风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
"建立共同点": 尚达曼总统在美国纽约哥伦比亚大学世界领袖论坛加布里埃尔·西尔弗纪念演讲上的演讲与对话记录
2023 年 11 月 29 日
哥伦比亚大学校长 Minouche Shafik 女士
国际与公共事务学院院长 Keren Yarhi-Milo 女士
SIPA 名誉院长 Merit Janow 女士
法里德·扎卡里亚先生
女士们，先生们
感谢米努什总统的热情介绍。
Minouche 谈到她在过去 15 年或更长时间里以不同的身份认识了我，从她担任国际货币基金组织 DMD 开始。 我应该补充一点，在米努什的所有角色中，有一件事是不变的，那就是她的说服力。 她有能力让人们聚集在一起解决问题。 我确信哥伦比亚大学也会出现这种情况。
我很高兴不久前受邀与大家交谈，但我特别高兴此时来到这里。 在与法里德坐下来之前，让我先说几句话。
我们所熟悉的世界正在逐渐瓦解，并且不知道这将在哪里结束。
我们首先必须认识到哪里出了问题，以便进行重建，并为乐观提供新的基础。
从根本上来说，它与我们所看到的重大危机——战争和反人类行为、世界各地前所未有的洪水和干旱——没有关系。 它们各自的人力成本和经济成本都是悲剧性的。 它们还进一步削弱了全球秩序。
但这不仅仅是坏事件和坏演员的问题。 我们必须看得更深入。 看看我们所处的世界中强大的不稳定暗流——地缘政治、生态，甚至我们社会内部的国内暗流。 它们往往是缓慢移动的暗流。 但如果我们继续忽视这些暗流，我们只是在等待下一次危机的到来。 我们将应对一场又一场的危机——这将给人类生命、生计以及民主国家和全球秩序的信誉带来巨大代价。
在全球范围内，我们看到基于规则的秩序正在衰落。 它表现在很多方面。 世界上的冲突更加激烈、更加频繁、更加持久。 对主权的更大威胁，特别是对小国而言。 高度一体化的全球经济逐渐分裂。 我强调高度一体化，因为高度一体化经济的分裂所带来的代价比旧冷战时期经济分裂的代价要大得多，因为在一个并不是特别一体化的世界中。 这一次，将付出巨大的代价。
我们还看到人们对多边主义丧失信心，尤其是发展中国家。
我们必须认识到社会本身正在发生的事情。 他们中的许多人变得比以前更加两极分化。 它曾经被视为发展中国家的问题。 现在，这是整个成熟民主国家面临的一个问题——无论是不同的教育水平、不同的居住地区、不同的认同感、不同的种族，人们之间的分裂。 这种分离是非常令人不安的。
我们必须认识到我们面临的最终生存威胁——导致全球变暖加速、生物多样性丧失以及最不为人所知的全球水危机或全球水循环不稳定的暗流。 全球变暖、生物多样性丧失和全球水危机这三者共同导致了我们前所未见的极端情况。 去年，我们经历了人类历史上最严重的干旱，以及一些最严重的洪水和野火。
危险的是，这些暗流——地缘政治和地缘经济的分裂、国内的两极分化以及世界生态的不稳定——都有可能跨越临界点——导致不可逆转和自我放大的变化，而且我们的发展方向具有高度的不可预测性。 结果。
这就是为什么我们现在处于一个极度不确定的时代。 不仅仅是高风险，不仅仅是你可以建模或说的东西，嗯，这是一个糟糕的场景，我们必须找到一种对冲它的方法。 我们面临着深刻的不确定性和不可预测性，我们不知道这将在哪里结束。
地缘政治分裂、国内两极分化、社会和政治以及生态转变等暗流正在相互交织。 它们相互交织在一起，使这个问题成为我们几十年来见过的更加复杂的问题。
我们的中心任务必须是在这个充满不确定性的时刻建立韧性和乐观态度，并解决和扭转这些暗流。 没有完美的解决方案，但我们仍然可以采取大胆的行动来防止我们跨越这些临界点，
并击退那些导致我们进入一个极其不确定的世界的力量。
从地缘政治角度来看，美中关系至关重要。 这是紧张的中心轴，将决定我们是螺旋式下降还是稳定下来。 我们知道我们不再处于单极世界，但我们还没有处于真正的多极世界。 我们当然还没有进入一个稳定的多极化世界。 可能需要一些时间才能到达那里。
但与此同时，美中关系确实需要稳定。 拜登总统和习主席最近的会面暗示着关系的缓和，至少是关系恶化的轨迹得到了暂停。 但紧张的根本根源，即中美之间的技术和经济竞争仍然存在。 美国和中国之间必须找到一些新的和解，即使在竞争的同时也必须找到战略信任的新基础。
世界各地的领导人也必须将和平视为本国人民利益的关键。 并认识到，只有承认并尊重对方的需求，和平才有可能实现。 不消除恐怖主义和极端主义，就不会有和平。 但如果没有公平的解决方案并为冲突各方带来希望，也不会有和平。
第二，关于环境危机。 直到二十年前，人们还认为应对环境危机和气候变化需要进行权衡——今天付出代价才能拥有更美好的未来。 可持续发展需要今天牺牲一些东西，牺牲一些增长。 那是旧的想法。
但我们现在知道，如果我们投资新技术、投资新的增长模式，就不存在真正的权衡。 这个转型故事需要在很长一段时间内进行更高水平的投资，但这是可以做到的。 这意味着我们可以在全球经济脱碳的同时保持增长，特别是在发展中国家。 我们必须转变这种心态，投资于能够使我们实现可持续增长的解决方案。 请记住，大部分投资都投向了现在必须从棕色向灰色、从灰色向绿色转变的经济部门。
全球金融体系并不缺乏用于这些投资的资源。 调动资源需要组织、改革多边主义以及新的风险承担方式，并在公共、私营和慈善部门之间公平分担风险和回报。 可以办到。
其次，解决国内暗流。 我们在全球范围内的核心问题实际上在于国内社会和政治动态。
安格拉·默克尔 (Angela Merkel) 2010 年表示，我们在多元文化主义方面彻底失败了。 这并不是说多元文化主义失败了，而是一体化失败了。 事实上，在太多的社会中，我们在融合方面完全失败了。
太多的社会在种族融合和移民融合方面失败了。 不同教育程度、不同职业、不同行业、居住在城市、郊区、农村等不同地区的人之间越来越陌生，人与人之间的距离越来越远，逐渐失去联系。 相互之间的信任，以及对民主机构（包括政府）的信任。
在许多情况下，我们必须摆脱多元文化主义的概念，这种概念是一床被子，用不同颜色和线的补丁缝合在一起，形成社会的结构。 单独的补丁随着时间的推移，每个接缝处都容易磨损，并且织物会被拉开。 我们必须用社会中的不同线编织整个织物，以便我们的生活相互交织，并且我们没有可以轻易撕开的不同碎片。
最广泛地说，我们必须重新调整多边主义和民主的运作方式，以重建乐观情绪和韧性。
我们必须找到多边主义在不完美的世界中发挥作用的方法。 世界不再是单极的，也尚未进入稳定的多极化。
多边主义从来都不是理想的，也从来没有真正被构建为强大的。 但今天对多边主义的要求比以往任何时候都更大。 而且供应也较弱。 我们必须建立愿意解决全球公域最紧迫挑战的联盟，并维护全球竞争中的游戏规则。 并保持联盟向新成员开放。
最后，我们必须重新定位我们的民主，使我们的政治不再那么短期和孤立，从而使民主在实践中更少分裂。
每个社会肯定有可能认识到投资全球公域符合其自身利益，因为我们都会受到其侵蚀的影响。 必须能够认识到，今天进行长期投资，而不是积累均匀的资金，才符合每个社会的利益。
未来几十年的负担更大。 找到民主方式弥合分歧而不是扩大分歧必须符合我们自己的利益。
我们在这样做时必须记住，我们所处的世界很容易在我们自己的社会和国际范围内分裂。
我就到此为止。 我期待着与 Fareed 一起解开其中的一些内容。 谢谢。
*****
与法里德·扎卡里亚对话
法里德：我想那是大约 25 年前的事了，当时我在新加坡，我开始了一项实践，这是我在《外交事务》杂志上进行的一次长时间采访后得出的结论。 每次我在那里都会与当时的国务资政李光耀待上几个小时。 有一次他对我说，我们正在谈论教育，他说，我们有一位聪明的年轻印度教育部长，你必须要见见。 我想好吧，我会做作业，然后我问我的朋友基肖尔·马布巴尼（Kishore Mahbubani）是否愿意与当时年轻、聪明的教育部长尚达曼（Tharman Shanmugaratnam）会面，从那时起，他的地位当然越来越高。 我非常高兴地看到，无论是在新加坡还是在世界范围内，您能够将自己塑造为真正的政治家知识分子，这非常罕见。 你很好地描述了国际秩序的磨损。 你可以看看俄罗斯和乌克兰的局势，也可以看看中东正在发生的事情。 你可以看看中国面临的挑战。
但解决办法是什么？ 因为，一方面，解决方案似乎是美国本质上使用硬实力来威慑、打击、扭转这些破坏国际秩序的努力。 但这样做当然会让世界更加分裂，迫使各国选边站队。 这让我们更难以想象一个大家都聚集在一起唱《Kumbaya》的共识世界。 但如果你不这样做，俄罗斯的侵略就会持续下去，伊朗破坏中东秩序的努力也会继续下去。 坦白说，中国欺凌很多亚洲国家的努力仍在继续。 你如何穿针引线，这是为了维持一个法律和经济贸易的世界以及你正在谈论的各种事情，似乎你需要一些非常强硬的硬军事力量，或者至少是背后的硬力量 它的。
主席：让我从这个角度来回答法里德非常有思想的问题。 首先，只有在最需要的时候才很难在国际社会中获得信任。 仅当需要在联合国就俄罗斯-乌克兰问题进行投票时，美国才很难获得发展中国家足够的支持。 很难召集所有人支持谴责哈马斯的恐怖行为，并对加沙平民的狂轰滥炸表示愤慨。
当你最需要的时候，想要获得国际社会的信任是非常困难的。 你必须通过在正常时期满足各国的需求来做到这一点。 发展中国家的每个人都记得 COVID-19 期间发生的事情——疫苗分配的严重不平等、最富裕国家的严重库存过剩。 每个人都记得这样一个事实：世界对发展基础设施的投资不足。 大家都记得，世界银行等开发银行资本不足，主要是大股东不希望看到增资时出现股权变动，不希望看到中国和新兴市场。 世界占有更大的份额。
信任不是这样建立起来的。 所以我想说，从各国出发，看看他们的需求，找到多边或通过联盟组织起来的方法，帮助他们满足这些需求。 关键是，它实际上并不贵。 这些资源不是不能调动，而是可以调动。 世界上并不缺乏财政资源和专业知识来满足广大发展中国家的需求。 这是一个疏忽的问题。
法里德：几乎可以肯定，我们不会在气候变化等问题上建立一个完美的国际合作世界。 我认为，你描述的其他一些生态挑战是对人工智能等事物的监管。 我们只是不处于美中、更不用说美俄达成协议的时刻，我们会说我们都将坐在桌子旁决定，这些是我们将在人工智能领域做的事情，这些是 我们不会做的事情。 我们将坐下来就碳排放问题达成一项协议。 有没有一个可行且实际上还不错的 B 计划？ 我之所以问这个问题，是因为让我们面对现实吧，这就是我们将要生活的世界，而不是 A 计划。当中国在气候问题上采取所需行动时，这就是 B 计划，因为它觉得自己想要减少排放，因为 它不想有污染。 它还希望建立绿色能源领域。 其他国家也这样做——印度正在尝试这样做
在太阳能方面，中国出于自身原因限制人工智能，美国和欧洲也这样做。 还有一种不言而喻的，我称之为隐形全球合作。 没有人会承认他们在合作，但事实就是这样。 那里有一个我们可以想象的世界吗？ 因为对我来说，这确实是我们能得到的最好的。
主席：解决法里德问题的一种方法是，B 计划的替代方案是什么？ 由于您所描述的所有原因，A 计划并不存在。 多边主义的运作效果不佳。 美国和中国在基本面、技术和经济霸权方面仍然存在分歧，还有很多其他原因。 真正的替代方案是 C 计划，我们按原样继续下去，在某个时候，我认为这甚至会在 2030 年之前发生，最迟在 2035 年发生——情况会变得如此严重，因为我们已经跨越了某些临界点—— 各国政府必须聚集在一起，说我们别再胡闹了，我们现在必须采取行动。 到时候它会贵得多。 将会出现这样的情况：一些国家的碳税比其他国家高得多，一些国家的补贴比其他国家高得多，但无论哪种方式，都会更加昂贵，而且可能相当不公平。
所以，B 计划，也就是你所说的，当我们不等到 2030 年或 2035 年时，我们现在就现实地接受，无论谁赢得美国下一次选举或下一次选举 反过来，美国不会引入碳税制度。 但是，作为《减少通货膨胀法案》一部分的补贴、爱尔兰共和军、对绿色技术的巨额补贴——经济学家不喜欢这些东西，也不认为这是最好的解决方案——它们将帮助建立 新技术的规模化。 这些补贴对其他国家不公平，甚至看起来是保护主义，但它将扩大新技术的规模。 你需要这样规模的投资来让这些新技术降低成本并使其可行，世界其他地区最终将从中受益。
这可能会导致一场补贴竞赛。 发展中国家将无法参与其中，甚至欧洲也可能无法像美国那样大规模参与。 但它比 C 计划好，因为 C 计划是一个等待游戏。 最好现在就沿着成本削减曲线下降，现在就投资于扩大新技术规模，就像太阳能领域那样。 如果你看看中国在太阳能领域所做的事情，就会发现通过初始补贴和规模投资大幅降低了成本。
看看要使技术可行需要什么。 我们不会按照经济学家希望的方式在全球范围内实现这一目标，即每个人都尽快将碳税提高到 150 美元。 从理论上讲，这是最有效的解决方案，但它不会发生。 因此，我们必须找到一些方法，让有能力负担得起的国家继续前进。 在某个时候，美国将需要新的财政战略和收入战略来维持补贴。 但它现在正在做正确的事情，世界将因此受益。
法里德：所以让我概述一下我认为对于我们即将进入的世界来说是相当合理的，在这个世界里，存在着更伟大的不平等，你认为你已经看到了不平等，但你并没有看到不平等。 还没看到什么。 因为在人工智能和计算能力以及获得所需规模的能源方面，美国将处于领先地位，中国将位居第二，几乎没有其他国家。 坦率地说，我认为欧洲在很多方面都落后了，随着工业转移到美国，欧洲正在去工业化，因为他们不仅获得补贴，还获得较低的税收，他们的监管结构也较低。 正如你所说，全球变暖已经迫在眉睫。 调整的成本只有富裕社会才能承担，这样纽约市就能够修建堤坝——我的意思是，荷兰人在16世纪就这么做了——而孟加拉国则不会。 对于那些认为我们无法承受这种人类悲剧的人来说，我有消息要告诉你们，叙利亚内战，你们会对世界能够承受这一切的程度感到惊讶。
总统：或者苏丹。
法里德：现在是苏丹。 或者你知道，埃塞俄比亚、也门。 为什么这不是最合理的情况？ 这是一个不平等更加严重的世界，回顾 20 世纪，我们实际上可能会认为它是一个黄金时代，在 20 世纪末、21 世纪初，你会看到全球不平等现象有所缩小，但情况即将急剧转变。
主席：我认为这对于全球公域而言是不合理的。 因为无论是全球变暖，还是森林砍伐、生物多样性丧失以及全球水循环失衡所带来的所有其他后果，每个人都会受到影响。 孟加拉国发生了什么
嘘，撒哈拉以南非洲发生的事情，世界上距离西雅图和华盛顿很远的地区发生的事情，最终将影响全球气候。 幸运的是，危机正在世界各地发生——干旱、洪水、野火——所有这些都是由全球生态系统失衡造成的。
现在，民主国家面临的挑战是要认识到，解决这个问题不仅仅是每次我们邻国发生野火时收拾残局的问题，而且还包括帮助撒哈拉以南非洲地区的问题。 这对民主国家来说是一个真正的挑战——认识到远方发生的事情符合你的利益，并试图解决和补救。 对于更遥远的未来——五年后、十年后、甚至五十年后，我们现在就开始为此做好准备，并努力避免最坏的情况，这符合我们的利益。
民主国家从来就不是这样的。 他们从来没有着眼于长远，也从来没有着眼于全球。 他们总是在相对较短的时间内在国内找到一些共识或平衡。 因此，从长远来看，为了应对我们所有人都面临的全球挑战，重新构建民主制度是全世界面临的一项核心挑战。
法里德：你看看欧洲的一项民意调查数据，我一直认为它很能说明问题，那就是当你问人们，他们是否对越来越高的福利支出水平感到满意时，它与福利支出的程度成反比。 人口的异质性。 换句话说，越多的人长得像你，你就越能接受更高水平的福利支出。 越多的人看起来不像你，你就越不喜欢福利支出的想法。 这正是你的观点，即在社区很容易被认同、认同和同情的情况下，民主和自由民主会容易得多。 这与我在打开它之前想问你的最后一件事有关——你说了一些关于多元文化主义及其失败的非常有趣的事情。 我想请你思考如何让多元文化主义发挥作用，因为你说默克尔的版本是一体化，但它不起作用。
总统：它没有足够的整合。 它基本上是一个多样化的被子。
法里德：现在，当我问李光耀是什么让多元文化主义在新加坡发挥作用时，他总是会说，看，我们有这些社区，但我们让他们顺其自然，我们希望他们保留自己的古老传统。 我们不希望他们觉得自己是被迫的。 他们必须住在一起。 他们必须学习如何共同生活以及如何参与住房项目，但我们希望他们继续学习自己的语言。 我们希望他们继续保持自己的传统，我们希望他们在公民空间中见面。 你的意思是你想要一种用这些传统的线编织而成的织物。 我碰巧认为你是对的，因为旧型号已经不再可用了。 现代性正在推动每个人前进到一个程度，以至于你不能让这些社区完全保持（分开），即使在新加坡，异族通婚率也在上升得更高。 你自己就有一个多元文化的婚姻。 新加坡的旧模式似乎不适用于 30%、40% 的异族通婚。
那么世界默克尔面临的巨大挑战是，如何创造共同文化？ 对此有答案的国家就是美国，因为我们没有文化。 我们有一套共同的政治理念，你必须接受。 公平地说，在这一切的背后，有一种你必须接受的英国新教亚文化。 我们刚刚经历了感恩节——那不是希腊节日，而是来到这里的英国人的节日——但很大程度上是一种政治文化，你试图让人们融入其中。 在欧洲，这并不是造就欧洲国家的原因——造就欧洲国家的是这样一种想法：“我们这个部落自古以来就生活在这些森林里，顺便说一句，我们杀死了生活在这片森林另一边的部落 自古以来，我不知道你们阿尔及利亚人在这片森林里做什么”。 这一直是欧洲人面临的问题。 那么你的解决方案是什么？
总统：所以我在这一点上一半同意法里德的观点。 新加坡从未追求多元种族主义的熔炉概念。 但我们也没有追求不同地区的多样性，我们生活的地方，也让人们生活的地方——生活在自己的社区，就像巴黎郊区的人一样，你在不同的学校长大，你有自己的做法，但你 唱同样的国歌。 我们也没有这么做。 实际上，我们采用了一种非常侵入式的集成模型。 将学校系统合并为一个全国学校系统。 大家都参加
相同的学校。 最具有侵入性的是，每个人都住在相同的社区，相同的公寓楼，访问相同的市场，等待相同的公共汽车站，孩子们玩耍的相同游乐场。这是一个非常侵入性的集成系统。 那个人就是李光耀。 因此，新加坡社会的结构是由我们所有的线编织而成的。 但他认识到，我们也认识到，它们是不同的线，它们是不同的颜色，甚至是不同的材料，但我们希望它们全部形成社会的共同结构。
欧洲想要一种被子，最初看起来非常好，因为它是一种充满活力的被子。 多样性非常明显。 但当你开始受到来自社会外部或内部的拉扯时，每个补丁之间的接缝就会磨损。 即使是比欧洲一体化程度更高的英国，50%的穆斯林也生活在最底层的10%社区。 这不是一个一体化的社会。 然后我们来到美国，看似一体化，因为它缺乏你所说的文化，但存在种族隔离。 住房、社区中存在系统性的隔离，因此学校也存在有效的隔离。 这是社会经济和种族的。 这些规则阻碍了住房整合。
我们无法真正互相教导对方什么是必要的，因为我们来自不同的历史——新加坡由于建国的不寻常开始，采取了一种非常侵入性的方法，将这些线编织成一个共同的结构，但认识到它们是不同的线。 人们确实希望保留自己的认同感、信仰、文化感。 它给你的生活带来了一些意义，但你也是新加坡社会共同结构的一部分。 我越来越感觉到，随着我们作为一个国家的前进，我们必须确保人们不仅将自己视为不同种族和宗教的人，不仅将自己视为拥有新加坡国籍，而且将自己视为具有新加坡国籍的人。 也分享彼此的文化。 对彼此的文化感兴趣，说一点语言。 你们不需要会写，甚至可能不会读，但会说彼此的一些语言。 最重要的是，一起成长，互相交朋友。 你们可能会结婚，也可能不结婚。 但你们是朋友。 新加坡可以做到这一点。 但如果我们从一开始就没有这种融合模式——在学校、住房和工作中，这是不可能的。
法里德：非常有趣的是，这是约翰逊政府在公平住房政策期间所做的努力。 它撞上了白色的抵抗之墙。 如果你看看美国的住房，它会在 1971 年、1972 年左右实现一体化。当白人的强烈抵制变得非常强烈时，尼克松认识到了这一点，并利用了它，我们在这个国家的住房一体化水平处于相同水平。 从那时起，你知道，自 1971 年以来，我们今天并没有比那时更加一体化。
总统：即使在倾向自由主义的州也是如此。
*****
问题和答案
如果中国和台湾发生军事冲突，新加坡会怎么做？
在技术进步和全球互联互通正在重塑我们社会的时代，您对如何增强像我们这样的年轻一代的能力并做好准备，不仅适应这些变化，而且在促进更加和谐、更加和谐的社会中发挥积极作用有何看法？ 公平和可持续的全球未来？
我们都知道，新加坡坚定致力于维护国际规则和多边关系，但我们也看到，去全球化已经发生，给我们带来了很多挑战。 那么您认为新加坡如何促进区域合作？您已经为促进这种（合作）做出了哪些承诺或努力？
主席：关于台湾，首先如你所知，新加坡相信一个中国政策，多年来我们一直坚持这一政策。 我们处于一个不寻常的位置，与中国大陆和台湾都保持着非常良好的关系，这是双方都理解的。 现在，如果发生冲突，我们如何反应取决于冲突是如何发生的。 但我想说更根本的是，现在人们试图预测的内容太多了，就像一场室内游戏：“中国会攻击台湾吗？ 是2027年还是2035年？ 习近平主席的真正目标是什么？” 那个客厅游戏太多了。 事实上，每一个认真的观察者都知道，中国、台湾和美国都不想发生冲突。 这非常清楚。 我们必须尽一切努力防止任何可能引发冲突的挑衅或事故。 这就是任务，也符合中美两国不希望发生冲突的利益。 从根本上来说，这意味着不会走向台独。
第二个问题，一个关于技术进步的广泛问题。 人工智能将带来变革
远远超越之前的技术进步浪潮的方式。 人工智能可以为世界任何地方（包括发展中国家）的小型企业、个人带来巨大的帮助。 但我们在人工智能方面面临的挑战是，认知阶层的很大一部分，即从事审计工作、法律起草工作和一整套白领工作的人，可以通过人工智能更轻松、更快、更便宜地完成他们的工作。 如今这种情况正在加速发生。
因此，我们必须找到重新赋予每个人权力的方法——首先能够使用人工智能作为工具，其次，如果他们真的失业了，因为有些人会失去工作，能够搬家 继续做其他事情。 在人工智能时代取得成功的社会是那些有能力持续投资于人们的社会，包括在他们职业生涯的中期，甚至是在他们职业生涯的后期。 这就是我们在新加坡所采取的行动。 我们称之为未来技能。 但这需要持续的投入，而不是仅仅让企业和个人来解决。 它需要全国性的措施和一些公共投资。 当你从一份工作转到另一份工作时，它需要不断的技巧，保留你之前建立的一些技能，并尝试将其应用到新的领域。
人类固有的技能——情商和某些形式的创造力将受到重视，而这些技能仍然是最智能的机器所无法比拟的。 人力溢价仍然存在。 但我相信，人工智能有必要对劳动力和社会进行更大规模的调整； 它远远超出了计算机和互联网革命所发生的事情。
Fareed：从某种意义上说，你的意思是这些孩子不会因为人工智能而失去工作。 他们把工作丢给了比他们更懂得如何使用人工智能的人。
总统：说得很对。 但它具有深远的意义，因为它意味着当你从小长大时，你必须以各种可能的方式发展人类的互动、理解、情感上的感知、彼此之间的联系——因为正是情商 机器做不到。 如果他们这样做，他们将以更加机器人的方式来做。
第三个问题关于全球化与区域合作。 在这个不完美的世界中，我们保持全球一体化活力的方式之一是通过区域倡议。 我们正在亚洲这样做，事实上新加坡处于这方面的最前沿。 之内
东盟，并通过RCEP——一个非常大的贸易联盟，尽管没有CPTPP那么深入——当然还有CPTPP，这是一个高标准的自由贸易协定。 因此，我们在亚洲的努力比大多数其他地区都更加努力，但我们仍保持开放的边界。 保持几何体开放且不固定。 英国很可能在明年年中加入 CPTPP。 这不是封闭的地区主义，而是开放的地区主义，是保持全球一体化的一种方式。
您谈到共识是处理此类暗流的基本机制。 你的话语所指引的前进道路是清晰的，但管理职责却并非如此。 所以，我的问题是我们如何促进全球南方的参与和共识？ 世界那个地区有这么多需求没有得到满足吗？ 我们如何创建一个包容性框架，然后才能提出这种共识概念？ 谢谢。
我有一个关于人口老龄化的问题，因为新加坡将在2026年成为超级老龄化国家。所以，我想知道新加坡将如何在人口老龄化和移民问题以及劳动力市场发展之间保持平衡 。 太感谢了。
我的问题是关于临界点，以及为什么它们对于普通大众来说通常是非常抽象和不真实的。 那么，政府和学术界在让这些临界点对人们来说成为现实，以便采取真正的行动方面可以发挥什么作用呢？
主席：关于第一个问题，关于发展中国家以及我们如何达成共识——支持多边主义的共识，支持市场经济发展的共识。 首先，全世界必须认识到，撒哈拉以南非洲发生的事情符合我们所有人的利益。 未来 30 年，我们将看到世界人口大幅增长，其中大部分将来自撒哈拉以南非洲地区。 大多数人没有意识到这一点。 那里正在出现大量的年轻人口。 如果他们找到工作并且找到体面的工作，那么世界仍然是一个和平和繁荣的地方。 如果他们不这样做，那么你就会得到我所说的根本不确定性的新元素——强迫移民、全球健康紊乱的爆发以及一系列其他问题。 因此，我们必须利用世界银行、非洲开发银行、私营部门来投资非洲，以确保这一大部分人类能够走上繁荣的阶梯。 如果我们不这样做，那就太糟糕了
很难指望他们能够就应对全球挑战达成共识。 如果你不提供基本电力（现在非洲很多人都缺乏这种电力），你就无法真正谈论经济脱碳。 你必须首先让村庄通电，你必须处理基本问题。 帮助每个国家站稳脚跟，登上繁荣的阶梯，这仍然是全球繁荣的基础，而且有很多方法可以组织它。 它需要人们愿意认识到这是国际社会所做的一项投资，而且这不仅仅是援助，而是投资。
关于新加坡成为超级老龄化社会的下一个问题是移民的作用。 我们将不得不继续依赖移民，但我们必须以正确的速度进行，并引进适量的移民。 没有一个社会可以简单地向人们开放边界。 它不同于商品，也不同于服务，正如法里德早些时候暗示的那样，没有一个社会可以完全向世界各地的人们开放。 你必须以有节奏的方式去做。 最重要的是，你必须整合人员。 如果你不能很好地融入人们，你就必须停下来。 你不能继续接纳越来越多的人。
新加坡的重点是对能够为经济做出贡献的人进行有节制的移民步伐，并找到让他们融入社会的方法。 并为那些能安定下来的人帮助他们安定下来。 它必须仍然是一个让新加坡人感到这是他们自己的国家，具有新加坡精神、新加坡人做事方式以及某种新加坡社会意义上的平等主义的国家。 我们必须保持这种状态。
关于下一个问题，我认为思考这个问题的方法是，我们所处的世界的核心挑战不是经济周期。 各国央行和财政部将努力管理周期——繁荣变得过热，收紧货币政策，收缩财政政策，然后一切就会恢复正常。 如果你正处于萧条时期，你会想方设法增加政府支出、降低利率或注入更多资金。 那是一场循环游戏。 但我们当今世界面临的挑战与周期无关。 它们与宏观经济周期无关。
它们与经济学家所说的供给侧冲击有关，但即使这听起来也像是一个抽象概念。 它们真正关注的是冲突和战争、流行病、洪水、干旱和其他与宏观经济完全无关的事物。 但经济政策必须做出回应，而且是以更长期的方式。 不要等到危机来临。 尽早投资以预防和应对危机。 因为如果你只是等待危机的到来，那么代价将非常高昂。 其次，它们给人类生命和生计造成了不可接受的代价。
因此，渐进且在财务上审慎的做法是尽早投资，以预防和应对危机。 我们知道下一次大流行即将到来。顺便说一句，我们仍然盲目地进入它——尚未建立适当的全球监测系统； 非洲和许多其他发展中国家仍然缺乏所需的基本基础设施和初级卫生保健，因此，当时机成熟时，您知道您可以将冷藏的疫苗运送到每个村庄，并将其送到某人的手臂上。 我们仍然没有基础设施。 价格不贵。 我们只需要认真对待它。
我们现在正处于技术创新的新前沿，这就是你在上一个问题中提到的人工智能。 您如何看待新加坡作为一个以服务和贸易为重点的国家在这个新科技时代作为经济强国保持战略竞争力？
您在帮助撒哈拉以南非洲投资可持续发展，特别是向绿色产业转型方面有何具体计划？
考虑到印度和新加坡之间长期牢固的经济联系和文化联系，您认为我们两国的关系如何帮助向世界展示如何促进多元文化社会、文化多元化并最终建立多极社会？
总统：我的感觉是，人工智能将为新加坡带来巨大的净收益。 首先，回到让劳动力中的每个人都能适应这一挑战，我们是一个小社会，我们有一种在政府企业、工会和社区中的个人之间组织起来的方式，这样你 可以触及每一个人。 您可以向他们提供课程或模块，为他们提供新技能，并帮助他们在职业生涯中不断前进。 这样我们就可以组织未来的技能，事实上，我们也打算这样做。
其次，新加坡缺人。 人工智能实际上是一个推动者，因为它取代了一些新加坡人并不特别热衷的工作。 例如，我们没有足够的人进行编程，而人工智能正在接管
编码和编程的世界。 只是给你举个例子。
第三，我认为由于人工智能，每个领域的创新步伐都将加快。 新加坡的真正优势在于它是世界上可以快速采用最新创新的地方之一。 您无需站在前沿创造突破性技术。 其中很多将来自硅谷和其他主要中心，其中一些将来自新加坡。 但新加坡必须很快成为一个可以采用新技术并使有趣的概念在商业上可行的地方。
我想说，在非洲，一个重要的机会是农产品。 世界将陷入粮食危机。 它还需要重新思考非洲和南亚的农业，值得注意的是，几十年来，这些地区的农业基本没有变化。 如果你看看农业生产力水平，或者南亚或撒哈拉以南非洲地区相同作物的产量，与美国相比，就会发现这是一个巨大的差异。 甚至灌溉系统也已有数百年历史。 我们种植稻米等主食的方式已有数百年历史。 因此，这是一个彻底改变农业的机会，使其成为经济作物和出口作物，农民收入得到提高，同时我们通过不浪费太多水和处理污染物质来应对全球共同面临的挑战 水。 所以这在非洲是一个真正的机会，我只是谈论农产品行业。 还有其他机会，但非洲仍然没有一体化。 非洲大陆自由贸易区（AfCFTA）的发展速度缓慢，确实需要给予更多关注。
关于印度。 印度和东南亚有着深厚的文化共性。 新加坡与印度的经济关系正在蓬勃发展。 它是印度最大的投资者之一，这是一个你想进入的国家。
因此，新加坡在战略上，并且由于创业活动的天然市场，深深地融入了中国、印度、东南亚、美国和欧洲。 我们与这些主要地区都有联系，并且我们打算保持这种状态。 这意味着与印度、中国和世界其他地区的持续接触。
新加坡必须在这方面努力工作，不断向外看，不断了解我们所在社会的需求和习俗。
"Building Common Ground": Transcript of Speech and Dialogue by President Tharman Shanmugaratnam at the Gabriel Silver Memorial Lecture at Columbia University's World Leaders Forum New York, United States
29 November 2023
Ms Minouche Shafik, President of Columbia University
Ms Keren Yarhi-Milo, Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs
Ms Merit Janow, Dean Emerita of SIPA
Mr Fareed Zakaria
Ladies and gentlemen
Thanks you for your very kind introduction President Minouche.
Minouche spoke about her knowing me in her different incarnations over the last 15 years or more, beginning in her role as DMD of the IMF. I should add that one thing was constant in Minouche through all her roles, and that was her persuasive power. She had the ability to get people to come together to address issues. And I'm sure that's going to be the case at Columbia.
I was glad to be invited to speak to you some time ago, but am especially glad to be here at this time. Let me make a few remarks, before sitting down with Fareed.
The world we knew is gradually unravelling, and there's no telling where this will end.
We first have to recognise where we are going wrong, so as to rebuild, and provide new bases for optimism.
It doesn't fundamentally have to do with the major crises we are seeing - the wars and offenses against humanity, the unprecedented floods and droughts around the world. They are each tragic for their human costs, and for their economic costs. They also make further dents in the global order.
But it's not just about bad events and bad actors. We have to look deeper. Look at the powerful destabilising undercurrents in the world we are in – geopolitical, ecological and even the domestic undercurrents within our societies. They are often slow-moving undercurrents. But if we keep ignoring those undercurrents, we're just waiting for the next crisis to come. We will be responding to onecrisis after another - at great cost to human life, to livelihoods and to the credibility of both democracies and the global order.
Globally, we are seeing the ebbing of a rules-based order. It shows up in many ways. In more intense, more frequent and longer conflicts in the world. In the greater threat to sovereignty, particularly for smaller nations. And in the progressive fragmentation of what is a highly integrated global economy. And I emphasise highly integrated, because the fragmentation of a highly integrated economy comes at much greater cost than the economic bifurcation of the old Cold War era, in a world which wasn't particularly integrated. This time it will come at great cost.
We also see a loss of faith in multilateralism, particularly on the part of the developing world.
And we have to recognise what's happening within societies themselves. Many of them have become more polarised than they were. It used to be regarded as a developing country problem. It's now a problem across a whole range of mature democracies - that pulling apart of people, whether by different education levels, the different regions in which they live, different senses of identity, different ethnicities. That pulling apart is very troubling.
And we have to recognise the ultimate existential threat we face - the undercurrents that are leading to accelerated global warming, the loss of biodiversity, and least recognised, a global water crisis, or the destabilisation of the global water cycle. The three together - global warming, the loss of biodiversity and the global water crisis are leading to extremities on a scale that we haven't seen before. We had last year, the worst drought in human history, and some of the worst floods and wildfires.
Dangerously, each of these undercurrents – geopolitical and geoeconomic fragmentation, domestic polarisation, and destabilisation of the world’s ecology, are at risk of crossing tipping points – leading to irreversible and self-amplifying changes, with a very high degree of unpredictability as to where we end up.
That's why we are now in an era of radical uncertainty. Not just high risk, not just something you can model or say, well, this is a bad scenario, and we'll have to find a way of hedging against it. We face profound uncertainty, deep unpredictability, and we do not know where this will end.
And the undercurrents are compounding each other - the geopolitical fragmentation, the domestic polarisation, social and political, and the ecological shifts. They are compounding each other in ways which make this a more complex problem that we have seen in decades.
Our central task has to be to build resilience and optimism at this time of radical uncertainty, and to address and rollback these undercurrents. There are no perfect solutions, but there are bold actions which are still within our reach, to prevent us crossing these tipping points, and to roll back the forces that have led us into a radically uncertain world.
Geopolitically, the US-China relationship is central. That's the central axis of tension that will determine whether we spiral down or stabilise. We know we're not in a unipolar world anymore, but we are not yet in a truly multipolar world. And we are certainly not yet in a world of stable multipolarity. It may take some time to get there.
But in the meantime, the US-China relationship does require stability. The recent meeting between President Biden and President Xi hints at a thaw and is at very least a pause in what has been a trajectory of a worsening relationship. But the fundamental sources of tension, that technological and economic competition between the US and China, remain. Some new accommodation will have to be found between the US and China, some new basis for strategic trust even as they compete.
Leaders around the world will also have to view peace as essential to the interests of their own people. And to recognise that peace is only possible if you acknowledge and respect what the other side needs. There will be no peace without an end to terrorism and extremism. But there will also be no peace without solutions which are equitable and provide hope for all sides in a conflict.
Second, on the crisis of the environment. Even up till two decades ago, it was thought that dealing with the environmental crisis and climate change involved a trade-off - you pay a cost today in order to have a better future. Sustainability required sacrificing something today, sacrificing some growth. That was the old thinking.
But we now know that there is no real trade-off, if we invest in new technologies, and invest in new models of growth. That transition story requires higher levels of investment over a long period of time, but it can be done. It means we can keep growing, particularly in the developing world, whilst we decarbonise the global economy. We have to move into this mindset of investing in the solutions that will allow us to have sustainable growth. And remember, most of that investment is in the sectors of the economy that must now make a transition from brown to grey, and from grey to green.
There is no lack of resources in the global financial system for these investments. Mobilising the resources requires organisation, reforming multilateralism, and a new approach to risk-taking, with an equitable sharing of risks and rewards between the public, private and philanthropic sectors. It can be done.
Next, addressing the domestic undercurrents. Our core problems globally are really in domestic social and political dynamics.
Angela Merkel said in 2010 that we had utterly failed in multiculturalism. What it meant was not that multiculturalism failed, but that integration had failed. Indeed, across too many societies, we have utterly failed in integration.
Too many societies have failed in ethnic integration and immigrant integration. And are seeing a growing unfamiliarity between people with different educational levels, people in different professions or walks of life, or who live in different parts of the country – the cities, suburbs, rural areas - a growing distance between people, and a gradual loss of trust amongst each other, and trust in the institutions of democracy, including government.
We have to move away in many cases from a concept of multiculturalism that was about a quilt, with patches of different colours and threads, stitched together to form the fabric of society. Separate patches, that over time, are vulnerable to fraying at each of their seams, and the fabric is pulled apart. We've got to weave the entire fabric with the different threads within our societies, so that our lives are interwoven with one another, and we do not have different patches that can be easily pulled apart.
Most broadly, we have to reorient the ways in which both multilateralism and democracies function, to rebuild optimism and resilience.
We must find ways for multilateralism to work in an imperfect world. In a world that is no longer unipolar, and not yet in a stable multipolarity.
Multilateralism was never ideal, and never truly constructed to be strong. But the demands on multilateralism today are greater than ever before. And the supply is weaker. We have to build coalitions of the willing to address the most urgent challenges of the global commons, and to preserve rules of the game in global competition. And keep the coalitions open to new members.
Finally, we have to reorient our democracies, so that our politics is less short-term and less insular, and so that democracy is less divisive in practice.
It must surely be possible for each society to recognise that it is in its own interests, to invest in the global commons, because we're all going to be affected by its erosion. It must be possible to recognise that it's in each societies’ interests to invest in the long-term today, rather than pile up an even larger burden in the decades to come. And it must be in our own interests to find ways in which democracy bridges differences, rather than widens them.
And we have to do this remembering that we are in a world where we can be very easily pulled apart, within our own societies and internationally.
I'll stop there. And I look forward to unpacking some of this with Fareed. Thank you.
*****
Dialogue with Fareed Zakaria
Fareed: I think it’s about 25 years ago now that I was in Singapore, and I had begun a practice, came out of a long interview I did in Foreign Affairs. Every time I was there spending a few hours with Lee Kuan Yew, who was at that time the Senior Minister. And he says to me at one point, we're talking about education and he says, We've got this bright young Indian Minister of Education you have to meet up. And I thought okay, I will do my homework and I asked my friend Kishore Mahbubani if he would set up a meeting with the then-young, bright Minister of Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam who has of course ascended to higher and higher stratospheres ever since. And it has been an enormous pleasure to see both in Singapore but in the world, the way that you have been able to establish yourself as a genuine statesman intellectual which is very rare. You described very well the fraying of the international order. You can look at Russia-Ukraine, and you can look at what's going on in the Middle East. You can look at China's challenges.
But what is the solution? Because, on the one hand, the solution seems to be that the United States essentially use hard power to deter, combat, reverse these efforts to fray the international order. But of course in doing that, it divides the world more, it forces countries to pick sides. It makes it more difficult to imagine a kind of consensual world in which everyone comes together and sings Kumbaya. But if you don't do that, the Russian aggression stands, Iran's efforts to unravel a Middle East order continue. And China's efforts to frankly, bully a lot of Asian countries continue. How do you thread this needle, which is in order to sustain a world of law and economic commerce and the kinds of things you're talking about, it seems like you need some very tough hard military power or at least hard power at the back of it.
President: Let me take this angle in responding to Fareed’s very thoughtful question. First, it's very hard to summon up trust within the international community only when you need it most. It's very hard for the US to summon up enough support from the developing world only when you need a vote in the UN on Russia-Ukraine. Very hard to summon up support for everyone to both condemn Hamas’ terrorist acts, as well as to express umbrage against the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Gaza.
It's very hard to just summon up trust in the global community when you need it most. You've got to do it by addressing the needs of nations in normal times. Everyone in the developing world remembers what happened during COVID-19 - the gross inequity in the distribution of vaccines, the vast over-stocking in the wealthiest countries. Everyone remembers the fact that the world has under-invested in the basics of development. Everyone remembers that the World Bank and other development banks have been under-capitalised, mainly because the largest shareholders don't want to see a change in shareholding which will come about when you increase capital, don’t want to see China and the emerging world take on larger shares.
Trust doesn't get built that way. So I would say, start from where countries are, look at their needs, and find ways of organising ourselves multilaterally or through coalitions, to help them address those needs. And the point is, it's not actually expensive. It's not as if these resources can't be mobilised, they can be mobilised. There's no lack of financial resources and expertise in the world to address the needs of the large bloc of developing nations. It's been a matter of neglect.
Fareed: We are almost certainly not going to have a kind of perfect world of international cooperation around things like climate change. Some of the other ecological challenges you describe, I would argue, are regulation of something like artificial intelligence. We're just not in a moment of US-China, let alone US-Russia accord where we are going to say we're all going to sit around the table and decide, these are the things we will do in AI, these are the things we won't do. We're going to sit around the table and come up with an agreement on carbon emissions. Is there a viable Plan B that is actually not too bad? And the reason I ask this because let's face it, this is the world we're going to live in, not Plan A. It is Plan B when China does what it needs to on climate because it feels it wants to reduce emissions, because it doesn't want to have pollution. It also wants to build up the green energy sector. Others do the same - India trying to do that with solar, China reining in AI for its own reasons, the US and Europe do it. And there's a certain kind of unspoken, what I would call stealth global collaboration. Nobody will admit that they're cooperating, but that is in fact what's happening. Is there a world there that we can imagine? Because it does feel to me, that's the best we're gonna get.
President: One way of addressing Fareed’s question is, what's the alternative to Plan B? Plan A doesn't exist for all the reasons you prescribed. Multilateralism is not functioning very well. The US and China still don't see eye to eye on the fundamentals, on technological and economic supremacy, and there are many other reasons. The real alternative is Plan C, where we carry on as we are, and at some point, which I think will happen even before 2030, at the very latest 2035 - the situation would have gotten so grave because we have crossed certain tipping points - that governments will have to get together and say let's stop fooling around, we're going to have to do something now. And it's going to be far more expensive then. It’ll be a situation where some countries have much higher carbon taxes than others, some have much larger subsidies than others, but either way it's going to be much more expensive and probably quite unfair.
So Plan B, which is what you were talking about, when we don't wait till 2030 or 2035, is where we accept now that realistically, under any scenario of who wins the next elections in the United States or the one the next time round, you're not going to get a system of carbon taxes introduced in the US. But the subsidies that are part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, the very large subsidies for green technologies – the things which economists don't like, and don’t think are the first-best solution - they are going to help build scale in new technologies. The subsidies are unfair to other countries, it even looks protectionist, but it's going to build scale in new technologies. And you need that scale of investment to get these new technologies down the cost abatement curve and make them viable, which the rest of the world eventually benefits from.
It may lead to a subsidy race. Developing countries aren't going to be able to engage in it, even Europe is probably not going to be able to engage in this on the same scale as the US. But it's better than Plan C because Plan C is a waiting game. It’s better to go down that cost abatement curve now, invest now in getting new technologies scaled, the way that it was done in solar. If you look at what China did in solar, to bring the cost down significantly through initial subsidies and going for scale investments.
Look at what's necessary to get technologies viable. We are not going to get there globally the way economists would like, where everyone goes up to a $150 carbon tax as soon as possible. That's theoretically the most efficient solution, but it's just not going to happen. So we've got to find some ways in which countries that can afford it move ahead. At some point the US is going to need a new fiscal strategy and a revenue strategy to sustain the subsidies. But it's doing the right thing now and the world will benefit for it.
Fareed: So let me outline what I think is quite plausible in terms of the kind of world we're going into, which is a world in which there is an even greater, and you think you've seen inequality, you ain't seen nothing yet. Because between AI and computing power and access to the kind of scale of energy you need, the US is going to be in a league of its own, China is going to be second, there are going to be few other countries. Frankly, I think Europe gets left behind in in many ways, Europe is de- industrialising as industries moved to the US because they get not only subsidies, they get lower taxes, they get lower regulatory structure. And as you say, global warming is already upon us. The cost of adjustment is one that will only be able to be borne by a rich society, so that New York City will be able to build dykes - I mean, the Dutch did it in the 16th century - Bangladesh will not. And for those who think we cannot sustain the kind of human tragedy that this involves, I have news for you, the Syrian civil war, you'd be surprised at the extent to which the world can sustain all this.
President: Or Sudan.
Fareed: Sudan right now. Or you know, Ethiopia, Yemen. Why is that not the most plausible scenario? A world of much starker inequality, and that we might look back on the 20th century as actually a kind of golden age where the late 20th, early 21st century, you saw a narrowing of global inequality, but it's about to turn pretty sharply.
President: I think it’s not plausible when it comes to the global commons. Because whether it is global warming or all the other consequences coming about from deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and the imbalance in the global water cycle, everyone is going to be affected by it. What happens in Bangladesh, what happens in Sub-Saharan Africa, what happens in parts of the world that are very far away from Seattle and Washington, are eventually going to affect the global climate. And that is the fortunate part of it, that the crises are coming everywhere in the world - droughts, floods, wildfires - all caused by the global ecosystem going out of balance.
Now the challenge is for democracies to recognise that solving it isn't just a matter of picking up the pieces each time there's a wildfire in our own neighbourhood, but also a matter of helping say Sub-Saharan Africa. And that's a real challenge in democracies - to recognise that something happening far away is in your interests to try to address and to remedy. And something that's a little further out in the future - five years from now, 10 years from now, even 50 years from now, it’s in our interest now to start preparing for it, and trying to avoid the worst.
Democracies were never wired that way. They were never wired to look at the long term, and they were never wired to look at the global. They were always about finding some consensus or balance domestically, for a relatively short period of time. So rewiring democracies for the long term, and for the global challenges that we all face, is a central challenge around the world.
Fareed: You look at one piece of polling data out of Europe that I've always thought is so telling, which is when you ask people, whether they are comfortable with higher and higher levels of welfare spending, it relates inversely with the degree of heterogeneity of the population. In other words, the more people look like you, the more comfortable you are with higher levels of welfare spending. The more people don't look like you, you don't like the idea of welfare spending. And it gets to exactly your point, which is that democracy and liberal democracy is much easier in a circumstance where the community is one that is very easy to identify and identify yourself with and empathise with. And it relates to the last thing I want to ask you before I open it up - you said something very interesting about multiculturalism and how it failed. And I want to ask you to think about the way to make multiculturalism work, because you said Merkel's version was integration and it didn't work.
President: It didn't have enough integration. It was basically a diverse quilt.
Fareed: Now, when I would ask Lee Kuan Yew what made multiculturalism work in Singapore, he would always say, look, we have these communities, but we let them be, we want them to retain their old traditions. We don't want them to feel that they have been forced into it. They have to live together. They have to learn how to live together and in the housing projects, but we want them to continue to learn their languages. We want them to continue to have their traditions and we want them to meet in a civic space. What you are saying is you want a fabric that's woven with the threads of each of these traditions. I happen to think you're right in the sense that that old model is not really available anymore. Modernity is pushing everyone forward to an extent that you can’t have these communities staying completely (apart), intermarriage rates even in Singapore are rising much higher. You yourself have a multicultural marriage. The old model for Singapore seems to be one that isn't going to be applicable if you have 30, 40 per cent inter-marriage.
So then the great challenge that the Merkels of the world face is, how do you create a common culture? And the one country that has an answer here is the US, because we have no culture. We had a shared set of political ideas that you have to buy into. There is, to be fair (that) behind all that, there was a kind of Protestant English subculture that you had to buy into. We just went through things Thanksgiving - that is not a Greek Festival, that was a festival of Englishmen who came here - but there's largely a political culture that you're trying to get people to assimilate around. In Europe, that was not what made European countries - what made European countries was the idea “we, this tribe has lived here in these forests for age immemorial and by the way, killed the tribe that lived on the other side of this forest for age immemorial, and what you Algerians are doing in this in this forest I don't know”. And that has been the problem for the Europeans. So what's your solution?
President: So I half-agree with Fareed on this. Singapore never went for a melting pot concept of multiracialism. But neither did we go for the quilt of diversity in different patches, where we live and let live - live in your own neighbourhoods like they do in the banlieus in Paris, you grow up in different schools, and you have your own practices but you sing the same national anthem. We didn't go for that either. We actually went for a very intrusive model of integration. Combining the school systems into one national school system. Everyone attends the same schools. And most intrusively, everyone lives in the same neighbourhoods, same housing apartment blocks, visits the same markets, same bus stop that you wait at, same playgrounds your kids mess around in. That was a very intrusive system of integration. That was Lee Kuan Yew. So the fabric of Singapore society was woven by all our threads. But he recognised, and we recognise, that they are different threads, they are different colours, even different materials, but we want them all to form a common fabric of society.
Europe went for a quilt and it looked very good initially, because it was a vibrant quilt. The diversity was very apparent. But the moment you start getting pulls on that fabric, coming from outside your society or from within, the seams between each of the patches frays. Even Britain - more integrated than Europe - even in Britain, 50 per cent of all Muslims live in the bottom 10 per cent of neighbourhoods. It's not an integrated society. And then we come to the United States, seemingly integrated because it lacks a culture as you say, but there is segregation. There is segregation in housing, in neighbourhoods, that is systematic, and as a result there's effective segregation by schools. It’s socio-economic and its ethnic. And the rules deter housing integration.
We can't really lecture each other on what's necessary because we come from different histories - Singapore by force of an unusual start to nationhood went for a very intrusive approach of weaving those threads together into a common fabric but recognising that they were different threads. And people did want to retain their own sense of identity, their faith, a sense of their own culture. It gave you some meaning in life, but you were part of a common fabric of Singapore society. And more and more I do feel as we go forward as a country, we've got to make sure that people don't just see themselves as persons of different races and religions, not just see themselves are sharing a Singaporean nationality, but as sharing each other's cultures as well. Taking an interest in each other's cultures, speaking a bit of language. You don't need to be able to write, maybe not even read, but speak some of each other's languages. Most importantly, grow up together, make friends with each other. You might get married or not get married to each other. But you’re friends. And Singapore can do that. But it would not have been possible had we had not had that model of integration from the start – in schools, housing, at work.
Fareed: Very interestingly, this was the Johnson administration's effort during the fair housing policies. And it hit a wall of white resistance. And if you look at housing in America, it gets integrated till about 1971, 1972. When the white backlash becomes very strong, Nixon recognises it, plays on it, and we are at the same level of housing integration in this country. Since then, you know, since 1971, we are no more integrated today than we were then.
President: Even in the liberal leaning states.
*****
Question and Answer
- What will Singapore do if there is a military conflict between China and Taiwan?
- In an era where technological advances and global interconnectivity are reshaping our society, what are your thoughts on how younger generations like us can be more empowered and prepared to not only adapt to these changes, but also play a proactive role in fostering a more harmonious, equitable and sustainable global future?
- We all know that Singapore has a strong commitment to upholding international regulations and also multilateral relations, but we can see that deglobalisation has already happened and brings us a lot of challenges. So how do you think Singapore can promote regional cooperation and what kind of commitment or efforts have you already made to promoting such (cooperation)?
President: On Taiwan, first of all as you know, Singapore believes in the One China policy and we have been consistent about that through the years. We are in the unusual position of having very good relations with both China and Taiwan, which are understood by both. Now, how we react if there were to be a conflict depends on how the conflict came about. But I would say more fundamentally that there's too much of a parlour game now of people trying to predict: “Is China going to attack Taiwan? Is it 2027 or 2035? What are President Xi Jinping’s real objectives?” There's too much of that parlour game. The fact of the matter is, every serious observer knows that neither China nor Taiwan nor the United States wants a conflict. That's very clear. And we have to do everything we can to prevent any provocation or accident that could provoke a conflict. That's the task, and it abides by the interests of both China and the US in not wanting a conflict to take place. And fundamentally, that means no move to Taiwan independence.
The second question, a broad question about technological advancement. AI is going to be transformative in ways that go well beyond previous waves of technological advancement. AI can be very empowering for the small enterprise, for the individual, anywhere in the world, including the developing world. But the challenge we face with AI is that a significant part of the cognitive class, people doing auditing work, legal drafting, a whole set of white-collar jobs - can have their jobs done much more easily, faster and cheaper by AI. And that that's happening today at an accelerating pace.
So we've got to find ways in which we re-empower every individual - first to be able to use AI as a tool, but second, if they do lose their jobs, because some will lose their jobs, to be able to move on to something else. And the societies that succeed in an AI era are those that are going to have the ability to invest continually in people including in the middle of their career, or even at the later stages of their career. That's what we've embarked on in Singapore. We called it SkillsFuture. But it requires continuous investment, and not just leaving it to enterprises and individuals to sort this out. It requires a national approach, and some public investment. And it requires constant niftiness, as you move from one job to another, retaining some of the skills you built before and trying to apply it to a new area.
There will be a premium on the intrinsic human skills - EQ and some forms of creativity that are still beyond the most intelligent machines. There will still be that human premium. But I believe a more large-scale adjustment in workforces and societies is going to be necessary with AI; it goes well beyond what happened with computers and the Internet revolution.
Fareed: In a sense what you're saying is these kids won't lose their jobs to AI. They lose their jobs to somebody who knows how to use AI better than they do.
President: That’s quite right. But it has profound implications because it means as you grow up from young, you’ve got to develop in every possible way that very human activity of interacting, understanding, sensing each other emotively, associating ourselves with each other –because it's that EQ that the machines can't do. And if they do it, they'll do it in a more robotic fashion.
Third question on globalisation and regional cooperation. In this imperfect world, one of the ways in which we keep global integration alive is through regional initiatives. We're doing it in Asia, and in fact Singapore is very much at the forefront of that. Within
ASEAN, and through the RCEP - a very large trade alliance, although not as deep as the CPTPP - and of course through the CPTPP, which is a high standard free trade agreement. So we are pushing very hard in Asia, more than in most other regions, but we are keeping the boundaries open. Keeping the geometry open and not fixed. The UK is joining the CPTPP very likely by the middle of next year. It is not a closed regionalism but open regionalism, and is a way to keep global integration afloat.
- You speak to consensus as being the underlying mechanism to dealing with such undercurrents. The path forward by your words is clear, but the stewardship is not. So, my question is how do we foster engagement and consensus in the Global South? With so many of the needs in that part of the world unmet? How do we create a framework for inclusivity where this concept of consensus can then be broached? Thank you.
- I have a question about the ageing population, since Singapore is going to be a super-aged nation by 2026. So, I was wondering like how Singapore is going to keep the balance between the ageing population and immigration issues and the development of labour market. Thank you so much.
- My question is about tipping points, and how they can often be very abstract and unreal for common population. So, what is the role of governments and academia in making these tipping points real for people so that a real action can be taken on them?
President: On the first question about the developing world and how we build consensus – consensus in favor of multilateralism, consensus in favor of let's say market-based economic development. First, the whole world has to recognise that what happens in Sub Saharan Africa is in all our interests. We're going to see a very large increase in the world's population in the next 30 years, and most of it is going to come from Sub Saharan Africa. Most people don't realise that. A huge bulge of young population that is coming up there. If they get jobs and decent jobs, then the world remains a peaceful place and a prosperous place. If they don't, then you get a new element of the radical uncertainty I was talking about - forced migration, outbreaks of global health disorders, and a whole set of other problems. So, we've got to invest in Africa, using the World Bank, using the African Development Bank, using the private sector, to ensure that this large part of humanity is able to get on a ladder of prosperity. And if we don't do it, it's very hard to expect them to have a consensus in favour of tackling global challenges. If you don't provide basic electricity, which is now lacking for large numbers of people in Africa, you can't really talk about decarbonisation the economy. You've got to first electrify the villages, you got to deal with the basics. Helping every country get on its feet, get on that ladder of prosperity, that’s still the basis for global prosperity and there are ways of organizing it. It requires a willingness to recognise that this is an investment the global community makes, and it’s not simply about aid, but about investment.
On the next question about Singapore becoming a super-aged society, the role of immigration. We will have to continue to rely on immigration, but we will have to do it at the right pace and bring in the right quantity of immigrants. No society can simply open its borders to people. It's different from goods, it’s different from services, as Fareed was hinting at earlier, no society can be completely open to people from all over the world. You've got to do it at a measured pace. And critically, you've got to integrate people. And if you're unable to integrate people well, you just have to stop. You can't keep taking in more and more people.
Singapore's emphasis is on both a measured pace of immigration for people who are able to contribute to the economy, and to find ways in which they can be integrated. And for those who can settle down to help them settle down. It must remain a country where Singaporeans feel, this is their own country, with a Singaporean ethos, Singaporean ways of going about things in a certain Singaporean egalitarianism in the social sense. We’ve got to stay that way.
On the next question, I think the way to think about it, is that we're in a world where the central challenge is not about economic cycles. Central banks and ministries of finance will try to manage the cycles - you have a boom that's getting too hot, you tighten monetary policy, you contract fiscal policy, and things come back down to normal. If you're in a depression, you find ways to boost government spending, lower interest rates or pump in more money. That was a cyclical game. But the challenges we face in the world today are not about cycles. They're not about macroeconomic cycles.
They're about what the economists call supply side shocks, but even that sounds like an abstraction. What they're really about are conflicts and wars, pandemics, floods, droughts, and other things that are quite separate from macroeconomics. But economic policy has to respond, and in a way that is more long-term. Don't wait for crises to come. Invest early to prevent and prepare for crises. Because if you just keep waiting for crises to come, they're extremely expensive. And secondly, they exact an unacceptable cost to human life and livelihoods.
So the progressive and financially prudent thing to do is to invest early to prevent and prepare for crises. We know the next pandemic is coming in. We’re still flying blind into it by the way – a proper system of global surveillance hasn't been set up; Africa and many other parts of the developing world are still lacking the basic infrastructure and primary health care required so that when the time comes, you know you can ship the vaccine in cold storage into every village and get it into someone's arm. We still don't have the infrastructure. It's not expensive. We just need to get down to it.
- We're now at a new frontier of technological innovation, which is artificial intelligence you mentioned in your previous question. How do you see Singapore as a services and trade-focused country staying competitive strategically as an economic powerhouse in this new age of technology?
- What will be the concrete plan for you to help invest in Sub-Saharan Africa in terms of sustainable development, especially for transitioning into green industry?
- Considering the long-standing strong economic ties as well as cultural ties between India and Singapore, how do you think our countries’ relationship can help show the world how to promote a multicultural society, cultural plurality, and ultimately establish a multipolar society?
President: My sense is that AI will be a big, net plus for Singapore. First, going back to that challenge about enabling everyone in the workforce to be able to adjust, we are a small society, and we've got a way of organising ourselves between government businesses, unions, and individuals in the community, such that you can reach every individual. You can make available to them courses or modules that give them new skills, and help them keep moving in their careers. So we can organise the skills of the future and in fact, we intend to do so.
Second, Singapore’s short on people. And AI is actually an enabler because it replaces some jobs that Singaporeans are not particularly keen on doing. We don't have enough people doing programming, for instance, and AI is taking over the world of coding and programming. Just to give you an example.
Thirdly, I think the pace of innovation is going to increase in every sector because of AI. And what Singapore's real strength has to be that it is one of the places in the world where you can very quickly adopt the latest innovations. You don't need to be there at the frontier creating the breakthrough technologies. A lot of it is going to come from Silicon Valley and other major hubs, an some of it will come from Singapore. But Singapore has to be very quick off the mark as a place where you can adopt new technologies and make an interesting concept commercially viable.
On Africa, I would say, a major opportunity is in agrifood. The world is going to run into a food crisis. And it requires rethinking agriculture in both Africa and South Asia, where it has been left largely unchanged, remarkably, for decades now. If you look at levels of productivity in agriculture, or the yields for the same crops in South Asia or Sub- Saharan Africa, compared to say the United States, it's just a vast difference. Even systems of irrigation are centuries old. The way in which we grow staples like rice are centuries old. So this is an opportunity to revolutionise agriculture, so that it becomes a cash crop and an export crop, farmers’ incomes are improved, and we address the challenges of the global commons at the same time by not wasting so much water and disposing of polluted water. So it's a real opportunity in Africa, and I'm just talking about the agrifood industry. There are other opportunities as well, but Africa is still not integrated. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) has been slow in the uptake and it really needs to be given a lot more attention.
On India. India and Southeast Asia have deep cultural commonalities. Singapore’s economic relationship with India is booming. It is one of the largest investors in India, It's a country that you want to be in.
So Singapore is strategically, and because of the natural market of entrepreneurial activity, deeply plugged into China, India, Southeast Asia, and the United States and Europe. We are plugged into each of these major regions and we intend to keep it that way. And it means constant engagement in India, in China and in the rest of the world.
Singapore has to work hard at that, keep looking outward, and keep understanding the needs and the mores of the societies that we're operating in.
