RI, S'pore: Understanding and being understood

RI, S'pore: Understanding and being understood

Jusuf Wanandi, Centre for Strategic and International Studies
Jakarta and Simon SC Tay, Singapore Institute of International
Affairs, Singapore

Indonesians have been angered by Senior Minister Lee Kuan
Yew's remarks that there are terrorist networks in their country.
Most Singaporeans, however, do not understand why. American
leaders have made similar statements previously and most analysts
agree that such connections do exist.

To many observers, the present and urgent need is for
practical cooperation between the countries, both bilaterally and
together with others in the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN). For this, military and security agencies need to
talk, behind closed doors if necessary, and work closely
together. High-level politics need not be involved and should
not, worse, be an obstacle.

Why then this turmoil between neighbors?

The first answer is that Indonesians care what SM Lee says.
His last visit to Jakarta, almost one year ago, was well received
and Indonesians know the international community often looks to
him for readings of the region. Therefore the Senior Minister's
opinion, while sincerely held, would have a negative impact on
perceptions about security and stability in Indonesia.

Rather than joining in the chorus of criticisms, many
Indonesians might have hoped in fact that SM Lee might help
articulate to the international community some of the constraints
that they face. They have expected that if there were critical
problems between the two countries, these should first be dealt
with between official channels or through personal contacts.

The second reason for the Indonesian reaction is that the
statement has unwittingly played a part in the complex game of
Indonesian politics and the contest between different parties.
The accusation of inaction undermines the credibility of
President Megawati Soekarnoputri's government. In all likelihood
it was for this reason, as well as to try to preempt further
criticism, that ministers within the present administration began
the response to SM Lee's statement. But it backfired, because
their statements were ambiguous and was made used of by others
immediately.

Others have joined in for their own reasons. The Islamic
groups have gained influence and do not see President Megawati as
one of them. They see this as another opportunity to mount
pressure on the present administration and test its
responsiveness to their political demands.

The third factor is a wider sentiment that concerns Indonesia
perceptions of Singapore. Some Indonesians resent Singapore's
economic success because they believe that it has been built on
the back of Indonesian exports and resources. Some also believe
Singaporean businesses have been too cosy with the Indonesian
conglomerates that were Soeharto cronies. Still others feel that
Singaporeans, rather than suffering and sympathizing with
Indonesia in its recent years of difficulty, have benefited at
their expense. On the other hand Singapore lacking deep
understanding of Indonesia's catharsis, has been bewildered about
Indonesia's incapability to stop the instabilities and are very
worried of Indonesia's future".

This, rightly or wrongly, is the context of the complaints and
furor over SM Lee's comments. It is, moreover, a context that
explains many of the other swings in Indonesia-Singapore
relations.

For the spate over SM Lee's comments is not an isolated
affair. This is just another swing in what has become quite an
unstable and incident driven relationship. This should be of
concern as Indonesian-Singapore bilateral ties were once a key
pillar for both countries, as well as for ASEAN.

No matter whatever other criticisms there are, under former
president Soeharto, the tension and suspicion between the two
countries gave way to relations that were stable, cooperative,
and even warm.

In contrast, since the fall of Soeharto, two succeeding
presidents have directly specifically and strongly criticized
Singapore. President B.J. Habibie notoriously singled out the
island as a "red dot". President Abdurahman Wahid talked about
joining with Malaysia to cut off water to Singapore.

Personal idiosyncrasies were a factor in both these outcries.
However, the incidents cannot be fully discounted on that basis.
They were responding to a wider sentiment in Indonesia, as are
the present voices protesting SM Lee's comments.

It is for this reason that the late Michael Leifer, an astute
observer of the region, suggested that Indonesia-Singapore
relations show a sense of return to the past, akin to the tense
period of konfrontasi under president Sukarno.

The Centre for Strategic and International Studies and the
Singapore Institute of International Affairs are both founding
members of the network of ASEAN-Institutes of Strategic and
International Studies (ASEAN-ISIS).