“Why should you presume to tell me how my country should run?”
Remember the last time a Singaporean leader made an epic comeback with an interviewer?
Singaporean politicians are probably not known for being being “cut-throat” or having aggressive responses. We are obviously a conservative society, and hence our responses are usually that: pragmatic and politically correct. Standard responses include: “Singapore is a multicultural and religious country” or similar permutations uncontroversial rhetoric.
For the uninitiated, our nation’s personable leader took the hotseat for the BBC HARDTalk with interviewer Stephen Sackur, who is known for his merciless questioning. The 30 minute long video was saturated with delicious inquiries into Singapore’s most controversial issues. Stephen Sackur didn’t hold anything back. But neither did PM Lee, responding with frank remarks to his upfrontness and lack of restraint for on Singapore’s affairs. Here are some of his succinct replies.
On Whether Gay Sex Will Remain Illegal In Singapore
If you are not aware of this rather obscure and draconian law, Penal Code 377A criminalises sex between men. PM Lee addressed the question arguing that Britain’s abolishment of the law in the 1960s did nothing to the issues posed by gay marriages. He backed his point with the anti-gay demonstration in Paris, pointing out that even in countries where gay marriages and all are legal, it is still a highly contentious issue.
Sackur also posed a hypothetical scenario if PM Lee’s perspective would change if a family member were gay. He dismissed the matter with:
LHL: “This is a society which is not that liberal on these matters. Attitudes have changed, but I believe if you have a referendum on the issue today, 377A would stand,”.
Handled well or dodged the question? It depends on your point of view.
On Freedom Of Speech, The Press, And Amos Yee
This was an issue that was recently debated on the British parliament and when Sackur hinted at Singapore’s lack of freedom in the press and media.
LHL: “We are completely open, we have one of the fastest internet in the world. We don’t have a great wall. I do not see you being restrained in asking me questions. There’s no need for Singapore to follow the freedom of press in that of their western allies. Singapore does not have a giant wall, why are we complaining?”
Sackur then touched on the fact that Singapore took legal action for things teenagers have written online and the backlash it received by human rights activists saying that the PM is imposing political control. Case in point: Amos Yee.
Sackur: “You have got human rights who are saying, Prime Minister Lee is imposing a mix of absolute political control and repression of dissenting voices that was the hallmark of his father.”
LHL: “If it were such a miserable place, you would not be interviewing me. You would be going down the streets and getting ‘vox pops’ and all sorts of people would be saying terrible things about the government and some of them would have emigrated.
PM Lee laughed it off when Stephen Sackur went on to ask about how PM Lee would react to questions about freedom and rights.
LHL: “Why should you presume to tell me how my country should run?”
He elaborated with “You look at the americans. They don’t lack fervour in moral clauses.” And as they are one of the obvious global leaders, they don’t enforce their form of governance to their allies. There is a pragmatic need to conduct businesses and relations in which ever way that suits and works for each country. PM Lee named some of the oil-producing countries as an example to side that.
On The Long-Standing One-Party Rule
Sackur pointed out that Singapore is not a successful democracy because it has been governed by the same party since independence and therefore lacks a powerful opposition.
LHL: “I would not say it is one-party rule. The Government has only belonged to one party but there are many parties in Singapore. The elections are fiercely contested.”
Responding to Mr Sackur’s point that there are only a handful of opposition Members of Parliament (MPs), Mr Lee pointed out that there are six elected and three unelected MPs who are not from the ruling People’s Action Party, and said the number would be increased to at least 12.
On Singapore-China Relations
PM Lee reiterated that the detained Terrex vehicles were more of a “delicate” than “a lack of trust” issue. When Sackur mentioned that the Chinese felt betrayed due to Singapore’s stance in the matter, Mr Lee corrected him saying that it is a law and order issue that does not affect their bilateral ties and relations. Sackur also asked about the rising tensions in the region and perceived Chinese unhappiness over Singapore’s ties with America.
LHL: “If America-China relations become very difficult, our position becomes tougher. Because then we will be coerced to choose between friends with America, and friends with China.”
Here’s Other Instances Singapore Leaders May Or May Not Have Nailed The Art Of State-Related Interviews.
-
Mr Lee Kuan Yew
During an interview with SPIEGEL, our first ever prime minister was persistently questioned on the risk Singapore and the West would face with China’s growing success. He went on to end debate by saying “It’s stupid to be afraid.”
The interview also touched on points that Singapore is turning into a Lee Family Enterprises to which he argued that it is due to Singapore being a small community. Reiterating his point, he stated that:
“If I were not the prime minister, my son could have become Prime Minister several years earlier. It is against my interest to allow any family member who’s incompetent to hold an important job because that would be a disaster for Singapore and my legacy. This cannot be allowed.”.
-
Dr Tharman
Dr Tharman was asked by Stephen Sackur 2 years ago about whether Singapore’s focus on heavy state budget and far ambitions would, weirdly, ground the works for future problems. Mr Tharman pointed out that Singapore’s model is based on one that equally weighs in the responsibility of the government and the people. Which led to the question of the usage of “safety nets” in Singapore.
Which Mr Tharman responded: “I believe in the notion of trampoline.” — cueing support and laughters from the audience. Sarkur then went on further saying that Singapore is implying a Singapore that is “bouncing up and down”.
Mr Tharman then again, in true Singapore leader style, stated that it’s a balance of all policies — Sarkur vs SG: 0 vs 2.
Sackur wasted no time in sparing Mr Tharman and went on to point to our state’s massive spending.
Sackur: “And I don’t know whether you are worried, but looking forward, particularly if you mix demographics with the size and ambition of your government, you are going to run into real problems.”
Mr Tharman replied with the fact that Singapore is “a very interesting case of a country that has low government spending, by the way, by most standards, as a percentage of GDP. Low taxes.”
The topic escalated into bringing Sweden into the picture when Mr Tharman responded with, “I mean, look at the Scandinavian countries. They used to be among the most hardworking countries in the world. The Swedes were incredibly hard working, industrious people.”
This is where it got interesting. Sackur caught the usage of past tense and asked if it meant that he is implying that “The Swedes have become lazy? Or what’s happening?”.
Tharman: “Present active tense, they’re a good society in many ways, and they’re willing to pay high taxes to keep their system going.”
Cue laughter from the crowd but we admit, it was a pretty sweet save.
There are also some arguments that really weren’t so great but enough to keep our leaders above the playing field
-
Dr Chee Soon Juan
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate had rebuked the media after his failure to wrestle Bukit Batok from the PAP. He said that had smeared his name with their articles of him. His media interview, he explained that Shin Min Daily, the local Chinese evening newspaper, had kept bugging him with the same questions about an ex NCMP Lina Chiam. Exasperated, he shot back at the reporters saying that the media created an unfair playing field for them with the attacks on SDP it published on the newspaper.
When questioned on the cause of his loss, he rebutted with “There is something you should go and understand it on your own.”
It was a case of misinterpretation and his passive-aggressive reply was understandable. We need to give more credit and the benefit of the doubt that the media did not treat him as fairly as they should have.
Politics and opinions aside, you have to agree that these responses are not what we usually get. While being in the hotseat sure puts you in a very vulnerable position, we are glad we aren’t always greeted with politically correct replies all the time.
