Vivian Balakrishnan on Singapore’s foreign policy

Yet, there is also a clear hunger among some Singaporeans for the power of gestures, symbolic though they may be, to underscore the values that they stand for.

Dr Balakrishnan has some sympathy for this desire. “I think it is not unreasonable for people to say, ‘I want you – since you are my representative on the global stage – to reflect our identity, to reflect what we hold dear, and to reflect the principles upon which we organise ourselves.’”

But he stresses the risks of taking such an approach, drawing a clear distinction between a foreign policy based on principles, such as an adherence to international law; and that which is based on values, such as moral outrage over another government’s actions.

“I would say, I’m very cautious. 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.

“We don’t want external interference in how we organise ourselves, right? If I say I don’t want a lecture from others, I don’t go around lecturing other people too.

“But I am representing Singapore and Singaporeans to the extent possible, within the brutal hard-nosed realities of foreign diplomacy and strategic interests.”

To those who say that Israel’s actions have gone beyond the pale and now demand an absolutist moral response, the minister says: “Well, that’s a matter of degree. But have we said that this has gone on too long, too far, too much? Yes, we have. Have I told this directly to the Israeli leaders? Yes, I have.” He adds: “They cannot be pleased with it.”

“Will it make a difference? No, I don’t think what Singapore says is going to change the course of history. The issues are too complicated, too complicated, too deep.”

The way he sees it, the ability “to be clinical in these things” is especially pertinent in today’s fractured global landscape.

Over the years, the term “friendship” has gradually disappeared from Dr Balakrishnan’s official lexicon – to avoid “over-personalising” diplomacy – and has been replaced by the word “partnership”.

“Now, what do you expect in a partner? Can you expect total agreement? You can’t. But do you demand honesty? You do. Do you demand reliability? You do.”

In his political career, Dr Balakrishnan has been noted for his communication and oratory skills. Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 2006, while not naming anyone, singled out doctors as being the better communicators among the ruling People’s Action Party’s batch of new MPs in 2001.

Besides Dr Balakrishnan, the other two medically trained fresh faces were Dr Ng Eng Hen, the Defence Minister until he retired from politics in 2025, and the late Dr Balaji Sadasivan, who was Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.

The trio, along with Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Mr Raymond Lim and Mr Cedric Foo, were dubbed the so-called “Super Seven” of 2001, for their immediate elevation into political office after the polls.

True to form, Dr Balakrishnan turns up at the interview with “learning points” about Singapore’s foreign policy which, he says with a laugh, were percolating in his mind at 3am the night before.

Aside from the need for Singapore to be united and realistic, it has to be “very predictable”.

To a lesser extent than Gaza, the big-power rivalry between the United States and China – and what that means for Singapore – rouses domestic angst, and one question Singapore’s leaders often get is how the island-state can avoid picking a side. Dr Balakrishnan’s answer lies in having a foreign policy consistently based on Singapore’s principles and long-term interests, and to communicate that diplomatically, carefully and accurately to both sides.

“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.”

I ask him to elaborate on how this stance has informed Singapore’s responses to various developments in 2025. Specifically, I ask why the Government took the unprecedented step of

by cyber espionage group UNC3886 in July, though it did not identify the state actor behind it. Cyber security firms have linked the group to China.

The idea behind naming UNC3886, says Dr Balakrishnan, was to signal to “whoever did it that we know, and we are prepared to speak up, and we’re prepared to take appropriate actions and precautions”.

Singapore has had prior cyber attacks, but this particular one was a very egregious hack into critical information infrastructure, he adds.

“Regardless of who this threat emanated from, we will do and say exactly the same. And this mode of response is equal opportunity.”

Other episodes, whether big or small, elicit responses undergirded by the same principle of equal treatment. These range from the US’ levying of a 10 per cent tariff rate on Singapore, prompting Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to characterise it as

to the US embassy’s attempts to

through what Dr Balakrishnan describes as “not a very effective video”.

“Whatever example you bring up, I must be able to show that I would behave the same way. So it is the consistency of the response that is more important than whom I’m responding to.”

In a world where rules are being rewritten by big powers, the space for small nations like Singapore can feel especially squeezed.

It is not just about a situation where “might is right”. Some worry if Singapore can remain as relevant and retain a seat at the table, especially relative to its neighbours’ growing in ambition and size.

“It’s tougher, yes, to show that we are relevant,” acknowledges Dr Balakrishnan. But he points to Singapore’s growth as an advanced manufacturing hub and a global investor, saying: “On the other hand, it is not as if Singapore has not built up some strengths, which also give us some small say on the global stage.”

“And by the way, we’re not doing it alone,” he adds, citing Asean, the Forum of Small States and other multilateral networks.

Plans announced by PM Wong for Singapore to open

over the next few years, as part of the imperative to band together with like-minded partners, are on track, says Dr Balakrishnan, though he declines to give details.

“What we’re assembling are links through trade and strategic alignment across the world. By making common cause, talking good sense consistently, we amplify our voice on the global stage.”

Ten years ago, negotiators hammered out the final details of the ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal; Chinese President Xi Jinping and then Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou shook hands in a historic meeting; and democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi’s party won the elections in Myanmar.

In Singapore, a new foreign minister prepared for what was to come. Dr Balakrishnan wrote on his social media account on Sept 28, 2015: “I have learnt that so many of the most pressing and complex challenges of the future will require patient but purposeful negotiations and deep collaboration with multiple stakeholders.”

With that and more on his mind, something’s got to give. The many overseas trips – he spends a quarter to a third of his time travelling – mean less time for his constituents in Holland–Bukit Timah GRC, something he has sought to mitigate by giving them his mobile phone number. When I ask what they call him about, he cracks a rare joke: “No prank calls.”

He is also a grandfather. The three older children by him and his wife, Joy, have seven children. Their youngest child, born when he was already in office, is now 19 and doing national service. But there has been grief too. On Dec 14, 2022, his daughter-in-law gave birth to a stillborn son. Dr Balakrishnan was then accompanying then PM Lee Hsien Loong on an official visit to Kiel, Germany.

“So, I mean, yes, family time, obviously, has been compromised,” says Dr Balakrishnan.

We move briskly on to other topics. I ask if there are other responsibilities he would want to try. In true PAP fashion, he demurs, saying: “It is not up to me.”

But he notes that he straddles both Singapore’s third-generation and fourth-generation leaderships. He says: “My main job now… is always to be a bridge to the next generation, and you want the Prime Minister to maintain a balance to keep preparing Singapore for the future.

“You need ministers to be functioning at that peak even as they hand over. That’s how you win a relay race.”