I am a contrarian. I observe that Malaysians and Singaporeans like to criticise each other. They seldom praise each other. I want to be the first Singaporean official to praise, not one, but four Malaysians.

They are:
Tun Mohamed Suffian, a distinguished judge and former Lord President of the Federal Court of Malaysia, who dedicated his life to the promotion and protection of the rule of law.
Ambassador Tan Sri Zainal Abidin Sulong, former secretary-general of the Foreign Ministry
Dato Albert Talalla (Bertie to his friends), who has had a long and successful career in Malaysia’s diplomatic service.
Tun Ahmad Fuzi Abdul Razak, a former diplomat who has been Yang di-Pertua Negeri (governor) of Penang since 1 May 2021.

Mohamed Suffian: A man of integrity
I came to know Tun Mohamed Suffian in 1961 when I sat for my final exams at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Law School, which was then known as the University of Malaya in Singapore. Final year students were examined by both our teachers and a panel of external examiners, who we found truly intimidating. It comprised the Solicitor-General of Singapore Victor Winslow, two High Court judges from Malaya, Mohamed Suffian and Eusoffe Abdoolcader, the Dean of the Melbourne University Law School Sir David Derham, and Professor L.C.B (Jim) Gower of London University.
Appearing before this panel for my oral examination was both a happy and terrifying experience. I will always be grateful to them for awarding me with First Class honours. After graduating, I returned to the law school and joined its faculty. I kept in touch with both Judge Mohamed Suffian and Judge Abdoolcader. I followed, with pride, the career of Judge Suffian as he was appointed as the Chief Justice and, then, as the Lord President of the Federal Court.
During my tenure as Dean of the NUS Law School from 1971 to 1974, I nominated only one person for the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. He was Tun Mohamed Suffian. I served as the Public Orator at the University commencement in 1972, when Tun Suffian received his doctoral degree.
Why do I admire him? He was intellectually brilliant but very humble, and a man of integrity. He was a good judge and had devoted his life to serving the cause of justice. I remember he was outraged by the sacking of his successor, Tun Salleh Abbas, by then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed. Five senior judges, including Judge Abdoolcader, were suspended during the 1988 judicial crisis.
I was very honoured when the University of Malaya invited me to deliver the inaugural Tun Suffian Public Lecture in 1989. Tun Suffian passed away in September 2000 at the age of 82.

Diplomatic warrior Zainal Abidin Sulong
Tan Sri Zainal Abidin Sulong was a career diplomat. He rose through the ranks and retired as the Secretary-General of Wisma Putra, which is equivalent to the Permanent Secretary of Singapore‘s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was posted to the United Nations as Malaysia’s Permanent Representative, from 1980 to 1984, which overlapped the period when I was Singapore‘s UN Permanent Representative from 1974 to 1984. The four years when Zainal and I were at the UN were critical to Asean.
On Dec 25, 1978, Vietnam invaded Cambodia, overthrew the Khmer Rouge regime and imposed a new government, backed by Vietnam. The five Asean countries decided that they had to oppose Vietnam’s action because it posed a danger to Thailand and we could not condone the behaviour of a country, which had sent its armed forces across an international boundary into the territory of another state.
The fight between Asean and Vietnam at the UN was a baptism of fire for the Southeast Asian regional grouping. The odds seemed stacked against us as Vietnam had the support of the Soviet Union, its allies and India. The five Asean Permanent Representatives from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand met frequently to strategise our battle plans and next moves.
In the end, and much to the surprise of the world, Asean prevailed over Vietnam at the UN. I will always remember Zainal Sulong, who died in 2010 at age 77, as one of the five Asean diplomatic warriors. He was courageous, fearless, eloquent, calm under fire and a dependable ally.

Career diplomat Albert (Bertie) Talalla
Dato Albert Talalla, known as Bertie to his friends, was a career diplomat, having served as Malaysia’s Ambassador to China, Germany, and the United States. Bertie was in Washington from 1986 to 1991, while I was there from 1984 to 1990. We were colleagues and good friends.
There were six Asean Ambassadors – from Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand – in Washington at that time. We constituted the Asean Washington Committee (AWC). We liked each other and worked well together. We believed in strength in numbers. For example, if we wanted to see a senior US official or a US Congress member, we were more likely to succeed if the request came from the six of us. We also divided the work among us. Each embassy would specialise on one topic. For example, Singapore focused on trade policy, Malaysia on palm oil. We also went on roadshows to different parts of America to tell the Asean story, its relevance to the US and to highlight our concerns. In one city, Bertie told me he was tired of talking about palm oil. He asked me to speak on palm oil at our next stop, and he would cover trade. I agreed and became quite knowledgeable about palm oil. This is an example of the camaraderie among us.

Crossing path with Tun Ahmed Fuzi
Tun Ahmed Fuzi Abdul Razak, the current Governor of Penang, has also been a career diplomat. He was Deputy Chief of the Malaysian Embassy in Washington between 1987 and 1989, where our paths crossed for the first time. I was Singapore’s Ambassador from 1984 to 1990. We became friends. He was a star even then and rose through the ranks to eventually become the Secretary-General of Wisma Putra from 2001 to 2006.
Tun Ahmad Fuzi and I were on opposite sides of a legal dispute between Malaysia and Singapore, over the Republic’s land reclamation activities in Pulau Tekong and in Tuas. On July 4, 2003, Malaysia dropped a bombshell on Singapore. It sent Singapore a diplomatic note, referring the dispute to arbitration, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Singapore responded by pointing out that the law required both sides to attempt to resolve their differences through negotiations first before resorting to arbitration.
On Aug 13 and 14, 2003, a Malaysian delegation, led by Tun Ahmad Fuzi, met our delegation, headed by me, in Singapore. The talks went well and Malaysia promised to host a second round in Putra Jaya.
However, no second round was held. Instead, Malaysia applied to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), based in Hamburg, for provisional measures to stop Singapore’s reclamation activities until the outcome of the arbitration.
The matter was considered by ITLOS, in September 2003. The Malaysia Agent in the case was Tun Ahmad Fuzi and I acted for Singapore. The oral hearings were held over three days. On Oct 8, 2003, ITLOS rendered its judgment, which did not grant the provisional measures which Malaysia had asked for. Instead, the tribunal instructed the two countries to establish a group of independent experts to conduct a joint study into Malaysia’s allegations. This was the proposal I had made to the tribunal in my concluding statement.
On Nov 5, 2004, the Group of Experts submitted its unanimous report to the two governments, which later agreed to accept it and to resume negotiations. After two intensive rounds of talks held in Singapore and at the Hague, in the Netherlands, the two delegations agreed on a settlement.
The Land Reclamation case was a very complex one, involving several stages. The fact that we were able to resolve all our differences amicably was due, in part, to Tun Ahmad Fuzi’s leadership. He was fair-minded and a perfect gentleman. It was a pleasure to have worked with him, even though we were on opposite sides.
Our path crossed again two years later. In 2007, we were appointed by our respective governments to the High-Level Task Force to draft the Asean Charter. I chaired the group in the second half of 2007. We were racing against time to present the Charter to the Asean Summit in November that year.
There were many difficult issues to resolve, such as, human rights and the mobility of labour. Because of our friendship and the goodwill between us, Tun Fuzi helped me to achieve consensus on several occasions.

Build on common interests and friendships
I conclude with three messages for young Singaporeans and Malaysians. First, do not demonise each other. Instead try to get to know each other better. You have much in common, be it the way you speak, the music you listen to, the books you read, the movies and sitcoms you watch, the comedians and actors you follow on either side of the Causeway, or most importantly, the food we all enjoy.

Second, our two countries have many more areas of common interest than differences. We are each other’s second-largest trading partners and major investors. COVID-19 highlighted these areas of common interest and interdependencies, like the cross-border flow of goods and services.

Third, there are good people on both sides and friendships between Singaporeans and Malaysians are in the interests of both countries.
The bonds of friendships established over time will allow for frank and friendly discussions of our differences to take place with confidence, and contribute to their amicable resolution. My own friendships with my diplomatic counterparts from Malaysia and elsewhere are testament to this.

The 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games which played out before an audience of mostly empty seats ended on Sunday in a ceremony that echoed the restraint of the two-week long games. We must thank the Government and people of Japan for delivering on their promise to hold a safe and secure Olympic.
Singapore sent a team of 23 athletes to compete in 12 events at the 32nd Summer Olympics in Tokyo. All the athletes did their best. They deserve our gratitude for their sacrifices and best efforts. However, the Team Singapore did not win any medal, prompting some Singaporeans to ask the question: Can small countries win medals at the Olympic games?

I have therefore decided to look at the final medal tally of the Tokyo Olympic for an answer.

First, I should explain that one does not have to be a member of the United Nations to participate in the Olympics. Thus, Puerto Rico (part of the United States), Bermuda, Hong Kong (part of China), Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) and Kosovo (not a member of the UN), were allowed to participate in the games.

By small countries I mean countries whose populations are below 10 million. This is the criterion used by the Forum of Small States, an informal grouping established by Singapore at the UN in 1992, to define who are eligible to join the grouping which has 108 members today.

A surprising discovery
I was surprised to discover that 25 small countries and territories had won a total of 113 medals in Tokyo. I decided to dig deeper and separate them into three divisions: those with a population below one million; (ii) those whose populations are between one million and five million; and (iii) those whose populations are between five million and 10 million.

If size is destiny, the countries and territories whose populations are below one million should have no chance of winning any medal. I am vindicated in my belief that size is not destiny. There are five medal winners in this division.

Bahamas, with a population of only 389,000 people, won two gold medals. Sprinter Steven Gardiner won the gold in the men’s 400 metres, while Shaunae Miller-Uibo took the gold in the women’s 400 metres. Fiji, with a population of 889,000, won the gold in rugby, defeating New Zealand in the final. Bermuda has a population of 63,000 people and still managed to win a gold medal in the women’s triathlon. Grenada, with a population of 112,000, won a bronze medal in the men’s 400 metres. San Marino, a tiny landlocked European country surrounded by Italy, has a population of only 34,000 and yet won a silver and two bronze medals.

There are 13 countries and territories in Division II.

The most successful country is New Zealand. With a population of 4.9 million, it won seven golds, six silvers and seven bronzes, a total of 20 medals.

Jamaica has a population of 2.9 million. It won four gold, one silver and four bronze medals, a total of nine medals. We will remember for a long time the astounding sight of seeing three Jamaican women, winning the gold, silver and bronze medals in the women’s 100 metres.

Slovenia has a population of two million. It took three golds in canoeing, cycling and sport climbing, a silver in judo and a bronze in cycling, a total of five medals.
Ireland (4.9 million population) won two golds in rowing and boxing and two bronzes in rowing and boxing.

Qatar (2.8 million population) went home with two gold and one bronze medals in Tokyo. Qatar’s famous high jumper Mutaz Essa Barshim graciously decided to share the gold medal with his Italian rival Fianmarco Tamberi, in one of the most emotional and heartwarming moments in Olympic history. Qatar’s weightlifter Fares Elbakh, also known as Meso Hassouna, won the second gold medal.

The other medal winners in this division were from Kosovo, Latvia, Puerto Rico, Bahrain, Lithuania, Namibia, Botswana and Kuwait.

In Division III, there were six countries and one territory: Norway, Sweden,Switzerland, Denmark, Jordan, Finland and Hong Kong.

Norway (5.3 million population), won four gold, two silver and two bronze medals, for a total of eight. Norway won gold in the triathlon, men’s 400 metres hurdles, men’s beach volleyball and men’s 1,500 metres. Norway’s Karsten Warholm smashed his own world record and set a new record for men’s 400 metres hurdles. Another Norwegian, Jakob Ingabrightsen, won gold in the hotly contested men’s 1,500 metres.

Sweden (10 million population) won three golds and six silvers, taking a total of nine medals. Sweden’s gold medal winners – Daniel Stahl in men’s discus, and Armand Duplantis in pole vault – were much admired. The third gold was won in the equestrian team jumping event.

Switzerland (8.5 million population) won three golds, four silvers and six bronzes, making a total of 13 medals. The three gold medals were won in cycling (mountain bike), shooting and tennis. The Swiss female tennis player, Belinda Bencic, won the gold medal in the women’s tennis singles. The more celebrated tennis stars, such as Naomi Osaka and Ashleight Barty, were eliminated in the early rounds.
Denmark (5.8 million population) won three golds, four silvers and four bronzes, making a total of 11 medals. The gold medals were won in sailing, cycling and badminton. China’s world Number One badminton player, Chen Long, was defeated in the final in Tokyo by Denmark’s Viktor Axelsen. After losing the match, Chen Long graciously told Axeleen that he deserved to win.

Hong Kong (7.5 million population) gained one gold, two silvers and three bronzes. It won a gold in men’s fencing, two silvers in women’s swimming, and three bronzes in women’s cycling, table tennis and kata (a karate form). Hong Kong’s Grace Lau put up a very good performance, winning a bronze medal in the women’s solo kata match.

Small countries can win medals
From the results of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic games, the answer to the question which I posed at the beginning of this essay is a resounding yes. The lesson for Singapore is that small countries can win medals in the Olympic games.

What can Singapore learn from the successful medal-winning countries? I urge the Singapore Olympic Committee and our Sports Council to set up a committee to look into this question.

I offer the following three hypotheses for discussion. First, we should have an ecosystem which systematically spots talent among our students. Second, we should offer the talented students, if interested, a programme of training, coaching and mentoring, for free. Third, our society must truly value excellence in sports and make it possible financially for talented athletes to pursue their passions.

We must also develop a culture of supporting our athletes, in good times and in bad times. 

30 Tembusu College students, together with their lecturer Dr Margaret Tan and in partnership with the Alzheimer’s Disease Association, designed and painted 11 wayfinding murals to help elderly residents and those living with dementia navigate their neighbourhood.

Find out more here: https://pride.kindness.sg/art-helps-elderlies-dementia-care-find-way-home/

(Video source: Goh Yu En; image source: Dr Margaret Tan)

Amid the pandemic, Tembusu College made efforts to give students some semblance of residential college life. Residential Fellow, Dr Kuan Yee Han, tells us more here. The article can be found in the Jul-Sep issue of AlumNUS.

It is little known that Charles Darwin was a justice of the peace for many years. The original case records do not survive. However a new book ‘Charles Darwin: Justice of the peace. The complete records (1857-1882)’ by Tembusu Fellow, Dr John van Wyhe and Christine Chua, have reconstructed a fascinating new chapter to the life of the famous naturalist based on local press reports.

Free PDF of the book can be found here:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/2021_John_van_Wyhe_&_Christine_Chua,_Charles_Darwin._Justice_of_the_Peace_A2115.pdf

Like most Singaporeans, I am concerned by several recent incidents of racism. In May, an Indian woman was confronted by a Chinese man for not wearing her face mask properly while brisk walking. The man abused her verbally, using a racial slur, and kicked her.
In the most recent incident, a Chinese man confronted a mixed race couple on Orchard Road, telling them that it was a disgrace for a Chinese girl and an Indian man to be together.

MY CONCERNS
I have three concerns. First, I am concerned that such incidents seem to be on the increase. Second, I am concerned by the appearance of Chinese chauvinism. Third, I am concerned that members of our Indian community seem to be the target of these recent attacks.

Singapore is a very successful multi-racial country. Citizens of different races live at peace and in harmony with one another. Most of our children and young people have the benefit of studying together in integrated schools and living in public housing which is racially integrated.

Our young men have the bonding experience of performing their national service in the army, police or civil defence. All our workplaces are racially diverse. There are no ghettos in Singapore.

This happy state of affairs is also due to our legal system, our institutions, our policies and to our people.

THE LEGAL SYSTEM
The highest law of Singapore is the constitution, which prescribes that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. The constitution also prohibits racial discrimination.

The Penal Code makes it a crime to utter words with the deliberate intent to wound the religious and racial feelings of any person. The Penal Code also makes it a crime to promote enmity between groups on grounds of religion or race, or for doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
In addition to the Penal Code, we also have the Sedition Act. Under this law, it is a crime to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population.

In addition to the legal framework, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights was created in 1970.  The principal function of the council is to examine legislation and to ascertain if any of their provisions discriminate against any racial or religious minority.

The council is chaired by the Chief Justice and consists of eminent citizens. To date, the council has not issued any adverse report.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES
It is the policy of the Singapore Government to promote racial harmony. All the schools celebrate annually Racial Harmony Day. At the community level, the Government has established Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles, which are inter-faith platforms formed in every constituency to promote racial and religious harmony.

All these efforts are intended to inculcate, in the minds of our citizens, young and old, the value of racial harmony.

The United Nations International Convention On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Racial Discrimination was adopted by the UN in 1965 and came into force in 1969. Singapore became a party to this important convention in 2017.

The convention requires countries to condemn all forms of racial discrimination and to pursue a policy of eliminating racial discrimination.

Countries which are parties to the convention are required to submit biennial reports to the committee established under the convention. By becoming a party to the convention, Singapore has agreed to have its record scrutinised by the UN committee.

STATE OF PUBLIC OPINION
A Channel NewsAsia-Institute of Policy Studies (CNA-IPS) Survey on Race Relations in 2019 revealed some important findings.
First, about 70 per cent of the respondents viewed the various policies meant to safeguard racial harmony as helpful in building trust between the races and in safeguarding minority rights.

Second, 85 per cent of the respondents acknowledged that Racial Harmony Day celebrations foster inter-racial trust. Third, 53 per cent viewed racism as a problem of the past. Fourth, 40 per cent reported that their close friends were mildly racists.

Fifth, about 44 per cent of the Malay respondents felt that they had been treated negatively because of their race, religion, education and income. Sixth, 62 per cent of the Indian respondents felt that they had been treated negatively because of their skin colour and their race.

It is significant that 40 per cent of the respondents in the CNA-IPS survey reported that their close friends were mildly racists.

It would seem from the survey that racial prejudice is quite widespread in Singapore, especially by the Chinese towards the Malays and Indians.

This was reflected in the result of a study conducted by Angeline Khoo and Lim Kam Ming of trainee teachers. The report of their study is contained in the 2004 book, Beyond Rituals And Riots: Ethnic Pluralism And Social Cohesion In Singapore, edited by Lai Ah Eng.

RACIAL STEREOTYPING
Khoo and Lim found that the trainee teachers held many stereotypes about the different races.

The Chinese were perceived to be kiasu, materialistic, industrious, practical, superstitious and ambitious.

The Malays were perceived to be very religious, loyal to family ties, tradition-loving, happy-go-lucky, lazy and kind.

The Indians were perceived to be tradition-loving, intelligent, loyal to family ties, loud, very religious and argumentative. The authors wrote that “only the Chinese trainees perceived Malays as lazy”.

Racial prejudice is morally wrong but not illegal. Nevertheless, we should fight against racial prejudice in Singapore whenever it rears its ugly head.
We should do so because such prejudice could affect the dignity and employability of members of the minority communities.

As we do not have a national commission of human rights, we should mobilise the weight of public opinion to combat prejudicial views and comments about members of the minorities.

CHINESE CHAUVINISM
I see evidence of Chinese chauvinism in Singapore. This could be due to several developments outside Singapore.

The rise of China in the world has naturally engendered pride in many Chinese Singaporeans. There is nothing wrong with this.

However, pride in China’s achievements should not be allowed to cause the Chinese in Singapore to become chauvinistic, meaning to feel superior to the other races.

There are two other factors at work. These are the growing strength of ethno-nationalism and of identity politics. We must not allow ethno-nationalism or identity politics to come to Singapore.

TARGETING INDIANS
I am also concerned by the anti-India mood in Singapore. Why are the Indians being targeted? I don’t know the answer.

It could be due to perception. There is a perception that there are too many expatriate Indians in Singapore. There is also the misperception that our free trade agreement with India – the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement or Ceca – has created a loophole for Indian professionals to work in Singapore.

Whatever the cause, it is time for the leaders of the majority community to speak up and to put a stop to it. Singaporeans cannot distinguish between an expatriate Indian and a local Indian. Therefore, all Indians, whether expatriate or local, have become targets.  Whether local or foreign-born, there is simply no justification for racist attacks.

WORK IN PROGRESS
I will conclude by quoting what Finance Minister Lawrence Wong said at the IPS Singapore Perspectives 2021 conference in January. He acknowledged that there is still racism in Singapore and that the government is committed to improving the situation. Yes, the situation may be better than it was 10 or 20 years ago but it is not perfect. We must work continuously to make it better.