Singapore Special Parliament Highlights (issues between Malaysia & Singapore)

Dr Ong Chit Chung, MP for Jurong GRC asked, "I want to ask the minister whether the Malaysians understand or know the sanctity of international agreements, made by them with other countries, and do they deliberately choose to ignore this. And if so, what is their motive? And with Malaysia chopping and changing its positions time and time again, all the time, how does Singapore engage meaningfully in negotiation with Malaysia? And we'd like to know, although the minister mentioned, what's next? Is there any date or time table in mind, or is it going to be just a vacuum? And in particular, may I ask the minister, to comment on the announcement that Johore say they will cease buying treated water fromom singapore fromom mid 2003 onwards."

Professor S Jayakumar replied, "I think from my statement, members should realise that I've given enough quotations, some old, like Mr Ariff, sent to the Arab conference in the law of treaties, in 1968 he was telling the whole world that the Separation Agreement and Water Agreement are of very good examples of how special agreements cannot be suspended or terminated for any political reason. 1968 to what, Mr Syed Hamid said last year, that we'll continue to honour the agreemt.

So these statements indicate that they have to contrast with some other statements which I mentioned early 2002, for what are the motives for making all these statements, I think that is in the realm of speculation. What is important for us is not so much speculation for us to state what are the implications which I've done, and what is Singapore's position, which is what I've done, which is we cannot allow treaties which are solemnly entered into to be lightly disregarded or contravened. And if we allow Malaysia to unilaterally change or alter important provisions of an agreemt so critical as the Separation Agreement, then where will this all end?

As to Johore having its own treatment, water treatment plants and they may not buy treated water. That is entirely their right!

As to the next step, we'll have to wait and see. We've stated our position that the way forward is through peaceful and amicable settlement of dispute. What does that mean? In normal diplomatic practice, countries discuass and talk, negotiate, try to find an agreement. I've outlined in the chronolgy that we've tried that. We've been reasonable. But there's an impasse. So what do we do after the impasse? The I pointed out either PCA or we have to fall on the terms of the agreemt of the provisions that provide for arbitration. and I contrasted this with the loose talk of war. which is certainly not the way forward!"

Tan Soo Khoon, MP for East Coast GRC had this question for Professor Jayakumar, "Does the minister agree that it is still in the interest of both sides to reach an amicable solution to the issues, and that a succesful conclusion to the water agreemt is still our aim. As such an agreement besides being critcal to our survival, serves also to symbolise the inexplicable links between our two countries. And that the issue before us, should not be allowed to hinder other areas of bilateral cooperation.

Secondly Mdm Speaker, does the minister agree that the current climate of frenzy and agitation that has been whipped up by the Malaysia media overlooks the larger interest of both countries, and serves only to undermine efforts to broaden other areas of bilateral cooperation."

Professor S Jayakumar's reply; "I think that if it was possible to have any room for further negotiations and talks I would agree that let's continue to talk. That's always been my position, always been the position of Prime Minister Goh. And of the Government. If we can have a deal is it not worth it to continue talking? Yes of course, and that's precisely why we're continuing our discussion. But for the reasons I've pointed out, they've through the many changes of position, finally discontinuing the package and not wanting to talk about future supply of water till 2059, that is perhaps impossible.

The second part of your question, related as to whether this media frenzy; does it not hinder cooperation and does it not undermine efforts between both countries. I think the answer is yes. It does not make sense for the two countries to be in this stage of ups and downs particualrly on the isue of water as well as on so many other issues that allegations have been hurled at us. Rather than this state of affairs where accusation have been hurled at us, it really make sense for us, to cooperate in many areas. And there are many areas that we have cooperation in the past and we'll continue to have areas of potential cooperation. Whether its in the area of economic cooperation, both sides are important to each other, trade and investments and I think members are aware of the figures. We also have to cooperate on the area of terrorism, as former speaker mentioned, and I would add that both Malaysia and Singapore are also well positioned to work together for advancing the cause of ASEAN!

R Ravindren, MP for Marine Parade GRC asked, "Can the minister explain why Singapore is not insisting that the price review be referred to the ICJ or to the Permanent Court of Arbitration?"

Professor S Jayakumar's reply to that was, "I think when countries have disputes, it's always preferable to have an international; adjudication or international arbitration that as you know, as Mr Ravindran knows, that is not something that we can compel another side. It requires consensual basis, both disputing parties must agree to the international arbitration process. And in this case I think of course it's better for international credibility and transparency and the signals we're giving to the international community that even this dispute is referred to say the PCA. But they have said no. But how do we resolve it amicably? So we have fall back on the provision and the provisions provide for arbitration by that particular mode and they're parties to the agreenment and we've said ok, we follow the provisions in the agreement.

Irene Ng, MP for Tampines GRC asked, "Given that it's no longer realistic to hope for future water from Malaysia, can the minister assure all Singaporeans that we are well prepared to be self sufficient for all our water needs, present and future."

Professor S Jayakumar replied, "We've heard both PM Goh, and my colleague minister Lim Swee Say inform the House in detail of all the efforts being done to develop our capability for alternative sources, NEWater, desalination and we press on with it. But we do not know when and how fast that capability can come about. Therefore in the meantime, what's important is that the obliagtions under water agreements must be complied with. That's why I've said its very important. It's not only important from a theoretical principle of observance of international agreement, it's critical for our existence and survival."

Sin Boon Ann, MP for Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC had this question, "Can the minister comment on the Malaysian accusation that Singapore has failed to abide by the agreement which was made at independence, of the right of the Malaysian military to maintain facilities in Singapore and related to that question, I understand that there is an issue of revised rental. Is there no contradiction when Singapore raised the rental of land for KD Malaya to reflect market rates while objecting to our revision of the price of water to reflect market rate."

Professor S Jayakumar's reply, "I want to make two points, which were further elaborated in annex. The first point is this. While there was a rental increase for KD Malaya, it was not targetted at KD Malaya. It's part of Singapore's policies for moving to rental property rates on market rates. Now that policy is applied to others, including voluntary organisations and welfare organisations. So that's the first point I want to stress.

The second point I want to stress is, far from chasing them out, or wanting to chase them out of KD Malaya, Malaysian leaders were told by Singapore leaders, by the then defence minister Dr Yeo Ning ong and PM Goh himself that we want them to stay in Singapore. And we made several proposals and alternative suggestions which will enable them to stay on including staggering, phasing of the rentals and our proposals also included the option of, our building for them, at considerable cost, a camp for them. At much lower rental. I forgot the figure but they themselves decided, on their own that they will be leaving, and in fact in their passing out parade or whatever ceremony there was in 1997, then defence minister and now foreign minister thanked Singapore for making this facilities and the quote has been annexed and he said that they have no problems or complaints about Singapore.

The other part of the question as to whether it was a breach of the Separation Agreement, he was probably referring to some statements made under the Separation Agreement that they have the right to stay in Singapore and so on. Perhaps members ought to look at the terms of the Separation agreement which is also in the bundle of documents. You will find in the provision, of the Separation agreement, reference to the right of Malaysia to maintain bases and so on in Singapore. But that was envisaged togethre with other items as part of an agreement to be concluded on mutual defence which never materialised. In other words, it was not a substantive provision of the Water agreements or the Separation Agreement. It was part of the points indicative of what the future mutual defence agreements 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 provision, but because we wanted them to continue having this facility."

Indranee Rajah, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC asked; "Have the Malaysians given any explanation why there has been this deafening silence on their part in relation to assertion of sovereignty for 139 years or 14 years? Or more specifically, is it a case of they didn't know in 1965, and they suddenly knew in 1979? Or is it that they knew in 1965, but forgot until 1979? Or is it the case that they neither knew, forgot and suddenly decided in 1979? And if so, how's this according to the principle of international law, that you can suddenly decide on sovereignty over your neighbours' property?"

Professor S Jayakumar replied; "These are questions which should be directed to the Malaysians but the pointed way in which Indranee asked these questions maybe we should include her in our team to argue with the international court of justice! But really, 1979 was the first time, that they published the map. And I looked at some of the maps prior to 1979. Prior to '79 Malaysian maps showed Pedra Branca - bracket, Singapura. After '79, it's shown as within the Malaysian waters, and the 'Singapura' taken out.

Imagine this - you have a compound house, with a garden. You've lived there all your life. Your parents have lived there all their lives, your grandparents have lived there all their lives. Nobody has ever challenged your ownership or your forefathers' ownership of the property. You have lived peacefully thee and suddenly one of your neighbours say hey, this house belongs to me! And he said he's found some ancient documents in his attic and that this house belongs to him. He maintains his legal rights of course, and he says he's going to courts. You said well, instead of coming to blows, go ahead, take legal action. You get up one morning, lo and behold, you find your neighbours climbing the fence, and wanting to pitch a tent in your garden. And saying that since now I'm challenging it, there's a dispute, I'm entitled to pitch a tent and help you safeguard your property. You of course say no isn't it! So we we have to observe the maintain observance of international law and that is, that the status quo has to be maintained, and the status quo is, that Singapore has always been in sovereignty control and ownership of the territory or of the waters, and that continues to be the case and will continue to be the case until and unless the international court rule otherwise."

Chong Weng Chiew, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC asked, "Its been claimed that Singapore made huge profits by selling the water to passing ships, and the water supplied from Johore should be for domestic consumption. Could the Minister comment on this accusation?"
"Professor S Jayakumar replied, "This matter of ship that you buy water from them, at 50 cents and sell at exorbitant rates to ships and therefore profiteering, has been answered several times in this House, by PM Goh as well as myself, but let me restate this position. That this is really without basis. It's an absurd allegation. PUB sells water to ships at a maximum rate of $21 per 1000 litres or 21 ringgit per 1000 litres. But as PM Goh said in this House on 5 April, the sale of water to ship is less than 1%. Less than 1% of Singapore's total water demand on mgd. And why we do this? It's deliberately done to price it at such a high rate, to discourage demand, not to make a huge profits.

"This is more important, in fact Malaysia also does the same. For instance, they do the same at their ports. Eg the Port of Tanjung Pelapas in Johore sells water to ships at the maximum rate of 455 ringgit per 1000 gallons for volumes of 50,000 litres above. This is substantially higher than the rate charged for domestic consumer. and Ipresume they do so for the same reason too; to discourage demand. It's less than 1%"

Leong Horn Kee MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC asked; "First is I took note from the minister's statement that the Malaysians now want to review the water agreement. The second one in 2058. And this seems to be a bit late in the day, because as you said it's just two yearrs left to the expiry of the actual agreement. I want to ask whether in the formal agreement itself is there a time frame, for earlier form of consultation or discussion?

"As a foreign minister will he enlighten the House whether there are reasons behind their behaviour now, their more difficult behaviour, eg domestic reasons or other reasons that could cause them to want to use Singapore as a whipping boy on this water issue.

"And finally on Pedra Branca, I want to ask the Minister, what really is the economic value of this piece of rock, so to speak for the Malaysians? For Singapore we know we defend this for our sovereignty because we've been owning this island for the last 150 years. I'm surprised that the Malaysians took a stand to want to claim it. Is there any particular economic or touristic maybe, reasons for Malaysians to want to lay a claim on this island?"

Professor S Jayakumar's reply; "That 2050 or 2059 is rather late in the day, I think that's a real understatement. So we ask two questions, is there any provision in the water agreements which provides for reviews and so on. The answer is no. The water agreements is self-contained, it does not have provisions built in which provides for trigger mechanism for review process. So I think the legal position is it, we're not taking any other position than the legal position. Both agreements can expire, unless both sides have agreed to extend, or lapse, that is the position. When we are talking about agreements, we're talking about agreements which will be separate from the water agreements for supply of water after expiry.

"So second part of the question is, in that case since its late in the day what should we do and so on. So our answer is as Lim Swee Say and others have said, we have to ramp up our capability and our capacity to dev our alternative sources of supply and thats one very important task that we have in Singapore. and we're taking it seriously as you know.

"Second question he asked is all these ups and downs and bashing of Singapore, he asked what could be the reason behind it. I think members are used to my style in answering questions, and that is I try not to speculate. And it's clearly reached a point of diminishing returns. Your speculation is as good as mine. I prefer to answer questions and make statemts based on hard facts.

"Pedra Branca partly speculative, why? I don't know how many tourists walk in. I've been there, again i don't want to speculate, but obviously, one answer to your question is, you take back the rock, you reduce Singapore's space! And for Singapore, let me say this, for all countries, every country in the world, whether big or small, political independence and sovereignty of land and territorial waters is of paramount importance. But this is the key attribute of nationhood, and when we became independent in 9 August 1965, the territory of Singapore consisted of our main island and several small islands including Pedra Branca as Indranee pointed out.

"And since independence in 1965 this is what we have! If territorial integrity and sovereignty is important for all nations, it's very important for Singapore as a small country! For we are one of the smallest countries in the world. But our size has been determined on independence, on that day 9th August 1965. We cannot change it. But although we are one of the smallest nation in the world, every inch of our territory of our waters is of paramount importance! And we have to safeguard our territorial sovereignty, and preserve it, and if anybody challenges us, it has to be resolved by reference to an international body. And until any international body like the world court decide otherwise, that sovereignty and territorial integrity must be preserved by
Singapore at all costs!"

S Iswaran, MP for West Coast GRC asked, "May I ask the minister that he is taking the somewhat unprecedented move of releasing the correspondence between the leaders of Singapore and Malaysia as well as other communications between the diplomatic levels. and his reason has been that the hope for a win-win outcome of the issue fo water in particular is now not realistic. May I ask why he has come to this conclusion at this stage, because most Singaporeans have this half certainty, being very familiar with this rhetoric coming from across the causeway on the issue of water. And the noise levels, this time has gone up again, but we have arrived at a very major decision, it would appear, on this matter to set the record straight publicly. and now I would aprpeciate it if the minister could clarify the thinking behind the move."

Professor S Jayakumar replied; "Mr Iswaran's question, the first part of which was about the release of documents 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 cannot release all these documents. We did not want to release all these documents because there was still hope that the negotiations could continue and that 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. But, we have been painted as the unreasonable party, the intransigent party, the party to blame for, and accusations, allegations have been cast forth with that light. And I think it is important that these accusations have to be counted otherwise repetitions of untruths, repeated incantations of untruths might be taken to be the truth. It is important for ingaporeans, 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. I think it is important that all concerned have a clear idea of where we are and why we are, and how we came about.

The second part of his question was, that this has been a central issue, will it impact on other areas of cooperation. In answer to an earlier question, I think I made it clear that there are many other areas of cooperation which both Singapore and Malaysia can gain to benefit by focussing ourselves on that. And it is precisely that we should not let this be such a spiky thorn in our relationship that this non-resolution continues to affect the sum total of our relationship. That is why I pointed out we are in an impasse, let's find a way out of the impasse, talks are not possible, arbitration and let's try to move on. There are many more urgent things at stake, full answer, there are more urgent thigns at stake"

Dr Tan Cheng Bock, MP for Ayer Rajah commented, "I take the minister must be aware that the malaysians have no intention of settling the issues. To Malaysia no solution is a solution. Remember they have domestic politics to play to so if they were to settle all your issues, l think they have a dificult way of winning their groud, so we must have this behind our head when we go and negotiate. Therefore I ask the minister if they have an easier version of what we have for our grd.but our grd is important, let us concentrate our own ground and we must convince Singaporaens that we are not unreasonable, we are always sticking to negotiations, the price and that we have been the more reasonable party and prepared to up to 45 sen but its always changing at every negotiation table. Therefore I think that the Malaysian has no intention iof selling us water in the coming years. Let us face the truth. On Pedra Branca, let the ground know that it belongs to Singapore, it's not a disputed territory and if Malaysians want it they have to do it through the international court. The navy cannot come and patrol that water and I think we should tell them very seriously that we realy mean business."

Professor S Jayakumar responded; "Thank member for his speech. He said whether I can give an easier version of my speech. I think his summary is excellent, Cheng bock is right that the process of getting Singporaesn to know the facts cannot be made known by the foreign minister by making a one hour speech but the thrust of his point was that MP will in turn tell the residents and constituencts and Ihope that it will be a collective efforts of the MPs in the house and my ministry will help with any assistance and we are at your disposal."

Dr Lily Neo, MP for Jalan Besar GRC asked, "Could minister enlighten on the possible reason why the Malaysians are using losely "war", are they seriously considering waging war on Singapore? Don't they realise the catastrophe? How can they take it so lightly and how can they be so irresponsible?"

Professor S Jayakumar replied; "Dr Neo is absolutely right that such talk of war doesn't make sense and the sooner it's resolved because it is provocative and doesn't make sense, heighten tension and and make bilateral tense and spiky and as another member say it's not good for investor confidence so I agee that such talk is senseless and
dangerous."

Zainul Abidin Rasheed, MP for Aljunied GRC asked, "Minister's ministerial statement is a watershed development in more ways than one, not for anyone to take lightly. Its in a matter of our lifeline. How does the ministry intend to get this message across to the Malaysian people when the Malaysian media is bent on giving misrepresentation, and how does the Minister ensure that this does not add to the tension which is already emotionally charged in KL where the word 'War' has been floated around?"

Professor S Jayakumar agreed; "The member is right. Malaysian media will not report correctly or sometimes not at all. So I say this is on the website of MFA and embassy
website and we'll find other ways but I hope the people and people of Malaysia will read this carefully because it is not intended to create tension, bacause I have carefully measured my words to contain facts and facts can speak for themselves and bringing the facts cannot be said to be motivated to up the temperature."

Ahmad Khalis, MP for Hong Kah GRC asked, "What are the differences to Singapore's position to Pedra Branca as regards to Pedra Branca? My second question; has Malaysia decided to claim any other islands that belong to us besides Pedra Branca?"

Professor S Jayakumar replied; "Let me say upfront Pulau Pisang belongs to Malaysia. We have never disputed Malaysia''s sovereignity over Pulau Pisang but our MPA however has a right to operate the lighthouse there and the plot of land as well as the raod leading to lighthouse has been granted in perpetuaty so long as Singapore operates that lighthouse. It's in an indenture between Johor Sultanate and the Straits Settlements in 1900; so Pulau Pisang we never contested the sovereignty. But Pedra Branca is ours so its ridiculous for Malaysians to say that we can only operate the lighthouse and I might add that in 1968, the Malaysians objected that we fly our flag at Pulau Pisang and we took it down but never objected to flying singapore flag at Pedra Branca.

"Any other claims? The member is asking because press reports in March last year where Berita Harian carried a report by some Malaysian lawyer where it said that Pulau Tekong Kecil was part of Johor but this is important. The very next day, the Malaysian's Foreign Minister publicly denied the claim in Pulau Tekong Kecil and says that malaysian do not wish to create new problem with Singapore by staking new claims and as far as Malaysia is concerned, the only outstanding claim is over Pedra Branca."

Nominated MP, Associate Professor Ngiam Tee Liang asked, "In view of the twists and turns of the issues, and the tendency of the Malaysian media to play up also these issues, I would like to ask Minister whether it is his assessment there could be a possible danger for terrorist groups to exploit the issues and this becomes one of the Achilles heel in our bilateral relations and so what can we do to overcome and to let the seriousness of the way the situation is developing actually adds to the danger we are faced with global terrorism."

Professor S Jayakumar replied; "I would like to allay the fears of the members that amidst all this, one of the silver lining if I may say so, is that is the professionals in our law enforcement agencies on both sides, the intelligence, our narcotics, our CID. They have an excellent record of close cooperation. This record of close cooperation continued in the past even during the ups and downs in bilateral relations. And I can say so, with some personal knowledge because for some years I was Minister for Home Affairs and the excellent cooperation."

Low Thia Khiang, MP for Hougang asked, "I was quite surprised to hear about the chronological sequence of negotiations that the Minister and Prime Minister had with the Malaysians. It seems to me that our Ministers are being pulled around by the Malaysians going up and down, changing goalpost here and there and I think to me I thought this is quite uncharacteristic of the PAP government which is always talking about no nonsense, being tough - so I am quite surprised that how come in this bilateral with Malaysians, the negotiations seems that Singapore is being pulled along.

"We have reached this point where there is a need to open up everything to the public and to tell the public that perhaps maybe there is no return to negotiations. So I wonder whether the way to Singapore's approach to negotiations so accommodating, so diplomatic. I wonder whether the Foreign Minister will comment whether this has been the correct approach so far, and if so, then why we end up in that situation?

Professor S Jayakumar replied; "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 "uncorrect" approach of the Foreign Minister and 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 reasonable in the negotiations but if the Member had listened to me and as is clear from the documents, he would have seen how the Singapore side, not just the officials or the Foreign Minister, their leaders - the positions we have articulated at every turn, what has been upper most in our minds? It has been the national interest of Singapore and in pursuing the national interest of Singapore, we have in the negotiations had certain markers and those markers have not been compromised.

"What are the markers that have not been compromised? One, observance of agreements solemnly and willingly entered into, observance of the water agreements, the guarantees in the water agreements - we have always insisted and never departed from that. Secondly, we were prepared to have the issues resolved in a package in return for future water that will be 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 price of current water, our position has been another marker that we are prepared to discuss current water in the context of the package. You take it out of the package, push for future water in 2059 is off. Then it is off, we cannot be bullied and intimidated into agreeing to unilateral revision of the water agreements. There are clear provisions in the agreements and you cannot do it at your whim and fancy. It has to be resolved in accordance with the law and in accordance with the law, we say you have lost the right of review. They disagreed, then there is a process. So at every stage I think it should be clear that Singapore's negotiating position has had uppermost over-riding interest of Singapore."

Nominated MP Braema Mathi asked, "The Minister has said in his concluding statement about Pedra Branca that the consequences will be costly, can I ask him to clarify what he means? Two, in terms of our navy and airforce who, have they received special instructions what to do?"

Professor S Jayakumar replied; "There will be intrusions and you have a high risk of loss of lives, damage, as to the second part, whatever the instructions, I have no doubt that Tony Tan will give the necessary instructuiosn or us to maintain the authority and integritry."

Mr Chiam see Tong, MP for Potong Pasir asked, "I would like to know whether or not is Singapore willing to make a standing offer to Malaysia to have the outstanding matters arbitrated or go before the international court of law since Minister has said that it needs the consensus of both sides to go to the help of a third party?

"Now the other supplementary question I would like to ask is has the situation at Pedra Branca improved since the recent statement of the Minister of Defence Mr Tony Tan with regard to intrusion of Malaysian naval vessels in our Singapore territorial waters?"

Professor S Jayakumar replied; "The answer to the first question of whether we would make a standing offer, I think the answer is yes. First because we offered to go to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and they said no. And, as it is clear from my speech, since they have said no to that, to resolve the impasse, we said look let's follow the provisions in the Water Agreements. But actually that's a move that they have already commenced by issuing a notice. So we have commented and we have said we are prepared to take that route."

Nominated MP, Chandra Mohan asked; "Would the minsiter consider a group of parliamentarians to appear in parliament and present the facts and by having this kind of information, would they be able to resolve the power and people's power can resolve the problem?"

Professor S Jayakumar replied;"If indeed I was in the position to order the Malaysian press to publish my satatement, I will do so. I cannot quarrel about widest dissemination of facts. I hope he will also do so. We should use all contacst to disseminate the information. As through alternative forms of discussion, I am not averse to any and every possible way that can aid the process of solving bilaterals and the good will. It must involve a whole spectrum of officials and government bodies and parliamenthave a role to play. Madam Deputy Speaker I can't see how we can do that. How different can that be at ministerial level but as general principle must be practical and workable."

Channel NewsAsia