Opening Speech by Minister for Defence Mr Chan Chun Sing at the 12th Milken Institute Asia Summit on 1 October 2025 at Four Seasons Hotel, Singapore

Mr Richard Ditizio, CEO, Milken Institute,

Mr Robin Hu, Asia Chair, Milken Institute,

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, a very good morning to all of you.

To all our foreign guests - a warm welcome to Singapore. In Singapore when we say a warm welcome, we also mean the weather. Good to see all of you back in Singapore. If I start today by telling and reminding all of us that we are in a changed world, it should not come as a surprise. For everyone in the audience – not only has the world changed, but the world is going to change even more, and perhaps in more unpredictable ways; it should also not come as a surprise. Today, I thought we should spend a bit of time, instead of just talking at the superficial level about changes, to perhaps understand the driving forces for these changes, and certainly the driving forces beyond personalities. Then, we can think about what are going to do in Singapore and what we are going to do together on the global stage.

Today as we stand here, I think many of us can be justifiably worried about the future. And for many of us – we are paid to be worried ahead of times. This is because we all know that when economies falter, societies fragment and the risk of conflict heightens. When people feel left behind, many will turn nativist. When societies feel left behind, they turn protectionist. We soon find ourselves on a downward spiral – economic stagnation, societal rift, protectionist measures, and the negative cycle goes on. Such trajectories are neither new nor unavoidable. It is not new because, if we recall our own global history to almost 100 years ago, we faced rather similar challenges. Not exactly the same, but rather similar. In the late-1920s and early-1930s, we had The Great Depression – there were global economic challenges and arguably, many of those global economic challenges unleashed quite radical politics in many countries. Trade flows dwindled in the face of tit-for-tat measures and retaliatory measures. Overall, growth faltered. The downward spiral arguably contributed to global conflict in the form of World War II. Today, we see elements of that part of history. The forces for globalisation are weakening; the global productive capacity is not reaching its optimum. Because of that, we see inflationary pressures, we see wage stagnation in many parts of the world, and we see rising inequality. All these are once again feeding back into political polarisation and mistrust. However, all is not gloomy. On the bright side, we see tremendous potential for technological advancements, but technology is neutral. The question is whether we have the rules, we have the systems, that can allow us to bring out the best from technology. Or will we end up in a situation where, without those guardrails and rules, that technology itself may not only fulfil its potential, but can become a negative force in itself.

A Changing World

Then the question is, where do we go from here? I think there are two possible scenarios, broadly to “book-end” the range of expanded scenarios that we have to think about. On one extreme end of the scenario, we are likely to see the world continuing to fragment; different countries going into different blocs. Overall, the global economic potential is diminished because we are all trying to optimise at the local level. We all know from economics that optimising at the local level can never be as good as optimising at the global level. The other end of the spectrum is this dream that we will once again return to the “we all live happily ever after” model, where we see greater global integration; all coming together to build rules for the future and the common good. I would argue that both extreme scenarios are not the most likely. The question is, within these two “book-ends”, where will we more likely to end up at? That is not a path entirely dependent on luck; that is something that all of us here can do something to define that balancing point or to achieve that balancing point that we wish. But to do that, I think we have to first understand the driving forces that are causing all these at this point in time.

The real problem for many countries - their inability to take action together to bring about a more integrated world - boils down to domestic politics. No country, without strong cohesive societies and strong domestic support, will have the confidence to take measures that will promote more integrated growth and economic development in the world. Because for us to come together to set new rules and guardrails, it requires confidence – confidence to say that this set of rules will be better for all of us. Sometimes we win more; sometimes we win less, but overall we all win together. Many countries, when they are not confident, will be caught up in their own domestic politics. Without strong principled leaders, it will be easy to fall into the trap of populist politics where leaders will appeal to the here and now - and not the long term; where leaders will appeal to the easy solutions.

Take the example of the growing disparity domestically between those who are able to keep pace with globalisation and those who are not. What is the right solution to narrow the gap for everyone to move along and see that everyone can benefit from this process? I would say that the correct but tougher solution is to remind ourselves that we all have a responsibility to help those who are left behind to keep pace. That is easy to say, but difficult to do because it will require public expenditure and the political will to see through programmes to retrain and upskill our people. It is not something that can be done within one political term and it is not something that leaders who are only focused on the short term would focus their minds on. But to me, that is the most important because at the end of the day, narrowing the inequality or the disparity in the distribution of the fruits of success cannot just be about a gain or redistribution in order to get more votes. We need to keep growing the pie and to make sure that those people who are left behind - either absolutely or relatively - have the chance and the hope to keep pace. The fruits of success must be shared and reinvested where they build up the capacities of those who are left behind or feel that they have been left behind relative to others. These are real issues that require political will and a government system that can deliver. Without that, we will be caught up in nativist and protectionist instincts which will never allow global cooperation to flourish. That is my basic hypothesis.

Singapore’s Response

What are we doing in Singapore amidst all these changes? Well, we will certainly adapt our ways of building partnerships with the rest of the world. We will double down on four things that we will not change - four man-made competitive advantages. There is a Chinese saying which goes: 以不变应万变, or stillness to counter an everchanging world. What are these four core principles that we will not change?

First, we will continue to make sure that we have the political stability so that we can have the policy consistency and continuity. I have been the Defence Minister, the Trade and Industry Minister, and the Education Minister. In all my roles, I am often asked: what is the ingredient or the special sauce for Singapore's success? When I was the Education Minister, the question was: do you have some technology, or some curriculum or syllabus that you can share with us so that we can perhaps keep pace just as you have? My answer has always been no. There is nothing secretive about Singapore's success, but there is something special about Singapore's success - our ability to execute and think long-term. An average idea well-executed consistently over time beats the brilliant idea that is a flash in the pan.

Take a simple policy like using English as our business language. We started the bilingual policy in 1960 when we all learned English and the Mother Tongue. We only had all schools using English as the primary language in the 1980s, a 20-year journey. This is just but one example of what we mean by being able to think long-term and execute with conviction. On the economic front, in an increasingly uncertain world, businesses are looking for places where they can mobilise their capital, aggregate their talent and protect their intellectual property; businesses are looking for places where they can put their trust because they require policy consistency where they can plan their investments that require a gestation period of 10 to 15 years. I would say that this is something that Singapore can offer uniquely to the rest of the world – the ability to think long-term and execute with conviction. So that we mean what we say, and we say what we mean, that businesses can continue to have the trust in us. In a world of rapid change, the second thing that we will double down on is the rule of law – the consistent and fair application of the rule of law. But I want to stress this – in Singapore, when we look at the rule of law, it is not just about preventing bad things from happening; it is also about ensuring that good and better things can happen. This is why the Monetary Authority of Singapore, and many other agencies in the Singapore Public Service, we are all committed to making sure that our rules continue to evolve at speed, so that we can pioneer new products and services with the necessary guardrails. And in the financial markets, this is increasingly important. It is one thing to have financial innovations, it is another thing to have financial innovations that come with guardrails; with responsibilities; with ethics, and this is what Singapore intends to do to distinguish ourselves as a place with the rule of law; and more importantly, a place with the rule of law that is progressive and evolving with the needs of the time.

The third thing that Singapore will double down in this volatile and uncertain world will be this - we will continue to forge new partnerships with partners; not just countries, but also companies – many companies like yourselves, with GDP probably bigger than some other smaller countries. Because we think that the future will be shaped by rules that are developed, not just with partner countries, but the companies also play an important role. For example, about more than 20 years ago, Singapore pioneered the free-trade agreement with the US. It was a gold standard at that point in time, and I will still argue that it is still the gold standard even till today. Where we were able to have the free movement of capital, talent, and so forth, and it allows both of us to partner each other, to seize the new opportunities. So not withstanding this, we have not rest on our laurels. When the digital economy came along, we initiated the digital economy partnership agreement, during my time in MTI. My team thought that it was necessary, but not sufficient to just keep improving what we have done on the FTA side – we need new rules for the new digital economy. And that is why, with like-minded partners like New Zealand and Chile, we started the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA), and it has since grown. And now we will continue to do so, even in the partnership for the future investment and trade, or what we call FIT. Again, we find like-minded partners to try to contribute our efforts to uphold the rules-based order; to uphold and reinvent a new set of rules that will continue to promote minilaterals, plurilaterals or multilaterals, so that we can continue to benefit from globalisation and integration. And we will continue to do that because there is nothing to say that it is inevitable that the world will fragment, because I believe businesses and many other countries continue to believe in the potential of a more integrated world, and that is where we will continue our efforts.

Last but not least, Singapore will continue to double down on our investments in our people. And when we say we are investing in our people as a then-Minister of Education, I have said this and will continue to say this – it is not about just investing in the first 15 years to give our people a solid foundation, in mathematics, in science, in languages. More important than that, nowadays in the world, we need to invest in the next 50 years beyond the schools. Because whatever we learn in the schools is but the foundation, whoever in the world that can continue to invest in its people beyond their school years and keep its people always at cutting edge of technologies, ideas, will be the winner in the new uncertain world. We started this more than 10 years ago with what we called the SkillsFuture movement. We have made progress but we are humbled enough to know that much needs to be done. We have an objective – that if the works spent in any particular company is going to get shorter and shorter; if the life-span of every major fortune 500 companies is going to get shorter on average, then the speed at which we need to retrain our people must keep pace. And that is why our emphasis is not just on the basic compulsory education in the first 15 years; but the lifelong continuous education of our people for the next 50 years. And this is how we will not protect jobs, but we will protect our people. We will help our people to make sure they can earn their keep, so they have the dignity and respect that comes from work. This is also the way that we can keep our society cohesive and united, and not be divided by the unequal distribution of the fruits of growth. This will form the basis of how Singapore can continue to be cohesive, coherent and confident in the way that we approach the rest of the world's challenges.

A Role for Enterprises and Leaders of Industry

Having said that, beyond Singapore, let me just come back to this point about where we all can work together going forward. All of us here in this room are probably leaders in different industries and different sectors, and all of us will have a role, a responsibility and the agency to shape the outcome of where we want to go from the two extreme bookends that I described. Governments can set policies, but markets, industries and enterprises will shape the outcome. There is room for all the leaders in this room because you command the resources and you have the ideas to take us to a better place. None of us in this room should be a bystander to change, but instead, we can be the architects of change.

What can we do as industry leaders, as corporate leaders? I would suggest two things. First, it is our responsibility and within our agency to push for new models of collaboration. Your voices, your desire for greater global collaboration, greater integration, a fresh set of rules to guide the new economy – your voices must be heard in your respective countries at the political level. You must give confidence to your own leaders that this is what the business community and the market desire. You will have the responsibility; you will also have the agency to try to counterbalance the worst of the nativist instincts that come from the uncertainties that our people are facing. But on the other hand, if we succumb to our own protectionist tendencies in the corporate world, then it will be quite a different world. Then it will be what we call a prisoner's dilemma, where each and everyone tries to optimise their own outcome, but we end up with a worse collective outcome. So I think all corporations have a responsibility to raise your voice for the kind of world that you want to see, and hopefully it is a more integrated world with guardrails, with new rules fit for purpose for the new economy.

The second thing that I think all corporations can do is to invest in our people, to grow our own timber. I say this not to ask you to do charity or to train the people, but it is in our own enlightened self-interest that we grow our timber so that people – workers who are likely to be displaced by technological disruptions or the fragmented global system – can have the confidence and the hope that they will be taken care of, not by welfare payments per se, but by the fact that there are people who continue to believe in them and want to invest in them and want to help them to keep pace with the work.

I say enlightened self-interest because the people, the workers, are also the electorate. When the people, the workers, the electorate – all of them are the same – see the hope and the prospect for a better future with the current system, with corporations playing their role, then I think they are more likely to support the current system. That would help us to stave off the worst of the nativist and protectionist tendencies. But on the other hand, if corporations do not invest in the talent management and talent development of our own people, then I think there will be many more who will feel that they are going to be left behind, or fear that they are going to be left behind, and they will question why they should continue to support the system.

So I think these are two simple things that corporate leaders all over can join hands to do: develop our people, and have your voice heard that you prefer a more integrated global trading, economic and investment system.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope I have been a firestarter for your conversations for the next two and a half days. I don't think there will be easy solutions, and I don't think you are looking for easy solutions, but I do believe that there is nothing inevitable about us ending up in a more fragmented world. Nor should we just sit idly by, hoping that we will end up in a more integrated world, because hope is not a method. But I do believe that between these two extremes, we have both responsibility and agency to shape the world that we want to see.

For Singapore, we believe in doubling down on our man-made competitive advantages: a consistent and coherent government, a conviction to invest in the long term, a commitment to build partnerships, and a commitment to invest in our people. And we would like to partner you in this journey to collectively get our voices out to say that we all would like to see a more integrated world, where we have more opportunities for everyone, because we are able to optimise at the global level, rather than be shoehorned and restricted at our narrow local level. I hope that we will also all play our part in investing in our people so that everyone can feel the sense of hope that they can continue to progress and allow the next generation to do even better. Without the sense of hope, then it's a very dangerous world for everyone because the worst of the nativist and protectionist instincts may take over.

On that note, I wish you all the very best in your conversations in the next few days, and I hope that Singapore will be able to partner you in your onward journey.

Thank you very much.