RI, S'pore: Understanding and being understood<\/p>\n
Jusuf Wanandi, Centre for Strategic and International Studies
\nJakarta and Simon SC Tay, Singapore Institute of International
\nAffairs, Singapore<\/p>\n
Indonesians have been angered by Senior Minister Lee Kuan
\nYew's remarks that there are terrorist networks in their country.
\nMost Singaporeans, however, do not understand why. American
\nleaders have made similar statements previously and most analysts
\nagree that such connections do exist.<\/p>\n
To many observers, the present and urgent need is for
\npractical cooperation between the countries, both bilaterally and
\ntogether with others in the Association of Southeast Asian
\nNations (ASEAN). For this, military and security agencies need to
\ntalk, behind closed doors if necessary, and work closely
\ntogether. High-level politics need not be involved and should
\nnot, worse, be an obstacle.<\/p>\n
Why then this turmoil between neighbors?<\/p>\n
The first answer is that Indonesians care what SM Lee says.
\nHis last visit to Jakarta, almost one year ago, was well received
\nand Indonesians know the international community often looks to
\nhim for readings of the region. Therefore the Senior Minister's
\nopinion, while sincerely held, would have a negative impact on
\nperceptions about security and stability in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Rather than joining in the chorus of criticisms, many
\nIndonesians might have hoped in fact that SM Lee might help
\narticulate to the international community some of the constraints
\nthat they face. They have expected that if there were critical
\nproblems between the two countries, these should first be dealt
\nwith between official channels or through personal contacts.<\/p>\n
The second reason for the Indonesian reaction is that the
\nstatement has unwittingly played a part in the complex game of
\nIndonesian politics and the contest between different parties.
\nThe accusation of inaction undermines the credibility of
\nPresident Megawati Soekarnoputri's government. In all likelihood
\nit was for this reason, as well as to try to preempt further
\ncriticism, that ministers within the present administration began
\nthe response to SM Lee's statement. But it backfired, because
\ntheir statements were ambiguous and was made used of by others
\nimmediately.<\/p>\n
Others have joined in for their own reasons. The Islamic
\ngroups have gained influence and do not see President Megawati as
\none of them. They see this as another opportunity to mount
\npressure on the present administration and test its
\nresponsiveness to their political demands.<\/p>\n
The third factor is a wider sentiment that concerns Indonesia
\nperceptions of Singapore. Some Indonesians resent Singapore's
\neconomic success because they believe that it has been built on
\nthe back of Indonesian exports and resources. Some also believe
\nSingaporean businesses have been too cosy with the Indonesian
\nconglomerates that were Soeharto cronies. Still others feel that
\nSingaporeans, rather than suffering and sympathizing with
\nIndonesia in its recent years of difficulty, have benefited at
\ntheir expense. On the other hand Singapore lacking deep
\nunderstanding of Indonesia's catharsis, has been bewildered about
\nIndonesia's incapability to stop the instabilities and are very
\nworried of Indonesia's future\".<\/p>\n
This, rightly or wrongly, is the context of the complaints and
\nfuror over SM Lee's comments. It is, moreover, a context that
\nexplains many of the other swings in Indonesia-Singapore
\nrelations.<\/p>\n
For the spate over SM Lee's comments is not an isolated
\naffair. This is just another swing in what has become quite an
\nunstable and incident driven relationship. This should be of
\nconcern as Indonesian-Singapore bilateral ties were once a key
\npillar for both countries, as well as for ASEAN.<\/p>\n
No matter whatever other criticisms there are, under former
\npresident Soeharto, the tension and suspicion between the two
\ncountries gave way to relations that were stable, cooperative,
\nand even warm.<\/p>\n
In contrast, since the fall of Soeharto, two succeeding
\npresidents have directly specifically and strongly criticized
\nSingapore. President B.J. Habibie notoriously singled out the
\nisland as a \"red dot\". President Abdurahman Wahid talked about
\njoining with Malaysia to cut off water to Singapore.<\/p>\n
Personal idiosyncrasies were a factor in both these outcries.
\nHowever, the incidents cannot be fully discounted on that basis.
\nThey were responding to a wider sentiment in Indonesia, as are
\nthe present voices protesting SM Lee's comments.<\/p>\n
It is for this reason that the late Michael Leifer, an astute
\nobserver of the region, suggested that Indonesia-Singapore
\nrelations show a sense of return to the past, akin to the tense
\nperiod of konfrontasi under president Sukarno.<\/p>\n
The Centre for Strategic and International Studies and the
\nSingapore Institute of International Affairs are both founding
\nmembers of the network of ASEAN-Institutes of Strategic and
\nInternational Studies (ASEAN-ISIS).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ri-spore-understanding-and-being-understood-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}