May 17, 2010
On power and stabilising forces
View more photos
With his insightful analyses of trends in international politics, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew can be considered the world's 'Chief Intelligence Officer', says Asahi Shimbun, a major Japanese newspaper, whose Editor-in-Chief YOICHI FUNABASHI interviewed Mr Lee. We carry today an edited excerpt from the interview.
No. Post-America may take place in another 30 to 50 years. I do not see the Chinese being able to equal American technology either in civilian or in military terms nor in the purchasing power of the American market.
Although the numbers are with China, per capita GDP is still low. And even after 30 years, when they exceed America's GDP, their per capita will be low. Power is the projection of economic strength, military capability and political influence.
In the second half of this century, we have to see. Because by then, the Chinese would have caught up technologically. Not completely, because the Americans will advance further, but they will be closing the gap. And although their per capita may be lower, their total resources for 1.4 billion people will be greater than America's. Therefore, they would have more resources to spend on political and military purposes. That may tip the balance - not completely to their side, but they will be in a more equalised position for power (and influence) in the Pacific.
That's my view. I may be wrong.
Well, there is an off-chance that the US will lose confidence in itself, will not be so creative, so inventive, creating breakthroughs in new technologies and attracting new talents from abroad. I don't see the US in the next 10, 20, 30 years losing that capability.
Talent will not go to China. Talent will go to America because Americans speak English and everybody fits in. It's a country that embraces immigrants. To settle in China, you have to master the Chinese language. And you must get used to the Chinese culture. And that is a very difficult hurdle to clear.
Even Singapore-Chinese doing business in China find that they need about one to two years to adjust to a different way of life and a different way of thinking. So in my assessment, Professor Ferguson is spelling out an off-chance.
Well, it is a constantly adjusting position because although the Chinese cannot match the Americans in capabilities, they can inflict enormous damage on the Seventh Fleet. And with their submarines, they may even sink an aircraft carrier. The submarines are bought from Russia. They are very silent Kilo types. They have several.
In fact, we have done naval exercises with the Americans with our submarines and we have shown how we could have their aircraft carriers on target. So I think they had considered that. Therefore, power projections cannot depend on aircraft carriers. They will need bases. Hence, the bases in Japan, in Thailand.
Pity Subic base closed down, but that's the choice of the Filipinos. Okinawa is a very important staging point for (the Americans) - nearer to Asia than Guam.
I think it is natural for the Okinawans to want to be free of American troops because you have acts of rape and all sorts of problems. But from a national point of view, for your own security and the balance in Asia, if you removed the bases from Okinawa to the mainland or Hokkaido, which is rather cold for the Americans, it is still workable.
But if you remove all bases for America, I think your position, and that of Asia, will be weaker strategically because you cannot balance against China.
The Japanese people will have to decide where is their longer-term interest and which is more important: Your security or the convenience of Okinawans?
Absolutely. I have no doubts it is a stabiliser. I am sure many would not like to say so, but they think so. They know it, but we say it to make it easier for the Americans. And for the Japanese.
Nobody can accuse us of being in the pay of the Americans. They don't give us any aid. We are not a satellite country. We don't have any treaties with them. We allow them to keep their logistics in Singapore for forward actions in the Gulf region.
That's all.
Well, the Global Times, which is an offshoot of the People's Daily, translated 'balance' as zhiheng, which means 'to conscribe', and not pingheng, which is 'to balance'. So naturally, if you give the interpretation 'to conscribe China', it must have aroused Chinese anger.
I am saying what I am saying not because I am Chinese or because I am anti- China, but because I represent Singapore, and this is in my national interest - that there should be a balance in the Pacific. Without America, you can take Japan, you can put North and South Korea together, you can put the whole of Asean together, you can even get India together - you can't balance China. India is too far away and they can't project the forces into the Pacific. But the Americans can.
No, I don't think so. China is too big to be encircled. Japan may be able to monitor submarines coming out from north of Shanghai. But you can't stop submarines coming out from Hainan Island. So I don't see any encirclement as possible.
No. It is bipolar. And Japan is part of the American pole. Japan on its own, regardless of the quality of her technology and the capabilities of her people, cannot balance China. It's not possible.
At the moment, if you ask me, Asean is more leaning towards America. But as time goes on, more and more of continental Asean - Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Burma - will have to consider China's view because their markets (for raw produce and minerals) will be in China.
So over time, Asean will be divided between archipelago Asean and mainland Asean. I think archipelago Asean will find it more comfortable if there's a balance. Eventually, the Chinese will have a blue water fleet with an aircraft carrier. It's a matter of time.
So if there is a balance, we will have more room. If there is no balance, there is no shade in between. We have two big trees, (we can) find some shade between the spreading branches of the two big trees.
India's military role will be confined to South Asia and she cannot project her forces into the Pacific. She might be able to project her forces into the Strait of Malacca because it's near the Andaman Islands. But to go beyond Singapore will be a difficult problem for her.
Land projections across the Himalayas or across Bangladesh and Burma are very difficult. Similarly for the Chinese. So unless there's a huge deterioration of relations, I do not see a repeat of the 1962 (India-China conflict).
Well, I am not sure they will be natural allies forever. Because for a long time, the US favoured Pakistan because India was in alliance with and buying her weaponry from and trading with Russia. So she was in the other bloc. The Indians still maintain military relations (with Russia and buys) military equipment and hardware, aircraft, from them.
It will take some time for the Russian republic to find the strength it had as the Soviet Union, with the whole empire. But nevertheless, their military technology is considerable and (Russian Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin has shown he is going to keep that up. And so you see they are producing updates of Sukhoi and the MiGs and selling them around the world.
No, it's much larger because their interests are aligned. The Americans would want another heavyweight at the other end of the tug-of-war. And the other heavyweight is India. It may not have the GDP - less than one-third of China's. But its population is not very far off China's, and they may even become larger than China by 2050 or 2060.
So it is useful for the US to have a stabiliser in South Asia. And I think the US must be realistic enough to see that, at the rate India is growing, she cannot project her military forces beyond the Strait of Malacca. The Chinese can project some weight - not their whole weight - to the Indian Ocean, the routes to Burma.
Well, it has to stay cohesive and not divided. And for the present phase, the Chinese want it to be cohesive and to carry the whole of Asean with them.
It is important for (China's) total global strength to have Asean with them. So Asean finds itself an attractive partner to China, to India and to America. Where the final proximity or togetherness will be, I cannot say. It depends upon how things evolve and what benefits China can give us compared with the Americans.
But as I have said, for 30, 40 or even 50 years, Asean will have more benefits - but of course diminishing over time - from America as against China. China will draw us in because of its huge market. But America has a high investment technology and she buys expensive products, which is a result of multinationals investing in these countries.
The Chinese cannot equal that. I mean, we now have about 4,500 Chinese companies in Singapore and 4,000 Indian companies. But none of them can equal the American or the Japanese or the European MNCs in sophistication of their products. It will take the Chinese some time to catch up.
It will be decided not by the Australians but by the Chinese. If the Chinese find that it is useful to have a structure like what Mr Rudd has proposed, then that will be carried out. I doubt it. There is no advantage for China in this proposal. They may not openly reject it. Instead they will say: 'Yes, we will consider it.'
They have already decided that Asean is important to them. It is their southern belly, strategically and economically. They want to be the major influence in Asean. They don't mind the Australians competing for Asean's loyalty. China will have to compete with America and Japan together.
I prefer to wait and see what happens - whether strategic thinkers in Japan will conclude that this is in Japan's interest.
Japan alone cannot be a counterweight to China. You may have no counterweight if you are part of the Chinese bloc. If America supports you, you can bargain with China. Without America's support, you have no chips to play with.
Let's be realistic. The Americans do not want Japan in China's bloc. You are either with America or with China - period.
No, you don't have to choose. You just stay where you are. Status quo is the best option for Singapore and maybe for Japan also.
Well, in 20, 30, 40, 50 years, maybe. But we will see how rapidly China develops.
Japan's leaders were older and they had no new thinking. The faction leaders were all older and did not allow younger Japanese to take over the leadership, although they were more attuned to the present state of the world. They could have changed Japan's economic and political policies and made Japan more relevant to today's world.
Next, you have a fundamental problem - an ageing population. So despite many stimulus packages, there was no real recovery. Old people don't change their motorcars every year nor their television sets or buy new suits. They do not go for expensive dinners or spend on luxury items. They've got all the things they need, and you have not been able to stimulate domestic consumption.
Today you have about three Japanese for about one retiree. My principal private secretary has calculated that in 2030 you will have two to one retiree. In 2055, you have only 1.5 working for one retiree. How is that sustainable?
Yet you sent 'pure-blooded' Japanese from Brazil or nurses from the Philippines back because they couldn't speak or pass Japanese or for other reasons. Japanese people's demand for purity is extreme, considering your position. How can you continue that policy?
Your government urges women to have more children. That is slower and more difficult than getting more immigrants. The lifestyle of your educated women has changed. They are quite happy to be single, they are travelling around the world. They are earning their own living and don't have to get married if they don't like to.
Many have married foreigners because they don't want to be slaves of their husbands and their husband's parents. Many Japanese women working in Singapore Airlines have married our air stewards. They watch how Singapore women live: husbands do not boss their wives, and (newly married couples) can live separate from their in-laws in flats bigger than those available in Japan.
Japan will have to change its way of life. You can reverse low birth rates at high costs, like France and Sweden. They give generous support for nurseries, kindergartens and facilities in offices for the babies of married employees. But it's a slow process.
I think all policymakers should be aware of this insightful perspective. What countries can we learn from or emulate in terms of addressing common challenges?
Well, each country has valuable lessons. America shows how an entrepreneurial culture ensures a dynamic economy. Their best do not become salarymen. Bill Gates left Harvard University to start Microsoft. They have venture capitalists who support good projects and help build the management.
Our GIC (Government of Singapore Investment Corporation) and Temasek put money in these venture capitalist companies, as well-established insurance companies do. If one out of 10 makes good, it would more than cover the losses on the other nine. We were conscribed by what we inherited from the British.
Japan, you impressed us on how you train workers to strive for perfection in what they do. So Japan produces defect- free TV sets and, until recently, flawless cars - but you (can) restore your high standards. I am most impressed by the solidarity of Japanese workers, their drive to increase productivity to benefit companies and workers. And they have intense loyalty to company.
So I met your chairman of the (Japan) Productivity Centre, Kohei Goshi, as I have narrated in my memoirs. His thinking is deep and profound. He said productivity is like a marathon without a finishing line.
==
Comments