Transcription
So all your descriptions capture the natural distortions of China that you get in the Anglo-Saxon media, which violate the rules of the enlightenment, which say that you must be rational, calm, and objective, especially in understanding your adversary. And if the Chinese were as stupid and as incompetent as you describe them to be, don't worry about them. But I can assure you, you are now dealing with a far more intelligent and rational actor that doesn't fit any of the Anglo-Saxon categories that you applied to them.
My apologies, please forgive my bluntness, because the Chinese have evolved their own social and political contract. You may not like it. I may not like it, but they seem to like it. And I want to emphasize a key point. It's a bit arrogant for Westerners to tell the Chinese people, "We know better than you do what is good for you."
Professor Mabubani, you basically said on a platform of the media program of Conrad Ardin Foundation that censorship helps to keep the population happy, which is quite a statement for the media program of Conrad Ardin and our foundation, and I would argue against that. I don't believe that.
"You know, one thing I love about the English language is its precision. So when I said that censorship has not prevented the Chinese people from becoming happy, it doesn't mean that censorship has made the Chinese people happy. These are two very different statements."
Okay. Thank you. Um, professor, you said a lot of wonderful things about China and surely doing a lot of things right, but how do you reconcile the fact that to make it work for China, it seems to be based on a high level of repression, environmental destruction, censorship, a certain ideological stubbornness? Um, I mean, we've spoken about Hong Kong, the Uyghurs. How do you reconcile that? And why do you think that's, I mean, do you think that's tolerable?
"Thank you. Um, I'm really glad you asked that question, because your question captured very well the Anglo-Saxon media's perception of China. And I would suggest to you very bluntly that is a distorted perspective of reality. Let's take the first word you use: repression. If the Communist Party of China only relied on repression to stay in power, it would not create the most dynamic economy in the world. Right? It is by far the most dynamic economy in the world. It has delivered the fastest growing economy for 30 years. And it has done this by educating the Chinese people to a level and extent that the Chinese people have never been educated ever before. And you say is repression. You obviously are taking the old Cold War mindset. Uh, I was in Moscow in 1976 and I saw repression in Moscow. And when I was in Moscow, the Soviet citizens were not allowed to travel outside the Soviet Union. That's repression. In the year 2019, 139 million Chinese left China freely. Guess what? Zero defectors. 139 million Chinese, right? That's twice the population of the UK. Went back to China. So all your description when you say environmental degradation, China's climate change policies are far more responsible than those of the United States, which has not once but twice withdrawn from global environmental protocols. Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration left eight years. Paris Accords, Trump administration left four years. And you know what the reason why we're having climate change today is not because of new flows of greenhouse gas emissions from China and India. It's because of what the Western countries have put in the atmosphere since the Western industrial revolution. Get the data. The single largest contributor cumulatively, right, is number one, United States. Number two, Europe. Number three, China. Right? And the West wants China to pay an economic price for the current flows, but the West doesn't want to pay an economic price for what it put in the atmosphere. You want to deprive the Indians of electricity when the United States could just, by the way, if the United States could impose a dollar a gallon tax, that would save the cut down gasoline consumption, raise money for investment in green technology. Simple solutions. And by contrast, the largest reforestation program in the world is carried out by China. It has already reforested an area the size of Belgium or bigger. Right? So all your descriptions capture the natural distortions of China that you get in the Anglo-Saxon media, which violate the rules of the enlightenment, which say that you must be rational, calm, and objective, especially in understanding your adversary. And if the Chinese were as stupid and as incompetent as you describe them to be, don't worry about them. But I can assure you, you are now dealing with a far more intelligent and rational actor that doesn't fit any of the Anglo-Saxon categories that you applied to them."
My apologies, please forgive my bluntness.
"Now you're putting words into my mouth. I would like to hear from Stefan whether he agrees with the view that China is not a repressive system."
"Well, I wouldn't agree with this. Um, it's a Communist Party. It's not a democracy. Um, but this is the way it is, and I don't think that we should try to change the world where we cannot change it. And when I see how they control the population, that helps if you have a pandemic. When you have a pandemic, it helps to control the people at the same time. The experiment helps the government to control the population. This is not a democratic system which I would wish we would have. But on the other hand, you can see that this system helped millions of people get out of hunger and to make a personal career, to go to schools, to study, and to build up a very important, if not the most important, economy in the world. So, what we tried in the book to show what's going on there, how the situation is, but not putting ourselves in a position to tell them how they should live and how they could should change it. For my personal view, I'm far more in favor of Western democratic society. But what we always thought is that economic power and economic growth goes together with a democratic system as we have it, at least we had it since the war, since the end of the war. We have to see that a communist system like in China can be very successful, and we have to deal with it whether we like it or not."
And can we take the next question from this gentleman here in the blue shirt? Oh, okay. Um, oh, she came first. Okay.
"First of all, you mentioned earlier that you are setting your hopes on Europe, and I would say maybe you might want to prepare yourself for some disappointments, but this is only a personal remark. Um, I have a follow-up question from the earlier speaker. You mentioned that we should be more objective when it comes to China and that we should also see their achievements. But my question would be, if the Chinese population sees those achievements and appreciates them, why do they still need censorship then? They shouldn't need it if all the population sees those achievements. That's a contradiction to me. And secondly, could you elaborate on Taiwan? Why do you think China would accept the status quo? Why do you think China would say, 'Well, this is fine. We can live with it as long as everybody plays along,' or do you not think that China at some point will just say, 'We want Taiwan back, and we want it our way,' and we just don't accept it like it is at the moment?"
"Thanks. Okay. Um, you know, the thing about your question on censorship is that it tries to sort of say more or less, excuse me, that in the West we have no censorship, that's white, China, which has censorship, is black. Okay. And I would say that in most societies, there are shades of gray. You have no formal censorship in Western societies. Believe me, you have informal censorship, right? And in the United States today, by the way, it goes down to political correctness. And even in the greatest universities in the US today, and I'm told this by graduates of these great universities, I just was there, that the political culture is pushing towards political correctness, and there's no formal censorship, but there's so many things you just cannot say anymore. And if you want an example of this, read the Financial Times this weekend. Lunch with FTs with a Yale professor, Amy Chua. She spoke freely. See what happened to her. That's also censorship. Okay. So there are different kinds of censorship. There are the blatant kind of censorship you can see, and the not so blatant kind. So the only point I want to tell you about Chinese society is this, which is I think you should, this is the one reality that almost nobody can understand, which is that most of the Chinese people have never been happier. You know, it's amazing. You have to live there to see it. And in my book, I cite one of America's greatest strategic thinkers, George Kennan, and he says, at the end of the day, the outcome of the contest with the United States and the Soviet Union, the old Cold War, would depend on which society enjoys greater spiritual vitality, where are the people happier, especially the bottom 50%. And today, this is a reality that you just find it difficult to accept, but it is real. The bottom 50% in America are about to vote Trump back in in 2024. Trump is coming back. Right? The danger of Trump coming back is so real. And I can tell you that shows you what a difficult, divided, dysfunctional society the United States has become, that they can vote Trump back. That's unhappiness surfacing. In China, by contrast, the people till today are still amazed at how much their lives have improved and are happy with the situation that they have down there. Which is why, to be honest, my apologies to you, I reacted very strongly to the word repression, because the Chinese people actually understand and appreciate how much they have advanced. And the Chinese actually now, the people actually, and this is something that I met someone who was here a few days ago who speaks Chinese fluently, has been there recently, and he said, in China, there used to be a natural awe and respect for the West, which is good, but that awe and respect for the West is diminishing as they see what is happening in Western societies, especially the United States, and they see what's happening in China. So I want you all to understand that don't use black and white categories to understand China. Understand the strengths of the West, the weaknesses of the West. Understand the strengths of China, weaknesses of China, and then make a comparison. Don't do black and white comparisons. And on Taiwan, basically, just my simple answer is, if you don't shake the status quo, we can keep peace. Nobody, the Chinese are not going to go out and launch a military war because again, I discussed this in my book. The Chinese believe that the best way to win a war is without fighting. If you have to fight, it means you're not a good, you're not a general."
"With time for three more questions. I think the next question..."
"Thank you. I'd like to ask this question to both Kishor as well as uh, no, ask Stefan, please. Stefan as well, because Stefan, I'd like to hear both your views on this point. Actually, it's a point that the lady just mentioned just now. This issue of Taiwan and whether or not either side would shift the consensus or shift the status quo. I think Kishor, you feel that the risk is that the West would be the one or America will be the one that would move the status quo. But how are you so sure that China won't do the same thing? Because as far as I understand from my little understanding of China, that there is this unfinished business for many generations since 1949, that Taiwan has not been reunited with the mainland. And how are you so sure that China is not going to, in its effort to project its progress and project its great revival of the Chinese nation, from what they call it, that they would seek to retake the mainland, whether by force or other means? And that could trigger, that could trigger the war. And I'm asking this as a Singaporean politician because I'm concerned about the peace and security of our region, of our region. So I'd like to hear both your views on that."
"Yeah, well, actually, you know, during the time before the fall of the wall, every German politician on certain days when they were holding speeches said, and in the end, like Kuinik said, Kartago delenda est, they said Germany has to be reunited. And in a certain way, the politicians in China said the same about Taiwan going back into mainland China. The difference now with Xi Jinping is that he said that this has to happen during his time of life or his time being the head of the government. So in a certain way, it's good that he stopped the limit for being the president and the chief of the party. So we have a little bit more time, and he is not so under pressure to do it within the next four or five years. But I think the risk is pretty, pretty big. Um, and the risk that the whole thing is getting out of control is pretty big too. And the position of the Americans who say we are defending the security and independence of Taiwan, not may saying it in clear words, but to give the feeling that they wouldn't tolerate if China takes over Taiwan, is the only way to stop China really to take it over. So I think what you said is really correct. Don't touch it. But the danger of a country that's feeling more and more strong to take it over, at least when we see what's happening in Hong Kong, is pretty big."
"Well, the, I mean, it is it is possible. Certainly. I mean, it's possible. We may wake up tomorrow morning and we hear that President Xi announces that he's going to invade Taiwan. It's possible. Certainly. But if my assessment of how they behave is correct, they do very careful, comprehensive calculations. And one of the biggest questions they ask is, who on whose side is time on, right? And the Chinese are shrewd enough students of geopolitics to know that the world will treat China this way when it is number two. By 2030, China becomes number one. The world will treat China very differently. There's a huge amount of difference that number one gets that number two doesn't get. Okay. So if that's coming your way, right? And if you watch this, the fruit is going to ripen and fall. Why take it now? What's the rush? But if you sense that someone is trying to change the facts on the ground and recognize Taiwanese independence, right, then they will act. So that's how I think. But they are very careful, rational actors, which is why actually the what the Trump administration was trying to do, especially in the last years, I, you know, incidentally, there is, I know, I listen to lots of podcasts, okay? I think there was a podcast on Sinica which described that in the last nine months of the Trump administration, the world went through a very dangerous phase because until then, even though Trump took actions against China, he was still quite restrained. Trump actually, to be fair to him, didn't like geopolitical quarrels and so on and so forth. He didn't want to be bothered with those. But after COVID-19 broke out, when Trump realized that COVID-19 was killing his chances for reelection, he became very angry towards China, and you know, he began to talk about China virus and so on and so forth. So all the restraint that Trump personally was applying on the anti-China hawks disappeared in the last nine months of the Trump administration, and therefore Pompeo, Pence, and Potinga literally ran riot, you know, and that's how the speech that Pompeo gave in the Nixon library was incredibly inflammatory, country, you know, against China because no one stopped it. Now, when things like that begin to happen, then you get dangers. So, the good news is that the Biden administration has switched that off and says, we'll be careful on China, and we'll be careful on Taiwan. So, if the Chinese have their assurance, why should they act?"
"Well, leading on from that question, we have one in the pigeonhole which asks Stefan."
"Yes, it's it's directed at both of you. Um, how do you think countries can strike a balance between not to completely misunderstand China and have to completely play by China's rules? Some of you might take issue with the phrasing, but please share your views."
"Actually, we cannot change China. We don't have to. We shouldn't believe that we can change it. We have to live with it. And the only way to compete with China is to stay strong yourself. To see that you have a booming economy, that you have a system that works, that you have a democratic system that is an example for the rest of the world, where people can see, I would like to live the way they are living, as we had it during the last decades. But if the West is not concentrating on their own work, on what to do to develop, to get people studying, to have a free democracy, a free press, to have the possibility to travel, to let people inside the country, other people have to stay out. As long as we are not taking care of our own country, we cannot compete. And so it does not help if we look into other countries and say, we don't want to be like them. We do not have to be like them. We don't have to want a communist system in Germany. But nevertheless, we need an economy that economy that works. And we need to build our railway stations and airports and the whole infrastructure at least as good as they can do it. But if we see on, and we see that a lot of things are made better there, we should rather concentrate on doing it better ourselves instead of giving other people advice to do it."
"You have anything to add to that?"
"Well, I'm going to get Stefan into a lot of trouble. I agree with every word you said."
"Okay. No, that's good. So, we can move on to the last question. Who has the honors of taking the last gentleman?"
"Okay. My name is Christian E. I'm the director of the Political Dialogue Asia of Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and I'm very glad that I'm still able to pose this question because Professor Mabubani, you basically said on a platform of the media program of Konrad Adenauer Foundation that censorship helps to keep the population happy, which is quite a statement for the media program of Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and I would argue against that. I don't believe that. I believe that censorship is maybe in order for a majority of the people, but if you think about the minorities, if you think about the Uyghurs, if you think about the MeToo activists, they suffer from censorship. That's the one side. The other side is that censorship also prevents a very important function of the media, which is to help accountability, to make sure that the government is accountable. So my question to you is, if you say censorship is fine, where does accountability come from for the Chinese government, for Xi Jinping and his government? Because at least I believe that this is a very important mechanism in a country that there's accountability for the government. Maybe you don't think that's true, but I'm really interested in your perspective on that."
"You know, one thing I love about the English language is its precision. So when I said that censorship has not prevented the Chinese people from becoming happy, it doesn't mean that censorship has made the Chinese people happy. These are two very different statements. Okay. It is true that there is censorship in China. It's also true that there's a lot of happiness in China. That's the reality that I'm describing now. I would prefer, like you, to live in a society without censorship, certainly. But that's a choice you want. That's a choice I want. Let the Chinese people choose what they want. And when you ask for accountability, I suggest you look at 4,000 years of Chinese history. When the emperor fails, he loses the mandate of heaven, and in one way or another, the Chinese people have overthrown bad emperors for 4,000 years, right? They've suffered from time to time, which is true. And if you look at the cycles of Chinese civilization, all I'm saying is, you want to understand China, why don't you look at Chinese history? Okay. Now, the Chinese go through cycles. When they have bad years, they have 200 bad years. Guess what? The Chinese have just had almost 200 bad years. Now the Chinese are beginning 200 good years, of which 40 years have just happened. And whether or not there's censorship or no censorship, another 160 good years are coming. That's the reality. I'm not saying I approve of it. I'm saying censorship is not going to make a difference. Right? Because the Chinese have evolved their own social and political contract. You may not like it. I may not like it. But they seem to like it. And I want to emphasize a key point. It's a bit arrogant for Westerners to tell the Chinese people, 'We know better than you do what is good for you.' And in this book, I cite an American ambassador, Chas Freeman. He says, 'We in the West don't understand that China suffers a ratio of people to arable land which is among the tightest in the world.' If the United States had the same ratio of people to arable land as China does, the United States wouldn't have 330 million people. The United States would have 4 billion people. And Chas Freeman says, 'If we in America, if we had 4 billion people, we would accept far more controls and restrictions than we do today.' Because when you're crowded living together, you accept a social contract which is much tighter and more disciplined than Americans will accept. So, I'm not suggesting we should become like the Chinese. I agree with Stefan, right? We should look after ourselves. We should create our own societies. China is not asking us to transform ourselves. All that China is saying is, 'Our society is good for ourselves. You keep your society, and we live and work with each other.' I think that's a perfectly reasonable statement."
What we just saw was a clip from a Q&A session at an event in November 2021. We are sharing this specific clip today because it acts like a mirror. It perfectly reflects how the mainstream Western narrative is built. By watching this, we hope to help you cut through the fog of manufactured bias. We want to help you understand the real China and why the West so often gets it wrong.
In this clip, there are two moments worth noting. One is the question about repression and environmental destruction. The other is the challenge from the program director regarding censorship. Facing the first question, Kishor Mabubani did not dodge. He threw out hard data: 139 million Chinese tourists who travel freely and return home voluntarily. This immediately disproved the stereotype that China is a closed prison. He also sharply countered Western hypocrisy on the environment. He pointed out that China is carrying out a reforestation program the size of Belgium. Meanwhile, the West is the historical cause of the climate crisis.
But the most intense clash happened with the program director. This director tried to take the moral high ground. He even deliberately twisted Mabubani's words, trying to label him as a supporter of censorship. Facing this arrogant challenge, Mabubani gave an answer that the elites in the room could not refute. He used the concept of the Mandate of Heaven from 4,000 years of Chinese history to redefine what accountability really means.
Mabubani's counterattack offers us a piercing perspective. It allows us to examine the disconnect between the Western narrative and the reality of China. First, this debate reveals a kind of intellectual laziness among Western elites. They ignore objective data in favor of ideological dogma. The questioners held on to their script of censorship and repression, trying to prove that the Chinese people are suffering. But Mabubani pointed to a reality the West refuses to face. He cited the concept of spiritual vitality and the 90% support rate for the Chinese government. He showed that a non-Western political system can still deliver higher social satisfaction and happiness than the West. As he quoted, "If people live in crowded environments, they accept a stricter social contract." This is a rational choice based on survival, not the result of brainwashing.
Second, Mabubani's redefinition of accountability crushes Western centrism. Western observers stubbornly believe that accountability only comes from ballot boxes and media criticism. Mabubani argues that for Chinese civilization, legitimacy does not come from process, but from results. When a government ends a century of humiliation and poverty and delivers 40 years of rapid growth, it holds the solid Mandate of Heaven. This pragmatic view of history is exactly what Western observers lack when trying to understand China's rise.
Finally, we need to realize one thing. The public's misunderstanding of China is largely shaped by media elites and people like that director. Ordinary people do not have the chance to see the real China. Their perception is filtered and twisted by these figures. These so-called elites arrogantly believe they hold the only truth. They not only mislead their own people, but also block the world from understanding other nations. That is what truly deserves criticism.
We are eager to hear your thoughts in the comments below. If you found this video valuable, please like, share, and subscribe to our channel. Thank you for watching.