Sand for Bridge?
Last year, minister mentor of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew visited Malaysia. He paid a visit to Kelantan’s Nik Aziz. He met up with Datin Sri Rosmah telling everyone that she and her husband our PM, run the country as partners. He also visited my state, Pahang.
In Pahang, he offered Pahang the technical and capital assistance for the state to dredge the Pahang River in Pekan. He said Singapore can do the job in return for sand. I was thinking, Singapore was willing to do the extensive dredging works in return for sand? Every grain of sand must be worth its weight in gold.
Sand.
What is the most precious commodity that Singapore wants? The firm answer is sand. This has been the bane of any agreement between Malaysia and Singapore. Dr Mahathir, when he was PM was adamant not to include sand as the lubricant to smoothen any agreement with Singapore. Singapore on the other hand, needs sand from Malaysia to increase its land mass. But by doing so, it will decrease the marine boundary it has with Malaysia. That was absolutely unacceptable to Malaysia and to Dr Mahathir.
In my mind then, the only cause that could explain the speed by which the agreement is concluded between Malaysia and Singapore is that sand has been included as an inducement to get Singapore to agree. This could be a very strong reason that can explain the speed with which agreement with Singapore is reached.
So Syed Hamid isn’t going to be too unhappy about not getting the chairmanship of Tabung Haji. He has business in sand export to Singapore which is worth much more than the chairmanship of Tabung Haji.
Singapore on the other hand does everything with a winning mentality. If it can exact the harshest terms even from a traditional friend, it’s done in the name of business. It’s unlikely that Singapore is willing to agree with Malaysia if it doesn’t acquire some valuable assets and concessions. It’s always bottom line reasoning. Nothing personal.
Consider the sudden magnanimity of Singapore in lowering entry toll into the republic by 30%. Why was it done? Let’s play around with the possibilities. First, I am sure; it isn’t done in the name of charity. It’s done for a purpose.