马国政客的短视和荒谬

Going into the new year, the often rocky relationship between Singapore and Malaysia has taken a new twist and it seems that the situation could become increasingly volatile.

　　Malaysian political leaders have been showing a complete lack of diplomacy. Examples include the selective political amnesia on the dispute over the sovereignty of Pedra Branca, the claim of military threats posed by neighbouring countries, the frivolity in using war rhetoric and adopting an aggressive stance.

　　It is apparent that the Malaysian leadership, led by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, for the sake of gaining political mileage at home, is prepared to endanger the sensitive and vulnerable ties between Singapore and Malaysia by whipping up nationalist sentiments against Singapore to create tension and anxiety. Such inept foreign policy tactics are extremely perplexing and disappointing.

　　As a political leader of a country, Dr Mahathir should be keenly aware of the significance of his words, their political implications and impact on Malaysia's foreign relations. Although he was not specific in his war rhetoric with reference to the potential aggressor, as an immediate neighbour to Malaysia, Singapore is naturally seen as the implicit enemy.

　　Notwithstanding whether such diplomatic behaviour is acceptable, the danger of such talk is that it could easily be manipulated by politicians with ulterior motives to score political points and advance individual or party agenda.

　　There is also the question of whether the Malaysian government is able to control the media reactions and emotional outbursts of the people arising from such remarks. If political leaders are compelled consequently to ride on the popular sentiments that they have created, they would be walking down a path of no return and paying the price for their irresponsible actions. This is a matter of concern.

　　Ties between Singapore and Malaysia have always been delicate and marked by ups and downs as well as occasional disagreements.

　　Singapore's stand has always been for a reciprocal and sincere relationship that takes into account the differences between both sides.

　　However, Malaysia's foreign policy towards Singapore has frequently been dictated by changes in domestic politics.

　　Malaysian leaders should appreciate that to build up a nation's sense of dignity and credibility requires not only the country's own effort, but also the respect and recognition accorded to it by other countries in the world. Respect has to be earned, not demanded. And they should practise this basic principle starting with their immediate neighbours.

　　It is in the long-term interests of Malaysia to put an end to all pretences and political opportunism.

　　This would prevent further damage to the weak regional investment environment which has yet to recover from the threat of terrorism.

　　It would also mitigate the uncertainty and instability in the region and avoid impeding the economic recovery and growth of countries in the region.

　　Over the dispute of Pedra Branca, Malaysian leaders had once said that Malaysia's “tolerance and accommodation” of Singapore was due to their aversion of being seen as a bully to a small country.

　　Perhaps it has never crossed their minds that whether a nation is perceived as“big”or“small”may also depend on factors such as the consistency in its foreign policy, the political foresight of its leaders and the openness of its people. The“size”of a country in terms of land area is a meaningless statistic in itself.

　　How should Singapore and Malaysia relate to each other in future？ Do we want to erect more barriers or should we open up and create a mechanism to facilitate sincere exchanges？ For peace-loving Singaporeans and Malaysians, the choice is obvious.

　　For the sake of peace and harmony in the region, Malaysian leaders should accept that domestic political needs should not be met at the expense of good ties with its neighbours. They should also refrain from comments that are not beneficial to its neighbours.

　　Finally, as Singaporeans, we should not only rely on official statements to represent our stand when we attempt to see beyond the shortsightedness and absurdity of political games played by Malaysian leaders. The civil society is and remains an important source of opinion outside the establishment and it has a crucial obligation to perform in protecting Singapore's image and national dignity as part of our quest for the meaning of citizenship.

　　（The writer is an SPH scholar. He is now studying for a master's degree in International Development Economics at Yale University.）

　　进入新的一年,近年来曲折迂回的新马关系又添新的变数,而且情况已经越演越烈。

　　从白礁主权争议中的选择性政治失忆,到日前煞有介事地指责邻国的军事策略对马来西亚的威胁以及对发动战争的轻率语气和公开挑衅的姿态,马来西亚政治领袖的外交手段,实在令人难以恭维。

　　从目前的情况看,以首相马哈迪为首的马国政治领袖,为了国内政治资本的积累,不惜煽动国民情绪,以危害原本就建立在既敏感又脆弱基础上的新马双边关系的代价,利用国家民族主义的民粹论调,企图挑起紧张和不安,实在令人对这样拙劣的外交举措感到万般失望和费解。

　　身为一国政治领袖,马哈迪必须清楚认识到个人言论的象征意义以及可能引起的外交后果。比如他的“战争论”,虽然对象不明,但与马国一水之邻的新加坡自然成为暗喻的主要敌对对象。

　　姑且不论这样的外交行为是否合理,这类的政治话语的危险性在于,它能够很轻易地被别有用心的政客所利用,作为个人或党派的政治筹码,进行政治宣传。

　　到时马国领袖是否能够控制舆论的张力以及民间的情绪反射,还是会因为不负责任的言行而骑虎难下、 作茧自缚、自食其果,的确是一令人不得不感到担心的局面。

　　新马两国微妙的双边关系,长久以来就有起伏和龃龉；新加坡的立场强调相互坦诚,并尊重彼此的分歧。然而,马国对新加坡的外交政策和立场,却往往受国内政治走向的影响而有所改变。

　　马国领袖必须知 道,建立一个国家的尊严和信誉不仅需要靠自身的经营和努力,同时也必须争取国际伙伴的尊重和认同。这个基本原则的起点,更应该从邻近的周边国家开始。

　　特别以马来西亚的长远利益作为考量,与其粉饰实为惺惺作态、造作扭捏的政治机会主义,不如适可而止,以免继续毒害尚未完全从恐怖主义威胁阴影中走出的脆弱投资环境,加重这个区域的不稳定因素,并最终影响本区域各国经济发展的步伐和复苏的进度。

　　还记得在白礁课题上,马国的政治领袖曾宣称对新加坡的“容忍”是基于不愿被视为以大欺小。

　　然而,他们仿佛未曾想过,一个国家的大小,也可以从其国际外交政策的延续性、政治领袖的视野以及人民心胸的宽度中得到体现。如此来说,土地面积不过是一个统计数字而已。

　　新马两国之间的未来交往,到底要的是筑起藩篱,还是要敞开窗户,创造健全沟通机制的诚恳交流方式,对于爱好和平的两地国民,这个选择是十分明显的。

　　为了整个区域的和谐共生,马国领袖必须认清国家内部的政治需要和外交行为须保持平衡,而不是信口开河,损害邻国利益。

　　最后,作为新加坡国民,要透视马国领袖政治游戏背后的短视和荒谬,我们也不应该只依靠官方发表言论和表明立场。公民社会的意识回声是体制以外一把重要的声音,而维护国家的形象和尊严,反映天理民心,更是完善公民身份的关键义务。

　　。作者是报业控股奖学金得主,目前在美国耶鲁大学念国际发展经济硕士学位。