The crooked bridge is symptomatic of the cultural enmity between Malaysia and Singapore
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 in Johore Bahru would not be built? Were they talking through their hat? Why had they not been penalised for talking out of turn that made the Malaysian government look stupid? What was the basis on which Pak Lah made 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 Pak Lah agreed to a cabinet decision in the past to build the bridge. Johore would it for its 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 had a vested interest in not having it for it would have a difficult time for its tanks should it ever decide to invade the country. The people at the top in Malaysia forget their priorities when money was the prime consideration.I learnt of the crooked bridge when mooted in the 1990s, accepted why it had to be built. What the prime minister's office said then in public and private were diametrically 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. All agreed to it because it would have money in the promotors' pockets, and that was a good reason. 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.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 that easy, and it will set you back by about RM150 when your work is done. Contrary to official belief, people, even foreigners, are not as wealthy as assumed. The Malaysian government is becoming aware, the first word in the ear, frequently repeated, is bound to get the public ear, even if the government says it is wrong, and that it is often not Malaysia's. The public perception now is the crooked bridge is wasteful and irrelevant.I have been allowed into Singapore on a visit pass valid for four days since 1971, and banned permanently since 1991. It does 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. Singapore will always steal a march in 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 it: certain people are authorised to be corrupt, not others. I know of Singaporeans in high positions who got there because they had views different from the establishment. In Malaysia, this is not allowed. But the Singapoean will not do anything unless ordered to. 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 it is sound and relevant. They would go against the government if they have to. The government is in trouble because of this. In Singapore, the naysayers tend to say it 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
Sunday, April 16, 2006
The Sunday Times
April 16, 2006
General Bush's lose-lose Iranian war options
Andrew Sullivan
There is something unreal about the bellicose statements coming from some sources in the Bush administration towards Iran.
On their face, they make a kind of sense. In terms of pure military force, the United States probably could do a great deal of damage to Iran’s malevolent attempt to gain nuclear weapons. But so what? The same could have been said about Iraq in 2002.
Yes, the US military did have the capacity to destroy Saddam’s regime. And it did so in three weeks. The salient question was and is: what then? It appears that the Bush administration never seriously asked that question in advance of war in Iraq and, in a stunning fit of recklessness, never made serious plans for the post- invasion.I don’t think even Donald Rumsfeld is nuts enough not to ask that question this time with respect to Iran. The military option is much more difficult, of course. Iran learnt from Saddam’s Iraq and has dispersed its nuclear research and development sites across the country. The US cannot invade and occupy two huge countries at the same time.If US intelligence is as good in Iran as it was in Iraq, the chances of getting all of Iran’s nuclear capacity by aerial bombing must also be close to zero. So the gain would be fleeting. But the costs could be enormous. The most pro-western populace in the Middle East — the Iranian public — could overnight be turned into permanent foes of the West. A bombing campaign could force most Iranians into the arms of the genocidal religious nutcases now running the government.For good measure, we’d probably be faced with oil at nearly $100 a barrel; and the complete disintegration of what’s left of Iraq, as the Iranian-allied Shi’ite militias turned on US forces. But there’s another factor that makes a military attack on Iran a dangerous option for the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis. That factor is America itself.What we’ve seen in the past few months is a cratering of support for the president. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll confirms the pattern: 60% disapprove of Bush’s performance and 38% approve. But when you look more closely at the numbers, you find something more remarkable. A full 47% of Americans “strongly” disapprove; only 20% “strongly” approve. Half the country, in other words, don’t just disapprove of Bush; they’re furious with him.His party is even less popular. On Iraq, the Democrats are now narrowly favoured over the Republicans — an astonishing turnaround for a Republican party whose core strength has always been national security.To give you an idea of the shift, in December 2002, on the issue of terrorism in general, the Republicans had a 61%-25% lead over the Democrats. The numbers are now dead even.Overall, the Democrats now have a larger poll lead over the Republicans in congressional ratings than at any time since the early 1980s.What does this have to do with Iran? Well, imagine a scenario in which the president believes he has to bomb — maybe even with low- level nuclear warheads — the nuclear facilities in Iran. Given what we know now, it would be a very tough sell in Congress.Without United Nations backing and solid allied support, the president would have to ask Americans to trust him — on weapons of mass destruction intelligence and on his skill in war-making. After Iraq, that’s very difficult. Americans do not listen to him any more. And they have discovered that they cannot trust him to get warfare right, or even be candid with them about it.The president could, of course, argue that he does not need Congress’s permission to launch such a war. Good luck. A huge bombing campaign against a large sovereign country over several weeks is hard to describe by any other term than war. And the constitution clearly gives that decision to Congress. This would not be a sudden, minor mission, constitutionally permissible in emergencies. This would be the gravest decision a president could make. It would have incalculable consequences. It could unleash a wave of terrorism across Iraq and the West. It would put WMDs in the centre of a global conflict. It would alter America’s relations with all its allies and enemies. If Bush decided he could act unilaterally without congressional backing, he could prompt a constitutional crisis.The polls show potential public backing for military action against Iran. One January poll revealed 57% supported attacking Iran if it continued to get closer to nuclear capability; 33% opposed. I’d bet that once the potential risks and blowback are debated, the gap would narrow.In the current climate, there’s a real danger that the very debate could intensify divisions within America, with those who strongly oppose Bush refusing to back this president in any other war. An escalating nuclear standoff with Iran could, in other words, unite Iranians behind the Islamists and foment deep rifts in the United States. It’s lose-lose for the West.Bush might find some allies. Both Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton have been very hawkish towards Iran — and they are both the presidential frontrunners for their parties.If the Democrats take back the house or Senate, they might, ironically, feel more responsible for national security and more open to military action. All this is possible and might make some kind of attack on Iran more palatable. No level-headed person, after all, wants the Iranian regime to get nukes. The odds, however, are stacked against Bush. When you’ve lost your own country, it’s hard to launch a war against another one. Realistically, this president can try to stall Iran as much as possible until a successor emerges who might have more credibility.The trouble with narrowly re-electing incompetents in wartime is that, when the 51% who voted for him get buyers’ remorse, and the 49% who voted against him are angrier than ever, it becomes all but impossible for a president to gain the national unity necessary to fight and win.And so we wait for McCain. And pray.Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
April 16, 2006
General Bush's lose-lose Iranian war options
Andrew Sullivan
There is something unreal about the bellicose statements coming from some sources in the Bush administration towards Iran.
On their face, they make a kind of sense. In terms of pure military force, the United States probably could do a great deal of damage to Iran’s malevolent attempt to gain nuclear weapons. But so what? The same could have been said about Iraq in 2002.
Yes, the US military did have the capacity to destroy Saddam’s regime. And it did so in three weeks. The salient question was and is: what then? It appears that the Bush administration never seriously asked that question in advance of war in Iraq and, in a stunning fit of recklessness, never made serious plans for the post- invasion.I don’t think even Donald Rumsfeld is nuts enough not to ask that question this time with respect to Iran. The military option is much more difficult, of course. Iran learnt from Saddam’s Iraq and has dispersed its nuclear research and development sites across the country. The US cannot invade and occupy two huge countries at the same time.If US intelligence is as good in Iran as it was in Iraq, the chances of getting all of Iran’s nuclear capacity by aerial bombing must also be close to zero. So the gain would be fleeting. But the costs could be enormous. The most pro-western populace in the Middle East — the Iranian public — could overnight be turned into permanent foes of the West. A bombing campaign could force most Iranians into the arms of the genocidal religious nutcases now running the government.For good measure, we’d probably be faced with oil at nearly $100 a barrel; and the complete disintegration of what’s left of Iraq, as the Iranian-allied Shi’ite militias turned on US forces. But there’s another factor that makes a military attack on Iran a dangerous option for the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis. That factor is America itself.What we’ve seen in the past few months is a cratering of support for the president. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll confirms the pattern: 60% disapprove of Bush’s performance and 38% approve. But when you look more closely at the numbers, you find something more remarkable. A full 47% of Americans “strongly” disapprove; only 20% “strongly” approve. Half the country, in other words, don’t just disapprove of Bush; they’re furious with him.His party is even less popular. On Iraq, the Democrats are now narrowly favoured over the Republicans — an astonishing turnaround for a Republican party whose core strength has always been national security.To give you an idea of the shift, in December 2002, on the issue of terrorism in general, the Republicans had a 61%-25% lead over the Democrats. The numbers are now dead even.Overall, the Democrats now have a larger poll lead over the Republicans in congressional ratings than at any time since the early 1980s.What does this have to do with Iran? Well, imagine a scenario in which the president believes he has to bomb — maybe even with low- level nuclear warheads — the nuclear facilities in Iran. Given what we know now, it would be a very tough sell in Congress.Without United Nations backing and solid allied support, the president would have to ask Americans to trust him — on weapons of mass destruction intelligence and on his skill in war-making. After Iraq, that’s very difficult. Americans do not listen to him any more. And they have discovered that they cannot trust him to get warfare right, or even be candid with them about it.The president could, of course, argue that he does not need Congress’s permission to launch such a war. Good luck. A huge bombing campaign against a large sovereign country over several weeks is hard to describe by any other term than war. And the constitution clearly gives that decision to Congress. This would not be a sudden, minor mission, constitutionally permissible in emergencies. This would be the gravest decision a president could make. It would have incalculable consequences. It could unleash a wave of terrorism across Iraq and the West. It would put WMDs in the centre of a global conflict. It would alter America’s relations with all its allies and enemies. If Bush decided he could act unilaterally without congressional backing, he could prompt a constitutional crisis.The polls show potential public backing for military action against Iran. One January poll revealed 57% supported attacking Iran if it continued to get closer to nuclear capability; 33% opposed. I’d bet that once the potential risks and blowback are debated, the gap would narrow.In the current climate, there’s a real danger that the very debate could intensify divisions within America, with those who strongly oppose Bush refusing to back this president in any other war. An escalating nuclear standoff with Iran could, in other words, unite Iranians behind the Islamists and foment deep rifts in the United States. It’s lose-lose for the West.Bush might find some allies. Both Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton have been very hawkish towards Iran — and they are both the presidential frontrunners for their parties.If the Democrats take back the house or Senate, they might, ironically, feel more responsible for national security and more open to military action. All this is possible and might make some kind of attack on Iran more palatable. No level-headed person, after all, wants the Iranian regime to get nukes. The odds, however, are stacked against Bush. When you’ve lost your own country, it’s hard to launch a war against another one. Realistically, this president can try to stall Iran as much as possible until a successor emerges who might have more credibility.The trouble with narrowly re-electing incompetents in wartime is that, when the 51% who voted for him get buyers’ remorse, and the 49% who voted against him are angrier than ever, it becomes all but impossible for a president to gain the national unity necessary to fight and win.And so we wait for McCain. And pray.Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)