MP Vikram Nair: I thank the two Ministers and Senior Minister of State. I have one clarification on the China-US matter. It is clear that Singapore has extensive and deep relations with both countries. Is there anything that Singapore has envisioned to try and bring both parties together on some of the difficult issues?
Minister: We do have good, deep constructive relations with both parties. I think we should also know our place. We are not going to be able to bring them together. But what I would say is, as Singapore, I do not have the luxury of saying one thing in Beijing and then a different thing in Washington. So, both Beijing and Washington know that when we analyse the situation and we take a decision, it is not for one side or the other. We are not a stalking horse, we are not a proxy. We call it the way we see it as a tiny city-state in the heart of Southeast Asia, dependent on world trade. They also know that we will be consistently reliable, we are good for our word. Taking this kind of posture – thinking straight, being consistent, being very clear where we come from – in fact, I have found to be a very good and useful way to engage superpowers. So, we know our place but we are also useful and credible.
MP Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification on ASEAN’s approach towards Myanmar. I believe both the Minister and the Second Minister touched on this matter. From what I understood, there was an ASEAN decision to exclude Myanmar's junta leaders from ASEAN-level meetings because of disappointment with the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. I think that decision was taken in November last year. But at the same time, we read that a month later in December, Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs apparently hosted a regional meeting, which the junta leaders attended, and which was attended also by Foreign Ministers from Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and also, I think, from the Vietnam foreign ministry. I understood that Singapore declined to attend, together with, perhaps, the other founding members of ASEAN – the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. So, two questions concerning this: one, could the Minister confirm our reasons for not wanting to attend this meeting? And secondly, does he think that the fact that some ASEAN Foreign Ministers attended shows that there is actually a difference of opinion or approach on how ASEAN should approach Myanmar's junta leaders and the situation in Myanmar in general?
Minister: Thank you. Two good questions. Let me take a step back. What is happening in Myanmar is a tragedy. It is not something that can be fixed externally. If you think about Myanmar since independence – if you go back 70, 80 years, the end of the Second World War – unlike the rest of us, they have never been able to forge a single, all-encompassing consensus on identity and bringing all the component parts together. That is why you, as well as everyone here, will know that Myanmar's people themselves are talented, hardworking, as motivated as anyone else to get ahead and provide for their families. But unfortunately, the political situation has not enabled Myanmar to create a situation that is conducive for its own people.
This coup – two years now in the making – has not helped. If you ask me for my opinion, I think it is a dead end. It is not going to lead to a road where you will achieve national reconciliation, national reconstruction, the forging of a national identity, the protection of minorities, the uplift of its economy, of its capacity, of its people. Having said that, we must also be very clear that we do not believe in foreign interference in domestic affairs. So, nothing that we do can solve the problem if the key stakeholders within their society themselves are not prepared to sit down and have an honest-to-goodness conversation with each other for the sake of the future of their people. We must understand that although we clearly disapprove of the coup and we do not recognise the current military junta in Myanmar, it does not give ASEAN a license to interfere in its domestic affairs. I hope you agree with me that it is necessary for us to take this principled but restrained position on Myanmar.
The Member's first question was about representation. In April 2021 when our Leaders met in Jakarta – there was a special ASEAN meeting called for that – that was the meeting that created the Five-Point Consensus – the consensus amongst the ASEAN Leaders present. Unfortunately, there has been no significant progress. Later on that year, we decided that Myanmar will not participate at a political level in ASEAN meetings. You can argue about why this distinction between the political level and the civil service. The reason for that is because Myanmar remains a member of ASEAN and we do want it to continue to enjoy the benefits of membership to the extent possible within the constraints of its own domestic politics. We want it to be able to access information which is available to ASEAN. That is why we say, “We are not keeping any secrets from you. You have a seat at the table.” In fact, if you watch the videos of ASEAN Leaders’ meetings or the Foreign Ministers’ meetings, there is an empty chair. We do not insist on the empty chair. We say, “do not send a political representative because we do not recognise the coup and the military authorities; but by all means, send the most senior civil servant, the Permanent Secretary or the equivalent”. Myanmar refuses and would rather keep the chair empty. Our Leaders met again in November and reaffirmed this decision, that at the Summit and at meetings of Foreign Ministers, there shall be no political representation from Myanmar. We have maintained that position since then.
I should also say that it does not mean that everyone views the problem in Myanmar through the same prism. Clearly, the immediate neighbours who face risks of refugee outflows would be in a greater hurry to see a resolution and perhaps may be prepared to compromise more on the resolution. For us, we are maintaining a principled position of disapproval. But whilst the political leaders of Myanmar are not represented at the Summit at the Foreign Ministers’ level, it does not mean there is no communication, no engagement. I think we need to maintain those lines.
To give you a short answer, why did I not go for that meeting which was apparently convened by Thailand? First of all, it was not an ASEAN meeting. It was a bilateral meeting between Thailand and presumably the junta leaders. He opened the invitation to others. I did not think our participation in such a format would be helpful. But have I spoken to people in the junta in the past? Yes, I have. Will I speak to them? Yes, I will. But what will I tell them? I will tell them what our views are and that we will not interfere, but we do not want to make things worse and our suggestion is stick to the Five-Point Consensus, release the political detainees, allow Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and President U Win Myint to sit down at a table and discuss the future with the military authorities in Myanmar. I hope you understand why there is a certain amount of restraint but at the same time, effective engagement is necessary. Let us have no illusions. This is a very difficult and complex problem. I have no idea how long it will take to resolve.
MP Louis Ng: I almost want to say that I have to apologise for whatever I have done again. I know Minister Vivian is very concerned about refugees and has also personally visited the refugee camp. So, two clarifications on that point. As I shared in my cut, it has been six years since we increased our contributions to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). I think the reply is we are not doing it now. So, could I just ask when is the next review for our contributions to UNHCR? Second, I really do hope we can consider some limited scholarships to a limited number of refugees so that we can give them some hope and, perhaps, some future in this world we live in.
Minister: Like Mr Louis Ng, I have been at the refugee camp at Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh but even that was some years ago. The first thing I should say is Bangladesh has in fact been extremely generous all these years in hosting and supporting the refugees. If you have gone to that camp, you would also have noticed that there are multiple agencies, multiple UN agencies and in fact, other countries also, who are providing assistance. Unfortunately, the real solution is not just assistance at the camp – even though that is urgent and essential. The real solution is national reconciliation and peace within Myanmar. Because without that, the refugees will not, or will choose not to return home because they worry about their safety for themselves and their family members. So, we continue to support and to work through ASEAN. For instance, we have the ASEAN Humanitarian Assistance Package. We have a Centre that sends teams on the ground to do needs assessment and, depending on their reports, we will be prepared, if necessary, to step up assistance to the people on the ground in Myanmar. The answer is not "no". The answer is, we hope for a definitive solution. But in the meantime, assistance will be neeed, humanitarian assistance would be needed, and we will continue to do so, primarily working through ASEAN.
MP Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I acknowledge the extreme complexity of the situation in Myanmar and I do not for a minute think that there are, sadly, simple solutions to it. However, I would like more clarity on the Minister’s answers to my questions just now. I asked, has Singapore ever pushed at the ASEAN Summit for a decision to be taken by a vote on issues where arriving at a consensus is impossible? As the Minister alluded to, this is provided for in Article 22 of the ASEAN Charter. Just now the Minister mentioned that Myanmar’s participation at the political level was reduced. Was that decision to bar Myanmar’s participation at the political level arrived at by consensus or was it a vote? More fundamentally, is Singapore open to considering alternative decision-making mechanisms at ASEAN? Or is MFA’s position that sticking to the consensus decision-making approach in all cases best serves Singapore’s interests? The Minister has stated that decision by consensus in ASEAN is a feature, it is not a bug. However, does the Minister agree that sometimes features do not work well in all situations?
Minister: Thank you. No other regional organisation – if you just look at the 10 of us, or soon to be 11, has the great diversity in the economy, forms of government – you have got absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies, democracies of various shades and sometimes even outcomes of coups. If you look at language, culture, religion – there is no other regional organisation I can think of with that range of diversity. So, that is the first point – to understand that. Then, we go back in history – why the consensus principle? It has everything to do with diversity. In the midst of diversity, you must remember, it is very important to protect, especially, a community or state or body of opinion that may be a minority at that point in time. So, you are right. When consensus is abused, it becomes an avenue for everyone to take hostages and to, loosely, threaten a veto. I recognise that danger. But actually in practice, knowing that you have to seek consensus creates a whole level of additional consultations, negotiations, compromises, imaginative diplomacy, which would not be present if everyone had easy access to just majoritarian voting. I explain this at some length so that you understand why I believe there was good reason for the founders of ASEAN to design the consensus principle. Whilst I recognise the challenges, it is not something that I am keen to lightly abandon or change.
Coming specifically to Myanmar as a work example. When the leaders gathered in April 2021, obviously Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the State Counsellor of Myanmar, and President Win Myint could not attend: they were detained. The other nine ASEAN leaders were present or sent designated envoys who could act with their authority. Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the commander of the Tatmadaw, the Myanmar Armed Forces, attended that meeting. We did not view his attendance as conferring legitimacy upon him or giving him the status of a Head of State. Nevertheless, as far as we are concerned, the decision on the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus was made at that meeting. Subsequent decisions made, for instance, on the question of political representation, initially made at the Foreign Ministers’ level and ultimately affirmed at the Leaders’ level. Again, the coup leader was not present at the table. As far as I am concerned, there was consensus from the ASEAN leaders legitimately recognised by each other, the consensus principle continues to operate. More importantly, we have not allowed Myanmar to hold us hostage and force us to expedite, for instance, recognising the coup outcome so that we can conduct business as usual. At the same time, we have been able to express a view that enjoys consensus amongst all the other members of ASEAN.
When in life when you are dealing with complicated situations, be very very wary about quick fixes and about resorting to simply raising hands. Sometimes, there are issues for which dialogue, engagement, arguments, are better conducted even if it is in a prolonged phase. But with honesty and good faith, I think we can make progress. You obviously have read the ASEAN Charter. In fact, the ASEAN Charter does envisage that there will be occasions where consensus will not be possible. In those circumstances, it hands over sufficient flexibility – at least in my opinion – for the leaders to decide how to move forward.
So, all in all, as far as this work example is concerned, there will be arguments, but generally it has worked and ASEAN has made progress and we have been able to continue negotiations with our external partners, we have been able to sign agreements and work has gone on. When Myanmar has a government that is legitimate and recognised as such, I am sure they will sign on to the agreements that we have made as well. But that is all the more reason why there are no secrets. They are fully privy to, and we will listen to whatever views they have to share on the agreements and negotiations that we are engaged on.
MP Pritam Singh: Thank you, Chairman. Just a quick question for the Minister. This is with respect to his comment on works that had been temporarily halted on Pedra Branca. Can I confirm with the Minister what is the timeline vis-à-vis Singapore’s position on the monsoon season? So, when can we be expected to recommence works, precisely because the works are for the purposes of protecting against sea level rise and climate change?
Minister: I am not going to give you a specific date. Ongoing discussions are occurring with Malaysia. So, I do not want to complicate it by making public announcements at this point in time. Just to reiterate what I said just now, we are sure that our development work is necessary and that it is fully in compliance with international law and our rights, and we will proceed in due course. But let us continue this discussion with Malaysia for the time being. There is a deadline, but I do not want to make a public pronouncement yet. I am sure you will understand.
. . . . .