Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's statement that Singapore's ties with Malaysia and Indonesia will "not always be smooth" will probably go down on record as the greatest understatement over the years.
It is heartening to note that despite the highly volatile political setting, it is an outstanding feat of achievement that these countries have maintained, and continue to maintain their continuing 'smooth' relationships and are now even moving towards mutual cooperation in the IDR (Iskandar Development Project).
It would seem that the potential for maintaining and improving this 'smoothness' now has never been as challenging as before. This is because for the first time the project offers a new and dynamic potential political platform to directly address and redress the planned development through the revival and modernisation of the strong and multiple economic ties between the two countries since the region came under the sway of British imperialism in the late 19th century. (Even to this day one only needs observe early in the morning from the Malaysian side of the causeway the almost never ending hundreds of lorries and trucks waiting to cross to Singapore.)
Some background information may be useful. In the first place, the sheer physical geographical terrain comprising three respective counties juxtaposed and "sandwiched" within close physical proximity of each other obviously poses distinct constraints on "space". Second, from the geo-political perspective, each country is a sovereign and independent nation state and "technically" speaking can literally do what it likes!
When seen from this overall view, therefore it seems clear that these countries have in fact done very well indeed to keep their respective "flags flying" alongside each other over the years, despite the serious political odds that might have arisen from potential conflict situations.
But the most challenging, dynamic, and potentially 'explosive' dimension in "ties not always (being) smooth" must surely be the fact of disparity in access to territorial integrity, political power and control, and taking into account the ethnicist race and class dimensions of all groups. To put it bluntly, it is a case of the Singapore "red dot" on the map being surrounded by "vast oceans of green" where the "green" is almost entirely distinct as entities of Muslim communities.
Although academics on both sides of the causeway may therefore shout themselves hoarse by saying these are viable "multicultural' societies, the reality of political and societal divisiveness of marginalisation and socio-economic deprivation, coupled with divergent ethnic, class, and race disparity among the peoples, suggests that the likelihood of continued political economic upheavals continue to exist continue now and in the near future.
It would seem therefore that unless concerted pragmatic measures acceptable to all parties are put in place, it would be unrealistic to expect the seemingly pragmatic 'smooth' relationships to continue. I would seriously suggest that the IDR offers this opportunity.
Therefore with utmost respect to Mr Lee, I believe his comment that "Singaporeans have got used to these ups and downs over the years they will not be rattled" is to me unfortunately a negative and "time wrapped" statement. Mr Lee, who is world renowned as being among the very few brilliant and successful Asian leaders, must surely realise that this kind of ad hoc status- quo orientated "juggling" relationships are totally untenable especially in the context of rapid social change and the structural complexities of the countries involved.
Indeed, it would also be totally unrealistic to expect such a status quo to continue with the emergence of China and India as major world political and economic players, not to mention the failure to recognise the dynamic and breathtaking economic developments taking place in the Southeast Asian region itself.
But all is not lost. Mr Lee is astute enough to realise that the IDR in Johor poses a positive challenge to come up with what he calls a "win-win' situation as never before for the region. In this he has made two crucial observations. The first concerns Chinese Malaysians expecting Singapore to be as "accommodating" to them as in Malaysia in the IDR. Mr Lee of course does not need to be convinced that the Chinese "accommodated" within the Barisan National are essentially the elite Chinese businessmen, politicians and professionals who are most keen on capital investments and obtaining share capital and do not represent the Chinese community as a whole.
Therefore the plan needs to reach out to the Chinese SMEs (small and medium-size enterprises) and other small family businesses. Then again in what to me is perhaps the most theoretical and realistic statement of all, Mr Lee has identified that the "protest voices sours up grassroots support for the leaders, and for cooperation projects with Singapore which benefit their own countries".
With the greatest of respect, I should like the opportunity to address these so-called "protest voices". In my own experiences as the sole Malaysian government counterpart consultant to the Johor/Pahang Tenggara Regional Master Plans, I must say that Mr Lee's views are most pertinent. The fact of the situation is that there is always overwhelming "grassroots support" for such obviously beneficial projects by the rakyat, but this support is often thwarted and blocked by vested interests of politicians and even bureaucrats.
The latter are mainly concerned with ascertaining in what ways they themselves can personally benefit from the projects and tend to discourage the rakyat from taking an interest, not only on the grounds of so-called economic viability but often also on the (false) grounds the real beneficiaries will be Chinese businessmen.
It was most heartening to note therefore that to avoid this potential political interference both the planning consortiums of the Regional Master Plans (the British in Johor and the Canadians in Pahang) demanded that only projects carefully studied and researched only by all experts will be included in the master plans and be considered for implementation. (It is one of the highlights of my career to note that because of these stringent requirements, these master plans still stand out as the most comprehensive and effective till this very day.)
Therefore, I sincerely and firmly believe that the way to allay Mr Lee's genuine concerns for the IDR is to draw up a comprehensive master plan by professionals and experts with hands-on experience. With the greatest of respect (and perhaps for obvious reasons) I have in all humility prepared a draft IDR "blueprint" but regrettably there have been no takers to date. I have submitted a copy to the Joint Ministerial Committee of IDR and I pray that something comes of this.
