Vietnam issues statement on Singapore PM’s speech

[Evillusion]

East vs West is a highly generalized propaganda. Even within China, the propaganda plays down their alliance with the US, so that it doesn't contradict with their purportedly "traditional alliance" with Russia. This is very little known to most PRCs who grew up on the CCP propaganda. This was despite the fact that they have already been at odds with Russia since the 1960's. Mao's power was at great risk at this point, which was why he launched the cultural revolution to remove party leaders, and then tried to work with the US behind the scenes which led to the famous Nixon visit and ping pong diplomacy in 1972.

so safe to say there was a fight on who was the communist lao ta...

[RadX]

1) Difficult to say. Pol Pot's regime has been portrayed as making pre-emptive strikes against Vietnam, and the Vietnamese invasion as a countermeasure, but it's very difficult to say with these things, just like in the Middle East right now. What is incontrovertible is that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were intent on killing lots of their minorities, especially those of Viet origin (along with a lot of other innocent people like their intellectuals). A commonly quoted figure is that they killed 25 percent od their own population. Let that sink in. A full quarter. Not even Hitler came close.

 

2) Every tyranny will have insurgents and revolutionaries, the so called fifth column, so I'm guessing the answer is yes, but I'm not sure.

 

3) KR was commie in both manifesto and practice, but it was sympathetic to, and supported by China. Vietnam was supported by the USSR. The China and the USSR simply couldn't stand each other, even though they were both commie. But since Communism is so ideologically intensive, they had to paint their simple enmity and rivalry as a matter of ideological difference too. Anyway, the Cambodia-Vietnam conflict is proxy warfare- basically two tigers facing off against each other using lesser beasts as their proxies.

 

4) No. But Vietnam expected to be feted as conquering heroes who put an end to genocide. Instead, they were shunned and punished by the United Nations led by supposed democracies like Thatcher's UK and the US (the US was more low key than the UK if memory serves). China was also successful in lobbying heavily against Vietnam. Only Russia, Czechoslovakia and then India were in their corner. Thailand (the dead general who started all this controversial crap) warmly welcomed the Khmer Rouge leadership in exile (and North Korea had been prepared to do the same). More countries recognised the genocidal government in exile than the new one in place. Meanwhile Vietnam also found their aid cut by the Soviets as they found it difficult to make ends meet. So they made compromises to win international favour, culminating in the restoration of the monarchy. Basically my point is that Vietnam didn't do all those things Pinky implied ASEAN was worried about, but Vietnam was also hampered by world opinion and sanctions and the cutting off of aid by their erstwhile allies. No one knows what might have gone down if the dice had fallen differently.

 

Personally, I have a saying. "There are no Good Guys, but there very well might be Bad Guys". In world politics, there's no point in virtue signalling and pretending that you have might of right on your side unless it's a cynical demagogical tool (as it most often is - a petty vote-grubbing exercise to inflate one's apparent importance on the world stage just prior to a national election, for instance). Take, for example, the whole Soviets versus Nazis thing - just because Stalin brought Hitler's war effort to a decisive end, are we supposed to glorify him? That's what I mean by "no good guys". Nations and peoples are often driven by self-interest rather than high-minded altruistic principles, no matter what they may claim.

 

But, after recognising the simple truth of the above, what's most important is to let sleeping dogs lie. Don't pick at old wounds, especially when they're not that old and not that well-healed. There's no profit to be had here, especially when one has no skin in the game. There is, however, plenty of downside.

Can’t praise you bro but we’ll

Said... excellent on all fronts

 

 

You may still get a love letter tho hahahhahah

[1fast1]

Canât praise you bro but weâll

Said... excellent on all fronts

 

 

You may still get a love letter tho hahahhahah

Lol. All you need is love, as the Beatles sang.

 

I've made some small edits like mentioning Hun Sen in my previous post.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Turboflat4

[RadX]

Lol. All you need is love, as the Beatles sang.

 

I've made some small edits like mentioning Hun Sen in my previous post.

Muahhahahhahaha

U like ALPHAlove ah kekeke

[1fast1]

so safe to say there was a fight on who was the communist lao ta...ð£ð£ð£ð£

wah...bro....that was an impressive read! Good to see when people writing about there are no good and but only bad guys in an idealogy fight.....separated by each others agendas.

Yes bro. I've become quite realistic in my world view over the years. Not pessimistic, just realistic.

Muahhahahhahaha

U like ALPHAlove ah kekeke

Blocked that guy already, but I'm already on the alert for the next heads of the Hydra.

 

But... Mlmlwml.

[Weez911]

1) Difficult to say. Pol Pot's regime has been portrayed as making pre-emptive strikes against Vietnam, and the Vietnamese invasion as a countermeasure, but it's very difficult to say with these things, just like in the Middle East right now. What is incontrovertible is that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were intent on killing lots of their minorities, especially those of Viet origin (along with a lot of other innocent people like their intellectuals). A commonly quoted figure is that they killed 25 percent od their own population. Let that sink in. A full quarter. Not even Hitler came close.

 

2) Every tyranny will have insurgents and revolutionaries, the so called fifth column, so I'm guessing the answer is yes, but I'm not sure.

 

3) KR was commie in both manifesto and practice, but it was sympathetic to, and supported by China. Vietnam was supported by the USSR. The China and the USSR simply couldn't stand each other, even though they were both commie. But since Communism is so ideologically intensive, they had to paint their simple enmity and rivalry as a matter of ideological difference too. Anyway, the Cambodia-Vietnam conflict is proxy warfare- basically two tigers facing off against each other using lesser beasts as their proxies.

 

4) No. But Vietnam expected to be feted as conquering heroes who put an end to genocide. Instead, they were shunned and punished by the United Nations led by supposed democracies like Thatcher's UK and the US (the US was more low key than the UK if memory serves). China was also successful in lobbying heavily against Vietnam. Only Russia, Czechoslovakia and then India were in their corner. Thailand (the dead general who started all this controversial crap) warmly welcomed the Khmer Rouge leadership in exile (and North Korea had been prepared to do the same). More countries recognised the genocidal government in exile than the new one in place. Meanwhile Vietnam also found their aid cut by the Soviets as they found it difficult to make ends meet. So they made compromises to win international favour, culminating in the restoration of the monarchy. Basically my point is that Vietnam didn't do all those things Pinky implied ASEAN was worried about, but Vietnam was also hampered by world opinion and sanctions and the cutting off of aid by their erstwhile allies. No one knows what might have gone down if the dice had fallen differently.

 

Personally, I have a saying. "There are no Good Guys, but there very well might be Bad Guys". In world politics, there's no point in virtue signalling and pretending that you have might of right on your side unless it's a cynical demagogical tool (as it most often is - a petty vote-grubbing exercise to inflate one's apparent importance on the world stage just prior to a national election, for instance). Take, for example, the whole Soviets versus Nazis thing - just because Stalin brought Hitler's war effort to a decisive end, are we supposed to glorify him? That's what I mean by "no good guys". Nations and peoples are often driven by self-interest rather than high-minded altruistic principles, no matter what they may claim.

 

But, after recognising the simple truth of the above, what's most important is to let sleeping dogs lie. Don't pick at old wounds, especially when they're not that old and not that well-healed. There's no profit to be had here, especially when one has no skin in the game. There is, however, plenty of downside.

Thanks for a very well thought out response and an apt conclusion. I couldn't have put it across any better.

[Weez911]

Canât praise you bro but weâll

Said... excellent on all fronts

 

 

You may still get a love letter tho hahahhahah

Must ask him leading questions first ;)

[RadX]

Must ask him leading questions first ;)

Like who is his master?

 

 

Is that not masterbaiting it?

 

Hahahaha

[Kusje]

DB worth it meh

Why fight someone else's war? Death worth it meh?

 

Of course if I evade draft, won't just sit around waiting to get caught la.

[Kyrios]

Boh tai bo ji create ill feelings among citizens of 3 not so related countries

 

Is like going to your friend's xmas party and you see your that friend having an extremely plump girl friend and you go on stage uninvited to criticize that girl for being extremely plump. It could very well be true she is factually plump...but do we really need to make a mess of it.

Why fight someone else's war? Death worth it meh?

 

Of course if I evade draft, won't just sit around waiting to get caught la.

Careful my fren..wait IBs accuse u of treason... Edited June 8, 2019 by Kyrios

[Piyopico]

LHL while not the most politically savvy is not daft.

These statements are not made without certain considerations.

 

I can only guess that with the Shangri la dialogue in the backdrop, we were trying to get cozy with China. Just that reactions by Vietnam-Cambodia were miscalculated.......... come to think about it, maybe not. May even be considered as good game to MFA. What’s a few grumbling notes if we get pally with China again.....

 

IMHO.......

[Kyrios]

wont lar.....the most they will burn our flags and send a boat load of ladies with veneral desease to infect our guys....ððð. Even though their army are battle-hardened with experienced leaders they lack the naval capability to do an oversea assault and they are already busy with trying to catch up economically after being left behind fighting 2 foreign powers.....

Not really true my fren. If there are some hardcore nationalistic rogues who do something stupid, the butterfly effect will soon ensure it will be you and i, and everybody business soon. And maybe we will all be drawn in needlessly becos of PM's statements

[Freeder]

FFS , pls ask our xiao Long don’t chup one leg insai..Already very messi liao...

 

https://www.businessinsider.sg/us-calls-taiwan-a-country-and-could-draw-chinas-anger-2019-6/?r=US&IR=T

[Evillusion]

Do not be mistaken, Russia always prefers a China under their full control, and China is always wary of their northern neighbour. This has got nothing to do with whether it is the communist or csar, USSR or Russian Federation or Russian Empire. This rivalry has run for hundreds of years from the days of the csars till today. Russia still occupies millions of square kilometres of Chinese territory today.

 

Just a few months ago, Putin invited Xi to Vladivostok, one of CN's past territory for a nice meeting. They drank vodka and made pancakes together. Putin is a smart guy who is well versed in history and geopolitics. Vladivostok was Chinese/Manchurian Emperor's royal territory, like Muar is to Johor, like Vatican to the Roman Catholics, except thousands times bigger. But which Chinese leader dares to ask for their territory back from Russia ?

 

Between ideology and history, which one carries more weight ? Some conflicts have been going on for thousands of years, when ideologies come and go. Politics is such that you pick the side most favorable to your side (not necessarily for the people).

idealogy will become a part of history one day....

[Evillusion]

Not really true my fren. If there are some hardcore nationalistic rogues who do something stupid, the butterfly effect will soon ensure it will be you and i, and everybody business soon. And maybe we will all be drawn in needlessly becos of PM's statements

maybe we should give Joo Chiat a miss for the time being....

[Fcw75]

You sure MFA do fire fighting now?

 

Yes, here:

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/spore-committed-to-good-ties-with-vietnam-and-cambodia-mfa

 

 

 

Singapore committed to good ties with Vietnam and Cambodia, says MFA after furore over PM Lee Hsien Loong's comments

Vietnamese soldiers waiting to leave Cambodia on Sept 20, 1989, following the withdrawal of troops from Cambodia. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that while Singapore and Vietnam were on opposing sides in the past and have different views of that history, their leaders have chosen to set aside differences to forge a close partnership. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

PUBLISHED

9 HOURS AGO

UPDATED

5 HOURS AGO

FACEBOOKTWITTEREMAIL

 

It responds to furore in the two countries over PM Lee's remarks on 1978 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia

Singapore is committed to building on its good relations with Vietnam and Cambodia, and hopes that they can continue to grow based on candour and trust, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) said last night.

Its statement was in response to unhappiness in Vietnam and Cambodia over Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's recent comments on the 1978 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.

"Singapore highly values its relations with Cambodia and Vietnam. Notwithstanding our differences in the past, we have always treated each other with respect and friendship," the ministry said.

"Bilateral relations have grown in many areas, and we worked together with other South-east Asian countries to build a cohesive and united Asean."

This was the context of PM Lee's comments, said the statement, adding that they reflect Singapore's longstanding viewpoint, which has been stated publicly before.

Singapore upholds the principle that no country should violate the sovereignty of another.

 

 

 

ADVERTISING

Additionally, if it were not opposed, Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia would create an undesirable precedent for small countries such as Singapore.

• At stake: No country should violate sovereignty of another

• For more than a decade, Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia - then known as Kampuchea - was the predominant foreign policy issue in the region.

  At stake was a principle which Singapore and the Asean regional grouping adhered to: That no country should violate the sovereignty of another.

  From the Singapore perspective, while the country had no sympathy for the Khmer Rouge, it believed that Vietnam's invasion would leave an undesirable precedent if left unopposed, especially for small countries like the Republic.

  In December 1978, Vietnamese troops invaded Cambodia and toppled the Khmer Rouge regime that had controlled Cambodia for three years from 1975 and implemented policies said to have killed a third of the population.

  After the invasion, Vietnam put in place a puppet government in Cambodia led by Heng Samrin which had to consult Vietnam on major decisions.

  Singapore's and Asean's stand was that Vietnam's invasion was a clear violation of international borders and an act of external aggression.

  The invasion of a smaller country by a larger neighbour, the deposition of a legitimate government by external force and the imposition of a proxy by a foreign power were a direct challenge to the fundamentals of Singapore's foreign policy.

   

  As outlined by former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Wong Kan Seng at the S. Rajaratnam Lecture in 2011, Singapore felt that not responding to the invasion would have "undermined our credibility and posed serious implications for our own security".

  The issue was one of Singapore's early tests as a country, he also said.

  From 1979 to 1989, Asean member states worked closely to oppose the invasion on the international stage.

  Singapore led a concerted effort to table an annual resolution at the United Nations General Assembly calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops and the recognition of Kampuchean self-determination, while not seeking a restoration of the Khmer Rouge.

  And for all 11 years - with then foreign minister S. Rajaratnam and ambassador Tommy Koh lobbying for votes - the resolution won the support of more and more UN members.

  The final resolution voted on in 1989 was approved by 124 out of the 159 members.

  Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia that same year, as the Soviet bloc was collapsing. It would sign the Paris Peace Accord in 1991.

  So large did the event loom over the consciousness in the region that many Singaporean leaders, including founding prime minister, Mr Lee, would years later refer to it as a seminal event in the early days of the Asean grouping.

  Once the issue was settled, Singapore sought to build a relationship with Vietnam.

  Singapore's leaders had long maintained that its opposition to the invasion had little to do with its bilateral relationship.

  "We made clear that once the issue was settled, we would be ready and willing to render whatever assistance we could to Vietnam," Mr Wong said in the 2011 speech.

  Mr Lee met then Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet one week after the Paris peace agreements were signed in October 1991.

  Vietnam was admitted into Asean in 1995, with Cambodia joining the grouping in 1999.

  Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pointed to the episode and the way the region was able to put its past behind it during a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue last week.

  "Earlier, Vietnam had invaded Cambodia, thus posing a serious threat to its non-communist neighbours. But now, Vietnam joined Asean, together with Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. It was a case of beating swords into plough-shares," he said.

Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan made separate phone calls to Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pham Binh Minh and Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Prak Sokhonn yesterday. Dr Balakrishnan explained these points to his counterparts. "They agreed that notwithstanding the serious differences in the past, we have taken the path of cooperation, dialogue and friendship," the statement added.

Both Hanoi and Phnom Penh have protested since PM Lee wrote a Facebook post on May 31 that mentioned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1978.

The Vietnamese troops then ousted a Khmer Rouge regime that had wiped out up to one-third of Cambodia's population.

In expressing his condolences for the death of Thai statesman Prem Tinsulanonda, PM Lee wrote about how Asean - then comprising Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines - came together "to oppose Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia and the Cambodian government that replaced the Khmer Rouge".

"Thailand was on the front line, facing Vietnamese forces across its border with Cambodia. General Prem was resolute in not accepting this fait accompli, and worked with Asean partners to oppose the Vietnamese occupation in international forums," PM Lee wrote.

"This prevented the military invasion and regime change from being legitimised. It protected the security of other South-east Asia countries and decisively shaped the course of the region."

PM Lee also mentioned the issue during his keynote address at the Shangri-La Dialogue on May 31 when he was talking about the formation of Asean.

Cambodia and Vietnam objected to PM Lee's remarks. Cambodian Defence Minister Tea Banh told local media earlier this week that PM Lee's comments were "unacceptable" and "not true".

Vietnam's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it "regretted" that PM Lee's remarks did not "objectively reflect the historical truth" and, as a result, caused "negative impact" on public opinion.

Netizens from Vietnam also flooded PM Lee's Facebook page expressing unhappiness.

On Thursday night, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said on Facebook that he deeply regretted PM Lee's statement, and said it revealed that the "leader of Singapore had indeed contributed to the massacre of Cambodian people".

"His statement reflects Singapore's position then in support of the genocidal regime and the wish for its return to Cambodia," he said.

In its statement yesterday, the MFA noted that Singapore's foun-ding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew wrote in his memoirs about Singapore's longstanding view of what happened.

Asean, then comprising five members, also stated its position on Cambodia clearly in a joint statement that was circulated to the United Nations Security Council in 1979, which "affirmed the right of the Kampuchean people to determine their future by themselves, free from interference or influence from outside powers in the exercise of their right of self-determination".

MFA said: "Singapore had no sympathy for the Khmer Rouge, and did not want to see the Khmer Rouge return to Cambodia."

It noted that in 1988, Asean sponsored UN General Assembly resolutions condemning the Khmer Rouge to ensure it would not be part of any eventual government in Cambodia. "Singapore and Asean were keen to provide humanitarian assistance to the Cambodian people," it said.

"Asean spearheaded the 1980 International Meeting of Humanitarian Assistance and Relief to the Kampuchean People, which took place under the auspices of the UN Economic and Social Council."

The statement said PM Lee had made reference to this history "to explain how statesmanship and foresight helped to end the tragic wars that caused great suffering to the people of Indochina, and to bring about the peace and cooperation that the region enjoys today".

"He also wanted to emphasise that regional stability and prosperity, as well as Asean unity, cannot be taken for granted. The current geopolitical uncertainties make it all the more important that Asean countries maintain our unity and cohesion, and strengthen our cooperation."

Related Story

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen accuses Singapore of supporting genocide

Related Story

Lee Hsien Loong's Facebook post on 1978 Vietnam-Cambodia issue upsets both countries

MFA said that while Singapore and Vietnam were on opposing sides in the past and have different views of that history, "our leaders chose to set aside differences to forge a close partnership both bilaterally and in Asean".

"Likewise, Singapore has worked hard to forge a good relationship with Cambodia following internationally supervised elections that elected a new Cambodian government, and to bring it into the Asean fold once it was ready. An understanding of the past enables us to fully appreciate and value the good relations that we now enjoy."

Yesterday, Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin said in a Facebook post that while Vietnam may not like some of PM Lee's comments and can choose to define the past as it sees fit, "this doesn't change the past as many view it".

"Nor does it detract from us being good friends or neighbours today. We are committed to that," he added.

 

 

[inlinesix]

It looks like MFA dug a bigger hole now.

 

[Evillusion]

It looks like MFA dug a bigger hole now.

He open mouth......decades of diplomacy went down the drain...... Edited June 8, 2019 by Evillusion