Did PM Lawrence Wong poke the dragon?

On 19 November 2025 at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum gala dinner in Singapore, Lawrence Wong was asked to analyse, from the view of Asia, the contentious and intense China-US rivalry and its spillovers in the region, with "this spat going on between Japan and China". Singapore's prime minister called for stability and de-escalation. Mr Wong even called for a normalisation of ties between Japan and China. His subtext: China's policy of nurturing historical grievances to fuel jingoist nationalism must seem bewildering and abnormal to the peoples living in Southeast Asian nations, which experienced a long Cold War in succession to WW2. (Or indeed, anyone living in the European Union.)

Right on cue, outraged online mobs in China were whipped into a frenzy by one Peking loyalist and online influencer Yu Pun-hoi in Hongkong and his ultra-nationalist collaborators in Shanghai. And then, panic and concern from various segments of Singaporeans who now feel Wong should not have poked the dragon and sparked off a bonfire.

Was Lawrence Wong unnecessarily provocative? How much of this controversy is his fault? Or was the online mob just the latest chapter in a long-running but increasingly ineffective Chinese influence campaign to decouple Singapore from the American security apparatus in the Asia Pacific? Or is this a sign that Singapore has a vocal homegrown faction that stands for realignment and Sincization?

Mob with pitchforks and torches, from Young Frankenstein.
"A riot is an ugly thing. And I think it's just about time that we had one!"

Did PM Wong say anything wrong?

It is unfortunate that those who have jumped to Mr Wong's defense are afflicted with the PSLE Mentality: The prime minister not just answered correctly a challenging question; he gave the only right answer; and it is unfair and traumatising that he and Singapore at large should be raked over the coals and treated as though he gave the wrong answer because it is apparently unpalatable to some listeners! We must therefore, like various former legislators and retired diplomats, explain tirelessly why Mr Wong's answer was altogether correct!

Gary Larson, The Far Side Gallery, 5/22/81

For the moment, let us assume that Mr Wong, like his defenders, believes what he said is correct. But is this consistent with the observed geopolitical position and positioning of Singapore and its neighbours? It has been noted by think tanks both foreign and local that Singapore as tiny state, practises a hedging strategy between China and the US. Its neighbours too are hedging between China and the US. Ultimately, Singapore, like its neighbours in the Asia Pacific, are beneficiaries of the post-war American order in the Pacific and trust the US more than a China that is economically ascendant on one hand but a disrupter of that order.

For instance, Singapore's closest neighbour Malaysia is the newest member of the China-led BRICS grouping, and that didn't stop it and other ASEAN members from signing a deal with Trump that will allow the US to pivot away from Chinese rare earth supply chains altogether.

Did PM Wong say the right thing wrongly instead?

Those afflicted with PSLE Mentality are blind to the possibility that one can arrive at the right answer but somehow still falter in delivering it.

To explain, let us return to the science of semiology. Communication does not happen in a vacuum: A message is a social construct that requires an ideal reader who shares common assumptions, knowledge, and skills as the author, in order to decode and interpret the message as intended by its author.

A semiologist would then ask: Was Mr Wong's analysis given at the right venue, at the right time, to the right audience? In addition, the semiologist would also respond to the supplications of the "pro-Chinese" voices in Singapore: Should Mr Wong have practised self-censorship in order to avoid the wrath of China's online mobs?

As far we we know, the Bloomberg New Economy forum was a closed-door event, invitation-only event for global political and private sector leaders. That was the ideal audience to whom Lawrence Wong presented his analysis, and the closed-door nature of the event protects Mr Wong and other participants from the need to self-censor.

In this respect, the long-running Bloomberg forum can be classified as a typical hybrid Track I/Track II diplomacy initiative led by the private sector. Pure and hybrid Track II initiatives are specifically designed to enable participants to informally and candidly explore issues and solutions that are too sensitive for official government channels. By this reasoning, Mr Wong had every right to be candid with his thoughts on the spat between China and Japan.

The real failure lies in...

How then did the message bleed so fast and so far out into the sphere of non-ideal, oppositional readers? Somehow Mr Wong's Prime Minister's Office saw fit to publish the entirety of the interview, while state broadcaster CNA posted the entire interview on YouTube. That's not to say that Bloomberg also posted the proceedings on YouTube.

Never has a self-inflicted wound hurt more. Observers are left to admire the inherent contradictions of a Track II diplomatic geopolitical forum that by sharing too much online, endangers the ability of its participants to participate fully and candidly in informal diplomacy; or the inherent contradictions of leaders who by explaining themselves to too wide an audience, undermine the strategic ambiguity required for their own geopolitical hedging.

Malaysia's geopolitical hedging shows where Singapore's leaders have gone wrong: It will no doubt ignore Chinese demands to explain its trade deals with the US as a way to maximise its strategic ambiguity. Anwar calculates correctly, as a beneficiary to a system that China is disrupting, that it is China who should be in the dark about what Malaysia really thinks of China even when Malaysia does benefits from its dealings with China. If Mr Wong had any of Anwar's geopolitical nous, he could've manoeuvred kept his Chinese cards closer to his chest while still dishing out his wisdom to the audience, or delegated either a cabinet minister, senior establishment think-tank analyst, or retired diplomat to play out those Chinese cards.

Or perhaps Bloomberg has decided that it is time to normalise the view that the Chinese challenge presents a threat to global stability, development, and prosperity and invite global leaders to discuss solutions? And that Singapore's leaders were aware of potential of a online backlash from Chinese quarters and willing to embrace the temporary fallout in order to gather more data on Chinese influence campaigns in Singapore?