Hard Truths For 21st Century 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.

This is the 54th episode of The Front Row Podcast.

TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 Trailer & Intro
00:50 The Trauma of War in Cambodia
05:47 Revolut Business Ad
07:12 Learning From S Rajaratnam In Cuba
13:52 Experiences at the United Nations
21:32 Winners and Losers Of Trump's Trade Wars
36:37 Are We In The Asian Century?
43:49 Will The US Decline?
44:50 Role Of Gulf Countries
45:34 Pragmatism vs. Idealism
46:06 Kishore's Answers
51:09 What Keeps Kishore Up At Night?
51:32 Will China Force Everyone To Be Protectionist
52:44 Advice For Young Singaporeans
53:19 Economic Fallout for US on Tariffs
53:42 Kishore's Answers 2

💰Get S$50 cashback when you sign up to Revolut Business at www.revolut.com/rb/tfr/ before 30 Nov 2025 and top up your account. T&Cs and end date apply.

(This is also the first sponsorship I have taken since the inception of the podcast. Your support will help me grow the podcast)

This is a recording of a conversation I had with Prof Kishore Mahbubani at an event I co-organized with Bloomberg Singapore and Thinksuite. I hope you will enjoy the conversation as much as we did.

Thank you Bloomberg and Thinksuite for your support of the podcast.

Keith 00:00:00

Trump's tariffs have led to the emergence of some big new truths about the world. Something very significant has happened since Trump began the tariffs six months ago. The first big new truth to emerge is that Trump imposed tariffs on 193 countries in the world.

Keith 00:00:24

Today we're speaking with veteran diplomat and public intellectual Kishore Mahbubani. In this interview hosted at an event at Bloomberg Singapore, we dive into what he believes to be the Asian century, where Asian countries will play a disproportionate role in moulding the future of the world. We talk about the harsh realities of war and conflict that shaped his geopolitical outlook, how to make sense of the current Trump administration and the various tariffs that he's put up, and why India and China are shaping up to be serious Asian powers. If you want to know where our world is headed, this is the conversation for you.

The Trauma of War in Cambodia

Keith 00:00:49

The first stop I have in mind is Cambodia, 1973. You were posted there as a diplomat of Singapore, and that's where you learned an explosive lesson in geopolitics. Bring me back to that moment where you first touched down at the airport. What was it like?

Kishore 00:01:05

First of all, Richard, thank you very much for that introduction. Keith, thanks for having me here. The reason I went to Cambodia in 1973 is because I was the stupidest person in the foreign ministry, and I'm not exaggerating. The job was to be head of mission in Cambodia, which is a pretty big deal. They offered it to a 40-year-old who said he was married with two children. Then they offered it to a 35-year-old, married with a child. Then a 33-year-old, just got married. So they finally came to me. I was 25 years old. I didn't know what the hell it was. I said, "Okay, I'll go."

When I got there, I realised why everybody said no. When I was in Cambodia for one year, from June or July '73 to June '74, the city was shelled every day. Not exaggerating, every day. Once, a dissident pilot tried to kill the president of Cambodia. I happened to live next to the palace. The pilot dropped a 500-pound bomb at 3pm in the afternoon. In those days in Cambodia, because it was a French colony, we still had French hours. We had a French siesta from 2 to 4pm. So at 3pm, I was happily sleeping on the first floor. Then the bomb fell. My bed threw up and threw me off. I woke up with a jolt.

I remember this unfortunately. I said, "Get under the stairs." I ran down and got under the stairs just in time before the next bomb fell, another 500-pound bomb. It was closer. At that point, you see all this glass around you. The glass became like flying shards. If I hadn't been under the staircase, I wouldn't be here today.

That was a very vivid, powerful experience of what war is like. Even though I was lucky, I saw the unlucky ones. I went to a marketplace about 200 yards from my house in Phnom Penh, and I happened to arrive there about 15 to 20 minutes after it had been shelled by artillery. Artillery shells are meant to be used in battlefields. When you shoot in a rice field, the shell goes in and the shrapnel comes out in a V shape, so it doesn't kill that many people. But when artillery shells land on hard cement floors, the shrapnel goes horizontally and kills many more people. When you arrive at a marketplace 15 to 20 minutes after shelling, you just see bodies everywhere. Then I suddenly realised, "My God, they'll start shelling again. I'll still be there." So I ran home.

I had many other close shaves in Cambodia. It was a very important developmental experience for me because until you experience war personally, you don't know how destructive wars can be. In many ways, I was very happy that I could spend 33 years of my life in diplomacy. The goal of diplomacy, at the end of the day, is to prevent wars and to find peaceful solutions among countries. But all the work can seem meaningless to you—constant meetings, constant talking, constant interacting. You may think you're wasting your time. Actually, you're not. You're building the relationships which ensure that you understand each other better. And if you understand each other better, then the likelihood is that you will avoid wars.

Revolut Business Ad

Keith 00:05:49

If you run a business like me, you know how frustrating it gets to manage your money across multiple accounts and platforms. With Revolut Business, you can streamline everything into one business account that will handle all your business financial needs. Every month, over 20,000 new businesses join Revolut Business. It's easy to see why.

Whether you're a startup or scale-up, Revolut Business is here to help you build your business better. Other than its beautifully designed card, here's what I really love about Revolut Business. I can handle over 25 different currencies at once in a single account. This means I get to store the transfers I receive in the same currency and exchange it only when I need to. I don't have to pay exchange fees during market hours within my money plan limits. For a business that's operating out of Singapore but is truly global-minded, that's a huge win for me.

What's amazing is that you can connect your accounting software like Xero directly into your Revolut business account. This allows you to automate all your expense management and reconcile all your transactions. For me, that's saying goodbye to a troublesome and nightmare-inducing accounting experience. From a basic plan to an enterprise-level account, Revolut Business offers four different plans to match where you are in your business journey.

If you're ready to control your business finances, you can sign up via this link: revolut.com/rb/tfr, or you can visit the first link in my description to redeem your $50 welcome bonus. This offer is only available for new Revolut business customers. Terms and conditions and end dates do apply. Once again, a big thank you to Revolut Business for sponsoring today's episode.

Learning From S Rajaratnam In Cuba

Keith 00:07:12

You've become one of the biggest advocates for peace. In your writings throughout, whether it's Has China Won or your many other books, you've been consistently drumming the message that countries in competition do not necessarily need to go down a warpath. In another chapter of this book, Living the Asian Century, you documented a time where you went to Cuba in 1979. That was where you went on a trip with S. Rajaratnam for the sixth summit of the Non-Aligned Movement. The government's mission then, interestingly, was to protect the Khmer Rouge position within the Non-Aligned Movement. You had an upfront seat to see S. Rajaratnam take a fight to Fidel Castro, who was hosting the Non-Aligned Movement. Could you tell me a little bit more about that meeting? How did that influence the way you think today?

Kishore 00:08:14

I had worked for Mr S. Rajaratnam, the founding foreign minister of Singapore, for about eight years by then. So I knew him quite well. He was a wonderful human being. Even though he was a very senior minister, he was very down to earth and happy to have conversations with anybody, no matter how young you were. I was very young then. But I discovered another side of him when I went to Cambodia, because at that time Cambodia had just been invaded by Vietnam, and the previous government, the Khmer Rouge government led by Pol Pot, was a terrible government. They actually committed genocide on their people. I know that because, sadly, during my year in Cambodia, I made many Cambodian friends and I lost many of my Cambodian friends to the genocidal rule of Pol Pot.

But we had the unfortunate job in Havana, Cuba, because Cuba was chairing the Non-Aligned Movement, to defend the seat of the Khmer Rouge in the Non-Aligned Movement. Under international law, since the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was illegal, the previous government was still the legitimate government. That's what international law says, and that's why we defended the Khmer Rouge seat.

Then I discovered that Cuba was, of course, supported by the Soviet Union, and we were being supported by the United States at that time. One thing I learned is that the Soviet side was very good at playing dirty tricks. For example, in theory, the Khmer Rouge government was the legitimate government, but the delegation was not housed in the city. They were sent to a farm that was 30 miles away. They couldn't communicate with the other delegations.

As a result of a fierce debate, at the end of the day, Fidel Castro, being a very wily politician, decided to pick a group of heads of government and foreign ministers to discuss what to do about Cambodia. But he stacked the decks, and all the people in the room were friends of the Soviet Union. Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad—they were all there. They were all speaking the pro-Soviet line and trying to beat up Singapore.

In that room, there was one junior foreign minister, Rajaratnam, fighting 10 to 15 heads of government. I thought Rajaratnam would be crushed. I just couldn't believe how brave he was. Even though these were all senior and much more powerful figures than he was, he single-handedly fought 15 of them in a debate.

The only way you learn how to survive in a crisis is to see strong people not melt under crisis. When you see that, you say, "Okay, this is what I need to do if I'm ever confronted in a similar position."

The sad part about Singapore is that very few Singaporeans know that we have had exceptional leaders, especially in our founding years. Having subsequently met so many world leaders, I can confidently say that Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, and Rajaratnam were as good, if not better, than most of the world leaders I met. That's one reason why I wrote this book of memoirs, because I wanted young Singaporeans to understand that the reason why you have all these gleaming skyscrapers around you and a per capita income—I just read today or yesterday that Singapore is now technically the richest country in the world, number one, with our per capita income. We came from a position where it was $500 in 1965.

To get from $500 to where we are today didn't happen by accident. It happened because you had—literally, not metaphorically—literally geniuses running Singapore. It's shocking that Singaporeans don't know that. They're not aware that the leaders were incredible geniuses. In each of these three cases, they fought wherever they went against great odds and succeeded.

Watching Rajaratnam in Havana, Cuba, was one of the most amazing experiences in my life. I said, if you can replicate that kind of courage, then frankly, you can fight and win any battle in the world.

Experiences at the United Nations

Keith 00:13:55

That's the second lesson from your time in Cuba—the importance of bravery, something that you don't talk about maybe in policy papers or in day-to-day life, but something that you saw up close in the life of Singapore. I want to quickly move on to the third spot before we go into where we are today, because I think it's very important to understand what shaped your thinking. The third case I want you to bring us to is New York City in 1984. You were first posted there as our UN representative. This is where you got to see what it was like to live in the big jungle of geopolitics, as you would put it, and where maybe one of the first times where you really had a chance to participate thoroughly in a multilateral institution as big and comprehensive as the UN. I wanted you to help me understand, since stepping into New York City then till today, have you become more disillusioned or more confident of the UN?

Kishore 00:15:03

That's a very tough question. 1984 was one of the most remarkable years of my life. I was then 35 years old, I think. The most shocking thing that happened to me was that I was asked to step into the shoes of Ambassador Tommy Koh. Tommy Koh was a legend then in Singapore, but certainly at the UN he was a legend. He had been at the UN already 13 years. He had served twice as ambassador to the UN—first time from '68 to '71, second time '74 to '84. When I came, he had spent 13 years down there. I was given the mission impossible of trying to step into the shoes of Tommy Koh.

The first lesson I learned is, when you have to step into the shoes of somebody else who's a great person, whatever you do, don't try to fit the shoes. Create your own shoes and be yourself. It would have been impossible if I tried to copy Tommy or be a Tommy Koh. I would never have been able to do it. So I had to be myself, which was also a great learning experience. You then discover what you can do and what you cannot do.

From the very first time I went to the UN, I fell in love with the UN. At the end of the day, whether we like it or not, we do live in a global village. It's a shrinking small global village. There's only one place in the world where the village can talk to each other, and that's the United Nations. As you know, in any village, for 3,000 or 4,000 years, once you have a village, once you have common concerns, you immediately set up a village council. Villages anywhere—South America, Africa, China, India—all have village councils. Similarly, our global village has only one village council, which is the United Nations. That's why the United Nations is absolutely indispensable.

But the problem with the United Nations is that it started happening in the 1980s. Efforts have been made to kill and delegitimise the UN for over 40 to 50 years now, often quite successfully. That's why you notice the Western media rubbishes the UN. Absolutely rubbishes the UN. Says it's a waste of time, it should be shut down, it's wasting money, and so on and so forth, which is absolutely not true.

When you consider what is the size of the global GDP today, it's about 100 to 110 trillion dollars. If you want to spend 1% on your global village council, it would be $1 trillion. But the UN budget is nothing. It's peanuts. The UN spends less than the fire department of New York City. The fire department of one city spends more than the United Nations, which serves eight billion people. That's absurd.

The fact that people complain about the UN wasting money—how can you be wasting money when it's a village council serving eight billion people in a hundred-trillion-dollar economy? It's absurd that we're running down the UN. But you also realise why people are running down the UN. At the end of the day, it's all about geopolitics and the fact that the great powers of the day resent the constraints that the UN puts on them.

Luckily for me, I happened to meet somebody who was a director of national intelligence of the United States, and he became a dean. When I was dean, we were attending a meeting, sitting together as deans side by side. I remember the conversation vividly. We were discussing the UN, and I explained why the UN is important. This director of national intelligence was very honest with me. He said, "Kishore, I can understand why Singapore, as a small state, likes the UN, because the United Nations amplifies the voice of small states," which is absolutely true because it's one country, one vote. In the UN, when you go to the podium, everyone speaks equally. A small state has as much time as China, which has got 1.4 billion people. So it's good for us.

But he said to me very honestly, "Kishore, for the United States, the United Nations constrains American power, and that's why we don't want to see a strong United Nations." He was so honest, and he was right.

When I hear Singaporeans mouthing the rhetoric of Western media, which reflects the geopolitical interests of a great power, I think Singaporeans have lost their common sense. You're repeating the propaganda of a great power. When you live in a small state, your interests are the exact opposite of the interests of a great power. Why are you the running dog of a great power, which is what Singaporeans do when they rubbish the UN, not realising that they're going against their own interests?

But the Western media is so powerful, the delegitimisation of the UN is so deep, that it's very difficult to persuade Singaporeans that every Singaporean should love the United Nations as much as I still do.

Winners and Losers Of Trump's Trade Wars

Keith 00:21:32

It's clear that you're not disillusioned, so I guess that's a good thing. The meta-lesson across the three episodes that we just recapped is the uneasiness, the tension that we have to balance as a small state between our ideals and the harsh realities of geopolitics.

Maybe what we'd like to do is pick your mind a little to help us understand where the world is headed. There's this wonderful Bloomberg visual that I've been tracking. It's the only reason why I paid the expensive subscription, maybe 50%. This beautiful visual tracks the effect of President Trump's tariffs on every nation. If you have a global subscription, you click on it, it visualises everyone from Angola all the way to Zimbabwe. You can click on the visual, and it further goes down to the estimated trade volume and the amount.

One of the interesting things I've been following is that he really went on this assault on trade, and now we know that he wants to put additional tariffs. I think the dual team is poised to do so now. He's thinking of putting more tariffs on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, lumber, heavy trucks, and commercial aircraft and engines and things like that.

From my perspective as an observer, it's clear he wants to bilateralise trade so that America, as you said, the great power, has higher leverage. It's clear to us, maybe as Singapore, a trade-dependent country, the ideal of a time where trade was depoliticised is maybe over. I guess the question I wanted to ask you is, do you think this attempt at prioritising the US and really destroying—I say "destroy," attempt to kind of limit the global trade rules that we've become accustomed to—is this something that's going to stay in the long term beyond his term of service, or would it end the moment he leaves office?

Kishore 00:23:36

It's very dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future. Frankly, I think it's too early to tell what will be the long-term effects of Trump's tariffs, because there'll be surprises along the way.

Already you can see that Trump's tariffs have led to the emergence of some new big truths about the world. Something very significant has happened since Trump began the tariffs six months ago. The first big new truth to emerge is that Trump imposed tariffs on 193 countries in the world. The US is one of them, so there are 192 other countries in the world. He imposed tariffs, I think, on virtually every country in the world—maybe some he didn't get to—but out of the 192 countries, only one retaliated: China. Only one.

Initially, President Trump thought, "Okay, I'll crush you." 35%, 55%, 95%, 145%. Then they stopped, and it went down. Then the tone about China changed completely. The Chinese—and this is how many people think I'm pro-China, but they don't realise that if you measure it objectively, the shrewdest geopolitical actors in the world are the leaders of China, only because of their 3,000 years of experience with geopolitics.

They were clearly flummoxed and surprised when Donald Trump hit them in 2018. The Chinese delegation was completely surprised and disorganised in their responses in 2018. But they learned, and they got ready. So the second time around, they retaliated precisely, sharply, with enough pain to say, "Okay, let's talk." You notice they've had two rounds of talks—no more acrimony, no more insults.

In that sense, the one big new truth in the world is that the Chinese have now established parity with the United States. That, by the way, is a very big development that very few people have noticed.

The second big new truth that has emerged is that in the past, whenever the United States took the lead and said, "I will do X"—let's say, "I will push for a climate convention," which is what they tried to do under Barack Obama—the rest of the world would say, "Yeah, good idea, let's follow the United States." Whatever the United States took the lead on, lots of countries would follow.

What's interesting is that, as I mentioned, apart from the United States, there are 192 countries. When the United States imposed raised tariffs on country after country after country, somebody else should have followed suit. So far, no country has followed the United States. That, to me, is a very optimistic sign. It shows that the rest of the world understands that tariffs are not the way to go. The fact that other countries are now going to the other side and saying, "Let's start free trade agreements with other countries," is a very positive development.

In that sense, perhaps after President Trump goes, the United States will discover that since the rest of the world is still continuing to reduce tariffs and go for free trade, we can also do so.

But the third point I'm going to make is, whatever you do, don't underestimate Donald Trump. You read the American media, especially the New York Times, and you probably think Donald Trump is some stupid idiot. That's the way they portray him. But if that's the case, how is it he got elected not once but twice? Not only got elected a second time, he's moved the political centre of the United States so far right that the liberals and Democrats have no answer to him.

Clearly, in his own wily ways, Donald Trump has emerged, frankly, already as one of the most consequential presidents that the United States has had. Whatever you do, don't be beguiled by the liberal media or the New York Times into thinking you're dealing with an idiot. He's not. He's a shrewd and wily character. He knows when to push, he knows where to compromise, he knows when to turn. You can be sure that there'll be many surprises.

Keith 00:29:59

On that note, there was an interesting interview that Bloomberg did with Secretary Bessent. I think it was exclusive, and he actually articulated why President Trump went on this slew of tariffs. His view was that, essentially, trade the way it has been done for the past, say, 50 years has been very unfair to the US. It's got to the point where now the US has been de-industrialised and financialised, which has now created serious challenges of inequalities. In his view, Secretary Bessent's view, is that there's a lot of inequality between middle America and the coastal cities of America. This attempt at going on this trade war is to redress the imbalance.

I guess my question to you would be, what do you think of this diagnosis and solutions? If you were in the same room as him today, what kind of alternative would you propose?

Kishore 00:30:57

The big question, the fundamental question here, is: does economic theory work or not work? Economic theory is very clear that free trade is good. Economic theory has got the law of comparative advantage. A country is better off producing goods that it is competitive at and trading its goods with other countries when they produce goods that they are competitive at. It's a win-win solution. I think that economic theory is still valid. In fact, it explains why Singapore has done so well. We have done so well because our total trade is three and a half times the size of our GDP. That's why our per capita income has gone up so much.

Here I can tell you that several attempts were made to convince President Trump of the value of free trade agreements. I can tell you one of his advisers in his first term was a man called Gary Cohn from Goldman Sachs. He was the chief economic adviser to Donald Trump in the first term. I met Gary Cohn once in Davos, and he told us he spent two hours with President Trump trying to explain to President Trump why, under economic theory, free trade is good and tariffs are bad.

After two hours, he realised that he hadn't persuaded President Trump. So he asked President Trump, "Mr President, why do you like tariffs so much?" President Trump replied, "I just love tariffs." He has shown his love for tariffs very clearly.

But in one sense, he's not wrong, because the United States is the biggest actor in the world. The United States is the only country that can bully every other country in the world now, with one exception: China. If they can bully countries into unilaterally accepting higher American tariffs and not raising the tariffs themselves, the United States is the winner.

For example, the only other power that is the same size and strength as China is the combined GDP of the EU is exactly the same as China. So the European Union, in theory, could have done as well as China and negotiated from a position of strength and said, "Okay, if you do this to me, I'll retaliate." But as you know, the European Union didn't retaliate. The European Union, for whatever reason—and I'm not the one saying this—there's a very famous American writer, her name is Susan Glasser, and she wrote an article in The New Yorker, which you should all read. Glasser is G-L-A-S-S-E-R. Google and read the essay. She said the European Union has now decided to carry out a strategy of self-abasement. Self-abasement is a sophisticated way of saying a strategy of kowtowing.

The European Union—the Chinese have been standing firm, the Europeans have been kowtowing. As a result of which, the European Union has been slapped left, right, and centre. In that sense, Trump is right. If he raises the tariffs and other countries kowtow to him, which is why, by the way, the interesting thing is this: there's now one other country that is emerging that is showing it won't kowtow to the United States. Which country is it? India.

It's interesting. In theory, the Indians should be doing exactly what the Europeans are doing—dashing to Washington DC and doing what the former Dutch prime minister did and saying Trump is like our daddy. It's actually quite shocking for a former prime minister of the Netherlands, which is a serious country, not a banana republic, but for the prime minister of a country that—and by the way, to be fair, I met Mark Rutte, I've had conversations with him, he's a very intelligent man, very powerful man—but for someone like him to say publicly, "Daddy Trump"... I never thought I would live to see that day. But that is an example of how Trump's tactics sometimes work.

This is where you're going to discover which are the countries that are standing up to the United States, frankly. Now, very few: China, Russia, India. Three countries. Everybody else, okay, they will accept this. So in that sense, Trump's tactics make sense. They work. He's negotiating deals that are one-sided, that are to the advantage of the United States, and he says, "If I can get away with it, I'll do it."

Are We In The Asian Century?

Keith 00:36:37

I've got one last question before we open to the floor. If you want, you can get ready your vocal cords. It's interesting that out of the three countries, two of them are Asian. You're one of the big modern proponents of this Asian century. I know you had this book, The Asian 21st Century, that has been downloaded millions of times. In it, you highlight how well a lot of these Asian countries have been doing, especially with dealing with things like pandemics.

There have been criticisms of it. A famous example is from someone, your former colleague, Bilahari Kausikan. He talks about how this idea of the Asian century often conceives of the Asian century as the recovery of Asia's historical place in the world prior to contact with the West, which echoes the Chinese line of rejuvenation. Perhaps it ignores or underplays the profound changes the West and Asia have brought on each other through centuries of interaction.

I guess the fundamental question that I think many of us will be interested in is, what does the Asian century today still look like? Are you still very bullish that this will be the Asian century that we should look forward to?

Kishore 00:37:56

Fortunately, most of the world seems to agree with me. I can tell you this. You mentioned the book, The Asian 21st Century. It's published as an open-access book, so you can all download it for free, by the way. When it came out in January 2022, I spoke to the publisher, Springer. It's published by a German publisher, and I asked—his name is Stefan Van Holtzbrinck. I said, "Stefan, what's your target when you launch an open-access book?" He says, "When you launch an open-access book like this, a book of essays, if you get 20,000 downloads, it's a very good result." So our target was 20,000 downloads.

But as of today, there have been, instead of 20,000 downloads, there have been 4.14 million downloads in 160 countries. That's what you call exceeding the target. If 4.14 million people download the book in 160 countries without any advertising—by the way, it's a free book, you can't advertise, you make no money on the book, so no advertising, no marketing—and that's what happens, it shows you that the thoughtful minds in the world have realised that the 21st century will be the Asian century.

By the way, the Prime Minister of India, Prime Minister Modi, has spoken about the Asian century too.

If you want to have one statistic that illustrates how it will be the Asian century, just remember: in 1980, which is only 45 years ago, the combined GDP of the European Union was 10 times bigger than China. 1980. Today, as I told you earlier, China and the EU are the same size. By 2050, the EU will be half the size of China.

I can tell you, when future historians look at our time, they'll say, "This is amazing. In one human lifetime, 70 years, 1980 to 2050, the EU went from being 10 times bigger than China to becoming half the size of China." These sorts of structural changes don't happen often in history.

I can give you lots of other comparisons too. As you know, 100 years ago, 100,000 Englishmen could effortlessly rule over 300 million Indians. Think about it. 100,000 Englishmen. Today, if the British send 100,000 Englishmen to India, what do you think is going to happen to them? They'll be massacred alive.

But look, again, as recently as 2000, the British economy was two or three times bigger than India's. Now the British economy is smaller than India's. Which is why I was surprised the Financial Times published an article by me saying it's time for the British to give up their permanent membership seat to India. Makes sense, because now the economy is smaller than India, and by 2050, India will be three or four times bigger than the UK.

Again, these are the structural shifts that are happening in the world. This is all data. But more than data, the thing about Singapore is that even though we are technically in Asia, we are still by far the most westernised city in Asia. So we tend to absorb these Western perspectives, and we don't realise how much the world around us has shifted and changed dramatically.

I can tell you, as someone who, by the way, in my case, I actually travelled the entire journey. If you look at my memoirs, in chapter one, I describe how when I went to school in Singapore at the age of six or seven, reading British textbooks, I began to believe that I, as an Asian with a brown skin, was intellectually and culturally inferior to the white man. I actually believed it in my brain.

For me to have travelled from a time when I believed that the white man was superior to a time when I realised, "Oh, the white man is equal to all of us," to a time where now it shows that Asians are outperforming the Westerners in many areas—it shows you how much the world has changed. We are actually living in a time of massive changes.

I'm actually astonished that many Singaporeans are not aware that, in geopolitical terms, one of the most exciting times in 2,000 or 3,000 years of human history is now. The massive shifts that are happening now. The biggest story—and this is confirmed by others also—that is happening in the world is the return of Asia. This return of Asia is going to accelerate over the next 20 to 30 years. That's the reason why I come out with these books, and I'm glad that a lot of people seem to agree with me.

Will The US Decline?

Keith 00:43:52

I'd like to open the floor to questions. In the Trump world, the current thinking is very much zero-sum game: if he can win at the tariffs, then they benefit. But you talked about the global village. The world is a global village. I remember a quote from Claudia Sheinbaum, the Mexican president, that the US is protecting the US by building a moat around it, but then remember, the rest of the world is 8 billion people outside of the US. We talked about having free trade agreements elsewhere. Do you see that actually it's not so much a zero-sum game where the US wins, but in the long run, a sort of decline for the US where everybody else works towards a win-win perspective? How does this structurally change the US for the future?

Role Of Gulf Countries

Speaker 3 00:44:50

My name is Kai from the Singapore Chamber of Commerce. I work really closely with Gulf ministries and Gulf investors as well. From your perspective as a diplomat and also engaging with the GCC nations, how do you see the GCC coming into the ASEAN region, especially with the hosting of the ASEAN-GCC-China summit recently? How do you think the GCC will play a part, especially when people are moving away from the US and trying to diversify their areas for free trade agreements? Thank you.

Pragmatism vs. Idealism

Speaker 4 00:45:35

In your book, you mentioned that your time in MFA helped you transition from being someone who was more of an idealist to someone who was more pragmatic when they approached the world. True to form, you've given a very pragmatic analysis of how the US-China relationship is going. But when you speak about the UN, I think I still hear the idealist. Moving forward, it's a new world, things are changing, times are changing. Will this pragmatic approach still serve Singapore, or is there room for a more idealistic approach when we engage with the world?

Kishore's Answers

Kishore 00:46:07

Well, first, on the United States. The thing about the United States is that it is capable of making dramatic changes. For example, if you had asked me in the year 2000, would Singapore have an Indian prime minister first or will the US have a Black president first, I would have said Singapore would have the Indian prime minister first. But guess what? The United States surprised all of us by having a Black African-American president first.

The United States is a country that is constantly changing and constantly evolving. In many countries, when you have chaos, it weakens the countries. China, for example, cannot handle chaos. But in the case of the United States, the chaos strengthens the country. There's a kind of Darwinian process of selection within the United States which is quite amazing. Therefore, I would say that the United States can change, adapt, and once again connect with the rest of the world. That can happen. It swings. I won't be surprised if it comes back to the rest of the world.

Your question about the GCC—I think the GCC countries overall are fairly shrewd actors on the world stage today. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and then, of course, to a lesser extent, Kuwait and Bahrain are fairly shrewd actors. They know how to manoeuvre themselves. They are acutely aware that the world is changing. That's why, if you notice, the Saudis visited China, and President Xi went to Saudi Arabia. They're trying to hedge their bets by working with all the parties.

Certainly, for one thing, I've told the GCC countries they should pay more attention to ASEAN, because at the end of the day, ASEAN has also done very well. In the case of ASEAN, in the year 2000, Japan's economy was eight times bigger than ASEAN. Now Japan is 1.1 times bigger than ASEAN, and very soon, by 2030, ASEAN will be bigger than Japan. The one regional organisation that the GCC doesn't pay enough attention to is ASEAN. I would encourage the GCC to do more with the ASEAN countries.

On the point about idealism—you're right. I love the United Nations as a matter of principle, but I also believe that the world is going to definitely shrink even more. You notice that in the last few decades, whenever you have a major crisis, it spreads around the world very fast. The global financial crisis started in the United States, and the whole world was affected. COVID began in China. The whole world was affected. So we do live in a small interdependent global village. Whether we like it or not, we have to collaborate. Because we have to collaborate, we have to create an organisation like the United Nations.

I guarantee you this: if today you ask the 193 countries in the world to sit down and negotiate a new United Nations charter, it will not be as beautiful and as inspiring as the 1945 UN Charter that was done. Remember, at the end of the day, the primary goal of the UN—and it says in the first paragraph in the preamble something like "determined to prevent the scourge of war." The world in 1945 had seen two world wars—World War I, World War II. So the primary goal of the UN was to ensure that there would be no World War III. Guess what? It succeeded so far.

You had two world wars in 1914 and 1939, a gap of 25 years. It's now been 80 years, and no world war. Hopefully, it'll be many more years to come as well.

What Keeps Kishore Up At Night?

Keith 00:51:09

We've got the final round of questions. I know Richard has one, and we have a gentleman here, and then Philip, and then we'll wrap it up.

Speaker 5 00:51:09

With the rise of Asia and the changing dynamics of the world, what keeps you up at night? What is that one destabilising thing that we need to watch out for? And also, how do you want Singaporeans to prepare for that? Thank you.

Will China Force Everyone To Be Protectionist?

Speaker 6 00:51:33

I think a lot of our audience here are more interested about the Trump tariffs. We have a very tough question among our team. We're still discussing, and we cannot reach a conclusion. The question is: is it too early to conclude that other countries will not raise tariffs? Because the United States is the largest consumer market, and China is the largest producer. When the Chinese excess production can no longer be exported to the US, it will gradually be diverted to other countries. Like we all know that in China, a lot of brands are now in Singapore already. In this half year, a lot of bubble tea shops have shuttered because of Mixue and a lot of China brands. Other countries may, in order to protect their domestic businesses, raise import barriers. Could this be a possibility within the next one to three years? Thank you so much.

Advice For Young Singaporeans

Speaker 7 00:52:47

My name is Felix. My question, as a young Singaporean in my late 20s, is: how should young Singaporeans really think about the world? You said we're the most westernised country in Asia. How should we educate ourselves more and have a more global perspective? What are some actions that we can take?

Economic Fallout for US on Tariffs

Speaker 8 00:53:20

Professor Mahbubani, the whole world's now got tariffs. How would the American people not have to pay more prices and suffer inflation? Somewhere you'll have to balance the revenue that the government is collecting versus the more price the American people are paying. Where will it land?

Kishore's Answers 2

Kishore 00:53:45

I'll answer the last question first, and then your question about tariffs by other countries, and then the first and third questions about what keeps me up at night and what should young Singaporeans know.

I actually believe in economic theory. I do think that these tariffs will be harmful to the American economy. I believe in the theory. When you talk to—I'm not an economist by training, but I have many good economist friends, and I listen to podcasts by various good economists, whether Martin Wolf or Adam Tooze and all that. Plus my own gut feel—my own gut feel is that trouble is coming to the US economy. All these tariffs, for example—if you impose 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium, you're going to make American products uncompetitive because steel and aluminium are important components. The economic theory will begin to bite, and there will be trouble coming. But we'll find out, I think, in six months or 12 months. The more I see, the more my well-informed American friends are also telling me that they smell trouble coming as a result of the tariffs.

Your question about other countries raising tariffs—certainly, by the way, you're allowed under WTO rules. If you get a sudden surge of imports that are destabilising, WTO rules allow you to raise your tariffs temporarily to protect yourself from the sudden surges and so forth. You can also take the case to the WTO courts and settle it if you can.

But in the long run, if the Chinese keep on, for example, to be clear about this, if the Chinese keep on subsidising, say, solar panels for the rest of the world, and if the Chinese are losing money in doing so, in some ways the Chinese are doing a very good thing. Because it's far more important for humanity to fight climate change, and one of the best ways to fight climate change is through clean energy. If the Chinese sell solar panels below cost, I see it as providing a gift to humanity.

But at the end of the day, even China doesn't have unlimited resources. China cannot keep on subsidising products. At some point in time, they also have to pay attention to market discipline in these areas. I think there are always short-term bumps along the way, but over the long run, I do think that at the end of the day, China will export more, but they'll also import more. Remember, it's also in China's interest at the end of the day to see the rest of the world succeed economically, because unless the rest of the world succeeds economically, there cannot be a market for Chinese products.

Remember, one of the most amazing statistics of our time is that in the year 2000, China's share of global manufacturing was only 5% or 6%. By 2030, China's share of global manufacturing will be 45%. Again, I can tell you, these sorts of structural shifts don't happen in history. For this to happen in 30 years is absolutely amazing. That's why the times we live in are so dramatic.

Now, about the question what keeps me up at night and the question for the young Singaporeans—I would say that the one thing that troubles me the most or worries me the most is that young Singaporeans take it for granted that Singapore will succeed no matter what. But they don't realise that unless they understand how Singapore got to where it is today, they will lose everything. That's what keeps me up at night.

I know from personal experience that young Singaporeans are not interested in finding out about the past. I say this because when I came out with this book, Living the Asian Century, my target audience was the young Singaporeans, to say, "Hey, listen, you guys, you have no idea how amazing Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, and Rajaratnam were." Believe me, if they hadn't been amazing, we wouldn't be sitting where we are today. But if you do not know that they were amazing, then you assume that this is natural. This is not natural.

Just yesterday, I flew home after spending three days in Timor-Leste. Timor-Leste is one of the newest countries in the world. They have two wonderful leaders, by the way—Xanana Gusmão, the revolutionary fighter, and my host, the President of Timor-Leste, José Ramos-Horta. Fifty per cent of the population is struggling to find means to have sufficient nutrition—50%. That's, in some ways, where Singapore was. I was put on a special feeding programme when I was six years old because I was technically undernourished then. Now, I'm overnourished.

But it's very important for young Singaporeans to understand very deeply the deep DNA of Singapore. This deep DNA of Singapore comes from the exceptional wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, and Rajaratnam. Today we have a situation when returning scholars—Singapore scholars—when they come back from graduation and the Public Service Commission asks them, "What do you think of Goh Keng Swee?", the scholars say, "Who is Goh Keng Swee?" That's absolutely amazing. They don't even know who Goh Keng Swee is. If you didn't have Goh Keng Swee, Singapore wouldn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in reserves. They should have given these scholars, in the first place, a stick.

Unless you can persuade the young Singaporeans that you are actually now standing on top of a tall ladder that was built for you by someone, and unless you understand how that ladder was created, you will dispose of that ladder, and then you'll be in trouble.

Keith 00:1:01:49

He's worried that we might dispose of that ladder. Do you have any sage word of advice for us?

Kishore 00:1:01:57

I think, for a start, we've got to develop better educational programmes. You should have a situation today... I remember many years ago—this is technically confidential, but I'm old, I can give secrets away. I remember one of the essays I enjoyed writing. I was asked in 1993 or '94 to write an essay for the Ministry of Defence. The title of my essay was "The Role of Myths in Singapore's Long-Term Defence."

I said that unless Singapore builds the right myths—myths means you have a common set of beliefs, a common set of understanding—one reason why the United States is such a great country is because they tell a great story about their founding fathers and what geniuses they were. Every American knows that America's founding fathers were geniuses. Every American knows that.

Singaporeans don't know that the Singaporean founding fathers were also geniuses. This is even more amazing: they don't know that Singapore's founding fathers were greater geniuses than the American founding fathers. They don't know that. That's what's shocking.

When it comes to nation-building, everyone focuses on the buildings, the roads, the subways. Actually, no. The most important part of nation-building is storytelling. Unless you tell the right stories and get Singaporeans to share a common set of stories, then the nation is very fragile. So my answer to you is: Singaporeans must learn to tell better stories.

Keith 00:1:04:21

On that optimistic note, we'd like to thank Professor Kishore for coming on. Thank you, Bloomberg, for hosting.