State of Singapore's Relations with China in View of Seizure of Terrex Vehicles

As the Minister for Defence has already addressed the specific issue of the SAF's Terrex vehicles, I will focus my reply on the second and third part of the Member's question.

The Singapore-China relationship is a long-standing, multifaceted and mutually beneficial one. Since 2013, Singapore has been China's largest foreign investor and China has been Singapore's largest trading partner. Our top leaders meet regularly and there is a constant stream of official visits at all levels from both sides. When Prime Minister Lee met Chinese President Xi Jinping in September last year on the sidelines of the G20 Leaders' Summit in Hangzhou, for which Singapore was invited by China, both our leaders agreed to strengthen our mutually beneficial relationship based on the principles of mutual respect and mutual understanding. And over the years, we have built up a significant reservoir of trust and respect with our Chinese partners and stakeholders.

In international relations, it is natural for countries to want other parties to act entirely in line with their own national interests. As a small state, Singapore will, from time to time, encounter such expectations from other countries, and many of these other countries will be much bigger than Singapore. This is realpolitik. However − and this is important − it is important for us to conduct our foreign policy as a sovereign, independent nation, and not be seen as acting at the behest of any other country. This is essential for our international credibility, standing, relevance and usefulness to our partners and friends.

We must also maintain our emphasis on upholding international law and scrupulously respecting agreements which have been entered into with other countries. This attitude to international law and scrupulously respecting agreements is basic to the rules-based international order that benefits all countries and is especially crucial for our long-term survival and independence as a small state.

Our relations with China, and our interactions with Hong Kong and Taiwan are based strictly on our "One China" policy. We have consistently abided by this policy and the understandings reached when we established diplomatic relations with China in 1990, and we will continue to do so.

We are not a party to the disputes in the South China Sea. Our position on the South China Sea has been articulated on many occasions, including by our Prime Minister, and our position reflects Singapore's need for peace and stability in our region, for freedom of navigation and overflight in major trade routes, and respect for international law.

Singapore and the Chinese leaders and officials have continued to interact and we cooperate in many areas of mutual interest. Just last year alone, I made four working trips to China. We remain committed to the three government-to-government projects, namely, the Suzhou Industrial Park, the Tianjin Eco-city and the Chongqing Connectivity Initiative. We continue our engagement with our Chinese partners at multiple levels. We are also engaging China in new areas, such as the Belt and Road initiative, and we are working together to conclude negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. This partnership encompasses ASEAN, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

We welcome China's growing engagement of our region as this creates new opportunities for mutual growth and prosperity. Singapore's relations with China and our relations with other major powers should not be seen as a zero-sum game. We believe in an interdependence characterised by an open, inclusive regional architecture that promotes collaboration and win-win outcomes. If I were to be allowed to paraphrase President Xi, ideally, we should all be part of a common circle of friends.

I thank the Minister for his explanation. Firstly, I think that it is good that the Minister has shared the ongoing work that we are doing with China to enhance growth and prosperity among our countries. But I think that for those who have followed the Chinese media, especially the state-linked media, they have also noted the discrepancy in what the government is doing and saying at the same time, versus what the media is also saying about Singapore and portraying Singapore to be. So, how do we handle this bi-dimensional approach that China is taking on its relationship with Singapore?

Secondly, based on feedback from the industry as well as clan associations, we have also noticed that some have complained or fed back that market access has been restricted of late. So, is that true? And is there any direct impact from our strained relations on market access of late?

Lastly, back to the Terrex comment earlier on, I know the Defence Minister covered this. Given that MINDEF has mainly worked with the Hong Kong SAR government, and given our relations with China, and we know that there is a certain amount of influence that China has over Hong Kong, have we opened dialogue with the Chinese government to see whether we could mediate on this at the state level, between Singapore and China?

I thank the Member for the three relevant supplementary questions. First, on the discourse which you hear in the media, we live in a new media age. The tone of the discourse which you hear on private social media like WhatsApp versus public social media like Facebook, versus even the new media platforms of established government organisations or even state-owned enterprises, will differ in tone and will differ in the positions that are taken.

What I will say, on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), is that I do not believe in megaphone diplomacy. I do not believe in engaging in a whole lot of invective and in conducting affairs in a way which generates more heat than light.

So, it is important that we maintain communications and engagement at the top level, similarly at the functional level, and also to continue interactions, businesses and people-to-people level. That relates to the Member's second question.

As far as I know, so far at this point in time, there has not been any formal restrictions on market access of Singaporean parties, whether commercial, clan associations or the rest. In fact, I want to encourage that these interactions on the business, commercial, cultural, educational and people-to-people levels should continue. We should insulate these from issues that will come up from time to time. However, if any association or any company has specific concerns, they can always approach me or the Ministry.

The final supplementary question on whether we have opened dialogue with China, the short answer is no, we have not. Let me explain. As far as I am concerned, and I have stated this before, we expect service providers providing services to the Government to comply with all local regulations. In this specific case, I expect APL to have complied with the local regulations.

The other thing that we expect is that the law will take its course. So, in this specific case, we have been informed, in fact, we have been assured by Hong Kong that investigations are ongoing. They need more time. But the important point that it will be handled in accordance with their law is a very important assurance, and one that we welcome because it is best that this matter be handled through the proper legal process. There is no need to politicise it. There is no need to engage in megaphone diplomacy. So, let us have some patience and give this matter time to resolve through an appropriate legal or judicial process.

Madam, the Minister for Foreign Affairs just said that with respect to this Terrex incident, he expects the law to take its course. Would he agree that if the law is, in fact, being respected, the incident would not have happened in the first place?

The second supplementary question: I would like to ask the Minister what is his interpretation and assessment of a rising China and her behaviour, in relation to the detention of the Terrex vehicles.

Thirdly, I would like to ask the Minister: has China's progress economically and militarily in becoming a superpower made her arrogant and aggressive and to become a big bully?

I thank Mr Low for the questions. On the first question, I do not want to speculate. Let the investigations be complete and let us see what conclusions Hong Kong arrives at. This is for the question on whether or not APL complied with the regulations that they were supposed to abide by. I do not want to speculate or prejudge the issue.

The second and third questions are really a broader issue, which is, that as China rises, as China gains both economic and military strength, what implications have that on us and the way they conduct international affairs and, indeed, on their relationships with the rest of the world?

The first point I want to make is that Singapore has been a long-term, reliable and consistent friend of China. And I say this not in a facetious way, but I say this because we believe that a rising China, a strong China, one that is deeply engaged with the rest of the world and economically integrated is one that brings enormous benefits. If we look at it from the historical point of view, never before in history have hundreds of millions of people been raised from abject poverty into an opportunity now where they can enjoy the prospect of being in the middle class and consuming at the middle class. This is an enormous achievement of China in the last 70 years.

Secondly, this emergence of China as both a manufacturing, service and consumption hub provides enormous opportunities to the rest of the world. If we look at the way Southeast Asia and even Singapore have progressed over the last 70 years since the end of the Second World War, there were several critical ingredients to this. One is that we had peace and stability. Two, we had international law. Three, we have had reasonably free trade. These have been ingredients for us all to achieve progress and prosperity without war and conflict. So, looked against this light, we must welcome a rising China, a stronger China, an economically more integrated China. And we have to focus on the opportunities whilst at the same time recognising that there will be issues to resolve from time to time.

This is where we have to learn to take things in our stride. We are a tiny city-state. We are a multiracial society and we are located in the centre of Southeast Asia. These circumstances are permanent. What this means ‒ and I said it earlier ‒ is that, from time to time, other countries, big countries, will place expectations, quite frankly, sometimes, they will put pressure on us because they want us to completely align ourselves with their interests. This is where we, sometimes, from time to time, have to courteously, respectfully, differ and remind everyone, big or small, that please let Singapore be Singapore. We may be small but we are an independent, sovereign nation. We have our own permanent interests. We want to maintain our independence and to have as many friends as possible. We cannot be at the beck and call, or act at the behest of any single superpower. Let us be ourselves. And if that means, from time to time, I have to have a difference with you, so be it. But I am not against you; I am completely in support of your rise.

As to our attitude to international law, because of our circumstances and our Independence, the circumstances of our existence in the heart of Southeast Asia, international law and adherence to agreements are absolutely crucial to us. So, again, this is not personal. This is a matter of the way Singapore got its Independence and the way Singapore will continue to remain an independent, viable nation.

Similarly, for free trade. Whether it is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) or any other free trade agreement, the point is this: trade represents three times our gross domestic product. This is a ratio which I think no other country has. And because of that, for us, trade is not a negotiating point; it is not a debating point. Trade is our lifeblood. So, when we go round the world saying, "Look, we want to lower the barriers for trade because we believe this is a formula that has generated enormous opportunities and wealth for so many of us", that does not mean that free trade is an unalloyed good. You have to be aware that for each nation that engages in this negotiation, you also have to ensure that you protect the vulnerable groups in our society. Members of the House will also appreciate, in fact, that that is what we have been doing for the last 10 years.

So, we are trying to find that happy balance ‒ that happy balance between free trade and social security, between expanding opportunities and making sure no one gets left behind, between sometimes having to stand up to the big powers to tell them that we will have to have a polite disagreement, but we are still for you and we are not against you. Do not force us to make invidious choices.

So, that is really the strategic backdrop to the decisions that we make, the actions and the words we put. I hope Members in this House and, in fact, I hope all Singaporeans will, therefore, understand. Take this in our stride, remain calm, understand the big picture, do not panic. Most important, do not be divided. Mr Low Thia Khiang, I am glad to say ‒ and I hope Mr Low will agree with me ‒ that this is an issue on which the Workers' Party, in fact, hopefully, all Members of this House, whether from the Opposition, Non-Constituency Members of Parliament or Nominated Members of Parliament, stand with the Government, that this is one of those occasions for us to learn the right lessons, to stand together because, ultimately, foreign policy begins at home. Thank you. [Applause.]

Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for his clarification. I would also like to say that I agree with his assertion of our country's sovereignty.

I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on the last point in answer to the specific third question, which was whether or not we had communicated with China in relation to the seizure of the vehicles. I do understand the Minister's point. But in the light of the comments made by China after the reports of the seizure and particularly comments that we should respect the One China policy and that they have communicated with us and that they have also requested that we abide by Hong Kong's laws, what are the grounds that the Ministry has to assume that China has not influenced Hong Kong's decision to detain the vehicles or in the decision-making process? Could the Minister share that with us and also. If that is the case, then why does the Minister consider those assumptions to be reasonable?

When I first got to MFA, the first lesson the diplomats told me was "assume nothing". So, I do not want to make any assumptions or presumptions. But having said that, I do not want to engage in conspiracy theories either. So, I want to go on face value. Hong Kong has told us they are conducting investigations. They told us that they will handle this in accordance with their laws. Both the Minister for Defence and I stand before you, and I am sure the message will be conveyed to them that we welcome this position, that Hong Kong will handle this according to its laws. I should add that China also has publicly stated that this will be handled according to Hong Kong SAR's laws. So, this is the position which we welcome, and we await a resolution of this matter on that basis.

The Member has raised the other important point, which is on our One China policy. Again, because this is so important, I hope Members will bear with me if I repeat word-for-word what I said earlier. Our relations with China and our interactions with Hong Kong and Taiwan are based strictly on our One China policy. We have consistently abided by this policy and the understandings reached when we established diplomatic relations with China in 1990. This is a long-standing position. We have always abided by it and I am standing here to state that we will continue to do so.

Some of the nuances of what I have said here may not be immediately obvious to everyone listening to this. But let me assure Members that the senior leadership in China, who are au fait with this issue, will understand exactly what I am referring to. So, I beg the indulgence of this House ‒ let us avoid politicising this and let us avoid megaphone diplomacy. Let us give this incident every opportunity to resolve itself in, I hope, an appropriate and sensible way. Thank you.