Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

LKY school dean’s views on Singapore’s foreign policy ‘flawed, intellectually questionable’

SINGAPORE — Veteran diplomat Bilahari Kausikan has strongly criticised a commentary by the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), who argued that small states such as Singapore must always behave like small states and refrain from commenting on matters involving great powers. Mr Kausikan called the piece by Professor Kishore Mahbubani deeply flawed and dangerously misleading.

Professor Kishore Mahbubani (left) and Singapore’s Ambassador at Large Bilahari Kausikan. TODAY file photo

Professor Kishore Mahbubani (left) and Singapore’s Ambassador at Large Bilahari Kausikan. TODAY file photo

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — Veteran diplomat Bilahari Kausikan has strongly criticised a commentary by the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), who argued that small states such as Singapore must always behave like small states and refrain from commenting on matters involving great powers. Mr Kausikan called the piece by Professor Kishore Mahbubani deeply flawed and dangerously misleading. 

Weighing in on the issue, Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam also slammed Prof Mahbubani’s piece as “intellectually questionable”, adding that Singapore did not get to where it is by thinking small, and calling Ambassador-at-Large Mr Kausikan’s response “brilliant”.

“His first lesson — that small states must always behave like small states — is muddled, mendacious and indeed dangerous,” Mr Kausikan wrote in a lengthy Facebook post on Sunday morning (July 2), a day after Prof Mahbubani’s commentary titled Qatar: Big Lessons from a Small Country was published in The Straits Times.

Ambassador at Large Ong Keng Yong also told TODAY that he was not comfortable with what Prof Mahbubani’s argument would imply for Singapore’s foreign policy.

“I personally view Kishore’s assertions in his article will give rise to an interpretation that a small country like Singapore cannot speak out against certain positions of big countries on specific issues even when Singapore may suffer a disadvantage by the stand of the bigger countries.”

Prof Mahbubani, who was Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Ministry from 1993 to 1998, and became LKYSPP dean in 2004 after a diplomatic career spanning 33 years, did not respond to TODAY’s queries by press time. The public criticism of a former Ministry of Foreign Affairs permanent secretary by another is unheard of, and Mr Kausikan explained why he was compelled to tear into his former colleague.

“Coming from someone of Kishore’s stature — he is after all the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy — it is so dangerously misleading that it must be vigorously rebutted even at the cost of offending an old friend,” wrote Mr Kausikan, who retired as permanent secretary in May 2013 after 31 years of service in the public sector.

In his piece, Prof Mahbubani had said that the recent move by four Arab states to cut off diplomatic ties with Qatar holds several lessons for Singapore. 

The first lesson was that “small states must behave like small states”, Prof Mahbubani wrote, adding: “Why? The answer was given by the famous historian, Thucydides, when writing about the war between Athens and Sparta: ‘Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must’.”

Prof Mahbubani added that, while founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had never acted as a leader of a small state and would comment openly on great powers, he had earned the right to do so because the big powers treated him with great respect as a global statesman.

“We are now in the post-Lee Kuan Yew era. Sadly, we will probably never again have another globally respected statesman like Mr Lee. As a result, we should change our behaviour significantly,” he wrote, adding that the first thing Singapore should do is to exercise discretion.

“We should be very restrained in commenting on matters involving great powers,” he added, saying that the Republic should have been “more circumspect” on the international tribunal ruling on the South China Sea against China.

“When I hear some of our official representatives say that we should take a ‘consistent and principled’ stand on geopolitical issues, I am tempted to remind them that consistency and principle are important, but cannot be the only traits that define our diplomacy,” he wrote.

In taking issue with the public policy professor’s comments, Mr Kausikan noted that his former colleague used to say that Singapore must punch above its weight, but has now obviously changed his mind.

“But the reason he has done so and what he has to say about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the suggestion that now that he is dead, we should behave differently is not just wrong, but offensive, not only to Mr Lee’s successors, but to all Singaporeans who have benefited from what Mr Lee and his comrades have bequeathed us,” wrote Mr Kausikan in his post, which has since been widely shared. He noted that Mr Lee and his colleagues had earned the respect of major powers not by being compliant, but by being prepared to stand up for their ideals and principles when they had to.

“Independent Singapore would not have survived and prospered if they always behaved like the leaders of a small state as Kishore advocates. They did not earn the respect of the major powers and Singapore did not survive and prosper by being anybody’s tame poodle,” he added. “Of course we recognise asymmetries of size and power — we are not stupid — but that does not mean we must grovel or accept subordination as a norm of relationships.”

Mr Kausikan cited how, at an Asean meeting in 2010, then-Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi was reported to have publicly and pointedly reminded Asean that China was a big country while staring at then-Foreign Minister George Yeo, who reportedly stared right back.

“I was not at that Asean meeting so I do not know if the story is true, but it gained wide international currency. Neither was Kishore at that meeting. Still, he certainly seems to have absorbed the lesson Mr Yang was trying to convey very well even without being there,” said Mr Kausikan, adding that Mr Lee stood up to China when he had to and was likely the only non-communist leader ever to have gone into a Chinese Communist Party-supported United Front and emerged victorious.

“The Chinese respected him and that is why he later had a good relationship with them. I don’t think anyone respects a running dog,” added Mr Kausikan.

“I am profoundly disappointed that Kishore should advocate subordination as a norm of Singapore foreign policy. It made me ashamed.”

Writing on Facebook on Sunday afternoon, Mr Shanmugam said Mr Kausikan’s “brilliant response” was one that Prof Mahbubani’s commentary deserved, noting that some of the academic’s comments were contrary to Mr Lee’s basic principles, which made Singapore successful.

“Mr Lee never advocated cravenness, or thinking small. Did we get to where we are now, by thinking ‘small’? No,” Mr Shanmugam wrote. “That is why Singapore was and is respected, despite being one of the smallest countries in the world. And Singaporeans are proud to be Singaporeans.”

Mr Shanmugam recalled that, as Foreign Minister previously, he never forgot that Singapore was a small country and there were limits to what it could do.

“But equally I also knew, that once you allow yourself to be bullied, then you will continue to be bullied. And I never allowed myself to be bullied when I represented Singapore,” he said.

“We have to be clear about our interests, and go about it smartly. But not on bended knees and by kowtowing to others,” he added.

“By definition, almost every country, including our neighbouring countries, are all bigger than us. We treat each other with mutual respect. Once we are shown to be ‘flexible’, then that is what will be expected of us every time.”

Mr Ong said that Singapore has always been sensitive in managing foreign policy, but when necessary, it has stood up to pressure from other states when its interests were at stake.

“There is no choice but to stand up. Doing otherwise will encourage more pressure from those bigger than ourselves,” he added.

“Basically, Kishore’s underlying concern is that Singapore is not exercising enough apparent savviness in dealing with the South China Sea issues. Is that the case? I personally thought that the thinking Southeast Asians respect Singapore’s strategic positioning and diplomatic efforts.”

Dr Yap Kwong Weng, an Indochina regional advisor of LKYSPP, on Sunday defended Prof Mahbubani’s commentary.

“I find Bilahari’s reply exaggerated and unnecessary. There is nothing “flawed” or “dangerous” about what Kishore had to say,” Dr Yap said in an email to TODAY.

“Kishore stated that small states should not behave as if they are big states. He pointed out that we will not have another Lee Kuan Yew any time soon.  His key point was to be mindful not to over extend our capacity as a small nation. There was nothing wrong or disrespectful about this line of thinking.”

This is the third time in recent months that the Government has flagged comments by academics from LKYSPP. 

Last month, the police took issue with LKYSPP adjunct professor Yeoh Lam Keong’s allegation that inadequate community policing was to blame for the 2013 Little India riot.

In April, a Facebook post by LKYSPP’s associate dean Donald Low drew a sharp rebuke from Mr Shanmugam, who said then that Mr Low’s comments “seriously misconstrued” the statements he had made in an interview with TODAY, in relation to considering public opinion when deciding on criminal sentences. Mr Low subsequently apologised.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.