If the Malaysian deputy prime minister,
Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, had planned to visit Singapore,
as he did last week, why did Utusan Malaysia create an irrelevant
bilateral spat just before over how Singapore treats its Malay minority?
But it showed yet again how Malaysia shoots itself in the foot when
it has the edge. Malaysian newspapers raised the ante in this
irrelevant debate,
Singapore reacted in heat, a truce
was called, Singapore sends a Malay cabinet minister to smooth ruffled
feathers in Kuala Lumpur. Shortly after, Dato' Seri Abdullah
takes a large delegation to Singapore, gives up the Malayan Railways
terminal in Tanjung Pagar, which caused another severe flap a few
years ago, have it sited in Kranji and gave up its firmly stated
stance that all bilateral issues would be discussed once and for
all under a comprehensive bilateral arrangement. We are still
not told what would now happen to the Tanjong Pagar land nor of
other outstanding issues that Kuala Lumpur had insisted should be
resolved as a "package".
Dato' Seri Abdullah's visit
is a subtle political manouevre to push him as the natural successor
to the Prime Minister, the endgame of whose rule has begun.
He is seen playing golf, the reporting suggesting, as the New
Straits Times did, "Abdullah's visit has helped to provide that
starting point for better understanding and re-establishing close
co-operation that is mutually beneficial." Starting
point? Really? Do
we start to get to mend ties with Singapore with each change of
leader? He is not a stranger to Singapore. He can
pick up the phone to sort out routine problems. So, why
did he take a big delegation last week, which showed Malaysia
in a bad light. Singapore does not restart mending ties
with each new prime minister. Malaysia, with its instant
ill-thought-out fixes, will always be the loser.
Nothing is sorted out except
that we gave up without explanation the Tanjung Pagar terminal
and have it cited at Kranji. The other outstanding issues,
if they had been discussed, we do not know what is the outcome.
And we are led to believe that all this was completed in a 45-minute
talk with the Singapore prime minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong.
Gratuitous comments on both sides do not resove the
underlying tension that dominates
bilateral ties. The New Straits Times quotes a Malay Singapore
parliamentary secretary for how significant this visit was.
That is the official Singapore view she wants to tell Malaysia.
There is a unity of purpose at all levels of the administration.
That is why a Malay minister came to Malaysia to put the matter
at rest. In return we send with Dato' Abdullah three cabinet
ministers, five chief ministers, one parliamentary secretary and
a gaggle of key officials. That one man from Singapore held
his ground while this large Malaysian delegation did not.
The Malaysian government is
split asunder from within, and cannot take decisions, especially
with foreign countries, without harming the country's interest.
The Abdullah visit has. What he intended to achieve by the
visit was not thought through, while what Singapore wanted to
tell Malaysia was. The foreign minister, Dato' Seri Syed
Hamid Albar, pontificated about neighbours sharing a common history
and past, and how unresolved bilateral issues had soured the relationship.
The visit did not resolve these issues, either individually or
collectively. Since we now negotiate from weakness, bilateral
amity would come only with further surrenders. No amount
of expressions of good faith or common historial past can change
that.
M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my
|
