Interview with Charlie Rose

Lee Kuan Yew
Interview with Charlie Rose
On Hsien Loong, how US can dispel unpopularity, what's most dangerous nuke region, who'll be strongest power in 50-100 years' time. PBS.
Sep 26, 2004

CHARLIE ROSE: Welcome to the broadcast. Tonight, the former prime minister, senior minister and minister mentor of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew.
I have a lot to talk to you about. So let me go back to Singapore for a moment, without any perfect order. Your son is the new prime minister.
LEE KUAN YEW: Yes.

ROSE: The former prime minister is now the senior minister, your old job, and you`re the mentor minister or minister of - whatever. What`s the title, mentor minister?
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: A title you created?
LEE: No, a title my son gave me. Because he wanted to make quite sure that he`s the boss, and he will set policy. I`m just the mentor.

ROSE: But you know what the conventional wisdom is - with all, with great respect for your son, is that - that if you feel strongly about an issue, that you have veto power, or you have overwhelming power to make an ultimate decision in Singapore.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: That you have not succumbed to some advisory place.
LEE: You would be surprised to know just how strong a will he has. Otherwise he wouldn`t be there. And.

ROSE: Would he be there if he was not your son is the question that some ask, with respect for his talent.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: .. and the fact that he served ably in the military.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: In political life, was educated.
LEE: I put it.

ROSE: I think at Harvard - where was he...
LEE: Cambridge, London -- Cambridge, England and Harvard.

ROSE: Right.
LEE: Put it simply like this: If he was not up to the job, I would worry for him.

ROSE: And your country?
LEE: Yes. If he were not my son, I would have made him prime minister a long time ago.

ROSE: Really?
LEE: Yes. I`ve held him back.

ROSE: He`s 52 now.
LEE: Yes. I`ve held him back. He was young.

ROSE: But you made him prime minister.
LEE: No, no.

ROSE: That says volumes about Singapore.
LEE: I could have made him prime minister.

ROSE: You could have made him your successor.
LEE: Yes. I was in charge, totally. But I said no. When I said this at a party conference, it is not good for Singapore, and it`s not good for him to succeed me. Singapore needs a break from me.

ROSE: An interim...
LEE: And then it will be -- it will be able to judge him for what he is worth.

ROSE: When you look at this process from the time you became prime minister, when you had the freedom from Britain...
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: Would you look back and do anything significantly different? Were you too rigid? Were you too autocratic? Were you too not respectful of.
LEE: Human rights?

ROSE: Human rights and criticism...
LEE: . and the privilege of the individual to order his life.

ROSE: Yes.
LEE: . the way he wants to?

ROSE: Yes, yes.
LEE: Well, I have done this parlor game myself.

ROSE: I`m sure.
LEE: I would say for the first five to 10 years of extreme crisis, when the country could just fall apart in racial strife, religious hatreds and old feuds, without a strong hand we could have come apart. In those first 10 years, we established certain firm ground rules. I mean, we - we redeveloped the city. In the process of redevelopment, we broke up all the ghettos and all the enclaves.
The Chinese were in one place, the Indians in another place, the Malaysians in another place. They balloted (ph) for their neighbors.
So I created a completely different milieu. They went to the same schools. They went to the same shops. There are no ghettos. There is nowhere in Singapore you go and you say, oh, this is a slum. Why are there so many poor people? They`re all scattered.

ROSE: Yeah, but we have a Chinese section here and an Italian section here in this city.
LEE: No, no. No more. No more. You may have it here. We don`t have it.

ROSE: Yes. Just in the city. But I mean, that`s a different.
LEE: We don`t have that.

ROSE: They all go to different schools and same schools.
LEE: They are all mixed. But where they`re different shaded, is by income. The higher your income, the better your apartment or your house with a piece of land attached, and of course, the standard of living.

ROSE: If Deng Xiaoping was influenced by his trip in 1978.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: . to Bangkok, Singapore and wherever else you said, what were you most influenced by that gave you the insight to make those hard decisions you made at the beginning.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: . because you now look back and you believe that whatever ought to be the circumstance today, whatever modification we might make, it was essential to be as tough as we were and as disciplined as we were...
LEE: To get the mix right.

ROSE: Right.
LEE: . to get the mix right.

ROSE: So where did you learn that?
LEE: I learned that by watching what went wrong with Singapore. The constant riots, the sense of deprivation of certain sections of the community, the fact that if you live separately in a hovel, in a poorer part of the city and you are (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and
with weaker jobs, then you sort of feed on each other`s misery, and you break up from time to time in anger. So I said, that will not do. It will ruin us.

ROSE: And today, what changes do you think are necessary, because I - you know, I laughed in a previous interview about the bubble gum .
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: . idea, or chewing gum.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: You now allow chewing gum of certain variety to come back.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: There`s more relaxed attitude about movies.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: . in Singapore. There`ve been other changes.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: Are you approving of this?
LEE: I think the world changes.

ROSE: But those are certain kinds of examples...
LEE: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

ROSE: ... more fundamental changes.
LEE: The people of Singapore have become much more travelled. They are more tolerant of quirks of other people. We have seven million tourists a year, almost twice the population of Singapore.
Sixty percent of Singapore travel by air every year to foreign places. So we`re a very much-travelled and very cosmopolitan sort of place.

ROSE: Here is what you are preaching, go ahead, but you were preaching the following thing, as far as I can tell, which is that China is coming on strong with a very high growth rate. So is India. Singapore is in between, but if Singapore is to maintain its place and maintain its - it`s got to be very tough, very competitive, and it`s got to reassess.
LEE: Let me put it in a broader framework. In China, and to a lesser extent in India, we have such an enormous land mass with such massive populations and high quality, that if they had joined the free trade world right from the beginning, after the war, Hong Kong and Singapore may never have been economic miracles. Places like Hong Kong and Singapore, on the periphery of this huge land mass, became places of excellence because we arbitraged on their inefficiencies. We became their contact points with the outside world.

ROSE: You were an attractive alternative to their inefficiencies.
LEE: That`s right. Now they`ve decided they`re going to do likewise.

ROSE: So it is going to be a different ballgame for you and Hong Kong?
LEE: No. In 50 years, they`re going to be five times Japan. Not with the same technology. They will still be way behind, and maybe in 100 years they will equal Japan`s technology, but they`ll be pretty high up. Then they, like the Japanese, will be investing in
Singapore, and through Singapore into the region, so the roles are reversed.

ROSE: Why is that?
LEE: Because they will never be able to find a better place in the region than Singapore to launch their enterprises.

ROSE: Yeah, but the projection of your own growth rate is 4 percent to 5 percent over the next several years. I mean, you`re sort of - but you`d think you`ll be sort of ride - you`ll ride on the Japanese, I mean on the Chinese and the Indian economies?
LEE: Yes, of course. These are two huge locomotives.

ROSE: And you`re there for the ride?
LEE: Not just Singapore. We are at the centre of Southeast Asia, but the whole of Southeast Asia will be lifted up.

ROSE: Should America fear this shift from West to East, this rise of China and India?
LEE: I think fear would be the wrong reaction. Here is an opportunity for you to take advantage of your long connections with the region and your high technology, your patents...

ROSE: Values.
LEE: Values and your products.

ROSE: Democracy?
LEE: I wouldn`t...

ROSE: I know, I stay away. Sorry.
LEE: They would want to buy all the things you have, but they would not like you to order them how to lead their lives.

ROSE: That`s right. And they want to say that it may work for you, but that`s not the model we may or may not choose.
LEE: Yeah. But I have a feeling they are changing anyway, whether we like it or not, they know they have to change.

ROSE: Politically?
LEE: Yes. Because today, as against 1976 when I first went there, they are more urban than rural. When I went there, they were about 20 percent urban, 80 percent rural. Now they are about 25 percent to 30 percent urban and 70 percent rural. In another 20 years, they are going to be about 50 percent urban. And as you become urbanised, you`re on the Internet, you`re on cable TV. You`re well informed. You`ve got to govern them differently.

ROSE: Exactly. Is Singapore in your judgment the model city of the future? Not Singapore, I`m sorry, Shanghai?
LEE: Shanghai, model city of the future? Shanghai as...

ROSE: Modern, contemporary?
LEE: Contemporary, avant-garde, in culture and lifestyle...

ROSE: Economics, lifestyle?
LEE: Maybe, but in political styles, no, because that`s set in Beijing. Beijing cannot afford...

ROSE: OK. The power is in Beijing?
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: But look in America. The power is in Washington, but also New York is the greatest city in the world.
LEE: You are differently constituted. You`re differently constituted.

ROSE: If you were 20 today, hard to make this work, but so you`re a young man of 20 in Singapore. What would you do? Where would you go? Would you move to China and create businesses? Would you go into politics in Singapore?
LEE: Probably not, because there are so many opportunities to do well in life. And that`s the problem for Singapore.

ROSE: Choice?
LEE: Ample choice. What would I do? I would want a good education. In English, because that`s the world language. I`d want to have enough Chinese, not just language, but an understanding of their politics and culture, to interact with them, because I think they are
going to be the biggest growth story of the 21st century.

ROSE: So if in fact if you`re a smart young man at 20, your second language ought to be a command at least, a conversational command of Mandarin?
LEE: Yes, absolutely.

ROSE: In America we say if you were wise, your second language ought to be Spanish, politically.
LEE: Politically, but I mean...

ROSE: But you`re saying on a global basis, Mandarin.
LEE: Yeah.

ROSE: But English is first?
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: Because the English is...
LEE: It`s worldwide. And it`s for a long time, it will be the key to new knowledge.

ROSE: Did you tell Jacques Chirac that?
LEE: I don`t have to tell him. He knows it.

ROSE: All right. So you`re 20. You would look at something other than - I mean, would you move to China?
LEE: No. Not just yet. I would have a base in Singapore. I`d build some company. I`d go to China. I would go into the region. I`d come to Europe. I`d come to America.

ROSE: You`d live in Singapore, Singapore...
LEE: No, no.

ROSE: No, you would start off in Singapore?
LEE: I would start off in Singapore. My base would be in Singapore. I`d bring my family up in Singapore. But I think they will grow up with what I would call orthodox, old-world values, to begin with, before they get beaten up by all this new lifestyles and so on.

ROSE: Would you send your children, when they came of age, to - as your son went to Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard?
LEE: Yes, I would.

ROSE: Because a quality education is the best thing that you can get now? You make the point here that you can get quality education in a lot of other places than those three universities, for sure, and some would believe in different places better.
LEE: Yeah. I would say more than that. I think for the next 50, 100 years, the most dynamic economy in the world is America, because...

ROSE: The next 50 years.
LEE: Fifty or 100 years.

ROSE: So this century is still going to be the American century.
LEE: Oh, for economics, definitely.

ROSE: And military power?
LEE: Absolutely. Technological power.

ROSE: Then what should - I`m changing this, what should we worry about? What ought to be, beyond terrorism and the fact that people wish us badly...
LEE: Some people wish you badly.

ROSE: Some, some. We`ll come back to this anti-Americanism in a second, but what should be the primary concern of American leaders looking to the future? Beyond terrorism?
LEE: I would say to try and get the world not just to envy you, which they do, your wealth, your dynamism...

ROSE: Still? But that`s admiration for our power.
LEE: Yes, no, more than that. Your lifestyle, your abundance, your affluence.

ROSE: Our culture.
LEE: Your ability to have a good life.

ROSE: But I mean, they also admire our movies and our dress and things like that.
LEE: I think more important, to try and be less apprehensive.

ROSE: Really?
LEE: Yes, because at the end of the day, many parts of the world, many people say, look, they are overwhelming us.

ROSE: They the Americans?
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: That used to be the rallying cry against globalisation. Globalisation is another word for American hegemony.
LEE: I mean, you know, it`s your pop culture. So I think that`s not difficult. Your fast foods, you know all about this Big Mac and how the obesity and all that.

ROSE: Right. I do.
LEE: And your cigarette companies, all those things give you a bad name, with thinking people and...

ROSE: Importing bad food and...
LEE: And exporting problems for people.

ROSE: Drugs, so to speak, addiction.
LEE: Yes, but I think what is important is if you really want to sort of have the icing on the cake...

ROSE: Don`t be apprehensive?
LEE: Don`t be apprehensive of American power and preeminence. We are friendly. We are not out to kill your culture. We are prepared to live and let live.

ROSE: Let me add something to that, and then just to test it. And we want to engage you and listen to you and hear - do you think that, in your judgment, being the experience you`ve had, do you believe that the idea of saying - George Bush said in the campaign of 2000 but didn`t, many criticised him because he didn`t follow through, to adapt a more humbler attitude.
Do you think that the United States today, in terms of future leadership of the world, has
got to be more aware of an engagement with the rest of the world and be sensitive to their apprehension?
LEE: Yes. But I`d put it in another way. You have a lifestyle that`s causing everybody to wonder how long we can protect the environment if we all aspire to your lifestyle.

ROSE: Right, right.
LEE: So you have got to try and...

ROSE: Be more...
LEE: Move the paradigm. You know that from time to time, there`s going to be - we`re ratcheting up oil prices as...

ROSE: It`s approaching $50 as we speak.
LEE: Yes. And you know, coming to see all these huge automobiles and SUVs in America, there`s a complete unconcern with the rest of the world.

ROSE: The amount of energy consumption that our lifestyle and our wealth enables us to...
LEE: Because if you start cutting down, it will make a significant impact worldwide.

ROSE: OK. A lot of smart friends of mine are arguing that American leadership ought to be in the forefront of energy independence.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: And energy alternatives. Now, some of the people I know in the oil business will tell you that`s not likely to happen, not so much because they`re trying to sell their product, but simply that, you know, it`s not going to happen.
LEE: Well, you look at the Japanese.

ROSE: They import everything.
LEE: They import everything. And when the oil crisis struck, in every single way, they minimised consumption. And it made a difference in the economy. So today, by unit produced, they use less energy than America.

ROSE: Is in your region, what`s the likelihood that China and South Korea and Japan and - are all going to be at each other`s throat, that they are going to be - there`s going to be such rivalry among them and such competition among them...
LEE: No. I don`t see that for 10, 20, 30 years. I don`t know what it`s going to be once China is already big and powerful. The Chinese mode at the moment is, let`s grow, let`s have peace, quiet and grow. Let`s get there first and talk about other things later. And...

ROSE: But you see, they want to make - they want to play a role, a significant role. I mean, they want respect. They`ve always wanted respect, but they want respect more so today. They want to be - they have to be a critical player in trying to deal with North Korea. Have to be. Friends, it`s in their neighbourhood. And the fear of atomic weapons of mass destruction in the hands of someone who might not be...
LEE: But you also have to look at it from the North Korean point of view. The North Koreans have decided that the Chinese put their interests first, because when it became obvious to the Chinese that the South Koreans could bring benefits, they then made friends with the South. So the North no longer believes that this fellow communist is a perpetual friend.

ROSE: Right, right. Well, the South doesn`t believe - there`s some sense that the South does not fear North Korea as much as America fears North Korea.
LEE: That`s a different story.

ROSE: I know.
LEE: But at the same time, without China, the North Koreans may well have starved to death. The Chinese have helped them to survive, because they don`t want them to implode. If they implode, the South takes over. You have a pro-American Korea. And that brings American troops up to the Yalu River.
So what they want is a North Korea still extant, but without the bomb. But why should the North Koreans listen to Chinese guarantees and give up the bomb? That`s the problem.

ROSE: Well, what even is a bigger problem too is that the world watches North Korea with a bomb, and they say, gee, you know, if you get a bomb, you win the world`s respect. They`re all trying to deal with you. I mean...
LEE: Yes. I`d put it more crudely.

ROSE: All right.
LEE: They know that if they collapse, Kim Jong Il and quite a number of his generals will be in the dock where Milosevic now is, for war crimes, crimes against humanity. They blew up a Korean airliner. They killed half the Korean cabinet in Rangoon with a bomb, and they`ll end up in The Hague.

ROSE: So how do you see it ending?
LEE: So they keep the bomb.

ROSE: They keep the bomb.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: How would you - last night I had the foreign minister of Iran here...
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: ... for a long conversation. He says that they`re ready to be engaged about the bomb, that they don`t really want the bomb. You don`t believe that, do you?
LEE: It would be impolite for me to express my disbelief, but I think anybody who says he doesn`t want a bomb, if he can get one, isn`t really being honest.

ROSE: Because?
LEE: Because the Pakistanis have the bomb. So why not they? The Israelis have a bomb. Why not they? Saddam Hussein nearly had a bomb.

ROSE: Pre-`95.
LEE: Yes. So why not they? Of course, they`d rather...

ROSE: Or pre-`90.
LEE: Yes. No, it`s a dangerous world. How`s that?

ROSE: What do you think the likelihood is that a bomb will fall in the wrong hands and it will be set off?
LEE: I once wrote a fantasy piece for "The Economist." They asked me. It was some 150th anniversary or whatever, 50 years from now. So I had one little paragraph in which I said, "and finally, the bomb was used, and it was in the Middle East." Because in a conflict
between Israelis and Arabs and Muslims, rationality dissolves.

ROSE: Fear takes over.
LEE: Yes. But they didn`t publish that. They decided it was too provocative. They cancelled it. But I still believe that`s the highest risk. North Koreans will sell the bomb, or parts of it. They won`t use it, because they know that`s the end of them.

ROSE: So they want the fear that they have it rather than the fact that...
LEE: Yes, but they will sell it.

ROSE: Because it gives them money.
LEE: Yes, they`re broke.

ROSE: Currency.
LEE: They`re broke.

ROSE: Currency. Much has been said about America`s reputation as a result of the Iraqi war.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: And that if, in fact, there was a need for preemptive action at some point, because of Iraq, the respect for America, the will to follow America is less likely. Is it that severe?
LEE: These are hypothetical questions. And no benefit can come out of this kind of speculative questions and answers.
You are in Iraq. And if you do not handle Iraq in a way that does not make people despise you, then you`ve got real worries. Not whether they`re going to follow you in the next preemptive action.
You handle Iraq and come out of Iraq in one piece - you may not achieve what you set out to achieve, a functioning democracy in Iraq - but at least you leave it more stable than it was, in better shape than it was, it may take you some time - I think you will overcome it, as you overcame Vietnam. And Vietnam was a messy business, you know, 50,000 deaths and 150,000 casualties.
One of the strange things about America is this obsession with casualties, which again makes the world feel that only American lives are important. Casualties have crossed the 1,000 mark. It`s a disaster. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. They`re killing each other and they`ll continue to kill each other.
I think you have to look at it in the long term. All this will be forgotten, but how did you, at the end of the day, hold your head up and said, I came to do good, and I did good.
You did not go as conquerors. But alas, for various reasons, you didn`t get the blessings of the UN. Otherwise, it would have been much easier. And you had to carry the burden of being an occupying force. You go through with this, leave it in better shape, and you`ll still be a leader of the world.

ROSE: There is also this lesson, whether it`s Singapore or China or Vietnam or Iraq - you have to learn from history.
LEE: Yes.

ROSE: Or you will repeat it.
LEE: Yes. But you are what you are, right?

ROSE: The most powerful country? In economics, in politics, in cultural...
LEE: In October of 2002, I was in London, and I met the adviser to the British prime minister. He facilitated that, because we were also interested in Iraq.
So I discussed what were the options and what were the chances. And victory over Saddam`s forces was assured. The worries were, what happens after that? And I had heard the excerpts of what happened with the British in the 1920s. They had 250,000 British Indian troops, and they suffered many casualties, over 20,000 casualties.
So I asked this adviser, I said, this is your history. If you were in charge, what would you do? He said, I would go in, get at Saddam, get the strongest man who can hold the country together, and get out.
But Americans cannot do that. They go in with noble ambitions, noble, high-mind objectives, to bring democracy, to change the nature of the society, and that`s not easy. And that`s a long-term goal. And the question is: Have Americans the patience for that?

ROSE: Well, that`s the question. It`s great to see you. Pleasure to have you here. I hope you`ll come back.
LEE: And we`re still friends with America.

ROSE: Yes, indeed. Lee Kuan Yew, as I said, is the mentor minister of Singapore.
Thank you for joining us. See you next time.

(About the Charlie Rose Show: Acclaimed interviewer and broadcast journalist Charlie Rose engages America's best thinkers, writers, politicians, athletes, entertainers, business leaders, scientists and other newsmakers in one-on-one interviews and roundtable discussions. Charlie Rose is also a correspondent for 60 Minutes II.)