Emotional baggage to stick in KL-S'pore ties

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.