PM Lee Hsien Loong at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum 2011

“Leadership Renewal: The 4th Generation & Beyond"

The theme you have chosen for me this evening, “Leadership Renewal: The 4th Generation & Beyond” is a timely one for two reasons.

Firstly, it is a vital question which concerns your future. Secondly, it is going to be an important issue in the forthcoming general elections. But important as it is for us in Singapore, by the standards of other countries, to talk about future leadership, and then the future, future leadership, is a luxury.

Today, my colleagues and I are doing our duties. They call us the 3rd generation leadership. And I think we can serve Singapore for another decade before we grow too old. So when we talk about the 4th generation leadership, we are planning, not for the next ten years, but for the ten years after that, beyond 2020.

Very few countries worry about leadership so far into the future. Either the leaders on all sides are preoccupied with immediate problems or they are completely busy, taken up with staying in power, and winning the next elections. Singapore is different. Why do we in Singapore have this luxury, and indeed this necessity, to worry about this long term future?

We have been stable for the last five decades. The PAP has been in power for all of that time. We have had two leadership renewals. We are bringing in and grooming a 4^th generation leadership in this election. We are thinking beyond that to continue to find good people to come and serve Singapore.

Tonight, I would like to discuss two aspects of this issue. First, how did it come about that we are sitting pretty like this? When I say we are sitting pretty like this, I mean Singapore is sitting pretty like this. And secondly, how can Singapore continue to do well for many years to come?

Today, the PAP is politically dominant and people take it for granted. But we did not start like that. It happened partly because of historical accident. In the early years, before independence, there were ferocious battles, both among the political parties and even within the PAP. Within the PAP, the communists and their sympathisers on one side, and the non-communists on the other side, battled over the future of Singapore and over political control of the country, or at that time, of a self-governing state.

Eventually in 1961, the leftists split off from the PAP and they formed the Barisan Sosialis, went into the opposition and for a time, the PAP and the opposition were almost evenly matched in Parliament. In fact, there was a period when the PAP was a minority government with less than half the seats in the legislative assembly.

Then in 1966, after Independence, the Barisan Sosialis made a strategic mistake. Lee Siew Choh, who was their leader, took the party out of Parliament and onto the streets and ceded the political ground to the PAP. So in the general elections after that, in 1968, the PAP made a clean sweep, and it has remained dominant ever since.

But long ago events in the 1960s are not the only reason why we are here today. The actions that the PAP has taken over the last 50 years have been crucial. Firstly, the inclusive policies which were pursued. Secondly, the consensus politics we have fostered. Thirdly, the political system which we have built to work for Singapore, and fourthly, the leadership we have built, and the leadership renewal which we have implemented, which has made this whole system work.

But firstly, it works because the PAP pursued policies which gave all citizens a stake in the country. We brought all citizens, whether you are rich, whether you are poor, whether you are Chinese or Malay, whether you are blue-collar or white-collar, to have a stake in Singapore and brought their interests close together so that the interests align with the interest of the country. We promoted growth, we created jobs and we raised incomes for everybody. We invested in education to give every child a bright future. We promoted home ownership for all, and gave every household a substantial nest-egg to protect. We created an egalitarian and meritocratic society, where everybody is comfortable to mingle with one another - you go to the same hawker centres, you jog in the same parks, whether you are rich or poor, and even the poorest families in the land can aspire to have their children - if they work hard, and are talented and do well - rise to the top.

Having given everybody an interest in the progress of the country, the PAP then sought to represent a broad mass of Singaporeans and not just a segment of Singaporeans. Again, whether you are rich or poor, white collar or blue, whatever your race, whatever your religion, the PAP stood for you. This is your party. Into the party we co-opted all those who are committed to serve the country and to make the country better in order to form a broad national movement. Therefore we made the PAP a national government that drew support from all segments of society. So we got the policies right, people align their interests, we got the politics right, the PAP sought to represent the broad mass of Singaporeans, then we got the system right by adapting it to work for Singapore.

We introduced Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) to ensure a minimum representation of opposition voices in Parliament. We introduced Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) to guarantee a minimum representation of minorities in Parliament and also to push politics toward multiracial and inclusive politics instead of racial partisan extremist politics. Then we created Nominated MPs (NMPs) to widen the range of non-partisan views and to enrich the public debate in Parliament. We created the elected President to protect our reserves, to make sure that key appointments are not corrupted, and honest people are appointed in the critical jobs in the land, and to promote responsible politics because if the President is holding the key to the goodie jar, no politician can say, “Come, I am distributing goodies now, vote for me and you will get more.” Because you have to get the President’s permission and the President can say no. So if you want to spend, you have to show how you are going to fund your spending. I think that promotes responsible politics. Because of all these adaptations of our political system, we have been able to avoid destructive politics in Singapore, and the Government has been able to pursue constructive long term policies that work for Singapore. We have continued to refine our systems as we have gone ahead. In the last few years since the last elections, we have increased the number of non-constituency MPs from 3 to 9. We have created more single constituencies, smaller GRCs, and therefore we have opened up more space for alternative views to be expressed and debated in Parliament.

But the system is as good as the people who work it, and to make it work you must have good leadership. Good leadership is a leadership that is in sync with the times, in tune with the population, is renewed and does not get older and older year by year. So we have talent spotted, groomed new people, inducted them – both backbenchers and office holders. Every time we have an election, the most important thing for us is to find one-third to one-quarter of new MPs who can come in to replace the old ones, or those not yet so old, but to replace the existing MPs so that we bring in fresh blood, fresh ideas, fresh energy and stay in step with the population, despite many years in power.

This way, we have got a system which has delivered honest, high quality, efficient government. It is capable, competent, it works for Singaporeans and it is cheap because we actually spend very little money running the government. It is not perfect, there are many areas where we have to improve, and from time to time we do make mistakes and we have to learn from them and try not to make the same mistake twice. But overall, I think I can honestly say, without blowing our own trumpet, that it is a good system that has served Singa­pore well.

We have gone through crises, like the JI terrorist group, like SARS, like the global economic crisis, and each time we have not just come through, but emerged intact and strengthened. We compare well with any other government in the world, in any other country, whether it is a single-party government or a multi-party government, whether it is a democracy or whatever.

This system that works well for Singapore is an important and enduring competitive advantage for us that makes up for our smallness and vulnerability. It is something that is special and something that has taken us many years to build up. It is something which others can see and study but not so easy to replicate. And it is something that is getting more widely recognised in the world. The Economist magazine recently published a special report in the late March issue. The cover story has to do with something else, something to do with Japan’s problems but inside there is a special article on the Future of the State: Taming Leviathan. It is written by the editor of The Economist. He came to Singapore and he met me and he met MM. He interviewed a lot of people, the government and I think also the opposition, and he wrote us up in this special article, one piece on Singapore as a model of a state which is working. And the title is Go East, Young Bureaucrat. If you want to be a good civil servant – where can you see good civil servants? Go to Singapore. He puts us as a positive example as a government that works. How does it work? Well he says we are authoritarian but accountable to the people – he would have said authoritarian anyway but you would not have expected him to say “accountable to the people”. Able to think long term with a high quality public service, and he says that if you go sit in the Civil Service College, sitting around 30-something mandarins is more like meeting junior partners at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey than the cast of "Yes, Minister". I do not know if you have heard of "Yes, Minister" but I hope you do not meet either of such Ministers or civil servants here. He says the person on your left is on secondment at some big oil company, and on your right sits a woman, who between spells at the finance and defence ministries, has picked up degrees from the London School of Economics, Cambridge and Stanford. High-fliers pop in and out of the Civil Service College for more training; the Prime Minister has written case studies for them.

They have a high opinion of us and particularly of our education system, and he did not write up the NUS, but he wrote up the ITE because there are good universities in many countries in the world, but there is hardly any other country in the world with a first class institution like the ITE, providing outstanding, valuable, effective technical training for people who did not go to university or polytechnic and enabling them to get good jobs. So that is just one example. I could cite you half a dozen others just from the last few months.

You may have seen one more in the newspapers recently. I do not know whether you read the newspapers, I hope so, but you should have heard of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the IMF has one key committee in the organisation called the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC). This is the policy steering committee of the IMF. It is really the heart of the organisation where the key countries come together to debate issues concerning the global financial systems, concerning global imbalances, monetary reforms, banking, and so on. The new chairman of the IMFC, I am not sure how many of you can name him, but he is Tharman Shanmugaratnam – our Finance Minister. He was elected last month to chair the IMFC. It is not because we campaigned for the position. We did not campaign for the position but Tharman was elected because Singapore had a high reputation as a state which worked, and a successful economy, and Tharman himself personally is held in very high regard internationally. They know the quality of the person, they know the contributions he can make, they did not do this just out of politeness to us.

Our reputation and the realities of our good government are of great value to Singapore. It gives us influence in the world, it gives you good standing in the world, it opens doors for our businesses and it creates many opportunities for Singaporeans. If we did not have this – if we were just an ordinary city with a few million people in Asia – there are dozens, if not hundreds of cities in Asia, with a few million people – you would not stand out and we would be just one of many.

So this is the happy situation in which we are discussing 4th generation leadership and if we are looking forward and asking how we carry this forward into the next decade, then the issue is not just "Can we spot the next PM?", "What does he look like?", but rather "How can we keep this virtuous circle going - political stability, good government, economic and social success, good leadership feeding back again and moving forward".

We are in a stronger position today than we used to be – much stronger – but we will continue to face challenges, internally as well as externally and just because you are flying higher does not mean you can switch to auto-pilot because you never know when you will run into rough weather. If you are on auto-pilot, and it malfunctions, you will crash. So to fly the plane higher and faster, you need to find the best crew, chart carefully the most promising path forward, and work hard together to make it happen.

The basic factors will not change – I think our policies will still have to be right, we have still to give all Singaporeans a stake in the country’s future. The issues may be the same but the challenges are different, the opportunities we have have also changed. We need to ensure that all Singaporeans will benefit from growth. But it is more of a challenge than before because with globalisation, there is pressure on the wages of the lower end, of unskilled workers – everywhere, not just in Singapore – and even middle-income jobs are under pressure in developed countries as more work is sent to India, more work is outsourced to China, and as robots and computers and software become smarter and take over jobs which used to require human beings and human intelligence. That is a challenge.

But on the other side, we have a lot of resources, we can do a lot more for ourselves. We have got our education system sorted out. We can make every school a good school. We can provide every child maximum opportunity to develop his or her full potential. Every time I come to NUS I not only look at the buildings on this side of the road, I look at the buildings coming up on the other side of Ayer Rajah Expressway, and this evening I could see how they are up, ten storeys, almost complete, and I think some of you would be young enough to make it to get into the University Town before you graduate. The next institution – the liberal arts college, Yale-NUS, will also be there. And what we are doing in NUS, we are doing in NTU, SMU, with the polytechnics, the ITEs – many paths forward and therefore many opportunities for Singaporeans to do well for themselves and take advantage of globalisation rather than lose out because of it. We also have to keep social mobility high, because we must have the ability to allow talent to rise up from whatever his background. Your parents may be poor – but if you are hardworking and able you can make life better for yourself and for your parents. Your parents may be well-off – but if you do not have the ability to look after yourself, you will not inherit positions and responsibilities just because of your name. Therefore we must have a society where we can keep on having this free flow of talent moving up all the time, and all the talent in the country can be garnered and given maximum opportunity to flower.

We have to strengthen racial and religious harmony. It is something which you have heard year in and year out and I hope that it is something you will remember, if you have been in school in Singapore, from your National Education classes. But it is also something which is more urgent now because of extremist terrorism, which threatens many countries in the world, Malaysia, Indonesia. We are in this region and we may be targets too. With the right policies, I think in the next two decades we can solidify our sense of Singapore identity. Having done that we also must have the PAP continue to represent all Singaporeans – always be open to new ideas, new talents to accommodate a broad range of views and approaches in tackling issues, and seeing our opportunities and problems, and to attract even those who disagree with us on specific things and policies, to join us and make common cause and argue with us within the party, and try and persuade us and benefit from the exchange of different views, so that we can get the best solution for Singapore. We will not reject critics. In fact the party should seek them out to discover fresh ideas, fresh views. That is the way to stay open and not to become closed-up and fossilise or ossify.

Thirdly, we have got to preserve the strengths of our political system while continuing to adapt it to changing conditions. In Parliament, we must encourage a serious debate focusing on important issues which concern the country, and including all significant views. The NMPs and NCMPs have made useful contributions. They have participated fully, and therefore we have entrenched the Nominated MP scheme so it is now part of the system and we have expanded the Non-Constituency MP scheme so that now there will be up to nine Non-Constituency MPs, so that whatever happens in the General Elections, there will be at least nine Opposition voices in Parliament. But of course, quality is as important as numbers. You have three now in Parliament. There is nothing to stop them from holding the Government to account, from propounding ideas and strategies, from challenging the Government’s assumptions, and forcing the Government to justify why it is thinking, what it is doing. After all, the PAP started off small. In 1955 when the PAP first got into the Legislative Assembly, there were only three PAP members in the Opposition – one was MM Lee, one was Lim Chin Siong, one was an old man, Mr Goh Chew Chua – and with the three of them there, the PAP established itself so effectively that when the next General Election came within four years, it was able to win a landslide and come into power. More representation in Parliament, through the NCMP scheme, is helpful, but really quality - a responsible, sensible Opposition - is more important than numbers. We also have to keep our system open and contestable. The political system must be such that it is easy for people to come in to contest, form a party and participate. To win cannot be so easy because if you win, that is a big thing, and your voice will count so you must achieve a high standard to win. But to contest it cannot be difficult. You cannot require a lot of money.

In America, it costs a lot of money. If you want to run for President, you should start thinking how you will find US$500 million because that is about what it costs to run for President. Even to be a Congressman, of whom there are about five hundred, it costs you a few million dollars a shot and you spend all your time in Congress making sure you do not offend people who might contribute to your next election campaign. But in Singapore, we set a limit of $3.50 spending per party per voter during Parliamentary Elections – and in fact, most parties spend a lot less than that. It is cheap to contest but the hurdle to get elected should be high because you want to maintain the quality of the MPs and the quality of the political leadership and the political debate. The way to make the hurdle high is for voters to vote for the party and the leaders who will serve them best. The system encourages that because once an MP is elected, he looks after your constituency, he is responsible for your Town Council, he does not just make speeches in Parliament. The voters therefore have a direct stake in electing good MPs. But whatever the election outcome, there would be eighteen of them who are non-Government in Parliament and they will question the Government and hold it to account.

So you want a system which is not biased for any particular party, but a system which is biased towards producing an effective government for Singapore, while at the same time allowing adequate expression of opposition, alternative non-partisan views in the political system, because there will be 25 to 30 per cent of voters who will vote opposition. There will be other people who are not politically partisan and they have a voice and they ought to be heard.

Finally, we have to continue renewing our political leadership. You look at me and ask what I am going to do and I look back at you, the students particularly, and I would say it also depends on you, the Singaporeans amongst you. Because each generation has to produce people who have the ability, the passion and the commitment, who will contribute to the community, who will become leaders in their own right, who will help build the Singapore which you want to see in your lives and in your future. Do not wait for a tea party invitation. We are looking for people who will come forward, who have ability and integrity, regardless of family background. If you have ideas, if you have energy, if you care about it, come forward, serve and make a mark. It is not just your grade point average which counts or even your IQ. Yes, they mean something, but character and values are as important as intellect and ability.

You have to be committed, you have to care about the country, you have to be able to connect with people, and you must have a contribution to make. It could be looking after constituents at the grassroots or in welfare homes. It could be thinking out national policies, or it could be mobilizing a segment of the population. You have leadership, people follow you, what you say counts and will be taken into account of very carefully.

Because leadership is so important, for this general election, we have met more than 200 people for tea, and finally we are fielding just 20 plus new candidates. We decided not to field many who had outstanding qualifications. On the other hand we are fielding quite a number who did not necessarily excel academically. In fact, one of them said he took his O’ levels twice, but they possess other important qualities. I am proud of our new candidates, individually and collectively. We will give them responsibilities to test their mettle and their ability to solve problems for the people. Over the next 20 plus years, some of them will be playing key roles in Singapore. The search goes on. We will continue to look for new talent to reinforce the leadership in the next general elections. If the general elections are this year, five years from now will be 2016, and beyond in each elections. But within two terms from now, the new MPs will have to choose from among themselves the new leadership team and a new leader - the new PM. They will have to start assembling the next leadership team after to succeed them, to take Singapore forward.

But no system lasts forever, as even MM himself acknowledges in his latest book called Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. So we do not assume that the PAP will remain dominant indefinitely. We have to ask ourselves a question - what is the alternative? It could be another party, just as dominant, or it could be some other configuration. Now what other configuration could that be? A lot of people say, “Can we have a two party system?” That is the ideal that is many developed countries work, that is what you should aim for, a change of government from the first party to the second, and from the second to come back, and then you are considered to have matriculated.

But how could this happen in Singapore that we have two parties? I can imagine several scenarios. First, the society splits based on race or religion. You have one party representing one race or religion, another party representing another race or religion. That is the worst possible scenario for Singapore and we have done our best to make sure that it never comes about. Because if we are split on race or religion, you are not just going to have political quarrels, you are going to divide the society and that is the end for Singapore.

The second possibility is that you divide on class lines. We do not get our economic policies right or maybe it is just that the world trends are such, the rich get richer, the poor do not make progress. After a while the poor lose hope in the system, the rich lose interest in the rest of society. So one side says, “Tax me less, let me keep my wealth”. The other side says, “Give me more transfers, more welfare, more goodies, more benefits”. And you have two parties forming, one representing one group, the other one representing the other group, rich and poor. And that is how, I mean highly oversimplified, but that is how things roughly work in many countries. Like Britain, where you have the Conservatives and the Labour Party, and now the Lib Dems (Liberal Democrats) somewhere in the middle. Or in the US, where you have the Democrats who are representing more of the working class, and the Republicans who represent more of the well-off people. But I do not think that is a good outcome either. We are working hard to prevent this because I think we should try and to the maximum extent that we can align all the interest of the Singaporeans and make sure that one party can represent you, whether you are the CEO or the taxi driver.

The third possibility is that we split on policy grounds, you argue that this set of policies will be best for Singapore to grow, promoting MNCs. They argue that no I do not want MNCs; sending them all away and depending on Singaporeans and Singapore companies is the way to grow. And we cannot reconcile and we split and we argue over the policies and fight it out at the polls. I think that could happen but it is not so likely because the PAP is a pragmatic party and we are ready to take in good ideas. If you look at it at a higher level, frankly, the range of feasible options of Singapore is not that wide. So it is possible it could happen, but it would mean that something has gone wrong too.

But the most important reason, why a two party system is not workable is because we do not have enough talent in Singapore to form two A-teams, to form two really first class teams to govern Singapore really well. More than any country, Singapore needs exceptionally able leadership to tackle challenges and to minimise the risks for our countries. We are small, we are vulnerable. With a mediocre government, other countries may muddle through, and have to muddle through, but Singa­pore will fail. The most effective way to get a two party system, if you really want to do it, is to split the PAP in two. Because the talent is there, gathered. We will have two persons, I choose one, you choose one. Now we have two teams, now we play, we toss the coin.

We seriously considered making the PAP two parties, not that way, but in principle. But we did not do it because we could not solve one problem: how can you make two teams, each one as good as the original one team which we had, which took, really, what would have been the best players from both teams? Or, to put it in very hard, direct and tangible terms, where can you find two Finance Ministers and two Defence Ministers? I have one Finance Minister and one Defence Minister. If you have a spare one somewhere, please let me know. Why do I choose these two? Because these are two of the most difficult jobs in the Cabinet to fill. In Finance, you have to make judgments on taxes affecting all Singaporeans and on expenditures affecting all ministries. On the Budget – you are talking about 50 billion dollars of expenditure every year, as well as our reserves – GIC, Temasek, MAS and others adding up to more than 100 billion US dollars. To find one of them is not easy. To find two of them, you must really tiok beh pio (strike the lottery).

It is the same with Defence in a curiously opposite way. Because Finance is about money and it is very difficult, and Defence is very difficult because it is not about money, because the bottom line is intangible – security, risks, threats, judgment. What is worth spending on, what is worth investing on, which is the right aeroplane to buy, how many ships do you need, which colonels to make general, how to shape the SAF. Which threats are getting serious? When do I recommend to mobilise the SAF? When do I decide I must deploy and defend? Can you easily find anybody off the street to do that sort of job? It’s very, very difficult.

Therefore, have one team, get the best people together, fill each job with the best man. If we split it into two teams, then whichever one is in charge, the government is going to be weaker, and the chances of something going wrong will go up. Even if things do not go wrong, standards will go down. That is why my predecessors and I have gone out of our way to scour the land for talent to join the team. At every election, we have 20-odd candidates become new MPs, and out of these, on average - I did a count over the last 5 or 6 elections - about 3 make it to become Minister. But we have 14 Ministries to fill, and then on top of that, you need some supervising Ministers, some DPMs, Senior Ministers, because you need some additional experience and oversight of the system. Just say 14 Ministries to fill, and I can get 3 Ministers each term, you do the math – 14 divided by 3 means, on average, each Minister has to serve at least 4 terms. So, over the weekend, SM Goh expressed his personal view that perhaps in future, Ministers should serve only 2 terms. But I think that is not possible, simply because of the numbers. We are not able to generate the talent in order to produce those numbers of people who are able to do the job competently, to the satisfaction of Singaporeans at that rate.

The opposition parties pitch themselves as offering Singapore a fallback should the PAP fail. It sounds plausible, but if you think about it, what does it depend on? Most critically, it comes back to talent again. If the PAP cannot assemble a second team, I do not think the Opposition will find it easier to do that. You look at it from the micro view. Consider a capable person weighing his options. He wants to serve the nation, he is trying to decide how to do it, which way he should go. And he has two choices: first choice, join the Opposition, oversee the PAP, but really spend his life – and it can be quite a long time – waiting and watching, just in case the PAP screws up, then he will be ready to take over. The other alternative is, join the Government, help it to make better decisions, implement good policies, and avoid making mistakes and screwing up. Now, which makes more sense for him and for Singapore?

For all these reasons, I think the best thing for us to do is to concentrate our resources and form one really strong Singapore team. Some people will want to join the Opposition. Yes, they want to propound alternative policies, or they want to be a check on the Government, that is valid. By all means, join the Opposition, especially if the Government is wrong or incompetent. But so long as the Government is competent and doing a good job for Singaporeans, I hope you will make common cause with it, and help us to ensure that things stay right. What we can do and must do to assure Singapore’s future is to develop the strongest possible ‘A’ team with depth and resilience. Competent Ministers, people with expertise in different Ministries, plus depth – younger ones learning the job, so that as the situation changes, as we have new needs, we can always find the right person for the right job. If one person does not work out, I can do a replacement, I can call a time out, change my team member, and the game goes on.

Actually, that is how soccer is played. If you watch World Cup soccer, every country only has one team. No country fields two teams for the World Cup. You have one national soccer team, you have reserve players, you have coaches, you can change players, and if need be, you can even change the coach. But you concentrate all your talent, make one team, and give it your best shot whether it is Johannesburg or Rio de Janeiro. I think that is what we should do. We are not so successful in soccer but we are not doing badly in government and I think that we should keep up our winning streak and stay in the championship league in the international contest of nations.

We are now putting together the next ‘A’ team for Singapore. The PAP candidates in this round will form key members of this team and in the next couple of rounds. They need the voters’ full support, not just to get elected but to deliver results for you, because this is the way to safeguard our common future, not to weaken the 'A' team in the hope of buying insurance, but to strengthen the ‘A’ team to give it the best chance of succeeding.

This General Election matters to you. I imagine most of you will be voting, especially the men, because you are a bit older, you have done NS. You will be graduating soon, and over the next 40, 50 years, you will be building your careers and your families. For you to do this in a secure, stable and prosperous Singapore, we have to maintain the same high quality of government we have enjoyed, that you have enjoyed, and that has enabled you to come thus far. That is why leadership succession is a major issue in this election. We have to press hard on leadership renewal now, so that in ten years’ time in 2020, we will have a younger team ready not just to maintain our present high standards, but to take this as our foundation to fly even higher and do even better.

Ten years is not a long time. It is not a long time to build a new team for Singapore. It is not a long time in your life. Take my word for it - in ten years’ time, you will still be young people. Early thirties, young adults, about to enter your prime years, making progress in your careers, hopefully making progress starting your families. You need this leadership renewal to succeed, and this leadership renewal needs your help to succeed. If we can succeed in doing this, then we will have good policies that will bring prosperity and progress to Singapore, and then we can maintain the virtuous cycle. In another 20 years’ time, you can invite somebody else to come here, update this title, and we can talk about the 6^th generation leadership.

Thank you very much.

Explore related topics

• Governance