Singapore and Malaysia knock heads over the war in Iran

IT began with a question from an opposition backbencher in Singapore’s parliament. Would Singapore talk to Iran in order to secure safe passage for its ships through the Strait of Hormuz? “Similar to what other countries, like Malaysia, have done,” he added, in a debate on April 7th.

Vivian Balakrishnan, Singapore’s foreign minister, had an answer. The right under international law for shipping to pass freely through straits such as Hormuz is fundamental for the city-state. It derives enormous value from its own spot on the Strait of Malacca. If anyone closed that strait or charged a toll, much of Singapore’s maritime sector would flow to other ports. “I cannot engage in negotiations for safe passage of ships or negotiate on toll rates,” Dr Balakrishnan answered, “because to do so would be implicitly eroding this legal principle.”

Yet because the question alluded to what Malaysia had done, the debate quickly leapt the causeway between the two neighbours. “Malaysia will not be lectured on the merits of engagement,” blazed Nurul Izzah Anwar—daughter of Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s prime minister, and a leading official in his party. She said the statement was “revealing and regrettable” and that Singapore was echoing views of big powers from outside South-East Asia. She called Iran a victim of war crimes, and its closure of the strait a bid for peace.

The spat is in keeping with a history of bickering between Singapore and Malaysia, which were briefly one country before a divorce in 1965. And the latest fracas draws fuel from some enduring differences over geopolitics.

Singapore and Malaysia have long disagreed about how to keep the strait in their own region safe. In the mid-2000s Singapore favoured working with big powers to solve problems of piracy. Malaysia, with a long history of non-alignment, disagreed. Singapore eventually set up a centre to monitor security in the Strait of Malacca, which America joined. But Singapore had to accept Malaysia’s position that only littoral countries could conduct joint air patrols. Recent events, such as America’s decision to blockade Iranian ports, have Malaysians feeling vindicated.

Differences over Israel are salient, too. After Singapore became independent, it sought Israel’s help to build its army. The arrival of Israeli trainers was so controversial in the region that Singapore tried to pass them off as Mexicans. Co-operation continues. But Malaysian governments loudly criticise Israel. Mr Anwar, once a young Islamist activist, does this with zeal.

Yet there is also an element of artifice in this altercation. Relations outside it are ticking up. The two countries have set up a special economic zone in Johor, a Malaysian state. The sultan of Johor, who favours close relations with Singapore, currently holds Malaysia’s unusual rotating kingship. He could play a big role in choosing the prime minister, if the next election brings a hung parliament.

Rumours suggest those polls could come this year. That, too, might help explain Ms Nurul Izzah’s reaction. Her father’s days as an Islamist rabble-rouser are past. He now leads a multi-ethnic coalition against Islamist opposition. Standing up to Singapore is good politics. ■