You have both made your points. It's not the only the Singaporean elites including PM LHL and Tommy Koh who have publicly expressed their views on respect for International law/legal jurisdictions. It is mistaken to say that Singapore is a "Chinese" country just because 75% of the population are Chinese. We are multi-racial nation (Chinese, Malay, Indians, Eurasians & Others). All have equal and democratic rights & free speech. As for Singapore's respect for International law like most nations, especially the small ones, if not some big ones, we sincerely believe in this respected principal. I probably mentioned in earlier comments some time ago: We had disputes with Malaysia on the territorial claims of "Pedra Blanca"/ "Batu Puteh" (rock where Singapore Horsbough light house is located). Both Malaysia & Singapore agreed, and brought the matter to the IJC at Hague. The matter after close examinations was settled amicably, with independent Judgement by several respected judges, in Singapore's favour. Then also there was a dispute between Malaysia & Singapore on our land reclamation close-by to Johore (Malaysia) territorial water border. IJC at Hague heard the case, and agreed that Singapore should not have done it & stop further land reclamations in that location - i.e. judgement in Malaysia's favour, and Singapore complied. If we are to side any country contrary to International law rulings on "awards"/international rulings by the Hague, that it would be hypocritical, and fly in Singapore's face. All previous awards in favour of Singapore by the Hague would then be questionable, possibly with past disputes like Pedra Blanca) resurrected. Further examples: Indonesia vs Malaysia re: claims to "Ambalat" Block (where Oil was found), located at the water border of Sabah/North Kalimantan. The Court at Hague awarded Malaysia the lawful right to the claim the Block. Also, the case of Thailand vs Cambodia, where the strip of land on the border where the historical temple is located. Thailand was awarded jurisdiction by the International Court. BTW I am not an elite or have anything to do with the Singapore Government or their MFA. I am an ordinary citizen interested in history, and hopefully wish there will be peace in the region. Most ordinary citizens in the country, and I believe in ASEAN hope there will be no crisis and chaos. "Thorns spring up when an army passes. Years of misery follow a great victor. Do what needs to be done without using violence." Tao Te Ching.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
First it's important to note that the PCA is not the ICJ, nor is it in any way affiliated with the UN. Second, any arbitration case is only valid if all parties willingly subject themselves to arbitration by the same authority from the very beginning, which was not the situation with the Philippines PCA SCS case. Third, there are actually multiple commonly acknowledged fundamentally conflicting interpretations of UNCLOS, international maritime laws, and territorial claims at play in the SCS. So the overlapping SCS territorial claims are not going to be easily solved multilaterally and certainly not by imposing arbitration by any external authority with its own agenda. Modern Singapore is an unintended byproduct of colonialism and has been managed successfully as a tiny sovereign entity partially because of the persistence of colonialist/neo-colonialist conditions which makes its position regarding the SCS disputes understandable as well as no less driven by self-interest as any of the claimants' claims.
Suggest pl stop using "past Neo-Colonialism" rhetoric. Singapore, though a small nation is not subservient to anyone, whether a big Western or an Asian country . Rhetoric & slogans were used during Mao's period, BUT not during the time of Deng Tsao Ping's and modern China. Self interests of South China Sea claimants are their business, and only them whether Vietnam, Philippines and the others. They can deal with the matter in whatever suits or beneficial to them. Singapore is just making its legitimate comments on the Rule of Law - as I mentioned in reference to the various past cases judged in the Hague. Anyone can criticise till the cows come home, but it does not make any difference for well intentioned people who must stand up to unnecessary pressures. PanASian, It's OK to agree to disagree in a civilised world. No hawkish but owlish approach preferred by professionals.
Singapore has been the blatant driving force behind everything that undermines China's fundamental interest in Asia, from engineering TPP to pushing for the PCA under the excuse : "China should not take sigapore for grantred, singapore has its own interest".
how come the tiny city state takes on the most powerful country in the region with no consideration for consequences? because they take China for granted! America may bomb Iraq and hang Saddam, China is not going to bomb Singapore and hang Lee Hsien-long, that's their calculation.
fortunately today the young generation in China has waken up to the fact that someone looks like you may not be your friend, they will have no hesitation to bomb and kill.
Very caustic posting. Anyway, freedom of speech allows you to express your opinions and criticisms even if exaggerated and spiteful. Although Singapore is a small nation, we are friendly to all nations in a globalised inter-dependent world, for trade, investments & international business. We don't believe insulting other countries or making enemies. I have spoken to several refined Chinese. They gratefully acknowledged that the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, former DPM of Singapore, when he retired from office, complied to China's request for advise in the establishment of its first 5 Economic Zones in the 1960s/70s. They were successfully established. Then there was China's Szu Chou Industrial Park Project, that Singapore advised, helped plan, established, and invested in. Additionally, China's senior civil administrators were given training at the Singapore National Technological University (NTU) and Civil Service College (CSC) for several years. Recently, Singapore PM Lee HL at the G20 Conference in China agreed to help establish and invest in another project at Chong King. President Xi was, and is always courteous & diplomatic, besides being a dynamic leader. We are glad that most Chinese are unlike you LesAdieux. If China is unhappy, it should bring up the problems in a diplomatic manner without using aggressive/threatening language. Discuss and bring the attention of unhappiness etc. to Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). I envisaged the Ministry will listen and respond in a realistic and diplomatic manner. The Media: Newspapers, blogs etc. are not the place to complain, or worst to "threaten". China at times complain about Western Media being brash, one-sided etc. You as an individual are doing the same, if not worse than the media in the West. Thank goodness most China Chinese are NOT undiplomatic or crude using unnecessary inflammatory words like you using of such words like "hang" "bombing" etc. Anyway, this thread is actually no the place to discuss these matters. My sincere apologies to the Moderator. I am just an ordinary citizen who believe in promoting friendship and goodwill and also with friends in China. Also with a few diplomats I met from your Chinese Embassy in Singapore, at a recent Malaysian High Commission Independence Reception. They were really nice diplomats.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
That is a bit too strong a word. Singapore was one of the formulator of TPP. But in the early stage it was not envisage as bulwark against China. Latter on the US take over the leadership of TPP and make as a tool to contain and isolate China.
Though Singapore allow the US navy to use their facility . It is not US base like in Okinawa or Korea. It is still under Singapore jurisdiction and It was dated fro 1960's when Singapore was afraid of Indonesian invasion and too weak to defend themselves .
So they need guarantor and allowing US presence is an insurance policy. Thing move forward nobody foresaw it become propaganda material for the neocon giving the impression of Singapore as quasi ally of the US . They did propose to make it formal treaty but Singapore decline
Having said that the present PM does in fact give the impression of tilting toward "law and order" a catch word for taking the west position in SCS. Which we all know is a kangaroo court and has no jurisdiction to rule on border
And being the China coordinator for relation with China, doesn't help either.
She tend to side with the Phillipine position. Now that Phillipine themselves change tack and so do the Malaysia, Thailand even Vietnam. It make Singapore look like a fool.! I don't know why maybe because they want to be on the good side of the west
Here is an excellent explanation of Singapore position from George Yeo He is the former diplomat chief of staff SAF and former trade, foreign minister of Singapore
I think Singapore is doing this is not that they are anti China, they are doing this, because this is for the best interest for Singapore, and all the Freedom of navigation, arbitration ruling etc... is just as good as excuse as any other in the alternative reality..
If you look at Singapore's profile and geography, you can see they are more like a City State than a nation, and City State only exist for a very specific reason in the modern age, and when that reason is obsolete, they have no reason to exist anymore, this applies to Hong Kong, Vatican, Monaco etc... and the reason Singapore exist is because they can exploit their geography advantage as a trading hub + An enclave for Chinese immigrant in South East Asia who were discriminated by all local nations.
A trading hub works best when there is not one single power that dominate the whole region, so they need a middle man to do business or transit.
US is far away in the Americas, so the best thing they can do is influence Asia, but they never had the ability to totally control Asia, but China on the other hand, is a giant local power, and they do have the potential resource to totally control Asia
If one day, China totally dominate the trade lines in Asia pacific itself, Singapore's competitiveness will take a huge hit. As well as a place for Chinese enclaves in SE Asia. So their recent Pro-US policy is trying to maintain this old balance.
I don't think Singapore is anti-China at all, I think they have done the greatest service for China to get to this point, what China has accomplished today, has huge help from Singapore, Deng himself modeled China's opening up after his visit to Singapore, China has send and is still probably sending thousands of politicians to Singapore to learn how to do government etc...
And I feel that Singapore initially was very happy when it was helping China to see them get stronger... but now I feel that they feel their effort has produced too much success too soon, and it is worrying them a bit. This is similar to how China felt once US left South Vietnam, they didn't want North Vietnam to conquer the South.
If I were China, the best thing I can do is to assure Singapore that China's goal in SE Asia is not total dominate or take over Singapore's place, they must tell Singapore no matter how powerful China gets, Singapore will always have a role in Asia.
If I were Singapore... I would probably not listen to China and keep trying to balance them... Unless I can get something I writing lol
If you look at Singapore's profile and geography, you can see they are more like a City State than a nation, and City State only exist for a very specific reason in the modern age, and when that reason is obsolete, they have no reason to exist anymore, this applies to Hong Kong, Vatican, Monaco etc... and the reason Singapore exist is because they can exploit their geography advantage as a trading hub + An enclave for Chinese immigrant in South East Asia who were discriminated by all local nations.
A trading hub works best when there is not one single power that dominate the whole region, so they need a middle man to do business or transit.
US is far away in the Americas, so the best thing they can do is influence Asia, but they never had the ability to totally control Asia, but China on the other hand, is a giant local power, and they do have the potential resource to totally control Asia
If one day, China totally dominate the trade lines in Asia pacific itself, Singapore's competitiveness will take a huge hit. As well as a place for Chinese enclaves in SE Asia. So their recent Pro-US policy is trying to maintain this old balance.
I don't think Singapore is anti-China at all, I think they have done the greatest service for China to get to this point, what China has accomplished today, has huge help from Singapore, Deng himself modeled China's opening up after his visit to Singapore, China has send and is still probably sending thousands of politicians to Singapore to learn how to do government etc...
And I feel that Singapore initially was very happy when it was helping China to see them get stronger... but now I feel that they feel their effort has produced too much success too soon, and it is worrying them a bit. This is similar to how China felt once US left South Vietnam, they didn't want North Vietnam to conquer the South.
If I were China, the best thing I can do is to assure Singapore that China's goal in SE Asia is not total dominate or take over Singapore's place, they must tell Singapore no matter how powerful China gets, Singapore will always have a role in Asia.
If I were Singapore... I would probably not listen to China and keep trying to balance them... Unless I can get something I writing lol
That's too harsh. Sino-Singapore relationship is a bit strained right now, but is still quite friendly. Prime Minister Lee Hsien-long was invited as special guest by Xi Jinping to attend this year's G-20 summit in China. The current bump in the relationship will pass; Singapore is way too smart to let it get out of control and it's not in China's interest to continue to push Singapore. The two nations have a lot in stake. Singapore has also benefited tremendously by taking a very balanced and neutral policy between China and the US until recently, and was therefore trusted enough by China to have meetings between mainland China and Taiwan happen in Singapore.
To be sure, the geopolitical competition between the US and China in Asia has really squeezed the room for small nations in the region to maneuver. Singapore's traditionally pro-West/pro-US policy is rooted in self-interest and self-protection, being a small city state surrounded by much larger countries of Muslim population. Singapore therefore opened itself to multinational corporations, trades and investments. When Philippines closed the US military bases (Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base) in 1992, Singapore invited the US military to use its facilities. Obviously, Singapore did this not out of any anti-China considerations initially. Singapore simply viewed the US military as a benign and stabilizing presence in the region.
Now, with the US Asia policy increasingly has become China-focused, and particularly since 2010 when the Pivot to Asia was announced, it almost appears everything the US does is to build an alliance and coalition for the purpose of containing China and its rising influence in Asia. This include TPP, which began as an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement by for small nations including Singapore. Only when the US joined the initiative had become an ABC (Anyone but China) club aiming to curb China's influence. Singapore has pushed strongly for TPP, both because it relies heavily on trade and because it wants a strong US presence in the region.
Singapore does drift away somewhat from its traditional balanced and neutral policy between the US and China lately, particularly since the illegal rulings from PCA. I do think it will fine-tune its policy if not in substance at least in public stance - Singapore is too smart to pursue a one-sided policy.
Of course it's OK to agree to disagree. There are many interpretations and sensitivities about terms such as neo-colonialism and colonialism just as there are about capitalism and communism and a lot of other concepts, which is exactly why they are worthy of discussion rather than being excluded from discourse.
Thank you Hendrik 2000, sanblvd and weig2000 for your fair comments. The video on Mr George Yeo's dialogue with CCTV was very good, & its proceedings were quoted in Singapore Straits Times today. The questions asked were fair and direct. and so were the answers. Mr George Yeo was an excellent Foreign Minister, unfortunately he lost in the last General Election, and decided to join the private sector as a Very Senior Director with Kerry HK.. Several others (but not of Mr George Yeo's stature or past high position) thru' the years left government service for lucrative and challenging commercial appointments, like myself 30+ years ago. BTW, I would like to reiterate my previous thread postings, & hopefully convince some doubters. My personal belief is Singapore's stand is not to interfere in the South China Sea issues - it's up to China and the 5 claimants to settle them. Our respect to the rule of law specifically refers to examples of international Hague rulings in Singapore's favour re: "Pedra Blanca" dispute with Malaysia. Same to with Malaysia/Indonesia "Ambalat Block" ruling in favour of Malaysia, North-western coast Singapore land reclamation dispute awarded in favour of Malaysia etc. etc. There was "hype" recently by some Chinese quarters vigorously arguing that Singapore interfered with China's historical claims in the South China Sea. This was a mistaken notion. We have always been a friend of China and continue to be so. In a globalised world, Singapore is also friendly and trade, do biz and invest etc. with everyone: China, US, UK, EU, India etc. We also support China's One Belt One Road initiatives. To conclude the following precept should set us thinking: "Sincerity and Truth are the basis of every virtue" (Confucius 551-479 BC).