Transcription
There is no question that the US-China contest over the medium-term will accelerate. That's a given. Why? Because there's an iron law of geopolitics. Again, going back 2,000 years. Whenever the world's number one power sees the world's number one emerging power about to overtake, the world's number one power says, "Okay, my time is over. I concede my seat to you." Never happens. The world's number one power will always push down the world's number one emerging power. Under it, it doesn't matter whether it's US or China. You can put any kind of country, Russia, America, anything. Doesn't matter. It's mechanical. The world's number one power always pushes down the world's number one emerging power. When you listen to interviews with American officials, they are determined to stop China. Determined. And if they're determined to stop China, what should China do? Say, "Okay, I won't grow." But the Chinese don't grow, they don't take care of the poor people, they don't grow the middle classes. They have to grow, keep growing the economy. So this contest between us and China is locked in.
To help us make sense of the coming chaos, we have a man who has helped build Singapore as a trustworthy and reliable partner in the world. He is a diplomat, scholar, and one of the most clear-eyed strategic thinkers Asia has ever produced. Some have called him the muse of the Asian century. This conversation that I'm about to share with you was filmed live in front of an audience of young leaders that was curated together with the National Youth Council, and we're glad we can share this with you online today.
"First of all, thank you very much for having me here and thank you very much for spending an evening with me. I hope you don't find your time is being, uh, wasted."
"Well, on, on, uh, geopolitics and, and where we are in the world today, the first point I want to emphasize to you all is that many Singaporeans don't understand that the almost 60 years of peace and prosperity that Singapore has enjoyed makes Singapore very unique as a country. Okay. Uh, if you look back in the year 1965 when Singapore became independent, around that same time, the British left behind multi-racial colonies in almost every corner of the world. Okay. And you travel around the world, you, if you go to South America, you have Guyana, multi-racial colony left behind by the British. Uh, you have several in, uh, Africa. Uh, you had Sri Lanka in South Asia. Uh, you had Cyprus in Europe, you have Fiji in South Pacific. All these multi- and every country I mentioned so far, you go and check, has had some kind of trauma, either internal or external, as part of its history. So the most, the thing that surprises me about most Singaporeans is that they're not aware of how unique Singapore is and how amazing our record is, you know. And, and, and we were, we actually were, were just like them. I mean, in, uh, a couple of years before we became independent, during Confrontasi, a bomb went off a few doors away at McDonald House, as you know. And that bomb had a very important impact on Singapore's few history, by the way, 'cause as you know, we caught the two Indonesian Marines and, um, Singapore, believing in the rule of law, put them on trial and said they should, President Suharto asked, uh, the Singapore government to, uh, you know, provide clemency and let them go. We said no. Then the Singapore, uh, embassy, you must have known, was burnt. And as a result of that, relations within Singapore and Indonesia started off on a very sour note. And I mentioned that because the logical consequence of that incident could have been what you have today between India and Pakistan, and, you know, uh, between Israel and its neighbors, and, you know, the differences between Japan and, uh, China. You could have all those kinds of differences happen. So why didn't relations within Singapore and Indonesia go bad? Why not? And the simple answer is that our, our founding leaders were geniuses. Absolute geniuses. And I say this with some confidence because I've actually, the one advantage I had in my life is that I've actually met, shook hands, had conversations with many world leaders. And so I can say with great confidence that our founding leaders were superior to most world leaders, you know, and they were able to make tough decisions and at the end of the day paid off, uh, for Singapore. So going back to the McDonald House incident, we could have had decades of suspicion, anger between Indonesia and Singapore. But fortunately, we had a very smart ambassador, uh, in Indonesia called Lee Kuan Yew. And then Lee Kuan Yew told Mr. Suharto, there's a very simple way of solving this problem. Follow Javanese tradition. Go to the graves of the two Marines who were hanged in Singapore. Sprinkle flowers. Their souls will rest and peace will come. Very simple, right? And it's just imagine that something as simple as that, brilliantly done at the right time, closed a very painful chapter, and then we could build and transform, uh, our, our relationship. And, but today, you live in a world where countries just cannot even say sorry to each other or talk to each other. And that's why you have this incredible amount of discord, uh, in the world. So I, I want to emphasize to you all that the reason why you have had 60 exceptional years is because of brilliant minds working very hard to plant the right seeds for Singapore. And so because they planted the right seeds, the right plants emerge. You have deep roots today, and we are, above us, there are lots of invisible trees that are actually protecting Singapore. I mean, I give you one simple example. You compare our region. When was the last time our region saw a major war? 1979, right? That's, uh, 47 years ago. Why? Because there is an umbrella called ASEAN that was created. It took decades and decades and decades, and that's why you're enjoying the peace. And I mentioned this because many Singaporeans, number one, are not even aware of ASEAN. And those who are aware of ASEAN read what The Economist says and what The Financial Times says and rubbish ASEAN. So because all these Anglo-Saxon media rubbish ASEAN, Singaporeans rubbish ASEAN because they're sophisticated, they read The Financial Times, they read The Economist, and in so doing, they're shooting holes in the umbrella that is protecting them. And that's the danger if we don't realize what is protecting us and what is giving us this peace. So we must find out what is it that is giving us this peace, and then cherish it, protect it, and nurture it."
"The last we spoke about a year ago, the world was surprisingly less turbulent, which was ironic 'cause at that time I thought, 'Liberation day tariffs.' I thought, 'Wow, the world is like, this is the worst it could get.' Apparently, it could sink to a new low. I want to bring us to a current theater of conflict, the Iran war. So the war, as we understand it now, is in a fragile pause. There are large-scale airstrikes that have eased, but the ceasefire is shaky, of sorts, and in some cases have already been violated. The Strait of Hormuz remains that critical pressure point, I think Iran is using, uh, maritime access precisely as a leverage point, and the US obviously blockades, the blockade. Um, and negotiations remain unresolved. One of the points you made earlier in some of your previous discussions and interviews is that you said that the US has misread, uh, Persian civilizational logic. I'd like for you to explain to us what, what it actually means. What does that entail for them to have such a fundamental misreading of the situation?"
"Well, I mean, on the, uh, Iran, I, I call it the Iran-Israel war. Basically, the war is fundamentally between Iran and Israel. But because Israel, as you know, this is not a secret, has a lot of influence on the United States, Israel is able to influence the United States to, to go along with it. And that's a reality. Although I hope some of you may have read the article in The Straits Times today by The Straits Times correspondent in London, Jonathan Eyal. It's an article worth reading saying that for the first time, public opinion in the United States is turning against Israel, and that's actually a very unwise thing for Israel to do, to alienate its strongest, uh, constituency, uh, that it has, which is, uh, the United States. But in this war, I would say both sides have made, uh, strategic mistakes. Uh, in the case of, uh, Israel, for example, uh, one reason why Israel was able to persuade, uh, United States to join the war, and this again is documented in a, in a very long New York Times story that describes a meeting that took place. I don't know how, I don't know how The New York Times got all the details, but they did get the details of the meeting, and no one has challenged it. Uh, uh, a few, a few weeks before the conflict started, uh, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu went to, uh, Washington D.C. in the White House, gave President Trump a briefing and said, 'This will be quick and easy. We can go in there, decapitate the Iranian leadership, and, uh, the regime will collapse, and we'll declare victory and we can go home.' That's almost exactly what Bibi Netanyahu said. And he told President Trump, 'You got to rush and make a decision because he had the specific date when all the top leaders would be meeting in the open at a, at a particular venue.' And sure enough, the Israeli, Israeli intelligence is amazing. By the way, how, how Mossad was able to penetrate, uh, Iran is actually quite stunning. It's amazing. And they knew exactly which nuclear scientist where he would be at what hour. And so they knew exactly where he would be at what hour. It was to kill him at that precise place at precise time. Now, that, that's extraordinary intelligence, by the way, extraordinary. So clearly, Mossad's performance was very good, and so President Trump believed what Bibi said. This will be an easy war, and President Trump likes quick, short wars. He doesn't like to stay, get engaged in long wars. So he bought it. And of course, then he discovered that, excuse me, Iran is not Venezuela. The reason why Iran is not Venezuela is because Iran represents one of the oldest, strongest civilizations in human history, Persian civilization. And the Persians have been fighting wars for 3,000 years. The Persians have had many near-death experiences from invading hordes destroyed the country, and Persia revives. It's a very strong, heart civilization. And so the decapitation, instead of weakening Iran, actually suddenly gave it this powerful burst of energy, and Iran said, 'Okay, I will now respond.' And so they responded very powerfully by closing the Strait of Hormuz. And it's, it's stunning that no one anticipated that. That should have been anticipated. It's something the Iranians have been warning they could do. And sure enough, the whole, the whole world economy has suffered as a result of that. But the, the other factor that is really helped, um, Iran a lot is that President Trump's main concern is the November midterm elections. And if the oil prices remain high, if inflation increases in the US, if food prices go up in the US, it is guaranteed that the Republicans under Trump will suffer enormously in the November elections. And the Iranians are sophisticated enough to understand that very well. So even though they, they took, Iranians took a severe beating. Okay. I mean, the, the Israelis and Americans could bomb any part of Iran, and Iran couldn't stop the bombing. More, any other country would have surrendered in day one. Right? Just imagine we sitting in Singapore, planes come and bomb us, and we cannot stop them. How, what will we do? The temptation to surrender should be very strong. Iranians didn't surrender. In fact, they were able to retaliate very strongly. So I think both sides have underestimated, uh, each other, and now there's a recalibration going on where both sides are trying to understand exactly where they stand, uh, vis-à-vis each other. And, uh, nobody can tell you exactly what will happen the next few days because President Trump, for a start, he will surprise us, but he will also surprise himself. He will do things that he would never even consider doing today. So he, he's an, he's a very difficult man to predict in any realistic way. So he could go in either direction. He could step up the war, or he could say, 'Okay, the war is over.' And nobody knows which way he's going to go. Feels like reality is becoming a reality show."
"The other tangent that I thought was worthy to explore, and maybe this is also because of our foreign relationship with the US and Israel, is that there's also the question of Gaza, right? I read this report that the World Bank put out says that Gaza needs an estimated $71.4 billion over the next decade to recover from these two years of war. And that seems to be essentially the floor, not the ceiling. So, as the war continues, it's probably just going to increase. That bill is just going to increase. And when I was reading the book on, um, Singapore's 50 years of relations with Israel, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the former foreign minister, pointed out that, you know, Henry Kissinger always argued that grand solutions were not possible and one should take small steps that open up possibilities for the future and let history find its course gradually. And this is in reference to the two-state solution, which Singapore has consistently and persistently advocated for. But the weird paradox to me seems to me that as time has passed, that solution seems further and further away, almost to a point of structural impossibility. Is that diagnosis a bit too grim?"
"Uh, you want me to make the crowd even sadder?"
"I think when you talk about the reconstruction of Gaza, I think even before we go to reconstruction, I can tell you that the living conditions of the millions of people who live in Gaza is absolutely awful. Okay? Awful. I mean, they don't have shelter, even, okay? I mean, forget schools, forget hospitals, they don't have shelter. And quite often, they have difficulty finding food. So they, they are among the most miserable people on planet Earth. And I can tell you that what happened in Gaza has damaged the standing of the Western countries in the eyes of the rest of the world, 'cause the Western countries always said that we oppose, oppose the violations of human rights. We oppose genocide, and everything. But when Gaza came along, they kept absolutely quiet. And that really is, has damaged them enormously. Here, I want to emphasize that none of this condones the terrible attacks that Hamas made on October 7th when they killed so many people. That was wrong. We condemned it. But still, when you respond, there, there are ways and means of responding proportionately and also respecting international humanitarian laws. Most of the international humanitarian laws have been violated in Gaza, and all the European countries who used to preach to Singapore, you know, 'You must defend human rights,' and all that, kept absolutely quiet. And even some of the leading human rights advocates in the US kept absolutely quiet. Right? So that, that's the impact of, uh, uh, what Gaza has done. Now, in terms of its impact on the two-state solution, the Israelis, I think, uh, certainly the, the Prime Minister no longer believes in a two-state solution. Uh, they're trying to go for a one-state solution, and I think the one-state solution ain't going to work. It won't work. There's no way you can get rid of five, six million Palestinians, right? You have to find a, a, a solution for them. And, and, uh, the tragedy here is that none of the friends of Israel have given Israel some honest advice on how it should manage its future. Because in the short term, there's no question that Israel is today, by far, militarily the strongest power in the Middle East. Amazing. I mean, Israel's military capabilities are stunning when you consider their population is only what, uh, five, six million Israeli citizens, right? And don't forget, even among the, let's say, this seven million Israeli citizens, they also have some Arabs that they don't use as much. They have Orthodox that they don't fight, or so on and so forth. So despite that incredibly small population, they have developed astounding military capabilities. And even, you take the neighbor, Egypt's got a population of, uh, 80, 90 million now. What's Egypt's population? 80, 90 million? It's much, much bigger. If there's a war tomorrow between Israel and Egypt, Israel is going to win, right? So there is, because they have amazing capabilities today, they assume that they can remain militarily dominant forever. But in this belief, the Israelis haven't studied history. No power remains dominant forever. Others will become strong, and it will certainly be the case. Right? At the end of the day, the Israelis must remember that you cannot forget there are about 1.4, 4, 1.5 billion Muslims in the world who have become very angry as a result of what they see happening in, in that part of the world right now. Clearly, they're weak. They're not able to exert themselves, but that will change too at some point in time. So it is wiser for Israel to make peace while it is incredibly powerful today, then we can get the best possible peace deal, rather than to drag this out and wait for another day, and then you never know things may change. Because one, one of the things about history, you observe history, no power remains number one forever. The power rises, the power goes down. And so, I, I always say this as a friend of Israel, I'm advising you to make peace now because I see you walking towards a cliff, and if you keep on walking, you'll go off a cliff. So, I, and as a friend of yours, I'm saying stop walking, turn around, find a peaceful solution. Yeah."
"You know, if you ask the average Singaporean, like I speak to my friends, uh, my Muslim friends tend to be obviously more aggravated. But even my friends who are not, like, religious or whatever, like, we obviously feel that this is a humanitarian crisis, at the very least, in that context, right? Like, as a young Singaporean, they don't even see that there's a possibility of like, seeing, you know, this is friends, for example."
"What would your advice be to them as to like how to actually read the situation, not be too emotionally stirred?"
"Well, I mean, the, the, the one big lesson that I learned from, uh, Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, and S. Rajaratnam is that when it comes to geopolitics, if you have a contest between two people, one is, one is rational, cool, and calm, and the other is emotional, the rational, cool, calm person always beats the emotional person. So when it comes to issues of geopolitics, do not become emotional. Calculate everything in a very cool, calm, rational fashion. Because the world will remain a mess in many parts of the world. We cannot fix it. We'll have to accept whatever is happening in the world. Live with it. Try and manage it. Try to be helpful if we can. I mean, I'm glad that I'm really glad that Singapore has sent so much humanitarian supplies to the Palestinians. I think we should send more. That's something concrete we can do. We can, we should keep on doing it. But beyond that, we are, we are far too small to fix an, a problem like Israel and Palestine. I find it helpful to have private conversations in my Israeli friends and private conversations in my Palestinian friends and telling them, you know, this is how I think you can try and find peace, uh, with each other. But we cannot get, uh, involved in, in too stark a fashion. So, but it's not just that, that doesn't apply to Israel or Palestine. They apply to any other, uh, issues in our region, within Philippines and, uh, China, you know, within India and Pakistan. They don't get involved. That's not our fight. We have to let them figure it out."
"One of the, you have is that if Singapore can't affect change in our small way, we make use or leverage multilateral institutions. And have you seen in the past two to three years, multilateral institutions, you name your WTO, the World Health Organization, the UN, they've only become increasingly weaker. There seems to be a form of like structural decline to a certain extent. Where do you think, uh, the future of the UN lies? I know you are an optimist, but just from the way things appear, you know, it seems increasingly pessimistic for, say, multilateral organizations. But I'm happy for you to, you know, give us a hopeful note."
"Well, I mean, uh, I'm glad, uh, you, you, you express deep pessimism about the US."
"So you can look better, by the way. I'm very optimistic. But what do you do, you know?"
"Because you see, this is a perfect example of how Singaporeans' minds have been captured by the Anglo-Saxon media. Right? The Anglo-Saxon media rubbishes the UN. Okay? So we Singaporeans, we must rubbish the UN too, forgetting that the reason why small states survive is because of something called the United Nations Charter. Remember, before 1945, it was perfectly okay for a powerful state to conquer its neighboring state. The 1945 UN Charter changed everything. He said, 'No, you can no longer do that. From now on, any state that invades and occupies a neighboring state pays a price,' including the international community saying, 'No, that's wrong.' So that fundamental turn in human history has benefited Singapore. And even though the UN as an organization is performing very badly, we should also know why it is performing badly. It's not because something is wrong with the UN. It's because the great powers want to weaken the UN, right? And, you know, the great powers, like, even at the height of the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union disagreed on everything, they disagreed on everything except one: when it came to the UN, we must keep it weak. And therefore, they, they had a policy, both of them, saying the, the only criteria, the most important criteria when it comes to selecting the UN Secretary General is that he must be spineless. Now, when an organization picks spineless leaders because of the United States, so, and the five permanent members, right, of the Security Council, of course, the UN is going to be weak. But who made it weak? The great powers made it weak, right? And, and, and it's actually absurd that we don't point this out. By the way, one of the most interesting conversations I took part in personally in the mid-1980s, uh, 40 years ago, uh, our then Foreign Minister, Mr. Dhanabalan, was talking to the then US Secretary of State, George Shultz. And George Shultz, as an American, was complaining, 'Look at the UN, it's so weak. It's so badly managed. It's wasting money.' And Dhanabalan was very smart. He said, 'Mr. Shultz, you're right. I agree with you. Who the UN is very weak. Why don't we now pick a very dynamic, entrepreneurial person with courage and integrity to run the UN?' And you know what? George Shultz blushed. He literally blushed. He saw. He knew it was the United States that was picking these weak secretary generals. And the United States saying, 'Why is the UN so weak?' I mean, you know, as I said to the BBC yesterday, you know, selecting the head of the UN, which is now going on now, it's not like the Catholic Church. When the Catholic Church selects a religious pope, they pick, they look for the strongest possible individual, high levels of integrity and moral courage, and then you become the pope of the Catholic Church. In the UN, you have lots of integrity, moral courage, character, disqualified. Cannot be Secretary General, right? I mean, so you, this is crazy. It's the Western countries have weakened the UN, and then they say the UN is weak, and then they complain, and Singaporeans agree. I mean, it's absurd. You should tell the Western countries, 'You weaken the UN. It's not that the UN is weak. The UN can be strong tomorrow, easily.' But remember also, at the end of the day, and this is absolutely critical, the UN is a voluntary organization. You don't have to join. It's voluntary. You can quit anytime. Tell me, how many countries have quit the UN? It is such a terrible organization. Why hasn't any country walked out? Why hasn't the United States walked out? Clearly, there's something very valuable and precious in the UN Charter. So why are we Singaporeans aping the Anglo-Saxon media and rubbishing the UN when it is clearly not in our national interest to do so? And we should expose the Western countries and say, 'You guys have got double standards. You're weakening the UN and then you're protesting about the UN and holding back money to the UN.' It's absurd. So this massive hypocrisy, we have to expose this. Not just this, just one area of massive Western hypocrisy. Fortunately, my hobby in my life, which is beginning to be very profitable, is I love collecting examples of Western hypocrisy. And if you know some good ones, please email me. I'll put them in my next book. Thank you."
"You know, I, I have to say that, uh, the, the diagnosis that we had was that it's weak. I think you have pointed out the cost, right? So it's, it's weak. But just given the stakes of what it is like, what, what could we do, right? Like, at the end of the day, like you said, it's the leaders of these great powers that decide who gets to be the head of the organization, to a large extent. Singapore's a price taker. And obviously, when they see that it's weak, they're like, 'Hey, there's nothing much we can do here.' So I'd like for you to kind of show us, you know, how can Singapore actually use these platforms, you know, to actually help create a better?"
"Well, I think we should be like Dhanabalan. I mean, Dhanabalan said directly to George Shultz, right? And told him, 'Excuse me, why did you pick a strong secretary general?' So, there's no, why, why can't we, why can't we say that directly to the Americans, to the Russians, to everyone? Say, 'Okay, you think the UN is bad, pick a strong secretary general.' Right? So we know, we should, we should be able to say these kinds of truths clearly and directly because that's those are the, the facts. And, but at the end of the day, remember, as I said, that the, the nature of world history has changed since 194, since 1945. It's true that countries have been invaded. Vietnam invaded Cambodia, US invaded Iraq, and US invaded Grenada. So this has happened, clearly it happened. So international law has been broken. But just like in domestic, in, in any country, in Singapore, murder is banned, but murders happen, right? So in the same way, in international law, there are violations. But the question is, how are the violations handled? And at the end of the day, you know, most countries today, overall, still respect the principles of the UN Charter, and that's a fact. And the fact that that carries on is something that we should celebrate, right?"
"So essentially, like, it goes back to, I think, one of the points that you made earlier about multilateral organizations like ASEAN, is that sometimes when you don't have a sense of how good things are going until you see how bad things become. And in the case of the UN, is that even in those cases, we tend to underappreciate the value it brings. Do you see an off-ramp coming, or do you think that this is just a pause, and that things will only get worse in the, in the near or medium term?"
"Well, I mean, the, the US-China relationship, by the way, is complicated, and that's why I wrote an entire book on it. Has China Won? And actually, I'm very happy that I've had, uh, fairly senior people from China and senior people from the United States of America who've read my book and say it's a fair and balanced book because it tries to explain both the Chinese point of view and the US, uh, uh, point of view. And there is no question that the US-China contest over the medium-term will accelerate. That's a given. Why? Because there's an iron law of geopolitics, again going back 2,000 years, that whenever the world's number one power sees the world's number one emerging power about to overtake, the world's number one power says, 'Okay, my time is over. I concede my seat to you.' Never happens. The world's number one power will always push down the world's number one emerging power. Understand? It doesn't matter whether it's US or China. You can put any kind of country, Russia, America, anything. Doesn't matter. It's mechanical. The world's number one power always pushes down the world's number one emerging power. So the determination, I mean, when you listen to interviews with American officials, they are determined to stop China. Determined. And if they're determined to stop China, what should China do? Say, 'Okay, I won't grow.' When the Chinese don't grow, they don't, they don't take care of the poor people. They don't grow the middle classes. They have to grow, keep growing the economy. So this, this, this contest between us and China is locked in. Okay, locked in. Will it relaxate? But then there are ups and downs along the way. And I can tell you that nobody anticipated what happened this year. I didn't anticipate it because when the United States increased its tariffs to China to 145% right last year, the Chinese could have done nothing, or they could have retaliated. And the Chinese found a weapon to retaliate with, and they managed to cut off the supply of rare earths and magnets, and the US discovered very quickly that the US economy cannot function without Chinese rare earths and magnets. And, okay. And this, this is an example of Trump being very pragmatic. By the way, President Trump said, 'Okay, I can't, I can't push them down this one. I have to compromise.' So Trump lowered the tariffs. Chinese, uh, restored the supplies of rare earths and magnets. And so now you have a, as you said, a brief, a brief, but it's very brief. This is temporary. Both sides will still find ways and means of, you know, getting advantage with each other. So the contest will carry on. How, where it will emerge, how it will emerge, where it will pay out, you cannot tell. But the contest will remain. But, but if they can at least try to avoid the worst-case scenario of a direct war with each other, that's all we need to be in this region. We should try and put, ensure that we persuade them, don't go for all-out war. If you do, then all better off. And I think that can be prevented. And again, the reason why I wrote the book, Has China Won, is that many Singaporeans think the answer to any problem is passivity. We can't do anything about it. I actually found that if you write about something and you write something reasonable, people read it, and it does have an impact. When even someone senior in the Trump administration read the book and said, 'This is a very good book.' Right? So you can make an effort to influence minds and influence policies. Don't just say, 'I can't do nothing about it.'"
"If you want full access to the transcripts of every episode, just head over to ykeith.com and you'll get full and free access to each transcript. Now back to the show. I read your book, The ASEAN Miracle. I, I think we can't deny the, the miracle of peace that ASEAN brought. But there are two critiques that are very familiar. I think it's that one is that the member economies of ASEAN often compete for the same FDI rather than complement each other. So you don't really have regional development that comes with regional integration."
"You don't really have regional development that comes with integration. Then the second is that we are not really helping develop each other. So the, the level of development within ASEAN has relatively been quite lagged. Um, that's something that I think Juwono from Indonesia pointed out as well, that I think two out of the 10 ASEAN member states have kind of reached developed status. That's Singapore and Brunei. Malaysia is quickly catching up. And a less discussed point, which I think you pointed out, was also that Asian countries or ASEAN countries tend to be more silent and polite in the space of greater great power rivalry. And you said that, you know, actually, the, the ASEAN states or Asian countries should actually do more to deescalate because China is a geopolitical reality that we can contend with, and if the US wants to leave, they can. My, my question is then, in that case, how will you strengthen ASEAN to be more better equipped in deescalating conflict, that we have competition but not confrontation?"
"Well, I mean, um, in the case of ASEAN, I always say ASEAN is a very imperfect organization. Incredibly imperfect. But, you know, when you want to measure organizations, who do you compare ASEAN with? The only way you can compare ASEAN with is compare ASEAN to other regional organizations of developing countries. And there's a very simple question: Name me one organization of developing countries which is doing a better job than ASEAN. Name me one. Right? I can take it to Latin America. They have Mercosur, right? Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and all that. You know what? In, in ASEAN, the leaders meet every year and talk to each other. In Mercosur, the leaders don't talk to each other. The leaders of Brazil, Argentina don't talk to each other. Okay? And then you want to travel across to, you know, Africa. Look at the incredible amount of conflicts going on in Africa. You want to go to the Gulf Cooperation Council, look at the internal divisions down there, right? And then you go to South Asia, you have South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. SAARC. They haven't met in 10 years. 10 years. I say there's two meetings a year. Every year. I mean, people who say that ASEAN is bad, what are you comparing ASEAN to? And trust me, the European Union, which is supposed to be the gold standard, right, for regional cooperation, and in some ways they are, because there's zero prospect of war between any EU member states. But if you want to meet the most depressed young people in the world today, go to Europe. Just go to Europe and talk to the young people down there. They see no great future for themselves. And Europe is becoming a wonderful museum for the whole world. That's what it's becoming. ASEAN is not a museum. ASEAN is growing. And in the decade 2010 to 2020, all these poor developing countries in ASEAN developed more global economic growth than the entire European Union did. Now, that's an amazing achievement. Okay. So ASEAN's growth, if you look at it, compare region by region, no other region can match ASEAN. So when you try to make this imperfect body perfect, you'll destroy it. Don't try to make it perfect. Leave it as it is. Let it go. And ASEAN is like a crap. Takes two steps forward, one step backwards, one step sideways. That's how ASEAN moves. Don't try to change it because that's not, if you try to take an imperfect organization like that and try to make it perfect, you'll destroy it. Enjoy the imperfect regional organization you have because you can all of you now not worrying about bombs coming through those windows, right? That's because of ASEAN. Enjoy it. Appreciate it. And if I, if you can join me, every morning I wake up, I worship ASEAN. I'm not, I'm not exaggerating. I'm serious. This organization has been so brilliant in taking the most, the most diverse region of planet Earth. Okay? I mean, I, I'm astonished that Singaporeans don't even realize that you're living in the most diverse corner of planet Earth. There are 700 million people in ASEAN. You are 250 million Muslims, 150 million, uh, Buddhists, 150 million Christians, Mahayana Buddhist, Hinayana Buddhist, Hindus, Taoists, Confucianists, and there are lots of communists also. But, you know, please travel around the world. Please, please go anywhere in the world. Tell me where do you have Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus all living in peace with each other. Tell me, name me one place. So, you know, you don't understand that what ASEAN therefore has done in taking this hugely imperfect region and delivered peace and prosperity is an absolute miracle. Do we thank ASEAN for this miracle? No. We join The Economist and we rubbish it. That's what the Singaporeans do."
"Okay. On that note, I'd like to transit to the questions. Uh, I don't think we're rubbishing it. I think we see it for its imperfections. But I have to say that the Singaporean and Asian in us always strives for perfection. You know, they always joke, right? When you get 90 on the exam, your mom always asks, 'Why not 91? Why not 92?' I think it's in that, in that spirit. So it's not necessarily rubbishing, but just that we hope for a better future in that regards. Uh, and the lesson I learned is that don't try to transform a crap into a tiger. I guess, uh, I'd like to start a question that was top-voted here. And if you have questions, I'd like for you to raise your hand, then we can, we can join the mic runner. So if you have questions, actually, can raise your hand now."
"First of all, love the candid conversation. Um, I have a slightly contrarian view to what you said about the United Nations. I don't pretend to be an expert, but the way I see it is, first of all, there's a structural problem with the, uh, permanent council, which was there with the ability to veto resolutions. Second of all, do we need the UN to have more teeth? Do we want it to be the policeman for the world? Is that the direction of travel that you think the UN could be more effective in report cost?"
"Okay, thank you. Uh, there are two good questions. One is about the veto, and the other is about being the policeman. Uh, about the veto, the politically correct answer is vetos are bad. I mean, because, I mean, in theory, right, in, in any country, we believe in Singapore, every citizen should have one vote, right? And if one citizen comes along and says, 'No, no, no, my vote is a veto. If I say no, you must all say no,' right? We don't allow that. So internationally, we should also say all countries should be equal. But, you know, the founders of the UN were much more brilliant than we are, 'cause they saw clearly what happens to the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations. Why did the League of Nations die? The League of Nations died because the most powerful member, the United States, left the League of Nations. So the founders said, 'Ah, how do we anchor the great powers in the UN? Make sure they don't quit the UN, because if they quit the UN, the UN becomes useless. You must have the great powers in the UN.' So the founding fathers gave the veto as a way of grounding them, them to stay in the UN. And more importantly, the purpose of the veto is to ensure that the United Nations does not make a decision, for example, to enforce sanctions on the United States of America. Can you imagine if you try and fight the United States? The UN will die. So when the UN veto, when the US vetoes, the US is preventing a contest between the United Nations and the US, and therefore saving the UN. So it was brilliant of the founding fathers to create the veto. But the only mistake they made was that it was meant for the great powers of the day. The great powers of 1945. This is 2026. They're no longer the great powers of the world. And that's why I wrote a column, which I'm surprised The Financial Times published, saying it's now time for the UK to say, 'Okay, thank you very much. My time is up. India, can I give you my seat?' And the reason why UK should give India the seat is because, you know, UK colonized India for 200 years. It's time for payback. We give them a favor. And at the same time, in the year 2000, the British economy was 3.5 times bigger than India. Today, India is bigger than the UK, and by 2050, India will be four times bigger than the UK. So logically speaking, UK should, should gracefully give up its seat to India. And I'm surprised no Indian leader is calling for it, you know, but I'm trying to help India out by making that, uh, suggestion. So the veto will have to remain, but it has to be transferred to the great powers of today. That's the change that they have to make. Uh, and the second thing on the policeman, the, the UN actually, when the great powers can collaborate, then the UN does a brilliant job. And if you go back for a brief decade in the 1990s, there was a period when the UN suddenly, when the Soviet Union had collapsed, and Russia and US and China were getting along quite well in the Security Council. All of a sudden, all kinds of long-standing conflicts disappeared, including the Cambodian conflict. Why? Because the great powers agreed with each other. So when the great powers agree with each other, the UN peacekeeping shot up, and it did function, it did his proper role. So when, when the UN doesn't function, it doesn't mean something is wrong with the UN. It means that great power relations are bad, and that's a consequence. That's why the UN is weak. So I, if tomorrow, for some reason, not, it won't happen, but just imagine it happening, United States and China fall in love with each other, boy, the UN then everything will happen at the UN again. So it all depends on what happens among the great powers."
"Uh, this one is about the idea of Singapore joining BRICS. And I want to link this back to a bigger matter question about sacred cows. When you become successful like Singapore has, there are certain precepts you take to be doctrine or to be truths. And there might be sacred cows that emerge. And you argue that, you know, Singapore should kind of take a fresh look at BRICS. We should try to participate in it. But at the same time, someone like Donald Trump sees BRICS as a rival to a US-upheld, a US-led institution. And I think many American leaders also had the same view. How does one kind of make that shift in this coming multipolar world? How could we see ourselves, maybe perhaps being embedded in BRICS in the future?"
"Well, I mean, uh, in this world, there are sunrise organizations and sunset organizations, right? So clearly, it's in Singapore's interest to join sunrise organizations and not sunset organizations. I give you an example of a sunset organization is a G7, right? The G7, when it was started, in theory, represented the most powerful economies in the world, and when it started, it was a meeting of peers. You know, the Europeans could speak to the United States, uh, candidly on a level playing field, and all that. Today, when you attend a meeting of the G7, I say it's a meeting like a meeting of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The seven dwarfs have no, no say at all in what the G7 does. They, the Europeans have become dwarfs. I, I'm not exaggerating, you know, I'm, I'm serious. They've become dwarfs. They can have no impact in terms of their, uh, policy. And so it's clearly not an organization that is going to rise. And G7's share of global GDP, you observe it decade by decade by decade, is going down. Obvious, they're not growing, so it's going down. By contrast, the BRICS' share of global GDP is rising. So BRICS, obviously, is a sunrise organization. But they have got lots of challenges, lots of problems. And certainly, the two biggest members of BRICS, India and China, don't get along very well. Then BRICS has a problem, right? Because the two big, the two biggest members don't collaborate with each other. That's a challenge. But they have found ways and means of getting along with each other, and they both want to keep, uh, BRICS going. Uh, I'm not advocating that Singapore join BRICS, and we are too small to do so. But we can find ways and means of working with BRICS, you know, and, but we should work with everybody. And certainly, for example, there's some an organization called OECD, which actually represents mostly Western states. There's no reason why Singapore can't join, not join OECD, work with BRICS, but we should look for multiple options. And, but do so slowly, carefully, and, and without any, uh, sudden, uh, changes. But overall, the critical thing is, by and large, you know, the, the good news for the world is that most of the countries of the world are operating peacefully and trying to find peaceful ways of growing and developing. And so we should increase our connections with as many countries in the world as possible. And, but not just focus only on the European countries."
"Yeah, we can go to the next question as well."
"Thank you. Thank you for your sharing. Uh, my name is Clarence. Uh, I was previously a trade negotiator at the ASEAN platform. So I can understand, I can relate to the initial big crap. Yeah. But, my question is again on ASEAN. Um, actually, given the, when, when the TA and Gordian conflict was happening, I wonder from your perspective, especially when Trump has come in and and positioned himself as the broker, do you feel that"
Any one point, the prospect of this ASEAN was, uh, was in danger of being eroded. My second question on ASEAN, I think we have seen also the tariffs, the, uh, the tariffs from the, now that I think ASEAN, on one hand, we said that come together, but we ended up individually negotiating and talking to, uh, to the US. So, do you see it also as a sign that, um, when, when the, when, when the stakes are high, um, each country, they will, they will re-end for themselves, they will defend their own interest without regard of, um, ASEAN national organization? So, uh, yeah, we're just wondering what's the impact of the miracle that you have described. Thank you.
Yeah, glad that you experienced the imperfections of ASEAN as a trade negotiator. Uh, but it's important to bear in mind that when we first started trade negotiations, our permanent secretary, Ministry of Finance, was Mr. Nyamong Dao, a very impatient man, and he went to Indonesia thinking that Indonesia could agree within 24 hours. Then he realized that in, in ASEAN, just wait a few years, just wait a few years, and then the answer will be yes, just, but don't, no rush. Uh, now you pointed out the two, uh, imperfections of ASEAN, and you're right, in the Thailand-Cambodia dispute, the latest one, uh, ASEAN didn't intervene. But by the way, the previous one, we did. The previous one, under the Indonesian foreign minister, Marty Natalagawa, he actually went to try and fix things, help, uh, Thailand and Cambodia. So, uh, you're right. We didn't do that. And I'm glad that President Trump intervened. I'm very happy because any man who pushes for peace is a good man. Very simple rule in life. Any man who pushes for war is a bad man, by the way. Uh, so, um, and but then that's exactly ASEAN's imperfection. Now, I can tell you, if ASEAN had not existed, that war between Thailand and Cambodia could have accelerated very fast, and they could have deployed more troops, more, more soldiers would have died fighting each other. Guess what was brief and restrained? The fact that it was brief and restrained was because there was a very strong informal peer pressure from the ASEAN countries pushing them, calling them, "Please stop this, please." There were lots of private phone calls going on and so on and so forth. So there was peer pressure, and that did help to restrain the contest. Now, can you imagine if you can do the same within Iran and Israel? There's no such peer pressure. They don't belong to any common organization, no peer pressure. That's the difference. Uh, and then the, uh, the second one on ASEAN countries negotiating individually with the United States. There's no choice. Our economies are very different. We cannot agree on one package to deal with the United States because our needs, vis-à-vis the United States, are very different. And so it's, it's good that all of us are, uh, negotiating individually and finding solutions, as long as the solutions don't damage your, your neighbors, and they don't, because all of us are trying to get the best possible deal, uh, from the United States, and, and some will get it, and some won't get it. Uh, but that, but the critical thing is also, please remember that you must also, in these negotiations, take the long view. And we've had instances in the past where some administrations have paid less attention to ASEAN, and so ASEAN resolutions go down, then they're replaced by administrations which love ASEAN, like Barack Obama, because Barack Obama grew up as a child in Indonesia, speaks ASEAN, Indonesia, he knows where ASEAN is, so he loved ASEAN, so relations, they improve. So, that, so we have to learn to deal with, take a long-term view, and not be, be, get not get frazzled if, okay, one or two years we have difficulties, they'll pass, things will change. So we must learn to be patient in these issues too.
There is this question about the precedents set by the Iran and Israel war, and if we were to zoom out, right? What does this war, and maybe the action that's going on, be it in the, the blockading of the Strait of Hormuz, or the fight, the greater fighting that's happening in the Middle East? What are some of the longer-term fallout that you foresee that will reshape the world in ways that you think many people are not paying enough attention to?
Well, I think the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a violation of international law. That's very clear because it's an open strait under the UNCLOS convention. And I think Singapore's position saying that it's a violation of international law is correct. But at the same time, when, if you want to make sure that Iran behaves as a responsible stakeholder in the global system, and you want Iran to say, "You know, please observe international law," you must also be able to say that the attack by the United States and Israel on Iran is a violation of international law. So you can't tell one side, "Hey, obey international law," then tell the other side, "No, no, you don't have to obey international law." I mean, the merciless bombing by Israel, the killing of its leaders, it's a, it's a huge violation of international law. So let's ask all the parties to respect international law, and then you can find a solution. But you can't just say to one side, "Respect international law."
Is this going to be a world where international law is kind of going to be disregarded, or at least as secondary, as long as it's not vital for my survival? Because in the past, we see that as great powers see their interest, they don't really care about international laws, right? Do we see more of that happening, not just within the great powers, but any powers that say, "Hey, we, we want to secure our own national interest. We can disregard international law." Is that a world we're entering?
Well, my, my answer to the question, and forgive me, I, I, I'm getting all repetitive. I always ask a simple question: Is international law a sunrise trend or a sunset trend? Simple question. Let's take a vote. How many of you say international law is sunrise? Raise your hands. Come on. Come on. Come on. Let's take a vote. Nobody.
I think it's okay.
Okay. You say you rise. How many of you say is sunset? So many. Well, clearly a vast majority. I belong to the minority. I say it's sunrise. I say it's sunrise for a very simple reason. You, you watch decade by decade by decade. Are most countries complying more or less with international law? This is a factual, empirical question, measurable. How many countries are invading and occupying their neighbors decade by decade? That's the first violation of international law. By the way, invading your neighbor, that's the first violation of international law. That trend is going down. On the long-term trend, it's going down, right? Countries around the world. Most, 193 countries in the world. You judge international law. International law is inter-national, applies to nations. 193 nations. How many nations are complying with international law? How many are violating international law? Good news. The vast majority of 193 nations are complying with international law. It is by far a sunrise tendency because most countries are doing so for sensible reasons. It's in their interests to respect international law because it keeps them at peace, you know. So, I, of course, there'll be massive violations from time to time by the great powers. By the way, always, it's always the great powers that violate international laws. So, it's up to the rest of us who are not great powers to tell the great powers, "Please behave yourself and respect, uh, uh, international law." But on, on a long-term trend, the world is actually getting to be a better place. And partly because, frankly, you look around the world, the policymakers around the world are becoming more educated. They're more aware of the cost and benefits of going to wars and so on and so forth. And frankly, all the recent wars have once again reminded all of us of the futility and stupidity of war. So the one thing that I would like to do in, in my life mission is to increase the forces that delegitimize war. And that's one thing small states should speak out more strongly on. And that's why, as you know, I launched the, uh, ASEAN Peace Program. And of course, what, what do my, most Singaporean friends say to me when I launch the ASEAN Peace Program? Say, Kishore, why are you wasting your time? The idea that you should be pushing for peace is one of the most honorable things you can do in the world. And they say, "You're wasting your time." But if you have that cynical attitude, you will never improve the world.
Okay, questions. How, how our founding fathers have applied their genius to position Singapore with respect to the US and China today, in light of the fact that obviously China's weight on the world is growing enormously? Second, that China does seem serious about engaging with multilateral institutions and internationalism in its own terms, and it's a process that's unfolding. Um, and more importantly, that in light of the Iran war, there's a real chance that the so-called US security deterrence in Asia is there, if the Iranians, a middle-sized power, could strategically defeat the United States, there are implications on, probably, populaces on those, and obviously the fact that the US now, it seems to be the biggest disruptor of the global system.
The one thing, a lesson I learned from our founding fathers is that they're realists of the highest order. And if you are powerful, we will deal with you. And so, clearly, in the Cold War, we were much closer to the United States. Even though we were close to the United States, we were never anti-Soviet. And I can tell you, I personally accompanied, uh, Mr. Rajaratnam, uh, in 1976, that's exactly 50 years ago, I guess, uh, I accompanied him to Moscow, and we met with the legendary Soviet foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko. And Mr. Rajaratnam told, uh, uh, Mr. Gromyko, he says, "We are anti-communist at home," which is true. Singapore is anti-communist domestically. We jail communists. But he says, "We're not anti-communist in our foreign policy. He said, we welcome American naval vessels in Singapore. We welcome Soviet naval vessels to Singapore." So, we didn't take sides. Similarly, within US and China, it's very clear. We'll be friends with the US. We'll be friends with China. We don't take sides. And we're not, we're not going to go to, because it's not, this is not our fight. So why should we take sides on that issue? And again, fortunately for us, if we have to make the decision by ourselves, very difficult. We are in ASEAN. All 10 ASEAN countries agree more or less. You want to be friends with the US. You want to be friends with China. So all 10 of us agree that's a reasonable position. And that is one of the protections that we have in this geopolitical contest. And, and so that, I think, is no, there's no, it's very clear what the founding fathers would have done, and what we are doing, by the way.
Uh, I think you would have seen earlier this week, uh, the Indonesian finance minister raised the idea of imposing, uh, a toll in the Strait of Malacca, akin to what we have seen in the Strait of Hormuz. And we have seen pushback from Singapore as well. I was just wondering what were your immediate thoughts on whether Singapore should also be participating in something like this, especially since the finance minister in Indonesia also said, uh, the amount of tolls that will be sort of collected can be divided three ways: Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. And he proposed it in a manner that will be beneficial to Singapore. So, in light of this, I just want you to know your quick thoughts on whether this is a viable solution.
We, we, we gather the last two, then we'll answer. We got two more here, right? There's the analysis where they're comparing Singapore with UAE in the current, uh, situation, faces the G war, and how US alignment is making some of the Gulf states vulnerable. Do you think, in the comparison of Singapore to Gulf countries, in terms of how they're aligned with the US, holds? And do you think, like, based on what you say, do you think US alignment is a policy a lot of states, especially just strong defense agreements, should reconsider, given how, like you said, across various US administrations, it's hard to be sure what is the outcome?
Thank you so much. I think quite, um, similar to her question, but more so the fact that the GCC now is supporting, um, well, not supporting what Iran is doing at the moment at all. They're not supporting Iran at all, right? And the concern is the fact that they're all meant to be in a collective, um, treaty of some sort. But there is definitely a concern on this one. So I just wanted to ask the question, how do you think the GCC is reacting to what Iran is doing at the moment?
Okay, so three separate questions. Uh, one on the Indonesian finance minister imposing a toll. One was whether or not Singapore is like the UAE in some ways, because the UAE has been caught in the struggle, uh, between Israel and, uh, Iran. And number three, how the GCC countries are doing. Uh, now, the Indonesian finance minister, it's very easy to answer. He's withdrawn the proposal. So the matter is closed. And I, I, I, I don't know whether he was joking or not. Frankly, I'm not even sure. It could have been a joke on, on his part. But I think the, uh, this is a very good example of how countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, we respect international law. Why? Because it's in our interest to do so. And remember, Indonesia is a huge archipelagic country, you know. So, it's in Indonesia's interest to see international law apply to archipelagic countries. And, and, and it's not in Indonesia's law interest to see the archipelagic principle, which is embedded in international law, be weakened. So Indonesia has a lot of vested interests in international law, and that's what's will, will lead Indonesia's position. Now, I would say the, uh, Singapore's position and UAE's position is quite different because we are not in any way directly involved in any bilateral, uh, conflicts. And as you know, Iran announced that it was attacking US bases that were being used to attack Iran. I mean, that's how Iran explained it. Of course, to, to be, to be completely candid, they went beyond that, sure. But, you know, when, when a country is fighting for survival, you have to expect countries to do, uh, desperate things. But clearly, and this also answers your question about GCC. At the end of the day, the genius of ASEAN, you know what? ASEAN has good relations with all its big neighbors. All: India, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia. Excuse me. Isn't that amazing? We have good relations with all our neighbors. The GCC must copy ASEAN. You must have good relations with all your neighbors. Whether you like them or dislike them, irrelevant. They're your neighbors. You have to live with them. There's only one fact I can guarantee you: that Iran will be a neighbor of the GCC. Not for the next 10 years, not for the next 100 years, but for the next 1,000 years. You have a 1,000-year neighbor. Get along with it.
On that note, I have one last question as we wrap up. People call you the muse of the Asian century, and that's not a title I gave you. This is what people call you. Uh, and you've been influential not just in the public space, but in the rooms where decisions are being made. Today, we're in a room where a lot of us are young, striving leaders trying to make our way in the world. So, if there's one piece of advice you tell them, or one bet you think they should be taking today, what's that one piece of advice you would give them?
I think the, it's one piece of advice, very difficult. But I, I, what, what I'm saying is, despite everything I've said, uh, be optimistic, uh, because I am actually optimistic about the future. I mean, the reason why I try to analyze every flaw in the international system is to see what flaws need to be fixed, and that's why I look for the flaws. By the end of the day, uh, you know, some of you may be reading my memoirs, you know, when you consider the Singapore I grew up in, in the 1960s, our per capita income was $500, you know. Now it's $94,000. We, we have made, what Singapore has achieved is off the charts, by the way. I want you will emphasize this to you all, just in case you didn't know this: no other country anywhere in the world, at any point of human history, has grown as fast and as comprehensively as Singapore has in 60 years. We're number one in world history. You know, we should be celebrating that fact. And many Singaporeans are not even aware of that, right? Which is stunning. I mean, here you are, you're living in a country that is a miracle by standards of millennia of human achievement. No other society has done what Singapore has done. We should wake up every morning celebrating the fact, right? Instead, we're mourning all kinds of small things that don't work, or all kinds of problems you have, you know, which is bizarre, you know. And, and, and, and the, you know, as I said, the good thing about, I've lived in a city like, a country like Cambodia, we were shelled every day when I was there. I've lived through war. I've lived through poverty. I've lived, I've seen the other side of the picture. So I can see clearly what we have achieved because I, I've been there. I've been the other side, crossed over. And so I can see what a miracle we have today. So we should understand that it's a miracle. And also understand that every miracle is a result of amazing hard work and amazing genius. And if we hadn't had our founding fathers, especially Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam, I can tell you, they were real geniuses, okay? And you want proof? Look at that. Why hasn't any other country done what Singapore has done? No other country has done. But why didn't we succeed? Because we are geniuses. So you must understand the special contributions that we have got from these geniuses. Understand what is it about that genius that created this Singapore, and ensure we capture it, preserve it, and let it survive another 60 years. So what's that one thing that we should capture in our bottle and bring it wherever we go? I already know worship as carries me to the Singapore miracle. But please, what is that? What's the, the thing that you hope that, you know, we'll keep with us even as we go forward in the world today?
I, I would say the same. I mean, again, I guarantee you that the geopolitical tensions in our neighborhood will grow because the US-China contest will accelerate, and Southeast Asia will become an arena in this great US-China competition. So we will be caught in the crossfire. That's a given. The question is how you start preparing now. You're trying to protect yourself now from that crossfire, 'cause it's coming. So don't, life won't be boring. Okay.
On that note, thank you, Professor Kishore, for making the time for us. Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you are watching this on YouTube, please consider subscribing and turning on notifications for whenever new episodes are out. If you're on Spotify or Apple, it would help us greatly if you could leave a five-star review on those platforms. Once again, thank you for tuning in to The Front Row.