I refer to the malaysiakini report Ironing out 'practical problems' with IDR .

I find the comment of George Yeo, Singapore's foreign minister, most perceptive. The reference to what might have been the situation had there been no 'borders', and especially the more important reality that 'of course there is a border, there is a fence' is, to me, of extreme theoretical and pragmatic significance.

Because of this 'border' and "fence" according to Yeo (there is) 'a certain pressure difference, but to the extent that there is connectivity and ferocity, this is good for both sides'. This is a very positive perspective indeed.

In this statement I believe Yeo has also made an important contribution in explaining the meaning and significance of being 'good for both sides'. To him, of course, there will be 'ferocity' in 'ironing out' differences, but the latter is seen as a positive outcome to the debate in the context of connectivity.

What is implicit here is that if the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) is well planned, and the projects properly implemented and continuously well-managed and successful over a period of time, then both sides would benefit in a 'win-win' relationship as earlier predicted by Lee Kuan Yew.

But my reading of the historical background, however, would suggest that Yeo's observation, while being theoretically relevant, is not necessarily new. In fact, intrinsic to the argument on 'ferocity' are questions such as sovereignty, and the real fear among the Malays of becoming sidelined or indeed 'swamped' by the IDR, if there were no 'borders or fences' to protect them. This realisation as suggested by Yeo, however unfounded, must be well appreciated, taken seriously, and indeed strictly observed.

But, the cutting-off point in real terms is whether questions such as sovereignty itself in a development context is all that important. Professor Khoo Kay Kim (who is an accepted authority on this question) has affirmed that during the entire colonial period, the Malay Sultans held their sovereignty intact right through the heydays of colonial rule when Malaya was transformed from poor 'kampungs', tin mine swamps and rubber estates into the towns and cities that mushroomed during this period.

The key factor here was not so much a question of sovereignty but rather, of the system of in-direct rule and the accompanying reasonably efficient British colonial administration that made things work.

In other words, while it is important and essential that Malay sovereignty be enshrined and protected at all times within the institutional structure of the IDR, this does not necessarily mean that sovereignty should stand in the way of development. Malaysians and Singaporeans can still have a stake in the IDR within the framework of sovereignty.

The point I am trying to make is that as long as there are good management practices, efficient administration, understanding and goodwill prevailing on both sides for a 'win-win' situation, to then 'borders and fences' can take a back seat.