MFA Press Release: Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs K Shanmugam’s reply to Parliamentary Question and Supplementary Questions, 9 July 2012

Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs K Shanmugam’s reply to Parliamentary Question

QUESTION:

MR SITOH YIH PIN: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether officers in our Kuala Lumpur High Commission had participated in the recent Bersih 3.0 rally; (b) if so, whether these officers had worn yellow shirts to show support to the rally participants; and (c) whether this incident will affect our bilateral relations with Malaysia and, if so, how.

REPLY:

1. So there have been allegations, in the Malaysian media and elsewhere, that Singaporean diplomats actively participated in Malaysia’s Bersih 3 rally in April this year. Let me state clearly and unequivocally that that is not so. Our officers from the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur were present at the rally. But they were there as impartial observers, as were many diplomats from more than 10 other countries. Our officers were doing their duty. They were there as observers. They did not participate in Bersih 3.0. They did not wear yellow shirts or take any action to affiliate themselves with any political entity. They also avoided Merdeka Square, which had been declared out of bounds by the Malaysian authorities.

2. Singapore does not interfere in any country’s domestic politics, just as we expect other countries to refrain from interfering in our own. Our officers abroad operate under these clear instructions.

3. Our High Commission in Kuala Lumpur is present at a wide range of social, economic and political activities in Malaysia. This is part of their normal professional diplomatic duties, like any other Embassy or High Commission. Let me quote Article 3(d) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that the function of a diplomatic mission comprises, inter alia, “ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State”. The actions of our diplomats and, as far as we know, the actions of diplomats from other countries at Bersih 3.0 were in accordance with the Vienna Convention. So it is regrettable that some elements in the Malaysian media and blogs have chosen to focus only on Singapore and tried to deliberately misrepresent the issue. A Malaysian newspaper commentary the week before acknowledged that foreign diplomats from North America and Europe were at the rally but tried to insinuate that other diplomats were participating “passively” whereas our diplomats were doing otherwise. This was clearly an attempt to twist the facts to suit their baseless claims. I will emphasise, repeat that our diplomats were there only in pursuance of the normal duties of all diplomats from all countries to observe and report on political developments in their host countries.

4. Mr Sitoh asked if these allegations will affect our bilateral relations. Singapore-Malaysia ties are strong and broad-based. Our Prime Ministers have a close working relationship, as do our other Ministerial counterparts. We also cooperate closely and well at the Foreign Ministry level. I speak with my Malaysian counterpart, Dato’ Sri Anifah Aman, on the phone and have a good working relationship with him. The fact that we have managed to resolve challenging bilateral issues, such as the Points Of Agreement on Malayan Railway Land, says much about what we can do when we work together. We are also cooperating in a number of key areas, including improving connectivity, and making major investments in each other’s countries. But obviously not everyone may be happy with this good state of our relationship.

5. Dato’ Sri Anifah has spoken to our High Commissioner to Malaysia Mr Ong Keng Yong about this matter. I have also spoken with Dato’ Sri Anifah twice on this matter. As I have said earlier, Minister Anifah and I have a good personal relationship and we were able to speak frankly. We discussed the matter and I made clear what our diplomats did and did not do. We also agreed that Singapore and Malaysia have every intention of preserving our current positive relationship. We have all worked hard to build up the strong ties that we currently enjoy. Neither of us has an interest in undermining the relationship in any way. We should also not allow any negative elements uncomfortable with the current excellent state of bilateral ties, to spoil our relations. I told Minister Anifah that I look forward to continuing to work with him to further strengthen our relationship.

6. Relations between Singapore and Malaysia have always been bigger than any specific disagreements or points of contention. This is how it has been and this is how it should be moving forward.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Transcript of Minister for Foreign Affairs K Shanmugam’s reply to Supplementary Questions

SPEAKER: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

MR SITOH YIH PIN: Sir, I thank the Minister for his response. With Speaker’s permission, I would like to show this photograph. There have been many allegations in the Malaysia media and blogosphere criticising Singapore for interfering in Malaysia’s domestic politics at the recent Bersih rally. Some online postings have even urged the Malaysian government to cut off the water supply to Singapore as shown in this photograph. I would like to seek the Minister’s clarification on two related issues: First, in the face of such provocative remarks, how should we respond? Second, some of the articles in the Malaysian media are quite inflammatory. From what I understand, some of these newspapers, like Utusan Malaysia, are owned by UMNO. Does this show that the Malaysian government is behind these accusations? Thank you.

MINISTER: I have seen some of these allegations by certain sections of the Malaysian media. And we have also seen some incendiary comments mainly from a handful of obscure blogs with very limited circulation, who obviously feel that spreading baseless allegations will give them publicity. There was also of course a protest outside our High Commission in KL by Malay rights group Perkasa. They have accused our diplomats of interfering in Malaysia’s domestic politics. Some have even accused Singapore of supporting activities to “topple” the Malaysian government. They have come up with various demands for our diplomats to be sent home, and for Singapore to apologise. All these sentiments have been expressed without anyone clearly looking at the facts or bothering with them. Because they don’t want inconvenient facts to get in the way of their accusations.

These actors are clearly seeking to create animosity and distrust. I cannot profess to understand their logic, but these voices seem uncomfortable with the current good state of bilateral relations. Take for example the picture that Mr Sitoh found that spoke of cutting off our water supply. This is hostile and aggressive. Unfortunately, it is almost a reflexive action on the part of some elements to use the threat of cutting off water whenever there is any dispute on any issue. They should know that this leads down a very dangerous path. Fortunately, I can affirm that the Malaysian government does not seem to share the view of these blogs. Mr Sitoh also mentioned articles that made reference to interfering with our Malay community in Singapore. These articles suggest that the Malay community here can be persuaded to vote in a certain way. This is laughable because we have every confidence in our fellow citizens. These sentiments, which, let me repeat, I do not believe reflect the Malaysian government's views, show a dangerous inclination to inject a racial angle into bilateral relations, and they show a continuing belief in some quarters that our Malay population can be targeted from outside.

That is deliberate provocation. But we will not be baited by these negative elements. As I have said before, our ties with Malaysia are very strong. Minister Anifah and I have affirmed this when we spoke again recently. We know that both governments want to preserve this strong relationship and continue to work together bilaterally and regionally. We are happy to continue to work with the Malaysian Government going forward.

SPEAKER: Thank you Sir. Ms Irene Ng.

MS IRENE NG: Sir, the Minister has pointed out that diplomats from many other countries attended the Bersih rally to observe it, and not only Singapore’s envoys. This leads me to my question: should Singapore not take some umbrage that it has been singled out for diplomatic criticism and public castigation with such hostile threats as have been referred to by Honourable Member Sitoh? At the same time, can I ask Minister whether, while we value our relations with Malaysia, could it be that such Singapore bashing might be due to the upcoming Elections in Malaysia; and some quarters in Malaysia might be using this as a way to get some political mileage for themselves in Malaysia? Minister has also mentioned the Vienna Convention. Indeed, it is accepted practice for envoys to observe and monitor political developments in their host countries to send back reports to their government. Can I ask the Minister, would he agree that given the importance of Malaysia to Singapore as our closest neighbour, it would have been remiss of our envoys in KL had they not observed the political rallies in Malaysia so as to be able to send back reliable and carefully nuanced reports to the Government instead of relying on second hand and potentially biased reports from second hand sources.

MINISTER: Mr Speaker. I understand that there are three questions: whether we should take umbrage? And what may be behind the Singapore bashing? And also, were our diplomats’ actions within the Vienna Convention, and were they doing their duty?

As to the first question as to whether we should take umbrage over the Singapore bashing – I think we answer at two levels. One, between government to government. Government to government, Minister Anifah spoke with our High Commissioner, and I then spoke with him twice, and I think it is important that we have a frank exchange of views. I have explained to him in no uncertain terms, in very clear terms, what our diplomats did do and what they did not do. And I think it’s best that, and I have made clear in Parliament today, as have Ministry statements earlier, that our diplomats behaved within the four corners, four square corners of the law, international law. That they did not wear yellow, they did not participate, they are under strict instructions in Malaysia as elsewhere to be strictly neutral. Our diplomats do not stray beyond that. Now, I have made that clear. I think at the government to government level we need to take this in a rational, logical way, and explain it directly. Then there is a second level where you’ve seen what Perkasa has done, you’ve seen what the media has been saying, what the blogs have been saying, and I think we have to give that the appropriate importance that these statements deserve and watch. And we need not believe that these are necessarily motivated by the Malaysian government: we have no reason to believe that. And I think we should not let that affect the bilateral relationship. That is the proper way for diplomacy to proceed.

The second question on what is behind this Singapore bashing and whether it has got something to do with the General Elections that are coming up, if it had been done for political mileage – I think it doesn’t do well for me as Minister for Foreign Affairs to publicly speculate on these reasons. I think the best is for me to take it directly and explain what we did do and what we did not do. And we are comfortable and confident that our diplomats acted well within the bounds of the law.

On the third question, Vienna Convention – what our diplomats did, as I said in my answer to Mr Sitoh, fall within the Vienna Convention. It is the duty of our diplomats to observe and report back. The Member referred to nuanced reports. In fact, they would be remiss in their duty if they did not observe and report back. But they did not go to Merdeka Square. They did not participate. They observed and they reported back and that is indeed what they are expected to do. And diplomats from several other countries were present doing, I believe, the very same thing. Thank you.

. . . . .