At the end, it boils down to race issue, M'sia-SGP Relations

Atobe SG

Tunku 'thought S'pore would fail'
KUALA LUMPUR - Berita Minggu columnist Abdullah Ahmad said Malaysia's founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman was wrong to have believed that expelling Singapore from Malaysia would see the Republic flounder and become backward.

Writing in his weekly column published in the Malay-language daily on Sunday, he said the Tunku also thought that in doing so, problems between the Chinese and Malay communities would be resolved.

The wide-ranging column by Tan Sri Abdullah, the editor-in-chief of the New Straits Times Group, coincided with the 100th anniversary of Tunku's birth and touched, in part, on the issue of Singapore's separation in 1965.

He said the late Umno stalwart Tan Sri Syed Jaafar Albar - father of current Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar - had opposed Singapore's expulsion.

Tan Sri Syed Jaafar's stance led to him being sidelined by the Umno leadership and the government for a time.

'In retrospect, in view of the regional and global political turmoil today, it is clear that Albar had a strong case (which the majority did not perceive or deliberately did not want to accept what was logical then),' he wrote.

Tan Sri Abdullah said 'our territory was surrendered by Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra on a silver platter to Lee Kuan Yew 38 years ago'.

'How wrong he was. Tunku thought that by removing Singapore from Malaysia... calm would return for as long as there were stars and the moon.'

He ended by saying: 'Isn't Singapore Chinese? How can the Chinese become backward? Which Chinese will compromise if he feels he is strong?'
____________________________________________________

If Singapore had not been successful in every field of endeavor, would we have to suffer Malaysia's whims in perpetuity?

Could this be the reason for cutting the "economic pie" in Malaysia, and enforce Bumi participation even into Private Enterprises, so as to reduce the economic power of the Malaysian Chinese?

Shotgun SG

We should continue to improve ties with China. We continue to invest in them, while cooperating in research. Maybe can even have a few of their Flankers fly over for dissimilar air combat training once in a while. And sign an MOU with them for port usage.

China is after all the prospective regional superpower, no harm making friends with them. While the US can fumble about their bureaucracy, we provide China with a strategic interest. Given the recent moves by China, it also appears they want into US's good books. Which means they might be more active in regional affairs, hopefully SEA being inside that region. Just wait for their carrier.

Another key regional ally is Thailand. We can probably offer them our Falcon ONE upgrade at a low cost. And if anything goes wrong, we can be the hammer to knock our punk friends north into the Thai Anvil.

DontForgetYourRoots SG

This does not boils down to race issue. This boils down to the type of government both country have. Malaysia being a bigger country, a country with more sources should have been developing faster than Singapore. A small little island country. But instead it was vice-versa.

Singapore's government is a sound one. They have managed to walk against the tide and bring SIngapore to today. But most of us, 3rd generation Singaporeans, instead of working with the government, instead are against the government, opposing them, accusing them of being high-handed and not considerate.

But lets put it this way. Without this government, we would not have been where we are. Would we rather live in great poverty but with freedom, or living in comfortable life but with limited freedom?

laser51088 SG

Malaysia actually has been making good progress, it is just that we are too used to Singapore's high standards to see much good in Malaysia. It is also because of Singapore's size and relative lack of credible political competition that allows us to develop much faster than Malaysia. Thats strictly just my opinion. . .

my two cents

RAIDER SG

Race shd never be an issue. If so wouldn't it compromise our own national unity? Remember, we r not CHINESE but SINGAPOREANS. Everyone of us be it Malays,Indians,Chinese,etc... all play a part in our nation. When the inevitable do happens, the last thing we need is to fig" ht a civil-war within ourselves while pushing the "enemy" back north. I think by transforming into a fully integrated society will do us the greatest help.

Atobe SG

The Government in Singapore has been able to succeed due to the fact that the Singapore CITIZENs were co-operative and responded to the challenges of those early days when Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, and the outlook for the future - then - was bleak.

The "Government of the day" had succeeded by the EFFORTS of SINGAPOREANS.

The success belongs to the SINGAPORE CITIZEN's GOOD SENSE.

We must distinguish and recognize these two Main Contributors to the success of Singapore.

When statements attribute Singapore's success to the Government only, it is as if the success is only by Government's policies alone, and WITHOUT the participation of the CITIZENS' efforts.

The Government is not just an entity with a LIFE of its own.

It consists of HUMAN BEINGS that form Political Parties, that are elected by the CITIZEN to form the Government.

Humans are FALLIBLE.

If the 3rd Generation CITIZENS "are against the government, opposing them, accusing them of being high-handed and not considerate", it is due to the fact that the 3rd Generation Political Leaders have behaved in that manner.

Could the 3rd Generation Leaders have "taken for granted" that the success of 1st or 2nd Generation Political Leaders give them the right to conduct politics with the same method of High Handed implementation of policies with little consultation (or even with consultation for the sake of "cosmetic process" ) ?

It is now no longer a debate of "Would we rather live in great poverty but with freedom, or living in comfortable life but with limited freedom?"

The question to be asked is:

"having brought you out from poverty, educated you to the highest level of certified knowledge and measureable skills, exposing you to all the events of the world, BUT not trusting you to judge for yourself how you should LIVE your LIFE, believing that you have limited aptitude to view the world beyond the confines of your immediate constituency, and that Politics belong to the realm of Professional Politicians - who will be legitimate targets for character assasination if they dare to take on an Opposition Role"......

......as a SINGAPORE CITIZEN, do you have a lesser role to "Govern" yourself than an "Authorized" Politician?

Atobe SG

If you review the historical records of Politics in Malaysia, you will see that it is consistently based on Race.

This has resulted in their views towards Singapore being colored on the same basis.

In the Malaysian Politics, the Malay Community has always taken a domineering role, even towards their fellow citizens of other ethnic groups; despite the fact that the other racial or ethnic groups has a larger percentage of the total population make-up.

Historically, the Malaysian Malays have always felt that while Political Power is in the hands of the Malay Community, Economic Power is too much in the hands of the other races especially the successful and well-connected Chinese Community.

This is largely the cause of most frictions between these two important communities in Malaysia, and set the stage for all the problems with Singapore which has a majority of the population consisting of Chinese ethnicity.

The Malaysian Government view their relationship with Singapore on the basis of -themselves as Malays, and Singapore being Chinese (despite our well asserted multi-racial policies of equality for ALL SINGAPOREANS, regardless of race, language, and religion).

This is evident, when UMNO Politicians and most Malay Opinion Makers (editors, community leaders, lecturers, analysts, etc) make reference to the relationship with Singapore based on their Malay ethnic values of sensitivities, flexibility, respect, and accommodation, rather than on a more formal and respectable approach of negotiated agreement to a win-win conclusion as befitting any Government-to-Government relationship.