Singaporeans must rise as one to meet global challenges on the road ahead: Vivian Balakrishnan
In his remarks on Jan 24 at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs Year Opener, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan spoke about the global challenges ahead and how the country needs to respond. Here is an excerpt from his speech:
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan spoke about the global challenges ahead at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs Year Opener.
PHOTO: MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Vivian Balakrishnan
Follow topic:
2025 is a significant year. For Singapore, it is SG60.
The first set has to do with Singapore – how far have we come in 60 years? What were the factors – endogenous and exogenous – that brought us here, in this shape?
The second set of questions – what does the current state of the world, in particular the volatility, the turmoil, the news headlines, portend for Singapore?
The third set – how should we respond? What does the future hold for us? And what would be a sensible response to this unfolding future?
How far has Singapore come?
In 1972, Singapore’s first foreign minister, Mr S. Rajaratnam, delivered a speech, which is well worth reading even today. This speech outlined his vision – and he coined the term – a “global city”. He argued that because Singapore was so small, with no hinterland or natural resources, Singapore had to become a “world-embracing city”.
Mr Rajaratnam was a wordsmith. He created a word which I had never seen before – “ecumenopolis”. This concept of going and leaping beyond our immediate limitations, boundaries and neighbourhood was in fact ahead of its time, but one which has served us very well. In other words, Singapore embarked on hyper-connected globalisation before it became conventional wisdom, before it became the standard formula for rising cities and countries throughout Asia.
In the years immediately following our independence, the US presence in our region was key to stopping the march of communism. At that time there was the theory of falling dominoes.
The US presence also encouraged both growth and trade, and investment. That’s why it is no accident that even today, the US is the largest source of foreign direct investment in Singapore by a long way.
The other “turbocharger” for our success was that in the 1970s, China under Deng Xiaoping embarked on reform and opening up. Therefore, Singapore had the best of both worlds – Pax Americana, and the reform and opening up of China.
Singapore thrived in such a conducive world. In 1965, Singapore’s GDP was US$1 billion. Last year, our GDP was just over US$500 billion.
Our trade-to-GDP ratio regularly hovers around 300 per cent – a ratio which is off the scale for any other country or city, meaning that trade is the lifeblood of our economy. It’s not just an ideological point or a negotiating point. It is our lifeblood.
But the true success of a country is not just GDP growth, not just the economy, but also the strength of our social fabric.
In Singapore, for the last six decades, we have built a unique cohesive Singaporean identity, forged from a very diverse, multiracial, multilingual and multi-religious society. It is an achievement not to be taken for granted. We have got some of the world’s best healthcare, education, housing, savings and retirement schemes.
With the recent Forward Singapore exercise,
The current state of the world
Let us fast forward to today, because many of the factors – the liberal world order, the global supply chains, the growth of multinationals, peace in our region, and a stable global balance of power – a lot of these prerequisites for our past success, are now severely eroded. The world is now at an inflection point.
After the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world entered a unipolar moment. And again, you can see how we were optimally poised for the opportunities that resulted. But history does not end, contrary to books published at that time, and the world has not stayed still, and we all know that unipolarity, in fact, is now being replaced by multipolarity.
It is not just about the rise of China, but the emergence of multiple poles, including the European Union, the Middle East, and in due time, South America and Africa.
At the same time as with this shift from unipolarity to multipolarity, we are also witnessing at a domestic political level all over the world, an erosion in trust in domestic political systems and in international institutions.
We are witnessing increasing levels of polarisation, and the bogies of inflation, inequality and immigration loom large. And so the “isms” have returned – nationalism, protectionism. In fact, in 2024, more than 60 countries held elections.
It is very sobering, including for us here, that of these 60 elections, one quarter of those elections resulted in a change in the ruling government. And even in those where the incumbents came back, they witnessed a significant erosion in political support. So many incumbents – including in India, Japan, France and South Africa – lost significant vote share.
Within the G-7, there are new prime ministers in the UK, France, Japan, soon Canada; and there will be elections in Germany in February. Politics everywhere, in fact, is local. It is local citizens who vote, not international cosmopolitans, and we are living in a world in which, at the domestic level, there are deep anxieties about globalisation, multilateralism and free trade.
Another tectonic shift that’s occurring while the geostrategic earthquakes are occurring is that we now have simultaneous, interlocking, mutually synergistic technological revolutions in digital technologies, especially AI, in biotechnology and in sustainable energy.
These are not separate revolutions, but they feed, interlock and empower each of these three revolutions, which obviously are going to present both huge opportunities and significant dangers, if we are not aware and if we do not pay attention to how to deal with threats, to protect the global commons and at the same time to have an equitable distribution of opportunities.
Given the state of the world, given the ongoing dislocations and disruptions, how should we in Singapore respond?
What is a small, hyper-connected, hyper-globalised city-state like Singapore to do in a world that is more suspicious of globalisation and its benefits? How do we deal with the technological revolution while maintaining and forging cohesion and consensus without erasing diversity, while making sure there’s enough centre of gravity in the middle?
These are profound challenges.
How should we respond?
Firstly, for Singapore, we actually have no choice. We need to remain open and inclusive. As far as foreign policy and alignment are concerned, we need to maintain an omni-directional, balanced, and productive and constructive engagement with all powers – big and middle.
In 2015, at the S. Rajaratnam Lecture, then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made a point that our foreign policy, in fact, is actually a balance between realism and idealism. Realism, because we know we have to take the world as it is and not as we hope it will be, but idealism, because we resolutely refuse to surrender to our fate as a small state.
We insist that we still have agency, and we will defend ourselves and advance our interests. Now, words may be easy to articulate. But translating this, defending ourselves and advancing our interests – that is the real challenge.
There are some things that have not changed in 60 years. We are still tiny, with no hinterland. We are still a low-lying city-state – sea levels will rise – and we don’t have a domestic market.
If Singapore was not successful economically, if we were not able to defend what is ours militarily, if we were not united, despite the in-built diversity of our population, no amount of brilliance, erudition or sophistication in negotiation will give us a seat on the global stage.
Unity, success, the ability and willingness to defend and to stand on our own two feet remain absolutely essential, perhaps even more essential going forward.
Singapore must also not allow itself to get into a position where we can be bought or bullied. Therefore, there must be no mistake about our determination to unabashedly pursue and prioritise our long-term enlightened national interests, and that we will defend our sovereignty.
We do not depend on overseas development assistance. We do not expect any foreign troops to shed blood on our behalf. That’s why we have national service; that’s why we spend 3 per cent of our GDP on defence.
But we also seek to make common cause, especially with our immediate neighbourhood. Asean remains a key pillar, both in terms of economic opportunity as well as keeping the peace in our neighbourhood. And we will continue to play a constructive, relevant and salient role on the global stage.
The second point is that we have to continue to reinforce and refine the rules-based international order, even though it is no longer underwritten by a single hegemon, or the current set of hegemons have not yet worked out a modus vivendi to protect the global commons.
For Singapore, Europe, South America, Africa and the Middle East, there are still major parts of the world who depend on the rules-based international order, who will depend upon adherence to international law, behaving within global norms and having peaceful resolutions of dispute. We need to do all this whilst also dealing with the opportunities from artificial intelligence or AI, biotechnology and energy.
My third point is a bit more inward-facing. I have served three prime ministers. I have been up close for two prime ministerial transitions, from Mr Goh Chok Tong to Mr Lee Hsien Loong, from Mr Lee to Mr Lawrence Wong.
Every time there is a transition, there will be a test. We may not know exactly when or in what form, but there will be a test. And we must expect the new leadership team to be probed, to be pushed, to be assessed.
Does the new leadership team have the spine, the courage and the gumption of the past? Does the new leadership have the support of the people?
In the face of these challenges, the leaders and the people have to rise and answer these fundamental questions. We will have to look out for each other. We will have to maintain unity. We will have to strengthen cohesion. We will have to retool, reskill and reboot our economy, and we will have to continue to make common cause.
I come back to SM Lee’s point on realism and idealism. Singapore will stand on our own two feet. We will defend what is ours. We will take a long-term enlightened view. We will make common cause with partners and supporters, and potentially and hopefully an expanding pool of partners.
If we fail to do this, the alternative is a more chaotic, unsafe world on a global stage, and a divided and polarised domestic body politic. We have witnessed this in other parts of the world. We know what to avoid.
This is an exciting time to be alive.
