A prosperous Singapore which is controlled by non-racist Chinese people who are educated and civilised guarantees more security and prosperity for Malaysia rather than a poor country based on ideology. Singapore's political values and character are going through changes but it has yet to dissolve the social values inculcated by Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew, who was prime minister of the country from 1959 to Nov 28, 1990.

Singapoe's achievements as a developed country through a mixture of a democratic-authoritarian political process will not be shaken by the current awareness and new political approaches which are in the trial stage now. Even though the majority of its population is Chinese (more than 75 per cent), Singapore does not portray its Chinese identity and image.

Old business buildings and big shopping centres are not decorated by multi-coloured advertisement boards in Chinese characters. The English language proved to have successfully prevented the growth of narrow chauvinism and nationalism on the island. Many Singaporeans think,write and interact in English.

Their character is felt as strange by even those of the Chinese community who come from outside the country, be it from Malaysia, the People's Republic of China or Taiwan.

Visitors to Singapore will easily feel that the country is well-managed, with citizens who are educated and highly disciplined and have the quality of being global citizens.

Singapore has arrived at this situation because of Mr Lee's strength, determination and brilliance in tackling the advancement and encroachment of communism whose nature was more Sino-centric than Leninism.

Undeniably, the rise of communism in Singapore and Malaya in the early 1940s was linked to Chinese chauvinism. Their movement in both countries centred on Chinese schools and Chinese tertiary institutions like Singapore's Nanyang University and Chung Leng School in Penang.

Mr Lee boldly closed Chinese racist institutions, including Nanyang University. His action was considered by Chinese racist groups as the assassination of Chinese culture.

It was this understanding and sympathy towards Mr Lee's fear of the influence of communist China which prompted the first Malaysian prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, to accept Singapore's entry into Malaysia in 1963.

Singapore's separation from Malaysia because of the People Action Party's urban politics in 1965 drove Mr Lee to champion politics based on siege mentality and survival, which he implemented authoritarianly, aggressively, dynamically and capitalistically, eventually placing Singapore as a developed country in a short time.

Of course, the actions of this Singapore leader more or less slighted the feelings of Malaysians, in particular the Malays. But a prosperous Singapore which is controlled by non-racist Chinese people who are educated and civilised guarantees more security and prosperity for Malaysia rather than a poor country based on ideology.

What can be concluded by political observers or reporters who view Singapore from near, in particular through its media, is that the country is now being urged by its young generation which wants a change to its political and social system which is in line with global policies from the West, and the Singapore leadership is realistic in facing this challenge.

I asked Singapore's Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, whether Singapore was able to tie the loyalty of its young professional generation to remain staying in Singapore when they qualified as global citizens who could serve anywhere.

Dr Vivian said that Singapore leaders understood this phenomenon. They not only wanted wealth but comfort in terms of freedom of expression, movement, action and a more comfortable living place.

He said this new development was being monitored and they were working towards developing new values to meet their aspirations, thinking and hopes to survive in a freer environment. He admitted that the political values were changing as the young generation no longer wanted to live in a regimented situation, which was oppressive and stressful.

What attracted my attention more when I was in Singapore was when a student, Gan Huai Shi, 17, was sentenced by a Singapore District Court last month to go through a process of reaching out to the Malay community to correct his misdemeanour of not liking the Malay community.

Throughout his 180 hours of community service, he would be asked to work at Malay welfare organisations like the Jamiyah Home for the Aged, Pertapis Children's Home and Muhammadiyah Health and Day Care Centre for the Aged.

It would give him the opportunity to interact positively with the Malay community and would open his eyes to take part in the activities of the Malay community, said District Judge Bala Reddy, who meted out the punishment.

Huai Shi's anger towards the Malay community arose when he was seven because a Malay couple refused to give up a taxi they had hailed to him and his mother, who were trying to take his sick month-old brother to a hospital. His brother died when they eventually reached the hospital in another taxi.

Huai Shi made comments attacking Malays and Islam on the Internet between April and July this year.

The punishment reminded me of Universiti Sains Pulau Pinang, which sent groups of Malay students to live in Malay kampung houses in my area, Merbok. I wonder what would be wrong if they had comprised Chinese students and if children of Malay villages had been sent to live with elite Malay or Chinese families in the town and not in kampungs, where the living environment is already familiar to them.

However, all this indicates where Singapore is heading and where Malaysia is heading in making preparations for their respective younger generations to face the challenges of globalisation. This is the picture I gleaned from my brief visit to survey the community development programmes in Singapore recently.

 Zainuddin Maidin

 Utusan Malaysia, 3 Dec 2005