September 2002

Water politics' murky past

source: Malaysian newspaper Berita Minggu, a commentary by Noor Azam, translated/reprinted in the Straits Times

 

  

 

 
Ties between Singapore and Malaysia have often turned sour since the two countries separated 37 years ago. At times, relations have been tense following uncalled-for clashes.

 
Foreword by Yawning Bread

This article, originally in Malay, appeared sometime in August 2002, in the Malaysian newspaper Berita Minggu. It was translated and reprinted in Singapore's Straits Times.

I am archiving it here in Yawning Bread to illustrate the feelings that the Malay establishment in Malaysia have towards Singapore. My article Thorny Water refers to these feelings.

This is a good example of the polemic used in Malaysia, underscored by attempts at historical fiction.

At selected points in this article by Noor Azam, I add a few comments of my own, with reference to phrases in bold type (made bold by me, not by the author)..

 

Like a bickering divorced couple, who have to live as neighbours, both know that they will cross each other's paths and must help one another. In some instances, the divorced wife, despite having become rich, still needs the help and cooperation of her ex-husband.

In relations between states, helping one another is common practice, what more between neighbours such as Malaysia and Singapore.

 

Notice the stress on "rich". It seems to grate on Malaysia that Singapore's economy has, since separation, done better. Note also the gender assigned to each country, representing rightful dominance and submission.

 
Yet feelings of arrogance and envy often provoke concern and suspicion. The resulting occasional bouts of enmity retard cooperation in matters of public interest.

Singapore and Malaysia were once a single Malay state, but were split in two because of the skill of the British in the art of political diplomacy and the fearfulness and shallowness that marked Malay politics.

In his column, Issue With AA, earlier this month, Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad wrote that Malaysia's father of independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, came down with shingles during a visit to London in mid-1965.

From his hospital bed, the Tunku wrote a pivotal letter to his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak, expressing his displeasure and anger over the prolonged political dispute between the Federal government and the Singapore Government.

He said he had dreamt that if Singapore was not 'amputated', immense tragedy and bloodshed would follow.

Tan Sri Abdullah also recounted this tale of 'shingles' and 'nightmare' in his column, The NST Diary. He wrote: 'Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra was suffering from shingles when he wrote the crucial letter to Tun Razak in the spring of 1965 to proceed presto with preparations to amputate Singapore from Malaysia.'

I am not sure why this tale was narrated simultaneously in two newspapers - Malay and English. In Berita Minggu, its headline was big although the tale was carried in only one paragraph.

Was it Tan Sri Abdullah's intention to remind Malay leaders not to make state decisions while they are in poor health and based on dreams? That Malays who like politicking ought not to let their hearts dictate their decisions.

Single Malay state? This is patently fiction, as can be seen from the fact that the article does not name the historical state. 

Around the time the British arrived in this part of the world, about 200 years ago, the Malay peninsula, Sumatra and the Riau islands contained a number of independent little sultanates. The British and the Dutch extended their influence and control one statelet at a time through more than a century.

Modern Malaya (the precursor of Malaysia) was a creation of the British who amalgamated the various sultanates into a more viable federal state when they wanted to quit.

Singapore's been a separate entity ever since the British arrived, but even before that, the swampy, nearly uninhabited island was not part of any single Malay state encompassing all of Malaysia (as Noor Azam suggests). 

In 1819, Singapore island was contested territory between two branches of the Johore-Riau sultanate. The British manoeuvred between the claimants and secured Singapore for themselves, that much is true, but this is quite different from suggesting that the British stole Singapore from some indigenous Pan-Malaysian state. That didn't exist.

 
Whatever the case may be, it is apparent that the decision to 'amputate' the ultra-strategic island was made in London, in spring. We 'drove away' Lee Kuan Yew? Or was it a result of political manoeuvring?

Should one feel a sense of relief? Making a crucial decision in London at a time when you are down with shingles and frightened by a nightmare! 

 

The writer is suggesting that Singapore's separation was a mistake. Furthermore, by ascribing it to a hasty decision by a sick leader, he is questioning the legitimacy of Singapore's independence and sovereignty. 
The Malay Archipelago is the world of people of Malay stock. Hence, the emergence of a country ruled by the Chinese in the midst of this Malay world is something that should not have happened for whatever reason.

The Malay race has become a race with no dignity or political savvy.

The Indonesians fought very hard for their independence, but the British wanted to be rid of Malaya more than the Malays wanted them to quit. The Malays in this archipelago have fought for hundreds of years to free themselves from Portuguese, Dutch, British, Siamese and Japanese colonisation.
Strange construction. More like Singapore is a thorn in Malaysians' side. But when the colonialists left, suddenly the Malays lost a state. This, I think, is the thorn in the flesh which continues to prick Singapore leaders
The old Malay generation buried their grief and disappointment at losing an island of inheritance from their forefathers. They were forced to accept the fact that an independent Singapore state ruled by the Chinese was emerging. (May history teach us a lesson!)
Notice the racial dimension. Singapore is seen as the Chinese interloper in this supposedly homogenous Malay world. However, there are still Singapore leaders who continue to fear and worry. There is a feeling of unease and unsettledness for having created a Chinese country on Malay soil and in the middle of the Malay world, sandwiched by the Peninsular Malay states, Sumatra, Java and Kalimantan.

That fear and concern continue to haunt them, and has become the root of all problems, although among ordinary Singaporeans, those feelings are absent. In fact many travel to and fro for business and to vacation in Johor and Malacca.

 

Nomenclature misleads!  In the English language, this part of the world is called the Malay archipelago. The Dutch used to call it the East Indies. There seems to be a careless extension of the term "Malay archipelago" into the idea that the whole region is racially homogenous, i.e. Malay.

If one asks the far more numerous Indonesians, you might get a quizzical look. The biggest group among them identify as Javanese, and they make a huge distinction between themselves and their neighbours, whom they consider a lot less civilised and cultured. Even among the non-Javanese, they are equally particular about their ethnicity. They identify as Achehnese, Sundanese, Minangkebau, Balinese, Bugis, and countless other groups.

It was just a few years ago when the Dayaks were slaughtering the Madurese and the Malays in ethnic clashes in Kalimantan, and the Madurese were slaughtering the Riau and Malays in Batam.

Malay Malaysians are more fond of constructing pan-archipelagic Malay identity than the people living in the archipelago.

 

 
Although Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has stressed repeatedly that we must cooperate to develop our respective nations and together build a prosperous neighbour, Singapore never stops raising problem after problem. Both countries continue to fight over issues that should not be argued about.

Be warned that the future of both countries depends on the younger generation. The older generation will perish.

Hence, Singapore leaders should not continue to sensationalise and sensitise issues which will stoke the political emotions of the younger set in both countries.

The leaders of the old generation must foster and cultivate the right spirit and a sound and rational political attitude in the leaders of the younger generation.

If not, old wounds would never heal. Enmity would endure, and the future of both states would be in danger.

What's so difficult about resolving the water problem? Does Singapore have no money to pay the right price? Malaysia's survival does not depend on selling water to Singapore.

Similarly with the KTM-land issue, a relocation of the customs and immigration checkpoint, release of Malaysians' CPF monies, and use of Malaysian air space by the Singapore air force, Pulau Batu Putih and, the latest, reclamation in the Straits of Johor.

 

 
Strange. From Singapore's perspective, it's Malaysia that's raising problem after problem. The problems fall into three classes: either (1) they wish to change the status quo, e.g. CPF, or (2) they want special treatment, e.g locating their Customs and Immigration deep in Singapore territory, or (3) they make a big fuss about what Singapore does domestically, e.g. land reclamation and our Malay/Muslim minority issues.

It appears to Singaporeans that Malaysia is the over-sensitive one, sensationalising the issues with lurid, slanted reporting... such as this article in Berita Minggu.

 

If Singapore had acted as a good neighbour, any fear, suspicion and jealousy could have been allayed and all these issues would certainly be resolved wisely.

Singapore leaders are intelligent and of high calibre.

Singapore need not 'parade' its Newater on its National Day to end the water supply contract.

Its Prime Minister conveyed the decision through Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (Malaysia's Domestic Trade and Consumers Affairs Minister)! Couldn't Mr Goh Chok Tong speak directly to Dr Mahathir?

The drumbeat of such water politics invites clearly a similar dance beat from Malaysia.

Indeed, Dr Mahathir has responded: 'Singapore may stop buying water from Malaysia immediately. Right now, Malaysia has nothing to lose. In fact, it would be beneficial.

 

 
The Singapore government has begun a familiarisation campaign to get people to overcome their instinctive unease at drinking NEWater. Despite exhaustive scientific tests that show NEWater to be purer than treated natural water, people understandably feel queasy about that fact that it is after all, recovered from waste water.

Malaysia sees this domestic campaign as aimed at them, rubbing it in their noses that we are reducing dependence on their supply of water.

They're probably half right at least. The Singapore government does relish rubbing their noses in.

 
'We don't like to argue but people must be reasonable,' he said, and added that Malaysia will honour the agreement, but not to the extent of being made a fool.

To me, this firm statement by the PM is merely a response to Mr Goh's drumbeat. And his response is not limited to the water issue alone, but others as well.

Patience and compromise are the prerequisites to cooperation. But there are limits.

Every individual has dignity and pride - what more a race and nation. Even if you want to be arrogant, don't treat others like fools.  

 

 

 
Given the implicit threat not to supply water unless we yield to Malaysia's terms, Singapore has no choice but to move towards reclaiming and desalinating water. It's not motivated by wishing to "make a fool" of Malaysia. Yet it is perceived as such. 

It can be argued that the Malay establishment is actually voicing its own fears rather than describing Singapore's motives.

 

 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None