How Singapore Survives Turbulent Times - Minister Ong Ye Kung

Ong Ye Kung is the Minister for Health. He was elected Member of Parliament for Sembawang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in September 2015, and was re-elected in July 2020 in Sembawang GRC.

He had held the positions of Minister for Transport, Minister for Education, Second Minister for Defence and board member of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. He is also the Chairman of the Chinese Development Assistance Council

In this conversation, we discuss what it took for Singapore to overcome the pandemic and why the Singapore-Johor Economic Zone might change the game for Singapore.

Thank You Poddster Singapore for the support you have given me in the production of this episode.

If you are in Singapore and would like to host your own podcast, quote "frontrow" for a 10% discount off your booking.

TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Trailer
01:20 - Early Days of The Pandemic
10:00 - The Fight to Preserve Singapore's Hub Status During COVID
16:30- The Complexity of Managing Singapore's Public Health
21:50 - Safeguarding Singapore For Future Pandemics
28:00 - Singapore-Johor Integration
39:39- The Skillset Needed For Political Office Holders
44:28- A Vision For Singapore's Future
48:43 - Advice For Graduates

Speaker 1 00:00

There is an imminent possibility that the ground shifts under us and we lose our hub status. As hard as it was, we should signal to the world we are doing our best to reopen.

Keith 00:13

Health Minister Ong Ye Kung found himself immediately in the midst of the fight against COVID.

Minister Ong 00:21

Vaccines had already arrived. We started vaccination, mostly for those aged 70 and above. The younger groups came later when we had more supplies.

In most government restructuring efforts, there's always some corporatizing of functions to the private sector. In the case of CDA, we had a lab in Tan Tock Seng Hospital that we nationalized into a government statutory board.

One of the most painful things that happened during the pandemic was closing the causeways for workers. Severing ties between Johor and Singapore was painful for so many people, both Malaysians and Singaporeans.

Big countries can survive political gridlock, but we're a small country. If we're small yet in political gridlock, then we have big trouble. Don't feel sorry for yourself. Every generation has their own opportunities and challenges.

Keith 01:19

Today, I have the pleasure and privilege of speaking with Minister Ong Ye Kung. Minister Ong is Singapore's current Minister of Health, and in his previous portfolios, he has served as the Minister of Transport and Minister of Education. Today, we talk about governance in a disruptive world. With that, I'd like to welcome Minister Ong to the show.

Thank you for coming on. Let's talk about Singapore's COVID response, since we're about five years out today.

Minister Ong 01:49

We declared DORSCON green in February 2023. In fact, we just had our DORSCON green day. It's a day that MOH observes, actually the day after Total Defense Day. Total Defense Day is around Valentine's Day, February 14th. So we observe DORSCON green day on February 15th.

Keith 02:12

Why do you commemorate that day?

Minister Ong 02:13

The pandemic was largely a healthcare crisis that spilled over to all aspects of community and economy. We at MOH were at the epicenter of the pandemic, together with the help of many agencies and segments of Singaporeans. By the time we reached DORSCON Green, it was liberation day of some sort. So we commemorate it within MOH.

Keith 02:41

It's an impressive feat. Looking back at Singapore's performance, the global average mortality rate was about 1%, but we achieved 0.1% in a very dense environment.

Minister Ong 02:54

It's totally different from places like Canada or Australia, where people live far apart. For us, it's a very dense urban environment, and I'm very proud of all that we've done, with everybody chipping in.

Keith 03:09

How a government responds in a crisis is actually the best indicator of how good that government is. If I could, I'd like to take us back to when the pandemic was first brewing five years ago. You were the Minister of Education then, when all the alarm bells were ringing off.

Minister Ong 03:28

It's interesting you start with this line of questioning. I thought people had forgotten about COVID already. In MOH, we haven't. The experience lingers on because every time you go to work, visit a hospital, or see a GP, I know we all fought side by side. That experience is etched deep in the memory and muscle memory of MOH. But it's an experience we should not forget, where important lessons were learned that need to be institutionalized into better practices for the future.

You asked about when I was Minister of Education. I had the rather odd privilege of straddling three ministries throughout those three years of pandemic: Education, Transport, and Health. In Education, my first thought was whether we needed to close schools. Many parents immediately reacted wanting to close schools to keep their children safe at home.

At that time, I needed two pieces of input. First was from principals and school leaders. I asked how confident they were about keeping children safe. They were surprisingly very confident, saying all their processes and emergency protocols were in place. That was because of SARS. But what they didn't realize was that COVID was not SARS.

This meant I needed a second input, which was probably the first time I contacted Kenneth Mak in a long time. I knew him from before in Koo Teck Puat Hospital. He was the new Director-General of Health, and he got plunged straight into COVID. I asked him whether this virus attacked children more or less, bearing in mind the Spanish flu actually affected children more severely. So what was COVID-19? What kind of creature was it?

His reply, a considered one from MOH, was that there was no evidence it attacked children more. It seemed to affect older people more, based on the data coming from China. On that basis, I felt we should not close schools. But there was tremendous pressure at that time.

I remember a petition signed by tens of thousands of people addressed to me: "Minister Ong, what are you doing? Close schools!" I really felt the pressure. But based on the inputs, closing didn't seem necessary. So I decided to go out to the streets. At that time, there were no lockdowns yet. Whenever I met parents with children, I asked what they thought about closing schools.

Almost unanimously, nine out of ten parents told me, "Mr. Ong, don't close schools. If you close schools, how am I going to go to work? Keep the schools open, keep the children safe." That's when I decided to keep the schools open.

All over the world, schools were closed. I understand why governments and education ministers closed schools—you can't afford to have any deaths among children infected in schools. Their heads would roll. The safer thing is to close schools. But closing schools has very long-term detrimental effects on children, especially those from vulnerable backgrounds. The political impact of those consequences would come many years later, and the minister at that time wouldn't have to face them. But we always take a long-term view, so we didn't close.

We did close for one month during the circuit breaker. But even during that month, schools remained open for the most vulnerable children. What was heartwarming was that some long-term absentees we hadn't seen in school for a long time actually showed up during that period. They told teachers, "Now that nobody else is around, I can come back and get the help I need." So school became a refuge for them. During that month when schools were officially closed, we implemented online teaching, which today has become part of the curriculum for secondary students. They do it about once every three weeks—one day of learning from home to develop skills for self-directed learning, which I think is needed.

Looking back, I'm quite glad we didn't follow the rest of the world in closing schools.

Keith 08:43

I think we live in turbulent times, as many people recognize. But how do you understand a government's ability to respond in those turbulent times? That's when you go back to their track record, how they deal with pandemics and crises, because that's when you really see the ability to move.

Minister Ong 08:59

Good point. In a crisis, you see true character.

Keith 09:04

It's interesting that Singapore was one of the few countries that, outside of that one month, kept schools open throughout the pandemic. That was the anomaly, not the norm.

Minister Ong 09:15

There were very good ideas from parents. They wrote to me saying, "Minister Ong, during this circuit breaker, why don't you shift the June holidays earlier by one month instead of closing schools?" That was a brilliant idea, so we did that. This actually came from public feedback.

Keith 09:41

That's interesting. I didn't know that. Unfortunately, I wasn't a student so...

Minister Ong 09:44

So we had the circuit breaker for two months. One month was actually the June holidays, and one more month was when we truly closed schools and moved to self-directed home-based learning.

Keith 09:55

And then you moved to the Ministry of Transport, where you had to make another difficult decision. In a pandemic, the instinct is to close down and shut down. But Singapore being an important hub in the region, whether in air logistics or sea freight, the cost of shutting down is huge. What was your rationale then for wanting to keep Singapore open?

Minister Ong 10:20

We didn't keep Singapore open. A respiratory pandemic is the worst because it means that as long as we speak, interact, breathe, and have social interactions, we pass the virus. It hit at the fundamental aspect of human society, saying you can't interact like humans anymore. Society had to break down, had to close down.

It didn't affect PSA (Port of Singapore Authority) because that's about containers coming in and out of Singapore, which proceeded. In fact, PSA handled even higher volumes during that period. There was a Suez Canal blockage, and more containers came through Singapore. PSA played a huge role, not just for Singapore but regionally and globally, ensuring supply chains continued despite the pandemic.

Aviation was the problem. Aviation is about passengers, about human movements. Given the characteristics of the virus and pandemic, Changi Airport had to close. It became a ghost town for many months. I went to the Ministry of Transport during that time, and that became my key mission: How do we make sure that at the end of the pandemic, we still have a Changi Airport? We still have Singapore Airlines? Without them, Singapore's economy would take a huge hit if people stopped coming.

We described the pandemic as a big mahjong tile reshuffle. After reshuffling and opening your tiles, you might no longer have good cards. There was an imminent possibility that the ground would shift under us and we would lose our hub status.

I felt that as hard as it was, we should signal to the world that we were doing our best to reopen. We tried various ideas. The one that really got people's attention was our air travel bubble. We looked for kindred spirits who might think the same way, and the closest was Hong Kong. We approached many countries, but most said, "No, we want to stay closed." It was only Hong Kong and my counterpart there who were open to the idea. Hong Kong was also containing the virus quite well at that time.

We thought if we're both clean, we can travel to each other. So we announced the Hong Kong-Singapore travel bubble. I remember doing a short clip in Cantonese asking Hong Kongers to come to Singapore. My Hong Kong counterpart made a video urging Singaporeans to visit there. We were about to open when a cluster appeared in one of our territories. We had to call it off. Then we tried to restart, and another cluster appeared. In the end, it didn't materialize.

But I think it was still a very worthwhile effort because it put us on the aviation map. People around the world noticed that we were trying our best to reopen. Singapore wanted to get back to business. That signal was important to send.

Keith 13:55

In those cases, especially with Changi Airport, it might seem to a casual observer like an exaggerated view—did you really think Changi Airport would disappear? But if you look closer at the network effects or the potential death spiral of a hub, throughout history hubs actually can die and wither away very quickly.

Minister Ong 14:19

And be mindful, in maritime, we are a natural hub because when you look at the flow coming through the Straits of Malacca, it's the shortest route to many other markets. But in aviation, we are not the most natural hub geographically. It could easily go elsewhere. At that time, it was really scary when you visited Changi Airport and it was empty. It's empty, it's scary.

Keith 14:45

Why was this your core mission? Looking at it as a politician, taking such a huge risk to try this and fail three times could cost a lot of political capital. Why did you still have the view that you should take this risk?

Minister Ong 15:08

Because Changi is important to Singapore. Many livelihoods depend on it—not just the aviation sector, but the whole economy. SIA is important, and I was the Transport Minister.

Keith 15:20

I think over time, governments or bureaucracies tend to become more risk-averse. One lesson from the pandemic was that many governments became more risk-averse, doing what seemed safer in the short term, but not necessarily what was better for the long term.

Minister Ong 15:39

We're lucky to be in an environment where people's expectations of government still include doing the right thing for their future. Take care of the present, definitely, but also safeguard their future and their children's future. People expect that of the government.

If you're a minister or civil servant or anyone in public service, you also have the ethos that you solve current problems while keeping a clear eye on the future. That's what holds our system together—always looking long-term, always securing the future.

So to me, it was quite natural, as I'm sure it was to all my colleagues in the ministries, that when we face a problem, we want to look far and secure our future. And that view of trying to get the air travel bubble going, even though we might not succeed, was shared by all my colleagues in MOT at that time.

Keith 16:48

Let's talk about your current portfolio, the Ministry of Health. You've been there for close to four years already. It's one of the more complex ministries, I suppose.

Minister Ong 16:57

It's the most complex. I've never been to a ministry that complex. Economic principles don't work in MOH. In every other ministry, there's a set of economic principles you can apply—you subsidize, you tax, and balance the two for different segments of your portfolio. In health, it's just so complicated. Every market failure you can think of or studied in textbooks, you can find it in MOH.

So I'll make a pitch here: if you're an economist and want to do interesting work, come to MOH.

Keith 17:29

Even looking at some of your past speeches, it makes sense that healthcare has all kinds of market distortions. Add to that the fact that Singapore is a small market, and that creates a whole new set of distortions in how you price drugs, treatments, and so on.

Minister Ong 17:46

I was invited by Houston Kua, president of ESS (Economic Society of Singapore), to address his members during one of their dinners. I decided to put all the market distortions of healthcare into one speech. My pitch was, "Please, if you're an economist who wants to do good work, be a health economist." I don't know whether I deterred or persuaded them.

Keith 18:09

When you entered as Minister of Health during the pandemic, you went on a massive vaccination drive and pushed for Singapore to open up quickly. Can you take me through your thinking when you first stepped into the role, given that you were already on the steering committee during the pandemic?

Minister Ong 18:28

If we wanted to open up Singapore and save our air hub, being at MOH was important. I went there while also being appointed as one of the three co-chairs of the Multi-Ministry Task Force (MTF).

At that time, vaccines had already arrived. We started vaccination mostly for those aged 70 and above. The younger groups came later when we had more supplies. So we were already on the path of vaccination.

Shortly after I went to MOH, we had our first corporate planning seminar where key healthcare leaders and agency heads came together. There were social restrictions, so it was an online affair. I could see their faces on screen—many faces, as people kept their videos on.

I spoke about two things: first, a pathway to reopen Singapore, and second, Healthier SG. Even as we were tackling the pandemic, we were thinking about Healthier SG, because whatever we did during the pandemic could be applied in peacetime for preventive care.

But the key priority was determining the path forward. Could we open up? I was testing the waters, putting forward an agenda to vaccinate and open Singapore. Even though it was online, the reaction from clinicians was strong—they agreed it was the right thing to do.

That gave me tremendous respect for the clinicians because I knew this process would be really hard and would impact our hospitals most. When you open up, more people get infected. Hospital workload increases, A&E gets packed, and clinicians become very busy. Despite that, they said, "Yes, do this. It's the correct thing." Going back to your earlier point about choosing between convenience in the short term versus what's correct for Singapore long-term—this time the decision was made by the professionals.

I got that encouragement strongly. I presented the plan to the MTF, discussed it with my co-chairs, and we all decided this was the right approach. Of course, it wasn't straightforward. Immediately after that, we had the Jurong Port cluster and the Karol KTV cluster. The Delta strain came in and cases shot up. We pressed on but couldn't open at the pace we wanted because of Delta.

The Delta wave only subsided later in the year, then got replaced by Omicron from South Africa. We scrambled looking for clues about what this variant was like. Thankfully, it was milder. That was a turning point. When entering another wave, Omicron was milder but still dangerous, while the population was becoming more vaccinated. We had two factors in our favor, which gave us the opportunity to open up. From there, we built momentum and opened step by step until February 2023.

Keith 22:10

One key takeaway from the white paper was the need to better coordinate pandemic responses. Now there's the Communicable Disease Agency that was set up two years after the pandemic—creating a whole new agency focused on communicable diseases. That's actually very fast implementation from a bureaucratic perspective.

Why was this setup necessary compared to what you had previously when dealing with SARS?

Minister Ong 22:50

I shouldn't claim too much credit for CDA. Other countries have their CDCs; we never had one. After the pandemic, we felt we should have one.

The expertise and competencies were all there, but they resided in different agencies. We consolidated them into CDA, which brings two important benefits. First, we now have a common interface with the rest of the world, because pandemic preparedness is international work, not just domestic. Now CDA is signing MOUs and building linkages with CDCs worldwide. We signed one with China, for example, to exchange data, so we know what's happening in China much better.

Second, we had a lab in Tan Tock Seng Hospital, either part of NCID or outside of it, but essentially in Tan Tock Seng Hospital. In most government restructuring efforts, functions are typically corporatized to the private sector. In CDA's case, we did the opposite—we nationalized a lab from Tan Tock Seng Hospital into a government statutory board.

Why? Because the science has changed. During SARS in 2003, genome sequencing wasn't common. I don't think the SARS virus was genome sequenced during that period. With COVID, it was sequenced within two weeks. After sequencing, you can develop tests for it, and labs can perform PCR tests. We suddenly realized this lab had become a national resource, an important platform. So we decided to nationalize it under CDA and give it a larger national role.

This process is somewhat unprecedented—we rarely nationalize a hospital unit into a statutory board. Staff need to be transferred along with their benefits. We just had a good discussion with the unions and developed a package. Yesterday they presented it to the staff, and gradually everyone is converting over to CDA. There's a lot of work behind the scenes to resettle staff into a new environment.

CDA is one aspect. The other major aspect unique to Singapore is our amendment to the Infectious Diseases Act. We're probably one of the few jurisdictions, maybe the only one in the world, that clearly articulated different powers for MOH under different circumstances. We have four alert levels, from peacetime to emergency, with outbreak and threat in between. At each level, we trigger different powers for the minister to manage the pandemic.

This is a big lesson from COVID-19—we can't look at every pandemic and think it's SARS, which is what we did after 2003. COVID came and was totally different: less severe than SARS, but much more contagious, with an R value that hit five, eight, and beyond. You need different tools to fight different viruses. So we provided those powers under the new IDA, giving us more flexibility. The lesson for us is that when the next pandemic comes, we'll all think it's like COVID, but it will be different.

Keith 27:02

But now you're probably much better equipped and prepared because you have a more fit-for-purpose setup.

Minister Ong 27:08

Yes, "fit for purpose" is the key phrase. And before fit for purpose is recognizing the enemy. That's the key lesson I learned. When you see something new, understand it. Similar to the questions we asked at MOE, our first instinct was correct—understand it. Does it affect children more or less? That was one of our first questions because it focused on schools.

Next, you have to learn about the severity rate—how severe it is. Third, you need to understand the reproduction rate. Fourth, you must learn how it transmits. Is it airborne, by touch? Is it transmitted when someone is asymptomatic or only when symptomatic? All these factors matter. Once you understand these few simple characteristics, you know what the policy response should be.

Keith 28:03

Because we live in such disruptive times, most countries are undergoing what George Yeo called a "great fragmentation," where everyone is breaking away and forming their own blocs. There's a huge inclination not to integrate with the rest of the world. But Singapore is trying to integrate better with Johor, which is not the global norm right now.

You're also the MP for Sembawang, so you're literally at the tip of this integration once Woodlands and Johor are linked through RTS. From your perspective as Sembawang's MP, what's the promise of this integration through the Johor-Singapore Economic Zone?

Minister Ong 29:01

There's a close connection. One of the most painful things during the pandemic was closing the causeways. The two links were closed, severing ties between Johor Bahru, Johor state, and Singapore. It was incredibly painful for so many people, both Malaysians and Singaporeans.

At that time, I worked with my counterpart, Kairi, doing whatever we could with our trade and industry colleagues to reopen the causeways as soon as possible. I'm glad they reopened. But it showed that when you lose something, you realize how close you really are.

Now as the MP for Sembawang, we share a border with Johor Bahru. We'll have the Rapid Transit System (RTS) by the end of next year if everything goes smoothly. It will handle 10,000 passengers per hour in each direction—100,000 to 200,000 crossings daily. That completely changes the landscape.

As I tell my residents—and sometimes they tell me—going to Johor is easier than going to Orchard Road. Even with the current causeway, they feel immigration isn't that big a hassle. I went to Johor twice in December. Once I went through the normal channel, and it was very convenient. You pass your passport to the immigration officer, and a minute later they pass it back—similar to crossing from Hong Kong to Shenzhen. People are feeling that ease and convenience, and with RTS, it's going to be even easier.

You start to feel that the economies are truly intertwined. On another December trip, I wanted to look around Bukit Chagar, where the RTS station will be on the Johor side, corresponding to Woodlands North on our side in Sembawang GRC. I was walking around City Square, hanging around the atrium, when I heard someone say, "Minister Ong, can I take a photo with you?" I turned around and it was one of my residents. I took the photo, and then another voice asked for a photo too. That person was from Jurong but had come over to JB.

Soon there was a crowd. You sometimes get that as a minister attending events here, but I didn't expect it in Johor. People were asking where I was from, and even some Malaysians asked for photos, saying they recognized me from TV. It shows the closeness between our peoples.

I think there's great opportunity. At the same time, three things will affect us once RTS opens. First is investment—future investors will look not just at Singapore but also leverage Johor, configuring their division of labor to benefit from strengths on both sides. Second is the flow of people—I expect many Malaysian work permit holders will stay in Johor and commute to work, which will be much easier. Third is consumption, which is where we need to be careful.

A lot of consumption will shift across the border. Retailers and coffee shops will feel the pressure, especially those in the north. We're working with MTI to see how we can help this group. Costs need to be moderated, businesses need to be rejuvenated, and we're exploring how to encourage some to open outlets on the other side to benefit from that market. These are some practical issues we're addressing.

Keith 33:16

So this economic integration would look more like what you described earlier about Hong Kong and Shenzhen or the Yangtze River Delta, where you can balance the synergies in terms of FDI coming in.

Minister Ong 33:28

I think it's different. I don't want it to become like Hong Kong-Shenzhen, which are two closely connected territories. Hong Kong wound down its manufacturing many years ago and moved it to Shenzhen. Over time, Shenzhen developed a renaissance in startups, R&D, digital and creative sectors, even AI.

Keith 33:31

But there are similarities.

Minister Ong 33:58

Plus consumption in Hong Kong moved over to Shenzhen. It's actually a challenging situation for Hong Kong, and not one we want to be in. We've always kept engineering and manufacturing. We're still a hub for tourism and R&D, and we should maintain that. But with Johor more closely integrated with our economy, we need to see how to make ourselves even better.

Another example might be New York-New Jersey, but that's not accurate either because all the action is in New York, while New Jersey is just a suburb where people live. Johor isn't like that—it's very vibrant with many offerings. Looking around the world, I can't find an exact situation we want to emulate. This is something unique that we have to make the best use of.

Keith 35:02

From my perspective, we definitely want to keep an industrial base here. We're starting to see the huge cost of de-industrializing an economy when they lose that industrial base or engineering capabilities—the economy atrophies quickly. What would the ideal state for Singapore's economy look like after this integration, from your perspective as an MP?

Minister Ong 35:29

My involvement in RTS and Johor is primarily as Sembawang's MP. There is some interest in healthcare because Singaporeans do go there for treatments, including outpatient scans and dental care. These are policy issues we'll need to address regarding Singaporeans seeking medical treatment in Johor.

But largely, my involvement is as an MP, and I see many opportunities. My residents are looking forward to the RTS opening and stretching their dollars. I always tell them, I go over to eat char kway teow for eight or twelve ringgit. If the exchange rate were still one-to-one, as when I grew up, it would actually be very expensive. We only find it affordable because of the favorable exchange rate.

So Singapore's economy must always perform well to keep our dollar strong, allowing us to stretch it when we go overseas. Consumption is one major aspect relevant to my Sembawang residents. The ease of workers coming from Johor is also positive for many employers.

We need to cushion the downside for retail and F&B in the north, and we're working with MTI on that. But overall, it's a very positive development, especially for those of us in the north.

I have two counterparts on the other side around Bukit Chagar—the state MP, Andrew Chen, and the federal MP, Liu Jin-Tiong, who's a vice minister. I'm in touch with both. When the RTS opens, we should look at how we can host each other's residents more frequently. It's unusual in Singapore to be so close to another constituency that's in another country—closer than East Coast, West Coast, or even Tanjong Pagar—but this is how people and traffic will flow in the future.

Andrew Chen told me an interesting story about COVID severing ties painfully. During the pandemic, many Malaysians continued working in Singapore but couldn't go back because the causeway was closed. Some were mothers with babies back in Johor who were breastfeeding. He found a fruit seller in Sembawang who, being familiar with cold chains, could help. The mothers expressed milk, sent it to the fruit seller who refrigerated it properly, packed it for each mother-baby pair, and then transported it across to be delivered to the babies. Over the two years of the pandemic, they delivered 65,000 kilograms of breast milk. It's an amazing story.

Keith 38:59

Literally a ground-up cold chain.

Minister Ong 39:02

Yes, through a fruit seller in Sembawang. I should pay that fruit seller a visit.

Keith 39:08

It's very promising to see Singapore bucking the trend, finding new ways to configure our economy and stay relevant and competitive. As a young Singaporean, it's encouraging that we're thinking about these things. But you also need leaders at the top thinking this way, and talent is rare.

You've had various positions in government, outside government, in the private and public sectors, even in trade unions. What is it about being a minister or political office holder? What skillsets do you need that people outside might not clearly understand?

Minister Ong 40:04

I worked several years in the private sector and interact with many private sector leaders who work in public service almost voluntarily, chairing our boards or sitting on them. I find many of the skillsets are similar. You need to digest data and facts, crystallize issues down to a few key considerations, and make judgments. That's crucial for leaders. Also having a vision for the future—where you're leading the organization or sector.

Then there's communication, and the list grows: vision, decision-making, communication, and ability to draw people to work with you. These key skillsets are similar whether in public, private sector, or unions.

What's different about the public sector is more instinctive than skills-based. The difference lies in instincts rather than capabilities. A private sector person may have all the necessary skills but lack the patience or inclination to work in a bureaucracy. Bureaucracy requires more patience and understanding of how things work, how to navigate to arrive at the right decision.

Keith 41:47

I've heard it said that it's easy to put a private sector executive into politics and they'll do well. Some do.

Minister Ong 41:57

Some do, like my friend Tan See Leng. I think he's doing very well, coming in with private sector zest and full of ideas. He sometimes raises healthcare ideas with me informally. Sometimes I tell him no, that doesn't work in the bureaucracy. Other times, they're very good ideas. He's adapting well to the system, bringing that enterprising spirit from the private sector and applying it in the public sector context, which functions differently.

Keith 42:33

Do you think about talent attraction a lot? How do you spot or attract talent to join your cause?

Minister Ong 42:42

It's getting harder and harder to attract private sector talent to the public sector, whether as public servants or politicians. I think the most powerful and persuasive factor for them to consider is the mission—the impact you can have on so many people that you rarely achieve in the private sector. In public service, you can do things that affect many lives. That's probably the most attractive attribute of a public service career.

Keith 43:26

What are the deterrents preventing people from joining politics or policymaking? Is it the scrutiny or different opportunity costs? Back in Lee Kuan Yew's time, he would say the situation wasn't replicable because everyone knew it was sink or swim. But now the considerations are different.

Minister Ong 43:47

I'm a bit idealistic. Everything you mentioned is a factor—scrutiny, privacy, and for some, pay. But ultimately, the biggest deterrent is when they fail to see that sense of mission. When they think, "I might come over and end up dealing with a lot of paperwork and red tape, but I don't see why I must change my career."

So the biggest deterrent is failing to help them see the possibility of making a huge impact on current and future generations of Singaporeans. If we can present that in a compelling way—and it's not easy—then more people will want to join and be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices. The rest just become excuses.

Keith 44:35

For you, it's about painting that vision of the future. So naturally, I have to put you on the spot. If you were making a pitch for someone to join you, what vision would you paint for them to help serve Singapore?

Minister Ong 44:54

The kinds of issues we deal with in every ministry will always be there—COE prices, congestion, cost of living. But what may be more exciting are the generational changes and how people can play a part.

We have several generational changes we're grappling with. First is geopolitical. We have a different geopolitical situation, which means Singapore's role is different. We need to redefine that. The most important bilateral relationship in the world—US and China—has changed. It doesn't mean the end of the world; there are new opportunities. How does Singapore continue to play a role, being partners and friends with both while adding value to them and the rest of the world? We need to rethink this.

Second is the biggest social development we're confronting: aging. This is inexorable. To me, the only way to tackle aging is to stay healthy and active. Sixty-five is not old; maybe 75 is old. We need to push back the definition of aging, not just on paper but in real life—medically and economically. That's what Healthier SG and all our policies are moving toward.

Third is climate change. It's like a chronic illness that worsens year by year until one day you fall off the cliff. That date is getting nearer. Ice caps melting means rising water levels, an imminent threat for Singapore. We need to tackle this internationally by playing a role and being a model for best practices, while domestically protecting ourselves against rising waters.

Finally, politics. Our democracy is maturing. Singaporeans have different aspirations and an underlying desire for more opposition and diverse voices. Politically, we're probably not at equilibrium. People talk about an opposition wipeout, but it's impossible—Singaporeans want opposition. But how many? What role do they play? What standards do we set for ourselves and the opposition so that politics continues to work for us?

We must reach a stage where people feel we have a positive equilibrium, not a negative one—where Singapore remains decisive, agile, and adaptable despite being small. Big countries in political gridlock can survive it. We're a small country; if we're small yet in political gridlock, we're in big trouble. We must compensate for our small size with decisiveness, agility, and ability to look long-term, which was the start of your question. Then I think we're in a good place. That's also a generational change—how do we transition to a healthy, positive political equilibrium?

After saying all this, I don't know whether we'll be able to attract private sector talent.

Keith 48:43

I think the appeal will be even stronger. The first generation of leaders framed the existential challenge, and to a certain extent, we also need to reconsider the existential challenges Singapore faces today.

Minister Ong 48:57

Yes, never underestimate the future.

Keith 49:00

My last question is: What's one piece of advice you would give to a fresh graduate, Singaporean or not, entering the workforce today?

Minister Ong 49:09

Don't feel sorry for yourself. Every generation has its own opportunities and challenges. Because they're different, each generation thinks, "Did the last generation have it better? Do I have it worse?" Not true. Looking back, we actually had it quite good. Likewise for this generation—competition is tougher, but opportunities abound, including more chances to work overseas.

Take it as it is. There are pros and cons to every generation. Be positive. Employers look for that. Always be optimistic. Always know what value you can bring to employers. And don't ask for work-from-home arrangements—let the employer offer that. It doesn't leave a good impression to ask that as your first question.

Keith 50:03

That's good advice. Thank you, Minister, for coming on