For those who are still counting, this is the first second third fourth public spat Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan has been engaged in this year.

In May, two European ambassadors in Singapore were not too pleased with Bilahari's take on freedom of speech and human rights. Three months ago in October, two Malaysian opposition politicians took issue with Bilahari's hard-nosed analysis of Malaysian politics and its future. A month ago, former TODAY editor PN Balji took the initiative and poked Bilahari, calling Bilahari an "undiplomatic diplomat" and insinuated that he is perhaps a hypocrite.

The challenger this time? Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, who was Singapore People's Party (SPP) 2015 candidate for Mountbatten SMC.

Who started the fight first? Not Bilahari. But then again maybe it was Bilahari because he offended her in his speech two months ago.

A bit of context: 

Chong wrote about a conference, "The Legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and the Future of Singapore", which she attended in Cambridge on Oct. 31, 2015.

In her blog post, titled "Bilahari Kausikan – Loose and at Large", she provided her review on the lectures by Oxford historian Thum Ping Tjin and Bilahari.

Chong said that she was "shocked" and "ashamed" that "a high ranking diplomat" would speak against a fellow Singaporean speaker at an overseas conference in front of an international audience.

Her beef was that a "civil servant, much less a senior diplomat" should not be speaking against opposition politicians in his speech at a public forum.

She concluded by calling Bilahari a “sardonic diplomat".

Subsequently, Bilahari responded to her biting comments with some of his own.

Here are the polite and rather cordial exchanges between Bilahari and Chong on her Facebook page:

Bilahari:

Dear Ms Chong:

[Y]ou are certainly entitled to your own opinion and I can live with being called an oxymoron -- although in passing I should mention that a "sardonic diplomat" is hardly a rarity in any country but as you cannot be expected to be familiar with diplomacy, I will forgive you that.

However, I must take exception to your assumption that I attended the Cambridge event at the taxpayer's expense except, of course, in so far as I am a taxpayer too. I was honoured to have been invited by Fitzwilliam College and paid my own way: airfare and accommodation in the UK. So your assumption is untrue. I hope you will correct your blog on this crucial point.

No one or very few people read comments and I trust you will recognise your responsibilities in this regard. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bilahari Kausikan

Chong:

Dear Mr Bilahari, Thanks for your clarification.

I have removed "at taxpayers expense". The relevant para now reads: "But Mr Bilahari was not speaking at the Cambridge conference in his personal capacity. He was invited to speak at the conference on the basis of his credentials as Ambassador-at-Large and Policy Advisor in the Singaporean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Bilahari was speaking at the overseas venue in an official capacity, as a diplomat and civil servant." Jeannette

Bilahari:

I think you miss the point. I paid my own way out of my own pocket because I was there in a personal capacity as a person who had the privilege of having worked with Mr Lee in the field of foreign policy, who had published on Mr Lee's strategic thought, and who thus perhaps had something useful to say on the subject.

Certainly I was not sent by the government. You will have to ask Fitzwilliam College why they invited me and not some other person and not make assumptions just because I hold a title.

In any case, I am entitled to my opinion, including an opinion on Dr Thum, am I not? Now you obviously do not agree with my opinion. That is your privilege. I do not expect everyone to share my opinion. No one stopped Dr Thum from expressing his views. Why should I not express a view on his views as well? You will recall that a member of the audience asked a question that revealed that I was not alone in my scepticism of his views.

Furthermore I am no longer a civil servant, legally speaking. And the fact that I have the honour to be given a title does not deprive me of the right to have an opinion and to express it.

Curious about who Thum and Bilahari are?

You can read Thum's works here and Bilahari's lecture here.

Related articles:

PN Balji vs Bilahari Kausikan: Meow, meow & hiss

S’pore ambassador-at-large Bilahari not having last word as M’sian academic Danny Quah enters the fray

Ambassador Bilahari gave a 53-word response to Malaysian Opposition MPs’ hand wringing over his commentary

Ambassador Bilahari wrote a 2,974 word analysis on why S’poreans should be concerned about Malaysian politics

Ambassador Bilahari successfully trolls high-ranking Europe reps in S’pore

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.