Question: I would like to ask Minister Ng about your thoughts on defence spending in the Indo-Pacific because the latest Munich Security Report actually showed huge amounts of increase in defence spending in that part of the world. But when you look at it, is this the right approach for the Indo-Pacific region? Is there an arms race?

• Let me put that into context, your first question - are we paying enough attention to issues? I remember the 50th Munich Security Conference - I think Ambassador Ischinger was sharing, and it was a historic session. Henry Kissinger, Schmidt, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and the former President of France - they were of course celebrating the fact that Europe had been at peace for 50 years, as they should. President d'Estaing said that Europe had made the concept of war irrelevant.

• Here we are, (at the) 60th anniversary in the Munich Security Conference. None of us would have predicted even two years ago or three years ago - two years ago was the eve of a few weeks before the invasion - none of us predicted after the Abraham Accords, the Israel-Hamas conflict.

• So, your question – are we doing enough to prevent further conflicts? That is a difficult one. But to me, the lessons for this are very clear. We should avoid conflict in Asia at all costs. You do not need it. Nothing justifies it, in my mind.

• The US-China rivalry notwithstanding. In that context, then we talk about defence spending. It is a symptom, not a cause. By 2030, the US will spend 1 trillion USD in defence spending. China will spend about 500 billion, not in PPP terms, but nominal terms.

• Is there an arms race? Can you stop it? And if so, how would you do it? You cannot stop countries from deciding that they are going to spend to protect their interests. You could probably have agreements, as we have against nuclear proliferation, but it will be in diplomatic solutions, and it will be in multilateral forums that we are having now to pre-empt conflicts. And to me that's the top priority for Asia. We must avoid a conflict in Asia. The world cannot afford one.

• You cannot have three simultaneous theatres of instability. And if indeed there is a conflict for whatever reason between US and China, I think we will have blighted our futures for the next, well, 10, 20, 30 years.

Question You are very clear that you want to avoid any sort of conflict or escalation in Indo-Pacific. What is your message to China in that context? What would you tell the Chinese? –

• You are picking sides, only to China?

Interviewer: Well, I am starting with China.

• The message must be the same. Avoid conflict.

• So, I think that it was reassuring that President Xi and President Biden met in San Francisco. Right noises were made.

Even with the election of the Taiwanese president who is, shall we say, somewhat pro-independence, William Lai.

• I thought it was very reassuring that President Biden, one of his first statements was that he does not support Taiwanese independence.

• If you look at what the PLA did in response to William Lai's election, it was not much. And that was reassuring.

Minister: I have a comment to the question. The context is how can you prepare for aggression?

• Well, that is a good question. But the flip side is also one of pre-emption, which is deterrence and diplomacy.

• And I agree with Boris, that you need to build sufficient capability, defence capabilities as a deterrence. That's for Singapore, a very small country. We've spent 3% of our GDP on our defence budget and purely for deterrence. Nobody sees us as a threat, I hope.

• But on the flip side of deterrence and pre-emption is what we're doing now: multilateralism as well as one important aspect and it may or may not be applicable because after Russia invaded Ukraine, it is difficult, but it is trade.

• The single most epochal event has been globalisation, which lifted many countries. Trade between China and Japan went up multi-fold. Trade between China and Taiwan went up multi-fold. We talk about the Global South, Chinese investments into Africa.

• So my point is, if we are talking about the prevention of conflict, I think it would be unbalanced/imbalanced if we don't also talk about how do you increase trade. How do you produce a system that you enlarge the pie and that there are more stakeholders?

• We are security chiefs, but trade is a very necessary component of peace and deterrence.

Question: Is trade a solution to prevent trade? Because in the case of Germany, it did not really work.

• I wonder if Mr Putin is sui generis, and we could apply all lessons.

• I would say that China is not Russia and my assessment of President Xi is not Putin.

• No one is going to pretend that trade is a magic bullet.

• The golden arches example - that two countries with McDonald's will not go to war, has probably I think, been proven wrong.

• But it is a very necessary aspect.

• Boris made an eloquent pitch that you did trade with Russia, prior to the invasion, Russia has supplied you 55% of your gas supplies. Would it have made a difference if NATO and EU had increased their defence spending to act as well as a deterrence? It is counterfactual, we live with the reality.

Question: Mr Ng, when you look at the world, what keeps you up at night?

• I sleep very soundly despite what my wife says. She has an app that tracks sleep. She claims that I wake her up. I digress. I was just going to add to your comment, which is very important and we are talking about prevention of war.
• It also means that countries will have to step up if they want to protect what they believe in. And this was the reason, when the American military had to pull out from Subic and Clark, that Mr. Lee, our founding Prime Minister offered Singapore, for American ships and planes to rotate through our bases and that's why the signed MOU, to this day, exists. Because he believed that the US presence was strategic for Asia because there was a fight against communism.

• And we believe in partnerships, very happy when the Bundeswehr sent their FGS Bayern and use our naval base.

• We are very happy when the French carrier group and the UK carrier group came through Singapore. We believe in the balance of powers, so countries do have to step up for their conviction of their beliefs and exercise them. And when we fail, it is tempting to say, "Well, we have not done what is right". But let me rephrase the question. What other options do you have if you don't have multilateralism? If you don't have trade? If you don't have partnerships? What do you resort to?

Question: It is very clear from a Singaporean perspective. But the reason why I asked you what keeps you up at night is within this idea that we need to also understand how other parts of the world are thinking and are looking at the geopolitical landscape.

• Well, that's easy. A prolonged war in Ukraine and political support from either Western Europe or United States, wavers and you reward aggression.

• That keeps me up at night, because if that's the established rule, then there is no future for small countries for Singapore, and that's the reason why we protested very early, the Russian invasion in Ukraine.

• We sanctioned our Russian banks in Singapore, because they were aiding the war effort. That's why we have joined Operation Prosperity Guardian because sea lines of communications in the Red Sea is vital for our interests.

• Countries will have to step up to protect their beliefs and their way of life.

Question: A very quick thought from the three of you on how to boost cooperation.

• From the military perspective, I think military to military engagement is crucial, especially if there are potential aggressive risks. This increases the risk of strategic miscalculation that goes from militaries - US and China; China and Japan. So, in ASEAN – ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting and Plus – we are stepping up, for example, military to military engagement, about 18 nations and we have to just keep working at it.