It will be interesting to see a detailed historical comparison between the IDR and its precursors such as the common market proposal in 1964 and the SIJORI (Singapore-Johore-Batam) Growth Triangle project of 1989. Can anyone recommend a good read on either of the above two please?

I enjoyed the article, but think there needs to be more elaboration on the "mental bridge" issue, which is potentially very interesting and surely deserves more than just the closing paragraph.

Just because Singaporeans view the project with skepticism (and I know several who do not) does not necessarily constitute a problem: I am sure Malaysians also have their fair share of concerns about the project (and not just about the Singaporean involvement). I am not sure that this constitutes a mental bridge.

To me, the biggest issue is continuously finding industries to grow in the IDR. When the money flows in, differences are easier to resolve, no? =)

Ringisei:

Good point. Actually, I am currently collecting materials on the IDR project to write a longer article in our main page, focusing specifically on how the development might impact Singapore and particularly, the industries that may move into this project. It will provide a good comparison with the past proposals to create a common market between Johor, Singapore and Riau Islands (Bintan, Batam).

I will also appreciate if there's anyone who can point me to references to the older proposals.

ruykava:

Thank you for your thoughts on the piece.

I agree that the "mental bridge" issue needs a little elaboration. Let me specifically confine my argument from the perspective of private enterprises in Singapore. If I am a Singaporean investor, there are a few issues which I need to ponder before pouring the money into Johor:

1. Security: I want to make sure that my business is safe and also the privileges (particularly on tax and ownership) will not change if there is a change of administration in the Malaysian Federal Government. Of course, the crime rate in Johor is another factor which I have to consider.

2. The viewpoint from the Malaysians: Of course, if more Singaporeans go to Johor and shop, one possibility is that we end up causing the inflation in prices of goods in Johor. I do know that Singaporeans are conceived to be arrogant and too money minded and this lead to the misconception that we are in Johor to reap them off. So, such sensitivities need to be managed. Both sides are need to convince each other that the IDR project is a win-win for everyone, and it does not confine just to the politicians (who are already saying that it's a win-win).

I don't think that money flowing in is enough to make the project succeed. The first thing that both sides (in the private enterprise or even the common man) need to establish is trust.

I agree about the mental bridge. My wife spent 2 years working in Malaysia, and I had the opportunity to visit Malaysia regularly. At least in the cities, they are really not too different from us.

Funny enough. When Singaporeans and Malaysians are in a third country, eg UK, we actually feel very close. The mental bridge disappears. Compared to the rest of the world, we are actually still very similar (despite our obvious differences).

If Malaysian and Singapore leaders and politicians can understand that more economic competition comes from third countries (eg Chindia) rather than between ourselves, maybe the bridge will too disappear.

Bart,

I agree with you on the part about when Singaporeans and Malaysians are in a third country, they tend to be close, particularly in UK. I share similar experiences when I was in Cambridge and strangely, in there, we tend to be more frank about the sensitive issues that seperates us and engaged in many activities. However, the problem is that it confines to the privileged few (for e.g., the elites from both countries). The mental bridge I am talking about extends to everyone between both countries.

Here are possible solutions (which I believe will happen if the time is right):

1. Teaching Malay to non-Malay Singaporeans: Language is a way which people can communicate with. It may be good to teach younger Singaporeans Malay so that we reduce a barrier of communication between both countries.

2. Youth activities between Malaysia and Singapore: Until some form of clear skies agreement or ease of travel happens between both countries, I think that it's a good thing to have more youth interactions.

I agree with you BL. Beyond dollars and cents, freeing up travel between two countries can promote greater grassroot interaction and narrow the mental bridge. Teaching Singaporeans basic Malay does help, we live in SE Asia after all.

Hi BL
I am not so sure your thoughts that the IDR is separated by a mental bridge is a very comprehensive view of providing solutions to increase participation in this project.

Mental means an objective word i.e cerebal in thinking from the head.

But the relations between both countries also is emotional i.e visceral in thinking from the heart.

If the issue is just mental this immigration bridge can be crossed by practical solutions from both countries' immigration departments tying up the necessary issues guided by international protocols.

However the reality is more complex than that. The reasons for our historical split in 1965 is very much a racial issue. The first prime minister of Malaysia political mantra was "Malaysia for the Malays then the Malaysians." But our leader MM Lee Kuan Yew's mantra was Malaysia for the Malaysians."

With this opposite political spectrum Singapore as a nation was born. Malaysia never believed Singapore could survive less so that it can thrive! But we have confounded them and therein lies a dilemma.

Our success underline the presumption that prosperity for all in the nation can be achieved with Malay superiority whereas economic failure will follow if we do not follow this premise.

Their political mantra of Malaysia for the Malays then for all" is still very much alive in their bumiputra affirmative action policy that is written in their National Economic Action plan over the past 30 or more years. And jugding from their young and upcoming political elites like Education Minister Hishamudin(Son of ex Prime Minister Tun Hussien Onn and cousin of Datuk Najib Razak present Defence Minister & son of the second prime minister) and Khairudin Khalil ( son in law of PM Adullah)this action should be continued for many years to come in some form or another if not in its present implementation.

With such a mindset from them whatever Spore does in their country economically will not be just economics. Politics will always be ubiquitous.

Time and again from the eighties when Spore started investing in their economy on a large scale till now they always have viewed us with uncertainty and also to a certain extent suspicion.

Uncertainty because on the one hand they welcome our investments which help their economy. For example the properties that Singaporeans purchase there helped their construction and financial sectors. Also stocks that our investors purchase under the old KL Composite Index in the 1990s helped their stock exchange.

Even Singtel intention to invest into Malaysia Telecoms at their invitation was meant to provide financial muscle for its expansion plans.

But all the above met unpleasant endings due to the actions taken by the Malaysian govt to undermine these investments.

Such actions create alot of uncertainty in the hearts of Singaporean investors. But the greater question was why the Malaysian govt's action? The repercussions was not just restricted to their economy but also their political stature internationally.

Yet it was done at the expense to our country's economy. The underlying problem is their suspicions toward us. In fact damaging us economically serves a political purpose from time to time.

This is evident in what MM Lee said in Indonesia last week. They want us to be like the Chinese in their country compliant and submissive. A so called "Abang - Adik" relationship.

With these mindsets therefore our investors have their reservations. Not that they are not keen to invest as the logic of the IDR makes alot of economic sense. Making this region as a hinterland for our developed economy to tap on.

But with our past history of kinship, pre independence political relationship and close distance; complexities abound.

Added to that the many unpleasant experiences of our investors there, the manner in which they conduct our water agreement discussions, the Malayan Railway land issues in Singapore, our Air Force use of their airspace, the raising of political tensions at the causeway over comments or issues our political leaders made, etc etc.

With all these challenges yet the IDR is still able to elicit interest here manifest an economic opportunity for many of the investors here.

Many of our large scale investments are aided by large local companies that have gone beyond the Malaysian shores to Indonesia(Batam), China(Suzhou), India and Vietnam. The IDR is just another large investment project for them. It will not be a make or break situation.

For the IDR the political uncertainty will be another factor they have to bear in mind when investing in Malaysia. Had there been no political uncertainty perhaps more investments would have flowed in which will benefit both countries.

Unfortuntately this political factor will not be going away for now. Only time can tell if it will.

As to comments such as teaching our youths Malay, having more youths exchanges, having visited their countries and finding them not very different in the cities and how interacting with Malaysians outside their countries does not seem to have this political baggage, my view is that these are all happening already and cannot solve these problems presently .

As the issue is more deep seated than them. For youths learning Malay, we already have 15% of our population who are Malays yet this issue persist.

Youth exchanges are happening with the most recent one where our students from one of our top school visiting their top schools and interacting with each other. Though how deep an inteaction I am unsure.

Visiting them and finding them seemingly similar in the cities is not unusual. I worked there for 3 years and there difference is not obvious on the surface. But once you delve into their communities, you will find the Chinese,Malays and Indians live in different enclaves.

Even interacting with them on a personal basis also does not present a political challenge. After three years there I have established personal relationship with a Malaysian Chinese man married to a Malay woman. So close are we that I attended their wedding. And he even came to Singapore to work and our friendship became even closer.

Nevertheless this issue cannot go away. Integration amongst the populace will not change this issue. Many of their top brains in their schools come to our shore to seek further educational opportunities. This in turn give them economi prosperity.

Sadly this do not benefit Malaysia as many of these brilliant minds choose to settle here instead of returning to their homeland. The sad truth is that these people are not of the predominant race.

Indeed this is an irony as the absorption of these people is not an integration but assimilation. Whose bitterness is this?

On the surface we certainly benefit but underlying this; if these brilliant minds were to return home and contribute to their society. Would not the gains and benefits be greater for both countries instead of just us alone presently?

Ringisei said
"It will be interesting to see a detailed historical comparison between the IDR and its precursors such as the common market proposal in 1964 and the SIJORI (Singapore-Johore-Batam) Growth Triangle project of 1989. Can anyone recommend a good read on either of the above two please?"

I am unable to recommend a good read on either of the above. But I can say that both projects success were heavily reliant on the political leadership then.

For the common market proposal circa 1964 it was a no go from it very conceptions as the political situation then was tensed with political manouvering between UMNO and PAP to present their opposing political mantra.

Whatever ideas or concept both parties had for the common good of the country the wild card was the Malay Ultras and the Chinese communists who had their racial and political agendas to promote.

Hence it was doomed from the begining as both parties were not strong enough to counter the provocations of these communalists and communists. This undermined their ability to implement and bring the concept to its fruition.

For the Sijori concept though it was a tri party involvement consisting of Singapore,Indonesia and Malaysia[Sijori is derived acrostically from Si(singapore), Jo(johore) and Ri (Riau Indonesia)]. The will was stronger between Singapore and Indonesia.

Hence the projects created were basically in Bintan and Karimum.Batam was already developed then and its concept was very much between Singapore and Indonesia. Sijori as a concept was born after the success of Batam. From Karimum would come gas and from Bintan would come water benefits to Singapore.

In return Singapore is to provide financial investments into these two islands. Investments encompassing tourism (Bintan Resort Corporation), Manufacturing via an industrial park on Bintan, infrastructure to enable gas to be exported to Singapore from Karimum.

The Memorandum of Understanding allows Singapore government to bring in labour which even the Indonesians can perform as long as the owning company requires it ( a first by the Indonesian govt for a foreign country). And Bintan was also meant to be a duty free zone like Batam. Both rather ground breaking issues.

But this concept still failed because of political reasons. Whilst our government is able to put into writing the requirement for the success of this blueprint. Its implementation failure was more a matter of unfortunate timing on the part of the Indonesian political leadership and its consequences.

Its thought process of utilising Singapore financial prowess and management capability complemented with lower costs of Indonesian Labour, land etc. was a sound one.

The implementation would also have been successful except for a chain of unforseen events which eventually led to the denouement of the whole concept upon the resignation of President Suharto. Its failure is rather sad speaking from a personal point of view.

I was a pioneer hotelier on the largest hotel on the Bintan island which offered a product that can easily rivalled Bali as an exotic destination.

Given its proximity to Singapore and with Singaporean expertise matched with abundant Indonesian labour and beautiful seaside and marine resources it was a dream come true scenario for labour and natural beauty scarced Singaporean hotelier to turn this product into an unrivalled or dare I say a world class one.

Unfortunately after Suharto opened the Hotel with our then Prime Minister Goh CHok Tong on June 1995. Tien Suharto passed away in early 1996. Then the first riot in Jakarta started when the government tried to oust Sukarno Megawati as the chief of PDI(Democratic Party of Indonesia).

Then racial troubles started in Kalimantan when the Dyaks got rid of the Maduranese from their island.

Shortly after the financial crisis started and it culminated in the May 7 1998 riots resulting in the resignation of Suharto.

It was also around this time(circa 1998) the Bintan resort business encountered problems one after another.And eventually leading to the owner( a Singapore conglomerate) declaring the hotel insolvent and selling it to an Egyptian born American citizen in 2005.

Bintan's duty free zone of course did not take off. The industrial park concept is of course floundering due to rising business costs as all the regional govt raised taxes to increase their regional budget.In addition the self interest of these regional govt at the expense of business investors lead to worries of even more rising costs and uncertainties.

Even Singapore's govt efforts in ensuring the US govt allowing goods make here to be tax exempt under the Free Trade Agreement signed by both countries is unable to lift it out of the gloom.

Even the intervention of our MM Lee Kuan Yew about two years ago whereby he convinced the Indonesian govt to implement SEZ(Special Economic Zones) is not taking off.

As a result many of the Singaporean and foreign investors who invested there pulled out one after the other leading to a search for better pastures such as Vietnam and China.

Sijori concept is long dead but the remnants are on life support and as long as the Indonesians PKR does not wish to reform their system whereby the President is selected by the populace and not the dominant party in Parliament this life support will also be exhausted.

This system simply imply the President is accountable to the populace but the dominant party candidates have no accountability to the population. It leads to paralysis as the parties candidates are more interested in undermining the President than solving the problems of the country.

Herein lies the difference with the IDR and Sijori concept said just as much by our MM Lee Kuan Yew. In Indonesia the President is constrained by the Parliament and getting things executed is easier said than done.

But in Malaysia unlike the PKR, what the PM said is the de facto word. What is said is what will be done. Only problem for investors, more so Singaporean investors, is the devils in the details of the implementation.

Our investors will face roadblocks along the implementation. And often the implementors( officials of various ministries) will have different interpretations of the idea and challenges arise. This problem is actually not peculiar to Malaysia alone.

Our investors have gone far and wide and this issue is prevalent across borders. Then why is investing in Malaysia arousing so much discussion.

Perhaps the only explainable fact is that many of the surprises that happened in Malaysia can be termed as "should not have happened but still it happpened." In other words uncertainty is greater when you least expected it.

This will lead to business loss of course. But going by past experiences, inevitably the problems will get untangled by the leaders. It is the time taken that is crucial. For all busineses time is money and this will hurt their bottomline.

Yet if the company or conglomerate has the financial resources to last the time their business will remain intact and even propser. The same cannot be said of Indonesia.

Even in other countries where Singapore govt has got involved in investment such as Suzhou. Both parties are able to turn differences and challenges around and move on.

Without a lingering hint of bitterness despite the rancour. Unfortunately in Malaysia this will not happen as our past political ties, kinship and proximity will arouse passion and emotions of a nationalistic sorts that hurt our bilateral ties every now and again.

Only time can tell if these will go away.