There was a time when the whole Singapore army was mobilized against a potential threat to our security

On 9th August 1991, Singapore celebrated National Day at the National Stadium with great joy.

Unknown to us, the Singapore army had also been mobilized that day on a very large scale against a potential threat to our security.

While the National Day celebration was taking place at the National Stadium, 20km away from Woodlands, a joint exercise was taking place between Malaysia and Indonesia.

Codenamed “Pukul Habis”, it means total wipeout in Malay.

The official military exercise name was “Malindo Darasa 3AB”.  Darasa means air, sea and land.

Apparently the whole purpose of that exercise was to test the cooperation and response between Malaysia and Indonesia in case a neighbouring country turned hostile. 

Taking place just 20km away from Woodlands, it does not take much imagination to know which country the neighbouring country referred to. 

The timing of the joint exercise

The exercise was timed to take place on our National Day, when the baton had only recently been handed over by founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to Mr Goh Chok Tong. It was Mr Goh Chok Tong's first parade as Prime Minister., 

The joint exercise between Malaysia and Indonesia involved 300 paratroopers in the airborne assault in Kota Tinggi, Southern Johore. There were also live firing. 

Singapore's response

Mindef responded with a massive mobilization that saw thousands of NS men called back. Live ammo and new weapons were distributed. Armour and artillery assets were also deployed to staging areas.

Some soldiers were mobilized to sit along the edges of the Malaysian railway in Tanjong Pagar with live ammo. Live mines were also planted around Singapore. 

The nature of the joint exercise was provocative. The day passed without any incident. And Singaporeans remained blissfully unaware.

You could say the joint exercise between Malaysia and Indonesia was also a test of our response - how prepared we were and how fast we could respond to a potential threat. You could say that the timing of the exercise was a test of the leadership transition process from the Old Guards to the second generation leadership. 

Our founding prime minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew had this to say in Hard Truths:

On our National Day, 9 August 1991, The Malaysian and the Indonesian armed forces held joint exercises at Kota Tinggi with parachute drops. Hence we mobilized our forces, in addition to forces parading for the National Day celebrations. I did not think they would invade us, but they wanted to intimidate us and con us, so that we know our place at the bottom of the pecking order in the region.  

We need a study, strong and capable SAF, not only to defend Singapore but return blow for blow when necessary. If we do not have this strong SAF, we are vulnerable to all kinds of pressures, from both Malaysia and Indonesia. 

Our forefathers lay every foundation for our survival. This includes building an army that is a real deterrence to potential threats. 

Our security is our own responsibility 

Foolish politicians like Chee Soon Juan who called for a drastic cut in defence spending are the enemies we have within, always trying to undermine our ability to defend ourselves.

Independent Panel initiates legal action against Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh

The independent panel, tasked with looking into improper payments made by AHTC has taken legal action against WP's chief Low Thia Khiang, chairman of AHTC Pritam Singh and vice-chairman Sylvia Lim. 

The writ of summons was filed last Friday by the town council in the High Court, over a breach of fiduciary duties.

Besides the three Aljunied GRC MPs, other defendants named are: Mr Chua Zhi Hon, a former member of the WP Youth Wing executive committee; Mr Kenneth Foo, deputy organising secretary of the WP and WP candidate in Nee Soon GRC in the 2015 General Election; Ms How Weng Fan, owner of the town council's former managing agent firm FM Solutions and Services (FMSS); and FMSS.

A pre-trial conference date of Aug 31 has been listed.

Last year, the Housing Board had asked AHTC to appoint a third party to recover the improper payments made from town council funds.

The independent panel, appointed in February this year, is chaired by senior counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, and comprises senior counsel N. Sreenivasan and KPMG managing partner Ong Pang Thye.

The independent panel has the power to commence legal action on behalf of the town council for overpayments and payments without proper certification of work being done, among others. This can include mediation, arbitration and other court proceedings.

Besides this case, AHTC also filed another writ of summons in the High Court against FMSS last Friday.

This was in relation to an arbitration case over a financial dispute emerging from the lapses at the town council.

In a report last year, audit firm KPMG found that governance lapses at AHTC between 2011 and 2015 had put public funds running into millions of dollars at risk of improper use.

It traced some of the improper payments to AHTC's then managing agent FMSS.

Ms How and her late husband, Mr Danny Loh, were owners of FMSS and held key management and financial control positions in the town council at the same time.

This meant they effectively approved and made payments to themselves when they paid FMSS, the KPMG report found. It also raised the possibility of civil and criminal liabilities.

The report was part of the ongoing audit of AHTC following lapses flagged by its own auditors as well as by the Auditor-General's Office in a special report in February 2015.

Why the Office of President has to be multi-racial

As the Head of State, the PRESIDENT is the symbol of our nation. He REPRESENTS ALL SINGAPOREANS.

THEREFORE, THE OFFICE MUST BE MULTI-RACIAL.

At the same time, whichever ethnic group the President belongs to, he has to be multi-racial in his approach. He has to reach out to all races, connect with every Singaporean.

If the President, who is the symbol of a multi-racial nation, always comes from the same race, then the very multi-racial character of the nation will come under question.

BECAUSE OF OUR POPULATION COMPOSITION, Singapore is sometimes seen as a CHINESE COUNTRY.

It can lead to misunderstandings, it can lead to unrealistic expectations and it can lead to us being carried away, even domestically, and forgetting this fundamental fact about Singapore.

WE ARE NOT A CHINESE COUNTRY, BUT MULTI-RACIAL, multi-religious Southeast Asian country with an ethnic Chinese majority, but not a Chinese country.

WE HAVE TO SHOW THIS DOMESTICALLY TO OUR OWN POPULATION.  

WE HAVE TO SHOW THIS EXTERNALLY TO OTHER COUNTRIES TOO.

We are building a radically different society in Singapore than other countries in the region, and China which is overwhelmingly one ethnic group, the Hans.

We are building a radically different society than our neighbours, who are working on a different basis than we are.

We are seeking to be multi-racial, equal and harmonious, gradually enlarging our shared Singaporean identity, while celebrating our different cultures and faiths, allowing minority communities ample space to live their own ways of life, never forcing everybody to conform to a single norm set by the majority.

We have to work consciously and systematically at this.

IT WILL NOT HAPPEN BY ITSELF, nor will we get there if we blithely assume that we have already arrived and do not talk about it, do not do anything about it, and we are okay. That is not the way to be okay.

The President is the most important unifying symbol of the nation.

Singaporeans look up to the PRESIDENT AS THE PERSONIFICATION OF ALL THAT SINGAPORE STANDS FOR and all that we stand for in Singapore.

So it is a FUNDAMENTAL NECESSITY THAT THE PRESIDENT BE MULTI-RACIAL.

- Excerpt of PM Lee's speech in Parliament on the Elected Presidency with edition.

http://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/pm-lee-hsien-loong-parliamentary-debate-constitution-amendment-bill

The Need For An Elected Presidency

Thus far, our Government has exercised financial prudence and great restraint in spending the reserves. 

But this is not the norm elsewhere.

We see cautionary tales of elections descending into auctions, with political parties competing with each other to promise greater largesse from the nation’s coffers.

THE EXAMPLE OF GREECE

In Greece, political parties engaged in a “disastrous competition” to offer patronage, cronyism, nepotism, and welfare populism. Once the populist policies were set in place, it was difficult to turn back as it would be “political suicide” for any party to do so. The end result was economic and political bankruptcy and a younger generation that finds that its future has been mortgaged.

Australia is another example. 

They have tightly contested elections in rapid 3-year electoral cycles. One party comes up with a programme, the other offers more, each trying to outbid the other. This has led successive governments to continue spending accumulated surpluses from a resource boom, which are, by now, gone.

WE INHERIT THE WESTMINSTER SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

The strength of this system is the “[near] complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers”.

This promotes efficient governance, and allows the country to move quickly and effectively, with clear direction and purpose.

The Westminster system may be contrasted with systems of government that strictly separate their constituent branches (such as in the US). The price, however, of strict separation is inefficiency, and sometimes even paralysis or deadlock.

The United States experienced this very recently in 2013. Political fights over healthcare laws led to a budget impasse that resulted in a 16-day shutdown of the US Government.

During this time, about 800,000 federal employees were indefinitely furloughed, and another 1.3 million were required to work without known payment dates.

EVERY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT HAS ITS OWN STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES.

The system we inherited permits swift and effective decision-making, but it also means that, if a government chooses to act irresponsibly, there are very few restraints on it, and things can go very wrong, and very quickly.

As then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew cautioned at his 1984 National Day Rally, “… all the reserves are available. The larder is wide open, you can raid it”.

Any government, including a temporary coalition, would have complete access to all levers of power and decision-making, with “untrammelled power” to abuse the reserves and public services.

Irresponsible Governments may use Singaporeans' savings to buy short-term popularity, or appoint friends in high places to exploit these for personal gains rather than for the public good. 

A single 5-year “spending spree” could bankrupt us and dismantle everything that we have built.

Parliament decided that the most effective solution for Singapore was to establish an ELECTED PRESIDENCY WITH SPECIFIC VETO POWERS.

The Elected Presidency was first conceptualised in the 1980s, to guard against the risk of a profligate government squandering the nation’s reserves.

The Elected Presidency plays an important custodial role in safe guarding our key assets, in a way a purely parliamentary process cannot.

It also deters political parties from making wild promises at Parliamentary elections. They know that even if they come to power, they cannot splurge our past reserves on populist measures.

The right and responsibility to govern the country would remain with Parliament and the Cabinet.

The President would have no power to initiate action, and no policy-making role.

HE HAS NON-EXECUTIVE CUSTODIAL POWERS OVER 2 IMPORTANT AREAS

They are: the spending of past reserves and key appointments to the public services.

THE SYMBOLIC ROLE OF PRESIDENT AS UNIFIER AND SYMBOL OF OUR NATION REMAINED UNCHANGED AND UNDIMINISHED.

- Excerpt of speech by DPM Teo Chee Hean.

Why can't we just appoint the President and vest him with custodial powers? 

What right does a president who is appointed by the government say 'no' to  democratically elected government that has the mandate of the people to govern and make decisions?

For the president to be able to say 'no' to a government that has the mandate of the people, the president himself must also have the mandate of the people to act. Therefore the president cannot be appointed. He has to be elected.

http://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/speech-dpm-teo-chee-hean-2nd-reading-constitutional-republic-singapore-amendment-bill

It's so inconvenient. Is this new signalling system necessary?!

It is inconvenient, but why is the new signalling system necessary?

The old signalling system (pictured right) is almost 30 years old, and the technology has become obsolete.

Once this challenging period of teething issues is overcome, all of us commuters will be able to enjoy the benefits of increased train capacity and reduced waiting times during peak hours.

The new signalling system (featured in photo left) may not look like much, but to improve the rail system, engineers have put in many hours of work to ready the new system.

There are 95 km of tracks, 141 trains and 54 stations to upgrade! 

And it is not just the hard work – there are also so many other challenges discovered along the way!

Harsh Realities

Engineers and contractors only have 2-3 hours to test the new system, conduct track maintenance and rail improvement works every night – a lot of work within very limited time!

On top of that, they have to put in extra efforts to ensure that their works do not affect train services the next morning.

Without using revenue hours for trials, it would have taken years to complete the testing and roll-out the new system.

The Complexity of the job

Adding complexity to the job are 4 different generations of trains to retrofit the new signalling system.

You get the never ending challenges now? We just have to press on!

Despite the many challenges, engineers have worked hard to conduct over 1,300 tests during engineering hours before testing during revenue hours began.

Since 28 March 2017, they have conducted 10 sessions of last hour revenue trial and 6 sessions of full Sunday revenue trial.

These trials went well, giving LTA the confidence to begin full day trials to condition the new signaling system to typical peak hour conditions.

History of S'pore Malays shows what community seeks in president

Just who should be considered a "Malay"?

Article 19B of the Singapore Constitution defines a Malay as "any person, whether of the Malay race or otherwise, who considers himself to be a member of the Malay community and who is generally accepted as a member of the Malay community by that community".

This definition also applies to Malay candidates intending to stand in a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in a general election.

The law requires that in a GRC, at least one member of the team is a Malay, an Indian or from other minority communities.

The definition of Malay here is quite an open, all-inclusive one.

How is acceptance into the Malay community measured, as worded in the Singapore Constitution?

So far, online discussions have emphasised the presidential aspirants' race, their ability to converse in the Malay language and religion.

The extent to which these aspirants have spoken for their community is somehow neglected.

Drawing inspiration from history

Singaporeans should draw inspiration from the history of the Malays.

Singapore Malays have identified some prominent names as part of their community, though they may not strictly come from the Malay race. These individuals have defended the Malays and struggled for their plight.

One such individual was Abdullah Abdul Kadir Munshi (1796-1854), a famous chronicler, Malay language teacher and interpreter who worked for Sir Stamford Raffles. His grandfather was of Yemeni Arab descent and his grandmother a Tamil. Malays accept Munshi Abdullah as an intellectual. He wrote on the plight of the Malays during the feudal era and colonial period, and was critical of the Malay ruling class for not investing enough in educating their people.

  Abdullah Abdul Kadir Munshi (1796-1854)

The other personality was Professor Syed Hussein Alatas (1928-2007), a former head of Malay Studies at the National University of Singapore. Of hadrami (Yemeni) descent, the sociologist spent most of his life in Malaysia and Singapore. His writings focused on the modernisation of the Malays and the community's development lag. He also wrote a pioneering book, The Myth Of The Lazy Native, debunking negative stereotypes about the Malays imposed by colonial scholars.

Professor Syed Hussein Alatas (1928-2007)

A name more familiar to Singaporeans is that of Mr Yusof Ishak, whose ancestors originated from Sumatra in Indonesia.

Mr Yusof Ishak and his wife, Puan Noor Aishah

Throughout his life, Mr Yusof struggled for the Malays. In 1939, he founded the newspaper Utusan Melayu because he wanted the Malays to have an equal voice in the public sphere which, he claimed, was dominated by Indian Muslims and Arabs. Having shown this empathy for his community, Mr Yusof fit smoothly into the role as Singapore's first head of state.

Today, Mr Yusof is remembered as an outstanding member of the pioneer generation, as someone who defended multiculturalism and meritocracy, the building blocks of Singapore society.

In today's context, there is a convergence of interests among all ethnic communities. It is difficult to distinguish Malay issues from Chinese or Indian ones, and problems facing Singaporeans are not unique to any community.

Thus, Malay presidential candidates should be judged by their ability to articulate the interests of Singaporeans.

Singaporeans expect their president to rise to the occasion and unite all citizens in times of crisis. 

DIPLOMACY OF LITTLE RED DOT: PAST AND PRESENT. Speech by Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan

Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan speaks in a town hall discussion with officers from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Monday (Jul 17). 

Let me start by saying it is not by coincidence that today we are at peace, we are at peace with all our neighbours, and we have good relations with all the major powers of the world. We owe a debt of gratitude to all our leaders and diplomats, both present and the past, for this happy state of affairs.

But more recently there has been lively debate on Singapore’s foreign policy, and I think this debate is especially on the part by retired officials, academics and commentators.

But there is one key difference for all the people in the room here tonight. The key difference is that we are serving members of the MFA, and we in this room have line responsibility for the actual conduct of foreign policy on a daily basis. What this means is that the deliberations today are not a theoretical debate, and this not an academic word spinning exercise on a lecture circuit.

Some questions that have been raised include the following: 

First, has Singapore overreached? Have we forgotten our permanent status as a small state in the large dangerous world and tough region? Next question, should Singapore adjust our foreign policy posture given the evolving geopolitical situation, or even because of leadership changes in Singapore? And the third question has been, has our insistence on a consistent and principled approach actually limited our flexibility, our ability to adapt to new circumstances?

These are valid questions but I believe we need to go back to first principles.

Ultimate Objectives for our foreign policy

The ultimate objectives for our foreign policy are first, protect our independence and sovereignty, and second, to expand opportunities for our citizens to overcome our geographic limits.

These are our ultimate objectives. It’s easy to state them, difficult to achieve.

The existential challenge is how do we achieve these ultimate objectives, given our circumstances that we will always be a tiny city state in South East Asia and with a multi-racial population.

We must not harbour any illusions about our place in the world. History is replete with examples of failed small states.

Our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew always reminded us repeatedly that we have to take the world as it is, and not as we wish it to be. But that does not mean that Mr Lee advocated a ‘do nothing, say nothing’ posture, or that Singapore should simply surrender to our fates.

As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has recently reminded us, on issues where our national interests are at stake, we must be prepared to ‘stand up and be counted’.

Some people have suggested that Singapore lay low and “suffer what we must” as a small state.

On the contrary, it is precisely because we are a small state that we have to stand up and be counted when we need to do so.

There is no contradiction between a realistic appreciation of realpolitik and doing whatever it takes to protect our sovereignty, maintain and expand our relevance, and to create political and economic space for ourselves.

The founding fathers of our foreign policy – Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr S Rajaratnam, and Dr Goh Keng Swee, and their team – understood this acutely and they formulated a few core foreign policy principles. These principles have served us well since independence but are still worth reviewing again.

Core principles

What are these principles?

First, Singapore needs to be a successful and vibrant economy. We need to have stable politics and we need a united society. If you think about it, if we were not successful, if we were not united and if we were not stable, we would be completely irrelevant.

All of us in this room have witnessed how delegations of less successful small states are ignored at international meetings.

And I am always mindful that foreigners do not speak to us because of the eloquence of our presentations or because we have the highest EQ in the room. We only merit attention because everyone knows that we come from Singapore and Singapore has made a success of itself despite our size, and that we are represented by smart, honest, serious and constructive diplomats.

Second principle- we must not become a vassal state.

What this means is that we cannot be bought nor can we be bullied.

And it means we must be prepared to defend our territory, our assets and our way of life.

This is why we just celebrated 50 years of National Service, and we maintain at great effort an SAF that everybody takes seriously.

This does not just depend on the military technology that the SAF possesses, but on the courage and resolve of our soldiers, particularly NS men, to defend what we have and to fight for what we hold dear.

Third, we aim to be a friend to all, but an enemy of none.

This is especially so for our immediate neighbourhood where peace and stability in Southeast Asia are absolutely essential.

Consequently, Singapore was a founding member of ASEAN and we remain a strong advocate of ASEAN unity and centrality. With the superpowers and other regional powers, our aim is to expand our relationships, both politically and economically, so that we will be relevant to them and they will find our success in their own interest.

This delicate balancing act is easier in good and peaceful times, but obviously more difficult when superpowers and regional powers contend with one another.

Nevertheless, our basic reflex must be and should be to aim for balance and to promote an inclusive architecture. And we must avoid taking sides, siding with one side against another.

While we spare no effort to develop a wide network of relations, these relations must be based on mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and the equality of nation states, regardless of size.

Diplomacy is not just about having “friendly” relations at all costs. It is about promoting friendly relations as a way to protect and advance our own important interests.

We don’t compromise our national interests in order to have good relations. The order matters.

So when others make unreasonable demands that hurt or compromise our national interests, we need to state our position and stand our ground in a firm and principled manner.

Fourth, we must promote a global world order governed by the rule of law and international norms.

In a system where “might is right” or the laws of the jungle prevail, small states like us have very little chance of survival.

Instead, a more promising system for small states, and frankly even a better system overall for the comity of nations, is one that upholds the rights and sovereignty of all states and the rule of law.

Bigger powers will still have more influence and say, but bigger powers do not get a free pass to do as they please. In exchange, they benefit from an orderly global environment, and do not have to resort to force or arms in order to get their way.

This is why Singapore has always participated actively at the United Nations, and in the formulation of international regimes and norms. We were a key player in the negotiations for the Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS) in 1982. Professor Tommy Koh still remains with us. And I’m sure that is one of your proudest achievements of your diplomatic career.

We play an outsized role at the WTO, and in negotiating a web of free trade agreements at a bilateral and multilateral level.

As a country where trade is 3.5 times our GDP, we must stand up for the multilateral, global trading system. And as a port at the narrow straits that ultimately connect the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, freedom of navigation according to UNCLOS is absolutely critical to us.

More recently, we participated actively in the negotiations for the Global Agreement on Climate Change.

I spent five years, several of them as a Ministerial facilitator, for what ultimately resulted in the Paris Agreement. And we did so because we are especially susceptible to climate change as a low-lying island city state.

So Singapore must support a rules-based global community, promote the rule of international law and the peaceful resolution of disputes. These are fundamental priorities. They reflect our vital interests, and they affect our position in the world. We must stand up on these issues, and speak with conviction, so that people know our position. And we must actively counter the tactics of other powers who may try to influence our domestic constituencies in order to make our foreign policy better suit their interests.

Ultimately, we must be clear-minded about Singapore’s long-term interests, and have the gumption to make our foreign policy decisions accordingly. 

During the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians were warned of the consequences they would suffer were they to give in to initial Spartan demands. Greek statesman Pericles told his fellow Athenians that if they were frightened into obedience by the initial demands of the Spartans in order to avoid war, then they would instantly have to meet a greater demand. Actually, contained in the Spartans’ demand was actually a test of the Athenians’ resolve. And if they give in once, they would have to give in again, and ultimately they would be enslaved. On the other hand, a firm refusal would make the Spartans clearly understand that they must treat the Athenians more as equals.

Now I know we live in a very different era and different geopolitical situation, but this lesson, this warning against appeasement remains instructive for Singapore.

Whether we are dealing with a key security and economic partner or a large neighbour, Singapore has always stood firm when it comes to our own vital national interests, particularly where it impacts on sovereignty, security and the rule of law.

When the US teenager Michael Fay was sentenced to caning for vandalism, back in 1994, we upheld our court’s decision, even under great pressure from the US.

In 1968, to take an example further back in our history, we proceeded to hang two Indonesian marines for the bombing of MacDonald House during Konfrontasi.

I want all of you to bear in mind the political and strategic circumstances in 1968.

We had just been kicked out of Malaysia.

The British had just announced their intention to withdraw their forces from Singapore.

We were still fighting a communist insurgency.

Can you imagine the guts it took for the leaders in 1968, facing such circumstances, to stand up and do the right thing?

These episodes, painful though they may be, established clear red-lines and boundaries.

The message was clear: Singapore may be small, but upholding our laws and safeguarding our independence, our citizens’ safety and security was of overriding importance.

So we cannot afford to ever be intimidated into acquiescence. And the fact that we have consistently demonstrated this in action, put our relationships with neighbours near and far, other states big and large, on a more solid and actually stable footing.

And this is why we speak up whenever basic principles are challenged.

When Russian troops took control of Crimea, Singapore strongly objected to the invasion. We expressed our view that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukraine, and international law, had to be respected.

Which brings me to my fifth principle – that we must be a credible and consistent partner.

Our views are taken seriously because countries know that we always take a long term constructive view of the issues.

The bigger countries engage Singapore because we do not just tell them what they want to hear. In fact, they try harder to make Singapore take their side precisely because they know that our words mean something. We are honest brokers. We deal fairly and openly with all parties. And there is a sense of strategic predictability, which has enabled Singapore to build up trust and goodwill with our partners over the decades.

And because we are credible, Singapore has been able to play a constructive role in international affairs, at ASEAN and at the UN. We have helped to create platforms for countries with similar interests.

For example, in 1992, Singapore helped establish the Forum of Small States.

Call by delegates from the 5th FOSS (Forum Of Small States) Fellowship Programme on Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, 12 April 2017 

As a group, we’ve been able to foster common positions and to have a bigger voice at the United Nations. And today, the Forum of Small States has grown to 107 countries, more than half the membership of the UN.

We play a constructive role in the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).

We also launched the Global Governance Group (3G), to ensure that the voices of small states are heard, and to serve as a bridge between the G20 and the larger UN membership. 

Our credibility has won us a seat at the table, even when our relevance is not immediately obvious.

We are not the the 20th largest economy in the world, but yet we’ve just come back from the G20, where we got invited.

You want to take another example even further afield?

When we first expressed interest in the Arctic Council, there were many who wondered what role a small equatorial country would play on Arctic matters. 

But rising sea levels and possibility of new shipping routes impact or potentially impact our position as a transhipment hub, and so it is useful for us to be on the Arctic Council. 

We have gained observer status in the Arctic Council since May 2013.

And we participate actively and contribute our expertise on maritime affairs. And if anyone wants deeper insights into this, speak to MOS Sam Tan who has represented us resolutely and repeatedly on the Arctic Council.

Looking Beyond

Now let’s look beyond these five principles. Let me make a few observations.

Small states are inconsequential unless we are able to offer a value proposition and make ourselves relevant. 

Singapore’s economic success, our political stability and our social harmony and unity has attracted attention from others to do business with us, and to examine our developmental model.

And this is why our diplomats, both those of you in this room as well as the other half of our family overseas, work so hard all over the world to find common ground and to make common cause with other states.

And we search for win-win outcomes based on the principles of interdependence.

For example, we have participated in major cooperation projects in Suzhou, Tianjin and Chongqing in China, Amaravati in India, Iskandar Malaysia in Johor, the Kendal Industrial Park in Semarang, Indonesia, and the multiple Vietnam-Singapore Industrial Parks. 

When we embarked on these projects, we contribute novel ideas and we implement our plans on a whole of government basis. And what this means is not just MFA, but our colleagues in all the other Ministries who also contribute whole heartedly into these projects.

Singapore’s position today is far more secure than it was at our birth in 1965.

But the challenges of small states will be perennial. They cannot be ignored, or wished away.

A strong and credible SAF is an important deterrence and foreign policy begins at home.

Our diplomacy is only credible, if we are able to maintain a domestic consensus on Singapore’s core interests and our foreign policy priorities. And if our politics does not become fractious, or our society divided.

We have safeguarded our international position by building a successful economy and a cohesive society; making clear that we always act in Singapore’s interests, and not at the behest or the bidding of other states. 

We have been expanding our relationships with as many countries as possible, on the basis of mutual respect for all states regardless of size and on a win-win interdependence.

Upholding international law has been a matter of fundamental principle for us; and being a credible and consistent partner with a long term view has given us a role to play and relevance on the international stage.

Colleagues, geopolitics will become more uncertain and unpredictable. But we need to ensure that our foreign policy positions reflect the changing strategic realities whilst we maintain our freedom, our right to be an independent nation, with our own foreign policy.

We must anticipate frictions and difficulties from time to time. But our task is to maintain this whilst keeping in mind the broader relationships.

Our approach as a state with independent foreign policy cannot be like that of a private company.

Our state interests go far beyond the short term losses or gains of a private company. 

So, we have to stay nimble, be alert to dangers but seize opportunities.

But we need to also remember that some aspects remain consistent. 

We need to advance and protect our own interests. We must be prepared to make difficult decisions, weather the storms, if they come.

We must be prepared to speak up, and if necessary, disagree with others, without being gratuitously disagreeable.

We may always be a small state, but all the more reason we need the courage of our convictions and the resolution to secure the long term interests of all our citizens.

Thank you very much.

SPEECH BY FOREIGH MINISTER DR VIVIAN BALAKRISHNAN IN A TOWNHALL DISCUSSION WITH OFFICERS FROM THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 17 JULY 2017.

https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/media_centre/press_room/pr/2017/201707/press_2017071703.html