Report - NUS - Home

Asia Vision 21
Singapore • April 29 - May 1, 2010
Harvard University
Asia Center
Harvard University Asia Center

Asia Vision 21
Singapore • April 29 - May 1, 2010
Values, Conflicts, and Change in Asia
The Harvard University Asia Center gratefully acknowledges the sponsors of Asia Vision 21:
The Akatsuka Group
Anonymous donors
The Asia Foundation
Dr. Henry Cheng
Mr. Lee M. Folger
The Himalaya Foundation
The Houghton Freeman Foundation
The Victor and William Fung Foundation
The Hsin Yi Foundation
Kim & Chang
Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Korea Development Institute
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy
Dr. Peter Kwok
Mr. Raymond Kwok
Dr. Kin-chung Lam
Mr. Jimmy Y.C. Lee
The Lee Foundation
Lombard Investments, Inc.
Samsung Economic Research Institute
Seoul Broadcasting System
Tsuzuki Sogo Gakuen
Mr. Wenliang Wang
The Wu Foundation

Values, Conflicts, and Change in Asia
Singapore • April 29 - May 1, 2010
Executive Summary
The annual Asia Vision 21 conference was held this year in Singapore, April 29 to May 1, 2010, and cosponsored by
the Asia Center and the Rajawali Foundation Institute for Asia at Harvard University and the Lee Kuan Yew School
and the Office of the Deputy President at the National University of Singapore. More than 90 scholars, businessmen,
government officials, policymakers, public intellectuals, and other professionals from sixteen countries met to discuss
long-term trends and potential outcomes for the economies and societies of Asia.
The broad themes of values, conflicts, and change in Asia were discussed in light of fundamental transformations taking
place in social life in the region. For example, the 2008-09 global financial and economic crises produced questions
in the minds of leaders and populations concerning the viability of capitalism. What is the appropriate balance for
financial actors and institutions in regards to opportunities, risks, and responsibilities? What is the proper role of
businesses in human security? How do we address the tension between financial or economic short term needs and
long term goals? How do we devise a new set of values in the face of technological and scientific changes that call into
question or weaken long held traditions and accepted cultural standards? These themes and questions were addressed in
conference discussions on specific topics that ranged from global financial imbalances to biotech models for economic
development to governance and stability in Asia, from regional considerations and perspectives to security challenges
to Asian Islam, and more.
Some of the speakers and participants at the conference pointed to basic integrating and common human values that
concern individuals and groups in the region as a way to understand an environment of increasing complexities and
rapid changes. Their discussions also dealt with the growing contrast between operational values in daily lives and moral
and ethical beliefs across societies. Others addressed rising nationalism, religious fundamentalism, uncertainties about
the rise of Asia, shifting balances of power, U.S. adjustments in the region, regional flashpoints, conflict prevention, and
promoting innovation as issues of concern, consideration, and action where appropriate and wise. The following pages
outline at greater length the words and thoughts of the keynote speakers, featured presenters, and invited participants
in the 2010 Asia Vision 21 conference.

Session 1:
Asia’s Role in Addressing
Global Imbalances
Moderator Dwight Perkins, Harvard University,
opened the first panel session by questioning the role
of global imbalances in the current financial crisis.
Comparing the debt crisis of the 1980s to the 2008-2009
financial crisis, he argued that flows of ready cash between
wealthy OPEC countries and poorer Latin American
nations were significant factors in the former. In the latter
situation, however, a global case of false confidence in
the U.S. market seems to have occurred independent of
extant economic imbalances. Perkins invited the panel’s
participants to help explain and clarify the relationship
between these imbalances and the current crisis.
Turning to the topic of imbalances themselves, Perkins
highlighted one of the most prominent: the deficits of
the U.S. and the surpluses of China. Disagreeing with
Fred Bergsten’s argument that China has essentially
been exporting unemployment through its undervalued
exchange rate and that currency revaluation would help to
correct the situation, Perkins sees the current imbalances
in the U.S. and China as rooted in differences in savings
behavior and that revaluation of the Renminbi (RMB)
would do little to mitigate the imbalance. He criticized
the proposition that increased spending by Chinese
households would significantly change the situation and
suggested instead that American overspending – propelled
by Bush-era tax cuts – was at the heart of the matter.
Pumping money into the U.S. economy may have stopped
its complete collapse, but the unintended result has been
a growing disparity between the U.S. and its international
partners, like China.
Panelist Gang Fan, China Reform Foundation,
challenged the common conception of China as the
heaviest weight on the scale of global imbalance. He
argued that the Middle East, not China, is actually the top
Hiroshi Watanbe, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Dwight Perkins,
Gang Fan & Shekar Gupta
accumulator of reserves and that the greatest factor in
global imbalance is not the high savings rate of countries
like China, but widespread overconsumption. Fan further
argued that domestic imbalances were key factors in
perpetuating international imbalances; he suggested that
countries focus on correcting internal disparities before
contributing to solutions for global imbalances.
In China, for example, savings are too high, wages are
too low, too much income goes towards capital returns,
and corporate profits are too high relative to the GDP.
Institutional problems, such as a large state sector, and
problems with the social safety net, exacerbate the
situation. Furthermore, Chinese household savings are
no longer as high as they once were; rates have actually
stabilized at about 30%, and the majority of savings
actually comes from the corporate sector. Corporate
savings are also falling, but Fan ultimately questioned
whether such decreases in savings rates would necessarily
contribute to the relief of global imbalances.
Referencing the session title, panelist Shekhar Gupta,
The India Express, questioned the way in which “Asia” is
defined in discussions of global imbalance. To Gupta, the
Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore 1

tendency to reference only East Asia or all Asia speaks to
another kind of imbalance, which could be ameliorated
by inclusion of South and Southeast Asian countries in
discussions of global issues. Specifically noting the under
representation of India, he argued for the importance of
its sustained 8% growth over a period of four years.
Gupta discussed intraregional diversity and ideological
divides among Asian countries, but ultimately argued that
there is a need for greater unity among Asian countries,
the assumption of more responsibility on global issues like
climate change, and the creation of stronger institutions.
He suggested that the next big question regarding Asia
and its role in global imbalances is in fact one of power
imbalance. Given that many of the world’s rising powers
– India, China, Indonesia, even Bangladesh – are in Asia,
the entire global architecture of power may need to shift
to accommodate these new key players.
Panelist Hiroshi Watanabe, Japan Bank for
International Cooperation, began his presentation by
identifying two categories of global imbalance: (1) trade
and commodities, and (2) finance and capital. Like
Perkins and Fan, Watanabe cited overconsumption as a
major cause of imbalance. In particular, there is a need for
the U.S. to stymie overconsumption by removing inflated
incentives to borrow and increasing savings. In particular,
the U.S. should stymie overconsumption by removing
inflated incentives to borrow, and it should increase
savings. For China, Watanabe suggested that the RMB
should be revalued to reflect the strength of the economy,
but cautioned that this would not serve as a panacea for
U.S.-China trade imbalances due to the persistence of
underlying problems in U.S. manufacturing. China, too,
must correct internal instabilities through measures
such as ensuring more appropriate income distribution,
increasing consumption in the agricultural sector, and
improving tax policies.
In relation to finance and capital, Watanabe framed
Asia as a major source of global capital and savings.
While savings currently flow through U.S. and European
financial markets, Watanabe suggested that the money
would be better spent within the Asian region. Citing
efforts by co-panelist Tharman Shanmugaratnam,
Watanabe praised ASEAN+3 initiatives that encourage
intraregional economic cooperation.
In the final presentation of the first session, Tharman
Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Finance, Singapore,
linked global balance to the larger purpose of sustaining
growth at socially acceptable levels. Shanmugaratnam felt
that sustained growth in both the emerging markets and
new sources of growth in developed economies were in
everyone’s interests. In this regard, he argued that the new
conventional wisdom that called for Asian economies to
shift away from export-driven economic development
was short-sighted. Their rates of potential output growth
ultimately rested on their catch-up in productivity levels,
which was driven by participation in global markets, e.g.
by following buyers’ specifications in developed markets,
or importing more sophisticated equipment to meet
their needs. There was still tremendous scope for catchup
from Asia’s relatively low productivity levels through
global market-oriented activity. On the other hand, a shift
towards domestic demand-driven growth would very
likely stifle the flow of knowledge and techniques that
came from global markets. It also risked a reversion to
dirigiste practices and a slowdown in the still incomplete
process of developing market-oriented economic systems
in Asia’s largest countries.
Shanmugaratnam carefully distinguished between an
export-oriented strategy and export subsidization, which
was in certain countries still prevalent and should be
eliminated. In sum, he argued that Asian countries need
to reduce export-import imbalances not by switching
away from exports but by increasing imports. They had
to intensify rather than reduce the scale of globalization
in their economies, by opening up domestic markets for
goods and especially services, dilute domestic monopolies
2 Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore

where they exist, and encourage imports from the rest
of the world. This was the best chance of ensuring
the continued transformation towards market-based
economies and contributing to global growth.
the potential to help biotechnology better address the
“big needs” of the world today.
Session 2:
Biotech Models for
Development
Moderator Barry Halliwell, National University of
Singapore, opened the second session by commenting
on Singapore as an example of a state that, even without
land for agricultural production, still takes an active role
in developing biotechnology. In particular, Singaporean
interest in biotechnology lies in its potential in medicine
and energy production, but also to a lesser extent for
improving agriculture in neighboring countries.
Panelist Kiyoshi Kurokawa, National Graduate
Institute for Policy Studies, Japan, addressed the issue of
biotechnology by first delineating some key issues related
to its development – globalization, food and water,
environment, and biodiversity – and then discussing some
of the challenges facing countries interested in advancing
biotech. Citing Ghana and Botswana as examples,
Kurokawa argued that developing countries have little
need for the newest and most scientifically intricate
technologies, like genetic recombination. Rather, they
need simple technologies that can be used to improve the
quality of life for local people.
Kurokawa advocated the deployment of existing
technology to address the most severe of world crises,
like food and water shortage. Such use of technology
could also result in bottom-up growth and benefit social
entrepreneurs. Again emphasizing the local, Kurokawa
further argued that biotech enterprises should also
consider how “indigenous knowledge” might propel new
developments in biotechnology. Local remedies, like the
use of bark to treat malaria in China or of aspirin, have
The second panelist, Huangming Yang, Beijing
Genomics Institute (BGI), emphasized the role of
genomics in making the 21 st century the “century of
biology.” He discussed the importance of sequencing
in all areas of life science and argued for a definition
of life as: “Life is sequence. Life is digital.” Working
under this credo, Yang has identified three techniques in
biotechnology that will have a significant impact in the
near future: (1) genetic manipulation, (2) cloning and stem
cells, and (3) synthetic biology (tissue engineering).
Turning to the work of his home institution, Yang
described several of the projects in progress at BGI. BGI
has been focusing on sequencing genomes, including
individual genomes, human pangenome, human
metagenome, and ancient human genomes. BGI also has
five projects in the “Tree of Life,” a sequencing project
run by the Joint Genome Institute (JGI). Commenting on
the ethical, legal, and social dimensions of such projects,
Yang suggested that the cluster of issues related to
genome sequencing should be expanded to encompass
humanitarian, ethical, legal, social, economic, culture, and
safety and security (HELSECS).
Philip Liat Kok Yeo, Barry Halliwell,
Kiyoshi Kurokawa & Huangming Yang
Panelist Philip Liat Kok Yeo, SPRING Singapore,
explained a new vision of making Singapore the
Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore 3

“Biopolis of Asia” by bringing together 3,000 scientists
in a community equipped with research institutes and
living facilities. Singapore is also making an effort to build
human resources for the future by discovering and training
top science talent from all over Asia and implementing
plans for the Tuas Biomedical Park, which will house
pharmaceutical companies.
Having gathered all of this human capital in the research
and development sectors, the challenge then becomes not
how to develop new science, but rather how to deliver
new developments to patients. Yeo raised the question of
role of ethics as biotechnology is applied in healthcare;
in his field, ethics come into play as one determines how
to treat patients. Nationality and religious affiliation also
affect the healthcare system of a society like Singapore,
which treats 500,000 foreigners yearly and seeks to meet
the needs of patients from several different religious
groups.
In the discussion that followed, Kurokawa reemphasized
his position that while frontier science
contributes important discoveries, these discoveries
should be shared and there should be a collective effort to
apply new advancements to the betterment of the human
condition.
Yang agreed that China should adopt international
practices in ethics and procedures, including review
by the Commission on Human Rights. He also warned
against blindness to the potential harms of science, which
can seem invisible to developing countries over-eager to
employ the latest technologies. In response to another
question about the Communist Party Committee role
in BGI, Yang pointed out that the institute is not fully
financially supported by the government and also receives
funding from outside sources for commissioned work.
Arthur Kleinman
Session 3:
Values and Multiple
Transitions in Asia
Moderator Arthur Kleinman, Harvard University,
began by pointing out the conflict between moral
experiences on the ground and broader ethical aspirations,
such as making the world at large better. Citing Lloyd
Blankfein and Goldman Sachs as one case of a
discrepancy between individual and public ethics, he then
turned to the relationship between how the economic
system functions and hope of creating an “adequate life”
for people. There are significant ethical consequences of
the commercialization of services; in the case of health
care, commercialization can lead to conflicts of interest,
corruption, regulation failure, distrust of doctors, and
direct importation of protocols from organizations like
the National Institute of Health (NIH).
In China, for example, there has been a significant shift
in moral experience over the past several decades. Under
Mao, the individual owed the state his life, but in the
era of economic reforms, the state owes the individual
an “adequate life.” Along with the changes in economic
policy have come other, more troubling moral changes:
Han chauvinism, corruption, and distrust. However, there
have also been recent pro-social developments in China,
4 Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore

such as new concerns over ethics, the growth of NGOs,
a rise is the status of women, and increases in global
interest and advocacy. Last year, there were some 60,000
protests in China, including many targeting environmental
and public health issues. From such trends, it is clear that
values do play an important role in contemporary China,
and Kleinman invited the panelists to elucidate the values
at work in their own regions and fields of expertise.
Panelist Prasenjit Duara, National University of
Singapore, spoke on the topic: “Sustainability and the
Crisis of Transcendence: A Long Historical View.”
Beginning with the fundamental human desire to
transcend conditions of suffering and inequality, Duara
argued that there is an inherent tension between the goal
of attaining transcendence, which exists in a realm of
imagination and ethics, and fulfilling human desires here
and now. Historically, transcendence has had a propulsive
function: the pursuit of transcendence has reordered
societies and helped to attain social justice from time to
time, especially since the ideals come to be dominated
by clergy or political powers. For example, he mentions
Brahmin dominance through caste in India and, how,
Prasenjit Duara
under imperial rule, the Chinese state gained power by
controlling ideas of transcendence and heaven. More
recent years have seen the ascendancy of secularized
transcendent ideals in nationalism and communism, but
they promise a very restricted transcendence.
According to Duara, there are many global problems
today that need to transcend the nation as an ultimate
value. Few authorizing structures have the power to
address global problems and validate new global goals,
which suggests that there may be a need to escape from
the current nation-state model. Using water in Asia as
an example of one such global problem, Duara argued
that there is a conflict between planetary sustainability
and consumerism that can only be resolved through
the adoption of transnational values – specifically, the
sustainability of human life and the world itself. Religion,
with its myths, symbols, and narrative, often provides
such transcendent goals. Duara finds the emphasis
on harmonizing the relationship between humans and
nature in Buddhism and Daoism particularly resonant
with contemporary issues. While claiming that he does
not want to conflate the religious with the secular, he
does believe that value-producing ideas of the sacred are
mobile and can inform secular transcendent practices
(such as environmentalism). It may be precisely this
transformation and transcendence of values that will allow
the world to ameliorate the sustainability crisis created by
hitherto-unchecked growth and materialism.
Next, panelist Kanwaljit Soin, Mount Elizabeth
Medical Centre, Singapore, addressed the issue of Asia’s
aging population and its relationship to changing values.
According to Soin, globalization, demographic change,
and social change call into question the resilience of key
values. Families, which have been the primary source of
support for the elderly, now experience gaps in education
between generations and a corresponding decline in
instance of intergenerational co-residence. At the same
time, in China, the one-child policy has created a 4-2-1
Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore 5

pyramid in which one child is responsible for six adults
in old age. Soin also described the feminization of aging:
a growing portion of the aged population is made up of
widowed women, who face losses of social status and
economic resources in addition to the difficulties of old
age. Some countries, such as Singapore, Taiwan, India,
and China, have responded by legislating filial piety, but
still face challenges to come as the population of those
aged 65 and over grows towards a predicted 900 million
by 2050.
According to Soin, two of the key issues related to
the aging population are pension and health care. She
believes that health care for the elderly should be seen as
an investment, not a cost. Soin also criticized Doomsday
pundits who argue that demographic changes spell
downfall for countries with rapidly aging populations.
Citing Japan as an example, Soin suggested that a shift in
attitude toward the philosophy of old age as ikigai (“a life
worth living”) has helped Japan to ameliorate the stresses
caused by an aging population (25% of Japanese are over
the age of 65). In conclusion, Soin argued that the aged
should be seen not as a burden, but rather as human
capital and part of the wealth of a society.
Panelist Tu Weiming, Harvard University and Peking
University, began by arguing that “rethinking the human”
has become imperative in the face of growing threats to
the survival of humanity. In pursuit of this new humanism,
Tu advocates an open dialogue and re-examination of
values East and West. Characterizing science, human
rights, the dignity of the individual, liberty, and rule of
law as the great Western values, Tu suggested that such
values should be tempered by values rooted in Asia:
empathy, sympathy, compassion, fairness, civility, and
social harmony.
In the East Asian region, Confucian culture has created
societies with traditions of (1) learning civilization,
(2) dialogical civilization, and (3) cosmopolitanism. In
particular, Tu believes that the time has come for the
tradition of dialogue to replace the clash of civilizations
and superpowers. With the emergence of new powers,
such as the BRIC countries and the Islamic world,
countries must move beyond national interest to embrace
the growing complexity of the global community. Both
political practices and great spiritual traditions will have
to transform in order to confront the issue of human
survival. New self-understanding must incorporate
ideas of transcendence and relationship to the earth.
In conclusion, Tu proposed the idea of “multiple
modernities” as a new world view that could incorporate
and reflect diversity in religion and culture.
Session 4:
Governance and Stability
in Asia
Moderator Anthony Saich, Harvard University,
opened the fourth panel session by commenting on the
relationship between governance and stability. According
to Saich, modernization inevitably destabilizes society,
which resists change and tries to maintain traditional
hierarchies or reinstate pre-existing social order. Asian
modernity has been greatly accelerated by global
processes; many countries, unable to negotiate such rapid
change, become destabilized as old forms are swept away
before new ones can be formed. Such instability and
bad governance feed into one another, but in the case
of China, good governance may actually be on the rise.
Using World Bank indicators, China is doing relatively
well in governance, and according to Saich’s own
survey data, citizens are highly satisfied with governance.
Saich has consistently found 80% or higher satisfaction
with national government, with much lower levels of
satisfaction with local governments.
Speaking on the situations in Thailand and the
Philippines, panelist Randolph David, University
6 Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore

of the Philippines, first outlined the current political
circumstances in each country. In the Philippines, the
failure of voting mechanisms risked martial law and
military intervention. At the time of the conference, thenpresident
Maria Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was already
running for a congressional seat. According to David,
this showed that she did not plan to leave politics quietly
when her term ended. Meanwhile, the two top presidential
contenders, Benigno Aquino III and former president
Joseph Estrada, vied for popular approval, with Aquino
promising to investigate “high crimes” committed during
the previous presidency. In Thailand, the conflict between
red and yellow shirt factions was awaiting response from
the Thai military and monarchy.
Using these cases as illustrations, David contended
that political stability and good governance – or the lack
thereof – mirror the anxieties of the people. Both of
these governments need to create credible mechanisms
for choosing officials and preventing political competition
from dissolving into violence. They also need to end the
use of politics for personal gains and to use political
authority to more effectively solve mass problems. Many
of these problems may be caused by rapid changes in
society, to which the default responses are resistance,
populism, or “class wars” among new classes created by
globalization. Populism itself leaves a space for middle
class violence; by giving loudest voice to the populists and
moralists, it can create a polarized, emotional politics for
which society pays a high price. Two examples of this can
be seen in the 1986 overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos and
the 2001 overthrow of then-president Joseph Estrada.
Both of these situations nearly resulted in civil war for
the Philippines, and illustrate how political instability and
bad governance can feed off of one another. David also
discussed the Aquino phenomenon in the Philippines as
an example of politics becoming drunk with morality.
Reduced to a binary contest between good and evil, politics
can provide justification for violence. He concluded that
Randolph David, Kishore Mahbubani & Tony Saich
the discourse in these societies must shift to focus on
stability and governance. For him, the lingering question
is whether or not modernity will impel this necessary
change.
Panelist Kishore Mahbubani, National University of
Singapore, focused his presentation on the differences
between Eastern and Western perceptions of good
governance. According to Mahbubani, the 2008
financial crisis has cast doubt upon the habit of looking
to the norms of developed countries for guidance in
governance and stability. Instead, gaps between Eastern
and Western perceptions of good vs. bad governance have
widened. Mahbubani described the Western preference
for a Rawlsian hierarchy that privileges a well performing
democratic system above all else; following that, a poorly
performing democracy still trumps a well performing
non-democratic system, and a poorly performing nondemocratic
system falls last. While East Asian ideas
of good governance also most highly value a well
performing democracy, a well performing non-democracy
is preferred over poorly performing versions of either
democratic or non-democratic systems. Development
in China proves that rapid growth and improvements in
health, infrastructure, and society can be achieved without
democracy.
Referencing the Greek crisis and the possibility of the
Euro zone falling apart, Mahbubani also argued that
Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore 7

countries need to confront such previously unthinkable
situations head-on and criticized both sides of the aisle
in the United States for their inability to make strategic
decisions when faced with new competition from India
and China. Mahbubani concluded by arguing that
currently, the best governance in the world can actually
be found in China, which man-for-man now has better
diplomats than even the United States.
In the discussion that followed, Saich qualified his own
survey findings by noting that the apparent satisfaction
with the Chinese national government may be high
because of low base expectations, and that even such
high ratings are mitigated by concerns over corruption.
Many of the questions raised returned to the fundamental
question of what defines good governance. For example,
if predictability is the standard, then China has not
yet achieved “good governance.” Other participants
challenged the possibility of finding traditional markers of
good governance, such as transparency and accountability,
in autocratic systems, and questioned the nature of the
relationship between legitimacy and good governance.
Breakout Sessions
The Saturday morning breakout sessions invited
discussion on topics of growing concern for the Asian
region: (1) Climate Change and Security Challenges; (2)
Asian Islam; (3) Regionalism and the Greater Mekong
Sub-region; and (4) Flashpoints in Asia. In the first
breakout session, Nicholas Platt, Asia Society, chaired
a dialogue on the ways in which climate change will
fundamentally alter U.S. management of regional security
and stability. Global warming could have an effect on
the military both in terms of its capabilities and in terms
of the role that it will need to play as nations move to
protect themselves from neighbors affected by climate
change. However, several session participants expressed
considerable skepticism over the extent of a military role
in dealing with climate change, with the exception of
providing immediate disaster relief. One potential scenario
discussed was a potential crisis in which rising water levels
create displacement and an influx of Bangladeshi refugees
flooding into India. At what point would such a situation
become a matter of international concern? What should
be the military role in maintaining stability amidst such
a crisis? And does responsibility for handling the crisis
become a matter of global responsibility? A situation such
as this would certainly bring the conflict between human
rights and human responsibilities to the fore.
In the breakout session on Asian Islam, chair Suzaina
Binte Abdul Kadir, National University of Singapore,
led a discussion on the importance of acknowledging
and protecting the heterogeneity of Islam as lived and
practiced in different communities around the world. In
Asia, the complexity of Islam involves its mixing with other
pre-existing religious systems and ethnic identities. The
diversity of perspectives on Islam among Asian citizens,
further complicated by history, politics, and economics,
and the contested position of Asian Islam within the
growing global Muslim community both contribute to
the potential for mounting insecurities and identity crises
among Asian Muslims. It is essential to maintain a space
for contestation within Islam, even though governments
may fear that such contestation could result in political
instability. Only by doing so will all strands of Islam,
including Asian Islam, be guaranteed a legitimate voice
within the Muslim world.
Looking at the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS),
chair Rosalia Sciortino, AusAID Indonesia, led a third
breakout session in evaluating the efforts to promote
regional cooperation among the five countries (Cambodia,
Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam) and two Chinese
provinces (Yunnan and Guangxi) in the GMS with the
support of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and
other donors. The goal has been to promote economic
growth and poverty alleviation through the creation of a
8 Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore

massive network of infrastructure that would connect all
points of the sub-region and facilitate goods and human
flows. For example, the East-West corridor covers ground
from Vietnam to Myanmar and links more remote areas
in Laos and Thailand to inter-regional trade routes. After
a decade of investment by national governments, ADB,
the World Bank, and the private sector, most GMS
economies have performed well. However, there are still
concerns over the distribution of growth and benefits,
good governance, and social consequences in the subregion,
all of which are important factors in creating more
balanced and sustainable development.
The fourth breakout session on Regional Flashpoints,
chaired by Astrid Tuminez and Jing Huang, both at
the National University of Singapore, identified four
spots – North Korea, Taiwan, the South China Sea,
and China-India – as key areas in both intra- and interregional
security dialogues. Participants discussed the
particularities of these flashpoints and the role that China
plays in each. In North Korea, six-party talks have stalled
and economic woes have distracted the leaders of other
countries. Three factors could bring things to a head: (1)
2012 regime changes in North Korea, the PRC, and the
U.S.; (2) conflict between the U.S. and Japan; and (3) the
relationship between South Korea and North Korea. Some
of the session participants disagreed on the first point
and argued that a shift in leadership would not necessarily
trigger conflict. In terms of Taiwan, relationships with
the PRC continue to improve, but changes in Chinese
nationalism, a downturn in U.S.-China relations, or a
Chinese economic slowdown could lead to a recurrence
of tensions between the PRC and Taiwan. The domestic
political climate in the PRC is the key variable in this
situation. With regards to the relationship between China
and India, tensions over border disputes and Pakistan
linger, but the general trend is positive. Finally, the South
China Sea currently stands as the most worrisome regional
flashpoint. PRC military buildup and bilateral approach
in the South China Sea contradict its economic overtures
toward ASEAN, and the former risk negative responses
by ASEAN, the U.S. and Japan. These four cases show
the need for China to take more leadership responsibility,
for a better and more explicit security dialogue among the
nations involved, and for both confidence-building and
preventative measures in the region.
Final Plenary
During the final plenary session, Ezra Vogel, Harvard
University, drew upon issues raised by the panels and
breakout sessions to draw together the themes of the
conference and to lead a discussion on directions for
future inquiries. In particular, the sessions on Asian
Islam and Regional Flashpoints highlighted the need for
addressing potential deadly conflicts and their prevention.
In all cases, it is essential to have a concrete process
of dialogue to address the next big issues in both Asia
and the rest of the world. Commenting on the overall
conference, Vogel noted that this year’s Asia Vision 21
succeeded in gather more young participants and female
scholars; in the future, efforts could be made to include
even more representatives from Asian universities and
organizations.
Vogel then invited William Overholt (Harvard
University) and Michael Enright (Hong Kong
University) to outline their thoughts on the current
situation and outlook for Asia’s relations with the world.
The remainder of the final session focused on issues
for future discussion, including: basic integrating and
common human values across regions; operational values
vs. morals and ethical beliefs; emerging civil society;
nationalism; the interplay between international variables
and domestic pressures in relation to regional flashpoints;
how the U.S. will adjust to a multi-polar world and Asia
as a new center of the world and maintain its innovative
character; conflict prevention in the region vs. US presence
Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore 9

and intervention; understanding Asian complexities and
rapid change; religious fundamentalism in Asia; and the
funding of Asian studies by Asians.
Participants
Bulgaria
Irina Bokova
Director-General, UNESCO
Cambodia
Pou Sothirak
Former Cambodian Ambassador to Japan
Visiting Senior Research Fellow, Institute for South East
Asian Studies, National University of Singapore
George Yong-Boon Yeo, Surin Pitsuwan
Keynote Speakers
The keynote speakers for the conference were George
Yong-Boon Yeo, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Singapore,
and Surin Pitsuwan, Secretary-General, Association
of Southeast Asian Nations. The former presented his
perspective on the West as viewed from Southeast Asia,
while the latter discussed the status of diplomatic relations
between the U.S. and Southeast Asia.
England
Lachmi-Niwas Sadani
AXA Private Equity
e: lachmi-niwas.SADANI@axa-im.com
European Union
Dorian Prince
EU Visiting Fellow, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
National University of Singapore
e: sppv18@nus.edu.sg
Hong Kong
Ka Mun Chang
Managing Director, Li & Fung Development (China) Ltd.
and Li & Fung Research Centre
e: kamunchang@lf1937.com
Edgar Cheng
Chairman, World-Wide Investment Company Limited
e: wk33che@gmail.com
clarakwok@wwinv.com.hk
10 Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore

Michael Enright
Sun Hung Kai Professor of Business Administration,
University of Hong Kong;
Director, Asia-Pacific Competitiveness Program,
Hong Kong Institute of Economics and Business Strategy
e: menright@business.hku.hk
Kin-Chung Lam
Chairman and CEO, eBizAnywhere Technologies Ltd.
e: kclam@strongman.hk
Pamela Mar
Project Director, Li & Fung Group
e: pamelamar@lf1937.com
Indonesia
Arif Arryman
Independent Commissioner, P T Telekom Indonesia
e: arryman@gmail.com
Rosalia Sciortino
AusAID Health Advisor
e:rosalia.sciortino@ausaid.gov.au
Fritz E. Simandjuntak
President, Rajawali Foundation;
Head of External Relations, PT Rajawali Group
e: fritzie@rajawali.com
Dee Poon
Co-CEO, Retail and Direct Distribution Esquel Group
e: deepoon@esquel.com
Vivienne Wee
City University of Hong Kong
e: v.wee@cityu.edu.hk
Marjorie Yang
Chairman, Esquel Group
e: chairman@esquel.com, MakS@esquel.com
India
Shekhar Gupta
Editor-in-Chief, The Indian Express New Delhi
e: usha.uppal@expressindia.com
V.A. Pai Panandiker
Chairman, Goa State Planning Board’s Committee
on Knowledge Economy
e: vapp21@gmail.com
Japan
Yoshimasa Hayashi
Member, House of Councillors, Government of Japan
e: hayashi@yoshimasa.com
Kiyoshi Kurokawa
Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
e: kiyoshikurokawa@gmail.com
Hidetoshi Nishimura
Executive Director, Economic Research Institute for
ASEAN and East Asia
e: hidetoshi.nishimura@eria.org
Katsuhiro Shinohara
Deputy Chairperson & Representative of
Cambodia Office, Cambodia International Education
Support Foundation
e: k-shinohara@ciesf.org
Tsutomu Toichi
Managing Director, CKO, and Chief Executive
Economist, Institute of Energy Economics, Tokyo
e: toichi@tky.ieej.or.jp
Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore 11

Asuka Tsuzuki
Director, Tsuzuki Gakuen
Hiroshi Watanabe
President and CEO
Japan Bank for International Cooperation,
e: h-watanabe@jbic.go.jp
Tadamichi Yamamoto
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary,
Permanent Delegate of Japan to UNESCO
e: anc17675@nifty.com
Philippines
Romeo L. Bernardo
President, Lazaro Bernardo Tiu and Associates (LBT);
e: romyber@lazbertiu.com.ph
Randolf David
Professor of Sociology, University of the Philippines,
Diliman
e: randysdavid@gmail.com
Singapore
Malaysia
Gerald John Pereira
Member, Bar Council of Malaysia
e: nalek43@hotmail.com
See-Yan Lin
e: drlin@streamyx.com,
drlin@time.net.my
Kheng Chuan Chew
Chief University Advancement Officer,
Nanyang Technological University
e: kcchew@ntu.edu.sg
Teresita Cruz-del Rosario
Senior Research Fellow, Centre on Asia and
Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
e: tdelrosario@nus.edu.sg
People’s Repubic of China
Gang Fan
Director, National Economics Research Institute;
Chair, China Reform Foundation
e: fangang@NERI.org.cn
Huanming Yang
President
Beijing Genomics Institute, China
e: yanghm@genomics.org.cn
Prasenjit Duara
Raffles Professor of Humanities;
Director of Research, Humanities and Social Sciences,
National University of Singapore
e: dprpd@nus.edu.sg
Ann Florini
Director, Centre on Asia and Globalisation,
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University
of Singapore
e: aflorini@nus.edu.sg
Barry Halliwell
Deputy President (Research and Technology),
National University of Singapore
e: barry_halliwell@nus.edu.sg
12 Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore

Huang Jing
Visiting Professor, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
e: spphj@nus.edu.sg
Kishore Mahbubani
Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
e: kishore_mahbubani@nus.edu.sg
Chua Beng Huat
Professor, Department of Sociology, National University
of Singapore
e: soccbh@nus.edu.sg
Suzaina Binte Abdul Kadir
Senior Lecturer, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
e: sppsak@nus.edu.sg
Seetharam Kallidaikurichi
Director, Global Asia Institute, National University of
Singapore
e: keseetharam@nus.edu.sg
Joachim Toh Wen Keong
Deputy Chief Investment Officer
National University of Singapore Investment Office
e: jkeong@nus.edu.sg
Vikram Khanna
Associate Editor, The Business Times
e: vikram@sph.com.sg
Sir David Lane
Chief Scientist, A*STAR , Biomedical Research Council
e: dplane@p53lab.a-star.edu.sg
Subbaraman Narayan
Head of Research and Visiting Senior Research Fellow
Institute for South Asian Studies, National University
of Singapore
e: isassn@nus.edu.sg
Irene Ng
Member of Parliament, Singapore;
Writer-in-Residence, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
National University of Singapore
e: swknyhi@nus.edu.sg
Aihwa Ong
Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore;
Professor of Sociocultural Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley
e: arioa@nus.edu.sg
Amitendu Palit
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies
National University of Singapore
e: isasap@nus.edu.sg
Teh Kok Peng
Governing Board, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
e: hahleenah@gic.com.sg
Marc Lau
Investment Director, Axiom Asia Private Capital
e: marc.lau@axiomasia.com
Derwin Pereira
Correspondent, The Straits Times
e: erwin.pereira@gmail.com
Low Hon Mun
Special Assistant to the Minister, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Singapore
e: low_hon_mun@mfa.gov.sg
Seeram Ramakrishna
Vice-President (Research Strategy), National University
of Singapore
e: seeram@nus.edu.sg
Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore 13

Kavita Kumari Ratty
Associate Director, Administration and Business
Development, Global Asia Institute, National University
of Singapore
e: kavita@nus.edu.sg
Philip Liat Kok Yeo
Chairman, SPRING Singapore; Special Advisor for
Economic Development, Office of the Prime Minister of the
Government of Singapore
e: philipyeo@pacific.net.sg
Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Minister for Finance, Singapore
e: ts@mof.gov.sg
Kanwaljit Soin
Consultant Orthopaedic and Hand Surgeon,
Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, Singapore General Hospital
e: ksoin@emenders.com
Kenneth Paul Tan
Associate Professor, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
University of Singapore
e: spptank@nus.edu.sg
Tan Thiam Soon
Vice-Provost (Education), National University of Singapore
e: pvotants@nus.edu.sg
Simon S.C. Tay
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University
of Singapore
e: lawtaysc@nus.edu.sg
Astrid Tuminez
Assistant Dean (Executive Education)
and Director (Research), Lee Kuan Yew School of Public
Policy, National University of Singapore
e: atuminez@nus.edu.sg
Geoffrey Wade
Senior Research Fellow, Asia Research Institute
National University of Singapore
e: gwade@iseas.edu.sg
George Yong-Boon Yeo
Minister for Foreign Affairs
e: low_hon_mun@mfa.gov.sg
Bernard Yeung
Dean and the Stephen Riady Distinguished Professor in
Finance and Strategic Management, National University of
Singapore Business School
e: bizdean@nus.edu.sg
Stavros Yiannouka
Vice-Dean, Executive Education and Director,
External Affairs, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
e: sppys@nus.edu.sg
Taiwan
Paul Hsu
Chairman and CEO, PHYCOS International Co., Ltd.
e: paulhsu@phycos.com.tw
Thailand
Masni Apalallo
Assistant to the Secretary-General, ASEAN;
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia
e: masnijuri.apalallo@eria.org
Surin Pitsuwan
Secretary-General, ASEAN
e: surin@asean.org
Pote Videt
Managing Director, Lombard Investments, Inc.
e: pote@lombardinvestments.com
14 Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore

United States
Simon Chesterman
Director, New York University School of Law Singapore
Program, Singapore; and Professor of Law, National
University of Singapore
e: chesterman@nyu.edu
Deirdre Chetham
Executive Director, Harvard University Asia Center
Harvard University
e: dchetham@fas.harvard.edu
Dennis Encarnation
Research Fellow, Harvard University Asia Center
Harvard University
e: encarnatio@aol.com
Peter F. Geithner
Senior Advisor, Harvard University Asia Center
Harvard University
e: geithnerpf@aol.com
Arthur Kleinman
Victor and William Fung, Director, Harvard University
Asia Center, Harvard University
Esther and Sidney Rabb Professor of Anthropology,
Department of Anthropology, Professor of Medical
Anthropology and Professor of Psychiatry,
Harvard Medical School
e: kleinman@wjh.harvard.edu,
arthur_kleinman@harvard.edu
Jun Kurihara
Senior Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance
and Innovation, John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
e: jun_kurihara@hks.harvard.edu
Theodore B. Lee
Advisory Committee, Harvard University Asia Center
Harvard University
e: lvlee@aol.com
Jon D. Mills
Manager, Asia Vision 21, Harvard University Asia Center
Harvard University
e: jdmills@fas.harvard.edu
William Overholt
Senior Research Fellow, Asia Programs
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
e: william_overholt@harvard.edu
Dwight Perkins
Harold Hitchings Burbank Research Professor of
Political Economy, Harvard University
e: dhperkin@fas.harvard.edu
Nicholas Platt
Ambassador and President Emeritus, Asia Society
e: nickplattsr@gmail.com
Thierry Porté
Operating Partner, J.C. Flowers & Co., LLC
e: thierry.porte@gmail.com
John Richardson
Visiting Professor, Institute of Water Policy, Lee Kuan
Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore;
Professor, School of International Service, American
University
e: uspdir@nus.edu.sg
Jay Rosengard
Lecturer in Public Policy; Director, Mossavar-Rahmani
Center for Business and Government’s Financial Sector
Program; John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
e: jay_rosengard@harvard.edu
Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore 15

Anthony J. Saich
Daewoo Professor of International Affairs and Director,
Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
e: anthony_saich@harvard.edu
Jonathan Pincus
Resident Curriculum Advisor,
Fulbright Economics Teaching Program
e: jonathan.pincus@gmail.com
Weiming Tu
Harvard Yenching Professor of Chinese History and
Philosophy and of Confucian Studies, Harvard University;
Director, Institute for Advanced Humanistic Studies,
Peking University
e: wtu@fas.harvard.edu
Ezra F. Vogel
Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences,
Emeritus, Havard University
e: efvogel@fas.harvard.edu
Benjamin Wilkinson
Program Officer, Vietnam Program, Ash Center for
Democratic Governance and Innovation, John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University
e: ben_wilkinson@harvard.edu
Kenneth Winston
Lecturer in Ethics and Faculty Chair, Singapore Program
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
e: kenneth_winston@harvard.edu
Vietnam
Vu Thanh Tu Anh
Director of Research, Fulbright Economics Teaching Program;
Research Fellow, John F. Kennedy School of Government
e: anhvt@fetp.vnn.vn
Pham Duy Nghia
Lecturer, Fulbright Economics Teaching Program
e: nghiapd@fetp.vnn.vn
16 Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore

Thursday, April 29
7:00-9:00 p.m.,
Welcoming Reception
Lee Kuan Yew, School of Public Policy, Lobby Level
469C Bukit Timah Road, Oei Tiong Ham Building
National University of Singapore
OPENING REMARKS
Kishore Mahbubani
Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
National University of Singapore
Arthur Kleinman
Victor and William Fung, Director, Harvard University
Asia Center; Esther and Sidney Rabb Professor of
Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Harvard
University and Professor of Medical Anthropology and
Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School
Friday, April 30
8:00-9:00 a.m., Breakfast
Lee Kong Chian Wing, University Hall, Level 7 Vista,
21 Lower Kent Ridge Road, National University of Singapore
9:00-10:30 a.m., Plenary Sessions
Asia’s Role in Addressing Global
Imbalances
Chair, Dwight H. Perkins
Harold Hitchings Burbank Research Professor of
Political Economy, Harvard University
Gang Fan
Director, National Economics Research Institute,
China Reform Foundation
Shekhar Gupta
Editor-in-Chief, The Indian Express
Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Minister for Finance, Singapore
Hiroshi Watanabe
CEO, Japan Bank for International Cooperation
10:30-10:45 a.m., Coffee Break
10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
Biotech Models for Development
Chair, Barry Halliwell
Tan Chin Tuan Centennial Professor,
National University of Singapore
Kiyoshi Kurokawa
Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies,
Japan
Huanming Yang
President, Beijing Genomics Institute, China
Philip Liat Kok Yeo
Chairman, Spring Singapore
12:30-2:00 p.m., Luncheon
Lee Kong Chian Wing, University Hall, Level 6, Nexus
Welcoming Remarks
Barry Halliwell
Tan Chin Tuan Centennial Professor,
National University of Singapore
Keynote Speaker, George Yong-Boon Yeo
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Singapore
2:15-3:45 p.m.
Values and Multiple Transitions in Asia
Chair, Arthur Kleinman
Victor and William Fung, Director, Harvard University
Asia Center; Esther and Sidney Rabb Professor of
Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Harvard
University and Professor of Medical Anthropology and
Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School
Prasenjit Duara
Raffles Professor of Humanities,
National University of Singapore
Kanwaljit Soin
Surgeon, Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, Singapore
Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore 17

Tu Weiming
Harvard Yenching Professor of Chinese History
and Philosophy and of Confucian Studies, Harvard
University; Director, Institute for Advanced Humanistic
Studies, Peking University
Saturday, May 1
8:00-9:00 a.m., Breakfast
Lee Kong Chian Wing, University Hall, Level 7
21 Lower Kent Ridge Road
National University of Singapore
3:45-4:00 p.m., Coffee Break
9:00-10:30 a.m., Breakout Sessions
4:00-5:30 p.m.,
Governance and Stability in Asia
Chair, Anthony Saich
Daewoo Professor of International Affairs, John F
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Randolph S. David
Professor of Sociology, University of the Philippines
Kishore Mahbubani
Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
National University of Singapore
7:00 P.M., Pre-Dinner Reception
7:30 p.m., Dinner
Swissotel the Stamford
Equinox Dining Room, Level 69
2 Stamford Road, Singapore
a. Climate Change and Security Challenges
Nicholas Platt
Ambassador and President Emeritus, Asia Society
b. Asian Islam
Suzaina Binte Abdul Kadir
Senior Lecturer, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public
Policy, National University of Singapore
c. Regionalism and the Greater Mekong Sub-region
Rosalia Sciortino
Health Adviser, AusAID Indonesia
d. Flashpoints in Asia
Astrid Tuminez
Assistant Dean and Director of Research, Lee Kuan
Yew School of Public Policy, National University
of Singapore
Huang Jing
Visiting Professor, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
National University of Singapore
Welcoming Remarks
Arthur Kleinman
Victor and William Fung, Director, Harvard University
Asia Center, Esther and Sidney Rabb Professor of
Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Harvard
University and Professor of Medical Anthropology and
Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School
Keynote Speaker, Surin Pitsuwan
Secretary-General, ASEAN
10:30-10:45 a.m., Coffee Break
10:45-12:15 p.m., Final Plenary Session
Chair, Ezra F. Vogel
Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences, Emeritus,
Harvard University
12:30-2:00 p.m., Closing Lunch
18 Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore

Special thanks to Astrid Tuminez, Shlesha Thapaliya, and Tarryn Li-Min Chun
for their editorial contributions
Photographs by
Michael Culme-Seymour, MCS Lifestyle Photography
Asia Vision 21 Spring 2010 Singapore 19