Quora Answer: When Will the Malaysian Ringgit be Stronger Than the Singapore Dollar?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “When will the Malaysian ringgit be stronger than the Singapore dollar?”

Since the currency union between Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei broke down in 1967, the Malaysian ringgit has never once traded stronger than the Singapore dollar.  Not for a single day.  Fifty-nine years of continuous data, and the ringgit has spent every one of them on the weaker side of the pair.  The rate today sits at roughly 3.16 ringgit to one Singapore dollar, comfortably within the range it has occupied for the better part of two decades.  When someone asks when the ringgit will finally overtake the Singapore dollar, the honest answer is: not within any timeframe worth planning around, and the reasons are structural rather than cyclical.

The Structural Gap, in Numbers

Singapore’s GDP per capita stood at $98,814 in 2025.  Malaysia’s stood at $13,125.  That is a gap of roughly 7.5 times, and even adjusting for purchasing power, the gap remains stark: $150,689 for Singapore against $38,779 for Malaysia, a factor of nearly four.  The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom scores Singapore at 84.4, ranked first globally.  Malaysia scores 68, ranked 51st.  These are not close numbers separated by policy tweaks.  They represent two fundamentally different institutional architectures, one built on regulatory efficiency and rule of law attracting global capital, the other still carrying the drag of policies designed for a different era entirely.

Malaysia’s New Economic Policy, introduced in 1971 and its successor frameworks since, embedded ethnic quotas and preferential allocation into corporate ownership, government contracts, and university admission, in the name of redressing historical inequality.  Whatever the original justification, the effect over five decades has been a persistent misallocation of capital and talent away from pure merit and productivity.  Malaysia’s own brain drain confirms the consequence directly.  Hundreds of thousands of Malaysians, disproportionately ethnic Chinese and Indian professionals who felt the ceiling the policy imposed on them, have relocated to Singapore, where an estimated one million Malaysians now live and work, forming one of the largest single foreign populations in the city-state.  A country that exports its most productive citizens to the neighbour it is supposedly competing against does not close a currency gap.  It widens it, year after year, one departing engineer at a time.

Bank Negara Malaysia’s Incentive

Bank Negara Malaysia has no genuine institutional interest in seeing the ringgit strengthen past the Singapore dollar, even if the structural gap above somehow closed overnight.  Malaysia’s economy remains heavily export-dependent, running on electronics, palm oil, and petroleum products sold into competitive global markets.  A stronger ringgit makes every one of those exports more expensive and less competitive the moment it appreciates meaningfully.  BNM operates a managed float, not a free float, because an uncontrolled ringgit rally would damage the export sector its own mandate is partly built to protect.

When the Asian Financial Crisis hammered regional currencies in 1997 and 1998, Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, then Prime Minister, rejected the International Monetary Fund’s prescribed orthodoxy outright.  On 1^st September 1998, Malaysia imposed capital controls and fixed the ringgit at RM3.80 to the US dollar, a rate chosen to support export competitiveness rather than to reflect market fundamentals.  The same month, his deputy, Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim, who had pushed for IMF-style liberalisation, was sacked and subsequently prosecuted, a political rupture that still echoes through Malaysian politics today.  Mahathir’s peg held until 2005, when Malaysia finally shifted to a managed float.  The lesson from that episode has never actually left Bank Negara Malaysia’s institutional memory: currency strength is not treated as an unambiguous good.  It is treated as a variable to be managed in the service of export competitiveness, political stability, and whichever administration currently holds power.

The Conclusion

The ringgit will not become stronger than the Singapore dollar without Malaysia addressing the structural drag on productivity and capital allocation that decades of race-based economic policy have embedded into its economy, and without reversing a brain drain that keeps handing Singapore precisely the talent Malaysia cannot afford to lose.  Even if that structural reform happened, Bank Negara Malaysia’s own policy incentives run in the opposite direction, because a genuinely strong ringgit would injure the export sector the central bank has spent decades protecting.  Asking when the ringgit will overtake the Singapore dollar is, in effect, asking when Malaysia will choose structural reform over export competitiveness and political convenience simultaneously.  Fifty-nine years of data suggest that day is not on the calendar yet.

---

Terence Nunis | Executive Chairman, Equinox Zenith | Author, The 1% Playbook: The Billionaire Cheat Code

Quora Answer: Why Does Malaysia Not lead ASEAN Like Indonesia & Singapore?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why could Malaysia not lead ASEAN like Indonesia and Singapore?” 

ASEAN is a regional grouping, with ambitions of moving towards a EU-style economic union.  It does not have an overt leadership hierarchy, although founding members carry more weight, and tended to work in concert.  Since it is not a hierarchical organisation, ASEAN does not have an established leadership structure with all members being nominally equal.  The ASEAN chair is rotated annually. 

All that aside, some countries are more influential than others within ASEAN, just as it is with other groupings.  Indonesia is the single largest member, with the most population.  Thailand is a regional security lynchpin.  Singapore is the wealthiest and holds the most strategic location.  In terms of international engagement, Singapore has the most influence to get international partners involved.  Throughout all this, Malaysia has lagged behind, with waning influence.  There are a few reasons for this. 

The first is that Malaysia’s political turmoil and recent changes in government means that they are not a credible dialogue partner.  Bilateral agreements carry little weight, regional and international treaties are ratified late or not ratified at all.  The economy is weak, and regressing.  This makes it difficult for Malaysia to have any influence on other members when its own government is severely lacking in credibility. 

The second is actually the legacy of Mahathir bin Mohammed.  His proposals for the direction of ASEAN, and the EAC were seen as overtly anti-American.  It was opposed by the United States and Japan, and the compromise was ASEAN Plus Three, which later evolved into the ASEAN Plus Six.  In a region made wealthy by international trade, Mahathir was protectionist, and Malaysia is still protectionist.  This limits her influence with dialogue partners, which in turn, diminishes her influence within ASEAN.

Quora Answer: Why is Singapore Actually Freer than Malaysia, although Some Rate Malaysia Higher?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why is Singapore actually freer than Malaysia, although organisations rate Malaysia higher?” 

That really depends on how you define “free”.  From a Singapore perspective, we emphasise responsible speech over freedom of speech.  This concept of absolute freedom belongs to a society that emphasises the needs of the individual over the needs of society.  Singapore is in Asia, where the needs of society, the collective, is more important. 

Consider press freedom.  In Singapore, the press have to be accredited.  The government or any private individual reserves the right to correct stories about them.  Allegations have to be proven.  Any form of race-baiting, religious scapegoating, and dig whistles common in the Western press, or even in Malaysia, is against the law.  In the name of press freedom, Malaysian journalists have written articles against minorities, and Malaysian politicians have openly spouted racist ideas.  If that is freedom of speech and the press, we do not need that. 

Singapore has a high threshold for claims of damages in libel and slander.  This means people cannot use that as a means to shut down criticism.  Any such legal claim must prove that there is a loss of income and reputation.  This seems counter-intuitive when there are more than enough reports of our own politicians suing individuals and organisations for that same thing.  But that can be argued to be in the public interest.  By all means criticise the establishment, but have facts and proof, not allegations.  We cannot have people writing whatever comes to their mind, and feeding conspiracy theories.  Something like the Q-Anon conspiracy and its consequences in the United States is not going to happen here.  Those groups and message boards would have been shut down a long time ago. 

Consider the so-called repression of political parties.  Singapore has, at last count, over a dozen registered political parties.  Most of them are only active closer to the General Elections.  There are strict rules on who can stand for election.  This precludes a situation such as Malaysia or even India, where politicians have pending court cases or convicted criminals.  Political parties may not advance allegations of corruption or any form of misbehaviour without proof, which impinges on the integrity of the government.  That is reasonable.  Why should we devolve to the gutter politics and populism of places like the United Kingdom.  Just over 50% of the population voted for Brexit, against their own interests.  In Singapore, politicians with such an obvious conflict of interest and lack of integrity would not even be allowed close to the ballot box. 

Malaysia and elsewhere, elected representatives of Parliament can freely jump parties.  This means that people elected on one mandate are free to abandon it for self-interest.  This renders the people’s choice moot.  It also feeds a culture of voting for individuals as opposed to ideas and policies.  In the Philippines, people voted for Joseph Ejercito Estrada because he was a local celebrity.  He turned out to be an inept kleptocrat.  In Malaysia, politicians regularly jump from one party to another.  This means any government must spend time making deals to serve the interests of these people, not the actual electorate.  In Singapore, any elected official who leaves a party immediately relinquishes his seat in Parliament. 

This is what I think freedom is.  Singapore is largely free of corruption.  We have no lobbying, unlike the United States, where people can buy legislation.  Singapore has a responsible press climate.  Our local press is colourless, and obvious cheerleaders of the establishment, but even they know they have limits because we have access to news from all over the world.  Singapore is largely free of crime.  You could go out in the wee hours of the morning alone, and nothing is likely to happen to you.  Singapore is free of abject poverty, major disenfranchisement, or institutionalised homelessness.  Those are the freedoms that matter.

Quora Answer: Will Singapore Love It if Malaysia Ends the Ketuanan Melayu Policy?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Will Singapore love it if Malaysia ends its Ketuanan Melayu policy?” 

Ending Ketuanan Melayu would benefit Malaysia.  This could spur Malaysia’s development, and that would benefit Singapore.  However, this development is not a given since the consequences of Ketuanan Melayu, such as endemic corruption, this warlord culture in politics, and nepotism will not be automatically dismantled.  It is a start, but it is not enough. 

In the meantime, however, Ketuanan Melayu has actually benefited Singapore.  Ketuanan Melayu is a stupid policy.  It needlessly disenfranchise a large segment of the population.  This has lead to a brain drain of non-Malays, and Singapore has directly benefited from that over the last 60 years.  Many of our foreign talent came from Malaysia, Indians, Chinese, Eurasians and others.  This has lead to a stagnation of national development, and the more ambitious among the Malays have also come to Singapore. 

In summary, whether Ketuanan Melayu continues or ends, Singapore will find a way to benefit from it.  Malaysia can be a partner in ASEAN where we can work towards common goals, or it can choose to remain a sick man, and picked over for the choicest parts.

Quora Answer: Will Malaysia Go Back to Being an Economic Powerhouse with its Original Ruling Party Back in Power?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Will Malaysia go back to being an economic powerhouse now that its original ruling party is back in power?” 

Malaysia was never an economic powerhouse.  From data easily available online, when we consider per capita GDP since independence, Malaysia’s per capita income is higher than that of all other ASEAN members except Singapore.  However, in terms of growth rates Malaysia’s performance is similar to Indonesia but lower than Thailand over the period from 1960 to 2010.  The primary reason why Malaysia had a higher per capita income than Thailand and Indonesia in that period despite similar growth rates, is thanks to the British.  Unlike the Dutch, the British actually left Malaya with significant infrastructure development, and a sound administration system.  Malaysia started, after independence, from a higher per capita income base than Thailand and Indonesia.  So, in comparison of the leading economies of Southeast Asia, barring Singapore, Malaysia began with a significant advantage, and then lost it.  Any comparison with Singapore would be embarrassing for Malaysia. 

Now, when we compare it to Northeast Asian, with the other three Asian Tigers, and Japan, they perform at the same growth levels as Singapore, which can be seen in their level of development today.  Hong Kong is now part of China, and its growth is expected to diminish in the face of competition from the Pearl Delta cities, especially Shanghai.  Taiwan has started to lag behind due to short-termism by its government.  South Korea and Japan are economic giants.  China based its economic growth on the Singapore system of marrying capitalism with authoritarianism, and is now the largest economy in the world by adjusted purchasing power. 

Compared to the leading economies of the period, who have all achieved developed status, or near developed, in the case of China, Malaysia is still mired in mediocrity.  In fact, over the last few years, things have only gotten worse as the rest of ASEAN have caught up, and will eventually bypass Malaysia.  Malaysia is barely keeping pace with Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, let alone making any claim to be an economic powerhouse.  Malaysia can make no such claim when the government is broke, and their sovereign bonds are almost junk status.

Quora Answer: Do You Think MUDA Leader Syed Saddiq bin Syed Abdul Rahman Should Entice Younger Leaders from Other Parties to Join Him?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do you think MUDA leader Syed Saddiq bin Syed Abdul Rahman should entice younger leaders from PKR, Amanah, DAP and Pejuang to join his party?  Should leaders like Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, Anwar bin Ibrahim, Mohamad bin Sabu, Mahathir bin Mohamad, and Shafie bin Apdal retire, and support him?” 

The question does not make sense on several levels. 

Firstly, the question assumes that Syed Saddiq bin Syed Abdul Rahman is such a giant on the Malaysian political scene that younger leaders across the political spectrum would swallow their ambitions to support him.  Syed Saddiq has not been around enough, or done enough, to build up that sort of political capital. 

Secondly, his party is brand new.  It has no track record, and no major policy platforms that has been proven to move the electorate.  Politicians will only move to his party is they are confident he is going to win elections, and they will come to power.  In Malaysian politics, everything is for sale.  They are not joining him for the feel good factor.  He is likely viewed as a naïve idealist. 

Thirdly, why would veteran politicians retire, give up power and all that money, just to support some child?  What would they gain from it?  They spent decades climbing to the top of the food chain, and have dozens of closets full of skeletons.  What is in it for them to suddenly support Syed Saddiq? 

Syed Saddiq has potential, and is an over achiever for his age.  He likely has a vision of how he would like Malaysia to be.  That vision is inclement to the Malaysia of these veteran politicians and the people who follow them.  This is about power.  Power is addictive.  They are not going to give it up for some young upstart, who in their view, is biadab, disrespectful.

Quora Answer: Why Does Lee Hsien Loong Not Communicate with His Malaysian & Indonesian Counterparts in Malay?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why does Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong communicate with the Malaysian Prime Minister and Indonesian President in English despite the national language of all three countries being Malay?  Should Malay not be used given that he is fluent in Malay and that can stabilise relations?” 

Firstly, Malay is not the national language of all three countries.  The national language of Singapore is Malay.  The national language of Malaysia is Bahasa Malaysia, which is almost identical to Malay, with slight differences in idiomatic phrasing.  The national language of Indonesia is Bahasa Indonesia, which is a form of standardised Malay, but distinct from Malay.  The same word may have vastly different meanings in Malay or Bahasa Malaysia, and in Bahasa Indonesia.  The variety of Malay spoken in in Singapore and Malaysia is a distinct dialect from Bahasa Indonesia.  This means there is a great possibility of misunderstanding. 

Secondly, the Federation of Malaysia, and Indonesia have a difficult history, the Konfrontasi.  Using one dialect would be unacceptable to the other due to national pride.  This is asking for trouble. 

Finally, English is the primary language of international diplomacy.  Treaties, agreements, and documentation may need to be filed at various supranational organisations such as the International Court of Arbitration, various United Nations Bodies, or the International Monetary Fund.  It is a matter of practicality.

Quora Answer: Will Malaysia Fight China if China Forcefully Tries to Claim Singapore as Part of Its Territory?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Will Malaysia fight China if China forcefully tries to claim Singapore as part of its territory?”

Firstly, China has no historical claim over Singapore.  Singapore is a sovereign state, almost 4,000 km away.  It is nowhere even near China.

Secondly, if the assumption is that China could invade Singapore, then that is also impossible  Assuming, for the sake of argument, we discount Singapore’s military, China does not have the military lift capability to send significant amount of troops over.  Neither does China have the ability to project the significant air and naval power required at the moment.  If China could, they would have tried to take Taiwan militarily first, and Taiwan is a lot nearer, being 130 km at the narrowest, across the Taiwan Straits.

Singapore is the most militarised state in Southeast Asia.  It has the largest, and most modern air force and navy in the region.  It is also a member of several defence pacts, and is one of the refit and refurbishment ports for US carrier groups.  The entrance to the Singapore Straits is at Horsburgh Lighthouse, which is a death trap for any fleet.  A naval flotilla coming from the south, the Karimata Straits will be intercepted by the radar station in the southern islands, and cannot sneak in.  They will have the disadvantage in air cover, and will be stopped in those waters.

Finally, the Malaysian Armed Forces, after years under successive corrupt governments, has suffered in the arms procurement process.  They have no means whatsoever to project themselves in any naval or air engagement.  They are not a factor in any such equation.  It will take years to rebuild the Malaysian Armed Forces into a credible deterrent.

Quora Answer: Will There be a Chinese Prime Minister of Malaysia?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Will there be a Chinese Prime Minister of Malaysia?”

Some Malaysians would ague that there is no specific prohibition against a non-Malay becoming prime minister of Malaysia.  However, we have to consider Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia:

Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak

153. (1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

This article was originally a temporary provision, but it has become a bedrock of a Malay-exceptionalist Malaysia.  It is illegal to eve discuss the repeal of it in Parliament.

This is the specific article that will always preclude any head of government who is not a Malay, of the Shafi’i madzhab of Islam.  There will never be a Chinese head of government unless there are changes to the Constitution.  There will not be a Chinese prime minister, even if he was a Muslim, unless he abandons everything of his heritage, and adopts Malay culture and language.  This is the problem with Malaysia.

Quora Answer: What is the Impact of Prolonged Sub-US$20 Crude Oil on the Malaysian Economy, Ringgit, & Petronas?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What is the impact of prolonged sub-US$20 crude oil on the Malaysian economy, ringgit, and Petronas?”

Malaysia is in a difficult position.  At the beginning of the year, they were projecting a GDP growth if around 3%, meaning that the economy was already slowing down due to several other factors.  The pandemic simply made it worse exponentially.  Malaysia’s economy is now projected to grow at -0.1%, and they will likely fall into a technical recession.  A worst-case scenario, considering a prolonged U-curve, would be an actual recession.

Malaysia’s budget was tabled on the assumption that oil would trade at US$62 per barrel.  Even then, it was rather optimistic.  However, with oil trading at around US$23 or US$24 per barrel at the moment, that budget is in deficit by the billions.  Analysts have calculated the loss at between MYR31 billion to MYR40 billion.  They will likely have to propose another budget for the year, and soon.

The Malaysian government is already heavily constrained, with limited tools to address this.  Their foreign exchange reserves are low, institutional confidence and ratings have not recovered since the 1MDB debacle, and the ringgit will continue to fall against international and regional currencies.  The last stimulus package of MYR20 billion, with an additional MYR620 million, is a stop gap, and definitely not enough for a prolonged lockdown of the economy.  The market thinks so as well, and the local bourse is trading flat, after almost reaching 10-year lows earlier in the month.  This makes borrowing in the international markets very expensive.  Malaysia will likely table a deficit budget, and this will be carried forward next year.  It will be a difficult time for Malaysians.

Specific to the Malaysian government, the Perikatan Nasional needs to prove they are better stewards of the economy than the Pakatan Harapan they replaced.  Otherwise, they will face a reckoning at the ballot box from the rural Malays, who will bear the brunt of this economic malaise.  PAS has its heartland, but BERSATU has no such fallback.  They are still a minor party, with limited support, cobbled together by disaffected Malay nationalists.  The party that has the best chance of gain would likely be UMNO, since they can claim that they alone have presided over a period of sustained growth, and can do that leading a new coalition.

I see no way back for the DAP.  Their ministers have proven to be terrible at building bridges, and spent too much time fighting the civil service, sniping at Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah; and moaning about the poor state of the government.  PKR has an existential crisis, being seen as merely a vehicle for Anwar bin Ibrahim.  The smaller parties have no national consequence.

I foresee the MYR to continue being undervalued compared to regional currencies and the US Dollar, at least until well into 2021.  No one will make major investments until we are convinced that this government has a viable economic recovery plan.  That means next year’s budget will be closely watched.  We must remember that concerns about the economy encompass more than merely the current pandemic.  For example, Malaysia is a major exporter of palm oil.  The European Union is looking to ban imports, and may even write off much of the trade credit.  That is a major source of revenue gone.

Malaysian financial institutions’, and the sovereign credit rating, is still down.  They still have to deal with the consequences of the 1MDB, as mentioned above.  A low credit rating makes the terms of borrowing more expensive and onerous.  For example, Indonesia recently had to issue 50-year bonds.  This constrains how much debt they can take for half a century.  Malaysia might have to do the same.

Petronas will continue to struggle.  We have to remember that even with OPEC and Russia agreeing to cut production by an unprecedented 10%, it only comes into effect in May and June.  It is not immediate.  We are looking at 10 million barrels a day less, when global demand is down 30%.  The projected recovery of oil prices will be slow.  We are looking at US$50 per barrel by the middle of 2021, which is still well below nominal Malaysian budget assumptions.  This loss of revenue will affect production, field development, exploration, and will cascade downline to the thousands of contractors and parasites.  There will be job losses, and pay cuts on a massive scale.  What is likely to happen is that Malaysia will sell stakes in Petronas to raise revenue short term.  I am not sure how attractive that will be when we consider that Malaysia is not a net importer, not exporter.  There will be too much political red tape for it to be attractive.

In summary, things are not looking good, and while seemingly competent, this Malaysian government does not have the mandate to make serious changes.  Paradoxically, going to the polls early before a sustained economic recovery will punish them further, likely leading to a hung parliament.  This will further batter market sentiment, and push the currency value down.

Quora Answer: What is Singapore's Strategy if Malaysia Turns into an Aggressor & Attacks under the Mahathir Leadership?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What is Singapore’s strategy if Malaysia turns into an aggressor, and attacks under the Mahathir leadership?”

At a strategic level, Malaysia will lose, and lose badly.  This is not an indictment of the combat abilities of the Malaysian military.  They have very good soldiers, and are some of the best in jungle warfare.  However, war, at a strategic level, is won through logistics, political coherence, and an established series of battle plans with specific objectives.

Something that should be corrected, is that elements of the Malaysian Armed Forces, and the Singapore Armed Forces do have combat experience.  Malaysian commandos have acquitted themselves well in overseas action in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Yemen.  Certain units in Singapore were involved in military action around the region, from Timor-Leste, to Mindanao to Sri Lanka, as observers, advisors or direct action.

Firstly, an invasion requires mobilisation.  Malaysia requires a military strength of at least three times the defending force in Singapore.  They do not have that. Assuming they implement conscription and muster up the numbers, they cannot mobilise an army group and equip them in the requisite time. Singapore can - that is the purpose of all those mobilisation exercises.  Malaysia is also unable to mobilise those numbers quietly.  Singapore is not going to sit by and wait for them to come to the Causeway.  The Singapore Armed Forces is an offensive force, not a defensive one.  Since Singapore does not have strategic depth to fall back on, that strategic depth must be created by taking territory.  This means securing bridges, ports, roads, air fields, and other strategic points that are within the cover of its artillery umbrella, which is over 100 km.

Secondly, Singapore has an overwhelming advantage in all areas of military hardware, being one of the most mobile militaries in the world.  Singapore has a vehicle for every three soldiers.  It will have aerial superiority and naval domination of the littoral waters numerically and technologically.  Air interdiction of assets alone will mean that any forces within the entirety of the theatre of war would be unable to move, let alone stop an invasion.  The Malaysian Armed Forces will cease to exist as a coherent fighting force within six hours.

Thirdly, the objective of Singapore would be to seize enough territory to be used as a concession to force Malaysia to the negotiation table.  Taking territory is one thing, but keeping it is politically unviable.  The longer Singapore holds that territory, the more international pressure would build.  Also, scenario modelling shows that holding that territory for an extended period of time will allow a growing resistance movement, which will inflict more casualties than actual combat operations.  Since the Singapore Armed Forces is an offensive force, it does not have the tested morale or the logistics capability of holding that territory in the face of widespread low intensity conflict.

I am quite certain that the Malaysian government is aware that there is no viable military option on the table.  Even if there were an unlikely alliance with Indonesia, Singapore’s assured domination of the seas and air will preclude any meaningful contribution.  As such, Mahathir bin Mohamad is only posturing for a domestic audience.

From a Singaporean perspective, military action is unpalatable because the political cost outweighs the gain.  A military deterrent is only effective when it is a deterrent.  Once that card is played, Singapore is an aggressor, and that has political and trade ramifications that would take decades to address.

Considering the short timeline of this hypothetical conflict, regional and world powers would not have the time to deploy forces, such as when the US sent an aircraft carrier to the Malacca Straits during the Konfrontasi.  This means that they would seek to militarise the Malacca Straits by overtly positioning assets in the region to protect their trade routes.  This would spell the end of the region as an independent, non-aligned actor on the world stage.  This would also end ASEAN as a bloc.