SM Lee Hsien Loong at the FutureChina Global Forum 2024

Ms Lee Huay Leng, Editor-in-Chief of Chinese Media Group, SPH Media Limited: SM Lee, let us start by asking about Suzhou Industrial Park since we are celebrating the 30th anniversary this year. You co-chaired the Joint Steering Committee with Vice Premier Li Lanqing right from the beginning. So after 30 years, what do you think of the project? Is it a good model for bilateral collaboration with China? What have we learned from that?

SM Lee Hsien Loong: It was a very successful project, looking back over these three decades. It was our first Government-to-Government (G-to-G) project between the Singapore government and the Chinese government. Very high level, focused support and with a very specific objective, which fitted China's needs at that time. At the time, China was in the process of opening up. It was experimenting with developing a high quality business environment, investment facilities. It was looking for ways to attract in Multinational Corporation (MNC) investments – “How to promote them?”, “How do you deal with them?”, and then “How do you look after them after they come in?”

So, we launched into this, me and Vice Premier Li Lanqing, chairing the Joint Steering Committee. Later it became the Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) and it covered not only this project, but also many other cooperation projects between Singapore and China which were important. And from this project, we went on to the second project in the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City. We went to do a third project, which was in Chongqing, which is the “海陆互联互通”, which is a land-sea corridor between the western part of China and the South China Sea 北部湾. We also have the China-Singapore Guangzhou Knowledge City.

So, in that process, discussing very substantive, meaningful proposals which were relevant to both sides, we developed cooperation, friendship, mutual trust and understanding. And both sides also obtained substantial benefits from the actual SIP (Suzhou Industrial Park) in Suzhou. For example, on the Chinese side, the SIP was a flagship project. It is a symbolic project which everybody knows about, all over China. And people came to visit from all over China. And they look at this, first conclusion – “It can be done”, that is very important. Second, they pick up ideas – “How it is done?” And third, they go back to their own provinces, their own cities, their own responsibilities, and they apply these ideas, each in their own way. And therefore, there were projects all over China which I think took inspiration from what we achieved in Suzhou. This apart from the fact that in Suzhou itself, the SIP became a very major city. In fact, it is a city which is now maybe one-third the size of Singapore. So, I think on China's side there was great benefit.

On Singapore's side, we also benefited greatly because it gave us a certain reputation; that we knew how to work with the Chinese, that we could get things done, we could get the projects implemented, and the ideas can work.

Moderator: But it was challenging in the beginning.

SM Lee: Of course, it was quite challenging at the beginning. The cultures were different, there wasn't that mutual trust and we had to do things which were quite difficult. For example, when we prepared the land for the for the project, the project team said, "We would like to raise the land one metre, because we are near the Yangtze River, and you have floods every now and again – and I think this is safer." But this was not the practice in China then – the floods come, you live with that, and they had learnt to do that. But our project team, said: “Invest in it. It will take longer, it will cost more, but it will pay off”. And we did. And a couple of years later, it so happened, there was a very big annual flood, and I think everybody was glad it was done.

And there were other difficulties also, because initially we were the majority partner – Singapore 60, Chinese side, 40. And when you are doing a project like this, you have many discussions. You have to be able to have give-and-take, and not everything can be pinned down according to the contract. And when the majority partner is a foreign partner, it is very difficult politically for the Chinese side to say, I will make this adjustment, this is a small concession in the context of an overall cooperation. So we had many difficult conversations. Eventually we solved it by saying, “No, you take majority 60, we go 40, you take the lead. I think it is easier for you to work”. And when we did that, I think the political difficulties became less, the practical problems could be solved and the project moved ahead. And year by year, the Chinese side took a more and more prominent role in the leadership of the project, and we eventually evolved to a more supportive role. But the project continued to grow and prosper, and we were very happy to see it do that.

Today, it has gone well beyond what we expected. We started with 15 square kilometres. We had planned for 80 eventually – three phases. Today, the SIP is about 270 square kilometres, well beyond where it was. And the projects have evolved, to have high tech projects, to have research and development projects. We have academic institutions, universities present there. I think NUS has a presence there too. It has kept up to date.

So we are very happy as proud parents. Last year, President Xi Jinping visited SIP – it was his first stop when he went to Jiangsu province – and he said he was very pleased with it. I have not been there recently. I am going there next month to celebrate the 30th anniversary, and I look forward to seeing our kid grown up.

Moderator: SM, while we established this 全方位高质量的前瞻性 partnership with China. I think China is running into difficulties with some developed countries. Reading from the Western reports, China has always been cast in a negative light. However, if I talk to Chinese officials, they feel under siege. What are the fundamental problems? Do you think there is anything that China needs to do right, or is it just misperception from the West?

SM Lee: I think the fundamental issue – I would not say it is a problem – the fundamental issue is that China has changed so much from what it was to what it is today. First, the size. When China started its “改革开放” (Open-Door Policy) in 1978 (第十一届三中全会), it was a very small part of the world economy and a negligible part of international trade. Today, it is 20% of the world economy and 20% of global trade. So anything which China does, whether it is good or it is bad, the impact on other countries is enormous. The situation has changed.

Secondly, China has developed and become much more advanced. In the earlier phase, it was growing, it was exporting. But it was making things which other countries wanted, needed and did not make themselves. You make clothing, you make belts, buttons, you make lower-end electronics products, assemble goods, things which other countries were happy to say, “Well, it is not economic for me to do. China can do”. But now China has moved up. All those products which are labour intensive and which it used to make, are migrating. They are going to Vietnam, they are going to Bangladesh, other third world countries. And China is moving up, China is making EVs. You are making portable photovoltaic panels. You have got your pharmaceutical industries. You are in industries which are competing with similar advanced industries in the developed economies. It is a more competitive relationship and therefore China's growth in these markets is not just benefiting the consumers, but also impacting the producers in other countries. And that is difficult. You have to accommodate somehow, but it is difficult.

Thirdly, because China has grown and developed so much, its interests around the world have also grown and developed. And not just in scale, but also in the things which you are concerned with. You have strategic interests, you have security interests, you have foreign policy interests in very far away parts of the world. The Belt and Road Initiative includes countries in South America. And in Africa, China is very active. China's interface with the rest of the world is multifaceted. And then the question comes, “Who is number one? Who is number two? How does number one and number two work together? Can you work together?”

I think these are objective changes. There is no doubt that for the world, we are much better off with China like it is today, than with China as it was 30 or 40 years ago or 50 years ago. But it means that there has to be an adjustment. It is not a matter of right and wrong. But it is in China's interest, and it is in the world's interest that this adjustment has to be made. What is the adjustment? It is to acknowledge that the situation has changed, that China's heft, its influence, its impact on the world is on a different scale. And you have to make accommodations and adjustments to the rules, which were set up at a time when China was much smaller.

If you are a small economy and your exports actually do not threaten any of my industries, I am prepared to cut you a lot of slack. You can subsidise them, you can protect your own market. You can have all sorts of different privileges, which the more developed economies have decided not to have amongst themselves. But when you are now not so underdeveloped, and when you are huge, and when your exports can be maybe 80% of the global manufacturing of photovoltaic panels, for example, then those concessions are no longer politically tenable. And it has to be worked out. It has to be re-negotiated so that you can have a good basis to do those things. I think that is very hard. That is one thing China has to do.

On the other side, on the part of the other countries in the world, you have to get used to the fact that there is going to be a very big China in this world, a very powerful and developed China in this world, a China which has advanced technologies, which is going to be world-class in many areas and world-leading in some. And we have to have some way to induct them into the global system and to accommodate their legitimate concerns and interests. And if you do not do that, and you say, “No, I do not want China to be strong. I want it to remain always number two or better still, number 2.5”, I think that is going to head for a lot of mutual distrust and difficulties. But it is a very difficult adjustment to make, because if you are at 2.5, you wish to become 2. And when you reach 2, you may wish to become 1.5. And so how to have that balance and wisdom to maintain a cooperative relationship which will benefit both sides? I think that takes statesmanship of a very high order on the part of the major powers.

Moderator: Do you think it helps if China can explain itself better?

SM Lee: I think so. Talking is always useful. B at the same time, there has to be an acknowledgement of the real issues, the hard points: why there are differences with one another, and how we are prepared to accommodate one another. Because if I am not, if all my claims are indubitable and beyond question, and the other side  says all my entitlements are also beyond doubt, then there is nothing to talk about. I make you a speech, and you make me a speech, and at the end we go away, 两面不讨好 – both unhappy. So, it is necessary to have conversation, but it is also necessary to be able to make the accommodations and to take steps together, which can gradually build trust and resolve difficulties.

Because of China's size, sometimes China will feel, “But the other countries are doing it, why can I not?” And the answer is, well, “What to do? They are small, you are big.” When you are big, you have greater influence; but at the same time, there comes with it, greater responsibilities and the need for restraint. Because in a world without an international order – “弱肉强食” – the weak are eaten by the big, it is the law of the jungle. As Thucydides says, "The powerful do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must." But if the world were like that, everybody is worse off, including the powerful ones, because they will fight each other to the death. So, the great countries, the big countries, have to have a certain self-awareness and restraint and say, “Well, I am entitled to this, if you consult your lawyers and international law. But I restrain myself. I am not only aiming to be stronger than others, but also to be accepted, respected, and if possible, to have others also admire me and want to have me as their friends.” I think that is the process.

Moderator: Now the Americans and the Europeans are saying that China's industrial subsidies have led to over-capacity, over-investment. Do you think that over-capacity is a real issue now?

SM Lee: I think in some industries, over-capacity is an issue. For example, steel. There is a worldwide glut of steel, and it happens every so many years. It is the nature of the steel market, its demand waxes and wanes and is never completely in balance. But there are also other industries, like EVs or solar panels, where China has very intense competition and very high production. Solar panels, I mentioned, they are 80% of global of the global market, and the capacity to produce, actually, is more than 100% of the demand of the whole world. So, I think that is over-capacity. On EVs, if we talk about “内卷”, I think EVs are a prime example, because there are about 150 companies making EVs in China. And China is a big market, but you do not need 150 different brands of EVs. So, in specific sectors, yes, I think there is over-capacity, and some of that will have come from state support and encouragement and financing. But if you take it overall, look at the overall manufacturing sector in China, or the overall economy in China, I do not believe there is over-capacity. And IMF has studied this – they published a report recently. If you look at manufacturing as a whole, the capacity utilisation is respectable – same as in other countries. So, there is no overall over-capacity. But that does not mean there is no problem.

So, what is the problem? The problem is China is running a considerable export surplus, balance of payments. Exports exceeding imports, trade surplus. And therefore it is having an impact on other economies and manufacturers elsewhere. And the export surplus is about 2% of China's GDP, which means about half a per cent of the world GDP, and that is not small. So, what is the cause of that export surplus? It is really macroeconomics. It comes about because China has a very high savings rate, and relatively low consumption demand from within China. And if you are saving such a lot, you either have to invest all of it in China or you have to export some of it to the rest of the world. And it is not possible at China's present state of development to invest all that 40% of GDP within China, which is its savings rate. A lot of that is invested in building and construction. But the building industry, unfortunately, I think, has gone too far, and that is a problem, and that has to cut back.

So how do you adjust? Either you boost consumption domestically, or it will be exported, and it will show up as a balance of payments surplus, which means a deficit for the other countries. America has the opposite problem, by the way. America saves too little, spends too much, and therefore has a balance of payments deficit, which is 3% of their GDP. That is the other side of the problem.

On the Chinese side, the solution over time has to be: to increase the domestic consumption and bring the economy into a better external balance. It is not so easy to do because it is not just a matter of households spending more. But it is about restructuring the economy so that the household earnings can rise –  particularly for those who are not already very well off, and who will then spend the money. And the households must have the confidence to go out and to spend it; whether it is on travel, whether it is on food, whether it is on clothing, luxuries. They tell me that this year, during the golden weeks, the travel demand is less than in previous years. So that is a sign, but it goes beyond that. There has to be economic restructuring. The Chinese have talked about “国外国内双循环”. That means external circulation – you have trade and economic interdependence with the outside world – but within the country, you also want to have economic circulation and trade and demand created. And that is a slogan from about two years ago, but we have not seen results yet. It is an important problem, because if it is not resolved – for China, never mind the rest of the world – you can end up in a very difficult position where you cannot get the confidence restored, and you cannot get the economy moving again. And that is something which I think China can avoid and should work to avoid.

Moderator: This morning, a lot of discussion has been on China's economy, and the government has recently announced a series of stimulus packages. What is your assessment of China's economy?

SM Lee: I think that the stimulus packages will be helpful in boosting confidence and then perhaps simulating demand to the extent that the money will be spent, and then there will be some multiplier. But I think inherently, at this phase, China's economy will grow slower than it used to. It used to grow 8% to 10% a year, sometimes even more than that. Now, if you can sustain 5% per year for another 10 years, I think you are doing well, and there are fundamental reasons for that. First of all, you are already more mature. It is not so easy to keep on just transforming yourself. Secondly, the labour force is not expanding anymore. The total population has peaked, the working age population has also peaked. It has levelled off, probably starting to come down already, slowly. And so, you can no longer just have a natural expansion of the economy. Thirdly, I think, with the external environment having turned less favourable, there are geostrategic tensions between China and America, even China and Europe. And so that external environment is not as favourable as before. The foreign investments need more encouragement to come into China. The export markets are not as open as they used to be. So that is another factor which influences China – not just the growth, but also the upgrading and transformation.

Fourth, partly in response to this external environment, but also for domestic reasons – I think the Chinese government's priorities have shifted some. In an earlier phase, the slogan was “发展是硬道理” – Economic development is the topmost priority, is the hard truth. But now, economic development is very important, but trumping that is national security. And I think equalling that, at least, is domestic political considerations. In that situation, I think the environment for people to spend, for companies to start up, or for big companies to build new businesses, I think will be more cautious. It is inevitable.

The government will give reassurances that they do want the private sector to have an important role. They do want entrepreneurs to have confidence. But the national security considerations are important. The political considerations cannot be ignored. And that has an impact.

So these things, I think, will weigh on the Chinese economy, in addition to the specific economic problems. For example, dealing with a housing overhang and the construction problems; and the financial problems which come from that; the debt.

Moderator: So, should we be pessimistic or optimistic?

SM Lee: Well, I think it is very unwise to write off China. This works in both directions. The Westerners say, “We will do this and the other, and China will stay down.” I tell them they are wrong. They do not fully believe me. When I go to China, and sometimes, the confidence with which my hosts expound their views cause me to tell them “You know, the Americans have a lot of problems. You can see all of the problems, but they have a lot of strengths, and sometimes you cannot see all of their strengths. And they are not going to disappear, and they will be there and formidable, I think, for a very long time to come.” And I am not sure whether they fully understand why I am saying this, so I think both sides have this danger of underestimating the other.

But on the Chinese side, there are some reasons which we can be confident that this is a country which is going to be there for a very long time. First of all, it has already been there 5,000 years. But even the factors which hold it back – for example, the fact that its population and workforce is not growing – are not things which have to bind and paralyse it. The population may not be growing, but you can make better use of the population, the workforce. China's retirement age is very low – women at 50, men at I think 55. It is going to be adjusted now, the government is shifting it; women going to 55, men going to 60 – but still quite low. Even that adjustment is not easy to make, and it is going to take them I think until about 20 years to achieve. But if you can stay productive longer, if you can stay active longer, if you can make full use of the women “妇女顶半边天” – that is one major source of growth capacity.

Another one is the rural population. China has been urbanising very systematically. Every year, about 1% of the population, 15 million people, have been moving from rural to urban, to the cities. That means, really from the agricultural sector, from farming into the cities, manufacturing, providing services. Maybe they are construction workers, but moving from the traditional economy to the modern economy. But 35% of China's population is still rural. And if you look at the developed countries, their farming population is like 2%, 3% of the population, that is all.

So China's process is not complete yet. You have to work to make it carry on and to make it productive. You have to have jobs for them in the cities. You need to have “户口” for them in the cities. You need to have homes for them in the cities. You need to provide schools for their kids. And you also must have agricultural reform so that it is possible for them to make use of the land which they have been farming. Maybe lease it out to somebody, or sell it to somebody else, consolidate, become bigger scale, more productive, and take that and go into the city and make a new life in the city.

But these are all ways in which China can continue to grow. So that is the first reason I think we should not think that China has peaked.

Secondly, I think in many areas, China is actually world-class. I talked about EVs, I talked about solar panels. Yes, there is over-capacity. Yes, there is state support, and that maybe has given the companies an extra advantage. But in fact, there is a lot of very advanced and very high-quality technology and science in the EVs, in the batteries, in the solar panels. And that is a big reason why the costs have come down, and why the Chinese products are so competitive. And so it shows the Chinese can do it.

And furthermore, which is my last reason, I think the Chinese people are quite determined. They have seen what they can do. They have seen what other countries can do, and in some areas, they know they need to catch up. And when the Chinese say 站起来, 富起来and 强起来, I think that determination is there, and it will get them to move forward and to see through any difficulties there may be.

So I have reasons for confidence, and I am hopeful that the reasons for confidence will outweigh the signals of concern.

Moderator: Coming back to Southeast Asia, a lot of the Chinese companies are now coming to this region – 卷出来. How would it impact us?

SM Lee: Well, we will notice them. China is huge. Its impact on Southeast Asia is very large. When their companies come, it means that they provide good products, good services, fierce competition for our companies, for our industries, for our economies. In fact, we send our trade unionists and trade union leaders to go to China, to visit Shenzhen, to visit Yangshan, to visit your high-tech centres, to visit, to see the factory lines – Fosun – to understand the drive, the hunger, the transformation which is taking place and how advanced China is already. And they come back and they understand why we have to work hard, and work harder.

I think the answer should be you have to work harder. It will be an impetus for us to upgrade, transform our companies, train our people, retrain our people, be competitive and meet the best in the world. And I think we can do that. Yesterday or today’s Zaobao had a quote from Christine Lagarde, who had the same sentiment: exhorting the Europeans to do that in the face of external uncertainties and fierce competition, by which I am sure she meant competition from China. And I think it is easier for us to do it in Singapore and in Southeast Asia, than it is for Europe to do that.

Moderator: So now, given that there are many Chinese companies in Singapore and some people are labelling Singapore as a “Singapore-washing” place, is the government concerned about this?

SM Lee: Well, we do not usually use labels like that. We have companies in Singapore from all over the world. We welcome reputable companies to come here and to make use of our business environment, our pro-business climate, our infrastructure, our networks, and to contribute to Singapore's prosperity and link us to all parts of the world. So if the Chinese come, they are good companies — they create jobs, they pay well, they bring technology, they bring markets — I say “come”. The Americans come, I say the same; the British come, I say the same; the Japanese come, they are all here. But nobody believes that just because the company is in Singapore, that means it is a Singapore-owned company. We have got Dyson here. We have got General Electric here. We have got Citibank here. We have got all the major Japanese multinationals here. Everybody knows that they are Japanese, American, British companies.

So when TikTok is in Singapore, everybody knows that Tiktok’s parent is Bytedance and Tiktok’s origins are in China. The CEO may be a Singaporean, but Singaporeans work for companies belonging to all kinds of shareholders. So on that basis, you are welcomed in Singapore. But of course, we would like to know where you come from and what your antecedents are. Because if it turns out that you are not the one we think you are, we also would like to make a few more inquiries.

Moderator: I would like to open it to the floor now. There are some questions here, let us do one - 新加坡以善于吸纳人才著称。当前越来越多的优秀中国企业家和人才选择新加坡作为出海的第一站，可否请李资政分享新加坡在吸纳出海的中国企业家和人才方面有哪些考虑 ?

SM Lee: I think first of all, we are open to everybody, to people from around the world. If you are an entrepreneur, if you are a business person, if you can make a contribution to the Singapore economy, we welcome you to come to Singapore. But you have to abide by our laws. You have to follow our rules. You also have to understand how our society works, and fit in as a member of the Singaporean society. For example, we may not be as poorly off as we used to be, but we try very hard not to flaunt wealth, and success. If you have a big car, please do not drive it at high speed down Orchard Road in the middle of the night, for example. These are some of the considerations. So when you come to Singapore, we ask, can you fit in? Can you make a contribution? If you want to manage some of your assets out of Singapore, you are welcome. Even better, if you want to have your business operating in Singapore and have substantive business, which is linked to factories, headquarters, research centres elsewhere in the world –even better. On that basis, we have a good number of Chinese families and businesses here. But that is the way China has been talking about it, China says 走出去。This is part of 走出去。你们走出去，我们这边欢迎你进来。

Moderator: Let us take some questions from the floor. Maybe we can just have two questions, because we are running out of time. Could you please identify yourself before you ask the question and keep the question brief.

Question: 我叫唐明，我们在新加坡十年了。然后我们是在上海还有新加坡都有我们自己的投资和基金。在过去十年中，我们主要的工作是把新加坡优秀的企业进行投资了以后，回到苏州工业园区，回到中国这个市场去成长。然后最近呢，我们也会从中国把一些好的F&B的品牌和企业出海新加坡。因为我们有专业的团队，我们可以帮助我们中国的企业落地到新加坡市场。那么我今天的问题是，新加坡作为一个亚洲金融中心，我们看到很多优秀的企业都愿意落地新加坡，并且辐射东南亚。在前一段时间我们注意到咱们的政府，正在积极地推行在股市上的一个大胆改革的措施，其实这对于我们的企业家来说是非常非常乐于见到的一个事情，会提升股市的活力。我的问题是在这一块，有没有什么信息可以给我们透露到，说未来新加坡的股市会有什么新的措施，然后有没有机会，让我们更多的企业可以在新加坡进行上市，谢谢。

SM Lee: I am not familiar with the ins and outs of the review of the stock exchange. I know it is in progress. I know that we would like to inject more vibrance and dynamism in our stock exchange and we welcome reputable, good companies to come to Singapore to list in Singapore. We have had some from China, mostly smaller ones. The results have been mixed. Some good, some harder to assess, because it is not easy to have a stock listed overseas from where the company's business is – the overseas market and the investors there may not know exactly what is happening with the company's actual operations. So that has been a practical difficulty, but we would still like to have good companies come and list here, and it is being studied now. But there is no impediment to companies wanting to come to Singapore to list, if they fulfil the requirements. If you know of any, please put them in touch with the stock exchange, or if you know of any impediments to companies you think should come, but for some reason do not fit our rules, please let us know and we will look at our rules.

Moderator: 资政您退下来之后，现在会比较有时间？

SM Lee: 稍微多一点时间。

Moderator: 我不知道您是不是会玩这个线上的游戏？

SM Lee: 我没什么玩线上游戏，可是听说最近有一个新的游戏，不是线上的，是电脑里面的，很红，就是《黑神话：悟空》。

Moderator: 我的问题其实比较简单，就是新加坡的学生其实学中文，学得非常的吃力。您觉得让他们多玩一些这些游戏是不是有点帮助？您会鼓励您的孙女玩这样的游戏？

SM Lee: 这是个很难回答的问题。我看是有帮助，但是必须适可而止。这个《黑神话》是一个很高档次的电脑游戏。我不会玩它。我上网去YouTube看那个视频，动作很快，他的招法一来一往，目不暇接。我看都看不清楚他做什么，他已经一边输了。所以如果要我做天命人，去参加这个游戏，去跟这些妖怪、魔鬼去斗的话，我看我没办法争回这六根器。完全没有希望。所以最好让电脑游戏达人去捉，我在这边六根清静就好了。

我的孙女还太小，她还没有到这个年龄。到这个年龄, 她肯定有兴趣。不过这个打斗的游戏通常是男孩子喜欢玩的。

至于学华语，我想有它的作用，因为我们希望孩子学华语的用意不只是语言，而是也希望他们能够吸收中华文化、中华传统，了解这个非常丰富的文化内涵。所以像 《西游记》这样的名书，如果你长大了，你不知道谁是孙悟空，是有问题的。或者你不知道谁是诸葛亮，《三国演义》，那也是有问题的。可是如果你只背成语，整个成语词典，三顾茅庐，什么司马昭之心，很没有意思，很枯燥无味的。你必须懂得这个故事，那些成语才会很清楚的在你的头脑里面。所以如果你可以玩了《黑神话》之后，有兴趣去看 《西游记》的电影，或者甚至读吴承恩的书，那是最好的。我希望我们可以通过这些比较软的渠道，鼓励学生不只是学习华语，同时吸收一些中华文化的内涵。

Moderator: 但是，就不要玩上瘾了。

SM Lee: 所以说，适可而止，到时间就必须停了。

Moderator: 资政您卸任之后，我常常观察，觉得您好像比较轻松，这个事实是不是这样？您可以跟我们说一下，现在您跟您在当总理的时候什么不同？

SM Lee: 轻松倒不觉得，不过负担减轻了一点，那个是事实。因为我已经卸任了，是资政。资政跟总理很大的不同。总理第一时间事情发生了，你必须做反应。最后问题讨论了，要做决定了，你必须做最后的决定。资政不需要做第一时间的反应，也不能够做最后的决定。我只能够提供意见，供总理参考，供内阁参考，参加他们的讨论，帮忙大家能够以他们的方式处理他们所面对的问题。现在的问题我比较熟悉，因为很少问题是突然发生的。这些都有相当一段历史的。过了一段时间，以后的问题，新的挑战、新的机遇、新的政策，这些都必须是由新的领导层去办的。我的角色应该慢慢地淡下来。所以应该越来越裸退。现在还没有到那个阶段。

Moderator: 我们非常希望您继续保持这样的状态，特别是在这个世界纷纷扰扰的时候，我们也希望能够继续听您非常中肯的分析和看法。

Q: 资政你好，这个问题跟美国大选有关。问题是如果说是哈里斯当选或者是特朗普当选，你觉得在处理中美新三边关系当中，哪一个更容易些？

SM Lee: 我想都很困难。

Let me explain. I speak in English because I want to speak very carefully; the elections are around. I think the tensions between China and the US are not personality-based. There are forces, there are deep attitudes which are formed on both sides. A social consensus on the American side that China is a challenger, a rival, even a threat to America in the long-term, potentially. And on the Chinese side, a very deep conviction that the Americans want to stop the Chinese from matching them; certainly would not allow the Chinese to overtake the US, and even overtly saying that the US would prefer the Chinese to be behind them. This is a very fundamental contradiction, which is not going to go away. And on the American side, there are not many issues where the Democrats and the Republicans agree on, but this is one. And that is a very serious matter. So whether it is Harris or whether it is Trump, that is not going to be changing. I think with Harris, it will progress in a more predictable way, with fewer sudden shocks and less risk of things going completely out of control. But that basic attitude is not going to change. With Trump, things can progress in many more sudden directions. For example, he has said that the day after he comes into office, he will put 60% tariffs on Chinese products, and 10% on everybody else. And he may possibly do that. It is within his power to do that. And if he does that, you are in uncharted territory.

I think from the record of the previous Trump administration, he will have a team with him who will have certain ideas on how they want to do this. He will depend on the team, but he will also “ad-lib” and do things which you did not quite expect him to do. In particular, I think, what you can anticipate is that his attitude towards allies, towards America's friends, will be different from what the Democrat administration has done in these last four years. When they asked the Pope this question, whom he prefers, after he visited Singapore on his way home, the Pope said, "It is a very difficult question. I do not know how to choose." If the Pope does not know, I do not know either.

Moderator: 各位，让我们以热烈的掌声谢谢李资政。