ウィスパリング同時通訳研究会コミュのSpecial Programme | Exclusive interview with Singapore Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan

Minister: Thank you, I am glad to be here. COVID-19 kind of kept me away from India for an unusually long period. So I am glad to be back here in-person to meet colleagues and of course, the media.

Ramesh Ramachandran: Thank you so much. Now, my guest needs no introduction. But just for the benefit of viewers tuning in from India and abroad, Minister Balakrishnan has been a lawmaker since 2001, the Foreign Minister from 2015. He has had a number of portfolios in the past. He was Minister-in-charge of the Smart Nation Initiative, and Entrepreneurship, Minister for Environment and Water Resources, Community Development, Youth and Sports, the second Minister for Trade and Industry, Information, Communications and the Arts. If you are wondering what a Second Minister is well, he is one who holds a portfolio other than their own, to help the primary Minister discharge their duties. He is also Minister of State for National Development. By the way, he is a trained physician and medical doctor. He practiced Ophthalmology in the UK and Singapore, and in the 1990s, he even hosted a TV show on health. It was called Health Matters.

Minister: Yes, I have been on the other side of the camera.
Ramesh Ramachandran: He is of Indian origin; a Singaporean of Tamil origin in particular. Do you speak or understand Tamil at all Mr. Minister?
Minister: Not enough for interviews.
Ramesh Ramachandran: Fair enough.

Minister: My great grandparents left India – this was more than a century ago. On my maternal side, they left southern China also more than a century ago. I literally would not exist if not for Singapore and for the fact that there was both an Indian and a Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia.

Ramesh Ramachandran: Talking about Indian origins, the name Singapore itself comes from the Malay name Singapura, which in turn derives from Sanskrit, meaning “Lion City”. Mr Minister, Singapore and India elevated its ties to a Strategic Partnership in 2015. A joint statement called it “Nayi urza, Naya josh” in Hindi, meaning renewed spirit renewed energy. It was signed in November that year, and you became a Minister in October that year. So in a sense, the Strategic Partnership is coterminous with your tenure. How has the journey been? How would you describe Singapore – India ties today as we speak?

Minister: The key word there is “renew”. Meaning it is not new, because in fact, as you just alluded to, our ties go back millennia. As you said, “Singapore” is a Sanskrit word. Culture, language, religion, Hinduism, Buddhism, even Islam was vectored into Southeast Asia by India. There are multiple layers of history and tradition in society, and of course, economics. I think the important point to understand (is) that it is on a very long and wide foundation. What we are really doing is renewing, reaffirming, (and) building on top of this foundation.

Ramesh Ramachandran: Talking about the bilateral ties, Mr Minister, maybe in terms of defence and security, trade and investment, in fact, both parties signed a bilateral FTA way back in 2005?
Minister: Yes, before they became fashionable.
Ramesh Ramachandran: Indeed, and connecting with the physical and digital, how would you describe ties, the state of play in Singapore-India ties today?

Minister: One word – excellent. First, because of history, because of cultural and linguistic familiarity. What many Indian citizens have told me when they visit Singapore, is actually you know, this could be an Indian city or what an Indian city should be. Therefore, there has always been a special bond of affection at the people-to-people level. Economically there is no question. In fact, there is another historical anecdote. When Stamford Raffles, this British East India Company official, decided to find a free port at the tip of the Malay Peninsula, he really did it as part of the British East India Company. In fact, Singapore was administered out of Calcutta. The point here again, is that it is a long-standing relationship.

But what happened in 2005 is that we signed the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement. As I said, this was before globalisation and free trade agreements were fashionable. In fact, now we are even dealing with a push back. The point is, we were ahead of time. When Prime Minister Modi came to Singapore, we then elevated it to a Strategic Partnership. Let us look at a few figures. If you were to ask me, well, the last two and a half years with (the) pandemic, what did that do to economic ties? The answer is that bilateral trade between Singapore and India grew by almost 35%; it grew during a pandemic. I will let you in on a little secret; although I have not been to India in the last four years, I have been in contact with (External Affairs) Minister Jaishankar, I think five times in the last two years. I have lost count of the number of messages and telephone calls. A little-known thing is that during the time when things were darkest during COVID, both countries provided support for each other. I cannot get into details, but I can tell you that a friend in need builds and expands the reservoir of trust. So it is a special relationship.

Ramesh Ramachandran: Absolutely. Let me know ask you about ASEAN-India ties, Mr Minister. Singapore is the country coordinator for ASEAN-India dialogue. You co-chaired the just concluded (Special) ASEAN-India Foreign Ministers’ meeting in New Delhi. 30 years on – is the ASEAN India relationship fit for purpose?

Minister: It is growing. It has been 30 years since India became a Dialogue Partner, which is in a sense, stage one and a half. It became a Strategic Partner of ASEAN 10 years ago, and we just had a special meeting of the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN with Minister Jaishankar. What we are working on right now is making a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Again, just look at the data, look at the economic ties, the trade, look in terms of the flow of people, ideas, capital, (and) talent. There is no question that when India talks about looking east or acting east, the first area you are going to engage with is ASEAN. Of course, Singapore is a special city-state with a special relationship with India. I would also say, quite categorically, Singapore has always advocated for India's inclusion, India's integration with our economy, and at a strategic level, in Southeast Asia. So, economics – great. But there are now new opportunities which in fact, play to India’s strength – the digital economy, digital services, new FinTech, financial inclusion, and now even in the green space, sustainable development, exploiting new technologies to reduce carbon footprints, (and) establish carbon markets. There is a lot more that can and should be done with Southeast Asia. The other point is, if you come around to Southeast Asia, you will see Sanskritic names, you will see not just archaeology, but you will see temples, cultural relics and museums, which again makes this point that it is a renewal of an old, vibrant relationship.

Ramesh Ramachandran: Staying in the neighbourhood, Mr Minister, I want to ask you about the situation in Myanmar now. Will the crisis be resolved anytime soon? Does or should ASEAN have a role in it? And is it the end of the road for Aung San Suu Kyi?

Minister: Let me start by telling you that I am gravely disappointed with what happened in Myanmar. Things were looking up, especially after the transition to the civilian government led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Yes, there were teething problems, there were challenges. But the economy was growing, foreign investments were coming in. If you personally know the people from Myanmar, they are some of the most wonderful, courteous, hardworking, talented people who have been doing very well in many parts of the world. There is no reason to assume that they cannot replicate that success. The coup was an enormous setback. It is caused by a breakdown in communications and dialogue between the military authorities and the civilian authorities. I do not think it is going to be resolved quickly. Because unless the violence stops, and honest to goodness direct communications and heart to heart talks occur between Senior General Min Aung Hlaing on one hand, and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on the other hand, I do not see the different pieces of the jigsaw coming together. The first point is it can take a long time. In fact, if you cast your mind back, remember they had problems in the late 80s. It took more than 25 years for that to be overcome, and at least a glimmer of hope for the transition. I hope it does not take another 25 years. But really, it depends on the decisions of first, the military authorities and then second, whether they can get a dialogue going with all the stakeholders. One further point I will make on Myanmar is the younger generation today in Myanmar, because of the internet, with social media and new ways of mobilising – it is not what happened in 1980s – I do not think they will have the patience.