Book summary: On Bonsai, Banyan and the Tao

THE NEXT 25 YEARS

We got here by a combination of good luck and good leadership. The problem for us is how to continue the success for decades to come. We cannot always presume on good luck.

As for good leaders, we can never be sure either because politics is full of surprises.

It is important for us to understand the nature of the cultural DNA. If we want to build strong institutions, we must ask what instincts we must cultivate as individual members of a Singaporean community, what Tocqueville in his study Democracy in America called “habits of the heart”.

We must first know what we are, what we have inherited from our history. Only then can we discuss “the social contract”. Only then can we exercise our free will.

First, we must feel for others. If each Singaporean thinks only for himself, our society will break up. It will be impossible to build institutions. We must not only think deeply, we must feel deeply.

Second, our sense of humanity cannot stop at the borders of Singapore. It is untenable. Charity begins at home but it cannot end at home. As the world shrinks, our sense of a common humanity must grow.

Third, we should cultivate a regional instinct. The ASEAN spirit is very important. It will take many years, but we too must learn that we will all be better off by sacrificing some of our national prerogatives.

DEMOCRACY

The test of democracy is not how we measure up against someone else’s theoretical construct but what works for us given our history and circumstances. It is a Darwinian test. What succeeds will endure. 

In other words, democracy is not an end-point in human history.

It is not a species of political organisation but a genus containing within it many competing species. America is one species. Switzerland, a second. The European Community, a third. Japan, a fourth, and so on. Global competition will decide which species are stronger and which are weaker. 

Democracy in Singapore must take into account three big considerations:

a.First, our multiracial make-up. If one-man-one-vote leads to the tyranny of the Chinese over the minority groups, there will be strife.

b.Second, our security. Our multiracial composition complicates the problem of our security. Democracy in Singapore must respect the sensitivities of our neighbours.

c.Third, our economic development. The bottomline is our international competitiveness. Our democratic processes must strike a balance between centralising enough power to allow us to respond quickly to changing external conditions and decentralising enough to allow room for creativity and individual expression.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Kissinger once said that absolute security for one side must mean absolute insecurity for the other. It is the same with freedom. Absolute freedom for some must mean absolute non-freedom for others.

A BIG SINGAPORE

If Singapore is reserved for Singaporeans alone, we would have a very small Singapore. What we must strive for is a Big Singapore mentality.

Singapore needs talent from all over the world. To attract talent from all over the world into Singapore, we must welcome them into our community and treat them well.

What we need, therefore, is a culture which is outwardly-oriented. What we need is a Singapore mentality that is global and cosmopolitan. This requires Singaporeans to feel secure about themselves.

If we are big-hearted, we will welcome foreign talent into our midst. If we are small-hearted, we will always find reasons to be unhappy with them. At all levels, from the top to the bottom, we need a Singapore culture that is outwardly-oriented without fearing that this would somehow threaten our own positions.

Our proper response is, firstly, to help all Singaporeans to develop to their full potential and to be the best that they can be. Having done that, we must bring in foreigners who can help us do more than what we can do by ourselves.

Of course, all other things being equal, we must favour Singaporeans over foreigners.

That is the right thing to do. Indeed, the government has systematically ensured that, in all our policies, Singaporeans enjoy the privileges of citizenship.

But we must also not discriminate against foreigners just because they are foreigners.

CHINESE HERITAGE AND CULTURAL CONNECTIONS

In conceptualising this Heritage Centre,

it is important that we separate the political idea of modern China from the cultural idea of being Chinese.

Today, among Chinese people in different parts of the world, there is a revival of interest in our common values and traditions. This is a worldwide phenomenon affecting not just ethnic Chinese, but other ethnic groups as well.

But in celebrating our cultural connections, there must not be any attempt to link us back politically to China.

Our political loyalty must be to the countries we belong to, whether Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia or the US.

Indeed, this separation will become more important in the next century as China becomes a major economic and political power in the world.

Ethnic Chinese who invest in China or trade with her or engage in academic exchanges are not her agents.

I will go so far as to say that long-term peace and stability in the Asia Pacific will partly depend on this clear distinction being made, not just by ethnic Chinese outside China but also by China herself.

GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING AND THE PROSPECTS FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA

The Chinese Perspective

The collapse of the Soviet Union has confirmed to Chinese leaders their belief that economic reform must precede political reform.

Without political stability, there can be no economic development. This has been the historical experience of the Chinese people throughout the ages. It is also the ideological justification for the present monopolisation of political power by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Any attempt by outsiders to interfere with the domestic politics of China is bound to meet with the stiffest resistance.

If the American support for human rights in China goes beyond words, we can expect China to find ways to exert countervailing pressure on American interests in the most inconvenient places, especially in West Asia.

For the same reason it will be foolhardy for the people of Hong Kong to interfere in the politics of the Mainland after 1997.

“One country, two systems” will be tolerated for only as long as the second system does not attempt to subvert the first.

This does not mean that there will not be political change in China itself. Major change there will be. The more developed China’s economy becomes — and its progress has been remarkable by any measure — the looser must political control be. In fact, political control today is much looser than it was ten years ago and must become much looser still ten years from now. When and how the CCP gives up its monopoly of power is the major political challenge confronting China in the next phase of its historical development.

One day, democracy with Chinese characteristics will also appear on the Mainland.

The Southeast Asian Perspective

It is part of the historical instinct of Southeast Asians to avoid being fully absorbed, politically and culturally, by either China or India. Vietnam, for example, will want to be part of Southeast Asia to counterbalance China.

ASEAN reflects the political desire of Southeast Asians to live in a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality. Neutrality does not mean the exclusion of major powers.

That is neither possible nor realistic. Neutrality means balancing the influence of the major powers so that none is dominant. By major powers, I mean the US, Japan, China, India and, until recently, the Soviet Union.

The US is the big question mark. However, a complete withdrawal of US forces is not likely because East Asia has become even more important to the US than Europe. The economies of the US and Japan are inextricably bound together and add up to 40% of the world’s GNP. With increasing number of Asians settling on the West Coast of North America, the links across the Pacific are also cultural. Furthermore, Japan needs the US for her Asian policy and as a counterweight to China. For all these reasons, the US is more likely to stay than not.

In fact, the US, Japan and China are in a triangular relationship. The political challenge in the years to come is to create an institutional structure across the Pacific which will hold this strategic triangle in place.

A WORLD OF CITIES

When I was studying at the Harvard Business School, my American classmates had to decide not just whom to work for when they graduated but where they wanted to live. The advantage of living in a big country is the sense of greater choice. The mind automatically carries a larger map.

In Singapore, most of us do not carry such a large map in our minds.

If we ask the average Singaporean undergraduate to sketch the city layout of Jakarta or Bangkok or Hong Kong, I believe he will be hard put to do so. What for? What is the need?

The trouble is we are too comfortable in Singapore. Everything is available here, hence our parochial outlook. 

Despite our parochial outlook, we have been able to maintain a cosmopolitan economic life. This has mainly been the work of government agencies and the multinational corporations (MNCs).  But we should not be wholly dependent on the MNCs. We should also strike out on our own. To be able to strike out, we have to shed some of our parochial attitudes.

The basic problem is in the mind. If the mind is closed, no amount of money or organisation will help.

Like it or not, we live in a state of perpetual insecurity. That is our karma. Of course we dislike the insecurity but if we manage our insecurity well, we can convert it into a positive force. In a larger sense, we have no choice but to internationalise our basic attitudes.

In the world unfolding before us, the international competition is relentless. Either we are winning or we are losing. There is no middle, static position. It is a race we cannot opt out of.

There is a great difference between a foreign MNC which recruits Singaporeans and a Singaporean MNC which recruits foreigners.

If the MNC is Singaporean, however, whatever happens, the interest of Singapore will always be taken into account. We rather others work for us than we to work for others.

What we need is a different mental orientation — a different worldview — so that from an early age,

the Singaporean looks beyond Singapore for fame and fortune. He will then view other cities not merely as tourist destinations but also with an eye for business and other opportunities.

If this worldview is inculcated at home, in school, in the university and in the workplace, then we will succeed.

DIALOGUE BETWEEN ASIANS AND EUROPEANS ON HUMAN RIGHTS

It is important for us to recognise both altruistic and selfish motives when we push for the greater observance of human rights in the world.

To succeed as a historical movement, the human rights movement must help societies become stronger and more productive.

What we must work hard to find is common ground. Human cultures are complex and tenacious, and the search for common ground is not easy. The quicker we get away from slogans, the better. There must also be a certain honesty and humility in the way our dialogue is conducted. It is not possible to have a dialogue if we are only talking at each other and no one is interested to listen

The point I am making is that to find common ground in human rights and responsibilities, we must have deep knowledge of each other’s culture and value system.

One must also not forget that Marxism-Leninism in China is a Western idea with Judeo-Christian roots.

China did not adopt Western ideas by choice but by necessity. this does not mean that Asian societies, however Westernised, will cease to be Asian

In many ways, the ideas of Marx have been sinicised beyond recognition in China. We must expect resurgent Asian societies to assert gradually their own viewpoints of what is right and what is wrong in the world. That is only natural. In the process, what is considered common and universal between East and West will be struck at a different balance point.

In this dialogue about human rights and responsibilities, we must avoid the temptation to be triumphalist.

If the starting point is that Western democratic systems are morally superior embodiments of human rights, our dialogue would not go very far.

The Catholic Church is not a democratic organisation. Yet no one questions its commitment to human rights and responsibilities. When Hong Kong was a British colony without any democracy, it was a haven for human rights.

This is not to say that political systems are unimportant but we must go beyond political systems and look at the everyday lives of ordinary human beings. Cultural differences and the issue of development cannot be simply swept aside.

CHINESE CULTURE AND POLITICS

Cycles of growth and decline are common in human history. What is unique and extraordinary about Chinese history is the ability of Chinese society to re-gather itself into a single polity again and again. The Han Dynasty was roughly contemporaneous with the Roman Empire. Both broke up at about the same time.

The areas under the control of the Roman Empire never succeeded in reuniting themselves.

Even the European Union today is a loose confederation of tribal groups. In contrast, China was able to reunify itself many times since the fall of the Han Dynasty. This is because the idea of One China is deeply embedded in the minds of all Chinese people.

For centuries, Chinese children, before they could read or write, were taught to recite the San Zi Jing through which the Confucianist idea of society being one big happy family is programmed into young minds.

Thus, the political idea of one China is also a cultural idea. This distinguishes Chinese culture from other ancient cultures.

For this reason, the idea of Taiwanese independence is emotionally unacceptable to many Chinese people because it goes against a long-held cultural ideal.

UNDERSTANDING CHINA

In analysing China, it’s important, from an intellectual viewpoint, not to transpose our own experiences onto China, because it will develop according to its own logic, according to its own DNA. Studying their own history, the Chinese know that at the beginning of a dynasty the taxes are light but the treasury is full and, at the end of a dynasty, the taxes are crushing but the treasury is empty.

The Chinese attitude towards democracy follows a parallel pattern. Democracy is also not seen as an end in itself. Democracy is a means and the Chinese are quite happy to make use of democratic methods to achieve better government.

They accept that at lower levels, democracy is good because it puts pressure on local leaders to perform. Thus, in towns and villages, there is democracy with universal franchise. But for cities and provinces, the government takes a more cautious approach and there is no direct democracy.

Why not? Because they do not believe that that is the way to produce good government any more than the Catholic Church believes that the Pope should be elected by universal franchise.

Despite these rules, scandals still occur from time to time and the Centre must have the will to act. For as long as the central leadership is virtuous, the system can be maintained. But one day the centre itself may become corrupt, as has happened in previous dynasties, and a downward spiral begins.

Let me say in China’s defence that many of the methods they use arise out of fear, not out of a desire to dominate. If you analyse the old tributary system, those who sent tributes got much more in return. Japanese merchants competed to get trade tokens because the China trade was very lucrative.

It’s not easy for a country so vast as China, with such a sense of itself, to depart too much from its deep nature. From that perspective, we can be optimistic for the future.

CHINA IN A MULTIPOLAR WORLD

The Americans, because of the exceptional nature of their conception, believe that it is good for everybody in the world to become American. It is good for you to be American and share American values. Then you would be better off and the world will be a better place. There is a natural missionary spirit among Americans, which is expressed from time to time in American foreign policy.

For the Han Chinese, there is no such wish. The Han Chinese are a little like the Jews. If you are not born one, there is no need for you to become one.

By all means, learn the language, understand the habits, enjoy the food, observe the niceties; but if one day a non-Chinese were to say, “Look, I will become Chinese,” everyone will feel a little awkward because if you are not born one, how can you be one?

For China, it is the domestic world inside which is decisive. All this requires central authority and a central bureaucracy. But when the system breaks down, all hell breaks loose and the chaos can go on for decades or centuries, and millions of people die when that happens.

For this reason, those who govern China are always preoccupied by its internal development.

Its foreign policy is often geared towards creating an environment which enables the country to be well-governed and its domestic economy to grow. I do not think that China is naturally aggressive.

Of course, if you are Korean, Mongolian, Central Asian or Vietnamese, you may have a different view because at various periods in history, they were part of or subordinate to China. From China’s perspective, these are border regions which may have to be secured for defensive reasons.

Perhaps nothing expresses this mentality more than the repeated reconstruction of the Great Wall of China which has a history going back to the Warring States over 2,000 years ago.

ASEAN IN THE NEW GLOBAL ECONOMY

The reason why ASEAN works is not because we have a natural affection for each other.

It is because we share common fears. It is fear that binds, not affection which can be fickle. And the fear is that if we are divided, Southeast Asia will be Balkanised.

We will become dispensable pieces on the chessboard of the big powers. We will lose our sovereignty and be much worse off.

The point I am making is that it is not in China’s interest to bully ASEAN countries because China knows that if ASEAN countries feel bullied, we will invite others into the room and this would give them complications.

In other words, China knows that ASEAN will never want to have China as its only friend. ASEAN prefers to be promiscuous, to have many friends. China knows that, we know that, and this creates a more comfortable situation for all of us. In my view, those who argue that China was out to wreck ASEAN at the recent Cambodia meeting are wrong. It is not in China’s interest. China of course has territorial interests to defend and does not want those issues to be ASEAN-ised. A divided ASEAN is not in China’s interest because the Americans, Indians and others will be sucked in. China needs a peaceful Straits of Malacca because 80% of the oil it imports goes through it.

Is it in the US interest to divide ASEAN? I also do not think so.

The U.S. knows that if ASEAN is divided, China will be able to pick off ASEAN countries one by one. Can the US match China in this game?

Maybe the Philippines would remain with the US but even that I’m not so sure because looking at the trade accounts, China matters more and more to the Philippines. Over the years, the U.S. has decided it is better to go along with ASEAN. The Indians and the Japanese have also come to the same conclusion. In other words, all the major powers want us to be united.

I told the students at De La Salle University in Manila that there are two ways to look at the South China Sea. One is to see it as a dividing line between China and Southeast Asia. But has that been the South China Sea historically? On the contrary, the South China Sea has always connected China and Southeast Asia. It is through the South China Sea that trade flowed benefiting all parties. That is the history of the maritime silk route.

Between the two futures, between conflict and cooperation, there is much more to be gained from good relations and cooperation. The value of all the oil and gas that lie below is small compared to the value that can be gained through working together.

Therefore, it is crucial that the South China Sea problem is not mismanaged. We should keep pushing for economic integration, within ASEAN, and between ASEAN and its neighbours. In national councils, we in the business community should be a force for opening up so that the ASEAN economic space is real and not just a plan on paper.

We want the younger generation to feel that the whole of ASEAN is their region. This is the region that I belong to. If we can do this, we will be the bridge between India and China. Provided if they cooperate and do not fight we will stand to benefit greatly.