SPEECH BY MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF SINGAPORE GEORGE YEO AT THE 61ST UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON AT 1800 HOURS ON 22 SEPTEMBER 2006 IN NEW YORK
Regional Contribution to Global Governance
Madame President,
Mr Secretary General,
Distinguished Colleagues
1. The recent war in Lebanon had no clear victor. Israel succeeded in removing the immediate threat across the border but could not wipe out Hezbollah. Hezbollah claimed victory having survived Israeli air bombardment and ground action. On both sides, innocent people have suffered greatly. Whether the present ceasefire can become a lasting peace depends on many factors, not least the ability of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL to maintain the buffer in southern Lebanon. But one thing was clear: that without the eventual intervention of the UN, the fighting would have continued and more lives would have been lost.
2. The Middle East is going through the throes of change. In Palestine, there is no escaping a two-state solution. However, defining the precise boundaries of that solution is a grinding process which will take time. No one can achieve all his demands; no party can insist on absolute security. Between Sunnis and Shiites in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere in the region, a new balance is being established. This will also take time. In many countries, there is tension between those who are impatient for change and those who believe that discontinuity will lead to chaos and anarchy. For as long as there is more despair than hope, terrorist organisations will be able to find fresh recruits. What happens in the Middle East affects the entire world. No country is insulated, if nothing else, from the terrorist threat and high energy prices.
3. No grand solution is possible. The end of the Cold War marked the end of an era when the major powers could settle the terms among themselves over the heads of lesser countries. It was not so long ago but it seems strange today that a cold peace could be maintained for decades by each side pointing tens of thousands of nuclear missiles at the other. Technology has changed the rules. Warfare has now become asymmetric. Cruise missiles and submarines cannot solve the problem of suicide bombers. And those who manipulate these terrorists might well take positions in global financial markets to benefit from the havoc that they create.
4. In a sense, technology has globalised the world and broken it into smaller pieces. Empires have broken up. New countries have been born. In large countries, power has often devolved downwards and regions have become more assertive. It has become a messier world which presents new challenges to global governance. Improving global governance from above sometimes seems an impossible task. Take the reform of the UN for example. Despite all the efforts made and the fine speeches delivered, the results have been quite modest. The near-collapse of the Doha talks is another example of how difficult it is to effect change from the top down. When the GATT was formed in 1948, there were only 23 members. Today the WTO has 149 members. No country or group of countries seems able or willing to take the lead in brokering a compromise. We must hope that Director-General Pascal Lamy will succeed in his heroic efforts to rescue the Doha Round from failure. There are other areas in which global action is needed but insufficient. All of us worry about global climate change but how can there be consensus when the costs and benefits fall so unevenly and the major polluters are unwilling to accept responsibility? We hear dire warnings from the World Health Organisation about a global flu pandemic, yet our collective response is so feeble.
5. While we should never give up hope on global initiatives, we should be realistic because achieving global consensus in a multi-polar world is, to say the least, challenging. When governments have to win elections, they are more likely to respond to short-term political needs than to worry about longer-term global concerns. We can often do more at the regional level. At that level, the stakes are clearer to our constituencies and the need for action easier to explain. The UN Charter does recognise the role regional arrangements can play in helping the UN achieve its objectives.
6. In a globalised world with porous borders, regional cooperation can often bring about quick benefits. Take, for example, the simple act of re-opening the Nathu La Pass in the Himalayas between China and India almost 3 months ago after 44 years. Immediately, on both sides of the Pass, ordinary people benefit immensely from trade and travel. New problems will arise of course but they can be managed.
7. All over the world today, regional initiatives are proliferating. Many overlap. Some are modest in their objectives, providing forums for public and private sector leaders to meet and consult. Others are more ambitious, creating regional free trade areas, or fostering joint efforts against problems like drug trafficking and terrorism. Many of these regional initiatives are open and inclusive, and should be encouraged. Those which are superfluous will gradually wither away. Some can make significant contributions to global governance and reduce the burdens borne by the major powers. International organisations like the UN, WTO, WHO, IAEA and UNEP should work with them, strengthen their capabilities and encourage mutual learning. They create a habit of cooperation among neighbouring countries and reduce misunderstanding.
8. In Asia, the role of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) has not only been beneficial to the ten countries of Southeast Asia, it has also helped to create a larger architecture of cooperation. Founded 39 years ago in 1967 when the war in Indo-China was raging, ASEAN began as a grouping to promote what then Indonesian President Suharto called 'regional resilience'. The original five non-Communist countries - Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines and Singapore - were determined to keep the peace among ourselves and concentrate on economic development. Brunei joined ASEAN in 1984 after it became independent. With the end of the Cold War, peace returned to Indo-China and ASEAN gradually expanded to include the newer member-states of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, to become a community of ten.
9. In 1992, the countries of ASEAN decided to establish a free trade area in stages. For trade in goods, we are largely there. For investment and services, we still have some way to go. But there is considerable political will to press on and make the whole of ASEAN a single economic space. Already, ASEAN as a grouping plays a major role in global trade, accounting for some 6 % of total world trade.
10. The re-emergence of China and India as major powers presents us with both opportunities and challenges. ASEAN's trade with both is growing rapidly. But they are also a competitive challenge to us. When the Leaders of ASEAN met in Bali three years ago, they took a major decision to establish an ASEAN Community by 2020 with three main pillars - security, economic and cultural. To create such a community, an ASEAN Charter will be drawn up next year as a mini-constitution to provide the legal basis for our future integration. It will include provisions for dispute settlement by independent panels.
11. The European Union is an inspiration to us in ASEAN. Two months ago, the European Commission hosted members of an ASEAN Eminent Persons Group and generously offered advice and assistance. While ASEAN integration will never be as deep or as broad as that of the EU, there is much that we can learn from the European experience.
12. For ASEAN to prosper, it is important that we maintain good relations with all the major powers. For many years now, ASEAN has promoted good relations with the US, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, Korea, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand who are all our dialogue partners. With strong growth in global trade, ASEAN has negotiated or is in the process of negotiating free trade agreements with China, India, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand, and closer economic partnerships with the US and the EU. We have a simple strategy which is to give all of them a strong stake in our unity and development. Strategically, some of the most important sea lanes pass through ASEAN waters. About a third of global trade, half of global oil trade and 80% of the oil bound for China and Japan, pass through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore.
13. Through the ASEAN-plus groupings and the East Asia Summit which includes China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand, we are creating a new architecture of peaceful cooperative development in larger Asia. ASEAN is not big enough to be a major global player but ASEAN plays a significant role in holding Asia together and keeping it open to the rest of the world. Whatever we do in Asia must not cause the US, the EU or Russia to think that we are excluding them.
14. ASEAN is a work in process. Like other regions in the world, we face many problems - economic development, separatist movements, terrorism, drug-trafficking, environmental degradation, maritime security, ethnic/religious divisions, avian flu, among others. However, what each of us in ASEAN has come to appreciate is that, without ASEAN, each of these problems is much harder to solve. And ASEAN alone cannot solve any of them. We have to work with other countries and with international organisations. We are grateful for their assistance, their partnership and their cooperation.
Madame President,
Mr Secretary General
15 ASEAN supports you and the UN strongly. We will work with you to improve the workings of the UN and make it more effective. In this regard, ASEAN continues to endorse the candidature of Dr Surakiart Sathirathai as the next Secretary General despite the recent coup in Thailand. Although it was a setback, Thai society has a deep resilience which will enable it to recover quickly. ASEAN will always be on the side of the Thai people. If every region in the world, working with the UN, can help to stabilize its own immediate environment and promote favourable economic conditions, the prospects for global peace and development will be enhanced. What the nations of Africa have been able to do despite adverse circumstances is impressive. The willingness of individual African countries to agree on common positions is unique to that continent and an inspiration to the rest of us. The UN is already stretched and can only do so much. Instead, let us in each of our regions do our part and work with the UN and its organisations in a complementary way. On Darfur, for example, we need close cooperation between the UN and African countries to stop the killing. Wherever possible, regional organisations should be strengthened. The UN and other international organisations can play a facilitating role, provide resources and advice, set standards and establish benchmarks. Even in the Middle East, where the work often seems the hardest, regional cooperation can help create a better environment for peace and development. Without the goodwill of its neighbours, the reconstruction of Iraq, for example, will be much more difficult.
16. With over 500 million people, ASEAN has 8% of the world's population. Our share of global GDP is much lower at 2%. But, within the limits of our modest capabilities, we in ASEAN will do our part to contribute to the good work of the UN in making this a better world and not add to its problems.
George Yeo
Ask any successful bosses, they will probably tell you about their leadership or success factors such as the following:-
1. Focus and Consistency.
2. Positive Work Attitude.
3. Foresight & Insight
4. Supportive Environment.
5. Passion & Determination.
6. Coordination, Teamwork and Bottom-up Approach.
7. Adaptation to Changing Environments.
8. Creativity and Entrepreneurship
9. Leverage on Strengths and avoidance of Weakness. (Sun Sze Art
of War)
PRACTICAL PROBLEMS
A moment of reflection will reveal that the root cause of many human problems is self-created due to narrow individualistic and nationalitic approaches.
For every country trying to succeed in nationalism and religious dominance there are equal number suffering from inequity and injustices.
If people are more objective there will be win-win situations and more progress and more peace.
The average work places are similarly full of problems of individualism as described in various office jokes e.g.
1. Jumping to conclusion
2. Beating around the bush
3. Running down the boss
4 Going around in circles
5. Dragging their feet
6. Passing the buck
7. Climbing the ladder
8. Wading through paperwork
9. Pulling strings
10. Throwing their weight around
11. Stretching the truth
12. Bending the rules
13. Pushing their luck
How to bring about win-win situations for all.
In process management, tasks are objectively set up in quality-time-cost lego-like component work processes as follows:-
OSP Step (1) Study of Ideas,
OSP Step (2) Enquiry,
OSP Step (3) Securing Contracts,
OSP Step (4) Contract Administration (10 departments),
Such task is now set up in forms (administration) and work forms (operations) with quality-time-cost controls, coordination, comparison, corrections and knowledge application.
ADMINISTRATIVE FORMS
Today, objective process management is gradually taking over traditional individualistic management practices e.g. banking, trading, travel-ticketing, designing, transportation, logistics, stock-trading, accounting, telecommunications, government services, court administration etc.
DEPARTMENT REPORTS (10 DEPARTMENTS)
Detailed functional tasks are easily divided in 10 basic departments : 1.(General) 2.(Human Resource) 3.(Revenue) 4.(Accounts) 5.(Marketing) 6.(Services-all contracted activities) 7.(Facility) 8.(Enforcement) 9. (Production) 10.(Compliance).
Process management generates quantified feedbacks i.e. "1" for non-attainment, "2" for attainment and "3" for excellence.
All tasks "1s" are objectively processed in 2-way communication task-line feedbacks with closing action taken at weekly interval.
COORDINATION AND KNOWLEDGE APPLICATION
So all governments and businesses are easily governed by processes with in-built quality-time-cost control, and good corporate governance.
All government manage their tasks objectively to produce win-win solutions to benefit all.
United Nation could help world government to control corruptions with hands-on control on revenue, expenditure, cost saving, enforcement, logistics etc. objectively managed in processes under the control of a simple Process File List as follows:-
Level 1: Management Report (call centre)
Level 2- Form processes generate objective factual feedbacks.
Level 3 - Work-form processes provide for coordination and knowledge application.
FINAL GOAL - ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY
United Nation could promote process management to hring long-lasting progress and peace.
Posted by: Robert Teh Kok Hua | September 26, 2006 at 09:23 PM
PM of Singapore has asked people to come forward to ask for change.
That is a very good gesture on his part.
But what have gone wrong so that there is this overwhelming need to ask people to do the bottom-up change.
Just look at what happened briefly in the past 40 years.
Government failed to respect wishes of the people in freeing up press control and in lowering costs of doing business.
But despite feedbacks as posted to Feedback Unit for years in "20 Major Govt Policy Errors" problems were covered up due to lack of alternative voices in parliament and press control.
People bear the burden of persistent tax-and-recover, double-taxing high cost policies and drop in economic competitiveness since 1970s due to failure to upgrade the economy and SMEs.
Businesses cannot survive and people cannot find jobs and are leaving due to wrong policies of the past. This is because the Government have implemented wrong policies to suit its own ease of creating surpluses and raise its own self-rewards.
Government is the one who has refused to change many of these wrong policies of the past. People are not at fault. Now, just go to any HDB heartlands and watch many businesses continue to close shops and people are leaving for greener pasture.
Clamp-down of the press and double-taxing on land and triple-charging on vehicle are wrong policies. Farming out of essential services to GLCs and corporatising these services to allow all of them to suck more monies from people is another wrong policy. Tax-and-recover system is another wrong policy.
Government should change all these wrong policies and encourge all the smaller businesses to grow with supportive procurement policies. Do not close all doors on the smaller guys so that the smaller guys could go into business.
NTUC and GLCs should stop competing against its own people for a living and allow them to do well and create jobs.
Because of all these wrong policies, government has caused unhappiness and migration and finally has to resort to people importing in the name of foreign talents.
We still have not attracted many top talents despite all the FT policy and those who are imported are none other than those we already have in large number. This kind of importing of people does not add values to our economy or create new technology start-ups.
Instead of importing lawyers, accountants, doctors, insurance people and business adm graduates we should import scientists and technologists who could help to branch out in new technology applications and start-ups.
So if government really and sincerely wants to change it should change the root causes of unhappiness and migrations - high costs of living and failure to create new technology start-ups due to conceptual leadership.
So where is the change if government insists on its right to stay firm on all the high-cost policies and discriminatory recruitment practices favoring only the few elites.
If there is the change the change should be to favor and give more opportunities to its own citizens, treat them fairly so that they will not have to migrate elsewhere to seek better jobs and higher pays.
If government stays firm on its pro-foreign policy and does not do anything to address the root causes whatever the change will be of little use but only false pretences to cover up old problems.
Posted by: Robert Teh Kok Hua | September 27, 2006 at 07:09 AM
This is the most important message to our politicians - understand your adversary.
In foreign relation, often history has shown that both sides wanted and dominate the other and at the end none is the winner and both are the losers.
Singapore leaders as shown by their own policies towards their own people for the past 41 years always maintain the top-down domineering Kiasu stance toward the people.
They are high on tasks and presentation but very low on understanding the needs and aspirations of others in dealing with people or other countries.
Legalistic abilities pr IQ is not enough in overcoming problems with others especially in dealing with equals or higher personage.
The Malaysians on the other hand may be difficult to handle because of the Malay dominance, and precisely because of this we have to understand the need to handle them with care and consideration.
The Malays are a proud and sensitive race as well made more so by religion. If they turn inward, and refuse to deal with anyone and become claustrophobic, they would become more problematic.
To work with the Malaysians' Malay, Singapore has to come up with a package which will respect their feeling and sovereignty and yet will by based on multi-racial and multi-religious co-existence as the fundamental principle which will take a little time for them to assess and respect.
Singapore Malays have been accommodated to the extent that they are economically more independent now and are likely to offer the Malaysian Malays the comforting feeling they eventually could aspire to be like them if both sides cooperate.
From such people-to-people cooperation, more trust can be created and the politicians will eventually have to give up their past distrust on both sides and learn to flow with the people's tide.
Why can't our leaders chart such a people-to-people cooperative strategy in making them understand our approaches towards the Malays in Singapore and win them over to our policies.
The above can be implemented through various people-to-people cooperative projects like being done with Indoneia after the Tsunami.
Do not play up to the press or get entangled in so many emotional issues with them. Just work on the positive and concrete tangible advantages that Singapore has achieved - the Singapore Malays have got better than the Malaysian Malays without any special Bumiputra privileges and in the long run this might be the course for the Malaysian Malays as well as they will not forever depend on such policy to maintain their position resulting in racial strife and brain drains of the talented foreign and Chinese population.
Posted by: Robert Teh Kok Hua | September 27, 2006 at 11:55 PM
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the well-thought out and eloquent views and feedback. Almost like a Sun Tze strategy paper on geopolitical management. Look forward to more in-depth views from netters. I help run a listed company and despite all the truisms and strategies i have learnt in books, sometimes, I am just too tired to do the strategy-driven things all the time and in the process, got whacked. We just need time and energy to work out the kinks in the system.
Harold
Posted by: Harold Fock | October 06, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Hi Harold,
My point in posting the process management stuff here is precisely to show that Singapore cannot be managed by concepts like leadership or talent alone.
Action people are needed in large number who could translate all the good policies into actions and results.
If this type of leaders like Lim Kim San or Dr. Goh Keng Swee are not found to upgrade the economy, there will be all the talks about upgrading and little progress.
Process Management is very easy. It will automatically motivate people to excel and contribute to actions and results instead of endless concepts and policies which are getting a bit boring and useless.
Find ways and means to motivate and allow citizens to contribute such ideas and diversities.
Posted by: Robert Teh Kok Hua | October 06, 2006 at 08:11 PM
The YoungPaP has held its 17th Youth leadership training course on 2.8.2007 as posted on its website.
The Youngpap must have witnessed no doubt the various problems confronting the country of late from NKF malpractices to government ministries' incurring financial losses in many projects due to negligence and carelessness as reported by Auditor General and recently to Shin Corp losses etc.
Are the Youngpap's Youth Leadership training course aimed at providing solutions to problems facing the country citizens ?
If not then the citizens will be left wondering what is the purpose of such training if they are not producing the desired results to turn things around.
What is leadership, talents, insight, foresight ? Are leadership, foresight or talents some form of self-centredness or assumptions?
Are all the policies constantly uttered by the leaders too conceptual and unattainable being based on too much look-good assumptions.
Are policies like meritocracy, leadership, pragmatism, anti-welfare taxing and back-charging of all costs to citizens producing the intended results or are people being made to suffer from policies which are no longer working but only causing rising costs of living and loss of economic competitiveness.
Are we building a country where the people are being over-taxed causing our very own domestic economy losing competitiveness for years.
Are we still building a country based on the philosophy of bringing about the greatest benefits of the greatest number?
Should we continue to allow this type of talk-only conceptual leadership while ignoring and passing over genuine problems as unsolvable or just to allow such conceptual leaders to get by?
Are our leaders still as committed as before to sacrifice for the people by working towards bringing about the greatest benefits of the greatest number instead of his own benefits?
Are our leaders interested in building up a system of government which could be participated by the citizens based on accountability, balanced roles, checks and balances, codes of conduct, using objective pre-defined independent assessments.
Are our government leaders working on feedbacks of the people to solve the rising costs of living which are already setting back our competitiveness.
Should such leaders keep the political power to themselves given the above-stated problems and issues and still be excused from all the suffering and wrongs.
Despite many years of rhetorics, and lately from ministers' utterances of nonsense in refusing to grant permit for holding cycling event by WP while allowing youngpap to hold such similar event, it has become increasingly clear that the government has degenerated into one of legalistic wrangling of laws and regulations to maintain political control, taxing and recovering costs and even profiteering depriving people of essential services like medicare, utilities, education, housing, transportation etc.
As a result of such a system of autocratic government, the country has taken a setback since the 1970s with its own domestic economy stagnating, dropping wages, young and educated unemployments.
The domestic economy is being squeezed out of their survival by government's getting into businesses of all sorts to compete with its own citizens.
What happen to all the talents of our own citizens or do we have no talents?
In the fast-paced technology, we need to build collective or distributive leadership whereby all policies and decisions of government are not resting on the desires or self-centredness of a few leaders but are distributed or decentralised through pre-planned work processes to be performed by the whole government team.
Only when a leadership system is so translated into down-to-earth implementation processes with accountability and check and balances will it lead to broad-based participation and knowledge application by the all with the support of the masses.
Therefore considering the above-stated circumstances facing the country as a whole our leaders today should be in possession of not only directional visions or foresight but more importantly they should possess the quality to make good accountable decisions and have the implementation ability to translate all policies and decisions to broad-based knowledge applications and teamwork.
We will need to leaders who were able to empathise with people's problems and suffering as expressed in feedbacks such as the "20 major major government policy errors" given to the Feedback Unit since 2002.
We need ministers and civil servants who could come down from their ivory tower and be able to solve many problems we are facing and to restructure the economy to value-adding technology-driven economy talked about for years.
Perhaps youngpap members who have attended such training courses should share with all whether they have indeed received the kind of leadership training to help solve problems or only to qualify them to gain their own internal promotion.
Posted by: Robert Teh Kok Hua | September 10, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Do you think the present government is equiped to train the future?
If you teach a person a certain way of doing things, and when test time comes, he or she will do it that way. I believe due to the lack of political discussion, awareness and kids taught to just follow, we may never have the ministers we need. Scholars are good in their field but are they in touch with the people? I believe to a large extent not.
Posted by: Moreforthepeople | September 11, 2007 at 10:51 PM