Your statement is too simplistic and not quite accurate, no offence intended, this just my opinion.
There is great value in interacting with Malaysians on a forum, as it enables me to learn more about various Malaysian perspectives. Please understand that I do not mean offence.
I know this is a little off topic but your post deserved a response.
Yes Mahathir's policies with regards to defence have been disastrous for the Malaysian Armed Forces, no one here is disputing that but to claim that he reduced cooperation and his policies were destabilising in my opinion is not accurate.
Let me provide my perspective, which is necessarily Singaporean. I make no pretense at being unbiased. Like each of us, I am a product (victim) of my own experience and observations.
After the
SQ117 hijack from Subang Airport in Kuala Lumpur on 26 March 1991 (instead of expressing sympathy, promising to tighten security or increasing security cooperation, as Malaysia had done with the US in the aftermath of Sept 11), Malaysia under Dr M chose to conduct, an airborne assault exercise, codenamed Pukul Habis (Malay for 'Total Wipeout') on 9 August 1991, with a drop zone in southern Johor just 18km from Singapore. Singapore's response was measured and confident. We triggered an Open Mobilisation on the eve of Singapore's 26th National Day. This mobilization meant that many thousands of Singaporean families could not spend time together (by virtue of the fact that NSFs and NSmen* were reporting to camp) on a public holiday because our neighbours decided to saber rattle. And this was
not the only reported incident where a decision made by the Malaysian government/armed forces that triggered mobilization in Singapore. In fact, we, as a country had to develop a system of rotational alertness levels to cope with the need for rapid mobilization in the event of a sudden outbreak of hostilities. Ironically, Indonesia greatly benefited from our system in the aftermath of the Dec 2004 Tsunami - were our forces were able to be deployed in-country even before the US Marines arrived to deliver aid.
How would you feel if Singapore conducted major amphibious assault exercises, oh on say 31 August of any year? Especially since the exercise was scheduled after a significant terrorist incident affecting Singapore that originated from Malaysia soil. The choice of the date of the exercise is symbolic
and I would not describe Ex Pukul Habis as enhancing stability. See
post #312 of this thread for a chronology of Singaporean events.
In some years, Kuala Lumpur said that as a result of the impact of the 1997 economic and financial crises, Malaysia was not able to take part in some FPDA exercises. The FPDA decision-making is consensual and clearly,
Dr M, at various points of his regime reduced defence cooperation in the 1990s by refusing to take part in FPDA exercises or other actions. Observers like me, suspect that these decisions were linked to a broader downturn in relations between the our two countries. Alternatively, it could be related to the tensions between Dr M and the relevant Australian PM or the Australian press during the period considered.
The Malaysia-Singapore bilateral relationship when Dr M was in power (in the 1990s and up to the time he stepped down in Oct 2003) can be described as strained. This is in sharp contrast to the excellent current relationship between our leaders - where Singaporean aircraft are invited to LIMA. And that such an invitation is accepted (
click for pixs).
*Note: In the past, NSmen were called reservists. So depending on which period, where Dr M's decisions triggered a mobilization, the Singaporeans being mobilized could be accurately called 'reservists'.
It was during the late 80's that Malaysia increased it's commitment to the FPDA. Had Malaysia or Singapore decided that the FPDA was no longer needed, the whole arrangement would have ended.
Agreed and I'm sure Indonesia would be happy to see FPDA dissolved. For a useful perspective on the FPDA, I would recommend this article by
Carlyle A. Thayer.
Mahathir did say his fair share of insensitive remarks but then he was not alone in doing so in the region. All leaders say things to appeal to a domestic audience, not just leaders from developing or 3rd world nations.
Ask a Jew if he thinks Dr M's remarks are merely insensitive. Having said that, I do understand the domestic imperative of expressing co-religionist solidarity. I also understand why the Malaysian government under Dr M had been vocal in condemning the U.S. actions and policies and demanded the world community clarify the concept of “terrorism” and associated the root cause of current trend of terrorism to the plights of the Palestinians and US policy in the Middle East.
Another point to take note, which I know you're aware of, is Malaysia's policy of not being overtly too close to any country with regards to defence, and this due to a number of internal factors [however flawed], not solely due to its involvement with the Non Aligned Movement.
That is actually useful.
Even under the Najib administration, Malaysia has not endevoured to take its defence relationship to a new level to a point where it would be classified as a non-NATO U.S. ally like Thailand and the Philippines or a close U.S. ally like Singapore.
Minor point of clarification. Singapore is not an ally of the US. We are but one of many coalition partners (and a junior one at that).
Mahathir may have been many things but he was not stupid...naturally it had low moments
Yes, agreed. To be fair, in the immediate aftermath of the 11th September 2001 attacks, Dr. M was amongst the many world leaders who openly condemned the terrorist acts.
In May 2002, US and Malaysia signed a joint declaration to fight terrorism in Southeast Asia, making Malaysia’s efforts part of the Global War on Terrorism. The declaration agreed to mutual cooperation in counter-terrorism in defence, banking, intelligence sharing, border control, transportation and law enforcement. Consequently, the existing defence cooperation has not only been enhanced. In 2002, Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak revealed that Malaysia had granted all U.S. requests for flightovers during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan In addition, he also stated that Malaysia had assisted the US in arresting and handing over suspected terrorists wanted by the US.
Partly, as a result of these efforts, the US provided funding and training resources for the setting up of the South East Asia Regional Centre for Counter–Terrorism in Malaysia. In other moves, the US increased IMET funding for the training of Malaysian military officers and also provided 1206 funding to establish a
coastal surveillance radar system for Malaysia.
With the above said, shall we go back to discussing the Malaysian MiG-29 replacements?
