ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1996 TO 31ST MARCH, 1997 - (Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996)
Sir, first, on the Chairman of the GPC, Mr Bernard Chen's comments on Asia-Europe Meeting, I would say it was quite a historic meeting both for Asia and Europe and, indeed, it speaks well for Singapore that our Prime Minister mooted the idea. It is, in a sense, a record. It is a record that within a period of about 16 months, from the time that the idea was floated and its realisation, that the summit of some 25 leaders from two regions could have been organised. But it is a credit to the realisation by Europe and Asia of the importance of the summit. Credit must also be given to Thailand whose government was entrusted with the organisation and convening of this important meeting. The achievements of the Asia-Europe meeting are considerable because, in Bangkok, we had the leaders' meeting in an informal setting. It was not just a meeting, or talk shop, but they embarked on certain important decisions and projects which would have to be followed up. Therefore, it was not a one-shot affair, but the beginning of what I would consider to be an important evolutionary movement. For example, just to give a few examples of the important projects that they decided on. They decided to establish an Asia-Europe Foundation. They decided that it should be followed up this year by a senior officials' meeting in Brussels where they would focus both Asian and European leaders on the forthcoming WTO Ministerial Meeting. They also decided that some of the decisions be followed up by meetings of the Economic Ministers in Japan next year. And in early next year, Singapore will host a meeting of the Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers, back-to-back with the ASEAN-EU Foreign Ministers Meeting. In other words, there will be important meetings at officials' level, Economic Ministers meeting and Foreign Ministers will follow up on the decisions reached at Bangkok. Other important projects are the vision to have a Trans-Asia railway so that countries in Asia can be linked up in the same way that Euro-rail has linked up European countries and also a project to assist the Indo-Chinese countries, which is the Mekong Basin development, where Malaysia will be convening meetings. In other words, the first held Asia-Europe Meeting achieved its objective of bridging the gap between Asia and Europe, and brought about a meeting of minds, both on economic cooperation as well as in the broad political and security discussions. I would say that after this, the leaders on both sides feel that they can cooperate on a win-win situation. And I think it will also mean that with the holding of future Asia-Europe meetings, it will help to reduce misunderstandings between both sides. In this process, Asian countries will benefit and Singapore certainly will stand to benefit. 3.00 pm Singapore must continue to work closely with ASEAN and other countries to ensure that future Asia-Europe meetings will succeed, and indeed we have already decided that there will be a second Asia-Europe meeting in Europe, probably in London, and we are talking of a third Asia-Europe meeting in Korea, two years after the second meeting. Mr Bernard Chen asked two specific questions- how would I relate this to other existing organisations like APEC? And would it be perceived to be a bloc against the United States? The answer to both questions is no, because I see the Asia-Europe meeting as a vehicle that can complement the efforts in APEC. The membership is different. APEC, of course, is focused primarily on economic cooperation, and the membership there is on economies. In the Asia-Europe meeting, they also discuss economic cooperation, but they go beyond economic cooperation to discuss also broad questions of security and political dialogue. Therefore, the Asia-Europe meeting has a broader-based membership and a broader-based agenda, so to speak. But there is no conflict because of what I have mentioned just now. Is there a possibility of it being perceived as a bloc against the United States? The answer is no, because we have to recall the original rationale for proposing the Asia-Europe meeting. The rationale was that we felt that there was a gap in the triangular relationship between three major centres of economic growth - Europe, the United States and Asia-Pacific. While the United States and Asia-Pacific had ample dialogue opportunities through APEC, and Europe had dialogue opportunities with the United States, at the highest level, there was a gap, because there was no vehicle for similar dialogue between leaders of Asia and Europe, although there was dialogue at the Foreign Ministers' level. It was with this in mind that we proposed that to complete the triangle, we should also have a vehicle for top leaders, heads of governments, in Europe to meet with leaders in Asia. Therefore, with ASEM, I think we have put in place a mechanism where Europe, Asia and America can have a meeting of minds periodically from time to time. Mr Chandra Das asked about ASEAN and the future directions. For many years, ASEAN has been, what I would describe as a "cosy club" of six-member organisation. Last year, with Vietnam, it has increased to seven. Laos and Cambodia have indicated that they will apply for membership in 1997. So ASEAN will become a nine-member organisation. And it is not before long that ASEAN will achieve the original intention of the founding fathers to be an ASEAN-10 when Myanmar joins. What is the plus side of this? Obviously, an expanded ASEAN, which reaches the original intention of an ASEAN-10, will certainly create a new equilibrium for regional stability. And it will increase ASEAN's influence and bargaining power with other countries and other regional organisations. Bear in mind that an ASEAN of 10 South-East Asian countries has a potential consumer market of nearly 500 million people. So there are certain definite advantages when we look at an expanded ASEAN in the years ahead. But, on the other hand, an expanded ASEAN does not mean that it is free of problems. Because, like any organisation, when it grows in membership, there are certain problems and difficulties that we have to address. Expansion means that with new members, we have new interests and new sensitivities. Some of them are at different economic levels, at different stages of development. So we have to examine how they fit in with some of the economic obligations of international economic agreements and commitments which ASEAN expects of its members. Next, how would an expanded ASEAN affect ASEAN's traditional decision making, its traditional style of taking decisions by consensus? That is an important feature of ASEAN which other regional organisations envy and admire. Because whatever differences we have in ASEAN, we sort these differences out and arrive at decisions with give-and-take, but arrive at a consensus. Therefore, new members must be imbibed with this spirit of consensus. How do we do this? By several ways. First of all, we have to make sure that the new members understand the ways of ASEAN. Fortunately, the new members are not complete strangers to ASEAN. They are already interacting with ASEAN in post-ministerial conferences held after ASEAN ministerial meetings. Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam are also members of the ASEAN Regional Forum and they interact with ASEAN. The existing members in ASEAN also help the potential new applicants in adjusting to ASEAN membership. And we do this because many of them have sent delegations to existing ASEAN member countries, including Singapore, to be briefed on how we service ASEAN, how we meet the obligations of ASEAN. Singapore has been assisting Vietnam, for example, in the training of some of their officials on ASEAN matters and also in the training of the English language. As to the future role of ASEAN, ASEAN has in fact played a pivotal role in many of the initiatives which have resulted in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and on the Asia-Europe meeting. It is important that ASEAN stays on top of the situation to face the challenges coming ahead in the next few decades. Just as it has played a pivotal role in ARF and ASEM, it must, with an expanded ASEAN, find a mechanism to meet and interact on a regular basis. And, therefore, last year, I think Mr Chandra Das will have noted that at the summit in Bangkok, an important decision was taken that in addition to the periodic summits of leaders, ASEAN leaders will also meet informally every year. This is a very important development because it will enable the leaders annually to have a review of the achievements of ASEAN in the preceding year and to take stock of what needs to be done. This will, in my view, enable the leaders, together with the regular annual meetings of Economic Ministers and Foreign Ministers, to make ASEAN more agile and responsive to changing economic and political situations in the world and particularly in the region. Mr Chay Wai Chuen asked about roving Ambassadors. As a small country with a limited human resource pool and with a small Foreign Ministry, we cannot establish embassies in every part of the world. We have some 36 resident missions in the world, including nine consulates, and it is very difficult to expand beyond this. So how do we overcome this problem of limited resident missions? One of the ways is by establishing roving ambassadors. We have some nine roving ambassadors who are accredited to 22 countries. In my view, considering that these are people who have their regular professions and careers and who are taking this on as an additional commitment, I think they have done an excellent job and I really hope that we will be able to get more such people to be able to take on the job of a roving ambassador. The answer to his question is yes. If we can get more such people with dedication and resolve to attend to the duties of a roving ambassador, I am prepared to consider appointing them. He made a suggestion that some of them might have been accredited to particular countries for too long a time. I have my own views on this. I am not in favour of rotating them too fast because, in the nature of diplomacy, it takes a long while to establish your contacts in that country to earn the goodwill, to cultivate a relationship with that country which is based on trust and confidence. And it also takes quite a while to develop your storehouse of knowledge of the conditions and the situation in that country. Therefore, one cannot expect to rotate the roving ambassadors often. Mr Lau Ping Sum asked about aid and technical cooperation. I would say that for Singapore, considering our limited resources and considering that we are a small country, I think we are doing our role as a responsible member of the international community, commensurate with our level of development achieved so far. For example, our technical assistance programme given to other developing countries in FY94 amounted to $17 million. And some 2,000 foreign nationals from more than 80 developing countries are trained in Singapore or on study visits to Singapore every year under this technical assistance programme. It has not only earned us considerable goodwill, but it also enables those countries to learn from Singapore with respect to those areas which they think are relevant for their purposes. Sir, let me give you an anecdote. When I first called on the Foreign Minister of South Africa under the Mandella government, he introduced me to his Private Secretary and he said, "Meet So-and-So. He has been trained in Singapore." And immediately the Private Secretary said that he found his stint in Singapore very beneficial. So it has considerable spin-off benefits for bilateral relations. But, more importantly, our position and approach is that in our evolution of development, we have benefitted by learning from the experiences of other countries. And our position is that if other developing countries think they can learn from us in any particular area, eg, port, airport, roads, communications and housing, we are prepared to share our experiences with them under our technical assistance programme. In respect of involving the private sector, we have recently begun to explore the possibility of involving the private sector in our technical assistance programmes. We are in discussion with one or two private sector bodies to see how this can be done. But I hope at a subsequent date to be able to inform Mr Lau Ping Sum of the details on this. In short, I think we are doing our own part in assisting other developing countries in their development process through the technical cooperation programme. 3.15 pm