Global Financial Crisis Causes:

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew discussed the root causes of the global financial crisis. He attributed it to the excesses of a liberal regulatory system and a misplaced faith in the completely free market. He emphasized that once the decision was made not to regulate derivatives, a financial catastrophe was essentially set into motion, likening it to a Ponzi scheme.

Failures in Governance:

According to Lee, merely blaming the bankers is insufficient. He argued that the rules of the game allowed these individuals to operate as they did, transferring “dark assets” and making profits. The system itself was at fault and enabled this behavior. He also mentioned the optimism of the Federal Reserve in underestimating the risks involved, contributing to the crisis.

Recurring Market Failures:

Lee warned against the belief that learning from this crisis would prevent all future crises. He posited that the nature of free market systems means that they are prone to occasional “glitches” and failures. He suggested that expecting a world without financial crises is unrealistic.

Alternative Systems:

Lee pointed out that countries with more regulated economies, like China, came out of the crisis relatively unscathed. Their cautious approach and closed capital markets provided a level of protection against the global financial downturn.

Local Context – Singapore:

Interestingly, Lee noted that Singaporean banks were not significantly impacted by the crisis because they didn’t fully understand or deal in risky financial derivatives, inadvertently sparing the country from severe economic repercussions.

Public Opinion and Policy in Indonesia:

A student from Indonesia asked Lee about the challenges of governance in a nation where public opinion can greatly sway government action, making it difficult to implement long-term plans. This question frames a universal problem of governance: balancing public opinion with effective, long-term policy implementation.

The discussion provides a multi-faceted view on the causes and governance issues surrounding the global financial crisis while also touching on the challenges in governance at a national level.

Political Diversity in India:

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew comments on the complexities of governance in India. Despite its bureaucratic inefficiencies and intricate coalitions at both the state and central levels, India has made remarkable progress with consistent economic growth. He attributes this success, in part, to the opening up of the Indian economy in the 1990s.

Linguistic and Cultural Challenges:

Lee Kuan Yew elaborates on the additional constraints faced by India due to its enormous linguistic and cultural diversity. He contrasts China’s homogeneous population with India’s, where any given leader’s message will only reach a fraction of the population, complicating the policy-making process.

Constitutional Constraints:

The minister also discusses the rigidity in India’s constitutional structure, particularly the distribution of revenue and authority between state and central governments. He shares an anecdote about discussing the development of Bombay as a world financial center, illustrating how the revenue generated by the city ends up being distributed throughout the state, rather than being reinvested in the city itself.

Comparisons with China:

When it comes to governance and development, Lee Kuan Yew highlights how cities like Shanghai have been granted more autonomy to deal directly with the central government in China, allowing for focused development. This is not feasible in India due to constitutional barriers that require significant legislative amendments, which are unlikely to pass given the current political climate.

The Difficulty of Change:

In a conversation with India’s Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew learns that changing the constitutional framework to allow cities like Bombay greater autonomy would require a two-thirds majority in both central and state governments—a daunting task. This rigid constitutional structure keeps cities like Bombay from reaching their full potential, as they remain subservient to broader state interests.

Overall, Lee Kuan Yew provides a nuanced view of the challenges and limitations that India faces in governance due to its diverse population and constitutional constraints, drawing contrasts with the Chinese model to emphasize his points.

Remarkable Transformation:

Lee Kuan Yew speaks on the dramatic transformation he witnessed in China over his 32 visits since 1976. He contrasts the “dilapidated, down, grey, drab” China of 1976 with the modern, developed coastal cities of today. Infrastructure and standard of living have vastly improved, particularly in cities like Shanghai, Guangzhou, Dalian, and Tianjin.

Regional Disparities:

Lee acknowledges that there’s not a single “real China” but rather “multiple real Chinas,” pointing out disparities between the prosperous coastal regions and the more arid and less developed interior. He mentions Lanzhou as an example of a city that could be wealthy if it didn’t have to share its resources with the rest of China’s 1.3 billion population.

Political Efficacy:

The Singaporean leader appreciates China’s political system for its ability to enforce decisions swiftly and effectively. He contrasts this with India, where political decentralization hampers the implementation of directives from the capital. In China, he notes, if a party secretary fails to execute an order, their career will stall, thus ensuring compliance and effectiveness.

Leadership Quality:

Lee praises the quality of leadership in China, stating that able administrators are rising to the top of the political system. He implies that China’s meritocratic elements are functioning, with officials who perform well in their roles getting promoted to higher positions.

China’s Self-Perception and Worldview:

Lee refrains from offering any prescriptive advice to China but comments on the discrepancy between how China sees itself and how it is viewed by the rest of the world, particularly the West. He suggests that the relationship has evolved since his first visit, becoming more realistic as China has gained more self-confidence and global stature.

Peaceful Rise:

When asked about the possibility of China’s peaceful rise, Lee finds it plausible in the short to medium term (20-30 years). However, he expresses uncertainty about the longer-term outlook, citing the evolving dynamics in China’s international relationships since his first visit in 1976.

Limitations of Advice:

Lee emphasizes that, as a leader of a much smaller nation, he doesn’t feel it would be wise for him to offer advice to a country of China’s size and complexity. Nonetheless, he does identify areas where China excels and offers some cautionary insights.

The overarching takeaway is Lee Kuan Yew’s admiration for China’s rapid development and his nuanced understanding of its regional disparities, political system, and international positioning.

Generational Shift:

Lee Kuan Yew observed a significant generational change in China, comparing the revolutionaries he met in 1976 to the Western-educated youth of today. He pointed out that the quality of the younger generation is notably higher, indicating a transformation in educational and global perspectives.

Systemic Strengths and Weaknesses:

Lee lauded China’s ability to execute government directives effectively, contrasting it with the democratic bureaucracy in India. In China, performance is strongly tied to career advancement, thereby ensuring effective governance. However, he identified systemic corruption as a major internal challenge, partly a residue of communist systems where money had limited utility and power decided access to resources.

Inequality and Discontent:

Lee expressed concerns over growing social and economic disparities. While cities like Beijing and Shanghai have seen vast infrastructure development, rural areas have lagged. This inequality has led to civil unrest, as people compare their standards of living and find them lacking. With the advent of technology like CCTV, the visibility of this inequality has only grown, raising questions of equity and social justice.

Challenges in Balanced Development:

Lee emphasized the issues surrounding raising educational and cultural levels in less developed regions. Qualified teachers are hesitant to move to these areas due to lack of amenities. The slow “trickle-down” effect of prosperity exacerbates social divisions, making it a pressing internal challenge for China.

Long-term Stability and Prosperity:

Lee concluded by stating that while China has a strong governing system and security apparatus, real progress can only be achieved by addressing internal disparities. He suggests that unless prosperity is more equally shared, China faces significant long-term challenges that could affect its stability.

This summary captures the nuanced views of Lee Kuan Yew on the evolving landscape of China, its internal dynamics, strengths, and the pressing challenges it must address for sustainable development and social harmony.

Concept of Peaceful Rise:

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew discusses China’s strategic approach for growth, emphasizing the importance of a “peaceful rise.” He argues that for a nation to grow, avoiding wars and conflicts is crucial. China’s leaders are aware of this, given the country’s tumultuous history, including events like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

Terminology and Perception:

Lee Kuan Yew recounts his own advice to Chinese authorities to reconsider the English phrasing of “peaceful rise,” suggesting it may sound intimidating to Western audiences. He recommends using terms like “cultural renaissance” to focus attention on cultural aspects instead.

Generational Shifts:

While the current generation in China is committed to peaceful growth, Lee raises concerns about future generations. He questions whether coming generations, taking their nation’s newfound status for granted, might adopt a more aggressive posture internationally.

Historical Grievances:

Another challenge Lee highlights is the potential for historical grievances to shape China’s foreign policy. He warns against adopting a stance that seeks to “square accounts” with nations perceived as having exploited China in the past.

Global Integration and Challenges:

Lee advises Western nations, particularly the U.S., to engage positively with Chinese students and make them feel like stakeholders in global issues like climate change and terrorism. He emphasizes that future China will face internal social challenges like corruption and disparity, but will not be the sole global power.

Implications for Small States:

Drawing on his experience from Singapore, Lee mentions that China’s view of international equality among nations might still be evolving. Smaller nations, he suggests, need to be cautious as China grows more powerful.

Role as a Stakeholder:

Finally, Lee Kuan Yew encourages the international community to help China see itself as a global stakeholder, sharing the risks and responsibilities that come with that role.

Overall, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew offers a nuanced perspective on the complexities surrounding China’s peaceful rise, suggesting proactive engagement and understanding as the keys to a stable international future.

Self-determination vs Rapid Development:

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was asked about the lessons that developing countries could take from Singapore’s approach to balancing national self-determination and rapid development. He responded that for him, there’s no dilemma. He cited his neighbor from Taiwan lamenting the state of disorder in Taiwan due to its democratic system, validating Singapore’s more authoritarian approach.

Asian vs American Perspectives:

Lee noted that perceptions of Singapore’s governance varied based on geography. In Asia, Singapore’s strict policies were viewed positively, as the region is the fastest-growing area and of great importance to Singapore. In contrast, the American perspective focused more on the negatives, critiquing Singapore for its authoritarianism.

Political Safeguards:

Lee explained the safeguards in place in Singapore’s political system that allow for a peaceful transition of power and protect against “freak” election results. He highlighted that the President of Singapore has blocking powers to prevent new administrations from draining reserves or changing key officials without approval. These safeguards were implemented to maintain system integrity and ensure long-term stability.

Revolution by Consent vs Violence:

Lee Kuan Yew mentioned his time at the London School of Economics where he learned that change in society could happen either by constitutional consent or through violent revolution. He stated that if Singapore blocks all avenues for peaceful change, it must expect violence eventually.

Freak Election Scenario:

Addressing a question about the use of the army in case of a ‘freak’ election, Lee assured that Singapore’s political system allows any opposition to peacefully replace the ruling party. He also indicated that safeguards were in place not to facilitate a coup but to protect the system’s core competencies for future administrations.

Role of the Army:

Lee Kuan Yew stated that the army commanders must be approved by a committee and the President, emphasizing that this process is in place to prevent the collapse of the machinery of governance rather than to prepare for a coup.

Leadership Qualities:

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew tackled a question about how Singapore develops great leaders. He expressed that leadership, particularly political leadership, cannot be purely trained. While you can train corporate leaders, political leaders need an intrinsic drive, a “passion” to do something for their people. They must also possess the ability to persuade others to follow them. He differentiated between training someone for a skill set and recognizing innate qualities that make for effective leadership.

Unique Challenges in Different Cultural Contexts:

Lee Kuan Yew offered a candid view of the challenges that would have faced him if he were in a different cultural context, like China. He stated that the competitive environment in China would have been too aggressive for him to maintain his leadership position, pointing out that each country’s leadership dynamics are unique.

Financial Crisis and Regulation:

Addressing the financial crisis and the issue of regulating bonus payments in the banking sector, Lee Kuan Yew emphasized the urgency of resolving the ongoing crisis before focusing on future regulation. He indicated skepticism about the efficacy of regulation in preventing another crisis, saying, “no improvement can ever prevent another breakdown.” He highlighted the trade-off between regulation and economic performance, pointing to the higher GDP returns that less regulated economies like the U.K. and the U.S. had been enjoying.

Limitations and Humility:

Throughout the dialogue, Lee Kuan Yew demonstrated humility in admitting the challenges he faced in identifying new leaders and his limited knowledge on the complexities of financial regulation. His stance indicates that even seasoned leaders recognize their limitations and the multifaceted nature of issues.

This segment encapsulates Lee Kuan Yew’s perspectives on essential topics like leadership development and crisis management, steeped in practical wisdom and shaped by a keen awareness of cultural and systemic nuances.

Introduction:

The segment of the presentation focuses on Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew recognizing and appreciating Premier Circle donors. These are individuals and organizations that have donated more than one million dollars to the school.

List of Donors:

The names of significant donors are read out in alphabetical order. Some notable entities and persons include Ballstatt Singapore Limited, Wong Fong Fui, Chang Yung Fa, Murli K. Chenrai, and Kwok Kun Hong among others.

Special Acknowledgments:

Kwok Kun Hong receives an additional memento on behalf of Wilma International, indicating his multiple roles or additional significance in the donations.

Family Representatives:

In some cases, family members, like the daughter of Wee Hong Leong, Alice Wee Yin, receive the memento on behalf of the donors, suggesting that philanthropy could be a family commitment.

Corporate Donors:

Corporate entities like Spice Global are also acknowledged, and their representatives receive the plaques. It implies that both individuals and corporations play a part in the school’s funding.

Conclusion:

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew ends the segment by personally presenting the mementos to these Premier Circle donors as a gesture of gratitude and recognition for their generous contributions to the school.

Introduction:

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hen takes the stage to acknowledge two special groups: the Dean’s Circle donors and scholarship donors. These donors contribute to different facets of the school, specifically the Master in Public Policy and Master in Public Administration programs.

Dean’s Circle:

The first category of acknowledgment is for Dean’s Circle donors, the first of whom is Mr. Teo Kim Yong. These individuals seem to be specially recognized for general contributions to the school.

Scholarship Donors:

The next group consists of scholarship donors who specifically commit to providing scholarships for the Master’s programs. Names are read in alphabetical order. Donors range from financial institutions like ANZ Bank, represented by its CEO Bill Fu, to philanthropic foundations like the Muhammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation, represented by His Excellency Adil Rashid Al Sharif.

Corporate Involvement:

The list includes high-profile corporate entities such as Capital Land and OCBC Bank. CEOs like Liu Manliang and David Connor are present to receive the mementos. This illustrates the active involvement of corporations in educational philanthropy.

Conclusion:

The segment concludes with a vote of thanks to Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hen and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. The event appears to be part of a larger function, likely aimed at fundraising and recognizing contributions to the school.