“I had an obligation to fulfill my end of the arrangement with him (Duffy). I couldn’t think of another way of doing it.”

Is anyone else profoundly insulted and deeply offended by this self-effacing statement from Nigel Wright as to why he forked over $90,000 of his own money, in secret,  to pay Mike Duffy’s debts? (Oh wait a minute, today in court (Thursday,) Wright quoted the Bible as justification for his charity. What’s next? A request for a papal indulgence?)

And for this piousness, we are supposed to somehow shrug off his amazing leading role in this tawdry political scandal, because after all, Nigel did the right thing, as he saw it? Gee, what a nice guy!

I have had it with the endless portrayals of this Bastion of Bay Street as an honest, noble, loyal, faithful, honorable, dedicated  ….. any more hagiographic adjectives you can add, please fill ’em in … servant of the Prime Minister’s Office.

Wright may well be all that … but that doesn’t give him a free pass when he messes up, big time.

The salient point of interest here is that Wright was the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister of Canada. Read this official description of his job description. The focus is on governance by the Prime Minister for the development, strategizing and administration of those policies which the Prime Minister feels are in the interests of the country.  Nigel Wright’s obligations are to the Prime Minister and through him, to the people of Canada. He was part of a structure of responsibility in our parliamentary system.

We should all be offended that someone in that position decides that, because he happens to belong to the 0.1%, he can reach into his pocket to personally solve problems – in this case, to cover up financial shenanigans (crime, not crime, yadda, yadda) – because it is simply the easiest way to clear his off his crowded desk.

Nigel Wright didn’t have a personal obligation to pay Duffy’s debts, as he self-excusingly proclaimed.

His personal responsibility was to serve Canada and to maintain the integrity of its political institutions.

We should be repelled by any notion that we should admire – and excuse – an incredibly rich individual who goes into public service and then uses his personal resources to make political problems disappear.

He’s responsible, all right. For setting a very bad precedent in public service.

After I recently argued that CBC must stop calling Rex Murphy “just” a freelance opinionator, several people wrote to explain to me that there are actually two Rex Murphys at CBC.

They’re right, at least in the muddled minds of CBC managers. But it is a sham.

On CBC Television – Rex #1 is hired as “a freelancer,” encouraged to say whatever he wants. As a freelance commentator, he can also write opinionated columns for the National Post and make paid speeches.

On CBC Radio – Rex #2 is hired as “host” of Cross Country Checkup and contractually obligated to abide by CBC’s Journalistic Practices and Standards. He can’t reveal his own opinions, he must avoid any suspicion of conflict of interest and he must stay out of public controversies. Nor can Rex #2 write opinionated columns for the National Post or make paid speeches.

Hands up who thinks this works in the real world?

Example 1:

The National, CBC TV, 2011 – Rex praises the oil sands: “this one project, more perhaps than any other in Canada, has kept us out of the worst of the recession.”

Cross Country Checkup, CBC Radio, 2012 – Rex (contractually obligated to be impartial) asks Canadians their opinions on “The Appropriate Role of the Oil Sands in Canada’s Future?”

 National Post, 2015 – Rex says “I am a supporter of the Newfoundland and Alberta oil industry.”

To be blunt, why shouldn’t listeners to Cross Country Checkup suspect that Rex (the impartial radio host) might be skewing his phone conversations with Canadians to support what Rex (the freelancer on television) believes about the subject of that Sunday’s program?

Because Rex says so?

Example 2:

National Post, 2013 – Rex criticizes the “deplorable effort to frame the interactions between Canadians and Canada’s aboriginal peoples as a genocide — an accusation both illiterate and insulting.”

Cross Country Checkup, CBC Radio, 2015 – Rex asks Canadians and First Nations peoples about their opinions on the Truth and Reconciliation Committee’s report on residential schools. (Which was called a genocide by the Chief Justice of Canada just a week earlier!)

To support this nuttiness, CBC management has convinced itself – and asks Canadians to believe! – that Rex is a psychological Superman.

In management’s view, Rex (1 and 2) is in such complete control of his perceptions and biases that he can switch from one personality to the other while walking from a radio studio on the 3^rd floor of the Broadcast Centre in Toronto to a TV studio on the 5^th or to his kitchen to write a column for the National Post. That is obviously impossible, although convenient wishful thinking for CBC executives stuck in a pickle of their own making.

Arguing that this schizophrenic role playing makes journalistic sense is an insult to Canadians, who overwhelmingly think (as CBC’s Ombudsman admits) that Rex is a CBC employee just like Peter Mansbridge. Many Canadians are understandably troubled that Rex – unlike all his other CBC on-air colleagues – is allowed to offer his opinions on important public issues.

It’s like someone turning up in a courtroom to act as a judge one day and then the next, as an attorney – both working on the same case! It corrupts the clarity of the proceedings.

Finally, a question to CBC managers: would you ever advise another public broadcaster to hire one person to play two mutually opposing on-air roles?

How does this improve programming? What journalistic problem does it solve? Is it easily understood by audiences? Is it ethical?

This is not about Rex’s politics. It would be equally worrisome if CBC hired Rick Salutin or Chris Hedges to do what Rex does.

It creates confusion and mistrust among Canadians who value the CBC.

It is certainly not the way to ensure support for the CBC in these perilous times nor to protect the quality of its journalism.

Two new items about CBC prompt this morning’s comments on the struggles inside my former employer.

The first is John Doyle’s excellent column in today’s Globe&Mail A New and Better CBC Must Start From Within in which he tackles the corrosive impact on CBC’s badly-damaged reputation arising from the relentless “lack of discipline and outbreaks of arrogance among on-air staff” – referring to the slew of scandals over the past year and a half involving CBC journalists Peter Mansbridge, Rex Murphy, Amanda Lang and others.

I would only add that Doyle goes much too easy on CBC management in all this, as I wrote in Huffington Post two weeks ago. Bad behaviour allowed is bad behaviour encouraged – and that is why this keeps happening over and over.

The second item is the release of an opinion from the CBC’s Ombudsman, Esther Enkin, answering a complaint from a Canadian upset that Mansbridge (until two weeks ago) and Murphy (still) serve as patrons of the controversial Mother Canada war memorial project in Cape Breton.

Again, CBC management’s comments in the Ombudsman`s review caught my eye.

Jack Nagler, the Director of Journalistic Public Accountability and Engagement for CBC News, told the complainant that because he is only a history buff, Mansbridge “did not have any intention of being part of the decisions about design or location of this project. Since aspects of the project have become a matter of some contention, Mr. Mansbridge has resigned as one of the honorary patrons.”

Whatever Mansbridge thought about what he did/did not intend to do by becoming a patron is irrelevant. The CBC’s own rules are crystal clear on a situation like this. He – like all CBC journalists – is not allowed to take a position on any public controversy.

But Enkin adds that “is not always easy to assess what will create a conflict of interest. The line between a perceived conflict and the rights of an individual, even one who is a high-profile journalist at CBC, is not obvious, and each case must be judged on its merits.”

That anyone – anyone – in CBC management would think that a war memorial project could not become controversial, is amazing and disturbing. Which does lead to this question …

Did Mansbridge ask permission before accepting the patron offer?

Finally, in the Ombudsman`s review, we again read a tortured defense (cum apologia) of Rex Murphy`s status as a so-called freelancer for CBC.

And I mean tortured, as you will read. Enkin clearly believes the CBC is creating its own problems here, despite the fact she defends it. She states that it is no surprise the vast majority of Canadians believe Murphy is a journalist with the CBC just like Mansbridge and his journalist colleagues (despite the ridiculous distinction-without-meaning trundled out  every time that he is a freelancer.)

I don`t care what Rex Murphy talks about.

This is about good journalism and the abuse of privilege.

So here’s the problem to be faced by CBC managers and programmers who seem so committed to keeping Rex Murphy in the CBC public’s eye and ear – which came to me from a former CBC journalist.

“You can just see disaster looming here and when it strikes, we will all be wondering how and why the CBC thought it was wise to put all their commentator eggs in one basket. Sure Rex is a freelancer and sure he can take money from whomever, but that doesn’t mean that the CBC can’t employ lots of other commentators to dilute whatever horrible impact awaits when the next and then the next crisis erupts over Rex’s so-called “freelance” status.”

Fix this mess for the good of the CBC.

End Murphy’s fictional (and disaster-magnet) status as a freelancer.

And much better, start paying for a much broader range of commentators.

But please, do something.

Just out from the Institute for Research on Public Policy  ..  Who Are Canada’s Top 1 % Earners

Lots of details on Canada’s richest folks here, comparing 1981 with 2011 (the latest good data available)

Quick profile of the Top 1 %:

To get into the 1%   ..  you need $160,232 in income

80 % are men …. down from 92 % in 1981

Average hours worked / week ….. 46  versus 38 for all workers in Canada

Major industry …  Business / services

Province with the most 1% … Ontario (43%) followed by Alberta  (21 %)

Last factoid before you read the full report … fewer doctors in the top 1 % in 2011 (15 %) than in 1981  ( 19%)

Read the full report

According to the website of the controversial Never Forgotten war memorial proposed for Cape Breton Island, the name of Peter Mansbridge, the CBC’s Chief Correspondent and anchor of The National, has just been removed as Honourary Patron of the so-called Mother Canada project.

(Note: Later this Sunday afternoon, CBC’s national radio call-in show Cross Country Checkup will debate “What makes a good monument and praise-worthy public art?” with specific reference to the Mother Canada project.)

Mansbridge’s appearance as a project supporter for many months was, to say the least, unusual as controversy over the memorial grew across the country.

It broke the CBC’s very clear rules on preserving journalistic impartiality.

 Section 2.2.17 …  Corporate Policies ….. Independence and impartiality are fundamental to CBC/Radio-Canada’s credibility. Not only must the Corporation be independent, impartial, fair and honest, but it also must be perceived as such. It is essential that CBC/Radio-Canada not take a position on controversial issues.

  Section 2.2.3  … Conflict of Interest Procedures and Guidelines 16 .. Employees may not take a stand on public controversies if CBC’s integrity would be compromised.

Nonetheless, given the long battle to convince CBC management to order a complete ban on paid speeches by its journalists, it is still troublesome that Mansbridge was given permission to act as a supporter of this project in the first place.

War memorials around the world have long spawned public furor over who is remembering what and why, and where memorials should sit.

These controversies often last years and they can stay nasty.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC.

The Yasakuni Shrine in Tokyo.

The Valley of the Fallen in Spain.

The Bomber Command (as in “Bomber Harris”) Memorial in London.

Right now, the proposed Monument to the Victims of Communism in Ottawa has everyone from the Chief Justice of Canada to architects to immigrant groups to politicians at all levels trading barbs.

What were CBC executives thinking when Mansbridge first asked for permission to become an Honourary Patron of the Mother Canada project?

(CBC commentator and host Rex Murphy is also an Honourary Patron of Mother Canada. As a freelancer, Murphy is technically exempt from the CBC’s rules on journalistic impartiality. But until a few hours ago, as the author pointed out to CBC Editor-in-Chief Jennifer McGuire last week, he was described as “Journalist CBC News.” He is now a “Freelance Journalist” with no mention of the CBC.)

In recent months, the Mother Canada controversy has been covered by newspapers, the web, TV and radio stations across the country.

According to the CBC’s website, the story has appeared on local CBC television and radio across the Maritimes and nationally, on As It Happens and The Current on CBC Radio.

As of this posting, Sunday afternoon July 5^th, according to CBC.ca, the Mother Canada controversy has yet to appear on the network’s flagship national TV news program The National.

Black-uniformed officers in body armour assume combat postures, the sharp “bang” of stun grenades, smoke bombs releasing white clouds, a huge, black armoured-personnel vehicle circling the scene .… ending with the take-down in the sand of a bad-guy in jeans and no shirt, who is then thrown into the truck and whisked away. All while an enthusiastic voice-over extolls the important goal of keeping Canadians safe.

Welcome to the 2015 version of the RCMP Musical Ride, showing nightly at “N Division” in Ottawa and featuring the legendary equestrian skills of the Mounties as “ambassadors of goodwill … promoting the RCMP’s image throughout Canada and the world.”

Is there no place now where Canadians can be spared the Harper government’s jingoistic militaristic bleating with its conjured-up images of dangers lurking around every corner, nurturing the fear that “others” are out to rob us of our freedoms?

Oh, there were beautiful horses and red uniforms and long lances and exciting charges and smart jumping police dogs too, fear not.

After all, that’s what thousands of families – virtually all with children below 8 years old – visiting the capital from all over Canada had come to see. So they thought.

But within minutes of the show’s opening – and well before the amazing horses performed their fantastic routines – the audience is treated to a bombastic, paramilitary show-and-tell that had many adults around us shaking their heads in bewilderment. And a few little kids crying too.

Along the way, there were some anodyne recruiting messages for the Mounties, and at the end, a mass recitation of the pledge all new Canadians make when they become citizens.

But Commissioner Bob Paulsen, really …..  who takes their children to a horse show on a Saturday evening expecting a scene from an average day’s viewing on CNN  of heavily-armed police working the streets of Ferguson, Missouri?

The RCMP should be embarrassed.

Yesterday, June 10, a day after Evan Solomon was fired for running his own private art brokering business out of his office at CBC TV’s Power&Politics, Ottawa Morning (CBC’s morning radio program) interviewed Kevin Donovan, the Toronto Star reporter who broke the story (and who had also been the lead reporter on exposing the Ghomeshi scandal.)

As her final question, host Robyn Bresnahan  asked him “So who is your next target at the CBC?”

It was an appalling moment in journalism. It’s bad enough what this latest sad story says about the place I worked in – and loved doing it –  for so many years without a question like this to nurture the public impression of a near-Senate like sense of self-importance and immunity from scrutiny at CBC.

I wrote to Robyn, Karla Hilton (the show’s exec) and Rob Russo (head of CBC in Ottawa) suggesting an apology was needed. None came.

This morning, June 11th, Robyn interviewed Brian Stewart about the story. No clams this time, but the overall tone of the discussion prompted another note to Robyn, Karla and Rob. Have a read.

*********     Dear Robyn, Karla and Rob …

This is a big story in our city, no question, and so it was completely appropriate to continue the discussion again this morning.

There are grey areas here, as in any part of real life … i.e., is accepting a coffee and croissant offered by an interview subject appropriate?, can I attend her organization’s office Christmas party?, etc.

The problem on display again this morning on the show  – and writ large, this is the CBC management error that is bedeviling the organization in so many areas of recent controversy –  is that grey does not mean a discussion of these questions coming from the acceptance of the idea that “there are always 2 sides to an issue.”

No. In some cases, there aren’t 2 sides to an issue of policy, whether public or in this case, inside the organization.

A perfect example in our world of journalism involves climate change and whether or not, mankind is seriously jeopardizing the health and safety of the planet by its burning of fossil fuels.

The BBC and several other public broadcasters (not the CBC, I don’t think, correction please?) simply won’t allow this to be debated on air – as a statement of corporate/journalistic policy – because the debate has been settled overwhelmingly by the international scientific community at every level.To do otherwise would be irresponsible to the public interest.

Over the past few years, there has been way too much of this kind of fuzzy thinking from senior management at CBC on the broad constellation of issues surrounding the paid speeches fiasco and now, by extension, Evan’s involvement with the art brokering business.

There is no “other side” to these kinds of issues, nor has there been for decades as I and a number of other worried former CBC folk (Jeffrey Dvorkin, Andrew Mitrovica, Jesse Brown, etc.) kept hammering home over the past year.

A CBC employee (or his family members) cannot personally profit –or be seen to profit – in any way from her or his role as a CBC employee. It is codified in the Broadcasting Act, in the Code of Journalistic Practices and – perhaps most powerfully – in the “stink test” in any CBC newsroom across the network.

Jennifer McGuire and Heather Conway got themselves in such horrible rhetorical knots last year by their refusal to issue this clear statement – a re-statement, in fact!  – of longstanding CBC policy, no matter how awful became the story of prominent CBC journalists taking huge amounts of cash from organizations they cover. The two of them ended up saying foolish things in public about so-called grey areas when in fact, everyone knew this was nonsense. And their intransigence terribly damaged our organization’s reputation as a result.

It is entirely possible to make concise, clear – and yes, appealable – policy statements about an employee’s involvement away from work.

While I am no longer inside the CBC, it seems that there has NOT been a continuing, forceful and blunt campaign of clarification from senior management on this issue.

Changing a corporation’s culture involves much more than publicly firing someone after a clear violation, as in Evan’s situation. He did it and then lied, according to the Corporation, and now he is gone. Fine. But changing a culture requires determined, consistent and relentless repetition of what is expected and required from everyone on an ongoing basis. And now, sadly, that will require repeating it almost ad nauseam, given what’s happened. So be it.

This is now the only way to prevent any CBC employee from having any trouble in the future in answering the question  “gee, could I perhaps make a few bucks on the side by ________ ? (fill in the blanks.)

Finally, and I stand to be corrected, in none of the coverage by CBC on this story have I heard it mentioned that Evan was also involved in the paid speeches mess, as I pointed out last year. He seems to have had previous trouble answering the question in the above paragraph. You should have mentioned this.

Cheers

Frank

To: Mayor Jim Watson and City Councillors, Ottawa    (click for contact info to make your opinion heard)

From:  Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC)

Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA)

Council for Canadian Urbanism (CanU)

Ontario Association of Architects (OAA)

Heritage Ottawa

DTAH Architects Limited

Barry Padolsky Associates Inc Architects (BPA)

SUBJECT: OTTAWA CITY COUNCIL MOTION MAY 27,2015: RELOCATION OF MEMORIAL TO THE VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM

Dear Mayor Watson and City Councillors,

We are writing in support of the City of Ottawa motion to formally request that the Government of Canada relocate the proposed Memorial to the Victims of Communism to another site.

The current site has been earmarked for a major building in the Government of Canada’s own Long Term Vision and Plan for the area. Building a monument at this location would undermine decades of planning to complete the Judicial Triad of buildings, a symbolic and physical counterpart to the Parliamentary Triad.

Our organizations representing architects, landscape architects, city planners, and heritage planners from across the country have expressed concerns about this location. Below are some extracts from the official statements that have been issued.

We believe the City of Ottawa have a strong stake in the use of this site, and are highly appreciative of the City’s willingness to express its opinion about this matter.

We hope you will support Councillor Tony Nussbaum in adding your vote to pass this resolution. (TEXT BELOW.)

Sincerely,

Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC): “The proposed location, adjacent to the Supreme Court of Canada, represents Canada’s democratic values and respect for justice. We believe this land should be reserved for a building whose purpose, quality and dignity are commensurate with its context. Any addition to this immensely significant national site should reflect the impartiality and apolitical aspiral aspirations of Canada’s justice system. We believe this site should be representative of all Canadians, just as the principles of Canada’s judicial system speak for all Canadians.”

Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA): “The monument appears to be designed as a permanent fixture, whereas in this location only a temporary monument should be considered. The Long Term Vision and Plan not only shows a building but also indicates underground parking, material handling and a connecting concourse spine in that very location. Clearly, placing any monument at this location would impede the construction of any other future parliamentary or judicial building, and hamper all long-term plans for the area.”

Council for Canadian Urbanism (CanU): “The proposed site has been earmarked for a federal building to complete the Supreme Court triad by leading urban designers retained by the federal government for over a century, including the 1915 Federal Plan Commission report prepared by Edward Bennett, the 1950 National Capital Plan prepared by Jacques Gréber and the 1989/ 2007 Parliamentary Precinct Plan, which won several national and international urban design awards.”

Ontario Association of Architects (OAA): “The National Capital Commission (NCC) has long identified this site as a vital component of the ‘Capital Plateau.’ This site should be developed with a building that completes the judicial triad and is eflective of the surroundings. It is crucial to recognize the important contextual cues for this site; any built form for this site must recognize the scale, massing, materiality, detailing and relationship to the adjacent buildings.”

Heritage Ottawa: “The Supreme Court of Canada, designed by Ernest Cormier, and the Justice Building designed by Burritt and Horwood Architects—the two existing buildings in the triad—are handsomely designed structures that make important contributions to Canada’s architectural heritage. On completion of a third building in accordance with long standing plans, the judicial precinct will have significance for future generations as a reflection of Canada’s justice system and the democratic ideals on which that system is based. Maintaining the thematic integrity of this nationally significant site is key.”

Barry Padolsky B.Arch.,M.Sc.Urban Design OAA, FRAIC, RCA, CAHP

Contact the Mayor of Ottawa here

Contact your City Councillor here

 Text of Toby Nussbaum’s resolution:

Just up on the newly designed Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada’s website.

My interview with Lee Kuan Yew

An Interview With Lee Kwan Yew

INROADS MAGAZINE       SPRING 1992

Born to a wealthy Chinese family, Harry Lee, as he was then known, returned to Singapore in 1950 with a Cambridge law degree (earned with highest honours), an impeccable command of English, and no command of Chinese, the language of the majority of Singaporeans. (Singapore’s mix now is 75 per cent Chinese, 15 per cent Malay,7 per cent Indian, 3 per cent other.)

Lee entered the struggling independence movement and proved his genius at forming strategic alliances with anyone and everyone, including the local Com-munist Party. Within a decade, the British had surrendered sovereignty, although it took until 1965 (after an ill-fated two-year merger with Malaya) for Singapore to emerge as an independent nation …

Lee Kuan Yew, first elected Prime Minister in 1959, pinned Singapore’s hopes on emerging multinational corporations. His strategy was twofold: lure the multina-tionals to Singapore by creating an irresistible business environment, and assure them that Singapore was an oasis of political calm in Southeast Asia.

To attract the multinationals, Lee began massive investment in Singapore’s only natural assets – its strategic location and its people. An airport, harbours and roads appeared out of the island’s mud seemingly overnight, as did public schools and, later, technical colleges and universities (all teaching in English, which re-mains the language of business in Singapore).

Tough labour laws and the ruthless crushing of independent unions kept wages low. When low wages were no longer a unique attraction in Southeast Asia, the government legislated rapid wage increases of 200 and 300 per cent to force companies to innovate and adopt new labour-saving technologies. The economic implications of the changes were always made clear to employees and employers.

In the operation of government itself, Singapore was a breath of fresh air in Asia. Free of even a taint of corruption, transparently efficient in all its financial dealings, the island was a magnet for multinationals looking for an Asian base in the 1960s. While open to foreign investment and trade to a degree matched by few other countries, the government targeted certain economic sectors for suc-cess. As Singapore industrialized, the targeted sectors were reevaluated and, when necessary, encouraged to evolve toward ever higher value-added modes of production. The government made its goals as clear and as consistent as possi-ble, and avoided capricious changes that would scare away foreign investors.

In social policy, Lee’s government was no less directed and forceful. Sweeping away old communities across the island, it built new housing estates and put the apartments up for sale at reasonable prices. Workers (and employers on their be-half) were forced to save through a compulsory program called the Central Provi-dent Fund: contributors had full and free access to their savings at anytime to buy a home, finance health care or support their retirement. Singapore’s consistently massive savings (currently 47 per cent of GDP, among the world’s highest) and a consistently positive current account balance from rapidly expanding exports pro-vided a steady source of capital to finance the government’s relentless public in-vestments.

To curb a rapidly growing population, the government promoted an all-encompassing birth control program – coercive, tinged with overtones of eu-genics, but with its long-term benefits clearly explained to all. In 25 years, the size of an average family dropped from six to two children … This year’s growth is ex-pected to be roughly 5 per cent – cause for alarm in Singapore, but envied almost everywhere else.

The politics of consensus

Lee Kuan Yew’s Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) has never tolerated debate on what it sees as fundamental principles affecting national survival (and the PAP has won every election since 1959). Opposing the PAP has meant jail for labour leaders, opposition politicians and, in the late 1980s, Catholic Church workers … Local me-dia are intimidated and censored and many foreign publications have been banned for varying lengths of time …

But it would be wrong to attribute the lack of public debate and criticism solely to fear of government retribution. Most Singaporeans over 30 remember all too clearly a Singapore where running water and electricity were unusual and malaria was endemic. Singaporeans’ lives have improved so dramatically and so quickly that it is perhaps not surprising that they speak quietly of the shortcomings of the government that has guided the transition.

There is, as well, a complex and controversial cultural dimension. Many West-ern economists and political scientists, in their struggle to explain East and Southeast Asia’s rapid economic transformation, point to the role of culture. Japan and the Four Tigers – Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore – share a Confucian heritage that, grossly oversimplified, values consensus over conflict (“saving face”), sees old age as a virtue, and places a premium on education. Ezra Vogel of Harvard has called this combination “Industrial Neo-Confucianism.”

Other analysts downplay the role of Confucian culture and attribute the region’s economic success to World War II’s destruction of the old colonial order, the importance of U.S. aid in those early years, the different relationship between governments and free markets in Asia and the apparent skill at targeting certain industrial sectors as centres of growth …

What makes Singapore so interesting is that Lee Kuan Yew’s iron-handed leadership produced so much wealth so quickly, but without the massive social unrest and often violent suppression evident in Taiwan and South Korea. Did Lee oversee the creation of a very rich Orwellian society unable to think for itself? Or did he skillfully, albeit in paternalistic fashion, guide a floundering postcolonial is-land to develop its strengths? …

There is a now vigorous debate in Singapore about loosening the reins and encouraging creativity, especially in education. There is, as well, a growing belief that, to retain its competitive edge, Singapore desperately needs not passive workers happy to follow the rigid rules of the shop floor but people with open and creative minds able to develop the new ideas required for success in the global information age of Singapore’s future.

Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as Prime Minister in 1990, but retains the post of Senior Minister in the Cabinet. Few doubt that he still wields enormous, if not paramount, influence in the Cabinet Room where the following interview took place …

FRANK KOLLER: Canadians seem to be having difficulty [being as successful] as you have in Singapore.
LEE KUAN YEW: Well, let’s put it in very broad general terms. You’ve taken in new migrants from Asia, Chinese from Hong Kong primarily, over the last six, seven years. And you don’t have to be as hard-working or trusting eager beavers as they are because life has been more comfortable. Your endowments have been more benign, more abundant. And it’s only now when you find that in comparative terms, your growth is slower than the Japanese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese or Hong Kong or Singapore, that you begin to wonder “what’s up?”
And “what’s up” is that these are hungry people with a keen desire to make up for centuries of backwardness. Backwardness in the sense that they were not organized as industrial societies. They were not backward people. That’s the difference.
In East Asia, you have a number of civilizations, primarily all Sinic in the sense that the Chinese influenced Japan, Korea and Vietnam. And if you go back 1,000, even 500 years, [those other Asian neighbours] were more advanced than Japan. So when a Korean sees that a Japanese has made it, he has no doubts in his mind, deep down in his heart, that given a chance, he can do likewise.
FRANK KOLLER: Are Canadians going to have to change their way of organizing themselves to be as aggressive and successful in Asia?
LEE KUAN YEW: That’s a very loaded question. I don’t think you need to change if you don’t want to go for faster growth. Then, you keep on buying Japanese cars, or Korean cars, or VCRs, or high-definition TVs, or mobile phones and so on.
But if you consider it an affront that you’ve got these young upstart societies outperforming you, then you’ve got to sit back and ask yourself, “Well, what is it that they are doing which makes them more productive and more effective in this high-tech electronic age?”
And look at your per capita GNP! Why should you bestir yourself in the same way as I have had to?
We started off in the 1960s with a per capita GNP of about US$1,000. Yours would have been US$7–8,000. Your per capita GNP in 1991 – which wasn’t a spectacular year – was around US$22,000. But last year, ours was only US$12,000. That’s half yours. So we have a long way to go before we catch up, if ever.
And you’ve got oil in Alberta; you’ve got conifer forests in British Columbia, an endless supply of wood, pulp and timber.
FRANK KOLLER: And your country and others in East and Southeast Asia are buy-ing those raw products, turning them into much higher value-added products, and selling them back to us – while we tread water asking “what’s wrong?” Are we al-lowing ourselves the luxury of too much talk and not enough getting down to ac-tion?
LEE KUAN YEW: Well, let’s go back to the philosophy of life. What is life for? As far as I’m concerned, starting from a very low base of near poverty, life is about get-ting enough food, clothing, housing, education, hospitals, roads, bridges, tele-phones, all the conveniences of life, to make it worth living.
I now have a younger generation that has only known growth over the last 20 years – and they are more free-spending and a little less hard-working than their parents.
When you reach a certain level of life where you can afford to talk of leisure and recreation and the finer things in life, then your focus changes.
I think that’s natural – and we have to focus now on getting our symphony or-chestra up to scratch, building a proper concert hall and a theatre and art galleries and so on.
In our case, if we ever forget that we’ve got to earn our keep, then we’ll go down very fast. But in your case, so long as you don’t go and drift into anarchy, you can have a comfortable living and allow the Japanese to dig for cobalt or look for uranium or whatever. The prairie is there; it will grow wheat. You just need combine harvesters to bring the stuff in – and if the Europeans can be persuaded under GATT in the Uruguay Round to stop their subsidies, you’ll sell a lot more wheat all over the world. So it’s a [case of] being set at a different pitch …
FRANK KOLLER: You sound as if you’re just being polite about Canada’s chances to compete successfully in the most dynamic economic region in the world.
LEE KUAN YEW: Well, the pressure isn’t there! Supposing we swapped places. Supposing you gave me British Columbia, which has a population of what, three million? I mean, such an enormous chunk of territory – and I’ve got all those mountains and ski slopes and the fishing and there’s so much that nature will do for you.
You take those three million Canadians from British Columbia and put them in one small island called Singapore and you say “Right, now make a living!”
Either they bestir themselves, or you come back in 20 years and you may find only half a million left!
FRANK KOLLER: Would those three million Canadians have to give up some ele-ments of their “Canadian” style of democracy to prosper on that island?
LEE KUAN YEW: What do you mean by Canadian-style democracy? Do you mean a leisurely way of life in which the political leaders guarantee you free medicine and old age pensions and so many of the other things which you assume for granted? Where’s it going to come from?
We don’t have an old age pension. We’ve got a certain retirement fund where everybody contributes to his own account so that when he retires, he’s got some-thing to keep him going after he’s 70, or 70-plus now.
But how can you come to one little island with nothing on it and just use your hands and your mind and your feet and add value? You’ve got to add value before you can pay for these things.
FRANK KOLLER: What you have achieved in Singapore in only 30 years is intimi-dating to many Canadians who are worrying about the future of their country in the face of recession and free trade with the U.S.
LEE KUAN YEW: (laughs) Why should they be intimidated? I’ve only got halfway to where you’ve got – and a perilous base. Because if the world turns adverse and we go back into protectionism and into trading blocs, then you can live off your vast continent. I can’t. My world comes to an end.
FRANK KOLLER: You may be only halfway to where we are, but you’re catching up in the game very quickly. And the speed with which your success has been achieved makes some Canadians wonder if you’re playing fair when you compete in international markets. Do you understand those feelings?
LEE KUAN YEW: Well, I think I can sympathize with the sense of loss of supremacy or loss of an assured lead over others. I mean, it’s natural. A sense of insecurity that your position at the top of the heap cannot be assumed for the next hundred years.
But if you bestir yourselves and make the necessary changes, there’s no rea-son why this extrapolation [of Singapore rapidly catching up to, and perhaps over-taking, Canada’s standard of living] will continue at the rate it’s going.
I do not believe that what takes place in East Asia is a one-way, unilateral activ-ity which is divorced or completely unconnected with the reaction of other coun-tries.
You take Japanese companies today in America, and I suppose in Canada too, and they are proving that with Japanese methods of management, they can pro-duce cars in America better than the Big Three. Using American workers, but us-ing them in a different way – a kind of family unit, everyone wearing the same uni-form, same canteens, no special toilets for the bosses, no special parking lots for the bosses, a sense of shared destiny. If the company goes down, everybody goes down. There’s no patent on this. There are no intellectual property rights.
Never forget that Japanese productivity was not high either before or during the war. They were down on their knees on all fours, crawling in the debris of a burnt-out Tokyo, and they discovered they had to be productive. Surely you will learn that.
FRANK KOLLER: Do you worry about Japan’s overwhelming influence over much of East and Southeast Asia?
LEE KUAN YEW: Yes, I do. I think they’re a formidable lot of workers, They’re very closely knit, a very homogeneous people. One to one, I don’t think they’re neces-sarily superior to the Chinese of the Koreans. But in groups, as teams, a thousand in a factory as against a thousand Koreans or a thousand Chinese, I would say that they would have the better team and that they would produce better results …
FRANK KOLLER: A final question. The transformation of East Asia since the end of the Second World War is unprecedented in history. But when you wake up at three in the morning, what worries you about the future for this portion of the globe?
LEE KUAN YEW: Well, I don’t wake up at three in the morning fortunately … but I suppose I worry that Asia will not have the good sense to know that this is irrevo-cably one world. We can’t go back to neat compartmentalized societies where people intermarried and bred in homogeneous gene pools.
It is a heterogeneous world and if East Asians don’t learn how to adjust to this heterogeneous world like the Japanese are having to do, then we will have more frictions with the rest of the world.
In Europe today, we find accommodation being made with the Muslim Arabs, Turks, Africans from the South Sahara. Not just insignificant numbers but large numbers [who are building] mosques and a different way of life.
I think [Europe] has done it better than we are doing. The Japanese just will not have any Vietnamese refugees: they are unacceptable. They threaten the purity of [Japanese] society. Half a million Koreans in Japan have been there since before the war and they have to be fingerprinted every time they want to do anything.
And the Koreans are also intolerant people, intolerant in the sense that they don’t accept foreigners well. You can’t go into the Korean stock market and buy and sell. You can here [in Singapore] because we are different. We are more heteronegeous.
I think that if East Asia does not learn to accommodate itself and accept that this is one world and that there is no such thing as an exclusively pure people, then it’s going to run into trouble. Because then it will lead sooner or later to the same kind of false sense of superiority that Asians now accuse Caucasians of.
We have to learn to accommodate each other. The alternative is conflict, which will be disastrous.