風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
李顯龍 2024年哈佛大學論壇演講
李顯龍總理出席2024年埃德溫·L·戈德金講座
李顯龍總理 | 2024年11月13日
https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/SM-Lee-Hsien-Loong-at-the-2024-Edwin-L-Godkin-Lecture
大家下午好。
肯尼迪學院院長傑裏米·溫斯坦教授；格雷厄姆·艾利森教授；各位教職員工和學生；尊敬的來賓、女士們、先生們
感謝你們邀請我發表今年的戈德金講座。我很高興再次來到哈佛大學肯尼迪學院，這讓我回想起近半個世紀前，作為梅森研究員（1979-1980）的美好回憶。
我記得理查德·澤克豪瑟教授——我上過他的課。他曾經問我：“你覺得你的同學知道新加坡在哪裏嗎？”於是我大膽地回答說，我確信人們知道它是東南亞的一個小國。或許我當時說話過於自信了，因為當時郵件有時還會寄往“新加坡，中國”。但幾十年過去了，亞洲繁榮昌盛，新加坡也發展成為國際金融和商業中心。所以今天我更有信心，大多數人應該都聽說過新加坡。昨晚我們吃飯時，問服務員：“你知道新加坡在哪裏嗎？”她說：“非常非常遠。” 所以我們取得了進步。或許人們不僅聽說過我們，還聽說過我們如何在短短一代人的時間裏從第三世界一躍成為第一世界。
很多人問我們：你們是如何實現這一飛躍的？新加坡是如何建立國家領導力和機構、發展經濟、增強社會和政治凝聚力，並在國際上站穩腳跟的？我會告訴他們，這是幾代新加坡人共同努力的結果，自二戰以來，也就是80年前。至關重要的是，從一開始，我們就走在正確的道路上。幸運的是，我們能夠堅持下去，做一些對新加坡有益的事情，從而形成良性循環，並再次回到正軌。讓我先從曆史和背景開始，然後再解釋我們在治理中運用的一些原則和實踐，這些原則和實踐幫助我們走到了今天。
我們的曆程
今天的新加坡或許給人一種印象，那就是它一直井然有序、穩定有序。但事實遠非如此。我們的開端充滿動蕩。像許多其他國家一樣，我們與殖民統治者——在我們這裏是英國——抗爭，爭取決定自身命運的權利。我們最終取得了成功，首先實現了自治，這是內部自治，然後是完全獨立。一路走來，我們必須選擇是建立一個左翼的親共政府，還是一個民主的非共產主義政府。這是一場重大的政治鬥爭，尤其考慮到我們的人口大多數是華裔，並且與共產主義中國有著緊密的種族和家庭聯係。抵禦共產主義威脅是新加坡加入馬來西亞聯邦的原因之一。我們視其為獨立的未來。然而，在聯邦內，我們遭遇了另一場根本性的衝突——一方麵是多元種族主義和種族平等，另一方麵是種族政治和單一族群的主導地位。
悲劇的是，這引發了騷亂和流血事件。事實證明，這些分歧過於尖銳，難以調和，最終於1965年被逐出聯邦。獨立的新加坡就此誕生。這是一個複雜而非自然的誕生，伴隨著巨大的政治動蕩和衝突。鬥爭的結果可能注定是兩敗俱傷。但幸運的是，最終新加坡的命運走向了光明，這些環境也奠定了我們建國理念，至今仍是我們國家的基礎——獨立自主；非共產主義民主；多元種族、任人唯賢，不分種族、語言或宗教，人人享有平等的機會。
我們走到今天的道路——始於反對殖民主義、共產主義以及隨後的社群主義的三次激烈鬥爭——是新加坡發展的關鍵因素。正因為這段經曆，那一代領導人和公民清楚地知道利害攸關，並決心全力以赴，將願景變為現實。正因如此，如果其他人試圖複製我們的方案，或者即使我們自己再次踏上同樣的旅程，並希望再次來到這裏，我們最終也未必會回到原點。所以，我們學到的第一課是，我們依賴於路徑，曆史至關重要。
建設高質量的政府
第二課是我們高度重視建設高質量的政府和高質量的機構。我們建立了公共服務體係。我們保持政府職業的吸引力和薪酬的競爭力。我們設立獎學金，以吸引每屆畢業生中最優秀、最聰明的人才。最重要的是，我們創造了強大的公共服務精神，在我們的官員中灌輸了一種使命感：竭盡全力服務新加坡。
發揮他們的能力，使國家走向成功。
我們也組建了一支稱職的政治領導團隊。一些領導人擅長在獨立鬥爭的激情和熱情中激勵和鼓舞群眾。另一些領導人則更擅長組織政府，並在國家建設的艱苦過程中年複一年地激勵人民。值得慶幸的是，我們的先驅領導人能夠從一個角色轉換到另一個角色，並且都取得了成功。
部長們確實需要連任。但在新加坡，如果他們取得成果，就有可能連任，他們知道責任最終落在他們身上。因此，他們有充分的動力不去拖延問題，而是認真處理棘手的問題。也正因如此，我們才能夠實現政治和政策的正確結合——一個對新加坡行之有效的結合。
整個體係建立在任人唯賢的基礎上，以最大限度地發揮我們的人才。我們強調法治，並建立了獨立公正的司法體係。在切實可行的情況下，政策均已法律化，以確保政府各級運作透明、合理且可預測。我們積極維護體製廉潔，並實施規則，防止金錢介入政治，避免政黨和領導人受製於政治捐款者和遊說團體。
這些在國家建設初期的關鍵舉措，使我們能夠建立高效、高效的國家機構，提供高質量的公共服務，同時保持較低的稅負。隨著時間的推移，這些舉措也在社會中根深蒂固，為政府及其領導人所維護。這使我們能夠正確行事——在經濟、社會凝聚力、國家建設和外交政策製定方麵。我接下來要說的可能都出自教科書。但要真正落實教科書，我認為新加坡的經驗和我們所走過的道路，或許比其他國家更容易做到。
製定正確的政策
讓我來談談這些政策。我們高度重視經濟增長和發展。沒有增長，我們就沒有資源去做所有我們渴望的美好事物。我們采取了當時較為激進的經濟發展方式。在傳統觀念將跨國公司視為廉價勞動力的邪惡剝削者的時代，我們歡迎跨國公司，視其為一種良性力量，它們帶來了技術，創造了良好的就業機會，並實現了我國經濟的現代化。
當當時盛行的發展模式以進口替代和保護國內市場為基礎時，我們推行出口導向型增長，最大限度地減少進口限製，並努力提高自身的國際競爭力。
我們踐行自由市場原則，但並不追求純粹主義或教條主義。我們相信，市場力量對於有效配置資源、激發發展和創造財富的動力至關重要。運作良好的市場也為我國人民提供了紀律和激勵，使他們努力工作，追求卓越。但我們既不是完全的自由放任主義者，也不是自由市場原教旨主義者。
政府發揮了積極作用：我們營造了有利的、有利於企業的環境。我們確保貿易、資本和人才的自由流動。我們培養了具備市場需求技能的人才，使企業能夠依賴熟練的勞動力。我們還建立了強大的勞工運動，與雇主和政府緊密合作，改善工人的生計和生活，實現雙贏。我們也將經濟原則應用於社會政策，例如控製交通擁堵、製定水電等必需品的定價、建設公共住房、設計福利計劃，甚至控製賭場的準入。
當私營部門無法實現我們所需的成果時，政府隨時準備直接幹預。例如，為了開發工業用地，我們成立了一個法定機構——裕廊鎮公司，負責開發工業用地和基礎設施。為了促進外國直接投資——我們並不認為他們會主動上門——我們創建了一個一站式中心——經濟發展局，這成為了其他國家的典範。我們甚至創辦了一些公司，一些國有企業，在沒有補貼的情況下高效運營，並且盈利——這本身就自相矛盾——但它們在新加坡確實存在：新加坡航空、星展銀行、新加坡電信等等。
除了經濟之外，我們還致力於建設一個有凝聚力的社會和一個強大的國家，因為我們不僅僅是一個經濟體，我們是一個民族國家。雖然我們規模不大，但我們必須建設一個社會，一個國家。因此，隨著經濟的增長，我們投入了大量的社會投資來改善新加坡人的生活。我們建立了良好的教育、醫療保健和住房體係。如今，我們90%的年輕人都能完成高等教育。
資格。新加坡人離開學校後，就準備好接受優質、高薪的工作，這些工作唾手可得。我們的青年失業率非常低。我們享有良好的健康狀況，同時醫療成本低於大多數發達國家。90% 的新加坡人擁有自己的房屋，其中大多數人居住在高質量的公共住房中。
我們還在定居新加坡的多語種移民社區中塑造了國家認同。我們以英語作為我們的通用工作語言。我們保留馬來語（東南亞的通用語）作為我們的國語，並將華語和泰米爾語作為另外兩種官方語言。
我們還引入了國民服役製度。所有身體健康的男性在 18 歲時都要在軍隊、警察或民防部隊服役，這向公民灌輸了保衛國家的責任感。我們開展了大量的社會工程，影響人們的習慣，以培養適合新加坡的價值觀和規範。例如，我們在公共組屋區設定了種族配額，以保持公共組屋區的種族融合，並在種族聚居區達到臨界點並失控之前，阻止其形成。所有這些都強化了我們共同的身份認同——我們都是新加坡人，彼此之間的共同點比我們與世界其他地方的馬來族、華族或印度族的共同點更多。
最後，即使在保障自身安全和防務的同時，我們也推行了積極的外交政策。小國無法左右世界局勢的走向，但我們絕不能認為自己沒有自主權。我們盡可能地與世界各國交朋友，包括與大國。我們與誌同道合的國家攜手合作。我們通過成為可靠、值得信賴的合作夥伴並履行承諾來建立我們的信譽和價值。
我們積極參與聯合國和世貿組織等多邊機構。例如，我們最近成功領導了一項關於國家管轄範圍以外區域生物多樣性保護和可持續利用的國際協定的談判。我們也積極參與氣候變化討論，這對於一個地勢低窪的熱帶島嶼來說事關生死。
有效的外交政策必須建立在國內實力之上。一個國家隻有內部團結一致，其領導人和外交官也同樣團結一致，才能在國際上受到重視。它必須能夠保衛自己，維護自身利益。除了技藝精湛的外交官外，它還必須擁有願意為保衛國家而戰鬥至死的士兵。正如我之前所解釋的那樣，我們一直在穩步投資於國防安全，建立了一支規模適中但值得信賴的武裝部隊，並以國民服役為基礎。
但當今的戰略環境更具挑戰性。與彼此並非友好國家維持友誼並非易事。每個人都宣稱不會強迫你選邊站隊，事實遠非如此。但每個人都希望你站在他們一邊，而不是對方一邊。我們竭盡全力，根據自身的長期國家利益，采取始終如一、原則性的立場。當我們不得不與其他國家意見相左時，我們會坦誠相待，這樣他們才能繼續信任我們，理解我們這樣做是出於新加坡自身的考量，而非為了他人的利益。
一個適合新加坡的體製
從建國初期到如今的現代新加坡——由於人民行動黨在新加坡獨立前就已執政，至今已超過60年——曆屆人民行動黨政府都表現出色，兌現了我們的承諾。正因如此，新加坡人民對我們充滿信心，一屆又一屆，迄今為止已連續15屆。
這種信心和信任拓寬了政府的政治和政策空間，使我們能夠進行長遠思考，並讓我們能夠采取政治上困難但至關重要的舉措。例如，提高消費稅以滿足老齡化人口日益增長的醫療保健需求，以及在新冠疫情結束後采取這些措施。但我們始終謹慎，絕不將人民的支持視為理所當然。如果我們辜負了新加坡人民的信任，讓他們失望，或者未能保持他們對我們的高標準期望，新加坡人民可以毫不猶豫地投票選出執政黨。
新加坡的政治與許多其他國家的政治截然不同。當我解釋新加坡的政治運作方式時，他們看著我，仿佛我來自另一個世界。但我們已經發展並調整了我們的民主政治製度和規範，以適應我們的國情，而且這對新加坡來說很有效。這個國家是成功的——人們對政府和社會高度信任，我們的收入和生活水平不斷提高，我們擁有高質量的公共服務、穩定的政治、良好的國際聲譽，以及團結、堅定、共同麵對困難的人民。這些資產是長期積累下來的，尤其是在危機時期。
正是這些努力證明了它們的價值。
例如，在新冠疫情期間，我們能夠采取正確的措施——執行安全距離規定、救治新冠患者、為所有人接種疫苗、保障就業、維護信心。我們之所以能夠做到這一點，是因為人們信任政府——包括公共服務部門和政治領導人。此外，人們相互信任，社會團結一致。因此，我們安然度過了新冠疫情，傷亡相對較輕，生計得以維持，我們的社會資本、公眾信心和信任也得到了增強。為此，我們將永遠心存感激。
未來幾年的機遇與不確定性
但新冠疫情不會是我們麵臨的最後一個挑戰。現有的問題永遠不會完全消失，它們會以不同的形式不斷重現。這就是政府的本質。你不可能寫完論文、畢業，然後又轉向下一個研究課題。問題會以不同的形式再次出現，但問題又來了：你如何生存？如何謀生？如何提升標準？如何滿足期望？如何突破限製，超越看似可以想象的範圍？
新的挑戰也隨之而來。在外部，大國競爭和多邊主義的崩潰無疑意味著增長機會的減少，以及緊張局勢和衝突風險的增加。在國內，諸如老齡化、社會流動性、收入不平等、移民和外籍工人等問題都無法輕易回避，尤其是在一個增長緩慢、成熟的經濟體中。在政治上，政府與民眾之間的契約必須一代一代地更新，以便擁有新理念的新團隊能夠應對新的挑戰。
值得慶幸的是，新加坡與其他國家一樣，擁有應對這些不可避免的現實的良好條件。國家各級領導人都感到有責任確保我們的體製盡可能長久地運轉，即使在我們任期結束後也依然如此。作為國家的管家，他們發掘並引進新的人才來更新領導團隊，以便將這一責任像傳家寶一樣代代相傳。
迄今為止，我們已經成功完成了三次高層領導換屆。今年，一位新總理接替了我，我很高興向黃循財總理的交接工作進展順利。我希望新加坡在未來的許多年裏能夠繼續煥發新生，振興我們的國家事業。
非常感謝。
SM Lee Hsien Loong at the 2024 Edwin L. Godkin Lecture
Thank you for inviting me to deliver this year’s Godkin Lecture. I am delighted to be back here at Harvard Kennedy School, and it brings back to me warm memories of my year as a Mason Fellow (1979-1980), nearly half a century ago.
I remember Professor Richard Zeckhauser – I attended his course. He once asked me: Do you think your classmates know where Singapore is? So I boldly replied that I was sure people knew it was a small country in Southeast Asia. Perhaps I spoke too confidently at a time when mails were sometimes still being addressed to “Singapore, China”. But in the decades since then, Asia has prospered, and Singapore has developed into an international financial and business hub. So today I am a bit more confident that most people would have heard of Singapore. Last night, we had dinner and we asked the waitress, “Do you know where Singapore is?”, and she said, “It is a very, very long way away.” So we made progress. And perhaps people have not only heard of us, but also have heard of how we have gone from Third World to First in just one generation.
Many people ask us: How did you manage this leap? How did Singapore build its national leadership and institutions, develop the economy, strengthen social and political cohesion, and secure itself internationally? I would tell them, it has been the work of several generations of Singaporeans, ever since the second world war, 80 years ago. Crucially, right from the beginning, we set off down the right path. Fortunately, we were then able to stay on track, to do things which worked for Singapore, and therefore create a virtuous cycle and stay on track again. Let me start with this history and context, before explaining some of the principles and practices that we have applied in governance, and that have helped us to journey here.
Our journey here
Today’s Singapore may give the impression that the country has always been orderly and stable. But this was far from so. Our beginnings were turbulent. Like many other countries, we fought against our colonial masters – in our case, Britain – for the right to determine our own destiny. We eventually succeeded and achieved first self-government, which is internal, and then full independence. Along the way, we had to choose whether to have a left-wing and pro-communist government, or a democratic and non-communist government. It was a big political battle, especially as our population was majority ethnic Chinese, with strong ethnic and family ties to Communist China. Fending off the communist threat was one of the reasons why Singapore merged into a new Federation of Malaysia. We saw that as our independent future. But in the Federation, we encountered another fundamental conflict of priorities – between multiracialism and racial equality on the one hand, and race-based politics and the dominance of one ethnic group on the other hand.
Tragically, this led to riots and bloodshed. The differences proved too stark to be reconciled and in 1965, Singapore was expelled from the Federation. So independent Singapore was born. It was a complicated, unnatural birth, amid great political upheaval and strife. The battles could easily have gone either way. But fortunately, in the end things turned out well for Singapore, and these circumstances established the founding ideals that continue to underpin our nationhood – to be independent and sovereign; to be non-communist and democratic; to be multiracial and meritocratic, with equal opportunities for all regardless of race, language, or religion.
This path that we took to get here – that started with these three fierce struggles against colonialism, communism, and then communalism – was a crucial factor in Singapore’s development. Because of this experience, that generation of leaders and citizens knew exactly what was at stake, and they were determined to knuckle down and turn vision into reality. That is why, if others try to replicate our recipe, or even if we ourselves were to traverse all over again the same journey and hope to come here again, we may not end up in the same spot. So first lesson is, we are path-dependent, the history matters.
Building a high-quality government
The second lesson is we paid close attention to building a high-quality government and high-quality institutions. We built up the public service. We kept government careers attractive and salaries competitive. We awarded scholarships to attract the best and the brightest in each cohort of graduating students. Most critically, we created a strong public service ethos, instilling in our officers a sense of mission: To serve Singapore to the best of their ability, and to make the country succeed.
We assembled a competent political leadership too. Some leaders excel at galvanising and rousing the masses in the excitement and fervour of the independence struggle. Others are better at organising the government and motivating the people year after year, in the patient toil of nation building. Thankfully and exceptionally, our pioneer leaders were able to transition from one role to the other, and succeeded in both.
Ministers do have to get re-elected. But because in Singapore they are likely to get re-elected if they deliver results, they know the buck stops with them. Hence they have every incentive not to kick the can down the road, but to deal seriously with difficult problems. Hence also, we were able to get the right combination of politics and policy – a combination that worked for Singapore.
The whole system was organised on the basis of meritocracy, to maximise the talent that we had. We emphasised the rule of law, and built up an independent and impartial judiciary. Policies were encoded in law where practicable, so that the Government could function transparently, rationally, and predictably at all levels. We zealously kept the system corruption-free, and implemented rules to keep money out of politics, and avoided political parties and leaders becoming beholden to political donors and lobbyists.
These key moves early on in our nation-building journey enabled us to build effective and efficient state institutions and agencies that delivered high-quality public services, while keeping the tax burden low. Over time, they also entrenched norms of behaviour and expectations in our society, for the Government and its leaders to uphold. And it enabled us to do the things right – on the economy, on social cohesion, on nation-building, on setting foreign policy. The rest of what I have to say could be from a textbook. But to be able to implement the textbook, I think it is Singapore’s experience, the path we travelled, which made it perhaps easier for us to do than for other countries.
Getting policies right
Let me talk about these policies. We put high priority on economic growth and development. Without growth, we would not have had the resources to do all the good things that we aspired to. We adopted what was then a radical approach towards economic development. In an era when the conventional wisdom saw MNCs as evil exploiters of cheap labour, we welcomed MNCs as a power for good, which brought technology, created good jobs and modernised our economy.
When prevailing development models were based on import substitution and protection of domestic markets, we pursued export-led growth, minimised import restrictions, and forced ourselves to become internationally competitive.
We practised free market principles, without becoming purist or dogmatic. We believed that market forces were essential to allocate resources efficiently, and generate the impetus for development and wealth creation. Well-functioning markets also provided the discipline and the incentive for our people to work hard and to do well. But we were neither completely laissez-faire nor free market fundamentalists.
The government played an active role: We developed a conducive, pro-enterprise environment. We ensured free flows of trade, capital and talent. We educated our people with marketable skills, so that businesses could count on a skilled workforce. And we built up a strong labour movement that worked closely with employers and the government to improve the livelihoods and lives of workers, and achieve win-win outcomes. We applied economic principles to social policies too, for example controlling traffic congestion, pricing essentials like electricity and water, building public housing, designing welfare schemes, and even controlling access to casinos.
Where the private sector could not deliver the outcomes we needed, the government was quite prepared to intervene directly. For example, to develop industrial land, we set up a statutory board, Jurong Town Corporation, and it developed industrial land and infrastructure. To promote foreign direct investments – we did not believe they would just come to us themselves – we created a one-stop centre, the Economic Development Board, which became a model for other countries. We even started companies, state-owned companies operating efficiently without subsidies, and profitable – a multiple contradiction in terms – but they exist in Singapore: SIA, DBS, Singapore Telecoms and several others.
Beyond the economy, we also went into building a cohesive society and a strong nation, because we are not just an economy, we are a nation state. A small one no doubt, but we have to build ourselves up as a society and as a country. So as the economy grew, we made heavy social investments to improve Singaporeans’ lives. We built good education, healthcare, housing systems. 90% of our youths today leave school with post-secondary education qualifications. Singaporeans leave school ready to take up good, well-paying jobs, which are there and available for them. Our youth unemployment rate is very low. We enjoy good health outcomes, while keeping healthcare costs lower than most developed countries. 90% of Singaporeans own our own homes, mostly living in high-quality public housing.
We also forged a national identity out of the polyglot immigrant communities that had made their home in Singapore. We made English our common working language. We kept Malay (which is the lingua franca of Southeast Asia) as our national language, and we kept Chinese and Tamil as two other official languages.
We also introduced national service. All medically fit males serve either in the armed forces, the police or the civil defence at the age of 18, instilling in citizens a sense of duty to defend the nation. We engaged in considerable social engineering, influencing people’s habits to foster values and norms that would work for Singapore. For example, we set ethnic quotas in public housing estates, to keep our public housing estates ethnically integrated and to pre-empt the formation of ethnic enclaves before it reached the tipping point and cascaded out of control. All these strengthened our shared sense of identity – that we are all Singaporeans together, having more in common with one another than with ethnic Malays, or ethnic Chinese, or ethnic Indians elsewhere in the world.
Finally, we pursued an active foreign policy, even as we provided for our security and defence. Small nations cannot determine the course of the world events, but we must not think that we have no agency. We make friends wherever we can, including with the major powers. We make common cause with like-minded countries. We build up our credibility and value by being a reliable, trustworthy partner that delivers on our commitments.
We participate actively at multilateral institutions like the UN and the WTO. For example, we led the recent successful negotiations for an international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. We are also active in climate change discussions, which is an existential issue for a low-lying tropical island.
An effective foreign policy must be based on strengths at home. A nation will only be taken seriously internationally if it is cohesive and united internally, and its leaders and diplomats too. It must be able to defend and stand up for itself. Besides skilful diplomats, it must have soldiers who are willing to fight and die to defend the country. We have invested steadily in our security and defence, building up a modest but credible armed force based on national service, as I explained earlier.
But today’s strategic environment is much more challenging. It is tricky to maintain friendships with countries that are not friends with each other. Everybody declares that they will not force you to choose sides, far from it. But everybody wants you to be on their side and not the other’s. We do our best to take a consistent, principled position in line with our own long-term national interests. When we have to disagree with other countries, we will be open and honest about it, so that they can still trust us, and they can understand that we are doing this because of Singapore’s calculations, and not on behalf of somebody else.
A system that works for Singapore
From our early years of nation building to modern Singapore today – for more than 60 years now, because the PAP took power before we became independent – successive PAP governments have performed well and delivered on our promises. That is why Singaporeans have put their confidence in us, term after term, 15 times in a row so far.
This reservoir of confidence and trust widens the government’s political and policy space, enables us to think long-term and lets us make politically difficult but essential moves. For example, to raise consumption taxes to pay for the growing healthcare needs of an ageing population, and to do so coming out from COVID-19. But we are careful never to take the people’s support for granted. Nothing prevents Singaporeans from voting the ruling party out if we breached their trust, let them down, or fail to maintain the high standards that they have come to expect from us.
Singaporean politics feels quite different from politics in many other countries. When I explain how it works in Singapore, they look at me as if I come from another world. But we have evolved and adapted our democratic political system and norms to suit our circumstances, and it has worked for Singapore. The country is successful – there is high trust in government and society, we have rising incomes and standards of living, we have high-quality public services, stable politics, a strong international reputation, and a united, resolute people who stand together against the odds. These assets have been built up over the long term, and during crises they prove their worth.
For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic. We were able to do the right things – enforcing safe distancing, treating COVID-19 patients, vaccinating everyone, protecting jobs, maintaining confidence. We could only do so because people trusted the government – both the public service, and the political leaders. Also, people trusted one another and our society was united. Hence we came through COVID-19 with relatively light casualties, livelihoods intact, and our social capital, public confidence, and trust all strengthened. And for that, we will long be thankful.
Opportunities and uncertainties in the years ahead
But COVID-19 will not be our last challenge. Existing problems never completely disappear and will keep coming back in different forms. That is the nature of government. You do not write a thesis, graduate, and then move on to the next research problem. The problem comes back in a morphed form, but again, how do you survive? How do you earn a living? How do you upgrade standards? How do you meet expectations? How do you try to break the constraints and go beyond what seems to be imaginable?
New challenges will arise too. Externally, great power rivalry and the breakdown of multilateralism will certainly mean fewer opportunities for growth, and greater dangers of tension and conflict. Domestic issues like ageing, social mobility, income inequality, immigrants and foreign workers – none can simply be waved away, especially in a slower-growing, mature economy. Politically, the compact between the government and the population must be renewed in each generation, so that fresh teams with fresh ideas can deal with fresh challenges.
Thankfully, Singapore is in as good a position as any country, to deal with these inescapable realities. The country’s leaders, at all levels, feel a responsibility to keep our system working for as long as we can and beyond our own terms in office. As stewards, they seek out and induct new talent to renew their leadership ranks, in order to have this responsibility handed on like an heirloom from generation to generation.
So far, we have made three top leadership transitions successfully. This year a new Prime Minister took over from me, and I am very happy that the transition to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has gone well, and I hope Singapore will continue renewing itself, and rejuvenating our national project, for many years to come.
Thank you very much.
