The thorny differences between Malaysia and Singapore stand in stark contrast to their close cooperation on security issues.

by Andrew Aeria

Senior police contact has been constant.

In early October, while in Kuala Lumpur for the World Economic Forum’s East Asia Economic Summit, Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong held discussions with his Malaysian counterpart Dr. Mahathir Mohamad over Malaysia’s latest proposal to revise the price for untreated water sold to the city-state. As expected, and in keeping with their mutually unofficial but de facto “beggar-my-neighbour” policies, both Prime Ministers made little headway in resolving the impasse.

While Prime Minister Mahathir said that Malaysia had lost out over the two water agreements and sought to revise and backdate the price competitively and at market rates, Goh’s Press secretary said that Malaysia did not have any legal basis for reviewing the price of water, which should have been undertaken in the mid-1980s. Whereas Malaysia accused Singapore of delaying negotiations and profiting from cheap water, Singapore said it was prepared to discuss a price revision but only as part of a bilateral package.

While Singapore said in early September that the water talks hit a snag after Malaysia switched tack on the agreement to discuss bilateral issues as a package, Dr. Mahathir suggested in October that negotiating with Goh was difficult when Goh frequently changed his views.

Soon after Goh’s visit, when asked about Singapore’s opposition to Malaysia setting up the ASEAN+3 Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur, Dr. Mahathir expressed no surprise since Singapore “rejected everything that originated from Malaysia”. And in late-October, while Malaysia’s de facto Law Minister Rais Yatim said that Malaysia might consider enacting a new law to supersede the two existing water pacts should Singapore continue to disagree with Malaysia’s position, Singapore’s Foreign Ministry immediately retorted that any such new legislation would not be in accord with Malaysia’s previous assurances to honour the two water agreements.

And so the thorny saga goes on with both countries making little progress in resolving their outstanding bilateral issues over water, the withdrawal of Singapore Central Provident Funds by Malaysian workers, redevelopment of Malaysian Railway (KTM) land in Singapore, the re-location of Malaysia’s Immigration, Customs and Quarantine facilities to Woodlands, Singapore military overflights into Malaysian airspace, and the question of a second bridge link into Singapore.

In fact, with no concrete results to show after all these years, one cannot help but wonder if both sides are deliberately involved in some sort of wayang kulit to not settle these outstanding bilateral issues, official rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. After all, does not either side gain political mileage by painting the other as being difficult or problematic? While national economic interests and commercial advantage are obviously at the heart of the impasse over bilateral issues, whipping up nationalistic sentiments over any or all of these outstanding issues also seldom fails to boost the nationalistic domestic appeal of both the Malaysian and Singaporean governments.

. . . but Security Cooperation

And yet, this stands in stark contrast to their almost seamless cooperation on security issues. Ever since the 1950s when both countries battled a communist insurgency, security cooperation, information exchange and senior police contact has been constant. So too it was earlier this year when Singapore uncovered an alleged terrorist network called Jemaah Islamiyah and detained without trial over 30 suspected Muslim militants said to have links with international terrorism. Symbiotically, Malaysia soon after detained numerous Muslim citizens of its own, and also under the pretext of their being suspected militants with alleged links to those detained in Singapore as well as to international terrorism.

Singapore’s detention of alleged Muslim militants drew criticism from those who saw it as a ploy to divert attention away from dissent among Muslims circumscribed from practising their religion freely in the republic, especially in regard to Muslim girls wearing headscarves when attending government schools. As well, Malaysia’s political opposition along with civil society groups criticised their government for resorting to arbitrary detention of alleged Muslim militants as a ploy to intimidate society and crush democratic dissent. Amnesty International has also expressed its concern that those so detained in both countries have been held incommunicado and could have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment.

Two Questions

Malaysia and Singapore’s seemingly contradictory behaviour thus begs the following two questions. If they can cooperate seamlessly over security issues despite sharp domestic and international criticism, why can’t they cooperatively negotiate longstanding bilateral issues fairly for the benefit of commerce and citizenry of both countries? Are both governments really incapable of looking beyond their respective narrow political, economic and official interests? Unfortunately, the trouble with authoritarian governments is just that. Unfamiliar to democratic debate and negotiated compromises, they are too certain of their own agendas to know better.

Now tell us what you think. E-mail us.