Malaysia's counterproductive policies towards its rail fares from Singapore.

Once Singapore and Malaysia were part of the same federation, but in 1965, Malaysia forced Singapore to become independent. According to Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, differing attitudes towards the politics of communalism led to the split. The leaders of Malaysia’s dominant political party (then and now), the United Malay National Organization (UMNO), sought to institutionalize a political order in which the Malay race would be dominant.

They have done so. With Singapore and its large Chinese majority as part of the federation, this was threatened. But this posting is not about Singapore’s independence or the UNMO’s communal policies. It is about rail fares.

When Singapore gained independence, Malaysia’s currency, the Ringgit, and Singapore’s dollar were convertible at the rate of one to one. However Singapore has been more successful in maintaining fiscal discipline. The value of the Ringgit has gradually depreciated, though for a developing nation it has been relatively stable. Now the exchange rate is 100 Ringgits to 42.80 Singapore dollars.

... Except within the confines of - to quote an internet travel guide - “the faded colonial grandeur of Singapore’s art deco mainline station.” There, the exchange rate is still one to one. As part of the separation agreement, the station and rail service are still operated by the Malaysian National Railway. If one buys a first class ticket to Kuala Lumpur at the station, or over the internet from Singapore, the cost is S$68.00, instead of less than $30.00. To buy a ticket denominated in Ringit or at international exchange rates, one must travel by Singapore Metropolitan Rapid Transit and bus across the causeway to Johor Bahru.

This policy might make sense if the Malaysian National Railway had a monopoly on travel to Kuala Lumpur, but it does not. While there are only three trains each day, there are frequent flights and hourly bus departures - including luxury busses - throughout the day and evening. By bus, travel times are shorter and fares are lower though the trip is less picturesque. While I don’t know for sure, I must assume that keeping the station open for only three relatively uncrowded trains each day, must be a money losing operation. My 11 mile evening bicycle trip from the Lee Kuan Yew School to the National University of Singapore’s Kent Vale housing complex where I live parallels the single rail track for a short stretch of about two miles. It is a tranquil, lonely scene. There is not even a protective fence. There doesn’t need to be. With a more rational policy and better service there could be a vibrant, profitable high-speed rail link between Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and other points north. Were the Singapore government managing the operation, one may be sure there would be.

I love everything about train travel, even on Sri Lankan trains, which are maintained at a far lower standard than Malaysia’s. Once, I made a special trip to Singapore, partly to experience Singapore Airlines but also to travel by train to Kuala Lumpur. Years ago, I had seen the Singapore rail station and it captivated my imagination. I loved the trip, even though the air conditioning in my car failed and by the end of the trip, it was stiflingly hot.

In three weeks time I will be traveling to Kuala Lumpur. Probably I should take the train, inflated ticket price and all. I could view it as accumulating good karma by making a charitable contribution to Malaysia’ government and to keep the rail service functioning. But despite my love of rail travel, I cannot bring myself to cast a “vote” for a policy that seems so irrational and economically counterproductive. My rail experience from KL to Singapore will only be one way. Traveling north, I’ll take the bus.

First impressions of communal preferences in Malaysia: pros and cons

Saturday June 21, 2008
With kind assistance from a professional colleague of my son, I was able to secure a car and driver for two days of on-and-off-the-beaten path explorations in Malaysia. Thursday, we drove to Malaka, a seaside destination about three hours from KL. Friday, we began, at my request, with a sociological tour of KL, visiting areas occupied by a variety of social strata and in each of Malaysia’s three major communal groups - Malay, Chinese and Indian (predominantly Tamil). Later we stopped briefly at some more traditional tourist destinations. We lunched at a very modest noodle shop, owned by the same Chinese family for forty years and now being managed by the third generation. My Thursday’s driver was an Indian man in his late thirties. Friday’s driver was a Chinese man in his sixties. The other individuals with whom I socialized have been either Chinese and expatriate and, of course, I have been living in the heart of KL’s Chinatown.

I mention the communal identities of my several informants because my first, necessarily superficial impressions of Malaysia’s communal (Bumiputra) preference system are obviously reflect the minority vantage point of those with whom I have spoken. Also, they reflect the my recent readings of Malaysian historyl about half the first volume of Lee Kuan Yew’s massive and engagingly written autobiography. More about Lee Kuan Yew in another blog. Unfortunately, I have yet to gain any deep exposure to the culture and vantage point of Malaysia’s dominant community.

In academic reading I had done previously, Malaysia’s system of preferential treatment for ‘sons of the soil,’ implemented after the 1969 communal riots, was presented as a source of social stability. In my American University course, “Conflict and Development’ I contrasted this with Sri Lankan government policies that have contributed to more than twenty years of intense communal strife. But pro-Malay policies have been a driving force in Malaysia’s political culture since before the time of independence. In particular, according to Lee Kuan Yew, it was fear of Chinese domination, in a democratic polity, that lead Malaysian independence leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman, to press for Singapore’s detachment from the Malaysian Federation.

The ‘success’ of the policy can be seen by contrasting Malaysia’s vibrant modern capital city with Colombo, now partially paralyzed once again by the reality and threat of militant terrorist bombings. But the resentment of the Malaysia’s minority communities, as communicated by my Chinese and Indian informants is real. Preferential university admissions, they report, mean that qualified Chinese and Indian students are denied admission and qualified Chinese and Indian faculty members are denied appointments. The same is true in the government services. The security forces - army, navy and police - are almost entirely Malay. Minority community members do not join because they know that even if they are accepted as recruits, they will be denied promotions.

The contrast between Malaysia’s system of communal preferences and Singapore’s meritocratic system is widely cited. One informant told me the story of a talented young Chinese woman who was denied admission to a Malaysian university and then accepted a scholarship to Singapore’s national university. He told me that such scholarships are available, on the basis of competitive examinations to all Malaysian secondary school graduates. There are three requirements. First, candidates must past a rigorous competitive entrance examination. Second, candidates are subjected to weekly performance tests. If their work falls below a required standard, they are sent home. Third, after receiving their degree, graduates must work in Singapore for at least two years. The hope, my informant told me, was that the ‘best and the brightest’ would remain in Singapore, and many do.

Contrasts between Singapore and Malaysia were frequently cited by my informants, though one told me he had chosen to remain here because of its slower pace and less intensely competitive culture. One was the public transport system. KL has three systems of public transport, an elevated light rail, a monorail, and a train to the airport. But, I was told, the systems are run by independent companies, have different fare systems and do not connect with one another. Also, I was told that there are many public transit stations in areas occupied by Malay community members and far fewer in those occupied by the minorities. When visiting KL’s magnificent Chinese temple complex, I was told that the construction and maintenance of Mosques is supported by government funds. The Chinese and Indian communities must construct and support their own places of worship. I was told that government sponsored family planing services are pressed on minority community family members but that Malay families are encouraged to have as many children as possible. I was told that at the time of separation, the Malaysian Ringit was worth more than twice as much as the Singapore dollar. Now the reverse is true. I was also told, however, that the preference system has worked in at least one respect. Malays now hold influential positions in most of Malaysia’s large business enterprises and are reaping the wealth that such positions provide. This makes it much less likely that Malay community leaders will collude in orchestrating attacks against the Chinese community than was true in 1969.

From studying Sri Lanka for more than 20 years I have learned that first impressions can be misleading. Gaining a deep understanding of a culture requires one to live ‘on the ground’ and years of intensive study. Even then, there always seem to be new ‘layers of the onion’ to be peeled.

All that can be said at this point is there may may exist potential problems that could threaten Malaysia’s political-economic well being and the long term sustainability of its communal preference systems.

There's a lot more to Singapore than shopping

Obviously most Singaporians don’t spent most of their time shopping, though it might seem so from walking the length of Orchard Road in the early evening In fact, I would assume that most cannot afford the high fashion items on sale, nor take a $50 plus meal in one of the upscale restaurants on a shopping mall’s upper floor or along the canal in the fashionable Clark Quay neighborhood. As in every city, they are servers in the restaurants, clerks in the shopping malls, small proprietors in little India storefront boutiques or Chinatown hawkers stands, taxi drivers, students and street sweepers. I have taken particular note of the street sweepers. As in most countries, including the US, they are shorter that the average population and have darker skins. In Singapore, they wear iridescent vests to alert drivers to their presence. When I see them, the “epsilons” described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World come to mind, though their lowly status is dictated by circumstance, not genetic conditioning.

One thing Singapore’s epsilons apparently do not do is live in slums, though perhaps some of the low end high rise complexes may have slum like qualities. Only after crossing the border into Malaysia did slum shanties appear, nestled along the rail track as in Sri Lanka and India. In KL, I was told, there were high-rise slum communities.

On a first visit to Singapore - to any area where one travels as a tourist - one mostly sees the Alphas and Betas. One may come in contact with the Deltas and Epsilons, but even then they are almost invisible amidst the bustle and glitter. On my next visit, seeking them out will be a priority.

POSTSCRIPT.
In reading this over later I felt a qualification was needed. Singapore's Little India, where I stayed was a much more diverse community, not unlike one that would be found in Colombo, Delhi or Mumbai. And at the Sunday morning (Anglican) Church services, the congregation was diverse, large, not overtly wealthy, and very hospitable.