Examining Singapore's ties with Burma

Even the Economist couldn't save Burma
Even the usually insightful Economist newspaper stumbled when it came to the topic of how to save Burma. Its July 2005 opinion piece can be summarized as: the West and the East should come together and use carrots and sticks, but only if Burma's military junta responds to them. While the Economist's suggestions appeared to lack in novelty and applicability, they highlight the two fundamental problems: the lack of a cohesive response cause nations' efforts to negate each other and Burma's dictatorship does not seem to care anyway.

Singapore's ties motivated by economics, "untroubled by politics"
Like many others, Singapore's government did not know how to solve the complex political problems in Burma. So it decided to be all carrots. Once a major trading partner and investor in Burma, Singapore's approach was motivated by economics and as an article by a Burmese non-partisan exile journalist puts it, Singapore was "untroubled by Burma's political problems." The moves to keep Burma stable were probably to keep this golden goose alive. In contrast, some other ASEAN/Asian countries like Malaysia and East Timor were much more outspoken about demanding the release of Aung San Suu Kyi (democratically elected leader under house arrest). Even the exit from the Burmese markets in recent years were economic, rather than a protest against the military dictatorship.

The incapable opposition politician
Using choice words and video bites, Singapore's mainstream media portrayed Dr. Chee Soon Juan as a madman who made baseless accusations like Singapore's ties with Burmese drug lords. Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stayed close by featuring him as a criminal and liar. Dr. Chee (and many Australian newspapers) used Burma to argue that the Singapore government was hypocritical - trading with drug lords yet hanging drug traffickers. The problem for Dr. Chee, other than lacking uncensored access to Singapore media, was that he did not and probably could not offer a better solution. Had he attained office through the Burma issue, he would have stopped trade with Burma, but that would not have solved Burma's problem. Prior to the general elections in 2006, opposition politics on a broader scale suffered from the same problem - criticism without better solutions.

The trouble with Singaporeans
It is not as much as Singapore's government is apathetic about Burma's civilian poverty and military atrocities as Singaporeans are. We might be too obsessed about money to care about our South East Asian neighbors' developments.

Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts fails to keep pace with changes
Although, MICA no longer has the monopoly on ICA, it insists on blunt instruments like banning FEER. By attempting to prevent Singaporeans from reading dissenting opinions about Singapore's previous trade ties with Burma, MICA instead makes dissenting views forbidden fruit and maybe Dr. Chee more believable (as if the government had something to hide). Truths may not always be self-evident, but they usually emerge after debate, not one-sided coverage by the Straits Times. If we are to move on to the next phase of our highly mobile and cosmopolitan city with a social problems time bomb (read: casino) embedded at its heart, we need more media freedom. And maybe we already have more media freedom. I don't think I will get into trouble for typing this post. But of course, if I were Burmese, I might be arrested and tortured. Help Burma, Singaporeans.

Further reading/participation:

• The River of Lost Footsteps: Histories of Burma by Dr. Thant Myint-U
• Dr.Thant Myint-U author event at UCBerkeley
  
• Freedom from Fear by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
  
• Action Burma: Free Aung San Suu Kyi

Note regarding reading the full article on the Economist:

• If you do not subscribe to the Economist.com, you may still have access through news archival websites like Factiva and LexisNexis through your school or company