From Third World to First The Singapore Story pdfdrive com

Rukunegara
and Malay
dominance.
Razak was preoccupied with getting the country back to normal after the
trauma of the riots, and with fleshing out his New Economic Policy, so we had a
relatively trouble-free few years. However, from time to time we had problems
over both trivial and important matters. Singapore had an anti-long hair
campaign in 1971 as we did not want our young to adopt the hippie look. Men
with long hair were attended to last at government counters and at all entry

---

points – airport, port and Causeway. Three youths, two Malays and a Chinese,
were picked up at the Orchard Road car-park and interrogated as suspected
secret society members. They were detained for 16 hours, had their hair cut by a
police barber, and released. They turned out to be Malaysians. The 
Utusan
Melayu
played up the story which caused a minor storm. The government
apologised for the incident. In the meantime substantial disputes were brewing
over our port and the splitting of assets of our joint currency board and our joint
airline.
Soon after separation, Tan Siew Sin had reportedly threatened to bypass
Singapore and develop Malaysia’s Port Swettenham (later called Port Kelang)
and Penang, describing the 40 per cent of Malaysia’s trade which went through
Singapore as a “relic of the colonial past”. Malaysia subsequently took a series
of measures to reduce the import and export of goods through Singapore. The
Johor Malay Chamber of Commerce in August 1972 called on the federal
government to abolish train services to Singapore as soon as Johor’s port at Pasir
Gudang, near Johor Bahru, was ready. Malaysia announced in October 1972 that
from 1973 all goods shipped from one part of Malaysia to another had to be
consigned from their own ports in order to qualify for exemption from import
tax on arrival. If these goods came through the port of Singapore, they had to
pay import tax. They also banned timber exports to Singapore, badly affecting
our plywood factories and sawmills. After a period of disruption, we were able
to source timber from Indonesia.
As Hon Sui Sen, then our finance minister, the most patient and reasonable
of my colleagues, wrote to me, “The Malaysian attitude on economic
cooperation is one of envy and disdain. They believe that Singapore cannot
survive without Malaysia and that our prosperity is completely dependent upon
them. Nevertheless, they are irritated and annoyed by the fact that despite our
size and vulnerability, we have progressed beyond their expectations.”
We discovered in the late 1960s that the Malaysians had formed an “S”
committee to coordinate Malaysian policies on problems with Singapore. Its
chairman was the head of the Malaysian civil service and its members included
the secretaries-general of the ministries of defence, foreign affairs and home
affairs. We also learnt that they had coopted, from time to time, former PAP pro-
communist ex-detainees including Sandra Woodhull and James Puthucheary to
help them read the thinking behind our policies. When we first heard of it, the
“S” committee had sinister overtones. But we had little trouble reading their
motives; they wanted to choke our economic growth wherever their economy

---

gave them leverage over ours. Much later, when Malaysia was under Prime
Minister Hussein Onn and our relations were more relaxed, I proposed an inter-
governmental committee to resolve bilateral issues. Tengku Rithaudeen, his
foreign minister, told me on 13 May 1980, at a meeting in Sri Temasek, that they
already had an “S” committee to study problems with Singapore. By October
1986 the “S” committee had widened its focus to include bilateral relations with
Indonesia, Thailand and Brunei, and was renamed the Foreign Relations
Committee (FRC). After that the Malaysians spoke openly to our officials about
the FRC and its role in managing bilateral relations. The cloak-and-dagger
approach of the “S” committee was abandoned.
The only Malaysian minister who was not prejudiced against Singapore was
Deputy Prime Minister Tun Dr Ismail. When he visited Singapore in April 1971
on the excuse of inspecting our housing programmes, we had a good talk. He
wanted more cooperation. He told the press that differences of opinion should
not obstruct greater cooperation between us. At his urging, our state trading
agency, Intraco, signed an agreement in 1971 to cooperate with Pernas, its
Malaysian counterpart, in third country trade. Not much trade came out of this:
Ismail’s lone voice could not prevail against the other UMNO leaders.
To mark improving bilateral relations, I made my first official visit to
Malaysia in March 1972, accompanied by Sui Sen. We discussed and settled the
disposition of the currency board’s surplus funds and residual assets. We
negotiated in a businesslike way. The difficulty with Razak, however, was that
every now and then he would change his mind and reopen an item already
agreed upon.
Razak returned the visit in 1973. He wanted to terminate the
interchangeability of our two currencies. I agreed. The Malaysia-Singapore
Stock Exchange was also split in May 1973 into the Stock Exchange of
Singapore and the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange. Each kept its prevailing
listing of Singapore and Malaysian stocks. Razak was happy with the current
state of relations. Publicly, relations were not so close as to embarrass him with
his Malay base, nor were they in such a state of acrimony as to upset his Chinese
support. Razak said he anticipated troubles for both Singapore and Malaysia
from the uncertainties in Thailand and Indochina, and so we should not add to
our difficulties by creating problems between ourselves. I agreed. He was uneasy
and concerned about his Chinese support in Malaysia and the lack of support for
the MCA in the next election and asked if I could help. I had no reply. An
increase in commodity prices had given him greater confidence and eased his

---

sense of resentment at our doing better than them.
Razak invited me for a return visit. Relations were equable and stayed that
way for the next three years, with quiet cooperation and few serious
disagreements. Then I learnt that Razak had leukaemia. He flew to London
frequently for treatment. In newspaper photographs and on television he
appeared visibly thinner by the month. When he died in January 1976, I paid my
respects at his home in Kuala Lumpur.
Hussein Onn succeeded Razak as prime minister. He was a practising lawyer
in 1968 when Prime Minister Razak brought him into active politics. They were
brothers-in-law, married to two sisters.
Hussein did not look the typical Malay. He had a Turkish grandmother,
spoke with a strong voice and was unusually fair for a Malay. He wore glasses,
had curly hair and was taller and broader-built than Razak. He was very careful
in his work. At formal meetings, he would have his brief before him with
important passages neatly underlined in colour, and would go through his brief
methodically. He did not believe in trusting only to his memory. He was open
and direct when he dealt with me, coming straight to the point, unlike Razak. I
liked him. He was of the same age as Razak and me. His father, Dato Onn bin
Jaafar, had been the