Reinventing Destiny - Panel II
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 08. 2023
- As a staunch champion of the multilateral system, Singapore has always believed such a system to be critical for the survival of small states. With multilateralism under siege today, what are the implications for Singapore? What is the new strategy for small states in these circumstances? What options do we have and how else can small states like Singapore increase our limited options to enhance our political and economic space?
00:08 min
Moderator
Ms Zuraidah Ibrahim
Executive Managing Editor
South China Morning Post
02:27 min
Speaker
The Hon Dr Kevin Rudd AC
Australian Ambassador to the United States of America
and
26th Prime Minister of Australia (2007-2010, 2013)
23:34 min
Speaker
Professor Chan Heng Chee
Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities
and
Ambassador-at-Large
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
41:03 min
Speaker
Mr Bilahari Kausikan
Chairman
Middle East Institute
National University of Singapore
59:02 min
Question-and-Answer Session
Date: 14 Aug 2023
Time: 09.00 am - 05.15 pm
To find out more about the event
lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/events/...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us:
Facebook: / ipslkyspp
Twitter: / ips_sg
Instagram: / ips_sg
IPS Website: lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips
Vintage Bilahari 💪
Chan Heng Chee seemed to have a selective history. Has she forgotten that when Japan was rising, the US was complaining about taking over the world? When Japan unleashed AI, the US was complaining. When did the US say Japan can just rise?
Also, it is ridiculous to say that Singapore Chinese paper is naturally sourced from Chinese. Regardless of language, should journalistic objectivity not be the same?
Just an opinion, probably John Mearsheimer has better understanding of US behaviour on China than the 3 person.
Mearsheimer is another China basher. He believes US should not waste time on Russia but concentrate on China instead. But you are right. He is better than either Bilahari or Kevin.
that's one person's opinion and I don't think his views are more valuable to Singapore than 3 people that actually know Singapore's system.
The audience is pretty bad for this conference. Either they give an obvious context with a poor question, or they ask a question to sound smart, especially students.
This forum is about how Singapore and small states should or could react to the US-China geopolitics. You would expect invitation of speakers from small states or those with more balanced views or someone from Asean to give their views. Inviting Kevin Rudd is just like getting someone from Pentagon or the US State Dept or Rand Corporation to advise. No wonder Kevin refused to give any suggestion how Singapore or small states should navigate. He must be chuckling to himself how hilarious ISP is!
Kevin has made his Asia Society as a ramrod against China, turning off the comments section to make the channel into a one-way mouthpiece.
He kept talking about equilibrium when what he meant was maintaining the disparity between US and China.
Is it a wonder that this forum evolved into China bashing by two known China fault finders (as Bilahari himself admitted to Kevin)?
Only Chan, not herself a strong China advocate, is left heroically to keep the discussion from getting too out of balance!
I wonder whether the organiser of ISP is really interested in the expressed topic, or has other agenda in mind.
so sensitive about China bashing ? You must one of the dogs of CCP
20:26 Dude is totally 'correcting' the lads on the truest interpretation of the world. He used too much LYK doe and that is manipulative af. Ignore him.
Bilahari: "Who are you? You're not as famous as you think."
Incredible statement coming from a former diplomat. Not sure how he was even selected to represent Singapore. Was it for his IQ? Knowledge? I watched one of his (recent) talks and he was still talking about China's BRI as debt traps when that was thoroughly debunked by decade-long studies especially by American Prof Deborah Brautigam. Even Bloomberg, a critic of China, admitted it's a myth. Yet, Bilahari does not keep himself updated nor adaptable in his stubborn adherence to points that support his fixed bias.
Here he talks about certain China's behaviours but none about US's. US is well known to engage in endless wars, trains over 50,000 Africans (as admitted by Pentagon to Congress) to destabilize African nations including 9 coups in west Africa in recent years, and interferes through its CIA and NED all over the world. Bilahari, like Kevin, perceives China with a fear not supported by reality. China's economic rise is not through land grabs, colonialism, wars and regime changes, unlike US, UK and Germany.
it's just a joke, don't be so sensitive. LKY could say the same and ppl will brush it off as him being blunt.
All big countries have the power to interfere and do wield that power, yes even china. They just aren't deemed news worthy enough. If you look closely enough, there are Wagner/Blackwater like Chinese run private military companies in Africa. They also intervene in Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, North Korea, Mongolia etc. Let's not pretend that china didn't arm the malaysian/cambodian/laotian/thai communists in the past. As for colonialization, I guess you might see it differently if you were Tibetian, Uyghur, mongolian in inner mongolia. Big powers will do big power things.
I think why he doesn't raise US behaviors is because it is a given everyone already knows they do do those things and US influence is generally welcome within ASEAN nations as a balancer in South China Sea.
Not sure what you think this panel's topic is.
@@lagofala It's a joke? To Bilahari maybe. At whose expense? You obviously know Bilahari well enough to know that it's more than a joke. He has no respect for people in general. Watch his talk at UWC where he relegated the host to the status of an observer. I felt for the host who continued to sit idly by as he took over the stage including Q&A. He's undiplomatic in more ways than one to brush it aside as being blunt.
You must be quite a fan of Bilahari to compare him with LKY. LKY was blunt in his rebuttal to questions especially offensive ones. Bilahari's remark is about the questioner, not his question. He hasn't even asked his question.
You certainly share Bilahari's anti-China stance as well, mostly created and fueled by Western media. Like the debt traps, debunked by decades long studies, like those by Prof Deborah Brautigam. These are easily available but Bilahari incredibly still stubbornly clinged on to it. On Xinjiang, the strange thing is that non-Muslim West alleges Uyghur genocide while the Muslim world doesn't believe in it! Muslims are not known to be timid when their fellow-Muslims are killed in genocide! And if you bother to read beyond Western mainstream media which has an axe to grind, there are so much independent media on this topic. Just google Jaq James, the Australian who brought an Australian media to court for false information on Xinjiang. And many many more if you bother to see beyond what you read.
But the main issue for Singapore and small states, the theme of the session, is how to be navigate in this geopolitics. Singapore wants to be neutral, neither against China nor US, as both are needed in this region. Singapore (with Indonesia and most other Asean nations) only wants peace for trade and investment. Not a Cold War of divided economic blocs and alliance that small nations are forced to choose side.
So why is Bilahari so happy towards Kevin boasting that he has been right against China all the while? Why is Kevin, now in the hawkish camp closely tied with Blinken, even got invited for this forum? It's no wonder that he had no suggestion how Singapore should act in the situation. You might as well ask Blinken or Wang Yi what Singapore should do. It's puzzling why IPS didn't invite someone from Asean?! Has IPS made a mistake in panel selection?
Why didn't they ask Kishore, the antithesis of Kausikan?
@@kennethyeung7087 Exactly. And getting Kevin, who is now in the war mongering camp od maintaing US unipolarity. Is IPS pushing a pro-US line instead of neutrality?
That guy is a mental lightweight. It doesn't warrant a criticism. Let him be in his fallow years.
Audience doesn’t know how to go straight into question!