Stocks and News
Home | Week in Review Process | Terms of Use | About UsContact Us
   Articles Go Fund Me All-Species List Hot Spots Go Fund Me
Week in Review   |  Bar Chat    |  Hot Spots    |   Dr. Bortrum    |   Wall St. History
Stock and News: Hot Spots
  Search Our Archives: 
 

 

Hot Spots

https://www.gofundme.com/s3h2w8

AddThis Feed Button
   

09/13/2007

Lee Kuan Yew

Lee Kuan Yew is one of the more fascinating people in the
world. The founder of Singapore, he served as prime minister
from its founding in 1965 to 1990, when he stepped down to take
the post of minister mentor. Recently, he sat down with the
International Herald Tribune and following are just a few
excerpts from that interview. Lee has always been one of the
great thinkers on the global stage.

On China

Lee Kuan Yew: The next 10, 15 years, China is more an
opportunity than a challenge the opportunities will be taken up
by many other competitors in China. The challenge will come
when they start exporting not just low-end products but
intermediate products and even some high-end products and
software. And they will begin to export their expertise,
exporting their factories and plants.

IHT: What about politically? Does China have long-term
ambitions in Asia that cause concern to the rest of the region?

Lee: Well, there are memories, not institutionalized but in folk
memories at a popular level. For instance when the Sultan of
Brunei went to Beijing, about 10 years ago, they took him to his
great-great-grandfather’s mausoleum in Nanjing where he had
died, when bringing tribute to China.

It was a neat way of reminding the Bruneians and the rest of us –
Brunei was then a big empire in West Borneo – that this was our
place in the pecking order.

So this question mark. What kind of a relationship will it be?
Because of technology, the other great powers are not far away.
So it’s a different equation now than it was. That was China
when there were no steam ships, no aircraft and an unpopulated
America.

Present day China faces a very advanced North America, Europe,
Japan and a fairly developed Southeast Asia and India. So it’s a
different world, and our expectation is – we’ve got to see how it
turns out – that the generation that takes over in China, in say 30
years will be of a different mind-set. Because they would have
been educated abroad and be completely different from their
forbears.

They would’ve gone abroad and traveled widely and be very
familiar with the English language. They would also know that
although by 2050 China will be the biggest economy in GNP
terms per capita, they are still small, and technologically they are
still way behind.

So to get there, they must have a sense of realism – which the
present leadership has. For them to make that grade, they’ve got
to be like us with a very keen sense of what is possible and what
is not.

They must know that to dominate this region is not possible.

IHT: Politically, regarding the balance you’re talking about, does
it concern you that the preoccupation of the United States now is
with events in the Middle East?

Lee: Yes, I think it’s a real drag slowing down adjusting to the
new situation.

Without this draining of energy, attention and resources for Iraq,
Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, there would have been deep
thinking about the long-term trends – working out possible
options that the U.S. could exercise to change the direction of
long-term trends more in its favor.

IHT: Right. Is this a long-term problem for this region? The
removal of attention of the United States?

Lee: I don’t think it’s a total removal. It’s just that pre-emptive
options have not been thought through. Day-to-day attention to
moving things forward – that goes on because of the machine.
Your ambassadors are here. Your chambers of commerce are
here. Your State Department, trade and Treasury and so on, they
are on the ball in keeping the shop going.

But look at the Chinese – they are acting more decisively than
the Japanese. They are making strategic decisions on their
relations with the region and they were an economically
backward country.

They decided sometime in the late 1990s that they required good
relations with Southeast Asia and Asean [Association of
Southeast Asian Nations.] So Zhu Rongji [former prime minister
of China] went to Brunei for an Asean meeting and put on the
table a free trade agreement with Asean.

Totally their initiative. They also stopped challenging this reef
or that reef, or whatever Mischief Reef [part of the Spratly
Islands in the South China Sea.] Let’s go jointly in oil
exploration. Of course it’s not all sweetness. At the same time
there’s some jostling between naval ships.

But they’re maintaining a very different posture. It took some
time for the Asean countries to really believe that this free trade
was a serious offer. Now it’s on. For products it’s already done.
You take first advantage or “early harvesting.” And if it’s unfair,
we can revise it later on.

Why because this will lock us into their [China’s] markets.

I had told Charlene Barshefsky – Clinton’s trade rep – about 12
years ago. I said, “Better move before these chaps move,
because look at their size!” In the end she moved but the free
trade area was only with Singapore and with high hurdles which
the others in Asean could not clear.

On the other hand the Chinese made a strategic decision and
overruled trade and industry or whatever local domestic power
groups, and said, “This is a strategic necessity – move.”

And you’ve got to match this.

IHT: But as the American situation now stands in Iraq, there is
going to be trouble, whichever way things go. And if the United
States is not there to moderate

Lee: You cannot leave and have chaos ensue. Even with a
Democrat president, the day after he or she has won the elections
on the second Tuesday in November, he/she will be given all the
briefing papers, and the consequences of various options, and
he/she will know that if you pull out precipitously, the long-term,
the permanent price can be horrendous! You’ve got to at least
keep a stabilizing force and put pressure on the neighbors to
come to some agreed configuration of an Iraq that will be stable
and not threatening to any neighbor.

---

IHT: I want to get back to India for the moment. You talked
about it in positive, growing terms. How do you assess its
potential as a regional and international power?

Lee: India’s economy can grow to about 60-70 percent that of
China. I see that as the long-term trend. They’re not going to be
bigger than China – on present projections.

But 60-70 percent of China with a population which will be
bigger than China by 2050, is something considerable, and
they’ve some very able people at the top. I draw this historical
lesson which I believe will be repeated, though not in exactly the
same way, but will manifest itself in a similar pattern.

If you study the history of this region, you will see that two
influences came from the north.

One was India from the west; the other was China from the east.
So you have the Ramayana Classics, the dances and music in
Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia. You have
Borobudur and Hindu-like temples in Bali. Then in the east you
have Vietnam, and then the seaports of the region, pockets of
Chinese traders.

So historically, two forces were at work, two higher civilizations,
India and China from the north flowed into this region. Then
European colonialism took over for 200 years.

Now, China and India have revived. I believe the outward thrust
of their influence will follow a similar pattern.

IHT: Do you think this will be a smooth and positive expansion?
Or do you think that it’s na ve to believe that this won’t cause
and create and increasing number of conflicts in the future?

Lee: I don’t think we can say that we will be conflict-free. I
believe it will be conflict-free between big powers because it’s
too costly for them. But between big powers against small
powers – the squeezing of small powers – that will go on. And
between small powers themselves, the small will squeeze the
smaller.

But I do not believe hostilities are worth anybody’s while. If
present conditions prevail where there is international rule of
law, a United Nations Security Council, and a balance of power
in the region. There is also the International Court of Justice –
International Arbitration court, et cetera.

Two lessons give us some comfort. One was Cambodia; the
Vietnamese had to withdraw. The other was East Timor; the
Indonesians had to withdraw. So these borders are not just lines
drawn on a map. You cannot breach them without international
consequences.

---

IHT: What about the risks to Singapore?

Lee: We are already in consultations with Delft in Holland to
learn how we can build dikes!

IHT: Are you serious?

Lee: We are. It scares me because many world leaders have not
woken up to the peril that their populations are in. This melting
ice cap. I expected great consternation! What would happen to
this earth? But, no. Has it triggered off emergency meetings to
do something about this?

Earth warming, the glaciers melting away? Never mind the
Swiss Alps and skiing resorts having to manufacture snow.
When the glaciers in the Himalayas and Tibet melt away, the
Ganges, the Yangtze, the Irrawaddy, the Mekong, may dry up,
except for rainy seasons. What will happen to the hundreds of
millions? Where do they go? Where can they go? This will be a
very serious problem.

IHT: Why don’t you think the world isn’t focusing on this?

Lee: Because it’s not an election issue. You know maybe 50
years, a 100 years, most of us would be dead. Leave it to the
next president.

IHT: That’s human nature isn’t it? But it doesn’t seem to be the
way Singapore operates. You’re taking a lot of pains.

Lee: Because we are too vulnerable. If the water goes up one
meter, we can have dikes and save ourselves. If the water goes
up by three, four, five meters, what will happen to us? Half of
Singapore will disappear! The valuable half – the seafronts.

Well, let us say, it has gone up to one meter and we have
protected ourselves. But our neighboring islands have
disappeared! And then Indonesia may not have 30,000 islands –
many will be under water.

---

Hot Spots returns Sept. 20.

Brian Trumbore


AddThis Feed Button

 

-09/13/2007-      
Web Epoch NJ Web Design  |  (c) Copyright 2016 StocksandNews.com, LLC.

Hot Spots

09/13/2007

Lee Kuan Yew

Lee Kuan Yew is one of the more fascinating people in the
world. The founder of Singapore, he served as prime minister
from its founding in 1965 to 1990, when he stepped down to take
the post of minister mentor. Recently, he sat down with the
International Herald Tribune and following are just a few
excerpts from that interview. Lee has always been one of the
great thinkers on the global stage.

On China

Lee Kuan Yew: The next 10, 15 years, China is more an
opportunity than a challenge the opportunities will be taken up
by many other competitors in China. The challenge will come
when they start exporting not just low-end products but
intermediate products and even some high-end products and
software. And they will begin to export their expertise,
exporting their factories and plants.

IHT: What about politically? Does China have long-term
ambitions in Asia that cause concern to the rest of the region?

Lee: Well, there are memories, not institutionalized but in folk
memories at a popular level. For instance when the Sultan of
Brunei went to Beijing, about 10 years ago, they took him to his
great-great-grandfather’s mausoleum in Nanjing where he had
died, when bringing tribute to China.

It was a neat way of reminding the Bruneians and the rest of us –
Brunei was then a big empire in West Borneo – that this was our
place in the pecking order.

So this question mark. What kind of a relationship will it be?
Because of technology, the other great powers are not far away.
So it’s a different equation now than it was. That was China
when there were no steam ships, no aircraft and an unpopulated
America.

Present day China faces a very advanced North America, Europe,
Japan and a fairly developed Southeast Asia and India. So it’s a
different world, and our expectation is – we’ve got to see how it
turns out – that the generation that takes over in China, in say 30
years will be of a different mind-set. Because they would have
been educated abroad and be completely different from their
forbears.

They would’ve gone abroad and traveled widely and be very
familiar with the English language. They would also know that
although by 2050 China will be the biggest economy in GNP
terms per capita, they are still small, and technologically they are
still way behind.

So to get there, they must have a sense of realism – which the
present leadership has. For them to make that grade, they’ve got
to be like us with a very keen sense of what is possible and what
is not.

They must know that to dominate this region is not possible.

IHT: Politically, regarding the balance you’re talking about, does
it concern you that the preoccupation of the United States now is
with events in the Middle East?

Lee: Yes, I think it’s a real drag slowing down adjusting to the
new situation.

Without this draining of energy, attention and resources for Iraq,
Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, there would have been deep
thinking about the long-term trends – working out possible
options that the U.S. could exercise to change the direction of
long-term trends more in its favor.

IHT: Right. Is this a long-term problem for this region? The
removal of attention of the United States?

Lee: I don’t think it’s a total removal. It’s just that pre-emptive
options have not been thought through. Day-to-day attention to
moving things forward – that goes on because of the machine.
Your ambassadors are here. Your chambers of commerce are
here. Your State Department, trade and Treasury and so on, they
are on the ball in keeping the shop going.

But look at the Chinese – they are acting more decisively than
the Japanese. They are making strategic decisions on their
relations with the region and they were an economically
backward country.

They decided sometime in the late 1990s that they required good
relations with Southeast Asia and Asean [Association of
Southeast Asian Nations.] So Zhu Rongji [former prime minister
of China] went to Brunei for an Asean meeting and put on the
table a free trade agreement with Asean.

Totally their initiative. They also stopped challenging this reef
or that reef, or whatever Mischief Reef [part of the Spratly
Islands in the South China Sea.] Let’s go jointly in oil
exploration. Of course it’s not all sweetness. At the same time
there’s some jostling between naval ships.

But they’re maintaining a very different posture. It took some
time for the Asean countries to really believe that this free trade
was a serious offer. Now it’s on. For products it’s already done.
You take first advantage or “early harvesting.” And if it’s unfair,
we can revise it later on.

Why because this will lock us into their [China’s] markets.

I had told Charlene Barshefsky – Clinton’s trade rep – about 12
years ago. I said, “Better move before these chaps move,
because look at their size!” In the end she moved but the free
trade area was only with Singapore and with high hurdles which
the others in Asean could not clear.

On the other hand the Chinese made a strategic decision and
overruled trade and industry or whatever local domestic power
groups, and said, “This is a strategic necessity – move.”

And you’ve got to match this.

IHT: But as the American situation now stands in Iraq, there is
going to be trouble, whichever way things go. And if the United
States is not there to moderate

Lee: You cannot leave and have chaos ensue. Even with a
Democrat president, the day after he or she has won the elections
on the second Tuesday in November, he/she will be given all the
briefing papers, and the consequences of various options, and
he/she will know that if you pull out precipitously, the long-term,
the permanent price can be horrendous! You’ve got to at least
keep a stabilizing force and put pressure on the neighbors to
come to some agreed configuration of an Iraq that will be stable
and not threatening to any neighbor.

---

IHT: I want to get back to India for the moment. You talked
about it in positive, growing terms. How do you assess its
potential as a regional and international power?

Lee: India’s economy can grow to about 60-70 percent that of
China. I see that as the long-term trend. They’re not going to be
bigger than China – on present projections.

But 60-70 percent of China with a population which will be
bigger than China by 2050, is something considerable, and
they’ve some very able people at the top. I draw this historical
lesson which I believe will be repeated, though not in exactly the
same way, but will manifest itself in a similar pattern.

If you study the history of this region, you will see that two
influences came from the north.

One was India from the west; the other was China from the east.
So you have the Ramayana Classics, the dances and music in
Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia. You have
Borobudur and Hindu-like temples in Bali. Then in the east you
have Vietnam, and then the seaports of the region, pockets of
Chinese traders.

So historically, two forces were at work, two higher civilizations,
India and China from the north flowed into this region. Then
European colonialism took over for 200 years.

Now, China and India have revived. I believe the outward thrust
of their influence will follow a similar pattern.

IHT: Do you think this will be a smooth and positive expansion?
Or do you think that it’s na ve to believe that this won’t cause
and create and increasing number of conflicts in the future?

Lee: I don’t think we can say that we will be conflict-free. I
believe it will be conflict-free between big powers because it’s
too costly for them. But between big powers against small
powers – the squeezing of small powers – that will go on. And
between small powers themselves, the small will squeeze the
smaller.

But I do not believe hostilities are worth anybody’s while. If
present conditions prevail where there is international rule of
law, a United Nations Security Council, and a balance of power
in the region. There is also the International Court of Justice –
International Arbitration court, et cetera.

Two lessons give us some comfort. One was Cambodia; the
Vietnamese had to withdraw. The other was East Timor; the
Indonesians had to withdraw. So these borders are not just lines
drawn on a map. You cannot breach them without international
consequences.

---

IHT: What about the risks to Singapore?

Lee: We are already in consultations with Delft in Holland to
learn how we can build dikes!

IHT: Are you serious?

Lee: We are. It scares me because many world leaders have not
woken up to the peril that their populations are in. This melting
ice cap. I expected great consternation! What would happen to
this earth? But, no. Has it triggered off emergency meetings to
do something about this?

Earth warming, the glaciers melting away? Never mind the
Swiss Alps and skiing resorts having to manufacture snow.
When the glaciers in the Himalayas and Tibet melt away, the
Ganges, the Yangtze, the Irrawaddy, the Mekong, may dry up,
except for rainy seasons. What will happen to the hundreds of
millions? Where do they go? Where can they go? This will be a
very serious problem.

IHT: Why don’t you think the world isn’t focusing on this?

Lee: Because it’s not an election issue. You know maybe 50
years, a 100 years, most of us would be dead. Leave it to the
next president.

IHT: That’s human nature isn’t it? But it doesn’t seem to be the
way Singapore operates. You’re taking a lot of pains.

Lee: Because we are too vulnerable. If the water goes up one
meter, we can have dikes and save ourselves. If the water goes
up by three, four, five meters, what will happen to us? Half of
Singapore will disappear! The valuable half – the seafronts.

Well, let us say, it has gone up to one meter and we have
protected ourselves. But our neighboring islands have
disappeared! And then Indonesia may not have 30,000 islands –
many will be under water.

---

Hot Spots returns Sept. 20.

Brian Trumbore