Lee getting a lesson in history and seen as insensitive to genocide by Khmer Rouge
Click HERE
A good example for the qn below is ASEAN's policy of non-interference, out of respect for member country's sovereignty (i.e. the country concerned should have the power of decision-making in determining the outcomes concerning issues affecting own country, esp domestic issues). Another reason for the non-interference could be that member countries may not be well-acquainted with the workings and cultural settings of the country involved to justify any intervention. Realise that compared to the EU, the ASEAN bloc is relatively more diverse.
But as seen in the article, the example of Vietnam's 'invasion' of Cambodia and Myanmar govt's treatment of the Rohingyas show that things may not be so simple sometimes, and that the policy of non-interference may be objected on moral grounds; consider the oft-cited quote: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. After all, Hitler rose to power as a result of the policy of appeasement adopted by the Allies in the lead-up to WWII.
The Asean region has specific rules of engagement and a policy of non-interference in the affairs of member states but this is eroding in the face of the disruptive era with the power of social media
the invasion of a smaller country by a larger neighbour, the deposition of a legitimate government by external force and the imposition of a proxy by a foreign power became a direct challenge to the fundamentals of Singapore’s foreign policy and opposing the invasion was a question of principle. Singapore had no sympathies for the Khmer Rouge regime..
There was heated debates between Malaysian and Myanmar on the breaking of the ruling of non-intervention and the issue has split the two nations on rights issues.
Qn: ‘Countries experiencing conflict should be left to sort out their own problems.’ How far do you agree? (Cam. 2016)
A good example for the qn below is ASEAN's policy of non-interference, out of respect for member country's sovereignty (i.e. the country concerned should have the power of decision-making in determining the outcomes concerning issues affecting own country, esp domestic issues). Another reason for the non-interference could be that member countries may not be well-acquainted with the workings and cultural settings of the country involved to justify any intervention. Realise that compared to the EU, the ASEAN bloc is relatively more diverse.
But as seen in the article, the example of Vietnam's 'invasion' of Cambodia and Myanmar govt's treatment of the Rohingyas show that things may not be so simple sometimes, and that the policy of non-interference may be objected on moral grounds; consider the oft-cited quote: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. After all, Hitler rose to power as a result of the policy of appeasement adopted by the Allies in the lead-up to WWII.
The Asean region has specific rules of engagement and a policy of non-interference in the affairs of member states but this is eroding in the face of the disruptive era with the power of social media
the invasion of a smaller country by a larger neighbour, the deposition of a legitimate government by external force and the imposition of a proxy by a foreign power became a direct challenge to the fundamentals of Singapore’s foreign policy and opposing the invasion was a question of principle. Singapore had no sympathies for the Khmer Rouge regime..
There was heated debates between Malaysian and Myanmar on the breaking of the ruling of non-intervention and the issue has split the two nations on rights issues.
Qn: ‘Countries experiencing conflict should be left to sort out their own problems.’ How far do you agree? (Cam. 2016)
posted by Dark Shadow | 4:45 PM
<< Home