Edited Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's Meeting with the 9th ASEAN Journalist Visit Programme (AJVP) at MFA Heritage Room on 6 August 2018, 1000 hrs

Moderator: Thank you and welcome everyone to this meeting, early on a Monday morning. We’ve recently concluded the AMM and other related meetings so I think we should go straight into it.

This is on the record, but as I’ve mentioned earlier, please check in with us if you’re going to quote the Minister on any particular point so that we can just check the accuracy of the quotations.

Minister: Good morning and welcome to Singapore. We’ve just had a very tiring and long marathon week on ASEAN. It was not only just ASEAN, but also ASEAN and our external partners. So we’ve been keeping track – apparently last week I chaired about 23 meetings and we’ve had meetings with about 30 counterparts. I think there were a total of 23 Foreign Ministers present in Singapore last week. So I’ve had a real intensive course of ASEAN diplomacy last week. I’ll just set the context by describing some of the issues that came up.

First, the overall tone was positive, warm and constructive. In the past few years, there have been times when negotiations sometimes can be a bit heated; but this time we never went through that kind of situation so I would say that it was positive, constructive and actually, in my view, an excellent meeting.

The second point I would make is that it doesn’t mean that there were no issues or challenges. This meeting last week took place in the midst of continuing evolution of the global geo-strategic architecture. Basically, we are moving from a unipolar world into a multipolar world. We all know that there’s a lot of anxiety about trade, unilateral sanctions, and what the prospects are for global free trade. And I think the third sort of overarching trend that we’re all aware of is that there is a digital revolution, artificial intelligence, robotics and big data completely transforming jobs, economies and comparative advantages of our individual states as well as ASEAN as a whole. These three big trends that are occurring outside our region have profound impact within our region. Therefore, a lot of attention was spent on how ASEAN should respond.

I think the first thing I would say is that there’s universal reaffirmation that we need ASEAN unity. And you need unity before you get centrality. Because if ASEAN is disunited, we can ask for centrality but would really have very limited traction. So the first thing is unity first before centrality.

The second point is that we need to double down on economic integration, on free trade. And of course the big deal that were trying to work on and we’re trying to push the next few months is the RCEP, which, if we get it done, will be the largest free trade agreement in the world, because it’ll include 45% of the world’s population and, in terms of GDP, about 30% of global GDP. The unique feature about it is that it has ASEAN at the centre, and then six spokes which are our external partners whom we have existing free trade arrangements with. Of those six radiating spokes of ASEAN, the two big ones are obviously China and India. We also have Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand. I think everyone who was present there recognised that precisely because of these challenges to free trade at a global level and in a midst of a trade war, it’s all the more important if we can make progress on it, settle it, and in a sense raise the flag for free trade. So that had special salience.

The other issues were regional and topical issues. So for instance, the South China Sea. The key point there was a piece of good news. ASEAN and China have agreed to a single text which will form the basis for negotiations for the Code of Conduct on the South China Sea. It is very important to look at this context. This is not a solution for overlapping territorial claims. The COC, by agreeing on norms of behaviour and conduct, is intended to reduce tensions, increase confidence, and allow peace and stability to prevail in the South China Sea whilst in the long run, the claimant states will have to sort out, through negotiation and in keeping with international law without resorting to force or even the threat of use of force, in order to resolve their territorial disputes. So, South China Sea – calmer and a positive step forward but still a long journey. There was obviously discussion on the DPRK and Korean Peninsula. But even that, to a significant extent, the tone was much better this year compared to previous years, clearly because the summit that was held in Singapore between President Trump and Chairman Kim had just occurred. So even that was an improvement.

The other issue, regionally, that we discussed was countering violent extremism, terrorism, the need to work together, and that this is a transboundary problem. In fact, I think today in Lombok there was supposed to be conference which just had to be cancelled because of the earthquake last night. I know for a fact that the Malaysian and Singapore teams are making their way home or in the process of making their way home right now. But again it just illustrates ASEAN’s ability to work together to look out for each other and the need for more cooperation.

So all in all it was a good meeting. And the fact that all the external partners showed up at Secretary of State level or State Councilor level, is another affirmation of ASEAN’s relevance and the fact that people do want to talk to us, and that ASEAN meetings form a good, relevant, safe, constructive platform where people can actually engage. Both America and China, during the EAS meeting, the East Asia Summit meeting, actually were quite frank with one another so it wasn’t all just roses and syrup. But they could be frank and yet still maintain a positive tone to the conversation.

So I think I’ll stop there and then take questions from all of you. Yes?

Ei Ei Toe Lwin (Myanmar Times): I’m Ei Ei Toe Lwin from Myanmar and I’m working for the Myanmar Times English Newspaper. I would to ask question based on the statement of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers. In this context, so ASEAN as a group is going to support the Myanmar government to address the Rakhine issue, especially to support and provide assistance without discrimination. So I would like to raise a question, is there any other initiative or initiatives that ASEAN as a group have for Myanmar.

Minister: Well, thank you for the question. I should have talked about Rakhine State as well, because in fact that was discussed. Minister Kyaw Tin gave a full update and briefing to all the ministers present, both within ASEAN and as well as the ARF, and you know the ARF is a very large group, 27 countries represented. It is a complicated problem. It is a long-term problem, it’s been going on for a long time and ultimately it needs a political solution. And the political solution actually has to be constructed domestically within Myanmar itself. So, we noted that the Myanmar government takes responsibility for this and acknowledges that it has to find a way to bring peace, stability, and development to all the communities who are currently living in Rakhine State in time to come.

The second point is that everyone knows there is a humanitarian disaster. You’ve got hundreds of thousands of refugees who are now on the Bangladeshi side of the border. Everyone welcomed the agreement between Myanmar and Bangladesh which is supposed to provide for a safe, dignified, voluntary repatriation of refugees. But Myanmar also quite frankly told us that so far, there has been no repatriation yet, despite the fact that this agreement was signed in November. Myanmar also updated us that they have recently appointed a new, not sure what it is, a committee or council of inquiry, which is chaired by a very senior lady Filipino diplomat who has a very strong track record in human rights, and who I think previously served in AICHR, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. I’m talking about Ambassador Manalo. So these were new updates that Myanmar provided.

In the meantime, the rest of us committed to continuing to support, especially humanitarian assistance, both Bangladesh and obviously within Rakhine State. And to make sure that this assistance is given on a needs basis, and with no discrimination for all communities, because you know, you can have inquiries, you can have negotiations, you can have talks, but in the meantime there are people, real people who are suffering and need assistance.

So the ASEAN humanitarian assistance centre has been activated, and has been engaged with the Red Cross in Myanmar to deliver this assistance. So you know, we’ll have to wait and see. It’s a difficult, it’s a tragic problem, but it doesn't get solved overnight; it will not get solved overnight. So that was the discussions that took place about Rakhine State during the meeting last week.

Sao Phal Niseiy (Thmey Thmey): Thank you Doctor, for spending your work time to talk to reporters today. I want to focus on post Trump-Kim Summit and also one other issue. Regarding Trump-Kim Summit, so what is Singapore doing to assist the US and the North Koreans, in order to realise what their plan is, especially to denuclearisation and also to end the Korean War?

And another issue is that recently the three countries, namely the US and also Japan and Australia also announced the new fund for infrastructure development of Asia-Pacific but some people might see it as an attempt to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. So can I know, which is alternative or it is an attempt to compare to China. Thank you Minister.

Minister: Well, on the Trump-Kim Summit, we were just the hosts; we’re not the negotiators, we’re not the facilitators, we’re just the hosts and we were honoured that they trusted us enough, felt safe enough to have this unprecedented meeting in Singapore on June the 12^th. Now having said that, that meeting is a very important first step, but I think it’s a first step in a very long journey. And as you would have noted from reports, since then, Mike Pompeo was in Pyongyang two weeks ago, and there are still fundamental differences in the position.

My own view is that the key missing ingredient is a lack of strategic trust between the two sides. And the other point is that although it is primarily between the US and DPRK, do not forget that the ROK, China and then even slightly further afield, Russia and Japan, are looking at this with great anxiety. So it is another very complicated area.

We are glad that, last week again, Mike Pompeo was here, the Foreign Minister from ROK was here, the Foreign Minister of DPRK, in fact, he is still here. I think they all had their own informal meetings, because we’re all together in the same room but I am not privy to what they discussed or did not discuss. So again, this is another area where, I think you need to build trust and confidence and my own view is the more people meet and get a chance to discuss and sometimes informal discussions are even more important than formal negotiations. So, let’s hope for the best. But I don't want to be sanguine and assume that everything will progress well. In fact, there’s still many things that can go wrong.

In the meantime, all of us still have to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions; I’ve also explained that very politely to my colleague from DPRK, they understand that. So it’s not that we’re being unfriendly, in fact we try to be open to everyone but we have to comply with all the sanctions that have been contained in the United Nations Security Council resolutions. So let’s wait and see.

Your other question was about additional funds. Well let me look at it this way. There are many people coming with all kinds of acronyms. Belt and Road, FOIP, Quality Infrastructure. There are many acronyms. I look at it from an ASEAN-centric point of view. So my first question is, within ASEAN, do we need more infrastructure? The answer is yes. Do we need more funding for infrastructure? Yes. Do we need more connectivity? Yes. Do we need to have more partnerships with external parties, the answer is yes. So my attitude to all these acronyms, programmes is, yes you’re all welcome. But having said that, I’ve also told external partners that as long as these programmes focus on enhancing the capacity, infrastructure, development and ultimately create jobs for ASEAN citizens, that’s great. What we don’t want to do is to be forced into false choices that is either this or that – mutually exclusive choices. We don’t accept that. It is an exclusive lock-in. So that is a very important qualification. But based on the conversations last week, I think people accept that whatever is proposed must still respect ASEAN centrality. It must ultimately enhance the infrastructure capacity and the livelihoods of ASEAN citizens and we don’t want to be forced to make mutually exclusive choices. So I view all this positively. And frankly if there is a little bit of competition to invest in ASEAN, it’s not a bad thing right? As long as it is not a negative competition and we are not forced into making invidious choices.

Nguyen Thanh Tung (Vietnam Investment Review): Just one question. Right now, let’s discuss the ASEAN Smart Cities Network. In Vietnam we have all three cities. So in your opinion what is the biggest benefit for Vietnam when it engages in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network? Thank you.

Minister: Thank you. Let me first come back a bit, and explain a little bit about the concept behind the Smart Cities Network. The proposal for the Smart Cities Network is based on this recognition that there is a digital revolution transforming the way we live, work, play, manufacture, distribute, logistics, the way economies are going to be. There is a revolution going on. Our view is that ASEAN needs to quickly transform and be ready for this digital revolution. The concept of the smart city network is to create a platform – initially we have 26 cities – to exchange ideas, exchange action plans, share successes. Equally important, share mistakes so that we don’t repeat those mistakes. And by creating that platform, a common platform where all these ideas and action plans can share, it also attracts external partners and private sector to come in and invest in these actions plans. So I don’t know whether if you were there last week. I think we tried to put it on the website, so all the action plans for all the 26 cities are available interactively on a digital platform. And so far there have been at least five or more MOUs and various agreements signed with the private sector and the external parties who want to engage in some or all of these action plans. So that’s the first thing.

The other thing is the concept behind this. And this is something which I said during my speech, I think last month, when we had our inaugural meeting of the smart cities network, was that I don’t believe we will have a single monolithic system that’s imposed on all ASEAN cities. But rather, our concept is that there will be multiple systems that will be able to interoperate. So that we get the benefits of integrating Asia, but without putting everyone into a uniform straitjacket. And the reason this is important, that interoperability is important, is because it recognises the great diversity across ASEAN. So I’ll give you an example. I don’t see a single e-payment system in ASEAN, but I do want the individual e-payment systems in all our different countries to be able to interoperate. So for instance, I want to buy something in Thailand or in Vietnam. The transaction fee for cross-border, the forex rates, should be as low as possible for me as a consumer and, equally important, the manufacturer or the farmer or the craftsman in the smallest village in ASEAN should be able to access the global market, should be able to do so with very low transaction costs. So just to give you an idea of what it means in real life. At the same time, between governments, we’re talking about Single Window, customs filings, trade facilitation and all that. We’re looking at signing an agreement on e-commerce. All this, again, is to make it easier for both our local producers and exporters from ASEAN, as well as people who are from outside ASEAN who are trying to trade, trying to send their goods and services into ASEAN – to facilitate that, to smoothen it. So that’s quite a lot of work that we need to do.

And then, of course, the other side of that coin is cyber-security. Because as trade and finance and payment systems go online, it becomes a very juicy target for cyber-criminals and even for very sophisticated cyber-attacks to be launched. So that’s why in Singapore this year we had the Smart Nation Innovations Week, then later on I think in October we’re having a cyber-security conference, ministerial cyber-security conference. So we also have to work on the other side of the coin. For Vietnam specifically, your key advantage is, I don’t know whether you realise, but there are very large numbers of very smart Vietnamese programmers and IT professionals, and I believe the digital revolution is a big opportunity for Vietnamese companies, and especially young Vietnamese who are skilled programmers. I know that from experience.

Ei Shwe Zin (The Irrawaddy): I have a few questions. I’m from Myanmar too, working at Irrawaddy news. I want to recount about the cyber-security issues, that Lee Hsien Loong, ASEAN now focuses on more cyber-security. What percentage or what kind of cyber-security relation with Myanmar government are Singapore or the ASEAN have been dealing with?

Minister: Well like I said, at the moment everyone is just trying to catch up with the situation. That’s why we’re having these conferences. It’s education, sharing experience, sharing practices. I mean like for instance, even for Singapore, you’re aware we just had a major cyber-security incident involving a large public health provider. So at this stage, now it’s still exchange of information, exchange of experience, rather than a formal tie-up. But I’m sure our operational, our security, our intelligence agencies are also quietly working behind the scenes.

Ei Shwe Zin (The Irrawaddy): Second question. About the humanitarian support to Rakhine State and to Myanmar, like currently we are facing the flood problem and the landslide problem. What exactly is that humanitarian support are provided, in terms of like in general or just like…?

Minister: It’s through the ASEAN humanitarian assistance centre, the AHA Centre. It depends on the needs assessment on the ground, whether the people need food, shelter, medication, water, all that, and the Foreign Ministers also committed to increasing the resources for AHA Centre if need be. It’s not only in Myanmar. In Laos we had the collapse of the hydroelectric dam. In fact, the problem still, you know, the Foreign Minister from Laos was telling me it’s not just water now, but dealing with mud, which makes access very difficult. So the AHA Centre is a resource made available. The local governments decide what they need, and I think clearly there’s a need to increase the resources for the AHA Centre.

Ei Shwe Zin (The Irrawaddy): So just one more question. You have met our State Counsellor and your foreign affairs counterpart Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

Minister: Yes, many times.

Ei Shwe Zin (The Irrawaddy): Many times in the last three years.

Minister: Yes.

Ei Shwe Zin (The Irrawaddy): I would like to know whether you and her… because many people, especially the international community, criticise her dealing with the peace process in Myanmar or the Rakhine issue in the region. So, you know her personally, but…

Minister: Yes.

Ei Shwe Zin (The Irrawaddy): And is like, many people has been criticising, she has not been doing the right thing, she is not capable of doing things. What do you take… what do you think about that?

Minister: I think she’s facing enormous challenges. The process of democracy in Myanmar is still ongoing. Second, the economic development for Myanmar is still very urgent, and I think the people are becoming impatient, they want to see the fruits of economic development, and they want to see it soon. Thirdly, Myanmar continues to have many historical, ethnic problems, including armed insurgencies. It’s not just Rakhine State. In many of the border areas. State Counsellor has been trying to convene, the peace process, the Panglong…

Ei Shwe Zin (The Irrawaddy): The Panglong peace process

Minister: Yes. She’s been trying very hard, but you know, you’re trying to overcome probably a century of distrust and armed insurgency. She’s facing many, many challenges, so you just think about it, you got to have democracy, the transition to democracy, you’ve got to upgrade your economy, and then you have to deal with all these long, historical challenges. That’s why we believe the Myanmar government, and in particular, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, deserves our support. And ASEAN stands ready to help. It’s very easy to criticise, but to actually solve problems, and to actually develop the economy, and to make peace, is a very difficult challenge. I support her, and her programme, and by extension, I try to understand the challenges that Myanmar is going through, and try to be as supportive as we can. But having said that, again, I just want to emphasise, in the end the responsibility lies with the leadership within Myanmar. That’s where the accountability and responsibility is. And outsiders must never try to force a solution externally. It doesn’t work. It won’t work.

Tarra Quismundo (ABS-CBN): Hi, I’m Tarra from ABS-CBN. Sir, I would just like to know about RCEP. If you have a timeline for it, how far along are we?

Minister: Well what we have said, so far, is that we hope it will be substantially completed by the end of the year. There’s another meeting, later this month involving the trade and economic ministers.

Tarra Quismundo (ABS-CBN): What do you think are the benefits that the everyday people from the ASEAN will feel once that is in place?

Minister: For most of ASEAN, we are… our economies are still developing. We still need access to markets. We still need to attract investments, in order to create jobs. And therefore, we still need a global rules-based multilateral system. The reason why I keep talking about a rules-based multilateral system is because our bargaining position, our negotiating position, is stronger in such a system. Rather than just a purely bilateral, where the big will bully the small, or the rich will bully the less developed countries. That’s why we believe in WTO, multilateral institutions and processes, why we believe in a rules-based approach, and why we continue to believe that free trade, properly negotiated and managed, is still the best formula for creating jobs and increasing the livelihood for our people, for individual citizens.

Tarra Quismundo (ABS-CBN): So just a follow-up on that: What’s your prospects about the negotiations towards concluding the RCEP?

Minister: I think they are very difficult. I said last week they are very difficult because it’s such a big agreement. With ASEAN itself we have 630 million people. In China we have 1.4 billion. India within the next few years is going to overtake China in terms of its population, yet India and China do not have a bilateral free-trade agreement. So if they agree to the RCEP, they are indirectly connecting two huge economies who don’t yet have a bilateral free-trade agreement. Do you know what I mean? China has an agreement with ASEAN, India has an agreement with ASEAN, but they don’t have a direct agreement… putting this together, I’m just putting this as an example for why it is so complicated, so don’t underestimate the complexities involved. But on the other hand, if we do succeed, it is a very big deal.

Tarra Quismundo (ABS-CBN): Sir, my other question is about the South China Sea. Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China spoke here and said that the Chinese build-up in the waters is all about defence, self-defence from non-regional actors. So I’m just wondering what Singapore’s approach will be during this whole stint of the ASEAN in addressing the South China Sea.

Minister: Well, first thing is that we are not a claimant state. So fortunately, we are not party to that dispute, but having said that, even non-claimant states are dependent on peace and stability, freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea. More than US$5 trillion worth of trade flows through the South China Sea. And even if you don’t have a conflict, even if there is no conflict but there is increased tension, immediately your shipping costs, your insurance premiums will go up. It has a very real economic impact on us, on everyone, even if there are no bullets fired, just tension alone has a real price to pay. So that’s the first consideration, peace and stability, so you don’t mess up trade and mess up our economy.

Secondly, we talk about ASEAN unity and centrality, so even though Vietnam is a claimant state, Singapore is not a claimant state, we still think ASEAN should remain united when we negotiate the COC, we are negotiating with ASEAN and China.

The third thing is, I’ve explained just now why, especially as a small state, we have to believe in international law, and especially UNCLOS, which sets out the law of the sea, and that countries do not use force or even resort to the threat of the use of force in order to resolve disputes, that there are peaceful ways of resolving disputes in keeping with international law. So those are our considerations, just three: peace and stability, ASEAN unity, and the sanctity of international law. If you ask every single country, they have their own narrative for why they do what they do. My attitude is, you know, whatever you do and however you explain it, please bear in mind that I think all of us need to maintain peace and stability for our prosperity. We want to maintain ASEAN unity and centrality, and we want to have a peaceful resolution of disputes, and I say this whilst recognising that when sovereignty is concerned, you can argue for many lifetimes, don’t expect quick solutions. But I believe it is possible to lower tension, even though the underlying dispute is not fully settled. That, I believe is the role of diplomacy.

Ike Agestu (CNN Indonesia): Mr Minister, I am Ike from CNN Indonesia. I would like to ask you about the process of ASEAN Extradition Treaty.

Minister: What we have negotiated so far is a Model ASEAN Extradition Treaty, which as I said the word ‘model’ means it then provides a basis for us to go further, so I would say this is still a work in progress.

Ike Agestu (CNN Indonesia): So there is still a long way to go?

Minister: It is being done now at the legal, technical level. I don’t have a date to give you as to when they will finish their work but progress has been made. But you can’t make an announcement yet on when it will be complete.

Ike Agestu (CNN Indonesia): We don’t have a timeline yet?

Minister: No, I don’t have a timeline but we can report progress under what we call the Model AET.

Ike Agestu (CNN Indonesia): Minister, my next question is about the human rights issues actually in ASEAN countries, including Myanmar, but also in other places. As Chairman of ASEAN this year, how do you see the view that ASEAN seems reluctant to address the issue of human rights on a political level, not the humanitarian aid? Of course we need humanitarian aid but that won’t solve the problem, right? How do you see that?

Minister: Well, I think the first point I will make is that human rights is an important pillar for ASEAN, otherwise we wouldn’t have the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. So first thing, it is important.

The second point I will make, however, is that we do believe that every country has to be responsible for promoting and protecting human rights in a way that is consistent with your country, which means, back to the ASEAN principle. Singapore does not lecture Indonesia or Myanmar on how you protect and promote human rights because your society is very different from ours. So this respect for diversity and also maintaining responsibility and accountability on that government itself is a very important principle for us.

So, you’re right, we don’t issue statements condemning each other because you don’t do it my way, but it doesn’t mean it’s not important and it doesn’t mean our eyes are closed to humanitarian disasters or injustices which occur. So we have to get the balance right.

Again, my attitude to all this is that in the midst of great diversity, we want to make steady progress and if we look now compared to say, five, ten years ago, I think there’s been improvements. But it doesn’t mean everyone has the same system. You know just now for IT technology, I said that there is no single, monolithic system that is imposed from above. My own view is that the similar situation exists for human rights.

I’ll give you an example. Some of us have the death penalty, some don’t. It is not my job to go and argue whether you should or should not have the death penalty but I will uphold the principle that every country is responsible for their own judicial, legal systems and it has to have the support of their own people, and the leaders are accountable for the results. So I take that position without imposing Singapore’s views on anyone else.

Similarly, even on family law, we’re quite different. In Singapore, we have Sharia Law. Sometimes you go to CEDAW, they will say, “No no no, you’re all very bad. You allow polygamy.” We’ll say, “Excuse me, we have Sharia Law and we have a proper system for regulating relations within families”, and so on. I’m not imposing my system on you but I expect you to respect our diversity.

So, we have to have this kind of ‘live and let live’ even for human rights. I think in the end, we are moving towards a more transparent world. Outcomes are evident and leaders will be held accountable. I think moving on that front is more effective.

Moderator: Right, we’re a bit pressed for time. I know Maslina has a question then Xiao Ren has a question and we’ll take those in turn.

Maslina Mohamad Ali (Borneo Bulletin Brunei): ASEAN has been celebrating 50 years…

Minister: Actually this year it’s 51, I think.

Maslina Mohamad Ali (Borneo Bulletin Brunei): What’s your take on the years to come and how do you see the contributions made by the smaller nations like Brunei in the context of ASEAN?

Minister: Well, I always imagine the scene in 1967 when the five foreign ministers met in Bangkok and signed the Bangkok Declaration. If you stop to think about 1967, there were major quarrels amongst the five countries then. 1967 was just two years after Malaysia “divorced” Singapore. Before that, there was a Konfrontasi, between Indonesia opposing the formation of Malaysia. In 1965, there was a bomb in Orchard Road’s MacDonald House. The two Indonesian marines were on trial for murder, I think it was around 1967, and they were executed in 1968. So that’s a real life case between Indonesia and Singapore in 1967. In 1967, you know the issue of Sabah – that was a real territorial dispute between Philippines and Malaysia. Although Brunei was not yet part of ASEAN, if you go back to 1967, there were many things happening in Brunei. You will know that 1967 was a very important year. So the point I’m making is that I always find it amazing that the five of them made this leap of faith to create ASEAN, despite some very fundamental differences amongst the five. I find that amazing. And I find that amazing because you see, even today, when we fast forward to today, yes we have issues between Singapore-Malaysia, Malaysia-Indonesia. But actually in my mind, none of those issues of today are exactly as hot as they were in 1967. I’m not trying to trivialise it, but you think about the circumstances then. So if our founding leaders were prepared to overcome major fights because they realised the importance of creating ASEAN, we should humbly recognise that actually we’ve made enormous progress since then.

What do I mean by enormous progress? For the founding members of ASEAN, we’ve never fought a war with each other. And actually that includes Brunei. There was the Vietnamese-Cambodian conflict in 1979, but that was before they joined ASEAN. It doesn’t mean we don’t have territorial disputes. We still do, but I think just making sure there’s peace in Southeast Asia, and that we resolve our differences – whether it’s through the ICJ or through arbitration – I think it’s a wonderful thing. Because over 50 years it has created this habit that yes, there’s a problem, we’ll try to talk about it, if we talk about it and we still can’t solve it, we will look for a legal route – whether that’s arbitration or ICJ – to solve it. That is very valuable. My dream is that we must hopefully reach a stage where war is unthinkable in Southeast Asia. Unthinkable. That will be one big, big harvest.

The second thing is to look at our economies over the last 51 years. Every one of us has grown. Yes, there may be differences, but there’s no question about the direction of travel. And our progress is better together than separately. So much of what we do for free trade – customs, Single Window for trade declarations, e-commerce – is about enhancing our negotiating position, strengthening our voice, and protecting our national interests because we band together. That’s why they said you know, we have to hang together or we’ll hang separately. By hanging together we’re stronger. So if you just look at peace, economy, and then our voice on stage, we are in a much, much stronger position. It’s like last week when I was thinking, I looked around the room and I counted, there are actually 30 countries who are represented. There were 23 at the Foreign Ministers level – including the Secretary of State of the US, the State Councilor of China, and of course, Australia, New Zealand… They all come here. If ASEAN was irrelevant and disunited, I don’t think they would bother. For 30 countries to get together, in the UN there are about 200, for 30 to get together every year in ASEAN, I think it’s not bad. It means people find ASEAN relevant and useful to engage and that ASEAN is a platform where they all find that they can have frank conversations but constructive conversations. So I am very grateful to the founding leaders who overcame such fundamental differences together, and I always therefore keep it in perspective – whatever we argue about today actually is less than what they had to deal with in 1967.

Moderator: Xiao Ren has the last question.

Tan Xiao Ren (Sin Chew Daily): As you know there is a new government in Malaysia and a new Prime Minister…

Minister: New, but familiar.

Tan Xiao Ren (Sin Chew Daily): …who has revived his muscular foreign policy [from] when he take charge in the 90s, including the HSR project and the water supply issue with Singapore, and some people believe the two countries’ relations will see more tensions compared with Najib. How do you look at this?

Minister: Well, you know just now I told you, Singapore and Malaysia is a couple that has “divorced”. We’ve divorced but we’re still in the same bedroom. The relationship will always fluctuate. But the bottom line is no matter how things go up and down, you know you cannot separate. We’re always bound together, by geography, by economy, by blood – we all have relatives on both sides – and by history. We have to engage with the elected government of the day, whether it is a change of government in Malaysia or any other country. We just have to engage with the elected government of the day. There will be different styles, different tone, different volume, but I think our habits of understanding that we are permanent neighbours and that we are all members of ASEAN, and that our fates are intertwined, and that we are better by working together rather than squabbling with one another. And even if we have a difference, the key thing about the Malaysia-Singapore relationship is that both sides have always been very, very careful. We fulfil all of our agreements, and where we have differences we go to arbitration or we go to the ICJ, we settle it, win or lose the relationship continues. I think the way we have conducted our relationships over the past 53 years since our independence, I think it is actually a model of how two states can resolve differences peacefully, can grow up and mature and seek a brighter future together. So, yes, there are issues but there’s still far more that locks us together than divides us. And as I said, the important thing to examine, you know, is whether both sides, for 53 years, have always complied with agreements and resolved things peacefully through, in a sense, diplomatic and legal processes. I see us actually as a very good example. So don’t worry, we’ll be alright.

Tan Xiao Ren (Sin Chew Daily): I think Singapore will be having elections coming soon?

Minister: Not so soon. There are at least two more years.

Tan Xiao Ren (Sin Chew Daily): What inspiration would Singapore draw through the recent Malaysian elections?

Minister: No, I think that’s the wrong way of looking at it. Politics is the sovereign right of the people to decide at the local level. And every country is unique; our circumstances are quite different. And, both of us are democracies. The people will express their preferences and their will appropriately. You have to trust your people. I don’t see a linkage between the two. At the end of the day it’s about leadership, it’s about accountability, it’s about results, that’s what people will judge us by.

.     .     .     .     .