I usually agree with Warren Fernandez's views but his recent piece "KL-S'pore ties: It takes two to joget" Straits Times, July 11, 1998, has prompted me to add some perspective to the alleged sins of our northern neighbors.
In retrospect, viewed in the backdrop of the seminally defining messy eviction from Malaysia, the days of tense reservist mobilizations over the 1984 Herzog visit to Singapore and the recent conflagration over Lee Kuan Yew's comments about Johor's alleged notoriety, seasoned observers of the KL-S'pore joget would probably view some aspects of the current spat as business as usual, where minor sideshow distractions are nothing more than ventilatory should be treated as just that.
One manifestation of this sideshow that props up with monsoonal regularity are the accusations of Malaysian Culture, Arts and Tourism Minister Datuk Sabbaruddin Chik. He has long been a self-beatified thorn in Singapore's side and gladly taking up cudgels in response to the slightest of slights against Malaysia. A classic flame or bomb thrower. What should be done, and has been done in my opinion, is not to go beyond after a business-like and diplomatic exposition of the truth. To engage in further discourse is simply propping up the currency of he and his ilk. Any continued hectoring by the Singapore Minister without Portfolio is akin to stooping to Chik's level and leads nowhere like one of those schoolyard fracas. This type of grandstanding thrives on the oxygen of attention, being the fearless bumi standing up against the arrogant, self-righteous neighbors south of the border. To diagnose the state of KL-S'pore relations based on the barometer of Chik & his ilk is neither helpful and confuse the rhetoric from the substance.
Were this the end of Warren's piece, I would not fret, but dismissing Dr. Mahathir's wading into the CPF monies issue, Warren's reaction betray the singular chronic faux pas that has bedeviled Singapore institutional and informal diplomacy, or the lack thereof, in managing relations with our northern neighbors. This vulnerable lack of diplomatic sophistry and closing up the ranks was the exact set diplomatic joget missteps in the wake of LKY's observations about Johor. Instead of the joget (a mutual dance of grace & patience) we had breakdance (an exaggerated display of solo bravado).
Sandbagging an absolutist hardheaded position without taking heed of the emotional quotient of the issues may go well in rooting out and destroying Singaporean opposition politicians but do not sit too well in diplomatic gamesmanship where the final nightmare scenario is the shutting off of water supply (notwithstanding the SAF's inevitable offensive strategy of securing water resources in any trans-border conflict). There can be other times of draw the line or raising the stakes but there could be mitigating circumstances surrounding this CPF monies.
Warren's comments on Mahathir's puzzlement on the difference in treatment that Singapore will not allow workers from Peninsular Malaysia to withdraw their CPF savings when those from Sabah and Sarawak can do so raises some interesting issues. First, the difference in treatment between East Malaysians and Peninsular Malaysians on the face of it is somewhat strange.
Why is there a distinction between citizens of a foreign country? Why do East Malaysians have better rights that Peninsular Malaysians in relation to the CPF monies? I may offer some X-Filesque reasons but I restrain myself, for now.
Second, Warren's characterization of the CPF issue: "Workers from Peninsular Malaysia took jobs here aware of the CPF rules and were quite happy to abide by them" is completely rational and appropriate, but when Peninsular Malaysians did take up Singapore jobs, they were not aware that Malaysia will have the dubious distinction of having the world's tallest building and simultaneously calling on its citizens to grow cauliflower in their gardens so they would not need to import the vegetable from abroad. There has been a catastrophic meltdown in economic conditions.
If, according to Warren, the M$2.4 billion (S$960 million), "will not go very far in saving Malaysia from its present economic crisis" and "the amount involved is not large" - so why hold on to the cash and incur all this faux and bad karma from our border buddies and add to this wayang kulit of suspicion. A quick defusing of the issue is enough. But Singapore could seize an opportunity with one swift and bold gesture to exorcize ill and shore up goodwill. Magnanimity and graciousness on our part in the face of an unreasonable and untenable position is enough. One scores brownie points in the larger scheme of things and shuts down an irritating sideshow in the bilateral KL- S'pore soap opera, which has more shrouding steam than showing reality heat. Very much like these sexy TV novellas that I've resorted to watch to improve my Spanish to follow the passionate World Cup Spanish commentary on the Univision channel while I'm here in New York.
The region is in desperate straits and desperate situations require desperate remedies. Warren pontificates that it is the principle at stake here which is significant where Singapore should not change it's policies willy nilly at the whim of any outside foreign power and Mahathir may have transparent and domestic political motives to find another scapegoat for Malaysia's woes. But by sounding bellicose or raising the rhetoric is playing into a game that neither party can ill-afford to lose once the stakes have raised and there is little room to manoeuver without greater loss of face.
If the danger and cost to the CPF is minimal and one abides by a due process principle that East Malaysians should be treated no differently from Peninsular Malaysians, one should just be gracious and offer succor in these dire times of our cauliflower challenged neighbors and release the CPF cash. I empathize that the CPF is the holiest of holiest sacred cows in S'pore Inc., but penny wise but pound foolish comes to mind. A one-time reprieve or moratorium or amnesty for the cash-strapped Malaysians in this exigency could be justified. Ignoring this chance to buy up some bilateral emotional and social capital in the relations with our closest, yet at times, so distant neighbor, is well worth an investment risk.
On the foreign policy side, will this create an unhealthy precedent in negotiations with Malaysia? This long-term view should be applied here - citing the extraordinary economic miseries that the region is facing it may be time for a good deed. Although good deeds are sometimes forgotten but inaction in times of need are never forgiven.
But more importantly, I know that the S'pore government would not want to create a unhealthy precedent for domestic reasons. In releasing these CPF funds may raise the specter of floodgates because Singaporeans may want their CPF funds released in this darkest hour of our recession- bound economy. Any idea of withdrawal of CPF funds may breach a mythical Maginot line. However, I am quite certain that despite what Singaporeans may gripe and grouse, there is a meeting a true minds between the Government and the people over the sanctity of CPF funds. Why do I speak with such uncharacteristic optimism? History has shown that even in the darkest hours of our brief economic history, the withdrawal of British troops in the late 1960s;, the oil shock recession in 1973/4 and the 84/5 recession - this Maginot line for Singaporeans' CPF funds has held. But focusing on what Singaporeans may think or not is not the live issue here but it is the dealings with the Peninsular Malaysians' CPF monies. If the Government were to make an exception, it would be opportune to frame it in this narrow and exigent situation.
Warren postulates that "investment-savvy Malaysians would probably seek a safe haven for their funds in these difficult times"and "may even choose to leave it in Singapore banks" misses the point. Warren simply assumes that will be the case which may very well be, but let the Malaysians make the decision themselves. What is the standing of a Singaporean to take that opportunity from the poor beleaguered Malaysian? The big difference is that these Peninsular Malaysians will be acting on their own accord and not appear to have been taken hostage by the S'pore authorities.
If these Peninsular Malaysians have their CPF savings released to them and they decide to voluntarily deposit them in S'pore safe haven banks, Mahathir may lose one boogeyman to blame for Malaysia's ills, in fact it highlights one more problem that has to be solved in the Malaysian economy. Will this stop Malaysian politicians from finding other Singaporean boogeymen? I will answer that question once our local politicians stop taking pot-shots or berate other the shortcomings of other regional political characters or systems in order to justify the continued rule of the PAP government.
Moreover, once these Peninsular Malaysian have their monies liberated from the abysmally low CPF interest rate and if they are put into other Singaporean banks to earn better returns our banks would benefit, and as I recall, Singapore banks are not necessarily turning away depositors right now.
Personally, the brouhaha about this move of the CIQ facilities to Woodlands is only the ikan bilis of KL-S'pore realpolitik when compared the gorupah issue of Mahathir's statement that the Points of Agreement signed in November 1990 by then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and then-Malaysian Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin. Taking the legalistic high ground may be one way to pursue this and public offers to settle the matter by arbitration or by going to the International Court of Justice may have appeared to be the standard operation procedure. I guess that since the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is headed by the previous Dean of the Law Faculty of the then-University of Singapore, such a formalist approach cannot be faulted but am I the only one to feel that international relations is more than just legal formalism but also sometimes rooted in simple down-to-earth listening, discussion and exchange and where nice legalisms are sacrificed to bare-knuckled realpolitik.
Warren's faith in treaties and pacts appears to have the same idealism as Neville Chamberlain's agreement or Stalin's secret treaty with Hitler - I'm not equating any of the current parties in our local mis-en-sene with the characters of those times but legal instruments of international statecraft and diplomacy are rarely worth the paper they're written on if the political will is lacking or waned in the interim. What needs to be done is not engage in the blame game that the punctilious sandbag digger in Singaporean standing up, crying foul about the "wild allegations" and other iniquities that S'pore is being brought to suffer. What has to be done is a sensitive, patient and less public rapprochement about the issues.
I'm not too afraid because I concur with the Far Eastern Economic Review's verdict that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's "softer style has worked in diplomacy" in dealing with our northern neighbors who "declared relations thawed," see FEER "Final Exam" July 16, 1998. What is needed is PM Goh's reassuring voice and hand in this current spat for some workable and meaningful resolution to the issues.
Public antics or announcements that whoop up hoopla are be just that and sometimes small steps may lead to bigger symbolic leaps in confidence building and suckling on the nipple of nostalgia, in the spirit of gotong royong of days gone by, neighboring penghulus of kampongs did not understand the sophisticated legalisms of statecraft but they never misunderstood unconditional help that came from the hati, or heart, something that KL knows that PM Goh really has. Not only because it's the right thing to do but in the interest of self-preservation, it makes good political sense for the healthy kampong that is currently not imperiled, to help that suffering village so their villagers may not turn their rage and anger to the healthy one.