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 11 of 66.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the water negotiations or the package negotiations are only one of the facets of our overall relations with Malaysia. It is not the sum total of our relationship with Malaysia. As Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the other day, we will persevere and try to have discussions going but, if we cannot agree, it does not mean the end of the relationship. There are other aspects of the relationship. What is the medium-term prospect of resolving this? It is very difficult to predict. I have stated Singapore's readiness to continue. Like all Foreign Ministers, I think one has to be optimistic, whatever the obstacles and hurdles, and we will persevere as best as we can, but it must be on a certain basis. It must be on the basis of reciprocity, it must be on the basis of mutual benefit, and it cannot be on the basis of a one-sided approach to the negotiations.”
“They have not explained officially why they did not raise it before. I think honourable Members would have noted that they have publicly admitted that it was not a mistake and it was not an oversight but a deliberate move. Johor State Assembly Speaker, Zainal Abidin Mohd Zain, said in the State Assembly that the Johor State Government had not made a mistake in not pressing for a review in 1986. He 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." This was in the New Straits Times of 3rd July this year. Dr Mahathir also said that Malaysia did not revise the water pricing when it was due then because it thought that Singapore would also revise the price of treated water supplied to Malaysia. This was in Bernama, 11th October this year. In other words, they had deliberately, as a matter of conscious policy, chosen not to review the price of water in 1986/1987. Actually, even up to the point of the 1990 Agreement concerning the Linggiu Dam and related matters being signed, Malaysia did not raise any issue concerning the price of 3 sen per thousand gallons of raw water. I think the reason was obvious. Johor was benefitting handsomely from the 50 sen it was paying to Singapore for treated water under the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements.”
“Indeed, Sir, I have noted that both Foreign Minister Syed Hamid and the Menteri Besar of Johor have referred to this. I believe that is what has prompted Mr Sin's question. Foreign Minister Syed Hamid did say that if the talks on water ended in a stalemate, his government will refer the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. Johor Menteri Besar Abdul Ghani also said that the Water Agreements provided an option for Malaysia to refer the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration if the talks failed. Sir, if both sides cannot agree through negotiations on the water issue, then we are ready to have the matter referred to the PCA for international arbitration.”
“" So, in answer to Mr Ravindran, I would say that these clearly are then legally binding agreements which were guaranteed by both governments under the 1965 Separation Agreement. And, as Prime Minister Goh said in Parliament in April this year, the Separation Agreement is fundamental to Singapore's existence as an independent nation and has been registered at the United Nations. So, any attempt to repudiate the guarantees set out in the Separation Agreement, any attempt to vary the terms of the Water Agreements without the express consent of both governments, will be a serious breach of the Separation Agreement. On his specific proposal of enacting a law, let me say that Malaysia cannot enact a domestic law to avoid meeting its international treaty obligations. Actually, this is a very established principle of international law. If a country can get out of one treaty obligations through the use of domestic law, it signals to the world that it can and will do so for any other international agreements, and this will destroy the sanctity of all international agreements.”
“I think honourable Members will recall that, last week, my Ministry actually issued a statement on those remarks by Minister Rais Yatim. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement pointed out that what Minister Rais Yatim said was not in accord with repeated assurances by Malaysian leaders that they would honour the 1961 and 1962 agreements until the date of expiry. These assurances actually date back many years ago and have been repeated very recently. In fact, in 1988, Prime Minister Mahathir said: "We cannot set aside the treaty (referring to the water agreements) as it is an agreement between the two countries registered with the United Nations. We cannot break our word." This is from Malaysia's Business Times of 23rd January 1988, also carried in Singapore's Straits Times. Then, this year, Dr Mahathir said in the New Straits Times of 3rd May that Malaysia was "bound" by the water agreements and "cannot just break the agreements". Prime Minister Mahathir also said: "The fact is, according to the agreements, we, Malaysia, must supply them with water. We will continue. We promise them that we will supply them with water." And Foreign Minister Syed Hamid, in his opening statement at the talks held in Kuala Lumpur in July 2002, said: "Malaysia has repeatedly said that it will honour the 1961 and 1962 agreements until their expiry in 2011 and 2061 respectively." He also said: "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.”
“As to what our approach will be, from my main answer, it is quite clear that by abandoning the package, Malaysia has fundamentally changed the basis of the bilateral talks. Singapore's position has always been on the basis of a package approach and, in his letter of 14th October 2002, Prime Minister Goh made it clear that since Malaysia had decided to discontinue the package, each issue will have to be discussed on its stand-alone merits, and it is not possible to maintain our previous concessions. So, in future, Singapore has no choice but to deal with the water and other issues individually on a stand-alone basis.”
“Sir, to answer Dr Ong Chit Chung, I would say that the ball is in Malaysia's court. Because at the Second Ministerial Meeting in Singapore in September, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid said that after the Senior Officials reported the outcome of the discussions to the two Ministers, both sides would then decide on a date for the next Ministerial Meeting which Malaysia would be prepared to host. He said this. But we have not heard from Malaysia on any follow-up meeting to discuss the water and other issues after the recent Senior Officials' Meeting in Johor Baru. As far as Singapore is concerned, we stand ready to meet them to discuss the water issue further and to continue the negotiations. But I should stress that the negotiations cannot be on the basis that: please show your sincerity by caving in to our demands. If you want to talk about water, I think Malaysia has to be very serious. We understand Malaysia's priority is to increase the price of current raw water. That is why we have said that we are prepared to discuss the price revision of water, even though our stand is that they have lost the legal right. But they, at the same time, must show seriousness in discussing future water and not fob us off by saying that we can discuss this in 2059, just two years before the expiry of the 1962 Water Agreement. So I would say Singapore's position is that we are committed to seeking a solution to resolve the water issue and other bilateral issues but we cannot go by vague assurances from Malaysia that it is prepared to supply future water to Singapore because, as I have said, we must plan our long term water needs in advance. And we have to work out the details years before the expiry of the 2062 Agreement, issues such as water demand management and capacity building.”
“As PM Goh told PM Mahathir on 8th October 2002, Malaysia and Singapore really face very serious problems in the region posed by terrorism. It is in the interest of both countries to settle these bilateral issues so that we can deal with the real threats and problems that confront us in the region. VISIT OF DELEGATION FROM THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE, EDUCATION, YOUTH AND CHILDREN FROM THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF VIETNAM (Presence in Gallery)”
“" Then at the Johor Baru meeting (16-17th October 2002), Malaysia went further to take the position that the water issue involves only the price revision of current water and that, as far as future water is concerned, we can discuss this two years before it expires in 2061. So, at present, Mr Speaker, because Malaysia has unilaterally called off the package, the concessions which Singapore was prepared to offer, for example, on the POA, the bridge, the CPF, are off and each issue has to be discussed and agreed on its stand-alone merits. In the meantime, the usual barrage of accusations, allegations as well as threats continue to be hurled at us. This includes the threat last week that they can enact a new law to render the Water Agreements null and void. As usual, we are also accused of being "insincere", and that we are told to be "sincere" by accepting their demands. As I have repeatedly said in this House, we should take the Malaysian criticisms and attacks against us in our stride. There is no need to over-react to these pressures and efforts to intimidate us. We will continue to state the facts and stand our ground, in a quiet but serious manner. Sir, I think it is a pity that they have taken matters to this point. We have expended a great deal of time and effort in trying to reach a win-win solution for both sides. Since December 1998 when PM Goh agreed, at the request of PM Mahathir, that the outstanding issues be discussed as a package, we have had three Senior Officials' Meetings in 1999, and two Ministerial Meetings this year. Senior Minister had visited KL twice (August 2000 and September 2001) to see how to move the package forward. In closing, let me say that the sooner we can put these issues behind us the better.”
“But let us, nevertheless, take the approach of trying to accommodate each other's concerns as best as we can for reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. Our position on price review is clear. Malaysia has lost its right of review. If Malaysia claims that it has the right now to invoke the review clauses, we will contest it. Concluding Remarks Mr Speaker, Sir, from what I have said, Members can see that there have been many twists and turns in our negotiations with Malaysia. If I may sum up: First, both Prime Ministers agreed on the package approach in 1998 to resolve the outstanding issues, including the long-term supply of water, CPF, POA, CIQ and airspace. Later, the Malaysians wanted to include the bridge to replace the Causeway. When we said we are prepared to spend several hundred millions to build our part of the bridge as part of the package, they said the bridge is no longer part of the package. In 2000, they said price revision of water under the current agreement (which was never part of the original package agreed by PM) should be included in the package. In February 2001, Malaysia had informed us that "Johor believes that a fair price would be 60 sen". We had then counter-proposed 45 sen for current water and 60 sen for future water. An in-principle agreement was reached on this in September 2001. But in its letter of 4th March 2002, Malaysia changed its position and tabled new proposals, including raising the price of current raw water to RM3. This meant that they rejected our 45 sen offer. Consequently it was no longer on the table. We have told them so. Now the Malaysians wanted water to be taken out of the package. Finally, six days before the Senior Officials' Meeting, we received PM Mahathir's letter stating that the "package is discontinued.”
“It is difficult for Singapore to agree to Malaysia's proposal because we need to plan our long-term needs well in advance. Singapore would need to work out in detail the complex issues involved in regard to a future water agreement, including water demand management, capacity building and technological advances. Price Review Ms Irene Ng has asked questions specifically on the review clauses in the Water Agreements. She wants to know whether Malaysia has any legal basis to ask for this price review after failing to do so in 1986 and 1987, and if they have any legal basis also to backdate such price revision; and if not, she asks why is Singapore prepared to consider a price review now. My answer is that we have been advised that they do not have a legal basis. I do not want to go into all the legal arguments here. But let me say that we have taken legal advice. That is why we maintain that they have lost the legal right. And even if they have the right to review the water price now, there is no legal basis in the Agreements to backdate it. We also added that if there were to be any review, it must logically also cover treated water. If they have no legal basis, Ms Irene Ng asks: why are we prepared to discuss it? Well, Sir, the answer to that question is that they have said it is important to them. We said: alright, we understand that it is important to you and we are prepared to discuss as part of the package but not as your legal entitlement. In the same way as we do not have a legal right to insist on airspace rights and we do not have a legal right to ask for water supply after the expiry of the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements when they expire in 2011 and 2061.”
“We reminded them that the provisions in the Water Agreements allow for a price review using the rise and fall in the purchasing power of money and the rise and fall in the cost of labour, power and materials for the purpose of supplying the water, and there are no provisions for retrospective payments. Since PUB incurs all these costs, the only relevant factor is the change in the purchasing power of money. Using the Malaysian Consumer Price Index (MCPI), we calculated that the revised price of raw water would be no more than 12 sen per thousand gallons. But we made it clear to them that the 12 sen was not an offer but a calculation based on the review clauses. The Malaysians asked if we could consider going beyond the figure of 12 sen. They pointed out that Singapore had previously offered 45 sen. We said Singapore could not go beyond the review clauses and we had no leeway to make any concessions because the package is off due to PM Mahathir's letter of 7th October 2002. On treated water, we informed the Malaysians that if we applied the MCPI to the review of price of treated water, we would get a figure around RM2 per thousand gallons. Again, we made it clear that this was not an offer. It was our calculation going by the terms of the review clauses. On future water, ie, post-2061, the Malaysians actually were not interested or serious in wanting to have any detailed discussions. They continued to take the position that both sides could discuss the issue two years before the expiry of the 1962 Agreement. We stressed that this was not a realistic proposal. Our position is that current water and future water are linked and we cannot discuss price review of current water now and future water only in 2059.”
“It is in our fundamental interest to preserve our credibility. The Malaysians also alleged that the package was discontinued because Singapore always wanted to discuss the water issue only, as can be seen from the quotes that I read out. It was Malaysia that unilaterally discontinued the package. And it was Malaysia that wanted to discuss only water. Senior Officials' Meeting in Johor Baru from 16-17th October 2002 Although PM Mahathir's letter announcing the discontinuation of the package came just days before the Senior Officials' meeting of 16-17th October in Johor Baru on the water issue, our officials still attended that meeting in good faith. We were prepared to discuss all aspects of the water issue. However, at the Johor Baru meeting, Malaysia was only prepared to engage in discussions on the price review of current water, as evident from the wording of their agenda and the banner. They amended these only after we protested and stressed that the discussions should also be on treated water and the future supply of water to Singapore. Malaysia presented the same pricing formula for current water as at the Second Ministerial Meeting, namely, the price of raw water today as the average cost of desalinated water and NEWater less the treatment cost in Johor. We took the position that Malaysia had lost the right of review, and even if Singapore was willing to consider such a review, it would have to be based on the express provisions or factors listed in the review clauses. The Malaysians again could not justify their pricing formula for current water under the review clauses in the existing Water Agreements.”
“And as the package deal is off, I have instructed my officials to deal with water and the other issues individually and separately, on their stand-alone merits, and no longer as a package. I hope our officials can make some progress at their coming meeting with your new approach". Since PM Mahathir had not mentioned the fact of this letter when the two Prime Ministers met on 8th October 2002, PM Goh in his reply said: "Had you, at our 8 October meeting, told me that you had already written and signed this letter on 7 October, I would have elaborated on the pros and cons of your new approach. We would then have jointly decided on the basis upon which our officials would negotiate." Mr Speaker, Sir, I have referred to this correspondence at some length because there have been many statements in the Malaysian media and from Malaysian politicians that have deliberately misrepresented what transpired at this meeting between PM Goh and PM Mahathir. Here is a sampling: PM Mahathir was reported to have said: "This is very clear. As I understood it, Goh Chok Tong agreed that there should be a review and a formula to determine the price of water." and "Singapore's denial of what had been agreed would only complicate the talks." [Utusan Malaysia, 12th October 2002] Foreign Minister Syed Hamid was reported to have commented on Press Secretary to PM Goh's clarification on 8th October 2002: "We think our comprehension of the language (sic English) is very reasonable (but) every time we come to an understanding, they later deny it." [New Straits Times, 14th October 2002] These statements have impugned PM Goh's integrity and imply that PM Goh was not telling the truth about what transpired during his meeting with PM Mahathir. Singapore's leaders stand by their words.”
“It was not a proposal that was put to PM Goh for consideration. PM Goh was not asked if he agrees with this new approach. PM Goh replied to PM Mahathir's letter on 14th October 2002 to remind PM Mahathir that they both had agreed on a package approach, as PM Mahathir himself had acknowledged in his letter, and this was why Singapore had been prepared to make concessions. But now that Malaysia has unilaterally discontinued the package and wants Singapore to deal with the water issue separately, trade-offs would no longer be possible and each issue would have to be dealt with individually based on their stand-alone merits. PM Goh said: "As you wrote in the opening sentence of your letter of 7 October, you and I had reached a decision 'on 27 December 1998 in Hanoi for Malaysia and Singapore, to resolve, once and for all, the outstanding issues between our two countries in a package.' In other words, we had agreed to trade-off, in a package, the benefits to each other from the various issues, namely, water, POA, airspace, CPF and the bridge to replace the Causeway." PM Goh added: "I had been prepared to make concessions in varying the POA with extra pieces of land, allowing an early withdrawal of CPF deposits, and building our part of the bridge to replace the Causeway at our expense, as trade-offs, so that you could give us airspace and future water at a fair price. Regarding water, you had written in your letter of February 2001 that Johor believed that a fair price for raw water was 60 sen". Continuing, PM Goh stated: "Since you now want to deal with the water issue separately and discontinue the package approach, these trade-offs are no longer possible.”
“Press Secretary to PM therefore clarified on 8th October 2002 that the legal point about Malaysia's right to review the price of water had not even been discussed by the two Prime Ministers. Singapore's position was that Malaysia has lost the legal right for reviewing the price of water under the current Agreements 15-16 years later but Singapore was prepared to discuss a price revision as part of the bilateral package. PM Mahathir's letter of 7th October and PM's reply of 14th October 2002 On 10th October, two days after PM Goh's meeting with PM Mahathir, he received a letter from PM Mahathir. It was dated 7th October, that is, one day before his meeting with PM Goh, and sent by a Third Party Note dated 9th October from Wisma Putra which we received on 10th October. In his letter, PM Mahathir told PM Goh that he was discontinuing the package. He wrote: "The approach that both sides had adopted so far in dealing with the outstanding issues in a package, has not yielded any meaningful results. In view of this, Malaysia has now decided to discontinue the package approach and to give the highest priority to first resolving the long-delayed water issue, particularly the price review of raw water. Once this issue is satisfactorily and amicably resolved, I am confident that Malaysia and Singapore would be able to move forward much faster in finding solutions to the other outstanding issues that stand in the way of our bilateral relations." Members should note two important aspects of PM Mahathir's letter. Firstly, the letter was dated 7th October, ie, written one day before PM Goh met PM Mahathir. But this letter was never mentioned at the meeting. Secondly, the discontinuation of the package was a unilateral Malaysian decision.”
“On CIQ, Malaysia reversed its earlier position to relocate its CIQ to Johor. Malaysia now wants to have its rail CIQ in Tanjong Pagar. At the end of the Second Ministerial Meeting, both sides agreed to have a meeting at the officials' level to focus on the water issue on the understanding that it would be part of the package and without prejudice to our legal position. PM's meeting with PM Mahathir on 8th October 2002 PM Goh visited KL to participate in the World Economic Forum meeting (7-8th October 2002). PM Goh requested a meeting with PM Mahathir which was fixed on 8th October 2002. They discussed terrorism as well as the on-going package negotiations. PM Mahathir said that Malaysia wanted to "decouple the water issue" from the other items in the package. PM Mahathir added that if both sides could resolve the water issue, the other issues could then be resolved. PM Goh explained why all items had to be taken as a package. If water were taken out of the package, then Singapore would have less leeway to make concessions on other issues, for example, the POA. On revision of price of water under the current Agreements, PM Goh said that Singapore was agreeable to discuss this but as part of the package. The two Prime Ministers expressed hope that the officials meeting to be held on 16-17th October would make progress. Immediately after the meeting on 8th October 02, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid announced to the media that Singapore had accepted "Malaysia's prerogative to review the water rates" and that Singapore had agreed to delink water from the package. This was a gross distortion, as the two Prime Ministers never discussed the issue of legal right of Malaysia. PM Goh had only agreed to a discussion of price revision of water as part of the package.”
“They have also not given us an answer to our question on which provision in the Water Agreements authorised their claim for retrospective application. We reiterated our position that Johor should have invoked the review clauses in 1986 and 1987 and that Johor has lost its right of review. If Malaysia insists on a review outside the package, Singapore will have to challenge every aspect of Johor's claims. Malaysia insisted that Johor had not lost its right of review and that the matter of price revision be discussed between both sides but not as part of the bilateral package. On the supply of future water, Malaysia indicated that "the detailed discussions (on a new water agreement) should be undertaken two years before the expiry of the 1962 Agreement." As Members know, for Singapore, a key element of the package is the long-term supply of water. To say that we should talk about this issue only in 2059 was not realistic and showed that they were not being serious. Malaysia also wanted to delink the proposed bridge to replace the Causeway from the package. We explained that we saw no need for the bridge but were prepared to go along and spend several hundred million dollars provided it is part of the package. The Malaysian side wanted to delink the bridge from the package even though the bridge was listed as a package item in PM Mahathir's letter of 4th March 2002. On POA, Malaysia indicated that the KTM station would remain in Tanjong Pagar. While the Malaysians did not question the legal validity of the POA, they took the position that the POA would become operative only after the KTM vacates the Tanjong Pagar station. This is contrary to the fact that the POA is a G-to-G agreement which took effect and became operative on the date of signing (ie, 27th November 1990).”
“Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe these two Questions are timely as they enable me to brief the House on the state of play since I last spoke on this subject at the sitting on 23rd July 2002. There have been quite a number of developments and much has been said. I hope Members will bear with me as I take them through these developments. The key developments have been: The Second Ministerial Meeting in Singapore from 2-3rd September 2002; PM Goh's meeting with PM Mahathir in Putrajaya on 8th October 2002; Exchange of letters between PM Mahathir (7th October 2002) and PM Goh (14th October 2002); and Senior officials' meeting in JB from 16-17th October 2002. I will touch on each of these developments. Second Ministerial Meeting in Singapore, 2-3rd September 2002 On price revision of water under the current Agreements: In July 2002 I informed the House that Singapore's position is that the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements do provide for a review after 25 years. However, if Malaysia wanted a price review, this should have been undertaken in 1986 and 1987. Notwithstanding the fact that it is 15 to 16 years late, we told the Malaysians at the First Ministerial Meeting in KL (1-2nd July) that in the interest of making progress in our package talks, we were prepared to consider Malaysia's request to discuss the price revision but as part of the package. At the September Ministerial meeting in Singapore, the Malaysians presented a formula for pricing current water, which in effect, was based on our peg price formula meant for future water. We asked them to justify this in relation to the specific clauses in the two Agreements which set out very clearly the factors and criteria. They have not given us an answer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have your permission to take the first two Questions together?”
“Currently, there are several avenues where unwed mothers or those who feel they cannot care for their babies can turn to for help. These avenues are social service agencies, the hospitals and the Child Protection and Welfare Service at my Ministry. These services include counselling on available options, the provision of shelter pending delivery and assistance in placing the baby for adoption. If the unwed mother is a teenager, my Ministry or any social service agency will work with the girl, and if possible her parents, to provide the necessary support and guidance needed. Shelters for unwed mothers or mothers who wish to give up their child are available in Singapore. A welfare organisation, Rose Villa, provides a 24-hour hotline and crisis shelter to handle emergency cases. Unwed mothers may also walk in to Rose Villa to seek further assistance and support and are assured of confidentiality. The Pertapis Centre for Women and Children also provides a safe environment for counselling, support and adoption placement for unwed mothers. My Ministry is currently working with another two Voluntary Welfare Organisations to provide shelters for unwed mothers so that there are ample options and services for mothers who find themselves in such a predicament. Over the last 3 years, the number of abandoned babies has dropped from 7 cases in 1999 to 4 cases last year. This is largely due to the Ministry's public education efforts and the good work of social service agencies to increase awareness about where to get help. This arrangement of involving the people sector has been working well. There is no need for additional statutory provisions.”
“Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports, in view of the number of reported cases of new-born babies being left in rubbish dumps, whether he will consider (i) constructing repositories at special designated places in Housing and Development Board estates and at strategic convenient places where abandoned babies can be left safely and (ii) if necessary, making supporting statutory provisions. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The MP has asked if my Ministry will consider setting up a repository for abandoned babies in residential areas or designated places. While the objective is to protect the baby from danger as well as the anonymity of the parent who abandons the baby, such repositories remain controversial, even in countries where they have been introduced. Such repositories, also known as `Baby Drops', may save a life, but they also make it easier for a parent to abandon an infant, thus indirectly encouraging or sanctioning child abandonment. Under Singapore law, it is illegal to abandon a baby. This is to underline the inalienable responsibility of parents for the safety and welfare of their children. The `Baby Drop' scheme could unwittingly instigate a parent to commit an offence. Legalising such a scheme will not overcome the problem of encouraging child abandonment, which will, in the long term, put far more children at risk. While we recognise that mothers who cannot care for their babies need help, there are avenues for them to seek help for themselves and their babies without resorting to abandonment. My Ministry prefers to engage the mother, inform her of her options and assist her, through counselling with her partner and parents, to make an informed and socially responsible decision.”
“Based on figures provided by the family courts, the number of enforcement applications filed by wives, ex-wives and guardians of children to enforce orders for spousal or child maintenance from 1999 to 2001 were 3,820, 3,843 and 3,973 respectively. Complaints filed by ex-wives are not classified separately. From January to July this year, there were 2,460 such applications. Under section 71 and Part IX of the Women's Charter, if an ex-spouse fails to make maintenance payments, the court may make the following orders: (i) Firstly, the court may direct the amount due to be levied by seizing his assets and selling them to pay the maintenance arrears; (ii) Secondly, the court may sentence him to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month for each month's allowance remaining unpaid; (iii) Thirdly, the court may make a garnishee order. By such an order, the court may direct a debtor who owes a debt to the ex-husband to pay the sum owed to the complainant instead of the ex-husband, to discharge the maintenance arrears; and (iv) Fourthly, the court may make an attachment of earnings order. By this order, the court directs the ex-husband's employer to deduct the maintenance amount from his salary and pay the money to the complainant. Besides these orders, if the complainant is agreeable to giving time to the defaulting ex-husband to pay the maintenance arrears or the court is satisfied that more time should be given to pay the arrears, the court may direct the ex-husband to pay the arrears by instalment payment. REPOSITORIES FOR ABANDONED BABIES 33.”
“Sir, that continues to be our position, and that is the position, guideline or direction which the two leaders have given to the negotiating Ministers and officials - that these issues have to be resolved as a package. In fact, if we can go back to the origins of this, it was to be considered as a package because both leaders recognised that these were outstanding issues, and it is best to clear the decks for future relations by resolving these issues as one package. BILLS INTRODUCED PEOPLE'S ASSOCIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the People's Association Act (Chapter 227 of the 2000 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the National Science and Technology Board Act (Chapter 201A of the 1991 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND AND RELATED CHANGES Resumption of Debate on the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance's Statement [22nd July 2002]. Question again proposed. 12.59 pm”
“Yes. As I have said, both sides have discussed various proposals. I think both sides now agree that the price for future water under a new agreement to replace the existing two Agreements, upon expiry, must be competitive. But what is the agreed competitive price has yet to be worked out. As I have said just now, we have put forward a proposal. Our proposal is that it must be pegged to the price of alternative sources, which is NEWater. The thrust of our proposal is that we should avoid situations where we have constant disputes over the price of water. Therefore, the proposal that we have tabled would stand the test of time. We will give them all the figures about how NEWater pricing is worked out - the cost and so on. And it makes economic sense for us to agree to a price that must be less than what it costs us to produce NEWater. Otherwise, it does not make any economic sense. So, it has to be an agreed percentage of the cost of producing NEWater. The details will have to be worked out. We have already given them a briefing. So that is the essence, a formula that can stand the test of time that would not perennially lead to disputes, and it must be competitive. The Malaysians have also presented a formula on the first day, which involves factors such as the existing water tariffs, inflation, consumer price index and so on. But Members would have read their public statements that they have said that they would have to rework their figures. On 2nd July, they had revised a proposal where they have said that the price will have to be determined later by agreement. It has to be competitive. But they have said that they want to consider benchmarking with the Hong Kong model or other models. So, we will have to await for their final proposal.”
“Can I clarify? Is Dr Ong referring to the price of water for the future, after the expiry of the two Agreements?”
“Sir, I have said in my main answer that we informed the Malaysians that the Hong Kong model is not relevant. And prior to this, we have made public statements, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, setting out the position. It is not relevant because, in the case of Hong Kong and China, China bears the infrastructural and operational costs of supplying raw water to Hong Kong. Hong Kong does not bear any of these costs. So, the analogy is inapplicable. In our case, over the years, it is Singapore which has borne the infrastructural, operational and maintenance costs, such as pipelines, building of dams, and so on. This comes up to be an astronomical figure. So, it is really not comparing apples with apples.”
“I think the lawyers will have a very interesting time debating this. I think this is a highly arguable point. But the position we have taken is, regardless of the legal ability, as part of the package, in order to advance and make progress in the discussions, we are prepared to look at their request. But it must be part of the package.”
“Sir, I do not think I need to use any adjectives to describe the proposals, but, indeed, these figures were in Dr Mahathir's letter to Senior Minister on 4th March. And they were also in the first proposal by the Malaysian delegation on 1st July. In other words, Malaysian 60 sen from 2002 to 2006, backdated to 1986 and 1987, and RM3.00 from 2007 to 2011. And they wanted a supplementary agreement to reflect this. We could not accept this proposal as, in effect, it would have meant renegotiation and amendment of the existing two Water Agreements. We stated our position that it was not acceptable. Later, the Malaysians informed us that they were no longer seeking a supplementary agreement for that purpose, and instead they would have recourse to the price review clauses under the 1961 and 1962 Agreements, and they would do so consistent with the provisions of the two Agreements.”
“Singapore will work closely with Thailand which is the coordinator for the ACD in the coming year. AVERAGE EARNINGS OF FEMALES AND WAGE GAP BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN 4. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the average monthly earnings of resident females from 1997 - 2001; and (b) whether the wage gap between men and women is getting narrower.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Thailand hosted the first meeting of the Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD) from 18-20th June this year. I was among the 17 representatives from Asian participating countries. When Prime Minister Goh visited Thailand in February this year, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra asked for Singapore's support for his proposal on the Asia Cooperation Dialogue. Prime Minister agreed to support this initiative. We supported it in view of our long-standing approach of advocating a more outward and forward-looking ASEAN and Asia. The ACD hopes to bring together countries in West Asia, the Gulf countries, South Asia, ASEAN and East Asia. Although there are many existing regional and sub-regional organisations in Asia, such as ASEAN, ARF, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC) and the Gulf Cooperation Council, there is, however, minimal interaction between them. The ACD, if properly nurtured, could eventually bridge the gap between these different regional groupings in Asia. At the recent ACD meeting, all the Foreign Ministers present were of the view that the organisation was a good and timely idea, but they cautioned that the ACD must be inclusive, not a closed grouping nor should it be a regional bloc. It should also avoid duplicating the work of existing regional organisations. The meeting also discussed many ideas and proposals aimed at promoting greater cooperation within Asia. Singapore's own suggestion was that the ACD countries could cooperate in the area of SMEs, because SMEs comprise a large segment of employment in Asia. Sir, I believe that the ACD could facilitate closer cooperation amongst SMEs in the region.”
“Sir, I had responded to a similar query at the Committee of Supply debate in 1996. The Minister for Law does not have the powers to direct the Public Prosecutor not to disclose the names of accused persons. Indeed, there are no legal provisions specifically prohibiting the disclosure of an accused person's identity. Persons accused of sexual offences are not more vulnerable than persons accused of other types of offences. Hence, if we introduce a measure, say, by amending the law, to suppress the identity of an accused person in a molest or rape case until he is found guilty, then, we should similarly adopt the same measure for other types of offences. A person, whether male or female, charged with, say, murder, assault, theft or criminal breach of trust, will potentially face the same sort of embarrassment as a person charged with committing a sexual offence. At a more fundamental level, it is a basic principle of our legal system that, except in extraordinary circumstances, the courts are open to the public. This ensures that court proceedings are transparent and subject to public scrutiny. Hence, the media must generally be free to report what goes on in court. Where a trial is covered by the media, it will usually follow up with a report of the verdict. The publication that a defendant has been acquitted ought to set the record straight. The positions adopted by other countries, for example, the United Kingdom and Canada are largely similar to Singapore's. HAWKER CENTRE OPENING HOURS 25. Mr R. Ravindran asked the Minister for the Environment what are the steps taken by his Ministry to ensure that hawker centre stalls are open for regular daily periods to serve customers.”
“Like other prudent landlords, SLA requires a security deposit to be paid by a VWO renting state premises for the following reasons: (a) firstly, to ensure that the tenant complies with the conditions of the tenancy agreement, (b) secondly, to ensure payment of rental, and, (c) thirdly, to recover the cost of repairs and rectifications in the event of any damages when the tenant vacates the property. As a general practice, SLA collects rental payments directly from the VWO. However, in some cases, the parent agency overseeing the VWO requests to pay the rentals directly to SLA to avoid incurring late payment charges. Even for these cases, the security deposit is still required to ensure that the VWO complies with the conditions of the tenancy agreement as well as to cover the cost of repairs and rectifications arising from any damages to the property. For these reasons, the Singapore Land Authority requires a security deposit, currently set at 3 months. SLA is prepared to waive the deposit for VWOs that have secured a guarantee from a parent agency or ministry. In addition, to ease the cashflow of VWOs, SLA is also prepared to accept other forms of guarantee, such as a banker's or an insurance guarantee, in lieu of upfront cash deposit. SEXUAL OFFENDERS 20. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Law whether he will direct the prosecutor not to reveal the name of the person who is charged with a sexual offence until he/she is proven guilty by a court of law.”
“Our Ministers have visited Indonesia and vice versa, and have had good discussions with their counterparts. They meet bilaterally. They also meet at the sidelines of various meetings. There are also good contacts between officials. I agree with Mr Ravindran that these are matters which we must constantly nurture because there are new actors, there are new personalities, and it is not static. You have to keep working at it. I can assure Members that my Ministry, as well as other Ministries, is very cognisant of this, particularly with Indonesia when they have so many new personalities at the centre as well as in other parts of Indonesia. On economic cooperation, I believe Minister George Yeo did touch on this when the Ministry of Trade and Industry was discussed. We do want Indonesia to recover economically, to play a leading role in enhancing stability in the region. Therefore, we remain ready to help Indonesia within our limited capabilities as a small country. That is why we have said that we can play a catalytic role and find creative ways of assisting Indonesia's economic recovery. A good example is what Mr Ravindran mentioned, such as the extension of the US-Singapore FTA to cover Indonesian IT products. So it is in these ways that Singapore, although we are small, can demonstrate that we have a deep and abiding interest if we want to work with Indonesia, and that we will try to be helpful when we talk to other countries to generate in them an interest also in Indonesia, and in Indonesia's future.”
“As both Dr Ong and Mr Ravindran said, we attach great importance to our relationship with Indonesia, and our relations are excellent. Indonesia is one of Singapore's closest neighbours and a major trading partner. Actually we have a deep and abiding interest in Indonesia's stability as a unitary state, its growth and prosperity. Indonesia is also strategically important to the region. Events in Indonesia, such as political strife or Islamic militancy therefore can have severe repercussions on Singapore as well as other ASEAN countries. Therefore, this underscores the importance of Indonesia, the importance of our bilateral relations, and the impact of Indonesia in the region. Both Mr Ravindran and Dr Ong Chit Chung asked about cooperation on terrorism. Let me say that at the official level, our agencies are cooperating closely with Indonesian authorities and providing them with the information to conduct their own investigations after we had assured them of giving them access to the people we had arrested. But I hope Members will understand when I talk about cooperation in such areas on counter-terrorism and intelligence cooperation, the details have to be kept confidential. Mr Ravindran asked what we can do to nurture this relationship. It is a relationship that has been based on very strong fundamentals, especially the close personal and institutional ties we have built over some 30 years with Presidents, Ministers, officials, and recently with President Megawati. We have also established good relations between her and our leaders. As you know, she visited Singapore soon after she was inaugurated as head of state. We had good discussions with her and her delegation.”
“Sir, it has been some time since this subject was last brought up. Let me refresh our memories by saying that Pedra Branca is part of Singapore's territory. The Singapore Government and its predecessors have occupied and exercised full sovereignty over Pedra Branca and the waters around it for more than 150 years since the 1840s. Our ownership and sovereignty over Pedra Branca has never been challenged by another country. Even Malaysia had continuously and consistently recognised Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Branca for more than 130 years until it contested Singapore's ownership of the island in 1979. Yes, I have noted that some Malaysian politicians have said that the case on Pedra Branca is already before the International Court of Justice, that they want to expedite or accelerate the hearing of it. The actual or current position is that both Malaysia and Singapore have agreed in 1998 on referring the case to the International Court of Justice. But the case has not yet been submitted to the Court, because there is a certain procedure that Malaysia and Singapore must follow in order to do so. The procedure was spelled out in 1998, when Singapore and Malaysian senior officials reached agreement on the text of a draft Special Agreement to refer Malaysia's claim to the ICJ. But that Agreement is subject to procedural requirements such as a formal ratification of the Special Agreement, and only when that is done we can submit the case to the ICJ. On our part, we are prepared to proceed to the ICJ when the Malaysians are ready.”
“In fact, Dr Mahathir himself said so recently when commenting on our reclamation works, on 14th April in Bernama: "We must be careful in handling a problem such as this because we don't want to be at war with Singapore" and he said, "That's why, when handling national affairs, we have to be extremely careful and wise . " So, I would repeat, let us not get too worked up over these remarks. It should not deter us from seeking cooperation with Malaysia when cooperation is to mutual benefit. But we must cooperate without illusions. I would say, let us take the Malaysian criticisms against us in our stride. There is no need to get excited. They constitute a form of psy-war to weaken our morale and soften our position on matters under negotiation or discussion. Let us quietly and politely state the facts and stand on them. Mr Ravindran said, put it on the website. I will ask my High Commissioner in KL, I know they are doing a good job in disseminating all the speeches and positions to various quarters in Malaysia. They have a website. If it can be improved, Mr Ravindran said, let us do so. But the important point is that notwithstanding the present cloudy atmospherics, we are committed to forging a long-term relationship with Malaysia based on mutual respect and sovereign equality. We are neighbours who can and should cooperate and realise the full potential in our bilateral relationship and find win-win solutions. As PM Goh himself said, both countries should in fact be working closely in order to consolidate and lead ASEAN.”
“We have been called all kinds of names: a `little red dot', `a pimple that won't burst', and so on. Singaporeans have also often been accused of being thick-skinned. So trying to skin us can be quite a daunting task. Despite all the name-calling that we have endured over these years, Singapore continues with our business, we continue to survive and we continue to prosper. Cats, after all, have nine lives, they say. And no cat is ever going to lie down meekly to be skinned. So I would say to Members of the House that we should not allow such name-calling to deter us from what we must do to defend and promote our national interests. Instead, I think all of us should look and take note of the underlying message behind the metaphor, the underlying message of how seriously they intend to compete with us and we therefore have to gird ourselves to meet this challenge. Sir, Singapore-Malaysia relations are extremely complicated, as must be any relationship of close inter-dependence. There are different strands in the relationship, and not all the strands are neatly compartmentalised or compatible. There will always be ups and downs. And it is a fact that some Malaysians delight in putting Singapore down. But that strand of thinking revealed is not the only one in Malaysia. There is also an understanding that given the close inter-dependence between our countries, what hurts Singapore will also hurt Malaysia. And the games of one-upmanship should not be allowed to go too far.”
“I also agree with her that if new issues are thrown into the package that is currently on the table, it will make the negotiations even more complicated and the chances of reaching agreement even more slim. But that is not to say that in our bilateral relations new issues will not crop up. Events have shown that they do crop up, and we will have to deal with them as and when they emerge. On this matter of "skinning the cat", many Members have alluded to Dr Mahathir's "skinning the cat" remarks. They have quoted from the Beritan Harian (Malaysia) report of 3rd May, where he was quoted as saying "We can skin a cat in many ways. To skin Singapore, there is not just one method." I was curious and looked up the various newspaper articles and magazines and it would seem that Dr Mahathir seems to have a fondness for skinning cats. He has used this phrase "we can skin a cat in many ways" on several other occasions. For example, in an interview with Asia Incorporated on 4th May, in answer to a question: "If you have to describe Malaysia's approach to globalisation in one sentence, how would you do it?", and he replied, "Firstly, listen to everyone. Number two, always accept that there are many ways to skin a cat, many ways to do things in order to achieve results." and similarly, at the PEBC conference in Kuala Lumpur, when asked to explain Malaysia's approach in dealing with the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, he said: "People know that there are many ways to skin a cat. We have chosen the unorthodox way and the cat has been neatly skinned." Sir, I would urge Members that we should take such remarks in our stride. This is not the first time and it will not be the last time that we are called names.”
“We therefore reminded the High Commissioner to ask his government to send us a Note itemising their concerns in detail for us to study carefully. So in reply to Dr Ong Chit Chung, the answer is no. We are still awaiting that comprehensive Note. 4.30 pm What I have said thus far about the package and reclamation works is factual. But it is true that both matters have become bell-wethers, in a sense, for the course of our bilateral relations. It would be natural for many in this House, and many Singaporeans, to conclude that our relations with Malaysia are at a low point based on the way these and other issues have hogged the headlines in recent months. There is no denying that Singapore-Malaysia relations have encountered choppy waters, but I would say that like the tide which ebbs and flows, the current rough patch is to be considered as normal in state-to-state relations between immediate neighbours. Both of us, Singapore and Malaysia, share a complex and interlinked relationship and keeping it on an even keel is never an easy task. Therefore, I agree with colleagues who have said that both sides should view Singapore-Malaysia relations, not in an emotional sense, bogged down by historical baggage, but from a pragmatic and longer-term perspective, rather than try to seek short-term gains through one-upmanship. I have also noted what Ms Irene Ng has said just now. Yes, negotiating with the Malaysians is not easy. But does it mean we should not negotiate with them? I do not think that this is what she meant. Our experience has been that, notwithstanding all the difficulties, it is still possible to reach agreements with the Malaysians, but this is provided there is the political will and goodwill to do so.”
“Dr Ong Chit Chung asked what has been the reaction to what the Prime Minister spoke about self-sufficiency in water. But as I said before, Members would have read the statements that different leaders in Malaysia have said. There has been no official government reaction and I do not think it was really called for. When Prime Minister spoke on this, Members would have read that Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi said that if we wanted to look at other sources of water supply it is up to us and he said that it is not going to affect negatively or jeopardise bilateral ties. On reclamation, Members would recall that I spoke on this on 3rd May also in response to Mr Leong Horn Kee. I informed the House that Malaysia had sent a Note on 30th April on our reclamation works around Tekong and Ubin. That was the third Note after two previous Notes which had focused on reclamation works in the Tuas area where they alleged that we had violated their territorial sovereignty. This third Malaysian Note only contains general allegations that our Tekong reclamation works have had an impact on their territorial waters, but there were no specific facts, none whatever, details to substantiate their allegations. We had replied and rebutted their two previous Notes. I would like to inform Members that we have replied to this third Note on 15th May 2002. The Malaysian High Commissioner was called in to receive a copy of our official reply where we stated that their allegations that our reclamation works had caused a "transboundary environmental impact" upon Malaysian territorial waters and the claim that it narrowed "the waterway" in Kuala Johor were unsubstantiated and lacked particulars.”
“The comments suggest that Singapore should accede to Malaysia's expressed concerns, regardless of whether they were formally raised or substantiated to be facts. Anything short of accepting and abiding by the Malaysian concerns was deemed to be insensitivity on our part towards our neighbours. In essence, we were being asked to accept a zero-sum fait accompli. How should we respond to all these unsubstantiated claims and allegations? Sir, I suggest that the best course of action for us is not to be unduly perturbed by these strident diatribes but proceed with our daily affairs as we have many pressing issues in our national agenda. Of course, we want to have good relations with Malaysia but, as the Prime Minister said recently, we cannot be chasing and answering each and every wild allegation that is made. But if a serious point has been made, backed by proper facts, we should be ready to look at it. I therefore would not want this afternoon to reply point-by-point to every one of the Malaysian allegations that Members raised. Instead, I will briefly update Members on the status of our package negotiations and some Members talked about reclamation. On the package, on 3rd May, when I replied to Mr Leong Horn Kee here who requested for an update on our package negotiations, Members would recall that I said that I had proposed a set of dates to my counterpart, the Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid Albar for a meeting between both sides following the correspondence between the Prime Ministers. He had offered alternative dates and now officials on both sides are working out the dates convenient to both of us. I believe that they will soon settle the date for the first meeting.”
“Sir, compared with previous years, I cannot recall the Committee of Supply where so many Members have moved cuts on Malaysia. I think, this is, in fact, the largest number. Perhaps it is understandable in view of what Dr Ong Chit Chung had said about the ups and downs in our bilateral relationship and the way in which Singapore has been criticised in the Malaysian media on several issues over the past few months. Prime Minister Goh recently, on 5th May 2002, spoke about the negative reports in the Malaysian media. They started with the water issue in January. We were portrayed as having profiteered from the purchase of water at an "unreasonably" low price all these years as a result of "unfair" Agreements, as mentioned by Ms Irene Ng. Then in February, their media turned to the tudung issue, with some alleging that our policy was part of an overall scheme to marginalise the Malay-Muslim community following the September 11 events and the arrest of the JI in Singapore. Then in late February, the focus moved on to Singapore's land reclamation works. In March, remarks which have been made in jest by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan almost threatened to become a self-contained bilateral issue. In April, criticism turned to the lighthouse that we are entitled to operate on Pulau Pisang, with wild allegations that armed Singapore personnel were going there. More recently, Members would have read reports that Singapore was buying fewer tomatoes from Cameron Highlands, and accusations that Singapore was turning away Malaysian vegetables because they did not satisfy certain health standards that we had somehow kept secret all these years. In levelling these accusations against us, Singapore was asked to "compromise" and exhibit neighbourly behaviour.”
“I would say, on some occasions, topics which in previous years would have been considered sensitive and too delicate to be brought up among the Ministers, Singapore has also suggested the proposal for e-ASEAN, which has been taken. To sum up, how ASEAN will move, whether it moves successfully or whether it will be a marginalised organisation, depends on these twin challenges - whether we can overcome the internal challenges and whether we can overcome the external challenges of being outward looking, and continue to be regarded by major powers and the dialogue partners as a body with whom they find it useful and relevant to stay engaged with.”
“And I think when they meet in Brunei, there will be another opportunity for ASEAN to show that working with the dialogue partners, it can take several steps towards discussion in a concrete manner of the matters like combating terrorism. Several Members have asked what can Singapore do, what can Singapore assist in showing leadership of ASEAN. Mr Tan Soo Khoon referred to the pathfinder role. Whatever term you describe - whether it is pathfinder or leading from behind - Singapore's commitment to ASEAN is there. It is important for us. It is in our interest that ASEAN succeeds. I have referred to some of the roles we have played. It was Prime Minister Goh who proposed that ASEAN invite India for a summit. This has now borne fruits. Prime Minister Goh, in Singapore, proposed an Initiative for ASEAN Integration. And we have, in fact, set an example by providing some $50 million over a 5-year period, and training centres have actually been set up in Indo-Chinese countries. We have also come out with ideas as to how ASEAN can be marketed abroad, and the idea of roadshows - ASEAN Roadshows - in fact was proposed by Singapore. Then on the political and security side, it was Singapore which suggested that ASEAN also has closed-door retreats. Why? Because there is a tendency in ASEAN, because of the ASEAN way of doing things, to tread gingerly on sensitive and delicate topics. So what we have decided, and also it was Singapore's proposal, was in order to overcome this, let us have retreats where only the Foreign Ministers, unaccompanied by officials, meet. This has enabled, over a few years, ASEAN Foreign Ministers to discuss matters in a very frank and candid way.”
“ASEAN has taken some steps which show that it realises the importance of maintaining its strategic relevance, for example, the ASEAN-China FTA. Minister George Yeo may have spoken - I was not in the Chamber - about the significance of this. But the significance of this is not just in the economic benefits that may accrue to ASEAN or China, but it has a strategic relevance, in a sense, that it will underscore to other countries the importance of ASEAN. In a sense, this has been borne out because soon after the announcement of ASEAN-China FTA, you would note that Japan took an interest and has offered Japan-ASEAN enhanced economic cooperation. That is a good sign. In this regard, Singapore's role is quite evident because the Japanese have, in fact, suggested to the ASEAN countries to have a look at the Japan-Singapore FTA as a model and to examine what provisions may be applicable, as they discussed the ASEAN-Japan economic partnership. When we have this bilateral FTA, a point made by Ms Irene Ng, it has spin-off effects for the rest of the region. Another sign that ASEAN realised its importance of being outward looking is that it has now decided to have a summit meeting with India, which is a proposal that Prime Minister Goh had floated some one or two years ago, and this has now borne fruits. It is important to bring India into closer interaction with ASEAN. These are steps - Members may think that they are too tentative and not enough - to show that ASEAN, despite all its problems, is aware of the importance of staying on track, the importance of continuing to be relevant to the external players. I should add that in July, there will be a further engagement with the external players when the ASEAN Regional Forum meets.”
“It is not the case of Singapore or other ASEAN countries being deliberately left out because the Malaysian Foreign Minister explained that it was a sense of urgency of these three countries which felt they should proceed immediately on the areas of cooperation. Now, we have had to study the Agreement to see what aspects are contained there, and whether it has relevance for us and, if so, whether we should sign on, and so on. But the important point is this - for combating terrorism, it has to be tackled by a variety of ways, both nationally, where countries have to take the necessary steps. On bilateral cooperation, as we know, after the JI was exposed, we have excellent cooperation with Malaysia and other countries. Whether it is trilateral or multilateral like the UN, many fronts have to converge in tackling this problem. On the external side, the key element is for ASEAN to be outward looking. Because, as I said, if it is inward looking, I think the rest of the world will pass ASEAN by now. To be outward looking, it must continuously find ways of engaging with the external players, the dialogue partners and major powers, a point which Mr Ravindran also alluded to. ASEAN has to, in a sense, rebuild its strategic relevance. If you look back, countries were interested in ASEAN because ASEAN started the ASEAN Regional Forum, the only security forum of its type in the region, and ASEAN was in the driver's seat. ASEAN is still in the driver's seat. But to be in the driver's seat and to attract confidence and inspire a sense of support for ASEAN being in the driver's seat, whether the driver's seat for ARF or ASEAN Plus-3, ASEAN itself must be a credible organisation.”
“Apart from what transpired at the ASEAN Summit last year, and it was an important development, before the uncovering of the terrorist networks in our region, the ASEAN leaders took a stand when they adopted the Declaration on Terrorism, which was not just repeating the mantra, or motherhood statements about combating terrorism, they asked for law enforcement agencies in ASEAN to cooperate, particularly front-line law enforcement agencies. In a sense, the meeting of Home Affairs or Interior Ministers, which is going to take place soon in Kuala Lumpur, I think, within the next two weeks or so, is a very good follow-up of that. Ms Irene Ng referred to that meeting. Exactly what is going to emerge from that meeting remains to be seen, but I am sure there is an earnest desire on the part of the law enforcement agencies and the Ministers who were charged with security to map out areas in which they can cooperate. This is absolutely essential in view of the events which have arisen. Mr Tan Soo Khoon asked about this Trilateral Agreement. Let me just explain that the evolution or the genesis of this Agreement was originally started when Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia drafted the agreement, and the text that I saw had a specific geographically demarcated area for cooperation, by reference to coordinates. Because, as Foreign Minister Syed Hamid told the press recently, there was urgency felt among those three countries for cooperating in the seas, Sulu Sea and seas off Celebes, and other areas, which were immediately adjacent to the country, to tackle specific problems. That was my understanding of how this Agreement came about. The latest Agreement has been signed by the three countries.”
“I think the sense in ASEAN, as I discern it, is to concentrate on consolidation of the existing ASEAN 10. I believe we will proceed cautiously and take matters step by step. I am not sure Prof. Chin Tet Yung is being completely fair to ASEAN when he said that ASEAN is focused purely at the government level. Yes, much of ASEAN's activities is driven by Foreign Affairs Ministries, Economic Ministers and a whole host of other Ministries. But he will be aware that there is also a track two process in ASEAN. The former Speaker, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, has been a very important driver of ASEAN parliamentary meetings, for example, although you may describe that as non-governmental. But Prof. Chin is right that for ASEAN, we have to work not only at the pure government instrument but at all other levels. And there is a host of organisations - professional organisations, business organisations, which are ASEAN oriented, including ASEAN business councils, and so on. So, I agree with him, but these activities are being conducted. His point that we should also have people-to-people linkages, cultural organisations, is something that I would agree with, and we should pursue that. As regards external challenges of ASEAN, Members have alluded to it. Principally, it is coping with the challenge of China and North Asia. Minister George Yeo, my colleague, I believe, has spoken about these challenges. These are real challenges. And ASEAN, if it does not get its internal and external acts together, may see a hollowing out as more FDIs will gravitate towards North Asia and China. I was asked about terrorism by several Members.”
“Singapore has welcomed the recent events in Myanmar concerning the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest as a positive step in the overall national reconciliation process. How it will proceed, I think we will have to wait and see. I think much will depend on the discussions between the SPDC and Aung San Suu Kyi herself. We do not know what exactly transpired in the confidential talks, but there have been signs that a certain comfort level has been reached. Indeed, it is a positive step because, as Mr Tan Soo Khoon and others have said, the situation in Myanmar previously has, in a sense, been a factor which has been responsible for some slowdown in our relationship with dialogue partners, particularly with the EU. So it is a positive step and let us hope that it will lead to more positive developments. Several Members talked about the expansion of ASEAN to 10. We cannot turn the clock back. There were good strategic reasons why ASEAN took the decision to embrace the new members, and expanding the organisation from 7 to 10. As with all organisations, when membership increases, it must inevitably bring problems for consensus making, decision making and so on. But the challenge in that regard is how to address the problem of a two-tier ASEAN. This is a real problem, and ASEAN has to address it, and Singapore, in a sense, has contributed to efforts towards integration of ASEAN. An example is Prime Minister Goh's proposal for the Initiative for ASEAN Integration, which was endorsed by the ASEAN Summit. To give concrete support to this, Singapore had, in fact, pledged and given contributions to the Indo-Chinese countries, including setting up of training centres there. 3.15 pm East Timor - it has not made a formal application for membership.”