Transcription
I think people's action party made its greatest strategic mistake by merging with Malaysia by choosing to merge with Malaysia. That was a mistake. Only later they realized it.
I think the test of the leadership was that post separation this same leadership could actually pull us out of a hole and develop Singapore into what it is today. So you can make a strategic mistake but make sure you can survive it and come out strong stronger because of that which is what happened to us.
Dr. Goku called me up and wanted to meet me when my first book was published politics of survival. He looked at me and he said you were wrong. You see I concluded that the Singapore side the PAP was too ambitious. We were young ambitious. We were out to reach for the stars to grab the stars. Whereas Malaysia had this old leadership and they weren't used to this and they found us knocking things around and so it was a clash of ambitions personality is a race factor.
Today's episode is a live eyesight chat I recorded with Ambassador Chanhi. She was Singapore's longest serving ambassador to the US and current ambassador at large. This conversation was brought to you by the National Youth Council. or something.
I would like to start uh us back in 1965 when Singapore first gained its independence. Uh take take me through August 9. What were you doing? What was I doing precisely? I was going to the airport to go for to Cornell for my graduate studies. That was exactly where I was headed. But I do remember the speech speeches well. In fact, I remember speeches back in the Japanese occupation and so on and people look at me and say, "Gee, how old are you?" Uh, but you know, we do research and I'm always reading material. So, I do remember the speech well.
What was 1965 August 9th like? And what was the times? I think you have to remember that in 1965 we were right in the middle of the cold war and that's the point you know and uh you know it affected the hold of uh Southeast Asia and uh the US was here was around and in 1965 the Vietnam was hoting up and the US was bombing Vietnam. So that was the context. But what Singaporeans thought of immediately was the racial riots, you know, across the um uh that happened in Malaysia because uh the PAP stood for elections in uh Ma Malaysia and Tungo Abdul Raman then the prime minister said you're not supposed to do that. We thought we had an agreement, you know, and um we did. The PAP did uh you know uh put up a few candidates and uh oh, I think what uh we underestimated in Singapore and certainly the PAP underestimated was that the racial element was very deep and very strong. And when Lie Kuwanu pushed for a Malaysian Malaysia with together with uh the parties of Sarawa and Sabah and challenged that uh you know Malaysia should have a Malay prime minister only. uh I think that really cut very deeply into the Malay polity and uh he said okay what's the time frame beyond that when do you start having a non-Malay as a prime minister and that was actually a no no issue malays in Malaysia felt this is Malay country you know uh foreigners came so you know that has to be worked out and Indeed, it worked out after May 9 May May 13, 1969 when it was established with no um shall we say doubt that Malaysia was a Malay uh polity because the symbols of Malay power the uh the uh the assertion of Malay power was very much there with the constitution. and so forth. And it took a race riot to do that. And today Malaysia has Malay as a national language. It's u the symbols of power are Malay. But the Chinese have adjusted. Those who didn't adjust left. The Indians have adjusted. Those who didn't adjust left, you know. And Malaysia is doing very well. Malaya certainly Peninsula Malaya. I've just been in Koala Lumpo twice this year and u they found you know they've got through that history is a new period you know and um it's very interesting but what I would like to say is that I think the people's action parties ma the people's action party made its greatest strategic mistake by merging with Malaysia by choosing to merge with Malaysia. That was a mistake. Only later they realized it.
But the point is not that you know so they made a mistake then what you know is it uh is the leadership poor is the leadership not thoughtful not strategic? No. I think the test of the leadership was that post separation this same leadership could actually you know pull us out of a hole and develop developed Singapore into what it is today. So you can make a strategic mistake but make sure you can survive it and come out strong stronger because of that which is what happened to us. And uh you know I'm sure if you if Mr. Dwan, you were here and you asked him, he said, "Gee, you know, I wouldn't want to go through that again, you know."
Yeah. Talking about that, you had the chance to interact and work with the different one leaders. Uh, be it Mr. Lee, uh, Dr. Go, even later on when you were setting up IPS, what were kind of like the lessons that you learned through osmosis? I kind of tangentially met them because I was a young academic and I was quite critical of government. But uh what was interesting to me was that Dr. Goku in fact called up called me up and wanted to meet me when my first book was published politics of survival. He wanted to see who was Chanhenchi. I think by then he knew it was a woman not a man. And uh so you know my name is very neutral. So um I showed up to see him and so I saw him in uh the Ministry of Defense and uh he just talked to me and asked me who are your parents? What's your background? What's who did you go to? I think leadership is very the Singapore leadership is always very interested in Singaporeans and who they are, how they receive their education, what made them the way they were at the particular age. So I answered all these questions and he not he said you published the book. I was the first Singaporean to write and publish a book on Singapore politics. That was my Cornell MA thesis which um Oxford University Press started a Oxford monographs and decided to publish it. So he looked at me and he said um you know um you were wrong. It is you see I concluded that the Singapore side the PAP was too ambitious. We were young ambitious. we were out to reach for the stars to grab the stars whereas Malaysia had this old leadership and they weren't used to this and they found us you know knocking things around and so it was a clash of ambitions personality he said is a race factor he said so it's not personalities it's a race factor and I would say later I thought about it and in 1969 it left me in no doubt that it is the race factor. Had 1965 not occurred in 1965 and we separated by 1969 we would have. So you know in that sense I was I did say it was race but if I had to put emphasis I kind of thought personality had a lot to do with it but I was wrong. Why why 1969? because of the May 13 riots, you know, where there were very deep riots and I said the whole Malaysian polity changed you know because of that and um that you know Malays were saying you know you non-Malays you come your guest is my country you know we are boomies so let's you know let's make this let's establish that fact you know so and so your um the new economic policy, you know, giving special emphasizing emphasizing the special rights of Malays and all, you know, came up more prominently and the affirmative action which built uh Malay entrepreneurship, you know. Yeah. So, uh so I was wrong and uh he put it that way.
So, coming back to your question, what did I learn from the leadership? uh many things um that they were curious and they were discerning. I think throughout I felt that actually they read me right. I'm told that they said she's a critic. Actually, she's not anti- government. She's not anti-regime. I don't want to change Singapore in that way. She just disagrees with us on policies, which was true, which was what I did. And I think I was a classic liberal then, you know, that I wanted more space for the university, more space for the intellectuals. It was about intellectual space and why are you so tough on the opposition? Those were my issues. You see, so I think they saw that that um that was my issues and that uh the one thing I would say is that when I criticize uh government, I was never personal. I don't criticize any one person or use language that is snarky and you know um if I say this is not right, I would say this is not right for this reason. I don't think politicians, our politicians mind that. What they do mind if you mock them, make fun and infer things which they feel is not what they meant it to be. So I think I survived because of that that I was u criticizing directly. I was not snarky and I was not personal and I didn't call names you know so anyone names. So yeah, so that helped me. So I come to the conclusion that actually the leadership, the Singapore leadership was prepared to uh they tolerated, you know, let's say someone like me because of what I said. Oh, I mean there were some things like my promotions were slower, but it didn't bother me. You know, you have the courage of your convictions. This is what you believe in. So you didn't go up with your cohort. So what? I find people are very upset these days, you know, if they don't go up with their cohorts. Okay. So, but in my time, I think we all didn't uh place that kind of emphasis. But anyway, uh as I said, the sun is still shining. I'm alive and I survived, you know, and uh so that was what I learned that they did value people. They were discerning and they valued Singaporeans and they could see that you know some Singaporeans were out to make Singapore better you know and did not mean anything un toward but working with them personally I think what I've learned with Lie Kuwan Yu because I saw him a lot when I was ambassador in Washington in fact all of them how committed they are how hard they worked and how spartan their lives were. Every moment they were always thinking about Singapore, how to do things better for Singapore. And we're really very fortunate for that.
You made the transition to become also a ambassador for Singapore. Not not at the US immediately, but the UN. And as an lay Singaporean, you kind of look at that and be like, you know, what what does that actually mean? What what does that job scope actually entail? You kind of know in principle in the job description that your job is to champion Singapore rights and our interests. But if I were to peel back that question and ask you, you know, what was actually Singapore's interest? You know, when I went to the UN, Keith, I also didn't know what the job was about. I only knew my job, what I was tasked to do was to run the Cambodia vote and to keep up the vote and win the vote because Vietnam had invaded Cambodia and it was a major issue because it wasn't just Vietnam and invading Cambodia. It was a proxy war for the US and for China, you know, so it was a larger picture. But uh Singapore was very concerned because this was just after the Vietnam war and we believed Vietnam was pumped up had all the ammunition, all the guns and everything that u the the steel that they had accumulated and now they are after beating back the French, the Americans, they're ready to roll across you know the falling domino. So Cambodia is first. So we took a stance and we wanted Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia. Hunen was there but Hunen was a we saw was someone put there by the uh Vietnam. So as a result we pushed for a vote at the UN to get the UN members to show that take a stance that this was not acceptable and uh Vietnam had to withdraw. the UN would come in, arrange elections and you get a new leadership for Cambodia. So that was the play of that times from 1979 when um actually it was December 78 running into 79. which was the 7879 from for 10 years we ran that vote you know and I was I went to um uh the UN at that time I went to 1989 10 years and just before I went Vietnam unilaterally pulled out of Cambodia so what do you do now how do you keep the vote you know others will say why bother they've already pulled out but we wanted the UN to finish the job to make it a legitimate that uh Cambodia had to go through UN elections and supervised by the UN and have the choice of leaders and of course aid would go in and so on you know and this would be the actual result that the UN would want. So my job was to uh keep up the vote and well uh so I went to the UN and I had to learn the job on the spot. I'm an academic, you know, so I'm going there. Well, one thing I learned is that I'm a very good sales person, you know, because getting the vote is really going out and is retail because I'm going country from country to country and you have to persuade them. I am selling but I'm selling a position. I'm selling the ASEAN position on Cambodia that you have to have this election. We've got to in a way vote to show Vietnam the world community, global community does not accept what they've done and they have to withdraw and have to have this election. So you have to keep up the vote to put pressure and that was my job. So I went to do this. Um, I learned quite a few things at the UN. But I must tell you this because when I first arrived, I would talk. You know, I'm an academic, so I talk. Suddenly, one day I say, "Oops, I'm giving away the state secrets." So, I clam. Then you learn at the UN when you clam and you don't speak, nobody speaks to you. A lot of it is about exchange of intelligence and exchange of information. So, who would share with you if you don't share with them? So later I learned to calibrate. I mean I didn't really give away the state secrets but sometimes I thought did I say too much you know and uh so you learn to calibrate and that's what I learned but I also learned something at the UN Keith that actually uh you read a lot about countries and yes there are interests and those of you who've been doing courses in history and so on would have learned about is it the individual or is it the forces that shape history? It's both actually. But at the UN, I learned that actually the individual matters a lot. And I saw African countries with very little resources. They could be big, but they didn't have much resources. They really, you know, uh, made everybody sit up and listen to them because of the ambassador, the PR at the UN and individuals can move things and individuals can persuade.
Well, I became a salesperson and I was uh getting people to vote for keep up the vote and not let go. for many other countries outside of ASEAN for example when they look at this it's just like another conflict maybe like what we see today right it's a distant war for them uh it's something that doesn't matter to them and they might ask you know Singapore it's not even close like the invasion is actually quite far off from you why are you so concerned well we really made the argument and Singapore does this all the time we believe in international law upholding of UN charter and no country should breach the charter by invading another country to solve a problem you know and it's big state against small state you know and we take very strong position when the Kuwait uh when Iraq invaded Kuwait for the first time the first Gulf War we took a very strong stance and members at the UN asked me ambassador Chan why are you taking such a why is Singapore taking such a strong stance and I said whenever a big country invades a smaller country. We uphold that principle because it is important to us small states and we even criticized we criticized uh the United States when the US invaded Granada you know so that's been our position and we kept saying this whether we persuaded Singaporeans at that time I think they were also sort of looking at us why are we running around Cambodia you know but uh The Singapore public, political public was not so interested in foreign policy in those days. Today they're very alive to foreign policy. So you know we pushed and we kept saying is about our state and about the preservation.
Then perhaps if you could articulate or help me understand you know if you look at Singapore's national interest today from your perspective how do you articulate that? um what is our national interest clearly is to preserve our sovereignity and identity to preserve Singapore as it is you know and what is our identity we're a multi-racial nation and we have values that come with a multi-racial nation you know we're not although it's 75% Chinese we don't call ourselves a Chinese nation in fact we say no if I think some of you may know or may not know that In 1965, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce made a representation to Prime Minister Lie Kuan Yu and said, "Okay, now we are separated. Let's forget all this multi-racial nonsense. We 75% Chinese. Let's adopt Mandrin as the national language." and Lee Kwanu pushed the Chinese Chamber of Commerce back and said, "We are Singapore uh 75% Chinese living in a Southeast Asian region where so many of our neighbors, you know, we are in the Malay archipelago." So he made that stance and said, "We will be multi-racial." And in fact we emphasize that multilingual, multi-racial, multi-religious and I think that's the identity of Singapore. But more than that now we also believe in meritocracy and how to implement meritocracy fairer you know and also you know uh apart from that transparency and uh I would say that Singaporeans can do not tolerate corruption. they get very angst and upset if they there's a smell of corruption with any leader or business leader or whatever you know so integrity I think that's also uh part of our values uh so that we are a multi-racial nation with values efficiency and a kind of modernity and we are too smart smart you know I think that's part of our identity too all of you are very smart and you are into it and so on that's part of our identity. So preserving our independence, our territorial integrity and our identity would be one and then our interest also is to grow an a good economy because otherwise you cannot feed your people you know and uh I wrote an essay on nation building in the early days. I said Singapore is a m im immigrate migrant society, migrant nation. What holds people here? What can you offer for nation building? It's a bit like America. You make your country a place where people want to identify with. It's like America. You go to America for milk, land of milk and honey, you know, in those days. Yeah. and uh you go there because you can make a life there and you can prosper in America. So Singapore because we are an a migrant nation, immigrant nation also should I and I said this in 1960s when I first came back I wrote that essay and said we should really emphasize that really for Singaporeans it pays to identify you stay here make Singapore your home and you can build a good home. you have a job, you've got a good living and that's really our formula now. So it's performance legitimacy for the PAP. Yeah. But we are built on that. So that's what we're trying to preserve is the nature and we have and I should also add one of our values is belief in good governance. you know, good governance and uh I think we would feel um sad and realize it if we ended up with bad governance one day.
You know, when you think about diplomacy and you think about foreign policy positions, sometimes it gets abstract and then people, you know, ask, oh, you know, what how does this actually enhance our national interests? So, that's where like understanding what our national interests are is very important. Uh well in the foreign ministry I believe we try to fulfill and protect Singapore in all these ways. Uh territorial integrity that's defense as well but diplomacy can help to protect your territorial integrity. You know when we first became independent u lianu rajarat Mr. Raja Ratnam said this in parliament. We will be friends of all. We will even trade with the devil. And when uh Lieuanu said we will trade I was it Lieu or was it Raja who said we will trade with the devil? Must be Lie Kuwanu. Um no I mean you know um he he meant Soviet Union because in it was a cold war then. at the heat of the cold war, the high point of the cold war. So um you know we will work with everybody, trade with everybody, you know. So that was the u sense and as the foreign ministry we will maintain diplomacy. We will establish good relations with countries so that you know you can um Singaporeans can trade and we find the best terms for you. we protect you and uh if there's anything untoward happening soon we should be able we should be reporting that early to alert Singapore this is going to happen you'll be cut off just be careful you know so you know I mean you may laugh but when I was in Washington I would get up and I say what can I do today to strengthen bilateral relations what can I do day for Singaporeans. I mean, I said it to myself. I didn't say it aloud like what next to do, you know. But um yeah, and I felt if I didn't ask say that to myself or think about that, if not every day, say during the week or the month, I really shouldn't be an ambassador anymore, you know. So, I think that's what we try to do. And, you know, during co our people went to uh Wuhan. Some of my younger colleagues flew in a plane went to Wuhan at the time and we didn't know how COVID will spread and what would happen. So we do try to protect. The other thing we do is we don't just work alone you know Singap in the foreign ministry we work inter agency as well.
Now Singapore is a uh you know we survive because of location strategic location. So we're a trading nation and that is where we began. Now from a trading nation where do you move next as you want to develop into the 20th century 21st century where what do you go next? First Rajan Ratnam said global city. We we declared we wanted to be a global city in 1972 way before global city was written by Saskia Sassen and all these people you know so we conceived of ourselves in that from the toinb kind of analysis but after declaring ourselves global city and there are tons of global cities you're trying to be the most competitive global city what next you we move on to FTA as because you find your country is limited, land is limited, space is limited. If you cannot, how do you grow your economy and how do you grow Singapore, you sign FDAs, I used to tell Malaysian friends, that's our oil wells. Many Southeast Asian countries have oil wells. We don't have these resources. Our oil well is the FTA. We sign an FDA dig it and it may spark you know business opportunities etc. So we're always looking for solutions to expand this. The one thing I would say about Singapore, Keith, and I don't know whether Singaporeans understand this enough, our leaders, first generation, second generation, and now third, fourth, what they've done very well is to develop the strategy of small state survival. I said we began as location, location, location. That's why Raffles came. But beyond that, what how do you grow it? How to enlarge it? How do small states survive? We have developed the strategy of small state survival better than any other small state you know. So what do you do? You don't have resources. You don't have water. Now we make water. We can process water. You don't have land and your country is small. What do you do? This is before digital where your space really enlarges. You do FTAs. So you spread all the time and we believe in networking and networking was is so much part of us and now because of the um shall I say rather protectionist environment coming out of the United States, countries in the region are trying to form uh groupings, economic groupings where they can trade amongst themselves and create a space where there can be a free flow of trade and um and investment and we join all these groupings CPTP TPP then CPTPPP reset we push for it and now uh Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has come up with New Zealand this idea that maybe we should link CPTPPP with EU you see we're always coming up with ideas of how to improve the space you have. If you are constrained, how do you break out of constraint? That's Singapore.
Yeah. Talking about free trade agreements and um expanding the operating space, I thought it might be useful to just quickly segue to your time in the US where you started uh as ambassador after your time in the UN. uh although there's a lot of like tangents that I would love to explore but I wanted to first get your sense of when you first stepped into your role in that position I think two things were happening one was that the US just won the cold war so they were at the height of the powers and two we were experiencing a step down in bilateral relations back then uh previously I think when prime minister Lee was around he was very close friends with Reagan so Ronald Reagan and he had direct access to the white house but when you went in it was a different scenario. Uh what was it like to go into the environment? you know um in 1989 um the we began to see the fall of the Berlin war but 1992 I think it was 92 um the Soviet Union imploded you know 93 92 92 um the then suddenly the United States the bipolar order ended and the United States emerged as a uniolar power, the hedgemen. When I arrived at the UN, they were already in sorry at in the United States. The United States and the Western democracies, Western countries felt that their time had come. They were pushing and promoting democracy and human rights on everybody pushing that. And uh we started getting into a tangle. We believe in democracy but we don't want anybody pushing it down our throats and so we started this debate about Asian democracy, Asian values and so on you know and uh I think we annoyed the US tremendously but we beat the backside of this boy Michael Fay and that really you know uh was seen to be you see this is Asian values and what are you doing to Americans not a human rights thing and so on. So we were not in a good place with the United States for a couple of years. Excess was denied to us. When I arrived, America was at the height of its power. Uh the world's hedgeiment, they were so sure of their values, full of confidence. uh and Singapore was not in a good spot because we beat as I said the backside of this naughty boy and uh the so my job was to change the atmosphere and try to gain access. So I had had to think how would I do it? Nobody tells you how to do it, you know. So you have to think it for yourself. I knew that was a task that was given to me. And so I set about working on this, but I went very clear that I wanted to move Singapore poor away from the image of just being this great economic uh miracle and all we were interested in is that we were just economic animals getting high growth rates and so on. So I went to America Washington saying that I would show the cultural and artistic face of Singapore to show Singapore had a softer side that we love the arts and I promoted the arts during that time and did quite a bit of things you know so to remind Singapore that look we're not just this country that has four floor contemplation unfortunately uh wrongly uh interpreted to have uh you know sort of wrongly you know the case of F contio the Filipino maid who murdered another Filipino maid. So she was taken and a child the child she was looking after because a child witnessed this and the the Philippines u government you know or rather the Philippines people sort of created a lot of protest and stirred up uh issue because they thought we were illreating the Filipino maid. So anyway, so that then the western press wrote it up like this is Asian values again this kind of label. Then we had Michael Fay. So when I arrived it was I was carrying there's not to talk of the chewing gum which went before that you know the chewing gum u banning chewing gum as the image the um anyway uh so I set about trying to turn the press first and my folks back home in the ministry said come on hi you can't change the American press I said you cannot but let me try and get a fairer hearing So I did that and uh I have said this before but I was very lucky to have met Katherine Graham the owner the publisher owner of Washington Post in an trilateral meeting and when I went she I saw her and you know in America at that time there were so few women ambassadors that they were very welcoming of women ambassadors. I used to tell my assistant, call up this senator or congressman and tell them your ambassador wants to make a call and just say my ambassador is a woman ambassador. You know that would put some pressure but uh so you know it worked in some cases you know but uh so Katherine Graham helped me. She said what do you want me to do? I said can I see your editors? So she arranged for a few of the editors to meet with me and this is a tale out of school. When I met them I said why do you put Singapore alongside you know in your editorials you will mention these authoritarian regimes or autocratic regimes like North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Singapore, Myanmar and I said do you think we belong there? They said, "No, you don't." I said, "Then why do you put us there?" He said, "No, we don't." I said, "You punch up the stories. It's there." So, I think they did because I found after this conversation with them, I didn't see it anymore. They just said the authoritarian regimes in Asia and Africa and Middle East, I don't care. You don't mention us is fine. So, I did my job there. But it was slowly trying to win over the press uh so that they have a better view of Singapore and not write these stories. But let me say that luck does play a part you know for an ambassador and in even in your business you know luck is very important. Your business school never tells you this, but luck is important because if you have and I was lucky in that sense because when I was there the Asian financial crisis happened and you can say that you know it um it's an ill win but when the Asian financial crisis happened Thailand's currency went down, Malaysia went down, Indonesia went down, country was in a mess. Singapore stood tall. Our currency did not swoon. Our banks were fine. So Americans started looking around and say what is this country? What did they do? Right? So that started turning things. Then the PISA st studies came out. We taught math. We taught science. So again that was another good thing. So I think the we were we were looked at with a different light then. That's why I say you've got to be a lucky ambassador and I made use of that opportunity, you know, but I think the arts and the culture giving Singapore a totally diff different image that Americans then realize actually Singapore is fine, you know, and so the stories became better, you know, and uh bit by bit we improve things. So that was America that I went in to that I arrived to see and they were pushing human rights. America was pushing human rights and democracy and the Washington consensus which was deregulate, deregulate and deregulate and um selling US dollars and I think that's how the whole Asian financial crisis started and unfortunately it didn't Aan countries didn't do well. Korea didn't do well and so on. So that was America. When I left Keith, America had come down. They I left in 2012. 2009 was a financial crisis in America which became the global financial crisis, a great financial crisis. When I left in 2012, I thought America had lost its confidence. But then the United States always renews itself and is resilient. Later they suddenly came up again and who would have guessed you know their stock market would suddenly grow very much again you know. So um and this was uh under towards the end of Obama and under Trump you know and the stock markets still perform well seems to be decoupled from what is happening in the country.
So maybe now we can jump into the part where we will ask you to be a bit more analytical and help us dissect and decode what's happening in the world today. So you talk you talked about earlier about how that you know even after 2012 when you left America continued to go on its like growth spurt um primarily I guess driven by technology technology growth um do you still see that today? Do you think that now uh there is still opportunities for growth in America and do you think that America will still be like that benevolent hedgeimon some I referred to in the past? Um, I think America has changed in some ways. Uh, it is not pro globalization anymore because America believes that they've been at the receiving end of globalization. You know, the jobs are stolen, they taken away and so on and they're losing manufacturing, you know, and the people are getting poorer. So uh America sees that today America is much less generous. It was a very generous power. Today it is not as generous. You know it's America first. And so it's a different America. It's not as open as well. It's uh very concerned about immigration. In fact anti-immigration and so it's changed in that sense too. But I think what uh we should not underestimate is how resilient America is that uh you know somehow they recover you know they do and as I said there's a pendulum it will swing they are excessive to one you know they will do something and it's excessive like you remember the hate um the hippie period they became very um uh you know yeahism they went into this hippie drug stage and so on suddenly they swung back to conservatism and now you know you see this swinging in this way I'm sure the pendulum will swing back but the difference is this every time it swings back is slightly different level you know so I think what you will find going forward is America will not be as generous as they were before. That's for sure. They will be much more protectionistic. Although not everyone, you know, the next administration will not be like the Trump 2.0 administration. Okay. So, and also President Trump carries his policies. You know, you've seen his policies. All of you have been following the trade war, the tariff war. He can carry it because he has charisma. I am not sure his charisma can be transferred to the successor. You know if it is JD Vance, if it is Marco Rubio or whichever Republican senator decides to run and succeed in winning the uh uh presidency cannot carry that same charisma, but will have some whiffs of the policy. Even Democrats may have to have some of that policy. Democrats, how would they view immigration now? Will they be a bit more cautious? So, you know, things change a bit, but um I think it will we'll see. You know, I what pre uh President Trump has done to America is that I think he says he wants to be disruptive and he wants to be transformative and he's doing that. Uh what will end up at the end of the day, you know, where it will land. I don't think Americans know. I don't think President Trump knows, you know, and nobody can foresee in that way. But I think a lot of things have changed.
I'd like to open up the uh floor to questions in about like five to 10 minutes. So if you're like thinking about questions, you can start putting in the slido or start preparing them. Um what I'd like to do is quickly ask a follow-up question which was you know every time people talk about like the US naturally they also think about uh China and the rise of China especially when you think about the fact that China has emerged as like the global manufacturing powerhouse and that is exactly where the source of discontent is in the US. So how do you read the rise of China for not just uh the US but also I guess for Singapore? Well, you know, I think it was uh Napoleon who said, "Do not awake the sleeping dragon." You know, uh because you do not know, I forget the exact words, but you know, uh you don't know what's going to happen at the end of it. And I think also believes that, you know, China will grow. Nobody can stop it. You know, and our leaders have all said this to many Americans that you can't stop China's growth. You know China will grow 1.4 billion people then watch next India will grow too population base has a lot to do with growth honestly you know so and then you add technology but China will grow and I think China has a scale that has really surprised and frightened people. I think America has just awakened to the China scale that you know if it what China can do no other country can replicate. You want 2,000 engineers overnight they will recruit 2,000 engineers and produce the extra 10,000 50,000 units you want and Chinese work very very hard but the scale is what it is. Uh I think America now kind of realizes it at least Kurt Campbell does. He wrote an article with Rush Doshi in foreign affairs lately and he said it's a scale and to deal with China you've got to form coalitions. No single country can do it. I see the competition between the US and China carrying on. it will not stop you know and they are fighting for predominance and who is going to write the rules of the future world and um you know because they believe that and uh and China is no is there and China is emerging and it wants a place at the table you know and you referenced that this was probably round two of a infernown fight before I think that this is uh rivalry will probably not stop and to a certain extent it affects Singapore because when you speak to people in the region you speak to uh the government officials of other parts of the world they say they reference Singapore because you're able to maintain good relations with both side on one hand for example the US is the largest source of FDI for Singapore but for China we're the largest source of FDI for them so then the question is how does Singapore navigate managing both sides in terms of securing our national interest but also being able to get win-wins for the other countries.
Well, that's a job for the leaders and for MFA to help navigate. You see, I cannot give you a single principle or two lines to describe. It's really case by case in each issue. Um, you know, I've said this, you don't choose sides by saying at a conference, I choose China, I choose America. You choose sides every time the country China or the US puts down an initiative on the table. Do you sign up for it? If you sign up for it, you're choosing on that particular issue. So at the end of the day, you see how many boxes have you ticked for the United States? How many boxes have you ticked for China? And then which boxes have you ticked? Is a economic box the same as a security defense box? So in other words, you tick for the initiative, economic initiative. Is it worth the same thing as ticking for security initiative? Some people say economics is hard power also. But hard power is hard power. You know, steel, guns and so on. So I think uh I would say Singapore should maintain its position and I know the fourth 4G is talking like this too. You should not choose as long as you can and try not to choose. You choose both sides. You do things with both sides. You know the and on the um China case how it affects Singapore US China relationship. What I didn't mention earlier Keith but which is important is this that I fear you're going to see decoupling especially at the higher tech level. uh now that you will read many reports some say they can't decouple because there's so much uh you know the two count is symbiotic dependence of the two countries but they the US is going towards decoupling deregulation denial of China of certain technology China also began decoupling because when they announced announced uh that they would go for made in China 2025. They were already thinking of decoupling in some areas and made in China 2025 which made everybody sit up was this statement that you know is it by 2030 or 20 240 they want to be 70% self-sufficient in critical technologies. I think that was what scared Europe and America, you know, and I think China has always felt you can't trust the West, you know. They're always trying to do us in. So, let's be as self-sufficient. The other 30% will still work, you know, but we would try to be as uh self-reliant as possible. And I think as the Trump one uh unfolded and Biden administration unfolded the deregulation and the controls were pushing towards greater decoupling you know and control. So you know you see this happening but at another level these goods you know I can't see Americans buying fewer electronics uh microwave ovens clothes and so on from China is at such a price you know I looked at the list and right now I can't remember everything but you know it's like uh washing machines and stuff like that was this uh 80% of America's one kind of electronic goods comes from China. So there's a whole list of them. Given that how do you decouple that easily? But I think in the high-tech area the decoupling is taking place critical technologies. Yeah.
So if if we were to use that analogy which is like the idea of ticking boxes in that case it's in Singapore's interest to perhaps plug in at both systems right we are plugged in with both yeah no we are no we've signed a lot of things with the United States we are also China's largest uh China is our largest trading partner you know and uh we uh do a lot of things with China but we also do a lot lot of things with the United States. So, okay, with that, I would like to quickly open the questions up to the floor. Hi, I'm Alistister. Thank you so much for sharing. The question I have is that as you previously represented Singapore with the UN and all, I'm just curious. We wanted to hear from your thoughts. How is the UN doing right now? because you the UN can do different different votes on different issues have different standpoints and publish different standpoints and positions but how effective has it been in preventing conflicts or stopping conflicts that's the first question the second one is about us you mentioned about the arts our culture and topping our PISA scores and so and so forth but how can we continuously remain relevant to them such that we are useful because it has to be in their interest also so what are they actually gaining and how can we also gain from them as much as they gain from us. Thank you. Thank you. Uh on the um question of the UN, well it's very clear the UN is not very effective in terms of prevention of conflict or resolving conflict in the end is a great powers you know the major powers that come in. uh so on the conflict area you know
Gutierrez is issuing statements, but can't stop anything. But I would say the UN is very important in social development and in economic development for the developing, the, the least developed countries, the less developed countries. So it does have a role, particularly in disaster, um, redistribution, and at the end of the war, at any war, the UN always comes in to help. So I would not do away with the UN. Small countries need the UN. If we have a conflict, we have to bring it to the UN and to make sure other people listen to our case and help us. It's not like two giants slugging each other and, you know, just carrying on at that rate.
Now, on your question about how can we remain relevant to the United States, I think it's getting harder, you know, and we are all trying to read what the present administration does. But I, I suspect that as the attention is less in the region, deciphering the region would be important. And Singapore has always played that role of interpreting the region, and I would say even interpreting Northeast Asia, China, you know, and, uh, a sounding board. Now everybody knows everything about China. And in fact, I said, we used, Lee Kuan Yew used to meet with, uh, President Reagan, Ford, Carter, everybody, and he would explain China to them. Now, the Chinese, before, uh, the present times, during the Bush era, when I was still there, I left in 2012, the Chinese ambassador would tell me, we have 300 over 400 forums and platforms and channels to talk to the United States, more than us, you know, at every level, whether it is city, province, municipality, and so on. So I think it's there, uh, but right now, uh, many of those channels have ceased. Whether, um, we are good at playing the role of bringing the US and China together at a track two level to promote conversations. I do that myself. I arrange for Chinese think tanks, US think tanks, Southeast Asian think tanks to meet, small group, discuss things, you know. I think we are relevant that way, and Singapore is a place where they want to be at.
Uh, my question is concerning Taiwan. Uh, on one hand, China has said, we haven't changed our position. Taiwan is ours. But they seem to be more reactionary. You know, if you, if you don't give them a poke, they don't do anything. And on the other hand, the US kept on saying, China is going to invade tomorrow, if not tomorrow, next week. We don't want this war, but they seem to be always poking the dragon, you know, sending an aircraft carrier. What do you think China's real position is on Taiwan? And what do you think the US position is on Taiwan? And what they, and if there is a war, what would Singapore do? And what would Singapore's position be? Thank you.
Um, what does China want? China has said it, uh, President Xi Jinping has reiterated so many times. Every president of China has said they will reunify with Taiwan. You know, they, and by force if necessary. They would prefer not to, you know, they would try peaceful means, but force if necessary. That has been reiterated many times, you know, uh, what, and the US has been, you know, uh, depending on the administration, and there are many, uh, hawks in the United States that listen to Taiwanese, uh, representation and feel they should support Taiwan. All right. And to be quite honest, everyone has changed facts on the ground. China has increased some of, you know, its, um, escalated, some would say. US has escalated. Nancy Pelosi went to Taiwan, you know, they've been encouraging Europe to go to Taiwan and sending high-level delegations, you know, and, um, now they're sending, what are they going to sell? Patriots to Taiwan, you see? So there's been changes of facts on the ground, and because of Nancy Pelosi's visit, China now flies this plane across a median line. No more respects it. You broke it, I can also do so. It's that way. The tragedy is neither China nor the United States want to go to war over Taiwan. I believe that. And China, I do not know what the time frame is. They would like to reunify. It is part of the Chinese dream. When they will do it, I do not know. You know, probably at a time when it is, you know, auspicious, where it works out. Right now, I don't think it's right now because the military command has been purged, you know, and the economy is not in good shape, right? And the United States, uh, it seems that President Trump is much less, uh, interested in pushing that Taiwan question, but others in Congress are interested in pushing that. Will the United States send troops? Who knows? My guess is probably not. Why would they send, you know, lose blood and treasure there? They, the United States will probably equip Taiwan, you know, so, and there'll be hawks pushing for more. And the danger is that Taiwan could, you know, fall into a conflict that nobody wants because, you know, people are playing chicken, and I think that's what we worry about, you know. So that's how I see the Taiwan situation as it is. And you are right, if the Chinese, if the Taiwanese don't raise anything, China would just let that issue be because they have too many things to work on inside China, you know. So, um, as for Singapore's position, you know, we always say we never answer hypothetical questions. It depends.
There were two questions, I think, uh, if I could summarize them. One would be, how might a good government, uh, like good government in Singapore, uh, actually plan or ensure small state survival, but at the same time not come across as fear-mongering? Because it's, it's one thing to know your vulnerabilities and, you know, be clear-eyed about it, but at the same time, you don't want to feel like you're constantly under siege. So how does a policymaker or statesman actually balance that tension? That's one question. Uh, the other question would be, they love to hear your thoughts on the Middle East. So maybe the cover story right now, I think a lot of people are focusing on is in Gaza. But at the same time, there is a rapid economic transformation in countries like Saudi Arabia. They're really looking to modernize and bring their economy into the 21st century and beyond. What's your read on the region? So those are the two questions, and then after we'll go back to the crowd. Okay.
Um, the first question, small, how do you not look like you're fear-mongering all the time? Yes, you know, the, uh, opposition will always say it's fear-mongering, you know, government, the ruling party will always say, I'm telling you the realities, that's a fact of political life, you know, and you have to lay the truth and talk about it. But, um, you know, is whether people buy what you say? So it's how you put your message across. If you overreach with your message, nobody believes you. But there are some things which are real, you know. So I can't give a clear answer to that. But it's really the politician has to judge, you know, when you say this, what are your facts? Because Singaporeans are smart. Singaporeans are very smart, you know, and look at the way they voted this time, you know. So we know what to vote for, when to vote for. And, uh, I think it's all out of fear this time because, um, it is the Trump factor.
And then the second question on the Middle East, there are major changes happening in the Middle East, and the Middle East is being made over. Gaza is a tragedy, and, you know, it is very sad. It's cruel. Now, Iran's nuclear capability has been quite degraded. Uh, we're trying to figure out, the International Atomic Energy Agency is trying to say, how is Iran pushed back a few months, a few years, many years? And I think the reading is that the damage was quite substantial because, uh, it's not just what, uh, the bomber busters did, you know. It's more than that. So you can drop six right down the same hole and you get at the uranium. What Israel did in blowing the cover, killing the scientists, you know, could get rid of the scientists, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That's really quite something. And frankly, they took away the air cover so President Trump, American place could just go in. Nobody stopped them. I'm sure he said, "I'll deal with the cover." Netanyahu must have told the US that, you know, I'll deal with the air cover. You don't have to worry. No American will be killed, you know. So things are happening there, and, um, Israel has gone into Gaza and is still, you know, um, searching for their hostages and Hamas leaders. And, you know, Gaza is really in such a, as we have said, my Prime Minister has said, it could perhaps be a breach of international law. What is happening? But what is happening? Israel has emerged as a regional power. Some have written of it as emerging as a regional superpower. It's going to play a very major role. That's a reality. So the Middle East is being remade. Uh, some Gulf states are going modern. Uh, Saudi Arabia seeks to modernize a country. UAE is doing well. They have good relations with the US, you know, but they are an Arab state. So I think then the question is, they must be pleased about, uh, Israel getting rid of, and the US, you know, getting rid of, uh, Iran's nuclear capability. Can the Middle East, the Gulf countries, sign an Abraham Accord with, um, Israel? I think under the present circumstances, a little bit difficult because the Arab street will not accept it, but, you know, let us see how that relationship shapes up. So that's how I see happening. But the major change is the emergence of Israel as this power, regional power, regional superpower. Right.
Would like to open the floor up for other questions. Yeah. Hi Al Chan. Yeah. My name is Rastam. I serve as a data scientist at HSA. I also, um, am one of the founders of a, uh, of an NGO based in Geneva called the Health Diplomacy Alliance. So my question is actually based on your experience and how statecraft can differ from, let's say, sector-specific diplomacy, let's say tech diplomacy and health diplomacy. Uh, what have you seen in your experience, and what do you think, um, is slightly different in these sorts of outcome-driven diplomacies in these industries?
Yeah. Uh, let me say that traditionally diplomacy really dealt with very high-level, you know, war, peace, security, trade, you know. But in recent times, because of climate change, because of health, because of pandemics, I think there is a new diplomacy emerging, driven by the forces which are really life-threatening, as life-threatening as war and peace. You know. So there is a new diplomacy coming out. There's climate diplomacy. You have your climate forum, the, you know, Paris Agreement being signed. The UN takes a lead in this, you know, and, um, so, and cities, and they form C40, which is really an organization of mayors who take things in their own hands because they say mayors have to react immediately if there's rising floods, rising tides, you know, and typhoons and so on. So, we have to help each other. And they're very effective, the mayors. So much so that there was a book that came out, "Should Mayors Rule the World?" You know, so there is climate diplomacy from city to city, helping each other, and that feeds to, if the country is climate-conscious, European countries, it feeds into the national government's policies. Now, the, uh, pandemic has created, uh, health diplomacy, which is seen to be very important. So GAVI was formed in the UN in Geneva, and countries donate vaccines, and I think people are trying to do something about it. So, yes, there's a diplomacy, new diplomacy going around sectors. Now, there's digital diplomacy, digital economy. We're thinking about that. What are the rules and so on? So your question is absolutely right. There is this new thing, uh, emerging. There is still the sort of traditional diplomacy. You cannot put that away. You just see what happened in Gaza and Iran, you know. So that goes on. South China Sea and so on. But new, there are new sectors that are, uh, requiring diplomacy.
I'm Hing. I work for an energy company. So my question is, if you were the US ambassador all over again, what would be your three, uh, messages to Washington DC at this point in your life? Right. Uh, yeah, what, what still keeps you going day-to-day? I mean, you are in your 80s, which I find is amazing. Yeah. So actually, what gets, what gets you going still? I'd really like to know what brings you joy. Jaded millennial right there. Got one, one last, uh, one last one there.
Hello, Ambassador Chan. Thank you so much for your, uh, lecture so far. I'm just curious about your experience having worked in the US for so long. The accusation is that we're moving into a transactional age where values don't matter. But for me, speaking as somebody who is an amateur, a dilettante at foreign policy and looking at the US's behavior over the years, hasn't it always been transactionalism by other names? Transactionalism, but nice. So I'm just curious about how you see them rationalizing their perspectives, but deep down it just seems to be a question of, I will act on my values if it's convenient for me, but otherwise, I will do whatever is necessary. Right. This is really new, is my question. Yeah.
So, three questions. Okay. Uh, right. Uh, three messages to the US. Gosh. Uh, the first message, of course, would be, you know, uh, Singapore is a free trader, you know, US has a trade surplus with us, you're not in trade deficit, so I will keep hammering that message home, you know. Secondly, Singapore is a very good, uh, first mover, and we are, we set the pace, so it is beneficial for the US if you want to do things like digital agreements, etcetera, to work with Singapore because, um, we, when we work with something, others will watch us and feel that, oh, there's something in it for us too, you know. So that would be my second message, but always emphasizing that Singapore is a good partner, yeah. And the third, uh, point I would like to emphasize is that, uh, actually, and it depends, you know, that, uh, frankly, in the, uh, region, we would really like to see the United States and China work together and work in peace. And if you can work together with two engines going, the world will reach a much better place. We'll all be much richer. That's a harder message to put across.
Second question on what keeps you going. Keeps me going? God, so many things, you know. I am a very curious person, so I have a lot of interests. So, you know, don't think that I just sit down and read and read stuff, you know. Uh, I read, but, uh, I also tune to music when after a while, and I go into YouTube and watch some YouTubes for half an hour for a break. Uh, I Spotify, I, uh, do Netflix, I do, uh, which is a Chinese streaming service. So I do a lot of things. Yeah. And, uh, I have friends who keep things. No, actually, all these aging studies emphasize that you must have social contact and network. Friends matter, you know. So, yeah, I, I think it's more a curiosity, and, uh, I don't know how to explain it, you know, but it's there. I watch a film and I want to do research on the film, you know, and like, uh, then they have characters there, and I check out, was there such a character in history, you know? So, uh, that just keeps me going. That, I think, is part of that researcher in me. But, uh, I must have a curiosity, that's why I am a researcher, you know. So it's a very, I really thank God for giving me that gift because it can keep you going, you know. Yeah.
So, the last question. Oh. Um, is this transactional mode of the US something new or something old? Um, I think you, the United States has always been transactional, but there was an element of, I wouldn't like to say veneer, but there was a segment, and there was a part of them which also emphasized values, and some people believed in the values. I mean, you know, Kennedy would say, uh, "We will bear any burden, pay any price for the price of, in the cause of freedom." You won't get that today. All right? Nobody's going to say that. Um, the, but I think the way it has become so transactional, so blatantly transactional, that's new. It changes the quality of the transaction and the meaning of transaction. And I think, uh, you know, it's a world where people think, oh, is it might makes right? And it, it's not just one country. Every big country may feel it's okay that might is right because this is now the new tenor of the times. So, um, yes, they've always been transactional, but it's a pity that, uh, the values bit has been pushed so far behind. And I think there are many Americans that hope that this will come back at some time, but whether it comes back in the same way, in the same degree, as I said, you know, you never come back to the same place, you know.
So I've got the last two questions that I think, uh, like to ask before we wrap up. Um, and then after this, we can ask you and maybe ask you more questions privately. So I think one of the questions that came up, or one of the things that keep emerging throughout our conversation so far, is that we always return to the ideas of like principles, the values we hold here. What does Singapore actually stand for as an country, as an idea, right? You touched upon a few, uh, the belief in good governance, our belief in multi-racial meritocracy, the belief in actually economic progress for all, that it has to be inclusive for everyone. So these are the values that I think have shaped Singapore so far. Do you believe in them? I hope you believe in them, right? You believe in them, yeah. Those are, at least, the very least, the aspirations we strive towards, right? That's the, Um, so as we head into this more uncertain, and you phrased it previously, this, um, asymmetric multipolar world where things are going to be much more complex, what are some of the values that you think that every Singaporean should kind of hold dear to their hearts?
I would like to see us really uphold multi-racialism and practice tolerance. Don't get sucked up, you know, in, um, you know, some of the thinking, uh, which may be floating around. But I think that's very important that we should practice tolerance of each other. And I think I just read President Tharman's speech at the cohesion, uh, conference, that it is not just tolerance, because it means that you just side by side, I tolerate you, but it's a kind of acceptance and working together. We must find a space where we work together, like all of you are in the same space working together. And that habit of working, it has to be habits of the heart, you know. It should become habits of the heart. Yeah.
So, last question for the working professionals here. Many of us are young millennials and Gen Zs. Uh, if there was like a piece of advice you would impart to them, what is it? What would it be?
Um, I hope you will, in fact, take risks and be daring. There's one thing I find about Singaporeans now. We're so comfortable. You know, government provides so many things. Sometimes I say, maybe the government should provide less, then people will struggle a bit more and find their path more. But you have to take risks. I'm not asking you to be reckless, but calculated risks, you know, and you can achieve great things if you don't risk. What would, uh, what would you achieve, you know? Uh, I came back at the age of 70 from the United States as ambassador. I joined SUTD to become the, uh, founding chairman of the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities. I'm a social scientist. A whole university is full of engineers, computer scientists, and so on. I didn't understand a word of what they said. I deal with history, I deal with politics, international relations. The university gave me an engineer, and he worked with me. And I would say, "Hey, King Wang, what's that? What did the guy say?" I'm not stupid. I've read this proposal three times. I still don't get it. You know, so I went through that, and I, people say, "Hey, how come you keep so useful?" I said, you know, I feel so inadequate. I'm always chasing after something because I feel I don't know the subject. And when you are a bit on the edge, you feel you don't know something and you want to catch up. I tell you, that really keeps you energetic and keeps you young because you're trying to improve yourself, and I think that helps, you know. So I would ask you to take risks. And let me just share something with you which I didn't have a chance to, but I would like to read this to you if I may before they, uh, you go off. And it is a statement by, it is about courage and taking risks. And it is really a statement made by Mr. Goh Keng Swee when he retired from politics in 1984. He stepped down. And this was 1984, so he was asked to say something, and this was what he said.
"More than 30 years ago, a group of returned students looked at colonial Singapore and decided they had a mission, and they decided they had to change the system. They then applied the lessons they learned in British universities, set about building up a trade union following, and in 1954 formed the People's Action Party. It was an act of reckless folly. Mercifully for them and for Singaporeans, they did not receive the punishment they richly deserved. If I were a deeply religious man, I would ascribe our escape to a benevolent God. As it is, I will leave the verdict to a future historian. You may ask, why was our entry into politics reckless? The answer is that we totally misread the situation, as indeed did many others. We did not understand that the mass base was firmly in the grip of the communists, ably led by the underground Singapore Town Committee of the Malayan Communist Party. A long, searing fight of this kind must leave its imprint on the contestants, both on their individual characters and the political institutions they operate. I want to tell you something about this, and you will understand why we are what we are and govern Singapore the way we do. A person who had a narrow escape with his life soon sees merit in the habit of prudence. That is exactly what happened to us. Maravedi said men are fond of innovations and liking the first taste, fail to see the poison within. Having failed at the beginning of our political career to see the poison within, we are always on the lookout for the poison in new situations. Prudence does not mean that one must always take counsel of one's fears. In the course of our political struggles for the first decade, we learned that in a desperate situation, timidity leads to disaster. Safety can only be won by daring."
So it is daring and taking the risk. And I would like to urge our younger people today. You're not in a situation where it's dire, but you have to have that daring. And I fear some of that daring is being with, is withering away. How can you make yourself more daring? Now, I know many of you here are entrepreneurs. To be an entrepreneur today in Singapore is to be daring, to take these less trodden paths because it's so easy to get a job in a corporation or a civil service job. Then you have a steady salary. But to be an entrepreneur is really something. But you've got to do more than that. You've got to go beyond our shores and take your risks elsewhere. Work with the region. That's my last word.
On that optimistic note, may we just all thank Ambassador Shan for the wonderful dialogue. Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you are watching this on YouTube, please consider subscribing and turning on notifications for whenever new episodes are out. If you're on Spotify or Apple, it would help us greatly if you could leave a five-star review on those platforms.