Rebuke for Lee remote when economics rule

Rebuke for Lee remote when economics rule
17 June 2006
New Zealand Herald
By Fran O'Sullivan

PRIME MINISTER Helen Clark is presented with a dilemma as she prepares
to roll out the red carpet for visiting Singaporean Prime Minister Lee
Hsien Loong.

If Clark is true to her principles she will castigate Lee ``ever so
gently'' over the punitive measures his Government is taking to silence
his political opponents. But if past practice is anything to go by,
Clark will simply turn a blind eye and get on with the job of cementing
stronger political and economic ties with the Asian city state.

This is not an easy balancing act, especially for a political leader
like Clark who needs Lee's support to further New Zealand's ambitions
within Asia.

There are big regional issues on the agenda. Singapore is considering a
commitment to send its troops on a United Nations-mandated peacekeeping
operation in East Timor. This would lessen the burden on Australia and
New Zealand who in reality lack the capacity to be ``peacekeepers of
first and last resort'' for the unstable mainly Pacific countries to our
north. On this score, Clark does need to emphasise the necessity for a
strong commitment from Singapore.

Singapore is still a prime defence partner for New Zealand and is
increasingly important to our business sector as a springboard to Asia.

There is much to be admired about the way Singapore used
state-controlled investment funds and infrastructure companies to build
its economy. Lee Kuan Yew's nanny state was determinedly capitalistic
but under firm Government direction. Savings came first. A compulsory
national savings scheme was introduced.

Unions were given monopolies to run supermarkets and taxi companies.
Welfare came out of employers' and workers' pockets. Loss-making
state-owned enterprises were shut.

National Finance spokesman John Key believes this country should study
some aspects of the Singapore model which appears to be in continuous
improvement.

But nanny state has come at a price. Nearly two-thirds of productive
activity is accounted for by businesses owned by the state or run
through the public sector.

Temesek, the giant state holdings company run by Lee's wife, Ho Ching,
is synonymous with Singapore. But there is also Singapore Airlines,
which was burned by its Air New Zealand shareholding; Singtel, run by
Lee's brother, Hsien Yang; Changi Airport; Singapore Press Holdings; and
Raffles Corporation.

These and many more are owned by Temasek or the Government of Singapore
Investment Corporation (GIC). The state companies want to spread their
wings further offshore, but the private sector complains they are too
powerful.

The Government hasn't said so directly, but the Lee model is now
basically being mirrored by Economic Development Minister Trevor
Mallard, who wants to expand New Zealand's state-owned enterprises into
agents for economic transformation.

One reason for Singapore's outstanding success story has been the
practice of the governing People's Action Party (PAP) to appoint leading
businesspeople and former senior military to senior government roles.

But the million-dollar-plus pay packets being dished out to these
``public servants'' has started a backlash.

When I was in Singapore a week ago it was obvious that a major gap had
opened between rich and poor. Singapore has a high home-ownership level,
much more so than in New Zealand, but high interest rates are biting.

Given Singapore's astounding economic record of 7 per cent average
growth for 30 years, isn't it time the country developed a first-class
human rights record to match?

Lee should be encouraged to applaud those of his citizens who insist on
their full democratic rights, which is in line with the stance he began
to stake out after first being appointed Prime Minister.

Instead, opposition politician Chee Soon Juan is facing charges for
speaking in public without getting a licence from the Government. But
Chee wouldn't have been given a permit even if he had applied.

Such action conflicts with the less restrictive environment the
international community had expected once Lee the Younger took over the
leadership reins from former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.

Lee had a singularly long apprenticeship as Goh's deputy.

When he finally got the big job, this highly intellectual politician
said he would introduce greater personal freedoms for the 4.5 million
inhabitants of the city state.

He also promised to loosen nanny state economic strings and encourage
well-ordered Singaporeans to come up with ideas to combat China's
commercial encroachment on its neighbours.

When Phil Goff was Foreign Minister it was his job to make New Zealand's
expectations on human rights abuses clear to visiting politicians.

Goff's style was to make his points behind closed doors. But right now
the only New Zealand politicians pressing these buttons are United
Leader Peter Dunne, who still takes a robust position on Taiwan's
political rights, and Green MP Keith Locke.

What is going on with Chee has not yet reached the heights of lunacy
that former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed reached with the
imprisonment of his reform-minded deputy. But there are uncomfortable
parallels.