SM Lee Hsien Loong at the NUS120 Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum 2025 Q&A

Kai Xiang, NUS Year 2, Political Science: Thank you Senior Minister Lee and Associate Professor Leong Ching for the insightful dialogue. I would like to ask, given the evolving demographics in Singapore due to generational shifts and increasing aspirations as we become a developed nation, how can the government through initiatives such as SG101, encourage collaboration among Singaporeans, to safeguard our national identity. Thank you.

Q: Hi Senior Minister, Prof Leong Ching. I hope you enjoyed your trip to Japan. Anyway, my question is, how can we ensure that Singaporean youths feel a sense of belonging in their own country, especially as they pursue aspirations in the global market and foster a connection that reminds them that Singapore will always be home. Thank you.

Q: Good evening, Senior Minister Lee and Prof Leong Ching. Thank you for taking the time to come down and speak with us. I would like to ask, how can Singapore balance economic growth with social equity to ensure that all segments of Singapore, including the disadvantaged, have a fair opportunity to thrive and contribute to the nation's success. Thank you.

SM Lee Hsien Loong: I will take these three questions. First, how do we encourage collaboration to safeguard or strengthen our national identity. I think we are doing it in a lot of ways. PM had this Forward SG initiative which involved a lot of Singaporeans. We have any number of volunteering opportunities and service opportunities, including participating in all kinds of campus activities. Basically, roll up your sleeves and do something. Giving feedback is useful. Sharing views and discussions is good. Attending dialogues is good – and I am very happy you came – but I hope that beyond listening and tracking what is happening, you will decide there are some things you want to do, some ways you want to make Singapore better.

Let us get together with your friends and do something about it. It can be cleaning the beach. It can be greening the environment. It can be doing social work, taking care of down and outs. It can be promoting entrepreneurialism − any number of issues, but be committed, do something, make Singapore better.

In doing it, you will find that you will feel yourself belonging to this place. Otherwise, if you just sit there, you will be asking yourself, “Why do I feel I belong to this place? I could be sitting anywhere.” But if I am doing something here, that is where home is.

So that also answers the second question. How to help you to feel a sense of belonging? This is your home. You have got to make it your home. It is up to us to make us feel that this is where we want to be. By being good to one another, by working together and by being able to show the world that in Singapore, we know how to live in a way that lets the human spirit flourish.

It is not so easy. It is not in so many places that you can expect from the moment you get born, pre-schools, infant care, are available, schools are good, post-secondary education − there are many opportunities, and if you work hard, you have a chance of getting ahead. That really is quite unusual in the world, even today. That is something available in Singapore. You have to work hard to do well, but if Singapore were only a place where you could relax and prosper, I think it would not be a happy place. How to feel belonging? I think own this place and make a difference to it.

How to balance growth and social equity? Actually, you need growth if you are going to have social equity. But you need to use the growth in order to benefit a wide range of Singaporeans so that their lives can improve. If you do not have growth − you just talk about making a more inclusive and more equal society − the only way to make people who are not doing well do better, is to take resources from people who are doing better than them. In other words, it is a zero-sum game. What I give to one person I must take from another person. It becomes a very unhappy exercise. Societies which are in that state, for some time the Europeans were; the Americans are not but they feel as if they are in that state; it is a very unhappy society. You must have growth, then you have resources. Then you can do something with it. Lives can improve, and the Government can take some of the resources to help those who need more help. As lives improve, as opportunities are created, Singaporeans can help themselves seize those opportunities and move ahead.

I do not see that as a contradiction. We want to grow. I think it is hard enough to get the growth we can. Do not ask ourselves, maybe less growth will be better. No, I do not believe that. Go for what we can and make the most of what we have.

Moderator (Associate Professor Leong Ching): We need to get the firepower to distribute rather than...

SM Lee: You can call it firepower, but basically you must have resources. You want houses right? Somebody has to pay for your homes. You want good healthcare. Somebody must build the hospitals and all the equipment, and the doctors. If you want good education, where do you think all the schools come from with audio visual labs and computer classes and robotics options, and overseas exposure opportunities? You need resources to do good for people. Singapore’s great good fortune is that for many years, we have grown very rapidly. Today we have vastly more resources than we did 60 years ago, and we have made good use of it, and we have benefited a lot of Singaporeans very broadly. I think that is how we have to continue to do it.

Henry, NUS MBA: Thank you SM Lee and Prof Leong Ching for the wonderful dialogue. My question is, I think in your last May Day Rally speech, you mentioned that Singapore as a small country must have an exceptional political system in order for it to continue being successful. I think being successful is very important for Singapore to keep on attracting local or overseas talents. My question is, how can Singapore continue to have an exceptional political system? What are the safeguards in place, and also what other key systems that must be exceptional for Singapore to be exceptional. Thank you.

Q: Thank you Senior Minister Lee. My question is given that the Elected Presidency is something that the government views as an evolving institution, is there an end state that in your view we are heading towards or an end goal for what it should be? And do you possibly foresee reverting back to its original symbolic role and elected by Parliament?

Q: Thank you NUSSPA for the opportunity, and thank you Senior Minister Lee. My question is about the topic that you touched on. Given that you have successfully led the Red Dot through the Great Recession around 2007, as well as similar trade wars and based on the current economic affairs, do you think the worst is over or is it yet to come? What should we as individuals do differently and collectively [to] overcome the situation?

SM Lee: Three very difficult questions. Exceptional political system, how to sustain? Get good people into politics. Vote for good people to be your Members of Parliament and to be your Ministers, and work with them to make the country better. I think it is as simple as that. If you cannot have good people in politics or good people cannot get elected, or they are elected and they cannot get things done − then I think the country cannot function the way it has done.

If you look at the newspapers over the last two weeks. Just within our region, from quite close neighbours to slightly further away neighbours, to neighbours even further away. How many riots have you seen? How many changes of Ministers have you seen? How many changes of Prime Ministers have you seen?

I was visiting somewhere recently, and an old man (about) 90-years old said to me: “You have met many of our leaders over the years”. I said yeah, 10 over 40 years. He said: “Tell me about them one by one”. So I gave him my impressions of some of them.

Japan is a country which works, and yet, is it fulfilling its full potential? It is very difficult to say. Because when leaders change over rapidly, it is very difficult for you to have the time to make big changes, important policies, move people, and leave a lasting mark. And because you have not had time to leave a lasting mark, then the next person comes in and he has a hard time and well the country still works, but in big countries, sometimes politics is like that.

In a small country, if politics is like that – you can look at some other small countries which are like that; and in fact just yesterday, there was another small country where the Prime Minister changed in South Asia − I think Singapore will be finished. So what do you need? You need good people; you need the voters to understand that, and you need a sense of mission.

So good people come in, they do not say, “I am capable, I take advantage. Well, it is my opportunity to be the boss”. It is your opportunity to be the chief slave to help look after the country, so that you can hand it over and it is better. Does politics work like that elsewhere? At very few places. But in Singapore, we have made it work like that for quite long, and I think we should try and keep it like that for as long as possible.

What else has to work in order for this to became possible? I think you need a society where we all feel that we are Singaporeans together. You have that national identity to grow. I talked about race language and religion. If you divide along race, language and religious lines, and the country is split, you cannot have good government, and you cannot have good economic growth. You cannot have a more just and equal society − it is impossible. You have to be united as one Singapore.

It is not just race, language and religious lines. You could be divided by social class; because the people who are down and out, see no hope getting up; the people who are doing well, see no reason to pay attention to those who are not doing so well; and you may be all carrying the same red passport, but you are really living in different worlds, and not really feeling much connection to one another. There are countries which are very much like that too, including in our part of the world.

We cannot afford to be that. You have to be quite a united society where everybody feels a stake, everybody feels that the country is working for it. Then you can have politics which works well. That depends on a lot of people feeling that I have done quite good out of this system − I have a responsibility to help this system work better and to help more people succeed like me.

I would say everybody who is in this room counts as someone who has done not badly out of the Singapore system. You have benefited from it. You are continuing to benefit from it. And you rely on it working so that in your working life, in your adult life, you will have a society which is happy, which you can live in and be proud of. That is an exceptional political system.

Moderator: SM, the exceptional political system requires the exceptional voter.

SM Lee: It requires exceptionally sensible voters and responsible voters. It is not so easy.

Moderator: And it is not that common.

SM Lee: It is not common. If life is bad and if the system has let them down, the voter will say, “Why should I care? My life has not improved. Let us just pull the house down and start again”, which is where I think some American voters are, and one of the reasons for the strong passions which you see in American politics today. So that is one.

The Elected Presidency, will it continue evolving – I think, yes. I think the shape is now, more or less what it needs to be. I do not think there will ever be an end state because the world changes, Singapore changes, and you have to keep on adjusting, adapting, and evolving. But the philosophy of it - that the government, that the Prime Minister and his cabinet, is the executive and runs the country, and the President, he is the safeguard, he is the second key, he just makes sure that the reserves are protected and key appointments are protected. It is some safeguard against things going very wrong. I think that basic design is good, and we have made a lot of tweaks to it. I am sure we will continue to adjust it from time to time, but it is about there.

I do not think there is any likelihood that we will revert to the ceremonial Presidency and the Prime Minister and his team flying without having the second key safeguard. It has proved good, and I see no reason why you want to go back to the status quo ante. Other than somebody saying, “I do not want anybody over watching me, I do not want anybody keeping an eye on me. I want to do whatever I want to do”. I think if somebody wants to do that, you have to ask him, “Why do you not want anybody to backstop you? What are you planning to do? And can I entrust my future to you?” It is a very serious question.

Thirdly, the global financial crisis that was about 15 years ago, the trade war that started not in April, but probably 5-10 years ago, but in April this year, with the Trump Administration, he ratcheted it up with what he called “Liberation Day”. Is the worst over – I do not think that is a right way to look at it. I think it means the good and the calm period before the Americans changed their approach to trade, to their global role in the world − that is over. Whoever is the next US president, whichever party forms the next US Administration, it is not going to go back to where we were in the days when Bill Clinton was the President, or Barack Obama was the President, or Joe Biden was the President. It has changed.

From the point of view of a small country, this is a change which makes the world a lot more uncertain and complicated, and you have to understand that. It does not mean the world has come to an end. It means that life will be more unpredictable; there will be more arbitrariness in the international system; there will be less trade, less cross-border investments, and less prosperity. There will be more tensions; there will be more frictions; there will be more unpredictable troubles; and we have to be more alert and ready to nimbly get out of the way when trouble heads in our direction. Also to be able to work with other countries who are in similar situation − quite small, who want to look after their peoples, who do not want to get involved to the extent that they can with the great power conflicts − and work with them to try to co-operate, and we try and be peaceful together and prosper together. We cannot solve all our problems, but we can make the problems somewhat less. That is possible.

So the issue is not over. It will not go away soon and we have to understand that, and have the fortitude. In this one respect you can say your parents grew up in a more peaceful time, and you are growing up and now you have got more advanced iPhones, you have got more gadgets, and you have got more opportunities. But at the same time, it is a more troubled world, and it is your fortune or misfortune to live in very interesting times.

Leroy, NTU Year 2, Econs and Data Science: With the opening of the 15th Parliament, I believe we have more female MPs than ever before in all of our previous Parliaments. However, on the flip side, I do realise that our current Cabinet has only three female ministers. My question is, what do you envision is the future of gender equality in our political system?

Shan Felix, NUS Year 1, Mechanical Engineering: In light of global trends seen in countries in a lot of the world, including most of Europe, US, Japan, Australia, Canada, which grapple with social fragmentation, immigration, populism, budgetary constraints, political polarisation, economic uncertainty and tension with globalisation and national identity, where in some cases have led to political crisis. France, for example, Prime Minister François Bayrou was defeated yesterday in a motion of no confidence after he called controversial motion, where he presented a controversial budget plan which includes austerity measures in response to ballooning debt to GDP ratio, leading to the fifth Prime Minister in two years. On Sunday, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba resigned, pressured by his own party after a trade deal negotiated with the US and two consecutive election defeats. How can Singapore adapt its social policies, political system and approach to immigration to ensure its social fabric remains strong, its political system stable, and its distinct national identity is preserved for future generations?

Wei Nan, NUS Graduate Year 1, LKYSPP: Good evening Senior Minister Lee and Professor Leong. My name is Wei Nan, I am from China. I have been studying in Singapore for one month, and I was deeply impressed by how efficient and well-organised this society is. As an international student studying public policy in Singapore, I want to learn more about Singapore's approach to policy-making and problem solving. My question is, how do the scholars in Singapore give advice to the Government? How does the Government take their advice? Could you please share a little case study or interesting story about this progress?

SM Lee: First, what is the future of gender equality? I hope there is more equality. I think we have come quite a long way. We have got about one third of MPs now female. It has made a big difference to the debate in the House – the issues which are raised, the quality of the debate. I think the range of perspectives which are aired, the women add something which you can add two or three more men, but they cannot make up for the woman's voice. You need that. We would like more. It depends who comes forward, it depends who gets elected. But we will keep on trying, and I hope the numbers will keep on growing.

Similarly, within Cabinet. We do not have a quota. Some countries believe in quotas. They have quotas for MPs. They may aim for a certain proportion in Cabinet. They aim for a certain proportion on company boards. I do not think quotas are the right way to go about it. I think we go on merit, but we work very hard to identify women who are qualified, suitable, and encourage them to come forward. It will be easier for us to do that if their partners, husbands are supportive, carry their share of the household responsibilities, and are prepared to see their women − their wives − do well and progress and be proud of their spouses. It is a social thing.

I can tell you that it is harder for a woman to be an MP than it is for a man to be an MP, because the expectations on her are higher. Her home responsibilities probably are heavier, and she walks a very tight tightrope, because if she is aggressive, they will say, “Wah, so fierce”. If she is gentle, they say, “小姐”. So it is very difficult, and our women have felt that, but they have come forward. We are proud of them, and I hope they encourage more to come forward. I hope, with the right policies and on the right side.

Social fragmentation – how to keep the social fabric strong? Well, first, have a good Government. Secondly, have policies which will make sure that everybody can benefit, and all the segments feel that they are represented, and their interests are taken care of. But it is not just material interests − having enough income, having jobs and a better life − but also that you have a place where you are respected and people treat you with pride and do not look down upon you. Life is not just about dollars and cents. It is also about your pride in yourself and your sense that other people have respect for you, and treat you as an equal member of society. I think it is very important for us to do that.

That is why we encourage a hawker centre culture. It is one of the forums where Singaporeans – you may be rich, you may be poor, you may be in a five-room flat, you may be in a rental – but all of you go to the hawker centre. You all mingle. You all sit down at the same tables. You all have to clear your trays at the end. There is a certain egalitarian-ness about it, and there is a certain egalitarian-ness about Singapore society. Somebody comes up to the Prime Minister. He can be a Minister, he can be a businessman, he or she can be a student, she can be the cleaner at the restaurant or the hawker centre. There will not be scraping and bowing. You just say “总理” or “PM”, and then they will say what they want to say, and you listen to them and you will respond. You do not expect it to be a relationship where he touches his forehead and you sort of extend your palm to be kissed. Some societies are still like that. Singapore cannot become like that.

I think immigration is a reality in Singapore. Foreign workers are a reality in Singapore. It generates tensions, difficulties, inconveniences, awkwardness, and yet you cannot not do it. We have to work with people − the Singaporeans, as well as the people who are here working, or the people who are immigrating here − in order to smooth these likely friction points and to try our best to make it work.

The question on our Government being efficient. I think there are many areas where we can still do better, so we are not congratulating ourselves. How do scholars advise the Government and how does the Government listen? I think the answer is, we would very much encourage scholars to participate − analysing issues, discussing national problems, and putting up proposals. The Government is always open to ideas, and where possible, we will also commission studies from the university. For example, the Institute of Policy Studies does all kinds of surveys and research, and they publish (them) and you can read them quite often online and in the public media. It is an important resource.

Frankly I would say in Singapore it does not happen enough. Because if you publish on the Chinese economy, there is a big market domestically and a lot of people will read you. Internationally, at least until recently, a lot of people were very interested in how the Chinese economy is thriving and how it works. If you publish on the Singapore economy, domestically the readership is not so huge. Internationally, people consider us interesting, but we are not top of mind. So it is harder to make an academic career becoming an expert in Singapore, than it is becoming an expert in China or India or the US. And yet we need people who are expert in Singapore, who are not in the Government. So that is something we keep on working on, and which we remind the university President regularly, and he is working at it too.

Meng Ge, NUS: Mr Lee, you often say that young people today have much better conditions and should not 躺平. But in the past, although the life was harder, maybe there were much more low-hanging fruits. Now it feels like opportunities are fewer and competition is much stronger since many industries are already well established and everyone is well-educated now. My question is, do you think young people today actually face fewer opportunities and much stronger competition than [the] last generation, and what can we do to deal with that? Thank you.

Q: Thank you SM Lee and Prof Leong. On the topic of identity today, who we think we are shapes what we do, and I think the reverse also holds. What we do also forges who we think we are. So my question is, what are some things that worked in Singapore in the past that we should keep on doing, and what are some things in the past that should be reformed or left behind? Thank you.

Miranda, NUS Year 1, LKYSPP MPP: As a foreigner living in Singapore, of course, we want to learn something from the Singaporean identity and the values that you uphold here. In your opinion, what is the one thing that we should always remember about the Singaporean identity and value that you hope we always bring with us wherever we go next, or if we choose to go home to our home countries?

SM Lee: First of all, is life harder now than before? I think the competition is more visible. If you are in China, they call it 内卷. That means excessive, intensive competition. Hence you have 9-6-6 – 9am to 9pm, 6 days of the week − as well as 24/7. There is fierce competition. The opportunities are there. It is not true that there are no more ideas waiting to be exploited. Just in the last few years, AI suddenly has become hot and exciting. DeepMind, DeepSeek – these are things which five years ago, neither you or I would readily have known about. But it has suddenly come up, and I do not think that is the end of progress.

The opportunities are there. You have to work at it. Others are also competitive and capable and well-educated, but you have options. Well, you are quite young, so in your parents’ generation, I think the living conditions − definitely, prosperity-wise, the level was much lower. Opportunities, education-wise, fewer were able to go to university. And now, you are able to do things your parents could never dream of doing. Now people say, “I am going to do a gap year”. I never knew what a gap year was. None of my generation thought like that. People say, “I got a long weekend, I am off to Phuket or Bali or Hong Kong, or maybe somewhere further away. Spend two or three days of chill, work-life balance.” Well, work-life balance is important, sometimes you should chill. But these are things, options, which you have, which your parents did not have. With nothing, they could build. With all this, please do something. You can do it.

National identity – what we do affects our identity. That is very true. The way we have built this society, the way we have socialised our young, the way we have brought different groups together and got people to compromise and work with one another and to give and take; to know that this is not a Christian society, it is not a Muslim society, it is not a Buddhist society. And therefore, you operate in a different way than you would if you were in Thailand, or you were in the Middle East, or you were somewhere in Europe. I think these are adjustments which have helped Singaporeans to become what they are and made us more strongly Singaporean.

That is why Singaporeans are recognisably so. And when you see one, you see him overseas, you kind of know he is one before he opens his mouth. Just by looking at him, the way he carries himself, the way he interacts with other people, there is something distinctive about him. It comes from us having lived together and having made the accommodations and become similar to one another. And it is something which we should keep on doing.

That is why a Chinese Singaporean is different from a Chinese from China. Likewise for an Indian Singaporean. Likewise for a Malay Singaporean. And they will still – Chinese, Indian, or Malay Singaporean – still have different perspectives, not quite identical ways of looking at the world. But what they have in common is important and is growing, and we have to keep on doing that.

SM Lee: What should we do different? Well, one thing which people ask us to do different, and we have not decided to do, is to say, “Let us pretend that we are all the same.” And say, “I will not ask whether you are Malay or Chinese or Indian, I will not ask whether you are Muslim or Buddhist or whatever, and I will just treat you as Singaporean, and I will collect data from Singaporeans on how are you doing, and then I will gloss over these differences.” We have not gone that way because we do not believe it works. The French have tried that, it has not worked well for them. And if we do not acknowledge the reality of the differences, I think we only push the problem under the surface.

I think over the years, we have made adjustments which have in fact gone the other way, in order to allow people to express themselves more in their ethnic religious identities, rather than less, and to acknowledge that we are different from one another, which previously, I think sometimes we would not do. For example, on NRICs, we encourage you, you can put your name down in your original script, whether it is Chinese or Tamil. Or you want to do it in Jawi, you can do that.

It is an acknowledgement that I cannot force you into one mould, and I do not want to force you into one mould. I think we have to keep on making that adjustment, that balance, and sometimes we want to push a bit more towards accommodation, accommodating differences. Sometimes we want to say, let us try to be a bit less spiky in our differences.

Moderator: So it is balance between the common space–

SM Lee: It is always a balance.

Moderator: What about Singapore that we would like international students to bring home with them, or what about the Singapore identity?

SM Lee: Well, I think I would like you to think that this is a place which is not bad, but trying to get better. I would not like you to think that this is a place which has solved all its problems and this is how the world should be. I mean, even for Singapore, we have not solved all of our own problems, much less solved other people's problems, but we are doing not bad.

Moderator: That is such a Singaporean answer, SM.

SM Lee: No, that is a very important part of being Singaporean. Because if you do not think that you can do better, and you do not try to do better, then I think you stop improving.

Sanjay, Computer Science and Maths: Increasingly, in Singapore, we are seeing English become the dominant language. Is it still important for us to study Chinese, Malay and Tamil? What kind of ballast do studying these languages give us in the modern world, and how can we create a strong language environment for the next generation and for my generation as well. Thank you very much.

Theo, VJC Year 1: Good evening, Senior Minister Lee and Prof Leong. I appreciate the sharing that each era has a crisis of its own. So my question is in relation to that. Regarding the driverless car in Singapore debate, where there is a dilemma where if a car swerves and saves the driver but kills a pedestrian, or does it swerve and save the pedestrian but hurt the driver. What are the long-term solutions regarding this that can save Singapore's fabric and is viable in long term.

Brian, NUS Year 1, Political Science: Evening, Senior Minister Lee and Professor Leong. With the rollout of the Culture Pass in celebration of SG60, what other relevant conservation efforts do you think we should be taking to keep the culture and art scenes alive, especially with the globalisation and the homogenisation of personal identities?

SM Lee: I think [language] is part of our identity. I mean, part of me is that I do not just speak English, but I understand Chinese, I speak Chinese. As it so happens I understand Malay, I speak some Malay. And it anchors me. I do not feel I am a second-class English speaker − I go overseas, people say, “Oh, wow, your English so good". Pat you on the head. I am Singaporean, I am not American, I am not British, I am not Australian. I speak English as my working language, but I am Singaporean, and there is a certain culture and heritage which I belong to, and the language is an important part of it. My Mandarin is not as fluent as my English, even though I went to Chinese school, but it is something which I have tried to keep alive, and work at keeping alive, and which is an important part of me.

And we hope that for a new generation learning their mother tongues in an environment where, in fact, their working language from a very young age is not their mother tongue, from the time they go to school, this will help them to keep some of this cultural identity and ballast. And I think it does work, at least for people who are now young adults, it has worked. They learnt in school – they probably struggled, probably grumbled and complained about the difficulties of learning the mother tongue. But something went in, and then later on, when they become adults, and they go to work in Greater China or in the region, they find that there is something there which they can build upon, and they become fluent, and some of them are even capable of negotiating contracts not in English.

So there is practical use, but actually there is also important psychological significance to knowing your mother tongue. I know who I am and where I trace my ancestors to in many generations and what culture they have handed down. And I have kept some of it, even as I have been influenced by so many other things in this modern world. So I think it is important. How to keep the language environment? That is the perpetual struggle. One of the things we are trying to do is to make AI chatbots speak to you in your mother tongue, so you can practise a bit more. That can be helpful. I do not know how interesting the chatbot is to chat with. But I think the mother tongue teachers have done a heroic job in the schools, and they deserve all the support and approbation which we can give them.

The question of the driverless car, and if it swerves and hits somebody, who is to be held responsible. These are moral questions, legal questions, economic questions, which will come up when driverless cars come. We are used to thinking in terms of somebody being responsible: Who did this? Whose fault it is? Who should go to jail? If there is a person, you can say, it is all the driver's fault, right? But if there is no person, whose fault it is? Maybe it is nobody's fault – it is just one of those things that happens.

It is something which society has not quite gotten used to accepting, but which is starting to happen already. In China, in America, some cities, driverless taxis are quite common, or driverless hired cars. You get in, you get out. There is no driver. I am sure at some point, some traffic accident will happen, and then there will be soul searching. Xiaomi, a few months ago, had one accident. Three young women died, and it caused an enormous debate in China. Yet if you look at it statistically, a driverless car is probably safer than a driver in the car. He is not likely to get tired, he is not likely to be drunk, he is not likely to be looking at his phone when he is supposed to be driving. There will be flaws, there will be accidents, but statistically, fewer people will die. But when they die, I think the sense of injustice and lack of closure will be very painful. Those are issues which other societies are starting to face, and as driverless cars and other vehicles come to Singapore, which will happen, we will have to deal with them too.

Then the Culture Pass – how do I promote more cultural activities? Well, I suggest you join all the dance, music and cultural performance groups if you are interested in them. But basically, you want a society where people can enjoy the arts and culture. And it does not have to be very high culture, does not have to be avant-garde, does not have to be deep message all the time. It can be a Xinyao concert, it can be a dance or a percussion performance, or it can be just a picnic in a park, and you have some orchestra there giving you popular songs. Enjoy that. Life is more than about just bread and water. I think in Singapore, the cultural scene is more vibrant than before. Sometimes it takes itself more seriously than the rest of us take it. But people have passion, and I say keep on working at it.

Him Ho, NUS MBA: Senior Minister, you mentioned that super rivalry between superpowers, conflicts and wars, might ultimately come back and challenge the Singapore national identity, as well as might expose social divides. My question is like this: At this juncture, do you think the government should develop official rhetoric and educate the people, or instead, this should be an issue for the people to decide and influence the government.

Bang Ying Jie, NUS: This semester, I studied some course about artificial intelligence and robotics, and I found the development of AI and robotics really fast, which may change our current way of life, which also may impact our future employment. May I ask what advice you will give to our young generation, and in the age of AI, what role may Singapore play on the world stage in the future, especially with the globalisation and Singapore's location that you just mentioned?

Jolene, NUS Year 2, Chemistry: Since Singaporeans balance race, religion and nationality differently, what do you think are the most important common values that can hold our identity together in the future?

SM Lee: On superpower rivalry, should we go on official rhetoric or people's influence? I think it should go on a careful assessment of what the national interest is, what makes sense for Singapore, and therefore what stance should Singapore take. You cannot just take it from a bottom-up approach and say, what do people think: Do you think we should side with China, or we should side with America, or we should opt out, or we should do something else, and then expect to have a coherent policy out of it. It does not work like that.

These are issues which have to be thought about carefully, discussed, debated publicly, and eventually the government has to take the lead and say this is the direction we ought to go. The government has to be able to persuade the population that this is a sensible way to do it. It is an interactive process. The population has views, and you have to take those into account. But it cannot just be a bottom-up process, because then you are carried along by the waves of transient sentiments. The transient sentiments can be influenced from outside, from one side or the other side or both sides, and then Singapore will be in a complicated position.

I think the government has a very important role to play. Whatever our internal discussions, when you are dealing externally, I think it is important that you are dealing externally as one Singapore, and people know that this is the Prime Minister of Singapore, speaks with authority for Singapore, and not just speaks for his party or with his personal view, but speaks with authority for Singapore, and can make commitments and decisions on behalf of Singapore. Then they will take him seriously. Because otherwise he goes there and his counterpart makes him a proposition, he says, “Just a moment, let me check my poll to see how many Singaporeans say yes, how many Singaporeans say no”. I think Singapore will be in trouble if that happens.

What advice do I have for young people in the age of AI and robotics? I think the technology is moving very fast. We do not know how the impact will be, but you must be able to master not only some discipline – whether it is engineering or science or computing – but also the ability to keep on learning and using new tools. So that you can adapt as the technology changes and as jobs evolve. You have a new tool, an AI companion to help you write code, you can make use of the AI companion and write faster and better code. You have robotics to run beyond the factory floor, you are able to help to train the robot and to design the workflow so that things can function better.

I think that there will always be something for human beings to do for a very long time to come. When the day [comes] when there is nothing for all of us to do, then we can lie down, and we can all 躺平. But I do not think that is going to come in my lifetime.

On race and religion, what are the common values which we have? This is a very difficult question. Many, many years ago, we embarked on an exercise to try and develop a set of shared values for Singapore. This was about in the late 80s, early 90s, and we did a consultation exercise with a lot of Singaporeans. We had dialogues, we had forums. Eventually we came up with a Paper. If you look up online somewhere, there is a White Paper on shared values, which was tabled in Parliament, and we debated it and kind of endorsed it, and it had items like “society before self”, and “family as a building block of society”, and two or three other key items. I think there were five items there, which were general principles, but at a very general level.

To go beyond that and talk about a codified set of shared values, I think it is very difficult, because the different cultures, the different traditions, the different religions, all have slightly different − and sometimes quite structurally different − views of how values ought to work. They all, I think in Singapore, particularly counsel that we should work with one another, and we should all live in peace and harmony, which is just as well. But in fact, there is quite a wide range of views. What we can say as a core, which I think all Singaporeans ought to endorse, is multiracialism, multiculturalism, and meritocracy – the values which are in the national pledge. Those − you have to have. If you go beyond that − you must believe; you must have self-reliance; you must care for other people; you must be able to work together as one Singapore, whatever our differences, in order to survive as a nation. It is not a comprehensive system of values, much less an ideology, but it is just some basic beliefs that Singaporeans need in order to be able to survive in the world.

Lee Jun, NTU Year 2, Psychology: Senior Minister, throughout your long career, I was wondering if there were any moments that deeply touched you or made you feel an immense sense of pride, and if you could share that with us.

Q: My question is very simple. As Singapore welcomes many ethnic Chinese immigrants from countries like China and Malaysia, how does Singapore government ensure that they will integrate authentically into Singaporean society? In other words, how would this immigration process reshape the construction of national identity of Singapore, and will it be a significant concern of Singapore government?

Chia Ming, NUS Year 1: As Singapore transitions into a new generation of leadership, please may I ask, looking back on your years of leadership, what values or principles do you feel have been most vital in shaping Singapore's identity, and how would you like to see this carried forward and reinterpreted by the next generation of leaders in a rapidly changing world.

SM Lee: I think it is very difficult to say. You live through a crisis like COVID, and you watch the people on the frontline serving, putting their lives at risk and helping others and keeping others safe. You have to take your hat off to them. They do it every day. I visit them once in a while, they are there uncomplaining. Their family has accepted, and you know you can rely upon them. It is this sort of thing which gives you confidence that in a crisis, you can depend on Singaporeans, and it makes you proud of Singaporeans. There are other moments, but I think if you want to ask about recent ones, that is one occasion.

Integrating new immigrants. Many come from China or are ethnic Chinese, but we actually have a mix of immigrants from different sources and different ethnicities, and we try and keep the balance of the ethnic mix in Singapore. We have to integrate them, meaning that we would like them to fit into our society. If they have married into a Singaporean family, that is easier. If they come as a couple or as a family already formed, then it takes more effort, and we have a citizenship journey which they are required to participate in. But actually after that, we continue to encourage them to participate in community events and work with their neighbours, work with their friends, and be part of the society. These are things which take time. It does not happen just by itself, but we have been working at it. And I think over time, we will have some impact.

What are the most important values which have guided Singapore's evolution? I think the ones which I listed, I would not like to rank them. The pledge is fundamental. Meritocracy is fundamental. Multiracialism is fundamental. Self-reliance is also fundamental, and as well, our ability to work together with one another. I think all of these together have made Singapore succeed the way it has done.

If you look forward another 60 years, I think Singapore will have changed. It must have changed. Because if in 60 years’ time, Singapore looks the same as today, we are sunk. The world will be different. We will have to adapt to the world. Our values will remain but our policies, our responses, our structures which we have built in society, the strategies for our economy to prosper, all those are yet to be invented. If you say the previous generation had low-hanging fruits, I think all these fruits are out there. Some require ladders, some do not. Go there and make sure you grow them and pluck them, and then we will be alright.

Moderator: I am going to ask you to share your closing thoughts, but I am also going to ask you one question SM. What is the most Singaporean thing about you?

SM Lee: Actually, I would say that I believe there is a right way we can do things and do things better. And if we are not there − we never will be completely there − we should keep on trying to work hard at getting there. As PM, I used to go visiting other countries, and people will ask me, and I will explain to them how we do various things, and they will ask me about anti-corruption, and I will tell them how our CPIB works. Or they will ask me about public housing, and I tell them about HDB, or the CPF or National Service. They will look at me, and then they will talk to each other, and then they will tell me, “This is completely alien to us. It is like you come from outer space.”

Because in Singapore, we actually think each problem should be tackled, and each problem can have some solution. Maybe not the permanent solution, maybe not the perfect one, but there has to be some solution, and you can work at it, and we can make things better, and then we will work at it again. Our politics and our society and our population allow us to do this. But in other countries, it is not that they do not have smart people. It is not that they do not have ideas or an understanding of what has to be done. But it just cannot be done, and therefore the people no longer believe it can be done. But I believe in Singapore, it can be done. I think that faith is something which many Singaporeans have, and which we should always keep, and we should make sure that we can always do something about the problems we have.

From time to time, when I need to get something done, I become a mystery shopper on behalf of the government. Because I need to go to MOM to do something on their website; I need to go to CPF to check my account; I need to interact with IRAS and get some item sorted out. I look at the interface and say, “Surely, we can do better.”

So I send them a suggestion, and I tell them, “This is just a suggestion. Please take it seriously. But think how is the best way to make things better.” I think if we had more mystery shoppers, we would have better services, and we would have a more involved and engaged population who would feel – if I think something can be better, I can do something about it, and it will improve. That answers the question, which I was asked earlier on, how can you make me feel, “This is home?” The answer is, I can advise you to do the things which will make you feel it is home, which it is.

Moderator: The most Singaporean thing about you SM, is that you complain to the different agencies.

SM Lee Hsien Loong: No, no, I encourage. We can always do better. Sometimes people need to be reminded that they ought to have tried harder. Very often people have actually tried quite hard. But in fact, the results were not quite all the way what you got, and you have to give them suggestions which will motivate them to improve rather than demoralise them. That is what being a leader is – how to get the best performance out of people, not how to show that you know more than them.

Moderator: I wonder whether you want to share some closing thoughts.

SM Lee: I am very cheered that you all came this evening to spend time and engage in this dialogue and ask a lot of quite sensible questions. The national identity is something which is never settled. It is something which did not exist at the beginning. Our forefathers came, and their identity were various sojourners. Sojourners, meaning they came, they were staying here, they wanted to make a fortune or at least make a living. And when they were done, they would go back to their home country. The Cantonese say 返唐山, meaning 回唐山 – go back to your ancestral village and grow old and die, having provided for your family. But from that, we became progressively one people − not complete, not permanent − but much more than before. And therefore, able to do more things and deal with more crises than we would have been able to do 30 or 40 years ago.

It is just as well, because I think a lot of challenges are coming our way. Even as you can take advantage of AI and robotics and all the education we have, you also have to be prepared psychologically for things which human beings do to one another, like great power, rivalry, and things which human beings do to the world, such as global warming which is going to affect us, and other things which just happened and which we have to be prepared for. Every generation, something will happen. Have no fear. You did not live through the founding crisis of Singapore. But your challenges will come. COVID was one of them, but it will not be the last. So when the next comes, please do well. If I am around, I will cheer you on. If I am not around, I will be looking at you. Thank you.

Moderator: That was marvellous! Ladies and gentlemen, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Explore related topics

• Arts, culture and heritage

• Education

• Founding Fathers

• Multi-racial and multi-religious society