Ex-foreign minister of Singapore and leading thinker on contemporary strategic affairs George Yeo made waves recently when he said Bangladesh should focus less on the Rohingya issue in order to get closer to ASEAN, the Association of South East Asian Nations, of which Myanmar is a member. 

Speaking as part of the Cosmos Foundation’s Distinguished Speaker Series, Yeo had said: "You need to incorporate the view of ASEAN, while not dismissing the importance of the Rohingya issue but also not allowing it to become such a dominating issue.”

When I met him for a one-on-one interview a few days later, I started with this issue, in case there was anything he would like to clarify.  

“My point is it is good for ASEAN and Bangladesh to come closer together. It will open up more options and opportunities for Bangladesh. And it is not good if everytime Bangladesh meets ASEAN, the sole dominating issue is the Rohingya problem,” he said, before adding: “I’m not saying that it is not important. I understand that it is important, and deeply distressing for Bangladesh, but everytime Bangladesh meets ASEAN, the meeting should not become confined to that.”

Apart from that, he doesn’t believe there are too many obstacles standing in the way of Bangladesh and ASEAN getting closer.  

“I understand there is a free trade agreement being negotiated between Bangladesh and Singapore. I hope that can be concluded quickly, it’ll be good for both sides. And I think Bangladesh should try to have a free trade agreement with all of ASEAN, because it will be mutually beneficial,” he said. 

On ASEAN’s own plans of expansion, Yeo said: “ASEAN doesn’t want to draw lines that are permanent. We do not want to get embroiled in the politics of East Asia, neither do we want to get embroiled in the politics of South Asia, where you have all kinds of problems that have no easy solutions. We want to concentrate on the things we share in common, like economic development. More economics than politics.”

But is there a move towards a more political orientation in recent times?

Yeo said ASEAN has always had a political objective.

“It was established during the Cold War, in order to keep what was South East Asia at the time neutral and peaceful. It means we don’t interfere in each other’s politics. When Thailand has a coup, we take an understanding approach. When Indonesia went through a very tumultuous transition in 1998, ASEAN again took a very understanding attitude. Vietnam and Laos are Marxist-Communists. Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei are majority Muslim, Philippines is Catholic, some are democracies, Brunei is an absolute monarchy - so we learned to accept diversity. We try not to interfere. But if someone pushes us, we will say, don’t do that.”

The conversation then moved to cover more personal aspects of his career. Yeo’s career in service of Singapore had spanned the army, the air force, and then politics. How would he sum up his experience?

“I went to the army because I took an army scholarship, Singapore has national service. I was in Army Signals. I became a Signals officer after attending three months of military training with the US Army. It was fun. Then after Staff College, I was asked to go to the Airforce. Which was very difficult. I like to laugh and say it traumatised me, and it traumatised the airforce. 

“Politics was very different. You sit there with people, of different shapes and sizes. You can’t force people, you’ve got to persuade people, in order to manage conflicts and tensions. So I had 23 years in different ministries, which looking back, was interesting, often enjoyable, always stressful. But it was a different phase of my life, and I’m glad to have done it.”

Yeo headed at least 5 different ministries during his time in politics, and even though he became most well-known for his stint as the foreign minister from 2004-11, he regards his time as minister of information and the arts as the most challenging. 

After leaving government service, Yeo was well known to have succeeded Amartya Sen as the second chancellor of Nalanda University, the project to revive the ancient seat of Buddhist learning that was once reputedly the largest university in the world. It was a project he was involved in since 2007, but was forced to quit in December 2016, as it got embroiled in the complexities of Indian politics. 

In a statement at the time, he said that when he joined the institute, he was “repeatedly assured that the University would have autonomy. This appears not to be the case now”. He was appointed to the post in July 2015.

He talks about the project with fondness, clearly taken in by its historic dimensions. 

“Nalanda goes back to when I was trade minister, because one day there was a visit by Lal Advani, deputy prime minister of India. And he wanted to know how India could grow quickly. So I suggested promoting Buddhist tourism, and later he got their minister of tourism to visit me in Singapore, and I got to learn about the different sites - I was invited to the ceremony when The Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya became a UNESCO World Heritage Site. 

“I thought Nalanda was such a powerful symbol, because it was once the biggest university in the world. It attracted monks from China, from Japan, Korea, south-east Asia, and wouldn’t it be wonderful to revive it as a secular university? So I suggested this to Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, he asked me to write a paper, and he showed it to Manmohan Singh (India’s government had changed from BJP back to Congress), the Indian cabinet felt it was a good idea and asked Amartya Sen to chair a mentors group. 

“Through the experience I got to learn about the history of Atisa (Atish Dipankar), whose birthplace in Bikrampur I visited four days ago. For me, my years in Nalanda were an education. Enriched me, I learned so many things, made so many friends. Amartya Sen is such a brilliant man. So I succeeded him as the second chancellor. By that time the BJP had taken over, and he had opposed Modi, so it was thought  he should not stand for a second term. So I became the chancellor. 

“Then I saw the university become embroiled in matters of Indian politics. And I’m not Indian, so I thought it was best for me to resign. I have friends in both the Congress and the BJP. Even when I negotiated CECA with the BJP, I kept Sonia Gandhi briefed through Montek Singh. So I’ve always been close to both sides, and didn’t want to be involved in that, so I resigned.”

Is there a sense of disappointment in him, at how the project has turned out?

“Of course. Otherwise I wouldn’t have resigned,” he says resolutely.

We then moved on to the defining conflict of the 21st century: the US-China rivalry, and how it was forcing nations to  take sides on so many issues. How is Singapore resisting that?

“Singapore is three-quarters Chinese, ethnically. But it has very close links to the US. FOr example when I was in the Air Force, most of the equipment we bought was from the US. And militarily, economically, we have very close ties. We have very deep links to the US. And among the ministers, many will have been educated in the US. I spent two years at Harvard Business School. And three months with the US Army, as a signals officer. But with the Chinese we have these ethnic links.

“So Singapore doesn’t want to choose. So we tell them, we can’t choose. It has to be case by case. And related to Singapore’s interests. We cannot affect how they relate to one another. Maybe we have a few drops of influence - but only a few drops.”

But isn’t Singapore known to punch above its weight?

“I don’t like that phrase - because it’s a bit unwise to punch above your weight. You should punch below your weight. Then you have a better chance of succeeding. So Singapore tries to punch below its weight I’d say. What does this mean? For example, the mainland Chinese and Taiwanese want to meet at a high level, they meet in Singapore. Why? Because they know Singapore is friendly. Singapore does not take sides. Singapore does not tell them what to do. We just let them meet, ove tea, or coffee, and we say good luck!

“So you’ll notice President Trump and Kim Jong Il, when they met, they met in Singapore. And they almost didn’t inform Singapore! They just assumed Singapore would agree. And of course it was an honour for Singapore. So this is Singapore’s role - to be a friend. To be helpful. Of course we work in our self-interest. But long term, we are not trying to just make money overnight. We want to cultivate long term relationships.”

We then moved on to the relationship between Bangladesh and Singapore. 

“With Bangladesh it’s a very deep relationship. The links between Singapore and Bangladesh go back a long time. The British East India Company established Singapore from Kolkata. Then when you had the Bengal Presidency, Singapore was part of that. So in very interesting ways, Bengal was always connected to SIngapore. We view Bangladesh in terms of these profound links of history and we hope Bangladesh sees it in those same terms.”

As mentioned earlier, he had managed to visit Atish Dipankar’s birthplace in Bikrampur, present day Munshiganj. But he feels Bangladesh has a long way to go in promoting the Buddhist Tourism Trail in the country, even though it has a lot of potential. 

“You know, I knew nothing about these other sites (Mahasthangarh, Paharpur). I found out about Bikrampur, and said I want to go. And when I was there, I was told there are these even bigger sites nearby. I did not know about them. They are not promoted. In Bikrampur the facilities are poor. It’s also difficult to get to. So how can you have a tourism site?

“It would also be important to promote Bangladesh as not simply an Islamic country. Of course it is a Muslim country, and the majority is Muslim. But there are also Hindus, and Buddhists, and Christians. And your national anthem was written by Tagore. All these things have to be part of the presentation of Bangladesh.”