According to the Chinese-language daily, the Trade and Industry Minister of Singapore at a business conference held in Johor Bahru the day before, reminded his fellow countrymen to be grateful for the water supply that they received from the Malaysian state of Johor. What makes the news interesting is the fact that it was not reported in the media across the causeway.

Instead, the online version of the Straits Times of Singapore chose to stress the strategic role played by both Singapore and Malaysia in strengthening Asean, while the Chinese-language Zaobao.com news portal made no mention of the speech at all. One cannot help feeling that Yeo's message was only meant to make Malaysians 'feel good'.

Since their respective independence from direct British rule in 1957 and 1959, Malaya, later Malaysia, and Singapore have seemed destined to be two quarreling brothers, inevitably locked in constant sibling rivalry. Yet their dependence on each other in terms of water supply, trade and investment, not to mention the estimated 200,000 Malaysians working in the lion-city, has made the cross-strait ties too important to severe.

Inherently alien

The touchy relationship between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore is often compared to that of China and Taiwan, although such comparison will surely irk and antagonise our friends across the causeway who often claim, without concrete evidence, that Malaysia 'would one day take back that little dot' should the city-state fail.

In fact, the ambivalent feeling of many Malaysians towards our southern neighbour is beyond dispute. Perhaps we are too proud to admit the one-time federal partner's splendid and remarkable achievements in almost all aspects - except perhaps democratic progress - following its humiliating expulsion ('withdrawal' is the preferred term over there) from the federation 35 years ago.

When Singapore achieved the 'prestigious' status of being a first world country, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew brushed off the suggestion of some westerners that his country should then embark on the path of truly pluralistic democracy.

In his view, Asian countries, with their diverse cultures and time-honoured traditions, did not necessarily have to follow the West in democratic development. Western democracy, according to Lee, was inherently alien to the East. Interestingly, Lee's conviction found a sympathetic audience in Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Interesting because all the while, when Singapore remained part of the short-lived union, Lee and Mahathir were poles apart in their future visions for Malaysia. Lee was fully convinced of a "Malaysian Malaysia", whereas Mahathir accused the KL authorities of conceding too much to the Chinese at the expense of the Malays.

Who would have expected then that the two political antagonists would suddenly be thrown on a same platform, with Mahathir following Lee in arguing that Asians would always put their families before individuals, and personal obligations to the community above freedom of speech?

Together, they have been named the two strongest promulgators of 'Asian values' by the international media.

The 'r' word

Perhaps feeling confident of their improving economic standing vis à vis Singaporeans, and satisfied with the Barisan Nasional administration in managing the country's affairs in the first-half of the 1990s, many Malaysians began to dance to the tune of the ruling establishment, embracing the Malaysia Boleh (Malaysia Can) spirit, the Wawasan 2020 (Vision 2020) and, worse, the so-called 'Asian values' without critical analysis.

It was a time when many saw the idea of the growth triangle, involving Singapore, Johor and the Riau islands, as an engine for further economic improvement in the region; more and more came to agree with Mahathir that Malaysia should be engaged in positive and constructive competition with the island state in developing technology and infrastructure.

When Lee remarked that he personally did not rule out the possible re-union of the two states in the future based on Malaysia's practicing meritocracy, some Malaysians took his message as an approval of the economic progress of Malaysia. This is understandable because for the past 30 years since Singapore's departure from the federation, Lee almost never toyed with the idea of re-unification with KL - at least not in the public.

His willingness to mention the 'r' word appeared to many in Malaysia as tacit acknowledgment that Malaysia was now a 'heavyweight' to reckon with. The nationalistic Mahathir also appeared suspiciously mild in his response, saying that the different objectives of both governments made it rather premature to contemplate such an eventuality.

But the imprudent remark of Lee with regard to Johor Bahru's notoriety for "muggings, shootings and car-jackings" spoiled the up to now benign interactions between the two. The financial crisis that caught many in Southeast Asia by surprise in 1997 further complicated the twists and turns in ties between KL and Singapore.

When Mahathir singled out Singapore as the place "where many rumours detrimental to Malaysia originated", others in the country again came up with threats that Malaysia should terminate the water supply. Among other contentious issues were the freeze on withdrawing the Central Providence Fund contributions of Malaysians working in Singapore until retirement and Singapore's unilateral decision to move the Tanjung Pagar Railway Station to Woodlands.

Wise giants

The disputes, manageable under normal circumstances, all appeared beyond rescue. As the media of both sides fired at each other relentlessly, what was lost amidst the incessant tit-for-tat was a cold-headed and rational assessment of the situation that would help to improve the strained relationship.

When Lee took the trouble to travel to Putrajaya (the Federal seat of government) last September, the media in Singapore and Malaysia saw it as a goodwill gesture and began to shower praise on Mahathir and Lee as 'wise leaders'.

Some of the Chinese-language press in Malaysia went as far as to regard the visit as a meeting between two 'political giants'. That the talks failed to yield results of any substance conspicuously escaped the mind of many while the media, tamed by the authorities, continued to report on the 'bright side' of the event.

Such an approach again proved futile as the thaw was followed by yet another feud, this time over the achievements of the Malay communities in Singapore and Malaysia. It took the first visit of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as deputy prime minister to the island to bring the relationship back on track - so far.

But it is Singaporeans and Malaysians themselves who should ultimately decide what kind of a relationship they want to cultivate between the two countries - not the politicians on both sides of the border. It is the duty of every just-minded Malaysian to explain to the island-state that, although Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's administration may see the Barisan Nasional as a stabiliser and a better devil compared to the unknown forces of political Islam in Malaysia, we Malaysians however have been suffering long enough under the corrupt, oppressive and mega-projects-obsessed regime of Mahathir.

Such is the view of Lee Kuan Yew with regard to President Suharto, whose iron rule in Indonesia provided Singapore with the badly needed breathing space to develop itself into an advanced and modern nation. But Lee seems indifferent or blind to the millions of Indonesians who were denied their civic rights and even a decent livelihood under Suharto.

Subjects, not citizens

Hence, Malaysians should have the courage to stand up and declare: "The notion of Asian values does not tolerate excesses on the part of the government, and it certainly does not encourage one to remain silent while people of neighbouring countries are being brutally oppressed and starving."

Malaysians must claim back their rights provided for under the Federal Constitution, and do away with their decades-long follow-thy-leader mentality. If Mahathir gets upset at Singapore for one reason or another, the rakyat (people) must not jump on the anti-Singapore bandwagon without understanding his udang di sebalik batu (agenda).

Similarly, we should not feel elated at some patronising comments from the Singapore leaders, for they may have their political agenda as well. Imagine 10 years from now, the new leader of Singapore might thank the BN government for keeping the federation 'stable' so that the island state could continue to prosper - and the cry for reformasi in Malaysia was only feebly heard … heaven forbid this!

The same goes for Singaporeans. Why should they be told to be grateful for the water supply by a Malaysian state? After all, it is based on contractual agreement and no one is taking advantage of the other.

By reminding his fellow Singaporeans to not be ingrates, BG Yeo is essentially treating them as subjects, not citizens. With its sophisticated population, it is a real shame that Singapore is yet to be allowed to beg to differ from its ruling elite.

Unless the peoples of the two countries are rooted in the notion of civil rights and able to interpret developments independent of the oligarchies, and until the mainstream media of both sides are free of the firm control of the authorities and cease to be their mouthpiece, a cordial, issue-oriented and mutually respectful relationship between Singapore and Malaysia will continue to remain a pie in the sky.