“Deep in the shady sadness of a vale
Far sunken from the healthy breath of morn,
Far from the fiery noon, and eve’s one star,
Sat grey-hair’d Saturn, quiet as a stone...”
John Keats, Hyperion
The word "liberal" means many things. You will see "liberal" mentioned often here. In this context, it refers to the western-created epoch after WWII, let's call it the "Liberal World Order". It is based on classical liberalism (as distinct of progressivism) where there was open markets, democracy with political pluralism, rule of law (both domestic and international), multilateralism (cooperation amongst nations via international institutions - UN, WHO, IMF, WTO etc), human rights and individual liberties, and recognition of national sovereignties.
Trump’s rhetoric is unsophisticated and lacks academic polish for which the artsy intelligentsia assumes as intellectual emptiness. Singapore establishment, with mindset of ivory tower loftiness, risks misreading future US trajectories if they are unable to see the design behind Trump's "madness". Like many global observers, much of the Singaporean establishment continues to describe him as a “disruptor.” This term, while superficially accurate, is analytically shallow. It reduces Trumpism to a matter of personality that is erratic, transactional, and unbecoming of presidential decorum.
But to frame Trump this way is to miss the deeper current he represents — and to underestimate the scale of transformation underway in American politics which will ultimately impact the world around us and Singapore's relationship with the U.S..
Trump is not the cause, but the consequence of long-developing dislocations:
• the economic disaffection of the American middle and working classes,
• the loss of legitimacy in U.S. institutions,
• and a revolt against globalism and elite technocracy.
In this sense, Trump is a cipher: a populist vessel channeling widespread mood swings, economic, cultural, and ideological, that are redefining the American state from within.
This revolution is not yet complete. It is still messy, contested, and uneven. But it is real. Its aftershocks are visible across party lines, within federal agencies, and throughout the think tank ecosystem. Whether in the form of Trump himself or a successor with similar instincts, this post-liberal, anti-globalist, nationalist movement is here to stay.
For countries like Singapore, highly globalized, rules-based, and technocratically governed, it is essential to read the U.S. not only through institutions and treaties, but through the transformation of its political DNA. Trumpism may clash with liberal norms, but it has forced the U.S. to reckon with internal contradictions it had long avoided.
The real question for Singapore is not whether Trump is “good” or “bad,” but how to strategically interpret the structural realignment he represents — and what that means for our posture toward a U.S. no longer guaranteed to operate by yesterday’s rules.
That sets the background for what I try to gauge here - whether Singapore thinkers are able to grasp the enigma of Trump. Across the board, Singapore's political and executive leadership are technocrats. Make no mistakes about it. They are very good at what they do. But thinkers and visionaries are not in abundance. I assemble four of our respected elders here to see what each of them thinks about Trump.
Kishore Mahbubani
Intellectual orientation: Strategic Realist, Civilizational Critic of the West
Mahbubani is a former UN ambassador and Dean of Lee Kuan school of Public Policy. He is a thought leader in Asian exceptionalism, multipolarity, and the Western decline thesis. He is known for the idea that “The West has lost it” — morally and strategically — while Asia is rising.
Both Mahbubani and Lee Kuan Yew drew a lot from British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, best known for his work on the rise and fall of civilisation. Both saw in Toynbee's grand civilisational perspective as useful for understanding global power dynamics and guiding Singapore's foreign policy thinking. It is interesting that whilst both read Toynbee's ideas about civilisational challenge and response, Lee dwells on Life and Mahbubani on the Death aspects. Lee saw from Toynbee's works the insights into the drive and dynamism of nations. Mahbubani saw civilisations' decline not from conquest, but from internal rigidity, hubris and elite failure and so his talks are peppered with Asia's resurgence and the West's intellectual arrogance, a refusal to learn from others.
Here are a few things Mahbubani has said of Trump:
“We should also treat Mr Trump with respect. Living in a small state, we are price‑takers, not price‑makers. Ignore rhetoric and focus on interests.” (2017 op-ed for The Straits Times)
He emphasized that small nations must adapt pragmatically to whoever sits in the White House.
“The kindest thing you can say about Trump is that he has been much better than expected.”(2018 interview with ST)
He credited Trump’s foreign policy with a level of consistency that, to some extent, provided a sense of steadiness.
“Trump is behaving like a rational geopolitical actor in putting what he perceives to be his country’s interests first.” (Mar 2025)
This was in an article "It’s Time for Europe to Do the Unthinkable". Mahbubani urged Europe to follow suit, prioritize their own interests, and then, perhaps, win Trump’s respect. What he is saying here is Western elites misread the global mood. He is diagnostic, realist, non-partisan. He neither condemns nor celebrates Trump, but treats him as a rational actor responding to domestic pressures.
“If Trump can get China to open up its market, then it’s possible to have a win‑win trade deal.” March 2025.
He highlighted Trump’s openness to pragmatic economic negotiations, despite his often aggressive rhetoric.
From these snippets, Mahbubani’s perspective on Trump is :
• He advises pragmatism and respect, especially for smaller countries when dealing with Trump.
• He considers Trump more coherent and predictable than commonly portrayed.
• He views Trump’s actions as rationally US self-interest, aligning with a realist worldview.
• He sees economic opportunity in Trump–China relations, despite friction.
Unfortunately, for our purpose here, Mahbubani has not analyzed Trump in depth as a personality or movement, but has only addressed what Trump reveals about America. To him Trump reflects America’s dysfunction, but also accelerates the decline of Western legitimacy. “Trump’s unilateralism and nationalism have alienated allies, eroded American soft power, and exposed the limits of liberal ideology.” In this regards, Mahbubani has often referred to U.S. middle-class stagnation, inequality and racial dysfunction, the collapse of bipartisan elite consensus and loss of global moral authority. Don't be mistaken. He is not saying Trump is the cause, but that Trump is working out of this environment.
There is an analytical limitation. Mahbubani's gaze is macro, strategic, and civilizational, not institutional or political. He doesn’t dissect the mechanics of Trumpism: administrative war against the deep state, realignment of think tanks, or MAGA intellectual infrastructure. Mahbubani offers a power realist’s reading of Trump’s geopolitical impact, rather than a close analysis of Trumpism itself. Still, his framework helps Singapore de-westernize its assumptions about power, values, and strategy.
Lee Hsien Loong:
Intellectual Orientation: Technocratic realism, Anglo-American liberal institutionalism, Confucian communitarianism
Lee approaches Trump less as a symptom of decline and more as a stress test of liberal-democratic systems. As a technocrat deeply shaped by the Cold War and the Pax Americana, Lee has faith in institutions, rules-based order, and elite continuity.
“The American political system was designed not to work too well, so that the government wouldn’t become too powerful. But when you need decisive government, it’s very hard to make decisions.”(2017 (CNN interview)
“We must be prepared for a U.S. that is more inward-looking, more protectionist, and more transactional.” (2020 (Shangri-La Dialogue, post-Trump trade war)
Trump represents not just a bad leader, but a deeper dysfunction in American political architecture — institutional gridlock, voter polarization, and the loss of bipartisan consensus. He probably thinks Trump contributes to a large part of this. Lee approaches governance through a technocratic managerial lens, valuing competence, order and institutional continuity. He has been diplomatically respectful, but clearly, his style and world view is at odds with Trump's bombastic, improvisational approach. To him, he fears small states like Singapore which thrives under rules-based order, are threatened by Trump's transactionalism and unpredictability.
Strategic Implication for Singapore:
• Maintain hedging: Don’t assume the U.S. will return to “normal” even post-Trump.
• Continue multilateralism, but deepen bilateralism: Lee sees Trump’s era as a wake-up call that small states cannot rely on multilateral norms alone — they must be nimble in bilateral relations, especially with China, India, the EU, and ASEAN.
• Watch for long-term elite degradation in the West — a theme Lee touches on subtly in speeches referencing Western domestic upheavals.
George Yeo:
Intellectual Orientation: Cosmopolitan, civilisational pluralist, Catholic + Confucian communitarian, less technocratic (by PAP standards) more philosophically inclined)
George Yeo approaches Trump not as a politician to be liked or disliked, but as a symptom of declining American elite coherence and a world shifting toward multipolarity. His framing is shaped by Toynbee’s theory of civilizational cycles, the rise of China, and the end of Western universalism.
“Trump is not the disease. Trump is the cough.”
This is perhaps his most cited metaphor. It captures his view that Trump is not an anomaly but a signal — the outward expression of deep social, cultural, and economic malaise in the U.S., especially among the working and middle classes.
"There is a revolt against what is perceived to be the moral arrogance of the liberal establishment. Trump gave that revolt a voice.”
Yeo sees the American liberal establishment as having lost moral and political legitimacy.
On US-China strategy, Yeo suggests Trump, despite the chaos, reset US-China relations in a way no establishment Democrat or Republican could. The decoupling logic, tariffs, and tech containment all began under Trump. Biden has only institutionalized them. (Now Trump 2.0 Trump has re-energised the execution).
Strategic Implication for Singapore:
Singapore must recognize that the unipolar moment is over, and adapt to a world of competing civilizational states, not assume a liberal internationalist framework will self-correct. Yeo’s advice, implicit and explicit, is to avoid ideological commitments, stay agile, and understand both Trump and China as responses to global system failure, not threats to be dismissed.
Tommy Koh
Intellectual Profile: Liberal internationalist, Legal humanist, Legal idealist, Cultural pluralist)
Renowned for his principled liberalism, commitment to international law, and belief in rules-based global order. Deeply shaped by post-WWII multilateral optimism - UN diplomacy, law of the sea, cultural diplomacy, human rights.
“Trump has damaged the rules-based international order.”
“He abandoned allies, tore up treaties, and undermined multilateralism.”
Consistently critical, but in a moral-legal tone. Tommy, stuck in his liberal globalist worldview, dislikes Trump for his Climate change denial, withdrawal from WHO, Paris Accord, TPP, and disrespect for allies and global norms.
“I worry about the rise of protectionism and economic nationalism in the U.S. and in Europe. … Asia has been able to make enormous progress because of the liberal economic order that the U.S., U.K. and other countries created at the end of the Second World War. And this liberal world order seems to be in jeopardy.” (2017)
“..... engage China and to persuade it to be a responsible stakeholder, cooperate where your interests converge, compete where they diverge and manage differences with respect”.
He urges Trump to continue this bipartisan legacy.
"The problem was that he did not like multilateral institutions and long‑distance travel."
“ASEAN would be affected if President Trump were to carry out his election narrative to impose a 10–20% tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on imports from China.”
Koh blames Trump squarely that his trade nationalism, such as rejecting the TPP, risked destabilizing the liberal economic system that benefited Asia. Koh criticized Trump’s preference for bilateral deals and U.S. withdrawal from multilateralism. He framed multilateral engagement not just as idealism, but as pragmatic and mutually beneficial diplomacy.
Tommy's analytical weakness is his tendency to view Trump through a 1990s lens. He therefore sees Trump as an aberration from liberal norms, rather than a reflection of their global exhaustion. His critiques rarely engage the socioeconomic drivers or institutional breakdown behind Trump’s rise. Often sounds more like a moral custodian than a systems analyst.
Tommay is not a thinker. He sees Trump purely in a moral and micro legalistic way. He sees only the upper layer and makes no reference to the generally unseen undercurrents that transforms the surface.
Conclusion:
I sum up in one sentence each, how each of them view Trump and whether that view is framed by an understanding of the changing world order or just loyalty to the status quo.
Kishore Mahbubani:
Sees Trump as a disruptive consequence of a decaying liberal world order and urges Western elites to confront their own structural failures rather than blame the messenger.
George Yeo:
Views Trump as an unsettling but necessary force injecting energy into a stagnant global system, reflecting the rise of civilisational alternatives to Western dominance.
Lee Hsien Loong:
Sees Trump with polite concern, but seeing him as a threat to the predictability and multilateralism norms that technocratic small states like Singapore depend on.
Tommy Koh:
Disapproves of Trump's disregard for international law, human rights, and multilateralism, viewing him as a dangerous deviation from the moral architecture of the postwar order.
From my discourse in social media, I get the feeling majority of people are like Tommy Koh - principled idealists trapped in a fading paradigm. Most are the kind of liberal who earnestly promotes the values of a rules-based world, even as the foundations of the world crack beneath them, judging the symptoms without diagnosing the disease.
Only George Yeo sees the positive of Trump in the world. And that's what makes George different, and my favourite, in the current batch of men in white.
Just like Saturn, many in the world today are wondering, what the hell happened. Just like what Mahbubani famously said, "The West has lost it". None of our four thinkers explain why and how the "IT" was lost. I will dive into this in the next few posts.
The Olympians come with a new essence, more luminous and inevitable. But just like few in the world understands Trump, in Hyperion, only one among the Olympians truly understands the weight of what is happening: The Olympian leader Apollo’s realization of his power is not brash but deeply intellectual and spiritual:
“Knowledge enormous makes a god of me.”Apollo undergoes an inner transformation — the moment he becomes divine is the moment he fully comprehends the Titans’ legacy and transcends it.
And Trump said:
'THERE IS DESIGN BEHIND MY MADNESS."Just like Apollo, he understands the legacy of the old order and is trying to transcend it.
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.