This is my fourth time at Munich Young Leaders (MYL) Conference, and thank you for the invitation again. It is a delight always to speak to a group like you. Your CVs are highly impressive, in fact, quite intimidating. I know you are very well-achieved. I must also congratulate the MYL Round Table organisers. Every year, you choose a breakfast venue that is very highly unusual. Last year, if you still remember, there was snow on top of Bayerischer Hof, and it was a beautiful setting.

I thought what I would do, as I have done in the previous years, not to expound on anything, certainly not the world order in 45 minutes, but to bring into your consideration certain points which we can talk about. I would like to hear from you as well, and while I was preparing for this, I looked back over the last three years where I have spoken here.

During that time, I focused on five broad trends facing our world. I talked about altered trade patterns, how a shift has begun, both from the West to the East, and how China, as Senator Robert Corker said yesterday, is now the top trading partner of more than 100 countries. Inconceivable! Yesterday, at the session, I said that China has changed so much. And it wasn't so very long ago that Deng Xiaoping came to Singapore in 1978. When he met Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who was the Prime Minister then, Mr Lee said, and I paraphrase: We will support you, but you have got to stop the Communist broadcast. In 1981, the broadcast from the Malayan Communist Party stopped, and as you all know, the four special economic zones began in earnest, and Deng Xiaoping started his socialism with Chinese characteristics.

So, back to altered trade patterns, I talked about how unsustainable legacy systems would be unravelled in Europe or elsewhere - greater polarisation, increasing transnational threats, and demographic trends. We are seeing at the same time - I think never before in recorded history - an aging Europe with a very young South of Mediterranean and Africa. I know that many European countries are now faced with the problem of refugees, and what makes European leaders more worried is not only refugees from countries that are now affected by the crisis in Iraq and Syria, but from Africa.

But I have been impressed, even looking back at what we have been talking about, how rapidly at each Munich Security Conference, how dramatic each conference has become, and how different. I have been attending the conference for a few years, and when I first attended, it was all about the peace dividends. I visited the Bundeswehr some eight or nine years ago, and they were downsizing by a third. Everywhere you talk to, there was this feel good movement in the EU, and this year, the commentary is - the peace dividend is over.

Specifically last year, I touched on three trends: an altered Europe, rising nationalism, and political Islam. And this was because of the events in France, before the events of the great deluge of refugees. Europe is still reeling from the shock of those multiple terrorist attacks in France, grappling with refugees and migrants, and this very conference brings into confluence all these factors: Rising nationalism, the crisis in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State, Russia, terrorism, and the refugee problem. All consolidated in one episode. So this year is one of the most heightened MSC's I have attended. And, your ambassador has pronounced and has made a prognosis that \"security is bleak\". It shows you how rapidly events are unfolding.

But if you look across the larger Europe, and indeed the world, China overtook the US (United States) as a leading trade nation two years ago. The BRICS nations will surpass the G7s in their world share of GDP. Again, altered trading patterns. But there has been a response to the events of globalisation, whether it is from Syriza in Greece to Le Pen's National Front in France, far-left and far-right parties are gaining ground, against the backdrop of growing anti-immigrant sentiment, as well as simmering discontent over incumbent governments' mismanagement of economic and social crisis.

The ISIS' impact is global, whether it is groups ranging from Boko Haram in Nigeria to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines. They have declared their allegiance to ISIS. And in a place far away from here - Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia - more than 700 to 800 foreign fighters, some who come from the armed forces of their own countries, return now and pledge to form a Wilayah. An Islamic caliphate with allegiance to ISIS is now part of the world as well. This is a global phenomenon.

So, I think it is clear from all these events that we are entering a new era quite different from post-WWII and end-of-the Cold War constructs. We have enjoyed 70 years of relative peace. I consider my generation very fortunate so far, as there are no world wars. Some say this is World War III, but you know you fought at a different level. The questions you have to ask yourselves are, \"Will your generation be as lucky? Will you see a global conflagration?\" Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger summed it up best when he said in his book, the World Order, that \"the crisis in the concept of the world order is the ultimate international problem of our days\". For him to state this after 70 years of relative peace, tells us that we need to focus on this.

So I would like to ask you. For countries, we are quite clear who sets the rules. In democratic elected governments, it is really the governments if they have the popular support of their people. But on a global scale, who sets the rules for our World? Who defines the rules? Who sets the system? How is whether acceptance or rejection of these rules expressed on a global scale? Whether it is accepted or rejected, what are the outcomes and impact? So if I can use the Cold War as an example in reference to these questions. During the Cold War, the contest between the two-world systems was clear - bipolar system - capitalism, communism, I simplify. You could understand the protagonist, the antagonists, the leaders in each camp. But today, a more multipolar World exists, and against this geopolitics, there are also local factors within countries, and these local factors interact with these global factors to create different outcomes. And I want to talk about what is happening against the backdrop of changing trade patterns, political Islam and demographic changes.

The local factors. First, globalisation versus nationalism. I think at no point in our history have we been more interlinked, whether it is in finance, trade, people or information flows. When an erstwhile Communist country like China holds 1.3 trillion in US bonds, you know we are linked. But there is also a pushback from all our citizens. It is increasing. Just think, in the US, the Congress, both houses will have to debate whether to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). They sign a sort of an agreement in New Zealand recently, but it still has to be rectified. Just think, the US, a champion of free trade. When I spoke to Congressmen and Senators, they are not certain that they can sell the TPP to their constituents, even if they completely believe in it. Across the Atlantic, Euroscepticism is growing. The Schengen group is now under stress and Brexit a contentious issue. What has this translated into? In every country that you see, this translates into greater political support for individuals or parties who take extreme positions. How else can you explain Donald Trump? Or Jeremy Corbyn? Or UK Independence Party (UKIP)? If you do not take an extreme position, you get fired from both ends. Take an extreme position, you leverage the growing resentment and you get support. That is a first factor where there is rising nationalism against globalisation.

The second factor is the fear of tyranny versus the paralysis of modern democracies. We all understand how modern democratic, liberal democratic systems work - checks and balances to counter the concentration of power of dictators. But modern democracies focused on partisan advantage and interests, and have not been able to govern effectively. Again I use the US as an example because it is the largest democracy, or the richest at the very least. In recent years, the US federal government faced shutdown when Budgets could not be passed. Coalition governments compromise themselves into ineffectiveness. So citizens become disenfranchised and cynical about the entire political process.

The third event that I want to quickly touch on is the advent of disruptive technology versus what people term as the Luddites. People who say \"I want the world to stop because the technology is disruptive\". And if you take two simple examples, robotics and artificial intelligence, you will see for your generation more and more jobs become automated. You cannot beat a machine that works 24/7, produces a product or service that cannot join unions, that does not strike and complain, and once you set it you do not have to talk to it anymore. The change is disruptive, old jobs will be lost, and I think many workers across the world will face the pain of re-training to become employable.

I would like to talk about one final aspect which I think is a local factor, and this is of particular interest to you. I call it the millennials versus the baby boomers. My generation, the baby boomers, and most of you are the millennials. Today's millennials are the best-educated and the most net-savvy generation in modern history. I am talking globally. Look at the characteristics of this education, this significant event or development has not translated into opportunities and achievements for your generation. One report indicates that millennials are at least twice as likely as their elders to be unemployed in most regions. Worse, if they are employed, their salaries are also as low as ever. So, highly educated but face problems in finding jobs, and if they find jobs, their salaries do not commensurate. Another report indicates that the median annual earnings of adults aged 18 to 34 in the US in the last few years has been the lowest since 1980. There has been a regression. A survey conducted among the Chinese revealed that only 10 percent of respondents felt that the career prospects of young people depended more on hard work and ability than on family connections. Remember this is a nation that is top of the scores in rankings for Maths and Science, and in other educational instruments. Companies increasingly prefer more experienced employees rather than fresh graduates with little or no experience; and in many places across Europe, youth unemployment is at an all-time high. Look what’s happening in Spain, 50 per cent unemployment for those below 30. And compounding this lack of income, lack of opportunities, is the need to support a silver tsunami - a wave of baby boomers and parents retiring and leaving the workforce.

I put these geopolitics, political factors, local factors as interplay between what will finally result in the world system as we talked about. So at a higher level, I talked about who governs, what rules govern our world, but at the local level these are significant factors which will come and interplay. I am not suggesting that we gaze into the crystal ball and try to predict the exact outcomes. I think it is hard to predict, and actually unproductive to do so. What we must do, is to encourage the acceptance or a continuation of universal principles that have served us well. So despite these factors being very strong, both globally and locally, what I think we as leaders must do, and you as either current leaders or future leaders of your generation must do, is to decide how you want to shape the world even in spite of these forces. So I asked a question earlier, who governs, who sets the rules for our world. Let me answer that question.

In the global arena, rulers decide the rules. And it is in everyone's interest to maintain a balance of powers, so that dominant powers would take into account the interests of small and large states. I am not going to say the politically correct thing that the people decide the rules. History does not bear that out, and in global politics, size matters. I am telling you this from Singapore, which is only 700 square kilometres and has 5 million people. Size matters. And we should act to ensure that there are levers that allow globalisation at a sustainable pace for various countries. Our citizens did not buy into the refugee crisis at this level, this is globalisation at its best, but citizens across Europe did not sign up for this, and they will rebel at this. You have to regulate it to a level that is sustainable for different countries. We have to establish sustainable industrial practices, so that we can ward off climate change problems. We have to prevent insular trade or military blocs and urge compliance to international law. And we should promote responsible use of technology, facilitate governance and accountability, open up markets and increase labour mobility.

I thought I would bring these points up for discussion, but let me conclude by saying that your generation of leaders, whether you like it or not, will be faced with both the benefits and the problems that you inherit from us, and you must be alive to these challenges. I would say that with these changing patterns that we have talked about, we are entering into an era of new rulers and new rule makers and new rules. You have to be alive to these challenges to shape a better world ahead for your own futures. Thank you very much."}]