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.

My friend Barry Padolsky, one of Canada’s most prominent architects,  has just written a powerful letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressing the folly of building a Victims of Communism Memorial on Wellington Street in Ottawa. Barry’s letter deserves a read – and more importantly, as wide a circulation as possible to have an effect on the future of this project.

****

Prime Minister Stephen Harper,

Dear Sir,

For your information, I am forwarding today’s media coverage on the proposed Memorial to the Victims of Communism in Ottawa. Over the last 6 months, since the 6 finalists in the design competition presented their plans to the public in August 2014, there has been a growing chorus of voices publicly questioning your choice of site for this memorial.

These voices ranged from  Supreme Court Justice Beverley McLaughlin, to Ottawa’s Mayor Jim Watson  to  Rick Mercer in his Tuesday March 17,2015 Rick Mercer Report “Rant”. (Rick: No offense intended for listing you last. The order was chronological.)

From The Globe and Mail:
Tory-linked charity behind monument declared it was not active politically
From The Globe and Mail:
A walk down Wellington Street: Exploring Ottawa’s contentious communism memorial

From the Ottawa Citizen:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/memorial-to-victims-of-communism-didnt-meet-criteria-ncc-panel-said

Mr Prime Minister, I hope that you will now recognize that your decision to locate this memorial in  Ottawa’s Judicial Precinct next to the Supreme Court was a political error that will diminish the the character of Canada’s Capital and diminish respect for our Parliamentary and Judicial institutions.

I really wish that you would have studied and given regard to the  noble urban design plans for the Parliamentary and Judicial Precincts prepared by Public Works Government Services Canada before taking your decision.

The Government’s Long Term Vision and Plan (LTVP) for the Parliamentary and Judicial Precincts is carefully  detailed in a PWGSC document  entitled :

Parliamentary and Judicial Precinct Area: Site Capacity and Long Term Development Plan (2006 Update) 

As you know, this document was prepared with input from  representatives of the NCC, House of Commons, Library of Parliament , Supreme Court, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court , Library and Archives Canada, and  HCD (FHBRO). See page 121 of the report for details of these representatives.

The Government’s Long Term Vision and Plan for the Parliamentary and Judicial Precincts reserves the subject site for a future building, such as a Federal Court Building,  to complete the “Judicial Triad”, not a landscaped memorial.

There is also an implementation framework report specifically  for the Parliamentary Precinct area:

Building a Solid Foundation: A new Approach to implementing the Long Term Vision and Plan (2007) 

I am providing the dropbox link to these two documents below.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/e8beraeql77m71i/AAA1jZTY7gyGMWiNxg2tECGka?dl=0

I also recommend that you read the NCC’s thoughtful, thorough , and visionary document:

Canada’s Capital Commemoration Strategic Plan, 2006 

The Canada’s Capital Commemorative Strategic Plan outlines a wide variety of appropriate sites for public commemorations in the Capital . The subject site is pointedly excluded from the NCC’s inventory of  locations suitable for commemorations. I am attaching this document below:

Alternative sites for the proposed memorial , (such as the Garden of the Provinces on Wellington Street,  if your heart is really set on a prominent location)  should now be seriously considered.

Respectfully submitted,

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

Barry Padolsky Associates Inc., Architects

377 Dalhousie St.

Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 9N8

email@padolsky-architects.com

Email sent this afternoon from Jennifer McGuire –  Editor in Chief of CBC News –  to all CBC employees:

In recent weeks, there have been questions raised about whether or not CBC’s Senior Business Correspondent, Amanda Lang, had been in a journalistic conflict of interest.

I directed Jack Nagler, our Director of Journalistic Public Accountability and Engagement, to lead a review and the scope of the review included: journalistic content, journalistic conduct, and employee obligations to disclose any potential conflict of interest. All allegations of impact on our content fell into the scope of the review.

This review re-affirmed that all of CBC’s journalism relating to the RBC Temporary Foreign Workers story met CBC’s journalistic standards. It also concluded that the content of Amanda Lang’s journalism has adhered to CBC’s journalistic standards.  The review also included an external analysis by a third party, Cormex Research. Cormex examined media coverage of the major Canadian banks including specifically Ms. Lang’s coverage of RBC. Their analysis found that CBC’s coverage of RBC  “…was in keeping with observed norms among other comparable broadcast outlets covering the banks.”

As CBC operates under a Collective Bargaining Agreement which safeguards the privacy rights of our employees, those portions of the review that examined the conduct or performance of any individuals will remain confidential.  Any discipline carried out in accordance with that collective agreement is also confidential. We do however want to make public the results of the journalism review and you can read those conclusions and recommendations here:

The review did surface that there is a range of interpretations around CBC’s policy regarding disclosure of real or perceived conflict of interest.  The policy states that “the duty to disclose and remove conflicts of interest rests with the employee.”

Going forward, CBC News will ensure that all of our staff adhere to the most rigorous interpretation of this standard.

Those conversations have already begun and will continue in the weeks ahead.

Jennifer McGuire

General Manager and Editor-in-Chief

CBC News

 The February posting of Public Appearances by CBC Journalists just went up at at the Corp’s website here.

The verdict?  Paid speaking gigs, 1 event. CBC journalists speaking/moderating/panelists/hosting etc. for free at community & national events of all kinds right across the country, 58 events.  That’s the way it should be!

But I still haven’t received  an answer from CBC management to the question I asked a month ago: will Amanda Lang be paid as featured speaker at a conference of the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada in June in Niagara Falls? It’s an organization that proudly states its goal of lobbying governments for the commercial benefit of the association’s members.

If permission for this one is “grandfathered in” … well, it will be a sad day.

TO: Jennifer McGuire, Chief Journalist of CBC News and Chuck Thompson, Head of CBC Public Affairs

Dear Jennifer and Chuck …

Will Amanda Lang be keynote speaking “for free” this coming June  to the annual meeting of Canada’s largest engineering firms ACEC … which has a dedicated link on its website to champion the organization’s extensive and successful  lobbying on public policy on behalf of its private sector members  to all levels of government from coast to coast?

If the answer is “no”, this would come 14 months after an official statement of CBC policy that specifically prohibits this kind of event. That’s quite a “grandfathering.”

If the answer is “yes”, great, it’s about time.

Sincerely,

Frank

Progress  ….

*********** January 22, 5:46 p.m. Memo to All CBC Staff *****

CBC/Radio-Canada holds itself to the highest standards of journalistic integrity. Our standards and practices are among the most rigorous in Canadian media.

However, a changing environment in which the public expects more transparency from institutions and the media is making the practice of paid outside activities for our journalists less acceptable to audiences.

At CBC/Radio-Canada, any on air journalist who wishes to accept an invitation to speak, to moderate debates or to take part in other public appearance must make sure that the activity does not represent any real or perceived conflict of interest. He or she must also get permission from his or her supervisor to do so.

Given that paid appearances can create an adverse impact on the Corporation, CBC/Radio-Canada will no longer approve paid appearances by its on-air journalistic employees. In order to further our commitment to transparency, we will continue to disclose all appearances on our websites.

We are fiercely proud of our content and our people. We believe this approach will allow us to remain focused on our primary goal of delivering quality journalism to all Canadians.

Jennifer McGuire

​​ Michel Cormier

General Manager and Editor in Chief,

​ Executive Director, News and Current Affairs

CBC News and Centres                        French Services

On Jan 5, I wrote to Esther Enkin, the CBC’s Ombudsman, to ask that she offer an opinion on 6 violations of CBC News’ policy on paid speaking engagements which took place during the months of November and December 2015, events where Peter Mansbridge, Amanda Lang, Diane Buckner, Diana Swain and Evan Soloman all received personal speaking fees from organizations outside the CBC.

This afternoon, I received a letter from the Ombudsman indicating that she will not review this matter, arguing that it lies outside her mandate.

In my Jan 5 letter, I had argued that because all the organizations paying these fees “make a significant effort to lobby or otherwise influence public policy” – and in fact, almost all  are registered lobbyists with the Government of Canada –  granting permission to CBC journalists to appear for personal fees with these groups is a clear violation off both the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices and most importantly, a newly defined and more restrictive policy of April 24, 2014.

Ms. Enkin’s letter (addressed to me and Jennifer McGuire, Editor in Chief of CBC News) appears directly below, verbatim.

My request of Jan 5 for a review appears below that.

**** Letter From CBC Ombudsman, Jan 20, 2015  ****

Dear Frank:

I have been considering your complaint and have taken some time to decide whether if fits within the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman.

As you are likely aware, the Ombudsman is completely independent of news management.  My mandate is to ensure that journalistic process in the creation of CBC news and current affairs content, and  that content itself, conforms to CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices.  You are asking me to review a matter that is based on news department policy, and that is beyond my mandate.  It is also important to know that I can make recommendations, but they are not binding.

As you said, I have already addressed the broader issues.  And it is very likely I will be addressing them again in light of recent complaints about Amanda Lang.

If you are aware of stories done by news reporters where you believe there to be a conflict of interest, I can certainly consider them.

If you are concerned about the news department enforcement of its policy, I encourage you to continue your dialogue directly with Jennifer McGuire.

Sincerely,

Esther Enkin

CBC Ombudsman

***  My Jan 5 Request for a Review by the Ombudsman *****

THIS ENTRY WAS ALSO REPOSTED JAN 14TH ON HUFFINGTON POST

As the latest chapter involving the extra-curricular activities of a very few of the CBC’s most prominent journalists continues to unfold, let’s be clear about the key element surrounding the cornerstone issue at play.

This is about “the money.” And from that directly flows the story of the past several days.

So keep this in mind: a few of CBC’s journalists are personally earning tens of thousands – and in some cases – perhaps more than a hundred thousand dollars in speaking fees annually in situations that are specifically identified as inappropriate and thus prohibited by the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices and an updated policy statement of last spring.

One can dance around this reality, but the reality remains.

It is fueling growing public concern about what could happen after CBC’s journalists have personally profited from these lucrative speaking fees paid by outside organizations – organizations which could at any time find themselves coming under the news microscope of Canada’s public broadcaster. Or have already.

It creates a conflict of interest involving these journalists; the money has already changed hands so there is little point in calling it a “perceived” conflict. It undermines the public trust in what these journalists report and it undermines public confidence in the CBC because it directly violates the tenets of CBC’s formal journalistic operating policies.

It is important to remember that this is not just about the one name now in the news. Read through the CBC list of public appearances over the past 8 months and you will see that a group of roughly a dozen of CBC’s most prominent employees have regularly been accepting large speaking fees from a variety of (almost all) private sector organizations.

However it is also critical to remember that the vast proportion of CBC’s journalists and production and technical employees (who were my colleagues for 27 years) are repulsed by all this. It would never occur to them to take money from people they might cover as part of their job. They are embarrassed by what is taking place because it impugns their integrity and their sense of responsibility to the people of Canada.

Jennifer McGuire, CBC’s Editor in Chief, seems very worried that there is only one logical answer to critics calling for a ban on accepting outside speaking fees: lock CBC’s journalists in a studio when they are not working and thus never allow them to appear as speakers or hosts at the Scotiabank Giller Book awards or Mohawk College dinners or Canadian Journalists for Freedom of Expression galas.

This is silly. Of course they can attend. They just can’t attend with a CBC halo over their head and personally profit at the same time.

If the CBC feels it needs to keep its leading lights in the public eye – and that makes perfect sense – make their attendance at these events part of their working lives.

Ms. McGuire also wrote yesterday that “it is unfortunate that our internal processes are fodder for external debate by people who have their own agenda.”

A puzzling statement at many levels.

If the CBC (with its private sector journalistic colleagues) had never shown any interest in the “internal processes” of a variety of Canadian organizations over the past decades, there never would have been “external debate” – called “public discussion” – regarding a long list of stories of vital importance to all Canadian: the threats to public health from the production and widespread use of asbestos, concerns about Canadian veterans lacking sufficient care for battle-related trauma, the sponsorship scandal of the 1990s …… all this is exactly what good journalism should be doing.

Her reference to “people who have their own agenda” is similarly puzzling.

Checking a few dictionaries, here’s a summary definition of “agenda”

* a list of things to be considered or done

*  a plan or goal that guides someone’s behavior and that is often kept secret

*  an underlying often ideological plan or program

The “agenda” of those who have been publically expressing concern about the paid speaking issue is crystal clear:

* A very short list of actions: don’t let CBC journalists personally profit from the prestige they are given as CBC employees.

* This agenda is hardly secret: just turn off the money tap for personal gain.

* This underlying ideology (that good journalism and private money don’t mix well) is a standard first principle taught in virtually every journalism school in the world.

Could the critics of the CBC (recently termed “haters”) have another agenda?

Help me out here, please, because it is hard to think of how those critical of CBC management have any way of personally benefitting from calling for an end to paid speeches. (Which is all that I can think that Ms. McGuire is alluding to.)

Finally, in reference to Ms. Lang’s comments yesterday to Canadian Press about what CBC policy ”allows” regarding paid speaking events, I would suggest that she take a moment to actually read the policy, both the Standards and Ms. McGuire’s restatement last spring.

There is nothing in those documents which gives a free pass for CBC journalists to earn money from organizations with “multiple sponsors” because this somehow “doesn’t create an appearance of conflict.” It is hard to know who comprises Ms. Lang’s royal “we” in her comments that “we don’t consider this (a problem) as a matter of policy.”

The CBC’s own written rules do see this as a problem, quite clearly, and those rules need to be followed.

As I and others have written before, of all the tremendous challenges facing the CBC in an increasingly complex media environment, this is such an easy one to solve.

There is no cost to CBC programing, there are no painful staffing issues involved, and it is a decision that can only serve to increase the confidence of Canadians that the CBC operates in their interests, not in the interests of a very few.

Re: The December 2014 list of paid speaking engagements by CBC journalists published today (Jan 5th, 2015.)

CBC’s latest policy on paid speaking engagements (April 24, 2014) states that a CBC journalist will not be allowed to accept a monetary fee for personal gain to speak to any organization: “which makes a significant effort to lobby or otherwise influence public policy, even if the speech or event seems innocuous.”

On December 5^th, 2014, Evan Solomon was paid to speak at a luncheon by BOMA-Toronto, the Building Owners and Managers Association of Toronto (representing “80% of all commercial and industrial real estate in the Greater Toronto Area.”)

One of the 4 “Pillars” or “Guiding Principles” of the BOMA is “Protecting and advancing the interests of its members on important policy issues at all levels of government and the media.”

The 2013 BOMA annual report (p. 7) lists among the highlights of the year that the organization:

*Advocated at all levels of Government providing a voice for commercial property owners in Ontario.

* Advanced the interests of our members on important policy issues, such as energy pricing and supply, property taxes, transit, labour requirements and building regulations.

On December 2, 2014, Amanda Lang was paid to speak at “The Real Estate Forum” in Toronto. “Since 1992, The Real Estate Forum has become Canada’s largest annual national conference on real estate investment and management issues.”

The “Principal Sponsor” of this conference is identified as the Real Property Association of Canada (RealPac), which is registered as a lobbyist with the Government of Canada.

RealPac’s stated Mission is: “To bring together Canada’s real property investment leaders to collectively influence public policy, to educate government and the public, to ensure stable and beneficial real estate property and capital markets and to promote the performance of the real property sector in Canada.”

Three of the five “Platinum Sponsors” of the Forum – Ivanhoe-Cambridge, KPMG and FCT – are registered lobbyists with the Government of Canada.

Three of the seven “Gold Sponsors” of the Forum – Deloitte, MCAP and Scotiabank – are registered lobbyists with the Government of Canada.

Nine of the 21 members of RealPac’s Advisory Council are registered lobbyists with the Government of Canada.

Determining if a firm is “making a significant effort to lobby or influence public policy” is not difficult.

The CBC is a vitally important public institution. By ignoring its proud traditions of ethical excellence in journalism, it is jeopardizing its ability to protect the public interest.

After receiving a reply on the paid speeches issue on Friday afternoon from Jennifer McGuire, I sent the following note to both Jennifer and Heather Conway (Head of English CBC), with whom I had also been in contact, offering some final thoughts.