Transcription
A lot, a lot has happened, um, since I last saw you. You won an emphatic election victory. You've celebrated 60 years of independence, though why anybody would want to be independent of the British Empire, I, I find it difficult. I wonder why. Just look at the mess that the Americans have made of it. Um, that, that is my revenge on Mike. Um, and above all, Singapore just beat Hong Kong last night in the, in the, in, in the soccer. So life is, you're on a roll.
But to bring you down to earth a little bit, you could argue that the success of Singapore has been based around two things: being a bastion of free trade and also being somewhere between East and West. And now you have protectionism on the rise, and we have that struggle between China and America. That worries us. It does. I think it worries us all.
But when Xi Jinping and Donald Trump met in South Korea, you called it a temporary truce. And I wonder, you've just seen this spat going on between Japan and China over Taiwan. You know, how precarious does Asia feel at the moment?
I thought, first of all, going back to the meeting between the two leaders, President Xi and President Trump, it was a good meeting. And while it may be a temporary truce, a temporary stabilization in the relationship, it's much needed, and it will provide guardrails for the two powers to, you know, engage one another. It will open up channels of communication. It's not just once off because the two leaders will meet probably four times next year because President Trump has said he would visit China. President Xi will probably visit back, and then there's APEC in Shenzhen and G20 in Miami. So many opportunities for engagement, and it's much needed for stability.
The intense competition and rivalry will continue. I'm sure the mutual suspicion and distrust remains, but the guardrails will ensure that the rivalry does not slide into a full decoupling or worse, confrontation and conflict. So on that, I'm slightly hopeful after seeing the rapport, the engagement that they, the two of them had, at least in the near term.
Do you think China won that particular round? It seemed that America gave way on most things.
Uh, I, I'm not here to referee whether one side won or another. All I want is for both to coexist. And engage constructively.
Now, on Japan and China, we all want stability in Asia. I mean, that's of course something we, it's in everyone's interest. So we certainly hope that both countries will find ways to de-escalate the current issue. The China-Japan relationship is important. Economically, it's important. China is Japan's largest trading partner, but it's a complex relationship, partly because of the US-China strategic competition, so everything that China and Japan has is seen through that larger prism. They also have disputes in the Senkaku Islands, and of course, it's also because of the overhang of the history of the Second World War, which still remains between the two countries. We hope the two countries will find ways to resolve these very complex issues and move forward.
Southeast Asia has done that with Japan. [snorts] As far as the history is concerned, it has taken some time, but with the passage of time, with the passing of generations, the feelings are not the same, and we have put the history aside, and we're moving forward. And it's quite striking that survey after survey shows that Japan is the number one trusted great power in Southeast Asia. And so Singapore and all the Southeast Asian countries support Japan playing a bigger role in our region, including on the security front, because we think that provides for some stability in the region.
All the same. All the same. Do you think poking the dragon in the way that the Prime Minister did, do you think that was advisable?
Uh, well, I'm not her advisor. Uh, I can't judge the wisdom of proof of people. I can't judge the wisdom of whether or not, you know, what she said was wise to do. Um, but it has been said, it can't be unsaid now. Yes. So, it is there. There will be a difference of views clearly, and I think both sides, I think on the Japanese side, they are clearly wanting to bring things down, to stabilize the relationship and not cause this to escalate further, and I hope China will feel the same way. And while there may be differences, you know, the two countries can still get along and work together.
In the current atmosphere, what do you, what do you think the chances are of a, a war over Taiwan?
We've always said that we don't think this is likely to happen in the, you know, foreseeable future, at least in terms of an unilateral, unprovoked action by China. You've asked this question repeatedly to my predecessors, to me. So far, you've been right. And [laughter] our views remain the same. It is an important issue for China, Taiwan. It is the red lines. But I don't see, and we don't see it happening unless something happens that really crosses China's red lines, in terms of, for example, a unilateral move by Taiwan to declare independence, because then it becomes two Chinas, not one China.
I think America's policy here also is very critical, and America has always been consistent and very careful with its policy that there should not be any unilateral change to the status quo. And number two, that while America defends or supports Taiwan's ability to defend itself, it does so in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act and to America's One China Policy. It's a very carefully crafted statement, and up to now, across different administrations, America has broadly speaking maintained a consistent, uh, approach with that policy. And if it does so, I think there will be a good chance of us maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits.
You, you also talked about a post-American order, which sort of interested me, because it implies that America's move towards isolationism and protectionism is not just Donald Trump, that even after he goes back to Mar-a-Lago or heaven, or what, maybe he doesn't know the difference, um, that America no longer will be a champion of globalization, no longer be a sort of partner that you can rely on in the way as you did. Do you really think that America has gone?
We hope not. When I said post-American order, I was referring to the forces that are driving us towards a more multipolar world. So the unipolar moment where America was the clear, was the leader that helped to guide, underwrite the global system, that moment, I think, is over. So the old rules have, are not, do not no longer apply, but the new ones have not been written. Uh, but as we transit into this new multipolar world, it's not as though every pole remains the same. America is still the biggest, most powerful country, and still maintains, America's leadership remains vital, and we certainly hope that, uh, America will be actively engaged in the world. Maybe not now, maybe not with this administration, but there will be a time when America can take up its role, be actively engaged, constructive, and continue to have good relations with all its key partners. America's role is critical for stability and continued prosperity in the world, and the world needs America to behave like that.
To look at from the outside, America's policy towards China seems somewhat, um, schizophrenic. On the one hand, there is a very strong desire to keep China in check. On the other hand, most people would say, you keep a country like China in check by bringing all the other allies, all the people in the region onto your side. And yet, as you pointed out, when tariffs happened, you know, Trump has hit everyone with a variety of things which were not, would not seem like ally behavior. You know, I visit China regularly just to find out what, how things are developing, and all the actions that America takes vis-à-vis China has, in a way, only strengthened their resolve to work even harder, to move faster on technology self-sufficiency, and to, and they are determined to grow. So, one China commentator tells me, there's nothing America can do to stop China. Only China can stop China. And when I heard that, it reminded me of something I heard a long time ago about the US too. There's, you know, Abraham Lincoln once said, if, uh, if destruction be our lot, let us Americans be the author and finisher of it. And, and so it strikes me that I think shortly before a civil war, but so it may be, may be rather bad. But it strikes me that in this great rivalry, everyone is focused on what one country does to another. But really, the fates of these two great powers will be determined by their own people at the end of the day. Americans decide America's future. Chinese people decide Chinese future. That's what it comes down to. And it's their actions, their agency that determines domestic reforms, that determines the direction that these countries will take.
In terms of Singapore's position in that world, I mean, I suppose if I was to look at Southeast Asia, I must have been coming here for three decades or around that. When I first came, I think there was a general presumption that if things came to a head with China, most of Southeast Asia would probably stick with the West. You look at what's happened over the past year, you know, that's become Southeast Asia, including Singapore, has become home to many more Chinese companies. As I said, Donald Trump hit the allies with tariffs. You had Joe Biden wasn't that kind to you either. Your first visit, your first visit as Prime Minister was to Beijing, not outside ASEAN, was to Beijing, not Washington. Is America losing this region?
We've put a, we've put a request to visit Washington, waiting for the dates. But, but I wouldn't read too much into these sorts of things. And whether, that's, but that's indicative, isn't it? You would imagine an American president would want to see one of his main. But, you know, whether where I go, what countries I visit. Um, and I will also wouldn't say that, um, in the past, it's very clear-cut that countries would side with one, one side, the West, and now side with China, and things have flipped. I, I think that's too simplistic a portrayal.
There is no doubt America's actions over this recent period has impacted America's standing in Southeast Asia. All the surveys would suggest that, and it's very clear-cut. Um, but I think there's still tremendous goodwill and desire for ASEAN countries to engage the US. President Trump came for the ASEAN summit meeting. He presided over the peace accord between Cambodia and Thailand. And then he sat down for a meeting with all the ASEAN leaders, patiently listening to each one, engaging and listening to each one. And at the end of all the intervention, said that America and him personally is committed to ASEAN. I think that's well received by ASEAN. Um, in the previous administration, Gina is here. Secretary Raimondo, uh, we worked on Indo, the IPF, Indopacific Economic Framework under the Biden administration, and many Southeast Asian countries welcome that because America is still the largest investor in this part of the world in terms of FDI, and all the countries look forward to having more linkages with America, more engagement with America, more investment from the US. So, yes, the, um, America's standing has taken a hit. There's no doubt. But we hope America can recover from this, and we would like to see America recovering from this.
Just on that, you've spent quite a lot of time though talking about a multipolar world and one where you've tried to, I suppose, bring together what might be described as a coalition of the willing of kind of free trading countries that would deepen ties and that would sort of get on with the business of globalization whilst America and China go about building walls of different sorts. But that particular way, you know, what can you do with that in practice? You, you see, you've accumulated a group of countries. What can you actually do? It's the sort of, is it just about having slightly better documentation and things? What is the end of that?
Let me put it this way. The stable multilateral framework that we were all familiar with is unraveling. That framework was optimized for trade efficiency. In today's world, countries are more concerned about security and resilience. So, countries everywhere are prepared to accept some inefficiency, higher cost, in return for higher security and resilience. But this is now being done unilaterally, country by country, taking its own actions. And that's just not sustainable. In the worst case, you will end up with something that, like what happened after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in the 1930s. Someone does something, another one retaliates. There will be a dynamic where it's just escalating, and before too long, we will end up with devastating consequences.
On the other hand, we know that the WTO, which was meant to solve these problems, isn't working. We would like to see a new framework in place. It's not easy to get that happen now, but ideally, a new framework that finds ways in which countries can legitimately exercise and protect their own national interests, but with restraint, with some shared rules, and not on the basis that you can unilaterally do things to coerce another country or to punish another country, which is somewhat happening now. So, how do we get there? And I think it's very hard for all of us to imagine ways to get there. But I think we should not give up trying. And that's what we would like to do, which is work with like-minded countries. Some of the, you know, we have a Future of Investment and Trade Partnership with 15 or so countries doing this, but also working with the WTO, working with regional groupings like the CPTPP and the EU. And all of these efforts ultimately are not just about tariffs, they are about setting new norms, new rules of the road that would allow us to facilitate trade and investments and find some way to ensure mutual supply chains remain resilient and secure. And, and in a way, we are laying the foundations for a new multilateral framework that may come later on.
I, I looked and saw the Future of Investment and Trade Partnership, FIT, as it's known, and your members include, a group is Brunei, Costa Rica, Chile, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Rwanda, Singapore, Switzerland, the UAE, and Uruguay, which is a fantastic kind of World Cup group to be in. But it doesn't feel like the beginnings of a big trade bloc.
I know, but, uh, don't sweat the small stuff. [laughter] Um, you know, how the TPP started, and the TPP started P4, very small countries, four tiny economies came together in the P4, that became the TPP. And TPP, and when America decided not to continue, we had the CPTPP. So, great things can start from small places, including Singapore.
What about, what about, what about something you've already got, which is ASEAN?
Yeah. And you are next year, no, 2027, you become, take over the chairmanship for it. And you look at ASEAN, as you say, it's been very successful at preventing conflict. It's become a kind of grouping. When, when you tried to negotiate with Trump as a group, he slightly sort of pushed it aside and made you negotiate, negotiate one with each other. I, I wondered, is there a way of making ASEAN into something bigger, something deeper? You know, at the moment, it's based wholly around consensus. Could you ever move to something like a majority agreement instead? I, I hate to mention the words European Union in a good light, but if you were to take it a little bit closer to the European Union, does that make sense?
We certainly want to integrate faster and, and bring together the single market. I mean, there's so much that still needs to be done, but we also have to recognize the wide diversity of ASEAN countries at different levels of development. And so, it's, we, we move as fast as we can. I, I would say that it was not so much that the US didn't want to negotiate with ASEAN collectively. It's just impossible given the diversity in ASEAN. ASEAN would not be able to negotiate a trade deal with America as a collective. It had to be country by country. We are not quite there yet to, to negotiate deals like that collectively. But ASEAN has its advantages and strengths. It's when we talk about ASEAN centrality, for example, it's not as though it means ASEAN dominates everything, but it means ASEAN has pooling power as a convenor. And precisely because of the fracturing of the global economy that we see now, and the uncertainties, more and more major powers would like to do strengthen their links with ASEAN. EU is interested in an FTA with us. The GCC, we've been talking to them. Canada is interested in an FTA with us too. So we are discussing these initiatives very seriously, and hopefully, when, I mean, we'll do this next year when the Philippines is chair, and, and when Singapore chairs ASEAN in 2027, we hope we can continue to build on the foundations and make progress.
So the way in which ASEAN would grow will probably be going broader rather than deeper. You're not going to end up with a?
We have to do both. I, I think we have to, we have to go deeper as well. It's just that going deeper takes time. It's, it's not straightforward. And, you know, countries will be able to move at different paces. And in some instances, we may very well say the countries that are able to move faster, do first. I wouldn't rule that out.
When we talked about the region, you know, you said you didn't think there was the war coming on or anything like that, but there is a, there is. Do you think in the end, a country like Singapore will have to choose between China and America? You, you've managed to avoid that so far.
Yeah. Another favorite question. Yes, it's coming that way. Journalists are notoriously unoriginal, but the problems don't change. The choice is arguably getting bigger. The pressures will always be there. The great powers say we don't want you to choose, but of course, each one wants us to be a closer friend to them. And that's always the tension, is always there. The pressures will always be there. But at the end of the day, uh, we don't have to choose, really. We have to, I mean, it's not issue by issue. There will be some instances where we look at the issue and we, so happens that the particular position we take is the same as the US, for example, or as China, for example, but it's not from the lens of choosing one versus the other. It's from the lens of Singapore's national interest. And that, that will always be the case for us. And it's the same, not just for Singapore, it's the same in ASEAN. ASEAN countries feel the same way. We have been the arena for proxy wars before. It's been such a painful experience. We don't want that to happen again. And so ASEAN will continue to be fiercely independent, not so much non-aligned, but multiple aligned, uh, you know, engaged with all the key players.
On that, on that subject. You, no hot war, but there's a lot of cold war going on, and there's been this issue about state-sponsored cyber attacks. Yeah. People interfering in the election. Your, your party complained about that, um, in the election you won. You've had cyber attacks, and you're going to adjust, I think, your foreign interference law further. Yes. And I wondered, are there any particular countries you're worried about? Is it China, Malaysia, Indonesia, or all the above?
Uh, we don't call out our adversaries, but we know who they are. It's a good way to be around. Can I ask a bit about? And we are not naive. [laughter] Can I ask about Singapore as a financial hub?
You've had this onrush of, of money coming here. You've had this big push to lure people here, the family offices, you see many of them here, a lot of wealthy people coming here. And you get two issues from that. And the first one is this issue of inequality, which I know the Gini coefficient has got better, so that in income terms, in income terms, getting better, but there is this, every time I come here, people talk about inequality more. And I wondered, you've already introduced taxes on luxury cars and properties, but do you see Singapore moving towards other things, a capital gains tax, for instance?
Two separate issues, really. Because wealth management, Singapore is a financial center. I think we can grow in terms of wealth management. Family offices may set up here. Um, they are not Singaporeans. They, you know, have their offices here. They manage your funds out of Singapore. We welcome that. It creates jobs for Singaporeans. I think that's a good thing, and we can explain that to Singaporeans. Sometimes it creates frictions, especially when there are ostentatious shows of, of, [inaudible]
Ferraris and things. Yes. And we have to remind them, just, you know, Singapore is a different society. We are egalitarian. Our norms are different. Please understand. And for the most part, they do. Um, tackling wealth inequality where it comes to our people and our population, that's something we continue to work on, whether it's income or wealth. We have a range of, uh, policies. It's not just about tax alone, because in Singapore, we have the ability to also provide wealth injections. And a major reason why we can do that is housing. Everyone owns, almost everyone owns their own home. Majority live in public housing, and when you buy a flat from the Housing Development Board in Singapore, you get housing equity. And that's the reason why, even at the lower end, bottom 20% of households, actually, they have significant net wealth, net asset value, because of home ownership. So that's one way we can continue to fine-tune our policies to provide more support and uplift for lower-income groups. We also have a Central Provident Fund, which is social security, which is the individual's own retirement nest egg, which we do top-ups from time to time. So our tool sets are not limited. I know there's a lot of interest again, Bloomberg's favorite question for me, capital gains tax, wealth tax, a lot of f questions about tax, but our, our toolkits are not limited to tax alone. We also have wealth transfers.
I'll, I'll take that as a maybe. Um, [laughter] a lot of, just the other issue about a lot of wealthy people coming here is that not all of them have been virtuous, if I can put it that way. You know, you had the money laundering, illicit flows. Yes. And you had the accusations about the US about one of the heads of the main Asian crime families being here. You've dealt with these things. But there is, and one of your ministers had a very nice Chinese saying, when, when we open the windows, some flies may also enter. And sometimes we get more than flies. Yes. But how many flies can Singapore tolerate, and do you need a bigger fly swatter?
We do have quite a big fly swatter. I mean, it's, we take it very seriously. It's not unique to Singapore. The illicit flows are everywhere. It's all financial centers have to deal with this. So to us, it's not so much about what, you know, that there is an incident. There's bound, there are bound to be incidents, and there are bound to be suspicious transactions, and then with intelligence, with cooperation across different countries, eventually, we get to the bottom of it. The key is what do you do? And we are very stringent, and we take swift action, and we will, we are determined to protect our reputation because that's what keeps Singapore going, a trusted business and financial center.
Can I, can I ask you about energy? I've been quite struck being here for the past day or so, is that a lot of people are talking about all those new data centers. Um, the idea that AI, particularly, will need more energy. You look at Singapore's energy at the moment, virtually all of it comes from LNG. Very successful. But the idea that somehow, in the end, Singapore has to kind of get energy of its own. And there, you're really in a choice about either trying to do something with one of your neighbors, maybe renewable thing, or whatever. The other big, very obvious option is nuclear energy. I mean, is that something which is become a much bigger part of Singapore's future?
We don't know yet, but we are certainly studying the option seriously. Um, there won't be an easy silver bullet in our case because we are small. We are unable to scale up renewable energy at, at the, in terms of the amounts that we need. Some of the solutions, as you highlighted, would include plugging into an ASEAN power grid, which we are building, taking time, complex, but it's happening. But still, we would like to have our own source of clean power. Hydrogen might come up as one possibility, but it's expensive. So, you could ship hydrogen and then burn it through a turbine. It's got lower emissions than LNG. That's possible. But, uh, we are also studying the possibility of nuclear power, especially when you look at some of the new technologies with SMRs, which are safer. We are looking at whether it might be possible in our context. We are very small. 750 square kilometers, or less than 300 square miles. That's tiny. Yes. So we have to take it, we have to look at the, look at it, consider the safety very closely before we decide, and look at the technology and how it's evolved.
Is there a kind of timescale on that? When do you think?
It, it really depends also on how the technology evolves. And as of now, we've been looking at different technologies. You don't really see very many operational SMRs, particularly small SMRs, which are grid-scale. We're not talking about the tiny ones like 50 megawatts. You know, those don't serve our needs, right? We're talking about grid-scale, commercial-scale SMRs, and you don't see a lot of them around as of now. Um, and so we are studying, looking at, you know, we are working with partners, including America and others, Europe, looking at the technology, understanding it better, understanding the implications, and then if we think it's possible, we will have to also convince the public that this is indeed a technology that is safe and deployable in Singapore. But we are not there yet. We are still at the very early stages of building up capabilities.
Many things about you. I ask you a personal question at the end. You know, you, you're the first leader to be born after Singapore declared independence. Yes. You, you were only the second leader outside the Lee family. We only had four Prime Ministers in Singapore. Not many people have had four Prime Ministers for that long. What, what makes the biggest difference to you? Is it that generational thing? Your, difference in terms of? Well, in terms of the way that you want to go ahead, that you are, you are somebody from a new generation of Singapore. Does that make a bigger difference to the way you want to lead Singapore over the next period?
I, I suppose me being from a different generation is part of it, but in terms of ethos, mindset, values, I represent the party, and the foundational values remain the same. We are here to build a better Singapore because history has never been kind to small states. And we know, despite our success these last 60 years, the world is a dangerous place. It's become even more dangerous. And our mission, my mission, is to keep Singapore going, not just in my term, but to leave behind a better Singapore for my successor and for future generations. So that remains the ethos, the f, the the foundational values in which my party represent, which I represent.
I, I keep going back to this very vivid memory of when I was in Michigan studying. I've told this story before, but not all the guests here might know this. There is a ghost town in Michigan, and it's called Singapore. Truly. Um, it was founded based around free trade and minimal government. I don't know. It was founded in the 1830s, um, near Lake Michigan. Why Singapore? Perhaps 1830s. Perhaps it took, it took, uh, inspiration from the fact that in 1819, there was this exotic port in the exotic Far East, founded by Sir Stamford Raffles. And so maybe the name traveled. It took some time for things to travel in those days. And perhaps it took inspiration from that. But, uh, Singapore and Michigan didn't last very long. I think about 50 years, it's overwhelmed by the shifting dunes. And now there's only a marker that says, this is where Singapore, Michigan, stood. We want Singapore in Southeast Asia to last for a very long time. That's my mission.
Well, we all hope you achieve that. Um, thank you very much, Prime Minister, for talking to us, and very much for hosting us here.
Thank you. [applause] Thank you.