*The video of the opening remarks and a subsequent dialogue is available on The Aspen Institute's YouTube channel.

Singapore Perspectives on US and China

Preamble

Let me just thank Professor Nye for his kind words and for the invitation from the Aspen Security Forum. It is a delight to be here and an honour to be among many knowledgeable luminaries and leaders.

The session is on Asia-Pacific but I thought I would take a few minutes to frame our perspective on how we see, basically, the United States (US) and China, and then deal with other issues and I am sure that questions will arise. I will give my perspectives from Singapore on the US, and then China with key takeaway points.

On the United States

For the US, I would start in 1990. In 1990, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who was our founding Prime Minister, issued a public invitation to the US military forces to use our air and naval bases. This was around the time where there were troubled negotiations with the Philippines. Mr. Lee made that invitation and obviously, it was headline news, with some newspapers head-titling it a surprise. But it was far from a surprise. It was deliberate, long-considered position by Mr Lee and our founding Cabinet about US' role in the Asia-Pacific. They held a long view that the US presence was vital for Asia-Pacific's stability and progress.

And that same year, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between Mr Lee and, on behalf of the American Government, Vice President Dan Quayle. Singapore could never replace Clarke or Subic, but it did allow a continued US military presence.

I would then fast forward in 2011, or 20 odd years later, and I would like to quote from the former Indonesian Defence Minister Dr Juwono Sudarsono, a trained economist with a PhD from the London School of Economics. He said that the US military gave "forward-presence" that provided "vital strategic assurance, guaranteeing regional and financial growth in the Asia-Pacific." So by 2011, even countries which were not allies or partners admitted that the US presence in the Asia-Pacific region was vital and virtuous. But Mr Lee and his Cabinet had come to the conclusion ex ante, long before 2011, in fact, as early as the 1960s and 70s.

I think, Professor, you would remember that in that era where Southeast Asian countries were newly independent – Singapore, we gained our independence in 1965; Brunei, much later; we were fighting against communism. Mr Lee said that Southeast Asian nations needed a climate of confidence and continuing security which America could provide. And the Singapore Government held that view throughout. There were the problems in the Vietnam War, but despite that, we continued that belief as we continue today. And it was not just the military presence, but America's global leadership in finance and trade, whether it was General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or World Trade Organisation (WTO), and with the assistance of the Clinton Administration, to China's accession into the WTO in 2001. In fact, in 1985, when Mr Lee addressed the Congress, he said that the US is the anchor economy of the free market economies in the world and in its hands, lies the future of the world.

I give that backdrop because it is important to realise that the success of ASEAN was very much predicated on those conditions and ASEAN has succeeded. I mean, if you look at ASEAN's GDP in 1960 – about USD $40 billion, and today it is about USD $3.2 trillion. If we look at the four Asian tigers: Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, from 1960 to 1990, grew 7% a year, uninterrupted. This twin approach in military and economics powered the US' foreign policy in Asia, and I think US has benefited – its foreign direct investment today is about a trillion dollars compared to 20 years ago at USD $200 billion.

In 2019, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the current Prime Minister, renewed that MOU and he signed the agreement with President Trump which reflects the continued belief by the Singapore Government that the US' presence in the Asia-Pacific is vital. And PM said that the US was a dominant power in Asia-Pacific and a stabilising security presence. Trade barriers come down often led by the US.

The key takeaway I would give is this: US leadership in establishing the liberal world order, through its military presence in the world of global financial trade, provided the stability from which Asia prospered.

On China

I would like to spend the next few minutes on China and will reflect Singapore's perspectives on China from our engagements with their paramount leaders across the years.

So we begin with Mao Zedong. Mr Lee paid a visit to China in 1976. He met Mao who later died that year. Two years later, Deng Xiaoping, who became paramount leader, visited Singapore. And it was Deng of course, who provided a different economic model for growth and stability, so-called socialism with Chinese characteristics. Deng Xiaoping visited Singapore in search of economic models and Mr Lee said to Deng Xiaoping that China would soon surpass Singapore because China had the "progeny of the scholars, mandarins and literati". It must have made an impression because Deng, in his Southern Tour in 1990, said, "We should learn from Singapore's experience, and we should do a better job than they do."

But there was also one specific request that Mr Lee Kuan Yew asked of Deng Xiaoping in 1978, was that the Chinese should stop the radio broadcasts by the Malayan Communist Party and stop funding communist insurgencies in Southeast Asia. That was a specific ask. Deng Xiaoping heeded Mr Lee's advice and the radio broadcasts and the funding stopped in 1981.

Jiang Zemin succeeded Deng, and just like Deng Xiaoping, led a delegation to Singapore in 1980. Jiang Zemin was responsible for establishing the special economic zones and it was he who established that and if you remember, he was the President who coined the "Three Represents" which basically socialised or aligned the Chinese Communist Party goals with the new economic model.

We talk about President Xi Jinping, now 68, General Secretary of the Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military Commission. He is likely to serve his third term. But he also had visited Singapore in 1993 when he was Secretary of the Communist Party of China Fuzhou Municipal Committee. It was he who articulated the establishment of the two centenary goals, one which was met this year and the other to be met in 2049. In 2015, President Xi met Taiwanese leader Ma Ying-jeou, the first time that two such leaders had met since 1950, and both sides made reference to the 1992 consensus, as well as developing cross-straits peace. And if you look at China's growth, it has been nothing short of transformative – 800 million people lifted out of poverty; largest trading partner of all the Asian countries; 15% of global exports now, compared to 5% when it ascended into the WTO; GDP per capita has grown about 70 fold across 20 years. Once you remember that the Chinese economic engine sustained Asia during the global financial crisis, that rapid economic and social growth will provide the Communist Party of China, political legitimacy for the years ahead.

The key takeaway in my mind is post-Mao, China's central focus has been driven primarily by its desire to raise standards of living, and more recently, to take a rightful place on the global stage. It has embarked on radical economic reforms but it will guard fiercely the political legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party because it believes that is the only entity that can guarantee progress and prosperity.

Conclusion

I would like to conclude again, with an assertion and a question that Mr Lee gave in an interview with Professor Graham Allison. This was in 2013. On the US, Mr Lee had this to say, "The US is the most benign of all the great powers. Certainly less heavy-handed than any emerging great power." On China, he asked the question, "Will an industrialised and strong China be as benign to Southeast Asia as the US has been since 1945?"