With each new update on the status of our impounded military vehicles -- such as Beijing making representation with Singapore -- a narrative, whether rightly or wrongly, has emerged that this incident is China's response to our vocal stance on the South China Sea (SCS) dispute, and netizens are questioning if Singapore should have been vocal in the first place.

There is even a petition asking Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to apologise to China AND Trump, because reasons.

Paperwork schmaperwork?

It could all be an administrative screw-up by the commercial shipper APL which carried the nine Terrex vehicles. After all, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) said in a media release that the Hong Kong customs had queries about whether the permits and declarations of the vehicles were in order and detained the vehicles for further investigation. APL were responsible for getting the permits and making the proper declaration.

But what if the paperwork was proper? Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) asked whether it was acceptable to ship our military equipment from Taiwan to Singapore via Hong Kong.

Melvyn Ong, Singapore's Army Chief, told the media in a briefing today (29 Nov) that "Hong Kong is a common international port of call for many foreign militaries and many companies", adding that "there had been no issues in the past, so this is a first."

A retired captain, who used to work for APL, also told The Straits Times today (Nov 29) that it was not the first time a Singapore-bound APL vessel carrying military equipment had transited in Hong Kong. In fact, he described the seizure as "a draconian move".

Chinese arm-twisting?

So is the narrative that this whole thing is about China's displeasure at Singapore's refusal to take sides over the SCS issue true?

Average Singaporeans like us will never know unless the Chinese spells it out plainly. And it hasn't.

It only reiterated its One-China stance and its Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said, "The Chinese government has always firmly opposed countries that have diplomatic ties with China to have any form of official exchanges with Taiwan, including military exchanges and cooperation."

Nothing about SCS.

Are the Chinese very angry?

According to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Chinese has "lodged representations with the Singaporean side", asking them to act in strict accordance with relevant laws of the Hong Kong SAR and cooperate with the SAR government to properly deal with follow-up matters.

In fact, one wonders whether the international media is playing up the conflict by highlighting that it was a "protest" by the Chinese government.

Is this all evidence of China trying to arm-twist Singapore into submission?

David Boey, a former Defence Correspondent at The Straits Times, wrote an illuminating commentary on this incident, noting the realpolitik behind China's response.

"The sound bites (Geng Shuang's comments) reflect the realpolitik that comes about now that the open secret (Singapore's military exercises in Taiwan) that officials assiduously avoided mentioning has become a talking point. For Beijing not to make motherhood sound bites would signal a pivot from its long-standing position on what it regards as a renegade province – and that is something Beijing will not do. The question now is how the impasse will be concluded."

Where did netizens' SCS narrative come from?

Perhaps the SCS dispute is the freshest thing on their minds since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made special mention of it during his National Day Rally speech in August this year.

Also, Chinese state media Global Times ran a few articles critical of Singapore and PM Lee over the SCS dispute which grabbed Singaporeans' attention in September and October.

In the last four days, several alternative media websites also carried news tying this Terrex incident with the SCS dispute.

All-in-all, this one-two combo set the agenda and funneled netizens towards the narrative that China was acting against us due to the SCS dispute.

Singapore arm-twisting?

One learning point for Singaporeans from this incident is that aside from perhaps the outright use of force, no external party can intimidate Singapore into doing anything.

It is explained elegantly by Ambassador-at-large Bilahari Kausikan:

"Open displeasure is meant to intimidate Singaporeans because they have realised that with or without LKY the government cannot be intimidated. They are trying to intimidate Singaporeans in order to get Singaporeans to pressure the government."

There are two main groups of Singaporeans here who will pressure the government to soften its stance on the SCS issue - netizens buying into the SCS/Terrex narrative and Singaporeans doing business with the Chinese.

In fact, PM Lee is aware of the concerns by Singaporean businessmen:

"I know some Singaporeans are concerned about these criticisms (foreign media articles criticizing Singapore about its stance towards China) because they have foreign friends. PRC friends, business partners, academic colleagues, personal contacts. They may tell you any tension between Singapore and China will affect your business, affect your collaboration. I understand these concerns. We would like business and collaboration to continue, too, to flourish between Singapore and China and Singapore and other countries because these are arrangements which benefit both sides. If they are disrupted, both sides lose. But the Government has to take a national point of view, decide what is in Singapore’s overall interests. We want good relations with other countries if it is at all possible, but we must also be prepared for ups and downs from time to time". National Day Rally 2016

Are we arm-twisting ourselves to please the Chinese at the slightest hint of their displeasure?

Why are our politicians not saying anything?

It has taken a while for our politicians to respond -- five long days since the news first broke last Thursday.

But they eventually did.

At The Straits Times Global Outlook Forum, Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan told the audience that Singapore will not allow any single issue to hijack its longstanding, wide-ranging relationship with China.

He emphasized that it was "not a strategic incident" and will be "a footnote on how to do things strictly, carefully and by the law. It's not a strategic incident".

Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen also told the media today that speculation on the issue was unwarranted until the reasons and legal basis for Hong Kong's detainment of the vehicles were made clear.

He added that the Singapore government "aim to comply with all regulations and then exercise our full rights in recovering our assets".

More importantly, Ng reiterated that Singapore fully respects, supports and adheres to the One China policy and will continue to do so.

In other words, nothing has changed.

And there you have it, Singapore's policy towards China remains the same. No one was forced to change anything.

So let's wait for a few more days before we speculate again.

At the end of the day, the pressure for our Ministers to respond immediately to tricky diplomatic issues will only pressure the Ministers from China to do the same.

The Chinese may be compelled to get a Chinese equivalent counterpart to reiterate their position, which is fine.

Or to update their position, which is not fine.

Just like how your partner will get irritated with you if you were to ask him/her daily whether he/she still loves you.

Top image adapted from A Good Citizen

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