I just watched the entire video and I have to say that Tharman is impressive. He is one of the better ministers in the govt.

Thanks to Shi Han for letting us know about this symposium. Kudos to TOC and TOCI. Good job.

I appreciate his view that
“…that Asian societies in general have a weak civil society initially, which is why there is a need for stringent regulations such as fines for even keeping the toilets clean. As time goes by, however, the younger generation becomes less risk-averse and it is up to the people to push for civil society. ”

I think this is one of the reasons why singaporeans are so scared. They are too asian minded. Very 3rd world thinking. Luckily, the Aware saga showed some hope that this situation may be improving. I feel that we need more civil society activism. I am gonna start one. For myself.

“The Minister answered that MNCs, when investing in a country, take heart in having the support of politicians taking part in the process. Singapore is thus a successful case when the economy is open and conducive for businesses.”

I really like this part…lol, really…

“one Chinese delegate said that the atmosphere in Singapore was simply too comfortable – people simply did not want to risk their lifestyles.”

Despite looking like any other capitalist economy, Singapore now relies heavily on socialist planning principles. Decisions are made at top, and implemented efficiently downwards, like an army.

The emphasis of coordination of roles and accountability has become so pronounced that people (1) look upwards for instructions and solutions, (2) fear to step out of pre-designated boundaries, (3) hold the top responsibility for decisions good or bad.

Change has to come both ways. The top has to let go, and the bottom has to take up more responsibility, accept more uncertainty, and live with less consistent regulations.

Tharman is one of the better minister. I only wish we can have more people like him in the government. Good thinker, fair minded.

“Good thinker, fair minded.”

all of them can think well, but for themselves only.

Two SWFs under his ministry have lost 100 billions dollars and he thinks he has the credibility and is qualified to lecture in international forum on world’s economy ? What’s the title of his next international lecture ? “How to help yourself to national coffers and reserves and make the country insolvent” ? Truly first class finance minister and UNIQUELY SINGAPORE.

5 positive comments and 1 negative comment so far . Some years ago, before he entered politics, Tharman was found guilty in a court of law in Singapore for leaking some official secrets. It puzzles me for many years why he was forgiven by PAP and even becomes the Finance Minister while people like Chee S J, Francis Seow and JBJ were hit by sledge hammers.

Why was Tharman let off?

this guy talk about goverance but when it involves our reserves, he say trust in the president is enough already, no need check.

come on, be more consistent can?
can fool ang moh and ignorant singaporeans but not everyone.

My previous comment is still under moderation since 1.05pm.

The world is adopting the Singapore model. We should be proud.

Basically. he is trying to persuade the western countries NOT to label Singapore as a tax haven.

Thank you very much for posting the video and covering the speech. The Online Citizen should urge ministers who speak well — write well — to speak and write more often and appear on YouTube and similar sites which allow bloggers to embed the clips. Singapore has some highly articulate, capable ministers who should speak for themselves instead of simply speaking to the mainstream media. They impress all the more when they speak for themselves as in this video. George Yeo also shone in his lecture at Cambridge University. The Prime Minister gave an excellent wideranging interview to the Bangkok Post. The Minister Mentor is a public speaker par excellence. And the Senior Minister has the common touch.

Strange, why he did not mention the Singapore’s “proven method” of finanical market base on TRUST rather than check and balance.

Note that Tharman is extremely passionate and enthusiastic (and it shows) about issue and improvement of educational system but not when it come to financial area that he is now managing. So this very well explain why he will fail as finance minister (because lack of passoin) but perform remarkably very well as education minister. So why are gov transferring to do finance ? Isn’t it a waste of talent to force the talent something he doesn’t like or don’t have a knack ? How is education link to finance ? PayAndPay ?

If Tharman has the rare talent in education area by all means transfer him as education minister not as finance minister where he is made scapegoat because of his lack of interest and knowledge (yes, I believe thing hidden from him to disallow him to make effective and just decision as in the case of MiniBomb saga).

Rubbish. Singapore’s lifestyle is relaxing.

If you take a look at how the chinese live in the richer Chinese regions, you will be awed.

They get 1000 + S$ a month when they retire at 50-55.

Their children have free bond-free education in the UK/US.

And people here are worrying about retrenchment and not having enough to live after retirement…

Singapore ministers always look good when they go overseas, but they sucked when grilled by people inside.

Please don’t misplace your trust.

mon,
that is the power of media and marketing. If you control the media and just market one-side view that is constructive and positive towards certain entity, majority will believe it. That’s why any country that try to replicate Singapore system will fail terribly and get their government overthrow unless the latter control the media successfully and buy over the army, politican, police etc.

Hi First class finance minister #7,

What can Tharman do when one SWF was run by the Prime Minister’s wife and the other was run directly by the Prime Minister’s father? Even if he has some great idea or insight on investment, they won’t listen to him because Tharman is not family. Anyway, I am pretty sure that his hands are tied when he asked us Singaporeans to trust the President. Common sense tells me that it is more likely for the Budget to be actually drafted and vetted by the Prime Minister’s Office prior to official submission in Parliament.

Someone commented above that Tharman had performed well in Education but not in Finance. I seriously wonder how did he perform well in Education?

The Aware’s module of the Sex Education was introduced during his watch, not now during Ng Eng Hen’s. And now there is a problem with that CSE package. This question is: If he was that good, how did that controversy managed to escape his scrutiny?

And some people are so easily “impressed” by him. But I also wonder how can he be impressive when:

1. During his tenure as the Finance Minister, Singapore’s economy is the first in Asia to be hit by the world economic crisis and the financial crisis.

2. GIC and Temasek, under the Finance Ministry, had managed to lose so much of taxpayers’ money and CPF money?

3. A serious under-estimation of the budget of 2007 with a surplus of more than $6.45 billion when it was forecast to be a minus.

4. The high frequency of adjusting our economic performance forecast showing earlier inaccuracies most of the time, especially over the last one year or so.

Therefore, I think an impressive talker may not necessarily be a good performer when we bother to analyse into the depth of the results of his ministry’s performance.

[...] crisis. This clip appeared on the popular Singapore blog, The Online Citizen, which also has a writeup on what he [...]

I think Tharman is one of the few PAP ministers who has an extremely sound financial and economic understanding. It would be interesting to watch him and Kenneth Jeyaratnam have a debate on economic issues.

Of course, given their respective backgrounds, my guess is that Tharman would most likely expouse a stronger regulatory view while Kenneth would go for a more macro arguement.

Over the next few years, we’ll be seeing many Western leaders looking to Asia (Singapore and China in particlar) for an understanding of how to structure large state-owned enterprises. They will learn from us how to equalise the qualifications and capabilities of regulators/public sectors with the private sector. Singapore in turn must learn how to develop its welfare system form the West as we progress as a nation.

////the invisible hand of market require the visible hand of the regulator…////

very true of our society now.

Brilliant or not, million dollar salary or not, SIngapore model is almost wholly dependent on the state of the US and global economy. Can’t blame anybody when we are worst hit now because we have no natural resources or agriculture sector.

So for economy, it is like whether the cock crows or not, the sun will rise and set.

Also we are just a tiny city state. Of course due to this fact, we have disadvantages and advantages as well. Advantage is that because it is tiny, it is also quite homogeneous and easier to control and suppress opposition. Which explains why there are 50% walkovers, 66% mandate and 98% seats for the PAP at every election. And also more easily ramp up economic growth by importing foreigners when times are favourable. But when things are in reverse, it is also terrible, like now.

crisis or not people still can survive. they got this mentality, life tough also must go on, scare to make change and get out of their comfort zone. nothing will change in singapore with so many cowards….

20) BD on May 9th, 2009 11.30 pm

I concurred with your analysis totally. You put it very succinctly indeed. There are values of common interest to bigger countries that Singapore is good at and likewise Singapore has more to learn and hopefully make progressive change over time. However, one must also remember, however good a system (the ultimate hope of true check and balance) being developed, the driving force to make it all work is not without the greater support from its “matured, rational, inclusive and far sighted thinking” citizenry. The latter is lacking much as compared to other bigger and more developed countries. This is a sad fact that had been repeated and displayed in this site and others including the mainstream when engaging in public discourses. On contrary, I see more disparity and discriminatory behavior when we are faced with controversial issues. A fact I believed many may argue that “We are/were not given the chance to prove it…or we know what our values are and mine values are better than yours therefore…and many more”

I think many may conveniently forget that whatever we wished to promote or advocate, it can all happen from the heart of our home (and it should), including educating our siblings and spreading it to the circles of relatives and friends. We seriously have to sit down and ask ourselves, have we actually done that and put it into regular practice? The writings are on the wall indeed.

His articulated fluency and passion in his delivery shows quality of a good and collective leader in comparison to his many peers of a different ethnic background albeit some may disagree that under his tenure billions were evaporated (well at least on papers, but most Singaporeans are well aware who holds the master key to the bank vault). You can put on an act with diplomacy tact in public speaking but you cannot fake passion that shows in within.

Tharman is not without flaws (who doesn’t?) but at least he does not come across as an egotistical “high paying” nincompoop who cannot articulate in public speaking and with myopic views. I certainly hope he maintain his rational ways of doing Singapore good and hopefully those knots around his hands will one day be rid off so that his compassion and deeds for the betterment of the country can be unleashed with no strings attached.

aiyoyo

just thinking, this elite is impressed, is it because the elites invest here & there,

then lost $$$$$, so this is called impressed?

and these elites after hear that, then go invest into that country again,

in order to impress more people? (by lost more $$$$$$)

1 more sad story

aiyoyo

Tharman is impressive indeed. His intellectual abilities beat the PM & the two DPMs hands down. If he doesn’t move up the ranks by next elections, the credibility of the government’s meritocratic principles are truly questionable.

Eh Shihan, congrats on the article and the symposium tickets. I’m interested in what the other foreign delegates think and how they reacted to Tharman’s defence of the “Singapore way”? Were they in agreement or disagreement?

TOC: Thanks for putting this up. The PAP could do with more leaders in the mould of Tharman.

jian: Tharman clearly impressed the foreign delegates. There was a Czech student who was dying to meet him after the conference and asked if he could join in with the Singapore contingent. The spontaneous applause given at the end of Tharman’s mini-speech on education was also not very common. He came across as a very sincere minister and provided rather unconventional viewpoints to the symposium.
Having said that, during another work session that I chaired later on, my own defence of “the Singapore way” through authoritarianism and state-led growth was heavily blasted by the audience. Partially because I was also defending China and trying to fend off the 1001 accusations of human rights violations, I got a feeling that elites usually agree with other elites. That is, the Singapore way is usually supported by those benefitting from it – foreign capital for instance. Down at the lower level, the perspectives of the students are usually quite different.

#29 Shihan:

In addition to the human rights issue, could you tell us more about what the students say? I’m really curious.

I have been telling people about the democratic socialist nature of our system, which leads to the high dependence on the government. But apparently people are misunderstanding that I have meant the government is doing enough for them so they shouldn’t be complaining.

Shihan,

How tough was it to defend Asian Authoritarian-Paternalism?

Shi Han,

I bet all the bankers present at the Symposium wanted a piece of Tharman for the following reasons:

1. They want bail-out fund from GIC and Temasek.
2. US and EU are cracking down on tax evasion. How safe is Singapore as tax haven?

My work session was co-chaired with another girl from Shanghai and it was supposed to be about pitting China’s view of its internal economy (inward looking) vs. Singapore’s global view of the world which basically is our policy of pragmatic engagement. I made an appeal for a pragmatic engagement with China everyone was probably more interested in discussing China than Singapore’s economy. I also took a whack at the democratic paradigm, saying that with the decline of America, we will probably see more non-democratic states in future and that doesn’t mean we should cease engagement with other state types.

2 Indian students came up very strongly against this, because I used India as an example of how democracy and too much free speech stifles economic growth. A Philippino student also spoke up against this, saying that economic growth is not the only way for people to be happy. The Indian perspective on this was that free speech, freedom of expression and individual freedom was the key to happiness to India. Another student too asked my Chinese co-presenter what was the government doing for the people, given the massive mistreatment of rural migrant workers and the lack of social welfare. My co-presenter could not come up with a reply for that, so I replied, saying that we need to be pragmatic about it because there is too little money to go around and we need to be patient, for the economy to grow before even thinking about human rights and welfare.

Students and businesspeople from the West were bystanders during this seminar. Later when I asked them about it, they said it seemed like a clash of cultures between Indian and Chinese perspectives.

You could also say it was the nature of the Symposium that most students who took part were from the business world. And foreign capital, as I mentioned, are usually more than happy with the policy of pragmatic engagement. I met a Swiss business student, a Czech student, the president of Credit Suisse, and Peter Day from the BBC who were more than in love with Singapore’s foreign policy strategy, and how LKY grew the economy from nothing to first world. So probably I could have been whacked even harder (and I was expecting it) if the debate were open to NGOs or people from the non-business world.

In reply to kkk and Donaldson, I think there needs to be a separation between Singapore’s policy as we have seen it, and Singapore’s policy as we wish for it to be in future. Even if I may go overseas to defend our country and Asian Values, it is only because it has worked, and will work for most developing countries. I have no qualms in saying that without draconian measures enacted back in 1970s and 80s, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

BUT (and this needs to be emphasised) this does not mean it will continue working for Singapore in the future. Personally I hate the concept of Asian values, and I hate living under stifling conditions and being suffocated by the education system. There are many Singaporeans overseas who escape precisely because of this reason, and I have met them at the Symposium as well. The government doesn’t need to do more for us, it needs to do less. Thus people complain for a reason, because they feel that something is wrong. It is up to civil society, alternative media and other fledgling organisations to capture this excluded sector so we can continue working as a cohesive system, rather than waiting for people to escape or to get pissed off enough to reject the system altogether.

HOWEVER is it only up to Singaporeans alone to decide on the change that is best for the country. Even if I do agree with certain foreign NGOs that Singapore as it is now, will not work for the future generations, I cannot gang up with them to criticise my own country.

So really this is the paradoxical situation of the generation living in a transitional era. It need not be a zero sum game when you either support the Singapore way or not. Obviously it has worked for us and yet there is this sneaking suspicion that it is not right for us. It’s not easy to reconcile the two. But you can, depending on the audience that you’re speaking to. We can go on and on here, about how high dependence on the government (which is seemingly becoming less in touch with the ground) is no good for us, and how we need to change. But at the same time, we can also advise other developing states about the Singapore way, and how they can get their act together to alleviate themselves from poverty, as we have done in the past.

I have a lot of problem with what he said:

Quote: “….the INCREASE IN POWER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED (my caps) across the political spectrum from left to right, because people fear the alternative that could lead to a cascading of market collapse across more markets than the financial industry.”

What does he base on to say this? Expecting the Govt to intervene when it is not within the ordinary citizens’ power, for eg regulating banks, does not mean that “increase in state power” is wanted or as he put it, accepted, unless Tharman meant something else.

Quote: “With this new faith in interventionism, it is thus essential to find pragmatic solutions that allow free markets to work within accepted boundaries, mitigating the build-up of excesses that will always be inherent in a free market system.”

What NEW FAITH in interventionism? People do expect or look to the Govt all the time, to do the right thing! It has always been essential for Govts to find pragmatic solution so that people are not exploited for the benefit of feeding the few ‘fat cats’, it is not just because of the crisis. Govts who did not do so thus leading to the market collapse believed in the free reign of Capitalism more than free market. “Build-up of excesses” are definitely due to Capitalism (even practised by the Spore Govt) not “free market”.

Quote: “The whole game of competing beliefs has run its cause. And we’re now in a world where the competing beliefs are relatively sterile debate. What’s more important is to observe the facts, learn from the facts, work out pragmatic solutions, keep adapting and improving them as we go along.”

Does Tharman mean either Democracy or Authoritarian rule is now irrelevant? “Observe the facts, learn from the facts….keep improving… ” – Who do not know this? US is doing it, UK is doing it, and even China is doing it. Whats ingenious about it? Whats new?

Rest of this speech, hogwash!

Can’t believe some can be impressed. He made a normal, maybe clever speech expected of a politician, but there is nothing new or ingenious about the things he said.

Hi Shi Han,

Thanks for your prompt reply. It is interesting to note “the clash of cultures between Indian and Chinese perspectives”. While Authoritarianism has brought our country to what it is today, I also disagree that it remains the way forward for our shared future. This is especially true when a high proportion of our population is educated to university level and that we have a growing middle class.

Hi Angelina,

When Tharman talks about “increase in state power”, he was referring to increased financial regulation. Singapore is an international financial hub, so it has to adopt the least strict code of financial regulation to attract financial players to be based in Singapore. However, thanks to the economic crisis, governments worldwide are tightening their financial regulation system, so this presents an opportunity for Singapore to tighten its financial regulation system without loosing its competitive edge against other international financial hubs.

I also believe the “new faith in interventionism” is a relative phenomena. The new faith is a result in the global collapse of confidence in the self-regulatory regime of the shadow banking system. The shadow banking system refers to the unregulated components of the financial markets such as hedge fund, which play an increasingly important role in financing the public market through securitisation.

I also don’t think he was referring to Authoritarian Regime or Democracy when he mentioned “the whole game of competing beliefs has run its cause”. I believe he was referring to the 3 leading school of thoughts in the economic circles – Free Market Economics, Keynesian Economics and Marxist Economics. Why would any PAP Minister make a speech that is equivalent to stepping his own toes?

Minister Tharman knows the issues we are faced with and governance would require more leaders with GQ what I term as gobal intelligence. This will make or break smaller nastions like Singapore if it is wiping out countries like Ice Land and Madagascar. We cannot deny the values that brought us here and the adaption we are making in regulation and reforms needed. When President Obama talked about change I do not think what he saw coming was not this economic tsunamy and social upheaval not just in USA but trhe world. The right balance must be worked out by GQ leaders at all levels with a sesible trade off As a politician he ran out of time but as a thinker he posed the right thoughts as a micro-manager coming from a one party state. Singapore survived thus far but I think the tip of the iceberg is what we see here but the rest is coming. Education and training is good from the younger generation but we need to be open minded. Kudos to Tharman and gang.