MM Lee Interviews with 21st Century Business Herald (Delayed post)
From MFA Press Release
How three communities inspire China
China's business newspaper 21st Century Business Herald interviewed Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in October last year in Singapore. This is the second part of excerpts from the interview.
What role did Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore - 'Chinese societies' - play in China's opening?
First, I must correct you. Singapore is a multiracial society, not a Chinese society. We are 75 per cent Chinese, but we have 25 per cent Malays and Indians, so that makes the difference.
I think (Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore) have been a great advantage to China because China can see how three Chinese communities have developed. Similar people, similar culture, but mainly of course from the southern provinces. But it is a great advantage for China because it inspires them to do better. If Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore can do it, China must be able to do it. You have more natural resources, bigger population, more talented people and you are doing better.
If Russia had three such provinces - supposing the Baltic states had been Russian, but not part of the Soviet Union, connected with the West - Russia would have seen how they were prospering and why, and the Russians could easily have duplicated the system.
Also, in the early days (of China's opening), there were very poor investments from the West and from Japan. Your overseas Chinese helped to start your industrialisation, especially after the 1989 Tiananmen incident. The West did not invest, Japan did not invest, but the overseas Chinese invested. They made good business, then the others joined in.
Will Hong Kong lose its edge and international status in the future?
Difficult to say. After 50 years, Hong Kong will be part of China. But it will always have a different history because for over 150 years - from 1840 to 1997 - it had an infusion of Western systems, which helped them just as they did Singapore. So I think even after 50 years when they become a part of China, the system of government, the system of the economy, the rule of law will make them different from China.
Assessing the roles of Chinese leaders from the second (Deng Xiaoping) to the fourth (Hu Jintao) generations.
Their roles are not the same. The first stage was Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji. They had to break the old pattern and move from public-owned factories and institutions into more profit-oriented enterprises.
That first phase was from 1979 to 2000. I would say during Zhu Rongji's last five years, there were major breakthroughs. China joined the World Trade Organisation, which forced you to change the system - and will continue to force you to change the system - and made you competitive.
President Hu Jintao, his objective is to balance the development between the coastal and the inland areas. The differences between them have become very big. This is still work in progress. They are trying to build the infrastructure to bring development to the western regions, giving special investment terms for people to invest there because you cannot invest in the west and export by sea.
So you are investing in the west to sell your products in the west, in the Chinese domestic market - and maybe later on, with connections to Central Asia and the former Soviet Union, then you can export to them. That's a long-term possibility. But in the end - and in the end means 30, 40 years - that is the way to go.
I do not believe the western provinces can be as advanced and prosperous as the coastal provinces and the riverine provinces. If you look at the United States, you will see the two seaboards - East Coast and the West Coast. There is more population, more prosperity in the coast than at the centre, except for Chicago - and Chicago because of the St Lawrence River and the Great Lakes, so ships can come in.
I believe you can raise the standards in the inland provinces to, say, about 60, 70 per cent of the coastal provinces. But from the beginning of history, China's poorer areas have always been inland. Climate is not so good, communications not so good, cultural and educational standards not that high. So the bright students who want to advance themselves, they go to the coast or to Beijing for their university and special training. That may continue for a long time because your best professors and your best teachers don't want to go to the provinces.
This is a big problem in India. There are so many little villages. (Good) teachers don't want to go there. So there are poor teachers teaching the children.
The only way to progress is to build towns, big towns. Then, you have all the amenities and the teachers will come, health services can be brought in and there can be connections to the world. This is the way all nations have developed. This is the way Europe developed, this is the way America developed, this is the way Japan, Taiwan and Korea developed.
Copyright ?2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access
-----------
Jan 8, 2009
On the Chinese and Indian models of development
'I THINK it's difficult to compare the two because there are two different entities, two different peoples. China is 90 per cent Han; in India, there is no majority. They have 320 different languages and dialects. It is one country brought about by the British Raj and the railways that the Raj built. Even today, when the Prime Minister speaks, he cannot be understood by the whole nation.
If he speaks in English, he'll be understood by 40 per cent; if he speaks in Hindi, he'll be understood by 40 per cent; if he speaks in Tamil, understood by 7 per cent; and so on. So it is a very difficult country to mobilise.
Also the two systems are different. Theirs is a multiparty democracy - multiparty in the centre, multiparty in the states; and the centre and the states may be under different governments and they may not be working together.
My estimate is they can do 60 per cent of what China has done - unless they make fundamental mental, cultural and constitutional changes. I will give you an example.
About 11/2 years ago, when I was in Bombay, they asked me how Bombay could become like Singapore. So I asked them who runs Bombay. They said Maharashtra state. I said if you want to become like Shanghai, then you make Bombay a state like Shanghai, which is directly ruled by Beijing.
But here they say no, you cannot do that because they would lose their revenue from Bombay. They take the Bombay revenue and spend it on the farmers. So Bombay cannot grow into a Shanghai or a Singapore. So that's a basic fundamental constitutional problem. When I met the leaders in New Delhi, I said why don't you make the change for Maharashtra? (They said): It will never pass Parliament.
Then there are other major problems. Their idea of an ideal society is many, many villages. And they want to bring all the facilities of the cities to the villages. Former Indian president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam said that is the way to go. So they asked me.
I said there is no country that has developed through villages. The course of development is through urbanisation. The surplus population from the countryside, as farming becomes more productive, will go to the cities. They will get jobs in factories, in services. They are gathered together and therefore will have good health, education and connections with the world.
A recent example of how they are defeating themselves is what happened when Tata wanted to build a cheap motorcar factory in Bengal. The Chief Minister of the state agreed but the opposition organised the farmers and opposed. Maybe they were not given enough compensation; maybe they just want to oppose. So now Tata is going to move to another state.
They are preventing Bengal from becoming industrialised. If they allow this factory to go up, the farmers will be working in the factories and earning more. More land will be released that they can cultivate with machines and thereby increase productivity.
It is a mindset problem. From Mahatma Gandhi's time, they have always idealised the village as the ideal society. (But) the village is not an ideal society.'
Copyright ?2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access
-------------
Jan 8, 2009
On the PAP and MM's motivation
On why the People's Action Party (PAP), though it has been in power for so long, still has a humble headquarters; and how future generations of leaders can be prevented from erecting expensive buildings for themselves and purchasing luxury cars.
'I cannot forecast what future generations of PAP leaders will do. If they are filled with grand ideas and want to build monuments, that would lose the PAP its prestige.
'We have established a culture of modest living, avoidance of waste and ostentatious displays of wealth and power. We are a political party of a small country. There is no need to impress our people or visitors with our wealth and power. It will be counter- productive.'
On how he would live his life again if he were a boy now.
'Difficult to say what I would do if I were a boy again. My thinking and motivations were forged in an age of tremendous change.
'European empires in Asia were destroyed by the Japanese Army. This was followed by communist guerilla insurgencies that spread all over South-east Asia. They wanted to seize power in the newly independent countries.
'We wanted to get rid of the British. We joined in the United Front with pro-Communists to get rid of the British. Then we had to struggle against the Communist United Front who wanted to take over. Singapore would have been led to disasters.
'My values and motivation were to improve the lives of the peoples I belong to and the country that I am part of. That made me go into politics.'
How three communities inspire China
China's business newspaper 21st Century Business Herald interviewed Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in October last year in Singapore. This is the second part of excerpts from the interview.
What role did Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore - 'Chinese societies' - play in China's opening?
First, I must correct you. Singapore is a multiracial society, not a Chinese society. We are 75 per cent Chinese, but we have 25 per cent Malays and Indians, so that makes the difference.
I think (Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore) have been a great advantage to China because China can see how three Chinese communities have developed. Similar people, similar culture, but mainly of course from the southern provinces. But it is a great advantage for China because it inspires them to do better. If Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore can do it, China must be able to do it. You have more natural resources, bigger population, more talented people and you are doing better.
If Russia had three such provinces - supposing the Baltic states had been Russian, but not part of the Soviet Union, connected with the West - Russia would have seen how they were prospering and why, and the Russians could easily have duplicated the system.
Also, in the early days (of China's opening), there were very poor investments from the West and from Japan. Your overseas Chinese helped to start your industrialisation, especially after the 1989 Tiananmen incident. The West did not invest, Japan did not invest, but the overseas Chinese invested. They made good business, then the others joined in.
Will Hong Kong lose its edge and international status in the future?
Difficult to say. After 50 years, Hong Kong will be part of China. But it will always have a different history because for over 150 years - from 1840 to 1997 - it had an infusion of Western systems, which helped them just as they did Singapore. So I think even after 50 years when they become a part of China, the system of government, the system of the economy, the rule of law will make them different from China.
Assessing the roles of Chinese leaders from the second (Deng Xiaoping) to the fourth (Hu Jintao) generations.
Their roles are not the same. The first stage was Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji. They had to break the old pattern and move from public-owned factories and institutions into more profit-oriented enterprises.
That first phase was from 1979 to 2000. I would say during Zhu Rongji's last five years, there were major breakthroughs. China joined the World Trade Organisation, which forced you to change the system - and will continue to force you to change the system - and made you competitive.
President Hu Jintao, his objective is to balance the development between the coastal and the inland areas. The differences between them have become very big. This is still work in progress. They are trying to build the infrastructure to bring development to the western regions, giving special investment terms for people to invest there because you cannot invest in the west and export by sea.
So you are investing in the west to sell your products in the west, in the Chinese domestic market - and maybe later on, with connections to Central Asia and the former Soviet Union, then you can export to them. That's a long-term possibility. But in the end - and in the end means 30, 40 years - that is the way to go.
I do not believe the western provinces can be as advanced and prosperous as the coastal provinces and the riverine provinces. If you look at the United States, you will see the two seaboards - East Coast and the West Coast. There is more population, more prosperity in the coast than at the centre, except for Chicago - and Chicago because of the St Lawrence River and the Great Lakes, so ships can come in.
I believe you can raise the standards in the inland provinces to, say, about 60, 70 per cent of the coastal provinces. But from the beginning of history, China's poorer areas have always been inland. Climate is not so good, communications not so good, cultural and educational standards not that high. So the bright students who want to advance themselves, they go to the coast or to Beijing for their university and special training. That may continue for a long time because your best professors and your best teachers don't want to go to the provinces.
This is a big problem in India. There are so many little villages. (Good) teachers don't want to go there. So there are poor teachers teaching the children.
The only way to progress is to build towns, big towns. Then, you have all the amenities and the teachers will come, health services can be brought in and there can be connections to the world. This is the way all nations have developed. This is the way Europe developed, this is the way America developed, this is the way Japan, Taiwan and Korea developed.
Copyright ?2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access
-----------
Jan 8, 2009
On the Chinese and Indian models of development
'I THINK it's difficult to compare the two because there are two different entities, two different peoples. China is 90 per cent Han; in India, there is no majority. They have 320 different languages and dialects. It is one country brought about by the British Raj and the railways that the Raj built. Even today, when the Prime Minister speaks, he cannot be understood by the whole nation.
If he speaks in English, he'll be understood by 40 per cent; if he speaks in Hindi, he'll be understood by 40 per cent; if he speaks in Tamil, understood by 7 per cent; and so on. So it is a very difficult country to mobilise.
Also the two systems are different. Theirs is a multiparty democracy - multiparty in the centre, multiparty in the states; and the centre and the states may be under different governments and they may not be working together.
My estimate is they can do 60 per cent of what China has done - unless they make fundamental mental, cultural and constitutional changes. I will give you an example.
About 11/2 years ago, when I was in Bombay, they asked me how Bombay could become like Singapore. So I asked them who runs Bombay. They said Maharashtra state. I said if you want to become like Shanghai, then you make Bombay a state like Shanghai, which is directly ruled by Beijing.
But here they say no, you cannot do that because they would lose their revenue from Bombay. They take the Bombay revenue and spend it on the farmers. So Bombay cannot grow into a Shanghai or a Singapore. So that's a basic fundamental constitutional problem. When I met the leaders in New Delhi, I said why don't you make the change for Maharashtra? (They said): It will never pass Parliament.
Then there are other major problems. Their idea of an ideal society is many, many villages. And they want to bring all the facilities of the cities to the villages. Former Indian president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam said that is the way to go. So they asked me.
I said there is no country that has developed through villages. The course of development is through urbanisation. The surplus population from the countryside, as farming becomes more productive, will go to the cities. They will get jobs in factories, in services. They are gathered together and therefore will have good health, education and connections with the world.
A recent example of how they are defeating themselves is what happened when Tata wanted to build a cheap motorcar factory in Bengal. The Chief Minister of the state agreed but the opposition organised the farmers and opposed. Maybe they were not given enough compensation; maybe they just want to oppose. So now Tata is going to move to another state.
They are preventing Bengal from becoming industrialised. If they allow this factory to go up, the farmers will be working in the factories and earning more. More land will be released that they can cultivate with machines and thereby increase productivity.
It is a mindset problem. From Mahatma Gandhi's time, they have always idealised the village as the ideal society. (But) the village is not an ideal society.'
Copyright ?2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access
-------------
Jan 8, 2009
On the PAP and MM's motivation
On why the People's Action Party (PAP), though it has been in power for so long, still has a humble headquarters; and how future generations of leaders can be prevented from erecting expensive buildings for themselves and purchasing luxury cars.
'I cannot forecast what future generations of PAP leaders will do. If they are filled with grand ideas and want to build monuments, that would lose the PAP its prestige.
'We have established a culture of modest living, avoidance of waste and ostentatious displays of wealth and power. We are a political party of a small country. There is no need to impress our people or visitors with our wealth and power. It will be counter- productive.'
On how he would live his life again if he were a boy now.
'Difficult to say what I would do if I were a boy again. My thinking and motivations were forged in an age of tremendous change.
'European empires in Asia were destroyed by the Japanese Army. This was followed by communist guerilla insurgencies that spread all over South-east Asia. They wanted to seize power in the newly independent countries.
'We wanted to get rid of the British. We joined in the United Front with pro-Communists to get rid of the British. Then we had to struggle against the Communist United Front who wanted to take over. Singapore would have been led to disasters.
'My values and motivation were to improve the lives of the peoples I belong to and the country that I am part of. That made me go into politics.'
