Singapore's multiracial people's arrival was dramatised: quaint junks carrying the ethnic Chinese and Indians along a river.

But what the Malaysian sees next is unsettling: ethnic Malays waiting docilely by the riverside watching this scene unfold.

"Shouldn't they be doing something? Is that the Singapore story?" Who knows? History is never the objective fact that happened but the perception of those events, and even perceptions of what is seen can being correct or downright false, as in this case.

As the man widely credited to have built up the nation state of Singapore into the success that she is today, Lee's account was to be the definitive historical analysis of the Singapore story.

But the perceptions gained from his book are again uncomfortable, especially for Malaysia:

The Singapore story accuses Malaysia of bullying Singapore by threatening to terminate its two water agreements with the republic.

The Singapore story says that that Umno had a hand in the 1964 race riots.

The Singapore story proclaims Lee battled not only with colonialists and communists, but "Malay communalists" who mounted a campaign to whip up racial sentiments.

All this forms the meat of his Singapore story, which began, for him with the end: separation.

"Separation! What I had fought so hard to achieve was now being dissolved. Why?" wrote Lee. "I would spend the next 40 years finding answers to these difficult questions."

Which comes down to one: is this the Singapore story? Historian Prof Shaharil Talib, head of Southeast Asian studies at Universiti Malaya, stresses that an assessment of Lee's version of the Singapore story can only take place decades from now.

"It needs at least 50 years before we can begin to see this in the proper perspective and be able to judge his work."

Which seems a terribly long time for some, considering Lee's basic praxis on the separation itself: "The Malay leaders," wrote Lee, "including the Tunku, feared that if ever they shared real political power with the non-Malays, they would be overwhelmed."

The reasoning works both ways, explains social critic Rustam Sani. He remembers Lee drawing massive crowds at the People's Action Party election rallies, and the party even once won a seat, in Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur.

"Lee's concept of a Malaysian Malaysia was largely perceived by a lot of people at the time as a Chinese racist ideology," said Rustam.

"Now that would be an alternative perception, wouldn't it?"

Rustam pointed out that history depends on how we look at the effects of those events.

"Even I can find the evidence to support my contention, couldn't I?"

Shaharil feels that the separation has always been explained in terms favourable to Lee's perception: "The perception is that Singapore was kicked out of the Federation... you know, poor Singapore. She would have to start up in this new hostile world.

"So you're faced playing a very old colonial Western paradigm, with the rest of the Asians a bunch of lanun (pirates)"

Rustam pointed out how Malaysia was used as a bogeyman, of how Singapore would be forced to rejoin Malaysia if the Singaporeans were complacent.

In his book, Lee portrays the threat of Malay communalism during Singapore's inception so seriously that he wrote: "Despite the presence of some 63,000 British servicemen, two aircraft carriers, 80 warships and 20 squadrons of aircraft in Southeast Asia to defend the Federation, he (Viscount Head, the British High Commissioner) could not prevail against the force of Malay communalism."

This was the nation state of Singapore as an island fortress under threat from all sides; the popular "siege mentality" which both Rustam and Shaharil feel lies at the heart of the troubles between Singapore and Malaysia.

"Singapore universities' history syllabus is military history," said Shaharil, "focusing little on Asian civilisation but drumming much fear into the hearts of Singaporeans."

Rustam, a former columnist with Utusan Malaysia, wrote about the National Education exhibition held recently in Singapore, which he said focused its students on the threats posed by its neighbours.

"Basically what they were trying to point out is that they were creating an image of Malaysia among the younger Singaporeans as some kind of Holocaust," said Rustam

"I pointed out how Israel justifies its existence as a State by constantly reminding the world of the injustices done to the Jewish people. See our great suffering, therefore our State's existence is justified."

The article got Rustam the full ire of the Singapore Press. So much so that Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong dedicated a sizeable portion of his National Day Rally speech rebutting that article.

Shaharil explains that one of the reasons for Singapore's friction with its neighbour is that it constantly advertises itself "as the oasis of stability in an ocean of turmoil."

"They advertise Singapore as a financial centre, asking neighbours to park their money in its banks. But please don't play up that the rest around you are all corrupt, so come to me, I'm Fort Knox. That's not fair to your neighbours. We acknowledge you are financially strong, but there are also other centres offering those facilities. Accept the competition."

Rustam concurs, observing how Lee carries with him a certain historical baggage. "But although Singapore perceives itself as a nation under siege, yet they were the ones benefiting from their neighbours. They were entreport for the whole area, and a service centre for the region."

Shaharil argues that this puts Singapore in the best position to assume leadership in terms of providing assistance to its neighbours badly hit by the economic crisis.

Which both Rustam and he agree is not happening.

"The irony is that she also views herself as under siege. The Chinese 'drop' in the Malay ocean. So you feel you must always keep pace so that you do not become the victim of this neighbour. You still talk in terms of being a victim, when you make your profits from your neighbour's resources?" Rustam asks.

More worrying is when this historical baggage is made part of the official interpretation of the educational syllabus.

"If that happens, the younger Singaporeans will end up having the same mindset as him. They will view Malaysia and Malaysians in the same way. Then our relationship will be sensitive and volatile all the time," Rustam warns.

"Any disagreements which we are bound to have as neighbours – the railway, water - will be forever viewed in the context of that historical baggage."

It's imperative, Shaharil points out, to dispel the myths of Singapore's creation. He reckons that one of the reasons the book was written was to address what Lee saw was complacency amongst Singaporeans.

"I don't understand what this complacency means," says Rustam.

"Maybe younger Singaporeans have become more friendly towards Malaysians and that appears to him as something that is frightening. So he wants to return to that same way of viewing his neighbour?"

Shaharil pointed out that this was not the right direction for Singapore to take, especially in an Asian future of seamless societies.

"What if there emerges a new South East Asia, one that is united? Where labour can now travel around, where capital can move, where there is no profit maximisation in one financial centre. Where there are financial centres everywhere and many first-class ports in South East Asia. Now how are you going to view him and his nation state then?

"Geographically, you're just an island and your territory stretches 16km around you. You have only about 99 islands. You might claim one island outside (Batu Putih) and two other small rocks... but basically they're 99 islands."

Which is what Lee often points out to his fellow Singaporeans and the world; that he inherited a backwater trading post with no resources and with very little chances of survival, thus the need to always be on guard.

But, as Shaharil pointed out, the island state of Singapore that Lee inherited was by no means a humble trading post. She was a fantastic trading post, far superior in terms of its infrastructure, ports, defence set-ups, petrochemical facilities, and was the hub of the telecommunications infrastructure for the region. All of which the British set up.

"You did not transform the trading post. You took a very powerfully placed infrastructure, and you pushed it further. That's all. You carry it on its own logic because you have an island with no resources - no water, no coal, no oil, no gas, no rubber, no nothing...you're just a granite block. Batu timbul saja."

Rustam pointed out how this continuing quest for identity was not unique to Singapore, but Malaysia as well.

Singapore had an almost clean slate to begin with in terms of determining its future direction, which means it can move faster in these areas, while Malaysia must work within its parameters of national identity based on Islam, deep rooted cultures and the Malay language as the official means of communication.

"These efforts towards cultural identity begs added effort in Malaysia. We have to constantly examine ourselves through religion and culture and language, but at the same time moving into an global scene."

Which is why Lee's book should be viewed within its proper context, from a man destined to have the island State of Singapore thrust upon him, and as a result has to carry the baggage of the colonial anti-communist, anti-communalist struggles that has come to define Lee, Singapore's elder statesman.

History is a very powerful, awesome tool. In the wrong hands it can create disaster. Shaharil pointed out a Malay poem published in the Asiatic Journal dating back to the early 19th century, which contextualises the ideals in our difficult relations with our neighbour:

Buah mempelam dari Patani
Masak sebiji di kulum rusa
Tuan Islam saya Nasrani
Sama-sama menanggung dosa