Chitchat Paul Thambyah to see a Psychiatrist - Bilahari Kausikan

Domestic strength key for Singapore to stay relevant: Bilahari
Ambassador-at-large Bilahari Kausikan.

PUBLISHED11 HOURS AGO

Veteran envoy stresses three aspects that are crucial for that internal strength
Rachel Au-Yong
Singapore, as a small city-state, needs to have a sound domestic foundation in order to remain relevant in the international arena, said ambassador-at-large Bilahari Kausikan.

And that internal strength hinges on three aspects: politics, policy and the role of the civil service, and social cohesion, Mr Bilahari said yesterday in his fifth and final lecture as the Institute of Policy Studies' S R Nathan Fellow.

With politics, partisan interests should be kept out of foreign policy. But in reality, this is hard to achieve, he added.

In countries with long histories, partisan debates over foreign policy are conducted in a framework of shared assumptions on what ought to be in the fundamental interests of the nation, regardless of which party is in power, he said.

Singapore's opposition parties, so far, have not shown they "have any concept of the fundamental national interest", he added.

Mr Bilahari criticised the Workers' Party's Mr Pritam Singh for asking in Parliament in 2013 about Singapore's Middle East policies that "could have stirred up the feelings of our Malay-Muslim ground against the Government".

Noting that Singapore has been consistently even-handed in its relations with Israel and Palestine, he said: "The Arab countries understand our position and have no issue with our relations with Israel.''

Also excoriated was the Singapore Democratic Party's Dr Paul Tambyah, who called for a reduction in the defence budget in favour of health spending, pointing out that Singapore had a history of being non-aligned in its foreign policy.

Mr Bilahari retorted: "If the good doctor really thought that being non-aligned is an adequate substitute for deterrence through a strong SAF, he ought to consult a doctor of another sort without delay: a psychiatrist."

As for policy and the role of civil service, the veteran diplomat said it was important to have alertness, agility and an appreciation of nuances to navigate an uncertain external environment.

But the way the civil service is structured - with agencies led by Administrative Service officers who are generalists - "may have begun to degrade these qualities".

He cited the case of a Singapore agency that had signed a memorandum of understanding with China that specified disputes would be settled in Chinese.

"It broke a long-established principle of insisting that English should be the controlling language," he said.

"This was not a question of linguistic competency but of Singapore's identity," he added.

Things are changing, however.

He noted a new programme introduced in 2013 that lets members of specialist services be appointed to senior positions previously reserved for Administrative Service officers.

But whether the change is fast and far enough remains to be seen, he said.

On social cohesion, Mr Bilahari warned of Western diplomats trying to weigh in on Singapore's issues like the death penalty or gay rights, without paying attention to social and cultural fault lines.

China, however, poses "a more delicate and fundamental challenge", especially with how it approaches its ties with Chinese communities in South-east Asia.

Chinese officials often refer to Singapore as a "Chinese country", which Singapore leaders "politely but clearly and firmly" refute.

Accepting this characterisation of Singapore would not only provoke a counter-reaction from other major powers, but also strain, if not break, the multiracial compact on which Singapore's success is built, he said.

At the same time, it would be foolish to alienate China which would have a huge impact on Singapore's economic future, he added.

"Maintaining a good relationship with China, while preserving the autonomy to pursue our interests as we define them is the fine line we must walk."

Mr Bilahari also said many Singaporeans, especially younger ones, do not understand fully the complexity of the contradictory forces at play. The situation is aggravated by the move to de-emphasise history in the national curriculum, he noted.

However, he is not pessimistic about Singapore's ability to cope with the challenges ahead.

"We will cope if we continue to be clinical in our understanding of our own situation and hard-headed about what may need to be done," he said.

"We will fail only if we lose our sense of vulnerability because that is what keeps us united, agile and alert."

Click to expand...

borom said:

As a diplomat (Ambassador-at-large)he is paid by taxpayers monies to conduct diplomacy with states or international organisations, not to pass snide remarks on the opposition.

He claimed that his is a counsel of realism,but a realism that ignores public unhappiness over the govt importing massive number of poor quality immigrants that upsets our social balance, caused overcrowding in hospitals and public housing with its consequent high pricing, the constant breakdown of train services, the high social cost our kids have to pay in this pressure cooker education system , and most of all ,the curbs on individual freedom and human rights.
Realism? -why not talk to the old folks collecting cardboards for exercise and see what is the reality!

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

Excellent point bro. Though he provides clarity on why the Govt does certain things he completely ignores the issues of the day. So he is not even honest to himself let alone others.

Click to expand...

Leongsam said:

He's sticking to international diplomacy which is his area of expertise. Social issues are not his department.

his references to opposition politicians is in pointing out how poorly they fare in understanding how Singapore has to operate internationally in order to survive.

Click to expand...

borom said:

As a diplomat (Ambassador-at-large)he is paid by taxpayers monies to conduct diplomacy with states or international organisations, not to pass snide remarks on the opposition.

Click to expand...

He claimed that his is a counsel of realism,but a realism that ignores drop in quality of life due to the govt importing massive number of poor quality immigrants that upsets our social balance, caused overcrowding in hospitals and public housing with its consequent high cost of living, the constant breakdown of train services, the high social cost our kids have to pay in this pressure cooker education system , and most of all ,the curbs on individual freedom and human rights.

Realism? -why not talk to the old folks collecting cardboards for exercise and see what is the reality!

Click to expand...

Leongsam said:

An excellent speech and it is obvious that he understands the precarious position that Singapore is in far better than most.

Click to expand...

Leongsam said:

An excellent speech and it is obvious that he understands the precarious position that Singapore is in far better than most.

Click to expand...

Leongsam said:

An excellent speech and it is obvious that he understands the precarious position that Singapore is in far better than most.

Click to expand...

Leongsam said:

He's sticking to international diplomacy which is his area of expertise. Social issues are not his department.

his references to opposition politicians is in pointing out how poorly they fare in understanding how Singapore has to operate internationally in order to survive.

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

At best a convenient excuse and probably something that he tells himself to go to bed. If that is indeed the case, he should have then recognised that Paul Thambyah was no expert in international country dynamics and should have cut him some slack. I agree with him about Pritam who previously was in this field and should have known better. Bilahari was not fair when it came to PT. PT I know was naive but it was his desire to find funding for the medical safety net proposal.

Click to expand...

RandomNexus said:

Paul Tambyah should just stay in his area of concern - healthcare. He is doing such a good job creating awareness and especially for those under-privileged. I shook my head when he assailed the government on defence spending. He is entering into an area he has little understanding like most average folks. The big question for the middle ground folks is how much to give way to more healthcare spending without tilting the bowl too much it could not give out more beyond its capacity. I doubt SDP has any idea at all.

In all politics, all is fair and if you come out with the punches, you likewise deserve to be wrecked, and it does not matter which camp you are from. Here, Paul Tambyah deserved the punches coz he entered into the arena himself.

Click to expand...

RandomNexus said:

Paul Tambyah should just stay in his area of concern - healthcare. He is doing such a good job creating awareness and especially for those under-privileged. I shook my head when he assailed the government on defence spending. He is entering into an area he has little understanding like most average folks. The big question for the middle ground folks is how much to give way to more healthcare spending without tilting the bowl too much it could not give out more beyond its capacity. I doubt SDP has any idea at all.

In all politics, all is fair and if you come out with the punches, you likewise deserve to be wrecked, and it does not matter which camp you are from. Here, Paul Tambyah deserved the punches coz he entered into the arena himself.

Click to expand...

borom said:

As a diplomat (Ambassador-at-large)he is paid by taxpayers monies to conduct diplomacy with states or international organisations, not to pass snide remarks on the opposition.

Being vulnerable or feeling vulnerable does not give one the excuse to limit individual freedom and human rights.
If he wants to "bash" opposition politicians ,he should do so in his individual capacity or better still, join the PAP and "bash" them in election rallies. At least the good doctor has the guts to go on stage and state his views in an election rally while Pritam earned his right by being elected to Parliament.

He claimed that his is a counsel of realism,but a realism that ignores drop in quality of life due to the govt importing massive number of poor quality immigrants that upsets our social balance, caused overcrowding in hospitals and public housing with its consequent high cost of living, the constant breakdown of train services, the high social cost our kids have to pay in this pressure cooker education system , and most of all ,the curbs on individual freedom and human rights.

Realism? -why not talk to the old folks collecting cardboards for exercise and see what is the reality!

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

The guy can't help himself.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/domestic-strength-key-for-spore-to-stay-relevant-bilahari

Click to expand...