Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T22:15:33.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Singapore's Foreign Policy, 1965–1968

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Chan Heng Chee
Get access

Extract

Singapore became an independent sovereign state on August 9, 1965 It may be alleged that to attempt an analysis of a country's foreign policy only three years after its independence is premature. Yet there are certain basic facts about Singapore which no political leader can ignore, and these become the determinants or roots of Singapore's foreign policy. To that extent, Singapore's foreign policy is predictable because the range for manoeuvre is limited.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1969 , pp. 177 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958. See also Boyce, Peter, “Policy Without Authority: Singapore's External Affairs Power”, Journal of Southeast Asian History, Vol. 6 No. 2, 09 1965 p. 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This article contains a lengthy discussion of Singapore's excursion into external politics between 1959-1963.

2. Thus it was observed by S. Rajaratnam, the present Foreign Minister of Singapore in the Malaysian Parliament, that since 1957 foreign policy formed a negligible part of debate in Parliament. He continued: “Before Confrontation the world was Malaysia and Malaysia was the world. We always worked on the assumption that if Malaysia, minds her own business the world would leave us alone. But since a year or two ago we discovered that we have to be conscious of what is going on outside as others could determine our future more than we could on our own”. Straits Times, 12 17, 1964.Google Scholar

3. Ibid., February 13, 1964.

4. Ibid., December 17, 1964.

5. Ibid., January 20, 1964.

6. Ibid., August 10, 1965.

7. Malaysian Mirror, Vol. 1 No. 24, 08 14, 1965.Google Scholar

8. ‘Non-Alignment’ in this article refers to a position taken in the cold war. ‘Neutrality’ refers to the non-belligerent position taken in a ‘hot’ war.

9. Radio Moscow, 08 10, 1965Google Scholar. Also Radio Moscow, 08 14, 1965Google Scholar. On this date there was a panel discussion on the failings of the United States policy in Southeast Asia, the separation of Singapore providing the springboard for discussion. The official USSR view of the establishment of Malaysia is that it is a neo-colonialist plot to perpetuate Anglo-American dominance in the area. This panel was favourably disposed to Lee because of the latter's policy on SEATO and his Afro-Asian identification.

10. Radio Peking, 08 9, 1965 and August 10, 1965.Google Scholar

11. See San, Lim Kim's speech in Parliament, Parliament Debates, Singapore, (Singapore: Government Printer, 1965) Vol. 24 No. 2, 12 13, 1965, Col. 50.Google Scholar

12. The Mirror, Vol. 2, No. 27, 09 4, 1965.Google Scholar

13. The Separation Agreement concluded between Singapore and Malaysia provided for a defence treaty between the two countries. Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965, Art. V. Singapore is linked to Britain indirectly through the British involvement in Malaysia. After Singapore's departure from the Malaysia federation, the leaders of the new state initialled an annex to the 1963 agreement (Britain's agreement with Malaysia) permitting Britain to continue using the Singapore base as she thinks necessary for the defence of Malaysia and Singapore, for Commonwealth defence and for the maintenance of peace in Southeast Asia (but arrangements on a more formal basis have not yet been made). The Times, 10 28, 1965.Google Scholar

14. Rajaratnam, S. in Parliamentary Debates, Singapore, op. cit., Vol. 24 No. 6, 12 17, 1965, Col. 287–288.Google Scholar

15. Terrill, Ross, “Singapore's Foreign Outlook” in The Australian, 08 27, 1965Google Scholar, Separation (Singapore: Ministry of Culture, 1965), p. 33.Google Scholar

16. New Statesman, 08 20, 1965.Google Scholar

17. Straits Times, 09 1, 1965.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., August 27, 1965.

19. Burns, Creighton, “Diplomats Puzzled by Mr. Lee”, Age, 09 1, 1965.Google Scholar

20. New Statesman, 08 20, 1965.Google Scholar

21. For example, see “What Are We Doing There?” in Economist, 08 14, 1965Google Scholar. The Times, 08 10, 1965Google Scholar, featured an article suggesting that a long term shifting of British bases was contemplated.

22. Straits Times, 09 1, 1965.Google Scholar

23. Ibid., August 24, 1965.

24. Straits Times, 03 10, 13, 16, 1965.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., March 30, 1965.

26. Socialist Solution for Asia. A report on the Asian Socialists' Conference in Bombay (Singapore: Ministry of Culture, 1965) pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

27. Straits Times, 03 9, 1966.Google Scholar

28. Ibid., April 6, 1966.

29. The Times, 02 23, 1966Google Scholar. See also Great Britain, Statement on the Defence Estimates 1966. Part I The Defence Review, Cmnd. 2901.

30. Straits Times, 02 14, 1966.Google Scholar

31. The Mirror, 11 7, 1966, Vol. 2 No. 45, p. 5.Google Scholar

32. Straits Times, 11 11, 1966.Google Scholar

33. New York Times, 03 29, 1967.Google Scholar

34. Ibid.

35. This was revealed by the Finance Minister, Dr. Goh Keng Swee, in his annual budget statement in 1967. Most of the products exported to Vietnam consisted of petroleum and petroleum products. Parliamentary Debates Singapore, op. cit., Vol. 26 No. 8, 12 5, 1967. Cols. 444–445.Google Scholar

36. Straits Times 10 17, 1967.Google Scholar

37. The Mirror, Vol. 3 No. 47, 11 20, 1967.Google Scholar

38. Interview with an official of the Minisry of Foreign Affairs, March 28, 1968.

39. The Mirror, Ibid., p. 8.

40. Ibid.

41. Singapore Government Gazette, Act Supplement, Act No. 17, 1968.Google Scholar

42. A report by Andrew Wilson, defence correspondent, The Observer, 04 30, 1967.Google Scholar

43. Straits Times, 04, 3 1966Google Scholar. The trade agreement valid for a year provided for M$30 million of business excluding the Russian purchase estimated at M$200 million annually. It should be mentioned that a year later on April 3, 1967 Malaysia signed a trade pact with Russia and agreed in principle to establish diplomatic relations “once Russia is agreeable to this”. Straits Budget, 04 12, 1967.Google Scholar

44. Straits Times, 06 8, 1966.Google Scholar

45. Ibid., May 7, 1966.

46. List of Trade Agreements between Singapore and Other Countries (Mimeo sheet from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1968).Google Scholar

47. The Mirror, Vol. 2, No. 18, 05 2, 1966, p. 1.Google Scholar

48. Ibid., Vol. 2 No. 51, September 12, 1966, p. 3.

49. Straits Times, 04 7, 1966.Google Scholar

50. For a detailed exposition of Singapore's expectations of ASEAN see the Foreign Minister's answer in parliament to an oral question put by a backbencher. Parliamentary Debates, Singapore Official Report, 09 8, 1967, Vol. 26 No. 3, Cols. 183–186Google Scholar. See also the Foreign Minister's speech during the visit of the Indonesian Foreign Minister, MrMalik, Adam, in The Mirror, Vol. 4 No. 13, 03 25, 1968, p. 1.Google Scholar

51. Ibid.

52. The Mirror, Vol. 4 No. 9, 02 26, 1968, p. 4.Google Scholar

53. Straits Times, 09 5, 1966.Google Scholar

54. Sunday Times, 09 4, 1966.Google Scholar

55. The Mirror, 03 20, 1967, p. 4.Google Scholar

56. Statement by Mr. Abu Bakar bin Pawanchee, Chairman of the Singapore delegation to the United Nations, October 14, 1965 (mimeographed), p. 4.Google Scholar

57. See the Independence of Singapore Agreemerit. Also see Chapter III in Chee, Chan Heng, The Politics of Survival: Singapore Out of Malaysia, (forthcoming).Google Scholar