Recently, Malaysian PM , Najib Razak visited Singapore on the sole purpose to build and strengthen the bilateral relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. He had several items on his agenda, Iskandar, the Causeway issue and POA, the points of agreements between the two countries over several issues.
After reading articles about his visit to Singapore from different sources, it dawned upon me the role of communications in serving bilateral ties between countries, and in this case, between Singapore and Malaysia which have had ties which have gone back all the way before Singapore's independence.
Structural and organizing principles used in communications play a role in cooperation and rapport between two countries, just like it does between individuals, groups, societies etc. Referring to PM Najib's visit to Singapore, such principles were played out, at least visibly. When it comes to structure and organization, such as that of thoughts, attitudes and behaviours in communications, the Malaysian Prime Minister came to Singapore with several motives, ideas and opinions that he knew he was going to communicate out while he was here on visit. He came with an agenda, a purpose to build relationship. Also, evidently, he had to be aware of his role as the prime minister of Malaysia and also how the role or position he was in as an individual, and the role that he was given to, to represent Malaysia. In addition,being an ASEAN nation, or rather being part of the ASEAN also played an important role for both Najib and PM Lee Hsien Loong in carrying out these talks and seeking cooperatives through commonly set agenda. Hence, all these tie up to reflect organizing or rather structural principles used in communications, in these case between two countries who are on the move to clear things up, misconceptions and such through such bilateral talks and visits.
My point is that communications is sometimes structured, things have to be done in certain ways, either because we are in the position to do so or because it is acceptable and permissible for things to be communicated in certain ways
Looking beyond Singapore and Malaysia's bilateral ties, we can also see such structure in communications, where if things are not done in certain ways, it breaks down, or there is possibly no meaning in it anymore. All the way back in history, when treaties were made, cooperatives were carried out, international organizations were birth forth, communications and structural principles played a massive role and we can pretty much say that it is like a backbone for communications, like i mentioned, between individuals, groups or on a national level. Without acknowledging structure such as knowing what roles we play in the communication process and what our goals are, our purpose for communication becomes.
The controversy might lie in the issue in the way some countries deal with their bilateral or international ties. I would not say that there might be any countries who have 'failed' in communicating peace across their borders, but we constantly see countries trying really hard to bring cooperation and agreement with other nations, especially those whom they have certain degrees of conflict and tension with. If we look at it in terms of structure and communications, do you think that perhaps they might have failed in carrying out the communicative process wrongly. For example, something or somewhere along the process, things were out of structure or not communicated the way it was supposed to be? For example, the recent EU-Russia talks which were centered around Russia's involvement in the European Union especially in terms of its economy. Russia was not happy that the EU was offering ties with former soviet republic countries, and the recent summit that they had been described as a 'failure' to bring any breakthrough between the EU and Russia.
Structure is therefore imperative and especially when it comes to ties amongst nations, where the most difficult communication processes lie.
Articles:
1. "PM Lee says Malaysian PM's visit has further enhanced bilateral ties", 22 May 2009. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/cgi-bin/search/search_7days.pl?status=&search=najib&id=431146
2. "S'pore, Malaysia will explore ways to enhance connectivity at Causeway", 22 May 2009
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/cgi-bin/search/search_7days.pl?status=&search=najib&id=431021
Where peace and international relations are concerned, I am certain that every politician's first priority would be for the benefit of his own country.
ReplyDeleteIt is not so easy to communicate peace, especially if the option for peace might come at a cost to the politician's own country. Every one of those bilateral talks is not so much as to improve bilateral ties as it is to gain more from the other country. Negotiations would be done in such a way that each country would want to benefit. So long as one country perceives a lack of benefit, there would not be successful negotiations.
Ok you got a good point about structure in communications. However sometimes the most thought out communication process can also fail due to external parties that are not included in the plan. ie hamas/Israel. each has its own agenda and no matter how much communication is used to creat peace the only way for that conflict to end is the annihilation of either party(?)
ReplyDeletei agree with xamuel and justin. if communicating with other countries was so impeccably perfect and flawless with a proper structure, foreign affairs would be really easy. if there is nothing more obvious today, is how countries are unable to resolve issues because of communication PROBLEMS such as being self centred and not taking into account the other party's perspective. not just a lack of structure.
ReplyDeleteI guess this further emphasize on how important it is to grasp good communications especially when it comes to foreign ties. In a way, communication can be structured, but like what justin said, there might be external factors. So the point is that one should learn to be diplomatic and have good communications thus being flexible when it comes to communication on all levels.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you when you say that communications is sometimes structured, things have to be done in certain ways, either because we are in the position to do so or because it is acceptable and permissible for things to be communicated in certain ways.Especially if there are discussions going on between 2 countries or so;hence, an agreement could be met.But of course,not all the time,can all these 'perfect' communication be flawless and not cause any sort of 'damage' to the topics being discussed by any 2 countries or so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rev, there is no such thing as 'perfect' communication. Some countries really need sprucing up in the way they deal with issues especially bilateral ones like Singapore and Malaysia. We have been fighting a lot over issues like water and the causeway. But we have come far in dealing with such things with structured talks like these, they do help at times.
ReplyDeleteBilateral ties...are never easy to initiate and MAINTAIN. It takes alot for both countries to cooperate. In my opinion, sometimes i feel such talks are useless. It is always about talk, never 'do'. Perhaps in this case for Singapore-Malaysia, these two countries have always in a way managed to talk things through no matter hard or rough things got and i applaud them for it.
ReplyDeleteIts possible for countries to really talk things out. At least i see Obama doing that, particularly with the 'Muslim World' as he calls it. While the 'Muslims' refuse to hear Obama's rhetoric, Obama is willing to diplomatically come right out and talk about the issue and talk about how both sides of the world can settle issues. It is all up to different leaders and different countries to reach out to such ties in different ways. Communication can be done in so many different ways but the same method cannot be applied across the board. Malaysia and Singapore has it good at times because of our long history together and also a long history of talking things out together and making resolutions in a structured manner e.g. the territorial dispute over Pedra Branca.
ReplyDelete