You did not grasp Jol’s point at all.

If we accept the fundamental premise of their outlook to be realist, then certainly their arguments are NOT irrational. Assuming they are realist, then certainly their concern over relative gains for the whole of malaysia relative to Singapore and not just concerns over certain portions of malaysia is extremely rational! You may disagree with them, but that does not make them irrational.

It is also extremely probable that they made the statement as a cynical ploy to garner support as well. That makes them very rational. as for being craven liars…I find it hard to find a successful politician / political party who is not. People generally like lies.

Whether you disagree with the fundamental principles behind that formation of their argument is a separate issue altogether.

As for individuals being the main actors in the international arena, I’m afraid that I’m going to have to disagree quite vehemently.

In retrospect, I was wrong about one thing: whether they were irrational or not depends on what they thought.

If UMNO Johor truly believed that sacrificing travel between Singapore and KL would be beneficial for the WHOLE of Malaysia, then there is no other conclusion than that they are irrational, or stupid.

If UMNO Johor did not believe at all that sacrificing travel between Singapore and KL would be beneficial for the whole of Malaysia, but rather made that statement as a cynical ploy to garner support for their lobbying, then they are not irrational at all, but merely craven liars.

If Singapore had provinces or states, it would be an issue for us too. We’re lucky that we are a city-state. We don’t have urban-rural tensions and center-periphery tensions.

I guess I disagree with the “Realist International Relations” theory because of the first assumption. I do not ascribe to the view that states are primary actors. I believe that only INDIVIDUALS are primary actors: states only exist to protect individuals.

Secondly, I believe that the only legitimate purpose of states is to enforce voluntary agreements between individuals, and conversely to prevent coercion and/or violence between individuals.

In this scenario Johor UMNO is arguing for an immoral exercise of state power: they are preventing more airlines from flying between SG and KL. Furthermore, they are also coercing businesses into facing higher costs of travel should they decide to travel between SG and KL. And lastly, they are coercing travellers between SG and KL into travelling through Johor.

Therefore, my argument is that whatever arguments they can put up is not only without merit, it is also irrational, it is also an illegitimate and immoral exercise of power.

While your point relating to the possible camouflaging of interests might be valid, from a statist point of view, the argument of UMNO certainly has some merit - whatever their limitations as politicians might be.

In the realist IR story, states are not and should not be concerned about absolute gain. Rather, the focus should be about relative gains in an anarchical international society where the intentions of your neighbours are questionable and cannot be convincingly determined.

4 fundamental assumptions about this theory must of course be stated:

1) States are primary actors
2) Uncertainty of intentions
3) Anarchy is the order of international society
4) States all possess offensive capability

This is not a particularly stupid stance especially if you consider the biggest threat to the sovereignty of a state is the perpetuation of a regional hegemon (something that arises much through the disguise of interests and the feeding of relative gains with other states) and the best way to secure a state’s future is to be that very hegemon. The Americas is a good indication of this fear.

there is a long story to it, but the point here is that the argument offered about relative gains is not without merit.

To put it simply, here’s how Malaysian politics work.

We have UMNO, who because they’re not very good at anything else, rally support for them by constantly finding boogeymen.

Before Lee Kuan Yew’s remarks, they have no qualms about making their own Chinese-Malaysian countrymen their boogeyman by targeting the only Chinese Chief Minister in Penang (which incidentally belongs to a party in coalition with it!).

Now, they’ve got another, thanks to LKY’s speech. Like the syphocantic party that it is, UMNO Johor is not doing a ‘follow-the-leader-blindly’ stunt by helping federal UMNO to lambast Singapore. And the only way it can think of doing that is the dumb ‘let’s not construct anything that will be beneficial to S’pore’ idea, which won’t suprise many long-time Malaysian political observers.

Here’s another idea for them, why not try to develop Johor to become a state that’s as clean, efficient and modern as Singapore to show S’pore up? But I guess that’s too much effort to ask from those comatose UMNO apparchiks.