黄循财在战略与国际研究中心的对话

副总理兼财政部长黄循财于 2023 年 10 月 13 日在战略与国际研究中心 (CSIS) 进行对话。会议由 CSIS 高级顾问兼日本主席克里斯托弗·约翰斯通 (Christopher B. Johnstone) 先生主持。黄副总理于2023年10月5日至15日对美利坚合众国进行工作访问。以下是对话的编辑文字记录。

克里斯托弗·约翰斯通 (Christopher B. Johnstone) 是战略与国际研究中心 (CSIS) 的高级顾问兼日本主席。在加入战略与国际研究中心之前，约翰斯通先生在政府工作了 25 年，担任过各种高级职位，重点关注美国对日本和印度-太平洋地区的政策。他曾两次担任国家安全委员会成员，分别在拜登总统领导下担任东亚事务主任和奥巴马总统领导下的日本和大洋洲事务主任（2014-2016 年）。在国防部长办公室，约翰斯通先生领导负责南亚和东南亚（2017-2021）以及东亚（2016-2017）的办公室； 2010年至2014年，他担任东北亚部主任，主要负责制定美日同盟战略。约翰斯通先生的职业生涯始于中央情报局的情报官员，负责东北亚的国家安全问题，并在海外实地站任职。约翰斯通先生拥有普林斯顿大学公共与国际事务学院公共事务硕士学位和斯沃斯莫尔学院文学学士学位。他能说一口流利的日语。

欢迎来到我们的现场观众和在线观众。我叫克里斯·约翰斯通。我是战略与国际研究中心的高级顾问兼日本主席，我非常高兴并荣幸地欢迎新加坡共和国副总理兼财政部长黄循财。今天有机会在这里与您交谈，我们真的很荣幸。介绍一下，黄先生于2011年5月首次当选为国会议员。他曾在国防部、通讯及新闻部、文化、社区及青年部、国家发展部担任职务和教育部——这是一个范围相当广泛的职业，涉及政策的许多不同方面。重要的是，我们刚才讨论的是这个，他在威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校和密歇根大学安娜堡分校获得了经济学学士和硕士学位，他还拥有哈佛大学肯尼迪学院的公共管理硕士学位。因此，我认为可以公平地说，部长先生，您非常了解我们，并且您以我认为许多美国人可能不了解的方式了解美国的不同地区。因此，部长与我们在一起真的很高兴。今天在座的各位，我们要做的就是邀请黄部长在高层提出一些想法，然后他和我将在台上进行一些对话，然后我们将邀请黄部长提出一些问题在场的您以及在线的您。因此，请和我一起欢迎黄部长。

非常感谢克里斯的评论和介绍。我很高兴来到战略与国际研究中心，感谢您主持这次对话。不幸的是，我对美国的访问恰逢中东和世界正处于非常困难的时期。但尽管有眼前的事情，我很高兴在这周的访问期间，我与政府成员举行了非常重要的会议。这次访问的目的实际上是为了肯定新加坡和美国两国之间密切而持久的伙伴关系。事实上，这是我为期一周的访问的最后一天。我把最好的留到最后。这实际上是我飞回新加坡前一天的最后一次活动。但我认为通过这次对话来结束这次访问会非常好。也许我会在开场白中从三个要点开始，然后我们稍后可以提问。首先，新加坡赞赏并重视美国在亚太地区的重要和建设性存在。美国在该地区的存在已近80年。你有很多战略利益；您在该地区有很多朋友；我们都希望您继续积极、持续地参与世界这一地区的活动。不只是一年、两年；不仅仅是下一届政府；但在接下来的 80 年及以后。其次，正是美国的领导力塑造了我们今天所拥有的基于规则的全球秩序，并造福了世界上的每个人。它使国家得到提升；它帮助了所有国家——包括美国。我们确实越来越多地听到人们对全球秩序缺陷的担忧，即它没有充分解决对国家安全、供应链弹性等方面的担忧。因此，对该体系的批评越来越多。我们非常愿意与美国合作，共同探讨全球化的新模式。我们如何更新全球新秩序的规则，使其适合我们的时代。第三，我们希望继续发展我们的双边伙伴关系。事实上，防务是我们双边伙伴关系的关键支柱之一。自1990年以来，新加坡允许美军使用我们的港口和基地。我们接待你们的轮换部署，我们提供后勤支持，同时，我们的部队——来自新加坡武装部队的部队——在美国接受训练，这就是为什么我开始在亚利桑那州进行为期一周的访问，我们的飞行员在那里进行训练F-16 在卢克空军基地进行训练。事实上，新加坡这个小国却在美国拥有第二大外国军事存在，这充分说明了我们彼此之间的信心和信任。我们正在继续加强新领域的防务合作，包括网络安全和我们已经获得的F-35。更广泛地说，我们也在其他新领域继续加强合作。因此，昨天我们发起了一场关于关键和新兴技术的对话，其中包括人工智能等领域。和生物技术。我们正在考虑深化我们在太空探索方面的合作。我们正在研究如何在新的低碳能源方面进行合作——考虑到我们的国土面积以及实现净零排放的需要，这对新加坡来说非常重要。我们还共同努力向第三国提供技术援助。我们为东南亚国家这样做，但我们

将其扩展到太平洋岛屿国家。因此，我们的双边关系处于良好状态。我们面前有一个完整的议程，我们将继续发展这种伙伴关系。我们要传达的信息是，几十年来，新加坡一直是美国的一个具有前瞻性和可靠的合作伙伴，我们不仅在言语上，而且在行动中证明了这一点，我们将在未来几年中继续尽一切努力进一步加强这种伙伴关系来。

主持人：
了不起。这是对你的活动、你对两国关系的看法的非常全面的阐述，部长先生，我必须说，作为在五角大楼南亚和东南亚办事处工作多年的人，我亲眼目睹了这一真正重要的作用新加坡在促进和支持美国在东南亚的前沿存在方面发挥着作用；非常感谢您在这些方面的评论。首先我要问一个可能适合您作为财政部长的问题，那就是您对区域和全球经济的看法。公平地说，我认为慢慢地摆脱了新冠疫情。但许多国家都经历着低增长、高通胀。我认为近几个月来我们已经看到了经济放缓——这在某种程度上可能是中国意想不到的。我不知道您如何看待区域经济、新加坡经济，特别是中国经济增长的未来？
黄副总理：
更广泛的背景是，我们正在从良性的全球化时代转向大国竞争的新时代。因此，这将是一个更加分散的世界，一个更加不确定的世界，并且将会有更多的尾部风险、更多的波动性，不幸的是，更多的动荡事件可能会给全球经济带来巨大的不确定性。因此，在这样的大环境下，我认为我们还面临着另一个变化，从过去10年的宽松货币、极低利率，到另一个可能更正常化的时期，即利率将在更长时间内保持较高水平，以及宽松货币时代结束了。我认为这是世界各国都面临的更广泛的背景，在这种环境下，我认为我们将看到更缓慢的增长。我们正在经历这种情况，因为新加坡对此非常适应，因为我们是一个规模较小的开放经济体，外部需求在我们的 GDP 增长中占了很大一部分。我们是矿井里的金丝雀，当外部环境恶劣时，我们最能第一时间感受到。我们已经感受到了增长缓慢的影响。希望通胀趋势将会下降；我们充满希望。我们看到美国的情况有所放缓，但我们担心石油的下行风险。中东发生的事情可能会产生影响。至于厄尔尼诺现象和其他未知风险带来的粮食供应，情况也可能会变得更糟。在中国，我认为他们现在正在经历一种具有挑战性的情况，因为青年失业率很高。他们决定刺破房地产泡沫，这样做将会带来痛苦的后果。我认为这是正确的做法，因为房地产行业出现了过度行为。但房地产业约占经济的20-30%。它是经济的重要组成部分。一旦刺破泡沫，就会产生各种各样的后果，连锁反应会波及整个经济，他们必须应对这些后果。与此同时，他们必须重新平衡经济，使其更加以消费为基础。这并不容易，因为他们还必须在社会保障方面进行改革，这需要时间。考虑到他们国家的面积，这是相当复杂的。但与他们的官员交谈后，我认为他们明白需要做什么。这是一个沟通的问题，也是确保实施顺利的问题。总的来说，我们的感觉是，你听到很多评论员和人们在谈论巅峰中国。我们认为这被夸大了；我们认为中国将继续增长。也许有问题的，也是很多人问的，是中国经济会增长到什么程度，也许是 4%，也许是 5%。但它能在多大程度上拥有与以前一样的创业活力和活力呢？我认为现在没有人能给出答案。我认为中国政府本身必须找出正确的平衡点。每个人都在关注持续市场改革的明确迹象，然后才决定这确实是正确的前进轨迹。我想说我不会低估中国人天生的动物精神。他们足智多谋。他们决心为自己争取更好的生活。你永远不应该低估中国人民的巨大动力和活力。
主持人：
说得很好。有趣的是，这些叙述在这里是如何发生的，而且你说的非常准确，中国巅峰现在就在这里的环境中。我欣赏这种更全面、更平衡的态度。非常感谢你的帮忙。让我有点了解相关问题。您指出了美国领导力在塑造该地区方面的重要性。我感兴趣的是您如何看待美国今天在印太地区的经济参与。当然，美国仍然处于《全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》（CPTPP）之外。相反，它正在通过其在供应链、基础设施、贸易便利化、腐败方面的工作来推动印太经济框架（IPEF）。我欢迎您对 IPEF 的想法：新加坡希望看到 IPEF 带来什么，以及您认为它在多大程度上带来了切实的好处，以及您提到的领导力非常重要。
黄副总理：
我们长期以来一直主张美国更多地参与亚洲、特别是东南亚的经济活动。我们的首选是区域贸易协定。我们有TPP（跨太平洋伙伴关系协定），但那只是桥下的水。如果可能的话，我们希望看到市场准入和贸易自由化，但我认为在美国目前的国内政治和环境下，很难谈论这些事情。现在没有心情谈论这些问题。但我认为我们应该在这些领域保持雄心壮志，希望在未来几年，情况可能会发生变化，我们仍然可以努力实现贸易自由化和市场准入。但与此同时，我们有IPEF，这仍然是非常实质性的，通过IPEF仍然可以取得很好的成果。我们正在 IPEF 的不同领域和不同方面密切合作，以确保我们取得实质性成果。我认为在供应链、绿色经济、数字经济等领域，这些都是我们正在追求的事情，我们当然希望能够在今年11月举行的APEC峰会之前取得一些实质性进展。
主持人：
我认为 11 月是展示 IPEF 进展的关键时刻。部长先生，请允许我谈谈中国和美中关系。你知道，就在一分钟前，我们正从全球化时代过渡到大国竞争及其附带影响的时代。我认为可以公平地说，毫无疑问，您在这里期间也听说过，中美关系正处于充满挑战的状态——我认为，随着台湾大选的临近，未来几个月可能会非常困难，美国的政治季节。新加坡政府如何应对中美经济和政治竞争的动态？你怎么看？你如何驾驭它？
黄副总理：
那么，关于中美关系，我首先想说，双方都非常明确地表示，他们不希望发生对抗。希望人们会认为这不是一场零和竞赛——不是一方获胜，另一方失败。世界足够大，容得下美国和中国，两国可以共存、共同发展。近几个月来恢复谈判和接触是非常好的事情。希望通过这些对话和接触，能够减少误解、误会，实现更多的相互包容和共识。我们愿意看到、希望看到的是，两国元首，习主席和拜登总统，希望能够有机会在APEC上面对面交谈，为重建战略伙伴关系做出贡献。信任对于推动两国关系积极向前发展非常重要。积极的方式意味着在某些领域仍然存在竞争，但也会在某些领域进行接触，建设性的接触，因为两国可以通过双边合作和解决问题来互惠互利。全球关注的问题，例如气候变化。我们希望这会发生。他们之间的关系既有竞争的成分，也有建设性接触的成分。如果这种情况不发生，关系恶化，那么这对两国来说将是一个大问题，对世界其他国家来说也是一个大问题。每个人的处境都会更糟。从新加坡的角度来看，当我们看待美国和中国之间的关系时，我们的观点是，这不是美国和中国之间的平衡。最终，我们根据自己的利益做出决定，我们的国家利益将在很大程度上以国际法原则为指导。作为一个小国，我们需要法治框架来运作，这就是我们做出决定的方式。这意味着，根据具体情况，在某些情况下，我们可能会做出似乎有利于一方而不是另一方的决定；但这并不意味着我们亲中或亲美。这只是意味着我们支持新加坡。
主持人：
很公平，正如你应该的那样。
黄副总理：
确实如此，每个国家都会如此。
温和或者：
嗯，确实如此。因此，如果可以的话，让我更进一步，了解您对此的想法。这是一个如此重要的话题，我认为新加坡的观点对我们来说非常重要。拜登政府的印太战略称——这是引言——“中华人民共和国正在结合其经济、外交、军事和技术实力，在印太地区追求自己的势力范围，并力求成为世界上最有影响力的国家” 。中国的胁迫和侵略遍及全球，其中在印太地区最为严重”。这是正确的框架吗？从新加坡的角度，你如何看待这个框架？

中国人谈论他们的国家建设历程的三个阶段。他们要站起来，他们要富，他们要强。我认为，在他们看来，他们正处于国家建设之旅的“变得强大”阶段，这意味着他们觉得自己的时代已经到来，他们需要在世界上占据应有的位置，而且他们应该对海外利益更加自信。我认为中国也知道必须谨慎行事，而且必须成长。然后，中国必须在不让其他国家感到压力、胁迫或挤压的情况下扩大自己的影响力。因为如果他们这样做，或者如果他们最终这样做，我认为将会出现针对中国的强烈抵制，这不符合他们的国家利益，所以中国必须学会如何温和和调整。但从新加坡的角度来看，当然从东南亚所有国家的角度来看，我们珍视与美国的友谊。长期以来，美国一直是非常好的朋友。中国现在也是东南亚各国的好朋友。我们希望与两者保持朋友关系。毕竟，应该可以拥有不止一个最好的朋友。

说得好，请允许我再问一个关于中国的问题，然后我们请观众开始提问。我们房间的两侧都有麦克风，如果您想问问题，可以走到麦克风前排队。但与此同时，部长先生，我承认这是一个敏感问题，但我觉得有义务提出这个问题。这涉及到中国在新加坡以及更广泛的东南亚，尤其是新加坡的影响力问题。你可能知道，七月，《华盛顿邮报》发表了一篇探讨这个话题的长文，特别关注华文媒体在新加坡的作用，该报在文章中断言——这是引文——“这个媒体现在经常呼应北京一些最刺耳的谎言”。我们应该如何理解中国在新加坡的影响力以及新加坡正在采取哪些措施来打击虚假信息？

该报纸——《华盛顿邮报》强调了这一点——该报纸强烈否认了《华盛顿邮报》的描述。它捍卫了自己的编辑立场。如果你问新加坡人，绝大多数每天阅读华文报纸的新加坡人不会觉得《华盛顿邮报》的描述是准确的。因为我们可以亲眼看到有关中国的文章，而且涉及面很广，其中有很多批评中国做法的文章。最终，新加坡的报纸必须反映新加坡的观点，就像它们必须反映我们的社会一样。我们的报纸不能像《华盛顿邮报》，我们也不要求《华盛顿邮报》变得像新加坡报纸。关于中国的影响力，或任何其他国家的影响力，我们注意到我们是一个小型、开放和多元化的社会。我们是一个多种族、多文化的社会。我们的大多数人口都是华裔，因此我们的祖先可以追溯到中国，但随着时间的推移，我们逐渐形成了自己的新加坡身份。我们是新加坡华人，新加坡华人与中国华人有很大不同——价值观、观点、身份。正如新加坡马来人与来自马来西亚或印度尼西亚的马来人有很大不同，或者新加坡印度人与来自印度的人有很大不同。美国作为一个移民国家，你必须非常了解这一点。鉴于我们是一个如此小的、开放的多元文化社会，我们知道我们很容易受到其他地方的影响。这就是为什么我们对此非常警惕。从政府的角度来看，我们不断地让公众参与、教育、解释什么是我们的国家利益——为什么我们要做出某些决定。不是因为选边站队或因为外部影响，而是因为新加坡自身的利益。我们花了很多时间来做这件事。事实上，如果你看看新加坡人消费的很大一部分新闻和娱乐内容，实际上，其中很多都是英文的；其中很多来自美国和英国。坦白说，对新加坡的批评并不缺乏西方媒体上不乏强调我们制度缺陷、要求我们更像西方自由主义理想的评论和文章。我们深知，作为一个小国，我们很容易受到各方面的影响。归根结底，对我们来说重要的是，尽管我们可能很小，但我们是我们自己的人民，我们做出自己的选择，这实际上取决于新加坡人，决定我们国家的未来。不是中国，也不是西方。

谢谢您，部长先生。我想我们有一个。有人站在麦克风旁边吗？我邀请你提出你的问题。
谢伊·韦斯特：我是亚洲协会政策研究所的谢伊·韦斯特。我的问题是在这次旅行结束时，我认为无论你事先读到了什么，或者别人告诉你什么，面对面地与人交谈可以让你有一定的认识。您认为您会带回哪些内容并告诉新加坡内阁或该地区的其他同事？另一个问题是关于 IPEF 的经济学。如果您要求美国在这方面可以做更多的事情，您还会建议美国政策制定者在 IPEF 或其他领域做些什么？

当然。嗯，正如我所说，我从这次旅行中得到的主要收获是，我们在美国和新加坡之间有一个坚实且不断发展的双边议程。双方对世界的战略观非常相似。长期以来，我们在从国防到经济的广泛问题上一直保持密切合作。现在人们越来越渴望看到我们如何在我刚才提到的领域进一步加强这种伙伴关系。政府也承认，他们一直告诉我们，他们不希望新加坡被迫选边站队。他们认识到我们的观点以及东南亚国家的观点，因此与美国保持密切关系并不意味着我们必须疏远和排除与包括中国在内的其他国家的接触。希望东南亚和新加坡能够继续拥有一个开放包容的地区，不仅与美国接触，而且与中国、欧盟和其他大国都参与我们所在的世界地区。在世界变得越来越不确定和动荡之际，扩大我们的共同点，最大限度地增加我们实现稳定和共同繁荣的机会。这是我们的观点，也是我这次访问的主要收获。关于 IPEF，正如我所说，我们正在研究如何为 IPEF 的不同支柱增添实质内容。这项工作正在进行中——我们希望在亚太经合组织峰会之前能够宣布一些事情。我们向美国朋友们提供的是，在某些情况下，IPEF大家庭的所有成员可能很难达成共识。我们还可以双边合作，首先是美国和新加坡，双边合作可以成为探路者。我们设定了高标准，它可以是一个探路者，它可以是我们在扩展到更广泛的地区之前一起做的测试平台。

谢谢。我们为什么不回答在线观众的问题呢？我在这里想说的是，您如何看待新加坡在信息和技术领域的领先地位以及吸引该地区的年轻人进入该领域的能力。新加坡在 IT 领域的角色。

这是我们非常关注的一个领域，因为考虑到我们的经济发展阶段，我们真正前进的唯一途径是投资于创新、研发并推动创新前沿。 IT变得非常重要，数字技术非常重要。不仅作为一个部门本身，而且作为我们经济所有支柱的推动者。先进制造业、金融服务、建筑环境。我们正在大力投资 IT。我们继续鼓励年轻人进入新加坡的领域，并继续吸引该地区的人才来新加坡学习并在 IT 领域取得好成绩。我们的优势是我们规模小，我们灵活，我们是一个城邦。虽然我们可能并不处于 IT 的最前沿，但我认为最新的想法和创新仍将来自美国大学、美国公司，但我们可以成为快速采用者。我们可以非常快速地扩展应用程序。不仅仅是在一个部门，而是整个经济和整个社会。我们确实还有另一个优势，那就是我们的人口拥抱科技。我们本质上是技术乐观主义者。是的，科技确实扰乱了人们的生活。它确实使一些工作变得过时。几十年来，我们找到了重新培训、提高工人技能的方法，确保任何受到技术颠覆影响的人都能找到更好的工作，利用机器和工具来提高工人的工资。这不是什么新鲜事，这是我们一直在做的事情

几十年来，年复一年，人们对技术能够帮助改善生活有了信任和信心，这就是为什么我们能够拥抱技术，包括人工智能等新技术，我们有望继续保持经济增长和改善我们人民的生活。

主持人：您在白宫与杰克·沙利文会面时提到，两国政府将启动关键的新兴技术对话。您能多谈谈这方面的重点领域吗？

黄副总理：我们正在努力解决的关键问题之一——世界各地的国家都在努力解决——是如何利用人工智能的好处。和创新以及人工智能的影响同时最大限度地降低下行风险。并且存在许多下行风险。我的意思是，你可以拥有一个人工智能。该模型在 99% 的情况下都运行良好，但 1% 的失败如果应用于极具潜在破坏性的场景，可能会对许多人产生连锁反应。我们如何应对此类风险？对于负责任的人工智能来说，合适的治理框架应该是什么？用法？不能让企业摆脱困境——当然，企业不能说我们做了一切，然后当出现问题时，政府来救援，那肯定为时已晚。公司在应用人工智能时可以使用什么正确的框架？对于不同的用例，这将确保他们承担一些责任？政府和私营部门密切合作，制定了这个框架和一套管理负责任的人工智能的原则。我们在这方面为新加坡做了一些工作。我认为美国也对这个领域感兴趣，我们希望我们能够在负责任的人工智能领域共同努力和合作。我认为现阶段很难谈论全球标准，但我们会一步一步来，希望能够让更多志同道合的国家加入我们并扩大联盟。

主持人：这确实是当今的问题，不是吗，A.I.治理，对我们许多人来说都是一个大主题。我们这里还有一个问题，您能介绍一下自己并简洁地提出您的问题吗？

马文：马文，前联邦政府，现在约翰·霍普金斯大学和威尔逊中心。这是一个与南海有关的问题，我知道新加坡不是直接声索国，但肯定有兴趣。我认为可以公平地说，中国在南海问题上的态度是毫不妥协的——习近平自古以来就将南海称为中国领土。新加坡与中国官员和安全官员进行了非常活跃、长期的对话。我感兴趣的是你读到的内容，中国未来在南海问题上的姿态是否有任何潜在的让步，或者中国人是否如此顽固、如此僵化，以至于我们将面临当前的局势无限期地。

黄副总理：关于南海问题，各岛屿和环礁已经有既定事实。有些主张在许多复杂的方面都有重叠。正如您所强调的那样，我们不是一个声索国。我们不是索赔人之一。有四个东盟国家是声索国；中国是声索国之一。我想东盟国家都不会愿意在这个问题上与中国走极端，因为他们在中国有大量的账目，而这只是他们与中国打交道的众多问题之一。希望中国和东盟国家能够和平解决争端。我们没有直接参与，但我们作为东盟的一部分参与其中，东盟正在与中国讨论《行为准则》。我们正在制定一项行为宣言，一项具有约束力的行为准则。这花了很长时间，非常复杂，而且正在进行中。新加坡在这件事上的利益如下：第一，航行自由；第二，《联合国海洋法公约》所反映的国际法；第三，和平解决而不升级，不给该地区带来不确定性和潜在的冲突。我们希望和平解决争端。这是我们的利益，我们将在力所能及的范围内，通过东盟努力实现这些成果。

主持人：谢谢。我们将向在线观众提出另一个问题。这更多的是关于新加坡本??身。来自 Grant Alexander：2020 年代新加坡最大的国内挑战是什么？

黄副总理：我们最大的挑战是——新加坡始终是一个不可能的国家。我们很小，没有自然资源，你不会把赌注押在 1965 年的新加坡。你不会指望新加坡能够生存下来，但我们做到了。这简直就是一个奇迹。我们的挑战是尽可能长时间地维持这个名为新加坡的小奇迹。我对此印象最深刻的是当我还是密歇根大学的学生时。在密歇根州，有一个鬼城，名叫新加坡。它位于密歇根湖附近

卡拉马祖河。它成立于1830年代。没有人知道为什么叫新加坡。但据推测，由于新加坡是英国人于 1819 年作为英国港口建立的，很快我们就成为英国人的繁荣港口。也许消息是从异国情调的远东传播开来的，那里有一个叫做新加坡的地方，你知道在那个时代新闻传播是多么需要时间。于是在1830年代，有人决定在密歇根州建立一个小镇，这是一个造船和木材港口，并一度做得不错。但50年后，移动的沙丘吞没了这座小镇。如果你现在去那里，你只能看到一个路标，上面写着这里是新加坡的废墟。所以密歇根州的新加坡并没有持续很长时间，大约有50年。我们的使命是让新加坡在东南亚长久存在。

马里奥·马萨亚（Mario Masaya），美国-东盟商业理事会：副总理，非常感谢您抽出宝贵的时间。我想让我们回到围绕 IT 的讨论，以及您对新兴技术的乐观态度。你谈到了CPTPP，你谈到了IPEF。我想谈谈东盟数字经济框架协议（DEFA）——您如何看待该协议以及您认为它将如何积极改善东南亚数字经济。关于东南亚数字经济未来将如何呈指数级增长的报道已经有很多。那么通过这项协议，我们是否期望在该领域取得很大的进步？谢谢。

黄副总理：谢谢你的提问。这确实是我们新加坡的优先事项，我认为也是东南亚许多国家的优先事项。东盟取得了长足的进步，因为自成立以来，东盟不断努力加强东南亚多元化国家之间的一体化。在货物贸易自由化方面，我们已经基本实现了这些目标。我们可以在服务上做得更好；我们可以更好地连接我们的基础设施，包括能源和交通；我们现在正在研究的一个新领域是数字连接。这有几个要素。例如，一个想法就是连接我们在东盟的支付系统。我不认为我们能够像欧盟那样获得共同货币——我们太多元化了——但如果我们甚至可以连接我们的实时支付系统，这样就可以实现快速、廉价和高效跨境流动，我认为这对我们东南亚所有人、个人和企业来说都是一个很大的好处，我们正在为此努力。数字协议的另一个方面是数据的无缝流动，在这样的安排下，我认为东盟在吸引企业来到东盟方面具有相当的竞争力，企业可以利用相对竞争优势东盟不同国家的情况。例如，你无法在新加坡进行低成本制造，我们的成本太高了。但你可以在马来西亚拥有它，你可以在印度尼西亚拥有它，你可以在越南拥有它。您的数据中心可以位于东盟的任何地方，然后您可以在东盟内部无缝地进行互操作，如果有无缝的数据流动，这肯定会使东盟对跨国公司更具吸引力。这些是我们正在为数字协议所做的一些事情。我们认为有很大的潜力，我们希望将其向前推进。

扎卡里·阿布扎：副总理，非常感谢您今天加入我们。我叫扎卡里·阿布扎 (Zachary Abuza)，来自国家战争学院和乔治城大学。我无意无礼，但我要问一个关于缅甸的棘手问题。

扎卡里：联合国最近的一份报告发现，自 2021 年 2 月政变以来，有 138 家总部位于新加坡的公司向缅甸政权供应了价值约 2.54 亿美元的武器、零部件和机床。另一份报告发现，缅甸中央银行的资金约有四十五亿美元存放在九家不同的新加坡银行中。这些似乎与新加坡所宣称的对缅甸外交政策背道而驰。我注意到外交部长来到这里；它们违背了他的一些非常公开的声明。新加坡还能做些什么来结束一个针对平民发动多条战线战争的政权呢？

黄副总理：缅甸正在发生的事情非常悲惨。我们的外交部长在这里，他的公开声明确实是我们正在做的事情。如果有任何证据超出我们所知，请告诉我们。我们将这一点告诉我们美国政府的朋友。除非有联合国安理会决议，否则新加坡很少实施制裁。当俄罗斯入侵乌克兰时，因为这严重违反了《联合国宪章》和领土主权，我们觉得我们必须做点什么。因此，如果有具体证据，我们已经将此告知美国国务院和财政部，如果有的话

如果有证据，请具体告知我们，我们一定会配合并尽自己的一份力量。这就是新加坡的角色。但除了新加坡之外，我们大家还能做些什么来解决缅甸的问题呢？不幸的是，我们必须现实一点。事情不会那么简单，因为局外人——无论是新加坡、美国、东盟、欧盟，在联合国你可以选择——几乎没有什么局外人可以做的事情来影响军队、国家和军队。缅甸的将军或事件。我们在历史上已经看到过这种情况。东盟有计划，我们正在继续落实五点共识。我们将继续与包括美国在内的合作伙伴一起尽我们所能，但我们必须面对现实，这需要时间。希望正如我们过去所看到的那样，我们采取的方法已经奏效，威慑和外交的胡萝卜加大棒相结合在过去已经奏效，但这花了很长时间。希望随着时间的推移，我们也能看到缅甸取得进展。

主持人：如果可以的话，我想再谈一下东盟的问题，以及它在缅甸的作用。我认为可以公平地说，华盛顿对东盟提出了相当多的批评，部分原因是它无法解决缅甸局势，正如你所指出的那样，它有多么困难。与此同时，在过去的几年里，该地区的合作机制有所扩散——当然，四国集团的崛起，还有我们所谓的小型多边组织。我不知道你对东盟的未来以及新加坡在其中的作用有何看法？那么与这些新组织及其与东盟的关系相关的问题是什么？

黄副总理：首先，关于东盟因被认为在缅甸问题上无效而受到批评，我想如果你的基础和出发点是东盟能否对缅甸采取行动，那么不，因此东盟失败了——好吧，公平足够了，这是评估指标之一。但如果你要采取更广泛的视角，请记住，正如我刚才强调的那样，该地区是多么多元化。东南亚国家有君主制国家、民主国家、各种程度的民主国家、共产主义国家；非常广泛的国??家。东盟成立之初，各个国家、成员国之间都存在着冲突。这就是东盟的起源，东盟在很多方面帮助维护了该地区的和平。东盟不仅做到了这一点，而且还帮助将非常多样化的国家聚集在一起，采取更加一体化的社区建设方法。无论是我们刚才讨论的贸易服务、交通能源联动还是数字服务等问题，我们都在取得进展。整个东盟共有6.5亿人口。它一点也不小。它拥有强大的经济基础、年轻人口和不断崛起的中产阶级。我们认为，如果我们能够确保东盟的强大一体化，抛开缅甸问题，但东盟其他国家团结起来，我认为我们将在这个不确定的世界中发挥作用。东盟的做法是什么？东盟的做法实际上是建立一个开放、包容的地区。这就是为什么我们欢迎新配置，无论是 Quad 还是 AUKUS。四方机制和AUKUS成员是东盟的密切对话伙伴。我们欢迎这些安排，只要它们在东盟中心地位的框架内发挥作用，并有助于维护以国际法为基础、以规则为基础的国际秩序。这是我们的出发点。在此基础上，我们与 AUKUS、Quad 以及任何其他合作伙伴密切合作。正如我刚才所说，东盟希望有一个开放、包容的安排，能够与中国、美国、欧盟和所有其他伙伴合作。希望在这种配置中，扩大我们彼此之间的共同点和相互依赖关系。冷战时期的东盟发生了冲突。冷战时期，我们是代理人战争的竞技场。我们不希望东南亚再次发生这种情况。冷战时期，东南亚国家或者说很多国家采取了不结盟运动的方针。东盟现在的做法实际上不再是被动的旁观者，而是真正的积极多方参与——与所有不同的主要大国接触，并尽最大努力建立一个能够为我们带来稳定与和平的最佳机会的配置。

Ryo Nakamura：我叫 Ryo Nakamura，来自日本日经媒体。我想问你有关与美国的防务关系的问题。新加坡允许美军在新加坡轮换美军舰艇或飞机，并长期提供支持。所以我想知道，在战争时期你也会这样做吗？

黄副总理：嗯，这是一个假设的场景。首先，如果发生战争，我们都会遇到很大很大的麻烦。让我们希望没有战争。我们不是

非常明确的是，它是美国的盟友。我们是相当独特的。我认为我们是世界上唯一一个主要安全合作伙伴（MSCP）的国家，所以我们不是美国的盟友。我们让美国军队使用我们的港口和基地。我们提供轮换支持、后勤支持，我们允许他们进行轮换部署，但这些都是和平时期的安排，这对美国和新加坡来说都是双赢的。如果有其他情况，那么我认为我们必须考虑情况的背景并仔细考虑，就像我说的，始终从符合新加坡利益的角度出发。我们的出发点必须是让我们不要陷入亚洲发生冲突或战争的情况。

主持人：我们这里先做最后一个问题。我们就从网上获取：您认为美国在多元文化存在方面可以向新加坡学习什么？

黄副总理：我不会冒昧地告诉美国，你们可以向我们学习。但我们有一个适合我们的情况和需求的模型。首先要认识到人们来自不同的背景、不同的种族、不同的宗教。我们并不寻求同化为一个中心身份。相反，我们希望每个人都能保留自己的文化、自己的传统。我们希望每个人都感到他们在我们的社会中占有一席之地。即使是最小的少数群体也必须感到自己受到重视并且可以为社会做出贡献。与此同时，在我们鼓励这一点的同时，我们也希望各群体能够聚集在一起，尽可能多地相互互动，以便通过这种互动，我们找到共同点。作为新加坡人，我们共同分享的是什么？我们有很多共同点。然后希望随着时间的推移，通过互动、通过共同的经历、通过共同的记忆，我们能够扩大彼此之间的共同点。这就是我们对新加坡多元文化主义的看法。这是一项正在进行的工作，因为国家建设、建立新加坡人的身份始终是一项正在进行的工作；但我们发现这也是一个需要相互迁就和妥协的过程。决不能将妥协视为坏词。因为如果每个群体都主张最大的权利，那么一切都必须是100%——我必须做每件事，如果我不能实现我想要的所有目标，我认为这是一种轻视，我认为这是对我的部落的侮辱——那么它变成每个部落对每个部落的战争，没有共同点。多年来我们了解到，互相包容是可以的，在某些事情上妥协是可以的。再次，尝试从对方的角度来看什么是重要的。随着时间的推移，通过这一互动过程，我们扩大了新加坡人的共同点。我们是一个相对年轻的国家，独立还不到60年。但在这些年和几十年的国家建设过程中，我认为我们已经对独特的新加坡身份产生了非常强烈的认识，我们希望这种情况能够在未来的许多年里持续下去，我们可以继续维护新加坡的和平与和谐。我们的多元文化社会在未来的许多年里也是如此。

DPM Lawrence Wong's Dialogue at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

20231014 DPM Wong at the CSIS Dialogue_Hero jpg

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong's dialogue at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on 13 October 2023. The session was moderated by Mr Christopher B. Johnstone, Senior Advisor and Japan Chair, for the CSIS. DPM Wong was on a working visit to the United States of America from 5 to 15 October 2023. The following is an edited transcript of the dialogue.

Host Christopher B. Johnstone

Christopher B. Johnstone:

Welcome to our in-person audience and to our audience online as well. My name is Chris Johnstone. I am Senior Advisor and Japan Chair here at CSIS, and it is really a delight and a privilege to welcome Lawrence Wong who is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Republic of Singapore. Really a privilege for us to have this opportunity for a conversation with you here today. By way of introduction, Mr Wong was first elected as a member of parliament in May 2011. He has held positions in the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Communications and Information, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, the Ministry of National Development, and the Ministry of Education — quite a wide-ranging career touching a number of different aspects of policy. And importantly, we were just discussing this, he obtained his bachelor's and master's degrees in economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and he also holds a master's degree in public administration from the Harvard Kennedy School. So I think it is fair to say, Mr Minister, you know us very well, and you know different parts of America in a way that I think many Americans may not. So it is really a delight to have the Minister here with us. For all of you here today, what we will do is we will invite Minister Wong to offer some thoughts at the top, then he and I will have a bit of a conversation here on stage, and then we will invite questions both from those of you in the room as well as those of you online. So with that, please join me in welcoming Minister Wong.

DPM Lawrence Wong:

Thanks very much, Chris, for the remarks and the introduction. I am very happy to be here at the CSIS and thank you for hosting this dialogue. My visit to America has coincided unfortunately with a very difficult time in the Middle East and the world. But despite the immediate preoccupations, I am glad that during this week of my visit, I have had very big meetings with members of the administration. And the purpose of this visit is really to affirm the close and enduring partnership between our two countries, Singapore and America. This is in fact the last day of my week-long visit; I am saving the best for last. This is literally my last event of the day before I fly home to Singapore. But I thought it would be very good to wrap up the visit with this dialogue. And perhaps I will start with three broad points in my opening remarks and then we can have questions later. First, Singapore appreciates and values America’s important and constructive presence in the Asia-Pacific. America has been in the region for nearly 80 years. You have many strategic interests; you have many friends in the region; and we would all like you to continue to stay actively and consistently engaged in this part of the world. Not just for one, two years; not just even for the next administration; but for the next 80 years and beyond. Second, it is American leadership that has shaped the rules-based global order that we have today, and that has benefited everyone in the world. It has uplifted countries; it has helped all countries – including the US. Increasingly, we do hear concerns about shortcomings in the global order, that it does not adequately address concerns around national security, supply chain resilience etc. And so there are more and more criticisms about the system. We would like very much to work with America on what a new model of globalisation might be. How can we update the rules of the new global order, so that it is fit for our time. And then thirdly, we want to continue growing our bilateral partnership. Defence is in fact one of the key pillars in our bilateral partnership. Since 1990, Singapore has allowed US troops to use our ports and bases. We host your rotational deployments, we provide logistical support, and at the same time, our troops — troops from the Singapore armed forces — train here in America, and that is why I started my week-long visit in Arizona, where our pilots do F-16 training at Luke Air Force Base. In fact, Singapore, tiny little country that we are, has the second-largest foreign military presence here in America, and that speaks volumes to the confidence and trust that we have in one another. And we are continuing to strengthen this defence cooperation in new areas, including cybersecurity and F-35s, which we have acquired. More broadly we are continuing to grow our cooperation in other new areas too. So yesterday we launched a dialogue on critical and emerging technologies, which includes areas like A.I. and biotech. We are looking at deepening our collaboration in space exploration. We are looking at how we can cooperate in new sources of low carbon energy — something which is very important for Singapore given how small we are, and the need to get to net zero. And we also work together to deliver technical assistance with third countries. We do that for Southeast Asian countries, but we are expanding that to the Pacific Islands states. So our bilateral relations are in excellent shape. We have a full agenda ahead of us and we will continue to grow the partnership. Our message is that Singapore has over the decades been a forward-leaning and reliable partner of the US, that we demonstrate that not just in words but in actions, and we will continue to do everything we can to further strengthen this partnership in the years to come.

Moderator:

Terrific. That was a really comprehensive lay down of your activities, your views on the relationship, and I must say, Mr Minister, as someone who worked in the South and Southeast Asia office at the Pentagon for many years, I saw firsthand the really vital role that Singapore plays in promoting, supporting the US forward presence in Southeast Asia; so very much appreciate your remarks on those lines. If I may start with a question that is perhaps suited to your hat as Finance Minister, and that is your views of the regional and global economy. Slowly, I think it is fair to say, emerging from COVID. But many countries experience low growth, high inflation. I think we have seen a slowdown — perhaps to some extent unexpected in China — in recent months. I wonder how do you see the regional economy, Singapore's economy, and in particular, also sort of the future of China’s economic growth?

DPM Wong:

The broader context is that we are moving from an era of benign globalisation to a new period of great power competition. So it is going to be a more fragmented world, a more uncertain world, and there will be more tail risks, more volatility, more – unfortunately – events of turbulence that can create huge uncertainties in the global economy. So amidst that broad environment, I think we are also facing another change from the last 10 years of easy money, very low interest rates, to another perhaps a more normalised period where interest rates will be higher for longer, and the era of easy money is over. I think that is the broader context that all countries everywhere are facing, and in that environment, I think we will see more sluggish growth. We are experiencing it because Singapore is very attuned to this, because we are such a small, open economy, and external demand makes up so much of our GDP growth. We are the canary in the mine — when the external environment is bad, we feel it most instantly. We feel the effects of sluggish growth already. Hopefully, inflationary trends will come down; we are hopeful. We see some moderation like in the US but we are worried about downside risks with regards to oil. What is happening in the Middle East can have an impact. With regards to food supplies with El Nino and other unknown risks, things can also take a turn for the worse. On China, I think they are going through a challenging sort of situation now because there is high youth unemployment. They have decided to prick the real estate bubble, and there will be painful consequences from doing so. I think it is the right thing to do because there were excesses building up in the real estate sector. But real estate is about 20-30% of the economy. It is a big part of the economy. And once you prick the bubble, there are all sorts of consequences, knock-on effects cascading throughout the entire economy, which they will have to manage. At the same time, they will have to rebalance the economy towards one that is more consumption-based. It is not easy because they will also have to undertake reforms on the social security front, which will take time. It is quite complex given the size of their country. But talking to their officials, I think they understand what needs to be done. It is a matter of communicating and also making sure that the implementation is done well. So overall, our sense is that you hear a lot of commentators and people talking about Peak China. We think that is overstated; we think China will continue to grow. What is perhaps in question, and what many people are asking is to what extent — China's economy will grow, maybe 4%, maybe 5%. But to what extent will it have that same entrepreneurial vitality and dynamism that it had before. I do not think anyone has the answer now. I think the Chinese government itself will have to figure out what is the right balance. And everyone is watching for clear indications of sustained market reforms before they decide that this is indeed the right trajectory going forward. I would say I would not underestimate the natural animal spirit of the Chinese person. They are highly resourceful. They are determined to secure a better life for themselves. And you should never underestimate their tremendous sense of drive and energy in the Chinese people.

Moderator:

It is very well said. It is funny how these narratives take hold here, and you are very much accurate that Peak China is now sort of in the environment here. I appreciate that sort of more comprehensive and balanced take on things. So thank you for that. Let me sort of pick up on a related question. You noted the importance of US leadership in shaping the region. I am interested in how you see US economic engagement in the Indo-Pacific today. Of course, the United States still remains on the outside of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Instead, it is promoting the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) with its work on supply chains, infrastructure, trade facilitation, corruption. I welcome your thoughts on IPEF: what Singapore hopes to see emerge from IPEF, and to what degree you see it as delivering tangible benefits and that leadership that you noted is so important.

DPM Wong:

We have long advocated for more economic engagement by the US in Asia, and in particular Southeast Asia. Our preference would have been a regional trade agreement. We had the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), but that is water under the bridge. If possible, we would like to see market access and trade liberalisation, but I think it is very hard to talk about these things under current circumstances in the US domestic politics and the environment in America. There is no mood to talk about these issues now. But I think we should maintain high ambition in these areas, and hopefully down the road in years to come, the conditions may change, and we can still strive for trade liberalisation and market access. But in the meantime, we have IPEF and that is still very substantial, and there can still be good outcomes achieved through IPEF. We are working closely on the different areas and different aspects of IPEF to make sure that we achieve substantial outcomes. I think in areas like supply chains, green economy, digital economy — these are things that we are pursuing and we hope certainly that there can be some substantial progress in particular, by the time that the APEC Summit is held in November this year.

Moderator:

November is the key sort of moment, I think, for demonstrating progress on IPEF. Let me turn if I may, Mr Minister, to China and US-China relations. You know that a minute ago that we are sort of transitioning from an era of globalisation to one of great power competition and the ancillary effects of that. I think it is fair to say, and no doubt you have heard during your time here, relations between China and the United States are in a challenging state — the coming months, I think are likely to be quite difficult as we approach election in Taiwan, political season here in the United States. How is Singapore's government navigating the US-China economic and political rivalry, this dynamic? How do you see it? How are you navigating it?

DPM Wong:

Well, on US-China, I would say first of all, both sides have made very clear that they do not want a confrontation. And hopefully there will be a view that this is not a zero-sum contest — it is not one side wins, the other side loses. The world is big enough to accommodate both US and China, and the two can coexist and develop together. It is very good that talks and engagements have resumed in recent months. Hopefully through these dialogues and engagements there can be an effort to reduce misperceptions, misunderstanding, and enable more mutual accommodation and meeting of minds. What we would like to see and what we hope to see is that the Presidents on both sides, President Xi and President Biden, hopefully will have a chance to meet and talk face to face in APEC and they will be able to help rebuild the strategic trust that is so important to take the relationship forward in a positive way. The positive way means there will still be competition in some areas, but there will also be areas where there is engagement, constructive engagement, because there is so much that both countries can benefit mutually by working together — both bilaterally and also in tackling issues of global concern like climate change. We hope this will happen. It is a relationship that they will have some elements of competition, but also many elements of constructive engagement. If this does not happen and if the relationship turns sour, then it will be a big problem for the two countries, but it is also a huge problem for the rest of the world. Everyone will be worse off. From Singapore's point of view when we look at this relationship between US and China, our perspective is that this is not about balancing between America and China. Ultimately, we make decisions based on our own interests and our national interests will very much be guided by principles of international law. As a small country, we need that rule of law framework to operate and so that is how we will make our decisions. Which means that depending on the circumstances, in some instances, we may make decisions that seems to favour one side versus the other; but that does not mean that we are pro-China or pro-America. It simply means that we are pro-Singapore.

Moderator:

Fair enough, as you should be.

DPM Wong:

Indeed so, as every country would.

Moderator:

Well, exactly. So let me take it a step further if I may, to get your thoughts on this. It is such an important topic and I think Singapore's perspective is very important for us to hear. The Biden administration's Indo-Pacific strategy says – this is a quote – “The PRC is combining its economic, diplomatic, military and technological might, as it pursues its sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and seeks to become the world's most influential power. The PRC’s coercion and aggression spans the globe and it is most acute in the Indo-Pacific”. Is this the right framing? How do you see this framing from the standpoint of Singapore

DPM Wong:

The Chinese talk about three phases in their nation building journey. They want to stand up, they want to get rich, and they want to get strong. And I think they are, in their minds, in the “get strong” phase of their nation-building journey, which means they feel that their time has come, they need to take their rightful place in the world, and they ought to be more assertive with regards to their interests abroad. I think China also knows that it has to play its cards carefully, and they have to grow. Then China has to grow its influence without making other countries feel pressured, coerced or squeezed. Because if they do so, or if they end up doing so, I think there will be a backlash against China and that will not be in their national interest so China will have to learn how to moderate and adjust. But from Singapore's perspective, and certainly from the perspective of all the countries in Southeast Asia, we value the friendship we have with the US. America has been very good friend for a very long time. China now is also a good friend with all the countries in Southeast Asia. And we would like to stay friends with both. After all, it should be possible to have more than one best friend.

Moderator:

Well said, permit me to ask one more question on China, then we will invite the audience to begin to ask questions. We have mics on both sides of the room, if you would like to ask a question, maybe make your way to the mics and line up. But in the meantime, Mr Minister, I recognise this is a sensitive question, but I feel sort of obligated to ask it. And it relates to the question of PRC influence in Singapore, and in Southeast Asia more broadly, but Singapore in particular. In July, you may know, the Washington Post published a long article exploring this topic, focusing in particular on the role of Chinese language media in Singapore, which the Post asserts in the article – and this is a quote – that “this media now routinely echoes some of Beijing's most strident falsehoods”. How should we understand PRC influence in Singapore and what is Singapore doing to combat disinformation?

DPM Wong:

The newspaper in question — this was highlighted in the Washington Post — the newspaper in question has strongly rejected the portrayal by the Washington Post. It has defended its editorial stance. If you were to ask Singaporeans, the vast majority of Singaporeans reading the Chinese newspaper daily will not feel that what was portrayed in the Washington Post was accurate. Because we can read and see for ourselves articles on China, and they cover a wide range, including many articles that criticise China's approach. Ultimately, Singapore's newspapers have to reflect Singapore's perspectives as they have to reflect our society. Our newspapers cannot resemble the Washington Post, neither do we ask the Washington Post to become like Singapore newspapers. On PRC influence, or the influence of any other country for that matter, we are mindful that we are a small, open and diverse society. We are a multiracial, multicultural society. The majority of our population are ethnic Chinese, so we have ancestral roots going back to China but we have over time evolved our own Singaporean identity. We are Singaporean Chinese, and the Singaporean Chinese is very different from the Chinese from China — in values, in outlook, in identity. Just as a Singaporean Malay would be very different from a Malay from Malaysia or Indonesia, or a Singaporean Indian would be very different from someone that comes from India. And America, being a nation of immigrants, you must understand this very well. Given that we are such a small, open multicultural society, we know that we are susceptible to influences from elsewhere. And that is why we are very vigilant about this. From the government's point of view, we continually engage our public, educate, explain what is our national interest — why do we take certain decisions. Not because of choosing sides or because of external influence, but really because of Singapore's own interest. We spend a lot of time doing that. In fact, if you look at the large proportion of what Singaporeans consume, in news and entertainment, actually, a lot of it is in English; and a lot of it comes from the US and UK. To be candid, there is no shortage of criticism about Singapore in the Western media, no shortage of commentaries and articles highlighting the shortcomings in our system and asking us to be more like Western liberal ideals. We are very aware that as a small country we are susceptible to influences from all sides. At the end of the day, what is important for us, small though we may be, it is that we are our own people, we make our own choices, and it really comes down to Singaporeans, deciding on the future of our country. Not China, nor the West.

Moderator:

Thank you, Mr Minister. I guess we have one. Do we have someone standing over at the microphone here? I invite you to ask your question.

Shay Wester: I am Shay Wester with the Asia Society Policy Institute. My question relates to at the end of this trip, I think no matter what you read beforehand, or what people tell you, talking to people face to face can bring you to certain realisations. What kind of takeaways do you think you will bring back and tell the Cabinet in Singapore or other colleagues in the region? And an additional question is just on the economics on IPEF. What more would you advise policymakers in the US to do either on IPEF or on other areas, if you had kind of one ask of something more that the US could do on that front?

DPM Wong:

Sure. Well, the main takeaway I have from this trip is, as I said, we have a solid and growing bilateral agenda between America and Singapore. Both sides share a very similar strategic outlook of the world. We have long had close cooperation across a broad range of issues from defence to economics. And there is now a growing desire, mutual desire to see how we can further strengthen that partnership in the areas which I have just mentioned. There is also recognition in the administration, which has consistently told us that they do not want Singapore to be in a position to have to choose sides. They recognise what our perspectives are and the perspectives of countries in Southeast Asia so having a close relationship with the US, does not mean we have to alienate and exclude engagements with other countries, including China. Hopefully, that modus vivendi where Southeast Asia and Singapore can continue to have an open inclusive region, engaging not just America, but China, EU, other major powers all engage in our part of the world. Expanding the common ground we share and maximising our chances for stability and shared prosperity at a time when the world is increasingly becoming very uncertain and turbulent. That is our perspective and that is my main takeaway from this visit. On IPEF, as I said we are working on how we can add substance to the different pillars of IPEF. The work is ongoing — we hope there will be something to announce by the time of the APEC Summit. What we have offered to our friends in America is that in some instances, it may be difficult to get consensus amongst all the members of the IPEF family. We can also do things together bilaterally, between America and Singapore first, and that bilateral cooperation can be a pathfinder. We set high standards, it can be a pathfinder, it can be a testbed that we do together before it is expanded to the broader region.

Moderator:

Thank you. Why don't we take a question from our online audience? What I have here is how do you see Singapore in leading the region in the information and technology sector as well as engaging youth from across the region to enter into the fields. Singapore’s role in IT.

DPM Wong:

It is a sector that we pay a lot of attention to because given our stage of economic development, the only way for us to move forward really is to invest in innovation, R&D and push the frontiers of innovation. IT becomes very important, digital technologies are very important. Not just as a sector in itself, but as an enabler across all the pillars of our economy. Advanced manufacturing, financial services, built environment. We are investing heavily in IT. We continue to encourage young people to enter the space in Singapore and we are continuing to attract talent from around the region to come to Singapore to study and do well in IT. Our advantages is that we are small, we are nimble, we are a city-state. While we may not be at the cutting edge of IT, I mean the latest ideas and innovations I think will still come from American universities, American companies, but we can be a fast adopter. We can scale up applications very quickly. Not just in one sector, but across the entire economy and across our entire society. We do have the other advantage of a population that does embrace technology. We are techno-optimists by nature. Yes, technology does disrupt people's lives. It does make some jobs obsolete. Over the decades we have found ways to reskill, upskill our workers, make sure that anyone who is affected by technological disruptions can get placed to a better job, make use of machines and tools to increase the salaries of our workers. This is not something new, this is something we have been doing year after year for decades, so that trust and confidence that technology can help make lives better is there, and that is why we are able to embrace technology, including new technologies like A.I., and we can hopefully continue to keep the economy growing and improve the lives of our people.

Moderator: You mentioned in your meeting with Jake Sullivan at the White House that the two governments will be launching a critical and emerging technologies dialogue. Could you say a little more about the areas of focus for this?

DPM Wong: One of the key issues that we are grappling with – countries everywhere are grappling with – is how to harness the benefits of A.I. and innovation and the impact of A.I. while minimising the downside risks. And there are a number of downside risks. I mean, you can have an A.I. model that works well 99% of the time, but that 1% failure, if applied in a very potentially damaging scenario, can have knock-on implications for many, many people. How do we tackle these sorts of risks? What should be an appropriate governance framework for responsible A.I. usage? It cannot be that companies are let off the hook — surely companies cannot say we do everything and then when there is a problem, governments come to the rescue, that surely is too late. What is the right framework that companies can use in applying A.I. for different use cases that will ensure they take some responsibility? And governments and the private sector work closely together in having this framework and a set of principles governing responsible A.I. We have done some work in this respect for Singapore. I think the US is also interested in this space and we hope that we can work together and collaborate in this area of responsible A.I. I think it is going to be hard to talk about global standards at this stage, but we take it step by step and hopefully we can get more like-minded countries to join us and expand the coalition.

Moderator: It is really the issue of the day, isn’t it, A.I. governance, big theme for many of us. We have another question over here, if you could introduce yourself and offer your question concisely.

Marvin: Marvin, formerly federal government, now Johns Hopkins University and the Wilson Center. This is a question related to the South China Sea, and I realise Singapore is not a direct claimant but certainly interested. I think it is fair to say that China's posture on the South China Sea has been uncompromising — Xi Jinping has referred to the South China Sea as Chinese territory since ancient times. Singapore has a very robust, long-standing conversation with Chinese officials and security officials. I am interested in what your reading is, of whether there is any potential give in China's posture on the South China Sea going forward, or whether the Chinese are so dug-in, so rigid, that we are going to be facing the current situation indefinitely.

DPM Wong: On the South China Sea, there are already facts established across the different islands and atolls. There are claims that overlap in many complicated ways. We are not a claimant state as you highlighted. We are not one of the claimants. There are four ASEAN states that are claimants; China is one of the claimants. I think none of the ASEAN countries will want to go to the extreme on this matter with China because they have substantial accounts with China, and this is but one of the many issues they have dealing with China. Hopefully all parties, China and these ASEAN countries, can work out a peaceful resolution of the dispute. We are not involved directly but we are involved as part of ASEAN, and ASEAN is in the midst of talking about the Code of Conduct with China. There is a Declaration of Conduct we are working on, a binding code of conduct. It has taken a long time, it is very complicated and it is work in progress. Singapore's interests in this matter are as follows: Number one, freedom of navigation; number two, international law as reflected in the UNCLOS; and number three, peaceful resolution without escalation, and without causing uncertainty and potential for conflicts in the region. We want the disputes to be resolved peacefully. That is our interest and to the extent that we can, through ASEAN, we will work towards these outcomes.

Moderator: Thank you. We will do another question from our online audience. This is more about Singapore itself. From Grant Alexander: What is Singapore's biggest domestic challenge in the 2020s?

DPM Wong: Our biggest challenge is this – Singapore is always an improbable nation. We are so tiny, and with no natural resources, and you would not have bet on Singapore in 1965. You will not expect Singapore to survive, but we did. It is nothing short of a miracle. Our challenge is to sustain this little miracle called Singapore for as long as possible. My vivid impression of this is when I was a student at Michigan. In Michigan, there is a ghost town called Singapore. It is by Lake Michigan near the Kalamazoo River. It was founded in the 1830s. No one knows why it is called Singapore. But presumably, because Singapore was founded by the British as a British port in 1819, and very quickly, we became a thriving port for the British. Perhaps word had spread from the exotic Far East, there was something called Singapore, and you know how it takes time for news to travel in those days. So in the 1830s, someone decided to set up a town in Michigan, and it was a shipbuilding and lumber port, and it did well for a while. But after 50 years, the shifting sand dunes swallowed up the town. And if you go there now, you can only see a signpost that says these are the ruins of Singapore. So Singapore in Michigan did not last for very long, about 50 years. Our mission is to make Singapore in Southeast Asia last for a very long time.

Mario Masaya, US-ASEAN Business Council: Deputy Prime Minister, thank you very much for your time. I want to bring us back to the discussion around IT, and your optimism about emerging technologies. You talked about CPTPP, you talked about IPEF. I want to bring ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement (DEFA) in front – how you see that agreement and how you think it will positively improve Southeast Asian digital economy. There are a lot of reports already on how Southeast Asian digital economy will exponentially grow for the next future. So with this agreement, are we expecting a lot of improvement in that area? Thank you.

DPM Wong: Thank you for that question. It is indeed a priority for us in Singapore and I think for many countries in Southeast Asia. ASEAN has come a long way because since it was founded, ASEAN has continually tried to strengthen our integration amongst very diverse countries in Southeast Asia. On trade liberalisation in goods, we have pretty much achieved these goals. We can do better in services; we can connect better our infrastructure, including energy and transport; and then one new area which we are working now on is digital connectivity. There are several elements to this. One idea, for example, is just to link up our payment systems in ASEAN. I do not think we are going to be able to get a common currency like in the EU – we are just too diverse – but if we can even link up our real-time payment systems, so that there can be fast, cheap and efficient cross-border flows, that will be I think a big plus for all of us in Southeast Asia, for individuals as well as for businesses, and we are working on that. Another aspect of what could be part of a digital agreement is to have seamless flow of data, and under such an arrangement, then ASEAN I think can be quite competitive in attracting businesses to come to ASEAN, and businesses can tap on the relative competitive advantages of the different ASEAN countries. You cannot do low cost manufacturing in Singapore, for example, we are just too expensive. But you can have that in Malaysia, you can have that in Indonesia, you can have that in Vietnam. Your data centres can be in any part of ASEAN, and then you can inter-operate seamlessly within ASEAN itself, if there is seamless flow of data, and that would certainly make ASEAN a lot more attractive and appealing to multinational companies. Those are some of the things that we are working on for the digital agreement. We think there is a lot of potential and we hope to take this forward.

Zachary Abuza: Thank you very much for joining us today, Deputy Prime Minister. My name is Zachary Abuza, I am from the National War College and Georgetown University. I do not mean to be rude, but I am going to ask a hard question about Myanmar.

DPM Wong: Sure, fire away.

Zachary: A recent United Nations report found that 138 companies based in Singapore were supplying some $254 million worth of weapons, parts and machine tools to the Myanmar regime since the February 2021 coup. Another report found that some four and a half billion dollars of Central Bank of Myanmar funds were sitting in nine different Singaporean banks. These seem to go in the face of what Singapore’s stated foreign policy is towards Myanmar. I note the Foreign Minister’s presence here; they go against some of his very public statements. What more can Singapore do to bring an end to a regime that is waging a multi-front war against their civilian population?

DPM Wong: What is happening in Myanmar is very tragic. Our Foreign Minister is here and his public statements are indeed what we are doing. If there is any evidence that goes beyond what we know, please let us know. We tell this to our friends in the US administration. Singapore very, very rarely imposes sanctions unless there's a United Nations Security Council Resolution. When Russia invaded Ukraine, because it was such an egregious breach of the United Nations Charter and territorial sovereignty, we felt we had to do something. So if there is specific evidence, and we have told this to the US State Department, to the Treasury, that if there is evidence, let us know specifically and we will certainly cooperate and do our part as well. That is Singapore’s role. But beyond Singapore, what else can all of us do to address the issue in Myanmar? Unfortunately, we have to be realistic. It is not going to be so simple, because there is very little that outsiders — be it Singapore, America, ASEAN, EU, name your pick in the United Nations — there is very little that outsiders can do that would influence the military, the generals or events in Myanmar. We have seen this before in history. ASEAN has a plan, we are continuing to implement the Five-Point Consensus. We are continuing to do whatever we can, together with our partners, including in America, but we just have to be realistic that it will take time. Hopefully as we have seen in the past, the approaches that we have made have worked, the combination of carrots and sticks of deterrence and diplomacy have worked in the past, but it took a long time. Hopefully, with the passage of time, we might see progress in Myanmar too.

Moderator: I want to pick up on this question of ASEAN for a second if I may, and its role in Myanmar. I think it is fair to say that in Washington, there has been a fair amount of criticism of ASEAN, partly as a result of its inability to address the situation in Myanmar, recognising as you pointed out how difficult it is. And along with that, in the last few years, there has been something of a proliferation of what you might call the mechanisms of cooperation in the region — the rise of the Quad, of course, other what we might call minilateral groupings. I wonder what is your view of the future of ASEAN and Singapore's role in it? And then relatedly this question of these new groupings, and their relationship to ASEAN?

DPM Wong: First of all, on the criticism of ASEAN because of its perceived ineffectiveness with regards to Myanmar, I suppose if your basis and your starting point is can ASEAN do something on Myanmar, and no, therefore ASEAN has failed — well, fair enough, that is one metric of assessment. But if you were to take a broader perspective, remember, as I highlighted just now, how diverse the region is. We have in Southeast Asia countries ranging from monarchies to democracies, various shades of democracies, to communist countries; a very wide range of countries. ASEAN started out with countries, member states, in conflict with one another. That was the genesis of ASEAN, and ASEAN in many ways has helped to keep the peace in the region. ASEAN has not only done that, but also helped to bring together very diverse countries towards a more integrated approach of community building. Whether it is the issues we discussed just now around trade services, transport energy linkages, or digital services, we are making progress. ASEAN as a whole has a combined population of 650 million people. It is not small at all. It has got strong economic fundamentals, young population, rising middle class. We think that if we are able to ensure a strong integrated ASEAN, setting aside the issue of Myanmar, but the rest of ASEAN coming together, I think we will have some agency in navigating this uncertain world. What is ASEAN’s approach? ASEAN’s approach is really to have an open and inclusive region. That is why we welcome new configurations, be it the Quad, or AUKUS. The members in the Quad and AUKUS are close dialogue partners of ASEAN. We welcome these arrangements as long as they work within the framework of ASEAN’s centrality, and they help to uphold the rules-based international order that is underpinned by international law. That is our starting point. On that basis, we work very closely with AUKUS, with the Quad, with any other partners. As I said just now, ASEAN wants to have an open, inclusive arrangement where we are able to work with China, America, EU and all the other partners. And hopefully within that configuration, expand the common ground and the interdependencies we have with one another. ASEAN in the Cold War, saw conflict. We were an arena for proxy wars during the period of the Cold War. We do not want that to happen again in Southeast Asia. In the Cold War, Southeast Asian countries or many countries adopted a non-aligned movement approach. ASEAN’s approach now is really about not so much being passive bystanders, but really about active multi-engagement — engaging all the different major powers and trying our best to have a configuration that will give us the best chances for stability and peace.

Ryo Nakamura: My name is Ryo Nakamura from Japan’s Nikkei Media. I want to ask you about the defence relationship with the US. Singapore allows the US military to rotate the US military ships or aircraft in Singapore and provides support for a long time. So I wonder, will you do the same during war time as well?

DPM Wong: Well, it is a hypothetical scenario. First of all, if there is war, we are all in big, big trouble. Let us hope that there is no war. We are not a US ally, to be very clear. We are quite unique. I think we are the only country in the world which is a Major Security Cooperation Partner (MSCP) so we are not an ally of the US. We let American troops use our ports and bases. We provide rotational support, logistical support, we allow them to come through for their rotational deployment, but these are peacetime arrangements, and it has been a win-win for both US and Singapore. If there were to be other circumstances, then I think we will have to consider the context of circumstances and think through carefully, like I said, always from the perspective of what is in Singapore's interest. Our starting point must be let us not even get into a situation where there is a conflict or a war in Asia.

Moderator: We will do one last question here. We will take it from online: what do you think the United States can learn from Singapore in terms of its multicultural existence?

DPM Wong: I am not going to be so presumptuous as to tell the US that you can learn from us. But we have a model that works for our circumstances and needs. It starts off by recognising that people come from different backgrounds, different races, different religions. We do not seek to assimilate into one central identity. Rather, we want everyone to preserve their own cultures, their own traditions. We want everyone to feel that they have a place in our society. Even the smallest of minorities must feel that they are valued and they can contribute to society. At the same time, while we encourage that, while we provide for that, we also want groups to come together and interact with one another as much as possible so that through that interaction, we find common ground. What is it that we share together as Singaporeans? There are many things that we have in common. Then hopefully over time, through interactions, through shared experiences, through shared memories, we expand the common ground that we share with one another. That is how we think of multiculturalism in Singapore. It is a work in progress, because nation-building, building a Singaporean identity is always a work in progress; but it is also a process which we have found requires mutual accommodation and compromise. Compromise must never be seen to be a bad word. Because if every group asserts maximum entitlement, everything must be 100% — I have to do everything, and if I cannot achieve all of what I want, I see that as a slight, I see that as an insult to my tribe — then it becomes war of every tribe against every tribe and there is no common ground. We have learnt over the years that it is okay to accommodate one another, it is okay to compromise in some things. Again, try to see what is important from the other side's perspective. Over time, through that process of interaction, we expand the common ground we have as Singaporeans. We are a relatively young nation, not even 60 years of independence. But over these years and decades of nation-building, I think we have grown a very strong sense of a distinctive Singaporean identity and we hope that this will continue for many more years to come, and we can continue to preserve that peace and harmony in our multicultural society for many years to come too.

Topics: Economy , Science and technology

风萧萧_Frank