Skip to main content

China-Singapore Relationship in Hot Water? And our foreign minister can't help.


Two published commentaries in the Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao confirmed China-Singapore relationship is not as good as before.

# Tommy Koh talks about China’s four misunderstandings (Singapore not a Chinese state, support ASEAN, foreign policy towards big countries, and different world views)

# Wang Gungwu’s looking back to understand the future that China must understand Singapore’s self-image as a multicultural nation with a global outlook.
http://www.straitstimes.com/authors/wang-gungwu

Is this a coincidence two commentaries appearing at the same day, from Koh’s misunderstandings to Wang’s understanding? What do they want to tell their readers? Not to worry, just a misunderstanding and China needs to understand us to improve the relationship.

Both Koh and Wang stress that even though 75% of Singapore population are Chinese, we are a multicultural and multiracial society.  Does it mean we don’t need to understand (master) Chinese to understand China?  

Have they mentioned anything about our foreign policy and the work done by Singapore’s foreign ministry?

It is very obvious that after the departure of George Yeo, the two foreign ministers are just part-time ministers as they also hold other important portfolios. When a ministry without a calibre minister, this is the expected outcome. One will wonder why PM Lee Hsien Loong does not appoint a ‘qualified’ minister to head the foreign ministry.

Before talking about the fourth generation leadership, we may have to seriously searching for a suitable foreign minister. So far, none of the potential ‘six’ has the calibre. Or maybe Ong Ye Kung who talked about short and long history in Beijing recently ("We cannot over-rely on history because it was not too long ago in history that Singapore did not exist," ). Ong also stated our position: "A small country needs a world order that respects and abides by international law and the sanctity of contracts and agreements,"

Is Ong’s short-long history different from Wang’s looking back to understand the future?

After all, we want China to understand we are small, we are multicultural and we want others to respect international orders.

Are these thinking up-to-date? Or is this a stagnation thought, a cold war thinking?

China’s development is a world history. The world order is no more a bipolar. Chinese domestic politics will affect how it interacts with the world.

Xi Jinping now emphasized not only the defense of territorial sovereignty and maritime resources but also increasing China’s cultural influence and improving regional security cooperation. He is less interested than previous Chinese leaders in abiding by the liberal economic order and more interested in molding the international order to match Chinese interests.


The two commentaries have not discussed Singapore’s own problems: attitude of new citizens, declining Chinese proficiency, lack of foreign affairs/Chinese experts, …

When Xi is promoting Chinese cultural influence, he is, in fact, targeting our weakest point. This is very different from participating at a singing contest in China!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting

因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。

  因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。 如果只有一套解决方法,很难看出好坏,方便还是不方便,易通还是不容易通。用新方法代替旧的系统,人们当然会做比较,尤其是科技产品,使用的人很多,一用就马上看到结果。 这是一个竞争的世界,即使一党独大,也要考虑到便民。当人民觉得不方便,不好用,不易通,就会反映,发声,不满。为什么没有预先想到,最可怕的是测试时,已经接到反应,还是不加改善。或许,行动党还抱着“令伯”最大,用者自行解决问题。 易通公交收费系统的整合,似乎缺少一种人文,沟通,反而更加多表现出政府的独断独行。尤其重要的是,如果只有一套系统,我们是看不出问题,做不出好坏的评价。 这其实证明国会里不可以只有一把声音,没有比较,没有进步。

After 60 years, after 3 failed political imaginations, the PAP is deteriorating...