HEAD N - MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Column No : 786

Head N - Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Chairman: Head N - Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Ravindran.

Regional Outlook

Mr R Ravindran (Marine Parade): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, Southeast Asia is on the strategic consideration of every major superpower. Because of vital sea routes, abundant natural resources and the rising political and economic importance of ASEAN, every great power wants to engage the region and Singapore. Sir, the hustling and bustling to bring Southeast Asia into their respective spheres of influence are ongoing and apparent. In the light of this competing interest and long-term ambitions of these big superpowers, I would like to ask the Minister (a) how he intends to position Singapore in the emerging regional geo-political architecture; (b) how the Government intends to engage the major powers to enhance the region as a region of peace, stability and economic prosperity.

In addition, I would like to ask the Minister for his assessment of the regional outlook in the short term and medium term, and the potential events that can derail the positive developments taking place in the region. There are also other countries and big powers that would like to engage Singapore. In particular, I would like to highlight the following countries. China and India will emerge as great superpowers in another 20 to 50 years. It will mean that there will be a greater flow of people, investments and greater engagement between these two countries and Singapore. We have already signed the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with India and we are now in the process of negotiating one with China. I would like to ask the Minister how he intends to engage these two emerging giants of Asia and what steps will be taken to strengthen the already good relations.

Similarly, Sir, we enjoy good relations with the US and, last year, we signed the strategic framework agreement with the US. I would like to ask the Minister how we can go on to enhance our relationship and continue to engage the US in the region and with us.

Sir, the next region I would like to ask the Minister for an assessment is the Middle East. The Middle East has already entered our radar screen as a region of great economic importance and, as a region, we can engage as part of the future architecture of a vibrant and prosperous Asia. The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) process was a good start and I would like to ask the Minister how he intends to take our relations with the Middle Eastern countries, particularly the Gulf countries, to the next level.

Sir, the EU continues to be a group of great importance to Singapore and the region. While as a region, relations could be better if not for the Myanmar issue, I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the state of relations between Singapore and the EU, and the same between ASEAN and EU.

Lastly, on Russia. Russia is a great power with a long history of presence and engagement in Asia. Recently, our Minister Mentor, Mr Lee, visited Russia and I think relations have now come up to a better level. Russia has a large land mass in Asia and has strategic and political interests in Asia. I would like to ask the Minister on how his Ministry intends to improve on these relations with Russia and what are the additional steps we intend to take to see that these relations grow to greater heights.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Minister for Manpower (Mr Hawazi Daipi): Sir, I would like to focus on the Asian region. I wonder if the Minister shares my observation that there is a general sense of optimism in Asia about the prospect for peace, stability and economic development in the region. Major regional powers like China and India are focusing on their economic development, giving greater opportunity for

growth for smaller countries in the region.

As a small city-state, Singapore is not in a position to determine the course of events and the nature of relationship between these countries. That is why we always have to watch closely the triangular relationship among the United States, China and Japan. In the middle of that triangle are the cross-straits relations between China and Taiwan. That is why the recent decision by Taiwan to "freeze" the National Reunification Council and China's angry reaction towards it are a cause for concern. This recent development seems like a replay of past tensions due to the issue of reunification of Taiwan. What is the Minister's assessment of the medium and long-term prospects for peace and stability in East Asia vis-a-vis the cross-straits relations? How will the triangular relations involving the US, China and Japan evolve? May I also take this opportunity to ask the Minister to give the House an update on our bilateral relations with the US, China and Japan?

Sir, it is widely acknowledged that the re-emergence of China and India will provide other countries new impetus for growth. It will also pose a challenge to others, particularly countries in Southeast Asia, as these two giants vie for influence, market and resources. How is the contest going to be played out and how is this going to affect Singapore?

India

Dr Warren Lee (Sembawang): Sir, the world has seen the rise of China and India. Many world leaders have flocked to visit these countries, and President George W Bush is currently in India. Singapore, however, has had a long history of engagement at a high level with both China and India. More recently, our leaders have been visiting countries in Europe and Russia. President S R Nathan, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong have all recently visited India, while President Abdul Kalam of India has recently visited Singapore. We have recently concluded the CECA with India, and Minister Mentor Lee recently visited Russia last year.

What is the result of these visits? How have our relations with the countries of Europe, Russia and India improved as a result?

The Chairman: Dr Warren Lee, you may take the next cut.

Australia

Dr Warren Lee: Sir, like other Members of this House, we have noted that relations between Australia and Singapore are broad-based and go back many years. Our troops train in Australia, Qantas uses Changi International Airport as a major overseas hub, and our two peoples have strong ties of friendship and family.

Recently, however, many Singaporeans were shocked and saddened by the decision not to allow SIA access to the trans-Pacific route via Australia, coming so soon after our Singapore-Australia FTA. To some Singaporeans, it would appear that the Australian love of justice and fair play has been re-defined by self-interest and fear of competition, while their respect for the rule of law has been brought into question by their reactions to the conviction and treatment of drug traffickers in Singapore and Indonesia.

What is the Minister's assessment of our bilateral relations with Australia and how can we move forward from here?

ASEAN

Mr Ravindran: Sir, ASEAN, as an organisation, looks like it is back on track. The last ASEAN Leaders Summit showed that the leadership shares a common vision and is committed to meeting the goals set henceforth.

Sir, every major power wants to engage ASEAN and be a partner in determining the evolving economic, political and strategic landscape of Asia. FTAs with India and China will certainly enhance ASEAN's economic relations with these two emerging economic powers of the region in future. In fact, President Bush has recently said that he will announce an enhanced strategic partnership with ASEAN during the upcoming APEC Heads of State meeting in Hanoi.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what are the steps ASEAN intends to take to engage all the regional and global superpowers, and to give us an update on what is the state of affairs within ASEAN.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Sir, in 1997, leaders of ASEAN charted the ASEAN Vision 2020 where they envisioned ASEAN as a concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward-looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in the community of caring societies. This vision was further reinforced at the ASEAN Bali Summit in 2003 where three key pillars were laid out for ASEAN's move towards the ASEAN Vision 2020:

(1) ASEAN Economic Community;

(2) ASEAN Security Community; and

(3) ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.

Sir, but the recent political developments in Thailand, the Philippines and Myanmar have raised concerns on the future of ASEAN. Political instability and frequent changes in political leaders in various ASEAN countries have made it difficult for ASEAN to have a stable and sustainable leadership to spearhead or implement its plans. The ASEAN principles of non-interference in the domestic affairs of its member countries and consensus decision-making processes further reduce its effectiveness. Unless there is political will among ASEAN leaders to quickly develop an operating framework for the achievement of its vision, I am pessimistic that ASEAN's Vision 2020 will be realised.

Sir, I wish to ask the Ministry the following questions:

(1) What is the status of ASEAN's Vision 2020?

(2) What is the action plan to achieve the vision, and which countries are spearheading the plans?

(3) Are there plans to provide more opportunities for political leaders, parliamentarians, government officials and peoples of ASEAN to have more interactions and bonding?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, in last year's Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Minister said that Singapore's and ASEAN's strategy is to make Southeast Asia the fulcrum for a new architecture of peace and cooperation in Asia, ie, a new Asia, from an Asia long colonised by imperial powers to an Asia that has re-emerged and re-entered onto the world stage.

We have seen China and India at different stages and at different degrees re-emerging as regional economic powers, providing much needed new opportunities for economic growth for other countries, including those in Southeast Asia. The re-emerging powers create new tensions, as they vie for influence in the region. How is ASEAN, as a grouping, managing the challenges? Are the ASEAN+1 and ASEAN+3 mechanisms as well as the ASEAN Regional Forum sufficient for her to engage the regional powers and other countries outside Asia?

For ASEAN to attract the right kind of interest from regional powers and groupings, the 10 members must maintain a certain level of cohesion. May I ask for an update from the Minister on the state of solidarity among the 10 ASEAN members in the face of common problems and challenges from regional powers? Are bilateral problems between member countries in the way of ASEAN's common good? With a view to solving them, what are the major stumbling blocks towards the creation of ASEAN economic, social and security communities by 2020?

East Asia Summit

Mr Ravindran: Sir, the East Asia Summit (EAS) was held successfully last year in Kuala Lumpur. However, there are mixed feelings about the success of the Summit among many political analysts. Sir, analyst Mohan Malik, in the Yale Global dated 20th December 2005, commented:

"Instead of creating a common bond, the first Summit may have intensified old strategic rivalries and forced smaller nations to choose sides."

Sir, on the eve of the Summit, China proposed dividing EAS members into core and secondary countries, and Chinese and Korean leaders refused to hold bilateral or trilateral talks with their Japanese counterparts. China's stance provides insights into Beijing's insecurities regarding the momentum for a broader East Asian Community, shifting power alignments within Asia.

Sir, at the Summit, it was decided that the ASEAN+3 (APT) group will be the vehicle for realising the dreams of forming the East Asian Community. While I am happy that ASEAN will be the hub of the EAS and the key driver within the APT, I wonder whether the non-APT partners will share the same enthusiasm and support for the EAS in the coming years.

Sir, China and many other diplomats have also suggested that anyone with interests in the Pacific, ie, Russia and perhaps the USA, could eventually take part in the EAS. Such a move would make the EAS indistinguishable from the ARF or APEC, and I would like to ask the Minister what is the impact of the EAS on the ARF and APEC.

Sir, in the absence of great power cooperation, ie, between the Chinese and the Japanese, the Koreans and Japan, and between China and India, it looks like the EAS will have difficulty taking off. If at all, EAS seems to have intensified old rivalries. If such rivalries continue, there is every risk that the community-building exercise would be fatally compromised. At best, the EAS may just emerge as another talk-shop like APEC or ARF, where leaders meet, declarations are made, but little community-building is achieved.

I would like to ask the Minister what is the roadmap for EAS and to address some of the concerns about the EAS.

Bilateral Relations with Neighbouring Countries

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, Sir, I wish to raise with the Minister for Foreign Affairs the state of our bilateral relations with our two nearest neighbours, ie, Malaysia and Indonesia.

With Malaysia, we have several outstanding issues. There is the package of items under negotiation. Notably, lately, the issue of the bridge to replace the Causeway was raised in the newspapers by the Malaysian press again. It was variously called the "crooked bridge", then the "scenic bridge", and then, famously, now called the "cynic bridge" by Dr Mahathir, former Prime Minister of Malaysia. But more seriously, Sir, there is also the current on-going international arbitration being conducted on our ownership of the Horsburgh Lighthouse.

I would like to ask the Minister to give us an update and assessment of the above outstanding issues with Malaysia. I would like to take this opportunity to state that whatever is the state of the physical bridge between Singapore and Malaysia, what is more important is the state of the mental bridge between the two countries. If there is no mental connect between the two countries, then however beautiful a physical bridge that we build will not be effective to link up the peoples from these two countries. This is a pity, as our two countries are so closely related by history, family ties and emotions, and there is so much that we can do and work together for the mutual benefit of our respective peoples.

If the bridge is to facilitate the movement of people and to enable more Singaporeans to visit Johor and other parts of Malaysia, then one important aspect I wish to remind the Malaysian and Johor state government is the state of security in Johor. If the safety and personal security in Johor is not improved, no matter how excellent or scenic a bridge we build, Singaporeans will be hesitant to visit Johor and spend time and money there. We read constantly about the spate of robberies, high-speed highway chases, car thefts, snatch thefts and other threats against the lives and safety of Singaporeans visiting Johor and other parts of Malaysia. If security is not improved in Malaysia, especially in Johor, Singaporeans will still be very wary of visiting Malaysia, irrespective of the bridge that we build.

As for Indonesia, our Minister Mentor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, recently visited this country. Relations with Indonesia have improved over the years. It is a very large country with very important ties with us. More can be done by both countries to improve bilateral relations. Can the Minister tell us more about how our foreign relations with Indonesia as well as Malaysia can be improved?

The Chairman: Dr Ong Chit Chung, you may take both cuts together.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Jurong): Mr Chairman, Sir, when Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi became the Prime Minister of Malaysia, there was much hope and hype in the media that relations between Singapore and Malaysia would improve significantly. There is, no doubt, Sir, that the atmosphere has definitely improved. There are many visits by leaders from both sides of the Causeway as well as many friendly golf games. But substantive issues in relations between Singapore and Malaysia remain unresolved.

A case in point is the "crooked bridge". Malaysia appears to be adamant and insistent on building the "crooked bridge" to replace the Causeway, or at least half the Causeway. MFA has confirmed that Singapore has sent a Third-Party Note on 27th January 2006 seeking clarification on the process of bilateral relations and negotiations and Malaysia's position on the half-bridge. May I ask if Malaysia has replied to this Third-Party Note? What is Singapore's position if

Malaysia insisted on building the half bridge without consulting Singapore or taking into the consideration the impact on Singapore?

5.00 pm

Sir, sometime ago, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi said that in terms of Singapore-Malaysia relations, there were low-lying fruits which could be plucked easily. We need not be held back. May I ask the Minister what are these low-lying fruits and have any been plucked or any going to be plucked soon?

Thailand

Sir, the Thai Prime Minister, Mr Thaksin Shinawatra has dissolved Parliament and called a snap general election. Mr Thaksin, leader of the Thai Rak Thai Party, wants to go to the people for a new mandate. But some Opposition parties are boycotting the elections. There is a sense of drift in Thai politics and tension is high. The protest against Mr Thaksin escalated when Mr Thaksin's family sold his controlling stake in Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings. May I ask the Minister for his reading of the Thai situation and whether the anger and protest against Mr Thaksin will turn against Temasek Holdings or Singapore, and thereby affects Singapore-Thai relations?

In Muslim Southern Thailand, insurgency is rampant. Thousands have lost their lives. There are separatists, Muslim groups, working to carve a separatist Muslim state. Even Mr Thaksin himself declared some areas there to be the most dangerous place in Thailand. May I ask the Minister whether the situation in Southern Thailand will get worse and how it will affect Thai-Malaysia relations, and Singapore's interests in the long run?

Myanmar

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast): After much pressure from ASEAN and the international community, Myanmar finally relinquished its turn to take the Chair of ASEAN in 2006. In explaining its decision, the Myanmar government said that it was its desire to focus its attention on national reconciliation and the democratisation process.

However, there is still tremendous doubt that Myanmar is serious about undertaking genuine democratic reforms. Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD), who won the general elections in 1990 and has been denied its legitimate right to take power by the ruling military regime, has been in detention for the past few years. And, recently, it was announced that her detention will be further extended.

Although the Myanmar government has convened a national convention to draft a new Constitution to pave the way for the new elections, many observers point to the whole thing as a fuss because the NLD is not allowed to participate. In fact, speeches to be made at the Convention have to be cleared by the authorities and criticisms of the government will not be allowed.

Sir, the Myanmar government's sudden and ill-prepared move to a new capital, Pyinmana last month without informing anyone, its own people and its neighbours included, shows how secretive and isolated its rulers have become. The continued state of affairs in Myanmar constitutes a threat to ASEAN's safety and security and continues to undermine the credibility of the organisation. As an example, it has been reported that the government there spends only US$22,000 a year to fight an increasing HIV-AIDs epidemic. Can you imagine what it would be like if a bird flu pandemic were to break out over there and you get the government there, which is ineffectual and unwilling to cooperate with its neighbours?

Myanmar consistently becomes an obstacle in ASEAN's dealings with the rest of the international community. Many other countries had threatened to boycott ASEAN dialogue meetings if Myanmar had insisted on being the Chairman this year. As a parliamentarian, I too have encountered difficulties each time I meet my counterparts from other countries, especially those from Europe. Inevitably, a major part of the time of our discussions is spent dealing with questions about Myanmar, instead of on more substantive issues.

But what can be done now? I think ASEAN has to continue to hold Myanmar to the promise it has made to commence genuine political reforms which includes national integration of its diverse ethnic groups and the release of political prisoners. We have to up the ante. If there is no credible move by Myanmar, ASEAN must be prepared to consider alternatives. The first would be to get Myanmar to voluntarily take leave of absence from the organisation, which is of course a face-saving measure. Secondly, ASEAN should suspend its membership for an indefinite period of time. And, thirdly, which is the most severe move of all, terminate its membership.

ASEAN is drafting a charter and it can use this opportunity to define what it expects from its members. Myanmar has to be made to realise that its road to democracy must be a real one and it must bring about a better life for its people. We all look forward to its people obtaining their legitimate right to democracy and freedom, though I must add here that it should not necessarily be the kind we now see in some other Southeast Asian countries where democracy, unfortunately, has been taken to mean fluctuating between people demonstrating on the streets and the threat of military coups. I think that would just result in further political turmoils. What we all desire to see is a strong Myanmar that is politically stable, bringing happiness and prosperity to its people so that it can once again contribute meaningfully to ASEAN and hold its head up high in the international community.

The Middle East

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Mr Chairman, Sir, the current focus of attention appears to be towards the awakening and growth of China and India, which is quite valid. However, I strongly believe that the Middle East is another economic block that we should devote some attention to develop better foreign relations as well as economic relations.

There are several Middle Eastern countries that are aiming to modernise. Many are blessed with oil, providing continuing future growth. Notably, these more progressive countries or states are Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Bahrain as well as many others.

I believe there are several Middle Eastern countries with oil wealth looking towards making substantial investments around the world. The recent bid of US$6.8 billion or S$11 billion by Dubai Ports World for the British based, Peninsular and Oriental (P&O) Shipping Company, for ports in the US is an example. As we know, Dubai, in fact, out-bidded Singapore's PSA for P&O.

The Middle Eastern countries are keen to use their oil money to acquire businesses and assets in foreign countries. Today, we read in the Business Times about Dubai International Capital (DIC) planning to raise a total of US$15 billion to invest in international companies. I think it is ideal to encourage Middle Eastern countries to look East, actually, more precisely, Far East. Singapore could be an interesting investment locality for Middle Eastern countries. We have a large population of Muslims and, therefore, our lifestyle in Singapore can easily accommodate the needs of the Muslims from the Middle East, in terms of food, mosques for praying, housing and other needs. Moreover, Singapore can serve as their bridge to venture into other countries in the Southeast Asian region as well as towards China.

There have been many ministerial and business missions conducted by Singapore to various countries in the Middle East in the past few years. The MFA could work with MTI, IE Singapore and other Singapore business groups to promote investments and foster better foreign relations with certain countries in the Middle East. Therefore, I wish to hear from the Minister what are his Ministry's initiatives and foreign relations effort directed at the Middle East.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, it has been two years since we engage countries in the Middle East intensely. Since then, there have been many high level contacts and our businessmen and companies have made in-road into various economic activities there.

The Middle East offers vast opportunities for our businessmen but the fact is that there is still a lot that we have yet to learn about the region. To engage and reach out to the new partners, like those in the Middle East, we need to develop friendship at all levels and know more about their language, culture and religion. We need to encourage Singaporeans to learn Arabic, travel there and feel the pulse of the society there and learn about how they do business.

I believe the interest in the new relationship is not one-sided. Countries in that region seem to want to engage and work with Singapore too. Can the Minister tell the House of this convergence of interest and how we can mutually benefit from closer relations with countries in the Middle East? What are the opportunities that are open to Singapore and what can Singapore offer to them?

Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Chairman, Sir, allow me first to thank Members for their questions and comments on Singapore's foreign policy.

To answer Mr Ravindran and Mr Hawazi, compared to a year ago, the regional outlook for Singapore has become more favourable although there are problems. The prospect for continuing peace in East Asia in the short to medium term is good.

The most important relationship, the Sino-US relationship, is stable. Although there are contentious economic issues like China's huge trade surplus, the value of the RMB and the lack of intellectual property protection in China, both sides understand the need to keep the overall picture in view. China needs the US market; China values US investment; China also holds hundreds of billions of dollars in US financial instruments. And without China's cooperation, it is more difficult for the US to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to fight the war against terrorism.

The US and China are now engaged in a strategic dialogue. They are cooperating on the problem of proliferation in North Korea and Iran. From a strategic competitor, the US now describes China as a "responsible stakeholder" in the global system. When US Deputy Secretary of State, Robert Zoellick hugged pandas in Chengdu recently, he was sending a signal of the way the US is seeing China.

The key issue in Sino-US relations is Taiwan, as pointed out by Mr Hawazi. Because President Bush has taken a clear position on One China, it is difficult for pro-independence forces in Taiwan to win support. It is important for the Taiwan issue to be handled properly because of the importance of good US-China relations to regional and indeed global stability. The recent move to cease the function of the National Unification Council and the application of its Guidelines is worrying. It goes against earlier undertakings and will cause cross-strait tensions to rise unnecessarily. In the interest of regional stability, we hope that this issue will be handled with wisdom and restraints by Taiwan, China and the US.

So long as US-China relations are managed well, the prospects for continuing peace and development in East Asia are good. In Kuala Lumpur last December, the first East Asia Summit (EAS) was convened. In addition to the 10 countries of ASEAN and the three countries of Northeast Asia, India, Australia and New Zealand were also included. As Mr Ravindran pointed out, the East Asia Summit is driven by ASEAN. We included India, Australia and New Zealand to make sure that ASEAN is at the centre and the group is clearly outward-oriented and inclusive. The first meeting went well. The Leaders of the 16 member countries have agreed to meet annually. It will take time for us to develop an agenda and we must now work hard to shape it and to do this in a way which does not cause the Americans or Europeans to think that we want to exclude them. There will be many issues to discuss which involve all of us because the entire continent is in ferment. Obvious issues would be maritime security, the war against terror, energy supplies and, of course, economic connectivity.

5.15 pm

The countries in the East Asia Summit make up half the world's population.

Mr Hawazi was right to point to the economic potential of this region to the global economy, which will have a combined GDP which is likely to be greater than that of the US or Europe in, let us say, 20 years' time. China and India are emerging as two new poles in the global economy. As they engage more with each other, politically and economically, we must make sure that ASEAN's interests are taken into account.

Mr Ravindran referred to an article written by Mr Malik. I read that article and I think that it is not quite objective in the way he has portrayed China's role in the EAS. Yes, he was right that China had a different view of it initially, but once China realised that ASEAN had its own consensus, they were quite prepared to go along, and I believe China will play a positive role in the EAS.

However, ASEAN can only play an active role in this entire process if we ourselves are united. I appreciate the points made by Mr Ravindran, Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Hawazi that ASEAN must get its act together. At the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, the Leaders appointed an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) to recommend what steps we should take to integrate ASEAN economically, politically and socially beyond what we are already doing. The Chair is Mr Musa Hitam, former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, and our own representative is Prof. Jayakumar.

We need political will to achieve the ASEAN 2020 Vision mentioned by Dr Teo and Mr Ravindran. It is not enough just to have meetings, which there are already too many in ASEAN. This year's Summit in Manila will be critical because the EPG will be presenting its recommendations to the Leaders. Once the Leaders agree on the main points, ministers and officials will draw up an ASEAN Charter which will then become the constitutional basis of our future development. Some hard decisions have to be made as to how we achieve consensus, whether we are always dragged back by the slowest amongst us, whether we are prepared to subject disputes to third party panels for resolution. I hope that some progress would be made by the time Singapore hosts the ASEAN Summit in 2007, which is the 40th Anniversary of ASEAN.

Myanmar might be a problem. As Mr Tan Soo Khoon lamented, the developments in that country are a cause for concern. To insulate ASEAN, the Myanmar government had agreed to give up the ASEAN Chair this year. That has been helpful. Because internal developments in Myanmar are sometimes a mystery to us, like the sudden bizarre decision to shift the seat of government from Yangon to Pyinmana, it has become more and more difficult for ASEAN to defend Myanmar at the UN and other international forums. Despite calls by ASEAN, and as Mr Tan Soo Khoon recounted, Aung San Suu Kyi remains, for a long time, under house arrest.

In Kuala Lumpur last December, the Myanmar Prime Minister agreed to receive Malaysia's Foreign Minister Syed Hamid as an ASEAN envoy on a fact-finding visit. Unfortunately, till today, no date has been set for his visit. When ASEAN Foreign Ministers meet in Bali in April, I expect some hard decisions to be made on ASEAN's approach towards Myanmar. If Myanmar needs time out to attend to its own domestic preoccupations, I think we should respect it but, at the same time, the rest of ASEAN should not be held back. But, should we, as Mr Tan suggested, expel Myanmar from ASEAN? Of course, Mr Tan put it politely in the form of options. Let us look at the strategic picture.

A long time ago, when Burma received its independence from Britain, it decided not to join the Indian Union. In fact, it was clear from the beginning that it was part of Southeast Asia. But it remains a buffer state between China and India. China has decided that whatever happens in Yangon, the back-gate to China would be wide open. And, because of that, India, in its own strategic calculations, has decided that it will keep its side-gate to Myanmar open. So, this month, President Abdul Kalam will visit Myanmar. Because these two gates are wide open, the Western embargo against Myanmar is not going to work. The country has fertile soil, rice is plentiful, the sea teems with fish. It is in our interest to ensure that we stay engaged with Myanmar, that our own gate to Myanmar is open. But what happens to that country is a source of concern. So, I think, let us just take a realistic approach. We are in no position to affect the course of internal developments. Whatever happens there, good or bad, it is for the Myanmar people to bear the consequences. But I think we will have to distance ourselves a bit if it is not possible for them to engage us in a way which enables us to defend them internationally.

As for the impact of recent political developments in the Philippines and Thailand on ASEAN, a point alluded to by Mr Tan and mentioned by Dr Ong Chit Chung, we have to wait and see. Although some Filipinos, including former President Fidel Ramos, have objected to the declaration of a State of Emergency in the Philippines, it is not for us to second guess President Arroyo's decision when she faces a rebellion by a segment of the Philippine Army. However, I do not expect any change to the Philippines hosting the ASEAN Summit and the EAS at the end of this year.

As for the protests against Prime Minister Thaksin in Bangkok, a concern raised by Dr Ong Chit Chung, we hope that fresh elections will bring some finality to the debate of the last few weeks. Has Singapore companies been affected? Not so far from the reports that I have read. When the leader of the Democratic Party, Mr Abhisit, was in Singapore a few weeks ago, he said that their actions against Prime Minister Thaksin were not directed against Singapore. So, on the whole, I would say that Singapore-Thai relations have not been adversely affected by the recent developments.

I share Dr Ong's concern about the situation in Southern Thailand. The Muslim problem in the southern provinces has deep roots and has to be managed with that history in mind. It has affected Thailand's relationship with Malaysia. This is not good for ASEAN. However, on the whole, while keeping our fingers crossed, we can be optimistic about the future of ASEAN and I do not quite share Dr Teo Ho Pin's pessimism. As a group, we are doing well economically. Investor confidence in Indonesia is gradually returning. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is determined to improve the business environment and we see progress in various part of the archipelago. In Aceh, the tsunami disaster has brought some good in the form of a peace agreement with GAM. If we look elsewhere, Vietnam is now the fastest growing economy in ASEAN. ASEAN countries have no choice but to draw closer in the face of China's and India's emergence as regional superpowers.

Because of Japan's complicated relationship with China, there is a strong desire on the part of Japanese businesses to adopt a China plus One strategy. What we want is to make sure that the plus One is ASEAN. ASEAN can provide an alternative manufacturing base for Japanese companies.

Singapore signed an economic agreement with Vietnam last year which will help Vietnam tap on Singapore's international connectivity until such time as Vietnam is able to establish its own. Keidanren is interested to make use of this agreement to help Japanese companies invest in Vietnam using Singapore as a complementary hub. I was cheered this morning to read that Intel has decided to invest in a US$300 million facility outside Ho Chi Minh City.

Let me now turn to bilateral relations with our immediate neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, and answer the questions raised by Mr Leong Horn Kee and Dr Ong Chit Chung.

Our relations with Malaysia are good. They rest on a bedrock of common history and common interest. We have only to see the way the two Police Forces have cooperated on the Tan Chor Jin case recently. Within a few hours they were on his trail and now he is being extradited back to Singapore. So there are many things going on, which can only go on because of very good relations between counterpart departments on both sides.

In January this year, the Agong made a state visit to Singapore - the first such visit after 18 years. Bilateral trade and investments have also picked up considerably on both sides of the Causeway. Yes, negotiations on the full bridge are still ongoing. The fourth round of negotiation has just ended on Monday. A fifth round of talks is tentatively scheduled for this month. These negotiations have made progress towards an appropriate balance of benefits for both sides. However, as negotiations are now in a delicate stage, it would not be useful for me to publicise the details. As for the low hanging fruits mentioned by Dr Ong Chit Chung, well, some are on our trees and some are on their trees and we have got to decide what is the correct balance fruits to be plucked, otherwise no fruits can be plucked.

As to earlier reports about moves to build a half-bridge on the Malaysia side, Wisma Putra has clarified to us in a TPN that Malaysia remained committed to negotiations for a full bridge and only soil studies are being conducted. We have explained to Malaysia the serious implications of a unilateral move by Malaysia to demolish its side of the causeway and replace it by a crooked bridge, however scenic.

On Pedra Branca, a question asked by Mr Leong Horn Kee, the case before the ICJ is expected to be heard in 2007. Both sides have already put in their written submissions.

As for security in Johore, a question raised by Mr Leong Horn Kee, I should just say that Johore leaders themselves are aware of this problem and have said publicly that they are giving it their full attention.

Like Malaysia, our overall relationship with Indonesia has improved significantly since a year ago. In the coming year, we can expect our economic cooperation with Indonesia to gather momentum. As Members are aware, Singapore is also working with Indonesia on combating avian flu through a pilot project in Tanggerang, which is a Kabupaten next to Jakarta. A multilateral meeting is right now being held in Singapore, involving officials from Singapore, the US, Indonesia and international agencies. We are also going to open a consulate in the new province of Kepulauan Riau, Kepri, which consists of the islands of the Riaus, all the way up to Natunas. Negotiations for an extradition treaty, defence cooperation and counter-terrorism are being carried out in parallel, and making good progress.

Dr Warren Lee asked about our relations with India and China and what impact their rise will have on our relationship with the US and Japan. This was also touched upon by Mr Ravindran. Since a year ago, our relationship with both India and China has improved appreciably. It is our national strategy to engage both of them deeply and comprehensively and position ourselves for the growing trade between them.

Last June, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement in Delhi which raised our relationship with India to a new level. In a nutshell, what CECA does is to restore in some respects the old position of the British Raj when trade between India and Singapore flowed freely, when standards were common, and professionals like doctors, accountants and engineers were able to move back and forth freely, operating within the same legal and regulatory framework. Our bilateral trade with India has been growing rapidly. Last year, it jumped 41%. For much of the 19th century, the largest trading partner of British India was, in fact, Qing Dynasty, China. Singapore was established by the East India Company for the China trade and grew on it. Well, in this century, there will be a new China trade which will benefit us immensely.

The flow we are now seeing will become a flood. Already, within a few years, China will again be India's largest trading partner.

5.30 pm

We must therefore encourage more Singaporeans to visit and understand India. India is not homogeneous. Conditions vary from state to state and from city to city. But the country on the whole is growing. I just read Finance Minister Chidambaram's budget speech. They are expecting 8% growth this year, and he said double digit growth for India is now within reach. He is an old friend. And when he was Finance Minister some years ago, I remember him making his budget speech at that time, and he said, "at a stretch, 7%." Now he is talking about double digits.

To be an effective partner of India, we need deep knowledge and this requires effort on our part. We will be upgrading our representation in Mumbai and Chennai and will be helping India to develop a Special Economic Zone. And we must also make full use of the Indian expatriate community in Singapore, which is growing. President Abdul Kalam's visit to Singapore in January this year symbolised the growing links between our two countries.

Our China account is also growing nicely. Bilateral relations are back on track and picking up speed. We will increase our consular presence in China, opening new consulates in Guangzhou and Chengdu. We have also upgraded our representation in Shanghai. Last year, the Chairman of China's National People's Congress, Wu Bangguo, and Vice Premier Wu Yi visited Singapore. In October, PM Lee had a very good introductory visit to China as Prime Minister.

As for the Singapore-China FTA, both Prime Ministers agreed that it would benefit both countries in the long term and facilitate regional cooperation and integration. A Joint Expert group will be formed soon to look into this.

It is in Singapore's interest to have both India and China engage all of ASEAN and not just Singapore alone. For this reason, we have pushed hard for the conclusion of ASEAN's FTAs with them and to bring everyone together under the umbrella of the EAS.

However, for both Singapore and ASEAN, it is important that we also strengthen our links to the US, Japan and Europe at the same time. The continued strategic presence of the US in Asia helps us to maintain peace in the region, even as it goes through rapid transformation.

Singapore's links with the US are excellent. Last year, we signed a Strategic Framework Agreement which strengthens security cooperation. The US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement has strengthened our competitive position, particularly our attractiveness as a hub for intellectual property.

ASEAN's relationship with the US has also improved. As Mr Ravindran pointed out, an Enhanced Partnership Agreement was mooted last year setting the stage for a summit meeting between President Bush and the Leaders of APEC's ASEAN members in Busan. At the coming APEC meeting in Hanoi, it is likely that another such summit will be held. US officials are already talking about this becoming an annual Summit.

To answer Mr Hawazi about Japan, Japan is indeed another important player in the region and a strong partner of Singapore. With renewed growth of the Japanese economy, which we should remember is still more than twice the size of the Chinese economy, it behooves us to engage Japan more deeply. Singapore's links with Japan have never been better. This June, the Japanese Emperor and Empress will make a state visit to Singapore. This is the first ever State visit by a Japanese Emperor.

To answer Mr Ravindran and Dr Warren Lee, our relationship with Europe is good. PM Lee had interesting meetings with both President Chirac and Chancellor Merkel during his official visits to France and Germany at the end of last year. President Chirac, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero and Russian Prime Minister Fradkov were all in Singapore last July for the International Olympic Committee's meeting, and they called on our key leaders.

Next month, we look forward to welcoming Queen Elizabeth, for whom many older Singaporeans have a special affection. In the last few months, we have also played host to the visits of the Hungarian Prime Minister and the Lithuanian President. All the Central and Eastern European countries are keen to engage us and they welcome our businessmen to go there.

However, while Singapore's relations with Europe are good, ASEAN's relationship with Europe can be improved. There is a tendency among Europeans to concentrate on China, Japan and India when they look at Asia. Southeast Asia catches their attention only when there are particular issues of domestic political importance to them, like Myanmar, or when there are natural disasters like the Boxing Day tsunami when Europeans responded with the greatest generosity.

The Europeans have also played a helpful role in the Aceh peace process. But the strategic understanding of Southeast Asia is lacking. It is in Singapore's and ASEAN's interest to capture a greater European mindshare for our region. For indeed, we are important to them. Something like 40%, if not half, of their total international trade passes through our waters.

To answer Mr Ravindran and Dr Warren Lee, Russia's economy is of growing importance to Singapore. Last year, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew visited Russia twice and had good discussions on ways to strengthen bilateral cooperation. With high commodity prices, Russia, as a resource-rich country, is playing a significant role in the global economy. We will be helping Russia to develop a Special Economic Zone. We also support a deepening of Russia's political and economic engagement with ASEAN in the coming years.

Dr Warren Lee asked about the state of our relationship with Australia, in particular, the implications of our hanging of a convicted drug trafficker and the decision by the Australian government to keep SIA out of the trans-Pacific route. Mr Tan Soo Khoon also commented on this during the Budget debate. In actual fact, overall, our relationship with Australia is excellent and remains excellent. We have extensive interest in each other's economy; we share common views on many strategic issues; there is a high degree of comfort in our interactions; our defence links are broad and deep. Although there were strident reactions to the hanging case - some quite racist - the majority of Australians supported us. Throughout, the Australian government was entirely proper in the way it handled the case.

As regards the trans-Pacific route, while we were naturally disappointed, and we just heard Minister Yeo Cheow Tong recount the history, in the end, we respect the decision of the Australian Cabinet to protect Qantas. That is their decision. But it is clear that our hopes for Open Skies with Australia are perhaps not realistic in the short term despite Australia's commitment to Open Skies in our Free Trade Agreement. But we will continue to work for Australia's deeper engagement with ASEAN. We fought hard for Australia's inclusion in the EAS and supported strongly Australia's FTA with ASEAN.

Mr Ravindran, Mr Leong and Mr Hawazi asked about our links with the Middle East. This is an important new region for us, particularly in the economic field. With abundant energy resources and high prices, which will stay high because of the growing economies of China and India, many Middle Eastern countries have the resources to build up their physical and social infrastructure and to invest overseas.

According to OPEC's estimate, over the next 25 years, some US$500 billion will be spent on oil infrastructure. Another US$100 to US$150 billion will be spent annually on social and economic infrastructure in the Gulf region, according to the Gulf Times . Qatar alone has US$130 billion worth of projects on the table. Growing tensions between Islam and the West after September 11 have led many Middle Eastern countries to look increasingly to Asia, not only as a partner for trade and investment, but also as a model for development. There is a certain frustration with the West, and we can only imagine their disappointment at the recent strong reaction in the US Congress against Dubai's acquisition of P&O's ports in the US. China and India have become new factors in the politics and economics of the Middle East. They are already among the largest consumers of Middle Eastern oil exports. The decision of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah to make Asia the first region of his overseas visits, including both China and India in his itinerary, was deliberate.

Singapore enjoys a good reputation in the Middle East, much more than most Singaporeans realise. We are often held up, sometimes to our embarrassment, as a model for development and of good government, especially by the smaller Gulf states who share with us many similarities. When we embarked on our new policy two years ago to engage the Middle East, we found friends everywhere who were happy to work with us. We discovered to our pleasant surprise that they knew far more about Singapore than we did about them.

The Middle East, therefore, presents a huge new opportunity for us. Our companies are welcome there. For example, SATS (Singapore Airport Terminal Services) made its first entry into the Middle East last month when it was awarded a contract to handle ground operations at the Doha International Airport, quite a valuable contract. Against stiff international competition, Sembcorp Utilities won the Fujairah Independent Water and Power Project in Abu Dhabi. It was the first time that Abu Dhabi has chosen a Singapore company since it embarked on its privatisation drive several years ago. And some of our SMEs, like BreadTalk and Charles & Keith, are also gaining footholds in that region.

And all this is just the beginning. A new frontier has opened up for us. Mr Leong Horn Kee painted a picture of what is happening there. Mr Hawazi asked, how should we prepare Singaporeans for this new adventure. Well, we have to do many things. And the first thing is to recognise that there are many things that we do not know. To begin with, we need good political relations. This explains the flurry of high-level visits on both sides. Last year, Singapore helped to organise the first meeting of Asian and Middle Eastern countries called AMED. Thirty-eight countries and the Palestinian National Authority participated. It was a good inaugural meeting. Without the cooperation of many of our Arab friends, that meeting could not have been held. The ice broke easily and quickly. Many of the participants from the Middle East were pleasantly surprised to find a reflection of their own region in Singapore. One Egyptian journalist wrote warmly about our Arab district near Kampong Glam though he also lamented that our command of the Arabic language is poor.

Mr Hawazi said that we should learn Arabic, and indeed we should. Now, every time I meet Foreign Service Officers of Arab origin, I say, "Look, you better brush up your Arabic". We are encouraging our officers to study Arabic. And it should not just be Foreign Service Officers. We need more Singaporeans to learn the language. I was happy to learn that an enterprising graduate of Al Azhar University has recently opened a school to teach Arabic in Kembangan. URA is thinking of doing up our Arab district to give it a richer Middle Eastern character. And we are attracting more and more tourists from the Middle East here.

At Tan Tock Seng Hospital, the Johns Hopkins wing, some have already described it as an Arab hospital. We will also be establishing a Middle East Institute to enhance our knowledge and understanding of the region's culture, economics and politics. As we build up Islamic banking in Singapore, more of the funds from the Middle East - and it is a lot of funds - will flow here. To facilitate the growth of our economic links, we will be expanding our diplomatic coverage in the Middle East, concentrating on the countries which provide us with more opportunities.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

5.45 pm

Dr Warren Lee: Sir, we have a long and fruitful relationship with Israel. But, at the same time, Singapore has good relations with the Palestinian people and the countries of the Middle East. We know we do not take sides but wish for better understanding, peace and a better life for all their peoples. Could the Minister update us on our relationships with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, especially in view of the recent elections in the Palestinian territories and developments in Israel itself? Has our improved relations with the countries of the Middle East impacted on our relations with Israel?

Cultural Diplomacy

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, I filed a budget cut on "Cultural Diplomacy" under MFA. MFA redirected it to MICA. It was only at my insistence that it was now back in MFA, and I am grateful for that. But I wonder whether it reflects how cultural diplomacy is viewed in MFA, that it is not an integral mission of MFA, a very marginal one, one best left to MICA. I would urge the Minister to review this in the light of globalisation and Singapore's evolving position in the world.

MFA has done a first-rate job in international diplomacy. But Singapore's interest in the context of globalisation can be promoted more effectively if we adopt a more activist stance in cultural diplomacy. It helps to present the softer face to the world beyond our cold economic achievements, our hard-edged military powers and our almost robot-like bureaucracy.

Sir, the task of cultural diplomacy would be to produce understanding that goes beyond stereotyped images of ourselves and to mould perceptions of the world about us - about our spirit, our values, our soul. We may say that we may not have much of a Singapore spirit or soul, but it has changed over the last few years especially. We have a lively growing arts scene, we have the Esplanade - thanks to the Foreign Minister when he was MICA Minister - and we are increasingly held up as a successful model of a multi-cultural nation.

In many parts of the world, cultural diplomacy plays a central role in their Foreign Affairs Ministries and is a fundamental pillar of foreign policy. The MFAs of many countries have a Cultural Affairs Division and they send their Cultural Attache to their missions abroad with appropriate funding. Sir, I first learned that the Hungarian MFA has a Cultural Affairs Division when I was a Senior Journalist covering PM Goh Chok Tong's visit, then PM, in 2001. I met the Hungarian MFA officials and they showed me their cards, and I noticed that it has a Cultural Division. And they gave me a pad, an information sheet, on MFA. The way they wrote it, you can tell that it is not a typical MFA frame of mind. It was almost poetic, and one of the factsheets with the MFA logo says, "History shows that the very notions of nation and literature, nation and culture, confront us as a kind of a Janus mask - one side shows the struggle of a historical community for survival while the other shows the historical continuity of high artistic and literary values." In other words, there is on one side of the face, the struggle for survival, which is something we can identify with as a nation. On the other hand, Hungary is keen to show to the world its other face - the softer face - their values, their way of life, what they hold dear to their hearts and their culture.

Sometimes, I wonder, for Singapore, what is our face to the world? I think the struggle for survival is ever present. I think our cold economic realities, our worries for vulnerability, always remain at the fore, and that is understandable. But I think we are growing another side of the face, and it is a matter of showing it. I hope MFA will play a bigger role in looking out for ways to show that. One way is to sign cultural agreements, and I know we do that. When I was in Hungary, in fact a cultural agreement was signed with Hungary and Singapore. And I remember some Hungarian officials telling me, "You mean Singapore is interested in culture?" Frankly, it gives them a different view of Singapore, a better one. I hope that we will do that more actively in MFA.

I was looking up the websites of different MFAs, and I notice that Canada has a Cultural Division, Chile has a Cultural Division, Israel has a Cultural Division - so many - Greece, Ireland, and all of them put it as an integral part of foreign policy. And I hope that our MFA will set up a Cultural Affairs Division, or a unit at least, to look out for more opportunities to sign cultural agreements and to promote it. As our Minister said, we are looking at the different civilisations, the growing divide between the Islamic world and the rest. We can play a role as an interlocutor, promoting dialogue between the different civilisations and to show that Singapore is not just a place where we celebrate our economic achievements and our ability to survive, despite the odds, but there will be a place that promotes culture, and that we are proud of it and that the world should know that Singapore is more than an Economic Inc., a corporation. I hope that MFA will help us in that direction.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Dr Warren Lee has asked about our relations with Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. We have sustained our longstanding relationship with Israel, and made more friends among the Palestinians, through the visits last year of Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Speaker of Parliament Mr Abdullah Tarmugi to Ramallah. SM Goh and Speaker Abdullah's visits were indeed historic firsts for Singapore leaders to the PNA. These visits were invaluable as they gave us a better insight to the situation on the ground. We note that HAMAS has begun to moderate its position towards Israel and has expressed willingness to engage Israel in dialogue and diplomacy under certain conditions. And we urge HAMAS to renounce the use of violence and continue to make efforts to work with Israel to build lasting peace in the Middle East and an independent Palestinian state through the Quartet Roadmap.

And now on the question raised by Ms Irene Ng on cultural diplomacy, I cannot agree more that cultural diplomacy is useful in bringing people together. To the question she asked about what face we have, what face will Singapore presents to the world, I think we all know that Singapore has many faces. "Uniquely Singapore" - that may be the Singapore Tourism Board's slogan and motto. But at MFA, we present Singapore in total. Having a Minister like Minister George Yeo, who came from MICA, one can surely rest assured that culture will be an important part of our agenda. Just as the Minister also came from MTI, economics is also an important part of our MFA agenda. We all would agree that when diverse people are culturally attuned to one another, they interact in a more open and trusting manner. Through sharing our arts, heritage and culture, cultural diplomacy allows Singaporeans to make friends and create more space for our political and economic interests.

MFA has been involved in many cultural diplomacy programmes. A notable one last year was "Singapore Season" in London. Our mission in London had supported MICA and the National Arts Council in the project, which presented Singapore in an integrated manner, leveraging our local films, food, design and flagship arts companies like the Singapore Dance Theatre and Singapore Chinese Orchestra. A business conference and a networking dinner were also held to engage European opinion makers. On its own, MFA has also initiated smaller scale cultural diplomacy initiatives. Last October, our mission in Moscow initiated the World Premier of Vladimir Martynov's Symphony-Cantata called “Singapore�?. It was well-attended and received good coverage from the Russian media. Washington Mission also organised a "Singapore Encore" in May 2005, together with SIF (Singapore International Foundation), featuring the Singapore Chinese Orchestra, the Nuradee Brothers, and the jazz singer Robert Fernandez. Mission used the occasion to invite contacts from the Administration, Congress, business and media circles for an evening of fun and good food. Just last month, Washington Mission also assisted the Asia Society in Houston, Texas, to host the Annual Tiger Ball in honour of Singapore. Every year, they have this annual ball - the Tiger Ball - and each year they feature one country and Singapore was the chosen country for the last dinner. The event allowed us to profile and showcase Singapore's culture, foods and traditions.

Members would like to note too that many of MFA's visiting delegations were also hosted to exhibitions, performances and exposed to our local culture. During AMED last June, we took the opportunity to introduce our Middle East and other Asian guests to our prized local dishes like laksa, satay and chicken rice, and also embraced them in song and dance at the Malay Heritage Centre, complete with Yemeni-Arab music, which they greatly appreciated. Recently, a Chinese delegation was hosted to the "Nutcracker" put up by the Singapore Dance Theatre at the Esplanade. And during my visit to Indonesia last December, I was also able to establish links with South Sulawesi for cooperation between the Malay Heritage Centre and the Bugis connections in Makassar. Where appropriate, we also showcase exhibitions by our local artists at our Singapore Art Museum, and/or the exhibitions at the Asian Civilisation Museum and our cultural heritage centres. Active cultural diplomacy efforts by MFA are indeed on-going.

According to MICA, which leads our international cultural cooperation efforts, seven G-G Cultural Agreements and six Agency-Agency Cultural Agreements have also been signed with countries such as China, India, South Korea, Jordan, Germany and Ireland over the past five years. Our agencies, and through them our arts groups and companies, are encouraged to pursue whatever arrangement necessary to achieve our goals of internationalising our arts. MFA will continue to assist our agencies in pursuing international cultural exchanges and in bringing Singapore culture to a wider international audience.

In a wider context, I would also like to raise this question of inter-faith dialogue. On the Prophet caricature issue, I think we all realise that religion plays an important part of living culture, so inter-faith dialogue is also important to our role. The Prophet caricature issue has reminded us how sensitive religious divisions can be. The Internet had quickly propagated what started as an issue in Europe to Southeast Asia as well. Both President Yudhoyono and Prime Minister Badawi had to talk about it because their Muslim grounds had been aroused. In ASEAN, we must not allow similar misunderstandings between Muslims and non-Muslims to surface, worse, to divide us.

It is therefore in everyone's interest to have frequent, open and constructive dialogues involving key stakeholders, to address concerns and misperceptions. This will help to defuse potential conflict amongst the different religions. Singapore can play its part in promoting such inter-faith dialogue. Earlier this year, the first Arab-Muslim Israeli Ambassador visited Singapore. We would receive Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino for the 25th Anniversary of Singapore-Holy See relations in June this year. These are occasions where inter-faith dialogues could be organised. It is educational for us, and we could benefit from the experience and wisdom of these personalities. At the same time, we can contribute and share with them our own experiences. These could be small but first steps towards eventually having a wider-based inter-faith dialogue forum in Singapore, a venue where different faiths could come together in open and constructive dialogue.

I would also like to add that this concept of an inter-faith dialogue venue relates back to the fundamentals of Singapore's existence. As a small country with no economic hinterland, our survival depends on us being able to remain relevant to the world. Our foreign policy is designed to support this approach. Singapore is now a key transport and logistics hub with efficient road networks, seaport and airport, as well as extensive air and sea links. We are a political hub by virtue of being part of Southeast Asia that forms the core of key regional architectures

comprising APEC, ASEAN+3, ARF and EAS, and which is linked to other regions through ASEM, FEALAC and AMED. You have earlier heard Minister George Yeo say that the region is at a political crossroads between two great civilisations, ie, China and India. We are developing links with these countries because that is the way we want to encourage their presence in the region, just as with the US. Economically, Singapore and the region are also actively developing ties with other countries and regions through FTAs and OSAs. Singapore's role as a multi-dimensional global venue, or hub, will further contribute towards the region's engagement with major global players.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, does the Minister of State not agree that seven cultural agreements is quite a sorry number, given our long history in MFA? I would also like to urge our MFA to look at Israel, which has 70 cultural agreements with different countries and it is also a small state. I also wonder why it must be left to MICA to pursue these cultural agreements and not MFA. MFA, with its links to the world, should be able to show our interest in culture and highlight our culture to the world in a more effective way, if we have a division or a cultural attache.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: I think there are ways and means of measuring whether we are effective or not in terms of our cultural relations and cultural diplomacy. It is not just the number of agreements we sign. When you look at MFA, you realise that we are very short of people. We have enough difficulties in getting Singaporeans to represent us as Ambassadors, and that is why we have had to rely on Non-Resident Ambassadors. And what more if we appointed cultural attaches, like the big countries do? Nevertheless, we are active in various forms of cultural activities, as in the examples I have given just now. You can see from the kinds of things that we do, the numbers will grow, the activities will grow, and the reach-out will also improve. We feel that cultural diplomacy is indeed an important part of our cultural relations.

Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo: MFA has a good working relationship with MICA, so it is not necessary for us to set up a whole cultural division or department. And what is important is not only to have specialists. What is important is to have Foreign Service Officers who internalise culture, knowledge and sensitivities within themselves, in the way they conduct diplomacy because a large part of diplomacy is about understanding human beings, their fears and their hopes. It all comes back to culture.

So, an effective diplomat is one who understands the culture of the person he deals with. Therefore, it is not accidental that if you look at our Ambassadors and High Commissioners, many of them have a personal interest in the arts. Quite a few are collectors, amateur collectors, like Professor Tommy Koh and Mr Peter Ho, the Permanent Secretary. Many of our ambassadors go out of their way to help artists, sometimes without informing MFA. All you have to do is to ask some of our artists who are overseas, ask them whether our Missions give their support - they always do.

This year, we have a flurry of state visits. We have the Agong's visit, then we had the President of India who was here. King Sihamoni from Cambodia will be coming, followed by Queen Elizabeth, and then the Emperor of Japan. Different countries, different cultures, different civilisations - these are symbolic visits - the rituals and gestures are important and for each one of those visits, we are not robotic at all. I say, look, what is the history of the relationship, where do they come from, what are their likes and dislikes, their preferences, what will win over their hearts? A lot of attention goes into the details and it is for this reason that we do not want just a cultural department, we need the whole of MFA to be culturally sensitive.

Mr Ravindran: Sir, I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr George Yeo, and the Minister of State, Mr Zainul Abidin, for their very comprehensive answers to the queries raised by Members and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $257,379,160 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $85,667,000 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.