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 20 of 66.
“The volume of transactions for new and resale private residential properties is as follows: Year New Units Resale Total Units 1993 7,440 11,506 18,946 1994 9,860 11,879 21,739 1995 7,522 10,183 17,705 1996 9,565 10,134 19,699 1997 5,520 5,697 11,217 This information is obtained from caveats lodged at the Land Titles Registry and data compiled from surveys by URA of licensed housing developers. Figures on other types of private properties are not available. MALAYAN RAILWAY LAND IN SINGAPORE 2. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Minister for Law what is the tenure of the land occupied by the Malayan Railway in Singapore.”
“PM Goh recently reiterated in his National Day Rally speech that he will try to resolve bilateral issues, such as the POA, and enhance bilateral relations within a framework of wider cooperation. We will continue to take this approach. MAIN UPGRADING AND INTERIM UPGRADING PROGRAMMES 20. Dr Ker Sin Tze asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider speeding up the Main Upgrading Programme and Interim Upgrading Programme for Housing and Development Board flats in order to stimulate and promote more economic activities.”
“Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and I have spoken at length in this House on 5th June 1997 on the background to the POA as well as its specific provisions. I will therefore not repeat these details. Members will know from the debate last year that Singapore's position is that the POA is a Government-to-Government agreement between Singapore and Malaysia which took effect and became operative on 27th November 1990, ie, the date on which it was signed. Malaysia, however, has taken a different position. Last year, they maintained that the POA "would only come into effect if and when KTM should decide to vacate Tanjong Pagar Station". More recently, several Malaysian leaders have made comments to the press questioning the status and validity of the POA. Last year, Singapore officially proposed that the disagreement over the correct interpretation of the POA be submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). There was no response to this. On 8th July 1998, Ministry of Law, in response to the further statements by Malaysian leaders, reiterated Singapore's position on the binding legal nature of the POA; that there was no requirement for it to be ratified; and repeated our proposal to have the dispute referred to ICJ. There are two ways to resolve this matter. One is to proceed through the legal process and agree to submit the legal issues for arbitration or to the ICJ for a decision. Alternatively, we could resolve it within the framework of wider cooperation which PM Goh had proposed to Dr Mahathir. As PM Goh told this House in June last year, he informed Dr Mahathir that he could overcome the political and legal difficulties of varying the POA only within this framework of wider cooperation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have given and extended humanitarian assistance in good faith, considering the difficulties which are being faced by the Indonesian government and its people. When we give such aid, we give it in good faith and we cannot micro-manage and attach too many conditions of the nature that the Member has said.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to speculate on remarks and comments made by other leaders. I would confine myself to saying that both sides, at the highest levels, have expressed the wish to embark on good relations.”
“I would give the details at a subsequent sitting if one of the Members were to file a Question. Rather than giving an off-the-cuff answer, I will give a considered answer which gives all the information concerning the different parcels of land.”
“An important point that I have made today is that we would not know what is happening tomorrow. And because we do not know what is happening tomorrow, we cannot say with certainty under what kind of circumstances would any Singaporean be violating the law tomorrow. So I think we will have to wait and see.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have all the details here. There are several leases, and it is quite a complicated issue. If Mr Jeyaretnam is interested, I could give a more detailed answer subsequently on the exact network of various leases concerning different parts of the land. There are many different leases concerning different parts.”
“That gazette notification has already been made. On Mr Inderjit Singh's question, I think we should not jump the gun, pre-judge and pre-determine exactly all the series of measures. Let us take things one step at a time, which is exactly what we have been doing. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask, by way of clarification, because it is still not clear to me from the Minister's answer to my question. He says the Attorney-General says KTM has a legal title. What is the title? Is it freehold or leasehold? May we know what the title is?”
“I thought I have answered that question. In my speech, I have already said that if they were to do certain things, it would not be authorised and would be improper. But in answer to one other question, I said that because we have agreed to consider the legal arguments, and given the period of three months, it is not a question of taking action against their presence in Tanjong Pagar but, more importantly, a question as to what exactly they are going to do. Will it result in an insistence on clearing passengers at Woodlands for entry into Malaysia when they have not got out of Singapore? In other words, the passengers are still in Singapore when they are said to have entered Malaysia.”
“I have already said that for passengers coming in from Malaysia and Johor Bahru into Singapore, we do not envisage any problems because the logical sequence would be complied with, namely, clearance for exit in Malaysia, Johor Baru, and clearance for entry at Woodlands in Singapore. Dr Tan Cheng Bock: That means they must stop at Woodlands when they come in.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the precise answer to the question cannot be given today because we do not know what exactly the Malaysian immigration are going to do at Tanjong Pagar. They have not told us how they intend to do or whatever they are going to do at Tanjong Pagar. And until we know that, we are unable to determine what exactly is going to happen to the passengers or to the passports of the passengers. That is why we have said yesterday that obviously because the logical sequence is completely askew, passengers may face difficulties. What exactly are these difficulties they will have to be determined only after tomorrow.”
“The short answer to that is that this goes back to some years back. We allowed them to operate when they made a request, but there is one very significant point which all of us must know, that when we allowed them to operate, our authorities were present at Tanjong Pagar. In other words, we lent them legal authority. We allowed them to be there so long as we were co-located with them. And because we were co-located with them, our Customs officers and our Immigration officers were there to lend them legal authority. Because they have no legal authority to exercise functions of arrest and so on in Singapore. Number two. The logical sequence was not a problem. Passengers who were to board a train had to clear Singapore Immigration first and then clear Malaysian Immigration. So those are the two main reasons why we have permitted and allowed the state of affairs. But once we move to Woodlands, (a) they do not have the legal authority, and (b) the logical sequence will be totally contrary to international practice.”
“It is not altogether clear to us when the statement was made that agreements and documents signed, other than by Heads of States, are not binding, it is not clear that reference is to agreements other than the POA. But whatever the case may be, these are questions of law and there is a proper way to resolve these issues. As Members know, despite our initial position that they must move, when they claim a legal right, we said, "All right, let us sit down, exchange the legal arguments, sort out between the two Attorneys-General". On the POA, I have already said in Parliament on a previous occasion that there is a divergence of legal views on this. The Malaysians have taken the view that the POA is operative when they decide that they wish to vacate Tanjong Pagar. We have taken the view, and we think we are right in law, that the POA became operational on the day it was signed by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew on behalf of the Singapore Government and Finance Minister, Mr Daim Zainudin, signing clearly on behalf of the Government of Malaysia. But since there is this divergence of view, we have proposed that this legal dispute be referred to arbitration or the International Court of Justice, and Members would have read that the come back to that is that there is no need to go to the International Court of Justice.”
“Somebody else asked whether is it not a violation of sovereignty to insist to operate in Singapore. I have answered the question when I spoke about the nature of the land. The basic principle is: these are State functions which, if you insist on exercising in the territory of another country, it must be on the basis of consent. That is the cardinal principle in international practice and in international law. Dr Toh See Kiat asked about agreements being ratified and so on. I think he is referring to the Points of Agreement, whether the statement that agreements are not agreements until and unless they have been ratified by Cabinet and Parliament. Or did I misunderstand him?”
“Apart from it being configured for our own use only, the fact is that they have changed their minds so often on the CIQ issue, how can we be sure that once they are inside, they would not claim that we have agreed to co-location and claim the right to stay permanently. We, therefore, think that it is best that Malaysian immigration be at the platform at Woodlands Checkpoint so that there can be no doubt that these are interim arrangements for three months during which they must show that they have a legal right to be at Tanjong Pagar. Therefore, it is best for both sides to avoid such misunderstanding and any future new problems by their moving inside Woodlands Checkpoint and not moving out later, claiming that this has become a legal right, as they claim that they have a legal right to Tanjong Pagar. Questions were asked: why can they not shift to Johor Bahru? What are the insurmountable obstacles? I think this question should actually be asked of the Malaysians. We have asked the Malaysians. We have not got any answer because the station is there. They are using the station for checking of incoming passengers. Yesterday's press statement and as I have said today, in fact, Johor Bahru railway station is gazetted under their law as the control post for immigration for passengers going to Johor Bahru. It is under their law. So I am afraid I am unable to give an answer to that. Has there been any request to defer the implementation from 1st August? There has not been such a request. But how will it be possible for us to consider such a deferment when we have given them such ample notice? Mr Low Thia Khiang has hit the nail on the head when he asked that as a sovereign nation, why can they not operate in Johor Bahru.”
“Therefore, because the CIQ issue is a very different matter, there is no question of Singapore taking Tanjong Pagar land back as that matter is covered by the POA. Some Members have asked: why do we not take action to prevent the Malaysian immigration from being physically present at Tanjong Pagar? I think Members will note that we have taken a reasonable and consistent approach to this matter. They have claimed a legal right for both customs and immigration. On immigration, there is no specific enabling legislation. They claim that they have a right based on acquiescence backed by international law. We have said that we will give them three months to present their legal arguments, and we have no objection to them being physically present at Tanjong Pagar, but the important point is this. Even if they can establish such a legal right which we dispute, it does not follow that they have a right to clear people for entry into Malaysia at Tanjong Pagar before such people have been properly cleared by Singapore Immigration for exit from Singapore. Several Members have asked about the question of locating outside the platform, inside the building, and so on. Let me answer by saying, first, that they had rejected co-location in 1997. After they rejected co-location in 1997, MHA reconfigured it for Singapore's own use. But while we sort out their legal claim, what we really want to put in place are interim or temporary facilities to ensure smooth functioning on 1st August. In fact, as I said, the facilities we are prepared to cater on the platform will be far more presentable and functional than what they have at Tanjong Pagar station. In fact, we even suggested to them that there could be air-conditioned booths on the platform. But why not inside our building?”
“To argue that Malaysia may perform CIQ functions at Tanjong Pagar railway station because it provides a railway service is actually like arguing that any international airline is entitled to perform CIQ operations at any international airport other than its own home port, because it provides an airline service. Obviously, this cannot be so. Mr Leong Horn Kee and Mr Chng Hee Kok asked whether this is an attempt on Singapore's part to force them to move out of their Tanjong Pagar station and for the Singapore Government to take back the land. My answer to that is that it is completely incorrect. This is because, as I have said in Parliament on several occasions, last year as well as again this year on 29th June, the CIQ issue does not in any way affect the status of the Malayan Railway land or the status of their railway station. These matters are subject to the Points of Agreement (POA). This was also reiterated in the Ministry of Law's statement of 8th July when the Ministry of Law stressed that the relocation of Malaysian CIQ operations from Tanjong Pagar is a completely different and separate issue from the POA, and separate from the status of the Malayan Railway land in Singapore or the railway station in Tanjong Pagar. What happens to the railway land at Tanjong Pagar is set out in the POA which I went into detail last year in this House. The POA sets out the agreement for the redevelopment of Tanjong Pagar land on a 60:40 basis, 60% to the Malaysian government. The terms of the POA bind Singapore because it is a binding agreement. On the 17th July meeting between the officials, in fact, the Malaysian officials told Singapore that they understood clearly that the CIQ and the POA are different issues.”
“Sir, several questions were asked. Let me answer them, perhaps not in the order that was asked. I think Prof. Chin Tet Yung and one other MP asked about the status of the land, whether it is their land and what rights ensue from it. And I believe Mr Jeyaretnam also asked about the title. I am advised by the Attorney-General that Malaysia has the legal title to the railway land. It operates a railway service on the land through KTM. Under the terms of the leases, the railway land is not intended to be used as a CIQ station. Malaysia in fact does not claim and has no sovereignty over the railway land. It has legal title to the land in the same way as an individual has title to a land. However, customs, immigration and quarantine functions are State functions which, under international practice, have to be carried out only by a State in the territory where it has sovereignty. One State may not carry out such functions in the territory of another State without the consent of the latter as it infringes the sovereign rights of the State, and I believe, two Members, Mr Rai and Low Thia Khiang, alluded to that. The distinction between railway operations on the one hand and CIQ functions is that the railway function is not an essential or inherent State function. It is a facilitative service. It is not an intrusive function. CIQ functions are by their very nature State functions which can only be carried out in the territory in which the State has sovereign rights or in the territory of another State if it is done by the consent of the latter.”
“Unfortunately, Malaysian officials have rejected these interim arrangements and abruptly ended the 28th July 1998 meeting. Sir, Malaysia has not informed Singapore exactly how it intends to proceed after 31st July 1998, after rejecting Singapore's proposal of airconditioned counters on the Woodlands Train Checkpoint and insisting that their Immigration will conduct clearance at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore regrets that it has to issue a travel advisory to inform rail passengers of the inconvenience and difficulties that they will face if Immigration officials persist in granting passengers entry into Malaysia at Tanjong Pagar before Singapore clears them for exit at Woodlands.”
“Yesterday, Sir, our High Commissioner in Malaysia presented an Aide Memoire to the Malaysian Foreign Ministry in Kuala Lumpur stated, inter alia, the following, and I quote: "Rail passengers will face following difficulties if Malaysian Immigration insists on executing their duties at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station after 31st July 1998 without any legal authority: (a) Malaysian Immigration officers performing immigration functions at Tanjong Pagar will be acting without any legal authority. All endorsements made by them on Singapore passports will be unauthorised and improper. The sequence of immigration clearance will also be contrary to international practice. Accordingly, questions of serious irregularity in the passport will arise under Singapore law. (b) As the sequence of immigration clearance is illogical and contrary to international practice, foreign national passengers exiting from Singapore with such unauthorised and improper endorsements on their passports may face difficulties at Singapore Immigration checkpoints. Travellers who enter Singapore by rail from Johor Bahru will not be affected as they are following the correct order of immigration clearance, exit granted by Malaysian Immigration in Johor and entry granted by Singapore Immigration in Woodlands." Malaysian Immigration's insistence to clear entry into Malaysia at Tanjong Pagar railway station after 31st July before Singapore has cleared them for exit from Singapore will cause inconvenience to rail passengers. The interim arrangements that Singapore had offered for Malaysian Immigration in Singapore's Aide Memoire of 24th July 1998 after discussions with both Foreign Ministers in Manila would have avoided this.”
“Members will note that we have been consistent and tried to be reasonable and helpful at every stage of our dealings with the Malaysians on this issue and we have made the following concessions: First, after they rejected co-location, our position was that their CIQ should be located in Malaysian territory. They then claimed legal rights to stay at Tanjong Pagar. We were prepared to hear their legal arguments, and pending resolution of the legal issue we agreed as an interim arrangement to let their Customs operate temporarily at Tanjong Pagar and we would post our officers there to lend them legal authority As regards clearance by their Immigration, when they refused to relocate to Johor Bahru and claimed a legal right to operate in Singapore, we offered to allow their Immigration officers to board trains at Woodlands Checkpoint and clear passengers on the trains en route to Johor Bahru, as an interim measure. When Malaysia argued that this did not give Malaysian Immigration enough time to clear all passengers, we offered Malaysian Immigration the option of clearing passengers on board stationary trains at Woodlands Checkpoint but after Singapore had cleared passengers for exit. Malaysia said this was unorderly, might upset train schedules, and asked for desks on the Woodlands Checkpoint platform. We agreed. They then expressed the concern that the desks were not presentable. So we offered to assist Malaysian Immigration by setting up airconditioned booths at the Woodlands Checkpoint. But at the final meeting on 28th July, they insisted on location inside the main building, otherwise they would remain at Tanjong Pagar.”
“The Singapore delegation reminded the Malaysians that if the Malaysian Immigration remained at Tanjong Pagar after Singapore Immigration moves to the Woodlands Checkpoint on 1st August 1998, the sequence of immigration clearance for rail passengers departing Singapore would be illogical and contrary to international practice. Malaysian Immigration would cease to have any authority to clear immigration at Tanjong Pagar once Singapore Immigration is no longer at Tanjong Pagar to lend them their authority. The Malaysian delegation, however, refused to consider our position. Instead they abruptly ended the meeting and left. To conclude, Sir, let me sum up by expressing my regret that the extended discussions with Malaysia to work out interim arrangements for the Malaysian CIQ have broken down. As Members can see, Singapore had gone to considerable lengths and made a series of proposals and compromises to resolve the issue. However, Malaysia has changed its position again and again. First, in1993 they said they wanted to co-locate with us in Woodlands. Then in 1997 they abruptly changed their mind, rejected co-location and said they would stay in Tanjong Pagar. Then in talks between officials this year, they claimed they had a legal right for their CIQ to stay in Tanjong Pagar. Then after claiming this legal right to be at Tanjong Pagar, they said that they wanted to go back to the "original plan" to co-locate at Woodlands. Then finally, Prime Minister Mahathir said they would stay in Tanjong Pagar.”
“However, the evening before the scheduled meeting, Prime Minister Mahathir who was then in Namibia, was quoted in Bernama, saying that Malaysia would not shift its CIQ facilities in Singapore from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands. He was reported to have said to accompanying Malaysian journalists, and I quote: "That's our stand and we will stick to it." Sir, the Malaysian delegation which attended the meeting on 28th July 1998 did not do so with an open mind to resolve this issue conclusively. The talks broke down because the Malaysian officials insisted that Malaysian Immigration should be located within our Woodlands Checkpoint building, notwithstanding the understanding between Minister Abdullah Badawi and myself in Manila. The officials said that otherwise, Malaysian Immigration would remain at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore officials repeatedly assured them that functional and very presentable interim arrangements would be set up for Malaysian Immigration at the Woodlands Checkpoint. But the Malaysian delegation refused to consider them. In fact, Sir, Singapore even proposed that the immigration booths on the platform could be air-conditioned to make them more comfortable. The facilities would be even more presentable and functional than those at the Tanjong Pagar platform. The Woodlands Checkpoint platform is 10 metres wide, wider than Tanjong Pagar which is only 8 metres, but which currently accommodates both Malaysian and Singapore Immigration clearance facilities without difficulty at Tanjong Pagar. The Malaysian delegation, however, insisted that this was unsatisfactory, but gave no reasons for this even though they are already operating on the platform at Tanjong Pagar.”
“That was why Singapore had responded positively to Datuk Kadir's request for a few desks on the passenger platform at Woodlands Checkpoint for Malaysian immigration clearance. Singapore therefore did not understand why Malaysia now claimed that there was no agreement on interim arrangements for Malaysia's CIQ in Singapore. Sir, I subsequently met Malaysian Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi during the 31st ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Manila on 25th July 1998. Minister Badawi and I had worked closely before whenever we had bilateral problems. He requested a meeting to see if we could resolve the impasse. Minister Abdullah Badawi's main concern was that the interim arrangements offered to Malaysian Immigration should be "functional and presentable". He agreed with me that Malaysian Immigration could not remain at Tanjong Pagar after 31st July 1998, because the sequence of immigration clearance would be illogical and contrary to international practice. He also agreed that there would be no co-location of Malaysian Immigration with Singapore Immigration inside the building at Woodlands Checkpoint. On this basis, we agreed to instruct our immigration officials to meet again as soon as possible to work out interim arrangements for Malaysian Immigration at Woodlands Checkpoint which would be functional and presentable. Following my meeting with Minister Badawi, I issued a short press statement summarising these agreed points. Singapore immediately followed up by inviting Malaysian Immigration officials to a meeting in Singapore on 28th July 1998. The Malaysian officials agreed to come down for this meeting.”
“Datuk Kadir replied that it was good that Singapore had offered to allow Malaysia a few desks for its immigration clearance at Woodlands as this would make Malaysian Immigration more orderly. Sir, it was clear that we had settled on interim arrangements for both customs and immigration. Singapore had gone to considerable lengths to do so. On 24th July 1998, Singapore's Acting High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur handed over an Aide Memoire and press statement to the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, placing on record these interim arrangements which had been discussed and settled. On the same day, the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press statement, claiming factual inaccuracies in the MHA press statement, and denying that Malaysia had agreed on the interim arrangements described by Singapore. It denied asking for desks on the Woodlands Checkpoint passenger platform for Malaysian Immigration. It claimed that Malaysia had requested for space inside the Woodlands Checkpoint building. Moreover, the Undersecretary (Southeast Asia and South Pacific) at the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Arshad Hussain, was quoted in Bernama as saying: "All we are asking for is co-location inside the Woodlands Train checkpoint as [in] the original plan." On 25th July 1998, MHA issued a press statement expressing puzzlement and surprise that Malaysia had disputed the MHA press statement of 24th July 1998. In the statement, MHA said that Singapore had worked on the basis that both Malaysia and Singapore wanted smooth train operations when Singapore moves its CIQ to Woodlands Checkpoint on 1st August 1998.”
“Furthermore, we decided that it was best that the respective CIQ arrangements be regularised in accordance with international practice by each country having its own CIQ in its own territory as is the case for road, air and sea transport and travel between Singapore and Malaysia. We informed Malaysia at the meeting of 17th July 1998 that if it needed more time to relocate its immigration operations to Johor Bahru, Singapore would, as an interim arrangement, allow Malaysian Immigration to board outgoing trains at Woodlands Checkpoint and clear passengers onboard the train after they had been cleared for exit from Singapore. Our officials also handed over an Aide Memoire explaining this to the Malaysian delegation at the meeting. The Malaysians rejected the option of clearance on the train. However, Datuk Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Secretary-General of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, requested for some desks on the Woodlands Checkpoint platform for Malaysian immigration clearance. Our officials did not accede to his request. Immediately after that meeting on 17th July 1998, Datuk Kadir told my Permanent Secretary BG Tan Chin Tiong in a telephone conversation that it was not practical for Malaysian Immigration officials to conduct checks onboard the trains, as it would mean reducing KTMB's current train schedules by half. Based on our own calculations and experience, this was not true. However, I wanted to resolve this issue. Therefore, I authorised my Permanent Secretary to tell Datuk Kadir that Singapore had agreed to his request for desks at the Woodlands Checkpoint passenger platform for Malaysian Immigration clearance, as an interim arrangement. BG Tan Chin Tiong conveyed this by telephone to Datuk Kadir on 19th July 1998.”
“As an interim arrangement, Singapore would allow Malaysian customs officers to operate at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, and we would station Singapore officials at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station to lend their authority to Malaysian customs officers. As regards immigration, Malaysia now also argued that despite the absence of any specific legislation, Malaysian Immigration had a legal basis to operate at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, on the basis of acquiescence and state practice, which was backed by international law. Singapore disagreed. For Malaysia to locate its immigration control post in Singapore is actually not in compliance with Malaysia's own law. Under Malaysian law, Johor Bahru railway station is gazetted as the immigration control post for persons travelling from Singapore to Malaysia by train, and not Tanjong Pagar Railway Station. Indeed, they could not gazette Tanjong Pagar Railway Station as it is in Singapore territory. In fact, this is confirmed by the endorsement or chop on passports of passengers boarding the train at Tanjong Pagar, which clearly states that the Malaysian Immigration Control Point is in Johor Bahru. Nevertheless, Singapore agreed that Malaysia could make its case on immigration arrangements in the written arguments that it had agreed to present within three months. Sir, after claiming the right under law to have their CIQ remain in Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, Malaysia said at the 10th and 17th July 1998 meetings that they would now like to co-locate with Singapore at the Woodlands Checkpoint. Singapore did not agree. We explained that when Malaysia rejected co-location last year on 11th June 1997, Singapore had decided on physical arrangements that made no provision for Malaysia's CIQ.”
“Singapore officials stressed that Malaysia's CIQ could not remain at Tanjong Pagar because there was no legal basis for it to do so. Moreover, this would pose operational difficulties and result in an illogical sequence of passenger clearance, which is not in accordance with international practice. This improper sequence of clearance would cause problems in crime investigation and prosecution and also raise difficult legal issues of proof. Singapore informed the Malaysians that they had to move their CIQ to Johor Baru. The Malaysian officials did not dispute that the sequence of immigration clearance would be illogical if its immigration operations remained at Tanjong Pagar when Singapore moved to Woodlands. However, they proposed that Malaysia grant conditional immigration clearance in advance at Tanjong Pagar which would not be valid until followed up by a final clearance by Singapore Immigration at Woodlands. Singapore informed them that this suggestion for advance clearance was not practical, as it would not resolve and address the basic issues. Both sides met again on 17th July 1998. Since Malaysia claimed a legal right for their Customs to remain at Tanjong Pagar, but Singapore did not agree with their claim, we requested Malaysia to forward detailed written legal arguments within three months for further study by the Singapore's Attorney-General. Officials from the two Attorney-Generals' Chambers would then meet to clarify the legal position on the basis of which Malaysia claimed that it has a legal right for its Customs to continue operating in Singapore.”
“" On 24th April 1998, Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, officially wrote to Dato Ghazzali Sheikh of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to inform the Malaysian Government that Singapore would commence its CIQ operations in Woodlands from 1st August 1998. In its letter, MHA stated, "In accordance with the letter of 2nd July 1997, (previous year's letter) Malaysia is requested to cease its Immigration and Customs clearance of rail passengers and rail cargo at the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station by 1st August 1998. Malaysia should relocate its rail CIQ operations within its own territory." On 14th May 1998, Malaysian officials met with their Singapore counterparts to discuss the matter. At this meeting, Dato Ghazzali Sheikh asked Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Mr Tan Boon Huat, whether the option of co-location at Woodlands Train Checkpoint was still open. Mr Tan reiterated that since Malaysia had rejected co-location in their letter of 2nd July 1997, the offer had lapsed. Furthermore, the Woodlands Checkpoint had since been built without provision for Malaysian CIQ facilities. Mr Tan also explained that Malaysia would have to move its CIQ facilities out of Tanjong Pagar Railway Station by 1st August 1998. On 10th July 1998, at Malaysia's request, officials from both sides met in Singapore. At this meeting, the Malaysians claimed for the first time that Malaysia had a legal right to retain their customs at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore's representative from the Attorney-General's Chambers disagreed with this legal claim. For Malaysian Immigration, the Malaysians conceded that there was no enabling legislation to allow them to operate in Singapore.”
“The letter was signed by Dato Ghazzali Sheikh, Deputy Secretary-General 1, of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It gave no reasons, although considerable work had been done by Singapore in planning and construction of the Woodlands Train Checkpoint on the basis of co-location. After Malaysia had rejected co-location, Singapore then reconfigured the Woodlands Train Checkpoint building to serve only Singapore's needs. On 2nd July 1997, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, replied to the Malaysian Government that since Malaysia had rejected Singapore's offer to co-locate its CIQ at Woodlands, once Singapore's CIQ moved to Woodlands their CIQ could not remain at Tanjong Pagar because of two reasons. Firstly, it will create serious operational problems for both countries. Secondly, Malaysian officials would be operating without the presence of Singapore officials to lend their authority and powers. Members will note from what I have said that Malaysia had been given notice more than a year ago that once we moved our CIQ, their CIQ could not stay in Tanjong Pagar. Since Malaysia had rejected Woodlands and we had told them that they could not stay in Tanjong Pagar, this meant they had to relocate their CIQ to their own territory. On 23rd February 1998, Singapore officials informed Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) at a meeting that Singapore agencies would operate at Woodlands Train Checkpoint from 1st August 1998. KTMB was also requested to be ready to operate from there on 1st August 1998. On 25th March 1998, KTMB confirmed, and I quote, "as far as KTMB was concerned, it was working towards 1st August 1998 to be operationally ready.”
“In fact, we feel that it would be more convenient for both countries to have the same checkpoint in Woodlands." On 9th April 1992, Prime Minister Goh replied to Prime Minister Mahathir, and I quote: "This can be done. I have asked Jayakumar to include facilities for Malaysia's customs and immigration at Woodlands." Following this agreement between the two Prime Ministers, the Ministry of Home Affairs briefed Malaysian officials in June 1992 on the details of Singapore's plan to relocate its CIQ to the Woodlands Checkpoint. We informed them what facilities could be made available to them if they wished to co-locate their CIQ at Woodlands. Then on 20th September 1993, the Malaysian Government officially informed Singapore that they had decided to co-locate their CIQ with Singapore's at Woodlands Train Checkpoint. Dato' Halim Ali, then Deputy Secretary-General 1 of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote to the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs, and he said: "I wish to inform you that the Malaysian Government has decided to locate the operation of the Malaysian Immigration and Customs at Woodlands Checkpoint together with Singapore's to facilitate immigration and customs clearance of passengers and goods entering and leaving Malaysia by rail through Woodlands, Singapore." Sir, Singapore therefore proceeded to plan the construction of the Woodlands Train Checkpoint on the basis that Malaysia's CIQ would co-locate with Singapore's CIQ at Woodlands Train Checkpoint. Almost four years later, on 11th June 1997, the Malaysian Government wrote to the Ministry of Home Affairs stating that it had changed its mind and had decided to retain its CIQ at Tanjong Pagar.”
“If they endorse passports of rail passengers travelling from Singapore to Malaysia, it would be unauthorised and contrary to the proper sequence of immigration clearance. Under Singapore law, this would create irregularities in the passport. I will therefore explain the full background of the CIQ issue, so that Members will know that the Singapore Government has expended considerable effort and has made many proposals to Malaysia to resolve this issue, in a way which would not disrupt the smooth operation of train services from 1st August 1998. Unfortunately, Sir, these efforts have not been successful. Our decision to relocate Singapore's CIQ to the Woodlands Checkpoint was not a sudden or surprise move. It goes all the way back to 1989, when we decided on our move of CIQ to Woodlands in order to check the smuggling of drugs, to prevent entry of illegal immigrants as well as to deploy our own manpower more efficiently. In November 1989, as I was then Minister for Home Affairs, I briefed the Malaysian Deputy Minister for Home Affairs, Dato Megat Junid, of our plan to move our CIQ and the rationale for our decision. Slightly more than two years later, I wrote to him again on 1st February 1992 to inform him that, "The Development masterplan for the new Woodlands Checkpoint, which includes clearance facilities for train passengers and cargoes, is now ready." He replied on 3rd March 1992, and said: "I have passed the information to the Hon. Prime Minister who is also the Minister for Home Affairs Malaysia." Later, our two Prime Ministers touched on this matter in their correspondence. In a letter of 4th April 1992, Prime Minister Mahathir wrote to PM Goh, and I quote: "We understand why you would want to have Customs and Immigration checks at Woodlands.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Members are aware that the Malaysian Government has announced that their Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities will remain at the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, even though Singapore had told them on many occasions that they could not remain there after Singapore relocates its CIQ to the Woodlands Train Checkpoint (WTCP) tomorrow. Members would have also read the press statement issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs yesterday evening, and reported in today's newspapers. Sir, at our last meeting on 29th June this year, I informed this House that Singapore's CIQ at Tanjong Pagar will be relocated to the new facilities at WTCP on 1st August 1998. I said that we had first informed Malaysia of our intention to move to Woodlands in 1989 and had repeated this on many subsequent occasions. We told them that once Singapore's CIQ moved to Woodlands, the administrative arrangements for them to exercise CIQ functions at Tanjong Pagar would cease. At that sitting on 29th June, I had also stressed that the relocation of Singapore's CIQ to Woodlands and the cessation of Malaysia's CIQ at Tanjong Pagar did not affect the status of Malayan Railway Land, which is subject to the Points of Agreement (POA). Indeed, this issue of relocation of our CIQ is completely different and separate from the POA and the status of the Malayan Railway Land or the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station. The Ministry of Law's press statement of 8th July 1998 repeated this position. The Malaysian Government's insistence to continue conducting immigration clearance at Tanjong Pagar has serious consequences. They will be doing so without legal authority.”
“There are many international treaties, including the international conventions on human rights referred to by the Member. Such international conventions and treaties are periodically reviewed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other Government Ministries and Agencies. As the Member may know, Singapore became a party to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child in October 1995. Whether we will accede to any other international convention will depend on careful examination of our policies, laws and legal procedures. We take our international obligations seriously and accede to international treaties only when it is in our interest to do and when we are fully satisfied that we can give effect to its provisions. REDEVELOPMENT OF DEFU INDUSTRIAL ESTATE 11. Dr Ker Sin Tze asked the Minister for National Development if he will modify the plan to redevelop Defu Industrial Estate in view of the economic slowdown and the over supply of industrial space in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not like to speculate at this stage and pre-judge whether the elections which will be held will indeed be free and fair. I think it is best to let the elections proceed. Let the international observers who will be there observe, and at the end of the process, let them come to a considered conclusion whether the elections were free and fair. I am aware of the many comments made by different parties that the run-up to the elections has given rise to concerns. Indeed, the ASEAN troika, as well as the friends of Cambodia, recently have expressed concerns that the atmosphere must be neutral and I agree with their view. 1.30 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that the central issue is numbers. The central issue is whether there are sufficient numbers of observers for the JIOG to make a reasonable assessment of whether the process of the elections in Cambodia was free and fair. If the total number of observers that collectively have come from ASEAN and the friends of Cambodia, or EU and other participants, would enable the JIOG to come to a fair and considered assessment, that should be the main criterion.”
“Whether eight, 10, 20 is not a critical point. If the numbers who collectively make up for the JIOG effort are insufficient, I am sure the United Nations will indicate to the member countries. Mr Simon Tay: If I may direct my question in more detail. Given that the question of Cambodia's membership in ASEAN is important to ASEAN, should we be leaving it to the UN to dictate how many people we should send rather than to actually increase our numbers ourselves? In this connection, given that we have committed a 100-man peacekeeping force, should 100 not be the kind of number we are thinking about, rather than 8, 20 or 30?”
“Singapore is an open society. Anyone can visit Singapore during the hustings and the campaign period and observe and follow Mr Jeyaretnam all over Singapore and any other candidate, and there is no bar to that.”
“The last election in 1993 was different because what was needed was election monitors and also other category of support staff. Here, what was expressly requested by the United Nations team were election observers in certain parts of the country. And after consultation between the United Nations and ASEAN, ASEAN decided to send eight from each country, but there will also be electoral observers from many other countries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the United Nations is coordinating an international team of observers, known as the Joint International Observer Group (JIOG), to observe the elections in Cambodia. ASEAN has agreed to join the JIOG. As part of this ASEAN effort, Singapore will be sending eight officers from the Singapore Police Force to serve as electoral observers in the JIOG in Cambodia. Our observers will be deployed in Cambodia from 19th-30th July 1998. The JIOG will observe the electoral process in Cambodia and is expected to announce the results of its observations at the end of the electoral process. Therefore, in an answer to his question, our decision to send observers to be part of the JIOG reflects our willingness to assist Cambodia in its efforts to hold free and fair elections.”
“There are no compelling reasons to make the exemption proposed by the Member. The Land Titles Act was amended in 1993 to exempt leases of 7 years or less, including the option to renew, from registration. Prior to that amendment, only leases of up to 3 years had been exempted. The amendment was enacted after a Select Committee hearing and took into account the need to balance the interests of mortgagees, owners and tenants. REVIEW ON THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX 3. Mr R. Ravindran asked the Minister for Finance whether a recent review has been done on the impact of the Goods and Services Tax on (i) low-income families; (ii) middle-income families; (iii) high-income families; and (iv) businesses; and whether his Ministry will disclose the details of the review to the public.”
“Sir, I do not think this needs to become a bilateral issue. The position of the Singapore Government is that if our citizens go abroad, to whichever country, we expect them to abide by the laws and regulations of that country. And if indeed the facts are that Singapore motorists have been delinquent and not paid up the fines and traffic summonses, then they will obviously have to face the penalties just as we require foreigners coming to Singapore to observe our laws and face the consequences. Having said that, let me also say that this is a problem which is not unique just to Malaysia. Singapore has the flip side of the problem also, because I am told that the problem of foreign traffic defaulters not paying up summonses or meeting warrants of arrest in Singapore is also quite a big problem. I am told that there are some 80,000 outstanding traffic summonses, most of which, of course, will be Malaysians. RATES OF CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTIONS (Reduction) 12. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Manpower, in the light of the further deterioration of the economic situation, whether the rates of CPF contribution in respect of employers and/or employees will be cut and if so, by how many percentage points.”
“Am I right that the Member is referring to reports in Malaysian newspapers about Singapore motorists not paying up fines and summonses?”
“Certain issues lend themselves to mediation and third party settlement. Obviously, those issues will be very few. Other issues have to be resolved by negotiations, sometimes protracted negotiations, by the two countries and the two governments themselves.”
“I am not sure I have fully understood the thrust of the Member's question. I would have thought that the decision by both countries to resolve an outstanding dispute on Pedra Branca is a very good example to other countries of how such difficult issues can be resolved in an amicable and peaceful manner, in this case, by resort to third party judgement, ie, the International Court of Justice. It might have taken time, but in the process that dispute has not affected the other on-going discussions on bilateral issues.”
“It is true, Sir, that certain target dates - which I would really not say are "target dates", but dates which the two leaders indicated as dates for the officials to try to work out the arrangements on Pedra Branca and water - were set in the Joint Communique. But in international negotiations, Sir, Members will know that we can endeavour to reach agreement by a certain date. But if there are difficulties and, if further negotiations are needed, then obviously we have to press on, in good faith, beyond the deadline. I would not want now to set a clear fixed deadline. What I can say is, as I have mentioned in my main answer, that we will resume the negotiations when the Malaysian Government is ready.”
“If the Member had listened to what I said carefully, he would have noted that it was not a willy-nilly decision. I said that this move was decided, and the Malaysian Government was informed, as early as 1989.”
“To sum up, Sir, Singapore and Malaysia are bound by a multiplicity of complex ties. Any relationship of such close interdependence is bound to go through different phases. It is only natural that there will be ups and downs. What is important is that we do not lose sight of the central fact of our inter-twined destinies. That was why the Prime Minister went up to Kuala Lumpur in February, and issued a Joint Communique with Dr Mahathir to pursue a "prosper-thy-neighbour" policy. As I have stated in this House before, after Separation, Malaysia and Singapore have become two different societies, each having its own distinct national character and culture. We compete as well as cooperate to advance our own national interests. This too is only natural, as leaders in both our countries have recognised. Singapore will manage our relationship with Malaysia on the basis of reciprocity and mutual respect for each other's interests. We are committed to forging a long-term relationship of mutual benefit with Malaysia on this basis.”
“We had informed Malaysia of our intention to move to Woodlands as early as 1989 and repeated on many subsequent occasions. We have also informed Malaysia that once Singapore's CIQ facilities move to Woodlands, Malaysia's CIQ operations could no longer continue in Tanjong Pagar because Malaysia's Customs and Immigration officials would have no legal authority to exercise such functions in Singapore in the absence of their Singapore counterparts. Moreover, they would be clearing rail passengers for entry into Malaysia before they are cleared for exit from Singapore by the Singapore CIQ at Woodlands. This sequence of clearance would not only be illogical and contrary to international practice but could also present other problems such as in crime investigation and prosecution. In September 1993, Malaysia agreed that they relocate their CIQ facilities to Woodlands together with Singapore. However, in June 1997, one year ago, the Malaysians told us that they had changed their mind and did not wish to co-locate their CIQ facilities with ours at Woodlands after all, thereby rejecting Singapore's offer to move their CIQ to Woodlands. Therefore, the present administrative arrangements which allow Malaysia to exercise CIQ functions at Tanjong Pagar will cease after 1st August 1998. The Malaysians were informed of this in July last year and on several subsequent occasions. Let me say, Sir, that this does not affect the status of the Malayan Railway Land which is subject to the POA. As Members are aware, the Prime Minister and I had briefed the House in June 1997 on the background to the POA. Members will recall it was our decision to relocate our CIQ to Woodlands in 1989 which prompted the negotiations culminating in the POA.”