Fireside Chat with Ng Eng Hen
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Ng Eng Hen, Minister of Defence, Singapore
Moderator: Ravi Agrawal, Editor in Chief, Foreign Policy
About the Aspen Institute:
The Aspen Institute is a global nonprofit organization whose purpose is to ignite human potential to build understanding and create new possibilities for a better world. Founded in 1949, the Institute drives change through dialogue, leadership, and action to help solve society’s greatest challenges. It is headquartered in Washington, DC and has a campus in Aspen, Colorado, as well as an international network of partners. For more information, visit www.aspeninstitute.org.
Follow us on social media for more big ideas:
On TH-cam: @aspeninstitute
On Instagram: / aspeninstitute
On Facebook: / aspeninstitute
On LinkedIn: / the-aspen-institute
On X: / aspeninstitute
Ng Eng Hen's depth of thinking and his communication is really something to admire. To answer the moderator's question in the manner it was asked would mean taking a side (defend or agree) which is neither useful or in Singapore's interest (he is a Singapore Minister and that would be front and center of his goals). While for some, the alternative would have been some platitudes which would not be useful to anyone, he chose to deconstruct the question and get to the root of the matter which is the US - China competition. As a Singaporean I am proud of Ministers such as him; his response was obviously not a scripted and/or rehearsed response but one of great analysis and depth (and being extremely updated and cogent on all the facts), all the while staying rooted in a realist's position and providing a response that is useful and in Singapore's interest.
Has he been tested? My politically correct answer is I don't know. That's why I asking
fyi literally the entire asean takes the same position - he's not that special. Calm yourself.
@@jbrkjferkjbekjball ASEAN take the same side??? Are you certain?
@@Gonecase4ever neutrality is a broadly agreed position in ASEAN, calm yourself.
He raised the issue of how the issue of "unfair trade practices" is perceived. And the subtext is that this is a declaration of greed - the implication is that the US wants to receive more. And, given human behavior, that's an easy trap to fall into. But on the other hand, he points out that Singapore has been looking to the US for military support and China for trade support. And this, I think points out that it's a very different kind of issue - one which will not resolve any time soon. If the world is to remain stable, the US needs to address its deficiencies which have resulted in its failures to offer sufficient production for trade purposes. This won't be easy.
"The Strong Do What They Can, And The Weak Suffers What They Must"
Fees and Fines 😅
Once I heard the opening statement from the editor that China was being "belligerent", I knew where the conversation was going..... For most Asians in Asia, it is the U.S. that is belligerent, and India that is opportunistic to take advantage of the US-China rivalry for its own benefits. The U.S. isn't a benign superpower it claimed itself to be, not in recent years.
Indeed..
Well, plus what they had been was merely in disguise! What we see now is that they don’t bother to do dressed shows anymore.
There is still an ongoing border conflict between China and India.
so true
He's speaking from the perspective of Singapore who has to balance the relationship with China and US. But Singapore is not in competition with China...or US. Thats the difference!
Speaking from the perspective of a global citizen, no competition should lead to a hot war.
Speaking from the perspective of Philippines, competition between US and China is none of my business; economic development is my priority.
Competition is fine; but you shouldn’t ask other countries to fight your own battle.
@@MCMZ679I can feel you. We common people only want economic growth, better life, and for our children.
It’s stupid for politicians to fan nationalism and bring US troops and weapons so close to China’s border.
Do a few rocky islands bring to the Philippines what you want? Or the opposite? Both countries should just leave it there untouched.
You’d be a fool to think Singapore is not in competition with either China or US
For some reasons, I felt that Dr. Ng is trying very hard to sound light hearted, very different from the usual way he carried out conversations. I definitely think because of the strained global geopolitical problems and pains happening now, he is trying to be extremely careful in his words, staying completely out of emotional comments especially to the West.
Maybe it's just that Aspen is lovely and relaxing ❤.
Who is really assertive and belligerent here? It’s never their business anyway!
Throughout history, a country's GDP is proportionate to its military spending, so it's only logical and natural that the Chinese military will get stronger and be more assertive, especially in their immediate neighborhood. Would Uncle Sam be happy if a major power conducts military exercises with Caribbean nations and cozies up to Mexico. And trying to sway asian countries away from China will not be very successful as China is the top trading partner to over 120 countries, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and all 7 Asean countries. Mr Ng put it correctly, America has to maintain its moral legitimacy (and abide by international laws not just some of them) because there would be nothing left of US leadership of the past 50 years in Asia after it loses its military (and economic) edge over China.
The Q&A : Ignorance & arrogance VS Wisdom and realism.
The minister still holds office, so he he careful to speak in diplomatic terms. On top of that, he speaks with much asian subtlety, hoping not offend his American hosts. Unfortunately subtlety is lost on Americans.
I'm not sure about that.... he says that the Americans used to be great when they helped the East Asians build up their economies to what it is today. But he didn't mention the cost to the Americans. Fact is that the Americans are paying for this, and they're tired of paying, especially if some of their own people are adversely affected by the loss of blue collar jobs.
@@sieteochowhat is the cost in your mind? Do you really think that the US will lose on any thing they devised?
@@gregwang8628 In 1989 there were 2 superpowers in the world. In 1991, one of the superpowers - the Soviets - disappeared overnight.
The US bears several costs. Not everything it does in the Middle East is good, but if it wasn't providing the military forces to keep the sea lanes between the Gulf and the Far East safe from terrorist attacks, do you think that China (and the rest of Asia) will be able to buy oil? Do you think that China is the one who's sending their soldiers to do this? The US itself benefits in some way (although these days it no longer needs oil from the Middle East). But the poor people of the US will pay the price because they're the ones who get sent to war and d i e. China has built up a great military, but it will not be used all over the world. Only in Asia. And if it uses this military wherever - on Taiwan, on southeast Asia, on Japan, on East China sea - the result will be as disastrous as during the times of Japan imperialism.
@@gregwang8628 The US in a way did not "device" this system. They simply believed, when they were ruling Japan and the Philippines, that they should fight communism, open Asia to free trade, provide security. This was a system that worked very well for many Asian countries. It even worked well for China. Rich Americans benefitted from the system. But the Americans who used to do blue collar work like car manufacturing lost all their jobs. America has a very high level of debt. The US dollar is very high, and the part of the US economy that could export manufactured goods died. The amount of debt that the US is holding is probably not good for its economy. So some people in the US paid for this, although they are the uneducated ones who don't understand the world.
The bargain for the US is that the US will pay some price but other countries will accept it as leaders of the system.
@@gregwang8628
So the US didn't "device" this system. It created a system where countries in East Asia - Japan, South Korea, Southeast Asia - could trade with each other and the world, didn't have to worry about war (since the Vietnam war ended 50 years ago). Countries would be more democratic and similar to the USA. This worked for many of the countries, but it didn't work for China. And that's because China is the first country who's big and mighty enough to challenge the US to be number 1 in the system. Taiwan and South Korea became more democratic. Malaysia and Indonesia became more democratic. China didn't become more democratic, and now threatens to either end this system. So there are unintended consequences because the US could eventually be defeated by the system that it set up.
China on one hand is an inspiration for how much it has risen in the world. But it also wants to change the system so that it is the most powerful country in Asia. Very similar to Japan 100 years ago. China doesn't tell itself the full truth. It couldn't get rid of Mao even though it has the famines and the cultural revolution. It had to wait for Mao to die so that it could reform and prosper. It teaches its school children plenty of lies about how the West works. (Although the USA used to be better at telling the truth, it's also starting to lie to itself.) The way that it's poisoned its citizen's minds against the West is one of the threats to world peace. China can teach their people a bare faced lie like "the US did not contribute to China's prosperity". No other large country has ever prospered as quickly as China. The US spends money buying China's goods. I don't know what is worse, that China's leaders will not admit to the Chinese people that the US benefitted them in the past, or that Chinese people believe the leaders.
Last question is: do you believe that Xi Jinping will really lose on any system that he devised? Because he has changed the CCP into a less democratic system than it ever was. And why do you think that the answer to this question might be different from your original question with respect to the US
As LKY says "- I think it is a friendly habit of the 'questioner' of trying to help a person think for himself, but I would rather do my own composition if I may". Seems like a one-sided argument created by west and articulated thru the questioner to frame everyone else as an enemy, instead being guilty of being the instigator
From the perspective of geopolitical contest, China’s assertiveness in South China Sea is a response to US’s military containment policy. It should not be viewed as “mistake”, whatever perception it might have to countries that have overlapping territorial claims. Once U.S. chooses not to meddle with the regional territorial issues, China’s attitude on South China may change.
That is why he is subtle and intelligent. I am pretty sure the Chinese (leaders) get it, and he is spot on correct. My view is this; China's assertiveness in the South China Sea is a Foreign Policy mistake. However, it is spot on from their Security Policy perspective.
absolutely.
Excellent 🇸🇬♥️✌️🙏👍💪🌟🌞🪙🥇
I don't know why the moderator is blaming China for the China-India border conflict. It takes two to tango. India is as much to blame for the skirmish.
because he is an Indian
Simple because the moderator is of Indian origin.
China is in no position to talk. They have never taken accountability for anything. Just like how when they released Covid to the world and hasn’t taken accountability for it till today.
"hope his ear recovers" ..............
😂
U.S.A. and China should just go along. A united world is the best scenario to fight global challenges, including Global Warming. Alternative scenarios will only fall short of overcoming the myraid of problems Humans face. In 100 years, ethnicity and nationality will pale into history.
but china is a threat...Just growing economically big is a threat... so how to get along?
I d like to ask that interviewer what is not assertive and not belligerent?😂 What about India trying to move troops to Arunaachal Pradesh? Not assertive and belligerent?
Democracy? Plutocracy rather 😂
Next level intelligence
Politician heavy weight😊
Was there no QnA? 😮
Is Ravi an Indian? Must be a dismay to many of his country fellows that he called himself many in the West. Lol.
Is SG the first country to be free from having to take sides of a superpower? Will others follow?
Does this channel more tolerant of diverse opinions than Asian political channels which tend to censure a lot?
Singapore not taking sides? Really? Keeping quiet when there is genocide is taking sides.
So Aspen is a great location for a nice getaway? 😂
Google article: West’s failure to stop Gaza conflict has angered the young: Ng Eng Hen
Framing of the question is belligerent
US No.1 China 🇨🇳..........Bharatland 🤔
Ravi，you are not western，you are Indian😂
Having a conversation with a government that is not open and transparent is a waste of time.
Like the US, absolutely.
SINGAPORE IS GEOPOLITICS..IS AS TRANSPARENT AS THEY COME..WE ARE LINK GLOBALLY..HENCE WE WATCH AND LISTEN BETTER THAN ANY ONE ELSE BECAUSE..OUR SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT😂
@@ganboonmeng5370 Really! Do Singaporeans know the size of financial reserves, the cost of building public housing to the government as a whole, the actual cost providing healthcare services at government hospitals, the amount of taxpayers' money spent foreigners studying in local school, the size of reserves held by self-funding stat boards not included in the Budget, who are in the Electoral Boundaries Committee and the what is on their report, etc. Think before you comment.
@@franciscody9622 Some things are left unsaid but can be estimated based on openly available information.
to the west, all other countries and China should just give in to whatever the US want to take from them. 😂very stupid questions from the reporter.