Πέρασε στα πολύ ψηλά των Εφημερίδων γιατί η χώρα αυτή φαντάζει τόσο μακρυά, η είδηση του θανάτου του μακροβιότερου πρωθυπουργού της Σιγκαπούρη.
Μια χώρας χωρίς κανένα φυσικό Πόρο, της οποίας οι άνθρωποι ζούσαν στους βάλτους και στους καλαμιώνας στα κουνούπια και στα έλη μέχρι το 1958 οταν η χώρα ξεκίνησε το ταξείδι της ανεξαρτησίας, και όταν εδώ στη χώρα μας είχαμε πολλές υποδομές που θεωρούντο πολυτέλεια στη φτωχή χώρα εκείνη.
Ο κύριος Lee, oπως έγραψε στα απομνημονεύματά του: «Σημειώσαμε από τη δεκαετία του 1970 ότι, όταν οι κυβερνήσεις ανέλαβαν την κύρια ευθύνη για τα βασικά καθήκοντα του επικεφαλής μιας οικογένειας, η προσπάθεια στα άτομα αποδυναμώνεται. . Οι άνθρωποι σταματάνε να εργάζονται για την ευημερία των οικογενειών τους ». Το "περιμένω τα πάντα από το κράτος" έγινε τρόπος ζωής. Η καθοδική πορεία ήταν αμείλικτη και η παραγωγικότητα μειώθηκε. Οι άνθρωποι έχασαν το κίνητρό για να παράγουν , επειδή πλήρωναν πάρα πολλά σε φόρους. Έγιναν εξαρτημένοι από το κράτος για τις βασικές τους ανάγκες." και συνέχισε "
Για να έχεις μια καλή κυβέρνηση, θα πρέπει να έχεις τα καλύτερα στελέχη που είναι επιφορτισμένες με την κυβέρνηση. Έχω παρατηρήσει τα τελευταία 40 χρόνια που ακόμα και με κακό σύστημα διακυβέρνησης, αλλά με ισχυρούς άνδρες υπεύθυνους, η κυβέρνηση έχει αξιοπρεπή πρόοδο. "
Πέρασε επίσης χρόνια μελετώντας τις διαδικασίες πρόσληψης των πολυεθνικών εταιρειών - τελικά υιοθέτησε το 1983 το σύστημα της Shell, η οποία έκρινε τα στελέχη της για την αναλυτική τους σκέψη, τη φαντασία και την αίσθηση της πραγματικότητας - και ήταν ο κύριος εμπνευστής της πρόσδεση υπουργική μισθούς στους έξι υψηλότερα αμειβόμενους στον ιδιωτικό τομέα, έτσι ώστε μόνο οι καλύτερο θα ήταν πρόθυμοι να μπουν στην πολιτική και να είναι λιγότερο επιρρεπείς στη διαφθορά.
Αν δεν μπορείτε να διαβάσετε όλο το άρθρο διαβάστε τα τονισμένα για το τρόπο που σκεπτόταν.
To his
mind, getting the best results from a meritocratic society also meant the
government must not supplant individual effort and responsibility; people must
not lose the drive to provide for themselves. That, and seeing in Britain and
Sweden how debilitating it was to subsidise a man for the rest of his life, was
why he eschewed welfarism, despite being a loyal supporter of the Fabian school
of thought in his youth.
As he
wrote in his memoirs: “We noted by the 1970s that when governments undertook
primary responsibility for the basic duties of the head of a family, the drive
in people weakened. Welfare undermined self-reliance. People did not have to
work for their families’ wellbeing. The handout became a way of life. The
downward spiral was relentless as motivation and productivity went down. People
lost the drive to achieve because they paid too much in taxes. They became
dependent on the state for their basic needs.”
To this
day, the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government continues to tie individual
effort and responsibility to many of its help programmes for the lower-income,
such as the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme.
The
creation of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) and the 3M healthcare financing
system (Medisave, MediShield, and Medifund) are other examples of the
Government’s drive to ensure that individuals themselves, and not the state,
provide for most of their own needs.
Mr
Lee realised that, as a country with no natural resources, the only way Singapore
could survive, let alone thrive, was to have capable people leading it. His view was informed by how so many newly-independent
former colonies had plunged into riots, coups and revolutions under inept
leaders who had inherited sound constitutions from the British and French.
Indeed,
Singapore’s vulnerabilities — “an 80-storey building standing on marshy land” —
made it imperative that the political leadership was made up of the cream of
society’s talent.
He said
once: “Can you have a good government without good men in charge of government?
American liberals believe you can, that you can have a good system of
government with proper separation of powers between the Executive, the
Legislature and the Judiciary, plus checks and balances between them ... and
there will be good government, even if weak or not so good men win elections
and take charge.
“My
experience in Asia has led me to a different conclusion. To get good
government, you must have good men in charge of government. I have observed in
the last 40 years that even with a poor system of government, but with good
strong men in charge, people get passable government with decent progress.”
It was a
challenge that Mr Lee had started thinking about barely one year into
Singapore’s independence.
And over
decades, Mr Lee single-handedly devised the ways to spot and draft into
government the capable, honest and dedicated, from schemes such as the
Singapore Armed Forces overseas scholarships in 1971 to recruit the top brains
— the PAP government has, over the years, had many of these scholars eventually
become Cabinet ministers, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong — to getting
psychiatrists and psychologists to review potential candidates amid lengthy and
thorough meetings with leaders that have become known as “tea sessions”.
He also spent years studying the hiring processes
of multinational companies — eventually adopting in 1983 Shell’s system, which
judged individuals
for the “helicopter quality” of his or her
powers of analysis, imagination and sense of reality — and was the chief
advocate of pegging ministerial salaries to the six highest-paid individuals in
the private sector so that the best would be willing to step into politics and
be less susceptible to corruption.
“Because
of our relentless and unceasing search for talent both at home and abroad to
make up for the small families of the well-educated, Singapore has been able to
keep up its performance,” said Mr Lee.
