| QUOTE |
| THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Malaysia-Singapore 'cold war' Raja Petra Kamarudin An old acquaintance of mine who was once quite senior in the Fisheries Department related this story, which he said stunned everybody in the room. The occasion was a briefing session and the man who was the target of the briefing was Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. This government officer who was conducting the briefing tried to impress Dr Mahathir on what they were doing. He went into great detail talking about their plans and strategies and how things are going to improve once these plans and strategies are in place. And he concluded by assuring Dr Mahathir that it will work because this is exactly what Singapore is doing. Dr Mahathir gave the briefing officer a long and hard stare and said, “Please never mention Singapore in front of me again. Don’t you know we are at war with Singapore?” From that day on, word spread like wildfire that you must never, at all costs, mention Singapore in front of Dr Mahathir, unless it is in a negative light that is. To say that Malaysia too is doing such and such because Singapore is doing the same is to invite disaster and a dead-end career in the government. We both had a good laugh and I never thought about this incident again until 2006, something like 30 years after I was first told the story about the briefing session. And 2006 was when I started my association with Dr Mahathir soon after the dialogue session that Malaysia Today organised at the Kelab Century Paradise in Taman Melawati in Kuala Lumpur. “Singapore is just a little red dot,” Dr Mahathir would tell all and sundry, sometimes to a crowd of 1,000 or more. Why is Dr Mahathir so upset with Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi? Because Pak Lah tunduk (kow tow) to Singapore. Why is Dr Mahathir so upset that his Crooked Bridge has been aborted, and at a price that is more costly than if they went ahead and built it on top of that? Because Singapore does not want it -- so, by aborting it, Malaysia is bowing to Singapore’s demands. Why is Dr Mahathir so angry with Kalimullah (whom he calls Hindu God and Muslim Priest)? Because Kalimullah is a Singapore agent. Why is Dr Mahathir so angry with Khairy Jamaluddin? Because Khairy works for Singapore and is being funded by that ‘little red dot’. Anything and everything even remotely associated with Singapore is a no-no in Dr Mahathir’s books. “Of course I can’t get along with Singapore,” laments Dr Mahathir. “I can’t go to Singapore and play golf with Singapore’s leaders and pat each other on the back like those in Pak Lah’s government.” “Who cares if Singapore wants a new straight bridge to replace the Causeway or not. They can keep their half of the Causeway. We will demolish our half and build half a bridge. And if half a bridge is too short then we shall make it longer by building a crooked bridge.” “Lee Kuan Yew told me that Goh Chok Tong is too sentimental. That’s why he does not want to see the Causeway demolished. So we will have to wait until Chok Tong retires and then, after he retires, we shall demolish the whole Causeway.” “Malaysia fought hard to gain independence from Britain. We opposed the British and the British plan for a Malayan Union. However, after 50 years of Merdeka, we are still not independent. We still can’t decide what to do in our own country. Singapore tells us what we can do in our own country. So we are not really that independent after all.” And it goes on and on -- Singapore this and Singapore that. It is all about Singapore. And all of Dr Mahathir’s unhappiness is because Singapore is the cause of everything that is wrong with this country and all his plans are being torpedoed because of Singapore. There are those in Umno who say that in 2006 I abandoned Anwar Ibrahim and then jumped into Dr Mahathir’s camp. Then I left Dr Mahathir and swung over to Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s camp. And after that I left Tengku Razaleigh to return to Anwar. Why I ‘left’ Dr Mahathir is not clear because there was no quarrel or bad blood between Dr Mahathir and me. I sort of just moved on without any reason offered. That is what the Umno chaps say and they say this openly enough in their Blogs. True, I did ‘swing over’ to Dr Mahathir back in 2006. But come 2008, I was involved in the general elections and after that the Pematang Pauh by-election followed by the Kuala Terengganu by-election. In between that I was arrested for sedition and then for criminal defamation after which I was detained a couple of months under the Internal Security Act. So that sort of kept me busy for the last year or so, in between going to the police station numerous times and the many court appearances. Nevertheless, while I may have been too busy to personally go meet Dr Mahathir in his house and office like I used to from 2006 to early 2008, I still kept in touch by phone and by passing messages through a mutual friend. I also met Matthias many times for lunch, tea or dinner to spend hours discussing matters of mutual interest. And most times the messages would be passed to and from Dr Mahathir through these people. Dr Mahathir understood that our association was only because we both wanted the same thing -- we both wanted to see Pak Lah ousted from office. That was the one thing that united us. However, after Pak Lah leaves, who should be the man to replace him? Dr Mahathir knew that my choice of successor was Tengku Razaleigh. In fact, I had personally gone to meet Dr Mahathir in his house during Hari Raya of 2007 to inform him about this. Furthermore, we had a series of meetings with Tengku Razaleigh together with Mukhriz’s boys to discuss how Tengku Razaleigh could make a bid for the Umno Presidency. I was not naïve in thinking that Anwar would be the next prime minister. This was before the 8 March 2008 general election and we were not sure yet at that time whether there was even going to be a Pakatan Rakyat (or maybe there would be three- or four-corner fights with PKR, PAS and DAP all contesting the same seat against Barisan Nasional). So the man who becomes prime minister has to be someone from Umno and that would have to be Tengku Razaleigh. But we were not really sure whether Dr Mahathir would endorse Tengku Razaleigh in spite of Mukhriz’s boys appearing to be backing him. When we asked Dr Mahathir to his face whether he preferred Najib over Tengku Razaleigh, he did not give the impression he preferred Najib. We never thought Dr Mahathir would want Najib because of the ‘Singapore connection’. He is angry with Pak Lah, Kalimullah and Khairy because they are said to be tools or agents of Singapore. But then would this not also be so for Najib? Tun Daim Zainuddin has personally told Dr Mahathir that Singapore possesses all the evidence that Najib, Razak Baginda and Altantuya met at the Oriental Hotel in Marina Square one year before she died. This means, with the evidence that Singapore possesses, they would be able to blackmail Najib. Surely Dr Mahathir would not want someone who can be blackmailed into doing Singapore’s bidding become the next prime minister knowing how he feels about Singapore and those perceived as under Singapore’s control? Najib has just made a trip to Singapore and while in Singapore he announced that Malaysia agrees to build a third bridge linking Malaysia and Singapore. Third bridge? If there is going to be a third bridge then there would certainly be a second bridge. And we are no longer talking about crooked bridges as what Dr Mahathir wants. We are talking about straight bridges as what Singapore wants. And Najib also announced that the New Economic Policy would most likely be abolished as what Singapore would like to see. Hmmm…this is interesting. Does Dr Mahathir know what Najib is doing? Surely Dr Mahathir can’t agree to Najib giving in to Singapore’s demands like what is currently happening. Are we going to see Dr Mahathir going berserk like back in 2006 with all these concessions Najib is granting Singapore? Well, Dr Mahathir knows I support him in his move to oust Pak Lah. But I just can’t support him on the move to replace Pak Lah with Najib. My choice of successor was Tengku Razaleigh and I never hid that fact from Dr Mahathir. Probably the whole of Umno knows this as well. Anwar Ibrahim and the PKR people certainly do. Of course, if Pakatan Rakyat forms the government, and Anwar Ibrahim becomes prime minister instead, that is also okay with me. But back in 2006 no one imagined that Pakatan Rakyat would ever be formed, let alone win five states and deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in parliament. So the choice was either Tengku Razaleigh or Najib and I never dreamt that Dr Mahathir would choose Najib considering he is so pantang about Singapore and would never accept as prime minister someone whom Singapore can squeeze by the balls -- especially when this someone can be blackmailed about a very secret and sensitive meeting with a woman in the Oriental Hotel in Marina Square who is later found murdered. |
| QUOTE | ||
An Open Letter To The Msian Minister of Education
Dear Malaysian Minister of Education, Greetings. I note with great interest that in this advanced day and age of 2009 AD, your ministry is still being troubled over the issue of what language to use to teach Mathematics and Science. While most agree that since Malaysia depends on foreign investment and therefore we need graduates who can speak English, a large number of your population are retarded (probably due to the practice of marrying cousins) and they have been demanding that Maths and Science be taught in the Malay language instead. Actually I see no problem with this since most maths and science terms in Malay are ‘borrowed’ from English (eg. Chlorophyll is klorofil and fuck is fuck), they probably don’t realize this because they speak no English and think all good things originated from Araby. So I have a solution - teach Maths & Science in Malaysia, using the Klingon Language. Here are some supporting reasons. 1. The Klingons are an advanced space-faring race. If Malaysians speak Klingon, they might not have to pretend that they have an astronaut. 2. Klingons are warlike, much like Malaysia who enjoys bullying Singapore. You have much in common. 3. Who needs foreign-direct-investment? If your people speak Klingon, Malaysia can attract Galactic-direct-investment. 4. There are as many people on planet earth who speak Klingon, as there are Malay language speakers. Most of them are nerdy engineer types living in the United States. The exact type of people who are already good at Math & Science!!! So you have role-models! There is hope in my heart, that you will embrace my proposal. After all, what have you got to lose? |
| QUOTE (Grunt @ May 24 2009, 03:22 PM) |
| I have found a very funny blog post by a Malaysian working in Singapore. Unfortunately, I think the blogger has maligned the Klingons. :P |
| QUOTE (dtwn @ May 25 2009, 09:24 PM) | ||
He seems a tad angry with their MOE. :D Thanks for sharing. Really interesting article by Raja Petra Kamarudin. |
| QUOTE |
| Endgame of the Mahathir myth - by Neil Khor May 20, 08 - Things are finally coming full circle. For Umno, two complete circles. Many years ago, Onn Jaafar, Umno's first president, decided to open his party to non-Malays as associate members. But his attempt to turn Umno into a multi-racial party ended his own political career. Malaysian politicians learned a lot from Onn's political experience. They realised that there was much currency in the primordial attraction of 'race'. The Alliance and now the BN, continue to play up the race card in the hope of winning votes. Which brings us to Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the ghost of Malaysia's past that refuses to go away. Mahathir has taken to cyberspace. He warns the Malays that if they do not stand up for their rights, if they do not take risks, then Malaysia will be ruled by other people. Here is a man who promoted 'Bangsa Malaysia', Wawasan 2020, who supposedly designed KLCC and who championed global Islamic architecture in Putrajaya asking the Malays to 'take risks' and stand up for themselves. Well, if this sounds familiar it is not because it is a return to his 1960s rhetoric. In those days, Mahathir believed in Social Darwinism. He probably never read Darwin and if he did, showed little understanding of it. Darwin never said that the species that survived was the 'strongest' or the 'best'. Merely the most adaptable. Which brings us to the underlying contradiction in Mahathir's prescriptive cure for the Malays. How are the Malays going to be adaptable if they are not allowed to change? For if they change, culturally fusing with global popular culture for example, will they still be Malay or Malaysian? No, if Mahathir's rhetoric today sounds familiar it is because it recalls Onn's last days as a politician. Angry and disappointed that the non-Malays did not rally to his non-sectarian cause, Onn began to mouth pro-Malay slogans, in the hope that he would get some Malay support. He did but only in Kelantan. Mahathir's 'warnings' to the Malays ring hollow. There are more Malay parliamentarians today than ever before. I cannot imagine them turning their backs on the monarchy or Islam if such a bill was proposed. If it is Ketuanan Melayu that Mahathir is worried about, the only tuan that he should really be championing is the one that is in the constitution. That is the 'Yang Dipertuan Agong'. It is the only place where the word tuan is used anywhere in the constitution. Mahathir was also the Malaysian PM that clipped the wings of the monarchy. In that respect, he was right. But people still remember the way he went about it. Organising demonstrations against the monarchs. So, how different is Mahathir from Hindraf, since demonstrations are 'not part' of Malaysia's political culture? Mahathir says that the political situation today allows non-Malays to make demands. What sort of demands are we making? Oh yes, better roads, more transparency in the way local government is being run; more enforcement of the laws regarding the environment; flood control measures; enforcement of traffic laws; a better judiciary etc. Wait a minute, aren't these 'demands' shared by our Malay brothers and sisters? Perhaps non- Malays are asking for vernacular languages be made national languages. No, we are not. Perhaps non-Malays are deliberately not learning Malay to hinder national aspirations. No, Bahasa Malaysia and even Malay literature study have not recorded a drop in schools. Perhaps we want equality in terms of life expectancy? No, we want everyone's healthcare to be better not just ours. No, Mahathir sounds like an old record because we have left him far behind. Oh, yes, he can still be dangerous. He can try to orchestrate a rebellion. He can incite racial hatred. He can convince some Malays that they are being threatened with extinction. He has a lot of supporters in Umno. Wait, don't we have laws against such actions. Oh, yes, it is called 'sedition'. If Mahathir wants to rile up Malaysians he should declare that all shopping malls will be closed. No more hand phones allowed. Astro will be shut down and petrol prices will be increased by 1,000%. That is much more threatening than Malays losing power. If he can do that, all Malaysians will rise up - not just the Malays. But he cannot do all that. Here is the man who created a culture of forgetting, hoping that his own paradoxes and contradictions will not be remembered. In this other endeavour, Dr Mahathir was partially successful. There are those who remember his political career, recorded all his contradictions whilst most Malaysians do not read history or value the past. In such a situation, a past leader has little place or influence. So finally, we come to the endgame of the Mahathir myth. |
| QUOTE |
| Pulau Batu Mahathir - by Neil Khor May 29, 08 - There are three ways to maintain power, or rather three ways to convince others to submit to one's will. The first strategy is to provide them with an alternative that motivates them to submit. The slave would rather toil under the hot sun than suffer the pain of the lash. Similarly, people prefer to be obedient to religious leaders rather than suffer in hell. Second, provide them with compensation that will buy their submission. We get big bonuses for spending 12 hours a day in a 'monkey suit' and smiling at our bosses. Politicians may vote or even cross the floor for such compensatory benefits. Third, and perhaps most effectively, power can be maintained by conditioning people to think in a particular way. Malays are 'weak' and if not adequately protected, they will 'fall victim' to their fellow Malaysians. Over time, Malays no longer differentiate between their own legs and the crutches that hold them up. In my last letter, I mentioned that we are currently witnessing the 'endgame of the Mahahtir myth'. The Mahathir myth is made up of a combination of threats, compensation as well as conditioning. It is all held together in the personality of Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Let us take the Pulau Batu Puteh case as an example of how Mahathir maintains power. His first act upon returning to Malaysia form Japan on Tuesday was to create a smokescreen. Anyone who believes that 300 people turned up at Subang Airport spontaneously is very naive. Mahathir's statement nails his successor as both weak and a sell-out. 'Abdullah is more afraid of Singapore than of Umno members,' the former premier said. This was followed-up the next day by his comments on his website. There he accuses Abdullah of being basically an ungrateful traitor to the Malay race. What Mahathir is doing is to transform Malaysian national sentiment over the Batu Puteh incident into a cogent example that Malays are losing their grip on power. But instead he reveals that Abdullah is ungrateful to him and that it is Mahathir who is fast losing power, not the Malays. A simple recounting of facts soon dissipates this smokescreen. The Batu Puteh incident was sparked off in 1980. Coincidentally, marking Mahathir's rise to the highest office in the land. In the succeeding 22 years, the public knew very little about the lighthouse or the island. Now we learn that in 1994 Dr Mahathir decided to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) after bilateral talks ground to a halt. From 1994 till 2002, Mahathir, Malaysia's greatest prime minister ever and presumably the most powerful Malay leader the world has even seen, helmed the case. Old treaties were found in London's Public Records Office to establish the ownership of the island. But at the same time, Mahathir allowed Singapore to continue managing the lighthouse, stake its claim over shipping incidents and compile data showing proof if its de facto 'ownership'. What did the Mahathir administration do from 1980 till 2002 as evidence of Malaysia's ownership of Pulau Batu Puteh? Did we ask Singapore for joint administration of the lighthouse? Plant a flag in Middle Rocks? Negotiate on behalf of our fisher folk? In 2002, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi inherited Batu Puteh, a legacy which came with the premiership. We have lost Batu Puteh* and most Malaysians have accepted the verdict rationally. But we all feel a sense of loss, the kind Indonesians felt over Sipadan and Ligitan. Abdullah must publish a chronology of what his predecessor did that would have made a difference in the ICJ. The public must be told that rhetoric and secret maps do not impress ICJ judges. Here is a perfect example of how Mahathir maintains power by manipulating public sentiment. But if we have lost Pulau Batu Puteh, and if Mahathir use the incident to his advantage, we must remind him that he shares some of the responsibility. It was his belligerent style of diplomacy and refusal to listen to professionals which led the case to fall into the lap of the ICJ in the first place. So behind the smokescreen, we see Mahathir's tactics laid bare. He made a claim in Johor that the Malays were losing power. Then he resigned from Umno and left for Japan. There, he gave a speech warning of racial strife owing to the 'weakness' of Abdullah Badawi. Knowing full well that Batu Puteh might fall to Singapore, he arrives back in Subang to cheering crowds presumably a hero, a Malay patriot indirectly blaming Abdullah for losing Batu Puteh. Facts have a way of exposing synthetic personalities and their naked grip on power. It was Mahathir's diplomacy that led us up the path to the ICJ and to the outcome we see before us. So, as an old song goes, the Malaysian public is 'Bewitched, bothered and bewildered...no more!' |
| QUOTE (Grunt @ Jul 5 2009, 01:13 AM) |
| ^ IAF, your link is not working - I've taken the liberty to include the link here. I'm just wondering if Najib can deliver on any deal SG makes with him and his government given that a "Survey shows only 45pc of Malaysians happy with Najib". |
| QUOTE (weasel1962 @ Aug 5 2009, 02:09 PM) |
| According to the ICJ, the actual loss materialised in 1951 when the Johor secretary said in black and white that the jurisdication belonged to Singapore. Even without kicking out of federation, it is still SG's jurisdiction. Whatever the date, primarily it is a loss. |
| QUOTE (FIVE-TWO @ Aug 5 2009, 02:47 PM) | ||
I thought that letter was in 1953? Most importantly the letter states that Johor DOES NOT CLAIM Pedra Branca. It does not say that jurisdiction over Pedra Branca belong to Singapore. |
| QUOTE (Grunt @ Aug 5 2009, 07:01 PM) |
| BTW, I did not read the complete judgment - I only looked at this summary. kotay, your thoughts? :P |
| QUOTE |
| My problem with reading para 276 in isolation is: Which country had sovereignty over Pedra Branca (in the period between 9 Aug 1965 to the magical date in 1980 when Singapore had sovereignty over Pedra Branca)? |
| QUOTE (kotay @ Aug 6 2009, 09:26 AM) | ||
Nothing wrong with the summary. The issue that always crops up in, coffee table discussions, has always been the significance of the 1953 letter. The 1953 letter was important, significant and central. No question about that. But if Singapore had gone immediately to the ICJ, waving letter in hand, in 1953, we would have probably lost P.B. The orbiter dicta in paras 226~230 of the judgment is persuasive in that aspect. |
| QUOTE (kotay @ Aug 6 2009, 09:26 AM) | ||
Try reading the preceeding para 274~275 as well, "274. The conduct of the United Kingdom and Singapore was, in many respects, conduct as operator of Horsburgh lighthouse, but that was not the case in all respects. Without being exhaustive, the Court recalls their investigation of marine accidents, their control over visits, Singapore’s installation of naval communication equipment and its reclamation plans, all of which include acts à titre de souverain, the bulk of them after 1953. Malaysia and its predecessors did not respond in any way to that conduct, or the other conduct with that character identified earlier in this Judgment, of all of which (but for the installation of the naval communication equipment) it had notice. 275. Further, the Johor authorities and their successors took no action at all on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh from June 1850 for the whole of the following century or more. And, when official visits (in the 1970s for instance) were made, they were subject to express Singapore permission. Malaysia’s official maps of the 1960s and 1970s also indicate an appreciation by it that Singapore had sovereignty. Those maps, like the conduct of both Parties which the Court has briefly recalled, are fully consistent with the final matter the Court recalls. It is the clearly stated position of the Acting Secretary of the State of Johor in 1953 that Johor did not claim ownership of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh. That statement has major significance." My 2cs? Since you asked :P ... Given the specific acts à titre de souverain mentioned - investigation of marine accident, control of access, installation of military equipment, it would seem that some point in mid~late 1970's would have been it. |
| QUOTE (IceStorm @ Aug 19 2009, 09:38 PM) |
| i am surprised to note that indonesia was not in the list of major source of singapore food supply. given our close proximity, i would have expected a healthy figure from indonesia. |
| QUOTE (Iowa_BB61 @ Aug 19 2009, 10:10 PM) |
| Skyscraper Farm Coming To Singapore. * By Ryan Ash * October 16, 2008 * Comments (0) |
| QUOTE (dtwn @ Aug 20 2009, 12:40 AM) | ||
Sounds fascinating. Am I correct to say that the article states that it's currently only a design, and that there has been no intention to build it? |
| QUOTE (Iowa_BB61 @ Aug 19 2009, 10:10 PM) |
| Skyscraper Farm Coming To Singapore. * By Ryan Ash * October 16, 2008 * Comments (0) |
| QUOTE (stars @ Aug 20 2009, 10:12 AM) | ||
just curious, is there any food security strategy that singapore has against potential climate change related crop failures or shortages (other than the usual AVA, we will diversify our sources of supply) given the decline in global arable land, falling farm productivity, increasing wealth and meat demand and corresponding malthusian population growth (global), will food and water be the next critical strategic vulnerablities singapore will face ? weve gotten domestic water supply somewhat planned out/worked out with water membrane, desalination and recycling water. but what about the 6m rise in global sea levels if the antartic polar ice melts completely by 2050 ? thats another water problem of a different dimnesion to worry about. |
| QUOTE (IceStorm @ Aug 22 2009, 02:56 PM) |
| heard we gonna build a massive sea wall... to keep the sea out. |
| QUOTE (Iowa_BB61 @ Aug 19 2009, 10:09 PM) |
| There are talks about building skyscraper for farming purposes, not in Singapore but in some other nation. |
| QUOTE (Typhoon @ Sep 17 2009, 04:51 PM) |
| The Impact of Singapore’s Military Development on Malaysia’s Security Full Text: PDF Warning: very high levels of Manglish. |
