Editor,
I wish to comment on the recent Singaporean media
publication, namely the Strait Times and Channel News Asia on remarks made by
Ong Keng Yong, who was secretary-general of ASEAN between 2003-2007. He stated
that Cambodia’s agreement with China on the issues of South China Sea (SCS) was
“surprising” and amounted to “interference” in ASEAN’s affairs.
Cambodia, as a non-claimant state, has been very cautious
on the sensitive issues of SCS. It has maintained its position of principle of
not taking sides on territorial claims. Unfortunately, Cambodia is seen by
international media as a “culprit” whenever there is anything to do with China
and no one wants to listen to Cambodia’s position.
If Cambodia is to borrow Singapore’s mouth, we are
actually speaking the same language. Answering the parliamentary questions in
August 2012, the then-foreign minister of Singapore, K Shanmugam stated: “We
are not a claimant state and we have always maintained that by their very
nature, the specific territorial disputes in the South China Sea can only be
settled by the parties directly concerned . . . I wish to underscore that ASEAN
as a grouping cannot and does not take sides on the merits of a particular
claim or claims. Nor do we attempt to resolve the disputes.”
According to the latest ASEAN Chairman’s Statement as
adopted in Kuala Lumpur in November, “ASEAN emphasised the importance for the
states concerned to resolve their differences and disputes through peaceful
means, in accordance with international law”.
Mr Ong seemed to fully understand this statement as he
was quoted saying that “ASEAN have agreed among ourselves that dispute concerns
have to be worked out bilaterally”.
Hence, what is the difference between “the dispute
concerned have to be worked out bilaterally” and “the territorial disputes is
not an issue between China and ASEAN as a whole”? ASEAN has 10 members. Thus,
if it is a dispute between China and four ASEAN members, it is obvious to say
it is not a conflict of ASEAN as a whole.
There was not any secret deal, pact or agreement. It was
simply a repetition of ASEAN’s position. So, what is so surprising when
Cambodia only mentioned the obvious?
On another note, using the word “interference” in this
context is very disrespectful to a sovereign member state of ASEAN as Cambodia
has full right to express its own position and ASEAN’s position when such
position was adopted unanimously.
As a former diplomat, he should have better choice of
words. His latest remark is nothing but “strange”.
