Foreword by Professor Shamsul A.B.

Summary

When ISEAS was established in 1968, it was only three years after the separation of Malaysia and Singapore. It was to be expected that the relationship between the two countries at that stage was not at its best. There was much unhappiness in the air on both sides of the Causeway, not only at the level of government-to-government (G to G) but also at the people-to-people (P to P) relations. It was not really about ‘love lost’ between the two countries but ‘lost for words,’ so to speak, in their attempts to reinvent their deep historical ties in a redefined political scenario.

In Malaysia, the height of this unsettling unhappiness about Malaysia-Singapore relations was articulated publicly during the political campaign leading to the 1969 general elections. We all now know what happened on 13 May 1969 in Kuala Lumpur. The ethnic riot was a dark episode in Malaysia's history, one that all Malaysians wish to forget and still trying to, as the Malay saying goes “luka hilang, parut tetap ada” (lit. “the wound is gone but the scar remains”).

Since then, Malaysia has been conducting a serious exercise of solidarity-making amongst its people of different ethnic groups, through the creation of numerous top-down policies, some popular and others not. During the launching of the 9^th Malaysia Plan, recently, the Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, re-emphasized the fact that Malaysia's ‘national mission’ remains ‘national unity.’

Singapore, on the other hand, since 1965, has been involved in a mega ‘modernization project,’ both in terms of economic development and nation-building. Nothing, indeed nobody, was spared in its effort to achieve that goal. By world history standards, Singapore achieved its ambition in super quick time, but not without its cost.

Therefore, in the last 40 years, Malaysia-Singapore relations have been defined very much by the different trajectories of the modernization paths that each has chosen and taken. At times, Malaysia and Singapore have been fierce competitors. In other situations, they have been close allies. However much both have wanted to be different, the historical-structural umbilical cord that binds them has never been severed, especially at the P-to-P relations. Indeed, whatever happens in the G-to-G relations, conflicting or consensual, it is the P-to-P relations that has become the stabilizing factor, rich in goodwill guided by a deep sense of sensitivities and sensibilities.