Understanding China in a Fractured World, Chandran Nair in Conversation with Ronnie Chan

[music] Good evening. Uh, welcome to Asia Society Hong Kong Center, and we are so delighted, um, that you can join us this evening for a program, uh, Understanding China in a Fractured World. Um, it's a conversation with, uh, our good friend Chandran Nair, founder of GIF. And, uh, and Chandran, in a few minutes, will be in a conversation with our, uh, chairman, uh, Ronnie Chen, who I think just flew in today. I'm always happy to see Ronnie. Um, he, we don't see much of him these days, and whenever he's back in town, um, we try to schedule programs around him. But, uh, but it's great to see all of you here tonight. And I think you guys have seen the book, uh, out there, available, uh, Chandran's new work, uh, and with a lot of great collaboration. And we are so delighted, um, that in this fractured world today, that we can have a really thoughtful conversation. And it's always a thoughtful conversation here at Asia Society. We try to be balanced, and, uh, and I think, I think some of you mentioned it to me earlier, in this current time when the world is so unbalanced, organizations and programs like this are more important than ever. Um, I get nervous watching TV these days, so I don't watch TV, uh, especially the news. But I still want to know what's happening. And I think for me, that's why I do, um, think I have one of the best jobs for somebody who's curious about the world. Um, I think in this day and age, to be able to hear from some of these thought leaders here among our, uh, in Hong Kong, among our midst, um, Chandran, and, and of course, uh, last week, we, I think a week or so ago, we had Ronnie here doing, uh, what we think will be an annual chairman's, uh, dialogue. Some of you were with us, uh, the other day. And also the other programs that I also want to highlight, um, uh, while I have you as a captive audience, and, uh, is that we are going to be, um, doing an encore presentation of Four Trails. For those of you who have not had a chance to see this, uh, wonderful documentary, uh, was the second highest, uh, gross in terms of revenue documentary in Hong Kong. Four Trails was made by a Hong Kong young filmmaker, and it really makes Hong Kong a love letter to Hong Kong. Uh, the film had been showing in the theaters, uh, very successfully. And thanks to the filmmaker, we were able to show Four Trails last week to, um, uh, sell-out crowds. We're going to be doing it again next week, uh, in fact, uh, next Friday. And, uh, and by popular demand, we already have 150 people signed up, so it'll be done here in JC Hall. So, um, I think it'll be shown on the cafe, uh, flights again, uh, starting in February. But if you have not seen it, and what's great about a program like that is really hearing from, um, the participants of Four Trails, uh, here live on stage. So I would encourage you to sign up for that.

And another thing that we are going to be, you'll be hearing, you already heard about it through our EDM, is that on February 23rd, uh, we are going to have our, um, part of our 35th anniversary celebration. Um, the comedian, uh, Hong Kong-born comedian, Chinese-American comedian, Jimmy O. Yang, has agreed to be our, uh, Game Changer Honoree this year. So, Jimmy will be, we'll be doing a, a dinner, um, uh, Game Changer Dinner at the Hopewell Hotel. And please, those of you who are interested in hearing, uh, the fireside chat will be between Jimmy and, uh, Oliver Weisberg of Bluepool Capital. So, I would really recommend you guys sign up for a program like that, uh, which will take place on February 23rd, the Monday, right after Chinese New Year.

Um, I need to kind of really tell you more about Asia Society. And just before I get started, how many of you are not members? Quite a few of you. Uh, we're going to be looking out for you. And, uh, but, uh, jokingly aside, the reason is, um, we are going to this year have a lot of programs coming up, and members are going to have first priority. And I'll just give you a bit of a teaser. Um, as you know, uh, this audience would be interested. Our new, our 10th president has already been announced. Kevin Rudd will be returning as president of Asia Society. And it turns out, I think one of his first events as president of Asia Society will be here in Hong Kong on April 27th. We're hoping to do a program with him. Is that, in this day and age, even Kevin Rudd needs a work visa for working at Asia Society? So he has to leave Washington D.C., go back to Australia, get his work visa. In the meantime, he will be spending his time here in Asia. And, and I think Hong Kong being one of the biggest centers, uh, Kevin, we will be expecting Kevin Rudd and the global trustees here last week of April. So, a lot of these programs, we, by popularity, we are reserving it to our members and PC members, our President's Circle members. So, because of programs like this, um, I would really encourage you to sign up and be part of the Asia Society Hong Kong family. So, enough of my, uh, my, my sales pitch. And I'm so glad, um, that we have Chandran Nair and Ronnie Chen in conversation talking about China in a Fractured World. Thank you.

Chandran is a good friend. So, it's going to be a little, uh, informal. I hope you don't mind. Uh, first of all, tell us your name.

>> Chandran.

>> Chandran, what?

>> Nair.

>> Nair. Because a lot of people call you Trund. I want to make sure that everybody calls you by the right name.

>> I'm not bothered.

>> Yeah.

>> It's okay. But we want to.

>> Chandran is Sanskrit for the moon.

>> Yeah.

>> The moon.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. And, uh, your parents and ancestors are from which part of India?

>> From Kerala.

>> From Kerala. Okay. So you are Malayalam.

>> Malayali.

>> [snorts] Speakers.

>> Yes.

>> You speak Malayalam.

>> Not so good.

>> Not so good. Where were you born?

>> Susan.

>> Where were you born?

>> I was born in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. So my parents came, uh, just before the Second World War to Malaysia as, uh, my mom as a nine-year-old. I think it took her three weeks on a boat.

>> And from India.

>> From India. And my dad as a 19-year-old to work for the colonial administration. I think he worked as a clerk or something. Yeah.

>> So you never lived in India?

>> I never lived, but I've been many times.

>> But you've been many times.

>> I never lived. Yeah.

>> Right. But many of the Indians in this part of the world are from Tamil Nadu because it is in the southeastern part, whereas Kerala is in the southwestern part. You go to the Middle East, it's full of Malayalis.

>> Yeah. The Malayalis will take over Dubai.

>> Yeah. They already, I think they already did.

>> Right. So you were born.

>> I told my Emirati friends to be a bit careful.

>> [laughter]

>> Yeah. We'll be careful what we say. Anyway, uh, so you grew up in Kuala Lumpur.

>> Yes, I grew up in Kuala Lumpur.

>> Rather poor. Let's say not wealthy.

>> Yeah. Well, yeah. Poor would be a right way to say it. I mean, I was, I was one of nine. So, nine kids.

>> Are you Chinese? Oh, Indian. Oh, they are the number one country in the world now in terms of population.

>> Yes. So I was one of nine kids and, uh.

>> You know, we, um, but, you know, poverty is sort of almost subjective depending on what you've seen the world to be. So if you never saw anything else, uh, I think we were happy though.

>> Good.

>> Uh, we didn't waste any food, and I still have that mentality of being stingy with wasting wastage and feeling bad if anything's wasted. So, so I think those, uh, those things were good. And, uh, I shouldn't be saying this because my brothers and sisters will say, how dare you say those things. But I, I remember nine of us sleeping in one room in two beds.

>> Wow.

>> Yeah. So those. What, what number were you?

>> I was number seven.

>> You're number seven?

>> Yeah.

>> So you were under the bed.

>> No, we just got cozy.

>> It was just cozy.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay.

>> Hugging was allowed.

>> Yeah.

>> Oh, okay.

>> You sleep.

>> Did you go to school in, uh, in Malaysia?

>> Yes, I went to school in Malaysia. I went to missionary school and, uh.

>> And, uh, you know, all the missionaries and, um, they had a peculiar, uh, uh, tendency to cane young boys. But now I get it.

>> Yeah.

>> Wow.

>> You had to turn around and show your buttocks and they caned you. I think the Pope's looking into all of those things at the moment.

>> [laughter]

>> Oh no. Anyway, so did, did you ever go to college?

>> College, you mean university?

>> University. Yeah. Oh yes, I did. I was not good enough to get into the Malaysian universities at that time. The standards were very high in Malaysia at that time and few universities. And, uh, and I was very much playing sport, and I actually played for the Malaysian under-20 team hockey, and Malaysia is pretty high, the top five in the world at that time.

>> Wow.

>> And so my aspiration was always to try and play for Malaysia in the Olympics. But then I didn't do well at university, at school. I couldn't get into local university. So I went to, you know, the lowest standards in the UK.

>> Yeah.

>> I got in.

>> And you're a chemical engineer.

>> I'm a biochemical engineer.

>> Biochemical engineer.

>> At a time where, you know, that was the time that biochemistry and what is called biomedical science, etc., were infancy. So I did biochemical engineering, biochemistry, and chemical engineering. Yeah.

>> How long have you lived in Hong Kong?

>> Not long enough.

>> How long?

>> Uh, I've been in Hong Kong now for about 30-odd years. Why Hong Kong?

>> It's a long story. Before that, I was, I was in Africa for a while. So I.

>> South Africa.

>> I was in Southern Africa.

>> Southern Africa.

>> Uh, as a Malaysian with a Malaysian passport. Uh, I couldn't, Malaysian, Malaysia didn't recognize apartheid South Africa during the '80s when the liberation struggle.

>> You were anti-apartheid.

>> So I was in the UK. I worked in the UK for about two years in London. Paid all my debts. And there were a lot of African students from Zimbabwe, etc. And I said, I need to know what more about this revolution. So I gave up my job, uh, in London. At that time, you know, the aspiration of every Southeast Asian Malaysian was to get a work permit and live in London. And my mom and dad were horrified that their son who got a job in London gave it up and went to Africa to work as a volunteer. So I, I used my, sort of, water background because I was doing research on high, high, pure water systems for nuclear reactors and all of that at that time, and I found it a sort of a pointless exercise. So I went to Africa at the time where there was, uh, great, and it, nothing has improved very much in terms of, uh, the water decade. So I went to Africa, uh, to do voluntary work, but my underlying motivation was to understand the development conflict and the, the liberation struggles.

>> Do you know Nelson Mandela?

>> I never met Nelson Mandela, but I met Bishop Tutu.

>> Oh.

>> And I, I.

>> By the way, I hosted him in Hong Kong.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

>> When he was vice president.

>> Yeah. And I got, I also did an interview, if anyone's interested. In fact, I should put it on the internet, with Nelson Mandela's, the, this president-in-exile, Oliver Tambo, who many people do not know was actually, uh, one of the most, uh, important people in the struggle. Nelson Mandela rightfully got a lot of the credit, but Oliver Tambo held the organization together. He was in Zambia. And, um, he came to Malaysia in 1985 to receive something called the Third World, Third World Award from Mahathir, and he was in Malaysia. And I happened to be in KL for two weeks, and I noticed the whole, the media talked about South Africa, this liberation struggle, as something between just black and white people. And why don't 24 million black people just get rid of six million white people? Might have included Elon Musk at that time, I don't know. But, uh, why don't you just get rid of them? And they simplified it. But I had been schooled in the understanding this was a class war, it's an economic war, etc. So I asked the newspaper, the editor of the Straits Times, to give me [snorts] a press pass, and I would go and interview Oliver Tambo. Said, who are you? I said, well, give me a press pass. So I went to the hotel where Oliver Tambo was staying because they were very displeased with the way the media had covered the story. I went there, and then I dropped some of the code words and some of the people, and they said, who on earth are you? They said, come tomorrow morning, and Mr. Tambo will grant you an interview. So I did a two-hour interview with Oliver Tambo to explain to the Malaysian population that it was not simply about race. It was a class war. But race is, of course, an underlying sort of driver, which I also explained in my last book.

>> So you are a troublemaker from day one.

>> Uh, seeker of truth. I like to think.

>> Seeker of the truth. Okay. But how the heck did you become, uh, so, uh, you became the Asia-Pacific head of one of the biggest environmental, uh, consulting companies in the world. Uh, how did you become so, uh, mainstream?

>> So, my, my, my technical, uh, and professional experience was always in the environmental arena, but starting with water and wastewater. And so, um, you know, after, after five years in Africa, uh, I decided to come back to Asia. My parents were getting a bit older, etc., and I wanted to come back to Asia. So I, I, I, I went and did a degree, masters in environmental engineering at something called the Asian Institute of Technology.

>> Oh, yes.

>> So ideologically, as well, I mean, some may think I was stupid, but I had scholarships to go to Europe, USA, because I'd done my work in Africa. But I decided I should come back to Asia, which is what I tell a lot of the Asian kids. In fact, your scholarship students from, from Sher Jang, I, I spoke to 15 of them.

>> They're coming, sitting at the back now, I think.

>> Yeah, I spoke to about 10, 15, 20 of them last week.

>> And I, I said to them, uh, stay at home.

>> And build and build.

>> Okay.

>> And if you're going overseas, first go to India before you go to the USA.

>> I did, right? They will tell you I did. But, you know, it's just sort of cheekily suggesting to them that they should actually expand their worldview in terms of where to get knowledge, insights, and what they need to do. So I had moved on. And so I came, I wanted to come back to Asia. I went to the Asian Institute of Technology, did a masters in environmental engineering. I worked there, and then I got headhunted to come to Hong Kong for a global company. And, uh, I started with 10 people here and grew that firm to about five, six hundred people, 12 countries. And I dare say it is number one still. And when I grew it, and I, I also coming back to China, I set up the first environmental consulting firm in China in 1994.

>> Wow.

>> Before anyone was even talking about this. And I'm very proud of that, that it was the first international firm set up in China. But that was the time, the most of the clients were, and I suppose comes back to my interest and my observations and some of the motivation for writing the book as well, that at that time, most of the multinationals were coming into China, as you know, Ronnie, and many of them wanted, they were buying SOE-owned enterprises. And many of the American companies, companies in particular, being risk-averse, had protocols in terms of liabilities. So we were one of the first firms that doing all the audits for all the firms. And, you know, I always remember sending a team from Hong Kong, uh, to Shanghai, uh, because GE were acquiring Shanghai Electric.

>> Oh, wow.

>> And they had 60,000 employees. And the site was very old, historical, contaminated. And then there was this disconnect between GE's sort of, uh, expectation of what a site should look like and how the liabilities should be factored into the into the deal. So that's, that's when it started. And so I'm very proud that we, we started that. Then we opened three offices, Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou. And I think till today remains the.

>> So you've been doing business in China for 30-odd years.

>> 30-odd years.

>> But before I get to China, let me ask you something else first. This is not your first book.

>> No.

>> What number is that? Three, four, five, three?

>> This is four.

>> This is four.

>> Tell us, in no more than two sentences each of your previous three books. Uh, there's a reason for that. That's this guy thinks out of the box. Why is he my good friend? Because I learned a lot from him. And I have a lot of friends who are very, very smart, but they think along the line like everybody else. This guy doesn't. And that's why I want you to know what are the other three books that you wrote.

>> No more than one or two sentences per book.

>> But firstly, can I say, you're too kind, but thank you. I'll, I'll bank that one. Uh, the first one was, uh, on consumption and economics. Consumption and the first. And that was, in a way, I think, ahead of its time. It was essentially saying that all the issues we face, existential threats, essentially cannot be recognized if we do not come to terms with the fact that our entire economic model is premised on getting you to buy things you don't need with money you don't have. It's called overconsumption. Just go home and look at the wardrobe, the fridge. Okay. So, that's sort of like permeated the debt issue and said, if you don't control this, then we, the underlying thesis was that in 2050, and we're getting closer, if six billion Asians consume like the average American or European or Australian, game over. There's simply not enough. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know the resource base.

>> Not enough fish in the ocean. Not enough.

>> The fishes are already, the fish is already disappearing. There'd not be enough fish. And if you all eat chickens like, I have an interesting stat, I can't remember, but there, we'd be consuming like 20 billion chickens. And you know, most of the chickens you eat are not natural chickens. They all steroids and all the other stuff. And that was basically the thesis to get people to understand that we can't continue, uh, we can't consume to create prosperity. We have to consume for our needs, but we have to price things. And I introduced, which is a concept of how do you price externalities. And that's why we can't even price carbon dioxide today because we are not willing to trade off our consumption. And, and consumption is underpriced, and we externalize the cost. And CO2 is just the tip of the iceberg. We underprice water, everything.

>> So, basically, in order for humankind to remain on this earth, uh, the six billion Asians have to find a new way of looking at the world and consume or not consume and so forth, right?

>> The political economy. So the second book.

>> Second book.

>> So the second book answers that question to say, so people said, no, Chandran, you know, you can't talk to us about not consuming. It's the DNA of people to consume, etc. I say, it's the DNA of people to do many things, but we have rules. And the rules are set not by McDonald's, Nike, or, you know, uh, Hung Lung, right? Uh, it's set by the state, the institutions of our society. And so I was being challenged a lot, particularly in the West, by, with that book. And I actually was, I actually was invited by BBC to do a debate with, uh, with Stephen Sackur on that, on that. So the second book was essentially to say that, to, for Asia, Africa, etc., to navigate that basic law of physics, there's not enough to go around, right? Then what do we do? We need rules. And the rules will be essentially, uh, instituted by the institutions of our society. It's called the state. And I said, we will need draconian measures to curb our tendencies. And that's not authoritarianism, that's essentially within our limits. And we need a new political philosophy to help us to understand that because we have been following, and I'll broadly say, the, what I call the East India Company neoliberal economic model of the, theosphere. And that needs to be changed. And that's what I really, that book was about.

>> Wow. But you are Indian. India is not like that. But anyway, there's another.

>> I'm a Malaysian national. Yeah.

>> Very good. Okay. Got it. Uh.

>> But I got that Indian thing going too. Yeah.

>> Third book.

>> So the third book was then following up on that. And that's a bit more, uh, incendiary in terms of the title. And then I realized that the opposition to anything that should change was essentially rooted in the current models of globalization. And those models of globalization were essentially rooted in a Western paradigm. Uh, so I wanted to offer a non-Western narrative to the world. We needed to create. And, uh, so some people thought I was being anti-Western. It's not, you know, they're saying I have many Western friends. Uh, so I was being anti-Western. No, it's a non-Western narrative because the Western narrative, as we all see, is essentially the dominant narrative. And now it's colliding with the whole different realities of the world we live in. So that book was called, uh, wait for it. It's called, uh, Dismantling Global White Privilege. And my view on that was essentially much of the norms of what we, uh, understand about global governance, social economics, economics, the things that all, all of us send our kids to learn at kind of flat-earth societies like the Harvard Business School, etc., uh, is essentially old stuff. It's 20th century, 21st century. We need something different. And we need to look at those things differently. So I dissect about nine spheres of globalization and talk about a need to essentially look at it very differently. And for the Western world to also accommodate a new world order, a more multipolar world, in which the rules will be different, but where our rights and freedoms will be redefined, and how we understand what prosperity is, and those things. So it's called Dismantling Global White Privilege. And, and I argue that the guardians of that system, because of the old world, are basically Western institutions.

>> So now you understand, I think, why I asked the question about his first three books, because you have to take his view about China in the context of his intellectual framework. Right? So I'm going to be very unkind to you, Chandran. What makes you? There's so many books on China already.

>> Yes.

>> Who are you? What, what makes you qualified to write another one on China? And what's so special about your thesis that is worth your time writing and worth everybody else's money to buy a copy and then read it?

>> So, it's funny, you know, I thought you might ask me this question. Uh, uh, I, I don't see myself as qualified. I just want to write a book. Others will decide if the book qualifies as something that is a contribution, uh, to it. So it's not an ego trip. But, uh, there is a bit of a history to this that I want to add. And firstly, can I also acknowledge the people who sponsored this, uh, HSBC for their sponsorships, and also for Wine Sellers for their, for their contribution, my dear friend Greg. And then I'll also like to acknowledge a member of the Club of Rome, China, Professor Jinfang Zhang, who is here. Jinfang, are you here?

>> Yes.

>> Yeah, here he is. Professor at Peking University, and for many years, uh, ran almost the umbrella NGO in China around, uh, around biodiversity and conservation. And who, uh, for people who don't know, and I talk about it a bit, even took some of the state-led entities to court and won. So the people who think that you can't take legal action in China, he did all of that. So, um, the, the book was, uh.

>> By the way, he is a member of Club of Rome globally, internationally, not just in China. And you started, uh, the one in China.

>> With, with, uh, Professor Jinfang and two others. Uh, one was Professor Jorgen Randers, who was one of the original authors who did the modeling in the '70s around the Limits to Growth for those who are not aware of the Club of Rome's seminal report, which was the first report before even the North-South, Brandt Report, etc., that essentially said that we would essentially reach, reach a level where the world would not be able to sustain itself. And do remember that in 1970, the world's population was only three million.

>> Three billion.

>> Three billion.

>> No, it's 8.4. And in, in 1980, about 45 years ago, it was only half. So we, in 1980, the world was empty. Today, it's kind of full. So the exponential growth of the global population, uh, is what triggered a lot of my thinking. So when we formed, uh, the Club of Rome, China, the mission was twofold, um, generally. One was to enable Chinese policymakers. And my view, as I state in the book, is Chinese policymakers are very open to ideas from the outside. This I found refreshing. So we, as friends of China, but not apologists or anything like that, felt, given the esteemed sort of reputations of the other three, not me, um, we could influence. And they were all known in China. We could influence. But more just as importantly, was to get the rest of the world to understand what China was doing and create greater collaboration. This is at the time where the relationship between China, Europe, and the United States was so fractured that we thought, could we play a small part in creating dialogue? And all of us, including me, were getting invitations and requests from Europe, particularly, to create a dialogue with China. So when we started that, co-started, and we had done nothing, we had a meeting and we said, we need to do something. So I opened my mouth and said, I think we should write a book on understanding China. And they all said to me, you write it. Uh, so I took on the task, uh, of writing the book with support from my very esteemed, uh, uh, colleagues. And that was the basis for it. So I accept that even in this audience, there probably lots of people who know a lot more about China than I do, for sure. But this is not about talking about China and making an argument. This is essentially about laying down some facts, doing some research, and taking the position that, and which I hope I'm right, and we are right, that there needs to be a book at this point in time that just explains some of the most critical things one needs to know about China without taking sides. And one of the great difficulties we had was not bringing our own personal ideological views into the debate, into the discussion, which, as you know, for me, is always very difficult, uh, uh, and, and just writing that. So the idea was to put forward something, and we did research, and I couldn't find a book that didn't take a pro-China stand, uh, nor take an anti-China stand. You couldn't find these books. There were lots of very good books, as you say, which were either, China is terrible, it's going down, it's going to, you know, uh, uh, decline, or the others which were, China is the best place in the world, and the Chinese this and that. And there was nothing that didn't take an ideological position, but said, just here are some facts, and you decide what it is. And I think one of the difficulties we had, even with getting a publisher, was some of the reviewers didn't like the fact that there wasn't a critique of the usual things about China. And, and I had to repeatedly explain that was not the purpose of the book. But it does talk about challenges, weaknesses, and, and flaws as well.

>> So what do you, what do you see as the role of China in the world today? Uh, how it can destroy the world or how it can help the world. Uh, what role, uh, should China play? Uh, or given China's trajectory of where it is going, how would that impact the world, to the better, to the worse, or what?

>> Yeah, I mean, my, my view, and the view of those, uh, who helped, uh, but, you know, put it together, but I would, I would take blame for anything that is overstated in the book, because I helped, I wrote, I wrote most of it. My view is that, um, China's risks are not to the world. Its risks are more internal. Right? So if you look at, uh, things that could happen in China, those would be essentially, um, China's own weaknesses. Every country has its weaknesses, its mistakes, etc. All of that, and those would be Chinese, China's, and it would be contained. That's my view, right? Uh, because China's, one of the, the book, the book argues that China's success has been mainly because it is not overreached in terms of, uh, foreign adventures and things like that. Some may argue that the Belt and Road has the potential for overreach in some ways. So I don't see China as a threat to the world at all in terms of that its growth. I have, and some of my Chinese friends here will know, I have cautioned, and even when I've spoken at the 100th anniversary, etc., at an international forum in Hong Kong and elsewhere, I said that, and the Chinese were receptive. And this is why I have a very, um, you know, uh, positive view of the ability to intercept, the Chinese desire to intercept ideas, uh, and in the Asian way, you know, don't be confrontational, don't make people lose face. We all know that. But listen to each other. I have said that I think the biggest risk internationally, apart from the geopolitical risk, which, as we know, we could talk about endlessly for China, is the inadvertent sort of impact China can have on other countries by virtue of its huge size. And that comes back to my point about an economic model that even China embraced with WTO, which is based on essentially driving consumption. So wherever I go, I say to the Chinese, you got to go back to some of the more prudent Confucian thinking about, you know, not, uh, not promoting overconsumption. So, but if China follows the consumption model, then because of its size, um, its non-state actors can go all around the world marauding for resources. And those resources may not all turn up in China, they could go elsewhere. So one of the areas I have cautioned clearly, we know mining is one in Africa, uh, uh, fisheries, and I wrote a piece about this, uh, after I, uh, at the invitation of China Daily, after I spoke, to say these are important points. So I think China's risk is reputational, but also damage to other countries because it, because it's so big, and it needs resources. And in terms of seeking those resources, it needs to understand at the same time its promise, uh, uh, for peaceful rise and a commitment for a community for a shared humanity. That important statement too, I, I don't think is well understood, particularly in the West. And I don't want to sort of, you know, do a broad brush, uh, categorization, but that sort of philosophical, uh, uh, basis for China's development, uh, I don't think is understood in many quarters.

>> Well, um, from what I understand what you have said, um, without the Chinese government getting involved in regulating or, or whatever word you use, uh, its own citizens around the world, uh, China, if left to its own devices, I mean, the Chinese people, if left to their own devices, they are very capitalistic, very entrepreneurial, very hardworking, and they can do a lot of.

>> Terrible things to the rest of the world.

>> Like anybody else.

>> Like Europeans, Americans, anyone, business people.

>> Of course. But, but the Chinese have more people, and they're harder working than most of the, the other people.

>> And they are pretty.

>> And they are pretty smart, like everybody. Um, for example, there's a, a Chinese saying, "involution," right? Is that a word?

>> Yes.

>> Uh, "neijuan."

>> Uh, and I mean, if China were to export its "neijuan" to the rest of the world, that's disastrous for the world.

>> Yes.

>> And you destroy other people's small businesses, and then you destroy the medium-sized businesses, and then you destroy the national heroes. And China will make itself into a really bad guy. You don't need Donald Trump to say China is bad, China is bad, China is bad. China will prove itself to be bad. Not because of the government, but because of the private sector.

>> Yes.

>> So what can we do about that? The state has to somehow be involved, right?

>> Yes. So, I'm really, I'm really pleased you asked this question, Ronnie, because I've been saying this to Chinese friends in government and I know, or whatever, uh, and in, in other countries. So, this is the, the point you're making. If Rio Tinto, an Australian company, or an American company, goes to, um, you know, Iran or Papua, dig up the mines and create catastrophe, which we all know in, in all, you know, Boganville and all of those places, then it's Rio Tinto. When a Chinese company runs a really dodgy casino in, in, in Cambodia, or there are gangs, then by God, it's, uh, President Xi sent all these people there to plunder these places, and the police bureau is bad, and all of that. No, it's, it's supposedly the free world, the free market, etc. And so my argument to the Chinese is twofold. That firstly, this is a problem. If it's Rio Tinto, it's Rio Tinto. It's not Australia. If it's Nike, it's Nike. It's not, uh, the White House. But for you guys, it's you, right? So you have to do something different. And then the difference is, but China can curtail. It's the only country I believe, if it wants to, can curtail its bad actors. And that's something I have.

>> It should be a governmental initiative.

>> Yes. And because it has a different political system, it can control, it can essentially provide, and I, I use the word carefully, but I think it's important, punish those who go and plunder, do bad things in other countries, which all countries do. I mean, that's, that was what colonization was. That was what globalization was. I mean, I, I was just to give an example. I was a consultant. I was the first guy to get a call from Nike, uh, in 1998 or '99, when the story blew up about the, the, the children working in factories in Taiwan, in Cambodia, making shoes. Uh, I was the first because we were then asked to go and do the audits. Right. So, but the Chinese, uh, uh, need to be able to stop all of those things. And I think the state has the power. If there is one country where you can stop, have this to your, to what you've alluded to, it's China, because if it doesn't, then you are right. These companies, because China is so huge, can create, uh, lots of, uh, damage if they're not careful. Uh, because India is not gone out yet.

>> Yeah.

>> The Indians are just sending their brains to the US to take over all the big companies. But, and they will soon, we know, you noticed. Yeah. But the Chinese have already moved out. So they have to do something about this. But I also believe that the Chinese companies will improve their act as the standards go up. But let's just take Malaysia, my country, which has some of this. But it's incumbent on us. We're not some, you know, underdeveloped country with no tools to regulate. So we have to also be saying no to certain companies. Our regulations have to be better. Our levels of corruption have to be dramatically reduced to to protect us from all of this. And in Africa too, I've heard, you know, mostly China is welcomed, but there is a lot of small enterprises going into China. And African governments have to get tough, as must the Chinese government. You know, as I've told people, I said,

>> If you go to Africa and do business there,

>> Um, do business with the Chinese company, make sure it's a state-owned enterprise.

>> Because those guys are regulated.

>> Those guys don't go wild. The private sector guys, they are so entrepreneurial. Uh, and often times the ethics is lacking. And if you were to deal with private sector companies from China in places such as Africa, it can be disastrous.

>> Uh, but from what you have just said, Chandran, if you were to extend it the next step, if China were to be democratic like America,

>> God knows.

>> That would be disastrous.

>> It would be disastrous.

>> For the world. I don't mean for China only, but for the world, right?

>> For the world.

>> Am I right?

>> Well, I, I, I don't know if it's disastrous for the world, but I do think that.

>> Because the government would not be able to.

>> Regulate.

>> Control.

>> Regulate.

>> But it's, it's, I mean, that's what my second book was about. And I think these terms, democracy and all, and authoritarianism, etc., uh, are ideological terms that are used. Is, is the USA a democracy? I don't think so. Uh, you know, so you can argue all of these things. So it's essentially the nature of the political system to get the outcomes you want. And I think Deng Xiaoping talked about this. They said, it doesn't matter what color the cat is. And Lee Kuan Yew, prior to that, as well, said, you know, all of these terms are fine, but essentially, what we want is, how do we leverage the resources of the nation, social capital, human resources, to essentially get the outcomes we want, which is more equitable societies? All of the first parts, kind of what most people talk about, but actually, then we have not, we haven't got a credible society in which this fandom. I think for China, it is, uh, it is necessary to have the system they have, and they have to develop it. But in terms of the problem you mentioned, yeah, if it doesn't control these companies, then it'll have a negative impact around the world. And China's reputation, in my view, uh, will be easily tarnished because, you know, the Wall Street Journal is just looking for another Chinese company to to slip on a banana skin somewhere in Africa or somewhere else. Do you think that the, the Beijing government, Chinese government, is enlightened in this regard? Are you hopeful that they will do the right thing for the betterment of the world, and hence for China itself? Uh, or would they be following the West and so-called liberalize, uh, in which case, according to your thesis, which I agree, may be disastrous for the world, first, and then disastrous for China itself?

>> I mean, I can't claim to be an expert on reading the, the tea leaves. But my, at least in my 30 years of, 35 years, actually, I first went to Beijing in 1990. Um, and seeing, and remember, my observations of China come from not just having gone to China alone. I've been in Africa, of course, I've gone to India a great deal, and I continue to see. And I think India has a real problem because of its political economic system, large country. And the thesis of the second book was that large countries cannot have liberal democracies because the democracy, the democratic systems that are so fickle, which allow for incompetent people to get into power, etc., do not allow for us to, to navigate the existential threats of our time. 8 billion people, may be peaking at about 10. We are living in a very different era from when we thought about the East India Company and we talked about finance and free markets. We're living in a different period. So I think for China, I think the government, my reading from what I've seen, um, is constantly watching and looking at all of these things. And I think, given a conversation like us, hopefully, you know, is heard. But I've been saying it a lot, they have to control. And in the last couple of months, I've seen, uh, in my part of the world, Southeast Asia, the Chinese government actually, uh, cooperating with governments to arrest, uh, kingpins or what they see as undesirable activities. So to your larger question about democracies, I, I think I'll be provocative here. I think China is more democratic than India. But if you see democracy as just the sort of, you know, the facile sort of, uh, opportunity every four years to go and vote and say people have all their choices, then fine. But I would say, and I've said this in India, I think China is more democratic than India because if you look at, then what is the governance system you're looking for, whatever you call it, you're looking at outcomes. And you look at outcomes, which is essentially free people from drudgery. And you can't question that the Chinese system, whatever you want to call it, has freed more people from drudgery than any society in human history. And that doesn't mean there are not lots of imperfections as well. But if you were poor today, uh, would you rather be Chinese or Indian?

>> Oh, that's for sure.

>> It's very clear.

>> So what's the political system for? Whatever you call it, and you know, I have argued this with prominent Indians. [clears throat] Says, so I'm, I'm, I'm living in a democracy in India, but if I'm poor, the lights turn off, I don't have proper water, sanitation, nobody cares. The roads don't work. So I think that's really the more fundamental question. What's the political economy? Are people willing to put up with essentially, uh, tougher rules so that collective welfare takes precedence over individual rights? And that's really my, my thesis. And I think this is to, h, this does happen in many places. In my book, I argue that, uh, you know, Japan, uh, is essentially a society in which, no matter, you know, the elections, who cares? But Japan works because the Japanese people are obsessed with, believe in collective welfare before individual rights. That's why the toilets are so clean, right? I mean, a Japanese person who goes to the washroom understands someone else is coming. It believes in the collective. They don't throw things. They don't try and get away. So in Malaysia, when I speak, I tell my Malaysian friends, if we could just be 30% Japanese, we would be so good because we would. But it's that notion, and Korea has the same, I think, that collective sense of collective rather than individual. And, uh, the United States is all about the individual, and we see the collapse that's taking place.

>> Can I ask you one more question about India? Now, a lot of people say India is rising. Well, in some ways, yes, for the last 20 years, I've observed a lot of improvement in many, many ways. But at the same time, there's also a lot of things that has not changed. Um, and some things even perhaps gone backwards. How do you see India evolving? They are so, uh, proud of the democracy, and yet you have 1.4 billion people, you have poverty that you don't see in China, for example. So, so what will happen to that country? Will they become enlightened? Will you write a book on India after your China book?

>> Yeah, maybe. Uh, but I told your students the other day, who were all planning to go to the US, to go to India first, at least for a weekend, for a week. So Ronnie, maybe you want to charter a plane, take them to Delhi for a week, and get them to see stuff. Anyway, um, I, again, I don't claim to be an expert on India, but my thesis has has been, and in the.

Book I argue, you know, India is now there's more Indians than Chinese, right? Uh so I always say to my western friends, if you are worried about the Chinese, wait till the Indians come. I mean because they can talk, they can argue, >> he can talk, I can't >> and they can they can shut you down, right? and they were on your banks. Uh so the Indians haven't come out yet. Uh but when the Indians come it'll be a problem >> will they? >> Uh I >> as individuals Yes. Yeah. But as a nation >> so uh I say this carefully because you know whatever I see my travel back to Kerala my my relatives and all but they're all good communists in Kerala anyway so they they might understand but [laughter] the first communist state uh but anyway uh my point is that uh I think India is more a larger population one-third the land mass >> right >> one-third the land massed the most congested uh water uh uh deficit huge amount right so if you look at the largest state in India like UP Uttar Pradesh uh anyone know what the population of that state is 200 million one state water stressed so you can't solve those problems with democracy free markets and capitalism you're going to have to solve it with uh putting what I call you know the communitarian needs embedded in all the principles of your political system and that means you know not the Chinese system or whatever but it is a system that essentially has long-term planning essentially puts communitarian needs before and has uh meritocracy at the at the center which I talk about in this book and so I I think unless India does that and I was in India last year I had a debate with several Indians and you know I'm respectful of India because you know uh but I think Indians are so defensive and I basically my view is democracy will is the bane for India you cannot solve it >> it's it's a problem for India >> it's the it's and then the Indians are also you know because of culture and all of those things uh also been desensitized to poverty and I think the difference in China was the people who rose to the top because of the system and the the the the the party's obligations, the people who rise to the top, they have to show a commitment to communitarian needs and all of that. Only the best people can get to that. There's always a risk someone might not be, but they've had that and they are steeped and rooted in the idea of serving the the society. I I mean I I firmly believe that I've met so many mayors of small towns, two million people and these people work like >> small town small town small town >> and we go to India and do projects as well and uh you know I love going to India of course um but we do these projects you see no one from the government >> you don't >> you'll see no one from the government to come and meet you and talk about these things so I think India's problem will be that the the system it has currently will not serve its needs and as much as we've all said India has and this is why measures like GDP are very inaccurate you know the rich are getting richer but at the rural areas I mean I don't see any improvement uh I see little even in Kerala which most people here know is probably the most in terms of water sanitation education I think education highest in the world 99% literacy etc women's education >> it's certainly highest in the in in India. >> Yeah. But the but higher than the United States, higher than the UK, any European country even in Kerala. But the the problem uh the problem was the infrastructure is not what it should. So the GDP is a measure of we know the limitations of the GDP. I mean the the old saying is you can build more prisons which and then have good GDP. But if you spend money on decriminalizing and preventing people from getting into crime, that doesn't show up in your GDP. So I think India will have a massive problem uh I don't think it can navigate the challenges of the of its times through a democratic system. What it'll morph into, I don't know, but it certainly has to do something very differently if it is to serve the needs of the people. And you know, we're not talking about a couple of million here and there. We're talking about half a billion people who are disenfranchised in my view and Indians don't like me saying this but that is the truth. So what will India do? I don't know but the current system I don't think will work for it.

>> Back to China >> and in particular China's relationship with the rest of the world. Um [clears throat] what do you think is the most misunderstood thing of consequence? There's a lot of misunderstanding. They're not of consequence. So forget about it. What are the primary thing that you think America the West don't understand of China don't understand about China that they really really really should know.

>> I I think there's two my view to it is two things. Misunderstanding is one thing but I think there's more than misunderstanding. There is actually fear.

>> Right.

>> Right. And the fear is born out of a great insecurity. And therefore whatever you need to do to put these people down >> and and that I think is rooted in historical what I call the ex the exceptional uh exceptionalism of western civilization but perhaps uh most exemplified in the United States where you know uh the American exceptionalism is kind of out of control. it's on steroids but the but the western world and I again say this carefully uh is after 4 500 years of dominance and I feel the pain of my my western brothers and sisters um when you have been number one >> the one >> you have been number one 400 years of dominance >> yes >> no matter how liberal you are you still think you're better than those people >> right >> and that the liberal narrative camouflaged some of that and I I don't want to go into how I came to all that conclusions but I have watched very carefully having been a friend of many liberals as well camouflaged all of that >> and the China was in the same position in 1800 thinking that they are the best the the the strongest and so forth without knowing that that were the beginning of the fall >> yeah but they were not doing what was done what was what the eur what the west did which was to essentially dominate the world in terms of colonization and all that stayed at home. So I think all nations all of us have the the capabilities of overestimating our capabilities. So now I think the west and particularly the United States uh is fraught with the difficulty about accepting a non-Caucasian nation as its peer and I use that term because the I think it was the under secretary for state or the number two to the secretary of state inadvertently >> I think three years >> and happened to be a black woman said China is a new threat >> because we have never been faced by a non-Caucasian race and this was a black black woman. So I don't know what happened to black consciousness in the United States, but all my black friends are saying they need to leave and come to China or something like that. But the the but but this is uh this is deeply not not understood. This is fear. And then everything else that you say misunderstanding is partially concocted because you refuse to want to learn to understand. And today I think or he said yesterday the British prime minister is in China in Beijing today. yesterday. Yesterday >> Yeah. And you know the arrogance of saying because it's a local audience and thinking the Chinese are not going to listen to this and I we come back to how do you deal with people uh saying well I will have to bring up human rights abuses a government that's been complicit in what's happening in Gaza uh arresting its own people 60-y old people. So I think this is it's less misunderstanding. It's a refusal to accept the rise of another and then finding different ways to say all of these things because all you need to do even and I I'm not speaking here as someone who's trying to say China is great. No, all you need to do is go to China, but people like me have had the privilege. some of my student friends from these 80s in the UK. Uh I've been struck by how ill-informed they are, British friends, you know, uh well-learned and but they have no idea. They can't understand all of these things. So they still think it's all polluted, it's dirty, the the PLA is everywhere watching you. You can be kidnapped uh if you are not careful. and all of those sorts of things. So I think uh I at a at a policy level for politicians in the west I don't think it's misunderstanding. I think it's deliberate and the media as well because out of fear and I I've always said that China is not a threat. That doesn't mean China is going to be benign but it's not a threat to you in that sense at all. And there's much more to be gained as I argue in the book uh by cooperating with China to help China and for China to also help the the rest of the world and I I have said in the book that I believe that uh particularly when you we talk about the western world but we talk about India as well which has been extremely sort of you know confront not confrontational but taking the side of the west more but now toing relationships and I believe that the most consequential geopolitical uh relationship of the 21st century is China and India. If China and India can sort that out, you lift over a billion people out of poverty because that includes Pakistan. So Pakistan is no more a sort of you know this terrible place. India needs to make friends with Pakistan and then there's Bangladesh and of course the whole of Southeast Asia will rise as well. So uh I don't think it's misunderstanding. If that's the case, which I agree, if that's the case, the only way uh the west will wake up is when the reality hits them with a ton of bricks otherwise.

>> Yes, that's why it's reacting so badly,

>> right? But they need a lot more because they haven't woken up to the fact woken up to the fact that hey, maybe we should look at these guys as equals rather than look down on them.

>> It's very difficult, but it'll take time. It'll take time. It'll be very difficult. When my Indian friends tell me that uh and they have for many years said you're too pro-China, etc. I said look man, I'm not even Chinese. How can I be pro-China? I'm I'm interested in development. I'm interested in social justice. I I look at these things and I had the uh fortunate to look at Africa, see the injustices of the colonial era and then the injustices of incompetent governments in Africa after after liberation and it's not easy to be competent after 400 200 years and I looked at Southeast Asia. So when I came to China in the '90s, I saw a country that was very poor. Uh, you'd probably been there before me, but I I went there and I remember staying at the Beijing hotel my first visit in Tiananmen Square.

>> Oh, they won't take me

>> and Beijing because I look Chinese.

>> And and at that time there was no heating. There was a spit under my bed. I had a hot towel in the morning and I didn't have a key. The lady at the top of the corridor had the key and opened it. I said, "Wow, this is cool. China and there's bicycles and old Mao suits and I remember buying a old Mao suit and anyone wants to buy it. It's about 3,000 bucks. I'm selling it on eBay but but that was >> used one >> but that was the old China and then because of the work I was doing I think I like to think and which is why I felt maybe I should share I had an insight into the transformation of China through the lens of the existential threat facing China which was how do you develop and not ruin the whole country the whole what is called environment sustainability thing. So that was the lens through which I was seeing it and I saw this country that in my view no other country has done in such a and in such a large population. So that's how I started to look at the how China was essentially you know uh shaping the the future and its success.

>> Do you think that China is doing enough on the environmental front of which you are an expert >> have done enough? you. Yeah,

>> I think they are the leaders in the world. There's a lot more to be done.

>> Of course,

>> they're the leaders in the world by far >> such as >> everything from climate >> climate now they have to do massive cleanups because there's legacy issues of contaminated land. I think that'll be the next one >> the soil >> and now they are taking huge amount of effort because I think uh about 10 years ago the Chinese Society of um uh Science wrote a report saying that up to >> Academy of Science >> Academy of Science wrote a report saying that I think 60% of all arable land in China uh was polluted >> right degraded because of over chemicalization and China does arable land uh is actually quite small relative to the whole thing >> 11%.

>> Yeah, it's 11%. Uh and so China, India is a larger percentage of arable land.

>> 30%.

>> Wow.

>> So they have equally same amount of land except that China is always in the mountains whereas India is more flat land with rivers.

>> Yeah. So the contaminate the the arable land uh issue is a big one. But China have started doing something which is very interesting. They're starting to essentially dramatically reduce the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides using technology and using drones. And me and my colleagues 10 years ago met a Chinese drone company run by a young Chinese guy from Guangzhou where they were essentially mapping every square inch of land in all the non-arable land to figure out where the moisture content was. and then but in arable land mapping it out and they had drones that I don't know how adv more advanced it could be so that you don't had you don't have to spray a whole field >> right >> you could actually detect the the the plant the tree that had been contaminated that was being diseased or the one that needed uh fertilizer and you could target it they could even target it down to the branch >> wow >> right that was 10 years ago >> that guy spoke here by the way >> oh you know and and now what they're doing is looking at essentially I think the reduction of fertilizer using chemicals is the target is to reduce it by about 60%. Right? The next step clearly will be to start cleaning up the groundwater and contaminants. I think the easy pickings solid waste etc they have taken care of that which we call easy pickings but in most countries it's a tremendous effort to firstly you have to change behaviors. So those things have been cleaned up. Air I think is is much better. Industrial practices are much better from you know we've done audits and things like that. I think next is land, the food supply chain, water, uh water is much better and then clearly in terms of water a clear thing I mean three of the most important contaminants for surface waters is of course agricultural runoff they're reducing that then it's human waste sewage and I think they've done a tremendous job there I go to small towns in uh even you know uh some of the indigenous populations up in the mountains and they all have sewage systems. It's amazing what they have done in 10 years. So water is becoming better. Industrial pollution water under heavy control now and the fines are exorbitant even I think there was 10 years ago when they sent a strong signal there's even capital punishment for which is yeah uh capital punishment for a massive release of cyanide by a company. Well, then you're killing people.

>> You're killing people. So, I think that's that's where it is. And um but China needs to be very careful about its environmental footprint elsewhere, which is what you and I are talking about.

>> Well, I'm going to open to the floor. So, get your questions ready. My last question to Chandran is the following. Are you optimistic about the existence of our race 10 years from now, 20 years from now? Will things get better or do you think that things will continue to deteriorate like what has been happening in the last couple of decades?

>> Yeah. Uh I think I I'm uh I've been asked this question firstly from a geopolitical view. From a geopolitical view, I think um we [snorts] have uh perhaps another 10 years of turbulence particularly as the Americans uh get uh more realistic. I think America will continue to have and I think Pankaj said this a low intensity >> who said that >> Pankaj Mishra when you had him.

>> Yes. He spoke here a few months ago. And I I think America will have and I think we're seeing it a low intensity civil war. So that I think will preoccupy it. And in fact, the new national security uh strategy or whatever >> does point to the fact that America's greatest threats next >> will be internal. Internal in two ways. both uh the the struggle inside but also the fact that these absurd excursions into the rest of the world will invite will invite foreign interventions back into into the USA because I think the Americans cannot pretend that they're living in 1975 where they could go over uh you know send B-52s what they're trying to do with Iran now and there'll be no retribution. I think the technology has changed and I think people other countries are not going to put up with it. Bad actors just as sending your troops and other the American bad actors to invade countries, abduct leaders, assassinate people, others will come to you. So I think this is unfortunate for all of us in every country. But I think that if it happens will be in the next five years and then I think the Americans get tired.

>> You you scared ahead of me when there is asymmetric in terms of strength then the weaker party would have to resort to things such as terrorism.

>> Yes.

>> And now with technology as you mentioned uh people may have a way to get back at you know the stronger one. And that's a really horrible thought. But Ronnie, because we're talking very openly, you talked about others have to resort to terrorism. You know, when I was in Africa, uh we I was, you know, I was with the ANC, uh they were called terrorists. They were freedom fighters. So, we need to be very careful. The American troopers who went and >> Venezuela, >> they're terrorists.

>> Correct.

>> They're terrorists. those who went and did all of this and when they went to Afghanistan, talk to any of my Pashtun friends, they see them as terrorists. So, we need to be careful who we call terrorists because as far as they are concerned, we are fighting for freedom, liberation from you. And I I'll just say I guess I want to just make this point. When I was a kid, the thing that convinced me most to think about differently things was the Vietnam War. As you know, as a kid, we were being told, and this relates back, that the Vietnam War was about the Chinese coming to take over us because of the domino effect. And we in Malaysia had our emergency. It was all demonizing the Chinese. But nobody talked about the fact that the Vietnam War was essentially the Vietnamese fighting for freedom. They they beat the French and then they beat the Americans. So I I'm a bit careful about how we will use the word terror because if you are in Pak you are in Pakistan or Afghanistan and a bomb gets dropped on you at your wedding that's terror. And so I think we need to be just a bit careful.

>> Wow. Heavy. Okay. Uh floor is yours is open. Anyone uh raise your hand, tell us who you are and then ask a question. The gentleman at the back please.

>> Hello. Hi Chandra. Thank you for your sharing. My name is JF. Um my question is uh in your opinion where do you think are the weak links or pinpoints in the Chinese uh governance system? You know, again, I I don't play I don't claim to be an expert uh [snorts] on it, but I think the the pain points would be as someone from the outside looking in perhaps um perhaps a view within the public that power is concentrated in the hands of just a few people which I don't see as actually the reality but there is there is power. there's pain points and I think then in the delegation of uh of um actions through the system which can be abused in my limited experience uh working at different levels in China what I've seen since uh the last 15 12 years was what I saw as possible defects in terms of the the ability to Smith uh what was seen as important things to be t actions um have actually strengthened a lot and I'll give you an example I have good friends who live in remote areas of Gansu they are of they are of uh Tibetan descent etc and when I speak to them they said the last 15 years has been the best in their lives because they are they are everything has been uplifted and one of the things I thought was most interesting to me was when the anti-corruption drive was was put through was how one day when I once and I went there, they said all the government officials have been removed and all of those who built this very big building in a small town called Lingsha.

>> Not Ningxia but Lingshia which is about 2 hours 3 hours from Gansu have gone to prison. And I said why? The investigation had come and found all of them. And then I also found it interesting that they had lost properties to corrupt officials and they all regained their properties as well. So I think that's probably where the le the the the what I saw as weaknesses but I don't know enough to say what the internal weaknesses is. I mean the traditional ones would be that uh you know is succession planning done properly but then you'd look at democracies and you think is that succession planning? Uh good luck you know. So relatively I think those are the main areas. Uh you you will have factionalization as we are reading on a lot a lot at the moment with the the military uh leaders being changed and all of that but other than that I can't say I can comment much more about knowing it because I don't know enough.

>> I asked all the easy questions I expect you to ask all the tough ones. Okay. So, anyone the lady in the in in in the middle >> uh >> I'm Fanny. I'm a student at HKUS. Thank you very much for your insights this evening. Um being uh Hong Kong Hong Konger, um I would like to know your thoughts on where Hong Kong sits on the rise of China, how we can strategize our position um to regain our position in the world stage.

>> Have we lost our position? I didn't think so. But anyway, her opinion.

>> Thank you so much.

>> In terms of um you know, I feel like we lost our financial position, our industry to Singapore. Um and >> I don't know, but uh I mean I was having conversations both in Singapore and here the last week. I don't think Hong Kong has lost its position to Singapore. Singapore could never replace Hong Kong. But that is I don't think it's I think George and Georgio and others has said it's not a competition, right? I think for Hong Kong and I I I I consider myself someone who's worked on a lot of policy issues in Hong Kong from housing policy to MTR to airport and including the first climate change studies in Hong Kong. I think the pro the challenge for Hong Kong is we have to create a new story. And I think the problem is we still see Hong Kong simply as you know those of us who are part of the elites as we must regain our financial status. I think Hong Kong has to reinvent itself. more. I think if Hong Kong continues to just imagine itself as financial hub for China and the important pillars of the property sector then I think the eruptions that we saw seven five six years ago will come again because the marginalization of the un the 60% will return. So I think what's most important for Hong Kong is to say what are we going to do about the inequalities. The inequalities here are are just extremely steep for a rich a rich place. We have to do something. It's dramatic social reform. And I don't know if anyone government's here, but I don't know what the government's waiting for because otherwise this the problems will come back. And I for one am tired of, you know, Hong Kong continuing to speak about financial hub for Asia and this and that. I mean, that's old. We need to reinvent something and become part of the GBA, something different. I don't have all the ideas but that I think is a dramatic shift that we need to think about and my god we all bored of going to financial conferences and listening to the same old stuff about bonds and stocks and things there's not no other imaginative conversation and I I have actually suggested that Hong Kong actually builds itself as the intellectual hub of Asia the place where all the bright ideas get sorted out because we are close to China the shaping of the 21st century and create a whole new way of thinking about these things. So, uh I don't think Hong Kong has lost any of its position. It'll come back, but I don't think that's the best way to position Hong Kong in the future. We we need to move away.

>> Hong Kong is an intellectual center partly because this guy isn't around the gentleman in the middle.

>> Um, Basam [clears throat] Swiss Chair Hong Kong Chandran in this fractured world that we have as a title and the US abandoning the global system that they put in place after the Second World War, you see China recuperating their word on the cheap, financing the UN, trying to move the headquarters to Beijing, creating a Chinese NATO to defend the countries that are part of its sphere of in uh of influence.

>> Firstly, I I think you know again people like me um I've been super critical yet f yet you know of the United States for 25 years and when I used to even speak in auditoriums in Hong Kong people used to say I'm anti-American. I said I have no idea what you mean. I I like America, but I think it has abused the world system for decades. So when we say the Americans are now breaking the world system, they've been broken breaking it selectively everywhere. Right? It doesn't make them evil. It's just become now intolerable and mainly for Europeans because they've now come to how do you so when uh uh Carney said the new world order is being ruptured etc. I thought, which planet had this guy been on? Right? If you've been watching the UN General Assembly speeches for the last 25 years, there were brown, Chinese, yellow, black people coming on stage and saying the system is broken. It doesn't serve us. So, I think then to your second part of the question, and I I'm getting into geopolitics. So uh the second part of your question, my understanding is China doesn't want to replace the United the US as the as the you know the the financier of all of these things. That's my understanding. I think it wants to work together and I I don't know how many of you have heard of something called the Global Governance Initiative the GGI. How many of you have heard of it? Some of you but most a lot of people haven't heard of it. It's a different way of trying to organize it and I don't think China but I do agree with you that others need to step up. So I was asked you know the United States has taken all this money away. It's causing dramatic chain uh uh pain all over the world and I said we're going to have to suck up this pain for a little while because the rest of us need to step up. Having worked in Africa in development, I saw how much development aid was abused, siphoned off by [snorts] uh by development workers living wealthy lives and all of that. So I think we need to really come down in it because a lot of development aid also went to corrupt officials in developing countries, right? So if this is and the UN system is a wash with with abuse of funds as well. If you're a UN official, you just use you should travel economy trying to save the world, not first class. But so I I do think we have to adapt. So if there's a silver lining in the US cutting funds, it is that the rest of us will have to to wake up, better manage what we do, not be dependent. And secondly, other countries where there's real need to step up and maybe China is one of them, but other countries should also step up.

>> Dr. Dul and then the gentleman in front row.

>> Hi Chandra. Um I'm actually Ronnie's a student from morning side scholars. Uh I'm also I also did my postgraduate study at HKUS. So since I'm in kind of research field I have a question related to research. uh so we see that a a big country such a big country with so much population uh gets progress with well regulated right uh but in the research field it doesn't seem so uh in my research field I see uh in this year's academic conferences 70% of the actually increasing is keep increasing 70% of the papers research papers are coming from China uh and like Hong Kong and Macau uh but actually it's kind of covering rest of the world with some I'm kind of uh think is get polluted actually so it this evolution behind this evolution it is the well regulation in the academic system of China and a standard uh evaluation of professors all the scholars so do you think that um in in your view anything related to politics or economics that can explain this or u whether you think this will go uh worse and worse in the future. I mean worse and worse in terms of more Chinese research papers >> like the research quality getting globally affected by uh a country getting prosperous but the academic system is not that mature yet.

>> So you're saying the Chinese academic system is not mature yet its output is >> too much >> is too much.

>> Yes.

>> And therefore it might you said pollute the world.

>> Yes. Uh

>> is it is it too much if it is genuine academic work you know if it is plagiarism you know of course you have that too but if it is plagiarism of course it's bad so is that what you >> I don't know the facts but if that's the case it's no good of course uh you know but I think we need to be careful that when China starts to produce more scientific outputs then we say that's a problem uh but you know when the Europeans and Americans were dominating the field we saw is okay. Uh how much how much of us believe that everything that came out was also good. So I think we keep an open mind but I think it's up to China to decide and I think that that is a risk that if standards are being lowered and things are being just passed through uh then I would have thought that there are international standards for patents and all of that which are not controlled by China as far as I know and they should essentially raise the bar. Maybe the bar is too low and maybe that's why what you see as low standards in China are getting through. But clearly uh rubbish is rubbish and too much rubbish is no good whether it's Chinese or elsewhere. So I have a stickler also for high standards like you particularly in science.

>> The gentleman in the front row and then this other gentleman.

>> Hi I'm Premi. Um thanks gentlemen for your comments. Very sobering for sure. What are some rays of sunshine you can throw in our direction that are a little bit more optimistic about what advice you would maybe give to world leaders, business leaders on how do we move on a positive path forward?

>> Yeah. So um again it's a big question but I feel very I mean Ronnie asked me earlier do I feel positive? I feel very positive. I think we have a painful period we're going through. But anyone who thought that the decolonization period uh and if you look at history, the decolonization period essentially ramped up in the post-World War II in the 50s and 60s. And anyone who thought that that period essentially would define the next 300 years uh is naive or even the next 150 years is naive. If you've been colonized uh your mind is captured. So often I say that many of our elites even in my country uh the elites wanted the colonizer out but they wanted to be like them and pillage. My prime minister at the moment is in jail. He went to Cambridge I think and uh and many of the guys who've been involved in some of the biggest frauds all went to Harvard. Right. So so we need to be very careful about thinking that this period is the worst ever. I I think this is part of the normal part. So coming having spent time in South Africa many people say my god children it's terrible there now etc. I said you guys are naive. I think u Nelson Mandela South Africa became independent in 1990 when Nelson Mandela came out. It's now uh 35 years. If you've been colonized and stripped and castrated, taken all your rights away and not even educated your population uh for 200 years. Please do not expect the the population to essentially, you know, basically you've been hit by a train. Don't expect you to get out of the hospital the next day and because 35 years is the next day or the next week and come to work and be pro be be able. So I think it takes a bit more time. So the ray of hope for me is that the countries in Asia and Africa essentially begin to see the world for what it is. Essentially the view that the benevolent West will help that has been stripped. If there's something that Donald Trump has done as a favor, he's taken the mask off. He said we are white supremacists. I'm not saying Biden was the same, but we are white supremacists. wear a hegemon and all of you will need to essentially play by our rules or we will take you on and people are saying no more. So I think the the ray of hope is firstly independence secondly the wakeup call to many developing countries is you better take care of yourself and find cooperation with essentially neighbors and look at long-term stability. So I think there's a whole new script being written and I think there China, India, Africa and hopefully the EU and the United States will will come to that table. I think they'll take the United States much longer. But I think the Europeans already coming to the table to rewrite this sort of understanding of what we always knew which was unfair and things need to change work differently. But if we are the people who are the beneficiaries of the old system, especially finance and all of that, then be prepared for those rules to be kind of broken because new rules are coming in and it'll change >> and turn the table around with the west dominated the world for as you said 400 years with America being the top of the world for the last 80 odd years for them to turn around to accept guys with your skin and my skin uh it would take some time. It take time.

>> It won't be easy.

>> It can't It's not easy,

>> right? The gentleman in front, please.

>> Uh, thank you. Um, hi Chandran. My name is Julius. I'm another one of many US students here in this room today. I'm a guy >> student member here at ASHK. Not one of uh Ronnie's um uh scholarship students, unfortunately. But if he'd like to uh sponsor my last semester, I'd be more than uh welcome.

>> See how good your question is. Well, no pressure, but um um so I I'd like to revisit your political philosophy uh polit uh philosophy on political economy. Um I think uh there's one thing that um came up in your conversation with Ronnie that I don't think was uh fully addressed which is on the sustainability of uh economic models. uh you mentioned that the uh consumption-driven economic model is not sustainable for the billions of people in Asia just simply because of the scale but uh however uh I think many would also argue that China has also outgrown its current investment economic model which is why it's seeing the issues with uh involution and um uh and also the unemployment situation in China which is why the government is looking towards what labels at least nominally as demand driven or consumption driven uh economic systems. And um some of the points that you did bring up about uh the state's ability to um enforce uh I guess proper conduct uh domestically as well as overseas I don't think are things that are going to change uh through a transition from a uh investment model right now to a demand-driven model in the future. In fact, um, a lot of the areas that China does focus on, including, uh, equipment for, uh, renewable energy are, uh, goods that do subsidize, uh, environmental transformations all across the world.

>> So what's your question? [laughter]

>> Sorry, I I was getting to it in the next sentence. Um, how and you mentioned the Global Governance Initiative. uh how uh for your philosophy on political economy, how do you envision uh what suggestion would you give to the Chinese government on how to uh tell the world on how they can make this new um demand-driven system work without uh sucking up all of the resources of the world?

>> Well, uh, I I I don't know exactly what you would you're driving at, but my simple point that I made and you know, we are getting to the end of this is simply that whether it's China or the United States, we are going to have to curb how people consume by making sure it's priced properly so that we limit the draw on resources. I just give one example to make that point. This room is cold. Uh, it shouldn't be this cold. Why is it cold? Energy is too cheap. So if we priced it properly, then the the the pricing would ensure that people don't uh don't uh that the air conditioning levels and energy efficiency would be would be much greater. Uh and if you go to a hotel room, it's so cold you have to turn it off. So you you start to essentially put in draconian measures to essentially change our behaviors. You know, we don't let you drink and drive. those were draconian measures to change our behaviors. And I'm suggesting in a resource constrained world, we will have no option but to start to curb our desires to consume things that are underpriced, call it demand or whatever or investment. But my point is that we do not have enough resources to abuse essentially the resources in the way. And the early mechanism is price. And pricing requires us to essentially have a political economy that's able to dictate. And I use that word dictate. So I've argued in Malaysia, just to make a point, I live in a privileged area, right? Uh my electricity charges are the same as the people in the poor area living 3 kilometers away. I should be paying five times as much because today with the technology they can look at my tax code, look at my address and charge me that bill. And at the same time, if I want to sleep in the equator uh at 19° C, which if I was in charge would be illegal, right? Uh would so in Singapore, you can't sleep at 19° C, but that's me just being hardcore, right? But if you want to sleep at 19° C because electricity is so cheap, you go ahead and then we will charge you in the morning uh by the hour for the privilege and the ambient would be you could sleep at 24° maybe open the windows, have a fan. It's called living in the equator. It's called not indulging and then we would charge you. Similarly for showers uh no baths shower 3 minutes after 3 minutes we charge you. It's called the internet of things. And so that's how technology should be used to allow those of us who indulge and deprive others of basic rights um to pay for those privileges. That's called pricing.

>> Chris Louu from Los Angeles.

>> Yeah. I I have a question on the economic side. The K economy to me China and US is the same. The K economy means if you are in AI in technology in China, you're doing great. 200 companies going to IPO in Hong Kong, you're doing great. But if you are laboring, you are, you know, blue shirt factory worker, you are on the decline. Same in the US. But but the question is if AI can replace 100 workers supposed to be more efficient therefore um the world resources will be replaced because you don't need 100 people go to work polluting driving working the clothes so what what's what's your comment of the K economy right now in the US as well as China

>> uh uh meaning basically the the 1% % or the the small majority uh minority take all the cream that's always been part of the the economic system it's just got more extreme right so as far as AI is concerned I I believe it's the greatest threat to humanity right I mean all of you whether you're technologists or whatever you will know and you know I've been stunned by how uh people have been so blas about AI and how everyone talks about AI as as though it's benign and it can only be a But let's face it, all the technology and why AI is being overpriced and the bubble is going to burst. Uh is because it's a productivity gain. And when it's productivity gains, who gains? Not the people on the down floor. It's the people up because it's in a way it's the CEO's dream. No idiots working for me. I've got pilots or whatever you call it. They don't get sick and my god, I've got five years to make the money. Suck the blood out of this thing and I can go home. That's called AI intelligence, right? So my view is governments are going to have to step in with draconian ways to stop AI from essentially disenfranchising people. And I think the mayor of London just last week screamed out saying we are decimating the the city right with AI. But how is it that you know well-informed people are not aware what is technology about? It's productivity gain otherwise this is no value right and productivity gain is essentially displacing you with a robot and that means somebody else makes the margins but we can't have a world of no uh where there are robots so again my analogy is I think China will be the first to step in and take draconian measures on AI and I was at a conference in China which was all Chinese one day I was I think the only foreigner there I had someone whispering all the all these deep deep sea guys and all and I was I asked a question >> conference on AI >> AI all the top people and it was very interesting if I was at that same conference in LA they would have dismissed my question I asked them about essentially the societal impacts you know on and there was a serious conversation why I think comes back to the crux of the book there is a different cultural tradition in China there's an appreciation of authority and they know the state has a communitarian obligation and it will step in. And then I did an interview with one of the leading commentators in China where rather than he interview me, I interviewed him and my whole point was will China regulate? I believe it will. So I think you know most countries in Asia we will have to essentially uh regulate very highly heavily because this is

A, this is a, this is something that's going to destroy our societies. Apart from the fact the kids are all lost and they're all going to become zombies, etc. That's a different conversation. But in terms of the economy, it's a huge threat. We don't discuss it enough.

Can China be to do it? Can a democratic society like America? Cannot, cannot. But the Europeans are trying because, you know, there's a bit more awareness. But in the, but in the United States, the capture of the state is massive. Capture of the state by both Wall Street and tech companies. That's it. They are in the government. They are in the state. And the Europeans are trying, but, uh, when they tried, the Americans have always threatened them. Maybe now that they are liberated, uh, or attempting to be liberated, decouple, they will do it.

But we have no choice. I mean, you go to any large town in India, small town, 3 million people, a lot of young people standing around, a lot of young men sitting around drinking chai. They need jobs. And we need more robots like I need a hole in my head. They need jobs. And the role of the state is to provide them with meaningful work. So I've argued for many years, uh, Ronnie, that, um, if the, the tech companies win, the last war will be between us and the robots. But more importantly, I think that, um, we will need to essentially change the narrative again around employment, meaningful work, and how people can contribute to society rather than follow this dystopian idea from Silicon Valley because, again, because we are subservient to the those narratives. We don't have our own narratives. And I think China will be confronted with this massive problem, but it has the instruments, which is the role of the state to intervene. I don't think the United States has that, that capacity.

Last two questions, one in the middle and then finally the gentleman in the front row. You first, please.

Chandran, your earlord said that India needs to learn from China and implied that collective decision-making, prioritizing society over individual, is a decisive factor of growth. But we all know that there is no guarantee for a true rational government, and one might end up in a corrupt government without the emphasis for common good. So what exactly is something that other countries need to learn from China that would facilitate similar progress?

So what other countries need to learn from China? Um, I'm loathed to suggest that there's a Chinese model that others can learn something from because every country has a different history. There's a different cultural context and a different social economic pro socioeconomic fabric. But what I have learned, uh, and speaking to many from Southeast Asia, Middle East, Africa, that there has been in the last five years a realization that something is right in the Chinese model. They can't copy it, but they have to do something about it. And I think those different countries will be different things. Uh, slightly tongue in cheek. You know, when I'm in Malaysia, as you all know, we're famous for a couple of things. Uh, one is the biggest financial scandal in the world, and, uh, no one except for one guy gone to prison. Uh, no one else has gone there. Should be about 500 of them behind jail. 500. I've said this openly in Malaysia. So people tell me, China, what happens there? I say, well, I don't advocate it, but it's capital punishment. They say, we need that. I'm just saying that people are beginning to see things that essentially begin to define that the state either gets tough, tough in an era of, uh, where there's massive abuse of power, where people have concentrated the power like in my country, or at the same time, bringing order to things that essentially allow the average person to live a decent life. And I think these are very different things. When I'm in India, people say, hey, I heard it's very safe in Chinese cities. I said, if you're a woman in Beijing, you can walk at 2:00 a.m. No one's touching you. They say, "My God, that's priceless." Especially if you're a woman. I'm not saying all Indian cities like like this. Please, my Indian friends, please don't don't don't tell the Hindu Times that I said this. Uh, but but what I'm saying is those are priceless things. And I think other countries are beginning to see. And the other thing that's a revolution in China, which I've been, you know, is the environmental conditions. Littering at the moment. I was in Beijing and Shanghai, and I've been in China where the river in in Beijing that were, you know, today people swim. And when I was there in the '90s, that was so polluted. And people say, how did that happen? So that's, I think the things that not China, they should learn from, but they have to come to their own conclusions. But they can't if the political economy is so weak. And in my country at the moment, Kuala Lumpur is trying to put in a strict anti-litter. Oh, they they put they put two foreign workers in jail rather than the big culprits, the, you know, involved in massive amount of dumping and stuff like that, because the political economy is not strong enough and they don't have the infrastructure. So I think you have to build capacity, which is what I think China has built. And then you have to do it your own way. I don't think the Chinese model can be, you know, pasted on other countries. No way. Even the Singapore model, other countries can't follow. My country can't even follow the Singapore model, which is which is a light version of the Chinese model.

Last question, the gentleman in front.

Hi. Um, thank you for your, um, insights, Mr. Nair. Uh, I'm Justin. I'm from Macau and I just graduated from Schultz Scholars. And my question, relatively simpler, I guess, is about, um, how, um, the Chinese, how should the Chinese demonstrate, um, or change, um, Westerners' perspective to China? And like, as you said, um, just now, um, it t it takes time. And then one possible approach would be like the Chinese build their own media, like media influences a lot, right? But this may polarize the world again, uh, in terms of information and media. And I understand that it may take time. And what's at this point, at this current, um, period of time, what should the Chinese, what can they do to slightly start to speed up the perspective change in the Western world?

You know, in some ways, I don't think it's China's responsibility to to educate the rest, but it is a responsibility to behave well [snorts] in the global arena. But I don't think you should feel, oh my God, we need to make sure these people know that we're nice people, that we are not nasty commies, and, uh, all of this stuff. And that, uh, so I mean, people like us, uh, and there are other people like Christine and, um, Richard, etc. What we do is just write and explain things, right? But I'm not Chinese. So I don't think we should make it into, my God, the Chinese need to explain. But then there is the propaganda side, right? And on the propaganda side, the Western media has, uh, uh, 80 years' head start. You know, I was, uh, a colonial subject in Malaysia, 80 years old, and I'm listening to Elvis Presley, right? My mother's homeland band's music, I thought is backward because the propaganda was, my God, that's all old stuff. You don't need to do this. You need to learn. You need to understand what Cliff Richard's singing. So it's capture of the mind, right? That's soft power. And then the American soft power became something that we all thought was good. But a lot of his was garbage, sorry, you know? So people say Hollywood was, but a lot of it is garbage. I'm not saying there weren't some good films, uh, but Coca-Cola is soft power. Come on. McDonald's is soft power. It's junk food. So, but it was propaganda. I don't think China should do propaganda. But, but so I would argue that, and I've said this, uh, China needs to be more sophisticated. Uh, it quite, it doesn't quite understand PR. Sorry, my friends in China. Uh, uh, it needs to understand PR. It needs to play the game, but it doesn't need to play it the same way. And so, I've argu I've suggested that China should do more cultural exchanges. When I was a kid, one of the things in Southeast Asia was that those Chinese cultural troops used to come, and we used to see all the gymnastics and the circus, and we used to really be, you know. And all of that's gone. And now what China is doing is, you know, diplomatic missions, and we're doing investments and roads. Bring on the soft power, which is not manufactured. It's not yesterday. It's hundreds of years of civilization. Take it around the world, and, uh, people will appreciate that. Writings, calligraphy, art, bring it to the world. It's so old. And someone like me, who's had the opportunity to travel around the world, uh, and particularly China and India, I mean, it's just immense. Every province has something different, just like in India, every state has a different sari or 20 different sari types, handmade. That's the power. That's what you need to show. So that we don't think Chanel is the, you know, epitome of fashion and perfumes and stuff like that. So I think it's more more that than making an effort. But China's already got CGTN and stuff, which is quite fair. I find CGTN is not CNN.

Ladies and gentlemen, you think it's a good program? Thank you. [applause]

[music]