尊敬的副校长凯特.朴蕊蒂女士（Kate Pretty）、我的昔日导师纳瓦拉南教授
（Professor Navaratnam）、亲爱的朋友、女士们先生们，剑桥大学在全球经济陷
入许久未见的严重衰退之际，庆祝建校800周年，似乎显得不吉利。可是纵观剑桥走过的历史长河，此次经济大滑坡只不过是人类发展中的又一次间断，类似情况剑桥不但多次见证，也参与了不少。这场危机是否会成为世界历史上一个主要转折点，我们还不得而知，只有在事态尘埃落定后才能确定。
倒是这场危机的严重性，却是越来越显著。危机何时触底、将持续多久，没人说得准。数以万计的公司将倒闭，至少上千万人饭碗不保。原本的金融危机已演变成全面性的经济危机。对许多国家而言，经济形势恶化会引发政治危机。一些国家的政府迫于短期的政治压力，仓促做出反应，这反而会使它们的经济雪上加霜。
《金融时报》去年12月的一篇评论指美国联邦储备局盲目飞行。实际上，所有的政府都在低能见度下飞行。市场剧烈动荡，正是因为没人能确定哪些应对策略会奏效。
为我家人看病的一位老医生曾经解释，为什么要让疾病走完发病到痊愈整个过程。他说，治病须顺应疾病的发展规律，对症下药。企图缩短这个过程可能反而会加重潜在病因。当中可能需要采取紧急措施，又或许症状减轻了，但无论如何，要让病人自身痊愈，随后他们体内的免疫系统将起变化。
奥地利经济学家约瑟夫.熊彼特（Joseph Schumpeter）了解创意性破坏的重要
性。一个经济周期的完结并不会使经济回复到原来的起点。经济走下坡时，公司倒闭、员工失业、机构重组改革、政府可能出现更替。在这过程中，资源重新分配，旧事物被新事物取代。
今年逢200周年冥诞的达尔文深明这一切。生命是一场斗争，旧的被新的取而代之，而人类社会是这场斗争的一部分。
我们自问，挣脱旧现实后浮现出来的新现实是什么？历史是不可预先决定的。在某个特定时间，存在着几个可能的未来，各自处于局部平衡状态。而每一次危机，代表着从一个局部平衡状态过渡到另一个局部平衡状态之间的一个间断。而这状态的变化仅仅是情景设想的多项可能性中的一项。
未来几年，无论历史在充满各种可能性的空间里依循哪个轨道运行，资产、生产要素、国家、思想都将经历大规模的重新定价。
让我先谈谈经济的重新定价。当前危机导致许多泡沫破灭，首当其冲的是美国的次优贷款房。全球各地的资产价格急速下滑。单在过去一年，就蒸发了几十万亿美元的财富。人们无从知道这个痛苦过程还会持续多久。好多个月前，作风一向谨慎的格林斯潘说，他往洞里一望，看到资产价格下滑即将见底；结果出现的却是鲜为人知的黑暗深渊。只有当资产价格充分下调后，深渊底部才会显现出来。公共政策足以推动或妨碍这个过程。不幸的是，许多经济刺激配套将使这方面的调整更加困难。例如拯救没效率的汽车公司可能反倒延长重组过程的痛苦，同时耗费巨额公款。
至于人的重新定价，还要痛苦得多。环球化之后，整个世界成了单一的劳动市场。欧美和日本工人的工资直接或间接地被亚洲和非洲数十亿的廉价劳动力压低。单是中国和印度每年所造就的科学家和工程师，就比所有发达国家的总和还多。虽然贸易是个正和游戏，但贸易所带来的好处却从未均等分配，因此接下来，许多国家必然面对国内保护主义加剧的压力。
各国政府往往为了保住员工的工作，而牺牲经济的长远利益。我们别误以为可以固步自封、强行摆脱经济衰退。一旦超出某个极限，货币兑换率就得承受压力。即使政府企图制止资产和人力重新定价，国际市场也会强迫我们作出调整。一个过度举债的国家将被重新定价，其货币将贬值，导致所有国民的生活水平下降。
当今世界明显失衡。七大工业国全陷入经济衰退。西方消费过多，储蓄过少，而亚洲则储蓄过多，消费过少。中国、印度和其他国家的消费理应远远超越产值，可是这些国家的国内生产总值仍然偏低，致使他们还不足以弥补当前全面下滑的全球需求量。这样的局面，也许再过10年、20年会扭转过来，但绝不是接下来短短几年内办得到的。而在这个过程中，凯恩斯的节约悖论将蔓延全球，环球经济可能陷入更长的衰退期。
眼前的这场危机可能需要几年的时间才会结束，之后世界将出现多极化局面，轮廓将更分明。美国虽然在长远的将来仍会继续是全球举足轻重的强国，但它将不再是世界唯一的超级霸主，权力须与他国分享。由西方列强主导的发达国家世界，必须与中国、印度、俄罗斯、巴西和其他国家分享权力，共同主导世界大局。由此可见，政治领域将伴随经济领域重新定价。
自北京举办盛大辉煌的奥运开幕式后，英国前首相布莱尔去年8月26日在《华尔街日报》发表评论写道：“这是个历史性的变革时刻。转瞬十年后，每个人都会明白这点。几个世纪以来，权力一直属于西方的欧洲列强，包括大英帝国。到了20世纪，权力属于美国。现在我们必须适应一个新世界，与远东地区分享权力。我很想知道，我们这些长久以来主宰世界的西方文明（不光是政治与经济） ，是否确切明
白这究竟意味着什么。这将是一个相当诡异、甚至可能叫人害怕的历程。”
以上评论是布莱尔于去年8月金融风暴来袭前发表的，今日听来，更是何其贴切。不过，分享权力谈何容易。国际金融机构如布莱顿森林机构等，若不大规模重组，环球治理体系内的许多问题将无法有效处理。在美国布什总统的倡导下而于去年11月开启的20大工业国峰会是一个必要的新起点。不过这是个过程。布朗首相希望4月2日于伦敦召开的第二次会议，可以为环球谈判拟出主要架构。诚然，环球机构的改革过程需要好几年时间来完成。在过渡时期，很多事情都可能出错。经济史学家金德伯格（Charles Kindleberger）分析了上世纪经济大萧条，认为个中一个主要导因是，在那个权力转移跨越大西洋的关键时刻，世界却群龙无首；当时的英国无法行使领导权，而美国则不愿意当领导。环球经济随之崩溃。
未来几十年，中美关系将影响世界。说得直白点，美国是中国最重要的出口市场，而中国是美国债券的最重要买家。中国如何和平地进入环球治理体系是一个至关重要的挑战，这将进而使环球体系出现变化。相信就是这个原因，促使美国国务卿希拉莉把东亚列为首次出访的目的地。
中国的蜕变是当今世界最重要的发展。关于中国重新崛起的论述很多，不过我想谈以下三点。
第一点是中国的自觉性。李约瑟在多年前（Joseph Needham）已就这一点写
了不少。中国历代有为前朝修史的责任。前后二十四史，第一部是司马迁于公元前
100年所著的《史记》。之后，后汉为西汉修史，接下来是王莽新朝、三国等等。最后一个朝代清朝建于1644年，至1911年辛亥革命爆发而灭亡。时至今日近一个世纪以后，清朝的正史方开始撰写。我在今年一月参观巴黎天主教外方传教会时，一位会说华语、曾在中国和新加坡服务多年的法国牧师告诉我，预计清代正史总共将有90册，而其中五册会是有关中国的基督教传教会。参观传教会时，我也遇到一位研究四川省传教活动历史的中国学者。没有一个国家或文明有这样的自我传承意识。至于中华人民共和国的正史，看来要等上好几百年后才能编撰。李约瑟对中国的自觉性有深邃的洞察力，这也造就了他在中国科学与文明研究方面的出色表现。吊诡的是，中国的自觉性多局限于传统范畴中的社会和道德成就。是李约瑟让中国人知道他们对世界作出了令人惊奇的科学与科技贡献。
不过中国的自觉性既是个长处也是个弱点。作为长处，它赋予中华民族自信和韧性。中国领导人常说，虽然中国应向世界学习，但必须以自己的方式寻觅通向未来的道路。不过这种自觉性也是一种自负感，使中国的思想和机制很难成为这个多元化世界的主流。可以确定的是，中国无意把外国人转化为中国人。反之，美国是个相对年轻的国家，深信自己的想法是独特及最优秀的，想要把每个人“美国化”。当今的全球化软件，包括各种标准与流行文化，基本上全是美国的。而这正是中美之间根深蒂固的差异。如果把文化比作人类操作系统，将各种不同文化以更高级的HTML或XML语言超链接起来的，其实是美国文化。即使这个美国文化软件时至今日仍需要某些修补，但它终究还是美国式的。而中国文化的性质却非常独特，所以，即便中国几乎肯定会在未来几十年内成为世界最大经济体，我并不认为中国文化软件有一天能够将世界统合起来。
我今天想谈的第二点是，中国叫人惊叹的城市试验进程。中国城市化的速度与规模，堪称人类史上前所未见。他们的城市规划专家自知中国不似美国那样拥有大片土地任由城区向郊区外扩张，耕地又不及印度来得广。尽管中国的高速公路网已经比美国还长，但中国人清楚意识到，如果他们的拥车用车量在人均水平上跟美国人一样，整个地球将会沸腾。中国看到了土地保护与节约能源的需要，正落足心力打造可容纳上千万人、相当于一个大国总人口的超大城市。而这些超大城市，绝非像墨西哥城、拉各斯等杂乱无章发展而成的集合城市，而是为庞大的居住人口精心设计的城市。城市基础建设经过周详规划，城内与城际之间有高速列车川行、机场规模可比北京机场、摩天高楼林立、以及开发多个汇集了大学、科研机构、起步公司、及所有附属设施的高科技园。去年三月，麦肯锡全球研究院会(McKinsey Global Institute)主张发展15个“超大城市”，平均人口2500万，或11个“小城市群”，
各城市群人口总和超出6000万。中国的共产体制把大量土地重新集中到政府手中，使中国较之其他国家更有条件推动规模庞大的重新发展项目。回顾1949年那一场中国革命，争取的正是土地所用权。这也正是中国与印度的最大差异所在。在印度，一如世界许多其他地方，为大规模发展项目征地，永远让人心力交瘁。
如果说在20世纪，世界以美国清晰理性的格网式城市规划马首是瞻，那21世纪里影响世界的城市发展概念应该来自中国。如此浩瀚的城市化进程，让中国在文化、政治、体制各方面都面临重塑。中国共产党以毛泽东的农村革命起家，处理城市政治对中共政府来说，挑战可不小。毛时代的城市人口比率仅20%，今天的中国，40%人口居住在城市里；而不出几十年，中国将赶上所有其他发达国家，城市人口将达八、九成之多。今时今日，中国的手机用户已经超越了世界任何一个地方，互联网用户比美国还多。
第三点，中国的政治文化。千百年来，中国早已发展出一套特殊的政治文化，足以使一个幅员土地犹如一整个洲般大的国家统一集中由一组官僚精英管辖治理。中华人民共和国时代的官僚政府正是中国共产党。在运作正常的情况下，这支官僚政府任人唯贤，对整个国家充满了强烈使命感。
明清时代规定任何高官都不可在自己出生地方圆400英里范围内任职，以免因牵涉地方利益而遭受压力。这也意味着弹丸之地如新加坡，完全不可能由新加坡人治理。刚在几年前，中华人民共和国又恢复了这项条例，实际运作情况也确实如此，无论是省委书记或省长，几乎所有省级领导都不出自所管辖的同个省份。唯一例外的是自治区，但同省人最高也只能坐上第二把交椅，绝不出任最高领导一职。以此类推的话，英国首相绝非英国人、法国总统绝非法国人、德国总理也不可能是德国人。
随着未来几十年的城市化进程，中国的政治体制将发生巨变，但由官僚精英掌控整个国家的情况应该不会改变。太多各种国家机能共同主宰着整个国家的利益，不得不实行中央集权制。在历史记忆里，一个分裂的中国总是带来纷乱，而一场纷乱很可能持续一段很长时间。
可以肯定的是，中国正在较基层地方政府层级推行民主试验，为滥权舞弊有效把关。但上到省市层级，领导人就得由更高的中央政府在听取各方意见、经过审慎遴选后点名委任。好比中国式社会主义一样，中国也会发展出有别于西方自由民主概念的“具中国特色的民主”。而当前的环球危机将使中国领导人更加坚信，以中央主导国家经济的做法是对的。
全球局势动荡，致使许多发展中国家纷纷研究起中国体制，反思中国发展经验能否为良好的治理模式提供借鉴与参考。长久以来主导世界的西方模式，首次面临强大的竞争者。
我提出这三点，说明要把中国纳入新的多极环球体制，过程有多么棘手繁杂；牵涉的不只是经济挑战，也包括政治与文化考验。但这个过程势在必行，结果将是一个跟我们熟悉的格局截然不同的世界。发展中国家将不再一味向往西方寻求灵感与启发，今后会把目光转向中国，也许还有印度。
中国与印度同步重新崛起，这个过程让人无限心醉。人口总合占了全球人口四成的这两个国家，在本质上截然不同：一个奉行伦理、严格拘谨；另一个是个民主社会、粗暴喧闹，或者借用阿马蒂亚森(Amartya Sen)的话说，“印度人能言好辩”。
但是中印又不约而同地让我们感受到一股有机的强盛生命力正在改变许许多多人民的生活。
这两大古文明得以重逢交错，同样好比一出戏。纵是千山万水相隔，中印千百年来在历史上的接触零星延续，大多数时候和平共处。近几年来，两国贸易往来大幅增长，使中国跃升为印度最大贸易伙伴国。但当然，我们也没忘了中国早在英属印度时代就曾经是英属印度最大的贸易伙伴。但两国之间始终心存疑虑。1962年中印边界战争印度战败后至今耿耿于怀，而中国领导人始终无法全然参透印度当年所承受的创伤究竟有多深。
对我们这些东南亚国家来说，这两个大国同属近邻，东南亚的既得利益取决于两国之间的和平与合作关系。我想谈谈一项或许有助于把南亚、东南亚以及东亚重新凝聚起来的计划，那就是，印度比哈尔邦(Bihar)那烂陀大学(Nalanda University)的重建计划。
通过中国的历史记载，世界知道印度曾经有这么一所古老的佛教大学，好几个世纪以来吸引了来自亚洲各地的学生深造修行。那烂陀在最鼎盛时期，学子上万人，大多是僧侣。根据唐朝高僧玄奘在七世纪留下的文字记载，那烂陀校舍辉煌一时，藏书阁共九层楼，佛塔高耸入云梢。玄奘跋山涉水、历经艰辛苦难赴印度取经的经历，经由小说《西游记》流传已久，他也确实曾在那烂陀修学好几年。但不幸的是，大约800年前，也就是牛津与剑桥相继成立的那个年代，那烂陀面临阿富汗侵略者大举入侵，惨遭摧毁殆尽。
最近，印度政府决定对这所古老的大学进行重建，发展成世俗大学，充当国际合作与交流的平台。当局已在出土遗址不远处拨出了500英亩土地供重建。重建后的大学将延续那烂陀多元领域的特色，弘扬人类和谐共生、人与自然和谐共存、人与自然生命结合的佛学理念。印度政府委任以阿马蒂亚森为首的一组顾问团，为那烂陀大学的重建概念与构思提供咨询，我很荣幸受邀成为顾问团成员。我希望新的那烂陀大学能引领亚洲朝向一个和平而相互理解尊重的新时代。我也希望那烂陀能与剑桥建立密切联系。
一个多极化的世界必定是个纷乱繁杂的世界，不会有哪个单一的价值体系会一支独秀将其他体系淹没。当前的金融危机，导致许多人开始对资本主义、社会主义和民主主义的本质产生了怀疑。借用法国总理利昂内尔 . 若斯潘(Lionel Jospin)的话
说，化学纯资本主义(chemically-pure capitalism)成了贬义词。反倒是凯恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)的价值回升，大家又把书柜里尘封已久的《通论》（《就业、利
息和货币通论》，The General Theory）一书翻了出来。《新闻周刊》(Newsweek)
最近一期的封面宣告：“你我如今都是社会主义分子。”就连马克思主义，也再度广为传阅。世界各国在寻求对策应对危机的当儿，也对各种思想与文化标准重新定价。万一失业率偏高的现象长久持续，类似上世纪三十年代的极端危险的思潮与意识形态很可能重现。
少了美国的领导，一个多极化世界将轻易引起环球不稳定。人们如今对奥巴马新政府寄予厚望，期待这支对文化之间微妙差异更为敏感的执政团队，能让世界重建秩序、恢复增长。可惜事情往往没想像中简单，种种纷乱与迷惑应该还会持续一段相当长时间。重点是，我们不可尽信所谓的绝对、终极的方案，因为恰恰是这些方案，往往才最危险。
面对当前危机，我们也许可从两位剑桥学子身上得到启发：达尔文、李约瑟(Needham)。达尔文于150年发表出版的《物种起源》(The Origin Of Species)标志着
人类知识的一大跃进。英国自然历史博物馆称之为“The Big Idea”。达尔文的想法确
实伟大。他的“自然选择论”，亦是人类知识、社会发展的贴切比喻；人类的思潮与制度就好比生物品种，经历战争、革命、选举、经济危机、学术辩论、市场竞争，自然淘汰。我们惟有期待存活下来并日益壮大的“适者”，能把人类文明推向另一个高峰。
没几个人能像李约瑟一样了解中国。正如赛门。温契斯特(Simon Winchester) 在一部关于李约瑟生平事迹的近著“The Man Who Loved China” 中说，李约瑟如果
活着看到中国今日的巨变，也未必会感到意外。
达尔文和李约瑟都受剑桥传统风气熏陶，学会怎么不失正义感与道德心而能同时秉持怀疑精神。惟有事事抱着怀疑态度，才能维持客观、严苛律己、借鉴他人。再凭借正义感与道德心，为更大的社会利益而奋斗。中国早期就因为贪污腐败，闭关锁国，拒绝向外界学习，最终导致国势颓败、一蹶不振。1793年，清朝乾隆皇帝在接见来访的英国使节马戈尔尼(Lord McCartney) 时，请他转告英王乔治三世：
“原不藉外夷货物以通有无”，认为西方没什么值得中国学习的。这标示了满清皇朝衰落的开始。
人类各大文明之间相互交流兼收并蓄的程度，超乎了他们各自的想象，也超乎你我的认知。李约瑟在1969年把一系列有关东西方之间历史性对话文选集结成书，书名是《四海之内》，取自孔子论语里的名言：“四海之内，皆兄弟也。”第三世界团结组织鼎盛的五十年代，印度有句话说："Hindi-Chini, bhai bhai" ，意即，印度
人和中国人是兄弟。在当前这个纷乱迷惑的年代，我们愈发需要在人性互敬互重的深刻基础上相互学习、兼收并蓄。
. . . . .
SPEECH BY MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS GEORGE YEO AT THE DISTINGUISHED LECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE ON 27 MARCH 2009 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE'S 800TH ANNIVERSARY
Madam Pro-Vice Chancellor, Kate Pretty, my old tutor, Professor Navaratnam, dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, it may seem inauspicious that Cambridge should be celebrating its 800th Anniversary at a time when the world is heading into a deep recession the likes of which have not been seen for a long time. From the perspective of Cambridge's long history, however, this sharp economic downturn is but another discontinuity in the affairs of man of which the University has seen many and participated in not a few. Whether this crisis marks a major break in world history we don't know yet. Turning points are only seen for what they are in hindsight.
What is becoming clearer is the severity of the crisis. No one is sure where the bottom is or how long this crisis will last. In the meantime, tens of thousands of companies will go bankrupt and tens of millions of people will lose their jobs - at least. What started as a financial crisis has become a full-blown economic crisis. For many countries, worsening economic conditions will lead to political crisis. In some, governments acting hastily in response to short-term political pressure will do further harm to the economy.
In an editorial last December, the Financial Times commented that the US Federal Reserve was flying blind. But, in fact, all governments are flying with poor vision. Markets are volatile precisely because no one knows for sure which policy responses will work.
I remember an old family doctor once explaining how every disease must run its course. In treating an illness, he said, one works with its progression. Attempting to short-cut the process may worsen the underlying condition. While emergency action may be needed and symptoms can be ameliorated, the body must be healed from within after which its immunological status changes.
The Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter understood the importance of creative destruction. The end of an economic cycle does not return the economy to where it was at the beginning. During the downturn, firms go bankrupt, people lose jobs, institutions are revamped, and governments may be changed. And in the process, resources are reallocated and the old gives way to the new.
Charles Darwin, whose 200th birth anniversary we mark this year, understood all that. Life is a struggle with old forms giving way to new forms. And human society is part of this struggle.
The question we ask ourselves is, what is the new reality that is struggling to emerge from the old? History is not pre-determined. There is, at any point in time, a number of possible futures, each, as it were, a state of partial equilibrium. And every crisis is a discontinuity from one partial equilibrium state to another within what scenario analysts call a cone of possibilities.
Well, whatever trajectory history takes within that cone of possibilities in the coming years, there will be a great re-pricing of assets, of factors of production, of countries, of ideas.
Let me first talk about economic re-pricing. Many bubbles have burst in the current crisis starting with sub-prime properties in the US. All over the world, asset prices are plummeting. In the last one year, tens of trillions of dollars have been wiped out. How much further this painful process will continue, no one can be sure. Many months ago, Alan Greenspan, in his usual measured way, peering into the hole said he saw a bottom forming in the fall of asset prices; it turned out to be the darkness of an abyss very few knew existed. That bottom is only reached when assets are sufficiently re-priced downwards. Public policies can help or hinder this process. Unfortunately, many stimulus packages being proposed will make the adjustment more difficult. For example, bailing out inefficient automobile companies may end up prolonging the pain of restructuring at tremendous public expense.
The re-pricing of human beings will be even more traumatic. With globalisation, we have in effect one marketplace for human labour in the world. Directly or indirectly, the wages and salaries of Americans, Europeans and Japanese are being held down by billions of Asians and Africans prepared to work for much less. China and India alone are graduating more scientists and engineers every year than all the developed countries combined. Now, while it is true that trade is a positive sum game, the benefits of trade are never equally distributed. We can therefore expect protectionist pressures to grow in many countries.
Governments will try to protect jobs often at long-term cost to their economies. It is wrong to think that we can force our way out of a recession. Beyond a point, the stress will be taken on exchange rates. If governments try to prevent the re-pricing of assets and human beings, international markets will force the adjustment on us. A country that is over-leveraged living beyond its means will itself be re-priced through its currency. Its currency will be devalued, forcing lower living standards on all its citizens.
The world is in profound imbalance today. All the G7 countries are in recession. The West is consuming too much and saving too little while the East is saving too much and consuming too little. China, India and others need to consume much more of what they produce but they are unable to take up the present slack in global demand because their GDPs are still too small. In 10-20 years, they may be able to but certainly not in the next few years. In the meantime, the global economy may suffer a prolonged recession, a global Keynesian paradox of thrift
When this crisis is finally over, which may take some years, out of it will emerge a multi-polar world with clearer contours. Although the US will remain the pre-eminent pole for a long time to come, it will no longer be the hyperpower and power will have to be shared. The Western-dominated developed world will have to share significant power with China, India, Russia, Brazil and other countries. Thus, accompanying the economic re-pricing will be political re-pricing.
Following the spectacular opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing, Tony Blair wrote in the Wall Street Journal of August 26 last year: "This is a historic moment of change. Fast forward 10 years and everyone will know it. For centuries, the power has resided in the West, with various European powers including the British Empire and then, in the 20th century, the US. Now we will have to come to terms with a world in which the power is shared with the Far East. I wonder if we quite understand what that means, we whose culture (not just our politics and economies) has dominated for so long. It will be a rather strange, possibly unnerving experience."
Those words were said by Tony Blair in August last year before the financial meltdown. How much more they ring true today. Sharing power is however easier said than done. But without a major restructuring of international institutions, including the Bretton Woods institutions, many problems in global governance cannot be properly managed. The meeting of G20 leaders started by President George Bush in November last year is a necessary new beginning. But it is a process. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is hoping that the next meeting on 2 April in London will sketch out the main elements of a global bargain. To be sure, the reform of global institutions is a process that will take years to achieve. During the transition, many things can go wrong. In his analysis of the Great Depression in the last century, the economic historian Charles Kindleberger identified a major cause in the absence of global leadership during a critical period when power was shifting across the Atlantic. Great Britain could not exercise leadership while the US would not. In between, the global economy fell.
In the coming decades, the key relationship in the world will be that between the US and China. Putting it starkly, the US is China's most important export market while China is the most important buyer of US Treasuries. The core challenge is the peaceful incorporation of China into the global system of governance, which in turn will change the global system itself. This was probably what led Secretary Hillary Clinton to make her first overseas visit to East Asia.
The transformation of China is the most important development in the world today. Much has been written about it, the re-emergence of China. But I would like to touch on three points.
The first point is China's sense of itself which was written about by Joseph Needham many years ago. Over the centuries, it has been the historical duty of every Chinese dynasty to write the history of the previous one. Twenty-four have been written, the first a hundred years before Christ by Sima Qian in the famous book, Shi Ji. And since then the later Han wrote about the Han and then the Xin, the Three Kingdoms and so on. So twenty-four in all. The last dynasty, the Qing Dynasty, lasted from 1644 to the Republican revolution of 1911. Its official history is only now being written after almost a century. When I visited the Catholic Society of Foreign Missions of Paris in January this year, I was told by a Mandarin-speaking French priest who served many years in China and in Singapore that out of the 90 volumes envisaged for the official history of the Qing Dynasty, 5 volumes would be on the Christian missions in China. When I was there at the Society, I met a Chinese scholar researching into the history of missionary activities in Sichuan province. No other country or civilisation has this sense of its own continuity. For the official history of the People's Republic, I suppose we would have to wait a couple of hundred years. It was Needham's profound insight into China's sense of itself that led to his remarkable study of Science and Civilization in China. Ironically, China's sense of itself was mostly about its social and moral achievements within the classical realm. It was Needham who informed the Chinese of their own amazing scientific and technological contributions to the world.
However, China's sense of itself is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because it gives Chinese civilization its self-confidence and its tenacity. Chinese leaders often say that while China should learn from the rest of the world, China would have to find its own way to the future. But it is also a conceit, and this conceit makes it difficult for Chinese ideas and institutions to become global in a diverse world. To be sure, the Chinese have no wish to convert non-Chinese into Chinese-ness. In contrast, the US as a young country, believing its own conception to be novel and exceptional, wants everyone to be American. The software of globalisation today including standards and pop culture is basically American. And therein lies a profound difference between China and the US. The software of globalisation today, including standards and pop culture, is basically American. If you look at cultures as human operating systems, it is US culture which has hyper-linked all these different cultures together, in a kind of higher HTML or XML language. And even though that software needs some fixing today, it will remain essentially American. And I doubt that the Chinese software will ever be able to unify the world the way it has been because it (Chinese software) has a very different characteristic all of its own. Even when China becomes the biggest economy in the world as it almost certainly will within a few decades.
The second point I wish to highlight today about China is the astonishing urban experimentation taking place today. China is urbanising at a speed and on a scale never seen before in human history. Chinese planners know that they do not have the land to build sprawling suburbia like America's. China has less arable land than India. Although China already has a greater length of highways than the whole of the US, the Chinese are keenly aware that if they were to drive cars on a per capita basis like Americans, the whole world would boil. Recognising the need to conserve land and energy, the Chinese are now embarked on a stupendous effort to build mega-cities, each accommodating tens of millions of people, each the population size of a major country. And these will not be urban conurbations like Mexico City or Lagos growing higgledy-piggledy, but cities designed to accommodate such enormous populations. This means planned urban infrastructure with high-speed intra-city and inter-city rail, huge airports like Beijing's, forests of skyscrapers, and high tech parks containing universities, research institutes, start-ups and ancillary facilities. In March last year, McKinsey Global Institute recommended 15 'super cities' with average populations of 25 million or 11 'city-clusters' each with combined populations of more than 60 million. Unlike most countries, China is able to mount massive redevelopment projects because of the Communist re-concentration of land in the hands of the state. If you think about it, the great Chinese revolution was fundamentally about the ownership of land. This is the biggest difference between China and India. In India and most other parts of the world, land acquisition for large-scale projects is a very difficult and laborious process.
As we looked to the US for new patterns of urban development in the 20th century with its very rational grid patterns, we will have to look to China for the cities of the 21st century. Urbanisation on such a colossal scale is reshaping Chinese culture, politics and institutions. The Chinese Communist Party which had its origins in Mao's countryside faces a huge challenge in the management of urban politics. From an urban population of 20% in Mao's days, China is 40% urban today and, like all developed countries, will become 80-90% urban in a few decades' time. Already, China has more mobile phones than anybody else and more internet users than the US.
My third point is about China's political culture. Over the centuries, China has evolved a political culture that enables a continental-size nation to be governed through a bureaucratic elite. In the People's Republic, the bureaucratic elite is the Communist Party. When working properly, the mandarinate is meritocratic and imbued with a deep sense of responsibility for the whole country.
During the Ming and Qing Dynasties, there was a rule that no high official could serve within 400 miles of his birthplace so that he did not come under pressure to favour local interests. This would mean that for a place like Singapore, it would never be governed by Singaporeans. A few years ago, that rule was re-introduced to the People's Republic, and indeed, in almost all cases, the leader of a Chinese province is not from that province. Neither the Party Secretary nor the Governor, unless it is an autonomous region, in which case the number two job goes to a local, but never the number one job. It is as if on a routine basis, the British PM cannot be British, the French President cannot be French and the German Chancellor cannot be German.
Although politics in China will change radically as the country urbanises in the coming decades, the core principle of a bureaucratic elite holding the entire country together is not likely to change. Too many state functions affecting the well-being of the country as a whole require central coordination. In its historical memory, a China divided always meant chaos, and chaos could last a long time.
To be sure, China is experimenting with democracy at the lower levels of government because it acts as a useful check against abuse of power. However, at the level of cities and provinces, leaders are chosen from above after carefully canvassing the views of peers and subordinates. As with socialism, China will evolve a form of 'democracy with Chinese characteristics' quite different from Western liberal democracy. The current world crisis will convince the Chinese even more that they are right not to give up state control of the commanding heights of the economy.
With the world in turmoil, many developing countries are studying the Chinese system wondering whether it might not offer them lessons on good governance. For the first time in a long time, the Western model has a serious competitor.
I make these three points about China to illustrate how complex the process of incorporating China into a new multi-polar global system will be. The challenge is not only economic, it is also political and cultural. Yet, it must be met and the result will be a world quite different from what we are used to. Developing countries will no longer look only to the West for inspiration; they will also turn to China and, maybe, to India as well.
The simultaneous re-emergence of India and China, together making up 40% of the world's population, is endlessly fascinating. Two countries cannot be more different. One is Confucianist and strait-laced, the other is democratic and rambunctious. Or to use Amartya Sen's words, "The Indian is argumentative". Yet, in both countries, we can feel an organic vitality changing the lives of huge numbers of people. The re-encounter of these two ancient civilizations is itself another drama. Separated by high mountains and vast deserts, their historical contact over the centuries was sporadic and largely peaceful. In recent years, trade between them has grown hugely, making China India's biggest trading partner today. But of course, we must remember that during the Raj, China was also British India's biggest trading partner. But they are suspicious of each other. India remains scarred by its defeat by China in 1962 during the border war, a point which Chinese leaders seem not to understand fully. We in Southeast Asia have a strong vested interest in these two great nations who are our immediate neighbours having peaceful, cooperative relations. Let me talk briefly about a project which may help bring South, Southeast and East Asia together again. This is the revival of the old Nalanda University in the Indian state of Bihar.
Through Chinese historical records, the world is aware of the existence of an ancient Buddhist university in India which for centuries drew students from all over Asia. At its peak, Nalanda accommodated ten thousand students, mostly monks. It had a magnificent campus with a nine-storey library and towers reaching into the clouds, according to the extravagant but remarkably accurate account of the 7th century Tang Dynasty Buddhist monk Xuan Zang. Xuan Zang's journey to India to bring back Buddhist sutras was such an odyssey, it has long been mythologized in Chinese folklore - the Journey to the West. He spent a number of years in Nalanda. Unfortunately, Nalanda was destroyed by Afghan invaders at about the time Oxford and Cambridge were established 800 years ago and again initially, mostly for monks. The Indian Government has recently decided to revive this ancient university as a secular university, offering it for international collaboration. A 500-acre site not far from the ruins of the old has already been acquired. Like the old, it will be multi-disciplinary, drawing on the Buddhist philosophy of man living in harmony with man, man living in harmony with nature, and man living as part of nature. A mentors group chaired by Amartya Sen has been appointed by the Indian Government to conceptualise its establishment, of which I am privileged to be a member. I hope the new Nalanda University will help usher in a new era of peace and understanding in Asia. I also hope it will have strong links to Cambridge.
A multi-polar world is a messy world. It means that no particular value system will hold complete sway over others. The current crisis has already caused many people to question the nature of capitalism, socialism and democracy. Chemically-pure capitalism, to use a phrase coined by former French Premier Lionel Jospin, has become a dirty word. In contrast, John Maynard Keynes seems to have been re-priced upwards again and all of us have been dusting the old copies of The General Theory that we have on our shelves. A recent Newsweek cover proclaimed that "we are all socialists now". Even Karl Marx is being re-read. Ideas, cultural norms are all being re-priced as countries search for ways out of the crisis. If high unemployment persists for many more years, dangerous ideas and ideologies may reappear as they did in the 30's.
Without American leadership, multi-polarity can easily lead to global instability. And there is much expectation of what a new Obama Administration, sensitive to cultural nuances, can do to restore order and growth in the world. Unfortunately, there are no quick or easy solutions. We should expect instead a fairly long period of untidiness and confusion. Most importantly, we should be sceptical of absolute or ultimate solutions for these are often the most dangerous.
In responding to the current crisis, let us be inspired by two Cambridge men, Darwin and Needham. Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species 150 years ago represented one of the greatest intellectual leaps by mankind. At the British Museum of Natural History, they call it "The Big Idea". It was a very big idea. Natural selection has an obvious analogue in man's intellectual and social development. Like biological species, human ideas and systems are also subject to selection through wars, revolutions, elections, economic crises, academic debates and market competition. Those which survive and flourish should, we hope, raise civilization to a higher level.
Needham understood China like few other men did. As Simon Winchester wrote in his recent book on Needham, The Man Who Loved China, Needham might not be surprised to see the huge transformation of China today.
Both Darwin and Needham were drawn from our university tradition of being sceptical without losing our moral sense. Only by being sceptical can we be objective, can we see ourselves critically and learn from others. Only with a moral sense will we be motivated to work for a larger social good. It was China's corruption and inability to learn from others in an earlier period that led to its long decline. The Qian Long Emperor told George III during Lord McCartney's mission in 1793 that China had nothing to learn from the West. That marked the beginning of China's long decline.
Human civilisations learn from one another more than they realise, more than we realise. In a collection of essays published by Needham on the historic dialogue of East and West in 1969, he chose for his title Within the Four Seas. That title was from the Analects of Confucius, who said, "Within the Four Seas, all men are brothers". In the heyday of Third World solidarity in the 50's, the Indians had a saying - "Hindi-Chini, bhai bhai" ; Indians and Chinese are brothers. In these confused times, we need to learn from one another on the basis of a deep respect for each other as human beings.
Recent Comments