I posted an
article a few weeks ago on Singapore China relations but somehow it went
missing. I am not going to repost it for good reasons. The gist of that article
was about top Singaporean diplomats commenting on China trying to divide Asean
countries on the issue of South China Sea island dispute. This had riled China
and there was protest as expected from China. One of the diplomat corrected
himself that it was a personal view, not the official view of the Singapore
govt.
In the Today
paper on 19 May, the same issue was raised in Bilahari Kausikan’s speech as
Singapore’s Ambassador at Large at a policy forum in Tokyo. The views
expressed, I am not sure if it is Singapore’s official position or a personal
view, more likely to be the former. The title of the speech was ‘Multiracial
Singapore must resist being characterized as Chinese country – Standing up to –
and getting along with – China’.
I am not
going to repeat what Bilahari said in the speech, you can read it at
tdy.sg/standupchina. What I would like
to point out is the choice of words used in the speech to describe Singapore
China relations vis a vis Singapore USA relations, a kind of reading between
the lines. The expressions or words used would give a good impression of the
weightage and thinking behind the officials of the Singapore govt. I stand
corrected, but presuming that the speech is official and a representative of
the govt’s stand.
Take the
first example used by Bilahari in describing Vietnam’s relationship with China
in his conversation with a senior Vietnamese official. ‘Every Vietnamese
leader, he replied, must be able to stand up to China and get along with China,
and if anyone think this cannot be done at the same time, he does not deserve
to be a leader… The two Asean members who currently seem to have forgotten this
basic lesson of South east Asian history, Cambodia and the Philippines, may
well come to regret it.’
Bilahari was
referring to Cambodia that is too close to China and the Philippines that is
too confrontational to China. What is the right position is to stand up to
China and at the same time to get along with China, like Singapore, the ability
to punch above its weight, to deal with a big power like China. This is like
being able to criticize China for its intent to divide Asean and at the same
time happily going to China to seek economic cooperation. A win win formula.
Bilahari
posed the question whether China is a friend and what does that mean. He added, ‘Chinese friendship can sometimes
be as overwhelming as Chinese enmity. The United States is certainly a friend.
But it can be a very intrusive friend, too often unable to resist the
temptation to whip the heathen along the path of righteousness.’ The key words here are that the Americans are
friends, and Americans are righteous. As
for China, it is a big question mark. American righteousness? Hmmmm, I smell
bananas.
He also
commented, ‘It was never very realistic to expect China to passively be a
“responsible stakeholder” in an order it had little say in establishing. This
phrase is the favourite used by the Americans to tag on China despite the evil
and wicked wars the irresponsible Americans have been conducting everywhere and
none by China.
Ok, let me
move on. Bilahari harped on the point that China ‘constantly refers to
Singapore as a “Chinese country” who should therefore “understand” China better
and hints at undefined but vast rewards if we should “explain” China to other
Asean countries. It is good to note that
all countries, particularly the Americans too have been doing the same, ie,
expecting other countries to “explain” American’s position. Is there anything
unusual by singling out China other than the “Chinese country” part?
He went on
to say Singapore politely and firmly told the Chinese we are not a Chinese
country and we would not ‘obey’ what the Chinese meant as explain and
understanding. And here is the key to
his thinking, ‘If we were ever foolish enough to accept their characterization
and do their bidding, the multiracial meritocratic compact on which independent
Singapore rests would be at least severely strained if not broken.’ Read this
last sentence very carefully as it reveals a lot of the thinkings of the ‘We’
Bilahari is referring to.
His other
choice words to describe Singapore China relations are ‘Chinese seductions’.
You make your own conclusion on the use of these words and phrases to describe
Singapore China relations as against Singapore US and Japan relations with
words like ‘our partners’.
In his
concluding paragraph Bilahari disclosed that the Americans and Europeans too
made attempts to influence the internal dynamics of Singapore. The most
important difference is that the Americans and Europeans and Japanese are
friends, partners. In the case of China, the word ‘friend’ is a big ‘what’?
The fact
that the whole speech is now deemed fit to be published in the main media says
a lot. In the previous case that led to China protesting about the ‘dividing
Asean countries’, to reprint the whole article again, is like making an
official statement, that Singapore would stand up to China, we are not a
‘Chinese country’ but we also want to have good relations with China and be
able to say what we want to say.
When would China
cut off Singapore’s participation in the OBOR and other projects in China to
tell Singapore that Singapore can go stand up to China for as much as it wants and
to punch above its weight?
