Twincloud's Youtube Subtitle Extractor
01:33:18
That is the key to a Chinese sense of history. The most important things in
the Chinese heritage that there's only one China, only one sun in the sky. Only
one China. It must be united. And that is the ideal position. When you're
united, you can do all sort of things. When you're divided, there's chaos.
>> Meet Wong Gong Wu, a Singapore-based professor and worldrenowned expert on
China history. He studied in the UK and has taught in Malaysia, Singapore,
[music] and Australia. The professor shared how Chinese history still shapes
modern leaders thinking. How choosing between the American and Soviet models
influence China's future and why many Chinese accept [music] fewer freedoms in
exchange for stability and growth. I'm Max Chernov, your insider to global life
to. So speaking of China today, what's the biggest misconceptions about China
in the world right now? And what do we know? Maybe the second part, what do we
have to know about Chinese history to understand China and Chinese foreign
affairs? Right now, >> I think we have to go back a little bit
to say that by 1900 or so, the Chinese elites have become
aware, especially after their defeat by the Japanese in the first SinoJapanese
war in 1894. By 1900 or so, they were more or less aware that Chinese empire,
theQing Empire, Chinese civilization itself was under threat whether they
could survive or not. So by the time they created the Republic of China, the
first revolution, there was a political revolution with out with the dynasties
setting up a republic the model of which was France and United States. no
monarchy, a president, a republic and uh we will become a nation state. They had
already decided they would become a kind of nation state but inheriting the
borders of theQing empire as China. I would say that the revolution was
unsuccessful. All that happened was the country was divided into different
warlords and for about 15 years the warlords were fighting each other to
become the president of China. It became a p primarily a war between the
nationalists and the communists. A civil war in which uh the Soviet Union was at
least under under Stalin giving some support to the Chinese Communist Party
and the Americans were and the British were supporting the nationalists. The
Russians took over Manuria. They took over all the Japanese arms and factories
and everything. they use that to help the the Chinese Communist Party and it
is from Manuria that they finally started their victory
southwards into China. So when you look at that way, the the the Chinese
situation was one of how do you save China in the middle of all that?
>> And the nationalists were trying never really had a chance. By the time the
nationalist set up their government in 1928, the Japanese were already
challenging the nationalists to join them to fight the communists. And the
Changai knew what they what the Japanese wanted. They had taken Manuria. They set
up Manuko as a vessel state >> of the Japanese. Really a a puppet of
the Japanese. >> You hear the Manuko and Manuria was
already Japanese >> and they were marching down from
Manuria. And so Changai was aware that what the Japanese really wanted was to
dominate China in the name of fighting the communist together. They were really
dominating when they take over China. So Jangashi did not want to start a war
with Japan because he didn't want to fight Japan when he the communists were
still fighting them. He wanted to concentrate on fighting the communist.
So you can see all that made the Chinese people all feel that China was in grave
danger of disappearing altogether and the Chinese civilization was already out
of date completely obsolete and we have to learn from the west. Who decide to
let they will learn from the west is hard to pin down. Many people were
advocating it. But how much of the west to learn was always a a matter of
debate. And then of course this is something where people forget. As far as
the Chinese were concerned, there were two wests. Both were west. One west was
facing the Pacific. The United States representing the west the Anglo-American
power. The other west was socialism of the Soviet Union that was also the west
because in the in the eyes of the westerners of the Americans. So Soviet
Union is Asia Asiatic. >> It's not European
>> somewhere in Asian >> is not genuinely Asian. So to Asia. So
they they always think that the Russians and China more or less alike because
they're Asiatic >> but which is nonsense. The what the
Russians inherited was straight out of KL Marx and Enlightenment French
philosophy and the Chinese recognized that they had a choice. If we are going
to westernize in order to modernize, which one do you choose? And the
nationalists chose the one with the Anglo-Americans who are already
controlling the seap ports and the Chinese communist inland turn to the
Soviet Union. But they were both openly saying we must learn from the west. So
there was only to them each one has only one west. West one and west two, but
each one chose only one west. >> So that was the notion. So like China
was losing its identity. Yes, they they were willing to give it up to save China
and one will learn from the capitalist and one will learn from the socialist
and the question is which one will win then we have to fight each other but at
the same time of course you can say that among the majority of the ordinary
people who are not ideological and didn't didn't find all this very
meaningful to them they were very traditionalist and they still had very
old-fashioned ideas of what is the heritage, the confusion values, the
family values, the peasant values of a peasant rural society. And that rural
economy was still fundamentally what China was about. It was a peasant
economy. And that is why in the end Maong succeeded in 1945 when the
nationalists backed by the Americans defeated Japan and became the
the legitimate government of China that they should lose to the communists. I
think everybody was surprised why did they lose. So we look back they were
corrupt. They completely fail to but by their corruption and their failure to
solve some of fundamental economic problems. They cause a a terrifying
inflation comparable to that of Germany after first world war. Then as a result
of which everybody was poor, so poor, struggling to to survive the whole of
China and the people were no longer no longer supported that regime. So when
the war was actually fought on the battlefield, the morale of the troops
could not be relied on and in the end the communists as they won in Manuria
and they pressed down. They were in a much more triumphant
position and they kept on winning and before they know it they reached the
Yangza and Naning was open to to to the communist victory and by 1949 almost
within a year or two of arriving at the Yangza river it was over and the Changai
had to escape to Taiwan and then bit by bit the communist party took over the
rest of China took were Shinjang, Tibet, Inner, Mongolia. Mongolia they didn't
touch because Mongolia had already gained its independence with Russian
support and so but the rest of China. So within four or five years that communist
party under Majong had actually unified all of China and that is the key to a
Chinese [clears throat] you can say a Chinese sense of history. the most
important things in the Chinese heritage that there's only one China only one sun
in the sky only one China it must be united and that is the ideal position
when you're united you can do all sort of things when you're divided there's
chaos so this is security and safety stability versus chaos rebellion and
poverty sovereignty based on the borders which is a modern concept became now the
fundamental of the foundations of a new China and that new China was now united
under one leadership the Chinese Communist Party and I don't mean Mao the
Chinese Communist Party the head of which is Ma and so the Chinese Communist
Party in that sense in the eyes of the the ordinary people could be said to
have the legitimate emperor of China they taken over it's like a new a new a
new China I think a new dynasty called the Chinese Communist Party and this is
what is still there. This is what made China successful even after the terrible
mistakes that Maong made in the cultural revolution that damaged the economy and
caused a tremendous hardship to vast numbers of people greatly forward
cultural revolution. Despite all that they survived all that and things shaing
came up and opened up open up but not not entirely but open up enough to learn
from the capitalism on the basis of a very Marxist argument that unless you
have capitalism you can't have socialism. This in that order you to try
and skip capitalism to move from a feudal peasant society to socialism was
not uh was not what Marx talked about. Capitalism was actually an essential
part of it all. And you to put it very simply, capitalism knows how to make
money. Wealth can be created through capitalism. Nothing wrong with that. And
only when you have that wealth can you have socialism because what do you
distribute if you don't have wealth? You redistribute wealth. That is socialism.
But you must get to wealth first. So Shiaoing's kind of logic was going back
to Marx to say we have to go through this capitalist stage and we will go
through it and then when we have succeeded and China is prosperous then
we can really have socialism and that socialism but then with the additional
with Chinese characteristics and that's quite important because the
Chinese characteristics part means that you're not just copying somebody else's
thing you are still distinctively and identifiably recognizably
Chinese that you can still be proud of. It's still part of the tradition and
it's not just a kind of show. It is meaningful because you look at it you
say that liberal democracy through kind of elections of uh the
United States doesn't suit China because it is essentially allowing the
capitalist to run the elections and it's money politics that determines those
those that liberal democracy that it's an extreme form of money politics which
doesn't match the Chinese idea of what a good government is. A good government is
a caring government. A caring government or consisting of people who are trained,
dedicated, chosen by performance, a kind of
meritocracy to become a Mandarinate, whether you call a Mandarin or a party
carter, but a Mandarinate who have been promoted casually by performance and
ability to rise to the top and to care for the country, for the all serving the
people, you know, waiting fu to serve serve the people is very traditional
because the traditional idea of the son of heaven who have the mandate of heaven
is someone a ruler who cares for the people and so as long as he cares for
the people the people will love you in return and respect you in return and
support you. When you stop caring for the people they will rebel against you
and overturn the dynasty and produce a new dynasty. So these are the kind of
but say inherited political norms which they found had worked for so long. We
that should something we we should think about. Why should we go through this
every four years picking somebody who who never had any political or
administrative experience just because he's popular or he's got a money behind
him and he wins. That's not the way we want to go. This is how they and they
they may exaggerate and and and overstate the position but their idea is
that we don't want to go in that direction. Our direction is towards a a
caring government who actually can show and perform and actually produce a a
society that is more stable, more secure, more safe, more harmonious. And
that's the idea we want. And any government that actually is dedicated to
that and very well disciplined ruling elite we can accept that. So the idea
that we must have four years elections and regular sort of change of government
and two party systems and so on fighting each other all the time is to them is a
advances as it were. It's too much politics all the time. Whereas this is a
different kind of politics. the politics of management and administration and
demonstration of performance that helps the people get better lives and most
peaceful lives. That kind of politics is administration administrative politics
you might say as compared to party politics, campaign politics, electoral
politics and money politics. >> That's how they would see the world now
divided. And here is a world in which that model has been set on given to
everybody. And what a mess it has created in most countries. And there's
enough proof to say that that system has not worked very well in most countries.
>> Some people maybe some more westeroriented people would argue
yes. But are people like restricted like feel restricted and feel like very
controlled living in China? I think they were they are quite right that people
are under control. They don't have the freedoms that uh shared in in the west
and so but what the Chinese how the Chinese would position it is that
actually as long as you're just doing what you are supposed to do you are
free. Nobody bothers you. The only thing that you are not free to do is to to
tell to say what you like about politics. That's the only thing that is
not free. And that that in broad sense that is probably true. Normally what you
do who bothers what you do. In fact if you look at the things that the Chinese
people do a lot of petty crimes corruption a lot of abuse and abuse of
wives abuse of children and all kinds of thing that's just like any other
society. I mean they're not they're different. The Chinese Communist Party
can't stop that and they they don't prevent anything. That's not what the
the point is. What they are preventing is that if you're against a party,
you're against the stability of a system which must be disciplined to show that
they are doing good. So if you're preventing if you're going against us
that you are not free to do but in your lives they can't be bothered. And if you
ask the Chinese people they actually totally free in their ordinary lives.
It's only when you want to talk politics, you want to say I don't like
Mr. Shiin Ping. You cannot say that. Not in public anyway. You can say that in
private, but you can't say that. You can't print. You can't go out to print
on that. But so now in social media and so on, you can't do that. You do it in
social media immediately that is blocked. That is the one thing that they
definitely don't have. And the West is quite right to say that they don't have
to. But to most Chinese people, that's actually not terribly important because
not everybody is interested in just scolding the leaders and and and saying
rude things about polit politicians and so on because in many ways if you look
look at electoral politics, you can say it's a it's actually a good show. It's
like watching a football game or they're fighting each other, calling each other
names and you win election. Every year somebody's winning and losing. It's like
watching a football game. You know, at the end of it all, somebody wins,
somebody draws, somebody loses. And it's quite entertaining sometimes. It can be
also very distressful, but it can be very entertaining
at other times because you just say, "Oh, I don't like him and he lost."
Good. So, my favorite club is this one. My side is he went, he won. Good. So,
everybody's happy. But is it that important to everybody? Who knows? I
mean so in one society you say that is very important the most important thing
is the freedom of speech and to and the right to vote and the other side says is
it true is that true do we feel that that that is absolutely necessary
actually I'm not so sure that the the Chinese are that ordinary Chinese people
are that concerned with that particular part what they're concerned about can I
make money can I be richer better off can I have a better house can I find a
wife. Today there are millions of Chinese males without wives because the
male female ratio because of the one child policy. A lot of the girls are
aborted and the boys came out. So there's a ratio there's a big gap. So
there are millions of men who cannot find their wives. That's miserable. But
that has nothing to do with with you know it was a policy made mistake by
Taing himself. the one child policy but they made it at a time for the best of
intentions but it went wrong. They were just they were just totally
miscalculated. They got it wrong but they had good intention. They wanted to
do that to so that the standard of living could be better if it to too many
children. They couldn't see how they could actually satisfy the population.
They thought they thought they were doing the right thing. They took captive
for too long. So it's the Chinese have faced many many problems. But those
problems are to to think that the only problem is freedom. I think it's
oversimplifying and you you're you keep on saying you're scolding them for not
having that. Of course that is true. But actually that's not that bad. That's if
you're not interested in politics. It doesn't bother you. You go to the
movies, you go watch shows, watch sports, celebrations of this kind, the
other travel, they travel around the world and they all go home. They don't
stay abroad. There's no had to run away or to escape from China. They have a
very good time. The tourists here all over Southeast Asia in Europe, in
America, and not so much now, but Europe not so much now, but they do have a very
good time buying new things, seeing Europe, going visiting all the
historical sites. >> What are the other misconceptions about
China in the so-called West? what people in the west maybe who never been to
China or who only like read the articles like from CNN, BBC don't understand,
don't get about China. >> I think the Chinese uh themselves I
think are very divided on that. I I can't be sure about what the ch young
Chinese generation uh really feel because they they have
their problems. They have a lot of graduate unemployment. I mean partly
because their graduate education system was so successful so many people went to
universities and some of them very hardworking and very bright they
graduate if you start producing 9 million graduates per year or now it's
more than n or more than 10 million graduates per year how do you find 10
million jobs new job for a graduate every year a new so it's a it's a
problem so many of them are really quite disappointed and unhappy. I have uh
heard for young people, some of them who are visiting here in Singapore and
others you read about who do feel that was all waste of their energy and time
pointless and they very disillusioned. So there's all that but do they hanker
after the freedom of the west? I'm not sure. Do they believe that if they had
freedom and political parties and elections then everything would be okay?
I'm not sure. So I I I cannot predict what will happen. All I can say is that
China is not a a simple place. It's a very big country and there are lots and
lots of people. How do you control that? And the different provinces are very
different. In fact, it's not like the United States at all. In the United
States probably can be divided into about two or three parts. But China
actually can be divided into about 20 different provinces. And each province
is like a country for a long time because they are very big. I mean some
of those provinces are bigger than the largest country in Europe except Russia.
I mean for example I think the province of Hernand is more populated than the
whole of Germany. It has about 100 million people one province and even
others 70 80 million very common that bigger than most countries of Europe and
just one province. So you have a central government trying to run all these on
one principle. It's not really possible. They have to allow for differences and
so and the central government does do that. In some ways it has a is sort of
semi semif federal system without the right to secede. But it's federal in the
sense that the each party secretary appointed to a province is given quite a
lot of leeway to develop the best possible way he can to make the province
prosperous and if you succeed you get promoted. So you have every uh incentive
to succeed. So people are doing that. So the provinces compete against each
other. I mean in in manufacturing for example some successful product everyone
does it and then they over overproduce happens all the time same with housing
cars or whatever they do whatever they make it very quickly overproduce because
they don't have enough consumers themselves they all depending on selling
exporting in in the globalized capitalist market that the tjabi said we
must have capitalism we must take advantage of the liberal capitalist
economy for China to flourish. So it's a if the liberal west fails they will be
they it cost them to they have to pay a price too. So they don't want the west
to fail. They actually don't want to this is a paradox. They want the west to
succeed to buy their goods. And of course the American people are having a
bad Christmas now because they can't they don't have the they can't afford
the toys of the tariffs and so on. In the past they were very cheap all made
in China. All the factories went there made in China and the American people
benefited for last 30 years they have their cheap goods made in China and now
when they all the factories are gone they blame China for everything they
they lost it's not that it's the capitalists who made that decision it's
not China didn't cheat them the capitalist made more money than ever
from moving their factories to China so the rich got all that much richer but
then The middle class stagnated. The poor people lost their jobs. The
factories all gone. No more unemployment everywhere. So the America pays a price.
But the consumer benefited tremendously. Everything was cheap. And now of course
they they're having to sort that one out. But then the Chinese are also
suffering from that because once you can't sell, they're not they producing
as much as ever, but the market is not there and their own consumers don't have
the money, don't have enough money to to consume it all. So you can see there so
many paradoxes and contradictions that both countries both these so-called
superpowers superpowers both of them are facing enormous contradictions and that
they had never faced before at least not for a long time.
>> Yeah. I guess what you don't want is to oversimplify things that people tend to
do. It's easier. Yeah. Say China is this, America is this.
>> Yeah. Well, I think that's quite what it's what politicians do. They want to
simplify so that the ordinary man can can can vote for him. So he's got to say
that >> that's evil. We are good, you know,
they're easy. So that kind of politics doesn't exist in China. I mean, at least
they don't they don't need it because the Chinese people don't really have
that choice anyway. So as far as they're concerned, China is being contained, you
know, squeezed and bullied here and there, and everything is demonized.
China's been demonized. And that's how it's presented to the [clears throat]
and that's how they see it. They they can pick up what is available CNA and
all that. They they can the Chinese are so good. The young Chinese, they can
pick it up on social media. Whatever is available in the Western press, they can
pick it up. So they know what the West is saying about them that some of it
they know is not true. So they so they must be they're using these lies to to
find excuses to blame everything on us. It's not so simple that America's all
bad. That's also the same. They when they picture America is just all, you
know, all corrupt and money and money politics, everything is all all for
bullying other people and and then trying to dominate the world and be
hemonic in every attempt, interfering with everybody's business when it's none
of their business. That's so that picture of America has also been
overstated. There's some truth in it, but it's overstated and you can
exaggerate to the point that they are the enemy. So what do you think the
biggest shifts are happening with America with the United States right
now? At the moment, I think they're so divided that I don't see how their
democracy can really function properly because my understanding of democracy is
that democracy works best when the majority are moderate and in fact
disagree only on certain fundamental certain principles and details of
policies, but disagree on certain things. But they're basically moderate
and they're willing to work with each other and have a kind of shared views
about basic things. and you keep the extremists on one side, the other
extremists on the other side, but as small minorities, the majority are in
the middle. Then the democracy works because you elect people who are one
party or the other. They they are different, but they're not that
different. You know, the difference between the Democrat and Republic, it's
very hard to put on a piece of paper. Just like in the Britain between the
Tories and the liberals in the in the past, the wigs and the tries in England
it's very hard to tell the difference between the two. All of them graduate
from Oxford anyway or something. So when people are moderate in that way they can
actually talk to each other and discuss and find a common policy for the good of
the country that democracy works. What has happened what I see now is that
there's almost nothing in between. There's no moderate. The moderate is so
small. >> It's either way or that way. And it they
don't talk to each other. They see each other as the enemy. And then it doesn't
work. It's a matter of winner takes all. And if I win all your you can do
nothing. I do everything. So then someone like Trump can be a president
who can say what he like, does what they like because there's there's no real
opposition that can stop him. So there's no moder moderation. He can say one
thing, he can be very reasonable and be totally unreasonable. It doesn't really
matter. So because he's he knows he has a one half of the population or roughly
40% of the population are more or less guaranteed to support. That's what he
thinks anyway. >> So as long as he thinks like that and
it's more or less like that, then you don't have a democracy. So as long as
you keep your 40% and not everybody votes in America, you win. And so if
that continues, I really wonder how that democracy will work. How do you stop
that? In the in in American history, the closest they got the closest they got to
that was the civil war in 1860s when Abraham Lincoln fought the war over the
issue of slavery and it was also a constitutional debate between the north
and the south >> and millions died to to to set to to
find an answer to that. But of course that didn't extreme that they just broke
out completely broke. It was it was sort of different in region. This time it's
not quite so clearcut, but there's a bit of that. There's a bit of that.
>> But the fact is that maybe they know how to avoid it now. They find some
compromise. But at the moment, it doesn't look as if those two pol the two
party system can really bring about a kind of
national consensus that both sides can genuinely and legitimately support. And
at the moment it's either one or the other. So how do you get that system to
gain the credibility of people respecting it and believing it that it's
a good system that will be good for everybody that the world needs at the
moment. I would say more and more people are less and less convinced that the
Americans can provide the kind of leadership they once had. I think there
I think I can't I think I can't think of any large group of people who really
believe that America still has the the right to tell the world what to do. But
that was something they they had about 20 years ago when they won this they won
the war against the Soviet Union. They thought they they really could could
tell the world what what was right and wrong
>> and it didn't work. And the contrary wherever they intervene they failed.
Look at the way they intervene in North Africa, in Tunisia, in Libya and so on.
And then they went to Syria, they went to Middle East, they went to Iraq and
Afghanistan. Everything they touched didn't succeed by intervening, telling
you what is good for you. They're not allowing you to do anything they don't
like. They say you can't do that >> and then turning using military means to
advance your interest. But it didn't succeed. It all of them failed. In fact,
the situation was worse before you than before you intervene. Look at Iraq
today. Look at Afghanistan today. Is it better than the Iraq before 2002? I
mean, you know, I don't know. So, so what where is the credibility of this
superpower? >> Yeah.
>> Number one superpower. So I think these are probably more permanent than we like
to know like to believe >> that that loss of credibility and added
to that a loss of confidence on the part of the [clears throat] Americans. I feel
that the American leadership don't have that kind of confidence they
you used to have when they were so sure their intentions are good. They meant
well they were trying to save the world. who were trying to bring peace and
happiness to everybody, prosperity and so on. Actually, they believed it for a
long time. They believed it. Now, I'm not sure that the Americans themselves
believe that. And if they don't believe it, who else will believe them?
>> What are the other like big shifts that you see in the world like tectonic
changes that are happening in the world right now? Let me say that uh I think
there is a question of where people make continue to make decisions despite the
fact that they know that the world has changed and they make it according to
their national interest alone >> then I think the world is in big
trouble. >> Everybody working only for their
national interest. I think then we are heading towards something that would
completely undermine the kind of stability that we have been used to for
so long. you just say this is my interest and you your what whatever you
are doing is against my interest I have to fight for my own interest then then I
think the the the road is a very slippery one towards uh to total
disorder but I'm not that pessimistic I'm a natural optimist [clears throat]
so I do feel that there are ways where the top leaders in the world can be
rational and and work out compromises and one of the things that
does look possible is that and if I'm correct both the United States and the
Chinese don't want to fight they would avoid war at all cost let let that
assumption if you start with that assumption which I I have reason to
believe is is reasonable assumption if you start with that assumption I would
say there there are possibilities for working out a system whereby you
continue to contend through economic competition. You contend to
technological competition. You challenge each other to be better and produce a a
richer economy, more successful one and people are better off and everybody
knows that you are better off and you are losing ground on that one that will
satisfy me. Both sides work towards improving their economic conditions and
technological superiority and to or at least equality to be able to continue to
survive confidently because they're not getting poorer and they're not getting
weaker but they're still capable of competing almost on equal terms in terms
of economy and technology, science and technology. I think it is possible to
envisage that kind of world appearing when both sides say if we're not going
to war this is the way we will fight. We will fight on the on economy and
technology. We will compete and I will defeat you and I'll be better than you.
You will have to acknowledge that you always have to be a position lower than
mine. That will satisfy me. >> And if both sides can work towards that
end, you could have peace for a long time. No. No guarantee that we have
forever, but at least you overcome this period when there's such a sense of
insecurity and fear especially when it's a fear and sec insecurity growing in the
in the number one superpower. When the number one superpower is no longer
confident that is the danger has become very dangerous
>> but if I'm rightly say dangerous but not going to war they don't think a military
solution would solve anything. So in that case if we avoid that how do we do
that? [clears throat] So you can use as they're still doing now already using
allies and partners or whatever they use the terminology differently but they use
them to ensure that there's a kind of economic balance making sure that
neither is over too much too powerful >> and if they can feel e
reasonably confident that neither side will be overwhelmingly powerful they
could continue for a long time like they can live with each other for a long
time. >> But will they I mean do you see that you
said you're more positive about life in China?
>> I think I think it's not impossible because the leaders may if they once
agree then they're not going to fight if they really think definitely rule out
fighting. I mean they won't say it publicly but both sides are agreed and
they are making that crucial foundation for all their policies. It's not we're
not going to go to war. If you take that as a beginning, [clears throat] then all
the others are negotiable. There are there's room for finding ways whereby we
can compete. We can show that I'm competing. I'm not giving in to you, but
neither side will give in. I'm going to do this. You're better than that. I'm
trying to catch up. You're better than this. I'll catch up. And both sides are
doing that. And in the meantime benefiting the rest of the world because
as they compete they are actually trying to win win friends among others to their
support to support their economies to share the the the kind of gains that
they would make in economic and technological world. It is possible if
you minimize the politics not to make politics everything everything is
political. Everything is military and political win and and it's winner takes
all it's is zero some game kind of if you if you remove your framework from
that zero sum game set of calculations there are many other possibilities and I
think in the economic and technological areas there's room to be competitive to
be fiercely even nationalistic without endangering the world with the world
order because in the nationalistic terms of economic competition is much safer
than and than than in other in other areas in technological terms even
>> as long as it's not aimed entirely in political and military supremacy. So I
think that's that's that's what I I at least I think it's possible
>> and I and I don't think you should rule it out. At least this is my in my mind.
>> Yeah. Some people say if the war can start if China invades Taiwan. Do you
think it will ever happen? >> I don't actually believe that the
Chinese want to take Taiwan by force because they don't want to just kill a
lot of Chinese. Why? Why have to do that? What they really want to do is to
be absolutely sure that Taiwan will not allow itself to be used as a base to
attack China. I mean, that's that's what they want to be sure of. that the
Taiwanese will never be an ally of the enemy like Japan or United States. If
Taiwan and the Taiwanese are not stupid and the Taiwanese leaders, I think
amongst them, they're also aware that that if if they can continue to do well
economically and technologically and never show enmity towards the PRC and
are prepared to talk and discuss matters of common interest, but without giving
up their friends like Japan or United States, but not expecting them, not
expecting to be allies of them if they were came into a conflict with China and
not be used by them as a base for attacking China. If all this somehow
could be assured to the government in Beijing, I think they can live with the
present with the status quo for a long long time because then it it's in
principle except the fact that the Republic of China is also China. There's
only one China but they argue about which China but the Republic of China is
also China. You are people's republic. We have republic but we are China and
there's only one China happen to be under two regimes but we're not enemies.
We the civil war is over. We're not going to fight anymore. Is it possible?
I think it's possible. But if there's any question of people like uh Senator
Pelosi visiting the Taiwanese and you know inviting the Taiwanese to do the
same and generally pretending that Taiwan is actually an independent state
and and and treating it like that and so on then is provocative. M
>> so I would say that that's what the the Chinese are are deeply insecure about
and dislike is what the provocative acts that make China look as if they've lost
Taiwan and Taiwan is and treating Taiwan like an independent state completely
separate from the PR not China anymore they're two China in that sense you know
and that this other China is pro America and pro the west and supported by the
whole west all that of course the China would would would not accept. So can
that be avoided? I don't know. But I mean I would I wouldn't rule it out
completely. >> I can't see that everybody would want to
make work so hard to make to treat Taiwan as independent nation and work
for Taiwan to be a member of the United Nations or something like that.
>> Yeah. >> So if you don't do that, every country
is committed to the idea of one China anyway. theoretically if you except for
about 20 20 countries or less than 20 now are committed to the idea of one
China. So if if you follow these things logically and legally as well, it is
possible to get to a a compromise that doesn't entirely satisfy everybody but
good enough because it keeps the peace and maintains a condition that that
makes people set secure and feel safe >> and nobody gets killed. I interviewed a
numerous billionaires, politicians, celebrities, investors on this channel
for the last 3 years and many of them became my friends. Some even bought my
services and I started this project from scratch. When I moved to Singapore, I
didn't know anyone. My English was not great. But I really wanted to make it
work cuz I strongly believe that people around you is the most valuable asset
for success in life. So I'm gathering a small group of interesting people and
bring them for a short networking retreat in Phuket and you can join us
too. You will expand your [music] network, improve your conversational
skills and we will just have fun together. I'm even setting up a meet up
with a billionaire at his mansion. So it's going to be very unique experience
to join us here in a beautiful hookat. Jump in in the early bird waiting list
to do it. Scan this QR code or click the link in description. Why Taiwan is so
important for China? Let's say there are so many Chinese people ethically Chinese
living in Indonesia for example. But there are no problem with Indonesia I
guess. >> Well no but that's because Taiwan was
always part of China as far as the Chinese are concerned that was in the
map of chi the map of China that the PRC inherited in 1949 includes Taiwan
because the and the Taiwanese agreed to that. Taiwanese always said there was
one China just that their one China is in Taipei. Capital is Tae and in the
United Nations there was only one China. Even when the when the General Assembly
voted for the PRC to be admitted to the United Nations, they could have admitted
two China. They could have said all right you give the security council
position to the PRC but the ROC is a member of the United Nations. They could
have come to come to some it could have happened. I mean I know I know it didn't
happen because Changaiashi refused. Changashi actually the Americans the
Americans actually offered the uh nationalist the ROC in Taiwan to support
them for the for the place as a member state of the United Nations and Changai
said no there's only one China. We are the China. And that remained for another
until Changai died. It continued until the end of the century
>> under the gobin dang that was the position they took they were the China
that's not a China >> so for since 1945 in fact since Taiwan
became officially a province of China in 188
something it became officially a pro before that it was part of Fujian
province >> mh
>> then in 1880 forgotten we became a sep separate
province of China and then the Japanese took it in 1895. So it was the Japanese
who took it but it was a province when the Japanese took it was known as a
province of China that was taken given over to as a price to pay for
having lost the war against Japan in 1895 in the treaty of Shimonoseki.
So that was then it began but in 1945 it was agreed that everything that the
Japanese took from China will be returned to China.
>> Taiwan became part otherwise how could Changai have moved to Taiwan. So where
where is there any doubt legally? I mean again talk about legally how can there
be any doubt that Taiwan is part of China and naturally
165 countries in the world have accepted that there's only one China and the
province and Taiwan is a province of China.
>> So your identity is like Chinese but internationally minded Chinese kind of
thing. >> I don't know how international minded I
am that but let me put it this way. I do not regard national borders as being san
some some some sanctified and unchangeable or thing. I mean I I
recognize it as a legal as a legal identity which I respect but that's all
it is. It's just by law. >> Yeah.
>> But it's got nothing to do with how I feel
>> or who am I. It's just a legal statement saying I am a national of a certain
country. So it's a legal identity. But a legal identity is just that.
>> You can you can extend it to say it's a political identity. But there are so
many identities. >> One's identity is not purely political
or legal. I have a social, I have a cultural, aesthetic, moral, whatever it
is identity. And I it is not it is there's only one identity. Multiple
identities frankly is a norm for everybody. I mean you can be a you can
be a Frenchman and really love English culture and so on and you can live in
France and actually everything you do pertains to England
>> and nobody doesn't matter. >> Yeah,
>> you have a legal identity of Frenchman but what you do and everything your life
you want to be identified with British way of life,
>> British literature, British art theater, British you know culture and so on. I
mean just an as an example and and it's entirely possible if you particularly
Europe >> I think people sometimes confuse it
because they treat like they generalize and treat okay you have X passport you
have Chinese passport or German or Russian passport meaning you you are
this >> this is a definition that only started
in the 19th century >> there was no such thing in the past yes
>> in the whole of mankind nobody thought like that before
>> but in the 19th after the eman enlightenment when the at the end of the
n 18th century with the French revolution and I would also add the
independence of the 13 colonies of United States they developed the idea
that you have a nationality >> that every citizen the idea of a citizen
>> became the most important thing because in the before that a country was the
king belongs to the king. >> Yeah.
>> Or belongs to the aristocracy or the landed property people or the archbishop
or whoever uh uh they are in charge. There's no such thing as a national
identity. But when you're a citizen, you're a citizen, you're a French
citizen as a stoya, you are French and every Frenchman is French.
>> Mhm. And so what happened was the French empire which started as a kind of
imperial thing belong to the king Louis the Louis Cau's Louis the 14th and his
empire that became a French national empire
>> became the empire of every Frenchman. Every Frenchman now has a claim of all
the territories that the French control everywhere. And the main change is that
the empire itself as a as a concept changed. Before that an empire could
belong to a dynasty or a ruler. All the people in the empire no matter who what
color they were, what religion they were, they were all his subjects. But
when you have a citizen, that empire can only be run by officials who are French,
>> who are British, nobody else can run it. But in the old days, it doesn't matter
if you're subject of the emperor, you can be anybody. and in the name of the
emperor be an official of the empire but once it become a national empire you
can't >> you have to be a Frenchman to be an
official in the French territory >> so that's a big difference and that's a
19th century concept >> and and the whole thing was really
disastrous for Europe because what it ended up by being was two world wars two
two world wars which destroyed them that's what destroyed all all the
attempts had national empires, German, French, the British. That that's how
started World War I and and World War II. Russia was involved. But that was
the idea of national empire. >> Yeah.
>> So it ended up with total destruction. End of national empires.
>> The concept of a citizenship in Russian Empire actually as I remember didn't
exist. So in the beginning of 20th century for example if you move from
small town to Moscow you could get like the paper that you are belong to Moscow
to the city but you don't belong to like Russia or to Russian Empire. Yeah. And
that's why actually from Russian Empire you could go to Europe without any visa
without any documents which now if you think about it is like strange.
>> There was in those days there was no such thing as nationality.
>> Yes. Yes. And it was just 100 years ago, not not too long ago.
>> And that's why I say it's such a modern concept. We now take it as if it's holy
grit, holy grit. You know, >> it's a nonsensical thing. It's only
we're trying to understand what we mean by a nation.
>> And I can tell you there are so many dozens of scores of versions of nation
states in the world today. I have no idea how you define a nation today.
>> What does it mean to be Chinese? To me it's primarily a there are several
levels which are very difficult to separate. Sometimes there is the ethnic
one in which other people see you as Chinese whether you like it or not. So
that's another thing. But the self part is you identify with things which you
recognize as part of Chinese civilization that is unquestionable.
They can be local or borderless. For example identify with Chinese confusion
ideas. the mo the moral sense of the role of the family and the kind of
relationships that the Chinese place such has a great emphasis on and you
identify with that that has no n borders and you you are you can say that is
that's my Chinese ancestry >> lead leads me to believe that the
Chinese are not particularly religious so they don't actually have a single
religion but if you say I just I'm a Buddhist but my Chinese Buddhist because
the practices you are different from those in Burma or Thailand then you say
I'm Chinese because that's a Buddhism identifi but that's that's getting it
refining it already it's not that important because if you a Chinese who
lives in Thailand before long he's a Buddhist like any other Thai Buddhist it
doesn't matter very much so this idea of a very fixed identity and must be
narrowly defined and so that you must be loyal to it to absolute loyalty and so
on is a modern intellectually the narrowly defined idea
which actually has no real meaning for ordinary people under [clears throat]
normal in their normal lives. >> Yeah.
>> To my mind. >> Yeah. But then like why countries create
identity and like citizenship and create ideas around it like to for example if
you want people to fight for your country you need to have a big idea and
you need to persuade people to do it right. As I said, all this all this
started in the only in the 19th century. >> Yeah.
>> Before that you did that because your king told you to do that or your local
law feudal lord say you know I need so many men to fight. You have no choice.
You may be a surf or a or a slave and so on or you just work for your fo lord and
he says I [clears throat] got to go and fight the other fud lord. You go and do
war. You got nothing to do with nationality. Your loyalty is to not even
a loyalty. You just have to do it. And what we are trying to do is is really a
post 1945 thing with the creation of United Nations and the end of empires.
When you say no more empires, every one of those colonies should now become
independent. >> That was 1945 decision. Yeah.
>> After the World War II, end of all those national empires. Decolonization meant
the chance for all those colonies, each one of them to be a new nation.
>> So everybody was very happy. I was a young student at the time. We thought
this is a brilliant idea. I I mean as an idea it certainly was a wonderful idea,
completely new first time in history. Never been defined in that way before
that the world would consist of at that time 120 nation now 180 something
nations. >> Yeah.
>> All of them are equal sovereign with clear borders.
>> Mhm. >> But in our case as a colonist as you
know all our borders are not drawn by us. These borders are all created by the
colonial powers. But who lived within those borders is a different matter. To
what to what extent were they nationals? What kind of nation were they? It was
not their borders. Now you're telling them these are your borders and you who
everybody who lives in those borders must be loyal to that country. You take
takes time takes a long time. And at the time when this idea was introduced, I
think most of us young and idealistic, we didn't realize how long it would take
and how difficult it could be that people look at each other. You're not
quite the same as me. How can you and I be nationals of this same country? What
have we got in common? You maybe we went to the same school.
>> Yeah. >> Or maybe we live in the same
neighborhood for a while. We we can speak to each other one common language.
Lingua franka. I speak my own language, you speak your own, but we have a lingua
flanker. >> Yeah.
>> Which we talk. So we have a little bit in common, but that's only the
beginnings. It takes a long time, maybe a few generations before you feel that
you can be a nation. So what happened is that we didn't have nations. What we
had, we had states. We inherited colonial states and the states were
given the responsibility of shaping that nation. So what happened was in most
countries the people who controlled the state then decided what kind of a nation
it's going to be. >> Yeah.
>> And who deserves to be a nation who deserves to be a national who doesn't.
The state decide because the state controls that border legally. Again this
is a legal thing. >> Yeah. uh and so on. But the actual
feeling of Ukraine loyalty or to to fight and die of that you have to draft
him into the army to to to make him feel like that you train him to to shoot and
kill on behalf of your your country. >> So then you get the feeling of it of the
enemy out there and you have no choice. He's not my national. I can kill him.
But that is a matter of national policy. The go the
state tells you who's the enemy. >> Yeah.
>> And who are you be trained to tra to kill if necessary
if they attack us. So these are all new things and we had we had to learn. Of
course we can learn and we have learned. Many nations have done that. But if you
ask everybody within any one of these countries that in in the neighborhood
are they all the same? Do they feel the same? It's still work in progress. I
think >> and it's it's something important. I I I
actually strongly support the idea, but I think we mustn't pretend that it is is
all done. >> Yeah.
>> And they're very easy. >> Yeah.
>> Hey, I've launched this Telegram channel where I'll be sharing insights from my
guests, travel tips around Asia, and also my thoughts about YouTube,
marketing, business, and even life. It will be cozy, personal, and free of
charge. So, join me. just scan this QR code in the screen or click the link in
description and I'll see you there. >> If you summarize what's the identity of
Singaporean like because in Singapore Singapore is a new country relatively
like what's the identity that was been shaped and created through this 60 plus
years. You see, one of the worst things that could happen to uh us was when all
the colonies were decolonized and and said that you from today onwards the
imperialist will go home and you take over it's your nation. The model that
they were given were European nations and European nations at that point were
defined especially western Europe where where they colonial colonial government
had first started and the most of them were defined in very simple the most
common terms that I remember was one language one religion and a shared
history. >> This is the most common thing that was
the European model. And so that meant if you followed that model, you look around
and say who's the majority and who are the minorities and the minorities must
all give up their own thing and become like a majority. Then we become one
nation. >> Yes,
>> you must but you must be like the majority. [laughter] That was a British
thing. For example, you give example like you must have one religion. You
can't have two religions. Of course, it's not two. In real life, it's not
like that. But that's how he was defined >> when he first started the nation. For
example, the best example between the Dutch and the and the Belgium. I mean,
they were Netherlands. They were part of the Spanish Netherlands. But what
happened was that they speak the same language and uh what happened was they
didn't have the same religion. They spoke the same language, but they didn't
have the same religion, but they all spoke Dutch, but the Dutch became
Protestants. And the the Catholics, the Catholic
Dutch were then separated from the Protestants
>> and eventually became the country called Belgium.
>> You see, and in the case of Belgium, very complicated. The other
French-speaking Catholics who were living there became
Belgium. So Belgium became Dutch and French country. But they didn't have one
language, but they compromised it to religion was more important.
>> Yeah. >> Than the language. So what what model
should we be following as the new state should we be creating? So many of the
states took the model of conforming to the majority. The majority decides what
is a nation to be. The rest of us must conform. Singapore this is the
exception. One of the reasons why Singapore separated as you know from
this albatross file that is now being exhibited which is big story these days.
Yeah, >> that separated because this there was a
different understanding of what Malaya was supposed to be. The way the British
understood it was there was no majority in Malaya. In Malaya, the Malays were
something like just under 50%. If you include Singapore, it' be less than 50%.
So there were Chinese and Indians and others. And there's no majority. So it
should be a plural society. Everybody should live together. Yeah. without
anybody conforming to one particular uh ethnic group.
>> So it's one linger frana but not shared history and not shared
>> no one religion >> and no one religion
>> several religions >> numerous languages
>> and before yeah numerous >> and no sh history was so brief
>> under British protection yes which is less than 50 or 60 years old. So the
conditions for building a nation were I would say very very poor.
But anyway that was the reason why Singapore separated was that the Malay m
they were not quite a majority but they were still slight majority by keeping
out Singapore they could say they have a majority. The Malay said these are Malay
states you guys are all immigrants so you have to conform.
>> So Singapore was the opposite. 75% Chinese but how do they accept that and
there were other reasons I won't go into the details because it's a complex story
but they separated so what Singapore's separation then was based on the idea
that we are different from there we don't expect the majority to determine
the national the the ethnicity of the nation we accept the plural society
principle so it was unique in in the region for not not using the majority
uthority as a base otherwise everybody should be Chinese. On the contrary, the
leadership persuaded the Chinese community not to deter, not to say this
is your Chinese country. This is not a Chinese country. This is everybody is
equal. And then they had these categories of Chinese, Indians, Malays
and others and so on to but everybody was equal and different religions and so
everybody capes his own language, his own religion and his own culture and
they're equal in the law by law. A plural society like that very few places
in the world where you had that idea. In fact uh I would say so few that there
none of them have been successful. Singapore by comparison is the most
successful if not the only successful example of a plural society still after
60 years still maintained as a principle of nationhood that's that's most unusual
and successful in a way which I think no other country can really boast of in the
same way >> I mean there is the United States which
is like a seen as a immigrant society So different ethnicities, different
religions shared one language and shared one history for the last like 250 years.
>> But then you see in in itself there is also always the assumption that it was a
a white man's country >> assumption. Yeah.
>> Underlying it all. >> Underlying. Yeah.
>> Because the first immigrants were like from the 13.
>> The 13 colonies >> in the constitution did not apply to
anybody except the white people. The constitution did not apply to the blacks
and at that point there were only three people three groups in in the in the 13
colonies. The whites, the native Indians and the blacks
>> and the constitution did not apply to the other two
>> only applied to the whites who defeated the English and chased the English out.
>> So for about even the civil war, what was the civil war about?
>> It was whether the blacks are our people or not.
>> Yeah. >> To they're not slaves, you see. And
after the civil war, they took them another hundred years to Martin Luther
King before they gave them gave all of them the vote and treated them at least
legally equal. >> Not always.
>> Yeah. At least legally. >> Legally say it comes back to the only
the legal part is only the legal part. But so even United States, can you
compare with Singapore for that? I think actually Singapore is better than the
United States on that one. very clearly better
>> because Singapore the law actually makes it a crime to to to dimate you if you're
rude or to show a racial discrimination and anything you do is against the law
and the law as far as I know would act very promptly
>> about that and that's why minimized the whole tensions of race and so on so far
anyway >> I'm it's always there there's no there's
no nobody pretends that it is it go away. It'll always be there. But the
management, the kind of social engineering that was set up under a
legal a very strong legal system to some extent authoritarian system to make sure
that all these tensions would not be allowed to to take over and break up the
break up the harmony of the society. >> Yeah.
>> Then it is exceptional. As I said, I think it is unique. I can't actually
think of another country which is which has done what the Singaporeans have done
successfully. >> Yeah. Because you have like some
European nations like Switzerland or like you have some uh Middle East
countries like Dubai like the Emirates, Dubai, Abu Dhabi. The majority is like
one ethnic group, one religion, right? >> They are the only citizens. The others
are working there and you can make as much money as you like. Yes.
>> But you are never citizens here. Here is not. it was started. Everybody was an
equal citizen in the eyes of the law. >> That's that and and to preserve that,
refined that and made it more real to most of the young Singaporeans, I think
is exceptional achievement. >> Do you think this setup in Singapore is
fragile or is pretty stable and it's pretty good?
>> Let's put it this way. It can be as strong as it can be if it there was no
interference from outside >> but if powerful forces intervene and
interfere of course it is fragile because it's a small country so depends
>> if if powerful forces from outside leave Singapore alone I think Singapore's
chances of developing a a reunified idea of a Singaporean identity
[clears throat] which was pluristic
is entirely possible. I will I don't it will never be secure. It always have to
be managed and carefully refined and and and watched and and
managed. >> You'll never can never be taken for
granted. >> Yeah. That's why this idea of nationhood
is is really not a not a very helpful one in in some ways except that in the
eyes of United Nations >> we're all equal independent sovereign
equal that's the that's the ideal in the United Nations but the United Nations
doesn't actually run anything can do anything today
>> if big countries intervene United Nations can do nothing that's we've seen
that again and again and Doesn't matter who the big nation is, but a big nation
bullying a small nation, United Nations is pretty helpless. The only time when
they intervene successfully as a United Nation was really the Korean one. And in
the end, it ended up with two Koreas and they still at war. They haven't they
haven't signed a peace agreement between [snorts] the two Koreas till this day.
>> So, United Nation as an ideal, I think, is wonderful. I mean I I as someone who
grew up believing in it I I regret the fact that it has no real and I we should
have been more realistic. It has no real power to actually make make it happen.
>> It depends really in the end on the few great powers that have enough power to
determine that. And when the great powers are in conflict or in tension and
competing with one another then who knows what they will do. Some people
think I just show up at the guest place, press record, and that's it. The video
is done. But right now, six people work full-time and two part-time on this
project. It takes a lot of time, energy, and money. Some interviews takes months
to secure. But we do it because we want to show the world that Asia is a modern,
exciting, and inspiring place and to introduce you to the most interesting
people out there. If that resonates with you, I'd love for you to become an even
bigger part of this project by clicking the join button below. You'll become an
official member and supporter of this channel. You'll get a special page. I'll
see your comments first and you will know that you are helping us keep this
going. Big hug to each of you. Thank you so much for your support and honestly,
you are the best YouTube community I could ever dream of. Thank you so much.
What do you understand about life from the perspective of being 95 year old?
>> Well, I feel that uh it has been a very good century. The
20th century uh the second half of the second the first half was terrible.
>> The second half of the 20th century was a good good time and the beginnings of
the 21st century we thought would be even better but it had a very bad start
almost immediately. and a bad start. And this is why I associate it with the s
the world order being threatened by overconfidence
when the cold war ended because the idea that you're the number one superpower in
the world really [clears throat] distorted the world view of the United
States. And they the triumphant approach they took led them to those
interventionist wars in North Africa and the Middle East which actually
undermined that idea that the United States could provide leadership to the
world and to that extent the millennium started in 2011 and two badly
>> and by 20 2008 the the American economy was beginning to feel troubled because
by that time they All their capitalists had already started to in the liberal
globalization. They started to invest in China on such a large scale benefited
China but undercut the economy manufacturing economy anyway in the
United States and by 2008 they were in considerable trouble. The their
investment planning and so on of course they managed to recover from it. That is
the strength of the American economy and that is why I would never write off the
American economy. I think the capacity to to revive themselves is very strong.
So but all that time of course was a time when the Chinese was given were
given the opportunity to rise very quickly and become a challenge to the
United States in the eyes of the United States. But the fact is that China
didn't do that to challenge the United States. China did that just to benefit
itself, its people >> to make raise their standard of living,
reduce poverty. All these things are none of them can be described as being
bad goals. They are very good goals. They are really meant to to make China
pro more prosperous and wealthy and so on. And also, of course, they strengthen
their defense because they knew that as long as they're weak, they are always
vulnerable. >> That's why South China Sea, it's a big
deal for them and a big big focus >> because the idea that the that a
powerful country like the United States can park their aircraft carriers 25
miles off the coast of China freely anytime they like was unacceptable. What
kind of security is that? I mean an aircraft carrier is not a friendly is
not a friendly ship. It's it's not about freedom of navigation. I mean merchant
ships trading everybody can be can do that. That's absolutely free. The
Chinese would love that. But aircraft carrier is is not that. And the and the
Chinese did that because in 1990s when the jung talked about oh after the
return of Hong Kong we now like to see the return of Taiwan and and so on so
forth. the Americans saved the sailed the seventh fleet through the straits of
Taiwan under President Clinton and and so on and just to show don't you don't
you move you know and so that means the fact that the aircraft carriers and the
sub fleet can go up and down freely just off the coast of China absolutely freely
it sense of vulnerability and insecurity grew out of that previously they had
tried to build a navy with Russian help. But with the end of the Cold War, even
the Russians couldn't help them. And the Russians were not great naval people
anyway by by American standards. So in the end, they had to build their own and
they but now they they're not concentrating on the navy. They know
they can never match the United States Navy as a naval force. What they have
concentrated on, as you know, on missiles, on submarines. In other words,
defensive things. You don't come near. >> The missiles and the submarines will
make sure that you dare not come. You at least will be very careful
>> when you come near. So, they've concentrated on that. And in the South
China Sea, they started to take over some of those islands. But they were not
the first. The Vietnamese have been doing that already and and then
enlarging them to become airfields and so on. And in the eyes of the Chinese,
that is how they see it. It's to defend themselves.
>> So Chinese behavior is is naturally more defensive, not offensive.
>> Some people will argue that the fact that you build an aircraft carrier,
that's an offensive that's an offensive force. Aircraft areas are not defensive.
The aircraft carriers per se is an offensive thing.
>> Yeah. >> But actually, of course, Chinese now
have three. They have three aircraft carriers now,
>> which is like compared to the US, how many How many US have?
>> 11 I think. >> Yeah,
>> 11 aircraft I think. So anyway, the point is that the Chinese realize they
can never if they do what the Soviet Union did and try to match the Americans
ship by ship and weapon by weapon you go bankrupt.
>> What you concentrate on is getting good getting rich getting enough money and
concentrate how you defeat an offensive navy which you can't defeat by sea
yourself. So I think the the concept of continental missiles, intercontinental
missiles and submarines [clears throat] which are nuclear submarines that go
very deep underwater. I think it's a beginning of something. They have also
space using space to help the defense of against any American naval force that
could arrive off the coast of China. So that right now for example the military
the American naval force is no longer off the coast of China. They were
actually down at Guam >> and they come in and out to show that
the freedom of navigation but they do not come as they use parked there you
know as they used to like Gulf of like the Persian Gulf they're parked there.
>> Mhm. >> The in the Mediterranean they're parked
there. >> But the Americans no longer park their
aircraft carriers inside the South China Sea. They come in and out. So that
already is a something I think that it's a bit assuring for the CH. So at the
moment it's not that tense because Americans are also careful. They just
want to assert their right to do it but they're not parking there.
>> So and they park Guam is much further away for aircraft carriers to work from
there. The planes are much longer way to fly. So that and of course the the
missiles which are specially specially [clears throat] I think specially
devised to aim at aircraft carrier teams. They're specially devised to do
that. So that this a deterrence your aircraft team would not get any nearer
because the missiles can always you must have
counter missiles to fight a missile war. Mhm.
>> That's so that's what they're concentrating on at the different level.
So I'm very interested to see that the Chinese are at least realistic enough to
know that they're not going to just match the Americans. You have one more
aircraft carrier. I have another more and this go like the Russians did. I
think they the Russians actually made a bad mistake about that. They they spent
a lot of their money matching the Americans and the economy just could
could not could not develop. Whereas the Chinese are not doing that.
>> Mhm. >> You you can do what you like. We would
find ways and means of deterring you and neutralizing whatever you develop in a
defensive way. >> Yeah.
>> And of course in theory they their intercontinental missiles now can reach
the United States in theory. And of course that of course so they can
nuclear war could actually both sides can use it. So that's another deterrence
for not wanting to to to have a war. >> So I believe that is what all these
things taken together. I think I have reason to be a bit more optimistic
>> than I was before. that part the Chinese are doing what I would consider to be
the minimum necessary to feel secure without concentrating on matching United
States military force which I think would have been a mistake that's that's
how I think the Chinese see it >> from the height of 95 year old what do
you think in life matters much less than people think
>> there's so many things but I think the line is that you can't take it with you.
>> Yeah. >> So you learn that.
>> Yeah. >> So whatever you can attain, whatever you
can you can do and if you do it well, you have reason to be satisfied. If you
do something badly, you you must you must learn from it and make sure that
other people realize that you you know that you have done poorly. So uh I think
people are very very thoughtful and and actually very understanding when you
recognize it yourself and I've been very lucky again in my friends in my students
my colleagues all my life uh people have been extremely kind and always
recognized that I I did try my best I mean I've not been as good as I should
have been but uh it was not because I meant to do harm to anybody. But I
always thought I was doing the right thing but got it wrong or something like
that. >> But in the end I was consistent in one
thing that I was always willing to learn and uh and whatever I learned if I
thought it would be useful for others to know I was always happy to to teach
>> to pass it on. >> Yeah. And this is very satisfying if I
can achieve that. And if I turn out to be right and sometimes I can turn out to
be right then of course it's even better. But even when I'm wrong, if I
can recognize that I'm wrong and other people know that I recognize that I was
wrong, even that is all right. Then you've learned something. You learn that
that was wrong. So that I won't do that again. I don't believe in that anymore.
So that you learn you learn from that as well. M
>> you not only learn what is positive, you learn what is negative. And this is one
of the things about Chinese historioggraphy which is I find very
interesting. The idea of history writing that we learn in the west really is a a
professional thing that started in the 19th century. There was no such thing as
a professional historian before that. History was written by people who either
you know just keeping records and knowing telling what they did and what
they thought. uh but they were not history as a profession like uh u what
is it the famous uh van franka lio funka was a man who defined history as a
search of truth what really happened so he was right he had a scientific
approach towards history and he created the profession but that was only in the
19th century but history goes back thousands of years when people kept
records what were these records kept for and from what I can understand The
Chinese represent that as the most continuous record by one set of people
from Sumachen the 3rd century BC produce a historical record down to the
present is one tradition of history writing and the history writing is not
history for its own sake. History was always what can we learn from the past
that will help the future. There was always a practical side to it. M
>> and what you do is you don't you don't try to know exactly what happened. That
was of no importance. What is important is that what do you know from the
documents that have survived? What documents should you preserve that would
tell the future what was right and what was wrong.
>> So you select and collect those documents that teach you what was
successful and what didn't work. and you collect them and that is what they call
history. We we translate the word as history but the original meaning of it
was actually documents records. >> So they not telling you this is what
actually happened. They are saying these are the documents that have been
preserved in order for you to learn. So that every dynasty then thereafter they
became the the habit they developed the tradition of every dynasty writing the
history of the previous dynasty that failed and collecting all their
documents that have survived and selecting from those documents to show
what worked and what didn't work so that the next dynasty or the the present
dynasty >> can learn from it. And each dynasty did
that for the next dynasty. And they did that for all those dynasty down to Tong
Ying Ching down to the Republic of China. And that attitude towards history
remains. If you look at the Chinese even down to this day, they don't pretend
that their history writing is the truth. That's not the important thing. Even
when they turned to rewriting the history along Marxist Leninist terms,
they what they did was they thought Marx was correct. Marxist view of history was
correct. So they rewrote their history to try and understand how Marxist idea
of progress >> can be demonstrated through their
history. >> And when it didn't work, they gave it
up. Now they don't write Marxist history anymore in China. Now they actually gone
back to a kind of donastic history in which they say what did the previous
dynasty teach us. So what they do right the kind of history now they're learning
is what went wrong with the Republic of China in 1911 to 1949 they failed we
don't make those mistakes mustn't make those mistakes anymore what went wrong
with the MA cultural revolution we mustn't make those mistakes anymore we
learn from each time so for example simple example most most important one
to my mind is that we don't use the word revolution anymore
>> the revolution is 1949 we had a revolution second revol
two revolutions 911 192049 but the second revolution was successful
we don't need another revolution what we need is to reform
>> to reform what was achieved by the revolution because we made mistakes like
madong made mistakes or other mistakes we learn from that we make sure we don't
make the same mistakes again and then we progress and we learn from everybody
else we learn from the west. West number one, west number two, examples of Japan,
Korea, economic examples and so on. Industrial development, industrial
capitalism, we [clears throat] learn each time we learn, we learn and then we
pass it on and then we can develop an understanding of the idea of progress
that we learn from K Mars. >> On the level one to 10, how happy are
you? >> I've been I've been relatively happy.
Yes, I'm happy because my >> like on the level 1 to 10,
>> my ch my children are doing well. My grandchildren
are doing well. I'm waiting to be a great grandfather. Yeah. But from the
family side, I've been have every reason to be to be happy.
>> Yeah. >> Uh as as I said, my wife gave me a
wonderful family and provided me with a kind of support that made it easier for
me to be [clears throat] happy. So I I have no unhappiness
>> in my in my own environment. What I'm unhappy about of course is that u in
large in broad sense political leaders are not always wise. They don't actually
learn from the past even though some of them know it. Some of them of course
don't know it. So they they make mistakes because they're ignorant. And
there are lots of political leaders who are basically ignorant. But uh they're
only clever about winning in elections or and winning power in a in a limited
framework. But it hurts me to see governments fail
and people suffer because they don't learn from mistakes in the past and they
continue to make mistakes to be willful and just in a way just considering the
interest of their own group or themselves and their own elite groups
and so on. a kind of selfishness and narrowness that creates so much pain and
and and hurt and harm everywhere. And the too many political leaders like that
for for the human race or the human the humanity
>> to to really make genuine progress. It slows us down. It makes us cause a lot
of harm to a lot of people and it's happening every day today and it's uh
unavoidable probably but that creates that gives me great unhappiness. I've
never been happy with that because I see it all the time even though I'm happy
myself. I I can I have been very lucky as I said I've avoided the worst of
these things but I see it happening and I see the people suffering for it
everywhere. Some for reasons which are very hard to understand. Some for
historical reasons, but are they justified? I find very few of them are
really justified for the kind of killing and violence and the damage they do to
human lives. That is a part of uh our humanity that I I can say I deeply
regret. >> Professor, you are 95.
>> Yeah. >> 95. How does it feel to be 95?
Well, I feel uh very lucky to be around. I never expected to expected to be alive
for so long. I mean, I was uh uh I was always regularly
sick with this or that over the years. I'm not a I'm not a particularly healthy
or strong person. I I don't do regular exercises or anything like that, but I I
always kept busy. uh and there were there were times when I was not well
often unwell when I had to cancel all appointments and so on but I've been
very lucky that I have not at up to m anyway touch wood I haven't I haven't
developed any um really serious illness that would take
me off but so I'm still around >> but I don't know why I mean as as they
say I mean I guess it could be genetic it could be but but my mother My mother
was lived to age 8. My father died quite young. It was only 68 or 69. So I can't
even say it's entirely genetic. But it could be because my father had a very
tough childhood. And so there were other reasons why he he did not live as long.
But my mother lived to 88. So >> and for that generation to live to 88 is
is fantastic. >> Yeah. On a personal level, do you have
any regrets in life? Oh, many many many [laughter] lots of regrets. But I think
I I I I would say that I have a very positive attitude towards those things
that the mistakes I've made, the things that I've not done correctly or did
something foolish and so on. I take that as lessons learned
>> and uh I don't take I don't take it too much to heart. I learned the lesson,
make sure they don't don't do it again >> and uh find better ways of doing things
and avoid making mistakes and do my best to do all the things that would reach
what I want to reach. But most of all, I think help me to learn. That's the most
important because when I chose to be an an academic to work in a university, I
recognized that I never wanted to work for any government.
That's what I I wanted to work for a university and that so the important
thing for me is to find a university where they respect academic freedom and
I've been very very lucky from the time I started as an undergraduate till now.
I've always been in universities where elite mate not the first one in China
during the civil war I was a nationalist one they were also quite controlled but
I didn't feel I was too young to feel matter but since I've been an academic
as a scholar working and teaching in a university
>> I've been very lucky I've been in every university that I've worked for and been
in I've had the academic freedom >> and that is to me absolutely invaluable
because enable me to learn whatever I want to learn. So the if I have any
regrets there regrets I made when I had administrative responsibilities and I'm
not a natural administrator and don't particularly enjoy administration
whereas what I like to do is I like to learn and teach what I to to teach what
I learn. If I learn and I want to pass it on to others, that's my my ambition
in life. When I decided to win academic, that's what I wanted to do to learn and
to be able to transmit what I learned by teaching.
>> Are you afraid of death? That's that's the end.
>> Can happen anytime. I mean, I never thought about it before. Now I have to
think about it because just to make sure that it I don't leave a mess behind. So
I like to get things a bit prepared and ready. So if anything happens, my
children will know what to do and uh and they know what to do and my wife and I
have both feel the same way with never any doubts, any worries about that. And
my children are very good. They have understood what we what we want
>> and they know what to expect and uh of course they wish me well and I'm still
around. But if I'm not, they more or less know what what what have to be done
what has to be done. >> And that that's very satisfactory. What
is there to feel? >> [music]