Shaping Foreign Policy in a Less Predictable World

Mr Speaker, the work of foreign policy has always been a delicate one. It would not be an understatement to say that Singapore is like a small yacht in an open sea. When a sizeable cruise ship or oil tanker passes, we would feel the waves rather acutely. The waves can come in the form of geopolitical tensions, economic instability, technological disruptions and environmental challenges.

Our diplomatic corps had never had it easy in their efforts to further Singapore's interests and, admittedly, things are only getting harder and harder. On one hand, our geographical limitations and natural resource constraints remain much the same as before. Yet, on the other hand, the world has become more volatile and less predictable, especially of late.

Misinformation and ideological echo chambers thrive, amplified by social media, contributing to polarisation of public opinion. Nationalism, populist movements and extremist views take root more easily now more than ever, leading to societal divisions. The nature of contemporary threats, online and offline, tend to have transboundary impact and Singapore is not spared.

The world has not gotten any smaller physically, but it has gotten more tightly knitted with the advent of technology and social media. Therefore, reverberations at a distance are more acutely and easily felt than before, sometimes, almost as if we experience it for ourselves first-hand.

Therefore, I argue, Mr Speaker, our ability to navigate our relationships and approaches in foreign policy are more critical than ever for Singapore's survival if we were to ride the waves of the future, catch the wind and sail our next lap as a nation.

Whether we like it or not, the impact of major global trends like climate change, sustainability, technological changes and threats to global governance and order remains a common challenge that affects all countries in the world today and requires multilateralism and a concerted global lens to solve. No one country can solve, through a singular unilateral policy, these problems on its back alone, for it requires a concerted effort together.

Even as we are on the topic of foreign policy, the terms "local" and "foreign" remain relevant insofar as making the distinction to refer to our collective identity as Singaporeans and as a people in wanting to protect our specific interests, our way of life, our cultures, our homeland and our sovereignty.

However, in the context of addressing bigger challenges of the world that could directly impact our survival as a country, the local-foreign distinction needs to be fettered with a willingness to achieve outcomes and common good, building friendships across borders and being open to working together to achieve collective benefit, peace and security, whether it be in the region of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or globally, in the context of the world today.

To that end, my view is that Singapore owes it to our diplomats, past and present, who have dared to venture beyond our shores, representing us in faraway forums and lands to further our interests as a country. It can sometimes be lonely, I am sure, and I begin this Adjournment Motion by thanking the work of our diplomats as Singapore's torchbearers on the global stage.

I am no diplomat but I have a care about how Singapore is positioned by others and how Singapore positions itself in the world today. Through this Adjournment Motion, I put forward three suggestions for the Ministry to consider in its efforts to further foreign policy for our country.

First, we need to and must engage our citizens better in the exercise of our foreign policy, broadly, for two reasons.

The first reason is that our citizens are now more exposed to the world more than ever. Knowledge of the world is no longer just the remit of diplomats and a privileged few. The world has changed over the last 20 to 30 years and information has been democratised to a wider base. With information readily available, citizens will form a view of Singapore's foreign policy, rightly or wrongly, and based on accurate information or otherwise.

The second reason is that our engagements overseas can only be more effective and resilient when harnessed with the potential of our citizens, their networks and their awareness of opportunities for the country. By this, I do not only mean Singaporeans based overseas but also to tap on the networks of Singaporeans based locally who have some reach, influence and awareness of other countries. This could be in the form international networks amongst professionals, business owners, volunteers and students even, who, in themselves, take an open view of the world, venture out beyond our shores and let their personal or professional opportunities take them to new places.

For our diplomatic efforts to be effective and to thrive, we must look beyond what governments can achieve from formal platforms alone and leverage on nurturing informal opportunities for meaningful relationships across peoples. This layers further the nature and depth of connection among countries, allows the formation of closer ties that are first organic and most strongly felt at the level of our citizens and allows for policy-makers to have a nuanced awareness and understanding of the diversity, culture and worldview of others.

With citizens at the base and as a foundation of our foreign policy, diplomatic efforts and trade opportunities would come more naturally and readily because it stems from a deep mutual appreciation of the other. Citizen engagement on our foreign policy needs to be done more deliberately in order to share, educate and achieve a wider understanding at the level of every citizen on why Singapore takes certain positions and decisions on the global stage. It must be that we are more proactive in articulating our ethos, values and principles as a country, how it is exercised inwardly through our education, housing and social policies and how it continues to be preserved and aligned outwardly in our foreign policy decisions. I argue that when decisions are based on our core values and principles and start from what we hold dear as a country, citizen engagement would actually be relatively straightforward and easy.

As a country, we already stand firm and unapologetically so on the importance of social cohesion in our neighbourhoods, on the expansion of common spaces to live together as a united people regardless of race, language or religion, and we value diversity along with the beauty and strength it brings us. I would venture to further suggest that it is in our natural psyche and ability as Singaporeans to coexist with differences and differing viewpoints, to meet others in the middle to find practical solutions to global problems and then land on a principled and fair view even on something seemingly as complex as foreign policy and finding solutions to challenging global events of the day.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, we must double down and continue to take the view of principles and values when it comes to our stated positions regarding what happens around the world.

This is the only way possible for us to survive as a small city state and to advocate for a rules-based world order and for international law to flourish and take root. We must remain open to building relationships, strengthen our existing friendships and build new ones and advocate for an even-handed, fair, just and principled approach to how we conduct ourselves and expect others to do the same as responsible citizens of the world.

Just like within family or a close-knitted friendship, we want everyone to succeed together, to do well and flourish and to live in peace and security. It is also only through a trusting relationship and friendship that we have the scope to be honest with one another and be candid about our views.

In fact, the paradox is that our principles and values as well as the strength and closeness of our friendships are tested most when those close to us err in their actions. No parent will relish calling the Police on their child who has erred in the eyes of the law and no true friend will find delight in reporting another's crime. However, when firmly grounded on sound principles and values, family and friends know this would be the right thing to do.

When this happens at the level of countries, we must be ready to differ from others and continue to align consistently with our values as we have on many occasions as a country on the international stage.

I would also stretch it to say that in the context of transgressions over international law and any travesty of justice, we must owe it to our values and principles to not only express our dismay but to rebuke, to fervently object and to hold parties accountable in proportion to the actions in question.

As part of our diplomatic efforts, our principles and values shine through not only by the side that we take, but also through the words we choose, as well as how and when we say them, right down to the pitch, the frequency and the volume of how we express them. There is weight and gravity in the words and statements we make that belie the extent of the position or side we take on any given issue and we need to be sensitive to how that informs others of and aligns with our values and principles over issues.

Recently, in an CNA interview as part of his visit to Singapore, the hon United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Mr Antonio Guterres said, "We live in a situation in where practically there are no rules", describing the current state of affairs as a chaotic situation. He also highlighted a renewed need to "affirm the values" and that "without values everything is lost".

To hear this from the UN Secretary-General himself is both alarming sombre but perhaps somewhat reassuring at the same time. It tells us of the disarray that the world is in today and how far the world is from the values we espouse to live by. But it offers a glimmer of hope for us to bolster and rally around multilateral organisations like the UN for a better world for ourselves and for others.

As part of being true to our principles and values, we must be ready, even as a small state, to express our views honestly with some candour and forthrightness, if necessary, even and especially to our closest allies and friends. In the longer term, it makes for an honest friendship on the international stage where our viewpoints resonate with our citizens and matter to members of the global community, and this continues to put us in good standing as a country upholding values and principles.

Thirdly, my view is that Singapore is well poised for a role in leadership, arbitration and mediation in global affairs today and this is something Singapore should continue to hone and position itself to do better in.

Like the same yacht in the open sea, Singapore makes no seismic wave in the global order through its land size or natural resources. However, we have the prospect of being the honest broker in the room when giants cannot agree and the testament of our ability lies in how efficiently we do business and run our country, how we continue to be fair and consistent in our stated positions about issues and how serious we are about wanting peace and security for the world.

It certainly is in our national interest to do so, yes, but more than most, we have the conviction and track record to show others that the world is better off when we have the will to cooperate and achieve consensus. This perhaps has been a necessary function of our own painful lessons in history and our own limitations as a young nation. But we have shown that we are a people who thrive and continue to succeed only because we believe truly in a rules-based order and consensus building.

We also cannot afford to be passive about the quarrel of bigger others, simply because we will directly suffer the consequences of the uncertainty or escalation that could follow.

There is a Malay proverb, Mr Speaker, "Gajah sama gajah berjuang, pelanduk mati di tengah-tengah", loosely translated as "When two elephants collide or fight, it is the mousedeer in the middle that dies". In the context of a global order, we are the proverbial mousedeer that needs to be circumspect about how the elephants in the room are treating one another for our survival could depend on the extent to which things evolve between the stronger powers that be.

We have also built goodwill and friendships not only with the bigger powers, but smaller states too know that we are a friend. Our chairmanship of the Forum of Small States that we helped initiate, for example, can and has shown the utility in rallying for the unique concerns and advancing the interests of smaller states in an increasingly unpredictable world.

My encouragement to the Ministry is to consider looking at the value Singapore can bring to the world and position ourselves as well-regarded partners for global benefit and progress.

Mr Speaker, foreign policy and diplomacy is a big topic to address as part of an Adjournment Motion. I concede there are many layers to it and it would be impossible to unpack everything in all of 20 minutes.

Like many Singaporeans, I am concerned about Singapore's place in the world and how we navigate a less predictable future moving forward. Citizens do take an interest in how Singapore positions itself today vis-à-vis the uncertain global state of affairs and they are confronted with it more directly than ever before. I believe we can and must engage citizens better as part of our foreign policy strategy.

Notwithstanding the chaotic nature of the world today, at this stage of our development as a country, Singapore also has an opportunity to make a difference and shape the world for the better.

We can use our size and nimbleness to our strength, lean on our good standing as an honest broker and concerned citizen of the world and seize the opportunity to make a difference and influence for a better world and for generations to come.

Mr Speaker, I think we have all just heard a brilliant, incisive, clear and erudite speech. On behalf of all my colleagues at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), I want to thank Dr Syed Harun for his contribution.

Actually, I agree completely with you and the thought did go through my mind that maybe I could just sit down and say it. But it is such a good speech. It deserves a response.

The analogy you started off with was that Singapore is a yacht in a sea. Actually, think of a sampan in a typhoon. The world has certainly become far more dangerous and far more inimical to small states. There are tragic wars going on in Ukraine and in the Middle East with horrendous civilian casualties and there is an elevated risk of a wider conflagration.

We are also witnessing deepening fractures in the global economy, ostensibly in the name of resilience and national security, but really due to a more fundamental lack of strategic trust between the superpowers.

We also see the continued erosion of global norms and global governance as the world makes this transition from a unipolar moment to a multipolar world. And this has resulted in clearly, visibly inadequate responses to dealing with global challenges like climate change, pandemics and the challenges and risks of the digital revolution, the biotechnology revolution and the need for an energy transformation.

Domestically, all over the world, we have seen the rise of xenophobia, hyper-nationalism, extremism and a bitter polarisation of domestic politics. This, as you have said, is accelerated by misinformation and the social media echo chambers. This is in all countries.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew reminded us, "Singapore has to take the world as it is. It is too small to change it. But we can try to maximise the space we have to manoeuvre among the big trees". Our national interests and our vulnerabilities have remained unchanged all these decades.

We are still a tiny, low-lying city-state in the middle of Southeast Asia. We are sea-locked. The territorial seas of our neighbours enclose us completely. Our absence or our lack of a hinterland also remains an existential fact. And that means Singapore needs to remain open as an existential need. We cannot insulate our people. We cannot build walls.

History is not kind to small states. Or to put it more starkly, actually, nobody would care if Singapore disappeared under the waves overnight. There are many other countries and ports that are queuing up to replace the functions that we currently perform. To survive, Singapore has to be exceptional. We have to be more smart, more nimble, more organised, more reliable, more honest than anybody else. Consequently, Singapore's foreign policy has several fundamental objectives to fulfil.

First, to protect our Independence, our sovereignty and our territorial integrity. Second, to secure access to essential supplies – water, energy, food – in fact, almost everything we consume; and to keep the air and sea lanes of communication open. Third, to expand economic opportunities for Singaporeans and to maintain our relevance to the world.

And as a small state, I agree with you, we need to advocate for rules-based order with full respect for international law because without that, the risks for small states are exponentially high. We try our best to shape global norms by making common cause with as many partners as possible on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual respect and mutual benefit.

Dr Syed Harun has advised us to double-down on our values and principles. I completely agree with you and that we need to speak up whenever and wherever there are transgressions of international law. And this is precisely what we do. We do not take sides. We uphold principles. And we do so consistently, even if that means, from time to time, having to say no to a superpower or to say no to a long-standing friend.

Our consistent application of these principles has allowed us to maintain credibility with major and the middle powers and our neighbours. Or put it another way, I say exactly the same thing in Beijing where I just came back from as I say in Washington, as I say in New Delhi or in Kuala Lumpur or Jakarta.

Actually, everybody knows our positions. They know that it is based on a realistic assessment of Singapore's long-term strategic interests and our long-held principles and values. They know that we are not acting on behalf of their rivals and they also know that Singapore cannot be bullied or bought.

Actually, that makes my job easier because I can say the same thing everywhere and it does not have to be exactly identical to the positions taken by superpowers.

But the most important point you have made is that foreign policy begins at home and I completely agree with you. Domestic unity, cohesion and consensus are essentially because without that, we cannot conduct effective foreign policy.

And I agree with you we do need to do far wider engagement of Singaporeans. We cannot treat foreign policy as something esoteric and elite. It is an exercise which every citizen, first, has a right to gain access to and understanding, and to participate in the discussion in the public space. But we also have to arrive at a common position because Singapore, being diverse and vulnerable, will always be exposed to foreign influence and way before hostility begins, influence operations to divide us, to create uncertainty, to erode our resolve would be conducted against us.

The challenge that we have is we need to engage, we need to explain, we need to persuade, we need to mobilise and every Singaporean has to know why we take certain positions in the world. And we need every Singaporean, wherever you live, work, study or travel, to also be our representatives – so, in a sense, we are all ambassadors now.

I have already said that we are at risk of external forces dividing us and just look at the recent examples in the last couple of years.

For instance, we had to take a categorical position on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It was a clear violation of the UN Charter and if the world accepts that a large neighbour, citing historical errors and crazy decisions, can intervene militarily in the affairs of a smaller neighbour, that is a world which is very dangerous for Singapore.

More recently, the appalling human tragedy of the Israel-Hamas conflict has elicited the shock, horror and anger in all of us. We had to take a categorical stand against acts of terror which were committed on 7 October because if someone launched a thousand missiles in Bukit Panjang, an insurgent force in Woodlands and took 240 Singaporean hostage, you know we would have to respond.

Even as we asserted the right of self-defence, we also told the Israelis – and some Members of Parliament were with me when we went to both the Arab countries and to Israel – we said that your military response has gone too far and we need an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, and we need the safe and immediate, and unconditional release of all hostages.

And those of you who accompanied me will know that I said the same thing in Jerusalem, in Ramallah, in Doha, in Cairo, in Abu Dhabi.

We do need to recognise that there may be different interpretations of the origins of these conflicts or even the desired end-state. But the point for Singapore is do not let that divide and erode our social harmony and cohesion. Looking ahead, this House needs to be psychologically prepared that there was going to be more foreign policy issues in future which are sensitive, which are prickly and controversial and to recognise that Singaporeans will have different opinions.

We need to find consensus, we need find a middle ground and, as the Member said, we need to be able to express that credibly on the global stage.

So, I want to thank the Member again. His key points: foreign policy begins at home, that we need to be consistent overseas and that Singapore, with all our uniqueness, our diversity and our smallness, we can play an outsized role to make this world a little bit safer as we navigate the perilous storms in the next few years ahead.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."*

Adjourned accordingly at 8.20 pm.