Mahathir the Riddler and The High Speed Rail Project

Updates:
And so the flip-floping continues on from M'sia...

19 July 2018: TODAY - In U-turn, Dr Mahathir says Malaysia to negotiate deferment of HSR with Singapore 

When asked by reporters on whether there are options to defer the project or reduce the cost, he replied: “At the moment when we look at the financial situation of the country, we thought that we couldn’t go ahead with that.”

"The problem is that if we just unilaterally discard the agreement, we have to pay a very high compensation." 

Having studied the contract, it was decided that “we will have to do it at a later date or we may have to reduce the price”, Dr Mahathir added. Read more here.

18 July 2018: New Straits Times - HSR not entirely off the table, fate lies in upcoming discussion between Malaysia and Singapore 

 "We have not excluded the possibility of the project going on, but are not making any suggestions unless there is a consensus from both countries.” Economic Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Azmin told reporters at the Dewan Rakyat lobby. Read more here.

========================================================

Here’s a summary of the HSR headlines from a Malaysian News/Media portal – The Star Online, from 24 Jan 2017 to 9 July 2018. (Latest news at bottom)

Read them and see for yourself if you can decide what Mahathir/Malaysia really, really wants to do with the HSR project.

24 Jan 2017: The Star Online - Mahathir opposes HSR project
Citing financial constraints, the former prime minister (Mahathir), who is chairman of Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia, said the HSR contract signed between Malaysia and Singapore may not be a done deal if the Opposition comes to power. We need to do a study whether it is feasible or not because we don’t have the money and we have to borrow money, and that is not something the Government can bear at this moment. We have to know whether we really need this HSR or not,” he told The Sunday Times in an interview. Read more here. 

28 May 2018: The Star Online - Mahathir to drop high-speed rail project with Singapore: FT
"We need to do away with some of the unnecessary projects, for example the high-speed rail, which is going to cost us RM110bn ($28bn) and will not earn us a single cent. That will be dropped," Mahathir told the Financial Times. "We have an agreement with Singapore. We have to talk with Singapore about dropping that project," he said, according to Reuters. Read more here. 

2 Jun 2018: The Star Online - Guan Eng on HSR: 'You can get something... for half the price.'
Asked if the economic benefits outweighed the cost of the rail link, Lim replied: “Is it worth it? You can get something for cheaper, for half the price.” Read more here.

12 Jun 2018: The Star Online - HSR project postponed, not scrapped, Dr M tells Japanese media“We cannot say we will never have high-speed rail (HSR) in Malaysia. What we can do is we can postpone the project because it is far too costly at this moment.” After being sworn in as prime minister, he had announced on May 28 that Malaysia will be dropping the HSR project with Singapore, citing it as an “unnecessary project”. However, in his interview with Nikkei Asian Review, Dr Mahathir commented that the Singapore HSR project is merely postponed. “We actually postponed the implementation of that project.” Read more here.

15 Jun 2018: The Star Online - Govt will consider reviving HSR project in the future
Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng: “As far as the HSR is concerned, it's scrapped for now as announced by the Prime Minister but in the future, that is something that we want to discuss with the Government” Read more here.

9 Jul 2018: The Star Online - Singapore not told of HSR status but knows what Malaysia wants
Mahathir: "We have not given them full notice yet but they know what we want to do."Watch the interview on YouTube here. 

Video source: The Star Online

Mahathir doing what he does best - Being vague

Video source: The Star Online

Here are some unbelievable quotes from the media interview.

"Decisions are not so easily made. When we make a decision and announce it, the market reacts negatively. The market apparently likes to be told lies about how good everything is so they will give you good marks. But if we tell them we have discovered a lot of wrongdoings, they react by running away with the money, they stop investing and all that. But in fact what we are doing now is to ensure that this country is financially run properly."

"So when we make an announcement, we have people who react negatively. So that's why we have to be very careful about what we say."

"As far as the Singapore Government is concerned, we have not given them full notice yet, but they know what we want to do"

"I think you should read your own press..." (when asked what M'sia wanted to do about the HSR) 

This is all bullshit and blatant political showmanship to publicly pressure S'pore as well as seek out nationalist political support by making S'pore the common evil enemy of all M'sians.

There is no big mystery or some genius strategy of Mahathir at work.

This is exactly what he did  during the 1998 to 2003 "package deal" negotiations when he was last PM. When he did not get what he wanted, he tried to apply public pressure on S'pore by making misleading public statements. S'pore then had no choice but to set the record straight by releasing the official correspondences between the two PMs. (See here for a summary of the 1998-2003 negotiations)


The most plausible explanation for Mahathir's apparent reluctance to officially communicate to the SG Govt about M'sia's decision to cancel the HSR project, is Mahathir knows very well that once he does that, S'pore will have indisputable proof that M'sia was the one who first initiated to officially cancel the HSR project, and hence M'sia becomes liable not just for S'pore's losses but potentially for all other involved parties' losses.

If M'sia's coffers are really as empty as Mahathir says, do you think he would dare to risk incurring the cancellation's potentially huge liabilities?

For all we know, just the very notion of officially canceling the HSR project and becoming liable for losses may well push M'sia right into the realm of national bankruptcy.

This is just "wayang kulit" (shadow shadow puppet play) put up by Mahathir to see if S'pore will blink and cave in first on officially canceling the HSR project.

If S'pore does so, and falls into Mahathir's trap, then M'sia would have a plausible reason/excuse to deny any liabilities for the cancellation, citing that S'pore was actually the party who first officially communicated the project's cancellation whereas all M'sia did was merely do media interviews, press releases only.

Unfortunately for Mahathir, and M'sia, there is no happy ending to this wayang kulit. He must be senile to hope S'pore would fall into his clumsy trap.

Read more here:

The Star Online: Dr M: Singapore not told of HSR status, but it knows what Malaysia wants (10 July 2018)

TODAY: Singapore 'knows what we want to do' on HSR issue, says Malaysian PM Mahathir (10 July 2018)

The crux of the Water issue for S'pore has NEVER been the price of raw water

Extract of Speech by Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan in Parliament on Monday (9 Jul 2018) on the SG-Msia Water Agreement, and why it is NOT the price of water that is the problem, BUT the manner in which the price change takes place. Edited video: Shut Down TRS FB page

Just think about it lah.

How would you feel if your mobile phone service provider suddenly increases your mobile service by $X, or decrease the amount of mobile data you have while you are still under Contract. Will you be happy about it? Can you accept it that the phone company can simply change contract terms without your consent?

Fair or not?

How about your domestic helper’s salary? What if your helper just said to you today that she wants her salary to be increased by $x, or maybe from now, cleaning the bathroom will not be part of her job scope; even though the salary and job scope is what was agreed upon when you employed her and she is still under contract. Can you accept these demands and changes from your helper without any discussion?

Reasonable or not?

Similarly, Singapore is being intentionally put in the similar situation by the current M'sian govt.

Singapore has emphasised it time and time again - the issue has NEVER been about the price of raw water. It is the HOW the changes to the agreement are being made by one party only - that is M'sia.

What Singapore is unable, and will never accept, is that the current Malaysian Govt is trying to change the terms of the agreement by themselves (ie: “unilaterally changing the terms of the agreement.”) without having discussed the matter with, or asked if Singapore would sit down to discuss it and come to a new agreement.

To put it simply, BOTH parties must come together to agree to change the terms of any agreement.

And remember, the agreement cuts both ways.

M’sia cannot just anyhow increase the price of RAW, UNTREATED water (which is 3 Sen per thousand gallons) as and when they like.


Note: The raw untreated river water, that S’pore pays 3 sen for, would have flowed into the sea in any case. Plus S’pore also pays for, and maintains all of the necessary infrastructure. (See here for more facts about the water agreement)


Likewise, S’pore also cannot just anyhow increase the price of CLEAN, TREATED water (which is 50 Sen per thousand gallons) that is being sold back to M’sia too.


Note: S’pore’s cost of treating the RAW water (in 2003) is actually RM2.40 per thousand gallons. Contrast the cost of producing CLEAN TREATED water at RM2.40 to the 50 sen price that M’sia pays for clean, treated water from Singapore. And what’s more, the M’sia govt simply re-sells this same clean treated water to Johore citizens at RM3.95! (as of 2003). Who’s the one that is benefiting the most now? (See here for more facts about the water agreement)

Pic: Shut Down TRS FB page

Bear in mind, Singapore has also never said that it would not budge on the water price issue.

All Singapore wants is to have matter properly discussed, and perhaps to have a new agreement that is acceptable and agreed to by BOTH countries.

In fact, what the current M’sian Govt fails to mention or seems to conveniently forget, is that S’pore and M’sia had began negotiations from 1998 to 2003 to discuss the price of raw water as well as several other bilaterial issues which were important to both countries.

And while Singapore tried to settle on terms which were acceptable to both countries, it was Malaysia that kept changing its position on the water price – increasing from 45 sen per thousand gallons in August 2000, to 60 sen in Feb 2001, and then again to RM6.25 in September 2002. The water talks ended in 2002 without any conclusion when then PM Mahathir informed Singapore that Malaysia wanted to “decouple the water issue” from the other items in the negotiations.

(See here for a summary of these negotiations)

So Malaysia, let’s sit down together and talk properly over tek tarik and work out a agreement that acceptable to, and benefits BOTH countries, and not just anyhow talk cock through the media.




Read more here:

Gov.sg YouTube Channel: Speech by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan in Parliament (9 July 2018) on Singapore-Malaysia relations
CNA: Singapore-Malaysia relations: Both countries must fully respect sanctity of international agreements, says Dr Balakrishnan (9 Jul 2018)

CNA: Price of water sold to Singapore 'ridiculous'; Malaysia to renegotiate deal, says Mahathir (25 Jun 2018)

SG Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication: Water Talks? – If Only It Could.
A succinct account of the 1998-2003 SG-Msia negotiations on several bilateral issues, including the price of raw water.  (Back up copy)

SG Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication: Singapore-Malaysia Water Talks: What are the Facts?
(Back up copy)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Release - WATER ISSUE IS ABOUT SANCTITY OF AGREEMENTS, NOT ABOUT PRICE ALONE, SAYS SINGAPORE FOREIGN MINISTER PROF S JAYAKUMAR (Back up copy)

Lee Kuan Yew: The architect of Singapore's water story By Eco-Business (25 March 2015)
(Back up copy)

Read previous posts about Singapore and Water

Lee Kuan Yew's words on relations with Malaysia

Ever since Mahathir is back as the PM of M'sia, relations between S'pore and M'sia have seemingly taken a turn for the worse.

First there's M'sia's flip-flopping over the High-Speed Rail project, being conducted over the media instead of direct Govt-to-Govt talks.

Then now the apparent revival of one of Mahathir's favourite pet peeve - the Water Agreements.

Should S'poreans panic?

If you were old enough to have known about his antics tactics as the 4th PM from 1981 to 2003 in dealing with S'pore, you would have recognize that the current situation is very similar to what he was doing when he was the 4th PM.

We have to remember that Mahathir is an extremely shrewd politician who has made a come-back as PM again despite being out of Govt for more than 15 years. If anything, he is a master at using rhetoric to shape public opinion for his own purposes.

So let Mahathir rant on and on about his unhappiness with whatever deals.

Notice that he only rants to the media. Yet the S'pore Govt is still waiting for official communication on the HSR project. So efficient. M'sia Boleh ya?

We just have to recognize that that's just one of his antics tactics to cast S'pore in an unfavourable light to M'sians, and make us a convenient bogeyman/scapegoat/whipping boy to pin whatever policy failings of his administration; to rile up and enlarge his political support base, and to manipulate public opinion to pressure and bully S'pore.

My opinion is that S'poreans should just chill.

Our position on the High-Speed Rail project, the Water Agreements and whatever other bilateral dealing we have with M'sia have been made very clear by the SG Govt.

Mahathir knows his hands are tied by the agreements. Should Mahathir decide to unilaterally change or cancel any agreements, he is well aware that the consequences of such an action would be much more damaging to M'sia than to S'pore.

While S'pore may suffer some short-term losses/pain, Mahathir knows that he would have effectively destroyed all of M'sia's credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of the world. No one would dare to invest or do business with M'sia after that.

So let's all just be calm, carry on and let the SG Govt settle lah. World Cup is on now leh..

Lee Kuan Yew's quote reference: From Third World to First: The Singapore Story, 1965-2000, Volume 2 (See here)

M’sia’s PM: M’sia has less debts than Singapore!

If you follow M’sian politics, you will know that M’sia politicians, be it the ruling BN govt or their opposition, like to use Singapore for comparisons, if not as a convenient scapegoating target.

And this behavior is more evident when M’sian is gearing up for their general elections.

A recent example which had most S’poreans, and not a small number of M’sians too, rolling their eyes in disbelief, was the claim from the M’sian Deputy Education Minister that Malaysians' command of English was better than Singapore’s. (See here, here and here)

The latest salvo in the SG vs MY debate was fired by none other than the M’sian PM himself.

In a recent blog post, the M’sian PM said that:

 “… Not only that, (the M’sian) Government debt to GDP ratio is better than developed countries like Singapore at 112 percent, United Kingdom at 89.3 percent, Canada at 92.3 percent and many other examples. …”

Najib must have a taken a leaf from the SG opposition’s playbook of half-truths. Time and time again, the SG opposition wannabes will throw out this misleading statistic to scare and try to stir resentment in the SG electorate.

“Look! The PAP Govt is so corrupt! Not only are they refusing to return your CPF money but they are racking up so much debts! It is true! Look at the World Bank reports!”

Sounds scary, isn’t it. The SG Govt has external debts that are equivalent to 112% of its GDP, or about US$1.766 trillion depending on which article/source you are reading. (See here, here and here.)

But here’s the problem.

While the statistics quoted is quite correct, the interpretation of that statistic is wrong.

I’m not going to attempt to explain why Najib’s interpretation is wrong. It’s a hard topic to explain ‘cos my English is not that powderful as Najib’s (according to his education minister).

Plus this external debt question has been explained to death so many times by tons of better writers than me who can, and have clearly explain the facts. Here are some of them:

Mothership: Najib claims that S’pore government debt higher than our GDP, but here’s why you shouldn’t panic (6 Jan 2018)

Straits Times: askST: Why does Singapore have an external debt of US$1.766 trillion? (20 Nov 2016)

The Middle Ground: Why Singapore’s high external debt is nothing to worry about (19 Sept 2016)

The Scarlet Ibis: Singapore Government Debt – A Cause for Alarm or a Misunderstanding? (12 Sep 2011)

Quora: Why does Singapore have such high public debt?

And here’s what the SG Govt has publicly stated about its debt levels and national reserves.

SG Factually: Is it fiscally sustainable for Singapore to have such a high level of debt?

SG Ministry of Finance: FAQs about Singapore’s Reserves

Bottomline: Don’t just read the headlines, or take other’s words at face value. Read up, see what the facts are and decide for yourself.

Oh, and Najib, it would be great if you and your colleagues can stop dragging S’pore into M’sian politics. It’s rather tiresome and doesn’t do any good for our bilateral relations.

Opinion - 1MDB vs 38 Oxley Road: Why Malaysia envies Singapore

Though close neighbours geographically and culturally, Singapore and Malaysia are worlds apart when it comes to the public airing of political controversies – just ask their prime ministers

By Tashny Sukumaran
Published 8 Jul 2017 / UPDATED ON 9 Jul 2017 
Source: This Week in Asia, South China Morning Post


The family feud dominating public life in Singapore has crossed the Causeway, as Malaysians marvel at the Lion City premier’s open handling of the saga – and compare it to the closed-door approach of their own leader, Najib Razak, regarding his alleged links to a scandal at the state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, has won widespread praise for his handling of what many believe should have been kept a private family matter. His siblings have accused him of abusing his power as prime minister to overrule the wishes of their late father – the city state’s founding leader Lee Kuan Yew – regarding the fate of the family home at 38 Oxley Road. They say their father was adamant in wanting the home to be demolished after his death, but that the premier wants to go against this wish to preserve the home and derive political capital from their father’s legacy.

The Lion City premier has responded with openness. Not only did he make a statement on national television – saying he had done all he could to resolve the family conflict and apologising for any harm it may have done to Singapore’s reputation – he also gave MPs a free rein to grill him in parliament.

Najib, on the other hand, has remained largely silent regarding a scandal at the state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) – where investigators claim to have traced some US$700 million wired into his accounts. Najib, who has denied any wrongdoing, is accused by critics of trying to shut down debate on the scandal. He has banned parliament from mentioning 1MDB and has removed key figures from his cabinet after they spoke out about the issue.

“The Singaporean PM has asked forgiveness from the people because of his siblings fighting. The Malaysian PM robbed billions, cricket noises,” said Twitter user @normgn. “Find it amusing to see the level of response of Singapore towards the Oxley Road house versus here for 1MDB. Just so weird,” said another, @yoongkhean. “One side got parliament seating just to explain it, one side ... ignorance is bliss.”

The contrasting approach of the two leaders has been made more obvious as new details emerge about the US Department of Justice’s investigation into 1MDB.

As the public digest the details of the saga in the usually scandal-free Singapore – which has included Facebook posts from the premier’s family and private emails made public – they are also poring over the latest details of the Department of Justice’s investigation into 1MDB. The latest filing in the case seeks to recover US$540 million in assets including a yacht, a Picasso painting gifted to Leonardo DiCaprio, and a diamond necklace purchased with money stolen from the government fund.

Department of Justice documents allege that nearly US$30 million stolen from the fund were used to buy jewellery for the wife of “Malaysian Official 1” – jewellery that is said to have included a 22-carat pink diamond necklace. The documents do not identify Najib or his wife Rosmah Mansor by name, but say the jewellery was for the wife of “Malaysian Official 1”. Cabinet minister Abdul Rahman Dahlan has identified Malaysian Official 1 as Najib.

Controversial political cartoonist Zunar responded to this revelation by drawing a picture of a witch with a beehive hairdo riding a 1MDB broomstick and waving a large pink diamond pendant. Another cartoon depicts an Inspector Clouseau-esque character, a reference to the pink panther and a large pink diamond.

Last month, Rosmah’s solicitor released a statement saying that her lawyers were closely monitoring all postings on social media platforms and other publications, cautioning the public from making any false and malicious postings and statements.

In June, model Miranda Kerr turned over jewellery worth US$8.1 million that had been given to her by Malaysian financier Jho Low, who was instrumental in the development of 1MDB.

Even opposition politicians have taken to social media to vent their frustration at the lack of debate surrounding 1MDB. Member of Parliament M. Kulasegaran tweeted: “Openness by Singapore PM on a controversial issue speaks well of a government. In Malaysia?”

And Speaker of the Selangor State Assembly Hannah Yeoh said on Facebook: “When a controversy happens of this nature, being answerable to parliament is the right response. Lee Hsien Loong, you’re a good PM & I hope 1MDB can be dealt with like this in the Malaysian parliament too. Truly, not every son of a former prime minister is the same.”

Lawyer Ong Yu Jian also shared Lee’s public address on Facebook, saying: “No matter how embarrassing or personal the issue, he has the b**** to air it in parliament, invite questions from MPs and ask the party whip to be lifted for this issue.”

Political analyst Oh Ei Sun of the Pacific Research Centre said Najib’s silence was because he was confident he had the support of voters ahead of an election that may be called as early as this year.

“At end of the day, the 1MDB scandal will not significantly affect the vote banks for the ruling coalition, the Barisan Nasional, or even his party Umno specifically.

“Najib relies primarily on the urban and rural poor and for these people 1MDB is almost a soap opera. They may follow it but don’t feel acute hatred towards Najib as do the first group of people. They are more interested in whether they get a share in the next handout as they depend on these handouts. They won’t stop voting for the Barisan Nasional because of 1MDB. ”

Oh also said that there was less need to clarify issues in Malaysia, as Singaporean voters were “more sophisticated and educated”.

Still, many Malaysian voters and lawmakers are frustrated at what they see as a clampdown on discussion of the 1MDB scandal.

Opposition MP Steven Sim said parliament was not even allowed to mention it on the pretext that it was subjudice. “Despite investigators in at least six countries investigating and taking legal action against 1MDB-related parties, including the US Department of Justice, Najib’s government has not only removed key leaders in his cabinet and in civil service who spoke out against him on this issue – notably his deputy prime minister, second finance minister, the attorney general, and the head of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission – parliament is not allowed to even mention 1MDB.

“By allowing serious and damaging allegations to be openly debated in parliament, Lee Hsien Loong demonstrated he has nothing to hide, is willing to come clean and answer to the people,” Sim said.

“The same cannot be said of Najib Razak.”


Related Articles

What Malaysia can learn from the Lee Kuan Yew family feud in Singapore?

==========================

DTCL!:  The main purpose of sharing these articles, is NOT to pit Singapore against Malaysia. Both issues (1MBD and 38 Oxley Road) are quite complex and are affected by local sentiments. Rather it is to present how one country views another country through its own eyes, and to highlight the differences between the two countries' political landscape.

How Johor’s growing water woes could affect Singapore

Water pipes at Johor Causeway. These pipes feed raw water to Singapore under the Singapore-Malaysia Water Agreements. Pic: ST PHOTO

How Johor’s growing water woes could affect Singapore

By Jackson Ewing and Karissa Domondon
Published: September 15, 2016. TODAY Online

Since its founding, Singapore has depended on water imports from neighbouring catchments in Johor, Malaysia, through agreements reached in 1961 and 1962.

Over time, Singapore improved its domestic catchment management, created more efficient water-use systems, and brought desalination capacity online. Meanwhile, Johor has transformed itself into a bustling hub second in many ways only to Malaysia’s capital region. These developments have created a new water calculus between Singapore and Malaysia.

Since early 2015, drought, pollution and large discharges to combat salinity have depleted water levels in Johor River dams to historic lows, forcing Johor to seek additional potable water supplies from Singapore on three occasions in 2015 and 2016 and to impose water rations for 
85,000 residents and industrial users in April this year .

This shock to the system is spurring a re-evaluation of cross-border water relations, and reveals Johor’s vulnerability to the resource impacts of its own development and the changing climate.

The status quo ties directly to the initial treaties. The 1961 agreement gave Singapore drawing rights of up to 391 million litres per day (mld) until 2011 from the Tebrau and Skudai Rivers in Johor. The 1962 agreement allows Singapore to draw up to 1,136mld from the Johor River until 2060 through the Linggiu Reservoir and the Johor River Water Works (JRWW).

Singapore is to pay RM0.03 (S$0.01) for every 1,000 gallons of water supplied under the two agreements.

The Linggiu Reservoir and the JRWW are located near Kota Tinggi in eastern Johor and are managed by Singapore’s Public Utilities Board (PUB). The reservoir was created by building a dam across a tributary of the Johor River, as agreed under a supplementary agreement signed in 1990, and has been in operation since January 1995. Raw water drawn from the reservoir is channelled to the three water treatment plants that make up the JRWW.

Together, these plants provide a total output of 1,136mld of water, as stipulated under the 1962 agreement, and the treated water is then supplied to Singapore via pipelines.

Despite this long-standing functional cooperation, water has been at times a major irritant in relations between the two countries, with Malaysia arguing that the treaties favour Singapore. Malaysia has made veiled threats that it might cut off the supply of water or repudiate the water agreements when relations became strained along other fronts.

This caused Singapore to become increasingly concerned about its water supply, and influenced the island-state’s security and foreign policy strategies for decades.

One response that began in earnest during the 1970s was Singapore’s multipronged effort towards water diversification. The country invested significantly in technologies and systems for converting wastewater and seawater into useable forms and improving catchment storage. The results are striking: Treated wastewater (NEWater) now accounts for 30 per cent of Singapore’s total freshwater needs and desalinated water 10 per cent; and Singapore’s water catchment area has increased to two-thirds of the country’s land surface, from 11 per cent in 1970.

Each of these domestic sources continues to grow, and as a result, Singapore has been able to reduce its reliance on Malaysian imports.

Today, roughly 40 per cent of Singapore’s water needs are met by water from Malaysia, compared with 80 per cent at independence in 1965.

Significantly, when the 1961 agreement expired on August 31, 2011, Singapore decided against its renewal and handed over two water treatment plants in Skudai and Gunung Pulai and two water pumps in Tebrau and Pontian to Johor. Singapore has set a target for water self-sufficiency by 2061 — not farfetched, given the pace of technological innovations.

Until then, it will continue to depend on Johor for water.

JOHOR’S GROWING WATER STRESS

As with much of Malaysia, Johor has historically been water-abundant and receives an average annual rainfall of 1,778mm per year. However, water usage in the state is expanding substantially and, when coinciding with drought, has led to serious shortages. Johor is Malaysia’s second-most- populous state after Selangor, with a population of 3.55 million in 2015, and is becoming an international industrial hub.

The state has traditionally been a major producer of agricultural commodities, including palm oil — where it has the highest growth rate in Peninsula Malaysia — as well as rubber, pineapples, coconuts, cocoa and coffee. This agricultural base is being outstripped by growth alongside its border with Singapore.

The Iskandar Development Region (now named Iskandar Malaysia) was launched in Johor in November 2006 as a special zone covering 2,217 sq km, roughly three times the size of Singapore. The zone focuses on the industrial and service sectors, and seeks to capitalise on its synergies with Singapore to create an integrated economic hub. Between 2006 and 2013, it registered cumulative committed investments totalling RM111.37 billion, of which 40.2 per cent has been realised.

Johor’s population is projected to grow to as much as five million in 2030, doubling water demand. This, along with pollution, is expected to strain Johor’s export commitments to Singapore. Discharge from sewage treatment plants, agro-based factories, livestock farming, estate agriculture and domestic sewage all affect the waters of Johor.

In 2008, 14 out of 21 rivers in the Iskandar Malaysia zone had moderate pollution levels while five rivers in the Tebrau catchment exhibited more serious pollution. One river in the Pasir Gudang catchment experienced severe pollution caused by industrial and development activities.

As pollution has worsened, the cost of water treatment has gone up, and industrial and transportation growth in bustling southern Johor are further exacerbating these threats. The results of dry-season water stresses are becoming progressively apparent.

Malaysia receives the bulk of its rainfall between December and March, and 97 per cent of the country’s needs are met by rain-fed surface water. Johor is no exception and in 2010, more than 500,000 people in the districts of Batu Pahat and Kluang were allowed a supply of water for only 12 hours a day, or 24 hours of alternating water supply. The state government also undertook cloud seeding in an effort to increase water levels, to little avail.

The dry conditions of 2015-2016 have revealed still greater threats to Johor’s water sources.

In August and September 2015, Singapore agreed to transfer 22mld to Johor Bakaj (the Johor Water Regulating Body) following low water levels at the Sungai Layang Dam and the Linggui Reservoir.

The Linggiu Reservoir, which has the capacity to supply half of Singapore’s daily demand, was just 31 per cent full by mid-2016, compared with 80 per cent at the start of the year. Singapore’s Minister of Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli confirmed that the Republic has asked Malaysian water authorities to top up the reservoir.

In June and July alone, Johor Bakaj twice requested additional supplies of water from PUB Singapore, citing supply system shutdowns due to pollution in the Johor River.

The June 4, 2016 request, involving the supply of six million gallons (22.7 million litres) per day for a month, above and beyond the nearly 60mld of treated water that is supplied by Singapore to Johor per day, was due to low water levels from dry weather at Johor’s Sungai Layang dam. In July 2016, Johor Bakaj made an urgent request for an additional supply of 22mld of treated water, this time citing a shutdown of their supply system in Johor Baru due to pollution in the Johor River.

POLITICS, PRICING, AND USAGE

The lack of consumer water efficiency and conservation in Malaysia further complicates matters. Malaysia has the highest per capita water usage in South-east Asia, with a daily water consumption of 280 litres, compared with 155 litres in Singapore, 175 litres in the Philippines and 130 litres in Indonesia.

A key reason is that water in Malaysia is relatively cheap. It is typically not more than 5 per cent of disposable household income and much lower than electricity costs. Johor, however, has among the highest water tariffs among Malaysian states and is unlikely to increase domestic water prices. The state may, in fact, implement targeted water subsidies.

The ruling Barisan Nasional, for example, promised free water to those families who are registered with the MyKasih programme during the 2013 election. The Parti Keadilan Rakyat (People’s Justice Party), meanwhile, has attacked the Johor government for the water shortages that have forced the state to seek additional supply from Singapore.

Singapore, likewise, appears not to be on the path towards pricing in more efficient water use. Its current target to reduce per capita consumption to 147 litres by 2020 and 140 litres by 2030 has been criticised as too modest for a country dependent on significant water imports. While in many swathes of the developed world water prices are increasing to promote its sustainable use, in Singapore 2015 prices were 25.5 per cent lower in real terms, compared with 2000.

Malaysian leaders have long argued that the 1961 and 1962 water agreements priced water at a level that is “too low and unrealistic”. Singapore has typically cited the two water agreements and the Separation Agreement of August 7, 1965 and reasoned that “international law and the sanctity of treaties voluntarily entered into by governments are the foundation of inter-state relations” and must be adhered to.

Singapore has not always opposed an increase in the price of water outright. For instance, during talks between then-Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and then-Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in September 2001, Singapore made a counter-offer of RM0.45 per 1,000 gallons of water to Malaysia’s proposed RM0.60.

Malaysia and Singapore could ultimately not agree on a fair price or the appropriate methodology for discovering one, and, as a result, the 1960-1961 prices have remained.

{ Read more about the Water Agreements here: Minstry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore - Water }

Recent scarcities in Johor call into question whether the water relationship can remain on an even keel into the coming years and decades. Johor State Public Works, Rural and Regional Development committee chairman Hasni Mohammad has said that Johor will honour its 1962 agreement with Singapore, although “the selling price does not make sense, given the current environment”, adding that “several quarters” have urged the state government to stop supplying water to Singapore due to the current water shortage.

THE FUTURE OF CROSS-STRAIT WATER RELATIONS

Despite these problems, there does appear to be bilateral support for making the Singapore-Malaysia water relationship work. Most notably, a February 2013 agreement between Prime Ministers Lee Hsien Loong and Najib Razak to honour the terms of the 1962 water agreement and implement the “necessary measures to ensure reliable water supply from the Johor River” bodes well for the future of cross-strait water trade.

Both Malaysia and Singapore have also flagged large-scale capital investments into their water systems to improve efficiency and expand treatment and desalination capacity. Malaysia announced that RM13 billion worth of investment in water distribution systems is required to reduce the share of non-revenue water to 25 per cent by 2020, while Johor has asked for an allocation of RM660 million under the 11th Malaysia Plan to build a new dam at Sungai Ulu Sedili.

The Singapore PUB has called a tender for the construction of a fourth desalination plant, anticipated to be completed by 2019, that will add 30 million gallons of water a day to Singapore’s water supply.

But current realities in Johor may overwhelm Singapore’s long-standing arguments based on the sanctity of treaties. Drought conditions — likely to become more pronounced with the changing climate — converged in 2015 to 2016 with increased water usage and pollution in Johor to challenge the foundation of the bilateral water partnership.

The domestic political considerations and diplomatic underpinnings of water pricing in this cross-border region were already tenuous, and growing water stresses may well make them more so. Responding to this situation will require regulatory diligence and clear-minded diplomacy by the authorities in Johor and Singapore as well as in Kuala Lumpur.

Specifically, it is in Singapore’s interest to continue its collaboration with Malaysia on Johor’s catchment management, given its dependence and its considerable experience in the sector.

Diversifying imports to include sources from Riau, Indonesia, is also not beyond imagination, but has been made less likely by the island’s progress in its domestic water sector. Regardless of the specific mechanisms used, it is important that such resource protection and management efforts do not fall victim to the rush for economic growth. If this occurs, such growth might undermine the very cross-border relations that it calls upon and attempts to strengthen.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Jackson Ewing is Director of Asian Sustainability and Karissa Domondon is an Intern at the Asia Society Policy Institute, Asia Society. This is an excerpt of a longer piece in Perspective, published by ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

A more comprehensive study of the subject is included in the recent ISEAS book The Sijori Cross-Border Region. Transnational Politics, Economics and Culture.

Article source: TODAY Online

Read more here:


SG Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication: Water Talks? – If Only It Could.
A succinct account of the 1998-2003 SG-Msia negotiations on several bilateral issues, including the price of raw water.  (Back up copy)

SG Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication: Singapore-Malaysia Water Talks: What are the Facts?
(Back up copy)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Release - WATER ISSUE IS ABOUT SANCTITY OF AGREEMENTS, NOT ABOUT PRICE ALONE, SAYS SINGAPORE FOREIGN MINISTER PROF S JAYAKUMAR (Back up copy)

TODAY - The Big Read: Receding water levels at Linggiu Reservoir expose Singapore’s vulnerability

Channel NewsAsia - Receding water levels at Linggiu Reservoir expose Singapore’s vulnerability

Channel NewsAsia - In pictures: Ground zero of Malaysia's water crisis

TODAY - Climate change forces S’pore to look at 5th desalination plant, in Jurong

TODAY - Water shortage in Malaysia a timely reminder to save resource: Masagos

TODAY - Malaysia warns of continuing drought as Malacca sounds water shortage alarm

Straits Times: Water level in Linggiu Reservoir hits record low, continued dry spell could affect Singapore

Straits Times: JB downpour fails to raise reservoir level

Straits Times: Singapore's water supply: Where does it come from?

Straits Times - Ensuring there's enough water - always

PUB - The Singapore Water Story

PUB - NEWater - The 3rd National Tap

Lee Kuan Yew: The architect of Singapore's water story

Lee Kuan Yew - On Sustainability

Vulnerability to Strength: the Singapore Water Story

Forging a greener tomorrow

Tech Insider: Singapore has come up with an ingenious way to save water

Water Lessons from Singapore

Singapore Will Cut Water Imports from Malaysia, Pursue Self-Sufficiency

Singapore Taps Waste Water and Tops Water Innovation

Bottling Wastewater Expands Island’s Oasis—Singapore’s NEWater Path to Independence

Read previous posts about Singapore and Water

[Defending the Lion City] In Lee Kuan Yews own words

The need for a strong Singapore defence in Lee Kuan Yew's own words (from 19:20 onwards)

There will always be those among us who will reject the need for National Service in Singapore, like the naive people behind the 'All Singapore Stuff' website.

Image: Fabrications Lead by Opposition Parties

They advocate the abolition of NS. They claim that there has been no debate in parliament about the need for NS. They rile up anger by saying that Singaporean men are being exploited as cheap labor, that we are being disadvantaged in our education and careers.

But how conveniently, they forget that outside the borders of Singapore, the world is not at peace.

Tensions continue to simmer over Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and more recently, it's expanding influence over Georgia.

Nearer to home, tensions in the South China Seas continue over territorial disputes over China's claims. On 17 August 2015, a bomb exploded at the Erawan Shrine in the heart of Bangkok, killing 20 and injuring more than 120 people - including several Singaporeans. And now ISIS agents are reportedly in Thailand and threatens more attacks.

Bloody conflicts, acts of terror and even thinly-veiled attempts at land grabs - these are the harsh real world realities.

And here's a dose of reality if you think that Singapore has friendly neighbours.

“If Singapore’s foreign policy was prejudicial to Malaysia’s interest, they [Malaysia] could always bring pressure to bear on them [Singapore] by threatening to turn off the water in Johore.” 

Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia Prime Minister, 1965
(via British High Commissioner, Anthony Head)

Mahathir, ex-PM of Malaysia, had this to say in a speech made at the Institute of Economics and Politcal Studies (IKAPE) in December 2005.

"... I want to tell you, we had wanted to buy Russian MiGs (fighter planes). You know Russians, they are very inferior. Somehow or other, it was wangled without my knowledge, that part of the money (only to be used to purchase MiGs was also used) to buy (the American made) F-18 (planes). 

The very good American aircraft costs twice as much as the MiGs. And then, we acquired eight F-18s and 18 MiGs. MiGs are sold to us without any condition. 

If we feel like bombing Singapore, for example, the Russians are not going to object. Any Singaporeans here? Or ex-Singaporeans? ..."

And who does not know about the Malaysian politician's favourite tactic to win nationalistic support from the voters? Simply blame the cause of the Malaysia's woes on Singapore and threaten to cut off our water supply in retaliation.

In February 2014, Indonesia named a new warship KRI Usman Harun, after the two marines, Usman Mohamed Ali and Harun Said, who had bombed MacDonald House in 1965 killing three people and injured more than 30 others.

Despite the obvious sensitivities and the inherent implications of naming a warship after soldier who had carried attacks in Singapore, the Indonesian government made no apology nor did they change the name of the warship.

If Singapore does not have a strong defence, how else would we defend ourselves from such threats?

Those naive and stupid people behind All Singapore Stuff had better wake up their bloody ideas.

"If you, who are growing up, do not understand that you have to defend this, then in the end, we will lose. Other people will come, smack you down and take over." 

Lee Kuan Yew, speaking on the importance of NS in 1967 

Lee Kuan Yew had this to say when he was asked why Singapore was building the SAF.

“He [Mahathir] was direct and asked what we were building the SAF [Singapore Armed Forces] for. 

I replied equally directly that we feared that at some time or other there could be a random act of madness like cutting off our water supplied which they [the Malaysians] had publicly threatened whenever there were differences between us … In [the Separation] agreement, the Malaysian government had guaranteed our water supply. IF this was breached, we would go to the UN Security Council. 

If water shortage became urgent, in an emergency, we would have to go in, forcibly if need be, to repair damaged pipes and machinery to restore the water flow. 

I was putting my cards on the table. He denied that such precipitate action would happen. I said I believe that he would not do this, but we had to be prepared for all contingencies.” 

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore Prime Minister (The Singapore Story, Page 276)

Singapore and Malaysia - Two similar countries that could not be more different.

Singapore and Malaysia are countries whose destinies have long been intertwined by geography, history and culture. But yet since a falling out in 1965, each country could not have chosen a more different direction to move towards.

Singapore was one of the 14 states of Malaysia from 1963 to 1965. It became part of Malaysia on 16 September 1963, Malaysia being a new political entity formed from the merger of the Federation of Malaya with North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore. This marked the end of a 144-year period of British rule in Singapore, beginning with the founding of modern Singapore by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819.

The union, however, was unstable due to distrust and ideological differences between leaders of the State of Singapore and the Federal Government of Malaysia. Such issues resulted in frequent disagreements relating to economics, finance and politics. 

The United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), which was the political party in power in the Federal Government, saw the participation of the Singapore-based People's Action Party (PAP) in the Malaysian general election of 1964 as a threat to its Malay-based political system. There were also major racial riots that year involving the majority Chinese community and the Malay community in Singapore. 

In 1965, Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided upon the expulsion of Singapore from the Federation, leading to the independence of Singapore on 9 August 1965.

Wikipedia: Singapore in Malaysia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_in_Malaysia 

=====================================================

An open letter from a Malaysian to Singapore
Posted by Adrianna Tan on September 5, 2015 at 6:45 pm

Note: The views expressed in this article are the writer's own and do not represent any organisation, the editorial team and/or the editor.

I was born in Malaysia in a time where the country was held ransom by the bumiputera policy that discriminated against Chinese, Indians and other non-bumi races.

Since their schooling days, my parents faced racial discrimination from quotas which gave all bumis scholarships to study in university regardless of grades (and 1 scholarship for the non-bumis to fight over). My father taught in a local school for 3 years, being passed over for a pay raise or promotion that was given to any new bumis.

My uncles and aunts ran small businesses which had to hire at least a bumi to stay on the “safe” side of the law of the local government. Protection money was considered “insurance” against weird reasons for authorities to revoke their business licence. 30% of their profits were paid to the government officials to tax businesses so that the Malaysian welfare policies could continue (or who knows, to pay for the latest high-class watch on some official’s wrist).

The merging of Singapore with Malaysia was regarded by my Malaysian relatives as a consequence of the British pulling out. Better to stick together than leave our Singaporean relatives alone.

But Lee Kuan Yew’s push for a multi-racial Malaysia and fairness for his constituents (who paid tax to Malaysian coffers but would not be defended by Malaysian defence forces) didn’t sit well with the UMNO and the sultans who came to power promising the bumis that the bumis always came first.

So Singapore was left alone to fend for itself. No one knew how things would turn out, will Malaysia eventually relax its bumi policy and give non-bumis a fair chance at opportunities? Will Singapore be acquired by Indonesia or remain a poorer cousin of Malaysia?

In Malaysia, we witnessed Singapore’s rise due to its emphasis on meritocracy, business-friendly and anti-corruption stance. Some of us dismissed Singapore as a fluke, you guys just got lucky. Some were secretly jealous, others felt Singapore was arrogant. But no one could refute the fact that Singapore gave all Singaporeans more opportunities than Malaysia would give all Malaysians.

My parents found jobs in Singapore 30 years ago in booming sectors where the Singapore education system hadn’t yet developed fully to produce local graduates, which eventually happened over the years.

Our relatives in Malaysia tell us, stay in Singapore, don’t go back home to Malaysia.

It isn’t safe to live in our hometown anymore. My aunt fell into a week-long coma after a motorcyclist snatched her handbag. My grandmother’s house was burgled. Another aunt was tied up at knifepoint in her own living room, with a plastic bag over her head. My uncle’s family was ambushed by a pack of burglars but he managed to fight them off, sustaining slash wounds in the process.

My cousin, with straight As, couldn’t get into a state university (that wasn’t even the top 5 universities of Malaysia). My Christian friends can’t use the word “Allah” in church after decades of doing so. Churches and temples are often targets of vandalism and arson. Housing is cheap, cars are cheap, but many of the younger generation are heading out of Malaysia, migrating to Singapore, Australia, Canada, UK, USA.

I feel sad when I see these things happening, that we are driven out of our own country and not welcomed back at all. Malaysian politicians want a Malay Malaysia, so they are happy to get rid of the non-bumis. My young nephews and nieces will continue to suffer from such racial policies.

The Bersih movement aims to expose the corruption of not only our Prime Minister, but the whole system. Once you allow corruption to set into Singapore, it is hard to rid yourself of the leeches who promise welfare to the poor but secretly pocket money meant for them.

So I am happy Singapore separated from Malaysia and got to do its own thing. Singaporeans can excel according to their worth, and not according to their racial background.

To my Singaporean friends, open your eyes and look around you. If you were born in another country into a low income family, how certain are you that you can climb to where you are today?

Yes Singapore has problems, and they must be solved by politicians who really do the work, and not sit around making noises like some Malaysian politicians do. You have the right to vote in a fair election, we have blackouts and fires.

Learn from our mistakes, don’t believe in those who say the sweet things and give handouts to win votes, but support those who do the actual work for the people.

– contributed by Five Stars and A Moon reader Jermaine Chua
Source: http://www.fivestarsandamoon.com/an-open-letter-from-a-malaysian-to-singapore/


=====================================================


Passing of Lee Kuan Yew: On Pointe – Our love-hate relationship with Singapore
Posted on 15 April 2015 – 07:21pm  – Last updated on 16 April 2015 – 12:04am

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose

NEIGHBOURING country rivalry is a shared experience around the world. The “anything they can do, I can do better” syndrome is not only reserved for sporting events when pitted against each other but manifested and solidified through perceptions, comments and stereotypes, something we Malaysians do so well, especially when it comes to Singapore and Singaporeans. From serious issues such as water deals to our ongoing food fights with Singapore over the origin claims of Hainanese Chicken Rice and Chilli Crabs.

Perhaps the impetus of our acrimony and rivalry is not just that Malaysia and Singapore have a shared history, but more so because we used to be one until Singapore was “expelled” from Malaysia. A term used by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (in his eulogy for Lee Kuan Yew) who continued to described the separation as his father’s “greatest ‘moment of anguish’, but (that) it also proved to be the turning point in Singapore’s fortunes”.

So perhaps our resentment is further fuelled by the fact that despite driving it out of Malaysia, to the point of even threatening to cut water supply, Singapore still succeeded – it overtook us, sped up and now are too far ahead for us to even catch up. Could its success be a constant reminder and the fuel of our rivalry? After all, isn’t success the best form of revenge?

Some might argue that drawing comparisons about success might not be a fair or reasonable observation. After all, in 1965, Singapore and Malaysia had different starting points. Economic data of that time seems to vary like Goldilocks’ porridge. Some historians say that Singapore was the wealthier sibling to start with, others say it was poorer, and then there are those who say both countries had the same baseline. In fact, it was Malaysia that chose to terminate the tripartite currency interchangeability system in 1973 which meant the ringgit, was no longer at par with the Singapore and Brunei dollar.

Today, the Malaysian ringgit continues to shrink in a steady decline against that of the very country we expelled.

There are other glaring differences. Singapore’s land mass is smaller and so is its population, making it easier to govern and regulate. Therefore some might argue there are closer similarities between Singapore and countries such as Hong Kong and Brunei but not so much with Malaysia.

Yet when Singapore was in mourning over the passing of its founding father, it was hard not to draw comparisons with Malaysia and for some it raised the “what if” question of how different life would have been had they grown up on the other side of the pond. Admittedly some might not have been born given Singapore’s “stop at two” family planning policy which led to decreased fertility rates only to be followed by the “Great Marriage Debate” – an effort to augment the “thinning gene pool” by encouraging graduate women to have larger families. Yet Singapore even with such controlling features, including its notable ban on chewing gum, has the power and vision to draw Malaysia’s cream of the crop to its shores, from young Asean scholars to employing the most number of Malaysians, breaking our talent bank.

We can argue that it is the money that draws talent. After all, why would you want to stay and earn three times less when you can earn much more so close to home?

On a superficial level, that makes sense, but what about being the world’s second safest city, or the opportunities of working in a globally connected economically competitive cosmopolitan city with career opportunities based on meritocracy? Why hasn’t Malaysia then been able to do this for its people?

Earlier this year, a very accomplished Malaysian reached a brick wall with employment opportunities locally but had better offers at globally recognised and reputable organisations across the causeway. While waiting for his flight to his new home he lamented sadly, “why do I have to move to Singapore?”

If only such talent could flourish in Malaysia, we’d be the ones to catch up to. What’s even sadder with this story is that our country didn’t even put up a fight to retain such good talent.

So even if you want to stay, at some point between affirmative action and the lack of suitable opportunities, the lure of not having to deal with such ridiculous challenges pushes Malaysians towards Singapore, and yes an earning capacity that makes sense helps too. How did Singapore managed to do this and not us?

Both countries trumpet multiculturalism yet in Singapore most major train station signage have English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil translations on them. It is these simple things that say to citizens you belong, you are welcomed, you matter and this is your country, this is our shared country.

This is how nationalism is built in the midst of multiculturalism. Of course it takes more than multi-lingual signage to cultivate loyalty and devotion but it is such inclusion and ownership that builds patriotism.

Both our countries share a similar stance of developing the economy first. Singapore’s benevolent dictator once said “What are our priorities? First, the welfare, the survival of the people. Then, democratic norms and processes which from time to time we have to suspend”.

Speeches are very often quoted and used as a measure of a person’s character even if it’s not a true reflection. But looking at the thousands that turned up and queued for hours to pay their last respects, there was a genuine love and appreciation by the people for their leader who not only possessed a true gratefulness for looking after the people’s welfare but also building Singapore into a country its citizens are proud of.

Democracy has been a loose and fluid term in describing the political situation for both Malaysia and Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew was known to not tolerate dissent and so has our government. Yet, even though there was disagreement with one party ruling the nation all these years, the opposition leader of Singapore was invited and given a seat at the public funeral service. Graciousness and gentlemanliness shone through even in disagreement – a rare quality in politicians more so in authoritarians.

There are many opinions about Lee Kuan Yew’s style of governing, some in praise and others berating him. Yet, for all the bad that he did, plenty of good has come out of it. Singapore is an economic powerhouse with a generous healthcare system, world-class education and a solid housing programme, not to mention proud and patriotic citizens.

Just as Singaporeans are so indebted to their first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew for building the country up, the unfortunate truth is that Malaysia stands as a reminder of “what if”?

Malaysia and Singapore will always be neighbouring rivals, but at times like these, credit should be given where it is due.

Source: http://www.thesundaily.my/node/305010

Singapore is not an island

By Bilahari Kausikan (former permanent secretary for foreign affairs, is now ambassador-at-large)
Published Oct 6, 2015, 5:00 am SGT

Malaysia is undergoing a systemic change that has profound consequences for Singapore

What do most Singaporeans make of recent events in Malaysia? Bersih. Pesaka. 1MDB. A deputy prime minister sacked. Protests and counter-protests.

Are we so inured to commotions across the Causeway that they seem no more than the faint tolling of distant bells, evoking only bemusement and schadenfreude? Our system works, so shrug and tend our own garden.

If this is the attitude, it is mistaken. We are indeed different. But I believe Malaysia may be on the cusp of a systemic change that could have profound implications for us.

Since 1957, first Malaya then Malaysia, was premised on a political and social compact that had Malay dominance as its cardinal principle. So long as this was not challenged, other races could have their own space. In political terms, this compact was reflected in a system structured around an alliance of race-based political parties with the dominant Malay party - United Malays National Organisation or Umno - at its centre.

The Chinese were represented by the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), later joined by Gerakan; the Indians by the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC). Two opposition parties, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS ), were in principle multiracial, but in practice largely Chinese and Malay and in any case were peripheral.

It was our refusal to accept the system's cardinal principle that led to Separation from Malaysia in 1965. But it was a system that had its own coherence and until relatively recently, it did not serve Malaysia badly. And despite the complexities of bilateral relations and occasional periods of tension, over the last 50 years, it was a system we learnt to work with, while going our own way.

That familiar system is now under immense stress. It is not certain that it can hold together.

PRESSURE POINT

The pressure point is religion. Arab influences from the Middle East have for several decades steadily eroded the Malay variant of Islam in which adat or traditional practices coexisted with the Quran in a syncretic, tolerant synthesis, replacing it with a more austere and exclusive interpretation of Islam. This is one aspect of a broader process of globalisation which is a sociocultural and not just an economic phenomenon. It has changed the texture of Malaysian society, I think irreversibly.

It is impossible for any country to insulate itself from globalisation. Religion in Singapore is not immune from globalisation's consequences, and not just in our Muslim community. Evangelical Christianity is one example. But Singapore is organised on the principle of multiracial meritocracy. So long as this is accepted by all races and religions as the foundation of our identity, the most corrosive political effects are mitigated. In the Singapore system, God - every God - and Caesar are separate and so all Gods must perforce co-exist, with the state playing the role of neutral arbiter.

Not so in Malaysia.

The cardinal principle of Malay dominance is enshrined in the Constitution, which also places Islam as the first component in the definition of a Malay. This makes the mixture of religion and politics well-nigh inevitable. Umno politicians have been unable to resist the temptation to use religion for electoral advantage. They are responding to the logic of the system as it has evolved.

In 2001, former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made a fundamental political error when he tried to undercut PAS by declaring that Malaysia was already an Islamic state. A constitutional controversy ensued. But the most damaging consequences were political not legal. Tun Dr Mahathir's incautious declaration gave a sharper political focus to the changes in the interpretation of Islam that were under way and catalysed a competitive dynamic in which those inclined to religious moderation were inevitably outbid and overwhelmed.

The result has been an increasingly pronounced emphasis on religion in Umno's political identity and a significant and continuing narrowing of the political and social space for non-Muslims.

Surveys show that Malaysian Malays privilege Islamic credentials over other qualities they look for in their leaders. A Merdeka Centre survey this year revealed that 60 per cent of Malaysian Malays polled identified themselves as Muslims first rather than Malaysians or even Malays. Demography accentuates the political impact of these attitudes. In 1957 the Chinese constituted 45 per cent of Malaya (West Malaysia). In 2010, they constituted only 24.6 per cent of Malaysia including East Malaysia. Malay fertility rates are significantly higher than both Chinese and Indians.

In the 2013 Malaysian General Election, the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition got only 13 per cent of the Chinese vote. Two days after the election, Utusan Malaysia, an Umno mouthpiece, pointedly asked "Apa Lagi Cina Mau?" (What more do the Chinese want?)

The question was provocatively phrased, but not entirely unreasonable. Prime Minister Najib Razak tried hard to win back Chinese votes but got almost nothing for his efforts. MCA won only seven seats. Gerakan was wiped out.

The DAP won 38 seats, the largest number in the opposition coalition.

A NEW SYSTEM IN THE MAKING?

The Chinese parties in BN had clearly lost the trust of Chinese voters. Can MCA win back Chinese votes? Doubtful. MCA is obviously powerless to stem the narrowing political and social space for non-Muslims; the fecklessness of its leaders exposed by constant scandals and internal bickering.

In 2013, BN lost the popular vote but retained its parliamentary majority because of the 47 seats it won in East Malaysia. Native East Malaysians are not ethnically Malay but are classified as bumiputera. Some in Umno began to question whether it was really necessary to work with the Chinese at all. The declining numbers of Chinese in the Malaysian population will sooner or later make them electorally irrelevant to Umno and BN had already retained power without their votes.

Nor can the opposition coalition of the DAP, PAS and Anwar Ibrahim's Parti Keadilan Rakyat - Pakatan Rakyat (PR) - form a new multiracial system. PR was always a motley crew. Although its component parties are in theory multiracial, they have nothing in common except the ambition to displace BN. Only Anwar's charismatic personality and political skills held them uneasily together.

Anwar is now in jail and PR has fallen apart. PAS has left. Without Anwar, Keadilan's future is bleak. The DAP is subject to the demo- graphic constraints of a falling Chinese population and is unlikely to make substantial electoral advances beyond its present strength, although it will probably retain what it now holds. PR's successor - Pakatan Harapan - a coalition of the DAP, Keadilan and a minor breakaway faction from PAS, is a forlorn hope (pun intended).

PAS has purged its moderate leadership and is now led by the ulama. Umno is increasingly relying on religion to legitimise itself. Umno and PAS may eventually form some sort of de facto if not de jure alliance that could be the core of a new ruling system. There may be token ornaments of other races, but the Malaysian system will then comprise an overwhelmingly dominant Malay government with a DAP-led Chinese opposition. This will be potentially explosive.

I do not know if such a system will really replace the current system, but it certainly seems possible, even probable. It will not happen overnight. But the controversy over 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) could well hasten its emergence. The recent demonstrations seem to foreshadow such a development.

STRUGGLE FOR POWER IN UMNO

The anti-government Bersih demonstrations held in late August this year were, despite a sprinkling of other races, predominantly Chinese affairs. PAS, which had joined previous Bersih demonstrations, stayed away. The organisers claimed the demonstrations were apolitical, but the DAP with Keadilan clearly played significant roles.

Last month, a pro-government counter-demonstration was organised by Pesaka - a right-wing Malay group ostensibly devoted to silat, the Malay martial art. The demonstration was almost entirely Malay, positioned as defending Malay rights and marked by fierce racial rhetoric. Before the demonstration, posters were displayed, captioned "Cina turun Bersih, sedialah bermandi darah" (Chinese who attend Bersih, be ready to be bathed in blood) which depicted a Bersih supporter being slashed with a parang. A flier with a similar slogan was found at DAP headquarters.

Umno denied organising the demonstration. Datuk Seri Najib did not attend but said he had no objections to Umno members doing so. The president of Pesaka is an Umno leader. Another Umno politician, who was one of the driving forces of the Pesaka demonstration, proudly admitted he was racist because it was under the Constitution.

Thankfully, violence at these demonstrations was avoided by the strong police presence. But the demonstrations certainly raised the temperature of an already racially fraught atmosphere.

Although the authorities denied it, the affray that broke out in July at Low Yat Plaza, a mainly Chinese shopping area in Kuala Lumpur, after a Malay youth was accused of stealing a mobile phone, was certainly racial. It exposed the tinderbox Malaysia had become.

Shortly after news broke about US$700 million (S$1 billion) believed to be from 1MBD being traced to what was alleged to be Mr Najib's personal account, a Putrajaya spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has not taken any funds for personal use."

Umno has always operated through a system of patronage. If this is what the spokesman was hinting at, then Dr Mahathir's accusations against Mr Najib ring hollow. Did he not preside over the same system and for far longer than any other Malaysian prime minister?

This system also means that Mr Najib is in no imminent danger of being forced from office so long as he holds the majority of Umno divisions and retains Malay support. Frustration may account for Dr Mahathir's attendance at the Bersih demonstration which I do not think has raised the good doctor's standing with the Malay ground.

The 1MDB scandal is less about corruption than about a struggle for power within Umno.

Dr Mahathir seems to have expected to exercise remote control even though he was no longer prime minister. Among his grievances with his successors were their warming of ties with Singapore, Mr Najib's decision to settle the railway land issue, cooperation on Iskandar Malaysia (IM) and the refusal of both Tun Abdullah Badawi and Mr Najib to proceed with his pet white elephant: the "crooked bridge". Dr Mahathir wants to replace Mr Najib with someone more pliable.

The intra-Umno power struggle is not over. Mr Najib retains his office but has been politically damaged. Dr Mahathir's reputation may have been dented, but he still has a following within Umno and the Malay public.

Mr Najib cannot allow himself to be outflanked on the right. Two days after the September demonstration, he attended a Pesaka gathering. He praised Pesaka members as being "willing to die" for the government and said "Malay people can also show that we are still able to rise when our dignity is challenged, when our leaders are insulted, criticised, shamed", adding, "We respect other races. But don't forget: Malays also have their feelings. Malays also have their limits."

WHAT NEXT?

A former minister, Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin, has said that "if Najib succeeds in uniting Umno and PAS, then I am confident the Malays will forgive his grave mistakes", adding that "after fulfilling this large and sincere task" he should step down and hand power to former deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin.

I do not know if Mr Najib feels he has committed "grave mistakes". But he certainly will not hand over power to a man he unceremoniously sacked. Still, Mr Zainuddin is probably not wrong about anyone who brings Umno and PAS together becoming a Malay hero. It may not be Mr Najib, but the trajectory of political developments in Malaysia already seems to point in that direction.

Malaysia and Singapore are each other's second-largest trading partner. Malaysia is Singapore's sixth-largest investment destination and we are the top investor in IM. Every day tens of thousands of Malaysians commute across the Causeway to work in Singapore. It is in our interest to see Malaysia stable with a healthy economy.

Mr Najib understands that Malaysia and Singapore need each other. So far and unusually we have not figured very much in the controversies. Dr Mahathir did trot out his tired line about Singapore Malays being marginalised. But it did not catch fire. Did the government dampen the spark? No way of knowing for sure but if it did, it is one more black mark against Mr Najib in the old man's book.

We, of course, have no choice but to work with whatever system or leader emerges in Malaysia. But some systems will be easier to work with than others. And the current heightened state of racial tensions suggests that we should not assume that the transition from one system to another will necessarily be peaceful.

It is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed. That may be why they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance will be defended by any means.

Any new system will still be built around this principle, and if it has some form of Umno-PAS collaboration at its centre, enforcement of this principle will be even more rigorous with even less space for non-Muslims.

The respected Malay poet and writer Pak Samad recently warned "the way race issues are played up… it is not impossible that things will peak into a state of emergency".

Pak Samad is a member of the DAP and he was appealing to the government to take a more equitable attitude towards all races. But his views and those of some idealistic young urban Malays are exceptional and, during an intra-Umno power struggle when the banner of Malay dominance is raised particularly high, utterly irrelevant.

Singaporeans should also note that no country's domestic politics exists in a geopolitical vacuum.

CHINESE AMBASSADOR'S REMARKS

In the midst of these unfolding developments, China's ambassador to Malaysia made his way to Kuala Lumpur's Chinatown. Close to where only a few days previously the police had to use water cannons to disperse a potentially violent anti-Chinese Pesaka-led demonstration, the ambassador read out a statement that among other things pronounced the Chinese government's opposition to terrorism, any form of racial discrimination and extremism, adding for good measure that it would be a shame if the peace of Petaling Street was disrupted by the ill-intentioned and that Beijing would not stand idly by if anything threatened the interests of its citizens and Malaysia-China relations.

Under other circumstances these sentiments would perhaps have passed notice. But the timing and context laid the ambassador's words and actions open to disquieting interpretations.

Was it just bad judgment? What was he trying to do? If the ambassador was trying to help the Malaysian Chinese, then he failed miserably. He probably made things worse for them by confirming the worst suspicions of the Malay right wing.

But were the interests of Malaysian Chinese even a consideration? Was the intention to highlight a rising China's clout? The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman defended the ambassador's visit to Petaling Street as "normal" and emphasised China's adherence to the principle of non-interference. But this was of course what she would have said irrespective of China's intentions.

More telling perhaps was the apparent confusion over whether or not the Chinese ambassador should be summoned to explain himself. This should have been obvious. A retired Malaysian diplomat who used to deal with China pointed out the dangerous precedent that would be set if no action was taken. But different Malaysian ministers contradicted each other, with a clearly frustrated Foreign Minister Anifah Aman finally telling them all to leave it to Wisma Putra.

Was this the consequence of China's influence? Possibly. In the end, some sort of meeting with Wisma Putra seems to have occurred. Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi subsequently announced that the Malaysian Cabinet decided to "call in" the Chinese ambassador (he was careful to make clear the ambassador was not being "summoned").

LESSON FOR SINGAPORE

We cannot solve other people's problems. Malaysians must work out their own destiny and we will have to live with their choices.

Are we completely immune to contagion from Malaysia? After 50 years, does our collective Singapore identity now trump racial identities? Maybe under some circumstances. Optimistically, perhaps even most circumstances. But under all circumstances?

I doubt it. Let us wish Malaysia well and hope that the worst does not occur.

But it would be prudent to take no chances and prepare ourselves as if it might. The first step is for all Singaporeans to understand what is happening in our neighbourhood and realistically appreciate our own circumstances.

Deterrence and diplomacy are necessary to reduce the temptation that some in Malaysia may have to externalise their problems and minimise the bilateral friction that will sometimes be unavoidable. Strong deterrence and agile diplomacy must be underpinned by national cohesion which in turn rests on a foundation of common understandings.

Of late it seems to have become fashionable for some sections of our intelligentsia to downplay or even dismiss our vulnerabilities. Some political parties tried variants of this line during our recent General Election. Are they blind and deaf to what is happening around us? Is their desire for notoriety or political advantage so overwhelming as to make them indifferent to the consequences? Malaysia is not the only concern. The haze is a daily reminder that all is not well down south too.

This is not the most salubrious of neighbourhoods.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on October 06, 2015, with the headline 'Singapore is not an island'. Print Edition

Source: ST Online http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/singapore-is-not-an-island