Close on the heels of the Government’s sharp summons to the South Korean Ambassador over social media posts by private companies, the MEA summoned the Singapore High Commissioner, following a speech earlier this week by the Singapore Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, where he had said there has been a decline in political probity in India after Prime Minister Nehru’s tenure. He warned that Singapore must stem any political corruption if it is to not “go down that road”. The speech was an unexpected broadside, despite the high praise for Nehru, the Government felt, and one which merited raising the issue of the “uncalled for” remarks with the Singaporean diplomat. As the South Korean case suggested, South Block appears to be making a pattern of its “zero tolerance” stand towards any criticism of India. To begin with, PM Lee’s comments, where he said that about half of all Indian Lok Sabha MPs face criminal charges, are not baseless. Mr. Lee even added the caveat that many of these cases could be motivated by political rivalry — which indicates some understanding of Indian politics. Second, he spoke of a similar downslide in Israeli politics, and the British “partygate” scandal (as of date, Israel and the U.K. have not raised objections). Finally, the speech was set in a grander context, as he invoked the Confucian guidelines for social behaviour that unite a country: rituals, righteousness, probity and shame. His 5,000 word speech on the subject contained just one Indian example where he had even praised the founding fathers of the independence movement, and then decried a slide in values since then. The comment, while harsh, does not merit a strong-headed response.
It is possible to argue that Mr. Lee’s examples were arbitrary, and contained unusual criticism for a country that has otherwise friendly ties with Singapore. Given that the issue at hand was a breach of privilege matter in the Singaporean Parliament, where an Opposition member had been found guilty of lying in the House, the India mention was certainly not required. It is even possible to argue that Singapore’s very controlled version of democracy cannot be compared to India’s more vibrant democratic traditions. However, the strong reaction New Delhi displayed evinces an insecurity about just these traditions. The fact that it comes on the back of a series of other summons, démarches and statements reacting to other governments for speaking about “India’s internal matters” adds to this impression, especially given that the Modi government frequently comments on the internal issues of its own neighbours. While this event is unlikely to cause more than a ripple across the broader, historically deep bilateral relationship with Singapore, the Government must avoid an international reputation that lends itself to the Shakespearean line — that it “doth protest too much”.
It is possible to argue that Mr. Lee’s examples were arbitrary, and contained unusual criticism for a country that has otherwise friendly ties with Singapore. Given that the issue at hand was a breach of privilege matter in the Singaporean Parliament, where an Opposition member had been found guilty of lying in the House, the India mention was certainly not required. It is even possible to argue that Singapore’s very controlled version of democracy cannot be compared to India’s more vibrant democratic traditions. However, the strong reaction New Delhi displayed evinces an insecurity about just these traditions. The fact that it comes on the back of a series of other summons, démarches and statements reacting to other governments for speaking about “India’s internal matters” adds to this impression, especially given that the Modi government frequently comments on the internal issues of its own neighbours. While this event is unlikely to cause more than a ripple across the broader, historically deep bilateral relationship with Singapore, the Government must avoid an international reputation that lends itself to the Shakespearean line — that it “doth protest too much”.
