Former President Nathan told me long before I became a minister that LKY was so committed to Singapore that from the moment he woke up till he went to bed, the only thing uppermost in his mind was Singapore.
Mr Lee arranged these lunches regularly, not just with me, but also separately with other newly appointed Ministers of State or Ministers. I believe he found these sessions useful to size up each new office-holder and assess how he was doing.
I came away from each lunch fascinated and impressed by his total preoccupation, and almost near obsession, with Singapore’s problems.
Whatever the topic, everything would come back to a central issue: how was it relevant to Singapore? How did it affect our national interests? What options did we have?
He was determined that Malaysia should not have a stranglehold on Singapore by using water as a strategic weapon. He pushed the PUB and other agencies to ramp up the development of Singapore’s own sources of water supply.
That was without doubt the most important speech I made in Parliament. SM Lee, PM Goh and DPM LHL gave me inputs as I worked on the draft. My draft went through some 40 revisions!
I was amazed at Mr Lee’s ability to digest a plethora of submissions and proposals from different ministries. Typically, at each Cabinet meeting, there would be numerous Cabinet memoranda from various ministries seeking approval for various projects, policies or changes to the law. Some memoranda might be just to keep the Cabinet informed. Mr Lee would not only have read every paper carefully but he would also probe into the ministers’ submissions.
If I had proposed new legislation, he would ask if I had checked on the experience of other countries. His instinct was not to reinvent the wheel. He believed in following the best practices of other countries and to adapt them for our own needs.
When Chok Tong was PM, whenever Mr Lee wanted to see him, Chok Tong would offer to walk over to Mr Lee’s office and see him there.
When Mubarak was arrested and put on trial, I felt very sorry for him. Video footage on TV news showed a gaunt and forlorn man, totally different from the impressive figure I had met in 1994.
As the UNSC operated in a closed and secretive manner, it was only from within the UNSC that Singapore could really appreciate the inner workings of the UNSC and interplay among the 5 Permanent Members, which have their own set of informal practices.
The AG has several distinct roles. As PM LHL put it, he is an independent public prosecutor, he is the Government’s legal adviser, he is the drafter of the laws of Singapore, and he is also Singapore’s international lawyer.
The AGC sometimes gives opinions and advice, which may constrain the ability of the Government to implement certain policies. Ministers and officials have to understand that it is the AGC’s job to advise on the law, even if it may mean inconvenient news.
The rule of law is a much misused term and the problem is that some countries try to foist on others a one-size-fits-all approach. The key question for every society is how to strike a balance between individual and societal rights. There is no “correct” answer. My view has been that Asian countries have tended to give greater importance to the larger interests of the community, whereas Western societies have tended to tilt towards more emphasis on the rights of the individual.
In the coming years, I expect social attitudes in Singapore to shift towards putting greater weight on individual rights. As Singapore recalibrates this aspect, I hope we do not swing to the other end of the spectrum as has the US, where individual rights seem to be far more important than the overall good of society. The overall interests of society should always still be accorded priority.
It is the Government that is elected by the people to govern and enact laws. If any law has clearly infringed the provisions of the Constitution and is struck down by the courts, the Government must accept and respect the courts’ decision.
It is an entirely different matter if the judges go beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution and decide on considerations of what they think the law ought to be, or what the judges think is palatable, just or desirable. We would then have the Judiciary, a body that is not elected by the people, venturing into the arena of policy making. In my view, if the judges feel that a specific law ought to be reviewed, because of unintended effects, hardship or other reasons, it is not improper for them to state their opinion. It is then up to the Government to consider their comments and decide if it wishes to amend the law.
Compensation was not pegged to the current market value. Instead the LAA provided that compensation would be based on the value on the prescribed statutory date or the date of acquisition, whichever was the lower. As the statutory date prescribed in the LAA was not amended regularly, in most cases, compensation payable was far lower than the prevailing market rates.
LKY said that one of the important qualities by which political leaders are judged is “by the way they have provided for continuity so that a successor Government will continue to protect and advance the interests of their people.”
Leadership succession is never any easy task in any country. Some countries do not consciously plan for it. Even when they do, things do not always go according to plan. Even in countries like Singapore where leaders systematically plan for and groom successors teams, there can be bumps and hiccups along the way.
Supposing you are on the top of our list, and if you say no, and we have to go down the list and everybody else keeps saying no. We then go to the bottom of the list and then later, would you regret it if things went awry in Singapore?
I am not an economist but from my years as Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have realized that a major factor for Singapore’s ability to play a role in the regional and international scene is its economic success. If Singapore is a failing state, other countries will not be interested in engaging it.
It will be a challenge for us to resist overtures and pressures to take sides. It will call for strong and savvy leadership as well as adroit diplomatic and political skills. One thing is clear: we can avoid taking sides only if Singapore continues to be a successful country and not beholden to any country.
Personal relations between ministers are always helpful in foreign relations. Personal relations are helpful lubricants in times of chills and frostiness in bilateral relations.
Whenever China is displeased with Singapore over some speeches made by the Government on the South China Sea, or other sensitive topics such as the detention in HK of our Terrex vehicles, its media will publish scathing criticisms of Signapore. This is not only arouses netizens in China to echo similar anti-Singapore sentiments, but some of our own Singaporeans become jittery and think that we have indeed been offside. More than once, some of my friends who are Singaporean Chinese businessmen have come up to me and asked whether we should be “nicer” to China.
It is not a question of being “nice.” It is doing and saying what is in Singapore’s national interest. If we succumb to these pressures, there will be no end to it. Today, it may be China, tomorrow it could be Indonesia, and the next time, it would be some other foreign country.
Did I know that this subject would be a difficult one? That it would be unpopular and cost us votes? Yes, I knew. If I do not know that these are sensitive matters, I cannot be in politics.
But I did it, because I strongly believe, and still do, that this is the right thing to do.
As he saw it, the biggest problem with the 2-party system is that once it is in place, “the best people will choose not to be in politics. Getting elected will be a dicey affair. Fighting campaigns will also tend to become unnecessarily uncivil, even vicious.”
He added if one is talented and doing well in his career, “why would you place so much risk — not only your own interests but your family’s too — by standing for election?”
The PAP would sow the seeds of its own destruction if it deterred the best people from rising to the top or failed to deliver what the electorate needed.
When you meet him in person, he is very gentlemanly and polite. I therefore found it difficult to reconcile the personality I saw with the bellicose comments about our leaders and Singapore, which he would make from time to time.