Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

In a speech given on Dec. 15 at the National University of Singapore's East Asian Institute (EAI), former Foreign Minister George Yeo expounded on his views regarding how China and the U.S. could coexist in a multipolar world, which is beneficial for both of them, and in spite of differing value systems.

He also had some suggestions for the two major powers on ways to transition peacefully to multipolarity.

Here are the key points:

• China should act in a way that, over time, persuades the U.S. that "the kind of multipolarity that China envisages is also good for the U.S.". Chinese officials should also avoid "excessive self-righteousness and be less thin-lipped in responding to criticisms".
• In the case of the South China Sea, China should meet Asean 60-40 on the code of conduct instead of halfway, since it is so much bigger and stronger. For its border dispute with India, China should go more than halfway – maybe 55-45. 
• As for the U.S., where the original liberal idea of accepting diversity has become intolerable in recent years, they should accept the fact that different value systems co-exist in the world.
• A multipolar world is not necessarily bad for the U.S., and it will help extend the period of U.S. ascendancy in the world.

In a Q&A session with the audience present, Yeo also delved into the reasons behind his different approaches to China and the U.S., his famous exchange with China's top diplomat Yang Jiechi back in 2010, as well as his thoughts behind Confucius Institutes and the influence they pose.

The following is a transcript of the highlights of the session that was moderated by EAI Director Bert Hofman.

1. How he reconciles differing views on China

Audience member: My question is why are there so many smart statesmen and politicians in Europe who don't share your view at all about China?

Yeo: On the question about anti-China sentiments in Europe, I do not want to go into the justifications for that, or lack of it.

I see it more in civilisational terms that the West is not used to seeing a China that can see eye to eye, and which they even have to fear. And this, emotionally, is hard to accept. So first they would deny it, then they get angry, eventually they’ll accept it and then they’ll bargain. I think this is a process which Europe is now going through. You will not like it, but you can’t change it, in the end you have to accept it. And you have interests involved.

So when I speak in Europe, I talk about the importance of going back to history. And the way the Jesuits saw China and learned from China, it was because of the Jesuits that the French developed the civil service, and Europe examinations. Its structure of polytechnics had its inspiration from China, and it came with the Jesuits. So when people realise that what they have also rely on borrowings, and sometimes from the very people who we now criticise or condemn, I think we’ll become more open minded.

And China is looking to do the same. So I've long advocated that there should be a university for Greek and Roman language literature. It's not just enough to learn a language. You must understand the civilisation, and China's inability to have proper relations to the Vatican, not blaming either side, to me this is abnormal because without understanding the Vatican, you can’t understand Europe! It shows a shallowness in the way that you're dealing with the other party.

So both sides have got to engage deeply. And maybe there could be a project between the EU and China where Europe and the Vatican have to establish a university for classical literature in China and in Europe, find a way to teach Europeans classical Chinese literature. Europeans do not understand the homogeneity of China. They are used to talking about Tolstoy, Cervantes and so on, but China has one literature. For the people whose twice the population of all of you, that is how homogeneous China is. You could understand it as a phenomenon, not something to be criticised.

2. Why is his approach to China and the U.S. different?

Audience member: I noticed a pattern in your reflections particularly on the domestic affairs of the U.S. and China. With China, you take a more careful, rather courteous tone. And it's quite the opposite with America, rightfully so. And I can only guess that you are responding to cultural cues right? And as you said earlier, the Chinese are much more sensitive to external criticism. I wonder if you can comment on whether that's in fact accurate and if you could unpackage it for us.

Yeo: I think in Singapore, we develop a multi-channel capability, which is that when you're dealing with Malaysians, with Javanese, with Australians, with Indians, we make subtle adjustments to the way we behave, to the way we express ourselves even in body language because we respect the other party.

So when we talk to a Javanese, there are 99 ways to say no without saying no. So you learn never to say no. And when an Indian shakes his head in a particular way, we understand that he’s not saying yes or no, he's just acknowledging and receiving it.

It is because in Singapore, we have this multi-channel capability that we are a centre of arbitrage, not financial arbitrage. We are centres of cultural arbitrage. That's why we have Chinese millionaires here, Indian millionaires here. We could have this remarkable city where people are living side by side, offering all kinds of opportunities because we're able to access multiple domains deeply.

3. On his exchange with former Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in 2010

Audience member: Good evening, my name is Ravi Velloor and I work for The Straits Times. In your speech, you referenced that meeting, obviously with Yang Jiechi, where he, according to the Western narrative, as you put it, is supposed to have told you that “there are some countries that are big, some countries are small.” And that's just the reality. You said your recollection of that meeting is a little different, what is your recollection of that encounter?

Yeo: As for what happened at the 2010 Hanoi ARF, where Yang Jiechi had a sharp exchange with Hillary Clinton. According to U.S. accounts, he glared at Singapore, and he said that some countries are big, some are small. If he was directed at (inaudible), it happens that Yang Jiechi is a fan (of Singapore). And he had been to Singapore before he became foreign minister, before anyone knew that he was becoming foreign minister.

He had told me that the people of China and Singapore share a common mutual affection for each other. And I saw him a day before the ARF meeting, and he rehearsed the same point to me. So if you look at me, he was happy to say excuse me, you know I said this to you yesterday. I did not feel that at all. But no, they say the wish is mother (father) of the thought.

And maybe the U.S. thought that Singapore being bullied by China openly fitted the narrative, but frankly I don’t think it is in China's interest, even if it wanted to bully Singapore, to do it that way.

4. Confucius Institutes and how Singapore deals with overt foreign influence

Audience member: I would like to ask what your views are on Confucius Institutes, multipolarity and specifically, Antonio Gramsci’s (idea of) cultural hegemony.

Yeo: Oh Antonio Gramsci, I’ve forgotten, I read him as a student, not sure if I remember. To me, Confucius Institute is a very interesting manifestation of the insecurity in the West about the rise of China. I grew up going to USIS library. We always had the British Council, and the Alliance Français.  They were partly trying to influence us, we begin to see them as somehow subverting Singapore society, and when I was in government, we viewed these organisations with equanimity and when the Confucius Institute came around, it’s another one.

In the case of Singapore, we wanted to make a distinction between China Chineseness and Singaporean Chineseness. So when China had its cultural center, we quickly established the Singapore Chinese Cultural Center in order to make a point. But for Western countries to fear Confucius Institutes, as it they were weapons of mass destruction, I think it is a little laughable but I can understand it fully, it is an expression of a larger sense of distrust or insecurity. As for Gramsci , sorry I don't know enough to answer your question.

Top image by Zhang Si Qing/Lianhe Zaobao