Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s Remarks at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs Year Opener “Outlook 2025 – Singapore at 60 and The Road Ahead”, 24 January 2025

Associate Professor Simon Tay,

Patricia Quek,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

1 It is a pleasure to be here. 2025 is a significant year. For Singapore, [it is] SG60. It is also 80 years since the end of the Second World War. So I think this is an opportune time for us to ask three sets of fundamental questions.

2 The first set has to do with Singapore – how far have we come in 60 years? What were the factors – endogenous and exogenous – that brought us here, in this shape? The second set of questions I want you to think about is what does the current state of the world, in particular the volatility, the turmoil, the news headlines – what does this portend for Singapore? And the third set of questions is how should we respond? What does the future hold for us? And what would be a sensible response to this unfolding future?

How Far Has Singapore Come?

3 Let's get on with the first set of questions. How far has Singapore come? What were the endogenous and exogenous factors for our journey and our success so far? In 1972, Singapore’s first Foreign Minister, Mr S Rajaratnam, delivered a speech, which is well worth reading even today. This speech outlined his vision – and he coined the term – a “Global City”. He argued that because Singapore was so small, with no hinterland or natural resources, Singapore had to become a “world embracing city”. Mr Rajaratnam was a wordsmith. He created a word which I had never seen before – “Ecumenopolis”. This concept of going and leaping beyond our immediate limitations, boundaries, and neighbourhood, was in fact ahead of its time, but one which has served us very well. In other words, Singapore embarked on hyper-connected globalisation before it became conventional wisdom, before it became the standard formula for rising cities and countries throughout Asia.

4 We, therefore, were pre-positioned for the last six decades of globalisation. In particular, we seized the opportunities presented by Pax Americana, which has in fact been around for 80 years because America was the ultimate winner of the Second World War. But it was a very unusual and beneficent victor. You think about the Marshall Plan, the rebuilding of Germany; you think about the rise of Japan. Of course, it helped that in 1945, American share of global GDP was 40%, and therefore, anything which led to peace and prosperity and growth in global GDP, 40% would accrue back to the US.

5 So Pax Americana, going back 80 years, offered a vision of a liberal world order – liberal in three separate but related senses. Domestically, politically, it meant freedom of choice. It meant some adherence to the concept of human rights, and in particular, it meant some form of democracy – that is the internal dimension. The economic dimension to the liberal world order was free trade and global supply chains. And of course, it is no accident that these were the decades when the American multinationals were expanding and building global supply chains. Globally, the third dimension of a liberal world order was the establishment of international norms and international law. International institutions – the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO – with a mandate to secure peace, provide conducive conditions for prosperity, and to provide global public goods to deal with what would otherwise be the tragedy of the commons. By that I mean dealing with pandemics, dealing with climate change, the Law of the Sea, protection and exploitation of intellectual property and the protection of biodiversity.

6 Singapore thrived in such a conducive world. In 1965, Singapore's GDP was US$1 billion. Last year, our GDP was just over US$500 billion. On a per capita basis, our per capita GDP has grown from US$500 in 1965 to around US$85,000 today – a remarkable once-in-a-lifetime feat. Our trade-to-GDP ratio regularly hovers around 300% – a ratio which is off the scale for any other country or city, meaning that trade is the lifeblood of our economy. It’s not just an ideological point or a negotiating point. It is our lifeblood.

7 But the true success of a country is not just GDP growth, not just the economy, but also the strength of our social fabric. In Singapore, for the last six decades, we have built a unique cohesive Singaporean identity, forged from a very diverse, multi-racial, multi-lingual, and multi-religious society. It is an achievement not to be taken for granted. We have got some of the world's best healthcare, education, housing, savings and retirement schemes. With the recent Forward Singapore exercise, we are also refreshing our social compact to make sure that no Singaporean is left behind, and that seat belts are on at a time that we know that the near future may be a roller coaster.

8 I say all this not to beat the drums of triumphalism, but to urge introspection, humility, and reflection on the foundations of Singapore’s success so far. Let me cite a story to illustrate. In 2004, I took a boat cruise which took off from Clifford Pier, together with Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lim Kim San. In 2004, we had not yet decided whether to have an Integrated Resort. Nevertheless, we wanted to explore options. So Mr Lee, Mr Lim, myself, and our staff took this boat cruise to the Southern Islands and Sentosa, and then came back – Marina Bay in 2004 was not yet a reservoir, so our boat could go in and out. And as our boat returned to the Marina, it was sunset and against the backdrop of our skyline – you could see the old GPO [General Post Office], now the Fullerton Hotel, we could see Clifford Pier, we could see the buildings of Shenton Way. And I couldn’t resist asking Mr Lee – how does this make you feel, knowing that 50 years ago, this beautiful skyline looked very different and most of these buildings were not here. I was hoping for some profound answer. Mr Lee, in his usual prosaic, almost gruff way, simply muttered to me, “a hardworking and disciplined people built all this”. That's all he said. I should add a coda to “a hardworking and disciplined people”: with no natural resources, with backs against the wall. That can only work if they are also led by competent, honest, imaginative leadership. So I am positing that it is the people of Singapore who were the key endogenous factor of success.

9 But that is not enough. The second point is somewhat exogenous. Of course we have a strategic location, the southern tip of the Asian continent, where the Strait of Malacca flows, connecting the Pacific Ocean with the Indian Ocean. It is worth remembering that it was only after 1869, when the Suez Canal was opened, that the Strait of Malacca would become the shortest route for ships between Europe and Asia. Before 1869, the shortest route was in fact through the Sunda Strait. So geography and things that happen far, far away have a profound impact on our opportunities. Just last week, the Maritime and Port Authority announced that Singapore's container throughput had exceeded 40 million TEUs for the first time, and vessel arrival tonnage also hit a new record of 3.11 billion GT. So we’re still in that business. But we also know that with climate change, if the Arctic opens up, the shortest route will not be the Strait of Malacca. It will be the Arctic.

10 The third point I want to make is that we in Singapore have always had to make ourselves useful and relevant to the world. We have had to make common cause with our neighbours and beyond. We have had to consistently uphold international law, and the sanctity of contract, not just because it feels good to be honest and reliable, but because being honest and reliable gives us that competitive advantage to take full opportunities that come from a strategic location, and to give opportunities and livelihoods to our people.

The Current State of the World

11 Now, that is all the last 60 years. Let us fast forward to today, because many of the factors – the liberal world order, the global supply chains, the growth of multinationals, peace in our region, and a stable global balance of power – a lot of these prerequisites for our past success, are now severely eroded. The world is now at an inflection point.

12 In the years immediately following our independence, the US presence in our region was key to stopping the march of communism. At that time there was the theory of falling dominoes. The US presence also encouraged both growth and trade, and investment. That’s why it is no accident that even today, the US is the largest source of foreign direct investment in Singapore by a long way. The other “turbocharger” for our success was that in the 1970s, China under Deng Xiaoping embarked on reform and opening up. Therefore, Singapore had the best of both worlds – Pax Americana, and the reform and opening up of China.

13 After the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world entered a unipolar moment. And again, you can see how we were optimally poised for the opportunities that resulted. But history does not end, contrary to books published at that time, and the world has not stayed still, and we all know that unipolarity, in fact, is now being replaced by multipolarity. It is not just about the rise of China, but the emergence of multiple poles, including the EU, the Middle East, and in due time, South America and Africa.

14 At the same time as with this shift from unipolarity to multipolarity, we are also witnessing at a domestic political level all over the world, an erosion in trust in domestic political systems and in international institutions. We are witnessing increasing levels of polarisation, and the bogies of inflation, inequality, immigration, loom large. And so the ‘isms’ have returned – nationalism, protectionism. In fact, in 2024, more than 60 countries held elections. It is very sobering, including for us here, that of these 60 elections, one quarter of those elections resulted in a change in the ruling government. And even in those where the incumbents came back, they witnessed a significant erosion in political support. So many incumbents, including in India, Japan, France, South Africa, lost significant vote share. Within the G7, there are new prime ministers in the UK, France, Japan, soon Canada; and there will be elections in Germany in February. Politics everywhere, in fact, is local. It is local citizens who vote, not international cosmopolitans, and we are living in a world in which, at the domestic level, there are deep anxieties about globalisation, multilateralism and free trade.

15 The Princeton University political scientist John Ikenberry and other commentators have pointed out that all the superpowers are now revisionist powers. It used to be thought that it was the people on the other side of the Cold War – the Soviet Union or Russia, or maybe to some extent even China, that were revisionist powers, because they felt they were not adequately represented at the table post-World War II, and didn’t get sufficient role-making ability or representation. But actually, the argument that is being made is that the big news today is not actually Russia and China, but the United States that is now challenging the very system that it envisioned, underwrote and protected. Now I say this not in a pejorative sense but to say that John Ikenberry’s analysis is salient and bears thinking about.

16 Another tectonic shift that’s occurring while the geostrategic earthquakes are occurring is that we now have simultaneous, interlocking, mutually synergistic technological revolutions in digital technologies, especially AI, in biotechnology and in sustainable energy. These are not separate revolutions, but they feed, interlock and empower each of these three revolutions, which obviously are going to present both huge opportunities and significant dangers, if we are not aware and if we do not pay attention to how to deal with threats, to protect the global commons and at the same time to have an equitable distribution of opportunities.

How Should Singapore Respond?

17 So let me come to the third and final set of questions. Given the state of the world, given the ongoing dislocations and disruptions, how should we in Singapore respond? What is a small, hyper-connected, hyper-globalised city-state like Singapore to do in a world that is more suspicious of globalisation and its benefits, and deal with the technological revolution, and deal also with maintaining and forging cohesion, consensus without erasing diversity, but making sure there's enough centre of gravity in the middle? These are profound challenges.

18 Firstly, for Singapore, we actually have no choice. We need to remain open and inclusive. As far as foreign policy and alignment are concerned, we need to maintain an omni-directional, balanced, and productive and constructive engagement with all powers – big and middle. In 2015, at the S Rajaratnam Lecture, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made a point that our foreign policy, in fact, is actually a balance between realism and idealism. Realism, because we know we have to take the world as it is and not as we hope it will be, but idealism, because we resolutely refuse to surrender to our fates as a small state. We insist that we still have agency, and we will defend ourselves and advance our interests. Now, words may be easy to articulate. But translating this, defending ourselves and advancing our interests – that is the real challenge.

19 There are some things that have not changed in 60 years. We are still tiny, [with] no hinterland. We are still a low-lying city state – and sea levels will rise – and we don’t have a domestic market. All these fundamental realities have not changed. And the point is, and speaking as a foreign minister, if Singapore was not successful economically, if we were not able to defend what is ours militarily, if we were not united, despite the in-built diversity of our population, no amount of brilliance, erudition, or sophistication in negotiation will give us a seat on the global stage. Unity, success, the ability and willingness to defend and to stand on our own two feet remain absolutely essential, perhaps even more essential going forward.

20 The other point which I've made in the past is that Singapore must not allow itself to get into a position where we can be bought or bullied. Therefore, there must be no mistake about our determination to unabashedly pursue and prioritise our long-term enlightened national interests, and that we will defend our sovereignty. We do not depend on overseas development assistance. We do not expect any foreign troops to shed blood on our behalf. That’s why we have national service; that’s why we spend 3% of our GDP on defence.

21 But we also seek to make common cause, especially with our immediate neighbourhood. ASEAN remains a key pillar, both in terms of economic opportunity as well as keeping the peace in our neighbourhood. And we will continue to play a constructive, relevant and salient role on the global stage.

22 So that means the second point here is that we have to continue to reinforce and refine the rules-based international order, even though it is no longer underwritten by a single hegemon, or the current set of hegemons have not yet worked out a modus vivendi to protect the global commons. For Singapore, for Europe, South America, Africa, the Middle East, there are still major parts of the world who depend on the rules-based international order, who will depend upon adherence to international law, behaving within global norms and having peaceful resolutions of dispute. We need to do all this whilst also dealing with the opportunities from AI, biotechnology and energy.

23 My third point is a bit more inward-facing. I have served three Prime Ministers. I have been up close for two Prime Ministerial transitions, from Mr Goh [Chok Tong] to Mr Lee [Hsien Loong], from Mr Lee to Mr [Lawrence] Wong. So let me tell you, as someone who's been around for some time and as the Foreign Minister now – every time there is a transition, there will be a test. We may not know exactly when or in what form, but there will be a test. And we must expect the new leadership team to be probed, to be pushed, to be assessed. Does the new leadership team have the spine, the courage and the gumption of the past? And the second test a new leadership [team] has to pass is – does the new leadership have the support of the people? In the face of these challenges, both the leaders and the people have to rise and answer these fundamental questions. We will have to look out for each other. We will have to maintain unity. We will have to strengthen cohesion. We will have to retool, reskill, reboot our economy, and we will have to continue to make common cause.

Conclusion

24 Let me end by quoting Madeline Albright, a brilliant lady whom I had the privilege of meeting more than once. She was also the Secretary of State of the United States. There was one speech she made in which she said, you know, diplomacy is not a quiet game of chess, where you have two people quietly contemplating their moves, taking your turn. You make your move, the other party makes another move. She likened diplomacy and world affairs to the game of billiards. When you strike a cue ball, you have some idea of what you want to achieve. But you are not just hitting one target, and the moment your cue ball hits more than one ball, which is almost always the case, there will be a chain of unintended and unanticipated consequences. And in a volatile world where not everyone is going to wait their turn to hit the cue ball and everyone is just having a go, we are guaranteed to see more uncertainty and more unpredictability.

25 But that is not all, because the point I also want to leave you with is that diplomacy is not a one-off game. It is not one deal, and it is not zero-sum. In game theory parlance, in fact, foreign relations and diplomacy is a set of “infinitely repeated games”. It is Chinese New Year next week, and perhaps it is not chess and it is not billiards we should be thinking about, but the game of mahjong. Mahjong, especially in Asia, is a series of infinitely repeated games. What are the implications of playing a series of infinitely repeated games? It means it is not a one-off deal. It means you are actually trying to work with other people. The more predictable, the more reliable you are, you would probably get better results in the long run. The optimal strategy is to play fair and straight on the basis of reciprocity. Trust, but verify. If anyone cheats or gets out of line, the other players will know what to do.

26 Those of us who participate in this Great Game of Diplomacy must endeavour to keep everyone at the table, take a long term view, to work collaboratively to uphold the rules, and to insist on fair and equitable treatment. I come back to SM Lee’s point on realism and idealism. Singapore will stand on our own two feet. We will defend what is ours. We will take a long-term enlightened view. We will make common cause with partners and supporters, and potential (and hopefully an expanding pool of) partners. If we fail to do this, the alternative is a more chaotic, unsafe world on a global stage, and a divided and polarised domestic body politic. We have witnessed this in other parts of the world. We know what to avoid. So this is an exciting time to be alive.

. . . . .

Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan delivered remarks at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs Year Opener on 24 January 2025. Photo credit: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore