APART from voicing concerns about the domestic political fallout in the country, brought about by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad over his recent push for the reinstatement of his famous “bridge to nowhere” project, Malaysians are wondering just what is he up to now? Will history repeat itself?
To the lay public, unaware of the full background, the bridge is already a lost cause. Many agreed, however, the money to defray the cost of the so-called “crooked bridge, scenic bridge or half-crooked and half-straight bridge” would be well spent for building more affordable housing for the people.
For a start, one can have rich pickings from history to enlighten us. From history we have learned that Singapore, or Temasek as it was known then, was once part of the Johor-Riau Malay Kingdom. Later it was administered as a city-port by the British until Malaya got its independence in 1957. Singapore was forced out of Malaysia in 1965 (the Federation formed with Sabah and Sarawak in East Malaysia and Singapore in 1963).
This fact alone is sufficient to explain the “rejection-syndrome” felt by Singaporeans as the Separation Agreement of 1965 took effect. Even until today, Singaporeans have never come to terms with the sense of being “ejected” out of the Federation. Some Malaysian quarters had gone even further by citing that the Singapore leadership then had committed durhaka (treason) to the King.
As a young university student in the early 1960s, I can still vividly recall how enthusiastic we were when the then Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew presented himself for a debate on “Malaysian Malaysia” in the campus. It was a pity such exuberance on our part would not last as politics came in to interrupt history in the making. Once again, the course of history took another turn.
“Separation”, too, presented itself as a wise option in the Asean sensibility. But it also took its toll of shocks within the country and beyond. It was even related that the late deputy prime minister Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman had shed some tears during the announcement and remarked that this could have been prevented.
Indeed talking dispassionately about it, moving apart is far from easier than getting together.
It took the two countries forty-one years to agree to a slew of agreements that would put relations on the right track covering the major issues of water, sand export, overflying of airspace by the Singapore Air Force, the railways, defence exercises within the Five Power Defence Arrangement, and the attempt to do away with the Causeway, a colonial relic thought by Malaysians as intervening the rights of the people to access the different parts of the Straits of Johor if Singapore were to disagree with the plan to construct a “crooked bridge” in its place. These agreements were thought to have provided the basis for a “broad political understanding” between the two countries and to achieve, in the eyes of Singaporeans, a “balance of benefits” for all.
But in his true “Mahathir-styled logic”, in coming up with the “crooked bridge” idea, the former prime minister was merely trying to tease out Singapore’s “real” intentions all along in the relationship after the separation and to assert that in international relations, clearly spelt out in his Smart Partnership concept, there could be no “maximum gains without maximum benefits”. No side can say they have won. Win-win is the only option.
As such I tend to agree with the author of the recent book, Malaysia-Singapore: Fifty Years of Contentions 1965-2015, that it was all a “farce”.
If indeed this was so, the latest salvo from the “Doctor in the House” on the “bridge” could be looked at as another “shot” in the arm to the Malays to wake up and face up to the new reality.
In the longer term, good-thinking Malaysians need to be wary of misreading the situation. Giving in to the wrong perceptions internally within Malaysia and taking action willy-nilly will not serve the larger interest of working for Asean Unity.
In the event there is a rupture in the relationship, recourse is provided for within the International Law system of rules, concepts and principles that govern the Law of Nations.
The writer is a former diplomat and associate professor and lecturer in International Law and Organisations at Universiti Teknologi Mara