SM Goh Chok Tong at the Singapore-China Forum on Leadership (Apr 2010)

“Increasing Public Trust in Leaders of a Harmonious Society”

Let me first extend my warmest welcome to His Excellency Li Yuanchao and his delegation to Singapore. His Excellency is an old friend of Singapore. When I broached the subject of a Singapore-China Forum on Leadership with him in Beijing two years ago, he agreed immediately. So it is indeed a great pleasure to welcome him and our Chinese friends to this second Singapore-China Forum.

Public Trust in the Leaders

The recent global financial crisis was the most severe since the great depression. More than an economic crisis, this crisis is also a crisis of confidence in banks, regulators and their governments. There is growing recognition of the vital role that government plays vis-à-vis the free market in fostering growth and a harmonious society. With the recent economic recovery, government and corporate leaders share a general sense of relief that we had pulled back from the brink of financial abyss. However, they still have a huge task before them in rebuilding the trust in public institutions and their leaders. Rebuilding this trust is an important aspect of leadership. Without this trust, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the government to persuade the people to accept tough and painful solutions to overcome the challenges and difficulties faced by the entire nation. In my mind, this trust lends more legitimacy to a government than its legal authority.

Therefore, your theme, “Harmonious Society and the Development of Leadership”, is timely. How do we secure public trust in the leadership? This is not a science that can be found in textbooks or instruction manuals. Neither can it be discussed without considering a country’s social, political and historical context. Trust is built up through the leaders’ interaction with the people, how they deal with challenges and crises, and how they meet the people’s aspirations. While there are differences in basic circumstances between China and Singapore, there are also similarities in the challenges that we face. Hence, we can learn from each other’s experiences in addressing the issue of developing leadership and a harmonious society. Let me start off our sharing session by relating how Singapore’s social compact was built up and what we have done to maintain public trust.

The Early Years of Nation Building

When Singapore gained its independence in 1965, our future was bleak. We had security concerns and our unemployment rate was high at 14%. This was compounded by high birth rates and a rapidly growing population. Our domestic market was small and the investment climate was marred by frequent labour unrest. In addition, the British announced in 1967 that British troops in Singapore would be withdrawn completely by 1971. The British military did not just provide security. They also contributed to approximately 20% of our GDP then and were the second biggest employer after the government.

Rising communal tensions created more problems for the new government formed by the People’s Action Party. In July 1964, racial riots broke out. I had just started work in the Economic Planning Unit under the Prime Minister’s Office. The riots were instigated by unscrupulous Malay extremists during a Prophet Mohammed’s birthday procession. Thirty-six people were killed and several hundreds more injured. But the bigger casualty was race relations. The harmony which had earlier existed between the Chinese and Malays was shattered.

Externally, we faced strained ties with our closest neighbours. When we joined Malaysia in 1963, President Soekarno mounted a campaign of “Confrontation” against Malaysia which he called a neo-colonialist plot. Trade with Singapore was virtually suspended. It was lifted only in 1966, after Suharto came into power. The Malaysians also wanted to bypass Singapore and deal directly with all their trading partners through their own ports.

The lack of jobs, and the poor housing, healthcare and schools, provided fertile ground for the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) to stir up labour unrest and mount political attacks against the government. The MCP had a strong influence amongst the Chinese-speaking population in Singapore and Malaya during 1950s and 60s. They developed a strong base in the unions, and Chinese teachers’ and students’ associations. They took a militant approach, mobilising their followers to organise strikes, and demonstrations. It was a turbulent time for Singapore.

The communist cadres in Singapore impressed the masses with their passion, selfless dedication and spartan lifestyle. Against this backdrop, the PAP government fought an uphill battle to win the hearts and minds of the population. The PAP leaders knew that competence, incorruptibility and moral integrity of the government were vital in persuading the people that the PAP was a credible and trustworthy political force. Given the circumstances, they focused on gaining public trust in three main areas.

First, the government promised a better life for the people and delivered. To create jobs, it eschewed the prevailing economic ideology, which was to be a self-sufficient economy relying on protectionism and import substitution. Instead, the government actively sought out MNCs to bring their capital, technology, markets and management to Singapore. It built the infrastructure, established good labour relations and implemented sound fiscal and macro-economic policies. By 1971, when British forces left Singapore with their 70,000 jobs, both direct and indirect, the American electronics and other MNCs had generated so many jobs that unemployment was no longer an issue.

The lives of Singaporeans improved in other tangible ways. We provided universal access to 10 years of education, giving their children a better start in life, and creating the foundation for social mobility. We launched a public housing programme to give Singaporeans decent housing with piped water and modern sanitation. We sold the apartments at subsidised affordable prices to give Singaporeans a stake in the country. Getting their keys to a HDB flat became a rite of passage and a source of great pride for many Singaporeans. By 1980, two-thirds of our population were housed in government-built homes with the majority owning them. The government’s ability to deliver on its promise of a secure and better life won the people’s trust.

Second, because of our multi-racial make-up and the communal tension in the 1960s, government has to be especially even-handed in our policies. Given our large Chinese majority, there were strong pressures for Chinese to be the pre-eminent language. But instead, Singapore opted for English as the language of administration and taught it as a first language in schools, leaving each ethnic group to learn their mother tongue as the second language. In Parliament, all the four official languages – English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil – could be used. We also formed a Presidential Council on Minority Rights in 1970 to ensure that legislations passed by Parliament did not discriminate against the minorities. Multi-racialism was and is entrenched as a key tenet of our society. Minority groups could see their government leaders as representing all Singaporeans and had faith that their languages, cultures and religions would not be subsumed under the interests of the majority.

Third, in the 1960s before the PAP came into power, there was corruption in high places. Bureaucratic power invested in poorly paid officials was a great temptation for abuse. To fight this, the leadership resolved to set the example and the tone for the entire society. They dealt with all transgressors without exception, even if they came from their own ranks. As you well know, 上樑不正下樑歪 – if the upper beams are not straight, the lower ones will be crooked. The government also decided to pay public officials competitive wages.

The PAP has now been in power for 51 years, and I dare say that it is rare for a party to remain in power for so long and yet has not gone weak and corrupt. To illustrate, after the hectic budget session each year, the PAP Members of Parliament would have an informal dinner to let their hair down, as the English would say. The MPs paid for their own dinner and entertainment. In fact, the MPs entertained themselves by putting up skits. They and the Ministers also sang, no matter how out of tune. When the common people see that their leaders are not only incorrupt but are also effective in protecting them from corrupt officials, their trust in the government is reinforced.

Adapting to the Challenges of Today

But building trust is a continuing process. By the 1980s, Singapore had broken into the ranks of the middle income countries. Today, it is regarded as a developed country. The aspirations of Singaporeans have changed with growing affluence and international exposure. More than 90% of Singaporeans live in a home which they own. More than 70% of each cohort has a post-secondary education. Except for a few recession years, we had virtually full employment.

A new generation of Singaporeans has grown up without memories of the poverty, uncertainty and strife of our early years. Their starting point in life is today’s high water mark, not yesterday’s low tide. No matter how honest and efficient the government was in the past, they expect the government to meet their new aspirations. Hence, the trust between the government and the people has to be continually re-established and re-earned. How did we do this? Perhaps the best way to explain this is to relate a few examples of national crises that we had been through and to share how we handled them.

Restoring economic competitiveness

Let me start with the recession which hit us in 1985, the first time our GDP had gone negative since independence. Externally, Singapore was severely affected by the global trade slump, especially with the United States, our largest trading partner then. Internally, the rapid rise in labour costs had eroded our competitiveness significantly. Between 1979 and 1984, increases in our labour costs well exceeded that of productivity.

We set up an Economic Committee, chaired by newly-appointed Minister of State for Trade & Industry, Lee Hsien Loong. The committee recommended a sharp reduction in wage cost. This was to be done by reducing employers’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution, from 25% of wages to 10%. As the employers’ CPF contribution formed part of the workers’ wages and was widely used for re-paying their housing loans, the cut was real and painful.

As the Deputy Prime Minister then, I met the union leaders and explained to them the grave economic problem we were facing. I had spent time with them before to improve workers’ welfare and they trusted me. When faced with the facts, they agreed to swallow the bitter pill and worked with the government to persuade their members and other workers to accept the need for a massive cut in their CPF. The strong medicine worked, and the economy grew strongly within two years. The workers’ trust in the government strengthened.

When the Asian Financial Crisis struck in 1997/1998, we went through a similar process. Investors in Singapore saw that this was a government that was able to diagnose the problem correctly and had the courage and ability to persuade the people to take their prescription. They concluded that this was a rational government and a rational people. They had enough faith in the Singapore leadership and in Singaporeans to put long-term multi-million dollar investments in Singapore.

Preserving social harmony

Another example of how the government turned a crisis into a trust-building exercise was the 9/11 terror attack on the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001. The attack affected us indirectly because we have a sizable Muslim population. We were concerned about the potential backlash against our Muslim population if there was indiscriminate labelling of all Muslims as extremists and terrorists. Worse, we subsequently discovered that Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a Southeast Asian terrorist group, was plotting to set off bombs in Singapore. JI was dedicated to the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in Southeast Asia incorporating Indonesia, Malaysia, the southern Philippines, Singapore and Brunei. If the terrorists had succeeded in carrying out their acts in Singapore, the consequences on racial harmony would have been unimaginable. It would have created tension and conflict between Muslims and the other ethnic and religious groups. The harmony between the races would be torn asunder.

We briefed our Muslim leaders quietly and frankly as to the nature of the extremist Muslim threat and its consequences for Singapore. We took them into our confidence and showed that we trusted them. As Prime Minister, I also met Muslim and other community and religious leaders. I explained to them the importance of not confusing the act of a small group of extremist Muslims with our Muslim population, and put across to the Muslim leaders that it was in their community’s interest and in Singapore’s interest to take a public stand against the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the JI plot in Singapore and to condemn such extremist practices. We succeeded in convincing Singaporeans that our Muslims were moderate and did not sympathise with terrorists and their ideology. To further enhance inter-racial understanding and reduce the risk of misunderstanding, we set up Inter-Racial Confidence Circles (IRCCs) in every constituency to provide a platform for confidence building and developing deeper friendship and trust between communities. These open meetings plus quiet behind-the-scenes dialogues worked. We averted a potential for misunderstanding between races caused by terrorist acts elsewhere and the plot of a few extremists in Singapore.

Bringing people together during human tragedies

A third example of how we bond with the people was how we handled a national tragedy – the crash of SilkAir MI185 in 1997. It was the first air crash involving a Singapore airline. Sadly, all passengers and crew were lost. Most of them were Singaporeans. The government not only expressed its distress but also quickly took charge and responded decisively by rendering every assistance and support to the affected families. MFA and airline officers worked round the clock. Government psychologists were despatched to provide counselling to the bereaved. Government leaders visited the crash site, and were accessible to a public who wanted answers. We were honest about what we knew and did not know. We also held a national condolence service, and as PM, I spoke to express the nation’s sorrow and loss, and to provide some measure of closure to this unfortunate crash. This human face of the government in a national tragedy helped to strengthen the bond between the people and the government.

Future emerging challenges

Looking forward into the next phase of Singapore’s development, how will the basis of trust between leaders and Singaporeans evolve? This is for a new generation of leaders to forge with a new generation of Singaporeans. The new generation of Singaporeans wants not only to be heard but also to participate in the decision process. Instead of regarding this development as a vexatious demand for government to be more open, transparent and accountable, it should be regarded as a positive sign of the citizens wanting to join in to build a better society. As basic needs are fulfilled, we must expect such a trend, no matter how much the people trust the government.

Be adaptable and yet principled

Let me conclude by summing up a few core principles we have distilled from our years in government.

a) First, remain incorruptible and maintain the moral integrity of the government. This is fundamental to sustain the people’s trust in government. If this is absent or eroded, the people will become sceptical and cynical of whatever the government proposes.

b) Second, speak the truth and do not cover up unpleasant facts or developments. Also, never promise what you cannot deliver. You would be amazed at how resilient people are when you respect them enough to take them into your confidence and give them the hard facts and harsh realities of life.

c) Third, give equal opportunities to every community, and in fact, everyone, to learn, acquire skills and perform. Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome, but the meritocratic system in place must lead to equitable results. This means the less able must be helped along by the more able, the society and the government. The less able must share in the fruits of success and their children must be assisted to ascend this ladder of success.

d) Fourth, do what is right for the country in the long term, not what is popular or politically expedient. Leaders should not engage in the politics of division, appealing to any dominant group for their support and neglecting the interests of the minorities. True leadership in government means governing with the long term interests of the people and the country in mind.

e) Finally, understand the aspirations of the people and paint a vision of the future which they can share. When leaders and the people share a common vision of their country’s future, as well the same basic values of governance, the trust between them will endure.

Trust cannot be compelled. It cannot be based on fear. It has first to be earned and then nurtured based on integrity, dedication, fairness and the ability to produce results for the people.

Many governments around the world face a trust deficit. The response in some countries has been to develop institutional checks on government. These may have their place in certain contexts. Some take an adversarial approach because their starting premise is that governments are fundamentally not to be trusted. In the United States, many Americans believe that the less power the government has, the better it is for private citizens. In Singapore, our starting premise is that given our unique characteristics and vulnerabilities as a little nation, a strong, competent and morally upright government is essential to Singapore’s survival. This does not mean that government has to be everywhere, but that government has a critical and leading role to play in nation building.

The most regular survey done on public trust is conducted by Edelman, an international PR firm. The findings from their most recent survey were recently released in Jan 2010. Both Singapore and China scored very highly in this survey. Eighty-four percent and 74% of our respective populations find our governments trustworthy compared to a global average of 49%. In the US, it is 46% and in the UK, 38%. This shows that both our governments have been doing something right.

But trust must be continually earned and it can be quickly lost. Hence, this Forum is an excellent opportunity for China and Singapore to exchange ideas about the challenge of governance and leadership. I wish all the delegates in this Forum a fruitful and stimulating dialogue over the next two days. I believe that the cross-pollination of ideas in our dialogue will enable us to discern insights into our respective challenges.

Thank you.

“Increasing Public Trust in Leaders of a Harmonious Society”

Let me first extend my warmest welcome to His Excellency Li Yuanchao and his delegation to Singapore. His Excellency is an old friend of Singapore. When I broached the subject of a Singapore-China Forum on Leadership with him in Beijing two years ago, he agreed immediately. So it is indeed a great pleasure to welcome him and our Chinese friends to this second Singapore-China Forum.

Public Trust in the Leaders

The recent global financial crisis was the most severe since the great depression. More than an economic crisis, this crisis is also a crisis of confidence in banks, regulators and their governments. There is growing recognition of the vital role that government plays vis-à-vis the free market in fostering growth and a harmonious society. With the recent economic recovery, government and corporate leaders share a general sense of relief that we had pulled back from the brink of financial abyss. However, they still have a huge task before them in rebuilding the trust in public institutions and their leaders. Rebuilding this trust is an important aspect of leadership. Without this trust, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the government to persuade the people to accept tough and painful solutions to overcome the challenges and difficulties faced by the entire nation. In my mind, this trust lends more legitimacy to a government than its legal authority.

Therefore, your theme, “Harmonious Society and the Development of Leadership”, is timely. How do we secure public trust in the leadership? This is not a science that can be found in textbooks or instruction manuals. Neither can it be discussed without considering a country’s social, political and historical context. Trust is built up through the leaders’ interaction with the people, how they deal with challenges and crises, and how they meet the people’s aspirations. While there are differences in basic circumstances between China and Singapore, there are also similarities in the challenges that we face. Hence, we can learn from each other’s experiences in addressing the issue of developing leadership and a harmonious society. Let me start off our sharing session by relating how Singapore’s social compact was built up and what we have done to maintain public trust.

The Early Years of Nation Building

When Singapore gained its independence in 1965, our future was bleak. We had security concerns and our unemployment rate was high at 14%. This was compounded by high birth rates and a rapidly growing population. Our domestic market was small and the investment climate was marred by frequent labour unrest. In addition, the British announced in 1967 that British troops in Singapore would be withdrawn completely by 1971. The British military did not just provide security. They also contributed to approximately 20% of our GDP then and were the second biggest employer after the government.

Rising communal tensions created more problems for the new government formed by the People’s Action Party. In July 1964, racial riots broke out. I had just started work in the Economic Planning Unit under the Prime Minister’s Office. The riots were instigated by unscrupulous Malay extremists during a Prophet Mohammed’s birthday procession. Thirty-six people were killed and several hundreds more injured. But the bigger casualty was race relations. The harmony which had earlier existed between the Chinese and Malays was shattered.

Externally, we faced strained ties with our closest neighbours. When we joined Malaysia in 1963, President Soekarno mounted a campaign of “Confrontation” against Malaysia which he called a neo-colonialist plot. Trade with Singapore was virtually suspended. It was lifted only in 1966, after Suharto came into power. The Malaysians also wanted to bypass Singapore and deal directly with all their trading partners through their own ports.

The lack of jobs, and the poor housing, healthcare and schools, provided fertile ground for the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) to stir up labour unrest and mount political attacks against the government. The MCP had a strong influence amongst the Chinese-speaking population in Singapore and Malaya during 1950s and 60s. They developed a strong base in the unions, and Chinese teachers’ and students’ associations. They took a militant approach, mobilising their followers to organise strikes, and demonstrations. It was a turbulent time for Singapore.

The communist cadres in Singapore impressed the masses with their passion, selfless dedication and spartan lifestyle. Against this backdrop, the PAP government fought an uphill battle to win the hearts and minds of the population. The PAP leaders knew that competence, incorruptibility and moral integrity of the government were vital in persuading the people that the PAP was a credible and trustworthy political force. Given the circumstances, they focused on gaining public trust in three main areas.

First, the government promised a better life for the people and delivered. To create jobs, it eschewed the prevailing economic ideology, which was to be a self-sufficient economy relying on protectionism and import substitution. Instead, the government actively sought out MNCs to bring their capital, technology, markets and management to Singapore. It built the infrastructure, established good labour relations and implemented sound fiscal and macro-economic policies. By 1971, when British forces left Singapore with their 70,000 jobs, both direct and indirect, the American electronics and other MNCs had generated so many jobs that unemployment was no longer an issue.

The lives of Singaporeans improved in other tangible ways. We provided universal access to 10 years of education, giving their children a better start in life, and creating the foundation for social mobility. We launched a public housing programme to give Singaporeans decent housing with piped water and modern sanitation. We sold the apartments at subsidised affordable prices to give Singaporeans a stake in the country. Getting their keys to a HDB flat became a rite of passage and a source of great pride for many Singaporeans. By 1980, two-thirds of our population were housed in government-built homes with the majority owning them. The government’s ability to deliver on its promise of a secure and better life won the people’s trust.

Second, because of our multi-racial make-up and the communal tension in the 1960s, government has to be especially even-handed in our policies. Given our large Chinese majority, there were strong pressures for Chinese to be the pre-eminent language. But instead, Singapore opted for English as the language of administration and taught it as a first language in schools, leaving each ethnic group to learn their mother tongue as the second language. In Parliament, all the four official languages – English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil – could be used. We also formed a Presidential Council on Minority Rights in 1970 to ensure that legislations passed by Parliament did not discriminate against the minorities. Multi-racialism was and is entrenched as a key tenet of our society. Minority groups could see their government leaders as representing all Singaporeans and had faith that their languages, cultures and religions would not be subsumed under the interests of the majority.

Third, in the 1960s before the PAP came into power, there was corruption in high places. Bureaucratic power invested in poorly paid officials was a great temptation for abuse. To fight this, the leadership resolved to set the example and the tone for the entire society. They dealt with all transgressors without exception, even if they came from their own ranks. As you well know, 上樑不正下樑歪 – if the upper beams are not straight, the lower ones will be crooked. The government also decided to pay public officials competitive wages.

The PAP has now been in power for 51 years, and I dare say that it is rare for a party to remain in power for so long and yet has not gone weak and corrupt. To illustrate, after the hectic budget session each year, the PAP Members of Parliament would have an informal dinner to let their hair down, as the English would say. The MPs paid for their own dinner and entertainment. In fact, the MPs entertained themselves by putting up skits. They and the Ministers also sang, no matter how out of tune. When the common people see that their leaders are not only incorrupt but are also effective in protecting them from corrupt officials, their trust in the government is reinforced.

Adapting to the Challenges of Today

But building trust is a continuing process. By the 1980s, Singapore had broken into the ranks of the middle income countries. Today, it is regarded as a developed country. The aspirations of Singaporeans have changed with growing affluence and international exposure. More than 90% of Singaporeans live in a home which they own. More than 70% of each cohort has a post-secondary education. Except for a few recession years, we had virtually full employment.

A new generation of Singaporeans has grown up without memories of the poverty, uncertainty and strife of our early years. Their starting point in life is today’s high water mark, not yesterday’s low tide. No matter how honest and efficient the government was in the past, they expect the government to meet their new aspirations. Hence, the trust between the government and the people has to be continually re-established and re-earned. How did we do this? Perhaps the best way to explain this is to relate a few examples of national crises that we had been through and to share how we handled them.

Restoring economic competitiveness

Let me start with the recession which hit us in 1985, the first time our GDP had gone negative since independence. Externally, Singapore was severely affected by the global trade slump, especially with the United States, our largest trading partner then. Internally, the rapid rise in labour costs had eroded our competitiveness significantly. Between 1979 and 1984, increases in our labour costs well exceeded that of productivity.

We set up an Economic Committee, chaired by newly-appointed Minister of State for Trade & Industry, Lee Hsien Loong. The committee recommended a sharp reduction in wage cost. This was to be done by reducing employers’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution, from 25% of wages to 10%. As the employers’ CPF contribution formed part of the workers’ wages and was widely used for re-paying their housing loans, the cut was real and painful.

As the Deputy Prime Minister then, I met the union leaders and explained to them the grave economic problem we were facing. I had spent time with them before to improve workers’ welfare and they trusted me. When faced with the facts, they agreed to swallow the bitter pill and worked with the government to persuade their members and other workers to accept the need for a massive cut in their CPF. The strong medicine worked, and the economy grew strongly within two years. The workers’ trust in the government strengthened.

When the Asian Financial Crisis struck in 1997/1998, we went through a similar process. Investors in Singapore saw that this was a government that was able to diagnose the problem correctly and had the courage and ability to persuade the people to take their prescription. They concluded that this was a rational government and a rational people. They had enough faith in the Singapore leadership and in Singaporeans to put long-term multi-million dollar investments in Singapore.

Preserving social harmony

Another example of how the government turned a crisis into a trust-building exercise was the 9/11 terror attack on the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001. The attack affected us indirectly because we have a sizable Muslim population. We were concerned about the potential backlash against our Muslim population if there was indiscriminate labelling of all Muslims as extremists and terrorists. Worse, we subsequently discovered that Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a Southeast Asian terrorist group, was plotting to set off bombs in Singapore. JI was dedicated to the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in Southeast Asia incorporating Indonesia, Malaysia, the southern Philippines, Singapore and Brunei. If the terrorists had succeeded in carrying out their acts in Singapore, the consequences on racial harmony would have been unimaginable. It would have created tension and conflict between Muslims and the other ethnic and religious groups. The harmony between the races would be torn asunder.

We briefed our Muslim leaders quietly and frankly as to the nature of the extremist Muslim threat and its consequences for Singapore. We took them into our confidence and showed that we trusted them. As Prime Minister, I also met Muslim and other community and religious leaders. I explained to them the importance of not confusing the act of a small group of extremist Muslims with our Muslim population, and put across to the Muslim leaders that it was in their community’s interest and in Singapore’s interest to take a public stand against the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the JI plot in Singapore and to condemn such extremist practices. We succeeded in convincing Singaporeans that our Muslims were moderate and did not sympathise with terrorists and their ideology. To further enhance inter-racial understanding and reduce the risk of misunderstanding, we set up Inter-Racial Confidence Circles (IRCCs) in every constituency to provide a platform for confidence building and developing deeper friendship and trust between communities. These open meetings plus quiet behind-the-scenes dialogues worked. We averted a potential for misunderstanding between races caused by terrorist acts elsewhere and the plot of a few extremists in Singapore.

Bringing people together during human tragedies

A third example of how we bond with the people was how we handled a national tragedy – the crash of SilkAir MI185 in 1997. It was the first air crash involving a Singapore airline. Sadly, all passengers and crew were lost. Most of them were Singaporeans. The government not only expressed its distress but also quickly took charge and responded decisively by rendering every assistance and support to the affected families. MFA and airline officers worked round the clock. Government psychologists were despatched to provide counselling to the bereaved. Government leaders visited the crash site, and were accessible to a public who wanted answers. We were honest about what we knew and did not know. We also held a national condolence service, and as PM, I spoke to express the nation’s sorrow and loss, and to provide some measure of closure to this unfortunate crash. This human face of the government in a national tragedy helped to strengthen the bond between the people and the government.

Future emerging challenges

Looking forward into the next phase of Singapore’s development, how will the basis of trust between leaders and Singaporeans evolve? This is for a new generation of leaders to forge with a new generation of Singaporeans. The new generation of Singaporeans wants not only to be heard but also to participate in the decision process. Instead of regarding this development as a vexatious demand for government to be more open, transparent and accountable, it should be regarded as a positive sign of the citizens wanting to join in to build a better society. As basic needs are fulfilled, we must expect such a trend, no matter how much the people trust the government.

Be adaptable and yet principled

Let me conclude by summing up a few core principles we have distilled from our years in government.

a) First, remain incorruptible and maintain the moral integrity of the government. This is fundamental to sustain the people’s trust in government. If this is absent or eroded, the people will become sceptical and cynical of whatever the government proposes.

b) Second, speak the truth and do not cover up unpleasant facts or developments. Also, never promise what you cannot deliver. You would be amazed at how resilient people are when you respect them enough to take them into your confidence and give them the hard facts and harsh realities of life.

c) Third, give equal opportunities to every community, and in fact, everyone, to learn, acquire skills and perform. Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome, but the meritocratic system in place must lead to equitable results. This means the less able must be helped along by the more able, the society and the government. The less able must share in the fruits of success and their children must be assisted to ascend this ladder of success.

d) Fourth, do what is right for the country in the long term, not what is popular or politically expedient. Leaders should not engage in the politics of division, appealing to any dominant group for their support and neglecting the interests of the minorities. True leadership in government means governing with the long term interests of the people and the country in mind.

e) Finally, understand the aspirations of the people and paint a vision of the future which they can share. When leaders and the people share a common vision of their country’s future, as well the same basic values of governance, the trust between them will endure.

Trust cannot be compelled. It cannot be based on fear. It has first to be earned and then nurtured based on integrity, dedication, fairness and the ability to produce results for the people.

Many governments around the world face a trust deficit. The response in some countries has been to develop institutional checks on government. These may have their place in certain contexts. Some take an adversarial approach because their starting premise is that governments are fundamentally not to be trusted. In the United States, many Americans believe that the less power the government has, the better it is for private citizens. In Singapore, our starting premise is that given our unique characteristics and vulnerabilities as a little nation, a strong, competent and morally upright government is essential to Singapore’s survival. This does not mean that government has to be everywhere, but that government has a critical and leading role to play in nation building.

The most regular survey done on public trust is conducted by Edelman, an international PR firm. The findings from their most recent survey were recently released in Jan 2010. Both Singapore and China scored very highly in this survey. Eighty-four percent and 74% of our respective populations find our governments trustworthy compared to a global average of 49%. In the US, it is 46% and in the UK, 38%. This shows that both our governments have been doing something right.

But trust must be continually earned and it can be quickly lost. Hence, this Forum is an excellent opportunity for China and Singapore to exchange ideas about the challenge of governance and leadership. I wish all the delegates in this Forum a fruitful and stimulating dialogue over the next two days. I believe that the cross-pollination of ideas in our dialogue will enable us to discern insights into our respective challenges.

Thank you.

Explore related topics

• Economy

• Education

• Finance

• Governance

• Housing

• Jobs and productivity

• Multi-racial and multi-religious society