Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk from Singapore. I Stephen Sackur. This citystate is

one of the remarkable economic success stories of the past 50

years. But storm clouds are gathering over Singapore.

President Trump is challenging assumptions about free trade

and traditional security alliances in Asia.

I have an exclusive interview with the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee

Hsien Loong. Is Singapore feeling vulnerable?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, welcome to HARDtalk. Let's start

with the international political climate. Donald Trump is now

president of the United States and he talks about protectionism,

ripping up trade deals that have been bad for America. How dangerous

is this new political climate for Singapore. We are watching it very

carefully. We of all countries depend most on trade, our GDP on

foreign trade is the highest in the world, we have free trade agreements

with many countries including the US. We are dependent on the system

which America has built and upheld to maintain an open, global

intercourse of trade, commerce, investment, finances, which have

prospered most country most of the time. There is a new mood in America

and President Trump reflects that and we have to watch carefully what

policies he pursues. When he says the globalised trading system has

led to the greatest job theft in the history of the world? There are many

views on that. In Singapore, it has not done that to us. In America,

many American companies have prospered because they are all over

the world with a base in America. I think the President reflects a new

idea. Worried? Alarmed? It depends on what he does. The campaign

rhetoric is likely always overheated. When they confront the

realities and have to make the choice is... But one key act he has

taken is to walk America away from the transpacific partnership, a deal

which Singapore was very much a part of. Now the Americans want nope part

of it. We were disappointed by that because we spent a long time

negotiating it. It was carefully balanced and Americans bargained

hard as it did the other countries and we felt, Singapore or in

particular, felt it was important not just economically, but also

strategically because it an deep and America's engagement in Asia and

gave a rationale for America to take a close interest in Asia and tried

to make things work out well in Asia. What signal doesn't send about

America's feelings about its engagement with Asia? It shows on

this issue Mr Trump was following through on his campaign rhetoric but

I do not believe the administration is going to pull back from Asia or

the world. He said he once a muscular engagement and we will have

to see what that means. Your words from last autumn, just before Trump

won the election, he said that if the United States went back on the

TPP trade deal, how would anyone believe in the Americans any more?

He said it was not just about trade but strategic issues as well.

America is a reality, it is still a great power and think this has put a

dent in the degree to which people can be confident of America's

policies but it has happened and we have to live with that. Some other

signatories of the TPP, thinking of Australia and New Zealand, said they

would not rule out moving ahead without the United States. In Japan

it seems a nonstarter. How is it viewed in Singapore? 12 -1 and

consensus, Singapore would sign. Whether that happens, I am not sure

because the Japanese in particular made very painful concessions in

exchange for American concessions. And if you have a deal with America

is not party, and think the political and economic balance has

shifted so I would not rule it out but I do not think it is so easy to

achieve. We talked about uncertainty in Washington but there is also

uncertainty in your relationship with Beijing. Going back to your

father, you have sought strong relationships with the US and

Beijing. But you have some major problems symbolised recently when

the Chinese and pounded some of your vehicles when they were in an

exercise in Taiwan. I would not say we have major problems but we have

some issues and some incidents. I think military vehicles were an

incident which happened to both of us. It suggested a lack of trust.

Well, it is a delicate matter for both sides. There has been a

satisfactory outcome. To put it bluntly, the Chinese are furious

with some policy decisions you have made, not least your support to the

Court of arbitration backing of the Philippines in a dispute in the

South China Sea. The Chinese feel you are betraying a friendship. No,

I think you miss paraphrase me. I did not strongly support the courts

ruling. What I said was the court made a strong statement and that was

a difference. Let's be clear... The Chinese do not accept it, the

Filipino do but it was a ruling in which was set in very strong terms.

Who has just as on its side the Chinese... We respect international

courts decisions. Decisions are made and they can be scrutinised,

examined, scrutinise. Our interest is a freedom of navigation, rule of

international law and also the cohesion and the relevance of our

city. From the Beijing point of view, your decision during the Obama

administration to sign a deeper defence agreement with the Americans

and to the Chinese that looks like a statement of intent which works

against their interests. We have had this relationship with the US for a

long time. We buy military equipment from them, we train there, and for

more than 30 years we have had... Rehab posted American aircraft and

ships in the region which passed through and stop in Singapore and we

think it is the right thing for us to do because we believe that the

American presence in the region is positive for the region and the

security presence is positive for the region. It has brought about

stability, it has enabled countries to prosper and compete peacefully

and therefore we believe it is in our interest to be friendly with the

Americans. With rising tension in the region and Donald Trump talking

about a new America first policy and we have discussed the protectionist

element things are getting difficult for Singapore? If our relationships

become very difficult, our position becomes tougher because we will be

called to choose between being friends with America and France with

China and that is a real worry. Right now we are friends with both.

It is not that we do not have issues with either but we are generally

France with both and relations are in good working order. Do you

believe Beijing- Washington relations are in danger of

deteriorating? Relations always require close attention on both

sides and I shot that the Chinese side know that an I hope the

American side will have that attention because on the American

side you have many other issues to worry about- the Middle East, the

Ukraine, Latin America. Unless you focus on these relationship both the

win-win issues and areas of contention is can go wrong. You

mentioned Europe, the looming prospect of Brexit, when you look at

the United kingdom as a place to do business as a trading and investment

partner, from your point of view, has Brexit strengthened or weakened

the UK? Well, we have no vote on this. From our point of view we

think that Brexit weakens the EU, we are not sure its strength as the UK.

You can make a living, you will not starve outside the EU but it is an

enormous market on your doorstep and you cannot avoid doing this is where

the and you may not have strengthened your influence. This is

what Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said recently, let's understand what

we're dealing with here, the world is not see Britain through the prism

of being a member of the European Union. The nations of the world see

and respect written as a major power in its own right. Looking from

Singapore, and you think that is true? Singapore is a small country.

We are trying to make away in the world and we find it and essential

that we are part of a regional A/C an which is not as ambitious --

ASEAN, it is not as big and it is our life raft and he gives your

voice a bigger voice in the world. Britain now is very eager to begin

work on very far reaching bilateral trade deals and obviously is an

important trading nation in the world they are looking at Singapore.

You in negotiations? We are not in negotiations but we would be willing

and happy to do that. I think you have many countries with which to do

deals, starting with the United States. You have to do that. But the

fact is, you are doing it on your road. There is an active debate in

the UK about how this trade bilateral deals should be done and

what values should be brought to bear- for example opposition figures

say if we are going out to countries around the world looking for

referential trade deals, we must not and cannot turn a blind eye to human

rights issues, abuses, violations, in the pursuit of sweetheart trade

deals. Some have mentioned Singapore.

This is what Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrats

in the UK said, he said, "If we're to seek a deal

with Singapore, Theresa May, the Prime Minister, must raise

issues of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in any

trade talks with Singapore". How do you respond to that?

I don't see you being restrained in asking me any questions.

No, I'm not but that's not really the point is it?

The point is whether you would be prepared to offer guarantees

on your treatment of the press at home, here in Singapore?

Whether you would be prepared to talk about wider freedoms

for the press in this country? I would not presume to tell

you how your press council should operate, why should

you presume to tell me how my country should run?

We are completely open, we have one of the fastest Internet

accesses in the world - we have no great wall

of the internet, you can get any site in the world you wish.

So where's the restriction? So if the government of Britain

were to make linkages between a trade deal and seeking

guarantees about human rights, press freedoms, workers' rights,

demonstrators' rights in this country, your reaction would be?

I would wait to react until I see it.

You look at the Americans; they don't lack fervour

in moral causes. They promote democracy,

freedom of speech, women's rights, gay rights, sometimes

even transgender rights. But you don't see them applying that

universally across the world with all their allies.

Yes, they do it when the cost is low, and then they can take

a high position. You look at some of the most

important oil producers in the world - do they conform?

Have they been pressured? You have to do business.

The world is a diverse place, nobody has a monopoly

on virtue or wisdom. And unless we can accept that

and we prosper together and cooperate together,

accepting our differences. Differences in values,

differences in outlooks, differences even in what we see

as goals of life to be. I think it becomes difficult.

Let's, if we may, spend a little bit of time thinking about the values

represented of time thinking about the values

represented in Singapore. It is a democracy. I think you're proud of

your democracy, and yet the reality is that there has been one party in

power, the party that your father founded, and was the central figure

within, 1-party rule ever since the independence of Singapore. Most

people in the West would say that for a really active, successful

democracy, you need a powerful opposition that has the very real

prospect of winning power. That you don't have that in this country. I

would not say it is 1-party rule. The government has only belong to

one party, but there are many parties in Singapore. But Prime

Minister, you know as well as I do, that the number of opposition MPs in

your Parliament are just a handful. In fact, you have had to pass a law

to guarantee them positions because otherwise there would be virtually

none. There are now six elected, three unelected. Out of 100 and

something. About 80 plus. And then we are going to increase the number

to 12. But really it is the workings of a democratic system. The

population voted. They preferred PAP candidates to become member 's

parliament. They chose the PAP to govern them, and govern well. As

long as that happens, I can have that outcome in government. As long

as the government stops functioning or if I have a Member of Parliament

that does not fulfil his duties and loses his voters' confidence, the

situation will change overnight. It is open. Well, your country is so

open in terms of its economy, but so not open in some other ways. I

mean... Just because the voters have voted for me and my party does not

mean we are not open. Weathermen. Look at the realities. You have an

internal security act that allows people to be locked up without

charge or trial. The only people we have locked up like that in recent

decades are extremist. You have also taken legal action against teenage

bloggers for things they have written online. You have Human

Rights Watch saying Prime Minister Lee is ruling absolutely over

dissenting voices, that was the hallmark of his father. If it was

such a miserable place, you would not be interviewing me. You would be

going down the street and getting vox pops and all sorts of people

would be seen terrible things about their government. And some of them

would have emigrated, but the fact is, the Singaporeans are happy. They

have chosen this government. We are governing the country and the people

to the best of our ability. And millions more would like to come in,

if we allow them. Let's talk symbols, then. About the identity of

Singapore today and what you wanted to look like in the years to come.

There has been a lot of discussion, shall I say, inside the citystate

about your oppressive law on homosexuality. It is still

technically illegal, things to statute number 377a, for two

consenting male adults to have sex. It is a criminal offence. Now I know

that the Singapore judicial authorities choose not to prosecute

them for doing it, but why not as a symbol of change in this country, it

get that off the statute book? It is a matter of society values. We

inherited this from British Victorian attitudes. And I am sure

you do not want Singapore today to reflect British Victorian values. We

are not British or Victorian. This is a society that is not liberal on

these matters. Attitudes have changed but I believe that if we had

a referendum on the issue today, 377a would stand. The majority of

Singaporeans... You have been in power for more than 12 years

yourself. Is it not your role as a leader to signal to your people that

Singapore can and must adapt to changing social mores? On social

moral issues, I think the government's role is not to leave.

It is - people believe this, some fervently, it is a vexed issue in

every society. Let me ask you personally. I don't wish to sound

rude in any way, but... You never are... If any of your children or

grandchildren Wague, would that change your perspective? Would you

then think it were acceptable for people to be criminal eyes in this

way? -- were gay. I think it is a law that is there. If I remove it, I

would not remove the problem, because if you look at what has

happened in the West, and in Britain you decriminalised it in the 1960s,

your attitudes have changed a long way, but even now, gay marriage is

contentious. In America, it is very contentious. Even in France, in

Paris, they have had demonstrations in the streets against gay marriage.

But what is your personal view? Which you like to get rid of 377a?

My personal view is that if I do not have a problem, this is an uneasy

compromise, and I am prepared to live with it until social attitudes

change. We are also almost out of time. A few questions on Singapore's

future and its future leadership. In 2008, you gave an interview where

you indicated that you did not think Singapore was ready for a Muslim,

non- Chinese premise. Do you still feel that they? I think that ethnic

considerations are never absent when people vote. -- think that today. In

Singapore, it is better than before, but race and religion count. And I

think that makes it difficult. It is not impossible. And I hope one day

it will happen. And you don't think Singapore is ready to they? If you

asked it to happen tomorrow, I don't think so. Should the situation

arise, one person who could be considered would be Tharman

Shanmugaratnam. A lot of Singapore is the as the best qualified person

to be the next Prime Minister. My sense is that Singaporean voters

will look for a good man, a man who can resonate with them. A man they

can identify with. Could it be Tharman Shanmugaratnam? It could be

someone like Tharman Shanmugaratnam. But these are factors which voters

take into consideration when they go into the ballot box and when they

identify with them. And I think there are very few countries where

you can say their race does not count at all. That is race. But we

should talk about names. It is the matter is that Singapore, your

father led this country for more than 30 years. You have let it fall

more than 12 years. -- led to it. Do you think it will be difficult for

Singapore to move beyond the Lee family? -- led it? That is a mortal.

I will have to hand over the role of Prime Minister. Prime Minister,

again, this is personal, but you did have a health scare last year. Two

years ago. Yes. You recovered and we all understand that you are feeling

well. Do you intend to go on and on? Know I do not. I said many times. So

tell me about the succession. Your father always said that organising

the succession is crucial. And I think you have said that too. So how

will that were? It is a difficult job. I've assembled a team of junior

ministers. And amongst them, they are able people they can work

together, and need to build a team, and build the trust of Singapore

lacked Singaporeans, and amongst themselves, they must throw up and

acknowledge and support a leader. Will you pick that person? I cannot

be that person. They must decide who they will work for. If I pick the

leader and they don't support them, it will become something like the

Albert Victorian museum. That is the end of Singapore. Prime Minister

lease and long, thank you for joining us. Thank you very much --

Prime Minister Lee Hsien