Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's interview with Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Herbert Raymond McMaster on Today's Battlegrounds with H.R. McMaster, 15 July 2026

H.R. McMaster (Hoover Institution): Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, welcome back to Battlegrounds here in California. It’s so great to see you. So great to be with you again.

Minister: Great to be back.  

McMaster: Well, I’ve always benefited so much from your wisdom, from your President’s wisdom, Prime Minister Lee (Hsien Loong), and now Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, and of course the wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew. I think Singapore is known for being able to view your region of the world with great perspicacity. So I would like to ask you, since you’re here in the US: begin maybe with your expectations of the US-Singapore relationship. What are your priorities as Foreign Minister? What should our viewers know about US-Singapore relations today and expectations for the future?

Minister: I think first thing you need to know is Singapore is very small. One-fifth of Rhode Island, and yet having to be independent, sovereign. That includes having to have your own defence, your armed forces, your own electricity, your own port, airport, and it’s a city-state, a modern city-state in the heart of Southeast Asia. And we’ve only been independent since 1965. In 60 years, to grow per capita GDP from USD 500 to USD 90,000.

McMaster: A miracle.

Minister: It’s a miracle, and full credit to our people, to the pioneering leaders. But it’s also worth putting it in context. We are one of the chief beneficiaries of Pax Americana. America, which, in a unique act of magnanimity post-World War II, decided the world will be better off by rebuilding, even those you won, you vanquished in World War II, by creating free market across the world, disseminating technology, access to your markets, global supply chains, the growth of multinational corporations. All this gave a tiny city-state that was non-communist a wonderful opportunity to grow, and we are proof of that. Just as Japan, Germany, Europe, the Asian Tigers – Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore. And ultimately the rest of Southeast Asia. So, key point: we benefited from Pax Americana. Second point: we also had a turbocharge from the reform and opening of China since 1978 under Deng Xiaoping. What that really meant is that the biggest beneficiary of them all, of Pax Americana, has been China. The rise of China has been very different from the challenge that the Soviet Union posed to America, because that was really an iron curtain, a different ecosystem, that eventually collapsed under its own internal contradictions because they couldn’t compete with America. China is different because they benefited from the American operating system. Today, for the first time, after 250 years of independence, America faces a peer competitor. So, for us in Singapore, the last 60 years, great run. We had the best of both worlds. Now, if we’re not careful, what used to be the best of both worlds can become the worst of both worlds. And Singapore has to operate by being trusted, by being relevant to both of you (US and China).

McMaster: Right, and it is difficult because there are big systematic differences as well between China’s status as a mercantilist model, and the US’ free market economy. I want to talk with you more about that, but I’d like to focus on Singapore first, and on Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's agenda. One of the things I think seems to be baked into Singaporean culture, and this is from Lee Kuan Yew, you’re always striving and working hard to make it better. There’s never complacency, and I know there are certain pillars in Prime Minister Wong’s approach of re-examining the social compact, looking at the economic model, and trying to increase economic growth, new technologies to infuse into Singapore. Can you talk a little bit more before we talk about the world broadly? What are the priorities within Singapore at the moment?

Minister: The political imperative, whether it’s in the United States or in Singapore, particularly at a time of acute challenge or a time of a technological revolution, and it happens to be both right now, is first and foremost, your domestic social compact has to be functioning. People need to feel that we’re in the same boat, need to feel that their life jackets, safety belts are on because a storm is about to come. We’re a curious combination of left-wing and right-wing policies. On education, housing, healthcare – we’re socialists. On the organisation of the economy, on non-subsidies for consumption, for making sure price signals work – we are far more Republican than the Republican Party in the United States. My point is, the focus on domestic social compact is to give people confidence at a time when you know you’re going to face a storm. You’re on a roller coaster, and you need to get those seat belts on. Without that sense of collective safety, you will run into a society that fractures, that’s polarised, that’s unable to meet at the middle ground and to find solutions. So that's what we’re trying to do.

McMaster: Are you worried about your income distribution? Of course, Singapore has benefited from China's crackdown on a lot of its tech sector, but I mean, in terms of real estate, it’s so high, right? Commercial real estate, so many businesses moving to Singapore. How are you managing that right? The increasing demand, and then prices are going to go up for housing and for commercial real estate. How are you coping with that challenge?

Minister: Let’s unpack that at several levels. First point is an open, inclusive society, which is able to both operate in the American system, American rules, common law, and yet a society that also has cultural, linguistic, historic affinity with China, and that is very familiar with Europe, and that’s building bridges with Africa and South America – that openness is critical.

McMaster: What strikes me in Singapore is how cross cultural it is. Yes, within one block you have a Hindu temple, you have a mosque, you have a church. Altogether.

Minister: It’s not a laissez-faire approach. The government has to give people assurance of safety, of security, of fairness, and then it becomes an attractive place for people to live, work.

McMaster: For talent. Because you’re a talent magnet in Singapore.

Minister: Which is the next point. If you agree that there’s a revolution in digital technologies on AI, if you agree there's another revolution in biotech and in energy, both sustainable green energy and nuclear energy, the key currency beyond infrastructure and investment, is talent. But you can’t have talent unless you give people an assurance of safety, security, and fairness. And don’t forget the other point is, only citizens get a vote, which means you also have to make sure that citizens come first. Membership of the family has privileges, so you see that balancing act that we need to be open, and yet we also need to look after our own citizens. Then, because we are a government that has accumulated surpluses, because we are a low tax regime – we’re not a tax haven –because the government expenditure is about 20% of GDP, which is actually very low for an advanced economy. We have no capital gains tax. We have no estate duties. We don’t tax you on overseas income. We don’t tax you on dividends, on interest. Of course, we’re an attractive place for talent with ideas, with capital, and for companies that want to build regional headquarters in Asia. You alluded to the point that, given the state of the world, if we are so attractive to talent and capital, you will get domestic pressures. On the real estate point of view, we’re not interested in a real estate play, and in fact, we’ve had to take measures over the last decade or so to make ourselves less attractive as a real estate place. For instance, if you tried to buy an apartment in Singapore, I would have to tell you upfront we’ll put an at least 60% tax on that. So, we don’t need you to buy a place in Singapore. You can rent if you need a place, but we do need you, we need people like you, your ideas, your enterprises, your companies, your networks, and your technologies. The reason why we're in this conundrum is because we are so tiny. One-fifth of Rhode Island.

McMaster: A well-organised one-fifth. If anybody hasn't gone to the Gardens in Singapore…

Minister: But just understand, we're well organised because we have no choice. Singapore is an act of desperate imagination. Our greatest fear is irrelevance.

McMaster: Singapore is at the hub of so much global trade. Could you talk about that a little bit? I'm sure this is an anxious time for you. With the United States, but other countries as well, moving toward tariffs, other trade enforcement mechanisms, concerns about the fragility of supply chains, the desire to re-industrialise, make more things at home, that’s created a lot of pressure on the global trade system. What are your concerns about that? Do you feel okay and secure now, as the tariffs have kind of settled down and the US-Singapore trade agreement, which has been in place next since 2004, is still intact? What's your perspective on trade, US trade policy, and how does Singapore see it?

Minister: The Singapore Government is a congenital worrier. Our trade volume is more than three times our GDP. I don’t think anyone else has got that kind of ratio. So when we say we are free traders, it’s lifeblood; it’s not just negotiating a free trade agreement. For us, we have reached the zenith of success by being an open economy. Capital comes in and out freely, as with goods, and our free trade agreement with the United States means there’s zero tariffs on all American goods and services. And after 22 years, America's trade surplus against us has increased. The last I checked, it’s USD 33 billion.

McMaster: I’m sure President Trump loves that. Cause that’s the main report card – the trade balance in goods.

Minister: He love that, but I’ve had to complain gently.

McMaster: You have to remind him.

Minister: Look, if anything, if I was to use tariffs on the basis of trade surplus, we should be putting a tariff on the United States, but we’re not because we are truly believers in free trade. We’re not fans of tariffs, but I think we should also take a step back to understand why America is doing this. Singapore used to be criticised for industrial policy. Governments have a responsibility to look into infrastructure, getting the regulatory environment right to promote innovation, enterprise, to understand that industrial capacity is important for both economic and security reasons, and that people everywhere in the world want good jobs. If in that pursuit of globalisation, and hyper efficiency, and return on capital, if you don’t look after your domestic sector, jobs, infrastructure, and competitiveness, you will get a rebellion against globalisation and free trade. I think that’s what actually has happened in the United States. For better or for worse, you have chosen to use tariffs. We’re not fans of tariffs, but we kind of get why you’re doing this, even though we disagree with the way you are implementing it. And today no one criticises us for industrial policy. Today, in fact, everyone is trying, in their own way, to find a way to re-industrialise. For global supply chains, which for decades have been in pursuit of efficiency, just in time, now it’s just in case. And what happened during COVID? And then as you envisage this wrestling match between America and China, and America trying to crimp Chinese supply chains, particularly on semiconductors.

McMaster: And vice-versa I would say.

Minister: And the Chinese returning the favour.

McMaster: With critical minerals and magnets and rare earths.

Minister: Yes. Of course all these things are anathema to us, but we are the ultimate realists. We understand why people resort to these measures, and our challenge is to continue to operate despite the friction to this system, and continue to be relevant. Continue to be honest brokers, continue to be transparent and reliable. So that’s a short summary of our challenge.

McMaster: One aspect of this, maybe to take us just a bit further, is export controls. Export controls on microprocessors, semiconductors. This AI race now where China and the US are locked in, and whoever gains advantage in these learning models could gain an advantage in the emerging global economy, but in defence as well. So how do you view the issue of semiconductors? There have been, I’m sure, a large number of semiconductors transhipped through Singapore and routed to China. What is your perspective on this? On export controls in particular.

Minister: Again, let’s put it in context. A lot of people are not aware that Singapore produces about 10% of global semiconductor supply. Not bad for a tiny place.

McMaster: Absolutely.

Minister: And for semiconductor manufacturing equipment, we account for about 20%. So, this two-way flow of semiconductors and semiconductor equipment.

McMaster: Along with Japan and the Netherlands.

Minister: We’re part of this global supply chain. So that’s the first fact. The next fact is, as I said, we don’t believe in tariffs. We don’t believe in export controls and restrictions. Nevertheless, for a variety of domestic political reasons, others will do so. Now, it is not for us to implement American export controls, but what we will ensure is that companies which operate in Singapore do not use Singapore or ride on the branding or name of Singapore to evade what responsibilities they are liable for in their domestic jurisdictions, and that’s why we insist on transparency, on probity, on conducting business openly. That’s how we will continue to operate. The main point is to be open, to be relevant and reliable, and that again is another challenge because we want to be able to operate with both China and the US. We will refuse to be boxed into a binary choice, but at the same time, we’ve got to maintain trust and reliability on both accounts. What it means is, in fact, if you’re going to put rules on the export of semiconductors, and the other side is going to put rules on critical minerals, we will have to operate our model of transparency and probity in an even-handed way.

McMaster: Right. When I often have conversations with you, other friends in Asia, Southeast Asia in particular, oftentimes I’ll hear, “Hey, don't force us to choose  between Washington and Beijing”.

Minister: Well, so far, neither side has forced us to choose. At least that’s what they tell us.

McMaster: But the argument that I would make is it’s really a choice between sovereignty and servitude. What disappoints me lately is not actions, but rhetoric out of Washington, whether it’s about the Panama Canal or Greenland or Straits of Hormuz. The United States, though, has been on the side, I think, of sovereignty, and what I would say is that Singapore is in a difficult spot because you have to jealously guard your sovereignty. Would you comment on your concerns on both sides, US and China? Maybe talk about the Manus acquisition or other examples where there is a threat to that free market economic model, free trade model, and Singapore’s sovereignty.

Minister: Let me deal with America first. As I said, we’re all beneficiaries of Pax Americana. What did America provide for Southeast Asia? Your strategic presence, including your military, provided stability, gave us time and space for non-communist Southeast Asia to prove that free markets worked. Your strategic economic presence – America has more invested in Singapore and in Southeast Asia than America has invested in India, China, Japan, South Korea combined. You’ve got real skin in the game. The investments and the trade between America and Southeast Asia, and in particular with Singapore – for Singapore alone probably supports 350,000 jobs in America. You’re an investor. Your investments have paid off. In return, on a completely different scale, we are the third-largest Asian investor in America. Our investments in America continue to grow because we happen to believe in American enterprise, innovation, and technology. Point is, this has been win-win, both sides. The strategic point is that America has had both hard power and soft power, and that should not be underestimated. People will complain about America, but generally, if you asked any of my colleagues in Southeast Asia, do you really want America to abandon and leave Southeast Asia? They don’t. Everyone wants America to be around, but as I said, it’s because you’ve had both hard and soft power. I do worry about the erosion, especially of soft power. But I will take solace from not just listening to what is said, but to what America actually does. Our reason for promoting free trade and investments with America is to also remind both the American voters and our voters that America really has strategic skin in the game. And if America has strategic skin in the game, which it has in reality, that’s all the more reason why you’ve got strategic interests to protect, and why you need to stay around, and yet not demand exclusive allegiance or servitude. Because in the end, even small countries have pride, have national self-respect to protect, and I think the best relationship, whether countries are big, small, or medium, is one of mutual respect, of mutual relevance, and reliability and trustworthiness. It might sound  naïvely idealistic, but I think there’s a good reason why human beings have developed cultures, rules, norms, and the rule of law. And we should not forget that even in these trying times.

McMaster: I totally agree with you, and I think US interests are advanced when you have strong sovereign countries who respect the sovereignty of their neighbours and respect their own people, sovereignty of their people.

Minister: And the US has benefitted from the growth of its allies and friends. In history I don’t think you can think of any other superpower which did not rely on empire, but relied on soft power and alliances and partnership.

McMaster: Alignment of interests and principles. Absolutely. I’d like to just ask you about a couple of overlapping issues here. Technology in the form of artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence stacks, which along with what we’re talking about in terms of industrial production and supply chains, has a lot to do with energy demand, right? And fulfilling energy demand, energy security. I think this is another area where the US and Singapore are totally aligned. Could you talk a little bit about what your objectives are in the area of artificial intelligence, the development of that technology in a way that benefits Singapore and its citizens, and also how that overlaps with energy.

Minister: I think the revolution that has brought artificial intelligence is the biggest deal, the biggest technological step change in our lifetime. It goes, to me, beyond the jump that electricity provided for us. This is a new industrial revolution, and the point about AI and digital technologies. It also has generated another adjacent revolution in biotechnology and whether you realise it or not, on energy. Both in terms of more efficient, more sustainable, more resilient and reliable energy sources, as well as in turn being a major consumer of energy in its own right. So you’ve got three simultaneous revolutions. So this is a big deal. Now, what is interesting, and again, if you draw the comparison with the Soviet Union, is that this time, the entire world is actually working on the same scientific foundations. The large language models, and underneath that, the transformers, the methods for pre-training these models, the methods for reinforcement learning, then post-training refinement. Everyone’s working off the same stack. Yet there is this hyper competition, and accentuated by geostrategic competition between the US and China, who are the leading paragons of this revolution, also leading to potential problems. Because if you actually try to completely separate these Siamese twins, who actually are living on the same stack, you’re going to have a significant penalty to the speed of progress, but also when you have to deal with the problems that will inevitably be generated from such powerful technology. So the energy needed to fuel this, the chips needed, the algorithms, the data, the need for global standards, the possibility of interoperability, and making this technology a force for good for everyone, that’s the higher order challenge. My worry is that because the world is currently fractured, and global leadership, and I use that in the broader sense of the word, is hamstrung, both the pace of progress and our ability to deal with the dangers are being compromised.

McMaster: I think the mistake we made with the Internet was the belief that it would automatically advance freedom, and there would be one system.

Minister: In the old days we said we’ll be one happy global village. Well, it just turns out that Internet, if misused, is also an instigator of hatred, a catalyst for tribalism in an exclusivist sense. You may have a more technically knowledgeable world, but less restrained, less wise, less inclusive. Today, no matter how crazy you are, you can use the Internet to affirm the craziness of your views.

McMaster: Unless you’re in China, in which case the state uses it to stifle human freedom and expression.

Minister: But think about it, why does the state do that? Because they recognise the danger, right? It’s a two-way process.

McMaster: Well they certainly recognise the danger of the people maybe wanting a say, and how they’re governed, as part of the danger they recognise. But you’re right. I mean, in the West, it leads to this kind of severe polarisation, with showing people more and more extreme content.

Minister: Yes. In fact, you could argue this is one of the fundamental threats to democracy. Democracy actually requires some shared frames of reference, some common values, some give and take, compromise, mutual respect. If you reach a stage where you can’t agree on a set of facts, you can’t even agree on what's good and bad, and you can’t arrive at any compromise. How will democracy function? The democracy which we currently operate was based on the old industrial revolution model. Now we have got a new industrial revolution with new means of production, and we are entering a new gilded age, where the owners of capital and ideas have outsized returns on their investments compared to the return on labour. The last time this happened, an industrial revolution, you had a communist revolution, but you also had the development of the welfare state. You also had new laws to protect employees, the environment. We’re going to have to go through a new stage of political, both domestic and international, adjustment again. Because the means of production have changed.

McMaster: I think education is so important to be able to judge right the content of what you see. I’d like to ask you. You mentioned about the assumptions about multinational cooperation – everybody’s got to go along. Part of that is ASEAN. Singapore has been a strong voice within ASEAN, I think some people have unrealistic expectations of the organisation because it requires unanimity. What are your expectations of ASEAN? What do you think can be achieved within that format these days?

Minister: We are a regional organization with 11 members, but the amount of diversity amongst the 11 of us, in terms of economic levels, in terms of economic systems, political systems – we've got constitutional monarchies, absolute monarchies, a variety of democracies, military coups – no other regional organisation has the amount of diversity which we have. The reason why we operate by consensus rather than majority, and this is a design feature, not a bug, because without that assurance, there’s no way this motley crew would trust each other and be able to do anything together. That’s the first thing. Second point: we therefore are much less ambitious than the EU. We’re not looking for political union. We’re not looking for monetary union or a common currency. We’re focused on economic integration, systematically bringing down barriers, trade barriers and non-tariff barriers, trying to create a single investment zone, production zone, trying to mobilise our energy resources, make ourselves more competitive, make ourselves more resilient, prepare for the future jobs of the future. So far our focus on economics, deepening integration and widening our partnerships with the United States, with China, with all our Dialogue Partners, has been right. Things will never move quickly enough for many people, but generally, despite the setbacks, generally we’ve been moving in the right direction over the past 60 years.

McMaster: Singapore is, as you mentioned, in a difficult position straddling multiple worlds. But Singapore is not averse at times to take a tough stand when it’s morally right. I’m thinking about after the invasion of Ukraine, Singapore taking the unprecedented act to sanction Russia, in recognition that this maybe axis of aggressors, the two revanchist powers on the Eurasian landmass, was becoming much more aggressive. We saw China at the same time being very aggressive in the South China Sea, laying claim to the ocean there, and threats to Taiwan. How do you see this this geopolitical competition between what some have described as an axis of aggressors, and the free world? Is there a way to get beyond this competition, or do you think that we are kind of locking ourselves into a second Cold War, which you experienced, from Singapore's perspective, being in the middle of that competition?

Minister: I’m going to give you an answer from the perspective of a tiny city-state. If you made all foreign affairs a morality play – evil, good, saints, and devils – you would find it impossible to work together, to arrive at compromises, to find practical solutions. My general point is don’t make the conduct of foreign policy a morality play. Now, having said that, because we are so small and we’ve only been around for 60 years, for us, international law is crucial for our existence. Because without law, without a set of agreed-on principles, the law of the jungle would apply, and it’ll just be big country swallowing small country. Specifically in the case of Russia and what they did to Ukraine, our assessment of this was a full-frontal breach of the UN Charter, which provides for all of us, big or small, weak or strong, territorial integrity, sovereign equality, and political independence. So we took a stand and we said “no, that's wrong”. Yes, it's true, we are the only Southeast Asian nation to have the temerity to even have sanctions on Russia. But I meet Lavrov regularly. He knows it’s not personal. We’re not breaking relations.

McMaster: God bless you, because that guy is just…

Minister: I’m fond of him.

McMaster: Oh you’re fond of him?

Minister: I’m fond of him. He’s a smart cookie.

McMaster: Ok, that makes one of us.

Minister: But he knows it’s not personal. Russia knows we’re not breaking ties with them. In fact, I was in Russia a month ago. But from time to time, we will have to say no to Russia, as we have said no to America, and we have to say no to China from time to time. But when we say no, everyone needs to understand. I’m not taking sides, and I’m not saying no on behalf of someone else. I’m saying no because in our own long-term assessment of our national interests, we have to disagree, and we disagree respectfully. This is our survival technique, and we will try and we will maintain this for as long as we can do so. It’s the same reason for why we say we will refuse to choose sides for as long as we can do so.

McMaster: Sure. The whole point of this programme is what we call strategic empathy. A term I borrowed from Zachary Shore.

Minister: Yes, I know you call it Battlegrounds.

McMaster: I don’t know, maybe I need a more optimistic name. But it’s to see the world from your perspective, the perspective of others. That’s what's important, I think.

Minister: You’ve been a military commander. A lot of  battle procedure consists of putting yourself in the other guy’s shoes and eyes, and how he sees it. Actually if we do our staff work correctly, sometimes you can even head off the battle, or prevent war. Even if you have no choice and you do need to collide, there’s a proper and civilised way of doing so.

McMaster: Right, and you avoid these cognitive traps that people fall into with mirror imaging and everything else. So I’d like to ask you, and of course this is an unfair question because it’s such a complicated situation. There have been profound changes in the Middle East.

Minister: That’s an understatement.

McMaster: I would say these go back at least to 7 October 2023, when the ring of fire was lit around Israel. It found itself in a seven-front war. I think the next big evolution was in 2024 when Iran for the first time attacked Israel directly. This is in April and October 2024. Another big change was Israel attacking directly against Iran in August 2025, with the US then striking the nuclear programme. And now we’ve had the initiation of the campaign in January, February the US and Israel were in, I guess, what you might call a ceasefire war now. Singapore has vital interests in the Middle East in terms of global trade and energy security. I’d just like to ask you, what should our viewers know about Singapore's perspective on the ongoing conflicts and wars in the Middle East?

Minister: We start from a place of humility. There has been conflict in the Middle East going back…

McMaster: Quite some time.

Minister: 3,500 years. Jerusalem has been conquered more than 40 times. When I go up to Temple Mount, or Al-Haram Al-Sharif, and I’m sure you've been there, you just walk quietly, pensively. I always feel…

McMaster: The weight of history, don’t you?

Minister: Not just the weight of history, but the thought that comes to mind is: how much blood has been shed on this hill?

McMaster: In that one spot.

Minister: In the name of politics, and politics dressed up as religion. So I think we should all start with a place of humility. This is a longstanding problem, and there are no quick solutions. But from a surgical point of view, whatever we do, don’t make things worse. I can’t speak for Israel, but Israel’s long-term security cannot be achieved just by the application of overwhelming force. Even though, for now, in these thousands of years, they happen to have significant military force. At some point in time, all the Semitic people will have to find a modus vivendi. You can argue about two states or a variety of political solutions, but the answer for that can only be generated by direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

McMaster: And their neighbours.

Minister: And their Arab neighbours.

McMaster: Like what’s happening with Lebanon now. It’s a long shot, but at least it’s happening right?

Minister: Hopefully. But then you also have to remember, the Persians and the Arabs are two distinct people with distinct histories.

McMaster: Sure, and the Ottomans, the new Ottomans, the Turks.

Minister: And then you had the Ottoman Empire.

McMaster: And the Russians are now out of it. But the Russian empire was in there for a little while.

Minister: And don’t forget, even the Western powers.

McMaster: Sure, present company too. The Americans.

Minister: They had their own interest too. This is just one more painful chapter in a long saga, and my appeal to everyone is don’t make it worse. I don’t have a solution.

McMaster: I think that's good advice. Recognise the limits of your agency. Look at things in a historical perspective. Okay, I can't believe we’re almost out of time. Conversations with you, they always go so fast. What I would like to do is give you the final word, and maybe in the final word, you can maybe channel your inner Lee Kuan Yew, who I go to for wisdom. His long interview with Henry Kissinger, do you remember this book? It’s just packed with wisdom, and you know the issues he talked about are still the issues today. I would just like to give you the final word. What is your message to the American audience, but also the international audience, on the world today?

Minister: You mentioned Henry Kissinger. He was a very close friend of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and in his own way, a real supporter of Singapore. I’ve been Foreign Minister for a long time, and I used to make it a point of seeing him every year. It was an annual pilgrimage until he passed away. And you remember Henry Kissinger, in the latter part, was focused on AI, on technological revolution. He was also very worried about America and China, and similarly was also focused on what was happening in Europe, in Ukraine. If you join all these dots, actually this is an awfully fascinating time to be alive. America has reached 250 years, and China is trying to get back to its historical position. And historically, when China was at peace and united and mastering technology, it would account for between 25 to 30% of global GDP. America is a historically unique superpower. We are also at an age of revolution, technological revolution. We are at the foothills. Climbing up this mountain, you’re either going to look down into the abyss, or you’re going to get to a new plateau. To me, the exhilaration from both the possibilities, as well as the deep anxieties about the dangers, intellectually, emotionally, it’s a wonderful time to be alive. Can we just take a step back? Can we chill a bit? And can we look with a little bit more confidence to the future, a bit more cohesion domestically? Hopefully, make some right choices collectively. There could be, in fact, there should be another golden age for humanity ahead of us. It is that exhilaration and hope for the future that not only helps me sleep at night, but wake up in the morning with a sense of purpose.

McMaster: Mr Vivian Balakrishnan, I can’t think of a better note to end on. Thank you for joining me and thanks for your continued leadership as a diplomat and a voice for this positive vision of the future. Thank you so much. Wonderful to be with you.

Minister: Thank you my friend. Always.

.     .     .     .     .

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SINGAPORE

28 JULY 2026