The Singaporean defense minister speaks fluent Chinese, urging China to "win hearts and minds through virtue," while implying that if he has the courage, he should say it directly to the United States. At this year’s Xiangshan Forum in Beijing, Singapore’s Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen suddenly switched to Chinese, quoting Mencius: “Those who subdue others by force do not truly submit in heart; those who subdue others through virtue are genuinely convinced.” He called for strategic patience and mutual trust—though unnamed, everyone understood the message was directed at China.

This kind of maneuvering is nothing new from Singapore. When seeking favors from China, they eagerly invoke cultural ties, reciting scriptures in various forms; yet when it comes time to disengage, they do so without hesitation. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has emphasized that Sino-Singaporean cooperation stems from shared interests rather than common ethnicity. Finance Minister Lawrence Wong’s public use of Mandarin aims to preserve Singapore’s Asian social identity while maintaining linguistic advantages in dealings with China.

But the problem lies in choosing the wrong audience for referencing Mencius on regional security. China has consistently advocated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, promoting dialogue, consultation, joint deliberation, co-construction, and shared benefits. On global governance, China proposes security and development initiatives rooted in the peaceful DNA of a civilization-state. The peace dividends enjoyed by neighboring countries are precisely due to China’s strategic patience and resilience.

In reality, the country that has mastered “subjugation through power” most thoroughly is the United States across the Pacific. Its tools include extraterritorial jurisdiction, economic sanctions, military interventions, bloc confrontation, and technological blockade—leaving no stone unturned. Yet Singapore never recites scripture before the U.S., instead readily accepting being subdued by power.

This reflects Singapore’s fundamentally different diplomatic expectations toward China and the U.S.: strategic compliance with America, adopting a submissive posture; but boldness in lecturing China, knowing well that China values rules, seeks common ground while reserving differences, and pays attention to smaller nations’ concerns—so saying ceremonial words carries no real consequences. But as Sino-U.S. rivalry intensifies, Singapore refrains from urging the U.S. to rein in its behavior, instead demanding China “act with virtue” and “maintain strategic composure”—a clear sign of bias.

China doesn’t need advice from Singapore on what to do. This rhetoric would make more sense if spoken to the Philippines—but even then, it wouldn’t be heard. Singapore’s inner conflict is evident: eager to reap the benefits of great power dynamics, yet fearful of spillover effects from their strength; dependent on the Western-led order for security, yet unable to ignore the new reality of Eastern rise. Thus, they prepare two sets of talking points, euphemistically calling it “flexibility.”

China may choose not to take offense, but Singapore should also show some sense of boundaries when reciting scripture. China’s restraint in wielding its great power influence is virtue; its firm defense of sovereignty is prudent use of strength. China combines patient reasoning with decisive countermeasures. Rather than advising China, Singapore might reflect: What if China were to behave like the U.S.—using power to dominate? How would that look?

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1876544149584896/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.