SM Lee Hsien Loong at the Nazarbayev University Lecture

Please see below for the Mandarin translation of the English speech.

* * * * *

Minister of Science and Higher Education Sayasat Nurbek
President of the University, Professor Waqar Ahmad
Faculty members
Distinguished guests
Ladies and gentlemen

I thank the Minister and the President for your very generous introduction and very warm remarks.

I am honoured by Nazerbayev University’s conferment of an Honorary Professorship, and by your invitation to address the University today.

Ties between our countries

Ties between Singapore and Kazakhstan, as you have heard, stretch back three decades. As Senior Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew visited Kazakhstan in September 1991, at the invitation of then-President Nazarbayev. Mr Lee addressed the Supreme Soviet, and it was on the eve of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He spoke on economic policy and Kazakhstan’s transition to a free-market economy. From there our engagements grew, and we established formal diplomatic relations in 1993. More recently, we exchanged State Visits in 2023 and 2024, and also exchanged visits by our parliamentary leaders.

Nazarbayev University (NU) itself has a longstanding partnership with the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) in Singapore. Since 2013, NU’s Graduate School of Public Policy has partnered the Lee Kuan Yew School to train more than 800 Kazakh officials in leadership and governance. And Singaporean academics have also played a role in NU’s development. For a decade (2015-2025), the Dean of NU’s Graduate School of Public Policy was a Singaporean – Professor Hui Weng Tat from the Lee Kuan Yew School. And currently another Singaporean, Professor Ng Huck-Hui, is NU’s Vice President and Dean of its School of Medicine. I just met Professor Ng, and he is here with us today.

I hope that my visit today will reinforce these warm ties between our countries.

Differences and Similarities

Singapore and Kazakhstan are very dissimilar countries. Singapore is a tiny island, a maritime nation surrounded by water, bereft of natural resources. Kazakhstan is a vast, landlocked country, rich in all kinds of energy and minerals in the ground. We are 6,000 km apart – one in the Asia Pacific, the other in Central Asia.

Yet, we do share certain things in common. Both have neighbours much bigger than ourselves. Both gained independence after splitting off from larger federations, and yet retain close ties with them – Kazakhstan from the former Soviet Union; Singapore from Malaysia. We both seek good relations with our neighbours, but also reach beyond our immediate regions to build links all over the world.

Between Kazakhstan and Singapore, the volume of trade and investment is still modest. And yet in an interconnected world, global developments and issues affect all of us. With multilateral frameworks under stress, countries need to develop new partnerships with like-minded countries whose interests are aligned. We also need to seek out fresh opportunities for economic cooperation beyond traditional trade and investment partners. Kazakhstan and Singapore therefore have much to gain by closer co-operation, and much to learn from each other’s experiences.

Singapore’s economic development experience

I have been asked, today, to talk about Singapore’s approach to developing our economy, and how we have built and maintained economic competitiveness. I propose to describe Singapore’s development journey since the 1950s: What key policies we pursued; how we approached our challenges; how we got here; and how we plan to move forward.

I am very conscious that a country’s economic strategy depends on its geography, history, its culture, and its strategic situation. Singapore’s experience may not be directly relevant elsewhere. We do not claim to have all the answers, not even to our own problems. Nevertheless, I hope you will find something of interest in my story.

Entrepot Trade

Singapore is located at the tip of the Malayan Peninsula, at the Southern end of the Strait of Malacca. It lay along the ancient maritime silk route between China and India. It has therefore long been a trading post, though over the centuries, Singapore’s importance waxed and waned.

A major turning point came 200 years ago, when the British arrived and built a free port in Singapore. Singapore swiftly grew into a thriving entrepot. It facilitated trade between Britain, India, Southeast Asia and the Far East, especially after the Suez Canal opened in 1869. And this was the beginning of modern Singapore.

Seeking a Larger Domestic Market

But after World War II, the entrepot trade began to stagnate. Communist China was closed off from the world, and very poor. Regional countries, which exported rubber, copra, tin, and spices through Singapore, were increasingly looking to bypass us, and trade directly with their end markets.

And meanwhile, Singapore was experiencing a post-war baby boom. In the early 1960s, Singapore had the busiest maternity hospital in the whole world – Kandang Kerbau Hospital. I was born there, like many Singaporeans. We desperately needed to create jobs for a young and growing population.

Singapore’s leaders believed that the solution was to industrialise the economy – to start labour-intensive manufacturing industries to create jobs and develop the economy; and also to join the Federation of Malaya, which later became Malaysia – to create a larger domestic market that would make our industries viable.

And hence Singapore joined the Federation of Malaysia in 1963.

Unfortunately, this merger failed. The larger domestic market never materialised. There were also other deep political problems and communal tensions. Two years later, Singapore separated from Malaysia to become an independent nation.

MNCs, Export-orientation, International Financial Centre

This was a major turning point.

As one of our founding fathers said, having previously convinced them­selves that an independent Singapore could not survive, they now had to spend the rest of their lives proving themselves wrong.

The leaders decided that industrialisation and labour-intensive manufacturing was still the way forward. But now without a domestic market, import substitution no longer made sense. We had to manufacture for export – not just to the region, but to the world. And that meant we had to be internationally competitive – both the individual firms, as well as the whole economy.

We decided to leapfrog the region and develop export markets in the developed economies in Europe, America and Japan. We adopted English as our common working language. We aggressively sought investments from Multi-National Corporations (MNCs). Only MNCs had the technology, management expertise, competitive products, and market reach to make this strategy work, and generate well-paying jobs for our population. We did our best to help the first MNC projects do well. Their success attracted more investments. MNCs became a major engine of growth.

We also decided to make Singapore an international financial centre. We were in the right time zone to host an offshore Asian dollar market, inspired by the offshore Euro dollar market. We would host international financial transactions after business in the US closed, and before business in Europe opened the next day. We convinced foreign banks that we could provide the stable conditions, the good infrastructure and skilled professionals that they needed, along with strong rule of law and competent regulatory institutions. The foreign banks set up here. Our financial industry grew beyond supporting our own economy to service the region around us, which was also taking off.

Though entrepot trade was reaching its limits, we did not give up on our port. We invested in modern port infrastructure, started containerisation earlier than other ports, and aimed to become a major node in global maritime trade, which we believed would continue to grow. And fortunately, it turned out so.

To do all this, we had to abandon the old adversarial model of labour-management relations. We persuaded the trade unions and employers to instead form a tripartite partnership – three-way partnership – between the unions, employers and government. The three partners built trust in one another, adopted a win-win approach, and cooperated to enlarge the economic pie. We set up a tripartite National Wages Council to make annual wage recommendations. These set expectations for businesses and workers, guided wage negotiations and prevented wage inflation.

These strategies succeeded. Unemployment fell, incomes rose. The economy took off, creating good jobs for our people.

Corrective Wage Policy, 1985 Recession, Moving up the Value Chain

We started in 1965. By the late 1970s, our economy had reached a transition point. Unemployment had almost disappeared. The economy was experiencing labour shortages. During the years of rapid growth, the National Wages Council had restrained wages. Now wage levels were too low. Firms had little incentive to raise productivity or invest in workers. For our economy to develop and upgrade further, we needed to change course.

So the Government launched a deliberate “corrective wage policy” to raise wages significantly. The aim was to push companies towards higher-tech, higher value-added activities. And this worked for several years, as the economy continued to boom. But the wage policy overshot.

In 1985, external conditions changed. Singapore suddenly entered a deep recession, our first since independence. We studied the problem, and concluded that we had allowed our business costs, especially wage costs, to go way out of line, and Singapore had become internationally uncompetitive. A painful correction was necessary.

The textbook answer to this situation would have been to let the Singapore dollar depreciate, and allow domestic inflation to erode the purchasing power of nominal wages, in order to restore competitiveness by stealth. We did not think this was a good solution. We felt that would undermine workers’ trust in the government, and weaken the tripartite partnership.

The alternative, cutting wages directly, was politically impossible – not even in Singapore.

Fortunately, Singapore had a third option. We had a compulsory national retirement savings scheme – the Central Provident Fund (CPF). And in the years when wages were rising sharply, the Government had steadily raised contributions by workers and employers to this Central Provident Fund. By 1985, the contribution rate had reached 50% of wages. 50% of your salary was paid into a mandatory personal retirement savings account. Cutting this rate would lower wage costs without reducing workers’ take-home pay. It was still politically difficult, but doable. We bit the bullet and cut the CPF contribution rate significantly. The effect was an immediate 12% reduction in wage costs. This drastic action, coupled with severe wage restraint, brought our labour costs back into line, and restored our competitiveness.

Singapore recovered quickly from the recession. We went back to growing at 10% every year.

But restored cost-competitiveness was not the only factor.

After the recession, we shifted our economic strategies. We pushed for higher value-added, tech-intensive investments. Beyond manufacturing projects, we started getting MNCs to set up their overseas and regional headquarters in Singapore. We got overseas headquarters here – operational headquarters – to manage their regional activities, and to do product development, market research, human resources, and finance work out of Singapore. We also promoted the export services sector – for example, in transport and logistics, hospitality and tourism. We invested heavily in reskilling our workers, as the nature of jobs changed. We restructured our taxes, lowering personal and corporate tax rates and introducing a goods and services tax, to spur enterprise and create a light but progressive tax system.

The aim was to shift the economy towards more complex activities, which our increasingly well-educated workforce could perform, and activities that linked Singapore more closely to our region, which was also taking off.

Together, these measures delivered sustained strong growth for another decade, until the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC) in 1997/1998.

The Asian Financial Crisis

The Asian Financial Crisis severely affected the Singapore economy. We were at ground zero – the crisis had started in Thailand, then spread to Malaysia and Indonesia, and beyond. Many of these countries had overborrowed in US dollars, ran into balance of payment crises, and had to call in the IMF. But Singapore ran a healthy trade surplus and had no nett borrowings. And hence we did not experience any capital flight. Instead, there was a flight to safety – capital flowed into Singapore, and the Singapore dollar actually appreciated modestly.

In the midst of the crisis, we took advantage of this confidence in Singapore to transform our financial sector. We had grown our financial sector steadily by being very careful and cautious, taking minimal risks and keeping everything under tight control. But to take it the next step forward, our regulators needed to become less risk averse. We had to loosen up in a controlled way, in order to inject more vibrancy and create more opportunities in the financial industry. And we judged that we now had accumulated the experience and the credibility to do so. So, we carefully shifted our regulatory approach from tight regulation to a more risk-based supervisory regime.

The whole process took 4-5 years. It made Singapore more attractive to global financial institutions, which started moving more activities here. We became a major international financial hub, linking up with Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York and London.

2000s to the Present Day

At around the same time, we started to develop a knowledge-based economy.

We built up research and development (R&D). We invested patiently and steadily in both basic and applied research. This supported advanced manufac­turing industries like semiconductors and biomedical, which became important contributors to our economy. It also spawned new startups based on the R&D advances.

We improved our education system, to create more pathways for diverse talents and interests, and to prepare Singapo­reans for jobs that required critical thinking, innovation, and lifelong learning.

To support the growing economy, we allowed in a controlled, steady flow of foreign workers. We made it easy for companies to bring in skilled professionals with the talent and expertise that their businesses needed. And these foreigners complemented our own workforce, and enabled companies to create more good jobs for Singaporeans.

We invested in enabling infrastructure. Physical infrastructure – new airport terminals, a new integrated and automated container port, high-quality public transport and public housing. Digital infrastructure like Information Technology (IT), a nation­wide fibre network for broadband internet, mobile networks, and digitalised Government services.

These moves carried our economy from the early 2000s to the present.

The Present: Another Turning point

Now, we are at another turning point.

Singapore prospered not just because of our policies and strategies. We were helped greatly by favourable external conditions that prevailed for most of the six decades since independence. There was a functioning, rules-based multilateral trading system. Most countries shared a broad desire to pursue economic integration, win-win partnerships and mutual prosperity. In the Asia Pacific region, the US was the dominant power, ensuring regional security and enabling countries to grow and prosper and compete in peace. From the 1980s onwards, China re-entered the global economy and grew rapidly – but still within this same framework of Pax Americana. And this created the best of both worlds for Asian countries. These factors enabled Singapore to link up with the regional and global economies and to grow steadily.

But the strategic environment has now changed significantly. Major power rivalry is now intense. The US is reassessing its approach to the world. It is no longer willing to play the same global role as before, whether in security or trade. National security and resilience now take precedence over economic well-being. Trade dependencies are being weaponised. Multilateralism is breaking down.

This is a much less conducive environment for countries to grow and develop in.

The Way Forward

What policies and strategies should Singapore adopt in this environment?

We have just concluded an Economic Strategies Review, rethinking our position. We formed a tripartite committee, involving government ministers, business leaders, and union representatives. We have periodically convened such committees, especially during major turning points. They are invaluable not just for generating new ideas, but also to build consensus and commitment amongst businesses, unions and the population on the way forward.

What are some of the key things we must do?

Firstly, Singapore must continue to be open and outward looking. Bigger countries may be able to promote self-sufficiency by erecting trade barriers to protect their domestic markets. But for Singapore, closing ourselves off and turning inwards is simply impossible. We will always have to do business with the world, even as we diversify and secure our own supply chains. Hence our emphasis on growing ties with non-traditional partners, such as Kazakhstan and the Central Asian economies. In fact, even bigger countries emphasising resilience and security still cannot avoid having to trade with others, and to cooperate with like-minded and trusted partners. And this creates opportunities for Singapore to retain a niche for ourselves, and earn a living in the world, provided we remain competitive and trusted, and possess capabilities that make us useful to others.

Secondly, we must continue to support multilateralism. Multilateralism remains important, and there still needs to be rules that apply to everybody, big and small. There still exist many countries that uphold the WTO framework, and Singapore will work with them. And together, we can pursue pragmatic reforms to make the WTO more effective. The first best solution – reaching a consensus among all WTO members – has too often become a mechanism for obstruction and paralysis. But second-best solutions – coalitions of the willing, advancing shared interests but still within the WTO framework – are workable and important. For example, Singapore co-convened (with Japan and Australia) plurilateral talks on e-commerce under the WTO. This resulted in the WTO Agreement on Electronic Commerce, the ECA. In March this year, 66 WTO members adopted interim implementation pathways for this agreement, including Kazakhstan and Singapore. Such partnerships supplement the multilateral framework, and are especially valuable to small and middle-sized economies.

Thirdly, domestically, we will maintain our approach of combining strict market discipline with an activist state.

We have long relied on market forces to make our firms and economy efficient and competitive. Wherever possible, we have achieved social and political objectives not by imposing administrative requirements, but by harnessing market forces and aligning economic incentives. The free-market economy incentivises our people to work hard and to do well. It is the impetus for wealth creation and progress.

But the Government also plays an important role setting the overall framework for the free market, and creating the conditions for enterprise to thrive. Our government has actively invested in infrastructure and skills, promoted new economic activities, developed capabilities, opened up new markets overseas, and overcome market failures and coordination problems. While industrial policy has come in and out of fashion in other countries and in developed economies, Singapore has consistently practised this form of industrial policy for decades.

Fourthly, Singapore must remake our economy, again and again. This will certainly require state policy and active intervention, for example, to encourage firms to embrace AI and reap its benefits, and to ready our workers for the rapid changes and disruptions that AI will bring. This means strong state support to build up continuing educa­tion and training for workers, and to help displaced workers or those who are in transition to find new jobs and careers. We must also continue investing in and deepening capabilities in areas where Singa­pore is strong. For example, our air hub, our container port, and our financial sector. These activities themselves must change. They must embrace technology and innovate, to transform the way they operate and grow, and take them to the next level. We will also foster a dynamic enterprise ecosystem, and help Singapore-based companies to succeed globally. MNCs remain important to us, but they will need to be comple­mented by successful companies with Singaporean roots. And in all these areas, the Government can and will play an enabling role.

Finally, and most critically, Singaporeans must stay united. Our society must not be split by racial or religious differences, frictions between old and new citizens, or divides between rich and poor. We are a multi-racial society. We also depend heavily on immigrants and foreign workers to top up and complement our own population. And as our society matures, social mobility will tend to diminish. Hence, we must be especially watchful of these fault lines. For us to stay united, growth has to be inclusive, and has to benefit everyone. The fruits of growth must be shared broadly and equitably. No one should be left behind. And hence the importance of strong and effective social policies, for example, public housing, public healthcare, public education.

Social and political cohesion has always underpinned Singapore’s economic success. Singapore is a country, and not just a city or an economy, unlike Hong Kong, or Dubai, or London. The Government has been able to pursue sound policies, and make tough trade-offs in the country’s long-term interest, because Singapore’s politics has worked. We have maintained trust between the population and its leaders. Citizens have confidence their leaders will deliver effective government and make good decisions on their behalf. The leaders have delivered on their promises, retained public support, and been able to win renewed mandates in successive elections. And this has helped us to recruit capable, committed individuals to enter politics, to serve the nation and deliver the quality of government that citizens expect and deserve. This has created political stability, and given leaders the latitude to pursue difficult and at times, even radical policies, and still carry the public with them. This has long been a precondition of our economic success.

We are thankful to have kept this up now for over six decades, and the present generation is doing its best to sustain this virtuous cycle of good politics and good policies into the future.

Conclusion

So, ladies and gentlemen, I have tried to give you a sense of how Singapore has developed our economy and kept it competitive – what our considerations and approaches were, the difficulties we encountered, and how we tackled them.

Singapore has not progressed in a straight line. We have repeatedly had to reinvent ourselves, in order to overcome setbacks and changed circumstances, and resume our journey forward. In the current uncertain and troubled world, we have to respond with equal resourcefulness and resolve.

Kazakhstan and Singapore face quite different circumstances. Singapore’s policy choices reflect our unique context. Kazakhstan may well have to make different choices.

But what is more broadly applicable is the need to build systems capable of continuously adapting and readapting, based on strong fundamentals like state capacity, market discipline, and inclusive policies. So that when circumstances change, or when policies fail to work as intended, we can adjust and move forward together. That is what Singapore has had to do, again and again. And many other countries too.

I hope through exchanging views and learning from each other’s experiences, Kazakhstan and Singapore will both find better ways forward, and so improve our peoples’ lives.

Thank you very much.

* * * * *

Mandarin translation of the English speech

李显龙：新加坡如何发展经济并保持竞争力

正如大家所知，新加坡与哈萨克斯坦的关系可追溯至30年前。1991年9月，应时任总统努尔苏丹·纳扎尔巴耶夫的邀请，李光耀先生以内阁资政的身份访问哈萨克斯坦。当时正值苏联解体前夕，李先生在最高苏维埃发表演讲，探讨经济政策以及哈萨克斯坦向自由市场经济的转型。自此，两国的交往日益密切，并于1993年正式建立外交关系。近年来，两国在2023年和2024年实现国事互访，我们的国会领导人也作了交流访问。

纳扎尔巴耶夫大学本身与新加坡李光耀公共政策学院也有着长期的合作关系。自2013年起，纳扎尔巴耶夫大学公共政策研究院就与李光耀公共政策学院合作，为800多名哈萨克斯坦官员提供领导力与治理方面的培训。新加坡学者在纳扎尔巴耶夫大学的发展中也扮演重要角色。在长达10年的时间里（2015年至2025年），担任纳扎尔巴耶夫大学公共政策研究院院长的正是一位新加坡人——来自李光耀公共政策学院的许荣达教授。目前，另一位新加坡人黄学辉教授正担任纳扎尔巴耶夫大学副校长兼医学院院长。我刚刚见到黄教授，他今天也来到现场。

我希望我今天的访问能进一步巩固两国之间的这种温暖情谊。

新加坡和哈萨克斯坦是截然不同的国家。新加坡是一个小岛国、一个四面环海的海洋国家，自然资源匮乏。哈萨克斯坦则是幅员辽阔的内陆国家，地下蕴藏着丰富的能源和矿产。两国相距6000公里——一个位于亚太，另一个地处中亚。

然而，我们确实有一些共同之处。两国都有比自己庞大得多的邻国。两国都是在脱离更大的联邦后获得独立，但依然与前者保持着密切联系——哈萨克斯坦之于前苏联，新加坡之于马来西亚。我们都寻求与邻国建立良好关系，但同时也跨越邻近区域，在世界各地建立联系。

目前，新哈两国的贸易与投资规模仍然不大。但在一个相互关联的世界里，全球的发展与议题影响着每一个人。在多边框架面临压力的当下，各国须要与利益一致、志同道合的国家发展新的伙伴关系。我们也须要跳出传统的贸易和投资伙伴圈，寻找新的经济合作机遇。因此，哈萨克斯坦和新加坡若能开展更紧密的合作，必将获益良多，我们也可以从彼此的经验中汲取许多宝贵借鉴。

新加坡的经济发展经验

今天，主办方邀请我谈谈新加坡发展经济的方略，以及我们如何建立并保持经济竞争力。我打算为大家梳理一下新加坡自1950年代以来的发展历程：我们推行哪些关键政策；我们如何应对挑战；我们是如何走到今天的；以及我们计划如何走向未来。

我深知，一个国家的经济策略取决于地理、历史、文化和战略处境。新加坡的经验未必能直接照搬到其他地方。我们不敢说自己掌握了所有答案，甚至连我们自己的问题也未必全能解答。尽管如此，我希望大家能从我的分享中，得到一些有意义的启发。

新加坡位于马来半岛最南端，扼守马六甲海峡南端出口，坐落在中国与印度之间古老的海上丝绸之路上。这里长期以来一直是个贸易据点，尽管在过去几个世纪里，新加坡的重要性曾几度兴衰。

一个重大的转折点发生在200年前，当时英国人来到这里，在新加坡建立自由港。新加坡迅速发展成为一个繁荣的转口贸易中心。它促进英国、印度、东南亚和远东之间的贸易，尤其是在1869年苏伊士运河开通之后。这就是现代新加坡的开端。

寻求更大的国内市场

但二战结束后，转口贸易开始停滞不前。当时的共产主义中国与世界隔绝，且一穷二白。本区域那些原本通过新加坡出口橡胶、椰干、锡矿和香料的国家，越来越倾向于绕开我们，直接与它们的终端市场贸易。

与此同时，新加坡正经历战后婴儿潮。1960年代初，新加坡拥有世界上最繁忙的妇产科医院——竹脚医院。和许多新加坡人一样，我也是在那里出生的。我们迫切须要为日益增长的年轻人口创造就业机会。

新加坡的建国领袖认为，解决之道在于实现经济工业化——启动劳动力密集型的制造业来创造就业、发展经济；同时，加入马来亚联合邦（后来成为马来西亚），以创造一个更大的国内市场，使我们的工业具备生存能力。

因此，新加坡在1963年加入马来西亚联邦。

遗憾的是，这次合并以失败告终。更大的国内市场从未实现，还带来其他深层次的政治问题和社群紧张关系。两年后，新加坡脱离马来西亚，成为一个独立国家。

跨国公司、出口导向与国际金融中心

这是一个重大的转折点。

正如我们的一位建国元勋所言：他们曾经深信独立的新加坡无法生存，而现在，他们必须用余生来证明自己当初的想法是错的。

建国领袖决定，工业化和劳动力密集型制造业依然是前进的方向。但现在，既然没有国内市场，“进口替代”策略不再行得通。我们必须为出口而制造——不仅是出口到本区域，而是出口到全世界。这意味着我们必须具备国际竞争力，无论是个别企业，还是整个经济体。

我们决定跨越本区域，在欧洲、美国和日本等发达经济体中开拓出口市场。我们将英语定为共同的工作语言。我们积极招商引资，大力吸引跨国公司。因为只有跨国公司具备技术、管理专长、具竞争力的产品以及市场触角，才能让这一策略奏效，并为国民创造高薪就业机会。我们倾尽全力帮助首批跨国公司项目取得成功。它们的成功吸引更多投资。跨国公司就此成为经济增长的主要引擎。

我们还决定将新加坡打造成国际金融中心。受欧洲离岸美元市场的启发，我们意识到新加坡所处的时区，非常适合建立亚洲离岸美元市场。我们可以在美国股市收盘后、欧洲股市第二天开盘前，处理国际金融交易。我们向外资银行证明，能够提供它们所需的稳定环境、优良的基础设施和熟练的专业人才，外加健全的法治和高效的监管机构。于是，外资银行纷纷进驻。我们的金融业从最初支撑本国经济，逐渐发展到服务周边正在起飞的区域。

尽管转口贸易已触及天花板，但我们并未放弃港口。我们投资现代化的港口基础设施，比其他港口更早启动集装箱化运作，并致力于成为全球海事贸易的重要节点——我们坚信全球海事贸易会持续增长。

幸运的是，事实证明我们是对的。

为了实现这一切，我们必须摒弃过去那种劳资双方对立的旧模式。我们说服工会和雇主，在工会、雇主和政府之间建立“劳资政三方合作关系”。这三个伙伴建立对彼此的信任，采取双赢策略，共同做大经济蛋糕。我们成立由三方组成的全国工资理事会，每年提出工资指导原则，为企业和工人设定薪金预期，引导薪金谈判，并防止薪金通胀。

这些策略取得成功。失业率下降，收入增加。经济腾飞，为国人创造良好的就业机会。

迈向价值链上游

我们从1965年起步，到1970年代末，经济已到达一个转型路口。失业问题几乎完全消除。经济开始面临劳动力短缺。在经济快速增长的那些年里，工资理事会一直抑制着薪金的过快增长，结果导致当时的薪金水平过低。企业缺乏提高生产力或投资于员工培训的动力。为了让经济进一步发展和升级，我们必须改弦易辙。

因此，政府推出一项有针对性的“薪金调整政策”（corrective wage policy），大幅提高薪金水平，目的是倒逼企业转向高科技、高附加值的经济活动。在经济持续繁荣的几年里，这一招很奏效。但薪金政策却用力过猛了。

1985年，外部环境发生变化。新加坡突然陷入自独立以来的首次深度衰退。我们对问题进行研究，得出的结论是：我们放任企业成本，尤其是薪金成本，严重偏离合理水平。新加坡已失去国际竞争力，必须进行一次痛苦的调整。

按照教科书上的标准答案，遇到这种情况应让新元贬值，利用国内通货膨胀来侵蚀名义工资的购买力，从而“暗中”恢复竞争力。但我们认为这不是一个好办法。我们觉得这会破坏工人对政府的信任，并削弱劳资政三方合作关系。

另一种选择是直接减薪，但这在政治上是不可能的，哪怕是在新加坡。

幸好，新加坡还有第三种选择。我们有一项强制性的全国退休储蓄计划——中央公积金。在薪金大幅上涨的那些年里，政府稳步提高雇员和雇主缴纳公积金的比率。到1985年，缴交率已达到薪金的50%。也就是说，雇员薪金的50%会被存入一个强制性的个人退休储蓄户头。降低这一缴交率，既能降低薪金成本，又不影响工人的实际到手工资。虽然在政治上仍颇具挑战，但并非不可行。我们咬紧牙关，大幅削减公积金缴交率。此举立即使薪金成本降低12%。这一果断举措，加上严格的薪金控制，使我们的劳动力成本回归合理水平，并恢复竞争力。

新加坡很快从衰退中复苏，并回到每年10%的增长轨道。但恢复成本竞争力并不是唯一因素。

经济衰退过去后，我们调整经济策略，大力推动高附加值、技术密集型投资。除了制造业项目，我们开始吸引跨国公司在新加坡设立海外和区域总部，也就是运营总部。它们从新加坡管理区域业务，并进行产品开发、市场研究、人力资源和财务工作。我们还发展出口服务业，例如交通运输与物流、酒店和旅游业。随着工作性质的改变，我们投入巨资帮助工人重新掌握技能。我们重组税收结构，降低个人和企业所得税率，并引入消费税，以激发企业活力，建立一个税负较轻但具有累进性的税收体系。

这些举措的目的是推动经济向更复杂的活动转型，这些活动既能由我们受教育程度日益提高的劳动力胜任，又能使新加坡与同样正在起飞的本区域建立更紧密的联系。

所有这些措施共同促成又一个10年的持续强劲增长，直至1997年至1998年爆发亚洲金融危机。

亚洲金融危机

亚洲金融危机对新加坡经济造成严重影响。我们身处风暴中心——这场危机始于泰国，随后蔓延至马来西亚、印度尼西亚，并进一步扩散。在这些国家中，许多都过度借入美元，陷入国际收支危机，不得不向国际货币基金组织求助。但新加坡当时保持着健康的贸易顺差，且没有净外债。因此，我们没有经历资本外逃，反而出现“避险资金涌入”的现象——资金流向新加坡，新元实际上还小幅升值。

在危机期间，我们利用外界对新加坡的这种信心，对金融业进行转型。过去，我们通过极其谨慎小心的态度，将风险降至最低，并对一切进行严格管控，稳步发展金融业。但要迈向下一个发展阶段，我们的监管机构须要减少对风险的规避。我们必须以可控的方式放宽限制，为金融业注入更多活力并创造更多机遇。我们认为，我们当时已积累足够的经验和信誉来迈出这一步。因此，我们谨慎地将监管方式从严格监管转向更侧重风险的监管机制。

整个过程耗时四五年。这使得新加坡对全球金融机构更具吸引力，它们开始将更多业务转移至此。我们由此成为一个主要的国际金融中心，与东京、香港、纽约和伦敦紧密相连。

从千禧年代至今

大约在同一时期，我们开始发展知识型经济，大力建设研发能力。我们耐心且稳定地投资于基础研究和应用研究。这支撑半导体和生物医药等先进制造业的发展，使它们成为经济的重要贡献者，并催生基于研发突破的初创企业。我们改进教育制度，为拥有不同才华和兴趣的学生提供更多元的发展路径，并帮助新加坡人做好准备，以胜任那些需要批判性思维、创新精神和终身学习能力的工作。为了支持不断增长的经济，我们以可控且稳定的方式引进外籍劳工。我们让企业能更容易引进具备业务所需才能和专业知识的熟练专业人士。这些外籍人才与我们本国的劳动力形成互补，使企业能够为新加坡人创造更多好工作。我们投资建设支撑经济发展的基础设施。实体基础设施包括新的机场航站楼、新的全自动化集装箱码头、高质量的公共交通和公共住房。数码基础设施则包括信息技术、覆盖全国的宽带光纤网络、移动网络以及数码化的政府服务。

这些举措推动我们的经济从21世纪初发展至今。

现在是另一个转折点

如今，我们来到另一个转折点。

新加坡的繁荣不仅仅归功于政策和策略。在独立以来的60年里，我们在绝大部分时间都极大地受益于有利的外部环境。当时存在一个运作良好、基于规则的多边贸易体系。大多数国家都有追求经济一体化、双赢合作和共同繁荣的广泛意愿。在亚太地区，美国作为主导大国，确保区域安全，使各国能够在和平环境中发展、繁荣与竞争。从1980年代起，中国重新融入全球经济并迅速发展，但这依然是在“美国治下的和平”（Pax Americana）框架内进行的。这为亚洲国家创造鱼与熊掌兼得的最佳局面。这些因素使得新加坡能够与区域及全球经济接轨，实现稳步增长。

但现在，战略环境已发生显著变化。大国博弈如今异常激烈。美国正在重新评估它对待世界的态度，无论是在安全还是贸易领域，它都不再愿意扮演过去那样的全球角色。国家安全和韧性现在优先于经济福祉。贸易依存度被武器化。多边主义正在瓦解。

对于各国的发展与增长而言，这是一个非常不利的环境。

前行之路

处于这样的环境，新加坡应采取哪些政策和策略？

我们刚刚完成经济战略检讨，重新审视我们的定位。我们成立一个由内阁部长、商业领袖和工会代表组成的劳资政三方委员会。我们定期召集此类委员会，尤其是在面临重大转折点时。它们的作用无可估量，不仅能激发新思路，更能凝聚企业、工会和民众对未来发展方向的共识与承诺。

我们必须采取的关键行动有哪些？

首先，新加坡必须继续保持开放和外向型的定位。大国或许可以通过设立贸易壁垒来保护国内市场，以此推动自给自足。但对新加坡而言，闭关自守、向内转是完全行不通的。即使我们在实现供应链多元化并确保安全的同时，也始终必须与世界开展贸易往来。因此，我们高度重视与哈萨克斯坦和中亚经济体等非传统伙伴加强联系。事实上，即便是那些强调韧性和安全的大国，也无法避免与他国贸易，以及与志同道合且值得信赖的伙伴合作。这为新加坡创造机会，让我们能够保持自己的独特定位，并在世界舞台上立足谋生，前提是我们必须保持竞争力、值得信赖，并拥有对他人有用的能力。

其次，我们必须继续支持多边主义。多边主义依然重要，世界仍然需要适用于所有国家（无论大小）的规则。目前仍有许多国家维护世界贸易组织的框架，新加坡将与它们携手合作。我们可以共同推动务实的改革，使世贸组织更具实效。“最优解”——即所有世贸组织成员达成共识——往往沦为阻挠和瘫痪的机制。但“次优解”——即由“志同道合者组成的联盟”（coalitions of the willing）在世贸组织框架内推进共同利益——是可行且重要的。例如，新加坡与日本和澳大利亚共同在世贸组织框架下，发起关于电子商务的多边磋商，促成世贸组织《电子商务协定》的诞生。今年3月，包括哈萨克斯坦和新加坡在内的66个世贸组织成员通过了协定的临时安排。此类伙伴关系是对多边框架的补充，对中小型经济体而言尤为宝贵。

第三，在国内层面，我们将继续坚持严格的市场纪律与积极有为的政府相结合的模式。长期以来，我们一直依靠市场力量来提高企业和经济的效率与竞争力。只要有可能，我们就不会通过强加行政命令，而是通过利用市场力量和协调经济激励机制，来实现社会和政治目标。自由市场经济激励着我国人民努力工作并追求卓越。它是创造财富和推动进步的动力。

但政府在为自由市场设定总体框架、为企业蓬勃发展创造条件方面，也发挥着重要作用。我们的政府积极投资于基础设施和技能培训，促进新的经济活动，培养能力，开拓海外新市场，并克服市场失灵和协调问题。虽然产业政策在其他国家和发达经济体时兴时衰，但在过去几十年里，新加坡始终如一地践行着这种形式的产业政策。

第四，新加坡必须不断重塑经济。这无疑需要国家政策和积极干预。例如，鼓励企业采用人工智能并从中获益，同时帮助我们的工人做好准备，以应对人工智能带来的快速变化和颠覆性影响。这意味着国家须要提供强有力的支持，为工人建立持续的教育和培训体系，并帮助失业人员或处于职业转型期的人员寻找新的工作和职业发展。我们还必须继续投资并深化新加坡具备优势的领域的实力。例如，我们的航空枢纽、集装箱港口和金融业。这些领域本身也必须改变。它们必须拥抱科技并不断创新，以改变自身的运作和增长方式，从而迈上新的台阶。我们还将培育充满活力的企业生态系统，帮助立足新加坡的企业在全球取得成功。跨国公司对我们依然重要，但须要有成功的新加坡本土企业与之互补。在所有这些领域，政府能够也将会发挥促进作用。

最后，也是最关键的，是新加坡人必须保持团结。我们的社会决不能被种族或宗教差异、新老公民之间的摩擦，或贫富分化所撕裂。我们是一个多元种族的社会。我们也高度依赖移民和外籍劳工来补充本国人口。随着社会日趋成熟，社会流动性往往会逐渐减弱。因此，我们必须对这些潜在的社会断层线保持高度警惕。为了保持团结，经济增长必须具有包容性，并让所有人受益。经济增长的成果必须广泛而公平地分享。任何人都不应被落下。因此，强有力且有效的社会政策至关重要，例如公共住房、公共医疗和公共教育。

社会和政治凝聚力一直是新加坡经济成功的基石。新加坡是一个国家，而不仅仅是一座城市或一个经济体，这与香港、迪拜或伦敦不同。正因为新加坡的政治体系运转良好，政府才能推行合理的政策，并为国家的长远利益做出艰难的权衡取舍。我们始终维系着民众与领导人之间的互信。公民相信，领导人能够有效施政，并代表他们做出明智的决策。领导人兑现承诺，赢得公众的支持，并能够在历次选举中重新获得选民委托。这有助于我们吸引有能力、有奉献精神的人士投身政坛，为国家服务，并提供公民所期望且应得的高素质政府。这带来政治稳定，并赋予领导人足够的空间去推行艰难的、有时甚至是颠覆性的政策，却依然能得到民众支持。长期以来，这一直是我们经济成功的先决条件。

我们很庆幸能够将这种状态维持60多年，而我们这一代人正竭尽全力，确保这种良政善治的良性循环能够在未来延续下去。

我已设法向大家介绍新加坡是如何发展经济并保持竞争力的。我们考虑了哪些因素、采取了哪些方法，遇到了哪些困难，又是如何应对的。

新加坡的发展并非一帆风顺。为了克服挫折和应对形势变化，并继续前行，我们不得不一再重塑自己。在当前这个充满不确定性和动荡的世界里，我们必须以同样的机智和决心来应对。

哈萨克斯坦和新加坡面临着相当不同的形势。新加坡的政策选择反映我们独特的国情。哈萨克斯坦很可能须要作出不同的选择。

但更具普遍意义的是，各国都须要在国家能力、市场纪律和包容性政策等坚实的基础上，建立能够不断适应和再适应的体制。这样一来，当形势发生变化，或当政策无法达到预期效果时，我们就能及时调整，共同前行。这就是新加坡不得不一次又一次去做的事情。许多其他国家也是如此。

我希望，通过交换意见、相互借鉴经验，哈萨克斯坦和新加坡都能找到更好的前行之路，改善两国人民的生活。