Singapore does not take sides in foreign policy – Chan Chun Sing

Speaking to Chinese youth in Beijing. ST 7 Jul, Chan Chun Sing told his Chinese audience that Singapore does not take sides in foreign policy.  In recent comments by govt officials, it is very difficult to believe how this is the case when the position was so clearly pro USA and anti China. At one point a diplomat had to retracted his anti China comment by claiming it to be a personal comment and not speaking in an official capacity to represent the Singapore govt’s view.  Clearly the personal view was anti China.
The recent China Asean Foreign Minister Meeting in Kunming also created doubts as to the position of Singapore, whether it is neutral or anti China. Vivian Balakrishnan was the co chairman of the Meeting but chose to be absence when a closing comment was to be delivered by the two Chairman. What did his absence got to say about the neutrality of Singapore? And in the same Meeting, an anti China joint statement was issued by Malaysia for obvious reason only to retrieve the statement when Cambodia protested.

What about the recent comments by the Ambassador at Large, Bilahari Kausikan in Japan and in his lectures at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy? They were anything but friendly to China. They were anything but neutral. Was he talking in his private capacity or as a spokesman for the Singapore govt? If the latter, his view must be the official position of the govt ie, not neutral but pro American.

Simon Tay has this to add about what Bilahari said in his pro American public lectures about Trojan Horses in Asean. Simon said that while we ridiculed countries becoming Trojan Horses, we shall not be seen to be little USAs. These are not the exact words used by Simon, but the intent is similar. Asean states must not become the cronies of the USA while pointing the fingers at other countries, calling others as Trojan Horses. Isn't this the same, that some Asean countries are the Trojan Horses of the Americans too?

Is this the position of the Singapore govt? Does Chan Chun Sing know about it? Is Chan Chun Sing aware of the govt’s position or is he not? Or is Chan Chun Sing’s position the position of the Singapore govt and Bilahari’s position is not? Are they the same Singapore govt's position on relations with China and the USA?
Which is which, cannot be both are the govt’s position when they are conflicting views? How would these views make of Chan Chun Sing’s official statement that Singapore does not take sides in foreign policies?