Mr Kishore Mahbubani's observations and suggestions on China are not new (The West should let China sleep, as Napoleon advised, Sept 23).

In fact, in the throes of the Great Depression in the 1930s, it was also fashionable to mock the failings of the liberal democracies. Similar to how China's rise has now enthralled some, authoritarianism was also then put forth as a more viable and attractive solution to the socio-economic ills of the time.

Mr Mahbubani's suggestions are based on several assumptions which warrant closer examination. First, the domestic support of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been predicated on the continued delivery of economic progress.

Like what many governments of developing nations have come to realise, after the low-hanging fruit has been picked, sustaining economic development is no longer as easy as before.

As the CCP itself is fully aware, China's traditional economic growth model is unsustainable in the long run, both in view of the changing geopolitical situation and its own demographic trends.

It would be short-sighted to assume that the CCP, which is not subject to electoral checks and balance, would continue to enjoy domestic support once the economy remains in the doldrums.

Second, while it is China's prerogative to try to restore its former glory, it is also the prerogative of other nations to decide whether they want to abide by China's designated pecking order in a Pax Sinica (Chinese peace). In that context, any allusion to its "century of humiliation" is as helpful as 1930s Germany's reference to the "injustices" of the Treaty of Versailles.

Third, I do not think that the West is pushing for regime change in China, but rather for China to follow the norms of an international order that it has greatly benefited from.

It was also on that premise that the international community first embraced China, when it was opening up and the onus should be on China to change.

Many Chinese citizens themselves have observed that China has many domestic socio-economic challenges to deal with. Hence, wolf-warrior diplomacy and military adventurism are not only counterproductive but ultimately, deleterious to both China and the world.

This tragedy is further exacerbated by the fact that unlike the West, where poor leaders can be electorally removed, the Chinese people have to continue to live with the consequences of bad leadership.

Tan Eng Tat