 Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ling Shui Ling. I'm an executive producer at Channel News Asia. We're an international broadcaster, but we're based in Singapore. And we reach about 60 million viewers in Asia. This panel, Asia Takes Lead, was developed editorially, together with the excellent team here at the World Economic Forum. The pressing question seems to be, now, are we in a new world? Is there a new world order emerging? One in which things like the town-specific partnership no longer matter, where America and parts of Europe are moving into a kind of protectionist isolationism. And who's going to fill the vacuum during this period? Will it be Asia? Asia rising? Or as Dean Kishore Mabobani would probably say, re-emerging as the natural, dominant, global economic superpower? This wonderful panel that I have here today is going to help me answer this question. On my right here is Minister for International Trade and Industry from Malaysia, Mustafa Muhammad. We're very pleased to have him here today. Dean Kishore Mabobani from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. David Lee from the Schwarzman College in Sinhua University. Cripp CEO and founder of Asia, Tony Fernandez. And on the far end, definitely not Lee's, Professor Nuriel Rubeini, who's from the Stern School of Business. OK, we're going to kick off first with a poll, with all of you and with the panel. And the simple question is, do you think that the time is now for Asia to take the lead economically in the world? Those of you who think that Asia should take the lead, put up your hands. And those of you who are a little bit more apprehensive or not sure. OK, I would say that that's probably those still less than half. I see a certain amount of skepticism here in the panel. Are you? All five of us. Oh, did you all five say, oh, I think a five. This is not looking carefully from the point of view. This is the right thinking panel. This is right thinking panel. OK, so on this panel, we seem to be reasonably, we believe that Asia should take the lead. Now, since the trigger for much of what we're discussing is actually the United States, I'm going to give Professor Rubeini the first word about whether we're living in a post-TPP world. And does it really matter if trade deals like the TPP fail because the United States will no longer be part of it? Prof Rubeini. Well, I think that everybody recognizes that Asia is becoming a key part of the global economy for the last few decades. Actually, Asia has been the fastest-growing region of the world, especially emerging Asia. And it was not just China, but also many other parts of Asia. And I think that during the Obama administration, there was a recognition that Asia was important, that the rise of China was important. And there was this economic and also geopolitical pivot to Asia. Some people were thinking of it as being a way of, unquote, containing the rise of China. The more enlightened people within the US were not thinking this way, even if there is in debates on whether TPP should have included China or not, whether the US was mistaken in trying to oppose the AIB and so on. But the Americans were recognizing that pivot to Asia could not mean just sending a bunch of Marines, say, to Australia, but there had to be an economic leg to it at a time where China was building economic and trading in financial relations with Asia, Pacific, and so on. And the key element of that was TPP of trying to engage first most of Asia, and then eventually, then reopening it up also to China. The view was, we want to maintain the highest standard of trade liberalization. And because of that, maybe we don't want to have China in the first place, whether it was the correct analysis or not, we can debate it. But now we know that the first thing that Trump has said when it's going to come to power on Friday tomorrow is going to be to repudiate TPP, say, I'm against it. And therefore, that's not going to be part of what the US does and I think that the US is going to be cutting itself off from one of the most dynamic regions of the world. Of course, there'll be trading relations, but the great integration that will have come from TPP is not going to occur. That's going to hurt, I would say, mostly the United States at the time where China was doing the BRICS Bank, the AIB, was doing the Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative, and on top of it, a couple of alternative free trading agreements for the Pacific and so on and so on. So I think that that changes the game and we've seen this week here in Davos, the picture of the leader of the still nominally communist country, China being the champion of free trade, globalization, free market capitalism at the time where the new incoming leader of the biggest capitalist country in the world talks as if the US is scared of competition, of globalization, of trade, and actually some of the tone of bashing firms and telling them where to produce and what to do, look like corporatists. If Obama had done any of those things, it would have been accused of being a communist but the fact that Trump is doing it is considered to be a good industrial policy by some people, not by me. So it's a major change, it's a major change. If we look at it on a very practical basis, in other words, let's look at actual jobs. Tony, you actually run a company, not just talking about things, but do you think that your company and the people in your company oh, so how do they view things like the TPP? Open heirs of course are incredibly important to airlines. Yeah, well we've obviously been a big advocate of free trade and liberalization and we're a beneficiary of that. Eurasia started with two planes 15 years ago and now we have 200 planes, 200,000 passengers in the first year and 66 million this year and the most important factor, we've created 20,000 direct jobs and a huge amount of indirect jobs. I'm a big, big supporter of liberalization. I think it's very nerve wracking hearing some of the words that are coming out and in the real world globalization has created jobs. I think where lots of people are talking about populace and unhappy people, actually it's maybe the middle class who feel they're being squeezed a bit, but there's, so the redistribution of that wealth maybe needs to be looked at, but very clearly globalization has made the world a better place and so I'm all in favor of it. Minister, Malaysia went through quite a lot of really difficult negotiations for the TPP. You must be sorry to see it failing. I was personally involved in the TPP process for five years and of course we are disappointed. On the other hand, there are people who are happy, probably clapping their hands that TPP is not going to take off but as a government, we firmly believe that the way forward is more openness. Globalization is good for us. We've been Malaysia, we've been one of the major beneficiaries of globalization, so that's where we are. We are somewhat disappointed that it's not going to take off but we've got to face the real world. So the issue now is where do we go from here and that we have to be involved in some constructive conversation with our friends and a similar matter of fact, we have begun to do that. TPP was supposed to create this new world trade, economic order, setting standards on the environment, on labour and of course it's supposed to generate jobs and for us in Malaysia we've done a proper analysis and it's going to create, you know, about going from 2020 almost 100,000 jobs, additional jobs per annum. So the benefits are real for us and it's true for Vietnam and many other countries and that's probably one reason why Trump and others in America are against TPP because they see this as a platform to export jobs and most unfortunate because TPP is supposed to be win-win. America wins, I mean in any trade negotiation it's about win-win, it's not, you know, it's not someone getting all the gains. Vietnam, Malaysia and America is getting nothing. So America is getting better access to markets in the other 11 countries. So it was supposed to be a win-win agreement and America is also beneficiary and going forward we have to, as I say, be involved in some constructive conversation. The main thing is trade has been one of the main drivers of growth for many decades, in the last couple of years of course trade growth has been less than 3% and we've got to lift the world economy. We need to find a driver of growth and TPP was supposed to be one of the drivers of growth going forward given the current international economic collapse. So it's most unfortunate and it's certainly going to have some impact on the global economy. TPP was supposed to be a game changer but anyway we've got to be realistic. We've got to face the real world and now many of us, a few of us are involved in some conversation to see the way forward and in that context of course we have three pillars. We have US, Europe and Asia and within Asia we've got China, we've got India and we've got ASEAN. So we've got to be looking inwards. China certainly is a very relevant, very important country. ASEAN is growing rapidly, 5% growth per annum, 630 million people growing in the new class. So ASEAN is a powerful growth story and so we have to be looking. I mean it's most unfortunate that TPP is not going to happen but it's not all gloom and we are very excited within ASEAN that there's a lot of potential to unleash the future of the region for ASEAN to play an important role besides China and India within Asia and of course in the world. Prof David Lee, people seem to think that China is secretly clapping its hands over the failure of TPP. Is China really secretly very pleased that TPP is going to fail? Well, there are two kinds of views in China about TPP. Some people argue that China should be, should have been more active in joining the TPP, showing us using TPP as a higher benchmark, forcing local enterprises to upgrade their competitiveness. The other side says that the TPP is a US contrivance trying to bypass China, trying to contain China, but whatever, okay, the two kinds of voices have been heard within China. So it's hard to say that China is now very happy when TPP is collapsed. So we have to face reality. Well, what's the reason behind the TPP collapsing? Why? In different languages, different civilizations, we have different saying. All they say, the bottom line is that things happen for good reason. Things happen for good reason because China is already, the largest importer exporter in the world, the largest trader trading country in this region. It doesn't make sense for a country far away to come to this region, to impose a set of rules and bypassing the biggest player in this region. So it doesn't make sense. TPP excluding China in this region doesn't make sense to begin with, to begin with. So I think this is a kind of a destiny for TPP. Now what happens? Okay, without TPP, China naturally becomes a leader trying to provide forces of economic integration in this region. So RCEP is now intensely negotiated in this region. And as far as I know, China and ASEAN are pretty much see eye to eye on this issue. The remaining country is India. So the Chinese approach is a bicycle approach. That is, let's first start, first get on the bicycle. Even the speed is very slow. Once everyone's joining the bicycle, let's try to pedal harder, let's try to improve. So the philosophy is different from TPP. TPP is that you have to have the speed of flying. Then otherwise you don't join. So I do think RCEP will have a better future than TPP, of course I'm not saying much. TPP is already dead. Well, there you go. For those of you who doubt that TPP is already dead, Dean Keshav Mahbubani, what do you think? Well, I think, I must say I agree with all the comments I've made by my fellow four panellists. I just want to add two more dimensions, okay? Now in theory, trade is about trade. But actually, trade also has a geopolitical dimension. And frankly, why was TPP launched by President Obama? And he said it very honestly, David, as you know, he said in his press conference, he said, if America doesn't push TPP, China writes the rules. So he says if America wants to be a player in Asia Pacific, we have to join the game, we have to deliver something. And so that was the geopolitical consideration. It was not just about trade. And that's why Trump's decision to walk away from the TPP is actually quite amazing because he's shooting America in the foot. And that's interesting. This is the guy who says America first, America first. And then when he comes, you have an opportunity to push America first, he shoots it from the foot. And that's because, I mean, this is actually the core problem with Donald Trump is that there are very few things he deeply believes in. But unfortunately, one of the things he really deeply believes in is that international trade is bad for America. The international trade means jobs are being sucked out of America. And this is something that comes from his gut. So I think in that sense, we really have to prepare ourselves for a very different world where America instead of becoming the cheerleader for trade becomes in some ways the biggest obstacle to trade, which is why frankly, as you know, the biggest event that happened in Davos this year was President Xi Jinping's coming to Davos. And he gave an incredibly brilliant and inspiring speech which is open and inclusive and say, hey, we can all grow together. And that's amazing. In the past, David, you know, American presidents used to give that kind of speeches. Now he's the president of China, who does it. And so the question is, is the game over? And my own view, since I'm a sort of incurable optimist, is that the game is never over because at the end of the day, what you really got to watch, and this is where Tony Fernandez made a very key point, that is the integration continuing with or without TPP, with or without trade agreements. And all the data shows, by the way, that trade, even though global trade, as you know, has slowed down, trade is still growing, integration is still happening, and we are still moving towards more and more trade flows. But I actually hope that the RCEP, by the way, and here, frankly, as you know, David, the world is counting on China to provide leadership because no trade agreement moves unless it has a champion. It was Obama championing TPP. Now in the case of RCEP, I think there's a tremendous opportunity for China to provide that kind of leadership. And if China pushes through the RCEP, and you're absolutely right, you've said it very delicately, some members of the RCEP are less enthusiastic. I think India is doing its calculations as to whether or not RCEP will benefit India. I think if it... I'm confident that if India did a very hard-headed, tough-minded calculation, India will also benefit from RCEP. But it needs leadership. Dean Malvani, what you're talking about seems all terribly nice. Really cozy cozy. We're all going to have a win-win situation, as the minister says, and that we're all going to be terribly good friends. But if I were to play the devil's advocate and take perhaps the Trump point of view, what about trade, though, also being a stick, not just a carrot? He has implied that it's going to be transactional and therefore, treatments and interactions with China have to be a little bit more robust. You can't just cozy up all the time and be friends. You also have to say, no, we don't like that. We don't like you're not opening up your market. We don't like you're putting barriers, even though they're not clear tariffs, perhaps, against American companies being in the United States or not being able to transfer monies out as easily as they would like to. So I think that... Can I give a very quick response and then let the others... My very quick response, by the way, is that, you know, international trade theory is a gift from the Western, Nuri Alfa, to us. International trade theory explains very clearly why international trade is never a zero-sum game and that at the end of the day, we may lose some specific industries. Country like Singapore lost its textile industry, let's say, to China. Okay, we lost our textile jobs. But in return, we got other jobs, right? And that's what... A critical part of capitalism is creative destruction. You have to... Some industries have to die. If our economies have to progress, and what Trump is trying to do is to stop creative destruction. That's the heart of capitalism. Tony, I can see you're eager to leap in. No, two points. First thing, I think you should send this tape to Donald Trump. Might be useful for him to listen to Professor Kishore. Now, I think, as I said, I think trade is about negotiation. And, you know, you say, if America wants this, et cetera, that's what trade negotiations are about. So it's not a zero-sum game. And I do think very strongly that disruption is going to happen in this key. My industry is very clear, you know? Ariesia created a whole new tourism within ASEAN. But I think going back to one point, on the positive side, I hope that ASEAN gets together and says, well, if America doesn't want to be part of TPP, let's create our own internal market. That's what I did. You know, before we went to China and India, we said, let's build an internal ASEAN tourism market. And we started flying between destinations that never flew and created jobs and created new markets that just weren't there. So I hope some of the negativity that's coming out of America will focus Asia and ASEAN into forming stronger relationships, stronger integration, and seeing that if they work together that the economies would benefit. The bottom line is jobs, development, inclusive growth, elimination of poverty. So those are very important to all of us. I mean, irrespective of your time or China or Malaysia or ASEAN. So let's be clear. So trade has been one of the main drivers of growth. And I mean, TPP is gone. So we've got to look for other alternatives. And RCEP is one mentioned by Professor David Lee just now. And just to pull up on Kishore's intervention, in RCEP, there's no driver. And the driver actually is ASEAN. It's not China or India. I'm putting the record straight. It is a, well, in a way, negotiation among equals that distinguishes RCEP from many other trade negotiations. And all the 16 countries recognize what we call the centrality of ASEAN. It's ASEAN which calls a shot. And I would like to place on record countries like China and a few other countries. They have a lot of respect for ASEAN. So for that reason, you know, well, and the other, we have what we call the guiding principles. We started off by saying that the 16 countries are at different levels of development. So negotiations will have to recognize, very clearly stated, the different levels of economic development. So for that reason, we've been moving the last three years, 16 rounds of negotiations, another one coming next month at the official level. But we are committed, all of us. China is a very important player. India is a very important player. There are some challenges. But this is going to be, I mean, because TPP is dead, therefore, many of all of us are committed to ensure that RCEP becomes successful. And as I said, Eleni is Meshmatuni as well. It's not win-win. I mean, it's win-win is not, you know, it's not winner, yes, everything. I mean, the concept is balance, balance outcome. There's something for everyone. There's something for China, something for, and something for India. There's a spirit of, and indeed, not just RCEP. In any negotiation, we've got to satisfy every party that there's everything for everyone, in TPP as well, as well, for that matter. I'm going to take this opportunity now to throw questions over to the floor. Yes, we are also taking questions on Facebook Live, by the way, so if you wish to put your questions, for those of you who are watching this live streaming, we'd be very happy to take your questions in too. Yes, two gentlemen. The gentleman over here, yes, please. Pointing out of the... We'll just come and check the mic, yes. While we're doing that, I'd just like to point out that yes, jobs are really at the heart of all of this, and as Dean Kishore has pointed out, creative destruction, though, does get rid of jobs. Now we have the mic, we're working, yes. Of the many things we could blame Donald Trump for, the failure of TPP really isn't one of them. I think we all know that it was not going to pass the United States Senate. Before it was obvious he was going to be president, so you might take that into consideration. I also feel that you're talking past an issue, which is, to that point, this was not going to happen, and there was a reason it wasn't going to happen. The American populace did not support TPP, so it's fine to say, well, Asia will take its own path, but it would be interesting to hear you discuss, you're still going to have to deal with the United States. I don't think you can ignore the United States. Of course. You know, on that point, actually, more than the collapse of TPP, what concerns me is that U.S. may become very protectionist. If you think about China, traditionally it was an export-led growth. Yes, the current account surplus fell, but it's still closer to 3% of GDP. Korea has a large current account surplus and trade imbalance with the United States, Taiwan, Japan, and even other countries in Asia, in the global supply chain, increasingly providing inputs, raw materials, and or intermediate inputs that are then assembled in China and end up into the United States. So, one thing is for the TPP to collapse, but suppose that U.S. were to start a trade war with China, and it's not just with China, because if you think about countries that may be accused by the U.S. to be, unquote, currency manipulators, Taiwan and Korea run much larger trade imbalances with the U.S. and globally, and they're more actively than China. They're trying to prevent the currency from depreciating excessively, so it's not manipulating, by trying to prevent an appreciation, by preventing depreciation. But in the case of Korea, Taiwan would be more aggressive at times to prevent currency from appreciating. So, they may actually qualify for, unquote, currency manipulation more than China. So, suppose one in the world in which the U.S. becomes very protectionist, and goes after China, goes after Taiwan, goes after Korea, could go after Japan. There's a direct threat to economic growth in Asia, because whether you like it or not, the model of growth of Asia has been still impart driven by expert-led growth where the consumer of first and last resort was the United States. There is a lot of talk of rebalancing growth in China towards domestic demand, and within Asia, having inter-Asian trade, but we should not forget that the U.S. is a major market for China and for Asia, and if the U.S. is going to become protectionist, that's going to damage economic growth in Asia. One small point. Firstly, trade is very important, a very important level of growth, many decades, and based on that, therefore, there's a need for, I mean, there's a lot of rhetoric, and it's very scary to hear some of these negative vibes coming from U.S. and others. So, in my view, there's got to be open, transparent, constructive debate. The issue of balance of trade between U.S. and China has got to be discussed in the open. So, I would like to plead on behalf of countries around the world, dependent on trade. U.S. is important, China is important. There's been so much rhetoric throughout the world here in Davos. So, it is important for there to be constructive, open, transparent conversation on the way forward. And one platform could be WTO in Geneva, the World Trade Organization, which has been sidelined for, you know, for a number of years now. So, of course, some people, you know, are quite cynical about WTO, but anyway, we have to explore ways of, you know, promoting this constructive engagement between a few major countries. Otherwise, we're going to be deprived of this very important level of growth. I mean, trade, tension, competition is not good for the world. Could we start with David? I think on the U.S.-China relationship, I think both sides still recognize the importance of the relationship, especially on the Chinese side. The Chinese side, the president of China, always says that the U.S.-China relationship is the most important one. The most important one. China has been trying to set up a new type of large country relationship. The U.S. side has not been coming to the recognition of this saying, right? And also, I think it's easy to criticize Donald Trump from the U.S. side, especially among the well-educated participants of our World Economic Forum. But actually, two kinds of credits should be given to Trump. First, in China, many people recognize that Trump is like Deng Xiaoping 40 years ago. That is, we're recognizing that U.S. has to fix its own domestic issues before becoming a stronger international leader. I think in this regard, Trump, I think, is, should be given credits, right? America first, because without a strong domestic economy, without a strong stable U.S. society, how can you be an international leader, right? Second thing, I think we should give enough credit to Trump, is that he has chosen more or less pretty knowledgeable and experienced people in his cabinet so that I do not think these people surrounding Trump will actually wage a trade war against China, against Korea, against Taiwan. I don't think that's the case. There might be two Trumps, two presidents in the U.S., daytime president, right, which is very rational in the Oval Office, and then after 11 p.m., twittering. Tweetering. So let's be prepared. I'm more concerned about the daytime president, not the evening. On the advisors of Trump, I must say. A quick word from Niki Sean, then another question to the floor. Can I just say that you've given Trump the biggest compliment? I've heard anyone given Trump that he's like Deng Xiaoping. And frankly, Deng Xiaoping, my view, is the greatest leader of the 20th century because he did a fantastic job of lifting up China and eliminating poverty and making China an economic power. But I think I want to quickly come back to your question. I think you ask, fundamentally, the premise of your question is right, which is that what the United States does still matters. You cannot ignore the United States. And it's so big, so huge, so important. So the big question about the United States going forward after tomorrow after Trump takes office is whether or not policy will be made on purely populist sentiment or as David suggests in his response, policy will be made by a group of people doing some very intelligent, long-term, rational calculations which show that the stupidest thing the United States could do to have a trade war with Korea, with Japan, with others, it doesn't benefit the United States very clearly. So I hope, David, that the daytime Trump will trump the nighttime Trump. The young gentleman over there. Make one point on the economic advisers. Those on trade include the head of the White House Trade Council, Navarro, who has written a book, Death by China. He says protection as anybody can be. He has chosen a US trade representative as protectionist and has written extensively about the protectionism. And he has chosen Wilbur Ross for the Department of Commerce, who is a co-author of Navarro, who has also spoken about changing the economic relation and trading relation of US with China in a protectionist way. So unfortunately, the decisions and the choices on the trade issues are all on the protectionist side. You have to be realistic about it. And I know people who have serious and private conversation with Dr. Navarro, also a Harvard product, right? PhD from Harvard Economics, right? And I was told in private conversations, Navarro, it's very reasonable, very knowledgeable. Remember, he wrote the book for the general public, not for policy makers. So he's a nighttime editor. Exactly, Death by China. Can I just ask one thing that's always confused me when Donald Trump talks about protection and keeping jobs? Actually, America has one of the lowest unemployment for a long, long time, at 4%. So as a simpleton here, I'm not a Harvard economist. I like all these guys here. But I always wonder what jobs he's trying to bring back was that the economy is probably very strong right now. It's almost full employment. The tech field is America's leading it. America's leading innovation. It's Tesla's there, if you think about car industry. America's leading the revolution in driverless and electric cars. So it does confuse me about how he's so concerned about jobs being lost when America continues to innovate, continues to drive economies forward. And there's virtually full employment there. It's a structural issue, mainly three or four states. Michigan, Wisconsin, maybe Ohio, where some blue-collar workers lost their jobs. So I do expect that even in Trump will wage some kind of specific trade wars, such as furniture. He may claim furniture used to be made in Michigan. It used to work in Michigan. But now Chinese exports drove out a lot of work. So he may target furniture in a large scale. Furniture is no big deal for overall trade. So there might be high-profile, media-centric trade wars, but not for the real economy. OK, to the young man there in the audience. Hi. Hello. Hi, I'm Dikal. I'm a global shaper from the Manila Hub. I'm also the creator of a board game that allows people to experience what it's like to set up a business. My question is around, say, integration. It's been dominating the conversation in this panel also over the last three years. But one might argue over the last three years, on a grassroots and startup level, you don't feel tangible results. So my question is, what can we expect on a grassroots level and for startups? What are the benefits, et cetera? And when do you think it might happen? I have strong views on this. I think, actually, ASEAN is most integrated at the startup level in terms of applications. You have the Uber of ASEAN Grab Car, which is, you know, I mean, I go through nightmares at 11 o'clock at night trying to get rights and deal with politicians, et cetera. But in like four months, a Grab Car was there all over Southeast Asia. And I think you're seeing from the fintech world, you're seeing employment. Lots and lots of innovation that's coming from the Philippines, we just invested in one, in terms of the fintech industry and all the new IT industry is benefiting now from a 700 million market. And I think it's growing quickly, if I can say so, because there's very little government involvement and there's very little regulation. And so the innovation is growing really, really quickly. If we had less regulation in Asia, we'd be twice the size. So I do believe that there is. I think one thing that needs to be done is venture capital. I think there is not enough venture capital within ASEAN and an ASEAN pool of venture capital. But I think the younger generation have seen ASEAN and are developing applications that are pan ASEAN. We should be, you know, talking about positive things here to show on others. So let's forget about TPP for a moment. This is very exciting, the digital economy e-commerce. I'm looking at two perspectives. One is within ASEAN, another with external to ASEAN. External would be what's coming from China, the linkages, Alibaba and others. The other would be the Silicon Valley. So there's a lot of linkages between young, many women of ASEAN with Chinese and entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. So there's a lot of opportunities there. So this is the linkages with the outside world, which is very dynamic and that's going to create a lot of jobs. Secondly, of course, as Tony mentioned, what's happening within ASEAN. A lot of people like you in Singapore, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in many parts of ASEAN, Vietnam. So this is something that we should be working on. And that's going to be, of course, at the back of that all. These things, of course, is the dynamism of ASEAN. The 5% to 6% growth, the prospects. I mean, you want to have a good startup. There's got to be a conducive environment. And then we are going forward. There's going to be less and less regulations, hopefully, more conformity in terms of standards. So this is something very positive, as far as I'm concerned, coming from internal dynamics and also the linkages with the outside world. I think there's a chance for... I want to put the endos, what Tony and Minister Mustafa have just said about ASEAN. And I want to do it with a lot of enthusiasm because I'm coming out with a book on ASEAN in March. Is it a morning book or a night book? I've been like Tony, I'm a marketer. But seriously, I mean, the ASEAN story is one of the great untold success stories of our lifetimes. It's taken the Balkans of Asia and made it one of the most peaceful regions in the world. And when it was born in 1967, it was supposed to die after two years, it's going to celebrate its 50th anniversary this year. So the ASEAN story, I think, is very critical because quite often a lot of what happens in ASEAN is behind it, underneath the radar, because everybody's focused on China and on India. And people don't notice that there's actually another key player in Asia that is quietly making a huge difference, and that's ASEAN. Well, I'll take that point up as well. And that is... One really quick thing, I think this is ASEAN's chance on the digital economy. If you compare e-commerce and ASEAN is small compared to China and the US, mostly because of regulations. There isn't a single border. There isn't freedom of movement of goods. In China, you've got a billion people that you can move goods through. Similar for the fintech revolution in China and what we chat and Amt is doing, et cetera, is because it's one market. So this is what the ASEAN leaders, such as my minister here, have to really work fast to enable young entrepreneurs here to have access to that 700 million market so that if they set up an e-commerce in Philippines, someone in Thailand could get the goods the next day like they can in America or Europe. And that's a great opportunity for ASEAN to grab and to liberalise as much as possible so we can have the next Jeff Beos over here who we'll invest in in a few minutes. I hate to contradict Dean Kishore, but what about the argument that ASEAN, of course, is an incredible story. But nonetheless, it is much, much smaller than China and that while the Chinese are very patient and pleasant about ASEAN's role, we cannot run away from the fact that China is just so much considerably bigger and that together with India, they will dominate the Asian region. And when we say Asia, in fact, it's really very often just a shorthand for China. Well, actually, you know, the Chinese, of course, you're right, China is much bigger than ASEAN. I mean, it's over $10 trillion economy. ASEAN is two. Two times large. And ASEAN is about 2.5. So four times large. But the ASEAN GNP, by the way, is as big as India. In fact, bigger than India. So it's not small in that sense. But you see, the ASEAN role must be understood is it's not trying to counterbalance China or not trying to counterbalance India. Instead, ASEAN provides a very critical platform, a geopolitical platform, which enables all the Asian powers, which have their own bilateral problems with each other. And sometimes, as you know, there's a lot of discomfort in the relationship within China and Japan. But the one place where the Chinese leaders and Japanese leaders talk comfortably to each other is when they come to an ASEAN meeting. So ASEAN has played a critical, catalytic role in bringing together Asia. And I also believe that when the final history is written about the miraculous peaceful rise of China, one key player in the miraculous peaceful rise of China has been ASEAN. ASEAN has in a sense created a sort of enabling regional environment or cooperation of harmony and is that enabling a regional environment that has also facilitated China's growth. So I think that's why China actually appreciates ASEAN. A great deal, and if you look, for example, at China, ASEAN trade and links is going like this, by the way. You look at the charts. 20 years ago, China already began. Actually, 25 years ago, China began to work with ASEAN. Actually, China proposed to speed up the negotiation of free trade just because of the early harvest program. I've just heard a question that's come in from our Facebook Live feed, and I'll throw this question, in fact, not to my panel, but to all of you. Is China the new global leader? How many of you think that China is the new global leader? And not just because of President Xi's speech a few days ago. Is China the new global leader? Okay, a bit more wary here. I see Prof Rubini, no, Tony says no, and very, very few of you actually put up your hands. So we can even go into who then really still is the new global even, whether it really is the United States. All right, so China is not the new global leader. Prof Rubini, why is it that China's not the new global leader? Well, I think we are moving to a multipolar world in which, of course, you have traditional powers like the United States, Europe, if they can stick together, and you have rising economic, trading, financial, and also geopolitical powers like China, like India, and so on and so on. Question is whether Russia is a declining or rising power. So in that sense, I believe there is a multipolar world and we have to recognize it and accept it. Even it creates complicated problems of cooperation. I wouldn't yet call China the leader of the world. US is still the largest economy world. It's very powerful in many dimensions, but we're moving to a world in which you have many great powers, and these great powers either they work together and collaborate and cooperate together, or otherwise there's gonna be increasing frictions and conflicts on trade, on currency, on economic and financial, and eventually there is also sources of potential geopolitical conflict among great powers as well. So that's my caveat of calling China the leader. It's not the leader. It's one of the rising great powers in the world. Let me try to be different from my good friend from the US. I think the word leader, when we say it, is very much already influenced by the image of Western leaders, especially the US. So by leader, automatically we, in our mind, we have the image of a country being very forceful, being very powerful, being very aggressive, being very outspoken, right? But that's not the style of China's leadership. China will feature a new kind of leadership that is lead by your action, rather than by words. Word, in Confucianism there's a saying that a gentleman should be effective or fast in action, should be relatively slow in wording, in saying things. So China has been caught upon by friends all over the world, for example, to come to the World Economic Forum in Davos. So we waited for many, many, many years until a Chinese leader finally came. Likewise, G20, G20 summits, right? China waited for, I think, 12 years, becoming before hosting last year's G20 summit. So the idea of China's leadership is to do things, take actions, before speaking up such a new kind of leadership. Just to put up on that, two ways of looking at this, one is looking at the facts and numbers, another is whether you have the will, whether you're willing to assume this leadership role. Facts and numbers, very clear, US is big, China is going up, and one day China will be number one, if nothing, I mean, if this progression goes on. So that's one we're looking at. China is not there yet, numbers and facts, and the other would be whether China is willing, and as David mentioned, perhaps, that's the Chinese approach, and China is not yet aggressive, but finally, there's a vacuum now. So I think one has got to go to next set, facts, America, yes, and China number two, whether China is willing to assume that position probably not yet, but I think, in my view, there's a vacuum, and there's every possibility that, you know, well, America will be less important and China will be even more prominent going ahead. I'm going to agree with Minister Mustafa and try and take a middle path very bravely between China and America. And it's just, I agree with you, David, that the Chinese style of leadership will of course be very different from the American style of leadership. There's absolutely no doubt, and the world's got to get used to it, and I also agree with you, Nurell, there will be a multi-polar world, but at the same time, you emphasise a very key point today. China is the number one exporter, number one importer. So China therefore has a greater vested interest in keeping the global system alive and strong than any other country in the world. So, and a global system doesn't just rest on its own, it does require maintenance and requires development. So America, and to some extent Europe used to do the job, but if America and Europe backtrack away from global leadership, China actually would have no choice but to try and do something more to preserve the global system of which China is the biggest beneficiary today. And I think one plea I make to Beijing is that, while of course you want to do things in a very Chinese style, sometimes global developments don't happen at that pace. Sometimes global developments will happen very fast. And so if China doesn't take pre-emptive actions sometimes, it is possible that the global system will be so damaged that you won't be able to repair it. So China should prepare itself to take on, as Klaus Schwab says, responsive and responsible leadership. Well, I think that Dean Tishor is touching on a very important point about the differences perhaps culturally that there are between how we even use words, how we even view things. If you look at the term globalisation, I don't think that, so to say, we in Asia, if there is such a thing as a we in Asia, we use globalisation the way it's used in the United States. Foreign direct investment in Asia is seen as something very positive, perhaps not quite so much in the United States or even in Europe, where it's seen as something of a national sovereignty question. So I'm going to throw this open now to the floor again and see what other questions we have. Yes, the gentleman over there. Amri Moussa. Thank you very much. I'm Amri Moussa from Egypt. The issue of leadership that is an issue debated everywhere nowadays, what about China and the role of America, et cetera. In a panel like that, you are very much concerned with trade and markets, but this is not the leadership. The leader of the world have so many other elements of soft power. The books we read, the films we watch, the language we speak, the lifestyle. So China, in order to assume the leadership in the world, I believe it should not just depend on the economy and the trade. That's fine, of course, it is very important. But the rest, the other elements that brings the respect of societies to a certain policy, a certain leader and so on. But I hope that when China comes to the place of leadership, China should avoid the mistakes of the current leader that really led to a lot of anger and frustration around the world. Well, I think that Wang Tianlin from the Wanda Group would agree with you. He believes in making Chinese movies and exporting them. So soft power, perhaps again, back to this idea of how we actually use these words and whether the concepts are the same here for us in Asia, as well as in Europe or in America. Lin, basically it's a cultural issue, a cultural issue. Yes, soft power is not built overnight. Soft power, rather, is built gradually. And as we speak, actually, China is now gradually trying to project, maybe it's too strong a word, project its influence in the rest of the world. For example, Hollywood. Nowadays, most producers in Hollywood are trying to get not only Chinese investors, but also some Chinese elements in the screenplay. The reason is very simple because very soon, I think 2017, China will become the largest market of movies. Likewise, in sports, same thing. In sports, China's soccer, even the national team is very lousy. The market of soccer in China is huge. So Chinese soccer teams, professional soccer teams, are beating away the top players from Europe, right? From Latin America. So the internal sports market is becoming huge and huge. So before long, you will see that many sports stars would have to learn some Chinese language, would have to learn some Chinese culture in order for them to have a bigger market value. So these are examples of gradual building up of soft power. Now the good thing is the Chinese leaders. I think, overall, Chinese intelligentsia are not eager, are not impatient. They are very patient. Let things flow, let things flow, right? Let things follow its own logic rather than push it. I can only say this. The 350 million people in America and 1.3 billion in China, the 350 million has got a disproportionate influence on our culture, Hollywood and all. And going forward, David made reference to this. The 1.3 billion people will assume greater importance going forward. We firmly believe in that. So they'll be closing in a gap. Now it's very much American dominated in terms of culture or Hollywood. But going forward, slowly but surely, probably slowly, the time will come, the 1.3 billion will exert more influence in this sphere of soft power that you just mentioned. Tony. I just wonder whether we're going to a new era where there isn't one global superpower, which I don't think is a bad thing. I think that if there are more equality across the markets, more champions across the market, I think the world will be a better place. I think in any relationship, if one is more powerful than the other, it leads to unequilibrium, a non-equilibrium. So I don't think it's a bad thing. But I do also think leadership, I completely agree here, is not just about economics. It's about many, many parts, including corporate governance, political thoughts, et cetera. So I think there's lots and lots to do. But I think we're reaching an area where maybe the world is going to be more equal all around. And we haven't talked about Africa, which I think is developing very, very fast. And so there's a new growth engine for the world that's coming through. And yesterday, I was listening to the Pakistani Prime Minister and how that economy is growing tremendously. So there's lots of growth engines. And I think it's not a bad thing if there's no one leader and that we have a few major forces. Thank you. No, I completely agree with Tony. I actually believe, by the way, number one, you cannot stop a multi-polar world from coming. It's coming because a shift of power is happening. And number two, I also agree that a multi-polar world is better. And I think it's better to have constraints on a single superpower. And actually, it's also in the United States interest to be constrained. But at the same time, if you've been the number one superpower for so long, it's actually very difficult to learn to share power. And like me, since the topic is about can Asia takes the lead, the topic of our seminar. I mean, if you want to give Asia a chance to give leadership to the world, you've got to get rid of this absurd rule that we still have, that to become the head of the IMF, you must be European. To become the head of the World Bank, you must be American. And 3.5 billion Asians don't qualify to become the head of IMF or head of World Bank. And this has been carrying on since World War II. And even though the G20 meeting in London in 2009 promised that from now on, the leaders of IMF and World Bank will be selected on merit and not nationality, that was eight years ago. Nothing has changed. So that's the one concrete psychological step that America and Europe have to take. And to ask themselves, how do we share power with Asians and also give them a chance to exercise leadership in the world? Now that in the US, we have a president, we will have a president very soon, who was a property developer, right? So there's a chance to make a deal, move the property of the IMF and the World Bank to Beijing. It would be the better one, come to Beijing. Let's make a deal. Well, the AIIB, the Asian Investment Infrastructure Bank, is China's work around that problem with the IMF, isn't it? It's a way of getting around that difficulty of not being able to have an Asian at the top of the IMF. Well, the AIIB, in my view, is a very difficult question. The AIIB, in my view, is a nice experiment for China to try to build an international organization. So indeed, the AIIB is not Chinese. It's multinational. It's a 65-country member, right? Possibly US under Donald Trump may join the AIIB, possibly, possibly. So this is an experiment. Well, my fear is that the US is going to become a more unilateralist and, believe less, in multilateral institutions. So it might as well give the head of the IMF of the World Bank to an Asian by saying, we don't care about them. We don't care about the UN. We don't care about the WTO. We don't care about anything. And as we know, these institutions have provided a way of leading to greater integration, greater globalization, global governance with all the complexities of it. And if the US is going to move to America first, strict national interests, unilateralism, rather than multilateralism, and isolationism, rather than who's ahead in this organization, the question is whether the global economic system that has been built for the last 70 years have led to pieces of prosperity is going to be shaken to its core. And that's a significant risk that we have to worry about. So there are good prospects for Asia. It's given the leadership of IMF World Bank and other places, UN, in your view. That's good for Asia. So Asia is going to be a leader in the next few years of those institutions. Can I think that's with anybody? I say it won't happen. Yes. Let's get down to this, yes, in the real way. Let's take bets. Those of you who think that what sort of period, Dean Kishore, shall we give, in the next five years, we'll actually see an Asian at the head of the International Monetary Fund. No insult meant, of course, to Madam Lagarde. No chance in the next five years. Anyone who actually believes that we would see an Asian at the head of the IMF in the next five years? I see that only David Lee is optimistic in that direction. Everyone else, including myself, is somewhat more skeptical, sir. Why do you have this rather strange hope or rather unlikely hope? Yeah, I think the IMF is different from the World Bank. The IMF has been traditionally very much influenced by Europeans. And the Europeans, I think, are more willing to do reforms. Look at the reform of tool 2011 of the quarter. The Europeans were supporting it. So the IMF reforms actually would be easier than the World Bank. The World Bank is more American. So the IMF managing director next to one, the Asian, I am optimistic. Well, I'm terribly sorry we've gone back to hacking at the Americans. I'm now going to wind up the session. You've all been most excellent. Can I just take the poll one more time? I know that the panel will not have changed their minds, but I wonder if any of you, having listened to what they have to say, have changed your minds. How many of you think that now is the time for Asia to take the global economic lead? And perhaps a trifle more than at the beginning of this panel. I'm going to wind off now with a quote from Deng Xiaoping. He said, keep cool and maintain a low profile. Never take the lead, but plan to do big things. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for attending this panel.