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 9 of 66.
“This range of sanctions can be from administrative actions which encourage compliance, to more severe administrative actions, for example, suspension or revocation of licence and, finally, to punitive civil penalties, and so on. If we have this differentiated approach of criminal and non-criminal sanctions, it will project Singapore as a pro-business regulator while upholding the integrity of our market. This is in fact the approach taken by some countries, such as the US, UK and Australia. In Singapore, there are already some items of legislation that provide for non-criminal sanctions. Prof. Chin gave an example which he can rightfully take credit. Other examples are in the more recent Telecommunications Act, and Securities and Futures Act. More can be done. But I think we should be slow to criminalise errant behaviour which carries no moral turpitude but a more regulatory nature. So, when we embark on this exercise, we will be guided by several considerations. For example, we will look at rules which have outlived their purposes. We will look at rules that may be breached without any moral turpitude on the part of the offender. Good examples are failing to obtain approval for certain kinds of actions. A classic example that my officials came across was failure to obtain approval for the type and size of a tombstone or failure to display a licence at a prominent place. I think these are classic examples where they may be offences, but we may not necessarily want to attract criminal sanctions for them. So, that is an area where we have studied, and my Ministry, together with the AG's Chambers, will work with other agencies and regulatory agencies to review the legislation in the light of that policy approach. It may take some time, but I cannot promise Prof.”
“Ho Peng Kee had informed the House that the AG's Chambers was in fact going to study and assess whether certain minor criminal offences could be reclassified as non-criminal infringements, and to consider whether we can use administrative and civil sanctions as enforcement mechanisms instead of criminal enforcement through criminal sanctions. I am happy to announce that the study has been completed and a review has been done. The conclusion is that there is merit in promoting greater use of non-criminal sanctions for some regulatory offences. But I would caution that we are proceeding step by step. I do not think he can expect that this will move in the way that some European countries have gone to decriminalise drugs, for example. Today, a large number of regulatory offences are prosecuted by Government departments and statutory boards which carry convictions. The criminal process is not the only possible approach, and I agree with Prof. Chin that to secure compliance with the regulatory requirements, there can be a whole range of administrative sanctions which can be used. But we have to consider whether it is appropriate or not in particular situations. And I think we can do so. We can have greater recourse to non-criminal sanctions without compromising our tough stand on maintaining law and order. Therefore, we need to have a differentiated approach. A differentiated approach may be warranted in some cases where a breach of the regulation does not, for example, attract the stigma and disqualifications which are associated with criminal convictions. So, we will work with regulatory agencies so as to encourage them to adopt a responsive approach using a calibrated range of sanctions.”
“As regards the champion agency, it is the EDB which has been appointed as the champion agency to drive the development of the legal services industry. I know that the EDB is committed to help SIAC, ICC and other players to promote the arbitration business in Singapore as well as to develop the infrastructure and capabilities necessary to succeed. The Ministry of Law will work closely with the EDB towards this end. Mr Chandra Mohan made the general point that the Government should facilitate and assist in greater use of ADR and not just arbitration but also mediation. As he would have heard my colleague, the Senior Minister of State for Law, earlier on when he replied on other cuts, he would know that the Ministry of Law would continue to develop community mediation centres (CMCs) even more. They have proved successful and, as they prove successful, we will improve on them and, where resources and facilities are conducive, we will consider expanding the CMCs. But, clearly, the Government is committed as a matter of policy to developing alternative dispute resolution and, under ADR, we have arbitration, both domestic and international, as well as community mediation. We will explore whether the present regime of mediation, which is now limited to certain kinds of disputes, can slowly be expanded to other areas. Next, Prof. Chin asked about decriminalising, and whether this is an area that we can go into. He will recall that last year Prof.”
“Our reputation for neutrality and impartiality, our geographic location, our easy accessibility, we have top quality judicial and legal expertise, and we have other advantages like cost and people who are conversant in the English language. Last year, we made amendments to our legal provisions to exempt from income tax income earned by foreign arbitrators for arbitration work performed in Singapore. This will enhance our attractiveness to foreign arbitrators hearing cases here. So, we should capitalise on these strengths and intensify our efforts to promote the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). In all these, the SIAC will be the key institution to champion this cause. The SIAC has made very good progress, and I am aware that the SIAC plans to achieve more. It is gearing itself to meet this challenge, and to position itself to be the key arbitration institution in the region. And I know that the SIAC is actively discussing with the business community, including the Singapore Business Federation, so as to involve the business community in a way that can enhance the linking up of legal and commercial expertise, and to better pro- mote and market Singapore's arbitration services abroad. With these moves, I think Singapore will be well positioned for future growth and expansion and build on what we have already achieved today. As far as the Ministry of Law is concerned, it will play a facilitator role to ensure that the arbitration legislation remains progressive and relevant, and encourage the building up of local arbitration expertise. We will also provide some funding for promotion and marketing of arbitration services in Singapore.”
“It is a competitive area, and we have to gear ourselves to make ourselves a centre for international arbitration. On this, there have been considerable discussions over this past year, notably in the Legal Services Working Group which was a group that reported to the Economic Review Committee, and I am glad that Ms Indranee Rajah was a member of this and made notable contributions. It was co-chaired by Mr Shanmugam and the Solicitor-General, Mr Chan Seng Onn. The Legal Services Working Group recommended that Singapore should be promoted as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services centre for the region, especially in international arbitration. It recommended a 4-pronged strategy: a) Create a Singapore brand of ADR; b) Active marketing and promotion of arbitration services; c) Government support and funding; and d) Encourage other leading ADR institutions to set up sub-centres in Singapore. I am glad to say that the Government has accepted these recommendations, and we are fully committed to work with other agencies to establish Singapore as an international arbitration centre of choice in this region. Clearly, to succeed in our endeavours, it cannot just be a Government effort or a Ministry of Law effort. A total Singapore Inc approach is needed. It needs the support of the private sector, the legal profession, the arbitral fraternity, the business community and, of course, there is a central role to be played by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). If we succeed in our efforts, Singapore will stand to reap significant economic benefits arising from a greater demand for domestic legal services, and there are tremendous indirect economic spin-offs. As Ms Indranee Rajah said, we have many advantages.”
“So, I would say that these are signs that law firms and lawyers are gearing up to meet the challenges. I am encouraged that 118 firms indicated that they are planning to merge, including four large and 13 medium-size firms, and 59 firms intended to form joint law ventures or law alliances. Several sole proprietorships indicated plans to cease practice, and lawyers who had been in conveyancing reported their intention to practise in other areas of law, such as corporate law or quit practice altogether. In moving his cut on the last item, Prof. Chin also emphasised the need for the legal profession to be savvy with IP law and IT, and I agree with him that the legal profession has to continue to improve itself by upgrading skills in these areas. I am glad that the Singapore Academy of Law and the Law Society have played an important role in this by providing continuing legal education to lawyers through various seminars, workshops and conferences. In fact, the Singapore Academy of Law has organised seminars touching on these new areas, ie, IP law, technology law, as well as biotechnology and life sciences. So, the way to go forward is for the Ministry of Law, together with the Law Society and the other key agencies like the Faculty of Law and the Academy of Law, to evaluate the findings of the census and to see what are the implications and follow-up actions needed as a result of the findings of this survey. Moving on to arbitration, I thank Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Chandra Mohan for what they have said. I fully agree with Ms Indranee Rajah on her comments about the scope for Singapore to develop into an arbitration hub. I also agree with her that there are many advantages that Singapore has which we can exploit in this regard.”
“Operating costs of large law firms are, on an average, only one-third of those small firms on a per revenue basis. Our law firms, the census showed, were aware of the benefits that can be reaped from exploiting the economies of scale. The survey also showed that the law firms expect revenue from litigation and conveyancing to continue to stagnate and even shrink. However, general corporate work in new areas, like intellectual property and infocomm technology law, as Prof. Chin has pointed out, are areas where there is tremendous potential for growth in the coming years. I think Prof. Chin is also right to say that for lawyers to stay relevant, they have to upgrade their skills and move in the new growth areas of practice. On this, the census showed that there were 168 lawyers currently specialising in intellectual property and infocomm technology law, and 77 firms indicated that they have serious plans to expand the ICT practice whilst 122 firms indicated likewise for IP practice. So if we take these findings, I am encouraged that there is a growing awareness of the law firms of the areas in which they should move into. 5.00 pm The law firms also, I am glad to say, reported a positive interest in taking on regional as well as international cases with cross-border transactions. Many law firms were also keen to enter overseas markets, particularly in ASEAN and China. This regionalisation and globalisation of legal practice is a step, of course, in the right direction. As far as the Government is concerned, we will be supportive of these endeavours, and the Economic Development Board has been tasked to be the lead agency to promote legal services, and IE Singapore has in fact been helping local law firms to establish their presence in overseas markets.”
“I think it is important for the senior members of the Bar to spend some time to interact with the younger members of the Bar, imbibe in them the values and aspirations of the legal profession, share with them the experiences. And I think this is one of the reasons why the concept of dining has been introduced. Many Members have asked about the census which was undertaken by the Ministry of Law, together with the Department of Statistics. And one of the reasons we decided to embark on the survey was because there have been so many anecdotal reports that this is the problem of the Law Society, or the legal profession, that many lawyers are leaving for this reason or that reason and we decided we better have an empirical survey done. I am glad to say that the survey has been concluded, and it is published and will be available for sale to the general public. Let me say that several findings from the survey are as follows: First, the survey was targeted at local law firms, lawyers and ex-lawyers who have left the profession. There was an excellent response rate. 99% for law firms' response rate, 75% for lawyers and 38% for lawyers who left the practice. What do these findings show us? First, the findings reflect a legal service industry which is undergoing consolidation and restructuring. And the survey shows that the legal profession is grappling with challenges brought about by increasing competition while, at the same time, trying to maintain professional standards and service quality. Larger law firms clearly, and it is not surprising, were more profitable and have better growth prospects than smaller firms. They have higher revenue per lawyer, higher profits per partner.”
“They may not be in private practice, or they may not have practitioners' certificates, but they have not completely left the legal sector. And I do not think the investment in their training and education has been lost. Then you may ask: "What about those who have left the legal sector?" Prof. Chin may recall in the late 70s, he and I were tasked by the then Vice-Chancellor, Dr Tony Tan, to visit some countries to explore why was it in other jurisdictions you have a fair share of legal minds in the non-legal sector - public administration, business, and elsewhere in the private sector. So we embarked on that study. At that time, nearly all the law graduates in Singapore ended up in law practice. Now, if some of our legal minds are working in public sector, statutory boards, business sector, is that necessarily a bad thing? I do not think so. But there must be a core of talented, good legal minds among the senior lawyers, among the younger lawyers, in the practising legal profession, and that I agree. As I said, while we do not ring the alarm bells, we will continue to monitor this attrition rate, to make sure that it is not a matter of serious concern. As for enthusing the younger lawyers, a point which Prof. Chin made, I know that the Law Society does have in place special schemes and counselling schemes, as well as social and welfare activities, to help young lawyers cope with stress and other concerns that they have. In fact, the Law Society should be commended for having started an outreach programme to allow young lawyers to share their experiences and strengthen camaraderie within the profession.”
“Yes, we have to monitor this carefully and closely, and to see whether it is a matter of serious concern. But I tend to share the view of Ms Indranee Rajah that there are many reasons why this may happen. And it is not wholly unexpected to see lawyers leaving the profession. And I think it is the reflection of the changing legal practice environment and a rather mobile labour market. Members will recall that last year, in the Committee of Supply, when this topic was also mentioned, I said that we should first understand the underlying reasons why lawyers were leaving, and that was one of the main reasons why my Ministry worked together with the Department of Statistics to conduct the first ever comprehensive survey of the legal services industry and profession. This census, which has just been completed, has in fact shown that there are a variety of reasons why lawyers were leaving the practice - some were unhappy about long working hours, heavy workload, some felt that there was inadequate compensation and others left to pursue their own interest or career. But then, I do not think these reasons are something unique just to the legal profession. In fact, we are living in a society now where the younger generation consider themselves more mobile and there are more choices open to them than would have been the case 25 or 30 years ago. So I would not consider the situation as one where we would have to ring the alarm bells just yet. The survey revealed that slightly more than half of those who left chose to work in law-related positions, such as in-house legal counsel, lawyers in offshore firms, or even in overseas practice. So, in a sense, they have not left the legal sector as such.”
“Sir, I thank Members who have spoken on the legal profession, arbitration, decriminalisation, information technology and IP laws. First, on legal profession. Let me respond to the comments by Prof. Chin, Mr Ravindran, Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Chandra Mohan Nair. I will start off by agreeing with Prof. Chin when he said that the legal profession plays a very important role in the overall scheme of Singapore's competitiveness. I think gone are the days when we view the legal profession as a very narrow profession of merely settling disputes and litigation. A sound legal profession which can help Singapore in our quest for competitiveness, which will bring about confidence in the legal infrastructure and the settlement of disputes is a plus for us in our efforts to make ourselves competitive. So it is in that context that we view the legal profession. And in reviewing the legal profession, I noted what several Members just now said about their concerns about the mood of the legal profession. I would say that we should not be overly despondent. It is not just the legal profession whose mood has been affected, given the downturn in the economy in recent years. We should be surprised if it was the legal sector alone which is brimming with confidence and happiness. There is the perspective in which to view this matter. The legal profession is going through, what I would call, a period of transition and restructuring. There have been many changes which have taken place and which they have to adapt. And it is this adaptation that we are seeing now, the changes such as that of the scale fees and conveyancing, and so on. Next, I also do not think that we should be wringing our hands over the fact that some of the lawyers are leaving the profession.”
“Briefing the Press on the 90-minute discussion between the two premiers, Foreign Ministry Secretary-General Datuk Ahmad Kamil Jaafar said Mr Goh stated that Singapore would join Malaysia in explaining the concept behind the move to countries that should be invited into the grouping.' Further, in his Keynote Address at the CSIS-Asia Society Conference in Bali on 4th March 1991, PM Goh said: 'But even as ASEAN becomes more competitive, it may not be big enough a team to be able to insist on a level field. ASEAN may have to play within a bigger team. ASEAN can do this by linking up with other economies in the Asia-Pacific through structures like the East Asian Economic Grouping proposed by Dr Mahathir, and APEC. This way ASEAN will not be side-lined.' These facts speak for themselves. Volume 1 - Correspondences Volume 2 - Agreements”
“More recently, former Trade Minister of Indonesia Arifin Siregar said that Indonesia is not keen on another secretariat for the ASEAN+3 grouping and he said that the Indonesian view is that the ASEAN+3 secretariat could be a unit within the existing ASEAN secretariat in Jakarta (Straits Times, 8th January 2003). On the EAEC, Singapore was one of the first countries to support, and I stress support, not oppose, Malaysia's proposal to establish the EAEC. Let me give you some examples. At the dinner hosted by PM Mahathir on 11th January 1991 during PM Goh's first official visit to Malaysia as Singapore's Prime Minister, PM Goh had said: 'I share your concerns about the future of the multilateral trading system. Like you, I hope the Uruguay Round will end successfully. If GATT breaks down, we will all be adversely affected. Your idea of closer economic co-operation among countries on the Asian side of the Pacific Rim has immense potential. It is far-sighted. It is imaginative. I support it. I am in favour of strengthening regional economic co-operation among the Asian countries of the Pacific Region, whatever the outcome of the Uruguay Round.' In a New Straits Times report filed on PM's visit (12th January 1991), the newspaper said: 'Singapore has reiterated its commitment to support Malaysia's recent proposal for the establishment of an East Asian economic grouping. Visiting Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong made this "very strong and very clear" statement at a meeting with Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the Prime Minister's Department today.”
“We have problem with the EAEC (East Asia Economic Caucus) before because Singapore rejected (it)," adding that Malaysia had tried to be as friendly as possible with Singapore but that this was impossible (Bernama, 11th October 2002). In more recent remarks, FM Syed Hamid had accused Singapore of influencing the other ASEAN countries to oppose the proposal. He said "sometimes we find that quietly, they (Singapore) also have given very negative signals to other countries, like in the case of the ASEAN+3 Secretariat. Singapore has objected very strongly and yet they host the APEC Secretariat there, and they go very strongly in trying to belittle Malaysia's efforts and yet they talk about East Asia community" (Star, 2nd January 2003). In a Berita Minggu interview (5th January 2003), Syed Hamid alleged that "when Malaysia proposed the establishment of the ASEAN+3 Secretariat, Singapore was the only ASEAN country to oppose it." Were we the 'only' country to oppose it? What are the facts? ASEAN+3 Secretariat: As regards the proposed ASEAN+3 Secretariat in KL, yes, Singapore had reservations about this proposal but not because it was a Malaysian proposal but because of the implications on ASEAN and the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta. While Singapore recognises the value of the ASEAN+3 process, we hold the view that it should be allowed to evolve gradually. Is it true only Singapore had this view? Other countries such as Indonesia were also clearly uncomfortable with the proposal. In a Kompas report (14th August 2002), Indonesian FM Hassan Wirajuda was quoted as saying that "there is no consensus - if we want to speak honestly - ... because most of the ASEAN members do not see the need for the formation of ASEAN+3 (secretariat) yet".”
“He also said that "the Malaysian government understands the decision of the Singapore Government to increase the rate of rental on the basis of market principles", and this "will not adversely affect the good relations in the realm of defence between the two countries". It was clear that citing economic reasons, the Malaysians had left Woodlands on their own accord. That was five years ago. Now, in 2002, we are accused of not having displayed neighbourliness in our dealings with them. But the KD Malaya case clearly showed that we had put in tremendous effort to help them out. We did offer alternatives at our expense. We offered to fork out S$50 million to build another camp near the Woodlands site for the Malaysian Navy to use at a nominal fee. This proposal, which entailed additional capital outlay on the part of Singapore, was made in the spirit of goodwill and to show the Malaysians that we were sincere in keeping our word to them about staying on in Woodlands. It was Malaysia which chose not to take up this offer. ASEAN+3 Secretariat and Malaysia's proposal on the East Asia Economic Caucus (Question asked by Mr Sin Boon Ann) Let me now turn to some of the other absurd allegations. Mr Sin Boon Ann asked about their claim that Singapore was the country which had opposed the setting up of an ASEAN+3 Secretariat in KL; that (a) Singapore always opposes any initiative from Malaysia and (b) Singapore was the only country to do so. Related to this was the other complaint that we had opposed their EAEC proposal. Commenting on Singapore's reaction to Malaysia's ASEAN+3 Secretariat proposal, PM Mahathir had said, "Singapore rejects everything that comes from Malaysia.”
“During all stages of the discussions on this matter, Singapore repeatedly emphasised to the Malaysians that we welcomed their Navy to stay at the Woodlands base for as long as it wanted to. In 1981, then PM Lee Kuan Yew told PM Mahathir that Singapore would not seek the return of the land for as long as the Malaysian Navy needed to use it. PM Goh also told PM Mahathir in September 1992 that he would like KD Malaya to stay in Singapore for as long as Malaysia wished. It was our policy to continue our close defence links with Malaysia. Indeed, after the Malaysians announced that they would withdraw from Woodlands in 1997, we reiterated our assurance that they were welcome to stay and that our offer of the substitute camp remained open. In December 1992, when then Malaysian Defence Minister Najib Tun Razak wrote to us formally to inform us of their decision, then Defence Minister Dr Yeo Ning Hong had replied to convey that PM Goh would like the Malaysian Navy to stay in Woodlands. It was emphasised that the Singapore offer of SAF-built facilities to be placed at the disposal of the Malaysian Navy remained open, if it wished to take it up later. But Malaysia never did. Despite Singapore's best efforts to offer alternative options to enable the Malaysian Navy to remain in Singapore, then Defence Minister Najib had made a public announcement on 25th November 1992 that the Malaysian Navy would relocate the base from Woodlands to Malaysia after 1997. Until then, the Malaysian Navy will stay at Woodlands "at the rate rental which has been determined by the Singapore Government". Najib explained that Malaysia's decision to leave was "based on economic factors".”
“PM Mahathir said that "they (Singapore) deliberately increased the rate for the lease for the naval base in Woodlands that we were forced to vacate and we vacated without being paid even a sen" (Bernama, 30th December 2002). They allege that we 'forced' the Malaysian Navy to leave the Woodlands naval base by increasing the rent. What are the facts? Yes, there was a rent revision in 1991. But the truth is that Singapore Government tried to find ways to help the Malaysians maintain their base and stay in Woodlands when the rent revision was carried out in 1991. When we increased the rental it was part of a government revision of property rates applied to all, not targeted at KD Malaya, but in line with our market-based rental policy to maximise the use of land in land scarce Singapore. This policy applied to all, including voluntary and charitable organisations. The increase of rental from $1.936 million to $6.152 million reflected the difference between the rent that the Malaysian Navy was paying, and the market rental rate of the day. We understood that such a sudden and sharp increase in rental might cause the Malaysian government budgetary difficulties and we went out of our way to be as helpful as possible. So, in the spirit of goodwill and on our own volition, we offered them a 20% discount of the proposed rate of $6.152 million, reducing the rental to $4.8 million, with a phase-in period of five years. We also offered a second option, whereby Singapore would build a camp on an alternative piece of land nearby in place of the facilities at the Woodlands base, for the Malaysian Navy to occupy at a nominal fee of about S$500,000 for as long as it needed. The new camp would have cost MINDEF about S$50 million to build.”
“Malaysia had rejected these complaints, saying that the activities were simply the continuation of actions they had undertaken before the dispute arose. Well, in this light, Singapore's actions on Pedra Branca are no different in law from Malaysia's own actions on Sipadan. To sum up, Singapore's position on Pedra Branca continues to be clear and consistent. Our sovereignty and ownership of Pedra Branca is based on facts and sound principles of law. Nevertheless, we are prepared and ready to work with Malaysia to move forward with the ICJ process. We have always dealt with Malaysia's claim amicably and in the spirit of goodwill, and will continue to do so. Our media has never attacked Malaysia in the way their media has attacked Singapore. KD Malaya (Question asked by Ms Irene Ng) This was never an issue. The Malaysian Navy departed from the Woodlands Naval Base on their own accord in December 1997. In fact, then Defence Minister Syed Hamid gave a warm final address at the passing-out ceremony in August 1997, where he thanked the Singapore Government for its "help and cooperation in making it possible to have a recruit centre here for so long". He said that as Malaysia was an independent country, it was timely that its navy had its own training centre. He had also described Singapore-Malaysia relations as "good with no problems or complaints". It is strange that in 1997 there were "no problems or complaints", but five years later the Malaysian leaders have turned their voluntary departure from Singapore into an issue and an example of how unneighbourly we have been.”
“Singapore had always been ready to sign the Special Agreement at any time and at any place. It was Singapore which had first proposed to resolve Malaysia's claim through the ICJ process, as early as 1989. We had suggested that the Special Agreement could be signed at the sidelines of the ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting in Brussels, on 27-28th January 2003 because Malaysia wanted to sign the Agreement quickly and the meeting in Brussels was the earliest and most convenient time for Minister Syed Hamid and myself to meet. However, the Malaysians later counter-proposed other dates in January and February so that the signing can be done either in Malaysia or Singapore. As I have said publicly, it is absurd to quibble over the location of the signing ceremony as it will not affect the outcome of the case at the ICJ in any way. As Members know, we have now agreed to sign the Special Agreement in Putrajaya on 6th February 2003. Second, Singapore's so called construction and other alleged "illegal" activities on Pedra Branca. The fact is that there has been no recent construction work on Pedra Branca. The last structures were built in 1991, well over 10 years ago. In any case, there is no cause to make an issue of this, as it is a well-established principle in international law that acts done by disputing parties to advance their own case after the dispute has already arisen will not be given credence. To strengthen their allegations, Malaysia claimed that they had never done similar "unfriendly" or "un-neighbourly" acts to Indonesia in their dispute over Sipadan and Ligitan. What are the facts? According to documents filed by Indonesia at the ICJ, Jakarta had in fact protested at least five times about continued Malaysian activities on Sipadan.”
“At a bilateral meeting in Hanoi during the ASEAN Summit in December 1998, Prime Minister Mahathir informed Prime Minister Goh that Malaysia no longer needed it. As you can see, Singapore had tried to be helpful to Malaysia during the financial crisis. The terms of our proposed assistance were far from "very onerous", as alleged by Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid. ANNEX Pedra Branca (Question asked by Mr R Ravindran) Pedra Branca is not a new issue in Singapore-Malaysia relations. It arose in 1979, when Malaysia for the first time published a new map which claimed the island. Prior to that, Singapore had occupied and exercised full sovereignty for more than 150 years since the 1840s without protest from Malaysia. Previous Malaysian maps, even as late as 1974, showed Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore. As I had briefed Members on this issue in Parliament on 16th May 2002, both countries had agreed in 1998 to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and had settled on the text of a Special Agreement. For four years between 1998 and the middle of last year, Malaysia made no real attempt to pursue the signing and ratification of the SA. After the 17th December 2002 judgement of the ICJ on the Sipadan and Ligitan case, there was an outburst of wild allegations, made on a daily basis. These came hot on the heels of their Mingguan Malaysia story on 22nd December 2002 which claimed that we were engaged in many kinds of construction activities on PB. They were wrong both in law and facts and we have rebutted these allegations fully in the MFA statement on 26th December 2002. Let me recap the main points. First, that we were dragging our feet on the signing of the Special Agreement. What are the facts?”
“At the height of the Asian financial crisis in early 1998, the ringgit was under speculative attack, and confidence in the Malaysian stock market had fallen. At that time, the Singapore Government was holding substantial funds in ringgit as part of our reserves. We also had investments in Malaysian stocks. Other investors were selling their ringgit and Malaysian stocks, but we held on to ours despite the risk of currency and capital losses. We did not want the ringgit and Malaysian stock market to further weaken. Furthermore, the Malaysian banking system was experiencing a credit crunch. Deposits were being withdrawn from Malaysian banks, to be placed instead in foreign banks. We did the opposite to help Malaysia. At the request of Malaysia, we transferred RM2 billion of our deposits from banks in Singapore to Malaysian banks in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia also requested a package of financial assistance from Singapore amounting to RM15 billion (US$4 billion). This was to consist of additional ringgit deposits with Malaysian banks in Kuala Lumpur, purchase of the ringgit, and purchase of Malaysian stocks. As these actions involved considerable financial risks for Singapore, we proposed to provide the financial assistance within a framework of wider co-operation between the two countries, which would include the supply of water to Singapore after the expiry of the 1962 Water Agreement. Later, Malaysia requested the RM15 billion package to be converted into a US dollar loan. We offered a medium-term US$4 billion loan at an interest rate which was significantly lower (about 4 percentage points lower) than what Malaysia would have had to pay in the market. Eventually, however, we did not proceed with this financial assistance package.”
“If indeed I was in a position to order the Malaysian press to publish my statement, of course, I would do so. But I cannot quarrel with what Mr Chandra Mohan has said about the widest possible dissemination of the facts. I agree with the objective. We shall endeavour to do so, but I hope he will also be part of this process as a Nominated MP. I do know that he has contacts in Malaysia. We should use all possible contacts to disseminate the facts, just as we need to understand what motivates them to do or say what they have done and said. As to alternative forms of discussion, I am not averse to any and every possibility which can aid the process of solving bilateral disputes. And I have never taken the position that the promotion of goodwill and good relations between countries is the sole preserve of the Foreign Minister. It is not. It must involve a whole spectrum of Ministers, officials, non- governmental bodies, and parliamentarians have a role to play. But on the specific suggestion of sending Singapore parliamentarians, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I do not know how we will form such a group to go up to Malaysia and present the facts in the Malaysian Parliament. How different would it be for the Minister and his negotiating team presenting it, face to face with the Malaysian Minister who has the full powers and the direction to decide? If he thinks he can resolve that, then let us consider that. But, as a general principle, and as Foreign Minister, I welcome all suggestions, but they must be practical and workable. ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.30 pm”
“Yes, because we offered to go to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and they said no. And, as is clear from my speech, since they have said no to that, to resolve the impasse, we said, "Look, let us follow the provisions in the Water Agreements." But, actually, that is a move that they have already commenced by issuing a notice. So, we have commented and we have said that we are prepared to take that route. Has the situation on the ground at Pedra Branca improved? My understanding from my discussions with Dr Tony Tan is that the situation has not improved.”
“The answer to the first question on whether we would make a standing offer, is yes.”
“I hope Ms Irene Ng will understand. I do not want to repeat. I think I have answered the question posed in a different form by Mr Tan Soo Khoon. I answered that there are areas for economic cooperation and, in answer to Prof. Ngiam, I talked about cooperation in security and law enforcement areas, cooperation in the wider area in ASEAN and so on. So, I think there are areas for cooperation, and we should endeavour to continue in those areas and try to resolve these issues in a way that does not mar such cooperation.”
“I think the closing part of my statement on Pedra Branca must be quite clear. In other words, we have intrusions. As I have said, there will be incidents, there will be accidents, and we have a high risk of loss of lives, damage, and there will be a lot of consequences. I do not have to spell this out. As to her second question, what are the instructions given, I have no doubt that the Defence Minister, Dr Tony Tan, would have given whatever instructions that are necessary for us to maintain our territorial integrity and sovereignty.”
“I wish I could give the hon. Member a specific deadline as to when the Court will decide after the signing of the agreement, but I am unable to do that. There are certain timelines. After signing the agreement, within so many months, each side must submit certain kinds of documents. And after a particular date, each side must reply to the other's documents, and so on, in what is known as the pleadings. Then, a date is set for hearing. When a date will be set for hearing depends on the workload of the court, how many other cases there are in the queue, and so on. So, I am unable to give him a precise answer, but I think it will take at least about two years. In the meantime, what happens? Nothing happens, because we are in ownership, control and possession, and exercising sovereignty over the island. And that continues. That is the status quo. And that will continue until the Court has decided, and it will change only if the Court decides otherwise.”
“If they take it out of the package, push future water to 2059, it is off. Fourth, when it is off, we cannot be bullied and intimidated into agreeing to unilateral revision of the Water Agreements. There are clear provisions in the Water Agreements, and they cannot do it at their whim and fancy. It has to be resolved in accordance with the law. And, in accordance with the law, we say they have lost the right to review. They disagree, then there is a process. So, at every stage, I think it should be clear that Singapore's negotiation position has had, uppermost, the overriding interest of Singapore.”
“That is a good question, because it causes us to pause and reflect. As he said, why have we reached this position? Have we reached the position because of some "incorrect" approach of the Foreign Minister and the correct approach of their Foreign Minister? These are not personal whims and fancies of a Singapore Minister dealing with personal whims and fancies of a Malaysian Minister. These are negotiating positions and national positions taken in the conduct of negotiations. Yes, we have been accommodating and very reasonable in the negotiations. But if the hon. Member had listened to me, and as it would be clear from the documents, he would have seen how the Singapore side - not just the officials or the Foreign Minister, but leaders - the positions we have articulated at every turn, what has been uppermost in our minds has been the national interest of Singapore. And in pursuing the national interest of Singapore, in the negotiations we have had certain markers, and those markers have not been compromised. What are the markers that have not been compromised? First, observance of agreements solemnly and willingly entered into. On observance of the Water Agreements, the guarantees in the Water Agreements, we have always insisted on and never departed from them. Second, we were prepared to have the issues resolved in a package, in return for future water. That would have been in Singapore's national interest. That has been a central point in the negotiations. Have we conceded on that? We have not conceded on that. Third, when they discontinued with the package and insisted on the price of current water, our position has been another marker - that we are prepared to discuss the price of current water in the context of the package.”
“Again, I do not know. It did not make sense. The book was published two years ago. It is not a book which was written or published by the Government, but by an academic. When it was published two years ago, there was no fuss, and now, out of the blue, it is used as a peg to stir up emotions. I would not be able to tell you why. But I will tell you, as I did, that such fanning of emotions is, to put it very bluntly, dangerous.”
“Of course, both countries will always be mindful of that. But I would like to allay the fears of the Members that, amidst all this, one of the silver linings, if I may say so, is that the professionals in our law enforcement agencies on both sides - our intelligence, our narcotics, police, CID - have an excellent record of close cooperation. And this record of close cooperation continued in the past and continues even during the ups and downs in bilateral relations. And I can say so from personal knowledge because, for some years, I was Minister for Home Affairs, and there is excellent cooperation. In fact, only a few days ago, one of our highest awards was bestowed by President Nathan on Malaysia's Inspector-General of Police - I turned up at the Investiture Ceremony - and that cooperation will continue. It has to be so. We are so close to each other and that there is so much movement of people at the borders that, if we were not so, both countries will suffer in dealing with not just terrorism, but law and order, narcotics and so on. So this is one aspect which I should highlight.”
“Actually, the answer to the question is that there is a fairly high level dispute settlement procedure provided for in the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. It is known as the TAC. That is a very high level mechanism which will involve the high council in ASEAN. It involves the leaders of all the ASEAN countries. But that envisages a very grave kind of situation and that dispute settlement procedure mechanism has not taken place and, I think, on the understanding that most countries should be able to work this out amongst themselves. Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang (Nominated Member): In view of the twists and turns of the issues and the tendency for the Malaysian media to play up on some of these issues, I would like to ask the Minister whether, in his assessment, there could be a possible danger for terrorist groups to exploit the issues, and this becomes the Achilles' heel in our bilateral relations. If so, what can we do to overcome this and not let the seriousness of the way the situation is developing to actually add to the danger we are facing from global terrorism?”
“On the first question of whether the difficulties in our bilateral relations will affect ASEAN, I would give a mixed answer, yes and no. No, in the sense that, fortunately, the way ASEAN has developed over the years, it has had a very good tradition of ASEAN meetings continuing among officials and Ministers, and the Ministers of the 10 countries meeting on ASEAN projects without letting bilateral differences impede cooperation. So, if Members look back in the history of ASEAN, the members of ASEAN have had, at different times, their ups and downs in their relations, not just Malaysia and Singapore, others too. Indonesia and Malaysia had problems over illegal immigrants, Philippines and Malaysia had other problems, and so on. But the laudable feature of ASEAN is when you go to meetings, whether at leaders' level, Foreign Ministers' level, or other Ministers, not only do we sit down and discuss, but there is also the personal camaraderie that continues. For all the differences we have with Malaysia, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid and I are able to meet and talk and discuss at ASEAN meetings. So, in that sense, I would say the answer is "no". The "yes" part of a mixed answer is that, while it has not affected cooperation within ASEAN, obviously, questions would be asked by commentators outside ASEAN as to why some countries are bickering, and so on, and the impression may be given that ASEAN countries are in a disarray. So, I think it is important for ASEAN countries to try to resolve these disputes among themselves. Her second question was whether it would be useful for ASEAN to have a mechanism for dispute settlement.”
“The difference between mediation and arbitration is this. A mediator would listen to both sides and suggest a solution which will not be binding, and it is up to both sides. Arbitral tribunal or court will listen to both sides' facts and evidence, and give an award or decision which will be binding. Is mediation possible? I will not rule out anything. But after so many years of discussions at such high levels between officials, between Ministers and between Prime Ministers, and even involving Senior Minister, and we do not reach an agreement - and I have shown you what their attitudes have been - I am not sure whether mediation would produce better results. But in line with my position of amicable settlement of disputes, I would not rule out any form of amicable settlement of disputes.”
“What is the difference between Pedra Branca and Pulau Pisang? Let me, first, say upfront that Pulau Pisang belongs to Malaysia. We have never disputed Malaysia's sovereignty over Pulau Pisang. But our Maritime Port Authority (MPA), however, has a right to operate the Lighthouse on Pulau Pisang and the plot of land on which the Lighthouse stands as well as the roadway leading to the Lighthouse was granted in perpetuity to Singapore, so long as Singapore operates the Lighthouse. And this was in an indenture between the Johor Sultan and the Straits Settlement's Government in 1900 and we became successor to that. So, for Pulau Pisang, we have never contested their sovereignty. As for Pedra Branca, we have sovereignty over it. It is ridiculous to say - as the Malaysians have said - that Singapore can only operate the Lighthouse for Malaysia. I might add that, in 1968, the Malaysians objected to the flying of the Singapore flag over the Lighthouse in Pulau Pisang. They objected to the flag and we took it down. But they never objected then, or later, to the flying of the Singapore flag on Pedra Branca. Are they making any other claims? I think the Member is asking because there were some press reports, I believe, in March last year where Berita Harian carried a report from some Malaysian lawyer. That might be the report where it said that Pulau Tekong Kechil was part of Johor. But this is important. The very next day, Malaysia's Foreign Minister publicly denied the claim on Pulau Tekong Kechil. Foreign Minister Syed Hamid said, Malaysia had "no wish to create new problems for Singapore by staking new claims" and that "as far as Singapore was concerned, the only outstanding territorial matter with Singapore was over Pedra Branca."”
“The Member is right that the Malaysian media does not portray the Singapore side of the story either sufficiently or accurately, or sometimes not at all. We will do our best to present our facts. As I mentioned before, all these will be on the website of MFA and also on the Kuala Lumpur Mission's website (embassy's website), and we will find other ways. But I hope that both the people and leaders in Malaysia will read the statement carefully because it is not intended to add heat, as Mr Zainul has mentioned. Rather, I have carefully drafted my statement in a measured way to present the facts. And facts sometimes not only can elucidate but they can also dispel rumours and false allegations, but the facts must be able to speak for themselves. And bringing up the facts cannot be said to be motivated by wanting to up the temperature.”
“Dr Lily Neo is absolutely right that such talk of war does not make sense, and the sooner it stops the better, because it is provocative and it heightens the temperature which makes bilateral relations very, very tense and spiky. Not only that, as another Member alluded to, it is also not good for investor confidence. So, I agree with her that such talk is both senseless and dangerous.”
“I thank the Member for his speech. He asked whether I could give an easier and simpler version of my speech. I thought his summary itself is excellent and maybe we should distribute it to the Members. The point that Dr Tan Cheng Bock made is right - that the process of getting Singaporeans to know the facts cannot just be done by the Foreign Minister making this one-hour speech in Parliament, and people reading it the next day. I think the thrust of his point was that Members of Parliament, in turn, will have to explain to residents and constituents. And I hope that it would not be just the Government MPs. It has to be a collective effort of all the MPs in this House. Whatever assistance they may need from my Ministry, of course, we will be at their disposal.”
“Members somehow do not believe me when I said that I would not like to speculate. If a proposal comes back and they say, "Let us resume the talks", I would take it a step at a time and deal with it when that happens. The other issues are unresolved and they would have to be dealt with separately on a stand-alone merit. I think that is very clear. They are no longer linked.”
“If talks are not possible, then arbitration - and let us try to move on. There are many more urgent things at stake.”
“The first part of Mr Iswaran's question was about the release of these documents, exchanges and diplomatic notes. I think it would have been clear from my speech that I have done so with reluctance. But why are we doing this? If I may sum up the reasons again: first, we did not want to release all these documents because there was still hope that the negotiations could continue and there would still be a door open for talking. But, alas, that was not the case. If it had been just that, it would have been all right. We have been painted as the unreasonable party, the intransigent party, the party to blame for all this. And accusations and allegations have come forth with that line. It is important that these accusations have to be countered. Otherwise, repetitions of untruths, and repeated incantations of these untruths might be taken to be the truth. It is important for Singaporeans particularly, to know the facts. To do that, should we just say, "That is not true", and sit down? I think we have to come out with all these facts so that the facts and the documents will speak for themselves. It is important that all concerned have a clear idea of where we are, what we are and how we came about. The second part of his question was, since this has been a central issue, whether it will impact on other areas of cooperation. In answer to an earlier question, I have made it clear that there are many other areas of cooperation which both Singapore and Malaysia can gain to benefit by focusing ourselves on them. And that is precisely why we should not let this be such a spiky thorn in our relationship, that its non resolution continues to affect the sum total of our relationship. That is why I pointed out that we are in this impasse. Let us find a way out of the impasse.”
“It is not necessary for us to tell them that they should not do so. On Pedra Branca, it is partly speculative. I do not know how many tourists that rock can take. I have been there. Again, I do not want to speculate. But, obviously, one answer to his question is, if they take away the rock, it would reduce Singapore's space. Let me say this. For every country in the world, whether big or small, political independence and sovereignty over land and territorial waters is of paramount importance. This is a key attribute of nationhood. When we became independent on 9th August 1965, the territory of Singapore consisted of our main island and several smaller islands, including Pedra Branca, as Ms Indranee has pointed out. When we became independent on 9th August 1965, this is what we have. If territorial integrity and sovereignty is important for all nations, it is very important for Singapore as a small country. We are one of the smallest countries in the world. But our size has been determined on independence on 9th August 1965 and we cannot change it. Although we are one of the smallest countries in the world, every inch of our territory or of our waters is of paramount importance, and we will have to safeguard our territorial sovereignty and preserve it. If anybody challenges us, it has to be resolved by reference to an international body. And until any international body, like the World Court, decides otherwise, that sovereignty and territorial integrity must be preserved by Singapore at all costs.”
“First, of the four questions, is that 2058 or 2059 is rather late in the day. I think that is a real under-statement. On this, he asked two questions: is there any provision in the Water Agreements which provides for review and so on. The answer is no. The Water Agreements are self-contained. They do not have built-in provisions which provide for trigger mechanism for a review process. So, the legal position is that - and we are not taking any other position - both Agreements, when they expire, unless both sides have agreed to extend, will lapse. That is the position. So, when we are talking about agreements, we are talking about agreements which will be separate from the Water Agreements for the supply of water after the expiry of the Agreements. On the second part of his question, since it is late in the day, what should we do and so on. I think the answer is, as Mr Lim Swee Say and others have said, we have to ramp up our capability and capacity to develop our alternative sources of water supply. That is one very important task that we have in Singapore and as Members know, we are taking it seriously. The second question he asked is what could be the reasons behind all these ups and downs and bashing of Singapore. I think Members are used to my style in answering questions, ie, I try not to speculate. It has really reached a point of diminishing returns. Your speculation is as good as mine. I prefer to answer questions and make statements based on hard facts. Third, they want to have their own water treatment facilities and so on. Should we engage them and say, "Look, why are you guys doing this?" I think if they want to have their own water treatment plants and be self-sufficient in their treatment of water, let them do so.”
“This matter - that we buy water from them at 50 cents and we sell at exorbitant rates to ships and therefore we are profiteering - has been answered several times in this House by Prime Minister Goh, as well as myself. So, let me restate the position that this is really without basis. It is an absurd allegation. Yes, PUB sells water to ships at the maximum rate of S$21 per thousand litres. But, as Prime Minister Goh said in this House on 5th April, the sale of water to ships is less than 1% of Singapore's total water demand, or one mgd. And why do we do this? It is deliberately done to price it at such a high rate to discourage demand, not to make a huge profit. But, more important, is this: Malaysia also does the same at their ports. For instance, the Port of Tanjong Pelapas in Johor sells water to ships at the maximum rate of RM455 per thousand gallons for volumes of 50 thousand litres and above. This is obviously substantially higher than the rate charged for domestic consumers, and I presume they do so for the same reason, to discourage demand. So, it is not a question of profiteering. It is less than 1%.”
“Well, I hope the Member is not complaining that his Saturday golf game or whatever has been spoilt. It is a matter of grave importance, whether Saturday or Sunday, it is necessary to meet. I think it must be clear from my speech that we have been as reasonable as we can. Why? In order to achieve a win-win solution, and we thought it is possible. But, I think we have come to the end of the road, not on account of our intransigence or rigid positions, but because of, as the Member has said, the "shifting of goal-posts", and finally discontinuation of the package by the Malaysians. That is why I say we are at an impasse and we have got to think of how to move on. It is not Singapore's intention to be fixated on this issue because, as I answered Mr Tan Soo Khoon's question, we have to move on and do not let this issue so affect the sum total of our relations, because there are many other issues that we need to focus on, both domestically our economic and other problems, as well as bilaterally, and in the region. So, we need to move on, and I have outlined to Members how we can move on.”
“" You get up one morning and, lo and behold, you find your neighbour climbing the fence, wanting to pitch a tent in your garden, and saying, "Look, since I am now challenging it, there is a dispute, I am entitled to pitch a tent and help you safeguard your property." You will, of course, say no, won't you? So, we have to maintain observance of international law, and observance of international law is that the status quo has to be maintained. And the status quo is that Singapore has always been in sovereignty and ownership of the territory and of the waters, and that continues to be the case, and will continue to be the case, until and unless the International Court were to rule otherwise.”
“These are questions which should be directed to the Malaysians. But the pointed way in which Ms Indranee asked those questions, maybe we should include her in our team to argue in the International Court of Justice! But, really, 1979 was the first time that they published a map. I have looked at some of the maps prior to 1979. And prior to 1979, Malaysian maps showed "Pedra Branca (Singapura)". After 1979, it was shown as being within Malaysian waters, and the "Singapura" was taken out. Is it a principle of international law that they can suddenly claim ownership, out of the blue, after 130 years, and 14 years after our independence? I do not think one has to be an international lawyer to know that that is not the case. Although, as I have said, we have been in possession, control and ownership of Pedra Branca and the surrounding waters for more than 150 years, can somebody spring this and claim that they are owners? And they also claim that they have the right to come and patrol our waters? In international law, in our view, that proposition is not tenable. Let me ask hon. Members to imagine this. You have a compound house with a garden. You have lived there all your life. Your parents have lived there all their lives. Your grandparents had lived there all their lives. Nobody has ever challenged your ownership or your forefathers' ownership of that property. You have lived peacefully there and suddenly one of the neighbours says, "Hey, your house belongs to me." And he says he has found some ancient document in his attic and this house belongs to him. You maintain your legal rights, of course, and he says he is going to go to court. And instead of coming to blows, you say, "Go ahead. Take legal action.”
“We would have to pay about RM10 per 1,000 gallons of treated water. At this price, treated water from Malaysia would be much higher than the cost of NEWater. It is also much more than desalinated water.”
“The full text of the letter is in the bundle. It is a short letter, and the proposals are attached to the letter. As to why I said in my speech that they were totally different proposals, they came about after Dr Mahathir's various statements that maybe the real price of water ought to be RM8. What were the differences in this new proposal? Let me recap. Under Malaysia's new proposal that he tabled, 60 sen would apply not only from 2002 for five years to 2006, but also be backdated. Backdated to when? Backdated to 1st September 1986 and 29th September 1987, in respect of the two Water Agreements. And from 2007 to 2011, the price would be RM3 per 1,000 gallons. That was another change. And from 2011 until the expiry of the Water Agreements, the RM3 would be raised annually, based on average inflation rate, as I mentioned in my speech. The other major change is the way they dealt differently with the question of treated water. As far as treated water is concerned, they proposed to fix the price of treated water, which we were selling back to them under the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements at RM1, from 2002. There are two points worth noting here. First, there was no backdating to 1986 and 1987. Raw water, revised - backdated to 1986 and 1987. Treated water, no backdating. Second, under this proposal, raw water from Johor is worth RM3 per 1,000 gallons. So, having raised it, after processing, our revised treated water will still be only RM1. In the same letter, they proposed to supply 100 mgd of treated water in 2011, which was in response to our earlier proposal for the supply of 100 mgd raw water after the expiry of the 1961 Water Agreement. Based on the formula that they proposed, do you know how much we would have to pay?”
“Perhaps Members ought to look at the terms of the Separation Agreement, which is also in the bundle of documents. Members will find in the provisions of the Separation Agreement a reference to the right of Malaysia to maintain bases and so on in Singapore. But that was envisaged, together with other items, as part of an agreement to be concluded by both countries on mutual defence, which never materialised. In other words, it was not a substantive provision of the Separation Agreement. It was part of the points indicative of what our future mutual defence agreement could be, and it was never concluded. In other words, from 1965 to 1997 when they left, they stayed here not on the basis of any treaty provisions, but because we wanted them to continue having those facilities. I hope I have answered that question.”