Endgame with Gita Wirjawan - Kishore Mahbubani: ASEAN Deserves a Nobel Peace Prize

Episode Date: December 2, 2020

Founding dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Professor Kishore Mahbubani talks about the causes, consequences—and even danger— of plutocracy and the story of remarkable progress called ASEAN.

Singapore succeeded exceptionally well, not because of original thinking, but because Dr. Go-Keng-Sui, the founding deputy prime minister who inspired me, said, Kishore, no matter what problem Singapore encounters, somebody somewhere has solved that problem, for sure. There's nothing new in history. So he said, if we encounter a problem, let's go and find the solution. and then what we do, we copy the solution. So Singapore has succeeded by being the best copycat country in the world. Hello, friends,

today we're coming to my friend of my friends I, Professor Kishore Mabubani, who are who is very pay-wai-exam, on various issues, and different dimensions. Belial is a man-man-U-School of Puffalo. public policy in Singapore and has madegang many jobatans in Manca Nagara.

Hi Kishore, good to see you. Good to see you, Gita. Thanks for having me on. Oh, thank you. It's a real honor for you to be on our podcast. You know, we've had this podcast for only a little over two and a half months. I want to just basically get started with asking you a simple question on how you actually started out.

out. Your parents were from India and they migrated to Singapore. Tell us. Well, my parents were Hindu Sindis when they were alive. And they were born and brought up in Sindh, which is now in Pakistan. And as you know, there was a very tragic, painful, bitter partition between India and Pakistan in 1947. and as a result of that, both of them landed up in Singapore in 1947, and I was born here in 1948. So that's how I ended up not being born in Pakistan, but in Singapore. Okay. And what shaped your academic interest all along in your early years? Well, actually, I had no academic interest in my early years.

You know, in fact, we had no books in the house. I mean, right now, as you can see, I'm surrounded by books. Because my parents had no education at all. My father, sadly, his father and mother passed away within the first year of his life. And so he was brought up by his sisters. And unfortunately, he was not given any opportunities, and he must have stopped school probably at the age of 12. And at the age of 13, he came to work in Singapore in 1933 as a Pion,

earning five cents a day. So he had a very hard life. In fact, he started smoking, drinking, gambling from the age of a teenager. and then, of course, he had an arranged marriage with my mother, and she must have had up to primary six, I guess, or a bit old, a secondary school education, but she came nowhere close to any kind of high school or university education. So there was no dream, no aspiration to go to university or any such thing,

all through my childhood. Did they try to basically have a different approach? with you, that it was important for you to pursue tertiary education? Oh, absolutely not. Really? Wow. Wow. I mean, I mean, I landed up in university completely by accident. I see, luckily for me, I did well in the school exams. I seemed to do well in exams. So I would, after, oh, after the old levels at the age of 16, I got a bursary. That's how I ended up doing my A-levels at the age of 17 and 18 high school. And then when I finished high school at the age of 18, I did what all

Cindy boys did at that time. I started working as a salesman in a textile shop earning $150 a month. But then what happened was that by completely out of the blue, a complete surprise, I was offered the President Scholarship, which paid $250 a month. So my mother said, $250 a month is more than $100,000 a month. So why don't you go to university? And that must have been... That's the only reason why I went to university. Oh, my God. Oh, my God.

And when you went to the university, what hooked you? What interested you? Well, I mean, I, luckily for me, what really saved my life is that at the age of about 9 or 10, very young, I discovered the public library in my neighborhood. So I began reading lots and lots of books from a very young age, you know, just but they were all borrowed books from the library, novels, you know, fact, fiction and fact-based books. And so the love of reading carried me into university. And of course, the most enchanting moments I had in the university was literally sitting between two racks of books on the floor

and reading philosophy books. And of course, I studied philosophy in university. And I felt passionately in love with what I was studying. And so as a result of that, you know, I never had any problem doing well in university or in exams. And in fact, for someone who came from a relatively poor family with no tutoring, no guidance, I ended up topping the faculty results at the end of university. You've done okay. You've done okay. Now, who would have been your most or one of your most favorite philosophers throughout your study?

Well, I did philosophy both at undergraduate at a master's level. And at an undergraduate level, by far, the philosopher I studied the most was Ludwig Wiggenstein, who's Austrian-German philosopher. and then when I went to do my master's in philosophy at Dalhousie University in Canada, I did a comparison of the concepts of freedom and equality in the writings of John Rawls and Karl Marx. Wow. And I must say, I enjoyed reading Karl Marx a lot. He's an amazing writer and with amazing insights into the huge.

human condition. Okay. Why Nova Scotia, of all places? Very simple. Again, by accident. The head of my department, seriously, it's all by accident. There was no plan at all. Okay. And I'll tell you a funny story about going to Nova Scotia because I had no idea where it was, what happened. You know, I've never been there, but, you know, it's a place I want to go to one day. I don't know. It's really remote. I'll tell you, my story will explain how remote it is. I ended up in Nova Scotia because the head of the Department of Philosophy in Singapore, Roland Pucchetti, in Italian-American, left the Department of Philosophy in Singapore and ended up becoming head of the Department of Philosophy in Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

And so he gave me a scholarship. So I said, okay, you give me a scholarship? I go. So I went as a result of that. And I had no idea where it was. So I look at the map. And the map, according to my world map, it seemed very near New York. So I flew to New York on Arrow Float, very cheap economy class. And when I arrived in New York, I took a bus. Oh, my God.

And the bus took you forever. Two and a half days. I mean, I didn't know. I said, according to the map, it's so near, but it's, you know. And it's Greyhound. So every few hours you change and you, you know. So it was quite an interesting journey. Wow, wow.

Hey, I want to digress a bit. I know you're a big fan of Muhammad Rafi, the famous Indian singer, right? What got you hooked with Muhammad Rafi? Well, when I grew up as a child, of course, we had no, the only instrument of leisure we had was a radio, and Radio Singapore would play. for one hour in the morning and half an hour in the evening,

a song from Indian movies. And so, Mohamed Rafi was on all the time. And what's interesting I find, you know, I can only write today at the age of 72 or even the last 10 years if I listen to Muhammad Rafi. And I have, of course, a very amateurist theory that the songs in my childhood that I'm listening again and now

seem to be igniting some childhood neurons in my brain and making it easier for me to write. And there's a huge difference between the quality of my writing with Mohamed Raffi and the quality of my writing without Mommat Raffi. Wow. And there's no way I could have written, published seven books in the last 15 years.

without Muhammad Raffir. Wow. Throughout the writing of each book, you had it on. You had Mawabad Ravi on. Always. My God. Without fail. Otherwise, I mean, I just, my brain doesn't work. I see.

Well, I mean, you know, your brain is working fine. Under any circumstance. No, no, no. But did you ever play musical instrument post the radio era? No, unfortunately, you see, we don't forget. We had a very basic education. And we never had access to any kind of extracurricular learning or extracurricular activity. So no musical learning, no sports training, nothing.

Just regular school. Okay. Now, I'm just curious, you had Rafi, then you had Mark's. you know, philosophical ideas in your head, right? Yeah, absolutely. How did those two shape your thinking about where Singapore ought to go forward in the 60s? Well, I think in the case of Singapore, I must say that, I'm looking back now, and I ask myself, why have I been able to be relatively productive?

I mean, producing seven books in 15 years. And I think, is a result of the fact that I learned a lot without being aware that I was learning a lot from the three geopolitical masters I work with. They were of course Lee Kuan Yew, the founding prime minister, Dr. Gokingsvi, the founding deputy prime minister, and Rajaratnam, the foreign minister. And I spent a lot of time with them. And I think it was their constant curiosity, questioning, challenging, asking, that in one way or another, I absorb in my brain. And so I continued basically using their methodology of always asking questions. And of course, you don't get answers unless you ask questions.

And they taught me how to ask the right questions. And so without them, I don't think I could have written as much as I did. Well, I mean, I don't mean to peel the onion the wrong way, but how many episodes of you're asking the wrong questions would have been there? I'm sure there. Probably zero, right? No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no.

We all, as you know, we are all human, we make mistakes. and I've made lots of mistakes in my life. And, of course, I've gone down the wrong track, hit a wall and turn around and come back. Okay. Look, let's fast forward. Okay. I've read all your books,

the latest one of which has China won. You want to talk about that? And what inspired you and you're thinking about Asia and the world over? Well, I think it was very clear to me, even four or five years ago, that the biggest geopolitical contest that would rock the world would be the one within the current world's number one power,

which is the United States of America, and the world's number one emerging power, which is China. And I could see even in Obama's time, especially in the second term, a growing misunderstanding developing between US and China. And of course, they became much worse under Donald Trump. And so I told myself that clearly this is going to be the big issue of the day. Why not try to explain the structural causes of this conflict to everyone? And also not just what the goal of the book is not just to explain

but it also provide a path for the U.S. and China to climb down from their growing confrontation with each other. So the goal of my book, hopefully, is a noble one to prevent a major catastrophe from happening. And I'm glad that at least the serious people who have read it like it a lot. So Farid Zakaria read it and liked it a lot. made it the book of the week. Martin Wohl for the Financial Times, read it, liked it a lot, and immediately agreed to provide me with a very generous endorsement of the book. So I've been very fortunate that a difficult book like this

has been understood and appreciated by many people. Look, I mean, if one reads just the title of the book, right, It's easy to misconstrue this book as being pro-China, right? I'm trying to help with the sales of your books here. What would be the one or two things that you want to tell the Indonesian people so that they can actually read the book and have a much broader-based understanding of where China and the U.S. stand? Well, I think Indonesia definitely will also be a very important.

directly or indirectly by a major geopolitical contest because all countries around the world will be affected. But the key message, even despite the title, this is not a pro-China book. Paradoxically, it's my American friends who have reacted far more enthusiastically to the book than my Chinese friends. And by the way, it has not even been published in Chinese in China. Because, of course, it will be. I hope it will be, but it contains criticism of China. But the key message of the book is that there are profound misunderstandings between the United States and China.

And I'm trying to explain to both sides how profound these misunderstandings are. So just two big points about the book. The first is, of course, that I explain the structural forces that are driving this contest. The first structural force is that the world's number one power for 2,000 years has always tried to push down the world's number two power. That's normal behavior. The second structural force no one talks about,

which is the fear of the yellow peril. And in the Western psyche, there has been a fear of the yellow man ever since the Mongols almost took over Europe 800 years ago. And then you have a third structural force which explains the bipartisan concept, inside the United States against China. And this third structural force was an expectation on the part of the Americans that if they opened up China economically, China would then open up politically,

and China would become a liberal democracy like America, and they could live heavily ever after. Of course, that day and never happened at all. And of course, future historians, when they look at this American expectation, will be very puzzled that a country like America with only less than 250 years old, with one quarter of the population of China, it believed that it could transform a country like China, which has got 4,000 to 5,000 years of history, and four times a population. So, it showed you how naive this American belief was. But even more dangerously,

the Americans have misunderstood China in a very profound way, because they keep thinking that this contest with China is a bit like the old contest between the United States and the Soviet Union, which of course the United States won handsomely. And in the old contest, it was a contest within a dynamic democracy in America and a rigid communist party in Soviet Union, so the democracy defeated the rigid communist party system.

What I do in my book is I dig deeper and I explain how the dynamic democracy of America has functionally become a plutocracy in America, where all the decisions are being made not to benefit the people of America are the top 1%. And the bottom 50% in America have seen the average standard of living go down

over 30-year period. And that's why you have a sea of despair among the white working classes that has led to the election of Trump. The election of Trump could have been anticipated by this structural change in America. And in the case of China, instead of a communist party system in China,

China has become the world's largest and most effective meritocracy where they managed to get the people of incredible quality of mind to serve at the highest levels of Chinese government and to get into the highest levels of Chinese government is as competitive as getting into McKinsey where I believe you got into, or as competitive as getting into Harvard University. And as a result of that, the current performance of the Chinese government is much better than the current performance of the American government.

And this has been confirmed by COVID-19, where even though the virus began in China, they only have had a few thousand deaths only. And if America had the same number of deaths per capita as China, then instead of having 240,000, deaths in America, they would have had less than 1,000 deaths if the American government had reacted as competently to COVID-19 as the Chinese government had done so. So it shows you so dramatically how this contest is no longer between a dynamic democracy and a communist party system is between a plutocracy, which has become dysfunctional and a meritocracy. And I say in a competition between a plutocracy and meritocracy, a meritocracy can win. And that's why say the book is called Has China One.

Wow, that's very compelling and deafening. I mean, going, you know, alluding to your naivete argument and alluding to your plutocracy argument, it's rather obvious then where things are going to end up, right? And how do you think this will dovetail into the global order and how it dovetails into ASEAN. I'm just curious. Well, I mean, you know, in my book, in

the very first chapter, I have a fictional memo written by one of the colleagues of President Xi Jinping to President Xi Jinping saying, Dear Comrade Chi, we have begun a great contest with America. Of course, we will win the contest, but, but,

but, but, China must never underestimate America. and that's a key point I make in my book also because as Winston Churchill said, you can always count on the United States to do the right thing after it has explored every other option. So right now, United States is getting it all wrong.

And that's why my book is actually a gift to America because I'm explaining to Americans these are the mistakes you're making in dealing with China. And at some point, I think hopefully they'll wake up with their mistakes and realize that they have been very naive in the way that they're managing China. What are the chances that they'll wake up to this call? Well, right now, unfortunately, you know, the great paradox about America, something which I find difficult to understand,

is that they have the largest number of strategic think tanks. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on strategic think tanks in Washington, D.C., and the rest of the United States and America. And then they have the poorer strategic thinking in the world. And I'm not even exaggerating. It's really awful strategic thinking in the world. And of course, as you know, I mentioned in my book, I had a one-on-one lunch with Henry Kissinger,

who confirmed a critical point that I make in the book that the United States has launched this geopolitical contest against China without first working out a strategy. And that's the stupidest thing you can do, right? But that's what the United States has done. And at the end of the day, for us in Southeast Asia, in ASEAN, the best thing we can do is to have private conversations with our American friends and tell them that nobody in Asia wants to take sides against China.

Nobody. You know, I devote a whole chapter in my book to explain that even though we have concerns, obviously we have concerns, Obviously, we have concerns about China becoming so strong, so powerful. And I explained it in a very simple way. You know, when I began this conversation with you 20 minutes ago, there was a little cat sitting there very quietly, purring away. I was very happy. Then after my conversation with 20 minutes, I turned around, the cat has become a tiger.

Of course, you get very nervous, you know. You get very worried. And so, in big China has gone from being an eco-examination. that was 10% of the United States in 1980, to having an economy that's larger in PPP terms. So clearly the cat has become a tiger, and you're going to deal with a tiger differently from dealing with a cat. And that's why you've got to change your attitude towards China.

That's a reality, and you cannot. China is not going to go back to becoming a cat anymore. China's going to be a tiger. And of course, we are worried about the tiger in our neighborhood, but we've got to find ways and means of managing this tiger. And unfortunately, to be fair to China, also, China has not fought a war in 40 years. China hasn't fired a bullet in 30 years.

So, you know, it's quite remarkable. The Chinese have been very strategically disciplined. And by contrast, the United States, even in the last year of the Obama administration, and Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in the first year of his presidency, he dropped 26,000 bombs on seven countries. A lot of people I mean, why?

And so the United States, as a friend of America, you know, United States America has spent $5 trillion fighting post-9-11 wars, $5 trillion. If that $5 trillion had been given to the bottom 50% in America, who've seen their standard of income go down, each citizen in the bottom 50% would have received a check for $30,000.

That's a lot of money. Why burn it in fighting wars when your own people are suffering. And so this is where, I think, again, as a friend of America, I'm trying to give advice that will benefit the American people. You know, there's a lot of wisdom in what you've just said. I mean, I'm just trying to think whether Donald Trump was the wake-up call or Joe Biden is the wake-up call.

Unfortunately, you see, the United States still has not woken up yet. either with Trump or with Biden, because there's a denial over the biggest fact of the American condition that it has become a plutocracy. Now, in theory, you can change a prutocracy and walk away from it. But what's happened is that the very wealthy had been able to use their money to influence political decisions that create tax regimes

that benefit the top 1%. As you know, the carried interest provision that benefits hedge fund managers. And by the way, the guy who warned against this is one of my favorite philosophers whom I mentioned earlier, John Rawls. And if you read his book, A Theory of Justice, you know, it's amazing how prescient he was.

John Rawls said categorically, if you allow money to determine politics, then you will get political decisions that favor the wealthy. And that's exactly what's happened. And he warned against it. John Rawls warned against this clear. I met John Rawls in person, amazingly enough, when I spent a sabbatical in Harvard in 1991-22.

And all I'm asking Americans to do is go back and listen to American thinkers, American philosophers and see where you went wrong. You know, it's pretty systemic, right? I've been making the same case you have just now in many classrooms. The inflation of financial assets has gone up much more disproportionately higher than the inflation of real economies, particularly that of the U.S. Absolutely, yes.

And I don't see this as being fixable in the near foreseeable future. Right? So as much as you think or we think that there could be a wake-up call, I'm not sure if that wake-up call is going to be enough to fix that systemic issue. Yes. And you're absolutely right. And the key word is systemic. And a systemic issue requires a systemic solution and not a change of individuals from Trump to Biden. That makes no difference at all because the system is still in place. And at the end of the day, as I cite Martin Wolfe in my book, the fundamental mistake was a decision made by the Supreme Court, which treated companies as individuals and they could give as much money as they wanted to do to the political process. And the net result of that obviously was that money was going to determine political outcomes in the

United States. And that's exactly what has happened. You know, in the U.S., for example, the pharmaceutical companies can lobby the Congress to pass legislation that prevents the U.S. government agencies from negotiating lower prices from U.S. pharmaceutical companies. Now, if this happened in Singapore, it's called corruption. In America, corruption is legal. Exactly. If any pharmaceutical company lobbied the Indonesian government to say, you cannot lower your price, cannot ask for lower prices for the Indonesian people. Indonesian people will be very angry, but that's what's happened in America. But you can't stop it because it's money.

You know, it's pretty scary. There is a pattern here, right, in terms of how the corporates have been able to co-opt political wisdom, if not democracy. As of late, I think the technology companies, have been exercising their lobbying power with such might that it's just unthinkable in terms of how they've been able and how they're going to be able to continue co-opting the democratic wisdom in the United States or many other countries.

What's your view on that? Your question is about co-opting... Democracy. You know, you mentioned the pharmaceutical example, right? And I'm mentioning the technological example. And I'm mentioning the technological example, right? Because the technology companies have basically mobilized as much if not more lobbying in D.C.

And even at the state levels. So I'm not so sure. Yeah. But you're also right about the technology companies. And I think the technology companies are being very unwise in trying to use their lobbying power to pass legislation in their favor, because there'll be a popular backlash against them, and that's already happened.

But at the end of the day, it's not just the technology companies or the pharmaceutical companies, it's, as you said, is the whole system that has to be changed. And here, frankly, the most fundamental decision that the American people have to make is to say that the outcome of the democratic process should be decided. by people and not by money. That's the most important decision they have to make. And so, for example, in countries like, like, say, Singapore, Australia and other places, they're very strict regulations on how much money you can use when you go for elections.

And that's also true of most European countries also, because they want to make sure that the people with lots of money don't end up winning the game. But in the case, the United States, the absolutely opposite happened. and the United States has become a country where money decides outcomes and not people deciding outcomes. And so we in the rest of the world, I would say Indonesia, as the third largest democracy in the world, should carry out a study of how money has distorted the American political system

and put in place legislation now to ensure that this doesn't happen in its. Indonesia. Yeah, yeah. I think we've done enough studies. We're just waiting for the publication of the books. Of those studies. Hey, let's move on on a more positive note, right? Intuitively, with a Biden presidency, assuming he's going to get inaugurated on the 20th of January, intuitively, there could be better hope for renormalization between the U.S. and China. How do you think this will imply for Southeast Asia? Well, I think with Biden, the tone will change, but the substance will not change

because Biden's hands are tied. And his reason is that his hands are tied because there's a very strong bipartisan consensus in the United States today that this is the moment for United States to take China on and to defeat it. And I think it's also driven by, you know, there's a very powerful consensus in what it's called the deep state. So in the Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NSC, they all agree that China is the number one challenge. And while Biden will be courteous and friendly towards President Xi Jinping, and by the way,

the one man who spent more time with Xi Jinping than any other leader is Biden because when Xi Jinping visited the United States, Biden was his host over four to five days and has spent more time talking to Xi Jinping than anybody has. So the personal chemistry between the two men will be good, but that doesn't change the rock-solid consensus within the... And if Biden appears to be too soft on China, he'll be massacred. So we in Southeast Asia should not think that the US-China geopolitical contest is going to blow over soon, that it will be carrying on.

And so we should be ready. We should be preparing shock absorbers in Southeast Asia to prepare for the shocks that are going to come. And the best way to prepare a shock absorber is to make ASEAN stronger. Because if all 10 of us stand together, it's easier for 10 of us to say no to China or 10 of us to say no to America than for us individuals. to say no to them. Is there hope for that? We've had episodes where maybe one or two out of the ten might have thought differently in the past few years.

Is there more hope now? Yes, and I think I hope the Chinese learned a very important lesson from 2012. And you know, in 2012, this is now open information. There was a lot of pressure on the Cambodian government. to block any references to the South China Sea in the ASEAN communique. And as you know, your friend, Mati, Natalagawa, saved his at that time. I was still in the government. That's right.

He saved the day. Marty saved the day. Cambodian opposition by going around, flying around Saudi Asia and getting agreement. And finally, he managed to get an ASEAN joint communique out. I must say that was a heroic performance by Marty, which I think has not gone unrecognized. I know. He's a good man. He should win the ASEAN Medal of Honor for saving ASEAN at a very difficult time. But I think the lesson I hope the Chinese learned from that, and I've repeated that in several of my books now,

that it is not in China's interest to divide ASEAN. That was a mistake. It's in China's interest to see a strong ASEAN. because then you have a stable set of countries in your southern border. Because if ASEAN breaks apart, then it provides opportunities for China's adversaries like United States to come in and use these divisions and use some ASEAN countries against China. And that's why, by the way, the Chinese made a very wise decision to go ahead with the signing of the RCEP this week. and that's a very big deal.

And that shows the recognition by China that they really need a strong ASEAN because RCP is an ASEAN initiative and not a China initiative that has been successful. I was one of the initiators in 2012. Well, you deserve to celebrate. No, no, but let's peel the onion here on our step. Okay, I'm off the view.

I'm in complete agreement with you on our step. I think it is not only is it the right framework for ASEAN and China and of course the other countries of South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. Unfortunately, India didn't get a chance to join up, but I think it resonates a lot better with developing countries like Indonesia, you know, the framework of ASEP. And I used to be quite vocal about this in the sense that I was a little bit more hesitant about the TPP framework because it was a little to 22nd century as opposed to RSEP, which I thought would have been more 18th or 19th century-ish.

And geopolitically and economically, it's easier to roll forward as opposed to roll backward, time-wise. and it's worked out okay because it resonates with people in Lao, Cambodia, Indonesia and some others in Southeast Asia. In contrast, I'm of the view that I think it's going to be very difficult for Biden to re-engage the world over with respect to TPP given the domestic COVID-19 situation

and where RSEP is going to go. I'm curious of your views on this. Yes. remember very well your statement that TPP was a 22nd century agreement. And I was about to quote it to you when you said it, I remembered it very well, and that ASEB was an 1819th century. I think I would say 20th century agreement. Okay. No disagreement. But I must say that if you want leading indicators of what the world of 2050 will be like,

2050, 30 years from now, it has been made by decisions made in 2020. And the decision of the RSEP countries, China, Japan, South Korea, ASEAN, Australia, New Zealand, to sign ARSEF means that when there were three competing visions for this region, one was the Asia-Pacific vision captured by APEC. Then you have the new Indo-Pacific vision that the United States is selling now to bring India in. And then now you have the third, the East Asian vision. And of these three possible outcomes for our region, the signing of RSEP, and the walking away from the United States from the TPP has killed the Asia-Pacific vision,

the walking away of India from Arsap has killed the Indo-Pacific vision and that leaves the East Asia vision. And so it's very clear the shape of 2050 is being made by decisions made in 2020. And I can tell you, India has made a huge strategic mistake in staying out of RSEP. And what is puzzling? I'm ethnically an Indian, okay? You know, the Deng Xiaoping made one very important observation. He said, why is it?

Chinese are so successful everywhere around the world except in China. And the reason for that is there's no economic competition inside China. The state was producing everything. So he brought in economic competition to China, and sure enough, the Chinese in China became as competitive as the Chinese in outside China. So in the same way, the Indians are hugely competitive everywhere in the world they go to. And, you know, the most competitive, the adultery in the world, as you know, Gita, is the United States of America.

The best brains from all over the world go to the United States of America to compete. And guess which ethnic group has got the highest per capita income United States is the ethnic Indians. And, you know, it's only Indians can run the world's largest corporations that Google is run by Sundarpecai. Satya Nadela at Microsoft. In fact, Satya Nadala and I had a private conversation recently, just to talk about the world also. And the... So you can see that Indians are inherently competitive.

So why is India frightened of economic competition? In fact, the rest of us, paradoxically, we should be frightened of India joining RCEP. Instead of India being afraid of joining RCEP. So there's something wrong here fundamentally. And I hope that some Indians will go back and think very hard because the decision to stay out of RSEF, the decision to stay out of RSEP, sadly, and I want India to succeed, obviously, right?

I'm an Indian. I want India to succeed. But India's decision to stay out of RSEP is going to damage India. Because at the end of the day, the strategic dilemma that India faces is that by staying out of Arssep, it gets short-term gain, but it gets long-term pain because the economy is not competitive. Whereas by joining Arsap, they get short-term pain, you get creative destruction of some industries, but you get long-term gain because you become competitive as an economy. This is fairly, this is not rocket science, you know, this is very basic. And I'm surprised that, and frankly, the real story about India is that they are vested

interests in India that are also preventing competition from coming to India. And that's unwise, you know. But I'm, I don't know, the little part of me says, I think India is going to come back to the table. Luckily, the framework... I hope you're right. Well, luckily, we're not giving a time limit to India, you know, whereas other countries that only have 18 months to join. You know, so it's a free call option for India.

You know, if they get their act together, I think they'll come to the table. Yeah, it's very wise to keep that window open for India. And I hope India wakes up and realizes that it'll be left out of the game if it doesn't join Rset. Right, right. And I'm optimistic on the basis that India, technologically speaking, has been opening up to the Googles of the world, the Microsofts of the world, and the Facebooks of the world. So that, I think, is a reflection of what's to come.

I think they're going to have to learn to open up. And yeah, probably the first few years, they're going to be exposed to cheap Chinese goods and services. But, you know, they'll be very competitive, as you had suggested earlier. Very competitive. Because, you know, I can say as an Indian that in my encounters with Indians, I discovered they're not stupid at all. It's like talking to yourself, right?

In fact, they're all super smart. Hey, you know, I want to pick one of your many books that I've read, The ASEAN Miracle. It has been an inspiration to me and to the people that I've taught in classrooms. Talk a little bit about this. You've made the point in that book that ASEAN deserves a Nobel Prize for peace, for having kept ourselves peaceful and stable. Please.

Absolutely. And I think I must say it's very sad that the Nobel Peace Prize is decided by a group of old Norwegian, mostly gentlemen. Because I think many of them don't see what's happening in the non-Western world and don't understand what's happening in the non-Western world. And just to give you another example, I thought it was very unfair for them to give the Nobel Peace Prize for the Aceh Agreement to a wonderful Finnish gentleman who is also someone who I know and met

instead of giving it to the Indonesian President SBY or any... Say no more, man. Say no more. I mean, it was very, very unfair. Very, very unfair. But it reflected the Western mindset that only Westerners deserve Nobel Peace Prizes.

So in the same way, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has done a huge disfavor by not giving ASEAN the Nobel Peace Prize when he celebrated his 50th anniversary in 2017 when I published the book, The Asian Miracle. Because what ASEAN has done is absolutely amazing. I mean, when future historians write about ASEAN, he'll be amazed at an organization that was designed to fail in 1967.

And he was designed to fail because his two predecessors, Asa and Marfellindo died. within a few years. And ASEAN is also by far the most diverse region on planet Earth. I mean, out of 650 million people, you have 250 million Muslims, 150 million Christians, 150 million Buddhists, Mayana Buddhists, Hinayana Buddhists, you have Hindus, Taoist, Confucianists, and we even have communists. It is by far the most diverse region of planet Earth. And if the most diverse region of planet Earth, a group of developing countries can keep peace for so long with each other, surely they deserve the Peace Prize.

No other region even comes close. So, I mean, like, even to, I mean, it's wonderful to give it to the World Food Program and so on and so forth. But frankly, if you're talking of peace, real peace, it's ASEAN that has delivered peace. And I think they, at some point in time, I hope the Nobel Peace Prize Committee will wake up and realize what a huge mistake they have made in not giving ASEAN the Peace Prize. because no other organization deserves a peace price more than ASEAN does. Wow, that's very powerful. Thank you for vocalizing that again and again and again.

Now let's... At some point in time, they will listen. No, I think they will. They will. Now, let's talk about ASEAN here. ASEAN has differential marginal productivity, right? And I always look at Singapore as the apex of marginal productivity. They've been able to prove to the world that they can produce in the most efficient, effective manner. And this is largely attributable to the fact that you've built such a fantastic meritocracy.

And what is it that you think some of the other or all the other countries in ASEAN could pick up from Singapore faster than in the last, what, 60 to 70 years? Well, actually what they need to pick up from Singapore is a very simple principle. Singapore succeeded exceptionally well, not because of original thinking, but because Dr. Geng Sui, the founding deputy prime minister who inspired me, said, Kishore, no matter what problem Singapore encounters, somebody somewhere has solved that problem for sure. There's nothing new in history. So he said if we encounter a problem, let's go and find the solution. And then what we do, we copy the solution.

So Singapore has succeeded by being the best copycat country in the world. Now, if Singapore has spent the last 50 years copying best practices from other countries, why don't the ASEAN countries come to Singapore and copy from Singapore? So, you know, you don't have to, you don't have to. And I don't understand why they don't do it. I mean, sometimes they do it. I mean, the Malaysians were brilliant, you know. You know, at one stage, they wanted to get investment in Penang.

And as you know, Penang has been very successful. So they said, how to get investment in Penang. They said, okay, they look for the Economic Development Board brochure from Singapore on why you should invest in Singapore. And they delete Singapore. They put Pinang. So everything else is the same. Okay, why should invest in Pinang? Oh, you got good board.

You got everything. So guess what? Pinang succeeded dramatically. Oh, my God. So all you've got to do is copy. So, you know, if you want to do that in Batam, go and get the Economic Development Board Borsha. Why, you should invest in Batam and do it?

That's all. You know, it's actually, and everything we do. Look at our education system. Our education system is all copying other countries. you know, what they have done. And so in the sense, all you have to do, and that's why when I was dean of the Lee Kuanew School of Public Policy, I always told my students that all you got to do

is you don't have to reinvent the wheel, go and find someone who solved the problem, copy. And Singapore's success as a copycat country means, and by the way, Singapore is not the first to do it. The first to succeed were the Japanese in 1860s with the Meiji Restoration. And that's why Dr. Gokinzi studied the Meiji restoration immensely to understand why the Japanese succeeded. You say, hey, the Japanese succeeded by copying others. Okay, we won't succeed by copying others too.

And copying is actually quite easy. Yeah. No, no, I like copying, you know, success stories or best practices from other places. But I, you know, I've attended so many ASEAN meetings, right? This sort of conversation should be more prevalent in the conversations amongst ASEAN, you know, call it friends or ministers or officials and all that. I just don't think it would have been enough conversationally. And I do believe that, you know, to some extent or to a lot of extent, this depends on the degree to which you have that culture of reading. and I struggle to get people around me to read books as it is.

That, I think, is the second concern or problem. Anyway, I say all this. And you're absolutely right about reading books, though. I mean, as I told you, if I hadn't discovered the public library near my house, within a mile of my house, I would never have. succeeded in my life. It was just reading, reading, reading that enabled me to succeed. So I completely, I want to endorse, if you want to help a poor child anywhere, give them books and give them a chance to read. And then that sets the brain on fire and then they progress.

Yeah, yeah. Wow. Okay, let's go back to the China situation here. I want to push the envelope a little bit. China has gone through a diminishing scale of its current account. It's been running at a surplus for 25 years in its current account, right? Last year and this year, I think they're quite exposed, meaning their current account is going to go to a lower level, and I think they run the risk of going into a deficit territory. That basically reflects upon the degree to which they could export capital, right?

I want to seek your views on how you think that will have implications on their Belt and Road initiative. Well, I think it's broader than, it is the Belt and Road Initiative, but it's broader than that too. I think the Chinese have basically decided, and this is, of course, partly a result of the U.S., China geopolitical contest. that the old model of relying on export that growth, and it was exports, as you know, that created the huge supplices in their current account, can no longer work. Because countries around the world will either refuse to accept more Chinese imports, like India has, for example, or their markets are not big enough.

So, the Chinese have made a major U-turn. and gone from export-led-growth to what they call the dual circulation theory. So you rely your two lakes now. You rely on exports. Chinese exports will remain quite strong still. And you have also a domestic consumer. And let me give you one statistic which I just learned yesterday, which is quite stunning.

the domestic market for retail goods in 2009, about 10 years ago, in the US was $4 trillion, China was $1.8 trillion. You fast forward to 2019, China's retail good market has gone from $1.8 trillion to $6 trillion. Yeah. And United States is still somewhere, double-checked that around $4 trillion or so. So it's gone from being half, less than half of the United States to... And so at the end of the day, if they can continue to push consumption up, that's going to become the engine of China's economic growth. And by the way, that's good for us, because we in ASEAN are also going to benefit tremendously from a increase of consumption in China.

And so the only growth engine that's really going to pull ASEAN out of COVID-19 is China as a result of that. And so the Belt and Road Initiative, by the way, they still have about over $3 trillion in reserves. Even if they set aside $1 trillion, that's more than enough money for the Belt and Road Initiative for 10, 20 years. when you look at the rate of spending that they're doing. And they're also in the process learning quite a bit and learning how to inject good governance, best practices, making sure that the money that they lend out is safe and strong and healthy. And, you know, if you look at the performances of these two banks,

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the new development bank, and you're an objective audit of them and the management practices, they are actually doing better than the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. For example, administrative costs, the AIIB has been able to cut down its admin costs much more than ADB or World Bank.

And as a result, that, of course, you can lend more money, right? More bank for the buck. And so the Chinese are doing things in many areas that I think are right and it shows the meritocracy that China has developed. You know, I'm encouraged by the fact that China has been dramatically increasing their domestic consumptive propensity. You said it, it's going to be good for us

because we can send goods and services to China, right? But I think at the same time, it's going to force us to better vertically integrate from a supply chain standpoint. You know, at this rate, you know, there are still some countries in ASEAN that do not have the necessary capable manufacturing capabilities, right? But I think in time, they're going to be forced to basically manufacture so that these goods and services are going to be consumed by the Chinese who will be consuming in great scale. And I would say the country that has the best opportunity to benefit from this, is Indonesia, because you know, you are a young country, you have a young labor force.

I haven't followed closely your recent actions on your labor laws. But if the labor laws reforms go through and there's a greater flexibility in the labor market, then I predict that that should bring in more investment into Indonesia. But you are a better judge of it than I am. Yeah, yeah. Well, it's moving in the right direction. I'm optimistic that our investment climate is going to be better by way of the open-mindedness of the labor framework. I want to push on this since you brought up investment, right?

If we take a look at the FDI on a per capita basis for a number of countries in ASEAN, Singapore is the LeBron James, right? They are attracting FDI at a rate of $19,000 per person. Whereas Malaysia is attracting FDI on a per capita basis at $270. And Vietnam is at $160 per capita. Whereas the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia are at a much more paltry amount of $91 per capita. Right. And this is ironic in the sense that, you know, we are witnessing tremendous amounts of liquidity sitting and floating.

and floating around the United States, Western European countries, China, Japan, and South Korea, waiting for destinations or looking for destinations. What is it that you think, you know, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines could do better to improve or move the needle from $91 per capita of FDI to the level of Singapore? I, by the way, I have again, you know, I want to go back to the my point about copying. And I would say, if I was an Indonesation, the first thing I would do is to ask a group of five or six economic professors

to go to Vietnam and to look at where Vietnam was 30 years ago in 1990. Look at the Vietnamese infrastructure. Look at the Vietnamese state regulations. look at the amount of investment in Vietnam 1990, zero. Koto, zero, right? Now 30 years later, fast forward. Why is Vietnam getting, do you go by your figures per capita higher than Indonesia?

So the question is why? That's all. And so just going copy Vietnam. So if the Vietnamese can create, as you know, create, as you know, industrial sites and develop everything like world-class facilities and provide everything, you know, electricity, water, workers, everything, all ready. You go in there, boom, you take off. So, I think, so in a sense, Indonesia doesn't have to reinvent the wheeler.

I mean, forget everybody else. Just focus on one country, Vietnam. So whatever Vietnam does today, you do tomorrow. That's all. That's all. But back to shore. Okay. Okay, I want to push on this, okay? Because I think to some extent this relates to the political system

of all the respective countries or economies, right? I'm always of the view that, you know, at the rate that you are multi-party, you're somewhat shackled in terms of your ability to think long-term, right? because you're always shackled by the cycles of five years or four years of political processes. And especially if you've got a dozen political parties, whereas Vietnam does not have that kind of a scenario. Singapore similarly does not have that kind of a scenario, right?

So would you have any political wisdom or advice for us in countries like Indonesia? Well, let me amend my proposal. Don't send five economics professors. Send the leaders of all your political parties to Vietnam. I'm serious. I'm serious. Okay. And then show them the charts in 1990, where Vietnam was, where Indonesia was, then 2010 and 2020.

That's all. Just show them. But you must take them physically there and see what they have done. And then see the poverty reduction rates in Vietnam. And by the way, the Vietnamese had to go through a very painful transition in dealing with foreign investors. And it was Mr. Lee Kuan Yew who described this very well. The Vietnamese got so used to being guerrilla fighters against Americans in the Vietnam War. So they saw foreign investors also as foreign invaders that they should use guerrilla tactics on them. And so they would negotiate a deal with the foreign investor.

And then after the agreement is signed, the next day when the foreign investor came to implement it, they said, sorry, deal change. Say, excuse me, I just signed yesterday. If I say, that's yesterday. This is today. So they went. And then, of course, the investment dried up in Vietnam as a result of that. So, so Lee Kuanu had to personally tell the Vietnamese leaders, excuse me, this is not, these are foreign investors are not foreign invaders. These are the people you've got to get into your country.

And you've got to respect the agreement you sign. And for the Vietnamese, it's very painful. very painful, you know, because they saw suddenly the foreigners making so much money. Yes, but they're also creating jobs in Vietnam, you know. So it's a question of seeing that you've got to learn the whole process. You know, it wasn't easy for Vietnam. But I must say, the Vietnamese story is just completely inspires me.

You know, no country has fought wars as long. as Vietnam has. Vietnam was at war more or less continuously from the thousand years. No, no, a thousand years they were occupied by China. Okay, it wasn't much of war. But from 19, I would say roughly from the beginning of World War II, you know. Remember, they were also invaded by the Japanese and all that. From 1939 to 1989, 50 years, non-stop fighting, you know, and fighting not against small countries, They fought the French and defeated them. They fought the Americans and defeated them

and they fought the Chinese and also defeated them on the battleground but they had to concede after that subsequently. So you can see the Vietnamese despite fighting wars for so many years when they suddenly realized, hey, now the game is, you're not going to win the game by fighting wars,

you're going to win the game by getting foreign investors to replace foreign invaders. And then you've got to be in. nice, you kick the foreign invaders in the teeth, you cannot kick foreign investors in the teeth. You've got to smile and be nice to them. Very painful. But the Vietnamese made a U-turn. And I'm amazed. I'm just, I tell you, if you had asked me 30 years ago, would Vietnam succeed in economic reform and development, I would have said, no way. These are guys who are to fight. They don't know how to trade.

The fighters have become, yeah. They have defied many of us. They have defied the odds. Well, I mean, you're coming from a developed first world country and you have gestured so much humility. And basically, you know, there's stuff to be learned from Vietnam. And I come from a developing country, right? And I can tell you there are still quite a few of us out here

who probably don't see Vietnam as a place that we could learn. from. And that I think is the mental block, right, for us in terms of, you know, development forward. So that, that I think is, sorry, go ahead. I know, I was going to say that, you know, as you know, China developed. Yeah. Because they send hundreds of mayors to learn from Singapore, right? You know what? Now Singapore is sending people to China.

I mean, why is Shenzhen? Oh my God. So much more successful than Singapore. Why? I mean, the economic growth rate in Shenzhen is absolutely amazing. I saw Shenzhen in the 1980s. There was nothing there, rice fields and everything, nothing.

And now you go to Shenzhen, it's amazing, you know. So, you know, we all, the only lesson I've learned in life is that you cannot stop learning. And so every day, every country should be copying best practices from other countries, every day. And by the way, this idea of learning from others was the Western habit that we learned. But the West has lost that habit of learning. And as you know, the reason why I'm so critical of the West, is that for the West, for Europe, for example,

is mismanaging COVID-19 so badly, has any European government sent one delegation to learn from East Asia? Zero. So the Europeans themselves are so proud. The idea that they can come and learn from Asia, they cannot buy them, but they're being very stupid, right? It's very stupid. And it's stunning.

So we in Asia, therefore, must show the rest of the world that when it come to learning, we are number one. Yeah. Absolutely. No disagreement. All right. Let me push on a button called tourism. You talked about it in a couple of your books, right? How we can basically develop in terms of projecting soft power by way of getting more people.

from the international community to visit. I always struggle to justify why only 14 million people visited Indonesia last year. Whereas close to 40 million people visited Thailand, and over 20 million people visited Singapore last year. And the last time I checked, we have more islands than Thailand and Singapore do. So... Yes. Can you give us some tips?

And how this thing will... Absolutely. Absolutely, because I mean, it's actually quite amazing. Again, this is a little known fact. Bangkok gets more tourists than any city in the world. And this is despite its traffic jams and despite all the problems of flooding and this and that, it's not a developed city, you know. But the Thai people are just so welcoming, you know.

You know how to describe it. They're so friendly. It's a friendliness. And frankly, the Indonesian people are equally friendly, right? Equally friendly. And so actually, I think that the industry, the one industry that can really take off in Indonesia very fast is tourism. And more and more people, I think, want to go to Indonesia, but you need to develop the infrastructure. And I must say the wisest thing that Indonesia can do is,

to sign as many open skies agreements with countries. Because when you sign it open, when, you said you interviewed Tony Fernandez. When Tony Fernandez flies his aircraft into Indonesia, he's bringing tourists into Indonesia and Indonesia benefits from it. So, and I say that that's, that's the easiest thing for Indonesia to do. And I can tell you, when I go back to Dr. Gokeng Sui, you know, Dr. Gorking Si was very puzzled. Why are tourists coming to Singapore? There's nothing you see in Singapore, right? And Singapore is so small, right?

I mean, look at it. I mean, as you know, I always tell my friends a story. In Indonesia, you have one mountain. On top of the mountain, you have a lake, Lake Toba. In the middle of that small lake, there's a small island. That small island is bigger than Singapore. Samozy. Now, I mean, so you can see, Singapore is so stupidly, ridiculously small.

Why come to Singapore? So Dr. Gore had a big study, and they said, we don't know why. Well, Samoer and Tobar do not yet have orchardroat, right? But at such time when we have orchard road out there, I think it's going to get more tourists than Singapore does. But it's not just the consumer side. I think I predict that the fastest, growing tourism sector will be ecotourism.

And people want to go and see natural places and natural forests. So, and I think that's something that Indonesia can aspire to be number one in the world in terms of eco-tourism. And this is something that will bring in investors very quickly. who will want to invest in resorts in remote places and as long as people can fly there, they will go there. And that's a tremendous advantage that Indonesia has. And I was told by Ali Alattas once.

The legend. Yeah, the legend. He was a very good friend of mine. Oh, my God. I learned a lot from him. A good friend. A good man. I liked him a lot.

I was very fond of him. And he said there was once Indonesia produced a series of programs about Indonesia. And he said millions of Indonesians watched it because Indonesians themselves did not know what a beautiful country Indonesia was. Right? You are these amazing places in... So damn big. Kalimantan in Sulawesi and Sumatra. So you're an amazing country.

So I would say that post-COVID-19, the best way to jumpstart the Indonesian economy is to really open up your doors to flight from anywhere. And just allow a bit of chaos. It's okay to happen. And in the process of chaos, more and more people will come and discover Indonesia. You know, I've been hypothesizing or asserting as of late that there's no reason for Indonesia not to get 150 million tourists internationally a year. Easily. Easily with 17,000 islands. Now, I want to go back to your earlier point. And just as a small aside.

In 2019, China sent out 130 million Chinese tourists. I saw that. Yeah. Amazing. The Chinese love to go to the United States of America. The United States of America is going to become unwelcoming for Chinese tourists. That creates a market opportunity. Right. You see, this is an example of strategic thinking and therefore set up a department in your ministry of tourism just for Chinese tourists.

I agree. And I tell you, I was shocked. You know, when I went to the Maldives, I thought in Maldives, only the Orang Pute will go there, right? Only the Westerners like this beautiful nature and all that. I was stunned by the number of Chinese tourists in Maldives. Because the Maldives government set up a special unit to bring in Chinese tourists. You see, you can copy. Let's copy.

You know, we went there, my wife and I. And when we landed, I can tell you, if I looked left and right, 60% of the tourists were from mainland China. I mean, it's staggering. I was shocked by that. And you know how you take the seaplane, right, from the capital city to the island, right? And, you know, it seats about 15 people. We were the only Indonesians, you know, and the remaining 13 were mainland Chinese. Yes. You know, hopping. That's quite stunning. It's staggering, staggering.

And by the way, India is much nearer. And there's so few Indian drones going to Maldives. But it's in that there's a huge market. And you see, don't forget, I forget the term for you. I think there is an economic term for it. There's a tipping point where people can suddenly, when they suddenly have what you call disposable income. Correct.

all their lives, they just have enough to go, enough to keep going. And now the Chinese per capita income is reached a tipping point where suddenly hundreds of millions of Chinese now have a few thousand dollars in spare cash that they never had before. And by the way, a few thousand dollars in spare cash is all you need to get to Sulawesi, you know,

or get to Papua or, you know, Yeah, and you know, and I can tell you, as soon as COVID-19 is over, one of my dreams is to go travel to all parts of Indonesia. You let me know, man. I'll be happy to be your tour guide. I want to come and play on your golf course in Bali. Hey, you alluded to the eco-tourism, okay? I want to push on this environmental button, right? I'm absolutely in agreement with you, you know,

at the rate that we have a finite amount of forest. fossil fuel to burn and emit. There's no choice for humanity, but to basically gravitate to a renewable energy. And it's just amazing if I talk to the Generation Z members, still not a whole bunch of them, you know, are engaged in conversations on preserving the planet. What is your view in terms of, be it in the context of ASEAN or the world's basically embracing this framework, call it the Paris Accord, or call it whatever it takes for us to basically be able to preserve the planet? I think fortunately among the young people all over the world, there's a growing awareness and understanding that we live in a small,

in peril of planet Earth, you know? And we have to come together. And that's why, you know, in the closing paragraph of my book, as China won, I say that if US and China keep fighting while global warming is happening, future historians will describe them as two tribes of apes who are fighting each other while the forests around them was burning. And we think only the apes are so stupid as to do that. but we human beings are being very stupid

in not coming together to stop global warming. But the young people understand that increasingly. And the good news is that China is being ecologically responsible. It is the first country in the world to create the concept of ecological civilization. And I wish the United States would copy the concept of ecological civilization too.

And then the Chinese people as a result are becoming much more environmentally aware of what's happening. And so I expect that the Chinese people will also buy this idea of ecotourism. And I think what you should do, of course, is to try a few experiments of marketing it in various Chinese cities, and I'm reasonably confident that you will succeed very well. I'm actually optimistic about China's playing a very proactive role. in preserving the climate and the planet. If we take a look at how they've been so resolute in reaching peak, you know, carbon emission in the year 2030,

and how they've been able to embrace electric vehicles for transportation purposes, how they've been pretty, I think, consistent in reducing, you know, dependence on coal and all that good stuff. If there is any country that's been proactive towards this big goal of climate change, I think China. And I actually see China as having a positive impact on how we behave in Southeast Asia. And you could allow that to imply on ecotourism, but I think it could imply onto many other things that we do out here in Southeast Asia. Do you have any views on that? No, no, I agree. And I think it's such a tragedy that the United States,

the United States always says China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. But that's only if you count the current flow. If you look at the stock that the United States has put in the atmosphere, the United States has put far more greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere than China has. And it's shocking that it is China. which is still relatively speaking, a developing country has announced a carbon neutral goal of 2016, and United States hasn't announced a carbon neutral goal. That's terrible.

Their world's richest country should also be the world's most responsible country. And it's shocking that United States is not doing so, and therefore we from outside should apply greater moral pressure on United States and say the United States must lead the way in setting an example in terms of responsible behavior towards curbing global warming. All right, I want to move from the environment. We've got a few minutes left. I want to move from the environment to technology.

I've been saying in a number of occasions how individual democratization has not led to the right kind of equality. I've also been saying how market democratization, neoliberalism, has not led to the right kind of equality. And as of late, I've been saying how data democratization has not led to the right kind of equality that the world needs. I'm curious as to what your views are with respect to data democratization or technology. Well, you know, I emphasize to you that the copying is the best way of learning. And I copy a man called Amatya Sen.

As you know, a Nobel Prize winner in economics. He said, for countries to succeed, you need the invisible hand of free markets, right? Which is what the U.S. and UK have been focused on. but you also need the visible hand of good governance. So in all the sectors that you mention, if you have very smart people in technology, and if you have very smart people in data, you must have equally smart people for regulating this technology

or regulating this data. Because if the guys that are doing the data and technology are much smarter than the regulators, then they run circles around the regulators. and that's how they end up getting monopolies and they tilt the level of playing field in their favor and so and so forth. And so that's basically what the problem in the United States is

because the regulators in the United States are not as smart as the people in Silicon Valley and so the people in Silicon Valley run circles around the regulators. And so it's very important. I mean, the biggest strategic mistake that United States made was to listen to Reagan's, Donald Reagan's advice, he said, government is not the solution, government is the problem. So, as you know, the United States has been defunding, de-legitimizing, demoralizing government agencies,

and therefore, even the FDA and CDC performed badly in response to COVID-19. That's what happens when you attack government agencies and defund them and demoralize them. So we must learn from, again, copy. We must learn that countries that succeed. And frankly, like Singapore has done that very well. We have the invisible hand of free markets, but our regulators are smarter than the people in the markets, and therefore they can make sure that the companies don't run

and promote their own self-interest and sometimes undermine the national interest in doing so. So, Kishore, there is a structural issue in some countries, right? From a compensation standpoint, the guys in the private enterprise are making a million dollars a year, whereas the guys in the public enterprise are making $25,000 a year. To compound that issue, you've got the exponentiality of the problem in the private enterprise or private sector, and you've got the mere linearity of the solving capabilities or resolving capabilities within the regulatory framework. So it's pretty systemic, right?

I think it takes open-mindedness to fix this at the leadership level until such time that gets fixed. I think we're going to be exposed. Yeah, right. But I hope that there are enough people in most societies who have actually made enough money and who can then devote part of their lives to also doing some public service, you know. And there are ways and means of creating informal vehicles to bring in people who are super smart in the private sector.

So, for example, again, copying from Singapore. Every ministry, the minister will have a group of advisors. They're often from the private sector, often making tons of money, but who like the idea of doing some public service. and advising. And so there are people like that you can bring in and say, hey, you know this sector very well. What's your advice to us? What do you do?

Of course, you make sure you balance. You get a variety of advisors. Not all those who think the same way of from one company and so on and so forth. Then you can get ways and means of doing that. And by the year, when Singapore started off, the government salaries in Singapore were very low, you know. and despite that, we are lucky. And we were just Singapore, very lucky.

By accident, we got three brilliant men, Bikwanyu, Gokin, Sri Rajanam, who are also very honest, completely incorruptible. Just very bizarre. It's a blessing. And it was a blessing. And their salaries did not go up until the 1990s. So when V. Quan Yu became prime minister in 1959, his salary was the same as any developing country.

Okay. All right. I'm going to end this session with a few rapid fire questions. Sure. Right? So you want short answers? Short answers or it can be long, you know, but the question will be very quick. Muhammad Rafi or Amitabachan? Muhammad Rafi. That's too easy. That's too easy. Okay, I'll make a little bit harder. I love Muhammad Rafi, okay. And the reason why my brain is

is functioning is because of Muhammad Rafi. Okay, okay. I'm glad to hear that because I used to be a musician. So the next one would be code of conduct for the resolution of the South China Sea or otherwise. Code of conduct. And I think that's something that China should try to reach an agreement with the ASEAN countries as quickly as possible. possible because it is in China's national interest to do so. The South China Sea is the number one weapon that the United States will use to embarrass China globally.

And if China can conclude a code of conduct with ASEAN, then the United States has got to shut its mouth on South China Sea. Great. The next one is euphority. see ASEAN having its own currency? Zero chance. Okay. Explain. I mean, I'm with you, but I want you to articulate the answer. Absolutely, absolutely zero chance.

Because I think the big lesson that the ASEAN countries have learned from the European Union is that sometimes you can go too far in integrating yourselves. And the ASEAN countries are better of preserving their sovereignty. their sovereignty and then cooperating where they is in their common interest to do so, in most cases, without sacrificing their sovereignty. And of course, if you have a common currency, you've got to have a common monetary policy and a common fiscal policy, and you can no longer have budget deficits even in a major crisis. And so, therefore, it is not wise for ASEAN countries to give up their sovereignty for a common currency.

All right, this is going to be the second last rapid fire question. What is it that Singapore could have done differently? To make it better. I mean, not that it's not good already, it's great. The Singapore government has been very good in handling the hard challenges faced by Singapore, especially the economic challenges. The Singapore government has not been very good in handling the soft challenges that Singapore is facing.

Like, for example, the question of a national identity. And Singapore, as you know, is a multiracial country, 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, 6% to 8% Indian like me. And till today, we still talk about our ethnic identities. at some point in time, the tipping point will come and the Singaporean will say, I'm a Singaporean first and Indian second, you know? And therefore, the common Singaporean identity needs to flower and emerge.

And for it to flower and emerge, it needs an enabling environment, a greater diversity of voices, richer, I would say, production of this, literature, novels, poems and so on and so forth. So that dimension of Singapore society, the softer side has not done as well as the harder side. And I think we should spend more time on the softer side.

All right, the last one, man. How much longer do you think ASEAN will have to wait to get its Nobel Prize? it depends on whether or not you can replace the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and have an international committee jury to select the Nobel Peace Prize rather than a group of Norwegian gentlemen as I say primarily gentlemen

maybe some ladies there to select the peace prize because what's happened is that it's becoming very very clear that the 200 years artificial period of Western domination of world history is ending. And the 21st century will be an Asian century. So this idea that a group of old men or old people from one society can understand the Asian century and where the new success stories are coming from, I think it's a bit hard to believe.

And I would say if there's one simple indicator that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee can give that they have woken up to the new world, they should begin by showing their new understanding by giving ASEAN the Nobel Peace Prize sometime in the next 10 years. Wow. On that note, I'm hugely encouraged. Kishore, it's been fascinating. And it's a pleasure and an honor to have you on our show. Thank you so much. My pleasure. Thank you very much for having me. Teman, that's Professor Kishore Mabubani,

a friend-decat we from Singapore. Thank you. This is N-G.