Major speeches by PM Lawrence Wong and SM Lee Hsien Loong offer a clear-eyed view on global transition and commitment to multilateralism, and link political stability to diplomatic strength.
By Bhavan Jaipragas, The Straits Times, 19 Apr 2025
If this were a routine April – not the tense run-up to what could be a bruising general election – the back-to-back heavyweight foreign policy speeches from Singapore’s top two political leaders would still have those who watch the Republic closely sitting up and taking notice.
Singapore’s friends and partners near and far are surely watching for clues about how the long-time stewards of this city-state – resource-poor and smaller than New York City – intend to navigate the accelerating decline of the world order under which it has risen to become one of the world’s wealthiest, most stable societies with the ability to underwrite its own defence.
For that purpose, the speeches – first by Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong in a dialogue with union leaders on April 14, and then by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at the S. Rajaratnam Lecture on April 16 – offer, between them, as complete a picture as practicable to a public audience on the ruling PAP’s view of geopolitics and its foreign policy approach.
Both addresses, along with Mr Wong’s speech at the April 17 PAP manifesto launch – which also touched on the state of the world – are meaty enough to be studied from various angles.
For me, three important observations stand out.
Govt’s clear-eyed perspective
First, it is quite clear that Singapore’s leadership rejects a simplistic reading of the global landscape. Despite Washington’s current erraticity under President Donald Trump – with sweeping tariffs announced then suspended, threats of sectoral tariffs, and adamance that America will no longer be the world’s policeman – the Singapore Government does not view this as a neat pendulum swing of power.
My interpretation of Mr Wong and Mr Lee’s remarks is unambiguous: the establishment firmly rejects the notion that the crumbling of the US-led global rules-based order automatically crowns China as the new leader, or that we can expect a comfortable multipolar balance, with China and other powers harmoniously filling the vacuum.
This stands in contrast to certain domestic voices that have begun flirting with a more optimistic view – that Singapore and other Asian nations might actually benefit from this geopolitical disarray, that there is some inherently benign quality to what they claim is an organised multipolar order taking shape.
The perspective championed by countries like India, particularly through its erudite Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, who has voiced considerable optimism about a new multipolar world order – arguing that “the virtues of the old world order are exaggerated” – has gained notable traction here in Singapore.
Yet what works for a middle power like India cannot be transplanted to Singapore’s context. For a small trade-reliant nation thoroughly integrated into the world economy – and critically dependent on both China and the US – adopting such a view borders on the foolhardy.
Mr Lee’s speech crystallises this reality.
Even as America retreats from its global policeman role, there remains firm bipartisan consensus among its political elite that China represents a “pacing challenge”.
Consequently, American policymakers “are trying very hard to stay ahead of China and to prevent China from overtaking them”. This intensifying great-power competition will inevitably inflict collateral damage on trade-reliant countries like Singapore.
The speeches offer no comforting illusions that whatever emerges from this messy transition will necessarily benefit us.
The Prime Minister’s assessment is sobering in its clarity: Mr Wong noted that “nobody can tell” what world order we are transitioning towards, even though we know that transition is under way.
Indeed, even as we witness daily evidence of transformation through market turbulence and policy pronouncements from Washington – met with counter-responses from other capitals – there remains simply too much uncertainty. We cannot predict global conditions one month from now, let alone a year ahead or by the end of Mr Trump’s term in January 2029.
Mr Wong put it like this: “America is stepping back from its traditional role as the guarantor of order and the world’s policeman. But neither China nor any other country is willing – or able to – fill the vacuum.”
He added: “So nations are turning inward, prioritising their own narrow interests. The once-rising tide of global cooperation that defined the past decades is giving way to one of growing competition and distrust. And as a result, the world is becoming more fragmented and disorderly.”
Maintaining the global commons
Much ink has been spilt on why this changing world order is detrimental to a small city-state like Singapore. In essence, when the rule of law gives way to the law of the jungle – where big powers dominate and equal treatment becomes a thing of the past – the voices of smaller nations are inevitably silenced.
Our interests become perilously easy to trample. After all, why would global heavyweights concern themselves with Singapore’s welfare when no binding framework compels them to?
Mr Lee illustrated this reality while discussing the Trump administration’s abandonment of the decades-old Most Favoured Nation trading principle – which requires non-discrimination among World Trade Organisation members – in favour of reciprocal tariffs.
This shift, he suggested, reflects a fundamentally transactional world view that prizes “win-lose” outcomes where raw power determines results.
“Why not we treat this one-on-one, like arm wrestling. Let’s see who has got more biceps, who has got a stronger arm, and we will see who is stronger. We will get more that way,” Mr Lee said, capturing the essence of this Trumpian approach to international relations.
Yet Singapore’s response to this troubling landscape constitutes the second major takeaway from these speeches – particularly from Mr Wong’s lecture.
Rather than merely lamenting the erosion of the stable, rules-based global system from which it has benefited profoundly, Singapore’s foreign policy establishment recognises the challenge and is responding to it.
The contrast is striking: while America is reportedly slashing the State Department’s budget by nearly 50 per cent, shuttering numerous diplomatic missions, decimating its diplomatic corps, and withdrawing funding from virtually all international organisations, including the United Nations, Singapore is moving deliberately in the opposite direction, strengthening its international engagement.
Crucially, Singapore does not stand alone in this endeavour. It has cultivated a network of like-minded partners, equally committed to preserving multilateral frameworks and international law – laying essential groundwork for whatever more stable global order might eventually emerge.
These efforts may appear technical or esoteric to casual observers, but they represent the painstaking work of nations committed to enhancing global cooperation rather than undermining it.
Mr Wong highlighted several concrete initiatives: Singapore’s leadership role, through Ambassador Rena Lee, in guiding UN negotiations on the High Seas Treaty on biodiversity; the creation of the Financing Asia’s Transition Partnership, a blended finance platform designed to channel private capital towards Asia’s decarbonisation efforts; and the establishment of a specialised Development Partnership Unit within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to coordinate assistance to developing nations and deepen international collaborations.
Mr Wong also noted how Singapore is simultaneously reinforcing Asean integration, working to forge closer cooperation with the grouping and other multilateral blocs such as the European Union, while expanding its global footprint bilaterally as well – with plans to establish new diplomatic missions in Africa and Latin America in the coming years.
Collectively, these initiatives send a powerful message: even as the world’s pre-eminent power retreats from the very international architecture it once championed, Singapore remains steadfastly committed to building consensus and pursuing mutual benefit through cooperation.
Goldilocks problem
Third on my list of takeaways from the speeches – more for Singaporean voters to ponder than for outside observers parsing the Republic’s geopolitical worldview – is what Mr Lee articulated in the last part of his address.
For close observers of the Senior Minister’s major political speeches, his argument here will have a familiar ring: in essence, that Singapore’s global influence and ability to navigate complex geopolitical waters requires a strong government.
Put more directly, that the PAP’s dominance in politics over the past six decades isn’t merely fortuitous, or good to have, but is in fact a strategic necessity.
In previous addresses, Mr Lee has likened this to a Garden of Eden situation – once single-party dominance erodes, the positive outcomes so prized by Singaporeans that flow from it cannot be regained.
In his April 14 speech, he put it plainly regarding the implications for the conduct of foreign policy: “You need to have a good government, an effective government, a strong government, in order to take care of Singapore. And it has to be strong domestically, in order to be strong internationally.”
Importantly, Mr Lee did not argue against the existence of opposition – quite the contrary. He acknowledged that the opposition has a legitimate role in Singapore’s democratic system and that opposition MPs will always have a place in Parliament. However, he drew a clear line: “But if voters keep on electing more opposition MPs, even when the Government is doing a good job, then beyond a point, it must weaken the Government’s ability to govern, to form the best possible team for Singapore and to run this country the way Singaporeans have come to expect.”
Mr Lee raised the spectre that a weakened government could see foreign counter-parties question the staying power of the incumbent administration and the sitting prime minister, and temper their expectations – and commitments to Singapore – accordingly.
Here, then, lies one of the main areas of contestation likely to emerge during the coming election campaign: this view, one could say the orthodox PAP perspective, that a larger opposition presence could undermine Singapore’s foreign policy effectiveness, versus the perspective of serious, electable opposition parties – particularly the Workers’ Party – that greater political diversity serves the long-term national interest and need not compromise Singapore’s unified international stance.
Much as the messages from Mr Lee and Mr Wong this week have been sobering yet confidence-inspiring regarding foreign policy stewardship, this final point raises a profound question for voters on May 3: whether they will opt for a thinner or thicker opposition bench.
A Goldilocks problem with high stakes now rests in the hands of Singapore’s electorate.
