The book has brought to a very wide audience, both Singaporeans and outsiders, the recent history of Singapore as seen through the eyes of the republic's most important leader and founder.

Many Malaysian leaders found the book very controversial.

In some instances, indeed, SM Lee has been too strong and too personal in describing the characters, especially those who are dead and cannot defend themselves.

But then, the intention of SM Lee is to pass on and offer his interpretation of the events that had led to Singapore's exit from Malaysia to the judgment of the younger generation of Singaporeans.

They might otherwise never understand the deep-seated anxiety in the past over the existence of Singapore or learn from it about future challenges to the state.

Mr Lee believes that Singapore has to be on the alert always, because geopolitical circumstances make it vulnerable, not only in the political and security fields, but also economically.

The root of the problem

There are many interesting parts of the story on Singapore's internal developments and challenges, especially those directed against the Government by the Barisan Sosialis and its united front tactics.

However, the most interesting part for me is the history of, and the events leading to, the formation of Malaysia and Singapore's subsequent separation after two years of merger.

I have often wondered why the two countries, Singapore and Malaysia, find it so hard to overcome even small irritations, such as the location of immigration offices, the Pedra Branca or Batu Puteh lighthouse ownership, the airspace for Singapore's air force, the use of the causeway and Second Link, water supply for Singapore, or more recently, the financial implications of Malaysia's capital controls.

Until I read this book, I had never understood the basic problems in the relations between Malaysia and Singapore. The book explained this in such a detailed and direct way.

Although Indonesia has problems with both Malaysia and Singapore, they seem to be more controlled and have not created constant friction in the relationship.

Indonesians cannot easily appreciate the complexities and sensitivities in the bilateral relations between Malaysia and Singapore.

The separation has not been caused only by personal problems between the governments and their leaders on both sides, as many have thought earlier. It goes much deeper than that; it was based on fundamental differences in the basic philosophy of governance in Malaysia and Singapore.

While Malaysia under Tunku Abdul Rahman would have liked to have a dominant political role for the Malays, Singapore under Mr Lee would have liked to have a political system based on multiracialism and meritocracy.

Under SM Lee's system, some special treatment could be given temporarily to advance the economic status of the Malays, but the political system should be based on multiracialism and not on the supremacy of any race.

Meritocracy and mutliracialism

This is, indeed, a very basic political philosophical difference. I do not have sufficient background to appreciate the historical context of the problem, but can appreciate the difference in that basic philosophy. It may be that SM Lee was then too advanced, with his idea for the whole of Malaysia.

Perhaps as a transition, some temporary adjustment could have been made at that time to allow for a Malay political supremacy for a duration of 20 years or more. This is in accordance with the thoughts of the late Tun Ismail.

But due to personality problems and due to the different body politic to which the Singaporean leaders were accountable, on hindsight, the separation may indeed have been the right decision for both sides.

But it has to be admitted that SM Lee's ideas of meritocracy and the creation of a multiracial society in Malaysia are very modern.

They are in the longer run, the only valid ones for modern nations with a democratic system.

And as such, they are going to be principles that will have a bearing on South-East Asian political development in the future.

A party system based on race

This same challenge still exists for the Malaysian leadership today and in the future.

In Malaysia today, it is being demonstrated that Malays are as good as Chinese and Indians in the economic field and in the government.

The younger generations of all races have been co-operating in a lot of fields of activities, including business.

Thus, sooner or later, they will question why there is the need to organise political parties based on different races.

Such a question has become all the more pronounced as a result of Anwar Ibrahim's court case, which will bring quicker changes in Malaysian politics.

I asked Datuk Musa Hitam, a former deputy prime minister, during his sabbatical at Harvard University some 10 years ago, how the party system based on race would develop and adjust to cope with a more modern and unified Malaysia.

His answer was that it would take a long time for Malaysia to change politically. Yet, he did recognise that it was a question to be asked by Malaysian leaders and that ways must be found to transform such a party system.

Datuk Musa Hitam believed that change was possible but did not know when this would happen.

I believe that modernisation and democracy will demand that a multiracial system should become the basis of the party system.

In a way, Indonesia is also facing the same challenge.

In a more democratic system, the 85 per cent of Muslims should have a greater influence on the political system.

Of course, it is true that Muslim Indonesians have different political ideologies besides Islam, such as nationalism.

Even among Muslims who are proponents of Islam becoming that basis for the society and the nation, there are different shades in their outlook, with some being more pluralistic than others.

The challenge for Indonesia in a democracy, therefore, is whether there will be a majority of Muslim Indonesians that believe in a political system based on plurality and democracy, because Indonesia is essentially a diverse and plural society.

Vital to build confidence

With such a great historical burden to bear, it can now be understood why every small irritation could become a big political problem between Singapore and Malaysia.

Perhaps this will be overcome only by a new generation of young leaders on both sides and a change in societal and political outlook as a result of modernisation and democratisation.

For now, damage control is important and not a single irritation should be taken for granted. Confidence building on both sides, especially among younger leaders, is vital.

Asean should create an environment which could help the two countries overcome their bilateral friction in the future.

Indonesia under Mr Suharto, who was a real believer in South-East regionalism, has been something of a "brake" in regional or bilateral tensions in the past.

In the medium term, Indonesia's leadership in the region will be somewhat limited, and Indonesia cannot be expected to play such a role for the time being.

 (The writer is supervisory board chairman at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta. He contributed this article to The Straits Times.)

Pub January 12 1999