[FULL] SM Lee Hsien Loong at ISEAS Regional Outlook Forum 2026

Good morning everybody and happy new year. Uh last year has been a year of

year. Uh last year has been a year of strategic changes in the world. Uh they

are major. They'll have lasting effects.

The immediate consequences life goes on and we feel that perhaps it's not been as fearsome as expected. But I think we

should make no mistake that these are significant long-term changes which will have a major impact

on our lives. First on trade uh April the 2nd I think everybody knows what happened that Trump administration

tariffs upended the global trading system.

People feared the worst.

The results have been slightly less bad than that. We are relieved. But in fact,

than that. We are relieved. But in fact, it's a very drastic change. The results

have been slightly less bad because the tariffs are a bit lower than initially ex uh headlined because the implementation has been

slower because the US have had uh an AI tech boom which has driven the US economy

and that's carried us along. But we

should understand that it's a drastic change because in a multilateral trading system anchored by the US

based on MFN most favored nation status now the anchor player the US has said I'm not playing. I'm go I'm opting out and furthermore I do not want to do

business like that. I'm going to deal bilaterally one on one and on the basis that I will tariff you and I will use my

tariffs as a policy tool for many other purposes as well and meanwhile in that circumstance the world has to go on.

The consequences will take some time to play out because other countries will react. They will act to defend

react. They will act to defend themselves to to retaliate perhaps to secure their own supply chains

but and and the consequences will take time to play out but that is going to hurt the world economy and lead to more less stability, less growth, less

prosperity, less economic integration and technological progress.

I think that is not in doubt.

On the security side, there have been major changes too in Europe. The

European countries are engaged in deep soulsearching now on how they should what responsibility they can take for defense and how they can come together

in order to determine their own security policy and be less dependent on the United States.

It's going to be not just a lot of budget but it's also going to be the difficulty of coming up with a European

policy security direction and action and that's a fundamental change to their

world and Ukraine which is on the front line and at war in this world with a completely different US will now have to

What is a realistic path forward for our country in Asia? In the Asia-Pacific,

in Asia? In the Asia-Pacific, we have not had a NATO style Munich moment,

but the key factor in the US in in Asia-Pacific is a USChina relations.

Um fundamental tensions remain, but on top of that is overlaid a reluctance on both parties to incur the cost of a full-scale trade

war.

And so some accommodation has been made and we hope that will also help to manage the underlying tensions although they won't make them go away.

For the rest of the countries in the Asia-Pacific, the US is still a very important partner, security partner, economic

partner, investment source, destination for uh further studies, so many

interactions. But at the same time,

interactions. But at the same time, these countries also know that China is a major and growing

economic and more than economic partner and reality.

And so what do they do? And I think all the Asia-Pacific countries must also be rethinking their positions carefully too.

I think a lot in the Asia-Pacific will depend on how the US or how China decides that it wants to engage uh its regional neighbors and the world and

well China has been making the right statements about multilateralism about um MFN trade about uh rulesbased system and

we hope to see that this will be realized as real policies and issues are implemented.

it will be a difficult ride.

Um for the rest of the world, I think one major change has been that the US has been more willing to act unilaterally when it sees its national

interests require this. It's done this in the Middle East. It's done this is intervene militarily in Nigeria, which has never done before. most recently in

Venezuela and now um seriously under consideration uh some action in Greenland.

Um in the short term these actions have sometimes had spectacular and even positive results. In the Middle East,

positive results. In the Middle East, for example, uh there's a ceasefire in Gaza, imperfect though it may be, and there was a spectacular strike on the

Iranian nuclear facilities, but the longerterm consequences of these actions even at the target and the broader

consequences of these actions for the rest of the world and for the global system, a system which is based on UN principles, which is bas based on the on

the UN charter which is based on international law which is based on countries understanding that you have to get coexist with one another peacefully

and work with one another because going to war has grievous and very unpredictable consequences

that's I'm not sure that that has been furthered by this environment uh What does ASEAN do in this situation?

I think the first thing to do is to work together as one because cooperate more closely with one another and deal with our external problems as one unit rather

than as 11 different countries. Uh we

are diligently working on this in terms of um economic cooperation, in terms of um infrastructure, in terms of uh uh

building the working on the digital economy for example and there are many more more things we can do and uh Ibari

uh Pangestu who will be on stage later has uh authored a study on Assean agency in this world. But at the same time,

ASEAN countries have some very difficult problems to resolve. Some of them Myanmar internally, Thailand and uh Cambodia with an armed conflict

not really fully resolved and ASEAN has to try and resolve them with some difficulty.

So this is a complicated world. If you

ask me what happens in 2026, I would say as far as the growth is concerned, it could be plus a bit, minus a bit compared to last year. Last year was better than expected. This year may be

better or worse. It's neither here nor there. These things vary from year to

there. These things vary from year to year. What has happened is that you are

year. What has happened is that you are in a you that we've undergone a sea change. We are now in a different world

change. We are now in a different world and we are going to see the consequences of the sea change in the economy as well

as in the security area in 2026 and for many years to come. We hope we don't have any tectonic shocks again. I cannot

say for sure. Nobody can predict these things. But we hope that 2025

things. But we hope that 2025 will have been more exciting than 2026.

Thank you.

Uh thank you uh senior minister for that opening statement. Gives us a lot of

opening statement. Gives us a lot of room to ask questions. You touch on the US China relationship. So let me push that a little. Now the USChina's

relationship seems to have stabilized slightly under President Trump and President Shei. Both presidents seem to

President Shei. Both presidents seem to want to make the relationship work for specific outcomes.

Do you see this relationship holding for the next three years? And what issues can derail this fragile stability? Well,

for the immediate future, maybe even 3 years, I think the desire not to incur a huge economic cost, whether it's rare

earths, whether it's pharmaceuticals, whether it's uh electronics, uh will

ensure that we don't both sides do not wish to um join issue and make a conflict.

But in terms of the underlying issues between the two countries, I don't think that they have been addressed at all.

Nor are they easy to address and they remain there and they are very difficult to solve because the fundamental thing is the US is a status quo power. China

is growing, developing and China says, well, I'm happy to live in this world. I

I accept this framework. But the US says maybe today. But what happens when in

maybe today. But what happens when in fact your GDP exceeds mine by 20 30%.

Can I still be sure that that will be your position? And so the US wants to

your position? And so the US wants to keep the Chinese want to keep the Chinese if not down at least some distance

below them. And that's a fundamental

below them. And that's a fundamental contradiction because to the Chinese their right to develop is a red line.

they have to be entitled to grow and to fulfill their full potential. So how do you reconcile that? And even if this administration doesn't want to join

issue, the Congress, the US political security establishment, they see this as an existential issue. So I

think the tensions will remain there. Um

what can trigger? You could have an incident. If you have an EP3 type

incident. If you have an EP3 type incident like happened with the uh Bush second Bush administration in 1992, not not 1992 uh in

>> 2001 >> 2001.

Will it be so easy to solve as last time? It could easily happen over the

time? It could easily happen over the South China Sea or somewhere else. You

could have an issue where tensions grow. You don't go to war but

tensions grow. You don't go to war but you you actually have a friction. You

actually have a have a matter which comes to a head.

For example, when the balloon floated over the US a couple of years ago and uh suddenly you you have an incident

which maybe neither side intended.

You could also have a misassessment of the other side. I think that I'm rising and you are on the decline. You think

that I have a superior or he thinks that the other party has a inferior system and I will outdo you and I can keep you

down. And so I history is on my side.

down. And so I history is on my side.

Let's give history a shove.

And I think that's going to be a problem because uh neither is China is not a pushover. America is for all its

pushover. America is for all its difficulties is not going to disappear and as Henry Kissinger often said a war between the US and China cannot be won

and must not be fought but that's not something which is top of mind I think uh right now in the decision makers >> right and so you know there have been

recently some stepped up military exercises AC around Taiwan due to the arm sales

from the US to Taiwan. Where do you see cross traits relations going?

>> Well, we we think that if there's trouble cross traits, that's trouble not just for the U uh Taiwan and chi and China or the US and China, but for the

whole region and for the world. And so

we believe that it's important that there's peace in the Taiwan Strait that we have had a one China policy

which we've upheld for a very long time.

We are against Taiwan independence. We

are against unilateral changes to the status quo. The trouble is in the real

status quo. The trouble is in the real world the status quo is never a static frozen thing.

It's dynamic. It shifts.

countries adjust their position, other countries react then the other side reacts to the reactions and you can have adjustments as the world changes or you

can have a spiral which can go in the wrong direction and I think over the last few years um the shift has been towards tenser more troubled

relationships in the Taiwan streets and there have been actions on all sides although all sides say that we are maintaining the status quo. So that's

very troubling. uh I hope that it will be a we will be able to gradually calm things down and there's some hope of that because between the US

and China I think if the US wants to avoid a breach with China for now well they will also be careful not to use not

to cause not to allow Taiwan to upset that and they have considerable influence in this matter and I think with this administration

uh there are many things which people uh have views of of what it is doing but on Taiwan I don't think they have been doing wrong things recently

>> thank you I think I better ask a question of Venezuela otherwise the crowd will think I'm out of it >> which country >> Venezuela

>> how does Singapore see the situation in Venezuela and how do you think what has happened impacts on the changing world order

particularly in our region.

>> Well, we are very gravely concerned by the US military intervention in Venezuela. MFA put out a press statement

Venezuela. MFA put out a press statement um stating our views and we are against military intervention in other countries because this is contrary to

international law is contrary to UN charter we have always stated our position unequivocally on these matters who whichever the situation whether it's

Ukraine couple of years ago whether it's Granada um 1983 I which was an invasion by the US and we

have v voted accordingly at the UN >> and I think in this case is quite clear it's a contravention of uh international

law now Venezuela is a complicated country it's got uh very difficult internal situation it's legitimacy of the government is questioned it's

causing difficulties to its neighbors because of drugs because of uh refugees.

It's destabilizing the environ neighborhood and including I'm quite I can believe causing some difficulty to the United States. But

that does not justify a military in intervention in into by one country into another unilaterally and without uh any proper

authorization.

Um the immediate consequences maybe it works is a spectacular military success.

The longerterm consequences on the international system I think that is something which we have to worry about from the point of view of a small

country. If that is the way the world

country. If that is the way the world works we have a problem to some extent.

That has always been the way the world works. Um the US has done this many

works. Um the US has done this many times over uh in different parts of the world. I mentioned some of them just now

world. I mentioned some of them just now and other powers do it too. But you look at the situation, you look at the impact of it and you ask yourself is this a

plus or a minus and I don't think this is a plus.

>> Yes. Now thank you. Uh I would like to go to Myanmar now because Myanmar is holding its general elections in a phase

ballot and this should be completed by the end of January.

How should ASEAN respond and should we recognize the elections?

Well, ASEAN's stand on Myanmar is based on what we call a a five-point consensus, which means that you must have a sessation of violence, you must

have an inclusive dialogue and you we must have humanitarian aid and so on.

And on the elections particularly, ASEAN had a summit I think in October in KL and the leaders said reiterated that if you're going to have an election before you start the process, you must stop the

hostilities and you must have an inclusive dialogue and there must be participation otherwise you will not be able to have a transparent credible uh

pro election with an outcome which will command the respect and acceptance and legitimacy.

with the people.

Now the elections are carrying on. ASEAN has

not decided to send observers to the uh to to to see this election because some of the countries have grave doubts whether these preconditions will be met

and if they're not met well you can carry out an election but I think the problem will remain. uh this is not

something which we have not seen before.

It's Myanmar was in this situation for more than 20 years since 1990 when there was uh when the riots and the military

took over and over time gradually the leaders the military leaders in Myanmar came to the conclusion that there was no

future for the country if it had to be ruled by repression under a military ha that you had to have a government with legitimacy, with some

popular support and to be able to take the country forward.

And so in 20 2011 uh they transitioned uh they brought in Ansansuki and NLD and then they had

elections 5 years later and then in 2020 they had elections again. But

unfortunately the parties the military side and the uh NLD the civilian side couldn't make it work and so we are back in a military rule. It's a very delicate

situation because to to to govern the country which is 130 something nationalities. You need

not just a civilian government with legitimacy, but you need to have some role for the military because without the military, you can't make your

government work.

So, how do you how do you make that come together and hold it sustainable?

And last time it worked for a decade, then it came unstuck. Uh now they are in this situation. I think it will take

this situation. I think it will take them quite some time before the military leaders come to the same conclusion and we hope that they will be able to

find their way forward and work out a solution which will be which will lead to a government which will work. As for

the elections I I we do not pass judgment on other countries elections. Question is do I or

countries elections. Question is do I or do I not do business with a government of that country? And we do business with governments of countries where the

leaders have won elections with 99% of the vote.

So so all all countries where there are no elections that's just the way the system works. But in the case of Myanmar there

works. But in the case of Myanmar there is a specific humanitarian problem is a member of ASEAN. It's a problem we are collectively seized with. So we will

conduct business but we do not at this point make any statement about the nature of the election or endorse it.

>> Well we have doubts but I think it's best that Myanmar solve that part of the problem itself. Right now Myanmar is a

problem itself. Right now Myanmar is a member of ASEAN but is not participating at the political level is different from what happened the on the previous occasion when they continue to

participate at the political level.

uh this time we took a different stand.

I think there are advantages and disadvantages but I think for now ASEAN has continued with the stand. It may change at some point.

>> Yes. Thank you. So let me now go to the Thai Cambodia conflict. This border

conflict has been broken by the ASEAN chair. But in the first round, the

chair. But in the first round, the United States played a big role.

In the second round, China played a great role. Do you see this as a future

great role. Do you see this as a future trend of conflict settlement in ASEAN?

And what does it say about ASEAN centrality?

>> I think ASEAN has influence over its members, but it does not have absolute influence over its members. ASEAN is not a super national body with executive

powers. It doesn't direct its members.

powers. It doesn't direct its members.

It cannot override its members. It works

by ASEAN consensus. It's a famous principle. We pride ourselves on it.

principle. We pride ourselves on it.

It's the reason we're able to get along together. We are 11 countries. Uh we

together. We are 11 countries. Uh we

have different policies, different priorities, different histories, different security concerns. It is not possible for us to be one country or even one federation. So when there are

issues concerning an individual country or between them, you have influence, you have um interests involved, you would like the matter to be resolved and we

can help but we don't have the greatest power. Who has the greatest power? Well,

power. Who has the greatest power? Well,

who are their biggest trading who are our biggest trading partners amongst ASEAN? Our intraasan trade is only about

ASEAN? Our intraasan trade is only about 20% of our international trade. Our

biggest trading partners are with the developed economies America foremost amongst them and in our region with

China and that is where influence can come and apart from the economy there's also many other ways in which the major powers can exercise influence on ASEAN

members. So it's not surprising that the

members. So it's not surprising that the major powers have uh are able to nudge encourage uh advise

even coers other countries to do something which they would like to do to some extent doesn't mean you can solve the problem because a Thai Cambodian problem goes

back to maps drawn more than a hundred years ago and temples involves temples which go back 78 800 years. So these are

not issues which will go away but it's a reality that foreign uh external powers have influence over ASEAN countries and ASEAN has to work together despite that

and in many areas we're still able to do so. It is a valuable organization for

so. It is a valuable organization for all of us.

>> Yes. Yeah. I still worry about the centrality of assean but maybe asan >> well I I think centrality is a has

become a term of art what it means is that we convene the meeting people comes and it's quite useful that we can convene the meeting because they come and meet each other and discuss it with

us doesn't mean that we are centrally directing matters even amongst ourselves much less in the rest of the world >> yes >> you must not mistake a word for a

reality Yes. Right. Thank you. Yeah. Now, let me

Yes. Right. Thank you. Yeah. Now, let me just go to Assean. I know the audience is impatient, but I still have a few questions, you know, and I see one or

two sitting at the edge of their seats waiting to ask. The reaching consensus in a regional grouping is getting more

and more difficult and this is so in ASEAN. It is also true in the European

ASEAN. It is also true in the European Union. Should Assean go for Assean minus

Union. Should Assean go for Assean minus X as a formula in decision making on

economic initiatives but consensus on security initiatives.

>> There's an argument to be made for that.

Singapore used to push for that u quite consistently over quite a number of years especially when I was I remember

when I was involved in economic policym that means about 20 30 years ago uh right now it did not catch on with the other countries it hasn't uh been

implemented I think there's merit to consider it you have to be very careful how you craft it and what the supermajority needs to But if you have more members in ASEAN,

there's more reason to think about these uh arrangements. Otherwise, if you have

uh arrangements. Otherwise, if you have to have consensus and consensus means everybody has to agree, then there's not consensus, it's unonymity and taking to

the taken to the limit. Uh uh you see how that works in the WTO which is supposed to be by consensus but as a result is very difficult to get anywhere.

But if we don't do something, Assean is not going to >> But you must decide on Assean minus X first of all by consensus.

>> Otherwise, you can't start.

>> Yes. Right.

Indeed. Now, um the uh I'm looking at the time. Um I'd like to ask you two

the time. Um I'd like to ask you two more questions.

Reflecting on your time in office, what were the black swans you had to deal with in the 20 years you were prime minister?

And what lessons did you draw from your dealings with these crisis that you would like to share with the people of Singapore?

I I think there were two very big things which happened to us when I was PM which we didn't expect. One was a global

financial crisis and the other one was COVID.

Uh in both cases it came quite suddenly.

uh the impact on us was very great and we had to prepare the population for the impact psychologically as well as do things which were within our power to

secure ourselves and secure our people's livelihoods and lives. Fortunately, with

resources and with support from the people and with unity, we were able to do that and to come out in both cases um

much less scarred than we feared. In the case of the GFC, we came through and recovered

so quickly that the economy um zoomed forward. We ran out of we ran short of

forward. We ran out of we ran short of infrastructure and that became a political problem.

In the case of COVID, we came through safely uh far fewer casualties than we than could have been and perhaps

um having not quite realized what an enormous catastrophe we have avoided.

But the lesson I draw from this is first you must have the support of the people and the trust of the people. Secondly,

you must be tell speak to them clearly and directly to explain to them what is going to happen and what we can do about it.

And thirdly, you must have a good team in government to come up with the plans, the actions, the schemes to to implement what you need. Whether it's a scheme to

top up salary so that employers will keep their people on the payroll while going through the crisis. Whether it's

enforcing a lockdown so that uh we keep ourselves safe until vaccines come.

Whether it is rolling out vaccines nationwide, persuading everybody to get jabbed because they trust you and you say it's safe and you've been on TV

jabbed yourself and doing it in a way where there's no no stampede, no riot, no panic and you come through and orderly and you know in

Singapore you're okay. I think if you can manage crisis with that kind of attitude and then once it's over start thinking how can it be the next time and

how can I be better prepared then nothing is absolutely safe but we'll be safer >> but the world was a better place uh you

know the external environment was slightly better than now which is quite >> yes so now you're in a situation too it's not like the GFC or COVID which you

expect to be um finite duration. Don't

know how long but one day this two shall pass. But now you are in a situation

pass. But now you are in a situation where the old norms have permanently gone. You are not going to go back to a

gone. You are not going to go back to a WTO scheme. You are not really going to

WTO scheme. You are not really going to go back to a a situation where we

we talk about interdependence and uh co-ross co-rossperity without worrying what if tomorrow you're not my friend and how do I secure myself against you?

We are in a situation where there's less trust between countries, where there's greater friction, greater rivalry, greater

unpredictability and less rules and norms which will help a small country make its way forward.

And our challenge is to make Singaporeans understand that it is possible for us to prosper in such a world. But you have to work harder and

world. But you have to work harder and you have to be much more alive to what's happening around you. And this is going to be a for a long time. But uh we we

are better prepared for this than many other countries because we are not the only ones in this sport. And I think that's a big challenge and it's a challenge for the new PM and the new new

team and I'm no longer the PM but I'm doing my best to help them.

>> Did you have fun as prime minister?

>> I don't think uh it's quite the right mindset with which to approach the job but it's a challenge and is one which uh you look forward to. There is a problem

uh and we can do something about it.

Let's move. I think that's a good feeling.

>> Thank you. Now I'm going to invite questions from the floor. Can we have the first question?

I can't see in this big room and there are some blockages. Can someone help me?

Uh yes, please.

>> Good morning, SM. Thank you very much for your thoughts and uh and your >> Oh, please identify yourself. And

>> yeah, my name is Sharon Sai. I'm from

the ISIS usak institute.

>> Um as you know the international legal order has really served us very well and in fact Singapore has benefited from this order but you mentioned as well

that there's it's now at risk and it is at risk um by certain unilateral action.

some alarming developments have happened since January 3rd and there are now threats going around uh targeting different territories.

I like to know what defenses do we have as small states, not just Singapore. I

think right now there are only two major powers in the world, maybe three if you include Russia. The rest of us are at

include Russia. The rest of us are at risk. So what defenses do we have to

risk. So what defenses do we have to mitigate these risks to preserve our sovereignty and our way of life? And the

second one is that you said the USChina relationship is important for Southeast Asia. Our institute has done a survey

Asia. Our institute has done a survey called the state of Southeast Asia every year um in which we realize that people actually don't want to choose and we've

always said that Azan does not want to choose. You also mentioned that China

choose. You also mentioned that China has made the right statements and indeed following January 3rd, China has made the strongest statement in support of the international rulesbased order.

Does this mean that we have now reached the point in order to preserve our own sovereignty that we now must choose a side? Those are my questions. Thank you

side? Those are my questions. Thank you

very much.

>> What what can we do to keep our ourselves safe? First make sure that the

ourselves safe? First make sure that the country economy is successful because if you're broke and poor poor or broke uh you can't do anything about it.

Secondly, look to our defenses. We've been

spending about 3% of our GDP every year on defense for a very long time.

Previously even higher and built up a credible SEF, Singapore Armed Forces.

and we continue to do that not to threaten anybody but just to keep ourselves safe.

Thirdly, work together with our regional neighbors, cooperating amongst ourselves to the extent that we can and also using

it as a platform to partner other uh economies and other centers of prosperity in the world. Whether it's

India, whether it's China, whether it's EU, ASEAN, EU, ASEAN India, these are all ties which we can cultivate in

order. Even if I don't have a full WTO

order. Even if I don't have a full WTO system, I have got a network of countries which want to trade with one another and continue to want to do

business under some set of rules which will prevent us from falling back to the law of the jungle. And it's not

only within ASEAN. We can do that using APEC or using the uh RC and actively encourage this to happen. And

we participate very actively when it comes to climate change conferences, when it comes even now to WTO discussions or at the UN at through the

forum of small states force where we are an active um um organizer promoter to work together because small states have

agency. I don't determine the outcome

agency. I don't determine the outcome but I have influence over my fate.

Now uh on the question of people not wanting to choose sides I think in any country unless you are on the verge of a unless your dander is up and there's

some fight and you've decided let's charge and go and clobber the other fellow most of the time when you ask people who are living at in peace and quiet do you want a fight do you want to

get involved in somebody else else's fight I think most people will say no we don't want to do that it's a completely rational and understandable sentiment.

And speaking as a government of as a government of the country, if there's a fight between two other countries, we have to ask ourselves what's in it for us. Is there a principle at stake? If

us. Is there a principle at stake? If

so, we have to stand up for the principle. We don't we we we just we

principle. We don't we we we just we don't have a we don't um support military intervention in a certain country but that doesn't mean I'm the

enemy of the country which I disapprove of whose action I disapprove of. I still

do business with them. I mean we issued very strong statements in the case of uh when Russia invaded Ukraine we had sanctions against Russia certain

targeted sanctions but doesn't mean we are uh hostile to Russia I mean we still have we still have relations we still do business with them similarly with the US

similarly with other powers now on US and China everybody says they don't want you to they're not asking you to choose sides everybody would like you on their side without choosing

And sometimes they make it quite clear that this is their wish and you have to find a way to do business with both of them and not to be closed off from one

side or the other. Some if you read the reports is open reports nothing nothing from intelligent sources uh you will see

that when the US concludes uh trade deals with certain other partners I mean in the reports recently were Malaysia Vietnam

Indonesia but even from the first Trump administration in the US Canada Mexico uh trade agreement there are provisions to

If you enter into an agreement with a country which uh doesn't sub subscribe to US principles or which is a problem to the US, well, this deal is off. It's

called a poison pill.

So, uh there is pressure to um enlist countries onto their side. I think we have to do do our best to resist that.

And the more we have links with all parties, I think the more we are in a position to say, well, I have some options. I don't have to be pushed in

options. I don't have to be pushed in completely into following one side and not the other.

Frankly speaking, countries in the region in Asia Pacific, including America's allies and America's friends, all have very big accounts with

China.

It's so for Japan, it's so for Korea.

It's so for Australia.

Um the Korean president has just been in Beijing and um trying to reset their relationship which used to be very good

about a decade ago when Korea decided to host um the Thad system and then it turned sour but the they still want to do business with China. Australia wants

to do business with China. They sell

many many things there.

So does Japan even though there are tensions between them. So this is a situation which many countries in the world will be in. And I do not think

that the outcome will be that we are going to have a completely lopsided world in which one party will be alone and all the country other countries will

be on one side is is not credible.

>> I think Mr. Yes, >> my name is Ken Ming, a former member of parliament from Malaysia. Um, senior

minister, I was wondering whether you would include the change in government in Malaysia in 2018 as uh black swan event. Uh, were you know anticipating

event. Uh, were you know anticipating that to happen? Uh, and also what adjustments uh do you think the Singapore government under your lead leadership did uh during uh the tumultus

times uh from 2018 to 2022 when there were a number of uh prime ministers? And

lastly, do you think those changes uh that you uh introduced or you led would allow Singapore to adjust uh quite well

uh to uh possibility of a past Malaysian government under a past prime minister, the Islamic Party of Malaysia. Thank

you.

>> You're leading me into very complicated areas.

uh when you have an election, you never know until the ballot boxes are open what the outcome is. Uh we didn't expect

what happened in 2018, but um the result uh produced a new prime minister whom we knew from

many years of working with him before.

and we kept relations uh on track and worked with him. Some cooperation

projects were reconsidered, some continued, some didn't. Um some new projects which we had hoped to work on, they may not have taken off yet. But

well, external policy always depends on domestic politics. If your domestic

domestic politics. If your domestic politics doesn't support it or doesn't give you the bandwidth to make major external decisions, well, that's just

the way it is and we have to wait until the politics enables things to restart and meanwhile we just keep things on an

even keel and I think in the last well now 8 years nearly from 2018 7 and a half years since 2018 we have kept relations

with Malaysia on an even keel. First me

and then uh Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. Uh we've started a few new things

Wong. Uh we've started a few new things for example the Joho Singapore special economic zone still in progress. We've

continued and we're almost completing some out ongoing projects for example the RTS link which we hope will be done by end of this year or if not sooner thereafter.

And there are new areas which we are still talking about which may be difficult to solve but which we hope we will be able to tackle uh without letting them derail the

relationship.

Uh as for who forms the government in Malaysia, I think whoever forms a government in Malaysia, we have to work with them just as whoever forms a government in Singapore, you have to

work with us.

But the reality is also that we are very different systems. Singapore is multi-racial and we go on the basis of equal opportunity and meritocracy and in

Malaysia you are you are different.

Yours is a racebased political system and uh based on a bumra policy. It's the

fundamental difference between our two countries and I think therefore the relationship is complex but we have found ways to coexist and to cooperate

despite that and I'm quite confident we will keep on doing that.

>> Uh I think there's a question here.

>> Yeah, thank you Prof. I'm William. I'm a

senior fellow here and the editor at Fukram. Um, SM speaking to CNN in 2020,

Fukram. Um, SM speaking to CNN in 2020, you said that the world had greatly benefited from US leadership for decades. This was said in the throws of

decades. This was said in the throws of CO. You noted, however, that if America

CO. You noted, however, that if America is in a different mode, we will go and look for other configurations and things will eventually work out, but

it will be at a loss. So, looking at the recent US actions, I don't need to go there. Uh it seems that um the

there. Uh it seems that um the gamekeeper of the rulesbased order has turned poacher. Now does it appear to

turned poacher. Now does it appear to you that many states now will be in your own words looking at different configurations and many of these

configurations will involve China? Uh

what would you think about that? Well, I

think all states will be asking themselves if this will be the new reality and it is not contested that the US will

is no longer willing or perhaps able to play the role which it did until maybe not until this year but maybe until

maybe 15 years ago. Then how can the world get along and what is the best way we can cooperate with one another in trade? I have sketched some of the ways

trade? I have sketched some of the ways we try to hold the network together. You

can have regional groupings, you can have cooperation between regional groupings. Uh you theoretically you

groupings. Uh you theoretically you could have the world minus one but when the one is this big that's not easy to

do. And yet when it comes to other

do. And yet when it comes to other issues such as climate change and the US says no I do not believe in climate change then the question is do we also

decide not to believe in climate change do we decide that well even if the US doesn't believe in it let's the rest of us uh get

together to minimize the damage which climate change can do to our economies or will it result in countries saying

well if the US is going to do that then why am I um hurting myself in order to try and save the earth. So that's

something which is outstanding for the world and I hope that we will be able not to end up in a situation where is every country for itself because I think that's the worst possible outcome for

everybody. So some a degree of cohesion

everybody. So some a degree of cohesion and cooperation. The rules may not be as

and cooperation. The rules may not be as uh well complied with or respected. The

participation may not be as universal but it is possible for countries to work together because we are all on this one

little globe. And that's the best way to

little globe. And that's the best way to secure the future for our children.

Thank you.

>> Uh, are there any other questions? Am I

not seeing?

Uh, >> sorry. Yes,

>> sorry. Yes, the cameras are in the way. Yes, please.

>> Good morning, senior minister. My name

is Patrick. I'm a student at St.

Joseph's Institution. My question is with regards toi with regards to the United States specifically the increased role that personal and financial

interests of Mr. Trump himself and of the individuals that he surrounds himself with have in shaping the foreign policy of the United States. So to cite

some uh examples that made the news a while back, I think the most prominent one was the uh $400 million plane that he was gifted. Uh, of course, various

other examples include some of his cryptocurrency ventures which several Middle Eastern states have invested money into. With that, my question is,

money into. With that, my question is, should this avenue of shaping foreign policy, be it either through assuaging Mr. Trump's personal interests or by

targeting members of his administration or people he surrounds himself with such as Jared Kushner be considered and developed as an instrument of foreign policy by smaller states such as

Singapore or in ASEAN.

>> I think as a small country we just accept the way other countries run themselves.

We have certain rules in Singapore, certain ways of doing things. uh certain

expectations of uh people in politics.

You must be honest. You must not lie.

You must not take bribes. You must not let down the public trust in you. And if

you do, there has to be consequences. Uh

we don't I mean doesn't mean we don't have from time to time lapses in Singapore, but that's what we try to do.

Other countries run their societies in different ways. It often works for them.

different ways. It often works for them.

I think it's very presumptuous for this tiny little island to go and pronounce on who's right and who's wrong and what we should do about

it. So we just take the world as it is

it. So we just take the world as it is and we leave other countries to work out their own affairs because we wouldn't like them to work out our affairs on our

behalf too.

>> Thank you. There's I think it's Zino is it?

>> Thank you.

>> Yeah. Thank you for uh SM I would like to ask you a question about the challenges of intergenerational

leadership change. I think uh we we look

leadership change. I think uh we we look back in the last 20 30 years we quite clear in terms of the the leadership

regeneration from BMLY Liquanu and then to go chop to you. We all can know, we know roughly

you. We all can know, we know roughly what to expect, what to predict. But

looking forward, how do you see that?

Because we we look around, we even not sure now what kind of leadership change that will happen in Malaysia, in Indonesia, who are the people who going to come in and take over leadership

role. So if you look at ASEAN and you

role. So if you look at ASEAN and you look at ASEAN also in the context of AEAN China relations, how do you see the challenges of this regeneration and

intergenerational challenges of leadership change? Thank you. Leadership

leadership change? Thank you. Leadership

change is never straightforward. Um how

do you decide who is the next person?

You can't anoint him. Um

you can't predict him. it you have to see who the talent is how and there some way in which somebody emerges and is accepted.

Uh happens differently in different countries. In Singapore we have tried to

countries. In Singapore we have tried to make it a more systematic process by putting a lot of effort into trying to get good people into government into

politics so that there are choices. You

don't know who quite is going to emerge and and and naturally become the leader. But if you have no good people in politics, you

have no good choices for the next generation. And it's a process which

generation. And it's a process which takes a long time and which despite our best efforts is not guaranteed to work.

But that's the best option we have and it's something which has worked for us so far.

fourth prime minister now and we hope it will continue to work but if you ask me what

who next and who next next I think that's uh my crystal ball is not is too cloudy to answer that question in other

countries even more so but that's the way the world is if you are in the US you don't know who the candidates will be in the next election much less who will win In some

countries, uh, you have such a quick change that you don't know beforehand and you can't remember afterwards.

And it doesn't always work well for them. But we we hope to maintain it

them. But we we hope to maintain it stable, predictable and also keeping up with the times so that you

have a leader who is in sync with the generation uh on top on on top of his job and in touch with what's happening in the world and he feels that

I I'm of this generation and I'm going to take it forward and hand it over in good shape.

to the next one and that's the way we think we should do it.

>> Now uh I'm really I have one last question here and this will be the last.

Can you make your question brief and uh we'll wrap up after that.

>> Thank you Profan. Um good morning senior minister. My name is Julia Laauo. I work

minister. My name is Julia Laauo. I work

for IC's.

Uh now that you mentioned about elected leaders, we live in an age where there are unelected tech titans and they're trillion dollar companies.

and they potentially can wield political influence uh in terms of social media and other things to impact societies across the globe. How can governments implement and you can limit this to

Singapore if you wish. Uh how can governments implement guard rails and frameworks to ensure proper accountability and oversight when these people are not elected? Thank you. Well,

the first thing to do is to keep money out of politics because if your politics depends on money, then the people with more money will have more influence on your politics.

That's how it is. And in Singapore, we have tried very hard to keep politic money out of politics. So, when you uh run for election, there's a spending

limit three I think $3.50 50 cents per voter and you you're that's all you're allowed to spend. Uh we don't allow political advertisements.

We you you nowadays with social media we can't stop you boosting posts but you have to track and declare that and it's

all within this budget and therefore politics is contestable and the people who are elected are not

beholding beholden to their sponsors and therefore the government is able to respond to their true masters which is

the electorate who voted for them and pass and implement policies which will reflect the interests of the population

and the country. And if those policies affect wealthy wealthy entrepreneurs or wealthy businesses, well, so be it. But

the politics holds and the policies will stand. If you are dependent on money

stand. If you are dependent on money from the companies and that's a different situation then

you will find your MPs melting on you or your congressman melting on you and the next thing is you will find a reason why your old arguments were no good and your

new arguments are more persuasive and then well things which pre previously were anathema have now become doctrine

And I think that that would be very dangerous for Singapore.