Re: MM Lee's remarks and his reply to Malaysian PM

This follows from my previous post on the issue.

MM Lee's reply to Malaysian PM Abdullah was published in the ST on 3 October. There are a few insights to be gleaned from the contents of his letter and its impressive annex.

It was obvious right from the start that MM Lee's remarks would not be to the liking of Singapore's neighbours. Yet, I believe, it was never MM Lee's intention to criticise them. (I am not saying this in defence of him; indeed i believe Singapore, in terms of its bilateral relations with its neighbours, would do better without those remarks from the MM.) He was being merely characteristically blunt and candid, and by pointing out (in his letter to Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi) that he made those remarks in a "free-flowing dialogue", it was meant to convey the message that they were not made as criticism.

One may recall that MM Lee made those controversial remarks at a diaglogue on good governance. Though the ensuing controversy was in the main about race relations in Singapore's neighbouring states, relevant to the context in which he made those remarks, he made an important point on the kind of government Singapore needed owing to its geo-ethno environment: it was a government that was "really firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute". However, this message was ultimately drowned by the reasoning MM Lee provided to prove his point. In a somewhat ironic twist, the ensuing furore in Malaysia created a situation that seemed apt for MM Lee to demonstrate the essence of his remarks. His published reply to Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi - made in a personal capacity, not government - seemed to bear out his advice.

At the dialogue session before a foreign audience who were in Singapore attending the IMF/World Bank meetings, MM Lee made reference to racial relations in neighbouring states to explain why Singapore needed a "firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute" government; such a government is needed in order to manage the Republic's relations with its neighbours. His view is that the attitude of Malaysia and Indonesia towards the Republic is shaped by their treatment of their minority Chinese. He had no need to make use of that occasion to pass those remarks as pointed criticism for a Malaysian or Indonesian audience, much less to court controversy or provoke anger - for he had merely repeated a position which he has always maintained, which is public knowledge. This was why in his letter he mentioned, significantly, that "I have not said anything more than what I have said many times before".

(But MM Lee more than anyone else should be acutely aware that for a topic as volatile and sensitive as racial politics, people are not given to cerebral and level-headed thinking. Aggrieved parties would likely find cause with his statement while those in power would vehemently refute it.)

More interestingly, his letter to Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi reminded one of how much he is still the firm, legalistic and formidable politician who more than any Singaporean was personally and inextricably embroiled in bilateral politics between Singapore and Malaysia since their separation in 1965. His impeccable mind and steadfastly-held beliefs are apparent in his letter. He knew the Malaysian media well and knew that nothing short of an apology ("sorry") would ameliorate the damage his remarks had inadvertently caused. Indeed, Malaysian papers reportedly gave front-page prominence to his apology to PM Abdullah for causing him 'a great deal of discomfort'.

Yet, as most would have noted, MM Lee was 'sorry' for the discomfort that his remarks brought on the Malaysian PM, not for his view on how the Chinese minority were marginalised. He did not change his view, and PM Abdullah in his public reply noted that too. In fact, true to his lawyer credentials, his letter carried an impressive annex that produced evidence supporting his expressed position. For the discerning reader, the detailed information in the annex, presented in a matter-of-factly manner, was meant to address various charges, including but not limited to those that criticised MM Lee for interfering in Malaysia's politics.

MM Lee said that Singapore needed a "really firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute" government to maintain relations with its neighbours. His letter, which underscores his response to an official reaction from neighbouring states, showed what and how it takes to be all that. He was 'firm' and 'stout-hearted' in that despite the unhappiness and furore that erupted in Malaysia, he held on to his position and explained the context in which he made those remarks, thereby registering the point that he, as a leader of Singapore, was not making remarks which had no basis whatsoever; he did not retreat. He was 'subtle' and 'resolute' in that he understood what is at stake - the possible jeopardising of bilateral relations - and made an apology without compromising his integrity. And thus he ended his letter saying, "after a decade of troubled relations with your predecessor, it is the last thing i wanted." This is an acknowledgement of the improved relations Singapore has enjoyed with Malaysia since PM Abdullah took over Dr Mahathir as Malaysian Prime Minister, and it also subtly reiterates the point he wanted to impress upon PM Abdullah Badawi and others: that he said those remarks not to provoke, nor to inflame feelings, and certainly not to undermine bilateral relations.

That the matter did not become yet another bilateral problem and is now closed is to the good of bilateral relations between both states.