TRANSCRIPT OF QUESTION AND ANSWER SEGMENT BY EMERITUS SENIOR MINISTER AT THE INSTITUTE OF POLICY STUDIES (IPS) SG 50 CONFERENCE ON 3 JULY 2015 AT SHANGRI-LA HOTEL

Moderator: Thank you, I want to thank both speakers for sticking to their time. In fact, ESM Goh was very generous, he gave us eight more minutes of question time. And I'm going to begin by asking the first question, but I do encourage all of you, especially new voices, to come to the microphone and I will recognize you. In a minute, I will pose the question to Sir John Major, then to ESM Goh.

So, Sir John, as you know, the biggest crisis we face in the world today - it's most obvious in the front pages - is Greece. You were Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the time when the Euro was being conceived, launched and so on so forth. Now, when you met your fellow European leaders, were there any qualms at that time about launching the Euro and about seeing the perils it will lead to eventually? Or was everyone going ra ra ra, let's go for it. I know the UK didn't join but what was your advice to your fellow European when you met them at the EU summit meetings?

Sir John: Well, some of it isn't repeatable.

Moderator: Okay, it's okay, the Statute of Limitations has passed.

Sir John: I know, I know, we are in the discreet audience, no one will report anything. As you rightly say, my advice to them was evident by what I did. I declined to let sterling join the Eurozone and I didn't do that out of anti-European attitude at all. I did it because I thought that there were structural flaws in the construction of the Euro and I thought it was premature. There was a tacit agreement around the table. After Britain had opted out and we had pointed out some of the difficulties that we saw with the Euro, that although they will agree at Maastricht in 1991 to proceed with the currency, they wouldn't actually begin it until the economies of the Eurozone had converged. And by that piece of jargon, we meant we're operating at the same level of efficiency, so they could compete safely in the same currency zone. And that was expected to be what happened. By 1999, eight years later, the economies had not converged, not remotely converged and yet some of the countries began to be so worried that they would never get the Euro currency, they decided to go ahead without convergence and then they made a second strategic error. They didn't restrict the Eurozone to the northern European countries -- France, Germany and the Nordic countries -- that could have competed together in the same currency zone. They widened it and for political reasons, brought in the Southern European's states that were not yet economically competent to compete and that was the fundamental error that was made. It was compounded by the impact of the financial crisis in 2007 and onwards. But we would have got into difficulties in any event -- it just brought the difficulties forward - - and now we are in the position where there are some currencies in the Eurozone -- and you mentioned Greece, it is the outstanding example -- who simply cannot compete in the currency zone and now face an awful dilemma. They wish to stay in the Eurozone, but if they stay in the Eurozone, they are going to have harsh conditions that they have to meet. Those harsh conditions will mean they are in perpetual recession and on a perpetual drip-feed for a very long time. If, on the other hand, they leave the Eurozone, they could create a market run, they might find their new currency, perhaps a new drachma, would collapse in value, they would have hyperinflation and you have a failed state right in the middle of Europe. So, it is now a colossal mess. What will happen, I think, is that the Europeans will keep Greece on a drip-feed system inside the Eurozone. That is what I expect they would do and they will do it, as is traditional with the European Union, at the 59th minute of the 23rd hour. But this raises a longer term question and the question is this and nobody in the Eurozone wishes to hear it or even to answer it, certainly not to answer it. When, how many years hence would it be, before Greece could compete inside the Eurozone? And I would simply say not for a very, very, very, very, very long time.

If, on the other hand, they stayed in the Eurozone and then there was a negotiated agreement, that Greece will leave the Eurozone not in market turmoil, not to be thrown out but leave by agreement, then it would be possible for them to do so and for their creditors to write down a significant portion of their debt. If that happened, Greece may be able to recover and in due course, when she is economically ready, she should come back into the Eurozone. That is what I would like to see happen. It is not what I expect to see happen. But unless they and until they address this problem of the impossibility of fair competition for some countries in the Eurozone, there's going to be real difficulty with it.

Most of the other Southern Europeans state are making progress, but since the Euro was formed, we have had ten years of very low growth in the Eurozone, ten years, and we are likely to have a considerable period ahead that will still be low growth because they pre-empted the decision, began the Eurozone too early and with the wrong membership in my view. So, I do feel that we were right to stay out.

Qn: Well, I think the wisdom of your decision has now been proven. Just a quick point - Ambassador Chan Heng Chee has asked to pose a question and I will come to you after that. But before I give the floor to Ambassador Chan Heng Chee, I was actually going to pose a question to ESM Goh, mentioning Ambassador Chan Heng Chee. Many years ago, ESM, you may recall that Ambassador Chan Heng Chee, when she was a political science professor, created a very notable phrase, referring to the 'de-politicisation of ' and that was the process, as you know, that happened in the 1980s and so on and so forth. So, now clearly, we coming back to the 're-politicisation of Singapore'. So, I was wondering ESM Goh, when you talking about persuading people who can run the office to run for the office, how do you persuade them to come back in an environment which is politically becoming more challenging? So, I hope Ambassador Chan Heng Chee will add to that question cause when you raised your hand, was that what you were going to ask for something else? Okay, ESM, you are on.

ESM: Well, I think that is the challenge which we are faced with. There is no big difficulty in persuading people in the public sector to come in. I mean, some said 'No', but there are quite a few have said 'Yes'. Both in my time, as well as, as I know it, in the coming general elections. That is because those in the Civil Service know what is at stake. They have to deal with issues, challenges, problems, crises all the time and they do know that if a good people do not come in, this place cannot run as successfully as before.

The difficulty is getting people from the private sector to come in and I do not believe it is just about the money alone. In fact, I think to most of these people, money is a consideration but not a major consideration, but they have different dreams. Their dream will be to build a huge empire of the company which they are running. So, if they have a vision of what they can do for their particular company, they will tell you that 'I get satisfaction from building something which I can see', whereas building Singapore is too big a notion which they cannot quite see. Those are the reasons given to us, but what will be the true reasons I do not know.

Yes, I think politics is getting, I wouldn't say more complex because in the times of , I think politics, really, really rough and difficult. Today is more complex in the sense that now, you have got to reach out to every individual Singaporean to convince him or her. In the past, when you have the media, you make a statement, there are not many competitors to your sources of information. But today, there are just too many. So, how do you then, get these people to come forward? I think we just keep on trying. As I said, fortunately for us at this stage, there are still people who understand the problems, who are prepared to come in. But going on into the future, I think it will be more and more of a challenge, which is a point that I make. We have got to regard politics as devotion, as a worthwhile profession, not just as a calling.

Moderator: Well, I see lots of hands up so I'm going to start with Ambassador Chan Heng Chee and then the gentleman at the corner there, then Ambassador and then you, Mr Tan. Heng Chee, if you don't mind. Shall we take the four questions in a row then, if you don't mind, we will take them all together. Please, Heng Chee. Qn: Thank you, Kishore. Sir John, ESM, thank you for two very great speeches. Actually, I had three questions, but I'm going to just give you one. ESM spoke of the ways Singapore selected leaders and Sir John said that we have been successful, Singapore has been successful because of the determination and I think it's the will that we put into what we do as governance and the selection of leaders showed that. Now, to Sir John, my question is, Britain doesn't have that kind of system for selecting leaders. How do you think you are faring now in Britain in finding people to run for office and are you happy with the quality? For ESM, with our determined system, do you think that there are people you miss out still and some people you take in, maybe they should have been missed out?

Moderator: Okay, the gentleman at the end there, please come, identify yourself and if you don't mind, make it short and sharp because I see lots of hands. Then Ambassador Tommy Koh after that.

Qn: Thank you very much for giving me the floor. My question is to Mr John Major — in his illuminating speech, he told about the external factors that influenced the governance platter and now individual nations. So in many cases, the external forces also determine the price of the food and fuel that is not good for democracy. My specific question is, whether, if he should have transferred the huge debtors, whether the individual nations lose control over the democratic governance and assert its policies for the people. Is it so? Thank you, sir.

Moderator: Sorry, if you don't mind, just quickly summarise your question. You're a journalism fellow from India, I believe, right?

Qn: No sir, my name is Kamran and I'm from Bangladesh, I'm not a Singaporean. So, my question is, given you the context you have told in your speech, whether the individual nations lose control over the democratic governance in this age of social media and other external factors that determine many of the electoral places that remain unmatched for the paper. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Okay, thank you. How to maintain within control? Tommy, please.

Qn: Sir John, thank you very much for a very good presentation. One of the new challenges I see in your country and in some other countries in Europe is the re- emergence of nationalism and sub-nationalism, you see this in Catalonia and in Spain, for example. So, we take a 50-year timeframe. So, my question to you, Sir John, is will Scotland leave the United Kingdom in the next 50 years? And will the United Kingdom leave the European Union in the next 50 years? My question for ESM Goh is different. ESM, you are a wise person and you had helped to conceptualise the office of the Elected President. During the last presidential election in 2011, I had hoped that there will be a good creditable and electable Malay candidate because we haven't had a Malay as since Yusof Ishak. But I was told that a Malay candidate would not be electable. So, my question to you is, is it true that the Malay candidate is not electable? And did you make a mistake in making the President and office to be elected by universal franchise rather than by the Singapore Parliament?

Moderator: Thank you, last question. If you don't mind, identify yourself and then we will take the questions, take the responses.

Qn: My name is Tan Suee Chieh from NTUC and I would like to frame my question this way, it is also on leadership. ESM Goh, you mentioned about integrity, competency, compassion, thinking ahead, conviction and selflessness and adaptability as traits of leader. But both you and Sir John Major, you succeeded into leaders who are very different in style and approach to you, Baroness Thatcher and Lee Kuan Yew, who were decisive, who were authoritarian, who were confrontational and domineering and arguably more compelling and visionary. But you guys are more inclusive, empathic, more listening-orientated and I was wondering if you could give your take in a more reflective way because you are both in your 70s, looking back and looking to the future, in the next 50 years, what are the kinds of leaders we need and in what context which will be more effective in producing a successful dynamic societies. Thank you.

Moderator: Okay, who would like to go first? ESM?

ESM: Well, the question by Chan Heng Chee on whether we have missed out on people who should be in Cabinet or in government and whether there are people whom we should not have taken in. The first question is easy to answer. There are people whom we wanted, whom we tried persuading, who at the end of our several rounds of persuading or persuasion, still said 'No'. Whether they will shape up well as ministers, we do not know because we have not had the chance to assess them in that capacity, but there were some good people outside who simply would not want to come in.

Second, I think it is not a problem at the ministerial level because you have got to go through as an MP while being assessed and then they are appointed as a Minister of state, being assessed. And of course, there are people whom we thought could not make it as a Minister - we did not appoint them as Minister. So, they would be at the Ministers of State. But in terms of character, commitment, conviction - no. I could not think of anybody and if I could, I would not mention his name. So, there is that the step up. Once a person is appointed a Minister, I think generally they perform well. But whether the electorate thinks that the Minister has done well, is another matter. Then the next question will be on the Presidential Election, that is whether or not it was a mistake because from now on, you will see difficulties in getting a Malay Singaporean to be elected as the President because 'Electable' is not the right word. I think there are many candidates who are electable but in a contest, the candidate may not be elected. That does not mean a Malay candidate is not electable, just that in the system, you go on the basis of one man one vote, I think the Malay candidate will have difficulty in being elected. So, does that mean it was a mistake on our part? We have thought that moving into a system, it is better to have the President being elected. Then he has moral power as well as political power in overriding the Government over certain key issues and we cannot assume that there would never be a Malay candidate who could be elected. I think if good candidates come along and sometimes, he or she is prepared to stand and be supported by the people who understand that they are in this multi-racial society, that Malay candidate is a good person. Maybe the Chinese and Indian candidate might be better in terms of other competence, other qualities, but in the Singapore context, if the Malay candidate is deemed suitable for Singapore, I do believe that a time will come and that Malay candidate would be acceptable and elected by the people.

So looking back, I do not believe that there is a flaw in the system. I mean, that is part of our development in politics. Third question by Tan Swee Chieh, what kind of leaders do we need in the future? I think a lot depends on the situation and the future political environment. Mr Lee's time, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam's time, it was a different time and at that time, you do need people who were as robust as aggressive, as ruthless, if necessary, as Lee Kuan Yew. I mean, to be very frank, if I were to fight at that time, I think it is not possible because it was just real rough.

Moderator: Too many thugs?

ESM: Too many thugs? I think they were worse than thugs, you know. So, the time has changed. Moving forward, if Singapore continues to succeed, you must have leaders who can, first of all, think ahead, who are prepared to stand up for the conviction and prepared to take on the other side. If they do not have that capacity then you cannot win elections. But the team members, must have two or three who are of that mode, but amongst the team members, you want people who can understand the business of governing, you have got to understand economics, your foreign policies, your geopolitical situation. Now, if you have that and the team support, the team leader or two or three of them must be able to lead that kind of a Cabinet in the future. Is there a fourth question? I think maybe that's enough for Sir John to move on?

Moderator: Yes, that's right. Maybe Sir John can answer the questions from our friend from Bangladesh. So, Sir John, please Sir John: Let me take, if I may the questions in reverse order. Picking up the Lee Kuan Yew-Margaret Thatcher point first, I think countries elect the nature of leader that the times demand and I can't, wouldn't, have the temerity to speak about Singaporeans in this company, but let me speak about the UK in the 1980s. In the 1970s, we were in dire economic difficulties, our friends from the IMF called upon us. At one stage, we were only allowed to take 50 pounds out of the country. There was a public will for dramatic change to deal with over-mighty trade unions and other matters and the public elected someone with a temperament who wished to do that and surrounded her with a Cabinet of great experience and skill. I know everyone centres everything upon the leader, both the good things that happen and the bad things, they are all centred as though it was entirely the leader. But Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s was surrounded by people like Peter Walker and Michael Heseltine whose idea it was to sell council houses, by Geoffrey Howe who produced a remarkable Budget in 1981 that turned round the economy and by others who wished to say, 'Well, look, we must privatise industry'. She was the Prime Minister who carried this through, but she was surrounded by people who fed and developed these ideas so it could be done. And she did them and took on the trade unions at a time when the public was prepared for that sort of action.

I do not think in the 1950s or the 1960s or the 1970s or the 1990s or the 2000 would she have retained public support for the policies that she was able to enact in the 1980s, but in the 1980s, because of what had gone before, people who were prepared to make those dramatic changes and she led those changes with a very experienced Cabinet. So, I think the nature of the time demanded a forceful leader of that nature. Of course, being forceful creates divisions and some of those divisions were created in the 1980s -- not solely by Margaret Thatcher, of course, but by the policies — are divisions that still being healed across the United Kingdom, which is one of the reasons we have so much difficulty with Scotland, which I will come to with Tommy's question in a few moments.

And what about the sort of leaders for the future? I think the nature of the world has changed and certainly speaking for my own country, I think you are going to need more consensual leadership in the immediate years that lie ahead. That may change at some stage in the future, but my basic point is quite simple -- a sophisticated electorate will elect the nature of leader that is necessary to deal with a particular problem faced by that nation and that, I think, is what happened, if I may say so, in Singapore and also in the United Kingdom.

Now, Tommy asked about nationalism and he mentioned it was back in fashion -- in Catalonia, of course, in Belgium, of course, in parts of the UK, of course. Some people may say that it is Scottish nationalism that is encouraging the Scots to try and break away from United Kingdom and that there is Welsh nationalism and they may do the same thing. These are very complex and deep waters. The direct answer to Tommy's question is I do not believe Scotland will leave the United Kingdom. Many people do in Scotland. The Scottish Nationalists, for them, it is an article of faith, I don't believe it's going to happen. We have been in the Union with Scotland since 1707. The truth of the matter is Scots feel that they are set upon by the English. The reality is the Scots eventually ruled the English for the best part of the last 300 years and if you want to go to Burns Night in Hong Kong, you will know exactly what I mean about the way they ran the empire when we had one. So, I don't think we will lose Scotland.

As for the UK leaving the European Union, I don't think so either. We are living in a world in which people are moving closer together, not disappearing to live in splendid isolation because splendid isolation may have its attractions, but those attractions diminish if it means a lower quality of life in the years to come. And often there's a trade-off -- and this touches on the second question from the young man from Bangladesh -- there's a trade-off between the degree of independence a country may have and the quality of its economy over a period of time because of its relationship with other countries. So, I do think we will stay in the European Union. I can speak about that for hours, I will spare you and I will answer the direct question, yes, I believe we will stay in, we will have a referendum within the next two years. I think it will be won. I think that would change the nature of the debate in United Kingdom once it is won, but Britain will not join the Euro currency, but she will remain inside the European Union.

"The next question to respond, of course, is the question of whether in our modern world, individual countries lose control. The answer is, no, they don't, but they may have their control minimised. There are areas where they going to have to accommodate international consensus of one sort or another and that, of course, is frustrating for the politician, it can be frustrating for the electorates. But I do believe it leads to a much safer world than any we have known at any stage in the past. When you have interlocking investments, when you interlocking roles, when you have a world in which people, next generation travel on cheap travel to every part of the world and know it and understand it in a way previous generations didn't, then I think you minimise the chance of conflagration and you also maximise the chance of living in harmony. But the price is you lose total domestic control of all your necessary policies, you have to accommodate the interests of other people at the same time.

"The Ambassador also asked me about the quality of candidates and I am extremely glad that she asked me now and not a few years ago because she would have had a different answer if I were honest and now I'm no longer in politics and I can say exactly what I like, when I like and I'm inclined to do so. We have seen in Parliament in the last two elections a flood of young people coming in of very high quality and one of the curious things is this, the impact of the financial recession drove many bright young people away from thinking of a career in finance and back towards a career in public service, both public service in elected office and public service in civil administration and that was a very welcome change. The only worry I would have about the nature of people is that there is an increasing tendency for politics to be seen as a career rather than a public service and I am sufficiently old to regard that as a tendency I don't particularly like. But I do like the quality of some of the young people who are coming in.

"Now, there is a problem here. One questioner kindly mentioned the fact that Chok Tong and I are very old now. I concede the point reluctantly, but the fact that there is all around the world, it seems our prime ministers are getting younger and unless we are very careful, we are going to have prime ministers, two prime ministers from now, they are going to be pre-puberty. I don't regard this as a good trend. I think it is a good idea to have people around who have seen what has happened before and can remember why a particular policy didn't work. They don't necessarily have to be Prime Minister, but I think there is a mixture of experience and youth and vigour that can produce the best possible outcome.

So, I hope the questioner didn't entirely wish to throw Chok Tong and I on the dustbin because there may be room, if not for us, for others like us to contribute to modern government and I think there are many people who would wish to do so. So, overall, I'm rather optimistic about the quality of candidates coming forward in my own country.

Moderator: That's great news. They both may come back. Okay, we have time for another round of questions. Let's try and get some new hands, young face. I know who you are, can you introduce yourself, please.

Qn: Karan Agarwal. I have a question for ESM Goh. In the past, with Lee Kuan Yew as Prime Minister and yourself as Prime Minister, there was a very clear compact between the Singaporean population and the politicians about letting you examine and look at long-term issues, deliver economic success, deliver good healthcare, education, et cetera, all of the things that we have discussed in this conference as celebrations of what Singapore has done in the last 50 years. But looking forward to the next 50 years, or even the next 20 years, what is your view on what Singaporeans want because I must say, in reading the papers and listening to things and talking to people, I am confused. I would want more of the same, but most people want something different and I am a bit confused as to what Singaporeans really want over the next let's say 20 years. What is your view on that, please?

ESM: Well, I think you cannot generalize because there are different segments of Singaporeans. If you begin with those with lower income at this stage, I think what they want is actually a higher standard of living, that means from a three-room flat to a bigger flat, better education for their children; in other words, to move up the income ladder. Then if you move further up to the middle-income group, what is that they want? I think that is a bit more difficult. As I was trying to characterize just now, what is the mantra for that group? In my time, we knew what they wanted, straightforward, very simple. The people in that group, I do not think they just want more income, they can do with more but they want something else, maybe the space, the freedom, the ability and the resources to pursue their individual interests. And if you look at that group, the range of interests which Singaporeans now can embark on is very wide compared to the days when we were young. They go climbing Mount Everest, they go skiing. Many Singaporeans go to ski, including our Prime Minister. In my time, I never heard of skiing before. What do I know about skiing, skiing out in the seas? But now, it is commonplace that people go out skiing. So, I think that segment of Singaporeans wants to have a lifestyle which each one thinks he deserves. So, the difficulty is high expectations, the lifestyle he thinks he deserves and he thinks that the Government should help him to deliver that kind of lifestyle. Then if you move further up, the very wealthy, those with huge assets, what is it they want? I do not think they need more money, but they still want, I think, to stay in business, partly as a challenge, partly it is in their nature just to do more and more of what they are good in.

So, to sum up what is it Singaporeans want - 1 think the Government or the party that can capture all these wants and hold up hope that these wants can be realized. I think, will be the party that can win the elections, if they are good people whom the public have confidence and trust in. So, in other words, I am perhaps just as blur as you are about what do Singaporeans want.

Moderator: Next question. Come to the microphone, identify yourself, yes, please.

Qn: My name is K K Wong from Baker Mckenzie, a law firm, so I don't know much about economics. Nevertheless, I'll try to ask a couple of questions. The first one is to Sir John and the second is to ESM Goh. To Sir John, would you think that fiscal union, which is often been cited for the Eurozone, is a solution to some of the problems and, if so, is it achievable? And to ESM Goh, you have famously said once, prosper thy neighbours and in the context of Asean, which is akin to the Eurozone now that we are aiming toward AEC 2015, what would be the role of Singapore given its exceptionalism? Could this be an example or possibly a lead towards the next 50 years in terms of a possible economic market here which should prosper?

Moderator: Any more questions?

Qn: My name is Deepu Sebastian. I am the Indian fellow you were talking about earlier. I am with the Asia Journalism Fellowship right now, I've been in Singapore for a month. I'm a journalist back in India. My question to Sir John Major, it's about the future of parliamentary democracy because Lee Kuan Yew, or for my country, Narendra Modi, or Marcos in Philippines, when an alpha individual comes along into parliamentary democracy, they tend to dominate and they sometimes subvert a little bit. In your country, conversely, the Labour Party probably lost the elections because they didn't have a strong enough leader this year. We took parliamentary democracy from your country, but going by the experience of Singapore or India, maybe, is it time to relook, go back and revise the idea of parliamentary democracy and alter some of the basic ideas? I mean, is it working, do we have to, because we are republics, so we can tinker around a little bit with it. So, what do you think about the idea, the future of it itself?

Moderator: Future of parliamentary democracy, OK. Any more questions? One more question, is it. Please, yes, go ahead.

Qn: Good afternoon, my name is Tan Wu Meng, I am a medical doctor with an interest in current affairs. It's been a great privilege listening to two statesmen, very wise men speaking today and I wanted to ask a question about maybe in framing the challenges for democratic governance in the years ahead, social media, new media, it's really dis-intermediated, all the interactions between people, hierarchies have become flat and often people's interactions have sometimes become very narrow, single causes, rather than looking beyond the tribe, the group to broader issues of the community and the future. And it seems to me that one of the challenges that all democratic societies will face is in this marketplace of ideas, how to prevent what is almost a market failure of sorts. In economic policy, very few would argue for a complete laissez faire approach of unfettered free markets and the question then is in a very open environment of communication, how we prevent that market failure in the marketplace of ideas?

Moderator: That's a very profound question. So, shall we start with you, Sir John Major?

Sir John: Let me take those questions in the order in which they came. The first one, I think, was about fiscal union, was it a solution to all the problems? I don't think it's a solution to the problems we have at the moment, but it is important for the Euro currency in the longer term. If you're to have a successful common currency, I think you need four things — monetary union, which we have; banking union, which we sort of have; fiscal union which Eurozone does not yet have and political union, which is a long way away at the present time. So, it would certainly be desirable to have fiscal union, but what it effectively means is common tax policies and a common tax regime. That is a huge derogation of sovereignty and even many of the very pro-European countries are very, very reluctant to go that far at the present time. So, I think it may be quite a long while before the Eurozone actually gets there, but when and if it gets there, it would, of course, produce a more stable currency than the Euro is at the present time. I think we will have to wait quite a long while before we actually get there and simply introducing fiscal union tomorrow would not ease the historic problems that still have to be determined, but it might help prevent them occurring even more in the future.

The future of parliamentary democracy and Labour lost because of its leader, actually, if I may say so, Labour lost because it had a whole stack of really rotten policies and I don't think it is fair just to assume that it was a loss because of the nature of the leader. A million things are relevant in losing an election and I think that they had returned to the policies of a couple of decades ago and people had moved on from it and I think that was the biggest single factor that led them to do far less well in the election than they had themselves thought.

And that does lead rather neatly into the third almost-impossible-to-answer |T t question. I am often told by medical doctors something about my health that I absolutely fail to understand and having listened to the doctor's question, I can understand exactly why that is. He touches on something immensely profound and, in essence, what it is, is how do you prevent narrow attitudes dominating government and how government connects with a whole range of people who may have narrow ambitions within the ambit of the electorate and it is not a question that is easy to answer and I have pondered -- having failed to do so myself — I have pondered about this for a very long time and I am inclined to think that this can be done by a leader who speaks above the clamour. There is a tendency whenever a leader is interviewed, a Prime Minister, in particular, they're asked about current controversies, current problems, rebels in their party, when they're going to resign, all the usual questions. Nobody actually says what is your vision five years from now and what do you hope to achieve for your country in ten or 15 or 20 years from now? And maybe that's their fault because when in any of the big democracies have you heard any senior politician set out what he thought his country would be like in 20 years' time and then set out the measures they needed to ensure they reached that happy state 20 years' on? And perhaps if the leaders spoke in this fashion above the fray, above current controversies, above the trivia that excites the day's headlines and the week's controversy and talked about these long-term issues, then perhaps they will be asked about them when they actually were interviewed and were encouraged to speak about them more often. And then I think you would connect because the one thing that seems to me you can connect across every aspect of the electorate is the future and particularly the future of the next generation. Whether the elector you're speaking to is from the far right or the far left or somewhere in between, they're likely to have a family, they are likely to have children. If they're elderly, they're likely to have grandchildren and human nature being what it is, they are likely to be as concerned, if not more concerned, about their children and their grandchildren and the future than about current controversies. And I think if you begin to speak over the fray about these long-term futures, I think you can begin to equalize the quantum of parliamentary debate and the quality of parliamentary debate and the quality of connection between governed and governors. And I think it would be very attractive if we were able to do that and clearly, what we need in politics is more doctors. That is absolutely plain from the question.

Mderator: Okay. ESM, please.

ESM: I agree with John on his point about connecting, about spelling out in clear terms the constraints, the challenges, the vision for the country over the next ten, 20 years. But I think he and I are probably a little out of touch with the younger generation. We tried that, I think we should still do that, but if you ask them, many of the younger ones where they get their news from, they will say it is from social media, from their friends' blog. They do not read those things which you want to communicate. That is the challenge we are faced with, and it is not just news, but they have so much things they can have access to, so much information outside and many of those information are much more interesting than the future of their country.

So, that is a key problem. But in times of crisis, in times of economic crisis, or some other crisis, when the leaders spell out the problems facing the country, I think people will listen. In good times, I think very few people would have time to listen to what they call scare-mongering, just to win votes and so on. That is a term they use against our leaders when they spelt out the challenges facing Singapore. The vision, they say is too long-term, what I want is today's problems to be met, don't tell me visions ten, 20 years from now. But I agree with him, as people who have governed the country, that you got to be able to spell out your vision for the country and what are the challenges in achieving those.

To try and answer that young doctor whom I happen to know very well as well, I think the way in Singapore's context, to prevent this market failure in the social media market is to continue to retain the trust that people have in us. I think that's very important. We are fortunate that as of now the people trust the government, a very high level of trust as a result of Mr Lee's work and I would like to say partly because also of my work and Prime Minister Lee's work, the trust is very high. So, if we can maintain the trust, whatever goes on in social media will not be totally believed by many people because of that trust element.

The next important factor will be to retain transparency - put out data, information, statistics into the public arena so that the people have access to those information. You do not have any skeletons to hide, you do not cover up certain matters, and trust, transparency are maintained. Social media makes it a bit more challenging for governing, but by and large, I think it is just noise outside and I hope most people can distinguish the music from the noise.

Perhaps I should just answer the question on Singapore's role in Asean, 'prosper-thy neighbour' policy which we have. I think for Singapore to play a role, Singapore must succeed as an economy first for this purpose, as a country it must succeed. If, as an economy our growth slows down, one, two per cent when our potential growth is three or four per cent, then whatever you say in Asean will have no credibility. You can talk about connectivity, about certain ideas in doing things, but you are not a success story. So, we should maintain that economic success that we have, then we speak with some authority when you talk about the need for integration, the need for an open economy, that is very important and if you succeed as an open economy, then it is easier to persuade Asean members to do more for Asean Economic Community because we have shown that as a small country, the policy has worked. And if we do that in Asean, I think the next role we can play is go beyond Asean. It is very important that Asia also, in time to come, would have an informal Asian community with a small 'c', not a formal community -- Northeast Asia and Asean be part of a larger market place for all the people living here and we are behind this TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) which will be another free trade arrangement between some countries over here, the US, Australia and so on. So, again, I think as a country that sees further ahead in terms of its economic growth and necessities, we can push many of these ideas. So, that way I think we would have some influence within the Asean community because what we do would appear to be based on the success that we have in Singapore.

Moderator: I am very glad that I began this session by saying we save the best for last. I am sure you all agree that we've had a tremendous amount of political wisdom from two very senior statesmen with us today. We've learnt a lot. So, first, let us begin by thanking our two panellists, ESM Goh and Sir John Major.