Singapore Government Press Release
Media Division, Ministry of Information and The Arts,
MITA Building, 140 Hill Street, 2^nd Storey, Singapore 179369
Tel: 837-9666

A Reuters report of April 10, 2001 quoted Wirtschaftswoche correspondent Frank Sieren as saying that Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew had urged the US to take an uncompromising stance towards China in the current spy plane stand-off, in a written answer to follow-up questions sent after the March 31 interview.

Wirtschaftswoche submitted after the March 31 interview a transcript for Mr Lee’s comments, containing the questions and answers from the interview that they intend to publish. They were not follow-up questions. In this transcript, Wirtschaftswoche added to their first question a reference to the spy plane incident, which was not and could not have been raised during the interview. Mr Lee had checked the answer he gave in reply to the question he was asked during the interview, which was, " If you look at the new government in Washington now, the shift towards China from a strategic partnership to a so-called strategic competitor, do you see that as a substantive change or more or less muscle-flexing?"

What Mr Lee had said for publication by Wirtschaftswoche is contained in the attached transcript. Wirtschaftswoche had inserted after the interview, the words in the first question underlined by Mr Lee’s Press Secretary as explained in the footnote. In none of his answers did Mr Lee comment on the spy plane incident, let alone to urge the US to take an uncompromising stance towards China in negotiations concerning the return of the American spy plane that made an emergency landing on China’s southern Hainan Island.

Yeong Yoon Ying

Press Secretary to Senior Minister

11 April 2001

TRANSCRIPT OF SENIOR MINISTER LEE KUAN YEW’S INTERVIEW WITH FRANK SIEREN AND MATTHIAS KAMP OF WIRTSCHAFTS WOCHE ON 31 MARCH 2001 AT ISTANA

Q: If you look at the new government in Washington now, the shift towards China from a strategic partnership to a so-called strategic competitor, which Washington displays in the discussion about its Spy plane that landed on Hainan – are we in for a new confrontation in Asia? (do you see that as a substantive change or more or less muscle-flexing?) [See Footnote]

Mr Lee: "The Republicans have been out of office for eight years. The position of the Chinese and their relations with America and the rest of the world have also developed in the last eight years. The US-China relation will not get worse or easier. Over the next 20 to 30 years the US will lose its dominance over China. "

Q: "You just mentioned Indonesia, Senior Minister. If you look at the problems in Indonesia, how could the US Administration help?"

Mr Lee: They all stem from the collapse of the system of government of President Suharto. Not only did he fall, the system of government also came apart, first, under President Habibie, now under President Abdurrahman Wahid. The problem for Indonesia is not just to democratise or to go through the democratic process, but how to restore order and discipline."

Q: "Okay."

Mr Lee: "Indonesia now needs a new framework within which to hold the country together. Part of this new framework will require the support of Army. But it has become part of the problem because President Abdurrahman Wahid tried to send it back to barracks prematurely. So, they had bombs on Christmas Eve all over Indonesia at the same time. To get out of this, the Army must be part of the solution."

Q: Chinese power is growing also in this region. Some interviews show that you’re worried about this, asking the United States to be in the medium in the region, in the region as a balance. What are you afraid of China?"

Mr Lee: "I’m not afraid of China as military power in the region, for many years."

Q: "Also the economy?"

Mr Lee: "The economy may be considerable in 20-plus years. The problem is the long-term problem of a balance in the Pacific.

Q: "But this is an interest against China?"

Mr Lee: "The interest to balance China."

Q: "Why do you need balance that?"

Mr Lee: "Supposing you had the Soviet Union without Nato, could you have balanced the Soviet Union? No, so you had Nato; you had the Americans and the Canadians to help balance. In an analogous, not completely similar way, East Asian countries by themselves have no capacity to balance China. So we need a US-presence in Asia.

Q: "Last year, you were one of the first ones, Senior Minister, to mention and to warn about a shift of the economic epicentre in Asia from Southeast Asia to Northeast Asia. China is getting more attention, Korea, Taiwan getting more attention. How can the countries here in the region respond to this?"

Mr Lee: "They have to decide how they can bring back foreign capital and restore investor confidence."

"They have to be more transparent with sound banking systems, good corporate governance, accounts that investors can study and judge whether a company is sound. That’s what they have to do individually as countries. Then together, the ten countries in Asean must offer a common market for investors in a free trade area. Though 500 million people cannot compare with 1,200 million, it’s still better than 20, 30, 40, 50 million in little packets."

Q: "Do you think Singapore will be sort of the country who’s packing everybody together?"

Mr Lee: "No, we can’t do that, we can only act as a catalyst. We are reaching out, and the other countries in the region should also reach out, to the rest of the world."

Q: "East Europe?"

Mr Lee: "We’re having free-trade arrangements with US, Japan, New Zealand, Australia."

"You must have a sense of proportion. For a Mercedes E-class chassis, we have a good-size engine. But if you take that same engine and put it in a Mercedes S-class 600, it will be inadequate. We can only act as a catalyst."

Q: "Are you sort of personally disappointed that, on one side, Singapore is doing very well, but basically, all the countries around you are not performing very well right now. Probably, when you’re looking back, you were expecting it’s coming out different in future."

Mr Lee: "I would be untruthful if I said I was elated at our position. At the same time, regardless of our apprehensions, we have to do the best we can to make sure that we are not pulled down. If the region doesn’t have that bounce, we must reach out and get some pulling power elsewhere. Maybe the others will follow us. If they do, they will restore confidence and get foreign investments back in, and get some bounce."

Q: "Concerning Chinese-Taiwan relations, is it time to talk about three countries, it’s "one country, two systems" now. Can it be "one country, three systems"? Is it time to talk about this now?"

Mr Lee: "It’s already, if you read the statements from the Chinese leaders on Taiwan, they are in fact offering "one country, three systems"."

Q: "But it’s not mentioned."

Mr Lee: "No, I think they do not want to make it more complicated for mass understanding by calling it three systems."

Q: "To the Taiwanese people in street, it doesn’t sound like they’re looking for unification?"

Mr Lee: "No. At the same time, if at least 70 per cent of them don’t want independence because they know that’s war. What they want is status quo, ie peace and quiet, which is not an unreasonable."

Q: "Which is not. You think Singapore can play a role in it?"

Mr Lee: "The Chinese have made clear to us this is a family matter."

Q: "You don’t belong to the family?"

Mr Lee: "No, we are not part of the family. The only non-family that’s in the equation is the United States."

"No, I don’t think you have got it categorised right. We are what we are, Singaporeans. We must pursue our interest as Singaporeans. The fact that we are ethnic Chinese gives us a certain empathy and understanding of the way the Chinese in the mainland think and feel about Taiwan, and vice-versa. As I told the Taiwanese, if the Mainland takes over Taiwan immediately, Singapore would lose something because our troops have been training there since 1975."

Q: "How do you see Singapore’s future and when you think of birth rates declining, problems in the region, could Singapore at one point become a part of Malaysia again?"

Mr Lee: "In spite of our falling birth rates, our population has grown because of immigration."

"We will continue to exist. Because we are small, we can solve our problem by selective migration, immigration, from India, China, the region and also from Europe and from America."

Q: "Yes."

Mr Lee: "Thirty years ago, when we started after independence, my objective was to make Singapore a pre-eminent centre for the region. The contest then was a regional contest. Now, the competition is global."

Q: "Did you use, when you started, these Asian values as a sort of marketing tool to keep Singapore together?"

Mr Lee: "No, I don’t think we used it as a marketing tool. If we did not have these Confucian values, we would not have achieved the present Singapore. We would not have succeeded."

"Without these values in the people, we could not have done it."

"I’m fearful seeing the dissolution or the growing irrelevance of the family in America. I’m not in favour of single-parent families. It’s a disaster for the children. How can you call that a marketing tool?"

Q: "Singapore has politically opened up. What is the next step in this process?"

Mr Lee: "My personal view is that as our society changes because of the interaction with other societies, Singapore will change. Singaporeans travel now more than they had ever done before. Half of Singapore every year goes abroad by air and tourists who come here are more than two-and-a-half times the population of Singapore. This must lead to changes in personal behaviour because you are influenced by what you see other people do. This will lead to changes in Singapore’s politics."