The end of the liberal world order

The end of the liberal world order

Speech delivered in Parliament on 3 March 2025

This is the 10th time that I am addressing the Committee of Supply (COS) as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I have never seen the world more disrupted, more volatile, or more dangerous. So, this is a more sombre, careful and brutally frank message that I am delivering this year. The common thread in all the interventions so far has been this big question: Has the post-WWII liberal world order come to an end? This is a world order which has prevailed for 80 years. In 2025, Singapore celebrates our 60th anniversary. It is also the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII. In these six decades, successive generations of hardworking and disciplined Singaporeans have built up our tiny city state into an outstanding beacon of economic and social success. That we did so without any natural resources or past fiscal reserves is all the more remarkable.

But we should also be realistic and humble enough to be cognisant that there were external factors that were very conducive to our success. The post-World War liberal world order was characterised by: First, the proliferation and rise of free trade and global supply chains and multinational enterprises; second, the establishment of multilateral institutions – United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, World Trade Organisation (WTO), and World Health Organisation (WHO); and third, the development of international law and treaties to protect the global commons – including, for instance, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Agreement on Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ).

This world order was initially envisioned and underwritten by the US and supported by its transatlantic allies in Western Europe. It was, in turn, boosted by the Reform and Opening Up of China (“改革开放”) under Mr Deng Xiaoping since 1978, the economic liberalisation of India under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao since 1991, and the integration of ASEAN economies, especially at the end of the Cold War, when the Indochina countries joined us. And this global order was very favourable for a tiny city state, which has a trade volume three times our GDP, and Singapore’s role as a global financial centre, and our business ecosystem with intensive interactions between local and foreign companies engaged in advanced manufacturing and the provision of sophisticated services for a global market. The point I am making is that Singapore enjoyed the best of many worlds, and we were able to fire on all cylinders.

Unfortunately, the world is now shifting from unipolarity to multipolarity, from free trade to protectionism, from multilateralism to unilateralism, from globalisation to hyper-nationalism, from openness to xenophobia, from optimism to anxiety. And this is a global change, not just in one place. The big powers are taking a narrower view of their national interests, and they are adopting a more transactional, and frankly, sometimes even a more coercive approach. And because there is a lack of strategic trust between the big powers, each of them has a deep anxiety to stay ahead of each other. These profound shifts have ushered in an era of sharper rivalry, autarky, and the fracturing of global supply chains. Countries have turned inwards, ostensibly in the name of national security, resilience, and de-risking, in order to secure their individual interests in this turbulent environment. This is not merely a sudden temporary change in diplomatic weather. This is geostrategic climate change. A new world order is taking shape and characterised by profound unpredictability, instability and volatility. The question, then, is:

What does this portend for us, in Singapore?

This is a question which is on all your minds. There are three broad sets of implications for Singapore.

First, on the economic front. The US, for a very long time, was the main advocate for freer trade globally. Post WWII, the US had a disproportionate share of global GDP at 40 percent. Today, the US’ share of global GDP has declined to around 26 percent, although in absolute nominal terms, its GDP has grown tremendously. It is completely understandable for the domestic American voter to ask the political question: why should the US continue to unilaterally underwrite this liberal world order, which has brought peace and prosperity for so many countries all over the world?

So, over the last decade, the US has progressively shifted to a more nationalist approach, in response to what it deems to be unfair trade measures and free riding. The new US administration clearly sees tariffs as a means to address non-trade-related policy objectives, including national security, local job creation, more resilient supply chains, and bargaining leverage. Other major countries are also using similar restrictions on trade more frequently, and not always confining themselves to trade-related issues. Tariffs are being applied to partners, competitors, and adversaries alike. The US has announced tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, and in turn, these countries have also signalled retaliatory measures. Tit-for-tat tariffs by other countries can easily escalate into a global trade war.

Singapore, so far, has not been targeted directly. But even if we are not, we will still be affected. These tariffs will have a major impact on the volume and the pattern of world trade, and significantly affect us. The first level as a transhipment hub with all the other global services we provide the world. There will be supply chain disruptions and more volatile prices. It is worth remembering — if you cast your mind back to the 1930s — during the Great Depression, when retaliatory ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ policies, in fact, slowed growth everywhere. We need to be prepared for this. But the problems go beyond just trade and tariffs. There are also implications on the global financial system and the way frontier technology, which some of you have referred to, is being developed, shared, and exploited. All these levers — tariffs, financial systems, and technology — may be weaponised. Because Singapore operates as an open economy that is deeply integrated with all the big powers around the world, we trade, invest and access technologies with all of them. We are a vital node in a global network. We connect and enable inter-operability. The Singapore model is based on trust, openness, and a level playing field. We allow companies from all over the world to operate here as long as they play by the rules. That is how Singapore has survived and thrived for six decades. This open paradigm that has served us so well for six decades, is now at risk.

Unfortunately, technology has become a focal point for strategic contestation between the big powers. And as countries bid to stay ahead, several have imposed restrictions and export controls on semiconductor chips, critical minerals, and data. For instance, the US’ AI Diffusion Rule, although not yet finalised and is still subject to changes, will limit the export of advanced chips that are essential for AI. China’s retaliatory restrictions on its own export of critical minerals to the US will also disrupt supply chains, raise production costs, and have an impact on global R&D and innovation. And amidst the heightened scrutiny over advanced technology, Singapore may be criticised for working with or hosting companies and officials from one side or the other, or both. There will be centrifugal pressure from all sides that will make it increasingly hard for us to operate, and it will threaten our raison d’être as an open hub.

The second set of implications is on war and peace. The Russia-Ukraine war has now entered its fourth year. In its immediate aftermath, global energy and food prices surged, and this worsened global inflation in 2022. Russia cited historical errors and crazy decisions to justify an invasion, and to annex territory of its smaller neighbour. As a tiny city state that has been independent for only 60 years, this immediately rang alarm bells for us in Singapore. I have known the Russian Foreign Minister (FM) Sergey Lavrov for quite a long time, so we have very open conversations. In 2022, I explained to him that because of Singapore’s circumstances, we had to uphold the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity. Similarly, I had a telephone conversation with my counterpart from Ukraine, Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, last week. I asked him about the war, not about the operational details, but about why this was happening. He told me — and I am paraphrasing — that this war is about his country’s sovereignty, his country’s territorial integrity, and freedom to choose how to organise a society, and how to have a closer strategic relationship with Europe. For good measure, he added laconically, “and our critical minerals”. Both Russia and Ukraine— and I have taken pains to emphasise that in all my interactions with the Foreign Ministers — know that Singapore is upholding principles, and we are not taking sides. The Europeans and Americans initially responded forcefully to defend Ukraine and to isolate Russia. But recent pronouncements and actions by the new US Administration — most recently, the dramatic live video from the Oval Office — have dramatically underlined a change in longstanding US policy. It is now clear that the transatlantic relationship is under severe strain. And NATO members are now seriously and urgently rethinking their strategic and security situation, and their policy options. In fact, meetings are going on even now, as we speak. And now cast your mind one more step. After the failure of the security guarantees for Ukraine that were given in 1994 in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons, after what has happened to Ukraine, I doubt any current nuclear or proto-nuclear weapon state will ever give up its nuclear option. And all this makes for a much more dangerous world.

Closer home, tensions in the South China Sea, through which one-third of global trade passes through, continue to simmer. The Taiwan Strait remains a potential flashpoint, and we all know that tensions have increased in recent years. All these global developments, on both the economic and geostrategic front, have profound implications for us. The rules-based international order that has prevailed for 80 years, is at risk of degenerating into the “law of the jungle”, where might makes right. International law, the UN Charter, the principles of sovereign equality, political independence, and territorial integrity have all been severely eroded. We may in fact be reverting to a time when the world is divided into blocs controlled by big powers. And by definition, this must mean the loss of choice and autonomy for small states. I recall a speech that Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave back in 1973 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. He referred to an old African proverb, “when elephants fight, the grass suffers”. But he added one additional line — “when elephants make love, it is disastrous”. I will not go through the powerful imagery, but the point is, when big powers are on the move for whatever reason, it is a dangerous time for all of us.

Third, our ability to respond collectively to global threats and safeguard the global commons has been significantly impaired. The collective commitment to international institutions like the WTO, WHO, as well as compliance with international treaties like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement that resulted from it, are all waning. Imagine, is the world today in a better state to deal with another pandemic, given a severely weakened WHO? And how are we going to respond to climate change, if we do not have the institutions and the processes to protect the global commons?

Now let us return to Singapore. Our foreign policy begins at home, and it must always be a balance between realism and idealism. It means we must have no illusions about our place in the world. But small as we are, for 60 years, we have refused to adopt a fatalistic posture. We have insisted on agency to build our strength, to protect our sovereignty, maintain our relevance, to create political and economic space for ourselves. We strive to be useful, but not to be made use of. And, of course, to avoid becoming a sacrificial pawn between big powers.

Now, I have dwelt at length on the dangers arising from the end of the previous world order. The point is, I am making an appeal for us all to be alert, to be realistic, and to be careful in these dangerous times. But a note of caution is not a call for pessimism. Because in fact, Singapore has good reason to have confidence in our future, due to the pioneering work of past generations. Today, we are in a strong position. Our core strengths are based on three key pillars: first, our economic strength and our reserves; second, our ability to stand on our own two feet and to defend ourselves; and third, our domestic cohesion. Because of our strength economically, we cannot be bullied or bought. We have significant national reserves and if the biggest criticism that we face in this Budget debate is budget marksmanship and having more reserves than we anticipated, I think that is reason for celebration, considering the circumstances in which we are going into. This is an enormous advantage. On the international stage, if you have to put your hand out for assistance, it means you have no say. It is a big advantage for Singapore not to have to beg for aid. We have no need for assistance or loans that will subject us to external pressure. We are not dependent on any single external partner. And perhaps even more importantly, and you have just heard Minister Ng’s speech earlier, we do not depend on any external country to defend Singapore. We have the capability and the will to defend ourselves. For six decades, we have invested fiscal resources approved by Parliament, and every man in this Chamber, and his sons, has served National Service. The fact that everybody knows that we are good for our money, and we put our blood where we stand on, is the core of deterrence and respect.

Unity at Home

But all this is not enough if we do not have unity at home. And we need to live up to the Pledge to be one united people, regardless of race, language, or religion. And on this note, I want to thank the Opposition that so far, we have worked on the basis that politics stops at the water’s edge. And our diplomacy works because we have painstakingly forged and maintained domestic consensus on our core long-term interests and foreign policy priorities. Now, our diversity in Singapore does mean that from time to time, Singaporeans will have different views on developments around the world. And we have to provide space for this diversity to be expressed, but without allowing it to become a means to divide us as a country.

A clear example is the disaster in Gaza. It is a deeply emotional issue. And many Singaporeans feel very deeply about this, have expressed a range of emotions, and sometimes even conflicting emotions on this. Let me be clear that when we make our foreign policy decisions, we do so on the basis of national interests. The attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023 was an act of terror. No ifs, buts, root causes, or justifications. And the reason why we have to be so categorical, is because if Singapore was ever attacked in this way — and the risk is not zero — we too would certainly exercise our right of self-defence to the full. And it is why that in the aftermath of that attack, we had strongly reaffirmed the right to self-defence. You see in the case of both Ukraine and Hamas, we took positions for our own sake, for our own national interest, and not because we were taking sides. At the same time, that right of self-defence must be consistent with international law, humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions. And that is why we told Israel directly and personally that Israel’s military response has gone too far. And we say all this because it is in our national interest for international law to be upheld, and not to be flouted. Singapore’s longstanding position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is that the only path to a just, durable, and comprehensive peace is a negotiated two-state solution. And we have consistently supported the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland of their own since the 60s, since we became independent. To this end, we will continue to support the Palestinian Authority to build their capacity and to prepare for eventual statehood, and we do so through our Enhanced Technical Assistance Package. But that is not enough, because we all do feel deep sympathy for the immense suffering of the civilians in Gaza. And thus far, Singapore and Singaporeans have contributed seven tranches of aid and monetary donations to Gaza, worth over S$19 million. And we will do more, and funds are being collected even now, in this month, the holy month of Ramadan. And I thank Singaporeans for your generosity. And you heard Minister Ng explain, that we make the extra effort to deliver these supplies through the RSAF. It is crucial, therefore, that we stay united and keep being able to adopt this collective, constructive approach, even when we have different views on events and tragedies far from our shores.

And the reason — a deeper reason why we need to do this — is because, if conflict broke out nearer in Asia, it will have not only even greater emotional resonance, it will have a larger economic impact and it will also elicit a range of reactions from our people, and will be even harder to manage. It is also worth remembering that there will always be external actors who will try to influence the views of our people and take advantage of our diversity. In fact, long before the onset of kinetic action, we must expect grey zone tactics to be used to divide and polarise our people, and so we must be prepared. We can have different views, but we will stay united and we will close ranks on issues of national interest, so that we can ultimately secure what is best for Singapore.

Foreign policy in tumultuous times

Let me turn now to the question of, how are we going to conduct our foreign policy in these tumultuous times? How are we going to engage the world and our partners in this rapidly changing landscape, given that we are not sure where the next conflict or consummation of a condominium between big powers will occur? And as Minister Ng put a very stark reminder, if anyone says they know exactly what is going to happen next – that shows very dangerous delusion. You do not know what is going to happen next, but you know that we are living in dangerous times. So, fundamentally, our foreign policy must continue to be anchored by longstanding principles that have kept us afloat for six decades, even whilst we make tactical adjustments or even strategic adjustments to our approach. We must maintain an omni-directional, balanced, and constructive engagement with all partners. Yes, I know it is going to be more difficult when they are quarrelling with each other, but in fact, all the more important, we have to work at it.

Relations with Major Powers

So, as MPs Mark Lee, Henry Kwek, Vikram Nair, and Poh Li San have asked, how can we continue to build on our honest and constructive relations with the US and China amidst their rivalry? I believe it is crucial that we maintain our ties with both countries given our significant equities with both. The US is the largest foreign investor in Singapore by far. It is our top trading partner in services, and it is our third largest trading partner in goods. And on the defence front, Minister Ng has already explained to you how we are the US’ only Major Security Cooperation Partner, and we have a mutually beneficial relationship. Meanwhile, China is our top trading partner in goods. Many of our companies are invested in China – in fact, according to China’s statistics, Singapore is their largest foreign investor, and of course we have strong people-to-people ties, historical and cultural ties. Both the US and China are also at the frontier of many leading technologies, whether it be AI, biotechnology, or green energy. And we must be able to continue to work with both of them and ensure that our relations are mutually beneficial. We will never be the largest trading or strategic partner to either China or the US — basically because we are a small country. But we can be amongst their most reliable and consistent partners, and that is valuable and appreciated by both of them. We have maintained our relevance and credibility with both powers by being consistent, by being transparent and being constructive. We do not simply tell them what they want to hear, but we are principled, we are trustworthy, and we play a straight game. And both of them know, that when Singapore takes a stand, it is not because we are doing it at the behest of its rival, of its adversary, but that we take a stand because we have done our own calculation of what is in our long-term enlightened, national interest.

Our immediate neighbours

Moving on to our immediate neighbourhood, we must continue to strengthen our ties in our region, bilaterally especially and most extensively with Malaysia and Indonesia, and obviously, with ASEAN. We will continue to do so on the basis of interdependency, mutual respect and aim to build healthy relations which will be crucial for stability and growth of our entire region. MPs Joan Pereira and Vikram Nair have asked about the state of our relations with Malaysia and Indonesia respectively. I think we all know there is much to be gained by working together constructively with your most immediate neighbours. With Malaysia, we continue to work on the delimitation of our maritime boundaries. There are still some areas there to be settled. We are negotiating on airspace, and on water. Both Prime Minister (PM) Lawrence Wong and Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim have committed to not allow any single issue to overshadow our overall positive agenda, and we are pursuing mutually beneficial projects, both bilaterally and regionally, to strengthen connections and connectivity for the long term. With Indonesia, the Expanded Framework Agreements on airspace, defence and extradition entered into force last year. This was a major achievement. President Prabowo has now taken over. Fortunately for us, he is familiar with Singapore, and we have been able to work well with him. In fact, PM Lawrence Wong was the first foreign leader to visit Jakarta after President Prabowo took office. We are making good progress including in areas like renewable energy, human capital development, and particularly in the fields of education and healthcare.

Our Region

MP Liang Eng Hwa asked how we can ensure ASEAN’s continued relevance and centrality. It is worth remembering that ASEAN was founded in 1967 on the principle that ‘either we hang together or will be hung separately’. It was forged in a time when Southeast Asia was an arena for proxy wars during the Cold War period, and ASEAN’s founding members were the non-Communist part of Southeast Asia. Given that we are now entering another dangerous, volatile phase, this concept of ‘hanging together’ has just become even more salient. ASEAN so far has been able to maintain regional peace and stability, and enabled all of us collectively to focus on economic growth, and, in particular, economic integration. All ASEAN Member States (AMS) are concerned about the wider geopolitical developments and the intensifying contestation. ASEAN’s convening power will remain relevant and important in the years ahead, to ensure that whilst we do not want to be an arena for proxy wars, we do want to be a safe harbour where all powers will have a stake in our success and that we can maximise opportunities and autonomy for ASEAN Member States. We must also do far more with each other and double down on ASEAN’s economic integration in order to improve our collective value proposition and collective resilience – especially in food and energy. And we are looking to conclude negotiations on the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement Upgrade this year, which will grow intra-ASEAN trade. We are also making progress in new economic areas. We aim to conclude the Digital Economy Framework Agreement (DEFA) this year, and we are making progress on the ASEAN Power Grid.

Global Partnerships

Beyond our immediate neighbourhood, it is also crucial for us to make common cause with as many partners as possible including India, Japan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands. I can say my diplomats have worked very hard to expand our network of overlapping circles of friends. We already have an extensive network of 27 FTAs that covers 90% of our trade. My counterparts from some of these other countries have shared that they too are concerned about the impact of increasing contestation and rising protectionism. They prefer a world that is open and committed to trade. This means that even though free trade has had a setback, we can still make common cause with those who believe it is a formula for mutual peace and prosperity. We have got to keep that flame going.

For instance, members may or may not be aware that we have been able to sign new free trade agreements in the last few years. For instance, Mercosur in 2023, which is Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay; and the Pacific Alliance, which is Peru, Chile, Mexico, Columbia in 2022. If you pay attention to these countries, in fact, their elections have thrown up a very wide diversity of political parties, but they have all been keen to do FTAs with us. We believe these will expand markets and increase opportunities for us in Latin America. We are also pressing ahead on the digital economy. Singapore, New Zealand and Chile signed the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement in 2020.The ROK became the first entrant to this agreement in 2024, and there are several other aspirants in the queue with whom we are in discussions. We have also concluded negotiations on the EU-Singapore Digital Trade Agreement in July 2024. We agreed to elevate relations with India to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and we are well-poised to participate in India’s growth potential. With Australia, we are setting an ambitious agenda for the next phase of our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership which will be refreshed this year. It will cover cooperation in emerging areas like AI, biotechnology, renewable energy. We will also elevate our Enhanced Partnership with New Zealand. We will continue to work closely with Japan, who remains committed to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and to closer economic ties. With the ROK, we are working to upgrade relations to a Strategic Partnership later this year. We have also upgraded relations with the UK and Germany to Strategic Partnerships, and we are working to enhance relations with France to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Our relations with the Gulf are also robust. This year, we signed a MOU establishing a Strategic Partnership Council with Saudi Arabia. Last October, we had eight MOUs with the UAE in social development, leadership development, AI, and civilian nuclear energy. We are also stepping up engagement of Africa, a centre of growth for the future. So, as you can see, we have been working very hard on this strong, wide network of partners with whom we can trade, invest, do business with, and engage in constructive partnerships on these emerging issues. Not bad, considering the zeitgeist of our times.

UN and Multilateralism

At the UN, we continue to be a staunch advocate for multilateralism, for the adherence to international law and for the importance of the UN Charter. This system is vital for countries big and small in order for us to have a chance to compete on a level playing field. MPs Chong Kee Hiong and Mark Lee have asked about this. Singapore must and will remain a strong supporter of multilateralism. We will make common cause, and we will stand up for this. This is why we established the Forum of Small States (FOSS) back in 1992 which now has 108 members. In fact, this is a majority of members of the UN. FOSS is a platform to foster closer cooperation, reinforce multilateralism, and support the developmental aspirations of small states and we will continue to strengthen and improve the existing international architecture and ensure that it is fit for purpose. Our mantra is, it is better to reform than to risk a revolution that will destroy the old regime, the old order, the old arrangements completely, because the alternative is bad for small states. This is why we welcomed the adoption of the Pact of the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations at the Summit for the Future in 2024. This was a significant milestone for the international community. It demonstrated that the UN is still from time-to-time, against great difficulty, able to arrive at consensus and able to advance the agenda for collective good.

International law is also important for us. UNCLOS provides the legal framework that ensures that freedom of navigation and overflight is a right and is not exercised only by the grace of any resident big power. Without UNCLOS and the right of transit passage, Singapore would effectively be “sea-locked”. So, it is a crucial plank of international law for Singapore. Despite the challenges, with patient and skilful diplomacy, the point I am trying to make is it is still possible to arrive at international agreements by consensus. Another recent example was the adoption of the BBNJ. This Agreement was settled in June 2023. Our Ambassador Rena Lee presided over the intergovernmental conference. She very skilfully managed to bring all parties together and arrive at a treaty by consensus. She has done incredibly well. We are nominating her for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) elections due in November 2026. I hope all members will support this nomination as well.

Staying Open and Seizing New Opportunities in New Frontiers

Madam Chair, staying open and nimble in seizing new opportunities in technological frontiers has also been the other cylinder for Singapore’s success. The short answer to the question you have raised on how to maintain our access to frontier technologies is: openness and trust. We must actively create opportunities that will enable Singapore to be a magnet for ideas, technology, talent, and capital. MPs Neil Parekh and Poh Li San have asked how we do this, especially in critical and emerging technology and given the contestation between the big powers.

We already have actively advanced cooperation with a range of like-minded partners on emerging technology. This includes our partners like the US, China, India, UK, Japan, Germany, France and Australia. We remain clear-eyed that there is strategic contestation between the major powers, and it does complicate our attempts to create an open platform. Nevertheless, we remain plugged into international conversations on technology standards and norms setting, in line with our own national interests. Our Permanent Representative to the UN in New York, Mr Burhan Gafoor, serves as the Chairman of the UN Open-ended Working Group on security of and in the use of ICT. This means that he has to work intensively with the entire international community to advance policy discussions, norms and generate practical solutions to preserve international peace and security in cyberspace and maximise opportunities. You can imagine that during a time of fractures, to be able to engage all parties and make progress no matter how difficult it is, is a major achievement and he deserves full credit for it.

Domestically, our strong rule of law and trust in our system will be crucial if we want to be able to attract and retain technology and— I need to emphasise— talent from all over the world. Singapore cannot afford to exclude anyone – any technology, any company with access to frontier ideas, frontier technologies. For that, I also need to make an appeal – of course we will prioritise the interest of Singaporeans. But if we are going to seize the opportunities in frontier technologies, we need to be prepared to complement the Singaporean team, the Singaporean workforce in order to gain access to ideas and technology. But having said that, everyone who comes here, and any company operating here, wherever you are from, will have to play by the rules. Two weeks ago, I explained that we will take firm action and move decisively against errant individuals and companies that flout our domestic laws. We do not condone companies taking advantage of their association with us to engage in evasive, deceptive or dubious business practices for short-term commercial advantages, because that actually sullies and takes unfair advantage Singapore’s reputation. You may read in the coming days news on certain developments on this front. I need you to understand that we are doing so to protect our standing as a trusted, open hub, painstakingly built up over decades. This is how we have kept ourselves an attractive destination for leading companies with technology from all over the world. We must also remain open to top talent, and as I said just now, to complement team Singapore, because then we can take maximal advantage of the opportunities which are emerging in this work that is unfolding in front of us.

Conclusion

So, let me conclude. We are at the end of an era. There is no doubt about that. The most dangerous phase is when one world order is being replaced by a new world order. The interregnum is likely to be chaotic, difficult, dangerous and tumultuous. Singapore and Singaporeans, every one of us, will need to be realistic, to be careful, and to be nimble. But the point is: we do have strengths and there are opportunities ahead. We must stay principled, calm, confident, and continue to be relevant to be useful, to be an honest broker. We need the support and unity of all Singaporeans, all of you inside this House, and Singaporeans outside Parliament, to forge an unbreakable unity in the midst of great tumult and volatility. If we can do so, then we can face the future with confidence, and Singapore will emerge stronger.

I want to end by thanking all of you for your unstinting support for the work of all our diplomats who have been working so hard all over the world. Thank you all very much.

Supplementary questions

Question 1

MP Gerald Giam: Sir, Minister has highlighted profound implications of the shifting global order on Singapore, and I share his concerns. However, beyond the risks and the threats, what opportunities can Singapore seize in this new environment? How is the Government positioning us to be able to benefit from these changes? For instance, as the global power dynamics shift, smaller and medium-sized countries may be open to seeking closer economic and security ties with Singapore. Is the Government stepping up its outreach to these nations by expanding its network of Overseas Missions and Trade Offices? Secondly, Minister highlighted our deep reliance on both the US (United States) and China, economically on both and for security on the US. However, he did not address how we plan to reduce the risk of overdependence on them. Does the Government have a plan for that? Lastly, Minister did not respond to my cut on the public diplomacy front. How is MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) stepping up on the public diplomacy front, and using that to explain to Singaporeans our strategic interests? Thank you.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The last supplementary question we will handle later, because my colleague, Second Minister Maliki, has not spoken yet. Let me focus on the first part of your question. What are the opportunities? As I said just now, I spent a lot of time making the point that this is a period of great change and great danger. But I hope you also gleaned from my speech that this is not a call for pessimism, because there are opportunities. What are these opportunities? The first thing is that the world is confronting a technological revolution on several fronts: AI (Artificial Intelligence), digital technologies, biotechnology, and sustainable energy. It just so happens that these three revolutions interlock with each other; in fact, are feeding and accelerating with each other. The frontier technologies are actually areas of great opportunity for us. I also took pains to explain, however, that if we are going to seize these opportunities, we must remain open – open to people, ideas, technology, and business models. I made the plea that even as we protect Team Singapore, we take a longer-term view to supplement Team Singapore, so that we can exploit the full opportunities in frontier technologies.

I have also explained that because of the lack of trust, the contestation, and the desperate need for each big power to get ahead of the other, because they are worried that these leads will be exponential, the paradigm in which we operate Singapore – open to all powers: big, medium and small – is under pressure. I also tried to explain that the way we make it work is to be open, transparent, fair, and to play it straight with all parties. I am acknowledging that it is more difficult, and though everyone will say they are not trying to force us to make choices, they would rather that we lean more towards one way or the other. I would say from experience, so far, we have been able to maintain this very careful balancing act, and it calls for credibility and unity. I will give you a recent example. I explained in Parliament around two weeks ago that not only are tariffs being applied, but export controls as well – unilateral export controls that we are not obliged to enforce. Nevertheless, because we have national interests to have access to these technologies, it is important for us to maintain that reputation – and not just reputation, but in actual operation – probity, transparency and reliability. So, if a foreign company, subject to rules which prevail outside Singapore, operates here, it must not use its association with us to engage in subterfuge, deception, or backdoor channels for commercial advantage. It calls for a very delicate, agile, but at the same time consistent approach. If we can do this, we will continue to have access to frontier technologies, and then, we will have an advantage. Maybe it is a dream, but the best place in the world – where you can create a team of Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, South Americans, Africans, and Singaporeans; an effective team to take frontier technologies to the markets across the world – the most amenable, safe, conducive place should be Singapore. That is an example.

Having said that, I also went through in my speech to say: do not give up on multilateralism and international law. Yes, it is in recession. Yes, there is a geostrategic climate change. But I believe there are still many countries out there like us who want that system to work, and even though we no longer have the patronage, support, or underwriting of major powers that used to do so, we can still make common cause. One regional grouping which has been quite enthusiastic to keep the system of multilateralism and international law going is the European Union (EU), and I have had extensive discussions with them. That is why I have said, to the extent that the EU, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), and maybe parts of Africa and South America are still capable of signing free trade agreements and binding ourselves to international law, because we still believe that in the long run this provides for peace, prosperity and the peaceful resolution of disputes – I am not giving up on that. The fundamental point is great danger, but once in a lifetime opportunities are opening. Do not panic. Do not give up on our brand and the way we do things: openly, transparently, competently, reliably, and with trust and openness. If we can do that, I am confident we can seize the opportunities ahead.

Question 2

MP Vikram Nair: Thank you Chairman, just two clarifications. The first is that pulling together the different threads of multilateralism, I think it is quite clear that the current US Administration has moved away from the multilateral approach. But what seems to emerge is many other countries, including Europe, Japan, and even China, have said it is bringing its disputes to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). So is it possible that there are divergent currents, in that there are in fact many countries that still believe in multilateralism, and it would still be possible to work on that positive view towards multilateralism and build more networks for Singapore, which I think we are already doing. The second is that I am grateful to Minister Maliki for sharing the principled approach that we have taken in relation to Palestine, and for reminding this House that we have taken a strong view against the illegal actions taken by Israel in the Occupied Territories. Now, one of the issues that I think many agencies providing aid are facing is that aid is not actually reaching the recipients. What is Singapore’s experience in aid reaching the recipients, and if we have been successful, what has helped with that?

Minister Balakrishnan: Mr Vikram Nair is right. There are still many countries who realise that it is in our enlightened, long-term interest to support multilateralism and international law. You have just mentioned that the list would include Europe, Southeast Asia, and even in the longer run, certainly South America and Africa. But we also need to be realistic that if the big powers – with a lack of strategic trust and trying to stay ahead – are not willing to be restricted and tied down by the restraints of multilateralism or international law and given their current imperative to stay ahead of each other, it will be very difficult to operate. For instance, there are major powers that have not signed onto the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. There are major powers which are not signed onto the Paris Agreement, and it is very hard to make these agreements enforceable and implementable without the participation of major powers. That is the point I am making. So, it does not mean we give up. In fact, it means the rest of us need to double down, need to do our best to support the WTO, the World Health Organisation, to support the United Nations (UN), to continue to make the point that the UN Charter is essential, and that if the UN goes the way of the League of Nations, then we are in very dangerous territory.

You can take your favourite historical allusion. Are we in a pre-World War I (WWI) phase, which was characterised by empires reaching their limits? Globalisation in an empire-way was coming to an end. And then you had WWI, where at least four empires were destroyed by it. But then even in the aftermath of WWI – the Treaty of Versailles, the reparations, the territorial boundaries’ redrawing in Germany, the Great Depression in the 1929 onwards – you had a world with ‘beggar thy neighbour’ policies, depression, grievance, and the domestic rise of Nazism, Fascism, all the “isms”, and that really set the stage for World War II (WWII). The unique blessing after WWII was that there was a very benevolent victor in the United States of America, which rebuilt the countries it vanquished – Japan, Germany, Europe through the Marshall Plan. Which as I mentioned just now, because it constituted 40% of global Gross Domestic Product – every additional dollar generated in the world, 40 cents came back to America – it was worth its while to underwrite that liberal world order that we have enjoyed for the past 80 years. So be realistic, we are no longer in that kind of climate. And as I have said, this is a geostrategic climate change, it is not just a change of weather. So, be realistic, be careful, to the maximum extent continue to hold fast our principles, make common cause wherever possible, but understand that it is not business as usual.

I think you had the other question on Israel. It has been difficult for aid to reach the people in Gaza for a combination of reasons. First, the Israelis have been very strict because they want to make sure that there are no dual-use equipment getting through the convoys. Second, you would have seen videos, the convoys get mobbed the moment they cross over because there is chaos and no security. And it is very dangerous. We ourselves, as Minister Ng Eng Hen has emphasised, have considered how can we even deploy medical or humanitarian facilities, but it is not possible to do so safely. So, what we can do is to continue to impress on the Israelis that it is in their own interest to facilitate aid deliveries. But I am afraid that they have prioritised their security and other considerations over that. I note that even in the last few days, there have been further hurdles to the delivery of assistance. To the extent that our voice is heard, we will add to that chorus that says it is in Israel’s interest to make sure aid flows to the people who need help.

Question 3

MP Sylvia Lim: I have a clarification on Myanmar and ASEAN. Under the ASEAN five-point consensus, there seems to be a heavy reliance on a special envoy being appointed to mediate between the parties, and to visit the parties in Myanmar. It has been pointed out by some commentators that one of the difficulties is that, because of the annual rotation of country chair in ASEAN, a new special envoy is appointed each year, and it seems that the work sort of starts all over again. It has been suggested that one of the reforms that could be considered is that ASEAN might set up a permanent secretariat that is dedicated to Myanmar, with staff that specialise in the issue and can provide more institutional memory and support to the special envoy. I wonder whether that is something that we are pushing for or has been considered.

Minister Balakrishnan: I think these are all ideas which can be considered. But again, in the spirit of being realistic, Myanmar is a very, very difficult challenge, and the problems that do not just go back to 2021 when the coup was launched but goes back to the fact that they have never yet been able to truly constitute a single nation out of the diversity that encompasses the totality of Myanmar. They have not yet been able to work out the political formula to bring people together, to bring all the different elements of state together into a balance which is constructive and positive. I say all this to illustrate that they have not even got past the fundamental nation building exercise and the coup is just one more symptom of that fundamental problem. Now, the other point you also need to realise is that we must understand by now, we have seen no historical example of external interference riding in, conquering, and building a nation. Having elections does not solve any political problem if you have not got the values and that spirit to achieve workable compromises.

From my interactions in the past, I have not gone there since 2021, but certainly from my past interactions with Myanmar leaders across the spectrum, I found it is very difficult to get them together. So, the problem is, we can change envoys, we can have a special envoy, we can have permanent envoys, but that is not the rate limiting factor. I have consistently urged at ASEAN meetings that you need strategic patience, because if you get impatient, what are your alternatives? To mount an external operation? It would not work. I guarantee you, it would not work. It would not work militarily, it will not work politically. At the end of the day, in these fractured countries, the leaders need to arrive at an appropriate political compromise and to create a nation out of very disparate segments who, unfortunately, because so much blood has been shed, have a lot of stored grievances. I again caution patience and as a doctor, I always believe first, do no harm. So, while our heart bleeds for them, and we have people from Myanmar in Singapore, I am sure you know, you are also speaking from direct experience, it is heartbreaking for them and their relatives. But be very, very careful not to make things worse. So, I am sorry I do not have a quick solution for Myanmar, except that, to the extent that they are willing to compromise, any ASEAN country, all ASEAN countries, will be most happy to support them, and that was the formula behind the five-point consensus. If you look at the points there, they arose out of a speech that Senior Minister Lee made at that special meeting that was convened in April 2021 in Jakarta, where all the ASEAN countries were represented, including the military leader in Myanmar, but I am sorry to say there has been no progress.

Question 4

MP Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, Minister Maliki talked about stepping up our engagement with Africa. I believe we currently only have one resident Mission in Sub-Saharan Africa. Are there plans to open up more Embassies, High Commissions, or Trade Offices in growing and influential African countries, like Nigeria and Kenya, and in South America? Beyond consular assistance, this could be another step towards diversifying our economic and diplomatic interests, beyond the major powers, which is what I raised in my cut as well.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Second Minister for Foreign Affairs and Second Minister for Education Dr Mohamad Maliki bin Osman: I thank Mr Gerald Giam for the question. I think Mr Gerald Giam used to be an MFA officer. He understands the challenges regarding manpower. I think if we are able to have more resources, we will be able to do more, but the reality is that resources are limited. We ensure that when we decide to establish or open a new Embassy or Mission in any city or any country, it is because we see the potential for the relationship to be established at the higher level. We start off with ascertaining the potential for collaboration with a particular country. Africa is seen as an emerging continent. We do have Non-Resident Ambassadors (NRAs), already appointed, in several African countries, and the NRAs have done an excellent job for us. They started looking at various areas of collaboration, established relationships with key leaders in those African countries, and you will see the evolution of us setting up Missions in countries starting from the work of some of our NRAs. We will continue to review the African countries and the potential of Africa as a region for us to see if we will be able to set up new Missions in that area. I am sure that when the time comes, and when we see the potential being a lot more real, we will then be able to make those decisions. But for now, I want to assure Mr Giam that our NRAs have done an excellent job. We also have systems where Ambassadors in one particular Mission are also accredited to another country. It does not mean that without a Mission, those countries are not taken care of. We continue to pay attention to the various accounts, or different countries in the African region, as with any other region. We continue to assess the extent to which we are able to set up new Missions depending on resources that are available.

Question 5

MP Sitoh Yih Pin: Sir, I would like to go back to the first half of this Committee of Supply Debate, where Minister Vivian and many of us acknowledged that we are living in a topsy-turvy, troublesome, and turbulent world. Because it is not only taking away the idea of the rule of law, it is also something along the lines of “Might is Right”, and “Big is Beautiful”. Minister alluded to SG60 just now very quickly. But 60 years of wonderful nation-building is not enough. We want 600 years and beyond. So from an MFA perspective, what is the plan?

Minister Balakrishnan: This is a Prime Ministerial question. But more seriously, I think historically, Venice as a city-state survived for several centuries. In the long run of history, it has not been kind to tiny city states. Let us take that first point historically. The second point relates to Singapore, 60 years ago. For the sake of a belief in an ideal that we would be a multiracial society, a Singaporean Singapore, not based on being an Indian, Malay or Chinese nation, we were evicted from Malaysia and we lost a hinterland. As a consequence of that, we should be grateful. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S Rajaratnam decided that the loss of our immediate hinterland does not have to mean that we are cut off from our supplies and economic opportunities.

If you read the speeches in the 1960s, the concept of being a global city and of leapfrogging even our immediate neighbourhood came about. That was brilliant. But in my speech, what I was also trying to say, was that that concept worked at a very unusual time in global history. Unusual because it was Pax Americana, a period characterised by free trade, global supply chains, expansions of multinational enterprises, multilateral organisations, international law. Can you see how that global environment was so conducive to this fledgling, unlikely city-state, trying to forge and make a living as a global city?

So, fast forward to today, I think we know our pioneer leaders managed to capture every gust of wind that was available. We were an entrepot. Look at Port Singapore Authority (PSA), our airports, our trade volume – more than three times our GDP. No other political entity has that [trade to GDP] ratio in the world. Out of just imagination and gumption, we became a global financial centre. We became a major logistics centre. We became a repository for intellectual property. And then we also benefited not just because of the rule of law and common law, but the fact that our legislatures and our bureaucracy and legislation fitted quite easily into the British common law, and therefore, by extension, the American system. We had all these companies coming in.

So, can you see my point? Mr Lee Kuan Yew and I once were sailing into Marina Bay before it became closed. Actually, we were looking for where to place the integrated resorts. But as we were sailing in, I saw the beautiful landscape and turned to him and Mr Lim Kim San. I said, “how do you feel, Mr Lee, seeing this wonderful city?” He just looked at me and said, “hard-working and disciplined people built all this.” No fancy theory, just hard-working and disciplined people built all this. So, yes, hard-working, disciplined people called Singaporeans built all this.

Now 60 years later – I am trying not to be too partisan and too political – but I remember Mr Neil Parekh saying last week, if our biggest criticism is that we have been lucky and we have got unanticipated high corporate taxes because companies have come here and their activities have been successful and we are being criticised for having large fiscal reserves, I appeal to the opposition. Given the state of the world today, do you want to be a net debtor, paying off your debts? Even the United States is wondering how to pay off its national debt. Or are we better off with a significant reserve? And between the return on reserves or corporate tax competing to see which one is bigger, can you see there are great reasons to be grateful? So, please understand how blessed we have been by the pioneer leaders,the hard-working, disciplined Singaporeans and the global environment which has been very kind to us.

Now I am saying the rules have changed. We are going into a more hostile, more difficult environment. But I am also saying, please do not be pessimistic and do not lose hope because we have strengths. Having those reserves, having the fiscal strength – having the debate which we are having now about the budget, is unique in the world. No one else is facing this luxury where the Finance Minister, our Prime Minister, can put significant sums in long-term funds to invest in our people, in our infrastructure and to make ourselves future-ready. So, I cannot look at the next 600 years, but let us just settle for 10 years.

What are the opportunities in the next 10 years? Maybe I am biased as a doctor, and as a surgeon – but I happen to believe [they are] digital technologies and AI, biotechnology. Healthcare and biology have now become an extension of digital technologies. It is digital technologies that have enabled the acceleration of the Human Genome Project. It is digital technologies that have enabled us now to solve the issue of protein folding and to create designer molecules and designer drugs. And green energy, sustainable energy [is another opportunity], because guess what? AI requires a lot of energy, but in fact the challenge of climate change can be solved with current technologies if we get our legislative and our policy structures right. So, my point is that I am actually excited because I see a world in which there are revolutions with great opportunities.

I am confident that the strengths of a city-state with fiscal reserves and that a Prime Minister or a Foreign Minister of Singapore, at least in the next 10 years, does not have to go to any other capital or any other office asking for help. Anything we want, we buy, and we pay full market price for. So we can say we are your partner. We are not your vassal state or your tributary. Therefore, hopefully, no one treats us shabbily. They treat us with some reasonable respect, because we are a partner or we are a client – a customer, a high-value customer. That is an enormous advantage. And then we continue to invest in our people and our infrastructure, our future growth plan, and we continue to remain an open city. That openness is also critical to the long-term survival of a city-state. History has shown that. Even if you go back to the early city-states such as Venice, a city must always act as a magnet for ideas, for talent, for opportunities.