Foreign aid
Sure, but not cash
Smallish affluent Singapore dishes out help to needy countries; unlike big donors, it rarely gives out money as aid. Why? By Seah Chiang Nee
Oct 31, 2000

Being ranked among developed nations from next year is raising questions about what it will mean for Singapore's relations with the outside world.

One worry is that the promotion, unhappily accepted, will raise demands for monetary aid from needy nations that Singapore is reluctant to give because it believes charity can't solve anyone's problem.

Besides, in some countries cash handed over often ends up in the hands of some leaders' Swiss bank accounts and the people it was intended for get very little of it.

Besides, its own citizens are used to strict account of where their taxes go to. And no one is prepared to accept auditing of aid money.

Instead Singapore's policy is to provide technical aid and training for people from developing nations. Over the past 10 years, Singapore has trained 20,000 people from 80 countries.

In recent years, Singapore's diplomacy has become more active in preparation for his major change.

It is striving to be a UN Security Council non-permanent member for 2000-2001, a major role if it gets it.

It is hosting the first-ever World Trade Organisation Conference and has initiated the first-ever dialogue between Asia and Europe.

Despite it small size, Singapore has been contributing personnel towards UN peacekeeping forces in the Iraq-Kuwait frontier, Nambia, South Africa, Angola and Cambodia.

But it's not a major shift in foreign policy. All this has been active diplomacy - not active foreign policy, a different thing.

In fact, like other small nations, Singapore has never spoken out strongly in global conflicts or taken sides in conflicts not directly seen as a threat against itself.

There's a good reason for it. Its foreign policy is to make as many friends as possible. Taking sides in global conflicts gains enemies not friends, so it is avoided.

Take the recent French nuclear tests in the Pacific. Surely Singapore dislikes it as much as the rest of a protesting Asia. And yet we've not issued one word of condemnation. Why?

There may be a reason for the government silence. But the public, should not be. The trouble is that people here think that the tests don't concern Singapore; that we're not directly affected, so why care?

I just hope for our sake that this is not the reason. 'Cause if it is, then we've raised an inward-looking people too preoccupied with our own welfare to bother about the outside world.

The danger is that this self-centered attitude or lack of interest in foreign affairs may lure us into a false sense of security and blind us to the danger lurking outside. Not good for our security.

May be people are feeling that Singapore is too small to make any difference in the world so why bother to say or do anything.

Or maybe we're worried about upsetting the French at a time when we're promoting Asean-Europe trade relations.

In this case, I think we need to call a spade and failing to do so will harm our own interests.

The same goes for China's test, although unlike the French series, is within its own territory. Paris has transgressed into our part of the world, an environmental threat.

I think we should do it because if we don't, the world may also keep quiet when someone commits a wrong against us one day.

The public passivity is not good, but it's not surprising. At a time when we should be more involved in global affairs, Singaporeans are becoming more inward-looking.

The architect of foreign policy, Mr S Rajaratnam has complained of the parochial Singaporean who just wants to talk about his job, the cost of living or housing.

Foreign threat? Let the government look after it; nothing to do with us. Even now, foreign policy is relatively new.

I remember in 1965 when Mr Lee Kuan Yew phoned Mr Raja and said: "Look, Raja we need a foreign minister and you've been chosen. By the way, you'll be interviewed in a few days' time."

"What's our foreign policy" he asked and Mr. Lee replied: "You'd better wear a tie and a lounge suit. That's most important. Then after that, you just say what comes to the top of your head."

Much of what Mr. Raja had to do in those was done in a hurry, solving crises with little time for public discussions. Don't forget, Asia was a pretty messy place then.

Since then things have changed. Foreign policy is more trade than politics today. The world is breaking into trading blocs and Singapore's economy is sprouting external wings.

Despite our active diplomacy, we can't have too active a foreign profile. Whether it's Switzerland or Oman or Luxembourg of Singapore - the game of the small fellow is low profile.

Some embrace neutrality and stay out of alliances so the bigger boys don't have an excuse to attack them. Others do the opposite - joining blocs to protect themselves.

The same goes for Singapore. It's foreign policy is largely defensive, avoiding trouble with anyone - big and small. For it - one enemy is too many; a hundred friends too few.

Above all it lives by trade and survives by helping others to prosper. But it also keeps the army strong and the gun ready.

In some ways Foreign Minister Jeyakumar is luckier than Mr. Raja. He has something the latter never had in his days: billions of dollars of reserves available for investment abroad.

The other is its brand name, its accumulated experience that the world needs.

They're major foreign policy assets that help us to make friends and contribute to stability.

But a lesson of history is that small rich nations have a habit of being swallowed up and disappearing. A good foreign policy doesn't guarantee Singapore's future, but it helps.

As the world changes, so must our way of dealing with it.

Recently, SM Lee Kuan Yew spoke of his uncertainty about Singapore's chances of survival beyond 20 years.

This is 1995, he said and he added: "Can Singapore go on for another 50 years? I'm not sure. Can it go on for 20 years? Maybe. Can it go on for 10 years? I would say, most probably."

His warning is like a splash of cold water over our heads - sobering, shocking even at a time when Singapore is revelling in prosperity and heading to the blue yonder of the developed world.

Having leaders who are skillful enough to dance away from trouble before it strikes is crucial. I think two other things are just as important.

The first is that Singaporeans should not fight among themselves and become disunited. A divided large country can survive disunity - not a small city with only 3,000,000 people.

Secondly, Singaporeans should take a greater interest on foreign policy. It is dangerous if a potential enemy thinks the government's policy does not have the support of its people.

We'll be inviting trouble if this foe thinks that all it needs to control Singapore is to knock off the government and the people will meekly submit.
By Seah Chiang Nee