Is Vivian's so-called 'principled' posturing in parliament worth emulating?
When Singapore’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vivian Balakrishnan, dropped what many saw as a political bombshell in Parliament recently, I initially did not give it much thought. After all, it is well within his prerogative to articulate Singapore’s foreign‑policy position. Yet this immediately raises several important questions: Is this merely his personal stance? Is it fully shared by the Prime Minister Lawrence Wong? Does it reflect the consensus of Parliament—and, by extension, the Singaporean public?
My reflection on his April 7 speech has little to do with a particular interest in tracking Singapore’s domestic political developments. Rather, it stems from a broader concern that certain questions of principle are worth examining, regardless of national boundaries.
When he asserted that Singapore upholds the principle that the Strait of Hormuz belongs to the international maritime community rather than Iran, several issues arise.
Q. Is he correct in maintaining that Singapore should adopt a firm position of non‑negotiation with Iran? Or does such a stance border on imprudence, especially when the uninterrupted supply of petroleum and diesel—both critical to Singapore’s economy—could be materially affected in the coming months?
A: Singaporeans should be grateful if diesel and petrol prices do not skyrocket due to fuel shortages in the coming months, as such increases could push inflation through the roof. We are, in reality, discussing a wartime scenario in the Middle East, where strict adherence to international maritime law becomes more theoretical than practical. In such conditions, legal norms are often subordinated to strategic and security considerations. While Singapore could, in principle, bring Iran before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for adjudication, this would be largely symbolic. It is highly improbable that Iran would recognise the court’s authority or comply with any summons or ruling, particularly in a conflict-driven environment where power dynamics, deterrence, and leverage take precedence over legal obligation.
Hence, Vivian’s reliance on international maritime law borders on the theoretical and performative, offering little more than hollow comfort in a region defined by force, leverage, and brinkmanship rather than legal abstraction. To frame this position as “principled,” particularly coming from a foreign minister of his seniority, is—in my view—an exercise in self‑delusion rather than statesmanship.
Such posturing neither enhances Singapore’s standing nor reflects positively on Vivian’s capacity to navigate high‑stakes international relations with the pragmatism they require. Foreign policy is not an academic seminar, especially in wartime conditions where legal instruments are routinely ignored by those who hold strategic control on the ground. Insisting otherwise risks projecting diplomatic naïveté rather than moral clarity.
Imagine this situation on land. Because of the conflict between the military and some rebels, and the rebels have secured certain positions, they have decided to bar civillians to pass through the road blockade, for fear that the army may enter their strongholds disguising as civilians. And, you happen to be living on this side of the town where all forms of land transport have been cut off. Scarcity of food supply is looming in the mnoths to come. As the mayor of the city, what do you to? Would you speak like Vivian, or would you rather be humble and use your childhood connections with the chief to allow the safe passage of food into the city for the sake of your residents? I am merely creating a scenario, with no intention to portray any party as 'good' or 'bad,' but the scenario is similar when we are talking about safe passage for Strait of Hormuz for Malaysian ships but not Singaporean ships. In this scenario, Singapore will be at a greater loss, but Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, after his successful negotiation with the President of Iran over a phone call.
Q: Is therefore Vivian demonstrating his posture correctly as Singpoare's Foreign Affairs Minister and a principled man to be emulated by all or was he demonstrating inprudence -- even to the point of being foolhardy -- by refusing to manouvre around a tensed situation for the bigger good of everyone in Singapore?
Let me put it this way: Singapore is not at war with Iran. Therefore, in my view, Vivian should conduct himself as a foreign minister by adopting an amiable and even‑handed posture toward all parties involved in the current conflict. Singapore, like Malaysia, has long benefited from being a non‑aligned nation, one that builds bridges rather than burns them.
History offers a useful reminder. Singaporeans will remember clearly how tensions between former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Mr Lee Kuan Yew once pushed bilateral relations to an uncomfortable low. That period of strained diplomacy only eased when the more conciliatory Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi assumed office. I fully agree that Dr Mahathir’s approach toward Singapore during that period was unnecessarily undiplomatic—and to this day, many Singaporeans hold unfavourable views of him. I share that sentiment.
By contrast, when Abdullah Badawi became prime minister, Singapore was among the first countries he visited, alongside Australia. The message was unmistakable: Malaysia valued regional stability and constructive diplomacy. A similar pattern emerged when Anwar Ibrahim took office. Once again, Singapore featured prominently in Malaysia’s diplomatic outreach. The objective in both instances was clear—Malaysia sought calm, continuity, and regional balance, not confrontation.
Today, it can reasonably be argued that diplomatic relations between Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong are considerably healthier and more constructive than during earlier periods of strain between the two nations’ leaderships. This improvement did not happen by accident; it is the result of deliberately measured and pragmatic leadership, something which Malaysia’s fifth prime minister notably fell short of. For these reasons, I do not regard him as a statesman.
Ultimately, what the populations of both Malaysia and Singapore want are leaders capable of maintaining working relationships with opposing or even warring factions—without being dragged into taking sides. Anything less risks eroding neutrality and, worse, pulling a small state into conflicts that are not its own. Once neutrality is abandoned, even rhetorically, the line between diplomacy and entanglement becomes dangerously thin. As the minister in charge of foreign affairs, Vivian should be well-versed with all the protocols for diplomatic relations.
If this were a matter of integrity, a principled stand against bribery and corruption in peacetime, or a decision to uphold one’s convictions before a higher moral authority, I would have agreed to Vivian adopting the posture that he did. However, in a volatile international environment, prudence must take precedence over posturing. His stance, if misjudged, has real consequences—ones that could affect the livelihoods and wellbeing of millions of people in the island republic.
Restraint is not weakness. It is strategy. What the situation demands is not rhetoric, but realistic engagement and diplomatic flexibility, particularly when Singapore’s national oil security and economic stability could be directly imperilled by supply disruptions. Vivian’s idealism must be tempered by realistic checks, lest he fall into the trap of mistaking idealistic posturing for genuine principle.
A misjudged moral stand may be emotionally satisfying, but it offers little protection when fuel shipments stop, inflation spikes, and consequences become tangble. In such moments, ideology without leverage is not principle—it is peril.I want both Malaysian politicians and their counterparts in Singapore who read this blog post to be mindful of the context in which Vivian’s posture was adopted, and to reflect on the lessons that can be drawn from it. My conclusion is: this posture is not worth emulating.
