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 8 of 66.
“As PM Abdullah himself said at the Press Conference on 12th January 2004, "€¦then I will come back with some very, very specific issues and some suggestions on how we can resolve these issues". It was also agreed that these proposals will be first discussed at the Prime Ministers' level, and as Foreign Minister Syed Hamid said recently, "€¦it is up to us [Malaysia] to make our proposals in each issue to find ways to resolve them individually. The leaders will consult each other first and once they have come to some agreement, the officials can come in". Sir, both Prime Ministers, however, were realistic and agreed to be alert to the problem that if in the process of such discussions, we could not untie the dead knots then, at that point of time, we need to find ways to move forward and refer to third party settlement. And again, I quote from Mr Syed Hamid who said: "We want to avoid dead knots that can harm efforts by Prime Minister (Abdullah) to revitalise ties with Singapore€¦. If no agreements are reached, we will seek third party help. We do not want to stoke controversy." Sir, this is where matters stand. We look forward to receiving PM Abdullah's proposals on how to resolve bilateral issues and how to move bilateral relations forward. On another matter, both Prime Ministers stressed the need for greater interaction and contacts between the Ministers and officials from both sides. They agreed that the inter-Ministry games should be resumed. Members will also have read that PM Goh, DPM Lee and several Ministers from Singapore attended the Open House in Johore Bahru at the invitation of PM Abdullah, and the following day, PM Abdullah and his Ministers came down to Singapore for a social visit.”
“I've been at this for many years now, discussing issues with Prime Minister Mahathir, and over the years, the issues which were discussed as a "package" and later on as individual items outside the package had ended up in what I told him as "dead knots". It's like Gordian knots; you can't untie them. So I suggested that maybe for the future, we should refer these "dead knot" issues to third parties to arbitrate or to adjudicate. Then we can look forward to co-operation in many areas and if there are new issues, we will try and resolve them before they become tied in knots which we cannot disentangle. But Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi prefers that we give it another try. He would like to offer new ideas, he wants to think out of the box, to see how we can resolve the issues. Basically, he prefers discussions before we move them to third party. I listened to him. I told him that I'm agreeable to his approach if he can come up with something that we can consider. So that's the agreement that we have. Let's try and discuss and see how we can resolve the issues and then, if we can't resolve them, both of us will be alert to the danger of tying ourselves in knots again. So, if we can't resolve the issues, we will recognise (it) and then, of course, we will in that point of time refer them to third parties." Mr Speaker, Sir, in other words, it is Singapore's preference that these issues are referred to third party settlement so that we can move forward with our bilateral relations without being saddled by them. However, since PM Abdullah wanted to attempt another effort at talks, PM Goh agreed. The understanding therefore is that PM Abdullah will revert to PM Goh, at a future date, with specific proposals for PM Goh to consider.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the visit by the Prime Minister of Malaysia Abdullah Badawi on 12th January 2004 was his introductory visit, in keeping with the ASEAN tradition of such introductory visits. PM Abdullah, of course, needs no formal introduction as PM Goh and many other Singapore Ministers have known him for many years. Being an introductory visit, it was not expected that both sides would have substantive discussions to resolve any outstanding issues. However, PM Goh and PM Abdullah did use the opportunity to have frank and friendly exchange of views on the state of bilateral relations. They resolved to put bilateral ties back on the right track. They agreed that good relations are important, not just for the benefit of Singapore and Malaysia, but also for ASEAN, and that both sides should explore ways to maximise the common areas in order to strengthen our cooperation. Members will recall that at our sitting on 5th January 2004, I said that there are deadlocked issues from the old era of Dr Mahathir which both sides will have to address and address them in a way that does not reopen the acrimonious paths which we have travelled previously. In the new era, we have to start a new chapter in bilateral relations without being saddled by the deadlocked issues of the old era. When they met on 12th January, the two Prime Ministers also discussed how to deal with these deadlocked issues. I can do no better than recall what PM Goh said at their joint press conference: "I told him frankly how I saw we could move our relations forward.”
“We have not received any reply and I assume that they must be studying the matter. The only other development is that on 27th October last year, PUB received two notices from the Federal Lands Commissioner of Malaysia and three letters on 16th October 2003 from the Johore State Secretary informing PUB that the government of Malaysia intended to make alterations and improvements to the Malaysian side of the Causeway and the permanent way connecting the mainland of Johore to the Causeway and they proposed a diversion of the PUB pipelines. It was not clear if the proposed pipeline diversions related to Malaysia's half-bridge plans. Neither was it mentioned if the diversions were necessitated by the construction of the Johore CIQ. Therefore, we sent another TPN to the Malaysian government on 17th November 2003 referring to these letters and notices. Singapore reminded Malaysia of our previous TPN of 25th October and added that Malaysia had yet to respond to our concerns. It added that it was not clear from the letters and notices from the Johore State Secretary and Federal Lands Commissioner whether the so-called alterations and improvements were connected with the proposed half-bridge. We requested that Malaysia ensure that officials and contractors connected with the project did not take any action inconsistent with the rights and interests of Singapore under international law.”
“Sir, I prefer not to speculate on what issues Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister Badawi will raise during their meeting on 12th January. We will of course be willing to discuss issues that Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi may wish to raise and listen to any proposal that he may have. I think the broader point is that Singapore wants good relations with Malaysia and I am certain that both Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi will discuss issues in the same positive and forward-looking manner as in the first meeting in Tokyo. I believe both sides can continue to look for ways to cooperate for mutual benefit. I should say that I noted that Foreign Minister Syed Hamid is reported to have told the media yesterday that, "It is up to the leaders to discuss what they deem appropriate during the meeting and they are free to talk about anything and everything." He added, "Our relations with Singapore are not just about solving such issues. We have other common interests ranging from economic to the social well-being of people in both countries." Let me say that I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Foreign Minister Syed Hamid.”
“After Prime Minister Mahathir withdrew his offer of future water supplies after 2061, Singapore has committed itself at considerable costs to building two new reservoirs, and expanding its facilities for producing NEWater and installing desalination plants. We believe that relations with Malaysia will be less fraught with potential conflicts if Singapore produces as much water as it can to supplement the existing Water Agreements. Since Mdm Ho also asked about our response to the bilateral relationship with Malaysia, let me say that our relations with Malaysia are multifaceted and go beyond any single bilateral subject, whether bridge or other difficult issues that arose under Prime Minister Mahathir. We share extensive historic, economic, trade and people-to-people links. Both sides need to build on these links, and as you would have read about their meeting in Tokyo, both Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister Badawi have stressed the importance of keeping bilateral relations good. We look forward to Prime Minister Badawi's visit to Singapore on 12th January 2004. We will welcome his ideas and approach on how we can put the past behind us and move the bilateral relationship forward.”
“In the TPN we expressed concern about the potential environmental impacts and also about the other impacts arising from the opening of the Causeway. We requested Malaysia to provide Singapore with copies of relevant studies and reports relating to the potential marine and other impacts arising from the opening of the Malaysian side of the Causeway. We assured Malaysia that we will examine these reports and studies with all deliberate speed and we proposed that a meeting of senior officials be convened as soon as possible to discuss these studies and reports and to address the question of how the opening of the Causeway would impact the marine environment in and around the Straits. If I may turn to Mdm Ho Geok Choo's Question. I believe she is referring to reports in the Malaysian media calling for a rethink of the half-bridge. I should remind the House that when Singapore reluctantly agreed to the demolition of the Causeway and to build our part of a full bridge, it was as part of a package deal covering several issues. The one important part of that package was the continued supply of water from Johore for another 100 years from 2061. But Malaysia called off the package in October 2002. The building of our part of a full bridge, along with related CIQ revisions, would cost us over S$500 million. It would also sterilise the use of land under the bridge. From Singapore's point of view, the bridge was not cost effective compared to the Causeway. It did not make sense for Singapore to agree to a full bridge and build our part of it at such considerable costs. We agreed to it only because of Prime Minister Mahathir's offer to supply water at 60 sen per 1,000 gallons beyond 2061.”
“Thank you. In reply to Mr Ravindran's Question, to date, we have not had any request for consultations on this proposal nor has our concurrence been sought. On 25th October 2003, that is more than two months ago, we sent a Third Party Note (TPN) to Malaysia on this subject. In that TPN Singapore reminded Malaysia that its unilateral decision to demolish its side of the Causeway in order to construct a half-bridge must comply with the principles enunciated in the ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) Order [of 8 October 2003 on Malaysia's application for provisional measures concerning Singapore's reclamation works], and in addition, be fully consistent with the requirements of international law governing this matter. Singapore decided to send this TPN because the Deputy Foreign Minister of Malaysia Datuk Leo Toyad was reported to have said in the Dewan Rakyat on 30th September 2003: "I would also like to inform the honourable MPs that construction of the bridge does not need neither (sic) approval, agreement nor involvement of Singapore because it is being built on the Malaysian side of the border." Our TPN pointed out that international facilities such as the Causeway cannot be lawfully demolished without the approval, agreement and involvement of both States. We pointed out that in its Order, ITLOS had enunciated several points that were relevant to this issue. In particular, ITLOS said, "Malaysia and Singapore share the same marine environment in and around the Straits of Johore". The Tribunal also stated that "the duty to cooperate is a fundamental principle in the prevention of pollution of the marine environment".”
“CREDIT CARD COMPANIES AND CONSUMER CREDIT LAWS 9. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the rising number of bankruptcies, whether (a) there are adequate checks on credit card companies, especially those which have expanded their customer base to families with lower incomes; and (b) there is a need for the consumer credit laws to be reviewed to make sure that borrowers are given clear information on the penalties for late payments on loans and on how interest is charged.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are no realistic options other than diplomacy, quiet or otherwise. The reality is that, like it or not, the understanding and cooperation of the Myanmar authorities is essential for change in Myanmar. Public condemnation is likely to be counter-productive and, given the limited integration of Myanmar into the world economy, the effect of sanctions will be only limited. They will only push Myanmar into further isolation. Singapore has made it clear that we do not believe that the current situation in Myanmar serves Myanmar's interests or the interests of the region as a whole. We have, when we judged it appropriate, made our views known publicly. For example, on 1st October 2003, we told the press clearly that all restrictions on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should be lifted so as to allow the national reconciliation process to proceed. We are also party to the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Statement of June 2003. We have also spoken to the Myanmar authorities in private on many occasions. Most recently, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong met Prime Minister Khin Nyunt on 6th October 2003. While it would not be useful to reveal the details of such private exchanges, let me say that we have made known our concerns. The Myanmar authorities understand that Singapore has no ulterior motives and that we act in good faith. But, in the final analysis, they have to make their own decisions based on their own assessments of what is in their country's interests. The situation in Myanmar is very complicated. Other countries may have their own views and their own way of approaching the issue. They may also have their own motives. Singapore must be guided by our own national interests. Singapore will continue to do whatever we can in our own way.”
“Mr A Nithiah Nandan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether he will consider granting Economic Restructuring Shares (ERS) to those who have reached 21 years old between 1st and 31st December 2002, as this group of Singaporeans has been excluded due to the cut-off date being set at 30th November 2002.”
“On the water issue, Prime Minister Mahathir himself has publicly advocated the arbitration approach. In August 2002, Malaysia also took initial steps towards arbitration by serving formal notice to review the price of raw water. Singapore reserved our position on Malaysia's right to review. But we have stated that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration in accordance with the provisions in the Water Agreements. Sir, our proposal for resolving this matter is also consistent with what Malaysia has stated publicly. The Prime Minister of Malaysia was reported in the New Straits Times on 8th September 2003 to have said: "...if we can no longer negotiate, then we should have arbitration. That should be the way. If we want to settle the matter, then we need a third party." He repeated this stance in his 2004 Budget Speech on 12th September 2003, and I quote: "When two parties are unable to resolve a dispute through negotiations, then there is a need for a third party to arbitrate. We are willing to seek arbitration." Sir, we share this view that where negotiations fail to resolve an outstanding issue, we should refer it to a third party adjudication or arbitration, especially where it turns on a legal issue. Hence, our proposal that this approach be adopted for the POA issue as well. Rather than allow it to trouble the relationship, it would be in the interests of both Malaysia and Singapore to seek an amicable resolution of the issue through international arbitration or adjudication. It would also be consistent with our approach on certain other bilateral disputes. More importantly, it would allow both countries to move ahead in bilateral issues and focus on our many areas of mutual cooperation and interest. Column No : 3120 ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING SHARES 3.”
“However, after signing this government-to-government Agreement, the Malaysians wanted variations of the POA to include additional parcels of land. We were prepared to consider their proposals as part of the package of issues. However, now that Malaysia has discontinued the package approach, the basis to consider Malaysia's request for variations of the terms of the POA no longer exists. Sir, Malaysia also took the position that the POA becomes operative only when Malaysia decides to move its station from Tanjong Pagar. In an exchange of letters in 1997 between myself and then Malaysian Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi, Singapore clearly spelt out our position on the law, which was that the POA became operative on the day it was signed, ie, 27th November 1990. Moreover, we pointed out that Malaysia had in fact taken steps to implement the POA. However, Malaysia reiterated its stand and its interpretation that the POA would become operative only when Malaysia decided to move the KTM railway station from Tanjong Pagar. Therefore, Sir, the dispute centres on the legal interpretation of when the POA becomes operative. The Singapore Government's position is that this issue can easily and amicably be resolved by international adjudication at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or through international arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). We have sent a Third Person Note to Malaysia on 26th September 2003 proposing that we adopt this approach on the POA issue. We are awaiting Malaysia's reply. Members are aware that several outstanding bilateral issues like Pedra Branca and reclamation have already been referred to the process of international arbitration or to the ICJ.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Prime Minister Goh and myself have informed the House on 5th June 1997 as well as on several subsequent occasions on the full background and details concerning the Points of Agreement (POA) concluded between Malaysia and Singapore on 27th November 1990. If I may recapitulate briefly, the POA is a government-to-government agreement between Malaysia and Singapore concerning railway lands in Singapore. It was signed on 27th November 1990 between then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew on behalf of Singapore and then Minister of Finance Tun Daim Zainuddin on behalf of Malaysia. Under the POA, the KTM railway station would be vacated and moved from Tanjong Pagar to Bukit Timah in the first instance. The land at Tanjong Pagar would be vested in a limited company for joint development (60% for Malaysia and 40% for Singapore). All railway lands south of Bukit Timah other than Tanjong Pagar would revert to Singapore. When the MRT station reached Woodlands New Town, which took place on 10th February 1996, KTM may, within five years, move its station from Bukit Timah to a site in Woodlands adjacent or close to the Woodlands MRT station. In that event, two additional pieces of land in Kranji and Woodlands would be vested in the limited company, also for joint development. All other railway lands south of Woodlands, other than the Tanjong Pagar, Woodlands and Kranji sites, would revert to Singapore. The POA was explicit that there will be no other compensation for Malaysian railway land outside of the three big pieces at Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and Woodlands. As Members know, Malaysia has not implemented this relocation of the railway station from Tanjong Pagar as stipulated under the POA. We have tried to work with Malaysia to implement the POA.”
“Dr Ong Chit Chung asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the status of the Points of Agreement (POA), which was concluded between the Governments of Singapore and Malaysia in 1990, now that the package negotiations have been discontinued by Malaysia.”
“Sir, I think everybody knows what ITLOS decided, and if there is any doubt, one should read the judgment. And as we have stated clearly, the judgment or the order makes several prescriptions. But the most important thing to remember is that the thrust of Malaysia's action was to obtain an order to stop reclamation works by Singapore, and ITLOS did not agree to this. Instead, the order boils down to prescription of measures which I would describe as cooperation and consultation. In short, ITLOS had asked both sides to return to the negotiating table. That is how I would describe it. If I may say, I think we should now get away from this "I won, you lost" or "You lost, I won" game. The fact is that ITLOS has given an order. Its terms are clear. Each side can give its interpretation but, at the end of the day, there are certain things to be done. What is important now is for both sides to move on. By moving on, I mean get down to the business of sitting down and discussing the implementation of ITLOS' orders and the requirements for consultations and discussions. The next phase really has two parts. One is the setting up of the group of independent experts for conducting the study. At the same time, the next phase also involves the work of the arbitral tribunal which has been constituted to hear the merits of the case. So there is much work to be done by both sides. And I believe and hope that both sides will sit down and get on with it in good faith. Column No : 3116 POINTS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTS OF SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA (Status) 2.”
“We look forward to working with Malaysia to implement ITLOS' decision and orders in good faith. Both sides must now work together to sort out the details and ensure that the group of independent experts is quickly appointed so that it can get down to its job of conducting the joint study. Sir, in this regard, our agent for Singapore, Ambassador Tommy Koh, has written to the Agent of Malaysia, Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi, on 13th October 2003 to set the process in motion. The Malaysians have replied agreeing to have this meeting in Kuala Lumpur, and both sides are now sorting out mutually convenient dates for this meeting to be held soon. Before concluding, let me say that the provisional measures hearing at ITLOS is only the first phase in the arbitration process. The next phase will see the proceedings move to what is known as the Annex VII tribunal, which was constituted as of 9th October 2003. Our team which has ably looked after Singapore's interests is fully geared up for this phase. Meanwhile, as I said, the two parties will consult on the next steps that need to be done with regard to moving this phase forward. And as I said, we expect this to be done soon.”
“But Malaysia rejected these offers and decided to take us to ITLOS. Sir, the Tribunal also dealt with developments in Area D, ie, Pulau Tekong. The Tribunal has asked both countries to consult with a view to reaching agreement on temporary measures, if any, to ensure that the infilling operations do not prejudice the commitment made by Singapore pending the completion of the joint study. This commitment is that "no irreversible action would be taken by Singapore to construct the stone revetment around Area D pending the completion of the joint study, which should be completed within a year". When the Minister for National Development and I met the media on 9th October 2003, Minister Mah Bow Tan had given a detailed account of the significance of Area D, which was fully reported in the media. To summarise, it is the area south of Pulau Tekong that is currently used as an "Offshore Containment Site". It is used for the deposit of soft soil and marine clay that is dug up during the course of our reclamation works, as well as from other construction activities on the Singapore mainland. To keep the deposited materials within the site, Area D is presently enclosed within a barrier of metal sheet piles. Eventually, a stone revetment wall will replace the sheet piles. The stone revetment wall is scheduled for completion around 2008. As Minister for National Development has told the media, ITLOS has allowed Singapore to continue with its reclamation works. We intend to do so with care and due diligence, in accordance with our assurances and commitments to ITLOS. Singapore will abide by ITLOS' decision. We welcome the statements by Malaysia's leaders that Malaysia would also abide by the Tribunal's decision.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Arthur Fong asked about the latest developments. The latest development, of course, is the Order of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on Malaysia's request for provisional measures against Singapore. Let me just highlight the following points. The main request by Malaysia was to get ITLOS to compel Singapore to suspend its reclamation works. This was not granted. We can continue with our reclamation works. ITLOS also found no basis whatsoever for Malaysia's request for provisional measures on their territorial claim to "Point 20" in Tuas. What ITLOS prescribed was for both parties to cooperate and consult on various measures. These include establishing a group of independent experts to conduct a study to determine the effects of Singapore's land reclamation and to propose measures to deal with adverse effects, if any. Both sides are also to exchange information, consult with each other and implement the various commitments given. Sir, we have welcomed ITLOS' decision. Indeed, this has been the very approach which Singapore had stressed and which we had taken in our negotiations with Malaysia. The orders given by ITLOS to consult, exchange information and to do a joint study are all assurances that Singapore had freely given to Malaysia. These assurances were given well before the case went to ITLOS. After the talks we had with Malaysia in August 2003, Singapore had conveyed its agreement for the joint study. Before that, we had also informed Malaysia that we were prepared to consult, exchange information and give Malaysia a full opportunity to comment on our reclamation works. We gave these assurances and commitments, despite Malaysia's ultimatum of 4th July 2003. We had wanted to resolve this issue through negotiations.”
“Within this framework, most Government agencies are able to set up alternate Saturday-off arrangements, while offering longer operation hours to service the public. Adopting a 5-day work week for the civil service now will send the wrong signal. Private sector companies are facing immediate difficulties, arising from SARS and the economic downturn. They need to tide over this difficult period, and also implement urgent wage reforms. Going on 5-day week should not be a top priority for them or the civil service. As I have said, many MNCs, and their production lines, are working 24-7. It is important that our working hours be in tune with the needs of the global economy, and not be bound by rigid rules on working hours. SUBTITLING ON TV 20. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts since the question on signing and captioning of key programmes for the hearing impaired was posed last year and the then Acting Minister had replied that Singapore Broadcasting Authority would explore with broadcasters the possibility of providing the hearing impaired with subtitling of major Government speeches, how many programmes have been so subtitled and if more will be done.”
“Singapore is concerned about the recent developments in Myanmar. The 30th May events were a setback not just for Myanmar but for ASEAN as well. We conveyed our concerns to the Myanmar government shortly after Aung San Suu Kyi was taken into "protective custody". On that occasion, we also urged the Myanmar government to cooperate with the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General and, in particular, to grant him access to Aung San Suu Kyi. Subsequently, when the ASEAN Foreign Ministers met at the recent Retreat in Phnom Penh, we joined the other ASEAN Foreign Ministers in expressing concerns about the safety of Aung San Suu Kyi and in calling for the early lifting of restrictions on her movement. We also urged the Myanmars to stay on the course on national reconciliation and dialogue with all the parties involved, including Aung San Suu Kyi and her party. FIVE-DAY WORK WEEK 19. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he will clarify (i) his rejection in the media of having a 5-day work week for civil servants; and (ii) how will individual civil servants scheduled to work any five days a week affect the functioning of the civil service on weekends. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: The Government will study the recommendations of the Remaking Singapore Committee, including the proposal for a 5-day week, before deciding which recommendations to accept. But from the Public Service Division's perspective, Government ministries are given some flexibility in deciding on their working hours, so long as the work week remains at 42 hours, and ministries continue to be open for business at least five and a half days a week.”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development, (a) whether the privatisation process for the HUDC condominium at Bedok Reservoir (now called Waterfront) was carried out in accordance with the Land Titles (Strata) Act; (b) what course of action is open to the residents of Waterfront who are unhappy about the privatisation; (c) what was the role of the pro-tem committee and whether its members carried out their work properly; and (d) whether there were $20 million worth of defects which the Housing and Development Board did not make good on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore supports the United Nations' humanitarian relief effort along with the work carried out by the International Committee of the Red Cross. On 23rd March 2003, the Singapore Red Cross Society launched a national appeal for humanitarian aid to Iraq. The Singapore Government made a contribution of S$442,000 to kick-start this national humanitarian effort. I understand that, so far, the national appeal has raised more than S$770,000. More than S$200,000 has already been pledged to the International Committee of the Red Cross to purchase basic necessities such as food parcels and wheat flour. The Singapore Government will also be contributing a medical team of 13 personnel for a three-monthly rotation, as well as material contributions such as tents, blankets and cots. The expenses of such additional contributions total S$3 million. We believe that the people of Iraq deserve the full support of the UN and international community as they rebuild their lives and their country. Singapore will do what it can in the international effort to help Iraq rebuild and return to normal. This will pave the way for its eventual reintegration into the global community. HUDC CONDOMINIUM AT BEDOK RESERVOIR (Privatisation process) 3.”
“Well, in a sense, it is surprising. And I do not know why that is so. I am also as puzzled as the Member is as to why Malaysia is taking so long to ratify the Special Agreement. Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar and I agreed, when we signed the Special Agreement in Putra Jaya on 6th February 2003, that ratification of the Special Agreement would be done expeditiously by both sides so that the ICJ process can begin. More than eight weeks have passed since the hosting of the Non-Aligned Summit, and Dr Ong is right that Malaysia has criticised Singapore for delaying the signing of the Special Agreement. Now that we have signed the Special Agreement, we should get on with the next step without unreasonable delay. I hope that the Malaysian government would be able to, as it had promised, propose dates for the exchange of Instruments soon. As I have said, we have reminded them recently on 11th April. REBUILDING OF IRAQ (Government's contribution) 2. Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the Government's contribution to international humanitarian and other efforts at rebuilding Iraq.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after the signing of the Special Agreement on 6th February 2003, the next step is for the two Governments to ratify the Special Agreement and exchange the Instruments of Ratification. Only after this is done can both Governments jointly refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice. On 17th February, we informed Malaysia that Singapore Government has ratified the Special Agreement and we proposed that both Governments exchange the Instruments of Ratification on 24th February 2003 when both Foreign Ministers would be in Kuala Lumpur for the Non-Aligned Meeting. The Malaysian Government replied on 19th February stating that because of heavy commitments that month arising from their hosting of the NAM Summit in KL, it was unable to do so on that date but would propose a new date for the exchange of Instruments of Ratification in due course. That is where things stand and we have, on 11th April, reminded them again to propose dates for this formality of exchange of Instruments of Ratification.”
“The change of government in 1998 has ushered in a new Indonesia and a far more complicated political equation and dynamics. Here Dr Ong Chit Chung had mentioned about the role of religion and Islamic groups. It is part of the equation. There are now more power centres which have influence over overall Indonesian policies. This change has made the conduct of our bilateral relations more complex and the challenge for us is to find ways and means to manage the relationship and to maintain the good relations we currently enjoy. I wish to assure Dr Ong and other Members that the points they have made are uppermost in our minds as we seek to maintain good relations with an Indonesia that is changing and will continue to change in the years ahead.”
“As I said earlier, our Prime Minister was the first foreign leader to visit Jakarta after the Bali bombings. This was to demonstrate our confidence in Indonesia. I fully agree with Members who have spoken that relations between Singapore and Indonesia should be broadened. In other words, it should not be just Government-to-Government at the top level. That has never been our approach. Various Ministers have visited Indonesia and vice-versa. And we are also broadening contacts with people in other sectors. Whenever we go to Indonesia, for example, we meet a cross-section of influential people, whether they are journalists or think-tank people. At the last occasion, we have met with a cross-section of leaders in the Muslim organisations. We also have contacts between officials at the MFA-DEPLU Exchange, which is an annual event. When the Prime Minister went to Indonesia, he proposed the Indonesia-Singapore Civil Service Exchange Programme (CSEP). I think that will further enhance another dimension of our cooperation. I agree with Dr Warren Lee and others who have stressed that we must have people-to-people level relations. And in this regard, when Dr Warren Lee asked how we can involve ordinary Singaporeans, I should say that they may want to contact organisations like the Singapore International Foundation (SIF). They have despatched volunteer specialists to Indonesia on many community projects, including the training of doctors in hospitals in various parts of Indonesia. Singaporeans can get involved in such projects. I agree with Dr Ong Chit Chung and Ms Irene Ng. Ms Irene Ng had noted that the Indonesian society has become increasingly complex. It is really going through a difficult transitional period.”
“Let me say that on 17th February 2003, we informed Malaysia that the Singapore Government has ratified the Special Agreement and that we are ready to exchange instruments of ratification at a mutually convenient date. We are awaiting a notification from Malaysia on when they are ready to exchange instruments of ratification. I am sure this will be done very soon. And when that is done, that will be one more step in the process. I cannot give an exact date. After ratification, both sides could have a joint letter to the Court (ICJ), and then the Court will get seized with the matter. Then there are certain timeframes for filing memorials, replies, rejoinders, and so on. And as to when the Court will actually hand down its decision, this depends on the workload before the Court. But I must say that I do not see a decision being handed down earlier than two-and-a-half to three years' time. So to sum up, I hope Members will understand when I do not go into great detail but just confine myself to saying that we seek a cooperative relationship with Malaysia based on mutual benefit and mutual respect. If we can put our disagreements aside, and manage them in accordance with internationally recognised conventions on dispute settlements, I think we can move forward for mutual benefit. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked what is the latest state of affairs on negotiations. There are no negotiations at the moment for the reasons that I have explained in my 25th January statement. On Indonesia, I thank the Members who have spoken. Let me say that we have good relations with the Indonesia leadership. There have been many exchanges between both the countries. Prime Minister Goh visited in December 2002 and met with President Megawati and other Indonesian leaders and influential policy-makers.”
“But I believe that the relationship with Malaysia and Singapore will not deteriorate to the extent that it will involve us in any kind of conflict". In a similar vein on 7th March 2003, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar was quoted in Dubai as saying, "Both countries value peace and stability and that is why we have agreed to refer the issue (he was referring to Pedra Branca) to the ICJ. The dispute should not interfere with the long-term relations between Malaysia and Singapore." I welcome these sentiments. Differences no doubt remain in the bilateral relationship, but so do our inter-linkages and the tremendous potential for bilateral cooperation. I think it is a sound approach to try to get beyond our disagreements and to focus on long-term relations. I think that we are already doing that to some extent. Both countries cooperate in the various international foras. In the domestic security field, there is close cooperation between both sides, both police forces. In defence, there are bilateral exchanges and common exercises. Our two economies are closely intertwined. Malaysia was Singapore's top trading partner in 2002, while Singapore has always been among Malaysia's top trading partners. There are also strong ties between the people of our two countries. Not just political and official contacts, but cultural, business and social ones. These contacts are important as they nurture familiarity and mutual understanding. I believe this helps to preserve positive elements in bilateral ties by fostering institutional and personal links between the two countries. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked specific questions as to the state of the ratification process of the Special Agreement that was signed on 6th February.”
“Madam, first on Malaysia-Singapore relations. I would like to thank the Members who have spoken. I do not intend to go into a great explanation of our relations because only on 25th January, I gave a comprehensive statement of bilateral relations. This sets out the facts of the various issues, the published documents, and also set out the steps forward. So may I just confine myself in responding through general remarks. I agree with Dr Ong Chit Chung when he said that Malaysia-Singapore relations are like a yo-yo. They go up and down. I think differences are bound to emerge between close neighbours. But while that may be so, the fact remains that our countries are closely intertwined. The areas of our common interests have always been greater than that of our disagreements. It is for that reason that I believe that Malaysia and Singapore should not allow specific disagreements to affect the overall tenor of bilateral relations. We should try to address disagreements in a calm and mature way, using negotiations where possible, and if it is not possible through negotiations, and if negotiations have been exhausted, then we should have recourse to the legal process. And we should continue to cooperate in the areas which lend themselves to cooperation. In this vein, I want to draw attention of Members to the recent comments by Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar. Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi was quoted to say on 3rd March that there was "an inextricable relationship between Malaysia and Singapore. There will be differences of opinion on many things. There will perhaps be periods of tension because we do not see things from the same perspective.”
“As I have said, while we can split fine legal hairs, the key policy dilemma, the key law and order dilemma for the world and for us is, if war breaks out, who has been responsible for it? In our view, it is because of the failure of Iraq to disarm promptly and effectively.”
“Madam, if the Member is interested, I could send him a copy of Resolution 1441. But, as I said, it is not just Resolution 1441. We have to view the whole series of resolutions. And that is why, to view matters in context, the debate clearly ought not to be viewed as a "second" UN resolution but as what the UN resolutions had authorised over a period of time. And as I said, Resolution 1441 has made it very clear, it has found unanimously, the Security Council has found that Iraq has been in material breach of obligations. "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions. " Now, we can have a very fine debate on international law, UN Charter. Somebody mentioned Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General. Singapore and I have great respect for him. But I think these issues will be debated for a very long time and the key point I want to emphasise is that, while this debate goes on, the issue is: if there is a paralysis in the decision-making of the UN Security Council, its international order, other interests of peace-loving countries who are concerned with WMD terrorists, are these served by inaction as a result of a paralysis, or they are served by ensuring that Iraq disarms? That is the dilemma. So, we can have this fine international debate, I would have to meet with the international lawyers in the Attorney-General's Chambers ...it can go on. This debate has already begun. You have read both sides of it but I would say that an argument has also been made - a very strong argument has also been made - that the legal basis for any military action may be drawn from the framework of all the UN Security Council's resolutions.”
“We have encouraged all interested parties, including United States, South Korea and Japan, China, Russia and North Korea to continue their dialogue in order to restore stability in the Korean Peninsula.”
“Records published and circulated by the Palestinian Authority show that Singapore has voted in support of all the key 17 United Nations resolutions on the Palestinian issue. On this issue also, we are not pro or anti any side; we have maintained a principled stand; we have maintained a constructive stand. We have said that the countries in the region must recognise the right of Israel to exist within secure borders, and that we have also said that we must also recognise the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland of their own. And finally, a quick response on North Korea. I said "quick" because our position on WMD, the risk of proliferation and the linkage with terrorism, also shaped our position on North Korea. And we are concerned also for what it portends for the stability of North East Asia and for Asia. Therefore, we expressed our concerns on North Korea's decision to reactivate its nuclear programme, to cease cooperation with the IAEA and to withdraw from NPT. We have said publicly that North Korea's decision has grave repercussions on the Korean Peninsula and for the international non-proliferation regime. We have issued statements to express our concerns. We have urged North Korea to reconsider its decision. It is a retrograde steps that undermines KEDO (Korean Peninsula Development Organisation) and raises tensions on the Korean Peninsula, which complicates the Asia Pacific's security situation as a whole. North Korea's recent missile tests have further aggravated the situation. 5.00 pm So, it is not in the interest of Singapore and other countries to see tensions on the Korean Peninsula. If the current tensions escalate further, it could destabilise the strategic balance in the Asia-Pacific region, and possibly trigger a regional arms race.”
“There have been many other instances over the years where our positions have differed from the United States, and where we could not go along with their requests. Let me just give one example and this might also answer Dr Maliki's question on whether I can give examples where our positions are based on principles, how we are viewed and so on. And the example I will take is the Palestinian issue which was, and is, still a very, very heated and sensitive issue in the United Nations. On the Palestinian issue, we have supported action and decisions that could advance the prospects for peace, and we have tried to play a moderating role wherever possible. In March 2001, the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would call for an international observer force to be sent to help restore peace in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. However, although the United States was opposed to this and urged us not to support it, Singapore co-sponsored and voted for that draft resolution, because we felt that the proposal to send an impartial and neutral international presence had merits and had wide support in the UN as one way to stabilise the situation in the occupied territories. And in the first half of 2002 when we were in the Security Council, we were also closely involved in several initiatives to get Israel to comply with Security Council resolutions and we supported calls for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from West Bank towns, including Ramallah. In fact, our voting records in the UN on the Palestinian issue are very different from the United States.”
“If Iraq gets away without disarming, it will send a very bad signal to extremist groups across the world. The fact that the Security Council cannot reach consensus on a second resolution cannot be taken as an excuse for inaction. At the end of the day, our key consideration must be our national interest. The UN can only operate within a stable international environment and it is that stable environment that Iraq's WMD threatens. Hence, it is in our fundamental national interest to see Iraq disarmed. This is necessary to send the right signal to extremists and other states like North Korea that are trying to develop WMD, as well as to signal to non-state players, like terrorists and extremist groups whose threat to the world will be enhanced if they get their hands on WMD. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked whether our stand on Iraq makes us too pro-United States. Some Members told me this point has also arisen in their dialogue sessions with their constituents. Perhaps I should address this issue. We are not pro-US; we are not anti-any country. What then are we? We are being pro-Singapore. By that I mean that when we take positions, we do so to advance Singapore's national interests. Yes, we strongly advocated United States' continued presence and engagement in this region. Yes, we have excellent bilateral relations with the United States. But that does not mean that we are subservient to the United States or that we agree with everything that the United States does, or says, or requests, without regard to our own national interests. Those older colleagues of mine in this House need not be reminded in this regard of the Michael Fay incident, where on a matter concerning law and order, we stood for our right to enforce our laws despite immense pressure from the US.”
“The Security Council members, according to the latest e-mail I received from our Ambassador, are still intensely deliberating over the issue. However, what I would like to say here in response to Mr Sin Boon Ann is that even if there is no second resolution, it does not automatically follow that action against Iraq is taken outside international law or United Nations Security Council authorisation. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 has clearly pronounced that Iraq has been in material breach of Security Council resolutions for more than 12 years; from UNSC Resolution 678 of 1990 right up to Resolution 1441 last year. Singapore has said so at the UN. The effects of the war? Of course, any war in Iraq, with or without a second UNSC Resolution, will have a negative impact on the world and in our region. It will result in loss of lives; it will result in destruction of properties; it will affect investment sentiments, may push up oil prices; and will leave a deep scar surely on those directly involved in the war for a long time. And I think it will also be exploited by extremists and terrorists for their own purposes. We must have no illusions on the effects of such a war. To sum up, Singapore has taken a consistent position on Iraq since Resolution 678 in 1990 and Resolution 687 in 1991. Our understanding of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted by consensus when we were in the Security Council, was that it found Iraq in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions. It was intended as a final chance for Iraq and would have serious consequences if Iraq did not comply. Iraq's possession of illegal WMD is, post 9/11, an unacceptable threat.”
“" and decided "to give a final opportunity" to Iraq to comply and Iraq was warned that "it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations". As I mentioned just now, we have to take a strong stand on the threat posed by WMD, particularly after 9/11 because the danger of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists, terrorist organisations or extremist groups, as I said, is not a hypothetical risk. In fact, as Members who have read on this subject know, Saddam Hussein actually used biological and chemical weapons against his own people and the people of Iran. The current intense diplomatic efforts show that the Iraq issue is a very complex one which necessitates the balancing of several different considerations and, unfortunately, not all of them fit neatly together. The United States is facing a difficult time in the Security Council. There have been global anti-war protests. No one in this Chamber or outside this Chamber likes war. But let us be clear about the facts and the equities of the case. And if you look at the facts of the case, it is very clear to us that it is Iraq, not the US and not the UN, not the international community, which is in the dock. The onus is on Iraq and if the consequences ensue where there is a use of force, it must be because of Iraq's failure to comply. Like many other countries, Singapore also favours that there be a second United Nations Security Council resolution. And we have called for a UN resolution; we have advocated the Council's unity, a point made by Mr Othman Haron. I do not want to speculate on the likelihood of a second resolution being passed. As somebody mentioned just now, things are changing day by day, hour to hour and your guess is as good as mine.”
“In fact, our position dates back many years to the Gulf War, when we joined the international community then in condemning Iraq's aggression against Kuwait as totally unacceptable under international law and the United Nations Charter. To put matters in context, the current crisis actually stems from some important outstanding issues since the end of the Gulf War. And I think it is important to put matters in context, because we often get the wrong picture when there is talk about a "second" Resolution of the Security Council. In fact this resolution would have been the 18th of the Security Council on Iraq's non-compliance, and the most critical of these outstanding issues is the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That critical aspect was central to the post-Gulf War ceasefire settlement reached between the coalition forces and Iraq, and is set out in UNSC Resolution 687 of April 1991. In other words, to put matters in context, we have to go back to 1991. In the Security Council last year (October 2002), when we were a Member of the Security Council, we made a statement and we said: "Regrettably, Iraq has not complied with many of the terms of Resolution 687, even though eleven and half years have passed." In other words, it is not just Resolution 1441 that we are talking about. Iraq has had a deplorable record of complying with UNSC Resolutions. Next, I want to say that the United Nations Security Council unanimously decided last year in November 2002 on Resolution 1441 that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including Resolution 687 (1991).”
“But we will assess each situation carefully in the light of our own interest, make our decisions based on the facts and our calculations of the long-term national interest and good of Singapore. We will not hesitate to state our own views, even if it means disagreeing with other countries, whether they are a major power or not. And indeed, we have had occasions to do so. But it is in Singapore's overall interest to maintain the best possible relations we can, not just with the US, but with all the major powers. Members, I hope, will trust that the Government will always adopt a foreign policy based on the fundamental principles which I had just elaborated. We have earned a reputation internationally as a principled and fair country. That reputation was reaffirmed during our term as a Security Council member in the last two years. Having made those comments on the strategic overview and having stated the key national interests considerations, let me now respond to Members who have asked about our position in Iraq. The essence of our position, which has been stated publicly on many occasions can be summed up as follows: First, the onus is on Iraq to disarm and it is imperative that Iraq disarms immediately and comply with all United Nations Security Council Resolutions. 4.45 pm Second, we have insisted on this because of the need for all UN members to scrupulously comply with UN Resolutions, and also because of the grave threat to international peace and security caused by the development and spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Let me stress that this is not a new position. Our position predates the present diplomatic standoff in the UN. It is a position we have consistently articulated in the United Nations.”
“And we did that, again, because it was in our national interest to do so. Thirdly, terrorism is a threat to Singapore as it is to all civilised countries. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a particular threat to a small country like Singapore where a single chemical or biological attack will have a catastrophic effect on an entire nation. A nuclear attack would also mean the physical end of Singapore. And this is not something theoretical or far-fetched - only two days ago, Mr Mohamad El Baradei said on BBC addressing a conference of the IAEA where he warned of the reports of terrorist plans to build and deploy radiological dispersion devices, and he said, given the inadequacies of source control, it is clear that additional security measures are urgently needed. So if action is not taken against Iraq or other countries who possess illegal weapons of mass destruction, what will be the implications internationally? This is a question that everyone must ask in Singapore. Supposing, after all that has been said and done, in the end, Iraq is not disarmed, what signal would this send to extremist groups across the world? After all, after 9/11, in other words, the issue of weapons of mass destruction proliferation has taken on an entirely new and even more threatening dimension. North Korea has already taken advantage of the international pre-occupation with Iraq to push forward with its own nuclear weapons programme. Singapore has expressed its deep concern over North Korea's actions and called upon it to reconsider its actions. I will come back when I answer the specific questions later on on North Korea. Let me assure Members that Singapore will not flinch from doing what is necessary to advance our national interests.”
“We have to ask this question because in the midst of these confusing and troubling times, in the midst of an international debate in which seemingly valid points are made by all sides, I think it is important, as several of the Members have pointed out, that we in Singapore understand what is Singapore's national interests. And I agree with Members, Dr Ong Chit Chung and Dr Maliki, that it is all the more important now for us not to be swayed by emotions or the fashion of the moment, but to carefully and calmly assess our national interests with a clear head. Let me set out some basic considerations. First of all, yes, of course, the world may well be better off with a more balanced structure of international power. There is no doubt about that. But, our wishing it to be so is not going to make it happen. Would we be better off if the Cold War was still on or, worse still, if the Soviet Union had emerged triumphant? I do not think so. Secondly, Singapore has for many years emphasised the importance of the United States in providing stability and that is the irreplaceable foundation for Asia-Pacific growth since the end of the Second World War. We have stated that position of ours even at the time when it was not fashionable or politically correct to do so. Why? Because it was in Singapore's fundamental national interests. A small country like Singapore can survive and prosper only when there is a stable balance of power. And the United States is an irreplaceable part of any regional or international balance. And it is not just statements that we have made to that effect but, within our limited means, we have done what we could to provide access to our facilities to enable the United States to maintain its presence in our region.”
“So are India and Europe. Post 9/11, the major powers have also rediscovered ASEAN's importance in maintaining stability in our region and that we are assuming a greater prominence in the global anti-terrorism campaign. The major powers are now engaging ASEAN, I would say, with greater enthusiasm, than I have seen a few years ago. This is a plus for Singapore; and is a plus for the region as a whole. Terrorism and these new challenges require national, regional and international responses. We have to structure our responses within the international system that is no longer bipolar. And I would say that the key geo-political effect of the post-Cold War is a pre-eminence of the United States; a pre- eminence on the scale unprecedented in history and multi-dimensional in its scope; not just military but economic, financial and technological. It is not likely that American pre-eminence can be seriously challenged by any country or combination of countries in the foreseeable future. Like it or not, it is a geo-political reality that no international issue today can be resolved without the active cooperation, or at least acquiescence, of the United States. Now the United States is at the forefront of the war against terrorism, proliferation, and security challenge presented by Iraq and North Korea. The sheer scale of United States' pre-eminence has, of course, provoked a degree of international discomfort, even among United States' close friends and allies in Europe, South Korea and Japan. That discomfort is seen now being focused on the Iraq issue. What are Singapore's national interests?”
“They have targeted the United States and its friends because the US is the chief obstacle to their designs. The war against terrorism has also been complicated by the discomfort which many Muslims - and not just Muslims - have about United States' policies in the Middle East. However, no one can be a bystander in this struggle. And terrorism will exist even if there is a solution to the Middle East problem. Pretending to ignore the problems will not buy greater safety. Post 9/11, all countries, including Singapore, have had to reassess the secu- rity priorities and strategic interests. Singapore has been compelled to do so because Iraq's decade-long flouting of UN efforts to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has assumed more threatening proportions. It now poses an unacceptable risk of proliferation. As Members will know, North Korea has taken advantage of the Iraqi crisis to push forward with its own nuclear weapons programme, creating a very dangerous situation in North Asia. Fortunately, one paradoxical aspect of 9/11 has been to stabilise major power relations in the Asia-Pacific making for a more favourable overall strategic environment. In particular, I refer to relations between China and the US which have become more stable. The US-China relationship is a key bilateral relationship in East Asia. If that relationship is stable, it has a calming effect in the entire region. But when China-US relations become roiled, the entire region becomes unsettled. Good China-US relations therefore are important for a stable strategic environment. With regard to ASEAN, which Dr Ong Chit Chung asked, I would say that another interesting post 9/11 development is that China, Japan and the United States are renewing their interests in South-east Asia.”
“The Cold War has ended. But a decade after the end of the Cold War, it has become very clear that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the dangerous nuclear confrontation between the superpowers really have not made for a more peaceful world. Yes, we no longer have the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the world's super powers. But we live now in a new era, which sees us facing many different challenges, and new threats to our physical security, economic well-being and social stability. The post-Cold War world has proved to be a messy and dangerous place. Just to name a few major developments, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War to restore Kuwaiti independence; the collapse of countries resulting in political and humanitarian crisis such as in Somalia and Haiti; genocidal violence in Rwanda; political turmoil, "ethnic cleansing" and ultimately, NATO interventions in the Balkans. The Middle East was and continues to be wrecked by endemic violence. Now, if that was the state of affairs after the end of the Cold War, post 9/11, the world has become an even messier and more dangerous place. 9/11 revealed the existence of highly organised and well-financed transnational terrorist organisations of global scope, motivated by a radical and deviant interpretation of Islam, determined to bring down secular and moderate governments. These governments were predominately Muslim countries - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Even we in Singapore were not spared as the JI arrests have shown. The struggle against terrorism is clearly not a struggle against Islam. But it is an unfortunate fact that it is complicated by the campaign of the terrorists to portray it as a war against Islam.”
“Japan is struggling to shake a decade of slow growth. But for all its problems, Japan is still the second largest economy in the world and of considerable importance to Singapore and the region. We will work closely with Tokyo to enhance our bilateral relations, as well as facilitate Japan's role in ASEAN. This year marks the 30th Anniversary of the commencement of Japan-ASEAN relations. Prime Minister Goh intends to attend a special ASEAN summit in Tokyo in December. With India, President Nathan visited India earlier this year, and Prime Minister Goh will do so in a month's time. Our traditional ties with India are strong and we are adding to them in many ways, including the possibility of negotiating a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with India. We share many common strategic interests and our economic relationship has assumed greater importance. We have also strongly supported the convening of the ASEAN-India Leaders' Summit. 4.30 pm Our ties with the European countries are also strong and healthy. The Prime Minister, the two Deputy Prime Ministers, myself and other Ministers have visited most of the European countries. As with Australia and New Zealand, we also have good relations with Australia and have just concluded an FTA with them. New Zealand is a strong and reliable friend and was our first FTA partner. That was a very truncated account of our relations with countries in the region and the major powers. What I want to stress is this: that our relations with these countries and the stability of our region and the state of health of the region do not occur in a vacuum. We must view them in the broader strategic context and global developments. Let me briefly explain the complex global environment which we are currently operating in.”
“Many new initiatives were undertaken during these visits. President Nathan's state visits to Cambodia and Vietnam also underscored our close and warm ties with those neighbours. We will continue to make efforts to improve relations with Malaysia and, at the same time, consolidate our excellent ties with others in ASEAN and the rest of the region. As regards our relations with other countries, beyond ASEAN, we have strong and healthy relations with all the major powers. With the United States, we concluded a FTA which is now before Congress. The US-Singapore FTA is not just important for economic growth, it also has importance strategically. It will add an important new dimension to our already strong economic, military and political ties with the United States. And the Prime Minister will visit Washington later this year. With China, we continue to have excellent relations, and we have frequent exchanges of visits by senior leaders on both sides. President Hu Jintao visited Singapore last year before assuming the top post. The new Chinese leadership is familiar to us. The Prime Minister intends to visit China in the course of this year. As China grows, our relationship with it, of course, will assume even greater importance, and we believe that China will become an even more significant part of the regional equation. Our strong ties with Beijing are therefore, in my view, a plus. With Japan, our relationship has been brought to a new height with the conclusion of the Japan-Singapore Economic Agreement for a New Age Partnership (JSEPA). I visited Japan last year and held very fruitful discussions with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi on matters of mutual concern. I am glad to say that Prime Minister Goh will visit Japan in a few weeks' time.”
“Madam, I thank the Members who have spoken. I shall first respond to Dr Ong Chit Chung, who gave his own views on the state of the world and the region, and he ended up by asking me for my reading of the prospects for the world and the region, and how we position ourselves. I would like to agree with him by saying that, yes, indeed there has been much bad news. I cannot recall any other period in recent history when we have to operate in such a fluid, unpredictable and turbulent environment. What I will do is to give an overview of how I see our position in the region, how Singapore is positioning itself with regard to our neighbours and the major powers and then point out how we see the overall strategic landscape in which we have to operate. Members have spoken about national interests. I will state how we see our national interests which guide our policies on many foreign policy issues, including that of Iraq. Then I will respond to the specific questions on Iraq and North Korea. Firstly, our relations with our ASEAN neighbours remain a key focus of our foreign policy. On 25th January 2003, I had already spoken at length about our relations with Malaysia. Admittedly, they are not in the best state. But both sides have brought down the temperature. Our relations with other Southeast Asian countries are excellent and strengthening. With Indonesia, our ties are deep and broad. To demonstrate Singapore's confidence in Indonesia, Prime Minister Goh visited Jakarta last December, just two months after the Bali bombings. He was the first foreign leader to do so. It was a gesture of our consistent support for President Megawati and her government. Prime Minister Goh also visited Thailand and Vietnam earlier this year.”
“In the past 18 months, in addition to dialogues with our public sector colleagues, the Ministry of Law officials have had rather in-depth consultations with more than 200 representatives of business, legal and educational communities to understand their perspective and to get their input on what Singapore needs and how best we can proceed. As a result of all these dialogues, we have identified an important gap, ie, a relatively low level of awareness amongst our inventors and entrepreneurs on what IP is and how to manage it. Therefore, we have found that we need to develop a pool of skilled IP professionals and IP-savvy businessmen in Singapore, and this is quite urgent. Our businessmen need to know what IP they own, how to protect it and how to exploit it. In order to meet this need, we have established the IP Academy in January this year. It will cater to a wide range of audiences, offering programmes for researchers, professionals and businessmen. And here, the point that Prof. Chin mentioned, that we must also establish linkages with renowned institutions in Europe and elsewhere is well taken and is a point that the IP Academy is no doubt already addressing. I would like to say that we are fully supportive of the points made by Prof. Chin and I hope that the information that I have given will make him confident that my Ministry and other agencies of the Government are proceeding energetically in this area.”
“Chin that the legislation will be ready this year. It is not one omnibus legislation that we are working on. It is a whole host of regulations, subsidiary legislation and Acts of Parliament which we will have to look into, and we will do it in an ad-hoc way, as and when the Ministries are reviewing it. Finally, the point made by Prof. Chin on intellectual property, I fully agree with him that intellectual property is critical for our economic growth. I also agree with him that in our efforts to ensure our laws and policies on intellectual property are up to speed, this is not an exercise involving just one Ministry. It cannot be so. It has to involve all the Ministries. It has to involve the private sector and statutory boards because it involves law and policy. It also involves study of the experiences of other countries. So I agree with him when he highlighted IP as an important factor to make Singapore attractive as a business and investment location. 5.15 pm He has asked how MinLaw is proceeding about this. We have taken the approach that he has advocated. We have interacted with many players who need to come into the picture - not just research scientists and engineers and other inventors but also businessmen, financiers, lawyers, judges, institutions of higher learning. In other words, we have not taken the approach that IP is just a matter for lawyers or for the legal services alone. We have to involve the business sector. Our first role is to put in place the underlying infrastructure and to ensure that there is a high level of IP awareness. For that objective, we have worked very closely with MTI, MITA and other agencies like EDB, A*STAR, SPRING, IE Singapore, IDA and so on. Now, how are we going about it?”