the article does leave some room for interpretation. Here are the key ambiguities:
- "Countries that aren't friends with each other": This phrase is vague. It could mean
- Direct conflict: Nations actively engaged in disputes or warfare.
- Ideological differences: Countries with contrasting political systems or values.
- Competing interests: Nations vying for influence in a region or on a particular issue.
- Historical tensions: Countries with past grievances or unresolved conflicts.
The article doesn't specify which of these scenarios SM Lee is referring to, making it hard to grasp the specific challenges he's addressing.
- Lack of specific examples: The article doesn't mention any concrete examples of countries that Singapore has to maintain relationships with despite their differences. This makes it difficult to visualize the real-world implications of SM Lee's statement. For instance, are we talking about Singapore's relationship with China and the US, or with India and Pakistan, or with other regional players?
- Young Singaporeans' understanding: The article mentions that young Singaporeans might not fully grasp the complexities of foreign policy. However, it lacks specifics about:
- What aspects of foreign policy are particularly challenging for young people to understand?
- What are the specific challenges they face in understanding the need to maintain relationships with countries that aren't friends with each other?
- How is the government addressing these challenges?
These ambiguities make it difficult to fully understand the nuances of Singapore's foreign policy approach and the challenges it faces in a complex and interconnected world.