Strategic Considerations for Assessing Alignment of ASEAN and Asia Pacific Countries with Security and Economic Blocs Dominated by Major Powers

Mr Speaker, the creation and expansion of the various multilateral groupings, including those driven by the major powers, are not actually a new phenomenon in our region. Groupings, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and Five Power Defence Arrangements – each of these has a different and overlapping configuration of members. And in fact, these have been around for many years, decades. More recently, we have also seen the emergence of the Quad, AUKUS and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and of course, even more recently, the expansion of BRICS.

These recent developments, in fact, are part of a response to a transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar world. Consequently, countries are hedging through these different configurations, amidst a more divided and uncertain global environment.

We will keep an open mind on these new constructs and we will continue to watch developments closely, insofar as the impact on Singapore.

Ultimately, our decision on whether or not to join a specific grouping must be carefully considered and must be clearly defined by our national interests. We must be guided by the fundamental objectives of Singapore's foreign policy – and it is worth reiterating what these are.

First, to protect our independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Second, to secure access to essential supplies – food, water, energy – and to keep air and sea lines of communication open for this purpose. Third, to expand economic opportunities for Singaporeans and Singapore companies in order to maintain our relevance to the world and to make a living.

In a more volatile world that is increasingly inimical to the security and survival of small states, like Singapore, we must try to shape global norms by making common cause with as many friends and partners as possible, in order to support multilateralism, the rule of law and, of course, the United Nations (UN) Charter. Singapore does not take sides; but we will uphold principles, even if this means, from time to time, having to say "no" to other states, some of which can be our close partners or even superpowers. This long-standing, consistent and principled approach to foreign policy has served us well and has afforded us the strategic manoeuvring space.

In line with these principles, we have joined, and in fact, played a facilitative role in groupings, such as APEC, IPEF and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership. These diverse groupings have allowed us to expand our economic space and to create more opportunities for Singaporeans.

Singapore is not presently a member of groupings like the Quad or AUKUS or BRICS, but actually, we share excellent ties with the individual members in all these groupings. Many of their members also attend the various ASEAN and international fora where we engage one another and work closely on a wide range of issues. What is important for Singapore is that these new emerging arrangements, especially where they intersect with our region, do not undermine ASEAN centrality, and that these arrangements support an open and inclusive regional architecture and promote a rules-based order based on international law.

In particular, we want ASEAN to continue to play a central convening role and for our region to have the centre of gravity which brings all the key players together to find common ground and to harness ASEAN's full economic potential. The East Asia Summit, for example, allowed ASEAN to play this role for the last two decades and is, in fact, the only platform driven by ASEAN, which brings all the key players in our region together; even when these key players do not necessarily get along.

Singapore has thus been a strong advocate for strengthening collaboration within the East Asia Summit under the framework of the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific. And Singapore will continue to be a credible, reliable and predictable partner to all and we will always act in our long-term national interests.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, how sustainable is the Government's stance of not taking sides in an increasingly polarised world, where more and more countries in our region are doing exactly that? How does the Government ensure that Singapore does not become isolated in a world of rival alignments strongly opposed to each other?

Sir, there is a tendency for some countries to dismiss certain international norms and laws, often because they were set by strategic competitors or do not serve their interests. These laws are also unenforceable because we do not have a global policeman. Is the Minister concerned that international law maybe diminishing in reliability as a tool to protect our economic and security interests?

And finally, Sir, the Prime Minister recently said that we have to work harder to strengthen our network of friends and partners, to work with like-minded countries to shape international norms and rules, and to find common ground on issues of shared concerns. Can the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) make it clearer in its outreach to Singaporeans, including new citizens, which these like-minded countries are, in order to build a stronger understanding of Singapore's strategic interests, especially when external actors may be sowing doubt among our population?

Mr Giam has asked how sustainable is this posture that we have always adopted of not taking sides but upholding principles.

I would submit that in fact, this is the most sensible position for Singapore, a multiracial, multi-religious, multilingual city-state and an island in the heart of Southeast Asia, in which all the superpowers, and indeed, middle powers, have a stake. And because of our geography, because of our economic role, we do best when we can engage everyone; not by aiming to take sides or be a vassal state or be a proxy state, which in fact, I think it will be a recipe for disaster and invite the recreation of Southeast Asia as an arena for proxy wars.

So, I will make the point that our current posture is the correct one, is the essential one, given our national circumstances, our geography, our economic and strategic role.

And let me also say with the benefit of some experience that because all the superpowers and regional and middle powers know that Singapore does not aim to take sides, Singapore is always looking for relevance and being constructive, Singapore always calculates things rationally with a long-term horizon and is always an advocate for international law, they also know that therefore, sometimes we will disagree. And when we disagree, it is not because I am taking the side of your opponent or your rival, but we disagree because that contravenes a principle that Singapore holds dear.

And I would say, from my experience, that adopting this posture, in fact, has led to less pressure on us because people know simply hectoring us, pressurising us is not likely to bear fruit, and in fact, it is more likely to make us dig in and hold the line.

I would also say that in order for us to take this position of not taking sides and upholding principles, we need domestic cohesion and consensus, including in this House. Because if foreign powers believe that they can erode our resolve by dividing us, they will. There is no doubt about that. And all the more so, because in fact, all the major civilisations and religions are represented here. So, I am making the point that there needs to be domestic consensus and our domestic politics must stop at the water's edge, that we have been able to do so for 59 years, and the point I am making is that we must continue to do so.

The Member is quite right that as far as global norms are concerned, security is concerned, there is no global policeman. If we were ever to get into a security or military conflict, no one is going to rescue us. We will be on our own. And do not ever believe for a moment in foreign affairs that friendship is a shield, that friendship makes you immune to threats. That is why we continue to have National Service. That is why we continue to spend a significant proportion of our budget on defence. And that is why in a paradoxical way we have no enemies, but we have lots of friends. Because people know that our relationship is not one of dependency, is not one of sycophancy, is not one of acting on other people's behalf. We pay for what we need, we defend our interests and we are united in doing so.

Given that we are getting into a more volatile, complicated and threatening world, this ability to stand on our two feet, united as one people, and with sufficient reserves and the wherewithal, both fiscal and strategic, is all the more crucial.

Finally, the Member asked what are the like-minded countries? And I would say, we make common cause in concentric circles. The most important immediate construct is ASEAN. We are all in Southeast Asia. We all have a common economic agenda. Even at a time when the world is turning negative on trade, in ASEAN, we still believe in lowering barriers, promoting economic integration, facilitating more investments in our infrastructure and preparing us for a digital age when we also need to be sustainable and green. So, ASEAN remains that innermost concentric circle.

Beyond that, it is the dialogue partners of ASEAN. For instance, if you look at the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which again, creates a zone of greater economic integration with China, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and us. Separately, we are also building our ties and our economic ties with another rising middle power called India.

And you would also notice that the Prime Minister and indeed, all Members of Cabinet have had very extensive travel itinerary. This week, the Prime Minister will be first, in Peru for APEC, then he will go across to Brazil for the G20. And in all these fora, we try to find like-minded partners depending on the issue concerned.

Finally, at the UN, we are the convenors of this forum called the "Forum of Small States", which in fact, is the majority of the membership of the UN. And for other small states, they find Singapore to be a dependable, reliable resource. I do not mean a resource just financially, but a resource of thought, leadership, sharing, capability development, human capacity development, teaching a man to catch fish rather than just giving him a fish.

So, I have given a long, extended answer, but I hope Members understand that the posture and the avenues that we have pursued for decades are still fundamentally sound and in fact, all the more relevant, given the current global environment. I thank the Member for his question.