Aureatenights' Webpage

Thank you for visiting.. the site is still under construction.. Why Singapore should take a less vocal stance on terrorism and be more of a diplomatic voice of reason in South East Asia. (Why Singapore should be less of a loudhailer) by Sherlyn Xie 31 Oct 2002 Singapore relations with its immediate neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia have always been on a swinging sensation since the 60s-sometimes affable, sometimes resentful and sometimes downright hostile. Singapore has always been wary of instigating its neighbours in matters of religion and race; and it always been careful not to necessary comment on such issues in diplomatic exchanges. However, in light of the recent events of 9/11 and the Bali incidents; and the local furore over the existence of Jemaah Islamiah?s cell groups planning to attack strategic points -Singapore has started to touch on sensitive points of their neighbours: that growing religious extremism has contributed greatly to the growth of terrorist links throughout South East Asia (SEA). Historically, in the Suharto era, Singapore and Indonesia enjoyed a period of economic interaction and growth, fuelled by the implicit understanding of common economic goals between Suharto and former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Understanding thus arose that Indonesia?s stability is important for investor relations. The issue of trade became the most convenient middle ground for the Chinese majority island-state and the Muslim-majority archipelago. This form of recognition also took on other forms; where Indonesia was recognised as the natural leader in ASEAN and its opinion was most respected. However, things soon soured right after Suharto announced the choice of Habibe as the next president. Senior statesman, Lee Kuan Yew expressed doubts that Habibe could control Indonesia effectively. Although other nations in the ASEAN region quietly expressed their doubts in Habibe future effectiveness as the President of Indonesia, it was Singapore?s remarks that were the most loudly heard and expressed. Lee Kuan Yew has always been a critic of many nations in the region; his criticism of countries? national issues bordering off diplomatic sensitivity as understood by ASEAN with its policy of non-intervention. All Indonesian presidents; except for Megawati have expressed hostility at certain periods of their reign to Singapore?s stance on their national issues. Singapore officials themselves have often expressed bewilderment of their own toward what they regard as a carefully worded diplomatic exchange of opinions. This change in outlook by Indonesian? officials and elite could be begrudgement of SEA states perception of Indonesia?s lessening influence since the Asia financial crisis in 1998; which had a great impact on foreign investment in the country and their rupiah; as well as Indonesia perceived instability in democracy after the toppling of Suharto?s government during the crisis. Although Indonesia is still recognised as the unspoken leader of ASEAN, their status of leading voice in SEA has become less unquestionable within the circle. Without further economic growth, Indonesia is hard beaten to improve the lives of many impoverished Indonesians and to further develop itself economically. Thus it is not surprising Indonesia stance on issues of human rights in East Timor, religious unrest in Ambon, increasing radicalism and presence of terrorists? links have been downplayed accordingly by a string of presidents. Consequently, that has translated to political inactivism although it could also be said that Indonesia?s large size is a major factor in the official hesitation of implementing major policies. We could also factor in that Indonesia is an infant democracy, hampered at the same time by corruption and cronyism. Understanding of these points does not mean Indonesia political elite can forgo their political responsibilities to their nation and the region; in fact all it means is that Singapore should recognise these deficiencies and attempt to come up with solutions which take in mind the exchange of diplomacy and views and do not hamper it. Indonesia, unlike Singapore and Malaysia, does not have an Internal Security Department, which may arrest its citizens on supposition and suspicion and detain them for up to a period of time without legal aid. The absence of this law makes it difficult for collection of evidence of terrorist links, although not entirely impossible. By sharing information between the countries, Singapore and Malaysia has facilitated the delivery of a recent court order to Abu Bakar Bashir, the vocal Muslim cleric on suspicion of terrorist links to JI. Singapore is an island city state of majority of Chinese; whereas its neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, have a Muslim majority. Although we may like to think race and religion is not a feature in relations between countries; the truth is; both of these give the country its perspective and viewpoint of events surrounding them. The recent haul of potential terrorists in Singapore and Malaysia has been greeted gravely throughout SEA by many countries. For Indonesia however, it is a more meddlesome problem. The rapid rise of Islam as the fastest growing religion is a thing that has been on-going for some time; this comes also hand-in-hand with increased religiosity of Muslims. Muslim extremism cannot be denied as a contributing cause to terrorism. The stance in Singapore has been of some confusion and an attempt to divide Muslims into ?moderate? and ?radicals who are not behaving according to Muslim laws:terrorists?. This stems partly from the Chinese majority inability to understand that all Muslims are fundamental in nature, as the Muslims believe going back to the root of Islam and becoming more devoted to God is an essential calling of all Muslims. In this case, Muslims cannot be divided into ?Good? and ?Bad? Muslims like we do not divide people from all walks of life into good or bad in real life. However, it may be agreed that terrorists are people who regard causes higher than the lives of others, and are willing to use destructive and lawless methods in order to achieve their aim. Indonesia cannot easily arrest anybody based on them spreading radical Muslim teachings or idolising Osama bin Laden or joining their army in Afghanistan. This is because their people would not hear of it. Muslims in Indonesia perceive Muslims everywhere in a brotherhood, a link that goes beyond nationality or race or borders. Thus, it may seem right for them to go to Afghanistan to help their Muslim brothers fight against others. Sadly, sometimes it translates in the case of great extremism towards others, the non-Muslims, as being infidels (un-believers) -a connotation, which suggests their inferiority and thus their right to live, unless they are converted. It is unfortunate that sometimes people are taught this way to see others. Nevertheless, it is not true of the larger picture to throw Indonesia Muslims altogether on the same cartload as Jemaah Islamiah and the terrorists. Indonesia is a large country, and regliousity reveals itself to be not spread uniformly throughout Indonesia. City areas like Jakarta have more relaxed attitudes towards dress code, while areas like Aceh traditionally have been more ardent in their practices. Muslims living in urbanised areas are exposed more to international views, whereas rural muslims have more exposure to the world through their local muslim school or mosque. Understanding that Indonesians have empathy with the victims of terrorism in Bali bombings because their own nation is a victim of terrorism is the most informed view Singapore and other nations in SEA can take right now. The accusatory tone that America has taken to task with Indonesia for not managing to root out their terrorists is not the appropriate voice that Singapore and other nations in SEA should emulate. Hardly serving diplomacy, it only rises Indonesia?s suspicions of us suppressing our Muslim citizens and further denial and resentment. The recent situation where America had to send its diplomats to smooth over the situation in Jakarta by playing snippets of docu-drama of Muslims living happily in America was lambasted as a hard-sell of America and its anti-terrorism war. Brash antics do not serve to agree with everyone although it can be said-the message gets out-but at what cost to relations? Surely there are other more subtle ways to reach an audience-especially they are hardly terrorists to begin with; but high-ranking educated officials who are also sincerely concerned about the future of their country. The way Singapore has aligned itself to America?s policy towards terrorism is a good indication of Singapore close ties with America. Besides, Singapore and America has traditionally enjoyed close ties in other aspects since the early days of nation building where MNCs from America set up shop in Singapore. However, revelation of Singapore building a wharf for American warships and aircraft carriers at Changi could be a potential hotspot for disgruntlement within SEA, which traditionally, has been suspicious of American troops abroad. Although Singapore does have its own national interest and American ships berthed here could provide security and stability; this is indeed deceptive considering the turn of current affairs. Terrorists are people who would look for symbols of capitalism to target; in fact, America seen as a great decadent country to them is a typical choice terrorists would make. Besides, it?s Middle East policies are viewed very negatively by them. Singapore has many symbols of American and British presence. Their strong stance on the counter-terrorism war and the potential problem brewing in Iraq make them favourite targets of terrorists. By openly assenting and even going abroad to promote America?s stance, we put ourselves in a quite not ostentiously dangerous, but perhaps risky position. Perhaps the perspective that is far wiser is that of Europe-while not totally seeing eye to eye with US and UK, they have played a part in coming up solutions that are more peaceable and allow for discussion and probably more workable in the long run. Although I do not disregard that such methods may have ways of allowing Iraq more time to twist the truth; or they may not work so well in our context of SEA, we should always explore the likelihood of mutual discussion within ASEAN and implement policies with sensitivity to the region beliefs; and not regard ourselves entirely as a self-sufficient island state. Singapore?s strategic position leaves us naked and vulnerable unless we work with our neighbours to form a solid structure of political cohesiveness. In the long run, it is better to cultivate better relations with our immediate neighbours than to seek the help of a far-off country at times. Afterall, to solve problems diplomatically and to cultivate a strategic defensive alliance is better than to face outright war and violence. Also it does nothing to cultivate within ASEAN the image of Singapore being a bellicose voice of US-supporting all its proposals-but rather a voice of diplomatic reason should be what Singapore should look for in a role in SEA. Possible alternatives Singapore and its neighbouring countries may explore to greater intimacy includes an SEA version of the European establishment of a Rapid Reaction Mechanism in 2001 . Whereas the RRM supports in areas such as mine clearance, customs, mediation, training of police or judges in crisis situations where speed and flexibility is of utmost concern, ASEAN can set up a different council whose mechanism is to provide sharing of information of terrorism, training of police to counter terrorist groups and in matters such as methods of effective retrieval and collection of information. It would also allow countries to share experience and deploy trained troops who can deal effectively with militant terrorists as well as to address problems of terrorist financing. Although EU is willing to sent a team of experts to Indonesia; the countries within ASEAN definitely have a better perspective and information on this region to carry out such tasks. Such methods would allow the region to take a more unified and proactive view. Although Indonesia has been proved to be wrong on the grounds that there were no dangerous terrorists activities in Indonesia by the Bali bombing; now is not the time for the neighbouring countries to repeat, ?I told you so? or depend on bigger countries like US for continued direction and opinion on terrorism but instead to form closer co-operation and consensus within ASEAN so that terrorism in the region can be nipped while it is in the bud. Despite the recent arrests in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, the region still faces a continued threat from terrorists. Nevertheless, it is possible for this prolonged crisis on terrorism to be opportunity for further dialogue and improved understanding between countries here instead of degeneration into suspicion and unhappiness. I wish not to repeat the points taken by other writers here, so for your interest, you can refer to the links below. For further interest: (most of these articles can be found at Singapore Window?s website) The authors suggest methods of engagement for Singapore and its neighbours. http://www.siiaonline.org/article/Jusuf%20Wanadi%20and%20Simon%20Tay%20article.doc. Indonesia and Singapore: Understanding and Being Understood-Jusuf Wanandi and Simon SC Tay An exploration why Indonesia and Singapore have such rocky relations. Neighbours? Love-Hate ties-The Star, Malaysia July 21 2002 The author explores differences in opinions of terrorism between the neighbours. Lee Kuan Yew brings pot to boil-Asia Times February 26. 2002JAKARTA By Bill Guerin Agreement of co-operation within the region towards the counter-terrorism by LeeKuanYew: Indonesia stability crucial to security-United Press International May 31, 2002 By Sonia Kolesnikov Indonesia?s stance of radicalism is explored tentatively here: Beware of moves to give the Indonesian military more power, warn Dewi Anggraeni and Syafi'i Anwar. AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW June 12, 2002 Singapore vulnerable to Indonesian political unrest: study- Dow Jones December 12, 2000 -"In view of the potential adverse direct and indirect impacts from its close neighbour, Singapore would need to manage bilateral relations with Indonesia carefully and creatively. "It is also imperative for the Singapore government to devise policies and contingency plans to soften the impact of such external political shocks from Indonesia on the Singapore economy and financial markets." ? The devastating effect on developing countries due to high labour export to Middle east if war breaks out. South Asia will pay high price for Mideast war By Thalif Deen-Asia Times Online