What we do have is extremely strong support within Singapore for the stance we take, which outlaws these drugs and by which we make a distinction between pure abusers and traffickers. Pure abusers are not treated as criminals. They don’t have a jail record. We focus on them as people who need help, so they are put into centres. They can’t come out, so they are in detention, but they are given treatment – psychological, as well as medical assistance – and then they are trained to try to get into jobs. They are given a lot of hand-holding. A lot of state resources are focused on every single abuser, as long as he’s just abused and didn’t commit any other criminal act. And when they come out, they are given help, and there’s no criminal record.

Traffickers, of course, we deal with very differently. And is it working? I think, over 70 per cent of people in the region from where our traffickers come from, say that they understand the laws, and they won’t do it, and that it is a strong deterrence. People within Singapore strongly support the tough criminal law policies.

Not many people have understood that we make a big distinction between pure abusers and traffickers, but you know, we talk about it.

Singapore doesn’t need Branson or historical guilt trip in death penalty debate

Ultimately, the population of Singapore will have to decide whether they support capital punishment, or they don’t. What I can tell you is that today, there is strong support. Partly because we handle this carefully, and secondly, because we explain our position repeatedly to the public, so the public understands.

And the public can see – you walk along the streets of San Francisco, you walk along the streets of many other places. And, I’ve said this publicly: anyone can walk at any time of the day or night in Singapore without worrying. Over 90 per cent of our women feel safe walking home alone at night. When you talk about human rights, I think that’s the most important human right – the ability to be free in your city – and not the pet peeve of a very small group of activists who either because they don’t like the government, or because they are focused on this ideologically.

And nobody has answered the question: have you done a calculation of the number of lives that would be lost if you went softer? It’s a fact. More lives are lost; more lives are destroyed. People don’t look at it like that. They don’t want to look at it. So, a combination of [pharmaceutical] companies, big money, and ideology is driving this in the rest of the world, and also because their systems are not strong enough. You know, some of them are corrupted by the drug traffickers. You just had the chief or a very senior person in law enforcement in Mexico being arraigned in the US. Right or wrong, I don’t know.

But in Singapore, no one doubts that our enforcement against drugs works effectively. So, we are perhaps unique in making sure that the enforcement can work. And at the same time, the police presence and Central Narcotics Bureau’s presence is not that heavy. And, people lead free lives. What do you want to change of that?

TWIA: What about what Malaysia is doing?

Shanmugam: As I said, anything that makes drugs easier to access, will add to the challenges we face.

TWIA: One last question, or perhaps one and a half questions. You know you and the PM are probably the only two people who joined parliament before 1990, who are still in parliament. So, you’ve been through three prime ministers?

Shanmugam: I have been with three prime ministers.

TWIA: So, will you be around for the fourth one? And the second half of the question is, what’s your assessment on how the leadership transition is taking place? How is the new team making their mark?

Shanmugam: I think they are doing well. You look at the various professions – if you want to be a police officer, you need to go for training; you want to be a journalist, I assume you need to go for some training. Some – at least you need to understand the culture of your organisation, somebody edits you more closely in your early years, unless it’s an irresponsible organisation. If you want to be a teacher, you need some training.

But you know, if you want to be a prime minister, in most countries, you don’t need any training. All you need to do is stand for elections, look somewhat good, say something attractive, and you could be elected. And there are enough places where that has happened. Then it’s hit and miss. The person may be good; the person may not be good.

But it strikes me as very interesting that in most places, even if you don’t consider the prime ministers and the ministers as having the most important jobs in the country, you would nevertheless think that they are not the least important jobs. And if you want to be in a senior position in a bank, you needed to have worked in the bank for a period, you need to have experience. Even if not at that bank, they will ask you what’s your experience? In every job, people want to know your experience. Otherwise, they put you at the bottom and you go up, you train. But not for ministers or prime ministers.

We are, however, different. We think some degree of training is generally useful, some degree of experience is useful, before you become a minister or prime minister.

Singapore’s PM-in-waiting: who is Lawrence Wong?

And, as important as the ministries, are the weekly cabinet discussions, the way you deal with problems. You come up against issues – whether it’s foreign policy issue, or the American view, Chinese view, the European view, Malaysian view, Indonesian view. How do you deal with this? How do you deal with that? What’s your position from the perspective of a small country? From 1984 until he became prime minister in 2004, we are talking about 20 years of experience. How many countries are there where people have 20 years of experience in ministerial portfolios? There will be some, but it’s not common. And then, he becomes prime minister. By then, he has pretty much seen most of the problems.

Then you look at his prime ministership from 2004 to now, you’re talking about 19 years, nearly two decades. What matters, is you look at the lives of people and their lived reality, the growth in gross domestic product between 2004 and 2023. You look at the crises we have come through. You look at the actual, the median income of people living in my lower middle class housing estate in [my constituency of] Yishun. What’s the median income? How much has it gone up by, after accounting for inflation? That’s what improvement in lives means. How much are they earning now? What’s the unemployment rate? Are they able to do the things they want? Do they have enough money in their pocket? I mean, food and basic necessities are mostly taken for granted.

Focus on what has happened between 2004 and 2023. Is that all luck? Luck plays a part. Bad luck can finish you off. But, how much of it is the experience and the ability to do the right things at the right time?

Now, if you look at [Deputy Prime Minister] Lawrence [Wong], who has been identified by his peers, he came in in 2011. Before that, he already worked as principal private secretary to the PM and at other senior civil service positions, so he understands public policy. And in politics, he started as a minister of state, he’s now had 12 years. He will have a little bit more before he takes over. Not as much as PM, but quite a lot.

If you look at PM Goh [Chok Tong], I think he came in in 1976 by-elections, and he became prime minister in 1990. So, 15 years, also held a variety of portfolios – defence, finance, health, various portfolios.

If you look at the 4G, the people who have been identified, take any one of them. Look at Desmond [Lee, national development minister]. He was in public service. Then, he’s been with me at home affairs, so he understands security. Now, he is dealing with a problem, an issue which bedevils many countries – housing. And I think he is dealing with it successfully. Because, Singapore’s housing issues are unique. It’s a question of how quickly you can get it, and whether you can get it at a certain price, taking into account CPF. Those are the expectations, to pay most of your repayment through your Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings. Which other city, international financial centre, offers you that? He will, I have no doubt, deal with it.

Then, look at Covid – who handled it? A lot of the 4G were involved. All these are invaluable experiences. It doesn’t automatically mean that they will succeed, or anyone will succeed. Luck, as I said, plays a part. You will only know when they actually take over. But, whatever you can do to prepare them, I think a lot has been done. The people have been identified, they’ve been brought in, they have handled different parts. They have looked at policies. They have looked at governance. They have looked at how the world is going. They’ve dealt with the foreign leaders. So, I think what you can say is the preparations have been done as well as they can. My own role, you could ask the next prime minister.

TWIA: But would you want to stay?

Shanmugam: The answer is a combination of my views on whether I want to stay, together with the views of the next prime minister. That is not a discussion I can have in public.

TWIA: One last question. What do you think is the most misunderstood thing about you?

Shanmugam: On what’s the most misunderstood part of me, I think that is something you should ask others who know me. They will have a better sense. I’m not quite what, sometimes, is publicly thought about me by some people.

I am probably an economic liberal, and on social policy, probably middle ground, maybe slightly conservative, in terms of values. But I’m not somebody who believes in imposing my views or values on other people, or on their lives. The portfolios have required me to take a tough line, but the one motivating factor, which I think is the same for all the other ministers, is that ultimately, is it good for the broader Singaporean public?

Why was Singapore successful? Why was I and many others successful? Why was it that most Singaporeans moved up in their lives? Not everyone becomes a senior counsel, but the vast majority of Singaporeans have done much better, compared with where they started, they moved up. It is Singapore and the system. A clean, effective system, that allowed me to study, get into law school, get into a law firm, do well.

Singapore leaders say PAP needs ‘strong mandate’ amid global uncertainty

Where did the business for lawyers come from? Because the economic policies were so rational and consistent and farsighted, our economy grew. And when our economy grew, lawyers, accountants, bankers, others, all those who provide ancillary services, were able to do well. Most of my clients were Chinese. Skin colour mattered not. I’ve never, I mean I might have faced, even before people knew me, I might have faced racial intolerance in a mild way, perhaps five, six times. That is my growing experience.

So, I’m a strong believer in that system, but that doesn’t mean that you keep to it if it’s not working, as I explained to you earlier. If you look at meritocracy, what my parents gave me, is very different from what I give my children. Then, I look at the people in Yishun [his constituency], and I know that the parents can’t give what many middle-class parents can give, and therefore the state must come in.

Personally, I tend to be far more direct in putting forward my views, and far more clear and direct about taking on alternate views. I believe in saying what I think. I think it’s important that we have focused debates, to make sure that chaff and nonsense don’t get currency. My view is that you need to apply the logic to different viewpoints, in the public arena. You have viewpoints, let’s debate. Either you’re right, or I am right. Maybe, sometimes, both of us are partly right. But you must be prepared to debate.

TWIA: On that note, thank you very much minister for taking our questions.

Shanmugam: Thank you.