Edited Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's Interview with Reuters, 24 April 2018

Edited Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's Interview with Reuters, 24 April 2018

25 Apr 2018

Minister: There are actually three important imperatives. Which in fact will always be there, and I wanted to highlight it because it’s relevant to your questions. First strategic question is: How does Southeast Asia cope with diversity of people? I say diversity because when you look at the history and when you look at the politics and you look at the society of all the ten ASEAN countries, none of us are pure. Every single country has people of different ethnicities, language, religion, cultures.

Reuters: (Raju Gopalakrishnan): But they’re also interlinked?

Minister: Yes. But the point I wanted to make is that if you compare us with say the EU, or in fact with any other association or region, that diversity of race, language, religion is greatest in Southeast Asia. So that’s the first issue. How do we live with one another? How do we cope with this diversity? How do we structure and organise the society to deal with diversity? The second geographic/ historical/ sociological imperative in Southeast Asia has always been: how do we relate to and engage external bigger powers? Because there’s a reason Indo-China, in fact for millennia, most of the interaction between the two ancient civilisations in India and China have had to take place mediated through Southeast Asia because…

Reuters: You’ve got to cross.

Minister: You’ve got to cross Southeast Asia through land or sea. It is obvious that the only way you are going to navigate between the continents of Asia and Australia, or if you were trying to get from China and Japan and you wanted to get to Europe, Africa and the Middle East, you have to traverse through Southeast Asia. Great sailors who have traded and left cultural influences across the South Pacific all the way into the Indian Ocean.

The second imperative is: how do we engage ancient and big powers? And the third imperative is: how do we make a living? And it is also interesting to ask the question and to look at it historically. Because, if you think about the early trade, before even America existed, obviously because the Chinese fleets and the Arab traders were traversing Southeast Asia, trade has always been a big part of making a living. Then the next question you would ask is what exactly were they trading? And in particular did Southeast Asia itself have anything to trade? And the answer is that if you go back a couple of centuries it was about spice. So first the Silk Road, then the spices, the Spice Islands within Southeast Asia itself and then you fast forward to the last fifty years and you look at basically what Singapore and the others have done, then it became containers –

Reuters: Services, basically.

Minister: – Manufacturing. Well first it was industrialisation and manufacturing, and then services built on top of that. And my hypothesis is, that is in fact what you’re watching now, because there is a new technological revolution. So the maps I look at now are of fibre optic cables, the distribution of fibre optic cables, and how are data and designs, and software and digital services transmitted.

Reuters: How do they conglomerate, how do they –

Minister: And interestingly if you look at that map, it is a new digital Silk Road.

Reuters: Yup.

Minister: And if you look at the map of fibre connections and terminations and hubs, it’s back here again. So what I’m saying is that to cut the long story short, the three imperatives of Southeast Asia: how do we live with our internal diversity, how do we engage bigger and older, ancient, militarily bigger powers, and how do we continue to make a living for ourselves. In fact, those imperatives are still…

Reuters: So, can I start off on a question just there? You talk about internal diversity and I also look at diversity to be internal differences. It could be political differences as well. And how do you cope with external realms. So one issue, which is probably going to come up this weekend, and has been on your agenda for some time, I think in ASEAN’s agenda, is the Myanmar issue, in Rakhine…

Minister: Yes, so I was going to say that Rakhine, Marawi, that even the fact that, I think there could be about a thousand people, or hundreds of people from Southeast who have gone to Syria. If you take a step back and look at the details, it is actually just again, reflection of the problem of diversity. The challenge of diversity in our part of the world.

Reuters: Can we talk about this one, because it’s, because it’s you know, the Rakhine thing.

Minister: Yes, it’s relevant to the Rakhine, don’t worry I’ll get to the Rakhine. I just want to start with the Philippines because it’s an interesting example. Islam, I told you reached Southeast Asia about seven hundred years ago. The most western tip of Southeast Asia, obviously being Aceh, then from there it spread, Malay Archipelago, Indonesia, then Southern Philippines. It’s interesting that seven hundred years ago, or seven or eight hundred years also, was the time the Spanish had pushed the Moroccans, who were actually, were in a sense the Muslims of the Iberian Peninsula.

Reuters: The Moros.

Minister: Yes, the Moros,

Reuters: Yes, I’ve been in the Philippines for a long time.

Minister: So you know why they were called Moros. Because when the Spanish, who by the way reached the Philippines, not by coming east, but by going west, and then staged from America or Central America, they then crossed the Pacific Ocean to reach Philippines. To their shock, they discovered Muslims again. And to the Spanish, the Muslims were called Moros because they came from Morocco. And that’s why they were called Moro Liberation Front in the Philippines. So the point is that the Southern Philippines, including Marawi, is a reverberation of a seven hundred year conflict, which took on a religious label. But actually these were civilisational conflicts that began seven hundred years ago. Then if you look at Rakhine state, there is also fascinating history there. The first thing I remember Daw Aung San Suu Kyi telling me, Rakhine was a kingdom, an independent kingdom with their own king. And the Burmans invaded and deposed the king. So the first point she said was that it is not a simple story of the majority suppressing a minority. But in fact this is a distinct people who lost their king and kingdom, and lost their independence. And this happened in the 1700s or earlier, so we’re talking about at least three hundred, four hundred years ago. I asked the Bangladeshi Foreign Minister, were there Buddhists on the Bangladeshi side of the river? Well, of course there were. And similarly were there Muslims –

Reuters: On the other side.

Minister: People were crisscrossing. So to believe that there was a very clear demarcated line, demarcating Muslims from Buddhists, I think it is a political fantasy.

Reuters: So really, the question is --

Minister: Then the next issue is why is that year, is it 1826? When did the Brits first get to Rakhine state?

MFA Officer: It was ceded to the British in 1826.

Minister: 1826. So it just so happened that the Brits took over Myanmar in three phases, and Rakhine was the first phase.

Reuters: Minister, if I can just stop you. You know, we only have a little bit of time so I was wondering if you could, because that’s the first question. And we have five or six so, my basic question was this. Given all these background that you just said, how is ASEAN going to deal with it and what are we going to do…

Minister: Well the first thing. The reason why I went to great lengths to explain it, and let me just finish the story because it’s relevant to a lot of things. So it just so happens that Rakhine state was the first chunk of Myanmar that they took. And then I think they got the rest of Myanmar subsequently. So, the issue then is this: has there always been problems and mixing and rivalry and politics in that part of the country and the answer is yes. Has it been there for a long time? The answer is yes. Did colonisation actually help, or make it worse? Open question. Is this a simple issue of a majority suppressing a minority? The answer is no, it is in fact two minorities contending for space and resources and security. In fact the Burmans are viewed negatively by both the indigenous Rakhine, they view them also as colonisers of Rakhine. And the Muslims in Rakhine state, and there is no question that during the British time, there was perhaps even freer movement across, and it was also aggravated during the Second World War, when the two people took opposing sides, between the Brits and the Japs.

Reuters: So is this your view or the ASEAN view?

Minister: No, I’m just giving you my read on what is happening. So, the main point I wanted to make to you is that this is a longstanding problem, and also an almost intractable problem. That’s the first point. The second point I want to make is that what we are witnessing now, is a disaster. It’s a human tragedy. And no doubt that hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. And I speak to my Bangladeshi colleague and there is no doubt about that. The third point is that because this is a humanitarian disaster, these people need help. Therefore ASEAN’s main focus has been to stop the violence, deliver assistance and then the third equally important point, the political responsibility and accountability, has to be by Myanmar. They have to find a political solution and security, and an economic reconstruction has to occur because without that, if you have a festering area where people feel unsafe, where they feel they have no hope, where extremists can incite violence and counter violence in the name of religion, then we have a big problem that goes beyond just Myanmar.

Reuters: Of course, so will the community, will ASEAN, will this be part of the weekend… I mean, how is this addressed?

Minister: Every ASEAN meeting we get an update from Myanmar. So far the latest we know is that they say that the violence has stopped. My Bangladeshi colleague confirms this too. Second point is that Bangladesh has done an incredible job. ASEAN has been helping directly with Bangladesh as well as the Myanmar side to deliver assistance. Myanmar signed an agreement with Bangladesh. I think that was in November. But signing is one thing…

Reuters: Getting people to go back?

Minister: And more important, we want the people to go back voluntarily. People are not going to go back voluntarily unless they feel safe and unless they feel that there is something to go back to. Quite a lot of reconstruction and not just building shelters but livelihoods.

Reuters: And security I guess, they also need to be sure that the military will not come after them again.

Minister:  So that’s why, my assessment is that right now, in fact very few if any have actually gone back, because they don’t yet feel safe. Now, the other important thing is the Myanmar government should also assure all of us that they are acting on Kofi Annan’s recommendations. I had a meeting with Dr Surakiart, who chairs the Advisory Council. He is supposed to advise on the implementation of Kofi Annan’s recommendations. I am glad that they are doing so. I think it is the right direction but it needs to be done faster. The thing I am worried about now is, this is late April. The monsoons will begin, I think in about June. That’s what my friend from Bangladesh tells me. So, we have to keep watching and if need be extend even more assistance because the people have not yet returned. So that’s basically…

Reuters: And that will be something which will be in focus.

Minister:  Yes, we have already, I mean ASEAN has in fact since October last year, we have the ASEAN Humanitarian Assistance Centre. This is a collective ASEAN body headquartered in Jakarta. So that’s already activated, and as and when they need more assistance, it will be delivered. But like I said, the harder part is actually on the ground, do the refugees feel that it is safe to go back? And at every meeting that we had at the foreign ministers’ level or even leaders’ level, to be fair to Myanmar, they brief all of us. They give us an update on what actually is happening and what they are doing. And I think we need to just maintain this in that you are responsible and accountable, and they have to do their part. Because if they don’t, no amount of external pressure is going to solve the problem for the poor refugees on the ground.

Reuters: Do you get the feeling that Daw Suu Kyi’s government is fully in control?

Minister:  Let’s put it in this way. I think Myanmar is a democracy in transition, which I think is a reasonably fair statement to make.

Reuters: Is that a matter of concern for ASEAN down the road?

Minister:  Well, if you look at Myanmar over the last 50 years and even over the last… when did she first win an election? She waited for about 26 years to take power?

Reuters: Yup, she was in house arrest for over two decades.

Minister: Are things better now than they were 26 years ago? Yes, definitely. So, have we reached a final destination? No, but the direction of travel is correct. Is Daw Suu a key to addressing this? Of course she is a key, but are there other centres of power? Clearly. And this cannot be resolved without the Tatmadaw, and in particular the leadership of the Tatmadaw also feeling a sense of commitment to resolve this. I meet them all and what I would say is that to be fair, everyone does have long term ambitions and hopes to normalise and improve prospects for economic growth, social justice within Myanmar. That I can say from my personal interactions. So, I am not providing justifications, or a defence, but I am sharing my impressions based on direct interactions with the people concerned.

Reuters: The other issue which one sees from the outside facing ASEAN is of course the South China Sea, and the dialogue that ASEAN is having with China on the Code of Conduct. What has happened in the last few months has been an increase in patrols, the US ships were there, the Chinese have had a very big exercise in the South China Sea recently. So does it not bring about a sense of unease within ASEAN? Are things going the right way? The Defence Minister said that it will take one year I think, so that takes us to August, to kind of bring the Code of Conduct into place.
Minister:  Well, first step back. Are things better? Yes, things are better, meaning the situation is calmer…. We are working on the COC, we have got everything down on one document. Of course, lots of square brackets.

Reuters: So is the framework ready?

Minister: So the framework was done last year but now we are actually negotiating the actual Code of Conduct, and frankly I was presently surprised that we could actually put it all down on a single document, albeit like I said with a lot of square brackets, and they are not necessarily reconcilable yet.

Reuters (2) (Jack Kim): Is that a recent development that you were able to get it in one document?

Minister: So, your question is that is it positive. Yes. Also if you look over the last two, three years, we were able to settle the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, CUES. We also established MFA-to-MFA hotlines between the capitals and China. So, you add all these things – CUES, hotlines, framework and then now actually, the framework COC, and now actually working on the COC, there’s no question that, again, the direction of travel is better. If your question, however, is: Are the territorial disputes resolved? Of course not. Those are not going to take years, it’ll probably take generations.

Reuters (2): So, the Hague ruling…?

Minister: No, that had nothing to do with sovereignty. The Hague ruling was on maritime entitlement. Which means, whoever happens to own those rocks or atolls, what are the maritime entitlements of that? It had nothing to do with sovereignty. So, that does not resolve… Sovereignty has to be negotiated between the parties concerned. In this case, there are only four claimant states within Southeast Asia – Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, Viet Nam, and China. China including Taiwan. That would take a very long time. But, in the meantime, our urgent focus is to de-escalate tensions – and I think we have succeeded in de-escalating tensions – working together on the COC. And, if you look at the pronouncements coming out from the Philippines and perhaps the other claimant states, I think we now need to explore, no pun intended, opportunities to collaborate, cooperate for each one of these projects. And the difficulty is they have to find a way to do all this without surrendering their sovereignty. But, if all this can be done, I think it will build confidence, build strategic trust, and we can maintain peace. From a purely Singapore perspective, we need peace in the South China Sea because trillions of dollars’ worth of trade flow through the South China Sea. Even if you don’t actually have a shooting, you just have a raise in tension, insurance premiums will go up immediately. Trade is affected. So, we need peace and stability in the South China Sea. We need respect for UNCLOS and international law because we think this is a good way for peaceful resolutions of…

Reuters: And Singapore is committed to the rule of law.

Minister: Yes, of course! Because we are a small state, by definition, we have to. And the third area of emphasis is ASEAN unity, etc. ASEAN knows, as I said in my extended introduction, that we will always be the passageway through which powers big and small, near and far are going to go through us. But we do want to keep ASEAN united and we do want to ensure that ASEAN has a say in what happens in our neighbourhood and our interactions with bigger powers that we have to engage with.

Reuters (2): So, in sum, on the South China Sea COC, you think it’s proceeding well?

Minister: I think it’s proceeding as well as it can. And, as I said, our priority was to de-escalate tension. I did not set out to say that I expect all the sovereignty disputes to be resolved. I really think that there will be challenges. So, don’t make that a litmus test.

Reuters (2): Excuse me, Minister. One other area of focus for ASEAN is countering the threat of attacks, extremist attacks, and also enforcement of ordinary crimes. But on the subject of extremist threat, what progress are you looking to make, or can you talk about what progress you have made?

Minister: I’m glad you asked that, because given our diversity and given our history, we are always going to be vulnerable to extremism. There are unresolved historical hangovers, which lend themselves fertile ground for extremist messaging. And that's why we have a problem with extremism affecting all the ten ASEAN states. So it's a common problem. What I’m glad to see is that when you look at the operational intelligence agencies across all of them, there is actually very good, effective sharing of intelligence, joint-ops, preparation. Some of it you see publicly, some you don't. You will see things like trilateral patrols in the Sulu Sea and all that, those are public things. The quiet things which you will not read about is intelligence and ops. You would have noticed ASEAN – we have both formal and informal arrangements -- signed agreements to work together on countering violent extremism. So that's an operational level. But you also need to go upstream, which is messaging. Because very often, a lot of these extremists are not fundamentally religious. In fact, they usually have very shallow religious roots, and then self-radicalise or get taken in by the apparent glamour of ISIS videos – they become vulnerable to that. So working on religious rehabilitation is another area where – each of us has to do it in our own way – but another area where shared experience, shared corpus of knowledge is another initiative which we are working on. In fact most recently in the Summit with Australia that we had, there was another agreement between Australia and ASEAN, again on messaging, on rehabilitation, and of course operation, intelligence and ops. So this is another clear area where we have to, and we are working closely together.

Reuters (2): Do you expect to see another milestone in this area, in this effort at the Leaders’ meeting this week?

Minister: I hesitate to use “milestones”. We keep track – number of detentions, plots foiled, plots or attacks that have actually occurred. I mean, there is a grid for keeping track of all these things. But again, if your question to me is: is ASEAN working effectively together to deal with this common thing? Yes, the answer is yes. There is the political recognition that there is a common risk, and there is a political will to work together. Because these are transboundary, it’s not, it cannot be confined to one. And that’s why you see, we have to come back to Rakhine state, and they accept it. This problem, if unchecked, is a transboundary threat to all of us. Therefore, we all have a stake in this being resolved.

Reuters (2): Just quickly on Model Extradition Treaty. It is something that Singapore set out to try to accomplish this year. Any hope, or any timeline you can suggest about a model treaty?

Minister: Let me put it to you this way. I’m very sure we will settle the Model Extradition Treaty this year. But that's only step one. Our next step after we’ve done the Model ASEAN Extradition Treaty is to go on to an actual ASEAN Extradition Treaty. And the reason for us wanting to do that, it’s another symbol of our collective commitment to dealing with issues which have transboundary impact. And also it stands for our collective commitment to the rule of law.

Reuters: Can I ask you something also? Why does it take so much time, especially for ASEAN, to come to decisions like this? Because one gets the feeling that there is a lot of, and I don't mean this year, generally over the years, it takes time for ASEAN to do anything. Why is that?

Minister: Because ASEAN is so diverse. And we can only do something if we get consensus from all ten. So then your question should be, why do you still need to operate on this principle? And I’ve asked myself that question, and I’ve come back to the same conclusion – that we need to, because no other regional grouping has such diversity in terms of size. We compare Indonesia’s geography to us – we are the smallest. In terms of economic parameters, if we look at per capita GDP, from highest to lowest. If you look in terms of form of government, you’ve got absolute monarchy, you’ve got democracies, and other variations. But no other regional association I know has that level of diversity. So the reason we need to have the consensus principle is to give everybody the assurance that our interests will not be overridden in a roughshod manner. But the flipside of that is that it takes time. But when ASEAN does decide and it does get moving, because there is consensus, I think we can do so effectively. So what you see over the last couple of years, two, three years, and I think you will see it for the next – I really only have a say for this one year of our Chairmanship – is that I think you will see stuff getting done, but getting done through consensus. And that's why whether it is on countering extremism, whether it is on extradition treaties, or the larger principle behind that, which is more effective cooperation in the legal, judicial, police and regulatory framework, you will see that. You will see progress on the Smart Cities Network, you will see progress on uplifting our capacity to deal with cybersecurity, because these are things on which there is now consensus. So you will see some stuff, significant stuff.

Reuters: So, do you want to ask the cyber one and I will go to the next one?

Reuters (2): Go to the next one, I think he’s covered that one.

Reuters: Yes, so let me ask something about Singapore. Well, we all know that there is a reshuffle happening.

Minister: Yes, I think today or tomorrow.

Reuters: Right. So obviously there are lots of questions, in fact we’ve written a story today on who’s going to be changed.

Minister: So, what’s your predictions?

Reuters (2):  Well, the focus of the story is –

Minister: I cannot confirm or deny.

Reuters (2): I think the idea is that it is very difficult, it’s taking a long time, but there is so much uncertainty about the succession, the process in general. So the question had to do with, what is Singapore doing to make sure that the leadership itself reflects Singapore? The religion, the culture, in terms of diversity, and you've seen three national leaders having come from more or less the same Chinese, heavily bureaucratic -- or in two of them, the leadership family. So is there internal discourse on where the country should be going in terms of leadership, about bringing in more diversity at the top level of the country’s leadership, and to be fully blunt, should there be somebody who is not a Chinese, who is not from the Chinese background, somebody who does not have the same kind of academic background, should somebody who is very different be considered for the country’s leader?

Minister: Well I think for the first question is, should we have more diversity, and the answer is we keep trying to expand the available pool. But the next opportunity to do that is the next election. And we will continue to try to look for candidates beyond the usual fishing ponds. But we are talking about imminent succession because PM has said he wants to, soon after the next election. Which means unless you want to start with a completely zero experience Prime Minister – otherwise it stands to reason that the next Prime Minister has to emerge from the Cabinet of today. Then the next question should be what is the process by which that leader emerges? My point is that it’s exactly the same process in which the last two transitions occurred, which is basically, the decision is made consensually by the peer group. The reason it is done this way is that you want whoever emerges to have the undivided support of the team. Therefore it has to be a consensual, peer process. We think it has worked well in the last two transitions, and we think we should do the same. Again, it is like ASEAN decision-making. If we were to just put up hands, we could get an instant decision, but we don't want to do it that way. So this is again like the ASEAN concept, this is a design feature, it’s not a bug.

Reuters: So the last two transitions, in fact this is in Jack’s story, the decisions were made fairly quickly.

Minister: No.

Reuters (2): Some time before the successor was to take over>

Minister: Mr Goh came into Parliament in 1976. The final meeting of the peers I think did not occur until the late 80s, I think. And then he took over in ’91. So it’s not a fast process. Mr Lee was in Cabinet for about 20 years before he became Prime Minister. But we will not have that luxury.

Reuters: No. What I am saying is that the decision to appoint the successor. So the Straits Times actually – because of Jack’s story – the Straits Times reported at the time, over chocolate cake and coffee, that they decided on who the person was going to be, so it had seemed to have been a decision which was easy to make.

Minister: I’m not sure I want to characterise this as easy to make. I guess what I’m trying to say is that for us, the process is perhaps more important than being hasty. So, I know that there's a lot of public interest, but I am more than happy that we are going through that process. It’s a unique process, but I think it is one of the reasons why the Singapore leadership over the past 52 years, has been characterised by consistency, by long-term planning and accountability and coherence. You take any minister and you say something, you’d be hard-pressed to find divergence. Not that there has been no arguments, in fact fierce arguments occur behind the scenes, because we know that at the end of the day when we settle it, we are then collectively responsible. So, we’ve got a finely honed disciplined system and we are going through it.

Reuters: So no firm call yet sir? From the PM.

Minister: Why should the PM call?

Reuters: I mean if there’s a reshuffle, I’m sure he’s called you right?

Minister: I know the layout. But I can’t tell you now.

Reuters: Alright, okay. So the identity of the successor was also announced?

Minister: He’s already said he’s not announcing.

Reuters: No I’m saying between you… I’m not asking who it is. I’m saying is the identity known?

Minister: The process is not complete.

Reuters: Okay.

Minister: I mean it in all sincerity.

Reuters: You talked about the discussion being fierce, do people, do ministers get together?

Minister: All the time.

Reuters: Or is it done over the email? You see it is something that we wonder.

Minister: We spend a lot of time. You see it’s like today, after I finish with you guys, I don’t know if I have something else, but then from one thirtyonwards, and it could go on to five, six or seven. All of us are going to be together. We have lunch, we have this thing called Pre-Cab. Basically, it’s a discussion confined only to ministers. There are no civil servants, there are no records, there are no tape recorders, there are no minutes, there’s no gallery. Everything comes out there, and then after that we will have formal Cabinet meeting, where there are minutes and records.

Reuters: So the PM is part of the Pre-Cab as well?

Minister: Yes. So the point is, every week, we spend five, six hours together. So, yes of course, there are emails but all our most vital decisions are made collectively. So that’s one of our secret ingredients to keeping coherence and consistency. But, it’s not done by imposition of a unilateral view. The reason we spend so much time is because I know after that, I have to defend it. So I’d better change the decision to one that I’m comfortable with or I’d better be convinced, because I have to defend him. So it is not that we are a monolithic thing with no differences, it’s just that we resolve the differences internally. That’s just our style.

Reuters: So sorry to come back to ASEAN, one of the things which has happened. I’m sorry this is not in your list of questions, because it’s something that has happened more recently. There’s been this whole trade showdown between the US and China and obviously ASEAN is affected.

Minister: ASEAN for virtually all of us, maybe for all of us, China is our biggest trading partner. For Singapore, we are, curiously, we are the largest foreign investor in China. But on the other hand, if you also ask the question, who are the major investors in ASEAN? And the answers that will come back will be the EU, America and Japan. So actually from an ASEAN perspective, the ideal world, is one in which America, Japan, China and Europe get along and work within agreed multilateral rules, adjudicated by multilateral institutions. So for instance trade rules by WTO. We do not wish to see trade wars, we do not wish to see unilateral imposition of trade measures. No matter how they argue that -- take it through the WTO and accept multilateral institutions, multilateral rules. So to us, this is a big issue.

Reuters: You’d rather see countries take issues to the WTO.

Minister: Of course, of course.

Reuters (2): President Trump says WTO is a horrible idea.

Minister: Well, we think it’s a good idea and if you read my Prime Minister’s op-ed in the Washington Post, I think our position is very clear. Even for us, where for instance, when the US imposed tariffs on solar panels, I think we are one of the collaterals, we actually do have solar panel facility here. We are going through the due process with that. Similarly China last week talked about synthetic rubber, I think that there’s one company here which is exporting. We will go through the WTO process. So, we will both from a Singapore perspective as well as coming from an ASEAN perspective, continue to make the case for free trade, economic integration, investments, interdependence, the importance of rules-based regimes and of multilateral institutions and WTO.

Reuters: So it will come up this week.

Minister: I’m sure it’ll come up, this is a very topical issue. Yes, the leaders, I mean both at the foreign ministers’ and the leaders’ level it will come up.

Reuters: The other topical issue is of course the events in the Korean Peninsula and the two summits which are coming up.

Minister: Yes, I think they are meeting on Friday. Again you know I would say, glimmers of hope, but on the other hand, this has been going on for 70 years. So, let’s hope and pray that cool heads will prevail.

Reuters: North Korea in a sense is part of …

Minister: No they attend the ARF, so the North Korean foreign minister will be here in August. Yes August. So, it’ll be interesting to see how much progress would be made by then and what he will have to say.

Reuters (2): Do you see a scenario where the leader of North Korea will join the East Asia Summit in November?

Minister: Hasn’t happened yet.

Press Secretary to Minister: Jack, I’m wondering if you still wanted to ask your question on Smart Nation? There’s not much time.

Reuters: We will. We will ask this question.

Minister: Anyway let’s hope… [To Kim] You’re Korean yourself, I’m sure you must hope for…

Reuters: Jack is hoping that the summit will be held here, but I heard you denied it to the BBC the other day.

Reuters (2): And it’s been four days, so we’ve been wondering if there’s been any shift in…

Minister: Let them decide. But Jack, are you hopeful yourself?

Reuters (2): That there will be tangible progress on the issue?

Minister: Yes.

Reuters (2): I mean it does look that way… Who knows where things will go and as you’ve talked about the direction, now it’s going the right direction.

Minister: They are saying the right things. He is saying the right things.

Reuters (2): … It’s something that we have not seen, so it’s quite spectacular and amazing and we’re looking for a big news.

Minister: But anyway, let’s hope, meantime, from a Singapore perspective again it’s back to international law and compliance with the Security Council resolutions. So we will continue to do that until the Security Council decides otherwise.

Reuters: No…no…no….no problem Sir. So Jack wanted to ask about –

Reuters (2): So the Smart Nation initiative is a uniquely Singapore experience that you can share with the ASEAN grouping, but as you’ve seen there’s a challenge of making sure that digital technology and the use of digital technology is not done in a way that infringes on the freedom of expression, as well as the free liberal democracy. How do you intend to share Singapore’s experience in making sure that it’s not abused in countries like the Philippines or Indonesia, places like that? I’m talking about what we’ve seen in Facebook and how it’s played out in the US election.

Minister: Well, first, I don’t think it’s a uniquely Singapore thing, because I just came back from the Commonwealth. Actually, this is an area, the impact of the digital revolution, its effect on jobs, on trade, on the supply chains, on energy, on climate, on security, on transmission of extremist messages, and cybersecurity – both cybercrime and state and non-state-sponsored cybersecurity threats. Actually, there’s near universal concern and interest with this. So it’s not just us. But perhaps because we are such a highly focal city-state, and as I’ve mentioned before, if you look at fibre-optic cables and just the sheer volume of data and bytes flowing through us, and you look at the data centres here – we’re looking at it at several levels, the first is on jobs. And it’s also related to what Minister Heng is leading in the Future Economy Council. That if we believe this is a real revolution and that jobs are being transformed, and that in fact my own sense is that part of the reason why people are anxious about inequality, and about opportunities, and about wage stagnation – these things are happening not because of a political phenomenon. But it is happening because of the technological revolution.

And therefore we think the correct response of our government is to invest heavily in education, in skills, what we call SkillsFuture, retraining, and giving people access to technologies for tomorrow’s jobs, rather than futile arguments about yesterday’s jobs, which are never going to come back. And yesterday’s technology. So there’s a whole lot really on capacity building. The foreign policy aspect of it is, for instance, we signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with the UK to provide capacity building training for ASEAN and Commonwealth countries who want to enhance their cybersecurity. That’s just an example. But the larger point is, a lot of investment has to go into training and education.

The second area where we believe governments have a primary role is in infrastructure. In the case of Singapore, it’s easy. We’ve already rolled out fibre in every home. We make sure we will continue to be a key focal point globally for connectivity and for data and for computing. Because if governments don’t have a master plan and don’t invest in it, then we lag behind. Korea is a success story. So that’s the second dimension. Now again, if you ask throughout ASEAN, is there scope to do things together? The answer is yes. So for instance, you may be aware that we’re working closely with the Indonesian government in Batam, at the Nongsa Digital Park. Again another example of investing in training and infrastructure.

The third area which I think governments have to focus on is research and development. And that’s why for instance, in our case, we set aside I think something like S$19 billion. Not that all the money has to come from government, but you want to catalyse corporate research and development to occur here. Because that’s where new products, new services, breakthrough technologies will be created. So, R&D.

The fourth is you want to be able to take stuff out from labs and quickly get it into the market – what we call translation. And that requires – it’s quite a difficult thing to do, in fact what you need there is smart money. Meaning you want investors who actually understand technology, and when they invest in a start-up, they are providing not just money but networks. Oh, I know this guy, I know that, I know that leads to this, maybe if you do it together with that. And what we’re trying to do now in ASEAN is also to make ASEAN itself, through economies of scale and interoperability, create more opportunities for start-ups. When they start, they’re not only accessing just the Singapore market or a local market, but an ASEAN-wide market. So, putting investors and regulators in multiple jurisdictions in touch with one another. I’ll give you an example – e-payments. Can we make our e-payments systems within ASEAN inter-operate? For trade, can we have single windows? You know, when you’re importing and exporting and you have a single window. For harmonisation of standards, self-certification – all these things which would facilitate trade – again, can we harmonise, can we agree? Not that you have one top-down system imposed on everyone, but can we inter-operate?

Reuters: The 2020 zero-tariff thing, wouldn’t that fit in with this?

Minister: This would help reach that. It’s not technology for its own sake, but technology to facilitate. So that’s why the ASEAN Smart Cities Network -- it’s an opportunity to share, exchange, look for interconnects and inter-operability in order to help catalyse the start-up innovation and enterprise ecosystem. Then of course, we all need the business ecosystem. Then you’ve got all these, what I call the regulatory frameworks. Whether it’s about competition, whether it’s protection of privacy, enhancing security. Then all these other more topical issues about fake news, subversion, and making sure that democracy is not subverted. And in our case, in Southeast Asia, that race, language and religion is not inflamed, and there is no incitement to violence. So there’s a whole series of hygiene factors. So when you look at it, it’s training, infrastructure, R&D, business ecosystem, and then the overall political / regulatory –

Reuters: The hygiene system, exactly.

Minister: So there’s a lot to be done. What you are seeing and hearing on the press, whether it’s dealing with fake news – to me these are just different parts of the elephant. But it’s a very, very big elephant. What I would say is that I think the old utopian idea that, don’t worry, the Internet, just hands-off, it’ll take care of itself. Or for the big companies to say, trust us. Facebook, Google and Amazon, they say, don’t worry, trust us with your data. I think there is a growing appreciation that that model can’t work. That, just as in the last Industrial Revolution created things like companies, limited liabilities, tort, dispute resolutions, I think a similar transformation has to occur in the regulatory and legislative fields to catch up with the online world. So, just as the real world has to have some guidance through laws and regulations, I think the online world will also do so. Now, it’s easy to say that in the abstract. The difficulty is when you actually try to draft and you try to operationalise the issues.

Reuters: And will you start that in… or it’s already out there?

Minister: We are. Certainly for, say, deliberate online falsehoods, I mean, there’s been a Select Committee. We have to wait for the report from the Select Committee, and then Parliament will have to consider, and then in due time there will be other pieces of legislation that come up. But we need this open, inclusive, somewhat messy, somewhat noisy process.

Reuters: You’re talking about Singapore. I’m saying about the group, in ASEAN?

Minister: In the group, what we’re committing to within ASEAN is to open up these platforms, and as I said, share ideas, exchange. This is how we do it in Singapore, how do you do it in Indonesia, how do you do it in the Philippines, how can we learn from each other?

Reuters: I think they all have their own issues with the Net.

Minister: Everyone has. I mean, frankly, this is something even America and Europe has not come to grips with. So we’re all feeling this elephant.

Reuters: [laughs] Someone has the tail, someone has the trunk…

Minister: Yeah, it’s this big elephant in the room. I think we have to find a way so that we can harvest the benefits of this revolution, and at the same time be very clear-eyed about where the downsides are, where the potential for abuse is, where the vulnerabilities are. But it’s an exciting time to be alive. I mean, how often do you get to observe and to report a revolution?

Reuters: Well, we have an exciting job.

                                                                                         .     .     .     .     .