Transcript Of Minister For Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s Fireside Chat At The Business China Futurechina Global Forum, 19 September 2025

Editor-in-Chief of SPH Chinese Media Group Lee Huay Leng (Moderator): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, thank you, Minister for joining us today for this fireside chat. Would you first like to make opening remarks?

Minister: Let me try to quickly gallop through a few points. Now, I know you've already had very good morning sessions, but what I wanted to start with is to get all of you to take a step back and take a historical perspective. In 221 BC, Qin Shi Huang unified China and imposed a common script, which in a sense, depending on your perspective, we still labour under or maximise the advantage of a common scripture out of China. What else did he do? The Great Wall. Basically, the point about 221 BC is the political imperative for China to maintain territorial integrity, to maintain unity, whatever it takes.

In 1433, during the Ming Dynasty, Admiral Zheng He and the end of the seventh expedition. 1433 was when the eunuchs were in the fleets, the scholars were in the treasury, and they persuaded the Emperor to burn the Imperial fleets – they were a waste of time, waste of money, exploring the world. That is an example of China deciding, I've got nothing to learn from the rest of the world. I have reached the zenith of civilization, and all these guys wandering across the oceans are wasting time, wasting money.

Next, 1840 – the Opium Wars. This is the Qing Dynasty. Between the Ming and the Qing dynasties, by the time the Opium War came about, it's worth remembering what was happening in Europe. In the preceding centuries in Europe, the Renaissance, the Age of Science, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution had occurred. The reason why I am speaking English, and many of you here are speaking English either as a first or second language, is because the Industrial Revolution began in England spread to Europe, and the ultimate winner was the United States of America, but China missed it. The Opium War in 1840 marks the lowest point of Chinese history in a couple of thousand years, because they missed the industrial revolution based on science.

Next in 1868, the Meiji Restoration. What happened in that period from 1840 and 1868 is that the Europeans, on the basis of science and technology and ocean-going ships, had come out to Asia to colonise us, to take our natural resources. And of course, they had reached China and Japan. But here is where a fork in history took place. In the case of China, they tried to conscribe foreign expeditions in China. So, for instance, Canton or Guangzhou, they tried to confine the foreigners to these places. The Imperial dynasty then was still in a defensive posture – keep foreigners out, limit them. They still refused to accept that the world had changed, and actually they were on the way out. In the case of Japan, the Meiji Restoration, in fact, led to an overthrow of the Tokugawa dynasty. Japan was the first Asian nation to industrialise, and they copied the West. In fact, they copied the West too much. So, by the time 1895 came along, not only was Japan industrialised and militarily strong, it decided that if the white man can build global supply chains on the basis of empire, so can I. And you saw in quick rapidity, Japan took Taiwan, took Korea, fought a war with Russia, which it won, and of course, began Japan's aggression to China. And then we can talk about the second world war, and now we just had the 80th anniversary.

The point I wanted to raise in jumping through all these great historical things is that there are deeper underlying tectonic forces which history has revealed. First, technology matters. Second, a closing of the mind – erecting walls and being defensive – is a mistake. Third, wars and economic cataclysms usually follow these periods of great depression.

What happened in the last 80 years was that when America won the Second World War, it was a very unusual winner, because the defeated countries, Germany and Japan, were rebuilt by American generosity. The Marshall Plan uplifted Europe. Yes, there was a distraction from the Cold War, but we all know communism as an economic paradigm that didn't work. So, by 1990 the Berlin Wall came down and by 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved. The last 80 years have been a very unusual period in world history where you had a generous, victorious hegemon called the United States, that built up a so-called rules-based model of globalisation – which we all benefited from. But the biggest winner in the last 45 to 47 years has been China, because Deng Xiaoping embarked on 改革开放(reform and opening up), which is the opening of China. And what we are witnessing now is that if I ask you, who has mastered the technologies of the future? Or who is more likely to take advantage of those technologies to achieve economic profit? This would in turn mean strategic advantage and potential power for the future [for them]. I'll stop there, but I hope I've given you enough breadcrumbs, to draw some interesting conclusions.

Lee: Thank you Minister for starting off with these historical perspectives. But, being a journalist, I have to pull it back to what's happening now. And I think a lot of the audience, they would like to hear your views on what's happening right now.

Minister: So, what's happening now is the winner of the Second World War [the US] has decided that, well, I used to be 40% of global GDP, it was worth my blood and treasure to underwrite a generous rules-based system, which allowed everybody to rise. But now that America is 26% of global GDP, it is entirely legitimate for the American voter to say, “Why should we pay? People are free-riding on us.” Even the Europeans have said, “We outsource manufacturing to China, we outsource security to America, and we outsource energy to Russia”. So, America has decided that the globalisation of the last 80 years may have been useful in the past, but not now.

China, at the end of the Second World War, had 1% or 2% of global GDP. Today, it is in the high teens, crossing to 20%. And China says, “But wait a minute, I don't look in terms of centuries. I look in terms of millennia, thousands of years.” And, if you take a multi thousand-year view of history, China, when it is at peace, has its borders intact, and is running a continental sized economy, has usually constituted between 25% to 30% of global GDP. So, China says, “I'm entitled to that – how can you tell me I can't? I'm not asking for any special favours. My success is my hard work and savings, and I'm not going to make the mistake of the Ming Dynasty or the Qing Dynasty. I'm going to master technology and I'm going to remain open to the world.” So, from China's perspective, they're not doing anything wrong, but they don't accept an American led, rules-based global world order.

And then you've got all the middle powers, Europe, India, Middle East, and ASEAN, the latter which has a larger population than Europe. If you add up all our GDPs, it makes us either the fourth or fifth largest in the world. And we say, well, you know, if we play our cards right, we also can be a middle power. So, we are now in a period of great flux, which is the theme of this event, because the old presumptions, the old reflexes, no longer apply. What is going to happen within America itself – will it still maintain the age of reason, science, business and innovation? Will it still be the master of future technologies? For China, it actually has some fundamental challenges too. China's per capita GDP is about USD 13,000 USD. In 1991 when the bubble burst in Japan, Japan's per capita GDP was about US 29,000. This means that when Japan ran out of babies and its workforce peaked, and its stock market and its property market crashed, its per capita GDP when the bubble burst was more than double China's GDP in nominal terms today. So, China has got significant challenges to overcome even while China has got significant strategic advantages. So, we will have to see what happens in China.

For the rest of us, I think the fundamental questions still are, can we master the technologies? Can we maintain openness? Can we maintain a rules-based world system that gives us all a fair chance to trade, to manufacture, to master technologies and to get ahead? And there are some good old-fashioned values. First, there's got to be some respect for facts. It cannot be that everyone is existing in echo chambers, and facts and science doesn't matter. Second, there has to be thrift. You can't spend more than you earn, modern monetary theory notwithstanding. And, if you earn more than you spend, then you're a net creditor. If you believe that we're now in a new technological revolution, history has shown us that in the early phase of a technological revolution, you normally get a gilded age. It takes time for those technologies to be democratised so that a new middle class can rise on the basis of those technologies. How long will it take us to move from that Gilded Age to a new G.I. Bill based on education – the G.I. Bill in America, post Second World War, when they expanded education opportunities to the returning GIs. It's raising the middle-class productive capacity. Then you have a pro-growth economy. You get good return of dollars on your capital, and you are not squabbling over the distribution of debt burdens between demographic groups or between the present generation and the future generation.

I can't help advertising for Singapore in such an age. Would you prefer to be in a place that is AAA rated in an age when return on capital exceeds return on labour? Would you prefer your state to be a net creditor or net debtor in an age of a technological revolution? Would you prefer to live in a state that is scientifically literate, that is organised on logical and rational terms, politically? And, in an age of interdependence, would you prefer to live in a state that is always scanning outwards, looking for dangers and opportunities? And, in a time when the greatest challenges to the world are climate change, pandemics, AI gone wrong, the issue of managing the global commons is more important than ever before. So, my point is, you know, don't lose hope in Singapore, I think we've got some fundamentals right, but we need to be aware of the larger currents around the world.

Lee: Minister, in this world of flux, being a Foreign Minister for a small country, how do you make a tangible difference in foreign policy? Do you feel more powerless, or do you think that there are more opportunities?

Minister: First, it is not about me. I'm a believer in appreciation of history. I'm a believer in fiscal rectitude. I'm a believer in technology, and I'm also a believer in relationship-building. I think I've had a really exhilarating ten-year ride because I've had a ringside seat to a technological revolution, a world in flux. I've had the opportunity to meet and be in the room with all the key leaders, countries, large and small, and I've been able to face both pressure and to withstand pressure and to try our best to keep Singapore relevant, safe, and maintain Singapore's reputation for reliability and trust. And this is particularly important when your next question will be, how do you engage the US and China with China?

Lee: I will go to China first. This year marks the 35th anniversary. We all know that. And you have spent this decade with your counterpart, Mr Wang Yi.

Minister: Yes, whom I consider a real friend.

Lee: And I think you have met for not less than 18 times or so.

Minister: I've lost count. I mean, I go to China every year. See him several times, China or other parts of the world.

Lee: And with a younger, new PM that we have now, engaging with them. You sit in the meeting rooms with them. Can you share with us your observations of Singapore-China relations.

Minister: Well, first of all, we say we celebrate 35 years this year, but actually our relations go way back. You talk about Zheng He and the rest. I mean, there have been Chinese fleets and Chinese traders in Southeast Asia for centuries. Second point, where else in the world do you have 74% of the population with Chinese ancestry? And the answer is, either China or Singapore. We are unique. We are the only independent, sovereign political entity with a Chinese ancestral majority. I'm saying it is a unique relationship because of this linguistic, cultural, and historical links. But having said that, if you go to China and ask, how many cities have a population of five million or six million? And the answer is, quite a lot. Singapore's value proposition is not to be yet another medium-sized Chinese city with six million people. Our value proposition is to be: “same, same, but different”, to quote my mentor, Mr Lim Swee Say. Yes, there's a Chinese majority, yes, we understand Mandarin, Chinese history and culture, but different, in order to be valuable. The day that we forget the need to be different is the day we lose our value to China. At the highest level of government, both in China and in Singapore, we understand that the day that Singapore is just a vassal state or a tributary state, or Singapore cannot say no, is the day we lose our value. So it is a relationship which I believe, at the highest level, there is mutual regard, there is mutual respect, and there is trust; but not on the basis of saying “yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full” every time the big country wants to express its preferences. So, I say this in all humility, because we are a city state. China is a continental sized, civilizational state. We have no illusions about it, but I'm saying that we have a unique and special relationship, and so far, it has gone very well, and I can put hand to heart and say we have been honest, reliable, useful, and relevant to China. But we cannot stay still. You see, China has clearly transformed itself, and Singapore has to keep looking for ways that we will be useful and relevant for the future of China.

Next thing is, never ever forget, we are a city state in the heart of Southeast Asia. This is our neighbourhood. Actually, we are blessed to have a neighbourhood, which is, I mean, there will be some border issues and things, but generally, this is a zone of peace. ASEAN will be celebrating its 60th anniversary in 2027 and has quite rightly focused on economic integration. We're talking about power grids, connecting cables, connecting fiber, connecting pipes, connecting bits, connecting digital payment systems. By focusing on economic integration, we have made our area a zone of significant economic prospects and opportunity.

So, my point is, it's been exhilarating for me to have watched all this. It's a deep honour to participate in a small way. But I'm always, always mindful that we stand on the shoulders of our preceding generations. You know, Huay Leng, you've lived in China. Every time I go to the Great Hall of the People or if I go to the Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi, the equivalent of the Istana, the thought always comes to me, if my great grandparents had not left China, and on my father's side had not left India, do you think their great grandson would be in the Great Hall of the People? I don't think so. We have made a success of our system and a success with the opportunities that were presented to us by being in the heart of Southeast Asia. We have a hard working, disciplined people, a sensible, rational, honest and competent government, and we have seized every opportunity that came our way, but with good, old-fashioned values.

Lee: So that is our set of relations with China.

Minister: Yes.

Lee: But there's also pressure building up from the other side.

Minister: From America.

Lee: Yes, the other friend that we have.

Minister: Same thing. Most people still underestimate how important America is to the Southeast Asian economy. The amount of investment that America has put into Southeast Asia is more than what America has invested in India, China, Japan, ROK combined. Most people still don't realise that. Now, are there Chinese investments in Southeast Asia? There are, but it is a fraction of what America has put in. Of course, in trade, there's no doubt about it. Overall figures, China is the biggest trading partner. But in our case, America is the biggest trading partner for services, so that's investment in trade. Technology, at least for the past 80 years, there's been no question that America has been the forefront of that, and our openness to American companies, to American technologies, to gain access. And for us, there's no way our per capita GDP now would be what it is if we did not have access to American technology, American markets, and if we were not a useful host of multinational corporations – thousands of them – and if we were not a part of a critical node in global supply chains. That's what has brought us to where we are. But same thing with America, I would say two things. It cannot be “yes, sir, yes, sir three bags full” to everything the Americans want. Second, which I'm always very mindful of, as the Foreign Minister, when I go to Beijing and I go to Washington, I say exactly the same thing to my counterparts Marco Rubio and Wang Yi. You can't get away with trying to whisper one version to one side and then a different version to the other side. So, consistency. We will have to say no from time to time, but when we say no, either to China or America, it's not because the other side is instigating. I will be useful, but I will not be made use of. I will be honest, I will be helpful, I'll be constructive, and I'll be relevant. So far, this kind of modus operandi has served us well in our relations with both America and China.

Lee: But now that the pressure has built up, even for normal economic cooperation, the pressure will be magnified.

Minister: Yes. So now, if I was in America, I don't advertise much about the investments in Singapore, because America says, no, no, I want my investments in America, right? So I will say, but you know, you have skin in the game. Why? Your American companies are doing well in Southeast Asia. Why would you not want them to continue to take advantage of their head start? Similarly, I tell the Americans and I tell the Chinese as well, Singapore must remain open to both American and Chinese businesses. I cannot exclude you on the basis of where you came from. Having said that, I want honest business here. So, no hanky panky, no using us and using our reputation to cover up false declarations and things like that. We will run an honest shop. And we value the sanctity of contract. Singapore is not an oriental society that depends just on 关系 (connections), but if I sign something, I mean it and I'll live up to it. It is this combination of the Western concept of rule of law, and the Oriental concept which places a premium on relationship and trust. When we can get these two things together, we become an open, inclusive, high trust, highly efficient node in a global network. I think even in this state of flux, this kind of operating system, this kind of operating principles are still valuable.

Lee: I think that's what people appreciate Singapore for.

Minister: I hope so. I mean, we will do our best to maintain this for as long as possible.

Lee: I only have time for probably one question.

Basically, I just want to ask because you mentioned about the importance of the American investments in Southeast Asia. But in time to come, if China's technology becomes very advanced and China's investing more in this region…

Minister: The more the merrier.

Lee: So how then would this equilibrium change?

Minister: I guess the larger point I'm trying to make is to avoid a binary thinking that it must be one or the other. I'm telling the Europeans, the Americans and the Chinese that, look, Singapore is open for business. We are a technocratic and technophilic system, which means we are after the latest technology. I don't care where it comes from, but we will do business honestly, and we will not play games, and we will live up to our word. Three technological revolutions going on now are in digital technologies, especially AI, renewable energy and biotechnology. Actually, if you ask me right now, AI, I think the Americans have a lead, maybe a couple of months, a year or two. On renewable energy, I think China is in the lead. If you look at electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels, turbines, probably even nuclear technology, yes, civilian nuclear technology. I think China is ahead. On biotechnology, which I know a little bit about from my past life, it is a very, very close race. So, I have no idea who's ultimately going to achieve a decisive advantage. Actually, my hope is that we will continue to have a world where everyone in science and technology actually works on a common stack, and we are competing to innovate, competing to bring ideas to business, competing to make standards of living and productivity for everyone to rise collectively. But in order to do that, we must avoid a binary win-lose kind of thinking. I'm saying for the maximum extent possible, we have remained open, rational, and disciplined.

Lee: Do the other ASEAN countries share this similar view?

Minister: If you look at what other countries are doing, I think everyone knows that this is a time of flux, a time of danger, and a time of opportunity. Everyone, in their own way, is trying to remain open and to have a more balanced set of relationships, but each country will make the slightly different adjustment to their foreign policy. In our case, as I said, we maintain a certain consistency, steadiness, and predictability. Actually, Singapore's foreign policy is predictable because you know our principles, you know what we care about, you know how we operate.

Lee: Have ASEAN countries shifted their positions?

Minister: Well, yes and no. Okay, let's do a worked example, Southeast Asia. If you go back 60 years, the problem for Southeast Asia was that we were an arena for proxy wars during the Cold War. That's why you had the Vietnam War, even the problems in Cambodia, Laos, an arena for proxy wars. And we're all very clear, we don't want to repeat that. We do not want to make ourselves an arena for other people's wars. Next thing, at the end of the Cold War, the main development in Southeast Asia was economic integration and development, and to focus on that – never mind the political differences, the diversity in political systems, language, religion – just focus on economics. Southeast Asia has done well generally. So, we will continue to focus on that. But some countries, by geography, by history and by economics, are more dependent on one or the other. And to me, I think every country has to do what it calculates in its own national interest and make those adjustments depending on your dependencies and on your assessment of who is in a better position to give you more benefit.

Singapore has the advantage that we are reasonably well developed, and we stand on our own two feet. We are not dependent on anyone else to fight and defend us. We will defend ourselves, thank you very much. We have the fiscal reserves of our own. We are not asking for assistance, we are not asking for developmental aid. We are asking to do business as equals, as partners, with a contractual relationship. What I am trying to say, in a long roundabout way is, don't judge other countries too quickly. Everyone has their own vulnerabilities, their own threat assessment, their own opportunities, and they are making those necessary adjustments. They cannot behave like us, and we should not expect them to behave like us. So, we have to learn to live with this diversity of approaches, but the common thing for Southeast Asia – we don't want wars, we don't want external wars to be fought here. We want to focus on economics, and we believe that the fundamental motto for economic development in this day and age is technology. For technology, the key thing is to uplift the capacity and the skills of our people to take full advantage of technology. If we can do that, we can secure peace and prosperity in Southeast Asia in the next few decades, and we will easily be number four in the global GDP rankings. But then we have to work on the other issue of inequality, and as I said, raising a prosperous middle class throughout Southeast Asia – that is a political, economic, social challenge, which in Singapore, we are also focused on. So, bringing down the Gini Coefficient, uplifting educational capacity – especially for families or groups who may otherwise be left behind. It's not about economics versus social policy. Actually it all dovetails. You get education right, you get social policy right, you get fiscal policy right, all cylinders firing, you will succeed, you'll be strong, you'll be more equal, more united, and we hope to achieve that in Southeast Asia as well.

Lee: With that, thank you, Minister.

Minister: Thank you all very much.

Emcee: Thank you. A big hand please for Doctor Vivian Balakrishnan and Miss Lee Huay Leng. Thank you for that insightful fireside chat.

.         .         .         .         .