‘Singapore’s perpetual karma is to be relevant’: Tommy Koh on 55 years in global diplomacy

6 words to learn — tap cards to flip and save favorites.

Professor, thanks for sitting down with us today to have this chat. We'll dive straight into it. 55 years of service in MFA. How do you feel right now? And what were some career highlights that you would like to

share? First, I feel very well. I feel very well, very happy. I look back with great satisfaction through the 50 years I spent working with the ministry in the foreign service. Early on, when you joined all those years

back, you mentioned that the Singapore's foreign service was still very, very young back then. No, we had no foreign service when I joined. When I came back from the UN in 1971, we still had no foreign service. It

took me one year to persuade Lee Kuan Yew to establish a foreign service. He was not convinced. You know, I tried to convince him. He said, “Tommy, which ambitious young men or women would join such a small service?

You join the civil service, administrative service, you have many opportunities.” I said, “Yes, but there are some people who are attracted to this kind of life,” you know? And say every country needs a foreign service. We need institutional

memory. We need intellectual capacity, you know. So I finally convinced him in 1972 to establish (a foreign service). So over time, did the state of Singapore, as we evolved, and went from freshly independent, to a more successful and

developed nation, did it change our foreign policy approach in any way? So when we started in 1965, we were really a new kid on the block. We never prepared for independence, so we didn't have a foreign service. And

the first generation of ambassador were all borrowed from various parts of Singapore, you know. We were just thrown into the deep end. Like me, I was 30 years old. Left the law school straight to the UN as ambassador.

But we learn on the job and we collectively contributed, I think, to the founding principal of our foreign policy. Which is the one ... Our number one objective is to protect the independent sovereignty and territorial integrity of Singapore.

Number two, to try to expand our economic space and political space. Number three, to make the maximum number of friends and the least number of enemies. Number four although we are a very small country, we are not without

agency. And we mustn't adopt the attitude that we have no choice but to submit to the great powers and to bigger countries. This was a very valuable lesson I learned from Lee Kuan Yew and Rajaratnam. We may be

small, but we are not without agency. We will defend our rights, even against much bigger countries. So those were the founding principles ... And one more principle from Lee Kuan Yew is that small countries have no inherent relevance

to the world. So it is Singapore’s perpetual karma to be relevant and useful to other countries and to the world. What were some career highlights or any memorable things that happened that you can recall? I think the most

important challenge that the original five ASEAN faced was in late 1978, when Vietnam invaded Cambodia. We also wanted to free Cambodia from Vietnamese control and hegemony. And it was the ten year campaign. Started in 1978, concluded in 1991

with the Paris Agreement. So that was one of the longest period of my life. What we wanted is to free Cambodia from external control, give them a new future. So that was one of the longest rolling negotiations ...

The second longest negotiation would be the law of the sea. Took 9 plus years of my life. And then the final year I was elected president, so it gave me a chance to bring it to a close to

adopt the UN convention of the law of the sea. Which I have once described as the Constitution of the oceans. What can we as small states do if the, what you call rogue states, is actually a powerful country?

Like what can other countries ... Well, look at our record at the UN. In 1978, Singapore condemned Vietnam for invading Cambodia. 1979, we condemned the Soviet Union for invading Afghanistan. In 1983, we condemned the United States for invading

Grenada. So we were not afraid of the Soviet Union and the United States. We may be small, but we are not without agency, and small countries must stand up and defend the system or the system will be lost.

For you, what’s the most biggest challenge in being a diplomat? I came back from academia, you know. It is to reconcile theory with practice. You may believe that international law is the most important thing in the world, but

when you are at the UN and you saw how the Soviet Union completely ignored international law, invaded Czechoslovakia, overthrew the government, then you realise the world is more complicated than we taught our students in the law school. So

the challenge for me in the last 55 years is how do I reconcile theory and practice. Not to give up and be cynical, but to be pragmatic and idealistic at the same time. So you spent much of your

career defining and defending international law and multilateralism. But Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has described the current period of geopolitics as a moment of rupture. So how do you feel about this? How do you reconcile this? But it's not

the only time when international law and the rule of law have been abused. This happened during the Cold War. The country led by the Soviet Union had no respect for the rule law. To them, the most important factor

in international relations is power. Especially power as expressed militarily. So do we give up? Not at all. We continue to build coalition with like-minded countries. We continue to believe we want to build a world governed by law rather

than by force. And even in the current situation, when a major country had gone rogue, I would say, you know, but the rest of us have not. The rest of us continue to believe in international law, in the

rule of law, in the courts tribunal and so on. So it is not a moment to despair. On the contrary, it must be a moment when we reaffirm our faith in international law and the rule of law. So

55 years of service, you’ve shared earlier about the principles on which our foreign policy is founded upon. What are some values which you personally hold and are guided by? You know, all these years? I think my colleagues and

I believe in Singapore. You don't believe in Singapore, you shouldn't be a diplomat. We believe in Singapore. We believe in defending Singapore’s national interest. But at the same time, we want Singapore to be a good citizen of the

world. What would you say to people who are considering joining the foreign service or becoming a diplomat, going down this career path, But have some doubts about it? How would you convince them that it's a worthy cause? Well,

look at my life and career. I've had a wonderful life and career. What's your life's highlight? Would you say working at MFA? The highlight of my life? Marrying my wife. Smart answer. And I will be eternally grateful to

her for being willing to sacrifice her medical career to support me and to support the children. Thanks for sitting down with us today to have this chat. Do I dive straight into it? 55 years of service in MFA.

You know. How do you feel right now? And what were some career highlights that you would like to share? First, I feel very well. I feel very well. Very happy. I look back with, great satisfaction through the 50

years I spent working with the ministry in a foreign city. So what were some career highlights or any memorable things that happened that, you know, you can recall? At the UN, And, the invasion by Vietnam of Cambodia frightened

the Thai because Vietnamese troops on the border between Thailand and Cambodia and the Thais felt threatened. So appealed to the rest of us to support them, which we did. We also wanted to free Cambodia from Vietnamese control and

had Germany, you know, and it was the ten year campaign started in 78, concluded in 1881 with the Paris Agreement. So that was one of the longest period. So my life what we wanted it to free Cambodia from

external control, give them a new future. So that was one of the longest rolling negotiations. The second longest negotiation would be the law of the sea. Took nine plus years of my life. And then the final year was

elected president, so gave me a chance to bring it to a close to adopt the UN convention of the law of the sea, which I have once described as the Constitution of the oceans. so it resulted in the

Paris Agreement. And then the second one is on clause. Negotiating the free trade agreement with the United States was a challenging but very satisfying two and a half years. This was in which year in 2000 concluded 2003. Another

memorable negotiation was when I was asked to lead a delegation to negotiate China in 1990. We we wanted to be the last country to have diplomatic relations with China. So in 1990, when the Indonesia resumed diplomatic relations with

China, it was our turn, you know, and I led the Singapore delegation, took us quite intense three months to get an agreement so that a major negotiation, I would say. Then I was being a lawyer of the Asian

Singapore in two legal disputes in Malaysia over land reclamation. One case and. So, so, so many. There's so many. It's such a wide range of things on the international front, looking abroad closer to home, you know, you've worked

under basically every single foreign minister since independence. Right. Who among the line up shaped your thinking the most? You're trying to get me into trouble, right? No, I'm just trying to get your thoughts on, like, you know, experience.

Obviously, the person who influenced me the most was the first foreign minister because Mr. Rajaratnam was foreign for 15 years. You know, from the birth of Singapore, 65 to 1980. I think he had the greatest impact on my

thinking practice of diplomacy. But every subsequent minister brought something to the table, and I learned, I would say it from every one of them. So over time. The state of Singapore, as we evolve and went from independent, freshly

independent to a no more successful and developed nation, did it change our foreign policy approach in any way necessarily? And, you know, over the years, was there any single Singapore foreign policy decision that you actually disagreed with? Not

really. I mean, there were maybe 1 or 2 occasions when I did not agree with some proposal and I made my views known. Fortunately, they were abandoned, otherwise I would have to resign from. So what were some of

those? Sorry, what were some of those? I cannot tell you. Oh, okay. But they were related to foreign policy steps that Singapore would have to take. Okay. So I mean, more broadly speaking, what were some biggest challenges that

you faced in the 55 years? And you know, anything you wish you had done differently? No. Why don't I go back to your earlier questions about how a foreign policy and diplomacy evolved over the last 61 years, you

know? So when we started in 1965, we were really a new kid on the block. We never prepared for independence. So we didn't have a foreign service. And the first generation of ambassador were all borrowed from various parts

of Singapore. You know, we were just thrown into the deep end like me. I was 30 years old, left the law school straight to the UN. But we we learn on the job and we collectively contributed, I think,

to the founding principal of our foreign policy, which is the one. Our number one objective is to protect the independent sovereignty and territorial integrity of Singapore. Number two, to try to expand our economic space and political Spain. Number

three, to make the maximum number of friends and the least number of enemies. Number four although we are a very small country, we are not without agency, and we mustn't adopt the attitude that we have no choice but

to submit to the great powers and to bigger country. This was a very valuable lesson I learned from you and Rajaratnam. We may be small, but we are not without agency. We will defend our rights even against much

bigger country. So those are the founding principles. And one more principle from you is that small countries have no inherent relevance to the world. So it is Singapore perpetual karma to be relevant and useful to other countries and

to the world. So I would say those are our founding principles. And have they know they have stood the test of time. Of course, over time the role play in the world differs. Right in the beginning we were

learning, observing, trying to understand how the world works, how the international system work. Later on, we became more mature. We were able to contribute back to the system. And now, I would say Singapore is highly respected at the

UN and in the world, and we give a lot back to the world. We have a large program of training people from the developing world, both here and in their own country, you know. this? Like what can other

countries. Well, look at our record. The UN in 1978, Singapore condemned Vietnam for invading Cambodia. 1979. We condemned the Soviet Union for in David, Afghanistan in 1983, we condemned the United States for invading Grenada. So we were not

afraid of the Soviet Union and the United States. We may be small, but we are not without agency, and small countries must stand up and defend the system or the system will be lost, you know, so we have

to use the institutions and platforms to as strongly as well as we can. And in a UN General Assembly to hold these great powers accountable. You mean you looking at the world in 2026? So ultimately you still believe

that international law can protect small states? To some extent, to a large extent. But at the end of the day, if a great power insists on using military force to pursue its objectives, there's nothing you can do. Like

Russia invaded Ukraine, right? It's wrong. But because Russia is very powerful and Ukrainian not so powerful, Ukraine couldn't stop the Russian from invading them. But the war goes on. You know, the Ukrainians have not submitted. How do you

overcome this? Myth is right. I mean, according to the scenario which you just laid out, it would seem like it would become a might versus might kind of scenario. Right? Then where does international law come in that we

hold we hold the country that violate international accountable, whether it is Russia, whether it's Israel, whether it's any other country. We must hold country that violate international law and the rule law countable. Profit managed to help, you know,

during the Cold War, you managed to have over 150 countries agree on what you know, the constitution for the world's oceans, the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea. So now, currently, arsenal in China have struggled

for decades to agree on a code of conduct for one C South China Sea. If you were put in charge of the Code of Conduct negotiations tomorrow, what would you be doing differently? The fundamental problem. In the negotiation

is not technical. The technical problems are easy to resolve, provided that political will and provide that as trust. So the fundamental problem at the moment is there's a deficit of trust between China and some of the outside country.

And this is reflected in the annual survey by our own Yusof Ishak Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Every year, the elite opinion makers of the 11 country are. Which country do you trust the least? And every year the

answer is China. So China has a problem. You know, I'm very good friends of China. I've told them in private, you have a problem. You are very powerful, very influential. But the people in this region don't trust you.

And without trust, a lot of things are not possible. Not possible to conclude the code of conduct and let people trust. So you will go further upstream and build that trust was rather than targeting the. So the technical

issues are not difficult. The geographical scope of the code, whether it should be legally binding. Those are the two primary issues. We see that China has different tiers of relationships with the various Asean countries, and based on this,

it's centrally still a reality. Or is it something that the Southeast Asian government just keeps saying, because the alternative or any alternative is uncomfortable. It just saying it's true. I mean, all the all the regional forum convened by

Asean and only asking can do it because the great power don't trust each other. China doesn't trust Japan. Japan doesn't trust China. China doesn't trust India. In China. China doesn't trust America. America doesn't run the only group of

countries that can convene these conferences and be a neutral chairman is Asean. So we are so-called driving the bus not because we are the biggest, but because we are acceptable. You know, everybody trusts us. We didn't we didn't

ask. In 2007, you said that Asean had an institutional deficit and didn't take its own commitments seriously enough. So that year, Singapore was a chair. We are set to take the helm again next year, nearly 20 years later.

Do you 207? Yeah, I checked the high level task force that drafted the ascent charter. Yes, the charter was adopted, came into force the following year. One of the purposes of the Asean charter is to make our commitment

more seriously. You know, that's one of the purposes. So now, nearly 20 years later, you know, how would you how would you say I think we made I think we made a lot of progress. We've given to the

secretary general the power to issue every year a report card on each country saying that you made all this commitment and you have not complied with them. It is a very important report card. You know, of course, there's

no power enforcement except peer pressure, but it puts pressure on us to live up to our commitment. Also, the charter makes us take institutions more seriously because the Asean way to rely on network, you know, on informality, consensus

making. But we realized that, well, we don't want to be European Union, but we need stronger institutions. And one of the purposes of the charter is to give us stronger institutions. So with Asean expansion last year, Timor-Leste joined

Asean. So do you see opportunity, but do you also see challenges? Know what? What's your view on the monastic coming on board? Does it make things more complex for the Asean block to operate? I prefer to look on

the positive side. It is not possible for her to tell demolished you're not part of the region because they occupy half the island. The other half of the island belongs to Indonesia, you know. So geographically they are part

of the region. The question is, can they comply with the commitment? Can they contribute to our. Now that they are a member? I think all of us are anxious to help them. And Singapore is trying very hard to

help the team always catch up so that it can be a positive contributor rather than the ability. So Singapore only has one year as chair of Asean next year. What do you know? Do you think Singapore should? Or

rather, what issues do you think we should not spend a limited political bandwidth on in next year? And what else should we focus on? What do you ask me such a negative question. Okay. So okay. So the other

way. What do you think we should focus on instead? I think you should wait for PM Wong to make the announcement, but it's a very big thing. You know, we become chairman only 110, ten years, ten, 11 years.

And the world have high expectations of Singapore. So we will make our chairmanship next year meaningful and fruitful. I can't tell you that tell you yet, but our most important deliverable. But there will be several. There'll be several.

But looking at 2027 compared to the last time we were the chair in 2018, how much how how different is it? How would you say how different is it, how different it is? Well, economically, we made a lot

of progress. You know, members of the Asean countries may not know that collectively we have the fifth largest economy in the world and soon will be the fourth largest. A tremendous program. We remain united. We are force of

P. We have developed a culture of consultation, mutual accommodation, a spirit of give and take, and a growing sense of an identity among the people, you know. So I think the last ten years have been very good years.

Of course, the external environment is less propitious now, you know. Some of the big countries that the world have turned inward. They no longer support open economies and free trade, but the rest of us have not followed this

country. The rest of us continue to believe in free trade. We continue to negotiate free trade agreement. And I like to remind you that in the last two years, we concluded two new free trade agreements with eight Latin

American countries, first with Pacific Alliance. And then we saw, you know, so we continue to to believe in free and practice free trade and to move toward freer trade. We are not persuaded by the countries have now reversed

course and are preaching protectionism, because we know from history that protectionism, trade wars will lead to disaster. So 55 years of service. You shared earlier about the principles on which our foreign policy is founded upon. You know, what

are some values which you personally hold and are guided by? You know, all these years? I think my colleagues and I believe in Singapore, you don't believe in Singapore. You shouldn't be a diplomat. We believe in Singapore. We

believe in defending Singapore national interest. But at the same time, we want Singapore to be a good citizen of the world. We want to work for a peaceful region where countries are on good terms with each other, where

they cooperate one another and they help one another. And and to the extent we can, when the world call on us to be a neutral chairman, facilitator, special envoy, have done, as you know, you and asked me to

be a special envoy to try to make peace between Russia and Lithuania. And my government said, please do it. You know, although it took me to a part of the world completely not familiar, you know, when WTO asked

me to chair to dispute panel, I did it even though I'm not a trade lawyer. But in these many ways, we try to give back to the system Because in being a diplomat. Is to reconcile. How do you

what would you say to people who are considering joining the Foreign Service or becoming a diplomat going down this career path? But I have some doubts about it. Like, how would you convince them that it's a worthy cause?

Well, look at my life and career. I've had a wonderful life and career. Life highlight three. What's your life highlight? Would you say working at MFA? The highlight of my life? Marrying my wife. Smile. Answer. And I will

be eternally grateful to her for being willing to sacrifice a medical career to support me and to support the children. Yeah, but