Dear Mr. Kausikan,

Thank you for having taken the time to craft a very thoughtful response to my article.  Again, I would like to say how much I appreciated your candour and the accuracy of your insights.  You did ruffle a number of feathers, but I believe any who took offense did so with the grudging admission that you most definitely had a point.

Yes, our primary responsibility is indeed to Singaporeans.  I feel however, that at times the methods with which we govern may be counter-productive to this responsibility.  Specific to the NE dialogue, I refer to the reputation we accrue as being calculative, opportunistic and even petty with regards to issues like our water agreements with Malaysia and the would-be bridge.  Cultivating good ties with our neighbours is a long-term way of engendering a good reputation for Singapore as a country willing and ready to take on a larger role of responsibility in Asia and beyond.  Perhaps instead of thinking "what's in it for me", as you mentioned with regards to the issue of the bridge, we should think "what's in it for them, is also what's in it for me".  I believe that Chiam See Tong had a valid point when he raised the issue of detoriating Singapore-Malaysia ties recently.

It is for this reason that I brought up the issue of Thailand-Singapore relations during the Question and Answer session.  I am still unconvinced that it is a purely commercial matter on which the MFA should not be consulted upon.  If the Thai Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Kraisak Choonhavan can write a letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong asking him to conduct an inquiry into the matter, then it has clearly transcended the boundaries of corporate investment, and been turned into a question of national interests, proportions and implications.

Beyond the issues raised during the NE dialogue, I would also like to point out that our stern domestic policies have also created a negative reputation overseas.  I refer here to outgoing U.S ambassador Franklin L. Lavin when he expressed disappointment over Singapore's curbs on political expression and said, in that context, "In my view governments will pay an increasing price for not allowing the full participation of their citizens."  Mr. Lavin also mentioned that he felt "embarrassed" when Singaporean police asked him if he wanted to press charges against demonstrators who gathered outside the US embassy to protest the Iraq invasion.

Your words of encouragement on my blog have been very inspiring.  Yet at the same time conflicting signals are coming from the government when it bans election advertising in the blogosphere, for example.  Might not a loosening of such regulations achieve the dual effect of increasing the attachment Singaporeans like myself feel with our country, and also showing Singapore to be an open and consultative society Western democracies may deal with freely, without fear that we are overly-ruled by authoritarianism?

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for allowing me the rare chance of expressing my views directly to a government official.  I hope and trust that an increasing number of Singaporeans, young and old alike, will find that it is easier and more rewarding to do so than they might expect.

With warm regards and best wishes,
Gayle Goh