Singapore has never been known for loud proclamations on the world stage. Its leaders typically favor steady, measured language, guided by a foreign policy steeped in principled and pragmatic neutrality. So it was all the more striking when Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen, speaking at the Munich Security Conference, warned that the United States risked shifting “from liberator to great disruptor to a landlord seeking rent.”
International media quickly framed the minister’s remarks as a critique of the U.S.’s evolving foreign policy, portraying them as validation for a growing chorus of critics who see it as increasingly transactional.
For observers familiar with Singapore’s foreign policy posture, however, Ng’s remarks signify less a pivot away from the West than a realist’s assessment of the evolving global order –precisely the kind of measured perspective one would expect from a senior Singaporean statesman.
But in a fraught geopolitical climate of volatile alliances and competing national interests, scapegoating and misinterpretations can spread quickly. Singapore’s outsized presence in commerce, finance, and technology often makes it an easy target whenever global tensions escalate, whether in trade disputes or security disagreements.
Here are three episodes illustrating how Singapore has been tested.
Nvidia Names Singapore Amid DeepSeek Concerns
The U.S. chipmaker Nvidia, vital to advanced AI innovations, came under scrutiny when authorities suggested its high-end GPUs had ended up in China through third-party channels. As concern mounted , particularly following China’s DeepSeek R1 launch , Nvidia revealed that Singapore accounted for nearly 28 percent of Nvidia’s GPU revenue in 2024. This made it Nvidia’s fourth-largest revenue contributor, behind only the U.S., Taiwan, and China , representing an increase of 404 percent from the previous year.
Critics in Washington argued that the city-state was acting as a covert transshipment hub, letting restricted technology flow to blacklisted Chinese companies. Singaporean officials responded swiftly, emphasizing that U.S. companies must comply with both U.S. export controls and Singapore’s domestic laws.
In fact, Singaporean authorities had already arrested nine individuals for allegedly falsifying end-user documentation to divert advanced chips to China. Three of them have been charged.
Separately, authorities launched an investigation into the export of computer servers that may have contained Nvidia chips. Reinforcing Singapore’s stance, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said, “We will not tolerate individuals or companies violating our laws or exploiting their ties to Singapore to circumvent other countries’ export controls.”
Singapore made clear it was enforcing its own laws against illicit transshipment , maintaining that it is not obliged to uphold unilateral sanctions but will enforce multilateral export control regimes Singapore has agreed upon. It was a finely wrought balance, meant to preserve national sovereignty while reassuring its international stakeholders that Singapore would not allow itself to be exploited.
Gaza Conflict Brings Global Pressures Home
Singapore has another balancing act to manage: its own internal ethnic and political dynamics. A multiethnic, multi-religious society, it has long sought to foster a sense of shared identity while respecting different ethnic dispositions. But these same features can be manipulated by those seeking to sow dissent or force Singapore’s hand in contentious global issues.
Consider the ongoing tensions surrounding the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Singapore has long upheld a measured stance toward the Israel-Palestine situation, supporting a two-state solution, prioritizing humanitarian relief, and taking steps to protect its social fabric from a conflict steeped in ethno-religious fervor. Yet, advocacy groups, moved by distressing images from the region, have turned up at Meet-the-People sessions, urging MPs to take stronger positions on the war in Gaza.
This pressure came to a head in Parliament two years ago when the leader of the opposition did not initially label the October 7 Hamas attacks as terrorism, only to reverse course after facing a wave of criticism.
While the episode ultimately saw the opposition leader align with the government’s long standing policy, it exposed a deeper vulnerability: the fine line between being principled and perceived moral indifference can easily blur, especially when international crises stir strong domestic emotions – emotions that could be exploited for political gain, at the expense of Singapore’s national and security interests.
Terrex Episode: Measured Diplomacy Under Duress
Singapore’s proven track record of navigating geopolitical headwinds rests on its deliberate, measured approach.
A vivid example of Singapore’s delicate balancing act took place in 2016, when nine Singapore Armed Forces Terrex vehicles en route from Taiwan were impounded by Hong Kong authorities. That same year, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea had no legal basis, effectively invalidating China’s “nine-dash line” under international law. Although Singapore is not a claimant, it joined other nations in calling for legal and diplomatic processes to be respected. In Beijing’s eyes, however, Singapore’s support for a rules-based order appeared to align against Chinese core interests.
Officially, the Terrex seizure was billed as a customs matter, but some observers believe its timing suggested a sharper message from Beijing: nations drifting from China’s preferred policies risk feeling its pressure.
The fact that these military assets were traveling from Taiwan might have raised eyebrows, despite Singapore’s adherence to a One-China policy and its longstanding ties with Taipei. Yet in practice, Beijing has long valued Singapore’s role as a neutral venue for cross-strait talks. The city-state hosted landmark discussions in 1993 and served as the site of a 2015 meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwan’s Ma Ying-jeou in their personal capacities.
None of this mitigated the sting of the Terrex impoundment, but it did provide context: Beijing’s disapproval centered less on Singapore’s ties with Taipei and more on exerting broader assertiveness, particularly concerning its territorial interests closer to home.
Singapore’s response was characteristically measured and understated. Rather than escalate with megaphone diplomacy, the government pursued a principled and pragmatic approach. Then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong personally communicated with Hong Kong’s chief executive to resolve the matter. By early 2017, the vehicles were returned, and Sino-Singapore relations returned to their cautious equilibrium.
Political Unity on Core Interests is a Strategic Asset
The Terrex episode also underscored the importance of unity in Singapore’s political leadership. Despite being the de facto leader of the opposition, Low Thia Khiang, then chief of the opposition Workers’ Party, backed the government’s stance unequivocally.
Two critical insights can be gleaned from these episodes.
First, Singaporeans must recognize that political unity is a strategic asset in an era of intensifying power contests – especially now that an opposition bloc is likely to have a more permanent presence in Parliament. Outside actors cannot as easily pit Singaporeans against each other if the nation’s populace, and its political representatives, are committed to closing ranks where the nation’s strategic interests and external relations are concerned.
Second, Singapore must stand firm in its core interests: a rules-based international order, robust economic relevance, and sovereignty grounded in strategic autonomy. It should never pivot reflexively toward larger powers simply to deflect scrutiny, nor should it placate domestic groups by taking strident positions that foreclose its geopolitical space. These principles continue to serve Singapore well.
For instance, U.S.-Singapore ties are likely to remain robust under the current Trump administration. Defense Minister Ng’s recent confirmation that Singapore will acquire eight additional F-35A fighter jets – on top of the 12 F-35Bs already secured – highlights the deepening relations with the United States. Bilateral trade in goods and services reached roughly $98 billion last year, with the U.S. enjoying a trade surplus. Singaporean firms also stand among the top three Asian investors in the United States, collectively supporting 270,000 American jobs. Such firm economic foundations strengthen the broader strategic relationship.
Similarly, public support for the government’s approach in the Middle East remains healthy. Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has reaffirmed Singapore’s commitment to a two-state solution and its pledge of over S$19 million ($14.2 million) in humanitarian aid to Gaza, working alongside Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE to accelerate critical relief efforts. Speaking at a Buka Puasa gathering recently, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong reiterated Singapore’s steadfast support for the Palestinian people in their pursuit of eventual statehood.
Finally, Singapore’s elevated ties with China remain solid: their “All-Round High-Quality Future-Oriented Partnership” has enabled Singapore to be one of China’s largest foreign investors, with cumulative investments reaching $141.23 billion, and propelling bilateral trade to $108.39 billion. High-level meetings – most recently between Wong and President Xi Jinping at the APEC Summit in Lima – further underscore a shared commitment to stability and economic cooperation. Reflecting that broader warmth, Singapore and Hong Kong also enjoy strong economic collaboration. In 2023 alone, bilateral trade surpassed $50 billion, with active partnerships in the digital economy, green technologies, and financial services.
All told, Singapore may never fully escape scapegoating or misinterpretation. Yet if its 60-year track record is any indication, the city-state has repeatedly demonstrated that a measured approach can endure by doing what it does best: thinking, acting, and speaking with unwavering unity and clarity on its core interests, rather than resorting to high-decibel theatrics in a world all too eager for convenient villains.
