相比於中港台常常的盲目自信，新加坡的憂患意識真是從出生至今一以貫之。“現實是，我們是在一個很大、很危險的世界當中的一個很小的海島。在未來幾年，這個世界還會變得越來越危險"。黃循財經濟學人專訪全文 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/m266eEQugvPlmqYrnXNV3w…
Translate post
風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
正文
Colin Wu @WutalkWu
勞倫斯·黃 (Lawrence Wong) 親筆文字記錄
2024 年 5 月 8 日
新加坡下一任總理接受《經濟學人》采訪黃循財
編者注：本文是使用轉錄軟件創建的，為了清晰起見，經過輕微編輯
《經濟學人》：Lawrence Wong，我非常感謝您加入我們並同意接受《經濟學人》的采訪。幾天後，您將成為新加坡總理。這是一個通過開放而取得巨大成功的地方，也是全球化的受益者。
新加坡下一任總理接受《經濟學人》采訪
2024 年 5 月 8 日
編者注：本文是使用轉錄軟件創建的，為了清晰起見，經過輕微編輯
《經濟學人》：Lawrence Wong，我非常感謝您加入我們並同意接受《經濟學人》的采訪。幾天後，您將成為新加坡總理。這是一個通過開放而取得巨大成功的地方，也是全球化的受益者。
黃循財：非常如此。
《經濟學人》：您稱其為不可思議的國家和奇跡——新加坡下一任總理黃循財的專訪。新加坡取得了驚人的經濟成就。讀什麽才能了解??新加坡。
勞倫斯·黃：我們仍然是。
《經濟學人》：那麽，您為什麽不首先告訴我們您如何看待全球地緣政治局勢，以及這將如何影響新加坡。
勞倫斯·黃（Lawrence Wong）：我們很擔心，因為它處於不斷變化的狀態。全球秩序正在發生變化。美國的單極時代已經結束。然而，在一個正在向多極世界過渡的世界中，它仍然是最重要的力量。這種轉變將是混亂的，因為我們看到熟悉的路標正在消失，既定的規範正在被侵蝕。人們正在尋找新的軸承，但新的秩序尚未建立。我認為這會混亂好幾年，也許十年或更長時間。我們必須找到世界上所有人的出路，在這個非常不可預測的環境中航行，並希望引導全球發展走向穩定與和平而不是衝突和戰爭的道路。
《經濟學人》：看看過去 18 個月左右的美中關係，可以看到一些穩定局勢的努力。您能否告訴我們您是否期望這種穩定持續下去？或者未來幾年是否會出現危機甚至進一步惡化？
黃循財：兩國領導人會麵並為兩國關係提供了一些保障，並為整體關係提供了一些穩定，這一事實非常有幫助。但雙方之間的相互猜疑和不信任依然存在。它們非常深。兩國立場之間的根本矛盾和緊張局勢依然存在。而且我認為它們不會很快被橋接。所以這不是一個穩定的平衡。我認為事情出錯、緊張局勢升級的可能性很大。這需要非常仔細地管理這種關係。因為如果情況急劇惡化，我認為對美國、中國以及世界其他國家來說都將付出高昂的代價。
經濟學人：您對習近平領導下中國的發展有何評價？您認為事情的發展方向正確嗎？
黃循財：中國正在經曆——至少讓我們談談它的經濟——它的經濟正在經曆幾次重大的結構調整。第一，它不能再依靠廉價的勞動力投入來獲得增長。它已經到了真正需要創新和生產力的階段。它確實在這方麵大力推進，並加大了對先進製造的投資。這也是它從房地產和房地產轉變的一個方麵，而房地產一直是其經濟的重要組成部分。現在，將更多投資轉向先進製造業，並通過越來越多的生產力和技術來推動製造業。這是正在發生的一個重大轉變。他們擔心自己還沒富起來就老了。他們擔心中等收入陷阱，希望推動經濟向前發展。
他們正在經曆的第二個重大結構調整是分享增長的好處。因為當中國開放時，經濟起飛，你知道，這給每個人帶來了巨大的鼓舞。但他們也看到了資本主義的一些缺點。鄧小平說，打開窗戶，你得到蒼蠅，他們得到的比蒼蠅還多。過去十年來，他們一直在應對腐敗、尋租和不平等問題。因此，他們熱衷於追求一種不同的增長模式，更加平衡，他們稱之為共同繁榮。我的意思是，歸根結底，所有國家都必須解決這個問題，因為最終增長必須在勞動力和資本之間進行分配。我認為中國的基本方向是讓更多的增長分配給勞動力，而不是資本，甚至私人資本。但一定要把握好這個平衡，因為如果過度了，肯定會挫傷民營企業家的鬥誌，讓他??們很難進入下一階段的發展。我很確定他們知道正在努力尋求適當的平衡。
《經濟學人》：你描述了中國的經濟場景，但如果你在華盛頓特區的政治場景，他們會把中國描述為一個日益集權主義的體係，專注於安全，甚至專注於與美國的對抗或爭奪霸權。你接受這種描述嗎？
黃循財：嗯，中國當然認為美國試圖遏製、包圍和鎮壓他們，並試圖剝奪他們在世界上應有的地位。不隻是領導層這麽想。我想如果你和很多中國官員交談，他們也會有同樣的感覺。他們覺得這種遏製是為了打壓中國。所以有這種感覺，每一個動作都會有相反的反應。因此，你看，中國正在努力尋找擺脫這種遏製的方法，以確保他們在技術上變得更加自力更生。
與此同時……我知道他們已經經曆了發展的各個階段，他們談到站起來、致富，現在變得強大。他們認為自己是一個強大的國家，他們的時代已經到來，他們希望在自己的國家利益上更加自信，包括海外的國家利益，但在這方麵，中國也必須像所有大國一樣認識到，如果他們做得太過分如果他們對其他國家進行繞道、脅迫、擠壓或施壓，就會引起包括本地區在內的反彈。這就是為什麽他們不能走得太遠。他們必須吸取教訓。這是所有大國都要經曆的教訓。美國也經曆了這些教訓。我的意思是，在墨西哥，他們說，美國是我最好的朋友，無論我喜歡與否。因為當大國與小國打交道時，大國往往意識不到自己的威勢有多大。同時在大國和小國之間找到一個愉快的平衡是非常困難的。
《經濟學人》：所以您最近將新加坡的地位描述為既不親華也不親美。我想知道你是否可以談談——
黃循財：我們是支持新加坡的。
《經濟學人》：但是親新加坡的，沒錯，兩個大國之間的立場可能會受到考驗並麵臨壓力。因此，一種可能性，也許是美國正在使用的技術、製裁和控製將進一步收緊。他們甚至可以要求兩種技術體係完全分離。新加坡將如何應對？你們的製造業出口有一半是高科技，它們與中國製造業生態係統緊密相連。如果出現技術分裂，新加坡會做什麽？
勞倫斯·黃：首先，許多敏感技術掌握在在新加坡運營的美國跨國公司手中。如果美國擴大出口限製，那麽我們完全期望美國公司遵守這些規則，不僅僅是在新加坡，而是在他們在世界上開展業務的任何地方。世界上還有許多其他地方可能沒有如此嚴格地遵守這些規則，但當然，如果公司位於新加坡，那麽我們希望他們完全遵守這些出口限製。我們希望仔細調整出口限製，因為隻要存在安全、國家安全問題，這些都是可以理解的。
但如果你開始擴大院子——我們談到了“小院子，高柵欄”——院子變得越來越大，最終最終導致經濟許多領域的技術分歧，我認為這將是有害的，不僅是為了新加坡，也是為了我們和全世界。你知道，我之前說過，我們確實必須關心這些經濟工具如何用於地緣政治目的。在軍事領域，安全人員非常注意投下炸彈時的附帶損害。因為你擔心，你知道這會給對方帶來傷害，但你擔心報複、升級和各種後果，而且你考慮得非常仔細。但當你開始考慮將經濟和金融工具用於地緣政治目的時，評估附帶損害就沒那麽簡單了，而且我們在這方麵也沒有太多經驗。如果我們不小心，這將對全球經濟產生深遠的影響。但更糟糕的是，對於全球穩定而言。
《經濟學人》：美國要求 TikTok 從根本上改變其身份，您對此有何看法？和所有權。這是一家總部位於新加坡的公司，其首席執行官是一位新加坡公民，曾在您剛才描述的軍隊中服役。但美國似乎拒絕將其視為中國的代理人。
勞倫斯·黃（Lawrence Wong）：嗯，由美國決定如何處理 TikTok，這是美國的特權。但從我們的角度來看，當涉及到社交媒體時，這並不算國家安全。我的意思是，我們有來自各個國家/地區的社交媒體公司，它們就在新加坡，我們不認為這構成國家安全風險。但這是新加坡的觀點。
《經濟學人》：讓我們看看超級大國之間的這種立場可能麵臨壓力的另一種方式。因此，新加坡對俄羅斯實施了與其入侵烏克蘭有關的製裁。未來十年很有可能發生台灣問題的衝突。我想知道你是否可以預見新加坡會因這場衝突而對中國實施製裁。
黃循財：這實際上取決於衝突的性質。對於烏克蘭和俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭，我們非常清楚，這是對《聯合國憲章》的嚴重違反，是對領土主權和完整的侵犯。如果這樣的入侵能夠以曆史錯誤和瘋狂決定為基礎，那麽世界將變得更加不安全，我們將變得非常脆弱。這就是為什麽即使沒有聯合國安理會決議，我們也決定采取措施並實施製裁，我們也這樣做了。沒有其他東盟國家這樣做過。全球南方的許多其他國家還沒有這樣做。但我們決定采取這一步，因為它違背並違反了我們相信並堅持的一些非常基本的原則。
我們認為台灣的情況與烏克蘭不同。首先，人們試圖將兩者進行比較。但事實上，它們有著本質上的不同，因為烏克蘭是一個主權國家，但台灣、世界上絕大多數國家都奉行一個中國政策。我們在與中華人民共和國建交之前就長期堅持一個中國政策，反對台獨。這是一個長期存在的立場。當我們與中國和台灣建立關係時，我們非常謹慎，這符合我們的一個中國政策。我們不允許自己被任何支持台獨的事業所利用。
那麽，你又問了一個假設性的問題，如果台灣海峽或台灣周邊發生什麽事情，我們希望這不會發生。因為如果所有各方都了解風險和紅線，並認識到這與烏克蘭有很大不同——我認為美國政府當然明白——那麽也許我們就有很好的機會維持現狀，如果有任何改變發生這種情況時，必須以和平且非強迫的方式進行。這些事情需要時間。同時，讓我們維持現狀，繼續接觸和談判。這將是我們的首選方法。
經濟學人：您最近還說新加坡不是美國的盟友。
黃循財：我們不是。我們是全球唯一的主要安全合作夥伴。
《經濟學人》：那麽，對於一位擔心美國在全球範圍內過度擴張的美國選民，他會問“為什麽新加坡應該接受美國的武器、先進的安全設備，並享受其中的所有好處，但它卻無法稱自己為自己的國家”，您對此有何看法？我們的盟友？”
勞倫斯·黃：因為這是一種安全和防務關係，事實證明，這種關係對雙方都是互利的，持續了幾十年。我們完全讚賞美國為確保該地區的安全而付出的鮮血和財富。我們完全讚賞美國為世界這一地區的和平與繁榮提供的安全保護傘。我們傾向於與美國密切合作：我們提供進入我們的空中和海上海軍基地的通道。我們支持他們的輪換部署，我們提供後勤支持，我們交換情報。我們不僅購買技術和軍事裝備，而且在安全和國防的許多領域進行非常富有成效的雙向信息交流。事實證明，這對雙方都是互利的。
經濟學人：你能想象新加坡加入 aukus 嗎？
Lawrence Wong：目前，aukus隻是一個由盟友組成的團體。我們不是盟友。
《經濟學人》：這些地緣政治緊張局勢在新加坡國內有何表現？人們如何看待與中國的緊張局勢，特別是最近中東的緊張局勢，新加坡那裏有大量穆斯林人口，他們對加沙的暴力感到擔憂？您想對關心新加坡戰爭的人們和新加坡公民說些什麽來安撫他們？
Lawrence Wong：這是我們非常重視的事情提到這一點，因為我們是一個很小的國家，而且人口非常多樣化。我想說，我們不斷受到來自世界各地的壓力的影響。因為在新加坡，華裔人口占大多數。我們都與中國有聯係。但我們必須提醒自己，也提醒中國，我們是新加坡人。我們以國家利益為基礎開展業務，而不是以種族關係為基礎。但我們也有馬來人，他們將與該地區的國家以及全球的烏瑪（更廣泛的伊斯蘭社區）建立聯係。我們有印度人口，他們與印度有祖先聯係、家庭聯係。
所以這是一個可能會有所不同的人群。您可以看到它如何輕易地受到這些影響的影響。因為我們與這些文明或更大國家的聯係是深刻的、情感的、文化的。我們希望維持這些聯係，這些聯係造就了我們。我們重視這些聯係。與此同時，我們必須不斷提醒我們的人民——與新加坡人接觸——我們是新加坡人。我們做事一定要以國家利益為基礎。我們必須這樣做，通過你強調的俄羅斯和俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭的各種危機。那是一場危機，對我們的經濟影響很大，但情感共鳴相對較低。於是我們出去解釋——
《經濟學人》：我想加沙恰恰相反。
黃循財：加沙雖然沒有產生太大的經濟影響，但引起了更高程度的共鳴——不僅是我們的馬來穆斯林人口——甚至是許多新加坡人，看到了造成無辜平民傷亡的暴行生活。再一次，我們必須走出去，向我們的人民解釋新加坡所采取的立場以及我們為什麽要做我們所做的某些事情，我們在聯合國參與的決議以及我們如何盡我們的職責參與全球救援努力，以及我們如何繼續支持通過談判達成兩國解決方案，同時呼籲結束敵對行動。
現在，如果南亞、台灣、南海發生什麽事情，這將是一個既會產生巨大經濟影響，又會引起我們人民高度情感共鳴的事件。顯然，這將很難管理。這就是為什麽對我們來說，那些看似遙遠的外部事件實際上就發生在我們家門口。我們非常關注世界各地正在發生的事情，讓我們的人民參與進來，向他們解釋新加坡的情況、政府的立場是什麽以及我們的國家利益是什麽。
《經濟學人》：在我們繼續討論新加坡和新加坡模式及其正在發生的變化之前；最後一個問題是關於地緣政治的。新加坡的立場是維護國際法——這是你們外交政策的基石——您認為國際法的狀況如何？還有效嗎？聯合國安理會存在分歧，海洋法等關鍵條約的執行也沒有落實。這真的仍然是你們外交政策的可靠支柱嗎？
黃循財：麵臨著巨大的壓力，但我們別無選擇，我們必須不斷地推開它、堅持下去，並與誌同道合的國家合作，以加強這一基於規則的多邊秩序。我們以不同的方式做到這一點。例如，在經濟領域，世貿組織不起作用。我的意思是，我們一直在呼籲上訴機構正常運作，恢複爭端解決機製，我們聽起來就像一張破唱片，就像荒野中的一個孤獨的聲音，但我們會繼續呼籲——
《經濟學人》：同意你的觀點——
勞倫斯·黃：謝謝。但您知道，我們還可以通過其他方式提供幫助。世貿組織;多邊倡議很難發揮作用。當我們與誌同道合的國家合作時，我們有了p4，最初是智利、新西蘭和文萊，後來成為了tpp。我們選擇退出。但接下來我們就有了 cptpp。我們也在其他貿易倡議上開展了類似的工作。現在我們正在圍繞數字經濟製定新舉措。因為隨著數字經濟的發展，你需要圍繞數據存儲、數據流動、數據安全的新規則。因此，我們與英國和澳大利亞簽署了數字協議。我們有一個涉及三個國家的項目：智利、我們自己，我想還有新西蘭。然後有很多國家想要加入。所以我認為，如果新加坡以這種方式運作，我們會努力發揮建設性，我們努力提供價值，尋找誌同道合的國家加入我們的小規模平台。隨著時間的推移，我們希望其中一些能夠成長，其他誌同道合的國家也能夠加入我們。這就是我們如何為加強世界多邊主義發揮作用。
經濟學人：好吧，我們來看看新加坡和國內的情況，首先從經濟。不久前，您在預算聲明中表示，“我們將不再能夠在新加坡輕鬆實現增長”。部分原因是貿易環境惡化，但很大一部分原因是人口統計，預計未來十年新加坡工作年齡公民的數量將減少數十萬人。因此，請談談這一點以及移民的作用；在新加坡有時是一個有爭議的話題。據推測，這意味著您需要更多的遷移。
勞倫斯·黃：確實如此。我認為，輕鬆增長的時代已經結束，不僅僅是因為勞動力，而且我們現在確實處於如此高的發展水平。而且我們會很貴。我的意思是，你不能指望高工資和低成本。工資和成本是同一枚硬幣的兩個部分。因此，我們收入高，成本高，我們必須不斷創新、重組，然後推動生產力和創新前沿，以證明溢價合理。這就是我們一直在做的事情，這就是為什麽今天的經濟與 20 年前的經濟有很大不同。
這實際上是為了繼續將尖端投資引入新加坡，推動前沿發展，開展新活動。同時準備好讓無生命力的企業消失，以便釋放資源。這在很大程度上是一個流失的過程，這對員工來說可能會造成很大的幹擾。但這就是為什麽我們也付出了大量努力來幫助員工進行再培訓、調整規模和提高技能。現在就勞動力本身而言，就勞動力投入和移民而言，我們是一個開放的經濟和開放的社會。我們歡迎外國專業人士來新加坡工作，但這是受控製的，因為如果不控製，我認為我們很容易就會被淹沒。我們不能像阿聯酋那樣，當地居民隻占總人口的不到10%。他們有不同的契約，因為他們利用石油和天然氣收入為公民提供一切。作為回報，他們隻是允許外國人自由進入。這在新加坡是不可能的。
《經濟學人》：所以你無法想象公民成為少數派的情況。
勞倫斯·黃：完全沒有。一點也不。一點也不。我們將保持開放，但樓層將受到控製。我們將確保外國專業人士進來。我們歡迎他們。他們為我們的經濟增加價值，我們要求他們適應我們的社會規範。而且它是在不同層次上進行控製和分級的，因為會有新加坡人不想做的工作，比如建築業。另一方麵，有才華的專業人士可以進入新領域並提供新技能。新加坡人從事的工作介於兩者之間，例如醫療保健和工程，但我們需要更多的人。因此，考慮到不同的類別，我們有分級的控製措施。我們這樣做是為了確保移民的到來，我們歡迎他們，外國專業人士的到來，他們補充了新加坡的核心，他們為我們的經濟做出了貢獻，他們為我們的社會做出了貢獻。這最終為我們新加坡所有人帶來了淨收益，這就是我們的方法。
《經濟學人》：移民新加坡的一方麵是為了維持大致的種族平衡。我相信它叫 cmio；華人、馬來人、印度人和其他人……
勞倫斯·黃（Lawrence Wong）：就像一個簡寫一樣，現在它變得更加多樣化，因為你有異族通婚。而且 cmio 實際上隻是一個簡寫。
經濟學人：所以問題是為什麽有必要這樣做？為什麽新加坡不能成為一個後種族的社會，也不需要有這種人口結構的默契目標。
勞倫斯·黃：我們希望發展成為一個種族盲的社會，但我們對這些事情也非常現實。這些種族本能是非常原始的，非常情緒化的，隨時都可能被激起。當然，今天我們的狀況比獨立後起步時以及過去發生種族騷亂時要好得多。但即便如此，在新冠疫情期間，在這三年裏，在新冠疫情期間，我們最近發生了一係列與種族相關的事件。這些都是非常尖銳、非常、非常對抗性的事件，激怒了人們。
《經濟學人》：為我們的全球聽眾舉一個其中一個事件的例子？
勞倫斯·黃（Lawrence Wong）：嗯，曾經發生過人們成為目標的事件，因為我們在新冠疫情初期製定了……限製措施來防止病毒傳播，但人們卻藐視了一些規則。但是，當有人去公園時，他們看到有人在公園裏不戴口罩行走，並且是某個特定種族群體的人，然後他們就會發表種族主義言論。例如，它在網上傳播。這種情況發生了不止一次，發生了多次，當我們讓來自印度的人入境時，當印度出現一波新冠肺炎疫情時……出現了強烈的反應。所以這不是20年前發生的事情，而是最近發生的事情。這隻是一個非常鮮明的提醒……人們不是新加坡沒有種族主義。我認為，在很多方麵，我們都渴望實現我們在承諾中所背誦的理想，無論種族、語言或宗教如何。但這些東西是休眠的，它們隻是隱藏在表麵之下。隻需要一個事件，一個壞演員，一個試圖煽動事情的人，就會導致休眠的病毒再次爆發。這就是為什麽我們必須保持警惕和警惕。
《經濟學人》：西方發生的事件之一是更強大的身份政治的興起，出於意識形態原因，也許還有社交媒體。您認為這對新加坡構成威脅嗎？
黃循財：我們在新加坡確實看到了一些這樣的情況。有些人確實陷入其中。因此，我們在處理身份問題時采取了非常不同的方法。第一，就像我說的，這不是要融入一個單一的身份。我們允許人們接受自己的種族身份，無論他們是什麽。我們要求他們保留它，因為它很珍貴，它造就了我們。但我們走到一起，想辦法擴大我們作為新加坡人的共同點。所以這不是減法。這是關於加法的。
能夠做到這一點的一個重要部分就是讓人們聚集在一起，進行更多麵對麵的接觸，更多地了解彼此的習俗傳統，開始欣賞，並且超越欣賞和理解，互相尊重。然後當有分歧的時候，想辦法包容和妥協，因為分歧肯定會存在，妥協不能是一個壞詞，妥協不能成為對我的部落或我的身份不光彩的問題。因為如果這就是恥辱，那就是全麵戰爭。新加坡的不同群體之間將會存在深刻的分歧。因此，自獨立以來，我們從一開始就采取了一種非常不同的方法。我認為這種方法效果很好。在新加坡，人們明白這是不同的。並不是每個群體都能得到他們想要的一切。但通過參與合作，不強調我們的分歧，而是找到共同點，這種方法對我們所有人來說都更有效。
《經濟學人》：另一個社會變化是新加坡年輕人的觀點如何適應和演變。最近，您進行了一項名為“前進新加坡”的大型谘詢活動，其中您以某種方式與 20 萬新加坡人進行了交談。然後，報告得出的結論是，“我們年輕人的心態發生了明顯的轉變”。這一代人是在新加坡取得巨大成功和繁榮的背景下成長起來的。也許你可以了解一下，與前幾代人相比，他們的態度發生了怎樣的變化。
黃循財：從某些方麵來說，我屬於新加坡獨立後出生的第一任總理這一代人。我的所有前任都唱了兩首（如果不是三首）其他國歌。 《God Save the King》、日本《Kimi Ga Yo》以及馬來西亞《Negaraku》。我隻唱過一首國歌，《Majulah Singapura》，我們的國歌。因此，今天建立的價值觀和原則造就了今天的新加坡精英政治、廉潔、種族和諧、三方主義，以及我之前提到的尋找共同點的方法，我認為這些都深深地植根於我以及與我交談過的許多年輕人的內心。 。同時也有變化。我認為，當我們與年輕人接觸時，無論是與我年齡相仿、獨立後還是更年輕的人??，我們確實感覺到他們的願望發生了變化。這些都是崇高的願望。我認為年輕人，我接觸過的許多年輕人，都喜歡為自己的抱負而奮鬥和努力，但他們希望看到一個新加坡，我們擁抱更廣泛的成功定義，每項工作都受到尊重，有一個每項工作的工資都更加公平，個人更有信心和安全感來提升自己，並從生活中不可避免的挫折中恢複過來。這些是我們從對話中提煉出來的內容，我們將其放在一起，作為我們所謂的“前進新加坡”路線圖的一部分。我們正在采取措施實現這些目標。
《經濟學人》：您描述的新加坡為了保持在全球前沿的地位，麵臨著巨大的經濟波動，而新一代的新加坡人有著不同的期望。讓我們轉向政治，談談政治如何適應和改變，以反映你是 4g 一代的一部分，取代 3g 或在 3g 之後出現——
勞倫斯·黃（Lawrence Wong）：找不到更好的詞了。
經濟學人：還不錯。
黃循財：隻是我們政府隻經曆過三次政治更迭。
經濟學人：隻是為了清楚起見。對於聽眾來說。這不是電信規範。但請告訴我們 4G 的風格、治理風格、你們這一代人和你們的政府與 3G 有何不同。
勞倫斯·黃：我認為新加坡的政治一直在不斷發展，並將繼續發展。 60年代、70年代、甚至80年代李光耀先生領導下的教皇政府或教皇統治的時代已經結束，我們再也回不到那個時代了。如果你看看政治，從那時起它就一直在發展。新加坡人本身已經進化了。這是一群受過高等教育、非常老練、對投票方式非常挑剔的選民。
雖然今天的大多數人希望教皇掌權，進入政府，但他們也希望在議會中看到更多的反對聲音。因此，反對派在議會中的存在將繼續存在。很清楚。我還說過，當我參加選舉時，我並不認為教皇會自動重新掌權。我不認為我會成為選舉後的下一個下午。因此，這就是我們政治格局的新現實，這意味著作為一個執政黨、一個政黨，對於我現在作為總理來說，最終帶領該黨參加選舉，我們將必須盡最大努力吸引新加坡人，我們將盡最大努力讓他們參與他們深切關心的決策，並塑造我們的未來，這就是為什麽我們在“前進新加坡”活動中開始這樣做，讓新加坡人更多地參與進來，不僅僅是傾聽他們的意見，而且我們我們也在努力尋找人們可以參與決策的平台，並開始共同塑造我們國家的未來。
《經濟學人》：李光耀說過：“誰統治新加坡，誰就必須有鐵一般的毅力”。人們一直認為，新加坡獨立後的領導人都是強人，有時甚至是鐵石心腸。您認為自己是這樣的領導者嗎？你體內有鐵嗎？
黃循財：我相信，當事情到了緊要關頭，需要做出艱難決定時，我會這麽做。隻要這個決定符合新加坡和新加坡人的利益。
《經濟學人》：其中的要素是，有時強迫人們做他們不想做的事，有時對公眾更加粗暴，你認為自己屬於這種模式嗎？或者你更像一個傾聽者？
黃循財：嗯，我就是我。我認真聽取大家的意見。當我參加會議時，我不會一開始就假設我知道所有答案。我想了解人們的見解。我想了解人們的觀點，最終思考什麽才能為新加坡帶來最佳決策和結果。其中一些決定可能不是最受歡迎的決定，但我們可能會感覺並且相信它們是正確的決定。因此，當出現這種情況時，我在新冠疫情期間不得不反複處理，或者最近不得不提高預算中的商品及服務銷售稅。當這些決定出現時，新加坡人可以放心，我將能夠為了新加坡和新加坡人的最大利益而做出決定，並向他們解釋為什麽這些困難的決定是必要的。
《經濟學人》：你的故事的一部分是，就你就讀的學校而言，你沒有精英背景，你有一個更典型的成長經曆；你去了當地的學校嗎？這對於您在普通新加坡人中的品牌有多重要？
黃循財：嗯，我的背景就是這樣。我的意思是，如果它能讓新加坡人更容易產生共鳴，那就更好了。但我毫不懷疑。就像我剛才所說的，新加坡人是有洞察力和明智的選民，我毫不懷疑，最終他們會期望我能夠實現他們關心的事情。創造更好的生活，為自己和孩子提供更好的生活水平。如果我的團隊，如果我自己，我的團隊，我們無法滿足這些高期望。如果我們無法實現這些標準，並且出現了更好的團隊，那麽新加坡人將做出相應的選擇。我對此毫不懷疑。
《經濟學人》：據我了解，即將卸任的李總理很可能會繼續扮演某種角色，可能是在內閣中。您能否談談這個問題，特別是解決這樣的擔憂：它可能會阻礙下一代 4G 在新加坡真正發出自己的聲音並發揮權威。
黃循財：嗯，這是新加坡的傳統。我的意思是，這在其他國家並不常見，但這是新加坡悠久的傳統，我們發現它非常有價值。每次我們進行領導層換屆時，我們不會隻是踢掉所有老部長，然後引入一個全新的團隊。我們重視經驗豐富的部長，並邀請他們繼續以不同的方式、以自己的方式做出貢獻。我們也曾對前總理這樣做過，這不是第一次——無論是李光耀先生、吳作棟先生還是李顯龍先生。阻止新首相設定目標從來都不是問題。
領導力和自己做決定的能力之一，所以我認為不會有任何困難，李顯龍最終會成為國務資政並繼續任職。他在國際上擁有的網絡將非常有價值。我會以最好的方式相應地使用他。因為對我來說，作為領導者，我必須找到方法來利用我所有團隊以及每個新加坡人的集體能量，以便為我們提供最好的機會，讓這個小島在黑暗中繼續發出更加明亮的光芒和紛亂的世界。
《經濟學人》：誰將繼續擔任你們黨派的黨魁？
黃循財：嗯，這也是一個傳統，在領導層交接之後，在總理接任之後，將會有一個交接，由新總理接任秘書長。派對。所以這會在適當的時候發生。也許我們以一個問題結束。
《經濟學人》：那我們為什麽不結束你的遺產呢？如果您擔任總理十年，在這段時間結束時，您希望如何改變新加坡？十年後你想有什麽不同？
黃循財：嗯，我剛才說的出發點是，新加坡在過去 60 年裏可能發生了巨大的變化。但現實是，我們仍然是一個廣闊而危險的世界中的一個非常小的島嶼，未來幾年這個世界將變得更加危險。所以我們一直把自己視為失敗者。我們將永遠是一個不可能、不可能的國家，隻有通過我們人民的集體意誌才能建立起來。過去60年所發生的一切堪稱奇跡。我的使命是盡我所能讓這個奇跡持續下去。並確保我們的小紅點盡可能長時間地明亮發光。
《經濟學人》：Lawrence Wong，非常感謝您加入我們。
勞倫斯·黃：謝謝。
Spirilla_Huckleberry•1天前•編輯於1天前
媒體熱潮正在如火如荼地進行。選舉即將來臨。回到新加坡國立大學，教授們都知道，PAP 對年輕人（現在已經是 30 多歲的成年人）有很大的問題。情況變得如此糟糕，以至於有些人甚至直接與一些部長交談，是的，部長們自己知道。
這已經是幾年前的事了，但住房、人口過剩、工作時間等方麵仍然缺乏行動，足以讓你知道他們的優先事項是什麽。
如果你告訴你的老板一個問題，幾年後它仍然沒有得到解決或半途而廢，你已經知道你的價值有多大。
如果您是雇主或富有，在新加坡的生活會很美好。富有，就像部長們定期來和你見麵吃飯一樣豐富。
他們知道他們會贏。他們知道他們可以庇護最不受歡迎的候選人，並在部長的旗幟下空降新候選人。他們所需要做的就是讓這個選舉周期結束，然後空降下一任將軍。
我寫這些可能是在浪費時間，但這也是我遷移前的最後一次嚐試。隻是一個小小的希望，我們仍然可以得救。
如果情況仍然沒有改善，那麽……好吧，是時候收拾行李去體驗那個暑假的法國愛情了。
智橘8466 •23小時
祝您和您的新旅程好運。我也在認真考慮移民，很想更多地了解您是如何做出這個決定的以及您的過程是怎樣的。
我開始不再覺得在我的餘生中被當作二等公民對待——直到我 40 歲為止，我都有國民服役責任，而每年都有新公民昂首闊步地進來，就像這是免費的房地產，而不必犧牲自己的青春來服務這個國家缺乏解決年輕選民的關切和問題的政策。過去的幾份預算案清楚地表明了這一點，其中的重點顯然是年老體弱的人，以及對建國一代和立國一代的大肆宣傳。沒有提及如何引導新加坡度過未來50年，隻是不斷宣傳“政府正在監控”，卻沒有采取任何重大行動。
政府似乎也完全放棄了提高當地核心出生率的努力，並且顯然正在從移民中獲取新公民。
我質疑新公民如何獲得批準的過程，因為我有很多非“C”類朋友的軼事經曆，盡管他們在這裏就讀中學、JC和大學並在這裏定居，但仍被拒絕公民身份和永久居民身份，但我看到“C”類的前同事在這裏工作幾年後就輕鬆獲得公民身份。甚至不是在這裏長大的，非常喜歡呆在自己的小圈子裏，不與當地人融合。
反對黨和非選區議員在議會提出了有效的問題，但人民行動黨隻是以人民行動黨的名義將其關閉。
按照他們一貫的自以為是的態度，“維護社會凝聚力和秩序”。
這隻是冰山一角。人們似乎沒有意識到我們的治理體係有一個嚴重的缺陷，如果現任者變得流氓，他們實際上可以憑借他們對這個國家的資源和機構擁有的權力和控製力讓這個國家屈服。根據我們現行的法律。例如 POFMA、對官方媒體的控製、空降哈莉瑪·雅各布擔任總統的詭計等等。如果人民行動黨願意，他們有權在任何特定時間製定和通過任何他們喜歡的法律，因為他們擁有絕對多數。
我什至還沒有談到這個國家是如何成為一個財閥政治的。政府熱衷擁護的所謂精英政治已經腐敗。
神奧尼
•12小時。前
大多數采訪並沒有真正告訴我們任何關於人民行動黨態度的新內容，但我確實發現這次交流很有趣：
《經濟學人》：李光耀說過：“誰統治新加坡，誰就必須有鐵一般的毅力”。人們一直認為，新加坡獨立後的領導人都是強人，有時甚至是鐵石心腸。您認為自己是這樣的領導者嗎？你體內有鐵嗎？
黃循財：我相信，當事情到了緊要關頭，需要做出艱難決定時，我會這麽做。隻要這個決定符合新加坡和新加坡人的利益。
與過去的 PAP 相比，它的反應要溫和得多，我想知道它會如何發揮。我不知道這是故意的做法還是LW的性格。我很確定 GCT 和 LHL 會立即做出肯定的回答，並加上“為了新加坡的利益”
Transcript Lawrence Wong in his own words.
May 8th 2024
Singapore's next prime minister sat down with The Economist
Editor's note: this article was created using transcription software and has been lightly edited for clarity
The Economist: Lawrence Wong, I just want to thank you so much for joining us, and agreeing to talk to The Economist. In a few days’ time, you’re going to become Prime Minister of Singapore. It’s a place that’s been a huge success by being open, and a beneficiary of globalisation.
Singapore's next prime minister sat down with The Economist
May 8th 2024
Editor's note: this article was created using transcription software and has been lightly edited for clarity
The Economist: Lawrence Wong, I just want to thank you so much for joining us, and agreeing to talk to The Economist. In a few days' time, you're going to become Prime Minister of Singapore. It's a place that’s been a huge success by being open, and a beneficiary of globalisation.
Lawrence Wong: Very much so.
The Economist: You’ve called it the improbable nation and a miracle—
Lawrence Wong: We still are.
The Economist: So why don't you start by telling us how you see the geopolitical scene globally, and how that's going to affect Singapore.
Lawrence Wong: We are concerned because it is in a state of flux. The global order is shifting. The unipolar moment for America has ended. Yet it remains the pre-eminent power in a world that's transiting to a multipolar world. And this transition will be messy because we are seeing familiar signposts are fading, the established norms are eroding. People are searching for new bearings, but the new order is not yet established. I think it will be messy for quite a few years, maybe a decade or longer. And we will have to find our way all of us in the world, navigate through this very unpredictable environment, and hopefully steer the course of global developments towards a path of stability and peace rather than conflict and war.
The Economist: And when you look at us-China relations in the last 18 months or so there's been some effort to stabilise things. Can you give us a sense of whether you expect that stability to last? Or could there be moments of crisis or even more deterioration over the next few years?
Lawrence Wong: The fact that the two leaders met and provided some guard-rails to the relationship, and provided some stabilisation to the overall relationship has been very helpful. But the mutual suspicion and distrust between both sides remain. They are very deep. The underlying contradictions and tensions between the two national positions remain. And I don’t see them being bridged anytime soon. So it’s not a stable equilibrium. I think there’s a lot of possibilities for things to go wrong, for tensions to flare up. And it will require very careful management of the relationship. Because if things were to deteriorate sharply, I think it’d be costly for both the us and China and for the rest of the world.
The Economist: And what’s your assessment of where China’s going under Xi Jinping? Do you think it’s going in the right direction?
Lawrence Wong: Well China is going through—at least let’s talk about its economy—its economy is going through several big structural adjustments. One, it can no longer rely on cheap labour inputs to get growth. It’s reached a stage where it really needs innovation and productivity. And it’s really pushing hard on that front and investing more in advanced manufacturing. And that’s one aspect of it shifting also away from real estate and property which has been a big part of its economy. And now shifting more of that investment into advanced manufacturing and driving it through more and more productivity and technology. That’s one big shift that’s happening. They are worried that they will get old before they get rich. They are concerned about the middle-income trap and they want to push the economy forward.
The second major structural adjustment that they are going through is about sharing the benefits of growth. Because when China opened up, the economy took off, you know, tremendous uplifting for everyone. But they also saw some downsides of capitalism. Deng Xiaoping said, open the window, you get flies, they got more than flies. And they have been dealing with corruption, rent-seeking, inequalities over the last ten years. So they are keen to pursue a different model of growth, more balanced, they call it common prosperity. I mean, at the end of the day, all countries have to grapple with this issue, because in the end, growth has to be allocated between labour and capital. And I think China’s basic orientation was to have more of that growth allocated towards labour, rather than capital or even private capital. But they have to get that balance right, because if they overdo it, then it would certainly dampen the animal spirits of private entrepreneurs, and it would make it difficult for them to reach that next stage of growth. And I’m quite sure they are aware of trying to work out the appropriate balance.
The Economist: So you’ve described the economic scene in China, but the political scene if you were in Washington dc, they would describe China as an increasingly totalitarian system focused on security, focused on confrontation even, with America or contestation for supremacy. Do you accept that characterisation?
Lawrence Wong: Well, China certainly looks at the us as trying to contain and circle and suppress them and trying to deny them their rightful place in the world. It’s not just the leadership who thinks like that. I think if you talk to a lot of the Chinese officials, they feel the same way. They feel that there is this containment to put China down. So there is that sense, and for every action, there will be an opposite reaction. And so China, you see, is trying to find ways to get out of that containment, to make sure that they become more technologically self reliant.
At the same time…I know they have been through phases in their development, they talked about standing up, getting rich, now getting strong. They see themselves as a strong country, their time has come and they want to be more assertive in their national interest, including the national interest overseas, but there too, China will have to learn—as all big countries do—that if they overdo it, if they push their way around, coerce, squeeze or pressurise other countries, it will engender a backlash, including in the region. And that’s why they cannot go too far. And they will have to learn that lesson. It’s a lesson that all big countries go through. America goes through those lessons, too. I mean, in Mexico, they say, America is my best friend, whether I like it or not. Because when a big country deals with a small country, the big country often doesn’t realise how imposing they are. And it’s very hard to find a happy balance between the two, the big and the small country at the same time.
The Economist: So you’ve described recently Singapore’s status as being neither pro-China nor pro-America. I wondered if you could talk about—
Lawrence Wong: We are pro-Singapore.
The Economist: But pro-Singapore, that’s right, how that position of standing between the two powers could be tested and come under strain. So one possibility, perhaps a probability is that the technology, sanctions and controls that America is using will be tightened even further. And they could even ask for a complete split of the two technology systems. How would Singapore deal with that? Half of your manufacturing exports are high tech, they’re closely connected to the Chinese manufacturing ecosystem. If there is a tech split, what will Singapore do?
Lawrence Wong: Well, first of all, a lot of these sensitive technologies lie in the hands of American mncs [multinational corporations] operating out of Singapore. And to the extent that the us were to widen its export restrictions, then we fully expect American companies to comply with the rules, not just in Singapore incidentally, but anywhere they operate in the world. And there are many other places in the world where the rules may not be complied with so strictly, but certainly if companies were to be in Singapore, then we expect them to comply fully with these export restrictions. We wish the export restrictions will be carefully calibrated because where there are security, national security concerns, those are very understandable.
But if you start expanding the yard—we talked about “small yard, high fences”—and the yard keeps getting bigger and bigger and it really ends up in a technological bifurcation, across many areas of the economy, I think that will be detrimental, not just for Singapore, but for us and for the whole world. You know, I’ve said this before that we really have to care about how these sorts of economic tools are used for geopolitical purposes. In the military world, the security people are very mindful about collateral damage when you drop a bomb. Because you worry, you understand it causes harm on the other side, but you worry about retaliation, escalation, and all sorts of consequences, and you think very carefully. But when you start thinking about using economic and financial tools for geopolitical purposes, it’s not so straightforward to assess the collateral damage, and we don’t have so much experience with it. And if we’re not careful, it will have profound implications for the global economy. But worse still, for global stability.
The Economist: And what did you think of the treatment of TikTok, where America has asked it to basically change its identity and ownership. It’s a Singaporean headquartered company, its chief executive is a Singaporean citizen who served in the military that you’ve just described. And yet America appears to have rejected it as a Chinese proxy.
Lawrence Wong: Well it’s for America to decide how it wants to deal with TikTok, it’s America’s prerogative. But from our point of view, when it comes to social media, that doesn’t count as national security. I mean, we have social-media companies operating from all countries, and they are here in Singapore, we don’t see this as a national-security risk. But that’s Singapore’s perspective.
The Economist: Let’s look at another way that this position of standing between the superpowers might come under pressure. So Singapore has enforced sanctions against Russia, related to its invasion of Ukraine. It’s quite possible that there will be a conflict over Taiwan over the next decade. And I wondered if you could foresee a situation where Singapore enforces sanctions against China over that conflict.
Lawrence Wong: It really depends on the nature of the conflict. With Ukraine and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we were very clear, this was a very egregious breach of the United Nations Charter, a breach of territorial sovereignty and integrity. And if invasions like this can be justified on the basis of historical errors and crazy decisions, the world will be a much less safe place, and we will be very vulnerable. And that’s why even though there wasn’t a United Nations Security Council resolution, we decided to take steps and to impose sanctions, which we did. No other asean country has done this. Many other countries in the global south have not done this. But we decided to take this step, because it crosses and breaches some very fundamental principles, which we believe in and uphold.
We don’t think that Taiwan is in the same situation as Ukraine. First of all, people try to draw parallels between the two. But in fact, they are fundamentally quite different because Ukraine is a sovereign country, but Taiwan, the vast majority of countries around the world have a One China policy. We have long upheld a One China policy and oppose Taiwanese independence, even before we established diplomatic relations with the prc. It’s a long-standing position. And we are very careful when we conduct relationships with both China and Taiwan, that it’s consistent with our One China policy. And we do not allow ourselves to be made use of for any causes supporting Taiwanese independence.
So again, you asked a hypothetical question, if something were to arise in the Taiwan Straits or around Taiwan, we hope this doesn’t happen. Because if all the parties understand the risk, and the red lines and recognise that this is quite different from Ukraine—I think the US administration certainly understands—then perhaps we can have a good chance of upholding the status quo, and if any change were happen, it has to be done in a way that’s peaceful and non-forcible. And these things will take time. Meanwhile, let us uphold the status quo and continue to have engagements and talks. That will be our preferred approach.
The Economist: You’ve also said recently that Singapore is not an ally of America.
Lawrence Wong: We are not. We are a major security co-operation partner, the only one in the world.
The Economist: So what would you say to an American voter who’s worried about America being overextended globally, and who asks, “Why should Singapore receive American weapons, advanced security equipment, receive all the benefits of that, and yet it’s unable to call itself our ally?”
Lawrence Wong: Because it’s a security and defence relationship that has proven mutually beneficial for both sides, spanning many, many decades. We appreciate fully how America has spilt blood and treasure to provide security for the region. We appreciate fully the security umbrella that America provides for peace and prosperity in this part of the world. And we lean forward to work very closely with the US: we provide access to our air and sea naval bases. We support their rotational deployments, we provide logistical support, we exchange intelligence. We not only purchase technology and military equipment, but we have a very productive two-way exchange of information in many areas of security and defence. And that has proven to be mutually beneficial for both sides.
The Economist: Could you ever imagine Singapore joining aukus?
Lawrence Wong: For now, aukus is only a grouping comprising allies. We are not an ally.
The Economist: How do these geopolitical tensions play out domestically here in Singapore? How do people feel about the tensions with China but particularly recently, the Middle East, where Singapore has a substantial Muslim population who’s concerned about violence in Gaza? What would you say to people who are concerned about war in Singapore and to Singaporean citizens to reassure them?
Lawrence Wong: It’s something that we pay a lot of attention to, because we are such a small country, and a very diverse population. And we are constantly, I would say, influenced by pressures from around the world. Because here in Singapore, you have a majority ethnic-Chinese population. We all have links with China. But we have to remind ourselves and also China, that we are Singaporeans. We do business on the basis of our national interests, not on the basis of our ethnic ties. But we also have a Malay population that will have links with countries in the region and with the global Ummah, the wider Islamic community. And we have an Indian population, which will have ancestral links, familial links with India.
So it’s a population that can vary. You can see how it can be easily swayed by these influences. Because the links we have, going back to these civilizations or larger countries are deep, they are emotional, they are cultural. And we want to maintain the links, the links make us who we are. We value these linkages. At the same time, we have to continually remind our people—engage with Singaporeans—that we are Singaporeans. When we do things, it has to be on the basis of our national interests. And we’ve had to do that, through the various crises you highlighted Russia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That was a crisis which had a high level of economic impact for us, but relatively low level of emotional resonance. So we went out, explained—
The Economist: I imagine Gaza is the opposite.
Lawrence Wong: Gaza was one where it had not so much economic impact, but a much higher level of resonance—not just with our Malay Muslim population—but even for many Singaporeans, looking at the atrocities that damage the destruction and loss of innocent civilian lives. And again, we’ve had to go out, explain to our people, the positions that Singapore has taken and why we are doing certain things we have done, the resolutions that we participate in at the United Nations and how we are doing our part to participate in global relief efforts and how we continue to stand for a negotiated two-state solution and at the same time call for an end to hostilities.
Now, if something were to happen in South Asia, in Taiwan, in the South China Sea, it would be an incident which would have both high economic impact and high emotional resonance with our people. And this will be difficult to manage, clearly. And that’s why for us, you know, the external events that happen seemingly far away, actually, they are happening right here at our doorstep. And we pay a lot of attention to what’s happening around the world, to engaging our people, explaining to them what Singapore’s, what the government’s position is and what our national interests are.
The Economist: Before we go on to talk more about Singapore and the Singapore model and how it’s changing; one last question on geopolitics. Singapore’s position is that it upholds international law—and that’s the bedrock of your foreign policy—what do you think the state of international law is? Does it still work? The United Nations Security Council is divided, the enforcement of key treaties like the Law of the Sea, is not happening. Is that really still a reliable anchor for your foreign policy?
Lawrence Wong: It’s under tremendous pressure but we have no other alternative, we have to keep on pushing away at it, plugging at it and working with like-minded countries to strengthen this rules-based multilateral order. We do it in different ways. For example, in the economic realm, wto is not working. I mean, we’ve been calling for the appellate body to function properly, for the restoration of the dispute resolution settlement mechanism and we sound like a broken record, like a lone voice in the wilderness, but we will keep calling for it—
The Economist: The Economist agrees with you on that—
Lawrence Wong: Thank you. But you know, there are other ways in which we can be helpful. wto; very hard to get multilateral initiatives working. While we work with like-minded countries, we had the p4 where we had initially Chile, New Zealand and Brunei, and that became the tpp. us opted out. But then we have the cptpp. We’ve similarly worked on other trade initiatives. And now we are working on new initiatives around the digital economy. Because with the digital economy, you need new rules around data storage, data flows, data security. So we have a digital agreement with the UK, with Australia. We have one involving three countries, Chile, ourselves, and I think New Zealand. And then there’s a queue of countries wanting to join. So I think if Singapore operates in this manner, we try to be constructive, we try to provide value, find like-minded countries to join us in small-scale platforms. And over time, we hope some of these can grow and other like-minded countries can join us. That’s how we can play a part in strengthening multilateralism in the world.
The Economist: Okay, well, let’s turn to Singapore and the domestic scene and start with the economy. In your budget statement, not so long ago, you said “we will no longer be able to achieve effortless growth in Singapore”. Part of that is the trade environment is worse, but a big part of that is demographics where the number of working-age citizens in Singapore is expected to fall by several hundred thousand people over the next decade. So talk about that and also the role of migration; sometimes a controversial subject in Singapore. Presumably it means you need more migration.
Lawrence Wong: It does. I think the period of effortless growth is over not just because of labour, but really we are at such a high level of development now. And we will be expensive. I mean, you can’t expect high wages and low cost. Wages and costs are two parts of the same coin. So we have high incomes, costs are high, we will have to keep on innovating, restructuring, and then pushing the productivity and innovation frontier to justify the premium. That’s what we have been doing all this while, which is why the economy today is very different from the economy even 20 years ago.
And it’s really about continuing to get cutting-edge investments into Singapore, pushing the frontier, doing new activities. At the same time being prepared to let non-viable businesses fade away so that resources can be freed up. It’s very much the process of churn, which can be very disruptive to workers. But that’s why we’ve also put in place a lot of efforts to help workers retrain, rescale and upskill. Now on labour itself, on labour inputs and immigration, we are an open economy and open society. We welcome foreign professionals to work in Singapore, but it’s controlled, because if it’s not controlled, I think we will be easily swamped. We cannot afford to be like the uae where the local residents are only less than 10% of the population. And they have a different compact because they use the oil and gas revenues to provide everything for their citizens. And in return, they just allow foreigners to come in freely. That’s not possible in Singapore.
The Economist: So you couldn’t imagine a situation where citizens become a minority.
Lawrence Wong: Not at all. Not at all. Not at all. We will keep ourselves open but the floors will be controlled. We will ensure that foreign professionals come in. We welcome them. They add value to our economy, we ask them to adjust to our social norms. And it’s controlled and tiered at different levels, because there will be jobs that Singaporeans don’t want to do, like construction. On the other hand, there will be new areas where talented professionals can come in and provide new skills. And there’ll be things in between where jobs that Singaporeans do, like health care and engineering, but we need more people. So given the different categories, we have a tiered level of controls. And we do that to ensure that immigrants come, we welcome them, foreign professionals come, they complement the Singaporean core, they add to our economy, they add to our society. And it ends up being a net plus for all of us in Singapore, that’s our approach.
The Economist: One facet of migration into Singapore is the goal of maintaining a rough ethnic balance. I believe it’s called cmio; Chinese, Malays, Indians and Others…
Lawrence Wong: Just as a shorthand, and it’s become a lot more varied now, because you have mixed marriages. And also cmio is really just a shorthand.
The Economist: So a question is why is that necessary? Why can’t Singapore become a society that is post-racial, and it doesn’t need to have this tacit target of the population mix.
Lawrence Wong: We would like to be, to evolve into a society where we become race-blind, but we are also very realistic about these things. These instincts of race are very primal, they are very emotive, and it can be stirred up at any point in time. Certainly, today, we are in a much better state than when we started out after independence, and when we had race riots in the past. But even so, during covid, in the three years, during covid, we had a spike of incidents that were race-related, just recently. And they were very sharp, very, very antagonistic type of incidents that got people stirred up.
The Economist: Give an example of one of those incidents for our global listeners?
Lawrence Wong: Well, you had incidents where people were targeted, because we put in place…restrictions to prevent the spread of the virus during the early days of covid, and people flouted some of the rules. But when somebody goes and they see somebody walking without a mask in a park, [and] it’s a person of a particular ethnic community, and then they will make racist remarks. It was spread online, for example. And this happened more than one time, it happened multiple occasions, when we let in arrivals from India, when India had a big wave of [covid]...there was a sharp reaction. So it’s not something that happened 20 years ago, it happened very recently. And it’s just a very stark reminder…People are not racist in Singapore. I think, in many ways, we aspire towards the ideals that we recite in our pledge to be regardless of race, language, or religion. But these things are dormant, they just lie below the surface. And it only takes an incident, a bad actor, someone trying to stir things to cause the dormant virus to flare up again. And that’s why we have to be vigilant and watchful.
The Economist: One of the events that’s happened in the West is the rise of stronger identity politics, for ideological reasons, perhaps social media as well. Do you think that’s a threat to Singapore?
Lawrence Wong: We do see some of it here in Singapore. Some people do get caught up with it. And so we take a very different approach in how we deal with issues of identity. Number one, like I said, it’s not about assimilating into one single identity. We allow people to embrace their own ethnic identities, whatever they are. And we ask them to keep that because that’s precious, that makes us who we are. But we come together and we find ways to expand the common ground that we share together as Singaporeans. So it’s not about subtracting. It’s about addition.
And a big part of being able to do that is by just bringing people together to have more engagements with one another face to face engagements, learning more about each other’s customs traditions, starting to appreciate and, beyond appreciation and understanding, respect one another. And then when there are differences, finding ways to accommodate and compromise because the differences will surely exist, and compromise cannot be a bad word, compromise cannot be an issue of dishonour, to my tribe or to my identity. Because if that’s dishonour, then it’s all-out war. And you will have deep divisions between the different groups in Singapore. So we have gone for a very different approach since our very beginning, since independence. And that approach, I think, has worked well. In Singapore, people understand it’s different. Not every single group may get everything that they want. But by working together by engaging, by not accentuating our differences, but finding common ground, it’s an approach that has worked better for all of us.
The Economist: Another social change is how the views of the young have adapted and evolved in Singapore. And recently, you did a big consultation exercise called Forward Singapore in which you spoke to I think 200,000 Singaporeans in some way or another. And then the report concluded, among other things, that “there have been discernible shifts in our youth’s mindset”. This is a generation that’s grown up with an enormously successful and prosperous Singapore. Perhaps you could give a sense of how their attitudes have changed compared to previous generations.
Lawrence Wong: In some ways, I am part of the generation I will be the first prime minister to be born after Singapore’s independence. All my predecessors sang two, if not three other national anthems. God Save the King, the Japanese Kimi Ga Yo, and briefly Malaysia’s Negaraku. I’ve only sung one national anthem, Majulah Singapura, our national anthem. So the values, the principles that built today that enabled today’s Singapore meritocracy, incorruptibility, racial harmony, the tripartism, the approach I spoke of earlier—finding common ground—I think those are embedded deeply within me and also many young people I speak to. At the same time there are changes. And I think we, when we engage with young people whether around my age, post independence or younger, we do sense a change in their aspirations. And these are noble aspirations. I think young, many of the young people I engage with, like to strive and work hard for their own aspirations, but they would like to see a Singapore where we embrace broader definitions of success, where every job is respected, where there is a fairer wage for every job, and a greater sense of assurance and security for individuals to uplift themselves, and to bounce back through life’s inevitable setbacks. So these are things that we have distilled from our conversations, we’ve put it out together as part of what we call a Forward Singapore roadmap. And we are taking steps towards realising these goals.
The Economist: So you’ve described a Singapore that faces a high amount of churn in the economy in order to stay at the frontier globally, where there’s a new generation of Singaporeans with different expectations. Let’s turn to politics and talk about how politics is adapting and changing to reflect that you’re part of a generation known as 4g, replacing or coming after 3g—
Lawrence Wong: For a lack of a better word.
The Economist: It’s not bad.
Lawrence Wong: It’s just that we’ve only had three political changeovers in government.
The Economist: Just for clarity. For listeners. It’s not a telecommunication spec. But tell us how the style, the governing style of 4g, your generation and your government, is going to be different from 3g.
Lawrence Wong: I think politics in Singapore has continuously evolved and will, has evolved and will continue to evolve. The days where the pap government or the pap was dominant in the 60s, 70s, even 80s under Mr Lee Kuan Yew, those days are over and we can’t go back to that period. And if you look at politics, since then it has been evolving. Singaporeans themselves have evolved. It’s an electorate that’s highly educated, very sophisticated, very discerning with how they vote.
And while the majority today would like the pap to be in power, to be in government, they would also like to see more opposition voices in parliament. So the opposition presence in parliament is here to stay. It’s quite clear. And I have also said that when I go into elections, I do not assume that the pap will automatically be returned to power. I do not assume that I will be the next pm after the elections. So this is the new reality of our political landscape, which means that as a governing, as a party, for me now as prime minister, eventually leading the party into elections, we will have to do our best to engage Singaporeans, we will have to do our best to involve them in decisions that they care deeply about, and in shaping our future, which is why we’ve started doing so in our Forward Singapore exercise, engaging Singaporeans a lot more, not just in hearing them out but we also are trying to find platforms where people can get involved in decision-making and and start shaping the future of our country together.
The Economist: Lee Kuan Yew said: “Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him”. And there’s always been a sense that Singapore’s post-independence leaders have been strong men, sometimes even the hard men. Do you see yourself as that kind of leader? Do you have iron inside you?
Lawrence Wong: I believe when push comes to shove and the time comes to take hard decisions, I will do so. So long as the decision is in the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.
The Economist: The elements of it, which is sometimes forcing people to do what they don’t want, sometimes being more abrasive with the public, do you see yourself in that mould? Or are you more of a listener?
Lawrence Wong: Well, I am who I am. I listen carefully to everyone’s views. When I go into a meeting, I do not start off assuming that I know all the answers. I want to get people’s insights. I want to get people’s perspectives, eventually thinking about what makes for the best decisions and outcomes for Singapore. And some of these decisions may not be the most popular decisions, but we may feel and we may have the conviction that they are the right ones to take. And therefore when those sorts of situations arise which I’ve had to deal with during covid repeatedly or more recently having to raise the gst [Goods and Services sales tax] in the budget. And when these decisions arise, Singaporeans can be assured that I will be able to take the decisions in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans and explain to them why these difficult decisions are necessary.
The Economist: One part of your story is that you did not have an elite background in terms of the school you went to, you have a much more typical upbringing; you went to a local school? How important is that for your brand with ordinary Singaporeans?
Lawrence Wong: Well, my background is what it is. I mean, if it’s helpful if it makes it more relatable to Singaporeans so much the better. But I have no doubt. Like I said, just now, Singaporeans are discerning and wise voters, I have no doubt that at the end of the day, they will expect me to deliver on the things that they care about. Delivering a better life, delivering better standards of living for themselves and their children. And if my team, if myself, my team, we are unable to meet up to those high expectations. If we are unable to deliver those standards, and a better team arises, then Singaporeans will choose accordingly. I have no doubt about that.
The Economist: As I understand it, it’s likely that the outgoing Prime Minister Lee is going to continue to play the role of some kind, possibly in the cabinet. Could you talk about that, in particular address the concern that it might prevent 4G, the next generation from really finding its voice and exerting authority in Singapore.
Lawrence Wong: Well, this is a Singapore tradition. I mean, you don’t find this commonly in other countries, but it’s a long-standing Singapore tradition, and we’ve found it very valuable. Each time we have a leadership transition, we don’t just kick out all the older ministers and then have a complete new team come in. We value the more experienced ministers and we invite them to continue contributing in different ways, in their own ways. We’ve done this with former prime ministers as well, it’s not the first time—whether it’s Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh Chok Tong and Mr Lee Hsien Loong. And it’s never been a problem with sort of preventing the new prime minister from setting the tone of leadership and making his own decisions, and so I don’t envisage any difficulties at all, with Lee Hsien Loong eventually becoming senior minister continuing to serve. The networks he has internationally will be very valuable. And I will use him accordingly in the best possible way. Because for me, as leader, I will have to find ways to harness the collective energies of all of my team, and also every Singaporean in order to give us the best chances for this little island to keep on shining ever more brightly in a dark and troubled world.
The Economist: And who will remain head of the pap, your party?
Lawrence Wong: Well, it’s also been a tradition that in time to come after the leadership transition, after the Prime Minister takes over in time to come, there will be a transition for the new prime minister to take over as Secretary-General of the party. So this will happen in the due course. Maybe we finish with one question.
The Economist: So why don’t we finish with your legacy? If you were to serve as prime minister for a decade, at the end of that period, how would you have liked to change Singapore? What do you want to be different in ten years?
Lawrence Wong: Well, the starting-point as I said just now is that Singapore may have transformed tremendously in the last 60 years. But the reality is, we are still a very tiny little island in a vast and dangerous world, which is going to get more dangerous in the coming years. So we’ve always seen ourselves as the underdog. We will always be the improbable, unlikely nation forged only through the collective will of our people. What has happened in the last 60 years has been nothing short of a miracle. And my mission is to keep this miracle going for as long as I can. And to make sure our little red dot shines brightly for as long as possible.
The Economist: Lawrence Wong, thank you very much for joining us.
Lawrence Wong: Thank you.
Comments
Spirilla_Huckleberry•1 day ago•Edited 1 day ago
The media blitz is in full swing. Elections are coming.
Back in NUS it was well known amongst the profs that PAP has a big issue with the youths ( whom are now adults in their 30s). It had gotten so bad that some even talked to some of the ministers directly, and yes, the ministers themselves know.
This has been several years back, and the still lack thereof action from either housing, overpopulation, working hours etc is enough for you to know what their priorities are.
If you tell your boss an issue, and after years, it’s still not been fixed or half-assed, you already know how much you are valued.
Life in SG is good if you are an employer or you are rich. Rich as in the ministers come and meet you for meals regularly kind of rich.
They know that they are going to win. They know that they can shelter their most unpopular candidates and parachute new ones under a banner minister. All they need to do is just let this election cycle to play out, then parachute in their next general.
I’m probably wasting my time writing all of this, but this is also my last final shot before migrating. Just a small hope that we can still be saved.
If things still don’t improve then…Ok lor, time to pack bag and experience that summer holiday the french love.
Best of luck to you and your new journey. I am seriously considering migration as well, would love to know more about how you came to this decision and what was the process like for you.
Starting to see less of a point being treated like a second class citizen for the rest of my adult life - having NS liability til I’m 40 while new citizens strut in every year like it’s free real estate without having to sacrifice their youth to serve this nation, lack of policies that addresses the concerns and problems of the younger electorate. That was made very clear by the past few Budgets where clearly the focus was on the old and frail with all the hype about Pioneer and Merdeka generations. No mention of how to guide Singapore to navigate the next 50 years, just constant propaganda of “government is monitoring” and nothing significant being done.
Government also seemed to have completely given up on trying to get the local core birth rates up and are very much obviously getting new citizens from immigration.
I question the process of how new citizens are approved when I have so many anecdotal experiences of friends who are not of “C” category being denied citizenship and PR status despite attending sec sch, JC and Uni here and have settled down here, yet I see ex-colleagues of “C” category getting citizenship easily when they’ve worked here for just a few years. Didn’t even grow up here, prefers very much to stay within their own cliques, not integrating with locals.
Opposition and NCMPs have raised valid questions in Parliament but PAP being PAP just shuts them down in the name of “maintaining social cohesion and order” as per their usual holier-than-thou attitude.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. People don’t seem to realise that our system of governance has a serious flaw where if the incumbent goes rogue, they literally can bring this country to its knees with the amount of power and control they have over the resources and institutions in this country simply with the current laws we have in place. Examples like POFMA, control over state media, the shenanigan to parachute Halimah Yaacob in as President and so on. If the PAP wanted, they have the power to enact and pass any law they liked at any given time given their supermajority.
And I haven’t even touched on how this country has become a plutocracy. The so called meritocracy the government loves to espouse has been corrupted.
Most of the interview doesn't really tell us anything new re: the PAP's attitudes, but I did find this exchange interesting:
The Economist: Lee Kuan Yew said: “Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him”. And there’s always been a sense that Singapore’s post-independence leaders have been strong men, sometimes even the hard men. Do you see yourself as that kind of leader? Do you have iron inside you?
Lawrence Wong: I believe when push comes to shove and the time comes to take hard decisions, I will do so. So long as the decision is in the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.
It's very much a softer response than the PAP of the past and I wonder how it will play. I wonder if this is a deliberate approach or LW's character. I'm quite sure that GCT and LHL would have immediately answered in the affirmative, with the "for Singapore's benefit" thrown in.
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
