Emotional baggage to stick in KL-S'pore ties

By David Chew

SINGAPORE (JP): The diplomatic row between Malaysia and Singapore has tapered off and looks set to end on a quiet note, a stark contrast to its dramatic beginning last month when Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew made some disparaging remarks about security in the Malaysian state of Johor.

With Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad debunking a local media report that his government would freeze new dealings with Singapore, and Singapore Premier Goh Chok Tong's willingness to let future bilateral ties go at a pace which Malaysia would feel comfortable, both sides acknowledge that they have more to gain by cooperating than quarreling, in view of many common bonds.

Fence-mending is in the cards, but it will have to take into account the emotional baggage which the leaders in both countries still carry after 32 years of separation. All the more after Malaysia has made it clear that although it accepted Lee's apology, the offending remarks had been most hurtful, and restoring ties to their previous cordial levels would take some time.

The diplomatic row erupted after a fugitive Singapore opposition politician appeared in Johor, speaking against several defamation suits brought against him by Lee and other leaders of Singapore's ruling People's Action Party (PAP).

In the course of his speech, Tang Liang Hong referred to Lee's affidavit, which questions why he fears for his safety in Singapore and has to seek refuge in Johor, a place "notorious for shootings, muggings and car-jackings".

Many Malaysians were understandably chagrined by the remarks which were meant for a private hearing in order to re-affirm Lee's suit against Tang. They severely criticized Lee for being insensitive to the feelings of a state which serves much of Singapore's basic needs, like food and water. The Senior Minister subsequently apologized unreservedly and sought to have the offending remarks deleted.

But Lee's conciliatory gesture was spurned by the more vociferous of his critics, especially the youth wing of Mahathir's United Malays National Organization (UMNO), which staged noisy demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur and Johor Baru to condemn Lee and Singapore.

The movement's president, Zahid Hamidi, called Lee, who was Singapore Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990, a "swine" and "senile". He demanded that Malaysia review several bilateral pacts with Singapore, including cutting off Singapore's water supply from Johor and shooting down Singapore's planes for allegedly intruding into Malaysian airspace.

Singaporeans, who had initially felt that Lee was "offside", now regard UMNO Youth's actions as unreasonable, if not downright intimidating, and they wanted to exploit the controversy for their own political goals.

Outpourings of support for Lee, whom Singaporeans regard as a man of courage in apologizing not once, but twice, came thick and fast in letters to the Straits Times. The popular English- language daily also published, in full, Lee's recent interview with a Hong Kong magazine to underline his credentials, not only as the much-revered architect of Singapore's stability and affluence, but also as a leading Asian statesman whose views on world leaders are much sought after.

Such reports predictably irritate UMNO Youth who feel that the Singapore media is repairing the image of its elder statesman which had taken a battering. To underline this perception, they began to mock Singaporeans about "Dr Mahathir overtaking Lee as Asia's leading statesman".

In response, many Singaporeans began to praise the virtues of national service, calling on the PAP leadership to stand firm against Malaysian threats and for Singapore to reduce its dependence on Malaysia by forging closer ties with its other neighbors, such as Indonesia and Thailand. While the diplomatic row was in full swing, the Straits Times carried front-page reports of Goh and Indonesian President Soeharto officiating at a launching of a shipping complex at the Indonesian island of Karimun, and Goh hosting a reception in Singapore for visiting Thai Premier Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh.

With the dust settling after Mahathir and Goh called the final shots, a look at the controversy suggests that the emotional baggage carried by both countries since Singapore's independence on Aug. 9, 1965, may have been the main cause in disrupting bilateral ties.

Such ties are dictated by common bonds like geography, economics, history and culture, leading to an interdependence that is reflected in more than half of Malaysia's exports and imports going through Singapore and the bulk of the Singapore's regional investment drives in Malaysia. Many people in one country also have relatives and close friends in the other.

Prior to its establishment as a trading post by Stamford Raffles in 1819, Singapore, an almost uninhabited island, was part of the state of Johor. British rule and liberal commercial policy not only transformed Singapore into Southeast Asia's leading commercial, shipping and technological hub, but more significantly, an overseas Chinese bastion. Droves of impoverished immigrants from China flocked to Singapore during the first half of the 20th century. Their descendants today form the overwhelming majority of the island's three million people.

With the dismantling of the British empire in Southeast Asia, Singapore's political union with Malaysia in 1963 seemed a logical development, justified by several factors. Geographically and economically, the island and the Malay peninsula complemented each other as port and hinterland. Culturally both multiracial territories were also similar, although the racial mix varied with Malaysia having a 55 percent Malay-majority population against a 76 percent Chinese-majority in Singapore.

But it was this difference in racial mix which made the British vary their colonial policy in both territories. In view of Singapore's overwhelming Chinese population, it was not practical to give the 14 percent Malay minority in Singapore the same preferential treatment as their counterparts in Malaysia. Thus every Singaporean had equal political rights when the island joined the Malaysian Federation on Sept. 16, 1963.

This made it difficult for Singapore to adjust to a larger federation where the Malays had more political rights than others. Lee wanted a "Malaysian Malaysia" with equal rights for all races, but UMNO was adamant on political hegemony for the indigenous Malays.

Fearing that the growing political quarrel between the Federal and Singapore governments would lead to a nationwide Malay- Chinese racial war which would destroy Malaysia, the then Malaysian prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, forced Singapore to leave the federation in August 1965.

Since then, both countries have taken separate nation-building paths, the success of which, over the past three decades, has been underlined in the their continuing political stability and economic prosperity. Malaysia and Singapore have accepted that their shared bonds in geography, history, economics and culture, enable both countries to gain more from cooperation than competition, even more so with the tremendous potential of investment opportunities offered by the Asia-Pacific basin in the 21st century.

Theirs may be likened to a case of divorced couple living in separate houses in the same neighborhood who find that they have more to gain by mutual cooperation, since they know each other so well, having once lived under the same roof. But familiarity also breeds contempt, constantly reminding both of their irreconcilable differences which had led to the marriage breakup in the first place.

Consciously or unconsciously, Malaysia perceives Singapore as a vibrant Chinese-dominated city-state whose meritocracy policy has effectively marginalized the economically weaker Malay minority whom Malaysia regards as Singapore's indigenous people.

This hits at the very core of Malaysia's bumiputra policies which give preferential treatment to the indigenous Malays. Its success in Malaysia continues to remind many UMNO members of the "plight" of their Singapore brothers who had "lost" their political power to the Chinese when Singapore became independent in 1965.

On its part, Singapore views Malaysia's affirmative action as diametrically opposed to its meritocracy policy where all races are given equal treatment. Singapore would not have attained its present level of progress if it had succumbed to Malaysia's bumiputra policies, where many capable non-Malays would have been sidelined, letting their talents go to waste.

Each time the pressures of claustrophobia make them feel like a small, overcrowded island, some Singaporeans cannot help but regret that an opportunity to develop into a much wider physical setting was lost forever when the island was booted out of Malaysia 32 years ago.

It is virtually impossible for both sides to discard the emotional baggage of the past despite the emergence of their post-separation younger leaders who would take over the mantles of leadership in future. Their diametrically-opposing core principles of "bumiputraism" (Malaysia) and non-racial meritocracy (Singapore) have been too deeply ingrained in the psyche of the present leaders of both countries.

The fact that such principles have been responsible for the success of both Malaysia and Singapore for the past 32 years will mean that they will still be carried on by their successors long after the present leaders in both countries, who first initiated them, leave the political scene.

Having accepted this cardinal principle in Malaysia/Singapore relations, the best way to sustain their cordiality is to ensure mutual respect for each other, and not overreact each time an unfortunate "hiccup" (and there will be many of these in view of the numerous dealings between both countries) occurs. There appears to be no other alternative.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Singapore.