🇸🇬 Singapore: "I am not just Prime Minister, I am leading a party."

🇸🇬 Singapore - PM Lawrence Wong in an interview with the Financial Times (Oct 2025)

Here is the text of the last question from the interview, verbatim from the transcript posted online by the Singapore Prime Minister’s Office, with specific words and phrases highlighted for semiotic analysis below:

1️⃣ What is happening?

The only reason I can find why the Financial Times (FT) interviewed Wong now was because it was a few days prior to the 47th ASEAN Summit in Malaysia, one which U.S. president Donald Trump attended. As is customary, where Trump goes the media follows. FT’s choice of interviewing Wong could be because Singapore is a major destination for U.S. investment (the U.S. invested $467.6 billion in Singapore in 2024, the fourth highest in the world and the highest in Asia) and military equipment and support.

Wong has now been prime minister of Singapore for over a year, rising to lead the country first as leader of his party, and then as the convincing winner of the 2025 General Elections. Despite Singapore being such a critical American partner, Wong has yet to meet with Trump. And perhaps, that is some cause for concern.

Since Trump returned to power this year, the focus of his administration has been anywhere but Southeast Asia. Until July, when a political ‘palace intrigue’ crisis in Thailand led to a territorial dispute with Cambodia. The Trump administration sprung into action, pushing for a ceasefire, which was then formalised as the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accords signed at the 47th ASEAN Summit in Malaysia.

Why this sudden focus after ignoring the region for months? This was primarily to position Trump as a peacemaking president to strengthen his case to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2026. And while we all can agree that peace is good (and we all can question the actual involvement of Trump in the ceasefire), another major ongoing conflict in the region has seemingly slipped under the radar of both Trump and ASEAN; the Myanmar Civil War.

So what role does Singapore play in all this? As a major destination for global capital, FT were keen to question Wong on the economic implications for the U.S., China, and the rest of the world. Wong delivered a composed, intelligent, and likeable performance, so much so that the entire transcript of the interview has been reproduced on the website of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

Clearly for Wong, this is a job well done.

2️⃣ What was said, and to whom?

The interview was conducted by FT in Singapore on home turf for Wong. FT’s audience is international, and skews heavily towards the anglophone markets of Western Europe and North America. Therefore all of Wong’s answers spoke to an international audience.

However, after having watched the interview, I can speculate on a few realities of the nature of the interview based off of my experience working in the communications industry in Singapore. Specifically:

1. questions may have been shared with the PMO prior to the interview,

2. there may have been clear OB markers around topics,

3. and FT Editor Roula Khalaf may not have been interested (or encouraged) to push Wong on domestic issues.

All in all, a surprisingly rare yet straightforward international media interview for Wong.

DECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT

🗝️ Unlocking Meaning

To reiterate, Wong’s interview with the FT was, strictly speaking, for an international audience. If you watch the whole interview (and I’d venture it’s worth checking out), Wong comes across as an affable, sensible, and aggressively neutral democratically elected political leader. In another timeline, this would be considered the lowest bar to pass, but in 2025 I will readily admit that this is borderline refreshing.

With the last question though, Wong uses a lot of prose to share the challenges that come with being a people manager — and this is outside his scope of being prime minister. I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of the PAP but I would assume it functions like most other political parties; formal authority is concentrated within the hands of a few, yet the influential power is distributed amongst several factions. And with the PAP being the largest party on the island, factionalism is expected.

In response to the question, Wong speaks specifically about dropping party members prior to the elections. He elaborates by saying it was a challenge that he had to ‘steel’ himself for. It begs the question whether it was challenging for him because he is someone who doesn’t like letting people go, or whether the people he let go created issues.

👑 Power Play

He ends off the exchange by reminding everyone that his party, with the people that he put forward, did well in the election earlier this year. And Wong’s challenge going into the election was manifold; outside of shifting global economic and geopolitical tectonic plates, he was also following the premiership of a genuinely well liked prime minister who led Singapore for almost 20 years as the son of the founding father of the country. Wong, by contrast, was not a political dynast, nor an ‘elite’ scholar, the usual makeup of Singaporean ministers.

Yet he won convincingly. The electorate validated his political decisions and team choices, allowing him to reshape the party in his image. If anything, the elections solidified Wong’s control and position within the party, eradicating any internal naysayers or doubters that may have existed.

Wong’s answer to the only personal question in the entire interview is to remind us where the power lies.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Tell me your reasoning. In next week’s issue, I’ll highlight the most thought-provoking responses.

Was this forwarded to you? Signpost is a free weekly newsletter analysing meaning and power through language. It’s free to subscribe.

Think somebody else would enjoy this? Send them here.