MGGPillai.com :: The crooked bridge and cultural enmity

The late MGG Pillai wrote this. He was all for the bridge. He implied security as the prime purpose. To make it hard for the tanks to come over here. An interesting read. Not sure how long his site will be up, so have copy-pasted the article here.

MGGPillai.com :: The crooked bridge and cultural enmity: " MGG Commentary

\'\'
14-04-2006 08:53 am

The crooked bridge and cultural enmity

WHY DID DATO' SERI SYED HAMID, the foreign minister, and others in the cabinet, make a fool of themselves days before the Prime Minister, Pak Lah, said the crooked bridge to replace part of the causeway with Singapore would not be built? Why had they not been penalised for making the Malaysian government look stupid? What was the basis for Pak Lah making his decision? Was it because his son-in-law, Mr Khairy Jamaluddin, is reported to be close to Singapore and many believe is its representative here? Why did Pak Lah defy his cabinet ministers? He cannot say he is boss, and can do what he likes. He was a member of the Mahathir cabinet which approved the bridge. Much money has been spent in preparing for it. Just because Singapore says the crooked bridge is unworkable? The public reasons for the crooked bridge is as obscure as against it.

Politicians and academics from both sides of the causeway agree with Pak Lah's decision. But they will be proved wrong. Pak Lah had agreed to a cabinet decision in the past to build the bridge. Johore support it for economic, political and cultural reasons. But the problem is that it is sold to the man-in-street, and journalists, as an exercise in fantasy, and a way to make money. I knew it had a security purpose, which is not mentioned. Singapore would have known it, and told everyone who would listen it is not viable, changing the public attitude, for it would have a difficult time for its tanks should it ever invade this country. The people at the top in Malaysia forget their priorities when money wathe prime consideration.

I learnt of the crooked bridge when mooted in the 1990s, accepted why it had to be built. But what the prime minister's office said then in public and private were contradictory, but this was politics, and par for the course. Countries like Malaysia and Singapore, neighbours and rivals, have the other in their policy planning. Look and India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka. One cannot consider a policy except in reference to its neighbours. In Malaysia, the problem is complicated further because Johore has its own reasons for wanting the bridge, and its agreement is necessary. All agreed to it because it would have money in the promotors', and individuals', pockets. There must have been an equally good reason for Pak Lah to not have the bridge built, having approved it during Dr Mahathir's time as prime minister. But he does not say what it is.

It is fashionable to criticise Malaysia in public. It is difficult to see officials. Junior officials threaten local journalists with detention without trial if they ask the minister if he keeps a mistress in a love nest in a housing estate. Foreign journalists rarely go to Putra Jaya, where the most important officials are, unless they have to, and those they meet in Kuala Lumpur, including the Singapore high commission, tell them otherwise. Transport to Putra Jaya is not easy, and set you back about RM150. Contrary to official belief, people, even foreigners, are not wealthy. The Malaysian government is becoming aware, the first word in the ear, frequently repeated, that this is bound to get the public ear, and that it is often not Malaysia's. The public perception now is the crooked bridge is wasteful and irrelevant, and rightly for those reasons attacked.

I have been allowed into Singapore on a visit pass. specially applied for, from 1971, and banned permanently from 1991. It did not bother me since, an Italian journalist wrote in his book, I had done my shopping. I had written in an Indian paper of Israeli-made Singapore tanks and why they were bought. It was true, but local journalists could not write about it as they can never could get official confirmation. In defence matters, Singapore is touchy. The speeches I gave to the military staff college here on Singapore led me to be banned from it, a Singapore lecturer was invited to give the lecture instead. I still talk to senior military officials on Singapore privately. Malaysian officials do not want to hurt Singapore even if that makes Malaysia look silly. But is not time for Malaysia to take decisions that are for Malaysia's good and not other countries?

But there is one difference between Malaysia and Singapore, apart from the majority in one being Malays and the other Chinese. Malays think long term. Singapore short term. Coupled with good public relations, Singapore will steal a march in the short term over Malaysia. I believe in 2061, when the water agreeements expire, Singapore will be part of Malaysia, not as a state but as an adjunct to Johore. Singapore made that possible when it rejected a Malaysian proposal to shore in the profits of the water sold to commercial enterprises. That led to the then prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, coming to Kuala Lumpur in 1987 to sort it out with his Malaysian counterpart. It was at this meeting that Malaysia took the upper hand culturally from Singapore, which has tried to wrest it back by other means. In public, though, the Singaporean is seen as a go-getter, a Malaysian a bumbling fool harping on his past but quite happy to fill his pockets with money from any source.

It is not that the Singaporean is not corrupt. He is, but the government controls that: certain people are authorised to be corrupt, but not others. I know of Singaporeans in high positions who got there because they had views different from the others. In Malaysia, this is not allowed. But given the society Singapore is, he would not do anything unless ordered. The Malaysian will take a different view in public even if he is pushed aside. But his view will eventually gain the public eye if sound and relevant. He would go against the government if he has to. The government is in trouble because of this. In Singapore, the naysayers tend to make known their ways in private or in closed quarters. In Malaysia, publicly. So we have, to the outside world, a disorganised, disoriented, speaking at cross purposes Malaysia and an organised, oriented and united Singapore in what matters today, the short term. But Malaysia will have its day in 2061. To paraphrase a saying: He laughs best who laughs last.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@streamyx.com