How to live with neighbours: Stay cool despite heated spats

The Straits Times, February 13, 2007
By Chua Mui Hoong, Deputy Political Editor


IN 2002, Shanghai authorities decided that the Shanghai Concert Hall was in too noisy a neighbourhood, no thanks to a nearby expressway.

Seven months of planning later, in April 2003, the entire building was moved off its foundation. It was hoisted onto a concrete platform and trundled on specially built tracks to its new home - 66 metres away.

This amazing act of derring-do and engineering prowess is sure to bring a smile to Singaporeans wont to grumble about the Republic's luck in being situated in a rough neighbourhood.

When relations with neighbouring countries get prickly, when natural or health disasters strike in the region, some Singaporeans muse wistfully: 'If only we can tow the entire island to some more peaceful neighbourhood.'

Of course such sentiments are uttered in jest.

Of course sensible Singaporeans understand that geography is destiny: that Singapore's position at the crossroads of Asia, and its harbour at the tail-end of one of the world's busiest waterways, give the Republic added economic traction.

Of course wishing to be towed away is sheer escapism, and not a viable way to deal with foreign policy hiccups.

There are other approaches to foreign relations issues, and they were displayed in Parliament yesterday during Question Time.

Indonesia's recent ban of sand exports, which hit Singapore firms hardest, came up for debate, as did Singapore-Thailand relations which went through a rough patch following the private visit last month of deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

What's Singapore to do when faced with a barrage of attacks from its neighbours?

One response is to duck and change. In a word, appease.

Madam Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC) asked if actions like Indonesia's ban on sand exports spring from the 'politics of envy' and asked: 'Would Singapore be reviewing itself to be more measured in its pace so as to pacify our neighbours?'

Noting that Singapore's fast growth and success 'may be creating a lot of tensions with our neighbours', while its offer to 'help' cause them 'loss of face', she asked if 'a different tactic and approach' will work.

Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) did not agree with her approach. Nor did Foreign Minister George Yeo, who said Singapore should not slow down for the sake of its neighbours.

'We should never do that. We should do what is in the interest of Singapore,' he said.

Indeed, Madam Ho's comments are baffling in the extreme. As even a neutral observer like The Economist noted in its latest issue, 'there is always a plausible-sounding reason for the fights that Singapore's neighbours pick with it...

'But it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the little country's unforgivable offence is being richer and more successful than its neighbours, and not particularly apologetic about it.'

Should Singapore therefore start being more 'apologetic'? Surely not, for such false modesty is unseemly, will win it no friends - and is certainly no guarantee of cordial relations.

If an apologetic stance is no way to conduct foreign policy, could a more belligerent one based on tit-for-tat nationalism be called for?

Ms Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio GRC) referred to the Thai decision to cancel an ongoing exchange programme between civil servants, which she said showed clearly that the Thais did not value it.

'Shouldn't the ministry cancel all such programmes and channel the money to better use, such as, for example, expediting the lift upgrading programme in Nee Soon South?'

In other words, give as good as it gets. I don't know if Ms Lee was just grandstanding for Nee Soon South constituents, or if she seriously thought that tit-for-tat was a good basis for Singapore's relations with its neighbours.

Mr Yeo's reply was a model of calm, stressing the need for Singapore to be 'very rational in our responses towards reactions in Thailand'.

The Thais had gone through difficult times and had just gone through a coup, he noted, adding:

'Our hearts are with them and we wish them well so it is certainly not in our interest to aggravate the situation by reacting in an emotional way.'

Therein lies the better way to conduct foreign relations - or indeed, human relations.

Not childish escapism. No need for appeasement. No need for tit-for-tat nationalism inflaming sentiments.

When elements in neighbouring countries get into a tizzy, Singapore need neither get cowed or provoked.

Instead, reason, reasonableness, and a certain sanguinity are called for - even as the Republic remains vigilant to protect its interests.

As for the occasional neighbourly spat, it has its value, underscored by the questions from two relatively new MPs (Madam Ho was elected in 2001 and Ms Lee in 2006): to expose and educate a new generation of politicians - and Singaporeans - to geopolitical realities.