I WAS recently in Singapore and had a somewhat robust exchange of views with an ex-Malaysian who has taken on Singapore citizenship.
It was a somewhat rare occurrence, as most Malaysians I know would opt for Singaporean permanent residency rather than giving up Malaysian citizenship.
This ex-Malaysian was trying to persuade me about how Singapore should be a model of development for Malaysia, always a non-starter with me.
Comparisons between countries will only be useful, I said, if they had comparable profiles and Singapore and Malaysia — despite shared histories — simply did not.
I ventured that a more apt comparison would be between Malaysia and Myanmar, both with majorities (respectively Malay and Burman) struggling to forge national identities among assertive minority groups.
Such a line of comparison got nowhere with my Singapore friend as his predictable and tangential comeback was that it is always better to "benchmark" against a more successful country model.
I was rather relieved when this Singaporean eventually accepted that "we are going around in circles" — precisely why I always find any comparisons with our nearest neighbour unproductive.
It can only become productive when our majority communities are alike in the sense that they are both naturally assertive (especially in both the political and economic spheres) and can therefore effortlessly assume the leadership position in their respective countries.
But this is not to say that Singapore cannot provide Malaysia some pertinent takeaways. The most relevant, I feel, is for our country to never take religious and racial harmony for granted, as Singapore does not.
The city-state has a law for religious harmony and recently set in motion the process towards a law on racial harmony.
In proposing the new legislation, the republic's Home Ministry said: "Singapore's racial and religious harmony is of paramount importance, and arguably an existential issue for our society."
In this regard, Malaysia and Singapore are alike. Despite variable demographics (Malaysia being Malay-majority while Singapore, Chinese-majority) and Singapore, unlike Malaysia, adopting a supposedly "colour-blind" and meritocratic official policy, religious and racial sensitivities are ever present in both countries and need to be constantly managed.
In Singapore's case, such a situation may be a bit ironic since the case for meritocracy has always been that it would eradicate sentiments related to race and religion among the citizenry.
No matter, heightened religious and racial sentiments on both sides of the Causeway may also be the result of external factors such as the war in Gaza. Singapore came down hard when the Israeli Embassy there issued a statement referencing mentions of Israel and Palestine in the Quran.
The island republic had to choose between between diplomatic relations and potential adverse reactions by sections of its society. It is a no-brainer which Singapore chose, and the Israelis promptly withdrew the offending statement.
Likewise, Malaysia has been highly vocal about Palestine's cause, reflecting popular sentiments, especially among the majority Muslim population.
Malaysia would do well to be ready to clamp down hard on any individual or group inciting or exploiting religious and racial sentiments so that we do not slip into social and political chaos.
If Singapore is hyper-sensitive to such eventualities, as its mulling over a racial harmony law suggests, Malaysia should be even more so, given that, despite efforts towards promoting multiracial politics through the decades, Malaysians still tend to prefer parties organised along racial lines.
If Singapore shows us anything, it is that racial and religious sentiments never go away and can only best be managed.
The writer views developments in the nation, region and wider world from his vantage point in Kuching