QUESTION:
Mr Leon Perera: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs what are the guidelines applicable to (i) permissible public speeches and writings undertaken by senior officials including accredited Ambassadors and Ambassadors-At-Large of Singapore (ii) distinguishing between speeches and writings done in a private capacity and in an official capacity by such individuals and (iii) addressing situations where speeches and writings by such individuals may negatively affect Singapore’s national interest.
REPLY:
1 Diplomacy is a very labour-intensive exercise. Even in this era of emails and video conferencing, there is still a need for human beings to meet, and to assess the warmth of the handshake and the sincerity in their eyes. However, in the case of Singapore, because we are so small and given the limits of our talent pool, we have found the need to induct talent from both within and outside the Civil Service. Consequently, we supplement our pool by appointing outstanding persons with relevant skills from society at large, including successful businessmen, senior executives and retired senior civil servants, and they may serve as our Non-Resident Ambassadors, Ambassadors-At-Large or Special Envoys. In fact, we also have distinguished foreign businessmen, non-citizens of Singapore, who have volunteered to be our Honorary Consuls General in a number of countries, and these gentlemen or ladies will provide assistance to Singaporeans who are travelling overseas in countries where we don’t have a Mission.
2 All these individuals, that means the Non-Resident Ambassadors, the Ambassadors-At-Large, the Special Envoys or the Honorary Consuls General, are expected to discharge their duties of safeguarding and advancing Singapore’s national interests, explaining and defending Singapore’s policies, as well as upholding the integrity and reputation of Singapore at all times.
3 However, I want to make this very important differentiation. Non-Resident Ambassadors, Ambassadors-At-Large and Special Envoys are not civil servants. They are engaged for a specific role only. Beyond their specific MFA commitments and role, we do not restrict their private engagements, and this includes giving speeches or contributing articles in their personal capacities.
4 Nevertheless, all of them are expected to exercise good judgement and to do their best to uphold and promote Singapore’s national interests. I believe all of them do so in good faith, honourably and diligently.
. . . . .
TRANSCRIPT OF MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS DR VIVIAN BALAKRISHNAN’S REPLY TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS, 7 NOVEMBER 2016
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Minister for his reply. I just have a few supplementary questions. I would like to clarify, in the case of Non-Resident Ambassadors who are technically not civil servants, in the event that they make statements about the internal politics of other countries that may or may not be prejudicial to Singapore’s national interests, would that be viewed as permissible by the Ministry or would that be discouraged and would action be taken in such cases? I think specifically, there was an instance last year where a particular Ambassador-At-Large actually made a statement about the internal politics of another country. My aim is not to highlight the case of the individual but more of the general point. Would that sort of intervention, even if it is made in a different capacity and not in any present Ambassadorial capacity, be considered permissible, and if so, then how would the Ministry manage the reaction or the impact to Singapore’s diplomacy? Because I think in that particular case, politicians in another country did actually respond in a hostile fashion to that particular Ambassador’s intervention.
Minister: Would you like to be more specific as to which particular case and which Ambassador-At-Large you were referring to?
Mr Leon Perera: I was referring to the Ambassador-At-Large, Mr Kausikan, and his comments on Malaysian politics which I believe were made in October last year.
Minister: Let’s go back to the basics. He’s not a civil servant. He’s a retired civil servant. He’s not our Ambassador to Malaysia or to any other specific country. As I’ve explained just now, his speeches and essays are not cleared by me. They do not reflect or represent, nor does he even attempt to say that they are the positions of the Singapore Government. He’s free to speak and comment in the same way you are free to speak and comment as a private citizen.
Mr Leon Perera: To the Minister, notwithstanding that in general any particular individual may not be a civil servant, and may not be an Ambassador to that country, and may be speaking in a private capacity or different capacities, would the Minister not recognise that there could be an impact on Singapore’s diplomatic relations with a foreign country? If someone who holds the title of an Ambassador makes a statement that interferes in the politics of another country, it could have that impact, and it would appear that there was some degree of impact in that particular case I’ve cited. What is the Ministry’s strategy for dealing with such a case should it happen? Thank you.
Minister: Madam Speaker, the person that the honourable Member refers to is not a Member of this House, and is not a civil servant. I am not going to defend his positions or his speeches or his articles. If the Member has a question on government policy, I will answer it. Otherwise, you can have a discussion with the person in question outside this House. As far as government policy is concerned, we have designated Ambassadors to conduct diplomacy with the respective countries that we need to engage, and if there are any messages that need to be transmitted or any negotiations that need to be conducted, they will be done through proper channels. I do not want to open up this House into an avenue for any Member, regardless of which party you’re from, to discuss the writings and the speeches of other private citizens of Singapore.
. . . . .
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SINGAPORE
7 NOVEMBER 2016