What's behind 'triple whammy' attacks on Singapore?

The Straits Times, February 10, 2007

Warren Fernandez
THINKING ALOUD


ALL of a sudden, Singapore has been hit by a 'triple whammy' of bad blood with our neighbours.

First came the spat with Thailand, after its military-installed government took offence when ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra came to Singapore and had a meeting, albeit unofficial, with Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar.

Amid dark talk of cancellation of official visits and ties came the truly stunning suggestion that Singapore had been spying on Thai leaders, by routing telephone calls from Thailand through Singapore to facilitate this. It prompted the extravagant idea that Thailand had to have its own satellites to stop this.

Then came the controversial Asean Football Championship soccer final, in which the Thai team walked off the pitch and stayed on the sidelines for 15 minutes over a controversial penalty awarded by the Malaysian referee. The next day, no less than Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont asked, after the Thais lost the first-leg game: 'Were we cheated?'

The second blow came from just up north, with the tired old allegations by Johor's leaders that Singapore's land reclamation had caused the massive floods that hit in December and again last month.

The same stories of fishermen losing their catches and villagers worrying about Singapore's islands creeping ever closer to them were trotted out in the Malaysian media. Never mind that studies have been commissioned by both Singapore and Malaysia, which concluded there is scarcely a grain of truth to the charges.

But perhaps the most disappointing blow came from below, or to the south of Singapore, with the sudden announcement by Indonesia of a blanket ban on the export of sand, supposedly out of newfound concerns for the environment.

This took many in Singapore by surprise. After all, were not ties between the two countries at a high point? Had Singapore not just sent a team from its air force to help in the search for a downed Indonesian plane off Sulawesi? Had there not been a flurry of missions to Indonesia in the wake of disasters, from tsunami to earthquakes, and to help tackle the deadly bird flu, or develop special economic zones?

Did none of this count for anything?

There has been talk in Jakarta about unhappiness at the highest levels over Singapore's decision to raise the issue of the recurring haze at the United Nations, and to seek international help to tackle the problem, rather than keeping this as a matter to be discussed within Asean. Some have also said the sand ban was imposed out of frustration that the extradition treaty between the two countries has yet to be agreed on.

Hence, the need to remind the 'little red dot' of its place in the grander scheme of things in Asean?

Ironically, this 'triple whammy' came just days after the latest declarations of goodwill and fraternity by Asean leaders at their summit in Cebu, the Philippines, and at a time when the group is preparing to mark its 40th anniversary in Singapore later this year.

So, Singaporeans and others looking on from abroad might well wonder what to make of these tensions simmering to the surface amid all the frothy talk of Asean solidarity.

No doubt, even some Singaporeans might well wonder if the problem lies with the Republic, with its hard-headed approach to international relations, given that so many appear to be so upset with us. Might there be something in the criticisms about the cold, calculating, self-centred approach to diplomacy Singapore is so often accused of?

Perhaps. But I suspect a closer look at what underlies the present round of attacks will reveal another common denominator: the wild card of nationalism, which some politicians are wont to play in times of need.

How much easier it must be to point a finger at that annoyingly successful know-it-all neighbour nearby rather than try to come up with answers to pressing questions at home - such as why so much of Johor and the rest of Malaysia were affected so badly by the recent floods.

Or why foreign investors are spooked by the series of policy missteps by the new leaders in Bangkok, as well as the slow pace of producing evidence of widespread corruption against Mr Thaksin.

It is an old and familiar tactic - essentially, of changing the subject, deflecting attention, or focusing minds on something else. Never mind that such efforts are likely to be counter-productive, and ultimately futile. After all, Singapore's leaders - and its people - have shown time and again they are hardly likely to cave in to such pressures.

After all, just look at how the Republic responded to the relentless Malaysian threats to curb its water supply. It came up with Newater, which some mocked or scoffed at initially, but which is now a multi-million-dollar industry, with Singapore's know-how now sought after from Australia to the Middle East. Perhaps next will come NewSand, a synthetic equivalent which some are already talking about as the next adversity-turned-to-advantage answer to a shortage, not just in Singapore but elsewhere too, such as in China with its can't-get-enough construction boom.

Those who play the nationalist card should also ponder what foreign investors and observers might think of a region where leaders put on a show of solidarity one day, then go on to accuse their partners of spying on them or harming their environment.

Or where some politicians are seemingly unable to think rationally when it comes to selling and trading - note 'sell', not just supply - natural commodities such as sand and water, or major services like telecommunications and air travel, to one another?

Might these Asean leaders one day face the same fate as some of their European counterparts, whose voters, having grown used to nationalism being stirred up when politically convenient, are left puzzled and resistant when their leaders start to extol the virtues of working across national boundaries, of building trans-national communities, with its own charters and constitutions?

Of course, no one expects Asean leaders to agree all the time. As neighbours, there will always be ups and downs in ties, and the occasional disagreement. Even now, to be fair, much cooperation continues at the Asean level, and much good work is being done to keep things on an even keel, despite the choppy waters.

Yet, somewhere between the so-called 'Asean way' of coyly refusing to interfere in one another's internal affairs, and yet being ever-so-ready to engage in high-profile public spats over bilateral differences, with wild charges hurled about freely, a new way forward will have to be worked out. It has to be a way where disagreements and disputes can be resolved with some sense of rationality, decorum, trust and mutual respect.

Perhaps the group of eminent Asean statesmen charged with drawing up the Asean Charter might pull this off. I hope so. For, sadly, 40 years after its birth, Asean seems a long way from forging a sense of community.

If its peoples are to be drawn closer together, and buy into the idea of an Asean Community, its leaders will have to do much more to take the group beyond being just a loose association of states which come together every so often simply to talk about the pressing need to get together.