Dr M: The Singapore Scorpion and the Malaysian Frog ‘No chance’ of invading Singapore

1

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 10 — Lee Kuan Yew’s fear of Singapore being invaded by Malaysia is “completely unfounded”, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed said in a book published last week.

Malaysia’s former prime minister said there “was no chance at all” of military aggression towards the island republic, and that Malaysia was not intimidated by Singapore’s larger defence budget.

“His fear is completely unfounded. Malaysians have never had any aggressive intentions,” he was quoted as saying in “Doctor M: Operation Malaysia — Conversations with Mahathir Mohamed”, written by US journalist Tom Plate based on interviews with Dr Mahathir over the last two years.

Dr Mahathir, who was prime minister from 1981 to 2003, also claimed that south Thailand was actually part of Malaysia but pointed out that the country had not tried to invade its northern neighbours.

Lee had, in a biography called “Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going” published last month, said the city state was “vulnerable” to the possibility that Malaysia “can besiege you. You’ll be dead.”

“If we are not vulnerable, why do we spend five to six per cent of GDP (gross domestic product) year after year on defence? Are we mad? This is a frugal government,” Singapore’s first prime minister was quoted as saying in the book.

Singapore’s defence outlay had sparked controversy in Malaysia, with right-wing nationalists such as Utusan Malaysia columnist Ridhuan Tee Abdullah claiming that the republic was preparing to “eat us up” with its annual defence spending of RM35.5 billion, which is more than triple the RM11 billion Malaysia spent last year.

However, Dr Mahathir said that this was not a threat to Malaysia.

“We are not afraid of their F-16s, you see, because in the end, when you fight the war, you have to come down to the ground. And you come down to the ground and fight with handguns. See that is more important than all the bombs from up in the air,” he said.

The two former leaders have not seen eye-to-eye on bilateral issues such as the sale of water and sand to the island and the construction of a new bridge between Johor and Singapore.

Referring to the sale of sand from Malaysia to Singapore for construction and land reclamation, Lee said in “Hard Truths” that Malaysia had stopped the sale “to conscribe us.”

“As Mahathir says, ‘Even at their present size they are trouble, you let them grow some more they will be more trouble,’” said Lee, who stepped down as prime minister in 1990.

But in “Operation Malaysia”, Dr Mahathir said that Singapore had insisted on purchasing sand in exchange for agreeing to a new bridge to replace the Causeway across the Straits of Johor.

“They refuse to build their half unless of course we give them certain kinds of concessions, like selling them sand for their reclamation. Selling sand for reclamation is like selling part of your country to other people,” he said of the bridge that was first mooted in the 1990s when he was still prime minister.

Dr Mahathir continues to lobby for the Causeway linking the two countries to be replaced by a bridge that allows ships to pass under it, thereby bypassing Singapore’s port.

Singapore’s refusal has led to Dr Mahathir’s “crooked bridge” proposal that would curve and increase the length of the bridge so that ships could still pass under at its highest point.

Looking at what is happening in Egypt these days the following fable, slightly adjusted, comes to mind:

A frog and the scorpion, met one day on the bank of the River Nile, which they both wanted to cross. The frog offered to carry the scorpion over on his back provided the scorpion promised not to sting him. The scorpion agreed so long as the frog would promise not to drown him. They mutually agreed to the deal and started to cross the river. Half-way to the other bank the scorpion stung the frog with his venom. "Why did you do that?" gasped the frog, as it was dying. "Why?" replied the scorpion, "I couldn't help it. This is the Middle East."

It is a precarious situation and there is no way to know how the upheaval will end and who will emerge victorious in the end.

In a Washington Post op-ed, published on February 3, well-known businessman, financier, and philanthropist George Soros gave his view of the Egyptian turmoil, the subsequent American reaction and the role of Israel. In his piece he calls on Obama to 'get Egypt right' and notes that there are some signs of hope for an actual positive development of events that will lead to a democratic process in Egypt. Nobody knows what the future will hold and analysts and observers have to make do with informed guesses. But given what we do know it is necessary to point out, with all due respect and appreciation of a man who makes a difference in the world, that George Soros's take on Egypt is too simple, too hopeful. It is with regret to have to point this out because he is a true intellectual and thinker who takes into consideration the strongest counter arguments to his position. Not so in this op-ed.

The fears of adverse consequences regarding free elections are not that they will be held at all but that they will be rushed without having prepared the reemergence of a secular opposition, provided for minority rights, freedom of expression, movement, and assembly, an independent judiciary, a free press and so forth. If Mr. Soros had thought of the example of Gaza he would recall that democracy is more than holding elections. This, the notion that the spread of extremist politics must be avoided, and the other examples he cites, are not "the old conventional wisdom about the Middle East." These fears are based on historic precedent and it would be prudent not to dismiss them as obsolete.

Moreover, Mr. Soros claims that "[t]he Muslim Brotherhood's cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate who is seeking to run for president, is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system." Really? It is impossible not to think of the poor frog on the bank of the Nile. He fell for the guy who could not escape his true nature.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairsand MEMRI provided a great service by collecting what the Muslim Brotherhood is actually saying about the protests, their own mission and nature, on resistance and jihad. Let's all be clear: They say all these things knowing the Egyptian military is still the arbiter of which direction the upheaval will take. This group is not benign. They are serious about it when they say that their ideological version of "Islam is the solution." This is not "old conventional wisdom about the Middle East" but, sadly, 'conventional wisdom in the Middle East.'

Support for the Muslim Brotherhood is currently estimated at 20 percent. As has been pointed out, the secular democratic opposition in Egypt is weak and fractured at best after decades of persecution, any Islamist party commanding that much support has the country within grasp. The Muslim Brotherhood gives signs that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system? If they do then we should not delude ourselves about their motives because 'sharia' is on their minds.

It should be added that poverty and lack of education provide a fertile soil for the seeds of radical Islamist groups in general and the Brotherhood in particular. The cases of Hezbollah in South Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip are as illustrative as they are frightening. A large part of Egypt's population, and I am sure Mr. Soros is aware of this, lives in poverty living on, less than $2 per day. Egypt dependent on foreign providers for nearly half its total food consumption and is the world's largest wheat importer. Over a third of the Egyptians are illiterate. Among women the rate is 45 percent.

This needs to be seen together with the sobering and important results of a Pew Global Attitudes Project poll on "Egypt, Democracy and Islam," which showed that about six-in-ten Egyptians were very (20%) or somewhat (41%) concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in their country. Is worrying about this worrying "old conventional wisdom?"

There is grave danger into rushing to elections without having prepared the groundwork for democracy and human rights. The Middle East is a neighborhood where the concept of freedom is not necessarily the reasoned self-determination with which we are familiar. It may mean the opposite, namely the submission to the Islamic state. It has been rightly pointed out that it is dangerous to elevate democratic forms over the nascent culture of liberty. Hamas in Gaza comes to mind. Let's tread carefully. The courageous demonstrators in Tahrir Square deserve a true democratic transformation of their society that cannot take place within months.

It has been suggested that views like the one expressed here considered Egyptians inferior and incapable of living under 'Western' democratic principles. Not so. The goal is to see democracy, yes, 'Western democracy, with checks and balances, a loyal opposition, minority rights, freedom of the press, etc. take root. Elections have to be learned. And if the Muslim Brotherhood adheres to these standards let them run. By all means.

George Soros' admirably works to "build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens." And the assistance of his foundations will be needed in Egypt. But it is paramount that not only President Barack Obama but also Mr. Soros get Egypt right.

One last word about Mr. Soros' surprising and unexplained assertion that "[t]he main stumbling block is Israel." Israel has an interest in seeing her 1979 peace treaty with Egypt preserved and all other signed agreements and contracts honored. Yes, the change is sudden and carries many risks. It is more than narrow self-interest that Israelis, who live in the Middle East and know the neighborhood, want to see the transformation in Egypt be done right. Nobody but the Muslim Brotherhood wants to deny Egyptians freedom and liberty. With Hezbollah and Hamas at Israel's doorstep the world should know better than have that unique opportunity to properly prepare for democracy in Egypt slip away. Let's not trust the scorpion. we should also address the questions as to why it is a "detriment­" and to whom. For decades, we have derided the people of the region as "paranoid" for believing that Israeli and US policy play a significan­t role in local politics. This, along with other "leaks", have shed light on such "paranoia" and makes on confront an ugly truth. For decades, US and Israeli interests had major consequenc­es on local politics, often at the detriment to millions of people. Although I believe that Israel has the right to security, such security cannot be had at the cost of the inherent rights and dignity of millions of people. The current VP, as recent reports are starting to elucidate, is an extension and surrogate of the current autocracy. Unfortunat­ely, there is a valid concern that he, along with those with whom he associates with, will continue the same policies that have forsaken the Egyptian people for 3 decades. The people of Egypt deserve better and should have the right to make such choices without interferen­ce by foreign countries. Whether it becomes a detriment to US and Israeli geo-politi­cal interests is yet to be seen. Although a lot of the pundits have declared democracy within the region would be a detriment, those with a expertise have quite a different viewpoint. I believe that by supporting justice and dignity our interest in the region would be best served in the long run.Egyptian tanks, the delirious protesters sitting atop them, the flags, the 40,000 protesters weeping and crying and cheering in Freedom Square and praying around them, the Muslim Brotherhoo­­­d official sitting amid the tank passengers­­­. Should this be compared to the liberation of Bucharest? Climbing on to an American-m­­­ade battle tank myself, I could only remember those wonderful films of liberation of Paris. A few hundred meters away, Hosni Mubarak's black-unif­­­ormed security police were still firing at demonstration  near interior ministry. It was wild, historical victory celebration n, Mubarak's own tanks freeing his capital from his own dictatorsh­­­ip.

In the pantomime world of Mubarak himself – and of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Washington – the man who still claims to be president of Egypt swore in the most prepostero­­­us choice of vice-presi­­­dent in an attempt to soften the fury of the protesters – Omar Suleiman, Egypt's chief negotiator with Israel and his senior intelligen­­­ce officer, a 75-year-ol­­­d with years of visits to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and four heart attacks to his credit. How this elderly apparatchi­­­k might be expected to deal with the anger and joy of liberation of 80 million Egyptians is beyond imaginatio­­­n. When I told the demonstrat­­­ors on the tank around me the news of Suleiman's appointmen­­­t, they burst into laughter.Israel isn't just any country with regard to Egypt. Egypt serves as Israel's jailer in Gaza. A new administra­tion might not take that same role - and if it reflected the will of the Egyptian people it would not. The Israelis know from experience that they can count on Suleiman to keep Gaza's gate closed tight when they want it that way (which is pretty much all of the time).The question becomes, as Genders says above, "who do the Egyptians want?" They should make that choice in a free and fair election - just like "all countries" that we consider civilized do. Israel is entitled to its opinions. The Israeli government should not dictate to Washington to back a pro-Israel­i government in Egypt. Again the question must be - "who do the Egyptians want?" It is their countryEgypt's Vice President Omar Suleiman was long seen by Israel as the preferred candidate to succeed President Hosni Mubarak, secret U.S. diplomatic cables published Monday suggested.According to an August 2008 cable released by WikiLeaks and published by the Daily Telegraph newspaper on its website, a senior adviser from the Israeli Ministry of Defense told U.S. diplomats in Tel Aviv that the Israelis believe Suleiman would likely serve as "at least an interim president if Mubarak dies or is incapacitated." A U.S. diplomat who classified the cable, Luis Moreno, wrote that although he deferred to the Embassy in Cairo for Egyptian succession scenario analysis, "there is no question that Israel is most comfortable with the prospect of" Suleiman.The cable quoted the adviser to Israel's defense ministry, David Hacham, as saying an Israeli delegation led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak was "shocked by Mubarak's aged appearance and slurred speech," when it met him in Egypt. "Hacham was full of praise for Soliman, however," it said. Suleiman was spelled Soliman in some of the leaked cables.Hacham added that he sometimes spoke to Suleiman's deputy several times a day via a "hotline," according to the cable.On Sunday, Suleiman met several major opposition groups, including the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, for the first time and offered new concessions including freedom of the press and the release of those detained during the country's recent violent protests.