Prime Minister
Can I say that I am very pleased to be here on my first visit as Prime Minister to Singapore, although I have been here in a different capacity before.
I have admired your Lee Kuan Yew Prime Minister's and Singapore's brilliant economic performance and obviously, we would like to emulate it in Britain.
My immediate purposes for coming here: first, to have wide-ranging talks with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, which I very much enjoyed earlier today. They were on the great broad issues: first, on regional matters; second, on East-West relations; and thirdly, on the international economic situation, on which he is always so well qualified to give a viewpoint.
My second purpose: to get over to Singapore opinion that Britain economically is making considerable strides and that last year, in spite of our difficulties, we actually had record output, record investment and record standard of living, and of course, our volume of trade to Singapore has increased enormously—has doubled, in fact, over the last five years—and, of course, we hope to go on improving that performance.
And my third purpose is of course to promote British commercial and industrial interests. We are very active in Singapore. We have a number of contracts. You will know some of them: the MAS Rapid Transit System. We are [end p1] very active in computer technology and it is very good for me to be able to say that Britain is very successful and active in one of the most up-to-date and advanced industries, and also very actively pursuing defence matters.
And finally, of course, to meet a few of the people in Singapore—not anything like as many as I would wish—particularly some of the business people and later tonight, some more people at the dinner we shall be attending, and earlier, of course, some people in the Botanical Gardens.
The visit is short. I think I had now better say: “Over to you for questions!” [end p2]
Question
(inaudible) (Note: Most question cannot be heard)
Prime Minister
Yes. Could everyone hear that question? That is the only aspect of Mr. Gorbachev 's remarks on which you want a comment?
Yes, the freeze which he has proposed would, of course, freeze-in an enormous superiority of Soviet weapons in the intermediate nuclear range. You will recall that before we decided to deploy Cruise and Pershing missiles, the Soviet Union had steadily deployed over a number of years her SS20s across Europe. We said that if she took down those SS20s there would be no need to deploy any Cruise or Pershings. She continued, in fact, to deploy them, so we started the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles. He and his predecessor then continued further to deploy more intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
The consequences, therefore, of such a freeze would not be balance—which is what we seek—but enormous Soviet superiority. That, of course, would be unacceptable.
I understand that he has also suggested that there be a moratorium on research. May I point out first that the Soviet Union has done a great deal of space-related research, both on laser beams, on electronic pulse beams and the Soviet Union has an anti-satellite system which the West does not have; and the Soviet Union has an anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow, has had it for twenty years, and has considerable experience in updating it. The Soviet Union, therefore, has been doing a good deal of SDI research, and it was important [end p3] that the United States also do research. There is no point in having a freeze on research for the very important reason that you cannot verify the amount of research that is going on. That is why the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty did not include research, because the essence of any agreement in the armaments sphere is verification, and if you cannot have that, there is not the proper basis of trust.
I know that Mr. Gorbachev said later in the “Pravda” article that the place for negotiation is the negotiating table at Geneva, and I agree the negotiations should be done there. The United States is very anxious to have a strong reduction—a very strong numerical reduction—in the amount of all nuclear weapons, which are the subject of those talks, ballistic missiles and intermediate weapons.
Question
(inaudible)
Prime Minister
But NATO was much more fundamental than that. NATO said: we are a defensive organisation; we will not use any weapons first. That is to say, not a specific nuclear pledge, but as we are a defensive organisation; we will not be the first to use the weapons of war. A promise not to use nuclear which did not extend … not to start a war with conventional … could never be relied upon, because once a war was started, even though with conventional weapons only, one could never rely upon the enemy not to escalate to nuclear. So the only true pledge [end p4] was that made by NATO at a Council Meeting, and we confirmed it in Bonn at a meeting where I was, is that NATO is a defensive organisation and would not use the weapons of war except in response to an attack. Those were the precise words.
Question
Do you see anything in Mr. Gorbachev's words which the West could build on or do you think it is just a mischievous offer to try … .
Prime Minister
There are negotiating talks in Geneva. The place to negotiate, to put one's ideas, is at the negotiating table in Geneva and the people to do it are the people who are at that table. They will, of course, receive instructions from their principals.
Question
Are you therefore disappointed, Prime Minister, with what Mr. Gorbachev has said or could it be regarded as … .
Prime Minister
It does not alter the position in any way. The position is there, written in the facts of armaments, which we all know. So it does not alter the position at all. I do not think it alters it. [end p5]
Prime Minister
May I just say: you really cannot have a dialogue through articles in a newspaper, important as the press are!
Question
(inaudible)
Prime Minister
I shall not be taking any initiatives during my very brief visit to Brunei.
Question
(inaudible)
Prime Minister
No, we were not doing matters in that detail and, as you know, the request has only become a formal request within the last month and is, of course, being dealt with between the two airlines concerned and, of course, eventually will be a matter for Government consideration, because it is government that has to give the licence.
Question
(Inaudible)
Prime Minister
Obviously, the discussions are confidential. Obviously, we discuss matters in the region and the fact that I am making a visit to Indonesia and the fact that I have been to Malaysia, they were just general, regional issues and I am not going into any further detail. [end p6]
Question
(inaudible)
Prime Minister
I envy the spirit of enterprise, of self-reliance, and of self-discipline, which has led to this enormous burgeoning of business and success here, greatly to the advantage of the people who live here and to their steadily improved standard of living.
I understand that they are very very successful with keeping down the drug problem and that very very little exists here. It is one of the problems which does affect many countries in the Western World, and we are all making strenuous efforts to defeat it. I have great admiration for the success in law and order here.
Question
(inaudible)
Prime Minister
It is much more than part of a general trade mission, important as trade is. It was about time I came to this area. I should have come last September, but we had one or two troubles at home which I felt I could not leave for that length of time and for that distance, so it had to be postponed and this was the earliest time I could come. I regard it really rather as an omission that I had not been to Malaysia, Singapore Indonesia and Sri Lanka and now to Brunei as well, before this. It rectifies an omission. [end p7]
Question
(inaudible)
Prime Minister
There are certain parts of high technology which Europe and Britain can and do deliver, and if you look at the inventions you will find that Britain is very very high on the record of inventions, whether it be radar, whether it be the jet engine, whether it be the computer itself, and of course, we have been very high up in biotechnology in the new advances both in research and development in biotechnology.
Yes, Europe can deliver high technology, particularly on the inventive side. I think perhaps that many of the translations of the inventions into businesses and profits have been done, both in the United States and Japan, but do not by any means write off Britain as far as improvements in high technology are concerned. We have just got a very large research programme for the fifth generation of computers, funded in a mixed way by both government and several companies, called the Alvey Programme, and I think you will find that most people speak very well of British research and invention, and we are trying to discover how it is that other people can make such good profits from it!
Question
(Inaudible) [end p8]
Prime Minister
Economic and social mismanagement in what sphere?
Question
Any sphere.
Prime Minister
I do not think so. It is a general phrase which people usually use when they do not know quite what to particularise.
Question
Trade unionism, Welfare State, National Health Service. There are three of them.
Prime Minister
Well, trade unionism as you know is now changing. We have had three major trade union acts and we were supported in those very much by the ordinary members of trade unions who often felt that the trade unions had too many powers over them, and so we redressed the balance there.
On the Welfare State, we have four reviews at the moment, the results of which will come out this summer.
On the Health Service, yes we do have a National Health Service. We are getting it gradually to get better value for money. We are actually treating under it, and we are rather proud of it, more patients than have been treated before. We are getting better value for money. We have more doctors and nurses in it, and I think you will find that on the whole Britain values its National Health Service. We do [end p9] not apologise for it; we are running it more and more efficiently.
Question
(Inaudible)
Prime Minister
The price of oil. The production of oil in Britain is only 5%; of our gross national product. I think some people on the currency markets think it is rather more than that. It is only 5%;. It is actually 8%; of our revenue, so a slightly bigger proportion of our revenue than it is of our economy.
The price of oil does affect the value of our currency, but I think that is partly because people do not realise how small a proportion of output it is. I wish I could forecast the price of oil, but I cannot, but I am constantly trying to get over to people its significance in the British economy and the fact that output in Britain is an all-time record, not only of oil but of other things as well, and investment in other things also is running very well indeed.
Question
(Inaudible)
Prime Minister
When oil countries get together, inevitably the question of oil prices does come up. [end p10]
Question
(Inaudible)
Prime Minister
The solution to the problem of unemployment—especially in an economy like ours which had gross overmanning in it for many many years and therefore every time we have tried to get an industry efficient there have been a large number of redundancies—can only come from expansion of existing business or the creation of new business, and a much more rapid formation of small business.
There are now about 100,000 more businesses than there were when we took over. The rate of formation of new small business is not fast enough. We are not as sufficiently an enterprising a culture as you are here, nor as they are in the United States, nor as they are in Japan.
But the new jobs are not going to come so much from big manufacturing companies, because as you know, the application of the latest technology means that we are producing now more than ever before but we have nearly 3½ million unemployed. So it can only come from the formation of new small business and in particular the formation of new business in services. To some extent, we are already seeing more employment in the service industry, but the extra employment that has come in the last eighteen months, we have had 500,000 new jobs, that has not I am afraid, reduced the number of people in unemployment, because sometimes those new jobs have been taken by people who previously were not in the labour market.
We shall go on. One of the business schools calculated that the effect of the last Budget—either Business school or CBI—would be, they thought, the creation of something like [end p11] 200,000 to 300,000 jobs. That is not enough, because of the growth of the population of working age. For example, from 1974 to 1984, the population of working age grew by one and three-quarter million and that, of course, is part of the explanation why even though we have got extra job creation, it has not gone as fast as the increase of population of working age. That is the remedy. Apart from that we are doing everything we can in training young people, and we have a community programme to try to secure jobs for people who have been unemployed for more than a year, and we are giving them priority in having jobs on the community programme. But it does depend on changing the attitude to a much more enterprising culture and getting more people starting up on their own.
Question
(Inaudible)
Prime Minister
No, help in Kampuchea has been of a relief nature, where we have tried to give relief to the refugees and tried some time ago to secure the deliveries of food when the situation was at its most acute.
I do not see a role for Britain in terminating that dispute, other than as a member of the Security Council and supporting or introducing resolutions from time to time, but as you know, one of the tragedies of the post-war period is that you can have those terrible things happening and the United Nations not able to bring about a cease-fire. I do not see another role for Britain at the moment. [end p12]
Question
(Inaudible)
Prime Minister
Because there just is not one. These enormously difficult problems, yes, do concern us all. The United Nations has not been able to solve it. We used to have the Geneva Conference, we used to be co-partners with the Geneva Conference, but I do not at the moment see a role between Viet Nam and Britain. We did knock off all aid for Viet Nam when she invaded Cambodia, but that is just a small thing that we could do.
Question
(Inaudible)
Prime Minister
The coal strike and its associated violence undoubtedly did us enormous harm. Wherever we go—and I have had it here too—it damaged Britain's image and it damaged the trading and commercial image. The coal strike itself and the fact that people saw all the violence and intimidation with which it was pursued, and it will take us a long time to overcome that, and part of my job here is to say: “Look! You must not judge the overwhelming majority of our industries by what you saw in connection with the coal strike.”
Question
(Inaudible)
Prime Minister
I did not say anything about soccer violence. I have not said a single thing about soccer violence. As you know, we are trying in Government to take steps to reduce that, to do what [end p13] both Government can and what the Football Association can. No, soccer violence is nothing to do with the miners.
Question
(Inaudible)
Prime Minister
We reached agreement with China on the future of Hong Kong. 92%; of the territory of Hong Kong is governed by a lease which terminates in 1997. Had we done nothing, that lease would just have terminated and there would have been no agreement with China about the future of the people of Hong Kong.
As you know, we have negotiated an agreement which is acceptable to the people of Hong Kong and they have indicated its acceptability and in general it has been very much welcomed in Hong Kong.