Harsh Truths About Geopolitics - Kishore Mahbubani

Kishore Mahbubani is a Distinguished Fellow at the Asia Research Institute (ARI), National University of Singapore (NUS).

Mr Mahbubani has been privileged to enjoy two distinct careers, in diplomacy (1971 to 2004) and in academia (2004 to 2019). He is a prolific writer who has spoken in many corners of the world.

In diplomacy, he was with the Singapore Foreign Service for 33 years (1971 to 2004). He had postings in Cambodia, Malaysia, Washington DC and New York, where he twice was Singapore’s Ambassador to the UN and served as President of the UN Security Council in January 2001 and May 2002. He was Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Ministry from 1993 to 1998.

Mr Mahbubani joined academia in 2004, when he was appointed the Founding Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKY School), NUS. He was Dean from 2004 to 2017, and a Professor in the Practice of Public Policy from 2006 to 2019.

TIMESTAMPS:
01:55- Decolonizing The Mind
06:10 - Kishore's Learnings from Lee Kuan Yew and 1st Gen Leaders
12:01- Harsh Truths of Geopolitics
18:13 - The Deterioration of Western Leadership
23:51 - ASEAN's Miracle of Peace
30:09 - Managing Myanmar within ASEAN
35:51 Advice for Future Generations

Decolonizing The Mind

Keith 01:55

I read your book from cover to cover as a young Singaporean and one of the big things that I've taken away from it is that we do live in an Asian century and we need to think for ourselves. I've read some of your previous books as well and there's a common thread throughout which is that as we step into the Asian century, we need to think as Asians and we need to do the work of decolonizing ourselves intellectually. So I wanted to ask you on a personal note, what does it mean to decolonize yourself intellectually and what was your personal journey like doing that?

Kishore Mahbubani 02:30

I think the disadvantage that young Singaporeans like you have is that your minds were never colonized, whereas the advantage we had in my generation is that our minds were colonized. When I was born in Singapore in 1948, my birth certificate said I was a British subject. I grew up believing, since I was living in a British colony in the first 11 years of my life, that the British people or white people were naturally superior to Asian people. Whether we liked it or not, our place in life was to be deferential to the Europeans or the British.

Having experienced that sense of inferiority myself, I know how powerful and pernicious such mental colonization can be. At the same time, being liberated from it is a wonderful experience when you grow up to realize, actually we Asians are as good as any Westerner, any European, any British.

Nowadays, if you look at the performance of Asians in the leading American universities, it's clear that Asian students are outperforming students from the West. If the leading Ivy League universities like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, or Princeton did race-blind admission and just looked at exam results and performance, they might end up with universities where half the population is Chinese, half is Indian. There might be no Westerners.

It's amazing that in one lifetime, I have lived through a period where Asians were seen to be inferior, then Asians were seen to be equal, and now quite often they're perceived to be superior, certainly in areas like academic performance.

Keith 04:14

When was that moment for you when you realized that you were on par with some of your Western peers, maybe in school or when you entered the Foreign Service?

Kishore Mahbubani 04:22

I don't think there was a single moment, but it was a sort of gradual process. Certainly, I would say my education in philosophy gave me a lot of cultural confidence because if you found that you could argue with the West on Western terms and end up sometimes winning the arguments, then that's the first step towards intellectual liberation.

But it was a gradual process. Working with Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr. Goh Keng Swee, and Raja Ratnam, who were very confident about themselves and their ability to do things - to some extent, I inherited some of their cultural confidence just by working with them.

Keith 05:01

You worked with the three of them relatively intimately. That was Lee Kuan Yew, the man that everyone knew. You also had a very special relationship with Dr. Goh. And even in your formative years in Foreign Service, you worked under S. Rajaratnam where you saw him stand up in the Non-Aligned Summit. I would like to ask you to share a little bit more about your relationship with each of these men and how they shaped you.

Kishore Mahbubani 06:10 - Kishore's Learnings from Lee Kuan Yew and 1st Gen Leaders

I must emphasize that all three of them were my bosses, but they were the best bosses to have. They were demanding, but at the same time, they educated you a lot.

Clearly, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew was the most formidable, the most intimidating person of all three of them, so you always felt that you had to perform well when you were with him. While Mr. Lee Kuan Yew could be very fierce and intimidating, especially in public settings, in private settings, he was a very good listener. He was very keen to learn about what's happening in the world, very curious. If you said something interesting or relevant, he appreciated it very much.

Dr. Goh was also in his own way quite intimidating, but I developed more of a personal relationship with him because I was a friend of his son, Goh Ken Chi, and his wife, Tan Siok San, whom you just interviewed. I would meet them in family settings in their houses, so I got to know Dr. Goh in a much more relaxed way. He became much more relaxed after he stepped down from political office in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At lunches and dinners, he would open up to me.

Raja Ratnam is the person with whom I spent the most time physically because he was my boss in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I would travel with him. When I was in KL, he would come and visit Kuala Lumpur because he had relatives in Seremban. I would sit in the car with him on the long car ride to Seremban and talk to him. When I was ambassador to the UN, he would come every year for the UN General Assembly and spend a week to 10 days there. I spent a lot of time with him, and he is by far the most relaxed, the most calm, charming person you can be with. He didn't believe in trying to intimidate you in the way that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew could or would.

Keith 08:24

You spoke about him being the Singaporean lion and standing up at the Non-Aligned Movement when Vietnam invaded Cambodia. You were there in person. What was the experience like? Could you share how you saw Mr. Rajaratnam represent Singapore, such a small state, in global fora? How did he champion not just Singapore's interests but multilateral interests in that instance?

Kishore Mahbubani 08:47

When we were in Cuba in 1979, Singapore was in some ways outgunned and outnumbered because Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba, was very close to the Soviet Union. He invited lots of leaders who were pro-Soviet Union. They supported the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia because Vietnam was also tied to the Soviet Union.

After Vietnam invaded Cambodia, the previous government, the Pol Pot government, Khmer Rouge government, should have kept its seat in the non-aligned movement, but Castro wanted to get rid of them. He organized a big meeting, and many countries said, "No, this cannot be done." So he organized a special small group meeting, inviting primarily leaders who were closely tied to the Soviet Union to try and intimidate Singapore and Sri Lanka, the only two non-Soviet allied states in the room. The Sri Lankans were clearly intimidated and didn't say a word.

But Mr. Rajaratnam, even though he was only a foreign minister and had to debate heads of government, presidents, and prime ministers, wasn't the least bit intimidated. He stood up and fiercely defended Singapore's position. I was really impressed by his courage. Courage is always contextual - you can be very brave when there's no threat to you, but when you have to deal with formidable personalities who try to intimidate you, many people would have melted in that situation. But Raja Ratnam did not melt at all. I was amazed at how fierce he could be in a fight, and I could understand how he was such a strong companion of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew when he fought the communists.

Keith 10:34

The reason I asked about that was because I think that was one of the big wars maybe in the past 60 years that Southeast Asia experienced. Now we live in a world where we're experiencing two wars. To understand what can play out in the coming decades, it might be useful to refer back to the past.

In your book, "The ASEAN Miracle," you talk about Southeast Asia being a miracle of peace, which is why I wanted to understand how we got here. It's like the fish in water analogy that David Foster Wallace talks about - the fish that lives in water does not know that it's in water. Peace is a non-event as you said. When you're living in peace, you're not surprised.

I would like to focus our attention on the wars happening now. There are two main wars we see in the world. The first one is the war in Gaza. It's weird because we have a special relationship with Israel, but at the same time, what's happening in Gaza is like the Millennials' Vietnam War, where it's being exposed through very graphic imagery across the world through social media. So my question would be, what do you think are the obstacles to peace? Is there a way out for this?

Harsh Truths of Geopolitics

Kishore Mahbubani 12:01

You're right, there are two ongoing wars now, the Gaza war and the Ukraine war. I've been studying geopolitics for over 50 years, and the big lesson I've learned is that wars are avoidable. But wars are avoidable if you have wise and strong leaders who can make the right decisions to prevent wars.

Quite often, and this is the tragedy about the West, in the past it was the Western countries that had wise and strong leaders. Now, many Western countries have weak and ineffective leaders.

For example, the Gaza war could have been avoided if the United States, which always says it's in favor of a two-state solution, had worked harder to achieve one. That means that Palestinians would have had a state also, maybe somewhat demilitarized because Israel is very concerned about security, reasonably so, but something could have been done.

Unfortunately, no American leader has been strong enough. Only the United States is big enough and strong enough to persuade the parties, Israel and Palestine, to come together. They failed to do so, and because they failed, the wound continued to fester. When a wound continues to fester, you get an outbreak.

We should condemn Hamas for its killing of innocent Israeli civilians. That's completely unjustifiable and should be condemned. But at the same time, you have to ask yourself, could all this have been avoided if a bigger effort had been made to create a two-state solution?

Similarly, I believe the Ukraine war could have been avoided. Surprisingly, the United States and the West had two eminent American statesmen who warned against the expansion of NATO towards Ukraine. One was George Kennan, the man who was responsible for America's successful strategy in the Cold War, the containment policy. He advised strongly against NATO expansion because he said this would alarm the Russians and trigger a negative reaction. There's a famous interview he gave to Tom Friedman, which I think everyone should read.

Also, Henry Kissinger wrote an article in 2014, 10 years ago, in the Washington Post suggesting a compromise formula for Ukraine whereby Ukraine would keep its independence and sovereignty, Ukraine could join the European Union, but Ukraine would agree not to join NATO. These were sensible, compromise proposals that were put forward, but unfortunately there were no strong Western leaders capable of carrying out this advice.

In my last conversation with Henry Kissinger one-on-one in October 2022, a year before he died, he clearly indicated to me in a very subtle way that the quality of mind of many Western leaders today is not what it used to be. They don't have the capacity to do strategic long-range thinking in the way that the Churchills and Eisenhowers could do in the past. The deterioration in the quality of Western leadership is also one of the explanations for the continuation of wars in Gaza and Ukraine.

Keith 15:16

What do you think drives that? Why is there now a deterioration? What drives this? Is there a zeitgeist that makes people more short-term thinking?

The Deterioration of Western Leadership

Kishore Mahbubani 18:13

I think there was a sense of intellectual complacency that enveloped the West after the end of the Cold War. This very famous essay by Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History" - when the essay came out, it basically said that the Cold War has ended, the West has won, the West doesn't need to make any more strategic adjustments. The West can just switch on autopilot and proceed, and the rest of the world has to make strategic adjustments to this new world order.

That was an incredibly dangerous, complacent attitude that the West developed. As I say quite brutally in my TED talk, which now has over 2 million views, Francis Fukuyama's essay did a lot of brain damage to the West because it put the West to sleep at precisely the time when Asia was waking up.

Clearly, this was a time when the West had to learn to share power with other societies, other cultures, other civilizations. This is a fairly basic thing, but it is impossible for the West to think of this. Therefore, Western minds are making what I call metaphysical mistakes in not understanding that the world has changed fundamentally. They've got to throw out all the ideas of Francis Fukuyama and "the end of history," take them out of their brains, throw them into the rubbish can, and think of a new way of looking at the world.

The one piece of good news is that the rest of the world is preparing for the Asian century. When I came up with my ninth book, my book of essays, "The Asian 21st Century," it's a collection of essays explaining how this will be the Asian 21st century. The publisher, a German publisher, Springer Nature, expected there to be about 20,000 downloads of this book. Instead of 20,000 downloads, there have been 3.8 million downloads in over 160 countries.

So the rest of the world is preparing for the Asian century, but Western minds are not preparing for it, and therefore Western societies now are struggling in some ways.

Keith 20:28

The book was free to download and I read it. I completely enjoyed it and learned a great deal from it. One of the things when you talk about the Asian century is looking at the ASEAN model as a potential model to copy. As Dr. Goh said, problems have been solved by millions of other people, by other generations before us. We just need to learn how to adapt it to our situation.

When I was reading the book on the ASEAN Miracle, one of the things that really screamed at me was how you talked about the separation of Singapore and Malaysia as a lesson that could be used to deal with the Israel-Palestine situation. Could you elaborate on that?

Kishore Mahbubani 21:11

I think whenever two countries separate, there's a lot of bitterness. Quite often the bitterness can last for generations - for example, the bitterness between India and Pakistan, even though they separated in 1947, 77 years ago. Still today, India and Pakistan don't have normal trade relations. That's absurd, but that's a sign of how long the bitterness of separation can last.

By contrast, Malaysia and Singapore have done a remarkable job of overcoming the wounds of the past. As I described in my book, "Living the Asian Century," when I was in KL in the 1970s, about a decade after the separation, there was still some residue of bitterness and acrimony towards Singapore. But I've been to KL several times this year, and it's a very different world now, where they are willing to cooperate with Singapore in a way that is quite amazing. It shows how Malaysia and Singapore have risen above the bitterness of the past.

But this is not just Malaysia and Singapore, it's ASEAN in general. What ASEAN has achieved is a genuine miracle because ASEAN is by far the most diverse region on planet Earth. Take a quick mental tour and go to Africa, Latin America, North America, Europe, Middle East, Central Asia, Northeast Asia - no other part of the world is as diverse as Southeast Asia.

Out of 680 million people, you have 250 million Muslims, 150 million Christians, 150 million Buddhists - Hinayana Buddhists, Mahayana Buddhists - Hindus, Confucianists, and I say we also have lots of Communists. So it's a very diverse region of planet Earth. This is where all the fighting should be taking place. Instead, we've had peace for over 50 years, which is amazing.

That's because, as I tried to explain in "The ASEAN Miracle," we were lucky to have very good strong leaders who understood the need to cooperate. A special tribute must be given to two leaders, President Suharto and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. The fact that these two men, who were culturally and intellectually so different, could get along and work together was quite an amazing feat. That provided one of the key foundations for ASEAN.

ASEAN's Miracle of Peace

Keith 23:51

What are the institutions or the way that ASEAN has organized itself that has created this peace? Because surely this is not a miracle that was heaven-sent.

Kishore Mahbubani 24:07

A lot of this is because of the Indonesian practice of consultation and consensus. Just imagine if other regions like South Asia could learn from ASEAN, you would get much more genuine peace in those areas too.

Keith 24:30

So what does this consultation and consensus look like? If we look at the Brexit example, the UK left and now maybe they're regretting it but it's too late. In Southeast Asia, how do we implement this modus operandi that avoided that British fate?

Kishore Mahbubani 24:45

I think the important thing here is that ASEAN as an organization decided not to copy the European Union. It's interesting that the European Union calls itself a union, and we call ourselves an association. Associations almost by definition are looser arrangements. We're not united into one; we're separated, we're just cooperating.

By creating a very loose form of cooperation, which is not rigid and not legalistic, we are more flexible. In the case of the European Union, you're either part of the Union or you're out of the Union. You cannot be halfway in, halfway out. ASEAN allows you to be halfway in, halfway out. It's much looser.

The way we would have handled a problem like Brexit, if we had a member that was very unhappy - and to some extent we have that situation now in Myanmar - we would basically say, "You take a vacation. Go for vacation for five, ten years." And then you decide whether you want to come back and participate fully in ASEAN or not.

If the European Union could have given the UK a vacation, they would have solved their problem. But of course, the Europeans are so rigid and so legalistic that they cannot accommodate any flexibility. Right now, the European Union is also being very rigid and legalistic in its approach to the Ukraine war, instead of trying to figure out compromises that would solve the problem.

This is again partly because the European Union has become a geopolitically incompetent organization, partly because it's very rigid and legalistic, and partly also because, as Henry Kissinger hinted to me, the quality of mind of European leaders is not what it used to be. Therefore, I predict that the European Union is going to have a very hard time in the 21st century because it hasn't learned the art of being flexible like ASEAN and adjusting and adapting to a new different world.

Keith 26:33

I like the idea you talked about, which is that in Southeast Asia we had Indonesia export this idea of consultation and consensus. In that statement alone, you imply that there is a form of trade of ideas in Southeast Asia as well, not just in goods and services, but in the way we think about things.

One of your recommendations is that Singapore should be the intellectual capital of Southeast Asia, or at least ASEAN. What would that actually look like practically?

Kishore Mahbubani 27:03

I think for a start, Singapore is blessed that we have succeeded in our economic development. So we now have the resources to invest in intellectual institutions. It's quite remarkable that Singapore, a country of less than 5 million people - actually the citizens are only 3.2 million - can have two world-class universities, NUS and NTU. That's quite amazing, and there are no others in Southeast Asia.

Since we have the resources to create world-class universities and world-class think tanks, we have the opportunity to do a lot of research on Southeast Asia, its history, its background, what's going on.

Just yesterday, as chairman of the jury panel for the NUS Singapore History Prize, we announced the winner. The book is ostensibly about the food of the Singapore Malays, but it's actually a very profound historical work that brings out how rich the connections were in the Malay archipelago, long before the British or the Westerners came to Southeast Asia. Indeed, a hundred years ago already, Singapore was what the author calls "the New York of the Nusantara."

There are all these rich historical connections in Southeast Asia that were in some ways washed away by the colonial period. But now that the colonial period is gone, we can go back and dive into what Southeast Asia was like before the colonial period. The one country that has the greatest amount of resources to do this seriously is Singapore. Dr. Goh Keng Swee wisely anticipated this need, and he was the one who proposed the idea of an Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. That's an example of the kind of long-range thinking that Dr. Goh Keng Swee used to do.

Keith 28:41

It's interesting because now when people want to understand Southeast Asia, the first place they go to is the publications of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

With that said, I think there is a part on ASEAN which we can't ignore, which is what we see in Myanmar now. I think that's the part that agonizes a lot of people as well. It may not have received as much attention recently because of the two wars that we see unfold in other parts of the world. But if we were to understand Myanmar, how should Southeast Asians or the rest of ASEAN understand and approach this problem?

Managing Myanmar within ASEAN

Kishore Mahbubani 30:09

One lesson I learned in my life, after now being 76 years old, is that in life, there are actually impossible problems. And you mustn't try to kill yourself trying to solve impossible problems. Some problems just need a lot of time. And Myanmar will need some time.

Clearly, the military establishment that was created by General Ne Win, who ruled Myanmar for a long time, has developed a solid grasp of power in Myanmar. They actually believe that if the Myanmar military is not strong, the country will break apart. So they're determined to maintain strong military rule.

There was a moment, an opportunity for peace when Aung San Suu Kyi came back and became the leader. But sadly, Aung San Suu Kyi, whom I admire and who's a very strong person, was unfortunately sometimes quite rigid and unwilling to compromise with the Myanmar military. If she had been more flexible and had compromised with them, you could have had a compromise solution for Myanmar.

I think at the end of the day, the worst thing we can do is to stop talking to the Myanmar military. The ASEAN leaders should continue to talk to them and frankly continue to invite them to visit the rest of Southeast Asia. Because the only way to tell the Myanmar military that Myanmar is falling behind the rest of Southeast Asia is by asking them to come and visit Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Jakarta. Then they will see, "Wow, we are falling behind," and realize they have to do something to catch up.

So we have to be patient with Myanmar. I think after 10 to 20 years, we might find things will gradually turn around and improve again.

Keith 31:56

That was what we saw when Deng Xiaoping visited Southeast Asia after he took power in China. You detailed that change in relationship from being condemned as a new colonialist plot to something that was much more friendly and conciliatory within a decade. So it is possible for peace.

Kishore Mahbubani 32:13

Deng Xiaoping, who inherited a China that had gone through some wrenching challenges, especially during the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward - Chinese people suffered a lot as a result of those things. But in my view, Deng Xiaoping will go down in history as the greatest leader of the 20th century because he actually lifted more people out of poverty than any human leader has in human history.

At the same time, he inherited a system and an organization that was dysfunctional at that time. The Chinese Communist Party had been taken over by an extreme faction, and somehow he managed to engineer a revolution and put China on a growth path, making it the fastest growing large economy in the world. Quite amazing what Deng Xiaoping did.

We in Southeast Asia have benefited from Deng Xiaoping's U-turn because before he came into office, the Chinese communists were still saying that they supported the communist parties in Southeast Asia and revolution in Southeast Asia. But Deng Xiaoping turned that around after Mr. Lee Kuan Yew spoke to him and explained, "How can we in Southeast Asia become your friends if you're calling on the communist parties to overthrow the governments in Southeast Asia?"

That shows you the importance of conversations. The conversation that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had with Deng Xiaoping helped to change Chinese policy. In the same way, we should invite the Myanmar leaders to come visit the rest of Southeast Asia and have conversations with Southeast Asian leaders. Then they will realize, "Hey, we should consider a change of approach."

Keith 33:53

The common thread throughout this conversation and your thinking has always been, I think, two characteristics of leaders: strategic long-range thinking and also suppleness - a suppleness in the way that you think and approach problems.

As you are an elder statesman now, and you wrote in "Has China Won?" two letters to the leaders of the US and China - if I were to ask you today to write a third letter to the leader of Singapore, it could be our current Prime Minister, it could be a 5G or 6G leader, what would you say to that Prime Minister?

Kishore Mahbubani 34:26

I try not to get involved in advising the government. But at the same time, I keep saying this publicly, that Singapore faces a great opportunity in the 21st century. Because if the 21st century is going to be the Asian century, and I believe it will be the Asian century, you've got to find a natural capital for it.

In the 19th century, which was the European century when the Europeans ran the world, the natural capital for it was London. London was the most successful city in the European century. Then the 20th century was the American century, and clearly, the capital for the American century was New York, which is an incredibly dynamic, vibrant city in which I've lived for over a decade - my second favorite city after Singapore.

The 21st century also needs a capital, and the best candidate for it clearly is Singapore. Because Singapore is the only city in Asia where all three major Asian civilizational streams - the Chinese civilizational stream, the Indian civilizational stream, the Islamic civilizational stream - come together, and the Western civilizational stream is also alive and well in Singapore. So Singapore is going to be the natural capital of the Asian century.

But that requires some degree of boldness and vision on the part of some younger Singaporeans who have to articulate this. This mission has to be undertaken by younger Singaporeans of your age who've got to see that this is where the future is.

Advice for Future Generations

Keith 35:51

I think that's something I'll think about deeply as well, about how we can be champions of the fusion of civilizations - how we can bring the best out of each civilization and express it in its purest or most beautiful form in Singapore.

On that note, I'd like to ask you a final question. Now that you're 76, you have lived a full life in Singapore, you've contributed greatly to our country not just as a diplomat, not just as a public servant, but also as a public intellectual. You've exported a ton of intellectual capital to the world. What would be your advice for younger Singaporeans who want to make our mark in this world or who want to contribute to the growth and flourishing of Singapore?

Kishore Mahbubani 36:32

I would say that if I look back now, in my book "Living the Asian Century," I came from a very poor family, very poor background. I should never have gone to university; I should have been a textile salesman - that would have been my natural destiny. But somehow I ended up in university and succeeded in life.

If there's one factor that turned my life significantly, it was my discovery of the Jujat Public Library. At a very young age, at eight or ten years old, I discovered the library. With my friend Jeffrey Seng, we used to go there regularly and borrow several books a week and read several books a week as a young person.

So I would say that young Singaporeans need to read more books. Nowadays, most young people spend their time on social media, and very few of them actually pick up a book and read it cover to cover. The young ones who read my "Living the Asian Century" actually feel that they learn something new from it.

Since the 21st century is going to be very different from the 19th and 20th centuries, you're going to see the Asian Renaissance take place. You have to understand Asian history better if you're going to understand the Asian Renaissance. So read more books on Asian history, Southeast Asian history. Read the book that just won the Singapore History Prize. Read the two books that were the runners-up for the Singapore History Prize, and then you will begin to understand both Singapore and Southeast Asia better.

Keith 38:01

With that, I'd like to say that we hope that next year maybe ASEAN will win the Nobel Peace Prize. We haven't won it yet. It's 2024 now but maybe in 2025 that will be the year. Thank you, Prof, for coming on.

Kishore Mahbubani 38:14

For us to win the Nobel Peace Prize, it's very important for the Norwegians who run the Nobel Peace Prize to understand the world better. Sadly, they don't understand Southeast Asia. But hopefully, they'll come and visit Southeast Asia and see - just imagine if you can have a Southeast Asia without a Ukraine war, without a Gaza war, this is the region that deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

Keith 38:37

Maybe in 2025, that would be the year - when we invite them and let them have some nasi lemak and chilli crab. Thank you so much for coming on.

Kishore Mahbubani 38:45

Thank you very much.