SM Lee Hsien Loong's Fireside Chat at Singapore Maritime Week 2025

Moderator (Ambassador Chan Heng Chee): Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Allow me first to thank the Senior Minister for his clear and wide-ranging speech. You have given us a lot of ground to pitch our questions. As the moderator, I will begin by asking a few questions; then you − the audience − will have a chance to ask him your questions, what is on your mind. So let me begin.

Senior Minister, you have described the current geopolitical outlook as one that is severely strained. How do you see ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific stabilising the regional order, and in this age of interdependency and connectivity, can we really shield ourselves from the turbulence and changes happening elsewhere?

SM Lee Hsien Loong: Well, we can insulate ourselves, but we cannot prevent some impact upon us. You asked: what can the regional countries do to make things better? Or what can the Asia-Pacific do — actually you mean what can Asia-Pacific countries do? And Asia-Pacific countries include the US and China. And if the US and China are able to stabilise their relations — a big ask, but an important request — that will make a big difference to the regional order and, in fact, to the world. We do not know how that will develop, because I think the new administration has not focused on that intensely yet, but we will see.

On the part of the other countries in the region, as I explained in my speech, I think quite a number continue to believe in some international framework for multilateral trade, continue to want to cooperate with one another, to trade more with one another. And I think like-minded partners can get together to do this. Big countries like China, Japan, Korea, even India. Smaller countries like the ASEAN members. Countries which have close links to the West, like Australia and New Zealand. All believe that they have to do business and trade together. And we can make FTAs. The RCEP includes many of the countries which are on the western side of the Pacific. The CPTPP includes the Americas as well, less the US. And these give you some life raft to hang on to and to have collective safety in this uncertain world. And Singapore continues to expand its network, not just in the traditional areas of trade and services, but also in new areas like digital and green economy. We have 6 Green and Digital Shipping Corridors. We have some Digital Economy Framework Agreements with several partners, and we are about to conclude a Green and Digital Shipping Corridor with India — all of which will give you some help and some stability in uncertain times.

As for ASEAN, I think one of the things which ASEAN can do is to cooperate more intensively within the ASEAN group. We have 10 members. We have an ASEAN economic community. It is not like the European Union, but it gives a broad basis for us to enhance our economic cooperation. And we can do better. After all these years of cooperation, our share of intra-ASEAN trade − as a share of our global trade amongst ASEAN members − is still quite low. It is less than one quarter, and it has been about that level for a very long time. And if you look at the EU, the intra-member trade is like 80, 90% of their global trade. Therefore, I think within ASEAN, we can cooperate more. And ASEAN can also work harder with its external partners to conclude more FTAs in order to work together. For example, it is reviving FTA negotiations with the EU. I hope all these measures will make a difference.

Moderator: Yes, I worry about the connectivity and the interdependence, which seems to me to make it a bit difficult to shield ourselves totally.

SM Lee: It is very difficult, it is hopeless. If you want to be completely unrelated to the external world, you will be like North Korea, and even they need to find Bitcoin somehow or other.

Moderator: Thank you, sir. You mentioned, Senior Minister, earlier about the US-China relationship, that they have to work out something between themselves. And indeed, it is the most decisive relationship in the world, affecting our security and prosperity. Now, President Trump is said to be not a man of war. He also seeks to strike deals. In fact, he has come up with a grand bargain for Mr Putin and Russia. Do you think a grand bargain is possible between the United States and China?

SM Lee: I think it would be difficult, because the issues between the US and China have become deep. On the US side, fundamentally, they have made an assessment that China is a pacing challenge. That means it is something which they have to treat − not just as a partner, as a friendly country − but something which could pose a challenge, maybe even a threat to them. And what is behind this? I think they see China growing. They see China possibly becoming bigger than them, maybe stronger than them. And I think it is not acceptable to the Americans to have this happen, because they see differences between them and China quite fundamentally in terms of ideology, in terms of global influence, in terms of their place in the world. And they have decided that no, they must stay ahead, and one way or the other, they will stay ahead, and they will stop this from happening.

On the Chinese side, they see themselves growing. They want to do business with the world, but at the same time, they see America as trying to block their growth, and to them, this is something which is crucial. They have the right to grow; why should any country be able to tell me I cannot do this or I cannot do that? They feel they have the right to technology, they have the right to the same standard of living as the developed countries, and they want to take their rightful place in the world.

And so these are two very different, fundamentally contradictory mindsets. And underlying that, feeding that, are a series of very difficult questions over sovereignty, over security, over values, over political systems, over imbalances in global trade, over technology, over cybersecurity intrusions, which are not easily traded off or packaged together into a grand bargain. Each one is an absolutist thing in its own − at least in the basic mindsets of the countries. And therefore, I do not see a grand bargain.

And yet, unless America and China work together and have some kind of working arrangement, I think both will be in trouble, and the world will be in trouble. Because if they clash with one another, they will do a lot of harm to themselves and to the rest of the world. I hope some accommodation can be worked out. I can imagine some of the things which you have to do to do that, but it will not be easy.

Moderator: Yes, I think it will be rocky, as you say, and maybe at times worse than rocky. I would like to come now to what we read in the newspapers every morning, the tariff war and the retaliatory tariffs. It is not good for anyone, and there are no winners. How do you see this process or trajectory playing out?

SM Lee: Well, if you are an economist, you would advise China — your opponent is doing these things, imposing tariffs. He may think that it costs China, but actually it is also costing his own economy. Just stay calm and carry on, do not do anything. Because if you do something, you will also hurt yourself. But politically, that is not possible. When somebody does this to you, politically, even if he is your best friend, you have to do something to show that you have taken note that he has done this to you, and you have to respond. Even the Canadians are responding or talking about responding. Therefore, you have tit for tat. And you go down the road, and it is not just tariffs. You have tariffs. You have restrictions on exports. You have restrictions on investments. Basically, you are bifurcating, and you are dividing. And that way leads to a lot of trouble.

The world has not seen it since the World War II. Therefore, maybe does not remember what it is like. But it happened before the War. In the 1930s, when the economies went into a depression, there was a Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act– very high tariffs – passed by the US. It triggered similar high barriers from the other developed countries. World trade plummeted. It deepened the recession. It caused great hardship in many countries, and it contributed to the political pressures and the tensions between countries, which eventually led to the Second World War. And people may have forgotten this, but in the Pacific, the war started with the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan. What immediately preceded the attack on Pearl Harbor? It was a US embargo on Japan of petroleum and rubber − vital raw materials. And the Japanese started the Pacific War to secure those raw materials from Southeast Asia − rubber and tin from Malaysia, petroleum products from the Dutch East Indies (today’s Indonesia). So that way leads to bad outcomes.

In 1985, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was invited to address a joint session of the US Congress, and he made a speech on this theme. Those were different days. Ronald Reagan was the President. He got a standing ovation. The mood has changed. The times have changed. Now you are not talking about the US versus Japan. You are talking about two nuclear powers. You may or may not go all the way to the end of the road. And hopefully somewhere before the end of the road, you will find an off-ramp and a way out which will enable us to stop short of doing maximum damage to one another. But it will take time, and it will take changes in mindsets, and I think meanwhile, we just have to fasten our seat belts.

Moderator: Yes, and I know that some people are saying give this two years, and maybe with the midterm elections in the United States, that will help stabilise something.

SM Lee: I do not know. I do not put this as personal predilections or prejudices. Certainly, personal views of top leaders make a difference. But I think there is a deep view which has formed in countries.

Previously, the ideal of the world is that it is flat − that we just do business with one another, and it is okay. If you sell me all my food and I sell you all your cars and all your solar panels − that is fine.

I think now you will ask, “What if you stop selling me some of my food?” And I will ask, “What if one day I need to convert my car line into an armoured vehicle line? How do I do that?” I think there is now a fundamental concern that security and resilience must be weighted more heavily, and perhaps given priority over prosperity and interdependence. And therefore, I do not think we will go back to the days when countries push for a free trade area in the Asia-Pacific, as we expressed in one of the APEC declarations in Bogor around 1990. But I hope that we will not go to a world where it is the law of the jungle − where I say I can do what I like, and nobody can stop me, because this is national security, and therefore is paramount.

Even if it is national security, I do not want to spend myself to bankruptcy, and you do not want to spend yourself to bankruptcy. In the fields of arms control, we may be opponents, but you still have arms limitations. You still have treaties to keep the competition within limits and prevent things from really blowing up. And I think in trade too, we need to have some rules like that.

Moderator: Thank you. Now this will be my fourth and last question, and then you will have your chance. This is the 60^th year of Singapore's independence. Singapore as a global port and maritime hub has grown from strength to strength. Now, other ports in the region also have big ambitions. They are also seeking to grow and to play a bigger role and to have a larger share of the business. This is all natural and to be expected. Where do you see, Senior Minister, Singapore in the next 20 to 30 years as a global port and maritime hub? Now I am not talking of the next 60 years, because by then, technology and geopolitics may have developed in a way beyond our imagination. What is your vision for Singapore's maritime industry in the future?

SM Lee: Assuming there is peace and stability in the world, that the global trading system holds, that people still need to do business with one another which is not a given thing − but I would bet on that and work for that − then I think there will always be a living for us. We have built our port from what we call an entrepot (but really it was little sailing boats coming in from our immediate neighbours, junks coming in from China and Japan, and maybe somewhat bigger ships coming from Europe and being the trading centre), to what we are now, with 40 plus million TEUs shipped through Singapore every year.

And we have done it by being one step ahead, by being efficient, by making full use of technology and making full use of our people; making sure that we have a team which wants to build a first-class port and give ourselves a living, even though we have not much of a domestic hinterland.

If we just depend on Singapore containers, PSA would be maybe 1/20^th its present size. But we have got international business, and we have that only because we are efficient and we can be relied upon to deliver. We proved that during COVID, because we kept the port open. And after COVID, when there were pile-ups and delays in other ports, we were the place where people would catch up on time and sort things out.

So, I think we can continue to grow, and we have quite bold plans to do that. Tuas Port, which we are building, has targeted for 65 million TEUs per year. We are now just over 40 million TEUs last year. It is 50 per cent more. You ask, are you bold enough? Are you too bold? I say, you have to dream. When we built our present facilities, including Pasir Panjang Port, we were at about 16 million TEUs. And we were building for double that, 30 plus million TEUs. And people wondered whether you would ever get there. But we thought: we build it, we make it happen. And it happened faster than we expected. We got there about five or six years ago, and we are now 40+ million TEUs.

From 40 to 60 million, the regional business is there, the containers will flow past us through the Strait of Singapore. Some may go via the Arctic − Northeast passage, perhaps. But I think a lot will still come through Southeast Asia, will come past Singapore and the other ports, which are up and down along the string − in Taiwan, in Malaysia, in Sri Lanka, in India. And if we are efficient, we can be the place where you ship the container in, the next ship comes in eight hours, the next ship turns around, it goes out, the container is tracked, it is safe, and it never gets lost. Then I think we can continue to make a living for ourselves, and we will still be there 30 years from now and looking for the next bound beyond that.

Moderator: Yes, thank you. Now we come to questions from the audience. There are mics along the aisle. If you could just step to the mic if you wish to ask a question, and there are people around the room with flash cards to attract my attention so I recognise you. I think I saw a hand in Section C, yes, please. You have the first question. Please give us your name and where you come from. It is just to help us get a fix on the question.

Q: Thank you, SM Lee for your very insightful and strategic view. My name is Eugene. I am from Pacific International Alliance. Greenhouse gas emissions reductions is an imperative for our industry and a game changer for every shipping company. In fact, for some, it could be an existential risk. The IMO has set ambitious targets to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030, and net zero by 2050. Now, how do you see the role of international shipping companies collaborating with Singapore to meet these targets, especially considering today's increasingly uncertain global economic situation, and in an environment of escalating costs?

SM Lee: We have to prepare for this. I would say candidly, the solutions are not yet clear, but we have to look for what is promising and explore multiple different avenues. Alternative fuels are one avenue, whether it is hydrogen, whether it is ammonia. I think solar is not likely. Wind, maybe, could have a contribution, but it cannot be the main solution. We have to explore all the different alternatives, and prepare ourselves in terms of the infrastructure likely to be needed as they prove viable, in order to support them. And that is why, as I said earlier, we are building up, training people to handle alternative fuels, building up the infrastructure, the safety requirements, and so on.

I think, honestly, to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030, which is five years from now, will be very challenging for the world, particularly if the big countries are not all on board. Other countries will ask: “Why should I exercise maximum effort to tighten my belts?”

But the direction in the longer term, I think, is unavoidable, and we should do our best to get the technology ready and be able to implement it and not lose out. In the end, the solution cannot just be greener energy because I think even with greener energy, the supply may not be enough, and the cost will be very high.

You will end up with reconfiguration of supply chains, of shipping patterns. There will be more near-sourcing, and the industry will have to adjust to that. And this is going to happen whether you are doing it using carbon taxes, or using (Carbon) Border Adjustment Mechanism. The Europeans are talking about carbon taxes, but the rest of the world is not. So if you come in, I am going to charge you at the border. And either way, it means that the industry will have to reconfigure, and that means the shipping lines will have to reconfigure too.

There is one bright spot in this, in the way the maritime industry is dealing with decarbonisation. And that is, it is dealing with the problem as an industry, as opposed to country by country. Because if you go country by country, places  and individual countries with big ports – Singapore happens to be one of them – we will die because the bunkering is done here, therefore it is blamed on Singapore. But actually it is not Singapore; it is the bunker used for shipping, which many countries benefit from. It just happened to be the port where this physical operation took place. And so, as an industry, we can find a solution which is sensible end to end, and you put the costs where the costs deserve to be, and where the industry can work. Now, how to do that? We have to negotiate, and there will be a hard bargain. But that is the sensible way to think about this, and I wish that is how we thought about more things. Aviation fuel is like that. But there are other industries which you could imagine which should be like that too, for example, petrochemicals.

Moderator: Thank you. The next question? Over there, number eight.

Q: Good morning SM Lee, thank you for your really insightful presentation. My name is Akanksha Batura Pai. I am from Sinoda Shipping Agency, and I am also part of the Council at the Singapore Shipping Association. Likely this is the highest-level question I have ever asked, so thank you. I belong to the services industry in maritime and logistics, and we are truly facing a talent crunch to compete on the global scale, and to have a very upskilled workforce is quite competitive for us. Considering the industry is also highly fragmented, the profit levels are also very not increasing in line with some of the higher-digitised industries as well, like generative AI. So we find ourselves losing workforce frankly to the gig economies and even to industries we never even anticipated competing with. So would you have any suggestions for our sectors, or even for players in our sector? This is a real problem we are facing on the ground. Thank you.

SM Lee: I am not very familiar with the details of the maritime logistics industry. I do know that the business of supplying the ships and doing the landward part of the work when ships pass through Singapore has been a challenging business for some time. As you say, it is fragmented; there is not enough technology being applied to it; there is not enough upgrading and consolidation being applied to it. I think MOT has been working on this, and MPA. I would defer to them to deal with the specific issues.

The general problem of talent in Singapore, I think, is one which many industries are facing, and we are conscious of. And we are trying to make a framework which will enable us to make the most of the people we have in Singapore − to train them to be up to scratch, and invest in them to do these jobs. And also at the same time, to be able to bring in professionals who are qualified, who can contribute and complement our workforce and therefore enable our economy to grow.

I am sorry I do not have more specific details, but the problems, I think, MPA and MOT know about them, and we are working on that.

Moderator: Thank you. The next question? Yes, four.

Q: Good morning, sir. This is a bucket list item for me. Thank you. My name is Captain Hari Subramaniam. I am from the marine insurance industry, and I also chair the Nautical Institute here. My question is along the lines of my colleague Akanksha previously, and it is about advice on improving the image of shipping. Shipping usually hits the news only when something disastrous happens and catches everybody's attention. To which, I feel a lot of people are being deterred from coming to this industry. Back to talent and manpower, seafarers also are a dying breed. Nobody wants to send their children out to join the shipping industry. So if I may say, in your normal, inspiring style, would you be able to share some insight and some advice on how we can actually go about that?

SM Lee: I do not have a strategic plan straightaway. I do not know whether the problem is lack of publicity over shipping. I think the problem is as countries become more affluent, their populations become less willing to go for a seafarer’s life. There are a few exceptions — I think the Nordics may be one of them. The Norwegians still have a significant number of people who are prepared to go to sea. But if you look at Asia, it has not been so. Therefore many of the crews, including officers and their captains, are from countries where being onshore is tough, and therefore you are prepared to go to sea. And in Singapore, being onshore is not tough. If it were tough, we would have other very big problems.

And so you need a certain passion, a certain fascination with the ocean. And I think we have the institutions, we have the facilities, we have got the training simulators. I went to visit one — I think in Jurong we have one bridge simulator, which is a dream − the next best thing to being in a real typhoon. But despite that, the numbers of people taking it up are not enough.

I think that may continue to be the case. If you want to do it, you would have to look for people who have a passion for it. In the case of pilots, they look for people who are young, and then they teach them to fly while they are still in school. And hopefully later on, they join the Air Force and they join one of the airlines. And maybe in the case of shipping, you have to do the same and catch them young and get them fascinated with the oceans. There is something magical about it, but you have to have that personality, that obsession, almost. The Navy is able to get people to join it. It has a different kind of image from what is in the maritime industry. It is only partly the uniform; it is also the image of great professionalism and high technology. And in fact, if you are on a super tanker or on a modern ship, it is great professionalism and high technology, too. So you have got to get that message across.

Moderator: Thank you.

SM Lee: Thank you.

Q: Good morning, Mr Lee and Madam, my name is Xu Gang from Sumec Marine China. Actually, we have a shipping company in Singapore, and have shipyards in China. America is going to charge the ships built by Chinese shipyard according (to the) United States port. My question is, what is your opinion? If you were a ship owner, are you going to order ships from Chinese shipyards?

SM Lee: I will watch and see what actually happens. I think everybody in business prefers to have an orderly business environment, which includes policy environment, which includes regulatory environment, and the international environment. There have been certain rules which, since the Second World War, particularly, countries have collectively agreed are wise and in everybody's interests. We all agree that we will trade with one another, that we have a principle called Most Favoured Nation (MFN). If I trade with you, then I give you a privilege. And I will give the same privilege to everybody else. I will not discriminate between one and the other. We want to do business. And the world prospered for a long time like that. But even then, it was not completely a no-brainer matter. Even then, there were big countries which were outside the system. The Soviet bloc was outside the system for a long time. China was outside the system also for a long time. And when China came in, first to have Permanent Normal Trade Relations with the US, and then to join the WTO, these were political decisions under Bill Clinton, and there was a hot debate in the US Congress on whether to treat China like other countries, and to have Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Means I will not discriminate against you. Now, they may reconsider. 35 years later, Congress can always change its mind. From the point of view of trade, it is a problem. From the point of view (of) an overall relationship, (it) is an issue, which will become a problem between the two countries − I am sure − if it happens. And somehow it will have to be sorted out. We hope, of course, that there will be peace on earth and goodwill among men, but that is an ideal we continue to work towards.

Q: Thank you.

Q: SM Lee, a very good morning to you. I am TS Teo, I am from Pacific International Alliance but today I am representing the Singapore Shipping Association. As you may know, Singapore has been an international maritime city for the past eight to 10 years, a great achievement. However, because of that, Singapore needs a lot of talents. So we have today, as you can see, not only guys like me, but talents of many countries here. On the other hand, since COVID-19, cost of living has been going up, and this, in turn, has been a threat to talent in Singapore. May I know what is your comments and how you look at this matter? Thank you.

SM Lee: I am not sure when you say costs of living, what you are talking about, costs of living for Singaporeans or costs of living for foreign expatriates who are working and living in Singapore.

Q: For foreigners.

SM Lee: Well, we are not as low cost as many other Asian cities, but it cannot be helped. Part of it is rentals. I think there has been tightness in the rental market for some time, particularly after COVID-19. But we are building more, and it is easing. General living costs − if you read some of the surveys, they say we are more expensive than New York or London. I find that a little bit hard to believe. But then, if you look and see what they are shopping for, and where they are dining at, to make those calculations, it may be − if you want that sort of a lifestyle − you will have an issue. But I think that we can make ourselves a place where it is good to live, where you have got good health care, where you have got good education for the kids, where you are happy to spend time here and spend years here and your career can prosper. And if I think overall, we can have a package which makes sense for the businesses. Then we will be able to have professionals, have experts, have people who have different disciplines and experiences come here. If you look at the data, the numbers of people wanting to come in, the numbers of Employment Pass holders, continue to grow. There are still people coming in. And I think as long as that is the case, we should be able to continue to grow.

Moderator: I think this may be our last question, because time is running out.

Q: Good morning, Senior Minister Lee and everyone here today. So SM Lee, thank you for your insightful speech. I am Vera, a penultimate year student at NTU and a Singapore Maritime youth ambassador. So building on the topic of youth and talent and manpower, and representing the youth of the maritime industry, as well as the future generations who hope to join this industry, could you perhaps give one advice for the youth on how we can navigate the waves of uncertainty and also to thrive here. Thank you.

SM Lee: I think there is a lot of uncertainty in the world, but at the same time, there are many opportunities. And for people like you studying in university, preparing to graduate, preparing to go on to life, I would say: you have had about as good a start as is possible for a young person to have, short of having gone through a drastic crisis and barely survived it, that changes your life. We have tried our best to prevent you from having a drastic crisis. We have given you the opportunities to learn, to be educated, to grow your talents, to see the world, to understand what the opportunities are around you, and to grow up with skills and knowledge which can prepare you to do many things in life. It is not the end of your education, but it is the beginning of a lifetime of learning and working.

And if you take it with that attitude, and say, ‘I am as well prepared as anybody’. ‘If I were in China, there would be maybe 200 million people competing with me. I am in Singapore, I have competition, and the world is still there competing with me. But I am prepared, I have a team in Singapore which works, I have a brand name which is good. And if I am prepared to roll up my sleeves and go do it and adapt to the world as it comes, I can create something better which does not exist today’. Your parents and your grandparents faced much more daunting odds, but they did not have as many choices. They said, well, ‘Let us do it together’. And they did. To your generations, I would say it is your responsibility. It is also your chance to say, “Let us do it together”. Show the old folks like me that you can do things that we did not imagine. And one day, somewhere, we will be looking at you and feeling proud.

Moderator: Thank you, Senior Minister. I would like to thank you for a very stimulating and a very insightful but frank discussion of the issues on the maritime industry. Thank you.