UN chief toasts Singapore's water strategy

He says know-how can be shared with other water-scarce countries

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon toasting PM Lee with a bottle of Newater at the Istana yesterday. He called it 'something far more valuable' than a glass of wine. -- ST PHOTO: ALPHONSUS CHERN

By Phua Mei Pin & Ben Nadarajan

Singapore's Newater has found a champion in United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, who said that he would recommend the strategy of recycling waste water to other countries suffering from water scarcity.

After visiting the Newater complex in Changi on Friday, Mr Ban told The Straits Times in an interview: 'I was very much impressed by the idea - of recycling waste water to help people have access to safe drinking water.'

He added that 'such Singaporean experience and know-how... should be shared by many countries which have water scarcity problems'.

Mar 8, 2011

AUSSIE FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY

Lessons from Singapore's fair, not welfare, approach

By Noel Pearson

AFTER 10 years looking to North America and Britain for reform inspiration in the fight against poverty, I have come to the conclusion we are looking in the wrong places. There is a country in our own region from which we have more to learn: Singapore.

Standing up for good governance, Mar 4, 2010

For the 5N pupils who have done the 2003 'N' Level Papers. Remember Source A was a speech by Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. Many of you must be wondering who he is and how he looks like. This is a recent interview with him when he came to Singapore to give a lecture. Read about this Nobel Peace Prize winner and his thoughts.

ABLE TALK WITH KOFI ANNAN
By Cheong Suk-Wai, Senior Writer

FORMER United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan was in a Kenyan market recently when he noticed a board on which was scribbled the prices of onions, maize, tomatoes and other vegetables across major African cities. All around him were veggie vendors, mostly women, jabbing their fingers at the board while jabbering into their cellphones as they cut deals with buyers near and far for their produce.

'They'd managed to cut out the middlemen and so I told them they'd set up their own Chicago Board of Trade,' Mr Annan, 71, says, slapping his thigh between hearty chuckles.
The sobering point behind the story, however, concerns poverty in Africa, which has spurred Mr Annan to seek solutions. This son of Kumasi, Ghana, and alumnus of Macalester College, Minnesota, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has set up the Kofi Annan Foundation since retiring as UN secretary-general, so as to champion better policies for the needy, good governance and human rights.

He and his wife, Swedish lawyer and artist Nane Lagergren, were in town till yesterday for his first week-long visit as the first Li Ka Shing Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
Over coffee on Monday, Mr Annan told me of his crisis-fraught career in the UN, why he's hopeful about Africa and how Asia could be a better friend to his countrymen.

What do you miss most about your days in the United Nations?
I left behind many friends and wonderful colleagues. Luckily, I continue to run into some of them. Some, we have also lost tragically, like the head of operations in Haiti and his deputy, who worked with me for many years.

What about the UN work?
Sometimes, one had an opportunity to make a difference like when we got governments to ban land mines; or to come up with the Millennium Development Goals. Most people thought the latter wouldn't happen. But it did.

How did you manage to convince countries they sometimes had to override their sovereignty?

It took quite a long time. I first started thinking about it when we went through (crimes against humanity) in Rwanda and Yugoslavia and raised the issue in 1997. Then I raised it again to the UN General Assembly in 1999. But I was conscious that nothing would happen immediately. The Canadians then took it up... and set up a very good commission, which came up with a report entitled Responsibility To Protect. But when the report came out in 2001, it was too early.

But why so, when the world was already so mired in crises?
Some said we should use the report to push the member states to act immediately. I encouraged them to distribute the report widely - but not push for its adoption until the time was ripe. It was 2005 when I eventually introduced it and we worked hard with the member states to adopt 'responsibility to protect'.

But it was too late for Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Iraq?
Well, we had entered a new millennium and also had time to reflect on some of the conflicts we went through towards the end of the last century... What is interesting about responsibility to protect is that we are telling dictators or leaders, who may allow their people to be brutalised, that sovereignty is no longer a shield. But it is also telling the rest of the world that it too has no excuse: it has to act. So it's two-way pressure.

Which crisis did you find hardest to deal with and why?
The Iraq crisis in 2003 was definitely one of the worst because of the way the coalition decided to go to war without Security Council approval... As secretary-general, you have to try to push and work with the member states to ensure that the right thing is done.
At the same time, you also have the responsibility to try and hold the organisation together and not to do anything that will add to the divisions.

Could you have been more forceful about how wrong the war was?
Well, I needed to act in a manner that was not only responsible but also to a great degree effective. I know that, sometimes, people will say: 'Why didn't you stand on the rooftop and shout?'
Well, that was not the effective way. Your action has to make clear where you or the organisation stand on legal and moral principles, but not create a situation that compounds the difficulties.

Do you believe in fate?
You describe it as fate, but you know it when you've done your best. Nobody can tell you so. You know it and you sleep like a baby.

What hope do you see in Africa that others don't?
The one thing most people see is its rich, natural resources. They also see poverty and an ill-educated population. But there is another Africa, one of bright, young educated men and women. Some have worked overseas, are proud of their continent and countries, and are beginning to return because they want to make a difference.

What persuaded them to do that?
Before the October 2008 global financial crisis, Africa had been growing at the rate of about 5 per cent a year for the past five years. So they saw brighter prospects at home. They were, perhaps, also facing economic retrenchment. And they had sent substantial remittances home to help their relatives and all.

So it's a confluence of these winds of change?
All these good things coming together - yes. And Africa has a robust civil society that is going to keep its politicians on their toes.

How real a turning point is this in Africa?
In my own country, Ghana, the difference between the governing party and the opposition in the last elections was 23,000 votes. But the handover of power went very smoothly. The people, press and civil society were very active in monitoring and ensuring that things went well.

Where do you see yourself in all this?
I like to encourage younger people. We've reached the stage where we need generational change in Africa. That would be extremely healthy and helpful because they will come up with new approaches.
I also want to continue to fight against poverty. That is why I'm now talking to small-scale farmers - most of whom are women - who produce the bulk of the food on the continent. We want to help them all along the value chain - all the way from the farm gate to the market.

Why can't they help themselves?
They don't often have the money to get fertilisers and so they plant year after year without putting anything back (into the soil). They don't have the right seeds or can't afford the right seeds or the right seeds are not available. So they're using very low-yielding old seeds - some as old as 20 years.

You urge Asia to be a better friend to Africa. How can it be a better friend?
Asia can help through sharing some of its best practices, especially in growing small and medium-sized companies, (and by partnering) Africans in business... I also want to see more exchanges of young people between both continents at the university level.

Are there still many psychological and cultural road blocks to teaming up with Africans, do you think?
You're right. Those will always exist between groups, from time immemorial. But human beings have managed to overcome them and work together. We also need the will to interact with mutual respect, in a mutually beneficial way.

But isn't such will what's lacking the most?
It's important for leaders to understand that there's something in it for them and for their people, and if you get the latter engaged, you're likely to get results. The Millennium Development Goals are a good example. The average man in Mumbai, Bugata or Lagos understands what clean water and education for girls mean. They can now also say to their leaders: 'These are the eight (Millennium) goals. What are you doing for me? Come and see my village.'
suk@sph.com.sg

Have you 'poked' your MP today?

Five years ago, the PAP's Penny Low (above) became the first MP to have a blog. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND WEE

Madam Phua tossing yusheng with residents in her Paya Lebar ward on Monday. -- PHOTO: COURTESY OF CYNTHIA CHUA

A photo on Dr Lim's Facebook page of himself and ministers K. Shanmugam and Khaw Boon Wan at a constituency countdown party for 2010. -- PHOTO: COURTESY OF LIM WEE KIAK

Feb 20, 2010

More than half of the 81 PAP Members of Parliament have taken to the social networking site Facebook to complement their online presence. What has their cyber experience been like? Are they still finding their way around or have they got into their stride?

By Zakir Hussain

Enter Web 2.0

ADVANCEMENTS to Internet applications, however, meant websites that leveraged on Web 2.0 technologies - those that allow readers to interact directly with one another and make it easy to produce, publish and share content with little effort - had an advantage over others.

As blogs took off here, Foreign Minister George Yeo became the first Cabinet minister to blog on the sites of two constituency activists in 2006.

Twelve new MPs born after Independence tagged themselves as the post-65ers and started group blog P65.sg to write about their constituency work and discuss topical issues with youth who may not read mainstream media.

The move came after a call by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to new MPs to establish themselves with voters and hold the ground ahead of the next elections, which must be held by February 2012.

Significantly, the blog allowed readers to comment, but soon fell silent as contributions slowed, with some MPs simply posting their parliamentary speeches. It was later relaunched to include a wide range of committed contributors.

But Internet-savvy party members were worried that anti-PAP voices were drowning out the party's views online.

The party began a quiet campaign to get members to go into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views that were rampant.

Still, it lacked an online platform to engage directly with a growing number of netizens on a personal level.

As Facebook, which started in 2004, caught on rapidly in recent years, several MPs began to dabble in it.

Ms Low and Mr Yeo aside, pioneers include Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development, Youth and Sports and Transport Teo Ser Luck, and MPs Zaqy Mohamed of Hong Kah GRC and Lim Wee Kiak of Sembawang GRC.

By comparison, opposition MPs Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim of the Workers' Party (WP) and Mr Chiam See Tong of the Singapore People's Party (SPP) do not have Facebook pages of their own, but have sites managed by their supporters. However, their parties - like the NSP - rely on their websites, which are regularly updated, to get their views across.

As Dr Gillian Koh of the Institute of Policy Studies observes, the opposition is somewhat less trusting of the mainstream media and the key parties have chosen to use the Internet to record speeches in full and give their alternative points of view.

However, they do not seem to directly engage netizens much through their formal sites or blogs.

The situation is different in Facebook pages set up by the WP Youth Wing or Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam, which post regular updates of events and photos of walkabouts and activities.

The SDP is the only opposition party that updates its website almost daily and allows readers to post comments on its main website.

zakirh@sph.com.sg

In good governance, we learnt that the government uses a number of channels such as media, Meet-the-people's sessions, emails and Feedback units to communicate with the citizens. The latest is using web 2.0 technologies such as the social network platforms, for example, Facebook. What are your views about them using the new technologies to engage the citizens? Will this be more effective?

Not perfect, but still a role model

By Tom Davenport

WE OFTEN talk about judgment with regard to individuals, but organisations and countries can have good and bad judgment as well. I was recently in Singapore. Every time I visit, it has struck me as a country with good judgment.

Singapore has just celebrated its 44th birthday as an independent country, and it deserves to congratulate itself (although it rarely engages in self-congratulation - another aspect of good judgment). In fact, I would argue that in many ways, Singapore is a great example for the United States. Why? Here are a few reasons:

Singapore is a hardworking, disciplined country. It decides what it needs to do, and then does it. Every year for National Day, for example, the Government publishes a list of challenges it needs to overcome. This year's list included such bracing issues as: 'How to maintain high economic growth and improve living standards?' and 'How to stamp out new diseases and keep health-care costs down?' There is also the lighter but sociologically problematic challenge of 'How to get younger Singaporeans to marry and have children?' The list of challenges is enormously appealing in its clarity and directness.

Singapore is obsessed with education - not just for children, but throughout life. Another of its declared challenges is: 'How to design job-training programmes and wage supplement schemes for low-income older workers?' The country regularly tops the ranks of educational achievement. While it was once justifiably criticised for emphasising rote learning, it has introduced programmes that encourage creativity.

Singapore is a highly capitalist society, but its Government plays a strong guiding role. Some of the country's smartest citizens go into government. The Government creates industrial policy and actively facilitates growth and capability-building in certain areas. It did a masterful job emphasising information technology (IT) and building up that industry, and now it's actively pushing biotech and services.

For example, in services, the Government wanted to build on organisations with great service like Singapore Airlines and Raffles Hotel. So it encouraged the Singapore Management University to start an Institute for Service Excellence, and stimulated the development of a Customer Satisfaction Index of Singapore that would be applied to all service industries.

Like the US, Singapore is a highly diverse society, with lots of citizens with Chinese, Malay, Indian and Arab backgrounds. Yet they all seem to get along pretty well, and the country's culture is greatly enriched by the diversity. Public housing is ethnically and religiously integrated. Other countries could probably use a version of Singapore's Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which prohibits religious rabble-rousing.

Singapore invests heavily in infrastructure - housing, roads, IT, airport (only one, but Changi Airport is a very impressive facility). About 83 per cent of its citizens live in public housing, but the estates are clean and well-maintained. The country is rolling out a new high-bandwidth fibre-optic network. Buses and subways are clean and run on time.

Singapore's economy is doing pretty well. It does anticipate a decline in gross domestic product of about 5 per cent this year, but there are signs of a strong recovery. Its stock market is booming. Its banks didn't go crazy with sub-prime lending or bizarre derivatives. One economist told me that the Asian financial crisis of 1997 was worse than the current recession for Singapore.

Okay, it's not a Utopian society. The Government is a bit authoritarian for my tastes, but not as much as it was in the days of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the country's first prime minister from 1959 to 1990. The prohibitions against spitting and selling chewing gum are a little much - though I really like the clean streets.

Yes, you may be caned if you misbehave, but that might be better than locking up the world's highest proportion of citizens in jails. I feel that Singapore destroyed much of its interesting architecture in the headlong rush to modernise. And it seems to me that too many of its citizens are obsessed with luxury brands and conspicuous consumption.

These are relatively minor concerns, however, compared to the country's strengths. And many of the seemingly autocratic regulations might be justified by the ethnic diversity and high population density of the country.

Singapore is tiny compared to the US - and most other countries, for that matter. But that doesn't mean it can't be a model. US President Barack Obama keeps saying that we need to buckle down and work hard to build an economy based on real production, not hollow financial chicanery. We need a little more social order, and a little less individualism. Singapore has already pulled off both objectives, and continues to provide a good example of good judgment for the US and the rest of the world.

The writer holds the President's Chair in Information Technology and Management at Babson College, where he also leads the Process Management and Working Knowledge Research Centres. Reprinted with permission from Harvard Business Review.

1. According to the author, in which aspects are Singapore a role model to other countries and in which areas are we 'not perfect' yet?

Geneva of the East, Venice of 21st century

By Tommy Koh

THIS year, Singapore celebrates 50 years of self-government and 44 years of independence. We can be proud of what we have achieved. We should, however, never be complacent. We must continue to strive to build a more perfect Singapore. In that spirit, I would like to share some of my aspirations for Singapore and Singaporeans.

First, I wish we would be less obsessed with money.

I have always heeded my mentor S. Rajaratnam's warning that we should not become a people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I think we are in such danger.

We seem to calculate everything in terms of money. We think that a person's worth is measured by the amount of money he or she makes. We have imitated one of the worst aspects of American capitalism, by paying our senior executives inflated salaries while, at the same time, stagnating the salaries of our middle and lower strata. As a result, Singapore has become a more unequal society than the United States.

I am glad that President SR Nathan recognises annually outstanding members of the professions that do not pay well but contribute enormously to our society - such as teaching, nursing and social work. I also thank the media for showcasing selfless Singaporeans who help the poor and the disadvantaged.

Money is important. We all need enough of it to live in reasonable comfort. But money cannot buy you a happy family, good friends, good health, peace of mind and joy. We should not allow the greed for money to weaken the moral fabric of our nation and to undermine the integrity of some professions, such as law and medicine.

Second, I would like Singaporeans to be kinder and more gracious.

Are we a kind people? I am inclined to say 'yes' when I remember the generosity with which we responded to the victims of the Boxing Day tsunami, Cyclone Nargis and the Sichuan earthquake. I am impressed by the letters in this newspaper thanking Singaporeans for the kindness they have shown strangers.

At the same time, I am shocked by the unkindness of some Singaporeans towards foreign domestic workers and foreign workers generally. As for the reports of wanton cruelty towards animals, I wonder who are these monsters. And as for graciousness, there is much room for improvement in our driving manners and in the way we conduct ourselves in trains, buses and elevators.

Third, I would like Singapore to become the Geneva of the East and the Venice of the 21st century.

Singapore can become a diplomatic centre like Geneva. It is a comfortable, efficient and secure venue.

Venice existed as a city state for nearly 800 years. One of the reasons for its longevity was that it welcomed talented people from different countries and civilisations. In the same way, Singapore should continue to welcome the talented from all nations. It can also act as a facilitator of inter-faith and inter-civilisational dialogue.

Fourth, Singapore can be the cultural hub of South-east Asia.

It has the best cultural infrastructure in the region. Because of its small size and short history, it has no choice but to collect, research and display the heritage of the region. As a result, we have the best collection of the visual arts of South-east Asia, of the 19th and 20th centuries. When the new National Art Gallery opens, it will showcase this collection.

Singapore can also serve a larger region. It can bring together the civilisations of South-east Asia, North-east Asia, South Asia and West Asia. The Asian Civilisations Museum is a symbol of our aspiration to be an exemplar of the Asian cultural renaissance.

Fifth, Singapore can be Asia's greenest city.

It is already Asia's greenest in the physical sense. It is green too in its policies on water, sanitation, air pollution, land use and transportation. But Singapore can and should do even better.

There is room for improvement in the efficient use of energy. We should progressively phase out incandescent light bulbs in favour of energy-saving bulbs. We should emulate the examples of Japan and the US to encourage car-owners to switch to hybrid vehicles. We should follow the example of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to require commercial establishments to separate food waste from other waste for recycling.

We could be more energetic in promoting renewable energy. We should consider adopting Hong Kong's rule that no building below the age of 50 can be the object of an en bloc sale. We should develop Singapore as a centre for the financing of green business and technology.

Sixth, I would like Singapore to become an intellectual centre.

We are making progress. The National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University are already recognised as world-class universities. I am confident the Singapore Management University will soon join them.

Our schools, polytechnics and arts colleges are much admired. As a result, Singapore is attracting many foreign students. Our think-tanks are expanding in quantity and quality. There has been a quantum leap in the percentage of our GDP that is invested in research and development. Our respect for learning is growing. What more can we do?

I would suggest three things: more funds for research in the social sciences and humanities; greater willingness on the part of the Government to release official data to and de-classify documents for researchers; and a stronger culture of tolerance for alternative and dissenting views.

Those of us who attended this year's National Day Parade were inspired and moved. Sitting at Marina Bay, I could feel the spirit of our people - their unity, resilience and optimism.

Majulah Singapura!

The writer is chairman of the Institute of Policy Studies. Think-Tank is a weekly column rotated among eight leading figures in Singapore's tertiary and research institutions. An earlier version of the above essay was part of an address to Raffles Institution on the occasion of its 186th Founder's Day.

Singapore's green trump card

Making Republic a 'First World oasis' helped woo investors, says MM Lee

By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent

MM Lee (right) explained why the greening of Singapore was a top priority after independence, during a dialogue yesterday moderated by Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh. The open conversation and dinner marking the 150th anniversary of the Botanic Gardens raised $550,000, which will go towards scholarships for budding botanists and horticulturalists. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND WEE

SPRUCING up and greening Singapore with trees all over the island was a key economic strategy from Day One, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said last night.

In order to differentiate the country from its larger neighbours, one of his first tasks on becoming Prime Minister was to develop a Garden City with good infrastructure and telecommunications.

To woo investors from developed countries, 'we had to make this a First World oasis in a Third World region', he told some 600 guests from the public and private sectors, non-governmental organisations and the landscape and horticulture industry at a dinner marking the Botanic Gardens' 150th anniversary.

MM Lee took part in a dialogue at the event on the greening of Singapore, moderated by Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh.

Professor Koh asked him at the start of the hour-long dialogue why cleaning up 'dirty and smelly' Singapore was a priority when it faced numerous other challenges upon gaining independence in 1965.

'It was part of a bigger plan. After we were asked to leave Malaya, we had to work out a strategy which would allow a little island dependent on Malaya for its hinterland to survive,' MM Lee said.

What could be done immediately was 'to show investors that this was a well-organised place', he said of what was effectively Singapore's secret weapon.

Coming from the airport into town, they would pass by lush greenery, and when they visited him in the Istana, they would see well-maintained lawns and shrubs.

'So without having to tell anything to the chief executive officer, I knew he would understand that when I say we will deliver, he knows we can deliver; that this is a country where the administration works, where there is a system,' he said.

The fact is, he added with a laugh, 'you can't just plant a tree and walk away. The tree will die'.

'You need tree doctors, you need to understand what soil and how much sunlight it requires. You put it under a flyover and you got to get forest shrubs that grow in shaded areas,' he explained.

'It's a very complex thing that all people who run big organisations will understand,' said the man who personally oversaw the greening process here.

He credited the British colonial administration for having 'done the basics' which Singapore's landscape architects and park managers were able to build on.

Indeed, it was under British rule that the Botanic Gardens first started life in 1859, as a venue for flower shows and later where rubber was first cultivated.

Today it is one of Singapore's top tourist attractions and a premier institution for botanical research, said National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan at last night's event.

The dinner and dialogue with MM Lee raised $550,000 which will go towards scholarships for Singapore's future botanists and horticulturalists.

Guests last night also paid tribute to MM Lee's role in greening Singapore. Prof Koh said former National Parks chief executive Tan Wee Kiat, who was at the dinner, told him that he must have been 'the only gardener in the world who reports directly to the PM'.

MM Lee stressed that planting and maintaining trees and parks was 'the easy part'.

The tough part, once all the infrastructure was in place, was 'to get people to change from Third World to First World behaviour'.

This led to 'endless campaigns' to tell people 'not to bring chickens and pigs into high-rise (buildings), not to pee in elevators' and above all, he joked, 'not to steal the plants'.

It took 30 or 40 years, but finally Singapore has reached the stage where its people feel a sense of ownership for the environment, he said.

'It took some time to get them to understand (that) if you keep your environment nice and clean, your property values go up; if your environment is scruffy and dirty, then when you want to sell the flat, the price is down.'

MM Lee was so exercised by the 'Clean and Green' campaign that he told Mr Goh Chok Tong, upon handing over the reins as Prime Minister in 1990, that 'if you lose interest in this, (Singapore) will go back to the bad old days'. 

clare@sph.com.sg

This is really a very good article that touches on what we learnt in both Geography and Social Studies. Remember what we learnt under 'factors affecting uneven development', we conclude that colonialism can be both positive and negative. In this article, MM Lee has given credit to the British colonial power for planning the infrastructure as basic foundation for us. We also understand that government is also one key factor in determining the pace of development of a country.

I've a few questions for you to ponder:

1. Why do you think that 'Sprucing up and greening Singapore with trees all over the island was a key economic strategy' for Singapore when we gained independence? 

2. Why do you think it is difficult for the government 'to get people to change from Third World to First World behaviour' ?

Do write your comments under 'comment'. Looking forward to hear from you.

S'pore's meritocratic edge

MM Lee spoke during the lecture yesterday about how Singapore had to compete and survive in an ever-changing world. -- ST PHOTO: LAU FOOK KONG

April 10, 2009
S. RAJARATNAM LECTURE

Cohesive, multiracial and alert to vulnerabilities are crucial traits, says MM
By Zakir Hussain, Political Correspondent

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has urged Singaporeans not to delude themselves that they are a part of the First World in South-east Asia.

Singapore is situated in a region with 'special features' which makes it particularly vulnerable, so to keep its competitive edge and be relevant to the world, it must stay a cohesive, multiracial, multireligious nation based on meritocracy, he said.

'Our region has its own special features. Singapore's destiny would be very different if we were sited in Europe or North America.

'We cannot transplant our island elsewhere. Therefore, a recurrent issue for Singapore is how to differentiate ourselves from our neighbours in order to compete and survive, and also get along with them,' he said.

Mr Lee made these points in a prepared lecture to 500 Foreign Service officers, diplomats, and guests at the annual S. Rajaratnam Lecture, an event organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic Academy and named after Singapore's first foreign minister.

Highlighting the fundamentals of Singapore's foreign policy, he said that as a small country, Singapore 'must seek a maximum number of friends, while maintaining the freedom to be itself as a sovereign and independent nation'.

To survive, it must stay relevant to the world, find its competitive edge, and rise above geographical and resource constraints.

'Had we disported ourselves like our better-endowed neighbours, we would have failed,' he said.
While time and working together in Asean had worn down many of the 'sharper edges' in Singapore's relations with its immediate neighbours, certain fundamental vulnerabilities remain, and successor generations of Singaporeans must not forget these, he said.

He elaborated on the 'complexities' of Singapore's relations with its neighbours, in particular those caused by differences between their political and social systems.

Why S'poreans must work hard

In giving this dose of reality, Mr Lee also strived to assure his youthful audience that their goals and aspirations can come true in Singapore. -- PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO

Bhutan has a yardstick for measuring success which some youth here yearn to have in place of Singapore's relentless pursuit of economic growth.

It was a longing that struck a chord in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday, but he was quick to explain why Bhutan's Gross National Happiness index was not suitable for Singapore.

'We are one small island in the middle of a very turbulent South-east Asia. You have to watch your GDP (gross domestic product), because if you are poor, you will be weak; if you are weak, something will happen to you,' he said.

He gave this gentle warning to graduate student Chong Kwek Yan, 25, who posed the question at a dialogue Mr Lee had with 150 students and professionals.

The Prime Minister then set out for his audience of 17- to 35-year- olds the overriding challenges facing Singapore in the short, medium and long term.

In the present economic crisis, Singapore's most urgent concern is to keep the economy humming along and to look after the low-income earners.

In the medium term, it needs to focus on how to produce enough Singaporean babies and attract foreign talent. For the long term, Singapore has to renew its political leadership and build up a sense of identity.

But in giving this dose of reality, the 56-year-old Prime Minister also strived to assure his youthful audience that their goals and aspirations can come true in Singapore.

The 80-minute dialogue, an annual event, was organised by the National Youth Council.

Although political issues such as political expression and succession held sway at the start of the session, many were also anxious over what they see as the high cost of living here.

Ms Sonia Ong, 26, director of a public relations firm, said the maid levy and heavy taxes here were making her wonder whether she might be better off in Hong Kong.

Mr Lee pointed out that total taxes here, at 15per cent of GDP, were 'very, very low'.

'For nearly everybody in this room, if you were in Hong Kong, you would pay more tax than you would personal taxes.'

He added: 'The trouble is our taxes come in places where you notice...so you drive less or think about whether you really need a maid.'

Indeed, owning a car has become too costly, especially for the middle class, some felt.

But Mr Lee was swift to point out that in charging drivers for using rather than owning a car, ownership has become much cheaper, which is why so many more cars are on the road.

He also highlighted how the middle-income group is also benefiting from government policies which help ensure that its earners' wages go up yearly.

On economic competitiveness, he cautioned against going down the road of Germany, which had a generous welfare scheme that gave workers six weeks of vacation. The result was that factories moved to former communist countries such as Hungary and Romania. Similarly, Singapore faces a region in which people in India, China and Vietnam are working harder. 'If we want to sweat less, are we going to be up there?' he said.

Mr Lee agreed with lawyer Leon Yee, 32, who noted that, unlike Singapore, Hong Kong can more immediately tap a Greater China hinterland.

Mr Lee said: 'That is a reason we need to work harder, because we don't have China next door which can rescue us, help us or defend us.

'We are Singapore. We are one country on our own.'

chinlian@sph.com.sg

When some of you are wondering why you need to work so hard, the answer is in the article above. We've discussed many times, Singapore has nothing except human resource. In order to survive as a nation or as an individual, we've to build up our human resource. On the other hand, Bhutan has very different goals. Do read up about this very interesting and beautiful country. The country measures success by looking at the gross national happiness instead of gross national product. Find out why they want to use such an index and how they can do it? Bhutan has always been an exotic country I really want to visit. I guess next June's travel destination is decided...