Middle power or not, Singapore must step up

Global management consulting firm Kearney released its 2026 Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index on 10 April, showing that Singapore has climbed from 15th place last year to 8th — its highest ranking in 14 years.

The survey was conducted in January this year, assessing the investment intentions over the next three years of more than 500 senior executives worldwide, reflecting global foreign direct investment flows.

It was also conducted before the outbreak of the Iran war. But there is no need to wait for next year’s updated survey to see whether the post-war situation has a positive or negative impact on global confidence in Singapore; the general trend is already apparent.

One line of the survey analysis caught my eye.

The report noted that Singapore’s significant gain most clearly reflects the rise of “middle powers” amid the current geopolitical landscape, with another prominent example being Saudi Arabia.

When did Singapore come to be seen as a “middle power” in the first place? What advantages and conditions define a “middle power”? Is it an easy label to live up to?

At the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos on 20 January, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said that the rules-based international order is effectively dead, meaning Canada and other countries have no choice but to form new alliances to resist pressure and intimidation from the world’s major powers.

He rallied the world’s middle powers to unite in resisting coercion from aggressive superpowers, adding that Canada strongly opposes the US’s use of tariffs to advance its ambitions to acquire Greenland.

He did not name which countries he had in mind as “middle powers”. But it is reasonable to assume that they would include developed European countries as well as Japan, South Korea and others.

Europe’s “middle powers” include NATO members, which are also the US’s key allies. Carney’s open call for allies to stand up to the “boss” may well have made his “brothers” break out in a cold sweat, yet his speech was met with resounding applause. As a result, the term “middle powers” has since become a buzzword in international forums.

By land area and population, Indonesia would be an undisputed candidate, yet in economic terms it still falls within the category of developing countries and can hardly be considered a major power. Singapore, while ranking among the world’s richest nations, is at the end of the day a small state, and hardly qualifies as a “middle power”.

Carney called on countries to invest collectively in deterrence capabilities, arguing that in an era of great powers using their economic and military strength to impose their will, a new framework of cooperation among middle-sized states could serve as a last line of defence.

The US finally responded three months later. On 22 April, US news site Politico, citing three European diplomats and a US defence official, reported that the White House has drawn up a “naughty and nice” list of NATO countries, where “naughty” allies who refuse to fall in line with the US over the Iran war would do well to watch out, as the “boss” is ready to wield the stick.

Clearly, the US will not give “middle powers” a chance to unite; instead, it is striking first to divide and forestall the emergence of any Western bloc that might challenge it. 

Singapore, a “quasi-middle power”, has been notably active of late, with its leaders repeatedly commenting on the global energy crisis triggered by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, while taking a firm, clear stance in upholding international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

At a fireside chat with CNBC presenter Steve Sedgwick on 22 April, Singapore Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan elaborated on Singapore’s position: it is not that Singapore is not negotiating with other countries, but that building long-term, reliable credibility must be the central objective of any negotiations. Hence, while Singapore remains open to discussions on legally binding agreements for the trade of essential supplies, it will not negotiate over passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Citing the 1973 oil crisis as an example, he noted that Singapore had firmly committed not to draw on the oil reserves of multinational companies stored locally, and was willing to pay market prices and accept rationing, establishing its credibility as a global refining and petrochemicals hub.

Credibility is Singapore’s hallmark; whether in normal times or in crisis, it strives to uphold it, never losing its footing or abandoning its principles.

Singapore maintains close ties with both China and the US, but it will always act in its own long-term national interest and would firmly refuse if forced to choose sides. As Balakrishnan put it, if it must say no to Washington, Beijing or any other country, it will not flinch from that.

On 21 April, Singapore Acting Minister for Transport and Senior Minister of State for Finance Jeffrey Siow chaired a closed-door meeting as part of Singapore Maritime Week. An official statement noted that the International Maritime Organization, along with representatives from 11 countries, stressed at the ministerial roundtable that it is necessary to uphold the freedom of navigation and the right of transit passage through Straits Used for International Navigation, in accordance with international law.

The 11 participating countries included Belize, Brunei, China, Estonia, India, Laos, Malaysia, Norway, Timor-Leste, the UK and Singapore. The participants included major powers, middle powers and small states, all speaking together in Singapore about the Strait of Hormuz, while undoubtedly also keeping the Strait of Malacca in mind.

Balakrishnan said that if China-US relations broke down and they went to war in the Pacific, then what is currently unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz is just a “dry run”. This is not being alarmist — no one can guarantee that, should a large-scale war break out in the region, the Strait of Malacca, as a vital international waterway, would continue to function as normal, with business proceeding as usual.

The world has entered an era in which great and powerful states act with increasing impunity, and the strong prey upon the weak. Small and medium-sized countries cannot simply leave everything to fate or sit back in resignation. If Singapore is regarded as a “middle power” in upholding international law and building Carney’s so-called “last line of defence”, and in taking on the moral responsibility of safeguarding regional peace, then let’s step up to it!

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “新加坡算是“中等强国”吗？”.

Related: Singapore a model for small states amid big power rivalry | [Video] Lim Siong Guan: Can Singapore survive?