How Singapore Adapts In A Changing World- Chan Heng Chee

Ambassador Chan Heng Chee is a prominent Singaporean academic, diplomat, and political scientist, known for her distinguished career in both academia and public service.

She served as Singapore's Ambassador to the United States from 1996 to 2012, and previously as Singapore's Permanent Representative to the United Nations (1989-1991), with concurrent accreditation as High Commissioner to Canada and Ambassador to Mexico.

She is currently serving as the Ambassador-at-Large for the Singaporean Government.

This conversation is brought to you by the National Youth Council of Singapore, a government agency dedicated to partnering with young people to hear their views, empowering them to act on their passions and providing opportunities for youth to have a stake in Singapore’s future.

To find out more about their work, check them out here: https://www.nyc.gov.sg/about-us

This is the 47th episode of The Front Row Podcast.

TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 Intro & Trailer
01:25 Singapore In 1965
06:43 Lessons From 1G Leaders
09:40 Would The Merger Have Actually Worked
13:54 Representing Singapore At The UN
21:34 Singapore's National Interests
25:54 Securing Singapore's Interests
29:25 Singapore As Global City
33:13 America's Unipolar Moment
35:57 Remaking Singapore's Image in America
40:38 Luck & Diplomacy
43:10 How America Has Changed
44:44 Will America Swing Back?
47:20 China's Rise and Its Global Implications
50:01 How Does Singapore Play Both Sides
52:15 US-China Decoupling?
55:03 The Role of the UN in Global Conflicts
57:08 Singapore's Relevance to the United States
59:05 The Taiwan Question
01:04:00 Middle East Dynamics: Change and Continuity
01:04:28 What Counts As Political Realism
01:05:39 Making Sense Of The Middle-East
01:09:41 New Forms of Diplomacy
01:12:15 Amb Chan's Message To The US
01:19:00 Core Values for Singaporeans in a Complex World
01:19:35 Multiracialism As A Singaporean Ideal
01:20:32 Advice For The Audience
01:22:51 Goh Keng Swee's Final Speech

Transcript

I would like to start us back in 1965 when Singapore first gained its independence. Take me through August 9th. What were you doing?

Amb Chan 00:01:34

What was I doing precisely? I was going to the airport to go to Cornell for my graduate studies. That was exactly where I was headed. But I do remember the speeches well. In fact, I remember speeches back in the Japanese occupation and so on. People look at me and say, "Gee, how old are you?" But you know, we do research and I'm always reading material. So I do remember the speech well.

What was 1965, August 9th like? And what were the times? I think you have to remember that in 1965 we were right in the middle of the Cold War and that's the point. It affected the whole of Southeast Asia and the US was here, was around. And in 1965, Vietnam was heating up and the US was bombing Vietnam. So that was the context.

But what Singaporeans thought of immediately was the racial riots across Malaysia, because the PAP stood for elections in Malaysia and Tunku Abdul Rahman, then the prime minister, said, "You're not supposed to do that. We thought we had an agreement." And we did. The PAP did put up a few candidates.

Oh, I think what we underestimated in Singapore, and certainly the PAP underestimated, was that the racial element was very deep and very strong. And when Lee Kuan Yew pushed for a Malaysian Malaysia together with the parties of Sarawak and Sabah and challenged that Malaysia should have a Malay prime minister only.

I think that really cut very deeply into the Malay polity and he said, "Okay, what's the time frame beyond that? When do you start having a non-Malay as a prime minister?" And that was actually a no-no issue. Malays in Malaysia felt this is Malay country. Foreigners came, so that has to be worked out.

And indeed, it worked out after May 13th, 1969, when it was established with no doubt that Malaysia was a Malay polity because the symbols of Malay power, the assertion of Malay power, was very much there with the constitution and so forth. And it took a race riot to do that. And today Malaysia has Malay as a national language. The symbols of power are Malay. But the Chinese have adjusted. Those who didn't adjust left. The Indians have adjusted. Those who didn't adjust left. And Malaysia is doing very well. Malaya, certainly Peninsula Malaya. I've just been in Kuala Lumpur twice this year and they found, you know, they've got through that history into a new period.

And it's very interesting, but what I would like to say is that I think the People's Action Party made its greatest strategic mistake by merging with Malaysia, by choosing to merge with Malaysia. That was a mistake. Only later they realised it.

But the point is not that, you know, so they made a mistake, then what? Is the leadership poor? Is the leadership not thoughtful, not strategic? No. I think the test of the leadership was that post-separation, this same leadership could actually pull us out of a hole and develop Singapore into what it is today. So you can make a strategic mistake, but make sure you can survive it and come out stronger because of that, which is what happened to us.

And you know, I'm sure if Mr Goh was here and you asked him, he said, "Gee, you know, I wouldn't want to go through that again."

Keith 00:06:44

Talking about that, you had the chance to interact and work with the different first-generation leaders. Be it Mr Lee, Dr Goh, even later on when you were setting up IPS. What were kind of like the lessons that you learned through osmosis?

Amb Chan 00:07:07

I kind of tangentially met them because I was a young academic and I was quite critical of government. But what was interesting to me was that Dr Goh actually called me up and wanted to meet me when my first book was published, Politics of Survival. He wanted to see who was Chan Heng Chee. I think by then he knew it was a woman, not a man. My name is very neutral.

So I showed up to see him in the Ministry of Defence and he just talked to me and asked me, "Who are your parents? What's your background? Who did you go to?" I think leadership, the Singapore leadership, is always very interested in Singaporeans and who they are, how they received their education, what made them the way they were at that particular age.

So I answered all these questions and he said, "You published the book." I was the first Singaporean to write and publish a book on Singapore politics. That was my Cornell MA thesis which Oxford University Press started, Oxford Monographs, and decided to publish it.

So he looked at me and he said, "You were wrong." You see, I concluded that the Singapore side, the PAP, was too ambitious. We were young, ambitious. We were out to reach for the stars, to grab the stars. Whereas Malaysia had this old leadership and they weren't used to this, and they found us knocking things around. And so it was a clash of ambitions, personality, and race factor. He said, "It's a race factor." He said, "So it's not personalities, it's a race factor."

And I would say later I thought about it, and in 1969 it left me in no doubt that it is the race factor. Had 1965 not occurred in 1965 and we separated, by 1969 we would have. So in that sense, I did say it was race, but if I had to put emphasis, I kind of thought personality had a lot to do with it. But I was wrong.

Keith 00:09:43

Why 1969?

Amb Chan 00:09:43

Because of the May 13th riots, where there were very deep riots. And I said the whole Malaysian polity changed because of that. Malays were saying, "You non-Malays, you come, you're guests in my country. We are bumiputeras, so let's establish that fact."

And so the New Economic Policy, emphasising the special rights of Malays and the affirmative action which built Malay entrepreneurship, came up more prominently.

So I was wrong and he put it that way. So coming back to your question, what did I learn from the leadership? Many things. That they were curious and they were discerning. I think throughout I felt that actually they read me right.

I'm told that they said, "She's a critic. Actually, she's not anti-government. She's not anti-regime. She doesn't want to change Singapore in that way. She just disagrees with us on policies," which was true, which was what I did. And I think I was a classic liberal then. I wanted more space for the university, more space for the intellectuals. It was about intellectual space and "Why are you so tough on the opposition?" Those were my issues.

So I think they saw that those were my issues. And the one thing I would say is that when I criticised government, I was never personal. I don't criticise any one person or use language that is snarky. If I say this is not right, I would say this is not right for this reason. I don't think politicians, our politicians, mind that. What they do mind is if you mock them, make fun, and infer things which they feel is not what they meant it to be.

So I think I survived because of that. I was criticising directly. I was not snarky and I was not personal and I didn't call names. So that helped me. So I come to the conclusion that actually the leadership, the Singapore leadership, was prepared to tolerate someone like me because of what I said.

Oh, I mean, there were some things like my promotions were slower, but it didn't bother me. You know, you have the courage of your convictions. This is what you believe in. So you didn't go up with your cohort. So what? I find people are very upset these days if they don't go up with their cohorts. But in my time, I think we all didn't place that kind of emphasis.

But anyway, as I said, the sun is still shining. I'm alive and I survived. So that was what I learned, that they did value people. They were discerning and they valued Singaporeans, and they could see that some Singaporeans were out to make Singapore better and did not mean anything untoward.

But working with them personally, I think what I've learned with Lee Kuan Yew, because I saw him a lot when I was ambassador in Washington, in fact all of them: how committed they are, how hard they worked, and how spartan their lives were. Every moment they were always thinking about Singapore, how to do things better for Singapore. And we're really very fortunate for that.

Keith 00:13:58

You made the transition to become also an ambassador for Singapore. Not the US immediately, but the UN. And as a lay Singaporean, you kind of look at that and be like, you know, what does that actually mean? What does that job scope actually entail? You kind of know in principle in the job description that your job is to champion Singapore's rights and our interests. But if I were to peel back that question and ask you, what was actually Singapore's interest?

Amb Chan 00:14:22

You know, when I went to the UN, Keith, I also didn't know what the job was about. I only knew my job, what I was tasked to do, was to run the Cambodia vote and to keep up the vote and win the vote because Vietnam had invaded Cambodia and it was a major issue because it wasn't just Vietnam invading Cambodia. It was a proxy war for the US and for China, so it was a larger picture.

But Singapore was very concerned because this was just after the Vietnam War and we believed Vietnam was pumped up, had all the ammunition, all the guns and everything, the steel that they had accumulated. And now, after beating back the French, the Americans, they're ready to roll across, you know, the falling domino.

So Cambodia is first. So we took a stance and we wanted Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia. Hun Sen was there, but Hun Sen was someone we saw put there by Vietnam. So as a result, we pushed for a vote at the UN to get the UN members to show, take a stance, that this was not acceptable and Vietnam had to withdraw. The UN would come in, arrange elections, and you get a new leadership for Cambodia.

So that was the play of those times from 1979, when actually it was December '78 running into '79, which was the '78-'79. For 10 years we ran that vote. And I went to the UN at that time in 1989, 10 years. And just before I went, Vietnam unilaterally pulled out of Cambodia. So what do you do now? How do you keep the vote? Others will say, "Why bother? They've already pulled out." But we wanted the UN to finish the job, to make it legitimate that Cambodia had to go through UN elections supervised by the UN and have the choice of leaders. And of course, aid would go in and so on. And this would be the actual result that the UN would want.

So my job was to keep up the vote. So I went to the UN and I had to learn the job on the spot. I'm an academic, so I'm going there. Well, one thing I learned is that I'm a very good salesperson, because getting the vote is really going out and it's retail, because I'm going country from country to country and you have to persuade them. I am selling, but I'm selling a position. I'm selling the ASEAN position on Cambodia that you have to have this election. We've got to, in a way, vote to show Vietnam the world community, global community, does not accept what they've done and they have to withdraw and have to have this election. So you have to keep up the vote to put pressure. And that was my job.

So I went to do this. I learned quite a few things at the UN. But I must tell you this: because when I first arrived, I would talk. You know, I'm an academic, so I talk. Suddenly, one day I say, "Oops, I'm giving away the state secrets." So I clam. Then you learn at the UN when you clam and you don't speak, nobody speaks to you. A lot of it is about exchange of intelligence and exchange of information. So who would share with you if you don't share with them? So later I learned to calibrate. I mean, I didn't really give away the state secrets, but sometimes I thought, "Did I say too much?" So you learn to calibrate, and that's what I learned.

But I also learned something at the UN, Keith, that actually you read a lot about countries and yes, there are interests, and those of you who've been doing courses in history and so on would have learned about: is it the individual or is it the forces that shape history?

It's both actually. But at the UN, I learned that actually the individual matters a lot. And I saw African countries with very little resources. They could be big, but they didn't have much resources. They really made everybody sit up and listen to them because of the ambassador, the PR at the UN. And individuals can move things and individuals can persuade.

Well, I became a salesperson and I was getting people to vote for, keep up the vote and not let go.

Keith 00:19:40

For many other countries outside of ASEAN, for example, when they look at this, it's just like another conflict, maybe like what we see today, right? It's a distant war for them. It's something that doesn't matter to them. And they might ask, "You know, Singapore, it's not even close. Like the invasion is actually quite far off from you. Why are you so concerned?"

Amb Chan 00:19:58

Well, we really made the argument, and Singapore does this all the time: we believe in international law, upholding of UN Charter, and no country should breach the Charter by invading another country to solve a problem. And it's big state against small state. And we take very strong position. When Iraq invaded Kuwait for the first time, the first Gulf War, we took a very strong stance. And members at the UN asked me, "Ambassador Chan, why is Singapore taking such a strong stance?" And I said, "Whenever a big country invades a smaller country, we uphold that principle because it is important to us small states."

And we even criticised the United States when the US invaded Grenada. So that's been our position. And we kept saying this. Whether we persuaded Singaporeans at that time, I think they were also sort of looking at us: "Why are we running around Cambodia?" But the Singapore public, political public, was not so interested in foreign policy in those days. Today they're very alive to foreign policy. So we pushed and we kept saying it's about our state and about the preservation.

Keith 00:21:24

Then perhaps if you could articulate or help me understand, if you look at Singapore's national interest today from your perspective, how do you articulate that?

Amb Chan 00:21:37

What is our national interest? Clearly, it is to preserve our sovereignty and identity, to preserve Singapore as it is. And what is our identity? We're a multi-racial nation and we have values that come with a multi-racial nation. We're not, although it's 75% Chinese, we don't call ourselves a Chinese nation. In fact, we say no.

I think some of you may know or may not know that in 1965, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce made a representation to Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and said, "Okay, now we are separated. Let's forget all this multi-racial nonsense. We're 75% Chinese. Let's adopt Mandarin as the national language." And Lee Kuan Yew pushed the Chinese Chamber of Commerce back and said, "We are Singapore, 75% Chinese living in a Southeast Asian region where so many of our neighbours, we are in the Malay archipelago." So he made that stance and said, "We will be multi-racial." And in fact, we emphasise that: multilingual, multi-racial, multi-religious. And I think that's the identity of Singapore.

But more than that, now we also believe in meritocracy and how to implement meritocracy fairly. And also, apart from that, transparency. And I would say that Singaporeans cannot tolerate corruption. They get very angst and upset if there's a smell of corruption with any leader or business leader or whatever. So integrity, I think that's also part of our values.

So we are a multi-racial nation with values, efficiency, and a kind of modernity. And we are too smart. I think that's part of our identity too. All of you are very smart and you are into IT and so on. That's part of our identity.

So preserving our independence, our territorial integrity, and our identity would be one. And then our interest also is to grow a good economy because otherwise you cannot feed your people. I wrote an essay on nation-building in the early days. I said Singapore is a migrant society, migrant nation. What holds people here? What can you offer for nation-building?

It's a bit like America. You make your country a place where people want to identify with. It's like America. You go to America for milk, land of milk and honey, in those days. And you go there because you can make a life there and you can prosper in America. So Singapore, because we are a migrant nation, immigrant nation, also should, and I said this in the 1960s when I first came back, I wrote that essay and said we should really emphasise that really for Singaporeans, it pays to identify. You stay here, make Singapore your home, and you can build a good home. You have a job, you've got a good living. And that's really our formula now. So it's performance legitimacy for the PAP. But we are built on that.

So that's what we're trying to preserve is the nature. And I should also add one of our values is belief in good governance. Good governance. And I think we would feel sad and realise it if we ended up with bad governance one day.

Keith 00:25:42

When you think about diplomacy and you think about foreign policy positions, sometimes it gets abstract and then people ask, "Oh, you know, how does this actually enhance our national interests?" So that's where understanding what our national interests are is very important.

Amb Chan 00:25:59

Well, in the foreign ministry, I believe we try to fulfil and protect Singapore in all these ways. Territorial integrity, that's defence as well, but diplomacy can help to protect your territorial integrity.

When we first became independent, Lee Kuan Yew, Raja Ratnam, Mr Raja Ratnam said this in parliament: "We will be friends of all. We will even trade with the devil." And when Lee Kuan Yew said, "We will trade," I was it Lee or was it Raja who said we will trade with the devil? Must be Lee Kuan Yew. No, I mean, he meant Soviet Union because it was the Cold War then, at the heat of the Cold War, the high point of the Cold War. So we will work with everybody, trade with everybody.

So that was the sense. And as the foreign ministry, we will maintain diplomacy. We will establish good relations with countries so that Singaporeans can trade and we find the best terms for you. We protect you. And if there's anything untoward happening soon, we should be able, we should be reporting that early to alert Singapore this is going to happen, you'll be cut off, just be careful.

You may laugh, but when I was in Washington I would get up and I say, "What can I do today to strengthen bilateral relations? What can I do today for Singaporeans?" I mean, I said it to myself. I didn't say it aloud like what next to do. But yeah, and I felt if I didn't ask, say that to myself or think about that, if not every day, say during the week or the month, I really shouldn't be an ambassador anymore.

So I think that's what we try to do. And during COVID, our people went to Wuhan. Some of my younger colleagues flew in a plane, went to Wuhan at the time, and we didn't know how COVID will spread and what would happen. So we do try to protect.

The other thing we do is we don't just work alone. In the foreign ministry, we work inter-agency as well. Now Singapore is a, you know, we survive because of location, strategic location. So we're a trading nation and that is where we began. Now from a trading nation, where do you move next as you want to develop into the 20th century, 21st century? Where do you go next?

First, Raja Ratnam said global city. We declared we wanted to be a global city in 1972, way before global city was written by Saskia Sassen and all these people. So we conceived of ourselves in that from the Tom Winegar kind of analysis. But after declaring ourselves global city, and there are tons of global cities, you're trying to be the most competitive global city. What next? We move on to FTAs because you find your country is limited, land is limited, space is limited. If you cannot, how do you grow your economy and how do you grow Singapore? You sign FTAs.

I used to tell Malaysian friends, "That's our oil wells." Many Southeast Asian countries have oil wells. We don't have these resources. Our oil well is the FTA. We sign an FTA, dig it, and it may spark business opportunities, etc. So we're always looking for solutions to expand this.

The one thing I would say about Singapore, Keith, and I don't know whether Singaporeans understand this enough: our leaders, first generation, second generation, and now third, fourth, what they've done very well is to develop the strategy of small state survival.

I said we began as location, location, location. That's why Raffles came. But beyond that, how do you grow it? How to enlarge it? How do small states survive? We have developed the strategy of small state survival better than any other small state.

So what do you do? You don't have resources. You don't have water. Now we make water. We can process water. You don't have land and your country is small. What do you do? This is before digital where your space really enlarges. You do FTAs. So you spread all the time and we believe in networking. And networking was, is so much part of us.

And now because of the rather protectionist environment coming out of the United States, countries in the region are trying to form groupings, economic groupings, where they can trade amongst themselves and create a space where there can be a free flow of trade and investment. And we join all these groupings: CPTPP, TPP then CPTPP. We reset, we push for it. And now Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has come up with New Zealand this idea that maybe we should link CPTPP with EU. You see, we're always coming up with ideas of how to improve the space you have. If you are constrained, how do you break out of constraint? That's Singapore.

Keith 00:32:28

Talking about free trade agreements and expanding the operating space, I thought it might be useful to just quickly segue to your time in the US, where you started as ambassador after your time in the UN. Although there's a lot of tangents that I would love to explore, but I wanted to first get your sense of when you first stepped into your role in that position.

I think two things were happening. One was that the US just won the Cold War, so they were at the height of their powers. And two, we were experiencing a step-down in bilateral relations back then. Previously, I think when Prime Minister Lee was around, he was very close friends with Reagan, so Ronald Reagan, and he had direct access to the White House. But when you went in, it was a different scenario. What was it like to go into the environment?

Amb Chan 00:33:13

You know, in 1989, we began to see the fall of the Berlin Wall. But 1992, I think it was '92, the Soviet Union imploded. 1991, '92. Then suddenly the United States, the bipolar order ended and the United States emerged as a unipolar power, the hegemon.

When I arrived at the UN, they were already in, sorry, in the United States. The United States and the Western democracies, Western countries, felt that their time had come. They were pushing and promoting democracy and human rights on everybody, pushing that. And we started getting into a tangle. We believe in democracy, but we don't want anybody pushing it down our throats. And so we started this debate about Asian democracy, Asian values and so on. And I think we annoyed the US tremendously.

But we beat the backside of this boy Michael Fay and that really was seen to be, "You see, this is Asian values and what are you doing to Americans? Not a human rights thing and so on." So we were not in a good place with the United States for a couple of years. Access was denied to us.

When I arrived, America was at the height of its power, the world's hegemon. They were so sure of their values, full of confidence. And Singapore was not in a good spot because we beat, as I said, the backside of this naughty boy. So my job was to change the atmosphere and try to gain access.

So I had to think, "How would I do it?" Nobody tells you how to do it. So you have to think it for yourself. I knew that was a task that was given to me. And so I set about working on this.

But I went very clear that I wanted to move Singapore away from the image of just being this great economic miracle and all we were interested in is that we were just economic animals getting high growth rates and so on. So I went to America, Washington, saying that I would show the cultural and artistic face of Singapore to show Singapore had a softer side, that we love the arts. And I promoted the arts during that time and did quite a bit of things to remind Singapore that, "Look, we're not just this country that has flawed contemplation."

Unfortunately, wrongly interpreted to have the case of Flor Contemplacion, the Filipino maid who murdered another Filipino maid. So she was taken and a child, the child she was looking after, because a child witnessed this. And the Philippines government, or rather the Philippines people, sort of created a lot of protest and stirred up issue because they thought we were ill-treating the Filipino maid. So anyway, so that, then the Western press wrote it up like, "This is Asian values again," this kind of label.

Then we had Michael Fay. So when I arrived, I was carrying, there's not to talk of the chewing gum which went before that, the chewing gum banning chewing gum as the image.

Anyway, so I set about trying to turn the press first. And my folks back home in the ministry said, "Come on, Heng Chee, you can't change the American press." I said, "You cannot, but let me try and get a fairer hearing."

So I did that. And I have said this before, but I was very lucky to have met Katharine Graham, the owner, the publisher-owner of Washington Post, in a trilateral meeting. And when I went, I saw her. And you know, in America at that time, there were so few women ambassadors that they were very welcoming of women ambassadors. I used to tell my assistant, "Call up this senator or congressman and tell them your ambassador wants to make a call, and just say my ambassador is a woman ambassador." You know, that would put some pressure. But so, you know, it worked in some cases.

But so Katharine Graham helped me. She said, "What do you want me to do?" I said, "Can I see your editors?" So she arranged for a few of the editors to meet with me. And this is a tale out of school.

When I met them, I said, "Why do you put Singapore alongside, you know, in your editorials you will mention these authoritarian regimes or autocratic regimes like North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Singapore, Myanmar?" And I said, "Do you think we belong there?" They said, "No, you don't." I said, "Then why do you put us there?" He said, "No, we don't." I said, "You punch up the stories. It's there."

So I think they did, because I found after this conversation with them, I didn't see it anymore. They just said, "The authoritarian regimes in Asia and Africa and Middle East," I don't care. You don't mention us is fine.

So I did my job there. But it was slowly trying to win over the press so that they have a better view of Singapore and not write these stories.

But let me say that luck does play a part for an ambassador, and in even in your business. Luck is very important. Your business school never tells you this, but luck is important because if you have, and I was lucky in that sense because when I was there, the Asian financial crisis happened. And you can say that, you know, it's an ill wind, but when the Asian financial crisis happened, Thailand's currency went down, Malaysia went down, Indonesia went down, country was in a mess. Singapore stood tall. Our currency did not swoon. Our banks were fine. So Americans started looking around and say, "What is this country? What did they do right?"

So that started turning things. Then the PISA studies came out. We taught maths. We taught science. So again, that was another good thing. So I think we were looked at with a different light then. That's why I say you've got to be a lucky ambassador, and I made use of that opportunity. But I think the arts and the culture, giving Singapore a totally different image, that Americans then realise, "Actually, Singapore is fine," and so the stories became better. And bit by bit, we improve things.

So that was America that I went in to, that I arrived to see. And they were pushing human rights. America was pushing human rights and democracy and the Washington Consensus, which was deregulate, deregulate, and deregulate and selling US dollars. And I think that's how the whole Asian financial crisis started, and unfortunately, Asian countries didn't do well. Korea didn't do well and so on. So that was America.

When I left, Keith, America had come down. I left in 2012. 2009 was a financial crisis in America which became the global financial crisis, a great financial crisis. When I left in 2012, I thought America had lost its confidence.

But then the United States always renews itself and is resilient. Later they suddenly came up again. And who would have guessed, you know, their stock market would suddenly grow very much again. So under towards the end of Obama and under Trump, the stock markets still perform well. Seems to be decoupled from what is happening in the country.

Keith 00:42:36

So maybe now we can jump into the part where we will ask you to be a bit more analytical and help us dissect and decode what's happening in the world today. So you talked earlier about how even after 2012, when you left, America continued to go on its growth spurt, primarily I guess driven by technology growth. Do you still see that today? Do you think that now there is still opportunities for growth in America? And do you think that America will still be like that benevolent hegemon some referred to in the past?

Amb Chan 00:43:13

I think America has changed in some ways. It is not pro-globalisation anymore because America believes that they've been at the receiving end of globalisation. The jobs are stolen, taken away, and so on, and they're losing manufacturing, and the people are getting poorer.

So America sees that. Today, America is much less generous. It was a very generous power. Today it is not as generous. It's America First. And so it's a different America. It's not as open as well. It's very concerned about immigration. In fact, anti-immigration. And so it's changed in that sense too.

But I think what we should not underestimate is how resilient America is, that somehow they recover. And as I said, there's a pendulum. It will swing. They are excessive to one, they will do something and it's excessive, like you remember the hippie period? They became very, yeahism, they went into this hippie drug stage and so on. Suddenly they swung back to conservatism. And now you see this swinging in this way. I'm sure the pendulum will swing back, but the difference is this: every time it swings back is slightly different level.

So I think what you will find going forward is America will not be as generous as they were before. That's for sure. They will be much more protectionist. Although not everyone, the next administration will not be like the Trump 2.0 administration.

And also President Trump carries his policies. You've seen his policies. All of you have been following the trade war, the tariff war. He can carry it because he has charisma. I am not sure his charisma can be transferred to the successor. If it is JD Vance, if it is Marco Rubio, or whichever Republican senator decides to run and succeed in winning the presidency, cannot carry that same charisma, but will have some whiffs of the policy. Even Democrats may have to have some of that policy. Democrats, how would they view immigration now? Will they be a bit more cautious?

So things change a bit. But I think we'll see. What President Trump has done to America is that I think he says he wants to be disruptive and he wants to be transformative, and he's doing that. What will end up at the end of the day, where it will land, I don't think Americans know. I don't think President Trump knows. And nobody can foresee in that way. But I think a lot of things have changed.

Keith 00:47:01

I'd like to open up the floor to questions in about like five to 10 minutes. So if you're thinking about questions, you can start putting them in the Slido or start preparing them. What I'd like to do is quickly ask a follow-up question which was, you know, every time people talk about the US, naturally they also think about China and the rise of China, especially when you think about the fact that China has emerged as the global manufacturing powerhouse and that is exactly where the source of discontent is in the US. So how do you read the rise of China for not just the US but also I guess for Singapore?

Amb Chan 00:47:27

Well, you know, I think it was Napoleon who said, "Do not awake the sleeping dragon," because you do not know, I forget the exact words, but you don't know what's going to happen at the end of it. And I think also believes that China will grow. Nobody can stop it. And our leaders have all said this to many Americans, that you can't stop China's growth. China will grow. 1.4 billion people. Then watch, next India will grow too. Population base has a lot to do with growth, honestly. And then you add technology. But China will grow.

And I think China has a scale that has really surprised and frightened people. I think America has just awakened to the China scale that, you know, what China can do, no other country can replicate. You want 2,000 engineers overnight? They will recruit 2,000 engineers and produce the extra 10,000, 50,000 units you want. And Chinese work very, very hard. But the scale is what it is.

I think America now kind of realises it. At least Kurt Campbell does. He wrote an article with Rush Doshi in Foreign Affairs lately and he said it's a scale, and to deal with China you've got to form coalitions. No single country can do it.

I see the competition between the US and China carrying on. It will not stop. And they are fighting for predominance and who is going to write the rules of the future world. And because they believe that. And China is no, is there, and China is emerging and it wants a place at the table.

Keith 00:49:32

You referenced that this was probably round two of an unfinished fight before. I think that this rivalry will probably not stop. And to a certain extent, it affects Singapore because when you speak to people in the region, you speak to the government officials of other parts of the world, they say they reference Singapore because you're able to maintain good relations with both sides. On one hand, for example, the US is the largest source of FDI for Singapore, but for China, we're the largest source of FDI for them. So then the question is, how does Singapore navigate managing both sides in terms of securing our national interest but also being able to get win-wins for the other countries?

Amb Chan 00:50:09

Well, that's a job for the leaders and for MFA to help navigate. You see, I cannot give you a single principle or two lines to describe. It's really case by case in each issue.

You know, I've said this: you don't choose sides by saying at a conference, "I choose China, I choose America." You choose sides every time the country, China or the US, puts down an initiative on the table. Do you sign up for it? If you sign up for it, you're choosing on that particular issue. So at the end of the day, you see how many boxes have you ticked for the United States? How many boxes have you ticked for China?

And then which boxes have you ticked? Is an economic box the same as a security defence box? So in other words, you tick for the initiative, economic initiative. Is it worth the same thing as ticking for security initiative? Some people say economics is hard power also. But hard power is hard power. You know, steel, guns and so on.

So I think I would say Singapore should maintain its position, and I know the 4G is talking like this too. You should not choose as long as you can and try not to choose. You choose both sides. You do things with both sides.

And on the China case, how it affects Singapore, US-China relationship. What I didn't mention earlier, Keith, but which is important, is this: that I fear you're going to see decoupling, especially at the higher tech level. Now that you will read many reports, some say they can't decouple because there's so much symbiotic dependence of the two countries. But the US is going towards decoupling, deregulation, denial of China of certain technology. China also began decoupling because when they announced that they would go for Made in China 2025, they were already thinking of decoupling in some areas. And Made in China 2025, which made everybody sit up, was this statement that by 2030 or 2040, they want to be 70% self-sufficient in critical technologies. I think that was what scared Europe and America.

And I think China has always felt you can't trust the West. They're always trying to do us in. So let's be as self-sufficient. The other 30% will still work, but we would try to be as self-reliant as possible. And I think as the Trump administration unfolded and Biden administration unfolded, the deregulation and the controls were pushing towards greater decoupling and control. So you see this happening.

But at another level, these goods, I can't see Americans buying fewer electronics, microwave ovens, clothes and so on from China at such a price. I looked at the list and right now I can't remember everything, but it's like washing machines and stuff like that. 80% of America's one kind of electronic goods comes from China. So there's a whole list of them. Given that, how do you decouple that easily? But I think in the high-tech area, the decoupling is taking place, critical technologies.

Keith 00:54:29

So if we were to use that analogy which is the idea of ticking boxes, in that case it's in Singapore's interest to perhaps plug in at both systems, right? We are plugged in with both.

Amb Chan 00:54:39

Yeah, no, we are. We've signed a lot of things with the United States. We are also, China is our largest trading partner, and we do a lot of things with China. But we also do a lot of things with the United States.

Keith 00:55:00

So okay, with that, I would like to quickly open the questions up to the floor.

Q&A 00:55:06

Hi, I'm Alastair. Thank you so much for sharing. The question I have is that as you previously represented Singapore with the UN and all, I'm just curious. We wanted to hear from your thoughts. How is the UN doing right now? Because the UN can do different votes on different issues, have different standpoints and publish different standpoints and positions, but how effective has it been in preventing conflicts or stopping conflicts? That's the first question. The second one is about us. You mentioned about the arts, our culture, and topping our PISA scores and so and so forth, but how can we continuously remain relevant to them such that we are useful? Because it has to be in their interest also. So what are they actually gaining and how can we also gain from them as much as they gain from us? Thank you.

Amb Chan 00:55:54

Thank you. On the question of the UN, well, it's very clear the UN is not very effective in terms of prevention of conflict or resolving conflict. In the end, it's the great powers, the major powers, that come in. So on the conflict area, Guterres is issuing statements but can't stop anything. But I would say the UN is very important in social development and in economic development for the developing, the least developed countries, the less developed countries. So it does have a role, particularly in disaster redistribution. And at the end of any war, the UN always comes in to help. So I would not do away with the UN. Small countries need the UN. If we have a conflict, we have to bring it to the UN and to make sure other people listen to our case and help us. It's not like two giants slugging each other and just carrying on at that rate.

Now on your question about how can we remain relevant to the United States, I think it's getting harder, and we're all trying to read what the present administration does. But I suspect that as the attention is less in the region, deciphering the region would be important. And Singapore has always played that role of interpreting the region, and I would say even interpreting Northeast Asia, China. And a sounding board. Now everybody knows everything about China. And in fact, I said we used, Lee Kuan Yew used to meet with President Reagan, Ford, Carter, everybody, and he would explain China to them. Now the Chinese, before the present times, during the Bush era when I was still there, I left in 2012, the Chinese ambassador would tell me, "We have 300 over 400 forums and platforms and channels to talk to the United States, more than us, at every level, whether it is city, province, municipality and so on." So I think it's there.

But right now, many of those channels have ceased. Whether we are good at playing the role of bringing the US and China together at a track-two level to promote conversations. I do that myself. I arranged for Chinese think tanks, US think tanks, Southeast Asian think tanks to meet, small group, discuss things. I think we are relevant that way and Singapore is a place where they want to be at.

My question is concerning Taiwan. On one hand, China has said we haven't changed our position. Taiwan is ours. But they seem to be more reactionary. If you don't give them a poke, they don't do anything. And on the other hand, the US kept on saying China is going to invade tomorrow, if not tomorrow, next week. We don't want this war, but they seem to be always poking the dragon, sending an aircraft carrier. What do you think China's real position is on Taiwan and what do you think US position is on Taiwan and what they... And if there is a war, what would Singapore do? And what would Singapore's position be? Thank you.

Amb Chan 00:59:56

What does China want? China has said it. President Xi Jinping has reiterated so many times. Every president of China has said they will reunify with Taiwan. And by force if necessary. They would prefer not to. They would try peaceful means, but force if necessary. That has been reiterated many times.

And the US has been, depending on the administration, and there are many hawks in the United States that listen to Taiwanese representation and feel they should support Taiwan. All right. And to be quite honest, everyone has changed facts on the ground. China has increased some of its escalated, some would say US has escalated. Nancy Pelosi went to Taiwan. They've been encouraging Europe to go to Taiwan and sending high-level delegations. And now they're sending, what are they going to sell, Patriots to Taiwan? You see, so there's been changes of facts on the ground. And because of Nancy Pelosi's visit, China now flies this plane across a median line. No more respects it. You broke it. I can also do so. It's that way.

The tragedy is neither China nor the United States want to go to war over Taiwan. I believe that. And China, I do not know what the time frame is. They would like to, they want to reunify. It is part of the Chinese dream. When they will do it, I do not know. Probably at a time when it is auspicious, where it works up. Right now, I don't think it's right now because the military command has been purged, and the economy is not in good shape, right? And the United States, it seems that President Trump is much less interested in pushing that Taiwan question, but others in Congress are interested in pushing that.

Will the United States send troops? Who knows? My guess is probably not. Why would they send, lose blood and treasure there? They, the United States, will probably equip Taiwan. And there'll be hawks pushing for more. And the danger is that Taiwan could fall into a conflict that nobody wants because people are playing chicken. And I think that's what we worry about.

So that's how I see the Taiwan situation as it is. And you are right, if the Chinese, if the Taiwanese don't raise anything, China would just let that issue be because they have too many things to work on inside China.

As for Singapore's position, we always say we never answer hypothetical questions. It depends.

There were two questions, I think. If I could summarise them, one would be how might a good government like good government in Singapore actually plan or ensure small state survival but at the same time not come across as fear-mongering? Because it's one thing to know your vulnerabilities and be clear-eyed about it, but at the same time you don't want to feel like you're constantly under siege. So how does a policy maker or statesman actually balance that tension? That's one question. The other question would be, they'd love to hear your thoughts on the Middle East. So maybe the cover story right now, I think a lot of people are focusing on is in Gaza. But at the same time, there is a rapid economic transformation in countries like Saudi Arabia. They're really looking to modernise and bring their economy into the 21st century and beyond. What's your read on the region? So those are the two questions.

Amb Chan 01:04:24

Okay. The first question: small, how do you not look like you're fear-mongering all the time? Yes, you know, the opposition will always say it's fear-mongering. Government, the ruling party, will always say I'm telling you the realities. That's a fact of political life. And you have to lay the truth and talk about it. But it's whether people buy what you say. So it's how you put your message across. If you overreach with your message, nobody believes you. But there are some things which are real. So I can't give a clear answer to that. But it's really the politician has to judge, when you say this, what are your facts? Because Singaporeans are smart. Singaporeans are very smart, and look at the way they voted this time. So we know what to vote for, when to vote for. And I think it's all out of fear this time because it is the Trump factor.

And then the second question on the Middle East, there are major changes happening in the Middle East and the Middle East is being made over. Gaza is a tragedy and it is very sad. It's cruel. Now Iran's military nuclear capability has been quite degraded. We're trying to figure out, the International Atomic Energy Agency is trying to say how is Iran pushed back a few months, a few years, many years. And I think the reading is that the damage was quite substantial because it's not just what the bunker buster bombs did. It's more than that. So you can drop six right down the same hole and you get at the uranium. What Israel did in blowing the cover, killing the scientists, could get rid of the scientists, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That's really quite something.

And frankly, they took away the air cover so President Trump, American planes, could just go in. Nobody stopped them. I'm sure he said, "I'll deal with the cover." Netanyahu must have told the US that, "I'll deal with the air cover. You don't have to worry. No American will be killed."

So things are happening there. And Israel has gone into Gaza and is still searching for their hostages and Hamas leaders. And Gaza is really in such a, as we have said, my Prime Minister has said, it could perhaps be a breach of international law. What is happening? But what is happening? Israel has emerged as a regional power. Some have written of it as emerging as a regional superpower, is going to play a very major role. That's a reality. So the Middle East is being remade.

Some Gulf states are going modern. Saudi Arabia seeks to modernise a country. UAE is doing well. They have good relations with the US, but they are an Arab state. So I think then the question is, they must be pleased about Israel getting rid of and the US getting rid of Iran's nuclear capability.

Can the Middle East, the Gulf countries, sign an Abraham Accord with Israel? I think under the present circumstances, a little bit difficult because Arab street will not accept it. But let us see how that relationship shapes up. So that's how I see happening. But the major change is the emergence of Israel as this power, regional power, regional superpower.

Right. Would like to open the floor up for other questions.

Yeah. Hi, Ambassador Chan. My name is Rastam. I serve as a data scientist at HSA. I also am one of the founders of an NGO based in Geneva called the Health Diplomacy Alliance. So my question is actually based on your experience and how statecraft can differ from let's say sector-specific diplomacy, let's say tech diplomacy and health diplomacy. What have you seen in your experience and what do you think is slightly different in these sorts of outcome-driven diplomacies in these industries?

Amb Chan 01:09:45

Yeah. Let me say that traditionally diplomacy really dealt with very high level: war, peace, security, trade. But in recent times because of climate change, because of health, because of pandemics, I think there is a new diplomacy emerging driven by the forces which are really life-threatening, as life-threatening as war and peace. So there is a new diplomacy coming out.

There's climate diplomacy. You have your climate forum, the Paris Agreement being signed. The UN takes a lead in this. And cities and they form C40, which is really an organisation of mayors who take things in their own hands because they say mayors have to react immediately if there's rising floods, rising tides, and typhoons and so on. So we have to help each other. And they're very effective, the mayors. So much so that there was a book that came out: should mayors or can mayors rule the world? So there is climate diplomacy from city to city helping each other. And that feeds to, if the country is climate conscious, European countries, it feeds into the national government's policies.

Now the pandemic has created health diplomacy which is seen to be very important. So GAVI was formed in the UN in Geneva and countries donate vaccines, and I think people are trying to do something about it. So yes, there's a diplomacy, new diplomacy going around sectors. Now there's digital diplomacy, digital economy. We're thinking about that. What are the rules and so on. So your question is absolutely right. There is this new thing emerging. There is still the sort of traditional diplomacy. You cannot put that away. You just see what happened in Gaza and Iran. So that goes on, South China Sea and so. But new, there are new sectors that are requiring diplomacy.

I'm Ming. I work for an energy company. So my question is, if you were the US ambassador all over again, what would be your three messages to Washington DC at this point in your life? Right. What still keeps you going day-to-day? I mean, you are in your 80s, which I find is amazing. Yeah. So actually, what gets you going still? I'd really like to know what brings you joy.

Jaded millennial right there. We got one.

One last one there.

Hello, Ambassador Chan. Thank you so much for your lecture so far. I'm just curious about your experience having worked in the US for so long. The accusation is that we're moving into a transactional age where values don't matter. But for me, speaking as somebody who is an amateur, a dilettante at foreign policy and looking at the US's behaviour over the years, hasn't it always been transactionalism by other names? Transactionalism but nice. So I'm just curious about how you see them rationalising their perspectives, but deep down it just seems to be a question of I will act on my values if it's convenient for me, but otherwise I will do whatever is necessary. Right. This is really new is my question.

Amb Chan 01:13:22

Yeah. So three questions. Okay. Right. Three messages to the US. Gosh. The first message, of course, would be, you know, Singapore is a free trader. US has a trade surplus with us. You're not in trade deficit. So I will keep hammering that message home.

Secondly, Singapore is a very good first mover and we set the pace. So it is beneficial for the US if you want to do things like digital agreement, etc., to work with Singapore because when we work with something, others will watch us and feel that, "Oh, there's something in it for us too." So that would be my second message, but always emphasising that Singapore is a good partner.

And the third point I would like to emphasise is that actually, and it depends, that frankly in the region we would really like to see the United States and China work together and work in peace. And if you can work together with two engines going, the world will reach a much better place. We'll all be much richer. That's a harder message to put across.

Second question on what keeps you going. Keeps me going. God, so many things. I am a very curious person, so I have a lot of interests. So don't think that I just sit down and read and read stuff. I read, but I also tune to music when after a while, and I go into YouTube and watch some YouTubes for half an hour for a break. I Spotify, I do Netflix, I do iQiYi, which is a Chinese streaming service. So I do a lot of things. Yeah. And I have friends who keep things.

No, actually all these ageing studies emphasise that you must have social contact and network. Friends matter. So yeah, I think it's more a curiosity and I don't know how to explain it, but it's there. I watch a film and I want to do research on the film. And like then they have characters there and I check out, "Was there such a character in history?" So that just keeps me going, that I think it's part of that researcher in me. But I must have a curiosity. That's why I am a researcher. So it's a very, I really thank God for giving me that gift because it can keep you going.

Yeah. So the last question. Oh. Is this transactional mode of the US something new or something old?

I think the United States has always been transactional, but there was an element of, I wouldn't like to say veneer, but there was a segment and there was a part of them which also emphasised values and some people believed in the values. I mean, you know, Kennedy would say, we will bear any burden, pay any price for the price in the cause of freedom. You won't get that today. All right? Nobody's going to say that.

But I think the way it has become so transactionally, so blatantly transactional, that's new. It changes the quality of the transaction and the meaning of transaction. And I think it's a world where people think, "Oh, is it might makes right?" And it's not just one country. Every big country may feel it's okay that might is right because this is now the new tenor of the times. So yes, they've always been transactional, but it's a pity that the values bit has been pushed so far behind. And I think there are many Americans that hope that this will come back at some time. But whether it comes back in the same way, in the same degree, as I said, you never come back to the same place.

Keith 01:18:35

I've got the last two questions that I think I'd like to ask before we wrap up. And then after this, we can ask you more questions privately. So I think one of the questions that came up, or one of the things that keep emerging throughout our conversation so far, is that we always return to the ideas of principles, the values we hold here. What does Singapore actually stand for as a country, as an idea, right? You touched upon a few: the belief in good governance, our belief in multi-racial meritocracy, the belief in actually economic progress for all, that it has to be inclusive for everyone. So these are the values that I think has shaped Singapore so far. Do you believe in them? I hope you believe in them, right? You believe in them? Yeah, those are at least the very least the aspirations we strive towards, right?

So as we head into this more uncertain, and you phrased it previously, this asymmetric multipolar world where things are going to be much more complex, what are some of the values that you think that every Singaporean should kind of hold dear to their hearts?

Amb Chan 01:19:36

I would like to see us really uphold multi-racialism and practice tolerance. Don't get sucked up in some of the thinking which may be floating around. But I think that's very important, that we should practice tolerance of each other. And I think I just read President Tharman's speech at the cohesion conference that it is not just tolerance, because it means that you just side by side, I tolerate you, but it's a kind of acceptance and working together. We must find a space where we work together like all of you are in the same space working together. And that habit of working, it has to be habits of the heart. It should become habits of the heart.

Keith 01:20:34

So last question for the working professionals here. Many of us are young millennials and Gen Zs. If there was a piece of advice you would impart them, what is it? What would it be?

Amb Chan 01:20:50

I hope you will in fact take risks and be daring. There's one thing I find about Singaporeans now. We're so comfortable. Government provides so many things. Sometimes I say maybe the government should provide less, then people will struggle a bit more and find their path more. But you have to take risk. I'm not asking you to be reckless, but calculated risk. And you can achieve great things. If you don't risk, what would you achieve?

I came back at the age of 70 from the United States as ambassador. I joined SUTD to become the founding chairman of the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities. I'm the social scientist. A whole university is full of engineers, computer scientists and so on. I didn't understand a word of what they said. I deal with history. I deal with politics, international relations. The university gave me an engineer and he worked with me. And I would say, "Hey, Kim Wang, what's that? What did the guy say? I'm not stupid. I've read this proposal three times. I still don't get it."

So I went through that and people say, "Hey, how come you keep so useful?" I said, you know, I feel so inadequate. I'm always chasing after something because I feel I don't know the subject. And when you are a bit on the edge, you feel you don't know something and you want to catch up. I tell you that really keeps you energetic and keeps you young because you're trying to improve yourself. And I think that helps.

So I would ask you to take risk. And let me just share something with you which I didn't have a chance to, but I would like to read this to you if I may before you go off. And it is a statement by, it is about courage and taking risk, and it is really a statement made by Mr Goh Keng Swee when he retired from politics in 1984. He stepped down and this is 1984, so he was asked to say something and this was what he said:

"More than 30 years ago, a group of returned students looked at colonial Singapore and decided they had a mission and they decided they had to change the system. They then applied the lessons they learned in British universities, set about building up a trade union following, and in 1954 formed the People's Action Party. It was an act of reckless folly. Mercifully for them and for Singaporeans, they did not receive the punishment they richly deserved. If I were a deeply religious man, I would ascribe our escape to a benevolent God. As it is, I will leave the verdict to a future historian.

You may ask, why was our entry into politics reckless? The answer is that we totally misread the situation, as indeed did many others. We did not understand that the mass base was firmly in the grip of the communists, ably led by the underground Singapore Town Committee of the Malayan Communist Party. A long searing fight of this kind must leave its imprint on the contestants, both on their individual characters and the political institutions they operate.

I want to tell you something about this and you will understand why we are what we are and govern Singapore the way we do. A person who had a narrow escape with his life soon sees merit in the habit of prudence. That is exactly what happened to us. Machiavelli said men are fond of innovations and liking the first taste, fail to see the poison within. Having failed at the beginning of our political career to see the poison within, we are always on the lookout for the poison in new situations.

Prudence does not mean that one must always take counsel of one's fears. In the course of our political struggles for the first decade, we learned that in a desperate situation, timidity leads to disaster. Safety can only be won by daring."

So it is daring and taking the risk. And I would like to urge our younger people today. You're not in a situation where it's dire, but you have to have that daring. And I fear some of that daring is withering away. How can you make yourself more daring? Now, I know many of you here are entrepreneurs. To be an entrepreneur today in Singapore is to be daring, to take these less trodden paths because it's so easy to get a job in a corporation or a civil service job. Then you have a steady salary. But to be an entrepreneur is really something. But you've got to do more than that. You've got to go beyond our shores and take your risks elsewhere. Work with the region. That's my last word.

Keith 01:26:43

On that optimistic note, may we just all thank Ambassador Chan for the wonderful dialogue.

Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you are watching this on YouTube, please consider subscribing and turning on notifications for whenever new episodes are out. If you're on Spotify or Apple, it would help us greatly if you could leave a five-star review on those platforms.