The Swimming Promise Fallacy: Why "Indispensability" Trumps "Legality" in a World of Power

 The Swimming Promise Fallacy: Why "Indispensability" Trumps "Legality" in a World of Power

（note: this post was done with the help of Gemini - i.e. AI helps you to look smarter）

Introduction

Recent remarks by Singapore’s Foreign Minister, Vivian Balakrishnan, on the possibility of tolls in the Strait of Hormuz have sparked strong reactions. His position is clear: Singapore will not negotiate for passage or pay tolls, as the right of transit under UNCLOS is non-negotiable.

At first glance, this appears principled—an assertion of international law. But on closer inspection, it risks becoming a case of strategic rigidity: mistaking adherence to method for fidelity to purpose.

In the high-stakes theater of the Strait of Hormuz, Singapore has recently drawn a line in the sand. Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan declared that Singapore—a global shipping superpower—will not negotiate for passage or pay "tolls" to Tehran as a matter of principle. His argument: UNCLOS (the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) provides a "right of transit" that is non-negotiable.

While this sounds like moral leadership, it is actually a textbook example of Strategic Rigidity. It mistakes the method for the principle, and in doing so, ignores the most basic reality of national survival.

The Father, the Son, and the Fever

To understand the error, we must look past the legal jargon and use a bit of common sense. Imagine a father who promises his son they will go swimming this coming Sunday. When Sunday morning arrives, however, the son is burning with a 40°C fever.

Does the father, citing the "sanctity of his promise," drag the shivering, sick child to the pool? Of course not. Why? Because there is a natural hierarchy of priority. A promise of a "swimming outing" is a social contract made for a time of health. The son’s life and survival are a much higher principle that overrides any prior agreement.

To ignore the fever in favor of the "promise" isn't being principled; it is being block-headed. In the geopolitics of the Middle East, the world is currently suffering from a "fever" of existential war. Citing peacetime maritime rules (UNCLOS) while the building is on fire is a failure of leadership.

The Strategic Errors of the "Principled" Stance

1. Survival is the Superior Rule

UNCLOS was developed as a set of rules for a peacetime world order. But when a nation—even a "weak" one like Iran—is under the threat of destruction by superpowers, they enter a state of survival. The right to exist is the "Superior Rule" of nature. When a party is being bullied, they will use every lever available, including charging tolls, to survive. To expect "swimming rules" to hold during a "fever" of war is to ignore the most basic law of humanity.

2. The Illusion of "Paper Armor"

The Minister suggests that holding the line on UNCLOS is Singapore’s "armor." This is a naive misunderstanding of power. In the "Law of the Jungle," international law is a convenience for the strong, not a shield for the small.

Singapore’s real armor is not a 1982 treaty; it is the Principle of the Indispensable Benefit-Giver. Our survival depends on being a "Golden Goose"—a hub so beneficial to everyone (including the conflict parties) that it is in their interest to keep us safe. If we become so rigid that we stop facilitating the flow of trade, we lose our utility. Once you are no longer indispensable, the "armor" of international law evaporates.

3. Tactical Inflexibility (The "Block-Headed" Trap)

A wise strategist always keeps options open. By publicly ruling out negotiations and being "categorical," the Minister has backed himself into a corner. He has lost the flexibility to protect Singaporean interests quietly. What if, neighbors like Malaysia and Thailand have secured safe passage through pragmatic diplomacy, Singapore is left paying a "moral insurance premium." The result? Singaporean ships may be the only ones targeted or stuck.

The Middle Way: Principle-Centered Flexibility

Adaptivity does not mean having no principles. True strategic mastery lies in Principle-Centered Flexibility—the balance between a zealot’s rigidity and an opportunist’s spinelessness.

• Rigidity centers the Method (The Law/UNCLOS).
• Flexibility centers the End Goal (The Life/The Benefit).

A leader practicing Principle-Centered Flexibility would maintain the principle that freedom of navigation is vital, but use the flexibility of diplomacy to ensure Singaporean interests are protected. They would recognize that saving the "son" (the nation’s vitality) is more important than honoring the "swimming promise" (the treaty) during a crisis.

Conclusion

In a world on fire, the "Rules of the Pool" no longer apply. By doubling down on rigid legalism, Singapore’s leadership is ignoring the "Superior Rule" of survival that governs all nations.

True leadership requires the heart to recognize the desperation of a party fighting for survival and the wisdom to remain indispensable. Singapore should stop lecturing on the "swimming promise" and start recognizing the reality of the "fever" before it gets left behind by those who actually understand how power flows.

---

Strategic Summary:

• Life > Law: The right of survival is a higher principle than any peacetime treaty.
• Indispensability is Armor: You are safe only when you are too valuable to destroy.
• Avoid the Categorical: Flexibility is not the absence of principles; it is the intelligent application of them in a VUCAD world.

 

When Understanding Fails: Staying Connected Anyway

 A Hard Truth We Rarely Admit

Unreasonable communication exists. Not every problem can be explained away. Some conversations, no matter how carefully worded or calmly delivered, simply do not land.

The core issue is rarely about logic. It's about whether the other person is in any condition to receive it.

When someone is emotionally flooded, their cognitive system shifts into defense mode. Facts get rewritten by feelings. Statements get heard as attacks. Every attempt to clarify deepens the conflict.

"Unreasonable" Reactions Are Often About the Past

Many disproportionate reactions aren't really about what just happened. They come from unprocessed experiences — accumulated dismissals, neglect, or hurt from earlier relationships. Old wounds get triggered in present moments, loading the current conversation with far more weight than it would otherwise carry.

A simple disagreement escalates into an emotional eruption. The conversation stops being about solving a problem and becomes about releasing pain.

Sometimes It's Not Inability — It's Unwillingness

Some people choose not to understand, because understanding carries consequences — responsibility, adjustment, the loss of a position of control. Emotion becomes a defense mechanism. Logic gets deliberately avoided.

This isn't a communication barrier. It's a reflection of a person's deeper state.

The Channel Is Closed, Not the Reason Missing

The word "unreasonable" is misleading. The reason exists — the channel to receive it is closed. Continuing to explain, prove, and clarify is like pouring water into a blocked pipe. The pressure just builds on both sides.

Rational Communication Is the Exception

We assume rational dialogue is the default. It isn't.

Most conversations are already mixed with emotion, bias, defensiveness, and unspoken expectations. A few things worth accepting:

• Language is never neutral. The same sentence means different things depending on tone, timing, and relationship. We think we're discussing facts, but every word carries emotional weight.
• People often speak to release, not inform. Stress, validation, testing your attitude — if you're only listening for information, you're missing what's actually happening.
• "Be rational" can itself be a power move. Telling someone to calm down often functions as a dismissal, not an appeal to logic.
• Emotion carries information. Fear signals danger. Anger signals violated boundaries. Grief signals loss. Pushing it aside discards the most important data in the conversation.

Clear, mutually receptive communication is the precious exception — not the starting point, but the achievement.

So What Do You Actually Do?

1. Shift from persuasion to coexistence. If rational exchange is the minority of interactions, setting "being understood" as your goal is already too high. A more realistic goal: learning to walk forward even while carrying disagreement.

2. Connect before you explain. People don't accept reasoning until they feel heard. Reflect their feeling back. Validate the emotion. Wait until they feel received before addressing the issue itself. This isn't technique — it's respect.

3. Listen for what isn't being said. Mentally translate their words. "You always do this" might mean "I'm exhausted. I need you to carry more." Once you hear the real message, your response changes entirely.

4. Use "I" instead of "you." "You're always late" reads as an attack. "I waited a long time and felt anxious" is an experience — there's nothing to defend against. It moves the conversation from a battle of right and wrong into a space of shared feeling.

5. Accept "not yet" as a valid outcome. Not every conversation needs a resolution on the spot. Giving each other space often produces better results than forcing a conclusion under pressure.

6. Manage your expectations. Some relationships require repeated effort. Some misunderstandings may never fully resolve. Accepting this isn't giving up — it's choosing to stay gentle within an imperfect reality.

The Bottom Line

When full understanding isn't possible, the meaning of communication shifts. It's no longer about reaching consensus. It's about choosing to respect, to listen, and to leave room — even when things can't be made clear.

The truly skilled communicator isn't the one who always gets through. It's the one who, when they can't, still doesn't let the relationship collapse.