Malay rule. He denounced the PAP as
“pro-Chinese, communist-oriented and positively anti-Malay. … In some
police stations, Chinese is the official language, and statements are taken
in Chinese. … In industry, the PAP policy
is to encourage Malays to
become labourers only, but Malays were not given facilities to invest as
well. … It is, of course, necessary to emphasise that there are two types
of Chinese – those who appreciate the need for all communities to be
equally well-off and these are the MCA supporters to be found mainly
where Chinese have for generations lived and worked amidst the Malays
and other indigenous people, and the insular, selfish and arrogant type, of
which Mr Lee is a good example. This latter type live in a purely Chinese
environment where Malays only exist at syce level. … They have never
known Malay rule and could not bear the idea that the people that they
have so long kept under their heels should
now be in a position to rule
them.”
At a time when UMNO was demanding my detention and burning my effigy,
these words were ominous. My riposte was that we had agreed to the
constitution of Malaysia which provided for Malaysian, not Malay, rule. This
was no light-hearted exchange in the ordinary cut-and-thrust of debate. He meant
that I did not know my proper place in Malaysia.
In
his autobiography, serialised by the
Nihon Keizai Shimbun
in 1995, he
said that his “father’s blood line has supposedly been traced back to Kerala State
in India”. His mother was a Malay born in Kedah. But he identified himself
totally as a Malay and was determined in wanting to uplift the Malays.
When Hussein Onn appointed him as his deputy prime minister and minister
for education I decided to hold out my hand in
friendly cooperation for the
future, regardless of our profound differences in the past. Through Devan Nair,
who knew him well from his years in the Malaysian Parliament, I invited
Mahathir to Singapore in 1978. I expected Mahathir to succeed Hussein as prime
minister and wanted to put our old antagonism behind us. I knew he was a fierce
and dogged fighter. I had seen the way he had fought the Tunku when the Tunku
was at the height of his power. He had been expelled from UMNO but that did
not deter him from carrying on the fight. I was not unwilling to clash with him
when we were in Malaysia, but feuding between
two sovereign states was
different. I initiated this dialogue to clear away the debris of the past.
He accepted the invitation and followed up with several subsequent visits.
We had long and frank exchanges of several hours each to clear the air
surrounding our suspicions of each other.
He was direct and asked what we were building the SAF (Singapore Armed
Forces) for. I replied equally directly that we feared that at some time or other
there could be a random act of madness like cutting off our water supplies,
which they had publicly threatened whenever there were differences between us.
We had not wanted separation. It had been thrust upon us.
The Separation
Agreement with Malaysia was a part of the terms on which we left and had been
deposited in the United Nations. In this agreement, the Malaysian government
had guaranteed our water supply. If this was breached, we would go to the UN
Security Council. If water shortage became urgent, in an emergency, we would
have to go in,
forcibly if need be, to repair damaged pipes and machinery and
restore the water flow. I was putting my cards on the table. He denied that any
such precipitate action would happen. I said I believed that he would not do this,
but we had to be prepared for all contingencies.
Mahathir was candid about his deep anti-Singapore feelings. He recounted
how, as a medical student in Singapore, he had directed a Chinese taxi driver to
the home of a lady friend, but had been taken to the servants’
quarters of this
house. It was an insult he did not forget. Singapore Chinese, he said, looked
down upon the Malays.
He wanted me to cut off my links with Malaysia’s Chinese leaders, in
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
