Statement: The content of this article is written with references to authoritative materials in combination with personal opinions, and the source has been specified at the end of the text, please be aware.
On 16 October, Singapore’s President Shandaman delivered a speech at the IMF headquarters in Washington, D.C., publicly suggesting that China abandon the “self-sufficiency” route and continue to rely on the US-European technology system.
This word comes out, so that many people do not understand, a small country even drinking water must look at the neighbor's face, why to run to the United States on the ground to point out China's development?
The road forced by blockade
Shandaman said that China's pursuit of "complete self-sufficiency" will be separated from the global system, this is not right to hear, when did China say to close the door for the day?
Let's start with Huawei. In 2019, the United States suddenly included Huawei on the entity list, and chip supply was cut off at random. Huawei's mobile phones, which had been selling well before, suddenly lost their "heart" and their business almost stopped. If it were any country that had experienced this kind of feeling strangled by someone, it wouldn't want to do it again, would it? Since then, China has invested money in chip research and development not deliberately to decouple from the world, but was forced to have no choice but to save itself.
Let's look at the actual data: From 2018 to 2024, the United States blacklisted more than 3000 China companies, and the technologies that restrict exports are all hard currency-core areas such as chips, lithography machines, and artificial intelligence are all in it. In this case, if China does not develop its own technology, will it wait to be stuck until it cannot survive?
There is also food. China always emphasizes "grass absolutely safe", but never said not to import. In 2024, China is still the world's largest soybean importer, these soybeans are mainly used to press oil, make feed.
The new energy field can further explain the problem, in 2024, China's new energy vehicles exports more than 1.2 million vehicles, photovoltaic products sold to more than 150 countries. containers fitted with new energy vehicles made in China, photovoltaic panels to the world, this is like to get away from the global market?
The anxiety of small countries is written on their faces
In fact, its land area is more than 700 square kilometers, smaller than many Chinese cities, 60% of freshwater to buy from Malaysia, grain almost all depend on imports.
But after China opened the Arctic route, the situation is different. It only takes 18 days to travel from Ningbo to Europe, which is half as fast as taking the Suez Canal, and transportation costs can be reduced by 30%. This is a direct impact on Singapore's ports. If less goods pass through the Strait of Malacca every year, Singapore's income will be less. Therefore, it is anxious to persuade China not to open new routes, not to develop independent technology, and it is best to follow the old path of the past.
But anxiety is anxiety, and you can't use your own logic to ask others, right? Singapore itself is promoting the "2061 Freshwater Self-sufficiency Plan" and wants to get rid of its dependence on Malaysia's water supply. According to Shandaman, should Singapore also abandon this plan and continue to rely on neighbors for water supply before it can be regarded as "integrating into regional cooperation"?
This double standard is too obvious. Small countries engage in self-sufficiency for security, which is called taking precautions, while big countries engage in independence for security, which is called destroying the balance? This account can't be counted no matter how you calculate it.
Who is hearing this in Washington?
Shandaman chose to make these remarks at the IMF's annual meeting. The location itself is very interesting. Washington is the territory of the United States, and the IMF is an international financial institution dominated by the United States. It is difficult not to think too much about China specifically mentioned on this occasion and also suggested that China should not be too independent.
In recent years, the United States has been engaging in "decoupling and breaking links" and pulling allies to engage in the so-called "friendly offshore outsourcing" system in order to jointly restrict China. Singapore claims to be neutral, but the Changi Naval Base has stationed U.S. troops all year round and often cooperates with the U.S. position on the South China Sea issue. Now he is persuading China to give up its independence in front of the United States. The choice of timing and occasion is really unbelievable. It is a pure goodwill reminder.
To put it back, if Singapore really cares about regional stability, why not persuade the United States to stop the technological blockade? why not to remind the United States not to move on to sanction foreign companies? only persuade the blockade party not to resist, such a "persuasion to persuade only one side" approach, Chinese people have seen too many, long ago not fresh.
Shandaman said that China and the United States should find a "stable balance point", which sounds very rational. But think carefully, what is this balance point? Should China continue to do low-end manufacturing and leave high-end technology to the West? Is it to make China's companies forever subject to U.S. chip export controls?
This balance is essentially to maintain an unequal international division of labor. Western countries master core technologies and high-profit links, while China is responsible for assembly and OEM to earn some hard-earned money. This system has indeed enabled China to develop in the past few decades, but now it is time to break through.
For example, China produces more than half of the world's steel every year, and the output is frightening, but many high-end bearing steel and aviation steel have to be imported. Why? Because in the past, we focused on scale expansion and failed to master the core technology. Now that China has begun to tackle special steel products and wants to make up for this shortcoming, should this also be said to be "destroying the balance"?
The balance in Singapore is to keep China at the low end of the industrial chain forever, do not climb upwards, do not seize the position of the West, this logic, China cannot accept.
China's own path
From China's "two bombs and one satellite" to Beidou navigation, from high-speed rail to 5G, every breakthrough was achieved in the blockade. All these experiences tell China that key technologies must be in its own hands, otherwise it will be handled at critical moments.
China does not oppose cooperation, nor has it ever said to close the doors to engage in construction. By 2024, China's goods trade import and export total exceeds 40 trillion yuan, continuing to maintain the position of the world's first goods trade country.
As for Singapore's concerns, they are issues it needs to address. China develops the Arctic route to give its own trade an additional insurance channel, not to target anyone. The cargo volume in the Strait of Malacca is still as high as it should be, and Singapore's port business will not collapse just because of a new route. The real threat is not China's independent development, but whether Singapore can adapt to changes in the global trade landscape.
The world is changing, and the old rules and order can no longer fully adapt to the new reality. China's development is not to challenge anyone, but to ensure that it can protect its own people and interests under any circumstances. No one can take this road for China, and no one is qualified to tell China how to go.
Singapore can continue to be its intermediary, but really do not need to worry about China's way of life, after all, how the days of 1.4 billion people are passed, the turn of other people's fingers.
Source of information:
Lianhe Zaobao [Shangdaman calls on China and the United States to avoid decoupling]
United Morning News [Arctic navigation: safety and environmental controversy]
China Ministry of Transportation Website [Documents of the Second Meeting of the China-Russia Arctic Shipping Roads Cooperation Subcommittee]
International Maritime Organization [Arctic Shipping Safety Report]