Distinguished guests

Ladies and Gentlemen

Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to be here today. I would like first to thank the Republic of Korea (ROK) Ministry of National Defense for inviting me to share my views at this plenary session.

The theme for this plenary session is a timely and relevant one, as Professor Kim has also said. As some speakers today have shared earlier, and several more will undoubtedly also say, geopolitical tensions are rising in many parts of the world, bringing with them wide-ranging implications. The Indo-Pacific, or Asia-Pacific, as some countries refer to it, is no exception. I think in some platforms, whether you use the term "Indo-Pacific" or "Asia-Pacific" can also be a matter of contestation. We shall not go there today.

Now, when you look at the theme, there are two key words in the theme today – Cooperation and Trust. I think these two keywords are inter-related.

When countries cooperate with one another despite competition and despite differences, we expand and build trust between us. This in turn enables more cooperation, and raises the prospect of resolving or setting aside disagreements. This is what I call a virtuous, positive cycle.

On the other hand, when trust has been badly eroded, new cooperation becomes difficult and even existing cooperation may break down. With reduced cooperation, it becomes harder to rebuild trust and navigate through differences. This can become a vicious cycle.

I believe that as defence and security establishments, we can all play a role in contributing towards building and rebuilding cooperation and trust. In other words, to bring about more positive cycles, whether it is big or small. And to reduce the number of vicious cycles. It is a tough challenge, but here, allow me to humbly share three ways, I think, through which we can do so.

First, open dialogue and communication; second, practical cooperation, with emphasis on the word "practical"; and third, confidence-building measures.

Let me elaborate. First, maintaining open dialogue and communication.

With rising geopolitical tensions, it has become even more important that we maintain open and frank dialogue at all levels. To understand one another's perspectives, discuss commonalities as well as differences, and very importantly, reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding and miscalculation. In the event of an unintended incident, these lines of communication can also serve as ready conduits to quickly cool down the temperature and avoid further escalation. Of course, having honest discussions with those who agree with you is often easy and often even pleasant. But having frank dialogues with those who disagree is mostly more challenging and contentious, but arguably even more crucial. As Winston Churchill once said "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war". And by genuine dialogue, I mean talking with, rather than talking at, one another, and listening, and not just hearing.

Amongst defence and security establishments, there are bilateral and multilateral platforms that allow for such dialogues and exchanges of views. For example, the ASEAN Defence Ministerial Meeting (ADMM) and ADMM-Plus that provide opportunities for voices – including differing ones – can have a place in the regional discourse. Events such as the one we are attending today as well as the Shangri-La Dialogue hosted by Singapore also provide avenues for lively and sometimes heated conversations, both on stage and off-stage away from the public eye. In fact, I have been told that the Shangri-La Dialogue is rather efficient at providing multiple bilateral and group "speed-dating" opportunities for defence ministers and officials over a short two to three days. We should make full use of such opportunities. I think these are occasions where it is perfectly acceptable, or even desirable, to have multiple dates back to back.

Here, let me also share my view that non-governmental entities such as think tanks can play an important role. For instance, in June this year, Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, or RSIS for short, organised a trilateral exchange that brought together prominent American, Chinese and Singaporean think-tanks and academics at the same platform to discuss views, and exchange views on US-China relations and trajectories. You know it is hard to bring parties, China and US, together on occasions like this, but RSIS, as a Singapore think tank, managed to get this trilateral going. I believe that such Track 1.5 and 2 dialogues can complement government-to-government communication channels, especially in times of heightened geopolitical tensions.

My second point is about pursuing practical cooperation with one another.

A good starting point would be to look for areas of mutual interest where practical cooperation can be pursued. Setting aside differences, disagreements, and even disputes in other areas, these can be common opportunities where parties can benefit from working together. Or the many areas of common challenges which can only be addressed through collaboration.

Take maritime security for example, where all countries have a common interest in maintaining open and safe sea lanes of communication in the face of maritime threats such as terrorism, piracy and natural disasters. In 2009, Singapore established the Information Fusion Centre, or IFC for short, in Singapore to facilitate maritime threat information sharing among partners. The IFC's core guiding principle is inclusive practical cooperation. The network is made up of a diverse group of countries, from different regions, with different political systems and ideologies, and some of which subscribe to different security groupings that may not see eye-to-eye on various issues. Yet, today, at IFC, members participate in practical exchange of operational maritime security information for the common and practical interest of keeping our sea lanes open and safe. This practical cooperation takes place on a daily basis, and grows from strength to strength, despite the geopolitical tensions and disagreements elsewhere.

Earlier, I mentioned the ADMM-Plus. Besides being a platform for dialogue and exchange of views for Ministers and Senior Officials, the ADMM-Plus has an important feature called Expert Working Groups that promote practical cooperation at the professional and operational levels. Today, there are seven such Expert Working Groups – in counter terrorism, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, maritime security, military medicine, peacekeeping operations, humanitarian mine action and cyber-security. Each of these group's activities is open to all ADMM-Plus members, and these Expert Working Groups have a regular tempo of cooperation in the form of information and knowledge exchange, capability building and exercises. All ADMM-Plus members take turn co-chairing each Expert Working Group in pairs: one PLUS member, and one ASEAN member. ROK is a good example, because ROK is leading, together with Malaysia, the Experts' Working Group on Cyber Security.

Ladies and gentlemen, my third point is about establishing confidence-building measures.

Confidence-building measures include planned procedures that prevent hostilities, avert escalations and build trust between countries. These measures do so by helping to shape the behaviour of countries to be more predictable, so that we can minimise the risk of misunderstandings or miscalculations leading to escalation and crisis.

We have good examples of efforts on such measures in our part of the world, in our region. In 2017, for example, all 18 ADMM-Plus countries adopted the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, or CUES for short, for their navies. A few training exercises, which incorporated this Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, was also conducted in 2019. Incidentally, I should mention that these are initiatives that were led by Korea and Singapore, when we were co-chairing the Expert Working Group on maritime security under the ADMM-Plus between 2017 and 2020. In 2018, ASEAN countries adopted what we call the Guideline for Air Military Encounters, or GAME for short. This is the aerial equivalent of CUES, and ASEAN airmen also practised these guidelines through a virtual table-top exercise, even during Covid-19, hosted by Vietnam. I believe that guidelines like these help reduce the likelihood of incidents or accidents between military vessels and aircraft that can spiral into conflict.

Confidence-building measures, in my view, can also be undertaken by security groupings. In recent years, many new security groupings have been formed around the world, and also in this region. And this has raised some concern. Some have wondered if the proliferation of new security groupings may increase friction, divisions or even heighten tension. My own view is that the existence of security groupings is not new, and in many ways a fact of life, for as countries, we would naturally seek out like-minded partners that we can work with and to advance our shared interests. However, I think the key is to go about the groupings' activities in a way that still maintains the confidence of others. Let me give an example. The Five Power Defence Arrangements, or FPDA is one of the oldest defence partnerships in the world, of which Singapore is a member. Under the FPDA, providing reassurance to the region has been a principle of the FPDA, and this core principle was most recently reaffirmed during the FPDA's 50th anniversary just last year. And one of the ways the FPDA provides reassurance to other countries in the region who is not in the grouping is by regularly inviting countries from outside the grouping to observe its exercises. This, we believe, is an example of a measure that can also serve as confidence-building in its own right.

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. Trust is often difficult to build. And once destroyed, or undermined, it is even harder to rebuild. But as hard as it is, we have a responsibility and possibility to nurture trust amongst us, part of which, I believe can be done through opening open dialogue and communications, pursuing practical cooperation and establishing confidence building measures. And through my examples, Professor Kim, I hope that I also cited Korea as well as Singapore – these are examples of countries of different size, countries in different parts of the world, which can play a part in all these measures. I think, bit by bit, if we all do that, we can create the conditions for more virtuous cycles and reduce vicious cycles in the world today. And all these can add up to a reservoir of trust which we can tap on to cooperate on challenges and opportunities and maintain peace and stability in this region today and tomorrow.

Thank you.