Asian countries have good ties with US, China and other major powers, don’t need Nato-equivalent, Singapore’s PM Lee says
新加坡总理李显龙说，亚洲国家与美国、中国和其他大国都有着良好的关系，不需要类似于北约的东西
您的位置：首页 > 时事时事
新加坡总理李显龙：亚洲国家与美国、中国和其他大国都有着良好的关系，不需要类似于北约的东西
Asian countries have good ties with US, China and other major powers, don’t need Nato-equivalent, Singapore’s PM Lee
2022-05-27
互联网
714
收藏
举报
译文简介
网友：长话短说，新加坡不希望被迫在美国和中国之间选边站。北约在这里的地位将使新加坡坚定地站在美国阵营中，而李显龙并不希望如此。
正文翻译
Asian countries have good ties with US, China and other major powers, don’t need Nato-equivalent, Singapore’s PM Lee says
新加坡总理李显龙说，亚洲国家与美国、中国和其他大国都有着良好的关系，不需要类似于北约的东西
评论翻译
thewind21
No need because because our equipment are already NATO spec. Easy to resupply.
Hahaha
不需要，因为我们的装备已经是北约规格的了。很容易补给。
哈哈哈
stormearthfire
Pretty sure SG already have a few defensive treaties in place... Don't need nato when most of our neighborhood is not really the nato or dependable type.
我很确定新加坡已经签署了一些防御性的条约了...不需要北约是因为我们的邻居大多不像真正的北约国家那样，或者都不是可靠的类型。
Worms_sg
The defense treaties we are in don’t require military action. Like the Five Powers agreement requires members to “consult each other immediately” if one is attacked.
But yeah a military alliance within ASEAN isn’t feasible right now. Too many conflicting goals and no common enemy to drive us to work together.
我们参加的国防条约并不要求军事行动。像五国协议只要求成员在受到攻击时"立即相互协商"。
但是，是的，想要在东盟内部实现军事联盟现在并不可行。各国内部太多相互冲突的目标，也没有一个共同的敌人来推动我们一起合作。
malteseexile
Even NATO's article 5 is grounded in a potentially very broad definition of "assistance and aid", there are not many security relations that don't allow a little bit of flexibility (for better or for worse).
即使是北约的第5条也是建立在一个潜在的非常广泛的"援助和协助"的定义之上的，没有多少安全关系不允许有一点点的灵活性（无论好坏）。
marcuschookt
What you expect: Solid first world allies to stand shoulder to shoulder with you in the face of all geopolitical threats
What you get: The Asian equivalent of Turkey and Hungary who really are better antagonists than allies
你所期望的：面对所有的地缘政治威胁时，坚定地站在你一边和你并肩作战的第一世界盟友
你所得到的：亚洲版的土耳其和匈牙利，他们与其说是盟友不如说是对手
EOWRN
For now, apparently US is changing the calibre used for small arms weaponry and I think this will result in a sea change not only in terms of logistics, but also tactics as well. Not sure if Singapore is willing to make such an expensive and extensive change--we'd have to see.
目前，显然美国正在改变用于小型武器的口径，我认为这将导致不仅在后勤方面，而且在战术方面的巨大变化。不确定新加坡是否愿意做出如此昂贵和广泛的改变--我们得看看。
Fluid-News
Change spec. New business orders.
改变一下规格，又能收获一堆订单。
LostTheGame42
Considering we use home-built rifles, we are under less pressure to change/upgrade. The SAR21 and BR18 both use 5.56x45 NATO which is widely produced globally and ST will never suddenly stop production of local guns even if the US changes to 6.8mm in the next few years.
If the 6.8mm round does live up to its promises in combat, I expect MINDEF to pursue the new calibre when the BR18 is near its end of life. However, I don't expect this to happen within the next 15 years or so.
考虑到我们使用的是自制的步枪，我们改变/升级的压力较小。SAR21和BR18都使用5.56x45北约，这在全球范围内广泛生产，即使美国在未来几年内改用6.8毫米，ST也不会突然停止生产本地枪。
如果6.8毫米子弹在战斗中确实达到了它的承诺，我预计MINDEF（新加坡国防部）会在BR18接近报废时再追求新口径。然而，我预计这不会在未来15年左右的时间里发生。
khaitheman222
Yeah it's expected to take 10 years for the US to overall swap to the new munitions barring some sudden conflict
是的，如果没有突发的冲突，美国预计需要10年的时间才能全面换上新的军火。
wackocoal
at least the new calibre only uses 1 decimal place, yea!
至少新口径只用了小数点后1位，真棒!
alilcraziness
The electricity in the fence is not switched on yet, so no harm sitting on it.
栅栏里的电还没有接通，所以坐在上面也无妨。
catgenerator3000
Long story short, SG doesn't want to be forced to pick a side between US and China. Having NATO equivalent here would have SG firmly in the US camp, and LHL doesn't want that
长话短说，新加坡不希望被迫在美国和中国之间选边站。北约在这里的地位将使新加坡坚定地站在美国阵营中，而李显龙并不希望如此。
tryingmydarnest
SG doesn't want to be forced to pick a side between US and China.
Or with anyone else. The only side we take is SG interests.
“新加坡不希望被迫在美国和中国之间选边站。”
或者说站在其他任何人一边。我们所站的唯一一边是新加坡的利益。
KohKY26
Yes, in an ideal world scenario…but this reality will soon hit us when both giants starts to apply their leverages whatever that is on Sg…
Just a matter of time which leverages gets to us or e party first…rem many forces and variables at work hidden or openly…PRAY Sg stays true to its own interests!
是的，在一个理想的世界里......但这个现实很快就会降临到我们身上，当两个巨头都开始对新加坡施加他们的杠杆时。
哪一个杠杆会先影响到我们或人民行动党，这只是时间问题......许多力量和变数在或隐蔽或公开地发挥着作用......只能祈祷新加坡保持对自己利益的忠诚!
diediemustsay
I'm of the opinion that the 'picked' is a already a foregone conclusion, just that we don't want to be forced to show our hands.
我认为，'选边站'是一个已经成为定局的事实，只是我们不希望被迫公开表述。
KohKY26
Yes same sentiments
是的，同感
DatoBrunei
If China attack, pick US
If US and Nato attack, pick china
如果中国进攻，选择美国
如果美国和北约进攻，选择中国
cm180
It's a good plan. Don't pick a side until we're forced to (which will probably happen soon enough)
这是个好主意。不要选边站，直到我们被迫选边站（这可能很快就会发生）。
TrueAccountant
Well, there's a Taiwan canary bird. No rush now.
有台湾在前面，我们还不急。
Intentionallyabadger
Wonder if our UN rep will fast hand fast leg go prepare speech in UN if China invades Taiwan.
不知道如果中国OO台湾（地区），我们的联合国代表会不会屁颠屁颠地去准备在联合国的演讲。
TrueAccountant
Probably, that his job after all.
可能吧，毕竟这就是他的工作。
t_25_t
UN rep will fast hand fast leg go prepare speech in UN if China invades Taiwan.
No need to prepare we also know what it will say. Singapore respects the One-China principle and this is China's internal affairs.
不需要准备我们也知道会说什么。新加坡尊重一个中国原则，这是中国的内部事务。
aomeye
Yeah. And US is stirring sh*t, pushing boundaries
没错。这也是美国在搅局，搞极限操作
fallenspaceman
Burhan Gafoor's speech was heartfelt and genuine. If you want to be cynical about it, you can see it as Singapore taking a stance on Ukraine to make clear Singapore's stance on its sovereignity.
He says that this resolution is not about taking sides, but I do really wonder if Singapore's response would be equally passionate if it ever comes to a China vs. Taiwan situation.
布尔汉-加富尔的演讲是发自内心的，是真诚的。如果你想表现得愤世嫉俗，你可以把它看作是新加坡在乌克兰问题上的表态，以表明新加坡对其主权的立场。
他说，这个决议不是要偏袒哪一方，但我倒是真的想知道，如果有一天出现中国与台湾（地区）的情况，新加坡的反应会不会同样热情。
Logi_Ca1
One situation is an undisputedly sovereign nation being unjustly invaded, despite said sovereign nation having received security assurances by said invader in return for handing over inherited nuclear weapons.
The other is the very definition of disputed territory and isn't even a UN member to boot.
As much as I sympathize with Taiwan (Taiwan numba 1!), I think we will just get thoughts and prayers in the event of an invasion of Taiwan.
一种情况是一个无可争议的主权国家被不公正地入侵，而且该主权国家还得到过该入侵者的安全保证，以换取交出继承的核武器。
另一种情况是有争议的领土，其中一方甚至不是联合国会员国。
虽然我很同情台湾（台湾No.1！），但我认为在台湾被OO的情况下，我们只会做做表面功夫。
xutkeeg
but some of our ASEAN neighbours think we're part of their land!
但我们的一些东盟邻国认为我们是他们土地的一部分!
KohKY26
U do know that not picking a side is also picking a side? The side that is against e two giants!?!
你知道不选边站也是选边站吗？也就是反对两个巨人的那一方！？！
Still-Anywhere-540
We don't need the NATO equivalent today but there is no guarantee we won't need one tomorrow. As we have learnt through history, all it takes is a madman, a few enablers and a powerful triggering event and soon people will cobble together a hasty alliance.
我们今天不需要相当于北约的组织，但不能保证我们明天不需要。正如我们在历史上所学到的，只需要一个疯子、几个帮凶和一个强大的触发事件，很快人们就会拼凑出一个仓促的联盟。
malteseexile
I think the aspect here that is important is that the creation of any security alliance is intrinsically provocative - if it looks like a lot of guns are pointing at one country, that in turn incentivises a form of rearmament. A balance of power is very important in producing a stable security situation - it's the same reason Singapore doesn't rush to build a true aircraft career, because it would produce an arms race in the region that would then produce instability. It is also not in Singapore's advantage to catch itself as a pawn on one side of the deteriorating US-China relationship - at the end of the day, the Americans and the Chinese would be very willing to fight each other down to the very last Singaporean if it came to it.
With that said, multilateral security relationships are important - they just have to be handled with care not to upset a delicate balance of powers.
我认为这里很重要的一个方面是，任何安全联盟的建立都具有内在的挑衅性--如果看起来很多枪口都指向一个国家，这反过来又会激励那个国家进行军备整顿。权力平衡对于产生稳定的安全局势非常重要--这与新加坡不急于建造一艘真正的航母的原因相同，因为这将在该地区产生军备竞赛，然后产生不稳定。在不断恶化的中美关系中，把自己作为一方的棋子对新加坡是不利的--说到底，如果到了这一步，美国人和中国人都非常愿意互相争斗到只剩最后一个新加坡人。
话虽如此，多边安全关系还是很重要的--只是必须谨慎处理，不要破坏微妙的权力平衡。
KohKY26
It’s all about keeping all e variables in balance
Like walking on a tight rope…balancing all e forces in order to keep oneself alive and walking forward
一切都是为了保持所有变量的平衡
就像在紧绷的绳索上行走......为了自己的命，平衡所有的力量向前走。
MisoMesoMilo
quite consistent message, reflected throughout ASEAN
Don't make us choose sides.
这是在整个东盟都相当一致的想法
不要让我们选边站。
unsynchedcheese
Southeast Asia tried with SEATO. It failed mostly because some of the involved countries (Singapore did not join) didn't see the point.
Singapore is also already a member of the Five Powers Defence Alliance, along with Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, and UK.
东南亚曾用SEATO（东南亚条约组织）尝试过。它的失败主要是因为一些参与国（新加坡没有加入）认为没有什么意义。
新加坡也已经是包括了马来西亚、澳大利亚、新西兰和英国的五国防务联盟的成员。
shimmynywimminy
isn't malaysia the main country we are afraid of lol
马来西亚不是我们主要害怕的国家吗？哈哈哈
diediemustsay
No, on the contrary, it's Indonesia.
不，恰恰相反，是印度尼西亚。
unsynchedcheese
It's one of the weird things about international alliances that nations will band together with other nations they have squabbles with, partly to present a united front against another potential aggressor, but also largely to prevent those squabbles from compounding into something worse, because we're now all in this alliance together and we should at least try to be polite. A bit like forcing two enemies into the same project group: you don't like each other, but you'll be professional for the duration of the project, and try to work around the parts where you can't stand each other.
Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.
这是国际联盟中的一件奇怪的事情，各国会跟与之发生争执的其他国家联合起来，部分是为了建立一个统一战线来对抗另一个潜在的侵略者，但主要是为了防止这些争吵变得更糟，现在既然我们都在这个联盟中了，那我们至少应该尽量保持礼貌。有点像强迫两个敌人进入同一个项目组：你们不喜欢对方，但在项目期间你会表现得很专业，并尝试围绕彼此无法忍受的部分进行合作。
有时这起作用，有时不起作用。
diediemustsay
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
敌人的敌人就是我的朋友。
unsynchedcheese
I think this is more a case of "keep your enemies closer".
我认为这更像是一个"让你的敌人更靠近你"的案例。
gydot
nop. malaysia are our cousins across the causeway, what is good for them is good for us. we all benefit when each other succeeds.
不，马来西亚是我们堤道对面的表兄弟，他们的好处就是我们的好处，当对方成功时我们都会受益。
原文地址：https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/uwmq9r/asian_countries_have_good_ties_with_us_china_and/
No need because because our equipment are already NATO spec. Easy to resupply.
Hahaha
不需要，因为我们的装备已经是北约规格的了。很容易补给。
哈哈哈
stormearthfire
Pretty sure SG already have a few defensive treaties in place... Don't need nato when most of our neighborhood is not really the nato or dependable type.
我很确定新加坡已经签署了一些防御性的条约了...不需要北约是因为我们的邻居大多不像真正的北约国家那样，或者都不是可靠的类型。
Worms_sg
The defense treaties we are in don’t require military action. Like the Five Powers agreement requires members to “consult each other immediately” if one is attacked.
But yeah a military alliance within ASEAN isn’t feasible right now. Too many conflicting goals and no common enemy to drive us to work together.
我们参加的国防条约并不要求军事行动。像五国协议只要求成员在受到攻击时"立即相互协商"。
但是，是的，想要在东盟内部实现军事联盟现在并不可行。各国内部太多相互冲突的目标，也没有一个共同的敌人来推动我们一起合作。
malteseexile
Even NATO's article 5 is grounded in a potentially very broad definition of "assistance and aid", there are not many security relations that don't allow a little bit of flexibility (for better or for worse).
即使是北约的第5条也是建立在一个潜在的非常广泛的"援助和协助"的定义之上的，没有多少安全关系不允许有一点点的灵活性（无论好坏）。
marcuschookt
What you expect: Solid first world allies to stand shoulder to shoulder with you in the face of all geopolitical threats
What you get: The Asian equivalent of Turkey and Hungary who really are better antagonists than allies
你所期望的：面对所有的地缘政治威胁时，坚定地站在你一边和你并肩作战的第一世界盟友
你所得到的：亚洲版的土耳其和匈牙利，他们与其说是盟友不如说是对手
EOWRN
For now, apparently US is changing the calibre used for small arms weaponry and I think this will result in a sea change not only in terms of logistics, but also tactics as well. Not sure if Singapore is willing to make such an expensive and extensive change--we'd have to see.
目前，显然美国正在改变用于小型武器的口径，我认为这将导致不仅在后勤方面，而且在战术方面的巨大变化。不确定新加坡是否愿意做出如此昂贵和广泛的改变--我们得看看。
Fluid-News
Change spec. New business orders.
改变一下规格，又能收获一堆订单。
LostTheGame42
Considering we use home-built rifles, we are under less pressure to change/upgrade. The SAR21 and BR18 both use 5.56x45 NATO which is widely produced globally and ST will never suddenly stop production of local guns even if the US changes to 6.8mm in the next few years.
If the 6.8mm round does live up to its promises in combat, I expect MINDEF to pursue the new calibre when the BR18 is near its end of life. However, I don't expect this to happen within the next 15 years or so.
考虑到我们使用的是自制的步枪，我们改变/升级的压力较小。SAR21和BR18都使用5.56x45北约，这在全球范围内广泛生产，即使美国在未来几年内改用6.8毫米，ST也不会突然停止生产本地枪。
如果6.8毫米子弹在战斗中确实达到了它的承诺，我预计MINDEF（新加坡国防部）会在BR18接近报废时再追求新口径。然而，我预计这不会在未来15年左右的时间里发生。
khaitheman222
Yeah it's expected to take 10 years for the US to overall swap to the new munitions barring some sudden conflict
是的，如果没有突发的冲突，美国预计需要10年的时间才能全面换上新的军火。
wackocoal
at least the new calibre only uses 1 decimal place, yea!
至少新口径只用了小数点后1位，真棒!
alilcraziness
The electricity in the fence is not switched on yet, so no harm sitting on it.
栅栏里的电还没有接通，所以坐在上面也无妨。
catgenerator3000
Long story short, SG doesn't want to be forced to pick a side between US and China. Having NATO equivalent here would have SG firmly in the US camp, and LHL doesn't want that
长话短说，新加坡不希望被迫在美国和中国之间选边站。北约在这里的地位将使新加坡坚定地站在美国阵营中，而李显龙并不希望如此。
tryingmydarnest
SG doesn't want to be forced to pick a side between US and China.
Or with anyone else. The only side we take is SG interests.
“新加坡不希望被迫在美国和中国之间选边站。”
或者说站在其他任何人一边。我们所站的唯一一边是新加坡的利益。
KohKY26
Yes, in an ideal world scenario…but this reality will soon hit us when both giants starts to apply their leverages whatever that is on Sg…
Just a matter of time which leverages gets to us or e party first…rem many forces and variables at work hidden or openly…PRAY Sg stays true to its own interests!
是的，在一个理想的世界里......但这个现实很快就会降临到我们身上，当两个巨头都开始对新加坡施加他们的杠杆时。
哪一个杠杆会先影响到我们或人民行动党，这只是时间问题......许多力量和变数在或隐蔽或公开地发挥着作用......只能祈祷新加坡保持对自己利益的忠诚!
diediemustsay
I'm of the opinion that the 'picked' is a already a foregone conclusion, just that we don't want to be forced to show our hands.
我认为，'选边站'是一个已经成为定局的事实，只是我们不希望被迫公开表述。
KohKY26
Yes same sentiments
是的，同感
DatoBrunei
If China attack, pick US
If US and Nato attack, pick china
如果中国进攻，选择美国
如果美国和北约进攻，选择中国
cm180
It's a good plan. Don't pick a side until we're forced to (which will probably happen soon enough)
这是个好主意。不要选边站，直到我们被迫选边站（这可能很快就会发生）。
TrueAccountant
Well, there's a Taiwan canary bird. No rush now.
有台湾在前面，我们还不急。
Intentionallyabadger
Wonder if our UN rep will fast hand fast leg go prepare speech in UN if China invades Taiwan.
不知道如果中国OO台湾（地区），我们的联合国代表会不会屁颠屁颠地去准备在联合国的演讲。
TrueAccountant
Probably, that his job after all.
可能吧，毕竟这就是他的工作。
t_25_t
UN rep will fast hand fast leg go prepare speech in UN if China invades Taiwan.
No need to prepare we also know what it will say. Singapore respects the One-China principle and this is China's internal affairs.
不需要准备我们也知道会说什么。新加坡尊重一个中国原则，这是中国的内部事务。
aomeye
Yeah. And US is stirring sh*t, pushing boundaries
没错。这也是美国在搅局，搞极限操作
fallenspaceman
Burhan Gafoor's speech was heartfelt and genuine. If you want to be cynical about it, you can see it as Singapore taking a stance on Ukraine to make clear Singapore's stance on its sovereignity.
He says that this resolution is not about taking sides, but I do really wonder if Singapore's response would be equally passionate if it ever comes to a China vs. Taiwan situation.
布尔汉-加富尔的演讲是发自内心的，是真诚的。如果你想表现得愤世嫉俗，你可以把它看作是新加坡在乌克兰问题上的表态，以表明新加坡对其主权的立场。
他说，这个决议不是要偏袒哪一方，但我倒是真的想知道，如果有一天出现中国与台湾（地区）的情况，新加坡的反应会不会同样热情。
Logi_Ca1
One situation is an undisputedly sovereign nation being unjustly invaded, despite said sovereign nation having received security assurances by said invader in return for handing over inherited nuclear weapons.
The other is the very definition of disputed territory and isn't even a UN member to boot.
As much as I sympathize with Taiwan (Taiwan numba 1!), I think we will just get thoughts and prayers in the event of an invasion of Taiwan.
一种情况是一个无可争议的主权国家被不公正地入侵，而且该主权国家还得到过该入侵者的安全保证，以换取交出继承的核武器。
另一种情况是有争议的领土，其中一方甚至不是联合国会员国。
虽然我很同情台湾（台湾No.1！），但我认为在台湾被OO的情况下，我们只会做做表面功夫。
xutkeeg
but some of our ASEAN neighbours think we're part of their land!
但我们的一些东盟邻国认为我们是他们土地的一部分!
KohKY26
U do know that not picking a side is also picking a side? The side that is against e two giants!?!
你知道不选边站也是选边站吗？也就是反对两个巨人的那一方！？！
Still-Anywhere-540
We don't need the NATO equivalent today but there is no guarantee we won't need one tomorrow. As we have learnt through history, all it takes is a madman, a few enablers and a powerful triggering event and soon people will cobble together a hasty alliance.
我们今天不需要相当于北约的组织，但不能保证我们明天不需要。正如我们在历史上所学到的，只需要一个疯子、几个帮凶和一个强大的触发事件，很快人们就会拼凑出一个仓促的联盟。
malteseexile
I think the aspect here that is important is that the creation of any security alliance is intrinsically provocative - if it looks like a lot of guns are pointing at one country, that in turn incentivises a form of rearmament. A balance of power is very important in producing a stable security situation - it's the same reason Singapore doesn't rush to build a true aircraft career, because it would produce an arms race in the region that would then produce instability. It is also not in Singapore's advantage to catch itself as a pawn on one side of the deteriorating US-China relationship - at the end of the day, the Americans and the Chinese would be very willing to fight each other down to the very last Singaporean if it came to it.
With that said, multilateral security relationships are important - they just have to be handled with care not to upset a delicate balance of powers.
我认为这里很重要的一个方面是，任何安全联盟的建立都具有内在的挑衅性--如果看起来很多枪口都指向一个国家，这反过来又会激励那个国家进行军备整顿。权力平衡对于产生稳定的安全局势非常重要--这与新加坡不急于建造一艘真正的航母的原因相同，因为这将在该地区产生军备竞赛，然后产生不稳定。在不断恶化的中美关系中，把自己作为一方的棋子对新加坡是不利的--说到底，如果到了这一步，美国人和中国人都非常愿意互相争斗到只剩最后一个新加坡人。
话虽如此，多边安全关系还是很重要的--只是必须谨慎处理，不要破坏微妙的权力平衡。
KohKY26
It’s all about keeping all e variables in balance
Like walking on a tight rope…balancing all e forces in order to keep oneself alive and walking forward
一切都是为了保持所有变量的平衡
就像在紧绷的绳索上行走......为了自己的命，平衡所有的力量向前走。
MisoMesoMilo
quite consistent message, reflected throughout ASEAN
Don't make us choose sides.
这是在整个东盟都相当一致的想法
不要让我们选边站。
unsynchedcheese
Southeast Asia tried with SEATO. It failed mostly because some of the involved countries (Singapore did not join) didn't see the point.
Singapore is also already a member of the Five Powers Defence Alliance, along with Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, and UK.
东南亚曾用SEATO（东南亚条约组织）尝试过。它的失败主要是因为一些参与国（新加坡没有加入）认为没有什么意义。
新加坡也已经是包括了马来西亚、澳大利亚、新西兰和英国的五国防务联盟的成员。
shimmynywimminy
isn't malaysia the main country we are afraid of lol
马来西亚不是我们主要害怕的国家吗？哈哈哈
diediemustsay
No, on the contrary, it's Indonesia.
不，恰恰相反，是印度尼西亚。
unsynchedcheese
It's one of the weird things about international alliances that nations will band together with other nations they have squabbles with, partly to present a united front against another potential aggressor, but also largely to prevent those squabbles from compounding into something worse, because we're now all in this alliance together and we should at least try to be polite. A bit like forcing two enemies into the same project group: you don't like each other, but you'll be professional for the duration of the project, and try to work around the parts where you can't stand each other.
Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.
这是国际联盟中的一件奇怪的事情，各国会跟与之发生争执的其他国家联合起来，部分是为了建立一个统一战线来对抗另一个潜在的侵略者，但主要是为了防止这些争吵变得更糟，现在既然我们都在这个联盟中了，那我们至少应该尽量保持礼貌。有点像强迫两个敌人进入同一个项目组：你们不喜欢对方，但在项目期间你会表现得很专业，并尝试围绕彼此无法忍受的部分进行合作。
有时这起作用，有时不起作用。
diediemustsay
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
敌人的敌人就是我的朋友。
unsynchedcheese
I think this is more a case of "keep your enemies closer".
我认为这更像是一个"让你的敌人更靠近你"的案例。
gydot
nop. malaysia are our cousins across the causeway, what is good for them is good for us. we all benefit when each other succeeds.
不，马来西亚是我们堤道对面的表兄弟，他们的好处就是我们的好处，当对方成功时我们都会受益。
很赞哦！ ()
