Singapore 'disappointed' with 'irresponsible report'

[minion]

SINGAPORE: Singapore's Ambassador to China on Monday (Sep 23) expressed the city-state's disappointment at a report by Chinese newspaper Global Times, alleging that Singapore had acted inappropriately at the recent Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit held in Venezuela. 

In a letter to the Global Times' editor-in-chief Hu Xijin, Ambassador Stanley Loh refuted the newspaper's report, stating that it "attributed actions and words to Singapore which are false and unfounded".

The report, published online on Sep 21, said Singapore wanted to include Philippines' position on the South China Sea dispute in the NAM Final Document at the last minute, which was met with opposition by many countries. 

It said as a result, Singapore's delegation at the summit was unhappy and responded with "inappropriate" remarks during discussions. The report also alleged that Singapore openly challenged NAM chair Venezuela's position on the matter.

"Singapore acted out of self-interest and caused many discussions to drag on late into the night, upsetting many countries," the report claimed.

Additionally, the Global Times report said Singapore's reaction to the Hague's ruling on the South China Sea was "disappointing", especially as it is the country coordinator for ASEAN-China relations.

In response, Mr Loh said in his letter that the proposal to update the Southeast Asia paragraphs in the NAM Final Document was not done at the last minute, nor by any single ASEAN country. Neither did the Singapore delegation raise the South China Sea or the tribunal ruling at the NAM Summit, he wrote.

Ambassador Loh's response is reproduced in full below:

"Dear Editor-in-Chief Hu,

The Global Times (Chinese) article dated 21 September 2016 regarding the 17th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit attributed actions and words to Singapore which are false and unfounded.

Firstly, the proposal to update the Southeast Asia paragraphs in the NAM Final Document was not done at the last minute nor by any single ASEAN country. There was a common and united ASEAN position. It was a consensus position of all ten ASEAN members, based on agreed language from the Joint Communique of the 49th ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting. As the current ASEAN Chair, Laos conveyed the group’s common position through a formal letter to the former-NAM Chair Iran in July 2016. Subsequently, Iran circulated ASEAN’s updates to all NAM Members on Jul 29, 2016.

Secondly, the NAM Chair refused ASEAN’s request to abide by the established practice in NAM for regional groupings to update the paragraphs of their respective regions in the NAM Final Document, without interference from non-regional NAM countries or external parties. If this important principle is not respected, any non-regional NAM member or external element could in future impose their views on any regional issue. This is not in the interests of the NAM and its members. The paragraphs on Southeast Asia, including those referring to the South China Sea, have been part of the NAM Final Document since 1992, and regularly updated based on the common position of the ASEAN countries.

Thirdly, contrary to the claim fabricated by the Global Times, the Singapore delegation did not raise the South China Sea or the tribunal ruling at the NAM Summit. Singapore adopted a principled position throughout and intervened to support the common position of ASEAN and defend NAM principles and established practices. Singapore believes that it is detrimental to the unity, impartiality and future of the NAM to allow NAM principles to be undermined.

The following additional facts clearly refute the allegations in the article:

i. Only a very small number of NAM Members outside Southeast Asia raised objections to ASEAN’s updates at the NAM Senior Officials’ Meeting at Margarita Island. However, substantive discussions were regrettably blocked.

ii. As Chairman of ASEAN, Laos protested on behalf of all ten ASEAN countries to the NAM Chair on its improper decision to reject ASEAN’s updates. Several other countries also objected to the breach of this well-established NAM principle.

iii. At the end of the 17th NAM Summit, Laos as Chair of ASEAN wrote to the Venezuelan Foreign Minister to put on record ASEAN’s collective reservation to a paragraph in the Southeast Asia section of the NAM Final Document that was not updated. The ASEAN Chair further requested that ASEAN’s proposed language be annexed to the NAM Final Document. A copy of the letter from Laos as Chair of ASEAN is attached.

We are disappointed that an established newspaper published this irresponsible report replete with fabrications and unfounded allegations with no regard for the facts. I request that in the interest of professionalism, objectivity and transparency, Global Times publishes this letter in full in Chinese and English, so that your readers may be accurately informed, and the close friendship between our two countries will not be inadvertently affected."

The letter from the Laos delegation is as follows:

"Excellency,

I would like to extend my friendly greeting to Your Excellency, and on behalf of 10 ASEAN member States attending the XVII NAM Ministerial Meeting, namely Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippine, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam, have the honour to reiterate that the question of South China Sea is a matter of vital interest for peace stability, security and cooperation in South East Asia. From the very beginning, ASEAN with a high respect to Venezuela Chair of XVII NAM Summit and with the strong aspiration to contribute to the success of this XVII NAM Summit, has been requesting extensive discussion and consultation with interested NAM members to reach an agreement on the issue.

Unfortunately our cooperative spirit and our constructive efforts have not been reciprocated. ASEAN, with a very deep regret and with the high respect to the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as the Chair of the XVII NAM Summit and to all distinguished NAM members, has to reiterate that ASEAN is not in a position to accept the paragraph relating to the South China Sea numbered 449 as reflected in the draft NAM Final Outcome Document received by member countries in the morning of 18 September 2016, as it does not reflect the current developments in the region. We would like to request the NAM Chair to put on record our reservation and incorporate in the NAM Final Outcome Document our reservation in the form of an Annex as follows:

'The Heads of State or Government reiterated the call to solve all sovereignty and territorial disputes in the South China Sea by peaceful means, without resorting to force and/or the threat to use force, in accordance with the universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Charter of the United Nations. In this context, they urged all parties to ensure the full and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in its entirety to build, maintain and enhance mutual trust and confidence, to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities, and to work expeditiously for the early adoption of an effective Code of Conduct, which would help to promote international peace and stability in the region, with a view to creating a positive climate for the eventual resolution of all contentious issues, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Joint Commmunique of the 49th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Vientiane, Laos dated 24 July 2016. They expressed their hope that all parties concerned would refrain from any actions that may undermine peace, stability, trust and confidence in the region. The Heads of State or Government shared serious concerns over recent and ongoing developments in the South China Sea and took note of the concerns expressed by some ministers/leaders on the land reclamations and escalation of activities in the area, including the increased presence of military assets and the possibility of further militarization of outposts in the South China Sea, which have eroded trust and confidence, increased tensions and may undermine peace, security and stability in the region. They emphasized the importance of non-militarisation and self-restraint in the conduct of all activities, including land reclamation that could further complicate the situation and escalate tensions in the South China Sea. They reaffirmed the importance of and their shared commitment to maintaining peace, security, stability, the freedom of navigation in and over-flight above the South China Sea, as provided for by the universally recognized principles of international law. To this end, they welcomed the adoption of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in July 2011 in Bali and the Joint Statement of the 15th ASEAN-China Summit on 10th Anniversary of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in November 2012 in Phnom Penh. The Heads of State or Government also welcomed the Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN Member States and China on the Full and Effective Implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea on 25 July 2016 in Vientiane. They further welcomed the positive contribution of the consultations at ASEAN-China dialogues, and the regular exchange of views at relevant ASEAN-led fora, and encouraged their continuance. The Heads of State or Government welcomed the progress made on some of the Early Harvest Measures, which includes adopting a 24-hour MFA-to-MFA hotline for maritime emergencies. They noted the ASEAN-China 25th Anniversary Commemorative Summit on 7 September 2016 in Vientiane, the 17th Joint Working Group on the implementation of the DOC on 8 June 2016 and the 12th Senior Official’s Meeting on the implementation of the DOC on 9 June 2016 in Ha Long Bay, Viet Nam.'

Therefore, ASEAN expresses its reservation on paragraph 449 of the XVII NAM Final Outcome Document, and with your permission, kindly requests that its reservation and this letter be put on record and included as annex of the Final Outcome Document.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Kham-Inh Khitchadeth

Director General

SOM and Ministerial Leader of the Lao delegation"

- CNA/dl

 

 

[inlinesix]

http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2016-09/9490036.html

 

胡锡进给新加坡驻华大使罗家良的复信

尊敬的罗家良大使先生：

　　我在出差的路上，今天读到您写给我的信。您在信中批评《环球时报》9月21日“不结盟运动首脑会新加坡妄提南海仲裁”的报道“捏造”事实，“胡编乱造”。我向编辑部了解情况后，作此回复。

　　《环球时报》记者是根据参加了不结盟首脑会议的知情人士介绍情况写成此文的。我们的信息源严肃、可靠，记者的采访扎实、认真，文章写的就是真实情况。因此我不能同意您对《环球时报》报道的指控。您本人作为驻中国大使，大概没有参加那次在委内瑞拉举行的会议，不是亲历者。可能是您的政府让您这样说的吧。

　　我注意到您的信中有一个细节，就是承认不结盟首脑会议主席国委内瑞拉拒绝新加坡的要求，对方为什么拒绝呢，拒绝了什么具体表述呢？您回避了，只是强调对方做得不对。其实《环球时报》文章就是对这个您没有说的情节和原因的展开。

 

　　中国社会长期视新加坡为友好国家，但是必须指出，在南海问题上，尤其是在所谓南海仲裁公布前后，新加坡的表现很让人失望。新加坡不是南海争端方，但你们的表态远远称不上中立，而是偏袒菲律宾、越南的立场，与美日形成呼应。此外，新加坡此前还接受美国在你们的基地部署濒海战斗舰和P-8反潜侦察机，谁都知道它们是对付中国的。新加坡的这些做法损害了中国利益。

　　看看东盟大多数国家是怎样平衡处理南海仲裁这一敏感问题的，我认为新加坡应当为你们在这个时候给自己的第一大贸易伙伴中国使绊而感到羞愧。我认为大使先生应敦促您的国家反思，而不是给报道真实情况的《环球时报》扣帽子。

　　《环球时报》编辑部非常愿意看到中新友好关系健康发展，我们曾发表社论，对新加坡在大国之间周旋的难处表示理解。但即使这样，我在此仍要对大使先生说，您的国家在南海问题上做过头了。新加坡在自觉或不自觉地站队，你们成为东盟中极少数最积极宣扬南海仲裁的国家，至少你们向外界传递出的信息是：新加坡在南海问题越来越公开跟着美日跑。

　　您在信中提到希望共同维护中新之间的“亲密友谊”，希望这是您的真心话，也希望这是您的政府的真心话和政策。我们最担心您作为驻华大使对中国公众说的话，与您的政府在不同国际场合的言行对不上号。但愿新加坡今后有关南海的言行能够证明这一担心是多余的。也衷心希望新加坡能扮演好中国-东盟关系协调国的角色，以你们今后在区域复杂局势中的表现赢得《环球时报》读者以及整个中国社会的尊敬。

　　环球时报总编辑 胡锡进

　2016年9月27日

[Staff69]

when you stand too close to a tyrant.

 

you be mistaken to be owned by him

[Ktglfc]

Don't bully us !

We may be small, we may be a small red dot, but we will stand united against any bully!

[mersaylee]

We must know that he's just an actor...have to act out whatever is required by the director or scriptwriter.

[Picnic06-Biante15]

Don't bully us !

We may be small, we may be a small red dot, but we will stand united against any bully!

 

Yes.... stand united to piak all xmm in Geylang, Chinatown, KTVs and Pubs ..  

 

 

     

[Somewhat1975]

Singapore tried to be a friend for both US and China. If China is not happy about that and try to force Singapore to take side, the decision is no brainer and it won't be China.

[Jman888]

Singapore tried to be a friend for both US and China. If China is not happy about that and try to force Singapore to take side, the decision is no brainer and it won't be China.

you sure? maybe must have a referendum to vote

[Beregond]

Singapore tried to be a friend for both US and China. If China is not happy about that and try to force Singapore to take side, the decision is no brainer and it won't be China.

we want china RMB  and US protection.

 

if 1 day china can offer us both, we could see alot of changes.

[Tonydeath]

Maybe another 10-20 years one of the PRC that became our Singapore citizen and later become our PM said let's join China and become part of their territory. Phui!

[Celicar]

Don't understand this part.

 

我注意到您的信中有一个细节，就是承认不结盟首脑会议主席国委内瑞拉拒绝新加坡的要求，对方为什么拒绝呢，拒绝了什么具体表述呢？您回避了，只是强调对方做得不对。其实《环球时报》文章就是对这个您没有说的情节和原因的展开。

[Silverkris]

Singapore tried to be a friend for both US and China. If China is not happy about that and try to force Singapore to take side, the decision is no brainer and it won't be China.

 

Not likely. I understand a lot of people has prejudice against China, but if Singapore needs to choose an Ally perhaps China is a better choice. They might be arrogant and straight talking but at least their stand has always been the same. US on the other hand depends very much on who is governing the country at that moment. 

 

Just like in business: will you rather prefer a customer who gives strict requirements but rewards when you can accomplish it? Or a customer who sweet talks but the requirements always changing when they have a change in management and therefore cannot pay you because you did not meet current requirements although you did meet previous ones? 

[Beregond]

Not likely. I understand a lot of people has prejudice against China, but if Singapore needs to choose an Ally perhaps China is a better choice. They might be arrogant and straight talking but at least their stand has always been the same. US on the other hand depends very much on who is governing the country at that moment. 

 

Just like in business: will you rather prefer a customer who gives strict requirements but rewards when you can accomplish it? Or a customer who sweet talks but the requirements always changing when they have a change in management and therefore cannot pay you because you did not meet current requirements although you did meet previous ones? 

ya . this point very true, 

 

look at wat trump talking can already .

 

every time US head change , all the contract and treaty sign before that can be throw out of the window, just because their own congress approve , in their POV is legal.

[Atrecord]

It is very risky to try to be very friendly with both the feuding giants. We want to be close to and given special (ly good) treatment by both sides, and yet not offending the other side.

 

Sooner or later, the 2 sides will want to test our allegiance and see whether their 'investment' in treating us well, is justified and should be continued.

 

Threading on thin ice, dun later become 两头不到岸 

[Somewhat1975]

Not likely. I understand a lot of people has prejudice against China, but if Singapore needs to choose an Ally perhaps China is a better choice. They might be arrogant and straight talking but at least their stand has always been the same. US on the other hand depends very much on who is governing the country at that moment.

 

Just like in business: will you rather prefer a customer who gives strict requirements but rewards when you can accomplish it? Or a customer who sweet talks but the requirements always changing when they have a change in management and therefore cannot pay you because you did not meet current requirements although you did meet previous ones?

How about SuZhou Industrial Park? Quite opposite to what you claimed Chinese govt to be.

[Toothiewabbit]

Maybe another 10-20 years one of the PRC that became our Singapore citizen and later become our PM said let's join China and become part of their territory. Phui!

In before Mustank says "joining to ATB nao!!!"

[Kusje]

Wah. Our 2 headed snake strategy is unraveling! 

 

Looks like we can't one leg step on 2 boats anymore. How now?

Edited September 28, 2016 by Kusje

[Volvobrick]

We should learn from Thailand then... Adopt the willow tree strategy.  Just bend according to the wind direction.

 

PS.  We are also disappointed with Shitty Times reporting.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Volvobrick