Before reading the article, please click "Follow" to facilitate discussion and sharing. The author will live up to expectations and create better content on time and in quantity.

Wen | Kung Fu Fish

The previous word

In the speech hall of the IMF headquarters, Singapore President Shandaman said "China should give up self-sufficiency", like a thunderbolt thrown into the torch of the Chinese-American game, instantly sparked global public opinion, some say that this is Singapore's completely reversed to the United States, some blaspheme it is standing and speaking without pain, and some guess that behind this hides the small country seamless calculus.

On the one hand, it is the hegemonic anxiety of superpowers, and on the other hand, it is the survival and persistence of rising powers. Why does a head of state without real power dare to dictate China on the stage in Washington?

Is Singapore¡¯s ¡°balance¡± play out?

Many people don't know the name of the president of Singapore and Shandamann, all with "invisible attributes", this country is implemented by the Westminster parliamentary system, the president is a "national symbol", in the hand there is not much real power, really counted is the prime minister Yuan and his cabinet, just like the British queen can not handle British politics, Shandamann's speech is more representative of a macro gesture, not Singapore's official policy.

But behind the gesture hides the survival code of Singapore for decades, as a city country that even fresh water must depend on Malaysia's supply, a grain of rice can not be planted, Singapore's root is all about global trade, it is like a super-transit station in the Pacific, ships come often, goods come in and out, and the two major countries of the United States, is the two major pillars that support this transit station operation.

Singapore's exports of goods and services to China and the United States account for about 30%. China buys its mechanical and electrical products and chemical products, while the United States wants its high-end services and precision manufacturing. Without either side, Singapore's economy will have to be discounted.

Since the Lee Kuan Yew era,"balance on both sides" has become the foundation of Singapore's founding. It not only joins the US-led "Five Nations Joint Defense" to seek security protection, but also actively embraces the "the belt and road initiative" advocated by China to earn a lot of money. It maintains tacit understanding with the United States politically and is deeply bound to China economically. This kind of operation of "meeting both sides" has made Singapore prosperous in the game of big powers. However, in recent years, Singapore's balance beam has become more and more difficult to walk.

Between 2024 and 2025, a noticeable change is taking place, and the capacity of China-Old Railways and Central European routes continues to rise, and more and more Chinese goods begin to circumvent the Strait of Malacca, directly via land to Europe.

This is not good news for Singapore, which relies on ports for its livelihood. Data shows that the transit share of Singapore's ports has dropped by 4.7% in the past two years, and financial business revenue to China has also dropped by 8%.

What makes it even more anxious is that the United States is engaged in the "Indo-Pacific Economic Framework" and has included Singapore in the "supply chain friendly shore" system. It seems to be a benefit, but in fact it is making it a "low-end transit station" for the U.S. industrial chain. High-profit, high-tech links still have to be in the hands of the United States.

On the one hand, China's process of autonomy is accelerating and its dependence on external hubs is reduced. On the other hand, the United States is reconstructing its industrial chain and wants to tie Singapore to its own chariot. Singapore, which is attacked from both sides, can only rush out to "persuade peace."

But preferring to choose this sensitive place in Washington, to say to the American audience "China should give up self-sufficiency", it is inevitable that people think a lot, is it not balancing can not play to choose the side?

What is even more interesting is Singapore's "double standard operation." Shandaman advised China not to be self-sufficient, but Singapore itself quietly set a goal of achieving full self-sufficiency in fresh water by 2061.

At present, Singapore's freshwater self-sufficiency rate is only 38%, and most of it still relies on Malaysia's supply. In order to get rid of dependence, it has spent tens of billions on desalination and rainwater harvesting. It desperately pursues "self-sufficiency" but does not allow China to seize the initiative in key areas. This logic is simply incomprehensible. In the final analysis, it is still the anxiety of small countries that is causing them to exercise autonomy for security, but they are afraid that major countries will cut off their own financial path.

Self-sufficiency is a trap or a shield.

The most eye-catching in Shandaman's speech is the six words "to give up self-sufficiency", but a little bit of understanding of China's history and reality knows that this is basically a hypocrisy, when did China say to engage in "complete self-sufficiency"?

After the founding of the People's Republic of China, western countries led by the United States imposed an "iron barrel blockade" on China. The specially established Paris Coordinating Committee listed 2,100 kinds of strategic materials on the embargo list, ranging from precision instruments to military technology. China is not allowed to buy anything. At that time, it was not that China didn't want to cooperate, but that people didn't give it a chance at all.

There is no way but to bite the teeth into "self-sufficiency", to tighten the strap to establish a complete industrial system, from two bullets a star to basic industry, it is in this spirit that China has stood firm in the blockade.

Looking at China's current emphasis on "independent control in key areas", it is not the same thing as "complete self-sufficiency". In 2018, the United States launched a trade war, and technology companies such as Huawei were included in the "entity list". The "Chip and Science Act" was introduced in 2022, and the blockade of high-end technology was further escalated. In 2025, the U.S. Congress was discussing a new round of technological restrictions on China, and Europe also followed suit. It is not to let China cooperate, but clearly to block China's development path.

Take chips as an example. China is the world's largest chip consumer, but in the past, most high-end chips relied on imports. As soon as the United States imposed an embargo, many technology companies almost shut down. Data shows that China's self-sufficiency rate of domestic chips has increased to 32%, but this does not mean that China has to work behind closed doors. Low-end chips are still imported in large quantities and used to support the global industrial chain. What China wants is not to be stuck in key areas.

It's like cooking at home. You can buy rice and noodles at ordinary times, but you have to have your own food stock at the critical moment, and you can't get hungry when others cut off their supply.

Shandaman said China's self-sufficiency will "disconnect from the global scientific and technological system", but the fact is the opposite, China's foreign trade dependence in 2024 is still 35.8%, is the world's largest trading country, after RCEP came into force, China's trade volume with ASEAN continues to grow, and the share in 2025 has risen to 28%.

After realizing the breakthrough of autonomous technology, China's new energy vehicles and photovoltaic products have moved more to the world, and ASEAN's exports of new energy products have increased by 45%.

More playful is the "balance point" in Shandaman's mouth, this balance point is the red line set by the West, China can develop, but can not go beyond the United States, can innovate, but can not challenge the Western technological hegemony, can be rich, but must obey.

This is not a balance. It clearly wants China to give up its right to development. The United States engages in technical blockade and trade protection, but does not allow China to engage in independent defense. This logic of "only allowing state officials to set fires, but not allowing people to light lights" can only be expressed on the stage in Washington.

The eyes of the international community are bright, the EU think tank on the speech of Shandamann "ignoring the reality of the U.S. blockade", most developing countries support China's "autonomous and controllable" policy, because they have all experienced the taste of the West's neck, even in the U.S. domestic business community, also to China disconnected quite a little word, in 2024 the U.S. exports of high-tech products to China declined 18%, many enterprise profits have been damaged by complaints.

The reconstruction of global industrial chains under the Sino-US game

The reason why Shandaman's speech caused such a big controversy was essentially to poke at the core pain point of the Sino-US game. The current global landscape is at a crossroads of major changes unseen in a century. China and the United States, the two superpowers, are engaged in a strategic game about the future.

The anxiety of the United States stems from China's rapid rise. After World War II, the United States has never encountered such a powerful competitor. China's GDP has soared from 12.3% of the United States in 2000 to more than 70% in 2023. In 5G, new energy, artificial intelligence and other key areas have achieved "overtaking in corners". This rise has broken the United States' long-standing "dominant perception" and plunged it into deep "hegemonic anxiety."

In order to preserve the position of the global leader, the U.S. policy has completely turned, in the past shouted the slogan of "free trade", but now engage in trade protectionism, tariffs on China's $3700 billion commodities, in the past labeled "openness and inclusion", but now sparked anti-immigration wave, expatriation sentiment increased, in the past to promote globalization, but now busy with "risking" and "disconnecting the chain", trying to rebuild China's industrial chain.

In 2025, the US "Indo-Pacific Economic Framework" (IPEF) is accelerating, pulling Singapore, Vietnam these countries into their own supply chain system, on the surface is win-win cooperation, in fact, to make the Asian countries as "low-end processing plants", and the United States itself firmly controls the core link of high-profit, high-tech, just like the factory owners, the United States wants to be eternal technology monopoly and profit monopoly, not allowing workers to have their own core technology.

And China's choice is "defensive opening up", you tap my chip, I will develop it myself, you will ban my light engraving machine, I will jointly investigate, you will break my supply chain, I will build a multilateral cooperation system.

China's "self-sufficiency" has never been to close doors to build cars, but to master the initiative in the repressed areas, to ensure that it can still develop normally when encircled, like facing other people's fists, you can not only hide flashes, but also have to protect your own shield.

After China's technological breakthrough in the field of new energy vehicles in 2025, it has not closed its doors to play for itself, but continues to expand foreign cooperation, products are exported to more than 100 countries and regions around the world, under the "Belt and Road" initiative, China's green infrastructure projects with countries along the road are rooted, helping others, but also expanding its own development space, this "independent control + open cooperation" double-wheel drive, is re-shaping the global industrial chain pattern.

The reason why Singapore is eager to "persuade" is that this restructuring of the pattern will destroy its own rice bowl. It is used to being a "middleman" between China and the United States, relying on entrepot trade and financial services to make money. Once China and the United States form their own industrial chain systems, or China reduces its dependence on external hubs, Singapore's hub status will be affected.

But what it fails to see clearly is that the logic of the world has changed. The old pattern of "big countries relying on each other and small countries benefiting" is being replaced by a new pattern of "multipolar cooperation and equal competition."

Now ASEAN countries are facing the same difficulty of choice as Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and other countries both participate in China-led RCEP, but do not dare to blame the United States, can only be carefully balanced between the two major camps.

In 2025, ASEAN's trade volume with China has risen to 28%, and its trade with the United States accounts for only 17%. It is becoming more and more dependent on China economically, but it is inextricably linked with the United States in terms of security. This dual structure of "the economy depends on China and the security depends on the United States" puts them in a dilemma in the Sino-US game.

Who can define the New World Order?

Shandaman's speech was essentially anxiety scream of the old order beneficiaries about the new order, he hoped China would give up its autonomy, maintain the old pattern of China-US "interdependence", so that Singapore would continue to share a piece in the middle, but the wheel of history rolled forward, will not stop because of a speech.

From the modern humiliation history to the current national rejuvenation, China has long understood that the fate of the great powers must be in its own hands.

Autonomy and controllability in key areas is not to fight against anyone, but to have the confidence not to be stuck by others. Just like food security and energy security, scientific and technological security is also the core interest of the country, and no one can expect others to hand over core technologies.

U.S. containment policy, appears to be agitated, but in fact it is difficult to stop China's development, since the 2018 trade war, the United States has added so many tariffs, China's economy is still growing, the chip embargo is so severe, China's scientific and technological enterprises have instead accelerated independent research and development, the fact proves that the blockade will only stimulate China's innovation vitality, and the pressure will only make China stronger.

For small and medium-sized countries like Singapore, instead of being entangled in "Sino-US balance," it is better to actively embrace a multipolar pattern. In 2025, Singapore has begun to adjust its strategies and strengthen cooperation with China in digital trade and green finance, trying to build an "ASEAN-China cooperation hub."

This may be a wise move. Under the multipolar pattern, the value of a small country is not to be a "follower" of one party, but to be a "bridge of cooperation" between different camps, rather than a "messenger of surrender".

It is not that there is no room for cooperation between China and the United States. In fields such as climate change, public health, and global economic governance, the two countries share common interests. In 2025, China and the United States will make a breakthrough in carbon neutrality technical cooperation, jointly developing low-carbon steel-making technology has been commercialized.

This shows that as long as the two sides abandon the confrontational thinking and adhere to equal dialogue, we can find a win-win entry point, the new trend of global governance is already clear, the era of unipolar hegemony is passing, and the era of multi-polar cooperation is coming.

In 2025, RCEP will be expanded to 16 countries, more than 100 BRICS New Development Bank projects will be implemented, and the "Global Development Initiative" advocated by China has received support from 152 countries. More and more countries are realizing that the global order should not be defined by a certain country, but should be built with the joint participation of all countries.

Shandaman's speech in Washington is like a mirror, lighting the complexity and chaos of the transitional period of the global pattern, there is superpower hegemony anxiety, there is the survival of rising powers, there are small and medium-sized countries, but no matter how twisted the process, cooperation and win-win is ultimately the heart of the people.

conclusion

In fact, China has never been obliged to take care of whom¡¯s sense of security, nor will it change its development path because of the few words of others.Singapore can choose its way of existence, but does not qualify to guide how a great country develops, a true global new order, should be to respect the independent choice of all countries, so that every country can participate in cooperation and realize development on an equal basis.

This storm caused by a speech will eventually pass, but the big power game and pattern reconstruction behind it have just begun, and the road ahead will not be smooth sailing, but China will go on firmly and write a new chapter in history with its own development. Those countries that are still struggling with "choosing sides" may understand that in the multipolar era, the best choice is not to attach to one side, but to enhance their core competitiveness and be masters of their own destiny.