Singapore, 2004

First, I would like to

congratulate His Excellency Mr. Jean Ping of Gabon, on

his election as the President of the General Assembly.

We meet in New York under conditions of high

security. All over the world, Governments,

corporations and individuals are allocating vast

resources to combat terrorism. The Beslan massacre

last month and the Jakarta bombing two weeks ago

remind us once again that the war against terrorism is a

long struggle. Fighting it requires us to cooperate

worldwide. It is also important for us to understand

more deeply why terrorists are prepared to sacrifice

their own lives to take the lives of others, including

those of innocent children.

The human condition has not changed. There is in

human beings a restless, competitive spirit that strives

to get ahead, make discoveries and order or reorder the

world according to their values and world-view. It is a

drive that can lead to great good or great evil.

The greatest evil is often committed out of a

sense of self-righteousness. That has been the case

throughout history. Al Qaeda carries out its actions in

the name of Islam, which is a gross perversion.

Religious wars are the most cruel because human

beings are maimed and killed in the name of the divine.

Ethnic and ideological conflicts sometimes turn

30

genocidal when one side believes that right is

completely on its side.

Unrestrained economic competition can also lead

to grave injustice. Without rules, ruthless economic

competition will return us to the jungle. Without the

World Trade Organization (WTO), globalization can

become a tool with which the strong can dominate the

weak, just as in an earlier period entire continents were

carved up by imperial Powers.

Global organizations like the United Nations and

WTO give us hope that this century can be more

civilized than previous ones. We need rules that put

limits on our competitiveness in the political and

economic arenas. As in the Olympic Games, clear rules

and their rigorous enforcement enable individuals to

compete fiercely and triumph within a framework of

sportsmanship and fairness. The rules are not there to

dampen our natural competitive spirit, but to direct it

towards positive achievement.

But the rules have to be determined by common

agreement. Their legitimacy is derived from the shared

values that bind participants together. They have to

evolve, along with our evolving sense of what is fair

and proper. They cannot be imposed. If they are

imposed, what we have will not be the Olympics but

the gladiatorial pits of the Roman Colosseum.

At the most fundamental level, discussions and

debates in the United Nations and WTO are really

about the values that bind us together as human beings.

As the world grows smaller, our sense of

interdependence grows. As we interact more, we

discover that we are more similar than we think. So

many problems like global warming, epidemics and

terrorism can only be overcome if we work together.

So many new opportunities can only be fully exploited

if we combine our efforts.

Yes, we have become closer. We celebrated together

when for the first time the human genome was mapped a

few years ago. We grieved as one on 11 September

2001. The slaughter of children at Beslan outraged us

all. But will we ever be the same? That is not possible.

It is neither in our biological nature nor in the nature of

the historical process for human societies to converge

and become identical. Even the same society changes

over time in response to changing conditions.

There is in each and everyone of us a deep desire

to be free, to experiment and to be better than others

around us. Like all forms of energy, human energy

must be channelled so that it is constructive and not

destructive. That is the challenge of governance at all

levels, from the village all the way to global

institutions. With the world becoming a village because

of the ease of travel and instant communication, the

design of global institutions is very important. They

help us solve problems which we cannot solve

individually and set limits on acceptable behaviour.

The problem of Palestine, for example, cannot be

solved without the participation of the larger global

community. All of us are aware of the rights and

wrongs, and sometimes particular issues are right or

wrong, depending on our perspective. However, we

should never lose hope. We should always look for new

and creative ways to break old deadlocks. After all, it

was only a few years ago that the prospects for peace

seemed so much brighter.

I remember when, as Singapore’s Trade Minister,

I met the Israeli Trade Minister at Davos in the year

2000. He said that he would like to visit me in

Singapore with his Palestinian counterpart and,

together with me, to take a boat to the Singapore

industrial park on a nearby Indonesian island, where he

hoped that we could all be received by the Indonesian

Trade Minister. I was inspired and immediately worked

with my Indonesian counterpart on this project of

understanding and goodwill. Unfortunately, within half

a year, the intifada began and the cycle of violence

became steadily worse. It all seems such a long time

ago. However, we must never give up. With goodwill

and statesmanship on both sides, and with the support

of all of us in the international community, it is

possible to re-establish trust and to start again.

Moreover, the international community should

not allow the deteriorating relationship across the

Taiwan Straits to spin out of control. The push towards

independence by certain groups on Taiwan is most

dangerous, because it will lead to war with mainland

China and will drag in other countries. The stability of

the entire Asia-Pacific region is at stake. Not many

years ago, the relationship between the mainland and

Taiwan was much better. In 1991, Asia-Pacific Economic

Cooperation (APEC) — a grouping of economies around

the Pacific Ocean — admitted China, Taiwan and Hong

Kong on the basis of certain agreed principles. At an

APEC meeting in 1992, I remember joining the Trade

Ministers of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong for a

relaxed lunch in Bangkok. Later, in 1993,

31

representatives from China and Taiwan met in Singapore

for informal talks, with both sides acknowledging, “One

China: to each its own interpretation”.

All problems seemed soluble then. But, in 1994,

Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui gave a shocking

interview to a Japanese magazine, describing himself

as a Moses leading his people out of Egypt. From then

on, cross-straits relations went from bad to worse as

pro-independence forces on Taiwan became

increasingly adventurous. As in the Middle East, the

international community has a strong vested interest in

supporting a peaceful resolution of cross-straits

conflict, based on the “one China” position that was

adopted and settled by the United Nations in 1971.

Even when the United Nations has no legal

authority to enforce its wishes, its views carry moral

weight. This legitimacy of the Organization is derived

from its broad membership, its transparent processes

and the active participation of Member States. It is

important that the Security Council — which has the

power to adopt resolutions binding on all United

Nations Member States — be reformed and enlarged so

as to reflect the reality of the current international

environment.

We need rules that enable us to make decisions

and to express our collective judgement of right and

wrong, and those rules must evolve in response to new

challenges. However, we cannot expect unanimity of

views on all matters. Human society is changing all the

time. New scientific discoveries present new

challenges, to which different societies must respond

differently. On matters of religious belief, for example,

no one should expect convergence. Our disagreements

over issues like the death penalty, abortion, the nature

of democracy, gay rights, animal rights and therapeutic

cloning are, in a sense, inevitable and necessary.

What we profoundly need is respect for plurality in

the world — respect built on the common substrate that

defines us as civilized human beings in the twenty-first

century. In the nineteenth century, slavery was abolished.

In the twentieth century, gender equality became the

norm. In this century, we must add more layers to what

we share in common. And, upon that shared substrate, we

should not only accept diversity, but encourage it. Indeed,

as with biological diversity, it is essential for human

progress that there should be cultural and political

diversity in the world. Without such diversity, our

ability to respond to new challenges will be weakened.

For all their imperfections, the United Nations

and the World Trade Organization (WTO) represent

this diversity in unity. At the WTO, the process of

multilateral trade negotiations — however complicated

and arduous they may be — is still a more civilized

method of resolving conflicts and harmonizing national

differences than erecting protectionist walls and

fighting trade wars.

Respecting plurality does not mean that we stop

recognizing strengths and weaknesses; that would be

hypocrisy. Some cultural values are more suited than

others to modern times. Some economic systems are

more productive. Some political systems are better able

to mobilize the creative energies of their people. But

none of us should force our views on others. We should

never impose a particular political or economic system

on societies with different histories and traditions.

What we need instead is an environment that

encourages mutual learning and healthy competition.

For that, we need to respect one another.

As is recognized in the Millennium Development

Goals, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the

challenge of human development. When Singapore

became independent in 1965, there was no ready

solution that fitted us; we had to seek our own way

forward. Many countries helped us with aid and advice,

and we remain grateful to them. The United Nations

Development Programme provided valuable assistance.

With no natural resources, we had to organize

ourselves in a practical way, add value and be of

service to others. Little by little, we worked out

pragmatic solutions to our problems. Good governance

was a precondition for all our efforts. We were tough

on corruption and crime.

When, in the 1970s, we witnessed attempts by

international drug dealers to target young

Singaporeans, our Parliament adopted draconian laws.

We were criticized by some of our friends in the

Western media, but we persisted, with the support of

the majority of Singaporeans, always acting with their

consent and in their interests. Now that we have

reached a reasonable standard of economic

development, other developing countries have

approached us for assistance. We feel honoured to be

asked. But we prefer them to see Singapore more as an

ongoing experiment to be studied than as a model to

follow. Every country is different, and each must

customize its own solutions.

32

Small countries like Singapore need a stable

external environment. We are ardent supporters of

international organizations like the United Nations and

the WTO, because they give us, together with other

countries, a say in global governance. A world in

which countries big and small can resolve disputes

according to commonly agreed rules is infinitely

preferable to one in which might makes right.

More than four centuries ago, a wise man from

the West visited the East. The Italian Jesuit Matteo

Ricci went to China with the goal of converting China

to Catholicism. He had a deep respect for the

civilization that he wanted to Christianize. Realizing

that the only way to impress the Chinese was to

interact with them on their own terms, he proceeded to

study the Chinese language, to master the Chinese

classics and to employ Chinese philosophical concepts

in his discourses on Christianity. Instead of talking at

the Chinese, he talked to them, expressing concepts to

which they could relate. Although Matteo Ricci did not

succeed in converting the Chinese, he left behind a

lasting legacy, and when he died the Chinese Emperor

consented to his burial in China. His tomb, inscribed

with his Chinese name, is to be found today in the

compound of the Party School of the Beijing Municipal

Committee.

History is unending. We need wise men like

Matteo Ricci from the West and the East, from the

South and the North, to help us, through debate and

dialogue, prevent a clash of civilizations. Respecting

diversity should never reduce us to hypocrisy and

cultural relativism, as if all points of view are equally

valid. We should never stop trying to influence one

another. Here in the United Nations we are always

trying to influence one another, but we must always be

prepared to see the same issues from the perspectives

of others. Here in the United Nations, we have an

institution that can help us create this better world.