Economic nationalism is very much alive
Only last week, allegations of Singapore spying in Thailand surfaced. It resulted in a heated debate with my Thai friends, including Pong, whom I had introduced a couple of months ago. Pong, no surprise, clearly believed that Temasek and Singapore acted in bad faith. If you are following Thailand's press like The Nation or Bangkok Post, you will have known about the Singapore bashing that is taking place. Pong sent me this article, written by an Australian Professor Des Ball. I have no idea what kind of academic he is but his article feels inflammatory. I obviously have no idea whether what he says is true.
Seething with a sense of injustice, the Thais are not in a mood to be reasonable. Amongst other things, Pong also accused Singapore of trying to help Thaksin launch a counter-coup. For what I asked? For recovering the investment he replied. I had to control myself and refrain from telling him that USD2 billion was peanuts to Singapore. Nevertheless, here is my response to Pong:
(1) From the beginning, Thailand should have had a regulator to scrutinise any deals deemed to involve national security. Thailand, should have blocked the deal if it was deemed to be bad for national security. Clearly, Thai laws and institutions, which were arguably policy-corrupted by the previous government, failed to block the deal. However, this government is now trying to remedy the situation ex-post. Whether Temasek acted in bad faith or not, this ex-post changing of the rules would be bad for Thailand's credibility. What is US2 billion to Singapore in relation to the reserves? It hurt no one more than the Thais themselves if their government acted in such frivolous fashion, rushing to introduce capital controls and amending the Foreign Business Act.
(2) All military have to secure their own communication, command and control. Singapore, and many other countries like UK (I guess Thailand too), rely on GPS which is run by US. The Pentagon therefore in principle can know where each and every one of our military units are the moment they turn on their GPS systems [last statement pointed as inaccurate]. US also has the power to switch off the system, rendering equipment that depends on GPS useless. Rather than blaming a foreign operator, find ways to ensure that operational capabilities are not compromised.
(3) The person who wrote the article is an Australian, probably a defence expert. He probably spoke from the defence perspective without considering the economics. Moreover, the fact that he is an Australian talking about national interest makes his article especially grating (for me at least). Australia, despite signing the FTA with Singapore, has repeatedly blocked Singapore Airlines' use of their airports to fly to the US, and therefore failed to live up to their treaty commitment. This decision has always been justified by the figleaf of national interest. Recently, in a bizarre turn of logic, they even agree to sell their flag carrier Qantas to a US private equity firm - what national interest?
In hindsight, the Temasek-Shincorp deal is one that should not have gone ahead. However, what Thailand needs now is to fix the institutions and laws where they are found wanting without changing the rules ex-post for those deals already done. "National interest" is just a thinly disguised code for "economic nationalism". Many of the recent policies by the military installed government feel like the latter.
It is now even more disturbing that the row over the takeover has escalated into spying allegations. I do not know whether the spying story is true but one can still be objective without full information. Solid evidence of Thaksin's wrongdoing has not been uncovered. The botched capital control clearly harmed confidence. Investigation into the Bangkok bombing is increasingly befuddled. The coup is already 4 months old but a return to normal politics still seems so far away. The military installed government therefore has huge incentive to direct attention towards a foreign bogeyman rather than examine the multiple failures of their institutions. All in all, these developments represent a big step backwards for Thailand. The sad thing for me is that millions of Thais like Pong, engulfed by the nationalistic tide, would probably fail to realise this.
Only last week, allegations of Singapore spying in Thailand surfaced. It resulted in a heated debate with my Thai friends, including Pong, whom I had introduced a couple of months ago. Pong, no surprise, clearly believed that Temasek and Singapore acted in bad faith. If you are following Thailand's press like The Nation or Bangkok Post, you will have known about the Singapore bashing that is taking place. Pong sent me this article, written by an Australian Professor Des Ball. I have no idea what kind of academic he is but his article feels inflammatory. I obviously have no idea whether what he says is true.
Seething with a sense of injustice, the Thais are not in a mood to be reasonable. Amongst other things, Pong also accused Singapore of trying to help Thaksin launch a counter-coup. For what I asked? For recovering the investment he replied. I had to control myself and refrain from telling him that USD2 billion was peanuts to Singapore. Nevertheless, here is my response to Pong:
(1) From the beginning, Thailand should have had a regulator to scrutinise any deals deemed to involve national security. Thailand, should have blocked the deal if it was deemed to be bad for national security. Clearly, Thai laws and institutions, which were arguably policy-corrupted by the previous government, failed to block the deal. However, this government is now trying to remedy the situation ex-post. Whether Temasek acted in bad faith or not, this ex-post changing of the rules would be bad for Thailand's credibility. What is US2 billion to Singapore in relation to the reserves? It hurt no one more than the Thais themselves if their government acted in such frivolous fashion, rushing to introduce capital controls and amending the Foreign Business Act.
(2) All military have to secure their own communication, command and control. Singapore, and many other countries like UK (I guess Thailand too), rely on GPS which is run by US. The Pentagon therefore in principle can know where each and every one of our military units are the moment they turn on their GPS systems [last statement pointed as inaccurate]. US also has the power to switch off the system, rendering equipment that depends on GPS useless. Rather than blaming a foreign operator, find ways to ensure that operational capabilities are not compromised.
(3) The person who wrote the article is an Australian, probably a defence expert. He probably spoke from the defence perspective without considering the economics. Moreover, the fact that he is an Australian talking about national interest makes his article especially grating (for me at least). Australia, despite signing the FTA with Singapore, has repeatedly blocked Singapore Airlines' use of their airports to fly to the US, and therefore failed to live up to their treaty commitment. This decision has always been justified by the figleaf of national interest. Recently, in a bizarre turn of logic, they even agree to sell their flag carrier Qantas to a US private equity firm - what national interest?
In hindsight, the Temasek-Shincorp deal is one that should not have gone ahead. However, what Thailand needs now is to fix the institutions and laws where they are found wanting without changing the rules ex-post for those deals already done. "National interest" is just a thinly disguised code for "economic nationalism". Many of the recent policies by the military installed government feel like the latter.
It is now even more disturbing that the row over the takeover has escalated into spying allegations. I do not know whether the spying story is true but one can still be objective without full information. Solid evidence of Thaksin's wrongdoing has not been uncovered. The botched capital control clearly harmed confidence. Investigation into the Bangkok bombing is increasingly befuddled. The coup is already 4 months old but a return to normal politics still seems so far away. The military installed government therefore has huge incentive to direct attention towards a foreign bogeyman rather than examine the multiple failures of their institutions. All in all, these developments represent a big step backwards for Thailand. The sad thing for me is that millions of Thais like Pong, engulfed by the nationalistic tide, would probably fail to realise this.
posted by Bart JP at
12:40 pm
8 Comments:
Recently, in a bizarre turn of logic, they even agree to sell their flag carrier Qantas to a US private equity firm - what national interest?
Then you obviously don't know about the pro-US, supposed 'mateship' relations that John Howard thinks he is having with George Bush, don't you?
The fact is, whatever you claim to the contrary regarding the reputation of Singapore, foreigners do tend to take a very skeptical attitude towards the repute of the Singapore government, what with its propensity to sue its political opposition, as well as, various publications and at the same time, adhere to an air of moral superiority with the Asian Values Debate.
While Singaporeans are not likely to be reminded of the 'collective image' of Singapore in the international sphere, the press of those countries are likely to remind their countrymen of those incidents.
For the record, everytime I mention that I'm from Singapore -- I'm studying in Australia -- I have lots and lots of explanation to do. Because most people think that it's a pure dictatorship.
You may assert and point to the facts. But whether people believe what you deem 'facts' are really, 'facts', is quite another matter altogether.
And likewise, for Thailand: In terms of diplomatic politeness, it would have been best for Thaksin to not visit Singapore at all.
The fact that the Thai King is opposed to Thaksin and that the common Thai revers his/her King, compounds the issue to a sphere that is beyond 'pure economics'.
kwokheng
By
Anonymous, at 4:08 pm
Hi Kwokheng,
I agree Singapore has an image problem. Moreoever, the 'commercial decision' line doesn't wash. I cannot see how other countries will see Temasek/GIC as independent investment firms.
The accusations are slightly disingenuous. There are few telco operators in Thailand. The military can simply transfer their contracts elsewhere if they think AIS is spying. In fact, Chuan (the former PM) said that spying was going on for years already, but no one cared. See article.
[http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/20/headlines/headlines_30024630.php]
The water is now completely muddy, facts are difficult to established. But overall point is, Thailand is now experiencing an upswell of nationalist fervour. I think it is difficult for Thais to see the situation objectively.
By
Bart JP, at 6:21 pm
GPS receivers do not transmit anything, and therefore US can't track you down when you turn on GPS.
By
Anonymous, at 2:51 am
Thanks for GPS note. I have it wrong.
By
Bart JP, at 9:03 am
Essentially this shows that the policy to invest big like the Sg gov agencies seem to be doing is wrong.
It really annoys that there is so much hoo hah about bringing in 5 billion for the IR only to see a couple of billion heading down the drain.
It would have been far better to set up a couple of thousand smaller companies operating in the region with a capital of $1 million each and spreading these around ASEAN - these would have secured the economic hinterland for generations.
With regard to Prof Ball, if there were evidence at the time Optus was bought, it was certainly not stated, but he said a lot of strong remarks. He's just saying the same things again.
To a certain extent, it is the duty of every state to know what is going on as precisely as possible in another country. However, it is clear that as far as Singapore is concerned, it wasn't doing this with any real effecttiveness in Thailand or the blunder of buying Shin would never have happended in the first place.
Its unclear why Prof Ball he has this axe to grind. Maybe its just an intrinsic racial thing which some Aussies seem to have.
By
Anonymous, at 3:11 pm
I refer to anon at 3.11PM:
I wish to state that in my personal experience in having spent about 1.5 years in Australia, that most Aussies are not racist.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if anything, it's the bloody Singaporeans who are always prejudiced.
The idea that Aussies are racist are by and large the product of an all too vehement media.
You cannot re-present Australia as easily as you can Singapore.
Australia while being largely conservative due to its very Christian roots, is still a lot more open-minded than the polity of Singapore.
In fact, I daresay that the Aussies are a hell lot more civilised.
Singaporeans only think themselves civilised when they're not.
Find me a place in Singapore, indeed, that I need not queue in the strict, linear sense. Because in Australia, people just stand in huddles and they'll point out to the service staff if you came first.
kwokheng
By
Anonymous, at 1:14 pm
Just because you have a lot of money doesn't make you 'First World'.
As: Just because you have attended 'Les Miserables' doesn't make you someone who can appreciate the arts in all its glory.
As: Just because you have a certificate to vouch your attendance at a university doesn't mean that you're 'educated'.
As: Just because you're in a position of power means you ought to earn millions.
As: Just because you attend church makes you a 'Christian'.
As: Just because you read Literature means that you understand why people study Literature.
As: Just because you know your theories means that you know how they ought to be applied, the qualifications that ought to come with them, as well as, the contexts they're limited to.
Because all you have is a re-presentation, a means of certification that the powers that be deem you to be, 'x'.
Which isn't in any sense 'logical' since argument by authority is nothing but a fallacy.
kh
By
Anonymous, at 1:29 pm
Yes, there ARE racists in Australia.
But my MAIN point is: Singapore's a PORT, right?
Port = unending influences from outside.
So my question is: How come I ge to have class (at RMIT) with a Singaporean girl, who DOESN'T trust in carbon-dating BUT thinks that the Bible is HISTORY BOOK!!?????!!!!
Clearly—at least it seems to me—Singapore's social system is flawed.
There's so many middle-class country Australians after all: How come I don't meet anyone who thinks that the Bible is History Book?
—Why Singaporean?!
By
Anonymous, at 12:57 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home