The Undiplomatic Diplomat

Yes, being a little red dot, Singapore is often forced to walk the tight rope in international politics, between the super powers, and juggling our core relations with the Israelis that came to our aid in our time of needs and our two giant neighbours that are more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. It is not a job for kids to think that Singapore has an easy task to dribble around these powerful forces and to live on unhurt or unscathed. This balancing act not only demands great diplomacy and contortionist act, but also the quality of great statesmanship to steer through the rough sea. Children should never attempt to do what is normally done by adults. Acting big, talking big and thinking big are different from whether people think you are big and if you are up to it.

The difficult job in diplomacy needs not be made more difficult by callous talks and insinuation to ruffle the feathers of interested powers unnecessary. Yes. LKY did that and got away with it. But he was LKY and he could do and say a lot of things that many national leaders would disagree but deferred to him and would not be rude to him by telling him so in his face. And if you are not LKY, please do not behave and act as if you are LKY.

The Singapore today is not the Singapore of LKY. In his heyday, Singapore, or the Istana, is like a temple of wisdom for world leaders to pay homage and ask for blessings and a piece of good advice or wisdom from the Oracle.. Today who bothers to call on the Istana to have his fortune told? There is no need to go around antagonizing others when there is no need to. There is no need to commit our national interests to the interests of big power to offend anyone.

Singapore is not a Chinese country and it is right to remind China of this fact. But there is no need to apologise or feel a sense of guilt that Singapore is a Chinese majority country. Without the Chinese majority, what would Singapore have become today? Would Singapore be still in the ranks of the third world countries with no toilets and the people shitting in the open with slums everywhere? Singapore is a Chinese majority country and we have done well for all the races here. This is a heritage that we should be proud of. And Singapore would chart its own course for the benefits of the people of Singapore, with great sensitivities to the feelings and cultural backgrounds of its people without showing favour to any or discriminating against any. 

Our diplomats must know the sentiments of the Chinese majority and not shooting off ignoring their existence. The Chinese majority is not homogenous, there are the bananas, the anglophiles, there are also those that are rooted in their ancient civilization and culture. Are they anti China or pro America?  Most of the bananas are anti China, but there are those who do not think and share the values of the bananas. Any diplomat lashing out at China is not speaking for the Chinese majority or being sensitive to their sensibilities. Would offending some sections of the Chinese majority or offending China be good for our national interests?

Singapore may need the help of the Americans in the future and we should call the USA our friend, for the USA is the only trigger happy country that would have no qualms to pull the trigger on our behalf when called upon.  In this sense the USA is a very reliable protector. But we should also not be silly to think that the Americans would do this just for our own good. It is also for their own good, a symbiotic relationship. We need the Americans and the Americans need us just as badly for a safe and reliable foothold to support their Empire and world hegemony ambition and agenda.

While we need the Americans military muscle for our national security, we also need the Chinese economic power, the market, to spur our economic growth. In this sense we need China and its economy more than China needs us. The majority Chinese Singaporeans did not see China simply on cultural and racial familiarity but an avenue for our continued economic well being. Did we not send many many govt missions to China to carve out a little niche for ourselves and for our own economic growth? Did we not become one of the biggest investors in China? Did we not build Suzhou Industrial Park, Tianjin Eco Park and the many property projects in China? We are trying so hard to cling onto the Chinese economic bandwagon to share a bit of their growth.

Is there a need to slap the Chinese in front of the Japanese and the world, to embarrass them and to call them names? What is all that for? What are we trying to achieve by painting the Chinese as enemy and not to be trusted but hoping for crumbs left on the floor by them?

If slapping China and expecting China for hangouts is diplomacy then I would have to go back to school to relearn this new trick. Now I have a reason to spend my $500 in the Skills Future Fund. Is this the highest level of diplomacy red dot style? Has anyone heard of this new diplomatic doctrine, what Doctrine shall I called it, the Doctrine of the Little Red Dot?

Do not take China for granted, for a fool. And please do not take the USA as angels. Ask yourself a simple question, would China allow you to slap its cheek and turn the other cheek? And would the USA give you no strings attached military backing? Remember how the phrase ‘You are either with us or against us’ came about and how we ended up supporting a war that we should not be involved and compromising our national interests precariously?

Diplomacy is an art of the skillful statesmen but a bungling act for little boys and girls. Be reflective and know who we are and what we are. Learn from George Yeo, the former Foreign Minister. Don’t be ‘boh tua boh suay’. Know your rightful place in the international stage of realpolitiks. You don’t get away for taking cheap pot shots at the big powers or medium powers or even small powers.  Be contrite and be wise. A day of drunken glory would end up with a nasty hangover.

Kishore may be outspoken, but he is all diplomacy and even countries like China would seek his views on international matters in some way like a smaller oracle. A diplomat is a diplomat unlike a national leader. Can a diplomat be undiplomatic?

The role of opposition parties

In the past we used to joke about civil servants working from 0800 to 1700 hrs. They arrived at the office at 0800 hrs and at 1700 hrs they left the office. In between they did nothing. This could also describe the work or role of the opposition parties. They started to come alive during a GE and subsequently went to sleep. Ok, they did a bit more than that. They attended Parliament to ask questions. When Parliament is not in session they spend their times looking after the town councils, to make sure their constituencies are clean and the street lights are working and the once a week meet the people session. Those who need not attend Parliament, got no town council to look after, got no MPS to attend, they just went into hibernation. These seem to be the role of opposition politicians.

If politicians are not elected, they cannot attend Parliament, no town council to be responsible to, and no MPS, so nothing to do. Is that so? Does an opposition politician have a voice without being in Parliament to ask questions? Can they participate or play a part in the upkeep and well being of the constituents without a town council or without a MPS?

Without the privilege of being in Parliament to ask questions, the opposition politicians still can ask many questions outside Parliament to hold the govt accountable for their policies and actions. They can raise issues, engage in discussions on matters affecting the people and country and keep the govt on its toes, to check on the govt, without being in Parliament.

There is the social media, the respective websites of the political parties and yes, even the main media can be called upon for press conference to say their piece. If opposition politicians just fade away after a GE, and keep their mouths shut in between GEs, they would very likely be forgotten.

In between GEs is the time for them to build up their credentials, their positions on issues and to get the coverage they needed, so that by the next GE they will be well known and be familiar faces to the electorate. They need to be in the minds of the people, that they are there, that they are concerned with issues affecting the people. By talking about issues, by making their stands, the electorates get to know them better, get more time to measure them and feel comfortable with them, and when the GE comes around, they are already established and well known personalities to the people.

In between GEs are important time for the opposition politicians to build up their credibility. Why do the people think some politicians are fit to be politicians? It is because they are in the news over the period before the next GE. People get used to them and subconsciously think that they are politicians. As for opposition politicians, they are just like strange things, untested, unknown and thus unsure. Opposition politicians must become household names, their names must be on the lips of the people, be part of the unofficial establishment, part of the political landscape, that they are good enough and ready to be in Parliament, that they are politicians.

Wake up and don’t go to sleep. The jobs of opposition politicians did not stop at Parliament or doing town council works. It is a continuous process, a never ending process. It does not stop after a GE.

Who decides how much freedom we can have?

This is a democracy and one of the basic rights of an individual in a democracy is freedom, the right to free speech, freedom from fear of the authority, freedom to choose our beliefs and what we want to do with our lives.

Now hear this from Tharman.

‘There is more freedom now compared to a decade ago, “let alone when I was your age”…I was a dissident, a govt critic. It was completely different then, compared to where it is now. We have evolved into a society that has more freedoms, but it has some restrictions and they serve a purpose.”… “Society has to find the right balance and some freedoms have to be curbed for it to evolve in a way that advances other freedoms, he said. “Every society faces this. We haven’t found the perfect balance, and we have to keep evolving.”

The addition is prompted by Tharman's Press Secretary, that the first part about finding the perfect balance is still evolving and Tharman's view is that we haven't found the perfect balance. I do not want to misquote him.

(PS. I have rechecked the Today paper on the above quotes and that I have misquoted the DPM on the part about the perfect balance. My apologies to the DPM, no intention to misquote him. It is never my intention as such a thing can be easily checked. The key point in the article is about who should decide on the right amount of freedom, not so much as the perfect balance.)

The big question, who shall decide how much freedom we shall have? Do we elect our representatives to form the govt to curb our freedom, to decide how much freedom we shall have?

Are we happy with the amount of freedom we are having, and if not, why are we electing our representatives to curb our freedom and then complain that we don’t have enough freedom?

The freedom is ours in the first place. This is our country, we are the masters/owners of this land. We elect representatives to manage the country, not to rule over us, not to limit our freedom the way they like it. Why do we repeatedly elect our representatives to restrain our freedom as they wished? They will give us our freedom at an amount they think is right.

Is the GE a time for the people to elect their masters to rule over them?

Defence of Singapore cannot be outsourced?

Desmond Lee, the Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs) said this. This is like a changing of tune. First we have Lim Swee Say saying that we must nurture local talents which is something they had forgotten. Now we have Desmond Lee saying another thing they have forgotten, outsourcing defence of the country to foreigners. What do you think the auxiliary police force are doing at the check points, and who are they? Are they defending the country and are these officers, or many of them, are foreigners?

We have people taking our national defence, Total Defence, for granted. In fact some of the policies are undermining the very precepts of Total Defence. Not only that foreigners, and many from highly terrorist proned countries, are brought in to work here, to live among us, in the heartland, and many were even working in sensitive positions and trades. We have this silly notion that all foreigners are friendly and would not do harm to Singapore. Oh, they have evidence that the foreigners are only using Singapore as a base, not to harm Singapore, like the discovery of Bangladeshi terrorist cells. They are only planning terrorist activities in their home country. So it is ok. Foreigners are very nice to Singapore and Singaporeans.

Why is Desmond Lee saying something so fundamental and crucial to our nation’s defence, that we need to rely on our own citizens to do that, not to outsource to foreigners? How many policies are there, like hiring and bringing in foreigners indiscriminately and employed in industries and positions that could compromise our safety, security and the defence of our nation?

We exposed our citizens by letting foreigners of dubious backgrounds to live among them, and plenty of them are now living in HDB estates. We allowed foreigners to be employed in highly sensitive IT jobs, to guard our checkpoints! How thoughtless can this be? The checkpoints are the first line of defence and these foreigners guarding them could be the holes to let the terrorists through.

What are the people in security and intelligence thinking or doing that today, after so many years of flooding the island with potentially dangerous elements, and many already in positions to do harm and damage to our defence, the damage could have been done, that we have a Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs) raising the alarm? Did he just realize that this is a dangerous path to go forward? Is he just another swallow and the rest are still happy dreaming or sleeping and allowing the foreigners to take charge or be in position to create trouble to the defence of our nation and people?

Do they know what Total Defence is all about? Have they forgotten or is Total Defence just an aspiration, not meant to be anything? No need to take Total Defence seriously? It may be too late now with half the population comprising of foreigners that have no good things to talk about us and would do us in if they could.

Defence cannot be outsourced, or should our defence continue to be outsourced? What do you think? The whole of Home Affairs and Defence Ministries, only one junior minister is awaken by this sorry state of affair and think it is necessary to talk about it. It is not a problem to the rest of them in charge of defence of the country? Can it be said that since they did not say anything about it, they are happy with the situation except Desmond Lee? Or is Desmond Lee expressing their concerns in the open as a politician?

The thing that pissed me off most, and I believe every NSmen, is to be checked and harassed by foreigners in police uniform at the check points like we are potential terrorists when we are the ones trained to defend this country, to fight and die for this country. Why are we subject to interrogations and checks and the rude glare of foreigners that could be the real terrorists or potential terrorists that would do us harm?  This is our country and our country trust foreigners to check on us, the defenders of our country?

How silly can we get? Yes Desmond, wake them up.

South China Sea gunboat diplomacy – A divergent establishment view

We heard Bilahari and Ong Keng Yong’s view, one official and one personal, attacking China for trying to divide Asean in the South China Sea island disputes. Last Saturday, the ST published a divergent establishment view about the South China Sea, this time giving it another spin. Instead of a dispute between a few South East Asian countries, claiming islands and coral reefs in the South China Sea, the veil was dropped and the naked truth was exposed. It was an open contest for control of the South China Sea by the Americans, to reinforce its hegemony over the region in the name of Freedom of Navigation.

Leslie Fong, the former editor of the ST, an establishment men, or used to be a part of the establishment. His views must still be a reflection of what the establishment is thinking. But he put it that what he wrote was not his views but the view of a Taiwanese lady by the name Ms Oh Beigong through a letter to the Japanese Admiral in charge of the American Pacific Fleet by the name of Harry Harris. A yellow banana for sure, very like the Singaporean banana, but a very dangerous one.

In brief, Ms Oh Beigong, or in Hokien Ms Black White Said, the Americans were just pretending about Freedom of Navigation but using it to pick on China while the American allies like Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam have been doing exactly what China is doing but no Freedom of Navigation to their reclaimed and militarized islands were conducted by the Americans.

The bottom line, in Leslie’s article, through Ms Oh Beigong, is this. ‘Might is right. The US is out to stymie the rise of China and prevent it from challenging American dominance, if not hegemony. We get that. So do us a favour, please stop talking about high principles and international law. However, if you wish to regain at least a modicum of respect from clear sighted people in this region, here is something you…can do. In the name of asserting freedom of navigation and upholding international law, send your destroyer or whatever to an atoll in the Philippine Sea which the Japanese call Okinotorishima and claim as their territory….the atoll lies 1,700km south of Tokyo, …but less than 500 km from Taiwan itself.’

The American hypocrisy in the South China Sea is exposed by this dear letter to the American banana now called Harry Harris, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It is all about gunboat diplomacy, about control of the South China Sea, about American hegemony.

What shit is the talk about splitting Asean countries by the other side of the establishment? What is the real issue? China claiming the islands, Asean countries claiming the islands, or the American claiming the whole South China Sea?

Thank you Leslie Fong. Oops, thank you Ms Oh Beigong.