Submitted to an adjournment speech competition organized by the Workers Party.

In 1992, the political scientist Francis Fukuyama published his book `The End of History and the Last Man’. He argued that human society was evolving towards an end point, where liberal democratic institutions would become universal. In this eschatology states would transcend the primal instincts of war and conflict, and become integrated economically, socially, and politically. In 1992, events in the world seemed to give ample evidence to his thesis. The Soviet Union had collapsed, birthing successor republics and nascent democracies. Soon later, the European Union was established, with the European integration allowing freedom of movement, markets, and a single currency, and hopefully shared foreign and security policies. China’s economy was opening up, becoming the largest ‘workshop of the world’ seen since Victorian Britain. This was the heyday of globalization that had finally come into its own. Free markets took over the world, countries became ever more interdependent, and people across the world became more exposed to each other. It wasn’t difficult to believe that the political institutions and compacts of countries would all also converge. Conflict and war would be forever eschewed, with dialogue and global institutions like the UN and ICJ being used instead to resolve disputes.

This environment of globalization has allowed Singapore, a small country with no hinterland and a history of serving as an entrepot port, to thrive. And this effect is not just felt by elites, but even by the humblest Singaporean. Most of our food comes from overseas, with any average supermarket allowing you to buy eggs from Ukraine, chicken from Brazil, and butter from France. 22% of Singapore’s GDP comes from manufacturing firms that rely on complex global supply chains stretching across the globe. Finance firms with large regional and global headquarters in Singapore rely on the free movement of money and the ability to transact easily across borders. And I am sure most, if not all, Singaporeans enjoy the benefits of the routine movement of people overseas, whether for leisure, education, or business.

What I am saying, Mr Speaker, is that the Globalization and interconnectedness the world has experienced has benefited Singapore massively. Even if most Singaporeans might not agree and be equally happy with the extent that Singapore has plugged itself into the world economy, Singapore would not have experienced the peace and success it had without this Globalized environment.

But already back in 1996, there were forecasts of dark clouds off the horizon. Samuel Huntington published his book ‘The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order’, as a response to Fukuyama’s thesis, arguing that instead of converging, the world would continue to be split along cultural lines, which differences would be extremely hard to bridge. And different civilizational blocks would reject the prevailing Globalized international system, which was built by the Western civilizations, with conflicts appearing at the boundaries between civilizations.

At the time, it was inconceivable to see how Globalization would slow down, much less reverse. However, the last few years have unfortunately bucked this trend. I will give a few examples.

Firstly, there has been a rise of nationalist politicians and parties in places that hitherto were known for openness, like the US and western Europe. Parties like the Brothers of Italy, recently elected, are openly nationalist, being sceptics of the European Union and international institutions. Trump wanted to heavily draw down on international commitments, and his slogan, ‘Make America Great Again’ certainly didn’t give off the feeling that he believed that Globalization was the way to go.

Secondly, China under its current rulers seems bent on restoring Chinas historic primacy in the world, and in their eyes, this requires rejecting the geopolitical order. Deteriorating US-China relations, policies preventing collaboration with Chinese researchers on emerging technologies, combined with China’s Covid-zero policies, has caused the number of Chinese students in western countries to decrease in the last two years. The natural cultural exchange occurring between students will drop sharply, which will lead to less appreciation of the current global system in the subsequent generations of China and a stronger insularity of thought within Chinas future leaders. One fears that this will lead to an even more assertive China, even more confident in its righteous path to restore its prominence, and even more stubborn beliefs that the current international order is detrimental to China.

Thirdly, Covid has shown us how fragile the web of interconnectedness in the world is. It was astonishing how in a matter of weeks, if not days, the world came to a screeching halt in early 2020 as countries closed. Trade volumes across the world plummeted and international flights dropped to a miniscule fraction of its pre-covid volume. Governments had to contend with ensuring their food supply chains from overseas continued to function, and the significance of such events cannot be lost on anyone living on this small red dot.

And most recently, the outbreak of the biggest European war since World War 2 over imagined casus bellis has shocked the world. A major European country’s sovereignty is again threatened just because it dared to set its own independent foreign policy. Such an aspiration certainly cannot be a high bar for states to hope for. This rude awakening has caused rapid budget changes in European countries to prioritize rearmament and to rethink the doing away of conscription. Russia has been essentially decoupled from the world, with its banks being denied access to international payment systems and international MNCs like Apple and Ikea pulling out their operations. And right now, it looks like their biggest export, natural gas, is also going to be shut off from Europe, which might plunge millions of households in Europe into coldness over the winter months.

Mr Speaker, the world is changing. It is unclear if this new, less conducive environment is here to stay. Already Singapore is struggling to navigate the tensions between the US and China. It is commonly believed that the Chinese government impounded Singapore’s Terrexes in 2016 to punish us for bringing up the South China Sea disputes in 2015’s Shangri-la dialogue. The collapse of the TPP with the election of Trump was a big blow to dreams of a free-er trading Pacific. And many Singaporeans still do not see why standing up for Ukraine is an existential issue to us.

Regardless, Singapore must make plans to survive and thrive under such geopolitical conditions. We might rue the past, but we must make plans for the present and future. To this end, I propose that this house openly affirm and debate on the three following points:

1: The Singapore government in public must continue espousing our desires for countries to recourse to dialogue and arbitration by international institutions in the event of conflict, instead of force.

Nobody is arguing that these international institutions are perfect. However, in the past, rulers of great empires and powers always were free to inflict whatever pains they wanted on weaker peoples and weaker countries. This is succinctly put across by the Melian dialogue, where ‘the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must’. World War 1 and 2 made us confront how new industrial technologies allowed war to reach new heights of barbarisms and cruelty, where entire races could be wiped out by the snap of a strongman’s finger. The United Nations was set up to promote national sovereignty, where every country’s voice would be treated with the same weight.

True, most of its founding members contradictorily held on to colonial empires at that time. Politicking is never absent. The strong still hold vetoes, especially in the security council. But this system has been fairer and better than any that has come before. Ever since, all colonial empires have given up almost all their colonies, with those remaining largely choosing to stay. Such institutions follow accepted rules when dealing with global crises. They provide accessible forums for co-operation and co-development. While not denying the continued existence of conflict and war, as a whole, the world has been the most peaceful it has ever been. Help from the World Bank and the IMF is readily available, even as it comes with preconditions that are not necessarily bad. UN peacekeeping missions allow unbiased, third-party mediation between combatants. And the UN at its core expresses states’ rights for national self-determination, to freely pursue economic, social, cultural and political goals, even in the face of external powers that might not be fully pleased.

Close to home, Singapore and Malaysia have resolved conflicts over Pedra Branca through the ICJ. Major inter-state conflict has been eliminated in South-East Asia since the establishment of ASEAN, and this was not inevitable, remembering Konfrontasi, Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge, the Sabah disputes, and the Thai-Cambodia border disputes.

Singapore and the region have benefitted from these institutions. The end of major political strife have greatly contributed to the stability and openness of the region, attracting foreign interest and investment. What happens in our neighbouring countries deeply impacts us. We should consider increasing our funding towards such institutions, possibly by increasing our funding to ASEAN offices and development funds like the Initiative for ASEAN Integration. We could also further push for stronger integrative efforts. Could we push for ASEAN to establish a common disaster-relief quick response force from our militaries, which could respond in coordinated fashion when natural disasters like the 2004 Tsunami strikes? Such a force, while not only providing practical aid to ASEAN, would also increase dialogue between our militaries, enhancing understanding and cooperation, and can provide an example framework to coordinate larger, longer-term responses to problems like global warming.

2: How and what kinds of legislation can Singapore enact to ensure that our policies are as fair and unbiased towards competing superpowers? How will we prevent subversion from superpowers in our public institutions and major state-owned corporations?

It is extremely hard to fight foreign subversion. It might not come in the form of bribes or lobbying from foreign companies and institutions, but from people letting their natural biases influencing their analysis and development of policies. The examples of Huang Jin and Yeo Jun Wei should make us pause. Are they merely flashes in the pan, or a sign of things to come? Like the fight against corruption, we should set up a systematic way to catch signs of foreign subversion and influence in our senior public servants.

Furthermore, we also need to avoid groupthink in our senior public servants, especially in the field of foreign affairs. One remembers the example of Israel in the Yom-Kippur war, where their entire security apparatus believed that the Arab states would not invade them and thus consequently failed to prepare, until the day of the invasion itself. While we probably will not be put in such a dramatic situation, the point is that we must ensure we fully consider all the evidence available to us and all the possibilities that they might entail, rather than accepting the analysis of a few, especially if they all agree with each other. Could we set up an official ombudsman office in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who would constantly criticise our foreign policies from `the other side’, so to speak? Or how about setting up a permanent foreign relations committee in parliament, with members from both government and opposition?

3: Lastly, instead of considering globalization and liberalization as inevitable and these few years an aberration to the march of history, the world might be simply reverting to its usual self. But that way of viewing things denies nation-states, governments, and people agency to change.

Huntington attributes the inevitable clash of civilizations to the differences in history, language, culture, traditions, and religions, which are products of centuries, being impossible to replace in a short time. However, there are many problems with this explanation. For example, Korea and Japan are east Asian countries with historic civilizations very different from the west, neither sharing a common culture, common religion, nor common language. However, their political systems align strongly with western democracies, with contested, free elections, independent courts, and independent public institutions. Their economies are deeply integrated into the world market, and there is hardly any political pressure from their citizenry to retreat inwards from Globalization. They show that nation states descended from different historic civilizations can avoid this prophesised conflict. We are not slaves to our historic cultures, destined to forever be in thrall to factors out of our control. Peoples and Governments hold their own futures in their hands, with the power to promote policies and shape popular beliefs.

Singapore must educate our population on the key principles of our foreign policy. For example, many do not know the principles leading us to sanction Russia so quickly, but not the Tatmadaw. Why are our policies on the Israel-Palestine conflict the way they are? How far will Singapore hold to its principles if, let’s say, China aims to reunite Taiwan by force? Will we sanction China the same way we did Russia? Are we willing to actively step in and provide a neutral ground for them to negotiate? All these are questions that should be debated publicly, as they are far too important for Singaporeans to have no clue on them. The government should consider publishing a foreign policy white paper, to inform the public.

Another policy we might want to consider is to promote more overseas field trips and learning journeys in our schools. Such trips, especially made during a person’s youth, have great power to shape their outlook towards the world, to understand how other cultures operate and to broaden their experiences. Such students are more likely to grow up to start businesses that might operate overseas, to desire to study overseas for tertiary studies, and to facilitate more cross-border interactions both commercially and socially. Already, our universities have seen much success in their overseas programs like NUS Overseas Colleges. I believe that such trips should be promoted downwards, into the secondary schools. MOE could institute a policy where every school would be encouraged to send a minimum percentage of their students overseas at least once during their time in the school. Of course, to ensure that such opportunities and learning opportunities are equally distributed, extra funding would be needed to subsidize the fees for poorer students.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, I would like to exhort this house to consider the ways that this world is changing, and to think on how Singapore might need to adapt its foreign policies to remain relevant in a world where Globalization slows down, stops, or even reverses. I don’t intend for this to be a list of policy recommendations, rather, I want to catalyse a greater debate within the house and in Singaporean society. I hope that all members can think and reflect on the threats that Singapore faces in this new global environment and contribute to making Singapore a more resilient society in the face of de-globalization and the decoupling of the world.