Having just returned from a week's vacation in Singapore, Imagethief can report that the city-state's image in much of Southeast Asia is, not to put too fine a point on it, crappy. Singapore has a reputation for arrogance, part of which is justified and part of which is probably due to its relative prosperity and a degree of anti-Chinese racism. Recent woes include: 

• A ban by Indonesia on shipments of sand to Singapore that has been linked variously to Singapore's refusal to sign an extradition treaty, environmental damage and encroachment on Indonesia's maritime territory due to landfill.
• A spat with Thailand over Singapore's politically tone-deaf acquisition of Shin Corp, including satellites that were, apparently, a matter of some national pride.
• The usual pissing match with Malaysia about god knows what. The new bridge. The water. The maritime borders. You name it.

Singapore's government has mastered the dispassionate, technocratic response to these issues. What it has never really mastered is the management and amelioration of its rivals' nationalism. Unfortunately, dismissing these emotional issues as secondary to commerce or just plain unimportant is part of what makes Singapore appear arrogant, especially when layered on top of the wealth and racial issues. This then plays to nationalist sentiments which are so easily stoked by populist politicians, something that Southeast Asia has in abundance. Frankly, Singapore could probably use a congenial round of public diplomacy. It's not like the city state hasn't lent a helping hand to its neighbors, such as in Aceh following the 2005 tsunami.

However, even if Singapore wants to ignore public relations, its rivals appear to be getting wise. What caught my eye was an article in the Jakarta Post, Indonesia's main English language newspaper, that suggested using public relations as a weapon against Singapore. The article focused on the extradition treaty, and pointedly invoked a topic that grates against Singapore's squeaky-clean image of probity, its role as a regional bolt-hole for the corrupt:

The treaty is imperative for Indonesia, both in its war against corruption and in an effort to regain funds stashed off-shore by crooked business tycoons and senior government officials. Many of them live peacefully with their families in luxurious houses and apartments in Singapore, beyond the reach of the Indonesian justice system. Some of these tycoons have defaulted their debts and continue to run other businesses from Singapore, including in Indonesia.

Tempo magazine, in its Oct. 26, 2006, edition, dubbed Singapore a safe haven for "problematic" tycoons, a euphemism for Indonesian businesspeople and officials involved in major debt laundering or corruption cases. These tycoons, according to Tempo, include Sukanto Tanoto, Sjamsul Nursalim, Liem Sioe Liong, Eka Tjipta Widjaja, Bambang Sutrisno, Agus Anwar, Lidia Muchtar and Pauline Maria Lumowa.

It has been estimated that 18,000 of the 55,000 super-rich living in Singapore are from Indonesia. Their wealth amounts to approximately US$87 billion (approximately Rp 850 trillion), or Rp 150 trillion more than Indonesia's annual budget of Rp 650 trillion.

Yes, the article is accusing Singapore of being a haven for Indonesian crooks. Considering the huge emphasis that Singapore is currently placing on becoming a private banking center and general playground for the wealthy, this hits home. But what's really interesting is that the article goes on to suggest that an effective way to pressure Singapore into agreeing to the extradition campaign would be through a large-scale, coordinated information campaign to attack Singapore's carefully cultivated international reputation:

For its part, Indonesia could design a more systematic and organized information campaign because the existing uproar, which is predicted to die down soon, is not enough to force Singapore to listen. This campaign should involve not only the machinery of the government and legislative branches but also the media -- domestic and foreign -- to explain the issue to the world.

More importantly, this campaign should be undertaken over time in a smart and consistent manner, with an emphasis on Singapore's tendency to provide a sanctuary for crooked tycoons. Indonesia's economy is in shambles, partly because of the defaulted debts of these tycoons.

This is an interesting idea. After all, Singapore's reputation has been assiduously cultivated and is extremely valuable. It helps the country to attract high-end foreign businesses and talent, and its a large part of the foundation of Singapore's drive to become an international banking and finance center.

PR as a weapon of international relations isn't an entirely new idea (see Bush, George W, "Axis of Evil"). In ASEAN, a fair amount of diplomacy seems to get exercised through national newspapers. However, sophisticated campaigns targeting a carefully cultivated national brand aren't something I've seen before. (That doesn't mean they haven't happened, just that I haven't seen them.)

How would Singapore respond to such an attack? Well it's hard to imagine that it would allow itself to be seen changing its laws in response to outside pressure, especially from Indonesia. Also, if any campaign was to be globally successful at "explaining this issue to the world", it would have to involve major international media. That might be tricky. Singapore has done an effective job of cowing much of the foreign media through litigation, and it wouldn't sit quietly while its reputation was being trashed by any media organization that wanted to continue distributing in Singapore.

As a Singapore permanent resident I don't really want to see Singapore's reputation trashed. And a newspaper opinion piece is a long way from implemented policy. But it's an interesting idea nonetheless. The downside of a carefully cultivated reputation is that, as we in this business all know, what took years to build can be destroyed in days.