相比于中港台常常的盲目自信，新加坡的忧患意识真是从出生至今一以贯之。“现实是，我们是在一个很大、很危险的世界当中的一个很小的海岛。在未来几年，这个世界还会变得越来越危险"。黄循财经济学人专访全文 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/m266eEQugvPlmqYrnXNV3w…
Translate post
风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
正文
Colin Wu @WutalkWu
劳伦斯·黄 (Lawrence Wong) 亲笔文字记录
2024 年 5 月 8 日
新加坡下一任总理接受《经济学人》采访黄循财
编者注：本文是使用转录软件创建的，为了清晰起见，经过轻微编辑
《经济学人》：Lawrence Wong，我非常感谢您加入我们并同意接受《经济学人》的采访。几天后，您将成为新加坡总理。这是一个通过开放而取得巨大成功的地方，也是全球化的受益者。
新加坡下一任总理接受《经济学人》采访
2024 年 5 月 8 日
编者注：本文是使用转录软件创建的，为了清晰起见，经过轻微编辑
《经济学人》：Lawrence Wong，我非常感谢您加入我们并同意接受《经济学人》的采访。几天后，您将成为新加坡总理。这是一个通过开放而取得巨大成功的地方，也是全球化的受益者。
黄循财：非常如此。
《经济学人》：您称其为不可思议的国家和奇迹——新加坡下一任总理黄循财的专访。新加坡取得了惊人的经济成就。读什么才能了解??新加坡。
劳伦斯·黄：我们仍然是。
《经济学人》：那么，您为什么不首先告诉我们您如何看待全球地缘政治局势，以及这将如何影响新加坡。
劳伦斯·黄（Lawrence Wong）：我们很担心，因为它处于不断变化的状态。全球秩序正在发生变化。美国的单极时代已经结束。然而，在一个正在向多极世界过渡的世界中，它仍然是最重要的力量。这种转变将是混乱的，因为我们看到熟悉的路标正在消失，既定的规范正在被侵蚀。人们正在寻找新的轴承，但新的秩序尚未建立。我认为这会混乱好几年，也许十年或更长时间。我们必须找到世界上所有人的出路，在这个非常不可预测的环境中航行，并希望引导全球发展走向稳定与和平而不是冲突和战争的道路。
《经济学人》：看看过去 18 个月左右的美中关系，可以看到一些稳定局势的努力。您能否告诉我们您是否期望这种稳定持续下去？或者未来几年是否会出现危机甚至进一步恶化？
黄循财：两国领导人会面并为两国关系提供了一些保障，并为整体关系提供了一些稳定，这一事实非常有帮助。但双方之间的相互猜疑和不信任依然存在。它们非常深。两国立场之间的根本矛盾和紧张局势依然存在。而且我认为它们不会很快被桥接。所以这不是一个稳定的平衡。我认为事情出错、紧张局势升级的可能性很大。这需要非常仔细地管理这种关系。因为如果情况急剧恶化，我认为对美国、中国以及世界其他国家来说都将付出高昂的代价。
经济学人：您对习近平领导下中国的发展有何评价？您认为事情的发展方向正确吗？
黄循财：中国正在经历——至少让我们谈谈它的经济——它的经济正在经历几次重大的结构调整。第一，它不能再依靠廉价的劳动力投入来获得增长。它已经到了真正需要创新和生产力的阶段。它确实在这方面大力推进，并加大了对先进制造的投资。这也是它从房地产和房地产转变的一个方面，而房地产一直是其经济的重要组成部分。现在，将更多投资转向先进制造业，并通过越来越多的生产力和技术来推动制造业。这是正在发生的一个重大转变。他们担心自己还没富起来就老了。他们担心中等收入陷阱，希望推动经济向前发展。
他们正在经历的第二个重大结构调整是分享增长的好处。因为当中国开放时，经济起飞，你知道，这给每个人带来了巨大的鼓舞。但他们也看到了资本主义的一些缺点。邓小平说，打开窗户，你得到苍蝇，他们得到的比苍蝇还多。过去十年来，他们一直在应对腐败、寻租和不平等问题。因此，他们热衷于追求一种不同的增长模式，更加平衡，他们称之为共同繁荣。我的意思是，归根结底，所有国家都必须解决这个问题，因为最终增长必须在劳动力和资本之间进行分配。我认为中国的基本方向是让更多的增长分配给劳动力，而不是资本，甚至私人资本。但一定要把握好这个平衡，因为如果过度了，肯定会挫伤民营企业家的斗志，让他??们很难进入下一阶段的发展。我很确定他们知道正在努力寻求适当的平衡。
《经济学人》：你描述了中国的经济场景，但如果你在华盛顿特区的政治场景，他们会把中国描述为一个日益集权主义的体系，专注于安全，甚至专注于与美国的对抗或争夺霸权。你接受这种描述吗？
黄循财：嗯，中国当然认为美国试图遏制、包围和镇压他们，并试图剥夺他们在世界上应有的地位。不只是领导层这么想。我想如果你和很多中国官员交谈，他们也会有同样的感觉。他们觉得这种遏制是为了打压中国。所以有这种感觉，每一个动作都会有相反的反应。因此，你看，中国正在努力寻找摆脱这种遏制的方法，以确保他们在技术上变得更加自力更生。
与此同时……我知道他们已经经历了发展的各个阶段，他们谈到站起来、致富，现在变得强大。他们认为自己是一个强大的国家，他们的时代已经到来，他们希望在自己的国家利益上更加自信，包括海外的国家利益，但在这方面，中国也必须像所有大国一样认识到，如果他们做得太过分如果他们对其他国家进行绕道、胁迫、挤压或施压，就会引起包括本地区在内的反弹。这就是为什么他们不能走得太远。他们必须吸取教训。这是所有大国都要经历的教训。美国也经历了这些教训。我的意思是，在墨西哥，他们说，美国是我最好的朋友，无论我喜欢与否。因为当大国与小国打交道时，大国往往意识不到自己的威势有多大。同时在大国和小国之间找到一个愉快的平衡是非常困难的。
《经济学人》：所以您最近将新加坡的地位描述为既不亲华也不亲美。我想知道你是否可以谈谈——
黄循财：我们是支持新加坡的。
《经济学人》：但是亲新加坡的，没错，两个大国之间的立场可能会受到考验并面临压力。因此，一种可能性，也许是美国正在使用的技术、制裁和控制将进一步收紧。他们甚至可以要求两种技术体系完全分离。新加坡将如何应对？你们的制造业出口有一半是高科技，它们与中国制造业生态系统紧密相连。如果出现技术分裂，新加坡会做什么？
劳伦斯·黄：首先，许多敏感技术掌握在在新加坡运营的美国跨国公司手中。如果美国扩大出口限制，那么我们完全期望美国公司遵守这些规则，不仅仅是在新加坡，而是在他们在世界上开展业务的任何地方。世界上还有许多其他地方可能没有如此严格地遵守这些规则，但当然，如果公司位于新加坡，那么我们希望他们完全遵守这些出口限制。我们希望仔细调整出口限制，因为只要存在安全、国家安全问题，这些都是可以理解的。
但如果你开始扩大院子——我们谈到了“小院子，高栅栏”——院子变得越来越大，最终最终导致经济许多领域的技术分歧，我认为这将是有害的，不仅是为了新加坡，也是为了我们和全世界。你知道，我之前说过，我们确实必须关心这些经济工具如何用于地缘政治目的。在军事领域，安全人员非常注意投下炸弹时的附带损害。因为你担心，你知道这会给对方带来伤害，但你担心报复、升级和各种后果，而且你考虑得非常仔细。但当你开始考虑将经济和金融工具用于地缘政治目的时，评估附带损害就没那么简单了，而且我们在这方面也没有太多经验。如果我们不小心，这将对全球经济产生深远的影响。但更糟糕的是，对于全球稳定而言。
《经济学人》：美国要求 TikTok 从根本上改变其身份，您对此有何看法？和所有权。这是一家总部位于新加坡的公司，其首席执行官是一位新加坡公民，曾在您刚才描述的军队中服役。但美国似乎拒绝将其视为中国的代理人。
劳伦斯·黄（Lawrence Wong）：嗯，由美国决定如何处理 TikTok，这是美国的特权。但从我们的角度来看，当涉及到社交媒体时，这并不算国家安全。我的意思是，我们有来自各个国家/地区的社交媒体公司，它们就在新加坡，我们不认为这构成国家安全风险。但这是新加坡的观点。
《经济学人》：让我们看看超级大国之间的这种立场可能面临压力的另一种方式。因此，新加坡对俄罗斯实施了与其入侵乌克兰有关的制裁。未来十年很有可能发生台湾问题的冲突。我想知道你是否可以预见新加坡会因这场冲突而对中国实施制裁。
黄循财：这实际上取决于冲突的性质。对于乌克兰和俄罗斯入侵乌克兰，我们非常清楚，这是对《联合国宪章》的严重违反，是对领土主权和完整的侵犯。如果这样的入侵能够以历史错误和疯狂决定为基础，那么世界将变得更加不安全，我们将变得非常脆弱。这就是为什么即使没有联合国安理会决议，我们也决定采取措施并实施制裁，我们也这样做了。没有其他东盟国家这样做过。全球南方的许多其他国家还没有这样做。但我们决定采取这一步，因为它违背并违反了我们相信并坚持的一些非常基本的原则。
我们认为台湾的情况与乌克兰不同。首先，人们试图将两者进行比较。但事实上，它们有着本质上的不同，因为乌克兰是一个主权国家，但台湾、世界上绝大多数国家都奉行一个中国政策。我们在与中华人民共和国建交之前就长期坚持一个中国政策，反对台独。这是一个长期存在的立场。当我们与中国和台湾建立关系时，我们非常谨慎，这符合我们的一个中国政策。我们不允许自己被任何支持台独的事业所利用。
那么，你又问了一个假设性的问题，如果台湾海峡或台湾周边发生什么事情，我们希望这不会发生。因为如果所有各方都了解风险和红线，并认识到这与乌克兰有很大不同——我认为美国政府当然明白——那么也许我们就有很好的机会维持现状，如果有任何改变发生这种情况时，必须以和平且非强迫的方式进行。这些事情需要时间。同时，让我们维持现状，继续接触和谈判。这将是我们的首选方法。
经济学人：您最近还说新加坡不是美国的盟友。
黄循财：我们不是。我们是全球唯一的主要安全合作伙伴。
《经济学人》：那么，对于一位担心美国在全球范围内过度扩张的美国选民，他会问“为什么新加坡应该接受美国的武器、先进的安全设备，并享受其中的所有好处，但它却无法称自己为自己的国家”，您对此有何看法？我们的盟友？”
劳伦斯·黄：因为这是一种安全和防务关系，事实证明，这种关系对双方都是互利的，持续了几十年。我们完全赞赏美国为确保该地区的安全而付出的鲜血和财富。我们完全赞赏美国为世界这一地区的和平与繁荣提供的安全保护伞。我们倾向于与美国密切合作：我们提供进入我们的空中和海上海军基地的通道。我们支持他们的轮换部署，我们提供后勤支持，我们交换情报。我们不仅购买技术和军事装备，而且在安全和国防的许多领域进行非常富有成效的双向信息交流。事实证明，这对双方都是互利的。
经济学人：你能想象新加坡加入 aukus 吗？
Lawrence Wong：目前，aukus只是一个由盟友组成的团体。我们不是盟友。
《经济学人》：这些地缘政治紧张局势在新加坡国内有何表现？人们如何看待与中国的紧张局势，特别是最近中东的紧张局势，新加坡那里有大量穆斯林人口，他们对加沙的暴力感到担忧？您想对关心新加坡战争的人们和新加坡公民说些什么来安抚他们？
Lawrence Wong：这是我们非常重视的事情提到这一点，因为我们是一个很小的国家，而且人口非常多样化。我想说，我们不断受到来自世界各地的压力的影响。因为在新加坡，华裔人口占大多数。我们都与中国有联系。但我们必须提醒自己，也提醒中国，我们是新加坡人。我们以国家利益为基础开展业务，而不是以种族关系为基础。但我们也有马来人，他们将与该地区的国家以及全球的乌玛（更广泛的伊斯兰社区）建立联系。我们有印度人口，他们与印度有祖先联系、家庭联系。
所以这是一个可能会有所不同的人群。您可以看到它如何轻易地受到这些影响的影响。因为我们与这些文明或更大国家的联系是深刻的、情感的、文化的。我们希望维持这些联系，这些联系造就了我们。我们重视这些联系。与此同时，我们必须不断提醒我们的人民——与新加坡人接触——我们是新加坡人。我们做事一定要以国家利益为基础。我们必须这样做，通过你强调的俄罗斯和俄罗斯入侵乌克兰的各种危机。那是一场危机，对我们的经济影响很大，但情感共鸣相对较低。于是我们出去解释——
《经济学人》：我想加沙恰恰相反。
黄循财：加沙虽然没有产生太大的经济影响，但引起了更高程度的共鸣——不仅是我们的马来穆斯林人口——甚至是许多新加坡人，看到了造成无辜平民伤亡的暴行生活。再一次，我们必须走出去，向我们的人民解释新加坡所采取的立场以及我们为什么要做我们所做的某些事情，我们在联合国参与的决议以及我们如何尽我们的职责参与全球救援努力，以及我们如何继续支持通过谈判达成两国解决方案，同时呼吁结束敌对行动。
现在，如果南亚、台湾、南海发生什么事情，这将是一个既会产生巨大经济影响，又会引起我们人民高度情感共鸣的事件。显然，这将很难管理。这就是为什么对我们来说，那些看似遥远的外部事件实际上就发生在我们家门口。我们非常关注世界各地正在发生的事情，让我们的人民参与进来，向他们解释新加坡的情况、政府的立场是什么以及我们的国家利益是什么。
《经济学人》：在我们继续讨论新加坡和新加坡模式及其正在发生的变化之前；最后一个问题是关于地缘政治的。新加坡的立场是维护国际法——这是你们外交政策的基石——您认为国际法的状况如何？还有效吗？联合国安理会存在分歧，海洋法等关键条约的执行也没有落实。这真的仍然是你们外交政策的可靠支柱吗？
黄循财：面临着巨大的压力，但我们别无选择，我们必须不断地推开它、坚持下去，并与志同道合的国家合作，以加强这一基于规则的多边秩序。我们以不同的方式做到这一点。例如，在经济领域，世贸组织不起作用。我的意思是，我们一直在呼吁上诉机构正常运作，恢复争端解决机制，我们听起来就像一张破唱片，就像荒野中的一个孤独的声音，但我们会继续呼吁——
《经济学人》：同意你的观点——
劳伦斯·黄：谢谢。但您知道，我们还可以通过其他方式提供帮助。世贸组织;多边倡议很难发挥作用。当我们与志同道合的国家合作时，我们有了p4，最初是智利、新西兰和文莱，后来成为了tpp。我们选择退出。但接下来我们就有了 cptpp。我们也在其他贸易倡议上开展了类似的工作。现在我们正在围绕数字经济制定新举措。因为随着数字经济的发展，你需要围绕数据存储、数据流动、数据安全的新规则。因此，我们与英国和澳大利亚签署了数字协议。我们有一个涉及三个国家的项目：智利、我们自己，我想还有新西兰。然后有很多国家想要加入。所以我认为，如果新加坡以这种方式运作，我们会努力发挥建设性，我们努力提供价值，寻找志同道合的国家加入我们的小规模平台。随着时间的推移，我们希望其中一些能够成长，其他志同道合的国家也能够加入我们。这就是我们如何为加强世界多边主义发挥作用。
经济学人：好吧，我们来看看新加坡和国内的情况，首先从经济。不久前，您在预算声明中表示，“我们将不再能够在新加坡轻松实现增长”。部分原因是贸易环境恶化，但很大一部分原因是人口统计，预计未来十年新加坡工作年龄公民的数量将减少数十万人。因此，请谈谈这一点以及移民的作用；在新加坡有时是一个有争议的话题。据推测，这意味着您需要更多的迁移。
劳伦斯·黄：确实如此。我认为，轻松增长的时代已经结束，不仅仅是因为劳动力，而且我们现在确实处于如此高的发展水平。而且我们会很贵。我的意思是，你不能指望高工资和低成本。工资和成本是同一枚硬币的两个部分。因此，我们收入高，成本高，我们必须不断创新、重组，然后推动生产力和创新前沿，以证明溢价合理。这就是我们一直在做的事情，这就是为什么今天的经济与 20 年前的经济有很大不同。
这实际上是为了继续将尖端投资引入新加坡，推动前沿发展，开展新活动。同时准备好让无生命力的企业消失，以便释放资源。这在很大程度上是一个流失的过程，这对员工来说可能会造成很大的干扰。但这就是为什么我们也付出了大量努力来帮助员工进行再培训、调整规模和提高技能。现在就劳动力本身而言，就劳动力投入和移民而言，我们是一个开放的经济和开放的社会。我们欢迎外国专业人士来新加坡工作，但这是受控制的，因为如果不控制，我认为我们很容易就会被淹没。我们不能像阿联酋那样，当地居民只占总人口的不到10%。他们有不同的契约，因为他们利用石油和天然气收入为公民提供一切。作为回报，他们只是允许外国人自由进入。这在新加坡是不可能的。
《经济学人》：所以你无法想象公民成为少数派的情况。
劳伦斯·黄：完全没有。一点也不。一点也不。我们将保持开放，但楼层将受到控制。我们将确保外国专业人士进来。我们欢迎他们。他们为我们的经济增加价值，我们要求他们适应我们的社会规范。而且它是在不同层次上进行控制和分级的，因为会有新加坡人不想做的工作，比如建筑业。另一方面，有才华的专业人士可以进入新领域并提供新技能。新加坡人从事的工作介于两者之间，例如医疗保健和工程，但我们需要更多的人。因此，考虑到不同的类别，我们有分级的控制措施。我们这样做是为了确保移民的到来，我们欢迎他们，外国专业人士的到来，他们补充了新加坡的核心，他们为我们的经济做出了贡献，他们为我们的社会做出了贡献。这最终为我们新加坡所有人带来了净收益，这就是我们的方法。
《经济学人》：移民新加坡的一方面是为了维持大致的种族平衡。我相信它叫 cmio；华人、马来人、印度人和其他人……
劳伦斯·黄（Lawrence Wong）：就像一个简写一样，现在它变得更加多样化，因为你有异族通婚。而且 cmio 实际上只是一个简写。
经济学人：所以问题是为什么有必要这样做？为什么新加坡不能成为一个后种族的社会，也不需要有这种人口结构的默契目标。
劳伦斯·黄：我们希望发展成为一个种族盲的社会，但我们对这些事情也非常现实。这些种族本能是非常原始的，非常情绪化的，随时都可能被激起。当然，今天我们的状况比独立后起步时以及过去发生种族骚乱时要好得多。但即便如此，在新冠疫情期间，在这三年里，在新冠疫情期间，我们最近发生了一系列与种族相关的事件。这些都是非常尖锐、非常、非常对抗性的事件，激怒了人们。
《经济学人》：为我们的全球听众举一个其中一个事件的例子？
劳伦斯·黄（Lawrence Wong）：嗯，曾经发生过人们成为目标的事件，因为我们在新冠疫情初期制定了……限制措施来防止病毒传播，但人们却藐视了一些规则。但是，当有人去公园时，他们看到有人在公园里不戴口罩行走，并且是某个特定种族群体的人，然后他们就会发表种族主义言论。例如，它在网上传播。这种情况发生了不止一次，发生了多次，当我们让来自印度的人入境时，当印度出现一波新冠肺炎疫情时……出现了强烈的反应。所以这不是20年前发生的事情，而是最近发生的事情。这只是一个非常鲜明的提醒……人们不是新加坡没有种族主义。我认为，在很多方面，我们都渴望实现我们在承诺中所背诵的理想，无论种族、语言或宗教如何。但这些东西是休眠的，它们只是隐藏在表面之下。只需要一个事件，一个坏演员，一个试图煽动事情的人，就会导致休眠的病毒再次爆发。这就是为什么我们必须保持警惕和警惕。
《经济学人》：西方发生的事件之一是更强大的身份政治的兴起，出于意识形态原因，也许还有社交媒体。您认为这对新加坡构成威胁吗？
黄循财：我们在新加坡确实看到了一些这样的情况。有些人确实陷入其中。因此，我们在处理身份问题时采取了非常不同的方法。第一，就像我说的，这不是要融入一个单一的身份。我们允许人们接受自己的种族身份，无论他们是什么。我们要求他们保留它，因为它很珍贵，它造就了我们。但我们走到一起，想办法扩大我们作为新加坡人的共同点。所以这不是减法。这是关于加法的。
能够做到这一点的一个重要部分就是让人们聚集在一起，进行更多面对面的接触，更多地了解彼此的习俗传统，开始欣赏，并且超越欣赏和理解，互相尊重。然后当有分歧的时候，想办法包容和妥协，因为分歧肯定会存在，妥协不能是一个坏词，妥协不能成为对我的部落或我的身份不光彩的问题。因为如果这就是耻辱，那就是全面战争。新加坡的不同群体之间将会存在深刻的分歧。因此，自独立以来，我们从一开始就采取了一种非常不同的方法。我认为这种方法效果很好。在新加坡，人们明白这是不同的。并不是每个群体都能得到他们想要的一切。但通过参与合作，不强调我们的分歧，而是找到共同点，这种方法对我们所有人来说都更有效。
《经济学人》：另一个社会变化是新加坡年轻人的观点如何适应和演变。最近，您进行了一项名为“前进新加坡”的大型咨询活动，其中您以某种方式与 20 万新加坡人进行了交谈。然后，报告得出的结论是，“我们年轻人的心态发生了明显的转变”。这一代人是在新加坡取得巨大成功和繁荣的背景下成长起来的。也许你可以了解一下，与前几代人相比，他们的态度发生了怎样的变化。
黄循财：从某些方面来说，我属于新加坡独立后出生的第一任总理这一代人。我的所有前任都唱了两首（如果不是三首）其他国歌。 《God Save the King》、日本《Kimi Ga Yo》以及马来西亚《Negaraku》。我只唱过一首国歌，《Majulah Singapura》，我们的国歌。因此，今天建立的价值观和原则造就了今天的新加坡精英政治、廉洁、种族和谐、三方主义，以及我之前提到的寻找共同点的方法，我认为这些都深深地植根于我以及与我交谈过的许多年轻人的内心。 。同时也有变化。我认为，当我们与年轻人接触时，无论是与我年龄相仿、独立后还是更年轻的人??，我们确实感觉到他们的愿望发生了变化。这些都是崇高的愿望。我认为年轻人，我接触过的许多年轻人，都喜欢为自己的抱负而奋斗和努力，但他们希望看到一个新加坡，我们拥抱更广泛的成功定义，每项工作都受到尊重，有一个每项工作的工资都更加公平，个人更有信心和安全感来提升自己，并从生活中不可避免的挫折中恢复过来。这些是我们从对话中提炼出来的内容，我们将其放在一起，作为我们所谓的“前进新加坡”路线图的一部分。我们正在采取措施实现这些目标。
《经济学人》：您描述的新加坡为了保持在全球前沿的地位，面临着巨大的经济波动，而新一代的新加坡人有着不同的期望。让我们转向政治，谈谈政治如何适应和改变，以反映你是 4g 一代的一部分，取代 3g 或在 3g 之后出现——
劳伦斯·黄（Lawrence Wong）：找不到更好的词了。
经济学人：还不错。
黄循财：只是我们政府只经历过三次政治更迭。
经济学人：只是为了清楚起见。对于听众来说。这不是电信规范。但请告诉我们 4G 的风格、治理风格、你们这一代人和你们的政府与 3G 有何不同。
劳伦斯·黄：我认为新加坡的政治一直在不断发展，并将继续发展。 60年代、70年代、甚至80年代李光耀先生领导下的教皇政府或教皇统治的时代已经结束，我们再也回不到那个时代了。如果你看看政治，从那时起它就一直在发展。新加坡人本身已经进化了。这是一群受过高等教育、非常老练、对投票方式非常挑剔的选民。
虽然今天的大多数人希望教皇掌权，进入政府，但他们也希望在议会中看到更多的反对声音。因此，反对派在议会中的存在将继续存在。很清楚。我还说过，当我参加选举时，我并不认为教皇会自动重新掌权。我不认为我会成为选举后的下一个下午。因此，这就是我们政治格局的新现实，这意味着作为一个执政党、一个政党，对于我现在作为总理来说，最终带领该党参加选举，我们将必须尽最大努力吸引新加坡人，我们将尽最大努力让他们参与他们深切关心的决策，并塑造我们的未来，这就是为什么我们在“前进新加坡”活动中开始这样做，让新加坡人更多地参与进来，不仅仅是倾听他们的意见，而且我们我们也在努力寻找人们可以参与决策的平台，并开始共同塑造我们国家的未来。
《经济学人》：李光耀说过：“谁统治新加坡，谁就必须有铁一般的毅力”。人们一直认为，新加坡独立后的领导人都是强人，有时甚至是铁石心肠。您认为自己是这样的领导者吗？你体内有铁吗？
黄循财：我相信，当事情到了紧要关头，需要做出艰难决定时，我会这么做。只要这个决定符合新加坡和新加坡人的利益。
《经济学人》：其中的要素是，有时强迫人们做他们不想做的事，有时对公众更加粗暴，你认为自己属于这种模式吗？或者你更像一个倾听者？
黄循财：嗯，我就是我。我认真听取大家的意见。当我参加会议时，我不会一开始就假设我知道所有答案。我想了解人们的见解。我想了解人们的观点，最终思考什么才能为新加坡带来最佳决策和结果。其中一些决定可能不是最受欢迎的决定，但我们可能会感觉并且相信它们是正确的决定。因此，当出现这种情况时，我在新冠疫情期间不得不反复处理，或者最近不得不提高预算中的商品及服务销售税。当这些决定出现时，新加坡人可以放心，我将能够为了新加坡和新加坡人的最大利益而做出决定，并向他们解释为什么这些困难的决定是必要的。
《经济学人》：你的故事的一部分是，就你就读的学校而言，你没有精英背景，你有一个更典型的成长经历；你去了当地的学校吗？这对于您在普通新加坡人中的品牌有多重要？
黄循财：嗯，我的背景就是这样。我的意思是，如果它能让新加坡人更容易产生共鸣，那就更好了。但我毫不怀疑。就像我刚才所说的，新加坡人是有洞察力和明智的选民，我毫不怀疑，最终他们会期望我能够实现他们关心的事情。创造更好的生活，为自己和孩子提供更好的生活水平。如果我的团队，如果我自己，我的团队，我们无法满足这些高期望。如果我们无法实现这些标准，并且出现了更好的团队，那么新加坡人将做出相应的选择。我对此毫不怀疑。
《经济学人》：据我了解，即将卸任的李总理很可能会继续扮演某种角色，可能是在内阁中。您能否谈谈这个问题，特别是解决这样的担忧：它可能会阻碍下一代 4G 在新加坡真正发出自己的声音并发挥权威。
黄循财：嗯，这是新加坡的传统。我的意思是，这在其他国家并不常见，但这是新加坡悠久的传统，我们发现它非常有价值。每次我们进行领导层换届时，我们不会只是踢掉所有老部长，然后引入一个全新的团队。我们重视经验丰富的部长，并邀请他们继续以不同的方式、以自己的方式做出贡献。我们也曾对前总理这样做过，这不是第一次——无论是李光耀先生、吴作栋先生还是李显龙先生。阻止新首相设定目标从来都不是问题。
领导力和自己做决定的能力之一，所以我认为不会有任何困难，李显龙最终会成为国务资政并继续任职。他在国际上拥有的网络将非常有价值。我会以最好的方式相应地使用他。因为对我来说，作为领导者，我必须找到方法来利用我所有团队以及每个新加坡人的集体能量，以便为我们提供最好的机会，让这个小岛在黑暗中继续发出更加明亮的光芒和纷乱的世界。
《经济学人》：谁将继续担任你们党派的党魁？
黄循财：嗯，这也是一个传统，在领导层交接之后，在总理接任之后，将会有一个交接，由新总理接任秘书长。派对。所以这会在适当的时候发生。也许我们以一个问题结束。
《经济学人》：那我们为什么不结束你的遗产呢？如果您担任总理十年，在这段时间结束时，您希望如何改变新加坡？十年后你想有什么不同？
黄循财：嗯，我刚才说的出发点是，新加坡在过去 60 年里可能发生了巨大的变化。但现实是，我们仍然是一个广阔而危险的世界中的一个非常小的岛屿，未来几年这个世界将变得更加危险。所以我们一直把自己视为失败者。我们将永远是一个不可能、不可能的国家，只有通过我们人民的集体意志才能建立起来。过去60年所发生的一切堪称奇迹。我的使命是尽我所能让这个奇迹持续下去。并确保我们的小红点尽可能长时间地明亮发光。
《经济学人》：Lawrence Wong，非常感谢您加入我们。
劳伦斯·黄：谢谢。
Spirilla_Huckleberry•1天前•编辑于1天前
媒体热潮正在如火如荼地进行。选举即将来临。回到新加坡国立大学，教授们都知道，PAP 对年轻人（现在已经是 30 多岁的成年人）有很大的问题。情况变得如此糟糕，以至于有些人甚至直接与一些部长交谈，是的，部长们自己知道。
这已经是几年前的事了，但住房、人口过剩、工作时间等方面仍然缺乏行动，足以让你知道他们的优先事项是什么。
如果你告诉你的老板一个问题，几年后它仍然没有得到解决或半途而废，你已经知道你的价值有多大。
如果您是雇主或富有，在新加坡的生活会很美好。富有，就像部长们定期来和你见面吃饭一样丰富。
他们知道他们会赢。他们知道他们可以庇护最不受欢迎的候选人，并在部长的旗帜下空降新候选人。他们所需要做的就是让这个选举周期结束，然后空降下一任将军。
我写这些可能是在浪费时间，但这也是我迁移前的最后一次尝试。只是一个小小的希望，我们仍然可以得救。
如果情况仍然没有改善，那么……好吧，是时候收拾行李去体验那个暑假的法国爱情了。
智橘8466 •23小时
祝您和您的新旅程好运。我也在认真考虑移民，很想更多地了解您是如何做出这个决定的以及您的过程是怎样的。
我开始不再觉得在我的余生中被当作二等公民对待——直到我 40 岁为止，我都有国民服役责任，而每年都有新公民昂首阔步地进来，就像这是免费的房地产，而不必牺牲自己的青春来服务这个国家缺乏解决年轻选民的关切和问题的政策。过去的几份预算案清楚地表明了这一点，其中的重点显然是年老体弱的人，以及对建国一代和立国一代的大肆宣传。没有提及如何引导新加坡度过未来50年，只是不断宣传“政府正在监控”，却没有采取任何重大行动。
政府似乎也完全放弃了提高当地核心出生率的努力，并且显然正在从移民中获取新公民。
我质疑新公民如何获得批准的过程，因为我有很多非“C”类朋友的轶事经历，尽管他们在这里就读中学、JC和大学并在这里定居，但仍被拒绝公民身份和永久居民身份，但我看到“C”类的前同事在这里工作几年后就轻松获得公民身份。甚至不是在这里长大的，非常喜欢呆在自己的小圈子里，不与当地人融合。
反对党和非选区议员在议会提出了有效的问题，但人民行动党只是以人民行动党的名义将其关闭。
按照他们一贯的自以为是的态度，“维护社会凝聚力和秩序”。
这只是冰山一角。人们似乎没有意识到我们的治理体系有一个严重的缺陷，如果现任者变得流氓，他们实际上可以凭借他们对这个国家的资源和机构拥有的权力和控制力让这个国家屈服。根据我们现行的法律。例如 POFMA、对官方媒体的控制、空降哈莉玛·雅各布担任总统的诡计等等。如果人民行动党愿意，他们有权在任何特定时间制定和通过任何他们喜欢的法律，因为他们拥有绝对多数。
我什至还没有谈到这个国家是如何成为一个财阀政治的。政府热衷拥护的所谓精英政治已经腐败。
神奥尼
•12小时。前
大多数采访并没有真正告诉我们任何关于人民行动党态度的新内容，但我确实发现这次交流很有趣：
《经济学人》：李光耀说过：“谁统治新加坡，谁就必须有铁一般的毅力”。人们一直认为，新加坡独立后的领导人都是强人，有时甚至是铁石心肠。您认为自己是这样的领导者吗？你体内有铁吗？
黄循财：我相信，当事情到了紧要关头，需要做出艰难决定时，我会这么做。只要这个决定符合新加坡和新加坡人的利益。
与过去的 PAP 相比，它的反应要温和得多，我想知道它会如何发挥。我不知道这是故意的做法还是LW的性格。我很确定 GCT 和 LHL 会立即做出肯定的回答，并加上“为了新加坡的利益”
Transcript Lawrence Wong in his own words.
May 8th 2024
Singapore's next prime minister sat down with The Economist
Editor's note: this article was created using transcription software and has been lightly edited for clarity
The Economist: Lawrence Wong, I just want to thank you so much for joining us, and agreeing to talk to The Economist. In a few days’ time, you’re going to become Prime Minister of Singapore. It’s a place that’s been a huge success by being open, and a beneficiary of globalisation.
Singapore's next prime minister sat down with The Economist
May 8th 2024
Editor's note: this article was created using transcription software and has been lightly edited for clarity
The Economist: Lawrence Wong, I just want to thank you so much for joining us, and agreeing to talk to The Economist. In a few days' time, you're going to become Prime Minister of Singapore. It's a place that’s been a huge success by being open, and a beneficiary of globalisation.
Lawrence Wong: Very much so.
The Economist: You’ve called it the improbable nation and a miracle—
Lawrence Wong: We still are.
The Economist: So why don't you start by telling us how you see the geopolitical scene globally, and how that's going to affect Singapore.
Lawrence Wong: We are concerned because it is in a state of flux. The global order is shifting. The unipolar moment for America has ended. Yet it remains the pre-eminent power in a world that's transiting to a multipolar world. And this transition will be messy because we are seeing familiar signposts are fading, the established norms are eroding. People are searching for new bearings, but the new order is not yet established. I think it will be messy for quite a few years, maybe a decade or longer. And we will have to find our way all of us in the world, navigate through this very unpredictable environment, and hopefully steer the course of global developments towards a path of stability and peace rather than conflict and war.
The Economist: And when you look at us-China relations in the last 18 months or so there's been some effort to stabilise things. Can you give us a sense of whether you expect that stability to last? Or could there be moments of crisis or even more deterioration over the next few years?
Lawrence Wong: The fact that the two leaders met and provided some guard-rails to the relationship, and provided some stabilisation to the overall relationship has been very helpful. But the mutual suspicion and distrust between both sides remain. They are very deep. The underlying contradictions and tensions between the two national positions remain. And I don’t see them being bridged anytime soon. So it’s not a stable equilibrium. I think there’s a lot of possibilities for things to go wrong, for tensions to flare up. And it will require very careful management of the relationship. Because if things were to deteriorate sharply, I think it’d be costly for both the us and China and for the rest of the world.
The Economist: And what’s your assessment of where China’s going under Xi Jinping? Do you think it’s going in the right direction?
Lawrence Wong: Well China is going through—at least let’s talk about its economy—its economy is going through several big structural adjustments. One, it can no longer rely on cheap labour inputs to get growth. It’s reached a stage where it really needs innovation and productivity. And it’s really pushing hard on that front and investing more in advanced manufacturing. And that’s one aspect of it shifting also away from real estate and property which has been a big part of its economy. And now shifting more of that investment into advanced manufacturing and driving it through more and more productivity and technology. That’s one big shift that’s happening. They are worried that they will get old before they get rich. They are concerned about the middle-income trap and they want to push the economy forward.
The second major structural adjustment that they are going through is about sharing the benefits of growth. Because when China opened up, the economy took off, you know, tremendous uplifting for everyone. But they also saw some downsides of capitalism. Deng Xiaoping said, open the window, you get flies, they got more than flies. And they have been dealing with corruption, rent-seeking, inequalities over the last ten years. So they are keen to pursue a different model of growth, more balanced, they call it common prosperity. I mean, at the end of the day, all countries have to grapple with this issue, because in the end, growth has to be allocated between labour and capital. And I think China’s basic orientation was to have more of that growth allocated towards labour, rather than capital or even private capital. But they have to get that balance right, because if they overdo it, then it would certainly dampen the animal spirits of private entrepreneurs, and it would make it difficult for them to reach that next stage of growth. And I’m quite sure they are aware of trying to work out the appropriate balance.
The Economist: So you’ve described the economic scene in China, but the political scene if you were in Washington dc, they would describe China as an increasingly totalitarian system focused on security, focused on confrontation even, with America or contestation for supremacy. Do you accept that characterisation?
Lawrence Wong: Well, China certainly looks at the us as trying to contain and circle and suppress them and trying to deny them their rightful place in the world. It’s not just the leadership who thinks like that. I think if you talk to a lot of the Chinese officials, they feel the same way. They feel that there is this containment to put China down. So there is that sense, and for every action, there will be an opposite reaction. And so China, you see, is trying to find ways to get out of that containment, to make sure that they become more technologically self reliant.
At the same time…I know they have been through phases in their development, they talked about standing up, getting rich, now getting strong. They see themselves as a strong country, their time has come and they want to be more assertive in their national interest, including the national interest overseas, but there too, China will have to learn—as all big countries do—that if they overdo it, if they push their way around, coerce, squeeze or pressurise other countries, it will engender a backlash, including in the region. And that’s why they cannot go too far. And they will have to learn that lesson. It’s a lesson that all big countries go through. America goes through those lessons, too. I mean, in Mexico, they say, America is my best friend, whether I like it or not. Because when a big country deals with a small country, the big country often doesn’t realise how imposing they are. And it’s very hard to find a happy balance between the two, the big and the small country at the same time.
The Economist: So you’ve described recently Singapore’s status as being neither pro-China nor pro-America. I wondered if you could talk about—
Lawrence Wong: We are pro-Singapore.
The Economist: But pro-Singapore, that’s right, how that position of standing between the two powers could be tested and come under strain. So one possibility, perhaps a probability is that the technology, sanctions and controls that America is using will be tightened even further. And they could even ask for a complete split of the two technology systems. How would Singapore deal with that? Half of your manufacturing exports are high tech, they’re closely connected to the Chinese manufacturing ecosystem. If there is a tech split, what will Singapore do?
Lawrence Wong: Well, first of all, a lot of these sensitive technologies lie in the hands of American mncs [multinational corporations] operating out of Singapore. And to the extent that the us were to widen its export restrictions, then we fully expect American companies to comply with the rules, not just in Singapore incidentally, but anywhere they operate in the world. And there are many other places in the world where the rules may not be complied with so strictly, but certainly if companies were to be in Singapore, then we expect them to comply fully with these export restrictions. We wish the export restrictions will be carefully calibrated because where there are security, national security concerns, those are very understandable.
But if you start expanding the yard—we talked about “small yard, high fences”—and the yard keeps getting bigger and bigger and it really ends up in a technological bifurcation, across many areas of the economy, I think that will be detrimental, not just for Singapore, but for us and for the whole world. You know, I’ve said this before that we really have to care about how these sorts of economic tools are used for geopolitical purposes. In the military world, the security people are very mindful about collateral damage when you drop a bomb. Because you worry, you understand it causes harm on the other side, but you worry about retaliation, escalation, and all sorts of consequences, and you think very carefully. But when you start thinking about using economic and financial tools for geopolitical purposes, it’s not so straightforward to assess the collateral damage, and we don’t have so much experience with it. And if we’re not careful, it will have profound implications for the global economy. But worse still, for global stability.
The Economist: And what did you think of the treatment of TikTok, where America has asked it to basically change its identity and ownership. It’s a Singaporean headquartered company, its chief executive is a Singaporean citizen who served in the military that you’ve just described. And yet America appears to have rejected it as a Chinese proxy.
Lawrence Wong: Well it’s for America to decide how it wants to deal with TikTok, it’s America’s prerogative. But from our point of view, when it comes to social media, that doesn’t count as national security. I mean, we have social-media companies operating from all countries, and they are here in Singapore, we don’t see this as a national-security risk. But that’s Singapore’s perspective.
The Economist: Let’s look at another way that this position of standing between the superpowers might come under pressure. So Singapore has enforced sanctions against Russia, related to its invasion of Ukraine. It’s quite possible that there will be a conflict over Taiwan over the next decade. And I wondered if you could foresee a situation where Singapore enforces sanctions against China over that conflict.
Lawrence Wong: It really depends on the nature of the conflict. With Ukraine and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we were very clear, this was a very egregious breach of the United Nations Charter, a breach of territorial sovereignty and integrity. And if invasions like this can be justified on the basis of historical errors and crazy decisions, the world will be a much less safe place, and we will be very vulnerable. And that’s why even though there wasn’t a United Nations Security Council resolution, we decided to take steps and to impose sanctions, which we did. No other asean country has done this. Many other countries in the global south have not done this. But we decided to take this step, because it crosses and breaches some very fundamental principles, which we believe in and uphold.
We don’t think that Taiwan is in the same situation as Ukraine. First of all, people try to draw parallels between the two. But in fact, they are fundamentally quite different because Ukraine is a sovereign country, but Taiwan, the vast majority of countries around the world have a One China policy. We have long upheld a One China policy and oppose Taiwanese independence, even before we established diplomatic relations with the prc. It’s a long-standing position. And we are very careful when we conduct relationships with both China and Taiwan, that it’s consistent with our One China policy. And we do not allow ourselves to be made use of for any causes supporting Taiwanese independence.
So again, you asked a hypothetical question, if something were to arise in the Taiwan Straits or around Taiwan, we hope this doesn’t happen. Because if all the parties understand the risk, and the red lines and recognise that this is quite different from Ukraine—I think the US administration certainly understands—then perhaps we can have a good chance of upholding the status quo, and if any change were happen, it has to be done in a way that’s peaceful and non-forcible. And these things will take time. Meanwhile, let us uphold the status quo and continue to have engagements and talks. That will be our preferred approach.
The Economist: You’ve also said recently that Singapore is not an ally of America.
Lawrence Wong: We are not. We are a major security co-operation partner, the only one in the world.
The Economist: So what would you say to an American voter who’s worried about America being overextended globally, and who asks, “Why should Singapore receive American weapons, advanced security equipment, receive all the benefits of that, and yet it’s unable to call itself our ally?”
Lawrence Wong: Because it’s a security and defence relationship that has proven mutually beneficial for both sides, spanning many, many decades. We appreciate fully how America has spilt blood and treasure to provide security for the region. We appreciate fully the security umbrella that America provides for peace and prosperity in this part of the world. And we lean forward to work very closely with the US: we provide access to our air and sea naval bases. We support their rotational deployments, we provide logistical support, we exchange intelligence. We not only purchase technology and military equipment, but we have a very productive two-way exchange of information in many areas of security and defence. And that has proven to be mutually beneficial for both sides.
The Economist: Could you ever imagine Singapore joining aukus?
Lawrence Wong: For now, aukus is only a grouping comprising allies. We are not an ally.
The Economist: How do these geopolitical tensions play out domestically here in Singapore? How do people feel about the tensions with China but particularly recently, the Middle East, where Singapore has a substantial Muslim population who’s concerned about violence in Gaza? What would you say to people who are concerned about war in Singapore and to Singaporean citizens to reassure them?
Lawrence Wong: It’s something that we pay a lot of attention to, because we are such a small country, and a very diverse population. And we are constantly, I would say, influenced by pressures from around the world. Because here in Singapore, you have a majority ethnic-Chinese population. We all have links with China. But we have to remind ourselves and also China, that we are Singaporeans. We do business on the basis of our national interests, not on the basis of our ethnic ties. But we also have a Malay population that will have links with countries in the region and with the global Ummah, the wider Islamic community. And we have an Indian population, which will have ancestral links, familial links with India.
So it’s a population that can vary. You can see how it can be easily swayed by these influences. Because the links we have, going back to these civilizations or larger countries are deep, they are emotional, they are cultural. And we want to maintain the links, the links make us who we are. We value these linkages. At the same time, we have to continually remind our people—engage with Singaporeans—that we are Singaporeans. When we do things, it has to be on the basis of our national interests. And we’ve had to do that, through the various crises you highlighted Russia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That was a crisis which had a high level of economic impact for us, but relatively low level of emotional resonance. So we went out, explained—
The Economist: I imagine Gaza is the opposite.
Lawrence Wong: Gaza was one where it had not so much economic impact, but a much higher level of resonance—not just with our Malay Muslim population—but even for many Singaporeans, looking at the atrocities that damage the destruction and loss of innocent civilian lives. And again, we’ve had to go out, explain to our people, the positions that Singapore has taken and why we are doing certain things we have done, the resolutions that we participate in at the United Nations and how we are doing our part to participate in global relief efforts and how we continue to stand for a negotiated two-state solution and at the same time call for an end to hostilities.
Now, if something were to happen in South Asia, in Taiwan, in the South China Sea, it would be an incident which would have both high economic impact and high emotional resonance with our people. And this will be difficult to manage, clearly. And that’s why for us, you know, the external events that happen seemingly far away, actually, they are happening right here at our doorstep. And we pay a lot of attention to what’s happening around the world, to engaging our people, explaining to them what Singapore’s, what the government’s position is and what our national interests are.
The Economist: Before we go on to talk more about Singapore and the Singapore model and how it’s changing; one last question on geopolitics. Singapore’s position is that it upholds international law—and that’s the bedrock of your foreign policy—what do you think the state of international law is? Does it still work? The United Nations Security Council is divided, the enforcement of key treaties like the Law of the Sea, is not happening. Is that really still a reliable anchor for your foreign policy?
Lawrence Wong: It’s under tremendous pressure but we have no other alternative, we have to keep on pushing away at it, plugging at it and working with like-minded countries to strengthen this rules-based multilateral order. We do it in different ways. For example, in the economic realm, wto is not working. I mean, we’ve been calling for the appellate body to function properly, for the restoration of the dispute resolution settlement mechanism and we sound like a broken record, like a lone voice in the wilderness, but we will keep calling for it—
The Economist: The Economist agrees with you on that—
Lawrence Wong: Thank you. But you know, there are other ways in which we can be helpful. wto; very hard to get multilateral initiatives working. While we work with like-minded countries, we had the p4 where we had initially Chile, New Zealand and Brunei, and that became the tpp. us opted out. But then we have the cptpp. We’ve similarly worked on other trade initiatives. And now we are working on new initiatives around the digital economy. Because with the digital economy, you need new rules around data storage, data flows, data security. So we have a digital agreement with the UK, with Australia. We have one involving three countries, Chile, ourselves, and I think New Zealand. And then there’s a queue of countries wanting to join. So I think if Singapore operates in this manner, we try to be constructive, we try to provide value, find like-minded countries to join us in small-scale platforms. And over time, we hope some of these can grow and other like-minded countries can join us. That’s how we can play a part in strengthening multilateralism in the world.
The Economist: Okay, well, let’s turn to Singapore and the domestic scene and start with the economy. In your budget statement, not so long ago, you said “we will no longer be able to achieve effortless growth in Singapore”. Part of that is the trade environment is worse, but a big part of that is demographics where the number of working-age citizens in Singapore is expected to fall by several hundred thousand people over the next decade. So talk about that and also the role of migration; sometimes a controversial subject in Singapore. Presumably it means you need more migration.
Lawrence Wong: It does. I think the period of effortless growth is over not just because of labour, but really we are at such a high level of development now. And we will be expensive. I mean, you can’t expect high wages and low cost. Wages and costs are two parts of the same coin. So we have high incomes, costs are high, we will have to keep on innovating, restructuring, and then pushing the productivity and innovation frontier to justify the premium. That’s what we have been doing all this while, which is why the economy today is very different from the economy even 20 years ago.
And it’s really about continuing to get cutting-edge investments into Singapore, pushing the frontier, doing new activities. At the same time being prepared to let non-viable businesses fade away so that resources can be freed up. It’s very much the process of churn, which can be very disruptive to workers. But that’s why we’ve also put in place a lot of efforts to help workers retrain, rescale and upskill. Now on labour itself, on labour inputs and immigration, we are an open economy and open society. We welcome foreign professionals to work in Singapore, but it’s controlled, because if it’s not controlled, I think we will be easily swamped. We cannot afford to be like the uae where the local residents are only less than 10% of the population. And they have a different compact because they use the oil and gas revenues to provide everything for their citizens. And in return, they just allow foreigners to come in freely. That’s not possible in Singapore.
The Economist: So you couldn’t imagine a situation where citizens become a minority.
Lawrence Wong: Not at all. Not at all. Not at all. We will keep ourselves open but the floors will be controlled. We will ensure that foreign professionals come in. We welcome them. They add value to our economy, we ask them to adjust to our social norms. And it’s controlled and tiered at different levels, because there will be jobs that Singaporeans don’t want to do, like construction. On the other hand, there will be new areas where talented professionals can come in and provide new skills. And there’ll be things in between where jobs that Singaporeans do, like health care and engineering, but we need more people. So given the different categories, we have a tiered level of controls. And we do that to ensure that immigrants come, we welcome them, foreign professionals come, they complement the Singaporean core, they add to our economy, they add to our society. And it ends up being a net plus for all of us in Singapore, that’s our approach.
The Economist: One facet of migration into Singapore is the goal of maintaining a rough ethnic balance. I believe it’s called cmio; Chinese, Malays, Indians and Others…
Lawrence Wong: Just as a shorthand, and it’s become a lot more varied now, because you have mixed marriages. And also cmio is really just a shorthand.
The Economist: So a question is why is that necessary? Why can’t Singapore become a society that is post-racial, and it doesn’t need to have this tacit target of the population mix.
Lawrence Wong: We would like to be, to evolve into a society where we become race-blind, but we are also very realistic about these things. These instincts of race are very primal, they are very emotive, and it can be stirred up at any point in time. Certainly, today, we are in a much better state than when we started out after independence, and when we had race riots in the past. But even so, during covid, in the three years, during covid, we had a spike of incidents that were race-related, just recently. And they were very sharp, very, very antagonistic type of incidents that got people stirred up.
The Economist: Give an example of one of those incidents for our global listeners?
Lawrence Wong: Well, you had incidents where people were targeted, because we put in place…restrictions to prevent the spread of the virus during the early days of covid, and people flouted some of the rules. But when somebody goes and they see somebody walking without a mask in a park, [and] it’s a person of a particular ethnic community, and then they will make racist remarks. It was spread online, for example. And this happened more than one time, it happened multiple occasions, when we let in arrivals from India, when India had a big wave of [covid]...there was a sharp reaction. So it’s not something that happened 20 years ago, it happened very recently. And it’s just a very stark reminder…People are not racist in Singapore. I think, in many ways, we aspire towards the ideals that we recite in our pledge to be regardless of race, language, or religion. But these things are dormant, they just lie below the surface. And it only takes an incident, a bad actor, someone trying to stir things to cause the dormant virus to flare up again. And that’s why we have to be vigilant and watchful.
The Economist: One of the events that’s happened in the West is the rise of stronger identity politics, for ideological reasons, perhaps social media as well. Do you think that’s a threat to Singapore?
Lawrence Wong: We do see some of it here in Singapore. Some people do get caught up with it. And so we take a very different approach in how we deal with issues of identity. Number one, like I said, it’s not about assimilating into one single identity. We allow people to embrace their own ethnic identities, whatever they are. And we ask them to keep that because that’s precious, that makes us who we are. But we come together and we find ways to expand the common ground that we share together as Singaporeans. So it’s not about subtracting. It’s about addition.
And a big part of being able to do that is by just bringing people together to have more engagements with one another face to face engagements, learning more about each other’s customs traditions, starting to appreciate and, beyond appreciation and understanding, respect one another. And then when there are differences, finding ways to accommodate and compromise because the differences will surely exist, and compromise cannot be a bad word, compromise cannot be an issue of dishonour, to my tribe or to my identity. Because if that’s dishonour, then it’s all-out war. And you will have deep divisions between the different groups in Singapore. So we have gone for a very different approach since our very beginning, since independence. And that approach, I think, has worked well. In Singapore, people understand it’s different. Not every single group may get everything that they want. But by working together by engaging, by not accentuating our differences, but finding common ground, it’s an approach that has worked better for all of us.
The Economist: Another social change is how the views of the young have adapted and evolved in Singapore. And recently, you did a big consultation exercise called Forward Singapore in which you spoke to I think 200,000 Singaporeans in some way or another. And then the report concluded, among other things, that “there have been discernible shifts in our youth’s mindset”. This is a generation that’s grown up with an enormously successful and prosperous Singapore. Perhaps you could give a sense of how their attitudes have changed compared to previous generations.
Lawrence Wong: In some ways, I am part of the generation I will be the first prime minister to be born after Singapore’s independence. All my predecessors sang two, if not three other national anthems. God Save the King, the Japanese Kimi Ga Yo, and briefly Malaysia’s Negaraku. I’ve only sung one national anthem, Majulah Singapura, our national anthem. So the values, the principles that built today that enabled today’s Singapore meritocracy, incorruptibility, racial harmony, the tripartism, the approach I spoke of earlier—finding common ground—I think those are embedded deeply within me and also many young people I speak to. At the same time there are changes. And I think we, when we engage with young people whether around my age, post independence or younger, we do sense a change in their aspirations. And these are noble aspirations. I think young, many of the young people I engage with, like to strive and work hard for their own aspirations, but they would like to see a Singapore where we embrace broader definitions of success, where every job is respected, where there is a fairer wage for every job, and a greater sense of assurance and security for individuals to uplift themselves, and to bounce back through life’s inevitable setbacks. So these are things that we have distilled from our conversations, we’ve put it out together as part of what we call a Forward Singapore roadmap. And we are taking steps towards realising these goals.
The Economist: So you’ve described a Singapore that faces a high amount of churn in the economy in order to stay at the frontier globally, where there’s a new generation of Singaporeans with different expectations. Let’s turn to politics and talk about how politics is adapting and changing to reflect that you’re part of a generation known as 4g, replacing or coming after 3g—
Lawrence Wong: For a lack of a better word.
The Economist: It’s not bad.
Lawrence Wong: It’s just that we’ve only had three political changeovers in government.
The Economist: Just for clarity. For listeners. It’s not a telecommunication spec. But tell us how the style, the governing style of 4g, your generation and your government, is going to be different from 3g.
Lawrence Wong: I think politics in Singapore has continuously evolved and will, has evolved and will continue to evolve. The days where the pap government or the pap was dominant in the 60s, 70s, even 80s under Mr Lee Kuan Yew, those days are over and we can’t go back to that period. And if you look at politics, since then it has been evolving. Singaporeans themselves have evolved. It’s an electorate that’s highly educated, very sophisticated, very discerning with how they vote.
And while the majority today would like the pap to be in power, to be in government, they would also like to see more opposition voices in parliament. So the opposition presence in parliament is here to stay. It’s quite clear. And I have also said that when I go into elections, I do not assume that the pap will automatically be returned to power. I do not assume that I will be the next pm after the elections. So this is the new reality of our political landscape, which means that as a governing, as a party, for me now as prime minister, eventually leading the party into elections, we will have to do our best to engage Singaporeans, we will have to do our best to involve them in decisions that they care deeply about, and in shaping our future, which is why we’ve started doing so in our Forward Singapore exercise, engaging Singaporeans a lot more, not just in hearing them out but we also are trying to find platforms where people can get involved in decision-making and and start shaping the future of our country together.
The Economist: Lee Kuan Yew said: “Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him”. And there’s always been a sense that Singapore’s post-independence leaders have been strong men, sometimes even the hard men. Do you see yourself as that kind of leader? Do you have iron inside you?
Lawrence Wong: I believe when push comes to shove and the time comes to take hard decisions, I will do so. So long as the decision is in the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.
The Economist: The elements of it, which is sometimes forcing people to do what they don’t want, sometimes being more abrasive with the public, do you see yourself in that mould? Or are you more of a listener?
Lawrence Wong: Well, I am who I am. I listen carefully to everyone’s views. When I go into a meeting, I do not start off assuming that I know all the answers. I want to get people’s insights. I want to get people’s perspectives, eventually thinking about what makes for the best decisions and outcomes for Singapore. And some of these decisions may not be the most popular decisions, but we may feel and we may have the conviction that they are the right ones to take. And therefore when those sorts of situations arise which I’ve had to deal with during covid repeatedly or more recently having to raise the gst [Goods and Services sales tax] in the budget. And when these decisions arise, Singaporeans can be assured that I will be able to take the decisions in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans and explain to them why these difficult decisions are necessary.
The Economist: One part of your story is that you did not have an elite background in terms of the school you went to, you have a much more typical upbringing; you went to a local school? How important is that for your brand with ordinary Singaporeans?
Lawrence Wong: Well, my background is what it is. I mean, if it’s helpful if it makes it more relatable to Singaporeans so much the better. But I have no doubt. Like I said, just now, Singaporeans are discerning and wise voters, I have no doubt that at the end of the day, they will expect me to deliver on the things that they care about. Delivering a better life, delivering better standards of living for themselves and their children. And if my team, if myself, my team, we are unable to meet up to those high expectations. If we are unable to deliver those standards, and a better team arises, then Singaporeans will choose accordingly. I have no doubt about that.
The Economist: As I understand it, it’s likely that the outgoing Prime Minister Lee is going to continue to play the role of some kind, possibly in the cabinet. Could you talk about that, in particular address the concern that it might prevent 4G, the next generation from really finding its voice and exerting authority in Singapore.
Lawrence Wong: Well, this is a Singapore tradition. I mean, you don’t find this commonly in other countries, but it’s a long-standing Singapore tradition, and we’ve found it very valuable. Each time we have a leadership transition, we don’t just kick out all the older ministers and then have a complete new team come in. We value the more experienced ministers and we invite them to continue contributing in different ways, in their own ways. We’ve done this with former prime ministers as well, it’s not the first time—whether it’s Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh Chok Tong and Mr Lee Hsien Loong. And it’s never been a problem with sort of preventing the new prime minister from setting the tone of leadership and making his own decisions, and so I don’t envisage any difficulties at all, with Lee Hsien Loong eventually becoming senior minister continuing to serve. The networks he has internationally will be very valuable. And I will use him accordingly in the best possible way. Because for me, as leader, I will have to find ways to harness the collective energies of all of my team, and also every Singaporean in order to give us the best chances for this little island to keep on shining ever more brightly in a dark and troubled world.
The Economist: And who will remain head of the pap, your party?
Lawrence Wong: Well, it’s also been a tradition that in time to come after the leadership transition, after the Prime Minister takes over in time to come, there will be a transition for the new prime minister to take over as Secretary-General of the party. So this will happen in the due course. Maybe we finish with one question.
The Economist: So why don’t we finish with your legacy? If you were to serve as prime minister for a decade, at the end of that period, how would you have liked to change Singapore? What do you want to be different in ten years?
Lawrence Wong: Well, the starting-point as I said just now is that Singapore may have transformed tremendously in the last 60 years. But the reality is, we are still a very tiny little island in a vast and dangerous world, which is going to get more dangerous in the coming years. So we’ve always seen ourselves as the underdog. We will always be the improbable, unlikely nation forged only through the collective will of our people. What has happened in the last 60 years has been nothing short of a miracle. And my mission is to keep this miracle going for as long as I can. And to make sure our little red dot shines brightly for as long as possible.
The Economist: Lawrence Wong, thank you very much for joining us.
Lawrence Wong: Thank you.
Comments
Spirilla_Huckleberry•1 day ago•Edited 1 day ago
The media blitz is in full swing. Elections are coming.
Back in NUS it was well known amongst the profs that PAP has a big issue with the youths ( whom are now adults in their 30s). It had gotten so bad that some even talked to some of the ministers directly, and yes, the ministers themselves know.
This has been several years back, and the still lack thereof action from either housing, overpopulation, working hours etc is enough for you to know what their priorities are.
If you tell your boss an issue, and after years, it’s still not been fixed or half-assed, you already know how much you are valued.
Life in SG is good if you are an employer or you are rich. Rich as in the ministers come and meet you for meals regularly kind of rich.
They know that they are going to win. They know that they can shelter their most unpopular candidates and parachute new ones under a banner minister. All they need to do is just let this election cycle to play out, then parachute in their next general.
I’m probably wasting my time writing all of this, but this is also my last final shot before migrating. Just a small hope that we can still be saved.
If things still don’t improve then…Ok lor, time to pack bag and experience that summer holiday the french love.
Best of luck to you and your new journey. I am seriously considering migration as well, would love to know more about how you came to this decision and what was the process like for you.
Starting to see less of a point being treated like a second class citizen for the rest of my adult life - having NS liability til I’m 40 while new citizens strut in every year like it’s free real estate without having to sacrifice their youth to serve this nation, lack of policies that addresses the concerns and problems of the younger electorate. That was made very clear by the past few Budgets where clearly the focus was on the old and frail with all the hype about Pioneer and Merdeka generations. No mention of how to guide Singapore to navigate the next 50 years, just constant propaganda of “government is monitoring” and nothing significant being done.
Government also seemed to have completely given up on trying to get the local core birth rates up and are very much obviously getting new citizens from immigration.
I question the process of how new citizens are approved when I have so many anecdotal experiences of friends who are not of “C” category being denied citizenship and PR status despite attending sec sch, JC and Uni here and have settled down here, yet I see ex-colleagues of “C” category getting citizenship easily when they’ve worked here for just a few years. Didn’t even grow up here, prefers very much to stay within their own cliques, not integrating with locals.
Opposition and NCMPs have raised valid questions in Parliament but PAP being PAP just shuts them down in the name of “maintaining social cohesion and order” as per their usual holier-than-thou attitude.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. People don’t seem to realise that our system of governance has a serious flaw where if the incumbent goes rogue, they literally can bring this country to its knees with the amount of power and control they have over the resources and institutions in this country simply with the current laws we have in place. Examples like POFMA, control over state media, the shenanigan to parachute Halimah Yaacob in as President and so on. If the PAP wanted, they have the power to enact and pass any law they liked at any given time given their supermajority.
And I haven’t even touched on how this country has become a plutocracy. The so called meritocracy the government loves to espouse has been corrupted.
Most of the interview doesn't really tell us anything new re: the PAP's attitudes, but I did find this exchange interesting:
The Economist: Lee Kuan Yew said: “Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him”. And there’s always been a sense that Singapore’s post-independence leaders have been strong men, sometimes even the hard men. Do you see yourself as that kind of leader? Do you have iron inside you?
Lawrence Wong: I believe when push comes to shove and the time comes to take hard decisions, I will do so. So long as the decision is in the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.
It's very much a softer response than the PAP of the past and I wonder how it will play. I wonder if this is a deliberate approach or LW's character. I'm quite sure that GCT and LHL would have immediately answered in the affirmative, with the "for Singapore's benefit" thrown in.
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.
