. Perhaps we can do some area of research here for your companies in Netherlands. In this way, we add value to your R&D. It’s not with the view of bringing everything here and have things done here. That’s not possible. We haven’t got the manpower. So, our effort is to always find a niche where we can add value to the total business plans for Dutch companies in Netherlands.”
Q: “Talking about similar problems or similar opportunities for both countries, Holland went through a period after the Second World War building up the nation, very successfully getting the economics right. Then the point came that the new generation has to take over and it gets more difficult. A few years later, Singapore started to build up a society after stepping out of the Malaysian Federation. It seems to me -- and I think I’m not the only one -- that this new generation that has to take over now also views more problems. Do you see that as a threat for your country?”
Mr Goh: “I don’t see quite that similarity as yet. The first generation of Singaporeans was hardworking but by and large, they were not very well-educated. They were immigrants from China. If you look at the educational profile, very low level of education. There is maybe ten, twenty per cent elite and the rest were not highly educated because they lacked the opportunities. So, they worked hard .
This generation has more people trained at polytechnics and universities and they are still hungry, in the sense that they want a good life. So, that capacity to work hard is not yet absent from Singapore. They still want more. The problem that we have now is a lack of understanding on how the good life can come about. Everybody wants more, but they forget that the first generation took a long time. They worked very hard to get what they have. This generation is very impatient. They want more within a matter of years. But they still work hard. Give another ten years, then maybe we will worry whether people will now place more emphasis on leisure as against work. As of now, I’m not concerned.”
Q: “And what measure will you think of, then, to try to avoid too much concern?”
Mr Goh: “We just got to drum the message in that if people want more leisure, we have got to be more productive. If we can produce the income and a standard of living which we want through working four days, by all means. But we’ve got to be able to produce that level of income by working four days. If we can’t, we have to work six days like we do now.”
Q: “Is it always the Government who has to explain that to the people in Singapore? We do that in Holland too, but it tends to be a bit more here that the Government explains to the people why they should work hard, why if they want more leisure, they should be more productive. Where do you think are the boundaries of telling people what they have to do?”
Mr Goh: “Quite fortunately, we still have a population that listens a lot to the Government. We will still mark out the general direction for the people and sometimes work out details on what they should do or should not do. You notice we have all kinds of campaigns -- sports for life and learn Mandarin and so on. It still works.”
Q: “And you think it’s the right way for this society to do it that way?”
Mr Goh: “I think for the time being it’s still the right way.”
Q: “Are countries in the region copying that to the extent Singapore does it?”
Mr Goh: “Not to the same extent. I don’t think they are copying. I think at a certain stage of their development, they will come up with certain policies. I can see Malaysia doing many of things which we have done in the past, but I will not suggest that Malaysia is copying because at this stage of their development, they also see the need to mount many of the campaigns that we have. For example, they are telling the population to learn more English. I don’t think that’s copying, but they see a need for a Malay population to be more conversant in English in order to understand science and technology. Likewise, they also talk about productivity. I don’t think they are copying because at this point of time when they are industrialising, they have to talk about productivity.”
Q: “So, in a certain sense, it belongs to the stage of development of the country?”
Mr Goh: “Yes.”
Q: “Looking at Singapore then, sometimes, it seems to be a little laboratory where all kind of things are put in and everyone is viewing how does it work there. It works very well, it’s an economic wonder, I think. Do you sometimes view your country as a laboratory for Asia?”
Mr Goh: “We don’t hold ourselves as a laboratory for Asia, but we are, in a sense a laboratory. Because of a strong government, we are in a position to initiate policies which may have short-term, negative political effects. But because we are strong, we are able to take a long-term view. So, we introduce policies which we know will cost us politically in the short term. But in the longer term, the results are there. People understand. Then they support the Government. Because of this strength, we are able to initiate and implement policies. In that sense, others can watch what we are doing and if those socioeconomic policies work, well, we become a laboratory for them. But we don’t put ourselves forth as a laboratory because these are not meant to be experimented, they are meant to be implemented.”
Q: “Would this also work in a bigger country? I think Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said that he dreamed of a bigger island to govern after doing Singapore successfully.”
Mr Goh: “I think certain elements can be emulated by even bigger countries. I don’t think a city-state’s experience can be totally applicable to a larger country with a big rural base. But there are elements in our economic development, our social development which can be used by others. For example, in our public housing, the way we finance the public housing through the Central Provident Fund, the security for people through self-funding instead of a central welfare system to look after us in our old age, that results in very high savings for the country and the savings can be, therefore, used for investment. That kind of system could be studied by others. And, indeed, quite a few countries have come here to study our system. Tony Blair, the Labour leader, has come here to study the system. China has also implemented the Central Provident Fund system for certain cities or certain sectors.”
Q: “Definitely, certain parts of a successful policy are copied or are viewed as successful and they are be copied after. What do you yourself view as the most essential successful things of Singapore in the whole existence of the country?”
Mr Goh: “I will regard the system that we have evolved in providing leadership for the country as a distinct success for Singapore. We are a democracy, we have to face elections every four or five years. People choose on the basis of our policies and track records. In democratic systems elsewhere, people who feel strongly for the country and some who want to be in politics, take part in politics. They don’t necessarily collect the best people for the political leadership. There will be some good people there, maybe one or two of the best people, but as a whole, most democracies don’t set out to collect the best people for the political leadership. In our case, we systematically set out to identify what we call the best people who can govern the country in terms of competence, character, commitment and compassion.
We’re like a recruiting agent, like a head-hunter and the Prime Minister, in fact, is the chief head-hunter for Singapore. We have a system where we track young people with potential, understand them, follow them for a few years, then invite them to take part in politics. The inclination of many is to say “no” because they are in their mid-career, in their early 30s, with high prospects for themselves to becoming chief executive officers of banks or multinational companies. We have to use a little persuasion to get them to enter politics. This system allows us to tap a very thin layer who has a helicopter view on how to get things done, come up with new policies, to anticipate problems, to enter politics.”
Q: “How do you attract those people? You invite them here for a cup of tea?”
Mr Goh: “Yes, I was the one who started the process. At that time, I was a minister and a deputy prime minister. So, I would invite people for tea on the basis of recommendations. Invite them for tea, maybe six or seven at a time, sit down for about two hours to get a good feel of them. Then I shortlisted some people. They’ll be invited for further tea sessions by other ministers. For those who have the abilities to become Members of Parliament, we put them through formal interviews where some penetrating questions are asked. Then we do some research. Who are their friends and we ask their friends what he or she is like to get a picture of the person.”
Q: “These people must have certain ambitions to go into politics? Are they all surprised when they come for tea?”
Mr Goh: “Not all. Not all have ambitions to be political leaders. If all have ambitions to be political leaders, then there’s no problem. We will not have to use this system to get them to come forward. But not all have and most people are quite happy to have their private lives and contributing to the economy from outside politics. But we tell them, “Yes, you’re doing a good job outside. You’re contributing. But your contribution will be greater as a minister.” , That’s a particular system for Singapore which has worked for us. I think it’s a strength that we have. If you look at countries elsewhere, it just depends on the people who are interested.”
Q: “You should talk this over with our Prime Minister because I think we have a big problem in getting people into politics because they want to do something for the country, but it’s not attractive enough and, of course, salary-wise, that system of Singapore seems to be the main factor of attracting young people. That’s put in by your idea or by...?”
Mr Goh: “I carried it through Parliament, but Senior Minister Lee was the one who encouraged me to do it. He being a much older person, having been in this longer than I have, realised the difficulty of getting people. He encouraged me. We can talk about sacrifice, about commitment and so on, but finally we can get some people to sacrifice, but if we want a team of 15 to 20 people, we won’t be able to get so many people to come forward, to give up their earnings for the sake of the country. One or two, yes, and those one or two will be people who can become Prime Minister. If you become a Prime Minister, you shouldn’t be worried about money. But for ministers who have children to look after, their wives will compare their husbands’ earnings with other people’s earnings. We, therefore, decided to change and go for a market-related system.”
Q: “You mean before that, it was much lower?”
Mr Goh: “Much lower. Before that, it was much lower.”
Q: “So, when you entered politics, it was really for your personal... What was your personal ambition, if I may ask, when you stepped into politics?”
Mr Goh: “My ambition changed over time. When I was in university, my ambition was to be a lecturer and a professor. But I was bonded to serve the Government. So, I became a civil servant. I thought, then, just be a good civil servant. Somewhere along the line, I joined the the national shipping company. So, I thought my ambition then would be chairman of a few companies, government companies, it doesn’t matter, but I am the chairman. Quite a good job. Then I was invited to stand for election by the former Finance Minister, the late Mr Hon Sui Sen. I learnt later on that I was targeted and quite a few people put up my name to the party leadership.”
Q: “You didn’t know?”
Mr Goh: “I didn’t know because, at that time, I was running the national shipping company. A young man, 34, 35 years of age. So, they thought I was one of those who should be targeted.”
Q: “And Mr Lee invited you to have tea, too?”
Mr Goh: “No, at the time, they did not have tea session. The system of scouting for people had not quite been evolved. It started when I came in. The idea was given to me by Mr Lee at the time.”
Q: “How difficult is it for you as Prime Minister of this country to be the successor of Mr Lee Kuan Yew?”
Mr Goh: “I won’t say it’s very difficult because I have always set out to be myself. I signalled this very clearly to the public. ‘Please don’t compare me with Mr Lee. His shoes are so big and mine are so small. I would be more comfortable walking with my own pair of shoes.’ I never pretended that I was Mr Lee and because I never wore his shoes, I could walk comfortably. So, my personality, my style are quite different from Mr Lee. Once the people knew that I did not hold myself forth as a great man like Mr Lee, a great leader for Singapore, I’m judged by my own contributions, which made it easier.”
Q: “But Mr Lee created this country. He also created the image of Singapore to the outside world which is, on one hand, the economic wonder that everyone admires, but, on the other hand, when I left for this country, people told me, “Oh, look out for your chewing gum”. There’s this image of a strict, organised country. Are you happy with the image in general that Singapore has?”
Mr Goh: “I think it can be improved upon. The image of a strong economy able to overcome natural handicaps is a good one. The image of us as a political dictatorship is not a good one. It is wrong. That we are an authoritarian state, I think this is over-inflated, exaggerated. Yes, we are much sterner and more disciplined as a government compared to other countries, but there’s a lot of leeway for people to do things over here. The outside image is one of a very stern father. Someone described Singapore as a “police state”. This kind of image is entirely wrong. If you go around here when you see policemen, they are very friendly. In fact, people have told me that in some countries, when you see a policeman walking towards you, you cross the road. Here, when you see a policeman walking towards you, you don’t cross the road, you greet him.”
Q: “I’m still happily surprised. By the way this country is a great place to live in, but I always have to explain that to people when they come here, it may be because you stay here for two, three days...?”
Mr Goh: “No, even if you stay here for two, three days, and you walk around, you don’t get the sense of oppression like you would if you had gone to East Germany, at one time, or to Russia, at one time; you would feel a sense of oppression. Here, people talk very freely. I’m sure if you take a taxi, the taxi-driver will grumble his head off and probably swear at the Government. In a police state, you would not dare to do so.”
Q: “The image of Big Brother is watching is absolutely far from the truth that I experience here, but many colleagues in other countries think it’s different.”
Mr Goh: “Big Brother is watching in a way. We are always looking at problems and how to resolve them. We watch, it’s not with a view of watching over people. That’s not our concern. Why should we want to watch over every individual? It’s watching over problems, even in detail. I went down for a constituency visit yesterday. I went to the food stalls. It was not to watch over the stallholders but to get a sense of whether business is good or no good. Do they have enough carparks? How can we improve things for them? So they talk to me about their problems and we want to see how to get things done for them. So, in that sense, we are watching.”
Q: “Not the people?”
Mr Goh: “No, not the people. I don’t go around looking at every stallholder -- are you my supporter or are you not? It’s to get a sense of the mood, the problems which they may face and can we solve their problems.”
Q: “But some people, foreigners are afraid of the things they might do wrong here to get punished for that. In this country, of course, the whole story about drugs is clear. Journalists who write things that the Government doesn’t like. In what sense, how do I view the case against the Herald Tribune and all that?”
Mr Goh: “We set out our position very clearly for foreigners and journalists. Stay off local politics because local politics is meant for local people, that’s for Singaporeans. If you are an expatriate working here and you have views on Singapore, you can convey them to your people back home. That doesn’t concern us. But you shouldn’t be speaking to our press with a view to changing people’s minds on certain policies because that’s interfering in our politics.
For the foreign press who are here, like in your case, if I may use you as an example, if you disagree with what I say, you have other viewpoints, you are free to write about them. But you’re writing for foreign papers back home, for a Dutch audience. I would not regard that as interfering in our politics. I may not like what you write because you may be giving a slanted view of Singapore for the Dutch people, but I would not go after you. How can I? You are not interfering in my politics, you are writing for your own audience. But if you are doing an article for the Singapore papers or for a Dutch newspaper which is being circulated every day in Singapore, in English, and it’s not just one article but a series of articles, then we say you may have some plan to influence the thinking here. If it is just one article, then it’s not a pattern. We look at the pattern. Of course, if your articles contain flaws in logic and misinformation, we will send in corrections. It’s the right of reply.”
Q: “I think that’s the right thing to do. And the local press plays a major role in your politics?”
Mr Goh: “Yes, yes.”
Q: “Do they tell your people how you think. That will continue to be so?”
Mr Goh: “It continues to be so. We have told the Singapore press that they have to be confident of themselves. They need not follow a Western model where you are respected only if you attack the Establishment. The job of the local press is to help the Government of the day to educate the people because there are so many things which people are not aware of, the problems, the challenges we face. How is basic information communicated to the people. That’s their Number One job. Put it across in a way that’s also entertaining so that people will read. The challenge is how do you put forward certain ideas in a way that people will read and begin to understand what the main message of the country is.”
Q: “Does that mean you have a lot of talk with the chief editors of the newspapers?”
Mr Goh: “Yes, we see them quite frequently, as friends, as responsible people and we do this after having watched the Japanese. This is where we use Japan as a model. You see, Japan has press clubs. Each ministry or each big major department will have its own press club. The journalists attached to the particular ministry or department are briefed on a daily basis. They may not always write about it, but they are clued up as to what’s happening in the ministry. When a story breaks, they know how to report it and they also know what’s the national interest in reporting this.
As an example, during the Kobe earthquake, for the first few days, when you look at the media pictures, they were not pictures of destruction, they were pictures of people helping others to overcome the tragedy. The message which came across was one of quiet confidence, of Japanese working together to overcome a tragedy. When I looked at the pictures carried in Western magazines, in newspapers, they were all about destruction, about the inefficiency of the local organisation. That they were not able to cope with the problem. It’s a different viewpoint. Both may be right but which is in the national interest?”
Q: “Then we get to the point of the two cultures coming in.”
Mr Goh: “Yes, two cultures.”
Q: “Does Europe have to start understanding Asian better or is it...?”
Mr Goh: “Both. I think both must understand each other better, which is the purpose of the Asia-Europe meeting. It’s not to say Asia is superior to Europe, therefore, our way is right. Neither do we say that you do not understand us and you must therefore understand us. It’s a mutual exercise. We’ve got to begin to understand the thinking and the culture of Europe and the strengths of Europe. There are strengths in Europe and there are certain weaknesses born out of noble ideas, like the welfare system. This was a noble idea, but after 30 or 40 years, the system has not quite worked. We’ve got to understand the thinking and take steps to avoid the wrong paths which have been travelled by Europeans.”
Q: “What do you see as the major point of discussion between these two parts of the world?”
Mr Goh: “There are two, maybe, three areas. I think we should concentrate on economics. We think Europe is a little slow in recognising the growth and potential of Asia but there are good reasons why Europe was a little slow. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, with European integration, Europe is forced to concentrate on issues within Europe itself. You had less time for events outside Europe, which means if you don’t take steps to remedy that, you’ll be missing out on the opportunities over here. The leaders understand that. The bigger companies understand that. The smaller ones might not have the resources even though they understand. So, the purpose of the meeting is to get Europe to have a bigger presence in Asia which, of course, will benefit us. The bigger presence of Europe in Asia means more investments here, more trade, that will be of benefit to us.
Then the next step of the exercise is Asia has to understand Europe, not just Europe understanding Asia. How do we forge this? Each one of us has certain stereotype views of the other. So, we hope through exchanges of people at a cultural level, at a social level, over 20, 30 years, there may be better understanding. It’s a long-term process. We are not looking for results within five years. For example, we’re now trying to see how we can attract European students to study in our universities. To study here, not just learning a language or to doAsian studies. Have good courses in engineering, in the humanities and economics to attract your good students to study here. The way our students go to Europe to study. It’s not just about giving out scholarships because your students must want to come which means our universities must be good. Otherwise, they’re wasting their time. Why should they come other than for Chinese studies or Malay studies and so on.”
Q: “That’s if you communicate that message?”
Mr Goh: “There was tremendous interest in Bangkok when we communicated this because European leaders also wanted to send their good students here to study in good courses, not just in Asian studies for which some will come. For Singapore and Asian students going to Europe, it is less of a problem, mainly a language problem.”
Q: “You’ve got a very good start. Was that a surprise for you in Bangkok?”
Mr Goh: “I was pleasantly surprised as were my other colleagues from Asia and Europe.”
Q: “How did you, before the meeting, view Europe as an Asian? How do you look at the continent?”
Mr Goh: “We look at Europe as a more mature civilisation, as compared to Singapore. There are certain things we would like to emulate. The cultural grace of the Europeans is something which we would like Singaporeans to have.
In terms of economic strength, Europe has a great deal. We were getting perhaps a little prejudiced at the slowing down of the growth of Europe, looking at the welfare system, thinking that Europe could be on the decline because of your welfare system. So, that’s the image that we have.”
Q: “There has been European, even a Dutchman, who helped build up Singapore, Mr Winsemius. Just recently, there have been a few stories about him in the press. You know him personally?”
Mr Goh: “Yes, I know him.”
Q: “And you’ll also try to visit him when you are there?”
Mr Goh: “Yes, I received a report that he’s getting a little frail. He’s quite old now. I’ve arranged to visit him. He is a great friend of Singapore and I know him personally. When I became the Minister for Trade and Industry as a young man, he was still the Economic Adviser to Singapore and I remember distinctly his contribution when I was a minister. He was the one, together with other officials of the Ministry, who suggested that Singapore should up its wages by a huge quantum over three years in order to shake out the hoarding of labour supplies.
He suggested, along with our officials, that the way to make Singapore companies more efficient was to let the wages reflect their market value. We had a National Wages Council which recommended wage increase every year of a fixed quantum. We were very conservative in recommending wage increase. Wage levels were actually lower than what the market would have demanded. Winsemius suggested that we bump it up by 15, 20 per cent per year over three years, which means wages would be raised by some 60 per cent over three years.”
Q: “He always used to have those ideas and I visited him before I came to Singapore to live here. He was a very interesting man and he said he used to give press conferences at Changi Airport and have new ideas put into Singapore and was still of a major influence.”
Mr Goh: “Yes, correct. Because I was minister in charge and I supported him, I put it up to Cabinet. Prime Minister Lee asked, “Do you know what you are doing? Are you sure that this is the right path?” Suddenly, I realised maybe, it’s not such a good idea because I have got to defend it to the Prime Minister.”
Q: “But when you said it was an idea of Mr Winsemius, he said it’s okay?”
Mr Goh: “No, no. He didn’t say it’s okay. He said, yes, Dr Winsemius had that idea for some time, but he, Mr Lee, had not accepted the idea.”
Q: “They are very good friends?”
Mr Goh: “Yes, yes. The idea was there for some time. Mr Lee did not accept it. But at that time when it was again floated, I think the timing was right. The Cabinet felt that it was the right timing. I happened to be there. Therefore, I worked quite closely with Dr Winsemius for a while on that particular policy.”
Q: “Well, I hope to visit him one day and again. He is a very interesting man. Coming to the end of the questions -- though, I’d love to talk to you for an hour more because it’s very interesting to listen to you -- what do you view as your personal future here in this country? Where will you be in ten years’ time?”
Mr Goh: “I’ve been asking myself that question because we are a firm believer in training up the next generation. I certainly do not want to be indispensable in ten years’ time as the Prime Minister of Singapore. If in ten years’ time, I’m still the Prime Minister and if people think I am indispensable, then I’d have failed in my job. So, sometime in the next century, a younger team should be in place and there should be a person who can take over my position any time.
I do not know whether at that time, I’ll be Prime Minister. Frankly, I hope not. In ten years’ time, 2006, how old would I be? 65. No, I hope I would not be the Prime Minister. A younger man should be in charge. So, where would I be? I haven’t got an answer yet.”
Q: “Would you stay in Singapore?”
Mr Goh: “I would stay in Singapore, certainly, yes.”
Q: “Because quite a few people now are moving out of Singapore. But some people told me that they would look for a more relaxed life, for instance, in Australia?”
Mr Goh: “No, that will not be my style.”
Q: “Do you understand that sort of a need? The pressure is so high.”
Mr Goh: “Yes. Having spent so much time and having acquired the wealth, they want to put their wealth to good use, and they want to have a more relaxed life.”
Q: “Will the man or maybe the woman who’ll take over your position, will there be someone who had tea with you here and who came out of your head-hunting?”
Mr Goh: “At the moment, it’ll be somebody in Cabinet already. It must be so because at the moment, in Cabinet, we have three generations. Mr Lee is the surviving member from his political generation. Then myself is part of the next generation. My generation of ministers now are in their mid-50s. Then we have quite a few ministers in their early 40s. So, unless somebody exceptional comes from outside over the next few years, my successor will come from within the Cabinet.”
Q: “Which is always considered to be the PAP?”
Mr Goh: “Yes.”
Q: “You never get opposition members?”
Mr Goh: “Oh, I don’t foresee that. If you ask whether I see somebody from outside the PAP, no. I am not foreseeing anybody from outside.”
Q: “Well, what happens if you see a brilliant man who is in the opposition? Would you talk to him, would you talk with him?”
Mr Goh: “If there is a brilliant man who has gone into the opposition, that means that we have already failed in our system of scouting. We should have seen him first and asked him to join us. If he chooses not to but prefers to be in the opposition, we have to know why.”
Q: “Where then does the scouting start? Is it the grassroots leaders? Is it at the universities?“
Mr Goh: “Universities. Because we give scholarships every year to the best A-level students ...(tape being flipped)... already know, out of each year’s cohorts, who are the top students.”
Q: “And they know by their getting your scholarships that they have to do something back for their country when they...?”
Mr Goh: “No, no.”
Q: “Not necessarily.”
Mr Goh: “Not necessarily. To the students, it’s just a scholarship. Singapore is a small place. When they come back to work, when they join the Civil Service or join the private sector, within eight to ten years, wherever they are and if they are very good, they would already have risen to a position of importance. We would know who are the people on the fast track. Then we begin to understand their character, their motivation, which is important. What is their motivation in life? Do you acquire wealth for yourself or to do most for the company or most for the department or ministry.”
Q: “And then they’ll have to have a view of this country and its future?”
Mr Goh: “Yes.”
Q: “Talk about ten years’ time, will Singapore be Singapore as it is now or will it be part of Malaysia maybe?”
Mr Goh: “No, not likely. Singapore will be what it is now. A better Singapore, I hope. More wealth and generally better infrastructure, better-educated population. And I hope to see more confident people. Not just very strong on the economic side, but more rounded people who can enjoy a more fulfilling life.”
Q: “In Singapore itself, I was there when Senior Minister had this speech for the press people when this question came up about the merger. I understand you were also surprised by what he said. But, you don’t see that as a serious item for the future?”
Mr Goh: “No, because Malaysia and Singapore are now two different countries, two different societies. Our system of managing the country works for us. Their system of managing their country works for them. Their system is accepted by their people, ours is accepted by our people and there are basic differences between our two systems. So, I don’t see any possibility over the next few years for those basic differences to be resolved.”
Q: “But do we see some jealousy in the reaction of Malays, jealousy or whatever you can call it, in the sense that they call that Singapore “arrogant”. Any comments on the issue? Can Singaporeans be arrogant after their success?”
Mr Goh: “I think some Singaporeans can be arrogant. But “arrogance” may not be the right word. They become unknowing. They just think that they know everything in Singapore. It’s a contradiction. They are ignorant, but they think they know everything. When they go abroad, they say, “Oh, we do this in Singapore, or we don’t do these things. Maybe it’s arrogance, but I think it’s ignorance.”
Q: “Let me end with one final question, more with your visit to Holland again. Apparently, Singapore is known by many Dutch also because, besides the economic wonder, but for the drug traffickers. Two of them were hanged. There’s another one for Ecstasy. There might come up with some questions in Holland on certain stories in the press there, what happened to Mr Van Damme here. In general, could you defend for the Dutch -- you did that already two years ago -- why Singapore has this policy of death for drug traffickers?”
Mr Goh: “I am prepared to tell them why we have such a policy here because we view drug trafficking as an evil. If we don’t stop it, drug traffickers will destroy the lives of thousands of people. And the lives they destroy are not necessarily Singaporean lives. We have a duty to save those people whose lives might be destroyed by drug traffickers by being very harsh. We are a transshipment centre for passengers, for air cargo and sea cargo and the drug production area is very close to Singapore. The Golden Triangle is very close to us. We don’t want to be known as a hub for drug trafficking. We want to be known as a hub for financial services, a hub for aviation, a hub for shipping, but not a hub for drug trafficking. So, if I’m not strict in enforcing these laws, the drug traffickers will come through Singapore and send out the drugs to other parts of the world.”
Q: “Were you surprised that the first Westerner to hang in Singapore was a Dutchman, knowing the liberal drug policy we have? Or does that have nothing to do with that?”
Mr Goh: “Nothing to do with that. Perhaps by chance he was the first caught. I’m sure he’s not the only Caucasian who does drug trafficking. He might be the first to be caught.”
Q: “But Holland has this total different policy on this?”
Mr Goh: “Yes and we respect your policy. We don’t agree with it, but we respect your right. Likewise, we’re asking the Dutch to respect our right as a sovereign country to deal with the problem.”
Q: “And you stay out of their local policy and they stay out of your local policy?”
Mr Goh: “Correct.”
Q: “Well, it’s a nice way to end this conversation. Thank you very much.”
Mr Goh: “All right. Thank you.”