Basket.

Singapore and Burma

Well, unless you've been living under a slimy rock the past month, you would probably know about the large-scale protests in Myanmar and the resultant brutal crackdown in which ten supposedly died. The world's attention has been focused like never before on this country and this region, mainly because there is fairly little else new occurring. Of course, sooner or later someone was going to do an "expose" of Singapore's close links with the junta - which, by the way, isn't a secret and hasn't been one... ever, I think.

Don't get me wrong: the article is almost certainly very accurate in the information it portrays. Singapore invests heavily in Myanmar, sells the junta weapons and definitely has a vested interest in keeping the brutal military dictators afloat. But the question I must pose is: what, exactly, is wrong with that?

Bleeding hearts will give me all the standard answers about propping up savage dictatorships, human rights violations, political legitimacy etc etc etc. Any informed reader will know all these arguments, so I will not rehash them. But think about it: what is so wrong about Singapore behaving in its own national self-interest? Do you mean to tell me that no present day state has ever done that? Do you mean to tell me that countries should throw away very real opportunities for very real gains to serve dated ideals of dubious workability?

Get real. Every country in this world looks out for itself. The article blames Singapore for undermining the effectiveness of Western sanctions on Burma.Well, let's look at the West's record in this regard, then. The USA backed bloody coups all over the Third World during the Cold War, including the overthrow of Chile's democratically-elected left-wing government in 1973 and Mossadeq's removal in 1955. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is only the most recent example. Britain spent most of the latter half of the 20th century ensuring its former colonies ultimately served its interests. France was not adverse to selling weapons to Saddam (neither, by the way, was the USA) in the 1980s. Germany has only done relatively little because of a timid foreign policy, a holdover from World War Two. Australia itself once aided in propping up South Vietnam - talk about supporting corrupt dictators, eh? Whose hands are soiled now? Singapore's, yes - but the West's too.

I would go into more detail, but that would require a lot more research. Remember though, it was an American who uttered the famous line: "He's a bastard, but he's our bastard." Get off your high horses. What the Singapore government is doing is reprehensible, but it isn't anything out of the ordinary. It isn't a big deal. The West refuses to trade with Myanmar, so Singapore sees the opportunity and fills the void. So what if we're doing business with dictators? It's the politics of self-interest, and politics is dirty - and if you, as a journalist, can't understand that, then you don't deserve to hold on to your job.

Also it is really cute the way the author begins - they still can't wrap their heads around the idea that if you break the laws of a country on its own soil, you pay the penalties set by that country. Come on, extraterritoriality ended decades ago.

It seems like the Straits Times isn't the only newspaper in the region that can pump out shitty articles.