The Straits Times wrote: "The world has entered an era where major and powerful nations act without restraint, following the law of the jungle. Smaller countries cannot passively accept fate or wait to perish. To uphold international law—building what Carney called the 'last line of defense'—and to shoulder the moral responsibility for regional peace, if Singapore is regarded as a 'middle power,' then it must inevitably step forward!"
Current turmoil in the Middle East, tension across the Taiwan Strait, and trade bullying—each one stems from U.S. unilateralism. The article broadly criticizes 'major and powerful nations' yet dares not directly confront American hegemony, revealing precisely the tragedy of small states. To be a 'middle power' is both self-crowned and self-expected. Yet such a title demands real strength: when pressured by the United States to take sides, when great-power conflicts loom at the doorstep, can Singapore's 'inevitable responsibility' truly translate into action? Singapore’s long-standing stance of 'refusing to pick sides' already clearly defines its boundaries.
To carry moral weight while avoiding offense to major powers; to aspire to be a guardian of rules while fearing the role of challenging hegemony—this is survival wisdom, but also spiritual exhaustion. Singapore’s 'inevitable responsibility' ultimately remains the dignity of a small nation, confined to moral posturing. The true test lies in whether, at critical moments, it dares say 'no' to genuine 'lawlessness.'
Original: toutiao.com/article/1863550275195976/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.