From News.gov.sg

Thirty years ago, I launched this Speak Mandarin Campaign. Chinese students learn Mandarin in school. Unfortunately, they used to speak dialects among themselves and at home. When I watched interviews on our Chinese TV channel in the 1960s and ‘70s, I found students and workers speak Mandarin haltingly. They have not used Mandarin often. Mandarin has to be the common language of Chinese Singaporeans, regardless of their dialect groups. If the government had left language habits to evolve undirected, Chinese Singaporeans would be speaking an adulterated Hokkien-Teochew dialect.

To effectively promote Mandarin, we closed down all dialect programs on radio and TV from 1979. Also, I was setting a bad example making speeches in Hokkien in the 1960s and ‘70s to reach the largest number of Chinese. From 1979, some 30 years ago, I decided to stop speaking in Hokkien and switched to Mandarin. Had I not done this, Hokkien/Teochew will be the predominant common language for the Chinese in Singapore, not Mandarin.

The value of a language is its usefulness, not just in Singapore, but also in the wider world. If you speak Hokkien or Cantonese, you reach some 60 million in Fujian and Taiwan, or about 100 million in Guangdong and Hong Kong. With Mandarin, you can speak to 1,300 million Chinese from all provinces in China. Now, overseas Chinese and foreigners are learning Mandarin, not Chinese dialects. China is setting up 500 Confucius Institutes in different countries to teach Mandarin to many millions of people around the world.

I understand the strong emotional ties to one’s mother tongue. However, the trend is clear. In two generations, Mandarin will become our mother tongue.

English is the key language for our people to make a living. It is the second language of all non English-speaking peoples. Multinational companies use English. Internet data banks are mostly in English. PRC Chinese are learning English with great effort. If Mandarin were our first language, Singaporeans would be of little use to China. They do not need more Mandarin speakers to add to their 1.3 billion. English gives us easy access to English-speaking societies and the developed world. Thus, Singaporeans bring value-add to China. If Ms Lim Sau Hoong spoke only fluent Mandarin, she would not bring added value to her work in China. It is because she also speaks and writes fluent English that she has been able to compete in both languages in the advertising sector. That made her a valuable addition to Zhang Yi-mou’s team to polish up the dramatic opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics in August 2008.

To keep a language alive, you have to speak and read it frequently. The more you use one language, the less you use other languages. So the more languages you learn, the greater the difficulties of retaining them at a high level of fluency. I have learned and used six languages – English, Malay, Latin, Japanese, Mandarin and Hokkien. English is my master language. My Hokkien has gone rusty, my Mandarin has improved. I have lost my Japanese and Latin, and can no longer make fluent speeches in Malay without preparation. This is called “language loss”.

All new countries have multiple dialects and languages in their mixed populations. To become a united nation, the population must speak a common language, so that they can communicate with the government and with one another. Indonesia has hundreds of languages and dialects in their 17,000 islands. Since independence in 1949, they have been teaching and speaking Bahasa Indonesia. In secondary schools and tertiary institutions, they do their lessons only in Bahasa, and not the regional languages and dialects. Bahasa is now the language of government and business in all parts of Indonesia.

Singapore’s multi-racial peoples will never be united if we had used Mandarin as our common language. All non-Chinese, 25% of Singaporeans, will be disadvantaged. The result will be endless strife, as in Sri Lanka, where Singhalese was made the national language and the Tamil-speaking were marginalised. We made the right decision to use English as our common language. We also retained the teaching of mother tongues. Even in 1959 when we first became the Government, my colleagues and I could foresee a time when China would open up and become a huge economic power. Their common language is putonghua, not dialects. Our choice of English has enabled our fast growth. Now with China’s growing economy, parents and students no longer complain of the burden of learning Chinese, a difficult language without spelling or phonetics. Dialects are being overtaken by Mandarin in the region where Mandarin is taught in all Chinese schools. Mandarin will become the common language of the overseas Chinese.

China wants to collaborate with us because through English, we are able to connect with the West. At the same time, our Mandarin is fluent enough to communicate with PRC Chinese on different topics and subjects.

The Speak Mandarin Campaign and our bilingual education policy have resulted in a growing number of young Singaporeans speaking Mandarin among themselves in schools, ITEs, polytechnics and universities. They also watch Mandarin TV more than English TV.

Quite a few Singaporeans with only “AO” or “O” level passes in Chinese have sent me emails from China to thank me for making Mandarin compulsory for them. With this basic foundation, they have been able to expand their vocabulary and increase their fluency after a few months in China. Singapore Press Holdings distributes a free bilingual newspaper called “Wobao” or “My Paper”, which is bilingual in Chinese and English. They have a glossary of translations for the more difficult English and Chinese words and phrases. 250,000 copies of “Wobao” are distributed daily, read by about 500,000. During train or bus rides or at home, you can read it and refresh your recognition of Chinese characters.

School examinations no longer concentrate on mo xie, dictation from memory, or ting xie, listening and writing. They are not needed in real life. With computer programs, you can type the pinyin and the characters will appear. Since 2007, we have allowed the use of digital dictionaries in national examinations.

Singapore’s advantage has been that we have a Mandarin-speaking community. We have newspapers, magazines, books, and television programmes in Chinese. We need some 300 Singaporean graduates each year who have Chinese language and culture at a high level, to interact with their China counterparts. The flow of new migrants from China as our citizens and Permanent Residents will help in this process.

English is our dominant language everywhere. Most students will have little difficulty in mastering working-level English. However, if parents speak in English to their children at home, learning Mandarin will be a problem. Research of American-born Chinese disclosed that when these second-generation Chinese try to learn Chinese in college, those who speak English at home found mastering Chinese as difficult as Caucasian-Americans; those whose parents spoke to them in Mandarin easily made the grade. My advice is for both parents to speak Mandarin to their children if they can. If one speaks in Mandarin and the other in English, the child will grow up speaking more English than Mandarin.

And with IT digital dictionaries that can translate from English to Chinese and vice versa and also pronounce the words, learning Chinese has become much easier and more convenient, something I did not have when I started learning Chinese in 1955 at age 32.

From Straits times

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew spoke at the annual Tanjong Pagar Chinese New Year Dinner last night. This is an edited text of his speech.
THIS year will test the mettle, the strength of character, of Singaporeans. The Prime Minister and Finance Minister have described this worldwide financial crisis that has reached us. This is the first time that all banking systems in all countries are concurrently facing a credit crunch. They have lost confidence in themselves, in their fellow banks and other financial institutions, and even in their customers. United States and European Union (EU) banks have been brought down by complex derivative securities, now called 'toxic assets' because they may be worthless.
In nine months, we will know how US President Barack Obama's economic and financial plans are doing. We will have an indication of when America's economy will bottom out and start to grow again. With luck, it could be by the end of 2009 or in early 2010.

However, many leading American economists contend that (despite) spending the huge sum of money (that Mr Obama's stimulus plan calls for), they may still not succeed in kick-starting the economy. Some argue that prices in the mortgaged housing sector must hit bottom and recover before confidence will return. When they do, banks and financial institutions worldwide will be more confident.

The outcome of America's economic and financial policies will affect the EU, China and Japan, because the US is their major export market. By the end of the year, we will know where the US economy is heading. Singapore's 'Resilience Package' may have to be updated.

Our external trade is more than three times our GDP. Therefore, the level of international trade is a decisive factor for our economy. Indeed, in this globalised economy, no country - neither the US nor the EU, neither Japan nor Singapore - can single-handedly decide its economic performance.

Big countries like China and India can still make substantial 6 to 8 per cent growth despite this meltdown. They have giant domestic markets and can spend to meet their large infrastructural needs. But China's GDP is only one-quarter, and India's less than one-tenth, that of America's. We may get some spin-offs from their growth, but they cannot lift us like a US recovery.

Singaporeans and their government are not in panic. We have got the wherewithal to survive this recession, even if it goes on for several years. We knew such a recession must come from time to time. It is in the nature of the free markets of the Western world that our economy is plugged into. People and systems tend to be carried away by exuberance. Investors get greedy and rush in to buy, believing that prices will only go up. When prices collapse, investors find they have lost huge sums. Despair and depression then set in.

Everyone in the world is poorer - US$7 trillion (S$10.5 trillion) has been wiped off the world's stock markets. According to a BBC report from Davos, the world's assets - stocks, properties, pensions, gold, jewellery, et cetera - have lost 40 per cent of their value. Mr Rupert Murdoch speaking at Davos said personal wealth in the world has fallen by US$50 trillion. Forbes estimated that in Hong Kong, the 40 richest billionaires and millionaires have lost half their combined wealth. Property values have gone down in every country; so have profits for companies and wages for workers.

In Singapore, our SGX market capitalisation lost half of its value last year. Properties at the high end, residential and commercial, have gone down. However, HDB prices have held up because many are downgrading from private condominiums to purchase HDB flats.

Everyone's wealth has shrunk as our assets have lost value. But if you have not borrowed excessively to buy assets and have sufficient cash to service your loans, you can hold on to your investments until the market turns up and prices recover.

We expected stocks and shares to go down so we sold quite a number of stocks and shares we owned and turned them into cash early last year. That's why we were able to buy banks and so on because we had the cash.

Singaporeans need not despair or be depressed. We will have to endure some hardship. But nobody will be destitute, depending on soup kitchens or begging in the streets. Everyone has a home: 95 per cent of Singaporeans are home owners. They will receive U-save rebates and S&C subsidies, GST credits, Workfare Income Supplements and other forms of assistance. Most importantly, the Government has launched the Jobs Credit scheme to save jobs for Singaporeans by giving employers a maximum grant of $300 per month for each Singaporean worker.

These measures will help Singaporeans meet their basic living expenses and defray their utility bills and conservancy charges. Support is tilted towards the lower-income families in two- and three-room flats, and also the middle-income in four- and five-room flats.

Some professionals have written to the newspapers that we are ignoring those in the private condominiums and landed properties. The Government has not overlooked them. They are getting income tax and property rebates, and GST credits. But it is right that the low-income groups should get more help, as they are in greater need.

Ministers and senior civil servants are taking pay cuts of up to 20 per cent as the economy has slowed down substantially. Middle- and lower-ranking public officers would also receive lower salaries, but with smaller reductions. This is to share the belt-tightening that other Singaporeans have to bear in this difficult period.

Most of what we consume is imported. We do not grow our food, nor manufacture the goods we buy. Whatever we do, retailers will find customers more cautious, because they are preparing for what could be a longish period of negative or little growth.

Retailers, like other companies, will get up to $300 per month for each Singaporean employee through the Jobs Credit scheme, and should also benefit from the 40 per cent property tax rebate, which is the least that landlords should pass on to tenants. Along Orchard Road and many other shopping centres, tents have been put up next to shopping malls for the mall tenants and others to sell their wares to passers-by at lower prices. The market will adjust.

This experience will be remembered by everyone, especially by all those who were born after 1971. After 1971 and the oil crisis which caused oil prices to quadruple, our economy has grown steadily year after year. So this generation may believe that Singapore and Singaporeans will automatically go up the escalator every year. This is not so.

In testing times, we must have the guts to face our problems, maintain solidarity and work together, learn new skills and knowledge through the Spur programme that the Government has launched. We will overcome our present difficulties and emerge stronger from the experience.

We will get fresh investments again, higher value investments that will employ more workers who are better-skilled and more knowledgeable. Our standing with investors worldwide is high. They know we are restructuring and that we will pay for our workers to be trained by them, and by other institutes, under Spur (Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience) to match the skilled workers that they need. We should take this opportunity to go for training and upgrade ourselves for these higher value-added jobs.

Singapore's security, stability, reliability and good labour relations are well known. Whatever your job, you are better off in Singapore than if you were in a similar job in any other Asian country, including China and India. The only country where, job for job, you can be better off, is Japan. The Japanese have huge reserves, top class infrastructure and a highly skilled, industrious and knowledgeable workforce.

Do not be discouraged by the present hard times. I am confident the younger generation of Singaporeans have the grit, stamina and resourcefulness to bounce back.

My generation of Singaporeans will never forget the 1960s and early 1970s when we had only $100 million in our reserves. (Now our reserves are more than $100 billion.) We faced separation from our then economic hinterland, Malaysia, and 'Konfrontasi' and no trade with Indonesia.

That generation kept their nerve and were determined to succeed. Your parents' and grandparents' generations had hard lives in shanty huts with no running water or modern WC, not knowing what the future could bring. They simply concentrated on hard work and built the foundation for the Singapore of the 21st century. I don't believe that in one generation that attitude has disappeared. Yes, you have had an easier life, but pressed against the wall, like your fathers and your uncles, you will fight back.

We will go through with restructuring our economy. We will retrain and educate our workers to higher levels of skills and knowledge. When recovery comes in the US and EU, as it must, we will be ready for a higher level of economic activity.

Your generation can take Singapore forward to become one of Asia's most vibrant and beautiful cities. We will have a spectacular marina in the Central Business District; the island will have many beautiful streams and water bodies; our housing estates will be clad in exuberant foliage and ringed by gardens, recreational and sporting facilities. This is not a pie in the sky. It will be realised in the next five to 10 years, even with the current financial crisis.

The success of Singapore came from the hard work, resourcefulness and ingenuity of your forefathers and their leaders. You are the descendants of these lion-hearted pioneers. You have it in you to succeed. Joining you are hardworking and talented new emigrants from Asean, India and China. Together we can make the grade.

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.'

Story Link

Extracts:

Pointing to the need to restore confidence, MM Lee said one extreme view was to nationalise bad debts and assets and let the banks restart.
MM Lee : 'What will that cost? Many trillions of dollars.'

Even then, it appears to be an uphill task. Mr Lee noted that the bailout plan was facing trouble with Congress.
MM Lee - 'Let's say there is a complete collapse. Does that mean the end of the world...the free market economy? No.'

As an insurer, AIG was supposed to be a 'firewall' against the collapse of the financial system.
MM Lee - 'But they also went into derivatives. Why not? Everyone was making money. This was a mania,' he noted.
Can such mania be tamed? Not likely, he said, adding: 'Human nature, greed, fear will always be there

Extracts from Wikipedia

Theories and techniques

Anti-war activist Midge Potts is arrested for civil disobedience on the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States on 9 February 2005.In seeking an active form of civil disobedience, one may choose to deliberately break certain laws, such as by forming a peaceful blockade or occupying a facility illegally. Protesters practice this non-violent form of civil disorder with the expectation that they will be arrested, or even attacked or beaten by the authorities. Protesters often undergo training in advance on how to react to arrest or to attack, so that they will do so in a manner that quietly or limply resists without threatening the authorities.

For example, Mahatma Gandhi outlined the following rules:

1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbour no anger.
2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.
4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.
5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.
6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing.
7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.
8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Flag, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.
9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.

The following videos are from a youtuber calling him/herself sgDemocrat. I presume he/she is a active member of SDP.

The following 2 video is titled "The Police State", you be your own judge are they the really advocating Civil Disobedience as stated in the Methods and Theories by their action?





Or is this the real example or Civil Disobedience



Peace Out!

From CNA
SINGAPORE: Singapore's problems cannot be solved by giving subsidies, but by having a dynamic economy, said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Speaking at the Tanjong Pagar Day celebrations at the Queenstown Stadium on Sunday, Mr Lee drew lessons for Singapore from how countries in the region are tackling their problems.

The world has moved into years of high prices for food and oil, said Mr Lee. But Singapore does not have agriculture, so people have to earn enough money by working hard and smart to pay market prices for food.

He made it clear that Singapore cannot go the way of welfare systems in Europe, which have lowered incentives to strive and excel.

The minister mentor said: "I read many letters in the press urging subsidies for all manner of things – seat belts for school buses, food for the poor, medical fees and so on. Singapore must remain a competitive society to generate growth year after year.

"The government must ensure that everyone has the highest paid job he is qualified to do. If his salary is below the minimum for a decent life, the government will top up with Workfare. When everybody knows the cost of what he consumes or uses, he will spend his money more to his benefit."

Mr Lee noted that countries in the region have taken different approaches to worldwide problems.

In Indonesia, there are riots over an anticipated lowering of oil subsidies, while in Malaysia, the newly elected government has not reduced the oil subsidy so as not to upset the electorate.

In handling natural disasters, Myanmar's military leaders had refused foreign aid for weeks after Cyclone Nargis left millions homeless. But the reaction was different in quake-hit China.

Mr Lee said: "Premier Wen Jiabao immediately flew to the quake areas. 120,000 troops were sent by air. The people were united and rallied to help victims by donations, and many went to Sichuan to do relief work.

"The Confucian habits of communitarian solidarity and mutual help have again surfaced, although Communist ideology marginalised Confucian values for 40 years."

The minister mentor added that Singapore does not have earthquakes, tsunamis or typhoons because of the country's favourable geographical location.

His call to Singaporeans is to be grateful that the nation has long-term stability, continuing high-value investments and good growth. Mr Lee said he is confident that in five years, Singapore will be a more lively and beautiful city.

Mr Lee, who cut short his speech because of a sore throat, said he needed to save his voice for a court case involving Dr Chee Soon Juan on Monday.

"I've got to save part of my voice to let him cross-examine me. Of course, in the course of the cross-examination, I have a few things to say," he said.

The High Court has set aside three days for the hearing on damages claimed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the minister mentor against the Singapore Democratic Party and its leaders.

TRANSCRIPT OF MINISTER MENTOR LEE KUAN YEW'S INTERVIEW WITH HASLINDA AMIN OF BLOOMBERG NEWS ON 29 APRIL 2008 AT ISTANA *Selected Gems*

On Recession

AMIN: Do you agree with the assessment that the global economy could be in the worst recession in 30 years?

LEE: No, I'm not sure that's going to be the position. That's one of the scenarios. There's tremendous argument about how to approach this credit crunch crisis, when it will end, and how it can end.

If you increase liquidity and run the risk of higher inflation, then you will postpone the problem, perhaps to a later date, when it may become more complicated or easier to resolve. We're not sure.

The Federal Reserve in America has decided to increase liquidity, take over some of these questionable subprime and other collateral debt obligations and make the banks and even the brokerages, Bear Stearns and others, solvent again. Not everybody in America agrees with that.

AMIN: Do you agree?

LEE: I think there's a risk but it's better than doing nothing. If we do nothing, we might trigger a real worldwide credit crunch and confidence crisis, and we'll have a recession, a worldwide recession, which may be very difficult to reverse. So I think it's better to take this risk and have the fallout later. The same thing is happening in Britain, where the Bank of England is putting in $100 billion and rescuing Northern Rock, which is a mortgage bank. But the argument against it is you are pumping in money.

I'm not sure, having gone this far. I just read a piece by a Danish economist, who's working in Singapore, where he argues that the problem is similar to that of the 1930 crisis, where all currencies were pegged to gold, and they were overvalued. That caused deflation, and economies, trade collapsed, and everything came to gridlock.

Therefore, he says, if we stick to this hard line, that you must have discipline, and you must punish those who acted imprudently and they go bankrupt, you're risking the whole economy getting frozen. For better or for worse, both the chairman of the Fed, Bernanke, and Treasury Secretary Paulson, they've got to expand the rules, or stretch the rules, in a way that has never been done before, and just rescue these brokerage houses.

Will it work? It has checked the fall in the American stock market. Will it cause contagion in other banks, like UBS, or German banks that have got some of these subprime mortgages? I think it's better to take the risk and pump in the money and restore liquidity and get the economy going. To do nothing is surely the run into a gridlock.

I think Paulson and Bernanke, I will support them, that this is the lesser of the two evils. That, perhaps, despite what Alan Greenspan has said, he should have taken the punchbowl away earlier and not allow low interest rates to go on and the housing frenzy and consumption frenzy to go on, that you might have a softer landing. It's not possible to foresee how this will end. He was in charge, he had his board, he carried the majority of his board.

So, seven, eight wise men, well versed in these arcane matters, went along with him, that this was the best course and let the markets decide. The markets haven't gone wrong. The traders were too clever, so they immediately cut the deal and they pushed it on, got their bonus, and carried on, and finally, everybody thought was safe, so the big banks bought it, and held on to it. Now, they're not sure which ones are worthless and which ones are not, so that is the problem. If you make people lose confidence, generally, banks also lose confidence, the system will seize up, and we get a 1930 crisis.

AMIN: The moves that you mention are also aimed at boosting and propping the U.S. economy, which is currently also seeing a weak dollar. Is that weak dollar helping at all?

LEE: There are two views on that. The weak dollar is forcing the European Central Bank to decide whether they can stay on their high and mighty platform and say, we are not affected, we are going to fight inflation. And then they find their exports, and Airbus is not going to sell. Because the 380s and 340s and 320s are sold in the market in dollars. So they can't meet their costs and are going to shift parts of their operations to America.

The U.S. exports are expanding. Germany is the biggest exporter of all the European countries. Theirs have held up. They export very specialized machinery, which has inelastic demand, so they're holding it up. But sooner or later, the disparity in exchange . . . I think the euro is now 157, 158 to the dollar, so it's a tremendous jump. So there are two schools of thought. At the moment, I'm persuaded more by the school that says let's do something.

AMIN: GIC and Temasek have made substantial investments in troubled financial institutions. Given the risk of a financial meltdown, do you think they could have been more conservative? Should they have been more conservative?

LEE: Nobody knows how it's going to turn out. Will these banks that we have invested in, with very good franchises, brand names, good managements, but led astray over these subprime mortgages, will they not recover? Will the economy not recover? Will there be another Swiss bank like UBS for wealth management? I doubt it. We doubt it. That's why we invested in it. Will it get back to its pre-crisis prices? May be not immediately. Five years, seven years, 10 years, with good management, good conditions? We will know in five to 10 years. And GIC is a long term investor.

Similarly for Citigroup. It's got an enormous spread worldwide as a retail bank. It's gone into other kinds of banking services. Will it always be down? Is the management that bad? Did Chuck Prince, was he so fundamentally wrong? Goldman Sachs did well and Citigroup did badly, so the CEOs have paid for it. But the franchise of the banks, the expertise that they have, under proper leadership, they will be able to recover and rise again.

AMIN: Warren Buffett is also a long-term investor. But he's choosing to buy into companies like Wrigley instead. He's keeping away from banks.

LEE: No, no, no. He has a different view. He has to give returns to his investors year by year. We don't have to. We have to think in terms of the next 10, 20, 30 years. We are buying into something which we intend to keep for the next two, three decades and grow with them.

When will we get this chance? Maybe we're wrong, and we pay for it. But so far, we've grown this fund, so, on the whole, we've been right eight cases out of 10, so we're not so bad. We may be wrong. These may be the two cases out of the 10 we're wrong, but that would be very sad for us.

On Olympics

AMIN: Now, Mr. Lee, the Olympic torch relay has been plagued with protests every leg of the way. What do you make of that?

LEE: Not every leg of the way. Let's be fair, protests were most vigorous in London, Paris. Would have been in San Francisco, but the mayor decided to change the route suddenly and beat the protestors. It had no trouble in Buenos Aires, Islamabad, nothing in Karachi, after that, it was Bangkok, very little. In fact, the supporters overwhelmed the protestors. Because by then, the Chinese had got their supporters organized, and everybody was waving the Thai flags and the China flags, the five pointed star.

Nothing in Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, nothing happened. Japan, very little, except the one Buddhist temple that decided to opt out and created news like Spielberg pulling out of the Olympic opening and closing ceremony advice. South Korea, very little, Seoul little, Pyongyang nothing. They expect something in Hong Kong, because Hong Kong's got different rules. So I hear Mia Farrow is going to turn up.

But it makes no difference, the Chinese are going to do the best they can to show the world that they are unfazed. They're going to run this Olympics properly, there will be no terrorism.

There may be a few flags, Tibetan flags or banners in the stadium, nobody knows. You can't frisk everybody and the cameras will train on them and try to sideline the carefully choreographed presentation of synchronized calisthenics, which would have taken them months and months of rehearsing.

But at the end of the day, the people who matter will know that they are dealing with a very determined China and a China with the people solidly behind the Olympics and fiercely resentful of this putdown. I'm not sure that all this is a plus for the anti-China group. They've decided to hold talks with the Dalai Lama, they've offered to his closest representatives. They are showing flexibility.

They've learnt to ride with the punches. First they were shocked, and then, they reorganized, and they had their own teams waving flags and in many places they had more Chinese students and supporters turning up than the protestors. Because they've got numbers: 1,300 million people, with just about half a million of them or more abroad studying in many big cities of the west, and cities in Asia, too.

Let me give you this example of how at the end of the day leaders take away impressions. They have invited leaders to the opening ceremony. It'll be meticulously timed and presented in the best showbiz tradition. There may be a few protestors waving Tibetan flags, `Free Tibet' banners and the western media will play that up. I mean we have to expect that. If I were them I would expect that and say, `so what?' Will there be a free Tibet if no nation in the world says there will be an independent Tibet? When the Dalai Lama himself says there will not be an independent Tibet?

Unfortunately they are still in the old set in the way they react, but they're learning. But the way they do things leaves a very solid impression at the end of the day. I will give you an example: they've invited Asean heads of government to an Asean meeting in Guangxi, Nanning, that's west of Guangzhou. It's a backward province. But they've got the capital really up to the mark and the heads of governments were there.

I wasn't there but I heard a report and I personally spoke to the ministers who were there, the prime minister, the minister for foreign affairs and the minister for the economy. And they put on a show. The place was spruced up, modern, and then they put on a show, with their performers showing songs and dances of each Asean country, carefully rehearsed. They took all the leaders one by one a long time to forget it.

One leader said, `you know we could never produce such an array of girls all same size, same movements and so on. And, singing their songs, not Chinese songs, but the songs of the Asean country.' And another leader said, `yes, what you need to grow is order, investments and hard work, not democracy.' (Laughs) What the propaganda says, what the media says, and what the impressions leaders and top officials take away, are two different things.

The Asian leaders will be there. There is no reason for them to offend the Chinese. I'll be there personally and I've said so. I know what to expect because I've been there almost every year since 1976, sometimes twice a year. Those who go there, they talk about the pollution; the marathon would be disastrous for the runners, etc.

I was there for the 50th anniversary of the founding of the republic, the People's Republic. 1949, so that was '99. And the sky was blue. So I asked our ambassador, I said `how is that so?' He said `Oh, for two weeks, all factories stopped for this great occasion.' And there was a great parade.

I have no doubts that it will meet world standards, the venues will be world class, the airport, I was watching the discovery channel, bits of it, about how it will the biggest airport in the world, Terminal 3 or whatever they call it. It's a construction marvel: British design, British architects, but their construction. Their building contractors, their engineers, executing British plans. And it's breathtaking. And compared to Terminal 5 in London, it will not be like that. I'm quite sure of it.

They will have rehearsals and rehearsals, soft openings and when the great day comes, it will breeze through and they will come back and say `God, what discipline, organization, mobilization of the population can do.'

So, yes the media will go and say what human rights, this dissident arrested, that dissident put down, this fellow arrested, this chap disappeared, but people in the developing world, I can't speak for westerners, but westerners at the very top are also getting to become quite sophisticated. But in Asia and in Africa, and in the developing world, they are asking themselves, how did this country, in 30 years, from such backwardness, suddenly make this great big leap into modernity. When all the western nations say, `the system is , wrong, how is it?' That is what they are going to register.

There is now growing, a certain Beijing consensus that is different from the Washington consensus: what is it you need to grow? Order, certainty, consistency, hard work, market-friendly policies, savings and investments, trade, education, and training. And they are conveying that message to all the leaders around the world and the Olympics will be another occasion.

When they called a meeting of African leaders, all the Africa leaders turned up in Beijing and I watched it on their CCTV with great interest -- carefully choreographed. Yes, it is done Soviet style, almost everybody, so many segments, everyone turns up, big, small countries, all the same, shake hands, smile, photo ops, move on, then big reception, great speech is made. They went back with a clear impression that this is not a country you can ignore. So, the same thing will happen with this Olympics.

AMIN: What's the biggest challenge for China right now?

LEE: It is to get out of this mindset. I'm ethnically Chinese, but I'm not Chinese in my thinking and my mental outlook. Because I'm a Singaporean, I've been exposed to a British colonial education and a British education and exposed to American education and everything. So my outlook, my mental approach is different from theirs. I would laugh at the west. Just like you know, they say `Singapore is a fine city.' Everything is fine, no chewing gum, no litter in the streets, it's antiseptic, it's sterile. I don't take offence.

People come here, people stay. It's safe, 3 a.m. in the morning, you can go jogging by the marina, nothing happens to you, no rape, and no muggings. News gets out. We are dull. Now, we are not dull, we are quite cool.

On Singapore's Leadership Succession

AMIN: Minister Mentor, lets take the discussion back home to Singapore. Why has it been difficult to find a replacement or successor for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong?

LEE: Nobody can predict who is his successor. I did not predict or appoint Goh Chok Tong. What I had to do, which I think Goh Chok Tong in turn did and what I think Lee Hsien Loong as prime minister is now doing, is to get a group of 6, 8, 10, able, upright, experienced, committed people, committed to Singapore.

Get them in, they've got to learn not just how to do things, but also how to connect with people and persuade people. That's the hard part. So you've got to start fairly early, at about 30 plus. I started at 20 plus, because at the end of the day, not only must your policies be right, you must persuade people that your policies are right, because you have to stand for elections and you must carry them.

If they have been working together for 5, 10 years, they get to know each other, they will choose a man whom they think will lead them to success. That's the way it is done. It's not me choosing Goh Chok Tong. I was able to bring together, with the help of my colleagues, eight able people. And they chose Goh Chok Tong. He, in turn, got together 10 able people and they chose Lee Hsien Loong.

His problem now is he's got a team all around his age. He's in his mid 50s, the top ministers are all in their late 40s. It's only about seven to eight years difference. He's got to find people in their early 40s, or better still in their late 30s. Let's assume he's got two more elections to go, that's about 10 years. If you can find a group of 8 to 10 people, of whom there may be about two to three already in, then, in the course of the next 10 years, they will decide who is the man who will lead them to success, and lead Singapore to success. That's the way we do it.

'But obviously, he is a very wily sort of person and must have won the confidence of whoever were his custodians.

'So when he said he wanted to go to the toilet, they allowed him to go to the toilet. Whether the toilet had bars and there was no exit from the windows, that has to be explained.

'I give him full marks for having won the confidence of his custodians - that he's completely docile, completely passive and he's going to remain in captivity.'

'It shows that it is a fallacy, it is stupid to believe we are infallible. We are not infallible. One mistake and we've got a big explosive in our midst. So let's not take this lightly,'

'So we have to find out. It's a game of tracing the possibilities. I'm not a security expert, I'm not a detective...but we do have people who understand what we ought to be following. But we ought to keep the pressure up.'

From The Straits Times

The transcript

US Election
Mr Lee: “Who will win? Hillary or Obama?”
Q: “I think Obama.”
Mr Lee: “You think so? Hillary has the resources and the networks.”
Q: “Yes, but he’s coming on very strong, sir. He’s very good, he’s got a beautiful manipulation of the English language, which helps. We haven’t had someone like that for a long time and I think more and more people are…”
Mr Lee: “But the momentum is coming too late for him, isn’t it?”
Q: “You think so, sir?”
Mr Lee: “You’ve got Super Tuesday on the 5th, that’s only three days off. If he can’t pull that one off, well, there are many delegates behind, especially California and New York.”
Q: “You favour Hillary, don’t you?”
Mr Lee: “I feel safer. I’ve watched him on television, but I’m a bit scared when he says ‘We’ll get out of Iraq’ just like that and he can’t get out of it, you know.”

Where China Heading
Mr Lee: “I think the Chinese have come to the conclusion that if they stay on course, peaceful rise, don’t try any areas of influence, don’t challenge any existing power, whether it’s America or Western Europe, just make friends with everybody, including the Japanese, the Russians, the Indians, everybody out there, given the rules of the game now that they are in WTO, they can only go stronger and stronger, year by year, decade by decade and within three, four decades, their GNP will be equal to America, not per capita. Their technology will be half of America and another 30, 40, 50 years, their GNP would be bigger than America and their technology may not be far away from America because they have seen -- and they have studied in detail, Taiwan, Hongkong, Singapore -- and Deng Xiaoping opened up in 1978 -- he had been here -- and he was amazed because his briefing did not tally with what he saw. So, he decided -- he must have been thinking this a long time already -- the communist system did not work -- and he saw this tiny little place with all the goods in the shops, such a high quality of living, garments, et cetera and with exploiting European and American and Japanese capitalists having factories all over. He said, …(indistinct)… we can do that too. So, he went back and tried these special economic zones, about 12 of them, around the coastal cities and leased the communes back to the farmers. It worked.

“I think they have concluded that Taiwan, Hongkong, Singapore advanced because they had the advantage of connections to the West, access to technology, export markets, knowledge, capital and an educated workforce. Okay. They’ve got a better workforce, they can be better educated. They’ve got more bright people. They are now in WTO. They are sending 250,000 students every year abroad. All right, 60 per cent, 70 per cent don’t come back. It does not matter, they will come back eventually and year by year, they are closing the gap. So, they worked out this theory of peaceful rise. They have… I don’t know if you watched this or heard of this series, The Rise of the Great Powers, which they did.”

Mr Lee: “Oh, yes. It will be a different world by 2050. Even by 2030, you cannot intervene in Taiwan. It is too costly. In fact, the CINCPAC Commander, Admiral Moore, has already said, you know, you have got all these forces, designed to knock out my Seventh Fleet, my aircraft carrier battle group. And that’s what they are after. Don’t intervene. If Taiwan declares itself independence, I have already passed this law, anti-secession, I have to move and I will stop him, but we are quite happy to leave it as it is. That’s, indeed, it is in their own interest to leave as it is. Taiwanese go to America, get technology, built up Taiwan, then old technology goes to China. You take back Taiwan, they become Chinese, access to US labs cut off. So, they are quite smart.”
Singapore's Brain's Drain
Mr Lee: “China, they’ll come back. You want to be Chinese or do you want to be Singaporean. You go to China, you’re going to compete against 1,300 million very bright fellows, hardworking, starving. Do you stand a chance to be on top of that pole? No, but if you go there as Singaporean with a different base, speaking English which they can’t, with connections to the world, then you’ve got a different platform. What happens is they go to America, Americans then collect them, the bright ones. You stay for two, three years in their companies, acclimatize them to the company culture and take them to China, if they speak Chinese. So, they’re part of the American team. Now, if they are working in China, I think they’ll come back because they don’t want their children to compete against Chinese. But if they decide to take the Green Card and settle in America, then I think we’ve lost them and they are going to America and those who don’t want the hard competition here go to Australia and Canada.”
Q: “You have percentages on that, sir?”
Mr Lee: “We’re losing about… According to the people who give up their citizenship and take out their savings, their pension funds, we’re losing about, at the top end, 1,000 a year, which is about, if you take the top 30 per cent of the population, thereabout four or five per cent. It will grow because I think the numbers are growing. Every year, there are more people going abroad for their either first degree or second degree or whatever. But we’re making up by getting many bright Chinese and Indians coming here because of better prospects, learn English, you can learn Chinese at the same time and so on and the Indians are near home, First-World standards as against Indian infrastructure. The trouble is many of the Chinese then use us as a stepping stone to go to America where the grass is greener. But even if we only keep 30 to 40 per cent and we lose 60 to 70 per cent, we’re a net gainer. But the day will come, maybe 20 years, maybe 30 years, when Chinese say, look, my life is better than yours or as good.”