Common destiny or "à la carte" neutrality? Singapore and Switzerland compared
Common destiny or "à la carte" neutrality? Singapore and Switzerland compared Starting from a 1988 speech by Lee Kuan Yew — at once a warning and a founding act of Singapore's national narrative — this analysis builds a systematic comparison between two exposed small states at opposite ends of the world, Singapore and Switzerland. It is the distance between them, rather than any presumed similarity, that makes the exercise fruitful: it allows one to separate what is structurally necessary to a small state's survival from what is merely contingent or the product of political choice. The comparison unfolds on several planes. On the side of convergence: the centrality of institutional continuity; the doctrine of vulnerability elevated into a founding identity; the strategic management of national reserves (sovereign wealth funds and secrecy in Singapore, National Bank reserves in Switzerland); "porcupine" defence, built on a militia army and universal conscription; and the shared condition of multilingual and multi-faith societies, in which cohesion must be manufactured rather than inherited. On the side of divergence in method: Singapore's social engineering from above — rigorous meritocracy, a top civil service paid on a par with the private sector, ethnic quotas imposed in public housing, English as a neutral working language — set against the Swiss model of militia service, territorial autonomy and parity among the national languages. The central question is neutrality. In principle, Bern and the city-state diverge radically: one neutral by identity, the other openly non-aligned. Yet on the concrete ground of security policy the distance narrows almost to nothing: de facto alignment with Western defence architecture, the same weapons systems, sanctions on Russia adopted by breaking with long-standing practice. The analysis also examines the legal nature of Swiss neutrality — defined by no statute, managed "à la carte" by the executive — and the debate opened by the Neutrality Initiative, put to the vote on 27 September 2026. The result is a paradox: for an exposed small state, the legal label matters far less than the material logic of survival. Neutrality thus proves to be less a condition of law than a mode of risk management. A postscript carries the reflection to its conclusion: since neutrality is an inherently war-related institution and Switzerland’s geographical exposure to a great-power conflict is far sharper than Singapore’s, the Confederation is eroding the very instrument its position makes most necessary — and its convergence with the city-state proves, on closer view, less reassuring than it appears.