Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:48
Principles & pragmatism – can Singapore afford both?
In Khairu zaini, Main Stories • 1,156 views • 17 Comments
Khairulanwar Zaini
The naming of an orchid for Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein (left, with George Yeo) sparked widespread revulsion and disgust in the online community; a sentiment that is also shared by this author.
The antipathy towards the unholy alliance between the Singapore government and the Burmese junta is motivated by the latter’s abysmal track record in governance – the countless flagrant abuses of power and inept leadership are legendary – and rightly so, it would seem inconceivable that our leaders should accommodate such personalities culpable of the murder of their own citizens.
However, a deeper look into the issue will force many to confront the very practical realities of politics and economics: the government’s motivation to engage with the Burmese has very little to do with altruism, but more of the economic advantages that can be procured. Burma is a potential source of lucrative economic profit for any investing nation, particularly when most other foreign investors shy away from it.
The economic opportunity
And therein lies the opportunity for Singapore – and this parleying to the Burmese junta is nothing new, but an attempt to play catchup with Thailand and regional giants India and China, nations which have entered into close economic partnerships with Burma, and are clearly reaping the benefits of being the leading investors in a resource-rich nation that is shunned by others.
Nevertheless, it may seem downright atrocious that our pursuit of economic growth is at the expense of the innocent citizens of Burma. Given the bloody crackdowns in the dying days of the Saffron Revolution and wilful deprivation imposed on the Burmese population, it is legitimate to argue that doing business with the junta is a tacit acceptance of its ruthless and bloody policies, and that we are somehow culpable for prolonging the suffering of ordinary Burmese people.
And this primacy that our government has accorded to economics and material wealth, overriding considerations of human rights and a sense of common decency, has earned the contempt of many an idealist, this author among them. The bilateral trade is indeed lucrative, estimated to amount to US$1.58 billion, of which US$795 million was from our exports in the 2008 fiscal year. A trivial amount in terms of the total trade – but the lingering question remains: are we able to sustain our economy while declining trade money from despotic regimes – which not only includes Burma, but China?
The morality of economics
It will be ideal for us to be able to say unequivocally and resolutely that there are more important and vital interests to uphold beyond the currency of economic progress. Such idealism will come at a price: we can choose to sever ties with the junta until they have sufficiently reformed themselves in a manner acceptable to our notions of decency, but at the price of losing our first-mover advantage into Burma.
It is not easy to “disentangle economics from politics”, as Milton Friedman discovered, and we are faced with a similar quandary. It is easy to vilify Burma, the persona non grata of this globalized world, given that almost every nation reserves a vituperative contempt for its leaders. But if Singapore were truly to walk that moral high ground, are we prepared to adhere rigidly to that principle? Do we then turn askance and refuse to transact financially with any regime that blatantly disregards human rights?
Take China, for example. Singapore cannot ignore China – no single nation can, not even the hegemonic United States. China’s human rights record continues to be appalling, however. The litany of abuses ranges from its obdurate refusal to ruminate, much less apologize, for the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, the ceaseless subjugation of Tibet, the arrest and removal of critics and its onerous censorship policies.
And if we pursue that moral principle of human rights over economics vis-à-vis Burma, are we able to do likewise with China? The loss of Chinese economic trade would have severe ramifications on the Singapore economy. China has survived and escaped the denigration that plagues Burma because of its actual and potential economic clout. But are we to remain principled, and risk losing the trade of a Communist regime that has trampled unapologetically upon human rights?
Standing for moral principles – how far?
We aspire to certain ideals – but we have to be tempered by the realities of the ground. We castigate the naming of the orchid, but it is nothing more than diplomatic protocol, a sop to every foreign dignitary that visits Singapore for the first time – and a nod to our vibrant orchid hybrid industry. Tasteless as it seems to induct Thein Sein into the time-honoured tradition that includes luminaries such as Nelson Mandela, the naming of an orchid is nothing more than a symbolic gesture of welcome for a foreign dignitary. To deprive Thein Sein of this gesture, and risk alienating a valuable economic ally, is easy to advocate, but the repercussions will be costly to bear. And if we walk the moral high ground in this instance, do we then deprive the flower-naming ceremony for the next visiting Chinese head of state or Arab emir?
We may wish for a more principled government, imbued with aspirations of human rights, but if we sever or limit economic ties with every nation that has a dismal or doubtful human rights record, Singapore will find itself failing to stand for itself. The realities of our city-state are daunting: we are vulnerable to extraneous economic conditions, our very nature of a city-state makes no model, except the current export-oriented one, viable. Singapore is not lavished with the natural resources or population size that will allow us the prerogative of self-sufficiency – our only hope and opportunity for sustained survival is to be accommodating of every nation willing to trade, notwithstanding the moral scruples involved. Our nation could not afford to alienate any nation on the basis of human rights: if that were so, we will lose a swathe of our trading partners – China and the Middle Eastern states, for one.
Idealistic citizens, pragmatic government
The engagement with Burma, and the outrage it has triggered, is symptomatic of the asymmetry between what citizens hope for, and what the nation could realistically deliver. That’s the government’s job: to temper populist expectations and undertake hard decisions that may be morally repugnant, but provide benefits for their citizens. Despicable, compromised, ugly, reprehensible as it may seem, pragmatism has to trump principles in governing a city-state like Singapore.
It is not that Singapore has not exerted effort in getting the Burmese junta to mend its ways. When it hosted the ASEAN summit in November 2007, Singapore proposed that the UN Special Envoy to Myanmar Ibrahim Gambari brief the member-states on Burma just a few weeks after the brutal crackdowns of the Saffron Revolution; the proposal, though shot down by Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, showed a willingness to engage in the Burmese question and a nuanced diplomatic policy of amiably prodding Burma into the right direction without provoking severe antagonism.
ASEAN: That glimmer of reprieve
Indeed ASEAN affords a forum for Singapore and other ASEAN members to influence Burma for the better. The ASEAN Human Rights Commission, an agency introduced by the ASEAN Charter, also provides an opportunity for Singapore to push forth a pro-democracy agenda in Burma without stepping on too many toes. Despite the formidable challenges that will encumber the human rights body, given that no country in ASEAN is a paragon of virtue in terms of democratic sensibility and integrity, the Commission may still shake off its paper tiger tag, particularly if it is endowed with an effective enforcement mechanism.
Many activists hope that a proactive human rights agency could spell the expulsion of Burma from ASEAN. However, a Burma excluded from ASEAN would mean even less influence for the latter over the former – losing leverage when there is already little around. The economic benefits that ASEAN and Singapore currently enjoy from Burma can easily be diverted to neighbouring India and China, both countries having shown no signs of having qualms about continued engagement with Burma. The sobering truth is that Burma, if it ever does so, will have to be brought into the folds of democracy through engagement with Singapore and the other member-states of ASEAN.
Idealism mugged by reality
While our commitment in Burma may not pan out as our leaders may hope, there is little to criticize them in trying to secure our economic interests, even with suspect and dubious regimes such as Burma. Foreign relations, and economic trade, are complicated enough. They have to transcend merely having a resolute stance on human rights, as idealistic and romantic these may be for activists everywhere. That is the true tragedy in the entire affair: of being Singapore and being vulnerable to the pressures of economy and trade that ideals and principles that we should stand for have to be forsaken.
—-
Related posts:
17 Comments
cat
you think GY cares?
without the returns from this kind of investment, how can his salary be funded?
the funny thing is, where did the initial idealism of the saf scholar go?
Shihan
nice one.
Pragmatic engagement of Burma is probably the best way to further human rights coverage, rather than shaming the Junta. Perhaps it is in both countries’ long term interests that Burma should be socialised into respecting global human rights, through ASEAN.
Money-motivated ministers
The article misses the point that the corrupt Burmese junta is in the business of killing its citizens on a large scale and, removed a democratically elected government.
Sadly, the PAP government has close ties with Burma and proping up the regime by having trade. The most disgraceful thing is to tarnish the name of Singapore by naming an orchid after one of the junta leaders.
The PAP ministers don’t think much of it because they are motivated by money.
Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)
Strange as it might seem, our government’s ‘moral’ principle (or lack of) is very much reflected in its citizens today. The problem with a pragmatism that refuses to draw a line at anything as long as it serves some vague ‘interests’ is that it creates a culture where decency, integrity, honesty, empathy and self-sacrifice are expedient. And very often, the very people who elevate pragmatism to a ‘moral’ doctrine are simply saying so because they happen to be on the right end of its results. Try singing the same tune when you’re at the wrong end of pragmatism.
Thomas
The abuses by the Burmese junta far outweigh that of the Chinese or even Arab countries. The Burmese junta abets the production of narcotics, extra judicial killing of dissidents and the systematic destruction of minorities. The only equivalent to Burmese junta is the North Korean govt.
In Zimbabwe at least Mugabe shares power with the opposition. In Iran they at least hold periodic elections and protect the rights of their minorities, including Jews.
Arguably only the Burmese junta willfully disregards international law on the scale of North Korea.
Argue on the effectiveness of engaging Burma vis a vis sanctions or isolation. But to let the status quo stand where Singapore and ASEAN just pay lip service to the abuses of the junta does nothing for the Burmese in the long run. Though we would have made a quick buck of it.
Arix
Every Idealist wishes to punish the Burmese Government, and Help Its People. But they call for economic sanctions which mostly hurt the People, while not hurting The Junta at all, who have cosy investments and businesses in other areas.
Idealism must be preserved, but it needs a different approach.
As for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, it is likely to be ineffective unless it can compel Member States to resolve their problems, and involves Rights Defenders from all countries, especially countries like Vietnam and Myanmar. I wish that ASEAN had pressured Myanmar into allowing its own Human Rights Activists to attend the forum on the formation of the Human Rights Mechanism, instead of bowing to pressure.
A Human Rights Mechanism cannot be successful unless it is permitted to interfere in a country’s Domestic Affairs. It cannot possibly adopt a policy of Non-Interference. Or else it just comes another voice that is easily suppressed.
That’s an outstanding article, and I hope, despite the few comments, that it can raise some questions in people’s mind, and prompt readers to question their stand.
Especially for those who called for the severance of ties between both countries, I hope they know what it means to them, that it is beyond just a making a stand.
A&E (Appalled And Embarrassed)
Agreed. In a nutshell, the author is saying that idealism is very well but pragmatism rules decision. There is nothing new in this assertion, nor in the implicit assumption that idealism must always be subordinate to pragmatism. I wish the government would exercise pragmatism to achieve idealistic ends. At the moment, I am not convinced the driving force behind most of its headlined policies is not more money or a firmer grip on power.
curse of the orchid
Our govt leaders give the impression they are closer to the Burmese junta members than to the rest of ASEAN leaders.
Can anyone shed light on whether past or present ASEAN leaders such as Suharto, Marcos, Mahathir, Thaksin, Brunei Sultan were honoured in a similar fashion as Thein Sein ?
Maintaining economic relationship does not mean our leaders should go overboard to honour Thein Sein. It says a lot about our leaders.
Because none of the other ASEAN leaders and China see it fit to do so.
Chained
Burma is ruled by crazy people. Sanctions on them do not work. They will just retreat happily into their isolated state which is what they want. They have sufficient resources to substain the extavagant lifestyles of a few. It is the people who will suffer the most from sanctions.
eddfssd
just name whatever orchid.
please make sure you can make me wear, eat, live and travel normal can already.
i cannot control how much your salary is.
but please just let me have a few peanuts.
thank you.
sdsdds
the newspaper say minister George Yeo has facebook and active netizen.
that day he ask singaporean to join him to jog.
this is very special.
i wonder if he visit toc or not?
Sir if you see my comment can you please leave a comment here as well?
if you really got visit toc and saw this but never reply, it is also ok because nobody knows.
maybe only heaven or jbj will know.
but after i saw that newspaper report that you invite people to jog using facebook,
i really feel that you will surely do much much better in the next election really.
if singapore can bet on election results like england i will bet 10K for you to win big.
congrates to you Sir.
very sorry if i say anything wrong to offend you.
Joel
The article, while very well-written, does not pose the dilemma as well as it should. Is the decision merely a move of realpolitik? You have mentioned that ASEAN has attempted to engage Burma, yet it is plain that any sort of political engagement has failed. If showing accordance to their leaders is a purely economic move, it is to be denigrated. Yet this might not entirely be the case. Burma, is and will continue to be closed unless we find some way of engaging it. The best way it seems, is economic. To show that we have a viable interest in them and then persuading them to change is not something that is principally justified, but it appears to the best means of change. Remember that countries like China who are themselves at fault for such offences are backing Burma. It remains to be see if one could easily change their attitudes with such powerful backers.
The moral dilemma then, is not one as easily posed by the writer. Though the article poses the inherent problematic position, it is one far more nuanced than it is supposed. This does not mean however, that we approve of the flower naming. Firstly, does it achieve its aim? And secondly, does it actually further the relationship that ultimately cannot continue on this basis (made plain by comments from Singapore and ASEAN?) It is obvious that the flower naming only delays the inevitable. Engagement on an economic level then must take real roots, and we must distinguish between engagement and on principled stands that mean nothing if we are to hold onto positions that say we should not even be dealing with these people.
Stephii
I agree with Zefly. This argument of ‘pragmatism’ as a ‘hard choice’ faced by our government to extend ‘benefits’ for the general populace is disingenuous and disagreeble. The government made a clear choice not just to trade with a regime that has consistently committed flagrant human rights abuses but to HONOUR, in a very public way, the despotic leader of such a regime, thereby legitimizing such brutality. It is a slap in the face for the many who have suffered under this regime.
The article says: “We aspire to certain ideals – but we have to be tempered by the realities of the ground.”
I would say, instead, that the economic aspirations of this country cannot continually over-ride the ideals many people hold dear but are denied – dignity, respect and justice.
It is not an issue of ‘pragmatism’ versus ‘principles’, which is a false binary. There are principles which guide such ‘pragmatic’ choices too – the principles of greed and profit-before-people, for example.
Let us not continue to rationalize, excuse (much less HONOR) despotic and oppressive leadership and instead ask ourselves: what principles do we really wish to see in practice and how do we ensure that our leaders demonstrate such values?
you sneeze you loose
Its all about $$, self interest(my constituent, my nation) and I on the back of others.
zefty great comment
please don’t forget the sacrifices of 1988 student demonstrations as well as 1974 or 1975.
Siva
A well expressed article with an eye opening perspective of the dynamics of singapore’s politics. I agree with the author that pragmatism will definitely come in conflict with principles. It is difficult for both concepts to move on parallel tracks. So as long there is no blatant disregard to humanity, we should still be supportive of Singapore’s foreign/economic policies.
really well writen article!
in the gahmen’s eyes, pragmatism is the moral principle. look how he just brushed concerns about the casino away, despite having held a strong stance against it years before. knowing that we needed a new source of revenue, the moral implications were easily overridden by the highest one of all: pragmatism.