The Malaysia-Singapore water talks is stalled because neither Kuala Lumpur nor Singapore would, indeed could, resolve it if one has an edge over the other. For it is in the political interest of both to see the other lose out. It has nothing to do with contracts, good neighbourliness or fair price. It has all to do with proving to each's ground the other is incorrigible.

For underlying the dispute - one of many - is the need to pressure its ground the other is to blame. The Umno-led government in Malaysia and the PAP-led one in Singapore have an uphill task to convince their traditional supporters that they alone can deliver. They have proved they cannot, and each behave childishly and undiplomatically to convince its citizens the other is devil incarnate. In other words, the pot and the kettle call each other black.

This is why Singapore breaks confidentiality of negotiations and documents by revealing not once, but several times, to "prove" Malaysian leaders are unreliable, do not adhere to contracts and, in the current US-sponsored war of Islamic terror, which it accepts without question, subtly implies that since Malaysia is an Islamic nation, its leaders are more likely to behave as Osama bin Laden than Donald Rumsfeld.

In Singapore's view, Rumsfeld can cause all the havoc he desires and be praised for it, but not if Osama does. So, she has to paint her northern neighbour in the blackest of colours for local political fence-mending, in fright, so that her citizens would rush to back the PAP's stand.

Why does Singapore take this view? The PAP's promise of continuous growth and unparalled wealth is but a mirage for the younger Singaporean, and as other underpinnings of the PAP-structured state crumble, the possibility of a non-PAP government is as possible in Singapore in the next decade as a non-Umno led one in Malaysia.

Difficulties at home

Malaysia, on the other hand, has her own difficulties with her ground. Umno is in near rigor mortis, since it humiliated its deputy president, Anwar Ibrahim, five years ago such that it upset Malay sensibilities. Its closeness to Chinese entrepreneurs, its inability to put the MCA in its place, the cultural revolt on the ground, not just of the Malay but of the Chinese, the Indian, the Kadazan, the Iban and other native tribes all reduce Umno leaders to apoplexy and fright. So it must also show that it is tough when it comes to protecting Malaysia's interests.

When it does this to Singapore, the majority, especially Malays, rush to support it, its cultural crimes forgotten for the moment.

That this latest spat with Singapore comes as the Umno leader, Dr Mahathir Mohamed, hands over to his deputy, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, puts the new leader in a spot.

He can only react as a nationalist. And fight fire with fire. The Singapore leaders knew that. So why did it up the ante in a political transition where the new leader walks on melting ice?

Underling the political disputes between Singapore and Malaysia is a cultural divide in which each misjudges and miscalculates the other. The cultural xenophobia of the Malay and Chinese pins the overriding political and administrative problems, and one is happy with the other only when it dominates.


Indeed, bilateral ties after Singapore's independence from Malaysia in 1965 underlined this dominance with each walking on eggs to make it work. That led to an uneasy peace. That could not last. Especially as newer leaders in Malaysia found themselves ill at ease with Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew.

Live together

But when the second generation of leaders firmly took over the reins in both, the old understandings and respect could not overcome the incipient nationalisms in each.

Despite it, however, there is an underlying acceptance, amongst Singapore and Malaysian leaders privately, that the two countries must live together, that Malaysia cannot prevent the sale of water to Singapore, that even in enmity such niceties as water supply must go on.

But official ties are now tinged with xenophobia. When the dominant political party in each have to prove its xenophobia and nationalism to stay in power, issues like this must crop up.

I submit Singapore was wrong to come up with the booklet, "Water Talks? If only it could". And wrong for Malaysia to react as she did.

Mahathir was right to protest at this release of confidential official documents to paint Malaysia in a bad light.


But the Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, was unwise to suggest Malaysia would reply with a booklet of its own. What would that serve?

But the fat is on the fire. Neither Singapore nor Malaysia could retract or back down.

With this distinct frightening realisation that no solution is possible under the present leaders, whose links date back to their university days. How then could it be possible when the new leaders take over, as they must within five years, in both countries, with the only underlying aim is to undercut the leaders in the other.

Water is only one of several contentious issues which both decide to make an example of. The dispute over who owns Pulau Batu Putih (or Pedro Branca, as Singapore knows it) is with the International Court of Justice. Malaysia's crazy plan to build a bridge over the existing causeway which links the two countries for no reason than to massage the national ego is another.

Deep-rooted problems


Singapore wants the right for its armed forces to intrude into Malaysian airspace. There would be more as the years creep by. These could be resolved if they are looked upon as mere administrative matters and negotiated within a framework of give-and-take.

But in every negotiation, the two countries talk at cross purposes. That reflects deep-rooted problems that has nothing to do with the sanctity of contracts or international law. It begins with the cultural xenophobia in each. Unless that is resolved, these bilateral pinpricks would continue.

Could they be resolved? Not yet. The two countries have, willy nilly, entrenched their xenophobia with the fundamentalisms of global politics. When larger interests intrude, local issues get short shrift. To worsen bilateral ties.

But neither Kuala Lumpur nor Singapore would accept that as a consequence of their global positioning. The hardening of the political debate in Singapore is, must, now be matched by Malaysia.

The Malay ground is incensed at Singapore's insensitivities, as the Singapore ground is incensed at Malaysia's refusal to honour its commitments. Both are wrong and both right. But Singapore should realise the Malay ground is hardening culturally to the point that there is more talk than ever of blaming the Malaysian government for wanting to recover Pulau Batu Putih when it should have acted to recover Singapore itself.

What Singapore did with its booklet would only strengthen this dangerous view. But it is also a realistic view amongst the more sobre Malaysian and Malay politician that when it is time for Singapore to negotiate the water agreement in 2061, it could well be one Malaysian state negotiating with another.