Bloomberg New Economy 2025 | Gala Dinner

Activists, visionaries in this community, people who live at the leading edge of what's possible and determined to make the world a better place. So, we started the Catalyst program. Now, every single year, we solicit nominations for catalysts from Bloomberg's global newsroom, 2,900 journalists in 118 countries. And this year, working with all those nominations, we settled on a class of nine Bloomberg New Economy Catalysts, seven of whom are with us tonight. I do urge everyone in this room to introduce yourselves to these emerging leaders, hear their stories, and learn more from them. And I'd like to congratulate these individuals. Now, please do stand up when you hear your name.

Y Biako, co-founder and CEO, Yamachi Biotech, Ghana.

Yatindra Desh Pande, co-founder, Konifa of the US.

Maria Mateo Bora, co-founder and CEO, Abisa, Luxembourg.

Emily Makatia, co-founder and CEO, Odyssey Energy Solutions, United States.

Mera Ma, co-founder and CEO, Tomato Joe's, Nigeria.

Dorin Sha, founder and CEO, Impact Investment Exchange, Singapore.

Pashan Warrior, co-founder and CEO, Cure.ai Technologies, India. Please do give them a rousing round of applause.

Now, without further ado, I'd like to introduce a man who actually needs no introduction. The founder of Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Philanthropies and three-time mayor of New York City. Please do welcome Michael Bloomberg.

Thank you, Prime Minister, for doing this. You've got a rather nicer introduction than I did. A lot has happened since I last saw you. You won an emphatic election victory.

Thank you.

You've celebrated 60 years of independence.

Yes.

Though why anybody would want to be independent of the British Empire, I find it difficult.

I wonder why.

Just look at the mess that the Americans have made of it. That is my revenge on Mike. And above all, Singapore just beat Hong Kong last night in the soccer. So life is... you're on a roll. But to bring you down to earth a little bit, you could argue that the success of Singapore has been based around two things: being a bastion of free trade and also being somewhere between East and West.

Yeah.

And now you have protectionism on the rise and we have that struggle between China and America.

That worries us.

It does. I think it worries us all. But when Xi Jinping and Donald Trump met in South Korea, you called it a temporary truce. And I wonder, you've just seen this spat going on between Japan and China over Taiwan. How precarious does Asia feel at the moment?

I thought first of all going back to the meeting between the two leaders, President Xi and President Trump, it was a good meeting. And while it may be a temporary truce, a temporary stabilization in the relationship, it's much needed and it will provide guardrails for the two powers to engage one another. It will open up channels of communication. And it's not just once off because the two leaders will meet probably four times next year because President Trump has said he would visit China. President Xi will probably visit back and then there's APEC in Shenzhen and G20 in Miami. So many opportunities for engagement and it's much needed for stability. The intense competition and rivalry will continue. I'm sure the mutual suspicion and distrust remains but the guardrails will ensure that the rivalry does not slide into a full decoupling or worse, confrontation and conflict. So on that I'm slightly hopeful after seeing the rapport, the engagement that the two of them had, at least in the near term.

Do you think China won that particular round? It seemed that America gave way on most things.

I'm not here to referee whether one side won or another. All I want is for both to coexist and engage constructively. Now on Japan and China, we all want stability in Asia. I mean that's of course something we... it's in everyone's interest. So we certainly hope that both countries will find ways to de-escalate the current issue. The China-Japan relationship is important. Economically it's important. China is Japan's largest trading partner but it's a complex relationship partly because of the US-China strategic competition so everything that China and Japan has is seen through that larger prism. They also have disputes in the Senkaku Islands and of course it's also because of the overhang of the history of the Second World War which still remains between the two countries. We hope the two countries will find ways to resolve these very complex issues and move forward. Southeast Asia has done that with Japan as far as the history is concerned. It has taken some time but with the passage of time, with the passing of generations, the feelings are not the same and we have put the history aside and we're moving forward. And it's quite striking that survey after survey shows that Japan is the number one trusted great power in Southeast Asia. And so Singapore and all the Southeast Asian countries support Japan playing a bigger role in our region, including on the security front because we think that provides for some stability in the region.

All the same, do you think poking the dragon in the way that the prime minister did, do you think that was advisable?

Well, I'm not her advisor. I can't judge the wisdom of... I can't judge the wisdom of whether or not what she said was wise to do but it has been said, it can't be unsaid now. So there will be a difference of views clearly and I think both sides... I think on the Japanese side they are clearly wanting to bring things down to stabilize the relationship and not cause this to escalate further and I hope China will feel the same way and while there may be differences, the two countries can still get along and work together.

The current atmosphere, what do you think the chances are of a war over Taiwan?

We've always said that we don't think this is likely to happen in the foreseeable future, at least in terms of an unilateral unprovoked action by China. You've asked this question repeatedly to my predecessors, to me. So far you've been right and our views remain the same. It is an important issue for China, Taiwan. It is the reddest of red lines but I don't see and we don't see it happening unless something happens that really crosses China's red lines in terms of for example a unilateral move by Taiwan to declare independence because then it becomes two China not one China. I think America's policy here also is very critical and America has always been consistent and very careful with its policy that there should not be any unilateral change to the status quo and number two that while America defends or supports Taiwan's ability to defend itself, it does so in accordance to the Taiwan Relations Act and to America's one China policy. It's a very carefully crafted statement and up to now across different administrations, America has broadly speaking maintained a consistent approach with that policy. And if it does so, I think there will be a good chance of us maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits.

You also talked about a post-American order which sort of interested me because it implies that America's move towards isolationism and protectionism is not just Donald Trump that even after he goes back to Mar-a-Lago or heaven or what, maybe he doesn't know the difference, that America no longer will be a champion of globalization, no longer be a sort of partner that you can rely on in the same way as you did. Do you really think that America has gone?

We hope not. When I said post-American order, I was referring to the forces that are driving us towards a more multipolar world. So the unipolar moment where America was the clear leader that helped to guide, underwrite the global system, that moment I think is over. So the old rules no longer apply but the new ones have not been written. But as we transit into this new multipolar world, it's not as though every pole remains the same. America is still the biggest, most powerful country and still maintains... America's leadership remains vital and we certainly hope that America will be actively engaged in the world. Maybe not now, maybe not with this administration, but there will be a time when America can take up its role, be actively engaged, constructive, and continue to have good relations with all its key partners. America's role is critical for stability and continued prosperity in the world. And the world needs America to behave like that.

To look at from the outside, America's policy towards China seems somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, there is a very strong desire to keep China in check. On the other hand, most people would say you keep a country like China in check by bringing all the other allies, all the people in the region onto your side. And yet, as you pointed out, when tariffs happened, Trump has hit everyone with a variety of things which would not seem like ally behavior.

You know I visit China regularly just to find out how things are developing and all the actions that America takes vis-a-vis China has in a way only strengthened their resolve to work even harder, to move faster on technology self-sufficiency, and they are determined to grow. So one China commentator tells me there's nothing America can do to stop China. Only China can stop China. And when I heard that it reminded me of something I heard a long time ago about the US too. Abraham Lincoln once said if destruction be our lot, let us Americans be the author and finisher of it. And so it strikes me that in this... I think shortly before a civil war but so it may be rather bad at... but it strikes me that in this great rivalry everyone is focused on what one country does to another.

Yeah.

But really the fates of these two great powers will be determined by their own people at the end of the day. Americans decide America's future. Chinese people decide China's future. That's what it comes down to. And it's their actions, their agency that determines domestic reforms, that determines the direction that these countries will take.

In terms of Singapore's position in that world, I mean, I suppose if I was to look at Southeast Asia, I must have been coming here for three decades or around that. When I first came, I think there was a general presumption that if things came to a head with China, most of Southeast Asia would probably stick with the West. You look at what's happened over the past year, Southeast Asia, including Singapore has become home to many more Chinese companies. As I said, Donald Trump hit the allies with tariffs. You had Joe Biden wasn't that kind to you either. Your first visit as prime minister was to Beijing, not to Washington. I mean, is America losing this region?

We've put a request to visit Washington, waiting for the dates. But I wouldn't read too much into these sorts of things. And whether where I go, what countries I visit... and I also wouldn't say that in the past it's very clear-cut that countries would side with one side, the West, and now side with China and things have flipped. I think that's too simplistic a portrayal. There is no doubt America's actions over this recent period has impacted America's standing in Southeast Asia. All the surveys would suggest that and it's very clear-cut. But I think there's still tremendous goodwill and desire for ASEAN countries to engage the US. President Trump came for the ASEAN summit meeting. He presided over the peace accord between Cambodia and Thailand and then he sat down for a meeting with all the ASEAN leaders, patiently listening to each one, engaging and listening to each one and at the end of all the intervention said that America and him personally is committed to ASEAN. I think that's well received by ASEAN. In the previous administration, Gina is here, Secretary Raimondo, we worked on the IPEF, Indo-Pacific Economic Framework under the Biden administration and many Southeast Asian countries welcome that because America is still the largest investor in this part of the world in terms of FDI and all the countries look forward to having more linkages with America, more engagement with America, more investment from the US. So yes, America's standing has taken a hit. There's no doubt. But we hope America can recover from this and we would like to see America recovering from this.

Just on that, you've spent quite a lot of time though talking about a multipolar world and one where you've tried to, I suppose, bring together what might be described as a coalition of the willing of kind of free trading countries that would deepen ties and that would sort of get on with the business of globalization whilst America and China go about building walls of different sorts. But that particular way, what can you do with that in practice? You see you've accumulated a group of countries. What can you actually do? Is it just about having slightly better documentation and things? What is the end of that?

Let me put it this way. The stable multilateral framework that we were all familiar with is unraveling. That framework was optimized for trade efficiency. In today's world, countries are more concerned about security and resilience. So countries everywhere are prepared to accept some inefficiency, higher cost in return for higher security and resilience. But this is now being done unilaterally, country by country taking its own actions. And that's just not sustainable. In the worst case, you will end up with something like what happened after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the 1930s. Someone does something, another one retaliates. There will be a dynamic where it's just escalating and before too long, we will end up with devastating consequences.

On the other hand, we know that the WTO, which was meant to solve these problems, isn't working. We would like to see a new framework in place. It's not easy to get that happen now, but ideally a new framework that finds ways in which countries can legitimately exercise and protect their own national interests, but with restraint, with some shared rules and not on the basis that you can unilaterally do things to coerce another country or to punish another country, which is somewhat happening now. So, how do we get there? And I think it's very hard for all of us to imagine ways to get there. But I think we should not give up trying. And that's what we would like to do, which is work with like-minded countries. We have a future of investment and trade partnership with 15 or so countries doing this, but also working with the WTO, working with regional groupings like the CPTPP and the EU. And all of these efforts ultimately are not just about tariffs. They are about setting new norms, new rules of the road that would allow us to facilitate trade and investments and find some way to ensure supply chains remain resilient and secure and in a way we are laying the foundations for a new multilateral framework that may come later on.

I looked and saw the future of investment trade partnership, FIT, as it's known and your members include Brunei, Costa Rica, Chile, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Rwanda, Singapore, Switzerland, the UAE and Uruguay, which is a fantastic kind of World Cup group to be in. But it doesn't feel like the beginnings of a big trade block.

I know, but don't sweat the small stuff. You know how the TPP started and the TPP started P4, very small countries, four tiny economies came together in the P4 that became the TPP and when America decided not to continue we had the CPTPP. So great things can start from small places, including Singapore.

What about something you've already got which is ASEAN? And you are a... next year, no, 2027 you become... take over the chairmanship for it. And you look at ASEAN as you say it's been very successful at preventing conflict. It's become a kind of grouping. When you tried to negotiate with Trump as a group, he slightly sort of pushed it aside and made you negotiate one with each other. I wondered is there a way of making ASEAN into something bigger, something deeper? You know, at the moment it's based wholly around consensus. Could you ever move to something like a majority agreement instead? I hate to mention the words European Union in a good light, but if you were to take it a little bit closer to the European Union, does that...

We certainly want to integrate faster and bring together the single market. I mean, there's so much that still needs to be done, but we also have to recognize the wide diversity of ASEAN countries at different levels of development. And so we move as fast as we can. I would say that it was not so much that the US didn't want to negotiate with ASEAN collectively. It's just impossible given the diversity in ASEAN. ASEAN would not be able to negotiate a trade deal with America as a collective. It had to be country by country. We are not quite there yet to negotiate deals like that collectively. But ASEAN has its advantages and strengths. When we talk about ASEAN centrality for example, it's not as though it means ASEAN dominates everything but it means ASEAN has pooling power as a convenor and precisely because of the fracturing of the global economy that we see now and the uncertainties, more and more major powers would like to strengthen their links with ASEAN. EU is interested in an FTA with us. The GCC, we've been talking to them. Canada is interested in an FTA with us too. So we are discussing these initiatives very seriously and hopefully when... I mean we'll do this next year when Philippines is chair and when Singapore chairs ASEAN in 2027 we hope we can continue to build on the foundations and make progress.

So the way in which ASEAN would grow will probably be going broader rather than deeper. You're not going to end up with a...

We have to do both. I think we have to go deeper as well. It's just that going deeper takes time. It's not straightforward and countries will be able to move at different paces and in some instances we may very well say the countries that are able to move faster do first. I wouldn't rule that out.

When we talked about the region, you said you didn't think there was a war coming on or anything like that but do you think in the end a country like Singapore will have to choose between China and America? You've managed to avoid that so far.