Last updated:
George Yeo said that some people in India distrust close ties with China and some in Beijing underestimate India, but normalizing relations is in New Delhi’s strategic interest.
Former Foreign Minister of Singapore George Yeo at the Rising India Summit. File Image/News18
At a time when global fault lines are intensifying and Asia is readjusting its balance of power, News18’s Rising India Summit Brought together leaders, policy makers and strategic thinkers from around the world. The conversation went far beyond symbolism, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi adding political importance and visibility to the gathering. He struck a deep chord with how India sees itself in the rapidly changing world order.
Prominent international voices at the summit included Singapore’s former Foreign Minister, long-time observer of Asia’s strategic development and Padma Bhushan recipient George Yeo. A week after returning to Singapore, Yeo spoke exclusively with News18, offering a Southeast Asian perspective on India’s rise, its uneasy equation with China and the broader strategic landscape spanning from ASEAN to Washington.
He reflected on why India and China still lack basic mutual understanding, whether New Delhi gives ASEAN the priority it deserves, and why Singapore remains cautious about joining BRICS. He also reflected on India’s Indo-Pacific strategy, its decision to withdraw from RCEP and why, from a Southeast Asia perspective, stability between Asia’s two great civilizations is not a luxury but a necessity.
Edited excerpts below:
India and Singapore often refer to each other as “natural partners”. Beyond symbolism, what is the structural difference that is still holding this relationship back?
Singapore itself is too small to be a natural partner for India. The actual context is bigger. Singapore matters most for India as a gateway to South East Asia and East Asia. If India sees Singapore as a portal to ASEAN and Greater China, the relationship holds much greater economic and strategic importance.
It is not enough for India to take interest in Singapore alone. This interest should spread to a wider area. Similarly, Singapore can play an important role in helping ASEAN and Greater China understand India better. When you frame the partnership within that broader geography, Singapore really becomes a natural partner for India.
Trade is strong, defense ties are growing and fintech cooperation is on the rise. But is there enough strategic coordination on China?
There is still very little mutual understanding between India and China. In India, some view deeper ties with China with suspicion. In China, there are some sections who look down on India, although opposition to India is much less intense than elsewhere in China. What bothers me most is the basic lack of knowledge each side has about the other, even at the level of geography and history.
From Singapore’s perspective, there is much to be gained from the normalization of relations between these two great civilizations. Unlike the higher Himalayas, they do not share a long history of continuous conflict. The 1962 border war remains a scar in India, but it had largely faded from Chinese memory until the recent clashes at Galwan. Given that there was no clearly delineated border between the British Raj and Qing China, it is natural that the border remained a major agenda item. But it should not define the entire relationship, which should be primarily economic and political.
Singapore’s sincere hope is that India and China move towards better relations. This will not only benefit India, China and Singapore but will also help secure peace and development in Asia for decades to come.
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath recently visited Singapore to attract investments. How do Singapore investors view India’s largest state today: as an opportunity or regulatory risk?
Both. Uttar Pradesh has made remarkable progress under the leadership of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. It was important that he come in person to connect with the business community. Very few Singaporeans are familiar with UP or the changes taking place there in recent years.
More Singaporean companies should visit the state and see the ground reality instead of relying only on news reports. Of course, there are risks too. But those risks must be weighed against the opportunities created by policy reforms and the steady growth of the UP economy.
India’s infrastructure is improving and its middle class continues to expand. The opportunity is substantial for investors willing to take a long-term view.
Singapore’s urban governance model is often cited globally. What lessons can India learn from Singapore while building next generation cities?
Singapore, as an experiment in urban planning and municipal management, may be of interest to Indian cities. Many Chinese cities carefully study Singapore’s successes and failures to draw lessons for their own development.
Singapore is in no position to suggest solutions for Indian cities, he said. We are not deeply familiar with the local ground conditions. But we can certainly share our experiences openly and help Indian policy makers and urban planners examine what worked for us, what did not and why.
Furthermore, Singapore has long been India’s gateway to ASEAN. In your view, has India taken full advantage of this, or is there still untapped potential in Southeast Asia?
I have been feeling for a long time that India does not give adequate priority to ASEAN. There remains a lot of untapped potential. ASEAN is India’s nearest neighbour.
Historically, relations between India and Southeast Asia have been shaped not by conflict but by trade, culture and cooperation. That foundation is a strength on which India can build. If India engages more consistently and strategically with ASEAN, the benefits could be significant for both sides.
The centrality of ASEAN is often talked about, but is ASEAN still strategically relevant in the era of US-China rivalry?
ASEAN has always been a buffer between India and China. This is where the strategic circles of both civilizations overlap. Today, ASEAN is benefiting greatly from the rise of China, and is viewing India’s rise positively. A strong India adds balance to the region, and balance is something ASEAN deeply values.
In the context of the US–China rivalry, ASEAN’s tendency is not to take sides but to maintain peace and cooperation. Its long-term approach has been to remain friendly with all major powers. If one power exerts too much pressure, ASEAN’s natural response is to lean in the other direction to maintain balance.
India exited the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). In your view, did that decision weaken its credibility in ASEAN capitals?
Yes, especially because the decision was taken at the last moment. He said, we understand the compulsions of Indian domestic politics. My hope is that India will eventually join RCEP, and hopefully sooner rather than later. I am sure other members, including China, will be willing to show flexibility on areas that are particularly sensitive for India.
Even outside RCEP, India should continue to engage the grouping at the political level. Over time, this could create the conditions for economic convergence. If India, in addition to a free trade agreement with the EU, also signs an agreement with South East and East Asia, its long-term economic growth will get a boost.
On the security front, as China continues to assert its unilateral claims in the South China Sea, how should India pursue its Indo-Pacific strategy while preventing Beijing from further destabilizing the region?
It is in the interests of both China and ASEAN to develop an effective code of conduct for managing disputes in the South China Sea. It will not be easy for any claimant state to give up historical claims. But there is still considerable scope for cooperation in areas such as fisheries management, joint development of resources and environmental protection.
Freedom of navigation has not become a serious issue and should not be allowed to become one. For India, the wisest Indo-Pacific strategy is not to take sides, but to establish itself as a stability and peace builder in the broader region.
From Singapore’s perspective, is India’s approach towards China overly reactive and security-driven, or sufficiently strategic?
It is in India’s strategic interest to normalize relations with China, just as it is in China’s interest to do so. From Southeast Asia, tensions between India and China feel like parents squabbling. No one is comfortable with this. We would prefer to see a cordial relationship between the two.
There may have once been a view that India could gain more by leaning decisively towards the United States. But now it has become clear that India’s relations with America are also complicated. Finally, India will have to carefully manage all its key relationships, including China.
Beyond regional tensions, despite rich, globally integrated economies like the United Arab Emirates joining BRICS, Singapore has remained outside. Even though India and Brazil insist that the bloc is not anti-Western or a replacement for the dollar, why is Singapore being left behind? Is this reluctance really economic or political?
Singapore’s reluctance is political. We are not anti-Western, and we do not want to be seen as anti-Western. Our position is determined less by economics and more by the broader geopolitical signal that BRICS membership may send. Ideally, ASEAN should have a common stance on BRICS. This will ensure that engagement with the grouping does not become a divisive issue within ASEAN itself.
March 05, 2026, 08:00 IST
read more
