Singapore emeritus chief diplomat: Cambodia and Laos precariously on the edge and should be expelled from ASEAN

[Song Hong]

This days, many Singapore elites go all out to incite hate, making stupid comments, exposing themselves as a fool.

Singaporeans elites are just a bunch of colonial master worshippers, and blind to the horrible atrocities, that USA are commiting in the region.

***********

Singapore—Retired diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, who found himself in trouble concerning remarks he made on Friday (Oct 23) suggesting that Cambodia and Laos be expelled from the ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) has dismissed accusations that he is a foreign agent.

He made these remarks at a round table discussion organised by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, saying, “To state things bluntly, I see Cambodia and Laos teetering precariously on the edge…They have some difficult choices to make. And if they should make wrong choices, they will confront ASEAN as a whole with difficult choices. We may have to cut loose the two to save the eight.”

Mr Bilahari emphasised this point further in a Facebook post on Oct 24, writing, “Not imminent or something ASEAN would do lightly or willingly, but if a limb turns gangrenous, amputation may be the only way to save a life.”

On Tuesday (Oct 26), an unsigned letter allegedly from former and current Cambodian diplomats was published in Fresh News, a Cambodian news site, calling Mr Bilahari a person who is “attention-seeking, inconsistent, and incoherent.”

The letter writers called out Mr Bilahari and ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute for pushing the notion that Cambodia is a puppet of China, and questioned whether this is the Singapore Government’s the official position.

“Bilahari and ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute should stop pretending as if they have the monopoly on knowledge and wisdom. peaking of agency, which was the whole gist of Bilahari’s paper, one wonders for which power is he and ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute acting as "agent" for a foreign power. the letter reads.

Retired Singapore diplomat Bilahari Kausikan dismisses claims by Cambodia of being agent to foreign power

A group of Cambodian diplomats had hit back at the retired Singapore diplomat over remarks he made at a webinar. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

A single Singaporean’s attempt to divide Asean won’t succeed, says Laos

VIENTIANE, Nov 2 (The Vientiane Times/ANN): Asean citizen, especially those from new member states, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR or Laos) and the Kingdom of Cambodia, are shocked learning that a respected defender of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean) has...

www.thestar.com.my

 

[vi-va]

Cool, just do it. Don't bluff.

 

[qwerrty]

clearly the guy wants a cut from that new 300 million dollars funds.

 

[Markandeya]

Truth all knows ..

 

[Bilal9]

Membership in ASEAN - is a privilege, not a right.

Laos and Cambodia were admitted to ASEAN under certain pretexts and mutual understanding with other (very advanced) ASEAN economies, and those prerequisites have to be valid for their ongoing membership. Incidentally, these two nations are the newest and most economically fragile of ASEAN member nations.

Attacking the messenger is our typical Asian mentality, but if we look at the message, are the precepts valid?

Do these two member nations satisfy the interests of the rest of the ASEAN community? Does Mr. Kausikan's arguments and statements hold water?

Let's discuss those issues - instead of attacking "who is whose poodle".

I would not be so quick to criticize Singaporean Govt. stance.

I am a Kishore Mahbubani fan (who is one of the top diplomats S'pore has, as he was the president of the UN Security Council among other things), and he is rather pro-China, if I may add. He is always accused of being a pro-China agent by US academics.

This is in complete contrast with what some people construe Singapore Govt. as being "pro-West".

One thing I respect about educated Singaporean diplomats is that they usually do not posit public statements without being backed up by evidence and facts.

 

[Song Hong]

Membership in ASEAN - is a privilege, not a right.

Laos and Cambodia were admitted to ASEAN under certain pretexts and mutual understanding with other (very advanced) ASEAN economies, and those prerequisites have to be valid for their ongoing membership. Incidentally, these two nations are the newest and most economically fragile of ASEAN member nations.

Attacking the messenger is our typical Asian mentality, but if we look at the message, are the precepts valid?

Do these two member nations satisfy the interests of the rest of the ASEAN community? Does Mr. Kausikan's arguments and statements hold water?

Let's discuss those issues - instead of attacking "who is whose poodle".

I would not be so quick to criticize Singaporean Govt. stance.

I am a Kishore Mahbubani fan (who is one of the top diplomats S'pore has, as he was the president of the UN Security Council among other things), and he is rather pro-China, if I may add. He is always accused of being a pro-China agent by US academics.

This is in complete contrast with what some people construe Singapore Govt. as being "pro-West".

One thing I respect about educated Singaporean diplomats is that they usually do not posit public statements without being backed up by evidence and facts.

I do not understand what is your reference when you say ASEAN membership is a privilege and not a right. Also I cannot see what is wrong with Laos and Cambodia.

I do not see anything wrong with Laos and Cambodia. I see the US base in Singapore undermining the security of whole region.

This Bilahari is a perpetual liar on many issues especially Mekong Dam. I have written it earlier.

 

[Bilal9]

I do not understand what is your reference when you say ASEAN membership is a privilege and not a right. Also I cannot see what is wrong with Laos and Cambodia.

I do not see anything wrong with IfLaos and Cambodia. I see the US base in Singapore undermining the security of whole region.

This Bilahari is a perpetual liar on many issues especially Mekong Dam. I have written it earlier.

Please read the common law definition of what a membership to an association is (this applies to any association, for example ASEAN),

Membership and Rights of Members – Organizations

organizations.uslegal.com

If - as Mr. Kausikan says, that Laos and Cambodia are "disrupting" the organization, and this is his personal opinion, then all this hoopla is irrelevant.

However if this is the official stance of the Govt. of Singapore, then this is another matter.

The US will continue to exert its influence in the region and try to counter that of China, while it can. It will use its allies to that end.

Whether Singapore considers the US as an ally is open to debate. All nations look at self-interest in security and economical perspectives. Which changes according to timing and posture.

But Laos and Cambodia cannot get far - by trying to anger and disrupt the leadership of major ASEAN players like Singapore. They will be either members of ASEAN by abiding to rules set by major ASEAN members - or not.

There is no middle ground.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

A nation is accepted into ASEAN based on consensus of its members.

It is neither a privilege nor right.

As a former diplomat Bilahari has indeed misbehave by expressing his personal opinion failing to understand the mechanism of ASEAN, a trading bloc.

His action has embarrassed Singapore and threatened its stance on neutrality.

Bilahari should learn to keep his bloody gap shut before he starts a diplomatic row between the different member states.

 

[Indos]

Membership in ASEAN - is a privilege, not a right.

Laos and Cambodia were admitted to ASEAN under certain pretexts and mutual understanding with other (very advanced) ASEAN economies, and those prerequisites have to be valid for their ongoing membership. Incidentally, these two nations are the newest and most economically fragile of ASEAN member nations.

Attacking the messenger is our typical Asian mentality, but if we look at the message, are the precepts valid?

Do these two member nations satisfy the interests of the rest of the ASEAN community? Does Mr. Kausikan's arguments and statements hold water?

Let's discuss those issues - instead of attacking "who is whose poodle".

I would not be so quick to criticize Singaporean Govt. stance.

I am a Kishore Mahbubani fan (who is one of the top diplomats S'pore has, as he was the president of the UN Security Council among other things), and he is rather pro-China, if I may add. He is always accused of being a pro-China agent by US academics.

This is in complete contrast with what some people construe Singapore Govt. as being "pro-West".

One thing I respect about educated Singaporean diplomats is that they usually do not posit public statements without being backed up by evidence and facts.

Singapore is pro West and relies on US and Australia to base their Air Force. They cannot go against US by looking how Sing relies so much on the West. Their main threat is Indonesia.

 

[8888888888888]

Singapore is pro West and relies on US and Australia to base their Air Force. They cannot go against US by looking how Sing relies so much on the West. Their main threat is Indonesia.

Pretty much what everyone suspects.

They gave some lame excuses that sinovac doesn’t have enough data on how it can handle the Covid 19 mutated Brazil strain despite the fact Brazil just conducted an experiment on a Brazil town with sinovac weeks ago so anyone can ask the data from Brazil.

So definitely a USA client state like Denmark.