Tag: -Past Years-

The plight of refugees is dominating the headlines again. Desperate people are fleeing their countries to seek a safe haven.

During the past six months, 1,868 people have drowned or disappeared in the Mediterranean Sea, in failed attempts to reach Europe. In South-east Asia, in recent months, the authorities in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand had to deal with the problem of people from Myanmar and Bangladesh arriving on their shores in unseaworthy and overcrowded boats, provided to them by human traffickers.

On June 20 this year, World Refugee Day, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres said that nearly 60 million people around the world have been displaced by conflict and persecution. He said that more people fled their homes in 2014 than in any previous year.

Obviously, something is very wrong with our world. Why are so many people fleeing their homes and countries? What can the world do to help these desperate people? Do they have any rights under international law?

Three categories

I would like to bring clarity to this discussion by distinguishing three categories of people. These are: Refugees, displaced persons and economic migrants.

REFUGEE

A refugee is a person who has fled his country because he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The litmus test is fear of persecution. If a person cannot prove this, he is not a refugee. This definition has been expanded subsequently to include populations fleeing from wars and conflicts. Refugees are protected by the Refugees Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol.

DISPLACED PERSON

A person fleeing from war or conflict may seek shelter in a safer part of his country.

Such a person is called an internally displaced person.

The civil war in Syria, for example, has generated millions of internally displaced persons. Some Syrians have, however, crossed the border to seek safety in Jordan or Turkey. When they do so, they qualify as refugees. A displaced person is not a refugee and is not protected by the Refugees Convention. However, they are protected by International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. The UN is looking after 20 million refugees and 40 million displaced persons.

ECONOMIC MIGRANT

The third category of persons is the economic migrant. The economic migrant is a person who leaves his home and country in search of economic opportunities and a better life. He is not a refugee or a displaced person. He is not protected by international law except for the general principles of human rights. He is also not protected by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

The people from Bangladesh who were found in boats arriving in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand were economic migrants. They were not refugees because they were not fleeing persecution, war or conflict.

Refugees convention and protocol

The Refugees Convention was adopted in 1951 and came into force in 1954. In order to overcome the restriction in the Convention that it applied only to persons who became refugees as a result of events occurring before Jan 1, 1951, a Protocol was adopted in 1967.

The Convention and Protocol constitute the foundation of the international law relating to refugees. The Convention has 145 State Parties. However, of the 10 Asean countries, only two, Cambodia and the Philippines, are parties to it. The general principle in the law of treaties is that a country which is not a party to a treaty is not bound by it.

Principle of non-refoulement

One of the most important rights granted by the Convention to refugees is the principle of non-refoulement.

Under this principle, a refugee has a right not to be returned to a country where he is likely to face persecution. It is generally accepted by international lawyers that this principle has become part of customary international law and is therefore binding on all states, irrespective of whether they are parties to the Convention or not. In other words, if a person from Myanmar can prove that he has a well-founded fear of persecution, he cannot be forced by Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand to return to Myanmar.

Vietnamese boat people

Let me refer to an episode in which I played a part.

The Vietnam War ended in 1975.

This was followed by a huge exodus of Vietnamese refugees, many of whom were resettled in the United States. A second exodus began in 1978. It consisted of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, fleeing in overcrowded and unseaworthy boats, for temporary refuge in South-east Asia. Their final destination was the West.

The Asean countries convinced the UN Secretary-General to convene an international conference in Geneva to deal with the problem. The conference was successful and had four deliverables. First, to increase the number of resettlement places made available by the international community; second, to expand the programme of orderly departures from Vietnam; third, to continue to finance the care and maintenance of the refugees awaiting resettlement in the Asean countries; and fourth, to cooperate in searching for and rescuing the refugees at sea.

The key to the success of the Geneva Conference was the agreement by the West to increase the number of refugees they were willing to accept for permanent resettlement. A large number of Vietnamese refugees were resettled in North America, Europe and Australia and they have been successfully assimilated.

Today's challenges

The mood in the West today is anti-immigrant. Since the West is not willing to open its doors to the refugees, it will not be possible to replicate the success of the Geneva Conference on the Vietnamese boat people. The European Union has decided to target the human traffickers and to prevent the refugees from leaving the coast of North Africa by boat for Europe.

Another key group in the refugee crisis are the human traffickers. These are evil men and women who make money by providing a service to desperate people.

Targeting human traffickers is right. It will not, however, solve the problem. We have to tackle the problem at source.

The West and the major powers should have the political courage to look at the situations in Africa, the Middle East and South-east Asia and see how they can help to improve those situations so that people will stop their desperate flights from war, conflict and persecution.

If we do not solve the problem at source, the exodus of people will continue, no matter how successful we are in suppressing the activities of human traffickers.

In the meantime, we should help the developing countries which are hosting 90 per cent of the world's refugees. For example, Ethiopia and Kenya have taken in more refugees than France and Britain. The three countries hosting the largest numbers of refugees are Turkey, Iran and Pakistan.

We live in a very troubled world, full of conflict and war. It is also an intolerant world. It is a sad reflection of our world that we have 20 million refugees and 40 million displaced persons.

Instead of extending help and support to these victims of man-made disasters, the world is turning inward and closing its doors.

The political leaders of the world, especially those from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, G-7 and G-20, should stand up for human solidarity and international cooperation. They should not give in to bigotry and prejudice.

CHINA has refused to participate in an arbitration launched by the Philippines regarding their disputes in the South China Sea. Japan has refused to acknowledge that it has a dispute with China regarding Senkaku/Diaoyu. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) has rejected Japan’s offer to refer their dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the grounds that there is no dispute. These developments may give the impression that Asians are against submitting their disputes to the international legal process. Such an impression would be incorrect.

Situation in South-east Asia

THE countries in South-east Asia have a positive track record of referring their disputes to the international legal process. Let me briefly discuss some of the most important cases.

The Preah Vihear case

The first case submitted by two South-east Asian countries to the ICJ was the dispute over the temple, Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand. Cambodia brought the case to the court in 1959 and, in 1962, ICJ awarded sovereignty over the temple to Cambodia.

However, the court was not asked and therefore did not demarcate the boundary between the two countries, around the temple or rule on the ownership of the land around the temple. This omission would lead to misunderstanding and border skirmishes between the two countries.

In 2011, Cambodia surprised everyone by applying to the ICJ and requesting the court to interpret its 1962 judgment. In particular, Cambodia requested the court to declare that it had sovereignty over the vicinity of the temple. The court agreed to accept the case and found that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole promontory on which the temple is located. The judgment has been accepted by the two countries and peace has returned to the Cambodian/Thai border.

The Sipadan and Ligitan case

Indonesia and Malaysia had a sovereignty dispute over two islands, Sipadan and Ligitan.

The two governments agreed to refer the dispute to the ICJ in 1998. In its 2002 judgment, the court awarded sovereignty over the two islands to Malaysia. Although Indonesia was very disappointed with the judgment, it has accepted it.

The Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh case

In 1847, the British government in Singapore took possession of the island known as Pedra Branca, in Portuguese, and Pulau Batu Puteh, in Malay. The British built a lighthouse on the island in 1850 and it was inaugurated in 1851.

From that time until 1979, no one had disputed Singapore’s (as a successor to British) sovereignty over the island. However, in 1979, Malaysia published a new map which, among other things, claimed the island as Malaysian territory.

Although Singapore was in possession of the island, it was willing to acknowledge that there was a dispute and suggested referring it to the ICJ.

In 2003, the two governments submitted the case to the court.  In its 2008 judgment, the ICJ awarded sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore, sovereignty over Middle Rocks to Malaysia and the low-tide elevation, South Ledge, to the state in whose territorial sea it is located.

The Myanmar-Bangladesh case

Another Asean country, Myanmar, had a dispute with its neighbour, Bangladesh, on their maritime boundaries.

When years of negotiations proved unsuccessful, the two governments agreed in 2009 to refer their dispute to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). The parties requested the tribunal to draw their maritime boundaries, with respect to the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. In 2012, ITLOS delivered its judgment which was accepted by both parties.

Situation in South Asia

THE positive attitude of the Asean countries is shared by the countries of South Asia. Let me cite a few examples.

Bangladesh has settled its maritime- boundary dispute with Myanmar through ITLOS. In 2009, Bangladesh initiated arbitral proceedings against India, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, concerning their disputed maritime boundary. India agreed to participate in the arbitration. Last year, the Arbitral Tribunal issued its award which has been accepted by both parties.

Relations between India and Pakistan have been difficult since the painful partition of British India in 1947 into the two countries.

One of the difficult bilateral issues is how the waters of the Indus River would be shared between them.

Due to the facilitation of the World Bank, the first prime minister of India, Mr Pandit Nehru, and General Ayub Khan, the then President of Pakistan, signed a treaty on the Indus River. In the event of a dispute which cannot be settled by negotiation, they agreed to refer the dispute to international arbitration.

In 2010, Pakistan invoked the treaty and referred a dispute with India, over the building of dams by India, to arbitration. In 2013, the Arbitral Tribunal ruled that India has the right to divert the waters of Kishenganga River, subject to a minimum flow which India must release into the river. Alternative ways to settle disputes THE above survey shows that Asians in South-east Asia and South Asia have referred some of their disputes to arbitration or adjudication. Five Asian countries, namely, Cambodia, India, Japan, the Philippines and Timor Leste, have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ. Almost all Asian countries are parties to UNCLOS.

Some Asians, especially in North-east Asia, are however reluctant to submit their sovereignty disputes over territory to either arbitration or adjudication. They do not like the fact that the legal process is adversarial and the outcome is a zero-sum game.

I would therefore like to suggest the following alternative methods of dispute settlement: fact-finding, mediation, conciliation and joint development.

Fact-finding

In some cases, a dispute between two states is primarily about the facts and not about the law. The Land Reclamation case between Malaysia and Singapore is such an example.

In that case, Malaysia alleged that Singapore’s land reclamation activities in the Strait of Johor had intruded into Malaysian territory, caused damage to the marine environment and adversely affected the livelihood of Malaysian fishermen.

After launching arbitral proceedings against Singapore, Malaysia applied to ITLOS for provisional measures against Singapore. In its 2003 judgment, ITLOS rejected Malaysia’s request for provisional measures. Instead, the tribunal ordered the two governments to establish an independent group of four experts to verify the facts.

After a year-long study, the four experts submitted an unanimous report largely exonerating Singapore. The report was accepted by both governments. The two sides were able to negotiate an amicable settlement based on those findings of fact.

Mediation

Mediation is consensual in nature and it results in a win-win outcome.

An example of a successful mediation is the settlement of the protracted dispute between the government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement.

Following the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, the two sides approached the former president of Finland, Mr Martti Ahtisaari, to mediate in their dispute. In a Nobel Prize-winning performance, Mr Ahtisaari succeeded in brokering a peace agreement in 2005.

Conciliation

Conciliation is also consensual and yields a win-win outcome.

Three of my good friends, Mr Hans Andersen of Iceland, Mr Jens Evensen of Norway and Mr Elliot Richardson of the United States, were members of a conciliation commission established by Iceland and Norway to settle a dispute over their continental shelves.

Mr Richardson was appointed by Iceland and Norway as the impartial chairman. The commission was able to make a proposal acceptable to both parties.

Joint development

Many years ago, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping proposed that countries should put aside competing legal claims and concentrate instead on jointly developing the resources in the disputed territory and sharing them.

The fact that joint development can work is demonstrated by an agreement between Malaysia and Thailand to jointly develop the gas resources in the disputed area of their continental shelves in the Gulf of Thailand and sharing the benefits. The joint development between the two countries started in 1979 and has been a great success.

The Asian way

IN CONCLUSION, I wish to make three points.

First, Asians want their region to be peaceful, stable and prosperous. They want the rule of law to be strong and for all disputes between states to be settled peacefully, in accordance with the law and not on the basis that might is right.

Second, with the exception of China, Asians do not have a negative attitude towards settling their disputes by arbitration or adjudication. China should therefore reconsider its position in order to conform to the best Asian and international practice.

Third, in addition to arbitration and adjudication, we should also consider several consensual, win-win, methods of dispute settlement, such as fact-finding, mediation, conciliation and joint development.

Salutations

1.    Mr President, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister Heng Swee Keat, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.

2.    A very warm welcome.  As a book lover, it has been a pleasure and privilege to have been involved in the SG50 book project.

Product of Tripartitism

3.    Singapore is famous for tripartitism.  I am happy to say that the book we are about to launch this evening is the product of a successful tripartite endeavour among the National Library, the Singapore Press Holdings and the Editorial Advisory Committee, which I had the privilege to chair.

4.    First, the National Library team consists of Elaine Ng, Gene Tan, Francis Dorai, Stephanie Pee and Masamah Ahmad.

5.    Second, the SPH team consists of Han Fook Kwang, Angelina Choy, Cheong Suk-Wai, Cassandra Chew, Jennani Durai, Lock Hong Liang, Bryan van der Beek, Susan Long, Shova Loh and Clara Wong.

6.    Third, the Editorial Advisory Committee consists of Ang Bee Lian, Chia Yong Yong, Chua Ai Lin, Gretchen Liu, Han Fook Kwang, Ho Meng Kit, Kwek Leng Joo, Liew Mun Leong, Lim Teck Yin, Mahdev Mohan, Mohd Saat bin Abdul Rahman, Noor Effendy Ibrahim, Wong Mun Summ, Yam Ah Mee and Zuraidah Ibrahim.  The committee is a microcosm of Singapore.

Concept of the Book

7.    After much brainstorming, we arrived at a consensus on the content of the book.  We wanted to tell the story of our miraculous journey in the last 50 years in a balanced, thoughtful and engaging manner.  It should be inspiring but not boastful.  We wanted to acknowledge that the extraordinary success of Singapore has been due to the combination of good leaders and an exceptional people.  We wanted the larger story of Singapore to be told through the individual stories of ordinary Singaporeans.  Of the 58 story tellers featured in the book, the majority would be unknown to the public.  It is the stories of these Singaporeans and their virtues of hard work, discipline, courage, self-sacrifice, willingness to embrace change and can-do spirit which we wish to celebrate.  I am happy to say that many of the people featured in the book are here.  Let us give them a warm round of applause.

8.    The book is an engaging combination of text and visuals.  We have sought to make the book accessible, easy to read and visually attractive.  This is a book about the people of Singapore and we hope that it will be embraced by Singaporeans as their book.  In addition, we have priced the book at $19.65 in order to make it affordable to all Singaporeans.

9.    We have chosen as the book’s title, “Living the Singapore Story:  Celebrating our 50 Years”.  We had a long discussion about the book’s cover and considered several alternatives.  In the end, we decided to use a photo of a HDB block on our cover because 83 per cent of our population lives in HDB estates.  This is where most of us live.  This is our home.  And this is our story.

Conclusion

10.    I shall conclude.  Mr President, Ministers and distinguished guests, my colleagues and I have worked hard to produce a book that is both inspiring and thoughtful, a book that tells the remarkable story of Singapore in the last 50 years, from the people’s point of view.  We want this to be a book that the people of Singapore can identify with and call their own.  I hope we have been successful.

11.    Thank you.

 . . . . . . . 

The ASEAN Business Club’s Gala Dinner

Thursday, 14 May 2015 at 7.30 pm

Talking Points

1.    Thank my friend, Munir the President of ABC, for inviting me to speak at this dinner.

2.    Speaking at a dinner is different from giving a lecture or making a presentation at a conference.  An experienced public speaker once said that an after dinner speech should be like a woman’s bikini.  It should be brief but it should cover all the vital points. 

3.    My wife’s advice is not to make more than 3 points in my speeches.  This good advice has been adopted by Kishore Mahbubani and many other friends.  I will therefore give you three reasons why I believe in ASEAN.

Reason No. 1:  From War and Conflict to Peace and Stability

4.    ASEAN was born in Bangkok, on the 8^th of August 1967.  Let me invite you to travel back in time with me to 1967.  What was the situation in Southeast Asia like at that time?  The situation was unstable.  The Vietnam War was raging and threatening to engulf Cambodia.  Several countries were fighting against communist insurgencies or regional rebellions.  There was a huge deficit of understanding and trust between and among the countries of the region as they had been ruled by different colonial masters and had been isolated from one another.  Some Western pundits thought so poorly of our region’s prospects that they called us the “Balkans” of Asia.

5.    Fast forward to 2015.  What is the situation today?  The region is peaceful and stable.  Although border skirmishes had taken place between some ASEAN countries, for example, between Cambodia and Thailand, the good news is that no two ASEAN countries have fought a war against each other since 1967.  Unlike the EU, war between ASEAN countries is not yet unthinkable, but we are getting there.  The bottomline is that the region is at peace with itself and with the world. 

Reason No. 2:  From Poverty to Prosperity

6.    My second reason for believing in ASEAN is that it has helped the countries of the association to make impressive social and economic progress.  In 1967, the region was uniformly poor and backward.  Most of our people were engaged in subsistence farming.  Natural resources were extracted and exported to the West with very little processing and value add.  There was a trading network which goes back to pre-colonial times.  Manufacturing for export to the world had not yet started.  In 1967, our economic prospects were not bright.

7.    Fast forward to 2015.  Today, some of the ASEAN countries, e.g., Brunei and Singapore, are high income countries.  Some other ASEAN countries are middle-income countries.  All 10 countries have made impressive progress.  Taken together, ASEAN is the world’s 7^th largest economy and the fastest growing region.  We are constantly re-inventing ourselves in order to stay relevant and competitive.  Our new goal is to make a historic transition from being an association to being a community.  Will we succeed in becoming an ASEAN Economic Community by the 31^st of December 2015?  Statiscally, the journey is more than 80  percent complete.  We are down to the last mile.  We face many challenges, including those of the vested interests opposed to change.  I am, however, confident that with political will, with your help and support, we will get there.

Reason No.3:  Building A New Regional Order

8.    My third reason for believing in ASEAN is because of the indispensable role which ASEAN has played and continues to play in building a new regional order for East Asia and for the Asia-Pacific.  The first step was to unite Southeast Asia so that it can act with the collective strength of the 10 members.  ASEAN is able to act as the region’s convenor and facilitator because it is united, independent and neutral.  The moment we lose our unity, independence and neutrality, we will be disqualified from occupying the driver’s seat in regional institutions.

9.    ASEAN’s second ambition was to unite Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia.  The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis had shown that the two sub-regions are inextricably linked to each other.  ASEAN has helped to promote peace and cooperation in Northeast Asia because until the 1997 ASEAN+ 3 Summit, China, Japan and ROK had never met by themselves.

10.    ASEAN subsequently realised that other major powers, such as, the US, Russia and India have a stake in the future of the region.  We decided that it was better to bring them in rather than to keep them out.  This was the logic behind our initiative in convening the East Asia Summit which embraces the US, China, India, Japan and Russia.  This is strategically a very important forum.

11.    ASEAN has also used its FTA policy to promote cooperation and deeper economic integration in order to reduce the danger of conflict.  ASEAN has concluded FTAs with China, Japan, India, ROK, Australia and New Zealand and are working hard on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Conclusion

12.    I shall conclude.  A few years ago, the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its contributions to peace in Europe.  I want to suggest that we should nominate ASEAN for the Nobel Peace Prize, for its contributions to peace in Southeast Asia, East Asia and the Asia-Pacific.

13.    Thank you.

. . . . . . .

In this video clip, Dave Goldberg, of Big Beacon Innovators, chats with Catelijne Coopmans, Mavis McAllister, and Sonja Chua about the culture of coaching in Tembusu College, as it expands student experiences from the 1st and 2nd year to the 3rd and 4th.

To watch the interview, please go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8aTvqEHq9M

Read the report here

On Thursday, 30 April

At the Singapore International Foundation

1. First, I would like to thank the Singapore International Foundation for inviting me to participate in this evening’s discussion of Prasenjit’s important new book, The Crisis of Global Modernity.

2. Second, I want to praise Professor Prasenjit Duara, the third Director of the Asian Research Institute (ARI). I have been associated with ARI since its inception as Chairman of its International Advisory Panel. I have enjoyed working with Professor Tony Reid, its founding Director, with Professor Lily Kong and with Prasenjit. Prasenjit is a world class scholar and an inspiring intellectual leader. Under his leadership, ARI has enhanced its reputation in the world and breathed new life into regional studies. I would be very sorry when he leaves us next year for Duke University.

3. Third, I would like to say a few words about the book. In his book, Prasenjit offers us an alternative to nationalist history. His alternative is “circulatory or transnational history”. Prasenjit’s study is framed by 3 developments. They are: (i) the rise of Asia, especially China and India; (ii) the crisis of planetary sustainability; and (iii) the decline of ideals, principles and ethics, once found in religions and political ideologies.

4. The rise of Asia, especially of China, India and ASEAN, is a world-changing development. And yet, in a strange way, it is a return to the past. In his book, When Asia Was The World, Stewart Gordon wrote that for a thousand years, from 500 to 1500, Asia was the world. It had the 5 largest cities of the world, all at the heart of great empires. Three of those cities, Delhi, Beijing and Istanbul still exist today. It was in Asia that mathematicians invented the zero and algebra. Astronomers tracked the stars more accurately than before and invented the astrolabe for navigation. Poets and writers produced literature that still resonates with us.

5. Prasenjit’s second point is indeed true. There is a crisis in planetary sustainability. The 3 environmental challenges we face are: climate change, loss of biodiversity and ecosystems and the degrading of the world’s oceans. The basic cause is the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which can be described as the Western economic model. The bad news is that Asians have embraced this model with a vengeance. Our factories are carbon copies of those in the west. Our middle class wants to lead the same life style as their counterparts in the West.

6. Prasenjit’s third point is the decline of ideals, principles and ethics once found in religions and political ideologies. Ideology is dead but religion is not. Europe may have become a secular continent but religiosity is on the rise in Asia and in America. However, as a Methodist Bishop observed to me recently, Singaporeans may have become more religious but they have not become more spiritual. In other words, the rise of religiosity can co-exist with materialism. This may explain the popularity of Christian pastors who preach what is sometimes referred to as “prosperity gospel”.

7. What to do? Prasenjit looks for salvation to the traditions of Asia. The Taoist philosophy, for example, has a different way of understanding the relationship between the man, nature and the universal. I am sorry to disappoint Prasenjit when I point out that China’s economic development seems to be inspired, more by Deng’s dictum that it is glorious to be rich than by the Taoist view of man and nature.

8. In his final chapter, “Regions of circulation and Networks of sustainability in Asia”, Prasenjit focuses on ASEAN because of the role it plays in bringing Asia together. “Regional integration in Asia is centred on ASEAN”. “ASEAN has worked to enmesh the larger powers by means of commercial diplomacy that is expected to bring material benefits to both sides but also to tie these powers to the region.” Prasenjit believes that, in spite of all its deficiencies and weaknesses, ASEAN has outlined ways and means to deal with the problem of the commons, environmental degradation and unsustainable development. As a citizen of ASEAN, I thank Prasenjit for highlighting ASEAN’s positive role in region-building.

9. Prasenjit also attaches importance to the “civil society networks” which he believes can serve as watchdogs for inclusivity and transparency.

10. Finally, Prasenjit praises the role of international law because it has rules and principles which affect, “rights and jurisdictions across boundaries of territory, spaces and species, human rights, global finance, the seabed, outer space, Antartica, migratory birds, etc.” Who are the custodians of this space, which Prasenjit calls, “the sacred place”? In his view, it is the “networks of hope constituted by the coalitions of civil society, local communities and their allies”.

11. I have tried to summarise Prasenjit’s thesis. I hope I understood his message and got it right. It is now the turn of Professor Itty Abraham to critique it.

12. Thank you.