Little Red Dot, The: Reflections By Singapore's Diplomats - Volume Ii

Reflections by Singapore's DiplomatsVolume II

Tommy Koh, Li Lin Chang

• Publisher: WSPC
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9789814468077
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Science General
• Index: Biological Sciences

This is the sequel to the bestselling book, The Little Red Dot, published in 2005. While the first volume consisted of a collection of essays by Singapore's first- and second-generation diplomats, this second volume contains essays written by the third generation of young ambassadors. The Second Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Raymond Lim, has contributed the Foreword. Written in an entertaining and accessible manner, this book is a highly enjoyable read for all who are interested in Singapore current affairs and in the art and science of diplomacy. It contains many inspiring stories which have not been told before.

This book is also available as a set with The Little Red Dot.

Foreword
Foreword (144k)

Sample Chapter(s)
Introduction (129k)
Life's Lessons (266k)

Contents:

• Life's Lessons (L Anderson)
• From Tanglin to Baghdad (A Chua)
• Earthquake, SARS, Tsunami and Cyclone: Lessons from Crisis Management (R Chua)
• Of BMWs, Guerrillas and the Highway of Death: Snippets of a Diplomat's Life (S T De Cruz)
• Learning with Master Chefs: Cooking a Treaty (B Gafoor)
• September 11: Ground Zero in Washington DC (S Loh)
• Intellectual Property and Public Health: Negotiating at the World Trade Organization (V G Menon)
• Singapore's Diplomatic Assets (A Selverajah)
• Lessons from Multilateral Diplomacy (Y W Tan)
• Would I Choose MFA Again? (K P Wong)
• and other essays

Readership: General readers interested in Singapore current affairs, diplomacy and international relations. Singapore;Diplomacy;Foreign Policy;Asia;International Relations Key Features:

• Contains a collection of essays by the third generation of Singapore's diplomats, reflecting on their recent experiences and lessons learned
• Includes a comprehensive Annex of the milestones of Singapore's external relations, updated to 2008

The Third Generation Diplomats

Life’s Lessons

Mr. Lawrence ANDERSON was appointed Director of the Europe Directorate in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in May 2007. He joined the Foreign Service in 1984. His first overseas posting was First Secretary to the Singapore Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York in 1988 and the Singapore Embassy in Washington, D.C., 1988–1991. He was Counsellor and Deputy Chief of Mission at the Singapore Embassy in Bangkok between 1996 and 1999. In MFA HQ, he held various posts which included Deputy Director in the Policy Planning & Analysis Directorate I (1994–1996) and Deputy Director in the ASEAN Directorate (1999–2002). He was Director of the Technical Cooperation Directorate from 2002–2004. Mr. Anderson was appointed Ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia from 29 March 2004 to 18 April 2007. In 1993, he was awarded the Raffles Scholarship and obtained a Master of Arts in Area Studies (Southeast Asia) from the School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom.

The world has changed a lot since I joined the Foreign Ministry, not just politically, but also in terms of values and ideals. I joined MFA in 1984, straight from the university, which means 24 years at a job. Nowadays, that is called inertia, though in pre-dot-com days, loyalty was regarded as a virtue. Back then, I was looking to build a career doing something meaningful which I believed in personally and felt I had found it in diplomacy and foreign affairs. This, thankfully, has not changed. Both in good times and in those not so happy ones, the varied experiences of working in MFA HQ and postings abroad to New York, Washington, Bangkok and Phnom Penh have been equally enriching and eye-opening. In this essay, let me share some personal vignettes from the early days, which have served invaluably as life’s lessons throughout my career.

Before the Little Red Dot there was Lake Toba

In 1988, as a fresh-faced young diplomat on his first posting to our U.N. Mission in New York, I remember attending my very first ASEAN-New York Committee meeting. As with ASEAN gatherings, the mood was warm and convivial. A senior Indonesian colleague who had made me feel most welcome during the morning coffee preliminaries, quietly drew me aside to an adjoining room. As we stood barely two feet apart, the grey-beard said solemnly:

“Pak Lawrence, Singapore is a great island. But do you know Indonesia has several thousand islands? In one of them, Sumatra, there are many many volcanoes. In one of the volcanoes, there is a big lake, Danau Toba. In that lake, there are several islands, each one, larger than Singapore!”

Bapak’s point put to a young Singaporean diplomat was abundantly clear. As he stood there smiling, I replied, seriously:

“Precisely, Pak; which is why I can’t understand why Indonesians go on and on about our defence forces. We are so small you can easily fit all of us into one of your volcanoes!”

Bapak frowned, quizzically. Then, he clapped me warmly on the back with a loud guffaw: “Yes, Pak, precisely! Singapore is our best friend, still…”

Grey-beard left it at that and we rejoined the others. He never mentioned it again.

Size does matter, of course. During my assignment to Washington, D.C. in 1988–91, I often had to explain to my American friends, the constraints facing Singapore due to our status as a small island state. Like most people, Americans use themselves and their country as their basic reference point for norms, behaviour and achievements. They are favorably impressed with what we have accomplished, but more so when they realise what Singapore is, relative to the U.S.

“As you know,” I would begin, earnestly, “the U.S. is made up of 50 states ranging from Alaska, the largest, to tiny Rhode Island. Well, Singapore is one-fifth the size of Rhode Island.”

This simple fact always makes them sit up and smile!

Three Wise Men

I was fortunate early in my career to serve under three of our most able and distinguished diplomats: Ambassadors Kishore Mahbubani in New York, Tommy Koh and S. R. Nathan in Washington. Each was different in his personality, management style and temperament, but they were all brilliant and inspirational men. Through observation, instruction and deduction, I learnt so much about the diplomatic craft and how to deal with people.

Kishore Mahbubani is an intellectual, a thinker and a strategist. He taught me about the importance of giving face and being generous to an opponent without compromising your interests. In the 1980s, one of the most critical issues for Singapore was the Cambodian problem, or to be more precise, mobilising international support against the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. At the U.N., it meant lobbying for as many votes as possible for the annual Resolution. In 1988, a nuanced change in the language of the Resolution critical of the Khmer Rouge was not happily received by China, hitherto one of our key supporters. Given China’s prestige and influence, few believed that ASEAN would not climb down and amend the text, but eventually with the help of our supporters, we prevailed upon our Chinese friends to come around.

It was some achievement, but we did not gloat or revel in it. Kishore saw to that and more. He had masterminded the strategy that finally persuaded the Chinese to accept our formulation, but he also took pains to acknowledge, both verbally and through a written statement, China’s magnanimous action and support. Seeing how much the Chinese appreciated this gesture, I understood then, the importance of giving face and goodwill to your opponent, which also ensures that he does not become your enemy.

Washington Days

Tommy Koh is the most humane person I know. He always has a good word for everyone and treats all people, from the receptionist to the President, with kindness and consideration. He possesses a keen mind, coupled with a generosity of spirit, tolerance and compassion, which probably explains why he is so good at diplomacy — the art of bringing warring sides together.

Ambassador Koh showed me how people ought to be treated. When I used to accompany him to meetings with his important American contacts, he would often introduce me as his colleague who did all the work and who gave him all the ideas. Of course, this was blatantly false, as the American contact well knew, but it was Tommy’s warm way of signalling that if he were not around and if there was follow-up needed, the American could turn to me. This, naturally, was a great morale booster, but a great burden too, because it made me acutely conscious of the need to justify Tommy’s confidence and trust.

One example illustrates his generosity. Part of our job was to persuade the U.S. administration not to withdraw support for the non-communist resistance Cambodian forces. During a particularly difficult period, it seemed that withdrawal of such support was imminent. A Congressional friend advised us that as part of our lobby efforts, it was crucial for ASEAN to persuade the major U.S. newspapers to publish the call from the countries of the region for the U.S. to stand steadfast.

The task of writing the articles for publication fell to me. One article would be published under Ambassador Koh’s name, while our ASEAN colleagues agreed to have another under the Philippines Ambassador’s name as ASEAN Chairman at the time. The articles were good, but why would the U.S. newspapers, who were not sympathetic to the ASEAN position on Cambodia, publish them? They probably would not, if Tommy had not used his considerable persuasive powers and wide array of contacts. Within a short space of time, we had two articles published in the op-ed pages of the influential and pre-eminent American newspapers — New York Times and the Washington Post.

Despite my protestations, Tommy generously told our ASEAN and U.S. friends that I deserved the credit for having written the articles and talking to the newspaper editors. The U.S. Administration duly postponed the decision on withdrawal of support, though certainly not just because of the articles. It was thanks mainly to Tommy that we achieved the desired results, but I was personally chuffed at having two articles published in the New York Times and the Washington Post, even though they were not under my name!

Mr. President

My second boss in Washington was S. R. Nathan, who succeeded Tommy Koh as Ambassador in 1990. Ambassador Nathan, who subsequently became our President in 1999, was the one who really educated me about what exactly made Singapore tick. He was literally “present at the creation” of our nation, and was intimately involved in many of our domestic and foreign policy challenges. Ambassador Nathan was also a great story-teller of anecdotes; I say story-teller because although they were true events, he had the skill to weave them like an adventure thriller! Read his accounts of the Laju hijacking incident and the formation of the coalition of disparate Cambodian factions in the first volume of The Little Red Dot to see what I mean.

Ambassador Nathan was the one who made me realise that I wanted to make the Foreign Service my career. It was not something he did nor did I experience an awakening of sorts at one of his inspired sermons. It was more of a gradual conversion, by simply listening and learning what this wise man had to say about having a sense of duty, of service to one’s country and a sense of purpose to life and by watching what he set by...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction
• The Third Generation Diplomats