Transcript of Fireside Chat by President Tharman Shanmugaratnam at the Launch of Lianhe Zaobao English Edition on Thursday, 5 November 2026

Ms Chow Yian Ping, Editor of Lianhe Zaobao English Edition (Moderator): Thank you everyone for joining us today. I'm Yian Ping, your host for the fireside chat. I'm deeply honoured to have with me on stage President Tharman Shanmugaratnam to discuss key themes that are close to our hearts: multiculturalism and multilingualism, bridge-building across communities, and Lianhe Zaobao's evolving role in an interconnected world. President Tharman, thank you so much for joining us this afternoon.

The English edition of Lianhe Zaobao will make the content of an established mainstream Chinese language newspaper and digital platform accessible to Singaporeans who increasingly consume news in English. And at the same time, it caters to regional and global audiences seeking a Singapore perspective, especially on matters concerning our local ethnic Chinese community and how we view the world.

What are your hopes for Lianhe Zaobao English, and for the Chinese language Lianhe Zaobao, whose journalism powers this new platform?

President Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I think we should first reflect on what it means to have a Singapore perspective as you put it. It does not mean that we want to project Singapore views or Singaporean views or preferences. And even less so, it doesn't mean a parochial perspective, or a uniquely Singaporean perspective.

The first task, as a media group, in any language, based in Singapore, is to be a credible and trusted observer and interpreter of developments for Singapore, for the region, and for the wider world – the local, regional and wider audience mentioned in Lee Huay Leng’s (Editor-in-Chief, Chinese Media Group, SPH Media) speech just now.

Be a trusted and credible observer and interpreter of developments. And that means being fact-based, being thorough, being impartial, and looking below the surface. 

That's the first task of a high-quality media group, and that, I think, is the way you perform your task and aspire to perform your task.

The larger context, particularly relevant to Lianhe Zaobao, is that China is now more important to the world, economically, technologically, geopolitically. But the understanding of China around the world is now weaker than it was say 20 or 30 years ago.

Scholarship on China has declined, and interactions have gone down, particularly between China and the West, and China and the U.S. in particular. Far fewer students from the West in China, less academic exchanges, even officials don't meet as often. So understanding of China is now much weaker than it has to be, which is troubling, given that China is becoming a more important player in the world in all spheres.

So the need for a credible, trusted perspective of developments in China is now greater than ever. And in a humble way, I think the media in Singapore can play a role in bridging the differences in perspectives.

I read quite widely about China from a variety of sources, both our own Lianhe Zaobao, Straits Times, and as well as international media sources. And I find, in general, in the international media, when you look at portrayals of China, reporting on China, it tends to elevate the grand systemic differences: cultural, sometimes even civilisational, ideological, and governance differences.

Yes, there are differences, and one has to respect the differences between different societies and systems. But one must also respect the similarities to have a true understanding of a society, and how you should be interacting and relating with one another.

There are in fact many similarities – in terms of governance challenges and policy challenges, and importantly too in the struggles and aspirations of people within the U.S., within China, within other regions of the world.

So, respect differences, but respect similarities, to get a true understanding of a society.

Be it for China – or for that matter for Southeast Asia and India, where I would say understanding is also quite superficial – there's a need for more of an inside-out perspective, not just an outside-in perspective.

And the task of the high-quality media is to delve into a society, the flow of thinking at all levels of society. So that you have that inside-out perspective of reality, and not just an outside-in perspective.

I think Lianhe Zaobao was very well placed to do that. Both because of the language, but it's not just the language; it's a certain perspective of the wholeness of society that you bring and have to continue to bring.

I would say the same from our English language media. It can also perform that very useful role in bridging gaps in understanding. The Singapore media, in a sense, because of Singapore's peculiarities of being a small country, with a relatively short history, and not being monocultural domestically, is well placed to play this role as a bridge-builder.

But remember, the first task is not to project a Singaporean voice, or Singaporean views. It is to provide a credible and trusted source of information and analysis that will hopefully, in a modest way, provide a bridge in thinking and understanding in a world that's becoming more divided.

Ms Chow (Moderator): How about in terms of societal cohesion, social cohesion in Singapore itself? Because I think, just now, you are talking about, between how Singapore media can actually play a role in providing a kind of good information on the global media among the global media platforms. But how about domestically, like in terms of social cohesion? Do you think vernacular media platforms like Lianhe Zaobao and our English version could actually play a role in that area in building social cohesion?

President Tharman: Well, I'd say both the English and vernacular Singapore media does place a great deal of emphasis on social cohesion, social harmony. It's become part of the way of thinking. The media is different from government; it's an independent source of information and analysis, but you've always had in mind that objective of supporting social cohesion and social harmony.

But there are differences. There's always been a difference. Between the Chinese-educated, those in Chinese journalism, and more broadly, Chinese intellectuals. There've always been shades of difference compared to the English-educated, the English media, and those who inhabit knowledge that is largely based in English.

I wouldn't exaggerate the difference in Singapore, because the two strands have increasingly overlapped, but there are some differences in emphases. The Chinese media has I think, instinctively, placed greater emphasis on the continuity of culture and values passed down from one generation to another.

And perhaps a stronger emphasis on culture in the wholeness of society, including common people's culture.

It's not at all absent from the English language media, but you sense that it comes a bit more from the soul when you read the Chinese media. It's not just a rational disposition.

And I think we need both, these different sets of eyes, on our own society. They are not actually different identities; they reflect different parts of the Singapore identity.

And what we are trying, and should try to do, is not merely connect different communities, but create within each community that flexibility of mind and that openness of mind that helps evolve the Singapore identity.

And that applies to the Chinese Singaporeans themselves. A very large part of your readership is really going to be within the majority community, the younger of whom largely are speaking English at home or outside. Your English language edition of Lianhe Zaobao will be a useful way of allowing them to benefit from this different pair of eyes on social issues as well as international issues.

The aim is not simply connecting different communities, or thinking of differences between communities that need to be bridged, but developing within each community and developing among Singaporeans generally, that flexibility of mind and that openness of mind.

Ms Chow (Moderator): Just now, when you say that, you know, your idea of, like, the Chinese language or papers or Chinese language media platforms. And you see them as, you know, there's more emphasis on culture; there's more emphasis on maybe, you know, writing from the soul. Do you actually have some access, or did you actually have a chance to read them? 

President Tharman: Actually, for many years now, at least 25 years, I have regularly read opinion pieces in Lianhe Zaobao. I get them translated for me quite regularly. Now it's a bit easier with AI, but you're never quite sure if it's accurate, and some of my staff will run through it for me just to do a check. 

But I regularly read them. Not because I need the information, but I need the perspective. I need that different pair of eyes. 

I would not knock the English language media, by the way – it does a great job – but I need the different pair of eyes. And, like I say, sometimes things come a bit more from the soul when you read Lianhe Zaobao. 

If you look at the whole debate over dialects, earlier this year, for example it was a different debate in Lianhe Zaobao. And I appreciated reading it because it came more from the soul. It had that instinctive way of thinking about the generation of grandparents and our parents. 

Ms Chow (Moderator): Right, and also in the world that we live in now, due to rising competition between U.S. and China, like just now when you mentioned about, you know, of Lianhe Zaobao's reporting about China, we see many people now viewing this through the lens of a zero-sum game. And scholars are framing this as civilisation conflict, and a sign of a more polarised world. 

How do you think this will affect our attitude and our acceptance of various cultures and languages in Singapore? Do you think this will affect Singapore's approach to multiculturalism? 

President Tharman: Well, there are two parts to your question. One is about this, what I was talking about earlier: the tendency for the U.S. and China, or China and the West generally, to look at each other as "the other". The tendency to make another country and another society "the other". 

I think there's too much of elevation of differences, which no doubt are there, and not enough respect for similarities. And not enough sense of the whole of society, and how actually there's much that's similar between nations in the whole of their societies. 

If you read views in China at every level of society, including literature, including even literature written by ordinary gig workers, you know that the concerns are very similar to many other societies. 

So that's one dimension – we need more of an inside-out perspective of what's happening in China, what's happening in the U.S., and what's happening everywhere. 

The second part of your question has to do with what it implies for when you have this contest between China and the West, or China and other countries, what it implies for our own cohesion.

I think that one has to accept that cultural affinity does lean people a little more towards the views of a country with a similar culture. That's just a bit of human nature. 

And we in Singapore have to work gently against that. 

The reason why I say gently is because this is an issue where the heart is connected to the mind. The reason why a certain segment of Singapore society leans naturally towards. You know, when they look at a contest between China and the U.S., or China and Europe, the cultural affinity predisposes them to taking more seriously the views of the country with a similar culture. It's the connection between the heart and the mind. 

But we work gently against it, and you can see that Singapore identity, increasingly over time, has actually become multicultural. Not just in the sense, as Huay Leng was saying in her speech, not just in the sense that we coexist together. But in the sense that our own identity is not monochromatic. Our own identity has different dimensions, but we have to keep working on this. 

I do not think this is a large problem. But it's one that, as a matter of governance, as a matter of social and community leadership, we have to keep working against. Enabling everyone to recognise and treasure the fact that Singapore is a multicultural society, with its own independent identity, and, of course, its sovereignty. 

Ms Chow (Moderator): How successful do you think Singapore is in working in this area, trying to create this idea that, you know, everyone should align with this kind of thinking and embrace this multiculturalism? How do you think? Are we very successful in doing this? 

President Tharman:  Well, I think few Singaporeans do not feel Singaporean. 

Some may be a bit conflicted in their minds, depending on the issue. And the older generation may be a little more conflicted in their minds on some issues, understandably, given their family’s life stories, but I don't think our older Singaporean generations are deeply conflicted on an issue. They may attach some meaning to a particular view outside Singapore, but they do also know instinctively that we are all Singaporean. And the younger generation is even less conflicted in their minds. I think this will just take some time. It's a generational change. We are different, and we are here to stay and build our own society, a confidently multicultural society. 

Ms Chow (Moderator): But in recent years, I mean, our society has also become a lot more diverse with new immigrants and cross-cultural families. And Singapore's multiculturalism has traditionally been anchored in the CMIO kind of a framework. 

So, how can our approach to multiculturalism adapt to stay inclusive while preserving our core shared identity? And, you know, the fact that we actually have newcomers joining us through the years? 

President Tharman:  Well, the underlying question is whether we continue to identify people by race for various purposes. And I think there's a very strong pragmatic reason why we do so. 

It's because in education, in housing, and in some other areas, we want integration, and we want to make sure that everyone is moving up together. And if we are blind to race, we will not achieve these objectives. We will not be able to integrate people deliberately and consciously, and we will not be able to make sure that everyone is being uplifted together. 

CMIO will, of course, become a more clumsy construct over time because of intermarriages, because of new people coming in, and so on. But that will not be a sudden change. It's not that you suddenly flip over, or it suddenly becomes irrelevant. It's going to be a growing degree of messiness within the CMIO framework. 

And part of that messiness or porosity is to be encouraged, particularly in culture and in ways of thinking, and certainly in the way we interact with each other. 

So, in culture, for instance, and I've spoken many times about this: quite apart from our cultures borrowing from each other, we are seeing encouraging examples of people who cross over from one culture to another, attempting to master another culture in Singapore. 

So, with that crossing over, with that borrowing of influences between cultures, and with new people coming in, you get more blurring of differences over time. And we can let it evolve organically. 

Ms Chow (Moderator): And you think our vernacular media platforms play a very important role in this as well, in, you know, getting people, new joiners to integrate into the society, better integrate? 

President Tharman: I think they have that responsibility and that role, and I wouldn't give up on that anytime soon. I think that's a very useful role to play. 

Ms Chow (Moderator):  Well, as we all know, Lianhe Zaobao in English is a product of the times, combining the power of AI with a century of Singapore's media's development and experience. It shows some of the possibilities that AI opens up. But as AI becomes increasingly capable of giving us answers and generating ideas, what modes of thinking, listening, and speaking will become more important? What should we be cultivating in young people for an AI age? 

President Tharman: Well, you know, there's a lot of discussion on this very important topic nowadays in Singapore and internationally. 

All education systems, all educational planners, want to encourage everyone to become an active and thoughtful user of AI. 

It will probably be more easily said than done. On the one hand, AI by providing information, answers, analysis, will free up learners to focus on developing independent thinking and being capable of thinking originally, which is the ultimate goal in education. AI can, in a way, free up space for that.  

But on the other hand, AI is cheap and fast. And it removes another one of the critical sources of development of the mind, which is that the mind develops best through effort and some struggle. And if all the answers and analyses are cheap and fast, it works against that.

So, the reality is there has to be a trade-off to be defined at each stage of education. At the end of the day, school systems and education systems have to decide how much AI should be used at different ages and stages of learning, because there is a trade-off.

Ms Chow (Moderator): So, do you think for young people? I think these days a lot of people are actually very worried that young people, they do not get a chance to grind their way up because the grinding, the learning is actually very, very important, yeah, for young people.

So, is that something of concern? Because I think these days, even when, you know, our young translators or copy editors, when they join us, actually, they do not have a chance to work on a piece from, you know, the beginning to the end. The AI will just generate the piece for them.  

President Tharman: I think we should be concerned, and actually, there's already concern everywhere in the world. Particularly in systems of education that are already quite developed and now have to address this issue and accept the trade-offs and decide where to draw the line at each stage of education, in how much and how AI is used.

We shouldn't lose sight of the importance of slow reading. Slow reading was always part of how the mind develops, where there's a very deliberate engagement with text: re-reading the text, recognising ambiguities, recognising even the emotional tone of the original human author. It only comes with slow reading, and we've got to make sure that kids still grow up with the chance to engage in slow reading. Not just as a pastime, but as a way of developing the mind.

Ms Chow (Moderator): And now that AI can just simply translate between languages, do you think it is still very important for young people to learn different languages? I mean, still to have their vernacular, to learn the vernacular language, to be good in the Chinese language and English language? Do you think bilingualism is still very, very important for young people?

President Tharman: I would say it's still important, for deeper reasons than the functional. Because if it's purely a functional matter, well, you just get a translation done very efficiently. But there's something else to a language. Because words don't ever convey fully the meaning and the emotional norms of the original, and certainly we know that in the case of the Chinese language.

So, having the language ability does give you a pair of eyes on reality, on views, and on emotions, that is different from simply reading a translation.

Ms Chow (Moderator):  So, you then think it's still a much more direct and more emotive process compared to, you know, if you read a translated piece.

President Tharman: I believe that's also what the scholars say. This is probably what AI says as well!

Ms Chow (Moderator): Thank you, Mr President, for these very intriguing insights. And with that, we've come to the end of our fireside chat. Thank you.