A Singapore quibble highlights why foreign policy debates should be encouraged, not shut down
A robust, perhaps even caustic, exchange on Facebook last weekend between two prominent Singaporeans over the city state's China policy had me thinking about foreign policy debates in smaller countries.
More often than not, the view in such nations is that nothing good comes out of public quarrels over these issues.
Foreign policy establishments, whether in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur or Manila, would much rather that differences are aired and dealt with privately. Doing otherwise is seen as increasing the risk of powerful outside forces manipulating the debate to their advantage.
Get the latest insights and analysis from our Global Impact newsletter on the big stories originating in China.
But surely there is also reason to argue that having such debates out in the open helps those with facts on their side quash facile or baseless assertions.
Take for example the debate between Singapore's diplomatic doyen Tommy Koh and the former editor of The Straits Times, Leslie Fong.
I won't go too much into the weeds of their Facebook exchange, but it mainly related to their opposing views on whether Beijing was entirely to blame for two recent troughs in Sino-Singapore relations: in 2004, over a private visit by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to Taiwan (just before he became PM), and in 2016 and 2017, over the South China Sea dispute.
Their exchange occurred last Saturday, the 30th anniversary of the establishment of formal bilateral ties. Koh posted a Straits Times article chronicling the highs and lows of the relationship, commenting that the writer was correct in saying both lows were "caused by China".
What was startling to me was that Fong, in rebutting Koh, asserted that many people viewed the international arbitral tribunal that dismissed China's nine-dash claim in 2016 as a "kangaroo court" that was "orchestrated and financed largely by the US".
The 2016/17 friction between Singapore and Beijing had to do with the city state's failure to back China following the ruling against it. Instead, Singapore took a neutral position and reiterated its long-time stance that disputes between countries should be settled peacefully in accordance with international law.
Anyone who has followed the South China Sea dispute closely will know that Fong's assertion - put forth as the views of "many" rather than as his own - has no factual basis.
The tribunal was formed in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), and comprised eminent jurists.
Koh, who is globally recognised for his efforts in getting Unclos passed in 1982, said as much in response to Fong.
"Since you are obviously not an expert on the law of the sea, I think it would be wise for you to be more modest and less dogmatic in pontificating about the 2016 South China Sea arbitral award," the ex-diplomat wrote back. Fong had a comeback, but I think his decision to shoot from the hip on the arbitral tribunal cost him credibility points.
This exchange will certainly not be the last over the South China Sea dispute in Singapore and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, as the region emerges as one of the primary proxies for the US-China rivalry.
Rather than frowning upon frank exchanges of views - or simply shutting down alternative viewpoints - perhaps foreign policy establishments should do more to encourage them.
As this little social media quibble showed, the facts will ultimately win the day.
This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (SCMP).
Copyright (c) 2020. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
