S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 66.
“Perhaps, during the break, Members have not had time to read the written answer to the question on KD Malaya in the Annex which I had circulated. But if I may just sum up, I will make two points which were further elaborated in my Annex. The first point is this. While there was a rental increase for KD Malaya, it was not targeted at KD Malaya. It was part of Singapore's policy to adjust rentals on properties towards market rates. And that policy applied to others, including voluntary and welfare organisations. So, that is the first point I want to stress. The second point I want to stress is: far from wanting to chase them out of KD Malaya, Malaysian leaders were told by Singapore leaders - both the then Defence Minister Dr Yeo Ning Hong and Prime Minister Goh himself - that we wanted them to stay in Singapore, and we made several proposals and alternative suggestions which would have enabled them to stay on, including staggering and phasing in of the new rentals. And our proposals also included an option of our building, at considerable cost to us, of a camp for them at a much lower rental. I forgot the figure. It is in the Annex. But they decided on their own volition that they would leave. And, in fact, in the passing-out ceremony in 1997, their then Defence Minister - and now Foreign Minister - thanked Singapore for these facilities. The quote is in the Annex, and he said that they had no problems with or complaints about Singapore. The other part of the question as to whether this was a breach of the Separation Agreement, the hon. Member was probably referring to some statements made that, under the Separation Agreement, they had a right to stay in Singapore and so on.”
“On the first part of Ms Irene Ng's question, why shall we not insist, and so on, I have just answered Mr Ravindran's question that PCA requires the consent of both sides. We can insist, but it requires their consent. It is preferable. That is my view. But we deal with the situation as it exists. We cannot compel them. So, we fall back on the provisions of the Water Agreements. On her second question as to whether we can assure the House, Members have heard both Prime Minister Goh and my colleague, Minister Lim Swee Say, inform the House in detail of all the efforts being done to develop our capability for alternative sources of water - NEWater, desalination - and we will press on with them. But we do not know when and how fast that capability can come about. Therefore, in the meantime, what is important is that the obligations under the Water Agreements must be complied with. And that is why I have said that it is very important. It is not only important from the theoretical principle of observance of international agreements, it is also critical for our existence and survival.”
“While we are on the subject, even though we took the legal position, we told the Malaysians, "We know this is important to you. So, we are prepared to discuss this in the context of the package; in other words, on a without prejudice basis. But if you take it out of the package, shelve future water to 2059 and insist on discussing just existing water, then we will have to go by the terms of the provisions of the Agreement." And they have a legal view, we have a legal view. His second question is: why not international arbitration and adjudication? I would say that, as a general principle, if you ask me as a Foreign Minister and someone who has taught international law, when countries have disputes, it is always preferable to have international adjudication or international arbitration. But as Mr Ravindran knows, that is not something that you can compel another side. It requires consensual basis. Both disputing parties must agree to that international arbitration process. And in this case, of course, it is better for international credibility and transparency and the signals we are giving to the international community that even this dispute is referred to, say, the PCA. But they have said, no. How do we resolve it amicably? So, we have to fall back on the provisions in the Agreement. And the provisions provide for arbitration by that particular mode, and we are parties to the Agreement, and we have said, OK, we follow the provisions in the Agreement.”
“On his first question, Mr Ravindran is a lawyer, and also a few other Members, I do not think this is a place to engage in a detailed legal analysis of the Water Agreement provisions. I have mentioned before that if you look at the Water Agreements which are in the bundle of documents, both have clauses on price review, which provide that the rates can be reviewed after 25 years. We can have a legal argument as to whether it should be on the 25th year, or at any time after 25 years, or within a reasonable period after 1986-87. Now, we have legal advice which said that Malaysia has lost its right of review. Well, that is a legal issue which will have to be debated at an appropriate forum, and I have said that it is a matter that can also be put through the process under the Water Agreements. It is important to also note, in this context, that the Malaysian leaders have said that they chose deliberately not to review at that time when they were entitled to because they feared that the price of treated water supplied by Singapore would also be reviewed. Because the review clauses cannot apply only to raw water, it must also apply to treated water. Another factor that I should mention, which we pointed out to the Malaysians, is that if they had exercised the right to review then, it might well have caused different decisions on our part as to the amounts of money that we have invested in Johor on various kinds of works, which actually have come to more than a billion Singapore dollars - water works, pipe lines, ancilliary works, the Linggiu Dam. So this is a question which will have to be decided at an appropriate time, but we have taken legal advice.”
“And, indeed, there are many areas which we have cooperation in the past, and we continue to have areas of potential cooperation, such as in the area of economic cooperation. Both sides are important to each other for trade and investments. I think Members are aware of the figures. We also have to cooperate in the area of terrorism, as the former Speaker has mentioned. And I would add that both Malaysia and Singapore are also well positioned to work together to advance the cause of ASEAN. So, there are many areas where Malaysia and Singapore could work together to advance our mutual bilateral interests and work together for the advancement of the interest of our region.”
“As to the first part of Mr Tan Soo Khoon's question, whether it is possible to have any room for further negotiations and talks, I would agree with that - let us continue to talk. That has always been my position. It has always been the position of Prime Minister Goh and of the Government. And I hope that I have sufficiently demonstrated by taking Members through, in some detail, the chronology that we have taken that position because, if we can have a win-win deal, that is good for both countries. After all, it would deal with our future water supply situation. But, as Prime Minister Goh said, we must also bear in mind that, because we do not want the water issue to be a thorn that bedevils our relationship, we will have to develop our own alternative supply of water. But in response to his specific question, if we can have a deal, is it not worth to continue talking? I say, yes, of course, and that is precisely why we have continued our discussions. But for the reasons I have pointed out, they have, through the many changes of positions and, finally, discontinuing the package and not wanting to talk about future supply of water till 2059, made further negotiations impossible. The second part of his question is related to the media frenzy. Does it not hinder cooperation and undermine efforts between both countries? The answer is, yes. It does not make sense for the two countries to be in this state of ups and downs, particularly on the water issue. But there are so many issues where allegations have been hurled at us. Rather than this state of affairs where accusations have been hurled at us, it really makes sense for us to cooperate in many areas.”
“As for the next step, we have to wait and see. We have stated our position that the way forward is through peaceful, amicable settlement of disputes. What does that mean? In normal diplomatic practice, countries discuss, talk and negotiate to try to find an agreement. I have outlined in the chronology that we have tried that. We have been reasonable, but there is an impasse. What do we do after the impasse? Then, I pointed out either the Permanent Court of Arbitration or we have to follow the provisions of the agreement, which provide for arbitration, and I contrasted this with the loose talk of war, which is certainly not the way forward.”
“In fact, they have been purchasing water well beyond the amounts stipulated. But if they choose not to, then it is their right, and we cannot compel them to purchase treated water from us.”
“Dr Ong Chit Chung asked several questions, whether they know of the importance of the sanctity of the water agreements and so on. From my statement, Members will realise that I have given enough quotations - some old ones, like what Mr Ariff, the Malaysian representative to the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties said in 1968 - he was telling the representatives of the whole world that the Separation Agreement and the Water Agreements were very good examples of how agreements or special agreements that could not be suspended or terminated for any political reason - to what Foreign Minister Mr Syed Hamid said last year that they would continue to honour the agreements. But you have to contrast these statements with some of the other statements which I mentioned in early 2002. What is the motive for making all these statements? I think that is in the realm of speculation. What is important, not so much speculation, is for us to state what are the implications, which I have done, and what is Singapore's position, which is what we have done. That is, we cannot allow treaties solemnly entered into to be lightly disregarded or contravened. And if we allow Malaysia to unilaterally change or alter important provisions of an agreement so critical as the Separation Agreement, then where will all this end? Are we expected to quietly accept any other revisions of critical provisions of the Separation Agreement or any other agreement? So, that is why we have to state our position very clearly. On his other question, that Johor would be having its own water treatment plants and they may not buy treated water, that is entirely their right. The Water Agreements provide for them to purchase a certain amount of treated water from Singapore.”
“And I close by reminding ourselves of what Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in his speech to the Singapore Institute of International Affairs on 27th November 2002: `We must manage these swings with a certain psychological equanimity; not lapsing into complacency or euphoria when things go smoothly, nor becoming unduly alarmed or despondent when things go bad'. [Applause].”
“' But, having taken that position for Sipadan and Ligitan, Malaysia now disregards the status quo in the case of Pedra Branca by intruding into Singapore waters around the island which has belonged to Singapore for more than 150 years. I believe it is in the overwhelming national interest of both countries to avoid such escalation of tensions and conflicts, as the consequences will be costly for both countries. Prime Minister Mahathir said that Malaysia would respect international law on territorial disputes and avoid any confrontation with Singapore on Pedra Branca. And let me say that this is also Singapore's position. In concluding, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I want to assure this House that it is Singapore's desire to have good, not strained, relations with Malaysia. We believe that there is much that both countries can gain by working together. And our common interests definitely exceed our bilateral differences. But we must ensure a firm and level basis for conducting state-to-state relations. Whenever the Malaysians run out of arguments on bilateral issues, they accuse Singapore of being unreasonable, legalistic, sticking to facts and the law. As I have said to the House before, how else can any country, especially a small country like Singapore, deal with other countries other than on the basis of international law and the sanctity of agreements voluntarily entered into by governments? If we were ever to yield on this basic position, we would suffer grave and permanent consequences. Singapore cannot afford to be intimidated into allowing this to happen. Singapore's relationship with Malaysia will be difficult from time to time. But what is important is that we stay calm and rational through these periodic cycles of ups and downs.”
“Dangerous, because of the risk of accidents that may not only cause loss of life but also cause serious damage to naval vessels with unforeseeable consequences, and the Malaysian Government would have to bear responsibility for the consequences caused by the aggressive and repeated intrusions of its vessels. As Members know, Singapore has exercised exclusive control, ownership and sovereignty of Pedra Branca since the 1840s without any protest from any country until Malaysia published a map in 1979 claiming it as part of its territory. This was, and is, the status quo. Until Malaysia's claim is decided by the ICJ, the status quo must remain, consistent with Malaysia's own position which it has taken in the case of Sipadan/Ligitan. There, in that case, Malaysia adopted the position that as they were in possession of the islands, the status quo should prevail. For example, this is what they said in a diplomatic note to Indonesia on 3rd January 1994, a diplomatic note which they filed together with other documents in the International Court of Justice, and that note said: 'The Government of Malaysia reiterates that since Sipadan and Ligitan are parts of Malaysia, any and all activities undertaken by Malaysia on or pertaining to those islands and their surrounding waters constitute legitimate exercise of its sovereignty and jurisdiction.' And note this part: 'The continuing acts of intrusion by Indonesian naval vessels and aircraft in Malaysia's territorial waters and airspace around Sipadan and Ligitan similarly cannot in any way, advance Indonesia's claim over the two islands.”
“On 18th January 2003, Berita Harian (Malaysia) recklessly alleged, and I quote, - I think Members should note this because this is not in English, readily available to all - "Singapore has stealthily embarked on a bioterrorism defence program, and that it has set aside more than RM201 million specifically to carry out R&D to build up its bioterrorism defence system. History has proven that every country that undertakes R&D in biodefence will also end up by doing R&D into weapons for biological attacks. Singapore is no exception to such thinking." Without any evidence to substantiate their allegations, they accuse the Singapore Government of breaching its obligations under international conventions it has signed against the possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Such war-mongering articles, it should be noted, are found especially in the Malay language press, which can only be designed to stir up animosities in their Malay population against Singapore. Mdm Deputy Speaker, such loose talk of war is both irresponsible and dangerous. It whips up emotions that could become difficult to control. In such an atmosphere, the Malaysian navy and marine police vessels have escalated their intrusions into Singapore territorial waters off Pedra Branca in the past one month. Such provocative actions are not only senseless, but dangerous. Why senseless? Senseless, because both sides have agreed to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice, and such actions cannot in any way affect the outcome or the decision of the international court.”
“In his New Year message, Prime Minister Mahathir said "we promise that if anyone violates our freedom, they will get what they call a `bloody nose'" (New Straits Times, 1st January 2003). Asked by reporters the following day, Prime Minister Mahathir did not specify which country he was referring to, but neither did he categorically rule out Singapore. This further encouraged the Malaysian media to play up Singapore's alleged forward defence strategy and link it to Singapore's "arrogance" in the conduct of its bilateral relations with Malaysia. This was quickly followed by remarks by various Malaysian leaders publicly emphasising their military capability, the MAF's capability, in defending Malaysia from external threats. For instance, Defence Minister Najib Tun Razak said that the MAF had experience fighting in a real war and that sophisticated weaponry systems were not the yardstick to measure whether a country could win a war (Bernama, 7th January 2003). Amidst all the bellicose talk of war, the Malaysian media created a furore over Tim Huxley's book "Defending the Lion City". Now, this book, based on academic research on the SAF's capabilities, was actually published by a British academic from Hull University more than two years ago. Back then, the Malaysian media did not pay any attention to this book. So, one can only speculate why the Malaysian media have chosen to do their book reviews only now. In the same vein, there were almost daily articles in the Malaysian Malay language press playing up Singapore's alleged aggressive intentions.”
“" In other words, Malaysia, through these formal notices, has effectively taken steps towards referring its water dispute with Singapore to arbitration. At that time, we were reluctant to go along this arbitration route because we still hoped for an agreement on a package deal including future water. However, now it has become clear that we cannot expect renewal of future water supply. As this removes the basis for further negotiations, we are ready to have the dispute resolved through arbitration according to the laws of Johor. The question as to whether there is still a right of review, as well as the quantum of the price revision, can both be resolved through the legal process as provided for in the two Water Agreements? In other words, this is the way that we are also resolving Malaysia's claim over Pedra Branca. If, in fact, Johor has not lost the right of revision by not exercising it in 1986/87, then the arbitrator tribunal's award on the price revision will take effect from the date when Johor gave its Notice to PUB as provided for in the two Agreements. As Malaysia has commenced this process, then I say, let the matter be settled through arbitration. Mdm Deputy Speaker, indeed, I want to stress that peaceful and amicable settlement of disputes has been Singapore's consistent approach. For the Pedra Branca issue, we had proposed, and they have agreed, to refer it to the ICJ. I am as concerned as Mr Steve Chia about the loose talk by the Malaysian leaders in the Malaysia media about "war". Bernama reported Foreign Minister Syed Hamid on 31st December 2002, saying, "Singapore has two choices. If it refuses to compromise ... go to war".”
“As Singapore's position was that as Malaysia had lost the right of review, the PUB replied on 9th October 2002 that it did not accept that the Johor State Government was still entitled to serve notice to seek a review of the charge of raw water under the two Water Agreements. Now, if I may interject here, on this business of the price review of current water, Members will recall that I told the House on the 31st October sitting, that the Malaysian leaders had publicly said that it was not an oversight or mistake that Malaysia did not review the price of current water in 1986/87, but it was a deliberate move. Dr Mahathir said Malaysia did not revise the water pricing when it was due because they thought Singapore would also revise the price of treated water supplied to Malaysia. (Bernama, 11th October 2002). Johor State Assembly Speaker Zainalabidin Mohd Zain also said that the Johor Government had not made a mistake in not pressing for a review in 1986 and said "there was no point in doing so because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor" (New Straits Times, 3rd July 2002). At the Second Ministerial Meeting in September 2002 in Singapore, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid pointed out that the Notice of price review which Johor had sent to PUB "made references to Clauses 17 and 14 of the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements respectively as well as to arbitration in the event that both countries fail to reach agreement." These Clauses 17 and 14, the price review clauses, provide that "in the event of any dispute or differences arising under the provisions of this clause the same shall be referred to arbitration as hereinafter provided.”
“On 28th December 2002, when our media asked me about this, I said it was a great pity that we have not been able to reach agreement on the package, but Singapore, obviously, could not force Malaysia to the negotiating table if it chooses not to do so. Hence, I said that if Malaysia proposes to submit the water issue to PCA arbitration, Singapore would have to agree, albeit reluctantly, in the interest of overcoming the impasse. To my surprise, their Berita Harian (30th December 2002) reported Foreign Minister Syed Hamid as responding that the option of referring the water issue to PCA for arbitration did not arise, although they were quoted as suggesting this in the first place. Well, if Malaysia does not wish to send the matter for arbitration to the PCA, a world organisation which is renowned for its impartiality, then what is the next best solution? It is to have recourse to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Water Agreements. The provisions in Clauses 21 and 19 of the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements respectively provide for the settlement of disputes arising under the Agreements. Those provisions stipulate that where disputes cannot be resolved, the matter shall be referred to arbitration "in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the arbitration law at the time of such dispute existing in the State of Johore". Indeed, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Johor State Secretary had sent letters to the PUB dated 14th August 2002 seeking to give Notice of price review under Clause 17 and Clause 14 of the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements, respectively.”
“" This did not include the cost of over S$500 million, cost to us, for building our half of the bridge and a new Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) complex. But, we thought that all these would be justified if we could secure future water. This was why when Prime Minister Mahathir proposed the package approach in 1998, Prime Minister Goh agreed. We tried to meet their demands as long as future water supply was on offer as the quid pro quo. As negotiations went on, we became aware that they did not want to sign an agreement on future water supplies. All they promised at the final meeting in Johor Baru was to discuss the matter in 2059, two years before the 1962 Water Agreement ends. Members will understand why I say that this has pushed us to prepare for a negative outcome, one that requires us to develop our capability for NEWater and desalination. These are no light tasks for us to undertake. We will need many years to build up the know-how, keep abreast with technological advances and, just as important, we must prepare psychologically our people for it. Having unfolded the story of how the negotiations went, and I hope Members will be able to see how reasonable Singapore has been, now let me reflect on the way forward. Notwithstanding our efforts to reach an agreement, we clearly find ourselves at an impasse. So, Members naturally may ask, what next? Prime Minister Mahathir and Foreign Minister Syed Hamid had spoken about referring the water issue to international arbitration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).”
“But the Malaysians know, as they have repeatedly acknowledged, they could not under international law unilaterally revise the price or other provisions of the Water Agreements. Mdm Deputy Speaker, on our part, we have tried our best to accommodate Malaysia's successive new positions. Even though Malaysia had repeatedly shifted their goalposts, Singapore has not walked away from negotiations. In fact, we attended the Johor Baru meeting in October 2002 in good faith just six days after the Malaysians had unilaterally discontinued the package approach. Members should also note, I think, that four out of the six items in the package - current water price, POA variation, CPF and the bridge - were to benefit Malaysia. Singapore was not legally obliged to pay more for current water, we are not obliged legally to vary the Points of Agreement, or to make special arrangements for West Malaysians to withdraw their CPF monies early. And we also had no interest in demolishing the Causeway and to build a bridge in its place. Singapore's overriding interest in the package was future water. We were prepared to agree to the items which Malaysia wanted, including a current water price revision, only in exchange for Malaysia agreeing to provide us a long-term supply of water beyond 2061, and RSAF access to Malaysian airspace. Let me also say that these concessions to Malaysia would have been at a considerable cost to us. They have to be seen in the context of the overall package deal being negotiated and, as we have said before, in an MFA statement on 2nd February 2002, "the total amount of money that Malaysia will receive when other items in the package are factored in will be over 1.5 billion ringgit.”
“And, later, they came up with the figure of RM6.25 for current water. As you know, Prime Minister Mahathir recently acknowledged publicly that he had proposed 60 sen to Senior Minister Lee, but he said that he had been later advised by Malaysian officials that the price was too low. Second, the starting point for the negotiations since 1998 had been the supply of water for another 100 years after 2061. But in March 2002, the Malaysians reduced this to 40 years, and only at a formula to be negotiated in 2058 and to supply treated water at a formula to be negotiated every 20 years. On 2nd July 2002, Malaysia again agreed to 100 years but now with a price formula based on rates benchmarked against the China-Hong Kong model (or RM8) and other models. And, finally, on 2nd September 2002, Malaysia said that negotiations on future water can only take place in 2059. Third, the Malaysians committed themselves to resolving the issues as a package from December 1998 to September 2002. However, Prime Minister Mahathir later unilaterally took water price revision out of the package by his letter of 7th October, without informing Prime Minister Goh when they met on 8th October that he had written to Prime Minister Goh the day before to have the water issue dealt with separately. By taking current water out of the package, the Malaysians wanted to get this price revision without any commitment to give future water supply in exchange. They have changed the package deal Prime Minister Mahathir first offered to Senior Minister Lee in KL in August 2000, and then followed up in a letter dated 21st February 2001, where he named 60 sen as what Johor considered a "fair price".”
“Members would remember that I had quoted the TPN, that they said that it is outrageous that you should even make that suggestion that we would do anything other than proceed in accordance with the package approach. On 14th October 2002, Prime Minister Goh replied to Prime Minister Mahathir, reminding him that they had both agreed on the package approach in December 1998 and that was why Singapore had been prepared to make concessions. But now that Malaysia wanted to deal with the water issue separately and discontinue the package approach, trade-offs against other issues in the package were no longer possible. Henceforth, Singapore would have to deal with water and the other issues on their stand-alone merits and no longer as a package. On this basis, the Singapore officials attended the meeting in Johor Baru to discuss the water issue from 16-17th October 2002. At that meeting, it was clear that Malaysia had no intention of striking a deal on future water. This left only the current water price on the agenda. Now we could no longer trade off a current water price revision against the supply of future water. Therefore, we have no choice but to rely on the express provisions of the Water Agreements, and that any variations must be in accordance with the terms of the Water Agreements. Mdm Deputy Speaker, from this chronology of events, Members can see how Malaysia has repeatedly changed its position, not only on the water issue, but also on the entire package negotiations. First, having agreed to 45 sen for current and future water in 2000, they then raised their demand to 60 sen. When we counter-offered 45 sen for current water and 60 sen for future water, they raised their demand further - an immediate increase to 60 sen for current water and then RM3 from 2007.”
“After the Second Ministerial Meeting, as I had told the House, when Prime Minister Goh met Prime Minister Mahathir in Putrajaya on 8th October 2002, Prime Minister Mahathir said that Malaysia wanted to "decouple the water issue" from the other items in the package. Prime Minister Goh responded at that meeting that all the issues were tied together. If the water issue was taken out of the package, Singapore would have less leeway to make concessions on the other issues. Members would recall the many statements in the Malaysian media and from Malaysian politicians that misrepresented what transpired at that meeting between Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister Mahathir. The Malaysians alleged that Singapore had agreed to delink water from the package and had accepted Malaysia's prerogative to review the price of current water. Those statements distorted what was discussed at the meeting and, in fact, impugned Prime Minister Goh's integrity. Two days after his meeting with Prime Minister Mahathir, Prime Minister Goh received a letter from Prime Minister Mahathir dated 7th October 2002, ie, one day before their meeting. In his letter, Prime Minister Mahathir informed Prime Minister Goh that Malaysia had decided to "discontinue the package approach and give the highest priority to first resolving the water issue, particularly the price review of raw water". In other words, even before Prime Minister Goh had met Prime Minister Mahathir, Malaysia had already unilaterally discontinued the package approach, which had been agreed to by both Prime Ministers, and reaffirmed in Malaysia's TPN of 14th March 2002. Hon.”
“Prime Minister Goh reminded Prime Minister Mahathir that this agreement should be valid for 100 years from 2061 as this had been the basis for negotiations, and not 100 years from 2002. Prime Minister Goh did not offer revision of the current water price. So, Prime Minister Mahathir's letter of 4th March 2002 and Prime Minister Goh's reply of 11th April 2002 then formed the basis for further discussions between the respective Foreign Ministers and officials on the package of issues. Two Ministerial Meetings were held, as hon. Members know, the first in Putrajaya in July 2002, and the second in Singapore in September 2002. I updated Members on the outcome of these two meetings on 23rd July 2002 and 31st October 2002 respectively, and the Senior Officials Meeting in Johor Baru from 16-17th October 2002. In short, really, there was no progress on the key issues. Mdm Deputy Speaker, Malaysia came out with another new formula under which the price of raw water in 2002 would be RM6.25 per 1,000 gallons. They did this at the Ministerial talks, and they did not explain how this price could be justified under the provisions of the water agreements. They also insisted that they had the right to review the price of current water, when we had pointed out that they had lost their right of review. They also said that they would not negotiate the terms of future water supply until 2059 - now it is 2059 - ie, two years before the expiry of the 1962 Water Agreement, instead of the three years before the expiry, as Prime Minister Mahathir had proposed earlier.”
“And what about future supply of water after 2061? In that letter, Malaysia proposed that negotiations begin only in 2058; in other words, just three years before the expiry of the 1962 Agreement. Malaysia also proposed that the new water agreement would be valid for 100 years from 2002. In effect, this would mean that the new agreement would only last for 40 years after the expiry of the 1962 Water Agreement. So, Senior Minister Lee replied on 11th March 2002 that this had completely changed from what they had discussed before and in their subsequent exchange of notes and letters. He said that Singapore would have to study the implications of Malaysia's new offers and would respond in due course. On 11th April 2002, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong wrote to Prime Minister Mahathir to give Singapore's response to Prime Minister Mahathir's letter of 4th March 2002. Prime Minister Goh stressed that he did not want bilateral relations to be always strained by the issue of water. Hence, for the sake of good long-term relations, he said that Singapore would produce as much water as it could to supplement the existing Water Agreements. Singapore would ramp up our NEWater programme to replace the supply of water under the 1961 Water Agreement when it expires in 2011. As for water after 2061, Prime Minister Goh accepted Malaysia's offer of 100 mgd of raw water and 150 mgd of treated water. On price, as Malaysia had withdrawn its offer of 60 sen for current water and future water, Prime Minister Goh proposed to peg the price of future water to an agreed percentage of the cost of the alternative source of water, ie, NEWater. Why? This was to provide a definite basis for future price revisions.”
“On 21st September 2001, Senior Minister Lee wrote to Prime Minister Mahathir confirming and elaborating on this offer. Let me say here that the Malaysians have argued that since Senior Minister Lee had offered 45 sen for current water, it showed that Singapore had, in fact, accepted that Malaysia had the right to review. Prime Minister Mahathir said, "If we don't have the legal right, then why did Lee Kuan Yew come and see me and suggested that the water price should be revised upwards to 45 sen and then we said it should be 60 (sen), 15 sen more?" But, Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is clear from the documents that when Senior Minister Lee offered 45 sen for current water, it was "in return for assured water supply beyond 2061" at 60 sen. Senior Minister Lee never said that Malaysia had the right to review the price of water outside the package, which included water beyond 2061 as well as airspace. Picking up the chronology again, between 18th October and 10th December 2001, there were further exchanges of letters between Senior Minister Lee and Prime Minister Mahathir to clarify various details of the bilateral package, including the price of water. On 4th March 2002, Prime Minister Mahathir wrote to Senior Minister Lee enclosing totally different proposals. This was after Prime Minister Mahathir's statements to the press about RM8 being the real price of water. Under Malaysia's new proposal, the 60 sen price, which he had earlier agreed, would now apply for the first five years from 2002 to 2007, and from 2007 to 2011, the price will be RM3 per 1,000 gallons. And from 2011 until the expiry of the 1962 Water Agreement in 2061, the price of water would be revised annually from RM3, based on the average inflation rate of Malaysia and Singapore.”
“The two leaders reached agreement on a list of items, including a new price of raw water for 45 sen per 1,000 gallons for both current and future water. This was the first time that the current water agreements featured in the bilateral package. Following that meeting, Senior Minister Lee wrote to Tun Daim on 24th August 2000 to confirm the list of items which he and Prime Minister Mahathir had agreed to. On 21st February 2001, Prime Minister Mahathir replied to Senior Minister Lee in which he said, "Johore believes that a fair price would be 60 cents (sic) per mgd (sic) of raw water" and this "should be reviewed every five years". Mgd is million gallons a day. I think there was a typographical error. I think what he meant was "60 sen per thousand gallons". On 23rd April 2001, Senior Minister Lee replied to Prime Minister Mahathir pointing out that this was a variation from their oral understanding of 15th August 2000 which was 45 sen for current and future water. And now Prime Minister Mahathir was proposing a higher price of 60 sen. In September 2001, Senior Minister Lee made a second visit to KL to try to close the gaps on the package of issues. After their meeting on 4th September 2001, Senior Minister Lee and Prime Minister Mahathir held a joint press conference to announce that they had agreed on a basic skeleton of an agreement on the package of bilateral issues. Senior Minister Lee told the media there, in Putrajaya, that Singapore had offered to pay 45 sen for raw water supplied under the current Water Agreements, although we were not legally obliged to do so. He explained that this offer was made in return for assured water supply from Malaysia, beyond 2061, at 60 sen per 1,000 gallons for raw water.”
“At the ASEAN Summit in Hanoi in December 1998, Prime Minister Mahathir informed Prime Minister Goh that Malaysia no longer needed financial assistance from Singapore. Prime Minister Mahathir proposed that the outstanding bilateral issues be resolved together as a package. In the interest of clearing the decks of bilateral issues, Prime Minister Goh agreed to this. What were the items in the final package as from August 2000? The key items in the package were: future supply of water for 100 years after 2061; use of Malaysian airspace by RSAF; variation in the terms of the POA, including giving an additional 12 parcels of KTM or Malayan Railway land at Bukit Timah for joint development; early withdrawal of CPF monies amounting to some RM 3 billion by West Malaysians. And later, as I will elaborate, two more items were added to the package by Prime Minister Mahathir, namely: the Malaysian proposal to replace the Causeway with a bridge; and revision of the current water price. The meeting between Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister Mahathir in Hanoi was followed by three rounds of negotiations on the package at the officials' level from March to May 1999 where not much progress was made. In August 2000, with Prime Minister Goh's approval, Senior Minister Lee visited Kuala Lumpur to try to make progress on the package . He worked through then Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin. After first meeting Tun Daim, Senior Minister had a four-eye meeting with Prime Minister Mahathir on 15th August 2000. Prime Minister Mahathir brought into the package two new issues: the price of current water, and the replacement of the Causeway with a new bridge. Senior Minister Lee agreed to these inclusions.”
“Let me also add that contrary to what Malaysia has alleged, these Water Agreements of 1961 and 1962 were not fixed by the British in Singapore's favour. These Agreements were signed by the Johore State Government and the Singapore City Council in 1961 and 1962 respectively. By then, Malaysia was already an independent and sovereign nation, and Singapore had achieved self-government. It is really absurd to suggest that the Federal Government of an independent and sovereign nation Malaysia would allow the Johore State Government to be manipulated by the British to sign an agreement that was against Malaysia's national interests. Chronology of the Package and Water Agreements Now, let me address the allegations that Singapore has been the unreasonable party in the negotiations. To do so, I will have to recount to Members in some detail how the matters unfolded over the last few years. A full chronology is set out in the bundle of documents, but let me take you through the major milestones. When Malaysia experienced problems in the Asian Financial crisis in 1997-98, at Malaysia's request, Singapore began to discuss a financial assistance package for Malaysia in the context of a framework for wider cooperation. The framework included the supply of water to Singapore after the expiry of the current Water Agreements. Singapore's assistance entailed significant market risks and potential financial losses for Singapore. This framework would make it politically possible for Singapore to carry these financial risks. The price review of water under the current Water Agreements was never raised by then Prime Minister Mahathir and was not part of that framework.”
“Malaysia's TPN conveyed "its commitment to resolving the issue of water with Singapore in the context of an agreement on the overall package of issues", and they also said, "at no time was there a suggestion that the Government of Malaysia would depart from such a commitment." They said that any suggestion to the contrary is "misleading and constitutes a gross misinterpretation of the well known position of the Malaysia Government." We replied through another TPN on 25th March 2002 taking note of their commitment and assurances. And we also reiterated our own commitment to reaching a mutually beneficial agreement on the package of outstanding issues. Foreign Minister Syed Hamid himself noted at the First Ministerial Meeting at Putrajaya on 1st July 2002, and I quote: 'Malaysia has repeatedly said that it will honour the 1961 and 1962 Agreements until their expiry in 2011 and 2061 respectively..' He added: '. During the Separation of Singapore, Malaysia did not propose for the Agreements to be reviewed. It continues to honour the Agreements and such commitment is further reinforced when Malaysia signed the Separation Agreement in 1965.' We were thus flabbergasted when their Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Rais Yatim publicly declared on 24th October 2002, that as Malaysia's solution, Malaysia could enact domestic legislation to render the Water Agreements null and void. But as I had said at our sitting on 31st October 2002, no country can evade its international treaty obligations by enacting a domestic law. This is a very well established principle of international law. Should any country choose to violate that principle, it would signal to the world that it can and will do likewise for any other international agreements.”
“Other Malaysian leaders took up the refrain and stoked a frenzy of media criticism against Singapore. For example, Menteri Besar of Johor Ghani said "all this while, we have been supplying Singapore with free water..." This deliberate raising of Malaysian ground sentiments seriously alarmed Singapore. It could easily have spiralled out of control and led to grave consequences. Therefore, on 5th February last year, we sent Malaysia a diplomatic note, Third Person Note (TPN) in which we pointed out that "pending a binding agreement on the overall package of issues, all legal obligations of the existing Water Agreements and the Points of Agreement (POA) remain in force and are binding on both Governments". We reminded them that the Water Agreements are binding legal arrangements duly confirmed and guaranteed by the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore in the Separation Agreement. We said that the Separation Agreement "is the fundamental basis of Singapore's existence as an independent sovereign nation" and that "any variation of the Water Agreements without the consent of both Governments will be a breach of the Separation Agreement and that cannot be accepted". We also pointed out that "further negotiations on new agreements pertaining to the long term supply of water to Singapore can only proceed on the basis that the agreements already concluded cannot be altered without the explicit consent of both parties. And we added, otherwise any new agreements on water can similarly be altered without consent. This will have grave implications for bilateral relations." On 14th March 2002, the Malaysian Government replied to Singapore's demarche.”
“Nor will any new agreement we conclude with Malaysia be worth anything. In such a world, there would be no basis for international relations. There would be no foundation for international law, which all UN members have a duty to uphold, in order to maintain a stable and peaceful international order. Malaysia has actually acknowledged the importance of the Water Agreements for a long time. For example, three years after our independence in 1968 at a very important conference of plenipotentiaries, the UN Conference on the Law of Treaties, mind you, the Conference was on the Law of Treaties, the Malaysian representative to that Conference, Mr M. O. Ariff said, and I quote: 'Some treaties might be so fundamental to the very existence of States that they simply could not be dispensed with, whatever political differences might arise. For example, the new island State of Singapore was dependent on Malaysia for its water supply; the treaty under which Malaysia had to supply a certain quantity of water daily to Singapore could not be terminated or suspended between the two states for any political reason.' However, in early 2002, Prime Minister Mahathir began to criticise the water agreements as allegedly unequal treaties foisted on Malaysia by the British. Prime Minister Mahathir said that the price for water under the agreements was too low and that as such "practically, they (Singapore) get their water free". He also said that "also, the agreement was drawn up by the British which of course favoured Singapore." Later, he said "what we know is that we have been charging them 3 sen per thousand gallons of raw water and we also know that countries like Hong Kong buy their raw water from mainland China at RM 8 per thousand gallons".”
“Both countries have to honour the terms of the agreements and the guarantee in the Separation Agreement. Any breach of the Water Agreements must call into question the Separation Agreement and can undermine our very existence. Mdm Deputy Speaker, not many people know that Malaysia also gave effect to the Separation Agreement by an amendment to the Malaysian Constitution on 9th August 1965 through an Act of the Malaysian Parliament, Act 53 of 1965. Section 14 reads, and I quote: `The Government of Singapore shall guarantee that the Public Utilities Board of Singapore shall on and after Singapore Day abide by the terms and conditions of the two Water Agreements dated 1st September, 1961, and 29th September, 1962, entered into between the City Council of Singapore and the Government of the State of Johore.' `The Government of Malaysia shall guarantee that the Government of the State of Johore will on and after Singapore Day also abide by the terms and conditions of the said two Water Agreements.' In other words, the guarantees are an integral part of an international agreement solemnly entered into, adopted by a constitutional amendment in Malaysia and later registered with the United Nations. In international law, both parties must ensure that the Water Agreements are observed and neither side can unilaterally vary their terms and conditions. If Malaysia can unilaterally revise the price of raw water from 3 sen to 60 sen, and then from 60 sen to RM 3, then they can eventually fix it at RM 8, which they said is the price since that is what Hong Kong pays to China, or to any other price. The sanctity of the Separation Agreement would have been breached. All other agreements we have signed with Malaysia will become meaningless.”
“This process of arbitration can determine what we have not been able to agree on, namely, whether Malaysia has the right to revise the price after a lapse of 16-17 years and, if so, by how much the revision should be. Sanctity of the Water Agreements and the Separation Agreements Let me start with the first part. Mdm Deputy Speaker, some Singaporeans and foreign observers have asked why is it that the two Governments are quarrelling over what appears to be a relatively small and simple issue over the price of water. Why cannot Singapore be more accommodating, more reasonable and pay a little more for the sake of neighbourliness and good bilateral relations? If only the matter were that straightforward. Let me be clear. It is not just a matter of money. The issue goes beyond whether we have to pay 45 sen or 60 sen or stick to 3 sen. Of course, we, in Singapore, are not going to be impoverished by an increase from 3 to 45 sen. Neither will Malaysia be enriched. In fact, Prime Minister Mahathir himself has said, and I quote: "We don't depend on them (Singapore) to bring us revenue to finance the government as income from selling water is a small fraction (of our revenue). It's not a major source of income for the government." (Bernama, 6th August 2002). The significance of the water price, for both countries, is Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation separate from Malaysia, and the sanctity of the most solemn agreements that we have entered into with Malaysia. The two Water Agreements are no ordinary agreements. They are so vital that they were confirmed and guaranteed by both Governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement, also known as the Independence of Singapore Agreement. The Separation Agreement was registered at the United Nations.”
“Singapore agreed to pay more for existing water, but only as part of a package deal that included the future supply of water. Malaysia agreed to settle several outstanding bilateral issues as a package. The documents will demonstrate this clearly. However, in October last year, Malaysia unilaterally decided to take the water price revision out of the package, to be discussed and decided on its own. Second, I will give a full chronology of the talks on water. This will show that Singapore has been consistent and forthcoming in the negotiations. The difficulties arose because Malaysia repeatedly changed its position, and shifted their goal posts each time we neared an agreement. No sooner had we agreed on a price for water when they changed their minds and upped the price. After the two countries had discussed all the issues as one package for several years at Malaysia's request, Malaysia unilaterally and without prior notice abandoned the package approach, saying that they only wanted to discuss the current price of water. But despite all these sudden twists and turns, we accommodated and persevered, never closing the door on negotiations, in order to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. The Malaysian allegations against us are totally unjustified when we were trying to find an amicable way forward. The third part of my statement is that I want to stress that it is in the overwhelming interest of both countries to settle our differences in accordance with international law, either through the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), or in the case of the water price revision through the method provided for in the Water Agreements themselves, namely, arbitration according to the laws of Johor.”
“Despite repeated attempts to clear the air through various statements from my Ministry, MFA Spokesman's statements as well as Parliamentary statements that I have made in this House, Malaysian misrepresentations have not ceased. Recently, there have even been loose talk of war in some Malaysian circles. We therefore have no choice but to set the record straight by releasing these documents for people to judge for themselves the truth of the matter. These documents will clear the air for everyone, especially Singaporeans who travel to Malaysia, read their media and talk to their Malaysian friends. These documents Volume 1 - Correspondences Volume 2 - Agreements are in two volumes which will be given to Members later. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I request that they be part of the official records of the House. I would also be circulating the text of my statement later. The text of my statement will contain cross-references to the documents as well as the various correspondences. Mdm Deputy Speaker, my statement has three parts. First, it is to make clear that the fundamental issue for us is not the price of water as such. The vital issue is not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon. Malaysia wants Singapore to pay more for water. But the price cannot be revised at the will or dictate of Malaysia. The 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements were enshrined in the Separation Agreement which was registered at the United Nations. They are fundamental to our very existence as an independent nation. Neither Singapore nor Malaysia can unilaterally change them. This is the root of the dispute between us. During the negotiations on the package of issues, both sides asked for and offered various concessions.”
“Likewise, it is untrue that Singapore was the only ASEAN country which had problems with the proposal for a separate ASEAN+3 Secretariat located in Kuala Lumpur. Indonesia, among others, also did not support it. And as for the East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) proposal, it is completely false that Singapore opposed it. In fact, we were one of the first countries to come out in support of it. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I shall circulate fuller details on these specific issues as an Annex* to my Statement. But for this afternoon, I wish to focus on water, which is the core problem underlying all this endless, vitriolic barrage. I have to state the facts on this central issue to show what is the true position. The water issue is critical to Singapore because it has grave implications for our survival. In setting out the facts, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I shall be releasing the correspondence between the leaders of both countries and also the diplomatic exchanges. I will also circulate copies of the two Water Agreements of 1961 and 1962, plus a supplementary water agreement in 1990 relating to the building of the Linggiu dam on the Johor River and the purchase by Singapore of treated water in excess of the 250 million gallons per day (mgd) from this river. These are all documents for the record. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have been reluctant to release these documents despite misrepresentation of facts from the other side because we have hoped for a win-win situation. But I have to release them now because this hope is no longer realistic and because so much misinformation on the water issue has been put out by Malaysia that needs to be rebutted by conclusive evidence.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, several Members have asked many questions on the state of our bilateral relations with Malaysia - not only Dr Ong but also Mr Ahmad Khalis, Mr Ravindran, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Ms Irene Ng and also Mr Steve Chia, and there was a Question for Written Answer by Mr Zainudin. They have also asked questions on a number of allegations made against Singapore on a wide range of 'old' issues as well as new issues, from water, Pedra Branca, the ASEAN+3 Secretariat to KD Malaya, the former Malaysian naval training base in Woodlands. These allegations paint Singapore as "insensitive", "arrogant" and "unneighbourly" in the conduct of our bilateral relations with Malaysia. We are also said to be "selfish", "profiteering" and "legalistic". Now, they even talk of war, using as a peg a book that spoke favourably about the SAF. The author, Tim Huxley, is a British who has no connections with us. These allegations have no basis whatsoever. KD Malaya was an old issue. The Malaysians left their naval training base in Woodlands on their own accord in 1997. When we revised the rent in 1991, far from forcing them out, we offered them several options to maintain their base and stay on here in Woodlands. However they chose not to take up the offers and decided in 1992 to relocate their base to Malaysia. On Pedra Branca, it is not true that we were reluctant to sign the Special Agreement (SA) to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In fact, we were the ones who proposed referring the issue to the International Court of Justice. Nor have we carried out construction activities recently. The last structures were built well over 10 years ago.”
“Although SLA was formed as a statutory board in June 2001, we have decided to continue with the prevailing practice of appointing other agencies to sell State land. There are good reasons for this practice. For example, URA which has expertise in urban redevelopment has been appointed to sell land linked to planning and redevelopment objectives since the 1960s. Similarly, since 1989, HDB has been appointed the agent to sell land within public housing estates. STB has been our agent for tourism-related projects since 1988. As this practice has worked well for many years, we do not intend to discontinue it. Nonetheless, as with all Government policies, we will review it and, where necessary, make changes and improvements. For example, LTA was appointed recently for a site integrated with transport infrastructure and SLA has also been appointed as land sales agent for another site. REVIEW OF MEDISAVE-CUM-SUBSIDISED OUTPATIENT SCHEME 21. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether his Ministry will review the Civil Service Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient Scheme for dependants of female civil servants to ensure equal treatment with their male counterparts.”
“After the Bali terrorist attack in which so many Australian citizens tragically lost their lives, the Australian government is politically compelled to be seen to be doing something. As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said, while he could "understand why the Australians do so, because they are looking at the whole region .... it is totally unfair to put Singapore on the list". We are puzzled and disappointed that in the absence of specific intelligence on a threat in Singapore, the Australian government has reacted in such an undifferentiated way. We have told the Australians that this could be counter-productive. Terrorism is a global threat. Post 9/11, this global threat has certainly been enhanced. Indeed, the media has reported the presence of JI cells in some of Australia's major cities. We do not think that undifferentiated and alarmist assessments serve to advance our common commitment to fight terrorism. We will continue to press our concerns home to the Australians. The Australian government has told us that they understand our concerns and they will keep the matter under review. We hope that the Australian government will correct its travel advisory as soon as possible.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not want to venture into speculation as to "what if" and so on, because it does not really aid our discussions on this matter. We have to proceed on the basis, and that is the only basis that we can proceed, whether on this agreement or any other agreement, when an agreement is concluded, we must expect that it will be honoured and its terms fulfilled. We will fulfill our part of the bargain and we expect any other countries with which we have entered an agreement to observe the provisions of the agreement. LISTING OF SINGAPORE AS A HIGH-RISK COUNTRY 3. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether and how will the Government respond to Singapore being listed as a high-risk country by the Australian Government after the Bali bomb incident on 12th October 2002. The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat) (for the Minister for Foreign Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has raised the issue several times with the Australian government through its High Commission in Singapore and directly with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra. We have asked the Australians to explain the basis on which they have concluded that Singapore is a country with high security risk. The Australians have admitted that they do not have any new intelligence to suggest a greater security risk in Singapore. The information available is of a generic nature indicating that there is a greater likelihood of terrorist incidents in Southeast Asia in general. This was well known prior to the 12th October Bali terrorist attack. The Australian High Commissioner in Singapore has admitted that Australia did not have any information relating to a specific threat in Singapore.”
“That reminds me that I have forgotten to answer Dr Ong Chit Chung's question. Yes, we did indicate to them that, as far as the 1961 Water Agreement is concerned, we can let it lapse, if need be. When we talk about future water, that is the 1962 Water Agreement, which will be our basis of negotiations, then it is water after the expiry of 2062 deadline. The answer to your question is whatever are the provisions for supplying of water under the current agreements, after the 1961 agreement, we will continue to provide. We will keep our side of the bargain.”
“Some of these are hypothetical and I do not want to speculate too much. The answer to the second part of Ms Irene Ng's question is that we have made it clear what our position is on current water but we have also said that the two issues are linked - current and future water. But they will have to show that they are serious in discussing future water if we are to advance or make any progress. For so long as they say: future water, please take our assurance that we will continue to supply you water, but we can only talk about it in 2059, then it is really not practicable to talk on that basis.”
“That is the ideal solution. In fact, that is the message which we have been giving, which Prime Minister Goh conveyed to Dr Mahathir that there are very major and serious issues confronting the region, confronting Malaysia and Singapore, and instead of keeping this on the boil and being unresolved, we should really join forces together with other countries in the region to address these bigger issues. Let us hope that this approach will also be a shared view by the leaders of that country.”
“So long as it is possible to continue the talks, I think my position would be: let us continue the talks. I do not think we have reached the position that Singapore should take the approach of not talking. For example, take the situation when Prime Minister Mahathir's letter came on unilaterally discontinuing the package. We could have decided and said that, in that case, we are not going to Johor Baru. But I think, in good faith, we showed that we are reasonable and went to Johor Baru to discuss both aspects of the water issue. This has been our approach, as Members would have seen in this whole saga, that although they said that we have been unreasonable and we have been delaying, the facts that I have unfolded today should make it clear to everyone that we have gone the extra mile. We have tried to accommodate their concerns. They are the ones who keep changing the goalposts, keep changing the parameters. The package - did not include the bridge, then it is included, then it is out; then never included raw water, price revision in; then water is out, and even when it is out, it is only price revision, and future water discussed after some of us or most of us are dead. So, the point I want to make is: as far as there is scope for discussions, my recommendation is we continue to talk. But it must be on a basis of reciprocity and with the objective of having a mutually beneficial pact.”
“Yes, they know of our plans. In fact, in the July talks in Putrajaya, we gave them a briefing on the whole NEWater process and so on. But whether they have factored it or not, we do not know. But the point is that their formula for current water is based on our formula, which is meant for future water. The answer to your question is, yes, we have given them a briefing on our NEWater plans.”
“If the Member is interested in further information and details of the terms of the agreement, I would be happy to provide her with the facts later. I do not have the agreement with me here. On the second part of her question whether the agreement would have an impact on future discussions, no, because what we are discussing now are really agreements for supply of water after the expiry of the 1962 Water Agreement and the Malaysians on their part want to discuss the price review of current water under the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements.”
“Then we will be accused of profiteering, will we not?”
“Sir, there is no basis. We have also, at one previous occasion, rebutted this point. The Members are right. Malaysia has repeatedly said that the Water Agreements, including the 3 sen price, was settled by the British who favoured Singapore. Dr Mahathir, for example, had said that the Water Agreement drawn up by the British was in favour of Singapore because the British advised the Johor government then. This is not true. As we have pointed out in our own MFA press statement in January 2002: "The Tebrau and Scudai Rivers Water Agreement and the Johor River Water Agreement were signed by the Johor State Government and the City Council of Singapore in 1961 and 1962 respectively. By then, Malaya was already an independent and sovereign nation. Singapore had achieved self-government. How could the British play any role in an independent and sovereign Malaya? Would the federal government of an independent and sovereign Malaya allow the Johor State Government to sign any agreement that was against Malaysia's national interest?" Let me add two further points. Firstly, Malaysia had agreed in 1965, when we separated, to guarantee the observance of the Water Agreements, and this guarantee is enshrined in the Separation Agreement. Secondly, Johor confirmed the price of 3 sen in 1990 when it signed the agreement with PUB for the construction of the Linggiu Dam. Had Johor exercised its right to review the price in accordance with the agreement in 1986 and 1987, the PUB would have taken that revised price into account before proceeding to invest in the building of the dam and all ancillary works that actually amount to some S$1 billion. Therefore, it is simply ridiculous to claim that the British fixed these Water Agreements in favour of Singapore against the interest of Johor.”
“As I said, the ball is in their court. Foreign Minister Syed Hamid did say at the conclusion of the last Ministerial talks that after the officials have reported, Malaysia is prepared to host the next Ministerial meeting. So, how quickly they respond to us will depend on whether they also want a cooling-off period or not.”
“Actually, if one studied the Water Agreements, there is no such restriction stipulated in the Water Agreements. For today, I have brought along several quotes on various matters. I have a quote here which shows that Prime Minister Mahathir himself has admitted as much, because he said at a press conference with Senior Minister Lee on 4th September 2001 and I quote: "Malaysia's policy is to supply Singapore with water for the needs of the people of Singapore, including the industries. We will not cut off water for so long as Singapore needs the water. Whatever may be the terms, we will negotiate the cost, the price and all that [he was referring to the negotiations on future water] but there will be no cutting off of water supply to Singapore."”