Transcript of Interview with Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo by the Straits Times US Bureau Chief, Derwin Pereira, New York, 30 September 2007

DP: ASEAN has expressed revulsion at the violent repression of demonstrations in Myanmar. Does this mark a break from ASEAN's policy of non-interference?

Min: We decided that we were not in a position to defend Myanmar internationally about a year and a half ago. When, with Myanmar's permission, ASEAN dispatched a special envoy to Myanmar in the person of Syed Hamid, it showed by the way they handled his visit that they rather deal with the UN than with ASEAN. We had to respond. We therefore decided that we could not have a common position in ASEAN to defend Myanmar in the UN or the ILO or anywhere else. Of course, each country would still have its own national position. It was not that we had no view on Myanmar. But we could no longer defend Myanmar internationally because we were not in a position to do so. The recent events in Myanmar gave us no choice. We had to express our common emotion over what was happening there. If here at the UN we had no common response, how could we face the Secretary General? Or we say to the other countries? We would have lost all credibility. This was the decision we had to confront when we met. We did not arrange to meet over Myanmar. We had already arranged to meet months ago to finalize the ASEAN Charter, and indeed that was the first thing on our agenda. Tommy Koh and the task force did a very good job which enabled us to wrap things up quickly.

This gave us about an hour before our next appointment with the UN Secretary General to settle our position on Myanmar. Before that meeting, as ASEAN chairman, I knew that I must have a position. So, I crafted some words for myself. When it clearly the wish of all the foreign ministers of ASEAN that there should either be a joint statement or a Chairman's statement, I used the draft I had with me as a basis for discussion. Various amendments were made and the Foreign Ministers agreed for me to issue that statement. When I read out the statement, all the Foreign Ministers were with me to show everyone that they associated themselves with the statement. It became de facto the ASEAN position, a clear and strong position, which we delivered with a heavy heart. It was a family meeting where we had to confront one member who had behaved badly. It was unpleasant but unavoidable. Whatever others may say, it remains for us that Myanmar is a member of the ASEAN family, and good or bad, we can't avoid a certain association, a certain responsibility, a certain connection, with the fate of that country. But we have very little leverage over the internal development there. What we have is moral influence as members of the ASEAN family. We can't do what the big powers can do in terms of trade embargo or freezing of bank accounts.

DP: Is it a significant shift in policy?

Min: To the world, it might appear to be so. But to ourselves, no. For some time now, we have been telling Myanmar to adhere to its own road map to democracy, we have been calling on them to release Aung Sun Suu Kyi and other political detainees. It was for some time now a source of irritation. Every time before we met, they would renew her detention notice. They said they were not doing it deliberately to irritate us but because it was at that time that her renewal notice came up for renewal. That explanation gave us no consolation. Every time Myanmar was raised, we heard the same old line about ethnic groups still being armed, the constitutional convention still in progress, and so on. The fact is the old way clearly no longer works. A fresh approach is needed. But that fresh approach if it is to have any chance of success requires national reconciliation. Mind you this is not just the responsibility of the SPDC government, it requires the other parties to cooperate and compromise. In a sense, they have been negotiating. The fact that the SPDC government had allowed Gambari on his earlier visits to see Aung Sun Suu Kyi was itself a signal that they were prepared to deal. And she has herself shown willingness to deal by receiving Gambari. But both sides took tough positions. Well, with the demonstrations and with the events that have taken place, the negotiating power relationship has shifted. With the world's support, Aung Sun Suu Kyi now has a stronger position. But if either side presses its claims too hard, and takes brinkmanship too far, it can all come to grief. One may argue that in the end, history is on one side and not the other. But that suggests that things must get much worse before it gets better. What is the point of that? Many people will then have to die first. If we can find a way forward which engages all parties, then we minimize the pain, the violence and the hardship. It cannot be that we must first bring everything down and only from the ashes will a new Myanmar emerge. That cannot be the game plan. That is certainly not ASEAN's game plan.

DP: If the military junta continues to ignore ASEAN's calls to end the violent repression, would the group consider sanctions against a fellow member state? What about suspending or expelling Myanmar?

Min: I don't know what we can do. Even if we do the worst, it will hardly have any impact because the back gate to China is wide open and the side gate to India is wide open. We can't possibly do more than what the West has done. What the West has done has had minimal impact on Myanmar. We have to very sober and modest about our own capabilities. But we do have one thing which the others don't have which is that we are family and the family can exert moral pressure which no one else can.

DP: Does ASEAN have much any influence over Yangon compared to countries like China and India?

Min: Because Myanmar is a member of ASEAN, China and India feel much more comfortable if their positions on Myanmar are in line with ASEAN's. Our strong reaction in New York has put some pressure on China and India also to readjust their positions. They do not want to be so far out of line with ASEAN that they look to the world as unreasonable.

International views on Myanmar in the world cover a spectrum. At one end, we have the western countries, particularly the US and Europe, which take a partisan position. It is very clear that their sympathies are with Aung San Suu Kyi. At the other end of the spectrum is China. China has close relations with the SPDC government. Because China takes that position, India has no choice but to take a similar position. After all Myanmar is a buffer state between India and China. If China has too much influence on Myanmar, it will be to India's disadvantage. For a long time, China had roads to the border and built roads from the border into Myanmar itself. Recently, India decided it too should do likewise. And we in ASEAN thought that was a good thing because then through Myanmar and mainland Southeast Asia, we facilitate links between China and India. That is good for everybody. And indeed, that must remain our long-term objective. But all this requires Myanmar to remain a part of ASEAN and for the big powers to refrain from interfering in Myanmar's domestic politics. So on this spectrum, we have the West at one end, and China and to a lesser extent India, on the other. ASEAN is closer to the middle. I had a meeting with the Japanese Foreign Minister Komura yesterday. He wanted to exchange views and compare notes on Myanmar. It was unfortunate that a Japanese journalist had just been killed. I told him that it was better for Japan not to take the Western position but to work closely with ASEAN and also with China to help bring about a happy outcome for Myanmar. I would place Japan's position on the spectrum closer to ASEAN.

DP: Can ASEAN get China and India to do more?

Min: ASEAN has no leverage over China and India. They are major powers in the region. But we know that they watch closely the position we take in ASEAN. If we have any influence on them, it is in the position that we take which we know they take their alignment from. Some of their diplomats have reacted with some surprise to the strength of the ASEAN statement. Some of their diplomats have suggested that ASEAN should take the lead. It is not clear what they mean by that. They know that ASEAN has little leverage except the leverage of moral influence.

DP: Is there a risk of ASEAN's reputation being tarnished with member countries, including Singapore, continuing with their business links with Yangon?

Min: We are an international trading and financial centre. The important thing for us to do is to ensure that we are high quality jurisdiction and that for as long as you are operating from Singapore, whether you are Singaporean or non-Singaporean, you observe all international obligations. Whether that is a UN position or a WTO position, we adhere to them, and we will enforce them according to the law regardless of whether it is a Singaporean or non-Singaporean entity. We can't have separate rules for Singaporean and non-Singaporean companies. This is our position. It is the only practical position that we can take given the nature of the economy. If the US decides to freeze bank accounts, then our banks whether Singaporean or foreign banks in Singapore, will have to react accordingly.

DP: Thant Myint-U, the grandson of U Thant, said in an interview with The Straits Times that regime change in Myanmar will lead to another Iraq. Do you agree; if so, what is the best way forward for Myanmar?

Min: Although not easy, it is best for the parties involved to work towards national reconciliation. It is not just a matter between the SPDC Government and ASSK. The country has many ethnic groups some of which are still heavily armed. Burmans make up only half the population. Unfortunately, there is not enough trust. This is why the work of Gambari is so important. Regime change is easier said than done. Without the military being a part of the solution, there can be no peaceful solution.

DP: The turmoil in Myanmar comes at a time when ASEAN is about to launch moves for closer integration. Has the crisis tested the group's cohesion and unity?

Min: Absolutely! In fact, we discussed this openly among ourselves. We asked how we could possibly talk about ASEAN integration and dispute settlement mechanisms, if we ducked such an important issue. If we did that, we would lose all credibility and respect. When we talked about ASEAN integration in the future, the international community would ignore us. We would feel ashamed when we looked ourselves in the mirror. So, the Ministers were determined to look the challenge in the eye and respond. We had to hold our heads up high. When we assembled that morning, each of us had this feeling in himself but we were not sure about others. However, when we started talking, it became quickly clear that all of us felt the same way. For this reason, achieving consensus that morning was not difficult. There was some disagreement over whether it should be a joint statement or a Chairman's statement but everyone agreed that it should be a joint ASEAN presentation. Instead of my going out alone to talk to the media, we brought the media in with all of us seated as a group.

DP: Have the ASEAN foreign ministers agreed on the terms of the draft charter? What does the charter hope to accomplish? Is ASEAN's position on Myanmar a precursor of what we can expect in the charter?

Min: The charter is a major step forward for ASEAN but not a panacea. When a big issue comes up like Myanmar, there is no substitute for leaders and ministers meeting and confronting the specific aspects of the problem. Even without a charter, we can always do what we need to do. The Charter will help us to establish a certain pattern of behaviour. The institutionalization of procedures will help us respond to situations such as the one we now face. We have settled the remaining items of the Charter. I am not at liberty to go into the details because we have agreed that when it is time to release the details, we will do it together. But I can tell you that we have achieved agreement on having a human rights body. The details will be sorted out later, but we have agreed that there will be a human rights body established in ASEAN. When the leaders meet at the November Summit, they will be able to sign the Charter. I hope that progress would have been made in Myanmar by that time so that the situation there will not be a cloud over our meeting and the signing of the Charter. We have also agreed that to turn up in Davos at the World Economic Forum in January. PM Lee will be there himself. He has written letters inviting all the other ASEAN leaders to participate as well. I met Dr Klaus Schwab, the chairman of the WEF, a few days ago. We are working out the details now. It would be a good time to talk about ASEAN, the Charter and if, necessary, Myanmar.

DP: What are the implications for Southeast Asian countries of having a human rights body in the charter?

Min: Human rights has become a part of the UN and of the civilized world. As Indonesian Foreign Minister once said, we should not be allergic to any mention of human rights. Surely we support and not oppose human rights in ASEAN. But some countries have reservations because of the way human rights had been selectively invoked in the past as a way to put political pressure on them. They do not want the creation of an institution in ASEAN, which instead of safeguarding human rights, ends up being made use of by others and politicized by others. We expressed these considerations to Tommy Koh and members of his task force. When they draw up the terms of reference for the human rights body, they should take into account these concerns.

DP: What confidence can Singaporeans and the rest of the region have on the ASEAN charter and proclamations of regional unity given that there are so many bilateral problems?

Min: There are many bilateral problems and there are also many national problems. But all these problems are harder to solve without ASEAN. It doesn't mean that with ASEAN, all these problems will go away. They will not. But the fact that we have an ASEAN will increase our chances of being able to overcome our challenges. Each of us is better off with ASEAN than without ASEAN. But it does not mean that we have no more problems.

DP: Is an EU-style integration nothing but a dream for ASEAN?

Min: I don't think we will ever become a union because that presupposes a commonality in our civilization basis which we don't have. Whether Europeans are from Portugal or Slovenia, they have the same reference points in Greece, Rome and Judeo-Christianity. They share a common inheritance in music, in poetry, in so many areas. One might even say that the European Union is a reincarnation of the Roman Empire in modern times. Many European leaders have tried at various points in their long history to reincarnate the Roman Empire and never quite succeeded. But some of the old symbols and ideals of Rome have resurfaced again and again in the Roman Catholic Church, in Constantinople, and after Constantinople fell, in Tsarist Russia. Symbols like the double-headed eagle had its origin in Roman times. There are deep resonances of ancient Greece and Rome in the body politic of Europe. We don't have the same resonances connecting us in ASEAN. Instead, we are defined by our geographical position in between China and India, alternately influenced by both. Our cultures in Southeast Asia are cosmopolitan. There are a lot of inter-marriages especially among the elites. We are diverse, reflecting the diverse influences on us. We do have our commonalities but they are profoundly different from the commonalities that exist in Europe. So, while we study from the European experience in terms of objectives and institutional innovations, we know that we are not them. We have to be very specific and clear about our own circumstances. We have to be realistic about what is possible.

DP: What is ASEAN doing on climate change considering that Indonesia provides the world's second largest forest cover? Should the developed countries help to pay for the preservation of these forests as Indonesia has so suggested? Are you hopeful of a successor to the Kyoto accord being announced in Bali?

Min: This is now right at the top of our agenda for the coming ASEAN Summit, the ASEAN plus meetings, the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN-EU Summit. The world needs a good outcome at the Bali UN climate change conference in December. When I was in Brazil recently, I visited the Amazon and received good briefings. The Amazon is the largest expanse of tropical forest in the world. The second is in Southeast Asia. We are similar but different because Southeast Asia consists of islands and peninsulas, the greatest archipelago in the world. Here we also have mangrove swamps and coral reefs, all of which are important in the global climate equation.

Last year, which was a minor El Nino year, an enormous area of forests was burnt in Indonesia, and a great amount of carbon was set into the atmosphere. When I was in Brazil they explained to me the intimate connection between the health of the Amazon and El Nino. Big forces are at play when warm water bodies meet north and south, east and west in the Pacific, affecting the behaviour of winds and hurricanes around the world.

To meet the challenge of climate change, it is crucial first to bring in the US because it is the world's biggest economy and the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. That is fundamental. The US must not only come in, it must also take the lead. The recent meeting in Washington was a plus but it should only begin a process. It can't be a one-off event. Then we need to bring in the developing countries who feel that it is not possible for them to cut down carbon emissions when they need the energy to grow. When I discussed India's policy with Minister Pranab Mukherjee, he explained India's position which I found quite persuasive. He called on the developed world to bring down the energy consumed per dollar of GDP. Then let that be a ceiling on developing countries. The more developed countries are able to save energy and bring down the ceiling, the more restrained developing countries would have to be. That's fair for everybody. That is the Indian position. The Chinese have also been very concerned about this issue. They issued a White Paper in China recently and have become quite preoccupied with the whole issue of environmental protection and sustainable development. India, China and many developing countries are worried that the restraints the developed countries are proposing will affect their ability to develop and stifle their growth. This is a legitimate concern. What we need are counterpoints of leadership in the developing world to leadership to match those of the US, Europe and Japan. I see four major players in the developing world: China, India, Brazil and Indonesia. These countries occupy large surfaces of the planet, either land or sea. And I was very impressed by President SBY's recent speech where he said that Indonesia strives to be, among the developing countries, the most efficient in the use of energy. It is important for Indonesia to take a leadership position on this issue among the developing countries. It was good that Indonesia at the UN convened a meeting of countries with big forests. They take a position which I consider reasonable. The forests that they protect in their countries serve not only themselves but also the larger world. They need assistance to protect these forests. The coming UNFCCC meeting in Bali under Indonesia's chairmanship is very important to the whole world. Singapore has a vested interest because the environment of Southeast Asia envelops us. When the forests burn, we get the haze. If the waters are polluted, they wash onto our shores. If the sea level rises too much, we are sunk. We will work with Indonesia and other countries to ensure good outcomes at the coming meetings in November and in Bali. We will give the meeting in Bali our fullest support.

DP: As China and India become greater powers, both will be competing for the same space and resources, and ASEAN will find itself increasingly squeezed in between. Do you see countries in Southeast Asia coming under increasing pressure to accommodate the demands of the two largest powers in Asia?

Min: I am much more optimistic than that. In the past, whenever there was prosperity in India or China, part of that prosperity extended to us in Southeast Asia. In this century, with good prospect of both prospering, our own future is bright provided we make the adjustments. We will benefit from their growth and their development. In fact, we are really feeling the effects in Singapore. One reason why our growth is so good now, one reason why our real estate is so buoyant, is because of growing wealth in China and India. And this is just the beginning. So provided we don't do the wrong things in ASEAN, we will boom with them. Of course, if we have a situation like Myanmar, what can we do? But I am optimistic. Of course China and India will try to increase their influence in Southeast Asia. Will we want to be exclusively tied to one or the other? Of course not. And the Chinese and the Indians understand this. When Zhu Rongji signed the framework agreement with ASEAN leaders in Phnom Penh on the FTA with China and Southeast Asia in 2002, he made a very important remark. He said China does not seek for itself an exclusive position in Southeast Asia. He knew that Southeast Asia would want to have strong links with America, Japan, Europe, India, Australia and other parts of the world as well. The Indians also understand this and have pressed their claims lightly. It is good that all the big powers are our friends and all of them want us to succeed and become more integrated.

DP: Are there differences in perceptions in ASEAN towards the rise of China?

Min: There are always differences in national interests and differences in historical experiences. If you look at Vietnam, for a thousand years, Vietnam was part of the Chinese empire - from the Han Dynasty to the Tang Dynasty. Then since the collapse of the Tang Dynasty, Vietnam became independent but has had many wars with China. Many of the national heroes in Vietnam were those who fought against Chinese dynasties. So it should not be surprising that the relationship between Vietnam and China should be a little complicated because of this history. Today, their relations are very good but certain feelings remain.

If you look at the other countries of Southeast Asia which are more distant from China and have not had the experiences of Vietnam, they still remember the old tributary relationships with China. Sulu, Javanese Sultanates, Sukhotai, Ayuthaya, Malacca and others, all paid tribute to Imperial China. And the echoes of those relationships can sometimes be heard in soft reverberations today. But now we have the WTO and we have our links to other parts of the world. The Chinese are very conscious of this. So, when they deal with countries Southeast Asia, they take care to respect the role of ASEAN. They tell us repeatedly that they don't want to do anything which weakens ASEAN. That is a triumph of our diplomacy - for the major powers to see the strength and influence of ASEAN as being in their own interests.

DP: What are the implications for the rest of Asia of a rapid Chinese military build-up?

Min: I am not sure how rapid their build up is. It was a very backward military under Mao. When China fought Vietnam in 1978-79, it was ill-equipped. While the Chinese succeeded in achieving their strategic objectives, they took a lot of casualties in the field. Since then, they made the modernization of their military an integral part of the modernisation of the whole country. If you watch their recent developments, the major military projects they have embarked on and allocated resources to, all turn on the Taiwan scenario. If they have to fight a war with the US over Taiwan, they need certain capabilities. That is what's driving them. Of course, once you have the capability then that capability can be used for other purposes. Intentions can change overnight but capabilities are enduring. For this reason, there have been calls on the Chinese to be more open and transparent in defence matters. And they are responding. This year at the Shangri-La Dialogue they had a senior military man come and I believe this will be the pattern for the future. They have good military relations with all the ASEAN countries. The Chinese are more prepared now to share, to exchange and to assure us of their good intentions.

DP: Do you see China's build-up fuelling an arms race emerging in the region?

Min: Many scholars have studied arms races in human history. If you read Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War', those who govern a state must understand war. Every country must worry about situations where their own sovereignty is endangered. Each country must react to the moves of others but there is a limit. If you over arm yourselves, your economic development will be affected and that must affect your ultimate military capability. The Soviet Union devoted so much resources to armament, its economy collapsed eventually. So every country must a balance between the resources it allocates to development and the resources it allocates to defence. The balancing and rebalancing never ends. Yes, China will react to the US, India will react to China, China will react to India, Vietnam will react to China, and Southeast Asia will react to everybody, and it goes on and on. It is an unending process. What the Chinese does is in itself a reaction to others. It would not be fair to put the blame on China which is itself reacting to others. There are always national aspirations. They don't always coincide. Rivalry is a condition of existence between and among nation-states.

DP: With Russia now entering the geopolitics of the region, what does it mean for the US role in Asia?

Min: The US will always have a major role to play in Asia in terms of its strategic weight and as a source of investment and technology. It is also increasingly a balancer in Asia. With the rise of China and India, it will become easier for the US to play that role because instinctively Asian countries will want the US to be part of their political and economic environment.

DP: Do you see the US stepping up to the plate with regards to ensuring peace and stability in Asia, and in particular handling the Myanmar crisis?

Min: The US is already there. In fact, it is the only country with that kind of force projection capability. When we had the tsunami in 2004, it was only the US which had the full array of transportation capabilities. We could do some things in Aceh because we were nearby but it was only the US which had the comprehensive naval and air capabilities to do what it did. And that will remain for a long time to come.

DP: For Singapore and Asia, does it really matter who wins the American presidential race next year?

Min: From the viewpoint of foreign policy, it should not matter very much because the US external policy is likely to be stable. On Iraq, for example, I can't believe that a new president would pull out US forces precipitously. That will be a disaster for the entire region and eventually for the US as well. It is the domestic policy which can be different depending on who wins. That may impact us through the international economy.

DP: Does the US fixation with the Middle East mean that Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, will remain on the backburner in Washington for another decade?

Min: The US system operates in response to crisis and particular situations. That is in the nature of the system. It is very difficult for them to concentrate on too many issues at one time. Their preoccupation now is with the Middle East - Palestine, Iraq and Iran. Yes, we are not an urgent issue for them which is not a bad thing. We can't expect to have a similar claim on their time and energy unless something terrible happens. We have to be realistic. Of course, there is the problem in Myanmar but by and large we are doing quite well. ASEAN's external diplomacy is balance. We welcome a continuing US presence. True, Condi Rice could not make it to Manila but she had to attend to urgent matters in the Middle East. So she made it a point to meet us in New York instead. President Bush had to postpone the summit in Singapore because he needed those few hours in the Anbhar province in Iraq. Sure we could understand that. To make up when he met ASEAN leaders in Sydney, he said 'let's meet at my ranch in Texas'. That was a nice touch, to invite us to his home. We discussed the summit in Texas with Condi Rice and the response from ASEAN ministers to the invitation from Bush was uniformly positive.

DP: More broadly, do you see the emergence of a bipolar world, one in which principally the US and China will compete for power and influence? Alternatively, will it be a multi-polar one where delicate balance of power prevails between America and a range of great powers that include China, Russia, India, Japan and Europe?

Min: I don't see a bipolar world re-emerging. There are too many players in the world now. And globalization has given smaller countries options which they did not have in the past. No one is going to be a client state of anybody. Everyone wants to join as many international and regional clubs as possible; hence, the proliferation of regional groupings. It is going to be a multipolar world. It will be a messy world because when you have multipolar interactions, the outcomes are less predictable. You also need to establish rules. If there are only two poles, it is not difficult to settle those rules, whether spoken or unspoken. When you have multiple players, it becomes much more complicated. That is one reason why it has become so difficult to conclude the Doha Round. There are just too many players and too many variables in the equation.

DP: Is there hope still for the Doha Round?

Min: The positions are actually not far apart. For agriculture, we are down to subsidies which are in the billions of dollars. But the economists tell us that the addition to total global welfare of a successful conclusion of the Doha Round is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. So it is absurd that because of the disagreement over billions of dollars, we leave hundreds of billions on the table. We need political will to close the final deal. For that you need leadership. The US executives - Bush, Paulson and Susan Schwab - are all anxious to conclude. But the US congress is less enthusiastic because it is preoccupied with elections and has become more protectionist. Then other countries are asking themselves whether this is the right time to strike a deal. If the US position can't move because of domestic political pressure, they will have to concede more than they want to. These are the games countries play. Unfortunately, it also means that we are holding back on a deal that can benefit so many people.

DP: Do you see Islamic radicalism on the rise in Southeast Asia? What will this mean for Singapore?

Min: Global Islam is going through a difficult period in its history. Islam is not just a personal religion. Islam is also a religion about how society should be organized. So in societies where Muslims are in the majority, it is very difficult to confine Islam to the personal sphere. That is in the nature of the teaching of Islam itself. In Islam, there is no bifurcation of religion and state. Because of this, Islam today is caught up with a political challenge: how Muslim societies should be organized in response to modern day challenges. It has not really found a good way to the future. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to different approaches, none of which has been really successful. Attartuck rejected the Caliphate and launched Turkey on a different path of development. They gave up the Arabic script, romanized the language and made Turkey a secular society. That was a revolution still being debated. Then there was the Nasserite road to socialism during the Cold War. It inspired others like Muhammad Gaddafi. It led nowhere. Then you had the conservative groups like the kingdoms and sheikhdoms of the Gulf. They thought that the best way to respond to modernization is by going back to old values and tribal arrangements, which meant no democracy. In Southeast Asia, there was a parallel process. Indonesia had the revolution, got rid of all its sultans. There was a big debate about the nature of the Indonesian Constitution, whether it should be Pancasila or something Islamic. That debate continues in Indonesia. In Malaysia, a different accommodation was found between the old and the new which continues to present itself as tensions in Malaysian society. In southern Philippines and southern Thailand, separatism is an additional complication.

The Muslim Brotherhood offered an alternative approach. It saw in a return to the pure values of Islam, the way to order human society. It encouraged a return to the pure teachings of Islam. That is the best way to transform individual countries and indeed the world. The thinking of the Brotherhood evolved into a number of variations. Some took the path of revolution which met crackdown and imprisonment in Egypt. A number were executed in Egypt. Others were put away. It almost came to power in Algeria until the military intervened. We see a new variant in Hamas. The Brotherhood also inspires the PKS in Indonesia and PAS in Malaysia. This is a continuing debate. In a multiracial society, that kind of thinking frightens non-Muslims. In the recent Jakarta elections, the PKS candidate had to assure the Chinese and the abangan Muslims that they are not extremists. But many people are still suspicious. In Malaysia, PAS says that it stands for multiracialism. But the non-Muslims are not so sure. These are the different strains in the world. Along the path of evolution, one strain mutated into Jihadi terrorism. It is in fact against the teachings of Islam and against the teachings of the mainstream Brotherhood.

We can't solve this problem by ourselves in Singapore because we are part of a much larger phenomenon affecting the entire Muslim world. But we must understand the forces at play. It will be very wrong of us to paint all Muslims or all members of the Brotherhood with the tar of terrorism. The key is to work with the good to fight the bad. And the more we understand the elements in detail, the better we will be able to address the problem, minimizing the side effects. It's like if you have a precision instrument, then you can be very accurate in dealing with the problem. But if you have a blunt instrument, when you act against the problem, there will be a lot of collateral damage. The only way to be accurate is to understand the nature of the problem which is why I went back to the history. Terrorism is a malignant mutation of a particular movement in Islam. How did that mutation come about? It is partly frustration, partly provocation. We need a deep understanding to tackle the problem effectively. At one level, we can take precautions, catch people who are trouble makers and defuse bombs. But it also involves winning over the larger community and fighting wrong ideas. To a certain extent, we also need to insulate ourselves from negative external influences. We can't avoid a complex response. It has to be a multi-faceted response. If we simplify the response, we will be make big mistakes.

DP: What is your biggest fear for Singapore?

Min: My biggest fear for Singapore is the effect of globalization on our social cohesion. It is clear that the majority of Singaporeans are benefiting greatly from the success of our policies. We are now becoming an international city with multiple links to all the centres of growth and development in the world. So Singaporeans are finding opportunities everywhere. Some have become very wealthy. We have many Singaporeans now doing well in New York, London, Shanghai and elsewhere. Our standing as a country has gone up. Many developing countries now hold Singapore up as a model.

But there is a group of Singaporeans, and they are not an insignificant number, who are not able to take advantage of all these opportunities either because they lack the education, or are in poor health or suffer bad luck. We must make sure we don't become two Singapores. If we become two Singapores, there will be resentment, there will be opposition to doing the right things and we would not be able to seize the new opportunities before us. For this reason, many of our policies are now directed towards making sure that we do not become two Singapores. Asset enhancement, CPF reform, the subsidization of work especially for older Singaporeans, educating the young to the maximum of their potential, job retraining, are all part of this. Our subsidy of health, education and housing enables every new generation to be brought to the starting line of global competition. We must make sure of this. Government alone cannot solve this problem. It has to be a part of our instinct and value system to stay one family. We can't allow a second Singapore to emerge by neglect or by insensitivity. That to me is the single most challenge before us. It is a political, economic and cultural challenge. In MFA, we have a tradition of recruiting a small number of disabled people. I inherited this policy. It showed that senior Foreign Service officers and HR managers in the past had the sensitivity to help the disabled. And if each one does his bit, then there is no problem. But if everyone says it is not his problem, then a small problem becomes a big problem for society. Private philanthropy is critical. I am not only talking of big acts of giving like those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, but of everyone doing his part, making social action a part of his daily life. Everyone can be a volunteer. If we can make this sensitivity to others a part of our culture, we will stay one and react to challenges as one. Then our future will be very bright indeed.

. . . . .