Singapore’s law against foreign interference, the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA), has aroused controversy and unease among critics who fear the law may possibly be abused to curtail freedoms in the country.
Conversely, Singapore Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam argued foreign interference is “one of the most serious threats faced by the Republic”, in his speech in Parliament on October 4 to justify FICA, which was passed in Parliament on the same day.
I agree with Mr Shanmugam that the risk of foreign interference in my country is real. The hostility between China and the US increases the threat of foreign interference and makes it more complicated for Singapore, a Little Red Dot caught between these rival superpowers.
The intense Sino-US rivalry means foreign interference is not a simple bilateral issue between Singapore and some foreign power. The situation more resembles a love triangle, where, hypothetically, if the US or China tries to interfere in Singapore’s affairs, the other superpower may possibly counter the meddling superpower. I recall watching a movie about a fight between King Kong and Godzilla, a Japanese-created fictional dinosaur, as these two gigantic monsters tower over a fictitous Japanese city. Metaphorically, the Lion City may possibly be the arena where the American eagle and Chinese dragon clash like Godzilla with King Kong.
Is the US capable of interfering in a Southeast Asian state like Singapore? History shows the CIA has tried, successfully or unsuccessfully, to topple leaders of Southeast Asian countries, as South Vietnam and Indonesia illustrate.
Indonesia
During the Cold War, the intelligence agencies of both the US and Soviet Union tried to blackmail Indonesian President Achmed Sukarno. This is an example of how two superpowers were adversaries yet interfered in the same country.
When Sukarno visited Moscow in the 1960s, the KGB sought to take advantage of his renowned sexual appetite, sending gorgeous young Russian women to his hotel room, according to a CNN blog on April 18, 2012.
“When the Russians later confronted him with a film of the lurid encounter, Sukarno was apparently delighted. Legend has it he even asked for extra copies,” said the CNN blog.
The CIA also used sexual blackmail against Sukarno. In the 1950s, the CIA made a video of a man impersonating the Indonesian President having sex with a woman, according to a BBC documentary I watched years ago. The plot backfired. When the fake video was publicised, it made Sukarno more popular among his people, because many Indonesians perceived the video as a testament to their leader’s virility and power, a former CIA spy recounted in the BBC programme.
The CIA blackmailed Sukarno because Washington was uncomfortable with his getting cosy with China. If the US or China perceives a Singapore leader as being too friendly with the other side, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the US or China might somehow act against that hypothetical leader.
South Vietnam
The US played a part in the downfall and death of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, who headed the South Vietnamese secret police, by greenlighting a coup. The US government was disillusioned with Ngo Dinh Diem because he refused to do everything Washington wanted in fighting the Vietnamese Communists.
The CIA and the US ambassador to South Vietnam at that time, Henry Cabot Lodge, gave the go-ahead to rebel South Vietnamese generals to overthrow President Ngo, as revealed in the Pentagon Papers, a set of classified US government documents which were leaked to the press in the early 1970s. In November 1963, units of the South Vietnamese military attacked the Presidential palace in Saigon (now called Ho Chi Minh City), eventually capturing and killing the Ngo brothers.
But the US cannot bear full responsibility for the coup and the murder of the Ngo brothers, who must share the blame. The Ngos belonged to the Catholic French-speaking elite minority of South Vietnam, taking after their French former colonial masters, and they persecuted the majority of Vietnamese-speaking South Vietnamese who were Buddhists.
In a TV interview on Sept 2, 1963, US President John Kennedy said the regime’s repression of Buddhists was “very unwise” and remarked that the Diem government had got out of touch with the South Vietnamese people. Unless Ngo Dinh Diem won more support among his people, siad the US president, he was unlikely to win against the Communists.
Ngo Dinh Nhu’s wife, the de facto First Lady of South Vietnam because President Ngo was unmarried, must also bear part of the responsibility for the downfall and death of her husband and brother-in-law.
In June 1963, a South Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Quang Duc, doused himself with petrol and set himself on fire in public, to protest the shooting of Buddhists by President Ngo’s forces. In response, Madam Ngo said in a public interview, “Let them burn and we shall clap our hands”.
She even offered more fuel and matches to assist in the Buddhist monk’s self-immolation, calling it a “barbecue”. Even her parents condemned her callous remarks.
The US ambassador to South Vietnam at that time, Frederick Nolting, told President Ngo if he did not publicly denounce his sister-in-law’s insensitive remarks, the US might stop supporting him, but the South Vietnamese leader refused and instead scolded the Buddhists, according to media reports.
Madam Ngo’s comments on the Buddhist monk’s suicide protest went against the teachings of her Catholic faith. In the Bible, chapter 3 verse 6 of the Book of James said, “The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.”
Speaking in support of FICA in Parliament on Oct 4, Mr Shanmugam said, “Our racial and religious mix is easily exploitable by different countries, and we see a steady build-up of different narratives, which is being very cleverly done.”
In the case of South Vietnam, it was not the US that stirred up religious strife, but the Ngos. By criticising the leader of another country for persecuting a religious group, was the US interfering in that country’s affairs or upholding the universal value of religious tolerance to which Singapore subscribes?
If the US withdraws military and economic support from a government for disrupting racial or religious harmony, is the US guilty of foreign interference? In Singapore, with its strict laws guarding racial and religious harmony, I have no doubt that if anyone made public statements like Madam Ngo, the Law and Home Affairs Minister would punish them and shut them up.
A lesson from this South Vietnamese tragedy is the Singapore government should focus not only on preventing potential foreign interference, but also on maintaining social harmony and overall support among Singaporeans.
Singapore
Singapore leaders need more than laws to handle the possible threat of foreign interference by two superpowers which are competing over countries like Singapore.
Against sexual blackmail from the US and Soviet Union, Sukarno did not resort to laws against fake news, defamation or foreign interference. Instead, he reacted with wit and humour, which deflated the blackmail bid.
In September, Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs cited the case of a US diplomat supporting a Singaporean opposition politician, Francis Seow, during the 1980s, as the Straits Times reported on Sept 13. Although the Internal Security Department detained Seow, the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew forged strong economic and military ties with the US. He also cultivated friendly relations with China since the 1980s, despite cracking down on suspected Communists during the 1960s and 1970s.
Singapore’s future leaders must have Lee Kuan Yew’s skill in keeping the country independent while balancing relations with the US and China. Will Singapore’s future leaders match Lee Kuan Yew in this respect? The future of Singapore may hinge on their ability.
Toh Han Shih is chief analyst of Headland Intelligence, a Hong Kong risk consultancy. The opinions expressed in this column are his own.