July 25, 2009
TIES WITH MALAYSIA
[Commenting along the way. Generally, I think it is good that we consider all possibilities and keep an open mind, but re-merger is highly unlikely, and I'll cover that at the end.]
IN HIS commentary on Wednesday, 'KL-Singapore ties: Turning of the tide', Mr K. Kesavapany seems to agree with his Malaysian friend Din Merican that Singapore is no longer dependent on the Malaysian hinterland for its economic prosperity as it is driven by financial and intellectual capital.
I tend to see things differently. The very economic fundamentals that required Singapore to join Malaysia may revisit us 30 to 40 years down the road for us to consider seriously the option of re-merger.
In the long term, the rise of China and India, the waning power of the United States, the European Union and Japan, and the concurrent economic development and prosperity of regional countries, including our neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia, will have serious implications for Singapore's survival.
Fifty years ago, Malaysia imported its Mandarin oranges, lychees and longans and other Chinese goods largely from Singapore, as Malaysia shunned direct import of China goods for political reasons. It is no longer so and this is one example where the tide has turned to Singapore's disadvantage.
[Economic fundamentals have changed vis-a-vis Singapore-Malaysia relationship. In the past, we took as a given the need for the "hinterland" of Malaysia. However, that position of M'sia can be seen (and is seen by Dr M) as insulting. No country would enjoy being labeled as any other country's "hinterland". So yes, we don't re-export Chinese goods to M'sia because situations change. But Singapore changes with it.
We move into higher value added products, like wafer fabrication which is a water-heavy industry. M'sia followed us and competed with us, but they wanted an additional advantage, so they tried to up the price of the water they were selling us to ridiculous rates. We went the NEWater route and we aren't looking back.]
The rising prosperity of regional countries will drive our imported talent back to their home countries and beyond, where good jobs await them in plenty, including thousands of Malaysians who make up a critical segment of our manpower.
[Certainly, there may be a pull back to the home country. But it is not just good jobs awaiting that will pull people back. Singapore's attraction is not just our prosperity, but how we create this prosperity and the opportunities Singapore can offer both in terms of career but also as a place to live and raise a family. ]
Also as these countries replicate Singapore's work efficiency, organisation and training of labour in higher skills, they will no longer need Singapore as a trading and service hub to conduct their cross-border business transactions. The reality is no country, big or small, however close and supportive of us they may be now, owes us a living.
[And we have never operated on "the world owes us a living" presumption. Everything we get, we paid for or reimbursed with comparable value. Cheap raw water from M'sia? In exchange we provided subsidised treated water so needed that M'sia drew much more than their allowance in the water agreement. On the other hand, M'sia seems to think that we owe them something. This is historical emotional baggage that will not fade away so easily.]
Did Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent visit to Malaysia - undertaken primarily to lay the ground work for second-tier leaders in both countries to get to know each other better and forge stronger ties - also imply a long-term view of possible re-merger as an option that should not be ruled out?
MM Lee said in 2007: 'If they (Malaysia) would just educate the Chinese and Indians, use them and treat them as their citizens, they can equal us and even do better than us and we would be happy to rejoin them.'
[You may wish to read "re-merger" in that. But I wouldn't. MM Lee is a pragmatist. The meritocracy principle will be a non-negotiable for Singapore. But in Bumi M'sia, that is still a long way away. And if M'sia does surpass Singapore, what benefits would there be for M'sia? Would it not be better to keep Singapore separate and independent and an example to trot out every now and then to show how far M'sia has come? They don't owe us a living if they ever surpass us. Can we rejoin M'sia as equals? I don't think so. As a vessal? That was the plan 44 years ago, but it may not be relevant. However for historical closure M'sia might take us back as a humbled vessal. But it would not be to our advantage.]
It is important that non-Malay Singaporeans learn the Malay language. Forty years ago, most Chinese stall keepers spoke a smattering of Malay, but now it is an alien language. The Government should encourage learning Malay on a wider scale.
K. Kalidas
[And then an agenda from left field. In the long term view of history, anything is possible and remerger cannot be ruled out. But, we can consider situations where remerger would not occur. The following scenarios does not consider how likely it would happen, just merely what if it happened - would merger be probable?
Situation 1. Singapore strong, M'sia relatively weaker.
I would say that this is the current situation. In such a situation, Singapore would gain nothing from merger. If Singapore wre were still dependent on primary industry, perhaps. If merger happens it would have to be on Singapore's terms, and it is unlikely that M'sia would swallow its pride and accede to Singapore's terms. No matter how bad the situation. And it is also unlikely that Singapore would want to be responsible for M'sia. That would be too big a job.
Situation 2. M'sia ascendent, Singapore relatively weaker or in decline.
Here the tables are turned. Singapore has no natural resources to speak of. M'sia would have little reason to merge with Singapore. The S'pore Chinese would probably not be very amenable to M'sia's political system and taking in Singapore would be like letting a viper into your house. There would be little material or political gain from merger (from the M'sian perspective) and more risk than is necessary. M'sia would probably do better by letting Singapore get weaker, use Singapore as an example of a weak neighbour, and maybe offer some humanitarian help now and then to gain moral superiority. If M'sia succeeds without Singapore, it makes no economic sense to bring in a weakened Singapore. We would only be a liability and a risk.
Situation 3. S'pore & M'sia equally or comparatively strong economically.
Negotiating from strength sounds more plausible. However if the political and philosophical gulfs that led to Separation in 1965 are still there, there would be little reason to merge as the reasons for separation still exists. Thus S'pore & M'sia may be strong economically but each is strong for different reasons. In any case if each has succeeded without the other, the question would be what synergy would a merger bring and at what costs? S'pore would never go the bumiputra route and would never accept it. While I believe that for as long as M'sia has the Bumi policy they can never be as competitive or efficient, this scenario assumes that they succeed with or in spite of the Bumi policy. Okay, what if M'sia had set aside the Bumi policy (which the current PM is starting to do, but given the tendency for M'sia to u-turn their policy...)? There would be no barriers (from the Singapore perspective) to re-merger, but there are no push or pull factors to encourage merger. When Singapore merged 46 years ago, it was to break away from the Brits for independence. There is no such push now. Singapore is already independent and in this scenario, it is doing fine. Similarly, M'sia has no push factor to seek re-merger other than a Malay hegemony, which would be tied to Malay dominance or supremacy, which means that M'sia would not have abandoned the bumi policy.
Situation 4: S'pore & M'sia both weakened and in decline.
Merger here must be seen as a win-win synergistic solution to both countries fighting for survival. But it may not be so. In times of trouble, doors tend to close. it would take visionary leaders on both sides of the causeway to see a way forward that ties the destiny of two poor countries together. ]
TIES WITH MALAYSIA
[Commenting along the way. Generally, I think it is good that we consider all possibilities and keep an open mind, but re-merger is highly unlikely, and I'll cover that at the end.]
IN HIS commentary on Wednesday, 'KL-Singapore ties: Turning of the tide', Mr K. Kesavapany seems to agree with his Malaysian friend Din Merican that Singapore is no longer dependent on the Malaysian hinterland for its economic prosperity as it is driven by financial and intellectual capital.
I tend to see things differently. The very economic fundamentals that required Singapore to join Malaysia may revisit us 30 to 40 years down the road for us to consider seriously the option of re-merger.
In the long term, the rise of China and India, the waning power of the United States, the European Union and Japan, and the concurrent economic development and prosperity of regional countries, including our neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia, will have serious implications for Singapore's survival.
Fifty years ago, Malaysia imported its Mandarin oranges, lychees and longans and other Chinese goods largely from Singapore, as Malaysia shunned direct import of China goods for political reasons. It is no longer so and this is one example where the tide has turned to Singapore's disadvantage.
[Economic fundamentals have changed vis-a-vis Singapore-Malaysia relationship. In the past, we took as a given the need for the "hinterland" of Malaysia. However, that position of M'sia can be seen (and is seen by Dr M) as insulting. No country would enjoy being labeled as any other country's "hinterland". So yes, we don't re-export Chinese goods to M'sia because situations change. But Singapore changes with it.
We move into higher value added products, like wafer fabrication which is a water-heavy industry. M'sia followed us and competed with us, but they wanted an additional advantage, so they tried to up the price of the water they were selling us to ridiculous rates. We went the NEWater route and we aren't looking back.]
The rising prosperity of regional countries will drive our imported talent back to their home countries and beyond, where good jobs await them in plenty, including thousands of Malaysians who make up a critical segment of our manpower.
[Certainly, there may be a pull back to the home country. But it is not just good jobs awaiting that will pull people back. Singapore's attraction is not just our prosperity, but how we create this prosperity and the opportunities Singapore can offer both in terms of career but also as a place to live and raise a family. ]
Also as these countries replicate Singapore's work efficiency, organisation and training of labour in higher skills, they will no longer need Singapore as a trading and service hub to conduct their cross-border business transactions. The reality is no country, big or small, however close and supportive of us they may be now, owes us a living.
[And we have never operated on "the world owes us a living" presumption. Everything we get, we paid for or reimbursed with comparable value. Cheap raw water from M'sia? In exchange we provided subsidised treated water so needed that M'sia drew much more than their allowance in the water agreement. On the other hand, M'sia seems to think that we owe them something. This is historical emotional baggage that will not fade away so easily.]
Did Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent visit to Malaysia - undertaken primarily to lay the ground work for second-tier leaders in both countries to get to know each other better and forge stronger ties - also imply a long-term view of possible re-merger as an option that should not be ruled out?
MM Lee said in 2007: 'If they (Malaysia) would just educate the Chinese and Indians, use them and treat them as their citizens, they can equal us and even do better than us and we would be happy to rejoin them.'
[You may wish to read "re-merger" in that. But I wouldn't. MM Lee is a pragmatist. The meritocracy principle will be a non-negotiable for Singapore. But in Bumi M'sia, that is still a long way away. And if M'sia does surpass Singapore, what benefits would there be for M'sia? Would it not be better to keep Singapore separate and independent and an example to trot out every now and then to show how far M'sia has come? They don't owe us a living if they ever surpass us. Can we rejoin M'sia as equals? I don't think so. As a vessal? That was the plan 44 years ago, but it may not be relevant. However for historical closure M'sia might take us back as a humbled vessal. But it would not be to our advantage.]
It is important that non-Malay Singaporeans learn the Malay language. Forty years ago, most Chinese stall keepers spoke a smattering of Malay, but now it is an alien language. The Government should encourage learning Malay on a wider scale.
K. Kalidas
[And then an agenda from left field. In the long term view of history, anything is possible and remerger cannot be ruled out. But, we can consider situations where remerger would not occur. The following scenarios does not consider how likely it would happen, just merely what if it happened - would merger be probable?
Situation 1. Singapore strong, M'sia relatively weaker.
I would say that this is the current situation. In such a situation, Singapore would gain nothing from merger. If Singapore wre were still dependent on primary industry, perhaps. If merger happens it would have to be on Singapore's terms, and it is unlikely that M'sia would swallow its pride and accede to Singapore's terms. No matter how bad the situation. And it is also unlikely that Singapore would want to be responsible for M'sia. That would be too big a job.
Situation 2. M'sia ascendent, Singapore relatively weaker or in decline.
Here the tables are turned. Singapore has no natural resources to speak of. M'sia would have little reason to merge with Singapore. The S'pore Chinese would probably not be very amenable to M'sia's political system and taking in Singapore would be like letting a viper into your house. There would be little material or political gain from merger (from the M'sian perspective) and more risk than is necessary. M'sia would probably do better by letting Singapore get weaker, use Singapore as an example of a weak neighbour, and maybe offer some humanitarian help now and then to gain moral superiority. If M'sia succeeds without Singapore, it makes no economic sense to bring in a weakened Singapore. We would only be a liability and a risk.
Situation 3. S'pore & M'sia equally or comparatively strong economically.
Negotiating from strength sounds more plausible. However if the political and philosophical gulfs that led to Separation in 1965 are still there, there would be little reason to merge as the reasons for separation still exists. Thus S'pore & M'sia may be strong economically but each is strong for different reasons. In any case if each has succeeded without the other, the question would be what synergy would a merger bring and at what costs? S'pore would never go the bumiputra route and would never accept it. While I believe that for as long as M'sia has the Bumi policy they can never be as competitive or efficient, this scenario assumes that they succeed with or in spite of the Bumi policy. Okay, what if M'sia had set aside the Bumi policy (which the current PM is starting to do, but given the tendency for M'sia to u-turn their policy...)? There would be no barriers (from the Singapore perspective) to re-merger, but there are no push or pull factors to encourage merger. When Singapore merged 46 years ago, it was to break away from the Brits for independence. There is no such push now. Singapore is already independent and in this scenario, it is doing fine. Similarly, M'sia has no push factor to seek re-merger other than a Malay hegemony, which would be tied to Malay dominance or supremacy, which means that M'sia would not have abandoned the bumi policy.
Situation 4: S'pore & M'sia both weakened and in decline.
Merger here must be seen as a win-win synergistic solution to both countries fighting for survival. But it may not be so. In times of trouble, doors tend to close. it would take visionary leaders on both sides of the causeway to see a way forward that ties the destiny of two poor countries together. ]
No comments:
Post a Comment