In conversation with Lee Hsien Loong

CHANNEL NEWS ASIA: The knowledge economy. Undoubtedly, it's the buzzword for the new millennium. It's going to herald a new way of measuring economic activities and so on. How would you define the new economy for Singapore?

LEE HSIEN LOONG: There's a lot of hype. The new economy - people think about Internet stocks, huge ratios of riches overnight. But what it really means for us is a different world of many opportunities but fierce competition. As George Yeo put it in his very graphic way, the storm has passed but the water level has risen, so now our lagoon is connected to the great ocean. We're beginning to see all kinds of deep-sea creatures which never used to wander to our part of the lagoon before. And that's so in many areas. If we look at banks, certainly the globalisation is there. If we look at telecoms, it's there. If we look at media, IT, even retail business, people buy Lands End or Amazon or Ebay instead of going down to Orchard Road and Robinsons. So it means a whole new way of doing business. It means tremendous challenge for our own firms.

We want to be part of that. But at the same time, we want to hold our own. That's very difficult to do by ourselves. You need talent, you need to bring in more people with the skills and the expertise and the enterprise. And you need to link up globally so that you're not just a Singapore bank but a regional bank. You're not just Singapore Telecom but you're part of some alliance or partnership or maybe even part of some other firm and a significant player. And it's the same with SIA - one of the motivations for them to link up with Virgin.

CNA: Now, you've mentioned about how we're going to do business. Obviously the financial sector is the biggest area that's going to be affected. Is it going to change the way you approach the sector because you're known for your hard-headed approach towards economics - traditional economics?

LEE: Certainly it was one of the main motivations for our taking this approach with the sector. Because if we thought that we could just be what we were and keep the Singapore part by itself and we will grow the offshore part and we tell the people, you come to Singapore but please don't do any Singapore business, then we would have carried on this way, very easy and safe and well under control. Because if it's just a Singapore part, you can influence it much more easily than if you're dealing with a global bank with an operation in Singapore. But that's not tenable. So we have to change and it means not only allowing more foreign competition but also changing the way you supervise and regulate the banks. Because you have to work and find ways to track what they're doing, to supervise them in a way which will be effective and will take into account what's happening not just here but also elsewhere in the world in their other operations. And you have got to do it in such a way that is not onerous because otherwise they will say why should I be here and take all this nonsense from you? I'll be off to Hong Kong or Sydney or Labuan or Bangkok. So it's a balance. It's a problem which supervisors around the world are facing, the Americans and Europeans too. We're in contact with them and talking to them. We have to feel our way forward.

CNA: What is your greatest fear for Singapore as we embark on this new phase of our development?

LEE: Economically, to be part of it and not just be absorbed into it. Because if you don't have that gravity to hold together that talent so that while we're part of the global economy, there is something in Singapore so it stands up above the rest of the economy of the world, then we will be just part of the global system and there's nothing special about us and we will dissolve. You'll not be a hub. You'll not be an exporter of ideas, of capital, of goods. You'll just be somebody else's operation. And you have no identity. You're not a country. But we are a country and we have to have that gel to hold together. That's the economic part of it.

The social part of it is to keep our own sense of who we are even as we plug in and work with the whole world. We're not Americans. We're not French. We cannot be Japanese. We're Singaporeans. You become not very Singaporean and you will just dissolve into a wider ocean. Well, individuals will survive one way or the other - those with skills. Those with less skills will be left stranded in Singapore and Singapore will not be what it is today. And that is a real risk because the opportunities are so great.

Once upon a time when we were talking about people emigrating and tracking the figures, we were talking about people leaving and who have set up families, who're established, who've earned and put some away and then left maybe in their middle age and went off somewhere and set up a second career. Now, we are concerned about people who go overseas and study and before they've graduated, they're hired by IBM or INTEL or Microsoft and offered cars, houses and sign-on bonuses and so they don't come back. So one of the consequences of this is we're going to see people who break their bonds without even starting to serve. But it's only a part of this bigger picture because even if somebody goes without a bond and he goes off and doesn't return, it's a loss to Singapore.

CNA: Now this problem you're speaking about - becoming citizens of the world, so to speak, and not bothering to care about your roots and stuff like that - do you think that it's a very real problem for Singapore? I mean, how do you think we can overcome this?

LEE: It's partly a matter of opportunities, that you have to have the chances for people to thrive and prosper in Singapore or be based in Singapore. It's partly a matter of education, to understand that unless you feel this responsibility to warn fellow Singaporeans and contribute as part of Singapore society, then many others of your compatriots - the less fortunate, less blessed, less talented - are going to be left stranded. It's partly a matter of emotions: this is where you grew up and this is where you learnt about the country and this is where you belong and you want your children to be. It will never be 100 percent. There will be people who will come to Singapore and will make this their home. And some who are here who'll move on or their children will move on. That's the way the global talent market is. But we must keep enough to stay and enough of the core to make sure the place can run.

CNA: Are you confident that we'll be able to do this?

LEE: We will do our best.

CNA: Now how do you hope to see the Singapore culture evolving, say, against the backdrop of the new economy?

LEE: I think it would be very eclectic. It will be influenced by many outside strands because people will pick up ideas, styles fron, America, from Europe and increasingly from China, as they become more successful and significant internationally. We will have to blend that together and really, it will never completely blend together. The mix will tie something identifiably from Singapore.

If you're overseas, you recognise Singaporeans. There is something about them. It's not just the way they speak, but the way they dress, the way they carry themselves. I looked at them - I was away in New Zealand - a whole bunch of school children. I looked at them, they looked Singaporean. So that evening I met two of them. They came up and took pictures with me. So I said, where are you from? They said, Dunman. We're with the scouts group and we're here for an adventure trip. So there is something about them, about us. And I think that's good. You don't want to be so distinct that you're unable to work with other people, but you're different and that helps us to feel together. It's not just a racial matter. We could be Chinese or Malays or Indians. But there is something different. And if you see an Indian Indian compared to a Singaporean Indian, he's different. You know.

CNA: How do you see the demand of the voters changing in the new millennium?

LEE: I think that they want to be well served, they would like a strong government, a good government. At the same time, they would like to see some opposition in parliament. You have seen that in several elections now. And we have to convince them that it's more important to have a strong government than to have a strong opposition in parliament.

CNA: What role do you see the Opposition occupying in the new millennium?

LEE: They're part of the system. I don't think they are going to grow in quality. I don't know... I'm sure that in every generation there will be some who would feel that they're not satisfied with the government and with the status quo. And they can't fit in within this and try and work and improve things from within but would like to fight it from without. And that's natural. And they have a part in the system like Chiam See Tong or Chee Soon Juan or Low Thia Kiang. Now if you're an honourable man like Low Thia Kiang and Chiam See Tong, then you play a useful role. It's limited because of what they're able to put up. But it's a useful role and everybody can see that. And when we go overseas on Parliamentary Delegations and Mr Chiam or Mr Low come along, we know that they stand up for Singapore. Because talking to the foreign interlocutors, they close ranks. But if you're not an honourable man and you mean harm to Singapore, that's different.

CNA: Do you see the role of the Opposition getting stronger at all?

LEE: It's not our job to help them. I think the sentiment to have some Opposition will always be there. And it's our job to persuade the people that they will be better served by PAP MPs and that if they just go for the Opposition, you will weaken the government and it will not really be to their advantage.

CNA: Now the Internet has changed the way politics have been driven. How do you think that would change when we come out to the next e1ection?

LEE: We don't know. It will have an impact. We're watching what happens.

CNA: The flow of information...

LEE: It's not just the flow of information but the way people organise. In America for example, I talked to them - this time I was in Harvard - they have been studying this. And their impression is that it has made a big impact in helping special interest groups to get together. Because if I'm interested in the environment and you are and we are in a different part of America, without the Internet it will be very hard for us to mobilise and agitate. But with the Internet and with e-mail and news groups and chat rooms, you can be anywhere in the world but you can get together and organise something. Which is one reason why in Seattle there were such riots, because all these interest groups are now finding it much easier to organise and to assert themselves. And really, they're a minority, each one and even together in America, but vocal and very effective and they successfully intimidated the American government and the American government decided they wouldn't settle so there was no Rio deal in Seattle. So we have to watch out for that sort of politics.

It will be very tragic if Singaporeans divide into many special interest groups and each one asserts their demands, clashing demands, and you're are unable to form a national consensus. But that's the down side. The plus side is that you're able to keep in touch with Singaporeans all over the world. You can get views across. You're able to get a much closer, you're not cut off.

CNA: How will all this impact, say, the PAP's future directions?

LEE: We have somebody studying this. We have a team working on this, Lim Swee Say, David and others. We have to keep the party up to date. The old model had great virtues. It fit an old society where you're talking about a few party-faithfuls in each constituency and you can totally rely on them because they serve you, branches, meet the people sessions, elections, putting up posters, doing a lot of legwork and very faithfully. But you need to reach out beyond that and we have tried with young PAPs with some success. We've tried with the Women's Wing with some success. And we've got a HQ branch so people who are not affiliated with any of the particular constituencies can join. We have sessions where we bring in professionals and we talk to them. They may be members of the party or may be friends of the party. And we're happy to have you as friends if you're not ready to join. But you know that we're basically on the same side, allies. So we have to evolve as we go on, because if you just keep static, then you're going to become arthritic, decrepit.

CNA: If the Prime Minister decides to call for early elections, how soon will we be ready?

LEE: We should be ready all the time. The principal consideration is to make sure that we win the elections well and to make sure that we have a strong team to field at the elections.

CNA: In the space of 15 years, we've suffered two major crises, the recession in 1985 and the Asian crisis just recently. On both counts, you've actually helped put the economy back on its feet. What were some of the important lessons we learnt during that period?

LEE: We went into 1985 convinced that we were competitive, convinced that we were not overpriced. Convinced that the high CPF rate was sustainable and not a burden to business. As the situation changed, we revised our thinking. Eventually, we came to the conclusion that this was no longer so and we had to change our policy.

So whatever, however, set your policies are, you cannot close your mind and fix it. You have to continue to review and if the situation has changed, you have to change. But the second lesson is that if you have to change the policy, prepare the people early and explain to them your thought process. So that as you shift, they're not taken by surprise and they can understand and know what's going on.

This time when we cut the CPF, we decided better float this idea that we don't want to cut the CPF but as a last resort, it's something which we have to consider. And we did in July, and Lee Boon Yang did it at the NTUC seminar one Sunday at Pasir Ris. He had discussed it carefully with us and worked out what he was going to say. And the people who were there, having listened to him present and argue the case, said yes, this is something sensible. The people who were not there, who read about the report in the newspaper the next day, the headlines, they were quite taken aback. And the response was quite chilly. Because why must you do this? We have or is it such a bad situation? I mean, can't we do other things first? So, it's understandable that this would happen. But we couldn't then say no, no, we will never this. Because we could see things were getting worse.

So we spent several months meeting many groups, some publicly, some close. I did some of them with the unions, with the grassroots, with the PAP members. Some with the professionals and business groups to explain to them what was happening in the region, why this is something which you cannot not consider and we will not do it lightly but we cannot rule it out. And I think it helped prepare the ground and get people to understand why. So by the time we announced it in November, everybody knew that it was necessary. The question was how deep was it going to be - 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent. Now those are issues of detail. It means that we're already at one on the big picture. And that was a tremendous help because it went down and it was accepted.

I met people in Hongkong and they said, how is it you can do this? We can't do it. You must be dictatorial! But dictators can't do such things. The point is, we have elections and they don't, and therefore perhaps our political leaders and our union leaders are more sensitive to the ground feelings and we're able to carry this.

CNA: Now, talking about all these difficult policies, bitter pills that workers have to swallow wage restraint, CPF cuts. Can you tell us what went on behind the public glare that was most difficult to overcome yet was very crucial in getting the policies implemented?

LEE: The most important thing is the groundwork done by the NTUC, and the Ministers chipped in and the MPs. We gave them briefs and we circulated them regularly in potted form - a picture of what is going on in the region. Some of it was in the newspapers and presented in a different way. When you circulate something in closed form - I'm sending it here and I marked them for restricted circulation only - firstly, I can be more candid. So you can read it and you will understand. I don't have to speak in codes and signals and in directions that leave you guessing what I mean. Secondly, we bring people in because I'm telling you something which is not going to be in the public domain. But we trust you, that's why we are showing this to you. This sort of communications and discussions is a very important part of it.

CNA: How much of the worry element is being taken for consideration before the policy is actually passed?

LEE: It's very important to know how people will react to a policy because you put it out and you have focused on the main point that you want to achieve. But what people may see and they may be concerned about and may pre-occupy them greatly may not be your main point, but some of the aspects of it, which you may have thought about and which really is not the main thing that you're trying to achieve. If you can find out what people are concerned about, you can address all these and preserve your objectives without any difficulty. With the CPF cut last year, everybody accepted that this was necessary. But what happens to my mortgage? How do I service them? I committed myself, can you address that? And we were able to work out schemes to make sure those who would be affected would be looked after. And similarly people said - well, my salary and bonuses are going to be cut, what about my health care expenses? Or my transport expenses? That also we were able to make adjustments with hospital rebates and with the transport rebates. They don't cost a lot of money but I think they relieved a lot of anxiety and they actually helped to make the policy better. So I don't see consultation necessarily being a process of win lose compromise. I wanted to do a hundred but people were not willing, so I did 70 or 80. But it's really a matter of refining and improving what we're trying to do...

CNA: ...as we go along..

LEE: ...as we go on. As a result of the discussion and the consultation, we should be able to make our policies better and certainly more acceptable.

CNA: So in other words the government is not totally closed to it once the policies are implemented... I mean refunds are...

LEE: First we should discuss with people and get agreement on the main thrust of it, that adjustments are necessary. And if people do not accept that, then of course you have a problem because they object to the principle of what you're doing. But if they agree to the principle, then there are many aspects of how it should be done and what the exact balance and timing is, and packaging. And that is something which can only benefit from consultation. Certainly in the recent economic packages, both going down - reducing the CPF rate - as well as coming up - restoring the CPF rate, we have consulted widely - employers, unions, workers, and our grassroots. Our goal is not to surprise and shock people. We're less - the journalists sometimes are a little disappointed by this because it is nothing exciting. But that's the whole point, because we prepared the ground and now we're making an announcement which everybody expects. But if we hadn't set the scene, it would be quite a shock.

CNA: Now, there has been a lot of debate about the need for Singapore's business community to think out of the box, so to speak. How amenable are you to, say, giving up some of our sacred cows - say, internationalising of the Singapore dollar - I know you have answered this many times...

LEE: We slaughtered herds of them!

It's something which we considered. Internalisation of the Singapore dollar is short hand for a whole set of policies and attitudes, which in brief for laymen is that we would keep some control over our economy and we would not like billions of dollars of hot money flowing in and out to swamp us and totally overwhelm ourselves. Which can happen to even a big country like Japan, because they have very little control over the yen exchange rate though they try hard.

The movement is so large that it has a big whiplash effect on the real economy, on the exports, on the health of the economy. And we want to try and avoid that. Now as you get bigger, as your boat gets stronger, you can tolerate slightly higher waves. That's what we have done over these last 2 years as we have adjusted our policy to allow people to borrow, raise bonds in Singapore dollars and it has got the market launched. We made a few more adjustments recently and will look at it again. So as the boat gets bigger, we will try, we can take bolder steps. But I think we take one step at a time. We will expand the box.

CNA: What would you say are some of the more important lessons we learnt from the past crises which would better prepare us for crises in the future?

LEE: We don't know what will happen in the future. There will be surprises to come. One of the lessons is that by hanging together, by responding rationally, not only did we solve our problems faster but we've enhanced our standing internationally. Because people have noticed that Singapore reacted differently. That we have been able to do things which other countries have not been able to do so easily. And that far from dividing us, the experience has helped to consolidate our position. So I think we can keep that sense of what the Chinese call, "Wei Ji" - danger and opportunity - and in peace and calm, think of danger. That I think is something which is very valuable to us. But it doesn't last forever because after 5 years, people will say, what crisis was that? It was over so quickly.

CNA: Are there any shortcomings in the Singapore system which you would like to see fixed in the next few years?

LEE: We're never satisfied. We continue to improve every time we see something wrong. There are major areas which we're working on with our people-training, with our education system. We're working on the immigration policy because we are bringing talent in. We're working on the health system. And really we're working on developing ways to involve people and to build a civic society - which is what Singapore 21 is about. Some of these are policy matters. You can make a decision over a period of a year or two and commit and then implement. Some of these are more intangible like Singapore 21 which are matters partly intellectual, partly of the heart, but more so of doing. You're not just encouraging people to sit down and spout a view but to get committed and do something about their society and their neighbourhood and their community, That's something that will take time to develop.

CNA: Do you think Singaporeans are committed enough?

LEE: I think it will develop over time. It's not something which happens suddenly. Different societies have it to different degrees. In Singapore, people always say, there's this problem, what will the government do about it? And we're trying to go from what will the government do about it to what we Singaporeans will do about it. How to make that shift is something which the government will participate in but the individuals also have to do their part.

CNA: What sort of time frame do you think it will take?

LEE: If you look back say 10-15 years, there's a change already in the way people are able to come forward and participate and give their time, and the intensity of whether we can get people to do that. So I would say if you look forward 5-10 years, there should be some change. It's a progressive development. Certainly in MAS when we have been working on new policies, these last two years we have found amongst the financial community very great willingness to give their time. We formed a lot of committees. We've given them quite hard work and we've taken them very seriously because they know what they recommend is going to be implemented. And I know that many of them have spent days and weeks and weekends preparing their reports. It shows in the results.

CNA: Undoubtedly the Chinese language policy was one of the thornier policies that the government has come out with over the years. Now what actually went into the thinking in pushing for higher language in schools?

LEE: There were two parts to this policy. One part is that we wanted to strengthen the teaching of higher Chinese because we want to maintain that strength in society, of people with good mastery of Chinese culture and heritage and able to develop it and carry on to the next generation. At the same time, we have to accommodate another group of pupils and families who didn't have a Chinese background and for whom even basic Chinese was quite a struggle. So we have to balance the two. At the same time as you strengthen the higher Chinese, we had also to make adjustments to accommodate the kids who are already having difficulty doing ordinary Chinese.

CNA: Quite a balancing act.

LEE: Quite a delicate operation and different constituencies. Because the Chinese language constituency - the Chinese cultural establishment - would be concerned that standards are not lowered and that the government is not moving away from its principles. Whereas the parents who're English speaking, who see their children struggling, say how about making it something more practical, making it more achievable for my kids? So we have inputs from both directions and eventually we decided the best way to solve this was to tackle both at the same time.

CNA: Now one of the reasons for encouraging the higher mother tongue is to give Singaporeans a greater sense of identity, as we become more global. In fact as you said in your speech and I quote "It provides us the ballast to face adversity and challenges with fortitude and the sense of quiet confidence about our place in the world.' Yet we have always stressed a Singaporean identity rather than separate ethnic identities. Now have language policies impacted our ethnic relations over the years?

LEE: We have to have both. We would like to have a common Singaporean identity and at the same time, it's a reality that we're Chinese Singaporean or Malay, Muslim Singaporean or Indian Singaporean or Eurasian. And each one has got separate traditions.

We get strength not by watering down these heritages but maintaining them strong as we can and at the same time trying to widen common ground between the groups. If you ask about the Chinese specifically, and look at the Chinese school today or the SAP schools today, Chinese High or Catholic High or any of the others such as Nanyang, and compare them to the Chinese schools say 20 years ago, they're not the same. We call them SAP schools. They emphasise Chinese language and culture But actually the curriculum is in English. The children speak quite a lot of English and teaching is in English except for Chinese language. And yes, they celebrate the mid-autumn festival in style. But the children are prattling away often in English. So there's quite a lot of coming together already.

CNA: Now, you mentioned SAP schools have been in existence for about 20 years now. Having had the benefit of hindsight, is there anything that you would have done differently to the language curriculum?

LEE: Perhaps if we have had the choice, we might have made the shift out of the Chinese schools more gradually. As it was, we left it to the parents' decision and all the parents were very keen to have their children educated in the English stream. Even Chinese educated parents, because they saw where the opportunities were and what jobs depended upon, So they sent their kids to the English stream. As a result, the Chinese schools went down very quickly and we converted to all national stream schools by the mid- 70s, almost. If we have been able to slow that down then perhaps you might have been able to keep a stronger ethos in the Chinese schools. At the same time, perhaps we might have been able to move what we did last year, perhaps somewhat faster, because we have been getting feedback over the last few years.

CNA: But things are not moving too fast.

LEE: No. Parents tell us, we support the mother tongue policy. We agree, we would like our children to learn. But this is too much of a struggle. Can something be done? And we made adjustments, but we didn't go quite far or faster.

CNA: Some people see a parallel between the SAP schools, the Chinese language and the role of Madrasahs. In feet the Association of Muslim Professionals, AMP and the Committee of Joint full time Madrasahs are actually working these out to see the role Madrasahs can play. What is your view on this?

LEE: There is a parallel in the sense that the Chinese would like to keep their Chinese heritage alive and the Muslims would like to keep the Malay, Muslim heritage alive. In this case, Islamic heritage in the Madrasahs in one case and the SAP school in the other. The difference is that the SAP schools are secular schools teaching the national curriculum and emphasising higher Chinese. The Madrasahs are religious schools, teaching a religious curriculum - non-secular - and not the national curriculum and adding on some English and Science and Maths. But the focus is Arabic and Islamic studies. So there is a basic difference.

It's a difficult issue. The Prime Minister has raised it and has discussed it with some of the MPs and the Malay leaders. And he made a speech earlier this month at the KBE Conference. He put it, I think, in a very fair way. There's a role for Madrasahs in Singapore because you need to educate Ustoz, Ustazahs and Asatizahs - the religious leaders for the community. All Muslims feel that this is something which ought to exist in the system. Because even if you don't send your own children, you would like to have a school exist where some people send their children...

CNA: The option is there...

LEE: ...and the option is there. But the question is how does it fit in and how many should go? And where should the balance be struck between the national education and Madrasah's education? We're talking about a knowledge economy, we're talking about new economy, and we're talking about computers and IT and the future. And our prosperity depends on that. The individual success of each person also depends on that, which is why the Malay Muslim community held the KBE conference to discuss how to promote KBE amongst the Malays because nobody wants to be left behind.

Now, within that context, how would you like religious education to fit in? Can we have, do you want a religious education for your child and with science and IT added on as something extra but not really going to do well because the efforts are not really focused there? Or do you vent a good basic education for your child and the religious part added on as well in balance, but ensuring that when the child grows up, he can look after himself? It's something which the community has to discuss and deliberate on. It's an important issue. And as the PM has said, he will take views from the community before the government decides.

CNA: Now how much is the proposal for compulsory education related to the role of Madrasahs and the high dropout rate?

LEE: The drop-out rate is a separate issue. It's something that we have to resolve but when a child drops out from school, it's often not because he doesn't want to study but he was unable to keep up or the family was unable to provide him the family support. So he couldn't cope in school, so he dropped out. I don't think forcing him to stay in school will help him to pass his exams. And the Madrasah is one of the matters to be considered.

But basically, it's not just Madrasahs. The question is should we or should we not have a certain number of years when every child in Singapore undergoes a national stream education and is socialised and imbued with shared values which help him to make, to become a Singapore citizen.

CNA: That's why some of the proposals have been perhaps half curriculum for Madrasahs and half for full-day at school before you go on...

LEE: These are things to consider. But the suggestion which PM said - how about at least 4 years of national education and beyond and you can work other alternatives if the parents prefer? Is 4 years a right number? Is PSLE a more natural break point? These are things which we have to think over and Aline Wong's got a committee in. We'll see what they come out with.

CNA: Can you offer them any solutions, anything at all at this stage?

LEE: Offer whom?

CNA: The Malay community - I think the fear is that the Madrasahs will..

LEE: The Madrasahs will not disappear. They have a role. We acknowledge this role. The question is what is the correct balance and hour should they fit and how many people would you like to have attending the Madrasahs. How many religious leaders do you needy. These are Issues which the community has to deliberate and decide upon.

CNA: Your political career over the last 15 years has been punctuated by some very major changes, what would you rank as some of the most difficult incidence during that period?

LEE: The most difficult things to do are when I have to make changes which affect a lot of people. And where furthermore, we have been very set for a very long time. It can be economics, like dealing with recession - the first thing I had to do in 1985 and which I've been dealing with again recently. It can be in social or educational policy like adjusting the Chinese Language syllabus, which we did last year, Or it could be breaking new ground or setting a new direction as we're trying to do now in the MAS with monetary policy and with the banking system. The difficulty is not deciding what to do because that you can discuss, deliberate, argue and come to some conclusion. The difficulty is to get people to understand, to accept, to agree, to work things out which will work with them and to work the solution with them.

CNA: What have you learnt during the last 15 years that you would say have been the most valuable lesson?

LEE: There are many lessons It's very hard to distil it down. I think one would be that the more people you involve in working with the solution, the better the solution that we're likely to come up with. We're dealing with people, we're dealing with human beings. They have their worries, they've their concerns. And they have different points of view and these have to be accommodated, worked together and you have to set a direction so that it finally doesn't add up just to zero. That's the first lesson. The second one to compliment that is that you have to develop some quite clear ideas of what you want. Because at the same time as you're developing your consensus and soliciting views, unless you can eventually crystallise them into something definite, something quite simple and clear, you're not going to be able to make progress.

CNA: Now on a larger picture, what do you see your hope and your lavish for Singapore and personally for this coming millennium?

LEE: We wish for brazing times because if it's a totally peaceful, calm ride, it will be difficult for us to maintain that excitement, that challenge, that quickness of response and that sense of adventure for us to keep on climbing up and moving ahead. It live have total chaos and tremendous upheaval, then of course there's a risk that our boat will capsize and we will be in trouble. But if it's just calm seas and fair skies, after a while, we will lose momentum. I think we're not in danger of that. There will be challenges, you do not know what. It makes us the sort of society we are. And if you look at other sockeyes with big land - where you have a small population and great natural wealth - they're more blessed perhaps, but they are different. If we were in that environment, we would not have that pressure, that drive, that sense of always wanting to change something, wanting to get ahead, which I think has made Singapore the exciting place it is.