Romance of Three Kingdoms 
Malaysiakini
Oct  4, 2006
James Wong Wing On

So, Singapore’s minister mentor Lee Kuan Yew has written to Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to explain the context of his remark on the “compliant” status of Malaysian and Indonesian Chinese. 

Whether one likes it or not, Lee has not retracted what he said. On the contrary, the annex to the letter dated Sept 29 conveys the message that he feels his reasoning is justified. The annex comprised Malaysian news reports that quoted Umno leaders pointing to the ‘marginalisation’ of Malays in Singapore.

Lee merely said he was “sorry” for causing Abdullah “a great deal of discomfort”. This was no apology in the sense of admitting to being wrong.

By also saying that his remark was “less than” what appears in his memoirs published in 1998, Lee postures himself as the more forgiving or magnanimous party.

Another noteworthy feature of the letter is that, although Lee repeatedly referred to former Malaysian premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, he avoided naming him. This suggests that Lee’s relationship with Mahathir, his peer in politics, is indeed very negative.

It follows quite naturally that Lee gives the impression that he enjoys more cordial relations with Abdullah. But is this good for Abdullah? The answer is not absolute. 

Prevailing logic

The mere impression that Lee likes Abdullah better than Mahathir may indeed boost Abdullah’s standing in the eyes of Singaporeans and members of the international and regional community.

It may be seen as Lee viewing Abdullah as a statesman or a more mature politician who knows how to conduct modern inter-state relations.

It may even enhance Abdullah’s image among a segment of Malaysians who are either sympathetic to Lee’s controversial opinions, or who cherish better relations between Malaysia and Singapore.

However, it must not be ignored that, given the tumultuous bilateral relations since separation of the countries in 1965, as well as the dynamics of contemporary economic competition, the ‘logic’ of ‘the enemy’s friend is the enemy’ does prevail.

This ‘logic’ could be consciously promoted as a political strategy in the currently competitive relationship between Abdullah and Mahathir and their respective supporters.

Lee’s apparent contrast between ‘good guy’ Abdullah and ‘bad boy’ Mahathir may paradoxically help to weaken Abdullah’s position and strengthen that of Mahathir among a certain section of the Malaysian population that subscribes to this ‘logic’.

It is not too far-fetched to assume this could happen. Abdullah has been under fire over the last few months for being too soft or too nice to Singapore, to the point that Mahathir has accused him of ‘selling out’ the country to Singapore, especially by cancelling the construction of the crooked or scenic bridge.

Seen in this light, Lee may have wrongly estimated his standing or that of Abdullah in Malaysia’s fast-changing political landscape or mood.

However, the same cannot be said about Abdullah who seems to be acutely aware of the prevalence of the ‘logic’ in an economic competitor and has attempted to balance this against a proper approach to the letter.

It is not surprising that Abdullah is critical of Lee’s letter, saying he is “not impressed” by the “qualified apology” although he has “taken note” of it.

Abdullah further said: “We have to ensure such a statement should not be made again.”

The question in the minds of observers is whether Abdullah’s attitude is genuine or contrived.

This has added a new dynamic in the intra-party power struggle between Abdullah and Mahathir. The original one-to-one slug-out has turned into the Romance of Three Kingdoms.