MFA Press Release: Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo's reply to the Parliamentary Question on APEC, 23 November 2009

Question:

*1. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he can give his assessment on the outcome of the APEC meeting in Singapore when the meeting concludes.

*2. Mr Teo Siong Seng: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is his observation and assessment on the important outcome of the 17th APEC Economic Leaders Meeting and in what ways Singapore and the business community can benefit from this mega event.
_____________________________________________________________

Reply:

May I have your permission to take the first two questions together, please?

2 The 17th APEC Economic Leaders Meeting (AELM) was the culmination of our 2009 APEC Chairmanship, during which we also celebrated the 20th anniversary of the formation of APEC.

3 When it was born in 1989, trade barriers were high. Political and ideological barriers were even higher. Besides the economic integration of the region, we wanted to make sure that no line was drawn down the middle of the Asia-Pacific. At that time, trans-Pacific trade was already growing at a faster pace than trans-Atlantic trade. Now, more so than ever, trans-Pacific trade looks set to grow even more, with some likening the Asia Pacific region to the Mediterranean.

4 The APEC Leaders' Week culminated with the two-day Leaders' Retreat, chaired by PM Lee, centred around the theme of "Sustaining Growth, Connecting the Region".

5 The series of APEC meetings took place at a critical juncture for the global economy and the world. Accelerated by the economic crisis, the global landscape is changing. With the rise of Asia, in particular China and India, the world has become multi-polar but the US will remain the dominant pole for a long time to come. Against this backdrop, APEC Leaders were united in their support of actions to promote global economic recovery, and create conditions for strong, stable and sustainable growth.

6 The overall mood was positive and upbeat, with broad agreement on the fundamentals. There was a full turnout of APEC Leaders, which underscored the importance that they placed on APEC.

7 The involvement of the business community is an integral part of the Leaders' Meeting. Activities involving the business community have grown through the Annual CEO Summit which provides an occasion for Leaders to interact with business leaders. We received good feedback on the CEO Summit which was one of the largest, if not the largest, ever. Fourteen APEC Leaders participated in the CEO Summit.

8 At the various meetings, there was a general hopefulness about the future of the region, many believing that this will be an Asia-Pacific Century. As the premier regional organization representing more than half global GDP, APEC is well-placed to articulate the region's perspective on global economic issues. There was agreement that APEC should work with the G-20 and that the APEC and G-20 agendas should be aligned, so that they can be mutually supportive for the good of the region and the world.

9 APEC has become a platform for Leaders, Ministers and officials to meet regularly and develop personal ties. In addition to the formal APEC meetings, many bilateral meetings were held at the sidelines and when problems arise, the institutional and interpersonal networks are already in place to help address them.

10 A former European Commissioner remarked to me that APEC meetings had a different quality from many others he attended. Unlike European meetings which were legalistic, APEC meetings were more exhortative. The non-binding nature of APEC decisions creates different conference dynamics.

11 At the end of the day, APEC's relevance depends on its ability to deliver tangible outcomes. Because of the non-binding nature of APEC decisions, Leaders and Ministers can afford to be more candid and more open to new ideas. Decisions nevertheless carry force because of peer pressure. A recent study by an independent research team on the much-debated question: "Does APEC really make a difference to trade?" concluded that the impact of APEC membership on trade is comparable to that of a free trade agreement, even without a binding agreement.

12 The Ministerial and Leaders' meetings covered a lot of ground. We reviewed the global economic situation, launched new initiatives that will help businesses and discussed growth strategies to promote durable recovery. In particular, there was broad agreement on re-orientating our growth strategies to address the challenges of climate change, globalisation and macroeconomic imbalances. There was also a clear stance rejecting all forms of protectionism and we reaffirmed our commitment to conclude the Doha Development Agenda in 2010. We continue to hold high the Bogor Goals of free trade and investment in the region.

13 One common target agreed on is to make it 25% cheaper, faster and easier on average to do business in the region by 2015 in five priority areas. This would mean time and cost savings in areas like starting a business and the processing of trade documents.

14 We also started an initiative among seven economies allowing traders to self-certify a product's origin in order to claim preferential tariffs made available by Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). They are Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore and the US. This initiative will help companies more fully realise the benefits of FTAs by reducing the cost of complying with multiple Rules of Origin.

15 There was consensus among the Leaders that APEC economies should step up their efforts to realise the vision of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific, what we call FTAAP. An important development was US President Obama's announcement that the US will engage in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and work towards a broad-based and high-quality agreement. There are plans to expand the Trans-Pacific Partnership to a 8-member grouping with Australia, Peru, US and Vietnam joining the original four members, which are Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. The TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, will set off positive competitive dynamics which can help us achieve the ultimate objective of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific.

16 To answer the second part of Mr Teo's question, with more than 7,000 foreign delegates in town, the APEC meetings were also a good opportunity to showcase Singapore on the global stage and to enhance our attractiveness as a leading global city. Although there were minor problems, the meetings and collateral events were generally well run. The feedback that we have received is mostly positive. As a result of APEC, I can say that Singapore's reputation as an efficient place to hold conferences and do business has been enhanced and this is valuable.

17 Singapore is proud to have been the host APEC economy in APEC's 20th year. It has been a long journey, involving not just government officials but many Singaporeans who played their part to make the event a success. Our goal was not only to deliver a good meeting and be efficient and effective, but also to be good hosts, showing the warm and friendly side of Singapore. It was more than a cast of thousands. All Singaporeans participated directly or indirectly, including many overseas who cheered us on.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS:

Question:

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Thank you Mr Speaker Sir. I thank the Minister for his reply, and if I may say so, I think the army of volunteers and all the staff that were involved in organising APEC, including the security agencies, deserve a special commendation for hosting such a good meeting in Singapore and also showcasing Singapore's ability to host such a major, global conference. So, thank you Minister.

As the Minister noted, one of the spin-off of APEC is the meeting that took place on the sidelines. One of them was the historic meeting between US President Barack Obama and the Leaders from ASEAN countries, including Myanmar. Can I ask the Minister, first for his views on the significance of the renewed US policy of engagement in this region, in particular, towards Myanmar, and the Minister also mentioned that it was getting to be a multi-polar world, with the rise of China and India, but with the US as a dominant pole. Can I ask the Minister, for his sense of the shifting strategic landscape given that China has overtaken the US in becoming the third biggest Southeast Asia's trading partner, after Japan and the EU.

Reply:

Thank you for your remark about all those who have contributed to the success of the recent APEC Meeting. Prime Minister Lee will be hosting a reception to thank all those who participated directly or indirectly. As for your question about US engagement of the region, for the first time, we have had a summit between the US President and all 10 Leaders of ASEAN. And for the first time, the US did not make Myanmar an issue in the way which it was in the past. There were proposals to host such summits before, but they always stumbled over this issue of Myanmar. There are things happening now, not all of which are in the public domain. After Senator Jim Webb's visit to Myanmar some months ago, there is now direct contact between the two governments, between the US and Myanmar. When Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell was there recently, he met Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. She in turn has asked to meet Senior General Than Shwe, so things are happening. In the mean time, the US and Europe keep sanctions on as a way to pressure the Government and I think they are only prepared to relax sanctions if Daw Aung San Suu Kyi were to ask them to. So in this way, their strategy is to strengthen her and not to weaken her. But the government on its own has undertaken to hold free and fair elections next year. Well, we hope they will be free and fair and we hope that there will be national reconciliation, involving not just the NLD (National League for Democracy), but also the various ethnic groups, many of which are still armed, and that the country can then move smoothly into a constitutional framework and make progress after that. In a sense, we in ASEAN feel justified that all these years, we have advised the Americans and the Europeans to continue engaging Myanmar even though they may be unhappy about its policies, which is indeed our position as well. And you know, Members of Parliament like Charles Chong, have always taken a very principled stand on some of the things that some of us find objectionable. But what is happening with respect to Myanmar has to be seen against the larger backdrop of US engagement of Asia as a whole. The key is really US-China relations which have become very multi-faceted, a very big account which was put on a stable footing by former President Bush, and which President Obama is determined to maintain and keep steady. As part of it, the US has got to strengthen relations with other countries in Asia, including other countries in ASEAN.

Question:

Mr Teo Siong Seng: Thank you Minister for a very comprehensive assessment. No doubt that the APEC was a great success. In fact, when I was in Manila last week to attend the World Chinese Entrepreneurs Convention, I was congratulated by many of my counterparts for the great success. But I cannot help but raise the issue of the man on the street and how he feels. In fact, the week before APEC, I was in a taxi on the way back and I was asking the taxi driver how he felt about APEC, and he said "well, it is terrible because of all these roads blocks and how can I compete with 350 BMWs?" So well, we know that 100 million dollars was spent to make APEC a great success and to showcase that we can really host such a big event and bring all the world leaders together. But the man on the street feels that Singapore is famous enough, so do we have to make ourselves more famous?

Reply:

I have also personally received a few of those complaints, including an email from a businessman in SUNTEC City who said business was down during the week that the APEC meeting was on. But at the same time, we have learnt from the World Bank IMF experience and even though keeping security in place was critical, we have been able to do so, minimising the inconveniences to Singaporeans. To be a conference city, there are bound to be such inconveniences from time to time, affecting taxi drivers, affecting shops, affecting Singaporeans who live in the city area. But I believe on the whole, there is general recognition that all this global limelight on us redounds to a much larger, greater advantage and that in the end it means more people coming here, more people respecting our ability to organise and do things in an efficient, simple, practical way, and it will, in the end, lead to more investment and jobs. I think on the whole, the positive feedback drowns out the few negative comments that we have received.

Question:

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Chair, one of the strategic objectives of APEC is to develop balanced, sustainable and inclusive growth. Now, this is an important objective considering the impact of globalisation, widening income gaps and the perception that there is an unbalanced distribution of wealth in the region. So I would like to ask the Minister what are the specific measures APEC has agreed upon in order to achieve this vision of balanced, sustainable and inclusive growth? My second question to the Minister is to ask Minister whether he agrees that while non-binding decisions create for a more open environment for discussion, at the same time, when it comes to results in terms of follow-up, there will be problems. So how do you balance these two?

Reply:

The problem of balanced development will become more challenging in the coming years because of globalisation. It is natural that with competition, some groups will do better than other groups, some countries will do better than other countries. The solution is not to prevent those who can move faster from moving faster. The solution must be to help those who have difficulty catching up to catch up more quickly. For this reason, one of the critical pillars of APEC is helping countries which are further behind with capacity building.
And we do this in many ways, through conferences, through courses, through peer assessments. In fact, what we call ECOTECH - economic and technical cooperation - dominates the practical agenda of APEC. In other words, we are not tying ourselves to specific measures to help one another, but we are making use of peer pressure and competition to encourage everybody to move along and together. And it has worked quite well so far. In Europe, every meeting they vote to take decisions. Because of that, officials enter meetings in a very tense way with negotiating positions all ready for fights and not meetings. In APEC, because the targets are often soft, people are prepared to discuss things more freely. This was pointed out to me not just by the European Commissioner I mentioned earlier, but by others as well.

There are pros and cons. It means that if countries do not measure up to what they said they will do, there is nothing we can hold against them as these decisions are non-binding. So what has happened within APEC is that within that collegial framework, there are specific agreements which are binding that are being carried out.

So APEC provides, as it were, general goal-setting for the entire region. Although it involves only 21 economies, it accounts for more than half the worlds' economy and it is almost half of global trade. And it is by far the faster growing half of the world, one which is full of hope, full of optimism about the future, eager to learn from one another, keep the lines of communication and trade open, and then within this framework, if there are specific agreements that we can enter in a binding way, we will do so because they are mutually beneficial. So we talk about how to actualise the Bogor Goals, work towards a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, which will be binding, even though the Bogor Goals themselves are not. The Trans Pacific Partnership, which if it comes about, with eight members, will be binding and serve as a building block towards a future FTAAP. So I think we have somehow in the Pacific, without quite planning for it to be so, achieved a good balance between binding agreements and non-binding efforts to keep everybody moving and encouraged in the same direction.

. . . . .