A Paradigm Shift in Diplomacy

In a revealing admission that speaks to fundamental changes in global politics, Singapore’s Foreign Minister Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan recently observed that “foreign policy now has domestic salience.” This seemingly simple statement masks a profound transformation in how small states navigate international relations in the 21st century. For a country that has long prided itself on clinical, interest-based diplomacy divorced from emotional appeals, the acknowledgment that “a lot of our diplomacy is focused domestically” represents a significant recalibration of priorities.

Dr. Balakrishnan’s decade-long tenure has coincided with an era of unprecedented global fragmentation—from the Israel-Gaza conflict to US-China tensions, from the Myanmar crisis to regional flashpoints in the South China Sea. What makes this period distinctive is not merely the frequency or intensity of these crises, but the way they reverberate through Singapore’s diverse society, forcing foreign policy out of the realm of elite decision-making and into the arena of public contestation.

The Mechanics of Domestic Salience

From Parliamentary Footnote to Front-Page Issue

The most visible indicator of this shift is parliamentary activity. Dr. Balakrishnan notes that “in the past, I would have had very few questions in Parliament,” but today he finds himself “on the front lines” during Budget debates and ministerial statements. This is not merely about increased curiosity; it reflects genuine domestic stakes in foreign policy outcomes.

The numbers tell part of the story—”hundreds of sessions” spent explaining Singapore’s foreign policy positions to citizens. But the quality of engagement matters more than quantity. These are not pro forma briefings but intensive efforts to justify, contextualize, and sometimes defend positions that increasingly attract scrutiny and dissent from specific communities within Singapore.

The Multiracial Prism: Blessing and Burden

Singapore’s demographic composition—approximately 74% Chinese, 13% Malay, 9% Indian, and a diverse array of other communities—has always been central to its national identity. What has changed is how global conflicts activate these identity lines in ways that directly impact foreign policy formulation.

Dr. Balakrishnan articulates this plainly: “Because of our multiracial, multi-religious make-up, the truth is, when crises or conflicts break out in the world, it is very easy for us to view them through different lenses. And it is important that we achieve internal alignment, whilst recognising that different groups will feel more or less strongly about wars and conflicts elsewhere.”

This is diplomatic language for a delicate reality: when Israel and Hamas clash, Singapore’s Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and secular communities may have profoundly different emotional and political responses. When China asserts maritime claims, ethnic Chinese Singaporeans may feel differently than Malay or Indian Singaporeans. When Myanmar’s military conducts operations against the Rohingya, Singapore’s Malay-Muslim community watches with particular concern.

The foreign minister’s job, then, is not just to represent Singapore abroad but to forge a domestic consensus—or at least manage domestic divisions—that allows for a coherent external position.

Case Study: Gaza and the Limits of Principle

The Three-Pillar Framework

The Israel-Gaza conflict, which erupted following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attacks, provides the clearest example of domestic foreign policy pressures. Dr. Balakrishnan reveals that Singapore’s position is guided by three national interests:

Maintaining unity within Singapore’s diverse society
Protecting Singapore’s security and right to self-defense
Abiding by international law

Note the order: unity comes first. This is not accidental. The primary concern is not what Singapore says to the world, but whether what it says creates fissures at home.

The Pressure for Performative Solidarity

Dr. Balakrishnan acknowledges significant domestic pressure for Singapore to “go further and faster” in criticizing Israel. Some Singaporeans want the government to cut ties with Israel entirely. The minister’s response reveals the tension between symbolic gestures and practical outcomes: “Will that help me deliver more assistance? I think it will make it much harder.”

This exchange illuminates a fundamental divide in how different constituencies view foreign policy success. For some citizens, particularly younger ones influenced by social media activism, the power of moral witness matters intensely. They want Singapore to use whatever platform it has to condemn actions they view as unconscionable, even if such condemnation has no material effect.

For the government, this represents what Dr. Balakrishnan calls “performative actions”—gestures that may satisfy domestic audiences but compromise Singapore’s ability to operate effectively in the international arena. Cutting ties with Israel might earn applause from some quarters domestically and internationally, but it would eliminate Singapore’s ability to provide humanitarian assistance, engage in quiet diplomacy, or maintain credibility as an honest broker.

Values Versus Principles: A Critical Distinction

Dr. Balakrishnan draws a sharp line between foreign policy based on principles (adherence to international law, sovereignty, territorial integrity) and foreign policy based on values (moral judgments about other societies’ actions or organization).

“I would say, I’m very cautious,” he explains. “For too long, Westerners have been lecturing us about how to organise our society, our social, cultural mores, our rules, whether we should have a death penalty et cetera, on this assumption that there is a single superior set of values.”

This is where the domestic dimension becomes most fraught. Many Singaporeans—particularly those passionate about the Gaza situation—are essentially asking their government to do exactly what Singapore has long resisted: make foreign policy based on value judgments rather than hard-nosed interests and consistent principles.

The government’s response has been calibrated: it has said the conflict has gone “too long, too far, too much,” and Dr. Balakrishnan claims to have delivered this message directly to Israeli leaders. But it stops short of accusations like “genocide,” deferring to the International Court of Justice. It supports Palestinian statehood in principle but attaches conditions about effective government and recognition of Israel.

This satisfies almost no one completely—which may be precisely the point in a diverse society where any stronger position would alienate a significant constituency.

The Broader Pattern: Identity Politics Goes Global

The Death of Distance

The Gaza example is not isolated. Several factors have converged to make foreign conflicts more domestically salient:

Digital connectivity: Social media delivers graphic images and compelling narratives from conflict zones directly to Singaporean phones, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers and government framing. A Singaporean Muslim can follow Gaza developments through Al Jazeera, a Catholic through Vatican News, a secular progressive through human rights organizations—each receiving different emphases and interpretations.

Diaspora consciousness: Singapore’s various ethnic communities maintain cultural and sometimes religious ties to regions where conflicts occur. These are not abstract geopolitical events but matters affecting people with whom Singaporeans share faith, ancestry, or cultural affinity.

Generational shifts: Younger Singaporeans, particularly those educated in Western institutions or exposed to global activist networks, bring different expectations about what foreign policy should accomplish. They are more likely to view moral witness and values-based positions as legitimate foreign policy goals, not just as “performative.”

Polarization import: Singapore is not immune to the ideological polarization affecting Western democracies. Debates about Israel-Palestine, China-US tensions, or climate change increasingly map onto left-right or progressive-conservative divides that cut across Singapore’s traditional ethnic-religious lines.

Implications for Singapore’s Foreign Policy Apparatus

The New Diplomatic Calculus

The domestic dimension forces a more complex calculus for foreign policy decisions. Traditional factors remain:

Will this advance Singapore’s economic interests?
Will this strengthen Singapore’s security position?
Will this enhance Singapore’s international standing and influence?

But now these must be weighed against:

Will this create or exacerbate domestic divisions?
Can we explain this position credibly to all major constituencies?
Will this undermine trust in government among key demographic groups?

Resource Reallocation

“Hundreds of sessions” explaining foreign policy domestically represents a significant allocation of ministerial time and diplomatic resources. These are hours not spent on traditional diplomatic activities: negotiating agreements, building relationships with foreign counterparts, attending international conferences.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs must now maintain robust public engagement capabilities alongside its external-facing functions. This includes:

More frequent and detailed parliamentary answers
Public forums and community engagement
Social media presence and digital communication
Coordination with other ministries (especially Home Affairs and Communications) on messaging

The Transparency Paradox

Greater domestic engagement requires greater transparency about foreign policy reasoning. But foreign policy has traditionally required discretion—the ability to signal different things to different audiences, to maintain constructive ambiguity, to pursue quiet diplomacy away from public scrutiny.

Dr. Balakrishnan’s willingness to discuss Singapore’s position so openly represents a shift toward transparency, but it also constrains future flexibility. Once you explain your principles publicly and in detail, you are held to them.

Comparative Context: Singapore Is Not Alone

A Global Phenomenon

Singapore’s experience reflects broader trends affecting democracies worldwide:

European Union members face similar tensions, particularly on Middle East policy where historical relationships, domestic Muslim populations, and memories of the Holocaust pull in different directions.

India, despite its historical support for Palestinian rights, has moved closer to Israel partly due to domestic political calculations involving its Hindu-nationalist government and strategic interests, while managing sensitivities among its large Muslim minority.

The United States has seen domestic politics increasingly shape foreign policy, from debates over Israel policy influenced by evangelical Christians and progressive activists, to China policy influenced by different economic and ideological constituencies.

What distinguishes Singapore is the compression of this challenge. European countries are much larger and can more easily absorb internal disagreement. Singapore’s small size means any significant domestic division threatens the social compact more directly.

Strategic Responses: Managing the Tension

The “Equal Opportunity” Principle

Dr. Balakrishnan’s articulation of an “equal opportunity” approach to major powers offers insight into managing domestic pressures. By responding to the US and China based on consistent principles rather than relationships, Singapore aims to be “predictable.”

“If you understand our principles, you should be able to predict what we would say. And because both sides know that, there’s less pressure on us because we’re not the sort of country that gives in, can be bought or bullied.”

This predictability serves a dual purpose: it tells major powers what to expect (reducing the value of pressuring Singapore), and it tells domestic audiences that policy is principle-based rather than opportunistic.

The Principle-Interest Alignment

Singapore’s response to the July 2025 cyber attacks (publicly naming the threat group UNC3886 despite links to China) illustrates how the government tries to align domestic expectations with strategic necessities. By framing the response in terms of principles (defending critical infrastructure, sending a deterrent signal) rather than targeting a specific country, Singapore satisfies domestic demands for accountability while maintaining diplomatic flexibility.

Multilateral Camouflage

Dr. Balakrishnan’s emphasis on working through ASEAN, the Forum of Small States, and other multilateral networks serves partly to diffuse domestic pressure. When Singapore takes a position as part of a group, it’s harder to characterize as pandering to any particular domestic constituency or foreign power.

Risks and Vulnerabilities

The Compromise Trap

The need to maintain domestic consensus may lead to positions that satisfy no one and achieve little. On Gaza, Singapore’s carefully calibrated stance—condemning civilian casualties and calling for a two-state solution while maintaining ties with Israel and not recognizing Palestine immediately—leaves passionate advocates on all sides dissatisfied.

Over time, this could erode confidence in government among multiple constituencies simultaneously, each feeling their concerns are insufficiently addressed.

The Activism Challenge

As Singaporeans become more globally connected and politically engaged, the government faces pressure not just to explain policy but to justify it against alternative visions. Young activists, in particular, may be less accepting of realpolitik arguments and more demanding of values-based positions.

The government’s traditional response—essentially, “trust us, we see the bigger picture”—may prove less effective with constituencies that have independent access to information and alternative frameworks for understanding international affairs.

The Credibility Test

Singapore has long positioned itself as a principled actor in international affairs, predictable and consistent. But as domestic pressures mount, there’s risk of being seen as inconsistent—tough on some issues when it’s safe, accommodating on others when powerful interests are involved.

Critics might ask: Why take a strong stance on maritime law in the South China Sea but more measured positions on Gaza? Why publicly name cyber attackers linked to China but maintain careful silence on other issues? The government’s answer—different situations, different interests, consistent principles—must remain credible.

The Unity Imperative

Most fundamentally, if foreign policy increasingly reflects domestic divisions rather than bridging them, it could contribute to the very fracturing it aims to prevent. When different ethnic or religious communities perceive that government policy on international issues reflects majoritarian preferences or strategic calculations rather than shared principles, it could feed alienation and resentment.

Looking Forward: Sustainable Models

Managed Pluralism

One potential model is to acknowledge and even institutionalize diverse perspectives within a framework of shared principles. This might mean:

Creating formal mechanisms for community input on foreign policy issues that affect them
Being explicit about how different interests are balanced in decision-making
Accepting that some decisions will be genuinely difficult and explaining the trade-offs honestly

Enhanced Strategic Communication

Rather than viewing domestic explanation as a burden, the government might invest more systematically in foreign policy literacy—helping Singaporeans understand:

How small-state diplomacy actually works
Why certain positions that seem weak or contradictory actually serve Singapore’s interests
What Singapore can and cannot realistically achieve through foreign policy

This is different from propaganda; it’s building a more sophisticated understanding of international relations across the population.

Regional Coordination

Working more closely with other ASEAN members facing similar challenges could help. Malaysia, Indonesia, and other neighbors also have diverse populations and face pressure on issues like Gaza. Coordinated positions on certain issues might provide political cover while advancing shared regional interests.

Conclusion: The New Normal

Dr. Balakrishnan’s observation that “foreign policy now has domestic salience” is not a temporary phenomenon but a structural shift in how Singapore must conduct diplomacy. The factors driving this change—digital connectivity, identity politics, generational transitions, global polarization—are not reversing.

This does not necessarily mean Singapore’s foreign policy will become less effective or more constrained. It may simply mean that foreign policy-making becomes more complex, requiring greater attention to domestic coalition-building alongside traditional external diplomacy.

The minister’s focus on “internal alignment” while “recognising that different groups will feel more or less strongly about wars and conflicts elsewhere” suggests an approach of managed pluralism—not seeking unanimity but preventing division from becoming destructive.

What remains unclear is whether this approach can be sustained indefinitely. As global conflicts proliferate and intensify, as Singapore’s population becomes more diverse and more connected to global information flows, the pressure on foreign policy may continue to increase. The government’s ability to maintain both international credibility and domestic legitimacy will be tested repeatedly.

For now, Singapore navigates these tensions through careful calibration, clear communication of principles, and the credibility built over decades of consistent behavior. But the easy era of elite-managed foreign policy insulated from domestic pressures is definitively over. The question is not whether foreign policy will have domestic salience, but how Singapore manages that reality while remaining true to its interests and principles as a small, diverse, and vulnerable nation.

The foreign minister’s job, it turns out, is increasingly about looking inward to maintain the unity that makes looking outward possible.

Why Singapore Should Not Be Underestimated Despite Its Small Size

Based on PM Lawrence Wong’s speech, Singapore possesses several significant strengths and achievements that give it considerable influence despite its physical limitations:

Built Capabilities Over 60 Years

Financial Reserves: Singapore has accumulated substantial financial resources that provide economic stability and strategic flexibility during global uncertainties.
Deep Technical Capabilities: The country has systematically developed expertise across multiple sectors since its independence in 1965.
Defence Investment: Unlike nations that reduced military spending, Singapore consistently invested in defence and homeland security, recognising that “no one will come to our rescue.”
Diplomatic Network: Singapore has “forged strong friendships around the world” and enjoys “a deep reservoir of international goodwill.”

Strategic Advantages

Singapore Brand: PM Wong highlighted that the “Singapore brand is well-regarded” internationally, creating trust and opening doors.
Multilateral Forum Influence: Singapore has played a constructive role not through “grandstanding but by building consensus and finding solutions.”
Knowledge Sharing: The Singapore Cooperation Programme has benefited over 155,000 officials from 180 countries, extending Singapore’s soft power.
Geographic Position: Singapore functions as a “natural meeting point for cultures, commerce and exchange” – a historical role it continues to leverage.

International Integration

Economic Agreements: Singapore is already embedded in major trade pacts like RCEP and CPTPP.
ASEAN Leadership: Singapore will chair ASEAN in 2027, allowing it to shape regional priorities.
Expanding Diplomatic Presence: Plans to open new missions in Africa and Latin America while strengthening Middle Eastern partnerships.
Development Partnership: Creating a new unit in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to share expertise in emerging areas like the digital economy and renewable energy.

Cultural and Social Strengths

Social Cohesion: PM Wong emphasised the importance of Singaporeans holding “fast to what binds us together” despite the diversity of opinions.
Global Outlook: Citizens are described as “well-travelled and well-informed,” creating a population that understands international dynamics.
National Identity: The speech references a “shared sense of responsibility to protect our home and our fellow citizens” that creates unity.
Historical Resilience: Singapore has consistently found “innovative ways to overcome its lack of critical resources.”

PM Wong’s message is clear: Singapore in 2025 is “not without agency” and is “better resourced, more capable, more connected” than when it started as an independent nation. Rather than being constrained by its small physical size, Singapore has leveraged its strategic position, invested in capabilities, built international relationships, and developed a cohesive national identity that allows it to exert influence disproportionate to its geographic footprint.

The country’s approach to “chart our own course with courage, foresight and skill” despite global uncertainties, demonstrates how Singapore has transformed potential vulnerabilities into strengths through strategic planning and execution.

Why Singapore Is “Not Without Agency”

When PM Lawrence Wong states that “Singapore today is not without agency,” he’s making a powerful assertion about Singapore’s ability to shape its destiny despite being a small state. This phrase directly counters the perception that small nations must passively accept conditions imposed by more extensive powers.

Key Elements Supporting Singapore’s Agency:

1. Evolution Since Independence

Singapore in 2025 is fundamentally different from Singapore in 1965
The country has transformed from a vulnerable, newly independent state to a developed nation with significant capabilities
PM Wong specifically states they are “better resourced, more capable, more connected than we were in 1965”

2. Financial Independence

Singapore has built substantial financial reserves that provide economic autonomy.
These reserves allow Singapore to weather global economic storms without dependence on external bailouts.
Financial strength enables strategic investments and policy choices that might be unavailable to an indebted nation.

3. Strategic Capabilities

Singapore has developed specialised expertise across multiple sectors
Their defence investments ensure they can maintain sovereignty
Technical capabilities in finance, technology, and other areas provide leverage in international relations

4. Diplomatic Capital

The “Singapore brand” carries global respect and credibility
They’ve built a “deep reservoir of international goodwill”
Singapore’s reputation for pragmatism and reliability gives it influence in multilateral forums

5. Networked Position

Singapore actively works with “like-minded countries” to build coalitions
Their involvement in trade agreements gives them a voice in economic systems
Singapore’s geographic position as a hub connects it to multiple regions and powers

PM Wong is arguing that while Singapore remains constrained by its size and lack of natural resources, it has deliberately built capabilities that provide it with meaningful options and influence. The phrase “not without agency” acknowledges both limitations and hard-earned strengths—Singapore cannot control all global forces. Still, it can make consequential choices about how to respond to them and actively shape aspects of its environment rather than merely react.

This perspective is critical in a time of global flux, as it positions Singapore not as a helpless small state but as an actor with meaningful capacity to navigate and influence the changing international order.

How Singapore Can Navigate the New Global Order

Based on PM Lawrence Wong’s speech, Singapore has a clear strategy for navigating the emerging global order characterised by fragmentation and multipolarity:

1. Active Stewardship of Global Commons

Knowledge Sharing: Expanding the Singapore Cooperation Programme to share expertise with a broader range of countries
Development Partnerships: Creating a new dedicated unit within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
New Focus Areas: Adding digital economy and renewable energy to traditional development areas
Geographic Expansion: While maintaining focus on Southeast Asia, extending development partnerships to Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Pacific, and the Caribbean

2. Championing Deeper Regional Integration

Tariff Elimination: Working toward 100% tariff elimination within ASEAN
Non-Tariff Barriers: Reducing regulatory obstacles to cross-border business
ASEAN Chairmanship: Using Singapore’s upcoming 2027 chairmanship (coinciding with ASEAN’s 60th anniversary) to strengthen regional architecture
Partnership with Malaysia: Collaborating with the current ASEAN chair on concrete regional projects

3. Strengthening Global Partnerships

Expanding Diplomatic Presence: Opening new missions in Africa and Latin America
Middle East Engagement: Stepping up relations with Gulf countries and other Middle Eastern partners
Economic Integration: Exploring cooperation between major trade agreements like CPTPP and the EU (which together represent 30% of global GDP)
Building Coalitions: Working with “like-minded countries that share its commitment to an open, stable and rules-based global system”

4. Internal Cohesion and Capabilities

National Unity: Maintaining social cohesion despite diverse viewpoints
Defence Readiness: Continuing investment in security capabilities
Public Engagement: Involving citizens in understanding global developments
Historical Identity: Remaining true to Singapore’s role as “a safe harbour, a global emporium, and a trusted hub for all sides to engage”

PM Wong frames Singapore’s approach as one of resilience and active adaptation rather than passive acceptance of changing conditions. His metaphor about monsoon winds is particularly telling: “The monsoon winds are blowing again. But we do not need to cower, and we certainly will not capitulate. We cannot control the global currents, but we can chart our own course with courage, foresight and skill.”

This strategy acknowledges geopolitical realities while asserting Singapore’s ability to navigate them through careful positioning, strategic partnerships, and leveraging its unique strengths as a trusted global hub.

How Singapore’s Strengths Enable Navigation Through Dangerous Times

Singapore’s carefully developed strengths provide it with unique advantages to navigate the increasingly volatile global landscape:

Strategic Positioning Through Financial Resilience

Singapore’s substantial financial reserves act as both shield and leverage during uncertain times:

Crisis Insulation: Reserves protect Singapore from economic shocks that might force policy compromises
Strategic Investments: Financial strength allows Singapore to seize opportunities that emerge from global disruption
Independence of Action: Unlike debt-burdened countries, Singapore can make decisions based on long-term interests rather than immediate financial pressures

Diplomatic Capital as a Navigation Tool

The respected “Singapore brand” and accumulated goodwill offer significant advantages:

Trusted Intermediary: Singapore can serve as a bridge between competing powers and blocs
Convening Power: Singapore’s reputation allows it to bring diverse parties together
Voice Amplification: Despite its size, Singapore’s perspectives receive attention in international forums due to its established credibility

Security Self-Reliance as Foundation

Singapore’s consistent investment in defence provides essential security autonomy:

Deterrence Capability: Reduces vulnerability to coercion during geopolitical tensions
Operational Freedom: Security capabilities ensure Singapore can maintain sovereign decision-making
Strategic Clarity: As PM Wong notes, Singaporeans understand “no one else will safeguard Singapore’s interest”

Network Integration as Risk Mitigation

Singapore’s extensive connections across multiple partnerships provide diversification:

Economic Resilience: Involvement in various trade agreements reduces dependency on any single market
Strategic Flexibility: Multiple partnerships allow Singapore to adapt as power balances shift
Information Advantage: Being connected to diverse nations provides valuable intelligence about emerging developments

Social Cohesion as an Internal Stabiliser

In fragmented times, Singapore’s social fabric provides crucial domestic stability:

Decision-Making Speed: Unity allows Singapore to respond quickly to external challenges
Implementation Effectiveness: Shared purpose translates to effective execution of strategies
Resilience Under Pressure: A Strong national identity helps withstand external pressures or influence operations

Singapore’s approach transforms what might be vulnerabilities into strategic advantages. Its small size forces discipline and focus, while its lack of natural resources has driven innovation and efficiency. As PM Wong describes, Singapore has positioned itself as “a beacon of hope, stability and purpose” that can maintain its course even as larger nations and systems experience turbulence.

The metaphor of Singapore as a “safe harbour” during stormy times is particularly apt. Although its strengths don’t allow it to control global weather patterns, they do enable it to provide stability and navigate effectively through the storm.

Maxthon

Maxthon has set out on an ambitious journey aimed at significantly bolstering the security of web applications, fueled by a resolute commitment to safeguarding users and their confidential data. At the heart of this initiative lies a collection of sophisticated encryption protocols, which act as a robust barrier for the information exchanged between individuals and various online services. Every interaction—be it the sharing of passwords or personal information—is protected within these encrypted channels, effectively preventing unauthorised access attempts from intruders.

This meticulous emphasis on encryption marks merely the initial phase of Maxthon’s extensive security framework. Acknowledging that cyber threats are constantly evolving, Maxthon adopts a forward-thinking approach to user protection. The browser is engineered to adapt to emerging challenges, incorporating regular updates that promptly address any vulnerabilities that may surface. Users are strongly encouraged to activate automatic updates as part of their cybersecurity regimen, ensuring they can seamlessly take advantage of the latest fixes without any hassle.

In today’s rapidly changing digital environment, Maxthon’s unwavering commitment to ongoing security enhancement signifies not only its responsibility toward users but also its firm dedication to nurturing trust in online engagements. With each new update rolled out, users can navigate the web with peace of mind, assured that their information is continuously safeguarded against ever-emerging threats lurking in cyberspace.

How Domestic Politics is Reshaping Singapore’s Foreign Policy