THE nation's leaders are up in arms in righteous anger when the Minister Mentor of Singapore made a statement that the Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia have been systematically marginalised.

The said Singapore Minister is a legend in his own times, having built a small island with little land and no natural resources into a thriving metropolis, with per capita income that can match most developed nations on earth. Singapore is a success story unmatched in this part of the world.

The minister is also the senior most serving statesman in the world, and is revered in the international community, despite the small size of his dominion. At home, he has ruled the diminutive city state with an iron hand, ensuring tight political and social control over the citizens, and allowing little room for domestic dissent. Prominent opposition leaders have been sued for defamation for damages that bankrupted the offenders. I am glad I was not born in Singapore, or else I would be bankrupt sooner than later.

It came as quite a surprise that he apologised to the Malaysian PM for offending the sensitivities of the Malaysian government. I cannot remember him apologising to anybody in his very long and active life. You really have to give this chap your grudging respect.

This sort of public apology takes a great deal of self-confidence and political savvy. In contrast, the Malaysian PM's son-in-law and Umno Youth deputy chief still refuses to apologise to his BN counterparts for saying that the Malays in Penang have been marginalised, with the implication that the chief minister in that state should be an Umno Malay, rather than a Gerakan Chinese.

Mutual respect

Anyway, Singapore and Malaysia are founding members of Asean, and the rules of non-interference and positive engagement have always prevailed among member nations. That means that any Asean nation would not comment on the internal affair of her neighbours, no matter how bad it is.

This sort of practice makes some sense in maintaining regional stability, especially in the early days of our independence when Southeast Asia was a cock-pit for various forces created by the Cold War.

By and large, member nations observe this rule of non-intervention in the name of mutual respect for one-another's sovereignty. In terms of Asian values, it is the virtue of an outsider refraining from meddling with his neighbour's family affair.

Most of the time, this golden rule of good neighbourliness works quite well. But in recent years, changing circumstances have made it difficult at times to apply this rule across the board.

With an expanded Asean for instance, Burma stands out like a sore thumb. The ancient land is still ruled by a military junta which has subverted the results of a democratic election in 1991. The PM-elect, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, is still under house arrest in Rangoon. The socio-economic development so typical of this part of the world is absent there. Time has stood still, and the newest member of Asean is still living in the 19th century. Nevertheless, the other member states of Asean have to turn a blind eye to this mutant anomaly of a nation because of this rule of non-intervention. It is a diplomatic embarrassment at best.

Then again, there is this annual haze that engulfs East and West Malaysia. The fires were started in Indonesia, and year after year, despite mild expression of irritation by her neighbours, the Indonesians continue to burn their forests unchecked. It is like your next-door neighbour burning garbage and sending poisonous fumes into your living room, and all you can do is to suffer in silence because you do not want to meddle with their family activity. Asian values do work in strange ways!

Therefore, at first glance, the Singapore Minister Mentor has broken protocol, by commenting on sensitive racial issues in neighbouring countries. It is for this reason mainly that he has chosen to make his apology. After all, if the Malaysian PM goes all over the world and talks about how the Malays have been marginalised in Singapore, Singaporean leaders would not have been pleased.

Going back into history

But the reason for the vitriolic reaction of the Malaysian government can only truly be explained by understanding history. When Malaysia was formed in 1963, Singapore was a member state of this brand new federation. The acrimonious separation of Singapore for them to pursue a separate destiny in 1965 was driven by a great deal of politics of race.

Today, the population of Singapore is decidedly Chinese in character, while Malaysia has gone down the path of fulfilling the original Umno vision of Malay dominance. Old wounds are hard to heal.

I have heard Umno luminaries speaking of Singapore - in private - as "an island of Chineseness in a sea of Malay/Muslims". According to them, the geo-political locus of Singapore is not entirely unlike that of Israel, which is a democratic prosperous island of Jewish-ness among a sea of fragmented and mostly backward Arab-Muslims in the Middle East.

The comparison is apt, because - as I understand it - the Singapore armed forces did engage the services of Israeli military officers for the purpose of training Singaporean soldiers to defend the island republic.

Today, there is compulsory national service in Singapore, and the tiny republic has a huge reserve of fighting personnel on call, should the need arises. With their phenomenal new-found wealth, they have no problem arming themselves to the teeth with the latest and most sophisticated arsenal that money can buy. In secret war rooms, there must be classified contingency plan for military mobilisation on all sides.

With this undercurrent of racial tension between Singapore and Malaysia, it is small wonder that all kinds of diplomatic kinks exist to impede really co-operative bilateral relation on all fronts. Small issues get blown up into matters of life and death. The latest instance is this business about an ugly "scenic" half bridge.

The Singapore Minister Mentor might have broken the rules of protocol, by talking about race relation in Malaysia. But did he incite and inflame racial hatred in Malaysia, especially among Malaysian Chinese?

There used to be a time when the misconception existed among Westerners that all inscrutable Chinese people looked alike, with their yellow skin and their slanted eyes. Among some Malaysians who are not Chinese, the stereotyped perception of all Chinese as being fabulously rich and greedy must also persist to some extent.

The reality is a little more complex. I get the feeling that most Malaysian Chinese feel as much ethnic kinship for Singaporean Chinese as they would for Hong Kong Chinese, Taiwan Chinese, and Mainland Chinese. All these foreign Chinese are not entirely alien, but they are not truly close kin wither. It is not as if they will take any political action based merely on the words of a Singapore leader.

The question then remains: have the Chinese in Malaysia been systematically marginalised?

Sombre and enlightened debate

Government ministers and some commentators have been over-zealous in denying this accusation. They should read the Chinese press, which does reflect the general thinking of the Chinese on this matter.

The ensuing discussion in the Chinese newspapers has been sombre and enlightened. Some have pointed out that the so-called power-sharing by the MCA on behalf of the Chinese is an unequal power relation. Within the framework of the ruling BN, MCA will always be an object of Malay dominance by Umno, and so the party is marginalised within the closed door of the cabinet and the BN supreme council.

That MCA candidates continue to be elected to public office is a sign that many of the Chinese electorate have also accepted their position as second class citizens. The Chinese people's capacity for stoic tolerance of adverse circumstances is legendary, and so is their tenacious will to survive at all costs. As the Chinese saying goes, their hearts will not die until they see the water of the Yellow River.

You could say that the Malaysian Chinese have allowed themselves to be marginalised by voting for the MCA. But then, what viable political alternative do they have? Will they not be marginalised even more if they throw their entire weight behind the staunchly opposition DAP? Are the Chinese people not noted for their steadfast pragmatism?

Some Observers also point out that the Chinese young people have further marginalised themselves by paying little interest in politics in general, and have not even registered as eligible voters. In terms of business competitiveness in the international market place, they have also lagged behind their Chinese counterparts in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and now China.

Others remind us that the Chinese people are not the only victims of marginalisation. At least they have strength in numbers, making up a quarter of the country's population as they do. The Indians, the Orang Asli and the indigenous people of Sarawak and Sabah have a much rawer deal

In the end though, the marginalisation of the Chinese people in Malaysia has also caused the marginalisation of Malaysia in the murderous global market place. When meritocracy has to give way to the objective of Malay nationalism, the uneven playing field automatically put off foreign investors. Talented and highly qualified Chinese who found their marginalised lot unbearable have flocked to greener pastures overseas. The ultimate loser is Malaysia as a whole, including the Malays.

And so, the discussion goes on and on, in the press, in conference rooms, in coffee shops, and in the homes.

If only political discussions can be conducted along non-racial lines!