Lee Kuan Yew: “It’s Stupid to be Afraid.”
16 Responses | Leave a Comment »
This is the best interview with a political leader I’ve ever read. He makes some insightful observations on world politics and strategy, and says something very interesting about how democracy can be undermined in multiracial societies by ethnocentric voting. (This mirrors my “integral theory” or “developmental” position that democracy is not universally functional or desirable but is dependent on a population’s moral/cognitive mode.) READ THIS interview! (Special thanks to Maogirl for pointing it out.)
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH SINGAPORE’S LEE KUAN YEW
“It’s Stupid to be Afraid”
Singapore’s first-ever prime minister, long-time government head and current political mentor Lee Kuan Yew talks about Asia’s rise to economic power, China’s ambitions and the West’s chances of staying competitive.
The elder statesman Lee: “We run a meritocracy.”
SPIEGEL: The political and economic center of gravity is moving from the West towards the East. Is Asia becoming the dominant political and economic force in this century?
Mr. Lee: I wouldn’t say it’s the dominant force. What is gradually happening is the restoration of the world balance to what it was in the early 19th century or late 18th century when China and India together were responsible for more than 40 percent of world GDP. With those two countries becoming part of the globalized trading world, they are going to go back to approximately the level of world GDP that they previously occupied. But that doesn’t make them the superpowers of the world.
SPIEGEL: Their leading politicians have publicly discussed the so-called “Asian Century”.
Mr. Lee: Yes, economically, there will be a shift to the Pacific from the Atlantic Ocean and you can already see that in the shipping volumes of Chinese ports. Every shipping line is trying to get into association with a Chinese container port. India is slower because their infrastructure is still to be completed. But I think they will join in the race, build roads, bridges, airports, container ports and they’ll become a manufacturing hub. Raw materials go in, finished goods go out.
SPIEGEL: You’ve been the leader of a very successful state for a long time. Returning from your time in China, are you afraid for Singapore’s future?
Mr. Lee: I saw it coming from the late 1980s. Deng Xiaoping started this in 1978. He visited Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore in November 1978. I think that visit shocked him because he expected three backward cities. Instead he saw three modern cities and he knew that communism — the politics of the iron rice bowl — did not work. So, at the end of December, he announced his open door policy. He started free trade zones and from there, they extended it and extended it. Now they have joined the WTO and the whole country is a free trade zone.
SPIEGEL: But has China’s success not become dangerous for Singapore?
Mr. Lee: We have watched this transformation and the speed at which it is happening. As many of my people tell me, it’s scary. They learn so fast. Our people set up businesses in Shanghai or Suzhou and they employ Chinese at lower wages than Singapore Chinese. After three years, they say: “Look, I can do that work, I want the same pay.” So it is a very serious challenge for us to move aside and not collide with them. We have to move to areas where they cannot move.
SPIEGEL: Such as?
Mr. Lee: Such as where the rule of law, intellectual property and security of production systems are required, because for them to establish that, it will take 20 to 30 years. We are concentrating on bio medicine, pharmaceuticals and all products requiring protection of intellectual property rights. No pharmaceutical company is going to go have its precious patents disclosed. So that is why they are here in Singapore and not in China.
SPIEGEL: But the Chinese are moving too. They bought parts of IBM and are trying to take over the American oil company Unocal.
Mr. Lee: They are learning. They have learnt takeovers and mergers from the Americans. They know that if they try to sell their computers with a Chinese brand it will take them decades in America, but if they buy IBM, they can inject their technology and low cost into IBM’s brand name, and they will gain access to the market much faster.
SPIEGEL: But how afraid should the West be?
Mr. Lee: It’s stupid to be afraid. It’s going to happen. I console myself this way. Suppose, China had never gone communist in 1949, suppose the Nationalist government had worked with the Americans — China would be the great power in Asia — not Japan, not Korea, not Hong Kong, not Singapore. Because China isolated itself, development took place on the periphery of Asia first.
SPIEGEL: Such a consolation won’t be enough for the future.
Mr. Lee: Right. In 50 years I see China, Korea and Japan at the high-tech end of the value chain. Look at the numbers and quality of the engineers and scientists they produce and you know that this is where the R&D will be done. The Chinese have a space programme, they’re going to put a man on the Moon and nobody sold them that technology. We have to face that. But you should not be afraid of that. You are leading in many fields which they cannot catch up with for many years, many decades. In pharmaceuticals, I don’t see them catching up with the Germans for a long time.
SPIEGEL: That wouldn’t feed anybody who works for Opel, would it?
Mr. Lee: A motor car is a commodity — four wheels, a chassis, a motor. You can have modifications up and down, but it remains a commodity, and the Chinese can do commodities.
SPIEGEL: When you look to Western Europe, do you see a possible collapse of the society because of the overwhelming forces of globalization?
Mr. Lee: No. I see ten bitter years. In the end, the workers, whether they like it or not, will realize, that the cosy European world which they created after the war has come to an end.
SPIEGEL: How so?
Mr. Lee: The social contract that led to workers sitting on the boards of companies and everybody being happy rested on this condition: I work hard, I restore Germany’s prosperity, and you, the state, you have to look after me. I’m entitled to go to Baden Baden for spa recuperation one month every year. This old system was gone in the blink of an eye when two to three billion people joined the race — one billion in China, one billion in India and over half-a-billion in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
SPIEGEL: The question is: How do you answer that challenge?
Mr. Lee: Chancellor Kohl tried to do it. He did it halfway then he had to pause. Schroeder tried to do it, now he’s in a jam and has called an election. Merkel will go in and push, then she will get hammered before she can finish the job, but each time, they will push the restructuring a bit forward.
SPIEGEL: You think it’s too slow?
Mr. Lee: It is painful because it is so slow. If your workers were rational they would say, yes, this is going to happen anyway, let’s do the necessary things in one go. Instead of one month at the spa, take one week at the spa, work harder and longer for the same pay, compete with the East Europeans, invent in new technology, put more money into your R&D, keep ahead of the Chinese and the Indians.
SPIEGEL: You have seen yourself how hard it is to implement such strategies.
Mr. Lee: I faced this problem myself. Every year, our unions and the Labour Department subsidize trips to China and India. We tell the participants: Don’t just look at the Great Wall but go to the factories and ask, “What are you paid?” What hours do you work?” And they come back shell-shocked. The Chinese had perestroika first, then glasnost. That’s where the Russians made their mistake.
SPIEGEL: The Chinese Government is promoting the peaceful rise of China. Do you believe them?
Mr. Lee: Yes, I do, with one reservation. I think they have calculated that they need 30 to 40 — maybe 50 years of peace and quiet to catch up, to build up their system, change it from the communist system to the market system. They must avoid the mistakes made by Germany and Japan. Their competition for power, influence and resources led in the last century to two terrible wars.
SPIEGEL: What should the Chinese do differently?
Mr. Lee: They will trade, they will not demand, “This is my sphere of influence, you keep out”. America goes to South America and they also go to South America. Brazil has now put aside an area as big as the state of Massachusetts to grow soya beans for China. They are going to Sudan and Venezuela for oil because the Venezuelan President doesn’t like America. They are going to Iran for oil and gas. So, they are not asking for a military contest for power, but for an economic competition.
SPIEGEL: But would anybody take them really seriously without military power?
Mr. Lee: About eight years ago, I met Liu Huaqing, the man who built the Chinese Navy. Mao personally sent him to Leningrad to learn to build ships. I said to him, “The Russians made very rough, crude weapons”. He replied, “You are wrong. They made first-class weapons, equal to the Americans.” The Russian mistake was that they put so much into military expenditure and so little into civilian technology. So their economy collapsed. I believe the Chinese leadership have learnt: If you compete with America in armaments, you will lose. You will bankrupt yourself. So, avoid it, keep your head down, and smile, for 40 or 50 years.
SPIEGEL: What are your reservations?
Mr. Lee: I don’t know whether the next generation will stay on this course. After 15 or 20 years they may feel their muscles are very powerful. We know the mind of the leaders but the mood of the people on the ground is another matter. Because there’s no more communist ideology to hold the people together, the ground is now galvanised by Chinese patriotism and nationalism. Look at the anti-Japanese demonstrations.
SPIEGEL: How do you explain that China is spending billions on military modernisation right now?
Mr. Lee: Their modernisation is just a drop in the ocean. Their objective is to raise the level of damage they can deliver to the Americans if they intervene in Taiwan. Their objective is not to defeat the Americans, which they cannot do. They know they will be defeated. They want to weaken the American resolve to intervene. That is their objective, but they do not want to attack Taiwan.
SPIEGEL: Really? They have just passed the aggressive anti-secession law and a general has threatened to use the nuclear bomb.
Mr. Lee: I think they have put themselves into a position internationally that if Taiwan declares independence, they must react and if Beijing’s leadership doesn’t, they would be finished, they would be a paper tiger and they know that. So, they passed the anti-secession law to tell the Taiwanese and the Americans and the Japanese, “I do not want to fight, but if you allow Taiwan to go for independence, I will have to fight.” I think the anti-secession law is a law to preserve the status quo.
SPIEGEL: Another critical point in Asia is the growing rivalry between China and Japan.
Mr. Lee: It’s been dormant all this while, right? But I think several things happened that upped the ante. They possibly coincide with the policy of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. There is this return to “we want to be a normal country.” They are sending ships to Afghanistan to support the Americans, they sent a battalion to Iraq, they reclaimed the Senkaku islands, and most recently, they joined the Americans in declaring that Taiwan is a strategic interest of Japan and America. That raises all the historical memories of the Japanese taking away Taiwan in 1895. Then they’re applying to be a permanent member of the Security Council. So, I think the Chinese decided that this is too much. So, they have openly said they will object to Japan becoming a member of the Security Council.
SPIEGEL: Well, the United States said the same to Germany.
Mr. Lee: Exactly. So, the whole process is trying to define the position for the next round, maybe in 10 to 15 years, by which time the world will be a different place.
SPIEGEL: Can the Chinese convince their North Korean ally Kim Jong-Il to get rid of his nuclear program?
Mr. Lee: North Korea is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma. The leaders in North Korea believe that their survival depends upon having a bomb — at least one nuclear bomb. Otherwise, sooner or later, they will collapse and the leaders will be put on trial like Milosevic for all the crimes that they have committed. And they have no intention of letting that happen.
SPIEGEL: Who can stop them? The Americans?
Mr. Lee: Yes, but at a price, a heavy price.
SPIEGEL: Could the Chinese do it?
Mr. Lee: Possibly. By denying food, denying fuel, so they would implode. But will the Chinese benefit from an imploded North Korea? That brings the South into the North. That brings the Americans to the Yalu River. So, the North Koreans have also done their calculations and know that there are limits.
SPIEGEL: So Kim is in a strong position?
Mr. Lee: If I were Kim I would freeze the programme, tell the Americans you can inspect, but if you attack me, I will use it. That leaves the Americans with the problem of checking and verifying and intercepting ships, aircraft, endless problems.
SPIEGEL: Would that save Kim’s regime?
Mr. Lee: In the long run I think they will implode sooner or later because their system cannot survive. They can see China, they can see Russia and Vietnam, all opening up. If they open up, their system of control of the people will break down. So they must go.
SPIEGEL: If the six party talks fail, do you foresee an arms race in Eastern Asia?
Mr. Lee: If the nuclear program is frozen, there won’t be an arms race. Eventually, it is not in China’s interests to have an erratic Korea nuclear-armed and a Japan nuclear-armed. That reduces China’s position.
SPIEGEL: Many Americans fear that China and the US are bound to become strategic rivals. Will this become the great rivalry of the 21st century?
Mr. Lee: Rivals, yes, but not necessarily enemies. The Chinese have spent a lot of energy and time to make sure that their periphery is friendly to them. So, they settled with Russia, they have settled with India. They’re going to have a free trade agreement with India — they’re learning from each other. Instead of quarrelling with the Philippines and the Vietnamese over oil in the South China Sea, they have agreed on joint exploration and sharing. They’ve agreed on a strategic agreement with Indonesia for bilateral trade and technology.
SPIEGEL: But the Americans are trying to encircle China. They have won new bases in Central Asia.
Mr. Lee: The Chinese are very conscious of being encircled by allies of America. But they are very good in countering those moves. South Korea today has the largest number of foreign students in China. They see their future in China. So, the only country that’s openly on America’s side is Japan. All the others are either neutral or friendly to China.
SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?
Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people’s position. In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that…
SPIEGEL: … and that turned Singapore de facto into a one party state. Critics say that Singapore resembles a Lee Family Enterprise. Your son is the Prime Minister, your daughter-in-law heads the powerful Development Agency…
Mr. Lee: … and my other son is CEO of Singapore Telecoms, my daughter is head of the National Institute for Neurology. This is a very small community of 4 million people. We run a meritocracy. If the Lee Family set an example of nepotism, that system would collapse. If I were not the prime minister, my son could have become Prime Minister several years earlier. It is against my interest to allow any family member who’s incompetent to hold an important job because that would be a disaster for Singapore and my legacy. That cannot be allowed.
The interview was conducted by editors Hans Hoyng and Andreas Lorenz.
Translated from the German by Christoper Sultan
Leave a Comment »
Share

sundayalliance
3:25 am | May 11, 2008The interviewers sound like fear mongering douchebags.
groinpull
4:59 am | May 11, 2008when was this interview? This looks similar to one I’ve read almost a year ago.
SamuraiJack
11:01 am | May 11, 2008“August 08, 2005″
I also think democracies in developing countries facilitate the exploitation of the countries resources and labour by foreign corporations, which sometimes are more powerful than the countries themselves.
As for the issue of branding - China buying American brands or using non-Chinese sounding brands - another point is that many Americans, including Asian Americans, have a racist view that anything that sounds Asian is inferior and less “cool”. The Japanese have cracked the “inferior” stigma, but will Asian sounding brands ever become “cool”?
That’s a huge trade disadvantage right there, along with the need to show white models in America, while the reverse is not true.
jaehwan
5:16 pm | May 11, 2008Good article. He’s definitely a guy who has done great things for Singapore. That ethnic voting issue is the problem that other places in the region face.
Dialectic
11:42 pm | May 11, 2008Haha, I actually didn’t notice the date of the article; I wonder what his take on the Tibet situation is?
zhangfei
9:48 am | May 12, 2008Dialectic, check out page 10 of the PDF.
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20080506/MMinterview%20with%20Bloomberg.pdf
zhangfei
9:51 am | May 12, 2008http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA
/pdf/20080506/MMinterview%20with%20Bloomberg.pdf
You take Tibet. Who started it? It was started by the Tibetans. The March incident, March 14. I was reading Jonathan Eyal who writes for our Straits Times. He was a commentator from London. He is from I think Chatham House, a very thoughtful man. He said if they had called in the newspapers right from the word go, and said look, this is what happened. The Economist correspondent was in Lhasa when it happened and wrote about it. He was favorable to them. The rioters started killing people and they were not reacting. The orders were not to shoot, not to take on the rioters because they didn’t want trouble. Had they engaged the west, all this would have turned out differently.
Why didn’t they? Because there was a chasm between their mental make up and that of the west. So they say all western correspondents out, that means you have got something to hide. I think that was not very wise. Supposing it was Singapore, do we say all correspondents out? No. I say look come on, stay, watch it, see what happens, see who started what. Are they stupid? They can’t do what we do? No. Its just people at the people at the top have not been educated in the west, they have not been exposed to that kind of environment, that kind of rules of the game, and are not playing by those rules of the game.
The day they build up an educated middle class, a large middle class, huge numbers of whom have been educated abroad, PHDs, MBAs in America, Europe, Japan elsewhere, and they are the people setting policies at the top, not people whose mental mindsets are from Soviet days, that day they will find they can play by the western rules and win.
Stingson
12:57 pm | May 12, 2008Thanks a lot Dialectic and Zhangfei, these articles are extremely interesting.
My question is Lee Kuan Yew argued that Singapore doesn’t have a western style democracy based on the premise that people in general would vote only for their race and/or religion and progress will be dragged down a lot. I don’t know if India is a western style democracy but I hear India is the world’s largest democratic country all the time in the news and classrooms. But India is also extremely diverse (I think even more diverse than Singapore) in ethnicities and in religion and India doesn’t claim to be a meritocracy. So my question is can Singapore do the same as India? Thanks for reading.
howstrange
4:57 pm | May 12, 2008Wow, this is the stuff I like to read, great links!
Dialectic
7:42 pm | May 12, 2008Thanks, zhangfei, for that link. From what I know, and from the way Lee’s broken it down, I completely agree with him. Instead, the Chinese used the same old clumsy, clumsy propaganda and lost all credibility when they called the DL a terrorist and whipped up a completely retarded nationalist fervor.
Stingson (welcome!), I’ll respond very broadly (because I don’t know a ton about the workings of either country). Having stable, working democracies require a ton of factors all being in place, one of which is that a majority of the population can rationally understand democratic principles and abide by them. This becomes much more difficult, though not impossible in multi-ethnic nations with large power imbalances between races or classes. While India does seem to have a stable democracy (in which they elected a woman Muslim, no less!), I’m not sure how well it’s working with regard to economic development and class equalization (or promoting the rise of a large middle class); from what I can tell, the Indians haven’t done so well in that regard, and I wouldn’t be surprised if ethnocentric class and sub-race hierarchies play a large part in that. With regard to what does work, I assume (and correct me if I’m wrong) that they’ve at least manage to create or promote some sense of “Indian” identity.
In South-East Asian countries, I don’t believe that this is the case. States are very much split along racial and religious lines (the Bumiputra policies in Malaysia and Brunei are prime examples of this), and as Lee said, everyone will vote ethnocentrically regardless of rational policy considerations, undermining democratic ideals (this, of course, happens in the West, too, but isn’t as large a threat for reasons I won’t get into here). Ultimately, the people with the numbers and/or the money-power will win, generally the Chinese, who in that part of the world (or most parts, really) don’t particularly care about things like minority rights, social welfare, class equalization, and all that good stuff.
For a democracy to fluorish, you need industrialization, free-flowing information, and a critical-mass of people with “worldcentric” views which hopefully transcend race/class lines (witness the abolition of slavery in the U.S., the rise of gender equality, minority rights, etc. which emerge frmo that worldview). Lee appears to believe that Singapore does not contain such a mass of people.
I do want to make one thing clear: I acknowledge that autocracies, meritocracies, dictatorships, one-party rule, whatever you want to call them, are legitimate forms of government, but I do not concede that they are equivalent in complexity, morality, or compassion to the more representative forms of democracy (which contain both representative and meritocratic elements).
What we ultimately have to be aware of is whether a party or ruler is holding back democracy because it’s truly not viable, or because they simply want to maintain power. “Benevolent dictatorships” can’t last in the long run: without checks and balances, someone stupid or selfish coming into power is inevitable, and all you need is one or two of those guys to fuck up a whole country. It’ll be interesting to see how Lee and his son maintain a legitimate meritocracy in the future.
Stingson
9:30 pm | May 12, 2008Thanks Dialectic for responding.
When you said India promoted a sense of Indian identity it reminded me of how Lee said he is a “Singaporean first, then Chinese” in the article linked by Zhangfei. It’s also entirely consistent with what you said about people need to transcend beyond race and religion in order to have a real stable democracy.
Another thing I want to mention was from the article Zhangfei linked. I took a college course called Chinese Foreign Policy and while the teacher is very objective, there is also the inevitable “China is evil” crowd. When Lee said “So, yes the media will go and say what human rights, this dissident arrested, that dissident put down, this fellow arrested, this chap disappeared, but people in the developing world, I can’t speak for westerners, but westerners at the very top are also getting to become quite sophisticated. But in Asia and in Africa, and in the developing world, they are asking themselves, how did this country, in 30 years, from such backwardness, suddenly make this great big leap into modernity. When all the western nations say, `the system is wrong, how is it?’ That is what they are going to register.” the statement opened up an entirely new perspective that I should have noticed earlier. So now I see that developing nations might see China as a economic role model while developed nations (usually Western) see China as an oppressive regime.
Thanks again for these articles, I learned a lot!
zhangfei
11:37 pm | May 12, 2008Kishore Mahbubani,the Singaporean ambassador to the United Nations, talks extensively about Asian values vs Western values in his book “Can Asians Think?”.
Here is one of his interviews/speeches.
http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/123.html
maloy
10:20 am | May 13, 2008you’re welcome, D.
as for the india question: so fucking what if india is the world’s largest democracy? it’s a failed fucking state, just like the philippines. why do people always fucking think, “oh, it’s a democracy, people must shit flowers and piss cologne and children dance on fucking rainbows.” india is running along because of corruption and the money that a lot of indian engineers, etc. pump into the economy.
FUCK DEMOCRACY. it’s not a fuckign solution, it’s simply one form of government that most of you have been brainwashed into thinking is the only just and moral choice. many fucked up and corrupt postcolonial governments are fucking democracies. i grew up in a so-called democracy and let me tell you, we were better off when it was an authoritarian regime (although marcos was a shitty version of LKY).
i’m not going to get into the india situation because it’s too complex for one post, but when nehru and the other dudes put together the constitution, they chose a parliamentary system because they, too, acknowledged that most people would vote along ethnic, religious, class AND caste divides. they thought they’d be able to circumvent that with guaranteed seats, as well. sadly, they failed because they still hoped in the best of people.
india now is crippled by corruption and many, many divisions that have not been addressed and are only being encouraged by democracy.
ps. as for electing a female muslim, that is really not unusual for asia because, unlike americans, we have no issues with women in power, and the islam of india is very different from the islam of the middle east and even of pakistan.
ah fuck, i have to go and eat.
i don’t know why i still bother to post on this site of american chauvinism, man. my words just die a lonely e-death. sorry, D, but that’s what it’s turned into.
Dialectic
1:39 pm | May 13, 2008First of all, let’s get something straight: it’s not American chauvinism, it’s WESTERN chauvanism. We draw attitudes from ALL the Great Whites.
Secondly, I don’t think you can fault us too much for having members who automatically assume democracy is “superior” or “inevitable” in the common understanding of things; this attitude is ubiquitous in the West and is only recently starting to come under scrutiny. (The Economist, not long ago, mentioned legitimate non-democratic forms of government.)
It’s a question, as everything is, of functionality and values. Does democracy require a certain faith in the “best in people”? Sure, to an extent. But let’s look at non-democratic regimes: these rely MUCH more heavily on the best in people, because these require wise and compassionate and un-selfish rulers to a much greater extent, because there are less checks and balances and less accountability to the people, and these are much more vulnerable to regression.
That’s speaking in general cases; I think you’d agree that we also have to consider appropriateness given cultural and techno-economic conditions. Democracy is certainly not universally functional, nor universally desirable, and as we’ve seen in Iraq and dozens of post-colonial states, you can’t simply impose it and have it automatically work (in fact, in most cases, it will fail when it’s imposed). At the same time, we cannot simply dismiss it as something “equal” to a benevolent dictatorship.
Some of you may enjoy this link to Wilber’s thoughts on The Nature of Revolutionary Social Transformation:
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptA/part3-1.cfm
The big question now is what transnational governments will look like, and what is beyond nation-state democracies, as we are certainly reaching the limits of what our current democratic structures can offer. The Wire, for example, is a great illustration on the weaknesses and fallibility of American democracy as it interacts with capitalism, political correctness, and irrational ethnocentrically-built values.
Dialectic
1:52 pm | May 13, 2008“the statement opened up an entirely new perspective that I should have noticed earlier. So now I see that developing nations might see China as a economic role model while developed nations (usually Western) see China as an oppressive regime.”
Stingson, what you began to understand here is what I’ll call a “developmental” perspective, because now you are beginning to appreciate people and nations as they change through time.
I’ve discussed this a bit in the Integral Theory section of our forum (in the Tibet thread), so I’ll only go into it briefly here. China is currently moving from being an agricultural state to an industrialized one (capable of producing greater wealth, education, complexity, and efficiency), so in a very, very general sense, it is going through what Western nations went through 300 years ago. (But it’s a lot more complicated because they co-exist with more “advanced” nations now, so they are aware of many, many more problems and complex arrangements than anyone was back then.) As such, it looks “oppressive” or “evil” by modern Western standards, just as pretty much all countries from back then would look to us now. But many pre-industrialized states existing in today’s world of course look to China for support and development, as they would love to be able to get to where China is and have the problems that China has (just as China would love to get to where the West is in terms of techno-economic development and expertise).