|
|
|
August 21, 2004
My Case For Remerger
[NB: This has been floating around my head for a while, and I thought I'd get it out here now, because I'm really going to be busy for the next couple of weeks. Consider this a work in progress; Many of my thoughts are half-formed and unresearched; Some are just thrown in because they occured to me while writing. I'd welcome all comments and suggestions. Yes, that means you, Wei Yi. Go ahead, you know you want to!] My position: I believe eventually Singapore and Malaysia should re-merge. I'm not saying they have to, or that it is inevitable, but that they should, eventually. How long a time frame we are looking at is debatable. Put one way, Singapore has 4.5 million people, and we are one of the world's most prosperous countries with one of the world's busiest ports and airports, and a per capita GDP equal to leading countries of the world. Yet we are not, and never will be, a world player, because we are simply too small, too dependant on trade and imports, and have too few people to truly be significant. Malaysia, by comparison, has 24 million people and is 330,000 sq km in size. It has natural resources in abundance- tin, petroleum, timber, copper, iron ore, natural gas, bauxite- but remains a middle income country, despite having the size and vast resources. One reason for this would be her politics, but we'll not go into that here, suffice to cite it as a limiting factor. Another is the limitations oher economy, as well as her being cut off from the best port in the region. Both countries clearly need each other. Malaysia has the resources and the people. We have the infrastructure, technology and location. Both countries have highly educated workforces, cosmopolitan and progressive, and are culturally and ethnically similar. A remerged Federation would give us a country that could compete with the largest in the world, in terms of both size and population (28 million, 331,000 sq km). By comparison, the United Kingdom has 60 million in 245,000 sq km, Germany has 82 million in 375,000 sq km, and Australia 20 million in 7.7 million sq km. We will never have the power of the USA, China, Russia or India- those behemoths are alone in the first tier of the world. But we would have the size and ability to compete with the leading countries of Western Europe. The problems as I see it (apart from the inertia of history) are the recurring issues of race and politics. I've discussed race before. As I asserted, race is a false conception of human genetics- we are all genetically similar, and what we term race is merely the expression of recessive genes that have been passed within a population limited by geography. What does exist is ethnicity and culture, which are not immutable. However, I don't believe we are that different on both sides of the border- honestly, there were bigger differences between the indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak vs. the people of Peninsular Malaysia than between the people of Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. But that union has survived. In any event, both change and evolve. An example would by how nation building has proceeded in both countries to the extent that we conceive of a "Malaysia" and a "Republic of Singapore" where fifty years ago we had neither- a Malaya and a Crown Colony of Singapore, governed by the Her Majesty's representative. The big demographic problem was that Malays would be outnumbered in thier own country by the combined numbers of other races if Singapore was part of the mix. And this, of course, would still be true today, and remains the biggest obstacle. One has to ask- why are Malays threatened by the Chinese? What are both sides doing that we view the other in negative terms? Politics is the other barrier. How do you reconcile within a Federation a state whose economy and population would dwarf every single other? Perhaps we could ask London, which effectively subsidises the rest of the UK. Or New York, which might as well be the entire state of New York in economic terms. Compromises can be made- and were made, in 1963. Singapore's representation was disproportionally small in the Federal government. Solutions could be found. The big tragedy, it seems to me, is that 200 years ago Singapore and Oeninsular Malaysia ("Malaya") were the same country, and it was the British who came along and detached our island from the mainland, buying it off the Sultan of Johor, and making it into the world class port it is today. I'm not saying British imperialism was bad- on the contrary, as a historian and a Singaporean, one has to ask where we would be today without the British. But they instilled artificial boundaries into the hearts and minds of the people of a single region, and crippled the ability of one poeple to be truly influential in the greater world. Posted by pj at 10:40 AM
|
|
|
| o |
Oh, should I be flattered or embarassed? I don't quite know. Thanks, PJ?
A re-merger sounds plausible, but methinks it is always premature and destabilising to have such talk. Let's take a look at Europe, which in a way may very well be the template for the ASEAN of the future.
In the UK, we see devolution of Scotland and Wales, and a tendency towards this direction in Northern Ireland (if only the Catholics can get along with the Protestants to get their act together..). So the gravity of central governments may actually be lessening even in such traditionally highly centralised states as the United Kingdom.
Regional devolution has advantages in the sense that they allow decisions to be made closer to the ground, and allow a legislature that is more ethnically close to the governed, to be seen to be an assembly of "their own kind". Let's face it, a Scotsman is only ever a reluctant Briton..
Then we look at the Basques (mainstreamists, not Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) and Catalans, who have this idea that they may enjoy even greater autonomy from Spain, while subsuming more of their sovereignty within the EU. In other words, they'd rather submit to Brussels than to Madrid. Makes sense, given the historical context of Iberian relations in recent years.
So, perhaps instead of a re-merger, the future here may well take shape in the form of a stronger centrifugal authority within ASEAN. This helps to sidestep the historical baggage issue with respect to cross-Tebrau relations. It also has an air of inevitability, given that all member states have at least given lip-service to the idea of enhancing regional integration.
If devolution is indeed the trend of the future, then it does not make much sense for an already existing polity such as the Republic of Singapore to turn the clock back. While at various times, Singapore has been more closely aligned to the government of the day in the Peninsula, the reality remains that for most of the years since Raffles leased the island from Tengku Hussein, Singapore has been built up separately from the rest of the Peninsula.
At independence, it had its own radio and television station, separate from RTM, and its own army brigades. The fact that it could so neatly break away from Malaysia meant that its institutions had already been prepared for such an eventuality long ago. I take this as proof that this is a subliminal expression of the desires of a state's people anyway - if it is ready to break away, then perhaps it is because that's what the people really want.
Countries have a tendency to prefer inertia over dynamic change, especially over touchy matters such as sovereignty and borders. If there was a move towards remerger, then there will be rumblings reverberating throughout the region - Indonesia's claims to Malaya as a "spiritual" homeland of the Malay culture, Thailand's affinities to northern Malaya and the Philippines' old ties to Sabah. Not forgetting Brunei. Re-merger will not be just a matter of two nations dusting off an old political agenda.
I guess you must be pretty much an idealist to imagine a day when we shall overcome the baggage of race and religion. I have much hope too, that good old common sense shall prevail, and that we shall all head forwards and upwards, in the long run. But re-merger can only take place when this baggage has been eliminated thoroughly and all faith has been firmly placed in progressive thinking while trust is allowed to prevail. Only then can a meeting of cool minds bring this plan off with a bright future.
I place a greater belief in the idea that there will be a Malaysian polity separate from a Singaporean one, long into the future. There may never need to be a merger, if ASEAN follows the trend of the EU, and all of us subsume our sovereignty into a collective entity. Would it not be better for Singapore to merge with Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, in addition to Malaysia? If we follow the EU path, then the re-merger issue should be redundant.
If anyone asks who let this big bad biting dog out, then let it be said that it was PJ, who hath instigated this idle mind.
Wei Yi spoke on August 22, 2004 04:35 PMGiven my rusty background in Singapore-Malaysia politics, it'd be a tad embarrassing for me to jump into the midst of such fine debate, as displayed by you and Wei Yi. For sure, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed all conversations on your site for a while. I’ve many times sat and written relevant responses (one wants to be accurate amongst such thoughtful contributors, no?), only to switch back to work when I get too carried away, (more importantly with the boss meandering through the office halls – aiyo). One day, one fine day, I hope to be a regular commentator. In the meantime, do let me know what your plans are after Oxford. Are you heading anywhere in particular, you mentioned you will be quite busy.
Impressed by your email discussion with the Queen, I had fascinating discussion on much needed revised tax regulations for gays with the other Queen downstairs my apartment, Ebert “Elizabeth” runs Drag bingo every Tuesday evening at Club Chaos on 17th and Q in Dupont Circle. Kidding lah, Ebert “Elizabeth” is real, but no offense to her Majesty for sure. Is she as lovely as her replies?
I agree with the PJ concerning the idea of races but I think it is too easy to claim a historic unity for Singapore and Malaysia. At least since Benedict Anderson's thought-provoking study on the rise of nationalism should we know that nations are only "imagined communities" with no basis of geography. This is especially the case, Anderson convincingly argues, for former colonies. The new nations were almost always build on the territories of the former colonies.
The problem of size for Singapore has repeatedly be argued. Even the leadership has sent mixed messages. From a discussion of re-merger to the need to strengthen manpower and a national identity Singapore has seen both sides of the coin.
I personally do not believe that a future merger between Malaysia and Singapore would help it to become economically more viable. Singapore should instead focus on becoming a niche player. Innovative technologies and a leadership position in Asia are open to Singapore. This, however, will entail a more open society with less governmental supervision. It is necessary, as Linda Low has argued, to open Singapore for more democratization.
Then there could also be the argument of Singapore playing a crucial role in the formation of ASEAN. You have suggested that ASEAN could become akin to a European Union. This seems to me, however, to be overly optimistic. The Asian countries involved have much less in common with those in Europe. This can be exemplified in the forecful expulsion of Singapore in 1965.
For devolution to play a role there needs to be centralization. This idea could theoretically be helpful to China as it becomes increasingly difficult to organize that nation in a central form. But China's nationalism stands much in the way of devolution (something which could also alleviate the serious situtaion in the Taiwan strait) However, in the case of Malaysia and Singapore a European Union type association seems far-fetched at the moment and would need compromises that neither nation is willing to give.
The talk of re-merger is indeed destabilizing and it would be better for Singapore to take a moral leadership role in the region. As an open country with high standards and innovative ideas, Singapore can lead Asia into the future and play the role-model that may in the long-term future play an integrative role that might lead to closer cooperation.
Stephan Ortmann spoke on November 21, 2004 10:16 AMI'm Malaysian and i think its a fantastic idea. I truly thought that it was a mistake back in 65 that Singapore had to break away from the Federation. Not only was it based on difficulties that could eventually be resolved, it prevented an emergence of a respected world power. If Tunku back then had the determination of Abraham Lincoln, to preserve the union at all cost we'd live in a probably different Malaysia.
The reasons are there, and the finding arguments for a reunion isnt difficult, and its economically, culturally and geographically feasible.
However, YC, what we all need is the answer of how. How would we remerge?
