Here is a view by the great Malaysian political commentator. The
stuff available in his website are dynamite. In Singapore, he would
have been jailed long ago, but over in Malaysia, thanks to the
freedom of the internet, his comments are able to be read.
http://www.mggpillai.com/article.php3?sid=1710
Water Talks: The pot calls the kettle black
THE MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE WATER TALKS are stalled because neither
Kuala Lumpur nor Singapore would, indeed could, resolve it if one
has an edge over the other. The political interest of each is to
see the other lose out. It has nothing to do with contracts, good
neighbourliness or fair price. It has to do with proving to each's
ground the other is incorrigible, untrustworthy and worse. For
underlying the dispute - one of many - is the need to pressure its
ground the other is to blame. The UMNO-led government in Malaysia
and the PAP-led one in Singapore have an uphill task to convince
their traditional supporters that they alone can deliver. They have
proved they cannot, and each behave childishly and undiplomatically
to convinve its citizens the other is devil incarnate. In other
words, the pot and the kettle call each other black.
This is why Singapore breaks confidentiality of negotiations and
documents by revealing not once, but several times, to "prove"
Malaysian leaders are unreliable, do not adhere to contracts and,
in the current US-sponsored war of Islamic terror, which it accepts
without question, subtly implies that since Malaysia is an Islamic
nation, its leaders are more likely to behave as Osama bin Laden
than Donald Rumsfeld. In Singapore's view, Rumsfeld can justifiably
cause all the havoc he desires, but not Osama. So, she paints her
northern neighbour in the blackest of colours for local political
fence-mending, in fright, so that her citizens would rush to back
the PAP's stand. Why does Singapore take this view? The PAP's
promise of continuous growth and unparalled wealth is but a mirage
for the younger Singaporean, and as other underpinnings of the
PAP-structured state crumble, the possibility of a non-PAP
government is as possibile, indeed probable, in Singapore in the
next decade as a non-UMNO one in Malaysia.
Malaysia, on the other hand, has her own difficulties with her
ground. UMNO is in near rigor mortis, since it humiliated its
deputy president, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, five years ago such
that it upset Malay sensibilities. Its closeness to Chinese
entrepreneurs, its inability to put the MCA in its place, the
cultural revolt on the ground, not just of the Malay but of the
Chinese, the Indian, the Kadazan, the Iban and other native tribes
all reduce UMNO leaders to apoplexy and fright. So it must also
show that it is tough when it comes to protecting Malaysia's
interests. When it does this to Singapore, the majority, especially
Malay, rush to support it, its cultural crimes forgotten for the
moment.
That this latest spat with Singapore comes as the UMNO leader,
Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed, hands over to his deputy, Dato' Seri
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, puts the new leader in a spot. He can only
react as a nationalist. And fight fire with fire. The Singapore
leaders knew that. So why did it up the ante in a political
transition where the new leader walks on melting ice?
Underling the political disputes between Singapore and Malaysia is
a cultural divide in which each misjudges and miscalculates the
other. The cultural xenophobia of the Malay and Chinese pins the
overriding political and administrative problems, and one is happy
with the other only when it dominates. Indeed, bilateral ties after
Singapore's independence from Malaysia in 1965 underlined this
dominance with each walking on eggs to make it work. That led to an
uneasy peace. That could not last. Especially as newer leaders in
Malaysia found themselves ill at ease with Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan
Yew. But when the second generation of leaders firmly took over the
reins in both, the old understandings and respect could not
overcome the insipient nationalisms in each. Despite it, however,
there is an underlying acceptance, amongst Singapore and Malaysian
leaders privately, that the two countries must live together, that
Malaysia cannot prevent the sale of water to Singapore, that even
in enmity such niceties as water supplies must go on. But official
ties continue to be dipped in xenophobia. When the dominant
political party in each must prove its xenophobia and nationalism
to stay in power, issues like this must crop up.
I submit Singapore was wrong to come up with the booklet, "Water
Talks? If only it could". And wrong for Malaysia to react as she
did. But speaking off the cuff, especially when a cabinet minister
does not know what he talks of, is a peculiar Malaysian speciality.
Dr Mahathir was right to protest at this release of confidential
official documents to paint Malaysia in a bad light. But the
foreign minister, Dato' Seri Syed Hamid Albar, was idiotic to
suggest Malaysia would reply with a booklet of its own. What would
that serve? But the fat is on the fire. Neither Singapore nor
Malaysia could retract or back down. With this distinct frightening
realisation that no solution is possible under the present leaders,
whose links date back to their university days. How then could it
be possible when the new leaders take over, as they must within
five years, in both countries, with the only underlying aim is to
undercut the leaders in the other.
Water is only one of several contentious issues which both decide
to make an example of. The dispute over who owns Pulau Batu Putih
(or Pedro Branca, as Singapore knows it) is with the International
Court of Justice. Malaysia's crazy plan to build a bridge over the
existing causeway which links the two countries for no reason than
to massage the national ego is another. Singapore wants the right
for its armed forces to intrude into Malaysian airspace. There
would be more as the years creep by. These could be resolved if
they are looked upon as mere administrative matters and negotiated
within a framework of give-and-take. But in every negotiation, the
two countries talk at cross purposes. That reflects deep-rooted
problems that has nothing to do with the sanctity of contracts or
international law. It begins with the cultural xenophobia in each.
Unless that is resolved, these bilateral pinpricks would
continue.
Could they be resolved? Not yet. The two countries have, willy
nilly, entrenched their xenophobia within the fundamentalism of
global politics. When larger interests intrude, local issues get
short shrift. To worsen bilateral ties. But neither Kuala Lumpur
nor Singapore would accept that as a consequence of their global
positioning. The hardening of the political debate in Singapore is
- must - now be matched by Malaysia.
The Malay ground is incensed at Singapore's insensitivities, as the
Singapore ground is incensed at Malaysia's refusal to honour its
commitments. Both are wrong and both right. But Singapore should
realise the Malay ground is hardening culturally to the point that
there is more talk than ever of blaming the Malaysian government
for wanting to recover Pulau Batu Putih when it should have acted
to recover Singapore itself. Singapore's booklet would only
strengthen this dangerous view. But it is also a realistic view
amongst the more sobre Malaysian and Malay politicians that when
Singapore re-negotiates the water agreement with Johore in 2061, it
could well be one Malaysian state negotiating with another.
