MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

One-sided bilateral agreement

Bilateral ties between Malaysia and Singapore are grouted in a joint history shaped by colonialism, and defined by culture, religion, race, xenophobia and politics. In the four decades they have lived apart, the relationship is frustrated by race and xenophobia, though neither would admit it.

In each a significant minority continue to insist their divorce in 1965 was fatal to both, and future ties must take this into account. Little has changed in the four decades since, and the bilateral ties are predicated to the same set of issues that caused the separation.

Each has gone its way in the world, each is successful in its own way, and sees the world most of the time through the same prism. But what holds them back is the slew of unresolved issues, most of which can be resolved if each or both put their minds to it.

But it is typical of the relations that when one is ready the other is not; and it is all but impossible to arrange a meeting to discuss a final break of the divorce.

So the two nations divided by the Tebrau Straits have made their own arrangements amidst taunting each other, but they are so firmly interlinked that they cannot but act in conformity when one’s interests are stake vis-a-vis the other. But such deep-seated distrust of each other prevails in Malaysia and Singapore that even a discussion of the issues today are not possible unless one side bites the dust.

Especially when the powers-that-be in both countries have grown up in their own environment and have only contempt for the other. When the new prime minister of Singapore visited Malaysia after he took off, he would not meet the press and left the resolution of outstanding issues to his special delegate and predecessor, Goh Chok Tong.

Malaysia should have chosen its former prime minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamed, or current deputy premier Najib Razak as its negotiator. Instead, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has filled in. He should not have.

He should have realised that both Malaysia and Singapore should be comfortable with the agreements reached. As it looks, Pak Lah and his cabinet might, but few else. Bilateral ties could end up worse than they are.

Diplomatic trap

Relations between nations are defined by protocol and diplomatic conventions. When Lee Kuan Yew retired as Singapore's prime minister in 1989, he wanted to visit the Asean leaders. He was told in no uncertain terms that his hosts in Jakarta would be the vice-president and in Kuala Lumpur, the deputy prime minister. He decided not to visit the two capitals.

Pak Lah should have taken the same position, and he should not have been involved in the discussions except peripherally as head of government. He cannot for he is caught in a political vise in Malaysia which makes any decisions made with Singapore a potential internal conflict. He sits on an uneasy throne and he must strengthen his position by appealing to the gallery.

So he agrees to allow Singapore control of Malaysia's air space in return for the nearly S$1 billion in savings in Singapore's central provident fund by Malaysians working there. It is by any stretch an uneven trade and proof yet that the Malaysians have not through what they expect from Singapore. All it can now expect is total submission to Singapore.

Malaysia has gone into the talks with no aim than to buttress Pak Lah's standing in Malaysia. It is not reason enough to have to kow-tow to Singapore or any foreign country. Wisma Putra should have alerted him to this, but could not - not with a foreign minister who shoots off his hip and his view of Malaysia's strategic interests is what Pak Lah thinks it is.

What is frightening of the current talks is that Malaysia is led by Singapore into the talks, and takes what they want. Pak Lah has this urgent need to prove he is better than his predecessor. This is understandable and desirable. But it should not be at Malaysia's strategic interests.

A one-sided agreement, as this would not turn out to be, would not bring a harmonious relationship, but cause more harm than good when reality strikes at what is got and given away.

In one sense, Singapore has shrewdly talked Malaysia into its diplomatic and political trap. It is not about to let go. Its newspaper reports ignore the dangers, only gloating at being one-up on Malaysia.

Hardening attitudes

The talks have begun on a wrong foot. When newspapers in both countries are agog at how smooth these talks would be, and this feel-good mood is all that matters, the issues that have to be resolved does not matter: the future of the Keratapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) land in Singapore, Johor's continued supply of water to the island republic, Singapore's military rights over Malaysian airspace, the new bridge over across the causeway, and other issues that have clouded bilateral ties for four decades.

Malaysia has a strong case to hold its ground but it is sidetracked by strategically irrelevant issues like the CPF and the bridge over the causeway. In both, it lost ground for it played to the gallery and ignored when officially informed of Singapore’s plans for the customs, immigration, and quarantine for the Woodlands crossing, and then took umbrage when Singapore went ahead.

What is worse is that Malaysia's public position on issues with Singapore is sidetracked with unimportant issues while Singapore knows what it wants and goes ahead to get it.

But a larger issue clouds future relations: the hardening of attitudes towards the other in each. In Singapore, it is centred on a sense of Chinese chauvinism out to show the Malays, in Malaysia and Indonesia, that they would control, in time, the economies in both.

In Malaysia, it is its cultural belief that is grounded in its xenophobia that if she choses not to deal with Singapore, the island republic would be in more trouble than it realises.

In one sense both societies grew under an autocracy: in one in politics, while allowing full freedom in business, but brought forth a society which followed the leader in a culture of being afraid to fail; in the other, the autocracy controlled every aspect of life but in which the dominant race would not allow anyone to take away the right to criticise. In Singapore, a culture developed in which it could not be seen to lose. Winning is all that matters. At whatever cost.

Singapore has upped the ante in its relations with its neighbours, fully committed to an American presence and its surrogate in Southeast Asia for the war on terror. The presence of an American force in the island is viewed by its neighbours as proof it is immune from a regional attack on its borders.

Its unauthorised incursions into Malaysian air space over Pahang and Terengganu, and of its soldiers and sailors into the coastal towns of Johor is seen in Malaysia as a deliberate taunt. This agreement over its air space would allow the incursions but now the Malaysian air force can do nothing about it.

But what the latest round of talks ensures is a further hardening of attitudes, in one of having got what it wanted, in the other of having given out, without reason, what it should not have. Even if Pak Lah and Goh toast each other in champagne over a one-sided agreement.

[This is my Chiaroscuro column in malaysiakini (www.malaysiakini.com) today, 15 December 2004]