Singapore- Malaysia Liberalism

793 Words4 Pages
The purpose of this paper is to find out possible reasons why Malaysia hasn’t attacked or invaded the tiny republic of Singapore since 1965 by considering both liberalism and social constructivism argument and realism argument. I will evaluate arguments from both sides in Singapore context in order to assess which argument can explain this matter more effectively. Works by scholars will also be used to support the evaluations done in this paper. INTRODUCTION Singapore and Malaysia have maintained their peace since 1965 despite having many conflicts such as economic conflict of interest in attracting foreign investors, race conflict regarding the matter of Malay and Muslim privileges. Since the split, the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia has resembled that of a divorced couple: full of interdependence, disagreements and pain. Hence, the nature of this peace is disputable. Is it the “warm” peace as claimed by proponent of liberalism and social constructivism in which both sides choose to settle their conflicts through negotiations and cooperate on mutual interests? Or is it the “cold” peace where mutual mistrusts are placed above talks about mutual interests and Malaysia is simply deterred from invading Singapore according to realism? In order to shed light on the nature of this peace, I has taken in account arguments from both sides and applied them in the case Singapore and Malaysia. After careful evaluations, I found that though both liberalism and realism arguments can explain this peace to a certain extent. However, I think realism is more appropriate in this case and agree with realist scholars that this peace is a “cold” peace and it existed because of Singapore’s military deterrence and the balance of power. Liberalism and Social Constructionism Explanation The first and foremost explanation by Liberalism and Social Constructivism for this
Open Document