Supplementary Questions for Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan during the Committee of Supply Debate, 3 March 2025

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.