It had to happen. It does not take much, in Singapore and in Malaysia, for either to be incensed at remarks in the other. The Singapore Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, in a speech one wonders why, said Malays in Singapore are better off, statistically, than the Malays across the causeway. It was a defensive retort to sniping about Singapore Malays in the Malaysian media, calling upon a book published three years ago about the Singapore Malay. It became an issue in this current political struggle for the Malay mind.

It matters not what the book, or indeed he, said. Few in Malaysia have read it but are incensed at what they think it contains. It is perceptions, not truth, that take over. Utusan Malaysia , particularly, used the three-year-old book by a Singapore academic now in Australia to show how vulnerable the Malays are, not just in Malaysia but in every country where they are a minority. It is a populist, even racist, call. It should have remained at that level in Malaysia. But it cannot.

Singapore chose to reply. But why Goh lit the fuse of yet another bilateral splat bothers many. Why did he not leave it to a lesser politician to say, if it had to be said? Goh has much respect in Malaysia, certainly more than either the senior minister, Lee Kuan Yew, or the deputy prime minister and Lee's son, Hsien Loong.

Wisma Putra, Malaysia's foreign ministry, summoned the Singapore high commissioner, K Kesavapany, last week to protest the remarks. The foreign minister, Syed Hamid Albar, said what Goh said muddied the pitch for better ties. He left it at that. He could not milk this for what it was politically worth, for Goh's remarks showed up the different worldviews towards governance in Malaysia and Singapore.

Two worldviews

Singapore has to survive on its wits, ensure the best talent it can muster, to make it a global showcase. So, it wants its people to be on the ball, seize opportunities as they arise, make it a centre for the region. It succeeds even if it also stands out like a sore thumb. It is predominantly Chinese as the region is Malay, "a Chinese island in a hostile Malay sea".

Singapore therefore extols meritocracy, the survival of the fittest, as its worldview. In Malaysia, in its policy of affirmative action for the Malay, it eschews it. In Singapore, the Malay must fit into this meritocratic worldview, the government prepared to nudge the Malay along but not to mollycoddle. In Malaysia, Malay dominance, the "ketuanan Melayu", would go out of the window if meritocracy is set to work. The Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, no less, has said so in so many words.

The Malay in Singapore is disgruntled he does not get the advantages of his brethren to the north, and the Chinese in Malaysia that he would have got a better deal in the island republic. Both worldviews are wrong. Especially when one views one's comforts culturally and the other economically. One lives within the ambit of one's society, not point to the greener grass elsewhere.

But this search for greener pastures while remaining rooted in one's patch adds to the inherent racial distrust, even if well managed in both. This is where the problem begins. Especially in Malaysia. In Malaysia, the dominant race is the Malay and in Singapore the Chinese. The minority in one is dominant in the other. With this at the back of one's mind, one views the other as the bulwark for its minority. When it is raised amidst a political difficulty in one, it breaks out into the open.

When all is said and done, it is a storm in a teacup. It should be left at that.